Loading...
16431 74TH PL W.PDF111111111111 5955 16431 74T H P L W ADDRESS: TAX ACCOUNTMARCEL NUMBER: � 3' DWOg�D2 BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE): ` ! 7-7 COVENANTS (RECORDED) FOR: 11b1d11k1gm1e-S1 & c?A96 aOZS3 CRITICAL AREAS: DETERMINATION: ❑ Conditional Waiver El Study Required ❑ Waiver DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S: DRAINAGE PLAN DATED: 3/ < v ` PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED: LL �,,// EASEMENT(S) RECORDED FOR:_aT6�/Y7��(iVZ�6'� PERMITS(OTHER): PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED: SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED: SEWER LID FEE $: LID #: SHORT PLAT FILE: r ` LOT: BLOCK: SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED: SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) #:_ GEOTECH REPORT DATED: STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR: WATER METER TAP CARD DATED: �! OTHER: ZQW, 6e' A!gA-( 40 /9- L:\TEMP\DSTs\Fomms\Street File Checklist.doc jb t . STREET FILE P R E L TM T N A R Y T H E S O L T E R E S I D E N C E A R E P O R T ON T H E L A N D S L I D E S AND S LOP E S T A B I L I T Y P R O B L E M S b y V i n c a M c C 1 u r M C- 2 E N G T N E E R T N G F E B R U A R Y 20, 1987 ---PRELIMINARY--- THE SOLIE RESIDENCE A REPORT ON THE LANDSLIDES AND SLOPE STABILITY PROBLEMS February 20, 1987 INTRODUCTION The Solie residence is located at 1643 74th Place West, Edmonds, Washington. The house is situated on a bench midway down a steep slope. The hillside below the house falls at roughly 1 foot of fall for every 1.5 feet of run (about 35 degrees). In some areas the slope exceeds 1 foot of fall for 1 foot run. (A very steep slope.) Slopes above the house are similar. The bench the house is located on varies in width. Included with this report are a site plan showing the location of the house and hills plus a page of cross sections showing the hillside and various features of interest. This report is based upon several site visits by MC -Squared Engineering plus notes, memos, and reports issued by the City of Edmonds, the Solies, and the numerous engineering firms involved in this project. The problems of the Solie house may be summarized as: 1. The natural slope of the hill, 2. The slides of November 1984, 3. The slides of 1985 caused by failure of the temporary bypass line, 4. The ground cracking observed in November 1986, 5. The potential for general slope failure above and below the site, 6. The potential for smaller slope failures above and below the site, 7. The potential danger to the house from the slides listed i. 2 in items 5 and 6, and 8. Existing damage to the house caused by settling and due to the slides listed in items 2 and 3. 3 _•tom � ` ` � � I� Geological —History In 1947 after a large land slide in the Meadowdale area of Edmonds, Authur M. Ritchie wrote a brief report on the landslide and geological problems associated with the area. Briefly he outlined the geological history of the area as it was then known. He stated that the largest slide known had caused a vertical displacement in excess of 80 feet. He went on to state that the recent slide extended 700 feet east of the railroad tracks and was roughly 3000 feet long. He stated that the slides were caused by water. Mr. Ritchie then went on to recommend a series of ditches to drain the Meadowdale area thus drying the soil and decreasing the frequency and severity of slides. Apparently some action was taken on his recommendations (See the Lowe Report document.), however the plan was never completed. In 1968, under a contract with the City of Edmonds, Dames and Moore did a preliminary study of the Meadowdale area. This report discusses the geology of the area and includes a map showing the location of the known major slides as of the date of the study. Based upon the Dames & Moore report, the very steep hillsides are the remains of previous slides. Based upon the Dames and Moore report, the Solie house is located on a slide. The map included shows two major slides of interest. The first of these shows a slide running parallel and near the present site of 65th Avenue West --10 blocks east of the Solies' house. The second slide runs near the Solies house. Dames and Moore recommended that the city install sanitary and storm sewers plus drains for specific problem areas. It was their opinion that the slides were caused by water and that the sewer system would reduce the slide problems. The overall geological history of the Meadowdale area is summarized in great detail in two reports. The first report was issued by Roger Lowe and Associates in October, 1979; this is the "Lowe Report". The second was issued by Reid, Middleton & Associates in January, 1981; this report is entitled "Management of Ground Water, Surface Runoff, & Sanitary Wastes in North Meadowdale Area, Edmonds, Washington." Both reports detail the complex history of glaciation and deposition of western Washington in general and the Meadowdale area in particular. The Meadowdale area consists of an elevated upland bordered on the west by steep to very 4 steep bluffs. These bluffs are exposed to marine weather, wave action in some areas, and erosion by springs and runoff. The soil in the southern portion consists of dense layers of silt, clay, sands, and gravels. Some areas are overlain by looser layers of debris from slides in upland areas. Of interest to us is the fact that the slides in the Meadowdale area are based on a cycle of bluff erosion, oversteepening, and slide. This cycle started at the end of the last ice age when sea levels stabilized at or near their present levels. Slides have been occurring for the last 7000 years or more. Typically, slides in the Meadowdale area are of three general types. First, small and medium slides associated with erosion, springs, and runoff. Second, small and medium slides associated with failures of a portion of the bluff. Third, medium and large slides associated with the failure of large portions of the bluff; failures occur by progressive slumping. The third type of slide could be visualized as a series of bread slices with the top of each slice slightly lower than the previous slice. The danger to roads, houses, and other structures is three fold. First, a structure may be on one of the failed portions; it may be subjected to large changes in elevation:... from view to beach in one fell swoop. Second, a structure may be buried by debris from above. Third, a structure at the bottom of a slide may be displaced both laterally or vertically by movement of the toe of the slide. According to the Lowe Report and the Reid, Middleton report slides were a problem in the area as far back as documentation extends. The reports document slides which extend as much as 2300 feet north and south parallel to the BN tracksand from the tracks on the west to 600 feet east of the tracks. Both 75th Place and 76th Place were damaged or closed by slides. Large slides were reported in winters of 1946-47, 48-49, 53-54, 55-56, 70-71, 73-74, and January 1986. The 1973-74 slide was roughly 2400 feet long by 500 wide. (Width is estimated from description given in the report.) The head scarp of the 73-74 slide was located in the roadway of 75th Place. The City of Edmonds and/or the county have commissioned at least 5 studies of the area: 5 31 1. Ritchie, Arthur, "Geological Report on Landslide at Meadowdale, Washington", 1947. 2. Reid, Middleton & Associates, "Engineering Report On Comprehensive Sewerage Plan", 1965. 3. Dames & Moore, "Report of Geological Evaluation, Meadowdale Area", June 1968. 4. Rodger Lowe, & Associates, "Landslide Hazards Investigation Meadowdale Area, Edmonds Area, Washington", 1979. 5. Reid, Middleton & Associates, "Management of Ground Water, Surface Runoff, & Sanitary Wastes in North Meadowdale Area, Edmonds, Washington", 1981. The Lowe Report concludes that the only practical way to partially stabilize the landslide area is by lowering the water table. This required the installation of sanitary and storm sewers, plus the selective drainage of several "springs". The report states that this will only reduce the number and size of slides not stop them. On page 11 of the i Lowe Report, the authors state, stability of the Meadowdale landslide complex is extremely sensitive to groundwater levels within the landslide." On page 24 the authors continue, "...In addition, some breakage of sewer pipes will probably occur .... and the leakage of water into such areas would be a significant negative influence on stability of the landslide." That is, sewer lines which break will add water to the mass and actually cause localized problems in the form of slides and erosion. The report concludes that the localized problems caused by breakage will be less than the overall problem. The January, 1981 report by Reid, Middleton & Associates, repeats the same reasoning and conclusions. It is obvious that the City of Edmonds knew that they were trading a large continuing series of landslides for fewer localized problems associated with broken and leaking pipelines. A i 1 ' Solie House Slides One of the difficulties associated with the Solie house is the complexity of the various activities including the local slides, the sewer project, the Meadowdale area, plus the various reports and letters. The following is a list of dates and activities put together from the data currently in our possession: 1900 to date Numerous slides ranging from small to huge in the Meadowdale area. Apr. 8, 1939 Echols buy property unknown 1947 Ritchie report issued est. 1950 Installation of a concrete sewer on the Solie property June, 1968 Dames and Moore report issued Sept. 1978 Campbell agrees to buy property for $37,000 subject to geotechnical investigation. Oct. 28, 1978 Solies sign earnest money agreement with William Campbell for $65,000. Nov. 1, 1978 Per Olympus Escrow Title Insurance (dated Nov. 10, 1978) Campbell buys property. Records various easements but not pipeline. Nov. 29, 1978 Solies agree to buy 1643 74th Place West (Lot 89, Meadowdale Plat) from the Campbells. Campbell volunteers to "...get purchasers building plans approved by a professional engineer." Dec. 29, 1978 Bill from RMA to William Campbell for survey work on Solie property. Jan. 20, 1979 City of Edmonds letter to Snohomish County with regard to septic tank design at Solies'. "We accept compromise but -feel it's a poor solution..." Jan/Feb 1979 Reid , Middleton & Associates adjusted.Solie property horizontal control by 20 feet. This ` 7 t adjustment reduced buildable area and pushed the house closer to the edge of the bluff. Information supplied by Campbell deposition. Jan. 25, 1979 Letter from City of Edmonds to Campbell in reference to house at 15724 70th Ave. states slide area includes Meadowdale area. Feb. 1, 1979 William Campbell releases signed and stamped house plans. Feb. 2, 1979 Environmental Checklist signed by Campbell Feb. 21, 1979 Memo from City of Edmonds Engineering to Planning reference Solie lot. Requires easement to use flume; rehabilitation of flume; septic not yet approved; site drainage & paving required. It does not mention slope stability problems. Feb. 27, 1979 Minutes of Edmonds City Council. City Engineer Fred Herzberg explains geology ... risks of landslide reduced not eliminated ... states Solie residence is not in slide area. Mrs. Solie checked lot. with City Engineer. No mention of slide or building moratorium prior to purchasing the lot. City sets moratorium on new construction in the Meadowdale area with resolution #431. Per minutes. of meeting Solies' lot is to be an exception. Feb/Mar. 1979 Campbell starts excavation on property. Feb/Mar. 1979 Site visit by Mike Crandall of Neil Twelker & Ass. two hours billable (1 to 1 1/2 hours travel). Bill supplied by Mr. Campbell as proof of visit references a different house. (See attached bill and Solie invoice.) March 1979 Kase Vaden Endy on site Mar. 13, 1979 Building permit issued by City of Edmonds for the Solie House. Mar/May 1979 Campbell finds some old fill at time of house excavation. States 14' deep trenches to hard E: pan. 3' into hard pan [?!]: Has kase Vanden Endy visit site. (Information from Campbell deposition.) Mar. 22, 1979 Contract between William Campbell and Solies' on AIA Form for construction of their house. Cost plus fixed fee. Note that construction is already underway. Apr. 20, 1979 Water box is at site unlocked. May 1979 Kase Vanden Endy on site May 3, 1979 Campbell changes plans on house. Latter spends $7000 (?) to add concrete piers and grade beams to foundation to accommodate fill. Campbell states that lie used this foundation system at Laney house on Queen Anne & Armstrong house (15724 70th Ave. West) (Campbell deposition.) May 11, 1979 Letter from Campbell to Mayor Dibble protesting inclusion of North Meadowdale area in moratorium May 20, 1979 City form showing water meter to Solie's lot unlocked Aug. 10, 1979 Roger Lowe Associates issue preliminary report on Meadowdale area slides. Sept. 17, 1979 Roger Lowe Associates issue preliminary final draft report. Sept. 20, 1979 Letter from City of Edmonds to Reid, Middleton & Ass. reference improper installation(?) of septic tank Oct. 3, 1979 Reid, Middleton & Ass. response to City - septic tank OK as installed Oct. 11, 1979 City engineering approves septic ??? Oct. 11, 1979 City of Edmonds to Reid, Middleton & Ass. that septic tank is not acceptable ??? Oct. 16, 1979 Roger Lowe Associates, Inc. issues 9 • "Landslide Hazards Investigation Meadowdale Area, Edmonds, Washington". (Report was issued through Reid, Middleton & Associates.) Oct. 17, 1979 Reid, Middleton & Ass. meets with City at site reference septic installation. Oct. 18, 1979 Reid, Middleton & Ass. letter to City. Field compromise reached on septic tank solution. Everyone agrees. Oct. 20, 1979 James Reid of Reid, Middleton & Associates stamps and signs a septic plan and site plan for the Solie residence. Winter 1979 through Spring 1980. House is completed, landscaping completed, driveway --including widened strip-- is paved. Jan. 2, 1980 Letter from Jim Adams to Campbell reference septic at Solie's residence, "...but since this structure is in a slide prone area I am concerned with the adding of water into the soil above the building." Jan. 16, 1980 Memo from City Engineering to Building Division reference drainage pick-ups prior to occupancy. Feb. 28, 1980 Paving map received at City of Edmonds Public Works showing paving. Drive steps from 10 feet to 16 feet. Mar. 3, 1980 Drainage approval by Public Works. Initialed "B". [Ass. Sand & Gravel, Hy's Excavating -Bills? quantities?] Mar. 4, 1980 Note from.Campbell to Solie agreeing to conform to drainage and other punch list items Mar. 11, 1980 Letter from Director of Snohomish County Health District to Mayor of Edmonds. Slides caused by water/need sewer/septic systems are failing. April 4, 1980 Memo Engineering to Building Division saying 10 drainage not fixed yet. In reference to 1/16/80 memo. April 4, 1980 Note on 1/16/80 City Engineering Memo items completed. Initialed "Bob". Same as "B" who initialed map? Jan. 1981 Reid, Middleton & Associates issues "Management of Ground Water, Surface Runoff & Sanitary Wastes in North Meadowdale Area." Nov. 12, 1982 City issues contract with RMA to produce plans and specifications for sewers in the Meadowdale area. Aug. 14, 1984 Letter from RMA stating that the sewer line had reached substantial completion as of August 3, 1984. Oct. 16, 1984 Side sewer permit for hook-up of Solie's residence to sewer Oct. 1984 Jim Solie notices cracks in driveway pavement adjacent to fill area. i Nov. 2, 1984 Jim and Barb Solie notice earth movement and seepage at south end of house near porch and end of drive. Nov. 2, 1984 Mrs. Solie calls Jim Adams at City of Edmonds and Bill Evans at Landau and Associates. Nov. 2, 1984 Jim Adams visits site. He feels that slide is dry debris type, but he does find a small "spring" on Solie property. "Spring" is gone the next morning. Nov. 5, 1984 Two debris flows and a slump occur at north, end of parking area near the southwest end of the house. The timber retaining wall and 11 . drive drop two feet. parking strip of the dri p Flows undermine wall. The wall does not fail at this point; the top soil fill section fails due to saturation and semi -fluid type flow. (Field notes by Bill Evans of Landau and Associates.) Nov. 5, 1984 Evans of Landau recommends that asphalt over fill be removed, that bulkhead, pipes, and fill section be removed, and that the section be regraded. Nov. 1984 Solies hire contractor to remove and reshape western portion of driveway and as much of the fill as possible to conform with Evans' recommendation . --i.e. section placed on fill. Nov. 9, 1984 Letter from Bob Evans at Landau to Solies' formalizing verbal recommendations of November 5, 1984. Nov. 9, 1984 to Jan., 1985 Numerous calls between City of Edmonds, Landau, and the Solies. Nov. 27, 1984 At 4:00 AM (more or less) a relatively large slide occurs at the south end of the house. Nov. 27, 1984 Tuesday morning Mrs. Solie calls the city. Nov. 27, 1984 Larger slide occurs at the South end of the house. This is the site of the "spring" and the Nov. 2, 1985 slide. Jim Adams of city finds "spring" in hole left by slide. Deposits debris on McGraw property. Nov. 28, 1984 Solies hire B&M Contractors to install drain, catch basin, and pipe line to city sewers in order to control "spring" per recommendation of City of Edmonds engineering department. Nov. 28, 1984 New slide occurs at the North end of the house near city sewer line. Slide is roughly 20 feet long and has a 3 foot scarp. Nov. 28, 1984 Bill Evans of Landau &Associates contacts RMA about sewer line. Evans is concerned 12 0 that the sewer is the cauOof the problems. Nov. 28, 1984 Evans notices and documents a ground (or tension) crack in the soil near the top of the bluff parallel to the house, running from the north slide to the south slide. This indicates that at least some soil movement has taken place in the hill below the house. Nov. 28, 1984 City runs TV survey of storm sewer line on Solie property. They find that the line is broken 15-feet uphill from "a 90 degree" turn and blocked at the turn. [Turn latter turns out to be a catch basin intersection of a 6-inch inlet from the south, a 12-inch inlet from the north, and an 8-inch outlet. Blockage is in the catch basin while the broken pipe is in the 12-inch inlet.] Pipe is old style "bell and spigot" concrete ... condition is unknown. Nov. 29, 1984 "Spring" is still flowing. Nov. 29, 1984 City hires B & M Contractors to install bypass around blocked and broken line. Nov. 29, 1984 Memo to file by Bill Evans re the events of November 26, 1984 through November 29, 1984. Nov. 30, 1984 Storm sewer is rerouted past old section of concrete pipe. Nov. 30, 1984 "Spring" dries up within three hours of completion of bypass. Dec. 7, 1984 According to Evans' notes, Jerry Hauth of the City of Edmonds tells Barbra Solie that the city is responsible for the water problems at the Solie house. Dec. 10, 1984 A dry slide occurs at the south end of the house onto the catch basin installed by B&M contractors. Hauth observers "stretch marks on the face of hill both north and south of Solie residence. ... in addition to the obvious collapsing that was occurring in the 13 area where the ... fill A placed." [Quote and date from a memo date 1-22-85 by Hauth.] Dec. 18, 1984 Memo Jim Adams to City Council. "The hillside adjacent to 16431 74th Place West has had a major slide in the past month and a crack approximately 300 feet long has developed along the hillside..." Dec. 18, 1984 City council authorizes study of Solie slides. Dec. 20, 1984 Contract between RMA and City of Edmonds to study "Slide Prone Area" at the Solie residence. RMA subcontracts soils investigation to Rittenhouse-Zieman, Associates [RZA]. Dec. 21, 1984 Evans calls Jerry Hauth. Hauth reports that TV scan showed cracked concrete in sewer line plus blockage in line. Jerry Hauth admits correlation between bypass and spring ... but states city is not responsible for Solies' problems. Jan. 7, 1985 Memo to file by John Waluantne, et al from City of Edmonds, flushed catch basin ... got dirt and 6 inch diameter rock ... cleaned line but did not flush North end. Jan. 10, 1985 City scans old sewer a second time. They find the second concrete line to the south. Existence was unknown to the city. [Data from memo to file by Evans dated Jan. 10. Jan. 17, 1985 RZA crews on Solie property to drill 2 test holes and examine slides. Jan. 22, 1.985 Mr. Hauth of City of Edmonds writes memo to file of the events of November 28, 1984. Memo is initialed by Jim Adams. Jan. 30, 1985 Letter from Solies to Jim Adams requesting permission to view both TV scans of the old sewer line. Feb. 2, 1985 First RZA report on Solie slides. Report 14 0 states that south slide bfdrive would have occurred regardless of city's actions. The report does not address the northern slide, the fact that native material was taken by both slides, the ground cracks reported by both Evans and Hauth, nor several other factors. (This memo is discussed at length below.) Feb. 21, 1985 RZA supplemental report on the cost of retaining walls. Report lists various types of retaining walls and their various disadvantages. No recommendations are made. Estimated cost of $20 to $40 per square foot of wall. Mar. 7, 1985 RZA second supplemental report. Report discusses water source and mentions crack in driveway paving. Possible sources of water are runoff into crack, sewer line, and subsurface flows. Estimated design costs of retain structure is $14,000 in addition to construction costs. Mar. 15, 1985 Lou Oblock of Home Insurance interviews Solies and Evans on site. unknown, 1985 The temporary bypass line fails causing additional erosion and sliding north of the house. July 15, 1985 Tom Becky of RZA and Jerry Hauth of city visit site. July 17, 1985 In a letter to RMA and the City of Edmonds, RZA recommends that old sewer line be exposed, that the back fill in the sewer and utility trenches be examined for compaction, and that the whole hillside be thoroughly examined by an engineering geologist. RZA expresses concern that hill may not be stable. (Recommendations based upon July 15 visit.) Aug. 22, 1985 Letter from Bill Evans of Landau and Associates criticizing RZA report. Concludes that slides were caused or triggered by leaks 15 • from city sewers. Estimato that a through soils investigation to design retaining walls will cost between $15,000 and $25,000. Oct. 2 1985 Contract between City of Edmonds and Fujiki & Associates to design a permanent bypass around the old sewer section on the Solies' property. (We do not have any information from Fujiki's files.) Dec. 11, 1985 Fujiki & Associates release sewer line plan. Plan has test hole locations called out, plus a profile of the sewer line. Note on plan reads "Unstable ground with history of slope failures .' Aug. 12,'1986 First MC -Squared report. Nov. 30, 1986 Solies, Jeff Campiche and Leslie Harris of K&A, and Vince McClure of MC -Squared, Inc. observe new ground tension cracks and vertical movement of ground north of previous slides. Cracks intersect north most of the older slides, move inward 15 to 20-feet and northward roughly 50 feet. City sends someone to cover cracks with plastic sheets to prevent infiltration of water into the cracks. The above sequence has several dates which are still subject to verification. In addition, we are still assembling the backup documentation for the above time line into sequential order. The final draft will contain copies of all referenced letters, field notes, and telephone memos. 16 The--Rittenhouse_Zieman-&-Associates Re of Februar 1985 On February 6, 1985, Rittenhouse-Zieman & Associates (RZA) under subcontract to Reid, Middleton & Associates issued a report of their investigation of the slides at the Solie residence. Supplemental reports were issued on February 21, 1985 and March 7, 1985 after requests for additional information from Edmonds and RMA. RZA drilled two test holes on the property. Both holes were south of the house and extended roughly 11 to 12 feet below grade at the locations where they were drilled. The first hole was in the driveway. The second hole was west of the first by roughly 20 feet on the side of the hill. The following information is abstracted from all three RZA reports (Please see the cross sections enclosed and the next section of this report.): 1. The house is located on a terrace with steep slopes above and below the terrace. Slopes approach one horizontal to one vertical (45 degrees). 2. The slide located at the south end of the house and north end of the drive is roughly 7 feet high and 15 feet wide parallel to the house.. The transported soil was wet and loose. 3. Based upon the two corings and visual observations, RZA constructed a cross section of the lot. 4. This cross section shows that the top 6.5 feet at the drive elevation is transported soil from an old slide. (I,n other words, the site has been buried at least once in the last 7000 years by a land slide.) From 6.5 feet to 9.5 feet below the drive the soil consists of sand. with organics. (This is probably the original top soil layer.) From 9.5 feet to 10.5 feet there is a layer of wet brown sand. (Saturated by water from the blocked sewer line ?) From 11 feet down a very stiff silt layer is found. 5. The second test hole was drilled on the side of the hill, at an elevation roughly 8 feet below that of the first hole. This hole found loose sandy fill to a depth of 7 feet. Based on the extent of the drive before the slides, the location of a railroad tie retaining wall, 17 RZA concludes that there was a wed elpf fill u to 15 g P feet thick on the site. 6. Since the fill was very thick, on a steep slope, and was restrained by a very weak and undesigned retaining wall, RZA concluded that the slide would have happened regardless of the city's actions. 7. The report adds that water might have exacerbated the slide. 8. Although there are numerous types of retaining walls, several types would be impractical due to the steepness of the slope and the presence of the house. The types of walls which could work on the site are cantilevered soldier piles, and possibly a bin type wall starting at the base of the slope. Costs of such walls are very high; RZA estimates that the walls would cost from $20 to $40 per square foot plus a premium for location plus $14,000 for engineering design and supervision. 9. RZA March report supplement speculates that there were three possible sources of water. These were runoff from rain fall entering ground cracks, subsurface water such as springs, and water from the blocked storm sewer line. Bill Evans has written a memo in which he takes issue with several of the facts and interpretations in the RZA reports. After several site visits, examination of the information at our disposal, and a brief interview with Mr. Evans at his office in Edmonds, I not only concur with his reservations, I have several of my own. The following sections explain these reservations at length. m Problems_Witothe_RZA_Reports Enclosed with this report are two drawings. The first of these is a site plan showing the location of the various r' slides, ground cracks, and test drillings. The second shows several cross sections. One of these cross sections is a reconstruction of the RZA cross section using the same horizontal and vertical scale. The remaining cross sections are based on field observations and "shovel" excavations made during our last two site visits. As may be seen from the map, the Solies widened their drive by roughly 3 to 5 feet. This widened section of drive was supported on an unengineered fill and restrained only by a railroad tie wall roughly 4 feet high. Both of the RZA test holes were drilled in this area, and the RZA cross section was made in this area. Remains of the wall are in place. The author observed no evidence that the wall as constructed by Mr. Solie was more than 4 feet high. Examination of the map will show that the retaining wall directly in front of the house is roughly 10 feet from the house and 2 to 3 feet below the elevation of the walk and drive. The wall is a maximum of 6 railroad ties high. Excavation behind the ties and measurement in front of the wall shows that the fill is not more than 3 feet thick. This thickness tapers to zero by the walk. The wall is still in place and shows little sign of distress. Examination of the map will show that there was a taper in the wall at the location of the southern most slide. In this area the width of fill changed from 6 feet to roughly 15 feet. Its height apparently changed from 3 feet to roughly 4 feet as its base moved south and down the hill. Examination of the southern scarp shows that most of the exposed material was the native dense slide debris mentioned above in the RZA report. It is obvious that a considerable amount of native material was removed in the slide. As the scarp moves into the hill and flattens, the Solies will lose sidewalk, drive, and the southwest porch may be endangered. Conceivably there could be damage to the house caused by loss of foundation support. It should be noted that both slides were present at the time of the RZA site visit. RZA failed to address any of the slide or erosion activity to the north of the house. The northern slide removed very 19 • little fill material. It is almost totally confined to native soils. Examination of the north slide shows a near vertical scarp roughly 10 feet over all. A large amount of slide debris is still on the slope. It is our opinion that additional movement of this debris mass is inevitable unless it is removed. Furthermore, the scarp face will eventually work its way into the hillside until the slope stabilizes. This will cost the Solies several hundred square feet of yard and may cost the city part of their sewer line. RZA failed to mention the soil tension cracks west of the house mentioned by both Jerry Hauth of the City of Edmonds and Bill Evans of Landau and Associates. This crack is indicative of at least some soil movement. The hill below the house was apparently at or very near the point of failure when the sewer line was rerouted. Depending upon the actual construction of the piers installed by Mr. Campbell and how extensive a slope failure occurred, the house could be damaged by future slides to the west of the house. The February 21, 1985, report lists several types of retaining walls. It then lists the problems with each of the types. All of the walls have major problems due to the steepness of the slope and the presence of the house. The only two which are remotely feasible are a soldier pile cantilevered retaining wall and bin type retaining walls. Safe construction will require close coordination between the engineer and contractor plus extreme care in construction. Costs for both solutions including engineering start at roughly $175,000 and go up past $500,000 depending on length of wall, height of wall, and exact soil conditions. There is the possibility that construction of a retaining wall could actually lead to slope failure and damage to the house. Tentative -Conclusions -------------------- Based on the information reviewed above we may tentatively draw the following conclusions: 1. The house is located at the south east boundary of the active slide zone described in the Lowe Report. 2. The slopes below and above the house are marginally stable both by general engineering "rules of thumb" based on slope and because slides and tension cracks have been observed. 3. That sometime in the recent geological past the site was buried under a slide to a depth in excess of 6.5 feet. 4. That the Meadowdale area has a history of slides. 5. That the City of Edmonds should have been aware of items 1, 2, and 4. 6. That the City of Edmonds placed a moratorium on new construction in the Meadowdale area including the Solie lot and then allowed construction on the lot. 7. That the city and its consultants --RMA and Roger Lowe Associates, Inc.-- were aware that leaks from broken and or leaking sewer lines could exacerbate slide and erosion problems in local areas. 8. That the city and its consultants were unaware of the condition of the old drainage line on the Solie property even though they tied their new sewer line into it. So far as we can find from the available documentation, there is some doubt that the City of Edmonds even owned the line in question. 9. That the Solies constructed a retaining wall and fill section for use as a flower bed. 10. That the Solies widened the fill section and increased the wall from 3 feet to roughly 4 feet high in order to accommodate additional driveway south of the house. 11. Those areas of wall 3 feet high or less are still in place and show no signs of distress. 21 12. That the driveway section was stable Oom 1979 when the house was constructed to 1984 after completion of the drive. 13. That both slides were associated with "springs" which were never apparent prior to construction of the sewer line. 14. That the "springs" dried up within hours of construction of a bypass line. 15. That the "springs" have not reoccurred since completion of the permanent bypass line. 16. That the existing line used by the city was concrete "bell and spigot'; a type of pipeline which will leak if it is placed under pressure. 17. That the line was blocked and broken thus placing the line under pressure. 18. That the existing sewer line extends across the front. of the Solie property from slide to slide. 19. That the slides occurred in close proximity to the pipeline. 20. That failure of the temporary bypass line caused considerable erosion and sliding at the northern end of the house. 21. That the potentially unstable area under the drive was partly excavated and reshaped prior to any substantial earth movement. 22. That both slides involved substantial quantities of native material. 23. That at least some tension cracking occurred in front of the house from slide to slide parallel to the existing concrete pipeline. 24. That in November of 1986 addition tension cracks were observed near the location of the new sewer lines extending parallel to the hill from the northern most slide to 40 feet north of the Solies' property line. 22 • 25. Based upon field observations by the author, the sidewalk adjacent to the house has shifted, settled, and cracked. 26. Based upon field observations by the author and confirmed by Jim Solie, the front porch has settled several inches and has been pulled out of line towards the slide. 27. As mentioned in the prior report from MC -Squared Engineering, there is some minor cracking of and distortion of doors and windows in areas near the slide. These may be associated with the slide. In order to determine a cause and effect relation the interior of the house would need to be mapped. In addition, at least one set of soil samples would need to be tested in a laboratory; these should be taken adjacent to the southwest corner of the house. 28. That William Campbell was aware that there were or could be slope stability problems. It is our conclusion that the slides were directly associated with and caused by water supplied by the leaking City of Edmonds sewer line. If this is in doubt, it is possible to reconnect the old line and observe the starting and stopping of "springs" with the amount of water supplied to the line. Eventually the north and south slides will level out to the current slope of the hill. This will cost the Solies loss of yard, driveway, sidewalk, and possibly cause considerable damage to the house and porch. The city may well loose some of its sewer line. The consequences from a major break in the new line would be large scale erosion and sliding. 23 • • Stabilization of the Site Stabilization of the Solies' site depends upon a number of conditions many of which are unknown. It is impossible to insure total stability of the site against a major slope failure. As mentioned above, one of the documented slides was 2500 feet long and 500 or more feet wide. Slope failures of this magnitude involve millions of cubic yards of soil and billions of pounds of force. While it would be physically possible to stabilize the hillside below the Solie house by use of retaining walls, it would not be practical. We estimate that there is a 60 foot rise from the base of the hill to the level of the Solie lot. The wall would need to be 200 to 250 feet long in order to stabilize the lot properly. This is a wall area of 120,000 to 150,000 square feet. Based upon an estimated cost of $50.00 per square foot of wall surface, costs to stabilize the hill would run $600,000 to $750,000. It is our 'understanding that the Solies do not own the base of the hill; thus, easements would need to be purchased for the wall. In addition, care would be required to insure that the wall did not increase stability and drainage problems for other properties. While it is not practical to stabilize the whole Meadowdale soil mass nor to stabilize the hillside as a whole, it is practical to stabilize the portion of the hillside upon which the house sits. It is our feeling that the hillside as a whole is marginally stable under present conditions. If the slope is properly maintained, water is collected and routed away from the hill, and some retaining wall work is completed, we feel that there is a low probability of a slope failure which would endanger the house. We would recommend a series of terraced walls along the west side of the house, and parallel to the west side of the driveway. In some areas where the slope is very steep, additional walls would be required to stabilize individual portions. We feel that combinations of cantilevered retaining walls and cantilevered soldier pile walls should be used. Bin type walls might be appropriate in some locations.. We feel that roughly 250 feet by 20 of wall surface would be required. This is 5000 square feet wall surface. Estimated cost of the repairs would be in the 24 ,1 range of $250,000. In addition to the costs of the wall both estimates would require: 1. design costs and soils exploration $25,000 2. earthwork (3300 yds at $15 per yd) $50,000 3. reconstruction of the drive, new drainage for the lot, new landscaping, and miscellaneous other work $25,000 TOTAL ADDITIONAL COSTS $100,000 Thus, we estimate that it would cost roughly $700,000 to $800,000 to stabilize the hillside as a whole. That it would cost roughly $350,000 to stabilize the hillside to a reasonably safe and stable situation. It. is reasonable to ask, what would happen if the lot were restored to the condition it was in when the Solies purchased it ? Unfortunately, this is not. possible. We feel --based upon the testimony of both Bill Evans of Landau and Associates and Jerry Hauth of the City of Edmonds-- that tension cracking occurred across the full width of the house from slide to slide. This -indicates that at least some soil movement has taken place. Soil does not heal. Once it has moved, it is considerably less stable than it was prior to the movement. We feel that the movement across the width of the house plus the slides at both ends has reduced the overall safety of the lot by an unknown but significant amount. If the weakened soil could be removed and replaced with a properly engineered fill, the overall stability might be returned to the level it was at prior to November of 1984. Unfortunately, proper excavation of the soil could undermine the house. The above estimates are based upon field observation plus the information currently in our possession. More accurate estimates couldbe made using topographic maps and more accurate soils data. We feel that these costs are reasonably accurate but could vary depending upon information we do not have. If you have any questions, or if I may be of.further help, please call. Respectfully submitted, MC -SQUARED, Inc. 25 n VINCE McCLURE, P.E., Ph.D. President 'I C♦ `� . - -? �' t, r/,.� t �\�• • arrwpnrat a.0 M _ `. � 'ram: 1'_= ii, �-:,• \ - •:...., •u ..-_'r �•, !i1-1 % -� - , I �!�' W--�-��'t �-_� !'��.. i���'\'- ' ' ' �� ..,Il ...' - Est s•n:s ro.(nc.r \ - X-1 j ./. ( j/ -// l � � � a %:; � � /ram`• ��_ � �-�. (. � � w= �- ~;i. I�-. p ',•: ��. v C. r r •; '_",cam- __- �� ..__,. 00, LP ENERALIZED GECLCGIC CRCSS SECTION ��`—"'�,.,,t.,•-•:';' �.: /! �— —: ;� I -�':I 1_�;;� SHO'A9NG MECHANISM OF:� _...._',- ��:;.:�..— ;�,.�-��-�: v` •,� -:j; 1. — SLIDING 0� o j^"/-"� i,•:. �, :.. tom•... _r_ of \ , �, ' ^'".• •\\ I' - \ �Fe��~�� lI rl Q' Fo tLL CiG ACli ra L _ P • /%NC 2Z Nilie/s sot[ Ito! RECEIVED l ee�t' �•� FEB 2 81980 / Ca CO ""'C• Dir. Of Public Work PIPF r 10 tj v /ZIP . � ouiRa 109410J.40s a Ao.4oawr AcA/ ,4PPaovdv 4:s to07WW.� I' L C9NTROt AAW Z Ai CA ffr1r; • C'CirtJoi}t7Sb - �_ �� �'LAcii'ra� C-ONSULTING SOILS ENGINEERS Alaska Trade Building Mail To: P.O. Box 21328 Searle, Washington 98111 September 26, 1978 OCT 6 R��O tCE: TO: Bill Campbellq Architect 20026 - 88th Ave West Saab, Washington �d n% a71 c! S ULWON on Proposed Edmonds Residential Site Sept 8, 1978 eel Crandall, Geologist 2 hrs ® $3S.00 � l 'VCe ' I C!TJSE 9COST AC'-# E ► c $70.00 �- -7 y/7:. a LIIA1f N, CA►•It'VELL r�Bit:UVTIury 1NC. t` • ,?"�•y.` F(:OJL'CT� 26, REPORT 79 r �� • 17• ::A; Fp SWA 98020 l IOFI:' '' 1rU ESTIMAW .CURREN'( TO BATE DIFFERENCE FCT ^, _CAT PERMITS w 100 Si-744;36.; :'0.00 5r746.36 0.00 100 K :.. Y, •' • " ' 210 4 r 600'" " •' 0. 00 6 r 556.45 J3. ^ 99 . J! WALJj&: '•:�:,�"I,'.22U ~S�Z31":3*'?�' 4Ui.y1';'. 5#632.70 101;41-108 '`�'. 230 St500.,00,r5r570.79 70.79-301• i+l•Ptd„• ' 240' 1r751:147 0.00 1r751.16 0.00 100TE ONS"•LADI](i 310 4.1 10.67"" 0.00 4 # 110. 07 0.00 3o0 ^,,r, ' ;.• ON•MAIERIA1. '520 4r831.7U '' 0.00 4r031.78 0.00-100 . F%W LABOR ' '• 33U 284.44 G. 00: 294.44 0.00 100 `0.00 '``-ter ,:�•- ,' -•:' :,. :. F/W'Mp1ERIr; :i-iJ 291.70 O.UO 291.70 100 i:�•. :"1;:i '"'��`;'�- +.' iUFING 350 1r209.6i 0000 ,1,209.81 .;.;0.00 100- }Y ;Y i fIREF`1.Af.E'. 410 O.OU `;• 0.00 y ^^0.00 •0.00 0 _ '. �,•' � ` 'kEFL�C 420. 1.''OO.OG 240.60 259.00 941.00 22 5G0 0.00 0.00 :0.00 0.00 0 1.610 • LAHOk:;i;:r: " ' 9r200.00 1►296:55 30►013.40" ' 813.40-109' - �'' . yr • �•,: , MATERIAL'' " ';620 'l4,813.21 987.20 25.fuU.41 YU7.20-107 {' •a.:;rt• '• ..:630 ,,2►740.00 •• 0.00• 2,103.00 637.00 77 TOPS:' x•'`"' 640 " 0.00 ''' "0.00 0.00 % 0.00 0 - ••; , ;ARF'RY LABOR 650 1.500.00 1,021.19 2r407.29 907.29-1LG M. • FkUTECTION _' �: �` %�-r_�r:.=_•=:fir"^.J: ;c: f ON , :'.710 ' 1.560. 00 150. G0 1 r 405.00 154.00 90 �•'�- '` _ABOk :C;' ' :•: 720 .. - 9J:32 68.25 . 1G8.:i7 25 KATERIAL' �� 730 , .:3r078..63 �90.81 3,169.'44 _ 740 rj.0:00 0.00 0.00.:. .O.JU 0 750.' 2r936:37;" 305.70} 2r742.07. 305.70-113 witmows �• -i,.. r=_T�t 1'S,G..LUorS 010 ..q►25��56 0;00 4►257.56., .: 0.00,100 •' �;+t rye:. of MILL'— 'K, 820 3,119.29• 331..B3 3r451.02 331.03-111.` .'•. DOORS .. .fl3U 0:00• . 0.00. " 0.00. .0.00 0:f YCS DRYWALL' 910': 6r380.66 0.00 6,380.00 0.00 100,�� - , �,, �•_-:.+--•• G�ti;•. ; .•,;920S ,0�00 .• 0.00 OVER INGS.` •E" 930 ° 4i750.00' 511.08.41• 0.00 .` 5►106.41 '' 0.00 0 350.41-108='"'. • r 'rT' . : ;� 940'_ •'•- '-� ,750.00 _ 1 r ;1 1039 1 r2DY.39 537.39-172_ .._� ' C _-r: ' E ','t'-,• :��; 1000.' 00400 . 10:6 :10.b1 O:39 OS i{-•--mac wi. l�,f• CESl�''• 'ilO b3:b2' 63.62 - 63.d2.. 0� !. .. ...-....� ^'�:•' .. 'J, 12G0 O.OG;:•• O.GO G.vO 0.00 0 •t % 1300 a • 0.00 G.00 • �': 0.00 0.00 0 -,r�•Y�- .;:.•. - 00 'r :•,t .:0*.00 0.03 0.00 U + J _y:4,'• - 3.944.20 :... :4 rr• `:: 'K' %. 1010 .3'r 060. GO 1 r 242.20 84. L'0-102 • : 1r1373.00 0.00 1r795.1C 77.90 9S `� + :e�'••in'r.?p; `�•..� RICAL - ' ,• 1630. 3;135.00 0.00 2r446.02 686.98 78 "41620 •1►152.OD 1r290.Is 1r290.10 '? ''.� ._ LABOR SP- CU. •...., .' '�. ..- ears . .1 AHOk �.�:•: :' '•171C 2r400..00... 756.25 2r860.v: 460.07-119 �= :CONDITIONS: �• 1720 1r000.00 286.S5 1.:;UJ.J7 80.37-108 1 ► •" _ _"� {..._' CGSTS„•" `�.:1730 "•: '.. 2,100.00. 270.00 Z!t0Lt,-:'7 34.21 98 ;:ON 1740 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 . 0 Ub TOTAL: *il� 0 107r51U.:.7 1SPOS9..76 liO.;,i46� 16 3rG24.89-1G3 ZDSTS .. OUISITION. "1810. G.Oil 0.00 0.0.1 0.00 0 O.JU 0.00 v.GO 0.00 0 ' ICE',^ ' �;::-,. 183U "O.OIr ° • . .• O: Uu W . vU �.`'. O. UG -.0 '-'•' . ;:.•� i 1.:,...:":..av_ ,. iG''..• •� - 1i34U 18:000rOU 00 16,000.00.• 0.00 700 iALES'TAX 16Ci0 Sr1?00.00 956.64• 61528.93 S_k3.93-1.11 47:'4' iCs 1 INrERESTiit36G 0:00 ' 0.00 0.00 0.00 '0 ;%: _.: ?:•: '; :05TS 1O%0 O.irG �:' 0.00 0.00 ' 0.00. -- 0 ';•�!.;_ +_�..,.'�:,; _ ITS . AVPLIF,D 1890 0.00 ' 11.00 -6, :)U;,. 76 0.00 ...10 Ili TOTAL: SAS i.�0 : 23r900.00 ►. _. ; .64. •-16v222.97, + `•• -'' 'TOIA' ?s>yc' G 1.;1r42C.57 il,n%6..60 128r:'68.43 2r6;_.14 96 �'• "=' - ]9G0 _6r31Y.57 i.00 ..-12ii768 O.Vu 0_- F'f.'•':E` 2300 1U:i.r101.0a 0.G6 •0.00 f• ' ► w\+.^•.•,'I :,.,,:.MyK,rr�lr1'+Si!kj.�' e'gRC+rA!,1�1�'F'S�'�='!'� `a'�'•�11t :'�7.X��"•a7J: :"- i.•a.n .: of ■fw s .r 7 . 1 f : 70�7�9 (206) 775.7434 APR 1 William N. Campbell 8125 Frederick Place Edmonds, WA 98020 TERMS: Rf�M pfiKM .w0 MiVww M" vow* wtumA ce DATE ._.... •,p ..,. CHARGES AND CREDITS I BAL, BALANCE FORWARD Mar RESIDENTIAL FOUNDATION Professional Services 12 hrs. @ $38.00 TOTAL $ 57 ((�� $ 57 E:.• 4 - —.._—.'- r..l• _ X 0". 1"; ILI APPROVED SAT � /a �� C�cw :� z,.., Project* Residential Foundation Professional Services 2 hrs. @ $38-00 -Y X 47 i7t i. z 7: -zi Ni 4'a :!;Zp n, 73-", N Reid, Middleton b Associates, Inc. 6 February 1985 W-4454 Page 8 5.2 Potential for Future Ground Movement The potential for future ground movement may be addressed in terms of large-scale events or small localized occurrences. Large-scale events might include movement of the site as a whole and could possibly include areas outside the site's property boundaries. Smaller, localized movement would entail events restricted to isolated portions of the site. 4 The likelihood of large-scale ground movements within the Meadowdale area was addressed in the aforementioned 1�79 study performed for the City of Edmonds by Roger Lowe Associates, Inc. That study delineated portions of the Meadowdale area having varied levels of landslide hazard potential. The project site is within an area described by. that study as having a 90 percent probability of experiencing ground slumping over a 25-year period. The potential for small scale ground movement on the project site would be affected by the configuration and use of the property. Tne likelihood of failure occurring could be increased by several factors, among which are the condition of slopes and the control of surface or ground water. Steep slopes with inadequate ground cover, or those with inadequately engineered structures or fills above them would be more susceptible to the risk of ground failure then properly maintained and configured slopes, for example. Uncontrolled discharge or routing of surface water or subsurface ground water could also locally increase the risk of failure. Improper drainage features as described above would present problems in terms of the capacity for weakening soils and thereby decreasing their stability, or by increasing the likelihood of soil erosion. Y 5.3 Methods for Reducing the Likelihood of Local Failure The stability of the existing western slope may be improved by the removal of the remaining fill material. Boring BP-2 revealed 7 feet of loose fill at that location. The existing fill is in a loose condition and lacks ground cover, thereby increasing the possibility of the fill becoming wet or saturated. • w n Reid, Middleton & Associates, Inc. 6 February 1985 i W-4454 Page 9 Continuing creep, small-scale sloughing or large-scale downslope movement of the fill mass is likely in its present condition, in our opinion. Upon removal of the remaining fill material, we suggest that the slope be landscaped and planted such that vegetative ground cover can be established. A well -developed growth of appropriate vegetation will limit rain -induced erosion of the slope, and to some degree limit surface spalling or sloughing. The slide head scarp which has encroached into the paved driveway will require some form of protection to prevent continued degradation. The uppermost exposure of the scarp was 7 feet high during our site visit. Although the scarp is currently vertical, some sloughing or spalling of this surface and resultant further encroachment upon the driveway or sidewalk is likely to occur, in our opinion. Temporary measures to limit further degradation of this area would primarily serve to reduce the effects of weathering. Such measures may include the placement of an earth or rock buttress adjacent to the scarp. However, we would caution against haphazard or uncontrolled filling on the slope. A permanent retaining wall providing support for the scarp area would be a preferred alternative to temporary surface measures. However, the design of any structural retaining wall would require a complete geotechnical investigation in order to determine soil strength parameters and slope stability criteria. An alternative to the temporary or permanent measures described above may be excavating or cutting back the vertical portion of the scarp. Establishment of a shallow slope angle of 2H:1V would reduce the likelihood of ground loss from the upper portion of the slope. However, the proximity of the Solie residence would seem to preclude further excavation of native soils from the top of the bank. Ground loss from the head scarp may present a situation where the safety or integrity of the residence is in question. Consequently, we suggest that the permanent or temporary measures intended to prevent ground loss from the scarp area consider not only the aspect of reducing the potential for damage to the property below, but also consider the effects of ground loss -on the Solie residence. We recommend that a determination of soil conditions under the Solie j olr lit u.• 1 r ,. % • �%y �� / to Os� n . _.CI,TY V OF EDMONDS .", Q, PU. . IC -;WORKS DEP d SIDE SEWER PERMIT FOR INSPECTION 77=5 - 2-5=2°5 Ext. PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOB SITE 1. Address of Construction 4 Permit Issue Date QMWOA_D LINE Property Legal Description (include all easements) i Single Family Residence' X Multi -Family No. of Units Commercial Owner and/or Builder j rI y, , Contractor & License No. Invasion into City Right -of -Way: No° Yes (If Yes Right-of- way Construction Permit Required - Call Dial Dig ( �42;-,1T34,4/) before 1-800-454-5555 excavation). 7. Cross other private property: Yes No X Easement required - attach legal description and county easement number. READ THE FOLLOWING AND SIGN: a. Property owners must obtain a permit to install side sewers on their property. A licensed side sewer contractor must be employed to construct side sewers in the public right-of-way. b. The side sewer contractor assumes full reponsibility for each installation for one year. C. Commercial establishment requires a minimum of a six inch (6") side sewer line. d. Side sewers may not be installed closer than thirty inches (30") to any structure . e. Side sewer lines must be laid'riA,,:�a.: minimum grade, of 2% (1.150 and maximum grade of 100� (45°) . ;''", .;., f. No turn in side sewer greater'' an 4.50::::(1/8 bend) is allowed between cleanout. All 90 turns must be cono constructed of a 45 (1/8 bend) and Wye with removable cap. g. No down spouts, footing drains or floor drains can be connected to side sewer system. h. Pea gravel is required for bedding when installing sewer lines through other than granular soil. i. Cleanouts are required at 30"-60" from each plumbing exit line and at minimum intervals of 100' along sewer line run. j. Trenches within City right-of-way must be restored to original conditions. Contractors shall be responsible for right-of-way failure due to poor compaction of fill. k. Side sewer must be left uncovered until inspected and approved by the City. 1. Inspection during normal working hours only. Two (2) working days notice required. DATE: f ��`' ' i 1f 2,� • i �- I certify that I have read and shall comply with the above PERMIT FEE: , -°; ._ ) DISAPPROVED BY: Date: B Date: CONNECTION FEE.: APPROVED By : f. Date Pro zj * PERMIT.MUST BE POSTED ON JOB SITE * �� Side Sewer Drawing The City of Edmonds EASEMENT NO . ........................................ .. MCAD. c.0tQ4F-c--rl0tt NEW CONSTRUCTION Ej REPAIRS E] LID NO. Zj-0 .... ASMT. NO . ........ ......... > OWNER ... JAmes ------ L—SaJar------------------------------------------------- CONTRACTOR ... ...... S. E RV ......... PERMIT NO. JOB ADDRESS -1643-1 ...... 7.4 .......... PLt ------------------------------ LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT NO. .- ---------------------------------- BLOCK NO. ------------------------------------ LYNNWOOD LIK -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF ADDITION ----------------- 6. SM A PA 366 Q.0. CAP VDP. ALL. W'Pv.c. pi PE 4.5' 4!'1.5 DP Wse. O PROP C-ORNF-R 4" c.O.WVL 17.5, PWW-0001-11/75 (REV.11/78) / 0 ---- . .CDP. 4"c-a 123 --' 6*13, Apr .S.s.xy.c.C-QUPLIM,& — lG431 74"PL. Approved: DATE ..... By . ...... The City of Edmo pig 1- Side Sewer Drawing , Kx EASEMENT NO - -------------------------------------------- NEW CONSTRUCTION N REPAIRS ❑ LID NO . .................. ASMT. NO . ....... .......... OWNER -W llb-0--Wl ---- ------------ CONTRACTOR .......... -W—Vler ------------------------- ...................... PERMIT NO. -------------------- I A- — JOB ADDRESS .... 13 10 -------I -------- r74Tll P I - \/j ----------- LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT NO- -------------------------------------- BLOCK NO. ---------------------------- ....... ............................. NAMEOF ADDITION ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- P6�� -u- pipot tzacep) ill A-tss,icor-s-r- Wmiev Serv. LAn e- PWW-0001-1 1175 (REV.1 1/78) 'Water s4LVV. - M ecte v 111n wadev- Sarv. Uvte- Approved: DATE ... 8JI-7.1-771 ........... B, 17 S3. q, -- Q BUILDING USE DEPARTMENTk4�,pplicantF '�irZONE PERMIT - 0 NUMBER "'; 9009y PERMIT APPLICATION ae Heavy Lines l O Bc I - ADDRESS NA�1 (OR AME OF •USINESSI Z�V LEGAL LOT PLAT NA SUBDIVISIQN NO. I YES El No MAILING ADDRESS PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER ORDINANCE EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY NO. 'CITY tLCPHON[ NUMBER PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAYNAM _ 1 DEFICIENCY OF RIGHT OF WAY STREET/UTILITY WORK REQUIRED YES IJ NO AODRS PERMIT FOR WORK IN PUBLIC R/W MM pV[S Cl No UNDERGROUND WIRING REQUIRED ❑VES No CIT E EPHONE NUMBER CONNECTION,TO SANITARY SEWER p� 0YB8 pN0 SEPTIC TANK PERMIT REQUIRED YES No ME SEPTIC TANK PERMIT NO. ADDREE • SEE MEMO DATED :.p �? I.^iq C T LICENS NUMBlR CHECKED BY [ SIZE BU ING,- SIZ E ZE eseription of Property Shoal Below or Attach Fou► pies) ��j-, IO�Z ,'d, i . . r SIGN AREA [N V. R[VIBW ALDD, ALLOWED PROPOSED COMPLET EXEMPT •v' �n .340 �� SMOREI OR CU NEW ESIOENTIAL GAS Lima •5�1FRONT N TV NON-RCSIOlNTIAL a SIGN 3 ADO Q ALTER DEMOLISH EXCAVATE on FILLK_" RETAINING WALL Q PENCE SPECIAL INSPECTOR RUGUI09D ��/ ❑ 1/tE IJrO N CHlCKEO BY REPAIw El INSP. Q POOL RONARKS ' TN�IZnA AL NU BE P aTORIE NUMBER OF OWILLING UNITS Bt DONE _ A_� CHECK FEE PLANNING REVIEW BY DATE COVERAGE OF CONSTRUCTION CODE HEIGHT u 1g7G 30'MA AREA OCCUPANCY M _ I C PANT 2 `i q 71b GROU► f I3 THIS SITE I LOCATED IN THE CITY OF EDMONDS. LOCAL SALES TAX SHOULD BE CODED 31.0/. I%v% Ari in N W LA'V%ON P6IZ VALUATION PE! VC511i'llicX91INDICAYE1 DI S ACKS, ABUTTING STREETS) BUILDING 5 1� 4 PLUMBING - - MECHANICAL . ..... FENCE - "Applicant, on behalf of his or her spouse, heirs, assigns and Fvwv 4►12S 30 O _ m successors in interest, agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless J City of Edmonds, Washington, its officials, employees, and RETAINING WALL athe agents from any anal all claims for damages of whatever nature, = arising directly or indirectly from the issuance of this permit. 1,su• wIMMINd Pool jarce of this permit shall not be deemed to modify, waive or reduce the 17O E i C-, any requirement of any city ordinance not limit in any way 0 t City's ability to enforce any ordinance provision." _ ���. i hereby acknowledge that I have read this application; that the in- TOTAL AMOUNT DUE OO formation given is correct; and that I am the owner or the duly author- city and state laws re- ized agent of the owner. I agree to comply with ga lating con! 'ruction; and in doing the work authorized thereby, no person be employed in violation of the Labor Code of the State of Washington THIS PERMIT This application is not a permit will to Workmen's Compensation Insurance. AUTHORIZES until signed by the Building Official or relating NOTE: PffMjf VMft ftl TOW(Except DEMOLITIONS and FILL ONLY THE his Deputy; and fees are paid. and PERMITS without conditional use permit, which shall be completed in 90 WORK NOTED receipt is acknowledged in apace pro - day D-IN BUILDINGS shall be completed in six months.) vided. INSPECTION O DAT! QN D DEPARTMENT DIRFCTO SIGN R / CITY OF �� be done on property NLY. EDMONDS DAT 775-2525 3 .' private (eur�, dm�i� driveways. This PpInit eovws work toquow, ARY c0natrwtth 1 wbtl fpumein Ste ill ORIGINAL - File YELLOW - Inspector ATTENTION PINK - Owner GOLD - Assessor TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE IT IS UNLAWFUL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR UNTIL A FINAL n cu ilJ-,6CA:... ... )LL Ji 'J'., �i -. Lii-t •., ^d{ilJ t! _ j STREET FILE I r A"AL DATE00 L1 ! ` `.•� �` �•P/�/L �1�7 drop✓Na�t�� '' " '?sj` • 29w9l 440�ewv j4-t 94641 k 1�6 .J t [SIGNED NF a ( ♦ i r T ' S: ' t • , ! • s . � Y - I ♦• t ' i Sid . �� OF N �ECORQS,CTtONS .! a Pe ro~TION _ 7 - ve I,a',, ,!� • Hass' . `�L�--1�.._...._ r� E• .. .. ` • • • Rough-it� .-�=-3�.--� .,.. -�, ,.,� a' HEATING SYS:'i�rf FRAMING . _ wAI,LB W .. FINAL t: 2,30 i rY i Crime ZJ z W ISSUE ENGINEERING MACH. SHOP TOOLING QUAL. CONT. UsEo W ►TH .SP- SPLANT 2 FTOLERANCES UP TO 12 HYOR-0-MRTIC t i/64 - . M.►0 r"hq Q•C-'.r r. r 0 M. nr J2" A ABOVE A 1/32 ANGLES f V2• ltJSTALLATiaN pttAWlNrw FOR SUBMERSIBLE MATERIAL SYSTEM USINc, AN L. C0Wr;Z0Lg .DRAWN J DATE CHECKED ISCALE 11+1284 W. I- J. 3 -S - 7a NONE _. � aPglNy '� °c �Y J s� 1 •7a•'1- ,c7? N'6 �' �' 00" W � �' � •/ ° // EtS,v. o-85 so .gp Y / g"'D . 6 I 4PNAVEL/' "^L.AwAY z f' Z' s:LowBPI (BED ono' c1.-te eb�6" 12 AL.owy wAn-vi u r ec�P WCImON OF —� �' w 1 1 •; RhILROP.O Tllc � WIU—Lcn E971MA1TcD � `��• i � \r �✓ 1 ! l - ��� +I�p� rn / / SCUTH L_IMF PERMIT COUNTER ,r -- CITY OF EDMONDS J ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT STREET.. F 250 Fifth Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington f�� .. A'PRUCAT-ION FOR A SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PERMIT (Submit 3 Copies) r Permit to be issued to: ..... W.1..1.11am..C.awbe.11............... For installation at: (street address).....1.�431...-...].4.th...P.1...-W:-,-..Edmonds,...WA.-9�02.0.:...:...............;...... Addition or Subdivision... eadowda-le••$e"[........................................... Lot ..... $9...... Block ................ Isee attached legal) Type of Building: New.`..)(....... Existing..: .......... Single family residence ....... X....... Number of bedrooms....3 ........... i Other: (specify type'or t 'or use) .................................•----....------...........------...............................,............. Builder..W.1.1.1.1-am..M...Campbel-1... Const...:---I.ne........... Address: ............ ..:..:.........................:.....:........:....:..:. .:.............. Designer..Ra4d.,..MIddleton..B-.Assoc...,--. Inc ............. Address..,.32.4_.Main -St-.-,---Edmonds,. WA.•98020.. ...... Soil,Log.Hole No.,.l._.0!'.-3.0:':...Loamy.:.sand.;);:30'-'-34".: Faint mottles•,' sl-ight�.colwpaction mature ... s.i.1.ty-..cl.a.y................... ........ ` ...........:.........._ ....:.:.... Soil Log Hole No. 2... 01!.-..26!1 ----- Loamy ... sand;• g.11t.y..C.1ay......................................:.:..:.:............. Elevation of Water Table, if encountered..: (Distance from ground surface) :.. Mona -encountered.. ..... -- Corrections to control surface water if needed... Note...... No-.drat-nage--to--be•.di•scharged... i-n6.4ra0-nftold area ............................................................................................... .......................:...•..:.....................................:.:.......................... ... Specify if any removing or grading of topsoil in field area..:--No--grading•. is -- permitted- 1n_d•rai-nf•ie•1•d-•erea ; N due ... to --- o-i.l...depths...... A:.mi.n-imum..of.... 12'-!..se-l-er_t..f-1--1.1--- wt-1.1.... be ... requ•i.refit=-af.ter-... dr.a.inf.l.e.l d.. ki ta11ed. rcoi'a ion Test Hole No. 1 —Average Rate.:...4.5_mi:n/In (Fall in minutes/inch-bottom 6" test hole) Test Hole No. 2 —Average Rate ..... 6.8...mi.n/ In......... ........... ..... (Fall in minutes/inch-bottom 6" test hole) r` Test Hole No. 3 — Average Rate...2.9.... ..ztI.n/ tn..• ...... (Fall in minutes/inch-bottom 6"' test hole) Average percolation rate on which to base drain field design .. 13 min/in Date Taken'....9/.1-5/.]8.. ,Septic tank requirements based on present rules and regulations: Septic Tank Size. ..1._,00.0...........gallons. t Amount of Square F o sposal Fie d.... ... .... n. Signature Designer l�k� -. �./.... :C[!:.{...,..L:T,..�CC1Date..-9/2%/78 ......................... DO NOT, WRITE BELOW THIS LINE (To be completed by Issuing Agency) Permit issued -(date) ......:............................................ ...........Permit Number ............ .. ........................... ..:. . Remarks: ................................................................................ ....................................... .............................. .................................... ........................... ............................................................................ ........... ._........................._.................................•-•........................ 283 \ I MAR I HYDROLOGY REPORT AND CALCULATIONS JIM SOLIE PROPOSED GARAGE Edmonds, Washington Group Four Job No. 89-4035 PREPARED FOR: JIM SOLIE 16431 74th Place West Edmonds, WA 98020 PREPARED BY: GROUP FOUR, INC. 16030 Juanita -Woodinville Way N.E. Bothell, WA 98011 '-14DE.'� January 8, 1991 Revised March 11, 1991 rrl�F� 1. � 1gn1 i JIM SOLIE 89-4035 Page 1 of 2 1 /4/91 Rev. 3/11 /91 GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION The subject property, consisting of 0.55 Acres is located at the North end of 74th Place West, East of 76th Avenue West and South of 164th Street S.W. The site slopes steeply to the West having an average grade of 30 percent. There is an existing driveway and house on the site. The remainder of the property is vegetated with trees and underbrush. A new garage is to be built on the West side of the existing house. EXISTING DRAINAGE Runoff currently travels in several directions over the site. Runoff from ground due East of the existing house is conveyed to the West in an existing storm drain system installed under City of Edmonds LID 210 consisting of several catch basins and 12 inch CMP. At a point approximately 40 feet East of the existing house the aforementioned storm drain turns to a northwesterly direction and goes downhill to a catch basin in 75th Place West. For the purpose of this report, refer to this catch basin as catch basin "A". Area drains in the backyard of the existing house collect runoff from the backyard and convey it under the house to a catch basin on the northwest side of the house. From this catch basin, 12 inch CMP conveys the runoff approximately 250 feet to catch basin "A" in 75th Place West. 18 inch pipe conveys runoff in a northerly direction in 75th Place West approximately 1000 feet until terminating in the Puget Sound at Laebugton Wharf. The area where the new garage is to be built drains to the West away from the existing house and . into an existing catch basin at the North end of 74th Place West. For the purpose of this report, refer to this catch basin as catch basin "B". The total area contributing to catch basin "B" is delineated on the basin map accompanying this report and includes areas South and southeast of the subject property. A 6" pipe conveys the water collected in catch basin "B" in a westerly direction for 39 feet at an approximate slope of 22 percent. The City of Edmonds confirmed that this 6" pipe continues in a westerly direction down a steep hill to the storm drain system in 75th Place West, upstream of catch basin "A". 18" pipe conveys runoff in this storm drain system to catch basin "A". JIM SOLIE 89-4035 Page 2 of 2 1 /4/91 Rev. 3/1.1 /91 PROPOSED DRAINAGE Catch basin "B" will continue to intercept runoff from the exact same basin as it did prior to the new garage being built. However, the new garage and driveway will add more impervious surfaces to the drainage basin. There will be 3,656 square feet of new impervious surface with the new development, including area within the right-of-way of 74th Place West. Drain lines from the new garage and from behind the retaining wall will convey runoff directly into a detention pipe sized according to City of Edmonds standards and then into catch basin "B". The perforated pipe behind the retaining, wall will outfall directly into catch basin "B" and avoid detention. A detention pipe with 100 cubic feet of volume and an orifice of 3/4" was chosen. Some new impervious area downstream from the detention inlet does not enter the inlet, however, additional existing impervious surface upstream of the detention inlet will contribute to provide a minimum of 3656 S.F. of, impervious surface discharging to detention. With detention the new development will have minimal impact on the downstream system and will reduce the peak flow departing the site. PUGET SI I* • .: j A -. ,. .I ......-..-, .,%.. I ..1."�... .- 1s.."1 .. ,.10 ..*.-.. ,. ..., O..I.,.`'. .Ia V'.�Nl ­ -1 -": , - -. ; *. "*4t- 14�'.�AIjp�i I � I I � */.QP/ /'/,", I 1�--,.-: .- -, , ---,!.-� ,I '-��* -,- - P'.,1'�, - "­,'� `',...­I., ' ­ —:; '. ..'.-.; 7.� -: *-r-.. .4,.,... .. -- ,.. $-, �. .I : "--� .. . §- .. ; iQ,p1 , ,., '- a 11.V. i ,,Il -; �'; N,,� .;�...,- I � 11 ,:�;,,":.t-,1a"�;. .. ­ i,1, . II/! .1, i��,.,I,� , , �'` ."I, ,A ,,:."." �,,- "- i' .I " ; I� (s \!: .f1%; 0i e0J,i�,�t-i�"%j'.�, g1i'g0riI?1 �• .l. �,,": I " 4I (;"j""At, �I�.i....;f". 2* , , � !��,"1t 1 , S,JtI/�.9.�.` --/�� /r.,��3:"­"4..�,;!'� �*,,.%', ,I1N,l� "I I1i M%-.., . "� !.* _a'�- :�9/—, �*;11" !, ; is - ., .,..I�* � �Z�I�4" g. �;�-.* �t �, .0.,. . 0.,- . .1., ?,�.11:�. . -I;�� ,.�4I.I(,W�t"jA,,.Jt,.Z.,,-­!i ­,1r­�;Y, ) 1�A � .4, * �,f�,A"-nJ�PI t, , - r._"�.: P 11 r � P" .,w0Mvv ! /%,i• . � � l—, i, �iJe'_,,, �� , . , I -',-'.,i.vt OVI �.­�.�;, , ,1i ,":r gt"�;��1 1111, A,,;t�Op -I �,,,, .. ,.,-- 'J,�"K�;f;l- �i��V�--­i _LN-4��1MszI;'..l .�4�. -,Og � . ;-i 4!j,,,;.,_,7'-,;-Z ;-:3-AI4,% ,-I0.V � ) ,I " w-1, )*,�,i__ :VAN7� �tl- `) , ,�AI ?, .• 4111h ��,'.-_- �__� -r VP0 �!,N7b%,­1'" -V,Ii- 11i.,�.,O':e -_ _I_ , -" "I.," I..;Igi ,�:i:�*.,,,_,I$.�-'� :, 1'"�.,�1 - 47 _�:�4_%" '_..F.i;<t_Va 4"14,,�, ; L / .� -,4 -_-�.i_, i.-i� -. .��A" .r,­. , a,A , t ! ,rU,.",� -� ��-,.�..;'i..I."_.":.,'. FW,7_"".,'r'?� aJ c 11.I.'�rl* 4m.� :14",r -" -'r-. I!�:;,!;I v�)"r ,1p-L��- t;"_,r,!, :-_ _ ,aX,.,,1'0 ,. .VLI%, ­9�R1i- < "; i � 11.14 r-.I".-1 ,5�"�I1`�s • /7_;�, . !­•-�- ""�.A -,4� � ! � -.3 ,,.; ."t��.t_i r,14 %�W'";;` - I, / . `1­.-,A_i- -,;4. 1V±,'-,,- AV­ I , !l i"0;I-,. . •­4 ,-1T- .�,,A,AO.- __ .. I j .wY � g-Ii"", _!4.nl ;, ��­,; I-�--,/.lil iM,r I1� Il—";I -4. .f .Ip.�,�X, 1 ,.,,t'-,,**I/, ,�.�,_q_,..j. ��-.� �", I �,. ­ .V�p, ,,,•, I- ,.., 4/ ". , ,(DI�y.-S, .�/,.-I-1tW11- �II ,." , _?7 .,:�-.et1:), 4d - Ih.',!I— � TIU�"�,.I/ �­I �',1'4�.z, .4,.:7-;Z:4 ,�'4'ti?4,:.-_;­-�kV­ , .. :.1�. *, 1, " ., .:;. .. ...., - , ,: t ,;,..,.,. j _W — I ..1. I I-, ";./ ",�-�%- �L. �� 4�! !4�� '1(i,�;. "�`Z_ F• '�IN- ,,.i.�,4g,r*A, _-�, �7-• I .'ex—,?- , ,, I , a$1�f�,C.,'e-t"a.-"l- 'P5t�g-w1 I'-i ,*. zI z ... I f.., I�I,_ 11! �J41��"�-'1 . ,""4?":Si-(_� % , . I �,,,;1- ;I�.g. �-�. �-4 �& ?-��V_� "I'I ---A.---e1-�-, I ;V�:?� )lr-.,I-DMS"i.� � * �,,'%r-,; ;�v"A, -_,:�, A.-"�I A, �,,- 1,. v'4'."1, /%, �.I .I 1 ,, � r• 1,.;�;",�d�.��k;I RI gr��-,�:,I ,�,!,1�,11 � 1 ";".4"� �tf_�,.,..��,./,V,11 II� gi `" ,,7.MeO1A��j-I � . "--­ __� .I.I�.­. -— , -.*I- . :, `_t... -­ �.,.a , ...,". ..', .j. *!* , _-..-.. � � ;7t . . . .I �... i . I , r1­ 1,I­- .�� * - � ...- , Z d., ... , 1.._ 411 ;; *1. �- ; , ,� .. i,, X1 V'4.Nt�rer�? I r t" ,., ,'5�i, I i�,i"l,?,�1z,,�?;t-k- "�)'..."e,-.�*�;v)-. ��Ii�,;- I)�_j-, ,).�� -�;f.,:­,1f41II vn It'` ,;-t4 ,-,i" K,t 1;�) , (. �i� --1A v�i,t%-1I M ,4,�'Y,1O.k*p""FI /,"J-��I;I'S ­� �I , I,,.x i,,;��_J�,,.i,'A L?;";3!.1, ­ " . V� '%� f!j �,;:,, �, X; ,0,•4�;0i-. ,•rI.1,,"I"II %i" -', A; % %II '1-le"I, 1"'""�I 1.... ­t,V,G.Sr1, ,I .1-•",.X 1!-s'd —i��:,,�­f" Wr— :--'1­1'I, -,'.4 ,(,I r . 1.1­ IF..I—"' c, , 1t ,- ' �­1,�i ­ �z, - . ,`F,r _i ,*."�."� A-V 0, -�,kf*",."'- 7 N1.:I , ;. . II- ­.-.,;1-­"',I :1��.,-,.;�I -�i,?�I� I ....�I ���'I,,-,,K ,Fi, %x, � A76I, \ ,v,-;I_,O.q )�..-,' A 4,�1 4 III;I e�--Vii-A;�vY*4��� �,.�-�gPr-1. k - ,, 1-I ­.j L,,'i.I 1 ; I ". , � ..1x I �( r,� .*,­v­o i l.. e , ICI �✓­1I tl - ) ���,4, _,�I',j.hGh.II­�,Jt1, -XV_� .iu'.-JI. tP1 ?-:1,?i1e­�7:,f,",N"J"sW d"14 c-17,•M,ViR' i :�4_2.)V JI ,:j� �I.. ,f , .4IPV. _I 1N�m(� IY,Tf v ..-,._,��-,';I-x/d;';� ; .' I • r -!.v. t 1�;,`'.,"l Ve.j.;, 'A-.— : A v -,�N.Z-, : J/.I 41.1I ;--1F-, is 4Ae W, T .P,,:�1 1�1, 4IX , . tk,, ".r�;r,i­.��,, . .f4—­­/.� bA!I�." �,.-.jzw­,L k.,,I- 'i .0 ,'I 4 Y t.,; ' .I .' ,.j,.,:� . 11 ���. .- o1 jI-.1I l,r1�t;t,jr_Y)-.�)., 7r_\".c-'!/ t,��(,Ii1-e.,,m '.4 "k,Y-A?jk -)JI., )f12';.j � I jI ,� 11 '.iI,",,;/r"MI)vIi�Te,. C�r. . . . ,;1 �-ii:• q)!I I" :­�- I,,:t'I i ;�!--..1­ ; � 1.i:t�'Vli� �Tl . . I I .1 I . .". . -.M.. - , ­ I . .1 x ". .... - . $. i :.. . "l, * , -----I -a­q-x-f:--_ "I �. ­- 'I� t - - ., - I . . C I : ., ­. Ir- so * , 06."% .�... "' . � I I . , lt`.�, i" . .1. . , �1.1 . .,,q, . " , G. �- .. . j ... . . . - - .�. ­,--."4itlll�!�� -�­.. 1. "; ­11.',�': . , .1 . * , - , .i. N! 4: 1,'+1�7'4� _;_�'�i,,,k_jtj -.%t;i�",'kf; ,,, " -� I "I - .. � . A�.�� . , . " t� . . - I�Mqmjjll�,I. .1 t ". f.:j, '. ,., . .. - -Z, - ��: - . ... . ..,:-**,.%7 , . . . . - "�..... -. .... . ... --i,-�< ;_­ .. I ..,-,. . , O Yi , ­ - jl� *,', . .: ." . . . � �•; . � . . - "P I .. . .?., ... . ': , , . . .,il 7/.,,.. .-­ .... . - . .0, . . .! ". t ;. , ... I .;-,)�! . 7 - .. . , .11 ,:;-:� . "I. . . I I .... - 1, . . . . . . , . ., . . * 1'10.1,k.:R.IT..: � . ,� 1%. . . :.., .."', 11-:. . I - -��..�. , I ". . . I _.. - . N, .: " *: 1�1*., ... . , . -'-�, . �. . * . ... - , *f:, II":: , , , ...- _.- , 'v, ,�: . )j"�,,r :.. . . I . _I.- . %... ... . ­ , , I . . 1* , . " _ .1e � . 1. ".. I _­ I '. . I �% ,� , , I . -, .: . . . s - * .- .-*. - - i.., .•, . . . * , I * -1 - .. , . I .1,1ik .. ., ( , � �- - , 'P.' * , * . ... , . . I , -,.�. ...:. �, . I.... I.I. .* . I .. ., .1 . - . ". . . , , " - , . . ��:--, . .. .. &r,:.j;.*, -"%,. 1, . , ­� . . I I .. . '. . . 1­1 I , . I I ,,;,. . . � .+r,�.-. ♦N . - - j� ! ._, ',I ,'.'—,F:�..�"t',*.­,)Ft�,4.�.r t ,'I�,"�,- .", ,! .1;'... ..1.1 -1-4)- ,...­..�. " .i- ,:,$..',.-�,'.,'�:.\.�;.�'i..";�; -.,.i W)7- .M7 " x IN 4 . k , 3U:O_ V'v a'. ..: !­ . ­- , , 'r / — �; . .. .�, .... �. .I. .. *;-, � ! .:,- " - , ­ I ... - - *.�. .. . . i..Zi�/ , .. I .. . �, , .,), , ,,, - - . ". .-,-.. .-.,; ` .1 ­ " - .. . . .�.._ .. __ .. _ ".. 1* . � . ,-. -�-,.:",, .-.:-,:.,., ,. .:.�, *,-.* *.-.*,.,: -, - , ,� I .. * �. _.... , .---,,:.,,� . ,.*,.,' i. .,. . . ..: . I . *­, , I . . ,.,, - ,. , 'L I I . - I , .... — . . � ..- ...,.,, . . ' . ., . . . . . . L . . . . , -`%'. - ...... i" . I I .- , '. - ., '... .� .. - 7. , 4:. , I ,:: . �, . * . . . I I . . . . I .. .... . . I . ....., .. -.,-( .. . - . - . : , . z vl- . . : .. -.111 � I ..., , , . - - -, '. - , I . - I , I... . I I . . .. .. . . . . . . ' , 1. I ., . * �. - : I ) .. - :. .. , � .. %� �'. . .t L' - . * ". " ,� . . , . . v :, .. , I . � - - . .,­ . ,.I" � . . . r". I I . . I. . . , i . . I 11 .. ., .., " I . . . . I .. . �1 . - - -� -.- . . . . . , . .1 , . .� 'T.'... s,IL. ... u-. , �4-:::. A �.. ... ....., . i . .. C`,reI .:. : . ..."', . - ..­,,�,,-;,� !; .,O*',41� — ..-�­.O� ­ . . . - . . - -a1�:,.".! '. , . L �.';,11, .1 ...; ­.,.�. — .._� . .... . � .., tz. 1'."!W.. - ; ...," ­t: ; ,:,,,1 !.:. ,...j;,I . .;;.q, ,"N".. ::I. �k - .:pI .;,i,S, . i ... . 1. . , - I "j: ,. * -;' , %-'�:" 'y ". �, J_ %') v d %J:> C) '! .. , ! I I A,i . I * , t -*I i � , .,� , - - .* ) - Nz� L 'IF- ,�., 1. = ID 11 I 10 Al!:KIANY . '. . � . 1. �/ cIft-i4y " . . — ., d , ... I 4 % '. - . '... . .:. . ­.;:..­. *** 1. :.:;18*3 -t_ ­ ZW;,� Al * .,_:...�*. ..;.;.�, . . - : .,'. � , "I . , I .4 — � .�I.-... I , _ I U'1191 *... 0 "�,.-.­ I e. I . !, I .. . . , " v` .. . 1:!�i..,.":. , -.­.,.;'..��;.� ­ '."'-�--�;Ioi'lj�t I .., � . . .�', �'�*..,. * I ­1 _- ­., ) . *. * . .1,_ ­ : I_ - . .�15__4 ,11. . .h­ ... ...... , -rl,,", I ...;,, A.V — ...rf.., ...'. i'll. - . ,... _., '. .. . , ..O.., . .. 11 . * , . , .... ��.r--�I:-:-I.­,,� !. T , .� * ­...:�,,,­11�*4-1t-: ­e� 4 . ­,g - .. . . . .1. . , *'. -!' ; I ., ...._..'.":, - 1. 3 � . .;..... , , i.. �.."!.. .., * , . .L _': . L .It ...!,. .. :,�**,-�.-;.�__.,:--� i. .. .:..I.. ,,, * I .: .. '... .':, . . . . "", ..."'.'. ,4 7 *, jpp� .. - '. ­ -. ; - ".., . "' * � , . I `-if"* -, .,� .: . ;­ - _. r , .!:,:.. .:,. � -` ­ n i"", , , '.. . I , t'N'. , ." . V�.; } . . .. . . .e...�', . .A,,pli!�v I , - �i'.!!�' - I . . . -.� -,,�,-`,�'.,*..'�..-,�-��:,- tl� . .. . �`­,;., ;..."i ... .... s, S. 1. �i , � .. , -- �.� .,), .:A. ., ,*. . * , . .; :4 I ,ft � I .-- , I I t"", . . 3 , * - . : ,I '. . . , ,N,�'., . .1 . - I . , . : : , , ,-: .-. J, � ..; ,� - *j . , . " , - . ... 1 , : , ., . , I.. � , I—. - I - . : . -�:, -.� . . I.. . (" I. . ­­ � .. 1. . w . . 1: . . . . "... .1.1... . I 1:10.1" 11 , - .. (, � ( ":. . :. - , - - " - f I , 1. , \ - ... : .* . � I . � . � .., . . I . ,'.� .,_1 �. , , :,, j. 1. . � . . . , - : .*.--�-.,.. . .. - \. 1�1 . , .. . . 27�' .. - _... _. I . * I.- .. .. - . . � ') � I . . * I . ,4*1:. 1.) . . %.. ­)� *-\.- )� ,7,..- . . . . . . '* I - ` ­f, , - _k 1. . -.�,., �': L . . - - . L . . . \ .., ,� .... . , , . . - �/,_ *•. . � _­ . ... • .�. - . I1....-'-...., i3 ,IN-.- 9 Z. . 8 1� ,.,:. ' . .3 *. ....._1I .'tA ­ . -_...:..,LL . _ _ "..', � �1 .0�. j .",I j"j 'j;.,, -, CV:1 I.L 113I0&114f 4;�� . 1, % '11,�, ,. ! , -, .. . - , .- -, ,;,-� - . a�[,) , P'..-.....* . . . :�­*c: — _ I , - * . ..­',,,,�!., - . . � , ':, ...1.4"'.0 - . .. _'... .,. .._;*I-..- '­ 1� .,-'*'.;*., � *. � . . , t.�t�.I� �� � _ . , I.. ... ��,__... .,..:, - . *:, t­ ;�.-i.�..&,.,;O�.__ 1. . . . "..- -..,_�'­ _ ;'.�; .. .�;_.,*:-.*-, -.­�. .�.11 ­..;.. .� .: " ��k-,--t � . t.:.-1. !� %� . ... " .. ..* I '. �, .0 -) '4'j'd'�, Q . : � . '.: ­., � ­.­ "' .'*.!., . , "I i.11 . , '. ', ... !,.-1I'.,�',;_ .*.� % . � . .. �� � , ...�,�,-, 1z -A _D _-L k ;I- . . . . L 8 -,* 911. '-3 * I . .* I : . : ­ .. .. .. I , . ,.n.!!;.*- . * ' . . ... :.., , . . . .- . .. .". I .." ... ... .- I . . ... . . 4�� ...j D .1 . ,.,: "., ,* " * ­ , ,; , , � � . . , .1 I .1 . k .:;tr:!�:;,k,` .. . U' L Z. "D t 'O - " , . . , `* ..,.L . - . . . .*I , I .. , ". 1, , .1 .f. ­. . .1 . , . I , - . . . I ., - . i . * 1, .,­,�,.,4 . . . , I . I 74 1'. . .. . - ­ - . "" . �� - . ,I. .:_� . � ., , - _.....,. ­ .. . . L # 183Ainal , , .. . '. .. .. . f.'....'..�".'. 'I L .* I ; 'L .: I . . . " , . "..'. .. ,.,.,. - ' .., .. . ,�'. , - .. .. , . �j ,.i. . . . . " ., . .. '... . 'L . .1 . . I '.. . . � , . .. I. . . . . . I t . ., ... . .. . . . ...; ,-�.,,*:., 4.C;:-.w.." ,: P �.1% ,10.. I, ­ I 1 H ,, t­, .,—,. YI,V:iI .�'. ."- 7 '1 . I ., 15,,�� '"i .' !�,-f: , ri�r . � A ..N ' ,;."zo— -. �.� , : ....... ..�"*Y'.''�L' 1;­1_'; -,:.,. 4.1,4,­ ,,,W;., � "I I—— , * - "� M'A-1-.P..:t ...I. - � .. . '. ,_ , "' , ., ­­, ` It .- �4., . . I . . . ,::;::'.�p,. - �:��'-,--..;.^�.,,,,,',..,',;,*;.�.",,, � ­_-, . � , I.. ",%,-�t '...;1".. . - -e . . '. , .�!��!%.)I��%'.,k** :- * * , " . L . ?,_1)k..:,. I ��), - ,. . . N 1�: " �*, � * - . ... ., �-. ,,�,: - .:�- ". � .,'I,...',. . ­ .. . I ­1 V. I .. ,-,x�,',i , � m i'i't't, - '%, f­-.-7A,* 1; * , '' ­�- �­ � - � -, - .. .,. ,;I,-2' -�-;�,?,­'�t' - '. :' - �'; .,. . I : �-, `I, , , I L . � �,,. )­,`i.�, ,j� , , . . ., . , - . "; . '* ". . , ., I . . ­1 I i. I - . . I . . � _16A.I.--*t...:,.­�­*­ Y$.1.*4L4,.ep- . , , �i�`,�,,O�t. �, , . 9 .4'j .),1111. - � ''. - -L , _�j�!V, ..* , * , , . .. . J. � , � %(, .� ,,.� - , .`A;1,:, ,:-,ila ,J)"*°,*,;4". " - .,:" _,,, "":�. � .. - -,;.-,; , . t , -1: �- j '. *, 4i .,* � , .': A, -,.-. , ; ".., -I, ',.4'.*,4i�* � . 1­ - *: � , . , ,. - ­�::: ."".., ­ , ;. A I � I - - .. !,,t,-. .. ," .,;,. - . " - . , , , " I i�'1'11,1.74;;il"; ..;, , . , - �* , A , g . '. " �Z. 4_ ,� . . :; .. .-. f �': . , I" :11 .:, � ­.- " : , I ,;I.e..' ­?"..W��;...,_,; : .1 1 . . ­11 1 '. . _ t,N � . . .. - . . I 4,:, 4 - I "I � I, �. ,'I -�_�di'O­;k;-­, " , -;I ­ "7-*Ill�'ilR I l ., 'M I, %i; IA�,4!j'"Z, ,gi l, AI t., ,1 ,,Y,• ' q .. - - 4,:i� -, , r 3 7�V. . ....... "I'll, ... "?1 ,�-:"�,-1., . - 3,. - . t% . I . . " n .,- . , , F0 :;,,I.V11 . I, . ,I -V"1�1'..,j7�4'..,*-�-� . - _, � % . ',�.....-, , 7 ,V`�_ ,, ,. ,- el .4, 7;­ M . I., . . ". . . I . ­ . '� ­ -_ " ,a %Zz, .Z:,. '.. , .­..,..,.,... ." -, , , , * *, --- : -� , , .. - , 'L ., - I ,.. -, - .". . . �, ... * - ., .. . . . I ,.- ,.-- ,-,*_., '. '. ,.--- - - . . " . . . . - ..� , . ,:-- .. ­1 , - :� -�A�t,., *.' ,,..b ,.� � . . . . . Y.! . . . . . ­ * , . . , . . , - - ,, Sh, " . I I , - , . \ , , --.7 , ., . . ; , 7 fir, c - . , ..* A.. -_�,, .., .., , .1I I . ... .11 .- -,,'�'--;.!. .%,."".,.r . ----......--..,.,, . .. . ... �. _�.­�T-:. 1I -* ­, , -- \--,,-1,,- :, - - t���,, -. r-4 --�: ­ . I ,*, I . ..�,, . .. , j , :*.:-,.' . I . . . , � .11 . , .,*,,-.-_,_) �� - - - ,.' -,. ;... .-J, . , . , . , . , 'm.--II.*c ; ... - .I \. I , ",� ;r! i _\"rr",, i I I .U.g �tNu_#j � * , " -*.':. , . - - - L . � � I I . � I . � 4. . -;Z_a.�!.".. -.­.­-_._,_,.1�:-=- * 'i-I .. '. . . . ') _�, _. = ­ - ­ ­ _:. .. - **. L%:�-A-,_-_ .. _:-, ': ­ - . - .- - ---- -�, ­ .. - .:� _ .P...%`? ",!..!L. x�7,-.t:f _ ,z. . ..,.-.. "-1- . ::.. Nw­.O . 1� ."� pIj l ,F-j 1,/p -)-7-V, � e'. I..v k,k., ?Ni -.I.) 1 .1 ."- .�,:',­*.,w ..t,. , 1—,,3.iz,s,Zl/[,',=, /_'.� �a " . � -- , . ::. . . ,V-1 . . 1.> - ti:� --�,.� ..:-. ;� :."!;4 'g; . � . . .. . . . . , ..��;,. � ` - �":_, , "I , .. ". V*­­ ,.�., � * _�_ * , * , * . . * , * " / - .. �..),.,. "., . 9 I' ... . " . , . . I ... . ,v -t .. ': *.., '.. �.,L%7� * -.'* \ , - . * ... *T �� .I. * * _.: -. kA- "-. '. * , 1, , � '_ .. .. �� ,,- I , , . - f ,.1.;.�, �'. ..l .;" ....4�,� �- g-', --o-F .,''..--,*" *.:-I :;;,..,:..",.ij, p' ,%�,....(..'-...�.� `.�.-3j,, � �," .,0 t; ,I -" ..... I,.- . .-"� . . ... tLj M. AImy(.., &p.RY t.�'n ... ',�14'.ur,(,,W,A; "� -.(��� .", " - -.I ' . - . � ,o- 0... ,'.,EP� .. , .,A.Ti-I�1• ,I,; T,feI*"A, *I �:,."*�,f ,,A.A.S" �,)A� K., -i � ",F 4­ . I (1�; K..�.. 1 I 'm,4 ,I,Ai�11.I,­Il;j,,,-1V- VI,, ,-A !V1" .;%'Ar v, I!V,*I-z-y`-'i,.1i)Vig%I% 1..'I"I`Y,M %r.1­11t4'I 14"!.�*�, T , 1 ;T:,-^ )1;fi'? �.. , ,­' � " 0 A OF $,45/1✓ _ ?js 5667 -`_F. 5- P-4-rIorsAL MEV-r�Oc 7G �� TIA jL c = TC �y 1 s`r� r✓ !�J SEE ��0'S/N M �gf� FDe. R. 0 2.51 07, /0 2 (572.0 >-.1) 4, 0 3✓ d0 -D,p, 5ND#OM /5H GOf/✓sY 2, 75 h7-r /�-Z -10 i ,E�/STJ�/a QS CA r FGITONI-,*-r- QS r UPPER CATCH BASIN (V6NT) r DETENTION WORKSHEET::. DETENTION PIPQ N LENGTH CONTROL CATCH �' DA3 ti N 7 r I� M1N , 2' MAX COvu, �// OUTLET CONTROL SLOPE+ � T� �.4" 'TD OUTLET (RI P RAP OR RUNOFF SPREADER) ._ SYSTEM CROSS SECTION FROM OUTLET CONTROL jOE:EY, 4"-&" SPAuS (OxrowL) DEEP, 3y'— CRUSHED ROCK RIPRAP OUTLET WASHED r.R.A.YEL] [OUTFLOWAENCM, MIN 10' LONG, TOP 4 PERF PIPE 'M HE L.EV6L FROM 0LrrLEt" CONTROL " PERF PIPE WITH CAPS RUN F SPREADER OUTLET STANDARD DRAINAGE PLAN DETENTION SYSTEM for Jim Sol i e 16431 74th Place West location Frimapdr. 1.4.4. Q8e20 plan by phone 20 TU-4244 date %rch 7, 1991 DESIGN DATA System Imperm Pipe Pipe Orifice Number Area Diam Length Diameter NOTES 1. Call Engineering Division (771-32021 for prebackfill and final inspections. 2. Responsibility for operation and maintenance of drainage systems on private property is the responsibility of the property owner(s). Material accumulated in the storage pipe must be flushed out and removed from catch basins to allow proper operation. The outlet control orifice must be kept open at all times. FOOTING DRAINS SHALL NOT BE Page 9 of 9 CONNECTED TO THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM (---WEET F1Lxt)) t Sw,& --cW k YEnp 1Y F—Scs= c4iz�..► D S4-�UUsz'r GPL,.SS , �STU t2 � ,=--�c��►..`5 Fd1J�LYL) OP— M1►JIMU1A Tl l t n« GULT 1vCiT0►J r-0Q�ST (C�WOI�►.�D L n-T7EZ) ME1�.DCk1, —7 5p 'r •2 .� .s 1 2 3 s ►O � SD 30 20 C -�EE i PEZ This figure may be used to help estimate overland flow times for surface flow. TRAVEL TIME FOR OVERLAND FLOW 16 • RUNOFF FACTORS FOR STORM SEWERS (Values of "C" in 0 = CIA) UNDEVELOPED LAND FLAT 0-5% Wood & Forest ................................. 0.10 :;����i-SE! 'frees & Ground Cover. ................... 0.15 hi_ciht Grass to Bare Ground .................... 0.20 DEVELOPED AREA Pavement & R.00fs .............................. 0.90 Gravel Roads & Parking Lots ................... 0.75 CityBusiness ................................. 0.85 Apartment Dwelling Areas ...................... 0.80 Industrial Areas (Heavy) ...................... 0.70 Industrial Areas (Light) ...................... 0.60 Earth Shoulder ................................ 0.50 Playground.................................... 0.25 Lawns, Meadows & Pastures ..................... 0.20 Parks & Cemeteries ............................ 0.15 ROLLING 5% 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.90 0.80 0.90 0.85 0.80 0.70 0.50 0.30 0.25 0:20 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (Dwelling Unit/Gross Acre) 1.0 - 1.5 DU/GA................................. 0.30 1.5 - 3.0 DU/GA................................. 0.35 3.0 - 3.5 DU/GA................................. 0.40 3.5 - 4.0 DU/GA................................. 0.45 4.0 - 6.0 DU/GA.................................. 0.50 6.0 - 9.0 DU/GA................................. 0.60 9.0 - 15.0 DU/GA................................. 0.70 18 17 G i as �7 0 � I cou OJT \-i - ---- --- --,- ----r-- - � i � �'1�ItJ�A,L_l� I tiTE►,.1=�tT� - C�U�'AT�UIJ - ��t=�,�u�tJG1r I - I I OUr��T�O►J (►.��►JUTES� ICU -Zo -ecC_� 50 Coo r70 w CX.3 ICU APPENDIX DOWNSTREAM CALCS BY OTHERS Reid, Middleton & Assoclotes, Inc. Engineers 9 Surveyors - Plonners 121 5th Avenue North. Suite 200 Edmonds, Woshington 98020 — (206) 775-3434 JOB NO-! . 4.7 .... SHEET NO. ............ OF ................ CLIENT ........ .. ............................................................... PROJECT...... .J11.........5, ............................. .............................................................................. f I- Ille ......... DESIGNBY ... I ..... .............................. DATE ... CHECKED BY ..........1.1................... DATE .... 2770AJAI, Mic, 7-jqr2n a MAP �l tREftar HYDROLOGY REPORT AND CALCULATIONS JIM SOLIE PROPOSED GARAGE Edmonds, Washington Group Four Job No. 89-4035 PREPARED FOR: JIM SOLIE 16431 74th Place West Edmonds, WA 98020 PREPARED BY: GROUP FOUR, INC. 16030 Juanita -Woodinville Way N.E. Bothell, WA 98011 � O�D E ' •,.MN '•OF W O M January 8, 1991 Revised March 11, 1991 " A v JUSOLIE Page 1 of 2 GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION 89-4035 1/4/91 Rev. 3/11 /91 The subject property, consisting of 0.55 Acres is located at the North end of 74th Place West, East of 76th Avenue West and South of 164th Street S.W. The site slopes steeply to the West having an average grade of 30 percent. There is an existing driveway and house on the site. The remainder of the property is vegetated with trees and underbrush. A new garage is to be built on the West side of the existing house. EXISTING DRAINAGE Runoff currently travels in several directions over the site. Runoff from ground due East of the existing house is conveyed to the West in an existing storm drain system installed under City of Edmonds LID 210 consisting of several catch basins and 12 inch CMP. At a point approximately 40 feet East of the existing house the aforementioned storm drain turns to a northwesterly direction and goes downhill to a catch basin in 75th Place West. For the purpose of this report, refer to this catch basin as catch basin "A". Area drains in the backyard of the existing house collect runoff from the backyard and convey it under the house to a catch basin on the northwest side of the house. From this catch basin, 12 inch CMP conveys the runoff approximately 250 feet to catch basin "A" in 75th Place West. 18 inch pipe conveys runoff in a northerly direction in 75th Place West approximately 1000 feet until terminating in the Puget Sound at Laebugton Wharf. The area where the new garage is to be built drains to the West away from the existing house and into an existing catch basin at the North end of 74th Place West. For the purpose of this report, refer to this catch basin as catch basin "B". The total area contributing to catch basin "B" is delineated on the basin map accompanying this report and includes areas South and southeast of the subject property. A 6" pipe conveys the water collected in catch basin "B" in a. westerly direction for 39 feet at an approximate slope of 22 percent. The City of Edmonds confirmed that this 6" pipe continues in a westerly direction down a steep hill to the storm drain system in 75th Place West, upstream of catch basin "A". 18" pipe conveys runoff in this storm drain system to catch basin "A". JIM SOLIE 89-4035 Page 2 of 2 1 /4/91 Rev. 3/11 /91 PROPOSED DRAINAGE Catch basin "B" will continue to intercept runoff from the exact same basin as it did prior to the new garage being built. However, the new garage and driveway will add more impervious surfaces to the drainage basin. There will be 3,656 square feet of new impervious surface with the new development, including area within the right-of-way of 74th Place West. Drain lines from the new garage and from behind the retaining wall will convey runoff directly into a detention pipe sized according to City of Edmonds standards and then into catch basin "B". The perforated pipe behind the retaining wall will outfall directly into catch basin "B" and avoid detention. A detention pipe with 100 cubic feet of volume and an orifice of 3/4" was chosen. Some new impervious area downstream from the detention inlet does not enter the inlet, however, additional existing impervious surface upstream of the detention inlet will contribute to provide a minimum of 3656 S.F. of impervious surface discharging to detention. With detention the new development will have minimal impact on the downstream system and will reduce the peak flow departing the site. PUGET Sl %`'1 , �✓ AP- E:A OF aA51r✓ _ ?js�b� —`_F. _ �.g1S5 F� T`k k c = 77, T� �4 (} Z� �o j V T�5 17, (z .7)(LO) GE, = (572-0 x.7) 7- p z� 0 X . Z �� - 0, Zj 5 3,51— i li 0 ".P, G o y 1fv T y" G2y = 2 Z /oo�� 2,75„ ,E�15T/�✓L7 QS F'tAThaFS LS DETENTION WORKSHEET:'.".. UPPER C ATC.H SIN DETENTION PIPc LENGTH C047POL LATCH �VENT�` 5A5114 7 MIN , 2' MAX COVER % 5LOPE--b- SYSTEM CROSS SECTION L FROM ' O LrrL El" CON-rROL OL rrLGT CONTROL TO OUTL.BT (Rl P RAP OR RUNOFF SPREADER ._ OE=?, 4 -6" SPALLS (oacoun I-) DEEP, %'- C.RusuED ROCK RIPRAP OUTLET WASHED &W-KYEL OUTFLOW ENCH, MIN IOC LONG, TOP Q " PERF PIPE TO HE LEVEL � IL FROM 0Lrr..ET CON-rROL 0061" PE.RF PIPE WITH CAPS F SPREADER OUTLET FOOTING DRAINS SHALL NOT BE Page 9 of 9 CONNECTED TO THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM STANDARD DRAINAGE PLAN DETENTION SYSTEM for Jim Sol i e 16431 74th Place West location Edmonds WA 98o29 plan by phone 206=2-4244 date March 7, 1991 DESIGN DATA System Imperm Pipe Pipe Orifice Number Area Diam Length Diameter NOTES 1. Call Engineering Division (771-3202) for prebackfill and final inspections. 2. Responsibility for operation and maintenance of drainage systems on private property is the responsibility of the property owner(s). Material accumulated in the storage pipe must be flushed out and removed from catch basins to allow proper operation. The outlet control orifice must be kept open at all times. 47, CITY OF EDMONDS .i �nvED C QE�c. (S4EET" 1•.��1_Y �D'- Ca�l� r.1 O Off, t.e�1tJ1MU" . 77 t^pt�ST (c�cacx�►�D Lt1�'Ee)77 `T ; P—az sZ--cco) This figure may be used to help estimate overland flow times for surface flow. TRAVEL TIME FOR OVERLAND FLOW 16 0 2 RUNOFF FACTORS FOR STORM SEWERS (Values of "C" in 0 = CIA) FLAT ROLLING 0-5% 5% UNDEVELOPED LAND Wood & Forest ................................. 0.10 0.15 ',parsc! Trees & Ground Cover. ................... 0.15 0.20 ],ic;ht Grass to Bare Ground... *................. 0.20 0.25 DEVELOPED AREA Pavement & Roofs .............................. 0.90 0.90 Gravel Roads & Parking Lots ................... 0.75 0.80 City Business ................................. 0.85 0.90 Apartment Dwelling Areas ...................... 0.80 0.85 Industrial Areas (Heavy) ...................... 0.70 0.80 Industrial Areas (Light) ...................... 0.60 0.70 Earth Shoulder ................................ 0.50 0.50 Playground......... ......................... 0.25 0.30 Lawns; Meadows & Pastures ..................... 0.20 0.25 Parks & Cemeteries ............................ 0.15 0:20 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (Dwelling Unit/Gross Acre) 1.0 - 1.5 DU/GA................................. 0.30 1.5 - 3.0 DU/GA................................. 0.35 3.0 - 3.5 DU/GA................................. 0.40 3.5 - 4.0 DU/GA.............................:... 0.45 4.0 - 6.0 DU/GA.................................. 0.50 6.0 - 9.0 DU/GA................................. 0.60 9.0 - 15.0 DU/GA................................. 0.70 18 17 G Ell 02 I ! CCU 1sT �� --t f7.2 EEC ' ---: -- ---- - - - I I C��CL,T'10►J (►.n1►JUTES� I � � ( 1 I � ! i I c> -1.0 .? 40 50 rKi w CX-I) IC-N. APPENDIX DOWNSTREAM CALCS BY OTHERS Lit Reid, Middleton G Associates, Inc. Engineers • Surveyors • Plonners 121 Sth Avenue North. Suite 200 Edmonds. Woshington 98020 1"f1A\ 77S '\A'1A 7 J. Ll L .1 JOB NO. .....�.... SHEET NO............. OF ............... CLIENT .......... / PROJECT Oi>'ti ��,...... ............................. ..........rr..//................................................................. DESIGN BY ........ V." �..................... DATE ...12/Q`9 .......... CHECKED BY .......... I.1....................... DATE ....4 � 11!g- 't'.. `�0. ." y­... . :.­ *'­�t.­P15 MI" N*;l 0fA;�M .n"-,v-; 4,.116P,.. ,2�":1 .zPL- 11•.t�,151,n)t�;,l .1) . _k,.6,.."�, � . . M ;�', " , '.. ��- - i MN �A� .*..,I / I , . . , — 42 nl� , !�� .-.;-. - ! 1-� V_� , t:,Z�, ARA , 'N - �!,Y.t,mewfflt4:1�r , . v " . -,:w .;. , _­ .1 ,yl .1 i �i. F.."*;;e,.: - , " � . , . . .. .. .11 ;I . . . . . . '.. '.. I ,:. - . I K � .14 - . . - ,,_ . .1., !�tl , ,,..If. I, - , I , - --. , K'N'.Q. tll� ...' ': I �i ? , 'irk, - 41. �, . a , ,i-�l i� , A - V. . I I - , mY*'171�,"i. . I "� 4,: W. .1 1, 14 , ''­ . , 11 .. �_ - �v . , �.i.� ., ., .. Nl*v""v', � " I.. I � . . I Ll:, ) A - . . -> ;- ..; r - 5 1-171,­.�( .; -, l . , . . j L. -i� ,,,'- . . ..Z, � , . . %. � I . " ,Z,�!J�Kril- .". �- -1 ,,,.!�' �A�l M V.1 I � 9�41i;ll " . . ,�,-� 4t; -� 1�* �l * - ��- - .: �, , �L . , . ' . , . , . tl�*(i Am : , I , \, ., . I � :z "i � � , , - , ".-I e % � , I I 11 - r ` 4 t .17- 4� : �-*, %-*/ - . Wm��; . . 6 .. .., , 1, _ - I . . _� ; . ,V�-.fstIj!, k, s*_ ','I* I ��. - "e. . I,Tj)j7A7 l'-i'Alt ,_N�k-, :. � -' , ....". 11� I . k, , '.'. i, '% , ; ,'j�`.f' � i_ ... "', . - - . I - !� "......:.,�­ P.:�.' . .� .. j - �,! " !- -� . I , 1. r- '. . ." . ). "�t­ . �A'-e:V " - : - , 4 .,: - :., - . .1 1, . I ,.. I .�.. _ . . , ..., �. �. ..."I ;. . . . .. . 'MIJ " 1..� ,*�.%.'ta .. I 1. TV,�.-:' ..: ", :..� "", ,,,.,,,, '. ..- , . . . . . , * I j: .�.. "!," --' .". : *,,- - .. i - .1 � ,., . ; .., ...... - . 4-�., - . ,* . - 4.;' - ­...'� :..� - k � , ,e.. i; .1 . I . . , . ��- ;., , - "... ... . . 6., . 1. ; .I , 'I *1' - � it". �l , ... .,��:,. 1,1: 4 *. �' .-�. ) ­... I �_,a '� - - 4A . - .. -.� - - lt7��,_­ .. , _ " - ��l... :I � `�,,�,�`Z_ -'.',,, "i ;,Yf\ ,, .,F . -I4' �­ N , I.. . ,I ...- . :;, * �j � . ­. �ir2 . . ­ , - _q* .., ...; ,: , . . I -;. ... . ....* I .. .-., I,i 1;J1,;..Ir I�,7z;�;I _0 . ..l. .. I ­ - . .. .I.-', : I - , - .,L .. " . i - �-, .. � .*:-:" . . , . _V,� 4 1. . Zv-, ,2�. * . I I . - � .. ,vzio/ - � . .�, $, . _ . I , .... . ... I , . � ds, Vz . :3 . .1 .. � .:, . �...... . ,I....... - I . . ,. .j.- .:.* . ... .. 1. . ...l.;c I : .. . ....: .... . � ­­?­ ... l: l.l,'_._',-'.,-­o f" * ... .�,, ., ... -, ! . . " ..,.-. .4'*.:'..".. , -Or.?," . . .1 .: . I ... ,�-,,�::l'l'7,!',,- , , . . . . . . . ., . - ,:, .. i 'A. ": - 1. *.. "fN,.i.k, ; so ..:-..l*j; ..(�,­�.`'', *. .1. . ,.... ., .'. - j"..., " " . - "� i , "....".;_�11,�iI, , �.,C�. - .* - .. .. I .1 I " ; ti - ­'W'- I N2, � , 1 ... .�ij_;�-,� " I I .; K", t�.� - - :...�...�.l : , . :> I - - ! I - , "N - - I . .1 .. I �!: ,:"W ��, � .", - - � � . : _... (3 0 I, -40 �,;'.,_' .,*' - - , — � ). K2_� L, `� =. I*Wll�,, � '. , . . � .. �:­.. : .. .. %.�. �l ;.� . _1 - l;ft?•- .,.4:A All —I . G MA-11 I �L I. I j ,'gx,�*,,��..., .- -- , . ."t.-,il'k;-..- .,.*: i ­0of ,,.�3,,4� � �,�, -,:i� " i ,......,Y,M!":., - . ._�,!,.,�. . . . . " . � ., . . , Ti;O* . . . . U. #. 4 , � .�,-.j,, &, e-. "! - .. " .. _11"t, . . , ... ,� � I, , ,:-j �-;4-�4�', �? ., !­: ­ . ..... , A:' , . . . j �, " v.1 , , ,0 ".. .- . .j."':, .. i � .. ." 4. t, 1�1 I gj� -j! ­-, I ..... ,- - , . 11'.11 ..,k.. I - .. 11 .* . I � . ", - .( — .. ....,.� .34 . .. , ., P) ..T I � - I I - . , * ., � *-.,.5� , 'r.� I ., � , , ,. . , - '. - . ) ), I - - �-.'�-.�iw­ .;... , . : . , . . . I... . . . . , . 1, I., .*,�. . . � ,., . I .1 ;�:, , I .. . , . , ., - " - " I - . :� .,.:!�: � j�, , . , . 1. S � . .4 * I "�- - ,* - - . '. 1 ..,'....� - ­� J, 1 . . . '.. --­�kl. 6*','­.. "I. I * , . . I ..�t �. . I .1 * . - . . . . '. . I I . - . .. : � t" .. ': ..i- ',..� . ., . ....� I ­" 1, V;`,AS"I . ,*,*.,., r__ ;.1. ,,! ?' - - , - , - - .1, : . . . .lil . .: " . ,-,., * . I r ,.: . - _1­ .. I " .'. -k , . ,� , .1 �­ I . . .-A. - ?.,� 14: , ., , I , I , ,- - -- --.- '. . � ,�. -,-- .. I . . I . .. -1 . .. -­ .. .. 'il Z, , , ; , '. �� � , . : , * . i, ** : , , " P . , . � . - " - " , � � , - -- � � I I I , C., .��,-,;-T-;", 0 .. Y , . -I? I-. � �",N, , . I �l :. \" � .. N) : ,j . - I i . . I., . , . . �, . . I . I . , , . . . .. I . I � . I ..; . . , . ., . . ! . , - . I . I , , - . . 5 :) '. .. i 1 . . . ., , ...: . I : I . ,4 . . . � * * i - .. , 1 � .." - .. :, , 5 . . . . ,:',' " 1, - - - . . — 1, \ *" '/,..'. 0,. I ­.�.1I • s. ". � , ',�, �../��..-'. ,. ­. I . / _ 'I �..* .-.,.. 1j.:, x,;.�,, 1� A �t..4­..L,:.�J, ....-.'.,"..�' - �--,,- ;- .��-,l",:*s-, ._.�U ;�lV,, I 1.. ,,\`-_/ �v?,Ir"I \lt4 �,NI" .-*-. f I,il�J."., - -0-/I' saul0-1 -�� .9,' �',,.�'.-,. ,N 1 ..- 1 , 5,:,., 5.� * — t.s­ .�­ ­4.,�;.. I'$ ­ I ­­ ..,.,...''.,*")i..",..�;..�'..��'. *� . ,;'....4 _Oq�. :*... ...." .�:�. , .,:!!., t;,_ . M,.;-- ,It . .144..., ... , , ".. ,_...,� �4. �.*%* -*- .: I I . .':.. /_ r 1211NA _l` __� .�".. .� .-k-;� - -.... — - .1 I . 'IT, lX* I � .)-��.--. " -.� .. - - *. " _­----z ....'..., , I. - 1­1 , , .."....: , ­ _. . ../.. � --ill , . , , - . I -1, '.. , . . '. - " YJ� . ".. . . �'. , . . , . . . .. i;.-`-`.,, " , ___ ­� _ 77.1�;*I*l 11., " __....- I; e, _­ ­1 - _lz�l____-___.., . .,.,- 3, � . . . � - � � I .i. . �(. . i. . , �_ _�.11 . .:.;7:1- � 7 ; vi ".., - — .­ . .11, . , - *, - �.' 7 v T , ­- 1. ; 7'e, � . i , ki_" - , , ". ­ , -!,,.�' a .-I - - - - " � �-.. -�- - . ,, - - _ .. --..- _`>-��,- , ".. I " --� ." - � ­ . ?,&�' - -..,.-z.-,,; :N i .11 � e, . ,:,4:A*. - � � "'. � -77-7':�- ----'-, " ­lv t , - 5-0, ., - - - .' " :.,. � " , _- , 111 .1 '. -,�:<�, -1. - . ., * ­: __ " . 1 .1 " , �; 1* . L ' - . - :64", J, ." ­ .e � ,.. , . e"i? ..... , -__ '. - * .�,l -". � ��,7�� , �/ ". ., . ,,!.'­':�'..." I I . , - - - , -�, - . , . ". 9�.,a�,,- " -.., , I . , , • - t.�_, " . , \.� .� . I . - , .. -�,,�< � ,�-,. . ��." � . , - I , , �� . �. . ..R ,_l . -) . - . . . ., I : .. I t - ". , .. ,� ..�� . 1. ,t�4,\ '.�'. .. , . - . 1. 1 ­7J, � ,­�_-pj� , . -k-, - - .**�,,,6� � I , I . . I .., I—— , e .­., -_ "."'. I .. , - , .,,.�: * '. . Ae Ql, :.l. . '. � ; .�., , ..' - � ", .. .. ,� -:�� -.-- -- - . '� I .-)I , v, , j:�, I * -�­:%�,- , ":. "I 'r '' f -i-*h.' ..": .�. .. .1 �e i 1* - ,-,&? .!':,' , * i, , * . ? ., ,# . I . .�-J *,�, . I . - . " . I . ; .:� - . . . . ., � , . -a � . / * . . , ." .�q . - �7, P- . ."t .. . .`­ . . . '. .� . I �s , , " ., I . * - . ._.� I - - . -9 k :.2�� IX c " � .i. .:.., I . , -.-,;.. , . 1, ' p t,� n ­ . i'�! t -, I . 4..". -t.-,..­ .. v, !�:, , - . ,.as-,L - . . .,. . IV, '. - . . : : �. �. .; r . . .. . I. .. .. . ,. , ... / - �� - .;",v, . .�4_ - . � , , * i'�,,��z f "i , .f..,: ', � 1_f:�: � :�,_ , I ZN �-.,:.oW',.- . ., . . � 5,�.. t -, ,.. ,, - - . '. _ . . 0 I 'P - -­V - 11 l!:_: �o 71 .. I . I- 1, - _'"l .-. :3 �r .C!�UV'.111, 7i - , *-' .�. . ;T . . . ,� L ..'f ,4 . I . , . � , ' ,. " : — - ----I--.:_,�.'�!�.,�! �7;' - I - I . . . . . . f '.•. .. ". I , �;717 , r'-Z, All I ... . � . 1­1 "I ,.I ..�: ... . ;- - ... ,kq , ..e, . , .4. il .�, , . , �t 1, 11 RA -1�11 ,1�. .,�. , . 4 - J , ." . � .. 1. M—I .� I I ll�.I.tjiv-lilvl.�!. . , , , .. � .. . — I — . ;,,�OJVW,� - '� ­ - I . ` * . .", 7$ ." 1;o ., . .; 4, 0 1��1-5.191-.l . , ­ . ...Ixlrl. I - . .. . .. ,;b 1, `7 ­ , 7 - *. . , .L,:� . I %? ''e.. .. ** '.`I' .I.....jN ,.,.. , 5 1 .... . - .�-.-�"3'- r.,.��w -Pr,�- -"�. . .i it�,�,,,I��-. 7!77,:,.f, . - __ . , - -'". "'. -, ­t . �W, �,. -., , , .....� "rg-�,)I _I I%... ".'­/i )iA� i 2. * . �. t�,, /I"',-"" ... �. ­ - . r I . , .- . ': I - � . ­� 7, L 4.,,­-_,_f-_-- * * " -, -� ,,- , . 4; .. I .1 , . - . . I N , . ) , L . , ,' .� . ": I., '. q�* .1 , -,-=,, 1�- ,'-'t�,­: 4 - � - F r . , ! <�, - " . : .. , 1._ - .:. __ - _ - . _:�.l _ -, '. . , I , , t4A\ � .. z * , . _--___� - . - .. :".--. - ­ ... , ,­ , '. - - '-- I / �, -��.: - ��- -- � - - ,� .r� .:. ". :1`1;..!�ll - �\-,�.,!-i� !t.­:�.,� ? � �� , . . . . .* . , Ii . , � , \ .,kit' .. . . , ­ .'T�:�:�- '�"....'..'�.,%$L 9.. � , ; �� " -`t�­-- - * :,* ': - .: , � . ."L' , ) ') 4,p. , il z I . . ' *' '. 1pv c I - A,0�-.-Ki'(41? - .., , _ _. . � t ".. - . , . ., I i )04- . � i-A - : lll­�'. A 11 " . . ! -,,�, 0 I,— '. . _...". P lt-.t*,w ..4 - , .. � ";.. - �7-,?.krg �. �r .- . ., , � 0 � . ". . , - %*' . :�\_.�.C� : , ljl�-­ ­�.­ ey 1. "i "! , ,?,. . , �.�:�.*-.-,-*, :. ." .. - ­­ , 1w. -M. * ;-'.. L.. *:.,-.�-,, - T-lma,Li, -lif- 1. . .., - 4 1 , Io f . I -, , ' Lk� I , . - lo .#' , '. Jfi .. ;���.. " --:, 4. - --.-' �* '. �­ -`­� R IV 00. , & I. , . . ... ;.�.. , . - ;.�., . , . '. � -1. - - - - " * wo L * , - - /_ . "YS . ' I . " 7 110"O"Im tl Q N , , - " .. .1 _* ... ... , , , " " , - , � ` ; *1 " * "" , * , , , I - _... . - - .1 , , , . 1 2- .. t' ",.ro-l-, I A. I " — _ . � - * . . . "', i_"`-,��--_, ..". - " 0111, ` I I - ".." I'll, ` ".- - - , - "I - 11 ` I ., .0100000- .1 �11 - I - ...... - - - . ...� .. - . - - " , " -�l f. - .. . . .* -• � . -"�l...i.,,..-!..,�......,,i3..��",..-�.-I...."�...,...�....�,..-. .._.......'._�'�- "1110 -, . - - . - _� I-, _­*,,�:v_ - ... � , - ---------- I - - I ;- .-.I I �,`;---i_;,,�...... . *"-1'.*,J,,! -:: � ­ . ---­ -4'. -* �-. v I ,. -� . • , "i.n��10Im lhA',,�Ilk:A .,ii.4. ) z ,I. I" -.- • I tV�a F -.,a- dy',*,, n,jr­�,- :II �: �-.10-�.:.­..w�.�.I_ -��,� ;i-��;."e�.,iq ��!�? -�� .. ­y:+/ ..o , W/ � ;Ki14" .!— � . - . . , , , , . . !" . . -,.,� . , . , - *.\ .. . , .. I ,-!, . - . $ I � . ... Z/ . - r � . �,� - 1:' **, , , " , .1 ., � el. 11 ',�g . . I . . : L . : , - '.. - . *..,.,-V. , . . , . \:. � ,�* . I - . . I I .%- '.."ll. ., � \- � * �.�,:*t,.', .a4, ,,� � , ". ..., * � , .'.*t. .. - I ? . . . 1.0 ., � 4s t.t '! It . �-";),,�i �:z . -1 . " , . .; ,%--:."�.­ " , , "­�'::' ,, * . % .. I � . .. , �. 1� . .. %.".' _j?'.�� " ....� � d. I ., . ., 1. "I �� , * , , �. .*." I .� I '�� 'i. � , - ., ­- - �.�, . - ..", -.... !,­. . , - �, - ,. I 2 �•�.""*.�,A 1, .. �'-e li , t*-` , �,.4j:!,*;.,*.,.-..,:.-""., .� � , * .,; .1,9< >� I , * , , ,. .;,. 1�1 .1 , - , : : �l—i�.,-'—."":.�.'�,�,!�"/3s*�, .1 ,�017 I I,'- I "-,.`r,K,.-�.-** •. - ,A : � _Ett X , !-'."* .".. "..'. , I , 11 ..' 1�.`.-kR;- . , �q-. - ,J1. I i ,`�,*,,Iv -.,,I,, ,.-�,.--,. - �* . , ;6 rQj .. , . - . . . .2. ­X-s- � I 1. A, z �. * . l,'..--,,.,!..".�.,(,t",:.*A..� �'4vv;�,'.�.' �' " , ly'•. N .." W L'.�A;l -� - .. -7:f:!j - . , . t- ., - ­�' ia - * , . , . I , 1. ;_� �i,.,��'.­ ,?Y' I.. , _; .,�.L,_ _.. '...1-1 ...__ m - 11, �I)-h. I-. . '* .*) - ..� _',�-�; 41, . ., , *j �..p , "'.* ,-, � , , - 'j, _,!";�q I . .. ... p V.�: ., .- .. - . . , . . , .1 . 1. I . _.,�t... F� .:,6, 'P_� . , .. J. , i . . . .. .� .:, , r��( . , ­�4;p�� ,,.W�!.`T A " , — . "'Un - -6.1, ,�, --..-.-I- - gLt , _�'. � . _�`;"R,t , - . . . . A '. I ...'� � - - /,�`y'i3rL " �: - .1;, ;-r- - 4 -, - VS'.j ," I".i %, .,4 �' - - . �''**,P ,�7 � ,*'! I 1'ti�; -- M, .;,­`� V,lt,,..�ii �. 7,1.- -, X% ,%, , . . ., ..z.....;. -, - .%.i' r I %, "' *V- , .�.-;,,N 0"Wp..... � * ' - I '...'."� Ni I � ,.-.-,- ..�: .. .�`', "'�,,;, � . . I...',11* .i..- ... .,.�; :��.M.1: A4- ­`;�Y;l-.,_ - J. 4 ' ' , �, i,o "13�7, %c K.'..'.��, . , ' ­, I II- - -� '1 I V - -�. , -,' —t;4';)r, . �.j�l . . 4,. ., , �,� .,LLLLL � *,;I - .1 .g . I �- _--_7! � Sei - �-�,�r o*, , !" $ : . . - ��3ir(, �,�$ .. .!),4,L4;n;iZ - 11 . ,,,, .1;.t , .1 ".. --� . p , I" L'i ,- :E�_ .1Kj �. . , *.. , IV --3aO.V . . . I � . 1�. . . , ­­.-� \. �%.%. , � eT * ). . ... . . I. - �,�; � . T., -,, . , , �* I (! -,:! \. ,. —, . . `..',�-,,�`,!.f, ,�,jr* . "t .,.��� . , � j� , - � I .. . - 'I, - 'I ... ��., X; ,,� . - (41.,. 3.4, ! '. ., ..':,)v ,`:� .1 ; iw,. Va. , . - - )IM . It *: 7., . - :o�"X - -*;�-: I - f I . ,.*- �, ") 1. . . r., . . . I t � .. - . . . . . . - . \. ', .. li, i. --,, ­.-.7A!-e_4?_.;� '5 'f:, , . . . �_ 2 1 1 -i .. . I . .. I - * V., . i,t;f"��­A­ , -v ,�u 4 . ; . . ";. ­ -­�lft.lo� - , ---� --v , . 11 , , ) , , ,17m. . . , . " �,,';, ":. . . �'. , \: I•.. .W� - , . ff- I I - � I * - I " .A.. . I - . I " � ., ,,6�,,­­�- �*.,,','�F ::�' ,I., I. , , . . . , , . ' ** ,­ ��.".� j ..., , � ;. 7 i :.f� I . : I,'. !,'.'4 .. . . - s - . 1, .7 L' '. - " *,- -,%.i,, - , , ,,, !-.! ­_-,� -%,�:;�,;�­ :1, .. .. . 11 �. .. " i , k '. S,4 ., ;j - � .7 - ...", ; . - � " -.� ,:, �$. - . , . � I.P. ,� I 1. __1 �­"s ` '. \ . I .< , . . . , ,...-_..�,--'%, . 1�v­ " , , ., . ' ., I - L . . , _'. . . I I - ,'* v. _..� .,'L�. , k , ,� Y , �* ". I :'� z , .'. 1 , " , ­­ % . . . .- . -..''' I . ... . I . I. . I.1c�, , . ,NI, nl '. 0',.. :P.,.�,1 .. . �__N.,-I .- . , , _ .! \. ,, I_ SI.. � - *I :-T-, 1 - , I: . . . *t* * *.­.�. -W -,-*.I , ,- � - - ----*\: . *. . . *... I . ' . . I .. . .. . - I , ' L L . . I . I ­� - . . , .: , . .. I . I .. . . . .. . . .�N� . . . "... c , - I 1. I .. ­ .. . . I . . I I. . .. .Nj 'e�is l\ .\:1, ,,, ,-N, ...��. . .:. ��... _\) L .,� . *'.--,, �; �. l - ........ . .. ­'. .. . . _.. . - . . _� ­ :� It. -- . . ,­� - 4 j "J'� , � ,� ,•. V*­' " ­.';". — : I I - ­. 4 � . . � . " I : , . , . 7N . L. \ .. . I I . , ­­ ... � . ".. --;. I ., , ,.*:. , ! - , - - .-- - , T� - .1 . I .t- . " �s . , -I,-.. - - - - .: I . . . . I I I - , . \. % 711.,'. '. - ,:. . .., .v .. - , '. . .� ". .. ,. ----- - : . .:�_ _ . f .,) , . 1%, , I-— ... - - " -___ - .,-. . ...:.. . . . 1.) . , . . - . . . ,:�, tf. I , . , ;�- -,,:. ., - . in'. � .* -� *I'.'-. - . . J : � � , - ": 1,* , - . I I . 4, � L i-,l'! I . - . . . .7 .. - , .. : , f . % , -� � , "' , . 'I, .... ­ . . .11 . . . . . . . . I �w ,� . �.%l - � 1� -•_�_:: - ­1 I I :,:,.-*,-w %�­=- _._ - .. - * .�,!%V;- ... . . \ . . j! 't V* , -_ ,..� I " ..".., *1� ­ *>!- . 4. � t, . _, - , . . j , t.,:", 1. . . . I.,, ..! , , . I ... / .. �, -.1 cj.,.. . . . , .11 . -.1. -�.(..:lll � ,I. . . . .,..... 1:,.�-,.�.­... ­ . . I ... _. I t­`-� . 1�1,,Q gz'81 - 3 - 1:1:' I - , -�:� ". . . . I . '. - . . ' f-Kv- . Q: .- ,�.q, iz _ 4 '.. 6' 't?, "'. . 1, * , �.%.. . "7"77-,i -,A 'Z4,. � . . . �_, - - . 1. Lt".':.) ,�., . , .' ... - ,..t. ,�...'! -.,.,., 4-.'.. , .. .. :.,- .:, .,�,.,.-�.. - ,r,i 1. ­. . . ,�j — I . � 7..t4_,l.l. : " . �/ , . .. ;t. ., � . . *81­­ "��­ i - . . * ... - - .. T_ - I , '. . * * ". ., _.. �*;( 1� I * * e�_. `­. ":%... . .., .,�., . ,.. .�. ;.�. 1 -, ,,,,I'(), 1�141 4 'I "...., ,e I , � _ . ,*.., � 0� .� ,-".:; , � YU, - * I., ... , A - _ I . - .. N, . � V , , -, - , , ,!. .1, " �A I �'y * - ;,,. . � . . - i.:,,� *`:.. ",&...., _;�.1-V':r ' ,. -. .. ) *1 - I . , �.lj , - - I . , .1 :.,v.w. 1: - Q 11. .�I.lqlll.L . . . ,,'"ll I I .11 � . ­ - \". _i_j ,� ?1�1�lil -%.�..,l.-,,.-_. : J,: ...... �.,� * , �. �`-) ,­ e"t ,; , .., -N . . . . - , . I _- �; ." I -I- - . ---!! - - .\ - � ( . . - " .[:.W'*­. . I ,;, �.!' . - ,,��, - -:A I - - ­�:. .-:� �')� - 'k. %.. - *, .*lj,,*.A�:.4� 4�,'f�: 1'-. �. '. ."....." .. , _� �_ ... . I . -.�.v �* I . .. - � - .. ... . . I -W , , _L, .X'4:0,;�,:, - , I, P­ , 11 I .. *.Y.. - . , - _* �.�" , I ); ft ..; ., , . , I - . . - \f;._'? "I,I� L. , , .,;!... _ , . . �. -.-,_ I . . . . L. . . . ..., .. - , , ., � . . - ;t . . .. , . ._� . . . , , . __ . , . .1 .., , .1 - . . :.,�*.. �, . .. . ....�. , - ,­-�­. . L . ­". . . . Z � , ...:. , . . . .1 . . . * .. � . . , ., - . , , , . .-. .I., ..., . . -,�, !IL1114) I . . — -',.:.% - .W�. - . -- - - I., - .1 41'1� . . . ,.L.- " , - . - " � , :., . ,.�,., I I ..,�,� ��, I "__' :;. .. - ... I -.1 . . ., -.1 " \ I 4 . " �. F I I . . !,; � 4 _ ,-kl.-5; , ". ..4 ". . , ­ I " . , , y�!r!�,�.,�-.­':-. _D'!.', - - " . .f. ..*, . ..". ", . -;� ,..'�,".­ .,;. . I , : ':' " .. , / ".: * 1 4:z —4 . L, -'.I,'� . ' .- L ....l.. , . .., . '.' A . . , , , , *. . I . Ll .. 1, �. .,..� .. �. . ,:'�L /I - . . I I I . ,�<., - - 1:.. .. ,� . L t A ,.P. ! . � T. . . . - . ; , . il � ,,..;. . . * - * � ,. L ­' ,.� , . .,;�. . . .. .<:, �... . IS ..' . .." .... : - . . . , , , .. , . . , ... .. .. .,7. ...'-,�'..'%)." -, , ... '. .. i � ,. v . . I -, . . ... N * : . ., . . . . _. ,,, .v, . .. . 1, � I , 11, -l*i','lt;: . tl,t �,� - ., -g-;.,(,jj;, . .. . . . � 1�:,t, �, f, 4 �,§'*��&--x�g*� � .,�l . ..;.,."L:!, , L. 1, . . . , 'T,t�', - $ 34 , k 'I Sc; .. I . . I , . � 4 I * .; .. . . . , .. , , , ` IT - � , %. I , � .1, - I ,,, - A R� t, - .&, . . . ',o-,!", . . . . . M, ",!R11 t •� ' I . . , - ��, " . I 4� . -!,. - �* `.�*�'.lv' ,,, ni_ ? . -, - , , * , 1� � L ':.! ,�., . L . . . 1 �,-i�,,r��i? - - � .." , 'V� , � . . . L . . I e..:,l-�,;*.-:4 ,"� ��-' - '.. 1, -:::�,,!� ,6,.;�,xt ,`��-�!'* - . ..­�, . . - , � !,r-".. z ". � . .0 ':. �j "'. _ n. , I . "I '. - " . . I . . . �..:% 'I. . . . 1 . . - .. . - "..1.1.1,0'r , , ,- . " : . , I.... � I -:�,;f - -o '� , r � , , , . _- .4 -`t. I 1. I .. . V, . , I . tb-' 'i L & . , ,--�*.- .., *,*' i* .�-­� , I :_ �k W .. ,-�: bt'!' ,.;,, ­`, IAP e;, . .. I T - .�.­ . - .; . `,y7"f.1. . ;...&I, ,� , - � , I . I .. .. . . I .. - . " , , . - .-Ir .. . . " .4 .. � I , # , ... - . ', - *",. * 1� ; .,!f , -sv", it , U), � , 4 , . . . " . I . . . . .� , . I .1', . . �'j_L­ ,.Z4­j''� I') ! �': J.� 1�!, . q': " . ".4" .. :.. .,%. !. . l.,". . � , ', . L , '. � ;t'; - - . , .* I I I �, *:." ; �l . _ S, , - . . . . . I :...: .,.:, . � i . ". fs - I a * , . ... :L , . .. ., . . ?��' W�­ - � -, - -e ,�* � , 7 : ;..L . : . . . % 1,j -, 1.1� - " ,.:), _. '. ". L ­�,'�j.., q:,,'j�.,'.* : ..- i .�_..... , a : , $ ., .�, ,-,; :. " . ., . . ., " * . * . I " �.­�. I *** . . . , . - . .. , , , ,_I. .F�':, � '. 'i - : .. i :. � ... .- ., . . . ��:-,.- . , I ,. ­�.l , . _', , , . *'. q,". � , 14S -"P�..,_lT­' .,`.::�-vpkt-�--, :. -1, '­� � I "'. Z,;, . � .. ., .. .., �..:�.J. I , '.. ., � ."pr, . : " f . I.. '.. i. , "'. .. � . )!.�, .., , , . ­1 ^ ­11" '", . - ,-. - , - I . - , . r%,,Y,� 'k - I ; . . . . . . '. !,� �.e. ; -, ` - N �_ .^!­,­ :�_ i _ . . � , - �l L�. -_ ox . %, * . - Z, '..�, ,,,� . . . . . Vr..7 , - C 1. . . ... 1:11. I -.*; - ..4'­..-..: . . - . ; . 1 . . , . , .. .. .." . I . -v .cl i� , (-' , - , ... 'i - _'­.'�, " .... . . I .. 'Z ], .. j -?. .Aq -­ .. . .1:.*, * . '�, ' - 11 L-T ' � - "et , - , .., I . . . � - .; IF.A' , "vl * "�f�;,_,�..t,_,L --- - - - -- - - I L;kR� -�-� . . . , , , I . . - I Ag Iv . . f ;-'_'f. I - - - ... , , .T - ;Q, ze-, . , - '. -3 - I , - .. . - . I . . , , , L ,5� " " � _,... , . . % � *X., �l I . . -7*.-'..*.-.14., �, t... ,.- ** * �j �,., " ( ,W ­ . ", ­. � * . , - , 7 - . ,�I;Q k, ; �D;�." :"'.�•"", ".. .* 1:.. 11 . . � , .�� I - - , L .1 I I - - I , " 1 ., :-.- - : . .. . . . .1. ,�­ :.,.�_,,-, 4 . ? . ... I �.g . . - , I '* - -;�l." . r ; I . . s !; pil" 1, .*� � I .3 I j, . , , ,i`��;, ,; " I �, ., . I . " I; - ..., , , , , f t ::-:., -��-!W " -0 , - , �.)'C,.� �'-,,,� .:,.. I: � � � ..�'..,,' : �' - ,; . 1. � ;�v , .-,, . .. - .,i- .- , � ., *,-,t,0,V 'r, k.- . L� �. , . ..•I, .." "_-, ,;. K � % . I- n . ;��­, - , -.�.. m.­:... I ' * '�­ ­ ' ' ?".. - .%i i , , , � V, Wt.". , � - . . . ­ ­�"L' . . .... . , - - " ...r - .'� ., 'r, . ��l . L .... , 6 t , . . . , , I ­ , L I . .. I - . 14; . . . . . � � , 4, - . , ­­ . -1-11. - , " , ­ � . 1..(, _. � . ... 1. , . " V. - - 6,ft�, ��, ., *f�,,� . . . . . . . . . . . . . * .. e .. 1� Wtt", .*,, .'4� - , �AA:, e­�*,o:l,j'l441"A*.�.,',­ •` . ; I-' , .!,.;.; .... , . " . %I """ 1, . .. " " �,, � �'. I I , , �?.� � - !, . :.* ;,:�.. . . 1, ., , : . . '*%.�'�-: ::,�.,* ". " . -*!"a �."'J` -f; "I-'- " " ..;,.L., j." '." '. : .: � . j.i, - � ;..- ...; .. - . '.. � . Ili tl I 'O' *�,', ,, . . ,. :-,) .11 � . 1. ;, I -'I �:.L:* , " I I . � . .1 4. . , i,.... 'Y: ,.", -�, - ,!` _ �, �� * ��; :" '...'.4"-,!,-:�.-.qj '. ;z - I - '. .: , - • ., IN T.- 1. . ?,;, ?., ,,�'-.'�`--", : I . . �'�, UN I � . . : . . . :�:'�-�-�­,7,1'-',,>,,. I :. . I _nTlvKl**[Pll-xEllWt F. r r STRIMFILF. When recorded mail to: City Clerk City of Edmonds 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 CONFORMED COPY 200909020515 @910212009 09pm gg67.0PG 0 SNOHOMISH COUNTY, pASHINGTON SPACE ABOVE THE LINE FOR RECORDERS USE Assessor's Parcel No.: 00513100008902 and 00513100008804 Applicant: Douglas & Deana Grier / L o-fs 8 8 --- 8 9 /Yie4ao cvd.� /e �¢srC rL ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT This ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into between the CITY OF EDMONDS ("City") and DOUGLAS and DEANA GRIER ("Owner[s]"), in accordance with Chapter 18.70 of the Edmonds Community Development Code. 1. The Property. Owner is the owner of that certain real property located at 16431 — 741h Place West, within the City of Edmonds, Washington, Assessor's Parcel Numbers 00513100008902 and 00513100008804, and more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 2. The Easement. The City right-of-way adjacent to owner's property has been developed by prior owners of the owner's property as a driveway and turn around. A partially developed street terminates easterly of the encroachment area and the encroachment area has underground storm drainage. 3. The Encroachment. The Owner desires to encroach upon the public easement and the City hereby covenants and agrees and grants its permission to Owner to allow a gated fence to remain in a portion of the City right-of-way/easement. A partial site plan, scaled 1"=20% showing the location 'of the encroachment is attached as Exhibit "B" and incorporated by reference. This Agreement is subject to the following terms and conditions: a. On behalf of themselves, their successors and assigns, the Owner promises to maintain, repair, remove and/or replace the encroachment located in the easement at their sole expense to the standards established by the City. All ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT - Page 1 of 5 :j maintenance, repair, removal and/or replacement shall be conducted solely at the Owners' expense. b. The Owner, on behalf of themselves and their successors and assigns, acknowledge that the City had no obligation to approve the encroachment within the easement for the sole benefit of the Owner, and the agreements contained herein, provide sufficient consideration for the Owner and their successors and assigns to maintain, repair, remove and/or replace said encroachment located in the easement at their sole expense in perpetuity. C. The Owner promises to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees from any loss, claim or liability of any kind or nature arising from or out of its promises contained within .this agreement, including any damage that may be caused to the encroachment by the City's operation, maintenance, repair, replacement or other work related to construction activity within the easement. This promise to hold harmless and indemnify includes defense by counsel of the City's choosing, the payment of reasonable attorney's fees and court costs. Nothing herein, however, shall be interpreted to require the Owner to indemnify the City from the negligence or intentional tortuous act of its employees, officers, or agents. d. The Owner shall, at the request of the City, for reasonable cause, promptly remove, repair, reconstruct, and/or replace the encroachment at the Owners' sole expense: Upon receipt of notification from the City that the City requires removal of all or portions of the encroachment from within the easement, the Owner will promptly remove those portions of the encroachment from within the easement area as required by the City at their sole expense. If the portions of the encroachment required by the City to be removed are not timely removed by the Owner, they shall be removed by the City at the expense of the Owner, and the Owner shall reimburse the City of the costs of removal of the encroachment and disposal of materials as well as for any increased construction costs or consequential damages incurred by the City due to the Owners' delay. In the event that portions of the encroachment must be removed to facilitate utility and/or construction activity by the City within the easement or other requirements of the City, the Owner shall be solely responsible for replacement of the encroachment at their expense upon completion.of the utility and/or construction or other activity by the City. C. Whatever rights and obligations were acquired by the City with respect to the .easement shall remain and continue in full force and effect and shall in no way be affected by City's grant of permission to construct and maintain the encroachment structure. ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT - Page 2 of 5 f. The property owner is required to provide and continually maintain during the term of the permit a certificate of insurance .naming the City as an additional insured, with respect to liability, and providing that it shall be primary as to any other policy of insurance. A copy of the insurance certificate shall be provided to the City at the beginning of each calendar year, no later than the 21 S` day of January. 4. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes and replaces all other agreements, oral or written, between the parties with respect to the subject matter. This agreement may not be amended except in writing in A document filed of record with the auditor of Snohomish County, Washington. 5. Notices. Any notice which is required or may be given pursuant to this Agreement shall be sent in. writing by United States mail, first class, postage pre -paid, registered or certified_ with return receipt requested, or by other comparable commercial means and addressed as follows: Ifto the City: City Engineer City of Edmonds 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 If to the Owner: Douglas & Deana Grier 16431 — 74`h Place West Edmonds, WA 98026 which addresses may be changed .from time -to -time by providing notice to the other party in the manner described above. 6. Waiver. City's consent to or approval of any act or omission by Owner shall not constitute a waiver of any other default by Owner and shall not be deemed a waiver or render unnecessary City's consent for approval to any subsequent act by owner. Any waiver by City of any default must be in writing and shall not be a waiver of any other default concerning the same or any other provision of the Agreement. 7. Termination of Agreement.. In addition to any other remedy provided for by law, the City reserves the right to terminate this agreement in the event the encroachment negatively impacts or damages the City's easement and/or underlying utility systems or violates any condition of service adopted by the City, at its sole discretion, as may be necessary to prevent damage to the City's utility system, or any other public facility which maybe impacted by the Owners' failure to properly use the easement. 8. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective legal representatives, successors, and assigns. Owner agrees to incorporate this agreement by reference in any subsequent deeds to the ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT - Page 3 of 5 property, but any failure to do'so does not invalidate this provision. 9. Capacity. Each party represents that the person(s) executing this Agreement on behalf of such party has the authority to execute this Agreement and by such signature(s) thereby bind such party. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on this day of February, 2009. OWNER(S): Douglas Grier STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) CLM GE Deana Grier On this .day of February, 2009 personally appeared before me DOUGLAS GRIER and DEANA GRIER, husband and wife, known to me (or proven by satisfactory evidence) to be the individuals that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that they signed the same as their free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned.. IN_ ATNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand_ and official seal the day and year 4gvenF en. / 61 g� oIAR� `�'',��' am j�i ,� : GU �•ccz i NDTARY PUBWin and for the St to of �'�'%,�+ ro a L o `,, �o16ashington, residing at'�.,.�o� y //ilFloF wRsN\,a - ZVIy appointment expires: p z CITY OF E�bNDS . ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT - Page 4 of 5 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION The following described real estate, situated in the County of Snohomish, State of Washington: PARCEL A: That portion of Lot 89, PLAT OF MEADOWDALE BEACH, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 5 of Plats, Page 38, in Snohomish County, Washington, described as follows: BEGINNING at the Northeast corner of said Lot 89; Thence South 00°10'00" West 152 feet; Thence North 89°23'00" .West 275 feet to the True Point of Beginning; Thence continue North 89'23'00" West 97 feet; Thence South 20°32'00" East 25 feet; Thence South 57`40'00" West 129.57 feet, more or less, to the centerline of vacated County Road, Thence South 17°32'00" East along said Centerline of vacated road 57.52 feet to the intersection of the South line of said Lot 89 produced Westerly; Thence South 89`23'00" East along said South line produced Westerly 190.36 feet; Thence North 150.16 feet to the True Point of Beginning. PARCEL B: That portion of Lot 88, PLAT OF MEADOWDALE BEACH, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 5 of Plats, Pages 38, in Snohomish County, Washington, described as follows: BEGINNING at the Northwest corner of said Lot 88; Thence Easterly along the North line for 50 feet; Thence Southwesterly to a portion on the Westerly line of said Lot 88 for 50 feet Southeasterly from the Northwest corner thereof, Thence Northwesterly along the Westerly line of said Lot 88 for 50 feet to the point of beginning; EXCEPT the Westerly 5 feet as measured at right angles to the Westerly line of Lot 88. Both Situate in the County of Snohomish, State of Washington. ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT - Page 5 of 5 Exhibit "B" Parcel 00513100009006 74th Place North 1" = 205 Parcel 00513100008902 41 GIVAr Z Pa elpy \. Parcel 00513100008804 IA G,12tEIL Ptomzi- Parcel 00513100008803 CITY OFEDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS,WA 98020 PHONE: (425) 771-0220 - FAX: (425) 771-0221 'nc. 189v STATUS: ISSUED Permit Number: ENG20090059 Address of Public Use/Encroachment:16431 74TH PL W, EDMONDS ENG20090059 DOUGLAS H GRIER 16431 74TH PL• W T FILE WA 98026-4910 ®� '-• EDMONDS, , Fence with automatic electric gate and appurtenant equipment at end of 74th Pl W, approximately five (5) feet from edge of right of way. STREET USE: Placement of any temporary or movable objects in any portion of public space or City right-of-way shall meet all code requirements as set forth in the following chapters of the Edmonds Community Development Code. ENCROACHMENT. • Permanent structures encroaching upon any portion of public space, City right-of-way or easement area shall meet all Code Requirements as set forth in the following chapter of the Edmonds Community Development Code. CODE APPLICATION: Chapter 18.70, 17.65, and 17.70.040 of the Edmonds Community Development Code. All terms of the adopted ordinance are incorporated herein as if set forth in full and this permit therefore is subject to the terms of those chapters. , FOR THE TERM IN WHICH THIS PUBLIC USE/ENCROACHMENT IS INEFFECT, THE OWNER SHALL COMPLYWITH THE PERMIT CONDITIONS SET FOR THBYTHIS PERMIT NOTE: The issuance of this permit is understood by the owner to be of a temporary nature, shall vest no permanent right and shall be issued and may in any case be revoked at the sole discretion of the City per ECDC 18.70.040. Applicant is responsible to provide a copy of the insurance certificate to the City at the beginning of each calendar year, no later than the 21 st day of January. INDEMNITY: The Applicant understands and agrees to hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any injuries, damages or claims of any kind or description whatsoever, foreseen or unforeseen, that may be made against the applicant or the City of Edmonds, or any of its departments or employees, including but not limited to the defense of any legal proceedings including defense costs, court, cost, and attorney fees by reason of granting this permit. In addition, the applicant understands that he/she shall provide and continually maintain during the term of the permit a certtfificate of insurance naming the city as an additional insured, with respect to liability, and providing that it shall be primary as to any other policy of insurance. THIS APPLICATION IS NOT A PERMIT UNTIL SIGNED BY THE CITY ENGINEER OR HIS/HER DEPUTY: AND FEES ARE PAID, AND RECEIPT IS ACKNOWLEDGED IN SPACE PROVIDED. BY' Printed: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 r� 5% o I DATE J�E COPY INSPECTOR COPY APPLICANT COPY STATUS: ISSUED ENG20090059 CONDITIONS I • The proposal will not adversely impact public space open to vehicular or pedestrian travel. • Architectural Design Board Approval has been granted or the process has been administratively approved. • The proposal will not unreasonably interfere with the rights of the public. • The proposal either benefits the public interest, safety or convenience (e.g., supports or protects the city street) or is an accessory structure such as fence normally associated with residential use of the property as hilly complies with the requirements of criteria above. • Applicant shall repair/replace all damage to utilities or frontage improvements in City right-of-way per City standards that is caused by or occurs during the permitted project. None SIREET FILE CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • 425-771-0220 • FAX 425-771-0221 Website: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Engineering Division October 24, 2008 Douglas H Grier 16431 741h Place West Edmonds, WA 98026-4910 RE: Gate over Right -Of -Way Dear Mr. Grier: GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR The City of Edmonds has received a complaint regarding the gate located in front of your residence at 16431-741h Place West. Following review of our maps, the Snohomish County Online Property Information (copy attached), and a site visit, we have determined that the gate is located within the City right-of-way. Therefore, we are asking that you take corrective action, choosing one of the following two options: Option 1: Apply for an Encroachment Permit for City review and approval to determine if the gate may be allowed to remain in the right of way. I have enclosed a copy of the Encroachment Permit Submittal Requirements for your information. Option 2: Remove the existing gate. Please take corrective action by November 12, 2008. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 425-771-0220, Ext. 1321 or email at collinsj@,ci.edmonds.wa.us. Thank you. Sincerely, Jennifer Collins Engineering Technician Enclosures S:\ENGRVennifer\Letters\Itr to 74th PI W-16431 Gate.doc • Incorporated Auaust 11. 1890 • Snohomish County Online Property Information Page 1 of 1 homish Countv Online Propertv Information Legend Street tames Cities UdIMPaaoai C*,L* &K=PM Qlr Tax Parcels Rural Mies TownshiptRange Grid Section Grid ® Airports 2007 Photo Extent 2007 Aerial Photo ;laimer: homish County disclaims any warranty of merchantability or warranty of ss of this data for any particular purpose, either express or implied. No esentation or warranty is made concerning the accuracy, currency, pleteness or quality of data depicted. Any user of this data assumes all ionsibility for use thereof, and further agrees to hold Snohomish County Mess from and against any damage, loss, or liability arising from any of this data. on: 10/24/2008 http://gis.co.snohomish.wa.us/serviet/com.esri.esrimai).Esrimai)?ServiceName=Overview... 10/24/2008 141 TREET FILE Graf, Jeannine From: Miller, Noel Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 3:38 PM To: Kammerer, Jim; Moles, Tod; Fiene, Don Cc: Haakenson, Gary; Bowman, Duane; Graf, Jeannine Subject: FW: LID 210, Mudslide FYI -----Original Message ----- From: Miller, Noel Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 3:36 PM To: 'dgrier@soundurology.com' Subject: RE: LID 210 Mudslide Dear Dr. Grier, Based on the City's geotechnical review of this mudslide, the responsibility for the restoration of the hillside is with the owner of the property, Mr. Fong, since the slide occurred all within his or adjoining private property. He has been informed of this responsibility in writing. This restoration includes removing the slide debris that exists over the City's catch basin 25 and drainage pipelines. This catch basin 25 serves primarily as cleanout and junction box for Mr. Fong's private drainage system and secondarily as an inlet for a relatively minor amount of surface water. As you are aware, there is an existing catch basin 26 adjacent to your property and is functioning to collect surface water downstream from the slide area. In addition approximately ten years ago, the City installed a perforated groundwater collection pipeline which is underneath the slide debris. As far as we can determine, this drainage system is presently functioning sufficiently to drain groundwater from the hillside. The Public Works crews will be continuing their weekly monitoring of the LID 210 drainage system and the slide area as we await action from Mr. Fong. Noel Miller Public Works Director -----Original Message ----- From: Douglas Grier, MD[mailto:dgrier@soundurology.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 12:52 PM To: Miller, Noel Subject: LID 210 Mudslide Thank you for the reply to my request for repair of catch basin 25 next to my property at 16431 74th pl, West. The slide is now over two weeks old and your decision to delay digging out the catch basin in favor of geotechnical advice is wrong. There is.standing water accumulating over the catch basin which will continue to destabilize the area. The slide of ten years ago covered catch basin 26 on my property which when unattended led to a 2nd slide theat resulted in loss of the corner of my property. The reason sited last time in delaying a repair was it was too dangerous to dig out. Logic dictates that a catch basin which is covered over should be dug out to dewater the slope: I have in my possession a letter from the. city dated in 1996 ordering immediate remediation by one of my neighbors to perform the same repair. The letter threatened fines and inprisonment if action wasn't taken. When the slide was determined to have occurred on city easement, the demand was rescinded. I plan to bring up this matter at the next city council meeting so as to expedite remediation. Your prompt consideration is appreciated. o / 0 2 Dom' p�"ul�.' s ,010626 COVENANT OF NOTIFICATION AND INDEMNIFICATION/HOLD HARMLESS Under the review procedures established pursuant to the State 11• Building Code, incorporating amendments promulgated by the City of Edmonds, and as a prerequisite to the issuance of a building permit for -the construction of a residential structure and attendant facilities, the undersigned OWNERS of property do hereby covenant, stipulate and promise as follows: 1. Description of L.:31 J a L.. •.. i V s' C'L 1+x . 1 L s covenant C.) L notification and indemnification/hold // harmless relates to a tract of land at the street address of w�/3/ - %���� CCU (insert street address), Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington and legally described as: LI=�aL p�-SCQ�IOt`I PORTION Of LOT 11, MCADOYDAIL REACH,' ACCORDIIN, TO.ILAT•'I IOF RE CDR 010 IN VCLMEE 5 Of PLAT 1,'PALE 31,, RCCO"6 OP .OMISMCOLNTTYASM111CTON,S OCSCAIRCO AS POL LOY'1:I •�•- '- —' - - .SIMG..wf: iMC�MO.TM-T.00.-.' DP,.AID LOT.1,I TMNDR'10VTN That POr"Do of 7r 1 00, Plat .f 74•dorrdil• go-k. as ►o, plat r ordN rDM 00-WEST I I PEETI Tiff NCC —7 II. 1')'li• UC7T T)f ICCT TO to Vol,- $ o/ Flats. pap. N, rKOfd{ o/ S+d1D.IM Ca.wlyr lNMlnp ton. I POINr Of DECI-INGI 711LHCE CONTINUO NORTH t)•77'00" p. ....... ettrloa1 1011wa; 1p lm lAq at tM AorlAwat corns of aald TrKt Y1 P[[i{ 71ILHCC SOuil1 70•)7. Oo" [AST 5f rL1Tl nICHtC SUUTII thence eaillr ly •IDnp tiN norl.Y llw of aaid TPKt b .1 I'll., HEST 179.57 fEET, MORE OR LESS-70 Tilt CEN"ALINC Uf 10 a ~ ply IED COUNTY ROAO1 THENCE SOUTH 17.37'00'• LAST ALCMO'SAID `aj 0f S , 1519',aaccord leq to plat .f sarY.y lll.d 1.'Yollar 11 '0! Sury.ya, dAL111E Of VACATED ROAD 37.37 FCCT To THE INTCRSECTIOtI 0! p q IS1, .c-:d owd.r S-li-lsl County Audlic 'a Ill. Mo. 8001115009, a dl';L.• f f0.00 1.et 90 tM T- Pelt .( {q IM IRgI SOUTH LINE Of SAID LOT 19 PRODUCED WESTERLY) THCIICL SOVIN Clninre coot lru in9 SO9•]S'T9•C • Illl— of 70 .1 1 fwt; tA..c. 3-00" CAST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE PRODUCED YESTERLT'110. I1 56H'�I'S7•V a dlll•nca o! S7.Si flyer; tl»ne. .M•S9•It'E llL taA� of • THENCE NORTH I)D.IL FEET TO THC TRUE POINT OP 0EGI INII1Gj .1 "J 30.00 T.al to tM Trw Pol nt o! l.plm 11$. T1. .ray o1 th. prC, 1a It 761 r IR Vlitt 'THAT IDAiION Of LOT 11, NCADOMDALE DEACII, Square (i.t. µ0114 TO PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 3 Of PLATS, 31, RECORDS Of SW.)K11SH COUNTY, WSMING TON, oE(CRIIEO, JLLOVS: , IH110C AT THE NOATIAICST CORNEA OF SAID TRACT .9, TIKNCE • ER j', j�LDNG TIIf NORTH LI11L I00. S0 fL4T1 TNCM[[ SWTI ML Lj^LT P On'ON TIN: 'VLSTL.LT LIMO Of SAID LOT It:POR St f4L. 111AS TE. LY PROM.THC Wit TIwCST,CORNLA THERE f3 TIIINCC NORTH- 1.11 ALONG 1.9 YLSTEIILT LINE Of SAID LOT A fOR f0 I, LIT 111 POINT 0P O[C INNING{ PT THE WESTERLY 3 PELT AS ML'ASL^EO AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THL SALT LINO Of LOT t1.• SITUATE 114 THE COLlMTY Of SHOMOMISM, STATE Of 1LASNI4TOM. 2. Notification and Covenant of Notification. The above referenced site (hereinafter "subject site") lies within an area which has been identified by the City of Edmonds as having a' potential for earth subsidence or landslide hazard. The risks associated with development of the site have been evaluated by, technical consultants and engineers engaged by the applicant as a part of the process to obtain a building permit for the subject site. The results of the consultant's reports and evaluations of WSS52079A/0006.040.034 -1- BUILDING iaSS/klt 02/08/90 FEB 9 - 1"0 the risks associated with development are contained in building permit file number 62/0J511 (insert number) on file with the City of Edmonds Building Department. Conditions, limitations, or prohibitions on development may have been imposed in accordance with the recommendations of the consultants in the course of permit issuance. The conditions, limitations, or prohibitions may require ongoing maintenance on the part of any owner or lessee or may require modifications to the structures and earth stabilization matters in order to address future or anticipated changes in soil or other site conditions. The statements and conditions proposed by the OWNERS' geotechnical engineer, geologist, architect and/or structural engineer are hereby incorporated by reference from the contents of the file as fully as if herein set forth. Any future purchaser, lessee, lender or any other person acquiring or seeking to acquire an interest in the property is put on notice of the existence of the content of the file and the City urges review of its contents. The file may be reviewed during normal business hours or copies obtained at the Planning Department, City of Edmonds, 505 Bell Street, Edmonds, Washington 98020. 3. Indemnification and Hold Harmless. The undersigned OWNERS hereby waive any and all liability associated with development, stating that they have fully informed themselves .of all risks associated with development of the property and do ~ therefore waive and relinquish any and all causes of action against the City of Edmonds, its officers, agents and employees WSS52079A/0006.040.034 -2- WSS/klt 02/08/90 0 arising from aTd out of such develo 'development. p In addition,. the OWNERS on behalf of themselves, their successors in interest, heirs and assignees, do hereby promise to indemnify and hold harmless the City of Edmonds, its officers, agents and employees from any loss, claim, liability or damage of any kind or nature to persons or property either on or off the site resulting from or out of earth subsidence or landslide hazard, arising from or out of the issuance of any permit(s) authorizing development of the site, or occurring or arising out of any false, misleading, or inaccurate information provided by the OWNERS, their employees, or professional consultants in the course of issuance of the building permit. 4. .Insurance Requirement. In addition to any bonding which may be required during the course of development, the Community Services Director has/ (strike one) specifically required the maintenance of an insurance policy for public liability coverage in the amount and for the time set forth below in order to provide for the financial responsibilities established through the indemnification and hold harmless agreement above: AS REQUIRED BY CITY ORDINANCE #2661 A GENERAL PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE POLICY SHALL BE POSTED WITH THE CITY IN THE AMOUNT OF ONE MILLION DOLLARS FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED 10 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL. (insert insurance requirements and time period, if any --if no insurance required, so state.] WSS52079A/0006.040.034 -3- WSS/klt 02/08/90 5. Covenant to Touch and Concern the Land. This covenant of notification and indemnification/hold harmless touches and concerns the subject tract and shall run with the land, binding, obligating and/or inuring to the benefit of future owners, heirs, successors and interests .or .any other person or entity acquiring an interest in property, as their interest may appear. This provision shall not be interpreted to require a mortgagor or lender to indemnify the City except to the extent of their loss nor to obligate such persons to maintain the insurance above required. r' DONE this ? day of , 199). OWNER (S ) By: By: By: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss: COUNTY OF /►J G- ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that S LLV signed this instrument and acknowledged WSS52079A/0006.040.034 -4- WSS/klt 02/08/90 it to be (his/her) free and voluntary act for the purposes mentioned in this instrument. DATED this -S day of ,.,� TtNF�, ��•o� uAstitic`� • U IS , 199f. PUB�,I iss�ko expires: STATE OF WASHINGTON )'1iQ;o�fs.No p�� COUNTY OF ) �����` 'e+' I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence thatd�PxP13AV-4 j c�Ut . signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be (his/her) free and voluntary act for the purposes mentioned in this instrument. DATED this oZSI day of 19911, STATE OF WASHINGTOf P. COUNTY OF I certify tha expires: satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument, on oatr stated that .(he/she) was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the (title) of (name of party on behalf of whom instrument was executed) to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument. DATED this day of ., 199_. NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: WSS52079A/0006.040.034 -5- WSS/klt 02/08/90 - CITY CLERK' CIVIC - I CENTER NO EXCISE TAX / EDMONDS, WA 9802C ;REQr11Rt0 (CJ ecf En EASEMENT AND HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT�� LA g�lyKE hamiah County g r �� ENG�N�ER�NG 0 WEbE BRAS, a mudslide has deposited earth, mud and other. O debris upon the property of the Grantor, and, WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds finds that removal of all or part of said earth and mud is in the public interest in order CID to prevent further movement of the earth thereby endangering the public and public streets and other improvements, now, therefore, IN CONSIDERATION OF the agreement of the City of Edmonds, Washington, an optional code municipal corporation (hereinafter "City") to remove mud and debris deposited on the Grantor's property on or about the day of 1984, the Grantors herein Dorothy M. McGraw do grant to the City a temporary construction easement for the removal of said.mud and debris and a hold harmless agreement as hereinafter provided: 1. Temporary Construction Easement. The Grantors hereby grant to the City of Edmonds, its officers, employees, contrac- tors and assigns, a temporary construction easement on and over a tract of land located at ��j�% �'S P !/U, , Edmonds, i Washington, more particularly described as: All that portion of Tracts 89 and 90, Plat of fleadowdale Beach, as per plat recorded in Volume 5 of plats, page 38, records of Snohomish County, TOGETHER WITH vacated road adjoining, described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the Easterly marginal line of 75th Place West with the North line of said Tract 90; thence Southerly along said Easterly marginal line of 75th Place West and the arc of a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 1,452.29 feet, an arc distance of 137.40 feet to the true point o.f"beginning of the tract of land here- in described; thence continuing Southerly along said Easterly marginal line of 75th Place West and the arc of said curve to the right, an arc distance of 123.36. feet to the point of tangency of said curve, said �0 � 00 2 04 VOL 1885 PAGE 1183 S. CITY CLERK CIVIC CENTER EDMONDS, WA 98020 tangent bearing South 24015' West; thence South 24015' West and continuing along th� Easterly marginal line of 76th Avenue West, 55.21 feet; thence North 68 26'19" East 132.84 feet; thence North 57640' East 129.57 feet; thence North 0032' West 25.00 feet; thence North 57027'35" blest, 74.70 feet; thence South 75016'31" West, 42.57 feet; thence North 74 48' blest 52.75 feet to the true point of beginning, situated in the County of Snohomish, State of Washington. Said temporary construction easement is granted for a period of time as shall be necessary to remove mud and debris deposited on said property by the above -referenced mudslide. The removal of said debris and mud shall be at the sole discretion of the City with the City Engineer being the sole judge of what debris should be removed from said property. The City shall have no obligation to restore or repair any surface, improvement, fix- ture, landscaping, or any other item located on or about the said property. This easement shall be irrevocable, provided, however, that in the event that said debris has not been com- pletely removed on or by the first-day of July, 1985, this easement shall lapse. 2. Hold Harmless Agreement. The Grantors promise and agree to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, agents and assigns, from any and all liability of whatever kind or nature arising from or out of damage to the 8502210075 VOL 1885 PAGE 1t81 01TY CLERK CIVIC; CFNTER EDMONDS. WA 98020 Grantor's property in the course of removal of earth, mud and debris in accordance with this easement and agreement, Provided, however, that nothing herein shall prevent the Grantor from bringing a claim or suit against the City's contractor, engaged for the purpose of such removal, if any damage or injury, to persons or property, should arise from or be occasioned by the sole negligence of the con- tractor and where such claim is compensable from any contract of insurance held by the contractor which is for the benefit of third parties. It is the intention of the parties hereto to save and hold harmless the City from any loss occasioned from or out of the City' s removal of this earth from Grantor's property. This easement and hold harmless agreement shall not in any affect the liability of the City of Edmonds, IF ANY, for any action or failure to act which occurred before the date of execution of this document. DONE this /C/'T/ day of ,{;�C � ��'Z/ 198�/ READ CAREFu L,Y, CONTAINS INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMEb]T GRANTORS STATE OF CALIFORNIA SS COUM of S/},� I' �,) �o� r � m • n'I ��-' 2!� On this day appeared before me and — — to me known tcf be the individuals described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that they signed the same as their free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. .8 5022100 75 VOL 1885 PAGE i185 CITY - CLOW CIVIC CENT CCIIVIONDS, WA 98020 -7,16�-- GIVEN under my hand and official seal this ��day of 19 8�. /I / A. <�� /,/ 101 ./ State of at Accepted by: CITY OF EDMONDS By LYRRY 7NUGH"TEN, DIAYOR Eor the residing I OFFICIAL SEAL HEI rN EPPRECHT NOTAP't t"IJ6LIC - CALIFORNIA ShN rRhHC!SC0 COUNTY My win. expires AUG 5, 1985 "dp,plk 221 () 0 75 VOL 1885 PAGE 1186 • 0 EXHIBIT sB' IN CASE OF. ERRORS OR INQUIRIES ABOUT YOUR BILL Reid, Middleton & Associates, Inc. Engineers • Surveyors • Plonners The Federal Truth in Lending Act requires prompt correction .of billing mistakes. 1. If you .want to preserve your rights under the Act, this is what you must do if you think your bill was wrong or if you need more information about an item on your bill: a. Write on the bill or on another sheet of paper (you may telephone your inquiry, but doing so will not preserve your rights under this law) the following: i. Your name. ii. A description of the error and an explanation why you believe it is in error. (If you only need information, explain the item you are not sure about.) iii. The dollar amount of the suspected error. iv. Any other information (such as your address) which you think will help us identify you or the reason for your complaint or inquiry. b. Send your billing error notice to: Comptroller Reid, Middleton & Associates, Inc. 121 5th Ave. N., Suite 200 Edmonds, Washington 98020 Mail it as soon as you can, but in any case early enough to reach us within 30 days after the bill was.mailed to you. 2. We must acknowledge all letters pointing out possible errors within 30 days of receipt, unless we are able to.correct your bill during this 30 days. Within 90 days after receiving your letter, we must either correct the error or explain why we believe the bill was correct. Once we have explained the bill, we have no.further obligation to you, even though you still believe that there is an error, except as provided in paragraph 5 below. 3. After we have been notified, we may not send you collection letters or take other collection action with respect to the amount in dispute. Periodic statements may be sent to you, and the disputed amount can be applied against your credit limit. You cannot be threatened with damage to your credit rating or sued for the amount in question, nor can the disputed amount be reported to a credit bureau or to.other creditors as delinquent until we have answered your inquiry. You remain obligated to pay the parts of your bill not in dispute. 4. If it is determined that we have made a mistake in your bill, you will not have to pay any finance charge on any disputed amount. If we have not made an error, you may have to pay finance charge on the amount in dispute, and you will have to make up any missed minimum or required pay- ments on the disputed amount. Unless you have agreed that your bill was correct, we must send you written notice of what you owe, and if it is determined that we did not make a mistake in billing the disputed amount, you must be given the time to pay which you normally are given to pay undisputedamounts before any more finance or late payment charges on the disputed amount can be charged to you. 5. If our explanation does not satisfy you and you notify us _in writing within ten days after you receive our explanation that you still re use to pay the disputed amount, we may report you to credit bureaus and other creditors and may pursue regular collection procedures. However, we must also report that you think you do not owe the money, and we must let you know to whom such reports were made. Once the matter has been settled between us, we must notify those to whom we reported you as delinquent of the subsequent resolution. 6. If we do not follow these rules, we are not allowed to collect the first $50 of the disputed amount and finance charge, even if the bill turns out to be correct. 121 5th Avenue North, Suite 200, Edmonds, Washington 98020 (206) 775-0434 r II. TERMS OF PAYMENT Fees and all other charges will be billed monthly as work progresses and the amount of each invoice shall be due and payable ten (10) days after the date of such invoice unless otherwise agreed. Any portion of an invoice not paid within thirty (30) days of the billing date shall be considered delinquent and shall bear a delinquency charge of 1-1/2 percent per month (but not exceeding the maximum rate allowed by law) from the due date on the unpaid balance. If any owner payment due the consultant becomes delinquent, the consultant may at its option, suspend services until all such amounts due, including interest, have been paid in full. In no event shall said delinquency charge or the payment thereof extend the due date. Payments received on delinquent accounts will be applied first to accrued interest and then to the principal unpaid amount. Any attorney's fees or other costs incurred in collecting any delinquent amount shall be paid by the client. III. SCOPE AND EXECUTION OF SERVICES RMA intends to render its service in accordance with generally accepted professional practices for the intended use of a project and makes no other warranty, either express or implied, as to its findings, recommendations, specifications, or professional advice. In the event that the client requests termination of the work prior to completion, RMA reserves the right to complete such analyses and records as may be -necessary to place its files in order and, where considered necessary to protect its professional reputation, to complete a report on work performed to date. .A termination charge (liquidated damages) to cover the costs thereof in an amount not to exceed ten (10) percent of all charges incurred up to the date of the stoppage of the work may be made at the discretion of RMA. RMA will diligently proceed with the work contracted for, but it is expressly agreed and under- stood that RMA shall not be held responsible for delays occasioned by factors beyond its control, nor by factors which could not reasonably have been foreseen at the time of the execution of the agreement between the parties. In the event the client makes a claim against RMA, at law or otherwise, for any alleged error, omission, or other act arising out of the performance of its professional services, and the client fails to prove such claim, then the client shall pay all costs, including actual attorney's fees incurred by RMA in defending itself against such claim. The client shall pay the costs of government fees, soils testing fees, aerial topography fees, monuments, copies, materials and all other charges not specifically covered by the terms of this agreement. IV. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS All drawings, specifications and other work products prepared by RMA for a project are instruments of service for that project only and shall remain the property of RMA whether the project is com- pleted or not. Reuse of any of the instruments of service by the client on extensions of this project or on any other project without the written permission of RMA shall be at the client's risk and the client agrees to defend, indemnify and hold RMA harmless from all claims, damages, and expenses including attorney's fees arising out of such unauthorized reuse of the instruments of service by the client or by others acting through the client. Any reuse or adaptation of RMA's instruments of service occurring after the written agreement of RMA shall entitle RMA to further compensation in amounts to be agreed upon by the client and RMA. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY �An d all liability, claim for damages, cost of defense, or expense�to be against RMA will be ted to a sum not to exceed Fifty Thousand Dollars_-$01,000.00) or the amount of its fee, whichever reater, on account of any injury or_da�e to persons or property or arising . out of any design de error, omission, or pr sional negligence. Further, the client agrees to notify any cont or or subcontr or who may perform work in connection with or making use of any design, report, or s pared by RMA of such limitation of liability and require as a condition precedent to its � o ' g the work a like limitation of liability on their part as against RMA. In the ev a client fai to obtain a like limitation of liability provision as to injury or damag persons or property, ign defects, errors, omissions, or professional negligence, any 1' ility of RMA and/or the client uch contractor or subcontractor arising out of allege njury or damage to persons or property, sign defects, errors, omissions, or professio negligence shall be allocated between the client-and..RMA in such a manner that the ag a liability of RMA shall not exceed Fifty Thousand DollarsJ$50,000.00) or the amount of s fee, whichever is greater. Consultant shall not be liable for damages resulting from the actions or inactions of governmental agencies, and consultant shall only act as an advisor in all governmental relations. In the event that any staking is destroyed by an act of God or parties other than consultant, the cost of restaking shall be paid by client as extra work, provided such work is authorized by client. Consultant makes no warranties or offers no opinion as to matters of unwritten title such as adverse possession, acquiescence, estoppel, and unrecorded easements. 2� Reid, Middleton & Associates, Inc. Engineers • Surveyors • Plonners EFFECTIVE MAY 1, 1984 CONDITIONS OF AGREEMENT EXHIBIT "A" I.. FEE ARRANGEMENTS A. Time -Plus -Expense Basis Personnel Fee will be equal to 2.15 times actual salary expenses.for all employees involved in services per- formed, except for Department Directors, Executive Directors and Survey Crews. The multiplier covers overhead and profit.. Following is a list of representative rates: Direct Salary Schedule * $/Hour - Direct Principal Engineer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.84 - 19.49 Senior Engineer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.16 - 16.66 Associate Engineer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.86 14.16 Assistant Engineer/Field Engineer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9.45 - 13.13 Design Drafter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.55 - 12.13 Drafter/Technician . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.00 - 10.50 Principal/Senior Planner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.09 - 17.25 Survey Manager . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.00 Senior Surveyor 14.16 - 14.43 Technical Illustrator 10.71 - 16.09 Technical Writer . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.50 Secretarial 5.78 - 9.66 Expert Witness (1.5 times usual hourly fee) * Actual.salary expenses include payroll taxes and fringe benefits and are equivalent to 1.3 times direct salary rates. Fixed Fee Schedule $/Hour - Fixed Fee Department and Executive Directors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60.00 2-Person Survey Crew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.00 3-Person Survey Crew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80.00 4-Person Survey Crew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95.00 4-Person Survey Crew, Hydrographic . . . . . . . . . . . . 110.00 Individuals not in the permanent employ of RMA may occasionally be engaged under personal service arrangements 'to meet specific job requirements. Charges to the client for such personnel will be equal to 2.15 times actual salary expenses but not in excess of the amount charged for a comparable full time RMA employee. An overtime premium may be charged if the client's requirements make overtime work necessary. Equipment * $/Hour - Regular Survey Boat and Motor (plus fuel) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.00 Depth -Recording Fathometer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.00 Computer (Wang 2200) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.00 Electronic Word Processor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.00 * Rates s.tated are additive to applicable personnel rates. Reimbursable Expense 1. Thirty cents ($0.30) per mile for use of RMA or employee vehicle. 2. Actual travel and subsistence expenses incurred by employees and principals when away from the home office on business connected with the client's work, plus a service charge of 10 percent. 3. Actual communication expenses, such as long distance telephone, telegraph, cable, express and postage directly applicable to the client's work, plus a service charge of 10 percent. 4. Invoice costs for outside services directly applicable to the client's work, such as special legal and accounting, computer progranning, special consultants, soils testing and laboratory services, plus a service charge of 10 percent. 5. Actual special drafting and stenographic supply costs directly applicable to the client's work, as distinguished from supplies and expenses applicable to administrative activities, plus a service charge of 10 percent. 6. Actual reproduction costs directly applicable to the client's work, such as blueprinting, photographics, multi -copies, printing, and binding, plus a service charge of 10 percent. 7. Miscellaneous direct costs applicable to the client's work, plus a service charge of 10 percent. A new schedule of charges is issued on May lst of each year or when otherwise dictated by inflationary pressure. Unless other arrangements have been made, charges for all work, including continuing projects initiated in the prior year will be based on the latest schedule of charges. B. Negotiated Fee Basis Where preferable to a "Time-Plus,Expense" agreement, fees may be negotiated on an alternate basis such as fixed fee, percentage of construction costs, or cost plus fixed fee.... 121 5th Avenue North, Suite 200, Edmonds, Washington 98020 (206) 775.3434 r4 5'\ j STREET 1383 J..'!`!,23 FIN3: 0 t; Ln UTILITY EASEMENT lei �p IN CONSIDERATION of benefits to accrue to the grantors here- � in, the undersigned, James L. Solie and Barbara I". �'olie , hereby grant to the CITY OF EDMONDS, a Municipal Corporation, a -- �, permanent easement for the installation, operation and mair►t:_enancc or, a storm sewer over, across, through, and below the follow.inq descri.i:ed property; and the further right to remove trE+es, bushes, undergrowLh and other obstructions interfering with the location, constr.ucti(..)n and maintenance of said utility or utilities, together with the r. kilit of: access to the easement at any time for the stated purposes. The easement and right-of-way hereby granted is located at. t:he County of Snohomish, State of Washington, and is more particia:larly described as follows: A ten foot strip of land that is 5.00 feet on each side, of the storm sewer as it now exists, or as located in the future. Within the following described property: That portion of Lot 89, Meadowdale Beach, according to plat thereof recorded in Volume 5 of Plats, page 38, records of Snohomish County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast corner of said Lot 89; thence South 00010100" West 152 feet; thence North 89023100" West 275 feet to the true point of beginning; thence continue North 89023100" West 97 feet; thence South 20*32100" East 25 feet; thence south 57040100" West 1.29.57 feet, more or less to the centerline of vacated county road; thence South 17°32'00" East along said centerline of vacated road 57.52 feet to the intersection of the south line of said Lot 89 produced Westerly; thence South 89*23100" East along said South line produced Westerly 190.36 feet; thence North 150.16 feet to the true point of beginning; together with that portion of Lot 88, Meadowdale Beach, according to plat thereof- re-cor0ed in Volume 5 of Plats, page 38, records of Snohomish Country, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Tract 88; thence Easterly along the North line for 50 feet; thence'South westerly to a poinr on the Westerly line of said Lot 88, for 50 feet Southeasterly from the Northwest corner thereof; thence Northwesterly along the Westerly line of. said Lot 68 for 50 feet to the point of beginning; Except the Westerly 5 feet as measured at right angles to the, Westerly line of Lot 88. 2AA . . .-k TOGETHER WITH a temporary 10 foot construction easerncrit over the aforementioned property. Said construction easement will end upon the completion of the construction of the sanitary sewer, or January 1, 1.985, whichever comes first. THE CITY agrees to restore to substantially the original condi- tion such improvements as are disturbed during the construction, main- tenance and repair of said utility or utilities; provided the granters, their heirs, or assigns shall not construct any permanent structure over, upon, or within e permanent easement: DATED this ,c day of r_',k 19 STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) ss COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH) on this day personally appeared before me Bb_,ra�:•,- S ��-�_ and jame�i.. Sot i e to me known to be the individual (s) de- scribed in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that thpv signed the same as rheir _ free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and.purposes therein mentioned. - UNDER�­JY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL THIS _15th DAY OF l�,r; L XZ--r •.,� �yftNOTARY6TUBLIC in and fcr the State of Washington residing at Al L, G v Kok 1 and _ 006 2310 ;?,•�17 0 � h�&AitPEi�fTb'�•hi�kY�fiL1%ctie•ina' . r ;-:::i „ .. _ , ..:.,'A.:.. �. . - . C:.. „ . ;i. <crrot1l5— M. N� KN O UTILITY EASEMENT 1983 J11 2 3 FIN 3: 0 C. Hof IN CONSIDERATION of benefits to accrue to the grantors- here- in, the undersigned, James L. Solie and Barbara L . �o.l.ie hereby grant to the CITY OP EDMONDS, a Municipal. Corporation, a perm..inent easement for the installation, operation and rn�rirttnar�cc c E a storm sewer over, across, through, and below the following '-J1escriA. )r::d property; and the further right to remove trE!es, bushes, underdrowt.l, and other obstructions interfering with the location, const.rur.tion and maintenance of said utility or utilities, together with th(-.- r-irJhL ?I: access to the easement at any time for the stated purposes. The easement and right-of-way hereby granted is located at. t:f1r. County of Snohomish, State of Washington, and is more par'. icul.arly described as follows: A ten foot strip of land that is 5.00 feet on each sic(: of the storm sewer as it now exists, or as located in the flature. Within the following described property: That portion of Lot 89, Meadowdale Beach, according to plat thereof recorded in Volume 5 of Flats, page 38, records of Snohomish County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast corner of said Lot 89; thence South 00*10100" West 152 feet; thence North 89023100" West 275 feet to the true point of beginning; thence continue North 89*23100" West 97 feet; thence South 20032100" East 25 feet; thence south 57*40100" West 1.29.57 feet, more or less to the centerline of vacated county road; thence South 17°32'00" East along said centerline of vacated road 57.52 feet to the intersection of the south line of said Lot 89 produced Westerly; thence South 89023'00" East along said South line produced Westerly 190.36 feet; thence North 150.16 feet to the tr.ue•point of beginning; together with that portion of Lot 88, Meadowdale Beach, according to plat thereof: recorded in Volume 5 of Plats, page 38, records of Snohomish County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Tract 88; thence Easterly along the North line for 50 feet; thence South- westerly to a poinr on the Westerly line of said Lot 88 for 50 feet Southeasterly from the Northwest corner therec.)f; thence Northwesterly along" the Westerly line of. said I..ot 138 for 50 feet to the point of beginning; Except the Westerly 5 feet as measured at right angles to the Westerly line, of Lot 88. 9306 2-3025- 3 1. ram/ :3 Fact Z7 0 TOGETHER WITH a temporary 10 foot construction easement over the aforementioned property. Said construction easr.�ment will end upon the completion of the construction of the siinitary sewer, or January 1, 1.985, whichever comes first. THE CITY agrees to restore to substantially the original condi- tion such improvements as are disturbed during the construction, main- tenance and repair of said utility or utilities; provided the grantors, their heirs, or assigns shall not construct any permanent structure over, upon, or within th.e permanent easement. DATED this �_ day of Y_ - 19 STATE OF WASHINGTON) ` ) ss COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH) On this day personally appeared before •me Barb�ir 1..-aa)]ls and � AM'$ L. Sut ; r to me known to be the individual. (s) de- scribed in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that the _ signed the same as __tjj,ir free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. UNDER-. •M1 HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL THIS _15th_ DAY OF Aj„-; 1, 128 NOTARYcTUBLIC in and for the State of :'i ;oTAJ? Washington residing at �. O Nunl,C. ,, Kirkland \< 0 IV 900 6 2 0 rgywua gga4e�ytt+ple IY�i3.elittftiv�Yie'%T�'si+�ltits�SanYrici.:,r.:c....n1•.::..;:w:l:srr:., .._.:.^.Y�::=r�a••,nti::t�,aa•;• IR449 / I 5-� Ze-�� p STREET FILEUTILITY EASEMENT r IN CONSIDERATION of benefits to accrue to the grantors herein, the undersigned Donald H. Hansen and Miriam A. Hansen, hereby grant to. the CITY OF EDMONDS, a Municipal Corporation, a permanent easement for the installation, operation and maintenance of a storm sewer over, across, through, and below the following described property; and the future right to remove trees, bushes, undergrowth and other obstructions interfering with the location, construction and maintenance of said utility or utilities, together with the right of access to the easement at any time for the stated purposes. The easement and right-of-way hereby granted is located at the County of Snohomish, State of Washington, and is more particularly described as follows: A ten foot strip of land that is 5.00 feet on each side of the storm sewer as it now exists, or as staked on the ground (October 28, 1985), within the following described property: That part of Tract 89, Meadowdale Beach, according to plat thereof recorded in Volume 5 of plats, page 38, records of Snohomish County, Washington, lying Northerly of a line described as follows: Beginning at a point on the East line of said Tract 89; 152 feet South of Northeast corner of said lot; thence North 89023' West 372 feet; thence North 75027'35" West 74.7 feet; thence South 8001' West 61 feet to Westerly line of said tract; EXCEPT Easterly one-half of said portion of Tract 89, described above. TOGETHER WITH a temporary 10 foot construction easement over the aforementioned property. Said construction easement will end upon, the completion of the construction of the storm sewer, or January 1, 1987, whichever comes first. THE CITY agrees to restore to substantially the original condition such improvements as are disturbed during the construction, maintenance and repair of said utility or utilities; provided the grantors, their heirs, or assigns shall not construct any permanent structure over, upon, or within the permanent easement. DATED this day of STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) ss COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH) On this day personally appeared before me 7 0 NH L o f I, H AaS[ tJ and 1r , Q l A nn /.I _ O A N S s. j to me known to be the individual(s) described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that signed the same as -T H L i free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. UNDER MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL THISDAY OF Nrlv�,�L, 19 �S- NOTARY PUBLIC in and for W State of Washington, residing at i ORIGINATOR: James E. Adams, Engineer EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO SUBJECT: AGENDA AGENDA TIME•: rnncPnt DATE: — AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN CONSULTANT AGREEMENT TO EVALUATE CONDITIONS AND DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS FOR MEADOWDALE SLIDE AREA EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Proposed agreement t STREET FILE CITY ATTORNEY CLERKCITY GINERING � E w FIRE x FINANCE PARKS & REC. w P R NNEL PLANNING POLICE PUBLIC R MAYOR COM. SERV.. DM. EXPENDITURE AMOUNT APPROPRIATION REQUIRED: S 15 000.00 BUDGETED: * REQUIRED: S HISTORY/SUMMARY STATEMENT: The hil.lside adjacent to 16431 - 74th Place W. has had a major slide in the past month and a crack approximately 300 feet long has developed along the hillside. A major slide in the area could rupture the City''s storm sewer, which would cause • considerable damage to downstream properties. This agreement will allow us to identify the problem and determine possible solutions and costs. * $75,000 was budgeted in 1985 in the 412 Fund for this type of project. RECOKMENOED ACTION: Authorize Mayor to sign the proposed agreement. COUNCIL -ACTION TAKEN: S STREET FILE The CITY OF EDMONDS, hereinafter called the "CITY," agrees to retain, effective when the contract is executed, the firm of REID, MIDDLETON & ASSOCIATES, INC., hereinafter called the "ENGINEER," to perform the engineering services as outlined below. It is further understood that a geotechnical firm will be employed as a subconsultant to provide a portion of the engineering services required for this project. I. EIGM9PT SQQPE The scope of this work, hereinafter called the "PROJECT," includes the review evaluation and design of improvements required in a slide -prone area on the west side of the residence at 16431 - 74th Place West, which extends from a point approximately 100 feet south of the residence to roughly 100 feet north of the residence. The ENGINEER agrees to perform, according to their best ability and in a workmanlike manner in accordance with the standards of their profession and skill, the various services required in connection with the.said PROJECT as set forth following: PHASE I 1. GeotechnicalEEvaluation a. Contact qualified geotechnical firms and select subconsultant subject to review -and approval from CITY. Terms of the subconsultant's contract must be mutually agreeable to the ENGINEER and the CITY. ; b. Geotechnical subconsultant will do the following: (1) Review available geology and pertinent subsurface information in the project vicinity. (2) Review available utility plans, including any modifications and changes. • 0 (3) Map the slide area, inspect and log soils presently exposed in the slide area. (4) Complete a series of probes and/or hand auger borings along the top of the slope in the vicinity of the slide and the residence to determine the characteristics of the near -surface soils. (5) Drill one to two borings in accessible areas to obtain deeper soils information and to allow'installation of piezometers to determine the presence of any groundwater. The need.for the drilling of one or two borings would be determined after the mapping of the slide. (6) Submit a geotechnical report with findings and recommendations. 2. Conceptual Des on a. Review geotechnical.report in meeting with subconsultant. b. Prepare conceptual plans and outline specifications. C. Prepare preliminary -cost estimate for the following: (1) Final design services. (2) Construction. (3) Construction engineering services. II. QOMPEIVSATION As full compensation for all services Heretofore mentioned in connection with the CIT'Y's project, the CITY agrees to pay, and the ENGINEER agrees to accept, the amounts in cash computed in the manner set forth following: For engineering services outlined in foregoing sections the ENGINEER shall be paid on the basis of the number of hours entailed multiplied by the standard hourly rates in the attached fee schedule, plus non -salary expenses (such as subconsultant fees and the $500.00 payment for waiver of the professional liability). Phase I shall not exceed $15,000 without prior written authorization from the Edmonds City Council on the recommendation of the Consultant Selection Committee. 1-1 • III. TIME FOR QOMPLETION The agreed time for performance and completion of Phase I is forty-five (45) calendar days from approval of this contract. The time schedule for other engineering services is subject to schedules beyond the ENGINEER's control. All other engineering services included under this contract shall be performed in a timely manner in accordance with the needs of the CITY. IV. RESPONSIBILITY The ENGINEER shall be responsible for the professional and technical accuracy and coordination of all designs, drawings, specifications and other work or materials furnished by the ENGINEER under this agreement. The ENGINEER shall without additional cost or fee to the CITY, correct or revise any errors or deficiencies in this performance. It is expressly understood and agreed that neither the CITY's review, approval or acceptance or, nor payment for, any of the services required under this agreement shall be construed to operate as a waiver of any right under this agreement, or of any cause of action arising out of the performance of this agreement. V. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS Drawings and specifications as instruments of service are and shall be the property of the CITY. It is expressly agreed that the ENGINEER may retain duplicate sets of said drawings and specifications, if he so desires. Reuse of any of the instruments of service of the ENGINEER by the CITY or others acting through the CITY on extensions of this project without written verification or adaptation by the ENGINEER.for the specific purpose intended will be at CITY's sole risk and without liability or legal exposure to ENGINEER; and CITY shall indemnify and hold harmless engineerfrom all claims, damages, losses and expenses including attorneys' fees arising out of or resulting therefrom. Any such verification or adaptation will entitle ENGINEER to further compensation at rates to be agreed upon by CITY and ENGINEER. VI. GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. Should litigation occur between the two parties relating to the provisions of this agreement, all litigation expenses, collection expenses, witness fees, court costs and attorneys fees incurred by the prevailing party shall be paid by the nonprevailing party. 2. Neither party shall hold.the other responsible for damages or delay in performance caused by Acts of God, strikes, lockouts, accidents, or other events beyond the control of the other or the other's employees and agents. 3. In the event any provisions of this agreement shall be held to be invalid and unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall be valid and binding upon the parties. One or more waivers by either party of any provisions, term, condition or covenant shall not be construed by the other party.as a waiver of, a subsequent breach of the same by the other -party. 4. Any estimate of the construction cost prepared by the Engineer. represents his judgment as a design professional and is supplied for the general guidance of the CITY. Since the ENGINEER has no control over .the cost of labor and material, or over competitive bidding or market conditions, the ENGINEER does not guarantee the accuracy of such estimates as compared to contractor bids received, of the CITY's actual final project costs. 5. The ENGINEER shall not retain any subcontractors without prior written approval of the CITY. 6. The ENGINEER shall indemnify, save harmless, and defend the CITY and/or its representatives from and against any and all liability arising from injury or death to persons or damage to property occasioned by any negligent act of omission of the ENGINEER, its agents, servants, or employees, irrespective of whether in connection with such an act or omission it is alleged or claimed that negligence of the CITY or its employees caused or contributed thereto. In case suit or action is brought against the CITY for damages arising out of or by reason of the above mentioned causes, the ENGINEER will upon request of the CITY defend the same at its sole costs and expense. 7. The ENGINEER shall maintain during the term of this agreement a liability insurance policy with public liability coverage in the amount of $1,000,000 with $500,000 per occurrence for both property damage and personal injury. This insurance shall be primary as to the CITY, with the CITY as a named insured. The CITY shall be given twenty (20) days written notice of cancellation of this policy. 8. All of the terms, provisions, and conditions hereof shall inur to and be binding upon the respective successors and assigns of the ENGINEER and no right, privilege or authorization granted to the ENGINEER shall be assigned or otherwise transferred without the prior written authorization and approval of the CITY. 9. Termination. This being an agreement for professional services, either party may terminate this agreement for any reason upon giving the other party written notice of .such termination no fewer than 10 days in advance of the effective date of said termination. 10. Non -assignable. The services to be provided by the contractor shall not be assigned or subcontracted without the express written consent of the CITY. 11. Notices. Notices to the City -of Edmonds shall be sent to the following address: City of Edmonds 250 _ 5th Avenue North Edmonds, Washington 98020 Notices to the consultant shall be sent to the following address: Reid, Middleton & Associates, Inc. 121 - 5th Avenue North, Suite 200 Edmonds, Washington 98020 Receipt of any notice shall be deemed effective three (3) days after deposit of written notice in the U.S. mails, with proper postage and properly addressed.' IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto set their hands and executed the same in quadruplicate this _day of - ____ 1984. CITY.OF EDMONDS tat --- B Title _-----____-- -- >Ta-.5r: By- ---- - Title ___�--�—• REID, MIDDLETON & ASSOCIATES, INC. By Title----- The CITY OF EDMONDS, hereinafter called the "CITY," agrees to retain, effective when the contract is executed, the firm of REID, MIDDLETON & ASSOCIATES, INC., hereinafter called the "ENGINEER," to perform the engineering services as outlined below. It is further understood that a geotechnical firm will be employed as a subconsultant to provide a portion of the engineering services required for this project. I. PROJE(T S D E The scope of this work, hereinafter called the "PROJECT," includes the review evaluation and design of improvements required in a slide -prone area on the west side of the residence at 16431 - 74th P1ace�We, , which extends from a point approximately 100 feet south of the residence to roughly 100 feet north of the residence. The ENGINEER agrees to perform, according to their best ability and in a workmanlike manner in accordance with the standards of their profession and skill, the various services required in connection with the said PROJECT as set forth following: . PHASE I 1. Geotechnica. Evaluct1gj . a. Contact qualified geotechnical firms and select subconsultant subject to review and approval from CITY. Terms of the subconsultant's contract must be mutually agreeable to the ENGINEER and the CITY. b. Geotechnicai subconsultant will do the following: (1) Review available geology and pertinent subsurface information in the project vicinity. (2) Review available utility plans, including any modifications and changes. • • .(3) Map the slide area, inspect and log soils presently exposed in the slide area. (4) Complete a series of probes and/or hand auger borings along the top of the slope in the vicinity of the slide and the residence to determine the characteristics of the near -surface soils. (5) Drill one to two borings in accessible areas to obtain deeper soils information and to.allow installation of piezometers to determine the presence of any groundwater. The need for the drilling of one or two borings would be determined after the mapping of the slide. (6) Submit a geotechnical report with findings and recommendations. 2. Concetnal Des Lqn a. Review geotechnical report in meeting with subconsultant.. b. Prepare conceptual plans and outline specifications. C. Prepare preliminary cost estimate for the following: (1) Final design services. (2) Construction. (3) Construction engineering services. II. COMPENSATION As full compensation for all services heretofore mentioned in connection with the CITY's project, the CITY agrees to pay, and the ENGINEER agrees to accept, the amounts in cash computed in the manner set forth following: For engineering services outlined in foregoing sections the ENGINEER shall be paid on the basis of the number of hours entailed multiplied by the standard hourly rates in the attached fee schedule, plus non -salary expenses (such as subconsultant fees and the $500.00 payment for waiver of the. professional liability). Phase I shall not exceed $15,000 without prior written authorization from the Edmonds City Council on the recommendation of the Consultant Selection Conunittee. III. TIME FOR O MPLETION The agreed time for performance and completion of Phase I is forty-five (45) calendar days from approval of this contract. The time schedule for other engineering services is subject to schedules beyond the ENGINEER's control. All other engineering services included under this contract shall be 0 performed in a timely manner in accordance with the needs of the CITY. IV. RESPONSIBILITY The ENGINEER shall be responsible for the professional and technical accuracy and coordination of all designs, drawings, specifications and other work or materials furnished by the ENGINEER.under this agreement. The ENGINEER shall without additional cost or fee to the CITY, correct or revise any errors or deficiencies in this performance. It is expressly understood and agreed that neither the CITY's review, approval or acceptance or, nor payment for, any of the services required under this agreement shall be construed to operate as a waiver of any right under this agreement, or of any cause of action arising out of the performance of this agreement. .Drawings and specifications as instruments of service are and shall be the property of the CITY. It is expressly agreed that the ENGINEER may retain duplicate sets of said drawings and specifications, if he so desires. Reuse of any of the instruments of service of the ENGINEER by the CITY or others acting through the CITY on extensions of this project without written verification or adaptation by the ENGINEER for the specific purpose intended will be at CITY's sole risk and without liability or legal exposure to ENGINEER; and CITY shall indemnify and hold harmless engineer from all claims, damages, losses and expenses including attorneys' fees.arising out of or resulting therefrom. Any such verification or adaptation will entitle ENGINEER to further compensation.at rates to be agreed upon by CITY and ENGINEER. VI. GENERAL PSIQNS 1. Should litigation occur between the two parties relating to the provisions of this agreement, all litigation expenses, collection expenses, witness fees, court costs and attorneys fees incurred by the prevailing party shall be paid by the nonprevailing party. 2. Neither party shall hold the other responsible for damages or delay in performance caused by Acts of God, strikes, lockouts, accidents, or other events beyond the control of the other or the other's employees and agents. 3. In the event any provisions of this agreement shall be held to be invalid and unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall be valid.and binding upon the parties. One or more waivers by either party of any provisions, term, condition or covenant shall not be construed by the other party as a waiver of a subsequent breach of the same by the other party. 4. Any estimate of the construction cost prepared by the Engineer represents his judgment as a design professional and is supplied for the general guidance of the CITY. Since the.ENGINEER has no control over the cost of labor and material, or over competitive bidding or market conditions, the ENGINEER does not guarantee the accuracy of such estimates as compared to contractor bids received, of the CITY'.s actual final project costs. 5. The ENGINEER shall not retain any subcontractors without prior written approval.of the CITY. 6. The ENGINEER shall indemnify, save harmless, and defend the CITY and/or its representatives from and against any and all liability arising from injury or death to persons or damage to property occasioned by any negligent act of omission of the ENGINEER, its agents, servants, or employees, irrespective of whether in connection with such an act or omission it is alleged or claimed that negligence of the CITY or its employees caused or contributed thereto. In case suit or action is brought against the CITY for damages arising out of or by reason of the above mentioned causes, the ENGINEER will upon request of the CITY defend the same at its sole costs and expense. 7. The ENGINEER shall maintain during the term of this agreement a liability insurance policy with public liability coverage in the amount of $1,000,000 with $500,000 per occurrence for both property damage and personal injury. This insurance shall be primary as to the CITY, with the CITY as a named insured. The CITY shall be given twenty (20) days written notice of cancellation of this policy. 8. All of the terms, provisions, and conditions hereof shall inur to and be binding upon the respective successors and assigns of the ENGINEER and no right, privilege or authorization granted to the ENGINEER shall be assigned or otherwise transferred without the prior writtenauthorization and approval of the CITY. 9. Termination. This being an agreement for professional services, either party may terminate this agreement for.any reason.upon giving the other party written notice of such termination no fewer than 10 days in advance of the effective date of said termination. 10. Non -assignable. The services to be provided by the contractor shall not be assigned or subcontracted without the express written consent of the CITY. 11. Notices. Notices to the City of Edmonds shall be sent to the following address: City of Edmonds 250 - 5th Avenue North Edmonds, Washington 98020. Notices to the consultant shall be sent to the following address: Reid, Middleton & Associates, Inc. 121 - 5th Avenue North, Suite 200 Edmonds, Washington 98020 Receipt of any notice shall be deemed effective three (3) days after deposit of written notice in the U.S. mails, with proper postage.and properly addressed. IN WITNESS WHERDOF, the parties hereto have hereunto set their hands and executed the same in quadruplicate this ago day of _ _ 1984. CITY.OF EDMONDS By-- - ---__-- Title • t*7Te7-ST,' -i-d REID, MIDDIMN & ASSOCIATES,. INC. I� Title_`----- ' . '+mil .- , / + • i EXHIBIT "B' IN CASE OF ERRORS OR INQUIRIES ABOUT YOUR BILL Reid,. Middleton & N ALGea I Associates, Inc. Engineers • Surveyors • Planners The Federal Truth in Lending Act requires prompt correction of billing mistakes. 1. If you want to preserve your rights under the Act, this is what you. must do if you think your bill was wrong or if you need more information about an item on your bill: a. Write on the bill or on another sheet of paper (you may telephone your inquiry, but doing so will not preserve your rights under this law) the following: i. Your name. ii. A description of the error and an explanation why you believe it is in error. (If you only need information, explain the item you are not sure about.) iii. The dollar amount of the suspected error. iv. Any other information (such as your address) which you think will help us identify you or the reason for your complaint or inquiry. b. Send your billing error notice to: Comptroller Reid,. Middleton & Associates, Inc. 121 5th Ave. N., Sui_te 200 Edmonds, Washington 98020 Mail it as soon as you can,.but in any case early enough to reach us within 30 days after the bi.11.was mailed to you. 2. We must acknowledge all letters pointing out possible errors within 30 days of receipt, unless we are able to correct your bill during this 30 days. Within 90 days after receiving your letter, we must either correct the error or explain why we believe the bill was correct. Once.we have explained the bill, we have no further obligation to you, even though you still believe that there is an error, except as provided in paragraph 5 below. 3. After we have been notified, we may not send you coll.ection letters or take other collection action with respect to the amount in dispute. Periodic statements may be sent to you, and the disputed amount can be applied against your credit limit. You cannot be threatened with damage to your credit rating or sued for the amount in question, nor can the disputed amount be reported to a credit bureau or to other creditors as delinquent until we have answered your inquiry. You remain obligated to pay the parts of your bill not in dispute. 4. If it is determined that we have made a mistake in your bill, you will not have to pay any finance charge on any disputed amount. If we have not made an error, you may have to pay finance charge on the amount in dispute, and you will have to make up any missed minimum or required pay- ments on the disputed amount. Unless you have agreed that your bill was correct, we must send you written notice of what you owe, and if it is. determined that we did not make a mistake in billing the disputed amount, you must be given the time to pay which you normally are given to pay undisputed amounts before any more finance or late payment charges on the disputed amount can be charged.to you. 5. If our explanation does not satisfy you and you notify us in writing within ten days after you receive our explanation that you still rere u�pay the disputed amount, we may report you to credit bureaus and other creditors and may pursue regular collection procedures. .However, we must also report that you think you do not owe the money, and we must let you know to whom such reports were made. Once the matter has been settled between us, we must notify those to whom we reported you as delinquent of the subsequent resolution. 6. If we do not follow these rules, we are not allowed to collect the first S50 of the disputed amount and finance charge, even if the bill turns out to be correct. 121 5th Avenue North, Suite 200, Edmonds, Washington 98020 (206) 775-3434 II. TERMS OF PAYMENT Fees and all other charges will be billed monthly as work progresses and the amount of each invoice shall be due and payable ten (10) days after the date of such invoice unless otherwise agreed. Any portion of an invoice not paid within thirty (30) days of the billing date shall be considered delinquent and shall bear a delinquency charge of 1-1/2 percent per month (but not exceeding the maximum rate allowed by law) from the due date on the unpaid balance. If any owner payment due the consultant becomes delinquent, the consultant may at its option, suspend services until all such amounts due, including interest, have been paid in full. In no event shall said delinquency charge or the payment thereof extend the due date. Payments received on delinquent accounts.will be applied first to accrued interest and then to the principal unpaid amount. Any attorney's fees or other costs incurred in collecting any delinquent amount shall be paid by the client. III. SCOPE AND EXECUTION OF SERVICES IV. RMA intends to render its service in accordance with generally accepted professional practices for the intended use of a project and makes no other warranty, either express or implied, as to its findings, recommendations, specifications, or professional advice. In the event that the client requests termination of the work prior to completion, RMA reserves the right to complete such analyses and records as may be necessary to place its files in order and, where considered necessary to protect its professional reputation, to complete a report on work performed to date. A termination charge (liquidated damages) to cover the.costs thereof in an amount not .to exceed ten (10) percent of all charges incurred up to the date of the stoppage of the work may be made at the discretion of RMA. RMA will diligently proceed with the work contracted for, but it is expressly agreed and under- stood that RMA shall not be held responsible fordelays occasioned by factors beyond its control, nor by factors which could not.reasonably have been foreseen at the time of the execution of the agreement between the parties. In the event the client makes a claim against RMA, at law or otherwise, for any alleged error, omission, or other act arising out of the performance of its professional services, and the client fails to prove such claim, then the client shall pay all costs, including actual attorney's fees incurred by RMA in defending itself against such claim. The client shall pay the costs of government fees, soils testing fees, aerial topography fees, monuments, copies, materials and all other charges not specifically covered by the terms of this agreement. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS All drawings, specifications and other work products prepared by RMA for a project are instruments of service for that project only and shall remain the property of RMA whether the project is com- pleted or not, Reuse of -.any of the instruments of service by the client on extensions of this project or on any other project without the written permission of RMA shall be at the client's risk and the client agrees to defend, indemnify and hold RMA harmless from all claims, damages, and expenses including attorney's fees arising out of such unauthorized reuse of the instruments of service by the client or by others acting through the client. Any reuse or adaptation of RMA's instruments of service occurring after the written agreement of RMA shall entitle RMA to further compensation in amounts to be agreed upon by the client and RMA. V. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY�`'� An d all liability, claim for damages, cost of defense, or expense o be levied against RMA will be ' 'ted to a sum not to exceed Fifty Thousand Dollar," 5�1,000.00) or the amount of its fee, whichever reater, on account of any injury or_da�e to persons or property or arising out of any design de error, omission, or pr sional negligence. Further, the client agrees to or or subcon or who may perform work in connection with or making. use of any design, report, or s pared by RMA of such limitation of liability and require as a condition precedent to its r o }' g the work a like limitation of liability on their part as against RMA. In the ev a client fai to obtain a like limitation of liability provision as to injury or dmapersons or property, ign defects, errors, omissions, or.professional negligence, any�ni"�Juryy ty of RMA and/or the client uch contractor or subcontractor arising out of allege or damage to persons or property, 'aa- gn defects, errors, omissions, or professio negligence shall be allocated between the client -and. RMA in such a manner that the ag a liability of RMA shall not exceed Fifty Thousand Dollars W,0,000.00) or the amount of fee, whichever is greater. . Consultant shall not be liable for damages resulting from the actions or inactions of governmental agencies, and consultant shall only act as an advisor in all governmental relations. In the event that any staking is destroyed by an act of God or parties other than consultant, the cost of restaking shall be paid by client as extra work, provided such work is authorized by client. Consultant makes no warranties or offers no opinion as to matters of unwritten title such as adverse possession, acquiescence, estoppel, and unrecorded easements. mv J Reid, Middleton & Associates, Inc. Engineers • Surveyors • Planners EFFECTIVE MAY 1, 1984 CONDITIONS OF AGREEMENT EXHIBIT "A" I., FEE ARRANGEMENTS A. Time -Plus -Expense Basis Personnel Fee will be equal to 2.15 times actual salary expenses for all employees involved in services per- formed, except for Department Directors, Executive Directors and Survey Crews. The multiplier covers overhead and profit. Following is.a list.of representative rates: Direct Salary Schedule * $/Hour - Direct Principal Engineer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.84 - 19.49 Senior Engineer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.16 - 16.66 Associate Engineer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.86 - 14.16 Assistant Engineer/Field Engineer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.45 - 13.13 Design Drafter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.55 - 12.13 Drafter/Technician . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.00 - 10.50 Principal/Senior Planner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.09 - 17.25 Survey Manager . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.00 Senior Surveyor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.16 - 14.43. Technical Illustrator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.71 - 16.09 Technical Writer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.50 Secretarial . . 5.78 - 9.66 Expert Witness 0.5 times usual hourly fee) * Actual salary expenses include payroll taxes and fringe benefits and are equivalent to 1.3 times direct salary rates. Fixed Fee Schedule $/Hour - Fixed Fee Department and Executive Directors . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60.00 2-Person Survey Crew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.00 3-Person Survey Crew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80.00 4-Person Survey Crew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95.00 4-Person Survey Crew, Hydrographic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110.00 Individuals not in the permanent employ of RMA may occasionally be engaged under personal service arrangements to meet specific job requirements. Charges to the client for such personnel will be' equal to 2.15 times actual salary expenses but not in excess of the amount charged for a comparable full time RMA employee. An overtime premium may be charged if the client's requirements make overtime work necessary. Equipment * $/Hour - Regular Survey Boat and Motor (plus fuel) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.00 Depth -Recording Fathometer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.00 Computer (Wang 2200) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.00 Electronic Word Processor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.00 * Rates stated are additive to applicable personnel rates. Reimbursable Expense 1. Thirty cents ($0.30) per mile for use of RMA or employee vehicle. 2. Actual travel and subsistence expenses incurred by employees and principals when away from the home office on business connected with the client's work, plus a service charge of 10 percent. 3. Actual communication expenses, such as long distance telephone, telegraph, cable, express and postage directly applicable to the client's work, plus a service charge of 10 percent. 4: Invoice costs for outside services directly applicable to the client's work, such as special legal. and accounting, computer programming, special consultants, soils testing and laboratory services, plus a service charge of 10 percent. 5. Actual special drafting and stenographic supply costs directly applicable to the client's work, as distinguished from supplies and expenses applicable to administrative activities, plus a service charge of 10 percent. 6. Actual reproduction costs directly applicable to the client's work, such as blueprinting, photographics, multi -copies, printing, and binding, plus a service charge of 10 percent. 7. Miscellaneous direct costs applicable to the client's work, plus a service charge of 10 percent. A new schedule of charges is issued on May lst of each year or when otherwise dictated by inflationary pressure. Unless other arrangements have been made, charges for all work, including continuing projects initiated in the prior year will be based on the latest schedule of charges. B. Negotiated Fee Basis Where preferable to a•"Time-Plus-Expense" agreement, fees may be negotiated on an alternate basis such as fixed fee, percentage of construction costs, or cost plus fixed fee-, 121 5th Avenue North, Suite 200, Edmonds, Washington 98020 (206) 775-3434 -LO N N Zino 1 Z. s kzi45 -Ap ? -, oOa�--1- S V N Q NOTE ; 51A • P�pL� �-� �"t GB r G4 THISEHEETXU TEEING REQUIRED IN ALL TRENp1E5 1z+0o +00 V G 5TA• F. t Gv THIS SHEET UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED'I ,� ,� o N e. STn. a� + eo � • 1 P_ EX16T. Ib rll'E �I w°11 f. OtODi _ ��& Gb092 . Gbrs $°i 0TA• 0 t 73 ) 6�'L . b1A• L+OS ReMOVti tJCIST. APPW-07. t_OCATION , 0 ~ PULLE. PLUH�� VWST LJATC1ZMAlN. ,,s ,.us�a I �nS� e! NEW 12''GONG - • _ 6TUB OUT -t5 I.f Of Z Gb G3 a -/tune ` 1 Gb r G(`OV , o `-c. i3 t: 6t+W 7 61A. 0t3p� - ; 12°Gt-IP TO t-A15T. e•WAC.Prow + 6ZA Z - EItIST iS pa PRAIWA61t WITM Prrr LEA GT ' � r+° L.IATETt:MA11J. TIRASH KAf K T 10N OF 51 pNC 1tVn RJR Gb ,��" » r EMOVE EXIOT. FLUME A' � R- GAftE yHl1LL "iAKF.f 1 5TA• I t 70'� AhPHAVT ROAD Q Z""ATE N T TO o15TUIk6 THt hTA. I t 82± GB I G9 VALVE DRAIN NEL.O ON THIy TZANE>CSE UNE GTA. 0+4Z O PRoPPRTY � GB / Gd APP(r,�7(. LOCATION mt 9TA. OF PZZP. UNC. Ot 1t tt L_T ' 3/+" H09E 6188 TCAVEi>;SE LttfE. 6TA. Ota Gb M70 CB r 5G ` EX151. IV PIPE fxl'� co>Jc. t.1P�L_ 6TA• 0t92 SINE- 6TA. I t 20 T {GAv ESCSE GI3+� 519 INTF-7-c-`P- 0Ir- 2zowwTi.To �� ` 9TA. 4+00 G9r Go42 1 KoPHALT ROAD �PLc Di-AIN N0.4=G ,..,,,,• 9TA Q EX1kT, II?RN ..}, a1 s+ ,16-rH P 5t6 SHOT II ° J\ i Poll GOVI;R GLTNL -� 9T . Z+g9 co I cat r r — a tAIhT. IsROUNO ti 9TA. 9 -r B r•_ NEw 12" GONG. Gb • SEEIEtT 7 9TA. Bt53 5TA.39t74f NOTE: / MIN LONN To e1A.4ts1'� PftCryGH DaAIN O t0o Gb 47 PLYw000 TO Z I MIN,- / .' �,' / 2" PvG PIPE >=x1sT It• EXTEND A MIN. = 1 // GD 0 99 2.EN,sr1N4 PIPS, T"NGHvc4 Jfj 9GHEDULB Qd STA. 3+g3 9T^ 5+3 v�e.,ww• T OT^ yt`Z K PIPb /ZF.r+GH cn1wI " o. B 27810-tz PVG PIPE EROSION CONTROL. STRUCTURE INTEV rb 2761/ 14.10, NOT To SCALE Fib 276 t / 39 - 41 IV. hANI'tA(RY 5E`t/ER?R6FTERENG61PMWIN �- �! (�1' t 1 !E Tti ,19 0 O 1 1 I f tt IPvG�to GON T 1}. ( 1 j . I • _ �`.� 4 ! _ !� . i I t01. TO Laclro'j. C► TEQ�J 5� - �� - L- kil- 1- : - ,- U i 1►1STA\ Cam, _ , TNO NvsltT- /1Tit7N9 j_ -�. 1aG L� O tt" -1-" }._ Ui �• I !. ,DET 11NC T IL AV 6MN T^5LI HEO• �-- - ., Gb4P C� G'• 1,t } gl- t6 �1 APPRO ItW�T� • /' 1J 1 t \\` MIAI 2 • 9 l.E_�5� t I -� I t 1 � LIP OF 2 P U i 4tl,r o II:• ,GN t } . �a rar @ - ! I iG I Q •� ��, (> RECORD W1 mo _ ! - - - - - TIC - • - v j j Q' 1 Q U ;� ,L'IQ.t ( _ __.' _ _. _ _ •ti S _.Il . 1_ .-...-- t - -. _ l .. -- - -•-� - - y ! :ffi 4- IT i fITTIN I / 1 } f! 49j9.S O _= N Q j . ` O i j °� I \ t ,�i► f- B - ` / �, k► �E` 1 T L-`' } 1 w \ per, ro y IL IL -+- 1 t IL ; i ! 1 i 1 A�� _I 1! ~+ ti _ V W 1. I } 1EW • - s z�� T� � y' � Alwog{. as I �- _ � 1, • >tl, i .T. — � iN'rL�.t�G. pro den tpp lt-4 two M ( 1/0, r - - _ i @ �'• 1 QT• _ Xlg NG _ -�_0 1.6 - Cvt3R1" } 50jr I�rp 4• I 1" ��•-t IB CM `p t0•1 M %O �yy i ! A`�AA�q�7�� } 6 i•E. - f Or t3" GMR P O,'!. I 1-a[-► ��J�_d- - -.—a_ �� y•- 1 — ....-. a �.:.:.- 3 INS , • . �--�:i.•F.-f Of IL° .. ` `� J 1JS1�/C�%C�' �p.ew wrM. C.•1 , tJC.. T•• ApR ••Oi•, I�•8G' �i•D3 7LFGnP als.el/• 6N6HEERA[Y0ME 1:3.94140 s"L ....,.. I •10 ...., 8 .. CITY OF 1101A0 06 LID 210 75th Place West N. LM!SA"W'OlAIA #"tOf!'MlEWtLtRS ���1�Ltan nP� rl- /6¢3/ 74 /G l✓ STREET FILE • 0 STREET FILE CITY OF EDMONDS 250 5th AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 • (206) 771-3202 COMMUNITY SERVICES TO: Jim and Barbara Solie 16431 - 74th P1. W. Edmonds, WA. 98020 RE: Utility Easement 19: LARRY S. NAUGHTEN MAYOR PETER E. HAHN DIRECTOR DATE: January 8, 1986 FILE NO.: PROJECT NO.: SERIAL NO.: (If Applicable TRANSMITTING: Easement for you to sign and (second request) As you requested For your information As we discussed For appropriate action For your file For posting in public place For signature and return X REMARKS: We have enclosed a stami2ed,elf-arlaraGGaH envelope for _Your convenience. PUBLIC WORKS PLANNING Anginettlihg�: �S-(fc�retary • PARKS AND RECREATION ENGINEERING STREET FILE CITY OF EDMONDS 250 5th AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 • (206) 771.3202 LARRY S. NAUGHTEN MAYOR COMMUNITY SERVICES PETER E. HAHN DIRECTOR DATE:— I �p [A(, FILE NO.: PROJECT NO.: SERIAL NO.: • % (I"f Applicable) TO: L, 1 M&14vn As you requested For your information As we discussed For appropriate action For your file For posting in public place For signature and return REMARKS': JCLAcv PUBLIC WORKS • PLANNING • PARKS AND RECREATION • ENGINEERING hTA, 12 t00 Otoo APPRO7, LOC A oz EXIST tJAZCr-mpow 6TA, 0+3G 0 / CID NOTE ALE V-.N' G S O At G4THISPOLYETHYLENE THEETNUNLESSNOTHEQUIRED IN ALL TRENCHES �I5�t•+ P�' P v htA• 2tGV ,�� Ex19T. 18" PIPE w„r a coo 53 � r. +� G5 hTA, O t73, G'LT• y1,^• Yt58 REMOVE EXIST. G9 � 52 �c6eTA.Ot Z3g� pt FLu�i �s��`p`-DLE `'�• s NEW 12' GONG• hTUB OUT -its l.F OF Z GB w 63 it'�cune \ 1 _ G13 GGOC/ 5tE 6HE&T 7 -� 12''CMP To GX19T, e"ccwc-.+-�� tiSP 2 - %`-�xt�T DRAINA6e WITH �° O w� IJATETCMAtN. TRASH RACK APP�px. LCXPTLI,ON G5 Col ^ �� I I REMovE Exl9t, FLUME of H tt`� ; GARS C,� LL BE TAKLr4 STA. I t 324 51A. I t 701� AyPHALT ROAD o Z" GATE IJOT TO 015TURjL3 THE GBjo G9 VALV6 DRAIN FIELD ON THiC7 TV_AveesE UNE. N OTA, 0+4R L Q PROPERTY cat-rvcr�x. LocaTto CB At G8 OF TRAP. LINE. 3�.}° HOhE 8186 TLAvETC�E LINE. 4b 9TA. Ot 1L tL LT , 6TA . O t GG � n G B H 70 Oe 6TA � I t 20 CB s 5& EX15T, IZ" PIPS I ExtsZ coNc.L 1PlL 9TA.0+92 TiCAVETCSE 9TA.2+35 �e uNE. INTEV_LEPTare- 2.: LT, aw ` G8 et 58 C81 GO co LpN1.lT0 �� �. $XIkT. GIhTERN p�A1N N0.4-C STA. 4+00 STA, 5+GZ 19' L,T. AhPHALT ROAD , PLE ExtsT IZ' a �` ce�� �� 'ISTH PL FED 60V&ik 17ETNL 2+ 5 3 C 8 1 G 1 �---- = iu • 9TA. 5t87 � � eJC19T. GROUND NEW 12" GONG. ' G3 57 -'--- 5EE SHEET• 7 I , 6, STA. -5t53 / CAA .35+74= NOTE: l LC]NN To 94+61 i3 t FTA, RLY tMCH DRAIN O t00 G6 s 47 Pw000 TO Z 1 MIN, '; MIN, EXIST VL7 EXTEND A MIN, = 1: %% j' 2 Pvc PIPE 9TA. 3+53 G9 AI 59 2exlsruv6 OF Co" 5EYONO= j ,// �I 9GHEOULE 40 9TA. 5 t3 vnr>Irucr. PIPE TRENCH c4 I , "r• , L'_ 0 -�� G8A'G2 /IV "Ile 9TA, 5 t62 PIPE, TRENCH «,. INTEy_C.EPTQ9_ 07-PON ND. 3 �= c r 63 v u GB.� 5e, 3�`'cMP w FB 2781/ 10-12 PVC PIPE ER0510N GON1ROl. CjTRUGTURE Ff3 2781/38-41 m - o- ff3 2792/ 14 15 --•--- --- u NOT To — - ---- ----- ---� L r r _ p 1 N J ! SHEEiT ,13 '.PVG CO T I i15T. USTEQN i 1 O E; - --. sQ . -- - too d-.I _ ._ I o_� I -A - -� -- 7- - - - - --- -- - ! -- — - - :i°STALL CONT_L."SCE _.._ r_ .--- - - - - --- - r2 I NO INvERT-EVATION9: U -! ! i DETAIL SNE T II HAVt; UeN F.5TA01..1gHE0' �o•, i I " SL.oPE6; R AP,, IMATE; GM,P @ / MINI 2%f '3 oPE. - , I I , 47' La LFeir Of {2°CrP U i P' i t I 1 I ( 7� 9 a RECORD �WINf'� i ca T '/ A 1. �, \ I I i I ! C� ! Itt f-- — - - - --- - - --1 - - - All(� mo �l'1Q r--- I � r-- :LQ. � (��.QQW.- i -- ' I I 47 LC OF .IL i { I i I Q i ' l �r a / IMP @ y o�. { I E - - - - -- - - - - --. - --- - J 42. l .� ' G J y 1 f I_ I I �. - 49t�5 O < - I i FIT71N 5 h .:. ( ( I l I - 1 i 1-- f i -- � j 34aCI�P u► e Qf INAL - r. ( 1 TE(Z GEPTO� !Al NO ( - - ^ ice' ! al �� W PE TRfagy ----- --. - - --- - - ------ _. - _.. .. --- r- - or- ---- --- .._ - --- I - - --- - - - - - m �Lp N DOS •ts•,• 4 �• -}� { OL .. -- ! r — ; i I --�-- -� - - J - - - --- -- -- --}---- I -F--- - ; i � �► I V ml D:m I y � �1 '; /. � . �U W I i - } N x I { ( _ 11 W } { V t r� V -i IRHO 12" f ! AP°X' 47 I -- -- _ AOK. 24 - I - --- - (; 21,� _ m ._ s 1 f , P { f INT.E�CEPTO{Z -- �, N U - t - IfGMR to - - ( { - -_- -- - m I -� _wLr " I i oP 12• MP ! i WN'N0.4 C 1. u % / ! i o� j 41�7ING•I.C.12-- ?-----'ULVERT 150 Lf o•- ,CI4f12,'/e i Oi i i It 18"CM I.E. _ I 1 0 * STREET FILE CITY OF E ®M ®N ®S LARRY S. NAUGHTEN MAYOR 250 • Sth AVE. N. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 DATE713202 I 71.05 OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER FILE NO.: PROJECT NO.: E'15rcl SERIAL NO.: (If Applicable) T O : V /0%1 4,U"'0i3 j'0'1-je5 - ,71/Z. Zd RE: U/,X/'y�M � TRANSMITTING : 11,7-0 el'as ',?e"2/ 71i%y4Gi To s1r;a- , As you requested For your information As we discussed For appropriate action For your file For posting in public place For signature and return �— REMARKS: st 12/82 UTILITY EASEMENT IN CONSIDERATION of benefits to accrue to the grantors herein the undersigned, James L. Solie and Barbara L. Solie, hereby grant to the CITY OF EDMONDS, a Municipal Corporation, a permanent easement for the installation, operation and maintenance of a storm sewer over, across, through, and below the following described property; and the further right to remove trees, bushes, undergrowth and other obstructions interfering with the ]vocation, construction and maintenance.of said utility or utilities, together with the right of access to the easement at any time for the stated purposes. The easement and right-of-way hereby granted is located at the County of Snohomish, State of Washington, and is more particularly described as follows: A 10 foot strip of land that is 5.00 feet on each side of the storm sewer as proposed on December 9, 1985, or as located in the future. Within the following described property: That portion of Lot 89, Meadowdale Beach, according to the plat thereof, recorded in Volume 5 of plats, page 38, records of Snohomish County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast corner of said Lot 89; thence South 0 10'00" West 152 feet; thence North 89 23100" West 275 feet to the true point of beginning; thence continue North 89 23'00" West 97 feet; thence South 20 32'00" East 25 feet; thence South 57 40'00" West 129.57 feet, more or less, to the centerline of vacated county road; thence South 17 32100" East along said centerline of vacated road 57.52 feet to the intersection of the South line of said Lot 89 produced Westerly; thence South 89 23100" East along s,aid South line produced Westerly 190.36 feet; thence North 150.16 feet to the true point of beginning; together with that portion of Lot 88, Meadowdale Beach, according to the plat thereof, recorded in Volume 5 of plats, page 38, records of Snohomish County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Tract 88; thence Easterly along the North line for 50 feet; thence South- westerly to a point on the Westerly line of said Lot 88 for 50 feet Southeasterly from the Northwest corner thereof; thence Northwesterly along the Westerly line of said Lot 88 for 50 feet to the point of beginning; EXCEPT the Westerly 5 feet as measured at right angles to the Westerly line of Lot 88. TOGETHER WITH a temporary 10 foot construction easement over the aforementioned property. Said construction easement will end upon the completion of the construction of the sanitary sewer, or January 1, 1987, whichever comes first. THE CITY agrees to restore to substantially the original con- dition such improvements as are disturbed during the construction, maintenance and repair of said utility or utilities; provided the grantors, their heirs, or assigns shall not construct any permanent structure over, upon, or within the permanent easement. 2 DATED this 19 i day of VA STATE OF WASHINGTON) COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH) On this day personally appeared before me and to me known to be the individual(s) described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that signed the same as i free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. UNDER MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL THIS DAY OF 19 NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at F L BARBARAMA CITY OF EDMONDS YOR a MAYOR 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771.0221 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT I� c 189p Planning • Building • Engineering April 9, 1999 Dr. Douglas Grier 16431 74`h Place West Edmonds, Washington 98026 RE: Homeowner Insurance Coverage for Meadowdale Development Development of your home was subject to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 19.05.050 which regulated construction and insurance coverage requirements for all designated Meadowdale Landslide Hazard Area development. The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the Edmonds City Council has enacted a change which effects homeowner's policies that were required by this ordinance. Please be advised, the City. Council has repealed this requirement effective April 16, 1999. In lieu of this policy the City Council will be holding future public hearings to determine alternate coverage methods to ensure that the intent of ECDC 19.05.050 are still met. Please contact the City Clerk if you are interested in attending these meetings. You may wish to consult your insurance professional to determine the proper amount of insurance coverage necessary to meet your specific needs. Since the insurance requirement is repealed the City no longer requires to be informed of your coverage or be provided with a copy of your current policy. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions at 771-0220. Thank you, 6�4"J(4<6 Jeannine L. Graf Building Official • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister City - Hekinan, Japan loc.189O CITY OF EDMONDS BARB ARA 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 February 9, 1998 Mark Bucklin Keating, Bucklin & McCormack, P.S. 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4141 Seattle, Washington 98104-9423 SUBJECT: Telephone conversation with Karen Willie on February 5, 1998 Dear Mark: Following receipt of our letter on February 5, 1998, Karen called to review her understanding of our position and to explain her expert's opinion of the situation. She stated that her expert preferred to grout the entire line solid. I told her that we would be willing to review their ideas. I said we would have a concern about any party doing any work that required digging into the hillside at this time of year. I noted that grouting the line solid was something we had considered briefly but would have concerns about attempting at this time of year. She said she would get us written agreement to the conditions in our letter as soon as possible and hoped to have a proposal based on their expert's review to us within the next two weeks. I believe taking that line out of service would be in our best interest. The line should be smoke tested first to reduce the risk of finding out something is connected to it once grout appears out of a drain. Once there is no source of ground or surface water left to enter the CMP manhole on the slope, the entire storm system down the slope could be abandoned and taken out of service. Sincerely, )-f� e. JAMES C. WALKER, P.E. City Engineer JCW/cmc c: Scott Snyder, City Attorney Ogden, Murphy and Wallace 0 Incorporated August 11, 1890 • KWTELLDOC Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan CITY OF PDMUNDS 121 ' Avenue To: Karen A. Willie February B, 1998 of peace including cover sheet: 3 m Walker Mty Xn sneer Pho <425) 771-0220 Fexhons: (425) 771-0221 R$�.r��auci Q Urgent Q For your review I +j+Leply ASAP Q Please caxxuTaent I 12saponae to letter dated January 22, 1998 from Dauglae 14. Qrier, MD } TRANSMISSION REPORT THIS DOCUMENT (REDUCED SAMPLE ABOVE) WAS SENT ** COUNT # 3 kc SEND *** NO REMOTE STATION I.D. START TIME DURATION #PAGES COMMENT 1 206 624 5581 2— 5-98 2:49PM 2'04" 3 TOTAL 0:02'04" 3 XEROX TELECOPIER 7020 1.4c.189v CITY OF 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 February 5, 1998 Karen A. Willie LAW OFFICES OF KAREN WILLIE 1325 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1402 Seattle, WA 98101 SUBJECT: Letter Dated January 22,1998 from Douglas H. Grier, MD Dear Ms. Willie: Because Dr. Grier is represented, we are sending this reply to his January 22, 1998 letter, to you. The letter indicated that he believes the City agreed to make repairs to the drain line he exposed. This is not correct. At a meeting held at the site on January 21, 1998 the City agreed to use a camera to inspect the line to better determine its source, but at no time did we agree to repair of the line. The City has no records to indicate that we have ownership of that line. The video inspection of the line was completed and that record is available for your review. The City believes the best method for repair of the line would be placement of chemical grout from inside the pipe to provide a flexible permanent seal at the connection between the 8-inch concrete pipe and the 12-inch corrugated metal pipe. A contractor specializing in that type of repair could do all work from within the pipe. Since the activities your client has undertaken may have left a hazardous situation at the site, the City is willing to undertake repair.of the line as an emergency action, with neither party agreeing to assume responsibility for maintenance of the line at this time. With the repair method proposed, your client's contractors could backfill the area and complete restoration at any time. If your client agrees to allow us to proceed with the outlined repair and agrees that by our doing so it does not constitute an admission of any kind or an assumption of future maintenance or ownership of the line in question, we will proceed with the joint repair. 0 Incorporated August 11, 1890 0 Karen A. Willie February 5, 1998 Page 2 We need your written agreement to these conditions and permission to proceed with the contractor at City expense. Please respond at your earliest opportunity. Sincerely, JAMES C. WALKER, PE City Engineer ICW/cmc cc: Scott Snyder Mark Bucklin Douglas H. Grier, MD GRIERI.UM CITY OF EI3MON1>S 121 &.A%renue North, Hm donds, Waah n 98020 ' Date: ]Ft�bruary S, E998 Number of pages including cover sheet: 2 To: Mark l;axcklin 8uck11n,1C.eat1ng fit McC4cPrrnne3c Phone: Fex phone: (206) 223-9423 CC: From: Jim Walker City Engineer. Phone: (423) 771-0220 Fax phone: (423) 771-0221 31tE1%JARIC9i ® Vrgent 0 For your review 0 Reply ASAP 0 Please comment Douglas CTrier response letter to his attorrxey, F-aren A. Willie_ TRANSMISSION REPORT THIS DOCUMENT (REDUCED SAMPLE ABOVE) WAS SENT ** COUNT # 2 *** SEND *** NO REMOTE STATION I.D. START TIME DURATION #PAGES COMMENT 1 206 223 9423 2- 5-96 9:54AM 1'22" 2 TOTAL 0:01'22" 2 XEROX TELECOPIER 7020 • � C! o>F �dn'aondis CownlWnity Servil'ces nepareirnenit • Butiall ng-Planning-EnjffIsReering 1 Z 1 -3 Ch Avenue Tloreh • aimd Flmor Edmonds, dVA 98020 Pt1ono_ (425) 771-0220 . FAX: (425) 771-0221 FAX C®VE% PAG E From: Date Transmitted:- ��9� No. of Pages: -� Recipient's Fax No:(including cover page.) Facsimile Equipment: Automatic✓C3roup 1l (2,3 mina.); Group ill. I} thorm Ora any problema during tranamisalon or elooumento are reoelved Incotrtpleto. plaaaa gall (206) 771-0220 and malt !or : c: rooaptlonyan a(fbxmhoet. doo TRANSMISSION REPORT THIS DOCUMENT (REDUCED SAMPLE ABOVE) WAS SENT MN *** SEND *** COUNT 3 NO REMOTE STATION I.D. START TIME DURATION #PAGES COMMENT 1 206 223 9423 1-28-98 • 3:38PM 1'58" 3 TOTAL 0:01'58" 3 XEROX TELECOPIER 7020 C4mrnanun8ty _Services 0epartmeimt OulldiniQ->blanning-En*lnearing ' 121 -5th Aven um EMortl>< e, 2nd door Edmonds. WA 9E020 Phork3: (425) 771-0220 FAX: (_4.25) 771-0221 F^X C ®!/E K PACC E From: Date Transmitted: No. of Pages:_ (Including cover page.) Recipient's Fax Noc Facslmila Equipmant: Automatic/Group 11 (2,3 mina.); Orcup Ill. If there are any problemm during tranmmimmion or dooumente taro recelvod Incomplete. plaaae amll (206) 771-0220 and omlc for: w naceptlonVane/faxahaet.doo TRANSMISSION REPORT s THIS DOCUMENT (REDUCED SAMPLE ABOVE) WAS SENT COUNT 3 *** SEND *** NO REMOTE STATION I.D. START TIME DURATION #PAGES COMMENT 1 92064470215 1-28-98 2:24PM 2'53" 3 TOTAL 0:02'53" 3 XEROX TELECOPIER 7020 Ihc.18o10 CITY OF EDMONDS 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 January 28, 1998 Douglas H. Grier, MD 16431 74th Place W. Edmonds, WA 98026 Subject: Letter Dated January 22,1998 Dear Dr. Grier: Your letter dated January 22, 1998 indicates that you believe; the City will make repairs to the drain line you exposed. That is not correct. At the January 21, 1998 meeting at the site the City agreed to use a camera to inspect the line to better determine its source, but at no time did we agree to repair your line. The City has no records to indicate that we have ownership -of that line and cannot do work for the benefit of individual property owners. Please immediately repair the line and restore the area. Sincerely, JAMES C. WALKER, PE City Engineer JCW/sf cc: Scott Snyder Mark Bucklin GRIERI .DOC • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan • Douglas H. Grier., MD 16431 740 Place W. Edmonds, WA 98026 January 22, 1998 Mr. Jim Walker City of Edmonds, Engineering Division 250 — e Avenue N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. Walker: I have contacted Jim Solie about the history of the catch basin and 12" corrugated pipe, which resides down the slope in front of my house. He has a clear recollection of an open metal trough that was present prior to construction of phis house. He is certain that the City placed the current structure where it is and connected it to .the LID running north along the property line. There were two blow outs of water that occurred in 1983 after the completion of the LID. The first occurred at the junction between the large catch basin and the foundation of my house. The second occurred from the emergency tie-in below the catch basin with the next storm that came through. Apparently that 12" plastic diverting pipe was not well supported and so an additional break in the line with large efflux of water occurred. The City simply disconnected the drainage pipe at catch basin 57 and made no repairs to the break in the line. Mr. Solie emphatically states that the house does not tie into that concrete pipe running parallel to the foundation. He also emphatically states that the settlement papers did inot discuss building of any retaining walls as part of the reconciliation. It is now 48 hours after our mutual inspection of the leaking City drainage pipe. My contractors have left the site uncovered in order that the City affect immediate repairs. It is my understanding .that you plan to provide a television video of the area that is in disrepair and affect immediate repairs. As there is heavy rain current and predicted, it is unconscionable that you are not proceeding with due speed. . My contractors cannot place in the retaining wall around the City's catch basin until you affect repairs. If there is ongoing and further damage to this area, it will only increase. the City's burden to provide funds to make my property whole again. Thank you for your prompt consideration. Sincerely, `a Dou s H. Grier, M.D. DHG:Imc cc: Karen Willie, .Esq. CITY OF EDMONDS REQUEST FOR PUBLIC RECORDS PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Requester Name: 6-G-,4-f 6-1v" Address: Z/ 3 / 7 V f� �L �-✓ Phone Number: `7 Z,/.L Z y Request Made By: [L,: f n Person [ ] In Writing Date of Request: 2/ /� g Nature of Request: ,f flee, ( ✓ Ge, fil G.ti. V 3J /I'1 " iw ' //2 71,1 e- v�,v 0/ 5/9 0 (� n f ✓CL/ Y7 /vi L� 2/� it / V�l A Is information requested to be used for commercial purposes? lid /hA p /u/c / y 9 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. Act' 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 ON REVERSE SIDE L; L 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 needed, explain why: 5. If request denied or record withheld in part, name the exemption contained in Chapter, 42.17 RCW which authorizes withholding or denial: 6. If request denied or record withheld in part, explain how the exemption applies to this record: 7. Request received by:: Department: Date: FEES 0 - 5 copies free Standard copy charge @ $.15 per page: Charge �& pages @ $.15 per page Other (Refer to current Records Index & Fee Schedule) Total Fees: DOCUMENTS PROVIDED: DATE: MAILED: PICK UP: RECEIPT DATE: 14 RECEIvED CITY OF EDMONDS REQUEST FOR PUBLIC RECORDS JAN 13 1998 COMMMITY SEWICE6 PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Requester Name: l )D l/G-L q I C-2 a Address: `%� -7 `` f rl Phone Number: Request Made By: [LI/In Person [ ] In Writing Date of Request: Nature of Request: Ile f Is information requested to be used for commercial purposes? 11-U Signa a 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: N 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 ON REVERSE SIDE 2. Request forwarded to attorney for review: [ J Yes Date Forwarded [) No 3. Notification of Action Taken to Requester: Date of Notification: /- 2i-IS a) [ Request granted b) [ ] Need for additional time How long? c) [ ] Request denied d) [ ] Record withheld in part 4. If additional time needed, explain why: 5. If request denied or record withheld in part, name the exemption contained in Chapter 42.17 RCW which authorizes withholding or denial: 6. If request denied or record withheld in part,. explain how the exemption applies to this record: 7. Request received by: `�'�.� _ Department: Date: /:-,I cam-, Yt% FEES 0 - 5 copies free Standard copy charge @ $.15 per page: Charge pages @ $.15 per page $ Other (Refer to current Records Index & Fee Schedule) $ Total Fees: $ DOCUMENTS PROVIDED: DATE: MAILED: PICK UP: RECEIPT #: DATE: q • • 0 I�c.1Sc10 CITY OF 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 December 3, 1997 Dr. Douglas Grier 16431 74th Place West Edmonds, WA 98026 Re: 16431 74th Place West, Edmonds Home Owners Insurance Policy for Meadowdale Landslide Area It has been brought to our attention that you are the new owner at the above address. Hopefully, the previous owner informed you that the property is located in a designated Earth Subsidence Landslide Area and all development is regulated by City Ordinance #2661 and Chapter 19.05 of the Edmonds Community Development Code. A requirement of these codes is that all permitted development be insured for a period of ten years from the date of project approval. The previous • owners completed a project which required this insurance on 6/25/91 and the insurance requirement does not expire until 6/25/2001. A copy of the covenant outlining this insurance requirement is enclosed for your convenience; page four references the requirement that it run with the land and be applicable to future owners. Since you are the new owner a policy of general public liability insurance in the amount of one million dollars is required to be posted with the City. Enclosed for your convenience is a sample of the Certificate of Insurance form, your insurance agent should be able to assist you in obtaining this policy. Please feel free to contact me at 771-0220 if you have any questions regarding this insurance requirement or any other Earth Subsidence Landslide Area development question. Thank you, r Jeannine L. Graf Building Official a ® Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan fhc.18cly 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 December 3, 1997 Dr. Douglas Grier 16431 74th Place West Edmonds, WA 98026 Re: 16431 74th Place West, Edmonds Home Owners Insurance Policy for Meadowdale Landslide Area It has been brought to our attention that you are the new owner at the above address. Hopefully, the previous owner informed you that the property is located in a designated Earth Subsidence Landslide Area and all development is regulated by City Ordinance #2661 and Chapter 19.05 of the Edmonds Community Development Code. A requirement of these codes is that all permitted development be insured for a period of ten years from the date of project approval. The previous owners completed a project which required this insurance on 6/25/91 and the insurance requirement does not expire until 6/25/2001. A copy of the covenant outlining this insurance requirement is enclosed for your convenience; page four references the requirement that it run with the land and be applicable to future owners. Since you are the new owner a policy of general public liability insurance in the amount of one million dollars is required to.be posted with the City. Enclosed for your convenience is a sample of the Certificate of Insurance form, your insurance agent should be able to assist you in obtaining this policy. Please feel free to contact me at 771-0220 if you have any questions regarding this insurance requirement or any other Earth Subsidence Landslide Area development question. Thank you, �� xjl� Jeannine L. Graf Building Official e Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan CITY OF EDMONDS 250 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-0220 • FAX (206) 771-0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT' Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering June 13, 1997 James & Barbara Solie 16431 74th Place West Edmonds, Washington 98026 Re: Home Owners Insurance Policy BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR As you may recall, the Meadowdale Earth Subsidence Landslide Area Ordinance requires homeowners to post and maintain a policy of general public liability insurance. This insurance is required for a period of not more than 10 years from the date of final approval (occupancy was granted on 9/4/91). According to City records, your certificate of insurance expired on 5/10/92.' At your earliest convenience please inform your insurance company that a current copy be provided to the City. • As a reminder, the policy must be for general public liability insurance naming the City as additional named insured against personal injury, death, property damage and/or loss arising from, or out of, the City's involvement in the permitting process for the project in the amount of one million dollars. The policy shall also state that the City will be notified 30 days in advance of policy cancellation. Note, this requirement of insurance is transferable to any and all owners within the 10 year period. If you have recently sold your property, please notify the City in writing of the name of the new owners. Please contact me at 771-0220 if you have any questions regarding this insurance requirement. • Thank.you, Laia Knaak Permit Coordinator cc: American States Insurance Company Building Official ® Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan CSt. 189v CITY OF EDMONDS 250 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-0220 FAX (206) 771-0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering TELECOPIER COVER PAGE TO: S-L��Sh44-f_ Recipients Telecopier Number: t FROM: F . 0 � Sender's Tel RE: ro /I � dm D:\D\Worddata\FaxForm er Number: (206) 771-0221 A .� I ID (J l W l.✓2 tl-ej/2 o BARBARAFAHEY MAYOR DATE TRANS MITTED:S Z(5/7� NUMBER OF PAGES: (Including Cover Page) FACSIMILE EQUIPMENT: Automatic/Group 11 (2,3 mins.); Group ill If there are any problems during transmission or documents are received incomplete, please call (206) 771-0220 and ask for •, Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan • CITYOF EDMONDS BARBARA FAMEk MAYOl1 ZOO BTN AVGNYH NORTH • YOMONOS, WA 9e0II0 • 1100/ 771-11210 • FAN 120e1 771-0241 , COMMUNITY SERVICEsB DEPARTMENT Pu1*41c Warks • Plannlna w Parise and Raoraation • Engineering TELECOPtER COVER FAC3,E j � !NUMBER OF PAG>±S (Including Cover Pag©) Recipients Talacopier Number: 1=ACSlMIL.E EQlllf'MEN"1": Automatic/Group It (2,3 mina.); Croup 111 U there are any problems during transmission or documents sra racelvad Incompl®tta, please call (20S) 771-0220 and ask for Sendeyr's Teiacnppller Number: 208) 771-0221 L Ir FtE /iff¢.f�e�-!jRV� ILD f 0-:12 oAcr9Q�(q�.rTO /1%rPr//J✓± `i4LI-✓ i'6,a ✓l�1 L+�� l���p .1�/7 / `��_T� �i • Om O:\O\Werbd�te\FaxFoma •, Incorporotad August Zl, 1890 - Statar Gitiaa tntarnattonnl — Haklnen, Japan TRANSMISSION REPORT THIS DOCUMENT (REDUCED SAMPLE ABOVE) WAS SENT ** COUNT # 5 *** SEND *** INOI REMOTE STATION I.D. START TIME DURATION #PAGES COMMENT � 11 OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE 5-29-97 4:29PM 4'25" 5 TOTAL 0:04'25" 5 XEROX TELECOPIER 7020 • SOUND UROLOGICAL ASSOCIATES, P.S. May 21, 1997 MAY 2 7 1997 James C. Walker, P-E ENGINEERING City of Edmonds, Engineering Division 250 - Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, Wa. 98020 Dear. Mr. Walker: Please be advised that the LID 210 in the Meadowdale areal of your responsibility remains in disrepair. The drainage pipe that ties in from Mr. Fong's residence to catch basin 58 is broken in two locations. The City was advised of this problem over four months ago and a temporary repair was effected by presumably Mr. Fong. In March after the first rain occurred the pipe again broke in two locations. As this drainage pipe has no structural support,; it is doomed to failure unless a different repair is; enacted. Additional soil has eroded down the slope above my property as a result of this inadequate repair. As the City Public Works claims to check the functioning of this LID on a weekly basis, why is it that this problem has not been addressed? The drainage pipe connecting into the City's LID has been visibly broken now for two months. ; Please be advised that failure to effect repairs is causing ongoing damage and destabilizing the slope above my property. If the City intends to act in good faith then I would expect immediate resolution of this specific problem. Sincerely, Dougl H. Grier, M.D. DHG:Imc THE KRUGER CLINIC Timothy M. Roddy, M.D. 21600 Highway 99, Suite 200 John D. Maldazys, M.D. Edmonds, WA 98026 Douglas H. Grier, M.D. (206) 775.7166 Diplomates, (206) 672-8844 fax American Board of Urology SOUND UROLOGICAL ASSOCIATES, P.S. May 21, 1997 MAY 2 7 1997 James C. Walker, P-E ENGINEERING City of Edmonds, Engineering Division 250 - Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, Wa. 98020 Dear. Mr. Walker: Please be advised that the LID 210 in the Meadowdale area of your responsibility remains in disrepair. The drainage pipe that ties in from Mr. Fong's residence to catch basin 58 is broken in two locations. The City was advised of this problem over four months ago and a temporary repair was effected by presumably Mr. Fong. In March after the first rain occurred the pipe again broke in two locations. As this drainage pipe has no structural support, it is doomed to failure unless a different repair is enacted. Additional soil has eroded down the slope above my property as a result of this inadequate repair. As the City Public Works claims to check the functioning of this LID on a weekly basis, why is it that this problem has not been addressed? The drainage pipe connecting into the City's LID has been visibly broken now for two months. Please be advised that failure to effect repairs is causing ongoing damage and destabilizing the slope above my property. If the City intends to act in good faith then I would expect immediate resolution of this specific problem. Sincerely, Dougl H. Grier, M.D. DHG:Imc THE KRUGER CLINIC 21600 Highway 99, Suite 200 Edmonds, WA 98026 (206) 775-7166 (206) 672-8844 fax Timothy M. Roddy, M.D. John D. Maldazys, M.D. Douglas H. Grier, M.D. Diplomates, American Board of Urology • 0 it, c.18°10 0 1 0 CITY OF EDMONDS 250 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-0220 FAX (206) 771-0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering March 18,1997 Tommy Fong/ Vivian Bennett 7406 - 164th PI. SW Edmonds, Wa. 98026 Dear Dr. Fong & Dr. Bennett BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR A storm drainage pipe coming from your property is not functioning properly and appears to be contributing to erosion on the slope below your residence. It also appears that the design plans called for polyethylene pipe to be installed on the slope, but pvc was installed. We request that the system be repaired with the proper pipe as soon as possible. Attached is .a copy of a portion of the site plan for your residence, in which the approximate location of the damaged pipe is shown. . If you have any questions regarding this situation, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. Sincerely Don Fiene, P.E. Hydraulics _Engineer Attachment DF/JCW/sf FONG.DOC • Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan ___N I HFFT 1=11 1 MH Wall •� Conc. A - / Grout -' Polyethelene �a •� �•• • I pine D >uND 1 PIPE ISLEEV( POLYETN EL-E T 1 PIPE AT M H '� Reinforced • ; Conc. Pipe « IJ4- 2 Fill w/ 12' ` kock Wool �• Q•O min. Note: Fill Voids with Rock Wool u Seal -each �4�: with Asphaltic Material tW Dowhstream Structure Connection Metal Flange .e TKED \ T . Mai Wall 0- Ring... ' NtJEG toc�1 ng... �NETHENE �PE NEG E.oN a -_� TI T MN Cage /. Studs 0- Ring r; _ Polyethelene 2` Molded Stub nT Upstream Structure Connection • �F�.I�Tt" �oJ.]C CL� AP _0VED AS NOTED y STANDARD DPAINAGE PLAN DETENTION SYSTEM PAGE OF 3 <,: • 6 6's 1 J.1NCFl02 ATTOP O:�:-- BAN V,,_ U MD I STUP-2 SOIL CABLE CLAMP O (Vq" soon--T CLAMP (tTT - Gtt WELL on c".'" .) QNITEZME=DIAT� BANK ANclAof�- ZO oc. M&,Y- Ivr,� a"Sid 7,PG 5bilG EACII SIDE 06 PIPE CAR.QIQGE M M UdI►JE Bon (Typ) .I �ANC1402 ASSEM6LY `P,HROVED AS NOTED [3ENNE"lT / pooaa RlaS. I PL. S.W. SZA URD DRAIME PUM DMUn 0 M SfS'T'EM PACE 3A or 3 PULSE LOCATOR WAIVER The City of Edmonds agrees to assist in locating the private service line at s 14 P L . W In doing so, the customer assumes all risks and/or damages that may result in the use of the pulse locator on the water service line to the above address. The customer has been informed to the potential risks and agrees to grant the Edmonds Water Section permission to connect to the service line and attempt to pulse the line in the efforts to locate service. Signatu Date Itness C001--I) No Do 7-4IS PULSE LOC-AT(c W I -CH oV T POSS. DAMAGE 'To IN.TG�2/�L CNovSE-) PLumBiNG , Noose I So L,N 1 lotto vAL-VC AL-Sc:) SNuT., oFF ALL OUTSiOE TR�C-D t�Ul..S �N ENTIRE SYSTEM (-'O(Z LC -SS IIiAN OK3 C. Mt N uTE GAUGE READIuG S pIPC V I If3RA-TIoN � t CT�7"�� Now T� C�2oGC—E D Nam . KRIS wordatMwaterMoCator OPTREET Fn.F � CITY �OF�EDMO�N�DS02 COMMUNITY SERVICES: 1wc� Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering 89p 19 June 21, 1991 Jerome P. Jacobs, P.E. Group Four 16030 Juanita -Woodinville Way N.E. Bothell, WA 98011 Re: Jim Solie garage addition: 16431 - 74th P1. W. Dear Mr. Jacobs: LARRY S. NAUGHTEN MAYOR PETER E. HAHN DIRECTOR The City of Edmonds will require detention for the Solie garage addition. The detention system is part of the standard development requirements for all sites with additions of over 2,000 square feet of impervious surfacing. It is the responsibility of the owner to submit plans consistent with the findings of the geotechnical report. If the geotechnical engineer believes the detention system, as designed, increases the potential of soil movement, further mitigation to reduce that risk should be required. Sincerely, JAMES C. WALKER, P.E. Hydraulics Engineer JCW/sdt c: Jim Solie 16431 - 74th P1. W. Edmonds, WA 98020 SOLIEADD/TXTST530 OL Alb its A71 • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan STREET FILE BUILDING MAR 2 1991 March 25, . 1991 Lyle Chrisman City of Edmonds Engineering Inspector Per vour request on maintaining water detention system, required on my garage site. Yes I understand that I will maintain this water detention system. Jim Solie 16431 74th P1 W. Edmonds, Wa 98026 MAR 2 6 lack] PERMIT COUNTER • a • �7- STREET PILE FEBRUARY 25, 1991 CITY OF EDMONDS CITY ENGINEER ROBERT J ALBERTS SOLIE PROPERTY 16431 74TH PL W EDMONDS, WA 98026 RE: AS PER YOUR COMMENTS PERTAINING TO WATER DETENTION WE WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THAT DETENTION NOT BE A REQUIREMENT. THE DOWNSTREAM SYSTEM IS ADEQUATE TO CARRY MINIMAL FLOW GENERATED FROM DEVELOPMENT ACCORDING TO GROUP 4 'S INSPECTION AND SURVEY. DETENTION PIPE COULD POSSIBLY LEAK AND CAUSE THE WEST SLOPE TO LOSE STABILITY. THANK YOU. JI?SOLIEW FEB P. 1�11 MV-11 COUNTER • i STREET FILES �6`��'-'�"� 4"� CITY OF EDMONDS 250 - 5TH AVE N - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (206) 771 3202 COMMUNITY SERVICES: Public Works • Planning - Parks and Recreation • Engineering 890 19� January 31, 1991 Jerome P. "Jake" Jacobs, P.E. Group Four, Inc. 16030 Juanita -Woodinville. Way N.E. Bothell, WA. 98011 Re: Solie residence garage addition. LARRY S NAUGHTEN MAYOR PETER E. HAHN .. DIRECTOR A,_�J,aj I /.�/ / F/ Dear.Mr. Jacobs, Attached are red -lined drainage and erosion control plans for the Solie garage addition. Plan modifications are not required prior to SEPA determination. Please contact me at 771-3202 if you have any questions. Sincerely, qxo 1jet JIM WALKER, P.E. Hydraulics Engineer JW/sdt Attachment SOLIEADD/TXTST530 0 6)17+- - Al btrts • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan 9 STREET'FILE 9 DECEMBER 17, 1990 BARBARA L SOLIE AND JAMES L SOLIE, RESIDING AT 16431 74TH PLACE W, EDMONDS, WA 98020 WILL BE CONSTRUCTING A GARAGE ON THEIR PROPERTY. BECAUSE OF THE BACK RETAINING WALL TO THE SOLIE'S GARAGE , THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT THE NEW CONSTRUCTION BEING DONE BY THE SOLIES WILL ENCROACH ON SAID NEIGHBORS PROPERTY BECAUSE OF EXCAVATION. THE MELANGS ARE AWARE OF THIS SITUATION AND THE SOLIES WILL REPLACE ANY EARTH OR LANDSCAPING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL CONDITIONS BEFORE EXCAVATING. THIS WILL BE COMPLETED UPON COMPLETION OF Aflk}j ADDRESS: 16431 74TH PL W EDMONDS, WA 98020 ADDRESS: 16515 76TH PL W EDMONDS, WA 98020 RECEIVED JAN &2 1 i99i PERM COUNTER � STREET FILE M E M O R A N D U M August 24, 1990 TO: Dick Mumma, Building Official FROM: Jim Walker, Hydraulics Engineer VIA: Bob Alberts, City Engineer SUBJECT: ENGINEERING ITEMS TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO SEPA FINAL REVIEW FOR SOLIE.AODITION The drainage plan "Site Plan, Sheet A-1" for the Solie garage at 46431°74ti1W1� was reviewed. A more detailed drainage plan must 6 - r. .��rg'. tia s. be submitted. A. Topographic Map. A topographic map drawn to scale showing the site, and all drainage areas from which water flows onto the site, with a calculation of the acreage of the drainage areas.- The site shall be shown in detail, and grading and clearing plans shall be included. B. Proposed Drainage System. Plans drawn to scale showing the improvements or other methods of handling the runoff in accordance with the requirements of Section 18.30.040. C. Calculations. Calculations used to size the proposed drainage system, indicating the existing and proposed peak flow and amount of water entering and leaving the site. Calculations of proposed conditions shall be shown for each major onsite facility affecting flow rates. D. Erosion Control. Measures proposed to control erosion, or other pollution of offsite property and surface water, both temporarily during construction and permanently after construction. The geotechnical engineer shall monitor during construction compliance with the recommendations in the geotechnical report. The specific recommendations contained in the.soils report must be implemented by the owner. The statement, "we recommend that the stability of excavation slopes be made the responsibility of the contractor, as he will be most familiar with conditions exposed in the excavation and will be at the site on a full-time basis to observe and control the work" on.page 12 of the geotechnical report does not fulfill the code requirement. The geotechnical report shall make specific recommendations concerning development of the site. In this regard, sloping, slope protection, ditching, sumps, dewatering, and other measures should be employed as directed by the geotechnical engineer to permit proper completion of the work. Specific recommendations to maintain stability must be clearly stated. Memo to Dick Mumma August 23, 1990 Page 2 The slope below the proposed garage was not studied, "Not included in this study are the stability of the residence and the steep declivity below the residence and existing driveway." However, it is relevant as stated on page 7 of the report, "Should additional instability occur on the steep slope below the existing driveway, immediate remedial measures should be taken to prevent encroachment upon the garage site." Please address the risk of damage to the proposed development from the slope below the garage site. Increase instability during construction, as noted on page 7, "During garage construction, the risk of -instability on the site will increase, due to the excavation required to construct the garage." is cause for permit denial per Code, Section 19.05.080. Again, specific recommendation to maintain stability must be clearly stated. A permit will be denied if it is determined by the Director that the development will increase the potential of soil movement, result in an unacceptable risk of damage to adjacent properties or an unreasonable risk of damage to the proposed development. JW/sdt SOLIE/TXTST530 S M E M O R A N D U M August 24, 1990 TO: Dick Mumma, Building Official FROM: Jim Walker, Hydraulics Engineer VIA: Bob Alberts, City Engineer SUBJECT: ENGINEERING ITEMS TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO SEPA FINAL REVIEW FOR SOLIE ADDITION The drainage plan "Site Plan, Sheet A-1" for the Solie garage at 16431 - 74th P1. W. was reviewed. A more detailed drainage plan must. be submitted. A. Topographic Map. A topographic map drawn to scale showing the site, and all drainage areas from which water flows onto the site, with a calculation of the acreage of the drainage areas. The site shall be shown in detail, and grading and clearing plans shall be included. B. Proposed Drainage System. Plans drawn to scale showing the improvements or other methods of handling the runoff in accordance with the requirements of Section 18.30.040. C. Calculations. Calculations used to size the proposed drainage system, indicating the existing and proposed peak flow and amount of water entering and leaving the site. Calculations of proposed conditions shall be shown for each major onsite facility affecting flow rates. D. Erosion Control. Measures proposed to control erosion, or other pollution of offsite property and surface water, both temporarily during construction and permanently after construction. The geotechnical engineer shall monitor during construction compliance with the recommendations in the geotechnical report. The specific recommendations contained in the -soils report must be implemented by the owner. The statement, "we recommend that the stability of excavation slopes be made the responsibility of the contractor,, as he will be most familiar with conditions exposed in the excavation and will be at the site on a full-time basis to observe and control the work" on.page 12 of the geotechnical report does not fulfill the code requirement. The geotechnical report shall make specific recommendations concerning development of the site. In this regard, sloping, slope protection, ditching, sumps, dewatering, and other measures should be employed as directed by the geotechnical engineer to permit proper completion of the work. Specific recommendations to maintain stability must be clearly stated. I , t • Memo to Dick Mumma August 23, 1990 Page 2 • The slope below the proposed garage was not studied, "Not included in this study are the stability of the residence and the steep declivity below the residence and existing driveway." However, it is relevant as stated on page 7 of the report, "Should additional instability occur on the steep slope below the existing driveway, immediate remedial measures should be taken to prevent encroachment upon the garage site." Please address the risk of damage to the proposed development from the slope below the garage site. Increase instability during construction, as noted on page 7, "During garage construction, the risk of instability on the site will increase, due to the excavation required to construct the garage." is cause for permit denial per Code, Section 19.05.080. Again, specific recommendation to maintain stability must be clearly stated. A permit will be denied if it is determined by the Director that the development will increase the potential of soil movement, result in an unacceptable risk of damage to adjacent properties or an unreasonable risk of damage to the proposed development. JW/sdt SOLIE/TXTST530 STREET, FILE MICWL W. PEDERSON, AIA. N.0 W MAIN ST.. EDMONOS. VITA 9802p BUSINESS: 774 June 15, 1990 Jim Solie 16431 74th P1. W. Edmonds, Wash.'98020 Ref: Architects Declaration Dear Jni: This letter: `is a >.declaration by;,: me.; Michael_ W Pederson, sta'tinQ"ans declaring that-I'haae :ieviewed all the soils . geotechnical reports pr.epered,.I by ,..'$hannon: &, iiihson of Seatt_1e, Wash4j gton, ' purchased :by_ .ou and dated,4 bfuary a6, 1.990; understand=ts::zecoia>renii►t`i:one to the beko. my .. ab�_lty ;as an;`architieC°t, and. have ,.explained to ; you the rieh of loss. &e `to slides. on the 9&te is : eonsifle ±d 309c, thirty percent, and possibly more in .My opinion, .:.and .I have included - in the deaf' n - �'' 9 the reco 'me m nd ation` s ;�,:�of the ` reP'Rirt ;. r�c� eut,ablished` measures to reduce. the �c,tential ris.k'. of : in ux�p :or j ,dealage that might be caused by:, 44y,`earth movement` that may : be _predicted i n the' report. Sincere , :Mic aelW.Pederson ' k CITY OF EDMONDS BUILDING DEPARTMENT WORK fi�14El�E ADDRESS - A�431 -?'Y ` S f 0 . OWNER APPROVED DATE: BLDG. OFFICIAL MC SODA E = riIF=Etow M STREET FILE Da INC. SCr1Ic l aral (ntd Foundation CrWincers August 9, 1989 Mr. & Mrs. James Solie 16431 74th place West Edmonds, Washington 98020 RE: Slope Stabilization Revision to letter July 14, 1989 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Sol ie : 1211 EAST 4TM AVE. SUITE 202 OLYM PIA, WA 98506 (206) 764.9339 .--pi.-i V �;L AUG 1 01n�-4n� `MIT COUNTl4 Per our conversation of the last several days, there are a number of ways to control erosion. The Method suggested in my last letter was one I felt to be the optimum between'cost and erosion control and slope stability of the effected areas. As outlined in our previous letters, your lot has a very steep hillside which is marginally stable. That is, while the slope is not actively failing at the present time; it may fail under the right conditions. These conditions include, but are not limited to, heavy rain, earthquake, broken pipes, etc. Complete stabilization of your lot for limited local slides could cost more than the lot is worth. To stabilize the lot from a general slope failure, would cost more than $500,000, However, as we have discussed, there are several approaches that would not entail a great deal of expense and would help stabilize the slope against surface failures. My previous letter outlined a method using railroad tie retaining walls, wood chip fill, and drains to stabilize.the two areas where broken pipes and leaking sewer mains caused surface slides. It is my understanding that the city will require a full cycle of' permit review and plan checking before approving the plans included in the July letter. This plan check review could take several weeks to several months. In order to expedite the process, I understand that one landscaper has constructed a rock fill rook at the location -- page 1 of 4 A6G— 1 0—e ='s THU � 15S " I k= Et4 9. KFa'•r A P _ 02 of the "north slide", and that a second has recommended that a lower railroad tie wall be constructed at the site of the "south slide". After reviewing the photographs of the site and my previous notes I feel that the following comments are appropriate; NORTH SLIDE 1. The weight of the loose rock is not substantially greater than the weight of soil lost due to erosion from the broken pipe. I do not feel that the rock fill will cause any increase in the slide hazard. 2. The use of a rock fill at the north glide is a reasonable approach to erosion control and will help to stabilize the vertical face of the slide. 3. The fill should be reconstructed to a more stable configuration. (The present fill was constructed by tossing the rocks into the slide area creating a very loose configuration.) The existing bed of 6 inch minus crushed rook and drain to reduce runoff and. soil moisture content should be satisfactory. .The rook should be placed to create a stable slope. The rock should not slope at more than 1.5 horizontal to 1 vertical. 4. Build a small 1.5 to 2.0 foot high rail road tie wall at the base of the rocks to prevent loose rocks from rolling down the hill. S. Plant shrubs, ground covers, etc. to cover the rocks and to help stabilize the rocks. 6. If the above steps are followed, the rock fill should be stable and should not present. any additional danger to the property or inhabitants below. SOUTH SLIDE -- page 2 of 4 -- • 9 W E D 1 1 r1 I F:.'. E N r: k= F-1 'i' i p H F 0 15. MC2 ENGINEERING Job: OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON (206) 764-9339 Date— —By: W V. Sheet' Pa a of �I w. ` &V15ivN d S� 7- i p'te-4 - M l' s 15 Fc a T/6N At Cr T i i I I i L, li I t liit .� vPIC MA r t7REE7 FLE CITY OF EDMONDS 250 - 5TH AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771.3202 COMMUNITY SERVICES: Public Works o Planning o Parks and Recreation o Engineering 890-19y August 2, 1989 Mr. & Mrs. James Solie 16431-74th P1. W. Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Solie: CARRY S NAUGHTEN MAYOR PETER E. HAHN DIRECTOR The large (4-man rock) rockery recently installed on the top of a slope on your property is considered to be a structure. This structure may be adding an overburden to an unstable slope within a known earth slide area. In this regard, the rockery is subject�to the Earth Subsidence and Landslide Ordinance #2661. While your professional engineer, Vince McClure, outlined steps to help stabilize the slope, there was no mention of the use of a number of very large rocks. The use of these rocks, their placement, function and the result from possible future slope failure is a major concern. I Therefore, because of the apparently hazardous nature of this situation, you must, within five days of the date of this letter, take the following action: 1. Have your professional engineer investigate the site and determine the degree of hazard inherent in this situation, prepare a written report outlining the proper actions to eliminate any hazard and set forth a schedule to accomplish the necessary actions. Failure to respond will result in referral ofithis matter for criminal/ civil action. If you should have any questions, please call me at 771-3202, extension 259. Sincerely, Jerry Saterlie Acting Building Official I cc. Scott Snyder Jeff Campiche o Incorporated August 11, 1890 1 Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan • STREET FILE 0 CITY OF EDMONDS LARRY S. NAUGHTEN 250 STFI AVE. N. • EDMONDS. WA 98020 • (206) 771 3202 ,urOR COMMUNITY SERVICES: PETER E. HAHN Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering DiREGTOR 890 _ 191� August 2, 1989 Mr. & Mrs. James Solie 16431-74th P1. W. Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Solie: The large (4-man rock) rockery recently installed on the top of a slope on your property is considered to be a structure. This structure may be adding an overburden to an unstable slope within a known earth slide area. In this regard, the rockery is subject to the Earth Subsidence and Landslide Ordinance #2661. While your professional engineer, Vince McClure, outlined steps to help stabilize the slope, there was no mention of the use of a number of very large rocks. The use of these rocks, their placement, function and the result from possible future slope failure is a major concern. Therefore, because of the apparently hazardous nature of this situation, you must, within five days of the date of this letter, take the following action: 1. Have your professional engineer investigate the site and determine the degree of hazard inherent in this situation, prepare a written report outlining the proper actons to eliminate any hazard and set forth a schedule to accomplish the necessary actions. Failure to respond will result in referral of this matter for criminal/ civil action. If you should have any questions, please call me at 771-3202, extension 259. Sincerely, Jerry Sa erlie Acting Building Official cc. Scott Snyder Jeff Campiche SOLIE/TXTMB061 • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan 890.109i 0 STREET FILE 0 CITY OF EDMONDS 250 - 5tn AVE N. • EDMONDS. WA 98020 • (206) 771-3202 COMMUNITY SERVICES: Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering March 29, 1989 James & Barbara Solie 16431 74th Place West Edmonds, Washington 98020 LARRY S. NAUGHTEN MAYOR PETER E. HAHN DIRECTOR This letter will supplement my previous letter of March 16, 1989. I have determined, in accordance with Section 7004 of the Uniform Building Code, Appendix 70, that a recent landslide on the south end of your property creates a hazard to downslope property owners. You are hereby directed to take the following steps to correct the hazard: 1. Apply for a grading permit to remove the slide material by 5:00pm Friday March 31, 1989. UBC 7006. 2. Supplement the application with a report and recommendations prepared by a soils engineer and engineering geologist specifying the appropriate method for removing the slide material and restoring the site back to its original condition. UBC 7006 (c), (e), and (f). The report shall be submitted by 5:00pm Monday April 3, 1989. 3. The reports should also address permanent and temporary erosion control, particularly the aspect of control through effective planting. UBC 7013 4. Prior to the commencement of the work but in any event by 5:00pm Friday March 29, 1989, a bond or cash instrument sufficient to provide completion of the work in accordance with the provisions of the soils engineering and engineering geologist reports shall be tendered to the building division. UBC 7008 • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan Mr. & Mrs. James Solie March 29, 1989 Page Two All work must be completed within ten (10) worki-ng days of the receipt of this letter, unless extended by order of the Building Official in order to comply with the directions of the Soils. Engineering report and Engineering Geology report in the event speed conflicts with their recommendations regarding weather conditions. UBC 7006 (g). Failure to comply with the terms of this order will result in prosecution. Each and every day of violation is a separate offense and punishable by a fine of up to $5,000 per day. In addition, the City reserves the right to seek other administrative and civil remedies to correct this problem. I hope that you will take prompt corrective action. Thank you, Hal Reeves Building Official cc: Russell Austin City Attorney Y,/- 7s, vh eluJ KEATING. BUCKLIN & WCORMACK. P.SUTREET FILE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 4141 SEAFIRST FIFTH AVENUE PLAZA 800 FIFTH AVENUE ROBERT C. KEATING SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 981.04 WILLIAM P. SCHOEL JOHN L. MCCORMACK STEVEN L. THORSRUD MARK R. BUCKLIN FAX: (206) 223-9423 MICHAEL C. WALTER RANDAL W. EBBERSON (206) 623-8861 JOSEPH R. KOPTA zO June 16, 1989 Mr. Jerry Hauth City of Edmonds Office of the City Engineer Civic Center Edmonds, Washington 98020 RE: Solie v. City of Edmonds, et al. Snohomish County Cause Number: 86-2-03765-7 Dear Jerry: I am writing to advise you that it appears a settlement has been reached with the Solies regarding this case by and between all parties defendant. The settlement as contemplated will resolve all claims by and between all parties to the Solie lawsuit. The Solies have agreed to accept $210,000, total, for settlement of all of their claims, and also defendants will receive a Release of All Claims by Safeco, the Solies' insurance carrier, for payments they have previously made to the Solies. The proposed contributions to the settlement will be as follows: City of Edmonds $91,000 Reed, Middleton 66,360 Tri-State Construction 27,640 Campbell 25,000 TOTAL $210,000 This settlement settles only the claims arising out of the Solie lawsuit. It does not purport to address any of the current ongoing negotiations between the City and Solies relative to the soil instability which poses any threat to downhill property Mr. Jerry Hauth • • June 16, 1989 Page - 2 - owners. That is a separate matter. It is my understanding that Scott Snyder, the City attorney, is working with you and the City and the Solies regarding a resolution to that situation. Should you have any questions please feel free to contact me. Cordially, 6? Mark R. Bucklin MRB/cob cc: Scott Snyder MC SQUARED, INC. STREET Fftfo Structural and Foundation Engineers 1211 EAST 4TH AVE. SUITE 202 OLYMPIA, WA 98506 (206) 754-9339 I July 14, 1989 Mr. & Mrs. James Solie 16431 74th Place West Edmonds, Washington 98020 Slope Stabilization Dear Mr. and Mrs. Solie: Per our conversation of last week, I have reviewed our notes and photographs of your lot. In addition, I have reviewed. several possible solutions to your slope stability problems. As outlined in our previous..letters,,-your lot. has a very steep hillside which is marginally stable. That is, while the slope is not actively failing at the present time; ii: may .fail under the right conditions. These conditions include, but are not limited to, heavy rain, earthquake, broken pipes, etc. Complete stabilization of your lot for limited local slides could cost more than the lot is worth. To stabilize the lot from a general slope failure, would cost more than $500,000. However, as we discussed in our last conversation, there is an approach that would not entail a great deal of expense and would help stabilize the slope against surface failures. i Given the limited budget that you have to work with, I suggest the following steps (See the enclosed sketches.): 1. Remove loose debris on the slope. This includes the slide debris on the south end of the lot from this winter's slide and those (left over from other slides. I i 2. Build small rail road tie ;retaining walls at the "pop outs" at the top of the hill. These walls should not be more than 4 feet high. Terrace the -- page 1 of 4 -- j I i I i I hill as required in order to get the necessary height. The over all slope of the hill should not exceed 2 horizontal to 1 vertical. Back fill behind the walls with a 12 inch thick layer of gravel for drainage, cover this with coarse wood chips or sawdust. The top of the wood chips should be covered with a layer of filter fabric and 12 inches of sandy top soil. The soil behind the wall may slope at not more than 2 horizontal to 1 vertical. 3. Finally the slope should be hydroseeded with deep rooted grasses and wild flowers and planted with deep rooted shrubs. These plants should be suitable for the exposure and slope of your hillside. In addition, they should be drought resistant. I strongly suggest that you employee a landscape architect to choose the plants. In addition, given the nature of the work outlined above, I suggest that you use the same architect to design the wall and supervise the removal of the slide debris. You must understand that the above work is designed to protect the slope from erosion and possibly very shallow .surface slides. General slides or deeper slides caused by springs, leaks, etc. will not be effected by the above steps. If you have any questions, or if I may be of further help, please call me at (206) 491-4511. Sincerely yours, MC SQUARED, INC. Ir (" ! VINCE MCCLURE, PE, Ph.D. Principal D:\wp50\rpt\so1ie.789 -- page 2 of 4 -- ��Q� V. ,o� A"�FGISTEP�O 0NA1 M' 2' Er SOG/l woa_rc- OLYMPIA,C NGINE ING Job: WASHINGTON Date: 7 /7-99 B : \1�lC (206) 754-9339 Y Sheet: __ ,Cg C T cy 2 -. V. McC(�� Page_�of I A, ' REod `� ��; i . j AA ^1 r I � L -d 77 - _ r 6 fX ( - F/ L TC� • � �.' Co Pe' TD "p �A �� �/r c czars4'7- AIV Ire elcK Lr�;_ i-. iE7/� I Q I 0 I 0 ... ..... .. . .......... -------- — --- yj sv )IN fcd 2 un Berta es. ... tud of slide area The Edmonds City Council not out of an obligation to the two reed at the Dec. 18 meeting to sign neighbors directly affected, he said, ag. � . . a contract with the. engineering firm but out of concern .for the utilities Reid Middleton MeaddAssociates area already a is a 12-inch diameter drain - look in 'to the pa in the hilside, he said, and if where a slide occurred four weeks rt that were to come down in a slide, agij. The slide occu . of.;tlie driveway a `.� the water it collected would wash out the street below. -,slid down into M Back 'Reid Middleton will hire a Gabriele and Scott Walter, who rent eotechnical engineer to do some of the property directly below. g The slide revealed a stream of the work, according to Reid Mid - water which stopped flowing after dleton Engineer Richard Kato. Kato in the bids tli'e'"city rerouted the water according and will make aey have hdecision sooeady n The pipes above the property, to ,city engineer Jim Adams. The firm will not use any heavy equip - .,slide also revealed a fanit line, which ment on the haid,lb de to conduct ill simply take runs from north of the Solie proper- study, r'u on 74th, to souhill, th of the Walter ground samples and walk to proaccording to t of Public Since the Nov. slide of und _Acting SuperintendenBarbara Works Bobby Mills. It is the fissure, has stabilized, according whose driveway slid a and the possible implications, that Solie, ainst the city's newest study will address. The mud is still backed up ag Adams said the contract with the Walter house, and Pat Anthony, Reid Middleton will determine what of Century 21 Realtors who is the can be done to further stabilize the agent rthe propertthe y. said it is not area. It is possible, he said, that they „li we clean up the mud will discover another underwater spring, and by removing that, the ourselves, then we are admitting to ground will be substantially more some kind of in P blliability," she ic Works sa d. stable. pa - The entire Meadowdale area is ment, echoed the same sentiment, laced with underground water, he and said his crews would not clean said, so it is difficult to find all of it up unless he is told. short of it and to ever be completely assured The city any council furst pped splans the land is 100 percent stable. approving d"It comes down to economics," or work beyond a preliminary study Adams said. ,If I'm sure I could do sCouncilwoman would need something if t had unlimited money; by Hall said the city I.could shore it up, but it would be ke out liability insurance of $10 milon, if it were going do con •''t}g6ther Grand .Cq!!1 structiou to stabilize the hijlside. ..'the cityJ ..conducting..the-.study EDMONDS CITY COUNCI AGENDA MEMO STREET Item number: FILE Originator: James E. Adams For Action: X For Information: SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION TO ACCEPT AND RECORD UTILITY EASEMENT FROM MR. & MRS. DONALD HANSEN AGENDA TIME: Consent AGENDA DATE: Nov. 12, 1985 EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Utility Easement. .earances: Dept./Indiv./Initials ADMIN SVCS/FINANCE CITY ATTORNEY CITY CLERK COMMUNITY S RVICES ENGINEERIN PARKS & Rkq:REjiTION PLANNING PUBLIC WORKS FIRE PERSONNEL POLICE COMMITTEE (MAYOR COMMENTS: EXPENDITURE AMOUNT APPROPRIATION (REQUIRED: $ N/A BUDGETED: $ N/A REQUIRED: $ N/A HISTORY AND SUMMARY STATEMENT: In order to install the new drainage system near the Solie land slide, it is necessary to obtain an easement from the Hansens. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Accept and record the attached utility easement. COUNCIL ACTION: fgEdEIVED NOV 07 1985 C0' :;TY ';'FR�. ICES DIR. // 78 1 t r�(416 e uth Dt MardiDt C�ClDt er * ............. 0.f, 0 ........ SHEET NO. ............ OF............... LIENT................................................................................. • Reid, Middleton & Associotes, Inc. PROJECT.............................................................................. Engineers • Surveyors a Planners 121 5th Avenue North, Suite 200 Edmonds, Woshington 98020 (206) 775-3434 U • ............................................................... . DESIGN BY ..........� ................... DATE ../�/ CHECKEDBY .................................... DATE ........................... 1 � ----T -7-1-1-1--1 I T I 11-1-11 -- •ra � • STREET FILE RECEIVED V 1 ; 198 5 THESE MINUTES SUBJECT TO NOV JNN����NNFFFF NOVEMBER 19, 1985 APPROVAL EDMOft; YR�%CIL MINUTES November, 12, 1985 Work Meeting The regular meeting of the Edmonds City Council was called to order at 7:00.p.m. by Mayor Larry Naughten in the Plaza Meeting Room of the Edmonds Library. All present joined in the flag.sa- lute. PRESENT ABSENT STAFF PRESENT Larry Naughten, Mayor John Nordquist Mary Lou Block, Planning Div. Mgr. Steve Dwyer Peter Hahn, Comm. Svcs. Director Laura Hall Steve Simpson, Parks & Rec. Director Jo -Anne Jaech Jack Weinz, Fire Chief Bill Kasper Bobby Mills, Acctg. Pub. Wks. Supt. Lloyd Ostrom Pat LeMay, Personnel Mgr. Jack Wilson Scott Snyder, City Attorney Tammy Schwartze, Student Rep. Jackie Parrett, City Clerk Margaret Richards, Recorder Mayor Naughten congratulated the Council candidates who won election and re-election to the Coun- cil:, Councilmembers Wilson, Hall & Dwyer CONSENT AGENDA COUNCILMEMBEP. OSTROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MO- TION CARRIED. The approved items on the Consent Agenda included the following: (A) ROLL CALL (B) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF IIOVEIIBER 4, 1985 A,�� (C) APPROVAL OF 1986 EQUIPMENT RENTAL RATES F�'� (D) APPROVAL OF INTEPLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITIES OF BRIER, EDMONDS, LYNNWOOD, AND MOUNTLAKE TERRACE FOR THEIR RESPECTIVE POLICE DEPARTMENTS TO LOAN EQUIPMENT TO ONE �. ,. ANOTHER ~(E) AUTHORIZATION TO ACCEPT AND RECORD UTILITY EASEMENT FROM MR. AND MRS. DONALD HANSEN (F) AUTHORIZATION TO ACCEPT AND RECORD EASEMENT FROM MEDICAL CLINIC AT 216th S.W. AND �. l- BEACH RANGER PROGRAM REPORT -- 1985 Parks & Recreation Director Steve Simpson noted that interest in the Beach Ranger Program has increased dramatically in the last year due largely, he felt, to Shirley Pauls, who helped to organize the program last Spring. Mr. Simpson showed a video tape of the educational component of the program. Beach Ranger Dale Dickinson related to Councilmembers that beach rangers were able to discern what people were interested in by walking the beaches observing activities and talking to them. He stated that a few problems had been encountered but were easily resolved through reprimands. Mr. Dickinson added that beach rangers see many of the children that attended the educational programs, noting that they retained much of the information. Mr. Dickinson thanked the Police Department, Fire Department, Steve Simpson and City Council for their support. Councilmember Jaech expressed a concern that the rangers have a lot of territory to patrol, which is time consum- ing. She asked Mr. Dickinson if motorized vehicles to transport them between beaches would be useful. Mr. Dickinson stated that patrolling the beaches is time, consuming and that motorized so vehicles would be useful, particularly in arriving at potentially hazardous situations. Council - member Wilson asked Mr. Dickinson if he knew what percentage of the Edmonds community was utiliz- ing the beach facilities as opposed to nonresidents. Mr. Dickinson stated, in general, between five to ten percent of Edmonds citizens utilize the facilities, noting that they tend to take their resources for granted and go outside the community for recreation. He added that he has observed a lot of out -of -county users as well as out-of-state users., Councilmember Ostrom asked ftLANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND HYDROLOGY P.O. BOX 694 EDMONDS. WASHINGTON 98020 (206) 778-0907 SIN01,I JOB TITLE: Solie Residence LOCATION: Edmonds, WA TO: Mr. Lee A. Holley Attorney -At -Law 186o9 76th Ave. W., Suite E. Lynnwood, WA 98036 RECV,1v ED Nov 111*5 ENGINEERING JOB NO. 46-01 DATE 8 November 1985 City of Edmonds Engineering Dept.. 250 5th Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 WE ARE SENDING HEREWITH: COPIES DESCRIPTION 1 Letter to Mr. and Mrs. Solie dated 8 November 1985 XX For Your Review/Information For Approval Approved As Noted Returned For Corrections as Noted; Please Resubmit For Your File Take Appropriate Action REMARKS: LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 By: ' For William D. Evans, CPGS a . -0 LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND HYDROLOGY P.O. BOX 694 EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 ,(206) 778-0907 8 November 1985 Mr. and Mrs. Solie 16431 74th Place West Edmonds, WA 98020. RE: 22 August 1985 Letter Report by Landau Associates, Inc. Dear Mr. and Mrs. Solie: This letter addresses recent questions and concerns raised by Reid Middleton and Associates, Inc. (RMA) and the City of Edmonds Engineering Department concerning the above noted letter report. Apparently RMA (and subsequently the City) received a copy of our 22 August 1985 letter during an 8 October 1985 meeting attended by Jim Solie, Mr. Lee Holley, and representa- tives from RMA, the builder., and Home Insurance Company. Our 22 August 1985 letter was written at the request of Mr. Lee Holley and was intended for his informal use in evalu- ating the geotechnical issues involved in your case: Many of the entries contained within the 22 August fetter were based on telephone conversations between the City, .yourselves, RMA, Rittenhouse -Zeman and Associates, Inc., and- our office. It now appears that our interpretation of statements made during several of these calls may have contained inaccurate facts. On 17 October 1985, representatives from the City of Edmonds and.Reid Middleton and Associates Inc. visited our offices to 1 express their concern with several of the comments contained within the 22 August letter report, and discuss other issues concerning the project. The following is a summary of issues discussed during that meeting: 0 30 November 1984 entry,. Item #2: According to the City, the 90-degree bend noted within our letter actually consists of a catch basin with two feeder lines and one discharge line. Evidently there is a 12-inch concrete line which enters from the north and a 6-inch concrete line entering from the south. The discharge line is an 8-inch concrete pipe which is tied into a 12-inch corrugated metal pipe (CMP) which ultimately ties into the large CMP catch, basin visible in front of your home. 0 7 December 1984: This entry should state that the informa- tion we received was supplied by Barbara Solie. 0 15 March to.August 1985, Items 1 through 5: The information contained within items 1 through 5 was obtained by telephone from Barbara Solie on 24 May and 10 July 1985. Items 1 through 5 contained within the 15 March to August 1985 entry received the most attention during our.17 October 1985 meeting. The following is a summary of the City's and RMA's comments: Item No. 1. Evidently Reid Middleton and Associates Inc. declined to perform design engineering services for the storm sewer. line bypass because of a potential conflict of interest. They are still involved on other aspects of the project. 2 2. The City did terminate the services of Home Insurance Co.; however, this was due to the City's implementation of a self-insurance program and was not directly related to problems with yourselves or other claimants. 3. through 5. Both RMA and the City indicated that the potential lawsuits noted within these items are not now being contem- plated. However, Mr. Holley informed our office that he was advised by a representative of Home Insurance Company that a lawsuit between the City and RMA has been contemplated; and that Mr. -Holley was shown documentation to this effect. Please call our office. if you have questions or would like to clarify any of the above issues. Respectfully submitted, LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. William D. Evans, CPGS WDE/sg CC: Mr. Lee Holley, Attorney Reid Middleton and Associates, Inc. City of Edmonds Engineering Department 3 e GREET FILE ANDAu ASSOCIATES. INC. GE MNICAL ENOINEERINO ANO MYOROLOOY V.O. BOX 694 EDMONOS. WASHINGTON 96020 (206) 778.0907 22 August 1985 Mr. and Mrs. Solie 16431 74th Place West Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: Summary of Geotechnical Issues Solie Landslide Problems Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. and Mrs. Solie: This letter report is presented. at the request of Mr. Lee Hollie, attorney. The request was made during a meeting attended by Mr. William Evans (Landau Associates, Inc.), Mr. Lee Hollie, and Mr. Richard Louthan (Mr. Hollie's associate) at the office of Mr. Hollie on 31 July 1985. Mr. Hollie requested that our report summarize geologic conditions on and adjacent to your property and present a summary of project activities and comments based on our files and knowledge of the project. The landslide hazard investigation report of the Meadowdale Landslide Area prepared for the City of Edmonds (Roger Lowe Associates Inc., 16 October 1979), presents a good description of soil conditions throughout the Meadowdale area. The report also provides a summary of historic landslide activity. A copy of this report was forwarded to Mr. Hollie on 2 August 1985. During the 31 July 1985 meeting, Mr. Hollie was informed that a revised landslide hazard map for this report is available from the City. 1 4, GREET FILE ANDAu ASSOCIATES. INC. GE MNICAL ENOINEERINO ANO MYOROLOOY V.O. BOX 694 EDMONOS. WASHINGTON 96020 (206) 778.0907 22 August 1985 Mr. and Mrs. Solie 16431 74th Place West Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: Summary of Geotechnical Issues Solie Landslide Problems Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. and Mrs. Solie: This letter report is presented. at the request of Mr. Lee Hollie, attorney. The request was made during a meeting attended by Mr. William Evans (Landau Associates, Inc.), Mr. Lee Hollie, and Mr. Richard Louthan (Mr. Hollie's associate) at the office of Mr. Hollie on 31 July 1985. Mr. Hollie requested that our report summarize geologic conditions on and adjacent to your property and present a summary of project activities and comments based on our files and knowledge of the project. The landslide hazard investigation report of the Meadowdale Landslide Area prepared for the City of Edmonds (Roger Lowe Associates Inc., 16 October 1979), presents a good description of soil conditions throughout the Meadowdale area. The report also provides a summary of historic landslide activity. A copy of this report was forwarded to Mr. Hollie on 2 August 1985. During the 31 July 1985 meeting, Mr. Hollie was informed that a revised landslide hazard map for this report is available from the City. 1 4, m7. Based on the map supplied within the Roger Lowe report, your residence is located on the southern margins of the Meadowdale Landslide,Area. A majority of the lot is located within areas having a relatively low probability of ground failure; however, a small portion of your lot (at the base of the hillside) lies within an area mapped as having a 90 percent probability (30 percent probability on revised map) of ground failure during a 25 year period. After the November 1984 landslides, we understand that the City contracted with Rittenhouse -Zeman and Associates, Inc. (through Reid Middleton & Associates, Inc.) to perform a aeotechnical engineering study of your property. Their report was submitted to Reid Middleton and Associates, Inc., on 6 February 1985. On casual reading the report appears to present an accurate accounting of on -site surface and subsurface features. On close inspection, however, the report fails to mention important facts associated with the landslide(s). Also, the authors may have misinterpreted the origin of several of the soil horizons encountered within their borings and test pits. For example: o The report provides little, if any, discussion of the City's storm sewer system. A 7 March 1985 geotechnical review by Reid Middleton & Associates, Inc., mentions the storm sewer line, but does not clearly state whether a relationship exists between leaks in this system and the November 1984 landslide activity. K o No mention is made of the fact that a spring at the location of the landslides quit flowing almost immediately upon installation of the bypass storm sewer line. This information was given to Rittenhouse -Zeman and Associates, Inc., during a telephone conversation with Mr. Tom Bekey on 26 December 1984. o The report discusses the importance of ground water with respect to slope stability; however, no mention is made as to whether ground water was encountered at any of the Rittenhouse -Zeman explorations. An accurate determination of ground water level (s) will be necessary for retaining wall design. o The discussion of boring PB-2 within the text of the report indicates that fill is present to a djapth of seven feet. This is misleading, in that their cross-section shows an actual fill thickness of three and one-half feet. The above comments are based on a brief review of the Rittenhouse - Zeman and Associates, Inc., report. A thorough review and detailed field exploration program by our, -office may find additional discrepancies. The following summary of project activities is based on records contained within our files, numerous telephone call records,, and a limited number of on -site visits. Date Event 2 November 1984 - Initial landslide ; 5 November 1984 Initial site visit��by Landau Associates Inc. representative 3 • 9 November 1984 Landau Associates, Inc., letter i' concerning the 2 November 1984 slide 26 November '1984 Second landslide 28 November 1984 Owner's observe cracking of the ground surface northwest of their home 28 November 1984 Owner's have the spring at the head - scarp of the slide routed to the existing storm sewer system 29 November 1984 Second site visit by Landau Associates Inc. representative 30 November 1984 Landau Associates Inc. called Mr. Jerry Hauth at the City of Edmonds Engineering Department. Mr. Hauth indicated: l) the 12-inch concrete storm sewer line in front of the residence steps down to an 8-inch line where it turns and flows downhill; 2) there is a 90-degree bend at this location; and 3) a TV camera inspection of the*line revealed that the storm sewer was blocked at this 90-degree elbow. Mr. Hauth indicated that water had backed up to the north end of the residence within the 12-inch line. 30 November 1984 City rerouted their storm sewer line around the blockage. 3 December 1984 Landau Associates received a call from Mr. Solie indicating that the City installed bypass had dried up the "spring" within a matter of -hours. 7 December 1984 Our office was informed that -during a 5 December 1984 conversation, Mr. Hauth indicated to.Barbara Solie that the City's storm sewer line was the probable cause of the landslide activity. 11 December 1984 The Edmonds City Council authorized Reid Middleton & Associates, Inc., and Rittenhouse -Zeman-& Associates Inc., to perform general/civil engineering and geotechnical studies. 10 January 1985 Jim Solie indicated that the City had TV'd the storm sewer line again and 0 4 r .Y found a second lateral extending to _ the south. The presence of this line i was unknown to the City until this date. 17 January 1985 Rittenhouse -Zeman & Associates, Inc. - drilled 2 test borings on the Solie property. 30 January 1985 Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Solie to the City regarding the TV work. 6 February 1985 Initial report by,Rittenhouse-Zeman & Associates, Inc. 7 February 1985 Written response by the City to 30 January 1985 letter 21 February 1985 Supplemental letter report by Rittenhouse -Zeman & Associates, Inc. 7 March 1985 Cover letter and cost estimate by Reid Middleton & Associates, Inc. 15 March 1985 Mr. William Evans (Landau Associates Inc.) met with the owners and Mr. Lou Oblock of Home Insurance ?Co. to dis- cuss the landslides. 15 March -August 1985 Specific dates for the following have not been provided to our office. 1) The City terminated the services of Reid Middleton & Associates, Inc. due to a reported conflict of interest 2) The City terminated Home Insurance Co. as their insurance carrier due to reported problems with yourselves and other claimants. � 3) The City began considering a suit against Home Insurance Co. 4) The City began considering a suit against Reid Middleton & Associates, Inc. 5) Home Insurance Co, began con" sidering a suit against Reid Middleton" & Associates, Inc. 10 July 1985 Mrs. Solie indicated to our office that Home Insurance Co. had hired Rittenhouse -Zeman& Associates, Inc. for additional geo.technical. studies 0 1 V 16 July-1985 A call to Rittenhouse -Zeman & Assoc- iates, Inc., by our office indicated that they were apprehensive about the project and would not perform additional studies until receiving hold -harmless agreements form all concerned parties. Based on the above, and data collected to date, it is our opinion that a defective and clogged storm drain line in front of the residence "triggered" the November 1984 landslides. The presence of fill material on the slope may have also played a role in the failures; however, it is very unlikely that the fill and native soil would have failed as "debris flows" without a source of ground water. As we have previously discussed, returning the hillside to its pre -landslide condition will probably involve construction of one or more retaining walls. The wall(s) will improve hillside stability; however, they (it) will not prevent large scale move- ment if the entire hillside begins to move. To construct a retaining wall of sufficient strength to gUA-r-antee that the hillside will remain stable will probably not be economically feasible. Prior to design of a retaining wall(s). for the hillside, additional subsurface exploration will be required. This should consist of at least one deep test boring at the elevation of the existing residence and two or three shallower borings along the alignment of the proposed retaining wall(s). Each of the borings should .include a small diameter well to monitor .ground water conditions. We would be pleased to present a proposal for performing this work. Due to the sensitive nature of this project, we will 6 7-1 req:0ire a hold -harmless before undertaking the actual testing drilling: for budgeting purposes, the cost of such an explora- tion program and subsequent geotechnical report is estimated to be $15,000 to $25,000. We hope that this letter report meets your present needs. Should you have questions on it content, or need additional information, please do not hesitate to call. Respectfully submitted, LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. By: 4. P. �'- . William D. Evans, CPGS 11 WDE/sg.. cc: Mr. Lee Holie a MET FILE Law Offices of Lee A. Holley P.S. Lee A. Holley REC��V E1D October 30, 1985 0 G James E. Adams, P.E. ENGIN�R�N City Engineer 250 — 5th Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: The Solie Residence This is our approval, without prejudice to pending litigation, or any other legal rights, that a new ground water collection system be installed at the Solie's residence designed to route away water from any previous areas of problems. LAW OFFICES OF LEE A. HOLLEY, P.S. LEE A. HOLLEY cc: James & Barbara Solie 55LAH/dw 18609 76th Avenue West Suite E Lynnwood, WA 98036 (206) 778-8554 LANDAU ASSOCIATES. INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND HYDROLOGY P.O. BOX 694 EDMONDS. WASHINGTON 98020 (206) 778.0907 22 August 1985 Mr. and Mrs. Solie 16431 74th Place West Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: Summary of Geotechnical Issues Solie Landslide Problems Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. and Mrs. Solie: This letter report is presented at the request of Mr. Lee Hollie, attorney. The request was made during a meeting attended by Mr. William Evans (Landau Associates, Inc.), Mr. Lee Hollie, and Mr. Richard Louthan.(Mr. Hollie's associate) at the office of Mr. Hollie on 31 July 1985. Mr. Hollie requested that our report summarize geologic conditions on and adjacent to your property and present a summary of project activities and comments based on our files and knowledge of the project. The landslide hazard investigation report of the Meadowdale Landslide Area prepared for the City of Edmonds (Roger Lowe Associates Inc., 16 October 1979), presents a good description -of soil conditions throughout the Meadowdale area. The report also provides a summary of historic landslide activity. A copy of this report was forwarded to Mr. Hollie on -2 August 1985. During the 31 July 1985 meeting, Mr. Hollie was informed that a revised landslide hazard map for this report is available from the City. ft V • • • Based on the map supplied within the Roger Lowe report, your residence is located on the southern margins of the Meadowdale Landslide Area. A majority of the lot is located within areas having a relatively low probability of ground failure; however, a small portion of your lot (at the base of the hillside) lies within an area mapped as having a 90 percent probability (30 percent probability on revised map) of ground failure during a 25 year period. After the November 1984 landslides, we understand that the City contracted with Rittenhouse -Zeman and Associates, Inc. (through Reid Middleton & Associates, Inc.) to perform a geotechnical engineering study of your property. Their report was submitted to Reid Middleton and Associates, Inc., on 6 February 1985. On casual reading the report appears to present an accurate accounting of on -site surface and subsurface features. On close inspection, however, the report fails to mention important facts associated with the landslide(s). Also, the authors may have misinterpreted the origin of several of the soil horizons encountered within their borings.and test pits. For example: o The report provides little, if any, discussion of the City's storm sewer system. A 7 March 1985 geotechnical review by Reid Middleton & Associates, Inc., mentions the storm sewer line, but does not clearly state whether a relationship exists between leaks in this system and the November 1984 landslide activity. 2 o No mention is made of the fact that a spring at the location • of the landslides quit flowing almost immediately upon installation of the bypass storm sewer line. This information was given to Rittenhouse -Zeman and Associates, Inc., during a telephone conversation with Mr. Tom Bekey on 26 December 1984. o The report discusses the importance of ground water with respect to slope stability; however, no mention is made as to whether ground water was encountered at any of the Rittenhouse -Zeman explorations. An accurate determination of ground water level (s) will be necessary for retaining wall design. o The discussion of boring PB-2 within the text of the report • indicates that fill is present to a depth of seven feet. This is misleading, in that their cross-section shows an actual fill thickness of three and one-half feet. The above comments are based on a brief review of the Rittenhouse -Zeman and Associates, Inc., report. A thorough review and detailed field exploration program by our office may find additional discrepancies. The following summary of project activities is based on records contained within our files, numerous telephone call records, and a limited number of on -site visits. Date Event • 2 November 1984 Initial landslide 5 November 1984 Initial site visit by Landau Associates Inc. representative r • • w 9 November 1984 26 November 1984 28 November 1984 • Landau Associates, Inc., letter concerning the 2 November 1984 slide Second landslide Owner's observe cracking of the ground surface northwest of their home 28 November 1984 Owner's have the spring at the head - scarp of the slide routed to the existing storm sewer system 29 November 1984 Second site visit by Landau Associates Inc. representative 30 November 1984 Landau Associates Inc. called Mr. Jerry Hauth at the City of Edmonds Engineering Department. Mr. Hauth indicated: 1) the 12-inch concrete storm sewer line in front of the residence steps down to an 8-inch line where it turns and flows downhill; 2) there is a 90-degree bend at this location; and 3) a TV camera inspection of the line revealed that the storm sewer was blocked at this 90-degree elbow. Mr. Hauth indicated that water had backed up to the north end of the residence within the 12-inch line. 30 November 1984 City rerouted their storm sewer line around the blockage. 3 December 1984 Landau Associates received a call from Mr. Solie indicating that the City installed bypass had dried up the "spring" within a matter of hours. 7 December 1984 Our office was informed that during a 5 December 1984 conversation,. Mr. Hauth indicated to Barbara Solie that the City's storm sewer line was the probable cause of the landslide activity. 11 December 1984 The Edmonds City Council authorized Reid Middleton & Associates, Inc., and Rittenhouse -Zeman & Associates Inc., to perform general/civil engineering and geotechnical studies. 10 January 1985 Jim Solie indicated that the -City had TV'd the storm sewer line again and 4 • found a second lateral extending to the south. The presence of this line was unknown to the City until this date. 17 January 1985 Rittenhouse -Zeman & Associates, Inc. drilled 2 test borings on the Solie property. 30 January 1985 Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Solie to the City regarding the TV work. 6 February 1985 Initial report by Rittenhouse -Zeman & Associates, Inc. 7 February 1985 Written response by the City to 30 January 1985 letter 21 February 1985 Supplemental letter report by Rittenhouse -Zeman & Associates, Inc. 7 March 1985 Cover letter and cost estimate by Reid Middleton & Associates, Inc. 15 March 1985 Mr. William Evans (Landau Associates Inc.) met with the owners and Mr. Lou • Oblock of Home Insurance Co. to dis- cuss the landslides. 15 March -August 1985 Specific dates for the following have not been provided to our office. 1) The City terminated the services of Reid Middleton & Associates, Inc. due to a reported conflict of interest 2) The City terminated Home Insurance Co. as their insurance carrier due to reported problems with yourselves and other claimants. 3) The City began considering a suit against Home Insurance Co. 4) The City began considering a suit against Reid Middleton & Associates, Inc. 5) Home Insurance.Co. began con- sidering a suit against Reid Middleton & Associates, Inc. 10 July 1985 Mrs. Solie indicated to our office that Home Insurance Co. had hired Rittenhouse -Zeman & Associates, Inc. . for additional geotechnical studies 5 16 July'1985 A call to Rittenhouse -Zeman & Assoc- iates, Inc., by our office indicated that they were apprehensive about the project and would not perform additional studies until receiving hold -harmless agreements form all concerned parties. Based on the above, and data collected to date, it is our opinion that a defective and clogged storm drain line in front of the residence "triggered" the November 1984 landslides. The presence of fill material on the slope may have also played a role in the failures; however, it is very unlikely that the fill and native soil would have failed as "debris flows" without a source of ground water. As we have previously discussed, returning the hillside to its pre -landslide condition will probably involve construction of one or more retaining walls. The wall (s) will improve hillside stability; however, they (it) will not prevent large scale move- ment if the entire hillside begins to move. To construct a retaining wall of sufficient strength to guarantee that the hillside will remain stable will probably not be economically feasible. Prior to design of a retaining wall (s) for the hillside, additional subsurface exploration will be required. This should consist of at least one deep test boring at the elevation of the existing residence and two or three shallower borings along the alignment of the proposed retaining wall(s). Each of the borings should include a small diameter well to monitor ground water conditions. • we would be pleased to present a proposal for performing this work. Due to the sensitive nature of this project, we will 6 • require a hold -harmless before undertaking the actual testing drilling. For budgeting purposes, the cost of such an explora- tion program and subsequent geotechnical report is estimated to be $15,000 to $25,000. We hope that this letter report meets your present needs. Should you have questions on it content, or need additional information, please do not hesitate to call. • • WDE/s 9 cc: Mr. Lee Holie Respectfully submitted, LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. By: % William D. Evans, CPGS 7 l ANDREW T. NIELSEN STREET FILE 4-0 DREW NIELSEN J. ROBERT LEACH LAW OFFICES OF NIELSEN, NIELSEN & LEACH, INC., P.S. 3113 ROCKEFELLER AVENUE POST OFFICE BOX C EVERETT, WASHINGTON 98206 August 16, 1985 Mr. Jerry Hauth Engineering Dept. Secretary City of Edmonds 250 - 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. Hauth: TELEPHONE (206) 259-6184 (206) 746-2274 KECEIVED AU G 1;� 19�5 ENGINEERING As you may recall, we spoke last winter regarding the. Meadowdale slide area and the resulting danger to the house�owned.by my client.Mrs. W. A. McGraw.at 16429 - 75th Place West in Edmonds. I.have spoken recently with Mr. and Mrs. McGraw, and they advise me that the city, pursuant to the easement and hold harmless agreement they executed last December, has installed a curtain drain at the base of the hillside behind their house. I understand, however, that the curtain drain does not extend all the way beyond the end of the house. The McGraws have consulted with Mr. Bob Aklin, who I believe is familiar to you. Mr. Aklin has a great deal of experience in the installation of drainage systems, and it is his opinion that the drain should be extended to the northeast property line of Mrs. McGraw's house. Mr. Aklin has submitted a bid of $1500 to do the work, a copy of which I enclose for your information.' Mr. Aklin is of the view, I understand, that the drain as it stands does not reduce the -danger to the McGraws' house to the extent it would if the drain were extended. Mr. and Mrs. McGraw would be pleased if the city would under- take to extend the curtain drain as Mr. Aklin has proposed. Please look the material over and give me a call at your. earliest convenience. Mr. Aklin is available to discuss the matter at 542-5317. Thanks in advance for your attention to.this. Very truly yours, NIELSEN, NIELSEN & LEACH, INC., P.S. ,2 DREW NIEL EN DN:ih Encl.,�... cc: Mr. and Mrs. McGraw Pat Anthony Mr. Aklin --.542-5317 BOB AWN BACKHOE SERVICE P.O. Box 373 Edmonds, WA 98020 McGraw 16429 — 76th P1 VoTest. Dote ucust 13, 1905 Edmonds, Washington 98020 JCL : .164291 76th P1 W Ec *ronc s , .LhinLton Bid to extend drainage system and ri.:ke required corrections 1',P.: Frer:ch LI'ain extension to li. _. propert;: 'line. Surnp installed above french drain ( N.3. corner of prop.) to divert water to french drain. " A.D.S. drain line buried in area of C.B. ( S.E. corner of house ) water in driveway diverted underground in out -fall from C.r. vith gravel and perferated pipe. Thid price does not include sales tax or permit fees. Due to soil and water conditions, I can not guarantee this will en I do, however,feel this is the best and only solution. 1500.00 �irely correct problem. � 1 , WhQ.-f4 x 6:ar Q Pi`- _ ani i s r_n �5 ! 1 w�� W c3 �i'1c �� ".D_r ST c'a� ,. it t .� , `^'�C� —ti �IUNC-IyN �� V ►p�� �crsN vp--1..�nrc,- .�'o_FI-►a' c�+�tt.�.A-7�k�J � s i�"rt�i�o f - ' C1Y.) a - �$"COY-�c-lAsu��7 a^� - ' � � �1i � 13er�-tla,r_ c� „v i{� �c�_�.� ( , { i i l t ELF i -------------- f •--•----•--'--- __.-_a-_ -.-'.---- ------.---_!-. � J I: I I I I �-- -•- --- ' _ I I Ys— t � � i ' ! i I I 1 f 1 �l I I I I I � ! i '�_ -. I I_ �_ : I ' i Y' I.. I I I I i I I( I �• � i ' I � I ' ! I � I j ��-I f I �'=; ' �,,. r--i—•r-�•t^ '—f --f—i iI! j-f—;--j—T r,- � •! { ; I i � I I j I f I_ _I I i-,� '— , `_ •I-Y—T'---' I+H -I i —i { � � 1�� �COr R �1�� • - -� -- +—� i �---" -� .. i-- i _� ' a � � - ---i-- ' -_IS}!�C� �r��4r ----%—F--_� y_ i-- � e �� .. � - � _.a..,.. mot— i- I t r—:— � T i ! ! I c i � r m 01 } +�. EDMOND5 CITY COUNCIL. AGENDA MEMO Item number: STREET FILE Jackie Parrett, Originator: City Clerk For Action: X For Information: SUBJECT: CLAIM FOR DAMAGES Clearances: Dept./Indio./Initials AGENDA TIME: Consent AGENDA DATE: August 13, 1985 EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Claim ADMIN SVCS/FINANCE CITY ATTORNEY CITY CLERK `11 "40" COMMUNITY SERVICES ENGINEERING PARKS & RECREATION PLANNING PUBLIC WORKS FIRE PERSONNEL POLICE COMMITTEE MAYOR LW COMMENTS: EXPENDITURE AMOUNT APPROPRIATION REQUIRED: $ N/A BUDGETED: $ N/A REQUIRED: $ N/A HISTORY AND SUMMARY STATEMENT: NAME ADDRESS AMOUNT Barbara & James Solie 16431 74th Place W. Refer to the Edmonds, WA 98020 attached description of injuries/damages RECOMMENDED ACTION: Acknowledge receipt of the above for minute entry. COUNCIL ACTION: 2n3 1 TO: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 .17 18 19 . 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 EIVF� AUG 0 7 1905 Edmonds City Cieth President, City Council or governing body: City of Edmonds. This claim is filed pursuant to RCW 04.96.020, governing the presentment, filing and contents of claims against this governmental body. Name of Claimant(s): Barbara and James Solie. Residence of address of same: 16431 - 74th Place W. Edmonds, WA 98020 Narrative of claim: Negligent diversion of waters upon our property causing major earth movement, cracking, and interference with premises and use and enjoyment; threatened destruction of the entire premises; wrongful use of private drain without easement, failure to warn, and abuse of governmental powers. Names of all persons involved: Barbara and James Solie (as noted above); City officials;. Reid -Middleton; all persons living in the vicinity. Description of injuries or damages: Approximately $500,000 in corrective retention facilities required; loss of enjoyment of home; damages to home and property, requiring replacement facility in excess of $600,000;. extreme stress, emotional distress, anxiety, failure to mitigate damages, miserable living conditions, taking of land, .diminished enjoyment thereof by the negligent conduct; attorneys' fees, engineering fees, hydraulic expert fees in excess of one million dollars. In addition, it is estimated that there are 10 to 20 million dollars of damages done to surrounding neighbors and the Plaintiffs are threatened with -further litigation and problems due to the negligent conduct of the City that may require a class action with all property owners involved because of the improper diversion of water through a new drain system onto the Solie property. LAW OFFICES OF LEE A. HOLLEY, P.S. Lee A. Holley Lee A. Holley Law Offices 18609 76th Avenue West Suite E .. .. •.• 980:56 1. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) Lee A. Holley, of full age, verifies that he .is the attorney for the above claimant(s), that he knows the contents thereof, and signs with authority of the claimant(s) to act in this regard. SUBSCRIBED D SWORN to, before me, this -= day of OTARY PUBLIC in and for the ta of Washington, residing at 0 Lee A. Holley Law Offices t8609 761h A enue west Ott pal . 1 1 J 91 1 c 7 7-i -71 ui LIU 71 --- - ---- ----- 'rM4 : C'O 71- i I G* CITY OF EDMONDS LARRY S. NAUGHTEN MAYOR 250 - 51h AVE. N. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 • (206) 771.3202 DATE: 2 %Ig OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER FILE NO.: PROJECT NO.: SERIAL NO.: / (If Applicable) TO: / /e 04 TRANSMITTING: REMARKS: &%& As you requested r✓ L`.. For your information As we discussed For appropriate action t For your file For posting in public place For signature and return 2 C'9 st 12/82 N LARRY S. NAUGHTEN MAYOR 250 - 51h AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 • (206) 771-3202 OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER DATE: 2 20 8S FILE NO.: r wl vffff If -a- RE: SoL-i E Mu-4 S L i bc: TRANSMITTING: PROJECT NO.: SERIAL NO.: (If Applicable) rO LAd As you requested (/ For your information As we discussed For appropriate action y' For your file For posting in public place For signature and return V REMARKS : � J- CPrM ^S%F- OF h-bblT(.O*\AAL- R(�[ AT "( -k 2 c-(DAJ UC-A 1 EWCi St 12/82 STREFT9LE • EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO Item number: Originator: James E. Adams For Action: x For Information: SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE MAYOR TO ACCEPT HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF DRAINAGE FACILITY AGENDA TIME: Consent AGENDA DATE: February 11, 1985 EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Easement and Hold Harmless Agreement Clearances: Dept./Indiv./Initials ------------------------------------ ADMIN SVCS/FINANCE CITY ATTORNEY CITY CLERK COMMUNITY GSEICCESENGINEERINPARKS & REION "- PLANNING PUBLIC WORKS FIRE PERSONNEL POLICE COMMITTEE (MAYOR COMMENTS: EXPENDITURE. AMOUNT APPROPRIATION REQUIRED: $ N/A BUDGETED: $ N/A REQUIRED: $ N/A HISTORY/SUMMARY STATEMENT: The November, 1984 slide below the Solie residence at 16431 - 74th P1. W. revealed additional sources of subsurface water and left mud and debris at the McGraw residence. Mrs. McGraw (the sole owner) has signed a hold harmless to permit the City to make some additional improvements and remove the mud and debris. The City Attorney, Scott Snyder, has reviewed the attached agree- ment. i e L6 ry Haut Dt RECOMMENDED ACTION: --fh7 ,�rS CiAfy Clerk Dt Authorize Mayor to accept the Hold Harmless Agreement. COUNCIL ACTION: 205 CITY OF ED pINDS PUBLIC WORKS L,�RTMENT ; SUBJECT -NAME,;.. - WORK -START NUMBER Property of James & DATE AND TIME i E-5-7 Barbara Solie SUMMARY Solies are requesting results of the TV camera pictures; also.letter stating the results of what you saw "meaning the City" and what the blockage was; also whereabouts FROM DATE f pipe and . how far down driveway I To J . AdamETOJ. Hauth To To ro DATE DATE /^� DATE DATE i �' Y DATE i 0 1 0 CITY OF EDMONDS 250 5lh AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 • (206) 771.3202 COMMUNITY SERVICES February 7, 1985 James and Barbara Solie 16431 - 74th P1. W. Edmonds,'WA. 98020 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Solie: SUBJECT: PROPERTY OF JAMES AND BARBARA SOLIE LARRY S. NAUGHTEN MAYOR PETER E. HAHN DIRECTOR The City would like to provide you with an opportunity to come in to review the TV tapes that were made of the existing storm sewer pipe on your property. Please contact me and advise me of a time that would be convenient for you, so that I can make arrangements to have the tapes and viewing equipment avail- able. Once you have viewed the tapes, you will have a better in- sight for some of the questions in your letter dated January 30, 1985. We will have the appropriate personnel available to explain what the TV tapes have revealed. We will provide you with a copy of the Rittenhouse - Zeman Report once they have it completed. In turn, you can pro- vide your insurance carrier with a copy of the report. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. If you have additional questions, please contact us at your convenience. Sincerely, /�I� Y HAUTH P.E. Hydraulics Engineer JH/st PUBLIC WORKS + PLANNING + PARKS AND RECREATION + ENGINEERING :Hieu4.dr.wca'wrUmiMal�:_.....u+.�.�ra��vocr....`.'•a=.',iraFi:iwt«2::+:...�s:�i�5�_:.!'�.:�.. "...�?.�.. �.... �_ .. ... ._.._...... �.-»... �... .:... ....... ... _. '�-�'C-'.r:R�^..-'•5•••xvtlSRIIYO'Cl•:'YRYi?!TfR9lR3••'e91M�a^tR}�'ra«.�nrtTMtlmt.�ROtt'�+nwmve¢�� f , 0 ■ Yii dr C�•% CITY OF E O 0 fC r O D 250 51h AVE. N. • EDMONDS. WASHINGTON 98020 • (206) 771-3202 COMMUNITY SERVICES STREET FILE February 7, 1.985 James and Barbara Solie 16431 - 74th P1. W. 'Edmonds, WA. 98020 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Solie: SUBJECT: PROPERTY OF JAMES AND BARBARA SOLIE LARRY S. NAUGHTEN MAYOR PETER E. HAHN DIRECTOR The City would like to provide you with an opportunity to come in to review the TV tapes that were made of the existing storm sewer pipe on your property. Please contact me and advise me of a time that would be convenient for you, so that I can make arrangements to have the tapes and viewing equipment avail- able. Once you have viewed the tapes, you will have a better in- sight for some of the questions in your letter dated January 30, 1985. We will have the appropriate personnel available to explain what the TV tapes have revealed. We will provide you with a copy of the Rittenhouse - Zeman Report once they have it completed. In turn, you can pro- vide your insurance carrier with a copy of,the report. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. If you have additional questions, please contact us at your convenience. JH/st . 2,14 Sincerely, JERRY HAUTH, P.E. Hydraulics Engineer PUBLIC WORKS a PLANNING 0 PARKS AND RECREATION ENGINEERING m43RCeti�.a; ,,...._ ,.....rw&�r�i.TYt'�?�T. _.:. Y; ;�`.T '_.�:�`�'1:t �. .. .... _'e.: - .... ..._.._. ... .. .- •- _ _. :l:i7c?.s_.�a�. ....:.rr.,:_^s-.a.:.:.-.:_.v:-e.:-�,..�i _ ET FILE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL, AGENDA MEMO 0 Originator: James E. Adams Item number: For Action: x For Information: SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT FOR MEADOWDALE DRAINAGE EXTENSION AGENDA TIME: Consent AGENDA DATE: February 5, 1985 EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Purchase Quotation Sheet EXPENDITURE REQUIRED: $2,678.83 Clearances Dept./Indio./Initials ADMIN SVCS/FINANCE - - CITY ATTORNEY CITY CLERK COMMUNITY SNAON ES ENGINEERIN PARKS & RE PLANNING PUBLIC WORKS FIRE PERSONNEL_ POLICE (COMMITTEE I , MAYOR (COMMENTS: AMOUNT APPROPRIATION BUDGETED: *$70,000.00 REQUIRED: $None HISTORY/SUMMARY STATEMENT: The November, 1984 slides below the Solie residence at 16431 - 74th Ave. W. revealed additional sources of subsurface water. This water is now making its way to the street and could cause additional.damage to our storm drainage structures and the street. This is the type of situation that we anticipated and budgeted $70,000 for 1985. *$70,000 was budgeted for extensions of the Meadowdale drainage system for 1985. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1 /� er Ha th D Cit Cle k Dt Authorize contract for constru io . COUNCIL ACTION: 2 0 ' PURCHASE QUOTATION SHEET Purchase which will be over $200.00 will require three (3) quotations, and will become a part of the purchase request. Y Descri tion 'd F Firm Firm 6'�T t Firm ��1o�cm �ewc✓' Ph.# Ph.# Ph.# Quoter/tow Q uoter,PSo/L 7Z Quoter ki K Wiens Date / 8 05 Date I `& 8S Date l Z4 g5it Unit Quote Total Quote Unit uote Total Quote Unit uote Total Quote 2400�' O° 113&oo " L/�/ Soso Cc �20 12(. i Oo ESTIMATED Sub -total Sales Tax Signature of Person ReceivingTotal niin+o /pQ oo ZA7(5 4 190 — 3/9 go 4 �9 80 2 9 51(0 - Rev. 6/82 TOM BELT R 778-0247 I? & Ill C'ontracEor� 776-2829 P 0 BOX 216 LYNNWOOD WA 98036 City of Edmonds 200 -5th Ave No. Edmonds, Wa. 98020 Attn: Jerry Hauth Dear Sir: 1-8-85 We are bidding $1200.00 plus sales tax to remove brush and approximately 50 yds, of mud from the N.E. corner of the house on 76th below the Solie slide area. This is the area we went over with you on the site. Thanks. Yours truly, Tom Belt B & M Contractors c6 I Z4- 4Q - Z-,- All4 �'' '`' 4v VIN TOM BELT 778-0247 ��� I.�UIt`racEvr� 776-2829 P 0 BOX 216 LYNNWOOD WA 98036 1-8-85 City of Edmonds, 200 - 5th Ave. No. Edmonds, Wa. 98020 Attn: Jerry Hauth Dear Sir: We are bidding $500.00 plus sales tax to install 6" A.D.S. solid pipe from pipe at top of Solie property to C.B. at 76th Ave. Thanks. Yours truly, Tom Belt B & M Contractors C A/Vry7- IrAl14o D�/Y�N��pj S. TOM BELT 778-0247 776-2829 P O BOX 216 LYN N WOOD WA 98036 1-8-85 City of Edmonds; 200 - 5th Ave. No. Edmonds, Wa. 98020 Attn: Jerry Hauth Dear Sir: As per our meeting at the house on 76th below the Solie slide we will install a curtain drain (french drain) behind the house and tie into drain on 76th for $2400.00 plus sales tax, as per sketch attached. Thanks. Yours truly, ye� eilty- Tom Belt B & M Contractors PROPOSAL and CONTRACT , Date TO 19 Dear Sir: D,opose to furnish all materials and perform all labor necessary to Lcomplete the following: �- /-� ,1.� a6g n� All of the above work to be com1 ted in a substancil and workmanli�ie:_manner according to stand- ' l,0.•' . /1 'I I � � i �'.IGt:L�' � �' : e" �,�_ °'� Ei-Y1.ti114.^CJ �. � '�'f.ra'w i4:.C...;.�. �,Il and practices for the sum of�' ' ` {{ Dollars Payments Payments to be made , as the work progresses to the value of per cent ( %) of all work completed. The entire amount of conrract to be paid within Lu dsgs•after completion. Any alteration or deviation from the above specifications involving extra cost of material or labor will only be executed upon written orders for same, and will become an extra charge over the sum men- tioned in this contract. All agreements must be made in writing. Respectfully submitted, ACCEPTANCE You are hereby authorized to furnish all materials and labor required to complete the work men - cloned in the above proposal, for which said proposal, and according to the terms thereof. ACCEPTED agree to pay the amount mentioned in Date , 19 AICO FORM NO. 50-250 PRINTED IN USA 0 1 0 MODERN SEWER CONSTRUCTION CO. INC. C ommetaicd - Yndu:&aaL - cREsidsntia.L 17810 - Ash Way Alderwood Manor, Washington 98036 743-2756 Seattle Mobile 447-1293 City of Edmonds Office of City Engineer Civic Center Edmonds, WA 98020 Jan. 24, 1985 Attn: Jerry Hauth The following is the breakdown of our price to install the drain lines and provide the necessary clean-up, for the project on 76th Ave. W., per our conversation. 6" ADS Tightline $ 1,261.00 6" Curtain Drain $ 1,138.00 Clean Up $ 1,791.00 If you have any questions regarding this please call. Sincerely, Ki= ienz Mo Co. Inc. KW/s a ENGINEERING January 30, 1985 Mr. Jim Adams Mr. Jerry Hauth City of Edmonds 250 5th Ave. North Edmonds, Washington 98020 Re: Property of James & Barbara Solie Gentlemen: We are requesting from the City of Edmonds„ the results of the Television Camera pictures that were taken of the existing pipe that runs through our property. Since this T. V. camera was ran twice, we would like the results of both times. We would also like a letter stating the results of what you saw "meaning the City" and what the blockage was. Also at our last meeting with Jerry Hauth in January, 1985, he pointed out to us a pipe that continued on south. We would also like to know the where abouts of this pipe and how far down the driveway does it go. Also do you have any plans that shows these existing pipes in question. Upon completion of the findings and testing of the Rittenhouse Geotechnical Engineers we would also like copies of their results. Very Truly Yours es Solie Barbara Solie f r t r� a �` `fir � � r�S � � ,��.� �� ; � � u �, �_ �' -� �` ' � �`► 4` t r �4 STREET FILE January 22, 1985 MEMO FOR RECORD FROM: Jerry Hauth -.Hydraulics Engineer • N SUBJECT: EARTH SLIDES AT 16431 - 74TH PL. W. On the evening of November 2, 1984, at approximately 5:00 p.m., Jim Adams received a call from Mrs. Solie advising him that a slide had occurred at the subject residence. Jim Adams went out to investigate the slide with Bobby Mills of the Public Works Division and John Rundall of RMA. They met Jack Weinz of the Fire Department at the site. Because of his concern about the slide, Jack Weinz recommended that the Walter family find some place else to spend the night. The Walter family was renting the McGraw house at 16429 - 75th P1. W. It was in this backyard that the material eventually stopped sliding. The Walter family did choose to spend the night at some other location. The slide appeared to be a dry slide. In addition, there were no visible sources of water anywhere near the area where the slide occurred. The material that came down the hill was relatively dry. At that time, it was assumed the material had been inappropriately placed on the side of a steep bank during the construction of the Solie residence. The morning of November 27, 1984 I received a calf. from Mrs. Walter. She asked that I look at the slide. When I arrived I found what appeared to be a spring in the hole left from the aforementioned slide. I returned to the office to call the Solies in order to advise them that with the presence of water, the probability of another slide was likely. That evening, Jim Adams and Bobby Mills were contacted atthe City Council meeting about additional sliding at the Solie residence. Upon investigation, it was found that a larger slide had occurred in the same location as the first one. 2,02 • Earth Slides at 16431 - 74th P1. W. January 22, 1985 Page 2 The following day, the Solies retained B & M Contractors to install a system to collect the water at.the source of the spring in order to help prevent any additional sliding. November 28, 1984, the City crews ran a T.V. camera through the storm sewer adjacent to the Solie's house. It revealed that there was a partially blocked elbow in the old existing storm sewer. The T.V. also revealed a broken pipe about 10 feet up the hill from the catch basin, which is immediately below the Solie's house. On November 29, 1984, B & M Contractors were retained by the City to install a temporary bypass to the storm sewer system. This was accomplished by collecting the water at the catch basin above the Solie house and routing it back into the storm system down below the Solie house. Shortly before December 10, 1984, there was another dry slide onto the collection system that B & M had installed for the Solies. This slide probably occurred as a result of sloughing of the 6 foot vertical face that had occurred at the time of the big slide. During this time, it became apparent that there were several stretch marks across the face of the hill, both north and south of the Solie residence. These are in addition to the obvious collasping that was occurring in the area where the aforementioned fill was placed. 4- JH/st Jiro— ms Dt • STREET FILE --S January 22, 199S MEMO FOR RECORD FROM: Jerry Hauth Hydraulics Engineer SUBJECT: EARTH SLIDES ATnW64,3'i On the evening of November 2, 1984, at approximately 5:00 p.m., Jim Adams received a call from Mrs. Solie advising him that a slide had occurred at the subject residence. Jim Adams went out to investigate the slide with Bobby Mills of the Public Works Division and John Rundall of RMA. They met Jack Weinz of the Fire Department at the site. Because of his concern about the slide, Jack Weinz recommended that the Walter family find some place else to spend the night. The Walter family was renting the McGraw house at 16429 - 75th Pl. W. It was in this backyard that the material eventually stopped sliding. The Walter family did choose to spend the night at some other location. The slide appeared to be a dry slide. In addition, there were no visible sources of water anywhere near the area where the slide occurred. The material that came down the hill was relatively dry. At that time, it was assumed the material had been inappropriately placed on the side of a steep bank during the construction of the Solie residence. The morning of November 27, 1984 I received a call from Mrs. Walter. She asked that I look at the slide. When I arrived I found what appeared to be a spring in the hole left from the aforementioned slide. I returned to the office to call the Solies in order to i advise them that with the presence of water, the probability of another slide was likely. 1 That evening, Jim Adams and Bobby Mills were contacted at the City i Council meeting about additional sliding at the Solie residence. Upon investigation, it was found that a larger slide had occurred in -the same location as the first one. r STREET F1Lr- Earth Slides at 16431 - 74th P1. W. January 22, 1985 Page 2 The following day, the Solies retained B & M Contractors to install a system to collect the water at the source of the spring in order to help prevent any additional sliding. November 28, 1984, the City crews ran a T.V. camera through the storm sewer adjacent to the Solie's house. It revealed that there. was a partially blocked elbow in the old existing storm sewer. The T.V. also revealed a broken pipe about 10 feet up the hill from the catch basin,.which is immediately below the Solie's house. On November 29, 1984, B & M Contractors were retained by the City to install a temporary bypass to the storm sewer system. This was accomplished by collecting the water at the catch basin above the Solie house and routing it back into the storm system down below the Solie house. Shortly before December 10, 1984, there was another dry slide onto the collection system that B & M had installed for the Solies. This slide probably occurred as a result of sloughing of the 6 foot vertical face that had occurred at the time of the big slide. During this time, it became apparent that there were several stretch marks across the face of the hill, both north and south of the Solie residence. These are in addition to the obvious collasping that was occurring in the area where the aforementioned fill was placed. JH/st Jiilt- ms r Dt 222 STFIEET FILE To t� I�—S-T_�T_L�!� .iC7-_/=C_,US-I�-I � � _T �� IZ.,�_L•l /'�1_I z= �T I`Iz- I r2��_1'z T_i r�13cZi o Q Iz. �- �_ LNeiWit— (�S s1 A d c�-�—l�R T tx- Sl (- T - Fw--CHI �7' 7_l -� r� f / a� t� Tc�i l-� C4 11/�- p a 0-1 po � STREET PILE �►11�C dnEa 4 Vn r J/a,�. Mocir- c� 2-7. Jc �t4 C' a ,AP—e- a �o�c R oY Poy xa), 3;0) tg*y lovmcit eye- l e-4"&r< e,,a�osr,o .=VEWAI i 6'13 /— 7X,' 4t" Reid, Middleton & Assoc' , Inc. Engineers - Surveyors - PI ers 121 5th Avenue North, Suite 200 EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 Phone 775-3434 STRt� FILE f i Iv01 N WE ARE SENDING YOU XAttached ❑ Under separate cover via DATE JOB NO. ATTENTION RE: 1410+ oYV 0*6 U� Mae following items: ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order CON�LI-f�_ COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 4v V7—R_A JC T THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: XFor approval ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit copies for approval ❑ For your use ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Submit copies for distribution ❑ As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return corrected prints ❑ For review and comment ❑ ❑ FOR BIDS DUE 19 ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS 70U e4MAfE/17-1 O/✓ O!� 1 tea- S?cv i� Zr t COPY TO 2� SIGNED: PRODUCT z/O-t � Inc, Q" M. 01471. If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us allonce. ANDREW T. NIELSEN • TELEPHONE (206) 259-6184 DREW NIELSEN (206) 745.2274 J. ROBERT LEACH LAW OFFICES OF NIELSEN, NIELSEN & LEACH, INC., P.S. 3113 ROCKEFELLER AVENUE POST OFFICE BOX C EVERETT, WASHINGTON 98206 December 19, 1984 Mr. Jerry Hauth Engineering Dept. Secretary CITY OF EDMONDS 250 - 5th Avenue North Edmonds, Washington 98020 Dear Mr. Hauth: Enclosed is the original Easement And Hold Harmless Agreement which you earlier provided us. It has been signed by Dorothy McGraw and notorized. You will note that I have retyped page 3 to add a new final paragraph to the document. This final paragraph is probably redundant and I trust you will have no objections to it. I will be out of the office from December 21, 1984 through. January 4, 1985. If a matter arises which you believe requires our attention before I get back, please contact Andrew Nielsen at this office. Very truly yours, NIELSEN, NIELSEN & EACH, INC., P.S. y: DREW NIELSEN DN/ldp Enclosure DECISION THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS HAS MADE THE FOLLOWING DETERMINATION: TO ,GRANT,PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A. REQUEST FORA SIDE SETBACK ADJUSTMENT ... _ TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE 6 FEET FROM THE SOUTH SIDE ................................................................................. PROPERTY LINE RATHER THAN THE STANDARD 10 FEET. THIS DECISION WILL BECOME ................................................................................. FINAL ON DECEMBER 4,.1934 UNLESS AN APPEAL, STATING .REASONS,.IS.SUBMITTED .. .. . .... . . . .. . . . TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY 5:00 P.M. ON DECEMBER 31 1984. ................................................................................. PROPERTY ADDRESS OR DESCRIPTION:.. .................... FI LE ;# .. A717-.84 ..... POSTED. NKi'; R.15,. 1984 ANY PERSON WISHING TO APPEAL THIS DECISION MUST DO SO IN WRITING, CITING working REASONS. TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BY S • 00 PM, DECEMBER 3, 1984 (10 oAYS FRONT POSTING DATE) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT 250 FIFTH AVENUE NORTH. O?Z&2.26q 771-3202 EXTENSION 252 THIS POSTER MAY BE REMOVED AFTER DE�EI"BER 3,._1984__________. ............................... ...................._....... ... The removal, mutilation, destruction, or I concealment of this notice prior to the date above is a misdemeanor punishable by MARNINGE fine and imprisonment. The Grantors, William E. and Gretchen W. Dunn and Edward A. and Alice M. Merrill for and.in consideration of mutual benefits to be derived, namely, the construction of a rock retaining wall, with french drain behind the rockery, „from the base of the Grantees proposed garage retaining wall and across the Grantors property, thence following the contour of the land, including grading and fill work above and below the retaining wall, and other good and valuable -,consideration hereky convey to The Grantee, James L. and Barbara L. Solie, their heirs, successors and assigns, An easement for access, including but not limited to driveway construction and access to the Grantees proposed garage. Together with the right to pass and repass thereover, by foot or vehicle over, across and along the following described real property in Snohomish County, Washington, for the installation, repair or reconstruction of the aforesaid driveway facilities. Together with the right to excavate and create fill slopes for the location of said driveway, and the further right to remove trees,.bushes, .undergrowth and other obstructions interfering with the location, construction and maintenance of said driveway. Description: That portion of Tract 88, Plat of Meadowdale Beach, as per plat recorded in Volume 5 of Plats, page 38, records of Snohomish County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at the northwest corner of said Tract 88; thence easterly along the north line of said Tract 88 along a bearing of S89.35'29"E according to plat of survey filed in Volume 11 of Surveys, on pagge 151, as recorded under Snohomish County Auditor's File No. 80Q1145009, a distance of 50.06 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence continuing S89°35129"E a distance of-30.00 feet; thence S63.31'52"W a distance of 53.52 feet; -thence N36039' 12"E a distance of 30.00 feet to the True Point of Beginning. The area of the parcel is 363 square feet. Grantee shall have the right without prior institution of any suite or proceeding at law, at such times as may be necessary, to enter upon said easement area for the purposes herein described, without incurring any legal obligation or liability therefore, and Grantee shall be responsible for the restoration or repair of any of Grantor's improvements destroyed or damaged by Grantee within said easement area caused by the installation, repair or reconstruction of aforesaid access and driveway facilities. Grantor hereby agrees that no building, new trees, shrubbery or obstruction of any kind shall be erected or permitted to remain within the boundaries of said easement area without the written permission of the Grantees. Also granting to the Grantee, its agents or assigns, the use of such additional area immediately adjacent to said easement area as shall be required for the construction, reconstruction, maintenance and operation of the driveway within the above described easement area, the use of such additional area to be held to a minimum and returned to a condition as good as it was immediately before the property was entered upon by Grantee or its agents. y. WSS:jt 7/3/84 00 STREET FILE ORDINANCE NO. 2445 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHING - TON, AMENDING CHAPTER 19 OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION 19.00.020 RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS IN THE LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA, AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION 21.55.060 RELATING TO THE DEFINITION OF LANDSLIDE HAZARD, LIFTING A MORATORIUM IMPOSED BY RESOLUTIONS 428, 431, 450, 587 AND 590 AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BE EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, -the City Council by Resolutions 428, 431, 450, 587 and 590 has imposed a moratorium on building and building permits within an area commonly known as Meadowdale; WHEREAS, the City Council imposed said moratorium in the interest of public health, safety and welfare, in order to protect against earth subsidence and landslide hazard as identified in a final report commissioned by the City from Roger Lowe Associates, Inc.; WHEREAS, the hazards identified in said report have been addressed by the City of Edmonds to the extent possible through public works designed to reduce ground water levels by the improvement of public storm and sanitary sewerage; and WHEREAS, the projects and hearing complete and represent the last of the steps available.to the City to address the problem in light of current scientific, engineering and architectural standards; and W? 1 .I WHEREAS, the City has a legal obligation to warn property owners and other persons within the Meadowdale area of the hazards identified by the Roger Lowe Associates, Inc. report; WHEREAS, the City desires to permit resumption of development in the area to the extent consistent with public safety and under reasonable assurances which protect both persons in the area and all of the citizens of Edmonds. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF -- EDMONDS, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 19.00 of the'Edmonds Community Development Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new Section 19.00.020 relating to the issuance of building permits in the earth subsidence and landslide hazard area to read as follows: 1'9.00.020 EARTH SUBSIDENCE AND LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA, BUILDING PERMITS 1. Notwithstanding any contrary provision of these ordinances or of the Uniform Building Code, all applications for building permits received for any site, any portion of which lies within an area designated by the Final Report, Landslide Hazards Investigation prepared by Roger Lowe Associates, Inc. as on file with the City Clerk as having an ascertainable hazard, shall be governed by the provisions of this section. In addition to all other requirements of these ordinances, the following restrictions and provisions shall apply to all building permits and applications processed after the lifting of a moratorium imposed by Resolution 428, as amended by Resolutions 431, 450 587 and 590. A. All such applications for building permit shall disclose on their face whether or not they lie within the earth subsidence and landslide hazard area. All such applicants - 2 - shall be provided with a copy of the Landslide Hazard Map, which is a part of the Roger Lowe Associates, Inc. report. B. All such applications shall be accompanied by a foundation design prepared by an engineer licensed by the state of Washington and schooled in the design of foundations, based upon a soils report by a geotechnical engineer licensed by the State of Washington, which design addresses those hazards identified as applicable to the site by the Landslide Hazard Report. Prior to issuance of any occupancy permit, the building official shall be supplied with a statement from the designing engineer that he/she has conducted a site inspection and that the foundation conforms to the engineer's design. Nothing in this subsection shall be deemed to limit the discretion vested in the building official by the Uniform Building Code to impose greater or more restrictive requirements of the applicant or to require additional design, recommenda- tion or review by professionals hired by the applicant. C. The building permit application shall require acknowledgement by the applicant that he/she has been provided with or has waived receipt of a copy of the Landslide Hazard Map and agrees to release and indemnify the City from any and all claims, damage or loss resulting to any party resulting from: 1. The construction and/or design of the building or structure by the applicant or applicant's employees or contractors; and/or 2. The provision of false information by the applicant or applicant's agents or employees in the permit application; and/or 3. Any risk or hazard of which the applicant could reasonably have had notice of from the Roger Lowe Associate, Inc. report and the Landslide Hazard Map. Nothing herein shall be deemed to require the applicant to release or indemnify the city, its - 3 - officers or employees from loss or damage arising from the City's sole negligence. D. All applications for building permits, subdivision, planned residential development and development applications of any kind for sites within the earth subsidence and landslide hazard area shall provide the appropriate reviewing body or official with a covenant, executed and acknowledged by the owners of the site in a form that can be recorded in the Snohomish County Auditor's office. The covenant shall provide: 1. A statement by the owner(s) that he/she will inform his/her successors and assigns that the site, lot or development area is within an area .identified by the Roger Lowe Associates Inc. report; of the risks associated with development thereon; and of any conditions, prohibitions or restrictions on development; 2. A legal description of the property affected; 3. The official number and date of the permit or other action for which the covenant was required; and 4. A statement waiving the right of the owner, his/her heirs, successors and assigns to assert any claim against the City by reason of or arising out of issuance of the permit or other development approval by the city for the subject property. 2. All reviews conducted under the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code for building permit, subdivision or planned residential development with reference to any site located in the landslide hazard area shall include consideration of the removal of any tree having a diameter of 8 inches or greater. Such trees shall be shown on any map, plat or site development plan required by the Code. Consideration of such application shall include the requirement that such trees not be damaged or removed; provided, however, that an applicant may be permitted to remove such trees if adequate replacement of such trees, as determined by the appropriate City Board or,City official, is provided for by the applicant. Bonding may be required. Subdivision and planned residential development shall contain covenants which prohibit the damaging or removal of trees eight inches or greater without adequate replacement. - 4. - • 3. The report of Roger Lowe Associates and the Landslide Hazard Map are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this ordinance as fully as if herein set forth. Copies of the report and map shall be maintained in the office of the City Clerk, Planning Department and with the building official and shall be available for inspection during all normal working hours. Individual copies of the report and map may be obtained by the public upon the payment of the cost of reproduction. Section 2. Chapter 21.55 of the Edmonds Community Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new section 21.55.060 relating to the definition of earth subsidence and landslide hazard area: 21.55.060 EARTH SUBSIDENCE AND LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA. Those areas identified in the Roger Lowe Asso- ciates, Inc. report as on file with the City Clerk and the accompanying landslide hazard map as having a greater than 0% probability of landslide or subsidence hazard. Section 3. The moratorium imposed by Resolution 428 and modified by Resolutions 431, 450, 587 and 590 is hereby declared to be at an end. Any and all applications for build- ing permit, subdivision or planned residential development received under. the terms of the moratorium shall be processed in accordance with the provisions of this ordinance and no right shall vest by virtue of the application until the effective date of this ordinance lifting the moratorium and imposing the described restrictions on permit issuance. Section A. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five (5) days after passage and publication by posting as provided by law. APPROVED: Q� MAYOR, LARRY S. NAUGH EN - 5 - ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: eIT&# CLERK, JACQUELINE G. PARRETT APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE THE _ ­CITY ATTORNEY: BY (/1 FILED WITH THE C Y CLERK: July 11, 1984 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: July 17, 1984 POSTED: July 20, 1984 EFFECTIVE DATE: July 25, 1984 ORDINANCE NO. 2445 WSSijt 6/6/84 RESOLUTION NO. 590 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING SECTION 1 OF RESOLUTION NO. 428, PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON FEBRUARY 27, 1979, AND AMENDED BY SECTION 1 OF RESOLUTION NO. 431, PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON APRIL 3, 1979, AND BY SECTION 1 OF RESOLUTION NO. 587, PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON APRIL 17, 1984, TO ALLOW CITY DEPARTMENTS AND OFFICIALS TO PROCESS AND APPROVE ANY APPLICATION PRELIMINARY TO CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE MEADOWDALE AREA OF EDMONDS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO BUILDING PERMITS, BUT PROVIDING THAT NO PERMIT SHALL BE ISSUED UNTIL THE ORIGINAL MORATORIUM HAS BEEN LIFTED. WHEREAS, the City Council on February 27, 1979, enacted Resolution No. 428 which imposed a moratorium on the issuance of all building permits and approvals of planned residential developments, subdivisions and short subdivisions in the Meadowdale area of Edmonds, and WHEREAS, said moratorium was and is necessary to the best interest of the public health, safety and general welfare because of the high potential for landslides in the area due to steep slopes, sand and clay formations and the quantities of ground water percolating through the soil due to the lack of storm and sanitary sewers, and WHEREAS, the construction of additional dwelling units in the area appreciably affects the quantity of ground water and the soil stability in the area and therefore must be prohibited until an adequate storm and sanitary sewer system is installed, thereby reducing the quantity of ground water 2�, 12 percolating through the soil and the likelihood of landslide and other related health problems, and WHEREAS, the City Council has by Resolution No. 431 amended Section 1 of Resolution No. 428 permitting City departments and officials to issue building permits for construction so long as the permits do not authorize or enable the construction of additional dwelling units that would add to the quantity of ground water percolating into the soil, and WHEREAS, the City Council on April 17, 1984, further amended Resolution No. 428 to allow City departments and officials to process and approve applications for subdivisions and short subdivisions in the Meadowdale area of Edmonds, and WHEREAS, Local Improvement District No. 210 was created by Ordinance No. 2237, passed by the City Council on September 29, 1981, pursuant to which a contract for the construction of sanitary and storm sewers in the Meadowdale area has been awarded, and WHEREAS, the construction under said Local Improvement District is projected to be completed in the late summer of 1984. and WHEREAS, the processing of building permit applica- tions for new and additional dwelling units within the Meadowdale area will not affect the intent of the moratorium as created under Resolution No. 428, 431 and 587 provided that no permit is actually issued for the construction of any additional dwelling unit in the area, now, therefore, - 2 - THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 1 of Resolution No. 428 passed by the City Council on February 27, 1979, as amended by Resolution No. 431, passed by the City Council on April 3, 1979, and further amended by Resolution No. 587, passed by the City Council on April 17, 1984, is hereby'further amended to read as follows: Section 1. No City department or official shall finally approve any application for any building permit or application for approval of a planned residential development which has been filed with the City on or after February 27, 1979, for that area commonly known as the Meadowdale area, located generally north of 168th Street S.W. and more particularly depicted on the map which is labeled Exhibit A and attached to this Resolution and incorporated by reference as fully as if herein set forth, until the study authorized hereinafter is completed and the remedial action is enacted; provided, however, that this section shall not apply to building permits for construction which do not add an additional dwelling unit or units to those existing prior to February 27,!1979, and provided further however, that this section shall not apply to subdivision and short subdivision applications, nor shall it be deemed.to prohibit the acceptance, processing and consideration of applications for any building permit -or planned residential development with the express understanding and acknowledgement by the applicant that no permit shall be issued nor construction of any additional dwelling unit within the described area approved until such time as the referenced remedial action shall have been completed and accepted by the City Council and this moratorium lifted. Any plat or short plat for property in the subject area submitted for recording by the Snohomish County auditor shall set forth on its face the following covenant: No building permit or planned residential development shall be approved by the City of - 3 - `_ 0 • A_ „- Edmonds while Resolution No. 428, passed on February 27, 1979, as subsequently amended, remains in effect. Section 2. It is the stated intention of the City Council that building permit applications and applications for approval of planned residential developments will be accepted under the provisions of this amendment and processed but not issued as an accommodation to the owners of property within the Meadowdale area. Nothing herein.shall be deemed nor construed to provide for the actual issuance of a building permit or to require the approval of any permit or planned residential development until such time as the City Council shall consider and approve the lifting of this moratorium. Persons applying for such permits or planned residential development approval do so at their own risk and expense. The City staff is instructed to note on the face,of any such application received for properties within the moratorium area that the application is being accepted for processing only, and that no permit will issue until the moratorium is lifted. RESOLVED this llth day of June , 1984. FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: June 7, 1984 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: June 11 , 1984 RESOLUTION NO. 590 - 4 - a MAE:jt 2/7/84 • STREET FILE RESOLUTION NO. 587 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING SECTION 1 OF RESOLUTION NO. 431, PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON APRIL 3, 1979, AND FURTHER AMENDING SECTION 1 OF RESOLUTION NO. 428, PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON FEBRUARY 27, 1979, TO ALLOW CITY DEPARTMENTS AND OFFICIALS TO PROCESS AND APPROVE APPLICATIONS FOR SUBDIVISIONS AND SHORT SUBDIVISIONS IN THE MEADOWDALE AREA OF EDMONDS. WHEREAS, the City Council on February 27, 1979, enacted Resolution No. 428 which imposed a moratorium on the issuance of all building permits and approvals of planned residential developments, subdivisions and short subdivisions in the Meadowdale area of Edmonds, and WHEREAS, said moratorium was necessary then and is still necessary and in the best interests of the public health, safety and general welfare because of the high 4! potential for landslides in the area due to the steep slopes, sand and clay formations and the quantities of ground water percolating through the soil due to the lack of storm and sanitary sewers, and WHEREAS, the construction of additional dwelling units in the area appreciably affects the quantity of ground water and the soil stability in the area and therefore must be prohibited until an adequate storm and sanitary sewer system is installed thereby reducing the quantity of ground water percolating through the soil and the likelihood of landslide and other related health problems, and • WHEREAS, the City Council on April 3, 1979, enacted Resolution No. 431 which amended Section 1 of Resolution No. 428 thereby permitting city departments and officials to issue building permits for construction in the Meadowdale area so long as such permits did not authorize or enable the construc- tion of additional dwelling units that would add to the quantity of ground water percolating into.the soil, and WHEREAS, a Local Improvement District No. 210 was created by Ordinance No. 2237, passed by the City Council on September 29, 1981, pursuant to which a contract for the construction of sanitary and storm sewers in the Meadowdale area has been awarded with construction due to commence in 1984, and WHEREAS, the processing and approval of applications for subdivisions and short subdivisions will not appreciably increase the quantities of ground water percolating through the soil prior to the installation of storm and sanitary sewer and such can now occur because the installation of such sewers is imminent, now, therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS., WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 1 of Resolution No. 428 passed by the City Council on February 27, 1979, as amended by Resolution No. 431 passed by the City Council on April 3, 1979 is hereby further amended to read as follows: Section 1. No City Department or official shall issue, approve or process an application for any building permit or application for - 2 - approval of a planned residential development, which has been filed with the City on or after February 27, 1979, for that area commonly known as the Meadowdale area, located generally north of 168th Street Southwest and more particularly depicted on the map which is labeled Exhibit "A" attached to this Resolution, and incorporated in full by this reference, until the study authorized hereinafter is completed and remedial action is enacted; provided, however, this section shall not apply to building permits for construction which does not add an additional dwelling unit or units to those existing prior to February 27, 1979, and provided further, however, this section shall not apply to subdivision and short subdivision applications. Any plat or short plat for property in the subject area submitted for recording by the Snohomish County Auditor shall set forth on its face the following covenant: No building permit application or planned residential development application shall be filed with or accepted by the City of Edmonds while Resolution No. 428, passed on February 27, 1979, as subsequently amended, remains in effect. RESOLVED this /7 a day of Ap . , 1984. APPROVED MAYOR, ARR S. AU TEN ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CIT CLERK, JACQUELINE G. PARRETT FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: April 13, 1984 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: April 17, 1984 RESOLUTION NO. 587 - 3 - ... , —' :• _ . — , u SUBJECT DATE K A op -A - j. _ G`�. .E SIGNED -! r. Fi P :DATE SIGNED.,. :. CASCAUEE® LTC2375, - - _ - PRINTED.,I,N U S,A --• SENDER: DETACH, MIS'PART AND FILE • _ r E6TR_ FILE 1 H.�SLo1F FOX /d 11Pr RECEIVED , fro m FEB 2 81980 C8 Dir. Of Public Works. \ CO gr— ►n top . . . . . . . r / 3 Kj� _ �Z A 9 ,. Alp — Al � AAAAO v&-r ,J�S ,v0.7V �r , .,1 . C9N7RaL • � ��; &'1Z�J5IOIV Cis H t'A C rOV l ' A4SS- A AM Z - /4 PDc>f 1S.4f Illvice)e /vcCO AJ C R lsr� -TO/V `..�\ l i '' ✓ % yf' �Sr C/trrP o: C e 15: %)RaiaAc� � RDA,oaAY !'LAN � /�/►2 o v � its ,v o � , j - +V �216M=0E- W-1Y� ODHp�ICTev 13i4 s� mvnst� ANn jl CAA ss �UL 5PH A j_T - CC) AvCR Co M PACTS t f�; STD ILE Z% HJAU ScoPs' Fox /'Pr RECEIVED FEB 281980r Cs l� Dir. Of Puhiir co IVY-. PIPF t r ell ''l • IV 4 1 q1� ' � A A/ Rip - • IA�Ap OU7-FLt Co NT7ZC &IWs II �t A 2.s3 is 'y HIA) S -7OA1 k?nI _I 2 b S-T-REET=FILE �-,Hm _4 .-.--.- -i -.--�-.-.-. a aV'.. - +-+-.��+- -T- + �_f � _a +- � �'-- - _ --r T; a -F ♦ L ! r t __� --• N _ - t .._.r--r �----� ._- -1 I _-a_---'--.�i-,- i I Y-�-*--�^-�-�-"_-'� �.� T-Y__r j i� _j'-_`-'-(__�_"-I. � I 1 --f -a 4 J STREET FILE _ CITY OF F—®N0®N®SD,�-�HARVE H. HARRISON MAYOR 200 DAYTON ST.•EDMONDS. WASHINGTON98020•(206) 775-2525 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS January 2, 1980 Mr. William Campbell 8125 Fredrick Place Edmonds, Washington 98020 Dear Mr. Campbell: SUBJECT: 16431 74th Place West A copy of the attached letter addressed to you was sent to me by Mr. Carlson. I agree with him that the additional 20 feet of drainfield should be adequatefor your sewage disposal system, but since this structure is in a slide prone area I am concerned with the adding of water into the soil above the building. We have neither the time, funds, nor equipment to make an analysis as to how much additional moisture would be required to cause a slide. I do feel that you should be made aware of this danger and possibly re -locate the drainage line behind the house. We have recently completed a study of the slide potential for this area as a whole. The study did not, however, evaluate any specific site and needs to be applied with appropriate judge- ment. This study confirms that water is the major contributing factor for slides. A copy of the study is available in my office and at the Edmonds City Library if you wish to read:it. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call me at 775-2525. JEA : j ky Enclosure .- a.-- ` L 'i,?;iA Sincerely, JAMS E.-ADAMS, P.E. City of Edmonds 267 I;NOHOMISH HEALTH DISTRICT Courthouse verett, Washington 96201 rea Code 206 259-9440 JLARIS HYATT. M.D., M.P.H. Health officer AVID A. STOCKTON. M.P.A. E+acutive Assistant DISTRICT MEMBERS COUNTY Snohomish CITIES AND TOWNS Arhnglon e ner Daninpton Eomono. E vurefl (fold bar Gramle falls I not. Lakt Stevens Lynnv.oud Me, ysville Monroe Mounl1oke Terrace M uY ill eO snor,omisn Stanwood Sultan wooawa, R LC ED STREET FILE 1979 Du.011`Ilt%"f .. December 20, 1979 Mr. William Campbell 8125-Frederick P1. Edmonds, Washington '98020 Dear Mr. Campbell: Acct. No. 5131-000-088 Re: Solie residence At the request of the City of Edmonds and Reid, Middleton and Associates, Inc., a review was made'of the drainfield installation at 16431-74th Pl. W., Edmonds. The point in question was the 35' drainfield section installed in the southeast corner.of the lot, up behind the house site. Our review was limited to addressing this point and making recommendations regarding the best possible use of the installed system, but not in approving or sanctioning the use of this particular site in general for drainfield use. The recommendation made to the City of Edmonds officials, Bob Franklin and Jim Roberts, in agreement with Mr. Sleight of Reid, Middleton & Associates, was to leave the installed 35' section as installed, but to add 20' onto the lower system to compensate for the poor soil type of the installed portion in question. Any approval regarding building site, construction procedures and initial approval/design of the site for septic tank and drainfield use was carried out by the City of Edmonds and Reid, Middleton & Associates, Inc. Very tru }r yo r , G D v' C � ! EHS I nth tal Health Division DCC/ mk CC: City of Edmonds Reid, Middleton & Associates-Attn: R. Sleight `A*h' REED` FILE Reid, Middleton & Associates, Inc: ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS 324 Main Street, Edmonds, Washington 98020 0 (206) 775-3434 Mr. William Campbell 8125 Frederick P1. Edmonds, Washington '98020 Dear Mr. Campbell: �CEfii1i1-LiT�, October 18, 1979 Fi le f4o. 5614A OCT 211979 Dir. Or Public Works Re: Solie Residence After meeting in the field on October 17th with the Snohomish County Health Officers, Dave Carlson and Randy Darst, and the City of Edmonds Officials Bob Franklin and Jim Roberts, it was determined that Snohomish County and the City of Edmonds would accept the on -site system as installed provided that two minor modifications were made to the existing system (see attached as -built for revisions). An overflow tight line should be added just east of the existing 36" fir down to the lower system and an additional 20 feet of line is to be added to the lower system. Mr. Carlson concurred with me and felt that the existing system would not pose a health or safety problem, and would function satisfactorily if properly maintained. Mr. Carlson felt that due to the soil type the upper line would perc at a slower rate, thus not causing specific sidehill leaching problems. He also noted that the City was correct to question the 30% slope criteria, since it is a part of the State guidelines. However, in this case, given the soil type, additional volume available, percolation rates and close- ness to the 30% figure the upper line should not be removed. The City, with the County's guidance, is presently trying to set up a better permit/inspection procedure to prevent future backfilling of drain - field systems prior to inspection. If you have any further questions regarding the "do's and don'tsnof on - site systems please do not hesitate to call us. Very truly yours, D, MID ET & ASS ES, C.. w/L _ Randy R eight Enclosure cc: City of Edmonds " Snohomish County Health .Dept. FA RRS/ejj 254 a - STREET FILE CITY OF E®IV ONDS CIVIC CENTER • EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 • (206) 775-2525 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS October 11, 1979 Reid, Middleton & Associates,.Inc. 324 Main Street Edmonds, Washington 98020 Attn: Jim Reid Gentlemen: HARVE H. HARRISON MAYOR SUBJECT: DESIGN FOR SOLIE/CAMPBELL ON -SITE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM-16431 74TH PL 'W The subject design submitted with your firm's letter of October 3, 1979, cannot be approved. We concur that drain - .fields can function properly on slopes ranging up to 30% provided adequate soil and ground water depths are present. In the subject design, however, the drainfield line from the pumped system is located on a slope which exceeds 30% accord- ing to our field measurements. In addition, this drainfield line will be injecting additional water immediately upslope from the house. This situation is not desirable in an area with potential land -movement problems. The subject design will, therefore, require redesign and resubmittal. If you have questions, please call Bob' Franklin or Jim Roberts, 775-2525, extension 220. Yours very truly, J '�A. JAMES E. ADAMS, P.E. City Engineer BF:vlw 0 Frariklin dt. i • FILE �� leton & Associates Inc. ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS 324 Main Street, Edmonds, Washington 98020 • (206) 775-3434 October 3, 1979 File No. 5614A 07 " %9,� p 1 //A/;, Mr. Jim Adams �ii^rk Edmonds City Engineer Civic Center Edmonds, Washington 98020 Re: Solie/Campbell On -Site Sewage System Design & Installation - Permit No. 78-400 Dear Mr. Adams: In response to your letter dated September 20, 1979, we are submitting our explanations for the redesign of the sewage disposal system, the as -built plan of the system as installed, and a general response toward the permit/ application system presently being used by the City of Edmonds. On August 24, 1979, we met with Garfield Hilde, of Northend Septic, regarding their ability to install this system, and we went over the existing approved design with Mr Hilde. After carefully inspecting house location, existing soils depths, topography, available area, construction access and manpower requirements, it was our mutual opinion that a better system could be installed than the one originally designed'by RMA and approved by the City of Edmonds. Unfortunately, due to his one -month backlog of work, Mr. Hilde cannot perform the work in the time frame necessary and he suggested Northlake Concrete. Percolation data were taken in both areas prior to installation of the on -site system and additional soils investigation was done on this site after it had been cleared (see attached soils logs). It.has been our experience that many drainfields can function properly on slopes ranging up to 30% provided adequate soil depth (12 " min. beneath the invert of the pipe). Enclosed please find three copies of the as -built that Mr. Morgan and I did on September 12, 1979• It was called into the City for inspection on that date, and in an effort to verify that the City had completed their in- spection I spoke again with Bob Franklin on the phone and urged him to make the inspection at 9:00 A.M. September 14, telling him that Mr. Campbell had equipment waiting for the City to give final approval to backfill. 12.%% % STREET FILE Ll Mr. Jim Adams Page 2 October 3, 1979 File No. 5614A Mr. Franklin indicated that he had not started the inspection, and that backfilling the system prior to final approval by the City would pose problems. At 9:30 A.M., on the 14th, I called Mr. Campbell and informed him that the City had not inspected the drainfield system and to hold off on backfilling until they did. At noon I called and spoke to Chuck Lonberg, of Mr. Campbell's office. He indicated that he would authorize backfilling only the underground power line down 74th Ave. W. until the inspection was completed. Late that afternoon, Bob Franklin called regarding this matter, and indicated that portions of the system had already been covered when the City arrived for their inspection. Several years ago, there wasa fairly good system set up where the installer would pick up the drainfield permit, sign it off when the system was installed, and the designer would then sign off the permit after his inspection and as -built and promptly call the City for their inspection. The City would then make the final inspection and issue an o.k. to backfill pro- vided the system met the City of Edmonds guidelines for on -site systems. Slight deviations from the Engineer's design were noted and shown on the as - built. Corrections were made to the systems if required. However, the present system of notification or communication via the permit process between installer, designer, builder and City inspection department should be thoroughly reviewed and clarified for all parties involved. If you have any questions please call our office. Very truly yours, VETON SS TES, INeight cc: William Campbell Eugene Greenway RRS/ejj 1 to STREET FILE M ® Reid, Middleton & Associates, Inc. ENGINEERS s SURVEYORS • PLANNERS 324 Main Street, Edmonds, Washington 98020 0 (206) 776-3434 October 3, 1979 File No. 5614A U1r /_9/ Mr. Jim Adams t% Edmonds City Engineer- Civic Center Edmonds, Washington 98020 Re: Solie/Campbell On -Site Sewage System Design & Installation - Permit No. 78-400 Dear Mr. Adams: In response to your letter dated September 20, 1979, we are submitting our explanations for the redesign of the sewage disposal system, the as -built plan of the system as installed, and a general response toward the permit/ application system presently being used by the City of Edmonds. On August 24, 1979, we met with Garfield Hilde, of Northend Septic, regarding their ability to install this system, and we went over the existing approved design with Mr Hilde. After carefully inspecting house location, existing soils depths, topography, available area, construction access and manpower requirements, it was our mutual opinion that a better system could be installed than the one originally designed by RMA and approved by the City of Edmonds. Unfortunately, due to his one -month backlog of work, Mr. Hilde cannot perform the work in the time frame necessary and he suggested Northlake Concrete. Percolation data were taken in both areas prior to installation of the on -site system and additional soils investigation was done on this site after it had been cleared (see attached soils logs). It has been our experience that on slopes ranging up to 30% provided the invert of the pipe). many drainfields can function properly adequate soil depth (12 " min. beneath Enclosed please find three copies of the as-built,that Mr. Morgan and I did on September 12, 1979. It was called into the City for inspection on that date, and in an effort to verify that the City had completed their in- spection I spoke again with Bob Franklin on the phone and urged him to make the inspection at 9:00 A.M. September 14, telling him that Mr. Campbell had equipment waiting for the City to give final approval to backfill. 270 09 Mr. Jim Adams STREET FILE October 3, 1979 Page 2 File No. 5614A Mr. Franklin indicated that he had not started the inspection, and that backfilling the system prior to final approval by the City would pose problems. At.9:30 A.M., on the 14th, I called Mr. Campbell and informed him that the City had not inspected the drainfield system and to hold off on backfilling until they did. At noon I called and spoke to Chuck Lonberg, of Mr. Campbell's office. He indicated that he would authorize backfilling only the underground power line down 74th Ave. W. until the inspection was completed. Late that afternoon, Bob Franklin called regarding this matter, and indicated that portions of the system had already been covered when the City arrived for their inspection. Several years ago, there was a fairly good system set up where the installer would pick up the drainfield permit, sign it off when the system was installed, and the designer would then sign off the permit after his inspection and as -built and promptly call the City for their inspection. The City would then make the final inspection and issue an o.k. to backfill pro- vided the system met the City of Edmonds guidelines for on -site systems. Slight deviations from the Engineer's design were'noted and shown on the as - built. Corrections were made to the systems if required. However, the present system of notification'or communication via the permit process between installer, designer, builder and City inspection department should be thoroughly reviewed and clarified for all parties involved. If you have any questions please call our office. Very truly yours, QTON SS TES, INight cc: William Campbell Eugene Greenway RRS/ejj 0 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, CONTINUING THE HEARING DATE FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE MEADOWDALE AREA MORATORIUM TO NOVEMBER 6, 1979. WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 428 passed by the City Council on February 27, 1979, the City Council imposed a moratorium on issuance of building permits and approvals of planned residential developments, subdivisions and short subdivisions in the Meadowdale area of Edmonds and directed that the City Engineer conduct a study to prevent and/or minimize the slide.hazards in the area, and WHEREAS, the City has contracted with Roger Lowe Associates, Inc., to'prepare an engineering/geological study of the Meadowdale slide area, and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 428 had directed that the matter be discussed at the October 16, 1979, City Council meeting, and WHEREAS, the geological and engineering study from Roger Lowe has taken longer than expected to prepare and therefore will not be available for Council consideration on October 16, 1979, and WHEREAS, the report from Roger Lowe Associates, Inc., should be prepared in time for Council consideration at the November 6, 1979,...City Council meeting, now, therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The review of the continuing necessity for the moratorium imposed by Resolution No. 428 is hereby continued -1- to -November 6, 1979, and the City Clerk is directed to place this matter on the November 6, 1979, agenda for Council consi- deration. RESOLVED this �2 day of October , 1979. APPROVED: C MAYOR H.E. HARRISON ATTEST/AUTH�EENTICATED: CITY CLERK, IRENYrVARNEY.MORAN FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 'September 28, 1979 1 -2- 00 STREET FILE CITY OF E0 . 3P+J®S 200 DAYTON ST•EDMONDS. WASHINGTON 98020•(206) 775-2525 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Reid, Middleton &.Associates 324 Main Street Edmonds, Washington 98020 Attention: Randy Sleight Gentlemen: 0* HARVE H. HARRISON MAYOR September 20, 1979 SUBJECT: SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTE1I PER17IT NO. 78-400. OCTOBER 11, 1978-;16431 74TH PLACE WEST The on -site sewage disposal system for 16431 74th Place West was checked on Friday, September 14, 1979. The drainage field was covered and, therefore, a complete inspection was not possible. It is obvious, however, that the system was not installed per the plan which was submitted with your application. A portion of the distribution field appeared to have been installed in an area in which percolation rates were not available and where the.slope is greater than 15%. Please resubmit an application with your redesign to include actual percolation rates for the areas that the drain - field is on or is to be installed. Upon approval of your redesign you will be required to uncover sufficient sections of the field so that we can determine the depth, width.and lengths of trenches. JEA : j ak Yours very truly, JAMES E. ADAMS, P.E. City Engineer 71 STREET FILE MAY 1, 1970 SPECIFICATIONS FOR OSP33A - OSP33M - OSP33AR - (Subject to Change Without Notice) DUPLEX PUMP SYSTEM Furnish a Duplex submersible pump system as manufactured by the HYDR-O-MATIC PUMP DIVISION, Ashland, Ohio; to include pumps, electrical controls, level controls and acces- sories to make a complete automatic system. CONDITIONS — Each pump to have a capacity of GPM, at a total head of _ feet. Motor to be Horsepower, —_ Phase, 60 Cycle for operation at Volts. MODEL — Pump model number to be OSP33M (all iron) OSP33MB (all bronze). MOTOR — Submersible motor to be constructed with open winding and to operate in clean dry dielectric oil for cooling winding and lubricating motor bearings. Motor shaft to be sealed with mechanical shaft seal, having super .lapped seal rings of carbon and ceramic. Integral motor and pump shaft to be of stainless steel supported by two ball bearings. MATERIAL — Pump and motor housing to be of cast iron or bronze. Impeller to be —_ iron or _ bronze, of the non -clog type. All fasteners to be of I" stainless steel. ELECTRICAL CONTROLS — Mercury switch type for Duplex system. Mercury switch type level controls shall be used to control sump level. To control automatic operation of pumps, three mercury switch level controls shall be supplied. Two of these controls act to close circuit for on -off operation at selected levels required and to operate alternator for alter- nating of pumps on each cycle of operation. A third control acts as override and closes circuits of override relay to oper- ate both pumps together. A fourth control acts at high water level to close circuit of alarm system. All controls to be fas- tened to 11/4" pipe with plastic ties. Pipe supported by remov- able cover plate attached to basin cover. CONTROL CABINET — A Nema 3 enclosure shall be furnish- ed. For single phase pumps the control panel shall include — contact relays for each pump, an alternating relay circuit, run lights for each pump and I1-0-A switches for each pump, with overload protection in the motors. For 3 phase pumps, the control panel shall include — magnetic starters for each pump with overload protection, run lights, and h-O-A switches for each pump and an alternating relay circuit. If motors are for 440 or 550 volt, a transformer is to be supplied to reduce control voltage to 115 volts. ALARM — The high water alarm shall include — alarm bell or .alarm horn —_ and to be mounted on cover of control cabinet or supplied in separate enclosure _. Includes a warning light and silencing switch. ELECTRICAL CONTROL MECHANICAL ALTERNATOR FLOAT TYPE FOR DUPLEX SYSTEM — (Used in place of Mercury switch controls.) — A float operated mechanical alternator shall be supplied to control sump level. Control shall provide on -off for each pump and alternation of pumps. The control shall also provide an override to operate both pumps in parallel or to operate either pump if the other fails. Alternator control to be mounted in Nema I or IV —_ enclosure and to be fastened to separate support stand. Float to be 7" diameter and end mounted to stainless steel rod . inches long. Rod to be sealed in gland where it passes through support plate. CONTROL CABINET FOR USE WITH FLOAT ALTERNA- TOR — Single phase pumps are to connect directly to float alternator with no separate control box required. Three phase pumps shall have a separate control box with a Nema 3 en- closure, with magnetic starters for each pump, run lights for each pump and H-O-A switches for each pump. Control panel to be for 230 volts 440 volts or 550 volts OSP33MO FE 2 T 1979 COMPRESSION ALARM — (Used Instead of Mercu�yl witch,;)CrI;S alarm). — A separate alarm switch with bell and lransforaer`' shall be supplied. Alarm switch to be of the diaphragm type and to be mounted on sump cover with open end pipe ex- tending below sump cover to actuate switch when level rises. SUMP BASIN — A (cast iron or steel) basin inches I.D. by , Inches deep shall be furnished. The basin shall have hub inlets as shown on drawing. BASIN COVER — A steel sump cover with separate cast. iron pump covers shall be supplied. A separate cover shall be supplied for mounting level controls or float alternator. PIPING — All piping shall be furnished and installed by the contractor. Pumps to be connected to a single outlet and check valves are to be used in each discharge pipe. SINGLE PUMP SYSTEM Furnish a Hydr-O-Matic Pump Company Model No. having a capacity of GPM against a head of feet. Motor to be horsepower, Phase, 60 Cycle for operation at Volts. MOTOR — Submersible motor to be constructed with open winding and to operate In .clean dielectric oil for cooling winding and lubricating motor bearings. Motor shaft to be sealed with mechanical shaft seal, having super lapped seal rings of carbon and ceramic. Integral motor and pump shaft to be corrosion protected or stainless steel. MATERIAL — Pump and motor housing to be of cast iron or bronze. Impeller to be bronze of the non -clog type. No suction strainers or screens of any type to be used. All fasteners to be of 10-8 stainless steel. AUTOMATIC CONTROL - PRESSURE TYPE SWITCH — Pump to have oil isolated diaphragm type level control to control sump level. Sump water never comes in contact with pressure diaphragm switch, inside of control, as it is protected by ex. clusive oil isolation system. Switch set for 8" level (Special settings available up to 48" level). AUTOMATIC CONTROL - FLOAT. TYPE — (Used In place of oil Isolated pressure type switch) — Pump to be manual and used with an enclosed automatic float switch Nema I or Nema IV . Float switch shall provide automatic on - off operation of pump. Accessories include heavy copper float, stainless steel float rod, adjustable stops, mounting flange and pipe support. ALARM - MERCURY SWITCH ALARM — The high water alarm shall include an alarm bell — or alarm horn __ to be supplied in separate enclosure and include a warning. light, automatic reset silencing switch and mercury switch level control with power cord. ALARM - COMPRESSION TYPE — (Used Instead of mercury switch alarm) — Separate alarm switch with bell and trans- former shall be supplied. Alarm switch to be of the dia. phragm type and to be mounted on sump cover with open end pipe extending below sump cover to actuate switch when level rises. SUMP BASIN — A (cast iron or steel) ____ basin inches I.D. by inches deep shall be,furnished. The basin shall have hub inlets as shown on drawing. BASIN COVER -- A steel cover shall be supplied. A separate cover shall be supplied for -mounting level controls or float switch. PIPING — All piping shall be furnished and installed by the contractor. Pump to be connected to single outlet with a check valve installed in discharge line. 280 ICY®- TIC SUBMEROVLE PUMPS STREET FILE Performance Curve Outline Dimensions For Submersible Sump Pumps F191s' 26 _... .24. OSP-33 SERIES SUBMERSIBLE'PUMPS__ 1750 R_P.M �.._ 60 CYCLE _ JZ- _t .- F - 2. ._.. _ _ _...... .._ ..- '—. .. — .._ _...._.._ 2APA q CCITY G.P. M. V,Uu 0 V-1orks r „41 -. PIPE THD. PUMP MODEL •OSP-33A Typical Installation of Duplex Submersible Installation of Single Submersible Pump Pumps Using Mercury Level Controls With Pressure Diaphragm Switch CONTROLS MOUNTED ON SEPARATE •�— ll) ��� ;SUMP COVER COVER CAN BE REMOVED WITHOUT • U 91lWdINO PUMPS OR PIPINOI .PUMP COVER ♦"NUB INLETS CAN' BE PUSITIUNED .SPLIT SUMP COVER AT ANY 60• INTENVAL SPECIFY NUMBER REO AND P09.TION i 3 �1 / 3* VENT; RED. I POS. '- - /'HUB INLET CAN BE ALARM CGNG [� L—� -�� PLACED AT 'NY 60• INTERVAL OM A RQ / .__. I r 1_..._ E '{I AR 3'VENT FLANGE \' / 1 �I }DISCHGE PIPE TYPE CHECK L-- O NOTE' \ VALVE SIIDULD DE ALL COVE qS 1 I qi 90'DIA 0.N0 USED !N RISCIIAROE SEALED OAS - \� t B LARDER SUM \ AN.AM PIPE IHCV-125) TIGHT COVERS AN 'UM \ / IINSPEECTpIION / OVINEDCAN 117 B S S P� IINA�tJ^JTBE U PLE IN .SEPARATE q"P `I}`DISCHARGE - - ENNLOSURE DISCONNECT SWITSHIE GN� LD\ / PIPE _ (BY OTHERS)�, i } .-....YLIRturt LOCH MAGNETIC STARTERS ling__ _.. SUPPLIED ONLY _-____ -113 U1230 VOLT NEMA 3 FOR 3-PRASE '--�- POWER SUPPLY DEAD FRONT SWING CHECK VALVES 205-220.1{0 i , FOR ALARM _ 'G ti. Nun ALTERNATOR _ SHOUID BE USED IN AND 550 VOLTS ; iA WHT9 CONTROL FOR EACH 01SCHARGE PIPE i Ci r _i I VOLTS REG. SINGLE AND AHCV-125) VOLTS RED. 55 3-PHASE /' -- -;7 J I CHECK j -- D ~•`:_:, SMITCnL3- 1 ' �t: - VALVE (OPTIONAL) y �D � u i it HCV.125 ALARM MUST BE - __ - • \ - i , SUPPLIED IN I Y, SEPARATE ENCLOSURE 6= M� _l } , U CEP NOLE TYPE qr L l' . --- _ i �I.—."L _ _ � �1:.� ' ,'ti l _ H5 OR 1 23G VOLT f` 91ANUAPD COHU LLNGIII r SE S 1011 ION CURD I _ VOLTS BEO I.ENU 1I.. AWILAHUr. IF REGUIRF.O FON lFNO1nS . - _ } __.. �:-I£.IKKKK---- 'VCR JOF 1 A NT.MA 1 f I, 1R JUNC110N BAN sIwGLO BE USED A7 SUMP II ; ALARM I t �i CON390DTROL.` N I fOPT10NAL1\� II _ f l --„}-.ALARM LFVE4 —T ` r 3 INA / 3900 EVEL I 2 PUMPS ON `COL+1 NTROLS 1 I { IIUB'�1�1 30 _.............___ .. .LTDRN-ON LEVEL. E uR_4 ON PUNP ON _ INLETS 10 iGEC I ,SUBMERSIBLE SUMP I PUMP OSP-33 ALL AUTOMATIC II' MODELS SINGLE AND 3-PHASE 17 -STEEL OR II CAST IRON _30..{ __—____—_.— SUMP BASIN I___ �vl ON. ��-'ST1EMPO IAIT INCH SIN SUBMERSIBLE SUMP PUMPS GAP-33 ALL MANUAL MODELS - �IB OR L4ROER PREFEPPE6 SINGLE AND 3-PHASE e ' Y ` TIC P Division of W419/2 Inc. Post Office Box 327; 4t9/289 3042 1` , PUMPS Claremont R Baney Roads, Ashland, Ohio 44805 In Canada. W ylain Canada Ltd., 126 East Drive, Brainalea, Ontario L6T 1C2 Bulletin 106-S' Printed in U.S.A. U) 0 U) W ISSUE ENGINEERING MACH. SHOP TOOLING ®UAL. CONT. USED W iTN PLANT 2 TOLERANCES HY®R-0-MIRTIC oS UP TO 12" t 1/64 �..o.,��-.o..,.. ,.,,_,,.P.0 ft. 77/.MYe,,01."gas �A 12" A ABOVE f 1/32 ANGLES f 1/2• l%5TALLAT1at4 DitAWIWrw FOR SUBMERSIBLE MATERIAL SYSTEM UsINC., A.V. L. CONTROLS .DRAWN I DATE CHECKED ISCALE1 W.��84 FJ. 3.5-70 NONE v e 'i r _ tJ 6, 5 164 TH ST. S.W. h_ O — 'I w a N :n , z a� 88 92 z r 93 94 N a 95 5 4 3 2 I HAO ES WHARF 6 164TH PL. S.W f--:: N0. 2 ' 8 9 10 11 12 13 5-30— A 0 239 71' 1 Nom I_ 166TH _PL S W �5 (PRIVATE) V) STREET FILE . PuM.pED Sys7v 1 N�`r APp2ov�D. 2. A L TE'R W AT 5 5 Y57SH ADP Ra v " s u 04 EST 7r.) .' A. o B T74 I N I W C A S G'r1 U5E "IST7 MG. FI.. U ME . �. CAPACITY cALCULA77oM,S '"ow►NG FLUME CAP:ACV7 C- fl ETA TI O ki A EW AGAAM i 710 1 0 !,'1 OF i F L U M E 'G p hD tt-rc. ISO A 9 SION op RSVISO P T5 07A5 -I-A G a� m 7— Cl copy AN n CALL-U LA710Irs (I copX �. 1 EETTliL-"L .! ej— - n I 1 , } I I I / r Area -- Y } - - t --� - ;--�.a;er_1. _�y _ /Q nin �!°� I - ; I l / fir- Y'C,{� V no / C (c10 I t ; -23 '� - - - 68?0 +- ? -- fi } - - ,- S57!_3GO I I .__LB-45-0- :his f0_ 1440:_ -. 9'�ig1 T A(A - - - 7?$- �` - -,�t234$_f.11Q�q=2�3$31 i I yl I I � 1 I ' ' ♦. I } { r ! :_ IC ORI S DEPARID,M CND Date BUILDING PMaT REVIS- �+Tt�r-ram- Address Street Right -of -Way 'Existing REQD Access- Easements Existing �REQD Utility,,Easement Existing 1-t0 ri EF- REQD Lot per Subdivision Plat Assessor Map Site Plan Checked for Accuracy 2. - 5 -� C1 .Underground Wiring Reqd. Check Accuracy of.Legal Description Environmentally Sensitive Area d. i Environmental Checklist Reqd. Flood Hazard Zone Shoreline Management Area i t Slope, Soil, Vegetation Stream, Creek, Drainage Basin Existing Zoning Per Code S; 2-CD Amenitied Design Board Approval Regd. ADB # Approval 4 Board of Adjustment proval Reqd. ;I, Review •Bv : Date: Existing [,rater i lain Size � `� D: / Water Main Reqd. YA -Service Line Reqd. 3 �/ Hydrant Size Existing 15 X/ Hydrant Reqd. Per Fire Code /1114 Size Detector Check Meter Reqd. 111,4 .Cross Connection Inspection Fire Department Conments Water Meter Charge Reqd. Review by: Date: Septic Tm-lc Design Approved ��� Date: 7 Septic Tank Permit Reqd. VIES. Permit No. - Sanitary Sewer Availability( Proj. Drawing No. File No. Side Sewer Availability Sanitary Sewer Connection Vee Regd. Revieca By: Date: i 276 (-ill. 1SSi d —k jr W I L 3W It 540j)Fn.Ditch Lxis.tingg �Regd. ;E:. Culvert Rcqd. Size Catch Basin Regd. Indicate on Site Plan Shoulder drainage n-kiintain collection on. swale open ru-iof U) hip iole regd. X/O 4- cf, Indicate on Site Plan -Soil Conditions and Ground [-later Field Checked,_ Da to Street Paving Regd. Curb and Gutter Reqd. to ► Sidewalk Reqd.. Curb Cut for Driveway Reqd. .4 C4 Right-of-Vkay Construction Permit Req 'Bond Reqd. for Public Inprowme n t s street Name Sign Re.qd. 00 O.t:hcr Signing Reqd. Te Permit Site Inspection made on. > BY: M-ER iQ 10 1%7;)LTCR Hj( S 'IT=T ENGINEEPUNG 'A' A Special Rcqu-ircj,-i,,e-nt:s listed in m.--m to Comainity DevelopmentyieDepartlnt Building Division 1 13Y Date o All items filled in on Building Permit Application BY Date Drawii-v;s Stailned and Notations Mide BY Da t6' Approved by Public -forks. Depa r LTIC11 t: Revi-sed: 1%, 10119, 77 RIMLIG Cl Date BU Ffkt: 0 % (,14 1 -7-16 �Address: Street Right -of -Way Existing RLQD Access Easements Existing REQD Utility Easement Existing _N 0 READ Lot per Subdivision. Plat Assessor Map._ Site Plan Checked for Accuracy --ICI Underground Wiring Reqd. Check Accuracy of Legal Description Environmentally Sensitive. Area Environmental Checklist Regd. Flood Hazard Zone Shoreline Mana-emeent, Area U— Slope, Soil, Vegetation Strewn, Creek, Drainage Basin Existing Zoning Per Code Amenities Design Board Approval Reqd. ADB # Approvai Board of Adjustment proval Reqd. Review By: Date: Existing Water IAlin Size AV il Q. I -later Main Regd. AIA Service Line Reqd. Hydrant Size Existing Hydrant Reqd. Per Fire Code Size I Detector Check Meter Reqd. AW q Crops Connection Inspection Fire Department Coffmen Water Meter Charge Req Review by: lid Ltf: S� Approved Date: Septic Taic igi-i Approv Septic Tank Permit Reqd. Permit No. Sanitary Sewer.Availability oj. _ �� Pr Drawing No. File No. Side Sewer Availability ......... Sanitary Sewer Connection.Vee Reqd. Revie-7 By: Date: 263 2 19 STREET FILt te MEMO TO: Building Division Community Development Department FROM: Engineering Division Public Works Department t SUBJECT: �, I - I a:---) sae-", I After review of the subject building permit application, we have the following comments: / Coordination of the location of any structure with respect to utilities, streets, property lines and driveway grades is the responsibility of the contractor. /v-T The contractor is required to keep the abutting streets cleaned r of dirt and debris caused by the construction.. AJ The "Right -of -Way Construction Permit" is required, from. the Engineering Division of Public Works, for any work within the Public Right -of -Way or public easement. 1W Driveway slope not to exceed 14%. /% Connection to sanitary sewer required.; Septic Tank Permit required, submit design. AY dA-5Qr-2-'o Fire hydrant required, submit design. /mac% Site drainage per -code # See approved plans /_7 Curb /-7Sidewalk � Paving required. /% Bond required for public improvements. Submit.cost estimate. /_7 Underground wiring required. Approved Engineering Plans required when applicable. Rev....7/ 78 r'-�T�T',a.�rl _y�.���y�-'t' To �,�5�. ��►s-Z'7rj C-- �Luvw�E, u or re F. Herzberg, P.E. City Engineer Department of Public.Works y,�# -•.Y 1 Y `� h1Jf, j' .�jT-4Tt��i vp{ T.1 /�V�t ti�'y Y -1 i; .i. r;1:­7/A7R3lal STREET FILE FILE # 790099 FORA FOR ( ;ITT lI,J DECIMATION OF [� /NON SIGNIFIC.�1hCE) Description of proposal Singlte family residence:. ---- Proponent William N. Campbell Location of Proposal. 16431 74th Pl. West Lead Agency City of Eclmcmd:G this pruoosal has been determined to %W,/not have] a si_gni.ficant ad- verse upon -the cnviror:,icnt, An EIS Ph/is notj required under RCH 43.21C.030(2)(6). 111i.s dcci.sioii v.,as made after rcview by tlic lead ageJl; y of a co? p_lcted cin,irol:riental checklist and other information on, file with the lcad agency. Responsible Official Dan Smith hOSitioi?/Title Plarming Tech Date March 13, 1979 T Sigma ture �. 1 STREET FILE • STRE.ET FILP �� � Ij��.,fc v�G,� �3 r•, ri �i� - p -- -rub _ 40iAuctl 21t;5 _ s � STREET FILE { C I T Y 0 1. 1 o rj U s " PUBLIC WORKS DEPAT STREETF1NEERINC DIVISIOL NPUBLIC WORKS ENVIRONTIEREVIEW 11MA19i� LOCATION:_=� FILE # SUBDIVISION ❑ PLAT r__j P.R.D. 1__� llULTIPLE [--] COMIlERCIAL AN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIE14 OF THE PROPOSAL HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND THE FOLLOWING DETERMINATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE: 14 . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FILE. '# DESCRIPTION OF PROPOS 790099 PROPONENT: STREET FILE EXISTING USE:,�� ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FROM PROPOSAL: SOILS/TOPOGRAPHY -r ���� ���. lfw �u� ' WA"TEtR/DR�A N GE may' ' ��•(.�c....�'vr.,�., /�-n G��. .�,�r Z' ���u,�s�,/Q/���.��z� AIR QUALITY l� CIRCULATION VEGETATION ECONOMIC -� CITY SERVICES 1-7C �s ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS: ere will be certain environmental impacts but they do not constitute a signif- icant adverse impact on the environment and no environmental impact statement will be required. There will be significant adverse impacts on the environment and an environmental, impact statement will be required. There will be certain impacts on the environment however it is necessary to obtai more information before a declaration of significance or non -significance is made z-2-1 -may CITY PLANNER DATE 262 c P. ' C. �TREET FILE MEMO TO: Harry Whitcutt Building Official FROM: Fred F. Herzberg, P.E. City Engineer oij February'8, 1979 2 SUBJECT: BUILDING PERMITS I11 THE NORTH.MEADOI-,IDALE AREA The Engineering Division is concerned about the land stability in the subject area and the 'addition of gr;oundviater due to new construction. Section 11.02.025 of the City Code pertains to issuance of building permits and paragraph (g) reads as follows: "(g) Building, grading and excavation Permits for construction on land which the City Engineer finds to be unsuitable for improvement due to flooding, inadequate drainage, excessively steep slopes, unsat- isfactory foundation support, stabili,t.y or topography for the plan submitted, shall be .denied. In making this determination the City Engineer shall consider not only the land which is the subject oC the annli- cation but in addition the surrounding areas which would be adversely affected if such permit were granted." We have determined that building; permits should be denied in the cross -hatched area on the attached figure (unless.serve.d by sanitary sewers) until the City Council_r_evi.ews_t_h.e_ situa- tion at the public- - hearing seheduled�for February -27, 1979. BRF : k,j r Attachment 2 g B Franklin dt. Ad in.. dt. 1 l� P.G7. ir. dt. M8 4 tKi EEC' FILE; Z. r,,•� s MEADOW DALE •. 1 PARKhr,�.: 186Y1a8T/ JI f � r ' r�A i• t � ell" i to j /; i //'i /i/j ��, /• '; /, /:��iH ;�. `,�;� /, ��; about ; � 160THPLSW 4f i/ / PL SW SPorl Fishing Dock ' ///�/ '� 1615 `e I 42"N6% / '/�;��, , ` 1D 162ND PL SW /., 1163R ST SW !00' 164TH ST SW 164TH ST SW I x 3 •' ' ' „ 6TH PL SW MEADOWOALE� MSC H OO ALE L Pjoin , t •� ; lu ,,•i , i .. ? _ O a of Lynnwood - 168TH ST SW ..City Sewage Treatment Plant r _ r / Mf qa Z} MEAOOWOA�E HIGH SCH a ; BE O� w0T JR t ' RTOLA , I>L AthliAtc Field r. sv:+ • . J, J 76TH AVE W .� .�.. .� 3 ; 6 TH c 10t ! .. s.. MEADOWDALE m� a a P� S� wo��i iv ' SW y Jl�, P�PNN 172ND ST SW N o ^ a s%q 5F' ('l$,y R 2 P O,Q 172ND ST SW 173RD S7 SW P� A 173RD ST SW D R m O 1.12. too JJ Q� Ile�Gs 9� T SW 3T a 174TH ST o SW s 3 H ST W 17ST S ERICK PL N n N 179TN ST SNr f a 4 FIGURE 6 CRITICAL AREA, INITIAL DELINEATION (CROSS —HATCHED) t 1° n 1000 ---------- ------ 7 // 6L 0 3 -Z C/ c,.~� � o �j -7y STREET FILE 'n -;? /� 7� 77� 7e "5 Sew -77��3 low 02 -1 - .8 L-J L J r ! 5 , E, .90 r i U4 4 i z I / 86 0� i 06 7 6 _ O -.- t �( 164th. PL. S. W oe N if ,1F NNN`X 7 1 v ( 6 g K WH4RF I NO. /2/3 (46 (6) 0.5 Q 85 o� 02 1 0 04 05 +C Dn�O:vr,S IT'Y L/M rrs 14 �! I! I L'rAINWOOV CITY LIMrT� i p C8 i 09 _ /f i /3 L 95 ( I F i• 0 02 I 07 i 04 43 ; t 1 106 0/ r �/� 6 ' /03 ! S 9 (5763) i 4 �. r 0� 5 ( F.F 02, / / 03' / TO Reid, Middleton & Assoc.,; :es, Inc. Engineers 0 Surveyors 0 Planr'Le sR ET FILE 324 Main St. Edmonds, Was , EFIE F: Phone 775-3434 19-19 DATE SUBJEC T 1(2i7 SIGNE .j_ f-1 PLEASE REPLY F1 NO REPLY NECESSARY 260 7f r VT u%--Z(-) LO "^ rECEIVED STREEFILE • T All a 1111 RESOLUTION NO. _43L Dir. Ot Public Works A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING SECTION 1 OF RESO- LUTION NO. 428, PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON FEBRUARY 27, 1979, TO ALLOW CITY DEPARTMENTS AND OFFICIALS TO ISSUE BUILDING PERMITS FOR CONSTRUC- TION OTHER THAN CREATION OF AN ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT IN THE DIEADOWDALE AREA OF EDMONDS. WHEREAS, the City Council on February 27, 1979, enacted Resolution No. 428 which imposed a moratorium on issuance of all building permits and approvals of planned residential developments, subdivisions and short subdivisions in the Meadowdale area of Edmonds, and WHEREAS, said moratorium was necessary and in the best interest of the public health, safety and general welfare because. of the high potential for landslides in the area due to the steep slopes, sand and clay soil formations and the quantities of ground water percolating through the soil due to the lack of storm and sanitary sewers, and WHEREAS, said Resolution imposed a moratorium on issuance of all building permits, including permits for such structures as decks, remodeling, and other buildings and structures which do not appreciably add to the level of ground water, and WHEREAS, construction which does appreciably affect the quantity of ground water and the soil stability in the area is construction adding additional dwelling units -1- STREETFILE to the area, and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 428 prohibited the City staff from processing or issuing permits for any construction and there is a need to provide for exceptions which will not add to the problems in the area and thus will not cause a danger to the public health, welfare and safety, now, therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS.FOLLOWS: Section 1 of Resolution No. 428 passed by the City Council on February 27, 1979, is hereby amended to read as follows: "Section 1. No City Department or official shall issue, approve or process an application for any building permit or application for approval of a planned residential development, subdivision or short subdivision which has been filed with the City on or after February 27,,1979, for that area commonly known as the Meadowdale area, located generally north of 168th Street Southwest and more particularly depicted on the map which is labeled Exhibit "A" attached to this Resolution, and incorporated in full by this reference, until the study authorized hereinafter is completed and remedial action is enacted; provided, however, this Section shall not apply to building permits for construction which does not add an additional dwelling unit or unitSto those existing prior to February 27, 1979." APPROVED: H. H. HARRISON MAYOR, AYOR, H. H. HARRISON IRENE VARNEY MORAN CITY CLERK, IRENE VARNEY MORAN FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: March 29, 1979 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: April 3, 1979 _9 1 STREET FILE % RESOLUTION NO. 428 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, IMPOSING A MORITORIUM ON ISSUANCE OF ALL BUILDING PERMITS AND APPROVALS OF PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS, SUBDIVISIONS AND SHORT SUBDIVISIONS IN THE. MEADOWDALE AREA OF EDMONDS. WHEREAS, large undeveloped areas of the City located generally north of 168th Street Southwest, and known as the "Meadowdale area" are not presently served with sanitary and/or storm sewers, and WHEREAS, there.exists a high potential for landslideE in the Meadowdale area due to such factors as the steep slopes, the sand and clay soil formations, and the quantities of groun� water percolating through the soil due to the lack of storm and sanitary sewers, and WHEREAS, previous landslides have been reported in the Meadowdale area and the geological and hydrological conditions present suggest that there will be future land- slides unless corrective action is taken, and WHEREAS, human factors may aggravate conditions as a result of excavations, removal of vegetation, diversion of water and introduction of more water into the ground in the absence of sewers, and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has conducted a study based on available data and has concluded that no new construc- or development should occur in the Meadowdale area until -1- • LI adequate study and planning have been done including the follows: 1. Detailed analysis of landslide hazard areas and potential for damage. 2. Designation of areas contributing directly and in- directly to existing and potential landslide hazards. 3. Study of feasibility and costs estimates for minimizing hazards through construction of,: a. Sanitary sewers; b. Storm sewers; C. Subsurface drains; d. Mechanical stabalization; e. On site and non-structural solutions possibly including grading/excavation control zones, low density (hazard) areas, clearing control zones and landscaping guidelines, and WHEREAS, the City Council, after notice having been duly given, held a public hearing on February 27, 1979, to consider imposing a moritorium on issuance, of all building permits and approvals of planned residential developments, subdivisions, and short subdivisions in the Meadowdale area until adequate study and planning had been done ,to prevent and/or minimize the hazards in the area, and . WHEREAS, at said public hearing all persons who desired to speak were afforded an opportunity to do so, and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that any additional -2- development in the Meadowdale area presents a high potential } of contribution to potential landslides and thus constitutes a real and immediate danger to the public health, safety, welfare, property and lives, and WHEREAS, until detailed study of the hazardous areas and solutions for controlling and eliminating the hazards are made, no building permits or approvals for planned residential developments, subdivisions or short subdivisions should be granted by the City, now, therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF.EDMONDS, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. No City Department or official shall issue, approve or process. an application for any building permit, planned residential development, subdivi- sion or short subdivision which has been filed with the City on or after February 27, 1979, for that area commonly known as the Meadowdale area, located generally north of 168th Street Southwest in Edmonds and more particularly depicted on the map which is labeled Exhibit "A", attached to this Resolution, and incorporated in full by this reference, until the study authorized hereinafter is completed and remedial action is implemented. Section 2. The Department of Public Works and the City Engineer shall conduct a detailed study and analysis of the landslide potential in the Meadowdale area and possible solutions therefor, including but not limited to the following: -3- • 1. Detailed analysis of landslide hazard areas l and potential for damage. 2. Designation of areas contributing directly and/or indirectly to existing and potential landslide hazards. 3. Study of feasibility and costs estimates for minimizing hazards through construction of: a. Sanitary sewers; b. Storm sewers; C. Subsurface drains; d. Mechanical stabalization; e. On site and non-structural solutions which may include grading and/or excavation control zones, low density (hazard) areas, clearing control zones and landscaping guidelines. Said study shall be completed and the results thereof reported to the City Council not later than October 16, 1979. Section 3. The City Clerk is directed to place this matter on the October 16, 1979, agenda for review of the continuing necessity of the moritorium imposed by this Resolution. APPROVED: /s/ H. H. Harrison MAYOR, H. H. HARRISON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: /s/ Jacqueline G. Parrett acting CITY CLERK, IRENE VARNEY MORAN FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: February 27, 1979 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: February 27, 1979 -4- .� �Xffi3iT' 7 tN I"- MEADOW IALE 01, Goo Sw / �.`p / .. • . to 1 ,•�� .� n ^ r}�1 , —it `,('�,r�-r�-.�-,�; / OR OrH . + c^ l6 S NSN 41 / / 1601HPl SW SOOrI fishing Dock) a %; //// /!//:;�.i. p/y ''./ �•'/; at PL Sw 16l- 161kx! 162NO PL Sw > 163RD ST SW 1p 1641`11sr sw r 7 j 16bth.Plb'+v 1641r1 S► A � 165111 P` I e 3 / 6rt1 rL Sw MEADOWDALE w R ELEMSCHOOL ' � O to 1 (Q C1ty of lyn0 nw00d — ref Sewage reatment Plant' .1. — ! i _ �_ 1b3TH ST 3W ME400 I Z} 1 MEADQYJDALE % BERTOLA 1 kO 1 I JR HIGH SCH P. j ' , I J — Athl.,lt Field / 76TH AVE w i` r MEADOWDALE s, SIN i < a I? p�`�� W ; � 01�H 172NO ST Sw a i s� SF,P N 1 • PR 0 172NO St Sw ST Sw IP 173RD QO OQp A(ti 173R0 Sr Sw m k0 ITZr+u,O/ Sw a 174TN ST Sw OT O Z ,: V 175TH ST SW r' _ - ER1CK PL a 4 IT7tH STSw FIGURE 6 CRITICAL AREA, INITIAL DELINEATION (CROSS —HATCHED) d City of Edmon RIGHT-OF-WAY CONST TION PERMIT Peat Number: a - .3 fickX0 Issue Date:S A. s or Construction: 16431 74 Place West f O B. Type of Work (be specific): To install 2" PE IP Mahn in 74 PI. W. from 3s N. of S.M.H. to 720'N of S.M.H. Per Attached Drawing: 9301036 UR #6043-3) C. Coiactor:WASH. NAT'L. GAS CO. Contact: Frank Swoon A#ling Address: 815 Mercer St. Seattle, WA' Phone: 224-2278 ate License #: 98111 Liability Insurance: Bond: $ D. •/uilding Permit # (if applicable): Side Sewer Permit # (if applicable): ❑ Commercial ❑ Subdivision ❑ City Project :P Utility (PUD, GTE, WNG, CABLE, WATER) ❑ Multi -Family ❑ Single Family ❑ Other 1 % INSPECTOR: INSPECTOR: F. Pavement or Concrete Cut : ❑ Yes �SNo G. Size of Cut: x H. Charge $ APPLICANT TO READ*IGN 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 unforeen, that may be made against the City of Edmonds, or any of its departments or einploy- ees, including or not limited to the defense of any legal proceedings including defense cosy, 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; F./NAL /NSPECIION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK. ES77MAYED RESTORATION FEES WILL BE HELD UN77L THE FINAL STREET PATCH IS COMPLETED BY CITY FORCES, AT WHICH 77ME 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 Department- 771-3202. Work 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 on site at all times for inspection purposes. �' t O Signature: '`'"" ' `'Date• 12/3002 (Contractor or Agent) CALL DIAIrA—DIG PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK TOT TE. ISSUED BY NO.WORK SHALL BEGIN. PRIOR TO _........ ............. _.1.111......._..I'll ...... _.... .J MIT ISSUANCE Engrg. Div. 1991 A TRACTOR CALLED FOR INSPECTION O YES O NO Work Inspection by'P. W.: Disapproved By: Date: APPROVAL BY: Date: Eng.. Div. July 1985 �'1;'. ,_i. Yj',.,r.,yc,:hy t) h...�t.. .4.ur•. 4w .ry."1rK"T ;nrT �.::F'-7, �i';4�.,�r+..TS.."yai�.wGr�c: �y�Vi.F's7:.i�:r::: ,,?4..v r..'i.T.v��r �c.'��i+'•`. phi •c'r �� .,..tE!g•.."".. i Z O W Un F- U O w CITY- OF EDMONDS � P hit No. � l- 71 -COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT sTRE'ET FILE RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT Issue Date A. • Owner: C V� ���=�2`7 C1:"r' B. • Contractor: Name Mailing Address Mailing Address City State Zip City State Zip L L � �-- C N � o; 20 State License Number eleph ne Number C. • Address or Vicinity of Construction: Type of Work to be Done ��_� C o J S r 2 .� c D., • Work in Connection With:-' ❑�Stiorlat ❑Single Family ❑ City Projects ❑ Commercial ❑ Multifamily VUtility E. * Pavement Cut: ❑ Y ❑ N F. • Size of Cut: X APPLICANT TO READ AND SIGN INDEMNITY: Applicant understands and by his signature to this application, agrees to hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any injuries, damages, or claims of any kind or description whatsoever, forseen or unforseen, that may be made against the City of Edmonds, or any of its departments or employees, including or not limited to the defense of any legal proceedings including defense costs, court costs, and attorney fees by reason of granting this permit. . t'. 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'thefinal street patch is completed by City forces, at which time a debit or credit will be processed for issuance to fhe applicant. , • A 24 hour notice is required for inspection; Please call Engineering: 771-3202 • Work is to be inspected during progress and of completion. ....i Restoration to be in accordance with City Code. • Street to be kept clean at all times. • Traffic Control to be in accordance with City regulations. • All street -cut ditches must be patched with.asphalt or City approved material prior to end of working day; r :NO,.EXCEPTIONS. I understand the above and that this permit must be avai bleat the job site for inspection purposes at all times. " Signature: Date: g - 27 - � 9 Owner or ontractor This et, Must be Posted at the Job Site For Inspection Purposes Call DIAL -A -DIG Prior to Beginning Work -THIS PF-RM17 WORK MVS-r SE COMP(.E77C APPROVED BY: 'vl . 1rr �_!yA J Time Authorized: Void.after. Coo days. Special Conditions: RELEASED BY: Date IN COO 0/\'e5 OP- PErzMI 1 VOId PERMIT FEE: V 3o-= Ei 42 p Restoration Fee: Receipt No.: err Fund 111 Fee:. Street Cut Dimensions, x = $ INSPECTED BY Date NO WORK TO BEGIN PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE h_ng. Urv. March 1989 FIELD INSPECTION WES ". r r, (und I I I - Route copy to Street Dept.) Comments: Diagram: CONTRACTOR CALLED FOR INSPECTION ❑ YES ❑ NO Partial Work Inspection by P. W.: Work Disapproved By: Date: FINAL APPROVAL BY: Date: Eng. Div. July 1985 11 X� CITY OF EDMONDS PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FIGHT- OF- WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT ^ A. *Address or vicinity of Construction -Permit.No. Issue Date EETFILE • Owner: ,V /// frail c 7" Name /41. /1 Mailing Address v City, State,— Zip Code • Contractor: _ r' /!� D_ Na<'/ me Mailing Address ✓ City, / State, Zip Code • Permit Issued To: • Type of Work to be Done: • Work in Connection With: ❑ Sub or Plat ,Fr]' Single Family ❑ Comml. / Ind. ❑ Apt. Condo. • Pavement Cut: ❑ Yes* No i State License'Nurnber,. Telephone Number * * NO WORK TO BEGIN PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE B. APPLICANT TO READ AND SIGN INDEMITY: Applicant understands and by his signature to this application, agrees to hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any injuries, damages, or claims of any kind or description whatsoever, foreseen or unforeseen, that may be made against the City of Edmonds, or any of it's departments or employees, including or not limited to the defense of any legal proceedings including defense, costs, court costs, and attorney fees by reason of granting this permit. Upon issuance of this permit, the contractor is responsible for workmanship and materials for a period of one year following the final inspection and acceptance of the restoration by the Engineering Division. Funds held from the Security Deposit (estimated restoration fee) will be held until the final street patch is completed, at which time a debit or credit will be processed for issuance to the applicant. Work is to be inspected. Restoration to be in accordance with City Code. Traffic Control to be in accordance with Traffic Section of City Code. Street to be kept clean at all times. A 24 - hour notice is required for inspection by Engineering. Call 775-2525, extension 220. I understand that this permit Signature: Ow be available at the job site for inspection purposes at all times. to r * THIS PERMIT MUST BE POSTED AT THE JOB SIT FOR INSPECTION PURPOSES CALL DIAL - DIG PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK C. issued By.:`z' �%%.!' 'A• Time Authorized: Void after days Special Conditions: Ammendments: __Q<l Permit Fee:,' --"""- Security Deposit: Receipt No.: . Fund III Fee: Street Cut Dimensions X_ * * NO WORK TO BEGIN PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE * * 1 Eng. Div. December 1978 Ena. Div. December 1978 CITY Copy W-5319-01 SHANNON & WILSON, INC.Now ' Geotechnical Consultants Engineering and Applied Geosciences E-�t�Ilr>>rr 400 North 34th Street, Suite 100 • P.O. Box C-30313 • Seattle, WA 98103 • (206) 632-8020 • Fax: (206) 547-0386 February 26, 1990 :: i -4 '- J Mr. JimSolt-te to;-r COUNTER i 6431 74th �1ace West Edmonds, Wasri"ngton 98020 ' RE: GEOTECHNICAL REPORT, PROPOSED GARAGE AT SOLIE RESIDENCE Dear Mr. Solie: We have completed the field explorations and geotechnical engineering studies, and this report presents the results of our efforts. The purpose of our work was to respond to the geotechnical items required for the proposed garage by the -City of Edmonds. as outlined in Meadowdale Site Evaluation Checklist per ORD 2661. Not included in this study are the stability of the residence and the steep declivity below the residence and existing driveway, and also -not the stability of the slope above the residence. The work was performed in general accordance with our proposal for geotechnical services dated ' October 11, 1989. Authorization was provided via a copy of our proposal signed by Mr. Jim Solie on October 20, 1989. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The site is located on the east side of 74th Place West in Edmonds, as indicated on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1, and lies within and near the southern ' edge of the Meadowdale landslide area. The existing house is located on a terrace within a steep northwesterly facing slope. We, understand that the ' proposed garage will be located southwest of the existing house and that a septic tank and drain field formerly occupied the area between the site for the garage and the existing driveway. At the time of ;our visits, the site for ' Seattle • Everett • Fairbanks • Anchorage • St, Louis PRESIDENT: Earl A. Sibley, P.E. SR. VICE PRESIDENT- Atef A Azzam Raymond P Miller, P E ; Harvey W Parkeir, P E ; George Yamane, P.E. VICE PRESIDENT: Herman H. (Tex) Druebert, P.E.: Richard H. Gates, P.E.; W. Paul Grant, P.E.; Leland B. Jones, P.E.: Thomas E. Kirkland, P.E.; Gerry Millar, R.G_; Frank W. Pita, P.E., P.G.; Ming-Jiun (Jim) Wu, P.E. CONSULTANT: William L. Shannon, P.E. N Ll Mr. Jim Solie ' February 26, 1990 Page 2 W-5319-01 ' the proposed garage was clear of most vegetation except for sparsely scattered grass. The following are our understandings regarding the proposed garage. It will ' be approximately 25 by 27 feet in size and capable of holding two vehicles. The proposed floor elevation will be approximately 177'feet, which will required a cut up to about`113 fee deep ee p to the existing slope. The proposed ' garage will be founded in native soil and no fill, except for that placed a5 backfill and/or behind retaining walls, will be placed for garage ----- �_ �ti n.str�con. We understand-tFiat-,-an`-asphal-t--driveway will extend out from the southwest side of the proposed garage and will require a retaining wall along ' the southeast side. Please see the Site Plan on Figure 2 for the approximate location of the proposed garage. ' Based on our discussion with Mr. Soli i i understanding e, t is u de standing that the ' existing house foundations along the southwest edge of the house are all located at about the same elevation as the gravel surface shown on Figure 2 between the proposed garage and existing driveway. FIELD EXPLORATIONS ' The site was explored by Shannon & Wilson representatives on December 14 1989 by means of one__soil_bori.ng drilled and sampled with portable hand -boring ' equipment, and one test pit excavated by hand on a partially -exposed soils face. The approximate hand boring and test pit locations, determined by taping from existing features, are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. Logs of the hand boring and test pit are presented in Figures 3 and 4. The ground 1 surface elevations at the hand boring and test pit were determined by plotting their location on the topographic survey completed by Group Four, Inc. dated ' January 11, 1990 and should be considered approximate. ' Hand boring samples were obtained by Porter sampling equipment using a 40-pound weight falling 18 inches to drive a 1.4-inch O.D. split -spoon sampler. The number of blows causing each 6-inch increment of penetration of SHANNON & WILSON. INC. 1 � Mr. Jim Solie W-5319-01 February 26, 1990 Page 3 ' the sampler was recorded and plotted on the boring logs as penetration resistance. The Porter penetration resistance in blows per 6 inches correlates approximately to the Standard Penetration Resistance in blows per foot. These values indicate the relative density of granular soil and the consistency of cohesive soils. Soil samples were retrieved from the sampler, ' placed in air -tight jars, and were returned. to our laboratory for subsequent testing. ' The test it was located on a northwesterly -facing slope where a near -vertical P y g p ea ertical soil face was exposed by means of removing loose soil with a hand shovel. The soil face was exposed for a depth of about 8 feet, visually classified, and then recorded on a field log. Soil relative densities and consistencies ' presented on the test pit log were estimated based on probing of the exposed soil face. No groundwater was encountered while either drilling the hand boring or ' excavating the test pit. ' The site was previously explored by representatives from Rittenhouse -Zeman & Associates, Inc. by means of two percussion borings and two test pits on January 17, 1985, for the purpose of evaluating a landslide that occurred in ' November 1984 on the slope directly below the existing driveway and house (just north and west of PB-1, see Figure 2). One. boring, PB-1, and one test ' pit, TP-1, were used in our formulation of the subsurface conditions for the proposed garage. Logs of boring PB-1 and test pit TP-1 can be found in the. report dated February 6, 1985, by Rittenhouse -Zeman & Associates, Inc., refer to Reference 4, attached, Table A. A generalized log of PB-1 is shown on Figure 2 of this current report. Other information from their report was used ' as background for our studies. ' LABORATORY ANALYSES All samples were taken to our laboratory in Seattle, where each was visually classified to review the field classifications and to evaluate the engineering SHANNON & WILSON. INC. -_ Mr. Jim Solie W=5319-01 February 26, 1990 Page 4 ' properties of subsurface materials. Water content determinations were performed on the samples from the hand boring and the results are presented on the hand boring log (Figure 3). SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The soil conditions at specific locations at the site are indicated on the exploration logs. A generalized subsurface profile, with the alignment as indicated on the Site Plan in Figure 2, is shown on Figure 5 and includes the existing topography and other features, the projected locations of the subsurface explorations, and the approximate limits of the proposed garage. ' In the vicinity of the proposed garage, as indicated in the explorations, the slope was observed to be mantled by aboutt�1.5 to 2 feet of very loose to loose, clayey, silty fine SAND, believed to be FILL;r,andtbelow that, about 3 feet of medium dense, silty fine SAND and stiff, sandy, clayey SILT (SLIDE DEBRIS). The soils beneath the slide debris and fill, extending to the bottom ' of the explorations, was observed to be interbedded, hard, sandy and clayey SILT, and dense, silty, fine to medium SAND. ' The interpretation of the soils beneath the adjacent gravel parking area and asphalt driveway in the vicinity of the proposed garage was based on the soils ' encountered during drilling of boring PB-1 as performed and recorded by Rittenhouse -Zeman & Associates, Inc. Approximately.6`°feet of stiff SILT and tCLAY classified as overridden slide debris is underlain by about 4 feet of medium dense SAND grading to sandy SILT to silty SAND. The sand, in turn, is underlain by very stiff SILT in which the boring was terminated. The exposed soil face logged by Rittenhouse -Zeman & Associates, Inc., designated TP-1, appears to be the same soil face logged by Shannon & Wilson, Inc., also designated TP-1. The corresponding descriptions of the two logs are similar, therefore, only test pit TP-1 by Shannon & Wilson is shown on the Site Plan ' and Generalized Subsurface Profile. ' No groundwater was observed in the two explorations (HB-1 and TP-1) that we 'logged at the site, both of which were accomplished on December 14, 1989. 1 SHANNON & WILSON. INC. 1 Mr. Jim Solie ' February 26, 1990 Page 5 W-5319-01 ' Also, groundwater was not indicated in the log for boring PB-1, which was drilled by Rittenhouse -Zeman on January 17, 1985. Although not encountered in the explorations, some groundwater seepage in near -surface sandy soils or in deeper sand layers could be present during wet weather. ISITE STABILITY CONDITIONS ' As previously stated and in accordance with our proposal letter dated October 11, 1989, this report will not include a study of the stability of the residence and the steep declivity below the residence and existing driveway, nor will it include study of the slope above the residence. There are a ' number of previous reports available that present such evaluations, which include studies of instability that has previously occurred on the steep slope downhill from your existing house and driveway. On Table A included with this ' current report, references numbered 4, 5, and 7 present those evaluations and studies, and they should be referred to relative to the previous instability ' on and adjacent to your property. ' Also listed on the attached Table A are several documents that relate to the general instability conditions that exist in the Meadowdale Area. Those documents (References 1, 2, and 3) should also be referred to for pertinent ' information. It is to be noted here that reports other than those listed in Table A may exist relative to the general area and/or the Solie property ' specifically; we have not attempted to identify and list all that may be available. Reference 6 on Table A lists a previous study and report completed by Landau Associates for the same garage project covered by this current report. We ' have reviewed the Landau report as background information for formulating our opinion regarding the impact on the property.by the proposed garage ' construction. In responding to the Meadowdale Site Evaluation Checklist and Geotechnical Report Guidelines, we are presenting herein our opinions regarding the current SHANNON & WILSON. INC. Mr. Jim Solie W-5319-01 ' February 26, 1990 Page 6 stability of the proposed garage site, the stability during construction, and the stability after the proposed garage is completed.; Fir regarding st, the current stability of the proposed garage site, the site is located within and near the southern edge of the Meadowdale landslide area. ' In our opinion, the steep hillside slope below the existing driveway and opposite the proposed garage, was formed as the result of ancient landslide ' activity. ,Recent instability occurred on that slope in the 1980's as, described in much detail in several of the reports listed on the attached ' Table A. Soil believed to be slide debris from higher ground was identified in the explorations we accomplished for this project. This zone was about 2.5 to 3 feet thick. In the previous boring PB-1, drilled by Rittenhouse -Zeman, about ' 6 feet of soil was identified by them as overridden slide debris. Beneath these layers in PB-1 and the Shannon & Wilson explorations, very stiff to hard ' sandy and clayey SILT with dense SAND layers was logged. It is our opinion that these very stiff/hard/dense soils, particularly those encountered in the explorations we made, have been glacially overridden.' This means that they were highly compressed and densified in the geologic past by about 3,000 feet ' of ice. With reference to the Landslide -Hazard Map originally prepared in 1979 for the ' City of Edmonds by Roger Lowe Associates (Table A, Reference 2) and updated by GeoEngineers in'1984 (Reference 3), the site of the proposed garage is located ' in an area that is noted as "not previously failed." The probability of landslide occurrence during a 25-year period is noted as..2 percent) -for this ' site. Nevertheless, recent instability as previously mentioned, has been experienced on the steep nearby slope, just below the 'existing driveway. Based on site observations, signs of significant hillside instability were not observed at or uphill from the proposed garage site. However, evidence of ' soil creep was observed, particularly on the steep slope beginning some 75 feet uphill from the proposed garage. (Soil creep, which is present on nearly SHANNON & WILSON. INC. Mr. Jim Solie ' February 26, 1990 Page 7 W-5319-01 all slopes, is the imperceptibility slow, continuous downslope movement of near -surface soils under the effect of gravity.) These observations, together ' with the data from the updated Landslide -Hazard Map, and the shallow depth of existing slide debris identified in our explorations, indicate that ancient, deep-seated failure through the overridden soils beneath the garage site may ' not have occurred. However, if such deep-seated sliding did occur, it would have been an ancient event, moving downward as a large block to form the terrace upon which the subject site is located. In reviewing the geologic reports (References 1 and 2), we found no indications that large block ' movement has been recently detected that.would affect the garage site. In light of the above data, it is our opinion that the proposed garage site is currently in astable conditi_o.o.,_with_a low_ rop bability of _land slide occurrence that_may_..extend_beneath__the proposed facility. Should additional ' instability occur on the steep slope below the existing driveway, immediate remedial measures should be taken to prevent encroachment upon the garage ' site. During garage construction, the risk of instability on the site will increase, due to the excavation required to construct'the garage. However, we ' have recommended that measures be taken, as subsequently described, to maintain stability. After construction, we believe that the risk of instability will be about the same as before construction, or perhaps a slightly lower risk of instability will exist due to the combination of site grading, retaining walls, and improved subdrainage. In other words, it is our ' opinion that the proposed garage can be built without :having a negative impact on the property or on the overall hillside stability. In our,, professional opinion, subject to the conditions set forth in this ' geotechnical report, the risk of damage to the proposed garage from soil instability will be minimal. It is further our opinion that construction of the proposed garage facility will not increase the potential for soil ' movement, nor increase the risk of instability for adjacent properties if our recommendations are followed. However, as with any site located on or ' adjacent to a slope, and particularly for this site located within and near the southern edge of the Meadowdale landslide area, there is always a risk of 1 0 SHANNON & WILSON. INC. 1 Mr. Jim Solie W-5319-01 ' February 26, 1990 Page 8 ' instability that the present and future owners must be prepared to take. The risks involve such things as water leaks, improper drainage, unwise actions by ' adjacent property owners, or other actions and events in this area which may cause instability. Our recommendations if successfully completed, for instance, will not prevent damage to the garage facility (or residence) should a portion of the Meadowdale landslide area begirt moving. 1 GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS . ' General Based on the subsurface explorations accomplished at the site and the results ' of the laboratory testing, it is recommended that the proposed garage be supported by spread footings founded in the hard and dense native soils located beneath the overlying fill and slide ,debris. ' The following sections present our recommendations for foundation design, floor slab support, lateral earth pressures, lateral resistance of ' foundations, excavations, grading and compaction, drainage requirements, pavement areas, weather considerations, and additional geotechnical services. Foundation Design The results of our studies indicate that the proposed garage could be supported on conventional spread footing foundations bearing in hard and dense ' ,native --soils. In our opinion, footings bearing in hard and dense native soils could be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf). Continuous footings should have a minimum width of 16 inch_es, and ' column footings should have a minimum width of 24 inches. Minimum footing widths sometime govern footing design. Footings should bear at least 24 ' inches below the lowest adjacent grade on the downhill side (northwest) , and at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade for the other footings. The allowable bearing pressure given above may be increased by one-third for seismic loading conditions. SHANNON & WILSON, INC. 1 11 Mr. Jim Solie W-5319-01 February 26, 1990 Page 9 If adjacent individual footings are located at different elevations, it is recommended that the horizontal space between them beat least 2 times the elevation difference. Where joining continuous footings are at different elevations, the upper footing should be stepped down to the lower footing. All loose or soft soil, existing fill, slide debris, and all soil containing organics should be removed from beneath the proposed garage area. Footing subgrades should be evaluated during construction to verify the presence of competent bearing soil and to determine that all soft or loosened, disturbed soils and all organics and existing fill have been removed. Assuming compliance with the recommendations in this report, we expect tsettlements to be less than about 3/4-inch, with differential settlements (between adjacent footings or over a 20-foot span of continuous footing) less ' than about 1/2-inch. Settlements are expected to occur almost simultaneously with load application. ' Floor Slab Support Floor slabs should be supported by the hard and dense native soils. All loose or soft soil, existing fill, slide debris, and any soils containing organics ' should be removed from areas to receive floor slabs. Care _sbould_be__taken to compact any localized^backfills, such as footing .or utility excavations, to ' the same degree as that specified for Structural Fill We recommend that a capillary break consisting of a 6-inch-thick (minimum) ' layer of washed pea gravel—(3/8-inch to No. 8 sieve size), and a vapor barrier atop the gravel, consisting of plastic sheeting, be p laced beneath the concrete floor slab (see Figure 6). The gravel should' be hydraulically connected to drain into a subdrain system. , i SHANNON & WILSON. INC. 7 u �n r-1 LI Mr. Jim Solie February 26, 1990 Page 10 Lateral Earth Pressures W-5319-01 We anticipate that retaining walls will be required to support the northeast and southeast walls of the proposed garage. A retaining wall should also be ^ provided along the southeast side of the driveway approach. Lateral earth pressures on foundation and/or retaining walls are dependent on the method of backfill placement and degree of compaction, the backfill slope, the type of backfill material, the drainage provisions, and above all, whether or not the wall can yield or deflect laterally or rotate at the top after or during placement of backfill. If the wall is free to yield at the top an amount equal to approximately 0.001 of the height of the wall, the soil pressures will be less than if the movement is more limited by stiffness or restraint of the wall. We recommend that an active equivalent fluid pressure (EFP) of 40 oundsr..per. cubj_c.-foo (ppgf) be used in the case of yielding walls, and an at - rest EFP of 60_pcQbe used for non -yielding walls, when imported structural fill is used as wall backfill. These pressures are for a horizontal backfill and hillside surface. For sloping backfill and hillside conditions, such as would be the case along the southeast walls and adjacent to the driveway approach, the following recommendations are given for lateral wall design: Equivalent Fluid Pressures (EFP) Degree of Upward Backfill/Hillside EFP - pcf ' Slope (degrees) Active State At -Rest State 0 40 60 S 42 62 ' 10 44 64 48:_ 68 ' 25 80 30 75 95 The lateral pressure. figures shown above are horizontal values and assume that proper drainage is provided behind the walls and no buildup of hydrostatic pressure on walls occur. These values also apply to the average slope of the SHANNON & WILSON. INC. 1 1 Mr. Jim Solie February 26, 1990 Page 11 W-5319-01 backfill and hillside behind the walls, even though the final ground surface should at first be sloped away from walls for drainage (see Figure 6). The above values do not account for surcharge loads near the walls, such as heavy construction machinery, equipment, or loads from vehicles, slabs, or footings placed in close proximity to the walls. A lateral pressure due to surcharge should be added to the recommended lateral earth pressures where appropriate. In the event of a uniformly distributed surcharge load behind a wall, a uniformly distributed pressure equal to 30 percent of the surcharge loading should be added to the EFP behind the wall. This is for active. conditions; use 50 percent for at -rest conditions. Backfilling and compaction criteria for areas behind walls are presented in Figure 6. For compaction within 18 inches of walls, vibrating plate ' compactors (not tampers) should be used. Backfills should not be placed behind walls until they are capable of supporting the ,lateral pressure. ' Additionally, the Structural Fill backfill zone behind walls should be at least 2 feet wide at the bottom, sloping up to a width of at least half the wall height at the top. Lateral Resistance of Foundations Foundations may be required to resist lateral forces. Resistance to lateral ' forces will be provided by both soil pressure acting against the embedded portion of foundations and frictional resistance against base sliding. For estimating passive pressure resistance, we recommend using an EFP of 250 pcf above subdrain levels, and 125 pcf below subdrain levels. These values would apply to the dense/hard, in -place native soils, or to structural fill material compacted to at least 95 percent of Modified compaction. These soils should extend horizontally out from foundations a minimum distance of at least twice ' the vertical depth of the passive zone. We recommend a coefficient of friction between concrete and soil of 0.4 be used for calculating the ' resistance to sliding at the base of the footings. In using these values of 1 M SHANNON & WILSON. INC. Mr. Jim Solie ' February 26, 1990 Page 12 W-5319-01 ' frictional and passive resistances, an appropriate factor of safety should be used in conjunction with evaluating the resistance tot ateral movement. ' Excavations,r Grading, and Compaction ' Construction of footings and walls will involve the excavation of temporary cut slopes up to about 18 feet in height. Loose fill, slide debris, and interbedded hard SILT and dense SAND will generally be exposed in these cut slopes. For We working conditions and prevention of ground loss, we ' recommend that the stability of excavation slopes be made the responsibility of the Contractor, as he.will be most familiar with conditions exposed in the ' excavation and will be at the site on a full-time basis to observe and control the work. Furthermore, all current and applicable safety regulations regarding excavation slopes and shoring should be followed. It is our opinion that site excavations can be accomplished with conventional excavating equipment. For planning purposes only, it';is our opinion that temporary excavations in the hard/dense native soils could be sloped to 0.5 Horizontal to 1 Vertical (0.5H to 1V), and 1.25H to 1V in the overlying loose fill and slide debris. Local sloughing may occur and flatter slopes should be 1 made as conditions dictate, such as if seepage occurs, or as otherwise necessary to provide a -safe, stable slope. Slope protection consisting of a plastic covering or similar protective measures should be employed as appropriate during construction in order to reduce the erosional effects of rain.on the exposed slopes. Stockpiles of materials or equipment should be placed no closer than the depth of the excavation from the top of the excavation slope, unless. included as a . surcharge load on a shoring system. In addition, the Contractor should be made responsible for the control of any ground or surface water, wherever encountered on the project. In this regard, sloping, slope protection, ditching, sumps, dewatering,, and other measures should be employed as necessary to permit proper completion of the work. SHANNON & WILSON, INC. 1 Mr. Jim Solie W-5319-01 February 26, 1990 Page 13 ' Where sloped excavations are not possible, such as due to space limitations, shoring and bracing of excavations should be provided, in accordance with ' applicable safety codes. V Permanent cut slopes in the natural site soils or in compacted backfill should not be made steeper than-2H to 1V.1`'Final slope surfaces in both cut and e firm and compact at the surface and then protected backfill areas should � from erosion, such as by providing a deep-rooted, vegetative cover. ' We understand that other than for backfilling retaining walls, no significant amounts of new fill will be placed at the site. We assume, however, that minor amounts of new fill may be, needed for local shaping and landscaping ' purposes along the northwest side of the proposed garage. The amount of such fill should be minimized. We recommend that fills be limited to not more than ' about 18 inches of new fill placed no farther than about 10 feet from the garage, unless otherwise determined suitable by a geotechnical engineer. If ' any portions of septic tank/drain field system are still present at the site, they should be removed. The on -site soils to be excavated at the site are clayey and silty. Their water contents, based on the samples taken in HB-1 (see Figure 3 for results), ' are generally above the optimum for compaction. On -site soils should not be used as wall backfill, except for an impervious soil cover at the top of the ' backfill zone, as shown on Figure 6. In our opinion, on -site soils should also not be used as fill or backfill at other locations, such as beneath floor ' slabs, _sidewalksor other areas where settlements would. be objectionable. Furthermore, it should not be used to backfill footings where passive resistance for —the foundation may be required. — On -site soils may be used, however, as an impervious soil cover surrounding ' the garage, such as previously mentioned, or for backfill of shallow, tight drain lines or pipelines where hillside stability will not be impaired and ' where settlement of trench backfill is not of concern. Moisture adjustment, however, may be needed in order to achieve suitable compaction. All other 1 711 SHANNON & WILSON. INC. 1 7 L 1 1 Mr. Jim Solie February 26, 1990 Page 14 W-5319-01 fill and backfill should be imported granular fill, either drainage materials or Structural Fill material. We recommend that all organic matter and debris from site excavations and all excess excavated soil be removed from the site and disposed of at a suitable off -site location. No soil or debris should be permanently disposed of on or near the slopes at or adjacent to the garage site. We recommend that imported Structural Fill consist of clean, well -graded sand and gravel. It should contain not more than 5 percent fines (soil passing the No. 200 sieve, based on wet -sieving the minus 3/4-inch fraction). The fines should be non -plastic. Structural Fill should have a maximum particle size of 3 inches, should be free from organic matter, and its ,moisture content should be at or slightly below its optimum for compaction. We recommend that the thickness of Structural Fill and all fill/backfill layers before compaction not exceed 8 inches_._when heavy compaction equipment is used and 4 inches_,for hand -operated mechanical compactors. It should be compacted to a dense, unyielding state, and to at least 95_percent „of its Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM: D-1557-70, Method C or D). In non-structural areas where moderate settlements can be accepted, the tcompaction requirement could be reduced to 92 percent of the Modified Proctor maximum dry density. Samples of the proposed imported Structural Fill should be submitted to us for P p P P ' evaluation prior to use at the site. It should be noted that backfill areas, even with good compaction procedures, ' undergo some settlement. It has been our.experience that backfills compacted to at least 95 percent of Modified compaction can settle in the order of 0.5 ' percent of the backfill depth. Areas compacted to about 92 percent of Modified could exhibit greater settlements,, in the order of 1 percent of the ' depth. Design should consider such settlements as may be appropriate. 1 I►L SHANNON & WILSON. INC. 1 Mr. Jim Solie February 26, 1990 Page 15 Drainage Recommendations W-5319-01 We recommend that a perimeter footing subdrain be installed around the exterior of the proposed garage, to remove any water which may come into wall backfills or adjacent to footings. Similarly, a subdrain should be provided behind all other walls that retain soil. Our recommendations for such subdrainage and backfilling are presented on Figure 6. Filter fabric should not be used around subdrain pipes. ' We recommend that all surface water,' such as that coming from roof downspouts, deck drains, yard drains, and catch basins as well as all subsurface water coming from footing subdrains be collected in tight drain lines and carried to a suitable discharge point, such as a storm drain system Water must not discharge into or onto the steep slope located to the northwest. Surface water and downspout water, however, should not discharge into a perforated or slotted subdrain. Where a perforated or slotted drain pipe discharges into a ' tightline, we recommend that an impervious collar of concrete be constructed along the first foot of the tight drain pipe in such a manner to force all water into the tight drain lines. Cleanouts should be provided at convenient ' locations along all drain lines. 1 With respect to surface water drainage, we recommend that the ground surface be sloped to drain away from structures. Where the hillside comes down to the garage and driveway approach walls, a "V-shaped" drainage swale should be provided at the top of the wall, sloped laterally for drainage. Catch basins, yard drains, or other drainage facilities should be aptly located as may be appropriate. Samples of the proposed drainage sand and gravel (see Figure 6) should be submitted to us for evaluation to check that the material is free -draining. ISHANNON & WILSON. INC. 7 A L 1 jl J Mr. Jim Solie February 26, 1990 Page 16 Pavement Areas W-5319-01 Areas to be paved with asphalt or receive concrete, such as sidewalks, should be stripped of organics or other unsuitable soils, if present, to expose medium dense to more competent existing soils. The subgrade should be proof - rolled with a heavy piece of construction equipment, such as a loaded dump truck, to identify soft or loose areas if present. Such areas should be replaced with Structural Fill, and/or suitably compacted. All subgrade areas should be compacted to achieve a dense, unyielding surface and at least 95 percent of the Modified Proctor compaction. Any filling beneath paved areas, which should be minimized, should be similarly compacted. For the driveway area, unless otherwise determined suitable by a geotechnical engineer, the, amount of grade rise in the final pavement surface, above existing grades, should be limited to not more than about a foot. In order to minimize damage due to frost action, we recommend that a total pavement structure of 9 inches (minimum) of pavement, base course, and/or granular subbase be provided beneath exterior asphalt pavements or concrete areas. Non -asphalt -treated base courses and granular subbase materials should be non -frost -susceptible, i.e., they should consist of'welI-graded crushed rock or sand and gravel, containing not more than 3 percent material finer than 0.02 millimeters. Generally materials/soils containing not more than 7 percent fines (material passing No. 200 mesh sieve) will meet this criteria and be non -frost -susceptible. Any fines should be non' -plastic. The Structural Fill material previously. recommended in this report (under - Excavations, Grading, and Compaction) would provide a suitable, non -frost - susceptible soil to use as a base course beneath concrete pavements or as a granular subbase in asphalt paved areas. For asphalt pavements, we recommend an asphalt base and/or crushed rock base and top course. SHANNON & WILSON, INC. 1 ILJ III F_ L 1 Mr. Jim Solie February 26, 1990 Page 17 Weather Considerations W-5319-01 The on -site soils are primarily clayey and silty, and would become difficult to handle when wet. Because of this, and also due to stability considerations and increased drainage control efforts required in wet weather, we recommend that all earthwork (excavation and filling), drainage installation, and construction of retaining walls and foundations be conducted during.dry weather. In the Seattle area, the normal dry -weather months are June through mid -October, and construction should be scheduled for this period. However, rainy periods can occur during any time of the year. The following recommendations are given for any rainy period which may occur during construction: • Earthwork and related efforts should not be conducted during actual periods of rain. Cover excavated slopes as needed to prevent erosion. • The ground surface in the construction.area should be sloped and compacted to promote the rapid runoff of precipitation and to prevent ponding of water. Temporary drainage ditches should be provided where needed. Bales of straw and/or fabric silt fences should be aptly located to control soil movement and erosion, as appropriate. • Earthwork should be accomplished in small sections to minimize exposure to rain, and no soil should be left uncompacted. A smooth - drum vibratory roller, or equivalent, should be used to seal the ground surface. The type and sizes of earthwork equipment should be selected to minimize disturbance of soils. • Soils that become too wet for bearing or compaction should be removed. and replaced with imported, clean, granular Structural Fill soil. -• Excavation and placement of fill/backfill material should be observed on a full-time basis by a soils engineer or his/her representative, 1 SHANNON & WILSON. INC. 1 1 Mr. Jim Solie W-5319-01 February 26, 1990 Page 18 experienced in earthwork, to determine that all work is being accomplished in accordance with these recommendations. The above recommendations for wet weather earthwork should be incorporated into the contract specifications. Additional Geotechnical Services We recommend that we be retained to review the foundation, earthwork, and ' drainage plans to determine if they are consistent with our recommendations. We will provide additional recommendations as appropriate, based upon that review. We also recommend that excavations, preparation of footing subgrades, installation of subdrainage lines, and compaction of fill and backfill be monitored by us to confirm the conditions disclosed by our explorations, to determine that the work is accomplished in accordance with our recommendations, and to make additional recommendations as appropriate. We also suggest a meeting with you and your contractor, prior to construction, to discuss earthwork and drainage requirements and other aspects of the foundation work. For this project, it is our opinion -that these additional services are required. ' Geotechnical Requirements by City ' This report responds to the pertinent geotechnical requirements of the City of Edmonds, as outlined in the Meadowdale Site Evaluation Checklist and Geotechnical Report Guidelines. For information and comments regarding those requirements, refer to Appendix A to this report. LIMITATIONS ' The conclusions and recommendations presented in this 'report are based on site conditions as they presently exist and assume that the explorations are ' representative of the subsurface conditions throughout, the site, i.e., the subsurface conditions are not significantly different 'from those encountered SHANNON & WILSON. INC. Mr. Jim Solie ' February 26, 1990 Page 19 1 1 1 1 n W-5319-01 in the explorations. If, during construction, subsurface conditions different from those encountered in the explorations are observed or appear to be present, we should be advised at once so that we can review those conditions and reconsider our recommendations where necessary. If there is a substantial lapse of time between submission of our report and the start of work at the site, or if conditions have changed due to natural causes or construction operations at or near the site, it is recommended that this report be reviewed to determine the applicabilityof the conclusions and recommendations considering the changed conditions and time lapse. This report was prepared for the use of the Owner and Architect/Engineer in the design of the structure. With respect to construction, it should be made available for information on 'factual data only and not as a warranty of subsurface conditions, such as those interpreted from;the exploration logs and discussions of subsurface conditions included in this report. Unanticipated conditions are commonly encountered and cannot be fully determined by merely taking soil samples or making explorations. Such unexpected conditions frequently require that additional expenditures be made to achieve a properly constructed project. Some contingency fund is recommended to accommodate such potential extra costs. We appreciate your confidence in our firm and if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Scott A. Shimel Engineer Tjco�� Thomas E. Kirkland, P.E. Vice President OAP °t WA'�''•��� 1 � z Z 0 �FCISTElk iSHANNON & WILSON. INC. Mr. Jim Solie February 26, 1990 Page 20 Geologic Review by: Glzl��= William T. Laprad , C.E.G. Associate SAS:TEK:WTL/lkd Enclosures: Table A Figures 1 through 6 Appendix A W5319-01.LTR/SAS-lkd DER^ rr 0' OREGON ' WILLIAM T LAPRADE EB4a W-5319-01 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. 1 1 W-5319-01 TABLE A PrrrPrwrrq LIST OF PREVIOUS REPORTS REGARDING MEADOWDALE AREA AND SOLIE PROPERTY EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 1. Dames & Moore (1968) "Report of Geologic Evaluation, Meadowdale Area, Edmonds, Washington, for the City of Edmonds," Seattle, WA, September 23. 2. Roger Lower Associates, Inc. (1979) ' "Final Report, Landslide Hazards Investigation, Meadowdale Area, Edmonds, WA," Report to City of Edmonds by Roger Lowe Associates, Bellevue, WA, October 16. 3. GeoEngineers, Inc. (1984) Updated Landslide -Hazard Map, referring to updated report by GeoEngineers, Bellevue, WA, July 25. 4. Rittenhouse -Zeman & Associates, Inc. (1985) "Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Study, Solie Residence Landslide, Edmonds, Washington," Report to Reid, Middleton & Associates, Inc. by Rittenhouse -Zeman & Associates, Bellevue, WA, 1 February 6. 5. Landau Associates, Inc. (1985) "Summary of Geotechnical Issues, Solie Landslide Problems, Edmonds, Washington," Letter Report to Mr. & Mrs. Solie by Landau Associates, Edmonds, WA, August 22. 6. Landau Associates, Inc. (1985) "Geotechnical Study for Proposed Garage, 16431 - 74th Place West, ' Edmonds, Washington," Letter Report to Mr. & Mrs. Solie by Landau Associates, Edmonds, WA, September 5. ' 7. MC2 Engineering 1987 9 9( ) "Preliminary - The Solie Residence, A Report on the Landslides and Slope Stability Problems," Olympia, WA, February 20.. I W5319-01.TBL/TEK-lkd/jnd ISHANNON & WILSON, INC. / 0- I N. t ' F o N; > I IS ST W a > Id ND I O �r - SERENE .r r-y��_J IIu-0 PL Sw g a z a ld Lj I IA3R0 5T3 _ 143RD3 3 ST 91 SW Z t+�' ADP a I i > w' 4 '� > IMTM P W 1d4TH T >; Sw v• > BY Y 3 ` I < /M 7 3 I w SW i61y u,r« 3 3 I o g l os'al"yis>.; T;T Q ;=3 g'PLsw°a>- . c I a 3 +\z z 3 w \.Ji�« pI R a l I ; 6Swvv �� r w ,.; SIY We' �3PLSSW '.�sw z m •146THIPL I 1\ PUGET RMA 6&> CN46TH ,°3SN $; ; 1J.si.1 Tsw ,; w 9; IJTIII =PI S•N NORM EACH _: I,kil A �i fa7TN5w 4 T :'+ m $T 1 � $V1 ; ' T N 148Th „9T" - 1NTH 149TH NORMA BEACH RDVTIIL T N I I (ELM SOUND 1 FISHERI'IR�;t ; �; „ i ; n w sw ST 149TH P $w i� TH PL zl SW , «R w-- - ;K) ":__ '--- --- N150T1[=; 1515TSSW-r _ _.� 152ND ST i�..o 5w ,t PL Sw 0ST152N0ST Sw 3� >-i n >L SW57 P. --,.: a 157ROPLSw i RIiJR9 PLSA'3 54rK Q >> _ j .•:: I O fy+r.. x I N ISSTH STli I, 6TH ' 'T�r;_ W I S6TH TTV W1 THW J ip : J 1 TN T 7TH 1'.,<. MEADOWDALE` �; .' I ; 157TH ST 3 ► m = =v", 0AK AD, Q I .r.c•...:. I :. IO VIE DO LJKg ==h ; BfACN 3 yTrn PL Sw SW : H F- IIP.1RK -'"-"'xR57TH P SW d pp1SBTH 5T W1 1 TH PL Sw O I�=% x3is1T ai ax ° ° 99 ct I oL-s>T>� PROJECT �F6QT7T¢�K� `-;-- ---- ----- `"- ,,y' --- 4- LAE G70N a -a a p.._ a ,.. _ _ _ _ _ _ ARf ; i FgDo•,�,g LOCATION �"' $W..3� an I 4ELER§ RND\' « I ~ a 161ST PL svi C0 'R Z _ PARK b L K,7a =v w ,fin ri.Stltw I t 7RD PL SLY I I 3 RIDf 16.7R0' i h o* I r Sr a W SOD UN 1z $NAA07RAIL a j SW .... S7�rh 3 - - - -:BFTNe PL W f .............. S'w rr�< �90TH3 Ri 1 0 1915T PLi IPtNO �93RD PL 193R P IyaT T INN 'TI957 H c o ^ - < 197TH ST dTH_ 1 ST Sw I a 164TH ST SW i -- 1W PL I I h I XJMAFITHA ; LAKE RD. Mw co yyH KS I Q I 1 L -v I 1VE,Q I n 165TH PL i m 3 =ifidisw 3eEv'RLrYY ST - - SW P --' Swr. : 166TH L 51r68TH s" w A 168TH u l M $T 51 I ST SW MEADOWOALE i Pi S,v I 1 169TH3 ST _ �HS isiTN 1 TAPL-SW PLSw�313� t7oTHgST sw'Ooo 1 'I 72Nr $T $W I 1172ND 1< I Q ST Sw:¢ 172N P I `� P Q W " I Z R P 3 I ►L SW 17 R I. PL W y^ L w . 75TN ! 0 I v PL $wpip Z Q ° 175TH STz t7 r« T N Il � IJ Y ~ Z Z , ST S r Q� lNP 4zN 1)6TH STI 7 PL SW 176TH S W ,ST. -IS SW 3 LYE IT7TH P o. W � 178TH I ST W > a Sw 1 S' o I O + 1 �1Q 3>! I F Q 179TH 119 1T ST SW a Co.", F ruw 7 > a l , TN ; PL Sw' Q S '$ PL SW I I 3J.ST 18 ST P SW - rn w nP Sw IBOTH 3 PL SW �, ; g T PL W > I T •o J W LYNWOODI \ r<a I 96 01 81 t > P W MAQ 82N0 3 PI. jw Q v, y HSj I182ND Z f O T $Vy \ 7R r ! s 1 O a S : 83R0 PL �W - tz 184TH ST I 183RD PL SW ,wr« IIL PL IMRP ST SW F S W - _ > 104TH ST SW 184TH PL ..; Sy1F n SW ios 3 TM'� T Q x a1,;:RK .... 6 x 3 ffi x I STH p 186TH $w T I ZI lV 85TH, 3 PL 186TH i SW :,.: x •.: 18,5TH r s iaa « .1 W = ALDERW OD MAL ' F- BN L N' P x 3 - ien-$ -t3 aPL !L I .188TH-- 57SW,C�- LO V` > 188TH ST w 5 a PENNY LN 1 TN PL $w SW ; ,99TN T [ w > fS a < t99TN-Pl sw .PL .�7�31 TH ',Iq T ' �ni � r •. �r �; _[ n 9i"3 x 116TH Pl ALD W 1 13 3> +` 1915T lb- Y3 N'1•Pr',1•:---7P4 w+ TH v+ SW 1 TM K 191ST 191ST ST w I I A. MA Z! ST SW •-_: p,LE : WY dP C1915T I r ST SW STiS 192NO ST SW STD 192ND CH 19D nS w C 1 1911 i P p0 1 192NI ST '� .Z"j Sw PL 1 192ND ST w 192N0 PL SW ,1�1 ONVLiT� W PARK WY I TN ST Sw 1 SCRIBER a 1 /CAKE x 193 j H'S i PL W 3 T Q 1 4TH x PL r. SW L/B T 192NO Z SW G vOFP ,9z1/D PL 1 Sw n V S Po ¢ P P• x z;1 a l ` `�Q Fj till n Sw ' i f; �a 1%TN ST SW =3 z3 SW'�"" t z;l 196TH �� �3 S� , ,S• :° .;•:' :t SCRIBER fRfD , n a (FILBERT Ri S 4 F 2 2 0 1/4 1/2 1 Scale in Miles NOTE Map adapted from Thomas Bros. Maps, 1990 Edition. Solie Residence Edmonds, Washington VICINITY MAP January 1990 W-5319-01 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. I Geotechnical Consultants 1 L .1 1 1 1 LEGEND <3 Approx. Location TP-1 Test Pit Designation and Approximate Location - of Property Line Shannon and Wilson, December 1989 'sod B-1 ® Hand Boring Designation and Approximate Location - Shannon and Wilson, December 1989 Steep Downward Slope i Percussion Boring Designation and Approximate o„ Toward Northwest (Estimated PB-1 ® Location - Rittenhouse -Zeman and Associates, average slope angle about 350 Inc., January 1985 with horizontal, locally steeper) A 'v N� , Generalized Subsurface Profile c 4 Existing NOTES Driveway , 1. Site plan based on topographic survey ® PB-1 completed by Group Four, Inc., dated / 1-11-90, for Mr. Jim Solie. ' Access Easement PROPOSED ASPHALT _ a DRIVEWAY / TP4 ' �i rn i s oc° me R 0 15 30 Scale in Feet 2. The subsurface explorations performed by Shannon and Wilson were located by measuring from existing features. These locations should be considered approximate. 3. The approximate location of the subsurface exploration performed by Rittenhouse -Zeman and Associates was taken from the Site and Exploration Plan from their report titled Solie Residence Landslide, dated 2-6-85. l I uemecnnicai %.onsuaanis — ' 1 1 Ll SOIL DESCRIPTION LL m Porter Penetration Resistance t o s (40 lb. weight, 18" drop) Surface Elevation: Approx. 187 Feet M o 3 m 0 ♦ Blows per 6" 0 20 40 60 Loose, gray, clayey, silty, fine SAND; moist; 0 1 0 .........:.........:......... scattered gravels; (Fill) �' • 1.5 Medium dense, gray -brown, silty, fine SAND 2 2 - and stiff, gray -brown, sandy, clayey SILT; moist; disturbed appearance; (Slide Debris) o 3 4.5 Hard, gray and brown, sandy and clayey SILT 4 o..... c w . ... with clean, fine SAND interbeds; mottled appearance o 6 -... ......... _ .. 5 Z 7.5 ...... :73 i BOTTOM OF BORING g ` . ........ . _ ...... COMPLETED 12-14-89 LEGEND 0 20 40 60 • % Water Content I Porter split spoon sample Impervious seal ]� Thin -wall sample Water level Sample not recovered Piezometer tip P Sample pushed Solie Residence Atterberg limits: Edmonds Washington Liquid limit �- Natural water content LOG OF HAND BORING HB-1 Plastic limit January 1990 W-5319-01 The stratification lines represent the approx. boundaries SHANNON 3 WILSON, INC. between soil types, and the transition may be gradual. Geotechnical Consultants FIG. 3 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Geotechnical Consultants JOB NO: W-5319-01 DATE: 12-14-89 LOCATION: See Site Plan LOG OF TEST PIT TP-1 PROJECT: Solie Residence SOIL DESCRIPTION -0 m o 0 3 m m 3 o v a E (n � n 0 Sketch of SE Pit Side Surface Elevation: Approx. 183 Feet Horizontal Distance in Feet 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 ........ .... ... ......... ........ ..... .. ....... . 1O Very loose to loose, dark brown to n brown, fine sandy SILT and silty, fine SAND; scattered gravel; organics at 2 FIII .. ... . feet, minor iron -oxide staining, mottled appearance; (Fill) 2. ... ... .... ..... .... .. ................ . 0 Medium dense to dense, light brown, 0 J a� O fine sandy SILT; roots, disturbed Slide blocky appearance, moderately Debris weathered; (Slide Debris) ............ .. Q3 very dense to dense, gray -brown, 4 ......... .... _...... ......._... _...........: .................. ......... ................. slightly silty to silty, fine to medium SAND 3 v 3 0 ® very dense, brown, fine sandy SILT 6 and silty, fine SAND; interbedded o 0 z : 8 ... ... ... .... ...... ..... ... ... ......... .... .... . ............. .... .... ......... ......_........ ...... ...... . In ... ....... .... ............... ......... ... .................... ... ..... .... ... .... ... ......... .... ..........._............ ... ....... ..... .......... ........ .... .... .... ............ ::::: 210 200 190 LL o ; ' �J Existing CU Asphalt aa) w ' Drivewa, 180 PB-1 / (Proj. T S.W.) 170 r- ? 160 Existing Gravel Parking Area Stiff SILT and CLAY (Overridden Slide Debris) ? — —? Medium dense SAND grading to sandy SILT to silty SAND Very stiff SILT 12.3 NOTES 1. Topographic profile derived from topographic survey completed by Group Four, Inc., dated 1-11-90. 2. Subsurface profile is generalized from materials encountered in the borings and the test pit. Variations between this subsurface profile and actual conditions may exist. 3. Ground elevations based on datum assumed for topographic survey completed by Group Four, Inc., dated 1-11-90. 4. Subsurface exploration PBA was completed by Rittenhouse - Zeman and Associates, Inc. on 1-17-85. The log of PBA and the generalized subsurface profile found in their report, titled Solie Residence Landslide dated 2-6-85, were used in developing the generalized log shown above. k— —APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF PROPOSED GARAGE Very loose to loose clayey, silty, ' fine SAND (Fill) HB-1 (Prof. 8' S.W.) TP-1 (Proj. 8' N.E.) ? f ? El.177.0 Ft. Proposed ? 7.5 Top of Floor (Tentative) -J 8.0 Medium dense, silty, fine SAND and stiff, Hard, sandy and sandy, clayey SILT; clayey SILT and disturbed (Slide Debris) 6 dense, silty, fine to medium SAND Scale in Feet LEGEND Test Pit or Boring Designation TP-1 'and Approximate Location (Proj. 8' N.E.).__.Offset Distance ? ? Approximate Geologic Contact 8 0 —Total Depth of Boring or Test Pit 1200 190 Z ti c c 0 ca a� 180 w 170 160 Solie Residence Edmonds, Washington GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE PROFILE SECTION A -A February 1990 W-5319-01 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. FIG. JS Geotechnical consultants 1 7 L 1 1 1 1 FI I� �I LANDAU A ASSOCIATES, INC. eoenvirc^mental Engineering and Technologies --ADING J U L 9 1990 Ms. Jeannine L. Graf City of Edmonds 250 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW PROPOSED SOLIE GARAGE 1643174TH PLACE WEST EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Dear Ms. Graf: July 6, 1990 Per your request, we have reviewed the following documents concerning the above -noted project: 1) Sheets A-1 through A-5 of plans prepared by Michael W. Pederson (AIA), dated June 18, 1990; 2) a February 26,1990 Geotechnical Report, prepared by Shannon and Wilson, Inc.; and 3) structural calculations prepared by. Whitely, Jacobson and Associates, dated May 9,1990. The architect's declaration is shown on Sheet A-1 of the plans; no other declarations, covenants, etc. were included for Landau Associates' review. We are aware that extensive geotechnical investigations have been performed for the Solle residence and northwesterly -facing hillside below the residence. In addition, Landau Associates prepared a letter report for the subject garage in 1985; the findings of which are contained in a September 5,1985 letter to the Solies. The following comments are from our geotechnical review of documents pertaining to the proposed garage. The configuration of wall backfill shown on Details B-B and C-C of Sheet A-2 suggest that native soil can be used above the wall footings. Based on our experience, the excavation for the proposed retaining walls will need to extend past the limits of the footing approximately 1-2 feet. Therefore, it is, probable that the excavation face will appear differently than that shown on Sheet A-2. The volume of imported select fill may be substantially greater than that which could be calculated based on these two wall details. • Assuming approximate temporary slope angles identified within'the Shannon and Wilson report (0.5:1 within competent soil and 1.25:1 within slide debris or colluvium), we estimate that the cut for the retaining wall could extend about 20 feet into the neighboring property. Although this will be a temporary cut, the neighbor should be made aware of the potential magnitude of the excavation. If the area of the proposed cut is presently landscaped, the V0. IWX I024 • 1:DMONUS, %1'ASHINGT(1` 4RI1?II-Itl]4 • (21K,)774 40407 . VAX -'06$77K-hllh) Solies should be aware of the potential relandscaping expense. Temporary ' shoring may be needed to reduce this encroachment. • The retaining wall details presently show a 6-inch perforated drain resting atop the wall footings. It is suggested that this drain be placed at or slightly ' below footing subgrade elevation (as shown in the Shannon and Wilson Report). ' • As shown on Sheet A-1, both the footing and downspout drains discharge near the west end of the cantilevered retaining wall. We are assuming that it is intended to discharge these drains onto the surface of the driveway, which we also assume will be sloped to drain toward the existing catch basin located ' within the street right-of-way. However, Section C-C of Sheet A-2 shows the footing drain invert at an elevation approximately 6 inches below the top of the paved surfacing. If this drain is relocated to slightly below footing ' subgrade elevation, the differential will be approximately 2 feet. We suggest an alternate design whereby the drains are extended past the end of the retaining wall at or slightly below footing subgrade elevation, then extended to the existing catch basin via tightline under the driveway. The roof drain should be tightlined its entire length; the footing drain in a tight line from where it leaves the retaining wall. These two drain lines could be combined ' where they extend under the driveway. ' The items noted above will probably require input from Shannon and Wilson. It is recommended that Shannon and Wilson review the plans and specifications and provide a declaration that states their approval of the design. ' The geotechnical reports prepared by Shannon and Wilson satisfactorily addresses the key items of the Meadowdale site evaluation checklist. Similarly, the structural calculations by ' Whitely, Jacobson and Associates appear to contain the necessary information for construction of the garage, although we did not accomplish a structural review. It is our opinion that, with ' the exception of the owner's declaration and geotechnical engineer's review and declaration, sufficient documentation concerning geotechnical issues has been provided to meet the intent of Edmonds' City Ordinance No. 2661. Items such as a grading plan, tree -cutting plan, or drainage plan do not appear to be necessary for this project. 2 LANOM \SS0 ('1 \I I S. Inc Changes to the drawings and/or comments concerning the items noted above can probably be reviewed by the City Engineering Department; thus, additional review by this office may not be necessary. If you require additional review, please call. WDE/nJb No. 74-14.10 EX40NW\cRAJ%29 Xr Very truly yours, LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. By: 4 _ V William D. Evans, CPG Project Manager 3 I.A\I)AV ASSO CI:UYS. INC. W-5319-01 - SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Ozte1- ' Geotechnical Consultants 35 Years of Engineering and Applied Geosciences Excellence ' 400 North 34th Street, Suite 100 a P.O. Box C-30313 a S-attle, WA 08103 a (206) 632-8020 a Fax: (206) 547-6386 September 4, 1990 ' Mr. Jim Solie 16431 - 74th Place West Edmonds, WA 98020 ' RE: PROPOSED GARAGE Dear Mr. Solie: Michael W. Pederson forwarded a copy of a memorandum dated August 24, 1990 from Jim ' Walker, Hydraulics Engineer, City of Edmonds, regarding "Engineering Items To Be Completed Prior to SEPA Final Review for Solie Addition." ' The first onion of this memo addresses the drainage plan p g p a and. indicates that a detailed ' drainage study is required. Such a study, if necessary, probably would be performed by a hydrological/hydraulics engineer. ' The second portion of this memo refers to geotechnical aspects. The first question concerns the "risk of damage to the proposed development from the slope below the garage ' site." It is our opinion that the risk of damage to the garage is minimal from instability on the slope below the garage. The risk of damage to the driveway to the garage increases I progressively and becomes high at the edge of the top of slope. ' The second question concerns the risk of instability during construction of the garage. As with almost all temporary excavation slopes, the excavation slopes for the garage will involve an increased risk of instability during the period of construction. This increased risk ' depends upon the temporary excavation slope selected by the contractor but not steeper than 2V on 1H. The risk, in our opinion, does not extend beyond the Solie property line ' and does not involve adjoining properties. The temporary risk during construction vanishes ' Seattle a Everett a Fairbanks a Anchorage a St. Louis ' PRESIDENT: Earl A. Sibley. P.E. SR. VICE PRESIDENT: Atef A. Amm; Raymond P. Miller, P.E.; Harvey W. Parker, P.E.; George Yamane, P.E. VICE PRESIDENT: Merman M. (Tex) Drueber, P.E.: Richard H. Gates. P.E.; W. Paul Grant, P.E.; Leland S. Jones, P.E.; Thomas E. Kirkland, P.E.; Gerry Millar, R.G.,; Frank W. Pita, P.E., P.G.; Ming-Jiun (Jim) Wu, P.E. CONSULTANT: William L. Shannon, P.E. Mr. Jim Solie September 4, 1990 Page 2 W-5319-01 once the garage has been completed. Our report includes recommendations for time of year for construction and for drainage and shoring as may be necessary for stability. We can prepare more detailed recommendations for the excavated slope if these are needed. However, we suggest that a meeting with appropriate city personnel will be the best method to determine the scope of response that they desire. Please let us know if you have any questions.or if we may be of further assistance. Sincerely, SHANNON & WILSON, INC. L. S% z William L. Shannon, F.E.�o Consultant .�' C/sTER NAL WLS/jwc cc: . Michael W. Pederson, Architect W5319-01.LTR/WLS-lkd/jwc SHANNON &. WILSON, INC. 1 1 Sloped to Drain Away From Structure Pavement or 10" to 15" Impervious Soil Backf ill Meeting Gradation Requirements for Structural Fill (See Note 2) Excavation Slope' Contractors Responsibility 8" Min. Cover of Pea Gravel (6" Min. on Sides of Pipe) Subdrain Pipe MATERIALS Drainage Sand & Gravel with the Following Specifications: % Passing Sieve Size by Weight 1-1/2" 100 3/4" 90 to 100 1 /4" 75 to 100 No. 8 65 to 92 No. 30 20 to 65 No. 50 5 to 20 No. 100 0 to 2 (by wet sieving) (non -plastic) n. ImmM • Mu M.Mr 18' o ° Min. Exterior Wall Drainage Sand & Gravel or Washed Pea Gravel Damp Proofing Weep Holes Vapor "o (See Note 1) Bar'rier ' c Floor Slab o. •p °p'a — ° 'o •o °�0 0o a10 °°. e� 18"Min. o. 2" to 4" 4' minimum diameter perforated or slotted pipe; tight joints; sloped to drain (6'/100' min. slope); provide clean -outs. Perforated pipe holes (3/16" to 1/4' dia.) to be in lower half of the pipe with lower quarter segment unperforated for water flow. Slotted pipe to have 1/8' maximum width slots. Not to Scale Washed Pea Gravel NOTES 6' Min. 1. Drainage gravel beneath floor slab should be hydraulically connected to subdrain pipe. Use of 2" dia. weep holes as shown is one applicable method. 2. Structural fill should consist of well -graded granular soil with not more than 5% (by weight based on minus 3/4" portion) passing No. 200 sieve (by weight sieving) with no plastic fines. 3. Backfill within 18" of wall should be compacted with hand -operated equipment. Heavy equipment should not be used for backfill, as such equipment operated near the wall could increase lateral earth pressures and possibly damage the wall. 4. All backfill should be placed in layers not exceeding 4" loose thickness and densely compacted. Beneath paved or sidewalk areas, compact to at least 95% modified proctor maximum denshy.(ASTM: D1557-70, Method C). Otherwise compact to 92% minimum. Sloped to Drain Away From Structure Pavement or 10" to 15" Impervious Soil Backfill Meeting Gradation Requirements for Structural Fill (See Note 2) Excavation Slope Contractor's Responsibility 8" Min. Cover of Pea Gravel (6" Min. on Sides of Pipe) Subdrain Pipe MATERIALS Drainage Sand & Gravel with the Following Specifications: % Passing Sieve Size by Weight 1-1/2" 100 3/4" 90 to 100 1 /4" 75 to 100 No. 8 65 to 92 No. 30 20 to 65 No. 50 5 to 20 No. 100 0 to 2 (by wet sieving) (non -plastic) Exterior Wall Drainage. Sand & Gravel or Washed Pea Gravel Damp Proofing Weep Holes Vapor `a (See Note 1) Barrier o'o Floor Slab I 2" to 4" 4" minimum diameter perforated or slotted pipe; tight joints; sloped to drain (6"/100' min. slope); provide clean -outs. Perforated pipe holes (3/16" to 1/4" dia.) to be in lower haft of the pipe with lower quarter segment unperforated for water flow. i Slotted pipe to have 1/8" maximum width slots. Not to Scale o . Washed Pea Gravel NOTES 6" Min. 1. Drainage gravel beneath floor slab should be hydraulically connected to subdrain pipe. Use of 2" dia. weep holes as shown is one applicable method. 2. Structural fill should consist of well -graded granular soil with not more than 5% (by weight based on minus 3/4" portion) passing No. 200 sieve (by weight sieving) with no plastic fines. 3. Backfill within 18" of wall should be compacted with hand -operated equipment. Heavy equipment should not be used for backfill, as such equipment operated near the wall could increase lateral earth pressures and possibly damage the wall. 4. All backfill should be placed in layers not exceeding 4" loose thickness and densely compacted. Beneath paved or sidewalk areas, compact to at least 95% modified proctor maximum density (ASTM: D1557-70, Method C). Otherwise compact to 92% minimum. APPENDIX A GEOTECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS BY CITY OF EDMONDS W-5319-01 SHANNON & WILSON. INC. 1 ' W-5319-01 ' APPENDIX A GEOTECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS BY CITY OF EDMONDS. The main text to this report responds to the pertinent geotechnical ' requirements of the City of Edmonds, as outlined in the Meadowdale Site Evaluation Checklist and Geotechnical Report Guidelines. This appendix is included as correlation between the City's requirements/guidelines and the data presented in this report. We thus have included the following: ' * Meadowdale Site Evaluation Checklist Per ORD #2661 h 1 ( sheet, notations added) • Geotechnical Report Guidelines (2 sheets, includes notations ' correlating guidelines with report pages and figures) ' • Environmental Checklist (11 sheets, includes notations relating only to geotechnical aspects of project; other items to be added by Owner or Architect/Engineer) It is to be noted that our geotechnical report presents recommendations deemed ' appropriate for this project, whether or not they were indicated in the guidelines. Additionally, there are some items, such as existing and proposed ' utilities, where the Architect needs to show them on the plans. Upon reviewing the plans, we could then make any appropriate recommendations with ' respect to the geotechnical aspects related to those items. ' A Meadowdale Site Evaluation packet is Some of the documents from available from the City of Edmonds. that packet are included in this appendix. If you and/or your Architect/Engineer have not obtained such a packet, we recommend this be done so that those requirements that are beyond the geotechnical aspects can be accomplished appropriately. I 2-27-90/W5319-01.APA/SAS-lkd ' SHANNON & WILSON, INC. MEADOIYDALE SITE EVALUATION CHECKLIST PER ORD *266 1 - Permit Application/Plan Check Deposit $300 - Landslide Hazard Vicinity Map �- Owners Liability Statement ' 0 - Notice of Application Posted at Site F�- Environmental Checklist (Also addressed in Soils Report) F�- Topographical Map Prepared by a Licensed Land Surveyor ' 0 - Soils/Geotechnical Report a. Subsurface soil investigation b. Field investigation c. Analysis of soils characteristics Refer to Geotechnical d. e. Geologist review of geotechnical report (by William T. Laprade, C.E.G. of Environmental Checklist (attached) Shannon & Wilson) report of f. Exploration Logs ' 2/26/90 g. Laboratory test results h. Drainage plan(to be done by Architect for review by Shannon & Wilson) i. Preservation/Maintenance of Natural growth - Site Development Plan a. Grading plan 1 b. Tree cutting plan c. Plot plan ' - Drainage Plan a. Prepared and stamped by a licensed engineer ' - Structural drawings a. Prepared and stamped by a licensed structural engineer - Disclosures, Declarations, Covenants and Waivers a. Geotechnical declaration ' b. Architect/Structural Engineer declaration c. Applicant/Owner landslide acknowledgement declaration ' d. e. Covenant running with the land Hold Harmless agreement f. Bond posted with building division g. Contractor public liability insurance h. Owner public liability insurance i. Issuance date, permit number authorizing development j. Notice of permit issuance at site 5/20/88 1 ' )ort Page Figure I 1 PJ 1 GEOTECHNICAL REPORT GUIDELINES MINIMUM GUIDELINES FOR SITE INVESTIGATION, EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON STABILIZING MEASURES FOR THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT In addition to the normal building division submittal requirements, and to provide a basis for design by the owner's structural designer, a soils/geotechnical report is required and shall contain the following: )technical 1. The report shall be site specific based on the legal description of )ort the permit submittal. Test pits or borings shall be conducted.at the ?6/90 site and test data included in the soils/geotechnical report. A general discussion of the site, based on Roger Lowe Associates' report of October 16, 1979, without a specific site investigation, is not sufficient since soil conditions will vary considerably over fairly short distances. 3. 2 2. The soils/geotechnical report shall be based on a plot plan prepared 3es 1 & 2 prior to conducting the soils investigation. The plot.plan shall show :hitect the proposed structure located on the site.' Based on the plot plan, show which shall be included in the soils/geotechnical report, the report ilities shall contain a description of the proposed structure together with all existing and proposed utilities, floor grades and excavation levels. 3, 2 3. The soils/geotechnical report shall include a map showing the 3es 1-8 specific property and the locations of test borings or test pits and existing contour lines relative to the proposed structure. The discussion of the site shall include the existing surface and subsurface conditions, groundwater levels, and soil engineering characteristics; including geology, soil/bedrock, straitigraphy, and groundwater conditions. The report shall include an analysis of potential impacts on surrounding adjacent properties with respect to these items. Architect 4. The plans shall show existing Provide a detail of the proposed for the possible need of flexible structures. exible connections not needed, our opinion. P5 of 12 sewer and.drainage facilities. facilities, including recommendations connections at points of entry to the.. 12/05/89. J 11 iituPage Soils/Geotechnical Report Guidelines (Con't) re !s 5-8 5. The report shall contain the geotechnical engineer's opinions, conclusions, and recommendations on the present stability of the site; the stability during construction; and the stability after the proposed development is completed. Further: ?s 5-8 a. The geotechnical engineer's opinion should be stated in terms of percentage of risk at each of.the above stages of development and the potential of damage to abutting properties. The landslide history of - the area and the specific site should be discussed. !s 12-14 b..Recommendations for grading and earthwork, including procedures for compaction and type of fill material required, shall be included. The use of site soils for fill or backfill and shoring requirements during construction shall be addressed. ?s 8, 9 c. Recommendations shall be made fora suitable type of foundation, such as spread footings or piles, and the allowable capacities. Minimum and maximum dimensions of footings and other pertinent data, including the total and differential settlements, shall be provided. d. Recommendations for degree of stiffness or strength of the structural foundation are required. This could be provided in terms of the foundation spanning a given distance between any two support points or any other definitive criteria. ?s 10, 11, e. Recommendations for lateral earth pressures are required for design 12 of wall and/or piles if used, including the resistance of the structure to sliding, with recommended values for passive and active pressures and coefficients of friction. �s 12, 13, f. Recommendations for erosion control and other measures designed to 17 reduce the risk of slope instability are required. g. Recommendations shall include comments on the need, if any, for tying isolated footings together in two directions to provide additional resistance against displacement of individual footings. ached h. An environmental checklist must be prepared in conjunction with the geotechnical report. All aspects of the environmental checklist shall be addressed and answered in the geotechnical report. 13 i. Recommendations for the preservation and maintenance or replanting of natural vegetation at the site including trees and shrubs shall be addressed. j. Recommendations for the protection of adjacent public and private utilities through soil stabilization and other recommended measures. N/A = not applicable. P6 of .12 12/05/89 IJ 1 1 1 1 city of edmonds development information Environmental Checklist 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 purposes 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 project plans without the need to hire expert. 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. 1 Complete this checklist for nonproject 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 "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area." respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: 2. Name of applicant: 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 4. Date checklist prepared: 5. Agency requesting checklist: 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. 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.. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the 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. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) Refer to pages 1 and 2 of Geotechnical Report, dated 2/26/90. 1 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 the range or boundaries of the site(s). . Provide a 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. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth gpQeral description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly steep slopes, mountainous, other b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Approx. 85%. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Refer to pages 3 and 4 of Geotechnical Report d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Refer to pages 5 to 8 of Geotechnical Report e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Refer to pages 11 to 14 of Geotechnical Report. Architect to estimate quantitites. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, ' generally describe. Refer to pages 12 to 14 and 17 of Geotechnical Report 1 g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? ' To be estimated by Architect h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, ' if any: Refer to pages 12 to 14 and 17 of Geotechnical Report r- L 1 ' 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. ' b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. c..Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if ' any: 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. ' No 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. No ' 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. ' N/A = Not Applicable 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Refer to page 15 of Geotechnical Report ' 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No 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. ' No b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. ' Subdrains will be provided 1 I . 1 1 2) Describe waste material that will be 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. N/A 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. Refer to page 15 of Geotechnical Report 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. N/A d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoffwater impacts, if any: Refer to page 15 of Geotechnical.Report 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: _ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other _ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs _ grass pasture _ crop.or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other _ water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other _ other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: 1 ' S. Animals ' a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: ............................. ' mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: ................................. fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: ' 6. Energy and Natural Resources 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 be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. ' b. Would your project affect the potential use of. solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. ' c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any. ' 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. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: b. Noise ' 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. 1 ' 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: ' B. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Describe structures the c. any on site. ' d. Will an structures be demolished? f what? y I so, t e. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" ' area? If so, specify. ' i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? ' j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? ' k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: ' 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. ' b. high, Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether middle, or low-income housing. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: V 1 ' 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: 12. Recreation ' a..What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: 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. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. Ic. Proposed measures to reduce.or control impacts, if any: ' 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. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate ' distance to the nearest transit stop? c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the ' project eliminate? 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). ' e. Will the project use (or occur in.the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: 15. Public Services ' a: Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. ' b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. 16. Utilities ' a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone. sanitary sewer, septic system, other. ' 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. 1 1 1 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. Signature: .............................................................. DateSubmitted: ........................................................ D. Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions (Rezones, Code Changes, Annexations, etc.) -- 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 be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: 4. How would the proposal be 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, floodplains, or prime farmlands? Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: 1. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local:, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. ENVCHK3/PFORN6 1 W-5319-02 1 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. over - Geotechnical Consultants 35 Years of Engineering and Applied Geosciences Excellence 400 North 34th Street, Suite 100 • P.O. Box C-30313 • Seattle, WA 98103 • (206) 632-8020 • Fax: (206) 547-0386 IDecember 7, 1990 1 11 F1 IRF.Qi.- IV 1=D JAN Mr. Jim Solie 16431 - 74th Place West PERMIT COUNTER Edmonds, Washington 98020 RE: RESPONSE TO CITY OF EDMONDS CONEVIENTS REGARDING GEOTECIiNICAL ASPECTS OF PROPOSED GARAGE Dear Mr. ' Solie: This letter responds to comments and concerns expressed by representatives of the City. of Edmonds in the meeting held in their office on November 5, 1990. With respect to the proposed garage at 16437 - 74th Place West, Edmonds, we were requested to address several issues primarily involving stability. This was .to include responding to the memorandum to Dick Mumma by Jim Walker, Edmonds Hydraulics Engineer, and also responding to Landau's letter dated July 6, 1990. A copy of both documents is attached to this current letter for reference. Walker Memorandum 1 Shannon & Wilson's letter to you dated September 4, 1990 (copy attached), prepared by William L. Shannon, Consultant, responds to a number of the items raised in Mr. Walker's 1 11 memorandum. Based upon a telephone conversation with Mr. Walker on November.6, 1990, those items he would like further clarification of are addressed in the following paragraphs. On page 12 of our Geotechnical Report, dated February 26, 1990, the next to the last paragraph states, "Slope protection consisting of a plastic covering or similar protective measures should be employed as appropriate during construction in order to reduce the erosional effects of rain. on the exposed slopes." Mr. Walker's concern related to control of the runoff from the plastic. In this regard, we recommend that the runoff from the plastic be directed to drain to a suitable discharge location, such as a storm drain system. Water must not discharge into or onto the steep, downhill slope located to the northwest. Seattle • Everett • Fairbanks • Anchorage • St. Louis PRESIDENT: Earl A. Sibley, P.E. SR: VICE PRESIDENT: Atef A. Azzam; Raymond P. Miller, P.E.; Harvey W. Parker, P.E.; George Yamane, P.E. VICE PRESIDENT: Herman H. (Tex) Druebert, P.E.: Richard H- Gates, P.E.; W- Paul Grant. P.E.; Leland B. Jones, P.E.; Thomas E. Kirkland, P.E.; Gerry Millar, R G ,; Frank W Pita, P E , P G ; Ming-Jiun (Jim) Wu, P.E. CONSULTANT: William L. Shannon, P.E. 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 Mr. Jim Solie December 7, 1990 Page 2 W-5319-02 Also on page 12 of the Geotechnical Report, the last paragraph states, "In addition, the Contractor should be made responsible for the control of any ground or surface water, wherever encountered on the project. In this regard, sloping, slope protection, ditching, sumps, dewatering, and other measures should be employed as necessary to permit proper completion of the work." Mr. Walker's concern related to an engineering evaluation of methods which may be used by the Contractor. In this regard, we recommend that the Geotechnical Engineer be notified immediately if groundwater is encountered on the project, so. that the Contractor's proposed control methods can be evaluated for suitability. The Geotechnical Engineer should provide recommendations as may be appropriate. In our Geotechnical Report, page 18, we recommended that we be retained as the Geotechnical Engineer to not only review the plans and specifications, but also to monitor construction. We, then, would provide the evaluations and recommendations described above. We understand from Mr. Walker that the other concerns he had were answered in our letter of September 4, 1990. Landau Report The first comment based upon Landau's geotechnical review relates to the configuration of wall backfill shown on Details B-B and C-C of Sheet A-2 of the plans prepared by Michael W. Pederson (AIA), dated June 18, 1990. Landau states that, "The configuration of wall backfill ... suggest(s) that native soil can be used above the wall footings." In this regard, we provide the following clarifications and recommendations to be added to the plans. As stated on Page 13, 4th paragraph of our Geotechnical Report of February 26, 1990, "On -site soils should not be used as wall backfill, except for an impervious soil cover at the top of the backfill zone, as shown on Figure 6. " Thus, native soil is not to be used above the wall footings.. On Details B-B and C-C, the excavation face should be shown to be located at or beyond the back of the footing. All backfilling behind and above retaining walls and their footings should be Drainage Sand and Gravel and/or Washed Pea Gravel, and Structural Fill, as indicated on Figure 6 (copy attached) from the Geotechnical Report. The second comment in the Landau review letter relates to the situation where the temporary excavation for the proposed retaining wall(s) could extend about 20 feet into the neighboring property. Based upon currently available soils information and the proposed wall locations, as indicated by the June 18, 1990 plan sheets A-1 through A-5, we also conclude that the temporary excavation could extend into the neighboring property. Using the temporary slopes given in our 1 SHANNON & WILSON. INC. Mr. Jim Solie December 71 1990 Page 3 W-5319-02 Geotechnical Report, i.e., 0.5 Horizontal to 1 Vertical (0.5H to 1V) in the hard/dense native soils, and 1.25H to 1 V in the overlying fill and slide debris, the excavation may extend as much as an estimated 10 or 15 feet beyond the Solie property and access easement. Permission for this should be obtained from the neighbor, and the resulting backfill of the excavation should be compacted and protected from erosion, such as by providing a deep-rooted, vegetative cover. The next comment relates to the location of the perforated drain to be installed behind the walls. The retaining wall details, Details B-B and C-C, presently show a 6-inch perforated drain on top of the footing. Landau suggested that this drain be placed at or slightly below the footing subgrade as shown on Figure 6 of our Geotechnical Report. In our opinion, this drain can either be placed as suggested by Landau, or it can be placed above the footing. However, for either case, the invert of the pipe should be located at least 18 inches below the adjacent floor slab or paving grade. The fourth and last comment involves the discharge lines for the footing and downspout drains. Since the. footing subdrain is to be located below the adjacent slab and pavement grades, Landau suggests an alternate design of extending the subdrain past the south end of the wall by means of a tight line to discharge into the existing catch basin. They also suggest that the downspout line be tightlined its entire length to discharge into the catch basin. We concur with these suggestions and we so recommend. As stated in our Geotechnical Report, second paragraph on page 15, "Where a perforated or slotted drain pipe discharges into a tightline, we recommend that an impervious collar of concrete be constructed along the first foot of the tight drain pipe in such a manner to force all water into the tight drain lines." Thus, this impervious dam should be constructed immediately beyond the south end of the retaining wall. The Landau review letter also suggests that the footing and downspout drains could be combined into one line where they extend under the driveway. To avoid the possibility of downspout water backing up into the subdrain system, we recommend that the two lines not be combined. City Comments In Meeting In the November 5, 1990 meeting, additional questions or concerns were raised by representatives of the City of Edmonds. The following responses are thereby presented. With respect to the downhill slope to the northwest of the existing driveway, we recommend that this. slope not be disturbed by construction activities. The vegetation must not be disturbed and excavated soils and/or debris must not be placed on the downhill slope. SHANNON & WILSON. INC. Mr. Jim Solie - W-5319 02 December 7, 1990 ' Page 4 With respect to the. concern involving the risk of instability during garage construction, we present the following response to supplement that provided in our. September 4, 1990 letter to you. In the September 4th letter, we stated that the temporary excavation slope selected by the Contractor should not be made steeper than 2V on 1H (same as 0.5H to 1V given in the Geotechnical Report). This is our recommendation as the steepest slope to be excavated in the hard/dense native soils. In the overlying fill and slide debris, we recommend the slope selected by the Contractor not be steeper than 1.25 Horizontal to 1 Vertical (1.25H to 1V). ' In our Geotechnical Report, page 18 we recommended that we monitor cons truction. This would include evaluating site excavations and making recommendations as may be needed for stability. If our report and monitoring recommendations are followed, and if day-to-day, good construction practices are used by the Contractor, it is unlikely, in our opinion, that instability ' will occur during construction. Once the garage has been completed, the small temporary risk present during construction vanishes. Concluding Remarks ' We still recommend that we review the plans and specifications, which we assume will be updated, to determine if they are consistent with our report recommendations and those included ' in this letter. At that time, we will prepare a statement, which we understand is required by the City of Edmonds, indicating our opinion regarding conformance with our recommendations. ' We trust that this letter has satisfactorily responded to the concerns expressed by the City of Edmonds. Please let us know if any additional information is needed. ' Sincerely, r 1 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Thomas E. Kirkland, P.E. ' Vice President ' SHANNON & WILSON. INC. Mr. Jim Solie December 7, 1990 Page. 5 Reviewed by: PM �. sy 01 WAS,. q22 CO C .A.A0M off_ -a /-7 AL �N�\ William L. Shannon, P.E. Staff Consultant TEK:WLS/jnd Enclosures: Memorandum from Jim Walker, August 24, 1990 Landau Associates, Inc. letter of July 6, 1990 Shannon & Wilson letter dated September 4, 1990 Figure 6 from Geotechnical Report cc: Michael W. Pederson, Architect W5319-02.RFSrrM1kd/jnd W-5319-02 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. ' MEMORANDUM August 24, 1990 ' TO: Dick Mumma, Building Official FROM: Jim Walker, Hydraulics Enginee Q VIA: Bob Alberts, City Engineer JA- SUBJECT: ENGINEERING ITEMS TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO SEPA FINAL REVIEW FOR SOLIE ADDITION ' The drainage plan "Site Plan Sheet A-1" for the Solie garage at 16431 - 74th P1. W. was reviewed. A more detailed drainage plan must ' be submitted. A. Topographic Map. A topographic.map drawn to scale showing the site, and all drainage areas from which water flows onto the site, t with a calculation of the acreage of the drainage areas. The site shall be shown in detail, and grading and clearing plans shall be ' included. B. Proposed Drainage System. Plans drawn to scale showing the improvements or other methods of handling the runoff in accordance ' with the requirements of Section 18.30.040. C. Calculations. Calculations used to size the proposed drainage system, indicating the existing and proposed peak flow and amount ' of water entering and leaving the site. Calculations of proposed conditions shall be shown for each major onsite facility affecting ' flow rates. D. Erosion Control. Measures proposed to control erosion, or other pollution of offsite property and surface water, both temporarily ' during construction and permanently after construction. The geotechnical engineer shall monitor during construction compliance ' with the recommendations in.the geotechnical report. The specific recommendations contained in the soils report must be implemented by the owner. The statement, "we recommend that the stability of excavation slopes be made the responsibility of the contractor, as he will be most familiar with conditions exposed in the excavation and will be at the site on a full-time basis to observe and control the work" on page 12 of the geotechnical report does not fulfill the code requirement. The geotechnical report shall make specific recommendations concerning development of the site. In this regard, sloping, slope protection, ditching, sumps, dewatering, and other measures should be employed as directed by the geotechnical engineer to permit proper completion of the work. Specific recommendations to maintain stability must be clearly stated. 1 Memo to Dick Mumma August 23, 1990 -- Page 2 The slope below the proposed garage was not studied, "Not included in this study are the stability of the residence and the steep declivity below the residence and existing driveway." However, it is relevant as stated on page 7 of the report, "Should additional instability occur on the steep slope below the existing driveway, immediate remedial measures should be taken to prevent encroachment upon the garage site." Please address the risk of damage to the proposed development from the slope below the garage site. Increase instability during construction, as noted on page 7, "During garage. construction, the risk of instability on the site will increase, due to the excavation required to construct the garage." is cause for permit denial per Code, Section 19.05.080. Again, specific recommendation to maintain stability must be clearly stated. A permit will be denied if it is determined by the Director that the development will increase the potential of soil movement, result in an unacceptable risk of damage to adjacent properties or an unreasonable risk of damage to the proposed development. JW/sdt SOLIE/TXTST530 SCALE: 1/16" = T 0" -n all-ru RG,btL_ c;a-iG-pL.AL_g- 00 CLEA U T spu 0 4-0 PVC, 6` DIA. DRAIN 97.0' F bl. uil NEW STAII or MEADOWDALE LAEBUGTEN WHARF PROJECT SITE4 DNS VICINITY MAP N.T.S. ST 172ND S . S.W. CLEANOUTS ' cizusHED sueF­ArE3ASE CC:XA2_'-3E EX. YARD DRAIN ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE NOTES NEW GARAGE TOP 186.48 FF=l 76.2 INV. 183.4 (61 1. ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY OF EDMONDS STANDARDS AND'� _1 j36 SPECIFICATIONS AND WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1688 STANDARD DRAIN EXISTING ROCKERY OrWolf"Al 0A%l=Rfi=MT 4_qf=P_Tlf)fkt SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROAD, BRIDGE, AND MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION. 6" DIA. DRAIN (PV.C.) 2. ALL WORK WITHIN THE SITE'AND CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE INSPECTION OF THE CITY ENGINEER OR HIS DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE. NEW AREA DRAIN NO SCALE NEW ROCKERY T 0 P 181.5 AMR— I (o 9. 00 3. LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UTILITIES ARE APPROXIMATE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE INV 177.0 FOR VERIFYING THE LOCATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. UTILITIES SHOWN HERE ARE FOR w/FZAMF_ 4,: GrzATE� XX THE PURPOSE OF ASSISTING THE CONTRACTOR IN LOCATING SAID UTILITIES. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT OWOETEI NEW CLEANOUT UNDERGROUND UTILITIES LOCATION CENTER (1=800=424-5555) 48 HOURS PRIOR TO BEGINNING.OF CONSTRUCTION AND OBTAIN ON*SITE UTILITIES LOCATIONS. -PERMANENT DEEP-ROOTED VEGETATIVE�....... :Zl Lr-30"GMIRO 1.00�, C COVER 4. THE TEMPORARY EROSION/SEDIMENTATION CONTROL FACILITY SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED 194 PER GEOTECH REPORT. PRIOR TO ANY NY GRADING OR EXTENSIVE LAND CLEARING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED TEMPORARY EROSION/SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLAN. THESE FACILITIES MUST BE SATISFACTORILY MAINTAINED, TO 4" DIA. PERF. DRAIN (PV.C.) EW INSURE SEDIMENT LADEN WATER DOES NOT ENTER THE NATURAL DRAINAGE SYSTEM, UNTIL CONSTRUCTION XPV� AND LANDSCAPING IS COMPLETED AND THE POTENTIAL FOR ON -SITE EROSION HAS PASSED. TBM: SSMH o22 NEW AREA DRAIN �rlf= JOTE!.: 4" PVC_ OOEE� WOT TOP 167.10 TOP 177.0 5. ALL PIPE SHALL BE PLACED ON STABLE EARTH. IF, IN THE OPINION OF THE CITY ENGINEER THE EXISTING lkl TO AP -MA FOUNDATION IS UNSATISFACTORY, THEN IT SHALL BE EXCAVATED BELOW GRADE AND BACKIFILLED IN INV. 157.60 INV 172.5 N") \C� 6441 he 1/0 171fl)�'t ACCORDANCE WITH STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. PIPE SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED ON SOD, FROZEN EARTH, ss OR LARGE BOULDERS OR ROCK, dl DATUM: CITY OF EDMO IXe (21 6. BACKFILL SHALL BE PLACED EQUALLY ON BOTH SIDES OF THE PIPE OR PIPE -ARCH IN LAYERS WITH A LOOSE END PERF. PIPE AT END OF RETAINING WALL AVERAGE'DEPTH, 6", MAXIMUM DEPTH 8% COMPACTED TO A SPECIFIED T-q� DENSIT O= 90% USE SMOOTH WALL PIPE FROM THAT POINT /xe_ a THESE COMP ACTEDOF LAYERS MUST EXTEND FOR ONE DIAMETER ON EACH SIDE OF THEAASHTO PIPE OR TO THE SIDE wl IkI THE TRENCH. MATERIALS TO COMPLETE THE FILL OVER PIPE SHALL BE THE SAME AS DESCRIBED. (REFER EX. CB TO EXISTING CB. CONSTRUCT 2.0' DIA. IMPERVIOUS 0 COLLAR ALONG FIRST IA' OF SMOOTH WALL PIPE TO WSDOT STD. SPEC. 7-04.3(3) AND STD,SPEC,2-03.3(14)C, METKOD B&C.) TOP 166 07,� y INV. 164.62 (61 ^ AFTER PERFORATED PIPE. 7. BACKFILL TRENCH OF NEW UTILITIES SHALL BE COMPACT TO 95% RELATIVE COMPACTION UNDER ROADWAYS AND 90% RELATIVE COMPACTION OFF ROADWAYS, AS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 2-03.3(14)D AND SECTION 2- NEW ROCKERY OFFISE'r FRAME GRATE SO 03.3(14)E. IQ REST R ICTOR /POLLUTION DEVICE VISIBLE. AT EDGE OF OPENING TD B� c9la) EXISTING 8. ALL STRUCTURAL FILLS SHALL BE COMPACTED TO A MINIMUM OF 95% OF MAXIMUM DENSITY BY MODIFIED ro -Rol- �ITF?LACTLA Rp-, W/ AND DIRECTLY OVER LADDER TOP 169.-5-0 PROCTOR TEST. ROCKERIESClowT IWC TO REMAIN 50L) D LOCK LItD 4-",!� G" IWLF-T PIPF- IWTO WF-:!\N T 9. hLL GRATES (INLET AND CATCH BASIN) SHALL BE DEPRESSED 0.1 FEET BELOW PAVEMENT LEVEL, THE ISTING POWER CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ADJUSTING ALL MANHOLE, INLET, AND CATCH BASIN FRAMES GRATES JUST PRIOR TO POURING OF CRUBS AND PAVING. V LT MESAND -17% f4l" Lj::- G" PIA SCHEP 40 Pvc_42 -V 10. ALL CATCH BASINS WITH A DEPTH OVER 5.0 FEET TO THE FLOW LINE SHALL BE ATYPE 11 CB (MANHOLE). 11. ALL TYPE 11 CATCH BASIN MANHOLES AND ALL INLET AND CATCH BASINS OUTSIDE OF PUBIC RIGHT-OF-WAY eTypp- L) SHALL HAVE LOCKING LIDS. OF /67 So I W!5-rA L-L 4�'PVC. OVF_I�_2 -roP OF5011 CIVIP \va LADDER STEPS SHALL BE PROVIDED IN ALL CATCH BASINS MANHOLES EXCEEDING 4 FEET IN I Kjv- 16,co-oo STD GALV STL wo IKl6-rAl_L_ VEt?-TICAt- OF -WO P0WWS-rP_EAM STEr)s 8 LADDER 12. STANDARD -rO DEPTH. OF Cr-OSS I t-J!64 Pvc N TO r__xI5_rI"G CP--;k• 13. PRIOR TO SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION, CONSTRUCT THE LOT DRAINAGE AND STUB OUTS AND/OR BEHIND ..... . SIDEWALK DRAINS AS REQUIRED. STUB OUTS SHALL BE MARKED WITH A 2" X 4" AND LABELED "STORM". t5lv LOCATIONS OFTHESE INSTALLATIO, tS SHALL BE PLACED ON THE AS -BUILT CONSTRUCTION PLANS SUBMITTED 170 TO THE CITY. am` c b 12" 01A. 'STAND PIPE V < 14, ALL EARTHWORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY STANDARDS AND PRECONSTRucTION SOILS INVESTIGATION, (COMPLETED BY SHANNON aWILSON 2/25/90 a 12/7/90) < 15. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SUCH AS RETENTION FACILITIES, ROADWAY BACKSLOPES, ETC. SHALL BE SEEDED WITH A644�.6y A PERENNIAL GROUND COVER GRASS TO MINIMIZE EROSION. GRASS SEEDING WILL BE DONE USING AS APPROVED HYDROSEEDtR OR AS OTHERWISE APPRO VED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS. RETAINING WALL NOTE: PLAN 16. STOCKPILES ARE TO BE LOCATED IN SAFE AREAS . APPROVED BY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER AND ADEQUATELY PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS. PROTECTED BYTEMPORARY SEEDING AND MULCHING. HYDRO -SEED PREFERRED. l-19_v,/ V' LkCP_R AC -,PH I _LP_W 0ASC_ e-i iK frA/'_9_ f;�Uw c IF nV�� 2" ASPHALT 6"DIA.PIPE GEO-LINE 135976 .18 of (MIN) ,FREE DRAINING MATERIAL BEYOND. 2!$Q.x I'LONG CONCRETE COLLAR AFTER PERE PIPE ENDS. 4"DiA. PIPE,0.5%MIN. SLOPE NEW IRCXKiERY- 1) 2) 3) FOOTING DRAIN AND DOWNSPOUT DRAIN SHALL BE SEPARATE LINES. NEW CONCRETE RETAINING WALL SHALL BE ANALYZED AND DETAILED BY PROFESSIONAL STRUCTURAL ENGINEER. PLACE 6" RAISED ASPHALT CURB AT NORTH EDGE OF EXISTING d Coll our. ..... (; `a G" PVC-f INIV. IG5.90 I WV Iro 4. 29' NOTES 17. IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING FINISH GRADING, PERMANENT VEGETATION (CONSISTING OF RAPID, PERSISTENT AND LEGUME) WILL BE APPLIED. (MINIMUM 80# PER ACRE). THIS IS TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING: 20% ANNUAL, PERENNIAL OR HYBRID RYE GRASS 40% CREEPING RED FESCUE 40% WHITE CLOVER HYDRO -SEED PREFERRED. DRIVEWAY TO CHANNEL STORMWATER RUNOFF INTO EXISTING WA T E R T I G 14 T,,E)HrzAR 18. PREPARATION OF SURFACE: ALL AREAS TO BE SEEDED SHALL BE CULTIVATED TO-THE,SATISFACTION OF THE CATCH BASIN: GA,rE ASSY c\j z ALL METAL PARTS a SURFACES TO BE GALVANIZED OR OF CORROS ION ' RESISTANT INSPECTOR. THIS MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED BY DISCING, RAKING, HARROWING OR OTHER MATERIAL. COMPLETE CORROSION PROTECTION ACCEPTABLE MEANS. FERTILIZER: SHALL BE APPLIED AT 400# PER ACRE OF 10-20-20 (10# PER 1100 SO.FT.) 4) EASEMENT AGREEMENT REQUIRED WITH NEIGHBOR PRIOR TO SHALL BE ASSURED. OR EQUIVALENT, GRADING OFFSITE PROPERTY. RESTRICTOR PLATE RESTRICTOR ORIFICE TO BE SHARP EDGED, f9� DRAIN LINES SHALL BE AIR TESTED AS CITY OF EDMONDS REQUIREMENTS. 5' CONTRACTOR TO POTHOLE UTILITY CROSSINGS AND W/ ORIFICE - SHOP DRILLED. RELOCATE,UTILITIES PRIORTOPLACING DRAINAGE yP -4 IMPROVEMENTS. Ag ITP f 6) INSTALL 21' OF 30" DIA. CMP PIPE DETENTION 4 7) R.O.W. PERMIT REQUIRED TO WORK IN CITY OF ELEVATION EDMONDS RIGHT-OF-WAY. ....... .... %..rl BAOIN -ffu 1 'DETNAM10 m SCALE: 1" = 2' Z, .3 J Z MONO Cc 05 Z cc rk. �3 SHEET NO.: 1 OF 2 tj �j JOB NO.: I GEO•IINE 135976 APPROVEO AS NOTEO fool al4. SCALE-: 1/16" = T O" A/DT£: ncH _ 4o F'VG 1 9-: W 2" LA`(P.R A Si H U./Ed< �XI�Tyc' NE.V� gAsE GOI.a Rom.. t�t� P�,I-i I T1✓GTu i�AL. �'cr� 57 2\ NEW e-;,U9FAGE RUNOFF CIYT=-) CB03 (TYPE U) 4.61 T'bP 16 9. ©O INv 1G5.od w/FRAME• 4, C12A-rE 21 LF-30"GMI00 1.00%,- 97.0' OI uil Cp O to 0 710" GLASS 95 ASPHALT -y``z 11 ceUSHED 5Ut2FAGI tJG TOP G002.SF x,lIex'ylwt DATUM: CITY OF EDMO Aw 134/ ',60U1° 4 'r ,J SEND PERF. PIPE AT END OF RETAINING WALL �� l/ 0/ �� �t �1141 / USE SMOOTH WALL PIPE FROM THAT POINT /'n�j EX. CB = + TO EXISTING CB. CONSTRUCT 2.0' DIA. IMPERVIOUS zfmil/,✓ SO/4 TOP 166.07 r; =+' COLLAR ALONG FIRST 1.0' OF SMOOTH WALL PIPE INV. 164.62 (6") I AFTER PERFORATED PIPE. NEW ROCKERY OFFSE"f FRAME a GRATE SO ti JUST GB TOP TD GFf. f ' EXISTING C ��N� �'"��� IEST S BL FT�T/EDGE OFOOPEN NGE OJ LAI�W A C�-IAL.T c�t�At7� rO `�': ROCKERIES COWT-ROL 47TF?LAcrL4RE,W/ - -AND DIRECTLY OVER LADDER TOP >69,s0 GOM�31tJ� 4" �o" IWLET �'i�' rl 1 \0 REMAIN SOL)D LOCIGILIC� LIED plpE IIJTO NEW KI�IOGKoUT �'�, z� ISTING POWER V LT 22 [-I= - G" DIA : -_HED � pvG42 0-7 /0 11 � IN5`rAL-L 4' IrlVG OVER -roP OF 3011 GMp \6e 'Top, IG9.00 II`tS"t'ALL VEe-rICAL. OF-1,ED 00VJMST2EAM \ INV IGG-00 OF CleOSSIPJ64 -TO CUIJTtWUE. SLOP i,IMTO t=XISTIt,4U C13Iof. SLI=^�co" pVG @ 2.00% 170 2"ASPHALT 6" DIA. PI PE "M NEW rt 4 i , • • • �� k� ip " �9`CrJ� , • .0 RETAINING WALL PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS. .ice - 18" o '(MIN) FREE DRAINING MATERIAL BEYOND. 2' SQ X I't.DNG CONCRETE COLLAR AFTER PERF PIPE ENDS. ' 4'bIA. PIPE, 0.M M IN. SLOPE DETAIL. .( N.T.S. NOTE: E: MEADOWDALE H ST . S.W. Al < E D M O D S z O 'G fn VICINITY MAP N.T.S. CLEANOUTSr/ GIZUSHED SUIZFAGIIJGz t3ASE GG:>0t2St= EX, YARD DRAIN ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE OTE' S - TOP 186.48 9�% GDMpAGZ'>✓I7 SUNG-z12AD� .1. ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITYOF EDMONDS STANDARDS AND INV. 183.4 I61 1g6 SPECIFICATIONS AND WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1988 STANDARD SECTION SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROAD, BRIDGE; AND MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION. ' ( EXISTING ROCKERY ������� PAVEMENT �+2. ALL WORK WITHIN THE SITE AND CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL BE - 6" DIA. DRAIN (PV.C.) NO SCALE SUBJECT TO THE INSPECTION OF THE CITY NEW AREA DRAIN ENGINEER OR HIS DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE. NEW ROCKERY T 0 P 181.5 I77.O 3. LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UTILITIES ARE APPROXIMATE, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR - INV VERIFYING THE LOCATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. UTILITIES SHOWN HERE ARE FOR THE PURPOSE OFASSISTING THE CONTRACTOR IN LOCATING SAID UTILITIES. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT 186 NEW CLEANOUT CONSTRUCTION AND OBTAIN O LOCATION CENTER (1=800=424-5555) 48 HOURS PRIOR TO BEGINNING .OF _ - ES LOCATIONS. PERMANENT DEEP-ROOTED VEGETATIVE COVER PER GEOTECH REPORT. 4 THE TEMPORARY EROSION SEDI gti 96 DIA. PERF. DRAIN ( PVC.) NEW AREA DRAIN (-NOTE.: 4" PVC DOES NOT TOP 177.0 TIE IQ TO AREA DI2AIt�l.'. INV 172.5 ((o") 1) FOOTING DRAIN AND DOWNSPOUT DRAIN SHALL BE SEPARATE LINES. 2) NEW CONCRETE RETAINING WALL SHALL BE ANALYZED AND DETAILED BY A PROFESSIONAL STRUCTURAL ENGINEER. 3) PLACE 6" RAISED ASPHALT CURB AT NORTH EDGE OF EXISTING DRIVEWAY TO CHANNEL STORMWATER RUNOFF INTO EXISTING CATCH BASIN. 4) EASEMENT AGREEMENT REQUIRED WITH NEIGHBOR PRIOR TO GRADING OFFSITE PROPERTY. ,rC5) CONTRACTOR TO POTHOLE UTILITY CROSSINGS AND ) r RELOCATE UTILITIES PRIOR TO PLACING DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS. 6) INSTALL 21' OF 30" DIA. CMP PIPE DETENTION SYSTEM AS SHOWN. 7) R.O.W. PERMIT REQUIRED TO WORK IN CITY OF EDMONDS RIGHT-OF-WAY. 0 ti A' OF 167. SO STD GALV STL STEPS 8 LADDER 12" DIA. 5TA ICI D p I pf: ' b D � pvc I Ny. 145.90 •� _�_ �`°''`�..� _ ,,,our •�.� ,.�,�..... � _... ._.rw INVIG4.79 •,D � Sall t tit WATERT►GHT bHEAR GA'rF, ASSY N -'-"_ g RESTRICTOR PLATE--- W/ ORIFICE - 314 u Z A N D • ELEVATION 1, ,•, I 1. SCALE: 1" - 2' PLAN / MENTATION CONTROL FACILITY SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED FRIOR TO ANY GRADING OR EXTENSIVE LAND CLEARING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED TEMPORARY EROSION/SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLAN, THESE FACILITIES MUST BE SATISFACTORILY MAINTAINED, TO INSURE SEDIMENT -LADEN WATER DOES NOT ENTER THE NATURAL DRAINAGE SYSTEM, UNTIL CONSTRUCTION AND LANDSCAPING IS COMPLETED AND THE POTENTIAL FOR ON -SITE EROSION HAS PASSED, 5. ALL PIPE SHALL BE PLACED ON STABLE EARTH. IF, IN THE OPINION OF THE CITY ENGINEER THE EXISTING FOUNDATION IS UNSATISFACTORY, THEN IT SHALL BE EXCAVATED BELOW GRADE AND BACKFILLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. PIPE SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED ON SOD, FROZEN EARTH, OR LARGE BOULDERS OR ROCK. 6. BACKFILL SHALL BE PLACED EQUALLY ON BOTH SIDES OF THE PIPE OR PIPE -ARCH IN LAYERS WITH A LOOSE AVERAGE DEPTH OF 6", MAXIMUM DEPTH 8", COMPACTED TO A SPECIFIED AASHTO T-99 DENSITY OF 90%. THESE COMPACTED LAYERS MUST EXTEND FOR ONE DIAMETER ON EACH SIDE OF THE PIPE OR TO THE SIDE 0- THE TRENCH. MATERIALS TO COMPLETE THE FILL OVER PIPE SHALL BE THE SAME AS DESCRIBED. (REFER TO WSDOT STD. SPEC. 7-04.3(3) AND STD.SPEC.2-03.3(14)C, METF;OD B&C.) 7. BACKFILL TRENCH OF 14EW UTILITIES SHALL BE COMPACT TO 95% RELATIVE COMPACTION UNL,ER ROADWAYS AND 90% RELATIVE COMPACTION OFF ROADWAYS, AS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 2-03.3(14)D AND SECTION 2- 03.3(14)E. 8. ALL STRUCTURAL FILLS SHALL BE COMPACTED TO A MINIMUM OF 95% OF MAXIMUM DENSITY BY MODIFIED PROCTOR TEST. 9. ,.LL GRATES (INLET AND CATCH BASIN) SHALL BE DEPRESSED 0.1 FEET BELOW PAVEMENT LEVEL. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ADJUSTING ALL MANHOLE, INLET, AND CATCH BASIN FRAMES AND GRATES JUST PRIOR TO POURING OF CRUBS AND PAVING. 10. ALL CATCH BASINS WITH A DEPTH OVER 5.0 FEET TO THE FLOW LINE SHALL BE A TYPE 11 CB (MANHOLE). 11. ALL TYPE 11 CATCH BASIN MANHOLES AND ALL INLET AND CATCH BASINS OUTSIDE OF PUBIC RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL HAVE LOCKING LIDS. " 12. STANDARD LADDER STEPS SHALL BE PROVIDED IN ALL CATCH BASINS/MANHOLES EXCEEDING 4 FEET IN IN DEPTH. 13. PRIOR TO SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION, CONSTRUCT THE LOT DRAINAGE AND STUB OUTS AND SIDEWALK DRAINS AS REQUIRED. STUB OUTS SHALL BE MARKED WITH A 2" X 4" AND LABELED "STORM". LOCATIONS OFTHESE INSTALLATIO; ,S SHALL BE PLACED ONTHE AS -BUILT CONSTRUCTION PLANS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY. 14. ALL EARTHWORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITHCITY STANDARDS AND PRECONSTRUCTION SOILS I NVESTIGATION, (COMPLETED BY SHANNON a WILSON 2/25/90 a 12/7/90) 15. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SUCH AS RETENTION FACILITIES, ROADWAY BACKSLOPES, ETC. SHALL BE SEEDED WITH A PERENNIAL GROUND COVER GRASS TO MINIMIZE EROSION. GRASS SEEDING WILL BE DONE USING AS APPROVED HYDROSEEDER OR AS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS. 16. STOCKPILES ARE TO BE LOCATED IN SAFE AREAS APPROVED BY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER AND ADEQUATELY PROTECTED BY TEMPORARY SEEDING AND MULCHING. HYDRO -SEED PREFERRED. 17. IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING FINISH GRADING, PERMANENT VEGETATION (CONSISTING OF RAPID, PERSISTENT AND LEGUME) WILL BE APPLIED. (MINIMUM 80# PER ACRE). THIS IS TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING: 20% ANNUAL, PERENNIAL OR HYBRID RYE GRASS 40% CREEPING RED FESCUE 40% WHITE CLOVER HYDRO -SEED PREFERRED. NOTES 18. PREPARATION OF SURFACE: ALL AREAS TO BE SEEDED SHALL BE CULTIVATED TO-THE'SATISFACTION OF THE ALL METAL PARTS a SURFACES TO 13E INSPECTOR. . THIS MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED BY DISCING, RAKING, HARROWING OR OTHER GALVANIZED OR OF CORROSION • RESISTANT ACCEPTABLE MEANS. FERTILIZER: SHALL BE APPLIED AT 400# PER ACRE OF 10-20.20'(10# PER 1100 SQ.FT.) MATERIAL. COMPLETE CORROSION PROTECTION OR EQUIVALENT, SHALL BE ASSURED. RESTRICTOR ORIFICE TO BE SHARP EDGED, 19. DRAIN LINES SHALL BE AIR TESTED AS PER CITY OF EDMONDS REQUIREMENTS. SHOP DRILLED. APPROVED AS f4OTED Z �016"xftft jI),*t3 D„• �� 9 .q ��., r EPt'Q,:'u SA s ap Z w •�- N (7 � } m Z w Lu O m a ti co .. 0) ID a b j C m r tu > � N w O ® z r. L w .J O > a in b 5 b Ib CL .'; c1c �p� �.rr�•v� z �t 4 P1��5 M ppQ t� rUiv f �A F.. 7 SHEET NO.: 1 OF 2 JOB NO.!,-r (,L() LINE 1,35976 ' GEO-LINE 135976 174 E� N b♦ WE DESIGN DPtTA OWNER Design rat 3 m I nil". i'n, ' 3-bedroom residei-ice OX17 5') ;r-.525 sq. ft. required WH I I am Campbell Install 175 l,f. x 36;, wide lateral. .20026 - 88th Ave. W. Therefore, install 2 'lines 87.5 ft. long'with 36" trench Edmonds, WA• 98020 width.pip9 invert 18'' below existing grade. Install I,000 gallon 2compartment septic tank. BUILDER 12111 se'lect,fill is required to be placed over drainficld after installation, approx. 80 cu. yds William M-Campbell Const., Inc. (107 x 20 x 1 27) 20026 - 88th Ave. W. Edmonds, WA 58020 NOTE: The drainfleild system shall be installed in accordance with City of Edmonds rules and regu,17,tlons. No driveways or DESIGNER, ccess roads to be -built over d r?J system. No cut access slopes are. to be made within 30 the drainf ield area. Reid, Middleton, Assoc., Inc. No heavy equipm.ent to be driven over drainfield area. 324 Main St. Edmonds, WA 98620. ADDRESS OF PROPERTY 16431 - 74th'P1. W. Edmonds, WA 98020 LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR WILLIAM CAMPBELL That portion of Tract 89, Plat of Meadowdale Beach,.as per plat recorded in Volume 5 of, Plats, page.38, records of Snohomish County, Washington, described as.follows: Commencing at the northeast corner of said Tract 89; thence SOO 010'00"W 152.00 feet; thence N89023100"W 275.00 feet to the point of beginning; then ce continuing N89023'00"W 97.00 feet; thence.S00*32'00"E 25,00- feet; thence S57*40100"W,129.57 feet to the centerline of,a vacated road, d, also known as 74th Plac6 W.; thence S17'32.100"E along said,centerline 17.52 feet -to the sputh line of said Tract 89; thence S89023'00"E along said south line 190�35 feet; thence north 150-16feet to the pointof begj,nn i ng I TOGETHER WITH that portion of Tract 88 of said Plat, described as follows: Beginning at the northwest corner of said Tract 88; thence easterly along the north line of said Tract 88 a distance of 50.00 feet; thence southwesterly 'to a point an the westerly Vine of said Tract 88, which Is 50.00 feet southwesterly from the northwest corner; thence northwesterly along the we.sterly.line 50-00 feet to the northwest corner and the point of beginning; EXCEPT the westerly 5.00,feet as measured at'right angles to said westerly line for road as per Quit Claim Deed to the City of Edmonds, recorded in voluma:674 of Deeds, page.2 ' 20,'records of Snohomish County$ Washington; Situate in Snchcmish County, Washi-ngton. E 7% UP F6. M". TPA " 89 - -_Z, col, V,/ .4 T M corI UREET I -LE RECEIVED OCIT 4 1978 Public vvorks Ljt!pt. 2 1611�31 74- PLhl Suxre I TIG,t•t.mtRt�,. V.C.. al i 141 ■ cwxw I w - W - - - - l7o m TBM : 55XEDMOM 22 Tt�10 II�1 ( GrrY ofPS) EEC CB -- 1-01F I COG IUV ICa9, \�p /72 I-7q 1 !70 W. TbkJE VAU LT O /S T Nose t� EX YAZD OI?al u 1 o V TOMB IS NOT A BOUNDARY SURVEY NORTH SCALE: 1" =10' t)�j 17-11e&-!�- 7-c) 1-?C- C 0 � \1 STREET FILE 0, a, 0 El C*lvE'v__2I_lL4_lCl —0— L TZ� 1351 11-78 ___'TlL DISTRICT No. 1 of Sno NXl , A gA-11 PUBYr homish Co—t�,/, LOCATION, DATE W .0. No. �,j LL) 4 4) REVISION, SCALE - REASON FOR WORK ylG E NG I NEE AS BUILT N DRAFTSMAN U.G. PILE o. APPROVALS DATE WORK COMPLETED BY OREMAN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS' EXEMPT UNDER DISTRICT SEPA,, PROCEDURES, SECTION VII, P A A A ITEM DATE "-i-2-512' " BY INTERPRETATION REFERRED TO.. DATE— BY Olf U.G, COND-'ff=v, ADD _22_6_.CKT' FT I PH REMV-------CKT' FT NET .2:- �G' CKT FT PERMIT TYPE DATE GRANTED PERM TYPE . fEl. s A N T E 0 FOREIGN CONTACTS COMPANY TYPE FOREIGN CONTA COMPANY EASEMENT GRANTOR DATE GRANTED EASEMENT GRAN T-F- GRANTED WATER SEWER GAS- (41� W.A.R. FORM DATE AEC. FUSING COORDINATED BY C. C-1 , LOG POSTED INVENTORY MAP POSTED POLE DEPT. TRANSF. CARD 4 ;; _; -- Q�.� "� i ,. �. � � ..- ., �" � f "` ��, ,� �, , �, ..� ; 1 ..�... } l/� �3/ i ��LGd /.�s- i�`�a-- ��