20040591.pdfIVED ;�2 ";� () 1.11 0
DATE RECEI PERMIT EXPIRES
USE PERMIT
ZONE
1 NUMB
CITY OF EDMONDS ER
JOB SUITE/APT#
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION ADDRESS ( 1) _�t, '5? ,
OWNER NAMENAME OF BUSINESS
MAILING ADDRESS
CITY ZIP TELEPHONE
A?jt;l� c?,q?, c5 -7 -7/
NAME
A 4cHfTfiX�
ADDRESS
2.z-zt
CITY ZIP TELEPHONE
6t45�ir Fig Z'v
NAME An C
ADDRESS
A—V tg'�
CITY ZIP TELEPHONE
1VW9 r5V `272 7 5' 4 Z�-- Z -3 "1 - /f/
STATE LICENSE NUMBER EXPIRATIT DATE
I �
A-NVr-12C,-ft9 I LL '0 C
%1-.0
NEW
%__4
AL
RESIDENTIAL
ADDITION
E]
COMMERCIAL
REMODEL
MULTIFAMILY
REPAIR
CYDS
DEMOLISH
TANK
GARAGE
RETAINING WALL
CARPORT
ROCKERY
(TYPE OF USE, BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN
PLUMBING / MECH
COMPLIANCE OR
CHANGE OF USE
SIGN
FENCE
FT)
( X
OT14ER
FIRE SPRINKLER
FIRE ALARM
NUMBER NUMBER OF CRITICAL
OF DWELLING AREAS
D jL(]]t'j UNITS NUMBER
I +
STORIES Xift
DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE
L41—
HEAT SOURCE
PLAN CHECK NO:
GLAZING %
7, --f-
or ) —
LOT,SLOPE %
VESTED DATE
THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO
BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC
DOMAIN (CURBS. SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE
SEPARATE PERMISSION.
PERMIT APPLICATION: 160 DAYS
PERMIT LIMIT I YEAR - PROVIDED WORK IS STARTED WITHIN 180 DAYS
SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION
OAPPLICANT. ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS
IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS T14E CITY OF
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON. IfS OFFICIALS. EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND
ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE. ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF IHIS PERMIT SHALL NOi BE
DEEMED TO MODIFY. WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE
NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITY'S ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION."
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION; THAT THE INFORMATION
GIVEN IS CORRECT; AND THAT I AM THE OWNER, OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF
THE OWNER. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC-
TION; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY. NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED
IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND RCW 18.27.
SIGNATURE (OWNER 91� AGEN�)�, DATE SIGNED
OT NAME/nDIVTIO
LOT NO.
13
LID NO.
LID FEE $
TESCP Approved
11
PUBLIC FIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL
STREET MAP
RW Permit Required
13
Street Use Permit Rriq'd
inspection Required
.13
a
EXISTING PROP D
Sidawalti Required
13
REQUIRED DEDICAI ION
FT
Underground
Wiring required
METER SIZE
LINE SIZE
—7iri r F LIRE
NO. OF FIXTURES
PRV REQUIRED
1-2,
YESjK NO 13
REMARKS
OWNER/CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROL/DRAINAGE
-I co ('ki 611ziuvi 6 ftu4w�'o
N'
—
��: ) Y)A'
NEEBING RMEWED BY
(.1
FIRE REVIEWED BY
DATE
13
z
E
z
z
S
z
W
W
VARIANCE OR CUUJ
SHORELINE OR ADBN
INSPECTION
I
BOND
REO'D
I POSTED
S ONO
is
SEPA REVIEW
SIGN AREA
HEIGHT
COMPLETE EXEMPT
ALLOWED PROPOSED
PROPOS
ALLOWED ED
,
,
EXP 1-->104
LOT COVERAGE
REQUIRED SETBACKS (FT)
PROPOSED SETBACKS (Fr.)
ALLOWED PROPOSED
FRONT SIDE REAR
FRONT UR SIDE REAR 0
10 j!)
a z
'Yt e) (174 2z
PARKING
LOT AREA
DATE
PLANNING REVIEWED BY CL
REO'D I PROVIDED
7, 71
71e1_0 4
REMARKS F:'
wl�' bs.
W 0 Atj " V.-ret., ollelov V4.;?
CHECKED BY I TYP—E 0,F_P*jjT4UCTI(
! V/21
GROUP
SPECIAL INSPECTION JAREA OCCUPANT
REQUIREDXYES LOAD
REMARKS z
PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC I 08/FINAL INSPECTION REO'D B
41
7
6
Aeze'l /L
VALUATION
s 5qq, qq
Description
Plan Check
Building Permit
Plumbing
Mechanical
Grading
Engr. Review
Engr. Inspection
Fire Review
Fire Inspection
Landscapelnsp.
Recording Fee
CALL
FOR INSPECTION
(425)
771-0220
ATTENTION LA I 1;jj;j
IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL
A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTIFI-
CATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC SECTION 109
FEE Description FEE
State Surcharge 4.,
City Surcharge j 4:�2�
lei
Plan Chk. Deposit
Receipt #
Total Amt. Due #175,c,�5
Receipt ff
APPLICATION APPROVAL
This application is not a permit until signed by the
Building Oflicial or his/her Deputy: and Fees are paid, and
receipt is acknowledged in space provided.
FFICIALS-�Sl NATU7� DATE.
A
04/02 PRESS HARD -YOU ARE MAKING 5 COPIES
0
—/1 e'
ORIGINAL-FILF YFIJCW.IN-P��'
PINK -OWNER GOLD -ASSESSOR
GREEN - ACCOUNTING
I
VA
z
0
1
0
M
11 -n
0 M
C
M 0
0
10
0 C
M
Mz
JO
X
Cn
o -n
n
M M
0 _(j)
0 r_
0 M
C Cn
r, Cn
M
Z
7'
X
z
W
z
0
i
0
171
I
TT I
g;,- >
7
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE
IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
CD
PZ)
got- V
q/, 4/1 Imail'i 2% (2330)G 0 C—� (D
Ln
.01 S .0 .01
War (MIMS N Asmcos
(IYIJ
.0-.OZ
ED' ;� -9E" on -W
30 01511,
&Tvrld aiLls I ----------
Zli
-UVK.IG T)Rm
xau3l vwz,m wig
4 07W
I WtM'OK 31H V"JN CMAINO W C"W A7W 0
qw -a xmanom.h I f. I I
Woosw t.mls3vm Im
N0913N ISOCEN SaesNF%e
e9 3U:V 90UVI0N34J=3S IS
1011
en V,�
-Ar zoarliso -"flog law
llc&= 534)bm Tly I I I
sl
S310N JL3aH
ar9ol -m -8 ol
adaww:v ah J�i p T�
H;rCQA A CMVM d' I
I Gr&bmig 30 aL
c3mffuw op]
W CGMUYAV�:XG TW
raz)---
2
9
Itirlmow igooz
----------- l --------------------
V --a-
]a AV
al -- -- —n —0
#liar- C=w c
1(3ainm 91 1
1
VOR
7notcalm so
TTW i 39r4VW GL WOUS211VI IDWVCV
19
Lgra
89-1'K
_W10L
39ABACO too
F
*XD n -,4Y x 91 X Olki I
9mmL7w9 19 CRVTrr 3urdstm wi SGE
LLUMP(OW
X-J X -.9 x #A -A (Xw IV) 93M or
amVp1clorw
WD CS - Y3A-J 91 - at x #0 VSU L
.'AMWP Jxrs
Mam3w2&avlNLoc
SoloTud W
vv WA* wim cNnm
ja*9 wx
cawwr 3ft SLNXW go Wu 03TW(f
'ic lom IMAM
-,A4,my3mv I Nam
vom CH rum
dVtwc 'WIM
80.13AH.'IS
IC21M NWW gV 9N3LLVaQ447-Gd
'it La wilab
'n
6491-�(Wv
am" iTv#fcm
2U GL �Wi= Tms �6m Tw cz
C" towd C34YOD Mai
In girc orJuslaw
0wG,3w-3Ayhlml-m
"3* 3NCIP
"m vayDow I aLawlz Wm
Wl IV' WE MWWW) 20M 51) WIM
:39VH3AOJ JLOPI
UIN13,113 lyWrIL3,11mis
Wont m (mulm 3kTH m vcuxmn
ova-M(up)
UVAr-DG wD aaRm To miew cmm
-49 L9rQE OMMWO :3ZIS10-1
mmvlacwmd
7K 3mw tun WL
7mov MW V%wg IVI.L-f WAW TIW
OZ-98 7T70—L
"-so swwmmga Ts"mm
(Ccl) JMV!OM WUYdWlclDG 3NAfOGM
VOMION 3-9d toSLOM NW13N
'OK 113:)lfVd.XVl
1133.kzlus�j W&U.3.3tus
Al2 9W9 ND 03WO 31W
-us
IQV3 f V%Wc H213% aly
toga-sa(w)
gucw w a3*6& 32 lwms
9 wou_-w aw im t 7.WN
om wzpowm lm�la
wavA-Ta migm mipoi P oia#m n
lumm u JHm=,q NOUOM
mm 3ww 10W3 =
-xm
-S3.L0.,C.%Z0IlVAVZ)K3 / 9XI(T%%9
1WEAlam IA14= H9&vH:W
im NNW WduoaLm7av
43MRCW VrWt 23M
CWA WMi p C33W"WO TW=
H CaLy= W#W'Oa VI%A �Q IM
:13nuDdy
'X3 M - ='WMI
-h:01.ldTS3S3G -IV03-1
LL-MG& 127AC
*A"J ZZ - 9d3ci CSTIW Wd =
N2MWM VOCWM
� NmsmwmlmWj
'J.j LZ v aWl i IVWV�00 WOU 20
W9 37rW 4W
AM mEbvbw3 am
(kiNfAWOW N&W
*A7.7 " v WUYCNxwwd
bvwm=%L9Llm
2wdwjww/wxw3uWAWm
no-to-:w
lo-W-0 94 galwo Yam w7AI
:msaav nis
7uv—Ro5-ys3R-jA%o
�Zoul"I.X)l VDTIB GKV 13D
:VJLVG iLjafoHd
:1% V31 L
�131N
Z.
v
-4r'
acrap No
-im v GEMS -Waa irl
-UG t'9310N WUMUS I-S
900m smcning g-v,
Nrw smwraw:ocm L-V
Nrw patnu �!W-w Wnl 9-v
S-V
W-W wo-u �Rwl t-V
Ww NX'H )'" E-V
%MVA3M I:En t lHqS Z-V
%VUVA37[3 WMi I lNCt4H I-V
410
rbl,
Jp,
I,
Nnj �ufi I-c6
XRM 133ES
Lr9a a
im3i aww a3gockmw
lian" CW4" go Am
,Lr9a
gz9a
Will 8
(1w) ff im 39aw XVW
A*"mcwwrmmwvmnulw
MCI
Q70 a
3CVM 39AGAV'
=WW � ANU MU AM42-WM =WW OW
=ld
Aa.%Wls
9111F W101
aw d� 07M w mom Maid TWI "" Wmu=
wl, W10i
vwcmwvma2Tm3m&�3u sowwaaml
-A#Al=WCWJ4§49WVW�Z*WCtLGW
OFTA�
4F901 3
320WWAWX"�v ljs�Mmmmvw
09A v
941UN 7 at 324NDO VU ICBM AM CMAW3 W BM
GIs 9
v
t a 3 E mi i s i a Ai ffiao: i i �si x73
IINH3
l"d
I
A3,101fisN0111311c
V01 LZU 02 J9M JY N AW 32VWW ft.0 tlMn
3KL MW 91MM 4W MW Wf=M WA M MXM
u :N0lJLV":)lV3
JLH913H
X
hooz o z inr
(33AI303U
aw.l� . � I
IN= m1m WWW.V =0 %WSWW I
Cm=mmw m cww "" ICBM= camm
gaU*M ZPW#Wa AW VCWQW COC" aU OL
wrw=Tmlw�im -wmmurtww=mw
mWcWw=m=wTWJvm*=
mTmmW"3u,v"wft Warrvim 1
�r�p, --, ��A
� a; lo� ll,�,
"M 1%7,j 1 �-/
AM= &-.r
I
CITY OF EDMONDS
-0221
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 FAX (425) 771
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Website: www6edmondsma.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning - Building - Engikeering
C. is
June 23, 2004
James Thomas
Architectural Design Associates, Inc.
2221 Everett Ave, #201
Everett, WA 98201
RE: Request for driveway slope waiver — Peterson, 9010 178"' PI SW
Dear Mr. Thomas,
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
This letter is being sent in response to your request to exceed the maximum allowed driveway
slope of 14% for the Peterson residence located at 9010 178 th pl SW. The site plan indicates
the majority of the driveway area will have slopes ranging between 10-15%. The slope then
increases at the inner radius of the driveway to 17.5-20%.
Based on the information provided in the letter dated May 20, 2004, lowering the garage slab
elevation any further would increase the amount of grading and possibly create conflict with
the SEPA restrictions. Also, the overall look for this house and lot would not be achieved if
the garage were to be buried into the hill side. For these reasons, the proposed driveway
slopes are acceptable as long as the 17.5-20% slopes are only created at the inner radius of the
driveway. The remainder of the driveway will need to be constructed with a maximum slope
of 15%.
A driveway form inspection will be required prior to pour of the driveway. The engineering
inspector will verify that no portion of the driveway exceeds the slopes allowed by this
waiver.
Please feel free to contact me at 425-771-0220, ext. 1338 should you have any questions
regarding these requirements.
Thank you,
qJ& VE"A41
Jeanie McConnell
Engineering Technician
cc: street file
L/PC 03-176
Incorporated August 11, 1890
f- - % '- - , - . I T - I . ! - - . - T - - - -
z
0
i
0
M
M�
C
rn
0
0
0 C�
M
M z
C
o -n
n
M M
0 —C/)
0 r-
0 M
C Cn
9 Cn
Q 0
Z
;U
z
z
0
1
0
M
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
A S S 0 C I A T E S
I N C
2 211 Eve rr It A i e.$1201 Ei ere I t,W ash Ing ton 9820 1 42.5-259--0661
05-20-04
To: Jeanie McConnell and / or "City Engineer
City of Edmonds Engineering Department
Re: Proposed Peterson Residence
9010 178"' PL SW
Request for a portion of the residential Driveway Slope to be
Allowed to increase to 20%.
Plan Check # 04-041
Dear Sir and/ or Ms.,
Pursuant to the City of Edmonds Engineering's Plan Review comments dated
March 4, 2004 regarding the proposed residence for Mr. Rock Peterson and Ms. Maggie
Rose, we are requesting a driveway slope revision from the ordinary development slope
of 14% to the maximum allowed slope of 20%.
As shown on the Site Plan sheet SP- I dated 5-14-04, the inside radius of the
curving driveway reaches 20% as other portions of the drive are between 10 — 17.5%.
The Lot has a commanding view of the Sound which accounts for the high
value and cost, particularly as compared to it's relatively small size. The lot has nearly
a 25% cross slope to the view which allows a daylight basement plan to be developed
but presents significant challenges to the approach and garage, primarily in efforts to
avoid a "bunkering" into the slope.
This Firm has made efforts to avoid having the garage appear simply
4a roof on the slope" by bunkering it into this slope, only half burying the garage slab
to the elevation shown. By averaging the garage slab height with the Main Level,
stepping the floors and ceiling heights, this firm has also attempted to blend the house
into this cross slope. A simple solution to the awkward drive way would have been to
face. the garage forward and expose the garage doors to the approach. Not only would
this cause the garage to become a focal point but with the limited depth of the lot,
guest parking would have been very difficult.
In addition, the 25' height limit disallows stacking of rooms to overcome the
straight in approach to the garage and guest parking.. The high cost of the lot demands a
large home in a small envelope, hence the side approach to the parking and garage.
The only solution to this driveway slope issue, as the home is designed, would be
to bury the garage by dropping the garage slab elevation and , in our opinion, distract
from the pleasing Street View. I
We hope you will allow the driveway to reach the maximum allowed s ope at
20% for a portion of the driveway after considering the above rationale. During the
construction, we will reevaluate this relationship in an effort to farther fine tune the
finish garage slab elevation while considering the SEPA restrictions and application.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Any further questions
regarding these construction drawings can be directed to me at 425-259-0661
Sincere�y
ames Thomas
Architect / Partner
Z
0
i
0
M
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL
ASSOCIATES, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS
17311-135th Ave. NE, A-500
Woodinville, WA 98072
Tel (425) 486-1669
Fax (425) 481-2510
TO C -1 0 Y)
�Or� �:31yr� I( D4
EcIrno7d5) LJA (TS-DZD
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
DATE
FILE NO 39315L)V
ATTENTION
c im Snoo JC
RE:
IVED
9 2004
�vr' oPMENT SERVICES CTR.
z
0
A
0
M
WE ARE SENDING YOU Attached 0 Under separate cover via ("ITY
> the following items:
0 Copy of letter 0 Prints 0 Plans 0 Samples 0 Specifications
0
COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION
r-7 i e � rl (,PP-. vor�
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
0 For approval 0 Approved as submitted
For your use 0 Approved as noted
> As requested 0 Returned for corrections
0 For review and comment 0
REMARKS
C C
T )rvenow AW,us-/5-� i
COPY TO
6�
SIGNED
ILf Y�-
It enclosures are not as noted, kindly no , ulscra7(o n cise�r/77
"Y
N�ELSON GEOTECHNICAL
�NG�A ASSOCIATES5 INC.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS GEOLOGISTS
17311.135th Ave. NE. A-500
Woodinville, WA 98072 Project:
Tel (425) 486-1669
Fay (425) 481-2510 Owner: Q L v,
Location. 3 nOA3$ ,--j A
-7
Weather.
Purpose
of Visit.
FIELD REPORT
16
File No. \ 0
Date: — 0
Report No. —
Page: --L--of
By: -- C AVI
0
C I LoA vZ,,,N/k0C,
I-k\ P, f\ I Ll
............ ..... I - 'I I
e\ (At Las-:�J,
C Y\
L-Le
116 qC-03 C C\/\ n % �ok cls ic
- A r - I:At-A,,Ac- AcAeA 'S)\46)6q*
1 A A fZ \3 & I %J C i 'd 1) —
A -�nn A I -
C-A \1 e 1 Ct III!'' AV-. *L
\Oe- y f-
V1- \IIC\A AN a %-n.c A e-A <,C *�x
r-IIi - &in A -;p C- %A %kS k In ov\ �D C.
% C% r\ r-1 , k � IIIIIII c 0 ^ -k f r, L- � 0 ( \k C C % � -C 4 �
X . % e' r\ \ A r) r,, c. e., z C \11 k (, e > �- ( 0 Ae- Qa--1.2--
-C -tl \ CIL 17% Cn � V C, CLV _-
COU\8 V\0 Q C a OV 'k 8--U 5
Do:i let -
to eQc,\\j0Ltc fiI
IzAD Is C4 \3
cl 0
Attachments: SA S i
Distribution:
I I
3:
M
C
MID
0
--4 0
0 C:
-q C
MM
Mz
10-1
C —Z
C/)
0 -n
n
-4
M
M M
0 —C1)
0 r-
0 M
C C/)
9 0)
M 0
Z 17-
;U
z
0)
z
0
1
0
M
I
A w 15-ft
PIP- I
Wide Slump
Approx. 10-ft
Me Slump
W
1w
Underminwed Trrees
- - - - - - - - - -
Planned 3-foot High
Concrete Retaining Wall
Support this portion of the
residence on drilled piers
Planned Rockery
r
T'E% T
DUG -
P%
178th Place SW
(Private Road)
Storm Drain
LEGEND
TP-1 Number and Approximate
Location of Test Pit
A A! Approximate Location
of Cross-section
Property Line
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL
-----N�GA ASSOCIATES9 INC.
FIELD REPORT
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS
& GEOLOGISTS
17311-135th Ave. NE, A-500
Woodinville. WA 98072
Project:
HeNo.
Tel (425) 486-1669
Fax (425) 481-2510
Owner: tS-V-zn(VC
Date:
Location: E-A iar)r) -s I, t
Report No. 2
Weather:
Page: of
Purpose
Of Visit: C-) r-, s 4 (,,) C-� ko a Kns
C� Q By: CAtn
MQ-
z
0
i
+0 0
C C nr%e� t k) C A n r\ OCt- V C! in
n
0
M
a, r
k--) k kA
A ri.
res c *k-a r
ot r fn C In P-A C AJ &-A%n (I
M
C
C 'f\ V k
W OL- S
+C, f ke
M 0
0
--10
11A I If
0
r,
1i Ct-\ 1% C\ Ck e-+ I e
tv\ e Aa
C
J
COOS S �t
%A S Aot It 11 f-rs W 0�% t IL 0 C4-- 111 e-
3: M
M z
C
>
C/)
0
e- QV) Sc( \1 e � —�\ft C
Co n 'Z 0
Ar e J
I
X
z t-00 C a e
bet WILe. n Z.0 CJ Z I -V
M M
0 C-1)
Inc" 6ta�,Ct L
z 0 - ze, 6a C CC; e 1
\0c, 4-o. ilike-A k n -1 V,,n—
0 r-
0 M
CQJ-\�-Cr. I-e-
Ile.
V--, 0. S 6t-\\C� 06 r
16D3 OL C
C C/)
9 C0
-�o Qvicp 5 to C\ (86<,
00re Ok Ve 1�)ZLS \�C A
-lto \,n a- (e, n-6( C
M 0
Z r-
C Inc- �)n 10
7
Cc qe� 1,3
k r\ -�o -.e-x A ei-%14
I n At-, ti f: A
>
0. 5 0 1 �,3 U e +0
-tW In c jTA 0 .n L, i 1,4P 7 Li W&,,
U 5 C.60-
z
-4
i
Ca C, r e 3 t Lf ---zx
P, %),C
Do U (C� -C)OW
z
0
C, C \r) C, YZ a C \f%
4� t�-e- +1-4L
I
0
7
I
VeA S`6,CJ5 C
m
0 % L
L4 C ()'J ��C
�'k cc D(13k-
-,4 "'J � i "i
MeA,Q 1,
tv) (doc 0(
nc
Y� Q-A�
majea 6,4
t6e r\, syc-Allo, / )OVI,
Attachments:
Signed:
M
Distribution:
----�NELSON GEOTECHNICAL
NGA AssocIATES, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS
17311-135th Ave. NE, A-500
Woodinville, WA 98072 Project: LC 6 .1 �(c I .
Tel (425) 486-1669
Fax (425) 481-2510 Owner:
Location:
Weather:
Purpose
of Visit:
FIELD REPORT
File No. -s6vo LA
Date: 150 10 4
Report No 7
Page: --��—of
By: — C— 1-1 tA
VL �a A 'A -ice-, (z r, c 190,f)�La oAcgoytnro� �cq4
A ty
0 ,
A S�qW cl
AL--t cs�e
—�-1 \AeJkC S
W \ IkA
\J I " -C-f
Q A
-R l000
-2,)<LA
9� R: ( tt cA. r,
i'16Ne InAt"M Arf CX
DO:Ree--tb�—
e-
viese- at 61 e-
%-
N C- !SL8P-1,J.
k I S
0i
81 ot
f ac �)C
61.5 16
S -6'/-L
\"Oucs b'40 (C- `ioc' n
?OL)(CA
001A
Co or- cc -k-r—
�061to IA.;
0i i�� 6\e
5 �(G\o (2,A
tL4 404
Z- Y,
0 r. -svt- �(CSS\3(e-
ctqve'�r
61 th;-�
A�' Q 616#-j4\A
63 +�o t-%,s lj�eqe-
+kd- itI12
-kVc ao4cc
q QJ ey-
k1qkf-1V\4
%0
J
e, (z ( C1\ � 0- �-f A a r-+6 ( 't& Ift IN !�-- �An �e `60 H 'i �'5
n s, e C +6
t 5 ��Gce6u�c Qn V-,o Irr C, 0 0 )Db'r\Aa 0 t'
J
(a o--n. S k C k^-A 5 �-IAA (Z4 0L4C- Z f C S 0 e- -
Attachments:
Distribution:
Signed: - (f . �-
z
0
A
0
M
=i :6
M
C
M 0
0
0
0 C:
M
M Z
() --I
C —Z
Cn
0 -n
n
MITI
0 —Cn
0 r-
0 M
C C/)
?. Cn
M 0
Z
M
z
--I
M
C/)
z
0
1
0
m
- - - - - - - - - -
r 7;�
Ir", W715,
BC44 CAP
U4 "T w/ 12" MIN. CRAWk�=l _-SFACC
6 ML 7APCWM
16' COC GFtADE— BARWA Coj;CNT.
BEAM of a 14 5AM
0 MID-DEFqw
+
-4 - r
rT
-V Row"
Famm
-71
L J
--- ti'll
4. DETAL 1 YP. I
W-F
r
zc::: Ts,;--
W
ZI
W-6 r:N I
L
�IPIR O�ETI
&4 B
MD -of
LPIL& #2
L
I ILMI
-W 5 �
z
0
i
0
m
-n
0 m
c
m
0
C-)
0 C=
M
M z
c
0 -n
-n
m M
o
0
0 M
cl)
cl)
M 0
Z
z
C/)
z
0
0
V/-
GEOTECHNICAL
----�NELSON
NGA AssocIATES,
INC.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS
17,311 -1 35th Ave. NE. A-500
Woodinville. WA 98072
Project:
Tel (425) 486-1669
Fax (425) 481-2510
Owner:
bi.
Location:
Gat—Aa-Pcls XA/ A'
Weather:
e615" '5�
Purpose
of Visit:
C-0 r,% A4 L>
FIELD REPORT
HeNo.
Date: 61 1010
Report No. 3
Page: I o f
By: CA M
sk-klc 4yo6a,A 01+ 0C V,
CL(-+\U1i-%eS On \0-�- kit 5-10k t)c-k Ennf
IA I i LA -k�ac Cc r) A- i r, C
to &CAr-q% -k..e -n, C kLX— e) S1 (N
We-
ik4
(o r)*-t c, c -kn r o) c-,, 11
-7
Z()
H OL A-C4 t C. Is be,
M 0,
e- ciri C-
C s
e- -�o t
C \e\
C., n
Mk
['%I"'
I -t- Co fvs
+Ve-
4--X 4L
CLAi C, C �,d
0 C'%'S
N 40,
boirtyye "ici 61+6 1-^ -S
6Lf,
-.1
A, A 00+ a
C',
+c, lo e--
-Z -k -Td a t
u A!J
�<—,i ve -iir, C) S L) (N
0 r\ta
+vl, UJA
� 5
-to
0 - 'S
(1..-t CL-V e— c I's S 0 (C-
+VN
4.V�a
\vsrin 7-
-in, C .. \, f-A k I-1-1 U I-D V%, 00 C1 0 1 -A t4 C-,) k (a
r\ c-�e- -k-� -�6 Akk\ -7 -`Q0 C)O-
a bS4
t
Attachments:
Distribution:
Signed: (- . r-1
M
M 0
0
0
0 C:
--I C
7- M
ITIZ
0
171
M M
0 —C/)
0 r-
0 M
C: 0)
C a)
M 0
Z r-
M
z
Cf)
z
0
1
0
M
if
z
0
i
0
m
—i -n
0 M
c
M 0
0
-10
0 C:
--I K
3: M
M Z
n,
c
Cl)
0 -n
m M
0 V5
0 r-
0 M
cn
Cl)
m 0
z
X
--I
M
z
W
z
0
0
m
a
�NELSON GEOTECHNICAL
NGA AssocIATES, INC. FIELD REPORT
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS GEOLOGISTS
17311-1351h Ave. NE, A-500 Project: "Dc�LPLLP- FileNo.—,,'
Woodinville, WA 98072
Tel (425) 486-1669
Date:
Fax (425) 4BI-2510 Owner- Z�
Location: Report No.
Page: o f
Weathel --Q� �1-rl
Purpose
of Visit By:
7-
I
Distribution:
z
0
i
0
m
M
C
M
0
--10
0 C
M
M Z
C —Z
3:
0 -n
-T1
3:9
m M
0
0 m
CJ)
Cl)
M 0
Z
M
z
0)
z
0
i
0
m
z
0
Approx. 15-ft 0
Wide Slump M
55
Approx. I O-ft 0 M
rT,
Wide Slump 0
0
Iff M
M z
10'
0 -n
178th Plac
MM
TP-3 (Private R 055
0 M.
C Cn
'MiVewey 1 9 CAI
rn 0
Z
74
Hou
cl
TP-2 >
Garage z
P io
Undermined Trees
Cn
z
0
46-1
Planned 3-foot High 0
M
.,.Ioncrete Retaining Wall
Support this portion of the Planned Rockery
residence on drilled.piers
ROCX
az
�clronic rile prepared by Architectural Design Associates. !rtled "Rock Peterson and Maggie Rose." nted 1/2'CO3
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL
FIELD REPORf
-----�NGA AssocIATES,
INC.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS 8, GEOLOGISTS
17311-135th Ave. NE, A-500
File No.,Yt,
Woodinville. WA 98072
Tel (425) 486-1669
Fax 481-2510
Projec:
Ow
117)
Date:
(425)
ner.
Report No.
Location: ZZf
12-122-IS 4�-Ll
I-
W e a t h e r:
.
Page: —L—of
Purpose
of Visit:
By:
r
jP .17
A
62'
6161 --r -1",hA
z2k 5 nd 0
-# V12, I
Attachments: S
Distribution:
z
0
i
0
M
-i -n
M
C
rn
0
0
0 C
M
M Z
.0 -1
C -Z
o -n
n
M M
0
0 M
M 0
Z
z
C/)
z
0
m
tA
/*
Approx. 15-ft
:9 Wide Slump
Approx. 1 O-ft
Wide Slump
b
fu
0
Jl�-- %'�I� , - 'I.,/ '/Ie�
CL
Undermined Trees
Planned 3-foot High
-Ioncrete Retaining Wall
TP-3 (Private R
-pn.-Vewa�,
TP-2
A,, Garage
ned Rockery
Support this portion of the
residence on drilled piers
TOC-oX 7:�kwCSVIw 29Z;W.LOV7
3 RE,/ Y S?// -5
,=;eo Y w
-c*ronic rile prepared by Architectural Design Associates, Mled "Rock Peterson and Maggie Rose," dated 112CO3
z
0
4
0
M
MAYESTESTING ENGINEERS, INC.
MTE No.:
E4245
Project:
PETERSON RESIDENCE
Address:
9101 178 lh Place SW, Edmonds, WA
Permit No.:
2004-0597 (City of Edmonds)
Owner:
Brien Motors
Architect:
Architectural Design Assoc.
Engineer:
Mitchell Engineering, Inc.
Contractor:
Anderson Construction
Page 1
RECEIVED
AUG ? i
DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF
Everett Office
917-134th Street SW
Suite A- I
Everett, WA 98204
ph 425.742.9360
fax 425.745.1737
Tacoma Office
10029 S. Tacoma Way
Suite E-2
Tacoma, WA 98499
ph 253.5134.3720
fax 253.584.3707
Portland Office
7911 NE 33rd Drive
Suite 190
Portland, OR 97211
ph 503.281.7515
fax 503.281.7579
Date: 8/9/04
Weather: Sunny
Inspection: R/C
Sample(s): (4) 48"
Inspected the reinforcing steel for the 18" dia. x 20'-0" deep piles per details 3, 5/S-1 ((6) #7
verticals with #4 bands at 6-3" o.c. at the top of cage and 12" o.c. remainder, with (1) #10 center
bar). Reinforcing steel cages were found to be per plan and specifications.
Monitored the placement of 16 cubic yards of Rinker mix #1334272 (3000 psi at 28 days) poured
into the holes with the steel cages in place, and mechanically consolidated. Cast (4) 48"
cylinders for sample specimen to be lab cured for strength analysis. The contractor installed piles
#15, 14, 12, 13, 11, 10, 7, and 9. Pile #9 was poured to about 14'-0", as they ran out of concrete
for the day.
To the best of our knowledge, items inspected this date are in accordance with approved plans
and specifications. INSPECTOR: Yavita Kotomaimoce
REVIEWED BY:
79���ckerle, PI.E.
cc: Rocky Peterson -Brien Motors; Mike Mitchell -Mitchell Engineering, Inc.; Darrell Anderson -Anderson Construction-,
Bldg Dept -City of Edmonds
z
0
M
MYESTESTING ENGINEERS, INC.
A
Everett Office
917-134th Street SW
Suite A-1
Everett, WA 98204
ph 425.742.9360
fax 425.745.1737
MTE No.: E4245
Tacoma Office
10029 S. Tacoma Way
Project: PETERSON RESIDENCE
Suite E-2
lh
Address: 9101 178 Place SW, Edmonds, WA
Tacoma, WA 98499
Permit No.: 2004-0597 (City of Edmonds)
ph 253.584.3720
fax 253.584.3707
Owner: Brien Motors
Portland Office
7911 NE 33rd Drive
Architect: Architectural Design Assoc.
Suite 190
Z'
Engineer: Mitchell Engineering, Inc.
Portland, OR 97211
ph 503.281.7515
0
—4
Contractor: Anderson Construction
fax 503.281.7579
M
Page 2
Date: 8/10/04
CD
Weather: Clear
M 0
0
Inspection: Concrete Placement
0 0
Sample(s): (4) 4x8"
C
monitored placement of 17 cubic yards of Rinker M aterials mix #1334272.
Area of placement
M
M Z�
was basement level piles at SW corner of jobsite. Checked clearances before
pour and all 9 piles
C _Z
good. Tested slump and temperature for concrete, which was placed from truck chute and
>
consolidated by vibration.
U)
0 -n
To the best of our knowledge, items inspected this date are in accordance
with approved plans
_n
and specifications.
INSPECTOR:
Chris Pratt
M M
0 —C/)
0
0 M
C Cn
9 C/)
M
10
REVIEWED B
T /� �_oh:i
:im t yy G eckerle, P.E.
cc: Rocky Peterson -Brien Motors; Mike Mitchell -Mitchell Engineering, Inc.; Darrell Anderson -Anderson Construction;
Bldg Dept -City of Edmonds
k .-
MAYESTESTING ENGINEERS, INC
Everett Office
917 - 134th Street Sw
Suite A-1
Everett, WA 98204
ph 425.742.9360
CONCRETE LABORATORY TEST REPORT
fax 425.745.1737
Project Peterson Residence Project No:
E4245
Site Address: 9101 178th PI SW Issued on:
8-17-04
Off Talbot Rd
Edmonds,WA
Permit # (s):
2004-0597
Client: Anderson Construction Original:
Engineer: Mitchell Engineering, Inc. Revised: El
Contractor: Anderson Construction
FIELD DATA
(ASTM C31 and C1 72)
Air Temperature: 78 OF Actual mix Proportions:
Weather: Sunny Ingredient
Weight (per cu.yd)
Product: concrete Coarse Aggregate 3/4" 1,635.0 lbs
Supplier: Rinker Coarse Aggregate 3/8" 193.0 lbs
Ticket Number: 21488031 Fine Aggregate
1,378.0 lbs
MixDesign ID: 1334272 Water
279.0 lbs
Sample Temp. Initial Storage E trained Air Cement --Type I &
11 515.0 lbs
(ASTIVI C 1064) Temp.( STM C 1) (ASTM C231)
720 F NR %
Water / Cement Ratio: Slump (ASTIM C143) I Lmple(s) fkec—'di
-1
0.542 411 8-10-04
3000 Psi@ 28 days
Placement Location and Notes
Pile #'s 12, 14 and 15. 6 gallons water added on site.
COMPRESSION TEST RESULTS
(ASTIVI C39, C1231, and C617 when applicable)
Date Made Sample # Lab # Date Tested Age (day) Load (Ibs) Size (in) Dia (in) Surface Area
Strength (psi) Failure Code
_8
8/9 __T:::�� �73 ��o Ef 103:9�f�8V :Kx 2
F_ �RQ 0 4
_Z51]
73252 6/2004 F
8/g/ 0002 1 9T 8 x C= F
2004
io_641 0002 17i253 1 /6/2004 2=8 =_1___4 =81= F-------]
E�=A
—
— �X8 __J J=
0002 73254 1
E.AA
Remark:
inspector(s): Yavita Kotomaim Reviewed by:
Tested by: Scott J Johnson
ile erle, P.E.
Timothy G.
Branch Manager
NOTES: Failure descriptions for samples tested with neoprene pads are not required per ASTM Std.
NA = Not Applicable, S = Shear, C = Cone, CSp = Cone and Split, CSh = Cone and Shear, Col = Column FC - Field Cure NR = Not Recorded
Information in this report applies only to the actual samples tested and shall not be reproduced without the approval of Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc.
MTE Form #150. Rev 3.7-0
Z
0
0
M
--i -n
M
C
M 0
0
0
0
M
M Z
_Z
C/)
0 -n
n
M M
050
0 r-
0 M
C 0)
K Cn
M 0
Z 17-
Z
0)
Z
0
0
171
Everett Office
MAYESTESTING ENGINEERS, INC '917 - 134th Street SIV/
Suite A-1
Everett, WA 98204
ph 425.742.9360
CONCPETE LABORATORY TEST PLEPORT fax 425.745.1737
Project Peterson Residence Project No: E4245
Site Address: 9101 178th PI SW Issued on: 8-18-04
Off Talbot Rd
Edmonds,WA
Permit # (s): 2004-0597
Client: Anderson Construction Original: 7V
Engineer: Mitchell Engineering, Inc. Revised: El
Contractor: Anderson Construction
FIELD DATA
(ASTIVI C31 and C172)
Air Temperature: 89 0 F
Mix Proportions:
Weather: Clear
Product: Concrete Ingredient Weight (per cu.yd)
Supplier: Rinker ASTM #57 1,642.0 lbs
ASTM #8 194.0 lbs
Ticket Number: 21489386 Fine Aggregate 1,378.0 lbs
MixDesign ID: 1334272 Water 270.0 lbs
I Sample Temp— Initial Storage Entrained Air Cement --Type I & 11 513.0 lbs
[(ASTIVI C1064) Temp. (ASTIVI C31)1 (ASTIVI C231)
80OF NR %
lWater / Cement Ratio: (ASTIVI C1 43) 11 ISample(s) Rec'd I
L L�
0.526 5-1/2" 8-11-04 lRequired Strength ft): 4000 Psi @ 78 days
1PIacernent Location and Notes I
9 rebar caged piles at southwest corner of basement. Sampled at 9 of 17 cubic yards placed.
COMPRESSION TEST RESULTS
(ASTM C39, C1231, and C617 when applicable)
Date Made Sample # Lab # Date Tested Age (day) Load (Ibs) Size (in) Dia (in) Surface Area Strength (psi) Failure Code
E3fl
8/10/2004 0003 173341 8/17/2004 7 1 50�4 x 8 _0::] NA
I— - -----------
_T7
E::O:QO3 3342 9/7/2004 28 _7::::�4 x�8
8 --- 47 0003' 9/7/2004 L 28 1__77=4 x '811
0/200 1 —
73343F NA
L8/10/2004 0003 173344
J 10/5/�004 1 56
Remark:
Inspector(s): Chris Pratt
Tested by: Scott J Johnson Reviewed by: .41-
T i Fwm7oh�y G. B c rle, P.E.
Branch Manager
NOTES: Failure descriptions for samples tested with neoprene pads are not required per ASTM Std.
* NA = Not Applicable, S = Shear, C = Cone, CSp = Cone and Split, CSh = Cone and Shear, Col = Column FC - Field Cure NR = Not Recorded
Information in this report applies only to the actual samples tested and shall not be reproduced without the approval of Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc.
MTE Form#150, Rev 3,7-0
Z
0
M
-,.m
FROM Darrell Anderson
FAX NO. 425 355 0269
Sep. 01 2004 06:15AM
P2
I �2UO,� db:bb jod4Jb4U2'-,
MEIRON
PaGE 02
z
0
m
—10,61
_,"M
M;
MAYESTESTING ENGINEERS, INC.
Everett Office
917-134th Street SW
Suite A-1
Everett, WA 98204
ph 425.742.9360
lax 425.745.1737
October 15, 2004 RECEIVED
Tacoma Office
10029 S. Tacoma Way
Suite E-2
OCT 19 2004
Tacoma, WA 98499
City of Edmonds Building Department
ph 253.584.3720
fax 253.584.3707
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR.
121 5th Avenue N CITY OF E�1.;mp)S
Portland Office
Edmonds, WA 98020-3146
7911 NE 33rd Drive
Suite 190
Portland, OR 97211
z
ph 503.281.7515
0
Attn.: Jeannine Graff
fax 503.281.7579
0
M
Re: Pots on Residence FUNIAL LETTER
=55
9101 178 th Place SW PERMIT # 2004-1411
US
Edmonds, WA
0 M
C:
MTE Project No. E4245
M 0.
0
__10
0
Gentlemen,
C:
q
This is to inform you that registered special inspections have been comp leted for this project as
M M
z
per our reports, copies of which have been sent to you.
C
> z
To the best of our knowledge, all work inspected was either performed in accordance
with, or
corrected to conform to, the city app roved drawings, or engineer approved changes.
0 MI
n
Special inspection was provided for:
M M
Cl)
0-
r
Reinforced Concrete
0 M
C cl),
Cn
M
�zo
We trust that this provides you with the information which you require. Should you
have any
questions give us a call.
;U
Sincerely,
z
MAYES TESTING ENGINEERS, INC.
,-7
z
0
M
Timothy G . Beckerle, P.E.
Branch Manager
Cc: Darrell Anderson -Anderson Construction
Rocky Peterson -Brien Motors
Mike Mitchell -Mitchell Engineering, Inc.
TGB:rsm
BUILDING
MAYESTESTING ENGINEERS, INC
SEP'21
2004
Everett Office
917 - 134th Street SW
Suite A-1
Everett, WA 98204
ph 425.742.9360
CONCRETE LABORATORY TEST REPORT
fax 425.745.1737
Project
Peterson Residence
Project No:
E4245
Site Address:
9101 178th PI SW
Issued on:
9-7-04
Off Talbot Rd
Edmonds,WA
Permit # (s):
2004-0597
Client:
Anderson Construction
Original: R
Engineer:
Mitchell Engineering, Inc.
Revised: E]
Contractor:
Anderson Construction
FIELD DATA
(ASTM C31 and C1 72)
Air Temperature:
78 OF
Actual
Mix Proportions:
Weather:
Sunny
Ingredient
Weight (per cu.yd)
Product:
Concrete
Coarse Aggregate 3/4"
1,635.0
lbs
Supplier:
Rinker
Coarse Aggregate 3/8"
193.0
lbs
Ticket Number:
21488031
Fine Aggregate
1,378.0
lbs
MixDesign ID:
1334272
Water
279.0
lbs
FS -am D e p.
initial Storage
. ed Air
1 Entrain
I Cement --Type I & 11
515.0
lbs
(ASTIVI C1 064) Temp. (A TIVI C31) I (ASTM C231)
0
720 F NR %
F [_§__1 [Sample(s) ffecd'i
0.542 411 8-10-04 [ff e—q—dirr—ed _Stre_ngffi__(�`cY.'1 3000 Psi @ 28 days
i—Place—ment Location —and Notes
Pile #'s 12, 14 and 15. 6 gallons water added on site.
COMPRESSION TEST RESULTS
(ASTM C39, C1231, and C617 when applicable)
Date Made Sample # Lab # Date Tested Age (day) Load (Ibs) Size (in) Dia (in) Surface Area Strength (psi) Failure Code
D�qLl 6/2-00 7 F _:�9780_1_ [4T
. 1] Ei�] 1 1
&IQ� NA
8/9/2004 1 0002 4550 =NA
-0--] 00 32=52 —6/6F2004
2-0 4 _�7::1=50 4 x 8 :Eol GE5T I
80Q -1 [A 7P- F__A
6[2004 28 �::1[4.001 [ 2:7�f
F_ A79 iTo -o 4 �2531 —.1 - _�7=: -1 _T
FI- ___
60�50 [4:.�:61 D:2:�ff I [:�4LQJ =N&::l
_[:L002 73Z5 /6/2004
=8/9t?:Q� �4
Remark:
Inspector(s): Yavita Kotomaim
Beckerle, P.E.
Tested by: Scott J Johnson Reviewed by:
im
franch Manager
NOTES: Failure descriptions for samples tested with neoprene pads are not required per ASTM Std.
* NA = Not Applicable, S = Shear, C = Cone, CSp = Cone and Split, CSh = Cone and Shear, Col = Column FC - Field Cure NR = Not Recorded
Information in this report applies only to the actual samples tested and shall not be reproduced without the approval of Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc.
MTE Form #150, Rev 3, 7-0
Z
0
1
0
M
--1 -n
M
C
M
0
__10
0 C
M
ITI Z
C _Z
0 -n
n
M M
0 5)
0 17-
0 IT!
C 0)
9 0)
M 0
Z
Z
C/)
Z
0
0
ITI
MAYESTESTING ENGINEERS, INC BU1101HIG
5 EP 2 1 2004
CONCRETE LABORATORY TEST REPORT
Project Peterson Residence Project No: E4245
Site Address: 9101 178th PI SW Issued on: 9-9-04
Off Talbot Rd
Edmonds,WA
Everett Office
917 - 134th Street SW
Suite A-1
Everett, WA 98204
pit 425.742.9360
fax 425,745.1737
Permit (s): 2004-0597
Client: Anderson Construction Original: Fv�
Engineer: Mitchell Engineering, Inc. Revised: E]
Z
0
Contractor: Anderson Construction
__4
FIELD DATA
0
M
(ASTM C31 and C172)
Air Temperature: 89 0 F Actual Mix Proportions:
Cl) -1
Weather: Clear
Ingredient Weight (per cu.yd)
0 M
C
Product: Concrete
ASTM #57 1,642.0 lbs
0
M 0
-q
Supplier: Rinker 194.0 lbs
ASTM #8
0
0 C:
Ticket Number: 21489386 Fine Aggregate 1,378.0 lbs
--i K
X M
MixDesign ID: 1334272 Water 270.0 lbs
M Z
g)
Sample Temp. Initial Storage Cernent--Type I & 11 513.0 lbs
a-, Entrained Air
T 31)
[(ASTIVI C1064) Temp. (As M C (ASTIVI C231)
80OF NR %
0)
Slump (ASTIVI [q�m�ple(s) Rec'd
0 _n
_n
0.526 5-1/2" 8-11-04 lRequired St 4000 psi@ 28 days
x
M M
Placement Location and Notes
0 (n
0 r-
9 rebar caged piles at southwest corner of basement. Sampled at 9 of 17 cubic yards placed.
0 M
C: Cn
9 Cn
COMPRESSION TEST RESULTS
M 0
Z
(ASTM C39, C1231, and C617 when applicable)
Date Made Sample # Lab # Date Tested Age (day) Load (Ibs) Size (in) Dia (in) Surface Area Strength (ps 1) Failure Code
—6003 Ei::4 8/1 4F 47150 370
8/10—F 33_ _00 77:11— L L__1 2.6!q F 1
12= A
8/16/26647-6-6-63F733421 9/7/2004 1 FA730P__1 4=0 0 =.57
Z
8/10/2004 0003 1733431 9/7/2004 af�J[J�q6k:] 4 X-P-1K0001 F I _h[A
--I
r3344 1 9/7/2004 8
F8/tO/2004 53 �:1=66�26=0 =4x 8 F
ch
Remark:
Z
0
Inspector(s): Chris Pratt
i
0
Tested by: Scott J Johnson Reviewed by:
17111
Tim Beckerle, P.E.
im4
6ranch Manager
NOTES: Failure descriptions for samples tested with neoprene pads are not required per ASTM Std.
NA = Not Applicable, S = Shear, C = Cone, CSp = Cone and Split, CSh = Cone and Shear, Cot = Column FC - Field Cure NR = Not Recorded
Information in this report applies only to the actual samples tested and shall not be reproduced without the approval of Mayes Testing Engineers, Inc.
MTE Form # 150, Rev 3, 7.0
p
Height Calculation Worksheet
tj
Address:
Date:
hWector(s):
1. DatumPoint:
2. Datum Point Elevation:
z
M
3. Average Grade: C�
71
.4. Maximum Elevation Allowed:� Oj�±SL(averag6 &ade):+'I*25""— t4,6 �)s
C M
5. Reference Point Elevation Shot to House:
M 00
j 0
0
elevation) +0, , , 0)
(datum — (grade to transit level Une'shot to h
- ouse)40-7jS�-
M M
z
6. Measurements from line shot onto house to r6of ridge:
C z
>
Cl)
-n
M M
0 M
0)
W
M 0
z
z
Total:
z
M
7. Actual Elevation: 6-7 -S4 (reference point elevation) + (measurements
from#6)= lab, g 4'
Conclusion:
(actual) is gire (al
jk(p. 0 �ater(tless ty4n lowed); therefore the house is/
is not over the height requiremenTper ECDC 16.20.30 requirements
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL
-'- �NG�A ASSOCIATES9 INC.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS
17311-135th Ave. NE, A-500
Woodinville, WA 98072
Tel (425) 486-1669
Fax (425) 481-25
TO Iv
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL/
M
> WE ARE SENDING YOU ;2"kitached 0 Under separate cover via the following items:
-n
0 Copy of letter 0 Prints 0 Plans 0 Samples 0 Specifications
0 M
C
rn
COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION
Alf-
1-7
0
0 C
M
M z
C: z
3:
0 -n
-n
3:9
M M
0 17-
0 M
Cl)
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked
below:
0
z
0 For approval
0 Approved as submitted
X
,-r-��O r your use
[I Approved as noted
RECF-9VED
3:
>
> C3 As requested
C1 Returned for corrections
z
--I
El For review and comment
0
IAN 18 2004
x
C/)
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR.
z
Cln'OF EDMONDS
0
REMARK5
jl-� " DY-T L1--
COPY TO
SIGNED:
it enciosures art not as noted, kincity notify us at once.
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL
AssociATE:s, INC.
�NGA �GF-OTF-CHNICALENGINEF-RS&GF-OLOGISTS
17311 — 13e Avenue NE, A-500 Snohomish County (425) 337-1669
Woodinville, WA 98072 Wenatchee/Chelan (509) 784-2756
(425) 486-1669 e t,425) FaX48 1-25 10
January 13, 2005
Mr. Rock Peterson
5200 Evergreen Way
Everett, Washington 98203
Special Inspection Final Letter
Peterson Residence
Edmonds, Washington
NGA File No. 388 1 B04
Dear Mr. Peterson:
This letter summarizes our geotechnical construction monitoring services at your residence project
located on Lot 13 in the Vista Del Mar development in Edmonds, Washington. We have previously
prepared a geotechnical engineering report for the site titled, "Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation - Lot
13 Vista Del Mar - Edmonds, Washington," dated March 16, 2004, and a plan review letter dated July,
12, 2004. We were retained to provide part-time monitoring and consultation services during the
earthwork phase of construction as requested by the City of Edmonds in a fax sent to us on July 20, 2004,
titled, "City of Edmonds - Special Inspection and Testing Agreement."
We monitored earthwork activities at the project on a part-time basis from August 2, 2004 through
September 7, 2004. Our observations and conclusions were documented in Field Reports 1 through 5,
which have been submitted to you and the City of Edmonds. The special inspection items indicated by
the City include: Excavation and Grading, Pile Installation, Placement and Fill Compaction, Soil Bearing
Verification, Footing Drain Installation, General Site Monitoring, and a final letter.
The building area was cut to tile planned footing subgrade elevation. The cuts exposed fill material
underlain by gray, silty sand with gravel. After the excavation was completed, the contractor installed 15,
20-inch diameter drilled piers, each with an embedment of approximately 20 feet below the existing, grade
0
along the western side of the residence footprint. Gray, fine to mediurn sand with trace sand and gravel
was encountered during the drilling of the piers. We evaluated the stability of the open holes with visual
Sp�ecial Inspection Final Letter
Peterson Residence
January 13, 2005
NGA File No. 388 1 B04
Page 2
observation and by. probing the bottom of the holes. We did not observe sloughing or seeping water along
sidewalls of the holes after excavation. It is our opinion that the piers were installed in general
accordance with our recommendations and meet the effective setback requirements from the face of the
adjacent slope.
The remainder of the residence foundation excavations exposed brownish -gray, silty fine to medium sand
with gravel. We evaluated the spread footing foundation subgrade areas by probing, with a 1/2-inch
Z'
diameter probe rod under moderate pressure. The soil was penetrated approximately 1/2 to 2 inches. We
interpreted the subgrade to be dense and that it would provide adequate support for the planned loads. All
footing subgrades were excavated into native material. No fill was placed in footing areas.
We also observed that the footing drains were installed around the perimeter of the poured concrete
footings. The drains consisted of 4-inch perforated PVC pipe, which were then surrounded with washed
rock. The top of the washed rock was covered with AmmoFab Type-R filter fabric. Due to final drain
elevations with respect to the existing stormwater drainage system, the footing drains could not be
directed into the storm system. The contractor placed the footing drain outlet in the northwestern side of
the house and daylighted it above the top of the slope. We recommended that the drain outlet be no closer
than 10 feet to the top of the slope. We also recommended that the footing drains be completely sealed to
prevent surface water from seeping into the footing drains, and also that roof drains not be connected to
the footing drains. The contractor informed us that the outlet for the drain is approximately 20 feet away
from the edge of the slope and the footing drains have been sealed with on -site material.
Based on our part-time observations it is our opinion that the earthwork activities at this site, including
drilled pier installation, building foundation subgrade preparation, footing drain installation and general
earthwork activities were completed in general accordance with our recommendations and with contract
plans and specifications.
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC,
Sp6cial Inspection Final Letter
j:j
Peterson Residence
January 13, 2005
NGA File No. 388 1 B04
Page 3
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. We consider our services for this
roject completed, unless you specifically contact us for additional work. Please contact us if you have
p
any questions regarding this letter or require further information.
Sincerely,
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Co
0 M
C:
0 1117 M 0,
0 C"
M Z
5 A
>
-VAC'
0 -n-
-n
Khaled M. Shawish, PE M M
Principal
r
0
M
C Cn:
M 0:
z
BD:KMS:Iam 0
0
One Copy Submitted M
cc: Darrell Anderson — Anderson Construction (One Copy)
Michael Snook — City of Edmonds (One Copy)
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC,
.1.11 -S 9 lz�
C. 1
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 ' FAX (425) 771-0221
Websile: www.dedmondsma.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning - Building - Engineering
March 25, 2005
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
Mr. Rock Peterson and Ms. Maggie Rose
c/o Brien Motors
5200 Evergreen Way
Everett, WA 98203
Re: Landscaping at 9010 — 178th place SW
Dear Mr. Peterson and Ms. Rose:
This letter is in regards to tile Landscape Plan submitted to the City of Edmonds for 9010
— 178"' Place SW, building permit BP-2004-0591, and you note Pen -nit # 04-041. 1 went
to tile site today to see if the landscaping had already been done, and saw that it had not
been done yet.
I also came while the trees were being topped for the view. While maple trees can be
pruned without serious damage being done to them, the same is not true of topping
evergreen trees. I informed Mark at the site that tile fir tree should not be topped unless
permission had been granted from the City.
No cover sheet came with the Landscape Plan, but I assume you are submitting it in
response to the requirement on tile building permit to submit a vegetation management
plan. This was required based on the recommendations frorn the Nelson Geotechnical
Associates Inc. Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation dated March 16, 2004. On page 6
of that report they state "Future vegetation management on the slope should be the subject
of a specific evaluation and a plan approved by tile city." On page 7 regarding slope
protection they state "Specifically, we recommend that the setback area and top of slope
not be disturbed or modified through placement or any fill or removal of the existing
vegetation." On the saine page they state "Disturbed areas should be replanted with
vegetation at the end of construction."
Although we realize some of the site has been disturbed for the construction of tile house,
I and for the sewer line placement, your Landscape Plan extends beyond the disturbed area
into tile vegetation in the buffer and setback that should not be removed. Since your
Incorporated August 11, 1890
I;istpr Citv - Hekinan. Janan
Z!
0
0
M
q =6
W
0
C
M 0
0
0
0 C
M
MZ,
C —Z
X
0 -n
n
-1
M M
0 —0)
0
0 M
C 0)
C 0)
M 0�
Z
Z
--4
X
0)
Z
0
1
0
M
E, -
M�
Mr. Peterson and Ms. Rose
March 25, 2005
Page 2
geotechnical engineer has recommended against this, we cannot approve your proposal as
submitted.
You also do not show some of the established trees on the Landscape Plan. No tree
cutting is allowed in the slope or buffer.
I had Jeanie McConnell in the Engineering Division review the Landscape Plan. She
reviewed your building permit and is familiar with the utility easement running through
the lot. She has stated that the Engineering Division does not mind plantings over an
easement, and they don't mind pavers that can be easily moved by utility crews and
replacedby the owners. However, they cannot allow concrete steps and landings, as
appear to be shown coming out of the northwest comer of the house. She would also like
to see more detail on the paver patios and rock steps to determine if it is something the
utility crews could easily move out of the way.
Based on how it is worded in the geotechnical report, the vegetation management plan
that is required is for vegetation on the slope. Based on what I saw on Thursday, it seems
you intend to top the maple trees to preserve your view, so you would want to include that
in the vegetation management plan. Otherwise, to comply with the geotechnical report, I
anticipate that the vegetation management plan would state that native vegetation on the
slope and in the buffer will be retained, and replanted in the event of any localized slides.
If you have any questions, please call me at (425) 771-0220, extension 1330.
Sincerely,
Med—Gruwell
Senior Planner
cc: Jeanie McConnell
TE
Kf WIT COUN F
Meg Gruwell April 25, 2005
Senior Planner
City of Edmonds
th
Re: Landscaping plan at 9010 — 178 Place SW
z
Dear Ms Gruwell:
0
M
This letter is in response to your letter sent to me dated March 25, 2005. Our perm it
number is BP-2004-0591. Our vegetation man agement plan is outlined in a
co 3:
OM
memorandum from Nelson Geotechtnical dated April 22, 2005. (enclosed) I hope this is
C
adequate for your approval.
M 0
0
-10
0
Also enclosed is a revised landscape plan showing the existing trees inside the landscape
ci
M
area, and pavers outside the NW comer of the house. Also the rock steps are a typical 2-
M z
man weight classification, and the pavers are 8 and 12 inch bricks. Some detail of the
C Z
pattern of the pavers is also enclosed.
CD
Thank you for your prompt attention, as our "move -in" day is fast approaching. Please
0 -n
contact me with any questions or concerns.
M M
Sincerely,
0 Vi
0 r-
0M
C CD
Roc Peterson REVISION
M co
M0
Z
827 Aloha Street
APR P. 6 2005
X
Edmonds, Wa. 98020
X
425-308-3510 (cel) BUILDING DEPARTMENT
ciTY OF EDMONDS
>
z
425-353-7171 ext.321 (office)
oneprice99@aol.com
CD
z
0
M
NG
17311 — 1351h Avenue NE, A-500
Woodinville, WA 98072
(425) 486-1669 9 (425) Fax 481-2510
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
April 22, 2005
Rock Peterson
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL
ASSOCIATES9 INC.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS
Snohomish County (425) 337-1669
Wenatr-hee/Cheian (509) 784-2756
Khaled Shawish, P.E.
Bala Dodoye-Alali
MEMORANDUM
RE: Peterson Residence
Top of Slope Landscaping Issue
NGA File No. 388 1 B04
REVISION
APR 2 6 2005
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF EDMONDS
You have requested that we provide our opinion and recommendations regarding the proposed
landscaping near the top of the steep slope behind your residence located at 9010-178"' Place SW in
Edmonds. We have previously prepared a geotechnical report for the project dated March 16, 2004 titled
"Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation — Lot 13 Vista Del Mar — Edmonds, Washington. For our use in
preparing this memorandum, you have provided us with a letter from the City of Edmonds, dated March
25, 2005, regarding your proposed landscaping plan and their concern with removing vegetation within
the slope buffer and setback area as discussed in our report.
In the previous report, we interpreted the steep slope to be relatively stable, but recommended that the
setback area and the top of slope not be modified through the placement of fill or removal of vegetation.
C: ?-_
You desire to remove the blackberry bushes and replant this area with low -growing vegetation.
We visited the site on Thursday, April 14 1h , 2005 to observe the existing conditions. On the southwestern
portion of the top of slope, we observed blackberry bushes and other ground cover. A stump was also
observed from a tree that appeared to have been recently cut. The remaining, top of slope is covered with
C)
grasses and scattered areas of blackberry bushes. Several fir trees are also located at the top of the slope.
Z�
0
0
M
-4 -n
0 M
C
M
0
0
0 C:
M
M z
CD
0 _n
n
M M
0
0
0 M
C Cn
C Cn
M 0
Z
z
C1)
z
0
1
0
M
Memorandum
Peterson Residence
Top of Steep Slope Landscaping Issue
April 22, 2005
NGA File No. 388 1 B04
p age 2
For landscaping improvements in this area, we recommend that the blackberry bushes be trimmed by
hand. The roots should not be pulled out of the ground. Low-cyrowing, deep-rooted plants should be
planted within the area of the trimmed blackberry bushes. The soil at the top of the slope should only be
minimally dis turbed by the additional planting and foot traffic.
z
0
We recommend that the stump observed along the top of the slope remain in place and not be removed,
0
M,
and also that any trees, bran ches, or other debris that might exist on the slope be removed.
We trust this memorandum should satisfy your needs at this time. Please co ntact us if you have any
C
M 0
0
questions concerning this memorandum or if you require additional services.
0 0
C:
M
M Z
C _Z
>
M
M
CD
0-
r
0 M
C (Z)
KID
M O�
Z
z
z
GARY HAAKENSON
CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 FAX (425) 771-0221
Website: www.d.edmondsma,us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning- Building* Engineering
July 7, 2004
Rock Peterson
5200 Evergreen Way
Everett, WA 98203
Re: Building Permit Application: 04-041
Site Address: 9010 178" PI SW
Expiration Date: August 2, 2004
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the above referenced permit application
will expire on August 2, 2004. According to Edmonds Community Development Code
Chapter 19.00.005(A)(5), applications are only valid for a period of 180 days unless a
written request for extension is submitted to the Building Official. If an application
or a total period
extension is granted it may only be extended for an additional 180 days f
of one year. If you need an extension on the subject permit application you must submit
a request in writing to the Building Official prior to plan review expiration.
Please be advised, once the permit application expires, the application materials and plans
will be destroyed within ten working days. Also, if the project is pursued in the future a
new permit application and new fees will be required.
-0220.
if you have any questions, please feel free to call our offices at 425-771
—SinceiLely,
y Readwin
e t Coo i
rmit Coordinator
Cc: File
L\Temp\DST's\M aster Letters\App Due to expire 10/21/00
Incorporated August 11, 1890
Li -I.:- - -
07/12/2004 16:57
14254812510
NELSON GEOIECHNICAL
PAGE 02/04
NELS*ON GEOTECHNICAL
AssociATFs, INC.
--- �NG A
GF-OTF-CHNICAL FENGINEERS & GF-OLOGISTS
17311 — 1350 Avenue NE. A-500 Snohomlsh County (425) 337-1689
Woodlnvllle,WA 98072
(425)486-1669 - (4Z6)Fzx481-2510 WenatcheelChelan (509) 784-2766
July 12,2004
Mr. Rock Peterson
Brien Motors REC iVED
5200 Evergreen Way
Everett, Washington 98203 JUL 13 2004
Plan Review Letter PERMIT COUNTER
Peterson Residence
Edmonds, Washinitoxt
Plan Check #04-041
NGA File No. 388104
Dear Mr. Peterson:
This letter presents the results of our geotechnical engineering review of the plans for your residence
planned on Lot 13 of the Vista Del Mar development, as requested by the City of Edmonds.
We have previously prepared a geotccbnical engineering rrport for this site titled, "Geotechnical
ngincering Evaluation — Lot 13 Vista Del Mar — Edmonds, Washington," dated March 16, 2004. For our
use in preparing this Ictter, you have provided us with review cox=cnts by the City of Edmonds. We have
also been provided with plans titled , "Rock Peterson & Maggie Rose, Lot 13, Vista Del Mar, City of
Edmonds, Snobornish County," prepared by Architectural Design Associates, Inc., dated May 14, 2004. The
plans included sheets SP-1, A-1 through A-9, S-1 and TJ1. You have requested that we respond to the
review comments, review geotechnical aspects of the provided plans, and prepare this letter documenting
our opinions regarding plan compliance with our previous report.
We reviewed the provided plans as well as our previous report. We found that the plans are in general
compliance with the recommendation-, provided in the report. 'Me specific issues raised by the City include
the following:
./R-1a. Soil bearing pressum of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) as recorded in the report has been used in
the dcsign. Some footing lines are 16 inches wide. The structure is a two-story residence. Based on the
z
0
M
11"QL. UJI tj"
Plan Review Letter
Peterson Residence
Edmonds, Washington
July 12, 2004
Plan Check #04-041
NGA File No. 388104
Page 2
1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC), a 16-inch footing should be adequate for a* two-story building. The
2,000 psf soil beari ng capacity is adequatc; for a 16-inch footing.
R-1b. A capacity of 40 kips was provided in the geotechnical report for 16-inch piJes. 'Fhe piles shown on
z
the plans are 18-inch piles, and,5hould provide at least 40kips of axial capacity, if installed as reconvneuded
0
in the report.
R-1c. The piles will be a iuiiiirnum of 20 feet deep and will terminate in haxd silt The piles will utilize a
Cl) --I
large pot tion of their capacity from cad bearing in, the bard silt, and therefore the grouping issue Is minor.
M
C
rn 0
Pile grouping is more of an issue in purely frictional piles.
0
00
R-1d. Based on the plans, it appears that runoff from roof and footing drains will be collected into an
M
M z
existing storm drainage system and will not be allowed to reach the slope. This is consistent with the report.
C: _Z
R-le, It is our understanding that we will be involved in the construction monitoring phase of this project
3:
and will be retained to observe footing subgrades, pile installation, and drainage systems.
0 -n
_n
3:9
M
M
0
0
0 M
C M
0-0-0
9 C/)
M 0
Z
z
X�
co
z
0
M
NELSON GEOTFCHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC,
07/1*2/�IUIJ4 1b:bt 142b4U1.2b1U HtLbUH ULUILUMNIUAL ULii U4
'Plaa) Review Letter
Peterson Residence
F-dmonds, Washington
July 12, 2004
Plan Chcck #04-041
NGA File No. 388104
Page 3
It has been a pleasure to provide service to you oil this pToject. Please contact as if you have any questions
reg arding this letter or require further information.
Sincerely,
z
0
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC-
0,
M
--i -n
Bala Dodoye-Alah
55
M
C
Project Geologist
M a
f�i
0,
0
0C
..A
X M
M Z�
ID
C Z
> --J
R.,
F-
Jrwo,
0 -n
-n
My.
M M
-
co
0
0 M
C
Khaled M. Shawish, PF,
9 M
M 0
Principal
z
BD-XMS:1axn
One Copy Subinitted
z
cc- James Thomas —Architectural Design (Two Copies)
z
0
0.
M
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC-
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
EXEMPTION
Project Location: 9010 — 178"' Place SW, Edmonds
Applicants: Rock Peterson and Maggie Rose
Project Description: Construction of a 4,057 square foot single-family residence with attached
548 square foot garage. Project also involves total grading of
approximately 42t cubic yards of material.
See Attached: R1 Site Plan 10 Elevation
Plan Check Number: PC-04-041
Date Issued: July 8, 2004
SEPA Determination: Determination of Nonsignificance, appeal period expires May 18, 2004
Issued by: Meg Gruwell, Senior Planner " A'e I
The abo ve project has been detennined to be exempt from the requirement to obtain a Shoreline
Substantial Development Permit under WAC 173-27-040(2)(g), which states:
Construction on shorelands by an owner, lessee or contract purchaser of a single-family
residence for their own use or for the use of their family, which residence does not exceed
a height of thirty-five feet above average grade level and which meets all requirements of
the state agency or local government having jurisdiction thereof. "Single-family
residence" means a detached dwelling designed for and occupied by one family including
those structures and developments within a contiguous ownership which are a non-nal
appurtenance. An "appurtenance" is necessarily connected to the use and enjoyment of a
single-family residence and is located landward of the ordinary high water mark and the
perimeter of a wetland. On a state-wide basis, non-nal appurtenances include a garage;
deck; driveway; utilities; fences; installation of a septic tank and drainfield and grading
which does not exceed two hundred,fifty cubic yards and which does not involve
placement of fill in any wetland or waterward of the ordinary high water mark. Local
circumstances may dictate additional interpretations of nonnal appurtenances which shall
be set forth and regulated within the applicable master program. Construction authorized
under this exemption shall be located landward of the ordinary high water mark;
Robert Fritzen, Shoreline Planner with the Department of Ecology, has stated that this has been
interpreted to include additions and remodels to existing single-family houses, provided that they
are normal appurtenances to single-family dwellings.
M
M 0
0
__10
0 C
M
M Z
C
0 -n
n
m M
0
0 M
C Cn
9 Cn
Q 0
0
m
This exemption is not being sent to the Department of Ecology because it appears to City staff
that it is not subject to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers sectio n 10 permit under the Rivers and
Harbors Act of 1899 (the provisions of section 10 of the River s and Harbors Act generally apply
to any project occurring on or over navigable waters. Specific applicability information should
be obtained from the Corps of Engineers.) Nor d oes the project appear to City staff to require a
section 404 permit under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972. (The provisions of
section 404 of the Federal Water 'Pollution Control Act generally apply to any project which may
involve discharge of dredge or fill material to any water or wetland area. Specific applic ability
z
information should be obtained from the Corps of Engineers.) Robert Fritzen has advised us that
0
p er WAC 173-27-050, no letter is required to be sent to Department of Ecology.
M
While this letter provides an exemption from the need to obtain a Shoreline Substantial
Development Pen -nit from the City of Edmonds, it does not evaluate whether other State and
Ui
Federal approvals are required and leaves that responsibility to the applicants.
M
M 0
0
—10
cc: Street file for 9010 — 178 Ih Place SW
0 C
Shoreline Permit Exemption File
M
M z
10
C
0)
-n
M M
0
0 M
V)
M'
M 0.
Z
7-1
M
z
CA
Z
0
0
M
Pap 2 of 2
I
cr-
wW
C=
2z
>
C=
�> 0
L"
U) UJ
I-- u-
Z 0
Iu
LLI
2>-
�w
LLI
311 A 33b
loop
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE
IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
CE
414, or
ilz
Lit) o47
3clis
LN084
PROJE T DATA: CUT AND FILL C.4LLIll-% I '�N-
l`R0JEc-r-rF-A,%f- A�3� �0'2;;fl'5"�MZZ
595-4 rl-4I"4
rim PLACZ 54 car FOR pwc� - �* C.T.
FOR Mrc.11 4 =m Cy.
wracs, al's"TOW ca ftw CFK I'M pf.� - V CT.
A TOTAL = - fiSA CY.
M.W." =JLL 5:1.44= W.:x Tau
WTI,
WAIT. 11*4wcok
A A A AIM T�Al. A�Afl= sc<rlsw C-
*Cncm 0 foud-W IT mcfflK
Aplawrecaft3l. ce XAA" A EAST Z#0 SECTIOG 0 b"LL TE ve-SIED 04 SIM
all CAN" � ul
MORIMT � voldo' mO 5ECr.04 M KV" I EAST. AoRff SASID � WAS RePOW ITT
4p-SOo GECTECIA FL-- PO 35=4
JOSMAC! C.P-CFIATICh OCCATIS IF-3)
lo flo"M ATC64LL pU � 3.r zT BCP*CA WO AC'"
oz. be_�n� W- zollr- FWVG 0EPnA TILL CB-50 coo Dc-lATION
W"NAWMKE LOTSfZr- G�XM 20)6'SF- C0010d %E "A --.6rW M X�
locorpa � -AM 2 V.08 I to Q tAC E (AVEA" I SLAa At UV�J
=:= C�"Tx LOT COVERAGE: 5PACE APIE.Al
0=2-N 110 L I 0&-r To —r" L � COMONETTE - �� � MILG�. PAD 1=31 U ALL VOW 54ALL O"ONTI TO Tle
rtvAzIsow�XL FolOkf CO&REI, PCF01 S6151' jer
arVeATIONS OF jgLSON C&CrECA
FeAot pcqc�' elif -av-vr. W�L PU NI2 3111�
3613 5F. AMUoMl ASM ASW-ED
.o.q.w[los ii�T InPoilm FM W
rf� a AvsOcilts W- AS FOADIA.
10"BAOINT cxuc TOTAL I rLts. a.. 2or . W CY. 1A '13 Cy�
wl � OLTM4 �11 SAM 'A ADOF 400 sp. 4"clicemir-w.. v Fry.
A04LWITO, " WAIT I PLIS . If A V . Z' CT.
:'Ma'AwIm 15% I= C&4KzcA x1cio er STRETIRES TOUL " r-T.
AT sr000cr &rm4ncm To cwA*wA A FLL
SHEETINDEX 4� SIC Cz---.ArA ptsavlelNts OF c4cren"CAL
5P4 Wz PLAot is Rtam'm
MONT 8 FdA0R affAnO�d EIGHTCALCULATI N:
�l WcA`T a LEFT Minod MAI
A
115
LON."I'LOOK" F sr-
1.3 $clPcAIo3d PLAPI a 113 W50
C 065 2
p 4221 TF�O
—J// i g_ 4.0:5
-"AZI4 lecnochs - TOTAL AIS - A . C!675 U111VTY rIA r
�l CZ4ER.11. MOTU A CETALS AVERACA GoTA= . CATS 9125
34 5MC%A%L14M5 ICETILS MAX RIDGE - CIA's abs
fj CETAL 54E!Y5 awl ohm
A f -er6JT
A ZLL 0006'an �c SHEET NOTES
co� to (to r ALL �.Mo - �-� .—I — -- - 06
A P'F.3 %0"T; a M me .10 Cor YE aOTtT;4dC!L VG&H-WS WICK
"trd srCM cso;� 545" 'e-50, cza4ptm . !35= oc
FU w 011doNII4 I ArqL M 3004
tit,
� r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
\0
.. 14
br "r y
4 % %
Egg
%
A
;7
4-4, , .6 c
LrIWA I rlg�d A
r-clz
A
L
N.
Y-Wruxw.c>r A
IT
I allw*45 CALL Z
It c
aELOII IT A T f
(MV K EAHMV)
UZ A rA 21
n.-4*0 It I
I
A
A
EL cts u
va f am WZ L
oYG tL $At
23066
71
't:o
SITE PLAN
Z4
V qr�' A
rM sp-1
A 11 F�-
I IV r r sw
A ;C� of 2
= c—
'b`4 I "M
KInTIP-Po 1P THE DOW ENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE
IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
X�
rx�
(X)
rX1
®r
----- -- -----
------- ------ --
(XI
7
.0-3 ='Mt
NOULVA919 a(HS MOM
r-q (x)
i-g ? G-v SL=a-e ZE
------ ----
......... ".
1,Nilllllll. 1111111 it .....
livillivilligingli, ' '
it[ WAS
ii,ilmiltlinigiin
-it is
milli
milli lilt WEE
lilt IIII lilt 11 1 'IM
lilt In, !Is III
411113 111111 11 gill Ill
lilt: Ill Ill 11 91
Ills an i I Al ill
Fail -12 --45f.
N23HaA
11 ell N",
-EB 2
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT
-FOR
T9,
VISTA DEL MAR SUBDIVISION
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
CD
0 M
c
M Z
cn
on
m m
0 M
C cl)
mo
COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
NELSONA��
CONSU.LTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS
AL SCIENTISTS
AND ENVIRONMENT
MAIN OFFICE 13424 Chain Lake Road 101 East Marine View Drive
17311-135th Ave. N.E., NA500 Monroe, WA 98272 Orondo, WA 98843
Woodinville, WA 9BO72 (206) 788-5612 - 794-4332 (509) 784-2756
(206) 486-1669 - FAX 481-2510
April 26, 1993
Mr. George P. Kairez
P.O. Box 3197
Lynnwood, Washington 98046
Rcferciice: Geotcclinical Evaluntion
Vista DO Mar
Ednionds, Washington
NCAFilcNo- 101593
Dear Mr. Kaircz:
INTRODUCTION
This report prcscnts the results of 011" gcotccillic,-Il illvestigation for your proposed Vista DO M, r
subdivision in Edmonds. The site is located north of Oly"'Pic View Drive and includes six lots adjacent to
the top of a steep slope. The City of Edmoilds has requested a gcotecli'lical 111,-113,sis of the slope stability
below these lots, as required by their ordinance ECDC Chaptcr 20.15B. We have also bccn requested to
provide gcotcclinical rcconinicildations for gcneral site development.
The plaiuicd subdivision consists of 15 lots oil a . parcel just less than 7 acres is size. The . planned main
access road will cross a shallow swalc which will require sonic ri . 11 and potentially a soil reinforced or
gcogrid retaining wall. The geogrid wall would be designed by others. Rockcrics may also be used to face
native cuts in the northern portion of tile site. We understand that tile plat d ctciltioll systc," is 'lot Yet
designed. Due to the proximity of tile site to tile PL19ct Somid, detention may not be ncccssary.
The scope of our services includes performance of 17 exploratory backlioe (test) pits, surficial
observations, physical mcasuring and mapping of tile slope area, and review of available geologic, stability
and coastal drift inaps . of the area. Using this data \\,c have developed building setbacks and
recominciidatioi . is for site dcvclol)lllciit above the slope, including residential and' roadway colistructioll,
colll1llc1ld, - surcd prorilcs and
'lliolls. nlc loc-
cartliWork parametcrs and drainage rc atiolls,of tile test pits, . ni . ca
Z
0
m
75,
Cl)
m
C
M 0
0
0
0 C
m
m Z
—Z
3:
0)
0 -n
-n
3:
m M
5)
0 r-
0 m
C C/)
M 0,
Z
Z
0)
Z
0
1
0
�m
NOTICE' -IF THE DO bUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE
IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
_j Uj
c/) 06
Lu Lt)
cc
Lu Lu
Lu
cf) Lu
c/)
Lu
�Ez
Lu
UJ
cr
cl)
uj
I
April 26, 1993
Vista Del Mar
NCA File No. 10 1593
Page 2
other observed conditions arc showli oil the cllclosed Site Plan, Figure 2 and Profiles A through F, Figures
3 through 7.
SITE CONDITIONS
General
The site consists of about 6.83 acres lying north of olyllipic View Drive, west of Talbot Road and along
tile top of slope above the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks in Edillonds, Washington. The site
currently supports a large residence that exists oil planned Lot 9 and a smaller house located oil planned
Lot 11. The current access to these structures is all asphalt drive that extends from Olympic View Drive
and crosses the wcstcm portions of tile planned lots 1, 6 and 10.
The portion of the site adjacent to Oly"'Pic View Drive slopes gently to moderately down to the west with a
gentle slope to tile north. A swale starts ill tile vicinity of the western portion of Lots 2 and 3 ). We expect
that a fill and reinforced soil wall will be required ror the road fill in this swalc- Thc northern portion of tile
site slopes gently down to the northwest to the top of a steel) slope. The northeastern portion, adjacent to
tile steep slope, slopes down to the north. This slope call be roljowcd off-sitc down to tile railroad grade.
Lot 15 is located oil a parcel that will have access froin a private road that connects to Talbot Road. This
portion of tile site has gentle to inoderatc slopes to the northwest.
The top of slope is sljowll oil tile Site Plan, as surveyed by Lovcll-Saucr1and. This top of slope line is ill
Our opinion considered relatively stable. We state this, in that sonic tillics tile top of slope call be undercut
and considered to be expected to fail within a short period of tinic. We adjust the top of slope line to
accon-unodatc this condition. We did not observe any i I indcrcutting or jillillillent slope failures oil this slope.
Below this top line, the slope was measured to range from about 45 to 53 degrees. The Burlington
Northern, Railroad tracks were constructed along the toe of tile slope many years ago. The construction of
the railroad bed included construction of a large rock scawall along tile outboard side. This seawall and
track extends to the north and South from the property, along the shoreline. The cross-scctions showing tile
A
measured profiles and geologic conditions logged oil tile bluff, arc shown oil Figures 3 through 7.
sanitary scwcr line is located along tile top of slope. Tile sewer line is also shown oil the Site Plan.
Vegetation in the portion of tile site adjacent to Olympic View Drive consists of large evergreen trees with a
dense undergrowth. The developed portion or tile site is mainly c . ovcrcd witli grass and occasional
evergreen trees and shrubs. A stand of evergreen trees is located along a portion of the top of tile steel)
slope. Vegetation on tile steel) slope consists of brush, berry vines, ivy, and scattered deciduous trees. The
trees have all apparent age of about 20 to 30 ycarsA4-."
NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
z
0
4
0
IT!
--I -n
m
C
m
0
0
m
m z
z
X
o -n
n
m M
0
0 m
C 0)
im C0
M 0
z
3:
z
X
z
0
M.
t
r
April 26, 1993
Vista DO Mar
NCA File No. 10 1593
Page 3
Geologic Conditions
Landfonus within this rcgion comprise j systcril of glacially sculptured fcaturcs, which have bccil exposed
by post -glacial crosion. Locally, tile terrain of this area is intcrprctcd to have bccil glacially niodificd, and
to have bccn placed during tile latest glaciation of tile PL]gct Lowland -area. Glacial ice is thought to have
last occupicd the rcgion during tile late picistocelle cl)ocll, sollic 11,000 to 13,000 years before present.
The latest glacial advance over tile area is referred to as tile Vashon Stadc of tile Fraser Glaciation, of
Nvilicil tile geologic materials oil site arc believed composed.
The general stratigraphy within this area is observed and found to consist of advance glacial outwash,
ngrccilicnt with the geologic conditions described oil
referred to as Esperance Sand (QvA/Qe). This is in
tile geologic illaps of this area. Advance outwash in this area is composed of a (Iciise, file sand, with trace
silt and occasional gravel, which has bccil overridden and compactcd by tile Nvcight of the thick glacial ice.
The advance sands Nvcrc observed in all of the test pits, and -also oil exposures oil the steel) slope. It is 'lot
uncommon for more gravely and/or silty zoncs to occur in these deposits, as was indicatcd in TP-13
through TP- 16.
Site Explonitions, Mal)Pi"Lol and Subsurface Conditions
The stccp slope gconictry Nvas nicasurcd using a hand licid iliclinometcr and clotli tape. This data Nvas uscd
to develop the scctiol's of tile slope. We also performed shallow hand explorations oil the slope and
observed exposures whcrc prcsciit. Tile subsurface conditions Nvcre explored oil the site using a tractor
mounted backhoc. A rcl)rcsciitative of this firin Nvas present during the cxploratioils and maintaincd
coiltirillous logs of tile explorations. The locations of the test pits are shown ill the Site Plan oil Figure 2.
The logs of the explorations are prescnicd oil Figures 10 through 13.
Subsurface conditions found on -site consisted illostly of a f ine to mcdium sand that varied from -loose at the
surfacc, to dcnsc Nvith depth. Occasional gravelly layers as Nvell as fine to coarse sand were also observed.
We also found an occasional silt Icils in the deposit, lioNvevcr, these lcnscs did not appear to be continuous.
Test Pit 17, located oil tile south portion of Lot 1, cilcouiltercd 11.5 feet of fill. We understand that this rill
Nvas associated Nvith road constniction oil Olympic View Drive.
Hydi-ologic Conditimis
No obvious evidciice of ground Nvatcr, I)crcllcd grOLM&Nvater or outcropping ground Nvater along tile slopes
Nvas observed within this site. The advance outwasil is coilsidcrcd fairly permeable and water is c.xl)cctcd
NELSON- COUVRETTE &ASSOCIATES, INC.
z
0
1
0
m
April 26, 1993
Vista Del Mar
NCA File No. 101593
Page 4
to infiltrate vertically in the deposit until ail underlying silt layer is cricouritcrcd. We did not observe a
continuous silt layer in our test pits or oil tile bluff face. The site appears to be well drained, with tile
advance sands apparently b.cing of sufficient thickness and extent to minimize any surface water or ground
water seepage oil tile steep Slope f-Icc,
SENSITIVE AREA EVALUATION
scisinic I-I.mird
The Puget Sound region is classified as a Zone 3 by tile Uniform Building Code. Scismic considcratio s
for this type of site includes liquefaction potential and attenuation of ground motions by soft soil deposits.
The liquefacti011 potential is highest for loose sand and silty saild with a high ground water table.
Scismically sensitive conditions were not observed in this site.
Erosion Hazard
The erosion hazard criteria used for determination of affected areas include soil type, slope gradient,
vegetation cover, and ground Nvatcr conditions. The erosion sensitivity is related to vegetative cover and the
specific surface soil types (group classification), which are related to the underlying geologic soil units.
The following table outlines the erosion hazard for the on-sitc soils that have been stripped of vegetation.
The soils have been classified in accordance witil tile Soil Conservation Service (SCS) classification sYstc"l
and have been grouped with respect to the corresponding geologic unit.
Gcoloptic-Unit
Surface Soil
15%
16-39%
>40%
QvA/Qc
Everett
Mcd
High
Fligh
Landslide 1-jazard/Slope Stability
Slope stability was observed below tile sub�icct lots of Vista Del Mar area to be onlY Mini'llally active in
backwasting, primarily through weathering and surface sloughing of tile slop6 through normal erosional
processes. This is in agrccnicnt with the conditions discussed for these slopes on the coastal zone stability
map. Local occurrences of shallow surface slotighing can be seen across the bluff slope face, as indicated
by older surface scarps. Tllcsc scarps generally indicate a few inclics of sloughing per event. The slope
has a uniformly common slope angle ranging from about 45 to 50 degrees. This is what would be cxpcctcd
for the dense underlying sand. As the surface of tile sand loosens, sliallow sloughing events will occur after
which vegetation will rc-cstablish. The date of the trees oil tile slope indicate that�thc slope face has been
relatively stable for tile past 20 to 30 ycars. Vegetation oil the slope does not indicate large.scale land
sliding characteristics, but does indicate minor localized soil creep. The Cut adJaccht to the Burlington
NELSON-COUVRETTE &ASSOCIATES, INC.
Z
0
m
April 26, 1993
Vista Dcl Kir
NCA File No. 10 1593
Page 5
Northern Railroad tracks did not show any signs of backwasting which is common where seepage occurs
near the tracks at other locations oil the Poget Sound. Local c1caning of tile slope t0c just "PslOPc Of tile
tracks has created sonic surface sloughage, but is minor in extent.
-tcrill slope stability. Where tile
The occurrence of local. debris along the top of slope is of concern to long
debris occurs, an increase in tile potential for surface slides and disturbance to tile slope integrity does
exist.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Genei-al
in general, we conclude tilat the site is suitable for the planned residential dcvclopmcilt, provided that tile
guideline rccommendations and I precautions presented herein arc followed. From a geologic nnd
gcotccluiical standpoint, the area above the top of bluff slope appears stable and should be capable of
supporting the planned dcvcloi)lllcllt. The underlying sand deposits have niodcratcly high strength and . is
considered stable with respect to decl) scated landslides or slope failurcs. Surficial sloughing Ind erosion
can occur, however, we did not observe evidence of large scale backwasting of tile slope in recent history.
The sand deposits should provide a good subgi-ndc for support of tile structure foundations. Adcquatc
building setbacks from the top of slope "line" arc considered appropriate to reduce the risk of future effects
to the dcvclopiiiciit from bluff recession for a rcnsoilabic lifc-spail.
The slopes across tile bluff within this development have receded over the past centuries due to slope
erosion and surface land sliding processes. This process has bccii-sigilificalitlY slowed by the constniction
of tile BNRR tracks and scawall. The processes that Occur at present should be cxpcctcd to persist at their
current rate. Presently, it is our opinion that the backwasting rate within this slope area is 6n tile order of
less that one inch per year (cumulativc) in the worst case. Developnicrit related improvemcnIs such as site
drainage control systems, carthwork control and slope protection should Icssen the impact of perchcd water
outflow, and jilay slo\v the rate of backwasting to linlost nil. These improvements arc commonly
performcd -ind should be expected for this project. Residence foundations placed into the native sands also
aid in reducing the effects of backwasting oil structure dcvclopnlcnt.
We rcconinicrid that any delciltion facility be lincd and designed such that it cannot introduce grouildwatcr
into tile hillsidc. It would be I)rcfcr.ible to use the direct discharge into.tllc sound and . not store \\,,ltcr oil site
if possible.
NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
L
z
0
i
0
m
-1 -n
m
M 0
0
0
0 C:
M
M Z
10-4
C —Z
X
Cn
0 -11
n
m M
0
0
omt
C Cn
,r
. CD
M 0
Z
W
z
--I
X
co
z
0
i
0
m
April 26, 1993
Vista DO Mir
N CA File No. 101593
Page 6
The extent of tile fill in tile area of Test Pit 17 is not known. We expect that it c-xtcllds -110,19 tile South
portion of Lot I and portions of Lots 3 and 4. FOUllda1i011S ill these areas shoul(l emend through tile fill.
We recommend that Nvc be retained to observe foundation excavations ill these -areas to determine if bearing
soils are exposed.
Building Setbacks
z
0
Uncertainties related to building along steel) slopes, and in particular unstable or actively backwasting
0
slopes, typically addressed by the use of building setbacks. The purpose or the setback is to establish a
are
"buffer zone" between the dwelling areas and the slope margin so that ample room is allowed for normal
slope regression or if a slope failure Nvcrc to o ccur, the likelihood of dwelling involvement would be
M
C
minimized. In a gcncr al sense, the greater tile setback, the lower the risk. From a geological standpoint,
M 0
0
--40
the setback dimension is usually based oil the slope's PhYsicll characteristics, e.g., slope height, surface
0 C
angle, material cornposition, hydrology, ctc. 0 ther factors such as historical slope activity, rate of
—49
m m
m z
regression, type and desired life span of tile development arc'important considerations as Nvell.
z
>
Based upon our explorations, slope cvakli-ltion and observations, Nve recommend a ii building
X
Ui
0 -n
setback of 25 feet for all structures fr 0111 tile top of Slope. Pro tcction of tile setback and stccp slope areas
.n
should be performed as required by the Cit, of Edmonds. Specifically, Nvc recommend that the setback
m M
area not be used for placement or storage of fill materials, including "temporary" excavation spoils froill
0
building -area preparation and excavation. Any d cvcjopnlcilt or cricroachnimit into tile setback areas should
0 m
C Cn
be evaluated by a spcc ific geotechnical evaluation and report. Reductions in setback areas are possible, but
9 Cn
M 0
Z r-
only with tile additional gcotcchnical investigation. it should be understood that the closer disturbance and
development of the structurc is to the slope, the morc risk there is of future distress.
X
TI)
>
z
Scicctivc tllillllillg�or topping of trees should not be a problem. Cutting of trees located within the setback
-nied, but ccrtail��)rccautions should bc-madc. % r ollillicil at
and along tile tqp-e�Fslopc call be perfoi 1p fV 0
/4 -y V Cj,( tN//,J IV ej -f 0 PAr
z
0
'F/10
tile root bundlc/sturnp of fellcd trees be left in place." Pruned material4and debris should be removed from
the area, and not allowed over tile slope. Additional dL)1111)illg Of SOH, sod, clippings or other matter over the
m
slope is not rcconunended.
SITE PREPA'RATION AND GRADING
cenel-11
-Site preparation and grading Nvill consist of stripping the roadway alignments of the tipper topsoil and
organic laden soils. Based oil tile conditions observed in our explorations, Nve expect a stripping depth oil
NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
April 26, 1993
Vista DO Mir
NCA File No. 10 1593
Page 7
the order of 6 to 12 inches. Local areas may require additional stripping, partiCUlarly in areas of existing
fill. 'flic underlying soils arc considered marginally moist'urc scnsftivc and should be capable of being
worked shortly ancr periods of wet weather. if tile site is worked during wet conditions, additional
stripping depth may be required, as the tipper topsoil has a higher sill content.
Geogrid Will
A gcogrid wall consists of a rcinforced'soil ,lass with a suitable facing, such as a rockcry. 'nic soil jilass is
reinforced with gcogrids and essentially stands by itself. The face of the wall is typically covered to reduce
crosion. Typical coverings consist of rockcrics or precast coilcrctc blocks. The fill in the reinforced illass
aced in horizontal layers as tile fill is placed.
is placed and compacted as structural fill. The gcogrid is pl
acing should be placed as
The grid should be stretched SLICII that it is laught prior to placing the fill. The fi
the gcogrid wall is constrtictcd. Tile length of tile grid and the vertical spacing is determined by tile wall
designer. Areas to receive a gcogrid wall should be prepared as outlined below in the subgradc preparation
section.
We expect that the on-sitc soils will be used for the gcogrid fill. For thesc soils compictcd as outlined
below, we recommend using a value of 35 degrees for the nilgic of internal friction. This would apply to
both the soil in the grid and tile soil being retained by the system. Foundation bearing prcsstirc: is a function
- n allowable
of the width of the grid, which is a functioll of tile height of the wall. We recommend using .1
bearing prcssurc of 4000 pounds per square foot (psf) in design. If a higher valuc is needed, wc should be
requested to review the final wall gcollictf)'.
subomde Pi-eparation
Preparation of areas to receive structural fill should includc stripping of all topsoil down *to firm nativc
bcari . ng soils. Aftcr stripping, the areas to receive fill should be thoroughly compacted with a large steel
-yielding condition. Any areas that have noted weaving
dnim compactor, or equivalent, to a densc ilon
under the compaction equipment should be repaired. Repairs may consist of additional compaction or
-is that arc Nvet may require a blanket of spalls or
ovcrexcavation and replacement with structural fill. Arc,
soilic other material prior to placing fill, in order to achieve a suitable base for compaction. This should be
evaluated at the tinic of site preparation.
Fill Placement
Following subgradc preparation, placement of the stnictural fill may proceed, All backfilling should be
accomplished in 6 to 8 inch thick uniform lifts. Each lift should be spread evenly and be thorOUghly
NELSON- COUVRETTE &ASSOCIATES, INC.
z
0
4
0
m
=i 9
I
1A
L'
April 26, 1993
Vista Dcl Mar
NCA File No. 10 1593
Page 8
compactcd prior to placcinent of subscqucnt lifts. Wd rccomilicild that the fill bc compactcd to a mininium
relative col"Pactioll of 95 perccnt of its illaximuni dry density for all structural fill underlying all building
areas, and within 2 feet of pavement subgradc. Maximum dry dcnsity ill this report rcfcrs to that dcnsity as
dctcrmincd by the ASTM D-1557 compaction test proccdurc. We recommend tilat the fill be compacted to
a mininium of 90 percent, Nvilh more than 2 feet bcilcath sidewalks and pavcnicnt subgrades. 'File moisture
colltcllt of the soils to be compactcd should be within about 2 percent of Optill'11.1111, so that a readily
compactabic condition exists. It may be ricccssary to ovcrexcav * atc and rcmovc wet soils ill cases Nvlicre
drying to a compactablc condition is not feasible. All compaction should be accomplishcd by equipment of
a type and size sufficient to attain tile desired degree of compnction.
Common Fills
Fills used for landscaping (comnloll Fills) which are not sciticiliclit scllsitivc should be sloped no steeper
than 31-1: IV. It is prcsunlcd that such yard area fills will be compriscd of stripping spoils or othcr poorer
qjlality site fill materials, and Nvill contain a sparse to moderate quantity of File organic debris. Common
fills should be placed ill I to 2 foot lifts (loose mcasurc) and be noi ninally compacted using available
spreading cqllii)lllcllt. Coillilloll fills should be thoroughly coillpactcd along slope faccs, and be gradcd so
that coilccntratcd slope surface crosion or other unstable conditions arc avoided.
FOUNDATIONS
Structure foundations should be placed within the native sand deposits, expected to occur two to till -cc feet
below grade. Any loose or disturbed soil ill foundatio . n excavations should be' rcnlovcd or rccompactcd
pr�ior to placing concrete. We recommend that foundations have a minimuill burial depth of IS inclics and
have minimum widths of 14 and 18 inches for continuous and isolated footings, respectively. For
foundations founded as outlined, %ve rccoilmicild using ill allowable soil bcaring capacity. of 2500 p6linds
per square foot (psO. I-lighcr bcaring capacities are appropriate for specific applications and should be
rcvicNvcd at tile tinic of design. Tile above allowable bcaring pressure call be ilicrcascd by onc-third when
considering tcmporary loads such -is wind or scismic conditions. setticiliclit is C*.xl)cctcd to occur as tile
load is applied and should be ncgligibic.
Foundations ill the -area of the fill should cxtciid down to native soils. This call be necomplislicd by deeper
Control Density Fill, or piers. Tile type of tile
stcm Nvalls, structural fill pads that extend to the native soils,
foundations uscd will depcild oil the structure type, location, elevation of foundation and contractor
pi-cfermce. We recommend that additional geotcclinical studics be performcd for tile area around Lot I
Nvlicrc tile deep fill Nvas found. Tlicsc studics could include cxplorations prior to (Icsig, . 1, or at the very least
NELSON- CO UVRETTE &ASSOCIATES, INC.
z
0
A
0
m
Cn
m
C
m
0
0
0
m
m z
C z
0 -n
n
m M
00—)
0
0 m
0)
M 0
Z
;10
M
z
z
0
0
m
April 26, 1993
Vista Dcl Mir
NCA File No. 10 1593
Page 9
oil site monitoring to deternlinc if tile foundation system extends through tile fill. We would be available to
discuss foundation options at tile tinic of lot development.
-ations
ability Considet
Drainage and St.
7 Of great importance to tile long-term backwasting for tile bluff is tile cxistin.g surface and near-surfacc
water control, and erosion.protcction. Adequate drainage protection should be provided around tile
building and development areas. We rccollinicnd tile use of foundation and roof drain systems that cillpty
-outcd independently until there is a minimum of
into a proper storin water system. These drains should be i
I foot of vertical fall below foundation elevation before tile tic in. We understand that the stom vater
-th
system will be routed down -in casement to tile noi and not over the steel) slope.
We do not recommend that storm water be detained in a detention facility tilat would allow infiltration into
-c' t
the subsurface soils. This could increase groundwater in localized areas and could ci atc local ins ability
along tile slope.
Also of importance is tile maintcnancc of tile cNisting slope stability of tile top of slope and slope areas.
Erosion protection for exposed soil areas could be increased through placement of jutc liciting,
hydrosccding and/or vegetation planting. Any exposed soils oil tile steel) slope will erode due to normal
erosion processes. Native vegetation will eventually protect these areas, but could be aided through
A Do 17101yku.
planting. Also, we recommend that nbA oosc vegetation or spoils should be placed oil tile slopes.
Additional'Notes -k and drainage control phases of development, . be observed and
We suggest that observation of the c,-irtll\%,oi
erosion control
d approved by us. This should include setback, foundation placement, drainage and
measures.
USE OF THIS REPORT AND WARRANTY
We have prepared this report for use by Mr. George Kaircz and his agents for their use in planning and
L preliminary design of this project. The data and report should be provided to prospective contractors for
their bidding and estimating purposes, but our report conclusions and interpretations should not be
Lconstrued as a warranty of subgrade conditions.
-vices related to construction sarcty precautions, and our
The scope of our work does not include sci
recommendations are not intended to direct the contractors' methods, tcchniqucs, sequences or procedures,
LNELSON- COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
z
0
i
0
m
--i -n
m
C
m 0
0
0
0
M
M z
C —Z
0 71
71
0
0 m
C C/),
C 0)
M 0
Z
;U
z
X
Cn
z
0
i
0
m
April 26, 1993
Vista Del Mar
NCA File No. 101593
Page 10
onsidcration in dcsi n. Thcrc; arc possible variations in
except as specifically describcd in our report for c
L% subsurface conditions. We recommend that project planning include contingencies in budget and scl1cdulc,
-oni thosc dcscribed in this report.
should areas be found with conditions that vary Fi
Within the limitations of scope, sclicdulc and budget for our work, Nvc warrant that our work has bccn done
-illy accepted practices followed in this arca at the time this report was prepared.
in accordance with gcncr.
No other conditions, expressed or implied should be understood.
Thank you for the opportunity to be of scrvicc. If you have any questions, or if we may be of further
assistance, feel free to call on us at any time.
Sincerely,
NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
David L. Nelson, PG
Professional Engineering Geologist
P. C
WAS
t
202 6
PIS
Fl�xPIRES
Charles P. Couvratc, PE
Gcotcclinical Engineer
1.4
cc: Lovc1l-Saucrland & Associatcs, Inc.
NELSON-COUVRETTE &'ASSOCIATES, INC
VICINITY MAP
z
0
1
0
m
-n
n-
0 m
c
M
0
--lo
0 c
m
m z
c -Z
cl)
0 -n
-n
-4
M m
0 -C/)
0 r- o I
0 m
c cl)
9 cl)
M 0
Z
X
0
m
FIGURE
VISTA DEL MAR
INC.
NELSON- COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS -- DATE
AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS FILE NO. 101 5A93 04120/93
a
TP 15
It TP-16 20
Y.
B
TP-14 13 C
D
- -
AA* 4t, I
7
A r vu
B
SCALE7 1'= 10d
1 7
TP-12 TP-10,---
---- Qt
TP:1.1,/
tt
TP-7
C 14
D'
'? 10 -7
p! r
U -7 E:T SOUND
REFERENCE: DRAWING ENTITLED. -PRELIMINARY STORM AND UTILITY PLAN FOR VISTA DEL
MAR'. DATED SEPTEMBER. 1M. DRAWN BY LOVELL - SAUERLAND AND ASSOCIATES. INC.
SITE pLAN
EXPLANATION:
TP-1 - APPROXIMATE TEST PIT LOCATION
ArmmoA - CROSS SECTION LINE
E 2
TP 8
I p
TP-1..
TPZ4
. ..... . .. .. .....
-2
-TP-
............
C" 7
4
PLAT OF M A P L Z M A N 0 R
17
FARK FIESERVE
I
4
CROSS SECTION A -A
EXPLANATION:
TP-14 -APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TEST PIT
IVE TO CROSS SECTION
RELAT
TOS - TOP OF SLOPE
QvalQe - VASHON GLACIAL ADVANCE
NW
DEPOSITS/ESPERANCE SAND
SCALE: 1" 50'
ING ELEVATION OF CROSS SECTION
11 o'- BEGINN
48*- DENOTES STEEP SLOPE ANGLE
PROPERTY LINE
TP-16 SAWN LOGS
TOS
110, TP-14
48'
SEWER LINE
FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL---*' SITLYFINESAND
o?
PROPERTY LINE
(ova/Qe) FINE SAND
RAILROAD
TRACKS
BEACH
FIGURE
NELSON- COUVRETTE & AssOCIATES, INC. VISTA DEL MAR 3
CON.SUVING GED�TECIHNICAL ENGWEERS, GEOLOGISTS DATE
AND ENVIAONMENUL SCIENTISTS FILENO. 04/20/93
101 5A93
NW—Aom,
SCALE: 1" = 50'
PROPERTY LINE
127'
FI
(Ova/Qe)
NEL
- .4m
NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATEs, INc. VISTA DEL MAR FIGURE 5
CONSUL77NG GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS
A
NO ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS FILE NO. DATE
101 5A93. 04/20/93
M, -
-13AV89 IVNOISVOOO HIM GNVS 3NU AI:IIS
HOV3S
smovai
OVONIIVH BNII
kLH3dO8d
NOIIV.L3E)3A
kAV3H GNVS 3NI-4
(�'3NII?13M3S
6-di
Sol
L-dI HIM ONVS 3NI:I
9-d.L .96 t
3NII AIN3d(
31E)NV 3dOIS dB31S S310NM - Eq
N01133S SSMIO =10 NOIIVA3-13 ONINN1938 -.96L
ONVS 33NVb3dS3fS.LISOd3CI
30NVAOV WOYIE) NOHSVA - 8ofeAo
3dOISJO d0l. - Sol .09--.L 'TIVOS
N01103S SSONO 01 BAIIY13H
11d IS31 :10 NOLLVOOI 3IVnIXOHddV - a-dI
:NOIIVNYldX3
CROSS SECTION F-F
0
O�
0
M
0
-40
0
S
SCALE: 1"= 501
m z
TOS
cl)
0 _n
TOS
... .. .... ....
m
TP-1
m
170' TP-4 TP
TP-3 TP-2
......................
0
�3
0 m
c cn
c cl)
FINE SAND WITH OCCASSIONAL GRAV�L
m 0
Z
FINE SAND
;u
(Qva/Qe)
>
EXPLANATION:
0
TP-1 -APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
--1
1, .
TEST PIT RELATIVE TO CROSS SECTION
0
TOS - TOP OF SLOPE
Qva/Qe - VASHON GLACIAL ADVANCE
DEPOSITS/ESPERANCE SAND
17(Y- BEGINNING ELEVATION OF
CROSS SECTION
VISTA DEL MAR
FIGURE
NELSON- COUVRErrE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
LILTING GEOTECIINICAL ENGINEERS. GEOLOGISTS
_,-��CONSULTW�
AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS
FILE NO.
101 5A93
DATE
04/20/93
SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
MAJOR DIVISIONS
GROUP
GROUP NAME
SYMBOL
COARSE GRAVEL CLEAN
WELL GRADED GRAVEL, FINE TO
GW COARSE GRAVEL
GRAINED GRAVEL
GP POORLY -GRADED GRAVEL
SOILS MO RE TIIAN 50"A OF
COARSE FRACTION GRAVEL WITH
RETAINED ON NO. 4
GM SILTY GRAVEL
SIEVE FINES
GC CLAYEY GRAVEL
MORE THAN SO%-
RETAINED ON T14E
WELL -GRADED SAND. FINE TO
Sw
NO. 200 SEIVE SAND CLEAN SAND
COARGESAND
SP POORLY -GRADED SAND
MORE THAN 50 % OF SAND WITH
SM SILTY SAND
COARSE FRACTION FINES
Sc CLAYEY SAND
PASSES NO. 4 SIEVE
FINE SILT AND CLAY
ML SILT
GRAINED INORGANIC
CL CLAY
SOILS
LIQUID LIMIT ORGANIC
OL ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC CLAY
LESS THAN 50016
SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY, ELASTIC
MH
MORETHANSO% SILTANDCLAY
SILT
PASSES ON THE INORGANIC
CH CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY. FAT CLAY
NO. 200 SEIVE
LIQUID LIMIT ORGANIC
OFI ORGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC SILT
50% on MORE
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
PT PEAT
NOTES:
SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS:
1. FIELD CLASSIFICATION IS BASED ON VISUAL
DRY - ABSENCE OF MOISTURE, DUSTY. DRY
EXAMINATION OF SOIL IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE
TO THE TOUCH
WITH ASTM D2400-83.
2. SOIL CLASSIFICATION USING LABORATORY TESTS
MOIST - DAMP, BUT NO VISIBLE WATER
IS BASED ON ASTM D24U7-83..
3. DESCRIPTIONS OF SOIL DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY
WET - VISIBLE FREE WATER OR SATURATED.
USUALLY SOIL 15 OBTAINED FROM BELOW
ARE BASED ON INTERPRETATION OF BLOWCOUNT
WATER TABLE
DATA, VISUAL APPEARANCE OF SOILS. AND/OR
TEST DATA.
FIGURE
VISTA DEL MAR 9
NELSON- COUVRE77E & AssoclATEs, INC.
CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS
AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS
FILE NO. DATE 04,/20/93
1015A93
z
0
i
0
m
_--j
_--j
ml
DEPTH
TEST PIT ONE
0.0-0.1
0.1-1.0
1.0-4.0
4.0-10.0
TEST PIT TWO
0.0-0.4
0.4-1.0
1.0-2.0
2.0-2.5
2.5-5.0
5.0-10.0
TEST PIT THREE
0.0-0.2
0.2-1.0
i.Q 1. 2.0
2.0-10.0
TEST PIT FOUR
0.0-0.2
0.2-1.5
1.5-10.0
LOG OF EXPLORATION
Usc SOIL DESCRIPTION
TOPSOIL
SP/Sm DARK BROWN TO BLACK FINE SAND WITH SILT AND ROOTS AND ORGANICS
(LOOSE. MOIST)
SP LIGHT BROWN FINE SAND (LOOSE, MOIST)
SP SLIGHTLY DARK BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (DENSE.
MOIST)
GROUND WATER NOT ENCOUNTERED
TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 10.0 FEET ON 4/9/93
TOPSOIL
SPISM DARK BROWN TO BLACK FINE SAND WITH SILT, ROOTS AND ORGANICS
(LOOSE, MOIST)
SP/Sm BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT AND ROOTS (LOOSE, MOIST)
SP RUST TO BROWN FINE SAND WITH WOOD DEBRIS (LOOSE, MOIST)
SP LIGHT BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL COBBLES AND GRAVEL
(MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST)
SP BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (DENSE, MOIST)
GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED
TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 10.0 FEET ON 4/9/93
TOPSOIL
SP/Sm DARK BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT AND ROOTS WITH ORGANICS (LOOSE,
MOIST TO DRY)
SP RUST FINE SAND WITH ROOTS (LOOSE, MOIST TO DRY)
SP RUST FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (DENSE TO HARD, MOIST)
GROUND WATER NOT ENCOUNTERED
TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 10.0 FEET ON 4/9193
TOPSOIL
SPISM DARK BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT, ROOTS AND ORGANICS (LOOSE, MOIST)
SP BROWN FINE SAND (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST)
GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED
TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 10.0 FEET ON 4/9/93
NELSON-COUVRE77E & ASSOGIATL:-�i, /iv(;.
FILE NO. 101SA93
FIGURE 10
z
0
m
=i :-n
E'-
r
iff.
DEPTH
TEST PIT FIVE
0.0-0.3
0.3-1.5
1.5-8.0
TEST PIT SIX
0.0-0.2
0.2-0.5
0.5-2.0
2.0-6.0
TEST PIT SEVEN
0.0-0.3
0.3-0.5
0.5-6.0
TEST PIT EIGHT
o.o-o.4
0.4-1.5
1.5-7.0
7.0-10.0
TEST PIT NINE
0.0-0.4
0.4-1.0
1.0-7.0
LOG OF EXPLORATION
usc SOIL DESCRIPTION
TOPSOIL
SP/Sm BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT, ROOTS AND ORGANICS (LOOSE, DRY)
SP LIGHT BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL AND COBBLES (MEDIUM
DENSE.DRY)
GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED
TEST COMPLETED AT 8.0 FEET ON 4/9/93
TOPSOIL
SP/Sm DARK BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT, ROOTS AND ORGANICS
(LOOSE, MOIST)
SP DARK BROWN TO RUST FINE SAND (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST)
SP RUST TO LIGHT BROWN FINE S ND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (DENSE,
MOIST)
GROUND WATER NOT ENCOUNTERED
TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 6.0 ON 419/93
TOPSOIL
SP/Sm DARK BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT AND ROOTS (LOOSE, MOIST)
SP RUSTY LIGHT BROWN FINE ' SAND WITH OCCASIONAL COBBLES AND GRAVEL
(MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST)
GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED
TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 6,0 FEET ON 419/93
TOPSOIL
SP/SM DARK BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT. ROOTS AND ORGANICS (LOOSE, MOIST)
SP LIGHT BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL COBBLES AND GRAVEL
(MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST)
SP LIGHT BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL COBBLES AND GRAVEL
(MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST)
GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED
TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 10.0 FEET ON 4/9/93
TOPSOIL
SPISM DARK BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT AND ROOTS (LOOSE. MOIST)
SP BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE,
MOIST)
GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED
TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 7.0 FEET ON 4/9/93
NELSON-COUVRETTE &ASSOCIATES, INC.
FILE NO. 101SA93
I FIGURE 11
z
0
4
0
m
p
I
LOG OF EXPLORATION
DEPTH
Usc
SOIL DESCRIPTION
TEST PIT TEN
0.0-0.4
TOPSOIL
0.4-6.0
SP
BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST)
6.0-7.0
SP
BROWN FINE SAND WITH GRAVEL AND OCCASIONAL COBBLES (MEDIUM
DENSE, MOIST)
7.0-8.5
SP
BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST)
z
0
GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED
TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 8.5 FEET ON 419193
0
m
TEST PIT ELEVEN
0.0-0.5
SPISM
TOPSOIL
0.5-8.0
SP
LIGHT BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST)
0 m
c
M 0
GROUND WATER NOT ENCOUNTERED
ol
TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 8.0 FEET ON 4/9/93
0
0 c:
TEST PIT TWELVE
m
m z
0.0-0.3
TOPSOIL
c
0.3-5.0
SP
LIGHT BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL
r -4
(LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST)
5.0-6.0
SP
LIGHT BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (DENSE, MOIST)
0
n
GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED
TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 6.0 FEET ON 4/9193
m M
c/)
TEST PIT THIRTEEN
0
0 m
0.0-0.5
TOPSOIL
c 0) i
9 CD
M 0
0.5-3.0
SP
LIGHT BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL
Z
(LOOSE TO MESIUM DENSE, MOIST)
A
3.0-5.0
ML
GRAY SILT WITH OCCASIONAL SAND (STIFF, MOIST TO DRY)
3:
5.0-6.0
SW
LIGHT BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND (DENSE, DRY)
>
z
6.0-8.0
sw
LIGHT BROWN FINE SAND (VERY DENSE, DRY)
--i
cn
GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED
z
TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 8.0 FEET ON 4/9/93
0
TEST PIT FOURTEEN
0
m
0.0-0.3
TOPSOIL
0.3-6.0
SP
BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL AND OCCASIONAL COBBLES
6.0-10.0
ML
GRAY SILT WITH OCCASIONAL LENSES OFGRAVEL AND SAND (STIFF, MOIST)
NO GROUND WATER ENCOUNTERED
TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 10.0 FEET ON 4/9/93
NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
FILE NO. 10`15A93
FIGURE 12
LOG OF EXPLORATION
DEPTH
Usc
SOIL DESCRIPTION
TEST PIT FIFTEEN
0.0-1.5
DARK BROWN FINE SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOOSE, MOIST) (TOPSOIL)
1.5-6.0
SW
BROWN TO RUST FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH GRAVEL AND FINE AND
OCCASIONAL LENSES OF GRAY SILT. (LOOSE, MOIST)
6.0-9.0
SP
GRAY TO BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL AND COBBLES
(MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST)
GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED
z
TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 9.0 ON 4/9/93
0
TEST PIT SIXTEEN
0
0.0-0.7
DARK BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT (LOOSE, MOIST) (TOPSOIL)
0.7-6.0
SP
BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL AND COBBLES (LOOSE. MOIST)
cn
6.0-7.0
SW
BROWN MEDIUM TO COARSE SAND WITH GRAVEL AND FINE SAND (MEDIUM
m
c
DENSE, MOIST)
M
0
--lo
7.0--10.6
SP
GRAY TO BROWN FINE SAND (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST)
0 c:
--I
GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED
m
m z
TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 10.5 ON 4/9193
TEST PIT
SEVENTEEN
3:
0.0-0.4
SP/Sm
DARK BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT AND ORGANICS (LOOSE,
0 -n
MOIST)
0.4-11.5
S P/Sm
DARK GRAY TO BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT AND OCCASIONAL
-
m
COBBLES, GRAVEL AND CONSTRUCT ION DEBRIS (CONCRETE AND ASPHALT)
m
(MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (FILL)
0 cn
0
11.5 - 12.0
SP
RUST FINE SAND (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (NATIVE SOIL)
0 m
c cn
9 CD
GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED
M 0
Z
TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 12.0 ON 4/9/93
-A
z
cl)
z
0
0
m
NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC
FILE NO. 1015A93
FIGURE 13
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE
IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
cn
RA-
0
memo
w
(n
w
cb
C-i
cr-
U
CL-
0
w
w
cn
cn
4L
E, ..
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL
ASSOCIATES9 INC.
�N G GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS
17311 _ 135�h Avenue NE, A-500 Snohomish County (425) 337-1669
Woodinville, WA 98072 WenatcheelChelan (509) 784-2756
(425)486-1669 (425) Fax 481-2510
March 16, 2004
Mr. Rock Peterson and Maggie Rose
c/o Mr. Jim Thomas
Architectural Design Associates, Inc.
5551 Everett Avenue #203
Everett, Washington 98201
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Lot 13 Vista Del Mar
Edmonds, Washington
NGA File No. 388104
Dear Mr. Peterson and Ms. Rose:
We are pleased to submit the attached report titled "Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation — Lot 13 Vista
Del Mar — Edmonds, Washington." This report documents our subsurface explorations within the site,
our surficial observations of the steep slope, and presents our opinion and recommendations for site
grading, foundation support, and building setback. Our services have been completed in general
In In
-accordance with the Services Agreement signed by Mr. Rock Peterson on March 1, 2004.
We monitored the excavation of four test pits in the project area. In general, our explorations encountered
up to seven feet of fill underlain by native competent material. We also observed the conditions on the
adjacent steep slope and observed signs of relatively recent shallow failures.
From a geotechnical standpoint, we have concluded that the planned development is feasible. However,
due to the close proximity of the structure to the steep slope, we have recommended that the residence be
supported, at least partially, on drilled piers extending down into tile slope to provide a minimum
effective foundation setback distance of 40 feet frorn tile face of the slope, and to also extend the building
loads through the fill found within the lot. Specific recommendations for design and installation of the
piers are included in tile attached report. General site grading and drainage recommendations have also
ID
been provided in this report.
z
=i =6
3:
M
C
M 0
0
__10
0
C,
M
M z
_Z_
U)
0 -n
n
M M
0
0 M
K 0)
M 0
Z
>
z
z
0
0
M
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Lot 13 Vista Del Mar
NGA File No. 388104
March 16, 2004
Summary - Page 2
It has been a pleasure to provide service to you on this project. Please contact us if you have any
questions regarding this report or require further information.
Sincerely,
ELSON GEOTECHHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
U -'
Z:
kKha
M
P
e Shawish, PE
Principal
0
C
Three Copies Submitted
Mal
0�
0 C::
M Z'
107
Z:
r
0 -T1
M M
CO)
r
.0 M
C W,
ic W
z 0
>
Z
Z:
_4
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
SCOPE
2
SITE
Surface Conditions.
Z
3 0
Subsurface Conditions.
Hydrologic Conditions* 0 a a 0 a 6 a a 0 4 4
0
m
4
SENSITIVE AREA EVALUATIONOO j jc�4�
mn
4
Seismic Hazard.
W
4
Erosion
I L 0
5 C:
Landslide Hazard/Slope M 0
5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
C
5
General X
m
7 m Z:
Slope Protection
7
Erosion Control,. too, C
>
7
*011#061w"
Structure Setbacks......,.,....
8
Site Preparation and
8
0 11 k
Foundation
1 0 m
Structural Fill*
Retaining
12 m
Slab -on Grade
12
Site Dra' 0
inage
I F 0 m
13 Cn
%LILI
USE OF THIS REPORT
0
Z
X
>
Z
List of Figures
Figure I —Vicinity Map Z
0
Figure 2 — Site Plan
OL
Ficrure 4 — Cross -Section A -A m
Ficrure 4 — Soil Classification Chart
Figure 5 — Test Pit Logs
Figure 6 — Drilled Piers
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES,, INCe
__M
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Lot 13 Vista Del Mar
Edmonds, Washington
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering investigation and evaluation of the
proposed single-family residence located at 9010-178hPlace SW in Edmonds, Washington, as shown on
the Vicinity Map in Figure 1. The project site is also known as Lot 13 of the Vista Del Mar Plat. The
purpose of this study is to explore and characterize the site's surface and subsurface conditions, and to
provide geotechnical recommendations for site development. For our use in preparing this report, we
have been provided with plans titled, "Rock Peterson and Maggie Rose, Lot 13, Vista Del Mar, City of
E -nonds, Snohomish County," showing the proposed lot layout, prepared by Architectural Design
di Im
-construction
Associates, Inc., dated September 18, 2004. We have also been provided with a list of pre
-041 Plan
review comments from the City of Edmonds titled, "EPRC February 13, 2004, Edmonds #04
Review Comments for Peterson -Rose," dated February 13, 2004. The review comments requested a
geotechnical evaluation of the property based on the proposed location of the residence with respect to the
steep slope.
Development within this property is proposed to consist of an approximate 3,120 square -foot, two-story
residence with a partial crawl space and a partial slab -on -grade, and an associated paved driveway and
utilities. The residence will be accessed from 178"' Place SW on the eastern side of the property. Steep
slopes exist on the western side of the property and a sewer easement is located near tile top of the slope.
The planned residence will be located as close as 20 feet from the top of the steep slope. A rockery is
planned on the southern side of the property, and a patio is planned on the southwestern area behind the
residence. Stormwater will be directed to an existing; stormwater collection system that has been installed
in tile plat.
SCOPE
The purpose of this study is to explore and characterize the site subsurface conditions, and provide
general recommendations for site development and structure setback from the steep slope. Specifically,
our scope of services includes the following:
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Z
0
4
0
M
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Lot 13 Vista Del Mar
Edmonds, Washington
NGA File No. 388104
March 16, 2004
Pacre 2
ID
I . Review available geologic, slope stability, and soils maps of the area.
2. Perform a walk-through inspection of existing geologic and relative stability conditions at
the site.
3. Perform backhoe excavated test pits within the property to evaluate existing subsurface
soils and groundwater conditions. Backhoe was supplied by the owner.
4. Provide an evaluation of the building setbacks from the steep slope.
5. Provide recornmendations for earthwork, including cuts and fills.
6. Provide recommendations for foundation support.
7. Provide general recommendations for lateral support and retaining walls.
8. Provide recommendations for site drainage and erosion control.
9. Prepare a written geotechnical report discussing our findings, opinions, and
In
recommendations.
SITE CONDITIONS
Surface Conditions
The project site is an approximate 0.46-acre, irregular -shaped parcel. The site layout is shown on the Site
Plan in Figure 2. A residential property is located to the north of the project site, 178"' Place SW is
located to the east, an undeveloped parcel is located to the south, and a steep west -facing slope is located
to the west. The southern portion of the site is relatively flat with a moderate slope towards the northern
portion of the site. Tile northern half of the site has a gentle slope to the west, towards the top of the steep
slope. The ground surface then slopes down steeply for approximately 80 feet towards the Burlington
Northern — Sante Fe Railroad easement. Puget Sound borders the railroad tracks to the west. The
inclination of the slope was measured to be approximately 50 degrees or 120 percent. The slope profile is
shown in Cross-section A -A' presented as Figure 3.
The upper portion of tile site is mainly covered with arasses. A pile of asphalt is located in the
;D
northeastern corner of tile site and a debris pile is located in the northwestern portion of the site. The top
of the slope is vegetated with large fir trees, some of which have been undermined by previous shallow
ZD
debris flows. The steeply sloping portion below the top of slope is mainly covered with deciduous trees
and debris frorn trees that were cut and not removed frorn the slope. Three old shallow landslides were
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
z
0
0
M
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Lot 13 Vista Del Mar
Edmonds, Washington
NGA File No. 388104
March 16, 2004
Page 3
observed on the slope. We did not observe surface water on the upper portion of the site and seepage was
not observed on the slope during our site visit on March 1, 2004.
Subsurface Conditions
es
Geology: The Q, eolo-ic Map of the Edmonds East and Part of the Edmonds West Quadran2l ,
Washin ton, by James P. Minard (U.S.G.S., 1983) was referenced for the geologic conditions at the site.
The site is mapped as Recessional Outwash (Qvr). The unit is described as a poorly- to moderately -sorted
mixture of sand and gravel with minor amounts of silt and clay. Our explorations generally encountered
sand with gravel and silt consistent with the description of Recessional Outwash.
Explorations: The subsurface conditions within the site were explored on March 1, 2004 by excavating
four test pits to depths ranging from 3.7 to 10.0 feet below the existing surface using a backhoe. The
In
approximate locations of our explorations are shown on the Site Plan in Figure 2. A geologist from
Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc. (NGA) was present during the explorations, examined the soils and
geologic conditions encountered, obtained samples of the soil, and maintained logs of the test pits.
The soils were visually classified in general accordance w ith the Unified Soil Classification System,
presented as Figure 4. The logs of the test pits are attached to this report and are presented as Figure 5.
We present a brief summary of the subsurface conditions in the following paragraph. For a detailed
C) 0
description of the subsurface conditions, the test pit logs should be reviewed.
We encountered approximately between 2.5 to 7.0 feet of mediurn dense, grayish -brown, silty sand with
gravel in all of the test pits. This soil was interpreted as fill. Below the fill in all of the test pits, we
encountered approximately 0.5 to 1.5 feet of buried topsoil. Below the topsoil in Test Pits 1, 3, and 4, we
encountered dense, orangish-brown, mediurn to coarse sand with silt and gravel. This material was
interpreted as recessional outwash. Test Pit 4 was terminated in the outwash. Below the sand with silt, in
Test Pits I and 3, we encountered stiff, brownish -gray silt with fine sand interpreted as part of the
outwash deposit. Test Pits I and 3 were terminated in this material. Below the topsoil in Test Pit 2, we
encountered stiff, brownish -gray silt with sand and trace organics similar to the material found at depth in
iD C)
Test Pits I and 3. Test Pit 3 was terminated in this silty material.
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
z
0
1
0
M
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Lot 13 Vista Del Mar
Edmonds, Washington
NGA File No. 388104
March 16, 2004
Page 4
Hydrologic Conditions
Groundwater was not encountered in the test pits. However, perched water could occur when surface
water infiltrates through less dense, more permeable soils and accumulates on top of the underlying, less
permeable soils. The more permeable soils consist of the fill and the sand with silt. The less permeable
soils consist of the underlying silty soils. Perched water does not represent a regional ground water table
Z
within the upper soil horizons. Perched water tends to vary spatially and is dependent upon the amount of
0
rainfall. We would expect the amount o f groundwater to decrease during drier times of the year and
0
increase during wetter periods. If perched water is encountered in planned cuts or exposed subgrade, it
=55
should be controlled with open ditches or sump p umps. This is further discussed in the Drainage
0 M
subsection of this report.
C
M 0
0
0
M
SENSITIVE AREA EVALUATION
M Z
Seismic Hazard
C
The project is located within Zone 3 of the Seismic Zone Map shown as Figure 16-2 of the 1997 Uniform
Cn
Building Code (UBC). This corresponds to a Seismic Zone Factor, Z, of 0.3. Since medium dense to
0 -n
M
dense/stiff outwash soils were encountered underlying the site, the site con ditions best fit the UBC
In
M M
description for Soil Profile Type SC/SD-
0 F_�
0 M
C Cn
Ch
Hazards associated with seismic activity include liquefaction potential and amplification of ground
Q 0
Z r-
motion. Liquefaction is caused by a rise in pore pressures in a loose, fine sand deposit beneath t . he
groundwater table. The dense/stiff outwash soils interpreted to underlie the site have a low potential for
liquefaction or amplification of ground motion.
Z
co
Erosion Hazard
Z
0
The erosion hazard criteria used for determination of affected areas includes soil type, slope gradient,
0
M
vegetation cover, and groundwater conditions. The erosion sensitivity is related to vegetative cover and
tile specific surface soil types, which are related to tile underlying geologic soil units. The Soil Survey,
Snohomish County Area, Washington, by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) was reviewed to
determine the erosion hazard of tile on -site soils. The site surface soils were classified usincr the SCS
classification system as Alderwood-Everett gravelly sand loams, 25 to 70 percent slopes. Alderwood
soils are listed as having a high erosion hazard if the soils are exposed.
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Lot 13 Vista Del Mar
Edmonds, Washington
NGA File No. 388104
March 16, 2004
Paae 5
PA
Landslide Hazard/Slope Stability
of landslide hazard was performed for the steep slopes at the site. This evaluation includes
An evaluation
lope height, groundwater
our interpretation of the slope stability based on soil type, slope gradient, s
conditions, and vegetation cover.
The landslide hazard for the steep slope that occupies the western portion of the site is listed as high by
the SCS based on slope steepness, length, shape, and the surficial soils present. The site slopes are
Slopes with a gradient of up to
inferred to generally consist of sand underlain by silty material.
-lit of the steep slope is
approximately 50 degrees exist in the western portion of tile property. The hei.,
-seated slope failures on the slope, but surficial
approximately 80 feet. We did not observe signs of deep
slumps were observed at several locations on the slope. Accordingly, it is our opinion that there is not a
significant potential for deep-seated slope instability within the development portion of this site, however,
the steep slope is naturally prone to surface sloughing from time to time. Surface sloughing can occur
ecially after large storm events. These
from weathering conditions and seasonal surface saturation, esp
-npact the development area. The potential for these events
events, if not addressed, could ultimately h
could be reduced by proper erosion and drainage control. The direct impact of the sloughing events on
the proposed development should be low if the building setback, foundation placement, site grading,
-nended in this
surface water management, and long-term slope maintenance are established as recomi
report.
It is our understanding the structure will be as close as 20 feet to the top of the steep slope. This setback
distance should be adequate providing the structure is at least partially supported on a deep foundation
ID
system as recommended in this report and that all other recommendations for site development and slope
protection found in this report are incorporated in the design and implemented during construction.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General
It is our opinion, from a geotechnical standpoint, that the site is generally compatible with the planned
C
development. Our explorations within the site indicate that the site is generally occupied by up to seven
In -naterial. The upper fill material is not
feet of fill and buried topsoil, underlain by competent glacial i
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Z
0
1
0
M
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Lot 13 Vista Del Mar
Edmonds, Washington
NGA File No. 388104
March 16, 2004
Page 6
suitable for supporting the planned structure. Also, the residence is planned in close proximity to the
steep slope within the western portion of the lot.
To avoid problems related to fill settlement and subsidence, and to protect the structure against potential
failures on the slope, we recommend that the western, southern, and tile western portion of the northern
foundation line be supported on drilled piers. On the western and northern sides of the residence, the
piers should extend a minimum of 20 feet below existing grade to provide an effective setback of at least
40 feet between the bottom of the piers and the face of the slope. On the southern side the structures, the
piers should extend a minimum of three feet into native competent material to provide adequate end
bearing. The piers should be a minimum of 16-inch diameter cast -in place reinforced concrete.
Recommendations for design and installation of the piers are presented in the Drilled Piers subsection of
this report.
All grading operations and drainage improvements planned as part of this development should be planned
and completed in a matter that enhances the stability of the steep slope, not reduces it. Excavation spoils
should not be stockpiled near the slope or be allowed to encroach on the slope. Also, runoff generated
within the site should be collected and routed into a permanent discharge system and not be allowed to
flow over the slope. Future vegetation management on the slope should be the subject of a specific
z:1 ID
evaluation and a plan approved by the city. The slope should be monitored on an on -going basis,
especially during the wet season, for any signs of instability, and corrective actions promptly taken should
any signs of instability be observed. Lawn clipping and any other household trash or debris should not be
ID
cast over the slope.
The surficial soils encountered on this site are considered rnoisture-sensitive and will disturb easily when
wet. To lessen the potential impacts of construction on the slope and to reduce cost overruns and delays,
we recornmend that construction take place during the drier summer months. If construction takes place
during the rainy months, additional expenses and delays should be expected. Additional expenses could
include the need for placing erosion control and temporary draipage measures to protect the slope, the
need for placing a blanket of rock spalls on exposed subgrades, construction traffic areas, and paved areas
C, C)
prior to placing structural fill, and the need for importing all-weather material for structural fill.
ZD t)
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
z
0
A
0
M
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Lot 13 Vista Del Mar
Edmonds, Washington
NGA File No. 388104
March 16, 2004
Page 7
Slope Protection
Protection of the setback and steep slope areas should be performed as required by tile City of Edmonds.
Specifically, we recommend that the setback area and top of slope not be disturbed or modified through
placement of any fill or removal of the existing vegetation. No material of any kind should be placed on
the slope or be allowed to reach the slope, and trees should not be cut down or removed from the slope.
Any proposed development within the setback areas, other than light decks or patios, should be the
chnical evaluation. Runoff should be collected in permanent catch basins or
subject of a specific geote
yard drains and should be routed into a permanent discharge system. Under no circumstances should
water be allowed to concentrate or flow over the slopes. We recommend that the tree debris found on the
slope be removed during site development.
Erosion Control
The on -site soils can have a high erosion potential, depending on how the site is graded and how water is
allowed to concentrate. Best Management Practices (BMPs) should be used to control erosion. Areas
-nay include diverting
disturbed during construction should be protected from erosion. Measures taken i Z�
surface water away from the stripped areas. Silt fences or straw bales should be erected to prevent muddy
water from flowing, over the site slopes or into the existing storm system. Disturbed areas should be
replanted with vegetation at the end of construction. The vegetation should be maintained until
established. Final grading should incorporate appropriate erosion control measures to route stormwater
runoff away from the top of slopes and to appropriate discharge locations.
Structure Setbacks
Uncertainties related to building along the top of steep slopes are typically addressed by the use of
building setbacks. The purpose of tile setback is to establish a "buffor zone" between the structure and
the top of the slope so that arnple room is allowed for normal slope recession during a reasonable life span
of the structure. In a general sense, the greater the setback, tile lower the risk of slope failures to impact
the structure. From a geological standpoint, the setback dimension is based on the slope's physical
characteristics, such as slope height, slope gradient, soil type and groundwater conditions. Other factors
such as historical slope activity, rate of regression, and the type and desired life span of the development
are important considerations as well.
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Z
0
q
0
M
M
M 0
0
__10
0 C f
M
M Z
> Z
0 _n
-n
M M
0 5)
0 r- .. .
0 M
C Cn
9 Cn
M 0
Z
Z
0)
Z
0
A
0
M
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Lot 13 Vista Del Mar
Edmonds, Washington
NGA File No. 388104
March 16, 2004
Page Qu
Z)
Based I upon the conditions described above and our field observations, it is our opinion that the potential
for shallow sloughing -type failures exist on the steep slope. This condition is exacerbated where water is
present or where the slopes become locally very steep. Backwasting through sloughing of steep slopes
can occur up the slope, such that a loss of ground could occur. The planned structure setback is 20 feet on
the northwestern corner and increases to 40 feet at the southwestern corner. To reduce the risk of
potential slope failures of affecting the structure, we recommend that the structure be supported oil drilled
piers as described in this report. Loose material should not be stockpiled in any area between the top of
the slope and the setback line.
Site Preparation and Grading
Site preparation should consist of stripping any topsoil, undocumented fill, or. loose soils to expose
medium dense or better native material in foundation and slab-on-arade areas, where deep foundation
support is not planned. The stripped m aterial should be hauled off site. The stripped material should not
be stockpiled in the setback area or be used for structural fills. If the ground surface, after strippingr.
should appear to be loose, it should be compacted to a non -yielding condition. Areas observed to pump
or weave during compaction should be reworked to structural fill specifications or over -excavated and
replaced with properly compacted structural fill or rock spalls. If significant surface water flow is
encountered during, construction, this flow should be diverted around areas to be developed and the
exposed subgrade maintained in a semi -dry condition.
Slab -on -grade subgrade should be stripped of any fill or loose material and the slab should be supported
on competent native soils or structural fill extending to these soils, if any future settlement or cracking of
the slab can not be tolerated. If some slab settlement and future maintenance call be tolerated, we
recommend that at a minimum two feet of the loose material/fill that may exist in the slab area be over -
excavated and replaced with a blanket of rock spalls. The exposed subgrade should be thoroughly
compacted prior to placement of the rock spall layer. The slab should be additionally reinforced to reduce
settlement -related distress.
Foundation Support
Drilled Piers: We recornmend that the western, southern, and the western portion of the northern
foundation line be supported on 16- to 24-inch reinforced concrete piers, extending, a rninirnurn of 20 feet
C�
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
z
0
0
M
4 -n
55 -4
0M
C
MO
0
__10
0 C
-j K
X M
MZ
g) —1
C _Z
X
Cn
o -n
n
M M
0 _C0
0 r-
0 M
C 0)
9 Cl)
M 0
Z
r
z
0
1
0
M
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Lot 13 Vista Del Mar
Edmonds, Washington
NGA File No. 388104
March 16, 2004
Pa,:,e 9
below existing ground surface along the western and northern sides, and extending three feet into the
native, competent material oil the southern side. Tile remainder of the foundations should be supported
on native, competent material or structural fill extending to that material.
An open hole drilling meth od will likely be feasible based on our field observations, however, if caving
Z
0
conditions are encountered, pile casing will be required. Tile holes should be cleaned of any slough or
water prior to pouring concrete. We recommend that the concrete be readily available on site at the time
In
of drilling. The holes should not be left open for any extended period of time, as sloughing debris and/or
aroundwater seepage into the excavations may hamper pier installation.
M
C
M 0
cribed above, we recommend using a design axial compression
For piers installed successfully as des In 1")
0 0
C
capacity of 20 and 30 tons for 16- and 24-inch piers, respectively. Lateral resistance on the piers could be
M.
M Z
10
calculated based on an equivalent fluid density of 250 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) applied to two pile
C Z
diameters. The existing fill should be neglected for th e purpose of calculating the lateral resistance.
Cn
0 -n
-n
Shallow Foundations: If a portion of the building is supported on shallow spread footings, these footings
should be supported oil native rnedium dense or better soils, or structural fill extending to these soils. The
M M
0—
CD
foundation sub-rade should be prepared as described in the Site Preparation and Grading subsection.
0
0 M
C Cn
If footings are supported oil structural fill, the fill zone should extend outside the edges of tile footings a
M 0
Z
distance equal to one-half of the depth of the over -excavation below the bottorn of the footings.
Footings should extend at least 18 inches below the lowest adj acent finished ground surface for frost
>
Z
protection and bearing capacity considerations. Minimurn foundation widths of 18 and 24 inches should
be used for continuous and isolated spread footings, respectively, but footings should also be sized based
Cn
Z
on anticipated loads and allowable soil bearing pressure. Standing water should not be allowed to
Z�
0
--I
0
accumulate in footing trenches. All loose or disturbed soil should be removed from the foundation
M
excavation prior to placing concrete.
For foundations constructed as outlined above, we recommend an allowable, design bearing pressure of
not more than 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) be used for tile footin des ian for footin-s founded on
the rnedium dense or better glacial soils or structural fill extending, to tile native competent material. Tile
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Lot 13 Vista Del Mar
Edmonds, Washington
NGA File No. 388104
March 16, 2004
Page 10
foundation bearing soil should be evaluated by a representative of NGA. We should be consulted if
higher bearing pressures are needed. Current Uniform Building Code (UBC) guidelines should be used
In
-term transitory wind or seismic loads.
when considering increased allowable bearing pressure for short
Potential foundation settlement using the recommended allowable bearing pressure is estimated to be less
than one inch total and 1/2 inch differential between adjacent footings or across a distance of about 30
feet, based on our experience with similar projects.
Lateral loads may be resisted by friction on the base of the footing and passive resistance against the
subsurface portions of the foundation. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used to calculate the base
friction and should be applied to the vertical dead load only. Passive resistance may be calculated as a
triangular equivalent fluid pressure distribution. An equivalent fluid density of 250 pcf should be used for
passive resistance design for a level ground surface adjacent to the footing. This level surface should
extend a distance equal to at least three times tile footing depth. These recommended values incorporate
safety factors of 1.5 and 2.0 applied to the estimated ultimate values for frictional and passive resistance,
respectively. To achieve this value of passive resistance, tile foundations should be poured "neat" against
the native medium dense soils or compacted fill should be used as backfill against the front of tile footing.
We recommend that the upper one -foot of soil be neglected when calculating the passive resistance.
Frictional resistance should be neglected for footings supported oil drilled piers.
Structural Fill
General: Fill placed beneath slabs, pavement, or other settlement -sensitive structures should be placed as
structural fill. Structural fill, by definition, is placed in accordance with prescribed methods and
standards, and is monitored by ail experienced geotechnical professional or soils technician. Field
monitoring procedures would include the performance of a representative number of in -place density tests
to document the attainment of the desired dearee of relative compaction. The area to receive the fill
should be suitably prepared as described in tile Site Preparation and Grading subsection of this report,
prior to beginning fill placement.
Materials: Structural fill should consist of a good quality, granular soil, free of organics and other
deleterious material, and be well graded to a maximum size of about three inches. All-weather fill.should
contain no more than five -percent fines (soil finer than U.S. No. 200 sieve, based oil that fraction passing
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Z
0
A
0
M
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Lot 13 Vista Del Mar
Edmonds, Washington
NGA File No. 388104
March 16, 2004
Page I I
the U.S. 3/4-inch sieve). The use of on -site soils as structural fill should generally not be feasible, but we
should be retained to evaluate oil site material proposed for use as structural fill prior to construction.
Fill Placement: Following subgrade preparation, placement of structural fill may proceed. All
backfilling should be accomplished in uniform lifts up to eight inches thick. Each lift should be spread
evenly and be thoroughly compacted prior to placement of subsequent lifts. All structural fill should be
compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of its maximum dry density. Maximum dry density, in this report,
refers to that density as determined by the ASTM D-1557 Compaction Test procedure. The moisture
content of the soils to be compacted should be within about two percent of optimum so that a readily
comp actable condition exists. It may be necessary to over -excavate and rernove wet soils in cases where
drying to a compactable condition is not feasible. All compaction should be accomplished by equipment
of a type and size sufficient to attain the desired degree of compaction.
Z:'
Retaining Walls
The lateral pressure acting on subsurface retaining walls is dependent on the nature and density of the soil
behind the wall, the amount of lateral wall movement which call occur as backfill is placed, wall drainage
conditions, and the inclination of the backfill. For walls that are free to yield at the top at least one
thousandth of the height of the wall (active condition), soil pressures will be less than if movement is
limited by such factors as wall stiffness or bracing (at -rest condition). We recornmend that walls
supporting horizontal backfill and not subjected to hydrostatic forces be designed using, a triangular earth
pressure distribution equivalent to that exerted by a fluid with a density of 35 pcf for yielding (active
condition) walls, and 60 pcf for non -yielding (at -rest condition) walls.
These recommended lateral earth pressures for a drained backfill are based on the assumption of a
horizontal ground surface behind the wall for a distance of at least the subsurface height of the wall, and
do not account for surcharge loads. Additional lateral earth pressures should be considered for surcharge
loads acting adjacent to subsurface walls and within a distance equal to the subsurface height of tile wall.
This would include the effects of surcharges such as traffic loads, floor slab loads, slopes, or other surface
loads. We could consult with you and your structural engineer regarding additional loads on retaining
walls during final design, if needed.
C)
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Z
0
M
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Lot 13 Vista Del Mar
Edmonds, Washington
NGA File No. 388104
March 16, 2004
Page 12
The lateral pressures on walls may be resisted by friction between the foundation and subgrade soil, and
by passive resistance acting on the below -grade portion of the foundat ion. Recommendations for
frictional and passive resistance to lateral loads are presented in the Foundation Support subsection of
this report.
All wall backfill should be well compacted as outlined in the Structural Fill subsection of this report.
-compaction of the
Care should be taken to prevent the buildup of excess lateral soil pressures, due to over
wall backfill. This can be accomplished by placing wall backfill in eight -inch loose lifts and compacting
-half the
it with small, hand -operated compactors within a distance behind the wall equal to at least one
height of the wall. The thickness of the loose lifts should be lessened to accommodate the lower
compactive energy of the hand -operated equipment. The recommended level of compaction should still
be maintained.
Permanent drainage systems should be installed for retaining walls. Recommendations for these systems
are found in the Subsurface Drainage subsection of this report.
Slab -on Grade
The slab subgrade should be prepared as discussed in the Site Preparation and Grading subsection. We
recommend that all floor stabs be underlain by at least six inches of free -draining sand or gravel for use as
a capillary break. We recommend that the capillary break be hydraulically connected to the footing drain
system to allow free drainage from under the slab. A suitable vapor barrier, such as heavy plastic
sheeting (6-mil minimurn), should be placed over the capillary break material. A two-inch layer of damp
sand could be placed over the vapor barrier to aid in curing the concrete.
Site Drainage
Surface Drainage: Final site grades should allow for drainage away from the top of the steep slope and
the structure. We suggest that tile finished ground be sloped at a gradient of three -percent minimum for a
distance of at least 10 feet away from slope. Runoff generated on this site should be collected and routed
into a permanent discharge system. Under no circurnstances should water be allowed to flow
uncontrolled over the slopes.
t=
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
z
0
M
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Lot 13 Vista Del Mar
Edmonds, Washington
NGA File No. 388104
March 16, 2004
Page 13
Subsurface Drainage: If groundwater is encountered during; construction, we recommend that the
contractor slope the bottom of the excavation and collect the water into ditches and small sump pits whe . re
the water can be pumped out and routed into a permanent storm drain. Chronic water seepage conditions
may be controlled through the use of cut-off or "French" type drains. The need, extent, and actual design
of such systerns will depend on prevailing conditions. This can be evaluated at the time of construction.
We recommend the use of footing drains around structures. Footing drains should be installed at least one
foot below planned finished floor elevation. The drains should consist of a minimum four -inch -diameter,
rigid, slotted or perforated, PVC pipe surrounded by free -draining material wrapped in a filter fabric. We
recommend that the free -draining material consist of an 18-inch-wide zone of clean (less than three -
percent fines), granular material placed along the back of walls. Pea gravel is an acceptable drain
-draining material should extend up the
material or drainage composite may also be used instead. The free
wall to one foot below the finished surface. The top foot of soil should consist of impermeable soil
placed over plastic sheeting or building paper to minimize surface water or fines migration into the
footing drain. Footing drains should discharge into tightlines leading to an appropriate collection and
In ZD
tD
discharge point with convenient cleanouts to prolong the useful life of the drains. Roof drains should not
be connected to wall or footing drains.
USE OF THIS REPORT
NGA has prepared this report for Mr. Rock Peterson and Ms. Maggie Rose, and their agents, for use in
planning of the grading operations described above on this site only. The scope of our work does not
include services related to construction safety precautions and our recommendations are not intended to
direct the contractors' methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, except as specifically described in
our report. There are possible variations in subsurface conditions between the explorations and also with
time. Our report, conclusions, and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of subsurface
conditions. A contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in the budget and schedule.
We recommend that NGA be retained to provide monitoring and consultation services during
construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the
explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should tile conditions revealed during tile
/Z
work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether or not earthwork activities comply with
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Z
0
4
0
M
Geoteclinical Engineering Evaluation
Lot 13 Vista Del Mar
Edmonds, Washington
NGA File No. 388104
March 16, 2004
Pa-e 14
contract plans and specifications. We should be contacted a minirnum of one week prior to construction
activities and could attend pre -construction meetings, if requested.
All people who own or occupy homes on hillsides should realize that landslide movements are always a
Z
possibility. The landowner should periodically inspect the slope, especially after a winter storm. If
0
distress is evident, a geotechnical engineer should be contacted for advice oil remedial/preventative
M
measures. The probability that landsliding will occur is substantially reduced by the proper maintenance
=n-
of drainage control measures at the site (the runoff from the roofs should be led to an approved discharge
M,
C
point). Therefore, the homeowner should take responsibility for performing such maintenance.
M 0
0
0
0
Consequently, we recommend that a copy of our report be provided to any future homeowners of the
C
X M
property if the home is sold.
M Z
C _Z
Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our servic es have been performed in accordance
with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in effect in this area at the time this report was
0 -n
n
prepared. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Our observations, findings, and opinions are
M M
a means to identify and reduce the inherent risks to the owner.
[from
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
M
co
CD
M 0
Z r-
Z
Cn
Z
0
i
0
M
—. M
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Lot 13 Vista Del Mar
Edmonds, Washington
NGA File No. 388104
March 16, 2004
Page 15
It has been a pleasure to provide service to you on this project. If you have any questions or require
further information, please call.
Sincerely,
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
M
Bala Dodoye-Alali
Project Geologist
M
C
—10
0
C'
M
M z
CD
-n
M M
0
C 0)
K Cn
MO
Z
2% Q�;
X
Khaled M. Shawish, PE
Z'
Principal
Cn
BD:KMS:Iam
z
0
Six Figures Attached
0
M
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATESY INC.
= 11 1
N
z
455 174TH 0
------- S1 i
0
DER I C�--- pl- --- :1-1.75TH ST M
Project
Ui -j
site
0 M
M
0
--10
0 C:
M
611 11 M Z
F1.46LE."T. 501IND 179TH PL
C -2
>
X
W
e0TH PL SW o -n
181ST P� -n
IST CIST PL SU
�\S T
TL SU
C2W
WEROOK PK M
I,' ILI D M
-4, rn
SW -J ST SU SY
5= FL SU 0 5
ac:�d, 0
r % r-
0 M
C: Cn
S T
U) 3C Cn CL
'L e-'D Cn
0200 Fz-,
—.1 -L— Lo 10 FL SW
'er' '6 co 4TH M 0
184TH ST Sw Z
ZN
C', '2,
CD _-_— 185TH
< Q Sw
105TH IF- Eli n5ni :3
21 M-1
PL 'SW 13 i�ST SW
FL SU >
H117T
1813TH PL SW 186111 ST Sw < z
N PK 187TH :C
187TH� ST S14 -J
0- CL
01/ P L SW @2000 Thomas E3ros. Maps C/)
T S V i7TH PI. kv z
0
0
171
Not to Scale
NIELSON GEOTECHNICAL No. Date Revision By CK 5
9
Project Number ASSOCIATES, INC. C14
Lot 13 Vista Del Mar N �GA 1 3/3/04 Original ADJ BAD 'Cn
388104
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS T
a
Vicinity Map 17311-13MAA�. NE,A-500 Smtomsh C—ly (425) 337-1669 <
V`=iWA 95072 W..Iw-,C -1- (509) 784-2756 (D I . I
Figure 1 1425) F. 481-25 10 — z
,A
/*
Approx. 15-ft
Wide Slump
Approx. 1 0-ft
Wide Slump
V
Q
01)
Q
I TY
Im
.F
Undermined Trees
Planned 3-foot High
Concrete Retaining Wall
Support this portion of the
residence on drilled piers
Planned Rockery
Reference: Site plan is based on an electronic file prepared 6y Architec*tural Design Associates, titled "Rock Peterson and Maggie Rose," dated 112003.
VStorm Drain
A uramna zuu4�Auto(;Auvjtwiu4 ijeterson%jtst%iu4 s
<
<
0
N
0
76
0
40
0
z
J
ms
U
U)
1�4
I
�g
U
0
3:
-J
U
0
a =0 .0
w
W
w
0
2-6
w
U)
r-
06
X
w
Z
0
w
0
(j)
J
z
w
w
Z
.j
<
U
CO
Ui
z
U
<
w
,.=s
2z
0
w
(D
0 CU
Co
LEGEND U)
CO U)
TP-1 T_
Number and Approximate
0
Location of Test Pit _j
A A' Approximate Location
t of Cross -Section
(D
Property Line -0
E
= C:) a)
0 30 60 Z r- L_
CO =3
0 00 .2)
a) M LL
Approximate Scale: 1 inch 30 feet a-
CA)
00
U3 00
C:)
CA
0 0
CA
CA CA)
m cn
0
CD
Lt r1l
-z:E - 0 z
C
>
n
>
r
z
SIT
East
150-
J House
120-
90-
......
60-
30—
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
MAJOR DIVISIONS
GROUP
SYMBOL
GROUPNAME
CLEAN
GW
WELL -GRADED, FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL
GRAVEL
GRAVEL
GRAVEL
GP
POORLY -GRADED GRAVEL
GRAINED
MORE THAN 50 %
OF COARSE FRACTION
GRAVEL
GM
SILTY GRAVEL
GC
CLAYEY GRAVEL
SOILS
RETAINED ON
NO. 4 SIEVE
WITH FINES
SAND
CLEAN
SW
WELL -GRADED SAND. FINE TO COARSE SAND
SP
POORLY GRADED SAND
SAND
MORE THAN 50 %
RETAINED ON
NO. 200 SIEVE
MORE THAN 50 %
OF COARSE FRACTION
PASSES NO. 4 SIEVE
SAND
SM
SILTY SAND
WITH FINES
Sc
CLAYEY SAND
FINE-
SILT AND CLAY
INORGANIC
ML
SILT
GRAINED
LIQUID LIMIT
LESS THAN 50 %
CL
CLAY
ORGANIC
OL
ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC CLAY
SOILS
SILT AND CLAY
INORGANIC
MH
SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY, ELASTIC SILT
MORE THAN 50 %
PASSES
NO. 200 SIEVE
LIQUID LIMIT
50 % OR MORE
CH
CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FLAT CLAY
ORGANIC
OH
ORGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC SILT
PT _FPEAT
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
1) Field classification is based on visual
examination of soil in general
accordance with ASTM D 2488-93.
2) Soil classification using laboratory tests
is based on ASTM D 2488-93.
3) Descriptions of soil density or
consistency are based on
interpretation of blowcount data,
visual appearance of soils, and/or
test data.
Project Number Lot 13 Vista Del Mar
04
Figure 4 Soil Classification Chart
SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS:
Dry - Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to
the touch
Moist - Damp, but no visible water.
Wet - Visible free water or saturated,
usually soil is obtained from
below water table
— N SON GEOTECHNICAL No. I Date Revision By CK
NGA ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 313104 Original ADJ BAD
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS
17311-135th A. NE. A-500 Smm shCwnly(425�337-1669
A'98012 WA��hl-(509 754-2756
Wo�_41" _ n.'.Ong.'
11251486-1669 1 F.. 481-2510
z
0
1
0
M
:; 9
M
0
__10
0 C
M
M Z
K) —1 : .
C _Z
0 -n
n
M M
0
0
0 M
C co
K C/)
Q 0
Z
X
z
0)
z
0
0
M
Peterson Residence
LOG OF EXPLORATION
DEPTH(FEET)
USC
SOIL DESCRIPTION
TEST PIT ONE
0.0-6.0
Sm
GRAYISH -BROWN. SILTY FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH GRAVEL AND TRACE
ORGANICS (DENSE. MOIST) (FILL)
6.0-6.5
BURIED TOPSOIL
6.5-9.6
SP-SM
ORANGISH-BROWN MEDIUM TO COARSE SAND WITH GRAVEL AND SILT (DENSE,
MOIST)
Sm
GRAY, SILTY FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH GRAVEL (VERY DENSE, MOIST)
9.6-9.8
SAMPLE WAS COLLECTED AT 7.8 FEET
GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
MINOR TEST PIT CAVING WAS ENCOUNTERED BETWEEN 7.0 AND 8.5 FEET
TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 9.8 FEET ON 3/1/04
TEST PIT TWO
0.0-6.8
Sm
GRAYISH -BROWN, SILTY FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH GRAVEL, GRAY, SILTY
MEDIUM TO COARSE SAND, AND BURIED TOPSOIL (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE,
MOIST) (FILL)
6.8-7.2
BURIED TOPSOIL
ML
BROWNISH -GRAY SILT WITH SAND AND TRACE ORGANICS (STIFF, MOIST)
7.2-10.0
SAMPLE WAS COLLECTED AT 9.0 FEET
GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 10.0 FEET ON 3/1/04
TEST PIT THREE
0.0-2.5
SM
GRAYISH -BROWN, SILTY FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH GRAVEL AND TRACE
ORGANICS (DENSE, MOIST) (FILL)
2.5-4.0
BURIED TOPSOIL WITH ROOTS
4.0-8.0
SP-SM
BROWNISH -GRAY. FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL (MEDIUM
DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST)
ML
GRAY SILT WITH FINE SAND AND TRACE IRON -OXIDE (STIFF, MOIST)
8.0-10.0
SAMPLE WAS COLLECTED 9.0 FEET
GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
MODERATE TEST PIT CAVING WAS ENCOUNTERED BETWEEN 4.8 AND 8.0 FEET
TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 10.0 FEET ON 3/1/04
TEST PIT FOUR
0.0-2.0
Sm
GRAYISH -BROWN, SILTY FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH GRAVEL AND TRACE
ORGANICS (DENSE, MOIST) (FILL)
2.0-3.0
BURIED TOPSOIL WITH ROOTS
ORANGISH-BROWN, FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST)
3.0-3.7
SP-SM
NO SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED
GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 3.7 FEET ON 3/11/04
BD:KMS
A
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
FILE NO 388104
FIGURE 5
z
0
1
0
m
son
-11
X
0
M
co
co 9
Z
C3
M
E ast
West
150
150
0
1 0-ft
0
C.0
Sewer
:3.
=
<
Easement
CD
CX.
U)
T
Planned House
120—
CD
CD
—120
Top of Steep Slope,
20 ft (min)
90
a
0 Z
.4
90
Existing Sewer Line
l eg
n 0
>
>n
> Z
Planned Drilled Pier
r
M
z > r
40 ft (min)
60
U) U)
M 0
—60
0 Z
n
-1 0
MU) g
Puget Sound
0 n
r
30
0
0 n
—30 Burlington
0
>
Northern
r
Railroad
Z
9
L-0
o-
M
0 0.
U3
T.
Approximate Scale: 1 inch =30 feet (Horizontal and Vertical)
0
>
A0Reference:
Cross-section is based on an electronic file prepared by Architectural Design Associates, titled "Rock Peterson and Maggie Rose,"
titled "Edmonds East Quadrangle," dated 1973.
dated 1/2003, and a topo map prepared by the Geological Survey,
4 %k%A toCAD\388104 Pet;'r-son\388i 04 Figure 6.dwg
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL
-----�NGA ASSOCIATES, INC. FIELD REPORT
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS
17311-135th Ave. NE, A-500
Woodinville, WA 98072 Project: File No-388,/
Tel (425) 486-1669
Fax (425) 481-2510 Owner: Date:' q 1154
Location: Report
Weather: a 5: Page: of -
Purpose
of Visit: (,nn By:�E&
In I'
t
WIZ
Attachments: Signed:
Distribution:
z
0
1
0
rn
--I -n
M
C
M 0
0
0
0
M
M Z
1c) --I
C
3:
q -n
n
M M
0
0
0 M
C C/)
C cf)
M 0
Z
>
z
--I
M
z
0
0
M
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL
-----N-�GA ASSOCIATES� INC.
FIELD REPORT
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS
17311-135th Ave. NE, A-500
Woodinville, WA 98072 Project:
File No
Tel (425) 486-1669
Fax (425) 481-2510 Owner:
Date:
Location:
--T--V--
Report No
Weather:
Page: -of
Purpose
By:
of Visit:
z
0
M
=i
rx— 6w) a A -2 a :Oaj a-4- /00. S71-
Ac 'Q CA:� J ±'rp 6--op Z&4!?a
0 M
C
M 0
0
0
0 C
M
M Z
C
CD
0 -n
n
M M
5)
0 r-
0 M
C C1)
M 0
Z
z
C/)
z
0
M
Sign
Attachments: e
Distribution:
07/20/2004 13:32 14254812510 NELSON GEOTECHNICAL PAGE 03/10
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL
* eN" �GA ASSOCIATES9 INC.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GF_oLoGisTs
FIRM QUALIFICATIONS
The geotcchnical and geologic engineering firm of NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCTATES, INC.
(NGA) has personnel with maay years of experience. The engineers and geologists axe committed to the
efforts and innovative approaches to perforly�ing projects and studies as rcquested, in -a timely ar1dc05t-
effective manner. This commitment is manifested in the field, laboratory, and consultation work pro-
vided on each project.
Long-term geotechnical contractsare a staple of NGA work. At present, NGA has several clients where
long-term contracts were negotiated and are on -going. An excellent example of this type of working
relationslaip includes the Arlington School District, Lakewood School District, Noxthshore Utility Dis-
trict, and the City of Sultan.
NGA has the capability to perform nii-house design, analysis, and consultation for geotechnical issues
wjt� a fully equipped soils laboratory, analyses of soil cliatactefistics, composition, and proper des can
be evaluated. NGA has field nuclev deinsometers and the certification of its personnel to perform
earthwork, construction monitoring- The field personnel work closely with the clients' project supervi-
Sots, earthwork contractors, and engineers to maintain proactive approaches for performance and comple-
tion of the projectu.
17311-la5th Avanue NE, A-500, Woodinville, WA 98072
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. 425-486-1669 fx:425-481-2510 www.nolsongeatech-conl
z
0
1
0
M
07/20/2004 13:32 14254812510 NELSON GEOTECHNICAL PAGE 04/10
FIRM OVERVIEW
GEOTEcHNICAL ENGINEERING
-P Exploration and characterization of soil and
rock
* Reinfbrced soil wall design
- Surface and gromid water cv-aluation
- Foundation bearing capacity evaluation
9 Pile and pier capacity design
* Pavement design
- Shoring design
- Slope stability and landslide analysis
- instrumentation installation and monitoring
- Forensic studies of failures and/or distress
Explorqtiolls
1411fiker %VW1 Vesigii
CONSTRUCTION MONITORING AND
LABORATORY TESTING
• Compaction monitoring and testing structural filt
• Evaluation, tieback, and shoring monitoring
Pile and pier installation monitoring
Laboratory analysis of soil properties
Settlement analysis, load testing, and surcharge
monitoring
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
Geologic constraints� bluff studies, and
slopc analyses
Studies for municipal and domestic water
Coastal processes evaluation and study
Off -shore, river, and geomorphological
studies
Fault mapping and seismicity evaluation
Coal mine hazards and evaluation
Aerial photo interpretation CC0jggic%k1/Ceotechnic-d E-girteering
Gravel source and quarry studies Bitiff StudieS
Earth science historical research rcview
17311-135th Avenue NE, A-500, Wo;-d—invifie, WA—iB072
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. 425-486-1669 fx;425-481-2510 www.nalsongeotech-com
Z
0
i
0
M
--I -n
3:
M
C
M 0
0
C)
0 C:
—1 K
X M
M Z
JO --i
C
CD
0 -n
n
M M
0
0
0 M
C: U)
9 Cn
Q
Z
Z
--q
3:
(D
Z
0
1
0
M
07/20/2004 13:32 14254812510 NELSON GEOTECHNICAL PAGE 05/10
CONSTRUCTION MONITORING AND
MATERiALsTESTING
NORTH SAm�,IAAusti PLATEAu AcCEss RoAD (NSPAR)
ISSAQUAH7 WA
The NSPAR is atnajor road construction project in the Issaquali area
of King County. We were hired by King County to assist d-leir RP-
praisal team with the evIviation. of the waterial on the Lakeside Indus-
tries Gravel Pit, where a potdon of die new road traverses. Our in
Vollrement included coordinating the drilling contractors, the 3uxveY-
ors, and laboratory analyses, as well as fiZ-titne field monitoring of
the explorations. The geologic report presented to King County Was
composed of xese.-ach from numerous sources, laboratory analyses,
and our conclusions of the type of material present in the subject nea.
Field Work
Laboratory Testing
Analyses
17311-135th Avonue NE, A-500, Woodinville, WA 98072
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC- 425-486-1669 fx:425-481-2510 www.nelsongeotec;h.com
z
0
q
0
M
--i -n
0 M
C
M
0
0
0
X M
M z
%D
C:
0)
0 -n
n
M M
0 —Cn
0 r-
0 M
C Cn
9 Cn
M 0
Z
z
--i
M
Cn
z
0
--I
3
M
07/20/2004 13:32 14254812510
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL
PAGE 06/10
DAVID L. NELSON, PG
Principal
11 ENCE
Mr. Nelson has been active in the practice of engineering geology since 1971. Following his graduation
from the University of Washington, he was involved in a wicle variety of projects throughout the Pacific
Northwest and Alaska. Mr. Nelson has substantial experience in the fields of engineering geology and
has headed two engineering geology departments for firms in the Seattle/13clIeVue ama.
Mr. Nelson has been involved in a broad range of ptojects, from preliroinaxy site evaluation to detailed
soils and rock explorations. His project experience in the field of engineering geology include- subsur-
face explorations, laboratory analysis and evaluation of soil and rock materials for single and =dti-story
structures, residential dwellings, highways and airfields, control and microwave towexs, lake and deten-
sel
tion impoundments, commercial and industrial facilities, pipelines and tunnels. He has worked clo y
with geotedinical. engineers on these projects, providing tiubsurface information and interprctaton of
geology, hydrology and the origin of landforms. He has strong interpretive sidlls and a thorough knowl-
edge of Pacific Northwest geology. His Alnskan experience includes geotechnical, geologic, and con-
struction monitoring in the Aleutians, Kodiak Island, and Southeast Alaska. Dave is licensed as a
professional geologist, engineering geologist, and hydrogeologist in the State of Washington.
KHALED SHAWISH� PE
Principal
PROFESS1 LAL
91'
As a Senior Engineer and Principal with NG A, Khaled manages municipal, commercial, and residential
projects. This includes setting up and managing project budgets, determining project scope and objec-
tives, reviewing project plans, overseeing field exploration and site reconnaissance programs, solving
complex geotechnical engineering design and construction issues, preparing geotechnical engineering
reports and design details, and maintaining contact with clients, project design team, and governing
agencies during the design and construction phases Of the project.
Some of the technical aspects of his expetience includes foundation and retaining wall design, seismic
site evaluation and liquefaction analysis, landslide evaluation and repair, slope stability analysis, rein-
forced earth walls, soldier pile walls, deep foundations, anchors, and tiebacks. Khaled has successfiXy
designed and supervised the construction Of numerous retaining wall and slope stabilization systems,
including soldier pile walls and tiebacks, He is currently involved in designing a 30-foot high soldier pile
wall with up to three tows of tiebacks in Lynn-N-vood, Wasl�ngton.
17311-135th Avenue NE, A-500, Woodinville, WA 98072
NELSON GEOTEcHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. 425-486-1669 fx:425-491-2510 Www.ne15onge0tG0h,C0M
Z
0
i
0
M
--i -n
M
rn 0
0
__10
0 C
--I ?I
:C rn
M Z
C=
>
F—
�
0 _n
n
M M
0
0
0 M
C: cl)
K Zn
M 0
Z
M,
>
Z
Z
0
i
0
M
07/20/2004 13:32 14254812510 NELSON GEOTECHNICAL PAGE 07/10
Michael D. Rundquist
project Engineer
.ENCF
M*e's experience includes sub5utface exploration, and construction monitoring for large-scale resi-
dential, municipal and commercial projects. This includes exploration, design, and monitoring of rein-
forced soil wall installation, Pile Systems, and general earthwork. The pile driving projects included the
new King County Library in Issaquah, Washington and the Westlake Marina project. The King County
for support using a diesel
Library involved driving several hundred large -diameter steel piles structural
z
0
hammer. The Mating. project involved driving �M-ibet piles under water.
i
Mike's retaining wall and slope stabilization pxoje ct3 include the Woods Creek Entry Road project in
0
M
Mon toe and the SSPAR project in Issaquah.
q --n
Jeffrey League
C M
Project Geologist
M 0
EZOEE15510NAL EXP "RIENCE
0
0 C
K
Jeff has experience performing geotechnical explorations and construction monitoring sen-ices for small-
M
M Z
to large-scale residential and corru-nercial projects. His work experience includes project managetnent�
C P
field and lab work, and report preparation.
3:
nil 1'
His experience also includes logging soil samples obtaijaed during drilling, test pit, and ha a. ger explo-
0 -n
rations. He also has performed geote6nical field tests, wWch include grouncivrater level measurements
and soil infiltradontate evaluations.
M M
0 F) .
Jeff har, pctforined earthwoxk construction. monitoring to evaluate whether or not construction activities
0 r—
0 M
C (D
comply with plan specifications, His experience in const.ruction monitoring includes soil density tests,
9 C/)
M C)
foundation soil evaluations, and reinfoxced-earth wall construction monitorixig.
Z
Bala A. Dodoye-Alali
3:
Project Geologist
z
'FIN C F,
CD
Bala started with NGA as a Staff Geologist and has worked her -way up to project management. Her
z
0
responsibilities include overseeing staff geologists, and managing exploration pruiects. Bala has man-
—i
0
aged long-term municipal projects such as Arlington High School and Lakewood School Districts, as
M
well as commercial and numerous residential projects.
Bala has experience in exploration geology that includes logging sod samples obtained during drilling,
hand auger and test pit explorations, as well as 6eld testing of soil compaction. She has performed field
g fi don tes of
tests which includes measuring groundwater elevations at well sites, and measmin in dti-a ra
sod$.
17311-135th Avenue NE, A-500, Woodinvillo, WA 98072
NELSON GEoTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. 425-480-1669 fy.425.481-2510 www.nelsongeotech-com
07/20/2004 13:32 14254812510 NELSON GEOTECHNICAL PAGE 08/10
Alison D. Jackson
Staff Geologist
Alison joined our team in the spring of 2002. She has been a positive addition, providing field ex-plota-
tions, construction monitoring and labonatory testing, She also provides AutoCAD drafting for our
geotcchD!cal and geologic reports and letters.
Calvin McCaughan
z
0
Staff Engineer
0
M
PRO,-±dUQEAL Expr-mir-N—cm
=i:n
Calvin is our newest professional on board. A recent graduate with a Bachelors Degree in civil engineer-
0
ing, Calvin will assist with explorations, design, and monitoring on individual projects. He Will also
M
C
M
pr ovide AutoCAD drafting and laboratory testing.
0
--10
0
M
Office Staff.-
Mz
Marilee Hooper - Bookkeeper Bxyce Niekamp - Lab & AutoCAD Technician
C:: -2
--I
Leigh Anne Malavotte - Office Manager Michael Birkmeyer - Lab & AutoCAD Technician
r-
X
Vi
Kathleen Nelson - Business Development
0 -n
n
REFERENCF,a
X
M M
0 U5
0 r-
Cro8s Valley Water District Mr. Gary Hajek 425-485-8461
0 M
0)
Cn
PO Box i3l General Manager
M 0
Z r-
Snohomish, WA 98290
Arlington School District Ms. Heidi -Berger -Hanson 360-435-0386
315 N. French Street Capital Planning
z
Atlington� WA 98223
(n
Pacific Engineering & Design Mr. Martin Davy, PE 509-662-1161
z
0
7 N. Wenatchee Ave; Ste 405 Civil Engineer
0
Wenatchee, WA
M
Enviromnental Associates, Inc. Mr. Doti Spencer 425-455-9025
2122-112th Ave NE; Ste B Principal
Bellevue, WA 98004
Lakewood School District Mr. Fred Owyen 360-652-4503
PO Box 2200 Superintendant
Lakewood� WA
17311-135th Avonue NE, A-500, Woodinville, WA 98072
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. 425-486.1669 fx,425-481-2510 www.nolsongeotech.com
07/20/2004 13:32 14254812510 NELSON GEOTECHNICAL PAGE 09/10
2004 PROJEC17S
COMMERCIAL PROJECTS
Battell Drug Store
Seattle, WA
Bartell Drug Company
Marysville Medical Condos
Marysville, WA
Sierra Construction
L-aQuinta Inn
Lakewood, WA
Sherwood Ian
6-Unit Development
Everett, WA
Frank Btaillard
Brien Motors
Everett, WA
Brien Motors
Village Subs
Everett, WA
Cascade Testing
NO Creek Conunexcial
Mill Creek, WA
Jacobsen Development
Ben Franklin Addition
Monroe, WA
Adtian Taylor
Thrashers Comer Retail
Bothell, WA
Cascade Testing
Bickford Motors EXP2nsOn
Snohomish, WA
Gary Parkinson Ambitects
Boyd Motel
Leavenworth, WA
Lyman Boyd
Bellevue Montersori School
BcUevue, WA
Steve Elkins Architects
jKEsjDF,NT1AL PROJECTS
29-Acre Plat
Lakcwood, WA
I-lighground Development
Whispering Ridge
Wenatchee, XVA
Paul Bondo
Estates at Mghland Bay
Picnic Poit, WA
Dennis Russell
Ashworth Ave. Townhomes
Seattle, NVA
Steve Neil.5on
North Plateau
E, Wenatchee, WA
Stimac Development
Canyon Hills
E. Wenatchee, WA
Selland Construction
OTHF,R
Port Orchard Sewer Port Orchard, WA
Eastgate Congregational Church Bellevue,\VA
Calvary Chapel Bellevue, WA
Bedacb Che)h Seawall Tulalip, \VA
City of Port Orchard
Calkins Construction
Calvary Chapel
Tulalip Tribes
17311.135th Avenue NE, A-500, Woodinville, WA 98072
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. 425-486-1669 fx:425-481-2510 www.nelsongeotech-COM
z
0
1
0
M
07/2e/2eO4 13:32 14254812510 NELSON GEOTECHNICAL PAGE 01/le
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL
ASSOCIATES, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS GIE:OLOGISTS
Facsimile Transmittal
To: Rock Peterson
Company: Brien Ford
z
Phone: 425-743-3421
0
Fax: 425-353-7199
0
M
From: Bala Dodoye-Alali
Company: Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc.
3:
0 M
C
17311-135" Ave, NE, A-600
M
Woodinville, WA 98072
0
0
0
Phone: 425-486-1669
C
Fax: 426-481-2510
M
M z
Date: July 20, 2004
> z
pages Including Cover Page: 10
CO)
NGA File #: 388104
0 -n
-n
CC:
M
M
ck
0
0 M
C M
9 C/)
Mo
Z
Mr. Peterson,
ications. Please
Here is a signed copy of the Special Inspection agreement and a copy of our Firm Qua) if
call if you have any questions.
>
z
Thank you.
CD
Bala Dodoye-Alali
z
0
Project Geologist
0
M
07/20/2004 13:32 14254812510 NELSON GEOTECHNICAL PAGE 10/10
U0.00 r.,LA 'M va
16! -32
C3W OF ZDMONW
SPZCIAL SPECIE& AMMUMCA
cl o o
Unus Uw 040"Irl
31W azza"V"im— ix ij�-Wii 90 4*cMftt
13"ORE A PFAMT CAN BE MSUMD: TbIt OWDW 90d 004ftOukw wd a Owen"
11 Acili; tw md ft wadwd dmmld UnKs) wd Copecdow =Z� *4
4 z
.0
2wL4L IN :CTOW; Bach mmww MI IFADII Xbon. be ad by ft
APPROVAL OF 81? Sri
BW offcw, Wkw to low '&i= Eich w=ial u;xlo!vblno ffabmft
onliftob" fo V vcvivw. Sims& tmlqp&*Mx I" &MUV
Sutmft Of v
cm w= And toseum &a
of w
3:
M
c 0
I. Cftsrvt Wwk M
--1 0
dgil oboom ft oft *,ctk ft c not wo-, 1 p 1 0
rw *ft- 1 -13,
"itz= AM Ind od�� MA vopbc*k- v, LIP W Sling" of IWVM 0 C:
zM bet uwgd as -op
'aft IlL iafi*MU bid&-apoom fbo X M
I inspadm 4M To be saw q?-ooW- Mz
wMpq;M
SLALM A
in-apactor is m site at an dause obowvbg ft wrtmpmoilot
wakocuoux6 if ziy� xmist bum amwdvW tba a�_bokivlecft a
wa amw c —Z
rwAwwod >
2. %VwtN" CM&r TOMS
d b%"tw%:rwft - �- =--- -w- ft low"do AM" of *9 cn
0 C wd 24M ll� 0 -n
aDd am A inme ils at itm mot nnz&wd in a tin* -n
nM= AnD be'
%Mv ft dAU ifto be the &W of ft *OEW il�� tD'
d.=F M M
aqpmw
0 U5
0 r
3. C606144 D&W i4w b- 0 M
bath ton ft daft
comolft Md C cn
M 0-M. r
a vrith So 9 cn
Mo
Z r-
4- va"ook Wa*%r yvarb AT
The spaw CY on. Unkh ac city WA
.bwpww 4r
lo%L- agamw or M d M a 0 U, ow, *q—p vim be
an ToporhL Msolt kaudoto 4 >
z
Md twift qi��
of its=
Nit SU IV
ftmtonsaft
hefidud chonm aaftdnd by -%v Awrchkmt, i=XM if not in U5
nmnFl MajumaggWojoM z
0
S.'Flarabh FMW Cowbugdon Rcvwt 0
LLIMSM- �- WCOM6~7
,nw op." w4oft- w or --1 shaR submit a ftd lwM to dw city dwing M
thot an I"= pead- --mveaAwk PO4 $"Un& va boL Ax4 io this
boK of W64ow'Im =A in is vM P -- -- — - *6 of pbm #Ad
ficatimko, avod,= -at an MA ow jqvb- =I& ft*Mwblh*-- WAW of dw
cr mmoornd mw or ay Tn wvcwm
o0vulam (I-M, =swd
l-'a— -, CM)SWU Deep
07/20/2004 13:32 14254812510 NELSON GEOTECHNICAL PAGE 02/10
07/20/2004 09:36 FAX 4253471808 la 04
R.03/05
I. mat* the alpftvm hopacbr
Tt is dw dav of t1w Qaftacw to nolb ft ApIcild m'wutm wbw work Js zoady hr qxpd
m . qmdm Now, as mm mod an Me mWwd —bodW " ft U*Wd an dw up9mved
plim sod AP6C*r3CWKMW MW MqUh to b*Va V*0W kWCCbML Ad@qO*O MW AuM be
pmvl&d by tM aouMWAW so *9 the qmwW huqmcbor hN IWO ft 130mm iwmlw wft
2. Prwmc Ac� to Appeved PUM
730 Caftemetm is nwPOMMO sbr pmvftg 60 wMaw mom to offmcd phns at
3. Rmbft Spedd hapediM DOWda
The Quatremor is MWOMAble to rosin at *0 'awto on raoat& sqb�
bythespecWhWPOM. Prwm"tDftCifybuHdinzbqw=Ww
CkV 91 FAA
L Appme I W,
bMwcWp wd qmcial inwoc*m
I
?444#w qmw fmq� ad Wme waft mwft
Z=&My Vpam-d fm�� ms 00 valmm" of wdid don be
I)y city Bw- m u-mmwl NwIff *w0v or to
be" C"Ve"Ibe Of 0"Impow
Buudm *ms a Cerfifiedo of 00W
4movy d1w A wmddy Rmw bwppctkm
rq=U indbadna The ftd bowsbum I tudilml ind iooqft&
*a mw or fts =0mm or woWWd of racmd acting n the ownces 39M dwU fdW
Eadmor or
1*6 maimp I ag mcm arr"m j1han =chA-. VecIA msp"m Toqovemmuft w Vn p1mm and
ACKNOWLEDGMUM
I have mad to caxw& wok At mm and amodimm qftkw awreamew-
opd aerm
ow.
Contractir
City Building Offici /OV
z
0
A
0
m
FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL FORM
TO:
DATE:
MEMO TO: PERMIT COORDINATOR, BUILDING DIVISION
FROM: FIRE DEPARTMENT DATE- z
PLEASE SIGN 0
ENGINEERING DIVISION DATE
PLMSESIGN
.,,�,,�__PLANNING DIVISION DATE
PLEASCS&G
PROJECT
SITE ADDRESS- go, 1-79
PERMIT# ZOZA - ADB# DATEINSPECTED
DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE INSPECTED
Q
-approved plans. Final approval
A field inspection was conducted to determine compliance with
of
denotes that there are no objections from the above signed Department to the release
PERFORMANCE BONDS and the granting of:
V�GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL
GRANT PROJECT APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS NOTED
El Copy of CONDITIONS given to owner/contractor by inspector
FAILED FINAL INSPECTION - OUTSTANDING ISSUES
0 Copy of CORRECTION NOTICE given to owner/contractor by inpector
I .
2.
RE -INSPECTED OUTSTANDING ISS I UES - GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL
Date Signature
1:tenip:b1dg:forms:oca1)rv1 3/25/04
M
-4 -n
M
C:
M
0
__40
0 C
--I K
= M
M Z
ID
C:
cl)
0 _n
n;U
--i >
:r 9
M M
0
0
0 M
C: Cl)
9 [n
M 0
Z r-
M
z
z
0
M
FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL FORM
TO:
DATE:
MEMO TO: PERMIT COORDINATOR, BUILDING DIVISION
FROM: FIRE DEPARTMENT DATE
PLE-A.SE SM
? ENGINEERING DIVISION DATE,-D 6?
nEASE
SIGN
PLANNING DIVISION DATE
nz-zeSIGN
PROJECT.
SITE ADDRESS
)IK19 Z 76
PERMIT #
ADB#
DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE INSPECTED
A field inspection was conducted to determine final compliance with approved plans. Final approval
denotes that there are no objections from the above signed Department to the release of
PERFORMANCE BONDS and the granting of:
GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL
GRANT PROJECT APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS NOTED
u Copy of CONDITIONS given to owner/contractor by inspector
FAILED FINAL INSPECTION - OUTSTANDING ISSUES
o Copy of CORRECTION NOTICE given to owner/contractor by inspector
2.
3.
RE -INSPECTED OUTSTANDING ISSUES - GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL
Date Sign_
ocaprv1.doc.1:tenip:b1dg:fomis 10/0 1
z
0
M
-n
0 M
C
M 0
0
-40
0 C:
--i K
3: M
M Z
3:
cn
0 -n
n
M M
0 U5
0 r-
0 M
C cl)
9 Cn
Q
Z
r
z
--I
X
Cl)
z
0
M
I I
RECORD OF INSPECTIONS
INSPECTOR DATE APPROVED
SETBACKS ..................... DOI
FOUNDATION:
Footing ......................
Wall .......................... M3 uo- oc
Pier/Porch .................
Retaining Wall ........... z
0
Slab Insulation .......... 0
M
PLUMBING:
96-
Underground .............
0) --1
M3 x
Rough -In ................... M
C
M
Commercial Final ...... 0
0
0 C
HEATING:
MM
Gas Test .................... M Z
C� C
Gas Piping ................. >
Equipment .................
C/)
Commercial Final ....... 0
n
M
EXTERIOR SHEATHING
NAILING .......................... M
0
0
FRAMING ........................ 0 M
C C/)
FIRST FLOOR FRAMING ... 9 Cn
Q 0
Z
INSULATION ................... -I
Floor Insulation .........
Wall Insulation ........... >
z
Ceiling Insulation .......
SHEETROCK NAILING ... \Vl) X, Cn
z
0
SPECIAL INSPECTION ... --I
0 3
M
MISCELLANEOUS ..........
FINAL APPROVAL FOR
OCCUPANCY ..................
SideSewer#
Amout Paid $ -Receipt
Date LsSued__�_ - - `YnIrPs
1�3/
WaterMeterSizen .............
Ami unt, Paid ecel 02W-7
7�7
7
DatePurChased
The initials N4T are Milton
ROW#- Thompson, a tcniporary contract
inspector for thc City.
Amount Paid $.�—RccelPtO -
Date Tssuc r-'xP1res