61 PINE ST.PDF11111111111111
12813
61 PINE ST
-7=
TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL
BUILDING PERMIT (NEV�
COVENANTS (RECORDE
CRITICAL AREAS: DETERMINATION: R Conditional Waiver R Study Required E] Waiver
DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S:
DRAINAGE PLAN DA
PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED:
EASEMENT(S) RECORDED
PERMITS (OTHER):
PLANNING DATA CHECI
SCALED PLOT PLAN DA
SEWER LID FEE $:
LID #:
SHORT PLAT FILE: LOT: BLOCK:
SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED: SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) #:
SOILS REPORT DATED:
STREET USE / ENC�OACHMENT PERMIT
WATER METER TAP CARD DATED:
OTHER:
LATEMPTSTsTormAStreet File Checklist.doc
I
TERRA XSSOCIATES, Inc.
Consultants in Gi,�otechnical Engineering, Geology
and
Environ'rnental Earth Sciences
April 25, 2003
Project No. T-4893
Mr. Ross Woods
Point Edwards, LLC
2801 Alaskan Way, Suite 107
Seattle, Washington 98121
Subject: Steep Slope Exemptions — Clearing and Trai I IlEon'struction
Point Edwards Condominiums (UNOCAL ite
V
Pine Street and Unoco Road
II References:
7,
L I
I
Edmonds, Washington
Preliminary Geotechnical Report, UNOCAL Site, Project No. T4893, prepared by
Terra Associates, Inc., dated November 21, 2901
Steep Slope Hazard Review, Point Edwards Qondominiums (UNOCAL Site), Project No.
T-4893, prepared by Terra Associates, Inc., dated December 13, 2002
Geologically Hazardous Areas Review, Poin&dwards Condominiums (UNOCAL Site),
Project No. T-4893, prepared by Terra Associates, Inc., dated January 20, 2003
2
3.
Dear Mr. Woods:
As requested, we reviewed our referenced geotechnical reports prepar fd for the subject project. The purpose of
our review is to address geotechnical issues associated with proposed alterations of steep slope hazard areas
(SSHAs) at the site as shown on a Site — Concept Plan by Weber+Th6mpson Architects, dated April 24, 2003,
and to provide documentation sufficient to support SSHA exemption �f these activities. Proposed alterations to
the SSHAs include the following:
0 Construction of a footpath/trail across the SSFIA located do4ngradient of Building 2
0 Tree removal, slope revegetation, and trimming and limbing, of trees on the steep slope located west of
Buildings 5, 6, and 7
TRAIL CONSTRUCTION
A Preliminary Grading Plan by Triad Associates, stamped on December 9, 2002, indicates 'a footpath/trail will
encroach into the SSRA located downgradient from Buildini,, ' 2. Potential impacts to the SSHA that are
associated with the trail include increasing the erosion potential due to cleafing and grading along the trail
corridor, and surface water runoff from the trail.
12525 Willows Road, Suite 101 Kirkland, Washington 98034
Phnnp (42;) R21-7777 e F;i)( (4?�) Ft?'�11-4114
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
H
l��
I
I
I
Mr. Ross Woods
April 25, 2003
As described in our referenced reports, the potential �\ ' of erosion and sedimentation will be eliminated or
significantly reduced by applying Best Management Praciices (BMPs) for erosion prevention and sedimentation
containment, and through proper design and construction the trail so that surface runoff is collected and
conveyed in a controlled manner to an approved discharge point.\
Section 20.15B. 110 (D)(1) of the City of Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) indicates that the
construction of trails is an exempt activity on SSHAs. Sectio i n' 20.15B. 110 (D)(1)(b) states that trail construction
shall be designed to the best available technical standard approved by the city (U.S. Forest Service, Trails
Management Handbook, FSH 2309.18, dated 1987, and Starldard Specifications for Construction of Trails, EM-
7720-102, dated 1984). Provided that the trail design meets - the criteria presented in the referenced technical
standards, and BMPs for erosion prevention and sediment containment are properly implemented during and after
construction, it is our opinion that this exemphon would apply —
TREE REMOVAL AND SLOPE REVEGTATION
The. proposed project will include removing trees from the SSHA located west of Buildings 5, 6, and 7, and
revegetating the slope. with new restoration plants, and trimming and limbing of trees on the lower flanks of the
slope. Details of this work are presented in a report prepared 6y City Foresters, Inc. (CFI), dated November 8,
2002.
The CFI report indicates that most of the existing trees located above Elev. 60 on the slope are diseased, and may
threaten slope stability in the future. Analysis presented in th��Zferenced geotechnical reports indicates the
%_1
existing and proposed slope conditions are stable with regard to deep-seated failure. However, the loss of mature,
large trees on the steep slope due to disease can result in exposure of urficial soils on the slope face, which can
propagate slope erosion and adversely impact the stability of the near -surface soils on the slope.
CFI provides specific recommendations for removal of trees, rivegetation, and concurrent installation of
permanent erosion and sedimentation measures. We concur with. -CFI's recommendations for revegetating the
slope, and for installing permanent measures for erosion preventibn and sedimentation control. However, we
recommend that . all permanent erosion protection measures be in plice by October 1.
Section 20.15B.110(D)(1)(d) of the ECDC allows for exemptilon of clearing, and trimming and limbing of
vegetation on steep slopes if a clearing plan is provided for review I and approval by the City; and provided that the
soils within the steep slope area are not disturbed to subject the rea to the risk of erosion. In our opinion, slope
restoration measures including revegetation and installation of permanent erosion control measures, along with
implementation of a program providing long-term maintenance of the restoration measures, as recommended in
the CFI report, will enhance -the current stability of the steep slope with regard to shallow ground movement and
will reduce the potential of erosion and sedimentation. Therefore, in our opinion, the recommendations for slope
restoration presented in the CFI report and the findings of our geotechnical review provide a basis for exemption
under the provisions of ECDC Section 20.15B. I I O(D)(1)(d).
Project No. T-4,893
Page No. 2
Mr. Ross Woods
April 25, 2003
We trust the information presented is sufficient for youecurrent needs. If you have any questions or require
additional information, please call.
Sincerel s
TER (KI INC.
06
J Sa
t Engi Geo i
267
e
Principa
.6"bbe,triad Associates
Mr. Richard E. Gifford
Mr. S. Jin Lee, Weber+Thompson
11
Project No. T-4893
Page No. 3
TERRA A-SSOCIATES, Inc.
Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology
. 11� and
Enviro 7ental Earth Sciences
April 25, 2003
Project No. T-4893
Mr. Ross Woods
Point Edwards, LLC
2801 Alaskan Way, Suite 107
Seattle, Washington 98121
Subject: Request for Buffer Reduction — Steep Slope Hazard Areas
Point Edwards Condominiums (UNOCAL Site)
Pine Street and Unoco Road
Edmonds, Washington
References: 1. Preliminary Geotechnical Report, UNOCAL Site, Project No. T-4893, prepared by
Terra Associates, Inc., dated November 21, 20bi
2. Steep Slope Hazard Review, Point Edwards C'ondominiums (UNOCAL Site), Project No.
T-4893, prepared by Terra Associates, Inc., dated December 13, 2002
3. Geologically Hazardous Areas Review, Point Edwards Condominiums (UNOCAL Site),
Project No. T-4893, prepared by Terra Associates, Inc., dated January 20, 2003
Dear Mr. Woods:
As requested, we reviewed our referenced geotechnical reports prepa�d for the subject project. Geologically
hazardous areas (GHAs), including erosion hazard areas (EHAs), steep sl 6pe hazard areas (SSHAs), and landslide
r/.
hazard areas (LHAs), as defined by the City of Edmonds, exist on the steep slope located west of proposed
Buildings 5, 6, and 7. A SSHA is also located downgradient of propo�d Building 2.
Section 20.15B. I I O(A) of the City of Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) requires maintaining a
50-foot buffer adjacent to GHAs. Provisions in the Code allow the�buffer width to be reduced to 10 feet, subject
4
to administrative review and approval of a critical areas studyj,- The purpose of our study is to provide
documentation sufficient to support a reduction in GHA buffers from, , 50 feet to 10 feet.
The Code states that the cri tical areas study must clearly demonstrate, that the proposed buffer alteration will have
no adverse impact (including but not limited to a decrease in site stability as defined in Section 19.05 ECDC)
upon the site, the public, or any private party. ECDC Section 19.05.020 defines "stable" as meanina that the risk
of damag-e to the proposed development, or to adjacent properties, rom soil instability shall be minimal subject to
the conditions set forth in the reports developed under the requirements of ECDC 19.05-030; and the proposed
development will not increase the potential for soil movement. /
12525 Willows Road, Suite 101, Ki , rkland, Washington 98034
el
Phone (42S) 821-7777 * FAx M2 S) 821 -�l 14 * tpi-r;i(a-)tprrA-.qc,;o(-i;;tp-,.cnm
(I - -
r.'Ross Woods
I
11
I
I
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
pril 25, 2003
v
We previously addressed GHAs at the site and identifib,d potential impacts to the GHAs due to the planned
development and potential impacts to the development due �o the presence of the GHAs. Based on the results of
our studies, which included detailed analyses of slope stability under static and pseudostatic conditions for current
and proposed conditions, we opined that, provided the recommendations for hazard m�itigation, and geotechnical
design and construction presented in the referenced geotec,ffnical reports are followed, that the proposed
development will not result in significant adverse impacts to the SSHAs at the site. It was also our opinion that
the presence of the SSHAs will not adversely affect the stability of the buildings.
Our previous studies addressed these issues for a site development plan that included encroachments into the
SSHA by portions of Buildings 5 and 6, and encroachment into the 50-foot SSHA buffer by Building 7. Building
2 will not encroach into the 50-foot buffer,- but is situated within the 15-foot building setback from edge of the
buffer. The current site development plan shows Buildings 5-6, and 7 relocated to positions outside a 25-foot
setback from the SSHA that is comprised of a 10-foot GHA buffer and a 15-foot building setback. The location
of Building 2 has not been changed from the original proposal.
DISCUSSION
The results of our previous studies indicate that the slopes located west of Buildings 5, 6, and 7, and north of
Building 2 are stable. In addition, most of Building 7, approximately one-half of Building 6, and a portion of
Building 5 are situated on areas formerly occupied by a large, abo've-ground fuel storage tanks. Approximately
40 feet of the space between the SSHA and the area where Building 2 encroaches into the building setback was
formerly occupied by a large, above -ground fuel storage tank. Removal\ of the tanks has significantly reduced
loading near the top of the slopes, and therefore has a positive effect on stability. In addition, Buildings 2, 5, 6,
and 7 will be supported on deep foundations, which will further reduce potential impacts to the stability of the
steep slopes due to building surcharges, and mitigate SSHAs and LHAs. A deep foundation system will also
elirninate the potential of adverse impacts to the stability of the buildings,in the event of shallow soil loss adjacent
to the buildings. Additionally, drainage systems associated with the fi'nished buildings will improve the current
stability of the steep slope.
Grading incidental to construction of the building will increase the potential for erosion and sedimentation. In our
opinion, potential erosion and sedimentation impacts to the SS" -due to the site grading will be eliminated or
significantly reduced by applying BMPs for erosion prevention and sedimentation containment, and
improvements to site drainage.
As discussed, the results of our studies indicate that existing and pr�posed slopes at the site are stable with respect
to deep-seated failure. In our opinion, the risk of damage to the proposed development or to adjacent properties
from soil instability will be minimal, and the proposed development will not increase the potential ' for soil
movement. Accordingly, it is our opinion that the requirements I of ECDC Section 20.15B. I 10(A) are met, and
reducing the GHA buffer from 50 feet to 10 feet will not result in,adverse impacts to the site, the public, or any
private party.
Project No. T-4893
Page No. 2
_V*
Mr. Ross Woods
April 25, 2003
We trust the information presented is sufficient for yourcurrent needs. If you have any questions or require
additional information, please call.
Sincerely yours,
CC f�TA71VQ TNJr
a ei, G.
t n Ge
9
T
Prin
c: Mr. Greg Krabbe, Triad Associates
Mr. Richard E. Gifford
Mr. S. Jin Lee, Weber+Thompson
Project No. T-4893
Page No.'3
A 0%
DAiE RECEIVIE2�1
(0 ERMIT EXPIRES
119 FP
CITY OF EDMONDS
USE PERMIT
ZON
M141 NVMBERR&-d'/7/
MT
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION
08 SyrrFJAPT#
ADDRESS
OWNEA NAMEMAME OF BUSINESS
*?61r,4f
PLAT NAME/SUBDIVISION NO.
LOT NO.
LID NO',.�
LID FEE S
Ic
ul
MAILING ADDRESS
'74f!2^
Atep"M
PUBLIC RIQW�OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP
EXISTING rib* PROPOSED
REQUIRED DEDICATION— FT
T9SCP Approved
RIN Permit Required
Street Use Permit Rsqd
Inspection Required
Sidewalk Required
undewo-d
Wiring required
relTy
JA 41
WATIIX,�Ilvv .k ,
TELEPHONE
Mo. S-7+.04-4+
NAME
METER SIZE
LINE SIZE
NO. OF'FIX'TURES
PRiii REQUIRED
YES13 NO 0.
x
ADDRESS
P0"rjy(,, Ave -:-4g,240
REMARKS
OWNER/CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROL/DRAINAGE
z
CITY ZIP TELEPHONE
I
to It "C.A yx x A
zFAMA WA- 1751QI
NAME 'Ic
Bl_ #
, ' I
aw Az fz/ erh-j xj
ENGINEERING REVIEWED BY
IAW-1
ic
0
ADDRESS
FIR MRED BY DATE
0
0
CITY ZIP' JiELEPHONE
1564fu VtAt qNtl
ZVo. -7-70 6111
VAP/ANCE OR Cu �i
- ,
SHORELIPP OR AD"
e
INSPECTION
/ 'REO'D
YS= 13NO
BOND
POSTED
$
z
STATE LICENSE NUMBER EXPIRATION DATE
k� tyz
CHECKED BY .
SEPA REVIEW,
31. ,XEMPT
EXPZI
SIGN AREA..
ALLOWED . PROPOSED
HEIGHT
ALLOWED PROPOSED
PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL NO.
o
L_J*
NEW 13 PLUMBING MECH
RESIDENTIAL
COMPLIANCE OR
ADDITION C9MMERCIAL
CHAAGE OF USE
REMODEL MULTIFAMILY SIGN
Lx
GRADING FENCE
REPAIR CYDS X FT)''
OTHER
DEMOLISH TANK
LOT.COVERAdE
ALLOWED PROP'O'S�E'O.'
REQUIRED SETBACKS (k);,
FRONT),' SIDE :�'REAR
�P OPOSED SETBACKS
R (Fr.)
FRONT UR SIDE REAR
PARKING�,,
kEO'D PROVIDED
'Lot AREA':.'.
ANNING REVIEWED By TE
REMARKS
z
MGARAGE RE1AININGVJALL. F RE SPRINKLER
CARPORT ROCKERY ME ALARM
(TYPE OF USE, BUSINES OW4 LAIN:
rM M
CHECKED 8 TYPLOE
_-eb
CONSTRUCTION,..., t;_aw
5
- i.
:�Wo
occUPA
GROUP
[N F..,
UM
NUMBER f-I
OF DWE= (3
STORIES UNITS
A R AS
CR EIT I C Aaq,
NUMBE
3
SPECIAL INSPECTION.
REQUIRED YE S
IAF
l'yMO)IF 11LOAD;V!j
OCdUPAf1T
DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE
It . . I
REMARKS 11
PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER'UBC 108/FINAL INSPECTION REG-0
OD
Z"
A 11,1115
-
VALUATION
Z
Z-1 Z2,5 P1. Rig
li:S 1-700 �5
Description
',,,FEE
Description
FEE
*A7 64n>v's' M571
Plan'Che6k
State Surcharge
"7,06V
HEAT SQU?�� G JIG % ��LOT-SLOPE
Buildnig Oermif City Surcharge
!L za
PLAN CHECK NO: VESTED DATE Plumbing
�/
Mechanical
THIS PERMITAUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NarEof THIS PERmrr COVERS WORK TO
1= BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLX ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC
a TC.) WILL REQUIRE Grading
DOMAIN (CUR13S, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, E
SEPARATE PERMISSION. Engr. Review
PERMIT APPLICATION. 180DAYS
PERMIT IUMM I YEAR - PROVIDED WORK IS STARTED WITHIN 180 DAYS Engr. Inspection
SEE 13ACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION
"APPLICANT; ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS Fire Review Plan Chk. Deposit
IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF
2 EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND Fire Inspection Receipt #
IALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE
!3 DEEMED TO MODIFX WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE Landscapelnsp. Total Amt. Due R4tzm
0
,I NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE cays AeiLrry TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.- Recording Fee Receipt #
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION; THAT THE INFORMATION
GIVEN Its CORRECT; AND THAT I AM THE OWNER, OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF APPLICATION APPROVAL
THE OWNER. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC- This application Is not a permit until signed by the
TION; AND IN DOING THE_W0RK0YR1!%ZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED CALL Building Official or his/her Deputy: and Fees are paid, and
IN VIOLATION OF T E Of THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO FOR INSPECTION receipt Is acknowledged In space provided.
Is CO �NON I �INSU AND RCW 18.27. OFFIC I RE DATE
SIG RE (15wNE(Sn?EqK DATE61ED 1A9
1,425)
/2
771-0220 "RELEASI
ATTENTION M 1333
IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL &4w�
A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTIFI- ORIGINAL - FILE YEI I OA
CATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRMTED. UBC SECTION 109 PINK - OWNER GOLD - ASSESSOR
04/02 PRESS HARD -YOU ARE MAKING 5 COPIES GREEN - ACCOUNTING
DATE RECEIVED
PERMIT EXPIRES
USE PERMIT
CITY OF EDMONDS
ZONE NUMBE2A��—,-IqZ,
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION
JOB SUITE/APr#
ADDRESS
OWNER NAME/NAME OF BUSINESS
��/
?Qj t4T
elOVIVA14M
PLAT NAME/SUBDIVISION NO. LOT NO.
LID NO.
MAILING ADDRESS
LID FEE $
PUBLIC RIGHT RF_#AY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP
TESCP A�P,:Ied ed
It , Per. R
W
CITY ZIP TELEPHONE
EXISTING WAL PROPOSED
Street Use Permit Req'd
inspection ftqulred
e--lbitl
I
M o,;i�4- "
REQUIRED DEDICATION- FT
Sidewalic Required
UndOW—d
-
Wiring required 13
NAME
METER SIZE i LINE
SIZE
NO. OF FIXTURES
PRV REQUIRED
Wf6ev,
pgsbm f L L- - L -
F I
YES CTizo 13
3
cc
-
—
ul
ADDRESS
REMARKS
I
.
x
0
A�� POW U S-�, A<VFI t4 Sip— foo
OWNER/CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROUDRAINAGE
a
z
940 a) *G
CITY ZIP I TELEPHONE
c-Mme I
4-576h
NAME -
Nbi lu DEE 11117, LILAL
CBL#
I,-,
cc
0�1
I
EN ER11 REVIEWED BY DAT[
N
ADDRESS
0
1
- I
"FIRE EVIEWED IiY DATE
CITY
ZIP TELEPHONE
IEL
0
STATE LICENSE NUMBER EXPIRATION DATE
CHICKED BY
'VARIANCE OR'CU
SHORELIkE'OR ADS#.
INSPECTION
REO'D
BOND
POSTED
1 PYE S XO
$
SEPA REVIEW,
E XEMPT�;L.
SIGNAREA�,'
'ALLOWED PROPOSED
HEIGHT
�ALLOW ED PROPOSED
PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL No.
Lu
2 J.'S
'. .
I-
NEW
RESIDENTIAL
LUMBINGjMtC H,
kx'
;'LOT COVERAGE
:ALLOWED
'REQUIRED SETBACKS (FT.),
FAONT_,�,, SIM, REAR
ROPOSED SETBACKS (FT
_P FRONT UR SIDE REAR
PROPOSE
ADDITION
COMME CIAL,,::
R
COMPLIANCE OR---,.
0
16[
15�-�
z
Z
CHANGE QF USE
z
REMODEL
M'LTIFAMIi.Y
SIGN
. PARKING ,
I R , EO'D PROVIDE
BY DATE
IL
GRA6ING':,6YDS C-1 FENCE
I ( ,,, I Fr)l1LL?`
0 REPAIR XL -
REMARKS
A.
OTHER'.
1:1 DEMOUSH 0 TANK E]
AVE' 6 P2
GARAGE RETAJNINP�VALL SP N
RI KIL
01,01OCKERY..
CARPORT FIRE'ALARM' -
e,*
(TYPE OF USE, BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY), EXPLAIN:
u
Ln
CHECKW BY
JTYk�cl` CONSTRUCTION -
OCCUPANT
W
U4
4'P4fN40k_L
GROUP
,U
o
M
NUMbhA
OF
�)
NUMBER OF. CRIT16AL
DWELLING AREAS
I
SPECIAL INSPECTION JAREA,,
OCCUPANT
ci
STORIES
UNITS NUMBE
*
REQUIRED YES
LOAD
DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE
REMARKS
b
PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 4.08/FINAL INSPECTION REO'D
t4 &�)ma4�
Y-in &
-1,e
JA&
Lb
VALUA,TI10,N .11
L_
$
Y 9,9,
DescripUon-
.FEE
Description
FEE
Plan Check
State Surcharg e
HEAT SOURCE
GLAZING %
'�;LOT.-SLOPE %
'Building Permit-
City Surcharge
PLAN CHECK N.0:
VESTED DATE
Plumbi h1g
Mechanical
THIS PERMIT AUTHORRES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO
t
BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUSILIC
Grading
DOMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE
SEPARATE PERMISSION.
Engr. Review
LU
PERMIT APPILICATION: 180 DAYS*
IL
PERMIT ILIMM. I YEAR - PROVIDED WORK IS STARTED WITHIN 180 DAYS
Engr. Inspection
SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION
-APPLICAK ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS
Fire Review
Plan Chk. Deposit
IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF
A.
2
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND
Fire Inspection
Receipt #
ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE
DEEMED TO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE
Landscapelnsp.
1
Total Amt. Due
0
x
NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITYS ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.'
Recording Fee
Receipt #
2z :z
I HERESY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION; THAT THE INFORMATION
GIVEN IS CORRECT; AND THAT I AM THE OWNER. OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF
APPLICATION
APPROVAL
THE OWNER. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC-
CALL
This application is not a permit until signed by the
TION; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY. NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED
Building Official or his/her Deputy: and Fees are paid. and
IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO
FOR INSPECTION
receipt is acknowledged in space provided.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION! AJURANCE AND RCW 18.27.
F C SIG RE DATE
SIGNAVfflf (OWNER OR,4�iiEN7;)
DATE SIGNED
(425)
XRELEASED
4A
771-0220
135Y DATE--_
AfTENTION
Off 1333
IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL
A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTIFI-
CATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC SECTION 109
ORIGINAL - FILE YELLOW - INSPECTOR
PINK - OWNER GOLD - ASSESSOR
04/02 PRESS HARD -YOU ARE
MAKING 5 COPIES GREEN - ACCOUNTING