16221 75TH PL W.PDF16221 75TH PL W
ADDRESS: Z&W -76 D �
TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL NUMBER: r!%(/
BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE):
COVENANTS (RECORDED) FOR:
CRITICAL AREAS: 7 :2 DETERMINATION: ❑ Conditional Waiver Study Required ❑ Waiver
DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S:
DRAINAGE PLAN DATED:
PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED:
EASEMENT(S) RECORDED FOR:_
PERMITS (OTHER):
PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DA'
SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED:
SEWER LID FEE $:
SHORT PLAT FILE:
SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED: �J
SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) #: /
GEOTECH REPORT DATED: 7"4P
STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT #:
WATER METER TAP CARD DATED:
LID #: 210
LOT: BLOCK:
L:\TEMP\DS'Ps\Forms\Street File Checklist.doc
CITY OF EDMONDS
PUBLIC WORKS DEPART T FOR INSPECTION CALL • Permit
7'7�-5°-2�5;2.5 Ext. 2.2-.Q Issue Date
SIDE SEWER PERMIT '7-".,9�� 7c��
PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOB SITE
1. Address of Construction % Z J �; / 1-7 C L' LY.NNWOOD LINE
6.
co
Property Legal Description (include all easements)
,, .
Single Family Residence { Multi -Family No. of Units
Commercial
Owner and/or Builder I-- J- d
Contractor & License No. e AA- ✓ I sA �, s ! 6--y, r. 4 r _a jY r i � � ° I -'/✓I
Invasion into City Right -of -Way: No )( Yes (If Yes Right-of-
way Construction Permit Required - Call Dial Dig XAr4t2'j�1314141)f before
excavation) . 1-800-454-5555
7. Cross other private property: Yes No k Easement required -
attach legal description and county easement number.
READ THE FOLLOWING AND SIGN:
a. Property owners must obtain a permit to install side sewers on
their property. A licensed side sewer contractor must be employed to
construct side sewers in the public right-of-way.
b. The side sewer contractor assumes full reponsibility for each
installation for one year.
C. Commercial establishment requires a minimum of a six inch (6")
side sewer line.
d. Side sewers may not be installed closer than thirty inches (30")
to any structure.
e. Side sewer lines must be laid at a minimum grade of 2% (1.15°)
and maximum grade of 100% (450).
f. No turn in side sewer greater than 45° (1/8ibend) is allowed
between cleanout. All 90 turns must be constructed of a 450 (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:
/ I certify that I have read
and shall comply with the above
PERMIT FEE:,2n, e)6 DISAPPROVED BY: Date:
w a; i-J uroC 2�': �C7 B� • Date:
w CONNECTION FEE: APPROVED By!-� Date: 8
* PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOB SITE
rr f.- rto
-
0 of
:K N
C, rj
Z 0
-r, -n
c
w
LM
%0
10
Ci
W
0
C,
Ll W < r- a:.
0 r- 0 m
C-)
ir- 1, 7- r" 0
M,;K Q lei
n
r- CD
m
m
--i Nj r-
C-)
r- -4
1: 0 V) -M
n --1 -4
:9. C)
nzrNs
rr, 'M
C)
rlj:-c
.--I
0 00
--i %rd Z
I M
n
C'3 M
c.
cl
rr.
cti
C-)
0
N
In
0
OD
A'A
1=1
m ff"it , Z" cr-) V
I
m r— r— i--
< cr m
r. -D Lon (In tw-:
m r-j r-
;v 00 V)
--i N 00 1
rl
r- C', C) 0
z C;
m I ("I
- rl) C%
1
I
co
(17, 0
X - 0
I
I
;o
p— r m 1
2: CD cn I
;o 0
C)
-4 -n x
< C)
0
1.. z I
I
7D 0
0
r.; L 1; 0
C,
v 0
0
0
X w
fy,
ul:
C) > r1i
ry
I
co
cr,
LA:
N
—4 I
cn
nG
Ln C:r .. I a:
-r. -n r-
dr, rr: -n -m 71 r-
0 r--,r
u cn Z' �
-i 77 �
1
I
z :,
n'nr-
Lin ul 0:.
C) C) 0:
1
C)
Cry
-n 'n rl
-n --4 c C;.r-:
i
Z. z --4 C-0 r-
M;
M:
M:o G Lm
> I m
1
C) I
0 M Ln -4 n
r- o, n ru
J7,; i
C0 — 'o. M
1-1
x 70 LA �.n I
Un C, rr -M C-)
Z. CI
1
m
C) (on (A
0 .0 M
I>
.;r- C) 7,
> r-
M irl cn m
-4
Ln m
m 41 C:
I
0 1
0 m rr- xi.
un
f
z I
0
-7 0 <
-n :<
-C
C)
In
N)
--4
Ul a -n M
Ln
cn
--4 m
-4 n
z (n z
Z,(4
II
M C)
00.
cl` Z 00
-Tl -n V)
-n m
•C)!
C)
.
0
0 M. I
0 <
ri -<;
ro
in
i 1
z 1
m
C,
Ln:: ,
c):
m i
C.) c
of
>
CO
m
4
OD
0
w
>
0
z
0
0
z
0
z
0
CL
m
Critical Areas Checklist CA File No: Oa-17
Site Information (soils/topography/hydrology/vegetation) STREET FILE
1. Site Address/ Location: / 6 2 Z / - 7S ?PL . W , E'o M a
2. Property Tax Account Number: d O S"/ 3% D 06 0 6 S OO 4
3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): It RR 2 3 .2 u1f'
4. Is this site currently developed? V yes; no.
If yes; how is site developed? 5 r < 4� V, ( y
5. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply.
Flat: less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site.
Rolling: slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal
distance of 66-feet).
Hilly: slopes present on site of more than 15% and less than 30% ( a vertical rise of 10-feet
over a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet).
Steep: grades of greater than 30% present on site (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal
distance of less than 33-feet).
Other (please describe):
6. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: /Yo ; Approx. Depth:
7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: N_ ; Approx. Depth: _
What season(s) of the year?
8. Site is in the floodway floodplain of a water course.
9. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flows are year-round?
Flows are seasonal? ✓ (What time of year? 'W i n 4--r - ).
10. Site is primarily: forested ; meadow ;shrubs ; mixed t/ ;
urban landscaped (lawn,shrubs etc)
11. Obvious wetland is present on site: /V b
For G
y nfr,•o�dyi d'r b. •.
1 50an=Check Number, if applicable?
,Z
S1te 1S'ZOneci
S
tp 3 SC,S mapped sotype(s)? - - '-
K,
4 Cnhcal Areas inventory or C A map indicate
5 e r'`Site�within desi ted earth subsidence laiids
s:
3 7.: is
"D
Revieweii bir I
Staff•Use Only ` �0
g� r
:Y" '^. ,�.. •,ham •> � ,�,°{.a�.�Y t y !i x � ->
Critical -Area on siteZ'
de hazard areal �� t l i ,4 1 4pE, _
r a .27.1
.JMRMN
ATION�
WAIVER
Critical Areas Checklist.doc/3.19.2001
OF ED�O
o City OPEdmonds
��r v Development Services Department
�� :•
Plafining Division
Phone: 425.771.0220
1 g90 Fax: 425.771.0221
The Critical Areas Checklist contained on this form is to
be filled out by any person preparing a Development
Permit Application for the City of Edmonds prior to
his/her submittal of the application to the City.
The purpose of the Checklist is to enable City staff to
determine whether any potential Critical Areas are, or
may be, present on the subject property. The information
needed to complete the Checklist should be easily
available from observations of the site or data available at
City Hall (Critical areas inventories, maps, or soil
surveys).
Date Received: 7/ G Jf. U
City Receipt #: (-
Critical Areas File #:
Critical Areas Checklist Fee: $45.00
Date Mailed to Applicant:
A property owner, or his/her authorized representative,
must fill out the checklist, sign and date it, and submit it
to the City. The City will review the checklist, make a
precursory site visit, and make a determination of the
subsequent steps necessary to complete a development
permit application.
Please submit a vicinity map, along with the signed copy
of this form to assist City staff in finding and locating the
specific piece of property described on this form. In
addition, the applicant shall include other pertinent
information (e.g. site plan, topography map, etc.) or
studies in conjunction with this Checklist to assistant staff
in completing their preliminary assessment of the site.
The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees
to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable
attomey's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or
incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees.
By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and that I am authorized to file this application on the behalf of the owner as listed below.
SIGNATURE OF
DATE
Property Owner's Autho-rization
By my signature, I certify that I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application,
and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the
purposes of inspection and posting attendant to this application.
SIGNATURE OF OWNER
PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY
Owner/Applicant:
Name
Street Address
City State Zip
Telephone:
Email address (optional):
DATE
Applicant Representative:
r, J. )4 t4c/a k
Name
Zl ols sti< 1 / Ua .Illy 1NY
Street Address
98 o z4
City State Zip
Telephone: Cam' Z S% % 7 s - / ° /
Email Address (optional):
Critical Areas Checklist.dod3.19.2001
• 0
City of Edmonds
Critical Areas Determination
Applicant: Steven J. Hudak Determination #: CA-02-77
Project Name: Permit Number:
Site Location: 16221 75`h Pl. W Property Tax AM #: 00 5131 000 065 00
Project Description:
Non -Project Specific
Determination: Study Required:
During review and inspection of the subject site, it was found that the site has some potential for steep
slopes on portions of the property and/or adjacent to the property pursuant to Chapter 20.1513 of the
Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). Based on these findings, prior to submission of any
building permit, you will be required satisfy the requirements of ECDC 20.15B by completing the
following:
THE "STUDY REQUIRED" PROCESS:
1. First Step: In order to determine whether or not a steep slope does in fact exist on your property
and/or is adjacent to your property, you are required to submit a topographic survey. This survey
must be completed by a Licensed Land Surveyor (with a professional stamp on the drawing). The
survey must include the following information:
A. Top of the slope
B. Toe of the slope
Note: If there is not an obvious break in the topography to indicate the
top and toe of the slope, then a Geotechnical Engineer may be required
to locate the top and the toe of the slope. Refer to the City Code section
ECDC Chapter 20.15B.
2. Second Step, if deemed necessary: If you feel that you need to have the proposal located in the
buffer area or in the critical area, then you may apply for a Steep Slope Exemption, Critical Areas
Exemption, or Conditional Waiver. It is important to understand that not every applicant will qualify
for the exemptions and waivers listed above. Only a few applications are issued exemptions and
waivers on a project by project basis:
Please do not submit any new materials, such as Geotech Reports, elevations, soil reports,
unless you have received an official memo from the City requesting additional information and
you have contacted a na)7ner at the CiAY,to 3lptern)i ne how to proceed with your proposal.
Name `/ Signature u Date
F7
t•itIN,
I 4.01i I
X-13 I
IS!
Critical Areas Checklist CA File No: o'7
Site Information (soils/topography/hydrology/vegetation)
1. Site Address/ Location: / 6 2 Z I - 75- -7 OL . W E'0 M `
2. Property Tax Account Number: d O S I3I 600 O 6,s 60
3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): A RR c 3 =`T' 1
4. Is this site currently developed? Y yes; no. Y _ -; r F- -t r•+ � �..: + r
C:1IL: V �/ v.
If yes; how is site developed? SDI
5. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply.
Flat: less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site.
Rolling: slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal
distance of 66-feet).
Hilly: slopes present on site of more than 15% and less than 30% ( a vertical rise of 10-feet
over a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet).
Steep: grades of greater than 30% present on site (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal
distance of less than 33-feet).
Other (please describe):
6. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: /1 0 ; Approx. Depth:
7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: Nc ; Approx. Depth:
What season(s) of the year?
8. Site is in the floodway floodplain of a water course.
9. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flows are year-round?
Flows are seasonal? ✓ (What time of year? 'W I
10. Site is primarily: forested ; meadow ;shrubs ; mixed t.��
urban landscaped (lawn,shrubs etc)
11. Obvious wetland is present on site: N b
x For C1 Staff Use Only
777777
1 •J � t� (�
mapped�sot7
JL
4 Cntical Areas inventory or C A map indicates Cntical Area on site? ��J
� r ✓ � tin', rl ,� �r-N -;sd �...,t A -SRIv ' i f f 1 t a. . �v-_ v `✓ �V �•_�L � `C Site within designated earth subsidence landslide hazaid area?
` D ATION
7 {
WAIVER ,
Critical Areas Checklist.doc/3.19.2001
•
OF ED&
�o City of Edmonds
Development Services Department
Planning Division
Phone: 425.771.0220
lac 5911 Fax: 425.771.0221
The Critical Areas Checklist contained on this form is to
be filled out by any person preparing a Development
Permit Application for the City of Edmonds prior to
his/her submittal of the application to the City.
The purpose of the Checklist is to enable City staff to
determine whether any potential Critical Areas are, or
may be, present on the subject property. The information
needed to complete the Checklist should be easily
available from observations of the site or data available at
City Hall (Critical areas inventories, maps, or soil
surveys).
Date Received: . � % G J� 0 L
City Receipt #: I
Critical Areas File M
Critical Areas Checklist Fee: $45.00
Date Mailed to Applicant:
A property owner, or his/her authorized representative,
must fill out the checklist, sign and date it, and submit it
to the City. The City will review the checklist, make a
precursory site visit, and make a determination of the
subsequent steps necessary to complete a development
permit application.
Please submit a vicinity map, along with the signed copy
of this form to assist City staff in finding and locating the
specific piece of property described on this form. In
addition, the applicant shall include other pertinent
information (e.g. site plan, topography map, etc.) or
studies in conjunction with this Checklist to assistant staff
in completing their preliminary assessment of the site.
The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees
to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable
attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or
incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees.
By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and that I am aut ized to file this application on the behalf of the owner as listed below.
SIGNATURE OF
DATE �i Z 3 -- 0 L
Property Owner's Autho?izarion
By my signature, I certify that I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application,
and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the
purposes of inspection and posting attendant to this application.
SIGNATURE OF OWNER
PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY
Owner/Applicant:
Name
Street Address
City State Zip
Telephone:
Email address (optional):
DATE
Applicant Representative:
V7 7, �4 t4d,a k
Name
Zlols sties Jl UG llfyy"-Y
Street Address
Eldwtorl,4S wc,: 18o24
City State Zip
Telephone: (e-1 z S,) % 7 S - ° /
Email Address (optional):
Critical Areas Checklist.dod3.19.2001
City of Edmonds
Critical Areas Determination
Applicant: Phyllis Lawson Determination #: CA-02-77
Project Name: Fire - Rebuild Permit Number: PC-03-346
Site Location: 16221— 75`h Place W. Property Tax Acct #: 5131 000 065 00
Project Description:
To reconstruct a two-story house with basement on the existing
foundation of a structure that burned.
Waiver Criteria (all criteria must be found to apply):
X There will be no alteration of the Critical Area or its required buffers;
X The development proposal will not impact the Critical Area in a manner contrary to
the goals, purposes, objectives and requirements of the Critical Areas ordinance;
X The development proposal meets the minimum standards of the Critical Areas
ordinance;
X The above findings are based on the following conditions of approval:
1. This conditional waiver is only for work done within the existing footprint of
the existing house, except the cantilevered floors outside the footprint are
also acceptable.
2. No work shall be done that creates the potential of soil movement or risk of
harm or damage to existing uses or development, or to the public safety
(ECDC 20.15B.040.A.2).
3. This conditional waiver does not include pin walls or retaining walls done
outside of the building footprint.
4. A building permit is required for all work.
Based on the above findings and conditions, the requirement for a Critical Areas Study
associated with this development permit is hereby Waived, as authorized by Chapter 20.15B.040
(A)(1) of the Edmonds Community Development Code.
Meg Gruwell 10/03/2003
1
City of Edmonds
Critical Areas Determination
Applicant: Steven J. Hudak Determination #: CA-02-77
Project Name: Permit Number:
Site Location: 16221 75`" Pl. W Property Tax AM #: 00 5131 000 065 00
Project Description: Non -Project Specific
Determination: Study Required:
During review and inspection of the subject site, it was found that the site has some potential for steep
slopes on portions of the property and/or adjacent to the property pursuant to Chapter 20.15B of the
Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). Based on these findings, prior to submission of any
building permit, you will be required satisfy the requirements of ECDC 20.15B by completing the
following:
THE "STUDY REQUIRED" PROCESS:
1. First Step: In order to determine whether or not a steep slope does in fact exist on your property
and/or is adjacent to your property, you are required to submit a topographic survey. This survey
must be completed by a Licensed Land Surveyor (with a professional stamp on the drawing). The
survey must include the following information:
A. Top of the slope
B. Toe of the slope
ciNote: If there is not an obvious break in the topography to indicate the
top and toe of the slope, then a Geotechnical Engineer may be required
to locate the top and the toe of the slope. Refer to the City Code section
ECDC Chapter 20.15B.
2. Second Step, if deemed necessary: If you feel that you need to have the proposal located in the
buffer area or in the critical area, then you may apply for a Steep Slope Exemption, Critical Areas
Exemption, or Conditional Waiver. It is important to understand that not every applicant will qualify
for the exemptions and waivers listed above. Only a few applications are issued exemptions and
waivers on a project by project basis.
Please do not submit any new materials, such as Geotech Reports, elevations, soil reports,
unless you have received an official memo from the City requesting additional information and
al.
Name
Signature
Date
0
PLANNING DATA
NAME: ph h l L-r DATE: %/ LS /P3
SITE ADDRES : ( & 221 - %S^ Pi w, PLAN CHK#: 03- 34G
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: FxtCww 2-fia.,, �•
REDUCED SITE PLAN PROVIDED?: Yes No
MAP PAGE: 5-07 CORNER LOT: e / No FLAG LOT: Yes o
ZONING: S - Za CRITICAL` AREAS DETERMINATION #: 02-— 77 ((;, .4 , dF
Study Required:_ e164 nr ) - %Stop, .Ne 3tL-� r iti _!i�✓k b'�`o t�ati h a s'
❑ Waiver 411. - (twA pr t c.JA titiv "4, n.�-� b � fa >f slop., A {
❑ Conditional Waiver b"~ �^"'r �°' �� J�4 i"a'i up4ll s;ti,,,/S, ,,Jv, f,,•N„
SEPA DETERMINATION:
❑ Fee
❑ Checklist
❑ APO list w/ notarized form
4$ s wvu M. i i1 yad t3 �e✓ P (+ um,_.
❑ (Needed for 500 cubic yards of grading, Shoreline Area- site within 200 ft. of Puget Sound or Lake Ballinger)
Ld Exempt
SETBACKS:
Required Setbacks:
Street: 25' Left Side: 10/31 * Right Side: 110135Rear: ZS'
Actual Setbacks:
Street: 701 Left Side: 3 ` Right Side: 92 ' Rear: }5M'
Street map checked for additional setback required? e / No / DNA) jo, cqS..�. {n,„,, ` 1< ST ", r
❑ DETACHED STRUCTURES: ov-4 ram. nsr nc� wr.,� .1,., to,_e k'." "W-"
❑ ROCKERIES:
❑ FENCES/TRELLISES:
La BAY WINDOWS / PROJECTING MODULATION: " b *�+►� n•r Sr..,., (/'► , , �! ` a (e4444" k'V A4k/
STAIRS / DECKS: S s,-. — s;�, r,-- ; 6�� f.--
PARKING: Required: L Actual: I "hhpk
LOT AREA:
LOT COVE 107-4- 219
Calculations: 11-7 Ir2P /t 2 ,ff-
y
BUILDING HEIGHT:
Datum Point: nt>` ;ti Acnnv� C-s 0, Datum Elevation:
Maximum Allowed: ZS' Actual Height: ZS�
A.D.U. CREATED?: / Yes)
SUBDIVISION: -
LEGAL NONCONFORMING LAND USE DETERMINATION ISSUED: Yes / o
* OTHER: V
to: b
Plan Review By:s.,,,�
PkA s ue..,
NewBPP lanningDataForm. DOC
J !
,y c
L
r1%7 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC.
Giotechnical Engineering - Hydrogeology - Geoenvironmental Services - InsPection Testing
N'ov eriber4,2003
HWA Project No. 2003000-21 Task 19
City of Edmonds �Q�3
Development Services Department
121 5 Avenue North
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Attn: I Jeannine Graf, Building Official
Re: COMMENTS ON ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED LAWSON SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE RECONSTRUCTION
16221 75' PLACE WEST, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Dear Ms. Graf:
As requested, HWA GeoSciences Inc. (HWA) has reviewed the additional geotechnical
investigation of the above -mentioned property, dated October 2, 2003, prepared by Dennis M.
Bruce, P.E., and entitled "Additional Geotechnical Investigation, Lawson Reconstructed Home,
16221 75th Pl. W, Edmonds, Washington. The additional investigation was prepared in response
to HWA's review comments presented in a letter dated September 10, 2003. This current letter
provides our comments and should be read in conjunction with our previous letter.
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
The additional investigation by Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. does not, in our view, fully address all the
items raised in our September 10, 2003, letter. However, the report does provide observations
from two additional test pits; one (Test Pit No. IA) of which was located in the lower -lying area
east of the house, and the other (Test Pit No. 2A) near the base of the slope to the west of the
house.. Both additional test pits encountered dense to very dense sand and silty sand/hard and
extremely dense silt, and demonstrate that the dense material is not limited to the immediate
vicinity of the house.
We also noted the following:
l . The soils encountered in the test pits on the property are substantially more dense and
intact than those encountered in previous investigations in the vicinity of the property.
For example, reference is made to boring P-15, drilled by Landau Associates for the
City on 162nd Street West, and borings completed by HWA and others at 16108 75t,
Place West for a private developer. All of these revealed substantial (tens of feet) of
softened soils over Whidbey Formation comprising very stiff to hard silt and clay.
2. The original house foundations date to the 1940s and show no
evidence of cracking that appears to be related to slide movements
since the time of construction.
19730 - 64th Avenue W.
as
200' ?r
Lynnwood; WA 98036.5
.. 1
TeL•_425:7-7.4.01Db�..
November 4, 2003 • •
HWA Project No. 2003000-21 Task 19
3. Large trees present in the immediate vicinity of the house do not have bent trunks that
are typically indicative of slope creep.
4. An extensive drainage system was installed by the City in 1985 to 1990. The City
provided drawings to HWA showing the location of these drainage improvements.
These drains appear to be working satisfactorily. Despite HWA hearing the sound of
flowing water during a field reconnaissance visit, Mr. Bruce reports no seepage
occurring in dense silty sand in a test pit near the toe of the slope to the west of the
house.
These observations indicate that conditions on the planned new Lawson reconstruction site are at
least as favorable, and probably better than those occurring elsewhere in the immediate
Meadowdale area. Therefore, while Mr. Bruce has not demonstrated that the property is not part
of a large slide mass, it is considered likely that the probability of a slide impacting the property
during a 25-year period is small, and probably less than 10%. However, it should be appreciated
that a finite risk of a post -reconstruction slope failure exists, and it is imperative that good
drainage of the site is maintained.
We understand from the City Engineer that it is the responsibility of the owner/developer to deal
with all surface water and ground water on their property and direct such water to the storm
sewer system, in an appropriate manner.
SPECIFIC RESPONSES
The following are our specific responses to Mr. Bruce's comments:
Survey Issues: The required information was provided.
2. Probability of Slump Occurrence: The additional investigation does not show that the
entire area is not a very large slide block. The investigation does show that the
material occurring within 10 feet of the surface over a relatively large area is very
dense/hard and not soft and disturbed as in locations of other recent Meadowdale
slides. Therefore, the potential for a localized slide impacting just the Lawson house,
is likely relatively low. Mr. Bruce states that "Ongoing proper maintenance of the
City of Edmonds drainage system will keep slump probability occurrence less than
10%". As stated previously, we understand from the City Engineer that it is the
property owner/developer's responsibility to deal with drainage requirements on the
site. We further understand that the design must not rely on the City's system for
collecting surface water and ground water on private property, or for assuming lot
stability that may be influenced by on -site water conditions, other than as a system to
convey water that has been directed to it from the private property.
Lawson Residence 2 HWA GeoSciences Inc.
• November 4, 2003 •
HWA Project No. 2003000-21 Task 19
10
3. Potential of Water to Pond East of the House: It is recommended that the civil
engineer address drainage issues in this area to reduce the risk of ponding.
4. Slone Area West of the House: Based on the test pit excavated by Mr. Bruce in this
area, this slope does not appear to be part of a recent landslide.
5. Westerly Pin -Pile Wall: It is agreed that if the western slope is not an old landslide,
the pin -pile wall is not required for geotechnical stability purposes.
6. Geotechnical Criteria: Noted.
7. Restrained Walls - Criteria: We disagree; if the wall is restrained from moving then
active pressures will not develop and KO conditions will apply. Accordingly,
equivalent fluid pressures significantly greater than 35 pcf could develop.
8. Structural Fill: Noted.
9. Existing House Cracks: Noted, but this does not explain why the foundation drawings
provided indicated that the north wall was to be supported on pin -piles.
If you have any questions regarding this review, or need additional information, please do not
hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
HWA GeoSciences, Inc.
I-EXP!REs 02 / 04 /74
Brian E. Hall, P.E.
Senior Geotechnical Engineer
BEH:LAB:beh
Lawson Residence
Lorne Balanko, P.E.
Principal
3 HWA GeoSciences Inc.
�h
CITY P
04GEOSCIENC,ES INC.
technical Engineering - Hydrogeology - Geocnvironmental Seri -ices - Inspection & Testing
No eri be 4, 2003
H?VAProject No. 2003000-21 Task 19
City of Edmonds 6 2003
Development Services Department NQV
121 5`h Avenue North
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Attn: Jeannine Graf, Building Official
Re: COMMENTS ON ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED LAWSON SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE RECONSTRUCTION
16221 75TH PLACE WEST, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Dear Ms. Graf -
As requested, HWA GeoSciences Inc. (HWA) has reviewed the additional geotechnical
investigation of the above -mentioned property, dated October 2, 2003, prepared by Dennis M.
Bruce, P.E., and entitled "Additional Geotechnical Investigation, Lawson Reconstructed Home,
16221 75th Pl. W, Edmonds, Washington. The additional investigation was prepared in response
to HWA's review comments presented in a letter dated September 10, 2003. This current letter
provides our comments and should be read in conjunction with our previous letter.
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
The additional investigation by Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. does not, in our view, fully address all the
items raised in our September 10, 2003, letter. However, the report does provide observations
from two additional test pits; one (Test Pit No. 1A) of which was located in the lower -lying area
east of the house, and the other (Test Pit No. 2A) near the base of the slope to the west of the
house. Both additional test pits encountered dense to very dense sand and silty sand/hard and
extremely dense silt, and demonstrate that the dense material is not limited to the immediate
vicinity of the house.
We also noted the following:
1. The soils encountered in the test pits on the property are substantially more dense and
intact than those encountered in previous investigations in the vicinity of the property.
For example, reference is made to boring P-15, drilled by Landau Associates for the
City on 162nd Street West, and borings completed by HWA and others at 16108 75 h
Place West for a private developer. All of these revealed substantial (tens of feet) of
softened soils over Whidbey Formation comprising very stiff to hard silt and clay.
}
2. The original house foundations date to the 1940s and show no 19730 64th nee;
evidence of cracking that appears to be related to slide movements
r�su
Lynnwood 14UA 980'3
since the time of construction.
November 4, 2003 •
HWA Project No. 2003000-21 Task 19
3. Large trees present in the immediate vicinity of the house do not have bent trunks that
are typically indicative of slope creep.
4. An extensive drainage system was installed by the City in 1985 to 1990. The City
provided drawings to HWA showing the location of these drainage improvements.
These drains appear to be,working satisfactorily. Despite HWA hearing the sound of
flowing water during a field reconnaissance visit, Mr. Bruce reports no seepage
occurring in dense silty sand in a test pit near the toe of the slope to the west of the
house.
These observations indicate that conditions on the planned new Lawson reconstruction site are at
least as favorable, and probably better than those occurring elsewhere in the immediate
Meadowdale area. Therefore, while Mr. Bruce has not demonstrated that the property is not part
of a large slide mass, it is considered likely that the probability of a slide impacting the property
during a 25-year period is small, and probably less than 10%. However, it should be appreciated
that a finite risk of a post -reconstruction slope failure exists, and it is imperative that good
drainage of the site is maintained.
We understand from the City Engineer that it is the responsibility of the owner/developer to deal
with all surface water and ground water on their property and direct such water to the storm
sewer system, in an appropriate manner.
SPECIFIC RESPONSES
The following are our specific responses to Mr. Bruce's comments:.
1. Survey Issues: The required information was provided.
2. Probability of Slump Occurrence: The additional investigation does not show that the
entire area is not a very large slide block. The investigation does show that the
material occurring within 10 feet of the surface over a relatively large area is very
dense/hard and not soft and disturbed as in locations of other recent Meadowdale
slides. Therefore, the potential for a localized slide impacting just the Lawson house,
is likely relatively low. Mr. Bruce states that "Ongoing proper maintenance of the
City of Edmonds drainage system will keep slump probability occurrence less than
10W. As stated previously, we understand from the City Engineer that it is the
property owner/developer's responsibility to deal with drainage requirements on the
site. We further understand that the design must not rely on the City's system for
collecting surface water and ground water on private property, or for assuming lot
stability that may be influenced by on -site water conditions, other than as a system to
convey water that has been directed to it from the private property.
Lawson Residence 2 HWA GeoSciences Inc.
November 4, 2003
HWA Project No. 2003000-21 Task 19
3. Potential of Water to Pond East of the House: It is recommended that the civil
engineer address drainage issues in this area to reduce the risk of ponding.
4. Slope Area West of the House: Based on the test pit excavated by Mr. Bruce in this
area, this slope does not appear to be part of a recent landslide.
5. Westerly Pin -Pile Wall: It is agreed that if the western slope is not an old landslide,
the pin -pile wall is not required for geotechnical stability purposes.
6. Geotechnical Criteria: Noted.
7. Restrained Walls - Criteria: We disagree; if the wall is restrained from moving then
active pressures will not develop and K. conditions will apply. Accordingly,
equivalent fluid pressures significantly greater than 35 pcf could develop.
8. Structural Fill: Noted.
9. Existing House Cracks: Noted, but this does not explain why the foundation drawings
provided indicated that the north wall was to be supported on pin -piles.
If you have any questions regarding this review, or need additional information, please do not
hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
HWA GeoSciences, Inc.
REs 02 / 04 /cam
Brian E. Hall, P.E.
Senior Geotechnical Engineer
BEH:LAB:beh
Lorne Balanko, P.E.
Principal
Lawson Residence 3 HWA GeoSciences Inc.
?, Oct 28 03 01:49P D.Bruce, P.E. cub 01to wt4c r•.
h
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
M.S.C.E., M.B.A. GeotechnicallCivil Engineer
October 2, 2003 RECEIVED
r 'T 2 8 2003
City of Edmonds PERMIT COUNTER
c/o Mrs. Phyliss Lawson
4206 152nd PI. SW
Lynnwood, WA 98037 _
Subject: Additional Geotechnical Investigation
Lawson Reconstructed Home
16221 75'h PI. W, Edmonds, Washington
This engineering report presents the results of additional geotechnical
investigation for the Lawson property at 16221 75`h PI. W, Edmonds, Washington. City
of EdmondsP P Development Services Department and their geotechnical consultant, HWA
GeoSciences, Inc, requested this additional geotech
nical work.
REFERENCES:
• Project Plans for reconstructed Lawson residence
• Survey Map by Western Surveyors, Inc.
• Geotechnical Evaluation Report by D. Bruce, P.E. dated July 22, 2003
HWA GeoSciences, Inc. Pier Review Report dated September 10, 2003
• Photographs by D. Bruce, P.E. dated September 17 and 18,.2003
BACKGROUND:
As previously stated, the Lawson residence incurred a significant fire in 2001.
This engineer understands that Mrs. Lawson submitted to City of Edmonds to rebuild
the house in the same location with the same footprint using existing foundation (as
much as feasible).
It is understood that the City of Edmonds informed Mrs. Lawson that the full
geotechnical submittal relating to the "Meadowdale zone" would be required as. of
March 2003.
Mrs. Lawson contacted this engineer shortly after March 2003 for geotechnical
services. Soil test pits were dug and Report submitted dated July 22, 2003 with
foundation recommendations.
SOILS - FOUNDATIONS • SITE DEVELOPMENT • INSPECTION • DRAINAGE - DESIGN 6 PERMIT • LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502 • Shoreline, Washington 98155 - (206) 546-9217 - FAX 546-8442
r•-
City of Edmonds
c/o Mrs. Phyliss Lawson
October 2, 2003
Page 2
City of Edmonds submitted the Geotechnical Report for HWA GeoSciences'
review (see September 10, 2003 HWA GeoSciences, Inc.'s Report by Mr. Brian Hall,
P.E.)
ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION:
This engineer met with Mr. Brian Hall, P.E. of HWA GeoSciences, Inc. on
September 17, 2003 with City of Edmonds Building Administration Personnel (D.
Bowman, J. Graf).
Brian Hall, P.E. expressed concerns (as discussed in the HWA GeoSciences'
September 10, 2003 Report) regarding possible slide conditions, possible drainage
issues. and overall site integrity.
Rather than argue over existing geotechnical information, this engineer
suggested digging additional test pits in locations of concern relating to HWA
GeoSciences' observations.
On September 18, 2003, additional test pits were dug. One pit was dug at the
rear (southeasterly area) of the existing residence foundation. This test pit (1A) was
dug between the City of Edmonds drainage system (understood to have been installed
by City of Edmonds 1985 — 1990 to deal with up -slope drainage issues). .
The second pit (Test Pit No. 2A) was dug into the slope face and base of the
western slope (in front and below the existing residence foundation).
Test Pit No. 1A:
0" to 18" Organics, moderate dense sandy
silt
18" to 7' Dense to very dense sand
7' to 9 W (bottom of pit) Very dense hard gray silt
No water was encountered in Test Pit No_ 1A. Test pit walls remained vertical
and stable with no sloughing or caving. Excavation below the 7-foot depth was difficult
(see photographs).
Test Pit No. 2A:
0" to 18" Roots, organics and moderately dense
sandy silt
18" to 4' Dense silty sand
Oct 28 03 01 : qyP u. uruce, r. t. r • +
City of Edmonds
c/o Mrs. Phyliss Lawson
October 2, 2003
Page 3
4' to 10'
Extremely dense glacio-lacustrine silts
No water was encountered in Test Pit No. 2A. Test pit walls remained vertical
and stable (for over 20 hours). Excavation into the very dense silts was difficult.
Soil samples are available for City of Edmonds and their consultants to evaluate.
RESPONSE TO HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. SEPTEMBER 10, 2003 ITEMS OF
CONCERN;
1) Survey Issues: HWA GeoSciences, Inc. expresses concerns regarding the
existing drainage system. This engineer hopes that actual discussions may exist
between City of Edmonds and HWA GeoSciences to clarify the location and
function of the City of Edmonds' installed drainage system. HWA GeoSciences'
Report expresses concern regarding "we could hear water flowing in this low
lying area but did not locate the source". The source of the flowing water is the
City of Edmonds drainage system that was installed 1985 — 1990. This engineer
believes that City of Edmonds utilizes proper, ongoing maintenance to keep the
drainage system functional.
All soil test pits are indicated on the updated Site Plan.
2) Probability of Slump Occurrence: The 1979 Roger Lowe & Associates Report
applied a "90 percent" likelihood of landslides in the overall region. An updated
study in 1984 by GeoEngineers reduced the 90 percent likelihood to 10 to 30
percent. Obviously, no geotechnical engineer possesses an accurate crystal ball
regarding future slide failures.
The original test pits and recent (September 18, 2003) test pits verified dense,
native sub -grade soils that are very unlikely to slide.
This engineer declares that the probability of occurrence of a slump during a 25-
year period in the vicinity of the reconstructed Lawson residence is significantly
less than 10 percent. Ongoing proper maintenance of the City of Edmonds
drainage system will keep slump probability occurrence less than 10 percent.
3) Potential of Water to Pond East of House: The City of Edmonds drainage system
appears to be functioning properly with inlet catch basins and tight line drain
lines. Based on the existing drainage system and the dense sub -grade soils, it is
extremely unlikely for any groundwater seepage to undermine the Lawson house
foundation sub -grades soils.
City of Edmonds
c/o Mrs. Phyliss Lawson
October 2, 2003
Page 4
4) Sloped Area West of House: The September 18, 2003 test pits verified
extremely dense gray silt that required difficult excavations. No seepage or
instability was observed. Thus, it is unlikely that the sloped area immediately
west of the house is a historic landslide.
5) Westerly Pin -Pile Wall: As previously discussed, the suggested erosion
stabilization pin -pile wall is not geotechnically necessary for the integrity of the
Lawson foundation and residence. Rather, this engineer suggested the pin -pile
wall as a [Weans of "locking in" the existing top -of -slope, and restoring a small
location of historic erosion.
The suggested pin -pile wall is not geotechnically necessary, but may be installed
at owners' choice to eliminate any future erosional sloughing.
6) Geotechnical Criteria: The previously submitted geotechnical criteria (July 2003
Report by D. Bruce, P.E.) presents design values that are allowable. Ultimate
values may be increased, if required.
7) Restrained Walls — Criteria: Equivalent fluid pressure of 35 p.c.f. is geotechnically
valid for any reinforced concrete wall, providing an adequate drainage zone is
incorporated with subsequent on -site inspections by this engineer.
8) Structural Fill: No significant structural fill is anticipated for this project. The July
2003 Report by D. Bruce, P.E. gives standard industry guidelines for use of
structural fill (see Lawson residence Foundation Plan).
9) Existing House Foundation Cracks: HWA GeoSciences' September 10, 2003
Report observes foundation and walls severely cracked near the middle of the
north wall.
Final house demolition occurred on September 18, 2003. Removal of historic
burned out house debris allowed a better evaluation of the existing foundation.
This engineer understands that an expanded basement area was dug under the
north wall. Cinder blocks were used to create an exterior foundation wall. The
excavation and use of the cinder blocks was a "poor" design method. The
excavation immediately adjacent and under the north wall removed bearing
support from the existing foundation soils. Thus, existing north wall cracked and
settled as observed. This cracking and settling was not due to any deficiency of
the soil, but rather due to man-made poor construction methods.
This engineer has recommended to structural designer to remove the existing
cracked and settled north foundation footing. A new reinforced concrete footing
UCL GO UJ U1 : Tor+ 1/. of'Uticp
City of Edmonds
c/o Mrs. Phyliss Lawson
October 2, 2003
Page 5
will be constructed in the dense sub -grade soils for the reconstructed Lawson
residence.
SUMMARY:
• Additional soil test pits verified dense -sub -grade, glacio-lacustrine native soils.
These soils provide excellent foundation bearing for the existing Lawson
foundation and the new reconstructed foundation portions.
• The overall property has been historically improved by the City of Edmonds
drainage system (installed 1985 — 1990). No seepage erosion was observed in
the September 18, 2003 test pits.
• The observed north side foundation cracking and settlement is not due to any
soil problems, but rather due to poor construction practices. Anew foundation
will resolve this deficiency.
• Updated Site Plan with survey information documents locations of test pits and
reconstructed foundation portions of the Lawson residence.
• Foundation work shall occur in the same footprint as the pre-existing Lawson
residence. Work may proceed past October 31, 2003 with on -site geotechnical
inspections by this engineer.
• It is recommended that City of Edmonds promptly issue a permit so Mrs. Lawson
may reconstruct her home.
If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call.
E;;;RES 11123/
DMB:abj
cc: HWA GeoSciences, Inc.
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
Geotechnical / Civil Engineer
d
r . -
Oct
,EK03 01:49P D.Bruce, P.E. 206 546 8442 10.1
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
M.S.C.E.. M.B.A. Geotechnical/Civil Engineer
October 2, 2003
City of Edmonds
c/o Mrs. Phyliss Lawson
4206 152°d PI. SW
Lynnwood, WA 98037
Subject: Additional Geotechnical Investigation
Lawson Reconstructed Home
16221 75`' PI. W, Edmonds, Washington
RECEIVED
? 3 2003
PERMIT IOUNTEN
This engineering report presents the results of additional geotechnical
investigation for the Lawson property at 16221 751h Pl. W, Edmonds, Washington. City
of Edmonds Development Services Department and their geotechnical consultant, HWA
GeoSciences, Inc, requested this additional geotechnical work.
REFERENCES:
• Project Plans for reconstructed Lawson residence
• Survey Map by Western Surveyors, Inc.
• Geotechnical Evaluation Report by D. Bruce, P.E. dated July 22, 2003
• HWA GeoSciences, Inc. Pier Review Report dated September 10, 2003
• Photographs by D. Bruce, P.E. dated September 17 and 18, 2003
BACKGROUND:
As previously stated, the Lawson residence incurred a significant fire in 2001.
This engineer understands that Mrs. Lawson submitted to City of Edmonds to rebuild
the house in the same location with the same footprint using existing foundation (as
much as feasible).
It is understood that the City of Edmonds informed Mrs. Lawson that the full
geotechnical submittal relating to the "Meadowdale zone" would be required as of
March 2003.
Mrs. Lawson contacted this engineer shortly after March 2003 for geotechnical
services. Soil test pits were dug and Report submitted dated July 22, 2003 with
foundation recommendations.
SOILS • FOUNDATIONS • SITI= DEVELOPMENT • INSPECTION • DRAINAGE • DESIGN 6 PERMIT • LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502 • Shoreline, Washington 98155 • (206) 546.9217 • FAX 546.8442
•
;ivy of Edmonds
to Mrs. Phyliss Lawson
)ctober 2, 2003
'age 2
•
City of Edmonds submitted the Geotechnical Report for HWA GeoSciences'
review (see September 10, 2003 HWA GeoSciences, Inc.'s Report by Mr. Brian Hall,
P.E.)
ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION:
This engineer met with Mr. Brian Hall, P.E. of HWA GeoSciences, Inc. on
September 17, 2003 with City of Edmonds Building Administration Personnel (D.
Bowman, J. Graf).
Brian Hall, P.E. expressed concerns (as discussed in the HWA GeoSciences'
September 10, 2003 Report) regarding possible slide conditions, possible drainage
issues. and overall site integrity.
Rather than argue over existing geotechnical information, this engineer
suggested digging additional test pits in locations of concern relating to HWA
GeoSciences' observations.
On September 18, 2003, additional test pits were dug. One pit was dug at the
rear (southeasterly area) of the existing residence foundation. This test pit (1A) was
dug between the City of Edmonds drainage system (understood to have been installed
by City of Edmonds 1985 — 1990 to deal with up -slope drainage issues).
The second pit (Test Pit No. 2A) was dug into the slope face and base of the
western slope (in front and below the existing residence foundation).
Test Pit No. 1A;
0" to 18" Organics, moderate dense sandy
silt
18" to 7' Dense to very dense sand
7' to 9 '/2' (bottom of pit) Very dense hard gray silt
No water was encountered in Test Pit No. 1A. Test pit walls remained vertical
and stable with no sloughing or caving. Excavation below the 7-foot depth was difficult
(see photographs).
Test )it _No. 2A:
0'. to 181. Roots, organics and moderately dense
sandy silt
18" to 4' Dense silty sand
01:43p D.Hruce, P.E.
•
�f Edmonds
1rs. Phyliss Lawson
ber 2, 2003
4' to 10'
206 546 8442
•
Extremely dense glacio-lacustrine silts
No water was encountered in Test Pit No. 2A. Test pit walls remained vertical
and stable (for over 20 hours). Excavation into the very dense silts was difficult.
Soil samples are available for City of Edmonds and their consultants to evaluate.
RESPONSE TO HWA GEOSCIENCE_SLINC. SEPTEMBER 10, 2003 ITEMS OF
CONCERN;
1) Survey Issues: HWA GeoSciences, Inc. expresses_ concerns regarding the
existing drainag�ste,m This engineereiopes that -actual discussions may exist
beiwe`en City of Edmonds and HWA GeoSciences to clarify the location and
function of the City of Edmonds' installed drainage system. HWA GeoSciences'
Report expresses concern regarding "we could hear water flowing in this low
lying area but did not locate the source". The source of the flowing water is the
City of Edmonds drainage system that was installed 1985 — 1990. This engineer
believes that City of Edmonds utilizes proper, ongoing maintenance to keep the
drainage system functional.
All soil test pits are indicated on the updated Site Plan.
2) Probability of Slump Occurrence: The 1979 Roger Lowe & Associates Report
applied a "90 percent" likelihood of landslidesjn..the overall region. An upda2E
study in 1984 by Ge_oE_nginee.rs reduced the 90,6ercent likelihood to 10 to 30
percent. bviously no geotechnical engineef possesses an accurate-,cr-ystal'
regarding future slide failures.
The original test pits and recent (September 18, 2003) test pits verified dense,
native sub -grade soils that are very unlikely to slide.
This engineer declares that the probability of occurrence of a slump during a 25
ear en in the vicinity of the reconstructed Lawson residence is significantly
l aa4 a 10 percent. Ongoing proper maintenance of the City of monds
drainage system will keep slump probability occurrence less than 10 percent.
3) Potential of Water to Pond East of House: The City of Edmonds drainage system
appears to be functioning properly with inlet catch basins and tight line drain
lines. Based on the existing drainage system and the dense sub -grade soils, it is
extremely unlikely for any groundwater seepage to undermine the Lawson house
foundation sub -grades soils.
p.3
L0,+'4
p ruce, F.E.206 546 8442 p.4
City of Edmonds • •
c/o Mrs. Phy.liss Lawson
October 2, 2003
N Page 4
4) Sloped Area West of House: The September 18, 2003 test pits verified
extremely dense gray silt that required difficult excavations. No seepage or
instability was observed. Thus, it is unlikely that the sloped area immediately
west of the house is a historic landslide.
5) Westerly Pin -Pile Wall: As previously discussed, the suggested erosion
stabilization pin -pile wall is not geotechnically necessary for the integrity of the
Lawson foundation and residence. Rather, this engineer suggested the pin -pile
wall as a means of "locking in" the existing top -of -slope, and restoring a small
location of historic erosion.
The suggested pin -pile wall is not geotechnically necessary, but may be installed
at owners' choice to eliminate any future erosional sloughing.
6) Geotechnic,l Criteria: The previously submitted geotechnical criteria (July 2003
Report by D. Bruce, P.E.) presents design values that are allowable. Ultimate
values may be increased, if required.
7) Restrained Walls — Criteria: Equivalent fluid pressure of 35 p.c.f, is geotechnically
valid for any reinforg�dsoncrete wall, providing an adequate drainage zone is `-
incorporated with subsequent on -site inspections by this engineer.
8) Structural Fill: No significant structural fill is anticipated for this project. The July
2003 Report by D. Bruce, P.E. gives standard industry guidelines for use of
structural fill (see Lawson residence Foundation Plan).
9) Existing House Foundation Cracks: HWA GeoSciences' September 10, 2003
Report observes foundation and walls severely cracked near the middle of the
north wall.
Final house demolition occurred on September 18, 2003. Removal of historic
burned out house debris allowed a better evaluation of the existing foundation.
This engineer understands that an expanded basement area was dug under the
north wall. Cinder blocks were used to create an exterior foundation wall. The
excavation and use of the cinder blocks was a "poor' design method. The
excavation immediately adjacent and under the north wall removed bearing
support from the existing foundation soils. Thus, existing north wall cracked and
settled as observed. This cracking and settling was not due to any deficiency of
the soil, but rather due to man-made poor construction methods.
This engineer has recommended to structural designer to remove the existing
cracked and settled north foundation footing. A new reinforced concrete footing
J1:A9P
D. Bruce, P.E.
_Ay of Edmonds
c/o Mrs. Phyt'iss Lawson
October 2, 2003
Page 5
206 546 8442
•
will be constructed in the dense sub -grade soils for the reconstructed Lawson
residence.
SUMMARY:
• Additional soil test pits verified dense sub -grade, glacio-lacustrine native soils.
These soils provide excellent foundation bearing for the existing Lawson
foundation and the new reconstructed foundation portions.
• The overall property has been historically improved by the City of Edmonds
drainage system (installed 1985 — 1990). No seepage erosion was observed in
the September 18, 2003 test pits.
• The observed north side foundation cracking and settlement is not due to any
soil problems., but rather due to poor construction practices. A new foundation
will resolve this deficiency.
• Updated Site Plan with survey information documents locations of test pits and
reconstructed foundation portions of the Lawson residence.
• Foundation work shall occur in the same footprint as the pre-existing Lawson
residence. Work may proceed past October 31, 2003 with on -site geotechnical
inspections by this engineer.
• It is recommcndcd that City of Edmonds promptly issue a permit so Mrs. Lawson
may reconstruct her home.
If there are any questions. do not hesitate to call.
exa+aes 12/23/G L
DMB:abj
cc: HWA GeoSciences, Inc.
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E,
Geotechnical / Civil Engineer
P.5
✓�- /fa rc- R E
45W 5 T7AIq
wa�u,s
,I
h o r i a
12 O, G,
Verf bay
qit / to
SA-01V
0PAOE
2 #k W 6u v5
ko ri -z uwa
cd
�il.l1% lo" Co" Co''
Pv-f woo D Pr I
WN 4-00p,
A3
60d,& 54,01,
H Ov
PIA-M
s��5
4.11411,
i� k.fcGune+�+-
i
PHP* (HOLD D014N)
FI
r1 Ne
7, rL(Z
°
�c�.Wl �s�f+cE To Mf
n
' I
lu
I
ILL
IS 1
CjG, 9G
C� 'i"T'LFIEL
i I rer PI t-e,:a c�
n
� ate•
(D
Tto N)
PET.
T I Ne
�L it I o r7Lr_ PH Po-
�
,
�p
September 10, 2003
HWA Project No. 2003000-21 Task 19
City of Edmonds
Development Services Department
121 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Attn: Jeannine Graf, Chief Building Official
Re: GEOTECHNICAL PEER REVIEW
PROPOSED LAWSON SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
16221 75TH PLACE WEST, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Dear Ms. Graf:
IMT, I
HWAGEOSCIENCES INC.
4
19730-64TH AVE. W., SUITE 200
LYNNWOOD, WA 98036-5957
TEL.425-774-0106
FAX.425-774-2714
E-MAIL hwa@hongwest.com
RECEIVED
SEP 1 2003
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR.
CITY OF EDMONDS
As requested, HWA GeoSciences Inc. (HWA) has completed an initial review of geotechnical-
related aspects of the construction plans and reports provided for the proposed Lawson single-
family residence. Because the property is located within the area mapped as the Meadowdale
Landslide Hazard Area (1979 Roger Lowe Associates report as amended by the 1985
GeoEngineers, Inc. report), this review has been undertaken in accordance with the requirements
of City Ordinance 2661, Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazards.
The following documents were provided for review:
• Report entitled "Geotechnical Evaluation/Foundation Recommendations, Lawson
Re -built Residence, 16221 75`h Pl. W, Edmonds, Washington "; dated July 22, 2003,
prepared by Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
• Construction Drawings sheet 1/1 and sheets 1/11 through 11/11 prepared by AREA
Home Planners, and sheets S1/3 through S3/3 prepared by Far Side Engineering.
• Survey exhibit map dated June 20, 2003, prepared by Western Surveyors, Inc.
• Photographs taken during the test pitting work.
BACKGROUND
Based on the information provided, we understand that the project entails the replacement of a
fire -damaged house. The replacement house will be located on the exact same footprint as the
original house and consideration is being given to using the existing foundations and salvageable
structural walls.
The geotechnical investigation, by Dennis M. Bruce, P.E., consisted of three test pits excavated
with a small backhoe to depths of 3 to 6 feet below existing ground. All the test pits were
reportedly terminated in glacial till (hardpan) described variously as very dense and weathered,
and extremely dense. The report concludes the house site is "geotechnically stable and approved
GEOLOGY
GEOENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
HYDROGEOLOGY
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
TESTING & INSPECTION
September 10, 2003
HWA Project No. 2003000-21 Task 19
•
for reconstruction in the exact same footprint as currently and historically exists" and that the site
is "geotechnically approved for the proposed reconstructed residence" subject to some
provisions. These provisions include construction of a localized erosion control pin wall, use of
foundation bearing pressures of 2,000 psf, site grading and drainage measures, and appropriate
inspections by the geotechnical engineer prior to foundation concrete placement. The report also
indicated that use of the existing foundations was acceptable, and the objective of the pin pile
and tie -back wall along the top of the west slope is to "lock -in" the top of the existing slope.
The report records that no drainage problems were evident on the property, and refers to the
positive contribution to site stability of the up -slope drainage provided by the City of Edmonds
on the slopes to the east.
The drawings appear to be in accordance with the geotechnical report but show that 2-inch
diameter pin piles are proposed to support a portion of the north wall of the proposed house. No
drawings or details are provided for the pin pile wall that was recommended by Mr. Bruce for the
slope to the west of the structure. We wonder if the exclusion of this wall meets with
Mr. Bruce's approval. If it does, why was the wall considered necessary in the first instance and,
if not, request that additional design details be provided for review.
OBSERVATIONS
As part of our review, a geotechnical engineer from HWA, Mr. Brian Hall, P.E., visited the site
on September 8, 2003, and an engineering geologist, Mr. Brad Thurber, L.E.G. visited the site on
August 29 and September 9, 2003. These visits confirmed many of the findings of the
geotechnical report, but also resulted in the following further observations:
• The existing house foundation and walls are severely cracked near the middle of the
north wall. This is the location where the construction drawings propose to install pin
piles. This area corresponds to a localized depression, which possibly results from
settlement in loose materials associated with the root bole of a felled tree, or possibly
failure and lateral deflection of the basement wall (assuming a basement is present).
We were not able to access the basement to determine whether a basement wall is
present at this location.
The steeply sloping, concave area, between the existing house and 75`h Place West,
appears to us to be an old slide. In support of this postulation, the concrete driveway
panels roughly in line with the projection of the postulated slide scarp, are severely
damaged and some have been replaced, presumably as a result of ongoing
movements.
• Several large trees are located on the crest of the postulated slide immediately north
and south of the existing house. A large cedar on the north has a straight trunk with a
diameter of about 4-foot. This indicates that minimal lateral movement has occurred
behind the slide scarp during the life of the tree. This condition is consistent with the
Lawson Residence 2 HWA GeoSciences Inc.
September 10, 2003 •
HWA Project No. 2003000-21 Task 19
absence of cracking in the house foundations that might be related to slope
movements.
A low-lying area is present between the house and the toe of the high slopes to the
east. Such a low-lying area could trap water and produce elevated seepage pressures
resulting in instability of the rise on which the house is located. The low-lying area
could be a sag pond developed during a prehistoric slope failure, or possibly the
remains of an old excavation (possibly the pottery that previously existed in this
area). We could hear water flowing in this low-lying area but did not locate the
source.
• Spoils remaining from the previously excavated test pits include laminated silts that
split easily along visually evident bedding planes. In our view, these are
glaciolacustrine silts and weathered silts derived from glaciolacustrine silt, and not
glacial till as identified in the report. We observed no evidence of glacial till soils in
any of the material over the backfilled pits.
• We observed a capped vertical standpipe in the backyard directly east of the house
that may be the filler cap for an underground storage tank, or possibly a ground water
monitoring well.
COMMENTS
The report indicates that the site is "geotechnically stable and approved for reconstruction in the
exact same footprint as currently and historically exists", but no explicit stability analyses or
assessments are provided. The report apparently bases these conclusions on the presence of very
dense glacial till close to the surface, the absence of cracking in the house foundation related to
slope movement, and the positive contribution of the slope drainage installed by the City to the
east of the property.
In our opinion, the existing house is located on a slide block of the prehistoric Meadowdale
Landslide Complex (described in the 1979 Roger Lowe and Associates and 984 GeoEngineers
reports), and the steep slope immediately west of the house is a younger (historically) slide scarp.
This younger failure appears to extend through the driveway to the south, northward through the
subject property, and northeastward into the adjoining property. The Roger Lowe report refers to
an old slide occurring near this area in 1946.
In our view, to satisfy the requirements of the Ordinance 2661, the site and slope conditions
should be put into the overall context of the Meadowdale Landslide Complex. The overall
stability of the slide block supporting the existing/proposed house should be analyzed, and the
impact of seepage pressures resulting from water ponding in the low-lying area behind the house
should be determined. Moreover, the postulated slide forming the slope on the western side of
the house should be investigated, and the potential for future slides and their impact on the
proposed new development determined. The recommended pin pile retaining wall may protect
Lawson Residence 3 HWA GeoSciences Inc.
September 10, 2003 •
HWA Project No. 2003000-21 Task 19
•
the house to a limited degree, but is unlikely to protect the house in the event of a major slope
failure.
RECOMMENDATIONS
We recommend that the City require the applicant to address the following and resubmit the
geotechnical report prior to issuing a building permit:
1. The survey exhibit plan prepared by Western Surveyors, Inc. does not satisfy the
requirements of Clause 19.05.30 A of Ordinance 2661. In addition to the
requirements of the Ordinance, the location of the previously installed drainage to the
east of the house should be shown. The test pits are not identified on the plan and, in
fact, the one near the northeast corner of the house is not shown at all.
2. Place the subject property in the context of the previous Meadowdale Landslide
studies. In particular, address the prediction that the probability of occurrence of a
slump occurring during a 25-year period in the vicinity of the subject property is
10%.
3. Demonstrate that the slide block of dense material supporting the house is stable. In
particular determine the potential for water to pond, and the impact of ponded water,
in the low-lying area east of the house. If necessary, address the need for additional
drainage in this low-lying area. Additional explorations may be necessary in the low-
lying area.
4. Confirm whether the sloped area immediately west of the house is a historic landslide
and whether a potential exists for further slides which could endanger the proposed
new house. The review of historic air photographs and available records, and test
pitting in the sloped area should be undertaken, as required, to demonstrate this.
5. Provide design details of the planned pin pile wall and demonstrate that it is sufficient
to protect the house, assuming that its deletion has not been agreed to by Mr. Bruce.
If it has been deleted in light of further geotechnical consideration by Mr. Bruce,
demonstrate the rationale upon which this decision was based.
6. Although it is indicated that a factor of safety of at least 1.5 should be applied for
determination of lateral resistance loads, it is not completely clear from the "design
values" presented in the geotechnical report whether these are ultimate values or
allowable (factored). We suggest that this be clarified, and that it be confirmed that
the foundation designers have appropriately applied the factor of safety, as
recommended.
7. With reference to the design parameter presented for "restrained walls" on page 6 of
the geotechnical report by Mr. Bruce, we suggest that lateral loads determined on the
basis of a uniform pressure increment may be undesirably low for any walls
Lawson Residence 4 HWA GeoSciences Inc.
September 10, 2003
1 HWA Project No. 2003000-21 Task 19
0
significantly exceeding 5 feet. Walls up to 12 feet high were apparently
contemplated, as noted on page 5 of the report.
8_Several references are made in the geotechnical report to "structural fill" for support
of foundation systems. There are, however, no cautionary statements relative to the
maximum thickness of fill that should be placed on the site. We find this of concern
as, in general, placement of any significant fill on a slope, particularly one that has
exhibited historic instability, is risky in our opinion.
Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our geotechnical review of documents
submitted to the City of Edmonds for the proposed Lawson single-family residence was
completed in accordance with generally.accepted principles and practices in this area at the time
this letter was prepared. We make no other warranty either express or implied.
If you have any questions regarding this review, or need additional information, please do not
hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
HWA GeoSciences, Inc.
Brian E. Hall, P.E.
Senior Geotechnical Engineer
BEH:LAB:beh
Lorne Balanko, P.E.
Principal
Lawson Residence 5 HWA GeoSciences Inc.
September 10, 2003
HWA Project No. 2003000-21 Task 19
City of Edmonds
Development Services Department
121 5`h Avenue North
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Attn
Re:
Dear Ms. Graf.
Jeannine Graf, Chief Building Official
GEOTECHNICAL PEER REVIEW
PROPOSED LAWSON SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
16221 75TH PLACE WEST, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
goo
HWAGEOSCIENCES INC
19730-64TH AVE. W., SUITE 200
LYNNWOOD, WA 98036-5957
TEL.425-774-0106
FAX.425-774-2714
E-MAIL hwa@hongwest.com
RECEIVED
2003
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR.
CITY OF EDMONDS
As requested, HWA GeoSciences Inc. (HWA) has completed an initial review of geotechnical-
related aspects of the construction plans and reports provided for the proposed Lawson single-
family residence. Because the property is located within the area mapped as the Meadowdale
Landslide Hazard Area (1979 Roger Lowe Associates report as amended by the 1985
GeoEngineers, Inc. report), this review has been undertaken in accordance with the requirements
of City Ordinance 2661, Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazards.
The following documents were provided for review:
• Report entitled "Geotechnical Evaluation/Foundation Recommendations, Lawson
Re -built Residence, 16221 75`h Pl. W, Edmonds, Washington "; dated July 22, 2003,
prepared by Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
• Construction Drawings sheet 1/1 and sheets 1/11 through 11/11 prepared by AREA
Home Planners, and sheets S1/3 through S3/3 prepared by Far Side Engineering.
• Survey exhibit map dated June 20, 2003, prepared by Western Surveyors, Inc.
• Photographs taken during the test pitting work.
BACKGROUND
Based on the information provided, we understand that the project entails the replacement of a
fire -damaged house. The replacement house will be located on the exact same footprint as the
original house and consideration is being given to using the existing foundations and salvageable
structural walls.
The geotechnical investigation, by Dennis M. Bruce, P.E., consisted of three test pits excavated
with a small backhoe to depths of 3 to 6 feet below existing ground. All the test pits were
reportedly terminated in glacial till (hardpan) described variously as very dense and weathered,
and extremely dense. The report concludes the house site is "geotechnically stable and approved
GEOLOGY
GEOENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
HYDROGEOLOGY
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
TESTING & INSPECTION
September 10, 2003 • •
HWA Project No. 2003000-21 Task 19
for reconstruction in the exact same footprint as currently and historically exists" and that the site
is "geotechnically approved for the proposed reconstructed residence" subject to some
provisions. These provisions include construction of a localized erosion control pin wall, use of
foundation bearing pressures of 2,000 psf, site grading and drainage measures, and appropriate
inspections by the geotechnical engineer prior to foundation concrete placement. The report also
indicated that use of the existing foundations was acceptable, and the objective of the pin pile
and tie -back wall along the top of the west slope is to "lock -in" the top of the existing slope.
The report records that no drainage problems were evident on the property, and refers to the
positive contribution to site stability of the up -slope drainage provided by the City of Edmonds
on the slopes to the east.
The drawings appear to be in accordance with the geotechnical report but show that 2-inch
diameter pin piles are proposed to support a portion of the north wall of the proposed house. No
drawings or details are provided for the pin pile wall that was recommended by Mr. Bruce for the
slope to the west of the structure. We wonder if the exclusion of this wall meets with
Mr. Bruce's approval. If it does, why was the wall considered necessary in the first instance and,
if not, request that additional design details be provided for review.
OBSERVATIONS
As part of our review, a geotechnical engineer from HWA, Mr. Brian Hall, P.E., visited the site
on September 8, 2003, and an engineering geologist, Mr. Brad Thurber, L.E.G. visited the site on
August 29 and September 9, 2003. These visits confirmed many of the findings of the
geotechnical report, but also resulted in the following further observations:
The existing house foundation and walls are severely cracked near the middle of the
north wall. This is the location where the construction drawings propose to install pin
piles. This area corresponds to a localized depression, which possibly results from
settlement in loose materials associated with the root bole of a felled tree, or possibly
failure and lateral deflection of the basement wall (assuming a basement is present).
We were not able to access the basement to determine whether a basement wall is
present at this location.
The steeply sloping, concave area, between the existing house and 75`s Place West,
appears to us to be an old slide. In support of this postulation, the concrete driveway
panels roughly in line with the projection of the postulated slide scarp, are severely
damaged and some have been replaced, presumably as a result of ongoing
movements.
Several large trees are located on the crest of the postulated slide immediately north
and south of the existing house. A large cedar on the north has a straight trunk with a
diameter of about 4-foot. This indicates that minimal lateral movement has occurred
behind the slide scarp during the life of the tree. This condition is consistent with the
Lawson Residence 2 HWA GeoSciences Inc.
September 10, 2003
HWA Project No. 2003000-21 Task 19
I• .
absence of cracking in the house foundations that might be related to slope
movements.
A low-lying area is present between the house and the toe of the high slopes to the
east. Such a low-lying area could trap water and produce elevated seepage pressures
resulting in instability of the rise on which the house is located. The low-lying area
could be a sag pond developed during a prehistoric slope failure, or possibly the
remains of an old excavation (possibly the pottery that previously existed in this
area). We could hear water flowing in this low-lying area but did not locate the
source.
Spoils remaining from the previously excavated test pits include laminated silts that
split easily along visually evident bedding planes. In our view, these are
glaciolacustrine silts and weathered silts derived from glaciolacustrine silt, and not
glacial till as identified in the report. We observed no evidence of glacial till soils in
any of the material over the backfilled pits.
We observed a capped vertical standpipe in the backyard directly east of the house
that may be the filler cap for an underground storage tank, or possibly a ground water
monitoring well.
COMMENTS
The report indicates that the site is "geotechnically stable and approved for reconstruction in the
exact same footprint as currently and historically exists", but no explicit stability analyses or
assessments are provided. The report apparently bases these conclusions on the presence of very
dense glacial till close to the surface, the absence of cracking in the house foundation related to
slope movement, and the positive contribution of the slope drainage installed by the City to the
east of the property.
In our opinion, the existing house is located on a slide block of the prehistoric Meadowdale
Landslide Complex (described in the 1979 Roger Lowe and Associates and 984 GeoEngineers
reports), and the steep slope immediately west of the house is a younger (historically) slide scarp.
This younger failure appears to extend through the driveway to the south, northward through the
subject property, and northeastward into the adjoining property. The Roger Lowe report refers to
an old slide occurring near this area in 1946.
In our view, to satisfy the requirements of the Ordinance 2661, the site and slope conditions
should be put into the overall context of the Meadowdale Landslide Complex. The overall
stability of the slide block supporting the existing/proposed house should be analyzed, and the
impact of seepage pressures resulting from water ponding in the low-lying area behind the house
should be determined. Moreover, the postulated slide forming the slope on the western side of
the house should be investigated, and the potential for future slides and their impact on the
proposed new development determined. The recommended pin pile retaining wall may protect
Lawson Residence 3 HWA GeoSciences Inc.
September 10, 2003
i HWA Project No. 2003000-21 Task 19
the house to a limited degree, but is unlikely to protect the house in the event of a major slope
failure.
RECOMMENDATIONS
We recommend that the City require the applicant to address the following and resubmit the
geotechnical report prior to issuing a building permit:
The survey exhibit plan prepared by Western Surveyors, Inc. does not satisfy the
requirements of Clause 19.05.30 A of Ordinance 2661. In addition to the
requirements of the Ordinance, the location of the previously installed drainage to the
east of the house should be shown. The test pits are not identified on the plan and, in
fact, the one near the northeast corner of the house is not shown at all.
2. Place the subject property in the context of the previous Meadowdale Landslide
studies. In particular, address the prediction that the probability of occurrence of a
slump occurring during a 25-year period in the vicinity of the subject property is
10%.
3. Demonstrate that the slide block of dense material supporting the house is stable. In
particular determine the potential for water to pond, and the impact of ponded water,
in the low-lying area east of the house. If necessary, address the need for additional
drainage in this low-lying area. Additional explorations may be necessary in the low-
lying area.
4. Confirm whether the sloped area immediately west of the house is a historic landslide
and whether a potential exists for further slides which could endanger the proposed
new house. The review of historic air photographs and available records, and test
pitting in the sloped area should be undertaken, as required, to demonstrate this.
5. Provide design details of the planned pin pile wall and demonstrate that it is sufficient
to protect the house, assuming that its deletion has not been agreed to by Mr. Bruce.
If it has been deleted in light of further geotechnical consideration by Mr. Bruce,
demonstrate the rationale upon which this decision was based.
6. Although it is indicated that a factor of safety of at least 1.5 should be applied for
determination of lateral resistance loads, it is not completely clear from the "design
values" presented in the geotechnical report. whether these are ultimate values or
allowable (factored). We suggest that this be clarified, and that it be confirmed that
the foundation designers have appropriately applied the factor of safety, as
recommended.
7. With reference to the design parameter presented for "restrained walls" on page 6 of
the geotechnical report by Mr. Bruce, we suggest that lateral loads determined on the
basis of a uniform pressure increment may be undesirably low for any walls .
Lawson Residence 4 HWA GeoSciences Inc.
September 10, 2003
HWA Project No. 2003000-21 Task 19
io
significantly exceeding 5 feet. Walls up to 12 feet high were apparently
contemplated, as noted on page 5 of the report.
8_. Several references are made in the geotechnical report to "structural fill" for support
of foundation systems. There are, however, no cautionary statements relative to the
maximum thickness of fill that should be placed on the site. We find this of concern
as, in general, placement of any significant fill on a slope, particularly one that has
exhibited historic instability, is risky in our opinion.
Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our geotechnical review of documents
submitted to the City of Edmonds for the proposed Lawson single-family residence was
completed in accordance with generally accepted principles and practices in this area at the time
this letter was prepared. We make no other warranty either express or implied.
If you have any questions regarding this review, or need additional information, please do not
hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
HWA GeoSciences, Inc.
6VL� A�tq
Brian E. Hall, P.E.
Senior Geotechnical Engineer
BEH:LAB:beh
Lawson Residence
Lorne Balanko, P.E.
Principal
5 HWA GeoSciences Inc.
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical/Civil Engineer
NEC Z G ��r'
July 22, 2003
AUG 13 2003
DEVELOPfJiEfV i
Ms. Phyllis Lawson WY OF EDAU4vUS
4206 152"d PI. SW
Lynnwood, WA 98037
Su.Nect: Geotachnical Evaluation / Foundation Recommendations
Lawson Re -Built Residence
16221 75t" PI. W, Edmonds, Washington
This engineering report presents the results of a geotechnical evaluation of the
Phyllis Lawson residence and property at 16221 75t" PI. W, Edmonds, Washington.
This evaluation was required by City of Edmonds with regard to critical area
determination policy.
REFERENCES:
• Property Slope Survey Map by Western Surveyors dated June 20, 2003
• City.of Edmonds Critical Areas Determination and Plan Review Corrections
dated March 13, 2003
• January.27, 2003 Letter by Catherine Dwight to Farmers Insurance Co.
• June 5, 2003 Letter by Steve Hudak to Farmers Insurance Co.
• Site photographs by D. Bruce, P.E. taken March 30, 2003 and May 23, 2003
BACKGROUND:
This engineer understands ghat the Lawson residence experienced a significant
devastating fire during September 1-1, 2001 (see letters written by Catherine Dwight and
Steve Hudak).
The building foundation and a majority of the brick sidewalls are intact and still
present on the site (see photographs).
This engineer understands that the death of Mr. Lawson compounded efforts to
reconstruct the home since the September 11, 2001 fire.
Phyllis Lawson submitted plans to rebuild portions of the house burned down in
the fire in the exact same footprint location (using the existing foundation and
salvageable structural walls).
SOILS • FOUNDATIONS • SITE DEVELOPMENT • INSPECTION • DRAINAGE • DESIGN & PERMIT • LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502. • Shoreline, Washington 98155 • (206) 546-9217 • FAX 546-8442
Ms. Phyllis Lawson
July 22, 2003
Page 2
It is understood that City of Edmonds reviewed the submittals and issued a
March 13, 2003 Plan Review Correction Notice requiring geotechnical investigation and
responses to critical areas concerns.
This engineer first visited the site on March 30, 2003 and verified the dense,
sub -grade soils present at the existing house footprint locations.
There was no visual evidence of any slides, soil tension cracks, or erosional
degradation.
A very slight "swale" existed near the north / northwest corner of the residence.
This slight indentation was approximately 12 to 15 feet away from the existing house
foundation corner.
This engineer understands that Ms. Lawson proposes to reconstruct the former
residence in the exact same footprint and dimensions as the previous house.
Structural engineering analysis has been undertaken to assess the amount of new
walls, beams, etc. required to rebuild the house in the same location.
EVALUATION:
In order to augment the existing site geotechnical information, 3 soil test pits
were dug under this engineer's observation on May 23, 2003 (see photographs).
Western Surveyors has plotted the location of the soil test pits on the June 20,
2003 Map.
Test Pit No. 1: (Located at the top of the westerly bank approximately 19 feet
away from the existing house / front porch)
0" to 6" Existing lawn, roots, and organic silt
6" to 14" Moderately dense to dense sandy loam
14" to 6' Very dense weathered glacial Till. Very hard
digging. Soil excavated in distinct chunks.
(See photographs).
No water was encountered in Test Pit No. 1. Test pit walls remained vertical and
stable. No sloughing or caving occurred.
Test Pit No. 2: (Located near the northwest corner of the house, approximately
12 to 15 feet away from the existing foundation (see Survey Map)). Test Pit No. 2 was
located in the previously observed minor depression / swale.
Ms. Phyllis Lawson
July 22, 2003
Page 3
0" to 4"
4" to 16"
16" to 19"
19" to 28"
28" to 3-'/2' (bottom of pit)
•
Lawn, organics
Historic Fill (buried ground horizon observed at
16 inches below grade
Moderately dense sandy loam
Increasingly dense weathered glacial Till
Very dense, glacially consolidated Till
(hardpan)
No water was encountered in Test Pit No. 2. Test pit walls remained vertical and
stable. No sloughing or caving occurred. It was evident from the findings of Test Pit
No. 2 that the minor swale was the result of historic fill placement at the northwest
portion of the property. The very dense, glacially consolidated sub -grade soils were
verified below the 19-inch thickness.
Test Pit No. 3: (Located at the northeast corner of the residence (approximately
8 feet offset)
0" to 4" Lawn, organics, and organic silt
4" to 14" Moderately dense sandy loam
14" to 3' Extremely dense glacial Till (hard digging /
chunks)
No water was encountered in Test Pit No. 3. Test pit walls remained vertical and
stable. No sloughing or caving occurred.
CONCLUSIONS / RECOMMENDATIONS:
Based on the findings of this investigation, and experience with similar sites in
the area, the Lawson residence / property at 16221 75th Pl. W, Edmonds, Washington is
geote6hnically approved for the proposed reconstructed residence, subject to the
following:
Localized erosion control pin -pile wall. This engineer recommends that the top -
of -slope (approximately 12 to 15 feet out from the existing foundation stem wall)
be stabilized with a pin -pile / treated timber lagging / tieback wall. This pin -pile
wall is successfully used to "lock in" the existing top -of -slope with no load
applications onto the slope itself. The purpose of this wall is to stabilize the
existing top -of -slope in the vicinity of the northwest corner of the residence
(where historic slight fill has been placed).
• Existing foundation footings are founded in dense, sub -grade soils easily
providing a minimum of 2,000 p.s.f. bearing capacity. The existing footings may
be utilized for the reconstructed house if desired. However, new reinforced
Ms. Phyllis Lawson
July 22, 2003
Page 4
concrete footings may allow for an expedited construction process. It is the
owner's choice to utilize existing footings or install new reinforced concrete
footings.
• Equivalent fluid pressure of 35 p.c.f. is recommended for any retaining wall
design provided drainage zone is inspected and verified by this engineer.
• For retaining wall design, use friction factor of 0.55 and passive pressure of 350
p.c.f.
• Geotechnical inspections by this engineer prior to any foundation concrete
placement.
The existing structure may be supported on the existing footings. If desired, a
reconstructed structure can be supported on conventional continuous spread footings
bearing on undisturbed native soils or on structural fill placed above native soils. See
the later sub -section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill for structural fill
placement and compaction recommendations. Continuous and individual spread
footings should have minimum widths of eighteen (18) and twenty-four (24) inches,
respectively, and should be bottomed at least eighteen (18) inches below the lower
adjacent finish ground surface.
Depending on the final site grades, some over -excavation may be required below
footings to expose competent native soils. Unless lean concrete is used to fill the over
excavated hole, the width of the over -excavation at the bottom must be at least as wide
as the sum of two times the depth of the over -excavation and the footing width. For
example, an over -excavation extending two feet below the bottom of a three-foot wide
footing must be at least seven feet wide at the base of the excavation.
Footings constructed according to the above recommendations may be designed
for an allowable soil bearing pressure of two thousand (2,000) pounds per square foot
(p.s.f.). A one-third increase in this design bearing pressure may be used when
considering short-term wind or seismic loads. For the above design criteria, it is
anticipated that total post -construction settlement of footings founded on competent,
native soils (or on structural fill up to five (5) feet in thickness) will be about one-half
inch, with differential settlements on the order of one -quarter inch.
NOTE: The bearing capacity of 3,000 p.s.f. applies to over -excavated and
backfill conditions. Footings placed on native soils may be designed for 2,000 p.s.f.
Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between
the foundations and the bearing soils, or by passive earth pressure acting on the
vertical, embedded portions of the foundations. For the latter condition, the foundations
Ms. Phyllis Lawson
July 22, 2003
Page 5
must either be poured directly against undisturbed soil or the backfill placed around the
outside of the foundation must be level structural fill. We recommend the following
design values be used for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading:
Parameter
Coefficient of Friction
Passive Earth Pressure
Where:
Design Value
0.55
350 p.c.f.
(1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot.
(2) Passive earth pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid density.
We recommend that a safety factor of at least 1.5 be used for design of the
foundation's resistance to lateral loading.
SLABS -ON -GRADE:
Slab -on -grade floors may be supported on undisturbed, competent native soils or
on structural fill. The slabs may be supported on the existing soils provided these soils
can be re -compacted prior to placement of the free -draining sand or gravel underneath
the slab. This sand and gravel layer should be a minimum of four (4) inches thick. We
also recommend using a vapor barrier such as 6-mil. plastic membrane beneath the
slab with minimum overlaps of 12 inches for sealing purposes.
PERMANENT FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS:
Retaining walls backfilled on one side only should be designed to resist lateral
earth ,pressures imposed by the soils retained by these structures. The following
recommended design parameters are for walls less than twelve (12) feet in height,
which restrain level backfill:
Parameter Design Value
Active Earth Pressure* 35 p.c.f.
Passive Earth Pressure 350 p.c.f.
Coefficient of Friction 0.55
Soil Unit Weight 125 p.c.f.
Where:
(1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot
Ms. Phyllis Lawson
July 22, 2003
Page 6
(2) Active and passive earth pressures are computed using equivalent fluid
densities.
For restrained walls which cannot defect at least 0.002 times the wall
height, a uniform lateral pressure of one hundred (100 p.s.f. should be
added to the active equivalent fluid pressure).
The values given above are to be used for design of permanent foundation and
retaining walls only. An appropriate safety factor should be applied when designing the
walls. We recommend using a safety factor of at least 1.5 for overturning and sliding.
The above design values 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.
Heavy construction equipment should not be operated behind retaining and
foundation walls within a distance equal to the height of the wall, unless the walls are
designed for the additional lateral pressures resulting from the equipment. Placement
and compaction of retaining wall backfill should be accomplished with hand -operated
equipment.
Retaining Wall Backfill
Backfill placed within eighteen (18) inches of any retaining or foundation walls
should be free -draining structural fill containing no organics. This backfill should contain
no more than five (5) percent silt or clay particles and have no particles greater than
four (4) inches in diameter. The percentage of particles passing the No. 4 sieve should
be between twenty-five (25) and seventy (70) percent. Due to their high silt content, if
the native soils are used as backfill, a drainage composite, such as Mirafi and
Enkadrain, should be placed against the retaining walls. The drainage composites
should be hydraulically connected to the foundation drain system. The purpose of these
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. The
subsection entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill contains recommendations
regarding placement and compaction of structural fill behind retaining and foundation
walls.
•
0
Ms. Phyllis Lawson
July 22, 2003
Page 7
EXCAVATION AND SLOPES:
In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local,
state and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts up to a height of
four (4) feet deep in unsaturated soils may be vertical. For temporary cuts having a
height greater than four (4) feet, the cut should have an inclination no steeper than 1:1
(Horizontal: Vertical) from the top of the slope to the bottom of the excavation'. Under
specific recommendations by the geotechnical engineer, excavation cuts may be
modified for site conditions. All permanent cuts into native soils should be inciined no
steeper than 2:1 (H:V). Fill slopes should not exceed 2H:1 V. It is important to note that
sands do cave suddenly, and without warning. The contractors should be made aware
of this potential hazard.
Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any temporary
or permanent slope. All permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an
appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve stability of the surficial
layer of soil.
DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS:
Footing drains are recommended at the base of all footings and retaining walls.
These drains should be surrounded by at least six (6) inches of one -inch -minus washed
rock wrapped in non -woven geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or similar
material). At the highest point, the perforated pipe invert should be at least as low as
the bottom of the footing and it should be sloped for drainage. All roof and surface
water drains must be kept separate from the foundation drain system.
No groundwater was observed in any of the 3 test pits during the fieldwork.
Seepage into the planned excavation is possible, and likely if excavation occurs during
winter months, and if encountered should be drained away from the site by use of
drainage ditches, perforated pipe, French drains, or by pumping from sumps
interconnected by shallow connector trenches at the bottom of the excavation.
The excavation of the site should be graded so that surface water is directed off
the site and away from the tops of slopes. Water should not be allowed to stand in any
area where foundations, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Any exposed
slopes to be covered with plastic to minimize erosion. Final site grading in areas
adjacent to buildings should be sloped at least two (2) percent away from the building,
except where the area adjacent to the building is paved.
•
0
Ms. Phyllis Lawson
July 22, 2003
Page 8
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL:
The proposed building and pavement areas should be stripped and cleared of all
surface vegetation, all organic matter, and other deleterious material. The stripped or
removed materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill.
Structural fill is defined as any fill placed under the building, behind permanent
retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the underlying soils needs to
support loads. This engineer should observe site conditions during and after excavation
prior to placement of any structural fill.
All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture content at or
near the optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content is that moisture
content which results in the greatest compacted dry density. The moisture content of fill
soils is very important and must be closely controlled during the filling and compaction
process.
The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type, compaction
equipment, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. In no case should the
lifts exceed twelve (12) inches in loose thickness. The following table presents
recommended relative compaction for structural fill:
Location of Fill Placement
Beneath footings, slabs or walkways
Behind retaining walls
Beneath pavements
Minimum Relative
Compaction
95%
90%
95% for upper 12 inches of
Sub -grade, 90% below that -level
Where: Minimum relative compaction is the ratio, expressed in percentages, of
the compacted dry density to the maximum dry density, as determined in
accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1557-78 (Modified Proctor).
Use of On -Site Soils
If grading activities take place during wet weather, or when the silty, on -site soils
are wet, site preparation costs may be higher because of delays due to rains and the
potential need to import granular fill. The on -site soils are generally silty and thus are
moisture sensitive. Grading operations will be difficult when the moisture content of
these soils exceeds the optimum moisture content.
•
Ms. Phyllis Lawson
July 22, 2003
Page 9
0
Moisture sensitive soils will also be susceptible to excessive softening and
"pumping" from construction equipment traffic when the moisture content is greater than
the optimum moisture content.
Ideally, structural fill, which is to be placed in wet weather, should consist of a
granular soil having no more than five (5) percent silt or clay particles. The percentage
of particles passing the No. 200 sieve should be measured from that portion of the soil
passing the three -quarter -inch sieve.
The use of "some" on -site soils for fill material may be acceptable if the upper
organic materials are segregated and moisture contents are monitored by engineering
inspection.
DRAINAGE CONTROLS:
No drainage problems were evident with the Lawson property at 16221 75th PI
W, Edmonds, Washington. The historic residence appeared to utilize minimal gutter
downspouts and direct splash blocks.
This engineer requires that the reconstructed residence utilize tight line
discharge with extended tight line drainage release at the bottom of the western slope.
No storm water discharge onto top -of -slope.
This engineer understands that City of Edmonds has done extensive review and
analysis of up -slope drainage to the east.
City of Edmonds maintains a system of up -slope drains that prevents inundation
of the Lawson property with uncontrolled top -of -slope flows.
Normal and regular maintenance by the City of Edmonds of the drainage system
is geotechnically desired.
CONCRETE:
If new foundation footings are chosen, all foundation concrete (footings, stem
walls, slabs, any retaining walls, etc.) shall have a minimum cement content of 5-1/2
sacks per cubic yard of concrete mix.
SLOPE STABILIZATION WALL:
As discussed, this engineer recommends a driven pin -pile with timber lagging
and tie -back wall to be installed along the top -of -slope (west of the existing residence).
0 •
Ms. Phyllis Lawson
July 22, 2003
Page 10
This wall is estimated to be approximately 30 feet long and is subject to inspections by a
qualified, experience geotechnical engineer.
While not geotechnically necessary, the purpose of this wall is to "lock in" the
existing top -of -slope to avoid long term erosional sloughing.
EXISTING HOUSE FOOTPRINT:
The existing house footprint is geotechnically stable and approved for house
reconstruction, subject to -oh --site inspections by a qualified, experienced geotechnical
engineer.
INSPECTIONS:
The recommendations of this report are only valid when key geotechnical
aspects are inspected by this engineer during construction:
• Any soil cuts
• Foundation sub -grade verification (for new footings)
• Any retaining wall, or rockery placement
• Pin -pile slope stabilization wall
• Any fill placement
• Subsurface 'drainage installation
SUMMARY:
The proposed Lawson residence at 16221 75th PI. W, Edmonds, Washington is
geotechnically stable and approved for reconstruction in the exact same footprint as
currently and historically exists. Compliance with City of Edmonds approved plans and
requirements, and key geotechnical inspections during construction are required.
GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW OF FINAL PLANS:
At the time of this investigation and report, final house plans were not available
for review.
As understood, Phyllis Lawson proposes to reconstruct the burned out house in
the exact same footprint and dimension that currently exists. This reconstruction is
geotechnically approved, subject review and inspections by this engineer.
The proposed top -of -slope stabilization wall is required by this engineer. Specific
wall plans are forthcoming.
Ms. Phyllis Lawson
July 22, 2003
Page 11
0
Prior to final permit issuance, this engineer should review the final house plans to
verify compliance with the recommendations of this report.
Upon satisfactory review, a "Statement Of Minimal Risk" will be issued.
CLOSURE:
The findings and recommendations of this report were prepared in accordance
with generally accepted professional engineering principles and practice. No other
warranty, either express or implied, is made. The conclusions are based on the results
of the field exploration and interpolation of subsurface conditions between explored
locations. If conditions are encountered during construction that appear to be different
than those described in this report, this engineer should be notified to observe the
situation and review and verify or modify the recommendations.
If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call.
M 4�
.� 4,oF �►'18ki
C�
03
17405
�U Qft-jg A Rt-9
��rSlONAL BAG,
;XJES ]R231 a 003
DMB:abj
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
Geotechnical / Civil Engineer
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.:
M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical/Civil Engineer
C �`� �,T F I 'July 22, 2003
- L
AUG 13 2093
Ms. Phyllis Lawson °Eve ciry a r �c � � s cT�R
4206 152"d PI. SW
Lynnwood, WA 98037
SubJect: Geotechnical Evaluation / Foundation Recommendations
Lawson Re -Built Residence
16221 751h Pl. W, Edmonds, Washington
This engineering report presents the results of a geotechnical evaluation of the
Phyllis Lawson residence and property at 16221 75th PI. W, Edmonds, Washington.
This evaluation was required by City of Edmonds with regard to critical area
determination policy.
REFERENCES:
• Property Slope Survey Map by Western Surveyors dated June 20, 2003
• City of Edmonds Critical Areas Determination and Plan Review Corrections
dated March 13, 2003
• January 27, 2003 Letter by Catherine Dwight to Farmers Insurance Co.
• June 5, 2003 Letter by Steve Hudak to Farmers Insurance Co.
• Site photographs by D. Bruce, P.E. taken March 30, 2003 and May 23, 2003
BACKGROUND:
This engineer understands that the Lawson, residence experienced a significant
devastating fire during September 11, 2001 (see letters written by Catherine Dwight and
Steve Hudak).
The building foundation and a majority of the brick sidewalls are intact and still
present on the site (see photographs).
This engineer understands that the death of Mr. Lawson compounded efforts to
reconstruct the home since the September 11, 2001 fire.
Phyllis Lawson submitted plans to rebuild portions of the house burned down in
the fire in the exact same footprint location (using the existing foundation and
salvageable structural walls).
SOILS • FOUNDATIONS • SITE DEVELOPMENT • INSPECTION • DRAINAGE • DESIGN & PERMIT • LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502 • Shoreline, Washington 98155 • (206) 546-9217 • FAX 546-8442
Ms. Phyllis Lawson • •
July 22, 2003
Page 2
It is understood that City of Edmonds reviewed the submittals and issued a
March 13, 2003 Plan Review Correction Notice requiring geotechnical investigation and
responses to critical areas concerns.
This engineer first visited the site on March 30, 2003 and verified the dense,
sub -grade soils present at the existing house footprint locations.
There was no visual evidence of any slides, soil tension cracks, or erosional
degradation.
A very slight "swale" existed near the north / northwest corner of the residence.
This slight indentation was approximately 12 to 15 feet away from the existing house
foundation corner.
This engineer understands that Ms. Lawson proposes to reconstruct the former
residence in the exact same footprint and dimensions as the previous house.
Structural engineering analysis has been undertaken to assess the amount of new
walls, beams, etc. required to rebuild the house in the same location.
EVALUATION:
In order to augment the existing site geotechnical information, 3 soil test pits
were dug under this engineer's observation on May 23, 2003 (see photographs). .
Western Surveyors has plotted the location of the soil test pits on the June 20,
2003 Map.
Test Pit No. 1: (Located at the top of the westerly bank approximately 19 feet
away from the existing house / front porch)
0" to 6" Existing lawn, roots, and organic silt
6" to 14" Moderately dense to dense sandy loam
14" to 6' Very dense weathered glacial Till. Very hard
digging. Soil excavated in distinct chunks.
(See photographs).
No water was encountered in Test Pit No. 1. Test pit walls remained vertical and
stable. No sloughing or caving occurred.
Test Pit No. 2: (Located near the northwest corner of the house, approximately
12 to 15 feet away from the existing foundation (see Survey Map)). Test Pit No. 2 was
located in the previously observed minor depression / swale.
Ms. Phyllis Lawson •
July 22, 2003
Page 3
0" to 4"
4" to 16"
16" to 19"
19" to 28"
28" to 3-'/2' (bottom of pit)
•
Lawn, organics
Historic Fill (buried ground horizon observed at
16 inches below grade
Moderately dense sandy loam
Increasingly dense weathered glacial Till
Very dense, glacially consolidated Till
(hardpan)
No water was encountered in Test Pit No. 2. Test pit walls remained vertical and
stable. No sloughing or caving occurred. It was evident from the findings of Test Pit
No. 2 that the minor swble was the result of historic fill placement at the northwest
portion of the property. The very dense, glacially consolidated sub -grade soils were
verified below the 19-inch thickness.
Test Pit No. 3: (Located at the northeast corner of the residence (approximately
8 feet offset)
0" to 4 Lawn, organics, and organic silt
4" to 14" Moderately dense sandy loam
14" to 3' Extremely dense glacial Till (hard digging /
chunks)
No water was encountered in Test Pit No. 3. Test pit walls remained vertical and
stable. No sloughing or caving occurred.
CONCLUSIONS / RECOMMENDATIONS:
Based on the findings of this investigation, and experience with similar sites in
the area, the Lawson residence / property at 16221 75th PI. W, Edmonds, Washington is
geotechnicaily approved for the proposed reconstructed residence, subject to the
following:
Localized erosion control pin -pile wall. This engineer recommends that the top -
of -slope (approximately 12 to 15 feet out from the existing foundation stem wall)
be stabilized with a pin -pile / treated timber lagging / tieback wall. This pin -pile
wall is successfully used to "lock in" the existing top -of -slope with no load
applications onto the slope itself. The purpose of this wall is to stabilize the
existing top -of -slope in the vicinity of the northwest corner of the residence
(where historic slight fill has been placed).
• Existing foundation footings are founded in dense, sub -grade soils easily
providing a minimum of 2,000 p.s.f. bearing capacity. The existing footings may
be utilized for the reconstructed house if desired. However, new reinforced
Ms. Phyllis Lawson • •
July 22, 2003
Page 4
concrete footings may allow for an expedited construction process. It is the
owner's choice to utilize existing footings or install new reinforced concrete
footings.
• Equivalent fluid pressure of 35 p.c.f. is recommended for any retaining wall
design provided drainage zone is inspected and verified by this engineer.
• For retaining wall design, use friction factor of 0.55 and passive pressure of 350
p.c.f.
Geotechnical inspections by this engineer prior to any foundation concrete
placement.
The existing structure may be supported on the existing footings. If desired, a
reconstructed structure can be supported on conventional continuous spread footings
bearing on undisturbed native soils or on structural fill placed above native soils. See
the later sub -section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill for structural fill
placement and compaction recommendations. Continuous and individual spread
footings should have minimum widths of eighteen (18) and twenty-four (24) inches,
respectively, and should be bottomed at least eighteen (18) inches below the lower
adjacent finish ground surface.
Depending on the final site grades, some over -excavation may be required below
footings to expose competent native soils. Unless lean concrete is used to fill the over
excavated hole, the width of the over -excavation at the bottom must be at least as wide
as the sum of two times the depth of the over -excavation and the footing width. For
example, an over -excavation extending two feet below the bottom of a three-foot wide
footing must be at least seven feet wide at the base of the excavation.
Footings constructed according to the above recommendations may be designed
for an allowable soil bearing pressure of two thousand (2,000) pounds per square foot
(p.s.f.). A one-third increase in this design bearing pressure may be used when
considering short-term wind or seismic loads. For the above design criteria, it is
anticipated that total post -construction settlement of footings founded on competent,
native soils (or on structural fill up to five (5) feet in thickness) will be about one-half
inch, with differential settlements on the order of one -quarter inch.
NOTE: The bearing capacity of 3,000 p.s.f. applies to over -excavated and
backfill conditions. Footings placed on native soils may be designed for 2,000 p.s.f.
Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between
the foundations and the bearing soils, or by passive earth pressure acting on the
vertical, embedded portions of the foundations. For the latter condition, the foundations
Ms. Phyllis Lawson •
July 22, 2003
Page 5
�
I
must either be poured directly against undisturbed soil or the backfill placed around the
outside of the foundation must be level structural fill. We recommend the following
design values be used for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading:
Parameter
Coefficient of Friction
Passive Earth Pressure
Where:
Design Value
0.55
350 p.c.f.
(1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot.
(2) Passive earth pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid density.
We recommend that a safety factor of at least 1.5 be used for design of the
foundation's resistance to lateral loading.
SLABS -ON -GRADE:
Slab -on -grade floors may be supported on undisturbed, competent native soils or
on structural fill. The slabs may be supported on the existing soils provided these soils
can be re -compacted prior to placement of the free -draining sand or gravel underneath
the slab. This sand and gravel layer should be a minimum of four (4) inches thick. We
also recommend using a vapor barrier such as 6-mil. plastic membrane beneath the
slab with minimum overlaps of 12 inches for sealing purposes.
PERMANENT FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS:
Retaining walls backfilled on one side only should be designed to resist lateral
earth pressures imposed by the soils retained by these structures. The following
recommended design parameters are for walls less than twelve (12) feet in height,
which restrain level backfill:
Parameter Design Value
Active Earth Pressure* 35 p.c.f.
Passive Earth Pressure 350 p.c.f.
Coefficient of Friction 0.55
Soil Unit Weight 125 p.c.f.
Where:
(1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot
Ms. Phyllis Lawson •
July 22, 2003
Page 6
(2) Active and passive earth pressures are computed using equivalent fluid
densities.
For restrained walls which cannot defect at least 0.002 times the wall
height, a uniform lateral pressure of one hundred (100 p.s.f. should be
added to the active equivalent fluid pressure).
The values given above are to be used for design of permanent foundation and
retaining walls only. An appropriate safety factor should be applied when designing the
walls. We recommend using a safety factor of at least 1.5 for overturning and sliding.
The above design values 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.
Heavy construction equipment should not be operated behind retaining and
foundation walls within a distance equal to the height of the wall, unless the walls are
designed for the additional lateral pressures resulting from the equipment. Placement
and compaction of retaining wall backfill should be accomplished with hand -operated
equipment.
Retaining Wall Backfill
Backfill placed within eighteen (18) inches of any retaining or foundation walls
should be free -draining structural fill containing no organics. This backfill should contain
no more than five (5) percent silt or clay particles and have no particles greater than
four (4) inches in diameter. The percentage of particles passing the No. 4 sieve should
be between twenty-five (25) and seventy (70) percent. Due to their high silt content, if
the native soils are used as backfill, a drainage composite, such as Mirafi and
Enkadrain, should be placed against the retaining walls. The drainage composites
should be hydraulically connected to the foundation drain system. The purpose of these
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. The
subsection entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill contains recommendations
regarding placement and compaction of structural fill behind retaining and foundation
walls.
Ms. Phyllis Lawson
July 22, 2003
Page 7
•
EXCAVATION AND SLOPES:
In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local,
state and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts up to a height of
four (4) feet deep in unsaturated soils may be vertical. For temporary cuts having a
height greater than four (4) feet, the cut should have an inclination no steeper than 1:1
(Horizontal:Vertical) from the top of the slope to the bottom of the excavation. Under
specific recommendations by the geotechnical engineer, excavation cuts may be
modified for site conditions.. All permanent cuts into native soils should be inciined no
steeper than 2:1 (H:V). Fill slopes should not exceed 2H:1 V. It is important to note that
sands do cave suddenly, and without warning. The contractors should be made aware
of this potential hazard.
Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any temporary
or permanent slope. All permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an
appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve stability of the surficial
layer of soil.
DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS:
Footing drains are recommended at the base of all footings and retaining walls.
These drains should be surrounded by at least six (6) inches of one -inch -minus washed
rock wrapped in non -woven geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or similar
material). At the highest point, the perforated pipe invert should be at least as low as
the bottom of the footing and it should be sloped for drainage. All roof and surface
water drains must be kept separate from the foundation drain system.
No groundwater was observed in any of the 3 test pits during the fieldwork.
Seepage into the planned excavation is possible, and likely if excavation occurs during
wi^ter months, and if encountered should be drained away from the site by use of
drainage ditches, perforated pipe, French drains, or by pumping from sumps
interconnected by shallow connector trenches at the bottom of the excavation.
The excavation of the site should be graded so that surface water is directed off
the site and away from the tops of slopes. Water should not be allowed to stand in any
area where foundations, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Any exposed
slopes to be covered with plastic to minimize erosion. Final site grading in areas
adjacent to buildings should be sloped at least two (2) percent away from the building,
except where the area adjacent to the building is paved.
Ms. Phyllis Lawson
July 22, 2003
Page 8
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL:
The proposed building and pavement areas should be stripped and cleared of all
surface vegetation, all organic matter, and other deleterious material. The stripped or
removed materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill.
Structural fill is defined as any fill placed under the building, behind permanent
retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the underlying soils needs to
support loads. This engineer should observe site conditions during and after excavation
prior to placement of any structural fill.
All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture content at or
near the optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content is that moisture
content which results in the greatest compacted dry density. The moisture content of fill
soils is very important and must be closely controlled during the filling and compaction
process.
The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type, compaction
equipment, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. In no case should the
lifts exceed twelve (12) inches in loose thickness. The following table presents
recommended relative compaction for structural fill:
Location of Fill Placement
Beneath footings, slabs or walkways
Behind retaining walls
Beneath pavements
Minimum Relative
Compaction
95%
90%
95% for upper 12 inches of
Sub -grade, 90% below that level
Where: Minimum relative compaction is the ratio, expressed in percentages, of
the compacted dry density to the maximum dry density, as determined in
accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1557-78 (Modified Proctor).
Use of On -Site Soils
If grading activities take place during wet weather, or when the silty, on -site soils
are wet, site preparation costs may be higher because of delays due to rains and the
potential need to import granular fill. The on -site soils are generally silty and thus are
moisture sensitive. Grading operations will be difficult when the moisture content of
these soils exceeds the optimum moisture content.
Ms. Phyllis Lawson •
July 22, 2003
Page 9
Moisture sensitive soils will also be susceptible to excessive softening and
"pumping" from construction equipment traffic when the moisture content is greater than
the optimum moisture content.
Ideally, structural fill, which is to be placed in wet weather, should consist of a
granular soil having no more than five (5) percent silt or clay particles: The percentage
of particles passing the No. 200 sieve should be measured from that portion of the soil
passing the three -quarter -inch sieve.
The use of "some" on -site soils for fill material may be acceptable if the upper
organic materials are segregated and moisture contents are monitored by engineering
inspection.
DRAINAGE CONTROLS:
No drainage problems were evident with the Lawson property at 16221 75th PI
W, Edmonds, Washington. The historic residence appeared to utilize minimal gutter
downspouts and direct splash blocks.
This engineer requires that the reconstructed residence utilize tight line
discharge with extended tight line drainage release at the bottom of the western slope.
No storm water discharge onto top -of -slope.
This engineer understands that City of Edmonds has done extensive review and
analysis of up -slope drainage to the east.
City of Edmonds maintains a system of up -slope drains that prevents inundation
of the Lawson property with uncontrolled top -of -slope flows.
Normal and regular maintenance by the City of Edmonds of the drainage system
is geotechnically desired.
CONCRETE:
If new foundation footings are chosen, all foundation concrete (footings, stem
walls, slabs, any retaining walls, etc.) shall have a minimum cement content of 5-1/2
sacks per cubic yard of concrete mix.
SLOPE STABILIZATION WALL:
As discussed, this engineer recommends a driven pin -pile with timber lagging
and tie -back wall to be installed along the top -of -slope (west of the existing residence).
Ms. Phyllis Lawson
July 22, 2003
Page 10
This wall is estimated to be approximately 30 feet long and is subject to inspections by a
qualified, experience geotechnical engineer.
While not geotechnically necessary, the purpose of this wall is to "lock in" the
existing top -of -slope to avoid long term erosional sloughing.
EXISTING HOUSE FOOTPRINT:
The existing house footprint is geotechnically stable and approved for house
reconstruction, subject to on -site inspections by a qualified, experienced geotechnical
engineer.
INSPECTIONS:
The recommendations of this report are only valid when key geotechnical
aspects are inspected by this engineer during construction:
• Any soil cuts
• Foundation sub -grade verification (for new footings)
• Any retaining wall, or rockery placement
• Pin -pile slope stabilization wall
• Any fill placement
• Subsurface drainage installation
SUMMARY:
The proposed Lawson residence at 16221 75th PI. W, Edmonds, Washington is
geotechnically stable and approved for reconstruction in the exact same footprint as
currently and historically exists. Compliance with City of Edmonds approved plans and
requirements, and key geotechnical inspections during construction are required.
GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW OF FINAL PLANS:
At the time of this investigation and report, final house plans were not available
for review.
As understood, Phyllis Lawson proposes to reconstruct the burned out house in
the exact same footprint and dimension that currently exists. This reconstruction is
geotechnically approved, subject review and inspections by this engineer.
The proposed top -of -slope stabilization wall is required by this engineer. Specific
wall plans are forthcoming.
Ms. Phyllis Lawson
July 22, 2003
.Page 11
Prior to final permit issuance, this engineer should review the final house plans to
verify compliance with the recommendations of this report.
Upon satisfactory review, a "Statement Of Minimal Risk" will be issued.
CLOSURE:
The findings and recommendations of this report were prepared in accordance
with generally accepted professional engineering principles and practice. No other
warranty, either express or implied, is made. The conclusions are based on the results
of the field exploration and interpolation of subsurface conditions between explored
locations. If conditions are encountered during construction that appear to be different
than those described in this report, this engineer should be notified to observe the
situation and review and verify or modify the recommendations.
If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call.
Hof '�4J��
� 03
017405
,CSIONAL EGA
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
Geotechnical / Civil Engineer
DMB:abj
m
3
� 4
3
--I-I
m
n
;a
m
71Z
c
�
«
m
m
i?
z
O
-o
3
CD
.Z-,
-�-I
(n
m
m
z
a
m
-v
m
z
z
m
N
-I
O
;a
N
(m
m
-�
�i
i
`
-0'�
�
mcnzCpzi
3
k
rr-�
m
$
c
c
-n
o
C-)
C0
m
3
m--I
z
;a
z
�1
0M-1
(nia
��
(D
c+
cN+�
0) M
o
-5
-S t-+ (D
t'+ 717
a <
J. fD
(D
-S
O J.
r-i
(D Gi
O
po N
O
N O
�G
O
C
-
\ (D
O
-0 -.
0
O
-h -
-1
-'• (D
-5-5
0)
O
c+ c+
ai
O
-�
(D
i
a
(D
J•
J.
J.. h
O
(v
C
CD
ROUTE
INITIAL
DATE
(n
c
N
m
Z
N
m
0
n
m
r
3
o
3
m
n
m
;o
—I
m
m
n�
7c
•-•
�
r-
o
m
o
Z
\
3
-i
O
3
►-�
r-.
--i
CA
m
z
CD
_0
Z
m
-N1
�
\
z
v
f
n
3
>J
m
a
�-+
•-+
r
JA
tL
—I
c
z
c
r
m
o
(n
�
�—y
-�I
m
m
q
33
ROUTE
INITIAL
DATE
0
(n -v -, -h --a
(D c+ -s O O (D -'S () a O O
C C+ < 'S -0 O <
(D
C
N
m
{
rrt M
'T C �. (D w O ;o Ln
of O O
m
C -h \ c h
(D 'o
O ON O0 �.a O(a
N
m
{�
(
h (D -z -s iw
O -0 CD
-�
(A 7J cwh
c+ (D J• J.
-a-I
m
\ems
\
p• '-h
q/
,-#4M-_ OFFICE COMMUNI"T11 IS
DATE 19
T ❑
FORM 41 - LITTLE'8
SUBJECT:
/A �a
;6-
WESTER
Water
P.O. BOX 3524
SEATTLE, WASH.98124
URUTWUPP L Co.
)rks & Sewerage Supplies
c--�
5409 OHIO AVE. SO.
762-7025 SEATTLE, WASH, 98134
-3( % p 70"'
V ,
t CLAIM FOR DAMAGES J
�OE(-; urDL��L�,J�1�
NOTICE TREET FILE
S EP 3 197
Claim MUST be filed with City Clerk and presented to %he Cit�t662nciV5
within 120 days from the date that the damage occurred orCt-- -p 12j9xygONG5
was sustained. BY ......... �J......._..._..._..._
CITY C:Er..K
TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF TH:Z: "CITY OF EDMONDS:
FLEASE. TA3CE: NOTICE, THAT �LAINANT,
if married, give both %h fe and husband's name)
WHO NOW RESIDES ATJ � d2I- %--- � C� r�12,0 `L(�YV `7
(Statb present actual address by street, number & city)
AND WHO FOR SIX MONTHS LAST PAST HAS RESIDED AT
(Give residence by street, number and city)
CLAIMS D/J,AGES OF AND F'ROY1 THE CITY OF EDMONDS IN THE SUM OF
$ .5 'j (_2, / ? , arising out of the following eircumstancesi
1
Describe defect, giving A
DATE and TIME injury Cr
damage occurred, PLACE
t
and full parti cula.ra.
.Accurately locate and
describe defects caus-
ing injury or damage
and all acts of negli-
gence claimed.
Accurately describe
injuries or•damage.
i
State items of damage
claimed. Itemize all
expenses and losses.
(Claim must be sworn to by
claimant)
�-'(Signature of
Claimant
SUB'-'-CRI3FD and SWORN
l
PTO
before me th. s'-`ay of
C : �7 .�' ��►' �': /•�/4,
T --7�-_
No'ta bli in and��tte
'
Wash ton, resx ng
at ,,---
_ a
od—
���•2-��0 ..tee---yc...� �-=C.-�-�J •�-.l-�c/-ia.-��LJ �-��•e-�J ���-�._'�`_��-��^,off'.
-J
.EGG:
�O
/ 0% / 7
— �-'L.J.'."Q-�L•' /dam ���- �7t [_ �,,% .
� � , � LJ�-cab ._ `�.tiu� � � (�' • G !1
1J 11 - r/ .
7760
CON LIN APPLIANCE. 13 2 0' 0
SALES - SERVICE
MAYTAG -. HOTPOINT - FRIGIDAIRE - ZENITH ,
RANGES - WATER HEATERS - WASHERS - DRYERS - DISHWASHERS
5810 - 196 S.W. - LYNNWOOD, WASHINGTON 98036
1 % INTEREST PER MONTH ON PAST DUE ACCOUNTS
^° 0
Customer's r
Order No. Date f
Nome
Address__
j C.•
\ Phone l
-r'
Sold by
Cush
I G O. IX
Charge
I On Acct.
I Mdso.
Retd.
Paid Out
Quantity
DESCRIPTION
Price
Amount
e r.
.7
..
1;
I
All claims and returned goods MUST be accompanied by this bill
CALLER I FI LL NAME
PHONE
TECHNICIAN
ORDER TAKEN BY
•
Bill To
INVOICEPATE
P.O. NO.
Remit To: P.O. Box.80227, Seattle, Wa. 98108
SEATTLE BELLEVUE PORTLAND, CARD NO,
762-7900 454-8125 285-4535
CUSTOMER NO.
Owner El Tenant 17 Complete El Incomplete Overtime Authorized
Job Name & Address
C.O.D.
Charge
New New Customer El
Maintenance 1:1 WarrantyEl
Quote F-1
Phone Description (Type & Location j:
71
(Time Wanted) -
DESCRIPTION OF WORK PERFORMED: PLEASE PRINT
OT Y.
MATERIAL AND P.O. NUMBER
PRICE
-7
7r—
TOTAL MATERIAL
MAKE & MODEL#
SERIAL#
MAKE & MODEL#
SERIAL.#
Tochnician
Flni"!jen';y 1 Dou!)Ie Rate
I
Tiffle Time
I E, tonsion
TOTAL LABOR
TERMS: NET CASH
Signature (Customer) Date
WARRANTY AND TERMS ON REVERSE SIDE
Sub -total (material & labori
Sales Tax
TOTAL
CUSTOMER
016
✓Memo to:
From:
Leif Larson
City Engineer
J. Herb Gilbo
Director, Public Works
September 29, 1975
Subject: Claim for Damages - Cliff & Phyllis Lawson
On June 4, 1975, George Johnson requested the Water Department to
assist in the activating and adjusting of the newly installed pressure
reducing station on Meadowdale Beach Road.
Archie Brena and Ken Kukuk were dispatched, only after they made
it explicit that George, Ken Thompson, and DiOrio's respresentative be
in attendance when the pressure reducing station was activated. This
request was made so the Water Department would, in no way, be respon-
sible for any malfunctions of this new construction.
After the valve feeding the station was turned on, it was found
that the pressure was fluctuating at the main PRV valve as well as the
by-pass PRV valve. Apparently, before the two pilot control valves could
be adjusted, it caused excessive pressure downstream, resulting in the
attached damage claim. Also, the valve to the pressure relief station
on the low end of this system was off. If it had been turned on, it
would have relieved the excessive pressure. Therefore, I see no
negligence on the part of the Water Department.
After your final disposition on this claim, I would appreciate
your sending this office a copy of any correspondence for our files.
SIG %�E
JBM: j t
Attachments: Claim for Damage
Schwab/Mitchell letter - 9/16/75
• r • •
WESTERN STATES ADJUSTMENT SERVICE, INC.
NORTHWAY EAST BUILDING
2150 N. 107th St. • P.O. Box 33430 • Seattle, WA 98133
Telephone 206/367-0700
September 16, 1975
City of Edmonds
Attn John B. Mitchell
Superintendent of Water
Edmonds, WA
re:
Dear Mr. Mitchell:
RE WDSE P
Insured: City of Edmonds
File No; W-5-030-4561
Loss Date: 6/4/75
Confirming our telephone conversation of Sept. 15, 1975,
the claim for damages submitted by Cliff Lawson appears
to be the responsibility of DeOrio Construction.
If you have any further questions or problems that I may
help you with, please don't hesitate to contact the undersigned.
"ncerely,
J e Schwab
juster
JS:cd
r) o
0 ID
3
0cr
a
m r
\
�
•
o m•
W -A
Cp
LA
s
YV -1 .
O
/r
CD
_
!�
N
w
-
•
Itirl
T
- -
`O
-nCD
�� W
•
/ _ 1�.• ...tip ��
a
-- • .�
"'
.r
I
v
x o a
D m
V 1 (
1-4
`�
N
f~^J
• 1
-- J
D �-
�,
C>
7
r-- -_
o
m � �
w
m
v 0�
T �
p 3
a
v
Ll - 3 10
m
z = �1p.
00
N a
v
Z m o w'
N
OlLV
N r�
o
CD
v,
> D
O O O
O O. 0
0 0 0• O D
x �, O to �,
�. o
A v to fD
o o
-�\
:E"—
## t
m 5 v, w
N z z
z z n m O
n< oSi 3?
3 '3
@,\
A VICn C
:U
� N d Gl A
v N �
<y
3 N d
N N
7 W
n O
�—•:
C r
m
y
T
CA
� •'M(M(V4� 6-�'
v r� -----. 7.,7 \, `7
-- - I/ • •- Y �{_
381-•421-� �. _ ��� �.
22B
1-27 1-33637
1-292 /22i
1=6A
CO
1-348 ,
'
�1 "319-0-31i8
1-49 1-38
347
-i
\1 -_3 22
H1-17 4;128 r 1-3
i�LIFT 12
- 1-257
1-321
1-346
O 1-45
1-43
1`=324 1-323
1-339 7 1-325
1-350 �� 1 P 5�.1.-258 l_� ��
1-91 0 0 � 1.-259 1 260
1�.371-36 ''- 0
1-295
8 1,31�1 t,"l'�"` ;t• 1-44
• 17291 30, r, 1-327
H1-18
D 1-328
ko o
SHT1 ,� ' U 1-329
S�� Q 1-40
SEC
Cb
-330
1-39
v"
1-34 1-332
• I -38 1-337 1-335 1-35 1-33.3d
•
1-334• 1;,316
r 1-256 o"--'r.---
Lj
--Ao255
A 254;
Q040PDJ-3 991035 01034
1038
1788—001037
0
loaf L
11-344
b
Inc. 1890
CITY OF EDMONDS GARY HAAKENSO�
MAYOR
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221
Website: www.d.edmonds.wa.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning • Building • Engineering
Mrs. Phyllis Lawson August 13, 2004
c/o Catherine L. Dwight
21015 Shell Valley Way
Edmonds, Washington 98020
RE: Permit Application @ 16221 751h Place West
Dear Mrs. Lawson:
The purpose of this letter is to official inform you that the permit application submitted under Plan
Check #03-346 to re -construct, your home expired on August 12, 2004. In order to re -commence
review of your plans that are on file with the City, you must submit a new permit application with
required plan review fees estimated to be $1,416.00. Unfortunately, fees that you have already paid
($1,396.00) have been expended by prior City review and cannot be re -applied to a new application.
Please be aware, that since the City has adopted the 2003 edition of the International Residential and
Building Code (IRC & IBC) your building plans may have to be altered. I suggest that you have your
structural engineer and designer review the plans against the new code and if no changes are required
have him submit a letter to the City (attention Marie Harrison, Senior Permit Coordinator) stating that
the plans are in compliance with the 2003 edition of the 1RC and IBC.
Also, since the latest version of the foundation plan shows a new wall for approximately 50% of the
perimeter and because a portion of the remaining existing foundation will be protected with a shotcrete
mesh system; these portions of the plans must be reviewed by outside City peer review consultants.
All outside peer review costs are paid in full by the applicant and it is very difficult to estimate the cost
since it based on hourly reviews however, we estimate the initial review to be between $800 to $1,500
with additional costs to be applied for multiple reviews.
Regarding remaining .permit fees, if the plans remain generally the same as they are now, we estimate
that remaining permit fees would be approximately $5,000 to $6,000 which includes all building and
engineering. inspection fees, plumbing and mechanical fees. This figure does not include water meter
or side sewer fees.
At your earliest convenience please contact Marie Harrison and inform her as to when you will submit
anew application. Please call meat 425-771-0220 extension 1226 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Jeannine L. Graf
Building Official
Incorporated August 11, '1890
Sister Citv - Hekinan, Jaoan
•
October 11, 2003
Mayor Haakenson,
We are writing you regarding a devastating fire that occurred at the home
of our parents Cliff and Phyllis Lawson on September 11, 2001. This was their
home for over 40 years. We have been trying to work through the rebuilding
process with the City of Edmonds and would like to schedule a meeting to
discuss with you the obstacles that have occurred through this process. It has
been over two years and we still do not have a burn repair permit.
Shortly after the fire our father Cliff became very ill and past away in
March of 2002. Our mother Phyllis not only had to deal with the loss of her home
but now the passing of her husband. Our mother's health and well being are a
big concern. She needs her home restored.
On April 23, 2002 my brother in-law arranged and met with Ann Bullis and
Mike Snook at the burned down house. Ann Bullis stated that the project was
doable subject to the following issues, submit drawings, asbestos survey and
clean up, complete critical areas checklist. We inquired about the critical areas
checklist and Ann said, "don't worry about it, complete your drawings and then
we will have a meeting.
Seven months later the Bullis directive was completed. We scheduled an
appointment with Jeanene Graf to submit drawings. When we inquired about
permitting costs Graf replied, "nothing in this department is free. If you want free
go over to the fire department." At this point we were shocked. Instead of
accepting our drawings Graf used this meeting to issue her own submittal
requirements. How can two people within the same department come up with
such extreme differences in the requirements? Why were these requirements
not given to us originally? See attached City of Edmonds Plan Review
Corrections dated March 13, 2003.
Currently we are working through completing the Graf directive. We are
encountering deadlines from my mothers insurance company which could result
in her loosing benefits that her policy would have provided if completed within the
policy guidelines. The requirements from the City of Edmonds are in our opinion
are redundant. A review of our Geo-Technical report and a re -review of that
which will be re -reviewed by our original Geo-Tech. See attached City of
Edmonds Plan Review Corrections dated September 15, 2003. At this point we
are extremely frustrated with this whole process and would like you to help
expedite our building permit. The building department bureaucratic harshness
toward my elderly mother is unfair. Please help her return to her home.
RECEIVED
OCT 1 6 2003
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
F;9,�( eV5-70-3y(o6
Sincerely, C0_'c��
Cather t
(425 43-3396
Cd�
Graf, Jeannine
From: Kammerer, Jim
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 8:12 AM
To: Bowman, Duane; Gebert, David; Miller, Noel
Cc: Graf, Jeannine; Fiene, Don
Subject: Lawson drainage
All - On November 5th storm maintenance personnel inspected the two catch basins on the east side'of the Lawson
property. The system was clear and in good shape. Temporary access trails were created, but they are rough and will
have to be properly reestablished. I received verbal permission on November 3rd from Ms. Lawson to use her property to
access these drainage structures. We will need a follow up document to get that in writing. I assume that PW will draft the
letter, but I need some help with the proper style and content.
Thanks -
Jim Kammerer
Street/Storm Manager
City of Edmonds, WA
TAXPAYER'S CLAIM FO*EDUCTION OF AS'SSMENTS THE ABATE NTOF
TAXES RESULTING FROM DESTROYED REAL OR PERSONAL PROPER
TY
RECE0)JED OR LOSS OF VALUE IN A DECLARED DISASTER AREA
Chapter 84.70 RCW J�N
IE
V
7'ICE: This claim for reduction of assessments and for the abatement of taxes shall be filed with the county assessor within three
_ _ years of the date of destruction or loss of value.
This is to notify you that I hereby claim relief under the provision of Chapter 84.70 RCW and petition for adjustment in the applicable
assessment or tax roll and for the applicable abatement of taxes.
Taxpayer
Mailing
Address
Phone No.
Parcel No.
Property Address 6A'Me-
/ 6ZZ6-•7ST'`�pL� GC>..
G1O�J$S (.¢% A • �/ 8D7�6 Real Property
jincludes all mobile/manufactured homes)
❑ Personal Property
Oos/3 JDoaO �500 ❑ Commercial Property
Legal description: /�&"�AOW,7A LC RCACf/- HLlt- DOa — D —00 -- `ire 6.6' 42LO5'
VA- C. 5 -r -ToG.Fz-t-EEYL '-vvA t_ o-rrs 1— So 60K a I CsAlb P-;'
Description of property destroyed: % 6 W %1A G 57-
G(- eZd—i
r
Date of destruction (mo/day/yr): 9 / %/ l O / Cause: 11� 005,15- P%Z 3f
Date of re-entry (mo/day/yr): (,RAJ KAU0 WAJ 9 U7ZAA5 D -D Oyt/ q L OS_
Date Signed:
Taxpayer Signature:
ASSESSOR'S USE ONLY
Claim: Qualifies CLAIM NO.
❑ Does not qualify because
ASSESSOR'S DETERMINATION OF NEW ASSESSED VALUE
FOR DESTROYED PROPERTY
Vow �001 'tP.K -
1. True and fair value of property prior to destruction:
2. True and fair value of remaining property:
3. Total amount of reduction in value (line 1 - line 2):
4. Number of remaining d y year from date of
destruction T 365 =
Amount of reduction (Line 3 x Line 4) ..........
APPLICABLTAX YEARS "
3�3 4�C
$ 1091 (0 D (66 $
I hereby certify my determination of the amount of reduction for the applicable assessment years as shown above.
xl- ID
DATE ASSESSOR or AGENT
REV 64 0003-2 (7-1-99)
4r BIZ
CITY OF EDMONDS 121 Fifth Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington 98020
FAX COVER SHEET
To:
Dan Roupe
Group 4 Inc
Bothell, WA
Phone: 425-775-4581
Fax phone: 206-362-3819
CC:
Date: 20August,1999
Number of pages including cover sheet: 2
From:
Lyle Chrisman
Engineering Specialist
Engineering Division
Phone: (425) 771-0220
Fax phone: (425) 771-0221
REMARKS: Ej Urgent ® For your review n Reply ASAP ® Please comment
RE: Proposal to conduct topographic survey AQ�,and 1631 7 T5t'' PI
Dan,
Here is another copy of the vicinity map I sent yesterday.
If you have any questions, please call me at 425-771-0220, ext. 324
�elx'ifGf�3Js�7:�7tiilJ
IC-,..2,19
� i Y�r s(i• / / .N slii{ ` S c ::l- i a°.s�i�...;�wP''� / : T! �" '_ - < �tr't Y..%i/.
�` at f t 1 • � �C �y`%�./�{ / ,>„ � �"'zs w y y { .i0/9� 7.7D��, Ttt.�'"
� i� J �� ks�," '�'^. t:t fi/��' } ,' - �•' �.i7%Y ��� � � ,x ,��y�EA'x �r^\.,., :/ J' ! I/ f
% Q�'£ "F•1'e \ .N„'•'•"". ..:';:�"1',�'% � / i :f,� ��,' .//� 8 � _^ �' � s?� I� � .rs j .% /' i �- j �...,.,�^��
£ J'/// "P .,. ,�J6T i P e t •y�t'Et's5.a� try
3-22
31�4 '.7.21B
,• �en
ri
�ff ,�ft s t3 •-v got`:1�/1 �IER<�•'rr, ^"nJ��••sL�' � ���... �`� �- 'n�. \d 'fie'^ '�v".`•
i #;sf� 1 �jl%3 ,. "�:'! `�y e '/ `f� �- � ��t'4 � s i �'i i�'t ";�£.l":� "�,:�..st - ,,r~:..•- �•::�-�_.. ?�,.: � s •, t �_
CITY OF EDMONDS 121 Fifth Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington 98020
FAX COVER SHEET
To:
Dan Roupe
Group 4 Inc
Bothell, WA
Phone: 425-775-4581
Fax phone: 206-362-3819
CC:
Date: 19 August,1999
Number of pages including cover sheet: 3
From:
Lyle Chrisman
Engineering Specialist
Engineering Division
Phone: (425) 771-0220
Fax phone: (425) 771-0221
i
I
REMARKS: Urgent ® For your review ❑ Reply ASAP ® Please comment
RE: Proposal to conduct topographic survey at 16221 and 16311 75th PI W
Dan,
I have attached the letter and drawing I sent to Rob per your request. Please let me know what your
proposal is and whether you can do the survey sometime next week and how long it will take to
accomplish. Thanks.
If you have any questions, please call me at 425-771-0220, exi . 324
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425)I771-0220 • FAX (425) 771.0221
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
18o1v
Planning • Building • Engineering
!nc
August 11, 1999
Rob Metcalf
Group Four, Inc.
16630 Juanita -Woodinville Way NE
Bothell,. WA 98011
BARBARA FAHEY
MAYOR
SUBJECT: Proposal
to Conduct
a
Topograpbic
Survey on the Properties of
16221
and 16311
75th Place
West
(North Meadowdale) City of Edmonds
Dear Mr. Metcalf,
We are looking for a firm to perform a small topographic survey in the Meadowdale area.
The survey is on private property and involves locating existing storm drainage
structures, drainage channels, a small waterfall, topography of the area and location of
any observable existing property pins. We will obtain permission from the property
owners. Attached is a map of the subject area for your review.
If you are interested, please provide a proposal and a timetable for our review. If you
have any questions, please call Lyle Chrisman at 425-771-0220, Ext. 324. Thank you.
Sincerely,
JAMES C. WALKER, P.E:
City of Engineer
JCW/ALC/cmc
Enclosure .
• Incorporated August 11, 1890 •
GAENGR\LYLEUawson-survey3.doc I
Sictor situ Hakinan..lanan
*************** -COMM. L- ****+ ** ****� �** DATE AUG-19-19 TIME 12:15 *** P.01
*
MODE = MEMORY TRANSMISSION START=AUG-19 12:12 END=AUG-19 12:15
FILE NO.= 14e
STN NO. COM ABBR NO. STATION NAME/TEL.NO. PAGES DURATION
1
001 OK s 92063623919 003/003 00:02144"
-CITY OF EDMONDS -
***w*w*****v*av+*****w*k*+4+**** -DEU SERU DEPT - ***** - 4257710221- *********
�@trOF EDMONDS 121 Fifth Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington 98020
i�4915%
p�6
FAX COVER SHEET
To:
Dan Roupe
Group 4 Inc
Bothell, WA
Phone: 425-775-4581
Fax phone: 206-362-3819
CC:
Date: 19 August, 1999 .
Number of pages including cover sheet: 3
From:
Lyle Chrisman
Engineering Specialist
Engineering Division
Phone: (425) 771-0220
Fax phone: (425) 771-0221
REMARKS: ❑ Urgent ® For your review ❑ Reply ASAP ® Please comment
RE: Proposal to conduct topographic survey at 16221 and 16311 75t-" PI W
Dan,
I have attached the letter and drawing I sent to Rob per your request. Please let me know what your
proposal is and whether you can do the survey sometime next week and how long it will take to
accomplish. Thanks.
If you have any questions, please call me at 425-771-0220, ext. 324
Curtis, Conni rl-
From: Walker, Jim
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 1999 1:57 PM
To: Chrisman, Lyle
Cc: Fiene, Don; Curtis, Conni
Subject: FW: Lawson survey
Lyle, Please start a draft response. Do we want to do the survey under these circumstances or do you think we should
have Group 4 or another surveyor due the work?
-----Original Message -----
From:
Michael R. Karber [SMTP:mkarber@omwlaw.com]
Sent:
Tuesday, August 03, 1999 10:03 AM
To:
'James Walker'
Cc:
W. Scott Snyder
Subject:
Lawson survey
Jim, I spoke with Dick Cole, Lawson's attorney, late yesterday afternoon. I
explained that the City would move forward with a survey team and would send
one out in the immediate future. I explained that the City has the lawful
right to enter upon Lawson's property for the purposes of surveying and
locating its easement and improvements and would exercise such right even if
Lawson objects or refuses to give his "permission". However, I also
indicated that the City would accommodate any "reasonable" requests or
conditions of behalf of Lawson and would also allow him to be present or
have an agent present to observe the survey.
Cole seems to understand our position and has no objections, but would like
you to send a letter to Lawson explaining the more detail the scope.of the
survey and what it involves. Apparently, Lawson believes that your first
request for permission to enter was not detailed enough for him to "feel
comfortable". I told Cole that I didn't see any reason why we could not be
more specific, but emphasized that our entry for survey was not "optional"
in any way.
So, could you please draft a short letter to Lawson setting forth and
describing:
1) Dates when the City is able to send a survey crew out [preferably,
Lawson will select the date, but if he refuses, we will just go ahead].
2) The size of the survey crew.
3) A short description of what activities are involved in the survey.
4) A short description of how the survey will be conducted.
5) An estimation of the length of time the survey will take.
Hopefully, Lawson will pick an available date and give "permission" for the
survey to move forward. However, if he ignores the request and does not
timely respond, we should go ahead and send another letter advising that the
survey crews will be out on a certain date and he may take whatever legal
action he believes is appropriate.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Curtis, Conni
From:
Walker, Jim
Sent:
Wednesday, August 04, 1999 8:31 AM
To:
Fiene, Don
Cc:
Curtis, Conni
Subject:
FW: Lawson survey
46
14,aa
Don, I would like to have you follow-up on this issue since I will be out of the office in the later half of this month. Lyle was
assigned to start the draft response.
—Original Message -----
From: Michael R. Karber [SMTP:mkarber@omwlaw.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 1999 10:03 AM
To: 'James Walker'
Cc: W. Scott Snyder
Subject: Lawson survey
Jim, I spoke with Dick Cole, Lawson's attorney, late yesterday afternoon. I
explained that the City would move forward with a survey team and would send
one out in the immediate future. I explained that the City has the lawful
right to enter upon Lawson's property for the purposes of surveying and
locating its easement and improvements and would exercise such right even if
Lawson objects or refuses to give his "permission". However, I also
indicated that the City would accommodate any "reasonable" requests or
conditions of behalf of Lawson and would also allow him to be present or
have an agent present to observe the survey.
Cole seems to understand our position and has no objections, but would like
you to send a letter to Lawson explaining the more detail the scope of the
survey and what it involves. Apparently, Lawson believes that your first
request for permission to enter was not detailed enough for him to "feel
comfortable". I told Cole that I didn't see any reason why we could not be
more specific, but emphasized that our entry for survey was not "optional"
in any way.
So, could you please draft a short letter to Lawson setting forth and
describing:
1) Dates when the City is able to send a survey crew out [preferably,
Lawson will select the date, but if he refuses, we will just go ahead].
2) The size of the survey crew.
3) A short description of what activities are involved in the survey.
4) A short description of how the survey will be conducted.
5) An estimation of the length of time the survey will take.
Hopefully, Lawson will pick an available date and give "permission" for the
survey to move forward. However, if he ignores the request and does not
timely respond, we should go ahead and send another letter advising that the
survey crews will be out on a certain date and he may take whatever legal
action he believes is appropriate.
Let me know if you have any questions.
lac• 189v
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771.0221
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning - Building • Engineering
April 9, 1999
Cliff D. Lawson
16221-75'' Place West
Edmonds, WA 98026
SUBJECT: LID 210 Storm Drain Easements - ADB-98-093
Dear Mr. Lawson,
BARBARA FAHEY
MAYOR
The improvement plans for LID 210 showed a part of the drainage system extending
through your property with a small portion of the system going across the uphill
property currently owned by the Clays. The system was installed without any portion
of the line running through that uphill property. The easement that you granted the
City of Edmonds is described as, "A ten foot strip of land that is 5. 00feet on each side
of the storm sewer as it now exists, or as located in the future. " It appears that the
system will need to be extended to serve their uphill property as the LID originally
intended to do.
The uphill property owner will install the system, but the City will maintain the
drainage line as part of the public system as agreed in the LID 210 easement. If you
have any questions, please call me at (425) 771-0220.
Sincerely,
JAMES C. WALKER, P.E.
City Engineer
JCW/cmc
CAMyDocUft=M%Fngnmg%CRSPNDMLawsonl DOC Incorporated August 11, 1890
CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY
MAYOR
250 5TH AVENUE NORTH EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-0220 FAX (206) 771-0221
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT New Area Code
9Q� Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering Effective April . 18
3 �� 7
May 23, 1997
Mr. Cliff D. Lawson
16221 - 75th Pl. W.
Edmonds, WA 98026
Dear Cliff,
Our records identify you as the owner of the house at 16404 - 75th Pl. W. in Edmonds. It has
been determined that a shed and a concrete patio are in the City right-of-way. Please relocate
the shed as soon as you can. Structures are not permitted in the City right-of-way.
If you have any questions, feel free to call Jamal Mahmoud at 771-0220, extension 328.
Sincerely,
James Walker P.E.
City Engineer
JM%JCW/sf
c: Jeannine Graf, Building Official
CLIFF -LA. DOC
• Incorporated August 11, 1890 •
Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan .
r .. STREET f,,,
- CITY OF EDMONDS LAURA M. HALL
7110 - 210TH ST. SW • EDMONDS, WA 98026 • (206) 771-0235 • FAX (206) 744-6047MAYOR
=annwrw+r�►
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT - PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION
I CO
8g0-19)
October 31, 1995
Cliff Lawson
16221 - 75th Pl. W.
Edmonds, WA 98026-4912
Dear Mr. Lawson:
I have reviewed your account and will allow a credit for 15 units, based on February
through April billing period average in accordance with our City policy. The policy states
that the customer will be billed at the retail rate based upon the average water consumption
for the same period during the previous year. In addition, the excess water lost from the
leak will be billed to customer at the City's wholesale rate with a 15% surcharge added for
administrative cost. 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, at 771-0241.
Sincerely,
(4Z l (�/ /'f�,� fit'
J �1�'ryt�. I� �/ V
Ron Holland
Water/Sewer Supervisor
RH/lk
cc: Ilene Larson
Utility Billing Clerk
wordata\water\cred it95V13 07625
• Incorporated August 11, 1890 •
Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan
■ - - - -PREV1
ACCOUNT`N0,MBER: `
7 7
r
SERVICE
ADDRESS' 16404 7bTH PL W
FLUORIDATED
PAST DUE
AFTER
- .... . • :49.49
a",r' t Hp77VA1_1A1b /C_4-TES
4 k ' LAWSON '' CL: IFF /l/O
Av7 16221 7STH PL W .S
--.
' ^ } EDMONDS WA p cc- T
=26`-49.12
COMBINED UTILITY: WATER — WASTEWATER — STORMWA TER I DRAINAGE
PREVIOUS.,
ACCOUNT NUMBER: 258 2 7'3 15t 1 32 ♦ 07
307625 L21/95 A/19/95 2 1.64
3 36,20
SERVICE ADDRESS 16404 75TH PL W
'
PAST DUE
6/16/95
AFTER
//�� • T•� • 70o11
KEEP THIS ry,� � �O OCACOW
PORTION LAWSON CLIFF
FOR YOUR 16221 75TH PL W
RECORDS EDMONDS WA 17f32b-49 12
COMBINED UTILITY: WATER —WASTEWATER — STORMWATER I DRAINAGE
METER REAOINGSIDATE CONSUMPTION' , • - .:��•,
PREVIOUS � ` PRESENT •TODCU8ICFEET; I - -
ACCOUNT ?4WMBER: 273
4/ 19/95
SERVICE '.
ADDRESS' :-:1,b404 775THf PL W
,FLUOR I DA TE II�AST DUE
AFTER
j-XEEP'THIS- *'
a PORTION' '
FOR.YOUA- ' LAWSON CLIFF
-.RECORDS 16221 75TH PL W
EDMONDS WA 9W26-4912
COMBINED UTILITY: WATER —WASTEWATER — STORMWATER / DRAINAGE
METER REJIDINGS/DATE '� CONSUMPT,GN'-
PREVI!v,
US PRESENT' 100.WWC FW ; CODE:.
ACCOUNT NUMBER: 0 b 324 1$ 1 35.97
307b'5- 6/2 J. 95�3I24/95 2 2.0.7
SERVICE' .
ADDRESSTDUE-
' aa., PASAFTER ► I B / C.3
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE
r t ,
LAWSON CLIFF
'-fORY®lfFl-{ 16221 75TH PL W
RECORDS .
:r• EDMONDS. WA 98026-4912
7Ew4o-t7_25 71--vo,C
occ�,o.�-�vcY o.V
_/_-9 95-
SovE AVEW_Av�
rar2 1AAwvR"A?_G Azrow
/L4e*x-
gs
3 -r 1 PtES "AW-A-tAL
_ C0uSv"A 710A/ ,
L'ow ot'l
AVM- -0/ 7a-z-ti°v'QA
i
AWE- Avt�446C
rVfboW 71-vA/ woe
COMBINED UTILITY: WATER — WASTEWATER — STORMWATER I DRAINAGE
Oce_a1q -u?S A
8gp-19
9-
STREET FILE 90
CITY OF EDMONDS
250 - 5TH AVE. N. • EDMONDS. WA 98020 • (206) 771-0220 • FAX (206) 771-0221
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Public Works • Planning . Parks and Recreation • Engineering
September 1, 1994
Clifford Larson
16221 - 75th Place
Edmonds, WA 98026
Re: Storage shed in City right-of-way at 16404 75th Place West
Dear Mr. Larson,
LAURA M. HALL
MAYOR
It has been brought to our attention the storage shed at the subject address is located in the
City right-of-way. Section 18.70.000 of the Community Development Code prohibits the
erection and placement of structures in the right-of-way without a permit.
Please take the appropriate action and relocate the shed to your property by September 9,
1994. If you have any questions, please call me at 771-0220, extension 324.
Sinceiely,
ADDISON L. CHRISMAN IV
Engineering Inspector
ALC/cmc
LARSONI.DOC
• Incorporated August 11, 1890 •
Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan
890 _ l09
di STREET FILE qo
CITY OF EDMONDS
250 - 5TH AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-0220 • FAX (206) 771-0221
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Public Works • Planning . Parks and Recreation . Engineering
October 3, 1994
Phyllis Lawson
16221 - 75th Pl. W.
Edmonds, WA 98026
Mailed 10/3/94
Re: Storage shed in City right-of-way at 16404 - 75th P1. W.
(our letter dated September 1, 1994)
Dear Ms. Lawson,
LAURA M. HALL
MAYOR
We have reviewed your letter and as we explained to you previously, the location of the
subject shed is in violation of the City Development Code. In addition, no structure is
grandfathered in on City right-of-way, regardless of when the structure was erected.
Please be advised that should the City do any. improvements over that portion of unopened
164th St. right-of-way, you will be required to move the shed to your property and all cost
associated with the shed relocation will be your responsibility.
If you have any questions, please call me at 771-0220, extension 324.
Sincerely,
ADDISON L. CHRISMAN IV
Engineering Inspector
ALC/sf
be is
LWSNSHED.DOC
• Incorporated August 11, 1890 •
Sister Cities International — I-lekinan, Japan
vioaKS DEP7
0.4 -8-3-95� Ar7-
7-,' 7,25, -lAg�F- 77/� C,-4u-5;9--
WAS 7-0 be
/t,5- 71- C 4 tY 4 44 7 77 v � W
Sy
e ., c lo e,-g - b I xA C /- -/c Ti M 4 7'
-rlvc- loczxlel) 71-70�av-,
-33 e, u dcr Co
CITY OF EDMONDS
PUBLIC WORKS — ENGINEERING
ACTIOREPORT
SUSPENSE DATE:
r.. /�
Date:—. o! l v Time: l,6,' 30/1-_k- File N
I
N9 3027.
REQUESTW.'
' ADDRESS:
f PHONE: �7 ' 'L0:'/-13
f REQUEST.RECEIVED BY:
I' TELEPHONE i
• CONTACT IN OFFICE.
'L ` OTHER: .. "
I -RECEIVED BY:
ROUTEiTO
OPR
`.. -NAME SNIT DATEbPR.-NAMEIN
'Z
l 4 9
10`
ACTION: /, • 1
_ J;;;
. All Concerned Notified _
Acti Compl'etgd/File
_x
%STREET FILE �
CITY OF EDMONDS HARVE H. HARRISON
MAYOR
200 DAYTON ST. • EOMONDS. WASHINGTON 98020• (206) 775.2525
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
October 23, 1979
Mr. Cliff Lawson
16221 75th Place West)
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Dear Mr. Lawson:
We are forwarding the following rules and regulations that
apply to.your property per your request of October 10, 1979:
1. Minimum lot size 20,000 square feet.
2.. RS/20 - Setback required are: front yard, 25 feet; rear
yard, 25 feet; and side yards, 17k feet.
3. Lot width required - 100 feet.
4. Permitted building height - 30 ft. pitched roof, or
�25 ft. flat roof.
5. General Subdivision requirements: Should you subdivide your
property, each lot will require access and utility easements to them.
For one lot, you'will need a 15 ft. access easement with 12 ft. of
pavement. For two or three lots you will need 20 ft. easement with
18 ft. of paving. Further, no more than three lots are allowed to
access on a private road without a variance.
6. Slope Requirements - There are no slope requirements on
lots in Edmonds, although, there are numerous policies in the Edmonds
Policy Plan concerning development on steep property.
Access roads and private driveways are not allowed to exceed
14/0. The City Engineer.may approve slopes from 14;0 to 20% should the
conditions warrant it. Driveways and roads over 20% require variances
from the Board of Adjustment.
7. Septic/Sewer Requirements.- New houses are required to hook
to sanitary sewer lines if within 200 feet. Septic tanks and drainfields
must'be designed by a professional engineer or a licensed sanitarian.
Should the City Engineer or his representative feel that there are
potential soil or drainage problems, further professional investigations
may be required.
8. A drainage plan per Ordinance No. 1924 would be required
in conjunction with any subdivision.
Mr. Cliff Lawson
Page Two
October 23, 1979
9. The Engineering Division usually requires the extension
and improvement of any public street that private lots access onto. ,, The improvement.usually is to the width of the existing adjacent
pavement, plus. the extension of any curbs, gutters or sidewalks.
10. Further, the Meadowdale Moratorium Resolution No. 428 will
be heard on November 6, 1979, by the Edmonds City Council.
For further information, please come into the Public Works
Department at Second and Dayton. We have enclosed a Subdivision
Application form that includes further information.
Yours very truly,
AM
ES E. ADAMS, P.E.
City Engineer
DS:jak
Enclosure
SNd��-i ily C-0
/� s S�v✓ AT / GA -Al
my
�FC-EW
OCT 151979
U;r• U; rur�;;C vvms
October 10, 1979
Mr. Jim Adams, Engineer
City of Edmonds
Edmonds, WA.
Dear Sir:,
As a result of our telephone conversation concerning my property located
in the Meadowdale Beach area (20,000 residential zone), I am writing to
request information outlini.ng any and all requirements or restrictions
pertaining to establishing a particular parcel of -property as a buildable
20,000 FT Z lot. Please include information on setbacks, as well as
t-allowable slopes, access,`frontage requirements, soil conditions, height
`restrictions, sanitation, or any other considerations which are factors
in this determination. Please note that it is not necessary to include
Resolution 428 as a consideration.
Thanks kindly
all �'
Cliff D. Lawson
1622.1 - 75th Place West
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Work Phone - 342-4372
P.S. Since the parcel of land in question touches on a platted road
which is currently not improved (74th Avenue West), please
include the frontage or other requirements and procedure required
if this undeveloped road were to be used as access to a 20,000 FT2
building site(s). Please include setback of driveway from existing
dwelling and septic system on neighboring property.
►, � � CITY OF EDMOtdDS #TREET
+ FILE
City Engineer's Office
COMPLAINT -REPORT
Report No. 71-16
Referred to for Action mill Nins Time 9:30 Date 9/17/71
Received By Mary Jane Fritzler Time Date 9/17/71
Made By Mrs. Lawson Address 16221 75th W (P1.) Tel. 743-2693
How Received: Letter Telephone Y In Person
Nature of Complaint: Storm drainage defective, flooding occurs every winter at property
Ms. Lawson owner at 16404 76th W. Please check and call her back. Abe went out
to check this last week. He thinks there is an easement that was acquired by
county. She is going to see an attorney about this as she feels this is the
City's fault. Abe said the 8" culvert is inadequate.
Engineering Department Recommendation or Comments
Time Da
)escribe Action Completed:
,ime Date
Location Sketch:
Completed By.
TZ/U
�� 0NP21v�:i`
�Q0 PE r',
A CONC► P1 PE, 'ND ffA4V%t n1Y
H osE
,I y
TILE
IV® M MENT
�.�11AN�s
/
_ �_ 162ND AVE. W. /
N N
190,
1 ,
l !
/ I
l l A ,'`°0 ',
' - O J
z
Y so
,'
'�► pop
/ $ _)4s,
/ o
0
/ 1 PIT
o
TOP OF BANK U1'Ogj� ?'`Op -
TEST
�o 'x0o ',,PIT
�r 2xsp ;
20
TOE OF BANK I ;'
DRIVEWAY
00
�
l EXISTING HOUSE GARAGE
I
164TH ST.
NOTES
1.) THIS SURVEY HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR 7HE EXCLUSIVE USE OF PARTIES
WHOSE NAMES APPEAR HEREON ONLY, AND GOES NOT EXTEND TO ANY
UNNAMED THIRD PARTIES WITHOUT EXPRESS I?ECERTIFICATION BY THE LAND
SURVEYOR.
2.) BOUNDARY LINES SHOWN ARE FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY.
THIS IS NOT A BOUNDARY SURVEY.
160
140
120
100
DATUM ELEV
85.00
r
a
0+00 0+50 1 +00 1 +ou
PROFILE "A»
160
140
120
100
DATUM ELEV
85.00
1-
0+00 0+50 1+00 1+ou `T""
1.3ROFILE "B"
50
50
1
OCT 2 0 2003
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR.
CITY OF EOMONDS
(425) COMPUTING SHEET FOR:
Western 356
urve ors, (425) PHYLLIS LAWSON
Inc. 353-111 9
SW 1 4, SW l 4, SEC. 5, T. 2 7N. , R. 4E. , W.M.
LAND'USE CONSULTANTS DWN. BY DATE REV. BY DATE PROJECT MANAGER SCALE
DJR 10.24.03 01 DJR 10.27.03 JOB NO. RIDDLE SHT, N0. ,
CIVIL ENGINEERS 0 LAND SURVEYORS DRAWING FILENAME CHK. BY F.B. N0.
*** 13000 HWY 99 SOUTH * EVERETT * WA * 98204 ***
03413TOP,DWG FCH T359 03-413—A 1 of 1