20000405.pdfCITY,OF EDMONF-S
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION
JOWNER N AMEINAME,OF BUSINESS
s
Fuel
TELI ONE MBER
NAME
ADDRESS
I
NAM
7 Q01
'72
ADDRESS
C,
ENC
< AA
2
CITY TELEPHONE NUMBER
'I E
ST TE LICENSE NUMBER (PIRATION GAT
Legal Descri lion Pr
-0j-, n
-7? P Z.
L"M 1P 9
0 f,4—,9,10 — 0 0 57 0 0 0
NEW RESIDENTIAL PLUMBINGMECH
C MPUANCE OR
ADDITION COMMERCIAL CHANGE OF USE
REMODEL APT BLDG. SIGN
REPAIR X1 !LQ"n-- 'Y's FENCE x — FT)
DEMOLISH W. STDIE swIMPooL f
INSERT HOT TUS/SPA Al
GARAOGRET RETAINING WALL' E] RENEWAL
CAR RGaIAZIRK R
P
0
(TYPE OF USE. BUSINESS OR ACT.;TpPr
NUMBER
.1
STORIES 3
NUMBER OF
U nEULING
CRITICAL
AREAS
DESCRIBEWORKT EDONE Ali
L
Y,4,pt1,U(,4 770V
P p
/-07- 7-0&
%
HEAT SOURCE: GLA1128� 7 y
Plan Check No.
it covers work to be dorfe on private property UNLY.
st ructlon on th5 public domain (our s, Sid
driveways, marquees, BIG.) wIll require separate P.r=�.
P him I Application: 18D Days
P:= Limit: 1 Year - Provided Work Is Started Within 180 Days
"Applicant. on behalf ol.hl� ojfcar�spounsle nd
hO d
ccessorS in interest, agre d and
Su a d..
h 'y I Thol"OE, Washington, Its offici Is
armless
S!".hidCa'�.ri'le IrEcdn an, and .11 claims for damageo0i
V B P.,rhillrehlalil, I.rolml.he I:suance
B.ThatoZen.lum. arising directly or Ind o
of this permit. Issuance of thl! S d. med to
modly, waive or reduce any.raquirement of any city ordinance
nor limit 1� any way the Of ty S ability to enforce'any, ordinance
provision,
I hereb ad th. I have read thishapplication; that the
y oc'nowis
and Is I ow
forma on Ivan correct� that m Per, or the du V
in ti
aU,ho,i,Gd..:,,Gn,,iog tchosinalwrier' I agree to comply with city and
S taB,.w. , 'a n u ction: and In doing the work authorlz -
ad thereby, no person will be emPloYed in violatiop of the Labor
Code of the State of Washington relating to Workmeh's Compensa-
,I�rio RCW 18,27.
tion insurer
sGNA,LFE ED
/-1 If
ALIA 10,916,
-2D PERMIT
NUMBER
2± �o
I I -Ef) I 'i�) A956AT)
— -/12
E'RIG.T OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREE11MAP
TE� F.PH'1t`F.,"dr.D
W
NG _REQUIRED DEDICATION_
OSED
3/7—T.j);$j
NO,. OF FIXTURES
_ _5_
7
P111111IF"
YE:x No.
FKs
!,;-
MEMO DATED
VARIANCE OR CU
ADBI SHORELINE 4
SERA REVIEW
SIG
HEIGHT
ALLOWED - PROPOSED
ALLOV��PRop
LOT COVERAGE
REQUIRED
SETBACKS ('.I
IR.I.EEDEETBAC
.LOWED -
ED
PRop"'21)
F ONT SIDE REAR
FRONT UR) " GE,
in�
IN
El
=It rj
. L
40GREgS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 108
X40"IWAIX 7'6 V,14eIVIIIJ Sxwe FOWI--,
INAL INSPECTION REQUIRED
VALUATION FEE
N CHECK FEE kzq�-2-
HUDING
ECHANICAL
TORM DRAINAGE FEE
G. INSPECTION FEE
797�711
,4AL
4
110
PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE
ATTENTION
APPLICATION APPROVAL
THIS FERIAIT
This application is not a permit until
AUTHORIZ ES
Oi,ILY"
. j1dinQ,911iiialgr his/her
V. signed by.the SU
WOR� Mleo
feeg4re paid. � rec I ipt is
NSOECTC.
=,and
edged in space provided�
PIRTIVENT
OF L S S G.ATuRE D-1
CITY OF
EDMONDS
CALL FOR
.�TE
HE' . ..I
ATTENTION INSPECTION
IT S UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCURMA49�JILDING OR STRUCTURE RIG �spector
UN141L A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR 771-0220 0 INAL 1`11- YELLOW in
A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC
SEC ]ON 109 PINK — O—ef GOLD — AS1eS1.1
z
rp
Vj --I
0 x , .
C Ri
0
-10
0 C
X M
rn
C
o -n
In � .'
M
M M
0
C.)
C= (1)
C ri)
ITT 0
z
-4
z
9
0
IT!
M.S.C.E, M.B.A. Geotechnical I un,11 Engineer
RF_CEIVED
September 8, 2000 SEP 14 2000
'lop" ENT SEIAVICES CTR.
811 OF EDW)NDS
Z
City of Edmonds Building Department
121 Fifth Avenue North
Edmonds, Washington 98020
3:
M
rn
Subject: Final Report -Geotechnical Inspections
80
C,
Pak Residence
16109 - 73rd Place West, Edmonds
M T
Permit No. 98-266
CE
This engineering report presents a summary of all geotechnical inspections with
16109 - 73rd Place West, Edmonds,
o n
A 23
regard to the Pak new single family residence at
m T
Washington.
0 CO
0
0 F,
C (1)
REFEBENCES:
July 10, 2000 inspection report by 0. Bruce, P.E.
m 0
City of Edmonds approved plans
Numerous geotechnical reports, recommendations and evaluations
Construction photographs
z
1 N S P E CILQN-6-I
z
0
As stated in the July 10, 2000 inspection report, this engineer has provided on-
0
rn
site inspections for the Pak project with regard to geotechnical and foundation aspects.
Site grading, excavation, temporary eco-block wall, foundation b earing, footing
have been previously discussed
recommendations, and concrete footing placement
and approved.
since July 10, 2000, this engineer has performed twice -weekly inspection
Foundation stem walls were succes sfully placed. Backfill
observations of the project.
material meeting City of Edmonds standards, normal good practices, and this
engineer's on -site recommendations were suc cessfully placed.
SOILS FOUNDATIONS * SITE DEVELOPMENT * INSPECTION * DRAINAGE DESIGN& PERMIT LEGAL
P.O. Box 55.502 storeiine. Wa0inaton 981 SS (20615AFi-9217 FAX Jqn6).54"442
Pak Property
Pagetwo
1 �,4
The perimeter footing drains, as well as intercept drains, were successfully
tightfined-connected in the northwest corner of the Pak lot into a new catch basin, This
Z
catch basin subsequently released the stor m water and seepage pressure flow into
0
the existing storm water system in the overall Lorian Woods complex (see
M
photographs).
The rear (easterly) foun dation stem wall was successfully placed. It is important
6 3:
V',
to note that the temporary eco-block shoring worked successfully throughout the
C M
excavation and stem wall phase of this project.
M 0
Temporary erosion control and sedimentation measures were successfully
maintained throughout the project. Straw bales and siltation fencing were properly
M Z
-4
installed and maintained.
C 2
Note: As previously stated in engineering reports, and as discussed in
numerous meetings with City of Edmonds personnel, it is &g§_qnJW that the City of
0 -n
Edmonds maintain the proper clean out of the drainage system up slope and behind
rn
(easterly) of the Pak residence On occasion, an inlet catch basin may become
0 CA
clogged with debris or excessive silt. It is very important that regular monitoring,
0
0
observation, and clean out occur to maintain the current proper drainage intercept
C
control and release that occurs on the slope behind and above the Pak residence.
M 0
This engineer understands that the City of Edmonds is committed to proper
z
maintenance of their drainage system.
MENDAIMML
CQNCLUSIQNS REQ0MMEN_VK_
Based on this engineer's on -site inspections, recommendations from the
numerous geotechnical reports, and experience with similar projects, the following are
z
0
concluded and recommended:
:d
0
All geotechnical aspects of the new Pak residence have been successfully
completed.
Final landscaping measures have yet to be installed.
It is essentlal that the City of Edmonds regularly inspect, monitor, clean out,
and modify the rear (easterly) up slope drainage system behind the Pak
residence.
Pak Residence
Page three
It there are any questions, do not hesitate to call.
M.
U
WA
�p
p
S
1740S
NA1. X /U.
M, 0
CY ::::
0 'P
D ennis M. Bruce, P.E.
M rn
IE(MM3 imm
Geotechnical /Civil Engineer
c 2
V5
fSi
!-Q,
DMB:vlb
0 -n
m m
0
0 R
C
K w
MT 0
I
Z'
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
-hnical/Civil Engineer
M.S.C. = M.B.A.
fr,vlrr I ry
copy
February 20, 2000
City of Edmonds
c/b Mr. Chun Pak
3828 N. E. 11 Oth Street
Seattle, Washington 98125
C. Walker, P.E., City Engineer
Attn: James
Subject: Chun Pak Lot
Lot 6, Lorian Wood Development, Meadowdale Area
16109 - 73rd Place West, Edmonds, Washington
This engineering report presents to summarize the geotechnical issues relating
to Chun Pak's Lot No. 6 in the Lorian Woods Development
REFEBENPES:
June 6, 1989 report by Terra Associates, Inc., allowing development in Lorian
Woods, subject to conditions
Proposed Mr. Chun Pak house plans by Mr. Phil King, Designer
July 27, 1998 geotechnical evaluation report by D. Bruce, P.E. for Mr. Pak
October 9,1998 review report by Landau Associates, Wade Gilbert, P.E.
April 4, 1999 additional geotechnical information report by D. Bruce, P.E.
May 28, 1999 supplemental geotechnical review by Landau Associates, Inc.,
Edward Heavy, P.E.
June 9, 1999 additional soil test pit investigation, test pit logs, and photographs.
June 11, 1999 meeting with City of rEdmonds, Mr. Pak, Landau Associates,
designer and this engineer, to clarity issues
1999 on -site photographs and investigation by City of Edmonds
June 18, rding needed repairs
Drainage Department and Public Works Department rega
and improvements to City of Edmonds drainage system directly behind and
above Mr. Pak's lot. monds expressing concerns regarding
December 22, 1999 letter to City of Ed
review process and lack of direction from City of Edmonds
James C. Walker, P.E., discussing
December 30, 1999 correspondence from
nd seasonal restrictions on grading.
submittal standards, drainage issues, a
SOILS - FOUNDATIONS - SITE DEVELOPMENT - INSPECTION - DRAINAGE - DESIGN & PERMIT LEGAL
p.0. Box 55502 - Shoreline, Washington 98155 (206) 546-9217 - FAX 546-8442
Z
M
M
M 0
C.)
M Z
>
0 -n
-T
0
0 Fn
CA
co
PT 0
M
Z
C')
Z
0
=i
0
M
Pak, Lot 6, Lorian Wood Development
February 20, 2000
Pagetwo
SUMMARY:
Numerous geotechnical reports and responses have been furnished the City of
inning July 27, 1998. it is understood that the City of Edmonds does not
Edmonds beg sultant, Landau
do any review or evaluation in-house, and relies on their outside con ;a(
Associates, for review. Numerous lengthy memorandum have been issued by Land u
Associates over the past year and one-half. it is understood that no site evaluation or
visit had occurred prior to December 3, 1999. The following numbers will refer to the
latest memorandum (December 9, 1999) from Landau Associates:
1. Geologist Landau Associates recommends that an experienced geologist
evaluate the slopes and landslide issues that may apply to Mr. Pak's Lot No. 6. A
complete, thorough geologic evaluation has been laerf orm and discussed in the
Terra Associates, Inc., June 6, 1989 report. Engineering geologist, Mr. Charles R. Lie,
P.E., (in addition to Anil Butall, P.E., and William Bailey, project manager) participated
in the 1989 report.
This engineer has thoroughly read, understands, and agrees with the landslide/
geologic discussion in the report. The conclusion of the Terra Associates, Inc., report
is, " . . . We believe the probability of landslide damage likely is less than five percent
in twenty-five years. . . See figure 5."
As discussed in the 1989 Terra report, and as discussed in numerous
geotechnical reports by D. Bruce, P.E., the drainage situation above and behind Mr.
Pak's lot has improved and will lessen the probability of any hillside instabilities. The
December 9, 1999 Landau report states, "In our opinion, this geologic assessment
remains a high priority and should be completed prior to any future geotechnical
review."
The geologic assessment has been done.
The potential for debris flow from the adjacent slopes are greatly reduced by the
recent improved City of Edmonds drainage work and maintenance. This recent
"unclogging" of existing drains, as well as the installation of the additional catch basin
drain (as recommended on -site by this engineer to City of Edmonds Drainage
Engineer), further dries out the slope east of Mr. Pak's lot.
Thus, this engineer declares that the potential for debris flow from the adjacent
slope affecting Mr. Pak's house is not significant.
z
0
0
M
=I :fi I I
65 � , !��
OM
C:
M 0
--1 0
0 0 ;
C
M M
z
CJ)
0 -n
n LO
M M
0 �j � I
0
0 'M
M
z
0
j
0
M
Pak, Lot 6, Lorian Wood Development
February 20, 2000
Page three
2. Up slope Drainage: As discussed in this engineer's October 7. 1999 report,
additional maintenance and new catch basin was recommended for the City of
Edmonds system behind Mr. Pak's lot. This engineer has inspected and observed the
properly completed maintenance work and new catch basin. This work, as performed
e functionality of
by the City of Edmonds, satisfies this engineer's concern regarding th
the existing system. Excessive surface runoff no longer trickles onto Mr. Pak's lot.
The Landau report "suggests that the City advise the applicant of its current
position regarding this drain system, and of the need for the applicant to prepare a
development plan which accommodates the expected range Of operating conditions of
the City's drainage system."
Evidently, Landau is concerned that the City may not maintain its drainage
system. This engineer has every confidence in the City of Edmonds drainage
maintenance department and believes that the City of Edmonds will perform proper
maintenance. As declared, certified, and notarized, Mr. Pak acknowledges and
understands the significance of proper drainage control.
3. Drain System: Landau raises concerns regarding the effectiveness of a
shallow drain system to control conditions during construction. This engineer has
significant experience in foundation engineering and approves of the proposed ten to
twelve foot (10'- 12) maximum excavation. Qualified, experienced contractors
understand the importance of proper temporary drainage during the excavation phase.
These "construction issues" are not geologic in nature, and are the responsibility of the
contractor and the on -site inspecting geotechnical engineer.
Apparently there is concern for the ,spring" just north of the Pak parcel. The
presence of this seasonal drainage course is now noted in the environmental check
list.
4. Topographic Map: Please refer to overall property developer, Robert A.
Anderson, letters of June 24, 1999 and January 14, 2000 regarding the topographic
map prepared by Group 4, Inc. The topographic map meets standards for site
surveying and topography, including legal description. Evidently, this same
topographic map has been reviewed by the City of Edmonds and approved for the
existing homes within Lorian Woods. This engineer approves of the topographic map.
5. Soil Condltlons/Footlngs: This engineer concurs that suitable soil conditions
exist for the footings recommended for Mr. Pak's house.
Z�
0
M
=1 9n
C: M
M 0
0
80
C
M M
Z
jo
C
Z
00)
n
M M
0 Cn
r- i
0 M
C
Q 0
Z
-4
Z
Z
0
M
Pak, Lot 6, Lorian Wood Development
February 20, 2000
Page four
6. Seasonal Ground Water: As discussed in the October 7, 1999 report, the
clogged and insufficient City of Edmonds up slope drains created excessive runoff
water into one of the soil test pits. Thus, the ground water level observed in the test
pits represent a maximum. Proper construction techniques and temporary, as well as
permanent, drainage measures will manage this ground water.
7. Temporary Shoring-. As previously discussed, stacked ecology blocks may be
required it actual excavations and soil conditions dictate. This engineer has designed
and inspected numerous foundation excavations, and the stacked ecology block
method has proven successful (numerous examples within the City of Edmonds
jurisdiction are available).
If it is unclear to Landau Associates how a two foot thick ecology block wall can
be constructed one foot away from the property line, this engineer welcomes their
observation during Mr. Pak's project.
This engineer declares, "all temporary and permanent retaining structures can
be accommodated within this space (private pr. operty of Mr. Pak), and still leave room
for any required home -related features, especially those which may be required by
code.
8. Clarification of Retaining Wall' See revised plans.
9. Drainage Issues: As previously discussed, the City of Edmonds improvements
and maintenance to their existing drainage system satisfies this engineer's concerns
as raised in the October 7, 1999 report.
As also previously discussed, practical construction techniques will manage
any ground water during the foundation construction phase. Finally, proper footing
drains and waterproofing membrane (such as asphaltic emulsion, Volclay, etc.) will be
applied.
10. Rockerles: Some small (less than five feet in total height) rockeries are
envisioned for Mr. Pak's final grading. See revised plans by Phil King, designer.
11. Storm Water Management See revised plans and civil storm water
management designs by Nick Lehtinen.
Additionally, the existing "Lorian Woods stream" allows for convenient and
effective discharge release.
M
Z I
0
00
C
: -4 C , �i�
C M
M z
C
>
cn
0 -n
M rn
0.6 , 11,
0
0
M
C (n
Q 0
z
z
0
M
Pak, Lot 6, Lorian Wood Development
February 20, 2000
Page five
12. Interceptor Drain: See revised plans. No east (up slope) French Drain is
planned.
13. Foundation Drainage: See revised plans to clarify foundation drainage.
14. Supplemental Review. This engineer has thoroughly reviewed the revised
plans and approves them for construction.
1 S. Conflict with Concrete Mix Design: See revised plans. Clarified.
16. Seasonal Construction: This engineer agrees with Landau Associates that
"winter time construction could be allowed (provided the city waives the current
restriction)." It is unsure who within the City of Edmonds actually evaluates the
proposal and might issue this waiver.
17. RiskAnalysis: In this engineer's opinion, the probability of earth movement on
Lot No. 6 within a period of twenty-five (25) years, is less than ten percent (10%).
Thus, according to City of Edmonds Ordinance No. 2661, the lot is suitable for
residential use. The risk of damage to the Pak residence and to adjacent properties
will be minimal, subject to the conditions set forth in this engineer's report and subject
to this engineer's on -site inspections during the construction phase. Additional
mitigation of potential landslide risk will occur due to the actual construction of the Pak
residence, installation of proper tooting drains which will improved subsurface
drainage, and also due to the basement excavation, which will remove a weight of soil
greater than the weight of the residence.
The Pak residence will be constructed in an area of known landslide hazards.
The risk of landslide cannot be totally eliminated, and property owners knowing
assume all residual risks. The geotechnical recommendations and declarations
associated with the Pak project do not constitute a warranty, either expressed or
implied, against loss or damage to persons or property.
18. Check List Items. All required check list items have been reviewed by this
engineer, project designer, project contractor, and owner. We believe the submittal
requirements have been satisfied, and are herewith submitted.
- Geotechnical issues relating to the development of Lot No. 6 have been
submitted throughout the past year and one-half. This engineer declares that
the requirements of City Ordinance No. 2661 and Chapters 19.05 and 20.15 of
E.C.D.C. have been met.
Z
0
0M
Co
0
0
C
-4 3:
M M
M 2;
0 -n
M M
0
0
C ca
KC4 - .1,
M 0,
Z r- !
Z
-4
X
Z
0
d
0
M
Pak, Lot 6, Lorian Wood Development
February 20, 2000
Page six
- It is hoped that the City of Edmonds technical person will review all submittals
and allow Mr. Pak to construct his residence, as many of his future neighbors in
Lorian Woods have done.
If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call.
URREM�� I
DMB:vIb
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
Geotechnical / Civil Engineer
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
M.S.C.E., M.B. - Geotechnical I Civil Engineer
October 7, 1999
City of Edmonds RECEIVED
Community Services Division NOV 0 9 1999
121 Fifth Avenue North
Edmonds, Washington 98020 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR.
CITY OF EDMONDS
Attn: Mr. Ray Miller, Director
Mr. Don Fiene, P.E.
Ms. Janine Graf, Building Official
Subject: Mr. Chun Pak Lot - Lot No. 6, Lorian Woods
16109 - 73rd Place West, Edmonds, Washington
Hopefully, this engineering report will allow the City of Edmonds to issue a
building permit for Mr. Chun Pak's Lot No. 6 at Lorian Woods development, at 16109 -
73rd Place West. Numerous reports, responding reports and meetings have occurred
regarding Mr. Pak's desire to build a single family residence in Lorian Woods, similar
to the already -developed lots.
This report is an attempt to briefly summarize the issues and, hopefully, resolve
them.
References
June 6, 1989 report by Terra Associates, Inc., allowing development in Lorian
Woods, subject to conditions
proposed house plans for Mr. Pak by Phil King, Designer
July 27, 1998 geotechnical evaluation report by D. Bruce, P . E., for Mr. Pak
October 9,1998 review report by Landau Associates, Wade Gilbert, P.E.
April 4, 1999 additional geotechnical information report by D. Bruce, P.E.
May 28, 1999 supplemental geotechnical review by Landau Associates, Inc.,
Edward Heavy, P.E.
June 9, 1999 additional soil test pit investigation, test pit logs, and photographs.
June 11, 1999 meeting with City of Edmonds, Mr. Pak, Landau Associates,
designer, and this engineer, to clarity issues
June 18, 1999 on -site photographs and investigation by City of Edmonds
Drainage Department and Public Works Department regarding needed repairs
and improvements to City of Edmonds drainage system directly behind and
above Mr. Pak's lot.
SOILS - FouNDATIONS - SITE DEVELOPMENT - INSPECTION - DRAINAGE . DESIGN& PERMIT - LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502 - Shoreline, Washington 98155 - (206) 546-9217 - FAX 546-8442
Z
0 1 1
0
M
0 rn
M 0
-40
0
In
M Z
C 2
—I
C')
0 -n
A
-4
M M
a �-) r
0
0
C 0)
M 0,
Z
:1
Z
Z
0
0
City of Edmonds / Pak Lot
Pagetwo
§m2p—SiA.
As stated in this engineer's July 27, 1998 and April 4, 1999 reports, up slope
drainage control is _essential to maintain slope stability behind Mr. Pak's lot. This
engineer has assessed, investigated and discussed the conditions of the City of
Edmonds drainage system behind Mr. Pak's lot. It is understood that City of Edmonds
geotechnical reviewer, Landau Associates, has not assessed the site, has not
assessed the existing drainage system behind Pak Lot No. 6, nor has made any
evaluation regarding the suitability of existing conditions. At the June 11, 1999
meeting, it was acknowledged that no discussions have occurred between City of
Edmonds Drainage Division, Public Works maintenance, and Landau Associates.
This is most unfortunate.
This engineer recommended, on June 18, 1999, to Don Fiene and Public Works
director, the need for improved drainage intercepts and maintenance directly behind
Mr. Pak's lot. All parties acknowledged the drainage needs, and indicated that new
culverts, new pipes and new tight line discharge lines would be installed.
As of October 7, 1999, this engineer understands that such work has n2Ly—e—t
qccareA. This is unfortunate.
The reason the drainage improvements are important and necessary are as
follows:
The June 9, 1999 supplemental test pits indicated the presence of dense, stable
foundation soils (similar to Terra Associates, Inc., report dated June 6, 1989).
However, supplemental soil test pit No. 1 in the vicinity of the northeast portion of Pak
lot encountered excessive seepage ground water flow. The excessive flow was not
encountered in test pit No. 2. Subsequent up slope investigations directly behind
supplemental test pit No. 1 revealed clogged and insufficiently sized City of Edmonds
drainage system. The clogged silt and debris was removed and immediately the
amount of ground water flow into supplemental test pit No. 1 was greatly reduced.
This simple cause and effect is noteworthy.
When the City of Edmonds drainage system behind the Pak lot is RmpmerAl
1kRgjjqajM the Pak lot incurs no severe geotechnical or foundation excavation
problems. If, however, the City of Edmonds drainage system is not properly
functioning, or not properly maintained, excessive ground water flows onto and into
Mr. Pak's lot. This excessive water flow would greatly increase the construction and
foundation costs for Mr. Pak. This should not occur.
Z
0
=i —
M
C:
M
0
80
C
3:
mm
Z
jo
a
0 -n
n
--i
3:9
M M
0
0
0 M
C 0)
9 co
M 0
Z
.�T
X
Z
(A
Z
0
0
M
City of Edmonds / Pak Lot
Page three
it is sincerely hoped that the promised drainage improvements behind Mr. Pak's
lot will actually be installed and properly maintained.
Prooect -Plans:
Please refer to the following:
Revised November 23, 1998 Phil King Drainage, Land Clearing and Tree
Cutting plan.
Site plan and lot layout dated July 12, 1999 by Phil King, including
supplemental test pit locations. 14,1999.
Project Plans dated July 13, 1998 by Phil King, revised June
Revised Plot Plat dated June 14, 1999 by Phil King
Project structural details by H.N. Lehtinen , engineers.
The Pak development plans require a concrete retaining wall (maximum height
eight feet [8'1) along the east property line (typically one foot inside actual property
line).
This concrete retaining wall will allow a benched, or staggered tier approach for
the foundation work for the Pak residence. The actual rear Pak foundation wall will be
approximately six foot (6) away from this property line retaining wall.
The finished floor elevation for the lower level I garage is 139.5 (see plans).
As previously stated, if the off -site drainage problems are properly controlled
and improved by the City of Edmonds, the temporary shoring technique of stacked
ecology blocks will satisfy the geotechnicall conditions for residence excavation.
Note: As discussed, this engineer does not believe that a significant or potential
debris avalanche risk exists to the Pak residence. However, the rear retaining wall
could be designed with two to three foot (2' - 3') of "free board" to allow localized
erosional sloughing material to collect and not ooze onto the Pak residence itself. The
potential risk for any localized surficial sloughing hinges on up slope property owners
proper drainage discharge, and avoidance of destructive top -of -slope cutting. As
discussed, this engineer's evaluation of the up slope property verified that proper
drainage currently exists, and no evidence of any top -of -slope soil cutting was
observed.
Not to belabor the point, but the greatest contributor to any landslide or
sloughing risk to the Pak residence lies with the malfunction, clogging, under -
designed or poorly maintained City of Edmonds drainage system. if good drainage
Z
0
0
M
0
0
C
mm
M Z
K) -1 , t
C 5
CD
-n _n
rn rn
a �) :
0
0 Fn
C C)
M 0
Z
__4
X
CI)
Z
M
City of Edmonds Pak Lot
Pagefour
design and maintenance cannot be assured, perhaps the City of Edmonds should
install a massive catchment wall east of Mr. Pak's property.
z
Fgundatig_112'
0
Based on the findings of the June 9, 1999 supplemental test pits, and
0
r recommends normal, standard,
experience with similar properties, this enginee
reinforced concrete foundations.
As discussed, however, lack of proper drainage control by the City of Edmonds
C
system will result in excessive seepage waters into the Pak excavation. if, somehow, 0 M
s of piling would 0
construction goes ahead without good drainage, the additional cost 0
be required to offset the ground water seepage from the City of Edmonds systems.
M
z
0
Project Plans: C
This engineer has discussed and reviewed the revised project plans with Phil g;
King, Designer, and proposed project contractor, John Guerney. o -n
ippily a r9ve
The current project plans are gA91qghn subject to resolution M
M
of the City of Edmonds drainage situation and inspections by this engineer. C) 6i i
0
0 Fn
C: (n
Seismic Hazard MO
Z
the Puget Sound
The largest earthquakes which have generally occurred in
area are sub -crustal events, with epicenters ranging from 50 to 70 kilometers in depth.
For this reason, no surficial faulting or earth rupture as a result of deep seismic activity
z
has been documented to date in the Snohomish County region. --I I -
ing
Therefore, based on existing geologic data, the risk of surface rupture impact
the proposed Pak residence is low.
Refer to Terra Associates original report from June 6, 1989 for further discussion M
has
of seismic and landslide potential. Please note that the lot numbering system
changed from the 1989 report.
gon tru __n
_A —Mgt.. Timin
d and requested, the City of Edmonds drainage system is
If, as previously state
property improved, there are no geotechnical restrictions against construction during
any time of the year.
City of Edmonds / Pak Lot
Page five
Obviously, winter season construction will result in more than normal delays
resulting from bad weather or slightly mushier site. in some ways, however,
construction during the winter season will assist in defining the adequacy of the City of
Edmonds drainage system. In short, it is to Mr. Pak's advantage to have his foundation
exposed during "worst case" weather events in order to MIELR2 that the City of
Edmonds drainage system is fully capable.
This engineer has considerable experience with summertime construction that
revealed no drainage problems, only to discover nine months later than the drainage
mitigation system was inadequate (unfortunately after foundations have been built and
back -filled).
Summary:
Phil King Designer plans, as of July, 1999, are qeqt.�.hni.-II. r �-v. d.
Normal foundation techniques and temporary ecology block shoring are
geotechnically viable, it City of Edmonds drainage system is improved and
properly maintained.
The remote possibility of localized sloughing from the rear hillside can be
mitigated by a two to four foot (2' - 4') height extension above the proposed
property line retaining wall.
Geotechnical inspections by this engineer are required during key phases of
construction.
k RestateQ:
-L
Staternent-gf IVIOMAILIR-ilk Ll---_
The plans and specifications for the Chun Pak residence at Lot No. 6, Lorian
Woods, as designed by Phil King (as of July, 1999) have been reviewed by this
engineer and conform to the recommendations of the analysis and report and,
provided that those conditions and recommendations are satisfied (especially the City
of Edmonds drainage issue) during the construction and use, and inspected and
verified ty��, the area disturbed by construction will be stabilized and
remain stable and will not increase the potential for soil movement, and the risk of
damage to the proposed Pak residence and from the Pak residence to adjacent
properties from soil instability will be minimal.
Z
0
0
�Y:
rn I
M
0
C,
0 C
X: M
MZ
Z
--I
0 -n
-n
-4
3:
rn M
0
0,
0 M
Z
CI)
Z
0
-i
M
'o oj E
-PA K
-rC---< 7- "J w
Soil- LOT
L o R I =AIPIJ VJ 0 O'k -S
M'n
la
F A Y, N -
LorA -C
flZOPOSEIS
SI-rE- PLAN ZY NIL 00JI91 '&Ers"SAJ-,
ti
'buFF d)k46*ljle-
-c sAtA oce. CoStLICs
12. pf"J - I sf,
rl-y
S P T bjeE;e
-AS67
F T jAjeeEWslAJ4LY
-r. h 9ILT
C--y SANI.
,i:, I
�%QRCFO TI*14 C-ti6ft. VOCLOer.Eh
AJz-Ak S' E:-
2t S. e7 A -r-' h
t6
Lf S- 14
PT. F/fig
41 Ctr-lf
A� A�
AEC or
oc
j,-r eL
LOCATib&3� 149b
I(Toll-S Fr.
FT LEENSE---
SAW6
�,,T WALL& 1) TR's
- t--r.
m
0
C)
c
M
rn z
0
n;o
m M
a �i 'i
0,
0 M
c (j)
m (1) i : 11
MO
C/)
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
Geotechnical/ Civil Engineer
M.S.C.E., M.B.A.
April 4, 1999
21 1- 11U
R
.7
APR
City of Edmonds Ott.
M, W"
z
0
121 Fifth Avenue North W agop
0
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Attn: Ms. Lara Knaak
I -n
_q
'M
Subject: Additional Geotechnical Information
C, 0
0
Proposed Pak New Residence
Lot 6, Lorian Wood Development, Meadowdale Area
-40
OC
�c , �,:
16109 - 73rd Place West, Edmonds, Washington
m M
This engineering report presents the results of additional geotechnical
to the Mr. C hun Pak residence at Lot No. 6 of the
>
investigation with regard proposed
Lorian Woods Development. Understood proposed address: 16109 - 73rd Place
West, Edmonds, Washington.
This additional geotechnical investigation was required due to City of Edmonds
rn M
0
request dated October 8, 1998 from reviewer, Ms. J. Graf.
0 M
C Cl)
It is understood that the City of Edmonds has no in house geotechnical engineer
K co
Q 0
review capacity, and relies on outside consultants. The proposed Pak residence
been reviewed by Landau Associates, Inc., with their
project is understood to have
findings presented in an October 9, 1998 review report. it is further understood that no
engineer or geologist from Landau Associates has actually been to Mr. Pak's site.
Thus, the Landau Associates, Inc., October 9, 1996 review is based solely on
submitted reports and plans.
z 1
0
REFERENCES-
0
rn
July 27, 1998 geotechnical evaluation report for proposed Pak residence, by
D. Bruce, P.E.
Proposed Mr. Chun Pak house plans by Mr. Phil King, Designer
Topographic Map of Lorian Woods Development prepared by Group 4, Inc., for
Mr. Robert Anderson
Geotechnical Report of Lorian Woods property dated June 6, 1989, by Terra
Associates, Inc.
Site plan and cross-section layout prep ared by designer, Mr. Phil King
SOILS FOUNDATIONS - SITEDE VELOPMENT INSPECTION DRAINAGE DESIGN & PERMIT LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502 Shoreline, Washington 98155 (206) 546-9217 FAX 546-8442
City of Edmonds
Re: Pak, Lot 6, Lorian Wood Development, Meadowdale Area
April 4, 1999
Page two
BACKGROUND:
This engineer prepared a geotechnical evaluation and report for the proposed
Pak residence, dated July 27, 1998. City of Edmonds subconsultant, Landau
Associates, Inc., prepared a document and plan paperwork review dated October 9,
1998, raising numerous geotechnical issues. The Landau October 9, 1998 report was
signed, but not certified, by Wade Gilbert, P.E. It is understood that Mr. Gilbert is no
longer with the Landau firm.
This engineer conducted additional geotechnical investigations (test pit) and
observation over the severe rainy winter season from October, 1998 through March,
1999, in attempts to respond to geotechnical concerns raised by the October 9, 1998
Landau report.
WINTER F 1 /11 E R CIE:
This engineer conducted numerous site observations between October of 1998
through March of 1999. of crucial importance (as discussed in the July 27, 1998
geotechnical evaluation), was drainage control. This engineer YAKULVAthat the
existing storm water system of drains and tightlines is owned and maintained by the
City of Edmonds. Discussions with City Engineer. James C. Walker, P.E.. and City of
Edmonds Hydraulics Engineer, Don Fiene, P.E., verified the existing drainage system
on the slope behind (easterly) of the Pak Lot No. 6, is owned and maintained by
City of Edmonds. Further, Mr. Fiene conducted an on -site investigation and verified
to this engineer that the drains, catch basins, and tightlines are functioning
appropriately, and were approved by the City of Edmonds at that time. This engineer
relayed how important it is to the overall viability of Lorian Woods, and particularly Lot
No. 6, that the City of Edmonds maintain good monitoring and repairs to the drainage
system.
This engineer conducted observations of the Pak building Lot No. 6, as well as
the relatively steep slope to the east. In the period of time from October, 1996, through
March, 1999, this engineer observed no evidence of any localized sliding, sloughing,
soil creep or significant erosional degradation. Further, this engineer conducted an
exploratory investigation of the top -of -bluff properties to the east. The top -of -bank was
found to be dense, native soil, with no disturbance or evidence of current instabilities.
Obviously, historic erosional sloughing has occurred near the top -of -slope.
Z
9
0
C
rn
40
0 C
� C
M
Z
-n
091
rn
0
W
Z
0
=1
0
rn
City of Edmonds
Re: Pak, Lot 6, Lorian Wood Development, Meadowdale Area
April 4, 1999
Page three
ADDITIONAL SQlL�T_E5J_ —PIT:
This engineer undertook an additional soil test pit (dug by backhoe) in the
vicinity approximately thirty feet (30') east of Terra& Associates 1989 Test Pit 2. Itis
understood that this 1999 Test Pit -Pak, is in the vicinity of the anticipated Pak
residence (per site plan layout). The results of the backhoe-dug Test Pit -Pak are as
follows:
Ground cover, organics, and organic silt
0" to T'
soft, moist
7" to 4' Grey, silty, fine sand, with occasional roots
and some orange stain. Moist, loose
4" to approx. 8' Grey, silty fine to medium sand. Occasional
zone of silt. Medium dense.
a' to 13' (bottom of Fine to medium sand. Grades increasingly dense
Test PR -Pak)
Ground water encountered at four foot (4') depth. Test pit walls remained
'reasonably stable". Some sidewall sloughing occurred, but not collapsing.
CONCLUSIONIJ / R --_CQMRMNENQAT110NS-
Based on the findings of this and previous geotechnical investigations, as well
as review of previous Terra Associates, Inc., reports for the overall Lorian Woods
project, and the Nearing residence on adjacent Lot No. 7, and experience with Similar
properties, the following are concluded and recommended:
- Discussions with project designer (Phil King), project contractor (John Gurnee),
and project owner (Mr. Chun Pak), verified that no soil cut will exceed twelve
feet (12') in vertical dimension. This engineer gq irm
nL__A and EqgMLirP&that no
soil cut will exceed twelve feet (12') (vertical).
This engineer recommends the use of consisting of
ecology blocks. Properly staggered and embedded ecology block wall could
be installed at I H:6V slope.
ak excavation due to
This engineer anticipates a significant dewatering of the P
material removal. Normal, good ground excavation practices (sumps, PUMPS,
Z
rn
3:
0 M
C
M
__40 �1�
0
0
M
M Z
,0 -1
EZ
0 -n
n �U
-4
M M
C) �; ! ;,
0
0
MO
Z
m
Z,
0
M
City of Edmonds
Re: Pak, Lot 6, Lorian Wood Development, Meadowdale Area
April 4, 1999
Page four
tightline release into proper discharge, etc.) will assist the excavation and
foundation phase of this project.
Z
The twelve foot maximum soil cut, combined with proper temporary shoring
0
0
utilizing ecology blocks, will not create any geotechnical threat the adjacent
Nearing residence, subject to this engineer's on -site inspections.
This engineer recommends a reviged bearing capacity of 1,500 p.s.f. This
Fn
0 M
C
engineer requires a rnInImuM footing width of twenty-four inches (24"). It is
M
0
__10
foundation contractor's duty to properly excavate and manage the site. If
0
subgrade conditions degrade, over -excavation and backfill with structural
:c M
gravel will be required (as discussed in the July 27, 1999 report).
M Z
If excavation contractor is unable to "control" the site, and excessive subgrade
disturbance results, this engineer will require a pin-olle with reinforced
arade beam foundation along the eastern portion of the Pak residence.
0 -n
n
Drainage: Normal footing drains are recommended (as discussed in the July
M M
27, 1998 report). Currently, there is an excess of surficial storm water runoff that
0
inundates the access drive (see photographs). This engineer understands that
0 rn
C in
City of Edmonds verifies the adequacy of their up slope drainage system. This
9 U)
rn 0
engineer believes that additional maintenance and improvements by the City of
Z r- ,
Edmonds may be required. Nevertheless, this engineer will proceed with the
Pak development, anticipating additional drainage impacts from the City of
Edmonds system. Specifically, an access road cut will be required, along with
>
additional discharge piping into the apparent "open brook" that exists along the
west side of access road (see photographs).
This engineer agrees with the Landau report comment questioning the use of
Z
0
filter fabrics. This engineer strongly recommends proper gravel annulus be
placed around all drainage pipes.
This engineer understands the concern regarding request for a rear catchment
wall. This engineer has duly informed project designer, project contractor, and
project owner over the "risk" of surficial slide debris from the rear eastern
slopes. All involved parties agree that the location of the Pak house will be
sufficiently distant from the base of the steep slope. This engineer has no
objection to installing a catchment wall along the rear (eastern) Pak property
line, however, this engineer feels strongly that that is an owner's choice.
city of Edmonds
Re: Pak, Lot 6, Lorian Wood Development, Meadowdale Area
April 4, 1999
Page five
Rear Rockery: The proposed rear rockery along the eastern property line of
in with normal rockery
the Pak residence may be constructed accordance
Depending upon site management and specific location of
Z
standards.
temporary ecology block shoring, a reinforced concrete retaining wall
wall) may be a better choice. Again, this would be an owner's
0
M
(catchment
based on recommendations from this geotechnical engineer during the
choice,
construction phase.
Landslide Hazard: In this engineer's opinion, the probability of earth
No. 6 within a period of twenty-five (25) years, is less than ten
0 M
C:
M 0
movement on Lot
percent (10%). Thus, according to City of Edmonds Ordinance No. 2661, the lot
damage to the Pak residence and to
0
C:
K 1 ��:
is suitable for residential use. The risk of
will be minimal, subject to the conditions set forth in this
A M
Z
jo � i
adjacent properties
engineer's report and subject to this engineer's on -site inspect ions during the
City of Edmonds properly maintain
C -2
construction phase. It is 9§_p �ntial that the
improve the existing storm water control system in the hillside east of the
o -n
and
Pak property in order to minimize landslide potential and landslide hazards.
will occur due to the actual
n
Additional mitigation of potential landslid e risk
the Pak residence, installation of proper footing drains which will
rn M
construction of
improved subsurface drainage, and also due to the basement excavation,
than the weight of the residence.
0
0 'r-n
C:
which will remove a weight of soil greater
The Pak residence will be constructed in an area of known landslide hazards.
and property owners knowing
M
Zo
The risk of landslide cannot be totally eliminated,
risks. The geotechnical recommendations and
;U
-4
assume all residual
declarations associated with the Pak project do not constitute a warranty, either
Z
expressed or implied, against loss or damage to persons or property.
Settlements: As discussed and required, a _minimum tooting width of twenty-
has proven that such properly
Z
9 ;
four inches (24") is required. Experience
footings result in estimated total settlements of less than one-half
0
M
constructed
inch (.5"), and estimated differential settlements of less than one -quarter inch
(.25").
As discussed, failure of excavation and foundation contractor to "properly
requirements of pin -pile with
maintain the site" will result in this engineer's
grade bea m foundations. This engineer does not, at this time,
reinforced under the masonry
require pin -piles, but does anticipate their use, particularly
chimney.
City of Edmonds
Re: Pak, Lot 6, Lorian Wood Development, Meadowdale Area
April 4, 1999
Page six
SUMMARY:
The proposed Pak residence on Lot No. 6, Lorian Woods, Edmonds is
geotechnicallY viable, subject to the recommendations of this engineer and
City of Edmonds building requirements.
Additional geotechnical exploration and analysis verified viability of the
proposed Pak residence.
A Q Q E ND-U—M'
NOTE: It any additional questions arise, or issues are unclear, this engineer
strQngly recommends an on-oLft-MMILMS with City of Edmonds technical
personnel and their consultants.
If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call.
De is M Bruce, P.E.
Geotechnical / Civil Engineer
DMB:vIb
cc: Chun Pak, owner
James C. Walker, P.E.
city of Edmonds City Engineer
Phil King, Designer
John Gurnee, Contractor
z
0
0
M
i -n
M W
0
--10
0
C
< CI)
0
0
0 Fa
C:
M 0
Z
z
Z'
0
0
15$ f- Is -I 14-6 f- i-4o
-7-t,
M#,N 14q,o'
Toroe! fe�
ma 0,16"o
;,v'
0�rH
f4V. f �ja C�Wj PAV-,
wt Ampew IWO
boo Co fr
ROUSE
202,;, Corr toms
jt4FKVIOJ� A9*A CAaa
IF THE boCUMENT IN THIS FRAME JS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE
IT IS DUE TO THE QUAUTY OF THE DOCUMENT.
----------
0180 it-M -ON loid swulinsuoD jnppaloaD
cs HOV39 3WOMOOV3" S31VIDOSSV
)U�L%oUd NOSU30W
._,.,v%l wvlvmoliv�
_UdIS91
E)"80a js3_L N04iV813N3d OUVOWLS
(I N ml 0 Ell
Ov,
IF THE bdcumw IN'fHIS F RAME is LESS 6LEAkTHAN THIS NOTICE
IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT,
(4
W'W
qw'
Uw,
-kt 144.
"o V"l.
%;
---77
lo'
tt
. . . .
. . ...............
. . . .
. . . . . .
Dennis M. Bruce, RE.
M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical/ Civil Engineer
COP.Ir
July 27, 1998
Mr. Chun H. Pak
z
3828 N. E. 11 Oth
Seattle, Washington 98125
Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation
55 -4
= , ,
a
Proposed New Residence
rn
C 0 1
16109 - 73rd Place West, Edmonds, Washington
rn 0
80
C:
This engineering report presents the results of a geotechnical evaluation of Lot
M M
No. 6 at 16109 - 73rd Place West, Edmonds, Washington. This evaluation was
required due to owner and architect concerns, as well as City of Edmonds
requirements.
REFERENCES:
o -n k�
'n P 1 u,
Location map (figure 1)
Geotechnical Report of the overall Lorian Woods property for Robert and
rn. M
OF)
6 Fn
Joanne )Jnderson, dated June 6, 1989, by Terra Associates, Inc.
4�:�
Site photographs
Proposed Mr. Chun Pak house design by Mr. Phil King, Designer
cc ca)
MO
Z
BACKGRPY—N—D
Lot No. 6 (16109 - 73rd Place West, Edmonds, Washington) of the overall
z
Lorian Woods Development, exists along the private road 73rd Place West (see Lorian
Woods layout map). Lot No. 6 is approximately sixty toot (60') deep and seventy-eight
z
toot (78') wide, in an approximate rectangular shape. Lot No. 6 has never been
developed- Surrounding lots in Lorian Woods have been developed within the last six
m
years.
The property immediately behind (easterly) of the Pak Lot No. 6 is understood to
have been dedicated as Native Growth Protection Area, or gre en belt designation.
The primary geotechnical aspects affecting the proposed single family
residence development of Lot 6 are slopes and drainage. Lot No. 6 contains gentle to
moderate topography [from five percent (5%) to thirty percent (30%) slopes]. The
slopes behind (easterly) of the Pak lot contain slopes at approximately 2HAV.
SOILS FOUNDATIONS SITE DEVELOPMENT INSPECTION DRAINAGE - DESIGN& PERMIT - LEGAL
17814 81h Ave. N.W. - Shoreline, Washington 98177 (206) 546-9217 '- FAX 546-8442
Pak
Page two
The slopes behind the Pak lot evidence significant and year-round ground
water and seepage outflow. it is understood that the City of Edmonds has required the
installation of a significant number of intercept and deep drain wells.
EVALUATIQW
Visual assessment of Lot No. 6 revealed no evidence of any geotechnical
distress. No slides, no settlements, no tension cracks, no creep, nor any significant
erosional degradation were observed. As mentioned, seepage groundwater "trickle"
flows were observed, and are evident in the photographs with regard to street
discharge into the existing storm water system. This engineer obtained a copy Of the
Terra Associates, Inc., geotechnical report, dated June 6, 1989 from the City of
Edmonds. This report provides extensive geotechnical analysis and slope stability
evaluation. This engineer reviewed the test bore holes, as well as the backhoe-dug
test pit information in the Terra report. This engineer's direct experience in the area
verifies the stratigraphy reported in the Terra report.
In order to augment the existing site geotechnical information, soil test pits were
hand -dug by this engineer in the proposed location of the Pak residence. All of the
five (5) hand -dug test pits contained similar findings, namely:
0" to 4" Organics, roots, and organic silt
4" to approx. 14" Silty sand, moist, medium dense
14" to approx. 34" (bottom of Increasingly dense sandy silt / sandy silt
hand -dug test hole)
Seepage water was evident in all test pits. o water was encountered in any of
the three test pits. All test pit walls remained vertical and stable. No sloughing or
caving occurred.
CoNgLUSIgNa REC MENDATIONS'
Q�M
Based on the findings of this investigation, review of the June 6, 1989 Terra
Associates, Inc., report, and experience with similar sites in the area, Lot No. 6 is
geotechnically approved for the proposed Mr. Chun H. Pak single family
residence, per Phil King designs, subject to the following:
Standard reinforced continuous and spread footings. Allowable bearing
pressure: 2,000 P-s-f.
Equivalent fluid pressure of 35 p.c.f. is recommended for any retaining wall
design provided drainage zone is inspected and verified by this engineer.
For retaining wall design, use friction factor of 0.55 and passive pressure of
350 p.c.f.
Z
0
0,
0 M
M
80
0
C
MM
Z
0 -n
n
rn M
065
0
0 Fn
Q 0
Z
Z
co
Z
0
d
rn
Pak
Page three
An intercept "French -type drain" is recommended along the eastern property
line and graded to "wrap around" the new Pak residence. This intercept ditch
will be approximately thirty-six inches (36") deep, and provide seepage
pressure release around the Pak residence (specific designs provided prior to
site grading).
Geotechnical inspection by this engineer prior t any foundation concrete
placement.
The proposed structure can be supported on conventional continuous and
spread footings bearing on undisturbed native soils or on structural fill placed above
native soils. See the later sub -section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill
for structural fill placement and compaction recommendations. Continuous and
individual spread footings should have MIMLmgm widths of eighteen (18) and twenty-
four (24) inches, respectively, and should be bottomed at least eighteen (18) inches
below the lower adjacent finish ground surface.
Depending on the final site grades, some overexcavation may be required
below footings to expose competent native soils. Unless lean concrete is used to fill
the over excavated hole, the width of the overexcavation at the bottom must be at least
as wide as the sum of two times the depth of the overexcavation and the footing width.
For example, an overexcavation extending two feet below the bottom of a three-foot
wide footing must be at least seven feet wide at the base of the excavation.
Footings constructed according to the above recommendations may be
designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of three thousand (3,000) pounds per
square foot (p.s.f.). A one-third increase in this design bearing pressure may be used
when considering short-term wind or seismic loads. For the above design criteria, it is
anticipated that total post -construction settlement of footings founded on competent,
native soils (or on structural fill up to five (5) feet in thickness) will be about one-half
inch, with differential settlements on the order of one -quarter inch.
Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between
the foundations and the bearing soils, or by passive earth pressure acting on the
vertical, embedded portions of the foundations. For the latter condition, the
foundations must either be poured directly against undisturbed soil or the backfill
placed around the outside of the foundation must be level structural fill. We
recommend the following design values be used for the foundation's resistance to
lateral loading:
Parameter Design Value
Coefficient of Friction 0.55
Passive Earth Pressure 350 p.c.f.
z
9
0
C: M
M 0
--1 0
0 0
c:
--I K
3: M
M Z
10-1
C:
M
c')
0 -n
n
M rn
0 r-
C M
CO
M (D
M 0
z
z
z
0
0
M
Pak
Page four
Where:
(1) p,c.f. is pounds per cubic toot.
(2) Passive earth pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid density.
We recommend that a safety factor of at least 1.5 be used for design of the
foundation's resistance to lateral loading.
SLABS-QX-P�RAD '
Slab -on -grade floors may be supported on undisturbed, competent native soils
or on structural fill. The slabs may be supported on the existing soils provided these
soils can be recomPacted prior to placement of the free -draining sand or gravel
underneath the slab. This sand and gravel layer should be a minimum of four (4)
inches thick. We also recommend using a vapor barrier such as 6-mil. plastic
membrane beneath the slab with minimum overlaps of 12 inches for sealing purposes.
PERMA&E N _ _IN _ _
RLIQMMD __AXD_ R_ETA__INQ_WAL
A119 __La --
Retaining walls backtilled on one side only should be designed to resist lateral
earth pressures imposed by the soils retained by these structures. The following
recommended design parameters are for walls less than twelve (12) feet in height
which restrain level backfill:
Paramete Desion Value
Active Earth Pressure* 35 p.c.f.
Passive Earth Pressure 350 p.c.f.
Coefficient of Friction 0.55
Soil Unit Weight 125 p.c-f.
Where:
(1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic toot
(2) Active and passive earth pressures are computed using equivalent fluid
densities.
For restrained walls which cannot deflect at least 0.002 times the wall
height, a uniform lateral pressure of one hundred (100 p.s.f - should be
added to the active equivalent fluid pressure).
The values given above are to be used for design of permanent foundation and
retaining walls only. An appropriate safety factor should be applied when designing
the walls. We recommend using a safety factor of at least 1.5 for overturning and
sliding.
Z
0
A 5i
0
0 C
M
Mz
'04
> z
03
m T
0
0
0
C
K Cn
M
z 0
M
-1
z
A
z
0
M
Pak
Page five
The above design values do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures
slopes or loads will be placed above
behind the walls and assume that no surcharge
the walls. If these conditions exist, then those pressures should be added to the above
lateral pressures. Also, it sloping backfill is desired behind the walls, then we will
and slope of the backfill in order to provide the
need to be given the wall dimensions
Z
0
appropriate design earth pressures.
Heavy construction equipment should not be operated behind retaining and
foundation walls within a distance equal to the height of the wall, unless the walls are
lateral resulting from the equ ipment. Placement
-4
designed for the additional pressures
and compaction of retaining wall backfill should be accomplished with hand -operated
M
C: M
0
equipment.
M
0
C
Retaining Wall Backfill
M
rn z
Backfill placed within eighteen (18) inches of any retaining or foundation walls
This backfill should
10--i
C 2
>
should be free -draining structural fill containing no organics.
particles and have no particles greater
contain no more than five (5) percent silt or clay .
-4
than four (4) inches in diameter. The percentage of particles passi ng the No. 4 sieve
be between twenty-five (25) and seventy (70) percent. Due to their high silt
0
n
-49 1 "
should site, such as Mirafi
content, if the native soils are used as backfifl, a drainage compo
M
M M,
and Enkadrain, should be placed against the retaining walls. The drainage
the
0
rM
composites should be hydraulically connected to the foundation drain system.
is to assure that the design criteria for the
9
CO
purpose of these backf ill requirements
retaining wall as not exceeded because of a build -up of hydrostatic pressure behind
the wall. The subsection entitled General Ea hwork and Structur I Fill contains
regarding placement and compaction of structural fill behind
M
recommendations
retaining and foundation walls.
Z
X A Tl ANT! - SLOPES:
In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local,
Z
0
state and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts up to a height of
M
four (4) feet deep in unsaturated soils may be vertical. For temporary cuts having a
have an inclination no steeper than 1:1
height greater than four (4) feet, the cut should
(Horizontal:Vertical) from the top of the slope to the bottom of the excavation. Under
chnical engineer, excavation cuts
specific recommendations by the geote ive soils should be
All cuts into nat
may be modified for site conditions. permanent
inclined no steeper than 2:1 (H:V). Fill slopes should not exceed 1:1 (H:V). it is
important to note that sands do cave suddenly, and without warning. The contractors
should be made aware of this potential hazard.
water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any temporary
or permanent slope. All permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an
_J
Pak
Page six
appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve stability of the
surficial layer of soil.
DRAINAGE NS DERATIONS.-
Footing drains are recommended at the base of all footings and retaining walls.
These drains should be surrounded by at least six (6) inches of one -inch -minus
washed rock wrapped in non -woven geotextile filter fabric (Mirati 140N, Supac 4NP, or
ated pipe invert should be at least as
similar material). At the highest point, the perfor
sloped for drainage. All root and
low as the bottom of the footing and it should be
surface water drams must be kept separate from the foundation drain system.
Groundwater was observed in the test pits during the field work. Seepage into
the planned excavation is possible, and likely if excavation occurs during winter
months, and if encountered should be drained away from the site by use of drainage
ditches, perforated pipe, French drains, or by pumping from sumps interconnected by
shallow connector trenches at the bottom of the excavation.
The excavation and site should be graded so that surface water is directed off
the site and away from the tops of slopes. Water should not be allowed to stand in any
area where foundations, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Any exposed
slopes to be covered with plastic to minimize erosion. Final site grading in areas
adjacent to buildings should be sloped at least two (2) percent away from the building,
except where the area adjacent to the building is paved.
GENERAL EARTHW)RK AND STRUJQ�L �EILL'
The proposed building and pavement areas should be stripped and cleared of
all surface vegetation, all organic matter, and other deleterious material. The stripped
or removed materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as
structural fill.
NOTE: Specific clearing limits to be established at pre -construction meeting
with City of Edmonds Building Department.
Structural fill is defined as any fill placed under the building, behind permanent
retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the underlying soils needs to
support loads. This engineer should observe site conditions during and after
excavation prior to placement of any structural fill.
All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture content at or
near the optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content is that moisture
content which results in the greatest compacted dry density. The moisture content of
fill soils is very important and must be closely controlled during the filling and
compaction process.
Z
0
0 M
C
MO
-40
0 C
M M
Z
g)
E:
5
o -n
M M
0
0
M
C (1)
M
Z
-4
M
Z
0
i ; -
0
M
Pak
Page seven
The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type,
compaction equipment, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. In no case
should the lifts exceed twelve (12) inches in loose thickness. The following table
presents recommended relative compaction for structural fill:
Location of Fill Placement Minimum Relative
Compaction
95%
Beneath footings, slabs or walkways
Behind retaining walls 90%
Beneath pavements 95% for upper 12 inches of
subgrade, 90% below that level
Where: Minimum relative compaction is the ratio, expressed in percentages, of
the compacted dry density to the maximum dry density, as determined in
accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1 557-78 (Modified Proctor).
Use of On -Site Soils
If grading activities take place during wet weather, or when the silty, on -site Soils
are wet, site preparation costs may be higher because of delays due to rains and the
potential need to import granular fill. The on -site soils are generally silty and thus are
moisture sensitive. Grading operations will be difficult when the moisture content of
these soils exceeds the optimum moisture content.
Moisture sensitive soils will also be susceptible to excessive softening and
.pumping" from construction equipment traffic when the moisture content is greater
than the optimum moisture content.
Ideally, structural fill which is to be placed in wet weather should consist of a
granular soil having no more than five (5) percent silt or clay particles. The percentage
of particles passing the No. 200 sieve should be measured from that portion of the soil
passing the three -quarter -inch sieve.
The use of "som(E�'on-site soils for fill material it the upper
organic materials is segregated and moisture contents are monitored by engineering
inspection.
DRAINA E CONT�RL
Q�
Existing Lot No. 6 runoff is directed into the existing storm water system in 73rd
Place West. This engineer understands that the City of Edmonds has approved of the
existing storm water system. Discussions with existing neighbors have revealed no
z
0 M
rn 0
0
0 C:
rn z
C 2
>
0 _n
_n
rn M
0)
Fn
Cn
M 0
;1U
z
-4
0)
z
0
0
rn
Pak
Page eight
evidence of any malfunctions of the existing storm water system. Proper construction
of the Pak residence along with the recommended east property line intercept trench
will provide good drainage controls for Lot No. 6.
Compliance with standard storm water detention methods in accordance with
the City of Edmonds requirements are geotechnically acceptable.
CONCRETE:
All foundation concrete (footings, stem walls, slabs, any retaining walls,
etc.) shall have a minimum cement content of 5-1/2 sacks per cubic yard of concrete
mix.
INSPE!QTION:
The recommendations of this report are only valid when key geotechnicall
aspects are inspected by this engineer during onstruction'.
Soil cuts
Foundation subgrade verification
Retaining wall, or rockery placement
Any fill placement
Eastern property line intercept drainage ditch with appropriate tight -line "wrap
around" release
Subsurface drainage installation
SUMMAR
The proposed Mr. Chun H. Pak single family residence on Lot No- 6, Lorian
Woods, Edmonds is geotechnically viable when constructed in accordance with
the recommendations herein, compliance with City of Edmonds approved plans and
requirements, and key geotechnical inspection during construction.
STATE YIENT—D—FAMINHIMM&L—AW
The plans and specifications for the Mr. Chun H. Pak residence at Lot 6 of
Lorian Woods, as designed, by Phil King, Designer, have been reviewed by this
engineer and conform to the recommendations of the analysis and report and,
provided that those conditions and recommendations are satisfied during the
construction and use, and inspected and verified by this engineer, the area disturbed
by construction will be stabilized and remain stable and will not increase the potential
for soil movement, and the risk of damage to the proposed development and from the
development to adjacent properties from soil instability will be minimal.
Z
0
X
0 rn
C: 0
M
0
0
0
C
M
M Z
C: 2
>
-4
0 -n
n
I
M M
0 �j
0
0
(a
0)
Q 0
Z
;U
Z
in
Z
0 1
— i -
0
M
Pak
Page nine
CLOSURE:
The findings and recommendations of this report were prepared in accordance
with generally accepted professional engineering principles and p ractice. No other
warranty, either express or implied, is made. The conclusions are based on the results
Z�
of the field exploration and int erpolation of subsurface conditions between explored
during construction that appear to be different
ountered
locations. If conditions are enc should be notified to observe the
than those described in this report, this engineer
situation and review and verity or modify the recommendations.
It there are any questions, do not hesitate to call.
rn
0
0 C-)
M
MZ
WAS el
4
Cz
C(
CO
0 -n
-n
17405,
A J? eals &,�- 14
-XI ;C
MM
NAV,
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
Civ it Engineer
0
0
C cn�
ExpjRFs 12123/ 1 Geotechnical
DMB:vIb
z
M
Landau
Associates
Environmental and G.W-hal.1 S.1vic0s
May 28, 1999
JUN
City of Edrnonds DEV'rt0,,,
121 5th Avenue North — &V
city r8wic
Edmonds, WA 98020 opeo"O"O.,
crk
Attn: Ms. Lara Knaak
RE: SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW
PROPOSED PAK RESIDENCE
LOT 6, LORIAN WOODS DEVELOPMENT
16109 73TH PLACE WEST
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Dear Ms. Knaak:
This letter provides Landau Associates' review comments on additional geotechnical information
prepared by Mr. Dennis M. Bruce, P.E., (dated April 4, 1999), related to the above -referenced project.
The additional geotechnical information was submitted to the City of Edmonds (City) as part of a
response to our prelirninary review. Our preliminary review comments are summarized in an October 9,
1998 letter to the City.
in our October 9, 1998 letter, we listed several issues that needed additional attention and
clarification, which are briefly listed below:
I . Outdated site plan and topographic information.
2. Inadequate investigation of subsurface conditions.
3. Issues associated with temporary excavations to construct foundations.
4. Potential impacts to existing groundwater drainage system on the slope to the east of the site from
open or shored excavations.
5. Inconsistency in recommended allowable soil bearing pressure between the Terra & Associates
(Terra) 1991 geotechnical report and the initial 1998 Dennis M. Bruce Geotechnical report.
6. Possible conflict of the house location and a buried tightline discharge pipe associated with the
drainage system on the slope to the cast.
7. Conflicting information in the submittal package regarding site stormwater drainage.
8. Conflicting details regarding the foundation drainage system and lack of specifications of
material type&
9. Issues associated with a rockery planned for the yard area east of the house, and other smaller
rockeries.
10. Issues regarding a proposed "French -type" interceptor drain along the eastern property line.
(glPgAT REEK PL�CE - 4210 - 20TIl STREET E. - SUITE 1: - TACO". WA98424-1823
E.niail: infoGlandauinc.corn
51 4,) F (253) 926`531
_ 26?2C
Edn&
Z
0,
0
In
ca
m
0
0:
C
rn
Z
0 -Irl
_n
_Mn
A
0
0
m 0
Z.
—1.
Z
0
__I
M
_J
It. Incomplete statement of risk by the geotechnical engineer.
12. Incomplete discussion regarding potential differential settlement of the structure.
13. Contradictory statements between the environmental checklist and other documents submitted.
14. Inadequate evaluation of the slope above the residence.
15. In addition, several items were not included in the original submittal, including: Critical Areas
Checklist; Lead Design Professional Designation and Statement; Affidavit of Notice Application;
Applicant/Owner Liability Landslide Acknowledgment Declaration; and Applicant/Owner
Covenant to Notify and Hold Harmless.
The supplemental geotechnical report prepared by Mr. Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. (dated April 4,
1999) addresses or partially addresses above items 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11,12, and 14. Items number 1, 6, 7,
8, 13, and 15 were not addressed in the supplemental geotechnical report.
According to the supplemental g6otechnical report, an additional test pit (Test Pit — Pak) was
excavated to a depth of about 13 ft below existing ground surface. The test pit was located about 30 ft
east of the reported location of Terra's 1989 test pit, (TP-2), and is reportedly in the vicinity of the
proposed residence. However, information provided to us in -the original submittal does not contain an
accurate drawing showing the actual location of the proposed house, and since the resubmittal also does
not contain an accurate drawing, we cannot verify the test pit location. We recommend the City require
submittal of an accurate site plan which shows lot lines, the proposed house location� the locations of all
relevant exploration points, and any other items required by the ordinance.
The ground surface elevation at the test pit Test Pit -Pak location, as estimated from a figure
attached to the supplemental report, is about elevation 153 to 154 ft. T I herefore, the test pit teruninated at
about elevation 140 to 141 ft. The construction plans still indicate a basement finished floor elevation of
138 ft. [Note: Because of the proposed basement elevation, we recommended in our October 9, 1998
letter that additional subsurface explorations be completed and extended to elevation 132 ft or lower to
adequately evaluate subsurface soil and groundwater conditions.) The test pit excavated by Mr. Bruce did
not extend deep enough to characterize expected foundations soil types. In addition, the soil types (e.g.
fill, slide debris, glacial soil, etc.) encountered in the test pit are not identified, and typical modifiers (e.g.
moisture contents) are not presented for all soil layers. We recommend the City require site explorations
which extend below foundation level. Since the design anticipates the use of "pin piles", the explorations
must be deep enough so that pin pile criteria can be developed.
To address our comments on temporary shoring (above item 3), the supplemental geotechnical
report states that temporary excavations will not exceed 12 ft vertical and recommends using stacked
ecology blocks for temporary shoring. It appears from the report that temporary shoring will be
contractor designed. Temporary shoring should be designed by a licensed engineer registered in the State
of Washington (could be hired by the contractor), and the shoring plans submitted to the City as part of
LANDAU ASSMATES
=� 2
Z
0
0
m
.mo
-1 1 ;�
00
M
0 M
m rn
a
0
0
m 0
Z
Z
(A 1 1
Zi
0
m
ic design
the geotechnical engineer must provide specif
the building permit application. In addition, llowable soil bearing pressure, drainage
as recommended lateral earth pressure(s), a
parameters, such
shoring.
requirements, etc. for design of temporary atering effort to allow construction of the
The supplemental report anticipates a significant dew
ent of the project, we recommend that a
foundations. Since this appears to be a critical compon
ruction documents. As a minimum, the plan
dewatering plan be submitted to the City as part of the const
should include a written description of applicable dewatering methods, discharge points,
erosion/sedimentation control, monitoring requirements, and abandonment of the system. The plan could
ional or a qualified contractor.
be prepared by the geotechnical engineer, lead design profess
Though the supplemental report concludes that property shored temporary excavations will not
create any threat to adjacent residences, the supplemental report does not discuss potential impacts Of
temporary excavations or temporary shoring on the existing drainage system to the east (item 4 above).
We recommend that the geotechnical engineer review and comment on this issue -
A revised maximum allowable bearing pressure of 1,500 psf is recommended in the
supplemental report, which is more consistent with the 1,200 psf maximum allowable bearing pressure
report (item 5 above I ). No specifies are provided regarding what is
recommended by Terra in their 1991 h logs was encountered.
proper bearing soil. In test pit TP-2, excavated by Terra in 1991, slide debris wit
If encountered, would this soil be suitable to support a 1,500 psf bearing pressure9 We recommend that
the geotechnical enginee r review and comment on what soil type(s) the recommended soil bearing
pressure applies to, and provide guidance if unsuitable soil is encountered at proposed foundation depths.
"cat detail and installation
If pin piles will be the recommended solution for unsuitable bearing soil, a typi
specifications must be provided with the submittal, [As an aside, the owner should be advised of the cost
excavation is underway, the owner will be
of this alternate foundation support system. Once the be faced with the prospect of having to backfill
committed to going ahead with piles (if required), or may
.1
the excavation and/or re-designtabandon the project e wisdom of using a rockery to support the slope
In our October 9, 1999 letter, we questioned th
east of the house (item 9 above). We recommended consideration be give to an engineered wall system,
such as a cast -in -place concrete retaining wall with catchment capacity, since near -surface upslope soil
consists predominantly of landslide debris, and debris flows off the eastern bluff will likely occur in the
ncrete retaining wall (catchment wall) would be a
future. Though Mr. Bruce indicates that a reinforced co
ion to the owncr� Without this issue being resolved prior to the City
better choice, he defers the decis even if
issuing the building permit, there will be no requirement for the owner to build such a wall,
strongly recommended by the geotechnicat engineer. Therefore, it is our opinion that the geotechnical
s the risks associated with a rockery and a decision made regarding the
engineer and owner must discus
LANDAu ASSOCIATFS
ECMM79
OWSM LTROJ 3
z
0
M
M
MD- I ,
0
0
C
C
o -n
M M
0,
0 m
m
z
z
rr,
proposed wall. Once a wall type is selected, the geotechnical engineer must provide design
recommendations and material specifications, and an assurance that the wall will prevent downslope
creep of the slope debris (such creep could lead to failure of the City's drain system).
. Our comments regarding other rockery walls at the site, as noted in our October 9, 1998 letter,
were not addressed in the supplemental report. This includes rockeries to support fill and/or soil that
cannot stand vertically on its own, and which needs to be permitted according to City guidelines. The
supplemental report does not address rockery design or construction. We recommend that the
geotechnical engineer address the above. Any rockery design should include details and specifications
for wall drainage and drainage discharge.
In our October 1998 letter, we questioned the need of the "French -type" interceptor drain (item
10above). Our qucstions/concems regarding this drain were not addressed, in the supplemental report.
In respo I rise to item I I above, the supplemental report states that in the engineer's opinion, the
probability of earth movement an. lot 6 within a 25-year period is less than 10 percent. No probability of
damage due to earth movement from offsite sources is given, even though the earlier Terra report states
the highest risk areas within the plat are along the steep eastern bluff. In our opinion, the risk of failure of
the slope to the east has yet to be adequately evaluated (item 14 above). Though Mr. Bruce made
periodic observations of the slope during the period of October 1998 and March 1999 (6-month period),
the slope has not been evaluated -by a geologist experienced with Puget Sound bluff processe s, as
recommended in our initial letter. The fact that only small events have been noted in approximately the
last 40-year period may be increasing the risk of future, larger failures, and should be considered during
the geological evaluation. Our recommendation that the lead design professional should use the findings
from that study to evaluate site constraints and/or the need for supplemental engineered features (such as
catchment/deflection walls, Brugg"" cable retaining systems, reinforced foundation walls, "soft"
walls/floors, special drainage, selective tree removal, etc.) is still valid..
The current risk statement from Mr. Bruce assumes that the City will maintain and improve the
existing storm drainage system to the east of the proposed residence in order to minimize landslide
potential and hazards. It is our understanding that the City is responding to this issue. The applicant
should be made aware that the existing storm drain system to the east is within a known landslide h . azard
area, and because of that, there is a higher than normal risk of failure of the system due to soil creep and
other mass wasting processes. Therefore, the lead design professional and geotechnical engineer should
consider potential failure of the existing storm system when evaluating the landslide potential/erosion
hazards of the slope to the east.
. The supplemental report provides additional discussion regarding "normal" differential settlement
of the structure (item 12 above). However, the supplemental report does not address the concern of
aW� I.I�RQjECM74W79.1okpak,l�W",�t—flf.—i
4
LANDAU ASSOCIATES
L
Z
0.
M
0
—40
0 C
rn M
Z,
10 4 1,�,
ci
>
o -n
-4
M: C ; 'r,
M M
0"
01m
C
Z
Z
M
potential differential settlement of foundations underlain by organic material, such as encountered in
Terra's test pit, TP-2; or for potential cosmetic damage caused by uneven settling as a result of using
differing foundation elements. The supplemental report does indicate that if poor foundation soil is
present, pin piles with grade beams will be used to support the structure. As noted above, the
supplemental report provides no geotechnical recommendations to support this foundation type (e.g. pipe
size, allowable capacity, driving criteria, corrosion protection, etc.), or that changing the foundation
syst . em will require additional structural engineering and resubmittal of the foundation plans to the City
for approval. Lastly, the supplemental report indicates that pin piles will likely be used to support the
chimney, though this option is not included on the construction drawings and no recommendations are
provided for pin pile foundations. We recommend that the geotechnical engineer review and respond to
theseissues.
Though the April 4, 1999 supplemental geotechnical report prepared by Mr. Dennis M. Bruce
addresses many of the items contained in our October 9, 1998 letter, several significant issues/concems
still I remain to be addressed. In addition, our comments on other portions of the project documents have
yet to be addressed, but should be prior to resubrnittal or issuance of a building permit. We recommend
that the geotechnical engineer review the comments contained in this letter, (and the ordinance
requirements for a geotechnical report), and respond as appropriate; and that the City require the lead
design professional to submit all documents in a complete form.
Please call if you have questions concerning this review, or require the services of Landau�
Associates for subsequent review services.
LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC.
J By:
1�4
4 Edward J. Heavey, P.E.
Ce Senior Engineer
27805 9
GIST and
N L
RPIRES
William D. Evans, C.P.G.
Associate
EJHIWDFJjas
LANDAU ASSOCIATES
wMW� IVROJECT074WS .5
I R
J� P
z
0
M,
—n
Ca
C3 m
C
M
0 E
M
M zi
10-1 1P
C
0
.n
mill,
(J) 1 ix
0
0 Fn
MO!
z
n
z
Z.
-04
M
'OCT- 1 9-98 FRI 16!24 LANDAU TACOMA FAX NO.. 2639262631 P.02
LANDAU
ASSOCIATES,
INC*
Eo,�,W -d Q-t-
October 9,1999
cityofftdmonds
121 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 99020
Aunc Ms. Lam Y-naak
RE: PkLELM—Ry GEOTECHNICAL RiLvww
ptioroftl) PAX RF-D"CE
LOT6. LOWAN WOODS DFVELOPMENT
16109 13TH PLACE WEST
MEADOWDALE AREA
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Dear Ms. Knaak: t, we have coirPlOtOd a P-l"ainary geot"chnie'd review of plans and
In.monlance with your -qOC3 the proposed p& midenec- Since the proposed
other,
documents concerdigg construction of
revi,
msidence is located within the MeadOwdale slide area, our � f011u%vb the general rc�lult!cments outlioad
�ithui City ordinance No. 2661 and Ch2ptem 19.f)5 and 20.15 of the Edincrids Community Development
Code (EcDC). A list of the doculnetlts we reviewed Onrluding earlier site-relatedi Miltedai from our riles),
is included as Attachn'tent I- p
In 1989, Landau Assodati3s reviewed a "'technicd report pre mod by Terra Absoi;iates, Inc. (Terra)
for the proposed Anderson short plat project (subsequently known as Lorlart Woods), which includes the,
subject Lot 6. Terra's report, Ionic 6, 1989, provides general geotachnical inforination relative to overall
rty is Suitable for construction of singIc-flinkilY
de
.velop,,nt of the short plat and state$ that the platted PtOpe
in our letter to the City d"' Novemb5r 17. 1989, Landau Associates conclmiat that Terra had
provided an adequate description Of ths property and that their conchisions aPMitc(l reasonable for the
infor,lationobtained at that tiTne. However, we further stated in Ourietter that development of individual lots
would depend on adequate charactclizatiOn of boil inid groundwater conditions at each indi,ithial lot, and
nical design and construction criteria not provided in Torres 1989 report-
wotild require lot specific geotech rstand Some orthe individual lots httvc been develoPml-
The short plat was approved by the City, and we- und' 9 1 SaOtechnical report prePitred f., dveloliment
As put of our current review, we 4160 Viewed Teria's 19 uts
of Lot 3 of Lodan Woods. These. reports are fisted on Attachment 1, along w'th a sunan'ry Uf dmunke
subruitted by the applicant-
wApAT0 CRREK PLACE - 4210 - 20TIl Mta-T L . SL'rrE 1. . TACOM&WA 9H474-1823
. E-MA;
1 ?26-2531
z i
0.
M
—1 -n,
� I
C I
M U !
OL
oc�
m
m Z:
C 2:
>
E:
4
J
0 -n
m J
t3
0
0 Fn
C 0)
M
z
0
rn
p
9-98 FRI 16:25 LANDAU TACOMA FAX NO. 2639262631 P. 03
The Latina Woods development i&situaled on a tOP09VJPh ic bench within the Mead —dole slide area.
1989 repA the bench is composed pdmalily of slide debris associated with IRV-Gcal�'
According tojerraq
To the Call of the bench is a 1016a i�.ly steep bloff slope (landslide headscarp) composed
,j,,tlndSllding,
of undisturbed native 5011 that rise$ upward toward the east to a crest about 100 to 150 ft above the bench -
k
Typical bluff slope inclinatiom vary from less than 40 pef=c Rd 'r the toe to more than 100 Percent 11, upper
Z
k;
ri flows and smallerslides
slope. The flatter slopes at the toe of the bluff re attributed to deb s
0
-4
J;
pordonSorthe 74th Place West at
off the steeper upslope portions of the beadscarp. To the west, the bench slopes down to
0
rn
generally similar inclinations,
Lot 6 is locutL%d on the Oa;t side of 73rd Place West at the toe of the bluff slop e. According to the
n
US -1
3:
th ary fro o 4 alo ng dw west
shown on the 1999 prer"nillarY Plat, elevations across elotv m ab lit 14 ft
C: M
0
topography the lot slopes downward
170 ft near the northca st comor. prom &a toe of the bluff slope,
0:
0
boundary to about
to 73rd plaGaWest at grades of betweenabout 10 to35 percent.
C
K.
In
i 11
1,
Term,$ Iggg assessmentof siteconditions isbasWin put on subsurface information from several ten
In Z'
10-4
i
! .
i ��f
and two borings advanced u, part of their 1999 study- We understand that Terra7 s lest pit Tp-2 is locawd
Z
-4
pits e lest pit TPA oil Lot 5
an Lot 6 near the street (preliminary plat). other noarby explo rations by Term includ
V)
te ad in test
(preliminary plat) and baring B-1 100 aced just wct of Lot 7 (prcliminkuy plat). Conditions encoun 't
0
TP-2 an d TP-4 consisted of mixed jail containing orparai us and nuffiCrOus logs (e.g., landslide debris).
� r.
In M
,
pits
Groundwater seepage was encountered within 3 to 4 ft of the ground surface, and the side walls of the lest Pits
0 0)
0
were reported to have collapsed during excavation. Conditl ons encountered in boring B-1 arcsimilar. and
0
suggest that the slide debris at the site extends well below the bottom of tes t pit TP-2 (over 14 ft),
While the document package We received was relatively complete, some itenas raqkiited by the
application chooldist wero not included. The iternc not included are:
t
ChcoMist itcm Number Description
critical Areas Checklist
2 Lead Design professional Designation and Statement
Vi
z
0
Affidavit of Notice of Application
12 Applirantlowner'S Liability Landslide ALcknowleagment
M
Declaration
15 Applicantlowner Covenant to Ned fy and Hold Harmless
The lack of these documclits; did not Rignificantly affect our ability to perform this preliminary
geotechnical review.
i
LAt4DAu AmOCATES
L
'OCT- 0-98 FRI 16!26
LAND411 TACOMA FAX NO, 2639262631 P.04
our review of the documents submitted for illis project (and of material from our files) indicates
several issues which require additional attention or clarification. These am sun"lleozed as follows:
. formation prepared in january 1988 and a
Plans related to this project am based on gumeY In rep red. the common
preliminary short Plat Prcl,�d in 19139, since those documents were P a
improvements have been ln,,Wled and msideness have been constructed in the Lorian Woods
bmitted d,
subdivision. None of the xionleilLs clearly indicate the position of the house with
inary plat, Doi is it clesy from the submitted
respect to the lot boundaries shown on the prelim am etL
documents wbere the actual lot boundaries. common improvements, or exi sting houses
The arcilitectural plan s arc signed by Phil K! ng, but are not stamped,
Based on our understanding of the submitted information, and assuming that the lot
boundaries are a& shown on �; preliminary P13t- it appears that pan of the house will be
located on the north and of Lot 1. Either we have misinterpreted the house location --the
actual plancd lot bcundarki� are different from those shown an the prefirtinaw Plat --or the
subinittaillack-Agc shows an incorrect location-
c mup was prepared. Ground surface changes
Ithas been overten Years since die site wPogrdpbl,,
are Jilely to have occurred at the she Over 'Ile P t decade and certainly have occurred where
adjacent common iniprovemenu have been constructed. using outdated infonnation 4, a basiu for
design could lead to an improperly designed structure and result in significantand cu-stly Problems
during construction and over the long -team According to the requiremeots oforcilrance 2661,
atopugraDhic map mustbe submitted showing the property lines, off -site structures within 50 ft
of the propettY, lower floor And footing locations of off. site structures within 50 ft of the property,
d fi ' -bed grade contours. In our
existing underground utilities on- and off -site, and the Propose u's
opinion, the submitted docurnents do not provide that information as of the time of submittal and
should not be used for purpo�*s of design Of 'mating the house -
Subsurface conditions do not appear to have been adequately investigated. Under Ordinance
�ec . generally required as PaA of the geotechnical
2661, site specific getir hnical explordtiolls ai,. a
The explorations should extend I depth that includes the Boil influenced by or
investigation. that depth 1.9 uSUR11Y a Point Wow the bQAe of
supporting the foundations. For spread footing', w
, the
the footing equal to a di , tance of at least twie, Idth of the footing. Floor elevations On Sheer
I of the plans indicate that the basement floor elevation will be 138 ft. V00TIng elevation$ am
expected to be least 2 ft lower, Accordingly, site spepific explorations should extend to an
elevation of about 132 ft. or lower, in order to determine Boil conditions below the: footing. At the,
northeast corner of the home. this would require explorations to at least 21 ft.
Site specific explorations for the proposed dwelling include five halid-excavated test Pits
Bruce as pan of the content project geotechnical investigation, and
accomplished by Dennis M. jly 27, 1999 geotechnical
test pit TP-2 excavated by Turra, in 1989. As described in Bruce's I
report, the rive current test pits v�,eru excavated to depths of le6s than 3 it below existing site
grades. Based on the 'topography indicated on the prullminary pled (which may not be current)- the
Current test pits would not have penetrated much below an elevation of about 140 ft.
Our copy of Bruce's g.0toohnical report did not contain a map showing the location Of the current
fts, Based on our understanding of the proposed location of tile house and
band -excavated test I r, of the apparelit footprint of the house. Sill'illUlY,
of Torra!s test pit TP-.2 TP-2 is loca(cd outside ,, to the street (prelimlinary plat).
Torra,s test pit TP-4 s;d boringla-1 �, off site d relativelY close
3 LANDAu AssOCIATES
z
rn
ma
0
C
M
M 7
10
01
n
M rn
0
M 0
z
z
M
*OCT- 9-98 FRI 16�26 LANDI'll TACOMA FAX NO. 2639262631 P106
With the exception of boring B-1. none of the eXplorations conducted at or near the proposed
so location extend to, or below, elevation 132 ft. Consequently, the explorations listed above
hou 0fCjdijjance266l. Inaddidon,n0exPlOrA(iO"-%OfaPPrc)Pfiate
do not meet all of the requirements of the lot where existinF site grades at,
th or intent have be= conducted at the back to
t there does not appear be sufficient site subsurface infortration
dep Cal isques, paraculaly hose described
significantly higher, Asa resul ,
available at this tinne to adequately address site gcot'ah"'
in the following paragraphs. of III,. plans. the basement floor clevation will
AcCording to the house elevations Shown on Shed 1 ft. The main noor elevation will bc slightly
be 138 ft and the main floor elevation will be 149 . AccOldingtOcuntours
ab.�a the finished ground surface along Ole cast (uphill) side of the house
shown on die drainage plan (which approximate ft elevations shown on the pretiminar'y plat), tile
from about IS to 20 ft below existing site grades at the southeast and
basement floor will range use mpeetively. Excavations for ale jotlangs will extend about 2 ft
northeast comers Of the hO I Liuus) 1-41ow the lassDurent floor elevation. The
(or more, depending On vVosed subgrade Condit and basement concerns us for the following
depth of excavation required to cOVstruct the footings
reasons; likely be, classified a. Type C
I Soil and gtoundwater conditions expected a' the site would
according to excavation safety guidelines described ta Part N of Ch pter 296-155 of the
Washington Annotated Code (WAQ. ForType C soil, WAC 295-155 limits 51OP" Of less
than 20 ftin height L43 an inclination of 11/2HAV (horizontal to vertical)' or ft-atler, Excavation
dopes higher than 20 ft must be designed by a geotechnical engineer. Brace's geOtech"'cal
report recommends that temporary slopes not be steeper than IH:IV, which appears 10
t that slopes could be steeper than allowed under WAC 295-155. (iiventhe reported
suggen and collapsing soil conditions CrcrM 1989), it is our opinion
presence of shallow groundwater In fact. actual temporary slopes may
that slopes steeper then lVgH�JV ulay be inappropriate.
need to be flatter than 1�ig: lV-
3ition and site topography, temporary slopes of
2. Based an our understanding Of tirm hauA PO a house. Accordingty,
IM:lV may not dayllaht because of the stccp slope to the east of th
in The
excavation for ft Use anti foundations will Uely require 'C' pormy shuria$.
geoteclinical report does not provide recommendations for temporwY shoring. RcidtivelY
deep explorations for shoring dcsign may be required.
bee de ified
3. Tnformation in the documents we reviewed implies that the Aacent lots have ' n V&
thout shoring is
(we did not do a e.manssance to verifY this), If open excavation wi
,rions would likely extend onto neighboring properties, particularly Ut
attempted, the excav naplish an excavation
7 to the scuth. qe�fond requiring a constmedon easement to acc( Ic ated site
an. structures on thaw lots. Since the site data (il ludir� the cold
could impact exis'. -�ocs not provide ourmnt information for a distance of 50 ft beyond the
topographic survey) t a d
property boundaries (as required under Winanco 2661), the potential for such impac c ul
exist for both open and shored excavations and should be addressed in the geatedinical
report,
4. if open or shored excavations are acromplished, there is the potential for those excavations -
to impact the V, dsting groundwater drainage system Or' the slope to the east of tile site
Excavation deiign and execution should include provisions for protecting the groundwater
-cated on the plans.
drainage BY605M. base provision& should be clearlY inth
4 LANDAUASSOctArFs
Wiwm
Z�
X
a M
C
MD
0
--10
0 C'
:1 C i i
M
M Z
>
cl)
min
0,
0
rh
Z
0
M
OCT- 9-98 FRI 16!27 LANDAII TACOMA FAX NO. 2630262631 P. 06
Subgrade conditions fo r the footing% are unknown since the explorations did not extend to
(and the plans show)
below the anticipated fc )oting subgrade, elevation. Bruce recommends
of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) which Tnay or may not
b�aring prcssllre
.a .11.wahl, ex
exist ing so!] conditiom below d pected footin.- elevation, It 5hould be I
be consistent with % recormitsmiLd an
,at, Terra (Terra 199 1.
noted that for Lot 3 Of the Urin Woods devejopiln�
by conditions Si nular it)
allowable bearing picssurc of 1,200 pAf for fOc )rings supported -soil
6. in the absence of specific so it information it depth. it is our opinion
those found on Lot 00 pAf. In addition,
that it is premature to recominend an allowable beating pmssure of 2,0 f allowable bearing
3,000
z
the &Cotechnical top recommends both a 2,000 psf and a P"
ol� alternate applications
should be provided, unless specific
0
-4
px;sure. Only one bearing pressure
i
are described.
M
. .
"V.
1 t� "�
Based oa our interpretation Of the location of the house, it appears that the house will be located
v drainage
UPSIOPe groundwtut.
—
-4 -n
o,'ar " buried tight line disch arge pipe associated with the existing
if so, excavation for the house would require removal and relocation of the tight title tpe.
.system. along with other existing site conditions). and
The locution of the pipe line should be confirmed
C a
M
plans Should be preptacd for pipe line ralcoation, if required.
0,
0
There -t don in the submittal pidukage regarding site storillwater drainage, The
is conflicting Infom
Infiltration trench located to
C:
rn
Ins included with the grading and drainage calculation-1 show an
,c cutting plan shows a detention Pipe at the end
the house. The land clearing and Ile
the rhe
west of
apparent discharge to existing common stormwater facilities.
Of the driveway with an in the strect. In our
facilities
> Z
Potechrlical report discusses connection to existing 910rulwater
discharge to 0 ds6ng tight Hue storinwater fwilides would be preferred, Dischargetoan
-n
opinion.
infiltration trench embedded in the slide debris would be contrary to efforts undertaken in the
levels- We
0
-n
14cadowdale aree since the mid-1980s to control and lowcr area -wide groundwater
from the submittal document'
3:
to %wh a discharge system be removed
suggest that uli references s should be submitted
detention system is to be oonsEructed, a drainage plan with calculation
rn rn
C) —
I
1
if a
as pad of the application-
00
0 Fn
C co,
Sheets 9 and jo of the house plans shu� three conflicting details of tile foundation drainage
mport, but A
K 0)
0
System. Foundation drainage design Is discussed in the gwEcclulicAl
material type and placement am not included in the plans or in any otilcrsubmitted
regarding
document. A building section detail on Sheet 9 calls fo r connecting jhc footing drain to an
drainage System. Basement wall details on Sheet lo call for ale drains to daylight to
approved
along buried basement walls, may be critical at this site.
Foundation drainage, particularly.
z
gravel. ater collection
is that the footing drains should be tightlined to an existing stor raw,
-4
It our opinion
that the design profeSSiOnalS V: assess the foundation drainage issue mid revise
By tem. We suggest
61 a suitable and buildable foundation drail"age
the plans to eliminate inconsistencies and provide
z
bystom.
There is a growing comensus within dic. Scotevimical community that filtar fabrics. if improperly
and ccase to function over time. If thut� 're to happen at the
rn
matched to site soil conditions, plug
ite, the function of the foundation drain could tie advernly affoottil. We tire no, sagge�jjng that
that
a fabric should not be used (or that those recommended are irlapPrOPriatc) we are sUggesting;
a filtcr fabric and confirm that his recL)inmendutions are
the geotechnicit engineer revisit using
appropriate.
LANDAU ASSOCLATE5
9-98 FRI 18;28 LANDAII TACOMA FAX NO. 2539262631 P.07
as for foundiatiordirtaining wall backfill,
report in,
Dennis Bruce's akeS Spceife reCommorldatio andfies and compaction
which inte not reflected on the drawings, Backfill nlate"al tyPe(s)' qu
requirements should be clearly shown on the drawings.
e cast Of the house and
ur
The plans indicate that � 11 a rockery is planned for The yard *area to 01 )f the house. A large
III be located 'Along the nolth and South walls ( e from about 4 to
smeller isolated roc3cerive w
rock,,-ry to the cast Of the h.Ildo is currently �hown On the plans, and will ning
0 fill or existing colluvium/slide, debris. In light of the probably need
ft in helglAt and likely retai flows from the bluff
and the potential for debris
noted previously,
for temporary shoring, as In
(discussed WI ow), we recommend The lead desig profe5siolial and geotechnical an ineer 'a
a cwt-ln-
evaluate, the planned rockerY along the cast (UP11111) side of the home. Considcrationshouldba
our opinion,
given to encompassing the temporary shoring id, tile permanent wall. In
pule concrete retaining wall, with catchment capacity and designed for impact loads, is the
minimum retaining System which should be allowed at this location-
Fisewhere on the property rockery walls that we higher than 3 ft and Support fill or soil that
cannot stand vertically On i I ta own must be pennitted. according to City guidelines. In addition,
r the rockerY Mralt- Tile geolechnical report
an engineered design may need to be prepared fo a rac
�Bign or constructiOn, and kery design is not provided on die plan; -
does not address �kery de mi6tent with City guidelines and guideline'
We recommend that a rociccry design be prepared a.. The design ahould include details and
published by the Associated RockcfY COlatra"O
specifications for wall drainage and drainage discharge.
A `Ftench-tyg' *interception drain along the eastern property line is recorrimcnded in the
gededulical repoit. The drain would be about 36 inches deep, and, we assume, be connected to
am understanding Of site conditions, it appears
existing stDrmwater collection facilities. Based on the house basement walls, Of along ale
that the drain would be constructed in backfill for tion the Utility of
alignment of the existing 011Y tnmk StOrin drain line. in either case. we quuq
suWt that the need for the French drain be to-exallimed using up-to-date
instulliag the draill. We d ' i ; needed, sub."uent submittals should Include
site information. if it is determined the rain I
drain design details and specify how collected drainage is to be discharged.
ation avid statement of risk by Dennis Bruce 2PPea"' to be Incomplete'
The geetechnical declar imical enginoe u
According to our understanding of the application checklist, the geotec f Ir st
include "an evaluation setting fOrth the statistical probability (perucatage) Of earth movement
within a 25-year period, the susceptibility of the risk, or hazard to correction. by on -site
risk or hazard'" Dennis Brace has included
improvements and the Measures taken to mitigate the
ions in his statement of risk. it is our understanding that the above phrase
tile ph= in the quotat
tion to the geolechilicd engineer, and not for inclusion in the text Of
is intended to provide direv
the statement. Bruce does state in the geotechnical report dial the risks imposed by the
Tile City should review these statements and
dayelopment, both on- and off.site will be nimirrial
&-tcrn-dito if they are acceptable.
Its ofabnut 1/2 in and 114
to] fill, As described
The geotectinical report provides estimated total and difforont"al settl0f0e U
Boil or struct
t r be
in, respectively, for footings founded On competent native appe, 1 3 to
It is possible that
above, die native soil underlying the Site to below the expected Footing elevation$
relativelysoft or loose. slide debris containing buried trees and organic material- 1position of
voids may be presenter could develop over time within the Slide debris due to dccOn
buried tmes and other organics. Based Oil these conditions, we would expect the compressibili y
6 LANDAU A55001ATEO
l0j0qjqj j:\VKO)8CT\074N079.lG\PAKl.LTR
am
M
0
-i C)
0 r—
I K i
X ris
m z
C —
> Z
r- -4
0 -n
n
-4
m In
0
0 F,
C
in 0
z
_q
X
Cn
Z
0
S
0
On
FAX NO. 2539262531 08
OCT- 9-98 FRI 16:29 LANDA11 TACOMA
LcrOSS the site dvpc,,dinr, on the consistency of the slide debris. the
Of die slide debris to vary I Accordingly, it is possible that total and
thickness of organic zones, arid the presence of vOlds,
the house footprint could be higher than those described in the
differential settlements across a at of he structure could occur. A discussion
geotechnical report, and that sortie long-term set Me 11
on potential impacts to the planned three-story Vat'SO ry chirnocy arid other bcick work due to
Bruce.
potential future sattlement.should be provided by Mr . to contradict conditions described in
, .�ironmenj checklist appears
Information provided in the
j jinfonnation contained in other subjuitted documents. For example,
the gcotechnical report an', han 18 percent, while 'he geolechnical report
that site grades are not BteePOr t , that site grades
the checklist states ry front 5 to 30 perCeaL our own calculations indic, te
states that the site grades vaj t. part of the Submittal prneess includes input to and review of the
may be steeper than 30 perean near. we suggest refining the environmental
environmental checklist by the geotcelinical engi input by thZ geotechni'al engineer -
checklist based On current site "'formation and with .
scribes site risks due to various landslide activity which could occur an
The 1999 Terra Report de e eaSte-oa buff -
concludes that the hig1wst risk areas am associated with th
Zuladiviwiori property. and that all lots. as propos . ed in 1999, am "builduble," the lot fiftc
ile Tom also cOncuTs in addition, Terra notes that debris
ton apparently cho ged tifter the report was issued -
flows ftom die bluff areas have not w2ch-d the lower slopes for the past 30 years (now 39 years).
umc�red,lumefou log&,, in last pit TP-2 (west of the proposed home)
The fact That Term meo reached the proposed home site in the not -too -
demonstrates d1at jrrger debris flows have likely
distant past. pe above the proposed residence should be evaluated by a geologist
In our opinion, the sto N ral andliuman causcd runoffiathe top oftlie
experienced with PugetSound bluff Processes, Btu
ding slope failure and/or any other pertinent features
bluff ground cracks/other evidence of pen , fact that only small events have been runed in
q1touirl be evaluated during that inspectiun, The 10 and
approximately the last 40-year period maybe increasing the risk Offuture, larPr fallu 5,
should be considered during the evaluation. The lead design professional should use the findings
from that study to evaluste site constraints; andlor the need for supplem, . ental engineered features
retaining systems, rein forced foundation walls,
ush 0 catchmenijefleation walls, smggm cable
"Scfe, wills/floon, special drainage, gelective tree removal. etc,).
in summary, the information provid I e i in the 511braitial package is dated, incompleu,.. and inconsistent,
Eased on the size of the house, we anticipate die project represents a significant investment. That investment
could be jeopardized and lives threatened by basing the design on information that it neither current (site
ons). A design based an up-to-date and complete
topography) nor sufficiGot (subsur-race BOB and ul'pe conditilvould limit construction clairm due to unfOrsec"
i.foyination vould result in better structural performance'
conditions, and reduce risks to Property and life due to future landslides.
We recommend that the documents be returned to the applicant for further action. A lead design
professional should be designated, The lead design professional should review the Plans and other documents
and make whatever appropriate changes am necessary in order to be consistent with the requirements Of
& ictural Engineer, und Civil
ordinance 2661. In addition, the degign ,orqtsionah (Geolechnical En litleer, Strk
7 L�oAU ASSOVATES
10109191 L�\PROJEC;T',u4%07'J�lt\PAK"LTR
Z
0
C)
M
I -n 1
a M
M
X M
M Z.
0 -11
n LU
M
0
0
0 Fn,
M C),
Z
--I
M i
(j)
Z
0
In
OCT- 9-98 FRI 16: 30 LANDAII TACOMA
FAX NO, 2639262631 P, 09
Engineer resPo nsitile for site stormwater drainage dcsign) should evaluate and comment on S pcc'flc issues
raised herein.
plMse call if you have questions concerning this review, or requirc the services of Landau Assmifttes
for Subsequent review Services'
LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC-
By:
�W,�d.
Gilbert, PZ
Senior Project Gcowhnicml Frigine"
Reviewed by:
William D. Evans, CPG
Associate
jWC%'WDfY0Yb
No. 74079.10
Attachments: List of Documents Reviewed
Yt
LANnAuASSOCIA
h"
0.
M
R
M,
Cy
M:'
>z
A
p
q
(on l'�
Z''
OR
0,
M
k"
J
OGT- 9-98 FRI 16:30 LAND,"[ TACOMR FAX NO. 2539262531 P.10
ATFACOMENT I
LIST OF MATERLaLS REVTR%N'8D
Shects I through 10, PrOPOsEdResidencefor Mr. andflfrl* Ch"r Pak, Phil lKing De�igns, 3"1Y I
1998.
Shed 1, Robert Anderson Topogruphy, G.P Fear, ine" ]—my Is. 1988,
Topography. Existing Utilities, &IsMg Drainage SY-Wet". U"'ge Tfee
Sheet'-), Preliminary Plat" epicluber 26,1989.
Su"ry, Lri,. _V,j,ads PRD, bOVVL Fngineer& S
plot plan (residence 121YOut), unknown orifin, undated.
Envirorinle"tal Checklist, Chun Pak, dw Oml-d- lan Woods, origin unknown, undated.
Land Clearing and Tree Cutting plan, Lot 6 LOT ence, 16109 - 73rd Place West, Edmonds,
i Proposed New Read
Geotechnical Evaluatiol - 1998.
washington, Dennis M. Bruce, P-E-1 July 27' k, H. N. L�htinen. August 1. 1998-
Grading and Drainage calculatio?"Jor Ch.n P1,
Stamment (,,,t,,hn""1 declaration), Dennis M. Bruce, P-F-, July 30' 1998'
Engineer's Declafflt!671, Nick Lthtlnen, j3nglneer, Aupat 17, 1999.
Vicinity Map, undated.
Rq�rt of rcotecbnical Consultation, GeoE ngincem, Inc., February 28,1985,
Review olrGeorechnical Report and prrposed Slebdividon Plans, Proposed Anderson S bd v in
(Lotion &Wtes), Meadowdole Area, E&nondsj Washington, LAndau Ausociates, Inc., Nr`ve1uW
17,1989. Proposed Layton woods Subdivision, Meadowdale Area of Edmonds,
Geotachnical Review,
washingron. Landau AssociAws, The- June 25, 1990- dino (for roben: andImm
Geoclugead Report. Meadow Beach, Lots 54 to 57, F nds, Wash'nglon
Anderson), Terra Associates, bc.. June 6,1989.
Wadwl Residenm Lot 3. Larian Woods, Fdnwnd.q, washington, Terra Associntes, Inc-, In e 11
1991.
LANoAu ASSOCIA71ES
1010914A L.%paoIBCT\074\Q79 JOWAKLUR
M
0
C)
0
[W�
C:
Fitz
i
to
C —
-on
M
0
0
to
CO
0:
in
0
CONFORMED COPY
200006050422
06/05/2000 01:16 PM Snohomish
RETURN ADDRE SS: P-0007 RECORDED County
Cit ty of Edmonds, City Clerk
121 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Z,
0
M
g
I
COVENANT OF NOTMCATION
AND INDEMNMCATION/HOLD HARMMESS
f 0M
a
0
M 0
Reference #: Wc:�qo---S:
0
C
Grantor(s): (I IA �7�) (2) Additional on pg
x rn
M
Grantee(s): City of Edmands
c:
Legal Description (abbreviated): See --Twn-.aZ---Rng 24 —Otr. I
OR Lot-�L t�/?Iock-0-0-Q—Plat-0-00—
o -n
Assessor's Tax Parcel ED#(s): (1)79044-nWO-004�-000'i (2)
ME
-_----Assessor's Tax Parcel ID# not yet assigned
M
0
0
C: Co
K ch:
M 0
CITY OF EDMONDS
APPROVED FOR RECORDING
BY: DATF,51 1 -1 kFAGE t 1 OF
k.
Under the review procedures established pursuant to the State Building Code,
Z
0
0
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:
)RDING:
1. Description of Subiect Frqpc This covenant of notification and
indemnification[hold harmless relates to a tract of land at the street address ofZ6/-0/11
_0
nsert street
address), Edmonds Snohomish County, Washington and legally described as:
d15
k1
4,Z S��Ohm"?A
2. Notification and Covenant OUH90catiOn. The above referenced site
(hereinafter "subject site") lies within a n area which has been identified by the -City
of Edmonds as having a potential for earth subsidence or landslide hazard. The
risks associated with development of the site have been evaluated by technical
consultants and, engineers engaged by the applicant as a part of the process to
obtain a building permit for the subject site. The results of the consultant's reports
and evaluations of the risks associated with development are contained in building
permit file number6�-� (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
Z
M
X
M
C:
MO
0
C
M
M
10 .4
C
0)
0
-n
M M
0
0
C=
M
Z
Z
Z
0
3
7-
APPROTVE FOR RECOR];)INQ:
BY: 1% D
PAGE-!Z� 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 OWMRS' 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 Me and the City urges
review of its contents. The file may be reviewed during n ormal business hours or
copies obtained at the Building Department, City of Edmonds, 121 Sth Avenne
North, Edmonds, Washington 98020.
3. T]Idemnification and Hold Harmlej,% The undersigned OWNERS
hereby waive any and all liability associated with development, stating that they
have fully informed themselves of all ri sks associated with development of the
property and do therefore waive and relinquish any and all causes of action against
the City of Edmonds, its officers, agents and employees arising from and out of such
development. In addition, the OWNEM on behalf of themselves, their successor$ 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
Z
0 M
C:
M
0
C
M M
C) -n
M rn
0
0
C U)
M 0
Z
Z'
Z
r1i
APPROVED FOR RECORDING:
BY-YP
DA=
PAGE OF to
arising out of any false, misleading, or inaccurate information provided by the
OVYWERS, their employees, or professional consultants in the course of issuance of
the. building permit.
4. Insurance R . equ rement. In addition to any bonding which may be
required during the course of development, the Community Services Director
as not (strike one) specifically required the maintenance of an insurance policy
for public liability coverage in the amount and for the time set forth below in order
to provide for the financial responsibilities established through the inde ninification
and hold harmless agreement above.
5. Covenant to Igurb and Concern the Land, This covenant of
notification and indemnification/bold harmless touches and concerns the subject
tract and shall run with the land, binding, obligating and/or Waring 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.
0,
rn
--I -n
C3
C M
M (3 1
0
80
c:
--4
X
rT1 M
z
CE
0 -n
M
0,
0 M
C (4
M 0,
Z
z
9 i
0
M
APPRqVED FOR RE 1016
it
BY: -1 DA �O
OF
PAGE OF
DONE this day of
'1996,
z
0
0�
OWNER(S)
am
By:
C, 0
0
80
By:
C�
X M
Mz
10-1
Z.
By
0,
-n LU
STATE OF WASHINGTON
U
M rmn
T,
0(o
0
0 FnI
ss:
op
OJZWP
0
COUNTY OF Im
M 0
I certify that I know or have satisfactory
evidence that- Ckln 14�1,rt OAK —
signed this instrument and
er
t r) free and
acknowledged i to b�a�
voluntary act for the purposes mentioned in
-4
M
this instrument.
Z,
0
DATED ion
1991.
4
PUBLIC
NOTARY ]��C
MY commission expires-
L-.\TEMP\BUILDINGMEADOVACOVENAI'rr
FINA PROJECT APPROVAL LAM
TO:
DATE:
MEMO TO: PERNUT COORDINATOR, BUILDING DIVISION
FIRE DEPARTMENT DATE —
FROM:
ENGINEERING DIVISION DATE_�2 �Q_-213
PLANNING DIVISION DATE
PROJECT
SITE ADDRESS—
PERmrr INSPECTED —
DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE INSPECT
A field inspection was conducted to determine compliance with approved plans. Final approval denotes that
there are no objections from the above signed Department to the granting of:
______-Yinal approval of the described work
GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL
GRANT PROJECT APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS NOTED
FAILED FINAL INSPECTION - OUTSTANDING ISSUES
2.
3.
RE -INSPECTED OUTSTANDING ISSUES - GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL
ocaprvl.doc.l:temp*.bldg:forms6/98
Z!
0
0,
m
m
0
m m:
Z''
..O-n
n
On m;
0
0
mol
co,
z
0
rn
RECORD OF INSPECTIONS
�z
INSPECTOR
DATE APPROVED
SETBACKS ..................
FOUNDATION:
Footing ....................
Wall .......................
Pier/Porch ................
Z'
RetainingW.11 .... I .......
S'
Slab Insulation ...... ....
PLUMBING:
Pt
Underground .......
co
Rough -in .................
C
rMn 0
Commercial Final ........
0
HEATING:
M r z
GasT�st ..............
C 1
GasPiping ... : ............
CA s
Equipment ................
Commercial Final..., .....
EXTERIOR SHEATHING
M M
-R
NAILING
............ .......
S'
0
0 Fn'
FRAMING ....................
INSULATION:
yv-)
F loor I nsu lation ...........
Wall Insulation ...
x,
Calling Insulation...,
SHEETROCK NAILING ....
Z'
SPECIAL INSPECTION ......
6
ITI
MISCELLANEOUS
FINALAPPROVAL vy)
FOROCCUPANCY ... ... .. -
T,
P,
V
i"—OL d-42-4AD 1*�?A /0�j
IS, B
ZONE -zD PERMIT
CITY -OF EDMONDS NUMBER
"PT
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION 'Ca �
PL
OF BUSINESS ADDRESS
L 4JUIT111PT,
L
OWNER NAMEINAME
LID NO
L
�HECK[�
I MAILING A—e.;,
MAP T11C -
//0 TESCP A . .... .
o J.0-P Z MAP.
FW,PAp
.,re I R a.
�'T
."a
.ITT — 1-1—.1i N CATION I. P.7
Sir I.-P. R
11 () :.ISTIH. — R—I.E.—I S-1 I ir" Rlej
r.n a Nra
00 -
Pfr—
.a
FIOFOSED R. I
- -F
ET I;
, M.TU._
P"
, �5 WINO
YES
PDRESS
REMARKS 116 W 1,e4AC7 CC 15
CITY Zip ---TTELFPWGNE NUMBER
0--m 'D amm"') C-7494- (�Dbwm
ke;Poost LAr 01-91C(L-s
oh"
& 44'm
1.5w M n
ADDRESS
-
N NP �DA�7 6 .'r ED .1
CITY EL P ON "UMI
7
ST TELICENSE NUMBER
r" e_
J��R CU DB A SHOREU
Legal De$Cr P
57k7ollo all all a'
i
SERA REVIEW SIGN AREA
PROPOSED ALLOW
z
0
TIE EXEMPT ALLOWED
qjM;
LOT COVERAGE
)WEpn I PROPOS
P"'Peny
To Account 00-0,10-00116 —000�
0a:
171
Parcel No.
RESIDENTIAL PLUMB)NGNIECH
BE. KS I
I C
k&t\dL,11A kA
C:
M0
0
--10
COMPLIANCEOR
El COMMERCIAL CHANGE OF USE
C
-4 g
ADDITION
APT. IILDG. SIGN
M M
z
n I
REMODEL
El REPAIR CYCS E] PENCE
0 A
RE �,O—RUCTMIN G.
-2
-4
0 —mPI,-
DEMOLISH WINDEROTSTOVE HOT TUB/SPA
SPECIAL INSPE �7 A15
REOUIRED OR 0 L
YES 8/z"y 2-
1244 to
-n
RAOR RFTAININGWAUJ
GA ET RENEWAL
CARPO
.,
AHKS
0
n
1z yr,CGIUSE,BUSINESSORACTI N:
PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER LIBC 108 9
-,--roV
3:
rn rin
57AUMO &v41^,ee,1- W. 8
NUMBER NUMBER OF CRITICAL
o OF 3 DWELLING AREAS A
NUMBE
0 r-
0: M
ic STORIES U I
o DESCRISEWORKT DON ATTA PLORAN)
C U)
(n
FINAL INSPECTION REGUIRED
rn c)
z
M04yo—&C
InA rc^W b Jg5c MPI wx- 4- r
VALUATION -FEE
/-Or -flwplc
PLAN CH50K FEE
BUILDING 414VAW
>
HEAT SOURCE.
z
PlanCheckNo. qi�-7-662
MECHANU
z
rn. Per-,, .V.. work 10 be "on, on private
An, Construction on "I. ubll.,,...In (cum sidewpikS.
171
driveways. marquees, Ste.) Will require separate permission.
TATE SURCHARGE
Permit Application: 180 Days
STORM DRAINAGE FEE
Permit Limit: I Yalu. _ provided Work 12 Started Within 15D Days
3(92
behalf of his or her spouse, hedIrs, assigns and
I land and hold
I. agrees to Indemnl Y,
ENG. INSPECTION FEE
-
it .a"
IT 'a IT I I . 01fici.
harmless 'y I E Mond'
I V,1A L �c U
WX
0
Im'Ti-i"darriagesusi
employ .. !.endC.g.n01. front, any �nd .11-�n'
whiAleve,ruilur, r1tilnd1motlyo'cl, ,:oil' from "' issuance
6:u.... .1 ", Pturril ha no, be deemed to
PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT
Uu. Permit.
O-fo ve or reduc any re ulrement of any city ordin BOB
dify. wai way a q
o limit In any the City's ability to enforce any ordinance
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE
nor
provision."
I hereby acknowledge that 11 ave read this application; that the
ATTENTION APPLICATION APPROVAL
information given Is correct; and that I am the owner, or the dul
authoriZed agent of the owner. I agree, to comply with city and
THIS PERMIT a permit until
Th1.1Ed1PPl1tC8I1.0u,, Ids 001
Ste a laws regulating construction*, andim doIn0g,.1,hje workitutholIz.
I
AUTHOPI
TMES Sig by he in. OffiCut, or NUB,;
Empu.yad,n v on
ad thereby, no person will be the Labor
ONLY
WORK NOTED Deputy; and fees are paid. and receipt
Codeof the State of Washington relating to Workmen's COmpensa-
acknowledged in space provided.
RCW 18.27.
INSPECTION
0 EPARTMENT
A
SIGNATU�70 AGE
A
OF CIAL S IGNATURE
CITY OF DATE
EDMONDS
CALL FOR RE ED
ATTENTION
;SPECTION
IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCT -lor Lj
A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVALLIR-8 7 1 - 0220 RIGINAL - File YELLOW - 1rspec
UNTIL
A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC
SECTION 109 *9 /J T1 Is P.-I, — Owr.er GOLD - Assessor
WC
CONFORMED COPY
200006050422
06/05/2000
01:16 PM Snohomish
RETURN ADDRESS: P.0007 RECORDED County
City of Edmonds, City Clerk
121 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 99020
i 0
0
COVENANT 0 FNOTMCATION
Mn
11
AND rNDEAINIFICATION/HOLD HARMLESS
M
M0
0
0 0022-
il Ri
Reference
Grantor(s): (I)CA-2 P, 2-9,C (2 2,Ak- Additionalonpg-
MX M
��l
Grante,
Legal Description (abbreviated): Sec---s:—T.--az—y-,
CZ
OR Lot-��31310ck-QV-Q--Plat-adO--
0 -n
Assessor's Tax Parcel ED$O(s): (1)'7 90 f4-000 - OqL-" ZS- (2)
M
Tax Parcel ID# not yet assigned
0
____-Assessor's
0
0
C
Q-. co
Fn o
Z
;:I
CITY OF EDMONDS
APPROVED FOR RECORDING
;a
By.. DATFz#ff�MAGE t. OF -�2
Z
z
Under the review procedures established pursuant to the State Bu ilding Code,
incorporating amendments promulgated by the City of Edmonds, and as a
M
prerequisite to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of a residential
structure and attendant fa cillfies, the undersigned OWNERS of property do hereby
covenant, stipulate and promise as follows:
EM
APPROVED FOR RE :ORPING:
BY: 3?> DATE� 0
P . AGE- —Q- OFtn' ' I
1. Description gUmbjeet Propt This covenant. of notification and
indemnificatioulhold harmless relates to a . tract of land at the street address of
73 -5-/ 1-2 street
a"!�. E4ffiL-�(insert
address), Edmonds Snohomish County, Washington and legally described as:
ZLz2I- le,,I
h-,
7. Noto&ajjQU_qnd Covenant OfNgf&_qfiM The above referenced site
(hereinafter "subject site'� ties within an area which has been identified by the ..City
of Edmonds as having a potential for earth subsidence or landslide hazard. The
risks associated with development of the site have been evaluated by technical
consultants and engineers engaged by the applicant as a part of the process to
obtain a building permit for the subject site. The results of the consultant's reports
and evaluations of the risks associated with development are contained in building
permit file number6nQ�=� (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
Z,
rn
n
M
M
0 C=
M
C::
>
0 -n
n x
1
m rn
0
0 Fn
C: ,
j
M rJ)
M 0
3:
Z
0
M
DRPINP:
the consultants in the course of permit issuance. The conditions, limitations, or
Z�
0
I
i
prohibitions may require ongoing maintenance on the part of any o . wner or lessee or
may require modifications to the structares and earth stabilization matters in order
-4 -n
to address future or anticipated changes in soil or other site conditions. The
Fn I
0 M
lz
statements and conditions proposed by the OWNERS' geotechnical engineer,
C
rn
0
80
geologist, architect and/or structural engineer are hereby incorporated by reference
C
I --
M
from the contents of the file as fully as if herein set forth. Amy future purchaser,
M Z
10 —1
lessee, lender or any other person acquiring or seeking to acquire an interest in the
C 2
>
property is put on notice of the existence of thL content of the file and the City urges
0 -n
review iewed during normal business hours or
of its contents. The Me may be rev
n
copies obtained at the Building Department, City of Edmonds, 121 5th Avenue
i M M
0-
North, Edmonds, Washington 98020.
0 M
C (a
C 0)
rn 0
-,f
3. Indemnification and Hold Harmlps& The undersigned OWNERS
;U'
hereby waive any and all liability associated with development, stating that they
have fully Informed themselves of all risks associated with development of the
Z
property and do therefore waive and relinquish any and all causes of action against
Z
the City of Edmonds, Its officers, agents and employees arising from and out of such
0
0
development. In addition, the OWNERS on behalf of themselves, their successors in
M
interest, heirs and assignees, do hereby promise to indemnify and hold harmless the
City ofEdmonds, 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
U
IAPPROVED FOR RECORDING:
BY--� ?
-- > DA=4nJQP
PAjE. Lf OF
arising out of any false, misleading, or inaccurate information provided by the
OWNERS, their employees, or professiona I 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
#1bas not (.strike one) . specirical . ly required the maintenance of an insura . nee policy
for public liability coverage in. the amount and for the time set forth below In order
to provide for the financial responsibilities established through the indemnification
and hold harmless agreement above:
5. Covenant to Touch and Concerm 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.
1 4
Z
0
1
0
rn
A
M
0'
0,
C
M M
C> 2�
—I
0 :1!
—4
M M
0
C)
C: co
M 0
Z
Z
z
1
0
—i
rn
VFD FOR RECO G:
0
;=:qg DAICEj: In
PAGE 5�- I
DONE this JQ day Of �2 t>6 199E.
OWNER(S)
BY:
By:
By
— C��Fplj
FU---
STATE OF WASHINGTON
)ss: -$I 0PVVf-
COUNTY OF lj�j
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that. Ok,,n 14,,. PA r-
signed this instrument and
acknowledged i t to be�'(hier) free nd voluntary act for the purposes mentioned In
this instrument. S W/,
DATED '199E,
PUBLIC
NOTARY iVBVC
My commission expires:
L:%TENIMUILDING\AWADOVACOVEr4ANT
- ----------
0
N
rn
n
M
c c
0
Or
C
M Z"
r n
C
0 -n
A M
a
0
0
0;
z
z
-4
i
'
3:
0)
Z
0
01
rn
FOR RECORPING;
LAPPROVED
B 544
P, Vr
..z
ko
STATE OF WASHINGTON
0.
M!
COUNTY OF Vint
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that C ho, PA
M
C:
M 0
signed this instrument and
acknowledged it to be (hi free and voluntary act for the purpoges mentioned in
0
M M,
this instrument.
DATED this 199A
0
O"n�
NOTARY PUBLIC
J-3LIC
My commission expires
u",
rn T
a ,
0,
C
L.%UAMDUELDU'4GWEAD0WkC0VENANT
Z,
Z.
0�
STATEMENT ON ACCE SSORY DWELLING UNITS
Property Address: IZ10 9 7.) jLd
Edmonds, Wasfi�mgton
Legal Description: Z, ot -D,?"- P/-2�
1- 1/0 1�4
&Z ds, Z�Lk'�'Om
Assessor's Parcel Number:' '71904-/ —000-00,�-00.061
1 have read the requirements for accessory dwelling units contained in Chapter 20.21 of
the Edmonds Community Development Code and understand that an accessory dwelling
unit, including a second kitchen, is prohibited for two years after occupancy by the
current owner (unless a waiver is granted by the Community Services Department) and
until after a conditional use permit has been approved by the City of Edmonds Hearing
Examiner.
I also understand that approval of a conditional use permit. is subject to a public
hearing, and neither this statement nor the issuance of a building permit shall act to
limit the discretion of the City in the review of any application for a conditional use
permit.
Property Owner Signature: 0
Date: /- Z �- -
STATE OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH)
I
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Chun hluen PA-n, -7- 0 1' 6)00 p4t—
signed this instrument and acknowledge it to be hidffe-r free and voluntary act for the uses and
purposes mentioned in this instrument.
Notary usl be smudged. Dated: -2 1�
Signature of
:0 TA Tv. Notary 'Rublic:
Ilk J
Residing at: Jd 6,-,)1
My Appointment
Expires:
THIS DOCUMENT MUST BE RECORDED WITH THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY AUD]TOR.
z
C M
i M
0
8C V�
m
n1z
01
C
3:
0 -n
n
rn in
0
6 Fn
C U)
-4
z
I
z
0
M
APPROS7AL
FINA PROJECT
TO:
DATE: �51 le-=31 C�,l
MEMO To.. pERI�HT cooRDINATOR, BUILDING DIVISION
FROM: FIRE DEPARTMENT DATE —
ENGINEERING DIVISION DATE�
&
PLANNING DIVISION DATE—
PROJEC
M,
C C,'-
SITE ADDRESS— n
0 0,
pERWT# -0 ADB#___---PATE INSPECTED—
rV
M m
DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE INSPECTED---Q..-�����
A field inspection was conducted to determine compliance with approved plans. Final approval denotes that
0
-n
there are no objections from the above signed Department to the granting Of:
Final approval of the described work
m M;
00
GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL
m C)�
GRANT PROJECT APPROVAL Wrm CONDITIONS NOTED
z:,
FAILED FINAL INSPECTION - OUTSTANDING ISSUES
Z.,
-04
K
I
2.
3.
---KE-INSPECTED OUTSTANDING ISSUES - GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL
ocaprv1.doC.1:temp:bldg:fb-6/98
RECORD OF INSPECTIONS
INSPECTOR DATE APPROVED
SETBACKS ...................
FOUNDATION:
Footing ....................
Wall.......................
Pier/Porch ... ............
RetainingWall ............
Slab Insulation ............
PLUMBING:
Underground .....
Rough -in ................. p"%
CommerclalFinal ........
HEATING:
GasTest .................
Gas Piping ................
4,
Equipment ................
Commercial Final .........
EXTERIOR SHEATHING
NAILING ....................
S,
FRAMING ....................
INSULATION:
Floorinsulation ........... va YV-)
Wall Insulation ...........
Ceillng Insulation .........
SHEETROCK NAILING ......
SPECIAL INSPECTION ......
MISCELLANEOUS
FINAL APPROVAL
FOROCCUPANCY ..... ....