The URL can be used to link to this page

20010716.pdfDATE PECEWED 30--o/ RES I`— CITY OF EDMONDS Z-FE PERMIT Rs--( , NUMBER,2W1_07_16 SUITEIAPT, ADDRESS el CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION JOB OWNER NAMENAME OF BUSINES�, PI -AT NAMEISUBDIVISION NO. LOT MO. LID NO. LID FEE 1. MAIIIN&L 10 /00-90X __72 PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREIT MAI u 00 EXISTING f,6 'no REQUIRED DEDICATION. 4 FT E METER SI NO, OF FIXTURES E ZE I LINE Bill 0 0 o P EQUIRED S RV R .00 YE CITY ZIP 6 ITELE1.0-E NAME Ro il J0417--f6h REMAR�S ADDRESS 0 W I FOR EROSION CONTROL/ RAINAGE C 2 T141,17Zb; CITY zip ITELIPHONE NO zeiz--j;6o 62 wAre- - (9-f NAME -e ateve-tal V/-P- ENGINEERING EN, Adr'�0;1-1 ADDRESS f flE FIRE REVIEWED BY DATE 'in CITY ZIP 0 PHONE TELEPHONE VAR%��p CU SHO ME OR OBN INSREEOTION 0 OYES tjN0 MOND � TE STATE LICENSE NUMBER EXPI FAF.N DATE SERA REVIEW COMPLE7E I EXEMPT C. EXI EXP SIGN AREA ED PROPOSED ALLQ,�� HEIGHT ALLOWED PRO""'I ') r PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT PAR EL NO. (joL1jqZof670jSVo 0 NEW _I<RESIDENTIAL PLUMBING MECH o COMPLIA "ADDITION COMMERCIAL CHANGE M040SER LOT COVERAGE ALLOWED PROP01 SN- REQUIRED SETBACKS (Fr.) FRONT SIDE SEAR r;f � ZLI PROPOSED SETBACKS 11. FRONT UR SIDE A , EAR �FARKING LOT AREA PLAIN ING .,EV ED BY DATE XAPARTMENT REMODEL C] SIGN REC`D I PROVIDE D FENCE C] REPAIR GRADING X FT) CYOS REMAF- 0 DEMOLISH 0 TANK C3 OTHER _-E RETAINING WALL 0 RENEWAL CA POST R"KF`IY C'W, 1: (TYPE OF USE. QLISI�S PUN: 2z CHECKED BY ITYPE 01 GO ON lCOD CU NT GROUP NUMBER OF STORIES NZE-L UNG U." SPECIALtN%PJ!CTOR JAPEAP ES Z5t!)'l - _6KT LOAD DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE REMARKS ECTION REQ'D PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 1ONFINAL INSP Pg� Jqc/7 li� 4 Agmilgrr, Rai VALUATION FEE I LOT SLORE I.. 15o HSAT SOURCE PLAN C ECK NO: MECHANICAL THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE W K.OTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO 0 BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLI C MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE GRADINGIFILL D 3 OMAIN (CURDS. SIDEWALKS. DRIVEWAYS' SEPARATE PERMISSION. — t: STATE SURCHARGE PERMIT APPLICATI N; 160 DAYS UNIT, I YEAR - PROVIDED WOO (,S STARTED WITHIN 100 DAYS PERMIT Fl END REVIEW FEES G REVIEW FEES SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMA11ON OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE. HEIRS. ASSI.ME AND EU. ES.FE ENO. INSPECTION FEE ;NF,,ECFANSToAl.lENALl NT UE P ES To E.MFl DEFEND AM. OLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF IN FROM ANY AND LANDSCAPING OFFICIALS. EMPLOYEES. AND AGENTS EDMONDS,WAIHIAN.OION LYORMDIRECTI.Y ALL, UM FORD EjFTE Din OFWHATEVER NATURE.AAISING ECT ALL NOT E a INSPECTION FEE RECEIPI ::fj 5 Z_ P FROM THE ISSUANCE OFETHIS PERMITAISSUANCI 01 THIS ERMITSH DEEMED To MODIFY, WALV ORREDUCE NYREQUiREMENTOFANY CITY ORDINANCE CITY'S ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION ' PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT RECEIPT 'JO 0 X NOR LIMIT IN ANYWAY THE TOTAL AMOUNT DUE ,HEREBY GGETIFAT'l HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION. THAT THE INFORMATION APPLICATION APPROVAL T.�AFIC AT A. THE OWNER. OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT 01 GIVEN E=L CONSTRUC- ThIl ppF.l - I pl—t 11 lIg-d by th, THEOWNER AGRI, To COMPLY WIT. CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED CALL 5�.Ig FI-11 DlP.IY I.d F... — pa,d "ON. AN.,N .,N.,.E WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY. CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING To FOR INSPECTION --t �� 11— Pl..,F IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR I WORKMeNSCOAek�4ATIO�INSU�NCE��I)RCWIB,27 (425) OFF ALS SIGIATUP DATE "L)p7t V" SIGNAT:�E E SIGNED L �WNE., f I I V R ED By DATE ATTENTION EXT 333 L UNL FULTO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL 771-0221 I ORIGINAL -FILE YELL OR A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTIFI- 0" "'ECT CATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC SECTION 109 FAX PINK -OWNIER GOLD ASSESSOR 5,98 z 0 rn c: rn 0 0 80 c m fill 10 0 _n m M 13 vi 0 o Fn ms , cl z 9 0 m -W-fiCE� jI: THE . -DOCUMENTIN11 I 4IS FRAME IS LESS -CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE 41. IT is DUE To THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. AdVJP AJLIJ oisa jaunoo jjyja3d 0NNW7d,kH (GAOHcWV OR 9 i inr E)NlH33MDN3,W C33A1303a ,Q7 9,4 ARCO "W4 a310N SV GMUddV 800WH om Zt- N ov Hos ge UGS NrUM Fl-W! EWAN— loalWo NOSOH3 ,vglwa G y 9MI 0WO-U&SD TrD aMH SNM03dSM lmvm fq r"ova Cj3UInt)3H 3ONWLN3 Nojj,3nVLSNoo AuVl30dVI3l rwAs mwal3(l OL it .TF—lm]3H _411 0 ioN stama E)NMOW SAVO a NtWM G3H3= 38 o.L s3ovans osoam TIV STANDARD DRAINAGE DETENTION SYSTEM WORKSHEET CALC BY: ft�wbl AD]DnESS PHONE: DATE: ... DESIGNDATA****' REA PIPE DIA PIPE LG ORIFICE IMPERVIOUS A SIR., PIPE 11.... ASHEO GRAVEL M OUTFLOW TRENCH MIN 10' LOW -4 TOP �D 4'PERI� PIPE TO BE r.EVEL C_. -E. FROM _X � a ELEV— —EB "'M �V— CGWROL oMLET Fr' ION w", RUNOFF SPREADER OUTLET t4iz— S I u --.X C-- I. C". WIN 4.6-WAARt SPALLS 3.' USHED ..cK SYSTEM CROSS SECTION 0: FRI_ CoN�oL RIPRAP OUTLET ail RECEIVED MAY 3 0 2001 CITY COPY BUILDING DEPT. FOOTING DRAINS SHAU NOT BE CONNECTED TO DETENTION SYSTEM NOTES: 1. Call Engineering Division (771-0220) for a tightline and detention system inspectio before backfilling and for final inspections. APPROVED BY 2, Responsibility for operation and maintenance of drainage systems on private properly is 71 Z0,410 aterial accumulated in the storage pipe must be n sh responsibility of the property owner. M out and removed from tile catch basins to allow proper operation. The mulet control orifice DATE I must be kept opena, all times. 6 REV 2/92 L; CONFORMED COPY 200107190730 07/19/2001 03:15 PM Snohomish P-0002 RECORDED County NO EXCISE TAX RF.01J1PFr) JUL 19 2001 BOB DANT101, S0011W501 UU11VI IfeBSUrOf �By 1ROB _DANTINI EASEMENT FOR STORM DRAINAGE LINE AND RETENTION SYSTEM TIUS AGREEMENT, made this; Iq A day of —J 2001 by Billy and Ilona Anderson , hereinafter called the Grantor owners c, Lots 35 and 36, Block 80, City of Edmonds, acc. to the plat recorded in Volume 2 of Plats, pa e 39, records of Snohomish County, Wa. Together with vacated North 10 feet of g Lots 35 and Edmonds Street between 8th Avenue North and 9th Avenue North, adjacent to 36. Hereinafter referred to as Parcel A. Tax Parcel #4342 -080-035 WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of one dollar($ 1.00) and other valuable consideration, it is hereby agreed that the Grantor grants to the owner of ; Lots 33 and 34, Block 90, City of Edmonds, acc. to the plat recorded in Volume 2 of Plats, page 39, records of Snohomish County, Wa. Together with vacated North 10 feet of Edmonds Street between Sth Avenue North and 9th Avenue North, adjacent to Lots 33 and 34 . Hereinafter referred to as Parcel B. Tax Parcel #4342-080-033 herein called the Grantee, its successors and assigns, an easement for utilities described as follows; A utility easement over the South 20 feet of Parcel A for the purpose of.constructing, maintaining and repairing a storm retention system including drain line into said retention system from Parcel B. Said storm retention system is to be used by the Grantor also and therefore any maintenance and/or repair work required to the retention system shall be shared equally between Grantee and Grantor. This agreement shall be a covenant running with the land and shall be binding upon all parties and their successors and assigns forever In any action between the parties hereto to enforce any of the terms of this Easement , the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover all its expenses incurred in connection therewith, including actual attorney's fees, including in connection with appeals. RECEIVED JUL 2 0 2001 OEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR. CITY OF EDMONDS 0: am C: mg -40 Oc z of m m 6 In r co Z M I page two of easement IN WITNESS WHEREOF this mstru7,nt has been executed By:3 !&-( W(,� ' 7 76'� Billy Anderson -11-.na �A.d,,..n year first above written. t4o STATE OF WASHINGTON SS. COUNTY OF Snohomish On this Lft— day of 2001, before me personally appeared Ilona And-ijerson, to me known to be the individual descnbw in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that she signed the same as her free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. IN WITNESS WHEROF, I have herunto set my hand and ixed my official seo the day and year af above written. f tary Public in and o e te f ,40, 0 ashington, residing at — y commission expires STATE OFWASHINGTON SS. COUNTY SNOHOMISP, Onthisia!dayof . 2001, 1 certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that n0L �-s- v-� signed this instrument & on oath stated that torn a authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the At Me �nFact of 'purposes Biltv Anderson to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses an& meni-to-ne-dl-n -the instrument. IN WITNESS WHEROF, I have herunto set my hand my official seal the day and year above written. *andixed I otary Public in and f he S. of residing at 500H )r)/,>/-( BA44 IA-, Mashingtc�n; y mis ion expires Xjv com PUBLY- 19 9 m C M ca 0 n' n MT C Z W! TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geolc)gy and Environmental Earth Sciences RECF--IVF.D -C F W1 May 21, 2001 .'RM T Coli,1101 Project No. T-4482 PERMI Billy and Ilona Anderson 321 NW 201st Place Shoreline, Washington 98177 Subject: Geotechnical Consultation Anderson Addition 811 Edmonds Street Edmonds, Washington Reference: preliminary Geotechnical Report, Anderson Additions, by Terra Associates, Inc., Project No. T-4482, dated October 15, 1999 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Anderson: Based on our conversation with your architect, Mr. Ron Johnson, we understand that the proposed north foundation wall of the building at 811 Edmonds Street will be approximately six feet north of the north side of the existing residence. In our referenced report, we recommended that additions to the existing residences extend no further north than the current northern edge of the existing structures. We reviewed the proposed building location and foundation on plan sheets prepared by Ronald D. Johnson Architect, dated May 1, 2001. Based on our review of these plans and our preliminary geotechnical report, it is our opinion that the north building wall can be located as planned, provided the foundation is supported by competent native soil with the outer edge of the footing at least ten feet from the face of the slope, and. building and lot &ainage is not directed toward the slope in an uncontrollelf manner. Based on conditions observed in Boring B-2, it may be necessary to lower footing elevations on the north side ofthe building by several feet to reach the native bearing soil. REcEIVED MAY 3 0 2001 CITY COPY 12525 Willows Road, �.uite Jul, —.1 ..... 11— ---- - Phone (425) 821-7777 - Fax (425) 821-4334 - terra@terra-associates.com M ID C' Z K M Billy and Ilona Anderson May 21, 2001 We trust this infonnation is sufficient for your current needs. If you have any questions or require additional inforniation, please call. Sincerely yours, TERRA ASSOCIATES, INC. a Project No. T-4482 Page No. 2 a ga'wa w. -mw PRELI INARY GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Fg �A Anderson Addition S 811 and 821 Edmonds Street Edmonds, Washington Project No. T-4482 Terra Associates5 Inc. A A A WN !'q%q Prepared for: A, Billy and Ilona Anderson Edmonds, Washington October 15, 1999 RECEIVED MAY 3 0 2001 BUILDING DEPT. CITY COPY K �� 77 NIm I TERRA ASSOCIATESf Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences I October 15, 1999 Project No. T-4482 Billy and Dona Anderson 321 NW 201stPlace Shoreline, Washington 98177 Subject: preliminary Geotechnical Report Anderson Additions 811 and 821 Edmonds Street Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. and Ms. Anderson: As requested,, we have conducted a preliminary geotechnical engineering study for the subject project. The attached report presents our findings and recommenclations for the geotechnical aspects of project design and construction. Our field exploration indicates the site is generally underlain by medium dense to very dense sand with varying amounts of gravel, followed by hard silt and clay. We did not encounter groundwater in either of the borings drilled at the site. We did not observe indications of recent significant instability, groundwater seepage, or erosion on the steep slope in the central and northern portions of the site. In our opinion, the site conditions are suitable for the planned renovation/expansion. The undisturbed native soils are suitable for sup orting the expected building loads. However, based on the results of our stability P , e northern edges of the existing residences. analyses, we do not recommend expansion beyond th Provided the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into project design and construction, we do not expect that the planned renovation/expansion will have an adverse impact on the stability of the steep slope at the site, or on adjacent properties. g the design phase of this project and look forward to We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you durin working with you during the final design and construction phases. : . - anl,i 12525 Wi I lows Koao, zounu 1 u 1, — ... , - -- Phone (425) 821-7777 - Fax (425) 821-4334 - terra@terra-associates.com =I 03 U, 0 Do rn; Cr. z rn Bill, and Ilona Anderson October 15, 1999 We trust the information presented in this report is sufficient for your current needs. If you have any questions or require additional information, please call. Sincerely yours, TERRA ASSOCIATES, INC. i2C. Sadler, R P.G. ing Ge ob 4 Project Engineer 742 T eodore J. er, P. Principal E.Sc r gi JCS/TJS:dvp ES 611WO1 cc: Mr. Percy Tse, Roth M11 Engineering Partners Project No. T-4482 Page No. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 project Description ................. ............................................................. 1 2.0 Scope of Work .......... ...................................................................... ............................... 3.0 Site Conditions ........................................................................... 3.1 Surface ............................................................................. ...... ................................. 3.2 Soils ...................................................................................... 2 ............................... 3 3.3 Groundwater ....................................................................... 3 4.0 Geologic Hazards ................................ I .............................................. ............................. ....... It 4.1 Erosion .................................................................................. 4.2 Steep Slope ........................................................................................................ 3 4.3 Landslide ............................................................................. 4.4 Seisrnic .................................................. 4 .............................................. 4 ............. 5 5.0 Discussion and Preliminary Recorturiendations .................................................... I ......... 5 5.1 General .............................................................................................................. . 5 5 0 5.2 Building Setbacks from Steep Slopes ....... t .......................................... Grading 4 .............. 5 5.3 site Preparation and ............................................................................. 5.4 Foundations ................................................................ ................................. 6 5.5 Drainage ................................................. 6.0 Additional Services ................... . ... ! ............................................................... 4 ................ 7 7.0 Limitations ................................. I ................. ............................................ ............... 8 Fiffu Vicinity Map ........................................................ ....... Figure I Figure 2 Exploration Location Plan ...................................... . ........................ Figure 3 General ized Geologic Section A -A ........................................... Generalized Geologic Section B-B . ............................ .............................. .............. ........................ Figure 4 APPendi A Field Exploration and Laboratory Testing ..................................................................... Appendix CRI. X1 Preliminary Geotechnical Report Anderson Additions 811 and 821 Edmonds Street Edmonds, Washington 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project consists of the renovationtexpansion of the two existing residences on the site. No building or development plans were available at the time of our study. The recommendations contained in this report are based on limited site development information. Therefore, our recommendations should be considered preliminary. We should review final design drawings and specifications to verify that our recommendations have been properly interpreted and incorporated into project design. 2.0 SCOPE OF WORK surface On September 8, 1999, we drilled 2 test borings to a maximum depth of 31.5 feet below the existing grades. Using the information obtained from the subsurface exploration, we developed preliminary geotechnical recommendations for project design and construction. Specifically, this report addresses the following: Soil and groundwater conditions Geologic hazards Site preparation and excavation Building setbacks from steep slopes Foundation design Surface and subsurface drainage 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS 3.1 Surface The project site is comprised of two residential lots located at 811 and 821 Edmonds Street in Edmonds, Washington. The approximate location of the site is shown on Figure 1. The site is bordered by Edmonds Street to the south, single-family residences to the east and west, and a steep ravine to the north. Shell Creek is located at the bottom of the ravine. gg' 0 Z' October 15, 1999 Project No. T-4482 Both lots are occupied by single-family residences. The residence at 811 Edmonds Street is a single -story wood - frame building with a daylight basement and a carport. A topographic survey by Roth Hill Engineering Partners, Inc., dated July 29, 1999, indicates that the main and basement floor elevations of the residence are Elev. 209.3 and Elev. 201.8, respectively. A large wooden deck extends from the northern side of the residence at the main 'A floor elevation. The residence at 821 Edmonds Street is single -story concrete block building. A floor elevation of 210.0 is shown on the topographic plan. An eight -foot wide concrete patio extends from the northern side of the residence. A C) n wood -frame shed is adjacent to the northeastern comer of the residence. We did not observe any signs of significant distress to the buildings due to settlement or apparent slope movement. Site grades are relatively flat on the southern side of the residences. The gradient slopes moderately to steeply C down to the north-northeast on the northern side of the residences. The topographic survey indicates the slope on 60 to 70 feet high, with elevations ranging from abo ut Elev. m is 0 the northern side of the residences is approximately Shell Creek. Grades on C 210 near the southeastern comer of the site to about Elev. 140 along the southern edge of Grades the lower 40 feet of the slope M the upper 20 to 25 feet of the slope range between 20 and 50 percent. on range between about 75 and 90 percent. C 2 We did not observe indications of recent significant movement or instability on the slope. We did not observe indications of groundwater seepage, saturated surface conditions, or recent significant erosion on the slope. 0 'n n However, in addition to relatively straight coniferous trees, we did observe several mature conifers with bowed � i trunks on the steeper portions of the slope, indicating long-term relatively shallow soil creep. m M t Site vegetation in the vicinity of the residences generally consists of mature coniferous trees and landscaping 0 Fn shrubs and bushes. The slope is generally vegetated with mature coniferous and deciduous trees with a brush I g 0 undergrowth. 3.2 Soil The soil encountered in the borings generally consists of 26.5 to 3 1.0 feet of medium dense to dense sand with varying amounts of gravel overlying hard clay. We encountered dry, very loose to loose sand in the upper six to seven feet of each boring. The very loose sand appeared to be fill that was placed when the houses were constructed. The fill appears to be localized to the northern side of the houses and does not appe at to extend 0 downslope. m Detailed descriptions of the subsurface conditions encountered in the borings are presented in Appendix A. The approximate boring locations are shown on Figure 2. The Geologic Map of the Ednionds East and Part of the Edmonds West Quadrangles, Washington, by James P. Minard, dated 1983, classifies the soils in the vicinity of the site as advance outwash sands. Transitional bed sediments, described as massive to bedded clay, silt, and fine to very fine sand, are shown underlying the advance in the borings are consistent with this classification. The map outwash sands. The silt and clay soils encountered shows the contact between the advance outwash and the transitional beds at approximately Elev. 120. We encountered the silt and clay at elevations of approximately Elev, 170 to Elev. 180. Page No. 2 I V, October 15, 1999 Project No. T-4482 3.3 Groundwater We did not encounter groundwater in the borings. However, the sands immediately above the silt and clay in Boring B-2 were wet. We expect that a perched water table will develop on top of the hard silt and clay during the wet winter and spring months. In gen p rme ,:rat, water infiltrates through the sands and becomes perched on the bard silt and clay. The relatively low e bility of the silt and clay impedes the downward migration of water and causes it to flow laterally along the surface of the silt and clay, where it can emerge as seeps and springs at lower elevations. 4.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 4.1 Erosion The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) has mapped the site soils as Alderwood-Urban land complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes in the relatively flat southern portion of the site, and Alderwood-Everett gravelly sandy loams, 25 to 70 percent slopes in the sloping northern portion of the site. The hard silt and clay observed at depth in the borings, and expected to occur at lower elevations on the slope, would best correlate with Kitsap silt loam, 25 to 50 percent slopes. The erosion hazards for soils classified as Alderwood-Urban land complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes and Alderwood-Everett gravelly sandy loams, 25 to 70 percent slopes are classified as slight and moderate, respectively. The erosion hazard for soils classified as Kitsap silt loam, 25 to 50 percent slopes is considered high. While we did not observe indications of significant active erosion on the slope at the site, the soils on the slope will be susceptible to erosion if exposed. Erosion protection measures, as required by the City of Edmonds, will need to be in place prior to and during grading activities at the site. 4.2 Steep Slone The City of Edmonds defines steep slope hazard areas as any ground that rises at an inclination of 40 percent or more within a vertical elevation change of at least 20 feet. Based on this definition and the topographic information provided to us, the slope located north of the eastern residence (821 Edmonds Street) is considered a steep slope hazard area. The slope located immediately north of the western residence (811 Edmonds Street) is not considered a steep slope hazard area. The topographic information provided to us indicates that slope grades in that area range between about 23 and 39 percent. The slope located off the northern edge of the subject property would be considered a steep slope hazard area. Page No. 3 5 C; 0) M Z 0 0 M Is' -J October 15, 1999 Project No. T-4482 4.3 Landslide The City of Edmonds defines landslide hazard areas as follows: 1. Any area with slopes of 15 percent or greater and impermeable soils (typically silt and clay) frequently interbedded with granular soils (predoirdnantly sand and gravel) and springs or groundwater. 2. Any area that includes areas with significant visible evidence of groundwater seepage, which also includes existing landslide deposits, regardless of slopes. 3. Any area that has shown movement during the Holocene epoch (from 10,000 years ago to present) or is underlain by mass wastage debris of that epoch as determined by a qualified geologist or geotechnical engineer. 4. Any area potentially unstable as a result of rapid stream incision or stream bank erosion. 5. Any area located on an alluvial fan, presently subject to or potentially subject to, inundation by debris flow or deposition of stream -transported sediments. During our site visit, we did not observe on -site indications of recent significant instability, groundwater seepage, or significant erosion on the slope face. The slope generally supported growth of mature trees, including some relatively straight coniferous trees. However, because of the soil conditions observed at the test boring, the site slopes would be defined as a landslide hazard area. Stability analysis indicates that the steep slope north of the residences is currently stable and would be marginally stable during a severe seismic event. The minimum factors of safety determined by our analysis for static conditions and under severe seismic loading conditions north of each resi dence are as follows: 811 Edmonds Street Static: Minimum factor of safety = 1.53 Seismic: Minimum factor of safety = 1.03 821 Edmonds Street Static: Minimum factor of safety = 1.45 Seismic: Minimum factor of safety= 1 .001 our pseudostatic (seismic) analysis is based on a horizontal acceleration value of 0.2g. Our test borings and available geologic information indicate that the soils on the slope consist primarily of medium dense to dense sand and gravel overlying hard transitional bed silt and clays. In our opinion, provided the recommendations in this report are followed, the proposed project will not increase the potential for slope instability on -site or on adjacent properties, and the risk for such an occurrence is minimal. Page No. 4 Ell 1 :3 CY 0 C A4� C .4 rk A (0) C� _02 0' m October 15,1999 Project No. T-4482 4A Sei The Puget Sound area falls within Seismic Zone 3. as classified by the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC). Based on the soil conditions encountered and the local geology, a soil profile type of Sc, from Table 16-J of the 1997 UBC, should be used in design. ase in Liquefaction is a phenomenon where there is a reduction or complete loss of soil strength due to an incre ained water pressure induced by vibrations. Liquefaction mainly affects geologically recent deposits of fine-gr sands that are below the groundwater table. Based on the soil and groundwater conditions we encountered, it is our opinion that the risk for liquefaction to occur in potential building areas at this site is negligible. 5.0 DISCUSSION AND PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Genera Based on our study, the site is suitable for the planned expansiontremodel from a geotechnical standpoint. The Ils are suitable for supporting residential building loads. native soils encountered below the surricial fii The following recommendations should be incorporated into the project design drawings and construction specifications. These recommendations are preliminary and may be altered or augmented upon review of the final plans. 5.2 Buildin Setbacks from Steen Slopes Because of the proximity of the steep slope to the existing residences, we used the results of our stability analyses to determine limits of encroachment to the steep slope areas. As discussed, our analysis indicates the stability of the slope will be marginal during a severe seismic event. The failure surface representing the lowest determined factors of safety would affect the slope within about 24 feet of the northern edge of the western residence, and immediately north of the northern edge of the eastern residence. , Based on our study, it is our opinion that additions to the existing residences should extend no further north than the current northern edge of the existing structures. The approximate locations of the failure surfaces representing the lowest seismic safety factors determined by our analysis are shown on Figures 3 and 4. 5.3 Site Preparation and Grading Areas to be prepared for new construction should be stripped of all vegetation, organic surface soils, and other deleterious materials. Soils containing organic material will not be suitable for use as structural fill but may be used in nonstructural areas or for landscaping purposes. Page No. 5 m: 0 0 0: (A I October 15, 1999 Project No. T-4482 The on -site soils generally appear suitable for use as structural fill. However, the sands are fine grained and may be difficult to compact as structural fill when too wet. The ability to use the on -site soils as structural fill will depend on their moisture content and the prevailing weather conditions at the time of construction. In addition, the upper three to four feet of soil is generally dry and will likely need moisture conditioning. If the moisture content of the on -site soils cannot be maintained near their optimum percentage or if grading activities will take place during the wet winter or spring months, the owner should be prepared to import wet weather structural fill. For this purpose, we recommend importing a granular soil that meets the following grading requirements: U.S. Sieve Size Percent Passing 3 inches 100 No. 4 75 maximum No. 200 5 maximum* *based on the 3/4-inch fraction Prior to use, Terra Associates, Inc. should examine and test all materials imported to the site for use as structural fill. Structural fill should be placed on a firm subgrade of undisturbed native soil in uniform loose layers not exceeding 12 inches. It should then be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the soil's maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM Test Designation D-698 (Standard Proctor). The moisture content of the soil at the time of compaction should be within two percent of its optimum, as deterrnined by this same ASTM standard. In nonstructural areas or for backfill in utility trenches below a depth of 4 feet, the degree of compaction could be reduced to 90 percent. Fill should not be placed at the top or on the face of the steep slope. Final grade:s at the top of the slope must promote surface drainage away from the slope crest. 5.4 Foundations Spread Footings New construction may be supported on conventional spread footing foundations bearing on competent native soils or on structural fills placed above competent native soils, as recommended in the Section 5.3 of this report. Perimeter foundations should be placed at least 1.5 feet below final exterior grades for frost protection. New foundations on the northern sides of the building areas should be placed to a depth that results in at least ten feet of lateral separation between the outer edge of the footing and the face of the slope. Interior foundations can be constructed at any convenient depth. Page No. 6 5 C), M I rn M 8 1 00 Ca 0 n M C4 rn C Ca 0 Ca Z M I I October 15, 1999 Project No. T-4482 We recommend designing foundations for a net allowable bearing capacity of 2,500 pounds per square foot (Psf). For short-term loads, such as wind and seismic, a one-third increase in this allowable capacity can be used. For the anticipated building loads and this bearing pressure applied, building settlements should be negligible. For designing foundations to resist lateral loads, a friction coefficient of 0.4 can be used. Passive earth pressures acting on the side of the footing and buried portion of the foundation stem wall can also be considered. We recommend calculating this lateral resistance using an equivalent fluid weight of 350 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). We recommend not including the upper 12 inches of soil in this computation because it can be affected by weather or disturbed by future grading activity. This value assumes the foundation will be constructed neat against competent native soil or backfilled with structural fill as described in Section 5.3 of this report. The values recommended include a safety factor of 1.5. 5.5 Drainae Surface Water must not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the crest of the steep slope or onto the slope face. Surface water should be directed away from the slope crest to a point of collection and controlled discharge. If proposed site grades do not allow for directing surface water away from the slope, then water should be collected and tightlined to the bottom of the slope in a controlled manner. Final exterior grades should promote free and positive drainage away from the building area. We recommend p 'd' rovi ing a gradient ofat least three percent for a rninimum distance often feet from the building perimeter. Subsurface We recommend installing a continuous drain along the outside lower edge of the perimeter building founclations. The foundation drains and roof downspouts should be tightlined to an approved discharge facility. Subsurface drains must be laid with a gradient sufficient to promote positive flow to a controlled point of approved discharge. All drains should be provided with cleanouts at easily accessible locations. These cleanouts; should be serviced at least once every year. 6.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES Terra Associates, Inc. should review the final design and specifications to verify that earthwork and foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in project design, We should also provide geotechnical services during construction to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications, and recommendations. This will also allow for design changes if subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. Page No. 7 f 0, Rom, -M -4 0 M 10 0 _n. M to R 0 Z' 0 -4 M October 15, 1999 Project No. T-4482 7.0 LIMITATIONS We prepared this report in accordance with general ly accepted geotechnical engineering practices'. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. This report is the property of Terra Associates, Inc. and is intended for specific application to the Anderson Additions project in Edmonds, Washington. This report is for the exclusive use of Billy and Ilona Anderson and their authorized representatives. The analyses and preliminary recommendations presented in this report are based upon data obtained from the on -site borings. Variations in soil conditions can occur, the nature and extent of which may not become evident until construction. if variations appear evident, Terra Associates, Inc. should be requested to re-evaluate the recommendations in this report prior to proceeding with construction. Page No. 8 F TNSv OVERLOOK PK 1-m ml i r R IBSN Ar PL W fK sT 18m Sw ielm 008 whTER �-I. �T CHI ST .' - i- 0 19211D ST m NTS Fill - ELL j.: ; i-, ". z I �;T ST m ME Y Ul p UK S' v m Eaw's ST E ST SO' m UAOrwArfR PARA 1)0 ST SW it'. z BRACK INS se m , z Gt C40 245 1-91 E IL " 4 1 i If m M ST C3 V—j ST c bi MAPLE ST MEiZAL F V w. I ! T 23 ALOE ;j V �UiUT WON 7/ OIL 40 'S SWE 9 "C' him 21— PL f- K:P 6TW 217TH -q- BT.H F R 1 30-" 5 -1 L -jo Z 'I I �1 =. F IT TM ��ST *1j, -1 ;,--1 is'w" 0 r I ST ST 224 m PL 1 120 REFERENCE: THE THOMAS GUIDE, METROPOLITAN PUGET SOUND, PAGE 454, 2000 EDITION. VICINITY MAP TERRA ANDERSON ADDITIONS EDMONDS, WASHINGTON OCIATES ASS Geotechnical Consultants Proj.No. 448 Date OCT. 1999 Figure 2t I Ir bm— — — — F�lf* &WA APPROXIMATE SCALE 30 0 30 60 feet LEGEND: * APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION REFERENCE: SITE PLAN PREPARED BY ROTH HILL ENGINEERING PARTNERS, INC., JOB No. 99-459-11, SHEET 1 OF 1, DATED 07/29/99. SCALE: I" = 20' (H & V) ME; TO SCALE: I' = 20' (H & V) I I I APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING Anderson Additions Edmonds, Washington On September 8, 1999, we explored subsurface conditions at the site by drilling 2 test borings to a maximum depth of 31.5 feet below the existing ground surface. Soil samples were collected during drilling using the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) in general accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1586. The test boring locations are shown on Figure. 2. The Boring Logs are presented on Figures A-2 and A-3. An engineering geologist from our office conducted the field exploration, classified the soil conditions encountered, maintained a log of each test boring, obtained representative soil samples, and observed pertinent site features. All soil samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) described on Figure A-1. Representative soil samples obtained from the borings were placed in sealed containers and taken to our laboratory for further examination and testing. Laboratory testing included measuring the moisture content of all soil samples. In addition, we performed grain size analyses on five of the soil samples, and determined the limit analyses are Atterberg limits of two soil samples. The results of the moisture content and Atterberg rain size analyses are presented in Figures A-4 through A-6. presented in Appendix A. The results of the g Project No. T-4482 0 40 N E LETTER MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOL B L M oRd TYPICAL DESCRIPTION TY Clean G W GW __; __ well -graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures, little or no GRAVELS Gravels fines. 0) (lass than 1-10 Poorly -graded gravels, gravel -sand mbdures, little or ..ry.gr.ded gra _j -8 QN) More than 5% fines) %01F no fines. 50% of coarse GM Silly gravels, gravel -sand -slit mixtures, non -plastic a) fraction is Gravels fines. Lil z 3) larger than No. With fines 4 sieve GC Clayey gravels, gravel -sand -clay mixtures, plastic fines. cc e 8 Clean CIJ SIN Well -graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no lines. 0 Ln SANDS Sands 6 LU r_ z (less than SP Poorly -graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no More than 5% fines) — lines. 0 6.r-50% of coarse fraction is SIM Silty sands, sand -silt mixtures, non-postic fines. smaller than Sands a M No. 4 sieve with fines SC Clayey sands, sand -clay mixtures, plastic fines. ML Inorganic silts, took flour, clayey silts with slight 0 i U) SILTS AND CLAYS plasticity. � M!p 2 C'J CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, (loan clay). '0_4 W 0 E 6 a) Liquid limit Is less than 50% '. Z L4 OL Organic silts and organic clays of low Plasticity. W 0 a U) Co Q) > MH Inorganic silts, elastic. 0 Er to =_ 0 SILTS AND CLAYS (a CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity. fat clays. W Z 2! 0 E Liquid limit is greater than 50% Organic of high 'Fno CL OH clays plasticity. HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat. 8. 0. DEFINITION OF TERMS AND SYMBOLS Lu Standard Penetration 2' OUTSIDE DIAMETER SPLIT Density Resistance in BlowgE221: SPOON SAMPLER cc: (D Very loose 0-4 2.4" INSIDE DIAMETER RING SAMPLER (a Loose 4-10 0 R SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER Z. Medium dense 10-30 Dense 30-50 Y WATER LEVEL (DATE) 9' z < CD Very dense >50 Tr TORVANE READINGS, tsf 0 M Sta Penetration Pp PENETROMETER READING, tst in Bit) Consistenc Resis= ws/Foot DD DRY DENSITY, pounds per cubic toot C Very soft 0-2 LL LIQUID LIMIT, percent Soft 2-4 Medium stiff 48 pl PLASTIC INDEX t stiff 8-16 N STANDARD PENETRATION, blows per foot Very stiff 16-32 Hard >32 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM TERRA ASSOCIATES ANDERSON ADDITIONS EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Geotechnical Consultants Figure A-1 Boring No. B-1 Logged by: JCS Approximate Elev. 206 Date: 9/8/99 Consistency/ CL (N) Moisture Soil Description Relative Depth (ft.) E 0 Blows/ Content Notes Density U) ft. N Light brown SAND, fine grained, dry (SP) Very Loose 3 6 With a few fine gravel. Dry to moist. Loose 7 2 ---------------------------------------------- ------- L�qq�t ------ 5 6 2 Gray -brown SAND with gravel, fine to Medium Dense 24 2 medium sand, fine gravel, moist (SP). Medium Dense 10 28 3 Becomes fine grained, with occasional Dense 15 32 2 fine gravel. Dense 20 41 2 Very Dense 25 50 6 LL=22 Gray SILT, moist (ML). Blue -gray SILT and CLAY, molst (CL-ML). Hard 30 Bs- 13 L" Gravel In Up of sampler. Boring term1nated at 31.5 feet. No groundwater. Blow counts may not be accurate due to gravel In tip of sampler. BORING LOG TERRA ANDERSON ADDITIONS EDMONDS, WASHINGTON ASSOCIATES Proj. No. T-44 2 1 Date OCT 1999TFgre A-2 Geotechnlcal Consultants M j 0 0 C C� ff Boring No. B-2 Logged by: JCS Approximate Elev. 200 Date: 9/8/99 ? Consistency/ (N) Moisture Soil Description Relative Depth E Blows/ Content Notes Density (ft.) UW) ft. Bro n SAND, fine to medium grained, Very Loose 2 5 w dry (SP) (Appears to be fill based on i topography). 2 7 Very Loose I ------------------------ ----------------------------_ -_------------------ 5 9 2 Gray -brown SAND with gravel. fine sand, Loose fine gravel, moist (SP). --------- --------------------- ----------------------- Gray-brown SAND, fine grained, moist Medium Dense 18 2 1 (SP). With occasional fine gravel. :0 1 Medium Dense 10 14 3 Medium Dense 15 21 4 ------------------------------ ----------------------- --------------------- z Gray -brown SAND with gravel, fine sand, fine 1. coarse gravel, moist (SP). Dense 20 31 4 M Medium Dense 25 27 4 Becomes wet. Dense 3.5 tonstfe P Brown to �_a [3 7:1 l: Hard 30 37 LE �22 (CL-ML). ilhoca!:1rq11111:1' Boring terminated at 31.5 feet. Wet soils encountered at approximately 30 feet. M, BORING LOG ANDERSON ADDITIONS TERRA EDMONDS, WASHINGTON ASSOCIATES Geotechnicol Consultants Proj. No. T-448,2 D t:-ES:EP�T �1999 1719�-r-A-3 4 L:\TEMP\BUILDTNG\MISC\Height Calculation Worksheet.doc J,1UyfjVV1 Lj!:UV kAA 43b M 4434 1LKXA AbSULIAMb %,MIT -71( 44- Daily Field Memo TERRA AS SOCIAT'ES, Inc. ..-C qgW kV` GWCCh jC&I w1ullants (425) 621.7777 C M— N.. S.biw: W.Ch. P—MA1811.7 Mt C) r- 10 A t L ---WOq/2OOI 13:10 FAX 425 $21 4334 TERRA ASSOCIATES 01003/003 Daily Field Memo Inc. m..e N. TERRA ASSOCIAYESt GwiechnicalConsultitnts (425)821-7777 -64- Ott. Kilki-M, W.�hi swo.t. PGnt At Site: t,f Z- I, WT� -�Qn& A +bCFr- ff,� Z I Pli: CO rn 0�. FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL FORM TO: DATE: MEMO TO: PERbffr COORDINATOR, BUILDING DIVISION FROM: FIRE DEPARTNIENT DATE — ENGINEERING DIVISION DATE 2-410 2-- PLANNING DIVISION DATE — PROJECT SITE ADDRES pERNM #__L06 I — 0 ADB# DATE iNsPEcrm—..qj Z:j 10'2 DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE INSPECTED—LiLA—L— A field inspection was conducted to determine final compliance with approved plans. Fmal approval e use of denotes that there are no objections from the above signed Department to the r le PERFORMANCE BONDS and the granting of: GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL GRAM PROJECT APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS NOTED c3 Copy of CONDITIONS given to owner/conbactor by inspector FAffM FINAL INSPECTION - OUTSTANDING ISSUES a Copy ofCoRRECnON NOTICE given to owner/conuactorby inspector 1. 2. 3. RE -INSPECTED OUTSTANDING ISSUES - GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL Daft Si 0CAFV1.d0c.1:t=p:b1dg&b=10/01 z 9 0 M in- M M 0 -10 00 3: M M Z 0-1 C 0 -n n M M 0 0 0 M C (D 9 (n M 0 z � z -4 z 0 i 0 M RECORD OF INSPECTIONS INSP ECTOR DATE APPROVED SETBACKS ..................... FOUNDATION: Footing...................... wall.......................... 0 52 Pler/Porch ................. Retaining Wall Insulation am Slab .......... PLUMBING: Underground ............ Rough -in m ................... Commercial Final E ATING: 0 Gas Test .................... Gas Piping ................ m Equipment ................. A C, Commercial Final EXTERIOR SHEATHING )s NAILING .......................... FRAMING . ........................ FIRST FLOOR FRAMING ANSULATION ................... Floor Insulation Wall Insulation ........... Calling Insulation IV\ S jo 0 m SHEETROCK NAILING SPECIAL INSPECTION VV\S MISCELLANEOUS .......... FINAL APPROVAL FOR OCCUPANCY .................. sweSewerv__z;��, AmoutlWd$ lje� tu 07- 'I) Ddelssu,441 WAWMeterSize________— Amountpgjd__RwJPt#_ DaftPurchased-- AmountPald$�Reed;t4— DateL-_L,2d._,__. .m Y—OATE FECEIVED 5��-so-ol 1 I PERMIT EXPIRES 9 . CITY OF EDMONDS U S USE . PERMIT N '0" R6--6 1-07-16 '0 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION _NUMBER,20 'A'DORESS SUITFJAPT. '0 "RE ' S A D OWNER NAMEINAME OF BUSINE!� 4 rsall 1AW "'4 lj)J�V S(711 IS '-U--'� I FLAT NAMEMUDDIVIStON NO, P LAT M LOT NO. L�D NO. 5 MAILING&DRESS L D FEE TE-A- u Poffox :�24 PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP HT OF WAY P.- =:V, 8 --s-72 CITY ZIP TEL PITONE :NA EXISTING fiL6— PR.P;rD 6 =-- 0 A� - 0 W02 'I ITEL 5125--bl'ell - 4XI REQUIRED DEDICATION NAME Ro" METER SIZE LINE , , / .11 Al I j 4 SIZE NO. OF FIXTURES 9-11, IRV REQUIRED YES NO E3._ .9 X ADDRESS REMARKS f! .WNERICONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROUDRAINAGE IV-VC,-f PC-x..T'.j 6am4 i 7.*il m Z CITY LEPHONI A-- re-vo- (owr&, LVIlat NAME ,!5IWP 7� A'2 f :ENGINEESING ADDRESS z FIRE REVIEWEDBY CATE CRY ZIP TELEPHONE 0 VARA��Fl CU VA CE OF' CU SHOF%IIZZ��DEI INSRPEEOCTION STATE LICENSE NUMBER rlRAIIONII A CKED BY 5 'D E3YE t�LNO P ED PA F[ VI -W SEPAREVIEW SIGN AREA HEIGHT V5 PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL NO. EXEMPT COMPLETE EXEMPT TE P�a AL ALLOWED PROPOSED , � 0 M '1zofaG-T-'"00 P =EDPROPOSED ! I cl RESIDENTIAL -)Eit PLUMBING I MECH LOT COVERAGE ALLOWED PROPOS REQUIRED SETBACKS (Fr.) FRONT SIDE REAR PROPOSED S CKS J� FRONT UP SIOE%REAR 'A 0 8 0 0 NEW 0 COMMERCIAL El CHANGE 'G EOR L �AIIIIITION REM DEL APARTMENT" 0 COMPLIA OF USE 0 SIGN PARKING 'LOT PEO'D PROVIDED AREA P ING FIEVISY -7 IT, In -- n '1�. loo j p %7o z G F NOE 0 REPAIR .2N — X CyDS T%-A K cym -AI'M-AAKS OTHER 0 DEMOLISH C] TANK b Te. n 0 -VCA.RAGE 0 A F.RT RETAI.N.IN'G WALL RENEWAL QK 6W -n (Ty O� us IN: ;P, EXP 0:? CHECKED BY ITYPE OF ON ICODE OCCUPAN GROUP M m NUMBER OF NUMBER Op OWELU G CRITICAL 40rU AR Oc Fn SPECIAL IN�LTEOR JARE�� REQUIRED !:�JD STORIES UNI TS NUEMASSER Y S DES CRIBEWORKTDBE DONE RE.ARKS DNS PER UBC 1081FINAL INSPECTION REO'D PROGRESS INSPECTI jQ fqc/7 In�nV16,2' 451 lwlcmel f z Ail 7 VALUATION FEE z Dee-<-, '711, PLAN CHECK FEE 1 3 0 GL' NG % LOT �PE BUILDING 0 m go =rm -121 PLAN COECK NO: jqESTEII DATE PLUMBING 1�z MECHANICAL THIS PERMIT iUTHO aES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO t: BE DONE ON PRI'VATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC GRADINGIFILL M DOMAIN (CURDS. SIDEWALKS. DRIVEWAYS. MARQUEES, UC.) WILL REQUIRE SEPARATE PERMISSION. STATE SUACHARGiao, 15 PIRMITAPPLICATION: 180DAYS PERMIT UMI W WITHIN 180 DAYS T, I YEAR. PROVUIED ORKISSTA D ENG. REVIEW FEES SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION ENG. INSPECTION FEE 'APPLICANT. ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS. ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS N INTERE T. AGREES TO EMNIFY. DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF SCAPING D ON S� WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS. EMPLOYEES. AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND LLCLAIMSFOR AMAGESOFWMTEVER�TURE,ARISINGOIRECTLYDRINDIFIECTLY SHALL NOT BE INSPECTION F EE ECEIPI 15 Z3 21 5 ROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT DEEMED TO MODIFY. WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUMEMENTOF ANYCITY ORDINANCE NO! LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITY'S ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.* PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT PLAN CHECK BE PO"' 0 IlT/g3 -Z,;, Sol -b I TOTAL AMOUNT DUE IMEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT: H E READ THIS APPUCATiON; THAT THE INFORMATION APPLICATION APPROVAL GIVEN IS CORRECT. AND THAT AM THE OWNER OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC- C Th-ppl-t,-. -1. P.-I b, CALL THE OWNER. I AGREE TOO MPLY TION; AND IN DOING TH E WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PE FSON WILL BE EMPLOYED S�'Id,, Oft,.l ., h-, D.Fuly: - F... .1. P.O. .�d rINSPECTION ipi I, ,k-lodged 1. op- P-ded. IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO 0 1 1 S FOR 'AIIIIGNATU%, WORKMEN'S CR4R=CN INSURANCE AND ROW 1827. OFF DATE S E Ol� 9ENT), DATE S ONED (425) '.. , "_) �? :NATU��JCW 0 1 0 77 -w422&%0j R ASED BY DATE ATTENTION EXT 333 IT IS UNLAWFULTO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR ACERTIFI- 371-0221 ORIGINAL - FILE YELLOW - INSPECTOR CATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC SECTION 109 FAX PINK - OWNER GOLD - ASSESSOR SiSs