Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
20020583.pdf
L-1 3t, U 7 DATE RECEW 1 Cf f / ;4w: PERMIT EXPIRES usE PERMIT ) •'� ZDNE tZ S.. � Z- NUMOER G -�, � CITY OF EDMONDS , CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION SUITE/APTN ADDRESS �l IEP N EMAME OF USINES PE,f PLAT NAME/SUBDIVIBION NO. LOT NO. LID NO, C_ FEE S .INGA DRESS LID 1Es11APPrmed PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP RW P. 11 Pepuved svopl Uee Pe�mll PppB mePppuon nppmrad EXISTING PROPOSED sldeweIXRapWnd TELEPHONE Untloiprowtl REQUIRED DEDICATION — METER SIZE I LINE 312E No, OF FIKTURES PRV PEOUIREO a ❑ NO YES ( Z REMAR1 OWNERIICONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROL/DRAINAGE t,2 ENGINEERING REVIEW E �Dy)DA (/�j) 41✓ly.. �i"� G}I� Lo- ADD x/ ; %I_ FIRE REVIEWED BY DATE zipTELEPH D OR ADBN INSPECTION BOND VARIANCE OR CU SHORELINE C POSTED ('g��T•AjtTE LICENSE N ER (j, \j (V�,Y'T ��fj EXP�I{ A IO�JND/(A7E E ES CIRO HEIGHT SEPA REVIEW GO PL TE /EKEMPT SIGN AREA ALLOWED PROPOSED ALLOWED PROPOSED q PROPER TAX AC UNT PA EL N /� EXP CJ LO COVERAGE REQUIRED SETBACKS (FT.) PROPOSED SETBACKS (FE) Tom,, NEW p{FI RESIDENTIAL ❑ PLUMBING / MECH ALLOWED PROPOSED FRONT SIDE REAR FROM 4R SIDEREAR /!^' COMPLIANCE OR ❑ ADDITION ❑ COMMERCIAL ❑ CHANGE OF USE PARKING LOT AREA PLANNING REVIEWED BY DATE ❑ REMODEL ❑ APARTMENT ❑ SIGN REGD I PROVIDED l PENCE ❑ REPAIR CYOB ❑ ( X FT) R ARKS �_ ❑ 0�DEMOLISH ❑ TANK ❑ OTHER t�N GARAGE RETAINING WALL ❑ CARPORT ROCKERY ❑ RENEWAL C) - I s (TYPE OF USE, BUSINEB AC'(J`/ EPLAIN;t V9 �' N: CHECKED BY TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION C OCCUPANT ? GROUP EI NUMDER C CRITICALG SPECIAL ONUMBEROF LOCCDUPANT Ate'AREAS DWELLE LN UNITS VG NUMBERREQUIRE YS --- HEAT SOURCE GLAZING % I LOT SLOPE % Building RLUR/bing' PLAN CHECK NO: A� �qt (J l VESTED GATE Mechanical Grading Recording Fee THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTI'ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTIONONTHEPUSLIC DOMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE SEPARATE PERMISSION. Engr. Review 519 City Surcharge O State Surcharge Engr. Inspection /J PERMIT APPLICATION: IN PERMIT LIMIT I YEl1R-PROVIDED WORKIS 6TARTERTED WITHIN 100 DAYS SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION Traffic Mitigation Plan Chk Deposit 1 •APPLICANT. ON eEHALF OF HIS HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS NI tE INTEREST. AGREES TO INDEMNIFY DEFEND,PL AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF FROM ANY AND Receipt N File RBVIBW EOMONDS, WASHINGTON. ITS OFFIu'10.L5. EMPLOYEES, AND DIRECT S ALLCWMS FOR DAMAGES OFWHATEVEH NATURE, RISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY �-'"' Total Amount Due �L FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE j DEEMED TO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE Fire Inspection NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CIT!-S ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.' Landscape Insp. Receipt # APPLICATION APP i HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ 711IS APPLICATION; THAT THE INFORMATION GIVEN IS CORRECT; AND THAT I AM THE OWNER, OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF Thla appilcRllan Is not A P—It.Mi THE OWNEfl. I AGREE T Y WITH CITY AND BTATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC. CALL BUIIUIRg OI(cipl pT his(hpr Dopwy: land TION; AND IN DOING I WORK ITHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED LABOfl C DE OF 7HE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO FOR INSPECTION —.1rl Hack—I.doodiPspe< IN VIO TION WOR EN'S C PB ATION INS RANCE AND DOW 16.27, w�yC OFFI NA (425) SIG ATU 0" DATE IGNED 771-0220 RELEA D IS 1 EXT 1333 ) A EN O �- IT IS UNLA UL T USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL 771-0221 A FINAL IN ECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTIFI- FAX GRPGnK-OWNER GE ID ASSESSOR R CATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC SECTION 109 lam _'i 0 UJ = �rn m� O 80 MrnIT Z a- � Z O j mm_ O� r 9 (a ,•Z'I r :U Z i W O 'rn .. � •• � INV n 21239-i \INV =-212Z-1 y .. M"ll J �volt IF .' S69'57'50"E - BASIS OF BEARING 200A5' (MEASURED) 199.67' (DEED) R=389.20 p FOUND MONUMENT IN CASE �PLK 1 0 Z' De110 11'00'12" P0517110 . t,,, MH RIM= 22o et• OONCRf(f IIN B CDNC = 2142 CU{IB Ae 03noaaad CL R=35920 - s W=wNL �- €: 266 sxo e PNTTOn139. =83 TOW 22 CSp',aAS v _NE413' NIGH ROCKERY Oel(o-42'32'20" OLYMPI�—DRIVE W aW a W z M TOW 22 N 10 ! j SETR C t: _ EXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVED 10671 � p ... i AND REPLACED PER TREE Lll6TOry, IMPACE AS6ESMENT, ,---2 " REtENT10N AADREfl4.AGEtlENL,_ _ _ _ _, ... PLAN, DATE DA2/01 224 ---- r� 226 y . - Im' SETBACK LINE OF STAIR ?b 228 APPROX,. CONFIGURATION FROM DECK EXACT LOCATION WILL y Nv I Q NOT ENCROACH ON SETBACK Y30 / 232 m - SANITARY SIDE SEWER LINK TO .' - 0 C EXISTING LINE S' WOOD FENCE, 5 YARD = 233.5 S / A- IS223.0 m M BLDG. REMA1N BORDERTYP EXIST OB TO REMAIAT EXISTING DECK Z ' HEIGHT 24' ROOF OVERHANG TYP 152+EL 5 BAY WINDOW 6 CLOSET P ` S MAIN fLR LEVEL 4' c� v I 55. eel WB I 0 1 WEST PAGE OF CARPORT HOUSE LUMN, ROOF OVERHANGS 24' ISTY ER 2455 LOWER FLR 2355 LOWER IPTG D W 8EL D �'18101 2,353 of FOOTPRINT I D INAGE DIT N Yf S m. m m - i` VIA WATER LINE INTO C AGE OF NEW HW6E I i ya - (} PARCEL 2704180 500 15A59 SO.n. (0.35 ACRES) IN L I GAR FLR 245.5 IrvTa m � Be z 3' WOOD FENCE ° 22. N990000 P ca I NEW GAS LINE TO CRAWL , L 1512' SPACE OF HOUSE y"3' ,5•� Po �t /2' M UM T 1 NEW ELEC METER — 232 0 y {EIGHT DATUM SITD / 0 K NEW GAS METER -230-rIl -{ •� 10671C Ny, p p y SHED 9yi",7j�CT APPROX EDGE OF NEW DRIVEWAY n. ill F'%l, /2 / PAVER CURB WITH 3/4' k 35 / RISE ON DWY SIDES i - FO Jy REBA HOUSE NEW ROOKERY AS REWD FOR PLACEMENT OF DRIVEWAY t \\ \ POc #18107 �(y ELEVATION(6) OF EXIST GRADE AT •BOX' AROUND SET W \\ FOOTPRINT OF BLDG. FOR - HEIGHT CALCULATIONS P WAT METER ��{r\\ a' SSMH RIM - 253.87 C//f" •y INV N 214.5 � NEW CUT ROCKERY, SEE CIVIL INV SSE) = 251.10'ui = 2 INV SITE P N' - 9425 35TH AVE. N E #202 , r SEATTLE, WA 98115 P: (206) 234-7336 E N G I N E E RI N G F: (206) 524-0130 FIELD OBSERVATION REPORT #3 March31,2003 RECEIVED Tony Shapiro RECEIVE® A.D. Shapiro Architects, PS APR (y $ 2003 600 Main Street, Suite C Edmonds, WA 98020 A. D. SHAPIRO ARCH. 03. Re: Sunset Way House Shear Wall Nailing Inspection (02003.11) o m i r� Dear Mr. Shapiro•. N At your request, Pyrgos Engineering performed an inspection for shear wall sheathing and nailing on the Sunset Way House located at 18105 Sunset Way, Edmonds, Washington, Pyrgos Engineering to 0 w arrived on site at approximately 2:30 p.m. on March 26, 2003 to perform the inspection. 0 C , Inspection was provided for the first and second floor shear walls based on construction documents m m provided by your office. All wall sheathing was 7/16" C-D plywood nailed at approximately 4" o.c. at ID Z panel edges and diaphragm boundaries and approximately 10" o.c. field nailing. This nailing pattern E', meets or exceeds the shear wall nailing pattern set forth in the construction documents. Several discrepancies were noted during the inspection. At the second Floor shear walls the contractor On should verify that the sill plate nailing at shear walls meets requirements set forth in the shear wall schedule on A9.4. During the inspection the sill plate nailing did not appear to meet these m O rn requirements. The contractor should also install Simpson A35 Framing Anchors per the shear wall 0 Fn schedule and detail 7/A9.2 to attach truss blocking to shear walls. At the first floor interior shear walls, anchor bolts or some other means of mechanical anchorage should be provided to attach the shear walls to the foundation grade beams. These general comments have been noted on the following 1 attachments: Second Floor Shear Walls on Main Floor Plan, and First Floor Shear Walls on Basement Plan. In addition to these general comments, specific areas have been identifled on the attached sheets, which should be addressed by the contractor. These areas have been noted because they are required to provide complete load path for the lateral restraint system. z: Ifyou have any questions regarding this memo please feel free to call me at (206) 234-7336. z' O,_ Sr y, @ - m nk R. Unocic, PE Hager t% STRUCTURAL DESIGN FOR RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIALAND TILT -UPS I f ! l- --------- ------ a i o I 1 e!! i I � - -- --- per- - - --- �- _- - T I - �. V�Fy 51.ii. P1A'trc N4 k�fi�.f 5C}�ytAI.E ' � II � � i�1 � i j+ >b kuD NAa1= AsRPED, i i I) ! J� - A35 AT wAt1. #3RNGS i scflou e AT N� sale ke •way ; ! I r -`' Ell, E—Ell --•---.-.--------------i- - ----------- ---- t Q Holz- , -vo--4 Jest W5TAUSt7 - (D g K4.A+-.9 rraCiv. A°t-PflOJO Ea- @ WAu-s1i�+4Tii Ntrr - vi +1 KA p psv - ttc-c��4i f° O b 5t�K- f12a �SFF' a2 ?LE�tE �9425 35TH AVE. NE #202 WSEATTLE, WA 98115 U( P: (206) 234-7336 ENGI N EERI N G R (20b) 524-0130 FIELD OBSERVATION REPORT#2 November 27, 2002 } Tony Shapiro A.D. Shapiro Architects, PS 600 Main Street, Suite C Edmonds, WA 98020 pML .. 4s, Re: Sunset Way House Reinforcement Inspection #2 (02003,11) m d'! Dear Mr. Shapiro: =i'n rn ' At your request, Pyrgos Engineering performed a reinforcement inspection for the Sunset Way House M 1\ foundation at 3:00 p.m. on November 25, 2002. During the time of the inspection the temperature m +.. was approximately 45 degrees F, and the weather was overcast and cloudy. p O O C Inspection was provided for the Foundation grade beams and retaining wall reinforcement For this m project. Grade beams were reinforced with (2)-#5 top and bottom and retaining walls were reinforced ID with #5 0 4" o.c, vertical and #5 015" o.c. horizontal. (2)-#5 bars were located at the top of each p Z retaining wall, and corner dowels were installed at wall and grade beam corners and intersections. This r is consistent with the structural sketches provided for this project. All #5 reinforcing steel was Grade -n Two discrepancies were noted during the inspection. The (2)-#5 top bars in the grade beams were located lower than desired, and the vertical reinforcing in the retaining walls was not located as 0 � indicated on the structural sketches. During the inspection, it was noted that the (2)-#5 top bars C F should have a 2" clearance to the top of the grade beam. This was pointed out to the contractor, who corrected the discrepancy during the inspection. As indicated on the structural sketches 1 1/2" of clearance is required between the vertical reinforcement and the face of the retaining wall. A wood 5r ledger was set in the retaining wall, which limited the room available to place the concrete. Due to the placement of a wood ledger in the retaining wall Forms the contractor decided to set the final location' oFthe vertical reinforcement after the concrete had been placed and mechanically vibrate the concrete Z at that time. To the best of our knowledge, the reinforcement was installed in accordance with the structural O sketches. IFyou have any questions please Feel Free to call me at (206) 234-7336. m Si i ank R. Vnocic, PE I, STRUCTVRAL DESIGN FOR RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND TILT-VPS r . 9425 35"1 AVE. NE #202 SEATT LE, WA 98115 fff P: (206) 234-7336 E N G (N E E RI N G F: (206) 524-0130 FIELD OBSERVATION REPORT #1 November 18, 2002 Lr Tony Shapiro A.D. Shapiro Architects, PS 600 Main Street, Suite C Edmonds, WA 98020 P p. SHAPIRO P.RCN a4 Re: Sunset Way House Reinforcement Inspection (02003.11) i M Dear Mr. Shapiro: c At your request, Pyrgos Engineering performed a reinforcement inspection for the Sunset Way House C m ti m foundation at 11:20 am on November 14, 2002. During the time of the inspection the temperature i O was approximately 50 degrees F, and the weather was overcast and cloudy. C M, mm Inspection was provided for the footing reinforcement at the retaining walls on the south and west side of the proposed structure. Footing reinforcement was #5 0 6" o.c. in the transverse direction and #5 C Z Y 0 12' o.c. in the longitudinal direction in accordance with the structural sketches. Where the transverse reinforcement was short, the contractor cut the reinforcing steel in the center and lapped a 6` #5 reinforcing her at each location. Splice lengths of 36" were measured which is acceptable. (2)-#5 p m bars were located above each pile line, (3)_#4 splayed dowels were provided at each pile, and #5 footing dowels 0 4" o.c. were installed in accordance with the structural sketches, All #5 reinforcing steel was m Mm. t' Grade 60. p N The only discrepancy occurred at the intersection of Gridlines 1 and A where (2)-pile5 were emitted. C ca" As we discussed on November 13, 2002 a reinforcing mat with #5 012" o.c. was to be installed at the m n top of the footing on the retained earth side of the retaining wall. This was pointed out to the contractor, who was to install the reinforcing mat prior to placing concrete. ;p t To the best of our knowledge, the reinforcement was installed in accordance with the structural sketches. I f you have any questions please feel free to call meat (206) 234-7336. Z fFtnk Z mR. Vnocic, PE ger is STRUCTURAL DESIGN FOR RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, INDU5TRIALAND TILT-VP5 TIM LAND SURVEYING ANSO V & ASSOCIATES, INC. February 12, 2003 Project No. 02024 A.D. Shapiro Architects, P.S. RE(;EIVED 600 Main Street, Suite C FEB 13 ZCL5 Edmonds, WA 980220-3079 A, D, SHAPIRO ARCH. Re: 18105 Sunset Way, Edmonds Residence, To Whom It May Concern: ' I hereby certify that on February 5, 2003, 1 made an "as built" survey of the house under construction located at 18105 Sunset Way, Edmonds, WA, known as the Shapiro Residence. Based on the results of that field survey, 1 determined that the location of the house at that time fully complies with the setback requirements as depicted on Sheet A 1.1 of the set of building plans, bearing an approval date of 06/28/02. Furthermore, I determined the second floor elevation of the house, as measured on the plywood sheathing, to be 245.51 feet, based on a rim elevation of 253.89 feet for the sanitary sewer manhole located at the southwest comer of the property. Signed, Timoth E Hanson •... Professional Land Surveyor ••••�N`l E hgti Certificate No. 18903 • at��oawti Z/�2/a3 EXPMS 6025 - 108th Ave. N.E. • Kirkland, WA 98033 • (425) 822-7271 R C'. fv . O m 4 a �0 On Cn A� nZ F— --J O T �. m r, m o o z° z 0 0 m t I I r I' % w. 4 <■ � \� \\ y\kE� \\O.n / \ m �m °\m: `\§: r vAGolder socla tee 18300 NE Union Hill Road, Suite 200 Redmond, WA USA 98052-3333 Tel: (425) 883-0777 Fax: (425) 882-5498 TO: ON SITE: 1230 OFF SITE: 1330 . U 1 L [j 1,110 THE FOLLOWING WAS NOTED: MAY 1 2 2003 ISSUE: We received a call from Tony Shapiro on Monday in which he informed us that he had received a complaint from the Shippens, who own the adjacent property to the west of the Shapiro site. He said that the Shippens claim that the vibrations from the compacter used in the fill placement operation have caused ground movement in their backyard and that cracks had opened up in the lawn along their back fence. We called them at the request of Tony Shapiro and made arrangements with Elaine Shippen to meet with her and observe the distressed area on Wednesday at noon. OBSERVATIONS: We met with Mrs. Shippen onsite and walked through the area with her. We observed numerous cracks up to 2" in width running east to west along the back fence and some areas of ground slumping within 1 to 4 feet of the fence. Close examination of the cracks and slump scarps indicate varying ages with some erosion of edges and vegetation growth on failure surfaces. We were told that the distress was at the end of the site adjacent to the Shapiro property, but we also noted older cracks and slumping at the northwest corner of the yard, which is over 100 feet from the closest area of soil compaction with the vibratory roller. Mrs. Shippen also told us that approximately 10 years ago there was an occurrence of slumping soil :long the same fence area as the present distress. The Shippens filled the area back to lawn grade, but her description of the situation was similar in nature to the present problem in that area. The following conditions were also observed: • The house appears to rest on a bench cut into hard glacial soils beneath the surficial slope soils. The northern 10 to 15 feet of the backyard appears to be the fill soil from the foundation cut pushed out onto the top of the slope to the north of the house. • The northern edge of the yard fill soils beyond the fence are retained by a 4 to 5 foot high retaining wall resting on the slope and constnlcted of treated 2x8 planks stacked on edge and supported by a combination of metal stakes and 2 inch pipes driven into the slope, and wooden rakers buried in the slope and braced against the wall. Portions of the wall appeared bowed and distressed with some supports apparently added more recently to shore up failing areas. The wall distress and the additional supports all appear older than the last few months. The fence itself and the neighbors' fence to the west are both leaning downslope approximately 10 to 20 degrees from vertical. • We were told by the Shippens that the slope between their back fence and Olympic View Drive is inclined at 2h:1v. This appeared to be the case in some areas of the slope, but walking along the roadway below we observed that most of the road cut at the toe of the slope is at least 1 h:tv or steeper with no shoring of any kind. We took a number of digital photos of the area in question for further observation. Tony Shapiro was informed of our observations and he said he would be speaking with the Shippens. Page of " DATE: 10 / 16 / 02 JOB NO: 013-1665-001.000 _ PROJECT' SHAPIRO / SHAPIRO RESIDENCE / WA LOCATION: 18107 SUNSET WAY, EDMONDS, WA CONTRACTOR: SILVER CITY CONSTRUCTION OWNER: SHAPIRO WEATHER: CLEAR, SUNNY TEMP: ° at AM 65 ° at 12 PM PRESENT AT SITE: GAI — Tom Marshall Z O 1 n m �5i-� E rn C m0 n I � mm p DZ y -On mm 0� OR z � r' A Z cn z O rn m I 1 COPIES TO: SIGNED OOCUMENT2 - Page of - - DATE: �— JOB NO: a�rrtt 10 / 9 / 02 013-1585-001.000 _ l.YOl�eP PROJECT: v ASOCIates SHAPIRO / SHAPIRO RESIDENCE / WA 18300 NE Union Hill Road, Suite 200 t ocanoN: E! Redmond, WA USA 98052-3333 18107 SUNSET WAY, EDMONDS, WA Tel: (425) 883-0777 CONTRACTOR: OWNER: Fax: (425) 882-5498 SILVER CITY SHAPIRO ; CONSTRUCTION " TO: WEATHER: TEMP: ° at AM :`I _ CLOUDY, SHOWERS 50 ° at 2 PM PRESENT AT SITE: GAt - Tom Marshall SILVER CITY CONSTRUCTION Z 0' TONY APICITY ON SITE: 1300 OFF SITE: 1445 L B m 9 rn; ,.. MAY `�l� THE FOLLOWING WAS NOTED: 1. Onsite to observe slope fill placed on the western half of the site as slope fill for the location of the Shapiro house. c p Onsite sandy silt had been placed in lifts across the slope with a dozer and compacted with a vibratory roller. Density 1 O tests performed on the compacted fill indicated that compaction was performed in accordance with the specifications (at O c least 90% of maximum dry density: ASTM D-1557). Excavation continued into the slope for the western portion of the ; house. Soils from the house foundation excavation were pushed to the south end of the bench and were gradually rn z used as fill for the slope area. No further soil was imported today, az 2. We observed that the contractor made a concerted effort to keep the street clean of soil tracked offsite and that the silt ' fences were in place and functional before they left the site. :� in ' O� �m . oca 0 - -i.. - - 2-. O: . n, m" I. COPIES TO: .Jl ��1JD R ■ .PORT l CCCUMENT2 'Nu -'gar Field Density / Moisture' 3t Data Sheet_of__ J i Project: Project#: Sin rr2o /Lrss TroxierModel: 3 z/i'o ;. Field Eng: 013 rlLgS >` n mSN. yr Serial No. Z3 9r� 9 �O�(tei Date: Standard Counts: EIS! 0d lte'S Weather: io��o2 Gco�<� Moisture: r yow�an5 �G a Density: Test Number `i Detailed Test Rri..s/Slop¢ w 15 047' EM/uE/Sw�'Z F, tZtvuY��Sbo/6 nw3 Qwa�SwR- 'S� /Zxv� �SwA2 r; Location ` .o, oC L$ 6 woven. Der,PrtE�10 S• k„r "'O Fiwr 2S rwr 3S'S. Z ' ap of GS'�S i Elevation 7.2C. 7-23 LZg Z30 ~ 2-3 Z.1 m i Tmxier Mode and m Depth1Z" w Dry Density (PCF) m Wet Density (PCF) !t y.$ il8.i t25'.g llo./ !z S.'1 O ' sm % Moisture ts- p �i r %, compaction �. % Comp. Required 9 4S/ `?S O '+ Maximum Proctor Density(PCF) /O$.O tt n n m m OOy Optimum Moisture Q �, Content !S +` I/ a ca Fill Material Tested mZ o' Compaction Equipment Used: Number a�(� V tEY tong M of Passes to Achieve Required Compaction: Thickness of Lifts: ` Datum Elevation: t tit N Z. O' ) Hf; 3 Notes:' m �r (Fssociates molder 18300 NE Union Hill Road, Suite 200 Redmond, WA USA 98052-3333 Tel: (425) 883-0777 Fax: (425) 882-5498 TO: DATE: JOB NO: 10 / 8 / 02 013-1685-001.000 PROJECT: SHAPIRO / SHAPIRO RESIDENCE / WA LOCATION: 18107 SUNSET WAY, EDMONDS, WA CONTRACTOR: OWNER: SILVER CITY SHAPIRO CONSTRUCTION WEATHER: TEMP: 'at AM OVERCAST 55.at2PM PRESENT AT SITE: GAt — Tom Marshall SILVER CITY, MANN LANDSCAPING TONY SHAPIRO ON SITE: 1330 OFF SITE: 1615 THE FOLLOWING WAS NOTED: 1. Onsite to observe slope fill placed on the western half of the site as slope fill for the location of the Shapiro house. Imported silty sand had been spread south of CB#6 with a dozer in a long lift and was not compacted during our visit. The slope west of the fill placement area was graded with a trackhoe and surficial fill soils were removed. Excavation began into the slope for the western portion of the house. Exposed soils at near subgrade elevation were found to be hard glacially consolidated silts, which are suitable for support of residential footing loads. We told Tony that we would examine the possibility of deletion of some of the pin piles intended for footing support in this area. 2. Mann Landscaping completed construction of the Keystone wall along Olympic View Drive at the northwest corner of the site. Placement of Keystone blocks continued with geogrids, drainage gravel, and wall backfill placed in general accordance with the specifications. Backfill was placed in 6-8 Inch thick lifts and compacted with a vibratory plate compacter. Density tests performed on the compacted backfill indicated that compaction was performed in accordance with the specifications (at least 90% of maximum dry density: ASTM D-1557). The wall was stepped over the pipes at the west end of the wall with a compacted crushed rock base placed over the corrugated storm drainpipe. Blocks were placed on the crushed rock base and continued to the end of the wall. After the remaining portion of the wall was completed, imported structural fill was placed in compacted lifts in front of the wall as a buttress to increase the depth of the keyway. 3. We observed that the contractor made a concerted effort to keep the street clean of soil tracked offsite and that the silt fences were in place and functional before they left the site. I rt� O,t. om m o' -I O i� m� DZ r —t: mm O N; C co In z Z 2 W Z_ O' 1 n m 1, r, I;. COPIES TO: FIELD REPORT SIGNED:LeK YJ l v i OOCUMENT2 - Nuciear Field Density / Moisture Test Data sheet_ Project: 5NA.nr24 P*s TroxterModel: 31,5/6 `. Project #: _ f 3 - !G f3 S Serial No. Field Eng: ,v473 x a ." &Voled, Standard Coun�^ � Date: /o a% oz Moisture:. SOates Weather. c *,. z .n sr r Ss ' Density: zc` y 3 Nwrr ffNumber2ZNwKrtrsm•�• Enr o f o f ":i r °P vXs r m16 wx sr Iw 0 fuo or w— A m �y � Elevation ^ !a" cm ' i, o. uI i>a or wa. m o, r and l 2 f 2" TroxleDe the Dry Density (PCF) ( 15,0 1 1 S. p mm m Wet Density (PCF) (Z 3 , ( 1 Z. I • $ % Moisture } . ! $ . ? m 1 Compaction Z m m o rn % Comp. Required 10 .9 p G Maximum Proctor 120, $ 1 Zo. $ m w n Density (PCF) r Optimum Moisture G ; Content Compaction Equipment Used: Number of Passes to Achieve Required Compaction: Z. 'a Notes: m_' i 1 Page of DATE: J08 NO:10/4/02 Golder SuA 013-1685-001,000 PROJECT: soda tes SHAPIRO / SHAPIRO RESIDENCE / WA 18300 NE Union Hill Road, Suite 200 LOCATION: ; Redmond, WA USA 98052-3333 18107 SUNSET WAY, EDMONDS, WA - Tel: (425) 883-0777 CONTRACTOR: OWNER: '. Fax: (425) 882-5498 SILVER CITY SHAPIRO CONSTRUCTION TO: WEATHER: TEMP: ° at AM OVERCAST 60°at2PM PRESENT AT SITE: ' GAI—Tom Marshall Z „ SILVER CITY, MANN LANDSCAPING 00 OI NYSHAPIRO n ON SITE: 0930 OFF SITE: 1515 iii lz THE FOLLOWING WAS NOTED: m o Onsite to observe slope fill placed on the western half of the site as slope fill for the location of the Shapiro house. Imported rn p silty sand had been spread south and west of CB#6 with a dozer to an elevation of approximately 234 and compacted with a p O vibratory roller. Density tests taken on the compacted fill indicated that compaction was performed in accordance with the —I X specifications (at least 90% of maximum dry density: ASTM D-1557). IT! M Mann Landscaping continued construction of the Keystone wall along Olympic View Drive at the northwest corner of the site. A Placement of Keystone blocks continued with geogrids, drainage gravel, and wall backfill placed in general accordance with the r . specifications. Backfill was placed in 6-8 inch thick lifts and compacted with a vibratory plate compacter. Density tests performed on the compacted backfill indicated that compaction was performed in accordance with the specifications (at least O -n 90% of maximum dry density: ASTM D-1557). The keyway at the location of the two pipes found at the west end of the wall n t, i was excavated to a firm subgrade below the pipe invert and backfilled with crushed rock to an elevation allowing the blocks to v be stepped over the top of the pipe on the crushed rock base. The contractor ran out of geogrids and could not continue wall O N <; construction until next Tuesday. We will return to observe completion of the wall at that time. O We observed that the contractor made a concerted effort to keep the street clean of soil tracked offsite and that the silt fences � w, were in place and functional before they left the site. Z 0 . Z. Z 4` 1 n rrt I( COPIES TO: J 7F7 T Ti DUD"D rr I" J Nuclear Field Density / Moisture Test Data Project: 5tt,+P+2v aos TroxlerModel- 31/YO Project #: 0/ 3-/ G 6 S Serial No, 2 = _ - �(Z�'r Field Eng: �, ,tom tizz irtir c Standard Counts k L�SsoCiates Date: Weather._o p 4 oZ T •soN bo' Moisture-. Density: ' - -- Test Number Z 3 NUJ xfySwt w ✓e4j-47 wrt Qnvwn.�5t,d't Q�r,,., s/Su+Vrt t?rvwn /5�'h P, Detailed Test . �, w�+ W-1-8vxhw n EFSi of uArt Z+aNESfoFk}5 r, + zo',vr4 F+ + a } 3U 5, w,i w LS O ,..1 Location - E,.,o,cw,w,y` END or' cuMt- °F G6 4 of C.6`fC, swt7+ nF m. 9htH+.3m P^t aw-o r-f Elevation ew _r B ^ 3n m I .o. LI T-vuJ 23`( ^-Z3S Troxier Mode and Depth /Z. 12 r IZ /Z /2 a m m0 Dry Density (PCF) 9�.co 9�•� 1/G. 9 tl�•o `�- 0C Wet Density (PCF) /0S.3 IZQ,.3 !2$.(o m AZ cg %Moisture • 9 S •5 9.`/ 8. 9 3 N %Compaction )0,4( go •S )G.3 9 r3�.y yy mx -a °! Comp. Required go go 90 5'O y p !1 m m Maximum Proctor Density (PCF) 109.0 lZo. Q, u O Fn Optimum Moisture 3 m 0 Content Compaction Equipment Used: I4at-+rn- pL-�nj Gov pft r A Number of Passes to Achieve Required Compaction: x Notes: r ':; i z, ...` O 1 n m i Page of DATE: 1013 / 02 013, 1685-001.000 __ } ' Golder PROJECT: Associates SHAPIRO I SHAPIRO RESIDENCE ! WA 18300 NE Union Hill Road, Suite 200 LOCATION: Redmond, WA USA 98052-3333 18107 SUNSET WAY, EDMONDS, WA ' Tel: (425) 883-0777 - CONTRACTOR: SILVER CITY OWNER: SHAPIRO Fax: (425) 882-5498 CONSTRUCTION TO: WEATHER: TEMP: °at AM CLOUDY, SHOWERS 55 ° at 4 PM PRESENT AT SITE: GAI —Tom Marshall SILVER CITY, MANN Z' TONY SHAPIRO ON SITE: 0930 OFF SITE: 1515 m THE FOLLOWING WAS NOTED: 'I m w is Onsite to observe continued placement of slope fill in the western half of the site. Imported silty sand was spread south and east of CB#6 with a dozer and compacted with a vibratory roller. Density tests taken on the compacted fill indicated that m compaction was performed in accordance with the specifications (at least 90% of maximum dry density: ASTM D-1557). 't o Mann Landscaping continued construction of the Keystone wall along Olympic View Drive at the northwest comer of the site. the base drain wrapped in washed rock and m m( Keystone blocks were placed on compacted crushed rock with a perforated pipe filter fabric placed behind the first row of blocks in accordance with the specifications. We clarified the installation method of the D z, geogrids anchoring the wall with the contractor and installation continued in accordance with the specifications. We discussed with Tony the problems with the two pipes in the west end of the wall and decided to step the blocks over the pipes on a base of ti , compacted crushed rock. Fill will be placed and compacted in a sloping buttress against the bottom two blocks of the wall over O n s: the pipes to provide a key for the base of the wall and sufficient cover for the pipes themselves. n m m We again recommended to the contractor that make a concerted effort to keep the street clean of soil tracked offsite and be sure that the silt fences are in place and functional every night before leaving the site. We stated that winter construction rules C3 N were now in effect as of October.1", and they were much more restrictive than summer rules. c N m0 zn i Z ....... m O COPIES TO: i ®R"I" TT �t SIGNED: OOCUMENT2 J Nuttear Field Density 1 Moisture Mist Data Sheet _of` Project: Project#: TroxlerModel: 3yyo i Field Eng: oi3-ic a� ooi.aw Serial No. z s y g 9 - -7 Golder Date: yin Q Standard Count-'" _ ASSOCld$@S Weather. t f Moisture: Sf e ay SNo�p2g sS� Density: Test Number 1 Z 314 i2AmuR�sr.n9rL EW u,R�Swf_K Q.�,wE.Smt'� � h, Detailed Test r,ti ,3o'sW A, 35 5E ;=,u cos,{ z Location of c b�`G of Gf$ G dY m Elevation 233 ^-2Z� L34/ 1i� ;q Troxler Mode and rr rn i; Depth IZ i2 t2 cm ti Dry Density (PCF) S" a Wet Density (PCF) 1 ? , g I Z73 1Z.1.O m % Moisture } .3 y z °lo Compaction 9� 199,0 w % Comp. Required Cm .90 �a , Mm Maximum Proctor - Density (PCF) 120.9 11 o Optimum Moisture Content c ran" mom.. Fill Material Tested sr�y.1 S,y� ri it Compaction Equipment Used: Number of Passes to Achieve Required Compaction: z �. Thickness of Lifts: CO ` Datum Elevation: z Notes: _. ? m - Page of , Goldjer .Associates 18300 NE Union Hill Road, Suite 200 Redmond, WA USA 98052-3333 Tel: (425) 883-0777 Fax: (425) 882-5498 TO: GATE: JOB NQ: 10 / 2 / 02 013-1685-001.000 PROJECT: SHAPIRO / SHAPIRO RESIDENCE / WA LOCATION: 18107 SUNSET WAY, EDMONDS, WA CONTRACTOR: OWNER: SILVER CITY SHAPIRO CONSTRUCTION WEATHER: TEMP: °at AM OVERCAST 55 ° at 4 PM PRESENT AT SITE: GAI — Tom Marshall SILVER CITY, MANN TONY SHAPIRO ON SITE: 1330 OFF SITE: 1615 THE FOLLOWING WAS NOTED: Onsite to observe placement slope fill in the western half of the site. Imported silty sand was spread south of CB#6 with a dozer and compacted with a vibratory roller. Density tests taken on the compacted fill indicated that compaction was performed in accordance with the specifications (at least 90% of maximum dry density: ASTM D-1557). No further fill was placed today as no excavation was occurring at the source site. Mann Landscaping began construction of the Keystone wall along Olympic View Drive at the northwest corner of the site. Excavation for the wall keyway encountered two pipes buried in the slope approximately 5 feet in from the west end of the wall. One pipe was damaged during the excavating which appears to be a 12" diameter, corrugated galvanized steel stonn drain. The other pipe is apparently a cast iron waterline drain for a reservoir up the hill from the site. A repair sleeve was ordered and was to be installed at the end of the day. We will discuss with Tony how he should deal with the pipes in the wall alignment. The installation of the portion of the wall east of the pipes proceeded with excavation of the keyway to a firm and unyielding subgrade. The contractor recompacted the bottom of the keyway with a plate compacter and placed crushed rock base on the prepared subgrade. The crushed rock was leveled and compacted in accordance with the specifications. Placement of the Keystone blocks will begin tomorrow. We recommended that the contractor make a concerted effort to keep the street clean of soil tracked offsite and be sure that the silt fences are in place and functional every night before leaving the site. COPIES TO: FU LD R FE RT SIGNED: t 1 O 1' w iT i-- m 4 I;y c m it m m` m � a z; -On I v mm O09 a aa' Z r 1 Z N Z. t O n m Nu -tear Field Density / Moisture' st Data Sheet_of____ Project: Project #: Troxler Model j Field En 9' 85-M , weBerial No. _ Z 3 <j y — J GolderI Oates_ , �+*nsif� Standard Counts: li I�SSO�c'!fL'Si Weather: /p Z oz _ Moisture: --FZ_ ov Density; 2G.y3 Test Number Qrw,ury SwOS R�wv,�JSur.c Iz.w r.>Q/Swrh Detailed Test F"' , � wrsr F„ yS 5 ,0 F, 35 Location .' CB wsst Elevation • 2 3 0 23 2 ^-z3 S T-Xler Mode and Depth DryDensity(PCF) ltZ. Sl 117-.'i Wet Density (PCF) ! Z S. 4 i Z 3 - Co /ZO % Moisture J/. 9,5 913 "Compaction 93,1 r'73,q cjO,g %Comp. Required 9 D 5 0 91) Maximum Proctor Density (PCF) I Z0, o i Optimum Moisture Content Fill Material Tested Compaction Equipment Used: y Vigyzzv �t,t t r„R Number of Passes to Achieve Required Compaction. Thickness of Lifts: Datum Elevation: Notes: _ J Page of DATE: JOB NO: o1de "VUssociates Friday, September 20, 2002_ PROJECT 013-1685.300 (- Sha iro(Sha iro Residence/WA 18300 NE Union Hill Road, Suite 200 Redmond, WA USA 98052-3333 1.0."... 18107 Sunset Way, Edmonds, WA Tel: (425) 883-0777 Fax: (425) 882-5498 CONTRACTOR: ii Construction Silver City OWNER: Shapiro ° - r WEATHER: TEMP: at AM TO: Clear 65 ° at 6a: PM - PRESENT AT SITE: Golder Z i ON SITE: 1800 OFF SITE: 1825 m THE FOLLOWING WAS NOTED: i y - 1) Onsite to observe cut and fill placement on the west side of the ravine south of the fat pipe drainage system to the o M north. It appeared that the contractor had cut material form the west side of the ravine and had created two fill benches m o along the west side of the fill ravine. The fill benches were roughly 15 feet wide and stepped down 2 feet towards the —t n" O center of the ravine to the east. Golder performed two density tests on the lower bench fill using a Troxler nuclear dry density e m densometer. The test results indicated that the fill had been compacted to at least 95% of the maximum m ASTM D-1557 (see attached sheet). The upper bench was not tested, as it did not appear to Golder that the lift had been compacted with the vibratory roller. 2) Golder noted that the contractor had spread out and compacted the stockpile of topsoil to be used as a mantle over the C — > Z, structural fill, in the central portion of the fill ravine. The material was dark brown, wet and laden with organic material and in Golder's opinion not suitable for structural fill. It is Golder's recommendation to remove the topsoil fill and ra O -n stockpile it out of the way until it can be used after the structural fill in the ravine is complete (see rough sketch below). n 0 ITI < OGt�P C y m w ti P -f- 1 v oIL COPIES TO: FIEL10 ORT t SIGNED: J �' Ted Sager — Staff Geologist ' DOCUMENT2 Nuclear Field Density/Moisture Test Data Page of Project:�pry / va j'� / W �^ Troxler Model: i ` YD Project M cw�? 16, 05, 3— Serial #: 2- Sat 6' -- Field Enginee�r: '7 - F,tP Date: 'Q—)i Sp�Eeawl� 20',in7-- W eather: G/tea Test Number L Testt.ocation I•"7 5i P** —2— �OG� �v Elevation Troxler Depth 1 1-L- v Da Density (pcf) tv D .Z Wet Density {p 4.'5 2G, oa °/u Moisture IGt. 3' I- Compaction . 7 �. Maximum Proctor Density pt'mum Moisture Content a t �� 'Test Number ,Test Locatlin .iTroxler Depth Compaction V t ✓ 7 i ��%jjc(/" Equipment Used: Notes: z - n L,.. m I; Cm_ 0 a� Y OC rnZ Z i, A 'S m m M 0 F: A X. z o' m " DATE: JOB NO: " Golder V'Ausociates 9/16102 013-1685.300 ' PROJECT: Shapiro/Shapiro Residence/A 18300 NE Union Hill Road, Suite 200 LOCATION: Redmond, WA USA 98052-3333 18107 Sunset Way, Edmonds, WA " Tel: (425) 883-0777 CONTRACTOR: Silver,Cit Construction OWNER: Shapiro Fax: (425) 882-5498 WEATHER: - TEMP: ° at AM TO: Cloudy 65 ° at 500 PM PRESENT AT SITE: Golder Z„ O t`, i ON SITE: 1650 OFF SITE: 1745 THE FOLLOWING WAS NOTED: 91 r 1) Onsite to observe continued fill placement in the ravine crossing the site as well as around the detention pipe. Fill had om C been placed and compacted prior to Golder's arrival onsite. Fill had been compacted with an Ingersoll Rand 70 single m p smooth drum vibratory roller. Nuclear density test performed on the backfill indicated it had been compacted to at least p 90% of the maximum dry density as determined by modified Proctor ASTM D-1557. Compaction was performed in accordance with the specifications. m 2) Golder observed a soil stockpile, of —100 cubic yards, in the southwest corner of the site. The soil was dark brown, > z sandy silt with a high percentage of organics consisting of roots, logs and stumps. Small pieces of plastic pipe and r , terra Gotta were also observed in the stockpile and the soils had an odor of decomposing organics. Golder contacted Mr. Shapiro to discuss the stockpile. Golder informed Mr. Shapiro that the organic soils in the stockpile were O m unacceptable for use as fill in the ravine. Mr. Shapiro planned to use the organic soil stockpile as a topsoil mantle upon 'I completion of the ravine fill. Golder believed using the organic stockpile as topsoil would be acceptable. Mr. Shapiro I{ planned to inform Silver City Construction. In m O� ca " mZ " m0m M _ z. O n m COPIES TO: FI o' L" PORT ' .l`LL SIGNED: Chris Allen — Staff Geologist "DDCUMENT2 Nuclear Field DensitytMoisture Test Data Page -of 2- Project: 51, AP,CO ISH Arl� ocac<w"a TroxlerModel: S44o Project #: 0 Serial #: 23 4i 4 Field Engineer. Date: 91Ib1o2 We GI Ay, b«eke b5° ; 0a:l60 aFF: 1?,fs Test Number -z 3 q S C DETE^^ro�J RAyaE PIPE _ Few TR-6JCN —25' H- Test Location gkKr"L ,r co G -5"J °r -20, rid 2z Elevation •z Zj TroxlerDepth IZ" a' 12-1. Dry Density (pcf) (oZ,S 1.9 103,0 Wet Density (pcf) I17.9 04 118.5 % Moisture it. t 17.5 15 • Compaction 45 013 95 Maximum Proctor Densityf ®� tt7 100 ptir Moisture Content O A. rn m o O' 8C dim m A_ iTest Location Compaction Equipment Used: Notes: (FAusociates Golder 18300 NE Union Hill Road, Suite 200 Redmond, WA USA 98052-3333 Tel: (425) 883-0777 Fax: (425) 882-5498 TO: i DATE: JOB NO: ` 8 (26 / 02 013-1685.300 PROJECT: SHAPIRO / SHAPIRO RESIDENCE / WA LOCATION: 18107 SUNSET WAY, EDMONDS, WA CONTRACTOR: OWNER: SILVER CITY SHAPIRO CONSTRUCTION WEATHER: TEMP: ° at AM CLEAR, SUNNY 70 ° at 2 PM PRESENT AT SITE: GAI — Torn Marshall SILVER CITY TONY SHAPIRO ON SITE: 1400 OFF SITE: 1630 THE FOLLOWING WAS NOTED: Onsite to observe continued fill placement in the ravine crossing the site. The stumps and other organics, which remained higher up on the west slope of the ravine, were removed with a hoe. Solo trucks were importing fill to the site very quickly today . as the contractor had acquired two new fill sources located near the site. The new fill appeared suitable for use by gradation, but was very dry and would require water to be added for proper compaction. We told the contractor that the fill should be watered, mixed, and recompacted before additional fill was placed. The contractor stopped the trucks from importing further material and reworked the fill with added water. Fill was replaced in 12 — 18 inch thick lifts and was recompacted with a vibratory roller. Density tests were performed and results indicated that compaction was performed in accordance with the specifications (at least 90% of maximum dry density: ASTM D-1557). The contractor said that no further fill would be placed until next week when the storm water detention system was installed in the ravine area southwest of CB#2. I i i COPIES TO: FIELD "PORT SIGNED:. ` » - Vdic11ear Field Density J Moisture Test Data sbeet `aft" 4' ; Project: 5 Nn-Pri2,j Qr,*. Troxter Model. 3 y % p f� i Project #: Q 13 _ 1(, Serial No.— _ Field Engt r7 f ti A-rz4 rf �L . Standard Counts:' '— ?Golder Date: 8 i t o z ASSOCiates Weather. C�rfn-2 � ST?� Moisture: �� 3 Density: •z��-Cn Test Number ) 2 b% o Detailed Test So' S-. M .F 30' Sena ur m Location Ce y C6' Z =t �V Elevation 221s 2Z3 c m a. 'L Troxier Mode and / Z I Z m -1 0i c O e Depth -ix �'. Dry Density (PCF) 9g S l 0 3 •y m p 1! Wet Density (PCF) °! Moisture 23.Z% 8, 1 1 On I %Compaction 2rn $ % Comp. Required 9 0 40 o� 0 Maximum Proctor 106 1 0 m n Density (PCF) ?� Optimum Moisture Content Compaction Equipment Used: kf2- vi6V4N-4,ft Qvwrr,(L a. Number of Passes to Achieve Required Compaction: vy Z O Notes: m f` I Page of (FQ ol.der Aso aces 18300 NE Union Hill Road, Suite 200 Redmond, WA USA 98052-3333 Tel: (425) 883-0777 Fax: (425) 882-5498 TO: DATE: JOB NO: 8123 / 02 013-1885.300 PROJECT: SHAPIRO / SHAPIRO RESIDENCE / WA LOCATION: 18107 SUNSET WAY, EDMONDS, WA CONTRACTOR: OWNER: SILVER CITY SHAPIRO CONSTRUCTION WEATHER: - TEMP: ° at AM CLEAR, SUNNY 70 *at 1 PM PRESENT AT SITE: GAI - Tom Marshall SILVER CITY TONY SHAPIRO ON SITE. 1200 OFF SITE: 1415 I THE FOLLOWING WAS NOTED: Onsite to observe continued fill placement in the ravine crossing the site. Some stumps and other organics, which remained higher up on the west slope of the ravine, will be removed, as the fill pad is now adjacent to those areas. Solo trucks were importing fill to the site very slowly as there were fewer trucks running today. Fill was placed in 12 -18 inch thick lifts in the ravine and was compacted with a vibratory roller. Density tests were performed periodically as the lifts were placed and compacted, and results indicated that compaction was performed in accordance with the specifications (at least 90% of maximum dry density: ASTM D-1557). "LD REPORT COPIES TO: FIIV-d XX A SIGNED: DDCUMENT2 Z �: is Ml� t`t C4 r" m =t n' O ITI .' m -4 00, f' a m m� A_ F;c Z K. 0 n M M t m m, O mZ�.Ur1" i err X r .Z�{{': 2' Z: ". O n m I. Nuclear Field Density / Moisture Test Data sheet f- _ Project: Projeo"': 5rt.tnt 2e> Pis TroxierModeli Sedaf No. `--- 0!3 - lLSS • 30o 'Golder Field Eng: -r-= ar m Alin u. ,Ste Standard lssocYaateS Date: Weather, $ /zs oz Moisture: Density: Z ty: Gc,<v2. sue., ZC-T8 Test Number ) Z 3 0 - �.M/IN1L ��w tMxLFiw iZ,w iwR. r0n. .i r Detailed Test tg _. Location _..._ C45 c6 Z w• of c6-jr z 1 , Elevation Z. tS • S Z ($ 2 I am mo o Troxter Mode and .S� Oc h, Depth 1 Z 12 1 Z m M Dry Density (PCF) g9.7- % `T • 8 1 O 4j,3 > z; Wet Density (PCF) I Z.0 •41 1 zz l 2G • j� . j % Moisture z I . �/ 2z , Cn Z 1 A T m 1s g I{ % Compaction c3 1 • oil ,l{ cj (, .(o 00 N % Comp. Required 9O7. SO q p c co C rn <?PCF) EMaxiEmuiiiProctor 1D Fj !08 1O 8oisturent y ; Page Of !" t, DATE: - JOB NO: b Golder Stssociates 8 / 22 / 02 01'3 5.300 PROJECT: SHAPIRO 1 SHAPIRO RESIDENCE / WA 18300 NE Union Hill Road, Suite 200 LOCATION: Redmond, WA USA 98052-3333 18107 SUNSET WAY, EDMONDS, WA Tel: (425)883-0777 - CONTRACTOR: OWNER: Fax: (425) 882-5498 SILVER CITY SHAPIRO CONSTRUCTION TO: WEATHER: TEMP: *at AM - CLEAR, SUNNY 70 ° at 1 PM PRESENT AT SITE: GAI —Tom Marshall SILVER CITY O TONY SHAPIRO � -j 01 ON SITE: 1200 OFF SITE: 1515 5 THE FOLLOWING WAS NOTED: -�{{ Onsite to observe fill placement in the ravine crossing the site. The contractor had removed the brush, trees, and surficial M� 0 ��5 organics from the floor and lower sides of the ravine. Some stumps and other organics remained higher upon the west slope, n which will be removed as the fill pad provides better access to those areas. Truck and trailers were importing fill from the site O we had previously sampled in Lynnwood. Fill was placed in 12 —18 inch thick lifts in the ravine and was compacted with a m m !,Y vibratory roller. Density tests were performed periodically as the lifts were placed and compacted, and results indicated that p " compaction was performed in accordance with the specifications (at least 90% of maximum dry density: ASTM D-1557), y z Fill placement slowed down when the City of Edmonds informed the contractor that continued use of trucks with trailers would z not be permitted. Solo trucks were used the remainder of the day which slowed production considerably. Fill placement will continue tomorrow. n mm f i A to Zn- - C& Z,... O n. to Aluclear Field Density t Moisture Test Bata sneer Pro)acL � �r yp,yz� Q K Troxler Model: 3 y y p Pro)oct lfi o `� g .10 Serial No. Z y,4-' 1XGt� z_3a� y �L'cU�(1L'T Field Enrg: f r,tMs r� rt K Standard Counts: Darn; a i Moisture: ASSOCl2liCS WeatherALL y N „ e Density:— —S� Test Number x P.wr.+rc-4� lo,nr -w i' C.B 2- .a Q�v,.,h. Fig 25'sw*7•t or- C6'sL {�tu�NR.�iw I$ wRSieF 16 %t7 �— RwW`i.Fw Detailed Test S s u•oF Location 3 Elevation +-L' Z 1 z 2 1 2/ y TroxierModeand n De th Z )� 12 t2 Dry Density (PCF) 9,$ IO2-y too.-+ )D0•y Wet Density (PCF) )•Z �2I•s tZy.3. )23.1 %Moisture 1•-qyo IS•�%a 23. `%% ZZ•Co %Compaction gz,y 7o �i�l, e+A S3.-3 93 % % Comp. Required i� p % I r Maximum Proctor Densi (PCJ 0 — Optimum Moisture y Content 1 S /o q H — 00 r 'R Nis om C o m0 00 C m to _ `. mm o� 0 �0 Compaction Equipment Used: y2 t116G,4Vny r2mt,"r4z z Number of Passes to Achieve Required Compaction: O Notes: 0 O m I t 4 Golder Associates Inc. 18300 NE Union Hill Rood, Suile 200 - 77 E - .. Redmond, WA USA 98052.3333 - soldier Telephone (425) 883-0777-',soceS' Pox (425) 882-5498 - January 17, 2003 Our Ref: 013-1685-001.000 k= z A.D. Shapiro Architects l„' y r 600 Main Street, Suite C m Edmonds, WA 98206 Attention: Tony Shapiro w o RE: GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION OF GROUND MOVEMENT ON m I m p THE SIHPPEN PROPERTY,18101 SUNSET WAY, EDMONDS, WA 98026 p c Dear Tony: m Golder Associates Inc. is pleased to provide you with this evaluation of apparent ground movement p, D Z observed on the Shippen property located immediately west of the Shapiro residential site located at r rn. 18105 Sunset Way, Edmonds, WA. At your request and with the permission of the Shippens, Thomas Marshall, the Senior Field Technician working at the Shapiro residence, visited the Shippey -n property to evaluate the reported ground movement along the north edge of their backyard. mm SITE OBSERVATIONS p V' On October 16, 2002, we visited the site at 12:30 in the afternoon to perform our field cN 3 N reconnaissance, We met with Elana Shippen, who walked us through their backyard and showed us M r the area in question. We performed an extensive walk through of the backyard and the slope along . M Olympic View Drive below and made the following observations: L Numerous ground cracks up to 2 inches wide and several feet in length were observed running roughly east —west along the fence at the north edge of the backyard. The area of cracking extended along the entire east -west fence line _ and was primarily located within 6 to 8 feet of the fence, inside the properly. The w within 4 feet of the fence also exhibited some signs of vertical displacement Oarea ' or "slumping" as much as 6 inches. Several small sinkholes were also observed n in a few locations beneath and outside the fence line. In 2. Close examination of the cracks and slump scarps showed many to be eroded and I ` have vegetation growth on the failure surfaces indicating that the condition had been occurring for some time and was an ongoing process. We spoke with Mrs. Shippen regarding this and she said that within a year of them moving into the house approximately ten years ago, there was an occurrence of ground movement with cracking and slumping in the same manner as the present condition. She said they simply filled the cracks and lawn back to grade to correct the problem. r; .� OFFICES ACROSS ASIA. AUSTRALASIA, EUROPE, NORTH AMERICA, SOUTH AMERICA " January 17, 2003 Mr. Anthony D. Shapira -2- 013-1685-001.000 3. We were told that the distressed area was at the northeast corner of the site adjacent to the Shapiro property, but we noted that the cracks and slumping extended to the northwest corner of the yard, which is over 100 feet from the closest area of soil compaction with the vibratory roller. It was observed that the entire length of the Shippens back fence and the fence of the neighbor to the west leans downslope at 10 to 20 degrees from vertical, which also indicates an extensive condition of ongoing slope movement or "creep". 4. We observed that approximately 10 feet north ofthe back fence and extending from the east to the west property line, the yard fill soils are retained by a four to five foot high wood wall which rests on the slope and is constructed of 2xg planks stacked on edge and supported by a combination of metal fence stakes and 2 inch pipes driven into the slope. It is also braced at intervals by older wooden 2x4 rakers, which are embedded in the slope below the base of the wall. Much of the wall appears bowed and distressed with a 10 to 20 degree lean from vertical similar to the fence above. The wall distress and the varying ages of the supports indicate that movement of the yard fill has been occurring for years. We also observed that considerable quantities of yard waste had been dumped over the fence for some time, which was piled along the top and base of the retaining wall. 5. The slope below the Shippen property is overgrown with blackberries, brush and 1 I small trees, many of which lean down slope in a similar manner to the Shippens fence and retaining wall. We walked along the base of the slope and observed that the toe of the slope had been removed by the road cut for Olympic View Drive to a height of at least six feet with a slope of about 1 J2h:1 v. The removal of this toe without any form of shoring or support, initiated a downslope movement of the soils above at the time of the road construction, as the slope above seeks a new angle of repose. The additional load placed on the slope by the Shippens yard fill simply accelerated this condition. CONCLUSIONS The results of our observations have led to the following conclusions: 1. The observed signs of soil cracking, slumping, and structural distress in the fence and retaining wall indicate that the fill placed north of the Shippen residence has had an ongoing stability problem since the construction of the house. Discussion with Mrs. Shippen confirmed this. 2. The lack of support for the road cut along Olympic View Drive on the slope below the Shippen property only increases the problem, with the placement of additional fill and piles of yard waste increasing the slope loads even further. 3. The Shippen house does not appear to be at risk as it is most likely founded in a cut through the surficial slope soils into the underlying dense glacial soils, which are generally very stable. 4. Filling the cracks and regrading the yard would be advisable to prevent rainwater and surface runoff from entering them and exacerbating the condition. However, Golder Associates .J -i f' Z; M m0 mz n mm Fn rn rn X N z O n M l ni t` January 17, 2003 Mr. Anthony D. Shapiro -3- 013-1685-001.000 in view ofthe extent ofthe stability problem, it will continue unlit a more permanent solution is applied. 5. The retaining structure described above is not an engineered structure. It appears that the homeowner constructed it to retain poorly placed fill, as noted by PanGEO. This structure is showing considerable signs of distress and has a limited life. Therefore, it is our opinion that the fill retained by this wooden structure should be removed along with the structure. SUMMARY While it is possible that vibration from construction equipment at the adjacent site may have initiated another episode, in our opinion, it is very unlikely considering other factors and the age of the movement. The continuing movement of the slope and fill soils on the Shippen property have been moving for at least ten years, and were initiated by any number of actions including heavy rain, earth tremors, the placement of additional material beyond the fence, even vibrations from large vehicles on Olympic View Drive. The continuing nature of the slope creep movement makes it a virtual certainty that some degree of ground movement will continue to occur on the slope until either the slope achieves repose or some form of permanent support measure is taken. Therefore, the uncontrolled and uncompacted fill, and retaining structure should be removed as soon as possible. It has been a pleasure working with you. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions. Sincerely, G�OLLD'ERR ASSOCIATES INC. Thomas P. Marshall Senior Technician e tT'(o3 David M. Cotton Principal TPM/psry Golder Associates _ J 140 RECEIVED October 3, 2002 OCT 0 3 2002 To: City of Edmonds DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Ref: Construction at Olympic View Drive and Talbot 4; The construction at this location is violating the terms of the construction permits o as it was explained to us by the City. There are constant trucks delivering dirt and materials to the site via Olympic m View Drive without any flaggers. There are no signs along the roadway advising in of construction ahead. o M ' We were also advised that the trucks were to enter from 881' and exit onto OVD. c The contractor advises this is not being done because the road from 88"' is o private and the owner will not give permission. I assume that the owner of the "private it to the m m road" granted access to the property when they sold purchaser, p We were advised the only access to the site from OVD would be for the exiti%Of D Z` _ dump trucks and that all construction personnel would access the site from 88 w or Sunset. This is not happening. All personnel are accessing the site from m OVD. Cars, trucks, and construction equipment is being parked along the side of _ our property on the planting strip and sidewalk and workers are walking across o the street to the work site. We were informed that workers would be required to o park on the site or access it from 88t' or Sunset. if the owner of the private C co road accessing the site from 88"' will not give permission to pass over the m �: road, then it appears to us that the building permits are not valid and that a stop work order must be issued until legal access can be obtained (perhaps from Sunset). We will fight any move to allow worker and vehicle access via OVD during the duration of the project. z We were requested to trim our trees along OVD to provide visual access up OVID from vehicles turning onto OVD from Talbot. The parked vehicles totally block z the view of vehicles and negate the gain of cutting the trees. We request that o the traffic engineer post "No Parking This Side" signs on OVD at least for m the length of our property. In any case parking on the sidewalk is not legal. We also ask that the contractor be required to erect a construction fence to preclude access from OVD. i We were recently informed by the contractor that piles are going to be driven for the foundation. We were informed by the City that there would be some vibration from the roller compaction of the dirt. No mention was made of piles being driven. I informed the contractor to seek another method of stabilizing the f foundation such as drilling and pouring piers because he would likely encounters legal opposition to the pile. driving. Pile driving may be acceptable in an industrial z area, it is NOT acceptable in a residential area., We and our neighbors feel that the City did not adequately inform us of the total !"a, picture when notice of the construction was given. This construction has created much more noise, vibration, dust,and roadway congestion than should be yti M e tolerated in a residential neighborhood. Michael A. Norman mo —40 p C,#, 18017 Talbot Road m 7 7(-7 P4.7 p . ce-lmo-q (Die 6WI,eOYVL C f11 mm o-y �'s t: C 3. fA Y z Q Z i 1 _ m`. i i i L i' CITE' COPY MEMORANDUM " I TO: A.D. Shipiro Architects August 26, 2002 i FR: David Cotton -Golder Associates RECEIVED RE: GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW COMMENTS FOR SEP 0 it 2002 013-1685 DESIGN OF THE AD_ SHIPIRO RESIDENCE ON OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE EDMONDS, PERMIT COUNTER WASHINGTON The purpose of this Design Memorandum is to document our review of the completed foundation plan and grading plan for the referenced project During the course of the foundation design Golder provided verbal recommendations for a smaller diameter pipe pile deep foundation system. Our report dated January 9, 2002, included recommendations for a 4-inch diameter pipe pile system. However, a comparable 2-inch diameter pipe pile system became the preferred deep foundation system for the structure. We recommended an allowable capacity of 4ldps end bearing and 21dps uplift, consistent with City of Seattle DCLU. Based on our review of the design drawings we find the design to be consistent with our recommendations. A minimum spacing of one foot was recommended, and a typical spacing of 18-inches was used in design. " in addition, we recommend that the fill being laced on the slope for overall sight grading be placed to meet 90% of the Modified proctor density as determined by ASTM D-1558. To date Golder has been on site testing the fill operation and found that the fill is being placed equal to or greater than the recommended density. tA �4,��oF tivnsyr�`TQ q 1741c 'YOS ONALti ^ - EttPIRES_��t Golder Associates of u= L O �a co m o, -t o mMA ram 0� c v0i X 0) t?` O Q M_ Fn �i Fipr 11 02 11:51a Msnowell NW Pile King 425-251-5940 p.3 'C Director's Rule 12-2001 BACKGROUND Section 1808.6.3 of the 1997 Seattle Building Code (SBC) requires driven pipe piles to be a minimum of 10 inches in diameter, The purpose of this Rule is to establish consistency in the level of involvement with design professionals and in the quality of installation and inspections for driven pipe piles with diameters less than 10 inches (a.k.a.-pin piles''). Projects for which pin piles are used generally involve relatively light structures, such as single family residences (foundation repair, small additions, exterior deck support, etc,) and alterations to small commercial buildings. Pin piles range from 2.6 inches in diameter and generally have capacities ranging from 2 to 15 tons. Design and installation requircincnts are based on the size and type of pin pile to he used and on the size and type of project, with fewer requirements on smaller projects with smatter capacity piles and more requiretents on larger projects with larger capacity piles. PURPOSE The purpose of this Rule is to establish, in certain instances, minimum requirements to allow the use of steel pipe piles with diameters of less than 10 inches, hereafter referred to toe "pin piles;' and to indicate minimum requirements that must be addressed by the design profcssionals when city of SeotOn Oe rtman of D—Ign. Conw-flon and land Us* R. P, Kforhaaa, Oitectcr 700 Sth Avnnne, Sr. 2000, Snatde, WA 99104.5070 0 Apr 11 02 11:51a Mrnoweil NW Pile King 42E-251-5940 p.4 t 4: oirectoes.Rule i2.2ooi Page 2 of 3 - IS; using this Director's Rule as a standard code alternate to comply with Section 104.15 ofthc SBG RQX G ZO f' .. '' 0 DCLU will allow the use of pin piles for axial compressive loading only and for certain types of m 1 structures according to the requirements listed in the table below. ; N .. iV Minnrequirements for pin pile installation Pile Size . 2 inch diameter Geotechnical report with analysis required° + Gcotechnical inspection required NO ASTM testing • 30 feet maximum length rL 2 ton maximum capacity. i (r 3 inch diameter Gcotechnical report with analysis required Geotechnical inspection required ASTM quick test required on minimum 3% of piles up to 5 piles maximum (1 minimum) Typical capacity 6 tons 4 inch diameter Gcotechnical report with analysis required Gcotechnical inspection required ASTM quick test required on minimum 3% of piles up to 5 piles maximum (1 minimum) Typical capacity 10 tons 6 inch diameter Gcotechnical report with analysis required Ceeteehnieatinspection required ASTM quick test required on minimum 3% of piles up to 5 piles maximum (I minimum) Typical capacity 15 tuns C: m �O ; OC, M - M C Z 'n r" .. . m m; Om G m; -mZt m D� Z O. m 1. 'hhe minimum pile weight for?•inch diameter pin piles shall be extra strong as noted in the , AISC Steel Construction Manual. Pile weight for all other piles shall be as recommended in the geotechnical report. 2. Piles largo than 2 inches in diameter may be designed by the gcotechnical engineer for capacities greater than the tabular values, provided adequate justification is submitted to DCLU. 3. for repairs, alterations or additions <: 750 square feet to a single family residence or associated structures, an evaluation from a registered architect, engineer or pre approved contractor may be submitted in lieu of the geotechnical report. The need for Special 4rspections will be determined on a rase by case basis. Examples where Special Inspections Apr 11 02 11:51a Monowell NUJ Pile King 42F-251-5940 p.5 01reetces Rule 12-2001 Papa 3 of 3 would be required include landslide stabilization projects, and projects where there are critical life safety issues directly related to the use of pin piles. Geotechnical Report. A geotechnical report and analysis shall be prepared by a Washington State Registered Civil Engineer who has experience in soil investigation and design (Geotechnical). The report shall include an analysis that addresses site conditions, driving criteria, pile size, capacity, embedment depth into bearing soil, and shows that the design concept will provide the prescribed pile capacity for the given site conditions. The report shall require a minimum factor of safety of 2 for pile capacity based on the tangent line method of pile load test analysis or an approved alternate. (The Davisson method is not considered appropriate for use with pin piles.) The report shall also address corrosion protection requirements for all work. Gcotechnical reports require DCLU approval prior to permit issuance. ASTM Testing. Whenever ASTM testing is required, it shall mean that the pile installation shall be tested in general accordance with ASTM Standard D 1143-81 for piles under static axial compressive load_ Use of the Quick Load Test Method in the Standard is the minimum required. Geoteehnical Inspection. Special inspection shalt be as specified for piling in section 1701 of the Seattle Building Code. Minimum requirements include continuous monitoring of installation and testing of piles, confirming driving criteria, pile length and minimum embedment depth. In addition, daily report submittals and a final summary report stamped by the design professional i shall be submitted to DCLU. See footnote 3 of table above for exceptions. i The intent of this rule is to provide a standard code alternate that provides a set of minimum requirements that more easily allows for the use of pin piles. When submitting a design that conforms to this rule, the billowing code alternate statement must be included on the project documents: "It is recognized that the Seattle Building Code requires 10 inch minimum diameter pipe for pipe pile installation. The appropriate analysis/evaluation and testing requirements in conformance with Director's Rule 12-2001 are provided to allow for use of piles less than 10 inches in diameter as required by section 104.14 of the SBC.- Any use of piles smaller than 10 inches in diameter that do not comply with this Rule will require approval as a specific code modification or a code alternate as specified in Section 104.14 or 104.15 of the Seattle Building Code. The code alternate request for piles that do not conform to this rule must include rcco;,nition of the 10 inch minimum size requirement of the code and justification for acceptance of piles less than to inches in diameter. t„ L k i, O O m .. 7 Et Zi T:...: .. l,:- in � `e j: m O 0C m m b Z; [n Mm mm v n17i1, �. mO, fA: O 0 0"'. m Golder Associates Inc. j i ' 18300 NE Union Hill Road, Suite .OWED Redmond, WA 9852-333 CITY Copy 1 G Telephone )883-077 Ms �.9l� es �. •; Fax (425) 882-5498 T November 6, 2001 Our ref: 013-1645 i 1Cfl% _ i4. t r•�: �„ c O h� u Robert Monnahan n: 3900 Second Avenue NE, Suite 203 m ti Seattle, Washington 98105 i'CI j RE: RESULTS OF PHASE 1 LANDSLIDE HAZARDS ASSESSMENT OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE PROPERTY o k '€ EDMONDS, WASHINGTON m . C Dear Mr. Monnahan: m m O This report is a summary of our Phase 1 Landslide Hazards Assessment for the property b z' si located between 18107 and 18101 Sunset Way and situated up -slope of Olympic View Drive in Edmonds, Washington (Figure 1). w m Omn ;: The scope of work was presented in our proposal dated May 15, 2.001. The proposal i 3 �, re outlined a phased scope of work with Phase i consisting of a Landslide Hazards m rn. =, Assessment and Phase 2 consisting of additional field investigation if authorized. This 0O N, letter summarizes findings from our Phase 1 investigation that was authorized by Mr. c N c e Robert Monnahan (owner) on September 30, 2001. C rn, mp INTRODUCTION The site is located on the generally north- to northeast -facing slopes adjacent to the Puget Sound in Edmonds, Washington. The site consists of an undeveloped sloping lot located between two existing homes. Olympic View Drive traverses the northwest (down -slope) Co' side of the property, a stream traverses the northeast (down slope) corner of the property, p r and Sunset Way traverses the slope on the south (up -slope) side of the property. m Based on conversations with a perspective developer and buyer (Mr. Tony Shapiro), he would like to build a two-story, wood framed residential structure on the property. Because of limited lot space, the plan would include creation of a backyard area adjacent to ithe steep slopes leading down to Olympic View Drive. � to OFFICES ACROSS ASIA, AUSTRALASIA, EUROPE. NORTH AMERICA, SOUTH AMERICA November 6, 2001 3 013-1645 SITE RECONNAISSANCE A geologic site reconnaissance of the slope was completed on October 8, 2001. The work included reconnaissance of the property and immediate area adjacent to the property. During the site reconnaissance, soil exposures, seeps, ground cracks, and other appropriate features were noted. General Slope Conditions The entire site slopes generally to the north-northeast. The ground surface elevation of the property varies from about 240 feet along the south property line to about 210 feet in the northeast corner of the property. The southern half of the property slopes gradually l OH: 1V (horizontal to vertical). Slopes in the northern half of the property are much steeper ranging from about 2H: 1V along the west property line to about 1H: 1V in the northeast portion of the property adjacent to the stream. The southern portion of the property located between the existing houses contains a vegetative cover of tall grasses. The northern half of the property contains a vegetative cover of brambles, young deciduous trees generally less than 40 feet tall, and an under story of fern, Oregon Grape, and other shrubs. Results of Geologic Reconnaissance of Slope The geologic conditions observed on the property do not agree with the geology described by Smith (1976) and by Mmard (1983). Based on soil exposures on the property, the slope appears to be mantled by till or ice -marginal deposits. The soils exposed on the property consist of compact to dense, light brown, non -stratified silt, sand, and gravel with occasional cobbles and boulders to about 3 feet diameter. The soils have a faintly mottled appearance interpreted to be the result of weathering. The bottom of the weathered soil horizon was not observed in the site soil exposures. Colluvium was observed mantling the slope adjacent to the stream at lower elevations on the property. Older debris flow scarps were observed on the lower most slopes adjacent to the stream. The scarps are generally less that 10 feet wide and are overgrown with vegetation. No debris flow scarps were observed on the slope adjacent to Olympic View Drive. Trees located in the southern half of the property appeared essentially straight and vertical. Many trees located immediately up slope of the debris flow scarps, in the middle portion of the property, are pistol -butted suggesting that the colluvium in that area may have exhibited soil creep over the life of the trees. Additionally, many of the trees located on the lower portion of the slope adjacent to Olympic View Drive and the stream are inclined in the down slope direction also suggesting soil creep in those areas. At the time of our site reconnaissance, the drainage located on the northeast corner of the property was dry. No seepage was observed at the site at the time of our field Golder Associates Z' i, 0 n >; m> u, a m p t OO c a M. mm n Z' i. mm . o mW a X: Z 0 1 m 1. I" r November 6, 2001 4 013-1645 investigation. Additionally, no pheatophytic vegetation such as equisetum was observed on the slope. This should be expected given that the 2000/2001-winter season has received generally less precipitation than average. A general rise in groundwater levels and the occurrence of seepage is expected during periods of increased precipitation (i.e. in winter and early spring). In addition to the observations related to landslide hazards summarized above, the following observations were made during our site reconnaissance: • A small wood -framed children's playhouse was observed in the grassy area in the southern half of the site. f. • A storm drain catch basin was observed in the southwest corner of the site adjacent to 18101 Sunset Way. It is not clear where the storm drain outlets. However, another catch basin was observed about 100 feet north (down slope) also adjacent to 18101 Sunset Way. • An erosion gully was observed down slope of the second catch basin noted above. The gully ranges in depth from about 3 feet immediately down slope of the catch basin, to about 0.5 to 1 foot deep as it extends down slope to Olympic View Drive. • The foundation stem wall for 18107 Sunset Way located east of the property and facing the property appeared in tact. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS The results of our preliminary landslide assessment of the slope on the property indicate that ground movement (debris flows and ground creep) has occurred in the recent past. The ground movement likely occurs within loose colluvium, that mantles compact to dense till or ice contact deposits consisting of sand, silt, and gravel. We observed no evidence to suggest that the till/ice contact deposits that occur on the property have moved in the recent past. However, based on our past experience in the area, there is a strong potential that it has. Our preliminary conclusion is that this site is not a high landslide hazard. The moderate landslide hazard indicated by the observations noted above can be mitigated by a properly engineered foundation. Determination of the engineering requirements will require additional site exploration. Therefore, we recommend additional fieldwork be performed consisting of two borings. The borings would be drilled using a small track -mounted drill in order to access the borehole locations. The borings would be located near the north edge of the existing lawn and near the top of the main break in slope within the forested northern half of the site. These locations may change once you have supplied us with a site plan showing the proposed location of the house. Following the fieldwork, additional engineering analysis will be performed and foundation recommendations for the proposed site development will be summarized in a report. Golder Associates Golder Associates mat'�..�' t, y' t 3 EI J'. s -7 S xi S s sw O 'T, 9 f y x t,.�l f i jfU 4 3 31 f f fpj 5 9w - ,Uin Sw f� 'jy. d. 1_ i t k i y It j 1; + ,r s Pww Svf 7 3 1 7 F^ 1 ) 7" r e `l+ - nNa - -{'TI j C m s a aST.�i`r;I t �yc Ij " m p �O p c �$ 2 PM1 w' s sw ,e a a uJ O" :ts F,e Ns a - t0 m m n m m rn sc& aw O Zr Y''o srsw� d a F. Z ", 3g \On�Gh sti oIl a "� H nt { tlm �a+sya ty tale Co OZ —{ I. N�'e yyW M M — � A 315 P �' a 5W „i•'1 i I.. " Octwm�i>S\ � AHai SA B LH 1 FIGURE SITE VICINITY MAP SHAPIRO/MONNAHAN PROPERTYMfA PROJECT NO.013 IU5 Laa DRAWING NO. 92697 DATE IMIM1 DRAWN BY ETF Golder Associates »> Golder Associates Inc. .18300 NE Union Hill Road, Suite 200 �lC�iyr ; Redmond, WA 98052.3333 - 02-IrTelephone (425) 883-0777 UsocWes e Fox (425) 882-5498 - S s REPOitT ON RECEIVED z; O i. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION JAN 10 2002 1 OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE PROPERTY In A _, . A. Q. oa EDMONDS, WASHINGTON MAPIR6 ARCH. ° { i j c In m p 0 _ o c i Prepared for: mLCM,1CHT 0- A. D. Shapiro Architects r F c z i Seattle, Washington .Y CITE' COPY °-n Mm � , per. F: Submittedby:. 0 R Ccn G Golder Associates Inc. Redmond, Washington A Frank S. ocker Michael Mengelt O Project Geologist Project Engineer m' J `WA A S11', �lc C �, David M. n P.E. Principal i v January 9, 2002 �: " 013-1685.100 1221mm1 1 OFFICES ACROSS ASIA, AUSTRALASIA, EUROPE, NORTH AMERICA, SOUTH AMERICA January 9, 2002 i. 013-1685.100 {{ , f TABLE OF CONTENTS Page N°S 1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE 1 e; ins 2. SUMMARY 2 ;- 3. SITE DESCRIPTION 3 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4 Z. 0• rn, � a, 5. SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION 5.? N.i 6. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 6 6.1 Geologic Setting 6 a m �. 6.2 General Site Geology 6 O } 6.3 Observed Soil Conditions 6 c 6.4 " Observed Groundwater Conditions 8 m ` 7. GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS 9 c z 9 r ; 7.1 General 9 1" + _ 7.2 Site Preparation/Grading 9 y 1 7.3 Temporary and Permanent Slopes 9 7.3.1 Slope Stability 9 �y 4 } 7.4 Erosion Control " 10 m m 7.5 Foundation Recommendations 11 7.6 `" Slab Subgrade 11 c 7.7 Foundation Drainage 12lit 7.8 Retaining Walls 12 7.9 Rockeries 12 7.10 " Utilities 13 7.11 Fill Materials and Placement 13 7.12 Use of On -site Soils 14 Z 7.13 Pavements 14co 7.14 Construction Monitoring 15 Z ' 8." USE OF THIS REPORT 16 i O,. m LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Groundwater Seepage Table 2 Factor of Safety of the Monnahan Property ' f LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Site Vicinity Map Figure 2 Site Plan Golder Associates " i. January 4, 2002 ii 013.1685.100 Figure 3 Geologic Cross Section A -A' Figure 4 Foundation Drainage Detail" LIST OF APPENDICES r 1 } AppendixA Test Pit Logs and Wildcat Dynamic Cone Tests F Appendix B City of Edmonds Community Development Code for Development on Steep_ Slopes z ,.� 0 01 m' 9 , �m m6 d [) O C, (v rn v z t` >r _ 'n xi i i a 11 b _ i J Oz ' M m �. i l Golder Associates f January 9, 2002 1 013-1685.100t.. •. 1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE This report presents the results of the Golder Associates Inc. (Golder) geotechnical t' .g investigation of the proposed single-family residence on the undeveloped lot located between 18101 and 18107 Sunset Way in Edmonds, Washington (Figure 1). The work was performed in accordance with our proposal dated November 13, 2001. The purpose of this t study was to investigate the existing site conditions and provide geotechnical a, recommendations for the following. O 11" • Site development/grading; General construction issues; • Foundation design; u> 3 Surface and groundwater management; and om c p 0 �r Kt �€ Roadway construction. O c lxi s " i This report follows our Phase I Landslide Hazards Assessment for the property performed ; wa under contract to Mr. Robert Monnahan. The findings are presented in our report to > z Mr. Monnahan dated November 6, 2001. 1 oy nFn m(j) I Z, m r r I Golder Associates January 9, 2002 2 013-1685.100 2. SUMMARY t; The project site can be developed as planned, provided the recommendations presented in t: is r' this report are followed. During tlus investigation we reviewed section 20.15B.110 of the City of Edmonds Community Development Code regarding development or alteration of i steep slopes and have addressed the listed criteria in this report. ;3: 4 rV The site in the area of the proposed residential structure is underlain by a combination of zo �s competent glacial soils, fill, and landslide debris. The glacial soils will provide adequate bearing capacity for anticipated building loads. m i The site grading proposed for this project would include cuts into fill, landslide debris, and =i n glacial soils to construct the lower level of the structure. Landslide debris soils will be N encountered within the footprint of the lower level based on the design elevation shown m on the site plan. Pin piles are recommended to support the proposed structure where it is U c ; underlain by landslide debris. If the recommendations presented herein are followed, we 0 believe the resultant subgrade condition will support the anticipated loads, and the slope in a 30% increase = m i G will increase in overall stability. This development as planned will result in the factor of safety for slope stability on the property, which will result in a stable site. If Cmi y z P the rockeries described below in Section 4 are not built, we anticipate stability of the overall F--!y Jslope will be more stable than the current slope configuration with a factor of safety 6i " - I I between 1.4 and 1.7. The risk of continued soil creep and shallow debris flow on the � { I resultant finished slopes should be virtually eliminated assuming proper surface water S' 111 management devises are utilized and the slope is adequately landscaped and vegetated. m m n CO °. 1 z0 z 0 m r: l� Golder Associates 1 January 9, 2002 3 013-1685.100 3. SITE DESCRIPTION }` The project site is located on a north to northwest -facing slope in Edmonds, Washington (Figure 2). Site access is from the south between existing residential structures located at kt. 18101 and 18107 Sunset Way. Olympic View Drive is located on the north side of the Y, iproperty and an open, undeveloped lot is located along the east property line. The east i. half of the south property line is also bordered by undeveloped land. A drainage ditch directs surface water across the far -east edge of the site. The ditch enters the southeast corner of the site and directs surface water north to an existing storm drain located in the Zr.. - northeast corner of the site. The storm drain then directs the water off site under Olympic 1 View Drive to the north. Topography on the site slopes generally down to the northeast m ? ranging in elevation from about 260 feet MSL in the southwest corner of the property along . } Sunset Way, to about 210 feet MSL in the northeast comer of the site. Slopes range from i about 15HAV (horizontal to vertical) in the southwest third of the site, to about 4H:1V in m r the central third of the site, and about 1.5H:1V in the eastern third of the site adjacent to the c �, t i drainage ditch. Vegetative cover on the southwest third of the site consists of low grasses. m p O ,.l The eastern two thirds of the site contain deciduous and evergreen trees of various stages of c r t 1 maturity, as described in a specific arborist report for the property, with an understory of " m Sword fern, Salal, Oregon grape, blackberry brambles, and other low shrubs. Several large the The topography rises about 10 feet in elevation c - .-, tree stumps were also observed on site. j directly east of the drainage ditch. The slope adjacent to the east edge of the ditch is about rq_ ; 2.3HAV dropping to about 9H:1V further to the east. :� in t 03 m m - cwi, i - fir J O i 0 m. v 1 1 f Golder Associates January 9, 2002 4 013-1685.100 "4 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This report follows our Phase I Landslide Hazards Assessment for the property performed # under contract to Mr. Robert Monnahan. The findings are presented in our report to Mr. ;f Monnahan dated November 6, 2001. The November 2001 report presents findings of a visual ; site reconnaissance of your parcel in support of your proposed single-family residence. Site plans showing the proposed site development were not available at that time. Based on the site plan provided electronically by A.D. Shapiro Architects and dated Z ; ' December 12, 2001, we understand the proposed development would consist of a single two story wood framed structure, including a daylight basement, with an attached garage. m Access will be from Sunset Way to the south of the structure. We anticipate that the building loads will be light and no below grade structures are planned (other than the65 daylight basement and any underground utility installation). e m` We understand that the elevation of the upper and lower levels of the structure will be about 00 250 feet and 241 feet, respectively. Based on those elevations we anticipate cuts of up to about 5 11 feet for the lower level. We understand a crawl space is planned under almost all of the m twit lower level of the structure. c� ry r.9 In order to create usable yard to the east of the structure, we understand you are going 0 ' I gg through the City of Edmonds for approval to place fill in the drainage ditch on the east side of sn yr. the property. We understand two to three terraced rockeries are planned for the east and north sides of the house but that they will not likely be built during the initial phase of g 1 construction. We understand that a culvert is planned at the base of the fill to direct surface m M p us ,,. water from off site south of the property, to the existing storm drain in the northeast corner of the site. We also understand you plan to build a deck off the north side of the structure. M C' - z it m m s Golder Associates i January 9, 2002 5 013-1685.100 3 t 5. SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION Our site field investigation work consisted of excavating six trackhoe test pits. The trackhoe test pits were excavated on December 4, 2001. The trackhoe test pits were excavated using a Case 9010B track excavator supplied and operated by NW Excavating under contract to you. Following the test pit program we performed DCPT (Dynamic Cone Penetration Test) testing using portable Wildcat equipment at two locations within the footprint of the "- proposed structure. We performed the DCPT testing in order to provide additional, quantitative measurement of the density/consistency of the shallow (< 15 feet) soil units. p 0 " n The test pit and DCPT test locations were established in the field by pacing or measuring m relative to existing landmarks, property boundary markers, and/or features as shown on the "i m site plan. The test pit locations were flagged and staked after they were badcfilled. The r t approximate test locations are shown on Figure 2. A geologist from Golder examined and o logged the soil conditions observed in each of the test explorations. Pertinent information m p T including depths, stratigraphy, soil engineering characteristics, and groundwater 0 Y; M occurrence were recorded. The stratigraphic contacts indicated on the summary logs y y represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. The soil and groundwater m m conditions were those recorded for the locations and dates indicated and may not c N necessarily represent those of other times and locations. The test pits were backfilled with z F, the excavated soils tamped into place with the bucket of the trackhoe after the completion M the soil logging. Some settlement of the test pit backfill should be expected with time. 0 1, iof The soils were classified in accordance with Golder Associates Inc. Technical Procedure for Index in g o m; Field Identification of Soil, which is summarized in the Soil Description s �y Appendix A. Co N' w } «"t The approximate locations of the explorations are shown on Figure 2. The logs of the test pits are included in Appendix A. m 0 $ Z". -.Z". n: _ m Golder Associates January 9, 2002 6 013-1685.100 6. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 6.1 Geologic Setting The recent geologic history of the Puget Sound Lowland region has been dominated by , several glacial episodes. The most recent, the Vashon stade of the Fraser glaciation is responsible for most of the present day geologic and topographic conditions. The Puget lobe of the Cordilleran ice sheet deposited a heterogeneous assemblage of progiacial lacustrine deposits, advance outwash, lodgment till, and recessional outwash upon either bedrock or older pre-Vashon sediments and bedrock. As the glacier retreated northward, it uncovered a sculpted landscape of elongate uplands and intervening valleys. Post glacial deposits found in the region generally include: alluvium deposited within active stream channels, modem lacustrine deposits, organic silt and local peat deposits within kettle depressions, drainages, outwash channels, volcanic mudflow and landslide deposits. 6.2 General Site Geology Geology of the site and surrounding area has been mapped by Smith,1975' and Minard, 19V. In general, the existing geologic maps indicate that the site geology consists of fine- grained, Pre Fraser transitional beds overlain by younger Vashon age advance outwash deposits. The transitional beds typically consist of silt, clay, and fine-grained sand whereas j the overlying, Vashon age advance outwash can vary from fine to medium sand with silt 7 interbeds to sand with varying amounts of gravel. Till is mapped to the south of the property. Till generally consists of a dense mixture of gravel, sand, silt, and clay. The site is also shown on unpublished geologic hazard maps prepared for Snohomish County in 1991. The map ranks landslide hazards areas based on geology and slope angle. The property is shown to be in an area with a moderate to high landslide hazard designation. This report follows our Phase I Landslide Hazards Assessment for the property performed under contract to Mr. Robert Monnahan. The findings are presented in our report to Mr. Monnahan dated November 6, 2001. 6.3 Observed Soil Conditions The geologic conditions observed on the property during our test pit investigation do not agree with the geology described by Smith (1976) and by Minard (1983). Based on soil conditions observed in the test pits, the majority of the site is mantled by landslide and older slide deposits. Fill and glacial soils were observed along the northwest portion and southwest third of the property. The soil units encountered in our explorations include topsoil, fill, landslide debris, older slide debris, ice contact deposits, and advance outwash deposits. The interpreted subsurface Smith, M.,1975. Preliminary Surficial Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and Edmonds West Quadrangles, Snohomish and King Counties, Washington: Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources Geologic Map GM-14. .„ ' Minard, James P.,1983. Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and Part of the Edmonds West Quadrangles, Washington: USGS Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-1541. Golder Associates January 9,2002 7 013-1685.100 }' distribution of these units is shown on geologic cross section A -A' (Figure 3). The soil units are described as follows: Topsoil — Most of the site was covered with a relatively thin (< 6-inch) layer of topsoil consisting of very loose, dark brown organics with little to some sand and a trace to little fine to coarse gravel. The unit varies to silt and clayey silt with a little sand, little to some gravel, and abundant organics. • Fill - Fill was encountered in test pits TP-4 and TP-6 to a maximum depth of 10 feet. t i The fill generally consisted of very loose to compact, light olive brown to dark olive Z brown, non stratified, silt ranging to clayey silt with a trace to some fine to coarse sand, a little fine to coarse gravel, cobbles, and boulders, and trace to little roots, rootlets and m other organics. Cobbles and boulders to about 16 inches in diameter were observed in this unit. In test pit TP-6, an older buried topsoil horizon or burn pile up to 6-inches m i ,= thick was observed. The buried topsoil is generally dark brown in color and contains N roots and charcoal fragments. C coo vA • Landslide Debris — This unit was encountered in four of the six test pits excavated on m -i n the site. The interpreted limits of the landslide debris encountered on the site based - on the test pits are shown on the site plan (Figure 2). The landslide debris varies light bluish m m i widely in composition including: very soft to firm, light olive to gray, D: Z' clayey silt ranging to silty clay, with a trace to some fine to medium sand; silt; and very y loose to compact, fine to medium sand with a little to some silt, a trace fine to coarse 0 gravel. The unit is commonly nonstratified, mottled, fractured, or jointed, and iron -n n t oxide stained. Roots, rootlets, and other organics were also observed throughout. A dense mat of rootlet development was commonly observed along many of the '1y m m fractures or joints. Some of the joint surfaces were polished and contained large-scale i „.« slickensides. In test pit TP-3, located at the southeast comer of the proposed garage, o this unit compact and stiff to very stiff and may be older slide debris that mobilized �' } soon after the Puget Lobe of the Vashon glacier receded. z 0 Ice Contact Deposits — This unit was observed in only one of the test pits (TP-4) excavated at the site located in the far north corner of the site adjacent to Olympic View Drive. These deposits were formed on or near the ice sheet and consist of compact, light olive brown, non stratified, silt with a trace to little fine to coarse, Z sand, a little subrounded to rounded, fine to coarse gravel, and a trace of cobble and boulder to 2 feet diameter. 55 Z, • Advance Outwash Deposits — This unit was encountered in test pits TP-1, TP-4, and TP-6 located in the northwest portion of the property. The unit consists of compact to m dense, stratified to massive, interbedded, jointed, silt ranging to silty clay, and fine sand with a trace of silt ranging to fine to coarse sand with a trace of silt. A sheared y clay layer was encountered in test pit TP-1 at the contact between the advance outwash and overlying landslide debris. Golder Associates Test Pit Approximate PP Depth to P Approximate Groundwater Designation Ground Surface Groundwater Elevation Elevation (Feet MSL) (Feet BGS) (Feet MSL) c o' { , i TP-1 251 4 147 m iO n y ,.j TP-3 234 7 227 c TP-5 227 1.5 225.5 m E i TP-5 227 14 216 TP-6 249 10 wn BGS = Below Ground Surface O 4 All the groundwater encountered in the test pits occurred within the landslide or older slide debris. The interpreted groundwater table is shown on the Geologic Cross Section A-N. It is m M. likely that the observed groundwater seeps represent a shallow seasonal perched condition o N i that may not exist during drier periods of the year. We anticipate that groundwater levels O Fn will rise during extended periods of increased precipitation. - =-'. D ck Z _ m l., ,y i Golder Associates January 9, 2002 9 013-1685.100 ra .7. GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS (§ 7.1 General Based on the results of our study, the site is suitable for the proposed development provided the geotechnical engineering recommendations presented in this report are carefully followed. The native site soils or structural fill derived from the native soils will provide adequate bearing capacity for the proposed buildings and structures, in the upland portion of the site. However, on the sloped portion of the site, pin piles will be required to penetrate the recent slide debris and established in the lower more competent native soils. 7.2 Site Preparation/Grading Site preparation should include removal of the surficial fill and debris. The thin organic topsoil layers should be stripped from the building area and removed or stockpiled for later used in landscaped areas. Based on our test pit observations the organic topsoil thickness on the site is generally less than six inches. We understand that cuts and fills up to about 15 feet are proposed to establish grades at the ! ` site. These cuts would most likely be through recent and older landslide debris. The landslide deposits, particularly the silt and silty sand soils, can be moisture sensitive. Where this condition exists, we recommend that site grading be performed during an extended period of dry weather. We would anticipate added construction costs to handle j unsuitable soil if work was performed during wet weather. j.. j 7.3 Temporary and Permanent Slopes Safe temporary excavations are the responsibility of the contractor and depend on the actual site conditions at the time of construction. Temporary cuts are the responsibility of the contractor and should comply with applicable OSHA and WISHA standards. Cut slopes exposed for any length of time, particularly during wet weather, should be covered with visqueen to maintain stability and mini nize erosion. Long-term permanent cut slopes should be 2H:1V or flatter assuming proper drainage and erosion control. Long term permanent fill slopes should be 2HAV or flatter assuming proper compaction, drainage, and erosion control. In general, 3H:iV slopes or gentler are preferred for ease of maintenance and application of landscaping. 7.3.1 Slope Stability The stability of the existing and proposed slopes at the site was analyzed using the computer slope stability analysis program SLIDE, a proprietary software program produced by RocScience, Inc. The stability of the existing hillside, the hillside with the proposed cuts, and the final proposed geometry of the property were examined for the analysis. The stability of the hill was assessed using the simplified Bishop method. Golder Associates n. m c m 0 -4C' rn M DZ �C on �. mm O �. C0) m0 Z ca O m January 9, 2002 10 013-1685.100 The results of the slope stability -modeling program are outlined in Table 2, below. Representative cross section analyzed using SLIDE can be found in Appendix A. TABLE 2 Factor of Safety of the Monnahan Property Condition Analyzed Static Factor of SafeLy Yield Acceleration' Current Conditions 1.31 0.09 Proposed Cut 1.4 0.08 Pro osed Final Grade 1.71 0.19 'Yield Acceleration is detmed as the nonzontal earthquake acceleration requirea w reauce the static factor of safety to 1.00. As shown in Table 2, the current conditions and proposed but have global stability safety factors ranging from 1.3 to 1.4; yield acceleration of the slope under these conditions is approximately 0.08g to 0.09g. After the proposed filling of the ravine to complete final grade, the location of the critical failure surface shifts to the upper portion of the hillside, creating a global factor of safety of 1.71 with a yield acceleration of 0.19g. The design earthquake for Edmonds, Washington with a 10% Probability of Exceedance (PE) in 50 years is approximately 0.3g. Because the yield acceleration of the proposed final grade is greater than 50% of the design earthquake acceleration, deformation of the slope in the event of the design earthquake is anticipated to be small. It should be noted that SLIDE predicts safety factor of approximately 1.0 for surface ravelling (shallow translational soil movement) on the existing slope, and on the downhill edge of the proposed cut just above the filled ravine. This indicates that the surficiai soils on the slope are in a state of active erosion and will continue to ravel without landscaping and adequate ground cover. As such, we recommend that the existing grade below the proposed house be shallower than existing; a 3HAV slope is recommended. 7.4 Erosion Control We understand that Snohomish County is requiring submittal of an erosion control plan for the site prior to any grading or other associated construction activities. Erosion control for the site will include the BMP's incorporated in the civil design drawings and may incorporate the following recommendations: • Limit exposed cut slopes; • Route surface water through temporary drainage channels around and away from exposed slopes; • Use silt fences, straw, and temporary sedimentation ponds to collect and hold eroded material on the site; Golder Associates O m cm t7 1 n' m z: x. im rnrn n`� A rn z�' 1� M z r Z p o_ m s c t` r January 9, 2002 11 013-1685.100 a • Seeding or planting vegetation on exposed areas where work is completed and no f buildings are proposed; and • Retaining existing vegetation to the greatest possible extent.. 7.5 Foundation Recommendations Conventional, shallow isolated or continuous spread footings are not suitable for this site in the sloped area, as the structure will likely be founded on recent and older landslide deposits consisting of very loose to compact silty sand, sand and silt deposits. As such, we recommend that the perimeter strip footings be founded on 4-inch diameter steel pipe piles spaced four feet on center. Based on the allowable bearing pressure on the perimeter strip footing and spacing of four feet, the steel pipe piles shall have an allowable loading of 12,000 lb. On average, we anticipate that the piles will need to be 25 to 30 feet long to develop sufficient load bearing capacity. Based on driving conditions in the field, the piles may need to be lengthened iduring driving; if better than anticipated conditions are discovered, the piles may be I shortened in accordance with observed conditions. A minimum length of 20 feet per pile is recommended in any case. The perimeter strip footing foundations in the upland portion of the site where dense soils were encountered, should be designed based on the following parameters: • MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURES: 2,000 psf These values may be increased by 1/3 for short-term wind and seismic loading. • MIIJIMUM EMBEDMENT: Perimeter footings 18 inches Interior footings 12inches • MINIMUM WIDTH: Perimeter footings 18 inches Interior isolated footings 24 inches • LATERAL LOADS ON BASEMENT WALLS: Basement walls should be designed to resist a fluid with a density of 50 pcf assuming a level backslope. • RESIST LATERAL LOADS: Lateral loads can be resisted through an ultimate base friction value of 0.4 and an allowable passive earthpressure based on a fluid with a density of 250 pcf assuming level ground below the footing. • SETTLEMENT: Total Settlement less than 1 inch Differential Settlement less than 314 inch M 7.6 Slab Subgrade Normal slab -on -grade floors can be used in cut sections, if properly compacted. Slab -on -grade floors should not be founded on existing fills or organic soils. The slabs should be underlain by a capillary break material, consisting of at least four inches of clean, free draining sand and gravel or crushed rock containing less than 3 percent fines passing the #200 sieve (based on the minus No. 4 sieve fraction). A vapor barrier consisting of reinforced heavy plastic sheeting Golder Associates January 9, 2002 12 013-1685.100 #200 sieve (based on the minus No. 4 sieve fraction). A vapor barrier consisting of reinforced heavy plastic sheeting should be included between the slab and the capillary break If desired, an additional two-inch thick layer of sand may be placed on the vapor barrier to aid in concrete curing. Framed floors should also include a vapor barrier placed over any areas of bare soils and adequate crawl space ventilation should be provided. 7.7 Foundation Drainage We recommend that perimeter footing drains be included in all the building designs where adjacent slabs are below grade. Footing drains should consist of a four -inch diameter, perforated, rigid plastic pipe, embedded in a clean, free -draining sand and gravel consisting of the following gradation: 100% passing 1 W40 — 100% retained on the No. 4 sieve, less than 5% fines, meeting the requirements of Sections 9-03.12(2) and Section 9- 03.12(4), respectively of the 2002 Washington State Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction (Figure 4). The ground surface adjacent to the buildings should be graded to drain away from the building. To prevent buildup of hydrostatic pressure against the wall, we recommend that a layer of free draining sand or gravel be placed against the back of the wall, connected to the footing drain. See figure 4 for details. s Roof drains should be collected and conveyed in a tightlined system separate from the footing drain system. 7.8 Retaining Walls If needed for site grading, a variety of wall types are feasible including MSE walls, and conventional concrete. walls. Once a specific wall type is determined, detailed design recommendations can be developed. All retaining walls should be constructed with a permanent drain system that conveys the water under gravity flow to the storm water collection system. The drains should consist of a properly sized perforated drainpipe bedded in a clean gravel bacIdill. 7.9 Rockeries We understand rockeries are planned on portions of the property. Rockeries 4 feet or less in height should be constructed using clean, granular, free draining fin compacted according to the specifications in Section 7.11. If terraced rockeries are planned and the terraces are located less than a distance of two times the height of one of the wall terraces, we recommend the lower terraces be constructed using reinforced fill as described below for walls greater than 4 feet in height. Rockeries between 4 and 8 feet in height should be constructed using reinforced clean, gramilar, free draining fill with the length of the reinforcing equivalent to the height of the wall. The reinforcing should consist of geogrid, geotextile fabric, or welded wire mesh spaced every 18 to 24 inches vertically. The Golder Associates January 9, 2002 13 013-1685.100 7.10 Utilities Maintaining safe utility excavations is the responsibility of the utility contractor. In our explorations, we did not observe much sidewall caving. However, when observed, it was typically found in the existing fill. The native outwash can be prone to unexpected caving and can exhibit rapid degradation if water seepage is present. We expect excavations in the outwash and fill will be difficult in places because it contains occasional boulders and cobbles. Conventional excavation equipment can be used to excavate the soils. Where the utility crosses pavement areas, the trench backfill should be placed in thin lifts and compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557 and to 95 rcent within three feet of final grade. m /ems �/ I`0� E 7.11 Fill Materials and Placement Structural fill material should consist of native outwash sand or imported granular soils, be free of organic and inorganic debris, be at or just below the optimum moisture content, and be capable of being compacted to the required specifications listed below. Maximum lift thickness: 12 inches loose. Minimum Compaction Requirements: • Beneath Building Foundations and Floors —The fill should be compacted to at least 95% of the ASTM D1557 maximum dry density value for the material. The structural fill beneath footings should at a minimum extend laterally at a 1H:1 V slope projected down and away from the bottom footing edge. • Beneath Roadways and Pavements — The fill should generally be compacted to at least 90% of the ASTM D 1557 maximum dry density value for the material, except within three feet of subgrade elevation, where the fill should be compacted to at least 95% of the ASTM D 1557 maximum dry density value for the material. b • Foundation Wall Backfill — We recommend that any fill placed against the foundation walls located on the uphill side of the house be compacted to between 90 and 92% of the maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557, with hand operated compactors within a§ -foot zone behind the walls. Over compaction near the wall should be avoided to reduce lateral pressures against the back of the wail. • Utility Trench Backfill — The fill should generally be compacted to at least 90% of the ASTM D 1557 maximum dry density value for the material, except in paved and structural areas where the material should be compacted to at least 95% of the ASTM D 1557 maximum dry density value for the material. • Non-structural/Landscaped Areas — Firmly compacted. We recommend that a jumping jack or hoe-pac is suitable for compacting subgrade. Thin lifts or work in confined areas can also be compacted with a vibratory plate compactor. If density tests taken in the fill indicate that compaction is not being achieved, the fill should be scarified, moisture -conditioned, and recompacted. If the required densities cannot be met then the material can be excavated and replaced or a soil admixture used to dry the soil. Golder Associates Zs i ,- m a� ur c P" m0 On rMC itmzi cz; mm to 0 Cy' �n M a;. z co z_ 0 -,t m js' January 9, 2002 14 013-1685.100 In the area of the garage where the existing fill is deepest, we recommend removing the existing fill to a couple feet below the proposed slab elevation, then placing compacted a structural fill. Alternatively, you could densify the existing fill at the slab elevation provided any organic rich topsoil has been removed. 4: Fill placed on slopes steeper than a 3H:1V (Horizontal to Vertical) shall be benched using a bulldozer or backhoe. Benches shall have a minimum width of three feet and a vertical z, spacing equal to the thickness of two compacted lifts. i -4 m 7.12 Use of On -site Soils In general, the excavated native soils at the site would be suitable for use as structural fill 55 o m provided they are placed at or below the optimum moisture content. m o' ) O During our investigation, we found that the site soils appeared to be typically moist to wet. O c We would anticipate that if the site development work were to proceed during the drier the m months of the year, the contractor would most likely have to moisture condition soils p prior to use as fill. However, if the site work were to proceed during the wetter periods of the Z , a year, drying of the site soils, the use of soil amendments, or selective use of the site soils may ibe necessary. The silty sand and sandy silt soils comprising the landslide debris would be more suitable for use during drier periods of work. mm 1 7.13 Pavements. Pavement subgrade shall be maintained in a well -compacted state and protected from c v) degradation prior to paving. Any areas disturbed prior to paving shall be remediated by a rn method determined suitable based on the observed field conditions. The options may include excavate and replacement of the disturbed soil, placement of a geotextile separation fabric, chemical stabilization and/or drainage improvements. Protection measures may n' include restricted traffic, perimeter drain ditches, or placement of a protective gravel layer Z on the subgrade. w The pavement subgrade can consist of cuts into undisturbed native soil, or structural fill O placed and compacted as noted in the Structural fill section of this report. The pavement n subgrade should be capable of supporting a fully loaded dump truck with minimum m - weaving and rutting. A typical pavement section of 2 inches of asphaltic concrete over 4 inches of clean, free draining, well -graded crushed rock sand base material is appropriate for the subgrade conditions described above and identified on site. We understand that 4-inch thick brick pavers may be used for the driveway. We assume the manufacturers specifications for preparation of the paver subgrade include a layer of clean, free draining sand over rock. The sub base for the pavers and subgrade can consist of firm and unyielding native soils free of topsoil and organics or structural fill placed and compacted as noted in the Structural fill section of this report. If the manufacturers specifications do not include free draining subgrade soils, we recommend a minimum of 8 .. inches thick layer of clean, free draining soil as the base material. Where the pavers are Golder Associates i "i January 9, 2002 15 013-1685.100 f ,f located over structural fill, we recommend installation of a trench drain to direct surface Cy, u water away from the driveway. Additionally, we recommend installation of a French drain along the edge of the driveway to collect any water that may accumulate in the free;, !°a draining subgrade soils. These two drains should be tight fined to direct the water off the e site.: t. 7.14 Construction Monitoring Z 0 I We recommend that critical site construction elements be observed and documented by a m y qualified geotechnical consultant. These include: confirming suitable subgrade soils for -; building foundations and slabs, retaining wall construction, compaction of structural fills, and utility trench backfill compaction under pavements. �m ff c mo m F; i+ p, z ;. 0 'n n O mm 1 0 � 3, r i .. O m: J Golder Associates y f January 9, 2002 16 013-1685.100 k d 8. USE OF THIS REPORT UY " This design geotechnical study has been prepared exclusively for the use of A.D. Shapiro i> „; Architects and their consultants for specific application to this project. This report is not ft; meant to represent a legal opinion. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. We fix; ryrecommend that Golder review the final site -grading plan and provide specific comments and criteria related groundwater, drainage, retaining walls, foundations, and grading. The explorations were performed in general accordance with locally accepted geotechnicaT tF engineering practice to provide information for the area explored. There are possible j variations in the subsurface conditions between the exploration areas and in the groundwater k conditions with time. Therefore we recommend that a contingency for unanticipated 4 conditions be included in the construction schedule and budget. Further, we recommend rn 1 that Golder Associates Inc. be retained to perform the construction monitoring and testing c o j during construction to confirm the conditions indicated by the explorations and or provide 'W! corrective recommendations adapted to the conditions encountered during the work. 0 a i F 1 .J o � i mm } t _ 00 Vi fi �. Cto. J m 4 0 's I: Golder Associates 3 Z t. l y 1 M�3 s� rn rn. 10 Z C om 2+ rnrn a� } Z i o m. f x b. A NJ < > PLSW SW \ %4 , T P W ��..�... ..1 1 1 J'tir S14 '42, ,�.✓' .Y t -} 11F 188R PLL SW .� 1', 1saTHsrsw ) ;f si4 1'�i .r ) L ..,,,j M1 TN PI R A EW it P'e Y `c k:3;`{. 1 L2 : A''j,5''FF : sF may.# //'Y• �� t .9:' 5T{(P FIR D k i 2.1 s t1>1 L \ �� 1 THPL LSj„3ri`% }Y'4 94 PLW-W Y7T PL 3'A $§ Sr , tt£ .J{ ? c}•. ... g�'�`".�J; .�i0tIi1C0'/ h j Ts sw w 172NDST 1 Z S m t S S 1'^i✓f 4�YL 3rHP SW ... Y G+, F SJ. k�(y'rx�iS FL Xy �' b 181 PL M1 Bt TSTS 181 TPLS mm �jfR Sw i & PL W - 1 sr sw OO. M1e2H _ _ 93R -i}v+.'+} tv+"'� M1x se Nsrsw v 1 PL w 1Ba P W OC 1g5T PLW E 1es7Nsr r8 LT.�y J}'iJyrt .>: di',rkt,. S 1a HPL 6THs - n r H HA Sw t=n j0 TN IT -e rin ille 1ai H P K aTN ,e6 C 1~4 L iftc Jpf t 9 P 90 N S y e 9TH PLS r z. W � 13 1 DSTSW r T G N g A �.0 PLS `tiy ARK Y O • /hli1G. ��.+t �'`,�c ^� 0. TD L 9RDP SW 193 OP DST -n 94 S m rsj-�'y.ttF, �i� S IOR TM T4TH SW .. A g�0't}x' (7f jn I7TSTswa rW98HSTSw c0im 2 HSTSW 99 c: s" AS p E 1ST STS � m CA Kv r "kXfxt Y a CHA DLN9 O TS Pl OST W Z�:. "''4Y O LEN EY N 203 OS. / N'�a ✓ ry? m ST 204RB �1 204T BT SW YYY '.osy�:'F o n+�th stiaGotl a PLS f dm d Com un C HP W S SW 161STijLW �ry F _ sw y rD Ekirtounds a Pine id e 2 srsw j e�ttdeIHeight's Z A N D Yf N aII w ry > 2 PL C '-I r"o<;f. G v 7D 21 HW W o O1 $. S W b > n'. Z 21 HST 89 Sa 2" µST W Z. EDAR 3TH$ SW 213TH PL H W £f } P MMLO URE N O D 2 TNP S 21 TH ST SW 23T1js ....< rn NE UR 2 TH m O ltr A 215THP SW ....•r• 21gT m - O SY7 t 9 aPi 21TfH 218TH SW STP _ 2i _ ,.. 75W :.` FI < D 28 rS 2, HSTS 2 HSTSW t," HSTSW / 9 RCOM h i"ry RT NOT TO SCALE w � ' Nq FIGURE 1 SITE VICINITY MAP SHAPIRO/OLYMPICVIEWPROPERTY/WA PROJECT NO.0131685IW ORAWINGNO.96898 DATE IVIII01 ORAWNBYEL Golder Associates I I. a ELEVATION (FEET MSL) 10 z M, > O m E"A z > , a z ;a IN o 0 M- M- . P, m002 iffil m o g� r7r D. m / m 0 z HIM 0 MITI 0 c g, z / J m 0 ZN cgiz m z = / _ / Io Z. z z HRL W / o j� o � � rm :2 0 Yz 0;0 0, co) m o Z m ELEVATION (FEET MSW 2 FOOT WIDE DRAINAGE SLAB ON GRADE LAYER (See Note 1) 41 DRAINAGE GRAVEL (See Note 3) A CAPILLARY BREAK 4-INCH DIAMETER PERFORATED (See Note 5) PIPE (See Note 4) NOTTOSCALE NOTES: 1. DRAINAGE LAYER SHOULD CONSIST OF CLEAN SAND AND GRAVEL WITH LESS THAN 5 % FINES ACCORDING TO 2002 WSOCT SPECIFICATION 9-03.12(2). FULL FACE Ip GEOCOMPOSITE DRAINAGE BOARD CONNECTED INTO THE FOOTING DRAINAGE GRAVEL MAY BE CONSIDERED AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE DRAINAGE GRAVEL, 2. WALL BACKFILL SHALL CONSIST OF STRUCTURAL FILL COMPACTED TO 90 PERCENT OF THE MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AS DETERMINED BY ASTM D 1557 (Modified Proctor). 3. DRAIN GRAVEL SHALL CONSIST OF PEA GRAVEL ACCORDING TO 2002 WSDOT SPECIFICATION 9-03.12(4). 4. 4-INCH DIAMETER, PERFORATED, SCHEDULE 40, PVC DRAIN PIPE WITH HOLES TURNED DOWN. 5. CAPILLARY BREAK SHOULD CONSIST OF CLEAN SAND OR GRAVEL AS RECOMMENDED IN THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. FIGURE FOUNDATION DRAINAGE DETAIL SHAPIRO/OLYMPIC VIEW PROPERTYNVA 13:131.,11 91--llA— & ...... +-. I 00, m m m 10 a mT 00 0 p Fn Cm rm MO rm Ca z O m 1 g + i APPENDIX A m TEST PIT LOGS AND N m WILDCAT DYNAMIC CONE TESTS o mi C.J' , ,ry m i m p bR j to w Ifi J �s a Golder Associates .r: _i Unified Soil Classification System Component Definitions by Gradation+_ Soil Closslfi-t;oo Ir C—Ponent Size Ronge , CYitbrio for Assgning Croup Symbols and Names Ge ocized •. Group Des 'ptions eomders Above 12 m 1. C—E—GRNNED SOILS GRAVELS CLEAN Gm.. W CW aII—grodetl Gra.eln Cabbies 3 in. to 12 in. M tnon 50S t ' d o Mor< than SOS of e fractmn less than SS tires GP PoorlY-9roded gmvela Croxi 3 in. to No. 4 (4.]6mm) j Na. 200 iKa¢ No a°Sic a GRAVELS WDH FINCS GM ravel vntl m MxWres Coons 9rwN } M, to 3/4 , i l� More Non t2S lines nd ravel o IOY v ibe 9ro e. 3/4 ,n ° Nvn4 (4.]bmm) ,1 - GC Mlrtvrea Sand No 4 {4.]6mm} to No. 20D (0.0]amm) 6 i- - SANDS ELEAN SAND; 5W W<II—graded Santls Caora< sand No. 4 (4.]6mm) to No. )0 (2.Omm) - 50S or mere of e frocton Teas limn SS Fmea SP Poony—graded Sonde Medum aond No. ID (2.0mm) to No 40 (0.42mm) , 1 paaxa No. 4 St— Fne aontl No 40 (0.42mm) to No. 200 (o.0]4mm) - - Z Rv� SANDS Yv. FINES Non 12S ;m SM aond ono 5ut W11-1 - Sill and Cloy SlnodN titan No. 200 M0]4mm} Q:. SC Sand a d Gvy Mirturen -t " -E—GPAINED SOILS SILTS AND CLAYS 1NDRGANIC CL Low—Pl.A61Y of m i , 3oz or mar° Passes m No. zoo „e a Liao lima k Nan so uL Non-p osnc and Lo+— PlorttrY, sdta Samples an—plmtc oils Lo+- Plertins ORGANIC - of W pan-platic. m-d a Le+- Sampler (z.O' OD)sills SPam ONY Spl'l Tube fnSILTSCLAYSCH Cmivg 1NORGNBC H9MPIasI'cily Cbys elby L.— d Imlit ter t— SO NH Hqn-Pks0<NY Sillb lcner Sampler to OP ores Q n' Orgonm S�IIa Uninsolnenise noted, drm cames e.onxa .ub 140 16, 1-11 -p 1 m Z.- I� ' HIGHLY dtGANic SOILS PrimaFly organic matter, doh in color, arW Pas 30 m. —P. A -t w0onic odw Density or Consistency. Laboratory Tests =f 1 Relative Utilizing Standard Penetration Test Values - (A' 'n f Test Mo rture Des'gnotion (1) T (b) �omesssoas(0) Cohesive Solis _, D nary C m 'RelativeTmillenCy De..Hy (C) N, blows/ft�C) DTP�s;Ity (C) Undroined (d) bl—/ft. Sh-, St(ength Groin S'Ze Hydrometer _ H Q (n j "'I 1 111/ All<rGtr9 limits (1) Q Fn 1 1 Very boa° 0 to 4 0 — 15 to 2 <250 ConsolAotion Unconlm<d c U CCA y V) lovx 4 to 10 t5 - 35 to 4 250-500 UU Trios UU ComPoct t0 to 30 35 - 65 to 8 500-fo00 Tel CU f, 30 to 5D 65 - ea to t5 tW0-2000 CU Co Triox CD fSTI' " Very Dense over 50 >85 to 30 2000-4000 er 30>4000eomis4n Pt f I pomt<y r Snv chmoc (°) q o grave. santl, and i tt. either x i ° combbot'an, posxaain teristics benovior. Moisture oI tl AtteNerq Umib. () plaited on 1109. or plart'c8y, ontl eahbtmq arametl Z (b) 5oih pommbq tM MomN<ristin of VI-kltY. and cxh'btinq —Yoi etl (<) RdaF to tart of ASiM D 1586-84 Iw o defnition of N: in --.1y consofdafetl Cenci anksa soih Remus otmay temu ore baxd on N valued <artecled fw overbwtlen preaaama. Slit and Clay Descriptions {� tbtlm'aed sneer st+m9tn - Vz anaaMMd <amprev'an —9111, Z Typical Vnilied Description Deslgnotion 0 Descriptive Terminology Denoting m - Component Proportions silt "` ("°"-p1Oe1`) _ Clayey silt CL-ML (taw 011116W I Seq day CL . Descriptive Terms No go of Proportion Cloy CH - Trom O-5S Plastic Sdt MH Li1tk {°) 5—i2S Or9ani< Sol, OL, oH. Pl Somt or Atljeclil< t2-30S. 30—SUS G-11 , sonar or sift on app.oprivtc. i. 1 �p Golder Associates Figure SOIL CLASSIFICATIOWLEGEND . .. w ]]3-1064/FORM D75 Sample Descriptions and Excavation Notes Time Depth of Hole Depth to WIL 05D1 Start NA T il- V o own O G li I some lIand. little gravel. moist9. 2 0.5'-7' Loose hold olive brown and li ht ra nonstratitled 0825 t2' mottled ine to medium SAND some cla a silt little D840 75 As above r Rackfilled some me d' ecial Notes to wet. LANDSLIDE DEBft157K�=A=ist act and fi m li ht olive brown and li hf Moderate Gavin above see a e zone with TP —0' CLAYEY SILT, v n 'oints with abundant rootlet develo ment. LANDSLIDE DEBRIS?) lay r u edain by dense and ha ons r i d? tainted, Ox tain d fi e medium SAND trace silt and ILT ran in to SILTY CLAY moist Indyp p LnnQr ood'on rrntains ool'�hed.pla surfaces. ADVANCE OUTWASH '� PROACT110.01IM100 DRAWMGNO.TP01-12 DATE M1101 DRAWNeY EL 0>. m a,n cm mo o� c mz JO nz "n mrn 00) 0Fn 32m zC-) M z 0) z 0 a M m i( z esiGolder FIELD TEST PIT LOG iS Temp. Weather Cloudy coot Engineer F. Mocker Operator Kevin Test Pit TP 2 Equipment Case 901OBTrackhoe Contractor NWExcavatinn Date 12/04/01 Location Sunset Way Property Elevation -247 Datum MSL Job 0131685.100 0 5 10 15 20 ZO 0 n .. Samples - _ _ No Depth RI' - 2 10, c fn -Q m -10 sm CZ ^ 10 -n x mm - 0 3 fn., 1 - Z �'.. 15 71 . Z . Z O - 20 Q- m Sample Descriptions and Excavation Notes Time Depth of Hole Depth to W/L - -1 6856 Start NF 1 0• ' e I r w r' i RG NI C -+ s e U little sand to gravel. moist. (TOPSOIL 2 0.5-9' Loose to compact light brown nonstratified mottled round e t c r e r vet moist n ai li h Special Notes FOx stainlootless ao < tla m between 8'-9' b s. I;� an ular CLAYEY SILTY ciasts. LANDSLIDE DEBRIS } g NO iI rounded ravel trace silt AND SILT to CLAYEY SILT - little to some Me sand trace rounded fine to coarse ' SILT al a large scale wood up o -4" di ater - charcoal. LANDSLIDE DEBRIS? - PROJECT NO.013 IME 100 DRAWNGNO. TPOI.12 DATE 12nZM1 DRAWNaY EL � Golder FIELD TEST PIT LOG - Associates _ uw Temp. Weather Cloudy, cool Engineer F. Mocker Operator Kevin Test Pit TP 3 Equipment Cas 90108 Trackh a Contractor NW Excavating Date 12/04/01 Location Sunset Way Property Elevation —234' Datum MSL Job 0131685.100 .., E W 0 5 10 15 20 ZO'. ....i 0 Samples n l: _ — No Depth rn", 1 — — 1 2 4' 8' a T a _ Cm 4: - rno On ". rn m - CZ _ ca O i mob. n 10 Mm l - o� n F C CA Z' 120 I, n Sample Descriptions and Excavation Notes Time Depth of Hole Depth to WtL 0950 Start NA 1 o soi: a bo ve O N little'NF Sosand race ravel i t. '-4' YEas! 104 16' end of TP 2 0.5'-7' Loose li ht olive brown nonstratified fine to coarse Special Notes _ Seepage corresponds with to of blueish grayunit vel r I bo id r o s n u Dist to wet trace rounded to suban ular hard CLAYEY SILT clasts. LANDSLIDE DEBRIS v 3 l '1 li Ie a at n ain r unde SILT clasts varies to SILT little to some fine sand moist to wet wntains wood unit not wntinuous arounIP (LANDSLIDE DEBRIS) 4 10.'-16' C a stiff to ve s'ff i olivera n li h reddish brown nonstratified mottled 01y,fine SAND an EYE„Fnox sta ned,mn to fine SAND, trace SILT OLDER SLIDE DEBRIS7 '-' PROJECTN0. 0131085100 DRAWiNGNO. TPOI-12 DATE IV12101 ORAWNSY EL l j Va(Golder FIELD TEST PIT LOG 6AssociMes " Temp, Weather Cloud, cool Engineer F. Mocker Operator Kavin Test Pit TP 4 " .., Equipment Case9010ckhoe Contractor -NW Excavating Date 12104/01 " Location Sunset Way Property Elevation -230' Datum MSL Job 013 1685.100 . ". N S - 0 5 10 15 20 Z O 0 Samples 't n - No Depth 16P fin _:2 — _:- — m n, Oc !J "p D 1 — .._ 03 M m mN - — - 4 z rn-.. � 75 X, _ Z,.. W z 20 ". .. A - Sample Descriptions and Excavation Notes Time Depth of Hole Depth to WIL m " 1126 Start NA " 1 0 o O t. le sand race rav mot - o.6-4,1 Ve loose to com act dark olive brown to li ht olive 1203 1 B' NFbrown d SILT to CLAYEY SILT trace to little fine -to coarse sand u abecomin Eli d o dam 4' contains ciastsof No Gavin observedSILT becomes com ad -4' trace rootlets in u er little fine to coarsei 1 subroundad to rounded ravel trace cobble trace boulder, dam to d ICE CONTACT DEPOSITS) ht olive brown traces motlets stratife Q bpoarnes moist ncreas dFe x JADVANCE " OUTWASH ` PROJECT NO. D131885100 DRAWINGNO.TPD1-12 DATE ID121D1 DRAWNeY EL - � Golder C'S FIELD TEST PIT LOGAssociat Temp. Weather Cloud Engineer F Mocker Operator Kevin Test Pit TP 5 y Equipment Csse 9010E Trackhoe Contractor NW Excavatinq Date 12/04/01 t, . Location Sunset Way Property Elevation -227' Datum MSL Job 013 1686,100 N S -� —s 0 5 10 15 20 0 Samples n . 5 - - _ - _ - - 1 — — — No 2 Depth 10' ill cm M _' Oc 1=3 m Z:. �.,. , , - i C- • -� " - - — Face of shear plane dippingsteeply(>80°) into slope to west, scale slickensides Large rake -90°to strike of surface UJ' 0 '. 4 Cr- G " Z: Z. I 20 1 1 Sample Descriptions and Excavation Notes Time Depth of Hole Depth to W/L 1221 Start NA 1Ygly v nons ra ified IL o YEY SILT le sand little o som 1255 16 see a e from -14' on unhill organics in UPDer 0.3' wet. side 2 o and very soft to firm light olive to Special Notes r if t d It fi D AND SILT ranging to SILTY CLAY trace fine sand Sever caving on west Sid wait with TP ft -1 Vexposing steeply trace rootlets in u er 1.5' moist. LANDSLIDE di in olished lanar-curved slickensided surfaces di in I'M slope, ND a fine, 19 oprggu d (travel moist to Note: Trackhoe dug TP from up slope Unable to get downslooe wet containin roots and rootlets. LANDSLIDE and set In stream. DEBRIS 4 lratiFled mottled fine SAND little t Sit T r n in IL LAY is o w t F Ox hrou hour trace fine rounded ravel. LANDSLIDE PROJECTNo.0131686100 DRAWINGNO. TP01-12 DATE 17JI2101-DRANTIaY EL i F GUXt��i Associates FIELD TEST PIT LOG Temp. Weather cloudy, coot Engineer F, Mntk_e_r Operator Kevin Test Pit TP6 Equipment Case 901OBTrackhoe - Contractor NVV Excavating Date 12/04l01 Location Sunset Way Property Elevation —249 Datum MSL Job 013 1685.100 E " 0 5 10 15 20 0 Samples " No Depth 1 11' 2 13' ,..: 5 2 t 0 ---. 1N 15 — a act ",. 20 e� Sample Descriptions and Excavation Not Time De th of Hole Depth to WIL ,..{ i 0- '9 1340 a 16' See a e nF 1 Vf- 2 0.4'-9.0' Loose li ht olive brown nonstartified mottled? sand East side of Test Pit SILT little subrounded to rounded fine to coarse gravel,, " Special Notes ra Fit Sli ht cavin from South sidewali above —IV " 9.0' Abundant or anics wood debris-0.5'lhick " _�_ contains charcoal { UR�NPILE?1_ 20 m a li i laminated to massive SILT trace fine sand slight FeOx moist. ADVANCE OUTWASH S coarse S ND ra it mots tra fi a brow ad " ravel. ADVANCEOUTWASH -. PROJECT NO, 0131685100 DRANANGNO.TPm-12 DATE 12f12M1 DRAWNBY EL WILDCAT DYNAMIC CONE LOG Page i of 2 Golder Associates, Inc. ' 18300 NE Union Hill Rd. Suite 200 PROJECT NUMBER: 013-1685.000 Redmond, Washington 98052 DATE STARTED: 12-10-2001 k DATE COMPLETED: 12-10-2001 HOLE t1: CREW: M. Mengelt SURFACE ELEVATION: Top of Subgrade PROJECT: Shapiro/MonnahanProp/WA WATER ON COMPLETION: None ADDRESS: Sunset Drive HAMMER WEIGHT: 35 lbs. LOCATION: Edmonds Washington CONE AREA: 10 sq. cm n DEPTH BLOWS PER 10 cm RESISTANCE K cm' GRAPH OF CONE RESISTANCE 0 50 100 150 N' TESTED CONSISTENCY SAND & SILT CLAY 0 0.0 0 VERY LOOSE VERY SOFT I 4A i VERY LOOSE VERY SOFT 1 ft 2 8.9 2 VERY LOOSE SOFT I 4A 1 VERY LOOSE VERY SOFT 3 13.3 3 VERY LOOSE SOFT 2 ft 6 26.6 7 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF 5 yy y 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF 7 31.1 8 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF 3 ft 30 133.2 ••••.........••••••.........• - DENSE HARD i m 15 66.6 ..................• 19 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF 5 19.3 ••• 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF 4 ft 4 15A 4 VERY LOOSE SOFT 5 19.3 ..... 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF 4 15.4 •• 4 VERY LOOSE SOFT 5It 6 23.2 •••• 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF 6 23.2 ••• 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF 5 19.3 ••• 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF 6 It 5 19.3 •• 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF 5 19.3 •• 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF 2 m 4 15.4 4 VERY LOOSE SOFT 7 ft 5 17.1 4 VERY LOOSE SOFT 4 13.7 3 VERY LOOSE SOFT 6 20.5 •• 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF 8 ft 6 20.5 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF 8 27 4 ••••• 7 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF 11 37.6 ......•••• 10 LOOSE STIFF 9 R 12 41.0 ......••••• I MEDIUM DENSE STIFF 13 44.5 ......•••••• 12 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF 11 37.6 ......•••• 10 LOOSE STIFF - 3 m 1011 11 37.6 ......•••• 10 LOOSE STIFF 11 33.7 ......••• 9 LOOSE STIFF 11 33.7 ......••• 9 LOOSE STIFF 12 36.7 ......•••• 10 LOOSE STIFF lift 11 33.7 9 LOOSE STIFF 13 39.8 11 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF 13 39.8 ......••••• I MEDIUM DENSE STIFF 12 ft 16 49.0 ......••^•••• 13 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF 30 91.8 ........................•• MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF 15 45.9 13 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF 4 m 13 ft 18 55.1 15 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF WILDCATALS DEPTH BLOWS PER 10 cm RESISTANCE Kgtcrw GRAPH OF CONE RESISTANCE 0 50 100 150 N' TESTED CONSISTENCY SAND & SILT CLAY 22 60.9 ................. 17 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF 14 ft 15fr 16 ft -5m 17 ft 18 ft 1911 -6m 20 ft 21 ft 22 ft 7 m 23 ft 24 ft 25 ft 26 ft 8m 27 ft 28 ft 29 ft -9m pm Ic m 0, 80 c rn M "g JD V , 0 "n m M 0 0 a m 0: X z WILDCAT DYNAMIC CONE LOG Page i of z f w Golder Associates, Inc. PROJECT NUMBER: 013-1685.000 18300 NE Union Hill Rd. Suite 200 DATE STARTED: 12-10-2001 + ^ Redmond, Wasbington 98052 DATE COMPLETED: 12-10-2001 HOLE #: 2 SURFACE ELEVATION: Top of Subgrade CREW: M. Mengelt PROJECT: Shapiro/MonnahanProp/WA WATER ON COMPLETION: None ". HAMMER WEIGHT: 35 lbs. ADDRESS: Sunset Drive CONE AREA: 10 sq. cm LOCATION: Edmonds Washington BLOW S RESISTANCE GRAPH OF CONE RESISTANCE TESTED CONSISTENCY ZO DEPTH PER 10 cm K crW 0 50 100 150 N' SAND &SILT CLAY SOFT 0 0.0 0 VERY LOOSE VERY M 2 8 2 VERY LOOSE SOFT .9 .9 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF ' 4 1 17.8 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF y m 4 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF Ci " 5 22.2 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF m O 2 8 4 I7.8 22 2 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF O C 5 26.6 7 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF m 6 22.2 •••• 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF m a ft 5 7 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF p i m G 26.6 t 1.6 •••• 3 VERY LOOSE SOFT D Z 3 11.6 3 VERY LOOSE SOFT r J 4 It 3 3 11.6 3 VERY LOOSE SOFT y 2 7.7 „ 2 VERY LOOSE SOFT SOFT O fl I S ft 2 7.7 2 VERY LOOSE 3 11.6 3 VERY LOOSE SOFT m 15 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF 055 1.3 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF i 6 ft 6 23.2 4 VERY LOOSE SOFT a 4 6 15. 23.2 •••• 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF " co to Q 1 { - 2 m 17.1 4 VERY LOOSE SOFT r 7 It 5 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF 7 23.9 4 VERY LOOSE SOFT X; 5 17.1 S LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF D` 8 ft 6 20.5 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF Z 6 20.5 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF 7 23.9 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF �! " 9 It 7 23.9 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF O 6 20.5 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF 6 20.5 ^•° 14 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF M a 3 m 10 ft 15 51.3 51.0 ^• ^ 13 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF 1 ••••^••••• 11 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF 1 13 39.8 ^• 13 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF 16 49.0 ^•° 11 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF lift 13 39.8 :7 9 LOOSE STIFF 11 33.7 ....... 11 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF 13 39.8 •••••.,• 11 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF 12 ft 13 39.8 11 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF 13 39.8 20 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF 23 70.4 .................... 14 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 4 m 13 ft 17 52.0 •••••••••••••• . WILOCAT.%LS . �1. J HOLE 4: 2 WILDCAT DYNAMIC CONE LOG Page 2 of 2 p j PROJECT Sh (MonnahanPro /WA PROJECTNUMBER: 013-1685.000 DEPTH a iro BLOWS PER 10 cm RESISTANCE K cm' GRAPH OF CONE RESISTANCE 0 50 100 150 N' TESTED CONSISTENCY SAND & SILT CLAY 17 47.1 •••••.•••... 13 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF 16 44.3 ......•••••• 12 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF 14 ft 18 49.9 ............•• 14 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF 15ft 16ft 5m 17ft 18ft 19ft 6m 20 ft 21ft 22 R -7m 23ft 24 ft 25 ft 26 ft -8m 27 ft 28 ft 29 ft is 4� Z '. F.- O f,. rnQ OC � � V mrn o co Z, O ^i rn r; I i i 4 1-n C ..., , O mo 1 0O C: xm m z. i =< D Z n La mm CA 3y ;-I ca t ffm { i W Ens APPENDIX B O90, CITY OF EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR DEVELOPMENT ON n m STEEP SLOPES � cm 1 mo z o c� I a� IS: 71, rnrn OOR £ '6 N5 i J J in. ... } o Golder Associates Document Title 20 P.EVIEW CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES Chapter 20.1513 QRITICAL AREAS 20,156_110. Development standards =Geolo icafly_hazardou_s Areas, Page 1 of 8 20.1511.110 Development standards — Geologically hazardous areas. A. Buffers. Buffers for geologically hazardous areas shall be 50 feet in width, they shall be maintained with their native vegetation, and where appropriate, be placed within a critical areas tract. This 50400t buffer requirement may be reduced to 10 feet by the director or his/her designee upon review of critical areas study prepared pursuant to ECDC 20 ISi3,140 (A) by a licensed geotechnical engineer or geologist which clearly demonstrates that the proposed buffer alteration will have no adverse impact upon the site, the public or any private party. "Adverse impact" shall include but not be limited to a decrease in site stability as defined in Chapter 1919^05 ECDC. Such report shall be certified in a form suitable for filing with the Snohomish County recorder and generally comply with the provisions of this chapter as well as the geotechnical report requirements of Chapter 19_05 ECDC. Staff approval or disapproval of proposed buffer reductions shall be subject to appeal pursuant to the provisions of ECDC 20.105.010(A)(4). - B. Erosion Hazard Areas. Alterations within the identified erosion hazard areas shall not be authorized without an approved erosion control plan pursuant to Chapter 18.30 ECDC, which includes staged clearing, where appropriate. Clearing or disruption of the soils within an erosion hazard area shall be kept atthe minimum necessary to provide reasonable use of the site. C. Landslide Hazard Areas. Landslide hazard areas located on slopes less than 40 percent shall only be approved to be altered if both of the following provisions are met: 1. Proposed development will not decrease slope stability on any adjacent property; and 2. The landslide hazard to the project and adjacent property is eliminated or mitigated such that the proposed development on the site is certified as stable by a licensed professional geologist or geotechnical engineer. Any landslide hazard area and its buffer which combined are greater than the one acre in size shall be placed in critical areas tract for any proposed master plan development, subdivision, short subdivision, or planned residential development, pursuant to ECDC 20.15B.160. Where alterations are authorized, city staff shall determine whether the remaining portion (s) of the landslide area shall be placed within critical areas tract. Landslide areas located on slopes greater than 40 percent shall be regulated pursuant to subsection D of this section. D. Steep Slope Hazard Areas. No development or alteration shall be allowed in steep slope hazard areas unless the property is exempt under the provisions of this section or ECDC 20.1513.040, a reasonable use exception has been granted, or a variance has been granted pursuant to ECDC 20.15B.170(A). 1. The development or alteration is one of the following exempt activities: a. Surface water conveyance designed to the best available technical standard, such as the Stormwater Management Manual, approved by the city. Installation shall utilize the best available technology to minimize disturbance to the slope, soils and vegetation; b. Trails construction designed to the best available technical standard approved by the city. Technical standards are provided in the U.S. Forest Service "Trails Management handbook" (FSH 2309.18, 1987) and "Standard Specifications for Construction of Trails" (EM-7720-102, 1984). In no case shall trails be constructed of impervious materials which would contribute to surface water mnoff, unless such materials are necessary to provide for soil stabilization or erosion control, and trail design assures that surface water runoff will not increase or contribute to erosion and sedimentation; c. Utility construction by private or public proponents may be allowed; provided, that city staff determined upon review of a critical areas study that the proposed alteration shall not subject the steep slope to the risk of landslide or erosion; d. Trimming and limbing of vegetation on steep slopes may be allowed if a clearing plan is provided for review and approval by the city; and provided, that the soils within the steep slope area are not disturbed to subject the area to the risk of erosion. Clearing shall be subject to the requirements of Chapter 18_45 ECDC. 2. The development or alteration may be exempted if it meets the following criteria: a. The proposed development will not decrease stability on any adjacent property, and the site following the permitted activity will be stable within the meaning of Chapter 19 05 ECDC, as demonstrated by engineering analysis meeting requirements of the State Building Code as adopted by this code. b. The development will occur on steep slope areas that either: i. Are mapped as one of the following deposits on the "Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and part of the Edmonds West Quadrangles", by lames P. Minard (Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey, 1983, Map MF-1541): Till, Advance Outwash, and/or Olympia Gravel; or ... /om—isapi.dll?clientID=21573873&liitsperlieading=on&infobase=edmondde.nfo&jump=20.15B.118/02 Document Page 2 of 8 ii. Are comprised of fill which was placed under engineered conditions on stable geologic deposits listed in subsection (D) (2)(b)(i) of this section; provided, that the fill meets the following conditions; all fill was placed under a legal grading permit, the grading and till were designed by a licensed professional engineer, native soils beneath the fill were prepared in accordance with the engineering design, and compaction testing confirms that uniform compaction to the specified percentage is present throughout the entire fill c. All excavations on steep slopes shall not extend below a 35-degree plane extended down from the property lines, unless the excavation is retained by structural shoring. The shoring must be designed by a registered professional engineer. d. All retaining structures on steep slopes shall be engineered structures conforming to the State Building Code as adopted by this code; rockeries are not permitted greater than four feet in height. e. Steep slope areas cannot be altered if one or more of the following conditions are present on or adjacent to the portion of the subject property classified as a steep slope; impermeable soils interbedded with granular soils, springs or groundwater seepage, significant visible evidence of groundwater seepage, previous landsliding or instability, or existing landslide deposits. "On or adjacent to' includes those areas upslope and downslope of the steep slope, within a horizontal distance from the toe or top of the slope equal to two times the vertical height of the steep slope. - f. Steep slope areas (greater than 40 percent) cannot be altered if the thickness of organics, debris, weathered soils, collovial soils or soils exhibiting loose conditions (as measured by the Standard Penetration Test (ASTM D1586) method of sampling) on or adjacent to the portion of the subject property classified as a steep slope exceeds three feet. g. For Conunercial Development. A buffer of 15 feet shall be retained in an undisturbed condition, measured from property lines adjacent to residential properties. 3. Notice of Application for Exemption. Upon application for exemption of all or any portion of a site under the provisions of this section, which is equal to or greater than 20,000 square feet in area, posting and notice of such application and of staff decision shall be given in accordance with the provisions of ECDC 20,95.050(B). Notice shall be provided to all adjacent property owners for sites or portions of sites sought for exemption which are less then 20,000 square feet in area under the same procedures. E. Seismic Hazard Areas. Developmentproposals for sites containing a potential seismic hazard area shall only be authorized by staff to alter the seismic hazard area when the applicant documents that: 1. A technical evaluation of the site's specific subsurface conditions indicates that the site is not located within a seismic hazard area; or 2. Mitigation is implemented which renders the site of the proposed development as stable within the meaning of the State Building Code and this code. F. Peer Review and Independent Analysis. All applications for development proposals within geologically hazardous areas or seismic hazard areas shall be accompanied by a written site analysis by a geologist or geotechnical engineer licensed by the state of Washington. Peer review, or at the discretion of the staff, an independent review of the technical analysis of site conditions shall be conducted at the applicant's expense pursuant to ECDC 20.15B.140(E). (Ord. 3329 § 1, 2000; Ord. 3087 § 2, 1996). 20.15B.110 Development standards - Geologically hazardous areas. A. Buffers. Buffers for geologically hazardous areas shall be 50 feet in width, they shall be maintained with their native vegetation, and, where appropriate, be placed within the critical areas tract. This 50-foot buffer requirement may be reduced to 10 feet by the director or hislher designee upon review of critical areas study prepared pursuant to ECDC 20.15B.140 (A) by a licensed geologist or geotechnical engineer which clearly demonstrates that the proposed buffer alteration will have no adverse impact upon the site, the public or any private party. "Adverse impact" shall include but not be limited to a decrease in site stability as defined in Chapter 19_05 ECDC. Such report shall be certified in a form suitable for filing with the Snohomish County recorder and generally comply with the provisions of this chapter as well as the geotechnical report requirements of Chapter 19_05 ECDC. Staff approval or disapproval of proposed buffer reductions shall be subject to appeal pursuant to the provisions of ECDC 20.105.010(A)(4). B. Erosion Hazard Areas. Alterations within identified erosion hazard areas shall not be authorized without an approved erosion control plan pursuant to Chapter 18. 30 ECDC, which includes staged clearing, where appropriate. Clearing or disruption of the soils within an erosion hazard area shall be kept at the minimum necessary to provide reasonable use of the site. C. Landslide Hazard Areas. Landslide hazard areas located on slopes less than 40 percent shall only be approved to be altered if both of the following provisions are met: 1. Proposed development will not decrease slope stability on any adjacent property; and 2. The landslide hazard to the project and adjacent property is eliminated or mitigated such that the proposed development on the site is certified as stable by a licensed professional geologist or gemechnical engineer. .../om_isapi.dll?clientID=21573873&hitsperheading=on&infobase=edmonddc.nfo&jmnp=20.15B 1/8/02 Z O 0 In 1n. to = cm M 80 C 5 mIn ID DZ < N Dp 11 :SI mr�n 0 r Z0 -1 X -i Z Z O C? m i E t � mo 80 mm r`^�y fn O r 3 N` MC) 1 r t I . - rb002 08l27/02 id:05 FAX 428 88P 5dA8 GOLDEl�SSOCIATES G*kfet Assoeiatos Inc. + . .w T8300 NE Union Ha Rood. 200 OF ` i Redmond. WA 980S2-3333 TeMphone id25) 883.0777 17 Fax (425) 882-5498 Our ref: 013-1685.200 June27,20� z O Department City of Edmonds Planning p m 250 5th Ave North Edmonds, Washington 98020 _� -nc N -� x e�i ATTENTION: Ms. Star Camb c m , m o )n ..., RE: SLOPE STABBITY MODELING RESULTS OC. X M REVISED GRADING PLAN z SUNSET WAX DRIVE RESIDENCE D z EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Dear Ms. Campbell: 0 "n an revised grading letter presents the results of our slope stability residenceanalyses n Sunset Way in Edmonds, i This of the 1 of the single-family m m m proposed for the construction Our work was performed in accordance with our telephone conversation o 07 Washington. with Mr. Tonv Shapiro on June 25, 2W1 I{ 0 Fnn . Ian has been developed �i Based on our discussions with Mr. Shapiro, a revised grading was as a result of We understand that the revised grading Plat' w developedthe regrade of m r�- for the site. concerns raised by City oding the extent f Edmonds Plde an staff proposed forthesite consisted of filling the fortvine a site. h Mesa"m block wall ' proposed e of�e planned constzuction and building a for the proposed project- Golder designed the MesaTM to Provide overall slope stability MSP wall °� design and construction recommendations for the wall are rn block contained in our May 9, 2002 design report and plan set. Z It is our understanding that City of Edmonds recommendations require that phyexisof the charTgmg the orlgine topography m slopes be left undisturbed, if Possible, to avoid Furthermore, we understand that no construction should be detrimental to the to the 1 Slope. integrity of existing slopes. While the MSE wall construction writhe hillside were stability of the slope, the changes it created in the topography o i division. The City g considered unacceptable from the standpoint of the city pAs such, we pography that proposed grading plans fit the natural topography. including the MST.; code requires ' understand that the City has requested that the original grading plan The currently proposed grad the original slograding plan Slope - wall be changed to preserve was developed in response to this request — ----.. —. �- OFFICES ACROSS ASW, AUSTRAIASIA, EUROK. NORTH AMEMCA. SO"' AMERICA �Uti/2?i02 14:05 FA.I' 425 882 5498 COLDER ASSOCIATES Z003 June 27, 2002 2 013-1685.200 t„ BACKGROUND The project site is located on a north to northwest -facing slope in Edmonds, Washington. Site access is from the south between existing residential structures located at 18101 and 18107 Sunset Way. Olympic view drive is located on the north side of the property and an open, undeveloped lot is located along the east property line. Topography on the site slopes generally down to the northeast ranging in elevation from about 260 Feet above a mean sea level (AMSL) to about 210 feet AMSL in the northeast corner of the site. Slopes z - range from about 15H:1V in the southwest third of the site to about 4HAV in the central O third of the site, and about 1.514:IV in the eastern third of the site adjacent to the i7 drainage ditch. Originally, a system consisting of two to three terraced rockeries was planned for the 17 east end of the property. Additional rockeries were planned for the east and north sides v m of the house but were not planned during initial construction. The stability of these Ma O structures was evaluated during our initial geoteehnical investigation; the results of our t rs analyses are contained in our January 6, 2002 report to A.D. Shapiro Architects. C I t Geological Characterization = m' p —q �. Golder visited the site and performed a geological characterization to assist in Cz development of the site. Our exploration program consisted of six test pits to characterize the subsurface geological conditions, and two Dynamic Cone Penetration The -n n krv; Tests (DCPT's) used to infer subsurface density and strength conditions. results of = 13 our exploration program were detailed in our letter to A.D. Shapiro architects, dated m m r January 9, 20M. In general, the site is underlain by fill of variable thickness, consisting of very loose to g (D compact silt to clayey silt with a trace of fine to coarse sand. The fill also contained minor . boulder and miscellaneous organics. The fill is Z C) } f components of gravel to size particles underlain by landslide debris, ice contact deposits and advance outwash deposits. The landslide debris, which is closest to the surface in the area of the wall, consists of very: f 't soft to firm clayey silt to silty clay with traces of fine to medium sand and silt. Other Z ror components noted in this formation are very loose to compact fine to medium sand with silt and gravel. Minor organic components were noted. The formation was generally I r mixed and fractured with considerable evidence of previous disturbance, which is ZO' t x commensurate with a landslide formation. 0 In ANALYSIS OF REVISED GRADING PLAN x Golder reviewed the current grading plan and performed a geotechnical engineering evaluation of the proposed construction. The purpose of our review was threefold: 4` "dot Associates 06e27/02 14:06 FAX 425 862 $498 GOLDER ASSOCIATES 121004 June 27,2002 3 013-1685.200 1. Determine the overall static and seismic stability of the proposed system to ensure adequate stability, and 2. Compare the stability of the currently proposed system to both the existing conditions at the site and to the originally proposed Mesa" wall scheme presented in our May 9,2002 report. 3. Compare the contours of the proposed regraded fill slope to the existing, natural slope. The revised grading plan was analyzed using the computer slope stability program SLIDE, a proprietary code developed by RocScience, Inc. Stability of the Existing Slope The results of our original slope stability modeling are presented in our Geotechnical Investigation report dated January 9,2002. The models were based on the site topographic maps provided to us by A.D. Shapira architects and on our interpreted geologic cross section presented in the report. The cross section analyzed for the slope stability modeling corresponds to Section AN in Figure 2 of our January 9,2002 geotechnical investigation report Figure 2 from this report is shown in Appendix A - Our original analysis concluded that the factor of safety of the existing slope in this area ..j was approximately 1.31. During preparation of our Mesarl, wall design report during April and May of 2002, we analyzed a second set of sections corresponding to the critical wall height of 14 feet. The critical section for our design was oriented southwest to northeast; by contrast, the section analyzed for our January = report was oriented roughly west to east. In the area of the critical wall section analyzed for our MesO design report, we found that while the slope was not steeper than the west -east section previously investigated, the vertical relief in this area was approximately 14 feet in comparison to approximately 8 feet as analyzed in our original report. The increased height of the second section analyzed had significant implications on the stability of the native slope. When the existing slope was analyzed using SLIDE at the location of the critical wall cross section, an incipient failure condition is predicted. This condition for the 2H;1V existing slope is shown in Figure 1. The SLIDE analysis predicts that the factor of safety of the overall slope in this area is approximately 1.01. Furthermore, SLIDE predicts ongoing surficial (shallow translational, rill and pulley) erosion on the exposed face. These results are in accordance with a simple, infinite slope analysis. The factor of safety of an infinite slope Lan be determined using the following equation: tan 0/ /tan a where FS is the factor of safety of the infinite slope, � is the friction angle of the soil, and a is the slope angle. For a 2H:1V slope, the average slope angle is approximately 26.5 "der ASSOCIONS Z, 0 m C m 0 0(= m 10-4 Z 0 -W am m 0 6 Fn a oi K Ca M 0, X Z Z) 9 0 m 06/27/02 14:06 FAX 425 882 5488 ,OOLDER ASSOCIATES _ I�J005 June 27, 2t102 4 013-1685.200 degrees. The landslide debris mapped during our site investigation has an estimated angle of friction of approximately 29 degrees. `thus, in the absence of water the factor of safety of the infinite slope is approximately 1.1; presence of excess water pressure in the slope due to elevated groundwater causes this value to decrease. Our field investigations during the winter of 2001 to 2002 revealed nearly saturated soil conditions and seeps in selected areas. As such, it is reasonable to assume that the factor of safety would be less than 1.1 for the infinite slope case. The slope stability model presented in z the attached prints represents a more detailed analysis of the anticipated conditions and �0 also considers the effect of groundwater. The more realistic model presented in the m attached prints predicts that failure of the slope in this area is possible. It is our opinion that the original slope stability modeling performed did not indicate this possibility due 9i to the fact that the slope section analyzed was not as high as the more critical section y currently analyzed. o m0 Stability of the Mesa' MSE Structure p O The slope stability modeling of the proposed Mesa"" wall construction is reproduced in m m the attached prints. For the originally proposed regrade, the ravine at the northeast and a z eastern sides of the site was to be filled to approximately 221 feet AMSL, and a MSE D retairung structure built to facilitate construction of a backyard area adjacent to the S ' � proposed residence at elevation 234 feet AMSL. Good quality sandy fill was to be 0.1111 imported to facilitate filling at the site; this fill was considered instrumental to improving "nn X the strength characteristics of the slope and increasing the factor of safety. The presence = of the reinforced fill zone added to the safety factor of the slope by driving the potential m m w failure plane deep into the fill zone. Our models indicated that the reinforced earth p retaining structure would be stable under both static and design seismic conditions. The c F _ results of the slope stability -modeling program are presented in more detail in our May m m - 9, 2002 design letter and are reproduced in Table 1. TABLE 1. J Slope Stability Analysis Of Mesa' MSE Structure Z Condition Factor of Safety Static Global Stability 1.66 O Desi Seismic Event Yield Acceleration O 0.32 m The results of our analysis on the reinforced earth wall configuration indicated that the factor of safety of the reinforced slope would be up to 66 percent greater than that of the unreinforced existing slope currently analyzed. Furthermore, the reinforced earth structure was predicted to have a factor of safety of 1.21 during the design seismic event; industry standard of care mandates that such a structure have a factor of safety of greater than 1.0 during such an event We concluded that the Mesa' MSE structure could provide necessary levels of support for this project. Golder Associates 08127/02, 14;0. 7 FAX 425 882 5496 GOLDER ASSOCIATES 006 June 27,2002 5 013-1685.200 IA Stability of the Proposed 2HAV Regrade Golder analyzed the factor of safety of the currently proposed regrade, a 2HAV fill operation designed for two purposes: 1. Provide added support for the existing slope and protect the proposed structure, and 2. Match as closely as possible to the existing 2H:1 V natural slopes at the site. The proposed fill operation will import similar fill to that specified for the Mes9m MSE structure, and will fill the ravine at the east and north sides of the project. However, from the toe of the proposed slope, the new fill section will be graded at 2H:IV from 221 feet AMSL to 234 feet AMSL. The new grade will reduce the usable yard space relative to the originally proposed reinforced earth structure, but will provide necessary support for the slope. The results of our analyses are shown in the attached prints. The results of our analysis are presented in Table 2. TABLE 2 Slope Stability Analysis of Currently Proposed Regrade i 1 ti The results of our analysis on the reinforced earth wall configuration indicated that the factor of safety of the reinforced slope would be up to 38 percent greater than that of the unreinforced existing slope currently analyzed. Note that the design seismic event (112 the peak ground acceleration for a 50 year recurrence interval) and the yield acceleration are equivalent in this analysis. Based on the results of our analysis, it is our opinion that the currently proposed regrade wilt not only provide sufficient support for the residence, but also will strengthen the existing slope and provide greater resistance to failure in the future. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of our analyses, we recommend that a regrade of the existing slope be completed to facilitate construction. In our opinion, the incipient failure state of the slope in certain areas beneath the proposed structure could result in a condition that endangers the structure and adjacent properties and utilities. Our analyses indicate that the safety factor of the slope can be increased to approximately 1.38 with the addition of a 2H:1V slope regrade, as currently proposed in the submitted plan set. In addition, examination of this grading plan appears to create a final grade on the slope which will Golder Associates ty Condition Faetor of S Static Globs! Stabi& } t' f,. O m cm coo 1 O O C m inJ, _Z Al Az mm ON m' z '' Z W O a n ini. 06/27/02 14:07 FAX 425 88g 5498 _ ____GO ER ASSOCIATES fd007 i June 27, 2002 6 013.1685.200 match as closely as possible to the existing 2H:IV natural slopes and will conserve as " much as possible the aesthetic nature of the existing hillside while providing necessary + support for the planned structure. J Golder Associates is pleased to present the results of our current slope stability analyses. Should you have any questions, or require additional consultation or information, please do not hesitate to call us at (425) 883.0777. We look forward to our continued ...! involvement with you on this and other projects. Sincerely, GOLDER ASSOCIATES INC. Michael Mengelt ifi �G 2 Staff Geotechnical Engineer (� David M. Cotton, P.E. Principal Geotecimical Engineer t 741 a �t Pr O rd�4 {, m �. t. c o O Q m cz , O n -4 i. mm o�,. c: Zn 1 Z O 1 n ms k ..... .. .. �_... ...�—r i ... ._..i -„� ..'.' �..� .^ � ... .. i ..--«ti �w �y 1I .�-'-•: �� .r....:vul t�w2W M� aaeY �I ®1 __ _ N t✓ ! j Shapiro/Olympic View Drive Property/WA� s )] 013-1685. 4 k, I - Static Slope Stability Amalysis I '^ t ; _ Simplified Bishop Method? i Material Properties 1 � Landslide Debris Q _ Unit Weight: 115lblft 1.007 Cohesion: 0 psf , Friction Angle: 29 degrees ( i j Older Landslide Unit Weight: 126 ib(ft3 Cohesion; 50 psf Friction Angie: 32 degrees y \\ t w j�"�: -I 1, J � � 1 tJJ J- Shapiro/Olympic View DrivaIWA U 013-1685.200 ( -' c1; Static Slope Stability Analysis Simplified Bishop Method - Block Search) e K s q. �_ Oa Material Properties Landslide Debris- � tis, Unit Weight: 116 iblft3 (f, `moo Cohesion: 0 psf 0C£ Friction Angle: 29 degrees � k Im 1� Older Slide Debris Unit Weight: 126 ibl1`13 Cohesion: 50 psf o J3i Friction Angie: 32 degrees nb - 1.659 ., Material: SM Fill Unit Weight: 120lbf143 Cohesion: 0 psf } Friction Angle: 32 degreesKr N it �7 Ni45A GoritinwGno� � t 135 0 106 - . ,--•--`--+-rT' 0 15 30 4 so 76 77Dz__.., __ law N - Shapiro/Olympic View Drive Property/W ^ i 013-1685.200 1 Static Slope Stability Analysis 1 t; Simplified Bishop Method r a Material Properties 1 Landslide Deb. Unit Weight: 115iblft3 w j Cohesion: 0 psf Friction Angle: 29 degrees o Older Landslide Debris Unit Weight: 125 IV* 1.389 Cohesion: 50 psf }F i Friction Angle: 32 degrees Material. SM Fill i; i Unit Weight: 1201bJft3 Cohesion: 0 psi Friction Angle: 32 degrees S- �: o r ku 4 t m euJ -41 -f STAt'�G 6rYa l+. ty dF l dp r s s� 21 ai r es 1 ss 71 et ss pus i (A t � A f _ Shapiro101ympic View Drive ProPerfytW IA IA j 013-1685.200 A �� 1 Seismic Slope Stability Analysis 4 1 ;Simplied Bishop Method , A-112Peak =0.16g 0'' t - Materiel Properties = Landslide Debris w . Unit Weight: 115 INK m Cohesion: 0 psf ' Friction Angle: 29 degrees Older Landslide Debris Unit Weight: 126Ib1ft3 1 e-; 0 997 Cohesion: 50 psf degrees 1 r Friction Angle. 32 imported Fill Unit Weight: 120IWO Cohesion: 0 psf Friction Angle: 32 degrees y - a yy `-'h4 'ire{ r 1y y 7 7 :. m-;-R- -, Wt4mg.5%., .. - . 4�1� ''•}'•P- . kt=1�,Y•,d,�x 5 .,.3.. r t• `,._ SE i4Mt4 KatM4S+'f aF l� _ Qtrwt�s&ra z a r2Ec, a�rox,. N i 11 21 3 06/27/02 14:04 FAT 425 882 5496 GOLDER ASSOCIATES 0001 Gelder Associates Fax tr 11dj To: Star Campbell, Cityofi£.dmonda FamtNnmher. I425-771-0221 �$iS 2it Planning Department 415 18300 NE Union Hill Road, . Tony Shapiro, AD. Shapiroi 425.778-3032 suos 2oo Architects Redmond, WA 98052-3333 1. Company: See Above Date: June 27, 2002 P Y U.SA Tel (425)w-0777 , 4` From. Nina for David Cotton e-mail: @ golder.com Fax (425) 852 6498 Z� - } Oar ref: 013-1685.200 Voice Mail: (425) 885-7648 x m: i RE: SLOPE STABILIIYMODELING RESULTS REVISED GRADING PLAN Compvetmenstve Cog SUN SET WAY DRIVE RESIDENCE EDMONDS, WASHIN GTON swvx=°n Geotechnical FaVkmaoring, Environmental O m cca Remodblion and Wasto m oO j Total pages (including saver): 12 Hard copy to follow Management c ; Emennmerrid Peme0iatiOn m Z MESSAGE EtSctca D L ; Fish and t vmb -7 Also mailed to Star Campbell, City o£Edmonds Planning Department and Tony ESA Resporsas u! 0 •n Shapiro, A.D. Shapiro Architects 6127/02. A9arinalAquati;Siotogy _ j Wasto Management mrn p WatarResourow o O R LanalagSbhg &�as(gn � z n j C>eophYsf- 1 CW EngmeariV & Construction ( A"g & Quarrying Z . 03andGasWasteMarnagernartt � c Sdand Rork bbel mils z Nuciaar Waste Management 1 )74skAssessrnant In .. E»ergytsrm4jaets T-Spormtion offs in AustM4 Carrada, Finland, Germany, Hong Kong. Hungary, Indonesia, Maly, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States The documanks) Included with this haosmissbrt am oMy for Me recipient named above and cordate piivnegedreonfidantiat inMrmation. Unauthorized discinwre, dissemination, orcopying of this transmission is strictly prohibited. a received in error. Pita&& doshoy. Questirats orprobferns wnh tMs banemtsalmr a MW be rerened Mare racepooWst at the numberp rovided above. ✓ Golder Associates Inc. ON 1' E^ " - 183DO NE Union Hill Road Suite 20D i^i7.fVD Golder MjAssodaWs , - Redmond, WA USA -0777 3333 Telephone (2- 5) 883-0777J' 1 ,^, •- '" Fox (425) 882.5498 www.goldeccom BUILDING DEPT. July 1, 2003 Our ref: 013-1685-001.000 RECEIVED Z' Mr. Anthony D. Shapiro 600 Main Street, Suite C JUL 0 3 2003 O m r Edmonds, Washington 98206 D-SHAPIRO AROH- A. t; Attention: Mr. Tony Shapiro 65 RE: GEOTECHNICAL SPECIAL INSPECTION SUMMARY LETTER FOR THE o m , SHAPIRO HOUSE,18105 SUNSET WAY EDMONDS, WASHINGTON O c' Dear Tony: m m , As requested by you, Golder Associates Inc. (Golder) provided geotechnical inspection during A� y z " placement of pin piles, keystone retaining walls, structural fill, and underground utilities. This r letter provides a summary of the geotechnical inspection that was performed by Golder as rn i required by the City of Edmonds. m following is a summary of the geotechnical inspection services provided by Golder: M in CThe • Pin Piles: Golder provided part time monitoring during installation of the 2-inch p r diameter pin piles required to support the building. Before installation began, four C - production piles were load tested to 200% of the designed load of 20,000 lbs. The load 3 to } test results indicated that load bearing capacity of the test piles was within the limits O given in the specifications. The production piles were driven to the refusal criteriay; specified in the plans. A pile location plan with depth to bearing resistance was submitted to Golder by McDowell NW Pile King, Inc. After review of the installation, data, it appears that the piles were installed in general accordance with the plans and Z specifications; y'1' Subsurface Utilities Installation: Golder provided part-time observation of installation of rn storm -drain utilities across the site. This included observation of trench backfill p i placement and density testing of backfill compaction. Our observations indicated that the storm drain utilities were installed in general accordance with the plans and m specifications; • Verification of the retaining wall installation: Golder observed, on a part-time basis, the preparation of retaining wall subgrade soils and verified that suitable bearing for support of wall loads was present. We observed that the blocks and reinforcing grids were placed in accordance with the specifications; • Verification of Structural Fill Material and Required Compaction: Golder observed placement and compaction of structural fill, which consisted of imported sand and gravel. Compaction of utility and retaining wall backfill was also observed and tested for conformance with plans and specifications, Fill observed by Golder Associates was n o Ip placed in general accordance with the plans and specifications; - OFFICES ACROSS AFRICA, ASIA, AUSTRALIA. EUROPE, NORTH AMERICA AND SOUTH AMERICA z Mr. Anthony D. Shapiro 2 July 1, 2003 013-1685-001.000 ✓ 1;. • Erosion Control — Golder provided inspection of the erosion control system during': earthwork. Erosion control measures (placing filter socks in adjacent catch basins, maintaining silt fences, and insuring that the excavation contractor maintained the City ,• Streets free of dirt) were performed in conjunction with the major onsite earthwork. 3 Golder Associates, in accordance with the approved plans and specifications, have completed all 7 j geotechnical special inspections that were required. Based on our involvement with the project, the phases of the project observed by Golder Associates (described above) were completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. { _{ Z 14 Ifyou have any questions or require further information, please contact meat (425) 883-0777. O j, m Sincerely, e GOLDER ASSOCIATES INC. N> am m o is O smin. Thomas P. Marsil,611 r } h Senior Technician a ryCwpe c y Z ;. ! 0 it `t in David M. Cotton, P.E. E q, rr , ; ! O Principal O:P1nES in mn TPM1DMCings 070101tp,t � +r O —t m i` Gilder Asscclates i !i MEMORANDUM / g Toy Sw� sz � wy 1, r' Date: February 3, 2003 " Z^ To: File From: Dave Gebert rn' CC: Duane Bowman, Noel Miller, Don Fiene, Lyle Chrisman. Danielle v Gilbert, Jeanine McConnell, Jaime Hawkins m. jl m© Subject: Meeting with Tony Shapiro and Jamie Schwartz, February 3, 2003 O 0 m O cg Duane and I met with Tony Shapiro and Jaimie Schwartz at 1:00 PM this afternoon. Meeting j had been requested by Jamie. Following topics were discussed: 7 N mm Side Sewer inspection. Jamie complained about recent side sewer inspection. He said that he had called for inspection, wasn't ready, and forgot to call to cancel. When Jaime Hawkins came rn m to do the inspection, Jamie Schwartz said that Jaime Hawkins told him he would have to check to $ m see if the reinspeetion fee would be imposed. He said that Jaime didn't get back to him to II confirm that fee was required. Then when Jamie Schwartz later called for reinspeetion it wasn't W until about 10:30 on the day requested for inspection that Danielle told him that he had to pay the reinspeetion fee first. Jamie also complained about Danielle requiring a raised (at grade) cleanout with cover at property line. Subsequent to meeting, Per Danielle, Jaime Hawkins did not have a copy of the correction Notice form we use to inform developers that they must pay the reinspeetion fee before calling vi for reinspeetion. This has now been corrected.. However, Jamie Schwartz has been building in Z Edmonds for quite some tine and should know this requirement. Also, the requirement that a 0 "cleanout with locking cast iron lanrpholc cover shall be installed at final grade at the property line... " is our standard City requirement, included in our Side Sewer Information handout. Erosion Control. Jamie and Tony expressed concern about City's Engineering inspector threatening to issue stop work order last week and issuing stop work order this morning. They also expressed concerned about angry tone on part of Engineering inspector and Storm Division crew leader. City of Edmonds j Development Services Department Engineering Division j Duane and I explained that the procedure followed by Danielle was consistent with the manner in which we deal with all developers. Duane cited another specific project example where the developer was warned of possible stop work order, then issued stop work order upon next t, violation. x? 1, After considerable discussion and review of photos taken on site this morning Tony and Jamie �. acknowledged that they need to take corrective actions and that it is their responsibility to install and maintain adequate erosion and sediment control. Duane and I emphasized that it is not up to the City to tell them how to do this. The bottom line is that the runoff from their site to the storm system must be clean. It is their responsibility to determine how to do it and to do it. Duane emphasized that maintaining proper erosion and sediment control is a very high priority to the t' City, and that neither party wants the Department of Ecology to have to come out to the site to 4; 3 investigate. m i Tony will get his engineer out to evaluate the site and establish the adequate measures to be .n taken, including a larger sediment pond.ra Both parties agreed that we must avoid showing anger and maintain a professional manner in cm m 0 dealing with these issues. O �` Jamie asked if he could now pay the $45 reinspection fee and call for erosion control inspection m m 10 E and resume work on the project. After some more discussion, it was acknowledged by Tony and had deficiencies and must do so before they Jamie that they not yet corrected the erosion control ,. call for inspection. It was emphasized that they must complete all corrections and pass inspection before they can return to work. T � ; i M m�_ pN :. O Fv:. t," +, C: (ft Z..: O, m ps; tr 600 Main Street, Suite C Edmonds, WA 98020 425.778.5400 FAX 778.3032 November 7, 2003 "Duane Bowman Director of Community Development O Edmonds, City of n 250 5th Avenue North m Edmonds, WA 98020. PER A11 i l7UN°tER Project: Sunset House, 18105 Sunset Way, Permit No: 2002-0848 , O Subject:xtension of Building Permit ) rn O 80 Dear Duane -4 K m Z As we have discussed over the past few days, this letter is being submitted with my tee for "tardiness ' the extension of the above referenced building permit , I hpolige of the oI. [his r� payment which is for the following reasons: Orn rn 1. The attached card gave me the misimpression that the renewal feewas $1'1100. if 1. _ did not finish by October, 25, 2003; Lomas unaware that the fee would double if I i rn rn did not renew prior to this date. d0 u 2, ' I had discussed with your various inspectors, {Mike Snook, Daniel, and Jeanine) % c specific tasks that had to be completed prior to final inspection. These tasks co rn included cleaning out of the catch basins, exposing the water meter hook up stair roo handrails, etc. In the weeks leading up to the deadline I had every intension'of 1 �n making the October 25,h date but due to the rain we had in the week prior and the inability to clean out the CBs,I decided to pay the extra dollars and not "rush" to .: complete these various tasks. Another reason for the delay in making the extension payment was, the shortness of Z -4 funds. As many people can attest to the costs of building yourown.house seem to 2 getaway from you; and our house, is unfortunately no exception. I was waiting for N the November draw request from which to make this payment fcom.' As it is,1 am ZO 'making this payment from my office funds since the bank draw will not be available 1 until early next week, m I appreciate your understanding on this issue and we make every effort to make our clients aware of this issue in the future. Sincerely I b tpi A rbW SIPS 7 MICROFILM n iony D Shapiro NCARB FINAL, PROJECTrArE FORM �/ DEC 3 D 2003 To: �7-1 �1 C� ENGINEERING DIVISION DATE:_1s '75�©� MEMO TO: PERMIT COORDINATOR, BUILDING DIVISION FROM: FIRE DEPARTMENT DATE " I �� �, ENGINEERING DIVISION DATE z rises n O PLANNING DIVISION DATE m " n�esaa �/i PROJECT L 7 off/ 55 -4/ cm SITE ADDRESS f��[% G7�/i%a�/C ( f110 80 PERMIT # ADB# DATE INSPECTED = M m Z z DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE INSPECTED r� az A field inspection was conducted to determine final compliance with approved plans. Final approval 2 0 denotes that there are no objections from the above signed Department to the release of o PERFORMANCE BONDS and the granting of mT O (n r GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL CD Zn i. n� kkikk%+kkka'skkW+kkk#kkM#kkk#W*k#NkkMk*KK##FKKkkkFRKhkk#M##kkk+k+kk+kkKK#k+Kkk#+IKK#k'+k#k*k+IFKK*kKKkM#Ikk" GRANT PROJECT APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS NOTED z o Copy of CONDITIONS given to owner/contractor by inspector x V z i o FAILED FINAL INSPECTION - OUTSTANDING ISSUES n m o Copy of CORRECTION NOTICE given to owner/contractor by inspector 2. 3. RE -INSPECTED OUTSTANDING ISSUES - GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL I Date Sign ocaprvl.doc.l:temp:bldg:fomtsl0/Ol RECORD OF INSPECTIONS INSPECTOR DATE APPROVED r SETBACKS . " .. FOUNDATION:. :... " Footing 3 _ Wall ....... . .......... .. j Pier/Porch .................. Retaining Wail ........ O _, } SlabInsulation ......... O " m, " { PLUMBING:... s ; iUnderground ..... s N O M 1 Rough -in ......... C p. r" . m 0.-. Commercial Final ...... C " HEATING: rn 2: . Gas Test .................... +.� - r - Gas Piping DZ r— " F I' Equipment .. Commercial Final ,. ' g 0 EXTERIOR SHEATHING M RI NAILING .......................... '' DO N - FRAMING... ........ �.. f FIRST FLOOR FRAMING .. Z .. ,, INSULATION .:........ D, t " ( Floor InsulationI - Wall Insulation .......... Z " Ceiling Insulation ....... N. i SHEETROCK NAILING ... Z O SPECIAL INSPECTION ... ITI. - MISCELLANEOUS .......... " FINAL APPROVAL FOR ..t, t '� ✓ ,yir-'�aJ OCCUPANCY ..:............... !'