1101 12TH AVE N (2).PDFlill lill 11
605
1101 12TH AVE N
ADDRESS: 1/91 / /fl/->°Aj
TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL #:
BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE) #:
COVENANTS (RECORDED) FOR:
CRITICAL AREAS #: 7 / ZZ, DETERMINATION: ❑ Conditional Waiver ❑ Study Required Waiver
CRITICAL AREAS #: DETERMINATION: ❑ Conditional Waiver ❑ Study Required ❑ Waiver
DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S:
DRAINAGE PLAN DATED:
PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED:
EASEMENT(S) RECORD FOR:
PERMITS (OTHER — list permit #'s):
PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED:
SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED:
SEWER LID FEE $:
LID #:
SHORT PLAT FILE:
LOT:
BLOCK:
SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED: J
SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) #:
GEOTECH REPORT DATED:
STREET USE/ENCROACHMENT PERMIT #:
FOR:
WATER METER TAP CARD DATED:
OTHER:
L:\TEMP\DST's\Forms\Jana's Street File Checklist 5-14-08.doc
U61 U-f 14. AJ
5TR-E e'j
CITY OF EDMONDS F3FILI COPY
121 51h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION
'11c. 1 89v
CRITICAL AREAS RECONNAISSANCE REPORT
Site Location: 1101 12th Ave N Tax Acct. Number: 00548900001911
Determination: STUDY REQUIRED * File Number: CRA20100007
Owner: Mark Jackson Applicant: Same
Background...
During review and inspection of the subject site, it was found that the site may contain (or be adjacent to)
critical areas, including Geologically Hazardous Areas (Erosion Hazard Area or Landslide Hazard
Area), pursuant to Chapter 23.40 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). Geologically
hazardous areas include areas susceptible to erosion, land sliding, earthquake, or other geological events.
They pose a threat to the health and safety of citizens when incompatible development is sited in areas of
significant hazard. Such incompatible development may not only place itself at risk, but also may increase
the hazard to surrounding development and use.
The LiDAR map (attached) indicates that there is a steep slope (approximately 50%) just south of the
house. The site slopes down substantially from the NE corner of the site (294' elevation) down to the SW
corner of the site (260' elevation). Soils on the property are identified as Alderwood gravelly sandy loam
series, which classifies the site as a potential erosion hazard. These slopes qualify as potential
"geologically hazardous areas." Projects proposed further than 65' from the top or toe of the slope (50'
buffer + 15' setback from the critical area) will not require a geotechnical report to address critical areas
issues (of course, other departments may require a report to address their codes, depending on the scope
of work proposed).
This review applies to the entire subject parcel. Depending on the location and
project proposed relative to the identified critical areas, certain studies and reports
may be required. Please contact the Planning Division at 425.771.0220 ifAvhen you
have a specific development proposal for this site to discuss the various permits
that may be required.
Allowed Activities and Exempt Development Proposals...
Certain activities are allowed in or near critical area buffers as specified in ECDC 23.40.220. Similarly,
certain development proposals may be exempt from Critical Areas requirements (ECDC 23.40.230). If you
have any questions about whether your proposed development qualifies as an allowed or exempt activity,
please contact a Planner for more information.
Page 1 of 3
General Critical Areas Report Requirements...
Critical Areas Reports identify, classify and delineate any areas on or adjacent to the subject property that
may qualify as critical areas. They also assess these areas and identify any potential impacts resulting
from your specific development proposal. If a specific development proposal results in an alteration to a
critical area the critical areas report will also contain a mitigation plan. You have the option of completing
the portion of the study that classifies and delineates the critical areas and waiting until you have a specific
development proposal to complete the study. You may also choose submit the entire study with your
specific development application.
• Please review the minimum report requirements for all types of Critical Areas which are listed in ECDC
23.40.090.D. There are additional report requirements for different types of critical areas (see below).
• Note that it is important for the report to be prepared by a qualified professional as defined in the
ordinance. There are options on how to complete a critical areas study and an approved list of
consultants that you may choose from. You may contact the Planning Division for more information.
• General Mitigation Requirements for all Critical Areas are discussed in ECDC 23.40.110 through
23.40.140.
Study Requirement for Erosion Hazard Areas...
It appears that this property contains or is adjacent to an Erosion Hazard Area.
• Erosion Hazard areas include Alderwood and Everett series soils on slopes of 15 percent or greater,
among others.
• Landslide Hazard Areas are further defined in ECDC 23.80.020.A.
• In addition to the general requirements for Critical Areas reports referenced above, specific Critical
Area report requirements for Erosion Hazard Areas (which are one of the Geologically Hazardous
Areas) are provided in ECDC 23.80.050.
• Note that Stable Erosion Hazard Areas may have limited report requirements at the director's
discretion. At a minimum an erosion and sediment control plan prepared in compliance with the
requirements in ECDC Chapter 18.30 shall be required.
Development Proposals Associated with Erosion Hazard Areas...
Development is restricted within an Erosion Hazard Area and must meet additional criteria.
• For erosion hazard areas with suitable slope stability, an erosion and sediment control plan prepared in
compliance ECDC 18.30 will be considered to meet the Critical Areas "Study Required" determination.
The determination of "suitable slope stability" will be made by both the Planning and Engineering
divisions of the City of Edmonds.
• In areas where the slope stability is not suitable, projects within Erosion Hazard Areas will require a
report by a licensed Geotechnical Engineer or other qualified professional.
• Note that it is important for the report to be prepared by a qualified professional as defined in the
ordinance.
• Report requirements are given in ECDC 23.80.050, and more generally in ECDC 23.40.090.D
Page 2 of 3
Development standards are given in ECDC 23.80.060 and 23.80.070.
Study Requirement for Landslide Hazard Areas...
It appears that this property contains or is adjacent to a Landslide Hazard Area.
• A Landslide Hazard Area is any area with a slope of forty percent (40%) or steeper and with a vertical
relief of ten (10) or more feet (except areas composed of consolidated bedrock).
• Landslide Hazard Areas are further defined and illustrated in ECDC 23.80.020.B.
• In addition to the general requirements for Critical Areas reports referenced above, specific Critical
Area report requirements for Landslide Hazard Areas are provided in ECDC 23.80.050.
Development Proposals Associated with Landslide Hazard Areas...
Development is restricted within a Landslide Hazard Area and its buffer.
• Projects that will intrude into these areas will require a report by a licensed Geotechnical Engineer.
• The criteria that are applied depend on the amount that the buffer is reduced.
• The buffer can be reduced to a minimum of ten (10) feet (with an additional 15' building setback per
ECDC 23.40.280) if a report is prepared that meets the standards listed in ECDC 23.80.050). The
alteration must also meet the requirements listed ECDC 23.80.060.
• In addition, proposals to reduce the buffer to less than ten (10) feet must comply with the design
standards listed in ECDC 23.80.070.A.3.
Gina Coccia, Associate Planner February 10, 2010
Name, Title Signature Date
Cited sections of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) can be found on the City of Edmonds website at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us.
Page 3 of 3
Joe Galusha / l Q ( � 24'' ` &/_� " 0?0�0 -a�3
From: Jeffrey Laub Olaub@aesgeo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 12:50 PM
To: Joe Galusha
Cc: Dennis Titus; Bruce L. Blyton
Subject: RE: Jackson Residence - AES KE090178A _.g&PV1 ry .
Hi Joe,
Using pea gravel or other free -draining material behind the lagging of the soldier pile wall should be sufficient to provide
subsurface drainage without the use of a perforated drainage pipe. It should be noted, however, that this type of drainage
system would only handle subsurface drainage for soils behind the wall. The wall should not be used as a dispersion
system for surface drains, such as roof downspouts.
Thanks,
Jeff
From: Joe Galusha [mailto:JGalusha@cgengineering.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 8:47 AM
To: Jeffrey Laub
Cc: Dennis Titus
Subject: Jackson Residence - AES KE090178A
Jeff,
I have a question regarding the above mentioned geotechnical report that you completed in June 2009. There are several
options for retaining walls mentioned in the report and the owner has chosen the soldier pile + lagging wall. Dennis and I
have completed the design and submitted for permit, but during the city review a question came up regarding drainage
behind the wall.
In our wall section we do not show a drainage pipe behind the soldier pile + lagging wall. We figured the gravel backfill
behind the wall and gaps between the lagging would facilitate seepage of any ground water through the wall. In the past
on residential projects like this we have been able to avoid installing a drainage pipe but in this case the city has raised
the question. We were wondering what your thoughts are and if you would feel comfortable not having the drainage pipe.
The difficulty with installing a drainage pipe behind the wall in this particular case is that it would have to route through two
adjacent downhill properties in order to reach the city storm drainage system. The owner would be happy to increase the
gravel backfill layer behind the wall or make other provisions to avoid installing the drainage pipe.
Let me know what you think, and if you have any other options you have used before.
Thanks!
Joe Galusha, PE, SE
Structural Engineer
L
EN6tNEERING
P: 425.778.8500 1 F: 425.778.5536
250 4 h Ave. South, Suite 200
Edmonds, WA 98020
www.c_qen_qineednq.com
f. .
C L � NO.
Mdcal Areas Checklis t
--------------------------------------------------------------
Site Information (soils/ topography/ hydro
logy/vegetatioI )
1. Site Address/ Location: t^ .
2. Property Tax Account Number:
3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): i' �-I
4. Is this site currently developed? yes; no.
If yes; how is site developed?
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: j C'' ; Approx. Depth:
7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: T') C'a ; 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? J.
10. Site is primarily: forested ; meadow -shrubs ; mixed ;
urban landscaped (lawn,shrubs etc)
11. Obvious wetland is present on site: �� r
------------------------------------------For City Staff Use OnI-------------------------___-.
A,chU"; Rey02/11/97 CITY
Copy
•
City of Edmonds
NAW CRITICAL, AREAS CHECKLIST
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 a development
permit 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).
An applicant, or his/her 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 assist staff in completing their preliminary
assessment of the site
I have completed the attached Critical Areas Checklist and attest that the answers provided are fa.0l to�tlie
best of my knowledge (fill out the appropriate column below).
++'' f
11L
'�
Rmrb-.
Owner/Applicant: Applicant Representative: ,'Q�'J
Name
Street Address
City State Zip
Telephone
Signature.
` .7
Date i
c: recepti on\j ana\cacl. doc
Name
Street Address
City State Zip
Telephone
Signature
Date
(over)
ri )` .- n'^!:'Y. .r �' ..K".�-„a.,,Y„ - � .�' .._. .ti..,n.. .. �,�.� �• , ., �...-r•YV.```'l�/^'f +^✓ J..., , `W^�",,,�,. �..r��i.i} T',W "'v-.n„�. ! ...,•✓�:r
�yv' lW�•ir' ,`tom« �jy'r-.2J'•w"1,fv�l� 1N� •V...
PERMIT NO: 9842
City of Edmonds
JnC. 189° SIDE SEWER PERMIT
PERMIT EXPIRES O
Address of Construction: 1101 12 AV LID #
Property Tax Account Parcel No. /
Attach copies of all access and utility easements Verified and Approved by Z,
Owner and/or Contractor: Ac-r Fcou Co
Contractor License #: A'ES C -C 9 1„/M4 uilding Permit #'
Single Family Invasion into City *Right -of Way: ❑ Yes o
❑ Multi -Family (No. of Units *RW Construction Permit # .
❑ Commercial (No. of Units ) Cross other "Private El Yes El No
Public **Attach legal descripl"i137Wco- py of recorded easement..
7!:,' Owner/Contractor 3 JA661
Owner or contractor signature and acknowledgement. statement: D to
By signing for this permit I certify that I have read the City's public handout entitled
�ide Sewer Specifications; and shall comply with all City requirements outlined therein.
9 CALL DIAL -A- DIG (1-800-425 5555) BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION 9
W FOR INSPECTION CALL 425-771-0220,extensionrx�f.
24 HOUR NOTICE REQUIRED' FOR ALL INSPECTION REQUESTS
NOTE: IF JOB SITE IS NOT READY FOR INSPECTION WHEN
INSPECTOR ARRIVES A $45 RE -INSPECTION FEE WILL BE CHARGED,
Job Site Ready YES- ... -,"'..NO Date: Initial:
Partial Inspection: Date: Initial:
Partial Inspection: � Date: Initial:
FINAL INSPECTION APPROVED.: Date: Initial:_As-built to Street File: 0
t�. PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOP SITE t�
White Copy: File Green Copy: Inspector Buff Copy: Applicant
L;temp;bl dg;forrris;sspermitj Ig4/00
•
.f 0 r' ED&
E
ti
mm
1107
'.6'
25'
;ISTING LINE
C❑NNECTS T❑ MAIN
z
CLI
CITY OF EDMONDS SIDE SEWER AS- BUILT I
r
6 ADDRESS
u' 1101 - 12th Avenue North
H❑ME❑WNER C❑NTRACT❑R SCALE
Aces Four Construction Co, NTS
DATE DRAWN PERMIT
4-23-2004 BY K, Haney / SIBREL N❑. 9842
REPAIR
.+ 6' @ 2,5' DEEP
6' WYE
C/❑
EXIST 8'
CONNECTS TO MAIN
il
XISTING LINE
L
C/❑ 4x6 FERNCO
Z
LJ
Q
Oj
� OF E��o, CITY OF EDMONDS SIDE SEWER AS -BUILT
'llva.,,- tA ADDRESS
1101 - 124-h Avenue North
HOMEOWNER CONTRACTOR SCALE
Aces Four Construction Co, NTS
DATE DRAWN PERMIT
4-23-2004 [BY, K. Haney / SIBREL NO. 9842
AL
, 25' S. X 52' W. 25' S. X 26' W,
IFR❑M CORNER FROM C❑RNERAMj
`'.-•.REPAIRED SEWER PIPE
i
' CONNECTS TO
CITY MAIN LINE
X6 FERNC❑
25' S. X 25' W.
FROM CORNER
pk
'Ki Q E��ko
1109
PRIVATE DR,
METAL VAULT
IN DRIVE WAY
CITY OF EDMONDS SIDE SEWER AS- BUILT I
ADDRESS
1101 - 12th Avenue North
HOMEOWNER ICONTRACTOR SCALE
Aces Four Construction Co, NTS
DATE DRAWN PERMIT
4-23-20.04 BY K. Haney NO, 9842
I
,�t, z --aw :� � '� �_ � �-^.�^ T'YS � '�✓y. f �,;-afss." yrwkH�;,c r m,
t +
yso.
- �f�_ CITY OF EDMONDS SIDE SEWER PERMIT
1890.19,° PERMIT N2 8877
Address of Construction:
Property Legal Description (Include all easements):
RECEIVED
o r\ AUG U 1 1997
Owner and/or Contractor:
a
State License No.
Single Family
//❑ Multi -Family (No. of Units )
❑ Commercial
❑ Public
Building Permit No. -70,5 9 `7
Invasion into City Right -of -Way No ❑ Yes
RW Construction Permit No.
Cross other Private Property: My No ❑ Yes
Attach legal description and copy of recorded easement
7-3i--,>,r7
rcertify that I have read and shall comply with Alcity requirements Date
as indicated on the back of the Permit Card.
* CALL DIAL -A -DIG (1-800-424-5555) BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION
OFFICE USE ONLY
* FOR INSPECTION CALL-r T- 02, PUBLIC WORKS DEPT.
?7-Ock3iS
Permit Fee: _ — .Issued By
Trunk Charge: - Date Issued:
Assessment Fee: Receipt No.:
Lid No.:
Partial Inspection: Date —Initial -
Comments
! Reason Rejected: Date Initial
i
Final Inspection Approved: Dat Initial
** PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOB SITE **
White Copy: File Green Copy: Inspector Buff Copy: Applicant
Revised 3!90
Side Sewer Drawing
The City of Edmonds EASEMENT NO . ...................................... t
NEW CONSTRUCTION ❑ REPAIRS ❑ LID NO . .................. . ASMT. NO. _..._...._....__...
I
p. �7r �r
OWNER............................/...._.....-•----•--......_......--------.._.........._..._--------- CONTRACTOR - PRRMTT N(�_ G5
JOB ADDRESS ../`..�..................................... �v ......./l/
PWW-0001-11175 (REV.11/78)
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT NO ....................................... BLOCK NO. --------- _....... ...................
NAMEOF ADDITION--------•------------------------------•---•----•----------------------••-......-••-•----------•------•---..._._..._._.
•
Approved:
p];DATE 3..Ian a BY...�---------------------------------------
i
}•
! 0�
89p.19
CITY
OF EDMONDS
Address of Construction: o�R/1/
Property Legal Description (Include all easements): —
SIDE SEWER PERMIT
PERMIT N2 8631
inn tilC
tutvw�...
TREAT t,AENT kAMI 19 C E I V E D
Owner and/or Contractor: /4C S "C—`vv2 CdA457- <F-
State License No. Jp C. ErS- '�� °'f a g"krr Building Permit No
Single Family
❑ Multi -Family (No. of Units )
❑ Commercial
❑ Public
OCT 13 1994
PUBLIC Wow DEPJ
Invasion into City Right -of -Way: 0^"Nc
RW Construction Permit No. —
Cross other Private Property: 9F Flo
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
Attach legal description and copy of recorded easement
I certify that I have read and shall comply with all city requirements
as indicated on the back of the Permit Card.
/U i,2 '91y
Date
* CALL DIAL -A -DIG (1-800-424-5555) BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION
OFFICE USE ONLY
* FOR INSPECTION CALL 771 PUBLIC WORKS DEPT.
? moo`' 1 1)0�10
Permit Fee:y L `l Issued By ! /
Trunk Charge:y Date Issued: /0 r/� 97
Assessment Fee: /y Receipt No.:
Lid No.:
Partial Inspection:
Comments
Date Initial
Reason Rejected: Date Initial
Final Inspection Approved: DatI 1+-9 1 Initial
** PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOB SITE **
White Copy: File Green Copy: Inspector Bull Copy: Applicant ,
Revised 3!90
The City of Edmonds Side Sewer Drawing EASEMENT NO ............................................
NEW CONSTRUCTION ❑ REPAIRS M LID NO . .................. . ASMT. NO.3-)
OWNER.............•--•-•--........---.....----...---.........----••-•----------...................--- CONTRACTOR.---.......----..................--•-----....---...-•----................----...--.. PERMIT NO.
A. , 1+
JOB ADDRESS .-` ... .�.. �.. ......... t. ........ LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT NO . ............. ......................... BLOCK NO. ....................................
I•-•-•-•---.....----• •---•-----•-•-••--•---••----------------------•-•---------- • --•----------.-...-----..-..--------------•-------..-----------------------------
TAME OF ADDITION .
<<C)9
1
t
� TV1�S c.o. ►5 �2s�crse
3 � "r b C 1¢.•4.,1 �.ta SSrar4 +1.
(
r �
METAl
►nt ovwvyway �
<o c. K,�r
C�
PWW-0001-11/75 (REV.11178)
P
L.-
Approved:
DATE ..�.-...!_- .--:1.��.......`�-------
r
�,r'
APPLICATION
The Cityof Edmonds " ° = y for
_ sr''' 'ti_ < .::, EASEMENT NO.
�. SIDE SEWER PERMIT
NEW CONSTRUCTION ❑ REPAIRS ❑ LID NO_ __________________ ASMT. NO. _-___-__-__.-___-_
OWNER----ZL)4 T--_-- 177-------------------------
--------•-----------•----••---•---- CONTRACTOR.---•-•----------------------•-•-•-•--------------------...---•--•----•--... PERMIT NO.JOB ADDRESS .._I1d�.- 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT NO. BLOCK NO. ------------------------------------
"-I
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------
NAMEOF ADDITION ------------------------------ ........................................................................................
Approved:
DATE............................................ BY-•---•----•---------•----•----------•-----•---•------••----.
jr---j
0
-tp.lg I z
/to/ I zr-L lqvt t
//P 7
Ad
dS IA.'
C n 4M
ENGINEERING
250 4th Ave. South
Suite 200
Edmonds, WA 98020
Phone: 425.778.8500
Fax: 425.778.5536
April 07, 2010
JoAnne Zulauf
City of Edmonds
121 5�h Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Permit Number: BLD2010-0037
Project Name: Jackson Retaining Wall
Project Address: 1101 12'h Ave N
Dear Ms. Zulauf,
Itemized below is the response to the review comments contained in the January 27, 2010
review for the above referenced project.
1. Reduced size site plan is not to scale of 1/20 as labeled. Please remove "199`h St
SW".
The scale on the site plan has been corrected and the 199th street reference has
been removed.
2. Site plan shows timber wall at SE corner of property as "to be removed". Is this
the only portion of the walls and rockeries that will be removed? If not, please
label others on site plan.
Additional arrows and text has been added to the plan to indicate all existing
walls that will be removed.
3. Show on site plan existing utilities from house to property line.
The utilities were not located on the survey; however the owner has given us
the approximate location of underground utilities. These are on the north
side of the site, and have been added to the plan. A note has also been added
for the contractor to verify locations of existing utilities to ensure that there
are no conflicts with the proposed shoring wall.
4. Geotech report discusses the possibility of repairing or relocating the sewer line.
Are you planning to do this work in conjunction with this project? If so, a side
sewer permit will be required and the intended changes must be shown on the site
plan.
The sewer repair and/or relocation is not part of this project scope, and the
owner is aware that a side sewer permit will be required for future work.
0 •
Design Review Comment Response
JACKSON RETAINING WALL
FILE NO. BLD2010-0037
April 07, 2010
Page 2
5. Please show all erosion control measures consistent with Edmonds Community Development
Code Chapter 18.30.050 and the geotechnical report provided by Associated Earth Sciences.
Provide details of measures to be used, the City of Edmonds standard details for erosion control
can be accessed on our website as noted above. You may just add these directly to your plans.
The City of Edmonds standard erosion control details have been downloaded and added to
the plan set. Refer to the updated plans.
6. Please show footing drain from connection point at proposed wall to connection at the city storm
system. Provide pipe size and material, and invert elevation at wall, and rim and invert at
connection to city storm.
The geotechnical engineer has reviewed this issue and determined that a drainage pipe is
not required as long as a 12" layer of pea gravel or other free -draining material is placed
behind the wall. Refer to the attached email. In addition, the owner has indicated that to
the best of his knowledge, the roof downspouts are tight lined away from the wall and do
not infiltrate, or drain to the area of influence behind the proposed retaining wall.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the responses to this review please do not hesitate to
call.
Sincerely,
CG Engineering
po-j�
Greg Guillen, PE, SE
Principal
t�71�
Maximum Occupant Load (Per U,B.0 j002)
Room capacity signs, when required must remain posted at all times
Gail Sarvis ,,<'1101 12th AveeN Edmonds Wa 98020
Owner of Building Address
Salon 512
THE HAS BEEN INSPECTED AND APPROVED AS COMPLYING WITH
THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE 'AS -ADOPTED -BY THE CITY 1994 EDITION, FOR THE
GROUP AND DIVISION OF OCCUPANCY AND THE USE F.OR.WHICH THE PROPOSED OCCUPANCY IS CLASSIFIED.
This certificate shall be posted in a conspicuous public area and shall not be removed, mutilated or obscured and shall be maintained in
legible condition at all times. Any change of occupancy requires a building permit and a new certificate of occupancy.
*'�0 STREET FILE �
CITY OF EDMONDS
200 DAYTON ST. • EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 • (206) 775-2525
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. W. R. Meyring
1101 12th North
Edmonds, Washington 98020
HARVE H. HARRISON
.MAYOR
November 13,- 1980
Account No. 422-08350•
• a,
Dear Mr. ,Meyring:
SUBJECT: CROSS CONNECTION/IRRIGATION SYSTEMS '.
An irrigation system located on•your property may be in
violation of State of Washington and City of Edmonds ordinances
related to ba.ckflow prevention. To protect the potable, or
drinking water supply,an approved back:flow device is mandatory
on all irrigation systems.
Please call the Water Department Cross Connection Inspector,
Lee'Willeiksen, at,775-2525, extension 226, for information or
an appointment for inspection of your irrigation system.
Requirements to meet State and City Codes need to be com-
pleted within thirty days from receipt of this notification.
A&
LEW/amm
Sinc rely,
LEE WILLEIKSEN
Cross Connection Inspector
water/Sewer Division
APPLICATION
EET FIfor
The City of UMATSH LE SIDE SEWER PERMff
OUTSIDE INSIDE 0 REPAIRS El
CARD No. - ..............
EASEMENT No. . ... .... --
OWNER - ---tte-
............................................................... CONTRACTOR .....
. 10-Y
PERMIT
.T .............STREET
HOUSE No ....=4
AVENUE LOT No . ................... ........... .............................................. BLOCK No . ....................
NAME ADD . ...... ........ ...........
A
7-1f A a PA i-0 S I�W
Recoltz)AcA) IAI ebl, � r poor Aeo-Ts 91P oer -SA-lb, 4 - -1,0
Date
BACKFILL WORK ORDER ISSUED .................I....................... DEPOSIT, $ ......
SEWER WORK ORDER ISSUED ................................................
Approved:
.......... ............
.....
APPROVED
7
4EMASSOCIATED
EARTH
SCIEIMCES, IMC
BOLDING
July 25, 1997
Project No. G97181A JUL 0 1997
Ms. Lara Knaak
City of Edmonds
Community Services Department Building Division
250 5`h Avenue North
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Subject: Geotechnical Assessment
Stuart/Sarvis Rockery
Stuart Residence Address:
Sarvis Residence Address:
CORPORATE OFFICE
911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100
Kirkland, Washington 98033
(206) 827-7701
FAX (206) 827-5424
BAINBRIDGE ISLAND OFFICE
179 Madrone Lane North
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
(206) 780-9370
FAX (206) 780-9438
1109 1Th Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington
1101 12`h Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington
Dear -Ms: Knaak:
As requested,, we liave,reviewed'ihe'Robert N : Pridee; Ino letter`=date6July:5;,1�997,;ao Farmers.
Insurance Group .regarding ' his geotechnical asse`ssnient of the .rockery afk.the Stuart/Sarvis
fA..
residences in Edmonds, Washington. We have also been on=site on multiple occasions: evaluating
the situation with the rockery and cause of failure. As such, it is our opinion'that the findings and
conclusions presented 'in,the Robert M. Pride letter are accurate and describe .the conditions and
cause of failure for the rockery.
Repair work on the rockery began on Tuesday, July 22, 1997. The repair contractor is B&B
Rockeries and Landscaping, The demolition of the existing rockery and rebuild is being
monitored both by personnel from our office as well as by Mr. Pride who represents Farmers
Insurance Group. To date, most of the rockery that has been subject to recent movement has been
removed and the slope has been excavated back to a stable configuration for temporary usage. The
sewer line that was located behind the rockery in the failed location will be rerouted by Aces Four
Construction.Company. Since this area has had multiple sewer failures over the year., the sewer
line, where. it crosses under the'.rockery, will be sleeved in a ductile iron pipe, or protected with
concrete, to provide added. protection to the PVC pipe.' Due to the height -.of the rockery; -it will
,be construcied in two tiers; ,The first`tier will be`on`the order. of 7 to 8 feet high.-;'ne second tier
will be on the order of 3 to 4 `feet'high and- will be; stepped back: approximately 7.jfeet belund`the
-lower tier_, Suitable basal support for rockeries will be verified by personnel from Associated
.L , -... ,e N..r .�
Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) as well as 'rock placement and placement of the crushed rock drainage
layer behind the wall.
Construction on this project will likely be completed by the end of the first week of August.
Following completion we will serid you an as -built drawing along with a final letter-6utlining the
repair procedure. f
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call our office.
Sincerely,
ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
Kirkland, Washington .
Gary A. Plowers, P.G.
Principal
GAF/Id
G97181A4
711/97 Id - WP7
2 �
Bruce L. Blyton, P.E.
Associate Engineer
2
ASSOCIATED
' EARTH
AMMSCIENCES, INC
GUTAING
September 3, 1997
Project No. G97181A SEP ' 5 1997
Mr. and Mrs. Greg Sarvis
1101 12`h Avenue North
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Subject: Construction Observation Summary
Stuart/Sarvis Rockery Rebuild
Edmonds, Washington
Farmers Claim. No., X71 68884
Dear Mr. and Mrs., Sarvis: :.
CORPORATE OFFICE
911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100
Kirkland, Washington 98033
(425) 827-7701
FAX (425) 827-5424
BAINBRIDGE ISLAND OFFICE
179 Madrone Lane North
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
(206) 780-9370
FAX (206) 780-9438 ,
This letter summarizes our recently completed construction observation services for the rebuilt
rockery along the west property line between your residence and the Richard Stuart residence.
Our services were as representatives for the Stuarts whose home was in peril as a result of the
rockery that failed in response to a leaking sewer on your property.
We initially visited the site on June 23, 1997 to begin evaluating the problem. Once the cause of
the failure was determined and an acceptable solution was agreed upon we visited the site a total
of 10 times between July 22, 1997 and August 6, 1997 during which construction observations
were made and on -site geotechnical recommendations were provided to the contractor during the
rebuilding of the rockery. Our recommendations were coordinated with Mr. Robert Pride who
was on -site representing your insurance carrier, Farmers Insurance Group.
The failed area of the. rockery was removed to our satisfaction and loose fill soils behind the
rockery were excavated and`replaced with crushed quarry .rock. One or more leaks in the sewer
line were repaired and the sewer was rerouied'to minimize the length of pipe that is impacted by
the rockery along the failed area. The rockery was, then rebuilt in two tiers instead of a single,
tall rockery'and each:;tier. was integrated into the remaining rockery to the north. In our opinion
the rebuilt rockery has been constructed in accordance with our field recommendations, and in
accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice. As such, it should provide
suitable protection.for -the slope between the -residences.
•
As per Mr. Robert Pride, our invoice for professional services has been sent directly to Farmers
Insurance Group. If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not
hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
Kirkland, Washington
Gary A. lowers, P.G.
Principal
cc: Lisa Wilson, Farmers Insurance Group, P.O. Box 3069, Redmond, WA 98073-3069
Richard Stuart, P.O. Box 236, Edmonds, WA 98020
Robert M. Pride, 13203 Holmes Point Drive NE, Kirkland, WA 98034
Robert Bourdages, Nelson-Bourdages, Inc., 512 6' St. S., #202, Kirkland, WA 98033
Lara Knaak, City of Edmonds, Building Div., 250 5h Ave. N., Edmonds, WA 98020
GAF/Id
G97181 A6
9/1/97 Id - WP7
n.UbtK� I'i h'k 111t INC 206 822 .01
CITY COPY Consulting
Robert M. Pride, Inc. Engineer
July S, 1997
Ms. Lisa Wilson
Farmers insurance Group
P. 0 Box 2399
Kirkland, WA 98083
Re: Report on Geotechnical Assessment
Sarvis Residence
1101 12'h Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Farmers Claim #X-1 68884
RMP Project No, 97-194-01
Dear Ms. Wilson,
At your request, a site inspection was made to the Sarvis (insured) and the Stuart (Claimant)
Properties located on 12`h Avenue North in Edmonds. The purpose of my inspection was to
examine and document existing rock; y and slope drainage conditions, and to determine the
cause of movement to the rockery walla It is understood that a sewer line leak occurred at the
top of the rockery, and shortly thereafter there was noticeable bulging near the mid section of
the rock wall.
The insured's house was built in 1962 and they have owned it for about three years. The Stuart
residence is situated on the downhill side of the insureds and they constructed that house
approximately 9 years ago. As part of the site development, the Stuart's had a rockery installed
along the easterly property line for support of a steep excavated slope at the rear of the house.
This rockery wall extends toward the front of the property where it swings to the cast along the
private access driveway.
According to Mrs. Stuart, there was seepage occurring almost two weeks ago at the base of the
rockery near the rear porch on the east side of the house, She had indicated that the base of the
rock wall was at least six inches away from the concrete porch, but that the rockery began to
move laterally toward the house. The claimants have started to move their belongings away
from this area of the house because of concerns over failure of the rockery.
At the top of the rockery there was a sewer line leak that was confirmed by a TV survey
inspection performed by Acts Four (Rick Middlebrook in Bothell). Four separate leaks were
suspected, but only two were found. The uppermost leak located near the end of the concrete
10428 N.E. 52nd Street KirklvA. WA 93033 II V E n
Phon%Tax (ZO6) 922 - 9532
PERMIT COUN i r ,�
July S, 1997 • •
• , , Ms. Lisa Wilson
Page 2
walk at the top of the rockery was repaired. The second leak exists at the driveway at
the front
of the Stuart property, and that will be repaired at some time in the near futwe.
t:ancluA)ong
On the basis of my July 1`t site visit and on discussions with the insured and the claimant, it is
clear that the sewer lisle leak caused movement of the rockery wall. Saturation of the upper
rockery backfill soils resulted in settlement of the sewer line, and caused excessive lateral
pressure to develop behind the rockery. There has been sufficient lateral movement of the mid
portion of this wail that the rockery must be assumed to be unsafe, It is strongly recommended
that tho affected portion of the rockery be removed to prevent dannagc to the Stuart residence
and possible injury to the occupants of the house.
Field measurements indicate that approximately 24 feet of the rockery along the east side of the
Stuart residence has moved or bulged, Although there is no indication of rockery movement at
the top of this wall, the lower and Middle portions have definitely'noved. Fresh fractures have
developed in several rocks which would suggest recent movement. Since the sewer line was
repaired on June 30`�, Mrs. Stuart indicated that the seepage and ponding has diminished at the
base of the wall.
Rockery repairs would consist of removing the 24 foot section of the rockery, and replacing the
displaced sections Kith property placed rocks. Because of the height of this wall (b feet), it is reeornmertded that tout 15
he repair about
obtain an engineered design for this
replacement wall. It may be necessary to recoo$nct this wall in two tiers to reduce the over, !
height of the rockery.
Please call me if there are any questions,
Y s very truly,
Robert M. Pride, P. E., G. E.
Principal Geotechnieal Engineer
Dist: (2) Addressee
mp.. Famsarvi%
10428 N.E. 52nd Street Kirkt.nd, WA 99013
Phorc4:ax (206) 822 9532
6906 zOL 9?t, az3ut?..Ansu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
' `+; _...T : �'J_."'.�7'k'rir'F� :..::p:,.. �•�„:N."_ ,.-..�k` r i T.�� :'f� .._..T. Yr i.n """�'-'"5. .. --r_ ...
kF"�%t'�•}4ry,.rt�..I �y-+'�'�i''�C y�4..,f��'+�U.+ �,r1M. fH'Z ;%�+irti":.�,�`�.. �r.
z
Q
U
a
a.
a
Q
ca
A
w
a
PLO
O
U
w
as
O
H
W
z
O
W
O
F�
U
Ix
O
w
CITY OF
MONDS
COMMUNIIT,Y SERVICES DEPARTIGIENT-EET FILE
RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT
A. • Owner:
Mailing Address
City State Zip
B. • Contractor:
Permit No. — 97C
Issue'Date
Name 9 o { s
Mailing Address
wrinamVI
City State Zip
State License Number Telephone Number_
• Address or Vicinity of Construction: T OA 1�
�. t
Type of Work to be Donee
A T .J
Work in Connection With: ❑ Sub or Plat I Single Family ❑ City Projects
`/ ❑Commercial dd __Multifamily ❑Utility
Pavement Cut: El Y ,�9. N
APPLICANT TO READ AND SIGN
INDEMNITY: Applicant understands and by his signature to this application, agrees to hold the City of Edmonds
harmless from any injuries, damages, or claims of any kind or description whatsoever, forseen or unforseen, that may
be made against the City of Edmonds, or any of its departments or employees, including or not limited to the defense
of any legal proceedings including defense costs, court costs, and attorney fees by reason of granting this permit.
THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS FOR A. PERIOD OF ONE
YEAR FOLLOWING THE FINALfINSPE,,&ION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK.
Funds held from the Security Deposit (estimated restoration fee) will be held until the final street patch is completed
by City forces, at which time a debit or credit will be processed for issuance to the applicant.
• A 24 hour notice is required for inspection; Please call Public Works: 771-3202
• Work is to be inspected during "progress and at completion.
• Restoration to be in accordance with City Code..
• Street to be kept clean at all times.
• Traffic Control to be in accordance with City regulations.
• All street -cut ditches must be patched with asphalt or City approved material prior to end of working day;
no exceptions.
I understand
Signature:
ISSUED BY:
Time Auth®r
Special Condi
Amendments:
above and that this permit must be avdilable at the job site for inspection purposes at all times.
0 01A �_ Vb—
: It
Date P)Et�
Owner dr Contractor
This Permit Must Be Posted at the Job Site For Inspection Purposes
Call DIAL -DIG Prior To Beginning Work
PERMIT FEE: I/JZ e� 1 lecl_
after days. Security Deposit:
Receipt No.:
Fund III Fee:
Street Cut Dimensions:
X =
NO WORK TO BEGIN PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE
Eng. Div. July 1985
FIELD INSPECTION.
Comments:
qw
(Fund I I I - Route copy to Street Dept.)
Diagram: r
CONTRACTOR CALLED FOR INSPECTION ❑ YES ❑ NO
Partial Work Inspection by P. W.:
Work Disapproved By: Date:
FINAL APPROVAL BY: Date:
Eng. Div. July 1985
r.:
CITY C®PY
rt M. Pri
July S, 1997
Ms. Lisa Wilson
Formers insurance Group
P. O Box 2399
Kirkland, WA 98083
Re: Report on Geotechnical Assessment
Sarvis Residence
110I 12'h Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Farmers Claim 4X-1 68884
RMP Project No. 97-194-01
Dear Ms. Wi I son,
Sr9F�rF/CF
Consulting
At your request, a site inspection was made to the Sarvis (insured) and .the Stuart (Claimant)
propertiei located on 12tb Avenue North is Edmonds. The purpose of my inspection was to
examine and document existing rockery and slope drainage conditions, and to determine the
cause of movement to the rockery wall.• It is understood that a sewer line leak occurred at the
top of the rockery, and shortly thereafter there was noticeable bulging near the mid section of
the rock wall.
The irtsured`s house was built in 1962 and they have owned it for about three years. The Stuart
residence is situated on the downhill side of the insured, and they constructed that house
approximately 9 years ago. As part of the site development, the Stuart's had a rockery installed
along the easterly property line for support of a steep excavated slope at the rear of the house.
This rockery wall extends toward the front of the property where it swings
Private access driveway, to the cast along the
According to Mrs. Stuart, there was seepage occurring almost two weeks ago at the base of the
rockery near the rear porch on the east side of the house. She had indicated that the base of the
rock wall was at least six inches away from the concrete porch, but that the move laterally toward the house. The claimants have started rocker}, began to
to move their belongings away
from this area of the house because of concerns over failure of the rockery. -
At the top of the rockery there was a sewer line leak that was confirmed by a TV survey
. inspection performed by Aces Four (Rick Middlebrook in Bothell). Four separate leaks were
seed. but only two were found. The Uppermost leak located near the end of the concrete
w
10428 N.E. 52nd Street Kirkism
�+4fC�'idN'7',�h'�yYT'l
Y h
W A 98033
dwn
PhOTWFpa 922 3 ti ¢'�< ( :� q,� a• "- rhr+� `
j
J'1Y
tYyes97�4"�L+,ry'
MF 11 ! f t i li � 49� 1
sl PERMITMU,Uj� s
r July 5,1997
Ms. Lisa Wilson
Page 2
Z O ' VA
walk at the top of the rockery was repaired- The second leak exists at the driveway at the front
of the Snort property, and that will be repaired at some time in the near future.
Concluodns
On the basis of my July I" site visit and on discussions with the insured and the claimant it
clear that the sewer tine leak caused movement of the rockery wall. Saturation of the upper
' is
rockery backfill soils resulted in settlement of the sewer line, and caused excessive latera
pressure to develop behind the rockery. There has been sufficient lateral movement of the mid
portion of this wall that the rockery must be assumed to be unsafe. It is strongly recommended
that the affected portion of the rookery be removed to prevent damage to the Stuart residence
and possible injury to the occupants of the house.
Field measurements indicate that approximately 24 feet of the rockery along the east side of the
Stuart residence has moved or bulged. Although there is no indication of rockery movement at
the top of this wall, the lower and middlc portions have defwitely ruOved. Fresh fractures have
developed in several rocks which would suggest recent movement. Since the sewer hue was
repaired a June 30`'', Mrs. Stuart indicated that the seepage and ponding has ditnitushed at the
base of the wall.
Rockery repaits would consist of remo
displaced sections v,�th ro 1 laced rocks e gee 24 foot
ofscctthe height of iOn Of the rockery,
and replacing the
feet), it is recommended that the repair contractor obtain an engineered this Wall (about 15
replacement wall. It may be necessary toreco,astruct this wail two idlers to fortthis overall
height of the rockery.
Please call me if there are any`qucstions,
Y s very holy,
PA4
Robert M. Pride, P. E., Q. E.
Principal Geotechnical Engineer
Dist: (2) Addressee
rmD. Fatmsarvis
c:
10428 N.B. 52nd Street Kitkl� and; Np 91
. � Dhor:NFat�t (206)822 9572 Y�:-'
6906: ZOL SZt' - -
. .}\ f -. �^ ✓i-.! (,%..: �' {. cy:C+. .tom: '�/'.Y;�Fs
- � r. v r;o°^� n td..i i� ::frr �t �:`•g+!+Zy:.-; y+.�iy:i
a.3UP tnSU T 'S d'Bllw s;
i r JU L 1 1,1997
trrlV:?, RMIT"C Tl
~.� C
LJORTH uu jE
OFTRACT ZO
148 6a2+ (UeW)
So,r U j5 ? rp peri-y
cl tC) 2U
(110.00' 02SC)
5.44 o* as GAS.
S 1541064�00- rz
CITY C®Py T,
DES 8. SPEu Em �� c.► c^
Geotechnical Engineering
Water Resources
�G'ID �DD3�
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.
Cel����y aUe�.z.�' �e�s�safJe�lce
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Geotechnical Engineering Report
JACKSON RESIDENCE RETAINING WALL
Environmental Assessments and
Remediation'
Sustainable Development Services
Geologic Assessments
Prepared for
Mr. Mark Jackson
Project No. KE090178A
June 29, 2009
STREET FILE
RECEIVED
JAN 2 0 2010
BUIITy OF EDMONDSNT
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.
Cefe&a6nj Ota 25 zJm, o f Yev' &e
June 29, 2009
Project No. KE090178A
1 Mr. Mark Jackson
1101 12`h Avenue North
j' Edmonds, Washington 98020
Subject: Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Geotechnical Engineering Report
.Jackson Residence Retaining Wall
Edmonds, Washington
Dear Mr. Jackson:
We are pleased to present the enclosed copies of the above -referenced report. This report
summarizes the results of our subsurface exploration, geologic hazard, and geotechnical
engineering studies, and offers recommendations for the design and development of the
proposed project. Our recommendations are preliminary in that future wall locations and
construction details have not been finalized at the time of this report.
We have enjoyed working with you on this study and are confident that the recommendations
presented in this report will aid in the successful completion of your project. If you should
have any questions or if we can be of additional help to you, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
�. Kirkland, Washington
/ 115
Bruce . Blyton, P.
Principal Engineer
BLB/tb
KE090178A2
Projects\20090178\KE\W P
Kirkland Everett M Tacoma
425-827-7701 425-259-0522 253-722-2992
www.aesgeo.com
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION, GEOLOGIC HAZARD, AND
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
JiACKSON RESIDENCE RETAINING WALL
Edmonds, Washington
Prepared for:
Mr. Mark Jackson
1101 12'hAvenue North
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Prepared by:
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.
911 5"' Avenue, Suite 100
Kirkland, Washington 98033
425-827-7701
Fax: 425-827-5424
June 29, 2009
Project No. KE090178A
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Jackson Residence Retaining Wall Geotechnical Engineering Report
Edmonds, Washington Project and Site Conditions
I. PROJECT AND SITE CONDITIONS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration, geologic hazard, and
geotechnical engineering study for the subject project. Our recommendations are preliminary
in that construction details have not been finalized at the time of this report. The location of
the subject site is shown on the "Vicinity Map," Figure 1. The approximate locations of the
explorations accomplished for this study are presented on the "Site and Exploration Plan,"
Figure 2. In the event that any changes in the nature or design of the proposed project are
planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report should be reviewed and
modified, or verified, as necessary.
1.1 Purpose and Scope
The purpose of this study was to provide subsurface data to be used in the preliminary design
and development of the subject project. Our study included a review of available geologic
literature, drilling two exploration borings, and performing geologic studies to assess the type,
thickness, distribution, and physical properties of the subsurface sediments and shallow ground
water conditions. Geotechnical engineering studies were also conducted to determine suitable
wall related design considerations. This report summarizes our current fieldwork and offers
localized wall development recommendations based on our present understanding of the
project.
1.2 Authorization
Written authorization to proceed with this study was granted by Mr. Mark Jackson. Our study
was accomplished in general accordance with our scope of work letter, dated May 6, 2009.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Mr. Mark Jackson and his agents for
specific application to this project. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our
services have been performed in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering
and engineering geology practices in effect in this area at the time our report was prepared. It
must be understood that no recommendations or engineering design can yield a'guarantee of
stable slopes. It must be further understood that this report was prepared to address the local
stability. of the slope at the proposed repair/replacement wall, and does not address slope
stability issues, if any, of the larger slope system in the project vicinity. No other warranty,
express or implied, is made. Our observations, findings, and opinions are a means to identify
and reduce the inherent risks to the owner.
June 29, 2009 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC..
JPLtb - KE090178A2 - Projects1200901781KEMP Page 1
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Jackson Residence Retaining Wall Geotechnical Engineering Report
Edmonds, Washington Project and Site Conditions
i
2.0 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject site is a single-family residential parcel located at 1101 121h Avenue North in
Edmonds, Washington. The existing residence is a one-story structure with a daylight
basement that opens to the west. The . ground surface at the subject site is generally gently
sloping, with steeply -sloping ground leading downward to the west and south beyond the
property lines. A rockery facilitates the grade change between the subject site and the property
to the west, while a series of timber retaining walls are located to the south to southwest of the
existing residence. The area surrounding the residence is currently vegetated by grass lawn
and landscaped areas, while the steep slope is vegetated primarily with blackberry brambles.
The existing timber wall to the south of the residence is leaning outward toward the slope and
is showing signs of distress. Also, the existing patio area exhibits separation between the slab
segments, suggesting differential settlement in the yard area between the residence and the
timber walls. We understand that you wish to construct a new wall system along the south -
facing slope as a mitigation or replacement for the currently -distressed timber wall along the
south side of your yard area. This slope is regulated under the City of Edmonds Critical Areas
Ordinance, and a slope stability analysis will be needed to allow work in the steep slope area.
We also understand that the existing side sewer line extends out from the existing residence
and below an existing rockery to the northwest. We understand that this side sewer has
undergone distress, and that you are currently considering a replacement or relocation of this
side sewer service line. This report discusses geotechnical considerations regarding the
repair/relocation of the side sewer.
3.0 SITE EXPLORATION
The site exploration was conducted on June 10, 2009, and consisted of two exploration borings
and a geologic and geologic hazard reconnaissance to gain information about the -site. The
various types of materials and sediments encountered in the explorations, as well as the depths
where characteristics of these materials changed, are indicated on the exploration boring logs
presented in the Appendix. The depths indicated on the logs where conditions changed may
represent gradational variations between sediment types in the field. If changes occurred
between sample intervals in our borings, they were interpreted. The locations of the
exploration borings are shown on the "Site and Exploration Plan," Figure 2.
The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the exploration
borings completed for this study. The number, locations, and depths of the explorations were
completed within site and budgetary constraints. Because of the nature of exploratory work
June 29, 2009 ASSOCIA PED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
JPUtb - KE090178A2 - Projects 1200901781KEIWP Page 2
i
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Jackson Residence Retaining Wall Geotechnical Engineering Report
Edmonds, Washington Project and Site Conditions
below ground, interpolation of subsurface conditions between field explorations is necessary.
It should be noted that differing subsurface conditions may sometimes be present due to the
random nature of deposition and the alteration of topography by past grading and/or filling.
The nature and extent of any variations between the field explorations may not become fully
evident until construction. If variations are observed at that time, it may be necessary to re-
evaluate specific recommendations in this report and make appropriate changes.
3.1 Exploration Borings
The. borings were completed on the property using a hand -portable drill rig advancing a 3.75-
inch, inside -diameter, hollow -stem auger. During the drilling process, samples were obtained
at generally 2.5-foot intervals. The borings were continuously observed and logged by an
engineering geologist from our firm. The exploration logs presented in the Appendix ' are
based on the field logs, drilling action, and inspection of the samples secured.
Disturbed but representative samples were obtained by using the Standard Penetration Test
(SPT) procedure in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM):D 1586. This test and sampling method consists of driving a standard, 2-inch
outside -diameter, split -barrel sampler a distance of 18 inches into the soil with a 140-pound
hammer free -falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows for each 6-inch interval is
recorded, and the number of blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches is known
as the Standard Penetration Resistance ("N") or blow count. If a total of 50 blows are
recorded at or before the end of one 6-inch interval, the blow count is recorded as the number
of blows for the corresponding number of inches of penetration. The resistance, or N-value,
provides a measure of the relative density of granular soils or the relative consistency of
Jcohesive soils. These values are plotted on the attached boring logs.
The samples obtained from the split -barrel sampler were classified in the field and
representative portions placed in watertight containers. The samples were then transported to
our laboratory for further visual classification and geotechnical laboratory testing, as
necessary.
The various types of soil and ground water elevations, as well as the depths where soil and
ground water characteristics changed, are indicated on the exploration boring logs presented in
the Appendix of this report. Our explorations and reconnaissance were approximately located
by measuring from known site features.
June 29, 2009 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
JPL Ab - KE090178A2 - Projects1200901781KEMP Page 3
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Jackson Residence Retaining Wall Geotechnical Engineering Report
Edmonds, Washington Project and Site Conditions
4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Subsurface conditions at the project site were inferred from the field explorations accomplished
for' this study, visual reconnaissance of the site, and review of applicable geologic literature.
As shown on the field logs, the exploration borings generally encountered fill overlying
granular glacial sediments. The following section presents more detailed subsurface
information organized from the youngest to the oldest sediment types.
4.1 Stratigraphy
Fill
Fill soils (soils not naturally placed) were encountered to depths of approximately 5 and 14 feet
below the ground surface at exploration borings EB-1 and EB-2, respectively. The fill
generally consisted of very loose to loose, fine to medium sand with gravel, silt, and some
organics. Fill thicknesses can vary over short distances and may be deeper than observed in
our exploration, particularly in the vicinity of the existing timber walls, buried utilities, and
landscape areas. Due to their variable density and organic debris content, the existing fill soils
are not suitable for foundation support.
Vashon Lodgement Till
Sediments encountered below the topsoil at the locations of exploration borings EB-1 and EB-2
generally consisted of loose to medium dense silty sand with gravel. These sediments were
observed to generally become dense to very dense below depths of approximately 2 to 3 feet
below the bottom of the overlying fill. We interpret these sediments to be representative of
Vashon lodgement'till. The Vashon lodgement till was deposited directly from basal, debris -
laden glacial ice during the Vashon Stade of the Fraser Glaciation approximately 12,500 to
15,000 years ago. The reduced density observed within 2 to 3 feet of the overlying fill is
interpreted to be due to weathering. The high relative density of the unweathered till is due to
its consolidation by the massive weight of the glacial ice from which it was deposited. At the
locations of exploration borings EB-1 and EB-2, the till extended beyond the maximum depths
explored of approximately 15.4 and 21 feet, respectively.
4.2 Geologic Mapping
Review of the regional geologic map titled Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and part of the
Edmonds West Quadrangles, by J.P. Minard (1983) indicates that the area of the subject site is
underlain by Vashon advance outwash deposits (Qva), with Vashon lodgement till (Qvt)
June 29, 2009 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
JPLItb - KE090178A2 — Projects1200901781KEMP Page 4
i
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Jackson Residence Retaining Wall Geotechnical Engineering Report
Edmonds, Washington Project and Site Conditions
mapped nearby. Our interpretation of the sediments encountered at the subject site is in
general agreement with the Vashon lodgement till (Qvt) mapped in the area.
4.3 Hydrology
Ground water seepage was not encountered in our exploration borings. We expect ground
water seepage across much of the site to be limited to interflow. Interflow occurs when
surface water percolates down through the surficial weathered or higher -permeability
sediments and becomes perched atop underlying, lower -permeability sediments. It should be
noted that the occurrence and level of ground water seepage at the site may vary in response to
such factors as changes in season, precipitation, and site use. Exploration for this study was
conducted during an unusually dry month of June when shallow ground water levels may be
uncharacteristically low.
June 29, 2009 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
JPUtb - KE090178A2 - Projects 1200901 781KEI WP Page 5
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Jackson Residence Retaining Wall Geotechnical Engineering Report
Edmonds, Washington Geologic Hazards and Mitigations
II. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS AND MITIGATIONS
The following discussion of potential geologic hazards is based on the geologic, slope, and
shallow ground water conditions, as observed and discussed herein.
5.0 SEISMIC HAZARDS AND MITIGATION
Earthquakes occur in the Puget Lowland with great regularity. The vast majority of these
events are small, and are usually not felt by people. However, large earthquakes do occur, as
evidenced by the 1949, 7.2-magnitude event; the 2001, 6.8-magnitude event; and the 1965,
6.5-magnitude event. The 1949 earthquake appears to have been the largest in this region
during recorded history and was centered in the Olympia area. Evaluation of earthquake
return rates indicates that an earthquake of the magnitude between 5.5 and 6.0 is likely within
a given 20- to 40-year period.
Generally, there are four types of" potential geologic hazards associated with large seismic
events: 1) surficial ground rupture, 2) seismically induced landslides, 3) liquefaction, and
4) ground motion. The potential for each of these hazards to adversely impact the proposed
project is discussed below.
5.1 Surficial Ground Rupture
The nearest known fault trace to the project site is the South Whidbey Island Fault Zone
(SWIFZ). A recent study by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (Sherrod, et al., 2005,
Holocene Fault Scarps and Shallow Magnetic Anomalies Along the Southern Whidbey Island
Fault Zone Near Woodinville, Washington, Open -File Report 2005-1136, March 2005)
indicates that "strong" evidence of prehistoric earthquake activity has been observed along
associated fault strands thought to be part of the SWIFZ. The study suggests as many as nine
earthquake events along the SWIFZ may have occurred within the last 16,400 years. The
recognition of this fault splay is relatively new, and data pertaining to it are limited, with the
studies still ongoing. The recurrence interval of movement along this fault system is still
unknown, although it is hypothesized to be in excess of 1,000 years. Due to the suspected
long recurrence interval, it is our opinion that the potential for damage to the proposed
structure by surficial ground rupture is considered to be low. No mitigations other than
complying with 2006 International Building Code (IBC) seismic design recommendations are
recommended.
June 29, 2009 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
!PL/tb - KE090178A2 - Projects1200901781KEMP Page 6
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Jackson Residence Retaining Wall Geotechnical Engineering Report
Edmonds, Washington Geologic Hazards and Mitigations
5.2 Seismically Induced Landslides
Our slope stability modeling has included "pseudostatic" analyses that incorporate loads
associated with an earthquake. Slope stability analyses and results are described in further
detail in the "Steep Slope/Landslide Hazards and Mitigation" section of this report.
5.3 Liquefaction
The encountered stratigraphy has a low potential for liquefaction due to its dense state and lack
of adverse ground water conditions. No mitigation of liquefaction hazards is warranted.
5.4 Ground Motion
It is our opinion that any earthquake damage to the proposed structures, when founded on
suitable bearing strata in accordance with the recommendations contained herein, would likely
be caused by the intensity and acceleration associated with the event and not any of the above -
discussed impacts. Structural design should follow the 2006 IBC. Information presented by
the USGS Earthquake Hazards Program indicates a spectral acceleration for the project area
for short periods (0.2 seconds) of Ss = 1.21 and for a 1-second period of Si = 0.42. Based on
the results of subsurface exploration and on an estimation of soil properties at depth utilizing
available geologic data, Site Class "C", in conformance with Table 1613.5.2 of the IBC, may
be used.
6.0 STEEP SLOPE/LANDSLIDE HAZARDS AND MITIGATION
The project site includes a slope which leads downward to the south from the existing timber
wall. The inclination of this slope is generally about 1.5H:1V to 2H:1V, which is greater than
40 percent. Based on this slope inclination, this slope meets the City of Edmonds definition
for a Steep Slope Hazard area. The site has been subject to past grading, including the
placement of fill for the existing yard and garden area. The following paragraphs discuss the
stability of the slope and recommendations to mitigate risks to the public health, safety, or
welfare. It must be understood that no recommendations or engineering design can yield a
guarantee of stable slopes. Our observations, findings, and opinions are a means to identify
and reduce the inherent risks to the owner.
6.1 Slope Stability Assessment
We used the computer program Slope/W to construct and evaluate a stability model of the
slope. Topographic data were obtained from the site survey, and subsurface data used to
June 29, 2009 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
JPLltb - KE090178A2 - Projects1200901781KEMP Page 7
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Jackson Residence Retaining Wall Geotechnical Engineering Report
Edmonds, Washington Geologic Hazards and Mitigations
construct the model were collected during completion of our subsurface exploration borings.
Soil strength parameters used for our analysis included a 30-degree friction angle for the fill
and a 38-degree friction angle for the dense to very dense Vashon lodgement till encountered
in our exploration borings. Seismic forces were modeled using a pseudostatic acceleration
of 0.16g, which is consistent with current local standards of practice for slope stability
modeling.
Slope stability is expressed as a factor of safety, which is a ratio between resisting and driving
forces for a given slope failure scenario. A factor of safety of 1.0 indicates that resisting and
driving forces are equal, and a failure is predicted. Factors of safety greater than 1 indicate
that resisting forces exceed driving forces, and a failure is not predicted.
Figures 3 and 4 illustrate the Slope/W profiles for Cross -Sections A -A' and B-B', respectively,
with the results of the slope stability analysis through the steep slope. The resulting factors of
safety for a global slope failure exceed 1.4 under seismic conditions and 2.0 under
static conditions. This result suggests that ongoing deep-seated slope movement is not
occurring at the subject site. Based on our analysis of the existing conditions, the resulting
factors of safety for the steep slope, with the incorporation of the recommended mitigations
described in this report, should meet or exceed the recommended minimum values of 1.20
under seismic conditions and 1.50 under static conditions. Our analysis indicates that the
placement of wall structures along the steep slope is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint,
provided the recommendations in this report are followed. Also, provided the
recommendations in this report are followed, it is our opinion that no adverse impact on the
steep slope area or adjacent properties will result through the elimination of the steep slope
buffer.
Our slope analysis was completed for drained soil conditions. Surface .drainage should be
properly controlled and directed away from sloping areas. Downspouts from roofs and water
collected from hard -surfaced areas should be tightlined into suitable storm water drainage
systems. Existing vegetation, where practicable, should be left on the slope to provide erosion
control. At no time should fill be pushed over the top of the slope. Uncontrolled fill over tops
of slopes may promote landslides or debris flows.
June 29, 2009 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
JPL,/tb - KE090178A2 - Projects1200901781KEMP page 8
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Jackson Residence Retaining Wall Geotechnical Engineering Report
Edmonds, Washington Geologic Hazards and Mitigations
7.0 EROSION HAZARDS AND MITIGATION
To mitigate the erosion hazards and potential for off -site sediment transport, we would
recommend the following:
1. Because the site soils are relatively fine grained and easily softened/eroded, we strongly
recommend that earthwork construction be completed in the dry season (typically
April 1 - October 31). While wet season construction is technically feasible, increased
costs associated with unsuitable soil removal and erosion control should be expected.
2. All TESC measures for a given area to be graded or otherwise worked should be
installed prior to any construction activity.
3. Construction access should be provided using existing pavement surfacing or rock -
covered, temporary access to limit tracking of sediment onto adjacent streets.
4. During the wetter months, of the year, or when large storm events are predicted during
the summer months, work areas should be stabilized so that if showers occur, the work
area can receive the rainfall without excessive erosion or sediment transport. The
required measures for an area to be "buttoned -up" will depend on the time of year and
the duration the area will be left unworked. During the winter months, areas that are to
be left unworked for more than 2 days should be covered with plastic. During the
summer months, stabilization will usually consist of seal -rolling the subgrade.
5. Disturbed areas should be revegetated or paved as soon as possible. Outside of the
growing season, the disturbed areas should be covered with mulch or plastic sheeting.
6. Surface runoff should be controlled during and following construction. Uncontrolled
discharge may promote erosion and sediment transport. Collected water should be
directed to a City -approved storm drain system.
7. Soils that are to be reused around the site should be stored in such a manner as to
reduce erosion from the stockpile. Protective measures may include, but are not
limited to, covering with plastic sheeting.
Erosion control elements should be maintained and improved, as necessary, until permanent
ground cover/pavement is completed.
June 29, 2009 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
JPL/1b - KE090178A2 - Projects1200901781KEIWP Page 9
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Jackson Residence Retaining Wall Geotechnical Engineering Report
E&nonds, Washington Design Recommendations
III. PRELIMINARY DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
8.0 INTRODUCTION
Our exploration indicates that, from a geotechnical standpoint, the parcel is suitable for the
proposed repairs/improvements, provided the recommendations contained herein are properly
followed. We do not know if the timber wall orthe existing rockeries were designed or
constructed to engineering standards. Fill soils were encountered in the explorations
immediately behind and adjacent to the existing timber wall. Based on our observations, it is
our opinion that the distress to the wall has resulted from a combination of fill settlement and
lateral pressure acting against the upslope side of the timber wall from the loose fill placed
behind the timbers, rather than as the result of a global movement through the entire slope
system. The following sections provide our recommendations for design and construction of
the proposed project.
Several wall types are available for the proposed remediation. These types include
mechanically -stabilized earth (MSE) walls, cast -in -place concrete walls, and drilled or driven
pile walls, such as soldier piles. MSE walls, whether faced with modular blocks or angular
rockery rocks, are not recommended for this application due to the significant amount of
excavation and slope disturbance required for installation. This excavation typically includes
the digging of a bench which extends a distance behind the wall facing equal to, or in some
cases greater" than, the wall height to . accommodate the installation of geogrid soil
reinforcement and drainage elements. This bench may impact the existing residence
foundation depending on the proposed wall height. We are, however, available to provide an
MSE wall design and detail, if selected. Regardless of the wall system chosen, the retaining
wall must extend below any loose fill or weathered soils and be embedded at least 3 feet into
medium dense to very dense, natural sediments.
9.0 SITE PREPARATION
Once the TESC measures have been established around the perimeter of the excavation to
satisfy City of Edmonds requirements, the subgrade and backslope areas of proposed retaining
walls should be cleared of any loose soils and debris. Existing fill, organic material, and any
other deleterious materials should be removed or relocated where they are located at or below
the planned building area.
June 29, 2009 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
JPLhb - KE090178A2 - Projects 1200901781KE1WP Page 10
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Jackson Residence Retaining Wall Geotechnical Engineering Report
Edmonds, Washington Design Recommendations
In our opinion, stable, temporary construction slopes should be the responsibility of the
contractor and should be determined during construction. For planning purposes, we
anticipate that temporary, unsupported cut slopes in the fill or weathered sediments can be
made at a maximum slope of 1.5H:1V (Horizontal: Vertical). For temporary cut slopes within
the dense to very dense, unweathered natural sediments, up to a 1H:1V inclination may be
planned. Fiatter, temporary cut slopes are recommended in areas of ground water seepage.
As is typical with earthwork operations, some sloughing and raveling may occur, and cut
slopes may have to be adjusted in the field. In addition, WISHA/OSHA regulations should be
followed at all times. Permanent, unsupported cut or structural fill slopes should not exceed a
gradient of 211:1V.
The native sediments encountered in our exploration borings contained a significant percentage
of fine-grained material that makes them moisture -sensitive and subject to disturbance when
wet. The contractor must use care during site preparation and excavation operations so that the
underlying foundation soils are not softened. If disturbance occurs, the softened soils should
be removed and the area brought to grade with structural fill.
10.0 STRUCTURAL FILL
Structural fill may be necessary to establish desired. grades or to backfill behind walls or
around foundations and utilities. All references to structural fill in this report refer to subgrade
preparation, fill type, placement, and compaction of materials, as discussed in this section. If
a percentage of compaction is specified under another section of this report, the value given in
that section should be used.
After overexcavation/stripping has been performed to the satisfaction of the geotechnical
engineer/engineering geologist, the upper 12 inches of exposed ground should be recompacted
to A firm and unyielding condition. If the subgrade contains too much moisture, adequate
recompaction may be difficult or impossible to obtain and should probably not be attempted.
In lieu of recompaction, the area to receive fill should be blanketed with washed rock or quarry
spalls to act as a capillary break between the new fill and the wet subgrade. Where the
exposed ground remains soft and further overexcavation is impractical, placement of an
engineering stabilization fabric may be necessary to prevent contamination of the free -draining
layer by silt migration from below.
June 29, 2009 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
!PL/tb - KE090178A2 - Projects 1200901781KE1WP Page 11
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Jackson Residence Retaining Wall Geotechnical Engineering Report
Edmonds, Washington Design Recommendations
After stripping and subgrade preparation of the exposed ground is approved, or a free -draining
rock course is laid, structural fill may be placed to attain desired grades. Structural fill is
defined as non -organic soil, ' acceptable to the geotechnical engineer, placed in maximum 8-inch
loose lifts, with each lift being compacted to 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum
density using ASTM:D 1557 as the standard.
The contractor should note that any proposed fill soils must be evaluated by Associated Earth
Sciences, Inc. (AESI) prior to their use in fills. This would require that we have a sample of
the material 72 hours in advance to perform a Proctor test and determine its field compaction
standard. Soils in which the amount of fine-grained material (smaller than the No. 200 sieve)
is greater than approximately 5 percent (measured on the minus No. 4 sieve size) should be
considered moisture -sensitive. Use of moisture -sensitive soil in structural fills should be
limited to favorable dry weather and dry subgrade conditions. In addition, 'construction
equipment traversing the site when the soils are wet can cause considerable disturbance. The
on -site native soils generally contained significant amounts of silt and are considered highly
moisture -sensitive, and we expect that this material will be too difficult to compact to structural
fill specifications. Therefore, we recommend that a select, import material consisting of a
clean, free -draining gravel and/or sand be used. Free -draining fill consists of non -organic soil
with the amount of fine-grained material limited to 5 percent by weight when measured on the
minus No. 4 sieve fraction. The existing sandy fill material, like that encountered in our
exploration borings, is somewhat less moisture -sensitive than the underlying on -site native soils
and may be suitable for use in a structural fill, provided that organics or other deleterious
material is removed prior to fill placement.
A representative from our firm should inspect the stripped subgrade and be present during
placement of structural fill to observe the work and perform a representative number of .in -
place density tests. In this way, the adequacy of the earthwork may be evaluated as filling
progresses and any problem areas may be corrected at that time. It is important to understand
that taking random compaction tests on a part-time basis will not assure uniformity or
acceptable performance of a fill. As such, we are available to aid the owner in developing a
suitable monitoring and testing frequency.
10.1 Keying and Benching
All structural fill planned to be placed on slopes steeper than 20 percent (5H:1V) are required
to have a keyway constructed at the toe of the fill body and the slope to be benched prior to
placing fill. The keyway should be excavated a minimum of 2 feet down into medium dense to
very dense, native sediments. The width of the benches should be established in the field to fit
the contour and gradient of the slope being filled.
June 29, 2009 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
JPUtb - KE090178A2 - Projects 1200901781KEI WP Page 12
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Jackson Residence Retaining Wall Geotechnical Engineering Report
Edmonds, Washington Design Recommendations
11.0 FOUNDATIONS
Spread footings may be utilized for retaining wall support when extending below any loose fill,_.
or weathered soils and embedded at least 3 feet into medium dense to very dense, natural
sediments. Prior to placement of foundations or structural fill, the natural sediments should be
compacted to a firm and unyielding condition. If structural fill is placed below footing areas,
we recommend that the fill extend horizontally outward from the footing edges a distance equal
to or greater than the thickness of the fill below the footings.
For footings embedded at least 3 feet into medium dense to very dense, natural sediments, as
described above, we recommend that an allowable foundation soil bearing pressure of 3,000
pounds per square foot (psf) be utilized for design purposes, including both dead and live
loads. An increase of one-third may be used for short-term seismic loading.
The retaining wall foundation must extend below any loose fill or weathered soils and be
embedded a minimum of 3 feet into medium dense to very dam. natural sediments. The area
bounded by lines extending downward at 1HAV from any footing must not intersect another
footing or intersect a filled area that has not been compacted to at least 95 percent of
ASTM:D 1557. In addition, a 1.511:1V line extending down from any footing must not
daylight because sloughing or raveling may eventually undermine the footing. Thus, footings
should not be placed near the edge of steps or cuts in the bearing soils.
Anticipated settlement of footings founded as described above should be less than 1 inch.
However, disturbed soil not removed from footing excavations prior to footing placement
could result in increased settlements. All footing areas should be inspected by AESI prior to
placing concrete to verify that the design bearing capacity of the soils has been attained and
that construction conforms with the recommendations contained in this report. Such
inspections may be required by the governing municipality. Footing drains should be
provided, as discussed under the "Drainage Considerations" section of this report.
12.0 LATERAL WALL PRESSURES
All backfill behind retaining walls or around foundation units should be placed as per our
recommendations for structural fill and as described in this section of the report. Horizontally
backfilled retaining walls that are free to yield laterally at least 0.1 percent of their height may
be designed using an equivalent fluid equal to 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Fully restrained,
horizontally backfilled, rigid walls that cannot yield should be designed for an equivalent fluid
of 50 pcf. If roadways, parking areas, or other areas subject to vehicular traffic are adjacent to
retaining walls, a surcharge equivalent to 2 feet of soil should be added to the wall height in
June 29, 2009 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
JPUtb - KE090178A2 — Projects1200901781KEMP Page 13
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Jackson Residence Retaining Wall Geotechnical Engineering Report
Edmonds, Washington Design Recommendations
determining lateral design forces. Retaining walls that retain sloping backfill at a maximum
angle of 2H:1V should be designed using an equivalent fluid pressure of 55 pcf for yielding
conditions or 75 pcf for fully restrained conditions.
In accordance with the 2006 IBC, retaining wall design should include seismic design
parameters. Based on the site soils and assumed wall backfill materials, we recommend a
seismic surcharge pressure in addition to the equivalent fluid pressures presented above. A
rectangular pressure distribution of 411 and SH psf (where H is the height of the wall in feet)
should be included in design for "active" and "at -rest" loading conditions, respectively. The
resultant of the rectangular seismic surcharge should be applied at the midpoint of the walls.
The lateral pressures presented above are based on the conditions of a uniform backfill
consisting of imported sand and gravel compacted to 90 percent of ASTM:D 1557. A higher
degree of compaction is not recommended, as this will increase the pressure acting on the wall.
Footing drains must be provided for all retaining walls, as discussed under the "Drainage
Considerations" section of this report. It is imperative that proper drainage be provided so that
hydrostatic pressures do not develop against the walls. This would involve installation of a
minimum, 1-foot-wide, blanket drain to within 1 foot of the ground surface using imported,
washed gravel against the walls placed to be continuous with the footing drain.
12.1 Passive Resistance and Friction Factor
Lateral loads can be resisted by friction between the foundation and the competent natural
sediments or supporting structural fill soils, and/or by passive earth pressure acting on the
buried portions of the foundations. The foundations must be backfilled with compacted
structural fill to achieve the passive resistance provided below. We recommend the following
allowable design parameters.
• Passive equivalent fluid = 200 pcf (211:1V maximum toe slope)
• Coefficient of friction = 0.30
13.0 DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS
All retaining walls should be provided with a drain at the footing elevation. Drains should
consist of rigid, perforated, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe surrounded by washed pea gravel or
drain rock. The level of the perforations in the pipe should be set at the footing elevation and
should be constructed with sufficient gradient to allow gravity discharge away from the wall.
In addition, all retaining walls should be lined with a minimum, 12-inch-thick, washed gravel
June 29, 2009 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
JPUtb - KE090178A2 - Projecis1200901781KEMP page 14
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Jackson Residence Retaining Wall Geotechnical Engineering Report
Edmonds, Washington Design Recommendations
blanket provided over the full height of the wall that ties into the footing drain. Surface runoff
should not discharge into the footing drain system, but should be handled by a separate, rigid,
tightline drain. In planning, exterior grades adjacent to walls should be sloped downward
away from the structures to achieve surface drainage. All collected runoff must be tightlined
to a City -approved location.
14.0 SOLDIER PILE WALL
A soldier pile system would require minimal excavation and disturbance to the slope compared
with other wall types. We anticipate that a cantilever soldier pile wall consisting of wide -
flange steel piles, suitably embedded in the underlying dense soils, can provide the necessary
support when designed by a qualified structural engineer. Treated timber lagging should be
used to support the soil between the piles.
The construction sequence for soldier pile wall systems typically involves installing each pile to
the minimum specified embedment depth below the base of the excavation or exposed portion
of the wall, under the observation of the geotechnical engineer or designated field
representative. Drilled and grouted piles should be allowed to set for at least 72 hours prior to
beginning excavation. Once the piles have been installed to the satisfaction of the geotechnical
engineer, excavation for .placement of lagging may proceed in vertical sections of 4 feet or
less. The actual height of the excavated sections that provide a stable excavation face should
be adjusted in the field, depending on actual soil and ground water conditions . at the time of
excavation, but should not exceed 4 feet. Treated timber lagging, as specified by the structural
engineer, should be installed and backfilled with permeable soils to prevent the build up of
water behind the lagging boards. No excavation sections should be left open overnight.
We recommend that the soldier pile wall system be designed to resist an active lateral earth
pressure of 35(H) psf, presented as a triangular distribution for a level backslope. The active
earth pressure acts over the pile spacing above the excavation base. An allowable passive
resistance of 200(D) psf can also be assumed to act over twice the pile diameter (or grouted
diameter) below the excavation base. The upper 2 feet on the passive side of the piles should
be neglected and truncated from a triangular distribution. These recommendations for lateral
earth pressures are illustrated on Figure 5.
We recommend that corrosion protection be used for the structural elements of the pile wall
designed to act as permanent structures. We also recommend that the seismic surcharges
described above be incorporated into the design of permanent wall structures. If adjacent
structures, heavy construction traffic, materials stockpiling, or other substantial surcharges are
to be applied during construction, these surcharges should also be included in the design.
June 29, 2009 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
JPL11b - KE090178A2 - Projects1200901781KERP Page 15
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Jackson Residence Retaining Wall Geotechnical Engineering Report
Edmonds, Washington Design Recommendations
We recommend a minimum depth of embedment of 10 feet below the base of the exposed
portion of the wall for all piles. Soil conditions may differ from those described in this report.
All sediments of glacial origin may contain large cobbles or boulders at random locations.
The drilling contractor should be prepared to use casing, drilling slurry, or other methods of
stabilizing the hole in the case of caving or heaving soil conditions. If more than 6 inches of
standing water or slough is present at the bottom of the boring prior to grout placement, the
contractor should be prepared to use a tremie pipe to place grout continuously from the bottom
up. Grout may consist of lean -mix concrete or CDF, as specified by the structural engineer, to
ease chipping for lagging installation.
I Timber lagging can be designed to resist reduced lateral earth pressures as a result of soil
arching between piles. For the site soils, the lagging can be designed to resist 50 percent of
the calculated lateral load at any given point. Caving could be experienced when excavating
and installing lagging between piles. Overexcavation of soils should be avoided. Excavation
should extend just far enough to allow lagging installation. Any void spaces behind lagging
should be quickly identified and filled with pea gravel or other suitable free -draining material
to prevent caving and loss of support for adjacent ground.
15.0 SIDE SEWER REPAIR/RELOCATION CONSIDERATIONS
If the side sewer is to be repaired, we recommend that the sewer pipe be videotaped, and that
any damaged locations along the sewer alignment be staked at the ground surface. This will
provide the contractor with a specific location for the repair and mitigate the amount of
excavation needed. If loose or fill soils are encountered below the repaired sewer pipe
segment, these soils should be overexcavated and replaced with structural fill, crushed rock, or
controlled -density fill (CDF) to mitigate the risk of pipe settlement at the repair location.
For either sewer repair or relocation, we recommend that temporary shoring measures (e.g.,
trench boxes) be used during excavation and sewer construction activities. In addition,
WISHA/OSHA regulations should be followed at all times.
The granular fill material encountered at the site should be suitable for use for sewer trench
backfill, provided that organics or other deleterious material is removed prior to fill placement.
The on -site native soils generally contained significant amounts of silt and are considered
highly moisture -sensitive, and we expect that this material will be too difficult to compact to
structural fill specifications. Sewer trench backfill should be placed as structural fill,
compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of ASTM:D 1557.
June 29, 2009 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
JPL,hb - KE090178A2 - Projects1200901781KEIWP Page 16
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Jackson Residence Retaining Wall Geotechnical Engineering Report
Edmonds, Washington Design Recommendations
Where practicable, disturbance to the existing rockeries beyond the sewer trench should be
kept minimal. Subsequent to sewer installation activities, the existing rockeries, where
disturbed, should be restored to their pre-existing condition or better.
16.0 PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MONITORING
Our recommendations are preliminary in that definite wall locations and construction details
have not been finalized at the time of this report. We are available to provide additional
geotechnical consultation as the project design develops and possibly changes from that upon
1 which this report is based. If significant changes in grading are made, we recommend that
AESI perform a geotechnical review of the plans prior to final design completion. In this way,
our earthwork and foundation recommendations may be properly interpreted and implemented
T in the design.
We are also available to provide geotechnical engineering and monitoring services during
construction. The integrity of the wall foundations depends on proper site preparation and
construction procedures. In addition, engineering decisions may have to be made in the field
in the event that variations in subsurface conditions become apparent. Construction monitoring
services are not part of this current scope of work. If these services are desired, please let us
know, and we will prepare a proposal.
June 29, 2009 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
!PL/tb - KE090178A2 - Projects 1200901781KE1WP Page 17
Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and
Jackson Residence Retaining Wall Geotechnical Engineering Report
Edmonds, Washington Design Recommendations
We have enjoyed working with you on this study and are confident that these recommendations
will aid in the successful completion of your project. If you should have any questions or
require further assistance, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
Kirkland, Washington
/ F tW a S 4-.�
Q`
Jeffrey P. Laub, P.G., P.E.G.
Project Engineering Geologist
Attachments: Figure 1:
Figure 2:
Figure 3:
Figure 4:
Figure 5:
Appendix:
r
JGE L. B( T
�Q` F WAS Jti O
9� 2 890 O �t
Fs `G/STERN
SIGNAL
Bruce L. Blyton, P.E.
Principal Engineer
Vicinity Map
Site and Exploration Plan
Slope Stability Analysis - Cross Section A -A'
Slope Stability Analysis - Cross Section B-B'
Soldier Pile Retaining Wall - Design Criteria
Exploration Logs
June 29, 2009 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
JPUtb - KE090178A2 - Projects1200901781KEMP Page 18
i
454 7��PL
19
GTH
LIE
t ST S1r�
T :MELODY Lh! ss5
9AP l (OpD .
rqpoo [_HIMDLE.Y ti VIEWLAW .�`i :��' LL PAk'
LN
ie�n 1
"'`' 11RQO)'19ERE ST "'
.. EOIdOiSrDS �;1� j' z 1� S�9TH r �IAw
UNDERliA I'EI? r ..SITE I Sw
— f JI
pr—
J?AIK.UILTf ER LI VISTA ? "0d Nout�rn,it; VISTA ` �� 4��Y �.
G+' l" 5Ql1t IJ. `�'' raL = I �`�,- . 20 I ST
rat f SATER L1V LP t srk E LH c
t OR � _I
ALOHA I1Y ALONA � �� easHn�q CHRCIL � , � `�� � MCADE �t�1S c
SIERRA
LAJi�OrArG'� f � � a_ - sT ALefia ,— � nR S1 202'. D
wy e s-1 'SI' t L .'r 2f,•�Jl PL,� � ST Sw
r ; BEACH ALE! sT GLEN ;ST f .wYsE�T
ST
-
s�AGUEISTctitflrir" ;'=' ' r � PLA HL �fUwlflArG6IR19
cs' L>2ccT1i '
EDI40�A1D5I1ILL !'l ST �)1� LPLfs
Pier =¢'� BELL 7 W ST sit
°`�
BELL F,11E,ALD
v�f cry r a acu sea S ; �q S . I20r [N j
®' 2 �rrl �L s1'r I
r - — SI'r {_�
STr1Tha7 1 �/? 1 0 / r,4.1 DES �1 ^EtSGit'' 2UC Y i� c C9$IU
,1 DAYTON j its r�� fir(
4s? jon
rli �aFLE ftp f {y' OSi s"ir.� c' 1209TH .PL
1ilcn ST f
ion �
N `SW
ALDER. ( rn ST
f 14A'LN U ST
%A,LNUT L .
a NO SCALE
u
v
Y Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. VICINITY MAP FIGURE 1
u
JACKSON RESIDENCE RETAINING WALL REPAIR DATE sros
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
o ��r'1 I AIl1 vcnnna von
CCESS
20'7t' ,yk GQ.FOUND CAPLS #9891 AT N'372 43.W SURV-r
— -
gti 0.16' N. & 0.04' E. (7y�3
94.08, 32.7$1,
Sp,
N FOUNAILW TAL
YPIC&
115.00
FOUND REBAR & CAP
0!%k
9p'
LS r9891, AT 0.14' N.
& 0.01' W.
FOUND REBAR
NO
1h
CAP AT D.18'
S. & 0.25E.
�h' p
7•`•
SET TACK &
r
i
TAG IN ROCK
yp
'
ROCKERY 0 4.2' W,
'I ROCKERY", x?D 0.9' E. R�
D,O
O
OD
ROCKERY,® 1.4' E
HOUSE1107 m
j� �,. ',1�S1q 6' CHERRY HOUSE ¢7701
ibe
ROCKERY 0 0.4' W. : 11127456 7i 10
L
g c0 R\p
�RR
N
0
NW CORNER B" RR I°' 2��1p TIE WALL
I
0
o
z
TIE WALL 0 0.2' E 13 9 6' CEDAR r,11.-
h•
�g1
n JUNIPER 12" BIRCH
SW CORNER 8" RR ;" EB-2-
1,-i
TIE WALL 0 0.7' E.
0� .:.
C YCREic WALK. ^..,,,;,•„,-ti1a:.,;...�, �. - „boy
OP
` 1111 �h 8" RR TIE WALL eyep 954,
egg k9 1
sib
APPROXIMATE LOCATIONSl '-
FOUND.EXISTING <OF EXPLORATION BORING
t`
„-
b�"-
a1 REBAR & CAP •. •-•. -_
- .
-9� ,LS #9891, TYPICAL - TYP �.........- ..., '-8' RR TIE WALL.,SE
o •� .
CORNER
,•
- ^ 0p .\
1 SIB WALL- D.
N8934'2 W (SORVE
•(N89'54' W, .P
�` • `v,.
,
" i ----iot-oF sLOF.
0 10 20
g
FEET
REFERENCE: FOX DOBBS SURVEYING ,
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN
U
FIGURE 2
l0
:� JACKSON RESIDENCE RETAINING WALL REPAIR
FO! Ed
-0 EN
DATE 6/09
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
PROJ. NO. KE090178A
0
N N N N N
0
c,
,tl-tl uoryoaS � t 3�Vd �Po'�i!I!Ge1S adolS HL 1060 \ aoua!
a
rya
L
O
F- a
Uuj
w
U) J
U�Z
0z0
Uzz
a CO
U)W�
�QUp
Lu
ZWz
ao�
wcl
w
�z
m0
a Y
U) U
w
EL
0
J
U)
V®
�-1
f—�
V�
V
V
�-1
d
�V
rT�
1�
u
as UOS'V e f SL L061
270
260
2co
240
230
0
m
m
0
a
d
fV
W
a
a
v`
10 20 ?0 40 s0 ou
EXISTING CONDITIONS -SEISMIC CASE
(V
. . . . . . . . . .
B
a
A
N
90
w230
0
10
20
30
'0 50 60 70 00
co
0
m EXISTING CONDITIONS -STATIC CASE
v
FIGURE 4
o Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS -CROSS SECTION B-B'
JACKSON RESIDENCE RETAINING WALL REPAIR DATE 6/09
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
PROJ. NO. KE090178A
DMA 9 1
NOTES
1. SOLDIER PILE EMBEDMENT DEPTH "D" SHOULD CONSIDER NECESSARY VERTICAL CAPACITY, KICKOUT, AND
OVERTURNING RESISTANCE.
2. ACTIVE AND AT -REST PRESSURES ACT OVER SOLDIER PILE SPACING ABOVE EXCAVATION LEVEL, OVER 1 PILE
DIAMETER BELOW EXCAVATION LEVEL.
3. DIAGRAM DOES NOT INCLUDE HYDROSTATIC PRESSURES OR SLOPE SURCHARGES AND ASSUMES WALLS
ARE SUITABLY DRAINED TO PREVENT BUILDUP OF HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE WITH NO SLOPE AT TOP OF WALL.
I�
Io 4. DIAGRAM IS ILLUSTRATIVE AND. NOT REFERENCED TO A PARTICULAR LOCATION.
5. DIAGRAM DOES NOT INCLUDE PRESSURES DUE TO SURFACE SURCHARGES. FROM ANYADJACENT
STRUCTURES. THESE PRESSURES MUST BE PROVIDED BY THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER.
d
6. FOR DESIGN OF TIMBER LAGGING THE HORIZONTAL PRESSURE CAN BE REDUCED BY HALF.
m
r
A Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. SOLDIER PILE WALL DESIGN CRITERIA FIGURE e
► , JACKSON RESIDENCE RETAINING WALL REPAIR DATE 6/09
T -_A EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
PROJ. NO. KE090178A
APPENDIX
' °o °
Well -graded gravel and
Terms Describing Relative Density and Consistency
ca
poop
GW
gravel with sand, little to
Density SPTOblowsftot
c
o
no fines
Very Loose 0 to 4
Coarse-
° ° ° ° °
° p ° ° °
GP
Poorly -graded gravel
iy
m a,
_
r± N
e
1°
14
Loose 4 to 10
Grained Soils
Medium Dense 10 to 3D Test Symbols
N
C°GOG
and gravel with sand,
Dense 30 to 50
c
c
000°o
°p°o°
little to no fines
Very Dense >50 G = Grain Size
N
z
o z
$ o
M = Moisture Content
Consistency SPT'Zlblows/foDt A = Atterberg Limits
, °
c
a -o
Silty gravel and silty
.
Very Soft 0 to 2 C= Chemical
0
GM
gravel with sand
Fine- Soft 2 to 4 DD = Dry Density
39 m
c
m m
o d
c
v_
Grained Soils Medium Stdf 4 to K= Permeability
8
Stiff 8 to 15
Clayey gravel and
Very Stiff 15 to 30
GC
clayey gravel with sand
Hard >30
e
LO
m
Component Definitions
o
Well -graded sand and
c
Descriptive Term Size Range and Sieve Number.
sw
sand with gravel, little
Boulders Larger than 12'
�•
m
_C
' '
to no fines
Cobbles 3" to 12'
'
N
LL
Gravel 3° to No. 4 (4.75 mm)
:: : '
Poorly -graded sand
�
Coarse Gravel 3° to 3/a'
ron
2 �n
vn
SP
and sand vrith gravel,
Fine Gravel 314'to No. 4 (4.75 mm)
d
c
o v
2 d
little to no fines
Sand No. 4 (4.75 mm) to No. 200 (0.075 mm)
0 z
Coarse Sand No. 4 (4.75 mm) to No. 10 (2.00 mm)
CD
m
Silty sand and
Medium Sand No. 10 (2.00 mm) to No. 40 (0.425 mm)
o H
CU
SM
silty sand vAth
Fine Sand No. 40 (0.425 mm) to No. 200 (0.075 mm)
a
o
r
gravel
Silt and Clay Smaller than No. 200 (0.075 mm)
u•,
Vj
sc
Clayey sand and
(3) Estimated Percentage', Moisture Content
^"
clayey sand with gravel
Percentage by Dry- Absence of moisture,
co
Component Weight dusty, dry to the touch
Trace <5 Slightly Moist - Perceptible
Silt, sandy silt, gravelly sift,
m
M!
silt with sand or gravel
Few 5 to 10 moisture
.
Little 15 to 25 Moist - Damp but no visible
Cl)
N M
With - Non-primarycoarse water
Clay of low to medium
o3
fa
constituents: > 15 % Very Moist - Water visible but
N
p
U rn
C ,j
C�
plasticity, silty, sandy, of
-Fines content between not free draining
z
rn -
gravelly clay, lean clay
5% and 15 % Wet -Visible free water, usual IY
NE
from below water table
a
cr
_
Organic clay or silt of low
Symbols
m
r
=
OL
plasticity .
BlowsJfi or
0
—
Sampler portion of 5
P
Cement grout
o
—
TypeJn/
Sampler Type
surface seal
Elastic silt, clayey silt, silt
o
es
MH
Wth micaceous or
2 0" OD!
Split-Spm Description t�l
Bitorvte
H
o
�
diatomaceous fine sand or
sill
Sampler3.0° OD Split -Spoon Sampler -
Filler pack with
a
a
m o
SP
( T)3.25' OD Split Spoon Ring Sampler p)
: blank casing
Clay of high plasticity,
d
o
c
CH
sandy or gravelly clay, fat
Bulk sa
3.0" OD Thin -Wall Tube Sampler
: section
=' Screened casing
E
n
clay with sand or gravel
(including Shelby tube)
or Nydrotip
with fitter pack
_
— co o
Grab Sa
End
i��;i�
Organic clay or silt of
9 Y
c
cr
Portion not recovered
cap
is
i;.ii
��,;:�
off
.
medium to high
pl Percentage by dry weight tot Depth of ground water
plasticity
p ty
m (SPT) Standard Penetration Test 1 (ATD = At time of drilling
� inn GeneralAAcccordance with ) SZ Static water level (date)
e
Peat, muck and other
o N
PT
highly organic soils
Standard Practice for Description tsl Combined USCS symbols used for
and Identification of Soils (ASTM D-2488) fines between 5% and 15%
Classifications of soils in this report are based on visual field and/or laboratory observations, which include densl ylconsistency, moisture condition, grain size, and
plasticity estimates and should not be construed to imply field or laboratory testing unless presented herein. Visual -manual and/or laboratory classification
methods of ASTM D-2487 and D-2488 were used as an identtfcation guide for {he Untried Soil Classification System.
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.
EXPLORATION LOG KEY
EXPLORATION LOG KEY
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.
Exploration Lop
r
Project Number
Exploratiori Number
Sheet
KE090178A
EBB 1)
1 of 1
Project Name Jackson Residence Retaining Wall Repair / Ground Surface Elevation (ft)
Location Edmonds, WA Datum N/A
Driller/Equipment CNDrilling/Acker DateStart/Finish R/1f)/(19F/1fl/f1A
Hammer Weight/Drop 140# / 30" Hole Diameter (in)
$
a
L O
o: E
O
=, 2
>
N
Blows/Foot
N
a
S E
T m
m T
0 u)
o
E
a�
-�-
o
—
DESCRIPTION
m
°
10 20 30 40
S-1
Fill
Moist, dark brown to brown, silty SAND, with gravel and organics.
11
A2
1
S-2
Moist, same.
1
A2
1
1
5
_,Driller notes firmer drilling action at 5'. _ _
S-3
_ _ _ _ _ -
Weathered Vashon Lodgement Till
2
Moist, brownish gray, silty fine to medium SAND, with gravel.
4
s
5
---------__ _ _ ---------
Vashon Lodgement Till
S-4
Moist, slightly rust -stained brownish gray, unsorted silty fine to medium
12
SAND, with gavel.
18
. 32
Driller added water at 8'.
14
10
S-5
Moist, brownish gray, silty fine to medium SAND, with gravel.
15
26
50/
1/
0/
/2
S-6
Moist, same.
27
0/
A
k50/1"
15
S-7
-.Moist, same.
01E
50/
"
Bottom of exploration boring at 15.4 feet
Exploration terminated due to auger refusal.
20
25
30
35
Sampler Type (ST):
m 2" OD Split Spoon Sampler (SPT) No Recovery M - Moisture Logged by: JPL
m 3" OD Split Spoon Sampler (D & M) Ring Sample S_Z Water Level() Approved by:
® Grab Sample ® Shelby Tube Sample 1 Water Level at time of drilling (ATD)
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.
EX loration Lo
Project Number
TProject
Exploration Number
Sheet
KE090178A
EB-2
1 of 1
Name Jackson Residence Retaining Wall Repair Ground Surface Elevation (ft)
Location Edmonds, WA Datum
_N/A
Driller/Equipment CN Dnlllna/Acker Date Start/Finish P,/1 n/nq, /1 n/nq "
Hammer Weight/Drop 140# / 30" Hole Diameter (in) R,,
a
S E
`��° E
o
�, a
iu
-J
io
3
Blows/Foot
oNi
CD
T
c7 cn
E
a�
DESCRIPTION
m
10 20 30 40
S-1
Fill
Moist, brown, fine SAND, with gravel, silt, and trace organics.
2
2
A5
3
S 2
Dry, brown, fine SAND, with silt and trace gravel.
3
3
4
5
S-3
Dry, brown, fine to medium SAND, with trace gravel and silt.
2
2
As
_
4
S-4
Moist, brown and gray, fine to medium SAND, with trace gravel and silt.
2
3
A5
2
10
Driller added water at 10'.
S-5
Moist, brown and gray, fine to medium SAND, with silt and gravel.
2
2
A4
--------------------------------
2
S-6
Moist, rust -stained brownish gray, silty fine to medium SAND, with gravel
2
and trace organics.
3
♦6
3
15
------------------9-------------
Weathered Vashon Lodgement Till
S
Same for 12", overlying moist, brownish gray, unsorted silty fine to medium
2
SAND, with gravel.
2
&11
----------------------------=—
9
Vashon Lodgement Till
S-8
Moist, same, with an occasional sand seam.
33 3
50l
"
20
3-9
Moist, brownish gray, silty fine to medium SAND, with gravel.
35
O/ "
50/
"
Bottom of exploration boring at 21 feet
Exploration terminated due to auger refusal.
25
30
35
Sampler Type (ST):
m 2" OD Split Spoon Sampler (SPT) No Recovery M - Moisture Logged by: JPL
3" OD Split Spoon Sampler (D & M) Ring Sample SZ Water Level() Approved by:
® Grab Sample ® Shelby Tube Sample •1 Water Level at time of drilling (ATD)
MARK JACKSON
1101 12TH AVE N
EDMONDS, WA 98020
425.640.7400
CONSULTANTS
CIVIL/ STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
CG ENGINEERING
250 4TH AVE S, SUITE 200
EDMONDS, WA 98020
425.778.8500 FAX 778.5536
CONTACT: JOE GALUSHA
LEGAL DMIP71ON
LOT 1, CITY OF EDMONDS SHORT PLAT NUMBER S-29-87, RECORDED UNDER
RECORDING NUMBER 8711180198, AND RE- RECORDED UNDER RECORDING
NUMBER 8711230415, BEING A PORTION OF TRACTS 19 AND 20, PUGET
SOUND MACHINERY DEPOT 5 ACRE TRACTS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT
THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 5 OF PLATS, PAGE 47, IN SNOHOMISH
COUNTY, WASHINGTON;
SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON.
PARCEL NUMBER
00548900001911
PROPERTY INFORMATION
TOTAL LOT AREA
EX. BUILDING FOOTPRINT
PROPOSED BUILDING FOOTPRINT
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
= 14,375 SQFT
= 1930 SQFT
= NOT TO CHANGE
= NOT TO CHANGE
SCOPE OF WORK
STABILIZE FAILING TIMBER RETAINING WALL WITH SOLDIER
PILE.
NE 1/4, SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M.
IM PL SW
CMIM $T
LN
d'
1981H
ST sw
PU6ET WAY
HDOLEYLN
PU6ET
OLYi M AVE
�
2001H ST SW
VISTA PL =
JEC-T
SITE
CAWAX
m+sT
�'
202RD ST SN
ALOHA ST
CAROL WAY
SERA PL
�
;
�
�
OLEIJ ST
J
2o4nH sr
DALEY Sr
3m 3'
e. e.
SI RME ST
BELL ST
207I1i PL SIN
Using pea gravel or other free -draining material behind the lagging of the soldier pile wall should be sufficient to provide
subsurface drainage without the use of a perforated drainage pipe. It should be noted, however, that this type of drainage
system would only handle subsurface drainage for soils behind the wall. The wall should not be used as a dispersion.
system for surface drains, such as roof downspouts.
/ access &
/ L171t, faSeMeNT _ \ `
_
-`------------
REBAR & ---------------
S #9891 AT
1. & 0.04' E.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
+ WALL\TO E REMOVED EX ROCKERY
1 I
� I
D
EX FAILING TIMBER
I
\ \\ \ \ WALL TO BE EMO'ED
\ � I
,PROPbSED-SOLIDER;��;
-�fLE- IZETAINIkQ
A -PROVE
I3Y ENGIN - ;RING - - _244,, ` , \ \� ,�,— = �►, ,�w� ��
APPROVED BY PLANNING
4 4 o s i 0y1 C04 I DI pt a q i
tciv1 C., 1-1 • 40. D7`0 ' D''
"Nothing in thi9 permIL approval process shall be Gone R-S I Z Corner Flag
\ \ \ \ \ interpreted as allowing pr permitting the .
1 \ \ \ \ maintenance of any currently existing illegal, cutbacksActual
\\ \\ \\ \\ Nonconforming or unp@rnk%tted huilding,,.0tructure Front N �. -PS
\ \ or site condition which is outside the scope of the
\ - -
\\ \ \� permit application,, regard1*, of whether such Sides/`( D __
\ \ building, structure or condition is shown on the tear
\\ site plan or drawing. Such building, structure or Other I
amditign m.ay. be' the subiect of a separate —� -�-- - —.
SITE PLAN evefibetc� fvm 0n, n a 9r461 e
aR(�. 4 ACCESS & UTILITY EASEMENT
& s�2a'� (nag PLAT)
115.00" ` ` 79.95' MEAS. 93.17'
/ FOUND REBAR, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
' — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —.— — — — — — — — — — — — — —
., — — — —
AP AT 0.18
S. &
--�
APPROX LOCATION I SET TACK & +
TAG IN ROCK
\ OF UNDERGROUND I
\\ UTILITIES
I \ \ 1 I
\ \ \ I I
I \ I
\ \ `\
x \ \ \ ?Br
IIOPSED OLDIER oI
\ I O \=�a; PI of
S1gL�C �� i I
\ EX FAILIN' TIMBER RETAININ z
/0
J
Q
Z M
_O m
I- w
O
W W W
0 EL CL
0 0
W 7
Q co r—
o C)
Y
CQ
H
I I
I I
I
1�
DESIGN:
DMT
DRAWN:
ZOS
CHECK:
JGG
JOB NO:
09127.10
DATE:
01 /18/10
Z
Q
W
W
0
N
U
Z
Z
0
00
W
Q
V)
L�Lj
Q
`Q
z
Z
N
I
CL
0
r-
p
Z
e—
0
W
U
0
�—
r
LLJ
V
SHEET:
ao /0 - O� 5 7
jl�-OPGa?
1/0l
l�`�h
/� Gt/rz�l
STREET FILE
R E'R'- u 0
WR 08 2010
13URNSAWas"r