Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
15812 75TH PL W.PDF
lillIIII 111111116053 15812 75TH PL W ADDRESS: TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL NUMBER: 00-57 3 / O 2- cl 0-3 00 BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE): ' COVENANTS (RECORDED) FOR: Mel 4 hw 4ow :sjlr �cL✓/ / JY� 007-fi o3`S-B. AQd HArmlrsr q �/I �3s , Cav1 Np' h6 �G� // fl/(,&rM /p -'1 -7//03 s-7 CRITICAL AREAS: DETERMINATION: ❑ Conditional Waiver ❑ Study Required ❑ Waiver DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S: (� l� 9' 90 DRAINAGE PLAN DATED: 4-/3-g o PARKING AGREEMENTS DA' EASEMENT(S) RECORDED FOR: S491W AAleol 6 eo? / T . PERMITS (OTHER): / ! 99-OZSS?- � %�l✓�% PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED: SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED: 4-12,;,10 SEWER LID FEE $: LID #: SHORT PLAT FILE/! 'e+a1VM✓d* AeAtN LOT: _ _ _ BLOCK: 2— SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED: SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S)#: GEOTECH REPORT DATED: f 2- l3'"0Q% 7 Z ? STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT #: FOR: WATER METER TAP CARD DATED: OTHER: L:\TEMP\DSTs\Forms\Street File Checklist.doc w �^ N N s_ d &,wN670N R.Q. prw � STREET FILE 140 -75Tk ftA( -•0 by �q h 3 s -4WEET FILE'.''., CITY OF EDMONDS SIDE SEWER FERMIT •�.1890-1990 PERM IT Np 23 Address of Construction: Property.Legal Description (Include all easements): LYNNWOOD LINE PUBLIC WORKS Owner and/or Contractor: State License No. Building Permit No. �d�� Single Family ❑ Multi -Family (No. of Units ) ❑ Commercial ❑ Public Invasion into City Right -of -Way: ❑ No Yes . y RW Construction Permit No. Cross other Private Property:No ❑ Yes Attach legal description and copy of recorded easement A) I cert at I ave read and sha comply with all city requirements Date as indicated on the back of, the Permit Card. - * CALL DIAL=A-DIG (1-800-424-5555) BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION OFFICE USE ONLY . �4 * FOR INSPECTION CALL 771-3202, PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. Permit Fee: Issued By Trunk Charge: Date Issued: Assessment Fee: Receipt No.: Lid No.: 2/(9 Partial Inspection: Date -Initial - Comments Reason Rejected: Date Initial Final Inspection Approved: Date Initial ; ** PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOB SITE ** White Copy: File Green Copy: Inspector Butt Copy: Applicant Revised 3/90 ■ CA w On 0 H u r� H 0 u 0 f.t: 101 Jou w sitp A 7 A0:,r";j .3!9 od ^;"3fj Iq 174S V11!40 �u O O �J C'i N i o {- N J J a � w d A O x u is ' M l� W c� W A PQ i N t& w a a a c 0 mm O GEOTECH� ~CONSULTANTS 13256 N.E. 20th St. (Northup Way), Suite 16 Bellevue, WA 98005 (206) 747-5618 (206) 343-7959 Seawood Homes Inc. 7500 - 212th SW, Suite 210 Edmonds, Washington 98020 Attention: Mr. A. Lee Atherton President s Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Study Proposed Single -Family Residence Lots 3 & 4, Block 29 Meadowdale Beach Plat Edmonds, Washington Gentlemen: December 13, 1989 JN 89418 We are pleased to present this geotechnical engineering report for the proposed single-family residence to be constructed on Lots 3 & 4 in Block 29 of the Meadowdale Beach Plat in Edmonds, Washington. The purpose of our work was to review previous work completed by others, conduct further explora- tions as necessary, and provide earthwork and foundation design criteria. The subsurface conditions of the proposed building site were explored with a total of seven test pits and one test borings. We observed the excavation of three of the test pits. In general', the subsurface conditions consist of loose variable fill soils and fractured fine-grained soils overlying competent fine-grained silts and clays. The home can utilize a rigid structural grid foundation bearing on the competent silty -clayey soils under the surficial looser and fractured materials. Alternatively, a deep foundation consisting of drilled augercast piers can provide support to the home. The attached report contains the results of our study and recommendations. If there are any questions, or if we can be of further service, please contact us. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Mark K. Dodds, P.E. Senior Engineer GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE LOTS 3 & 4, BLOCK 29 MEADOWDALE BEACH PLAT EDMONDS, WASHINGTON This report represents the results of our geotechnical engineering study for the site of the proposed single-family residence in Edmonds, Washington. The site is located in Lots 3 & 4 of Block 29 of the Meadowdale Beach Plat. The general location of the site is illustrated on the Vicinity Map, Plate 1. Based on plans furnished to us, we understand the building will consist of a 5400 square -foot, wood -frame, single family residence. The structure will be a two-story with a daylight basement and an attached three -car garage. The lower basement level will have a finish floor elevation of 50.25 msl. Development of the property is in the design and final planning stage. Therefore, a full set of proposed plans prepared by Ronald D. Johnson were available to us. The site plan prepared by Lovell-Sauerland & Associates which was provided included the footprint of the proposed structure, and provided topographic information. We were also provided with a copy of Cascade Geotechnical Report No. 894-36 dated May 9, 1989, and an addendum to this report dated August 16, 1989. These reports, which were ..prepared for the lot, were reviewed prior.to quantifying the scope of work for this report. SITE CONDITIONS SURFACE The property is located directly west of 75th Place West somewhat near the 159th Street Southwest Right -of -Way. The property roughly resembles a rectangle with dimensions of approximately 120 feet by 180 feet. The property slopes to the west, with an overall maximum relief of about 45 feet. The site has a basically gentle slope, and except for small anomolies, has a maximum relief of 2:1 (horizontal -vertical). The property appears to have been graded in the past, as there are a couple of benches and some small to medium-sized deciduous trees on the site now. Homes are situated both north and south of the property. The Burlington Northern Railroad is situated west of the lot. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Seawood Homes Inc. JN 89418 December 13, 1989 Page 2 The site is located in the Meadowdale landslide area that has been identified by the City of Edmonds as having potential for future slippage. Whether landslides occur in the future in the Meadowdale area is not only related to subsurface geology, but also groundwater conditions and the type and extent of the future development. SUBSURFACE The subsurface conditions were explored by a total of seven test pits and one test boring at the approximate' locations shown on the Site Plan, Plate 2. Three of the test pits were completed under our supervision specifically for this report. our field exploration program was determined based upon the proposed construction, site topography, the required design criteria, -subsurface conditions revealed during excavation, previous subsurface conditions reported by others, and time and budget constraints. Four of the test pits and the test boring were completed by Cascade Geotechnical prior to our involvement with the project. Their logs are summarized in Appendix 1 for reference. Three test pits were excavated on November 17, 1989 with a rubber -tired backhoe owned and operated by Evans Brothers Excavating. A geotechnical engineer from our staff observed the excavation process, logged the three test pits, and obtained representative samples of the.soils encountered. "Grab" samples of selected subsurface soils were collected from the backhoe bucket. The Test Pit Logs for our three test pits are attached to this report as Plates 3 through 5. The subsurface conditions of the site generally consisted of granular fill soils of variable depth, overlying firm to medium stiff, moderately fractured silt/cly. The competent subsurface layer underlying the fractured material consists.of stiff to hard silty clay/clayey silt with interlayers of sand. The final logs represent our interpretations of the field logs and laboratory tests. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundary between soil types. In actuality, the transition. may be gradual. The relative densities and moisture descriptions indicated on our test pit logs are interpretative descriptions based on the conditions observed during the excavation. The logs should be reviewed for specific subsurface information at the locations tested. GROUNDWATER Groundwater seepage was observed at a depth of five to twelve feet below existing grades. The test pits were left open only GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Seawood Homes Inc. JN 89418 December 13, 1989 Page 3 for a short time period, therefore, the seepage levels on the logs represent the location of transient water seepage and may not be the location of the static groundwater level. It should be noted that groundwater levels vary seasonally with rainfall and other factors. We anticipate that groundwater could be found between the near surface weathered soil and fills and the underlying denser competent soils and in fracture zones in silts and clays. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The property is locaed in the middle of a large slump block which encompasses the entire neighborhood. The slump block probably slid within the last 10,000 years, during the retreat of the last glacial age. There are always risks, associated with construction in a known landslide area. However, the risk to developing and residing on this piece of property is no more than the risks which the neighbors assume by living in this area. The project appears feasible from a geotechnical engineering standpoint. The proposed home can utilize either a rigid grid foundation placed over structural fill or a drilled pier foundation. In either case, firm bearing in the proposed building area is estimated to be at elevation 40 to 44 feet, msl. A rigid grid foundation bearing on the competent silts and clays will require an excavation with depths from twelve to fifteen feet. This excation should be sloped at a'minimum of 1.25:1 (Horizontal:Vertical). Due to local soil conditions, an excavation of this depth should only be completed during extended periods of relatively dry weather. Adequate drainage measures will be required during construction. As an alternative to sloping the excavation to reduce the amount of excavation and backfill, shoring can be utilized. Cantilevered shoring would be most adequate for this site. This type of shoring consists of drilling holes at predetermined intervals,; placing steel H-beams in the holes, and grouting between the pile and soil. As excavation proceeds, the space between the piles is lagged with treated timber and any voids behind the timbers is filled with pea gravel or lean -mix concrete. For the excavation depths anticipated, and with pile spacings of about six feet, nominal 4-inch lagging can be used. Drainage is provided between the GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Seawood Homes Inc. JN 89418 December 13, 1989 Page 4 permanent and temporary walls by utilizing a geotextile drainage product such as Alidrain or Miradrain attached to the lagging. Shoring design parameters can be provided by our firm as required. The on -site soils are silty, and will be impossible to compact and difficult to place during wet weather. We recommend against the placement of additional fill soils on top of the looser silts and clays, or on the existing fills. Imported granular fill will be required for structural fill. Geotech Consultants Inc. should be given the opportunity -to review the final foundation plans to verify that site specific foundation, drainage, and earthwork requirements are met. The proposed structure may be supported on a rigid mat foundation. The mat can consist of a reinforced, two-way beam and slab set on a minimum of one foot of compacted structural fill built up from the competent silts and clays at about elevation 40 to 44 msl. The other alternate is to. construct the rigid foundation using grade beams bearing on the competent silts and clays. Overexcavation of fill and looser fine-grained soils below the foundation will be required. Fill placed under the mat should extend outwards from the edge at least a distance equal to the depth of fill underneath. the mat. The. mat should be founded a minimum of twelve (12) inches below the lowest adjacent outside finish grade. The rigid mat should be designed in such a manner that ten feet of the mat in any direction could sit unsupported. For the above design criteria, it is anticipated that total settlements of the rigid mat founded as.recommended, will be about three- quarters of an inch, with negligible differential settlements. Much of the settlement due to dead loads from the building structure should occur during construction. _. 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 on the foundations. For the latter, the foundations must either be poured "neat" against the existing soil or the wall backfill must be compacted structural fill. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used between the structural foundation concrete and the supporting subgrade. The passive resistance of undisturbed native soils and well compacted fill may be taken as equal to the pressure of a fluid having a density of three hundred (300) pounds per cubic foot (pcf). GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. • • Seawood Homes Inc. December 13, 1989 DRILLED FOUNDATIONS The structure could also be suppor diameter steel -reinforced augerca can be installed with either auge The open -hole method involves usi consists of a stem and usually abo end. The auger is drilled into th cuttings are spun off the auger. until the design depths are met filled with concrete and steel re the hole. If caving becomes a looser fine-grained soils and fi hole, then the open -hole method wi continuous flight hollow -stem required. This method involves through the hollow -stem auger equ the auger. Concrete grout must be the auger as it is withdrawn. T not exceed nine feet Der minute. JN 89418 Page 5 ted on minimum sixteen-inch- st piers. Augercast piers rcast or open -hole methods. zg a solid -stem auger that at five foot of auger at the ground, retracted, and the The excavation continues After drilling, the hole is enforcement is placed into problem, as it may as the Lls may collapse into the L1 have to be abandoned, and auger equipment will be the pumping of concrete ipment during extraction of pumped continuously through ie rate of withdrawl should The arout Dressure at the grout pump should be in the range of 150 to 250 psi, depending on the length of feeder hose used. The pump should be equipped with a calibrated stroke counter so that grout volumes may be calculated. For a sixteen (16) inch diameter pier with five (10) feet of penetration into the dense native soils, an allowable capacity of fifteen (15) tons may be assumed. Piers should be placed no closer than three pier diameters, center to center. For wind or seismic loads, the allowable load can be increased by one-third. We can provide design criteria for different pier diameters and embedment lengths if greater capacities are required. Based on our fieldwork, we estimate total pier lengths of seventeen to twenty-five feet will be required to 'assure adequate penetration into the bearing soil. We estimate that total settlement of single piers will be on the order of one-half inch. Much of this settlement should occur during construction as the dead loads are applied. We estimate differential settlements between piers should be less than one-half inch. Lateral pier capacity is generally governed by deflections at the top of the pier which depend on the pier stiffness with respect to the surrounding soil near the upper portion of the pier, the length of the pier, and the decree of fixity at the pier cap. We can provide lateral capacities for -piers once design plans are finalized. The piers will have to be reinforced with steel the entire length of the pier. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. V1 Seawood Homes Inc. JN 89418 December 13, 1989 Page 6 As the completed pier below ground cannot be observed, judgement and experience must be used as the basis for determining the acceptability of a pier. We recommend that the installation of all piers be observed by a qualified geotechnical engineer who can fully evaluate the contractor's operation, collect and interpret installation data, verify bearing stratum elevations, and who would understand the implications of variations from normal procedures with respect to the design criteria. We suggest the contractor's equipment and procedures be reviewed by Geotech Consultants Inc. prior to the start of construction. SLAB -ON -GRADE FLOORS Slab -on -grade floors may be supported on undisturbed competent native silts and clays which are located at elevation 40 to 44 msl, or on structural fill built up from these soils. The slab should also be provided with a minimum of four (4) inches of free draining sand or gravel. In areas where moisture is undesirable, a vapor barrier such as ..a 6-mil plastic membrane should be placed beneath the slab. Alternatively, the floors can be wood -framed with a crawl space. Retaining and foundation walls should be designed to resist the lateral earth pressures imposed by the retained soils. The following recommendations are for walls less than twelve feet high which restrain level backfill: Design Parameter Value Active Earth Pressure* 45 pcf Passive Earth Pressure 300 pcf Coefficient of Friction 0.35 Soil Unit -Weight 125 pcf Where: 1) pcf is pounds per cubic foot. 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) psf should be added to the active equivalent fluid pressure. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Seawood Homes Inc. JN 89418 December 13, 1989 Page 7 The values given above are ultimate values. An appropriate safety factor should be applied when designing the walls. We recommend usinga minimum factor of safety of 1.5 for overturning and sliding. The resultant force, which can be determined by taking moments about the toe of the wall while neglecting the passive pressure force, should pass through the middle third of the footing. The above design values also do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures behind the walls and assume that no surcharge slopes or loads will be placed above the walls. If these conditions exist, then those pressures should be added to the above lateral pressures. Also, if sloping backfill is desired behind the walls, then we will need to be given the wall dimensions and slope of the backfill in order to provide the appropriate design earth pressures. Retaining and foundation walls should be backfilled with compacted free -draining granular soils containing no organics. The wall backfill should contain no more than 5 percent silt or clay and no particles greater than four inches in diameter. The percentage of particles passing the No. 4 sieve should be between 25 and 70 percent. The purpose of the backfill requirements is to assure that the design criteria for the retaining wall is not exceeded because of a build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. Where the backfill i.s to support walks or other slabs, we recommend that the backfill consist of clean sand and gravel as this soil would be easier to compact in the excavation prism than siltier soils. Also, these soils will provide drainage behind the wall. The top foot to eighteen inches of the backfill should consist of a relatively impermeable soil or topsoil, or the surface should be paved. We recommend the use of footing drains at the base of all footings and earth retaining walls. Roof and surface water drains must be kept separate from the foundation drain system.. The footing drains should be surrounded by at least six inches of one -inch -minus washed rock. The rock should be wrapped with non -woven geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or similar material). At the highest point, the perfor- ated pipe invert should be at least as low as the bottom of the footing and/or crawl space and.it should be sloped for drainage. A typical footing drain detail is attached to this report as Plate 7. The excavation and site should be graded so that surface water is directed off the site and away from the tops of slopes. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Seawood Homes Inc. JN 89418 December 13, 1989 Page 8 Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where buildings, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. During construction, loose surfaces should be sealed at night by compacting the surface soils to reduce the infiltration of rain into the soils. The slopes should be covered with plastic. Final site grading in areas adjacent to buildings should be sloped at least two percent away from the building, except where the area adjacent to the building is paved. Groundwater was observed during our field work at depths of five to twelve feet. Seepage into the planned excavation is possible, and if encountered, the water should be drained away from the site by use of drainage ditches, perforated pipe or French drains, or by pumping from sumps interconnected by shallow connector trenches at the bottom of the excavation. EXCAVATIONS AND SLOPES In no case should excavation slopes be steeper or greater than the limits specified in local, state, and national government. safety regulations. Temporary cuts to a depth of four feet in unsaturated soils may be attempted vertical. For slopes having a height greater than four (4) feet, the' cut should have an inclination no steeper than 1.25:1 (horizontal: vertical) from the top of the slope to the bottom of the excavation. It should be noted that the sands and fill soils do cave suddenly and without warning. Utility contractors should be made especially aware of this, potential danger. All permanent cut slopes into the existing fill soils and looser fine-grained soils should be inclined no steeper than 2.5:1 (H:V). Structural fill slopes should not exceed 2:1 (H:V). Cut slopes in the dense, competent fine-grained soils should not exceed 1.5:1 (H:V). Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any slope. Also, all permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriatespecies of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve.stability of the surficial layer of soil. SITE PREPARATION AND GENERAL EARTHWORK We recommend that the building and pavement areas be stripped and cleared of all surface vegetation, all organic matter and any other deleterious material. Stripped materials should be removed from the site or, if desired, stockpiled for later use in landscaping. The stripped materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill. Structural fill is defined as any fill placed under buildings, pavements, walkways, or other areas where the underlying soils need to support loads. Geotech Consultants, Inc. should observe site GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. • Seawood Homes Inc. December 13, 1989 conditions prior to fill placement. The are moisture -sensitive and can become disturbed. We recommend that, if preparation and earthwork be performed season of the year when earthwork would expensive and require less effort. JN 89418 Page 9 surficial site soils soft when wet and possible, the site in the normally dry generally be less Structural fill under floor slabs and foundations should be placed in horizontal lifts and compacted to a density equal to or greater than 95 percent of the maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1557-78 (Modified Proctor). The fill materials should be placed at or near the optimum moisture content. Fill under pavements and walks and behind .retaining walls should also be placed in horizontal lifts and compacted to 90 percent of the 'maximum density except for the top twelve (12) inches which should be compacted to 95 percent of maximum density. 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. Ideally, structural fill which is to be placed in wet weather should consist of a granular soil having no more than 5 percent material passing the No. 200 sieve. The percentage of particles passing the 200 sieve should be measured on that portion of the soil passing the three-quarter inch sieve. LIMITATIONS The analyses, conclusions and recommendations contained in the report are based on site conditions as they existed at the time of our exploration and assume that the soils encountered in the test boring and test pits are representative of the subsurface conditions of the site. If, during construction, subsurface conditions are found which are significantly different from those observed in the boring and test pits, or assumed to exist in the excavations, we should be advised at once so that we can review these conditions and reconsider our recommendations where necessary. Unanticipated soil conditions are commonly encountered on construction sites and cannot. be fully anticipated by merely taking soil samples in borings or test pits. Such unexpected conditions frequently require that additional expenditures be made to attain a properly constructed project. It is recommended that the owner consider providing a contingency fund to accommodate such potential extra costs and risks. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Seawood Homes Inc. JN 89418 December 13, 1989 Page 10 This report has been prepared for specific application to this. project and for the exclusive use of Seawood Homes and their representatives. Our recommendations and conclusions are based on the site materials observed, selective laboratory testing and engineering analyses. The conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in accordance with current standards of practice within the scope of our services and within budget and time constraints. No warranty is expressed or implied. The scope of our services does not include services related to construction safety precautions and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. We recommend that this report, in its entirety, be included in the project contract documents for the information of the contractor. ADDITIONAL SERVICES It is recommended that Geotech Consultants, Inc. provide a general review of the geotechnical aspects of the final design and specifications to verify that the earthwork and foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in the design and project specifications. It is also recommended that Geotech Consultants, Inc. be retained to provide geotechnical consultation, testing, and observation services during construction. This is to confirm that subsurface conditions are consistent with those indicated by our exploration, to evaluate whether earthwork and foundation construction activities comply with the intent of contract plans and specifications, and to provide recommendations for design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. However, our work will not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees or agents. Also, job and site safety, and dimensional measurements, will be the responsibility of the contractor. We recommend that a representative of our firm be present.during placement of structural fill to observe the process and to conduct density tests in the fill. The following plates are attached and complete this report: Plate 1 Vicinity Map Plate 2 Soils Exploration Plan Plates 3 - 5 Test Pit Logs GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Seawood Homes Inc. JN 89418 December 13, 1989 Page 11 Plate 6 Grain Size Analysis Plate 7 Footing Drain Detail Appendix 1 Cascade Geotechnical Logs Respectfully submitted, r Op���� GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. ''�./� �1J� S Mark K. Dodds, P.E. S Senior Engineer °Nay EV,. James R. Finley, Jr. P.E. ZzSvF Principal Attachments MKD/JRF:cvb GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. ' 1 141S g3 e1140TH ' T Sw , 3 vicN r I rtnR O �SFi, ` tOn 0I S o S� a 1 1 T < > 14 NO I U �� �3 SERENE1112ND PL SW d 2 �7� 3 1 3 ST SW j j^ 1 3 l7 I143RD S 3 Ei • S 143RD 3 ST SW ,��j N I i i ,y ; I i 144TH P N 144T14 ST �t ►''���a; sw > V I I o arS�'' �' ; 1` W Q J= g PL SW > ` ly 4< k ♦ Q > a 1x /5 L «S-w� Z, !WLC H t4` PL Sw Z w 146THIPL PUG RMA B�ACM4gtH s� Sloisw=; T PL 1K N ST o3 W d I4PVT PL SW m 3 W 1 NORM EACH i 111�N .q a, u W 5i m T Sv 1 - 1I9TN - 0TH 149TH SOUND T FISHER "'It �/� `f �'� u r ; PL w sW ST NORMA I BEACH SW D > `�tH PL I 1 <` Q\, S < PL vT- '' - - - mow- - - _ - 151ST I 16OTH�� ; I 3.1 STr / 152ND ST �� n SW PL s JS� 52ND ST S' g .-----31 f I 3163RD ST 3 i 3 152NW 1 AEAD _ `W� 0 5. ou -C tbt` r� O � 1 TH SNARE sw RDTRA z --I Q 153aD W IS3R L SW 3 SITH Q I ;` r,-• ?'` I O t t I= W 156 H ST �56TH a T PL SW it a3 gW STI ••Zi:.:: I.ritu+!9+�. �Ju urur = (OAK RDI AIEADQW04LE'•::;� 3 3 157TH ST _ I BEACK•;;`'.: ; LJ 1 7TH Pl SW SW i F- 1 PARK; """ =g57T t SW TH PL SW I ..».».. 99 1 iL 1�— * _ ¢ i �; 1 T fi--_I-S.L=�w_ -- ------ ---- �� KEELEA A 1 11 PL TH = s�v j Sw 3 IX c 3 M a `►�It , SW I d 13 o. 181ST PL n4 1 €IPL CO R N [�I 5 9<�I 63RD ST WSW I � � "-' 1 D PL Svr : T swGIN 3< 1 M64TH- I ST 4 f PL SVV y i ne• > 1.7�:': ' RO awi%oo�wui 3 t�i Sw 3 LY �:;� ::; rb'°'t" 1 8TH ST a SW I `•'• HST SW � < 3 � MEA0OWDALE—> t T N - - - - � - - - - _ - - j� I/ PL wST 1 _ _ tt 1 - s• i Ti>mN z A� k sw t7°TN PL bvN ; l3 sw 172ND a i` d1 171sr i—' I Q1 3 Sw I 1172ND Tripp 1 f T ° St i N P l 9 1 °; 1 �I °$NSWI PL sw S I �171 M ST , , w w1 I In ap76TN Z I U PL SW 1 �I �3SW • N pp t7 TQ a ST 3 E=y 176TH ST �1x3 �;�; _;17W ,1iItNPtsw LY�I P < 1 1 HI ST .1 .'`sw oT l"'< eL ,sti YyET�-L1 -IL SWI ST SW 1 s tt �"^' > H I 311 I Q 179TH IL ST Sy W m 3 U S a I PL Sw I Q d' PL w Sw TN 1 Q' F- 1 tt W> sof 1 3 W W �� P Sw 3 PL TTH H 3 S 1 W i It �" BIST S r° i °fiNs vc PL w AQ ; PL Jw L VW <PL S t 0 PL JW 1 p w at 1 RD P my" I pL ti7N ST Sw 1 > Aa t 184TH T 1 TH PL I9 SW 3 1 6T < i s• • 1 Q 6 �. ..:. MTN PL > ;� � c I 0 85TH 3 L 105TH ; ST bW ,,j T 3< 188 =I Z '3186TM 1 (, a PL H o1 1 (� TN PL S�V STWt — '- — �' — - — t 189 w, PENNY LNPL SW 18ILH PL sw ; t > > pS ew 1 H JIMI 199t P ,° a+ 8 tNJ T E I TH ST PL SW 1l1ST !w w�r1�14CIA , 4 Sw yap IGI ,T US STr t90 PtsvYev GEOTECH CONSULTANTS VICINITY MAP MEADOWDALE BEACH ROAD EDMONDS, WASHINGTON ,h0 N°.+ able: Pole: 89418 DEC 89 N.T.S. 1 oa �\ll \J`cec �y USCs 0 .. 5 1• TEST PIT 1 Description Elevation: ±50' Brown gravelly silty SAND with occasional cobbles and boulders, wet, loose (Fill) with wood, bricks, pieces of concrete Light brown silty gravelly fine to medium SAND, moist, medium -dense 6.9 H.Light brown gravelly silty medium SAND, moist, -J.-JA'11 medium -dense 20.1 40.Z 0 32.4 15 20 Gray gravelly silty SAND, very wet, medium -dense Gray -blue silty CLAY, very wet, medium -stiff Gray -blue clayey SILT, wet, firm Test pit terminated at 14 feet below existing grade. Minor groundwater seepage encountered at 12 feet during excavation. Note: (DLL = 29.8 PI = 5.5 GEOTECH CONSULTANTS TEST PIT LOG . MEADOWDALE BEACH'ROAD EDMONDS, WASHINGTON .k0 No. Dab Lopped ap PYoff: 89418 11 17 8 3 r. 0 TEST PIT 2 6Q C� 0 G uses Description 5 29.3 29.0 Brown gravelly silty SAND, moist, Elevation, ±50' Gray -green with brown mottling SILT, wet, firm / Gray -blue clayey SILT, moist, medium -stiff 10 ® 33.8 Stiff 35.3 Test pit terminated at 12 feet below existing grade. Minor groundwater seepage encountered at 5 feet during 15 excavation. Note: Oj LL = 54.0 PI = 32.7 20 Q LL = 52.3 PI = 25.6 GEOTECH CONSULTANTS 4 A TEST PIT LOG MEADOWDALE BEACH ROAD EDMONDS, WASHINGTON dab No.+ palt+ Logged spy: Plop: 89418 11/17/89 MKD 4 F. 0 Gd uses 0 5 r 29.-5 m 15 20 TEST PIT 3 Description Gray -brown SILT, wet, firm Elevation: t58' Gray clayey SILT to silty clay, wet, firm Highly fractured at 312 to 421 feet Moderately fractured LL = 48.4 PI = 25.3 Only minor fracturing below eight feet Test pit terminated at 9 feet below existing grade. No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS TEST PIT LOG MEADOWDALE BEACH ROAD EDMONDS, WASHINGTON doe No, Qvls� Lopped sp Prate: 89418 11/17/89 1 MKD 5 ......................................... Illllillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllill Illllll lllll lllilillllllnl lllll lllllllll 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111 II Iillnlllllllllll l'/llllllll lllll lllllllll 111111111111111� �illlllllllllllllllllllll 11111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIII 11111111111111 i v S/ope back ill away from foundation. --, BACKFIL L See lox/ for requirements. WASHED ROCK 1\ NONWOVEN GEOTEXTILE FILTER FABRIC GEOTECH CONSULTANTS A T/GHTL INE ROOF DRAIN Do not connect fo footing drain. - VAPOR BARRIER SLAB it 4 min. FREE - DRAINING SAND/GRAVEL 4" PERFORATED HARD PVC P/PE Invert at least as. low as fooling and/or crew! space. Slope to drain. Place weepholes downward. FOOTING DRAIN MEADOWDALE BEACH ROAD EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Job No.+ poll: to/e: I-/.-89418 DEC 1989 N-T.S. 7 APPENDI% N0. 1 1 0 0 • CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL LOGS I 20 ••'• ;:; ; ••' • •j�Ii) '�,�,:;• SILTY SAND; SILTY SAND; SILTY CLAY; GRAY, HARD, MOIST. (CH-P1H) FINE TO 14EDIUM GRAINED, LIGHT GRAY, DENSE, MOIST. (SW) CLAY; GRAY, HARD, MOIST. (CH-MH) FINE GRAINED, LIGHT GRAY, DENSE, MOIST.(SW) INTERBEDDED WITH GRAY, HARD, SILTY CLAY. CLAY; GRAY, HARD, MOIST. (CH-MH) 25J1834 6 17 130 41 30 12 Noles: CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL A DIVISION Of CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC. TEST BORING LOG. Pape 1 of 2 Project SEAWOOD MEADOWD Job No. - 3G Boring Nm 1 ° y Penetration o C Q Soil Description & Clossification Notes E � � z w N O m SILT; GRAY, MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, DAMP. (MH) I SAND; FINE GRAINED, LIGHT BROWN TO GRAY, MEDIUM 7 11 19 30 DENSE TO DENSE, DAMP TO MOIST. (SP) 35 SILT; GRAY, DENSE, DAMP TO MOIST, FRACTURED. (MH) I 12 121211 33 INTERBEDDED WITH FINE, GRAY, DENSE, DAMP TO 40 MOIST SAND. ° AND; FINE GRAINED, LIGHT GRAY, VERY DENSE, D41P 24 5 t`: TO MOIST. SP 45 I "'' SAND; AS ABOVE. 23 0 5 5 7 T.D. = 49.0' 50 Notes: NO GROUND WATER BELOW -10' . CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL TEST BORING LOG A DIVISION OF CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY. INC. Pogo 2 Of 2 T:•P- 1 Soil Descrip ' n & Classification T.P.- 2 Soil Description & Classification 0 0— 0 - 2"TOPSOIL; DARK BROWN ORGANIC 0 0 - 2"TOPSOIL; DARK BROWN ORGANI SILTY SAND. SILTY SAND. 2"- 8'SILTY CLAY; GRAY TO MOTTLED 2"- 6'SILTY CLAY; GRAY TO HOTTLE BROWN, SOFT, TO MEDIUM BROWN, SOFT TO MEDIUM STIFF, STIFF, MOIST TO WET, FRAC- MOIST TO WET, FRACTURED, TURED, DISTURBED, WITH DISTURBED, WITH ANGULAR, ANGULAR, FRACTURED CLASTS FRACTURED CLASTS OF SILT/ OF SILT/CLAY, SOME SAND. CLAY, SOME SAND. (CH-MH) (CH-MH) -5 -5 6'- 15'SILTY CLAY/CLAYEY SILT; GRAY, HARD, MOIST, SLICKEN SIDES. (CH-MH) 8'- 14'SILT/CLAYEY SILT; GRAY, DENSE, MOIST, WITH SOME THIN, FINE GRAINED SAND 9' THIN LENSE OF FINE TO LAYERS. (MH-CH) MEDIUM GRAINED SAND -10 -10 1 BETWEEN FRACTURED CLAY -15 T. D. = 14. 0' 1 TIA IIII APPEARED MASSIVE -15 T. D. = 15. 0' Notes: NO GROUND WATER SEEPAGE. Notes: TRACE OF GROUND WATER SEEPAGE AT 9' . TEST PIT LOG CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL Seawood Meadowda le A DMSION Of CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC. Date 04/26/89 Job No. 894 - 3G DWn•BY HLA Goo/Eng. T.P.• 3 Soil Descriple & Classification T.P.- 4 Coil Description & Classificalion 0 0 - P BU; DARK BROWN ORGANIC 0 =' 0 - 5" L Y NO BROWN ORGANIC r.. . SILTY SAND, BROWN SILTY .:•: 6"- 2' AND• MOTTLED GRAY, LOOSE SAND WITH GRAVEL, SOME •�;: DEBRIS. TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST TO WET, WITH GRAVEL. (SW) 2'- 91SILTY CLAY; GRAY TO NOTTLED GRAY, SOFT TO MEDIUM STIFF, MOIST, FRACTURED, DISTURBE WITH ANGULAR, FRACTURED CLASTS OF SILT/CLAY, SOME SAND. (CH-11H ) -S -S 1'- 9'SAND; MOTTLED GRAY, LOOSE 1111 TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST TO WET, WITH GRAVEL. (SW) - 15 DENSE ' 9 SILTY CLAY; GRAY, , 9'- 14'SILTY CLAY/CLAYEY SILT; MOIST, WITH ORGANICS. GRAY,.HARD, MOIST, SLICKEN- -10 (CH-MH) -10 SIDES. (CH-MH) ," THICK ORGANIC LAYER; - T.D. = 14.0' -15 DARK BROWN, HARD 1S T.D. = 15.0' •• Notes: GROUND WATER SEEPAGE AT 8' . Notes: NO GROUND WATER SEEPAGE. TEST PIT LOG CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL A DMStON OF CASCADE TESTING tABMATORY. WC. Seawood Meadowda le Date 04/26/89 I Job No- 894 - 3G Dwn. By HLAj Goo/Eng.. Ihc.1S9", BARBARAFAHEY CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering April 9, 1999 Mr. Richard Van Saun 15812 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington 98026 RE: Homeowner Insurance Coverage for Meadowdale Development As you may recall, development of your home was subject to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 19.05.050 which regulated construction and insurance coverage requirements for all designated Meadowdale Landslide Hazard Area development. The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the Edmonds City Council has enacted a change which effects your homeowners policy that was required by this ordinance. If you recall you. were required to post a one million dollar homeowner policy in order for your home to be granted final occupancy. Please be advised, the City Council has repealed this requirement effective April 16, 1999. In lieu of this policy the City Council will be holding future public hearings to determine alternate coverage methods to ensure that the intent of ECDC 19.05.050 are still met. Please contact the City Clerk if you are interested in attending these meetings. You may wish to consult your insurance professional to determine the proper amount of insurance coverage necessary' to meet your specific needs. Since the insurance requirement is repealed the City no longer requires to be informed of your coverage or be provided with a copy of your current policy. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions at 771-0220. Thank you, G�wx�i. Jeannine L. Graf Building Official • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister City - Hekinan, Japan CITY OF EDMONDS t' PiJBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FOR INSFECTION CALL Permit 110 _ "77551 2`5:2:5 Ext. 22�0 Issue Date SIDE SEWER PERMIT -7-76-IVA2 9p7 PERMIT ,MUST BE POSTED ON -JOB SITE * _jYNNW60D LINE .. Address of Construction- �f --J2. Property Legal Description (include all easements) 6 �;? Q j� -nO -&60 2--7,-4/ A4e_1h,3aJbAtL 71CAC4- 3. Single Family Residence Multi -Family No. of Units LU Commercial 4. Owner and/or Builder 5. Contractor & License No. -772/ (fir/ TZ-1 S - I C. L i 6 P_8 6. Invasion into City Right -of -Way: Nol Yes (If Yes Right-of- way Construction Permit Required - Call Dial Dig (3f4►?- 5/3/4ff ) before excavation) . 1-800-454-5555 :5 U H a a a4 A w h w a a z 0 U w as 0 H 7. Cross other private property: Yes No /. Easement required - �y attach legal description and county easement number. READ THE FOL.LOWI-NG AND SIGN: a. Property owners must obtain a permit to install side sewers on their property. A licensed side sewer contractor must be employed to construct side sewers in the public right-of-way. b. The side sewer contractor assumes full reponsibility for each installation for one year. C. Commercial establishment requires a minimum of a six-inch (6") side sewer line. d. Side sewers may not be installed closer than thirty inches (30") to any structure. e. Side sewer lines must be laid at a minimum grade of 2% (1.150) and maximum grade of 100% (450). f. No turn in side sewer greater than 45° (1/8,bend) is°allowed between cleanout. All 90 turns must be constructed of a 45 (1/•8 bend) and wye with removable cap. g. No down spouts, footing drains or floor drains can be connected to side sewer system. h. Pea gravel is required for bedding when installing sewer lines through other than granular soil. i. Cleanouts are required at 30"-60" from each plumbing exit line and at minimum intervals of 100' along sewer line run. j. Trenches within City right-of-way must be restored to original conditions. Contractors shall be responsible for right-of-way failure due to poor compaction of fill. k. Side sewer must be left uncovered until inspected and approved by the City. 1. Inspection during normal working hours only. Two (2) working days notice required. _ DATE. f'�; �if �'�!,•- �, . �;zy rr� ;r., 'I certify that I have read and shall comply with the above H+ PERMIT FEE: 30,00 ��� `Pa DISAPPROVED BY: Date: U W IhAhk C IlarrjC. ,25. 00 B Date CONNECTION FEE: <_Z, J APPROVED By : Date : /D S s?4 44 ��. * PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOB SITE c-4 0 z 0, cn 2;4 2 04 c 0 O lfttbp%AA -k%polb.^ v JAN 10 13y)" COVENANT. TO NOTIFY PERMIT COUNTER The undersigned property owner(s), as applicant for a building permit/grading permit, in consideration of the mutual benefits to be derived, in part due to the review of my application, do hereby stipulate and promise to the City of Edmonds, Washington, a noncharter optional municipal code city, as follows: 1. SUBJECT TRACT: The undersigned is/are the owner(s) of certain real estate located in the City of Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington, and further described as follows: Lots 3 and 4 Plat of Meadowdale AKA - 1S812 7Sth Place West Edmonds, Washington 98020 2. STATEMENT OF HAZARD: The above described subject tract or some portion thereof lies within an area of potential earth subsidence or landslide hazard. The.risks associated with development of the site have -been assessed and determined.by professionals in the employ of the undersigned property owner(s') through written reports required by, and on file with, the City of Edmonds, Building Division, in application file number All prospective inhabitants, buyers, lenders, or other persons acquiring any interest in the subject tract are hereby notified of such potential hazards and of the information on file with the City, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. In addition to an assessment of any such hazard, said City files may contain conditions or prohibitions on development imposed by the City in the course of permit issuance and may reference any features in the design which will require ongoing maintenance or future modification to address anticipated soil changes or movement. All such prospective inhabitants, buyers, lenders or other interested parties are encouraged to review said files and shall be charged with notice of the contents thereof. 3. PROMISE TO NOTIFY: The owners, on behalf of themselves, their heirs, agents, successors in interest and/or assigns do hereby promise to inform any successors and assigns that said described property lies within a potential earth subsidence and landslide hazard, of any risk identified by reports of the professionals and associated with the development of that property, and of any conditions, prohibitions, restrictions, or ongoing maintenance responsibilities which exist with respect to development of that site. 4. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: These statements are made in and with regard to an application for building permit issued this day of 19_ , under City of Edmonds file No. 5. WAIVER: I/We/the corporation as the owner of the described tract, and on behalf of my/our/ heirs, successors and assigns do hereby waive the right to assert any loss or claim against the City of Edmonds, its agents, employees, or independent contractors, which may arise by reason of or out of the review of our application and/or issuance of the above -described permit for development approval by the City for the subject property, or from the construction of any building or structure or any grading, filling or other action pursuant to said permit, excepting, however, any loss arising from the sole negligence of the City, its officers, employees, or independent contractors. DATED this 8 day of 19LO (Individual) (Individual) I&' Ife _ By �J (President) B . (Secretary) INDIVIDUAL ACK14OWLEDGEMLNT STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) On this.day personally appeared before me ,.to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that signed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. GIVEN under my hand and official seal this day of , 198. NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) On this day of j&iuC -4' 19`10., before me, the undersigned, a Notary P.0 is inland for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn,. personally appeared A. 4 fkP-\-1Cy- and v1Cc. iLL,' / 1-IuA fc, to me knon to be the President and Secretary, respectively, of ,0_QQ�)eoc(� ?/u-c.J l the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and 'voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for.the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that they were authorized to,execute said instrument and that the seal affixed is the official seal of said corporation. WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day aild year first above written. - v--Jut , NOTARY PUBLIC Wand for the Stat of Washington,,:i^e;iding 4 4 � 908110359 0060.090.014 JEH/crd 10/19/88 RE:10/26/88 RE:10/31/88 CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON COVENANT TO PARTICIPATE IN/WAIVE RIGHT TO PROTEST LID WHEREAS, the undersigned owners are the owners of certain real property located in Snohomish County, Washington, which is legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, as if set forth in full, hereinafter referred to as."the property," and WHEREAS, the owners have applied to develop the property as S G 1Rjk31bQ" F (insert development type), which will have an impact on STRttlfts (insert impact), (e.g., storm drainage, streets, water, sewer), and WHEREAS, as a condition of approval of the proposed development, the.City has required the owners to mitigate impacts of the development and the owners and the City have agreed that such mitigation may take the form of participation in a local improvement district (LID)_' for construction of certain improvements deemed necessary to mitigate the impact, now, therefore, FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION OF the City's approval of owners' development of the property described on Exhibit A without requiring owners to presently construct the improvements hereinafter described, the owners covenant and agree as follows: 1. Warranty of Title. The owners of the property described to enter into this Agreement. owners warrant that they are the on Exhibit A and are authorized 2. Acknowledgment of City Authority. Owners acknowledge that State law and City ordinance provide that the City may require that the following improvements be designed and constructed as a condition of, and to mitigate the effects of, the development proposed by the owners (insert description of specific improvements): Owners further acknowledge that the consideration for this Agreement is approval of owners' development by the City without requiring that such improvements be completed prior to such approval. 3. Acknowledgment of Special Benefit. Owner acknowledges -1- JEH01115A • • that the entire property legally described on Exhibit A, and if the proposed development is a subdivision or short subdivision, each and every lot to be created as part of the development of the property legally described on Exhibit A, would be specially benefitted by the construction of the improvements specified in paragraph 2 above. 4. Agreement to Participate in or Waive Protest of LID. A. Petition Method. Owners understand that the formation of a local improvement district which includes the property described on Exhibit A for the purpose of providing the specified improvements will result in the property being assessed a proportionate share of the. costs of those improvements. With full understanding of this consequence, owners agree to sign a petition for the formation of an LID' or 'ULID for the specified improvements at such time as a petition is circulated or the City requests the owners to sign such a petition and the owners hereby agree that the Mayor of the City may sign the petition for the owners as the owners' attorney in fact, should the owners fail, refuse or be unable to do so. B. Resolution Method - Waiver of Right to Protest. Owners understand that owners have the right to protest formation of an LID or ULID to construct the specified improvements pursuant to RCW 35.43.180. With full understanding of owners' right to protest and the consequences of formation of an LID or ULID, owners agree to participate in any LID or ULID to design or construct the specified improvements and to waive the right to protest formation of the same. Owners shall retain the right to contest the method of calculating any assessment under such LID or ULID and the amount thereof, and shall further retain the right to appeal confirmation of the final assessment roll in the manner provided by law. 5. Binding Effect - Duration. This Agreement shall be recorded with the Snohomish County Auditor, shall constitute a covenant running with the land described on Exhibit A, and shall be binding upon the owners, their heirs, successors in interest and assigns, provided, that this Agreement shall be valid only for a period of ten (10) years from the date it is signed by the owners, after which it shall expire and become null and void. 6. Specific Enforcement. In addition to any other remedy provided y law or this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement may be specifically enforced by the City of Edmonds. 7. Attorney's Fees. In any suit or action brought by the -2- JER01115A City of Edmonds to enforce any provision of this Agreement or to redress any breach, the owners covenant that the City shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs in addition -to any other remedy. DATED this 119 day of ��N� 19�0• OWNERS So A to om 0 a o- a'es 4: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss: COUNTY OF �n9korxr�l� ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument and acknowledged It to be free and voluntary act for the purposes mentioned in this instrument. /990 DATED this /* day of � n� . ��• T NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss: COUNTY OF I certify- that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument, on oath stated that (he was authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the (title) of �hG�Oln a of party on behalf of whom Instrument wasexecuted) to be the free and voluntary _3_ JEHO1115A act of such party for. the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument. 1990 DATED this /IV day of� NOTARY PUBLIC 93 My commission expires: -q- JEH01115A SEAWOOD HOMS INC. 75M 212th S.W., SUITE 210 EDMONDS. WA 98020 206-778-7369 SEAWOHI 158CD Exhibit "A" Property Address - 15812 75th P1. W. Legal Description - Lots 3 & 4 of plat of Meadowdale Beach recorded in volume S, page 38 records of Snohomish County w 4t007 .1 INDEMNITY AND HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT JAN 10 1331 PERMIT COUNTER The undersigned applicant(s) for building permit, subdivision, planned residential development, in consideration of the -mutual benefits to be derived, in part due to the review of my/our application by the City of Edmonds, Washington, a noncharter, optional municipal code city, do hereby indemnify, waive, release, and stipulate as follows: 1. I/We do state that we have been provided with/have waived receipt of a copy of an earth subsidence and landslide hazard map made available to me by the City showing those hazards previously identified by the City through its consultant Roger Lowe and Associates, Inc. and a .follow-up report by GeoEngineers, Inc., and state that I/we have reviewed or are fully aware of the contents and existence of. said maps and of reports explaining said maps and identifying certain hazards to be anticipated or encountered in the construction or development upon my.property. I/We am aware that copies of said report are on file with the City Clerk and available for my review at my request. In addition, I/we have undertaken an independent assessment of the hazards through professional consultants of my/our choosing. 2. PROMISE TO INDEMNIFY: I/We do promise to release and indemnify the City, its agents, officers, employees, and/or independent contractors from any and all claims, damage or loss of any kind or nature resulting from or to :any party or person, or the. property thereof as a result of: A. The construction design, soils report, and/or any other act required as a part of the building permit application process, subdivision process or planned residential development process and., the subsequent preparation of my land for and construction thereon of any structure or building by myself/ourselves, or my/our agents, employees or contractors and/or the construction of any building or structure. B. The provisions of false, inaccurate, or misleading information by myself/ourselves, or by my/our agents, employees or contractors in the permit, subdivision, or planned residential development process; and C. Any risk or hazard of which I have been notified or could reasonably have had notice of by review of the documents on file with the the City of Edmonds or its building division or could have discovered through reasonable professional efforts of my/our experts. 3: The undersigned applicants hereby waive and release the City from any and all claims arising from the situations described in this agreement, but specifically reserve claims against the City, its officers, employees, or independent contractors, from any loss or damage which arises from or out of the City's sole negligence. Nothing herein shall be construed to be a promise to indemnify the City, its officers, employees, or independent contractors, from any loss or damage caused by their sole negligence. DATED this Lkdayof J a u,�Rei/ _ 1990 and given with reference to building permit application, subdivision application,planned residential development application no. READ CAREFULLY - CONTAINS WAIVER AND INDEMNITY PROVISIONS (Individual) By A 2 • STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING INDIVIDUAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ss. On this day personally appeared before me to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that signed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. GIVEN under my hand and official seal this 198. day of NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington,, residing at CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) On this- day of 1990, before Me, the undersigne,aa Notary TP-5ETUE in Wnd for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared /�. i—ce A44u r tor? and Janet- /- MLe-bail , to -me known to be the President and Secretary, respectively, of h �ccuJood ru[a Q� the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therei-n mentioned, and.on oath stated_that they were authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed is the official seal of said corporation. WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above written. 4 NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at J'Lc.[ A . / C 4 TO: Permit Coordinator, Building Division 7 /Z4 AO FROM: Dan Smith, Engineering Inspector ADDRESS jZ 7s i OWNER PLAN CHECK # After review of the subject building permit application, we have the following comments: 1. Construction hours are: WEEKDAYS ........... 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. WEEKENDS/HOLIDAYS..10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. 2. A Right -of -Way Construction Permit is required for any work on City property. 3. Connection to City water system required. -Feed. 4. -Connec tion-to-City. sanitary sewer system -required; obtain separate permit. petd. 5. Water and sewer lines to be separated by 10 foot minimum.- 6. Driveway must be paved a minimum of 20 feet back from City right-of-way; separate permit required. 7. Driveway slope not to exceed 14%. 8. Back water valve required if downstairs plumbing is below elevation of upstream manhole. 9. Builder/Owner responsible for containing all temporary runoff and erosion control on site. Construction may not impact neighboring properties in any way. 10: No burning of construction refuse without approval from Fire Dept. 11. Street to be kept clean of debris, dirt, mud, and construction materials. Contractor responsible for dust control. 12. Inspection required on , driveways, . A final engineering inspection is required prior to the building division granting occupancy. 13. -Repair or replace all defective existing curb, gutter,.and sidewalk. If intersection 's involved, installation of wheelchair access may be required. ��j� BLGPER/TXTFORMS sf 1 BARBARA FAHEY CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR _ 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Inc. 189� Planning • Building • Engineering April 9, 1999 Mr. Richard Van Saun 15812 751h Place West Edmonds, Washington 98026 RE: Homeowner Insurance Coverage for Meadowdale Development As you may recall, development of your home was subject to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 19.05.050 which regulated construction and insurance coverage requirements for all designated Meadowdale Landslide Hazard Area development. The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the Edmonds City Council has enacted a change which effects your homeowners policy that was required by this ordinance. If you recall you. were required to post a one million dollar homeowner policy in order for your home to be granted final occupancy. Please be advised, the City Council has repealed this requirement effective April 16, 1999. In lieu of this policy the City Council will be holding future public hearings to determine alternate coverage methods to ensure that the intent of ECDC 19.05.050 are still met. Please contact the City Clerk if you are interested in attending these meetings. You may wish to consult your insurance professional to determine the proper amount of insurance coverage necessary to meet your specific needs. Since the insurance requirement is repealed the City no longer requires to be informed of your coverage or be provided with a copy of your current policy. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions at 771-0220. Thank you, 6�11W x;90f Jeannine L. Graf Building Official • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister City - Hekinan, Japan • f�c.1890 CITY OF EDMONDS 250 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 =6) 771-0220 • FAX (206) 771-0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works o Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering June 13, 1997 Richard Van Saun 15812 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington 98026 Re: Home Owners Insurance Policy BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR The purpose of this letter is to inform. you of the Meadowdale Earth Subsidence Ordinance requirements. All homeowners are required to post and maintain a policy for general liability insurance. This insurance is required for a period of not more than 10 years from the date of final approval (occupancy was granted on 5/24/91). According to City records, your certificate of insurance expired. on 2/1/92. At your earliest convenience. please inform your insurance company that a current copy be provided to the City. As a reminder, the policy must be for general public liability insurance naming the City as • additional named insured against personal injury, death, property damage and/or loss arising from, or out of, the City's involvement in the permitting process for the project in the amount of one million dollars. The policy shall also state that the City will be notified 30 days in advance of policy cancellation. Note, this requirement of insurance is transferable to any and all owners within the 10 year period. If you have recently sold your property,' please notify the City in writing of the name of the new owners. 14, Please contact me at 771-0220 if you have any questions regarding this insurance requirement. Thank you, 1 1 i Lara Knaak Permit Coordinator cc: Aetna Casualty & Surety Building Official O Incorporated August 11, 1890 0, . Sister Cities International — He6an, Japan . qscs UEC 0 5 ISS5 pky&tQ \,NoFtKS UEPT 0,NJ � - 1-7 194- AlyA 7J-/ - 0 C7 N • STREET FILE* ��a"•FS`" CITY OF EDMONDS- ` 250 - 5TH AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-0220 • FAX (206) 771-0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT I p Public Works • Planning . Parks and Recreation • Engineering 89p.19 • June 1, 1993 D. VanSaun 15812 - 75th P1.. W. Edmonds, WA .98026 LAURA M. HALL MAYOR This letter is to inform you that you are served by a city maintained grinder pump system. This system pumps your sanitary waste to city gravity sewer lines as your house was too low to obtain gravity flow when city sewer mains were installed. I hope to inform you of the basics of how these pumps function, who to call should you experience alarms, and what precautions should be taken to prevent.damage to your home. 1. The grinder pump was originally installed.by.the homeowner, but the hardware was purchased by the city of Edmonds' Lid Bond that paid for the sewer project in your area in 1985. These pumps are float activated to cycle the one pump to, take your sewage up to where gravity flow can be obtained. 2. The following precautions must be adhered to prevent damage to your home: A. Do not dump any nonbiodegradable products down into the pump tank_. VIA your drains in your house. B. Minimize the amount of grease disposed down your drain. This may cause problems with the float operations. C. Do not empty .pools into the tanks without a restrictor approved by the city of Edmonds. D. Do not attempt to access tank or electrical cabinets. Should you have a pump failure from any of the above mentioned items, the homeowner will be held responsible for damage. 3. The city of Edmonds Sewer Section will maintain the pumps every three (3) months to ensure the proper operations. We will also clean, operate and check all components to ensure proper working status. A separate log is kept to your pump that will reflect -any maintenance done. We can track reliability and the need for upgrade or repairs when a chain of failures start to occur. Crews will require the use of your water so the tank can be washed down and we will always try to.notify you of their presence when they arrive on the site. 4. Should you experience any:problems with the pump, there are two alarms that will indicate failure. One alarm is located within your home and has a black push button to reset to silence. There is also a visual alarm located on the electrical box outside your home. When this occurs, please call us at 771-0235 immediately.to investigate any problems. Our office hours are 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM Monday Through Friday. Should an alarm occur after hours, weekends, or holiday, contact 911. There is a 24-hour call person on duty to be dispatched. We do carry parts for all of these systems and should be able to correct most problems within a reasonable -amount of time. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Everett Akau or myself at 771-0235, extension 349., Sincerely, Ron Holland Water/Sewer Supervisor cc: Everett Akau RH/lk LANDAU A ASSOCIATES, INC. Geoenvironmental Engineering and Technologies BUILDING MAY 3 0 1990 May 29, 1990 City of Edmonds Building Division 250 5th Ave. North Edmonds, WA 98020 Attn: Ms. Jeannine L. Graf Permit Coordinator SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 15812 75TH PLACE WEST MEADOWDALE AREA, EDMONDS, WA FOR SEAWOOD HOMES, INC. Our February 20,1990 letter addressed a preliminary review of documents for the above noted project, and recommended a resubmittal in order to address general and specific geotechnical concerns. We have since completed a review of resubmitted documents. A listing of the reviewed documents comprises Attachment A. The documents we reviewed are in general compliance with requirements of Edmonds City Ordinance No. 2661. There are, however, several items which need further clarification; these are summarized below. • Site topography and finish floor elevations for the proposed residence are based on a City of Edmonds MLLW datum (Lovell-Sauerland topographic map, August 8,1989). The text of the December 13,1989 Geotech Consultants geotechnical engineering study, however, refers to elevations based on a datum of mean sea level (MSL). The difference between these two datum planes is approximately 6.5 feet.Since elevations shown on the Geotech Consultants' Plate 2, and surface elevations noted on their test pit logs are referenced to the MLLW datum, we have assumed that their text is in error and that all elevations for the project refer to the MLLW datum. The City should verify that this assumption is correct; if so, no further action on this subject is required. However, if our assumption is incorrect, reevaluation of site grades will be required. • If our assumption concerning the two datum planes is correct, between 3 and 7 feet of compacted structural backfill will be required under the homes' footings. Also, the complexity of the foundation will probably require a single, uniform excavation to the specified bearing surface (elevation 40-44 MLLW rather than overexcavation along individual foundation lines. P.O. BOY 1029 • EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020-9129 • (206) 778-0907 • FAX (206) 778-6409 0 - 0 At 3 feet of overexcavation, at least 450 yd3 of backfill will be required; at 7 feet, backfill volumes will be in excess of 1,000 yd3. Backfill for the garage, driveway, and rockeries is not included in these rough estimates. If our assumptions regarding this project are correct, the cut and fill volumes shown on the Lovell-Sauerland Grading Plan (920 yd3 cut, 340 yd3 fill) are substantially underestimated and should be revised to reflect actual conditions. • The drawings do not reflect the need for compacted backfill under footings and, in fact, unless the contractor reads the Geotech Consultants report (and a Geotech Consultants field engineer is on site at the time of construction), it is probable that a contractor would interpret the drawings to allow placement of all footings at a depth of 2-1/2 to 3-1/2 feet below floor grades, with no overexcavation or backfilling. In our opinion, clarification regarding this subject should be provided on the drawings. • The south end of the 30-inch detention pipe will have an invert elevation of approximately 40.5. Existing surface grade is about 43; hence, the pipe will have about 6 inches of cover. If more cover is desired, Lovell-Sauerland should be requested to revise invert elevations (rather than adding fill). • Per Ordinance No. 2661, a note should be added to the drawings concerning maintenance of the detention system after completion and occupancy of the residence. The west end of the Lovell-Sauerlard Grading Plan (September 27, 1989) shows what appears to be a relocated 40-foot elevation contour. This apparent contour would result in an approximate 8-foot thick fill, which is contrary to Geotech Consultants' recommendations concerning filling atop existing fill or "looser silts and clays." If this is a revised contour, a letter from Geotech Consultants regarding this proposed fill should be required; if it is not, the feature should be identified on the drawing. • The Grading and Storm Drainage Plan (Lovell-Sauerland, September 27,1989), general note no. 7, states that a continuous perimeter drain shall be installed and shall be "tightlined to the drainage system." The plan, however, shows this drain discharging to the surface at the Burlington Northern Railroad right- of-way. The plan should be modified to reflect the written requirement. • Footing details on Sheets 5 and 9 show the perimeter drain located atop footings. It is recommended that this drain be placed at or slightly below footing subgraded elevation, as noted in Geotech Consultants' March 26,1990 letter. • As per the Meadowdale ordinance, the use of natural vegetation instead of irrigated lawns and/or gardens should be encouraged to minimize the amount of water that is discharged to the site's surface. • The documents that we reviewed did not identify a lead design professional. We have assumed that Structural Design Associates, Inc. has taken this lead role. If our assumption is incorrect, a declaration from the lead design professional will be required. LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. • An owner's declaration has not been included for our review. This is an administrative detail that can be obtained by the City. • It should be noted that the March 26, 1990 letter from Geotech Consultants recommends changes to the footing drain details, which are not reflected on the revised drawings that we reviewed. Please call if you have questions concerning the above comments, or if you require additional review services for this project. WDE/sah Job No. 74-07.10 cc: 3 copies EDMONMSEAW0525.LET Very truly yours, LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. By: Goo --- William D. Evans, CPG Project Manager 3 LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. ATTACHMENT A LIST OF REVIEWED DOCUMENTS—RESUBMITTAL • Project Plans, Sheets 1 through 9. Sheets 5, 6, 7, and 9 were revised on March 12, 1990; the other drawings are as previously submitted. • Plot Plan, unrevised and undated, signed and stamped by the structural engineer, Cornelius D. Vanden Ende. • Lovell-Sauerland and Associates, Inc. Grading and Storm Drainage Plan (revised), Sheet 1 of 2. March 26, 1990. • Lovell-Sauerland and Associates, Inc. Rockery Detail, Sheet 2 of 2. March 26, 1990. • Lovell-Sauerland and Associates, Inc. Topographic Survey. April 11, 1990. • Geotech Consultants. Geotechnical Review, March 21, 1990. • Geotech Consultants. Geotechnical Review and Declaration, March 26, 1990. • Structural Desing Associates. Letter regarding Lovell-Sauerland Grading Plan, March 14, 1990. • Structural Design Associates. Letter of declaration, April 2, 1990. • Seawood Homes, Inc. Letter regarding resubmitted documents, April 12,1990. LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. }:. ET FILE • .. C17ff OF EDMONDS 250 - 5TH AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WA 96020 • (206) 771-0220 FAX (206) 771-0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT I C� p Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering 8g�_1q May 13, 1993 Mr. & Mrs. Richard W. Van Saun 15812 - 75th Place W. Edmonds, WA 98026 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Van Saun: LAURA M. HALL MAYOR I have reviewed your account and will allow a credit per billing periods January 21, 1993 and March 24, 1993 according to our City policy: the average consumption for the same period during the previous year charged at normal customer rates, plus the excess usage charged, at the City's cost, plus a surcharge of 15% applied to the excess only. Only one leak credit will be granted in any three year period. Should you have any additional questions after you receive your new billing, please contact Ilene Larson, Utility Billing Clerk. Sincerely, j Ron.Holland Water/Sewer Supervisor RH/lk cc: Ilene Larson Utility Billing Clerk #307418/TXTWATER • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • J Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan R CEI'VEO M Ay j 2 1993 PUBLIC vNORKS DEPT. /I & 2 -- -- - it - 1/ � � �J7 -�_�_ - i 07 ^-,a 65- Mr Ft Mrs Richard W Van Saun 15812 75th Place W Edmonds, WA 98026 • • ** PRINT KEY .FROM-XE BY USER-LMK410 05/12/93 16.12.22 ** * 5/12/93 CITY OF EDMONDS UB2011 4:12:01 PM Inquire Customer History DETAIL Customer Key Customer No: 307418 VAN SAUN RICHARD Old No. 00000000 .Tran Description,/ Tran Date Sry Date Reading Type Rate Cons Seq Type Amount Balance 04/06/93 P 197.97- 03/24/93 03/05/93 000989 2-1 0002 121 000 I .36.20 197.97 03/24/9.3 03/05/93 000989� 1-2 0002 121 000 I 8.80 161.77 03/24/93 03/05/93 000989 1-1 0002 121 000 I 152.9.7 .152.97 01/29/93 P 179.77- 01/21/93 01/04/93 000868 2-1 0002 116 On I 36.20 179.77 01/21/93 01/04/93 000868 1-2 0002 116 000 I 7.81 143.57 01/21/93 01/04/93 000868 1-1 0002 116 000 I 135.76 �135.76 12/01/92 P 155.78- 11/24/92 10/26/92 000752 2-1 0002- 95 000 I 36.20 155.78 11/24/92 10/26/92 000752 1-2 0002 95 000 I 6.50 119.58 11/24/92 10/26/92 000752 1-1 0002 95 000 I 113.08 113.08 Due Date Total Current 1 2 .3 4/1-9/93 .00 .00 .00 .0.0 .00 Cmd2-Dtl/Sum Fill in required information and press enter Cmd6-Cst Rec Cmd4-Cst Sry Help 12 = CONTINUE ,7 = END 2 Cmd5-Src,Add Cmd.8-Notes • • ** PRINT KEY FROM-XE BY USER-LMK410 05/12/93 16.13.34 *********************************************************************************** 5/12/93 CITY OF EDMONDS UB2011 4:12:01 PM Inquire Customer History DETAIL Customer Key Customer No. 307418 VAN SAUN RICHARD Old No. 00000000 Tran ' Description/ Tran Date Sry Date Reading Type Rate Cons Seq Type Amount Balance 09/30/92 P 200.32- 09/24/92 08/27/92 000657 2-1 0002 134 000 I 36.20 200.32 09/24/92 08/27/92 000657 1-2 0002 134 000 I 8.92 164.12 09/24/92 08/27/92 000657 1-1. 0002 134 000 I 155.20 155.20. 08/04/92 P 154.20- 07/23/92 06/26/92 00.0523 2-1 0002 120 000 I 36.20 154.,20 07/23/92 06/26/92 000523 1-2 0002 120 000. I 6.42 118.00 07/23/92 06/26/92 000523 1-1 0002 120 000 I 111.58 111.58 06/01/92 P 111.45- 05/21/92 04/29/92 000.403 2-1 0002 73 000 I 36.20 111.45 05/21/92 04/29/92.000403 1-2 0002 73, 000 I 4.09 75..25 05/21/92 04/29/92 000403 1-1 0002 73 000. I 71.16 71.16 Due Date Total Current 1 2 3 4/19/93 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 Cmd2-Dtl/Sum Fill,in required information and press enter Cmd6-Cst Rec Cmd4-Cst Sry Help 2'= CONTINUE 7 = END 2 Cmd5-Src Add Cmd8-Notes • ** * ** PRINT KEY FROM-XE BY USER-LMK410 05/12/93 16.13.50 ** * *********************************************************************************** 5/12/93 CITY OF EDMONDS 4:12:01 PM Inquire Customer History Customer Key Customer No. 307418 VAN SAUN RICHARD Old No. 00000000 Tran Description/ Tran Date Sry Date Reading Type Rate Cons Seq. Type Amount 04/02/92 P 102.36- 03/25/.92 03/02/92 000330 2-1 0002 63 000 I 36.20 03/25/92 03/02/92 000330 1-2 0002 63 000 I 3.60 03/25/92 03/02/92. 000330 1-1 0002 63 000 I 62.56 01/31/92 P 106.90- 01/23%9.2 01/02/92 000267 2-1 0002 68 000 I 36.20. O1•/23/92 01/02/92 000267 1-2. 0002 68 000 I 3.84 01/23/92 01/02/92,000267 1-1 0002 68 000 I 66.86 12/10/91 P 88.72- 11/26/91 10/25/91 000199 2-1 0002 48 000 I 36.20 11/26/91 10/25/91 000199 1-2 0002 48 000 I' 2.86 11/26/91 10/25/91 000199 1-1 0002 48 000 I 49.66 Due Date Total Current I 2 4/19/93 .00 .00 .00 .00 Cmd2-Dtl/Sum Fill in required information and press enter Cmd4-Cst Sry Help 2 = CONTINUE 7 = END 2 Cmd5-Src Add UB2011 DETAIL Balance 102.36 66.16 62.56 106.90' 70.70 66..86 88.72 52.52 49.66 3 .00 Cmd6-Cs,t Rec Cmd8-Notes • 0 *********************************************************************************** ** * ** PRINT KEY FROM-XE BY USER-LMK410. 05/12/93 16.13.58 ** * 5/12/93 CITY.OF EDMONDS 4:12:01 PM Inquire Customer History Customer Key Customer No. 307418 VAN SAUN RICHARD Old No. 00000000 Tran Description/ Tran' Date Sry Date Reading Type Rate Cons Seq Type Amount 09/30/91 P 135.10- 09/25/91 08/27/91 000151 2-1 0002 99 000 I 36.20 09/25/91 08/27/91'000151 1-2 0002 99 000 I 5.38 09/25/91 08/27/91 000151 1-1 0002 99, 000 I 93.52 08/01/91 P 46.38- 07/25/91 06/27/91 000052 2-1 0002 29 000 I 16:07 07/25/91"'06/27/91 000052 1-,2 0002 29 000 I 1.65 07/25/91 06/27/91 0000.52 1-1 0002 29 000 I 28.66 07/03/91 P 86.95- 06/03/91 05/31/91 000023 2-1 0002 16 000 C 19.04 06/03/91 05/31/91 000023 1-2 0002 16 000 C 1.04 06/03/91 05/31/91 000023 1=1 0002, 16 000 C 18.17 Due Date Total Current 1 2 4/19/93 .00' .00 .00 .00 Cmd2-Dtl/Sum Fill in required information and press .enter Cmd4-Cst Sry Help . _ 2 = CONTINUE 7 = END 2 'Cmd5-Src Add i UB2011 DETAIL Balance 135.10 98.90 93.52 46.38 30,31 28.66 86.95 67.91 66.87 3 .00 Cmd6-Cst Rec Cmd8-'Notes L *********************************************************************************** ** * ** PRINT KEY FROM-XE BY USER-LMK410 05/12/93 16.14.03 ** * 5/12/93 CITY OF EDMONDS UB2011 4:12:01 PM Inquire Customer History DETAIL Customer Key Customer No.' 307418 VAN SAUN RICHARD Old No. 00000000 Tran Description/ Tran Date Sry Date Reading Type Rate Cons Seq Type Amount Balance 05/28/91 04/29/91 000007 2-1 0002 4.- 000 I 36.20 48.70 05/28/91,04/29/91 000007 1-2 0002 4 000 I .68 12.50 05/28/91 04/29/91 000007 1-1 0002 4 000 I 11.82 11.82 04/02/91 P 44.19- 1 Due Date Total Current 1' 2 3 4/19/93 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 Cmd2-Dtl/Sum End of History for this Customer Cmd6-Cst Rec Cmd4-Cst S.ry Help 2 = CONTINUE- 7 = END 2 Cmd5-Src Add Cmd8-Notes 0 0 0 CITY OF EDMONDS STREET FILE 250 - 5TH AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771.3202 COMMUNITY SERVICES: Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering 890.194 August 2, 1990 A. Lee Atherton Seawood Homes 7500 - 212th S.W., Suite 210 Edmonds, WA 98026 Re: 15812 - 75th PLACE W. Mr. Atherton: LARRY S. NAUGHTEN MAYOR PETER E. HAHN DIRECTOR On August 1st, I began receiving complaints from homeowners, in the area of your construction, that there were signs of recent earth movement on the surface of the ground surrounding your excavation. After contacting Mark Dodd, your lead professional, I found that they, too, were concerned about earth movement and were taking immediate steps to abate the situation and to insure the ground was stabilized. I contacted our consultant at Landau & Associates and requested that he visit the site and make a recommendation to me regarding the method used to abate the potential slide and whether the additional measures would, in fact, secure the site and the surrounding properties. I further requested that he assess the immediate condition of the site and surrounding properties and the potential for.damages. Bill Evans of Landau & Associates reported back to me, by telephone, on August 2nd, and made the following report: Current Site Assessment 1. It was Mr. Evans' belief that due to the location and number of cracks observed on the site of the lot to the north of your site, that earth movement was indeed taking place. 2. That there was a real and present danger of a landslide that could effect both the City's right-of-way and the adjacent properties to the north and south of the excavation. Review of Repair Techniques: 1. Mr. Evans felt that due to the depth of the excavation of the house, that the length of the proposed piles should be re-evaluated. He felt that there was a strong possibility that the piles would not extend below the level of the foundation in some locations, and that, in fact, it was possible that the pilings would be shallower than the excavation. A review of the design should be conducted by your geo-technical engineers. • Incorporated August 11, 1890 - Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan • • A. Lee Atherton August 2, 1990 Page Two 2. It is also Mr. Evans' observation departure from the original plans. stability should be re-evaluated: that there was a vast Therefore, slope Therefore, due to the situation that has taken place...on your site and the immediate potential for damage, I'll impose the following requirements until the current condition has been abated and the hillside has been stabilized: 1. Have your geo-technical engineers re-evaluate and verify that the depth of the pilings will stabilize the hillside, assuming the toe of the slide is within the excavation site. 2. Expand your current monitoring program to include the City roadway, house to the south, and the bulkhead at the railroad property line to the west. 3. Have the geo-technical engineers evaluate the fill placed at the northwest corner of the property to insure that the slope stability is maintained and that future settling of the foundation will not occur. 4. Provide my office with a written history of the excavation, to date: when the excavation began; what the starting elevation was; what the elevations of the current cuts are; when movement in the soil was first detected; what movement was detected during the monitoring, if any; and what monitoring points are being used. 5. Analyze the problem: a. What is the cause? b. How deep is the movement? C. How extensive is the movement? 6. Make recommendations for solutions to resolve the current slide conditions. 7. Make a long- and short-term assessment of the impact of the current conditions. 8. Deliver daily reports to my office no later than one day after the day of the report. In the original report submitted by your geo-technical engineers, they made the statement that the ground was stable now, would remain stable during construction, and would remain stable after the construction was complete. Obviously, that was overstated. Since movement is occurring now, this statement must be reaffirmed or re-evaluated. A. Lee Atherton August 2, 1990 Page Three It's necessary to impose these current requirements to insure that construction on your site does not have a negative impact on your site or on public or private property surrounding your site. All information submitted will be reviewed by our consultants, Landau & Associates, to assure that the current conditions will not escalate into a major problem. If you have -any further questionj(, feel free to contact me at 771-3202. Richard R. Mumma Building Official City of Edmonds RRM/sfn cc: Mark Dodd, Geo-T ch Consultants Mary Lou Block City Attorney Landau & Associates ATHERTON/TXTSFN61 w � _ GEOTECH CONSULTANTS STREET FILE DIIILDING. 13256 N.E. 20th St. (Northup Way), Suite 16 Bellevue, WA 98005 MAR 2 3 1990 (206) 747-5618 (206) 343-7959 21 C C4 1V/ MAR 2 3 1990 DEPT., March 21, 1990 JN 89418 Seawood Homes Inc. 7500 - 212th SW, Suite 210 Edmonds, Washington .98020 Attention: Mr. A. Lee Atherton Subject: 'Geotechnical Engineering Considerations Proposed Single Family Residence 15812 - 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington Reference: Geotechnical Review Proposed Single Family Residence 15812 75th Place West Meadowdale Area, Edmonds, Washington For Seawood Homes, Inc. Prepared by Landau Associates Dated February 20, 1990 Gentlemen: In accordance with your request we have reviewed the referenced letter prepared by Landau Associates. We have discussed the contents of the review letter with William Evans of Landau Associates, have reviewed previous work prepared by others that was furnished by the reviewer, and have made a site visit. At this time it appears advisable to reiterate that there are always risks associated with construction in a known landslide area. The owner must assume these risks when choosing- to build and live in a documented landslide such as is the case in the Meadowdale area. Construction can be more difficult as the subsurface is more of a heterogeneous mixture of soils that can vary widely within a small distance. The recommendations and opinions that we have expressed in our report and in this letter are professional opinions. No warranty is expressed or implied. our approach throughout this study has been to develop geotechnical solutions which will not increase the risk of instability either to the subject property, or to neighboring properties. R Seawood Homes, Inc. JN 89418 March 21, 1990 Page 2 Geotech Consultants Inc. should be on the site periodically throughout the excavation and foundation construction process. This will allow us to confirm that subsurface conditions are consistent with those indicated by our exploration, to evaluate whether earthwork and foundation construction activities comply with the intent of contract plans and specifications, and to provide recommendations for design changes in the event subsurface. conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. The contractor should be prepared throughout construction to cover slopes with plastic or to backfill or shore the excavation as necessary if localized instability does occur. The following are our specific responses to the issues that have been raised by the review. The Bowed Retaining Wall along the Burlington Northern Track As pointed out by the reviewer, there is a bulge in the retaining wall along the railroad tracks. Based upon the Grading and Storm Drainage Plan prepared by Lovell Sauerland and dated September 27, 1989, the wall is located downslope of the property, approximately thirty feet west of the western property line and one hundred feet west of the western foundation wall of the home. The wall was constructed by inserting railroad ties into the ground on three-foot centers, placing 4 x 12 inch timbers behind the ties, and backfilling with granular material. Based on visual observations, the wall appears about six feet high, with a maximum bulge at the top of the wall of about six inches. We have not conducted a subsurface investigation downslope of the proposed home location. Based upon our reconnaissance, it is our opinion that the wall may not have been properly designed to handle the earth pressures. We also believe that only the surficial soil extending back perhaps thirty to fifty feet is involved with the bulge in the wall. The proposed minimum elevation for the home of 44.0,msl is, in our opinion, deep enough to reasonably ensure that retaining wall movements down near the railroad tracks will not be transmitted to the home foundation. However, it may be necessary, at some time in the future, to reconstruct this wall or a new wall on the property line if the wall fails and the wall is not rebuilt where is is presently located. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Seawood Homes, Inc. JN 89418 March 21, 1990 Page 3 Groundwater Levels The reviewer stated that there is a "probable near -surface year-round ground water level". It is our opinion that the water level is not near the surface. The subsurface explorations completed to date have encountered minor groundwater seepage less than ten feet below existing grades. These explorations were completed in April and November of 1989. Minor groundwater seepage does not indicate a groundwater level at this site. The boring log completed by Cascade Geotechnical found no groundwater below ten feet. This boring extended to 49.0 feet below existing grades and penetrated sands, silts, and clays. Risk of Movement during Construction One of the Geotechnical Report Guidelines for the Meadowdale Area is to evaluate the risk of movement during construction. The intention of our recommendations and the purpose of our being on site during the earthwork portions of the project are to keep the risk of instability at,the background level that has been previously calculated by others. Risk of Sliding of Property due to Seismic Events Provided our recommendations are followed, the risk to developing and residing on this property are similar to those which the neighbors assume by living in this area. We .have not evaluated the potential instability of the wall adjacent to the Burlington Northern Railroad. Flexible connections of the point of entry to the home the owner should consider. Declaration Statement sewer and drainage lines at the are a reasonable precaution that We will be available to provide the Declaration Statement once we have reviewed the final plans. Garage Foundation and Support It may be possible to float the garage footing above elevation 44.0 msl. Please provide us with the actual estimated pressures which will be transmitted to the foundation elements. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. a Seawood Homes, Inc. JN 89418 March 21, 1990 Page 4 In addition, note that the excavation for the basement portion of the home will -result in much of the soil underlying the garage to be excavated. Therefore, a good portion of the garage will be founded on structural fill. Closure we have reviewed the SEPA Checklist. our recommendations for on site monitoring by our firm during excavation and construction are discussed above and in our original report. The geotechnical report was prepared by a geotechnical engineer with a degree in geological engineering and civil engineering. It was also reviewed by Mr. John F. Cole of our office. - Mr. Cole has over twenty-five years of professional geological experience and is registered as a geologist in Oregon and California. If there are any questions service, please contact us. R. 1P��SoF FI a _ i i ti �sTEV69 fr Q• o ••_J; ONAL iVONaoo MKD:cvb or if we can be of further Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Ma X0040,� /Ii Mark K. Dodds, P.E. Senior Engineer �t�o�� U James R. Finley, Jr. P.E. Principal GEOTECH CONSULTANTS R,�e 1:3256 N.G. 20th St. (No thup Way), Suite 1 Five peft I E � Bellevue, WA 98005�'�"� (206) 747-5618 iY�+ (206) 343-7959 March 26, 1990 JN 89418 Seawood Homes Inc. 7500 - 212th SW, Suite 210 Edmonds, Washington 98020 Attention: Mr. A. Lee Atherton Subject: Geotechnical Review and Declaration Proposed Single Family Residence 15812 - 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington Gentlemen: In accordance with your request, Geotech Consultants Inc. has reviewed the geotechnical aspects,for the proposed single- family dwelling at 15812 - 75th Place West in Edmonds, Washington. The plans we .reviewed were provided by Structural Design Associates, and consisted of ten pages. The latest revisions for Sheets 1 through 4 and Sheet 8 occurred on September 24, 1989. Sheets 5, 6, 7, and 9 were dated March 12, 1990. The last sheet of the plans is an undated Plot Plan. The following are our review comments: 1. Detail 1 on Sheet 5 should be revised to show the footing drain at the base of the footing excavation. If there are any questions please see Plate 1 of our report. 2. From our review of the Plot Plan, we anticipate the excavation for the proposed foundation, using 1.25:1 (horizontal:vertical) slopes, will extend into the neighbor's property to the north. Temporary shoring or construction easements should be anticipated. 3. The garage footings may have to be deepened well below elevation 58.0. This can be decided by our staff in the field during excavation. However, the excavation for the garage footings may also require temporary shoring or construction easements. -------------- - I-- Seawood Homes, Inca JN 89418 March 26, 1990 Page Two It is our opinion that the proposed development, once completed, will not increase the risk of earth movement beyond that which the neighbors assume. Geotech Consultants Inc. should be on the site intermittently throughout the excavation and foundation construction process. This will allow us to confirm that subsurface conditions are consistent with those indicated by our exploration,. to evaluate whether earthwork and foundation construction activities comply with the intent of contract plans and specifications, and to provide recommendations for design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. The contractor should be prepared throughout construction to cover slopes with plastic or to backfill the excavation as necessary if localized instability does occur. Providing the recommendations in our above review comments are implemented, the following Declaration Statement is valid. Declaration Statement It is our opinion that the plans and specifications generally conform to the recommendations in our geotechnical study. The risk of damage to the proposed development or to adjacent properties will not increase due to this development, subject to the conditions stated in the report and follow-up letters. If there are any questions, service, please contact us. MKD:JRF:cvb or if we can be of further Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. James R. Finley Jr., P.E. 19TRUCTURAL DESIGN ASAIATES INC. Q0 CONSULTING ENGINEERS 5630- 198TH ST. S.W. P.O. BOX 5366 LYNNWOOD. WA 98046 PHONE: (206) 775.7434 STREET FILE IncralVED March 14, 1990 APR 131990 Seawood Homes, Inc. PERMIT COUNTER attn: Mr. Lee Atherton 7500-212th S.W. Suite 210 Edmonds, WA 98020 subject: Residence For Seawood Homes, Inc'. at 15812-75th Place West, Edmonds, Washington Our Ref.: letters\83-439.rjh Dear Mr. Atherton: This office has received the Lovell-Sauerland and Associates, Inc. grading plan for the above referenced project. It appears to be in substantial compliance with the "Meadowdale Checklist" per Ordinance #2661 and the Geotech Consultants report #JN89418, dated December 13, 1989, provided the following changes are made. 1. Cut slopes on site shall not exceed 1.25H:1V for temporary cuts and 2.5H:1V permanent cuts. 2. List amount of cut, fill or grading to be required. 3. Detail permanent slope protection. Respectfully submitted, STRUCTURAL DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC. by Rase Vanden Ende, P.E. t president 3 KVE/jme S1'RUC1-URAL ENGINEERING DESIGN AND INVESTIGATION: BUILDINGS a FOUNDATIONS 9 RETAINING WALLS e BRIDGES 0 PIE PS e CiOCKS a 1"0WERS 9 TANKS ' PRUCTURAL DESIGN ASSAATES INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS FILELYNONWOOD, WA 046 • PHONE 206 775-7434 I' 'APR 13 Ma Apr i 1 2, 1990 PERM. ,COUNTER Seawood Homes, Inc. attn: Mr. Lee Atherton 7500-212th S.W. Suite 210 Edmonds, WA 98020 subject: Residence for Seawood Homes, Inc. at 15812-75th Place West, Edmonds, Washington Our Ref.: Letters\83-439.rjh Dear Mr. Atherton: This letter is to inform you that our office has reviewed the geotechnical reports from Cascade Geotechnical, dated May 9, 1989, and the Addendum 'dated August 16, 1989, and the Geotech Consultants' report dated December 13, 1989, and addenda dated March 21 and March 26, 1990, as well as the Landslide -Hazard Map developed by Geo-Engineers, Inc., for the City of Edmonds and updated July 25, 1984. The review indicates that the subject site is in the well known "Meadowdale Slide Area" with a 30 percent chance of ground failure in a 25 year period, and that "It is never possible to guarantee future slope stability, regardless of how well investigated or engineered" and "there are always risks associated with construction in a known landslide area". Among these risks are the possibility of the loss or damage to your property and life, as well as the property and life of neighbors, public an private, due to soil failure. Due to the unpredictable nature of the soils, Owners must assume the risks of building and living in this known landslide area. The reports, recommendations, opinions, designs and specifications, associated with this project are professional opinions only, and are not to be construed as a warranty, expressed or implied, against loss or damage. (j ()'-'r" Et STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING DESIGN .AND INVESTIGAT_10F1: RUILDINGS ® FOUNDATIONS 0 RFTAINING WALLS 0 RP'Dr-FS 0 PIFpC 0 OOCKS 0 TGWERS 0 TANKS Residence for Seawood Homes, Inc. Page Two of 2 DECLARATION STATEMENT To the best of our knowledge and understanding, the building plans submitted with the permit application substantially incorporate the above mentioned reports' recommendations. Careful and conscientious application of the above referenced recommendations during and after construction will apparently not increase the risk associated with this site. Respectfully submitted, STRUCTURAL DES GN ASSOCIATES, INC. by: i Rase Vanden Ende, P.E. president RVE/jme LANDAU • A ASSOCIATES, INC. f� Geoenvironmental Engineering and Technologies BUILDIN'6 FEB 2 0 1990 February 20, 1990 City of Edmonds Building Division 250 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Attention: Ms. Jeannine L. Graf Permit Coordinator RE: GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 15812 75TH PLACE WEST MEADOWDALE AREA, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON FOR SEAWOOD HOMES, INC. In accordance with your request, we have completed a preliminary review of submitted documents for the above -noted project. Our review is directed at geotechnical considerations and follows requirements outlined within the Meadowdale Site Evaluation Checklist. A listing of the documents which we reviewed is enclosed as Attachment 1. The site, which is located between 75th Place West and the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks, south of 158th Avenue West, lies within the Meadowdale landslide area. Furthermore, the site is within an area mapped by Dames and Moore (1968) as having moved during the winter of 1955/1956. Excerpts from the text and a portion of a geologic map from this report are attached (Attachment 2). Our review of documents and several follow-up telephone calls indicate that each of the design professionals involved in the project to date has been requested to perform a specific task, but that a licensed architect or structural engineer has not been designated to fill the role of the "lead design professional." As a result, there are inconsistencies and/or omissions within the submitted documents. For example, several recommendations within the December 1989 Geotech Consultants report have not been incorporated within the building plans. Specific questions and comments concerning our preliminary review were provided to Mr. Lee Atherton (Seawood Homes) the afternoon of February 15, 1990. P.O. BOY 1029 • EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020-9129 • (206) 778-0907 • FAX (206) 778-6409 • In summary, we recommend that the plans and other submitted documents be returned to the applicant. Once a lead design professional has been identified and has coordinated activities among the various design professionals (including acquiring the required Declarations), a resubmittal may be appropriate. Our office should be contacted at that time to perform a final review. We strongly recommend that the design professionals involved in this project reassess slope and drainage related issues. The 1955/1956 slope failure, fractioned and slickensided near -surface soil, a bulge in the retaining wall along the railroad tracks, and probable near - surface year-round ground water all suggest that this site has a high probability of future movement, particularly under seismic conditions. It should be noted that the reclassification of various slide blocks within the Meadowdale landslide area subsequent to the city -installed drainage improvements was based on an overall lowering of the ground water surface. If ground water is still at or very near the surface at the subject site it is probable that the risk of movement is still as high as it was prior to the City's improvement project. Since the actual ground water surface at the site, and the seasonal range, have not been well documented, it is not possible to accurately assess these slope issues. Please call if you have questions concerning this review. Very truly yours, WDE/jl 3 copies submitted Attachments LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. M /,, )), S�, � - William D. Evans, CPG Senior Engineering Geologist LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. ATTACHMENT 1 LIST OF REVIEWED DOCUMENTS • Meadowdale Site Evaluation Checklist • Drainage Calculations, by Craig Campbell (Lovell-Sauerland and Associates, Inc.), dated 10/6/89 • Environmental Checklist Applicant: Lee Atherton, Seawood Homes Prepared by: Anthony Roth, Lovell-Sauerland and Associates, Inc. • "Preliminary Soil Investigation Report", by Cascade Geotechnical, dated 5/9/89, signed by George E. Lamb, PE (Principal engineer) and John Sadler, (Eng. Geologist) • Addendum to Preliminary Soil Report, by Cascade Geotechnical, dated 8/16/89, signed by George E. Lamb and John Sadler • "Geotechnical Engineering Study", by Geotech Consultants, dated 12/13/89, signed by Mark Dodds, PE (Senior engineer) and James R. Finley, Jr., PE (Principal) • Grading and Storm Drainage Plan, by Lovell-Sauerland and Associates, Inc., dated 9/27/89 • Topographic survey, by Lovell-Sauerland and Associates, Inc. dated 8/8/89 • Vicinity map, no author or date • Plot Plan, undated, stamped by Cornelius D. VandenEnde. Sheets 1-9, Building Plans, by Rodney D. Johnson, Designer, stamped by Cornelius D. VandenEnde (structure check), dated 9/6/89, revised 9/24/89. LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. ATrACHMEENT 2 and roads in the area. It is our understanding that the affected. area was approximately 800 feet in a north -south direction and extended from above the railroad tracks to a point immediately east of 75th Place West. An examination of the existing roadway indicates that a small amount of movement has taken place since 1947. A Washington State Department of Highway's geologist, Mr. Arthur Ritchie, studied the area after this period of move- ment and recommended the construction of a perimeter ditch in the undisturbed clay layer immediately below the clay -sand contact. This ditch was to serve as an interceptor and to prevent the water emerging near the bottom of the sand formation from saturating the finer grained soils downhill. It is our understanding that a problem developed in obtaining the required easements, and the project was abandoned in its early stage with only a few hundred feet of ditch completed. It appears since that time that little or no maintenance of the ditch has been accomplished-. We understand the area immediately east of the 1947 movement and extending to the base of the escarpment was regraded at one time with the intent of developing a mobile park but because of zoning restrictions was not developed. The eastern portion of this area is now very poorly drained with ponded water: In late 1955 and early 1956, movement occurred north in the inter- section of North Meadowdale Road and 75th Place West. The movement damaged many of the homes in the -area and resulted in the destruction of at least two homes. We understand this movement occurred after several days of heavy rains combined with a 10-inch snowfall. As in the case following the slide in 1947, another program to install the interceptor ditch north of the North Meadowdale Road was initiated. It is our understanding that easements were GAMES F. MooRE obtained; but construction difficulties halted the work in its early stage with, again, only a small portion of the work completed. It is our understanding that since the movements in 1955-1956, only minor movements have occurred in the area and that most of these problems involved relatively minor sloughing of the steep escarpment. The ancient movements which have occurred in the area appear to be currently stable. These very large-scale massive landslides were far greater in extent than the more recent movements and have probably been inactive for a long period of time. The Great Northern Railroad Company has placed a protecting riprap wall along the Puget Sound side of their trackage and have thus eliminated damaging erosion by wave action. This.has-added to the general stability of the area, and the now -stable shoreline probably decreases substantially the risk of reactivation of the major older landslides. The recent more serious slides appear to have occurred almost entirely within the formation of silt and clay. It is probable that at least a portion of these soils had been disturbed by earlier movements. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS It is our opinion that it is not only feasible to install sanitary sewers in the area, but that such an installation would be of benefit. Groundwater has been a major factor in the instability of the area; reduction of the volume of water to the area will decrease risks of future damaging earth movements. It should be recognized, however, that at least in certain areas, the maintenance cost of the system would probably be high; unless substantial other work to improve stability is accomplished, the area will remain subject to occasional small landslides and reactivation of older move- ments. Sanitary sewers would reduce the water available to the clay soils; DAMES C MOORE LEGEND PA-4 GEOLOGIC MAP FEET 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 IREA OF MENT s ANCIENT SLIDE SCARP APPROXIMATE AREAS OF � 1955-1956 MOVEMENT QYi TILL: PRE UOMIhANTLY IIGNT GRAY MI xTE4E DP AND AND GRA vCL VERY COMPACT ExCEPT 1fE 4TMCRED S E LAYER OF TNREC TO PIPE FEET, VERY LOW PERMEABILITY. QO OUTUASM DEPOSITS: PREDOMINANTLY BROWII S4ND AND GRAVELLY SAND. COMPACT ANC MIGTI PERMEABILITY. OC GLACIAL CLAY: FINELY LAMINATED TO MASSIVE GRAY AND 6LuE-GRAY SILT AND CLAY, ESSENTIALLY IMPERME4BLE. KEY - CONTACTS BETWEEN GEOLOGIC UNITS. CONTACTS BETuEEI, GEOLOGIC UNITS, LOCATION;, APPROXIMATE. /ANCIENT FAULT ZONE (INFERRED) J �4 � . ,y �� �ll////�'"7L,� 1i� ---_ — � � � ^�� n� � <;( (' I n T �� �• : I �II %,..W-. e•"�i : /. / / _ -rr,a. /.Avc! %+ �S J ;�/G�������) .-c � �' i � \} \1 I' I I/ I Il' �:// /'/� �'� a � ///� :�. •�x{�O /�'"N LI..{Illll.i:.•.;�i��/l/ J+'�`���`1\ �/' � Ilf / �r .'� ° IJ! - _/• �. � I �� ,:1.?' `,//�� � `I•'II •'I '�iJ '�, a. .1�'•. 11��1I ;'//� '� -.i. „I I •I � � � �( �� =�' ��/�/� , l� .; p..� , (fl;!,jl ,j i a �; :�•I+;)I i'll ::�i I /, / - ° J '\ \�``�, II.� J�/ ./ I` � Ll� I1 �//l6,'� ,'� -,,II .I I�„ �,;• II I I J/ �f�', +I ,II' �� . �:\ .�`.�o /�' %��• - -', c��" .=-�O\�� I I( I�`Il ll///,�I�Ir ,;�li (IJ�/� :.%�/��%'. '�\�f �r. �..I. 1 �,; ��i~ I•\ I �.1� �'\\i��`�I`�` \\li 1'f•1�I �\� �i /t/4� '/� ;✓ � �J :. � 1 I , � �� �I� "`lfF���\\,1�� ..h'I :•:I, I11 �,'11 ° I I/�.l ll�Il l/' l�//�/ /�\--f �� •'\ � !���;.:� Iv/ \ ��� _1 ICI :�Il lii I`�lo i II' II _--p �' \�/i%/ - :}. � � \�,,'•� i_•) rd _ �_' � �.,.�c-� .-.. � /. • ,- l�.� f Jl �' I' II I �i c � � � Ir/I i 7��=1 ✓�� �,l �� p �� ✓�/'/ \��, (� ,l/��� -ti_ - �i /,• ';L;;•%_(l// � ,�I III ;I 14 . r� .V 'I :j1 �U�.n%. •^)II �. �YI X� �� /ji% /�,i.//��;i .%. !//��•'' /j %i D �0 �j{f ,• - f� err �� ��` �•./. 'o' /�/.6�j ;', � s1''/�:' �� '/.�t',(�]' � oa►wl��s a w�oore� Asa �s"yPl; W. 89p-19y CITY OF EDMONDS 250 - 51h AVE N. - EDMONDS. WA 98020 - (206) 771-3202 COMMUNITY SERVICES: Public Works - Planning - Parks and Recreation - Engineering DATE: January 17 1990 TO: WA State Dept. of Ecology Environmental Review Sec. Mail Stop PV-11 Olympia, WA 98504-8711 LARRY S. NAUGHTEN MAYOR TRANSMITTING: Mitigated determination of nonsignificance Single family residence at 15812 75th Pl. W. AS YOU REQUESTED: FOR YOUR INFORMATION: XXX AS WE DISCUSSED: FOR APPROVAL: FOR YOUR FILE: COMMENT AND RETURN: REMARKS: PLANNING DIVISION PETER E. HAHN OIRECTOR - Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan UCTURAL DESIGN ASSO IATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEER 5630- 198TH ST. S.W. P.O. BOX 5366 � t C 1 V F- D LYNNWOOD,WA98046 PHONE: (206) 775-7434 "TEET FILE September 27, 1989 Seawood Homes, Inc. attn: Mr. A. Lee Atherton 7500-212th S.W., Suite 210 Edmonds, WA 98020 subject: Proposed Residence at 15812-75th Place West Edmonds, Washington Our Ref.: #83-439/letters.rjb To Whom This may concern: WN IR This 'of ficq, a structural and civil engineering corporation, licensed in the State of Washington, has reviewed the geotechnical report prepared by Cascade Geotechnical, and understands the recommendations contained therein. This office_ has explained to Mr. A. Lee Atherton, the risk of loss due to the slides on the site. The design recommendations made by Cascade Geotechnical have been incorporated in the plan. Measures have thereby been established to reduce the potential risk of injury or damage that might be caused by earth movement discussed in the report. Respectfully submitted, STRUCTURAL DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC. by: Y i Y J Kase Vanden Ende, P..E. president KVE/RJB/jme \� 0 VANp!�V ° �yJAS�y� C/ ticq�, CO fl-fD ,, L A_ r 4- d STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING DESIGN AND INVESTIGATION BUILDINGS 0 FOUNDATIONS 0 RETAINING WALLS 0 BRIDGES 9 PIERS 9 DOCKS # TnV.IFRS o Tt-WKS SEAWOOD HCOES INC. STREET FILfp 7500 212th S.W., SUFFE 210 EDMONDS, WA 98020 206-778-7369 SEAWOHI 158CD January 8, 1990 City of Edmonds Planning Division RE:15812 75th PL. W. Landslide Acknowledgment Seawood Homes Inc as owner of Lots 3 & 4 Plat of make the following acknowledgment and declaration the construction of a residence on the property. )REeh:1u1Z JAN 1 � PERM'T COUNTER Meadowdale concerning The lots are located in the Meadowdale area that has been classified as an Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area and as such is subject to the City Ordinance No 2661 Revised Chapter 1.9.05 Edmonds Community Development Code. Seawood has read and understands the provisions of the Meadowdale Submittal Requirements revised 5/20/88. Seawood further acknowledges its responsibility to indemnify the City and to inform all future owners of said terms, conditions and information. Seawood has read and understands report prepared by Geotech Consultants and the risks described in the report. Sincerely, .� A. Lee Atherton President SEAWOOD HCOES INC. C� 7500 212th S.W., SUITE 21SIFEET EDMONDS, WA 98020 206-778-7369 SEAWOHI 158CD January 8, 1990 City of Edmonds Planning Division RE: 15812,75th P1. S.W. PEkMlT CANTER Seawood Homes Inc is making an application for a building permit on the above property. Although portions of the application contain information prepare by consultants hired by Seawood warrants the accuracy of the information in the application and relieves the City and its staff from any liability associated withe reliance on such submittals. Sincerely, A. Lee Atherton YW President i& I �. W I /4 SEC. T. 2 7 N., R. 4 E. W. M. n" L---j L--j i Of I P, I G. a.11.+. o� ca Cl Job ol� i dF5 I a re MEAD pMMIX ?7 ter S. w J/ av 3p ' O,Z 14 a 53 Of I 1 �I-u 0 1990 JPIR I .ENTER I 03 Tt a 1 I /2 02 —'----.� 23 I �� a L _07 gl I I 20 —L -------. 377 i BEACH SUpa {lE.10 A,_,qr „ O/ dos (206) 881-7900 P.O. Box 6325 2020 124th.Ave. N.E. Bellevue. WA 98008 Mr. Daniel J. Bell 303 - 91st Place Southeast Everett, Washington 98204 Dear Mr. Bell: J U L 2 71984 GeoEngineers . Incorporated - Consulting Geotechnical Engineers and Geologists July 27, 1984 Soils Report Addendum 15812 - 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington File No. 660-01 This report addendum summarizes our conversation of July 27, 1984 regarding the foundation design for your home at the above -referenced address. In our report dated July 10, 1984, we have recommended a very stiff and strong foundation that would help minimize damage to the house in the event of a landslide. As per our conversation, a more flexible and lower strength foundation would be feasible and less costly. However, a lighter foundation would, in our opinion, result in more damge to the house and increase the cost of repair should significant ground movement occur. As you aware, the house is situated on a mass of soil that in the past has moved. Remedial measures in the form of improvded drainage has been undertaken by the City of Edmonds and incorporated in our recommendations for design of your drainage system. The effectiveness of these measures to lower ground water levels, particularly in the long-term, is unknown. As a consequence, there is, in our opinion, sufficient risk of future sliding to warrant consideration in the design of the foundation for your house. The options are to accept the risk of substantial future repair should damage occur, or to attempt to minimize those damages and the cost of repair. We strongly believe that the best approach is to utilize a very stiff and strong foundation to help minimize damage to the house and the risk to personal safety of occupants.should future landsliding occur. Mr. Daniel J. Bell. July 27, 1984, Page Two We trust that the foregoing meets your present needs. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please call. E?1 Yours very truly, �QQ'OE Wo GeoEngineers, Inc. 12979 Gary W. Henderson Vice -President GWH:wd Three copies submitted GeoEngineers Incorporated SOILS REPORT 15812 - 75TH PLACE WEST EDMONDS, WASHINGTON FOR MR. DANIEL J. BELL l :51i� - 75'1` A& 11-J (206) 881-7900 P.O. Box 6325 2020 124th Ave. N.E. Bellevue, WA 98008 Mr. Daniel J. Bell 303 - 91st Place Southeast Everett, Washington 98204 Dear Mr. Bell: July 1.0, 1984 Soils Report 15812 - 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington Pile No. 660-01 Geolingineers Incorporated Consulting Geotechnical Engineers and Geologists This letter report presents our conclusions and recommendations relative to development of your property at 15812 - 75th Place West in Edmonds, Washington. Our .services for this project have been provided in accordance with our Services Agreement dated July 3, 1984. We understand that you are planning to construct a single-family residence. on the site. The purpose of our work is to provide you with information about soils conditions at the site that will affect foundation design and the site development.- Specifically, our scope of work includes: I. Review of existing information and commentary regarding overall stability of the property. ~� 2. Site reconnaissance and assessment of site stability. 3. Recommendations for site grading in order to minimize the impact on site stability. 4. Recommendations for the design of foundations and retaining walls. 5. Recommendations for site drainage. 1 Our work has been performed on the basis of existing information and a surface reconnaissance of the site; no subsurface exploration or detailed 'i engineering analysis has been performed as part of our work, nor was it included in our scope of services. The subject site is located between 75th Place West and the Burlington Northern railroad tracks in. Edmonds,. Washing ton. The site slopes gently downward to the west, descending from an elevation of approximately 50 feet above sea level near 75th Place West to approximately 15 feet above • Mr. Daniel J. Bell July 10, 1984 Page Two sea level at the Burlington Northern railroad tracks. The site is vegetated by brush with a few small conifers. The site is located within the Meadowdale landslide complex, as mapped by Roger Lowe Associates, Inc. (Final Report, Landslide Hazards Investigation, Meadowdale Area, Edmonds, Washington, dated October 16, 1979). That report classified the area as "4A90", which meant that there was a landslide hazard due to failure from previously failed material, that the failure would likely include a considerable depth of material, and that there was a 90 percent probability that such a failure may occur during a 25-year period. That landslide hazards map was constructed on the basis of conditions prior to construction of the Meadowdale sewer and storm drainage project; the conditions that exist today are less hazardous, but some risk still exists. Regardless of site development, it is quite possible that the subject site and adjacent areas..may be involved in the large slope failure some time during. the next several decades, and there is nothing economically Practicable that can be done on the site to prevent such an occurrence. The recommendations in this report are directed toward prevention of small, on -site movements rather than such large-scale failures and to minimize -damage to the structure should significant movements occur. The material at the site has previously failed and is prone to failure again if it is stressed. We therefore recommend that cut or fill areas be minimized during site development, and that no fills exceed 3 feet in height. All cuts should be retained with a structurally designed retaining wall. Any fill placed on the site should be conditioned to the proper moisture content and compacted to at least 95 percent of its maximum dry density (ASTM D-1557 procedure). Prior to placing fill, all vegetation and organic rich topsoil should be removed. The exposed surface should then be compacted to 95 percent of its maximum density. Where fill is placed on an existing slope, the fill should be keyed in by cutting level benches so that the contact between the fill and existing ground is horizontal. For design of retaining'or basement walls, we recommend active lateral soil. pressure equivalent to a fluid weighing 50 pounds per cubic foot. Mr. Daniel J. Bell July 10, 1984 Page Three Passive resistance equivalent to a fluid weighing 200 pounds per cubic foot is recommended. The above active and passive lateral soil pressures assume a horizontal ground surface above and below the wall. If the ground slopes more than 5 percent, we should be contacted to reevalute the recommended design lateral pressures. The recommended lateral pressures also assumes that the walls will be backfilled with sand or sand and gravel containing less than 5 percent fines (material passing a U.S. No. 200-sieve) and that subdraiaage will be provided to prevent the buildup of water behind the wall. The subdrain should consist of perforated PVC pipe embedded and backfilled in pea gravel at the base of the 'wall. The pea gravel should be separated from the other fill with filter fabric. Backfill placed behind the wall should -be compacted to between 90 and 95 percent. Overcompaction should be avoided to prevent excess lateral soil pressure from developing on the wall. We recommend that the foundation design consider the possibility that future ground movement may occur. The movement could consist of a irregular subsidence of the ground and/or differential strain dowaslope. General, the floor slab should be structurally tied to the foundation wall so that it acts as a diaphragm to stiffen the structure against rotational torque. Also, the foundation and stem walls should be designed to resist cracking i and shear in the event that 6 or more inches of differential settlement should develop during future landslide.) As indicated in the report by Roger Lowe Associates, Inc., the stability of the soils within the Meadowdale landslide complex is largely controlled by the level of ground water within the landslide mass. Therefore, it is important to control drainage during site development. We recommend that all drainage from roofs, pavement and other surface runoff be collected and carried via a tightliae off the property. Separate subdrains adjacent to all basement and subsurface walls should also be provided as outlined above. We have prepared this report for your use and use by your design consul- tants for this project. Within the limitations of the .schedule and budget Mr. Daniel J. Bell July 10, 1984 Page Four for our work, we warrant that our work has been done in accordance with generally accepted practice of this area. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. We trust this information meets your present needs. If you have any questions or if we can be.of further assistance, please call. Yours very.truly, -+l��• HEN4`c'91 GeoE ers, nc. 'QQti 41 of WgS41 �0 y p Z .d Donald W. Tubbs, Ph.D. �0 ,Q' 12979 Consultant to GeoEngineers, Inc. �F�►s; C�STERE ����� -, Gary W. Henderson, Vice -President DWT:GWH:wd Three copies submitted cc: Kase Vanden Ende 5630 - 198th S.W. Lynnwood, WA 98037 RECEIVED April 15, 1985 City Clerk City of Edmonds Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: L.I.D. Assessment Objection Dear City Clerk, APR 19 1985 Edmonds City GeM C'C���� ' `Iek:�c�o� u APR 1i985 C01"IMU;VITY SERVICES DIR. We are protesting our sewer assessment of $11,143. for the property located_at 15812 -75th Ave. W., Edmonds for a couple of reasons. The first reason is described in the attached letter. The second reason is based on the fact the we tried to get a building permit to build and were unable.to attain one after. following all the requirements. If memory serves me correctly.we had to: 1. Get a geological report;. we did. 2. Have a structural engineer design a foundation to the specifications of the report (two times); we did. 3. Sign a letter to let the City off the hook; we did. 4. Can't cut any trees larger than 8 in. Diameter; we didn't. Must submit a sketch of property; we did. 5. Submit a drainage and.plot plan; we did. 6. Complete an Environmental Statement; we did. (We completed then a month later they decided they wanted our engineer to complete it. He couldn't understand that request, but did complete it.) 7. We submitted plans in May and and.by August we hadn't received an o.k. Everything was completed according to what the ordinance requested, but the City kept changing what they wanted done. They asked for things to be done' and later said they didn.'t need -it. Then they would ask for something else.. We invested about.$4,000. in this project without gaining anything but much frustration.. We sold our.home in Everett and moved in with Nancy's mother during the time we would be building the new home across the street. We had every reason to believe and were led to believe that after the moratorium was lifted new construction could get started. During all the meetings prior to the sewer projects completion, city officials led us and everyone else to believe there would,be no problems. We feel that we satisfied the.ordinance, but the City was afraid to make any decisions so they turned it over to their engineer. The City engineer and our engineer disagreed on the house plans. The City refused to tell us what was needed to change the plans to make them acceptable, only that they wouldn't accept them. We went back to our engineer two times trying to guess what they wanted. Page Two April 15, 1985 Both engineers are Washington State certified engineers and who's to say who is right. The ordinance just said the house had to be designed by a licensed structural engineer to the soil report. The City then said it was a stale matter, that the whole decision would b'e.up to the International Conference of Building Officials, which is a Seattle consulting firm that checks building plans for city governments. The'I.C.B.O. came out and stated in the -Herald newspaper on Tuesday, September 11, 1984, that the Bell's wouldn't get their approval of a building permit if there was*any percentage of slide. We are in the 95O'Chance of slide area. A copy is enclosed of this article. My wife's family has owned this property for 40 years and my mother -in -.law has lived across the street since the 1930's. Our goal was to provide a home on my wife's property which her father left her when he died in 1958, and help take care of her mother. Thanks to the City and theI.C.B.O. we. are living back in Everett in the same house we had designed. for the.Meadowdale property: (Picture enclosed) -This house was approved by Snohomish County for a building permit within 14 days instead of the.3 months we:fooled around with Edmonds. Now I feel as the City attorney stated in a Council=meeting's minutes, that if you are unable to build .on your lot, your sewer assessment would be void. The improvement,to our property was zero (0). The value of property is now zero (0)•, and our feeling is that the assessment should also be zero. Your help in this matter would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Daniel J. Bell and Nancy I. Bell 10630 - 44th Ave.'.S.E. Everett., WA 98204 337-2912 cc: Mayor Larry Naughton Snohomish County Assessor's Office 'ITY CLERK :I TY OF EDMONDS dmond=_., Washington 96C�2U IRe: L.I.D. ASSESSMENT OBJECTION ?ear City Clerk, I have recently received your L.I.U. NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT --egarding the assessment of properties within the boundaries of _.1.D. No. 210. Please be advised that I am the owner of the Following described property: 6o-- �Z13 lf c.ic o Z�l- O- 66--u; 1Y ASSESSMENT I SA 0 ROLL NI UMBER sr t_y W i th th i s 1 e t ter , I am hereby notifying you tha.t I am Ali DBJECTING to the L.I.D. assessment on the +olIowing grounds: V ` 1. The value of my property has not increased in value necause of the L.I.U.. 2. The City of Edmonds has passed Ordinance 2.445 which has requ i rerrien t that property owners. of undeveloped property grant the City of Edmonds a. covenant in order to be .given a buil.dino :ermit. Because of this covenant, the current value of my ;raperty is. now depreciated in value to such an extent that it i impossi bl e to a.ppra:i se i t for the fol 1 owi no reasons: a. It is not possible to build on the undeveloped property as mortoaue loans are not available. This effects.the value of my property as the whole area depreciates in value and the potential assessment on my property increases thus actually decreasinq the value of my property. b. The covenant requirement eliminates the ability of mcor tga.oe bankers to grant loans for the purchase of property which contains such covenants on the title of the property. C. The covenant on the title of these other properties wi 1 1 effect the value of my property as mortgage .bankers. will apply the same standards upon application for a. loan upon the sale of my property. It eliminates my ability to sell my property at a value which.is'everr close to the true value. d.. The covenant requirement has deprec i ated. all of the property values of any undeveloped .in the L.I,.D. area and. has damaged the property values of_ all of the other properties within the area. 1. In that the L.I.D. Assessment is predicated upon the increase in the value of the property, the proper assessment for ny property is ZERO (0). My prop.e•rty is totally unusable due to 3rdinance 2445 and the L.I.D. has not increased the value of my property. -�•^"P� P^o,Q n^oc�.-�F=GzYf,. ��` nr'_ -N5�-r<o-^A ��R�y=. ���e..-�.e •:� P y�J£,_ ��-•�< :?� i::FGv. iX�- .v_Fz=__c?cc?cc�-s. eseTC v? CO Hx0.7By ' O •� - f e '� _. � Q • r. e_ .Y s p1 ' :: - -c ^_ r,. ^ � f71 �/� (� "iti.l':.. .. C .C- ? S n' C .Si C C.F C t' C K `= T xk'_ ^ G r C'•'v t U r f v "-I 0 Fmk .•.. Q `81ZIN . ME T 77�. .-.'_SSi � _._�7 y7Gr,�^;•i.S�=� � O� �7 dG-=7.G�=^ .�� � ...�: .''$��'j'..) r'.•< S n � ^a u. .. .m '. �Pc � _ r. G£ ZZc c f _ .. � `�Ji v�-F g���c- �-mi.���f�?vr"•Yr�i.���c .n=.,�a7�'n��=? `�a£-=G�c E� CA A �_`� nPv. E°:�ao,•�=',dv on•406Eu� mq _� �`^-.=Ze:_?.. °' c =��-c �•ne ' S C' u 6 7 7 7 S C 7 G f •e-. C GC .G S i S— C - G E -- 1 •Oi 7 0 Y m T a •m '.�� M. Y •: O Y G C •'. OI �): 'C C 9 G ? G `< 7 '•C -• — G f .r'. m r �(• -- ^�Cti Em—�m 77=�C=T._ffim..7�iCc'7� � £!'�V.— S-�C �—E G= n � .••���11. �7 6tCSC tI 6d -�3_Y Gi GL l _5 ... �>'•i ^.G e�•-`< <_ Sn __"I.? S.�:. '• _ �_ �-_._ �� —'< `v � ter e'f �.. n d)p •�•, _.C' � ' ...� �% � 7 p n � G:,. _ - _ � �x �� C7 � � �Y � � i C G N ..�• _.. '.76...C,jC�' u � - � f � � R 6 n —'> •f. F "` �, a C Z � - .-. V - - _ _ S m - `+J N.' -.' , (^ - ,"y �. 0 6 -. P C n 7 7 S C _E - C^� •' n L- _ m ^ ,z n I C O m._ O � r..� 'j. ,< ^�7�c�.'x Yeti_ '�' - ^e= �-^4 '�c'•e Qa v.E�� c� c- X-^ _ A -; •ions^ P��s_gF' ..� T-�____ G�c3s.-=' _= cK-d =v G, �. (�j ...• . m ij c7i :•�-�`..E �u» m--d-'3^T` Yc=_-'•[.r==c=- �.Ja�=.==v.•� v r.>�=.� Er I = ."i• S a ! 7 5. m t .:.•[ C ^ ,. •< 7 7 _ '� _' C 7 ?' _ is C - m �, f3 ... •: ' ==J:� J .•. C 7 .- C A R O� b — C ._ �� n_ `G 6� •c _� O G� ^C G O S C 7 -. r"-F: �O: ~ >�s: - �� •ni =n so_ E ocT-.PRc �- co �o -vN E o - _ �\`t. �'Z„•:. Rn.•e c n .-. H � m a n .- n :n 6 R .. - -. C'•c -. � 7 0C e � o - _ "• _ \. •- '-.f.-- Q-1c'E'er>f=��•c,����_cncGm..--]]x7 i C��._.. = g •. � � pj o m ? � ;� a m m u P % ^ : S y n O. -- �? U 1 . *� L � �! ' �. '_jam = = �` W •� �)t i°a is p• A Ea kf cc c 3 �^ f� aR ='� -R _i v'o ,F o -� o.T S h• •�,� t J •t c • t �' r O O v G C 1•f � l�j' G � G m C � 00 C � � K. 0 !: - t ) � ` +_ 1 i C� 6 7- Cn•<ur7976n7 .-. P'G eG9m1 � m `7 '�.F `l�`'tr IMtJ � � !. O 3 m S E T�..�m u _ £ --Q� � o -• - > > � = G � ? �yt - jf 1F* �:"��.�', ..�� �/�l" ,tom" ' � r... �., _ E; c�T ym -- o= E7i�n m _c �_ a ,�:1 �tQ• 7" � � Z �,�;� � � ...+ ��i^c��; �.m=. ^•is=-'mn`?��..��s� q•,p��-- /�r AY ��'�•�!� i'-.Lj„}S s�.s-cy f`�3. r - 2 a E is •� � � a 3 7 9 � 3 � c .ink_-�� m �°�ee �'07^� �c7n�� o S.YYx f � t v- rr�ft��" �: Tf :•ems -. v � � � e p .l' i ..� t.+.w„ '•: 1 !/ ��_ � `..'.� o n .o• tj ... m C- .'.v i N A^ •G ,~• G i O n C a C ^ r mCL G N�• e�2�mA ��s .�_=n 7-.m y�m7.��_=i.� V �� (• •;..- -.GS. ,,t1r�y n� cmm�; o�-�f Fnu 1 .tt - �\ Q� / 10 `CL.c:a.'�'mc n�,=o np,i=�=fCa•9 m 7 >>o 3 _ q(�`-/,, v\�y�A�'«t ?�S; }'rn G3^e?31nu��ga1y'� c = o n o E. 9 S " a = `i 1"T' .?3� . r-�! .7 .�•` � „ '-r'+ °��i�,_r +�<T-c.. - �= � n m - 7 .e .n � •< 7r n � � 6 m m � a E' °= C % ! � /�_ t f % � r ° , . t �4�1' r..nh A � n � -" r ' o`<.,, T-t °' �c � � m � a' a . o o v o � }lj•;.j•� rf �•• j r 1, 'y• - Y7t 3 c ^I n n Z Z 3 ,= c Er M ',; r�. P n - n 7 C ?� n m A O >• � � ^ e^ee c 3 s y' `. t��ite! 'L;,V .� - .�,i .l � j♦y y' . 3 m F� .Foy .-Pu E �. 3 u n� C._. S %^-.-�,)* � )-:) t�• - i of� ,•7 ) 3 z 3 m a u a K °f m a9. . _ •. .. - -' .__ a .": �' y j - _� e� a �GQc=o`' �o �3 d m 3 7 c ^ - t. x' T�r� " • �f•:7 I < O. S G £ ? Y .A-. :•, A. 6 C C c V n A `� �. p � ff � Sp � � V N �' ii � � � • i0- • �• � � -!�_`�r�.��.t i��..�;: _;. j z ' Fr n c m n CITY OF EOMONDS EDMONDS. WASHINGTON L. 1. D. NOTICE OF HEARING. RECORDED Nancy I. Bell OWNER ADDRESS 10630 - 44th. Ave. S.E. Everett, WA 98204 l._. PROPER READOWDALE BEACH e BLK 029 D-00 -LOT 3 S PLUS.PTN VAC ST LY ADJ R BLK 029 D-00 - LOT 4 I PLUS PTN VAC ST LY ADJ T O N ASSESSMENT No. 043B i L.I.D. NO. 210 AMOUNT' $ 11,143.00 NOTICE OF HEARING ONLY THIS IS NOT A BILL jL ear Mayor, _�al , c4y Er �Y L4wyto Lot all have A problem , tk4+ is� b� lay r9 i n -�►e Meado�le c.+►c�.. Z' we, look. 4 4ht... Con�lusian S+c,�eme�n-� t n. -N�� Rc� c.►^ �-0 W ti � ► n� � R�D h�' '�'�'�a i- SuyS , pc� e. 32 POL Y)aj. Pofh i�y Pais � AStOrr�n � Sa►�i Lu. , CLno�. Co 11 ec}o � Jpaiv)s i4,15-weulPts u 1 � in a f3 % t nt i n fhr taGlO►" 0f SotAJv . � hti Pefo14 9Ofs o►+. +o Sad a � 13°�O Td L5�d `aG�Or DC Sa�C`y wow, �`a Prok�ma�ely a ��nfefd in l�.rols ' �`�`� '1 T'vr been 1iv►''�j �l^ Me"w4alL For AbO4 Z /nO4s,t Q.I�o( ut Seen cnr.4s Q�tt�y's so9q y tod At year arvuAw n e,,d 71ie drvi'ns , 51cwees , 54ni'�il�y RECE14uV+G donv-p a +rxecl�rd � je6 ['n C'o%ecj JUL 30 leJ�t, tsa�tr,g L�IQ�ir 'c.� In 11A f %ri z11i if F�ieecuGve Off ices j u.14 as'TV v N 16 -say its W, Probl,�r,� rohody sterns fO krzp 4�h15, i�. ro Y�6Iwl►� bor4a w Ttlb6 44% a+ dtd -Elnti Ro���` low�e Rzpo+*� arid, also mY e0f o9,•sE repcr4 6n soil . u� �esri� WartE a�.�r lia6�t � try fowrot�i c„ p rt� � nea r does n-i 6dan�' �►�/ l�abc�r� , yDur �i p4n; dtipf do �sn'� Wanf an ViAsx W� Ctr�E • ,y �l� Ake lzaljhll For j� , ieuase, ieklevy, all it. mork -Ad Wac don e o4/ h c� has �►� cvr �� s�46;1r�� �,s a� YOl.0 Gr^� wow , �r 6��� w4S Yoe �juyti dpn� �ur WO/�� , WI &*0 one. GO/uo� I! f1L° /%1 �� /17fGriDwq�{C LL^� bI.CQ uiYi C!l t° G110/1 T �lltvt � �kt Lot C4rr� /'vy {!itlr; Only Omv, perstpv\ knows Por, Swr+c. +1% IIII.C. arra Of 11 aver► mows i n -Fhti Qri10u.w� pC /�t7Pttkt�n CLAI �OteLGS . { ►'�n�S God (itnot- he. is1n� I'aIlcllvv, Pleft-e, MCI �uilal �l-h� hows�e, � Wc�n� z w; til 6� I�sPonsibl,e i� sorntA;,� haPPc�•s . Th�s,c lash �w mcrtkl�s hu�c. b��,n ytiry S�heSSEkI� FOY" �ot,� U� mx Pot rVI +0 i n ptptA;+. J��c 100L t�� +6.0 p�o����v� -��nqs you d.�d ard, rrsu� a; Coe Y � oY not�.Yi h�9le� i 9��xs{' i�F Cofip� b oc#+h115 061;}acl6 Monday 41ve 30+k +►,ak 56u1d make, ii' doct fo �' rny campy b!'hy -t dsi.'K ^'s�i` . ��� /� ` �a►..�lr has owmecc PrroAV'h' sw* U July 12, 1984 • Jo -Anne Jaech, resident Steve 1 wYer Laura :call `:lilliar,; J . r:asp(:z° John NordquiUt Lloyd Cstrom Jack �.-.'ilson Edmonds City Council 250 - 5th Avenue i. Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Council Members: ��ECE1 V E D JUL 13 7984 -CITY, OF Ep�pNp� I was shocked Tuesday, ul.-y 10, when the lifting of the Meadowdale Moratorium was pulled. All 6� our hopes and time lines were riding on chat decision. : ow _'::. nod; sure ,ghat is going on! If `.ou have done ar)y resew.rch - o.-, the insurance clause you would ckly ghat there is no such insurance. have discovered very c�i 1•le have called local Insurance :'_gents, the :insurance Commissioner, the National Flood Agency, the Federal Emergency !Management Agency, and the Office -of Insurance- Administration in Washington, D.C. and there is no such insurance available. There is flood and earthquake, but nothing for ground movement. This is excluded from all types of homeowners.policies. Even if there were such a policy (which there is not) the existing homeowners would also have to be insured because they would have just as much chance of sliding as the new homes. Accordin[; to our Soil 1ng•ineer; with the recommendations he and the Foundation Engineer has made, the house isn't going to go sliding down the hillside! if anyt riTIE, through the years,' there might be an extre:rely minor mover.ert in .%r ich the house could withstand. If there is going to be a Catastrophic slide (which isn't probable now with all that has been done) it would effect a large part of the Meadowdale area including existing homes. So how can you even begin to predict the future.like that? There is no house in front of our property; just the railroad tracks! Do we insure that no dirt will go on the tracks? Aare all the .other homes and lots going to make the same assurance to the railroad that theirdirt won't go.on,the tracks: Let's be realistic please! The city is going to have more problems on thee— r hands.wi.th the insurance clause then you may be willing to bargain for! You have a very qualified planning and building department, with very fine engineers. The city must trust their judgment. We have met with your requirements to have a soil test by a licensed engineer and we have had a foundation en_::incer design the foundation. If we are relying on all of these specialists and engineers to build our home as safe as possible. -Vhy can't you? It is very unfair and costly to play a guessing game on the future! Edmonds City Council July 12, 1984 Page Two If.you pass the ordinance Tuesda night, (deleting the insurance clause because you can't ge.t any, is 'the City Council going to make any allowances for me to begin construction right away since there has been to many unnecessary delays such as no meeting the week of July 4th; this cost me 7 days, also the insurance question tnis week cost me .another 7 days. It seems like these thinEs could have bet-n taken care of and researched earlier. If this takes a special meeting before Tuesday, please do so. If you wait until Tuesday to discuss the insurance clause, that would be another weeks delay! Here is my.problein. I have to be living in my house by the End of October or I lose the finance package and'I will have to take the int' terect rate that is 'in effect at that time. I doubt if it will be less and if it's more, over a 30 ;year contract it will cost me thousands of dollars! I have already lost the chance to secure one of the rates that had a July 5th deadline! So please pass the ordinance to lift the moratorium (excluding the insurance clause) and also waive the normal rules to let me start right away without the 5-day wait for the ordinance to be effective. My builder says it will take 3 112 months to build our house we want and have the quality we want in it. If the ordinance passes Tuesday, July.17, it will be exactly 3 112 months until October 31. Any further delay is costing me precious time that can not be made up anywhere. Rules are made for good reasons, but they have to be bent when.certain circumstances arise. I believe this is one of them. Please take the necessary action required to help us and others out. Our dreams are in your wands! .our help and i;-ediate actions to -:Lft the moratorium Tuesday night will .be sreat:Ly appreciated! Sine: re ly I Daniel (Jay) 'Bell� 15821 75th rl. '. d�nonds, WA 98020. `743-1244 cc: Mayor Larry Naughton Jim ?dams, City Engineer V/ary Lou Block, Planning Director JUL I o1984 UPPER C a,TC H BASIN DETENTION PIP! LENGTH CONTROL CATCH (V6NT) BASIN t— 1' MIN, 2' MAX COVER OUTLGT 1� CONTROL I �'" " 4" .r� 7G SLOPE.• Tu SYSTEM CROSS SECTION SEE PAGE 3 FOR OUTLET CONTROL_ DETAIL To OUTLET (SJ P RAP OR RUNOF F 51PREA.DER) _ 2' a 2.' a %"DOE7, 4=b" SPALLL IORtpun�) ` . 2' - 3" DEEP, '�y"- CRUS"ED RACK FROM :•, OUTLET \ )- CON'rQOL RIPRAP OUTLET VVABHED,rVRAYFL pUTF.LQ_ W.-;TQENCH, MIN 10' LONG, TOP 4'PERF PIPE TO DE LEVEL FROM. OUTLET - - COt�TitOL _ ' 4 PERF Pt W1:` CAPS RUNOFF SPREADER- OUTLET STANDARD DRAINAGE PLAN DETENTION SYSTEM PAGE I OF 3 for - t)(Z111 e L Ila."c,� Il locationL. t✓. _ rdMcnd� N-' yBZ+L� plan by Ric phone- 33.1 -311 date- DESIGN DATA System Imperm Pipe Pipe grifice Number Area Diam/ Length iamete.�Oo NOTES 1. Call Engineering Division (771-3202) for prebackfill and final inspections. 2. Responsibility for operation and maintenance of drainage systems on private property is the responsibility of the property owner(s). Material accumulated in the storage pipe must be flushed out and removed from catch basins to allow proper operation. The outlet control orifice must be kept open at all times. �Own CITY OF EDMONDS • elwl 4o 3 C! e4A ath � �+-F+�� Arm►ns A,,Ek 4, F}- yooa poi. lod t y ss•o•. • f� 1-1 CITY @F EDMONDS FINANCE DEPARTMENT • EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 • (206) 775-2525 STREET FILE ASSET NO. BATCH DATE ASSET INFORMATION SHEET ACTION: C- EW ❑ ADD C TRANSFER, 7- RETIRE A S' E. CATEGORY CODE: _ SERIAL NO. DESCRIPTION: T LOCATION: _ _ N F * "L" - LOCATION CODE: /fJ R l ACCOUNT NO. ` \ II 00�, U l� 3`fs.S�0 , (p M A / DEPRECIATION CODE: CIS/ Y ❑ N LIFE OF ASSET: 2 YEARS T 0 WARRANT/PROJECT: NO. _L _5_C��? `_ DATE: _Z' �S - (q !- COST $ INITIATED BY ------ ---- APPROVED BY TRANSFER DATE TRANSFER FROM TRANSFER TO T R A N 2 S E R 3 - - 4 - - R ACCOUNTING USE ONLY E T RETIREMENT DATE I R RETIREMENT METHOD E M RECEIPT NO. TOTAL DEPRECIATION $ E T GAIN (LOSS) DEPARTMENT FILE CITY OF EDMONDS STjjEET FILE ASSET INFORMATION SHEET NEW ASSET NO.��5 �- ❑ ADDITION ADDITION TO ASSET NO. ❑ RETIREMENT 5 -300(002 `7-30"Y0 DESCRIPTION tj SERIAL NO. LOCATION I cJ cL , I— DEPT. NO. * * PURCHASE ORDER NO. PURCHASE ORDER DATE COST * PROJECT NUMBER V`JO � 5 O $O PROJECT COMPLETION DATE a 1 -30 :7 COST � l 5 • o B.A.R.S. ACCOUNT NO. T��'000" (0 1L ' 3V5.0()• CO3 ESTIMATED LIFE Q�5 S INITIATED BY DATE APPROVED BY "SUBMIT ASSET INFORMATION SHEET WITH FINAL PAYMENT REQUEST *SUBMIT ASSET INFORMATION SHEET UPON CLOSE OF PROJECT ACCOUNTING ONLY EN DEPRECIATE MONTHLY DEPRECIATION AMOUNT ANNUAL DEPRECIATION AMOUNT G.L. ENTRY REFERENCE b P INITIAL DATE VERIFIED BY PROCESSED BATCH NO. _ DEPARTMENT FILE -. ,--, ,. rw.,:.,..h•iq�h^'r,�,.:s47N�.w^:"s'ti•�>tr.fa.-�ni^rt`rR`�PYy�dy,v=�.�.3Ya',.:a,`,ilti- "'y�,a",.t�rr-.�e{rkt�:�r a � b ,a, f ..n :.�r�t,:,r-....�L �;1 _4 ©t3 s.�,R--� ►> 'CI. � OF;EDMONDS COMMUNITY SERVICE — RIGHT -OF -WAY CONSM W Z O W U C4 O w A. • Owner: Washington Natural Gas Company B. • Contractor: Nl,yeMercer Street;. Issue Date — Name Mailing Address Mailing Address Seattle WA 98111 City State Zip City State Zip State License Number Telephone Number C. • Address or Vicinity of Construction: 15812 75 Place West Type of Work to be Done: Install New Service D. • Work in Connection With: ❑ Sub or Plat W Single Family. ❑ City Projects ❑ Commercial ❑ Multifamily ❑ Utility E. • Pavement Cut: ❑ Y :R N F. • Size of Cut: X - No CutS APPLICANT TO READ AND SIGN INDEMNITY: Applicant understands and by his signature to this application, agrees to hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any injuries, damages, or claims of any kind,or description whatsoever,rfrgrseen or unforseen, thatmay be made against the City of Edmonds, or any of its departrhents or employees, including or not limited to the defense of any legal proceedings including defense costs, court costs, and attorney fees by reason of granting this permit. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FOLLOWING THE FINAL INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE;OF THE WORK. Estimated restoration fees will be held until the final street patch is completed by City forces, at which time a debit or credit will be processed for issuance to .the applicant. • A 24 hour notice is required for inspection; Please call Engineering: 771-3202 *-Work is to be inspected during progress and at completion. • Restoration to be in accordance with City Code. • Street. to be kept clean at all times. • Traffic Control to be in accordance with City regulations. • All street -cut ditches must be patched with asphalt or City approved material prior to end of working day; NO EXCEPTIONS. I understand the above and that this permit must be available at the job site for inspection purposes at all times. Signature: Date: January 18, 1991 Owner or Contractor This Permit Must be Posted at the Job Site For Inspection Purposes Call DIAL -A -DIG Prior to Beginning Work APPROVED BY: 9VJ Time Authorized: Void after MARCuA Lc1 days. Special Conditions:. N b, RELEASED BY: Date PERMIT FEE: as Restoration Fee: Receipt No.: Fund 111 Fee: Street Cut Dimensions: INSPECTED BY NO WORK TO BEGIN PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE. Date Eng. Div. March 1989 I FIELD INSPECTION N( (Fu1'Rf I I I - Route copy to Street D; t:) I h v Comments: Diagram: CONTRACTOR CALLED FOR INSPECTION Partial Work Inspection by P. W.: Work Disapproved By: FINAL APPROVAL BY: ❑ YES Date: ❑ NO Eng. Div. July 1985 Addendum to: City of Edmonds Permit Application Engineering Aide : Kerry Walsh Washington Natural Gas P�— ` A / 622-6767 x 2588 T=�4WLt-e . No co-rOC) , EDMON S X�NEW 'CONS wwa -vo w iva)A/ 0 ,:wTH�"i' ;�,7t °:,=:..., .r . ,. .. r.� r .... �^.— . • r ri ..... ,._... ... 1?0 CITY OF EDMONDS R �+�`L ermit No.—� COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMEa] RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT Issue Date C) A.. •Owner:. Ud ti eS B. • Contractor: �i v> l� 1' Name,.., _ , „ \ Name 1 . .. Wit.. J C/ / 42= J w Mailing Addp6ss \ _ p ��„ . , Mailing Address City State Zip City State Zip State License Number Telephone Number C..• Address or Vicinity of Con Type of Work to be Done: D. • Work in Connection With:* E. • Pavement Cut: ❑ Y ❑ Sub or Plat 16 ingle Family ElCity Projects ❑ Commercial ❑ Multifamily ❑ Utility F. • Size of Cut: X APPLICANT TO READ AND SIGN INDEMNITY: Applicant understands and by his signature to this application, agrees to hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any injuries, damages, or claims of any kind or description whatsoever, forseen or unforseen, that may .be made against the City of Edmonds,.or any of its departments or employees, including or not limited to the defense of any legal proceedings including defense costs, court costs, and attorney fees by reason of granting this permit. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FOLLOWING THE FINAL INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK. Estimated restoration fees will be held until the final street -patch is completed by City forces, at which time a debit or credit will be processed for issuance to the applicant. • A 24 hour notice is required for inspection; Please call Engineering: 771-3202 • Work is to be inspected during progress and at completion. • Restoration to be in accordance with City Code. • Street to be kept clean at all times. • Traffic Control to be in accordance with City regulations. • All street -cut ditches must be patched with asphalt or City approved material prior to end of working day; NO EXCEPTIONS. I understand the above and that this permit must be available at he job site for inspection purposes at all times. Signature: Date: Owner or ,ontractor. This Permit Musyb Posted at the Job Site For Inspection Purposes Call DIAL -A -DIG Prior to Beginning Work y APPROVED Bl PERMIT FEE: L x a OTime Authorized: Void after days. Restoration Fee: ` p w Special Conditions: Receipt No.: D Fund 111 Fee: Street Cut Dimensions: x = $ RELEASED BY: U _ C / Date INSPECTED BY A 1 Date �D � O NO WORK TO BEGIN PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE Eng. Div. March 1989 r ' FIELD INSPECTION Comments: Diagram: CONTRACTOR CALLED FOR INSPECTION Partial Work Inspection by P. W.: Work Disapproved By: FINAL APPROVAL BY: I I - Route copy to Street Dept.) ❑ YES ❑ NO Date: Eng. Div. July 1985 .890 19Cv I N-V 0 I C E CITY OF EDMONDS 250 - 5tn AVE N • EOMONOS. WA 98020 • 1206) 771.3202 COMMUNITY SERVICES: Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering BILLED TO: SIwo& //ors INVOICE NO. DATE /011,7190 GRANT NO- -7 Awl&t 77 = Z = goy y8 O C'� ;--- PLEASE ENCLOSE ONE COPY OF THIS INVOICE WITH YOUR REMITTANCE. THANK YOU. Accounting: 0 LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. P.,O. BOX 1029 EDMONDS, WA 98020 (206) 778-0907 Project: 74-007.10 Geotechnical Review Seawood Homes, 15812 75th City of Edmonds Attn: Ms. Jeannine L. Graf 250 5th Ave N. Edmonds WA 98020 "rogress Billing W/E 07 Jul thru 01 Sept 1990 personnel Charges ----------------- Hours Principal .50 Senior Geologist 19.50 Word Processor & Operator 5.00 Support Staff .25 Total Personnel Charges 25.25 Zeimbursables/Equipment ----------------------- Mileage Copies Facsimile Machine 'roject Billing Summary Personnel Charges Reimbursables/Equipment Total: o 0� 3 19Q0 Invoice No. 1766 September 29, 1990 Page number _1 Rate Amount 98.00 49.00 78.00 1,521.00 39.00 195.00 29.00 7.25 1,772.25 Amount 1,772.25 17.40 10.32 9.00 ------------ Total Expense:* 36.72 36.72 TOTAL THIS PERIOD 1,808.97 Prior 2,004.50 20.10 2,024.60 Thank You Current Total 1,772.25 3,776.75 36.72 56.82 1,808.97 3,833.57 Payable Within 30 Days of Invoice I il_I:, e__i '-4I IL,: _, ',1111 11 h. P. 11'1 STRUCTURAL DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC. —CONSULTING ENGINEERS 5630.108TH ST. S.W. • P,O. BOX 5366 LYNNW000.WA08046 PHONE:(206)775.7434 ��.f.OING August 29, 1990 SEP 4 - 1990 Seawood Homes, Inc. attn: Lee Atherton 7500 - 212th S.W., Suite 210 Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: Residence at 1581.2 - 75th'Place 5W, Edmonds, WA - FOOTING REINFORCING INSPECTION - Our ref.: -Inspect\83-439.rjh To Whom This may concern: At the request of Bob Gradwohl, this office inspected the subject reinforcing steel on August 29, 1990. At the time of inspection the house and garage perimeter footing reinforcing steel was in place and appeared to be in size, spacing and placing conformance with the approved plans and specifications The inspector instructed the foreman to remove rocks supporting t' reinforcement as the concrete pour progressed, and to maintain al:L required clearances. Respectfully submitted, STRUCTURAL DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC. by: i Rase Vanden Ende, P.E. president KVE/ere Structural Design Assoc. FACSIMILE From: To: FAX No.. .. - Attn: 0ate:,467lob #: Total t i:6f Pages: �._... STRtJCTURAL ENGINEERING DESIGN AND INVESTIGATION- BOSS TESTING, INCORPORATED Seawood Homes 7500 212th Street SW, #210 Edmonds, WA 98020 Project - SFR - 75th Place W 15812 75th_Place W Edmonds, WA INSPECTION REPORTS 8-6-90 SEP 4 -1990 Job # 09390 Engineer: Structural Design Contractor: Seawood Homes Tested grout for 3 augercast piles at north elevation of structure. Kenmore supplied the grout (8 yards) of sand and 9 sk of cement. American Construction of Everett drilled the 16" piles, set the steel beams and pumped and placed the grout. Prepared three 2x4 grout test" cylinders. Consistency was fluid, grout temperature was 70 degrees. No other inspection was provided. INSPECTOR: Hans Roehrig 19015 36TH AVE. WEST — "NNWOOD, WASHINGTON 98036 (206) 7 P -0.402 FAX (206) 775-9175. L. sWU SEP 7 " 1990 BOSS TESTING INCORPORATED LABORATORY TEST REPORT . Project: Single Family Residence Job # : 09390 15812 75th Place West Permit # : 90050 Edmonds, Washington Date Made: 8-6-90 Client: Seawood Homes Contractor: Seawood Homes/American Construction Weather: Clear, dry, breeze - 70 F Product: Grout Sample Temp: 72 F Mix Proportions: Coarse Agg ; Fine Agg.. : Water: Mix Design # 9 Producer: Kenmore Slump: Fluid Ticket #: 224997 Entrained Air: Cement: 9 sack Type: I WRA : 4 oz/100 yard A/E Admix: Date Received: 8-7-90 Design f'.c: 3000 Placement Location & Notes Three auger cast piles at north side of excavation Sample Date Strength Number Lab # Date Made Tested Age Load/lbs Size PSI la 2923 8-6-90 8-13-90 7 10,600 2x4 3375 lb 2924 8-6-90 9-3-90 28 16,700 2x4 5310 lc 2925 8-6-90 9-3-90 r, 28 16,000 2x4 5095 INSPECTOR: Hans Roehrig E , S IGNED : 19015 36TH AVE. WEST LYNNWOOD, WASHINGTON 98036 (206) 778-4402 FAX (206) 775-9175 AUG 09 '90 15:47 SDA IPIC. P.1i9 -� STRUCTURAL DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 5630. 198TH ST, S.W. P.O. ©OX 5366 LYNNWOOD, WA 96046 • PHONE: (206) 775-7434 August 9, 1990 Seawood Homes, Inc. attn: Lee Atherton 7500 212th SW, Suite 210 Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: Residence at 15812 75th P1. W., Edmonds, WA SHORING DESIGN CONFIRMATION Our ref.: letters\83-439-3.rjh Dear Lee: At your request, this office designed the referenced shoring on July 30, 1990, using parameters verbally communicated by Mark Dodds of Geotech Consultants, which were incorporated in the design. as shown on the attached sketch. Our design was faxed to Geotech Consultants and verbally approved the same day. Respectfully submitted, STRUCTURAL DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC. bv: Base Vanden Ende, P.E. president' KVE/eve enclosures STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING DESIGN AND INVESTIGATION: STRUCTURAL DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC. 5630-198th ST. S.W. P. 0. 13OX 5366 0iiHW00D, WA 98036 (206) 775.7434 SUBJECT:.S.FZA','s� ?.:..1..58.1. ....,-..7. ST ..Pt.•..a+5/... SHT...J..... OF...I...» BY:-CC—C... DATE: ... 7...-.. .-.` MCHKD:................. JOB SHORIN AUGER —CAST 0c VIER )Z x. Z10 CFULL LENGTH) = ZG KS I z 0.(o'fy CK FILL 4 pPCAINaCa.PIER OTECH CONSUt.T0.ni"i'3 CGYwt Er`t �'i'T �p��j l-r OF FIXITY S; DER. i'M10NE GOt�IV^fZ.;;,�T� r-r rtie �S vvE4vC Us.E.p 0-` rz'm Z. PIFm C71^. _,. spa •d ''XJT H(TS T th : ST 06, F,r, '7101-+ I ouju I;. t. SW P.O. Box 5366 LYNNW(�. , WASHINGTON 98036 01.11: ut- _1_ E/Eld •0NI U(Is Zt,:GT 06, 0 c, uscs 0 5 11-9 /a /V 0M /V 75 C /,) �S i TEST PIT Description Elevation: t50' Brown gravelly silty SAND with occasional cobbles and boulders, wet, loose (Fill) with wood, bricks, pieces SM of concrete Light brown silty gravelly fine to medium SAND, moist, medium -dense 6.9 Light brown gravelly silty -medium SAND, moist, medium -dense 10 20.1 40.2' 0 32.4 15 20 Uray gravelly silty SAND, very wet, medium -dense Gray -blue silty CLAY, very.wet, medium -stiff Gray -blue clayey SILT, wet, firm Test pit terminated at 14 feet below existing grade. Minor groundwater seepage encountered at 12 feet during excavation. Note: Q LL = 29.8 GEOTECH CONSULTANTS PI = 5.5 TEST PIT LOG . MEADOWDALE BEACH ROAD EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Job No.I Doge Looped or: Rate: 89418 I11/17/893 0 \�. to K - - eQ'r 0 � G USCS 5 29.3 29.0 10 © 135.3. 33.8 V 20 TEST PIT 2 Description Elevation: ±50' Brown gravelly silty SAND, moist, loose (Fill Gray -green with brown mottling SILT, wet, firm Gray -blue clayey SILT, moist, medium -stiff Stiff Test pit terminated at 12 feet below existing grade. Minor groundwater seepage encountered at 5 feet during excavation. Note: Qj LL = 54.0 PI = 32.7 �2 LL = 52.3 PI = 25.6 GEOTECH CONSULTANTS A • TEST PIT LOG MEADOWDALE BEACH ROAD EDMONDS, WASHINGTON .lob No.+ Date: LoppsO By P101er 89418 1 11/17/89 MKD 4 00 TEST PIT .3 e USCS Description Elevation -58' O ML Gray -brown SILT, wet, firm Gray clayey SILT to silty clay, wet, firm Highly fractured at 3z to 41 feet 5 ML 29:5 LL = 48.4 PI = 25.3 CH Moderately fractured Only minor fracturing below eight feet 10 Test pit terminated at 9 feet below existing grade. No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. 15 f- GEOTECH CONSULTANTS TEST PIT LOG MEADOWDALE BEACH ROAD EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Job NO. Date: Lopped By: Pole+ 89418 11/17/89 1 MKD 1 5 Slope bockfill away from foundation. --1 BACKF/LL See text for requirements. WASHED ROCK C A. 6 n!i o NONWOVEN GEOTEXT/LE FILTER FABRIC GEOTECH CONSULTANTS T/GHTL /N£ ROOF DRAIN Do not connect to footing drain. VAPOR BARRIER SLAB %n . �, 4 min. FREE - DRAINING SAND/GRAVEL 4" PERFORATED HARD PVC PIPE Invert at least as /ow as footing and/or crow/ space. Slope to drain. Place weepholes downward. FOOTING DRAIN MEADOWDALE BEACH ROAD EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Job No., Dote. Scott Plot* 89418 DEC 1989 -N.T.S. 7 APPENDIX NO. 1 CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL LOGS Project Job No. 894 - 3G Date 04/26/89 SEAWOOD MEADOWDALE Boring No. 1 Dwn.Br HLA Driller ASSOCIATED DRILLING Drill 1j" HOLLOW STE14 AUGER Geo/Eng. J. S A D L E R Hole 0 4" I. D. Fluid --- Penetration o `c t o o Soil Description & Classification Notes _ o FILL; GRAY SILT, BROWN SAND, SOME ASPHALT. I2 3 4 7 5 SILTY SAND; MOTTLED GRAY, LOOSE, WET TO SATURATED, SOME ORGANIC MATERIAL. (SM) I2 SILT; GRAY, LOOSE, MOIST, FRACTURED, STAINED FRAC- 3 4 7 10 TURES, SOME CLAY, TRACE ORGANICS. (MH-CH) I2 3 4 7 15 00 SILTY CLAY; GRAY, VERY STIFF, MOIST, WITH ANGULAR CLASTS OF FRACTURED SILT/CLAY, TRACE*ORGAN- ICS. (CH-MH) 10 14 24 I5 20 3/8" THICK ORGANIC LAYER: DARK BROWN, HARD. T617 SILTY CLAY; GRAY, HARD, MOIST. (CH-MH) I :;:: SAND; FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED, LIGHT, GRAY, DENSE, 30 47 25 .• • • MOIST. (SW) SILTY CLAY; GRAY, HARD, MOIST. (CH-MH) •IIII SAND; FINE GRAINED, LIGHT GRAY, DENSE, MOIST.(SW) INTERBEDDED WITH GRAY, HARD, SILTY CLAY. I SILTY CLAY; GRAY, HARD, MOIST. (CH-MH) 30talill Notes: CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL TEST BORING LOG A DIVISION OF CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC. Pogo 1 of 2 Project SEAW00D MEADOWDALE Job No. 894 - 3G Boring No. 1 ZPenetration eo c Soil Description & Classification Notes ;o N � m - SILT; GRAY, MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, DAMP. (MH) 11 19 30 I7 SAND; FINE GRAINED, LIGHT BROWN TO GRAY, MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, DAMP. TO MOIST. (SP) 35 f�t:� T SILT; GRAY, DENSE, DAMP TO MOIST, FRACTURED. (MH) 1 12 12 121 1 33 INTERBEDDED WITH FINE, GRAY, DENSE, DAMP TO 40 MOIST SAND. I 'r' r SAND; FINE GRAINED, LIGHT GRAY, VERY DENSE, DAPIP 24 50 5 % 5 TO MOIST. (SP) 45 .;tit ti i. I23 : s t f SAND; AS ABOVE. / % T.D. = 49.0' 50 Notes: NO GROUND WATER BELOW -10' . CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL TEST BORING LOG A DMSION OF CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC. Page 2 of 2 •T.P.- 1 1 Soil Description b Classification I T.P.- 2 1 Soil Description & Classification 0 0- 2"TOPSOIL;.DARK BROWN ORGANIC 0 0- 2"TOPSOIL; DARK BROWN ORGANIC SILTY SAND. SILTY SAND. 2"- 8'SILTY CLAY; GRAY TO MOTTLED 2"- 6'SILTY CLAY; GRAY TO MOTTLED BROWN, SOFT, TO MEDIUM BROWN, SOFT TO MEDIUM STIFF, STIFF, MOIST TO WET, FRAC- MOIST TO WET, FRACTURED, TURED, DISTURBED, WITH DISTURBED, WITH ANGULAR, ANGULAR, FRACTURED CLASTS FRACTURED CLASTS OF SILT/ OF SILT/CLAY, SOME SAND. CLAY, SOME SAND. (CH-MH) (CH-MH) -5 -5 6'- 15'SILTY CLAY/CLAYEY-SILT; GRAY, HARD, MOIST, SLICKEN SIDES. (CH-MH) i�� 8'- 14'SILT/CLAYEY SILT; GRAY, DENSE, MOIST, WITH SOME THIN, FINE GRAINED SAND 9' THIN LENSE OF FINE TO LAYERS. (MH-CH) MEDIUM GRAINED SAND -10 -10 BETWEEN FRACTURED CLAY T.D. = 14.0APPEARED MASSIVE -15 -1S T.D. = 15.0' Notes: NO GROUND WATER SEEPAGE. Notes: TRACE OF GROUND WATER SEEPAGE AT 9' . TEST PIT LOG CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL A DMSION OF CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY. INC. Seawood Meadowdale I Date 04/26/89 I Job No. 894 - 3G I Dwn.BY HLA I Geo/Eng. �',l'/ 1 T.P.- 3 1 Soil Description & Classification T.P.- 4 1 Soil Description ,& Classification s ===� DARK „ BROWN E, :1i� SILTY SARD, BROWN .�;sag—o SAND WITH GRAVEL, SOME DEBRIS. :•.:' 7' - 9' SAND; MOTTLED GRAY, LOOSE TO MEDIUII DENSE, MOIST TO ••:• WET, WITH GRAVEL. (SW) • • 9'- 15'SILTY CLAY; GRAY, DENSE, MOIST, WITH ORGANICS. -10 (CH-MH ) _VAN DARK HBROWNRICK GHARD ANIC LAYER; -15 T.D. = 15.0' 0 0 - 5" DARK BROWN ORGANIC L Y AND. •;:; 6"- 2'SAND; MOTTLED GRAY, LOOSE = ••' ••••• TO MEDIUM DENSE, 140IST TO see, WET, WITH GRAVEL. (SW) 2' - 9' SILTY CLAY; GRAY TO MOTTLED GRAY, SOFT TO MEDIUII STIFF, MOIST, FRACTURED, DISTURBE WITH ANGULAR, FRACTURED CLASTS OF SILT/CLAY, SOME SAND. (CH-HH) -S V/111119'- 14'SILTY CLAY/.CLAYEY SILT; VA VA GRAY, -HARD, MOIST, SLICKEN- IZA -10 SIDES. (CH-MH) -1S T.D. = 14.0' Notes: GROUND WATER SEEPAGE AT 8' . Notes: NO GROUND WATER SEEPAGE. TEST PIT LOG CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL A DIVISION OF CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY. INC. " Seawood Meadowda le I Date 04/26/89 I Job No. 894 - 3G I Dwn.BY HLA I Geo/Eng. ",�-- , GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE LOTS 3 & 4, BLOCK 29 MEADOWDALE BEACH PLAT EDMONDS, WASHINGTON This report represents the results of our geotechnical engineering study for the site of the proposed single-family residence in Edmonds, Washington. The site is located in Lots 3 & 4 of Block 29 of the Meadowdale Beach Plat. The general location of the site is illustrated on the vicinity Map, Plate 1. Based on plans furnished to us, we understand the building will consist of a 5400 square -foot, wood -frame, single family residence. The structure will be a two-story with a daylight basement and an attached three -car garage. The lower basement level will have a finish floor elevation of 50.25 msl. Development of the property is in the design and final planning stage. Therefore, a full set of proposed plans prepared by Ronald D. Johnson were available to us. The site plan prepared by Lovell-Sauerland & Associates which was provided included the footprint of the proposed structure, and provided topographic information.. We were also provided with a copy of Cascade Geotechnical. Report No. 894-36 dated May 9, 1989, and an addendum to this report dated August 16, 1989. These reports, which were prepared for the lot, were reviewed prior to quantifying the scope of work for this report. SITE CONDITIONS SURFACE The property is located directly west of 75th Place West somewhat near the 159th Street Southwest Right -of -Way. The property roughly resembles a rectangle with dimensions of approximately 120 feet by 180 feet. The property slopes to the west, with an overall maximum relief of about 45 feet. The site has a basically gentle slope, and except for small anomolies, has a maximum relief of 2:1 (horizontal:vertical). The property appears to have been graded in the past, as there are a couple of benches and some small to medium-sized deciduous trees on the site now. Homes are situated both north and south of the property. The Burlington Northern Railroad is situated west of the lot. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Seawood Homes Inc. December 13, 1989 JN 89418 Page 2 The site is located in.the Meadowdale landslide area that has been identified by the City of Edmonds as having potential for future slippage. Whether landslides occur in the future in the Meadowdale area is not only related to subsurface geology, but also groundwater conditions and the type and extent of the future development. SUBSURFACE The subsurface conditions were explored by a.total of seven test pits and one test boring at the approximate' locations shown on the Site Plan, Plate 2. Three of the test pits were completed under our supervision specifically for this report. Our field exploration program was determined based upon the proposed construction, site topography, the required design criteria, subsurface conditions revealed during excavation, previous subsurface conditions reported by others, and time and budget constraints. Four of the test pits and the test boring were completed by Cascade- Geotechnical prior to our involvement with the project. Their logs are summarized. in Appendix 1 for reference. Three test pits were excavated on November 17, 1989 with a rubber -tired backhoe owned and operated by Evans Brothers Excavating. A geotechnical engineer from our staff observed the excavation process, logged the three test pits, and obtained representative samples of the soils encountered. "Grab" samples of selected subsurface soils were collected from the backhoe bucket. The Test Pit Logs for our three test pits are attached to this report as Plates 3 through 5. The subsurface conditions of the site generally consisted of granular fill soils of variable depth, overlying firm to medium stiff, moderately fractured silt/cly. The competent subsurface layer underlying the fractured material consists of stiff to hard silty clay/clayey silt with interlayers of sand. The final logs represent our interpretations of the field logs and laboratory tests. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundary between soil types. In actuality, the transition may be gradual. The relative densities and moisture descriptions indicated on our test pit logs are interpretative descriptions based on the conditions observed during the excavation. The logs should be reviewed for specific subsurface information at the locations tested. GROUNDWATER Groundwater seepage was observed at a depth of five to twelve feet below existing grades. The test pits were left open only GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Seawood Homes Inc. December 13, 1989 JN 89418 Page 3 for a short time period, therefore, the seepage levels on the logs represent the location of transient water seepage and may not be the location of the static groundwater level. It should be noted that groundwater levels vary seasonally with rainfall and other factors. We anticipate that groundwater could be found between the near surface weathered soil and fills and the underlying denser competent soils and in fracture zones in. -silts and clays. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL The property is locaed in the middle of a large slump block which encompasses the entire neighborhood. The slump block probably slid within the last 10,000 years, during the retreat of the.last glacial age. There are always risks. associated with construction in a known landslide area. However, the risk' to developing and residing on this piece of property is no more than the risks which.the neighbors assume by living in this area. The project appears feasible from a geotechnical engineering standpoint. The proposed home can utilize either a rigid grid foundation placed over structural fill or a drilled pier foundation. In either case, firm bearing in the proposed building area is estimated to be at elevation 40 to 44 feet, msl. A rigid grid foundation bearing on the competent silts and clays will require an excavation with depths from twelve to fifteen feet. This excation should be sloped at a'minimum of 1.25:1 (Horizontal:Vertical). Due to local soil conditions, an excavation of this depth should only be completed during extended periods of relatively dry weather. Adequate drainage measures will,be required during construction. As an alternative to sloping the excavation to reduce the amount of excavation and backfill, shoring can be utilized. Cantilevered shoring would be most adequate for this site. This type of shoring consists of drilling holes 'at predetermined intervals, placing steel H-beams in the holes, and grouting between the pile and soil. As excavation proceeds, the space between the piles is lagged with treated timber and any voids behind the timbers is filled with pea gravel or lean -mix concrete. For the excavation depths anticipated, and with pile spacings of about six feet, nominal 4-inch lagging can be used. Drainage is provided between the GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Seawood Homes Inc. December 13, 1989 JN 89418 Page 4 permanent and temporary walls by utilizing a geotextile drainage product such as Alidrain or Miradrain attached to the lagging. Shoring design parameters can be provided by our firm as required. The on -site soils are silty, and will be impossible to compact and difficult to place during wet weather. We recommend against the placement of additional fill soils on top of the looser silts and clays, or on the existing fills. Imported granular fill will be required for structural fill. Geotech Consultants Inc. should be given the opportunity to review the final foundation plans to verify that site specific foundation, drainage, and earthwork requirements are meta RIGID FOUNDATIONS The proposed structure may be supported on a rigid mat foundation. The mat can consist of a reinforced, two-way beam. and slab set on a minimum of -one foot of compacted structural fill built up from the competent silts and clays at about elevation 40 to 44 msl. The other alternate is to construct the rigid foundation using grade beams bearing on the competent silts and clays. Overexcavation of fill and looser fine-grained soils below the foundation will be required. Fill placed, under the mat should extend outwards from the edge at least a distance equal to the depth of fill underneath, the mat. The mat should be founded a minimum of twelve (12) inches below the lowest adjacent outside finish grade. The rigid mat should be designed in such a manner that ten feet of the mat in any direction could sit unsupported. For the above design criteria, it is anticipated that total settlements of the rigid mat founded as recommended, will be about three- quarters of an inch, with negligible differential settlements. Much of the settlement due to dead loads from the building structure should occur during construction. 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 on the foundations. For the latter, the foundations must either be poured "neat" against the existing soil or the wall backfill must be compacted structural fill. . A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used between the structural foundation concrete and the supporting subgrade. The passive resistance of undisturbed native soils and well compacted fill may be taken as equal to the pressure of a fluid having a density of three hundred (300) pounds per cubic foot (pcf). GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Seawood Homes Inc. December 13, 1989 DRILLED FOUNDATIONS JN 89418 Page 5 The structure could also be supported on minimum sixteen -inch - diameter steel -reinforced augercast piers. Augercast piers can be installed with either augercast or open -hole methods. The open -hole method involves using a solid -stem auger that consists of a stem and usually about five foot of auger at the end. The -auger is drilled into the ground, retracted, and the cuttings are spun off the auger. The excavation continues until the design depths are met.' After drilling, the hole is filled with concrete and steel reinforcement is placed into the hole. If caving becomes a problem, as it may as the looser fine-grained soils and fills may collapse into the hole, then the open -hole method will have to be abandoned, and continuous flight hollow -stem auger equipment will be required. This method involves the pumping of concrete through the hollow -stem auger equipment during extraction of the auger. Concrete grout must be pumped continuously through the auger as it is withdrawn. The rate of withdrawl should not exceed nine feet per minute. . The grout pressure at the grout pump should be in the range of 150 to 250 psi, depending on the length of feeder hose used. The pump should be equipped with a calibrated stroke counter so that grout volumes may be calculated. For a sixteen (16) inch diameter pier with five (10) feet of penetration into the dense native soils, an allowable capacity of fifteen (15) tons may be assumed. Piers should be placed no closer than three pier. diameters, center to center. For wind or seismic loads, the allowable load can be increased by one-third. We can provide design criteria for different pier diameters and embedment lengths if .greater capacities are required. Based on our fieldwork, we estimate total pier lengths of seventeen to twenty-five feet will be required to assure adequate penetration into the bearing soil. We estimate that total settlement of single piers will be on the order of one-half inch. Much of this settlement should occur during construction as the dead loads are applied. We estimate differential settlements between piers should be less than one-half inch. Lateral pier capacity is generally governed by deflections, at the top of the pier which depend on the pier stiffness with respect to the surrounding soil near the upper portion of the pier, the length of the pier, and the degree of fixity at the pier cap. We can provide lateral capacities for piers once design plans are finalized. The piers will have to be reinforced with steel the entire length of the pier. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Seawood Homes Ind. December 13, 1989 JN 89418 Page 6 As the completed pier below ground cannot be observed, judgement .-and experience must be used as the basis for determining the acceptability of a pier. 'We recommend that the installation of all piers be observed by a qualified geotechnical engineer who can fully evaluate the contractor's operation,, collect and interpret installation data, verify bearing stratum elevations, and who would understand the implications of variations from normal procedures with respect to the design criteria. We suggest the contractor's equipment and procedures be reviewed by Geotech Consultants Inc. prior to the start of construction. SLAB -ON -GRADE FLOORS Slab -on -grade floors may be supported on undisturbed competent native silts and clays which are located at elevation 40 to 44 msl, or on structural fill built up from these soils. The slab should also be provided with a minimum of four (4) inches of free draining sand or gravel. In areas where moisture is undesirable, a vapor barrier such as a 6-mil plastic membrane should be placed beneath the slab. Alternatively, the floors can be wood -framed with a crawl space. PERMANENT RETAINING AND FOUNDATION WALLS Retaining and foundation walls should be designed to resist the lateral earth pressures imposed by the retained soils. The following recommendations are for walls less than twelve feet high which restrain level backfill: Design Parameter Value Active Earth Pressure' 45 pcf Passive Earth Pressure 300 pcf Coefficient of Friction 0.35 Soil Unit -Weight 125 pcf Where: 1) pcf is pounds per cubic foot. 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) psf should be added to the active equivalent fluid pressure. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Seawood Homes Inc. JN 89418 December 13, 1989 Page.7 The values given above are ultimate values. An appropriate safety factor should be applied when designing the walls. We recommend usinga minimum factor of safety of 1.5 for overturning and sliding. The resultant force, which can be determined by taking moments about the toe of the_wall while neglecting the passive pressure force, should pass through -che middle third of the footing. The above design values also do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures behind the walls and assume that no surcharge slopes or loads will be placed above the walls. If these conditions exist, then those pressures should be added to the above lateral pressures. Also, if sloping backfill is desired behind the walls, then we will need to be given the wall dimensions and slope of the backfill in order to provide the appropriate design earth pressures. Retaining and foundation walls should be backfilled with compacted free -draining granular soils containing no organics. The wall backfill should contain no more than 5-percent silt or clay and no particles greater than four inches in diameter. The percentage of particles passing the No.. 4 sieve should be between 25 and 70 percent. The purpose of the backfill requirements is to assure that the design criteria for the retaining wall is not exceeded because of a build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. Where the backfill is to support walks or other slabs, we recommend that the backfill consist of clean sand and gravel as this soil would be easier to compact in the excavation prism than siltier soils. Also, these soils will provide drainage behind the wall. The top foot to eighteen inches of the backfill should consist of a relatively impermeable soil or topsoil, or the surface should be paved. SITE DRAINAGE We recommend the use of footing drains at the base of all footings and earth retaining walls. Roof and surface. water drains must be kept separate from the foundation drain system. The footing drains should be surrounded by at least six inches of one -inch -minus washed rock. The rock should be wrapped with non -woven geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or similar material). At the highest point, the perfor- ated pipe invert should be at least as low as the bottom of the footing and/or crawl space and.it should be sloped for drainage. A typical footing drain detail is attached to this report as Plate 7. The excavation and site should be graded so that surface water is directed off the site and away from the tops of slopes. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Seawood Homes Inc. December 13,.1989 JN 89418 Page 8 Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where buildings, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. During construction,loose surfaces should be sealed -at night by compacting the surface soils to reduce the infiltration of rain into the soils. The slopes should be covered with plastic. Final site grading in areas adjacent to buildings should be sloped at.least two percent away from the building, except where the area adjacent to the building is paved. Groundwater was observed during our field work at depths of five to twelve feet. Seepage into the planned excavation is possible, and if encountered, the water should be drained away from the site by use of drainage ditches, perforated pipe or French drains, or by pumping from sumps interconnected by shallow connector trenches at the bottom of the excavation. EXCAVATIONS AND SLOPES In no case should excavation slopes be steeper or greater than the limits specified in local, state, and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts to a depth of four feet in unsaturated soils may be attempted vertical. - For slopes having a height greater than four (4) feet, the' cut should have an inclination no steeper than 1.25:1 (horizontal: vertical) from the top of the slope to the bottom of the excavation. It should be noted that the sands and fill soils do cave suddenly and without warning. Utility contractors should be made especially aware of this. potential danger. All permanent cut slopes into the existing fill soils and looser fine-grained soils should be inclined no steeper than 2.5:1 M V). Structural fill slopes should not exceed 2:1 (H:V). Cut slopes in the dense, competent fine-grained soils should not exceed 1.5:1 (H:V). Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any slope. Also, all permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriatespecies of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve stability of the surficial layer of soil. SITE PREPARATION AND GENERAL EARTHWORK We recommend that the building and pavement areas be stripped and cleared of all surface vegetation, all organic matter and any other deleterious material. Stripped materials should be removed from the site or, if desired, stockpiled for later use in landscaping. The stripped materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill. Structural fill is defined as any fill placed under buildings, pavements, walkways, or other areas where the underlying soils need to support loads. Geotech Consultants, Inc. should observe site GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Seawood Homes Inc. JN 89418 December 13, 1989 Page 9 conditions prior to fill placement. The surficial site soils are moisture -sensitive and can become soft when wet and disturbed. We recommend that, if possible, the site preparation and earthwork be performed in the normally dry season of the year when earthwork would generally be less expensive and require less effort. Structural fill under floor slabs and foundations should be placed in horizontal lifts and compacted to a density equal to or greater than 95 percent of the maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1557-78 (Modified Proctor). The fill materials should be placed at or near the optimum moisture content. Fill under pavements and walks and behind retaining walls should also be placed in horizontal lifts and compacted to 90 percent of the 'maximum density except for the top twelve (12) inches which should be compacted to 95 percent of maximum density. 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. Ideally, structural fill which is to be placed in wet weather should consist of a granular soil having no more than 5 percent material passing the No. 200 sieve. The percentage of particles passing the 200 sieve should be measured on that portion of the soil passing the three-quarter inch sieve. LIMITATIONS The analyses, conclusions and recommendations contained in the report are based on site conditions as they existed at the time of our exploration and assume that the soils encountered in the test boring and test pits are representative of the subsurface conditions of the site. If, during construction, subsurface conditions are found which are significantly different from those observed in the boring and test pits, or assumed to exist in the excavations, we should be advised at once so that we can review these conditions and reconsider our recommendations where necessary. Unanticipated soil conditions are commonly encountered on construction sites and cannot be fully anticipated by merely taking soil samples in borings or test pits. Such unexpected conditions frequently require that additional expenditures be made to attain a properly constructed project. It is recommended that the owner consider providing a contingency fund to accommodate such potential extra costs and risks. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Seawood Homes Inc. JN 89418 December 13, 1989 Page 10 This report has been prepared for specific application to this project and for the exclusive use of Seawood Homes and their representatives. Our recommendations and conclusions are based on the site materials observed, selective laboratory testing and engineering analyses. The conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in accordance with current standards of practice within the scope of our services and within budget and time constraints. No warranty is expressed or implied. The scope of our services does not include services related to construction safety precautions and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. We recommend that this report, in its entirety, be included in the project contract documents for the information of the contractor. DDITIONAL SERVICES It is recommended that Geotech Consultants, Inc. provide a general review of the geotechnical aspects of 'the final design and specifications to verify that the earthwork and foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in the design and project specifications. It is also recommended that Geotech Consultants, Inc. be retained to provide geotechnical consultation, testing, and observation services during construction. This is to confirm that subsurface conditions are consistent with those indicated by our exploration, to evaluate whether earthwork and foundation construction activities comply with the intent of contract plans and specifications, and to provide recommendations for design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. However, our work will not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees or agents. Also, job and site safety, and dimensional measurements, will be the responsibility of the contractor. We recommend that a representative of our firm be present during placement of structural fill to observe the process and to conduct density tests in the fill. The following plates are attached and complete this report: Plate 1 Vicinity Map Plate 2 Soils Exploration Plan Plates 3 - 5 Test Pit Logs GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Seawood Homes Inc. December 13, 1989 Plate 6 Plate 7 Appendix 1 Attachments MKD/JRF:cvb G JN 89418 Page 11 Grain Size Analysis Footing Drain Detail Cascade Geotechnical Logs Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Mark K. Dodds, P.E. Senior Engineer joww /1D�. James R. Finley, Jr. P.E. Principal GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. o m 1141ST ; c3 I W h42No PL swa3'w N 0 11,43R0 ST3 h .a d I Q > I gl PUG RMA. 8� ACM,�tN st NORM r,&co SOUND t FISHERI <Iq - -1 ST ` P� I I ST S rI 150TH ' —..._- 152ND ST sw I d at -PLS 52ND STa e 3 a ^� I 3153R0 ST 3 ag x 152N PL a 3. 153bOPLSW CL xL 9 a 5/TH I �� 4 T SW 'I > Q 3 PICNIC POINT I RD QQ _ f i LAK� > $ a 11ST ST SW > Q 14 ND I Q 2 SERENE x 143RD3 3 1 3 ST x f3 119 Sw o Z ST SW i c v � I 1 3 I i > 44TH PL SW iX 144TH ST er s51 'a 3 sPL I (> y 7i sw = F t4aTH o> PL SW 3 1 i >$ �$MM`�� . a' Z Sw st 14 PI tiJy 3 $ ��y =3 6 (V !- H¢ 4y,�PS N v p o L Sw Z to I 146TH PI WH ST PL PW Q N m I 1SYN Sw nQ CD ST d 14JTH ^ PL Sw SW • - 3 W • 4UH 149TH NORMA I BEACH RD P< Sw PL sw sjft 149T L Sw > `SvT' - - - ;44U-sw- - - a - 1«=x3 W F J. OEADO 1 ZTH lYr. Zl ; .MEApQWOsILE... ::,:i 3 I SE'A 3 Sw K: •� �� i ISM I PARK «" 21157T P I IL d d LAEBUOTON 1 - 1 1 ' _ -t�t-�i = _sw - E - WHARF ; �q 1 11 H r PL SW I In J (p I 62NC . v w I tsl t,�t sw iD-� I I PL SW /Q �63RD ST�Isw I XONEl AD- 182ND > 183 D Pt � O ( w Z / I^TH SNAKE 6 s7 x sw R pTRr9/( —_ 314P 1 1 i Vo=11! 34 �l F PENNY LN PI 1`•191ST 1 CONSULTANTS o SULTANTS A -- - t7TTtl]d,76tH PL SW M/SN t 7ms- Q I I OTH 4Sw 0 1$ t iS3R I =l SW 3 1y ST , Z ut PLSW Sw 157TH ST 3 k <3 §_ SVj H STI = 10 K RDI 3 • i 167TH PL SW sw 1 • ♦•- I QTH PL SW I 99 I ' I: Z 6 3 1 — — — — — 1 — — — — — -.1► E LE R°�` A IL 161ST PL SVi 163 D PL SVy CE ORN�13 Sw , 1 --� LY a Sw FlST Sw 3 sw � -sw I 9' 172N PL SW 172ND nu °a '_ I tl `I PL Sw PL Sw if z I u Pi sw NPO t7 T T� �•' I 1 W a � a 176TH ST *z� P LYN � t y H sW, S 1 Q , �$ Q IL 179TH ST SV 1PL e SW P I- gani r TH P Sw 3 1 TH v P 0', 8DEPr1 PL SW PL SW 3 S W MAQ 3 PL qW < 182FVD > < S s' RD PL §W PL W 3 1 RD IMTH & 18 PL IWRP S'T Sw 1 TH PL :•; �:..:. > 184TH ST W Q J ST sw 3 , IMTH PL10 x 85I 3 I'L :: (:.'':;'::'..' 18(TH ST tW Z 188TH Q a e� H; F TH n sPv X — I T yrj3 e[ a' 3# > > fS < t H PL % IBBTH THS?L I a — n.,TT . T� ,. ST O 191 T T t;; I P'L S jev VICINITY MAP MEADOWDALE BEACH ROAD EDMONDS, WASHINGTON No.+ Dote: Pole. [.100b 89418 DEC 89 N.T.3. 1 p �n v v LEGEND TP-2 Cl N CTP-2 1 CTP-4. �� \ �I PROPOSED RESIDENCE l i TP-3 I II I i 1 I I CTP-1 I \ � I �TP-1 J I I � CTP-3 (00 CTB- I BORINGS LOGGED BY CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL fqCTP -1 TEST PITS LOGGED BY CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL QTP-I TEST PIT LOGGED BY GEOTECH CONSULTANTS 1 �O / CTB-1 1 1 0 k GEOTECH CONSULTANTS A P SOILS EXPLORATION PLAN MEADOWDALE BEACH ROAD EDMONDS, WASHINGTON ✓a0 Ne.+ 00/0, Stab+ Pb/t- 80418 DEC 80 1'=20 2 GEOTECH CONSULTANTS 13256 N.E. 20th St (Noithup Way), Suite 16 Bellevue, WA 98005 (206) 747-5618 (206) 343-7959 Seawood Homes Inc. 7500 - 212th SW, Suite 210 Edmonds, Washington 98020 Attention: Mr. A. Lee Atherton President Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Study Proposed Single -Family Residence Lots 3 & 4, Block 29 Meadowdale Beach Plat Edmonds, Washington Gentlemen: IfCRIVED, JAN 101990 PERM COUNTER. December 13, 1989 REMIREM We are pleased to present this geotechnical engineering report for the proposed single-family residence to be constructed on Lots 3 & 4 in Block 29 of the Meadowdale. Beach Plat in Edmonds, Washington. The purpose of our work was to review previous work completed by others, conduct further explora- tions as necessary, and provide earthwork and foundation design criteria... - The subsurface conditions of the proposed building site were explored with a total of seven test pits and one test borings. We observed the excavation of three of the test pits. In general, the subsurface conditions consist of loose variabYe fill soils and fractured fine-grained soils -overlying competent fine-grained silts and clays. The home can utilize a rigid structural grid foundation bearing on the competent silty -clayey soils under the surficial looser and fractured materials. Alternatively, a deep foundation consisting of drilled augercast piers can provide support to the home. The attached report contains the results of our study and recommendations. If there are any questions, or if we can be of further service, please contact us. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Mark K. Dodds, P.E. Senior Engineer .n I a .' I„ t t ywlt.D February 20, 1990 FEB City of Edmonds Building Division 250 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Attention: Ms. Jeannine L. Graf Permit Coordinator RE: 'GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 15812 75TH PLACE WEST MEADO WDALE AREA, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON FOR SEAWOOD HOMES, INC. In accordance with your request, we have completed a preliminary review of submitted documents for the above -noted project. Our review is directed at geotechnical considerations and follows requirements outlined within the Meadowdale Site Evaluation Checklist. A listing of the documents which we reviewed is enclosed as Attachment 1. The site, which is located between 75th Place West and the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks, south of 158th Avenue West, lies within the Meadowdale landslide area. Furthermore, the site is within an area mapped by Dames and Moore (1968) as having moved during the winter of 1955/1956._ Excerpts from the text and a portion of a geologic map from this report are attached (Attachment 2). Our review of documents and several follow-up telephone calls indicate that each of the design professionals involved in the project to date has been requested to perform a specific task, but that a licensed architect or structural engineer has not been designated to fill the role of the "lead design professional." As a result, there are inconsistencies and/or omissions within the submitted documents. For example, several recommendations within the December 1989 Geotech Consultants report have not been incorporated within the building plans. Specific questions and comments concerning our preliminary review were provided to Mr. Lee Atherton (Seawood Homes) the afternoon of February 15, 1990. In summary, we recommend that the plans and other submitted documents be returned to the applicant. Once a lead design professional has been identified and has coordinated activities among the various design professionals (including acquiring the required Declarations), a resubmittal may be appropriate. Our office should be contacted at that time to perform a final review. We strongly recommend that the design professionals involved in this project reassess slope and drainage related issues. The 1955/1956 slope failure, fractioned and slickensided near -surface soil, a bulge in the retaining wall along the railroad tracks, and probable near - surface year-round ground water all suggest that this site has a high probability of future movement, particularly under seismic conditions. It should be noted that the reclassification of various slide blocks within the Meadowdale landslide area subsequent to the city -installed drainage improvements was based on an 'overall lowering of the ground water surface. If ground water is still at or very near the surface at the subject site it is probable that the risk of movement is still as high as it was prior to the City's improvement project. Since the actual ground water surface at the site, and the seasonal range, have not been well documented, it is not possible to accurately assess these slope issues. Please.call if you have questions concerning this review. Very truly yours, LANDAU -ASSOCIATES, INC. By: William D. Evans, CPG Senior Engineering Geologist WDE/jl 3 copies submitted Attachments ATTACHME=ANT 1 LIST OF REVIEWED U DOCUMENTS • Meadowdale Site Evaluation Checkli.iist • Drainage Calculations, by Craig Campbell (Lovell-Sauerland and Associates, Inc.), dated 10/6/89 • Environmental Checklist Applicant: Lee Atherton, Seawoocod Homes Prepared by: Anthony Roth, Love ill-Sauerland and Associates, Inc. • "Preliminary Soil Investigation Repo-ort by Cascade Geotechnical, dated 5/9/89, signed by George E. Lamb_o, PE (Principal engineer) and John Sadler, (Eng. Geologist) Addendum to Preliminary Soil Repoort, by Cascade Geotechnical, dated 8/16/89, signed by George E. Lamb and John Sadler- "Geotechnical Engineering Study", by Geotech Consultants, dated 12/13/89, signed by Mark Dodds, = PE (Senior engineer) and James R. Finley, Jr., PE (Principal) • Grading and Storm Drainage Plan, ]=by Lovell-Sauerland and Associates, Inc., dated 9/27/89 • Topographic survey, by Lovell-Sau-uerland and. Associates, Inc. dated 8/8/89 • Vicinity map, no author or date • Plot Plan, undated, stamped by Cor-rnelius D. VandenEnde. Sheets 1-9, Building Plans, by Rodney D. Johnso on, Designer, stamped by Cornelius D. VandenEnde (structure check), darted 9/6/89, revised 9/24/89. -7- ATTACHMENT 2 and roads in the, area.. It is our understanding that the affected. area was approximately 800 feet in a north-south,direc.tion and extended from above the railroad tracks to a point immediately east of 75th Place West. An examination of the existing roadway indicates that a small amount of movement has taken place since 1947. A Washington State Department of Highways geologist, Mr. Arthur Ritchie, studied the area after this period of move- ment,and recommended the construction of a perimeter ditch in ,the undisturbed clay layer.immediately below the clay -sand, contact, This ditch was to serve as an interceptor and to prevent the water emerging near the bottom of the sand formation from saturating the 'finer grained soils downhill. It is.our understanding that a problem developed in obtaining. the required easements, and the project was abandoned in its.early stage with.only a few hundred feet of ditch completed. It'appears since that time that little or no maintenance of the ditch has been accomplished. We understand the. area' immediately east of the 1947 movement and extending to the base of the escarpment was regraded at one time with the intent of developing a.mobile park but because of zoning restrictions was not developed. The eastern portion of this area is now very poorly drained with ponded water. In late 1955 and early 1956, movement occurred north in the inter= section of North Meadowdale Road.and 75th Place West. The movement damaged many of the homes in the area and resulted in the destruction .of at least two homes. We understand this movement occurred after.several days of heavy rains combined with a 10-inch snowfall. As in the case following the slide in 1947,, another program to install the interceptor ditch north of the North. Meadowdale Road was initiated. It is our understanding that easements were GAMES C MOORE me obtained; but construction difficulties halted the work in its early stage with, again, only a small portion of the work completed. It is our understanding that since the movements in 1955-1956, only minor movements have occurred in the area and that most of these problems involved relatively minor sloughing of the steep escarpment. The ancient movements which have occurred in the area appear to be currently stable. These very large-scale massive landslides were far greater in extent than the more recent movements and have probably been inactive for a long period of time. The Great Northern Railroad Company has placed a protecting riprap wall along the Puget Sound side of their trackage and have thus eliminated damaging erosion by wave action. This. has -added to the general stability of the area, and the now -stable shoreline probably decreases substantially the risk of reactivation of the major older landslides. The recent more serious slides appear to have occurred almost entirely within. the formation of silt and clay. It is probable that at least a portion of these soils had been disturbed by earlier movements. CONCLUSIONS GENERAL It is our opinion that it, is not only feasible to install sanitary sewers in the area, but that such an installation -would be .of benefit. Groundwater has been a major factor in the instability of the area; reduction of the volume of water to the area will decrease risks of future damaging earth movements. It should be recognized, however, that at least in certain areas, the maintenance cost- of the system would probably be high; unless substantial other work to, improve stability is accomplished, the area will remain, subject to occasional small- landslides and reactivation of older move- ments. Sanitary sewers would reduce the water available to the clay soils; GAMES C MOORE LEGEND GEOLOGIC MAP FEET 100 0 100 200 500 400 $00 IREA OF WENT 1 ■ ANCIENT SLIDE SCARP APPROXIMATE AREAS OF 1955-1956 MOVEMENT Li ,= -T V Qvf GLACIAL TILL: PRLUOMINANTLY LIGHT GRAY MIXTURE OF SILTY SAND AND GF♦VLL/ VERY COMPACT EXCEPT WEATHERED SURFACE LAYER OF IMREE TO FIVE FEET. VERY LOW PERMEABILITY. QO IOUTWASM DEPOSITS: PREDOMIN►N TLY BROWN S4,0 AND GRAVELLY SAND. COMPACT ANC HIGH PERMEABILITY. Oo GLAC IAt CLAY: FINELY LAMI NA 7ED TO MASSIVE GRAY AND BLUE -GRAY SILT AI:D CLAY, ES, (ALLY IMPERMEABLE. KEY' CONTACTS BETWEEN GEOLOGIC UNITS. COI:TAC7S EE7WEEI. GEOLOGIC UNITS, LOCATION,`, APPRCTIMATE. NCIENT FAULT ZONE (INFERRED) J 74 `'11 .•—t e� ,I •/ , �: bli hQ ' fS! I!7 /` / • % _nr .•-'/!'������%�- -Ir J u I '\`� �/i � i' Y ,L,t• ``a � ! ,%' /�i" ,- 1 ,.� �i \,��b -�/ ems.-`�.� ii r :(Tut I/ / r// ��``�� ''\ ' �'t � n- _ i 111 / /. � v! ir/�-��I ;� :Y�' �' �' f � � �1 I I ,y�� � I - �/ i l/ r'• l ' '•:\', , �) _/ i / , �, 1' .\\ \� � II J/ I ��' , j i � �rl r I�,,i �' :i. II IIII �iii : 14 , /i /� /V ' I� I .'ir t illj r I I f il., f f � ��:�//�': �; ,\ ._`\ ✓XXXXX� V�I (� ' v jI .\�' �� , -;} d� I 1 IIIII{�' If{u o I',!IIA'r�.' �`'./ r_ � ��� � 'i', n r`.I � �� � �/ ^•` �� � I � t ' x'i�o I IwJsy��,+i) f . )J� `--+r— ��� �-r^'• .J•' ;tji Lip �' ii tt z� IV ✓� "��� � WW1 r � �� � _ J; / ;/,,,,'; �,/,1:..'' ;;7'i.�/�l it '� �I '`' /•, — 1 \ ( %'(, ! III' �. .y. ,� •./ 9 "� �, %%! rr ('•� III. i ) �L - �% �. �°" /%/ / / / OAMS� d MOOIRt r iLDNIG O 3990 3 May 29, 1990 City of Edmonds Building Division 250 5th Ave. North Edmonds, WA 98020 Attn: Ms. Jeannine L. Graf Permit Coordinator SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 15812 75TH PLACE WEST MEADOWDALE AREA, EDMONDS, WA FOR SEAWOOD HOMES, INC. Our February 20,1990 letter addressed a preliminary review of documents for the above noted project, and recommended a resubmittal in order to address general and specific geotechnical concerns. We have since completed a review of resubmitted documents. A listing of the reviewed documents comprises Attachment A. The documents we reviewed are in general compliance with requirements of Edmonds City Ordinance No. 2661. There are, however, several items which need further clarification; these are summarized below. • Site topography and finish floor elevations for the proposed residence are based on a City of Edmonds MLLW datum (Lovell-Sauerland topographic map, August 8,1989). The text of the December 13,1989 Geotech Consultants geotechnical engineering study, however, refers to elevations based on a datum of mean sea level (MSL). The difference between these two datum planes is approximately 6.5 feet.Since elevations shown on the Geotech Consultants' Plate 2, and surface elevations noted. on their test pit logs are referenced to the MLLW datum, we have assumed that their text is in error and that all elevations for the project refer to the MLLW datum. The City should verify that this assumption is correct; if so, no further action on this subject is required. However, if our assumption is incorrect, reevaluation of site grades will be required. • If our assumption concerning the two datum planes is correct, between 3 and 7 feet of compacted structural backfill will be required under the homes' footings. Also, the complexity of the foundation will probably require a single, uniform excavation to the specified bearing surface (elevation 40-44 MLLW rather than overexcavation along individual foundation lines. At 3 feet of overexcavation, at least 450 yd3 of backfill will be required; at 7 feet, backfill volumes will be in excess of 1,000 yd3. Backfill for the garage, driveway, and rockeries is not included in these rough estimates. If our assumptions regarding this project are correct, the cut and fill volumes shown on the Lovell-Sauerland Grading Plan (920 yd3 cut, 340 yd3 fill) are substantially underestimated and should be revised to reflect actual conditions. • The drawings do not reflect the need for compacted backfill under footings and, in fact, unless the contractor reads the Geotech Consultants report (and a Geotech Consultants field engineer is on site at the time of construction), it is probable that a contractor would interpret the drawings to allow placement of all footings at a depth of 2-1/2 to 3-1/2 feet below floor grades, with no overexcavation or backfilhng. In our opinion, clarification regarding this subject should be provided on the drawings. • The south end of the 30-inch detention pipe will have an invert elevation of approximately 40.5. Existing surface grade is about 43; hence, the pipe will have about 6 inches of cover. If more cover is desired, Lovell-Sauerland should be requested to revise invert elevations (rather than adding fill). • Per Ordinance No. 2661, a note should be added to the drawings concerning maintenance of the detention system after completion and occupancy of the residence. • The west end of the Lovell-Sauerland Grading Plan (September 27, 1989) shows what appears to be a relocated 40-foot elevation contour. This apparent contour would result in an approximate 8-foot thick fill, which is contrary to Geotech Consultants' recommendations concerning filling atop existing fill or "looser silts and clays." If this is a revised contour, a letter from Geotech Consultants regarding this proposed fill should be required; if it is not, the feature should be identified on the drawing. • The Grading and Storm Drainage Plan (Lovell-Sauerland, September 27,1989), general note no. 7, states that a continuous perimeter drain shall be installed and shall be "tightlined to the drainage system." The plan, however, shows this drain discharging to the surface at the Burlington Northern Railroad right- of-way. The plan should be modified to reflect the written requirement. • Footing details on Sheets 5 and 9 show the perimeter drain located atop footings. It is recommended that this drain be placed at or slightly below footing subgraded elevation, as noted in Geotech Consultants' March 26,1990 letter. • As per the Meadowdale ordinance, the use of natural vegetation instead of irrigated lawns and/or gardens should be encouraged to minimize the amount of water that is discharged to the site's surface. • The documents. that we reviewed did not identify a lead design professional. We have assumed that Structural Design Associates, Inc. has taken this lead role. If our assumption is incorrect, a declaration from the lead design professional will be required. LAN'I.WJ AS SOCIAVES, INC. • An owner's declaration has not been included for our review. This is an administrative detail that can be obtained by the City. 0 It should be noted that the March 26, 1990 letter from Geotech Consultants recommends changes to the footing drain details, which are not reflected 'on the revised drawings that we reviewed. Please call if you have questions concerning the above comments, or if you require additional review services for this project. WDE/sah Job No. 74-07.10 cc: 3 copies EDM0NDS\SEAW0525.t 7 Very truly yours, LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. By: William D. Evans, CPG Project Manager 3 LANDAU ASSOC'IATFS. IN('. ATTACHMENT A LIST OF REVIEWED DOCUMENTS—RESUBMITTAL • Project Plans, Sheets 1 through 9. Sheets 5,.6, 7, and 9 were revised on March 12, 1990; the other drawings are as previously submitted. • Plot Plan, unrevised and undated, signed and stamped by the structural engineer, Cornelius D. Vanden Ende. • Lovell-Sauerland and Associates, Inc. Grading and Storm Drainage Plan (revised), Sheet 1 of 2. March 26, 1990. • Lovell-Sauerland and Associates, Inc.. Rockery Detail, Sheet 2 of 2. March 26, 1990. • Lovell-Sauerland and Associates, Inc. Topographic Survey. April 11, 1990. • Geotech Consultants. Geotechnical Review, March 21, 1990. • Geotech Consultants. Geotechnical.Review and Declaration, March 26, 1990. • Structural Desing Associates. Letter regarding Lovell-Sauerland Grading Plan, March 14, 1990. • Structural Design Associates. Letter of declaration, April 2, 1990. • Seawood Homes, Inc. Letter regarding resubmitted documents, April 12,1990. _J. LANDAU A] ASSOCiArES, INC. Geoenvironmental Engineering and Technologies City of Edmonds 250 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Attention: Mr. Dick Mumma RE: SLOPE FAILURE 15812 75th PLACE WEST EDMONDS, WASHINGTON INTRODUCTION AU G � � 1990 August 7, 1990 On the morning of August 2, 1990, Landau Associates was notified of a reported slope failure at the above noted address. Later that morning, the writer visited the site and made a brief visual reconnaissance of onsite conditions and neighboring properties. The reconnaissance was followed by a call to the City (Mr. Mumma) which summarized our preliminary conclusions and recommendations. This letter serves to document the information provided during that telephone communication. SITE CONDITIONS At the time of our reconnaissance the site had been stripped of vegetation and significant site work had been accomplished. The main excavation was nearing completion and two smaller benches had been cut near the northeast corner of the site. One of these benches contained a partially completed rockery. Ground cracking at the site was observed along the north property boundary. Significant additional ground cracking was also observed on the neighboring property to the north, from near the excavation limit (on the subject site) to within 2 feet of the neighbor's garage, which is a horizontal distance of almost 80 feet. Ground cracks were less than 2 inches wide and showed little vertical offset, however, vertical separation where the neighbor's asphalt driveway meets the concrete garage floor suggests a vertical component to the landsliding. The ground cracking occurred in a generally northeasterly direction from the main excavation limits. Minor ground water seepage was observed at several locations within the excavation. A drain had reportedly been installed at the base of the main excavation to help control seepage. A portion of the onsite storm sewer system for the neighboring property, to the north appears to be involved in the current movement. The system presently contains flowing water, suggesting that.it is tied to drains which intercept springs, possibly draining water on a year- round basis. VU, 13OX IW9 tiDMONDS, MASHING ION 98020-1029 - 1200.078,09 -7 - FAX (206)77t -b409 FINDINGS Weather conditions during construction, which reportedly began on July 16, 1990, have been excellent. Daytime temperatures have been warm, and rainfall nonexistent or insignificant. The observed ground cracking (which is a definitive sign of downslope soil movement) occurs along the north margin of the subject site and up to 55 feet into the neighboring property to the north. At the time of our reconnaissance, ground cracking was not observed within 75th Place West, the property to the south, or along the Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way. The December 13,1989 report prepared by Geotech Consultants states that construction is feasible and provides detailed conclusions and recommendations regardinggeotechnical issues. A March 21, 1990 letter by Geotech Consultants further states that the conclusions and recommendations which they provided were developed to not increase the risk of instability to either the subject site or to neighboring properties. Since movement has occurred, a reassessment of slope issues and project feasibility is needed. Excavation work at the subject site appears to have initiated the ground movement. The area involved and past history of the area indicate that the movement which has occurred is potentially serious. Based on the proximity of ground cracking to the neighbor's home, and apparent settlement at the driveway/garage slab transition, the City should assume that the residence to the north is threatened. RECOMMENDATIONS In order to abate the immediate threat posed by the observed hillside movement, we recommend that the City require the following steps: 1) Install the proposed soldier pile wall and/or backfill the existing excavation and regrade the lot. If the pile alternative is selected, the design engineers should assume that the landslide failure plane extends to or below the base of the main excavation. Since site grades are presently unknown, pile lengths and other parameters should be calculated after an elevation survey has been performed. 2) Perform daily monitoring of the properties and residences to the north and south of the subject site, the bulkhead along the railroad right-of-way, and within the right-of-way limits for 75th Place West. A monitoring plan showing the various survey stations should be provided to the City for review and comment. Monitoring results should be provided to the City on a daily basis. If monitoring indicates that the piles are ineffective, the City should require that the excavation be immediately backfilled and the lot regraded. 2 LANDAU ASSOCIATES. INC. 3) Remove any recently placed fill on the site that: a) is not needed for the emergency abatement work, or b) was not recommended in the geotechnical report or shown on the design drawings. 4) Require that a report be submitted, as soon as possible, which covers the following: • The dates that site preparation and excavation work began • Excavation details, such as present site grades, the amount of overexcavation, drainage configuration, backfill materials, etc. • The date that movement was first noted • A summary of the interim construction measures undertaken to stabilize the slopes • Monitoring results, including the location of the reference benchmark. After the immediate threat has been abated, the involved design professionals should reevaluate the overall feasibility of the project. This evaluation should be followed by a supplemental submittal to the City which includes the following: 1) An analysis of what caused the movement, the approximate depth of the slide plane(s), and the lateral extent of movement 2) A reassessment of slope stability in terms of percent risk during any future construction, and anticipated long-term stability for the subject site and neighboring properties . 3) A plan to repair damage on adjoining property 4) Plans for a pressure test (and repair, if necessary) of the storm sewer system on the property to the north. Once the above requirements have been met, the City will be in a position to determine if construction can or should resume. Landau Associates would be pleased to assist you in making this determination. Please call if you have questions. WDE/jlg No. 74-07.10 EDMONMEXCAM.LEr Very truly yours, LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. By: W,16 &0,� William D. Evans, CPG Senior Geologist 3 LANDAU ASSOCINI S, INC'. 'LANDAU ASSOCIXIES, INC. Geoenvironrnental Engineering and Technologies B U, I L D I tJ G August 7, 1990 City of Edmonds AUG 7 -1990 250 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Attention: Mr. Dick Mumma RE: SLOPE FAILURE 15812 75th PLACE WEST EDMONDS, WASHINGTON INTRODUCTION On the morning of August 2, 1990, Landau Associates was notified of a reported slope failure at the above noted address. Later that morning, the writer visited the site and made a brief visual reconnaissance of onsite conditions and neighboring properties. The reconnaissance was followed by a call to the City (Mr. Mumma) which summarized our preliminary conclusions and recommendations. This letter serves to document the information provided during that telephone communication. SITE CONDITIONS At the time of our reconnaissance the site had been stripped of vegetation and significant site work had been accomplished. The main excavation was nearing completion and two smaller benches had been cut near the northeast corner of the site. One of these benches contained a partially completed rockery. Ground cracking at the site was observed along the north property boundary. Significant additional ground cracking was also observed on the neighboring property to the north, from near the excavation limit (on the subject site) to within 2 feet of the neighbor's garage, which is a horizontal distance of almost 80 feet. Ground cracks were less than 2 inches wide and showed little vertical offset; however, vertical separation where the neighbor's asphalt driveway meets the concrete garage floor suggests a vertical component to the landsliding. The ground cracking occurred in a generally northeasterly direction from the main excavation limits. Minor ground water seepage was observed at several locations within the excavation. A drain had reportedly been installed at the base of the main excavation to help control seepage. A portion of the onsite storm sewer system for the neighboring property to the north appears to be involved in the current movement. The system presently contains flowing water, suggesting that it is tied to drains which intercept springs, possibly draining water on a year- round basis. PO. BOX 1029 • VDMONDS, WAS1I NUR)N 98p20.1O29 , (206)778-0907 - 1*AX (206)778-6409 FINDINGS Weather conditions during construction, which reportedly began on July 16, 1990, have been excellent. Daytime temperatures have been warm, and rainfall nonexistent or insignificant. The observed ground cracking (which is a definitive sign of downslope soil movement) occurs along the north margin of the subject site and up to 55 feet into the neighboring property to the north. At the time of our reconnaissance, ground cracking was not observed within 75th Place West, the property to the south, or along the Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way. The December 13, 1989 report prepared by Geotech Consultants states that construction is feasible and provides detailed conclusions and recommendations regarding geotechnical issues. A March 21, 1990 letter by Geotech Consultants further states that the conclusions and recommendations which they provided were developed to not increase the risk of instability to either the subject site or to neighboring properties. Since movement has occurred, a reassessment of slope issues and project feasibility is needed. Excavation work at the subject site appears to have initiated the ground movement. The area involved and past history of the area indicate that the movement which has occurred is potentially serious. Based on the proximity of ground cracking to the neighbor's home, and apparent settlement at the driveway/garage slab transition, the City should assume. that the residence to the north is threatened. RECOMMENDATIONS In order to abate the immediate threat posed by the observed hillside movement, we recommend that the City require the following steps: 1) Install the proposed soldier pile wall and/or backfill the existing excavation and regrade the lot. If the pile alternative is selected, the design engineers should assume that the landslide failure plane extends to or below the base of the main excavation. Since site grades are presently unknown, pile lengths and other parameters should be calculated after an elevation survey has been performed. 2) Perform daily monitoring of the properties and residences to the north and south of the subject site, the bulkhead along the railroad right-of-way, and within the right-of-way limits for 75th Place West. A monitoring plan showing the various survey stations should be provided to the City for review and comment. Monitoring results should be provided to the City on a' daily basis. If monitoring indicates that the piles are ineffective, the City should require that the excavation be immediately backfilled and the lot regraded. 3) Remove any recently placed fill on the site that: a) is not needed for the emergency abatement work, or b) was not recommended in the geotechnical report or shown on the design drawings. 4) Require that a report be submitted, as soon as possible, which covers the following: • The dates that site preparation and excavation work began • Excavation details, such as present site grades, the amount of overexcavation, drainage configuration, backfill materials, etc. • The date that movement was first noted • A summary of the interim construction measures undertaken to stabilize the slopes • Monitoring results, including the location of the reference benchmark. After the immediate threat has been abated, the involved design professionals should reevaluate the overall feasibility of the project. This evaluation should be followed by a supplemental submittal to the City which includes the following: 1) An analysis of what caused the movement, the approximate depth of the slide plane(s), and the lateral extent of movement 2) A reassessment of slope stability in terms of percent risk during any future construction, and anticipated long-term stability for the subject site and neighboring properties 3) A plan to repair damage on adjoining property 4) Plans for a pressure test (and repair, if necessary) of the storm sewer system on the property to the north. Once the above requirements have been met, the City will be in a position to determine if construction can or should resume. Landau Associates would be pleased to assist you in making this determination. Please call if you have questions. WDE/jlg No. 74-07.10 EDMONM XCA080 IM Very truly yours, LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. By: William D. Evans, CPG Senior Geologist 3 LANDAU ASSOCIATES. INC. LANDAU ASSOCIXrES, INC. Geoenvironnental Engineering and Technologies V G 7 _ 1990 City of Edmonds 250 5thAvenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Attention: Mr. Dick Mumma RE: SLOPE FAILURE 15812 75th PLACE WEST EDMONDS, WASHINGTON INTRODUCTION August 7, 1990 On the morning of August 2, 1990, Landau Associates was notified of a reported slope failure at the above noted address. Later that morning, the writer visited the site and made a brief visual reconnaissance of onsite conditions and neighboring properties. The reconnaissance was followed by a call to the City (Mr. Mumma) which summarized our preliminary conclusions and recommendations. This letter serves to document the information provided during that telephone communication. f SITE CONDITIONS At the time of our reconnaissance the site had been stripped of vegetation and significant site work had been accomplished. The main excavation was nearing completion and two smaller benches had been cut near the northeast corner of the site. One of these benches contained a partially completed rockery. Ground cracking at the site was observed along the north property boundary. Significant additional ground cracking was also observed on the neighboring property to the north, from near the excavation limit (on the subject site) to within 2 feet of the neighbor's garage, which is a horizontal distance of almost 80 feet. Ground cracks were less than 2 inches wide and showed little vertical offset, however, vertical separation where the neighbor's asphalt driveway meets the concrete garage floor suggests a vertical component to the landsliding. The ground cracking occurred in a generally northeasterly direction from the main excavation limits. Minor ground water seepage was observed at several locations within the excavation. A drain had reportedly been installed at the base of the main excavation to help control seepage. A portion of the onsite storm sewer system for the neighboring property to the north appears to be involved in the current movement. The system presently contains. flowing water, suggesting that it is tied to drains which intercept springs, possibly draining water on a year- round basis. F.U. 13OX 1029 - EDMONDS. VrASHINGTON 98020-1029 - (206)77X-0907 • FAX 1206)77,4-64()9 FINDINGS Weather conditions during construction, which reportedly began on July 16, 1990, have been excellent. Daytime temperatures have been warm, and rainfall nonexistent or insignificant. The observed ground cracking (which is a definitive sign of downslope soil movement) occurs along the north margin of the subject site and up to 55 feet into the neighboring property to the north. At the time of our reconnaissance, ground cracking was not observed within 75th Place West, the,property to the south, or along the Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way. The December 13, 1989 report prepared by Geotech Consultants states that construction is feasible and provides detailed conclusions and recommendations regarding geotechnical issues. A March 21, 1990 letter by Geotech Consultants further states that the conclusions and recommendations which they provided were developed to not increase, the risk of instability to either the subject site or to neighboring properties. Since movement has occurred, .a reassessment of slope issues and project feasibility is needed. Excavation work at the subject site appears to have initiated the ground movement. The area involved and past history of the area indicate that the movement which has occurred is potentially serious. Based on the proximity of ground cracking to the neighbor's home, and apparent settlement at the driveway/garage slab transition, the City should assume that the residence to the north is threatened., RECOMMENDATIONS In order to abate the immediate threat posed by the observed hillside movement, we recommend that the City require the following steps: 1) Install the proposed soldier pile wall and/or backfill the existing excavation and regrade the lot. If the pile alternative is selected, the design engineers should assume that the landslide failure plane extends to or below the base of the main excavation. Since site grades are presently unknown, pile lengths and other parameters should be calculated after an elevation survey has been performed. 2) Perform daily monitoring of the properties and residences to the north and south of the subject site, the bulkhead along the railroad right-of-way, and within the right-of-way limits for 75th Place West. A monitoring plan showing the various survey stations should be provided to the City for review and comment. Monitoring results should be provided to the City on a' daily basis. If � monitoring indicates that the piles are ineffective, the City should require that the excavation be immediately backfilled and the lot regraded. 3) Remove any recently placed fill on the site that: a) is not needed for the emergency abatement work, or b) was not recommended in the geotechnical report or shown on the design drawings. 4) Require that a report be submitted, as soon as possible, which covers the following: • The dates that site preparation and excavation work began • Excavation details, such as present site grades, the amount of overexcavation, drainage configuration, backfill materials, etc. • The date that movement was first noted • A summary of the interim construction measures undertaken to stabilize the slopes • Monitoring results, including the location of the reference benchmark. After the immediate threat has been abated, the involved design professionals should reevaluate the overall feasibility of the project. This evaluation should be followed by a supplemental submittal to the City which includes the following: 1) An analysis of what caused the movement, the approximate depth of the slide plane(s), and the lateral extent of movement 2) A reassessment of slope stability in terms of percent risk during any future construction, and anticipated long-term stability for the subject site and neighboring properties 3) A plan to repair damage on adjoining property 4) Plans for a pressure test (and repair, if necessary) of the storm sewer system on the property to the north. Once the above requirements have been met, the City will be in a position to determine if construction can or should -resume. Landau Associates would be pleased to.assist you in making this determination. Please call if you have questions. WDE /jlg No. 74-07.10 EDMONDSMCA0806IM Very truly yours, LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. By: William D. Evans, CPG Senior Geologist 3 IANDAIJ ASSOCIATES, INC. J AUG— 9— 9@ T H U 1 3:@ 3 G E O T E C H CONSULTANTS P. 0 1 w• GEO 1 ECH 1325 N. 6 E. 20th St. (horthup Way), Suite 16 CONSULTANTS Bellevue, WA 98005 (206) 747-W a (206) 343.7959 DATE: _ f�V >USr 9 + _.1 `t9o_ A-Vf, IV JOB NO.:_ gmiile `CDr+! a)MM S ., WA 'i9Dz.o PROJECT: _— 15Pgr iMIZ - -7ST" P1_W ATTENTION:_ 12ICµAV-1> MUM M A EDMONC�S WE ARE SENDING YOU: ❑ Attached C] Via FAX TO -778" S922Tran6mlttinp S —Poges Including This Page ❑ Fkdd R-iPorts ❑ Preliminary Drafts ❑ ❑ Reports ❑ Test Results Copies- — Date Description THESE ARE TRANSMITTED FOR YOUR: ❑ information ❑ Signature ❑ Files ❑ Distribution I7 Approval _ ❑ _---------- -- -- rj Review and Comments ❑ -- _— _ — — REMARKS:—•i�.1.�1%1M� TIOIV ��r'-`�-- -- Signed: 13256 N.E. 20th St. (Northup Way), Suite 16 Bellevue, WA 98005 (206) 747-5618 AUG,13 1990 (206) 343-7959 August 9, 1990, JN 89418 Seawood Homes, Inc. 7500 - 212th SW, Suite 210 Edmonds, Washington 98020 Attention: Mr. A. Lee Atherton Subject: Weekly Project Summary Proposed Single -.Family Residence 15812 - 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington Gentlemen: Enclosed are the daily field reports for the week of July 29 through August 4, 1990. During this week, earth movement was noted on the adjacent "property, and this letter will.document the chronology as we understand it. Minor cracking on.the lot to the north of the excavation was first noted bya grading contractor on .Friday evening, July 27 after excavation work with the trackhoe. Evidently the cracks opened somewhat on Saturday, July 28. We were called by Seawood Homes late in the morning on Sunday, July 29, after a crack was noted in the asphalt driveway of the adjacent home. We immediately recommended backfilling against the northern and eastern excavation walls as necessary to shore up the excavation. Mark K. Dodds, P.E., a senior engineer from our firm, immediately went to the site to observe site conditions. He gave general directions on the backfilling of the excavation walls. Mr. Dodds then contacted the writer of this letter to discuss the site conditions. We then both visited the site, and looked at the cracks and excavation walls to determine what measures.were necessary to stabilize the condition. Our observations and preliminary recommendations are presented in the hand-written notes dated July 29, 1990. Seawood Homes, Inc. JN 89418 August 9, 1990' Page 2 upon our return to the office and a review of our files, it was decided to use closely -spaced augercast piles as shoring. The design data was presented to Structural Design Associates as follows: Active. Earth Pressure 60 pounds per cubic foot Passive Earth Pressure - 300 pounds per cubic foot. Point of Fixity 14 feet below existing surface Design Surcharge - 2 feet Structural Design Associates determined on Monday, July 30 that 18-inch-diameter piers placed 40 inches center -to -center and reinforced their entire length with W 12x50 steel beams would be adequate to support the pressures. In addition, a survey grid was established on Monday morning, and initial readings were taken. At our site visit on Monday, we asked the adjacent property homeowner not to water his yard or shrubbery until the shoring was in, and that the crack in the asphalt be repaired before the next rain. We met with Ed-Doern of American Construction Company (an augercast pier contractor) on Tuesday, July 31 to discuss where the piers would be drilled. We indicated to Mr. Doern that piers would be required along the north property line possibly up to the garage, where the wall woul-d make a bend and go between the proposed garage and the lower rockery: We also indicated that a lower wall may be required between the garage and the lower excavation. At this meeting, which was attended by Seawood Homes, we indicated how we wanted the soil cracks repaired. We understand that the augercast rig arrived on the site late Wednesday afternoon, August 1. The rig broke down August 1, was repaired August 2, and was moved into position August 3. Steel beams were delivered August 3, and setup was completed for drilling to begin on August 6. Drilling began on August 6 with seven piers being installed. Installation continues through the date of this letter, and should be finished this morning. It has been our contention from the start that the soil failures which we observed were relatively shallow (five to eight feet deep) and wedge-shaped in nature. Also, in contrast with observations by Mr. Evans' of Landau & Associates (the city's consultant) it has never appeared that the existing home or the street were in danger. We learned late.last week it is highly probable that the neighbor placed GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Seawood Homes, Inc. August 9, 1990 JN 89418 Page 3 uncontrolled fill in his yard to assist with his landscaping and rockery plans. More than likely, the cracks and movement which we have observed are the result of settling and densification of the loose fill due to construction vibration and activities. The observations of our senior engineering geologist during the installation of the shoring piers has generally confirmed our initial opinions. Anywhere from 8 to 12 feet of loose, surficial, wet material was encountered in the boreholes. Below this depth the subsurface became generally drier and more competent, consisting of hard clayey silts. The following are our specific responses to the items in the City of Edmonds letter to you dated August 2, 1990: 1. Agreed. 2. There has never been any evidence that the City's right-of-way or the property to the' south has been impacted in any way. The impacts to the property to the north are limited to that area where uncontrolled fill was placed. 1. Mr. Evans's concerns were evaluated in the original design'. 2. This office has seen no vast departure from the original plans and so cannot comment on Mr. Evans's observation. u.. 11• .� 1. Done. 2. We understand this has been accomplished. 3. We do not understand this comment - the northwest corner of the property is downslope of the proposed home. There is no vast stockpiling of fill occurring on the site. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Seawood Homes, Inc. August 9, 1990 JN 89418 Page 4 4. This letter is a written history of the conditions observed by this office. Elevations will have to be secured from the surveyors. 5a. The cause of the problem is the movement downslope of loose, uncontrolled, very wet fill on the property to the north due to construction vibration and activities. 5b. The depth of movement is somewhere between 5 to 12 feet deep. 5c. The movement is limited to those areas where .uncontrolled fill was placed by the adjacent property owner. 6. Our recommendations are summarized in this letter. Basically, the design assumes the top 14 f-eet of material is moving, and adds a two -foot surcharge for safety. 7. For a short-term period, the piling will restrain the movement so construction can continue. Long-term there is no question that once the home is constructed, neighboring properties will be more stable than prior to construction. 8. To be accomplished by others. The remediation work will be completed today. Our original statement regarding stability of adjacent properties had to be made with the assumption that the conditions which we observed on our site could be extrapolated' to adjacent properties. This method has to be followed, as it is impossible to gain access to adjacent properties for the purpose of soil exploration. We did not know, nor do we understand how uncontrolled fill was allowed on the. adjacent property to the north. We question whether the owner/builder had a permit to place this fill and whether the fill was shown on the city -approved plans. The shoring will generally ensure stability for the area as related to the excavation. However, there remains a significant risk that further soil movement will occur on the property to the north which is completely unrelated to your construction activity. The action taken by you does not remediate this risk. Any remediation of this situation should be the responsibility of the neighboring homeowner. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Seawood Homes, Inc. August 9., 1990 If there are any questions, service, please contact us. of WAS.. `r C B `C c 4 JN 89418 Page 5 or if we can be of further. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. James R. Finley Jr., P.E. MKD : J RF : ck a cc: Richard R. Mumma - City of Edmonds GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. XLtwCr)(1 w� 7/.zy�Qu l s 4Fl UCH D,• i v e � 110 t �g Hv �� _........ DES - t;r'tlil cc) 4Ie .�d.�Q(!�rN .]ri �P.K$IQh - C'I'ctc.�4S f!W.I �✓g' .-110�. �CC� . .. y F a � G a:?�es�!.��'�t'�� _ %�i3 C fct c � c�v r <S �v � •ems v!I � � �� �V /Wa/. B�Siv E' LL ieco )Me'4iiee ..e4i' i!( . ploce'c! Gd/S ... 4, 5 ao-3 . CPc'Ce �hpl�S��� �/ 0• 'f� dui �e'o v�.� .. `cab . �!TP:. JS/[.Or.� [!%/.� ✓i�e'J YO ®/C�p ce vc 41 u, � /e - n ri /`c� d i'c",•r� ll/K�! .. Aso /1�Cf a lsltir�tc�l �`la.l.Q seripS .o OF 140; I�V 4O1W1�/`J� 8d nds, S.W., Suite 210 q 1 ���/)�V) Edmonds, WA98020 AUG206/778-7369 INC FAX 206/774-2098 PERMIT SEAWOHI 158CD August 1, 1990 Jeannine Graf UU Permit Coordinator City of Edmonds 250 5th Ave N. Edmonds, Wa 98020 RE:15812 75th P1 W Enclosed is the field report on this project for the week ending July 27, 1990.. Sincerely A.4e ee'AA 4r'o rJ President t GEOTECH CONSULTANTS 13256 N.E. 20th St. (Northup Way), Suite 16 Bellevue, WA 98005 (206) 747-5618 (206) 343-7959 AUG PERMIT COUNTER July 27, 1990 JN 89418 Seawood Homes Inc. 7500 - 212th SW, Suite 210 Edmonds, Washington 98020 Attention: Mr. A. Lee Atherton Subject: Weekly Transmittal of Daily Field Reports Proposed Single Family Residence 15812 - 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington Gentlemen: In accordance with the requirements. of the City of Edmonds, the Daily Field Reports prepared for the last week are enclosed. If there are any questions, or if we can be of further service, please contact us. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. MKD:JRF:cka if � , James R. Finley Jr., P.E. TRAVEL/PREP. TIME GEOTECH CONSULTANTS 131,1 1 TIME ON SITE AUG �� tJ 60 TIME 4OFOSITE (206) 747-5618 13256 N.E. 20th St. (Northup Way), Suite 16 INS- (206.) 343-7959 Bellevue, WA 98005 PERMIT COUNTER WEATHER DAILY FIELD REPORT CI ear JOB LOCATION 581Z- Tol, A W" - ...o CLIENT/OWNER Lo�-s 3;. deck z�44 5e4.A GENERAL CONTRACTOR GENERAL CONTRACTORS SUPT. Sea" o GRADING CONTRACTOR I GRADING FOREMAN JOB NO. MILES sz PAGE I OF % VISITORS PERMIT NUMBER o� DATE DAY OF WEEK 7�io�4v Fr;. - I - I •' •♦ / • t Imo- - + l' WO rA-Illlli CA I fj W56 " Olaf . ' . • •. c.�� NEXT SITE VISIT: ,COPY TO: - GEOTECH 4 TRAVEL/PREP. TIME JOB N0. ►W."w0 ILw A T/ stir ®, CONSULTANTS '% S UG u 19�n TIME ON MILES (206) 747-5618 13256 N.E. 20th St. (Northup t �� �t4iJNTER TIME OFF SITE PAGE (206) 343-7959 Bellevue, WA 98005 of DAILY FIELD REPORT WEATHER VISITORS JOB LOCATION CLIENT/vwm PERMIT NUMBER a- - g� ND t,,h /V u--u GENERAL CONTRACTOR GEN RAL CONTRACT R9 SUPT. DATE/DAY OF WEEK u ss d-5 6 MANS GRADING CONTRACTOR GRADING FOREMAN 7 HRS.CHARGEO ON � _ — �LJ •' ' -LEI /_L /� ME t I i i.NEXT SITE VISIT: A4 pr, i GEOTECHTRAVEL PREP. ME JOB N0. CONSULTANTS ►.-�.,I.lii �� % �r 0 �g � AUG 1990 TIME ON SITE MILES S 2, - - -r- N TIME OFF SITE PAGE 1206) 747-5618 13256 N.E. 20th St. (Northup It ANTER (206) 343-7959 Bellevue, WA 98005 P�0hft OF DAILY FIELD REPORT WEATHER 0 �- VISITORS JOB LOCATION CLI /OWNER PERMIT NUMBER GENER CONTRACTOR GENERAL ONTRACTOR�S SUPT. DATE/ DAY OF WEEK kh� 1' y saw GRADING CONTRACTOR I GRADING FOREMAN 1 1. r IkUq CWARrl•e ow MAT Ate_! ORION!'.I M� Me �, J , GEOTECHR " B x TRAVEL/PREP. TIM CONSULTANTS {� 2 AUG q N � 990TIME ON S (206) 747-5618 � 13256 N.E. 20th St. (Northup �vfy ,4u'JeWUNTER TIME Off SITE (206) 343-7959 Bellevue, WA 98005. WEATHER DAILY FIELD REPORT eVAACAs9—. JOB LqCATION CLI OWNER j L — 7`' cz ; 'AdD� GENEjAL CONTRACTOR GENER CONTRACTORS SUPT. V-4 GRADING CONTRACTOR GRADING FOREMAN JOB NO. n / n MILES �(jf O�/ PAGE / OF VISITORS PERMIT NUMBER 1 OAT OF WEEK 161 q1 HRS. CHARGEDI ' Z am. MO t l �' F7 41W! - - i - NEXT SITE VISIT. 11 . GEOTECHTRAVEL/PREP. TIME JOB N0. CONSULTANTS r 9 /g TIME ON SITE j MILE (206) 747-5618 13256 N.E. 20th St. (Northup Way), Suite 16 TIME Off SITE Ono ,u PAGAN q�' 1� J1 (206) 343-7959 Bellevue, WA 98005 OF DAILY FIELD REPORT WEATHER d,C� NIIT VISITORS OONTER JOBLOCATION 1 /. ' I2 - 7-5 �mCoJ CLIENT/OWN �� PERMIT NUMBER W _S� OMES GENERAL CONTRA TOR Se.I�� GENERAL CONTRACTORS SUPT. DATE DAY OF W Ru17/27/4,0 oh. GRADING CONTRACTOR GRADING FOREMAN HRS.CHAR( a S -- I Elkil .ram wwr. -WA- - / A}UG— ,9-90 THU 1 3 = 05 GEGTECH CONSULTANTS P _ 04 t4 GEOTECH TRAVEL N /PREP. TIME 08 0.� CONSULTANTS ,7 -- TIME WI SITE NILES j� � IaN„ TIME 0 SITE PAGE I V 747-5h18 13256 N.E. 20th St. (Northup Way), Suite 16 j I204 -U 1-)y54 Bellevue, WA 98005 v WEATHER VISITORS DAILY FIELD REPORT. fQ OcAvD�Ay n M _ J J�gl CLI T/OwNE NU PERMIT M Z� OER GENERAL CONTRACTOR ��+ GENERAL CONTRACTOR$ SUPT. OAT DAY OR WEEK 'jt- ORAO,NG CONTRACTOR GRADING FOREMAN _ — 'IRS. CNAROE VA Tw _*IOU �.__._.. _j cl Cam_----- (L 5_w! NExr SITE v:Sir, �J� ,/Ar % COT-1-T0: � /� SIG7IATURE,/J� � .• ���,1 .._ _._.._. i�UG— 9-90 TH'U 1 3 : 0s GEOTECF-t CONSUL-TANTS P _ 0 5 GEOTECH CONSULTANTS Qo(q 747 .SAIK 13296N.B. 20th St. (NDrthup Way),'Sulle 16 1=1x,1.l+-7v5y Bcltevue,WA98005 DAILY FIELD REPORT. JO_� TZ JVCiCH GENERAL CONTRACTOR � 141NERAC CONTRAC G CONTRACTOR L TRAVEL/PREP TIME JOS No. TIME ON €ITE MILES 57 2,_ PAGE / TIME OFF S WEATHER VISITORS CLI T/OWNER Z� PERMIT NUMBER-- — DATE DAY Of WEEK ���� MRS. CHAR 0 SUPT. ^-5.----- Vie- —4JR X wAwev1.1z— �l� --._S._l.G Pew. AUG- 9-90 T H U 1:3:06 GCOTCCH CONSUL-TANTS GEOTECHTRAVEL/ CONSULTANTS REP —7 75 Joe MG. TIME 09 SITE MILES Z- f2061 ?47-.4617i 13256 N.E. 20th St. (Northup Way), Suite 16 '959 TIME Off SITE 3,3- PAGE QW)) 3421 Bellevue, WA 98005 DAILY FIELD REPORT. WEAnept C U-4 /L JOB LOCATION 4 1A 1145V- ebl1l,hV CLIPT/OWNERI "t PERMIT NVYGER GC AL CONTRACTOR _e GENE AL CONT- ACTOR'S SUPT. DATE DAY OF WEEK Ml e, OR DING CONTRACTOR GRADI iOREMAN V. mRS.CmARGE C)-V--- - -5"-2 R j-.1"72 t IZ-94 C-A L e- .T� A 1.lew-, / A16 c4az e e� -'6 A4 A I /Z o J IJA -ac.4 c-4V C-0 V5- -rA. t4 c 77a -A,1 z- /s dilz 41 Ile 0 LJ Al --Ar—IZ IT lVa tAJ 7'! &?z?A1 q �V- 01 '7 s10 -6 A10-1, 4e4 a fAJ e-- ce24 <.s7— zl> 41 A/ 44 PA A A,U G— 9— 9 O T H U 1 3 0 7 G E O T E C H C O N S U L T A N T S GEOTECH TRAVCL/PREP. TIME CONSUL TANTS •� . 7 �yl TIME ON SITE / 12(16) U7.5618 13256 N.E. 20th St. 04orthup Way), Sulte 16 TIME OFF SITE 4206) 34341031) Bellevue, WA 9W05 DAILY FIELD REPORT. WEATHER JOB LOCATION (/25- /,-L/Z [.,.L!'j f• X �.._ CLIENT/OWNER. T1•'SLL 0 i L CONTRACTOR GCNE CONTRACTORS SUPT. 4GROIN4 GRAbf%,p CONTRACTOR /-%m /[:411/ OREMAN� %U 1 L/ Joe MO. HIL[! PAGE _ OF VISITOR! PERMIT—NuM9ER nRS. JOB NUMBER- nATF- AUG- , 9- 9 0 T H U 1 3: 0 9 G E O T E C H CONSULTANTS GEOTECHTRAVEL PREP. TIME CONSULTANTS S +� TIME ON SITE TIME OFF SIT( I2INq 141 561 H 13256 N.E. 20th St. (Nurthlm Way), Suite 16 f s I-061 .343-709 Bellevue, WA 98DOS WEATHER DAILY FIELD REPORT. 409 LOCATION CLIEN OWNER GEH(_RA�L CONTRACTOR OEN L CON RACTORS SUPT. GRADING CONTRACTOR G ING OREMAR X '• L'?2 j el A� P.08 woes PAGI OF VISITORS PERMIT NUMBER OAit n DAY Of WEEK NRS. CNARGEO .r-; ' � /�_iZ0 �l1� -f'1• �� —?A.Ye° (/_�G //L� � l/L:,�_3�'C �4 r �. _ �•� f . zc-L N:; _.�'�._._.. _ L ._) ,�' c. � -P •fit �,r' �-� %?¢-C_ �-'Y1G�`-�.— . � ' � rvC>tT "'TI VISITi COPY T0� � BIGNAT AUC— 9-90 TH/U�1 3: 1 0 GEO_TECH CONSULTANTS GEM E v _jlEv/+1`_ TRAYCL/PREP, TIME — CONSULTANTS / TIME ON SITE l t TIN[ Off SITE 0161 147•56115 IYJ56 N,E. 2Uth St. iNurtho Way?, suite 16 I2cr,1 141 7115V / Bellevue,WA 9t30Q5 / 0 DAILY FIELD REPORT wEA MEp 408 LLOOC(�ATION CLIENT/OWNER GENCRAL COMIRACTOR GENERAL CONTRACTOfli SUPT. CO)ITRACTOR , GRADING FOAEMAN n F _ 0 9 Joe No. MILS PAGE 1 vlsliapS . PEAWT NUMOER OATS DAY OF we El "A=, CNAR0E0 NEx1 SITE VISIT: COPY T0: SIGNATURE: �_�/71n /� BOSS TESTING, INCORPORATED 19015 36TH AVE. WEST LYNNWOOD, IA 98036 (206) 778-4402 JUb NUMBER: Extended Page _ 7.1 DATE: A.L .. .. v -- 1.:iwr_ — PERMIT #: WEATHER:_,€1 PROJECT: �' G )='.�I I't t L . �JI2 Er.►C� OWNER: SstA W oo� M E5 8/ 2. -7 e:r- ARCHITECT: ENGINEER: H-- CONTRACTOR: SE woo 1tF.S 7.50 U. t i zc5 ri pL ox- ,rrf'u c Irve r F,b T4E -61AIU7 ANE .CE_z-1� �r� c r-,� r-� r n12� %�,�h►,�'J d' Dt.o� lj—D- Q7Hli:� /,y pre TiOt) wAIr 2/ftyebed -0- Lm- e� -. Yov_. r' t ?D _u C Ca o 455-0 INSPECTOR: :�Z�-�-�-� AEU G— 9— 9 0 T H U 1 3: 0 4 G E O T E C H iC O N S U L T A N T S P. 03 tM�oder 3 P-2 - 75l� ���l. ,Q�y /N D%GYP 8 na lyd Ply. (y�t 3 C�rac(�s wt•c .. aVied. F616� t Ayjidtf .. Cr.:r 4,5{{ 1{ p�P�ars . �ba. l..�3 qre ./Q.C4%%�r�( .s �P.Ksit� .. c r�� lcs . f�{o { Qr�. Ao�. c-o. jfe f . 4vAe- c feet 1`S . a� .. �>r�-. �'�:/� 1�`le WAS ?la..eW W. VOL. 310? e _. . k�f`n rr�i�j'•y :�°.rNN..te 'fCts -led) 4f .l%Q��'/•S ft� �•" v!tR"tp�C� /"" / L 4/ at*('4,# 1iAe4 fr-o.' to � d"t / if'ovl 441w laic " Svr4 COL, Ca$,md 1'?-'OnIlyE' '���f�'i /KP /�rpDe'/�SA �4 e , 'Y�. d /Q �5.;� Plu7 t..�ts u V� � (lal fy. O•t�'c'� �%f P . �0 /t�lP �tgG�'rY�.t•/�`f'rCft'n � O7 ,.S�a1.� µ-,ll �i- c�%scu.�.� lQ�i:... ��4;, wo re•►Ec,K����l. jl�t�a serlp,� ot. �•r�1o%k•tur.`,-� P�,,'r�s �,e eva OS/08/80 15;55 FAa 200 6T2 7998 LOVELL SAUERLAND 002 Lovell-Saueriand & Associates. *Inc., Enoiueess/SU=e^os/Fl=ers/Derelonne= Cons>>tmat ijr. . Lee Atherton SGawood Homes, Inc_ 7500-2-12th Street S.W_ Edmonds, Was}-Lngton 98a20 19400 33rd Ave. W.. Suite 200 Lynnwood Washington 98036 (206) 775-1591 Seattle: (206) 34-0-0830 FAX: (206) 672-7W8 August 8, 1990 File No. 89-2241 re: Hew home constr�ion 15812-75th Place W. Dear Lees lm accordance with your rQquest of July 30, 1990, we have been monitvriug severed poiutc pras,cribed by you, on the property i mediately adjacent to and northerly of the new home you are constructing an the above mentioned site_ Measurements have been made daily since your initial raquest_ As of gesterdag no significant M vement of the Location of monitoring points has been. noticed. We will continue to monitor thaea points on a daily basis, until Notified by yaa to cease such work. We will prepare a tabulation of the data and a zkatch shaving the location of the points being monitored as soon as possible_ -If you should need any additional information, please call ma. c lye ` J e Treiber P.L.S. s GEOTECH CONSULTANTS 13256 N.E. 20th St. (Northup Way), Suite 16 Bellevue, WA 98005 (206) 747-5618 (206) 343-7959 APR 13,1990 PERMT1 COUNTER, March 21, 1990 JN 89418 Seawood Homes Inc. 7500 - 212th SW, Suite 210 Edmonds, Washington 98020 Attention: Mr. A. Lee Atherton Subject: 'Geotechnical Engineering Considerations Proposed Single Family Residence. 15812 - 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington Reference: Geotechnical Review Proposed Single Family Residence 15812 75th Place West Meadowdale Area, Edmonds, Washington For Seawood Homes, Inc. Prepared by Landau Associates Dated February 20, 1990 Gentlemen: In accordance with your request we have reviewed the referenced letter prepared by Landau Associates. We have discussed the contents of the review letter with William Evans of Landau Associates, have reviewed previous work prepared by others that was furnished by the reviewer, and have made a site visit. At this time it appears advisable to reiterate that there are always risks associated with construction in a known landslide area. The owner must assume these risks when choosing to build- and live in a documented landslide such as is the case in the Meadowdale area. Construction can be more difficult as the subsurface is more of a heterogeneous mixture of soils that can vary widely within a small distance. The recommendations and opinions that we have expressed in our report and in this letter are professional opinions. No warranty is expressed or implied. Our approach throughout this study has been to develop veotechnical solutions which will not increase the risk of instability either to the subject property, or to neighboring properties. r 9; A y . Seawood Homes, Inc. JN 89418 March 21, 1996 Page 2 Geotech Consultants Inc. should 'be on the site periodically throughout the excavation and foundation construction process. This will allow us to confirm that subsurface conditions are consistent with those indicated by our exploration, to evaluate whether earthwork and foundation construction activities comply with the intent of contract plans and specifications, and to provide recommendations for design changes in the event subsurface conditions.differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. The contractor should be prepared throughout construction to cover slopes with plastic or to backfill or shore the excavation as necessary if localized instability does occur. The following are our specific responses to the issues that have been raised by the review. The Bowed Retaining Wall along the Burlington Northern Track As pointed out by the reviewer, there is a bulge in the retaining wall along the railroad tracks. Based upon the Grading and Storm Drainage Plan prepared by Lovell Sauerland and dated September 27, 1989, the wall is located downslope of the property, approximately thirty feet west of the western property line and one hundred feet west of the western .foundation wall of the home. The wall was constructed by inserting railroad ties into the ground on three-foot centers, placing 4 x.12 inch timbers behind the ties, and backfilling with granular material. Based. on visual observations, the wall appears about six feet high, with a maximum bulge at the top of the wall of about six inches. We have not conducted a subsurface investigation downslope of the proposed home location. Based upon our reconnaissance, it is our opinion that the wall may not have been properly designed to handle the earth pressures. We also believe that only the surficial soil extending back perhaps thirty to fifty feet is involved with the bulge in the wall. The proposed minimum elevation for the home of 44.0 msl is, in our opinion, deep enough to reasonably ensure that retaining wall movements down near the railroad tracks will not be transmitted to the home foundation. However, it may be necessary, at some time in the future, to reconstruct this wall or a new wall on the property line if the wall fails and the wall is not rebuilt where is is presently located. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Seawood Homes, Inc. March 21, 1990 Groundwater Levels JN 89418 Page 3 The reviewer stated that there is a "probable near -surface year-round ground water level". It is our opinion that the water level is not near the surface. The subsurface explorations completed to date have encountered minor groundwater seepage less than ten feet below existing grades. These explorations were completed in April and November of 1989. Minor groundwater seepage does not indicate a groundwater level at this site. The boring log completed by Cascade Geotechnical found no groundwater below ten feet. This boring extended to 49.0 feet below existing grades and penetrated sands, silts, and clays. Risk of Movement during Construction One of the Geotechnical Report Guidelines for the Meadowdale Area is to evaluate the risk of movement during construction. The intention of our recommendations and the purpose of our being on site during the earthwork portions of the project are to keep the risk of instability at the background level that has been previously calculated by others. Risk of Sliding of Property due to Seismic Events Provided our recommendations are followed, the risk to developing and residing on this property are similar to those which the neighbors assume by living in this area. We have not evaluated the potential instability of the wall adjacent to the Burlington Northern Railroad. Flexible connections of the sewer and drainage lines at the point of entry to the home are a reasonable precaution that the owner should consider. Declaration Statement We will be available to provide the.Declaration Statement once we have reviewed the final plans. Garage Foundation and Support It may be possible to float the garage footing above elevation 44.0 msl. Please provide us with the actual estimated pressures which will be transmitted to the foundation elements. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Seawood Homes, Inc. March 21, 1990 JN 89418 Page 4 In addition, note that the excavation for the basement portion of the home will result in much of the soil underlying the garage to be excavated. Therefore, a good portion of the garage will be founded on structural fill. Closure We have reviewed the SEPA Checklist. Our recommendations for on site monitoring by our firm during excavation and construction are discussed above and in our original report. The geotechnical report was prepared by a geotechnical engineer with a degree in geological engineering and civil engineering. It was also reviewed by Mr. John F. Cole of our office. - Mr. Cole has over twenty-five years of professional geological experience and is registered as a geologist in Oregon and California. If there are any questions, service, please contact us. 1Q��SoF r • isteaE°,���Q ; •• SAL 00 MKD:cvb or if we can be of further Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS,.INC. Mai Ate' /eo' Mark K. Dodds, P.E. Senior Engineer �AA* ' � , James R. inley, Jr. P.E. Principal GEOTECH CONSULTANTS 1:1256 N.R. 20th St. (Northup Way), Suite 16 Bellevue, WA 98005 (206) 747-5619 (206) :343-7959 APR 13199D mMIT COUNTER March 26, 1990 JN 89418 Seawood Homes Inc. 7500 - 212th SW, Suite 210 Edmonds, Washington 98020 Attention: Mr. A. Lee Atherton Subject: Geotechnical Review and Declaration z Proposed Single Family Residence 15812 - 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington Gentlemen: In accordance with your request, Geotech Consultants Inc. has reviewed the geotechnical aspects.for the 'proposed single- family dwelling at 15812 - 75th Place West in Edmonds, Washington. The plans we reviewed were provided by Structural Design Associates, and consisted of ten.pages. The latest revisions for Sheets 1 through 4 and Sheet 8 occurr.ed on September 24, 1989. Sheets 5, 6, 7, and 9 were dated March 12, 1990. The last sheet of the plans is an undated Plot Plan. The following are our review comments: 1. Detail 1 on Sheet 5 should be revised to show the footing .drain at the base .of the footing excavation. .If there are any questions please see Plate 1 of our report. 2. From our review of the Plot Plan, we anticipate the excavation for the proposed foundation, using 1.25:1 (horizontal:vertical) slopes, will extend into the neighbor's property to the north. Temporary shoring or construction easements should be anticipated. 3. The garage footings may have to be deepened well below elevation 58.0. This can be decided by our staff in the field during excavation. However, the excavation for the garage footings may also require temporary shoring or construction easements. Seawood Homes, Inc. March 26; 1990 JN 89418 Page Two It is our opinion that the proposed development, once completed, will not increase the risk of earth movement beyond that which the neighbors assume. Geotech Consultants Inc. should be on the site intermittently throughout the excavation and foundation construction process. This will allow us to confirm that subsurface conditions are consistent with those indicated by our exploration,_ to evaluate whether earthwork and foundation construction activities comply. with the intent of contract plans and specifications, and to provide recommendations for design changes. in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. The contractor should be prepared throughout construction to cover slopes with plastic or to backfill the excavation as necessary if localized instability does occur. Providing the recommendations in our above review comments are implemented, the following Declaration Statement is valid. -Declaration Statement It is our opinion that the plans and specifications generally conform to the recommendations in our geotechnical study. The risk of damage to the proposed development or to adjacent properties will not increase due to this development, subject to the conditions stated in the report and follow-up letters. If there are any questions, service, please contact us. MKD:JRF:cvb or if we can be of further Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. James R. Finley Jr., P.E. STRUCTURAL DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 5630- 198TH ST. S.W. P.O. BOX 5366 LYNNWOOD, WA 98046 PHONE: (206) 775.7434 APR 131990 PERMI1 COUNTER April 2, 1990 Seawood Homes, Inc. attn: Mr..Lee Atherton 7500-212th S.W. Suite 210 Edmonds, WA 98020 subject: Residence for Seawood Homes, Inc. at 15812-75th P1ace'West, Edmonds, Washington Our Ref.: Letters\83-439.rjh Dear Mr. Atherton: This letter is to inform you that our office has reviewed the geotechnical reports from Cascade Geotechnical, dated May 9, 1989, and the Addendum dated August 16, 1989, and the Geotech Consultants' report dated December 13, 1989, and addenda dated March 21 and March 26, 1990, as wellasthe Landslide -Hazard Map developed by Geo-Engineers, Inc., for the City of Edmonds and updated July 25, 1984. The review indicates that the subject site is in the well known "Meadowdale Slide Area" with a 30 percent chance of ground failure in a 25 year period, and that "It is never possible to -guarantee future slope stability, regardless of how well investigated or engineered" and "there are always risks associated with construction in a known landslide area". Among these risks are the possibility of the loss or damage. to your property and life, as well as the property and life of neighbors, public an private, due to soil failure. Due to the unpredictable nature of -the soils, Owners must assume the risks of building and living in this known landslide area. The reports, recommendations, opinions, designs and specifications, associated with this project are professional opinions only, and are not to be construed as a warranty, expressed or implied, against loss or damage. S.;'rF?uCIURAI FMGINEFRIt4nESIrN AND MVFSri7�,rlr]!a; RI..III rl;h!r; • Fnl1NpA"TIptJq 0 RFT'AlNlhlr:.WAI I c, .p r-1PInr_rr; q Fif: F:c @ S , !'f:`•dF:c?c; O T'Af•JKS . r Residence for Seawood Homes, Inc. Page Two of 2 DECLARATION STATEMENT To the best of our knowledge and understanding, the building plans submitted with the permit application substantially incorporate the above mentioned reports' recommendations. Careful and conscientious application of the above referenced recommendations during and after construction will apparently not increase the risk associated with this site. Respectfully submitted, STRUCTURAL DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC. ,by J VJU Kase Vanden Ende, P.E. president KVE/jme, c (�t.�l'iF'1'I.���r•tl'�Ir:�.l"1 �'1'.f�lt'i:'`f �'If'I':l :il �I;:•i'�Il�li������,;1"� City of Edmonds Building Division 250 Fifth Avenue N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Attention: Ms. Jeannine Graf Permit Coordinator RE: BUILDER'S RESPONSE TO FINAL REVIEW COMMENTS PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE 15812 75TH PLACE WEST - MEADOWDAIIE AREA, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON FOR SEAWOOD HOMES, INC. June 15, 1990 This letter is in response to a June 11, 1990 letter from Seawood Homes, Inc., which responded to our supplemental geotechnical review comments (Landau Associates, May 29, 1990). Provided that. the changes noted in Seawood Homes' letter are made, our review comments will have been satisfactorily addressed. We are assuming that the City will provide field inspection during construction to verify that all foundation and drainage elements are constructed as designed. If significantly differing field conditions are encountered during construction,_ and field changes are anticipated, Landau Associates may need to provide additional review comments. Please call if you have questions. Very truly yours, LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. By: William D. Evans, CPG Senior Geologist WDE/sg . No. 74-07.10 MMONW/SEAW06151M • ..ii\ If.'... 1l Yvl ��u•�.. )!. .-�. 'U l._ 9 �, �..� •�1; I!', .'1'. ;7_ .,�i �4 O 7o 411, cc USE CITY OF EDMONDS ZONE CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION JOB NAME (OR NAME OF BUSINESS) ADDRESS / L w MAILING ADDRESS 0 15kz1- w ADDRESS x U 4--� Pj C,J GY-6-12- PHONE NUMBER 970.20 TELEPHONE NUMBER NAME Ric ADDRESS vZ K 7 .:s CITY TELEPHONE NUMBER STATE LICENSE NUMBER I CITY LICENSE NUMBER Legal Description of Property - Include all easements (show below or attach four copies) -�S R Rio ra k yia n- . PERMIT NUMBER CHECKI SUBDIVISION NO, ILID NO PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP EXISTING REQUIRED DEDICATION PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT REQUIRED ❑ STREET USE PERMIT REQUIRED ❑ SEE ENGINEERING MEMO DATED SEE PIW DEPT. REVIEW CHECK LIST DATED REMARKS METER SIZE (BUILDING SUPPLY SIZE (FIXTURE UNITS REMARKS SIGN AREA ENV. REVIEW ADB NO, ALLOWED PROPOSED COMPLETE EXEMPT SHORELINE VARIANCE OR CU PLANNING REVIEW BY DATE rYkadl%a*/e; YARDS +Lr FRONT F bn Iq • 38 RecopvI5 in, Shohw is Co, RE NEW RESIDENTIAL ADDIALTER NON-RESIDENTIAL REPAIR RETAINING WALL EXCAVATE DEMOLISH OR FILL ❑PRE -MOVE INSP.I COMPLIANCE INSP, ❑ PLUMBING MECHANICAL SIGN FENCE ( x_FT) SWIM POOL CH SIDE SEWER WATER LINE NUMBER OF STORIES NUMBEROF UWtLLING UNITS r/ NATURE OF WORK TO BE DONE (ATTACH PLOT PLAN) 1?eS id'eri l- at h mph e ❑ NO r/ LOT COVERAGE REAR �/ 0 N I CODE I HEIGHT OCCUPANCY (OCCUPANT GROUP LOAD VALUATION I FEE Ir w a 3 Z z Z 5 a 0 Z 0 0 m PLAN CHECK FEE BUILDING PLUMBING MECHANICAL This Permit covers work to be done on private property ONLY. GRADINGIFILL Any construction on the public domain (curbs, sidewalks, driveways, marquees, etc.) will require separate permission. Permit Application: 180 Days Permit Limit: 1 Year- Provided Work is Started Within 180 Days "Applicant, on behalf of his or her spouse, heirs, assigns and N successors in interest, agrees to indemnify, defend and hold J harmless the City of Edmonds, Washington, its officials, m employees, and agents from any and all claims for damages of < whatever nature, arising directly or indirectly from the issuance x of this permit. Issuance of this permit shall not be deemed to omodify,.waive or reduce any requirement of any city ordinance x nor limit in any way the City's ability to enforce any ordinance TOTAL AMOUNT DUE provision." I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application; that the information given is correct; and that I am the owner, or the duly ATTENTION APPLICATION APPROVAL authorized agent of the owner. I agree to comply with city and THIS PERMIT state laws regulating construction; and in doing the work authoriz- AUTHORIZES This application is not a permit until ed thereV, no person will be employed in violation of the Labor Code f" State f Was 1, Workr,eg1S"Corn ONLY THE Woglr NO signed by the Building Official or his Deputy; and fees are and receipt is of gton relating to ensa- Insurarice. " paid, r* acknowledged in space lion - :.' j , INSPECTION, provided. SIGNATURE (OWNER OR AGENT) ',) ' `I i �� DATE'S` GNE '= / ��, t w,y `a+E � DEPARTMENT: i� �� CITY OFFICIAI'.S SIGNATURE +f �� �f fdVj � DS 771.3202 DATE ATTENTION IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR ORIGINAL — File YELLOW — Inspector A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC CHAPTER 3. PINK — Owner GOLD — Assessor 0007110359 0 STATEMENT ON ACCESSORY UNITS Property Address 15812 75th P1 W. Legal Description Lots 3 & 4 Blk 29 of Plat of Meadowdale Beach recorded in Volume 5 pg 38 records of Sonohomish County I have read the requirements for accessory units contained in Chapter 20.21 of the Edmonds Community Development Code and understand that an accessory unit, including a second kitchen, is prohibited for at least three years after occupancy is granted and until after a Conditional Use permit has been approved by the City of Edmonds Nearing Examiner. I also understand that approval of the Conditional Use permit is subject to a public hearing, -and neither this statement nor the issuance of a permit shall act to limit the discretion of the City in the review of any application for a Conditional Use permit. Property Owner Name Seawood Homes Inc. d" W"— Date 6// !)"V/vtI;: uf' WAE.111 1(l,ruti ) ss: COUNTY OFJW I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that 1® u� 4t1J-,Al'Q0 signed this instrument:, on oath stated that wa execute the inst rune►►E and acknowledged it: as the s authorized to (L-it:le) of (-A)Uo`aylte of party on behalf- of whom Instrument was executed) to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in this Instrument. DATED this �� day of 14 . 1&u-1c C-- Qiclt,47 NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: UrkJ,n �Ptj� v'ti1j Seawood Hoeinc. `� �1111J11J� T�'. 7.50�0.212th S.W. Suite 21�0 97 1 J. 0 3 5 Edmonds, WA 9,8020 RESTRICTIVE COVENANT FOR ALTERNATIVE ON -SITE SEWAGE SYSTEM 19 EAWc)0 b �aWas.I,N� AND , owners of the following described property situated in the County of Snohomish, State of Washington, to -wit: 11431 238th S.W. Woodway, Wa. 98020 See Attached Legal Do hereby grant Snohomish Health District personnel with the rights of ingress and egress over, along and across the above described property at reasonable times for the purpose of monitoring and recording data pertinent to the alternative on -site sewage disposal system. Said restrictive covenant is appurtenant to the present and future owners, their heirs, successors and assigns on the above described property and is hereby declared to be a restrictive covenant running with the land. The grantor agrees to cancel this restrictive covenant at such time Snohomish Health District will approve cancellation of same. DATED THIS ; I & day of . CAS. ,1990. `3 E AW no0 lic-Al"s (Owner's Name) 8"VAT11 Ut' WA J.N(yI•UN ) )sg: COUNTY or JKo{� ) (Owner's Name) I cue"rLi ty that I know or have satlsfactory evidence LltaL Q. Atx� sigtted this ltistruitnetiL•, on oath stated that lie was authorized to execute the ittstr.unteitt atidackttowletiged It as the (title) of \2 dWd 06Y1U4( of party oti behal[ of whom llistruntetit wag executed) to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes inetitloned in this instrument. DATED this. 28 day of 0 19;C). A" G V NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: V , j; 1 k Nj 0 SCHEDULE C ORDER NO. 25422-2 THE LAND REF'E.VRED TO HEREIN IS SITUATED IN THE STATE OF WASHING'TON, COUNTY OF' SNO[tOMISH AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: That portion of the Northwest quarter_ of the Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 35, Township 27 North, Range 3 East, W.M., described as follows: commencing at the Northwest corner of said subd.lvision ( the center of said Section 35); thence South 0 degrees 07115" West along the Westerly line of said subdiv:i_sion a distance of 330 feet; thence South 89 degrees 27132" East parallel to the Northerly line of said subdivision, 315.69 feet to the true point of beginning of this description; thence continue South 89 degrees 27132" East 70 feet; t.lienc f lclut.h (:! det.-I.reee: 07''!n" East 1.1.5.27 feet; thence ,4olith ]. (?,�cirer: 3'West £36. 33 feet:, more or less, t:u a poi_11t.. in a tine 3u feet Northeray of and parallel with the Southerly line of said subdivision; thence North 89 d.--grees 2412411 West along said parallel line 65 feet; thence North 0 degrees 05'25" East 301.50 feet, more or L(.) the pu-i.nt.. of begi.rini_nct. Situate in the County of Snohomish, State of Washington. END OF SCHEDULE C Page 5 of 5 ms Glh?,t) iZ?{,'f>f71.cd Seawq&Homm Inc. 7.5O0.21S.W. Suite 210 wv007�.� Edmonds, WA 9.8020 STORM SEWER EASEMENT For a good and valuable consideration, the Grantors, GILBERT L. THIRY and JANET M. THIRY, husband and wife, owners of the following described property, situated in the County of Snohomish, State of Washington, to wit: Lots 1 and 2, Block 29, Meadowdale Beach, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 5 of Plats, on page 38, records of Snohomish County, Washington. do hereby reserve, grant, and convey unto SEAWOOD HOMES, INC, a Washington corporation, owner of the following described property, situated in the County of Snohomish, State of Washington, to wit: Lots 3 and 4, Block 29, Meadowdale Beach, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 5 of Plats, on page 38, records of Snohomish County, Washington. a permanent easement for the installation, operation, and maintenance of a storm sewer pipeline, over, under, across, through, and upon the following described right of way, situated in the County of Snohomish, State of Washington, to wit: A strip of land, ten (10) feet wide, the centerline of which strip of land is described as beginning at a point on the south line of Lot 2, Block 29, Meadowdale Beach, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 5 of Plats, on page 38, records of Snohomish County, Washington, a distance of 25 feet easterly of the southwest corner of said Lot 2; thence northwesterly, a distance of 40 feet, more or less, to an intersection with an existing storm sewer pipeline, six (6) inches in diameter, at a point 5 feet easterly of the west line of said Lot 2; thence westerly, along said existing storm sewer pipeline, a distance of 5 feet to an intersection with the west line of said Lot 2 and the terminus of the centerline herein described. together with the further right to remove trees, bushes, undergrowth, and other obstructions interfering with the location, installation, operation and/or maintenance of said storm sewer pipeline. When necessary to maintain, repair, clean, and/or reinstall the storm sewer pipeline, the Grantee shall have the right of entry for such purposes, provided that, when such entry is necessary, all such activity shall be performed in a workmanlike manner and with all reasonable haste, and the premises shall be restored to its previous condition as soon as is reasonably possible, with the costs of all such activity and/or restoration being borne by said Grantee. 0 This easement shall be a covenant running with the lands hereinabove described and shall be binding upon the parties hereto, their heirs, successors and assigns forever. In Witness Whereof we hereunto set our signatures and seals this ! da o f 1990. AA(11( !� GILEtRII L. T IRY JAN M. THIRY STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) SS. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH) On this day personally appeared before me GILBERT L. THIRY and JANET M. THIRY, his wife, to me known to be the individuals described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that they signed the same as their free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. GIVEN under my hand and official seal this /l3 day of , 1990. K Notary Public in and t e State of Washington, residing at CITY OF EDMONCK CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION OWNER NAME/NAME OF BUSINESS w o o'o r4. G wx E5 :e w MAILING ADDRESS CITY TELEPHONE NUMBER F-T)MorJ s 776— 73G NAME �G tL.1 e. SG w ADDRESS {� U a CITY TELEPHONE NUMBER NAME `> JE�- ra w oo Q ADDRESS CITY TELEPHONE NUMBER I-M- '7 74 STATE LICENSE NUMBER Legal Description of Property - include all easements (show below or attach two copies) �1G`T" 3# TH X KCT * - , © ® NEW RESIDENTIAL PLUMBING ADD/ALTER 0 COMMERCIAL MECHANICAL REPAIR APT. BLI{{; yp�t /',;,� SIGN i'I EXCF VATEI al P IVC DEMOLISH OR FILL w ,� REMODEL GARAGET ?s� i, POR WOOD G WALL/ ❑ INSERT ROCKERY RENEWAL NUMBER OF STORIES NUMBER OF DWELLING JWE UNITS �/�G NATURE OF WORK TO BE DONE (ATTACH PLOT PLAN) ,50w Afa r 4Y &L -ie(A I A1AAk0ocW �• N c u-r S t N� �� f� A M l�\ USE ZONE ^� , O g JOB /B ADDRESS ?L 2 /0 PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP. TESCP APPROVED BY EXISTING REQUIRED DEDICATION PROPOSED__ . Z RIGHT OF WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT REQUIRE w STREET U$E PERMIT REQUIRED: Z 0 SEE ENGINEERING MEMO DATED REVIEW BY W ry REMARKS l ETE I E 1, ISUILDIN5/SUPPLY SIZE FIXTUREUNITS Uj 3 ¢ MA K v.o SIGN AREA ALLOWED EL ENV. REVIEW COMPLETE i,.EXEMPT �V ADS NO. SHORELINE p VARIANCE OR CU aFvl W BY DCU- - D]PLANNING MOD(rJ �j SETBACKS' —FEET HEIG TLOT COVE G FRONT Z� SIDE /D REAR Z� "C REMARKS1-7 .A-r1AC+-tz✓D CoND► 1-1a CHECK�p�� TYPECONSTRUCTION CODE HEIGHT SPECIAL INSPECTOR AREA OCCUPANCY OCCUPANT REQUIRED GROUP LOAD YES C NO REMARKS PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 305 0 J TWAnAL _ZWf4-L,4774-V,10 C AMA /J/4fij,'01i ' m PLAN CHECK FEE BUILDING t 0 C— PLUMBING MECHANICAL This Permit covers work to be done on private property ONLY. Any'construction on the public domain (curbs, sidewalks, GRADING/FILL STATE SURCHARGE driveways, marquees, etc.) will require separate permission. Permit Application: 180 Days Permit Limit: 1 Year • Provided Work is Started Within 180 Days "Applicant, on behalf of his or her spouse, heirs, assigns and — successors in interest, agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City of Edmonds, Washington, its officials, employees, and agents from any and all claims for damages of whatever nature, arising directly or indirectly from the issuance of this permit. Issuance of. this permit shall not be deemed to PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT modify,.Waive or reduce any requirement of any city ordinance nor limit in any way, the City's.ability to enforce any ordinance provision." TOTAL AMOUNT DUE I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application; that the iformation given is correct; and that I am the owner,.or the duly ATTENTION zed agent. of the owner. I agree to comply with city.and ws regulating construction; and in doing the work authoriz- eby,. no person will. be employed in violation of the Labor Lef the State of Wash Ington'relating to Workmen's Compensa- °�l,prance. . THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES f ONLY THE WORK NOTED INSPECTION t OR AGEN) DATE SIGNED, DEPARTMENT dV� CITY .OF D EDMONDS 771-3202 l USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE ECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC ' hoho �r VALUATION 163 .s� —.300 / -X�, ??s71'' APPLICATION APPROVAL This application is not a permit until signed by the Building Official or his Deputy; and fees are paid, and receipt is acknowledged in space provided. OFF jCIAV,S NATURE DATE RELEASED BY; DATE ORIGINAL — File YELLOW — Inspector PINK — Owner GOLD — Assessor I 3 442 ¢rJ 3 Exl STI NC-� N .usE, s p EGK41 I !` 31 :a l 00 0D, x TOP 80.17 /NV. 74.55 - 5 (� z e e ` I 2/ \\ y y y9 Ne88 09i 93 n GV Lcq° `'.my/84 63' 1 2 na ape; W W000 PCANjER —1 a EX. SSM" Q TOP 7,3.93 4� cod +, 1 'J LLl `, GARA6�• /NV. &5.14 m'2i ;2y h�a, '1i� ,yytnoyto�y�yi FF50 :rtiyon, W, IIP n ' It 9� Q' t • � , -4 I PROPOSED � ,� f ` r r r � : �� : t Rj .! RE6I0ENCENi l(,f Ltd LtT i+ F.F. BASEMENT-5o.251 -0 ', p 4°� ? r + 2, I n0 a, Si n p�-P , zr �: I �0 I m p. , y Zi, IA.2 O ?' �'`� � 13 °—� _LL jP _y y • — ,�3 BUILDING HEIGHT CALCULATIONS <( (, ► i + I Fn �+ BUILDING ENVELOPE NE EL. 68.0 Lt� I i I iJi T t+ �� BUILDING ENVELOPE SE EL. - 64:0 i , b BUILDING ENVELOPE NW EL. 53;0 .. _ -- -• { , r.• + i u B LDING ENVELOPE S EL 52.0 237..0 PP PS o z I if 0y'!L,�pP�o� oQ , I�p6 , .. � ' , t➢ `1+ j NV. <oZ.S$ T - , 4 z, 3 ` �. GE GROUND EL. 59.25 V/ ti 30 ta0 y2 y�j y� m,� c i+ () : Q n AVGERA MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT = 25.00 %'` ` yti=• t ^ MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT. EL. = 84.25 It .', , 3 EX. C.B. ACTUAL BLDG HEIGHT. EL. = 83.75 TOP �9.97 nv SO' 801CDIN_ G NVELOPE V� , } J 401 �� �+ I I /NV. IoS.OD7 - S It V It Nde /.5 �'!�/ , i yQ i , 90 A, Z Z y' p. .' •m, _ N66 ° 0 ;'• ,e, n l 19. 0 t I `pr 13 , a , , yopQ Ll 9, yy" 43 1N y�"�� d ` �� t ? .4 , 8.4 V NOTE LL1 - { ;; ' SURVEY OF THE THIS MAP DOES NOT REFLECT AN ACTUAL BOUNDARY a SUBJECT PROPERTY. BOUNDARY LINES SHOWN HEREON MAY CHANGE Q ' _I RELATIVE TO THE TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SHOWN, AFTER THE ACTUAL t,Q / as BOUNDARY LINE LOCATIONS HAVE BEEN ASCERTAINED. E x l s-r 1 IV C-" Hou5E az -, 10AN _L \o0 LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOTS 3 AND 4; BLOCK 29 OF THE PLAT MEADOWDALE BEACH AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 5 OF PLATS, PAGE 30, RECORDS. OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TOGETHER WITH A PORTION OF VACATED 75T"AVENUE WEST LYING ADJACENT: SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD. BENCH MARK 1- N. RIM OF SSMH LOCATED APPROX. 54f SOUTH AND 13' EAST OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF PROPERTY. DAT CITY OF EDMONDS M.L.L.W. (PER CITY OF EDMONDS AS -BUILT SEWER PLANS) TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY FOR •r SEA WOOD HOME INC. ` IN SW 1/4, SECTION 51 T. 27 N., R. 4 E., W. M. "'*a�, CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON �qF,� APR 1 I t r ��• r` �}ooFv Ex��r-iNg yousF-� �`/�cEY.gTio}�ts 4-ll-90 /v•W. • A 1 ADDED BUILOING E 0i_V6. NEIGNT CACC5• 1-11- 70 MM ac per Lovell-Sauerland &Associates, Inc. mom Engineers/Surveyors/Planners/Development Consultants °ail. l Apt 19400 33rd Avenue W., Suite 200 • Lynnwood, WA 98037 • (206) 775.1591 • (206) 340.0830 r DRAWN CHECKED DATE F.B. SCALE FILE NO. MM � JTT 8-8-813 E75 1" = ZO' f - /SS/2 fSPLw STREET FTt..- L-4 I NA . 7!,, 1 f;l 4 LOT vi Nf 1- 1 E. At" r4 IMP, Ar err li Y. lot DUO41 ji 0 1-19,01 r--ps. S.S.0, "M el" --Aj 4o LAH. �0" SCE.: gm�,VJZA I PrGPLAH i4SSoG. , I N c Q :b WXL ZI ()r f(#kr mwm)jbqx-1 M0 ��l � `` � . '�, ' .r �t N� •c..ea' � � ,.t + � i'�7� r ��a��O.J..� �r � �l 5, (b+ 4 + �p� T06EW WIN h&, W, �YM(s A-,Dkj4c6Mt (citT as.1 tea w S1, D e M M, L 014 m 1—h I L. a t wl I RF.(;iiiV FED APR 131990 PERMIT COUNTER 4 39 9 /Sg�z 7S ��. � 1OZ4 ,41 STREET FILL' I 1449 - ... EX/,5T. GROUND 76 PROPO,SE.O GARAGE 60 P,eOPOJE,O 1 A.fPHA&r 1 O el VE W'4 r4% _ /0% /0 It EX1,5 K PAV'T 7 a P„c roP 44.5 t EuL INV. 40,20 a /0 s ,(/n' {�/,(���/,/� W PVC CAP vr4 / 1' 1 A?0P0J,6 0 / \ / VCe • e Y Ca.TYPE I -A (A55QCIATEO /0 CB.-.- - - EQUAL) 50 MOF/L 6 l=°N"—r-c' To e=SL 6 „Pyc VERIFY //VVEreT PR/U'( CB #i - WICTOR D67M 156"NJrdW. 41, /58 rH W. O LAEBUGTON ^ Q /6oTNJrJ:W. IC WHA eP ��qo PU6E T s�rE /64TH Jr LfW tC _ •_..1 � — IL — -- — --� _ N.T.S. EX. 6 PVG 5' P,P/VATS !/raliyI I MAP ,OeAINA06 8"PVG C! �� I IO 30' � EX ii� EASF�YIEN /.0 /° MI 1 h I I I 7010 .90. /7 1510 INV. 74.55 - J upilup trench stakes.VW��. ` 01 ' 6X.�`W00,0 PGANrE,P�` ---- —�� - -J _ 1. Set the stakes., 2. Excavate e along the line of Fx Pl/,0 Ir°.0.:: , / �i kEST�'/GTO,E',OAT/ON E)i t �iY. SS /�It7 , _ /. o TYP'g 1A �� ', ', TrrPi L �� �, \ 4r ,` I TOP 73,93 v f/EL JET 70P 44.5 > x te- IA r �r� h E�' `� i� o NOT (f6 tl'fiEET 0 2 //VV. 65. /4 flow ' Q I/VV,�40,20 try pRoP 40� 5 \��: ,`\ f0 �RO ERY J' G / A A OVEFLOW 43.0 , n,, ` AR ri (qq, �• . � + ' Y T. Staple le filter atet-1ai to Backflll and compact theAA oR/FlYE 014, 1`314-�+- p6 , W I (i t I stakes and extend It Into excavated loll. r` O �2EtS//OE�t/GE a e I NOT A A / U,e trench. R V/ICE `\ ``� C� `,`. ; �� I ` O y A11..: Z� ( Z A ( \ p� ILS • allV P P 1 ��' �V! JrRAW ;BALES X 'I � e.• alY ,4 I , ii� . �,1, I %% . nW AS RPE50 BASEMENT C YN.7..5.) LLI LL) ' I V W•' V bo �' 1 I CONSTRUCTION OF A FILTER BARRIER 1 I ; ``. x L1 I f 1 / V Filter Barrier: This sediment barrier a;; `e constructed using stanJarJ strength synthetic Illlcr fr.,r c. It Is designed for low , ,�! ' + a� , ll' N 4� or moderate Ilows not exceeding t cis. 1 / ' EN0 PLjE 1. The height of a filler barrier shall be a minimum of IS Inches and f �� �8pJ7, shall not exceed IU Inches. ( ti') 41,11 T TOP. ,r i �►JPHA�T r 1, I ti 2. Ourlap or standard strength synthetic filter fabric shall be purchased (O ` 1 r� 1 ►, 1. ' /Nyy. - • l+ ' � In a continuous roll and cut to the length of lhr barrier to avoid + flits d thus improve the sir g and efficiency Of 1 1 (� I� t III bArripr u,e 1 (an Im r rn to 1 ; Lfts 1 O IJ Y� p A , t 0 3, The stakes shall be spaced a •aximumi of 7 feel spar( it the barrier �/N i s I I I TOP 70.22 IuuUun and driven securely Into the ground (minimum of 8 inches). P 64 Z s °� /N'✓. 6Z.55 +. A trench shall be excavated approximately 1 Inches ride and / Inches deep along the line of stakes and upslupe from the barrier, S. The filler material shall be stapled to the wooden stakes, and B ` / s r� 'ji I Inches of tilt- fabric shall be extended Into the trench. Ifeary duty 8.0 /D /v1AX.� ss\ G „ wire staples at Irast 1/7-Inch lung shall be used. filler material y�Rp I i L �`.,;;' ++ shall not bu stapled to LAIWI19 trees. X - �- ': ,ORA/N h GRADE t s I 6. The trench shall be backfllled and the loll compacted over the filter TO 0RA/N `l ;:`�� bOC' TOP 69.97 materlal. t' ` y� //VV 65.07 /v 2. 11 a filter barrier 1s l0 6e constructed across • ditch line or iwale, //Y V 64.67 tS the barrier shall be of sufficient Icn9th to eliminate end flow, and lee plan C10nrIUuratlun shall rescu4,le an arc or horseshoe with ll,r ands oriented upslupe 8. Filter barriers shall be removed when they have served their useful I , , /79't �' I '� - 10 purpose, but nut before the upslope area has been permanently slabl' Maintenance GENE>,PAL h/OTES.. � . 1. ALL ROOF DOWNSPOUTS AND FOOTING DRAINS WILL BE TIGHTLINED TO THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM SEPARATELY. 2. NO CONCENTRATIONS OF STORM RUNOFF WILL BE DISCHARGED TO GROUND SURFACE. .3. ALL SITE WORK IS TO BE CONDUCTED DURING DRY WEATHER. IN THE EVENT OF RAIN; ALL EXPOSED SLOPES WILL BE COVERED WITH PLASTIC AND THE EXCAVATION KEPT DRY BY PUMPING OR BY OTHER POSITIVE DRAINAGE MEASURES: 4. EXCAVATION.WILL BE PERFORMED WITH LIGHTWEIGHT EQUIPMENT. ..5: A GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT WILL BE RETAINED TO MONITOR ALL SITE WORK: 6a NO CUT SLOPES ON THE.SITE SHALL EXCEED 1H:1V. 7: A CONTINUOUS DRAIN WILL BE PLACED ALONG THE OUTER BASE OF THE FOOTINGS AND TIGHTLINED TO THE DRAINAGE:SYSTEM. THE DRAIN WILL CONSIST OF A FOUR (4) INCH DIAMETER PVC PIPE WHICH IS BACKFILLED WITH AT LEAST EIGHTEEN (18) INCHES OF. PEA GRAVEL. 0 ' G,2ADI,UG UA,UTI TIES 9 1. Silt fences and Illlcr barriers stall be Inspected low dlataly after Q each rainfall and At least daily during prolonged rainfall. Any required repairs shall be made Inuedlately. CUT = 900 CY 2. Should the fabric on a sill fence or filter barrier decompose or J j FILL = 340 C! become Ineffective prior to the end of the expected usable life and the barrier still be necessu y, U,e fabric shall be replaced promptly. q. Sediment deposits should be ru°oved after each storm event. .They . f a I must be rumuved when deposits reach approximately one-half the heightul the barrier. /. Any sediment deposltt rwalnlnq In place after the silt fence or k I ► ^ ��tq' litter barrier Is nu lunger require) shall be dressed to eonfOrim with the exlstlny yrada. prtpared and stladCJ, - 8. DETENTION SYSTEM OVERFLOW ELEVATION•`.IS SET 1' . BELOW MIN. GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE PLAN FOUNDATION EXCAVATION; TO MINIMIZE .WATER IN FOUNDATION DRAINS. IF FOUNDATION IS EXCAVATED BELOW_EL.44, DETENTION FOR SYSTEM MUST BE LOWERE� ACCORDINGLY f� 9. DETENTION SYSTEM MAY; BE SHIFTED '+TO WEST TO EXTENT ALLOWED BY SEAWOOD HOMES; INC. MINIMUM DESIGN SLOPES AND COVER:REQUIREMENTS. SYSTEM MAY NOT - ENROACH ON B.N.R.R. R/W, y� IN SW 1/4, SE.CTION 51 T. 27 N., R. 4 E., W. M. +-Y�r CITY OF EDMONDS, WASH I NGTON INVERT EL,e m rloN v mn'A e v PR '� �fEW6,2' iV1AiVHOL E �j� 1� /� I LOCA76D APPROX. 54 J0a7'N AM0 _ I3SU EAST .OF T/fE NORTNEAS r GORrS'E P OF P,20PERTY = 2 A0D6,O eOCffC y JHEET Z OF 2-3 - 26 - 90 IStSF /NV. ELEY..- 65.14 i ,l/�a RIM EL _V. = 73.93 s� �{�E' ' / REV/SE,O ANGLE 8"PVG w/ /(/OT6 /Z -Z/-c39 SSF C! //•�//fit T///,fit/,)( - .�,, •�,, Ke'y►��.-`- - Lovell-sauerland & -Associates, Inc. ti/rl / H/ . / _ REM .x4, 11 M Engineers/Surveyors/Planners/Development Consultants CITY OF E,OMo/V,05 Ai, L;L.W. PER G/rV OF E A4&1,05 AS -8UIL SE,e PLS , GIG Ia�/90 r WEAN . 19400 33rd Avenue W., Suite 200 • Lynnwood, WA 98037 Is (206) 775-1591 • (206) 3•• :_'I-0830 (p a De�t�,�lto g s DRAWN CHECKED DATE F.B. SCALE FILE NO. Y 1� To aTe; M x"N-W%V ID SF 9-27-89 275 /"=20' 2241 SHEET I OF 2 /3-0/0 7s--Rzl w Crvits STREET FILE