Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
20040783.pdf
DATE CITY OF EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION OWNER NAME/NAME OF BUSINESS MAILING ADDRES CITY ZIP TELEPHONE NAME ADDRESS CITY VAMwl 4 NAME i�:AQS (-L. P-PIA t3GkA 9vt\i ZIP TELEPHONE CBL a (. ADDRESS CITY ZIP TELEPHONE I �It1 17/Jt�S lL!A 8L L(�y 4l-25r' 4q6 lviv STATE LICENSE NUMBER EXPIRATION DATE Cj 131Y PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL NO. -D09t4-L 0000ne L%o BZW NEW RESIDENTIAL PLUMBING / MECH ❑ ADDITION ❑ COMMERCIAL ❑ MPLIANCE OR COHANGE OF USE ❑ REMODEL ❑ MULTIFAMILY ❑ SIGN FENCE ❑ REPAIR G�$I j� _ CYDS ❑ ( X FT) ❑ DEMOLISH ❑ TANK ❑ OTHER GARAGE RETAINING WALL FIRE SPRINKLER I CARPORT L ROCKERY ❑ FIRE ALARM (TYPE OF USE, BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXP}A NUMBER NUMBER OF CRITICAL f OF 'L DWELLING , AREAS STORIES UNITS NUMBER J DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE 0 vZ HEAT SOU CE GLAZING % LOT SLOPE %J !I c PLAN CHECK NO: VESTED DATE THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO F- BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC DOMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE SEPARATE PERMISSION. cc PERMIT APPLICATION: 180 DAYS W n PERMIT LIMIT: 1 YEAR - PROVIDED WORK IS STARTED WITHIN 180 DAYS SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION w 'APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF 2 EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY = FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIL ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT RE DEEMED TO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE O NOR I-IMIT 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 WITII CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC NON; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED IN VIOLATION OF THE LABDE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO WORKMEN'S COMPENSA 11ySU ANCE AND RCW 18.2T SIGNATURI NER OR E DATE SIGNED L PERMIT EXPIRES USE PERMIT LONE NUMBER JOB \ SUITE/APT# ADDRESS PLAT NAME/SUBDIVISION NO LOT NO. LID NO. LID FEE $ ed PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP RW Pe mit Required RW Permit Ruquuod Street Use Pormd Req'd EXISTING PROPOSED Inspection Required Sidewalk Required REQUIRED DEDICATION FT UndnrprrnmA W mnp required METER SIZE LINE SIZE N0. OF FIXTURES PR�V,(REQUIRED t ( + YES �11 NO El /' REMARKS OWNER/CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROL/DRAINAGE �U,�i� CD I�►�P�l-CtiltJ'y r i�l : C'�SiL'ty - ERING REVIEWED BY FIRE REVIEWED BY DATE o i el DATE r7 z cc W z z z W VARIANCE OR CU SHORELINE OR ADBM INSPECTION I BOND REQ'O POSTED OYES &0 S SEPIA REVIEW REVIEW SIGN AREA HEIGHT COMPLETE EXEMPT ALLOWED PROPOSED ALLOWED PROPOSED EXP LOT COVERAGE REQUIRED SETBACKS (FT.) PROPOSED SETBACKS (FT.) ALLOWED PROPOSED FRONT SIDE REAR FRONT UR SIDE�EAR Jr>`,O �,�j�r% if✓T iL7t i01 �� 10` IGr iCi jail z PARKING LOT AREA PLANNING REVIEWED BY DATE g REO'D PROVIDED C. ARKS CHECKED BY TYPE OF CONSTRUC ION uu GROUP i �� j/� • / GROUP l•f , SPECIAL INSPECTION AREA OCCUPANT REQUIRED M YES LOAD -'� ��%. �.t�.+� REMARKS PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 108/IBC109/IRC109 FINALINSPECTION REQ'D 9 Z 1.4? VALUATION l/�/- 2 Description FEE Description FEE Plan Check ^ �J2 State Surcharge L r ~> Building Permit ,fl� ' L City Surcharge If `IPIII`Pf� Plumbing Base Fee F ,- Mechanical I 10'— Grading ' '� r 1 Engr. Review [_ r.1J Engr. Inspection — Fire Review Plan Chk. Deposit Fire Inspection Receipt 0 Landscape Insp. Total Amt. Due Recording Fee Receipt # APPLICATION APPROVAL GALL 1 his application is not a permit until signed by the Building 011iciat of his/her Deputy. and Fees are paid, and FOR INSPECTION receipt is acknowledged in space provided OFFIC/}1,LS.SIGNATURF DIATE 771=0220 RELEAS_ p TION EXT 1333 ITISUNLAWFULTO USE R CCUPYABUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTILA FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN ADEANDAPPROVALORACERTIFICATE OFOCCU- pANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC109/IBC110/IRC110. 13 PRESS HARD -YOU ARE MAKING 4 COPIES Ey 'PATE) ORIGINAL. FILE,,)YELLOW - 1 SPECTOR PINK - OWNER • GOLD - ASSESSOR 1 )(2f pp n nUT. 'O '1 b A n O T�•a 36 �y NQ 1 IV V I I •. T - " it im a I25 03'N eNz + /� 5a G II _ N ' _ _ __ rC, o G - rn � I i I N ` y To f I 47.06 a 1 7 1~ W I I I not O Z i 1 �I �• �rmr p -'" r7 ��7� f N 4 (i N n�1 of r G z IT 8 wf- 5 too f p> _Y I /� 1 Nam �_ ��• f / I yit4 /{(�JI 0 41, ti '/ ` \ f 0� •e O %a 0� < ' / f b Q\a�y.nO •€}'ik�x��°g1 Qon AQ rw to..p,% h a S >•. e I. i � u."IOF �n �— � S•I I ; �ZAFA +J� V jyp� a N W G1 r=irn �I ✓;i Lgpps` Pei ilr y�Y' •Dt /p.• G y � \7YA0�fn�y it rl ATy<7 "�• M OOS"2 togO• '� ,• ��G1 Ni'A� !.M- zz > aN� NCR MEN otK too 40 aa rrI INS 0 vie.� m r� r4, I p CIO94 k\ m \ Q •� p gyp+ n Z. / p� N CD o n Z w rn a rrt c rn pI T I I 4 F� All; 51TE PLAN PROPERTY INFORMATION 'Aid � a o xCN o n 0 A I tonl m C5 SA t v�m > °p > b > o > b O > o D b > o Y b y o r =7 N > T D � � •L I O Hosterman lies: van Kairez nrive.. Kearsley Homes) Inc, Design & Construction Z 0 41A 0 m N vm m� -� 0 0n _ M m Z pft0000l C z r _ o� mm o � 0M rn 9� Zr. Z 0 rn t- 1 By order of the Building Official for the City of Edmonds All persons Are Ordered to d S T 0 P WO I - . : 9 1 i. _ t ;_, . .; ,:. ,J t J 5 ,. '1T Not. �ONCE 1. 5' :Address: Propert'Qwner(if known ski( M_ A Am too, :.Contractor (if known): r., .tl} r We are unable to locate a valid permit for the work being done at this address A permit is "required ,for this project. Work SHALL NOT continue until, a permit has been obtained and .the work inspected for conformance with, applicable codes 'and ordtnances �If you t: r,, Have; already obtained the permit, please contact us ;at (425) 771 0220'Withthe =permit t,, n 'number so we can revise our records. ; An application must be submitted or a response in writing it -must be made to our office no later than 4:00 pm onIS A VIOLATION FEE EQUAL OR UP TO FIVE TIMES I- r ``' , THE PERMIT FEE SHALL, BE ASSESSED. z, >1 1 t} Il,1 1t Pos ted this 2r�sT d ay of �D� It t Buildii = fF16al f Warn>ln�: The faifure to stop Itis work or activity and/or the .;, y... •resumin u of work without ermission or the removal RK mutilation.,or concealment of this Notice is punishable by 'fine and imprisonment. City of Edmonds Development Services Department Building Division 121 5"' Ave N • 13dnuxlds, WA 9S020 • (425) 771-0220 Oftice f lours Nil -1' 9-12 and 1-4 P Z 0 m 71 om m� �0 0� _M mz D z in o -n D 2 � min � o 0M CCt) �C/) M Zm D Z 2 Cn z 0 M Drilled pier installation completed without required Special Inspection as noted on the approved plans for the project and in accordance with UBC 1701. The Geotechnical Engineer of Record must verify that the drilled pier installation meets the requirements of the geotechnical report dated July 23, 2004 (and supplemental reports/letters) and the approved plans for the project, and shall submit a letter to the City Building Official approving the pier construction. If the Geotechnical Engineer cannot approve the installation, he/she shall submit a letter (stamped and signed) to the Building Official for review noting the deficiencies of the installation, with a plan to resolve this issue. If the changes affect the structural design of the house as shown on the approved plans, the Structural Engineer must submit revised plans (stamped and signed) for City review and approval. No work shall be done until this issue is resolved and that Stop Work has been lifted by the Building Official. e 0 0 m �m CM �o oC _M Mz p�q az r_= M o"n i� mrn_ O� n r m m� Zr n z 0) z 0 0 M i McConnell, Jeanie From: McConnell, Jeanie Sent, Friday, October 22, 2004 9:48 AM To: 'kearsleyhomes@comcast.net' Cc: Mike & Lynne Hosterman; Snook, Mike; calvinm@nelsongeotech.com; Bullis, Ann Subject. RE: water main at lot 7, 17802 Kariz Drive, Edmonds Good morning Robin, The Engineering Division will be posting a correction notice this morning stating the footings must be removed from the easement area. You of course are already aware of this requirement, but the notice has to be posted for procedural reasons. Your engineer ,will then need to redesign the footing and this redesign will need to be reviewed by the Building Division for acceptance. At this time the extent of the Engineering Division requirements is to move the footings outside of the easement area. Please submit two copies of the redesign, wet stamped and signed by geotech of record and structural engineer of record to the City of Edmonds Building Division. Any additional requirements by the building division will follow. Thank you, Jeanie McConnell --Original Message ..... From: Robin Kearsley[mailto:kearsleyhomes@comcast.net] l Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 3:00 AM To: Mcconnell@ci.edmonds.wa.us IIII Cc: Mike & Lynne Hosterman; Snook@ci.edmonds.wa.us; calvinm@nelsongeotech.com Subject: water main at lot 7, 17802 Kariz Drive, Edmonds Hi Jeanie, Thanks for meeting at the above site today. I am pushing for a fast resolution to the water main issue. Since the solution to the water main will likely involve input and or redesign of the concrete footings and/or excavation of the existing soils or determination of the characteristics of the existing soil, would it be possible to arrange a meeting with yourself, Nelson Geotechnical and the structural engineer to meet at the site next Tuesday or Wednesday so that we can propose a solution to the City of Edmonds? I emailed Lyle Chrisman about this on 10/12/04 because I did not want the issue to delay the concrete footings since the weather is changing with the possibility of more rain. As soon as we can resolve this, it will minimize the possibilty for disturbance of our excavated footings. Robin Kearsley Kearsley Homes, Inc. 1 Z O l n Ik m crn ma On m Z A� DZ r- —I 2 O -n TI m m O� 0m c ra� rn Z �rn D X D Z 2 Z O n m r; Owner Job Address 17'' 0 2 - ...._..__-_ S t. TO PERMITTEE AND/OR OWNER DO NOT REMOVE A PARTIAL APPROVAL' CORRECTON REQUIRED t Number "741) d - 0 10 � Contact ❑ WORK DESCRIBED BELOW HAS BEEN INSPECTED AND IS APPROVED ENFORCEMENT VIOLATION ❑ APPROVED PLANS AND JOB CARD MUST BE AVAILABLE TO INSPECTOR ON SITE �CORRECTIONS LISTED BELOW MUST BE MADE: BEFORE WORK CAN BE APPROVED AND/OR THE NEXT PHASE OF WORK IS STARTED ❑ RECALL FOR INSPECTION ❑ $50 REINSPECTION FEE MUST BE PAID PRIOR TO INSPECTION REQUEST ❑ STOP WORK -UNTIL AUTHORIZED TO CONTINUE BY CITY INSPECTOR ❑ NO PERMIT -STOP WORK -REMOVE CONSTRUCTION OR OBTAIN PERMIT AND MAKE WORK COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE CITY CODES ffAil,,�J 0 THE ACTIONS OR CORRECTIONS INDICATED ABOVE ARE REQUIRED TO BE CORRECTED WITHIN CALENDAR DAYS OR PENALTIES MAY BE APPLIED. FOR INSPECTION CALL 425-771-0220 ❑ Building ❑ Planning /El Engineering ❑ Fire ❑ Public Works f`tr`�' nal White: Permit File nspector u ;2 /2& Date Pink: Enforcement Buff: Applicant O -1 M vm M0 �O OC -49 M z p� DZ r_= �Cn O� 71 D MM 0� r CCn �Cn ,Z't rrn- D a z -t z 0 0 M 1 Buliis, Ann From: Snook, Mike Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 6:55 AM i To: Bullis, Ann Subject: FW: 17802 Kairez Drive s FYI Michael Snook Senior Combination Building Inspector' Z City of Edmonds 0 _(425) 771-0220 ext..1333 (7 M --original Message-- From: Robin Kearsley[mailto:kearsleyhomes@comcast.net] 1'n Sent: Friday, October'22, 2004,3:36.AM 0) To: Snook@ci.edmonds.,wa.us C M Cc: Mike & Lynne Hosterman; calvinm@nelsongeotech.com M v Subject: 17802 Kairez Drive --10 O C; Hi Michael, m Z There was 'a misunderstanding from the City of Edmonds about the monitoring', of the piling p at the above site yesterday. Calvin McCaughan with Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc. C Z monitored the complete installation. I believe the field reports have been submitted to ra -i the City of Edmonds dated from 10/5/04 to 10/7/04.including approval of probing he soil - for bearing Cl) of the concrete footings. If you need an additional information regarding 0 y -n r the monitoring of the,piling priortoallowing us to continue the concrete footings, once the water main is resolved, please let me know. rn m We did not take test cylinders of the concrete because it was not a condition shown on the ;plans from the City of Edmonds. Yesterday, you said that it would be 'a requirement for Cm V) the house footings and foundation which I Cl) will.schedule for the future. As 'far as the piling, I called Pearson m n Drilling about. the strength of the concrete that was used. It was 4000 psi concrete from rn Cadman and they will submit `the mix design. Thanks for your cooperation, D Robin Kearsley Z Kearsley Homes,` Inc. 425-478-6380 mobile _ '425-742-5888 office Cl) Z •'i' 0 -.I 0 m i Kearsley Homes 42S 742 SSBS 08/03/04 09:17am Pe 002 10:25 From- T457 P 001/001 FaRl ;. CITY Cjr%py. July 28, 2004 City of Edmonds Building DeparUnent MICROFILM 121 5 b Ave. North Edmonds, WA 9020 RE: Project application #04-299, 17802 Kairez Drive, Edmonds, lot 7 I am the owner of lot 8, south of lot 7. 1 have reviewed the site plan on sheet A-1 and have no objections to the proposed new contours indicatlr►g new fill material to be placed up the common property line between lots 7 and 8. If you have questions, you may contact meat 425-778-3204- Theresa Aldridge 9513 Forest Dell Drive Edmonds, WA 98020 A O M cm v � o O C ell m'm z C Sees A� z, r_ —1 O Mn 2� mm O� r C 0)' W zl r Semi S' D z 2 W z O 0 M t.. rN t 1 _ 1. nMAC 41. 17l t• KEARSLEY HOMES, INC. 1) 1: S I G N 6' Cl O N S 'I' R 11 C 'I' I C> N August 23, 2004 To: Dave Gerbert, City Engineer, City of Edmonds , 121 5`I' Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 From: Robin Kearsley, (applicant's representative) Kearsley Homes, Inc. 6631 Norma Beach Road Edmonds, WA 98026 Regarding: Hosterman project, 17802 Kairez Drive, Edmonds, WA 98026, plan check #04-299 Dear Mr. Gerbert, . I am requesting a driveway slope of 16% for the above project instead..of the standard 14% standard slope for driveways in Edmonds.for the following reasons, At• present, the existing slope in the proposed driveway area exceeds 20%. Because of this grade, the intent for the new driveway was to reduce the slope as close tb 14% as possible to allow a 20- foot parking area in front of the garage at a minimum slope towards the garage door so that when driving into the garage, there would be a minimum slope change at the garage door opening. The proposed roof elevation of the garage & house are at the, maximum allowed height of 166.6% This. elevation is only 1.6' higher than the elevation of 165'of the starting point of the driveway at the edge of the street. The roof.pitch of the garage roof has been reduced to a 3.25/12 pitch instead of a 4/12 or greater which would have been more desirable. If the slope of the driveway were to become 14%, the garage roof would have less pitch and affect the esthetics of the garage roof to the main house and also create more steps into the proposed house, which would be undesirable. A higher garage would also create a situation requiring more fill material for the driveway and an increase in height to the proposed driveway retaining wall which is already approximately 9' high where it meets the proposed garage in order to achieve the 16% slope_ For the above reasons, 1 request your approval for a 16% slope for the proposed driveway. If you have any questions, please call me at 425-742-5888 office or 425-478-6380 mobile. Thank you for your consideratign. Sinc rely, I RECEIVEDRobin earsley Kearsley Homes, Inc AUG 3 O 2004 ' BUILDING DEPT, 6631 N( RNIA IiI.ACII ROAI) lil)`1 )NI)S. W,-\ 98026 IT I Fi\X 02i) 742->Sxx r, No. hl.;\IitiI11U(t Wa Stalc Conlracno- i 4/-17 c 189v CITY OF EDMONDS 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 GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR September 15, 2004 Robin Kearsley Kearsley Homes, Inc. 6631 Norma Beach Road Edmonds, WA 98026 RE: Hosterman residence 17802 Kairez Drive Edmonds, WA 98026 Dear Mr. Kearsley, This letter is being sent in response to your request to exceed the maximum allowed driveway slope of 14%. Review of the submitted letter and site plan indicate that site constraints prevent you from obtaining a 14% slope for the driveway. It is understood that adjustments to the house and driveway have already been made in order to reduce the driveway slope below 20%. For these reasons, it is found reasonable to allow a maximum driveway slope of 16% for at this location. Please call the Engineering Inspection line at 425-771-0220, ext. 1326, to schedule your driveway form inspection, prior to pour. If you have any questions regarding these requirements please feel free to contact Jeanie McConnell at 425-771-0220, ext. 1338. Thank you . rr; DAVID K. GEBERT, P.E. City Engineer Jm c: street file �nnit file • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Q -IaP% Eagle Eye Consulting Engineers PO BOX 523 Olalla WA 98359 C:206 356-7790 P:253 857-4939 September 13, 2004 To: Kearsley Homes, Inc. ATT: Robin Kearsley 6631 Norma Beach Road Edmonds. WA 98206 Re: Hosterman Residence 17802 Kairez Drive Edmonds, WA 98026 Client's Reference Number # 04-299 MICROFILM EECE # ED 04-26 This project is approved for " Architectural, Structural, Plumbing, Mechanical, VIAQC and Energy" Permit only. The drawing review has been completed and accepted for permit with the Approved Stamped drawings returned to the City of Edmonds on September 13, 2004. Please note: I redlined on sheet A8.1 for the Collector element to be used at all shear walls and discontinuity. Your plans are being reviewed concurrently with the Building Department, Fire Department, Zoning Department and Public Works Engineering. Changes, clarifications or additional corrections may be required subsequent to the Building Department plan review, when comments are received from the other concerned departments. Should you have any inquiries regarding this letter, please Hoyt Jeter at (253) 857-4151 between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm. City of Edmonds By: Hoyt Jeter, PE President z O 0 M :q -n e rn M v �O Oc i M M Z p� DZ r -I 0 h S get f gelGARY HAAKENSON CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR +N y 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA98020 • (425) 771.0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 It Website: www.dedmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Jh c 18 q p Planning • Building • Engineering t: , i z. August 24, 2005 0 ; Robin Kearsley m Kearsley Homes, Inc. _ 6631 Norma Beach RoadCD Edmonds, WA 98026 rn M RE: IIosterman residence - 17802 Kairez Drive, Edmonds, WA 98026 0 0 C Dear Mr. Kearsley, m z p � This letter is being sent in response to your request, dated May 5, 2005, to exceed the previously > approved driveway slope of`16%. It is understood that this request is being made in order to — _ Cn reduce the slope of the driveway at the entry to the garage to allow for a better parking and 0 -n walking area. As previously noted in your letter dated August 23, 2004,` the elevation of the house has already been raised to the maximum allowable height to reduce the driveway slope. = rn i us y M Thin request is found reasonable and therefore a driveway slope up to a maximum of 20% is 00 approved for this project. 0 M 9 N t_ 5 The City has also reviewed your request to place concrete panels in the driveway instead of Z 3 paving the upper portion of the driveway with asphalt as required by the approved plans. The of concrete panels within the easement area, provided the City agrees to allow the construction panels are no larger than 5' x 5' and provided the enclosed agreement which gives authorization D for the property owners to install a concrete driveway in the public easement, is signed by the z property owners and recorded against the property. cn Please return an original, signed copy of the enclosed agreement and submit payment for ZO recording fees to the Development Services Department. Prior to pouring the concrete driveway, 0. you will be required to call the Engineering Inspection line at 425-771-0220, ext. 1326, to M schedule your driveway form inspection. If you have any questions regarding these requirements please feel free to contact Jeanie McConnell at 425-771-0220, ext. 1338. Thank y VID K. GEBERT, PoEa City Engineer i c: street file J)Connit file • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • f I O, 0 +, f AUTHORIZATION TO USE PUBLIC EASEMENT m' } cm FOR CONCRETE DRIVEWAY AT 17802 KAIREZ DRIVE m v ' 4 --� 0 TAX PARCEL: 00914200000700 O mz WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds (City) owns and operates water and sewer utilities, and D z WHEREAS, Michael P. Hosterman and Lynne Hosterman (Property Owners) are the owners of certain property located at`17802 Kairez Drive, Edmonds, Washington, and m WHEREAS, the City owns and operates a water line within an easement across the property at MR! 17802 Kairez Drive as shown on Exhibit A, and O co { r7 rn' t WHEREAS, the City has established certain public works policies and requirements regarding` 9 Cn public utility improvements construction, ownership, maintenance, and repair; and z WHEREAS, the City has established certain policies - and requirements regarding private X improvements within public utility easements, including that private driveway surfaces within public _; utility easements shall be constructed of asphalt, and D z WHEREAS, these policies also include that, when City utility work disturbs or damages portions _ of private driveways within a City easement, repairs to the _driveways will generally be made using z z asphalt material, and n WHEREAS, these City policies and requirements also include that permission must be granted to m a private property owner to construct a concrete driveway over a City easement," and that the private property owner shall be responsible for the maintenance, repair, and replacement of the portion of the driveway within the easement area, and WHEREAS; the Property Owners desire to constrict a concrete driveway within the public 1 easement as shown on Exhibit A, and WHEREAS, the Property Owners agree to be responsible for the maintenance, repair, and replacement of the portion of the concrete driveway located in the easement, and to do so at their own expense and that of their successors in title in perpetuity, NOW, THEREFORE t The City or Edmonds, Washington, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "City") and Michael P. Ilosterman and Lynne Hosterman (hereinafter "Property Owners") have entered into this agreement in consideration of the mutual benefits to be derived and the promises contained herein. l . Statement of Purpose: The purpose of this agreement is to grant approval for the Property Owners to construct a concrete driveway surface within the public utility easement across the property at. 17802 Kairez Drive as shown on Exhibit A, and to delineate the Property Owners' responsibilities for the maintenance, repair and replacement of said driveway surface. O 2. Undertakings of City. n rn 2.1 Authorization to Utilize Public Easement, In consideration' of the Property Owners' promise to maintain, repair and replace those portions of the concrete driveway located in the 9 public easement, made on behalf of themselves as well as all successors in interest to the Property; the _ City authorizes the utilization of the public casement to maintain said concrete driveway within the City c rn easement shown on Exhibit A in accordance with established City standards and the terms and conditions rn 0 of this Agreement. 0 n O C 2.2 Whenever possible, if City utilities work within the easement requires removal of m Z or damage to the concrete driveway, advance notification will be given to the Property Owners to remove p those portions of the concrete driveway', located within the easement area that interfere with the utility Z work, so that the Property Owners can remove those portions of the concrete driveway from within the cn �_ casement area that interfere with the City utility work. If the portions of the concrete surface that OWn interfere with the utility work are not timely removed by the Property Owners, they shall be removed by m i i the City at the expense of the Property Owners. mm v� 2.3 Nothing herein 'shall be interpreted to limit the City's authority as a public utility 0 CD to establish standards for service, to charge appropriate fees and costs and, in its sole discretion, to orderCh maintenance or removal of the concrete driveway in the eventthatsaid concrete driveway negatively Z �' impacts or damages the City's easement and underlying utility systems or violates any condition of service adopted by the City. _ D Z 3. Undertakings of Property Owners. Cn 3.1 On behalf .of themselves, their successors and assigns, the Property Owners Z promise to maintain, repair, remove and/or replace the concrete driveway located in the easement at their Oi sole expense to the standards established by the City in its capacity as a public utility and under its police M' power regulation. All such maintenance, repair, removal and/or replacement shall be conducted solely at the Property Owners' expense. 3.2 The Property Owners, on behalf of themselves and their successors and assigns, acknowledge that the City had no obligation to approve the concrete driveway within the easement for the sole benefit of the Property Owners, and that the agreements as contained herein; provide sufficient consideration for the Property Owners and their successors and assigns to maintain, repair, remove and/or replace said concrete driveway located in the casement at their sole expense in perpetuity. f 3.3 In the event that the City water line located within the easement should require maintenance, repair or replacement by the City, or otherwise require work necessitating removal of portions or the concrete driveway within the casement, the Property Owners shall, at the request of the ,, M City, promptly remove, repair, reconstruct, and/or replace the concrete driveway at the Property Owners' ole expense. Upon receipt of notification from the City that utility work within the easement requires > removal of portions of the concrete driveway from within the easement, the Property Owners will promptly remove those portions of the concrete driveway from within the easement area that interfere with the City utility work at their sole expense. If the portions of the concrete surface that interfere with the utility work are not timely removed by the Property Owners, they shall be removed by the City at the expense of the Property Owners, and the Property Owners shall reimburse the City for the costs of removal of the concrete driveway and disposal of materials as well as for any increased construction costs Z or consequential damages incurred by the City due to the Property Owners' delay. In the event that portions of the concrete driveway must be removed to facilitate; utility work by the City within the n easement, the Property Owners shall be solely responsible for replacement of the concretedriveway at M their expense upon completion of the utility work by the City. ,i 9 3.4 The Property Owners promise to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its rn, officers, agents and employees from any loss, claim or liability of any kind or nature arising from or out m v of its promises contained within this agreement, including any damage that maybe caused to the concrete driveway by the City's operation, maintenance, repair, replacement or other work related to the water line within the easement. This promise to hold harmless and indemnify includes defense by counsel of the = m City's choosing, the payment of reasonable attorney's fees and court costs. Nothing herein, however, m shall be ,interpreted to require the Property Owners to indemnify the City from the negligence or D z I tortious act of its employees, officers, or agents. r _ O m 4. Touch and Concern the Land; Subject Property. This agreement touches and concerns the subject Property herein below described, and shall run with said property binding all future property m rn owners, as well as their successors, mortgagees and assigns, and any other party acquiring an interest in 0 Cl) i the subject Property. The Subject Property is described as follows: 0 m CD Cn j Section 18 Township 27 Range 04 Quarter NW VISTA DEL MAR BLK 000 D-00 Lot m 0 7 TGW EQ & UND 1NT 1N KAIREZ DR ALSO TGW EQ & UND INT IN TR BZi This Lagreement shall be recorded by the City at the expense of the Property Owners. In --� addition, the Property Owners promise to notify all offerers, purchasers, or any other party acquiring any interest'whatsoever in the Property of the obligations imposed by this agreement. z Cn 5. Termination of Agreement. In addition to any other remedy provided for by law, the City reserves the right to terminate this agreement in the event that the concrete driveway negatively impacts 0 or damages the City's easement and underlying utility systems or violates any condition of service 0 adopted by the City, at its sole discretion, as may be necessary to prevent damage to the City's water m utility system, or any other public facility which may be impacted by the Property Owners' failure to properly use the utility easement. is 6. Entire Agreement. This is the entire agreement between the parties. Any prior understanding or representation, written or oral, made by any party, shall be deemed merged with its provisions. This agreement may not be amended except in writing in a document filed of record with the auditor of Snohomish County, Washington. f` NOTARY EXHIBIT A qo� Willi e7 7.1 ff /LOT 13 o tJ R=20.0 m ' �/ i It 20167 F o o �� 31.4 /32,00- I �1Jfl / i /� I N90'0o'00 E o 0 •- �iNit* N89059'28" E !� �S7 I 0=8�s 5s•3s" �°v i 031 C m 612 , t/ / f / 4? p f 48.00 0 LOT 14 / ' /'� ? N 9'59'39" E R=`�� ' hb O G r: 14453 SF rr' '/I mtF S IIII4V�r i // I sNE`ts °��� I f �J ► r' R�aN7 5 4�g C JO z_ 2�'43.. % �� i i is f �i 3e. D z Ate. !8> l3 E / �,,!S7 I i G) o N90'00' r = CD -�-4 ' U1 ram/ �r 90 F �,� �ryrr/rr I1, 0 LOT VAP {~^ '�i,r �,'�/;�r 1501 b7 SF j I v \ \ 0 �cn O 17802 KAlR62 DQ t j` Ln \ \ m 0 1 N n ,Q�/ /�/ , Is.g4 I I LI)D �, o I I SUBC T z / ter/ �`/ r'• LOT 8 I 4F 1 ( �A�w��� ���/ rn� t'�, 14272 5F ( o i i �i45EMEiSi%' _ CD cn o I 1 mI I z i 0 S>S, h 20.00 e/�,';�,ry`,��`' 6 Zt7 ) ..E S�°j -S8s•0 •14"E m 6.67 til ry��,���'y4��/r LOT 8 I to N 4 '. 47061 SF i W ,�� ,/ ti I 1 _�T, ACT 'B' ^It y✓ r \Rr R } 20.00 I Its COMMON L 31.42 1 o OiWNERNSHIP G cr 0•oo•oo" 31 o WITH LOTS to W w ,� 4 5, 6, rn 1a A D LOT 9, tFn E UALLY ' \'o O i May 5, 2005 To: Dave Gerbert, City Engineer, City of Edmonds 121 5`h Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 From: Robin Kearsley, (applicant's representative) Kearsley Homes, Inc. 6631 Norma Beach Road Edmonds, WA 98026 Pjw,w ,l 0%4-e� (4�0--r ID Y 9 - 2005 ENGINE:RING OmSION S Regarding: Hosterman project, 17802 Kairez Drive, Edmonds, WA 98026, permit #2004-0783 Dear Mr. Gerbert, I am requesting an increase in the driveway slope from 16% to approximately 19%, (under 20% slope maximum) and to be allowed to place concrete in the driveway for the following reasons: The existing gravel driveway is approximately 19% to 20% slope, joining into a minimum sloped area in front of the garage and entry door. Since the upper driveway section is steeper at 19% slope, this allows for the lower section to have a minimum sloped area in front of the garage and entry door. At present, a car can be parked in front of the garage. It is a comfortable slope to park on and also to walk on. If the driveway is 16% slope the area in front of the garage door and entry will increase in slope and be steeper to park and walk on. The plans as approved, call for asphalt in the upper section of the driveway because of the 10' water main easement in the east side of the upper driveway. Mike & Lynne Hosterman would like to pour concrete in the driveway instead of placing asphalt. Over time, the concrete will last longer, be much safe and less slippery to walk on. The concrete would be broom finished for additional traction and would look more aesthically pleasing for the type of house that is being constructed. We are proposing that the concrete would be placed in sections, so that if the water main has to be uncovered in the future, the concrete could be removed without damaging the entire driveway. Mike & Lynne Hosterman realize that if portions of the upper concrete driveway have to be removed, then the expense is incurred by them. The attached sheet, taken from the site plan, shows a possible divided concrete pattern. For the above reasons, I request your approval for a slope less than 20% on the driveway and to be allowed to use concrete for the proposed driveway. If you have any questions, or would like to meet at the site, please call me at 425-742-5888 office or 42547&6380 mobile. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Robih K( Kearsley ley =1 -n vM M �O OC = rn mZ A 'l CZ r= �N wn mm_ O� nr C Cn Z D Z Cn O --I n m i I �rIV24A i I EXISTING GRADE FINAL GRADE PROVIDE STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION - ENTRANCE 1 5' x 50' WITH 4"-8" QUARRY SPALLS o In 8"-1 2" DEEP T o -,p, ,t:v.wp,1 IzmErne%jv tNpr,(1 mpl►tl 4 s;cvZ,A hAA10 I�F`66mIOQT AzWr Wllt � PPILAXIJILT c J(JJ5 . RETAIN I NG WALL TO HOLD DIRT UNDER NEW DRIVEWAY SEE STRUCTURAL SHEET FOR WALL DETAIL ELEVATION OF THIS POINT OF DRIVEWAY = 154' (THIS ALLOWS FOR APPROX I G% GRADE FROM END OF KAIRE7- DRIVE AT ELEVATION I GG') O PROVIDE 3G" RAILING AT EDGE OF DRIVEWAY AT 30" A50VE GRADE 165' I G4' FINAL I G 2' FINAL IGa FINAL IGa 1 58' FINAL 1,5 A NfkJ X x X Df�l I I G4' FINAL AY AREA: 20' : 47 908' I�G2' FINAL j z �C) m PROVIE N I GO' FINAL FINAL C m DRIVEV �o SLOPE I ° 9 -049 rn 1 58' FINAL FOR A( m z AROUN p z _2 I, 92'` cn ELEVATION o "n cn _.� o cm cn cn mn DRIVEWAY WIT X TURN AROUN I D z 10, PROP i i 5ETI5 LIN ; X z / ry`v o m I �dEW CONCRETE 1 DRIVEWAY DRAIN TROUGH W/ GRATE_ i 1 I .011 I 1 50' FINAL I � DAVID EVANS ANoASSOCIATES INC. May 23, 2005 Michael Snook Senior Building Inspector City of Edmonds 121 5°' Avenue North — 2" `' Floor Edmonds, WA 98020 SUBJECT: HOSTERMAN RESIDENCE (PERMIT NO.2004-0783) Dear Mr Snook: This letter is to certify to the City of Edmonds Building Division as to the as -built elevation of the roof crown of the structure on the above referenced project. On April 20, 2005 David Evans and Associates, Inc. preformed an as -built elevation survey on the newly constructed residential structure at the above referenced project. Using standard ground survey methods and equipment, we measured the highest point on the roof (crown) to be at elevation 166.2 feet, and is under the maximum allowable height elevation of 166.40 feet. This elevation is based upon the datum indicated on the approved construction plans for this project, using the Bench Mark located on Talbot Road (Power Pole No. 27XX) Elevation= 111.70 feet. 4YLa,x It 64 lec� 1p e Appt Flcl It� MT S-9.1-05 Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. i Robert C. Hermann, P.L.S. Senior Associate Copies: Robin Kearsley, Kearsley Homes, Inc. File Name: P:\O\OEVT009I0091\030000Nf\DEA Letter to City.doe Project Number: OEV'1'0091-0091 RECEIVED MAY 2 7 2005 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR. CITY OF EDMONDS 1620 West Marine View Drive Suite 200 Everett Washington 98201 Telephone: 425.259.4099 Facsimile: 425.259,3230 z 0 0 cM my O o0 c i� mM z p —I Dz r= O mt mm_ O� 0 r- m mn z� X D z 2 C 0 M i j l I� i i, I. 1 Page l of l Bowman, Duane From: Mike Hosterman [mhosterman@clearpoint.comj Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 4:00 PM To. bowman@ci.edmonds.wa.us Cc: hawkinson@ci.edmonds.wa.us Subject: Hosterman Residence 17802 Kairez Dr. Dear Mr, Bowman, I was asked to send you the pertinent items for discussion at our meeting scheduled for 8am Thursday August 25th. There is only one item; Upon receipt of a building permit in 2004for construction of a single family home at the above address. it was discovered while building the foundation that the City of Edmonds installed the water main in the wrong location ----- different than on the information given to us for planning purposes. We were issued a stop work order. Even though the problem was not or our making, I was advised that the City of Edmonds would take a long time to make the correction and that we should proceed by making engineering modifications that would allow us to build a retaining wall around the water main in order to continue building the foundation. We did that including engineering fees, pin piles and retaining walls at approximately $11,000 expense and six weeks time. All of this was submitted to the City and we were "allowed" to continue our project. About a week after we began to go forward, a City employee (unnamed at this time) stopped by our project and as a part of our conversation, shook his head and told me that the City could have corrected the problem easily and that it would have taken no more that two days to fix the situation. Further he told me that what we were required to do was "total overkill." As you can imagine that didn't make me feel very good. As time went by, my contractor, Robin Kearsley of Kearsley Homes was advised by the City that they intended to fix the problem. I stopped in to the planning office approx six to eight weeks ago and spoke to Jeanie McConnell regarding this and attempting to get a handle on the timing in order to get this done. I explained to her that my wife is in the middle of treatment for breast cancer for the third time and that I NEED TO GET THIS HOUSE COMPLETED. She was sensitive to the situation. Several days later, I was at the project site and Pam Lemke came by and explained thathis had been put on the front burner and would be completed by the second or third week of August. She had a contractor with her who was introduce to me as one of the people being considered for doing the job. We have been moving forward on construction with an occupancy date of October 15th. The exterior of the house is complete and we have begun the landscaping process. The landscapers have gone as far as they can go until the driveway is completed. I asked my contractor when we would be pouring the driveway and was told that we are ready to go on it but are waiting for the City to get the water main issue resolved. I asked him again when he expected this to be done and was told that it is to be completed by the third week of August. This is the third week of August so I stopped by this morning and asked to speak to Pam Lemke. She told me that "the drawings are nowcomplete and that it has to go before the City Council and then go out for bid." I don't know what the timing will be to go thru this process but have no intention of finding out. I have a meeting tomorrow with David Gebert and Pam Lemke. I have a meeting with you on Thursday at 8am. I have a meeting with my attorney at 3pm on Thursday. I have met with my attorney regarding the water main issue and added expense and time caused by the City. I have been advised to get the house completed given our personal (medical) circumstances and then seek recovery for the problem. Today was a BAD day when I found that I have been trusting the information given to me regarding getting the water main issue resolved and that the City will not be meeting the time schedule told to me. I am out of time! We scheduled the landscaping and driveway to accommodate the City's schedule and I expect the City to perform accordingly. I look forward to meeting you Thursday. Michael P. Hosterman Lynne F. Hosterman 1 1/23/2005 z O 0 m =i 9 Fn vrn m0 �O OC 2 M mm z p�i Dz r -1 �C/) O� rnrn_ O� nr rn 9Cn m Zr 2 z s z O n m 4C� �i' "1•eT7 Ci ' r, K 'A,RSLEY HONrIES; INC. I) [ S I G N& C 0 N S 1' it U C T I (> N October 20, 2005 Joanne Zolof, Permit Coordinator City'of Edmonds, Development of Services Department 121 5th Ave North, Edmonds, 98020 OCT 2 n 4evU9 C4rY E E M? 1�ES CTR NOS r Re: Hostennan residence at 17802 Kairez"Drive Dear Joanne, I am requesting an additional week for the above permit that is supposed to expire on Monday October 24, 2005. Since the -City of Edmonds finished the water line along the east side of Hosterman's house we have been working on the driveway. We are scheduled to pour the last section 0. of concrete on Monday, weather permitting. I understand that the engineering inspection is required prior to the final building inspection. The driveway inspection is part of the engineering inspection. , The work completed by the City of Edmonds on the water line took longer than your engineers expected and also had toe use part of Hosterman's driveway to complete the work. At one time, the City of Edmonds Engineer's thought the work could be completed sooner and not interfere with Hosterman's driveway. I could not start Hosternan's driveway until the water line work was completed. Previously, Mike Hosterman had asked for a 6 week extension to the permit and the City of Edmonds allowed 4 weeks. In consideration that this original water line delayed our project approximately 2 months while we were constructing the foundation and we had asked the.City of Edmonds to move the water line last year, an additional week seems reasonable. Thank you for your consideration, - J Lro Ct p�-e-. uuV Robi i Kearsle Kearsley Hom nc. r l Z 0 f 6611 NOR\IA BFA(%II IMAD 1:1)\1ONI)S, 11:\ '1Kil o I I I,+!\S (•)_'i) i•;;.i,y'Sti I 11(q /l6� 1\'a Slaw Conl[3011] hi ,\RSliluu �,ll O -i n m = cm m0 �o On c m Z p� DZ r -I omn m m M oU' r rn �C/) m Zr z i U) 0 rn CITY OF EDMONDS SPECIAL INSPECTION AND TESTING AGREEMENT The project at L �7 5O2 14,'&1 i�a Z 12-1 OE, issued under building permit number �' - ^ requires special inspection and/or testing per UBC Chapter 17 and WAC Amendments 1702. The complete list of special inspections is attached to this document. BEFORE A PERMIT CAN BE ISSUED: The owner and contractor and special inspector shall complete this agreement and the attached structural test(s) and inspections schedule including the required acknowledgments. i APPROVAL OF SPECIAL. INSPECTORS: Each special inspector shall be approved by the Building Official prior to performing any duties or inspections. Each special inspector shall submit Statement of Qualifications to the Building Official for review. Special inspectors shall display ; identification when performing speci mal inspections on site. Special inspection and testing shall meet the minimum requirements of UBC Chapter 17 and the following: A Duties and Responsibilities of the Special Inspector 1.Observe Work The special inspector shall observe the site work for conformance with the approved (stamped) plans and specifications and applicable workmanship provisions of the UBC. Architect or Engineer reviewed shop drawings may be used only as an aid to inspection. Special inspections are to be performed on a continuous basis --meaning that the special inspector is on site at all times observing the work requiring special inspection. Periodic inspections, if any, must have prior approval by the City based on a separate written plan reviewed and approved by the Budding Official and the engineer or architect of record. 2. Report Non -conforming Items The special inspector shall bring nonconforming items to the immediate attention of the contractor and note all such items in the daily field report. Any item not resolved in a timely manner shall be immediate cause of the special inspector to notify the Building Official of the plan deviation, error, change or omission. It sliall also be the duty of the special inspector to promptly notify the engineer or archtect. 3. Complete Daily Reports Each special inspector shall complete and sign both the special inspection record and the daily report form for each days inspection. These records shall remain at the jobsite with the contractor for review by the City Building Inspector. 4. Furnish Weekly Reports The special inspector or inspection agency shall furnish the City with weekly reports of tests and inspections. The project engineer or architect, and others as designated shall also be copied on reports. Weekly reports must include the following: • Description of daily inspections and tests made with applicable locations • List of all nonconforming items • Report on status of nonconforming items (resolved or unresolvedity • Itemized changes authorized by the Architect, Engineer and if not included in nonconformance items 5. Furnish Final Construction Report The special inspector or inspection agency shall submit a final signed report to the City stating that all items requiring special inspection and testing were fulfilled and reported. And, to the best of his/her knowledge the pro ect is in conformance with the approved plans and specifications, approved change orders and the applicable workmanship provisions of the UBC. Items not in confonnance or unresolved items or any discrepancies in inspection coverage, (i.e., missed inspections, periodic inspection when continuous inspections were required, etc.) shall be specifically itemized in this report. O m =i :6 vrn m� �0 oC _M MZ A� DZ r= in O-n rn i9 mrn o� nr rn 9Cn m n Z r- -i �n D Cn Z O rn 4 B. Contractor Responsibilities 1. ' Notify the Special Inspector It is the duty of the contractor to notify the special inspector when work is ready for special inspection. Note, the items listed on the attached schedule and as noted on the approved plans and specifications are required to have special inspections. Adequate notice shall be provided by the contractor so that the special inspector has time to become familiar with the project. 2. Provide Access to Approved Plans The contractor is responsible for providing the special inspector access to approved plans at the jobsite. i z 3. Retain Special Inspection Records O The contractor is responsible to retain at the jobsite all special inspection records submitted n by the special inspector. These records are to be provided to the City building inspector upon l rn request. C. Ci!y of Edmonds Building Department Responsibilities , v m 1. Approve special inspectors or inspection agencies m o The building department shall approve all special inspectors and special inspection n requirements. _rn 2. Monitor special inspection and approve weekly reports m z Work requiring special inspection and the performance of special inspectors shall be A monitored by the City Building Inspector. His/her approval must be obtained prior to placement of concrete or other similar activities in addition to that of the special inspector. �CD 3. Issue Certificate of Occupancy M The Building Official may issue a Certificate of Occupancy after all weekly special inspection = reports including the final report have been submitted and accepted. m m_ O D. Owner Responsibilities n m The project owner or the engineer or architect of record acting as the owner's agent shall fund C co special inspection services. m Zrm E. Engineer or Architect of Record Responsibilities The engineer or architect of record shall include special inspection requirements on the plans and specifications. z ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS _ L�YI have read] d agree to comply with the terms and conditions of this agreement. CD z 0 Owne 2 zs �.� Date / m Special Inspector General Contractor City Building Offici 9 PROJECT NAME �1 4 .9 REINFORCED CONCRETE, GUNITE, GROUT AND MORTAR: Concrete Gunite Grout Mortar Aggregate Tests Reinforcing Tests Mix Designs Reinforcing Placement Bitch Plant Inspection Inspect Placing Cast Samples Pick-up Samples Compression Tests PRECAST/PRESTRESSED CONCRETE: Piks Post -Teas Pre -Teas Claddine Aggregate Tests Reinforcing Tests Tendon Tests Mix Designs Reinforcing Placement Insert Placement Concrete Batching Concrete Placement Installation lnscpction Cast Samples Pick-up Samples Compression Tests MASONRY: _ Special Inspection Stresses Used _ Preliminary Acceptance Tests (Masonry Units. Wall Prisms) _ Subsequent Tests (Mortar, Grout. Field Wall Prisms) _ Placement Inspection of Units ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS OR OTHER TESTS AND INSPECTIONS: BUILDING PERMIT NO. TESTINCANSPECtION AGENCY M SPECIAL INSPECMR STRUCTURAL STEEL/WELDING: _ Sample and Test (list specific members below) — Shop Material Identification _ Welding Inspection ❑ Shop ❑ Field Ultrasonic Inspection ❑ Shop O Field _ High -strength Bolting Inspection ❑ Shop ❑ Feld 0A325 ON OX ❑F ❑ A490 Metal Deck Welding Inspection I — Reinforcing Steel Welding Inspection _ Metal Stud Welding Inspection — Concrete Insert Welding Inspection FIREPROOFING: _ Placement Inspection _ Density Tests — Thickness Tests — inspect Batehing INSULATING CONCRETE: _ Sample and Test — Placement Inspection _ Unit Weights FILL MATERIAL: . Acceptance Tests _ Placement Inspection _ Field Density STRUCTURAL WOOD: _ Shear Wall Nailing Inspection — Inspection of Glu-lam Fab. Inspection of Truss Joist Fab. Sample and Test Components Form completed by: Title: Telephone No.: Date: 04/23/2004 12:10 14254812510 NELSON GEOTECHNICAL PAGE 02/02 NELSON GEOTECHNICAL NGrow ASSOCIATES, INC. A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GE,OLOGIS`I'S Snohomish County (425) 3374869 17311 —13V" Avenue NE, A-500 Woodinville, WA 98072 Wenatchee/Chatan (509) 784-2756 (425) 486-1669 Fax (425) 481-2510 MEMORANDUM pppp t�d01CROFILM DATE: April 23, 2004 TO: Michael Hosterman iI COPY CC: Robin Kearsley — Kearsley domes FROM: Khaled Shawish, PE >lw✓'i Bala Dodoye-Alali RE. Lot 7 Vista Del Mar — $"ctures in Setback Area NGA File No. 3767B04 Your builder, Robin Kearsley, requested that -we provide o opinion regarding structures planned in the setback area. We provided a geoteehnical report titled, "G�eote Engineering Evaluation — Lot 7 Vista Del Mar — Edmonds, Washington," dated March 24, '2004, we recommended a 35- foot building setback from the top of slope. Ho has requested a memo addressing the placement of a deck within the setback area. Mr. Kearsley informed us that he would like to place. , light deck within the setback area with deck supports extended out approximately 4 feet into the setback along the western side of the residence. He requested our opinion regarding the suitability of this plan. Based on our evaluation and observations, it is our opinion that the planned deck foundations should not impact the stability of the slope, if the work is completed in accordance with the recommendations found in our gootechnical report and this memo. We recommend that only minimal grading be performed for placement of the deck in the setback area. Loose material should not be allowed to accumulate near the top of slope. We recommend that the deck be placed on 12-inch diameter sonitubes or drilled piers extending approximately six feet below the ground surface. These piers can be installed during the installation of the drilled piers for the residence. We should be retained to observe the installation of these elements. We trust this memorandum should satisfy your needs at this time. If you have any questions concerning this memorandum or if you require additional services, please call. 1.1 0 2004 z O M =i =ii 55 W cm m� �O OC mZ A� CZ �CA Own mm_ O� r 9� Zrm D X D 2 0 n m 4 -m GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING _ EVALUATION LOT 7 VISTA DEL MAR v rn EDMONDS, WASHINGTON m o PREPARED FOR o n MR. MICHAEL HOSTERMAN 0 f. i i 1: i. . 17311 — 13V" Avenue NE, A-500 Woodinville, WA 98072 (425) 486-1669 • (425) Fax 4814510 March 24, 2004 Mr. Michael Hosterman 7139 Beach Drive SW Seattle, WA 98136 NELSON GECTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC* GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS Snohomish County (425) 337A669 Wenatchee/Chelan (509) 784-27.56 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Lot 7 Vista Del Mar Edmonds, Washington NGA File No. 3767B04 Dear Mr. Hosterman: We are pleased to submit the attached report titled "Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation - Lot 7 Vista . Del Mar — Edmonds, Washington." This report documents our subsurface explorations within the site and presents our opinion and recommendations for the proposed site grading and building setback from the top of a steep slope. Our services have been completed in general accordance with the Services Agreement signed by you on February 24, 2004. We monitored the excavation of four test pits in the project area. In general, our explorations encountered sand with varying amounts of silt and gravel. Fill was encountered on the southeastern side of the site. 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 the slope to provide a minimum effective foundation setback distance of 50 feet from the face of the slope. Specific recommendations for design and installation of the drilled piers are included in the attached report. General site grading and drainage recommendations have also been included in this report. z O 0 rn �=5 cM m0 -� O OC _M mZ p � Dz r_ —1 O 71 m� M m vC0 Om , 9 Cl) rn Z� z 2 z O 0 m i i 1 J i e Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 5' Lot 7 Vista Del Mar NGA File No. 3767B04 March 24, 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, NELSON O CHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. z O' n m ` e M. Shawish, PE i Principal c M m0 Two Copies Submitted -1 ' cc: Robin Kearsley — Kearsley Homes (three copies) =m mZ C Z 'i l _ r �Cn mn �\ Mn m i °o0. 0 M C W f. mn f Z 2 z Z t.: 0 t 0 m is NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. L em TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................:............1 SCOPE......................:............:.....................................................................................................................1 z SITECONDITIONS...............................:.........................:.............................................:..............:.......... 2 O n SurfaceConditions. . 1 6 0 0 a 0 110 a 0 a o 0 4 6 1 66 be 0 0 a a a 0 0 66 0 a 0 o 9 a a 0 0 6 0 a 0 0 a 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 a a 6 a o 0 6 0 a a 0 0 0 04 a 6 .................. a 6 0 .......:...............a 2 m Subsurface Conditions ....:..:........ ...::.:.....:....:.....6 9 ..:;:.................:....:.....: 0 1 ::.........: a 6 .......::.....:..:......a 3 ` Hydrologic Conditions. ......9 0 a ........:......a 3 co SENSITIVE AREA EVALUATION.........:.....................................................::....................:................... 4 = SeismicHazard .............................:......... .......:. a 0 ........:.................0 .. 4 m p0 f Erosion Hazard.. 0 4 0 0 0 met 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 Landslide Hazard/Slo a Stabilit 5 Dalai` t p Y............. ..................:.........:....................:......................................... 5 m z CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS :T General ........................5 c z � ....._ ............`6 Slope Protection..,... ............ _ Erosion Control .....:****some* 07 co r..............:.. Structure Setbacks ........................ ... .. .....:. • 7 mon O� Site Preparation and Grading. Foundation Support ................ Walls rn 8 rn Structural Fill .Cn 10 RetainingWalls ................. ....................................:.......:........................... ........ 11 0 m 12 c Slab -on Grade Cn N ' s Site Drainage...........:... .................... .. ...... ........... ...... Wool 12 z r 1 USEOF THIS REPORT.....:.........:...........................................................:..............................................13 _ D. ' Z 2 List of Figures co s Z Figure 1 — Vicinity Map 0 WWI Figure 2 — Site Plan n .., m t : Figure 3 — Cross -Section A -A' Figure 4 — Soil Classification Chart Figure 5 — Test Pit Logs Figure 6 — Drilled Piers and Setback Detail s i. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. t d Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Lot 7 Vista Del Mar Edmonds, Washington INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering investigation and evaluation for the proposed single-family residence on Lot 7 of the Vista Del Mar plat in Edmonds, Washington, as shown on the Vicinity Map in Figure 1. 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 undated, untitled plans showing existing site conditions, and the proposed location of the residence with respect to the steep slope. Development within this property is proposed to consist of an approximate 3000- to- 4000 square -foot, two-story residence with a crawl space and associated paved driveway and utilities. The development will be accessed from Kairez Drive on the southern side of the property. Steep slopes exist on the western side of the property. An existing sewer easement is located near the top of the slope. The planned residence location will result in a setback distance of approximately 35 feet from the top of the steep slope. Stormwater collection has been determined to be directed to an existing stormwater collection system that has been installed in the western side of the upper portion of the lot. A retaining wall is planned for a portion of the eastern side of the lot to provide support for fill to, be placed in the driveway/turnaround area. SCOPE The purpose of this study is to explore and characterize the site subsurface conditions, and provide general recommendations for site development and slope setback. Specifically, our scope of services includes the following: 1. Review available geologic, slope stability, and soils maps of the area, and the prior geotechnical report dated April 26, 1993. 2. Perform a walk-through inspection of existing geologic and relative stability conditions at the site, including steep slopes. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. i Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Lot 7 Vista Del Mar Edmonds, Washington NGA File No. 3767B04 March 24, 2004 Page 2 3. Perform backhoe excavated test pits within the property to evaluate existing surface and subsurface soils and groundwater conditions. Backhoe`was supplied by the owner. 4. Provide recommendations for building setbacks from steep slope. 5. Provide recommendations for earthwork, including cuts and fills. z O 6. Provide recommendations for foundation placement and slabs -on -grade. rn 7. Provide general recommendations for lateral support and foundation retaining walls: 8. Provide recommendations for drainage and erosion control, v m 9. Prepare a written geotechnical/engineering geologic evaluation report discussing our m O findings, opinions, and recommendations for planned development within this site. 0 c mm z C Z SITE CONDITIONS _ Surface Conditions O -n The project site is an approximate one -acre, irregular -shaped parcel. The site layout is shown on the Site m Plan in Figure 2. A residential is located to the south and east of the project site, an undeveloped m rn property parcel is located to the north, and a steep west -facing slope is located to the west. The site has a moderate O rn slope to the north with a steep west -facing slope that slopes down steeply for approximately 100 feet m Cn Cn towards the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad easement. Puget Sound borders the railroad tracks to Z � the west. The inclination of the slope was measured to be approximately 50 degrees, or 120 percent. The X --I slope profile is shown in Cross-section A -A' presented as Figure 3. D z The upper portion of the site is mainly covered with grasses and some blackberry bushes. The top of the co z slope is vegetated with large fir trees, some of which have been undermined by previous shallow debris 0 flows. The steeply sloping portion below the top of slope is mainly covered with deciduous trees and n rn debris from trees that were cut and not removed from the slope. Two old shallow landslides were 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. A 10-foot sewer easement and a 10-foot drainage easement are located above the top of slope, and a 10-foot waterline easement is located along the eastern footing line. �. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Lot 7 Vista Del Mar Edmonds, Washington NGA File No. 3767B04 March 24, 2004 Page 3 Subsurface Conditions Geology: The Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and Part of the Edmonds West Ouadrangles, Washington, 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 i nit is described as a poorly- to moderately -sorted mixture of sand and gravel with minor amounts of silt nd clay. Our explorations generally encountered sand with silt and gravel consistent with the description f Recessional Outwash. Explorations: The subsurface conditions within the si four test pits to depths ranging from 8.0 to 9.5 feet approximate locations of our explorations are shown Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc. (NGA) was pres geologic conditions encountered, obtained samples of t were explored on March 1, 2004 by excavating ow the existing surface using a backhoe. The i the Site Plan in Figure 2. A geologist from during the explorations, examined the soils and soil, and maintained logs of the test pits. The soils were visually classified in general accordance with 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 paragraphs. For a detailed description of the subsurface conditions, the test pit log should be reviewed. We encountered approximately 2.0 feet of medium dense, grayish -brown, silty sand with gravel in the upper portion of Test Pits 1 and 4. This soil was int rpreted as fill. Below the fill in Test Pit 1, we encountered dense, brownish -gray, fine to medium sad with silt and trace gravel. This material was interpreted to be outwash. Below the fill in Test Pit 4 we encountered approximately 0.6 feet of buried topsoil underlain by material interpreted to be outwash and. At the surface of Test Pits 2 and 3, we encountered approximately 1.3 to 3.0 feet of topsoil. The topsoil was underlain by dense, orangish-brown, fine to medi m sand with silt and trace gravel. This material was interpreted as outwash. All of the test pits were terminated in the outwash material Hydrologic Conditions Groundwater was not encountered in the test pits. water infiltrates through less dense, more permeable NE wever, perched water could occur when surface Is and accumulates on top of the underlying, less GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Lot 7 Vista Del Mar Edmonds, Washington NGA File No. 3767B04 March 24, 2004 Page 4 permeable soils. The more permeable soils consist of the fill and the sand with silt. Less permeable soils would consist of the siltier soil layers within the outwash. Perched water does not represent a regional P. ground water table within the upper soil horizons. Perched water tends to vary spatially and is dependent z upon the amount of rainfall. We would expect the amount of ground water to decrease during drier times O of the year and increase during wetter periods. If perched water is encountered in planned cuts or m exposed subgrade, it should be controlled with open ditches or sump pumps. This is further discussed in the Drainage subsection of this report. _ 0M Co m0 SENSITIVE AREA EVALUATION o C Seismic Hazard m Z z The project is located within Zone 3 of the Seismic Zone Map shown as Figure 16-2 of the 1997 Uniform D z Building Code (UBC). This corresponds to a Seismic Zone Factor, Z, of 0.3. Since medium dense to Cn dense outwash soils were encountered underlying the site, the site conditions best fit the UBC description O M for Soil Profile Type Sc . m M vCD O Hazards associated with seismic activity include liquefaction potential and amplification of ground C M motion. Liquefaction is caused by a rise in pore pressures in a loose, fine sand deposit beneath the m n groundwater table. The dense outwash soils interpreted to underlie the site have a low potential for Z liquefaction or amplification of ground motion. —� A Z Erosion Hazard = CD The erosion hazard criteria used for determination of affected areas includes soil type, slope gradient, Z vegetation cover, and groundwater conditions. The erosion sensitivity is related to vegetative cover and n m the specific surface soil types, which are related to the 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 the on -site soils. The site surface soils were classified using the SCS i 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 7 Vista Del Mar Edmonds, Washington NGA File No. 3767B04 March 24, 2004 Page 5 i Landslide Hazard/Slope Stability An evaluation of landslide hazard was performed for the steep slopes at the site. This evaluation includes our interpretation of the slope stability based on soil type, slope gradient, slope height, groundwater conditions, and vegetation cover. hr Z O n rn The landslide hazard is listed as high by the SCS based on slope steepness, length, shape, and the surficial soils present. The site slopes are inferred to generally consist of sandy material. Slopes with a gradient of is up to approximately 50 degrees exist in the western side of the property. The height of the steep slopes is rn my approximately 100 feet. We did not observe signs of deep-seated slope failures, but surficial slumps were O On observed on the slope. Accordingly, it is our opinion that there is not a significant potential for deep- = m mz seated slope instability within the development portion of this site. However, steep slopes are naturally A prone to surface sloughing over time. Surface sloughing can occur from weathering conditions and D Z p g b r= r ' seasonal surface saturation, especially after large storm events. The potential for these events could be Cn — age control. The direct impact of the sloughing events on themn reduced by proper erosion and drain I � { ( proposed development should be low if the building setback, site grading, surface water management, and mm long-term slope maintenance are established as recommended in this report. It is our understanding the 0 r structure will be setback approximately 35 feet from the top of the steep slope. This setback in distance C Cn e should be adequate providing all the recommendations for site development and slope protection found in Z this report are incorporated in the design and implemented during construction. X D CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS z Cn 1. r General Z z It is our opinion, from a geotechnical standpoint, that the site is generally compatible with the planned 0 t_ development. Our explorations within the site indicate that the site is generally underlain by sand with rn silt and gravel, and areas of shallow fill. The residence is planned in close proximity to the steep slope within the western portion of the lot. This slope is stable with respect to deep-seated failures, but shallow surficial failures on the slope are possible. To protect the structure against potential failures on the slope, we recommend that the western foundation line be supported on drilled piers. The piers should extend a minimum of 20 feet below existing grade to provide an effective setback of at least 50 feet between the bottom of the piers and the face of the slope as NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. 1. . 1 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Lot 7 Vista Del Mar Edmonds, Washington NGA File No. 3767B04 March 24, 2004 Page 6 indicated by the detail in Figure 6. The piers should consist of 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 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 cast over the slope. The surficial soils encountered on this site are considered moisture -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 recommend 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 drainage measures to protect the slope, the need for placing a blanket of rock spalls on exposed subgrades, construction traffic areas, and paved areas prior to placing structural fill, and the need for importing all-weather material for structural fill. Slope Protection Protection of the setback and steep slope areas should be performed as required by the 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 subject of a specific geotechnical evaluation. Runoff should be collected in permanent catch basins or yard drains and should be routed into a permanent discharge system. Under no circumstances should NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. i Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Lot 7 Vista Del Mar Edmonds, Washington NGA File No. 3767B04 March 24, 2004 Page 7 water be allowed to concentrate or flow over the slopes. We recommend that the tree debris on the slope be removed. Z Erosion Control O The on -site soils can have a high erosion potential, depending on how the site is graded and how water is n m allowed to concentrate. Best Management Practices (BMPs) should be used to control erosion. Areas r -I -n disturbed during construction should be protected from erosion. Measures taken may include diverting _ ' surface water away from the stripped areas. Silt fences or straw bales should be erected to prevent muddy m v water from flowing over the site slopes or into the existing storm system. Disturbed areas should be 0O On replanted with vegetation at the end of construction. The vegetation should be maintained until = m mZ established. Final grading should incorporate appropriate erosion control measures to route stormwater JD —� t CZ runoff away from the top of slopes and to appropriate discharge locations. _ vn wn Structure Setbacks t Uncertainties related to building along the to of steep slopes are typically addressed by the use of M m U b b P P o v, building setbacks. The purpose of the setback is to establish a "buffer zone" between the structure and M the top of the slope so that ample room is allowed for normal slope recession during a reasonable life span 9 � ' of the structure. In a general sense, the greater the setback, the 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 Z Z such as historical slope activity, rate of regression, and the type and desired life span of the development are important considerations as well. Z O Based upon the conditions described above, it is our opinion that the potential for shallow sloughing -type m Y failures exist on the steep slopes. This condition is exacerbated where water is present or where the i' ough sloughing of steep slopes can occur up the slope, slopes become locally very steep. Backwasting thr such that a loss of ground could occur. The planned residence will be setback approximately 35 feet from the top of the slope. To reduce the risk of potential slope failures of affecting the structure, the structure should be on drilled piers extending at least 20 feet below the existing ground surface. Loose material 6 should not be stockpiled in any area between the top of the slope and the setback line. } NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Lot 7 Vista Del Mar Edmonds, Washington NGA File No. 3767B04 March 24, 2004 Page 8 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 planned slab, foundation and pavement areas. The stripped z material should be hauled off site or stockpiled for later use as landscaping fill. The stripped material 0 should not be stockpiled in the setback area or be used for structural fills. If the ground surface, after m stripping, should appear to be loose, it should be compacted to anon -yielding condition. Areas observed --1 -n to pump or weave during compaction should be reworked to structural fill specifications or over cn = CM excavated and replaced with properly compacted structural fill or rock spalls. If significant surface water m O r; flow is encountered during construction, this flow should be diverted around areas to be developed and p c the exposed subgrade maintained in a semi -dry condition. =m mz p —I C Z Slab -on -grade subgrade should be stripped of any fill or loose material and the slab should be supportedCn _ on competent native soils or structural fill extending to these soils, if any future settlement or cracking of Om the slab can not be tolerated. If some slab settlement and future maintenance can be tolerated, we m recommend that at a minimum two feet of the loose material/fill that may exist in the slab area be over- rrnn m vC 4 excavated and replaced with a blanket of rock spalls. The exposed subgrade should be thoroughly c Cn compacted prior to placement of the rock spall layer. The slab should be additionally reinforced to reduce m cn Z r vI settlement -related distress. �n t � Foundation Support z z Drilled Piers: We recommend that the western foundation line be supported on 16- to 24-inch reinforced = CD �., concrete piers, extending a minimum of 20 feet below existing ground surface. The remainder of the z foundations should be supported on native, competent material or structural fill extending to that material n rn An open hole drilling method will likely be feasible based on our field observations, however, if caving conditions are encountered, pile casing will be required. The 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 of drilling. The holes should not be left open for any extended period of time, as sloughing debris and/or groundwater seepage into the excavations may hamper pier installation. r NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. 'l r t s- F E_ i a> f L. . Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Lot 7 Vista Del Mar Edmonds, Washington NGA File No. 37671304 March 24, 2004 Page 9 For piers installed successfully as described above, we recommend using a design axial compression capacity of 20 and 30 tons for 16- and 24-inch piers, respectively. Lateral resistance on the piers could be calculated based on an equivalent fluid density of 250 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) applied to two pile diameters. The existing fill should be neglected for the purpose of calculating the lateral resistance. Shallow Foundations: For the portion of the building supported on shallow spread footings, these footings should be placed on native medium dense or better soils, or structural fill extending to these soils. The foundation subgrade should be prepared as described in the Site Preparation and Grading subsection. If footings are supported on structural fill, the fill zone should extend outside the edges of the footings a distance equal to one-half of the depth of the over -excavation below the bottom of the footings. Footings should extend at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent finished ground surface for frost protection and bearing capacity considerations. Minimum foundation widths of 18 and 24 inches should be used for continuous and isolated spread footings, respectively, but footings should also be sized based on anticipated loads and allowable soil bearing pressure. Standing water should not be allowed to accumulate in footing trenches. All loose or disturbed soil should be removed from the foundation 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 the footing design for footings founded on the medium dense or better glacial soils or structural fill extending to the native competent material. The. 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 when considering increased allowable bearing pressure for short-term transitory wind or seismic loads. Potential foundation settlement using the recommended allowable bearing pressure is estimated to be less than one inch total 4.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 NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. I` 1._ E i 'i� is Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Lot 7 Vista Del Mar Edmonds, Washington NGA File No. 37671304 March 24, 2004 Page 10 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 the 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, the foundations should be poured"neat" against the native medium dense soils or compacted fill should be used as backfill against the front of the 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 on 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 an 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 degree of relative compaction. The area to receive the fill should be suitably prepared as described in the Site Preparation and Grading and Slab -on -Grade subsections 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 on that fraction passing the U.S. 3/4-inch sieve). The use of on -site soils as structural fill should generally be feasible, but we should be retained to evaluate proposed structural fill material 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 compactable condition exists. It may be necessary to over -excavate and remove wet soils in cases where NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. I r 1� s-. s Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Lot 7 Vista Del Mar Edmonds, Washington NGA File No. 3767B04 March 24, 2004 Page I I 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. Retaining Walls A retaining wall is planned on the eastern side of the driveway along the water easement. This wall will retain up to 8 feet of fill planned in this area to create a level pad for garage access. 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 can 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 recommend 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 the 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. 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 foundation. Recommendations for frictional and passive resistance to lateral loads are presented in the Foundations subsection of this report. All wall backfill should be well compacted as outlined in the Structural Fill subsection of this report. Care should be taken to prevent the buildup of excess lateral soil pressures, due to over -compaction of the wall backfill. This can be accomplished by placing wall backfill in eight -inch loose lifts and compacting NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. I Or z O --� 0 M cm M --1 O Oc m Z Ate_ D Z Own mm 0 0 m C� ' M or ZI r �t z 0) z O 0 M l Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Lot 7 Vista Del Mar Edmonds, Washington NGA File No. 3767B04 March 24, 2004 Page 12 , it with small, hand -operated compactors within a distance behind the wall equal to at least one-half the 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 z be maintained. 0 to rn Permanent drainage systems should be installed for retaining walls. Recommendations for these systems _ are found in the Subsurface Drainage subsection of this report. We recommend that we be retained to co _ Y evaluate the proposed wall drain backfill material and drainage systems. C v r �0 OC If a reinforced earthwall is desired instead of a concrete retaining wall, this type of wall should be = m specifically designed. We are available to provide a specific design for a reinforced earthwall, if p z -i CZ requested. _ C0 OM Slab -on Grade The slab subgrade should be prepared as discussed in the Site Preparation and Grading subsection. We rn M CD recommend recommend that all floor slabs be underlain by at least six inches of free -draining sand or gravel for use as 0 m C CD a capillary break. We recommend that the capillary break be hydraulically connected to the footing drain9 CD system to allow free drainage from under the slab. A suitable vapor barrier, such as heavy plastic sheeting (6-mil minimum), 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. D z Site Drainage z 4..5 Surface Drainage: Final site grades should allow for drainage away from the top of the steep slope and the structure. We suggest that the finished ground be sloped at a gradient of three -percent minimum fora m distance of at least 10 feet away from slope and the residence. Runoff generated on this site should be to collected and routed into a permanent discharge system. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the slopes. :; Subsurface Drainage: If groundwater is encountered during construction, we recommend that the M f contractor slope the bottom of the excavation and collect the water into ditches and small sump pits where ' the water can be pumped out and routed into a permanent storm drain. Chronic water seepage conditions NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Lot 7 Vista Del Mar Edmonds, Washington NGA File No. 3767B04 March 24, 2004 Page 13 may be controlled through the use of cut-off or "French" type drains. The need, extent, and actual design of such systems 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 ZO foot below planned finished floor elevation. The drains should consist of a minimum four -inch -diameter, n rn 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 m v �.s material or drainage composite may also be used instead. The free -draining material should extend up the o On wall to one foot below the finished surface. The top foot of soil should .consist of impermeable soil = rn placed over plastic sheeting or building paper to minimize surface water or fines migration into the m JO � r a footing drain. Footing drains should discharge into tightlines leading to an appropriate collection and > discharge point with convenient cleanouts to prolong the useful life of the drains. Roof drains should not _ CD ` be connected to wall or footing drains. --� mm USE OF THIS REPORT o m NGA has prepared this report for Mr. Michael Hosterman, and his agents, for use in planning of the m CD CD grading operations described above on this site only. The scope of our work does not include services Z'— related to construction safety precautions and our recommendations are not intended to direct the X contractors' methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, except as specifically described in our report. y Z There are possible variations in subsurface conditions between the explorations and also with time. Our 4,004 = report, conclusions, and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of subsurface conditions. A CD Z .. contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in the budget and schedule. 0 n rn 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 the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether or not earthwork activities comply with t,. contract plans and specifications. We should be contacted a minimum of one week prior to construction activities and could attend pre -construction meetings, if requested. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Lot 7 Vista Del Mar Edmonds, Washington NGA File No. 3767B04 March 24, 2004 Page 14 All people who own or occupy homes on hillsides should realize that landslide movements are always a possibility. The landowner should periodically inspect the slope, especially after a winter storm. If distress is evident, a geotechnical engineer should be contacted for advice on remedial/preventative measures. The probability that landsliding will occur is substantially reduced by the proper maintenance of drainage control measures at the site (the runoff from the roofs should be led to an approved discharge point). Therefore, the homeowner should take responsibility for performing such maintenance. Consequently, we recommend that a copy of our report be provided to any future homeowners of the property if the home is sold. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been performed in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in effect in this area at the time this report was prepared. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Our observations, findings, and opinions are a means to identify and reduce the inherent risks to the owner. 0-0-0 r NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Z O M mn cm m� -� O 0 O �. _�. mm Z DZ r= W O -n M mM oCl) O m. .. 9� Z� D Z --I 2 0) Z O n m Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Lot 7 Vista Del Mar Edmonds, Washington NGA File No. 3767B04 March 24, 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. C= r praZaw Bala Dodoye-Alali Project Geologist David L. Nelson, PG President ES 1 Khaled M. Shawish, PE Principal BD:KMS:lam Six Figures Attached NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. z. O --I 0 m 0 crn PH �O On c Mz az r_ -1 O 'n -n rnm_ o� c a i raCf) i Zr PU --i z —I z O "wi M I O n m vm m0 �O Oc iM mZ p -i DZ r_= CD Omn 29 mm o � n r C N 9 Cl) m Zr -.t n z z O 0 m �'N a 0 v 0 x_ 3 n) 0 lay cn u N O N CD X (D U) m rr O _ a) _ m a c _ o. m m n a m co v m v m K Cr m n1 m S 0 m !n 7 tttttttttttttttttttttJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 m ' a- Cnn X 0 M m CL C 0 o cD (n -0 O rt 0 O X v (D M G) m z D -a .a 0 0 CD r 0 0 a) 0 0 O -n OJ 0 0 � mCC � ? G (D o In (D (n rn M W a' Cn Cn iI --I N ch C`\\ \'\ \'IN N0 IN IN �.\.\ \. \\\.\ I I\ \.\ \: \ \ �\\\\ \\\\\\\\ `\ \ `\\.\\.\\_\\�\\\\\\ \.\\\\.\ \ \ \\\\\\\\ \\.\\.\\ \:\\\\\\\\\\\\\�\\\\\:\\: \\\\\\\\ \ \ \ \. \ \. \\.\\\\\\..�\.�II\\.\�\�,\� CD \�.\��\, R S � o4,nof \ a- NU (D X IIIIIII m X J:3 I X S 1n r . CD (n r ,,.(,- \ '� I Project Number NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. 37671304 Lot 7 Vista Del Mar N G7 A Site Plan GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS 17311-1351h Ave NE. A-500 Snohomish County (425) 337-1669 Figure 2 Woodinville, WA 98072 Wenatchee/Chelan (509) 784-2756 (425) 486-1669 / Fax 481-251D www.nelsongeotach.com O -O O IIIIIft Cn (D (D "a O A I No. Date lRevision By I CK 1 2 3/2/04 3/23/04 Original 1 Edit ADJ ADJ IIWIIIIIIIIII BAD BAD M UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP GROUP NAME SYMBOL CLEAN GW WELL -GRADED, FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL I GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL GP I POORLY -GRADED GRAVEL GRAINED MORE THAN 50 % GRAVEL OF COARSE FRACTION GM SILTY GRAVEL I RETAINED ON SOILS NO, 4 SIEVE WITH FINES GC CLAYEY GRAVEL f I CLEAN SW WELL -GRADED SAND, FINE TO COARSE SAND SAND ' ( SAND SP POORLY GRADED SAND MORE THAN 50 % MORE THAN 50 % RETAINED ON OF COARSE FRACTION NO, 200 SIEVE PASSES NO, 4 SIEVE SAND SM SILTY SAND WITH FINES SC CLAYEY SAND i i ! FINE- SILT AND CLAY ML SILT INORGANIC CL CLAY IGRAINED LIQUID LIMIT LESS THAN 50 % ORGANIC OL ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC CLAY SOILS SILT AND CLAY MH SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY, ELASTIC SILT INORGANIC ` MORE THAN 50 I PASSES CH CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FLAT CLAY LIQUID LIMIT NO, 200 SIEVE 50 % OR MORE ORGANIC OH ORGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC SILT HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS NOTES: 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. I3) Descriptions of soil density or consistency are based on interpretation of blowcount data, I visual appearance of soils, and/or test data. Project Number 3767804 Lot 7 Vista Del Mar Figure 4 Soil Classification Chart PT I PEAT 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 NELSON GEOTECHNICAL No. Date Revision By CK N G A ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 3/3104 Original ADJ BAD GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS 17511.QSM A" NE. A.500 smm o cu+Aly r1IS1307.1669 WOWmdw. WA 95012 1509) 784 2756 (425) 4W 16691 F at 451•:SIO 0 --I 0 m v= crn rn v �0 0C iM m Z DZ r_= 0 �► 7� mm_ 0 nr rn 9Cn rn Zr z 2 z 0 rn 0 Hosterman Residence v LOG OF EXPLORATION DEPTH (FEET) USC SOIL DESCRIPTION TEST PIT ONE 0.0 - 0.7 TOPSOIL WITH ROOTS 0.7 - 2.2 SM GRAY, SILTY FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH GRAVEL (DENSE, MOIST) FILL 2.2 - 9.5 SP-SM BROWNISH -GRAY, FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT AND TRACE GRAVEL (DENSE, MOIST) SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 4.0 AND 9.5 FEET GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 9.5 FEET ON 3/1/04 TEST PIT TWO 0.0 -1.3 TOPSOIL WITH ROOTS ' 1.3-2.3 SP-SM ORANGISH-BROWN, FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT AND TRACE GRAVEL AND ROOTS (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) 2.3-8.0 SP-SM BROWNISH -GRAY, FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT AND TRACE IRON -OXIDE STAINING ( DENSE, MOIST) SAMPLE WAS COLLECTED AT 8.5 FEET GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED MODERATE TEST PIT CAVING WAS ENCOUNTERED BETWEEN 2.3 AND 5.5 FEET TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 8.0 FEET ON 31/04 TEST PIT THREE 0.0 - 3.0 TOPSOIL WITH ROOTS AND STUMPS 3.0 - 9.2 SP-SM ORANGISH-BROWN GRADING INTO BROWNISH -GRAY, FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT AND TRACE GRAVEL AND ROOTS ( DENSE, MOIST) SAMPLE WAS COLLECTED 9.2 FEET GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED MODERATE TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 9.2 FEET ON 3/1/04 TEST PIT FOUR . J 0.0 - 0.6 SM GRAY, SILTY FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH GRAVEL (DENSE, MOIST) (FILL) 0.6 -1.2 BURIED TOPSOIL WITH ROOTS ll w 1.2-3.0 SP-SM ORANGISH-BROWN, FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL (DENSE, MOIST) 3.0 - 8.0 SP-SM BROWNISH -GRAY, FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT, GRAVEL, AND TRACE IRON- "" OXIDE STAINING TO APPROXIMATELY 4.0 FEET (DENSE, MOIST) SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 4.0 AND 8.0 FEET GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED MODERATE TEST PIT CAVING WAS ENCOUNTERED BETWEEN 0.0 AND 7.0 FEET TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 8.0 FEET ON 3/1/04 BD i:. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. FILE NO 37671304 FIGURE 5 vm m0 �O OC 2 m IT! p�q DZ r= �Cn O m m� mrn O� nr Crn CD mN Zrnrrn D D Z -1 2 Cn O n m Z O owl m -m cm m0 --� O O� mz p -i Dz r_ -I cn Omn mm o�' r ra � rn Zr z Cl) z o 0 m it 1 JUL-27-2004 16:18 17311-1350 Avenue NE. A•5OQ WoodlnvNe. WA 98072 (425) 084669 . (425) Fax 461-2510 July 23, 2004 Mr. Michael Hosterman 7139 Beach Drive SW Seattle, Washington 98136 Plan Review Letter Hosterman Residence Edmonds, Washington NGA File No. 37671304 NEl.30h1 GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATE' `9 INC. GEOTECHNICAL. ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS Snohomleh County (425) 33TA669 WenWtaWCtWan (509) 764=2756 P.02/04 Dear Mr. Hosterman: This letter presents the results of our geotechnical engineering review of the plans for your residence planned on Lot 7 of the Vista Del Mar development, as requested by your builder Robin Kearsley of Kearsley Homes. We have previously prepared a geotechnical engineering report for this site titled, "Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation — Lot 7 Vista Del Mar — Edmonds, Washington," dated March 24, 2004. We also prepared a supplemental memo regarding the structure setback from the top of the existing steep slope dated April 23, 2004. For our use in preparing this letter, Robin Kearsley has provided us with plans titled, "Hosterman Residence, 17802 Kairez Drive, Edmonds, Washington," prepared by Kearsley Homes, Inc.," dated May 8, 2004 and June 16, 2004. The plans included sheets A 1.0 through A 10.0. Robin Kearsley has requested that we review the geotechnical aspects of the provided plans, and prepare this letter documenting our opinions regarding plan compliance with our previous report and memorandum. We reviewed the provided plans as well as our previous report. We found that the plans are in general compliance with the recommendations provided in the report. This includes the recommended setback distances and soil bearing pressures. The plans should be revised to include the following items: z O 0 rn cM m0 �O OC _M mZ !J cz O� mm_ OCn r ra � MO D z O 0 rn 1 JUL-27-2004 16*19 Plan Review Letter Hosterman Residence July 23, 2004 NGA File No. 37671304 Page 2 Sheet A 2aO: P.03/04 For the 12-inch diameter sonitubes or drilled piers, please specify that those supports are for the deck only so that there is no confusion. Also, the memo regarding the deck piers was dated April 23, 2004 instead of May 23, 2004 as indicated on the plans. A note indicating that all drains including footing drains, downspouts, and yard drains should be routed into a permanent discharge system and that water should not be allowed to now towards or over the slope should be added. In the Foundation Notes section, a note indicating that all earthwork and foundation preparation should be completed in accordance with the geoteehnical report by Nelson Geotechnieai associates dated March 24, 2004 should be added. Sheet A 8.0 & 9.0e Add a note indicating that all concrete walls should be backfilled, and backfill compacted as recommended in the geotechnieal report. NELSON GEOTECHN/CAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Z O -i M v= c rn M 0 -i O n O C s =m mz D Z r- -I CO O� MM vCO) Orn Cn z74 r D Z Z O 0 rn JUL-27-2004 16*18 Plan Review Letter Hosterman Residence July 23, 2004 NGA File No. 3767B04 Page 3 P.04/04 It has been a pleasure to provide service to you on this project. Please contact us if you have any questions regarding this letter or require finther information. Sincerely, NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. '��60 dolfa��W ` aLL Bala DodoyeWali Project Geologist Khaled M. Shawish, PE Principal BD: KMS:Iam One Copy Submitted cc: Robin Kearsley — Kearsley Homes ('Two Copies) NELSON GEO TECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. TOTAL P.04 17311 —1351h Avenue NE, A-500 Woodinville, WA 98072 (425) 486-1669 • (425) Fax 481-2510 July 23, 2004 Mr. Michael Hosterman 7139 Beach Drive SW Seattle, Washington 98136 Plan Review Letter Hosterman Residence Edmonds, Washington NGA File No. 3767B04 Dear Mr. Hosterman: NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS Snohomish County (425) 337=1669 Wenatchee/Chelan (509) 784-2756 RECEIVED JUL 2 7 2004 PERMIT COUNTER This letter presents the results of our geotechnical engineering review of the plans for your residence planned on Lot 7 of the Vista Del Mar development, as requested by your builder Robin Kearsley of Kearsley Homes. We have previously prepared a geotechnical engineering report for this site titled, "Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation — Lot 7 Vista Del Mar — Edmonds, Washington," dated March 24, 2004. We also prepared a supplemental memo regarding the structure setback from the top of the existing steep slope dated April 23, 2004. For our use in preparing this letter, Robin Kearsley has provided us with plans titled, "Hosterman Residence, 17802 Kairez Drive, Edmonds, Washington," prepared by Kearsley Homes, Inc.," dated May 8, 2004 and June 16, 2004. The plans included sheets A 1.0 through A 10.0. Robin Kearsley has requested that we review the geotechnical aspects of the provided plans, and prepare this letter documenting our opinions regarding plan compliance with our previous report and memorandum. We reviewed the provided plans as well as our previous report. We found that the plans are in general compliance with the recommendations provided in the report. This includes the recommended setback distances and soil bearing pressures. The plans should be revised to include the following items: z O 0 m vm rn v �O O� _M mZ p ==I DZ r_ -t 2 O -n M rn m °o 07 0M 9� Zr WWII D z 1 C O n M Plan Review Letter Nosterman Residence July 23, 2004 NGA File No. 37671304 Page 2 Sheet A 2.0: For the 12-inch diameter sonitubes or drilled piers, please specify that those supports are for the deck only so that there is no confusion. Also, the memo regarding the deck piers was dated Z O April 23, 2004 instead of May 23, 2004 as indicated on the plans. 0' m A note indicating that all drains including footing drains, downspouts, and yard drains should be routed into a permanent discharge system and that water should not be allowed to flow towards C/) _ v rn or over the slope should be added. m O O n' In the Foundation Notes section, a note indicating that all earthwork and foundation preparation _ m should be completed in accordance with the geotechnical report by Nelson Geotechnical m p Cz associates dated March 24, 2004 should be added. co 711 Sheet A 8.0 & 9.0: Wn Add a note indicating that all concrete walls should be backfilled, and backfill compacted as m m vCn recommended in the geotechnical report. m K W i rn n o-O-o Z r M appi Z. 2 W Z O --I C� m NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Plan Review Letter Hosterman Residence July 23, 2004 NGA File No. 3767B04 Page 3 It has been a pleasure to provide service to you on this project. Please contact us if you have any questions regarding this letter or require further information. Sincerely, NELSON GEOTECHN/CAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Bala Dodoye-Alali Project Geologist K' Khaled M. Shawish, PE Principal BD:KMS:lam One Copy Submitted cc: Robin Kearsley — Kearsley Homes (Two Copies) NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL N G A ASSOCIATES9 INC. FIELD REPORT GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS C 17311-135th Ave. NE, A-500 File No. Woodinville, WA98072 Project: 37 Tel (425) 486.1669 M t0�^ C S��rgn Date: Fax (425) 481.2510 Owner: 1 S CJ t Location: r)Report No. i Weather: VA r G�Jas c Page: Purpose of Visit: n5*t\3c"c3, \Aa n By: /r\\ ct%V\ We. cbsulca Pe.o.c son D( <1 �� ,ns�\\ S ar,��� p��-rS �s\�y 1�-� oAen \ hell N1t'tltier� w �2\CS Co�G�C) In Aebl % -%c11M ZO-ta ZI 5 - �u'tg and WJc �ncv\ GLOW-0 1wa 204t S«fions o-f $ fcbad W�� \'ftne-reA'R_ 650'46 0\i Mkv, \ii�d`t� 1Vk(AUA%% Un ej a 1 u n 1-c.A ^ton A\r,6.a Attachments: Distribution: .14z) n\dS �ns�1�d -Soda a z /O rn om m0 �O OC iM m Z O�1 Dz r= �CD Oil m m M O� n I— C ((n 9 rn rn � � z Mmi Cn z O m i it�ilNOW&"itFlAw Job Number: c v� Date: to S16LA Performed By: 1 (�A,Li— vtx Z� 3 Pile Testing Sheet ft ft Agta+ _Yl_J -LYMELbMul Y 4 . d N cc c aA I k6C a n 45 a.o N Y 015 ti Z0. 41" u�• 4•-2 5/4' ----- — ——------•„.— .—i. Meet, s-- --ee, 1.— r--—I I I I I I 24'Ocart, FT6. TYP, o 'c' )OI I €t I I I .� .la..►a ..'Foorht& :. I TYPO, I .•.I . I 2WX8C4M. We PTb. TYP. i t' I ,0 4; I ;I yr 2' 9/4' I 4'-T Z'-119/4' T-2 4' : I J, .. tee I �/ L--=- x2 MOO FQOTr►6 � , r LOW __ 1 BAR5 EA 1IAY / 1 r — — i�i — _m. ._ / t r r: seem. mi 5O' OVAO' FOOTIN65 ♦ jINS }� I ry yp/ RY WA to�ISJOIA Im 3-DIOl 90LIC V) ) MA2' POonN5 Od 95 BARS EA, MY 45 BARS r ..,. 1. iS .I; WaO W4' I� SPIN 21'-51/2'lee— 26'-5 5/4' VVIV meeetep III, tee,, .)QO, FoonNS 5 BARS EA. MY i "V IIVI HDIOA s TS s r. X J•-i _i s , slb:: utl: �{ it V:, t 'Y ,T 2 n�,o,l ITS 16 atlz ro L 6` �T t.vw wl ca - III, wed" Vote, Vote 0 y srMp�hl .�--'� .� � Si"'P5oti1 L590 ` � — Z lL I blb' -- ti7o �'- '5,nP',o► , r,SgO Z$K%p�µ ag �t, r�"n rG 7T,'L�IL12 04P,T (417- -1c 4 Pal —MWu rxOrA COACAr �� _-m'i ;'t0 O.T. "I'L [q lm Lei 1o1T "cmmgu us PtA-%ta f r LISE ",,Llo .1&6r pk4a,fi,' , VIA�,c► ► 11t) 310 e, live PtY; DO DcM =8d.►• AaKvs; Irtb u5f #44k TOWL uSE va rrp 1,465 srMPhorl I fT eNo* TT CoIl1 000us pq w+ 5 USC s�6:PsT HAf•+t-� �; 'FDc�io1G 1,4;42tf cc+tUW 'F aN w1 d:Amlwy *v4f14 +F', 12" Du+ Sor41 r�,&, ottw tye un Pf I,' "uw APW- Mom' i tld,5ors Cfb41 ? T. , I e><� ter_-- �o�, in n k*x IZ Cctlktmcaj "Ot, USl; BeAuo:3bt$T joxl'L tsNK L41mps1 N40,7, -w 1 i O 0 m ,1 �� vm m0 �O On 2 M m Z 17 'e-1 C Z r = cn n m VIA m m O� n M 9(/) rn ZrVeN X D Steel O m I NELSON GEOTECHNICAL N G A ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS 17311-135th Ave. NE, A-500 (� ` Woodinville, WA 98072 Project: 0 5 cfl' OWA Kc-S\ d 5^cA Tel (425) 486.1669 Fax (425) 481-2510 Owner: N66AUMAA Location: a r� S % 1r1 n Weather: Clay 0 N 4 b S Purpose of Visit: car%40�cuCi on `'MICA FIELD REPORT C File No. 37(o �T W Date: 10 ' 1 6 .T Report No. 2 Page: of 3 By: CA Nl bw I �ss ^j Vt"1fS 46 C\nr1b( ConSt-tU eAL6 ^ Vet k'1Cj In1kt1n Job\n • pN"neA Cat-6kPf*JG 6 n QC,+VJ e,S 4c A&k& , nA.1A*,A rlrr%•t%/n v)1, AGf1 ' 11�c -- 4n ti *'altlA-t —tdn a.S .VaIk.A t-\.t%, ti IF-%Ae1A A\ALA-P.4oel t1k]ACf • \\►JA LO'T't O%"*S 01- zfk�D U TN k Ilk L116"-%0 VAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII11% 'A � A mr� • 1 . i. 1 • . o • • V1 • ma-ff= ►A • Attachments: Distribution: N =i9 V5 -1 0 m rn 0 ,� O OC '�IK =m mZ O�1 DZ r —I �in Om M _� mm_ O� nr IT! 9(n Mn Z r N�) -7 2 D Z '2 VJ O 0 m f.i Nelson Geotechnical Assoclates, Inc. Job Name: "65 4cf MrAA 9C*tB�C C Job Number: "J 16%9& t iffe S/ Date: \ 0 �, Performed By: CA to n n Pile Testing Sheet sectin W-9Mr"Mp.r.p1 we S Scc S �-4z a+ s Za.S Y Joao (0.0 ���� ,� _ o ,d Wk5 LIM Aedc-f 12 Y V 1� J VC `� ---- a 15 h I I Mw TYP, • I• Is w I I 24hCOr carr. $00 I I /1\ I—5+1kU-'ib r"►LT ;• •;?I (�'tT7�t►o' !fi Ilk Trr I I I : r coxT —I 2O'XOt caa• rtT. rr6. TTr. 4 I I :! of Lad 6i ]' * 2 5/40'j 4Vr 7AI5/4' T-2 0I :1 '•B0 t AV x2 >� rooTl%5 __ _ BARS EA, MAY / / — — It \ \ L--J ;ter •I \ \ 2*m2 VDt ►- %Y car Ioj()o4 Pogc. 31`3 cue z. 0 x4hw roon+b 1p 05 BARS Ilk MY 26133/49 '00)�r COW4= P WENOW TO A MK V" Or ZY IM4" ZMTHS 6RAM USE W 16 CM BARS W MHM W OF wx P" W 5• HK SPAt.M1S M VeTALS 12 { 15, !flat AD •--\ 14•4 5/40 \ V,^ A hoot FOOTIN6r 5 BAR'i EA. WAY 12'-0' ' i i I s��� fl � • - i ti i S,T �- 'STIs ere'TO Y I i ++rrr f1 (r,flOtA' =41mPeziµ C.3 LAO fWA R 76 T•'Oms- • (P.T. (Am 'T M y m.VAS or Cork F 4 _ART,io #.T.0001. Coal LWo-pT "A�acfItlUOtri W+�-u� .I�iE. I�•10 �oKt Ia+�nfi, �Inpra•1 HU31oCi� Pak FAt -fix USE WD purges Use slnxp&sc� I r� - Fes'- TT% JDr�x w(! ¢�� �T EolTfhWouS fiI�1 w� ?� OA 'J,e6 FIST i1gr 11t; � >JM SA LOT I 9 BE lt4 F F0 12' DIA 4o ATt*95 Df� VlaQ pi L' BED Q'Ipw )L6 PM� MEA01 Pam A� G6oib4 UT 1 c �_? To Ion (A*r faVIO foT. 0009 )OUS wm I A� ,USE 3,Uo ::Drsf N� :.:•�`'• ]o1U2 bFi'nL41rop5,/.I NU;10 z 0 m Cl)� vm m� �0 On 2 M mZ p�i C z o 71 rnm_ O� nm m CD 9(f) �� D 2 O m NELSON GEOTECHNICAL NGA ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS 17311.1351h Ave. NE, A-5005 �/�� ��►aGJ� C.(, Woodinville, WA98072 Project: Tel (425) 486.1669 Fax (425) 481.2510 Owner: ` Location: VA" 0 Weather. Purpose of Visit: FIELD REPORT L File No. Date: Report No. 3 Page: of �-- n • .J n liar■TL�A �� ii'►J 5 . rn _ a- . _ . . LA w .• .r r % eA I . (") V ( CO NIC\ U S♦ O r� S p1-\ c- •., •". 4j ~�" ALLC&%wl III 1%.11 W Distribution. I �0 -�1GLt e (�?� 3S7GI4o Li Pa5c" % 2/Z M. . t 0 m 0 ce % Ow 00 �° C)� / / // � ////1,*a I 0000� / r 11/03/2004 14:55 14254812510 NELSON GEOTECHNICAL NELSON GEOTECHNICAL PAGE 02/03 ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINlEERS & GEOLOGISTS 17311 — 135`" Avenue NE, A-500 Woodinville, WA 96072 (425) 486.1869 Fax (425) 481-2510 DATE: November 3, 2004 TO: Michael Hosterman MEMORANDUM CC: Robin Kearsley — Kearsley Homes FROM: Khaled Shawish, PE Snohomish County (425) 337-1669 Wenatchee/Chelan (509) 784.2756 --....m....._ - 'LD ClIT OF EDNil)INDS 1; ALDING DIVISION PLANS EXAINMN'Et DATE, RE: Lot 7 Vista Del Mar — Excavation Quantities and Foundation Support NGA File No. 3767CO4 This memorandum provides our opinion regarding excavation quantities on -site and foundation design modifications in the vicinity of the waternoain that runs along the eastern side of your future residence, in Edmonds, Washington. We visited the site on October 27, 2004 and observed current site conditoos. We met with Robin Kearsley, your builder, on site. Excavation Quantities We observed that all the foundation lines have been excavated, formed, and reinforcing steel placed in the excavations. We estimated that the footing lines were roughly 6 feet wide by 4 feet deep by a total of 400 feet long. This resulted in approximately 350 yards of foundation excavations. Additional excavation will be required for grading the areas of the slab on grade. It appears that significant portions of the slab areas will receive more than 2 feet of structural fill to bring these areas to planned subgrade elevations. We recom nended to the contractor that the topsoil in these areas be left in place but compacted to a firm condition prior to placing the structural fill. In areas where less than 2 feet of structural fill are planned, the topsoil should be removed. The intent of Ieaving the topsoil layer in place is to reduce the amount of excavation required for slab grading_ Based on these recommendations, we have estimated that an average excavation depth of 2 feet will be required over an area of 50 feet by 30 feet which will result in another 110 yards of material to be excavated from the slab area. This brings the total amount of material to be excavated from this site to roughly 460 yards. �l'i 1171brl RECEIVED NOV 0 k ?" 16, PFRM17 Cis .'v Z O n M =i9 vm m� �O OC _M mZ AMosul DZ r= �Cl) O 'n m� 29 mm_ o rn n r- 9� rn n z r- _.I �t D --I 2 0) Z O M 11/03/2004 14:55 14254BI2510 NELSON GEOTECHNICAL Memorandum — Excavation Quantities and Foundation Support Hosterman Residence November 3, 2004 NGA. File No. 3767CO4 Page 2 PAGE 03/03 Foundation support near watermain A. watermain tuns along the outside of the footing excavations for the driveway retaining wall, Retaining Wall B, and a portion of Retaining Wall A. We recommended to Robin that where the oottorn ox utc5c walls is determined to be above a 45-degree line from the horizontal, originating at the bottom of the watermain, these areas should be either over -excavated to bring the subgrade below this line, or these portions of the retaining walls be supported on pin piles to extend the foundation loads below the watermain. We have received revised plans by the structural engineer indicating that these areas would be supported on pin piles. Walls A and B will be supported on a single row of pin piles, while the driveway retaining walls will be supported on two rows of piles. The structural engineer assumed a 2-ton capacity for each pile. 'This is adequate providing that the piles are driven to refusal using a 90-1b jackhammer. Refusal is defined as less than one inch of movement during 60 seconds of continuous driving. We should be retained to observe pin pile installation. We recommend that the watermain be separated by a minimum horizontal distance of 8 inches from the foundation lines. This is intended to maintain easy access to the watermain should future pipe maintenance be required. Closure We trust this memorandum should satisfy your needs at this time. Please contact us if you have any questions concerning this memorandum or if you require additional services. NELSON CEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. C Z O 0 m cm rn 0 �0 0C _M mZ p ==I DZ r_ —I �C/) O �t -n rn m O� 0 r' rn C (j) 9 cn .-Zi r X D Z 0 0 M w NELSON GEOTECHNICAL row W A ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS 17311 —1351" Avenue NE, A-500 Snohomish County (425) 337-1669 Woodinville, WA 98072 (425) 486-1669 • (425) Fax 481-2510 Wenatchee/Chelan (509) 784-2756 September 23, 2005 Mr. Michael Hosterman PO Box 864 Edmonds, WA 98020 Special Inspection Final Letter Hosterman Residence Edmonds, Washington NGA File No. 3767C04 Dear Mr. Hosterman: This letter summarizes our geotechnical constructionmonitoring services at your residential project located at 17802 Kairez Drive on Lot 7 of the Vista Del Mar development in Edmonds, Washington. We have previously prepared a geotechnical engineering report for the site titled "Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation - Lot 7 Vista Del Mar — Edmonds, Washington," dated March 24, 2004, and a plan review letter for the project dated July 23, 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. We monitored earthwork activities at the project on a part-time basis from October 7, 2004 through August 11, 2005. Our observations and recommendations were documented in Field Reports 1 through 11, which have been submitted to you and Robin Kearsley. The special inspection items indicated by the City of Edmonds include: excavation and grading, drilled pier and pile installation, structural fill placement and compaction, soil bearing verification, footing drain installation, general site monitoring, and a final letter. After the initial foundation excavation was completed, the contractor installed 16, 20-inch diameter drilled piers, each with an embedment of approximately 20 feet below the existing grade along the western side of the residence footprint. Fine to inedium sand with silt and gravel was encountered during the drilling of the piers. We evaluated the stability of the open holes with visual observation. We did not observe sloughing or seeping water along sidewalls of the holes after excavation. It is our opinion that r.: z ; 0 n6v� m 2 vM C v m0 --I n OC , m Z fJ '� DZ r CD 0� m M v 0) 0 r C U) 0) m Z� 2 Z 2 rn O 0 m { Special Inspection Final Letter Hosterman Residence Edmonds, Washington September 23, 2005 i NGA File No. 3767C04 Page 2 the piers were installed in general accordance with our recommendations and meet the effective setback requirements from the face of the adjacent slope: i Z The remainder of the residence foundation excavations exposed fine to medium sand with gravel. We 0` evaluated the spread footing foundation subgrade areas by probing with a'/z-inch diameter probe rod n << m under moderate pressure. The soil was penetrated approximately 2 to 5 inches. We interpreted the _ subgrade to be medium dense to dense native soil that should provide adequate support for the planned foundation loads* c rn 00` 0C An existing waterline was located along the eastern footing line along the outside footing excavation for mz the driveway retaining wall. Pin piles were installed in this area to support the wall to limit the weight of the footings on the waterline. We observed the installation of 22, two-inch diameter pin piles. The pin piles were driven to refusal at approximately seven feet below the ground surface and should provide Cn Omn adequate support for the retaining wall. Prior to structural fill placement, we evaluated the subgrade. Most of the area exposed medium dense or better native soil that was suitable for structural fill placement._ All areas that exposed organic -rich soil C Cn I m were over -excavated to expose competent native soils. Z � We evaluated compaction of structural fill placed within the site for slab subgrade and retaining wall D. backfill next to the driveway. Structural fill for these lots consisted of imported fine to medium sand with Z trace silt. The fill was placed in loose lifts approximately one foot in thickness and compacted using Cn Z 4 suitable compaction equipment. We evaluated the compaction of the fill by performing in -place density p tests. All tests met or exceeded 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D-1557 m (Modified Proctor). Provided consistent methods were used during subgrade preparation and fill placement, it is our opinion that the structural fill was compacted to project specifications and should provide adequate support for the planned residence. We also observed footing drain installation around the perimeter of the residence foundations. The drains consisted of 4-inch perforated PVC pipe, surrounded with washed rock and covered with filter fabric. We also observed a drainage composite being installed on the southern wall of the residence. We were NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC, t i Special Inspection Final Letter Hosterman Residence Edmonds, Washington i September 23, 2005 NGA File No. 3767C04 Page 3 informed that the footing drains as well as the drain for the wall were tightlined to a 4-foot diameter sump located approximately 10 feet from the northwestern corner of the house. The sump was embedded approximately two feet and bedded with washed rock. Z_ t Permanent erosion control will be evaluated when the landscaping for the project has been completed. We will provide a supplemental letter addressing the final erosion control. m Based on our part-time construction monitoring, it is our opinion that the earthwork special inspection CD = vm items for this project were completed in general accordance with the plans and our recommendations. rn 0 0 r<1 Z. a. o-O-o D moss Z. �_ - _ Cn k, Om Own � v Cn 0m ; C0); m z� D` Z Z 0 04.1 m NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC, _ 4 Special Inspection Final Letter Hosterman Residence Edmonds, Washington h September 23, 2005 NGA File No. 3767C04 Page 4 - We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. We will evaluate final erosion r control for the project upon your request. Please contact us if you have any questions regarding this letter s or require further information.{ } Z 4; Sincerely, O. ' 1 NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. n ,: x M WAS Uh� C 0 ` N ' C l mZ D Z TONAL _ Cn saes �r Z — o j� O -n a Michael D. Rundquist m m Project Manager p C N K Cn Zrn D D Z { Z' BD:MDR:Iam n One Copy Submitted m cc: Robin Kearsley — Kearsley Homes, Inc. (Three Copies) r NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC, 12-19-'05 12:59 FROM -Nelson Geotechnical 425-481-2510 T-255 P001/004 F-811 NELSON GEOTECHNICAL GAASSOCIATES, INC. 1 EERS & GEOL.OGISTS GEOTECHNICAL.. ENGIN 17311 — 135"' Avenue NE. A-500 Snohomish County (425) 337A669 Woodinville, WA 98072 Wenatchee/Chelan (509) 784-2756 (425) 486-1669 • (425) Fax481-2510 Facsimile Transmittal ;U �os.;,Q,v To: Jeannine Graf i �� �"�1 �/v �' z Company: City of Edmonds 0 Phone: m Fax: 425-771-0221 From: Khaled Shawish 0 m Company: Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc. rn o 17311-135`h Ave. NE, A-500 0 jc Woodinville, WA 98072 m z -486=1669Phone: 425 —i Fax: 425-481-2510 n z 0 Date: December 19, 2005 O 71 Pages Including Cover Page: NGA File #: 3767C04 MIT! o � CC: M Attached please find Supplemental Special Inspection Letter for Hosterman Residence. ch -zl r RE:Ce:jVrLi► DEC 19 2UU5 z _ DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR. z CITY OF EDMONDS O -I n m 12-19-'05 12:59 FROM -Nelson Geotechnical 425-481-2510 17311 — 135" Avenue NE, A-500 Woodinville, WA 98072 (425) 486-1669 • (425) Fax 481-2510 December 19, 2005 Mr. Michael Hosterman PO Box 864 Edmonds, WA 95020 T-255 F002/004 F-811 NELSON GEO` ECHNICAL ASSOCIA'TE57 INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS Supplemental Special Inspection Letter Hosterman Residence Edmonds, Washington NGA File No. 3767CO4 Snohomish County (425) 337-1669 Wenatchee/Chelan (509) 784-2756 811IL0t1O OFC r 9 20� Dear Mr. Hosterman: This letter summarizes our observations of the landscaping and final erosion control measures at your residential project located at 17802 Kairez Drive on Lot 7 of the Vista Del Mar development in Edmonds, Washington. We have previously prepared a special inspection final letter dated September 23, 2005 summarizing our construction monitoring services for your property. In that letter we stated that the final landscaping had not been completed, but we would re -visit the site to observe the erosion control measures at a later date. We visited the site on November 17, 2005 to observe the existing conditions. Upon arrival, we observed that the landscapers were setting out plants in their correct locations along the top of the slope. A concrete tiered patio was located behind the residence above the top of slope. An approximately three foot wide strip over the top of the slope was graded for placement of the landscaping plants. We recommended that any loose soil be removed after the vegetation is planted and that no material be placed below the landscaped area onto the remaining portion of the slope. We revisited the site on December 1, 2005 at the request of your builder, Robin Kearsley. He informed us that after a heavy rain storm a few days prior to our visit, he observed water flowing down the exposed moderately sloping hill that is adjacent to the southern side of your property. To divert the water from flowing over the slope, the landscapers covered most of the hill with straw and excavated two shallow ditches to divert the water. Z 0 n m =i =n cm M OO _ M m Z p�A DZ r- -i OWn m rn O n r- C� goCf) m Z� X Z S Z O 0 m F 12-19-'05 12:59 FROM -Nelson Geotechnical Supplemental Special Inspection Letter Hosterman Residence Edmonds, Washington December 19, 2005 NGA File No. 3767C04 Page 2 425-481-2510 T-255 P003/004 F-811 When we arrived on site, we observed straw had been placed on the slope. We recommend that a small remaining area of exposed soil be covered with straw as well. It is our understanding that this hill is not on your property and is actually a vacant lot. It is our opinion, however, that this slope should be protected until the lot is developed. This could include placing additional straw bales to control surface water or hydroseeding the slope to encourage vegetation growth. Based on our observations, it is our opinion that the erosion control measures have been implemented adequately. We recommend that the conditions on the neighboring property be addressed by either communicating our concerns directly with the owner or by informing the City of the currently conditions. As we mentioned in our geotechnical report, all people who own or occupy homes on hillsides should realize that landslide movements are always a possibility. We recommend that you periodically inspect the steep slope, especially after a winter storm. If distress is evident, we should be contacted for advice on remedial/preventative measures. The probability that landsliding will occur is substantially reduced by the proper maintenance of drainage and erosion control measures at the site. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC, O -i n M v, -i C rn ma �O Oc _ M mm p CZ �_=1 �V OMT1 mrn_ o� nM rn 9� m Z rM X G. r D Z 2 Z O n M 12-19` 05 12:59 FROM -Nelson Geotechnical 425-481-2510 T-255 P004/004 F-811 Supplemental Special Inspection Letter Hosterman Residence Edmonds, Washington December 19, 2005 NGA File No. 3767CO4 Page 3 We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. We will evaluate final erosion control for the project upon your request. Please contact us if you have any questions regarding this letter or require further information. Sincerely, NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Bala Dodoye-Alali Khaled Shawish, PE Principal BD:kms:kmn One Copy Submitted cc: Robin Kearsley — Kearsley Homes, Inc. (Three Copies) Jeannine Graf — City of Edmonds (One copy via fax) NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC, CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC. TESTING & INSPECTION 12919 N.E. 126TH PLACE KIRKLAND. WASHINGTON 98034 (425) 823.9800 EVERETT (425( 259.0817 COMPRESSION REPORT B U 11 D I N G THE FOLLOWING WAS NOTED: FIELDTEST DATA FIELD I I' i I L No. 57392 REPORT No. � IC L DATE CERT NO. 0gIi 3 PROJECT LOCATION '? �� L /?c G v i BLDG. PERMIT NO. OWNER WEATHER TEMP. AT AM � PM ENGINEER ARCHITECT CONTRACTOR ST�lor� i TRUCK SAMPLED �333 TRUCK TICKET NO. aV d 4 MIX NO % V SLUMP UNIT CEMENT TEMP. TIME ASTM C-143 0/co WEIGHT YIELD FACTOR ASTM C-1064 ASTM C-138 CONCI AIR 8- AIR TEST METHOD: ❑ PRESSURE ASTM C-231 OR ❑ VOLUME AS I M U-I is EQUIPMENT USED I.D. �� ��--77 SLUMP CONE CSLCOO_(� THERMOMETER CCOTHO AMMETER CCOAIO OTHER TYPE OF BREAK: (A) Cone (C) Cone and Shear rh1 cnne and Solit (d) Shear (e) Columnar rOMPRESSIVE STRENGTH BATCH DATA FOR cu.vD. DESIGN WEIGHTS % MOIST. ADJUSTED WEIGHTS CEMENT 14 q b FLY ASH C.A. CiA• FINE AGG. WATER I LSD I TOTAL CYLINDER NUMBER DATE MADE DATE TESTED AGE SIZE AREA (SQ.IN) TOTAL LOAD STRENGTH PSI TYPE BREAK `DAjYS • r �' e7� 7 7 2,8 �i 16 & CONCRETE COMPRESSION MAC NE I.D.#IJUUUUUU_ E�M C-1231 SAMPLING IN ACCORDANCE WITH (/ SAMPLE P/U DATE TEST METHOD ❑ ASTM C-617 APPLICABLE CODES & SPECS. v SUPPLIER CEMENT TYPE � '� CU. YARDS PLACED AEA ADMIX. AX CAC1a -a % DESIGN STRENGTH -s,,�vl /v PLACEMENT AREA & NOTES 1 is I TEST RESULTS APPLY ONLY TO THE ITEMS �� �� �� &- HEREIN TESTED. THIS REPORT SHALL NOT INSPECTOR(S), NAME(S)4PRINTED BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL, WITH- { OUT THE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF CASCADE it TESTING LABORATORY, INC. INSPECTOR SIGNATURE REVISED 8/04 SIGNED BY ' c C<�yl t`vulo /67 0 i t l COPIES TO: ( . Z O 0 m � m m� �O On C 2 M mZ p � DZ r_ —I �_ ch O "n 'M mm Oro r n M 9 cn Z X n Z. O -_i m 1 TO: ATTN: CASCADE &INSPECT IIN ENG LAEERSNG BORATORY, INC. 12919 N.E. 126TH PLACE KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON 98034 �425) 25) 823-98100 EVERETT FIELD REPORT 2c�P 10, (2) INSPECTION PERFORMED RESTEEUCONCRETE RESTEEUMASONRY OTHER (LOCATION (AREAS) W PREVIOUS No. REPORT No, DATE CERT. NO. PROJECT J / "'— WEATHER SU NiJ ENGINEER _ RESTEEL ONLY _ STR,ST/WELDING STR.ST/BOLTING CONCRETEIMASONRY / /MIX NO/." 36 Z L SUPPLIER SLUMP (INCHES) AIR CONTENT (%) il (3) ITEMS INSPECTED XFOOTINGS AUGER CAST PILES -- DRILLED PIERS W/J 116462 -2 zz) AT AT FOUNDATIONS SLAB COLUMNS - WALLS . BEAMS DESIGN STRENGTH (Pc) 3 50 TOTAL CU. YD. PLACED _ 7 / / SPECIMENS CAST ` X/ L SEE CYLINDER REPORT NO. 7 3 q YES NO —ITEMS INSPECTED WERE IN CONFORMANCE WITH BLDG. DEPT, APPROVED PLANS REMARKS: TEST RESULTS APPLY ONLY TO THE ITEMS HEREIN TESTED. THIS REPORT SHALL NOT INSPECTOR(S), NAME(S) PRINTED BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL, WITH- OUT THE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF CASCADE INSPECTOR SIGNATURE TESTING LABORATORY, INC. REVISED 6100 COPIES TO: C�-- j Z�3 SIGNED BY 6wly00/ 719 cm m� �O OC _m m Z A� DZ S OT mm_ o nr m rnN Zr 2 Z 2 cn Z O m CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC. TESTING & INSPECTION 12919 N.E. 126TH PLACE KIRKLAND* WASHINGTON 9803A (4251 823.980C EVERETT (A251 259.081 2 COMPRESSION REPORT ATTAI THE FOLLOWING WAS NOTED: FIELD TEST DATA FIELD NO, 5 7 3Z REPORT No. ! `L X DATE CERT. j — PROJECT aS LOCATION 17 CS Z 1 BLDG. PERMIT NO. OWNER WEATHER TEMP. e5)z: J / AT AM M ENGINEER ARCHITECT CONTRACTOR KEA? SLEY 96LMCS TRUCK SAMPLED 3 5 5 —TRUCK TICKET NO. MIX NO. �LZ UNIT CEMENT TEMP. TIME ASTM CSLUMP143 %AIR WEIGHT YIELD FACTOR ASTM C 1064 ASTM C-138 CONC AIR AIRTEST METHOD: 0 PRESSURE ASTM C-231 OR ❑ VOLUME ASTM C-173 EQUIPMENT USED I.D. I SLUMP CONE CSLCOO� THERMOMETER CCOTHO / AIRMETER CCOAIO OTHER TYPE OF BREAK: (A) Cone (C) Cone and Shear 1�% n nme4 enli! IH1 Rhnmr lc+l Cnlumnar rnen00CccIV9= CTRFNGTH BATCH DATA FOR CUM DESIGN WEIGHTS % MOIST. ADJUSTED WEIGHTS CEMENT S FLY ASH OPY C.A. C.A. of C.A. FINE AGG. 141173 WATER TOTAL ------------ CYLINDER NUMBER o -..- _V- DATE MADE Z-l7 %_, _ DATE TESTED Z-13 -- AGE DAYS --- SIZE AREA (SO. IN) TOTAL LOAD ",,1oyo STRENGTH PSI 27ln TYPE BREAK CONCRETE COMPRESSION MACHINE I.D. i7000UUUU 0 ASTM C-1231 SAMPLE P/U DATE � TEST METHOD ❑ ASTM C-617 SUPPLIER ' /l 1�v// C. /' CEMENTTYPE AEA PLACEMENT AREA & ADMIX •� CAC12 % -,�.odV' ,e1lAT1A1Z r C Z) ems% TEST RESULTS APPLY ONLY TO THE ITEMS HEREIN TESTED. THIS REPORT SHALL NOT INSPECTOR(S), NAME(S) PRINTED BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL, WITH- OUT THE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC. INSPECTOR SIGNATURE REVISED 8/04 COPIESTO: SIGNED BY SAMPLING IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE CODES & SPECS. CU.YARDS PLACED DESIGN STRENGTH si er 0� Z 0 0 m cl)_ cm m0 .i0 0c _ m mZ p —I DZ 0 m 'T1 ;U mM O� 4. r m 9cn m 0 z r- --i D Z 2 0 I, -_i m TO: ATTN: CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC. TESTING & INSPECTION / ENGINEERS 12919 N.E. 126TH PLACE KIRKLANO, WASHINGTON 98034 (a4 5 87,,, 00 EVERETT (r- 7 FIELD REPORT". t 2004 (2) INSPECTION PERFORMED RESTEEL/CONCRETE _ RESTEEUMASONRY . OTHER PERMIT COUNTER REPORTUNo, No. -+- 489. DATECEa l / r _ 3 •-� PROJECT _ / / OS�r�lMAI n5f LOCATION 0A01 14 4IJ14i5Z. n ^ WEATHER ENGINEER RESTEEL ONLY _ STR.ST/WELDING STR.ST/BOLTING (LOCATION (AREAS)-TTG�id �aD71^1441 ( Z) f& CONCRETE/MASONRY SUPPLIER SLUMP (INCHES) AIR CONTENT (%) REMARKS: MIX NO. d 'J rz CONTRACTOR (3) ITEMS INSPECTED FOOTINGS _ AUGER CAST PILES DRILLED PIERS TEMP AT AM AT Z PM FOUNDATIONS _ SLAB _ COLUMNS WALLS — BEAMS DESIGN STRENGTH (f'c) TOTAL CU, YD, PLACED IT SPECIMENS CAST el SEE CYLINDER REPORT NO. � 7 YES _NO _ ITEMS INSPECTED WERE IN CONFORMANCE WITH BLDG, DEPT. APPROVED PLANS TEST RESULTS APPLY ONLY TO THE ITEMS HEREIN TESTED. THIS REPORT SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL, WITH- OUT THE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC. REVISED 8/00 COPIES TO: INSPECTOR(S), NAME(S) PRINTED INSPECTOR SIGNATURE SIGNED BY I :q R vm m� �O OC M 2 m Z DZ r -I �c/) m 2 � mm_ or Ccn m c' Zr D Z -I 2 Q) Z O C7 m I_k TO: CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC, TESTING & INSPECTION / ENGINEERS 12919 N.E. 126TH PLACE KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON 98034 (425) 823-9800 EVERETT (425) 259-0817 FIELD REPORT REPORT No, 116 49 5 DATE CERT. NO. % PROJECT _ of 175 LVVA I1VIVll INSPECTION PERFORMED RESTEELICONCRETE _ RESTEELIMASONRY —. OTHER (4) LOCATION (AREAS) CONCRETE/MASONRY SUPPLIER SLUMP (INCHES) � AIR CONTENT (%) ►,411 -IVITCO ---_- RESTEEL ONLY _ STR.ST/WELDING _ STR.ST/BOLTING 76 MIX NO, 1257 � / /,IKE/' WEATHER ,1 evV5 (zoo ENGINEER CONTRACTO eA(, Z. (3) ITEMS INSPECTED _ FOOTINGS AUGER CAST PILES - DRILLED PIERS AT AT z FOUNDATIONS SLAB _ COLUMNS XWALLS BEAMS DESIGN STRENGTH (Pc) 3 6 66 > TOTAL CU, YD, PLACED O 0 SPECIMENS CAST X/L SEE CYLINDER REPORT NO, S7i/cd L YES. NO _ ITEMS INSPECTED WERE IN CONFORMANCE WITH BLDG, DEPT, APPROVED PLANS REMARKS: COPIES TO: CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC. TESTING & INSPECTION 12919 N.E. 126TH PLACE KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON 98034 (425) 823.980C EVERETT (425)259.0817 COMPRESSION REPORT BUILDING ATTN: THE FOLLOWING WAS NOTED: FIELD TEST DATA L, -- FIELD REPORT No. No. 57400 DATE CERT. jNO. 7 PROJECT _ LOCATION 1780L WEI niL)F BLDG. PERMIT NO. OWNER WEATHER 67 / TEMP. AT AM ENGINEER ARCHITECT CONTRACTOR lf)4efZZ,09// TRUCK SAMPLED J l _TRUCK TICKET NO. / % // ?CJ 3 D MIX NO.133'i L7d TIME SLUMP ASTM C-143 %AIR UNIT WEIGHT ASTM C-136 YIELD CEMENT FACTOR ASTM C7064 CONC AIR AIR TEST METHOD: ❑ PRESSURE ASTM C-231 OR ❑ VOLUME ASTM C-173 EQUIPMENT USED I.D. SLUMP CONE CSLCOO-1.7— THERMOMETER CCOTHO AIRMEfER CCOAIO OTHER TYPE OF BREAK: (A) Cone (C) Cone and Shear (b) Cone and Split (d) Shear (e) Columnar COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH BATCH DATA FOR CU.YD. DESIGN WEIGHTS % MOIST. ADJUSTED WEIGHTS CEMENT Q FLY ASH Q C.A. " IL4<Z C.A. zD C.A. " FINE AGG. WATER TOTAL CYLINDER NUMBER DATE MADE DATE TESTED AGE DAYS SIZE/? AREA (SO. IN) TOTAL LOAD STRENGTH PSI TYPE BREAK // 3L4/- 3 617 -4 z ar53zs 3520 CONCRETE COMPRESSION MACHINE LD. #GG0G000 ' I 00*gS M C-1231 SAMPLE P/U DATE _�� TEST METHOD APPLICABLEE ASTM C-617 SAMPLING ACCORDANCE WITH gt ' CODES 8 SPECS�j' SUPPLIER - ` �' ` CEMENTTYPE CU. YARDS PLACED AEA Z ADMIX. An. (- C7 CAC12 % DESIGN STRENGTH r:��•laaaa�r st�liyT:3�.L•�IC� TEST RESULTS APPLY ONLY TO THE ITEMS HEREIN TESTED. THIS REPORT SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL, WITH- OUT THE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC. REVISED 8/D4 COPIESTO: v � 1i INSPECTOR(S), NAME(S) PRINTED INSPECTOR SIGNATURE SIGNED BY j e/ =i:6 cm m0 �O On _M m Z p -I >Z r= 7 mm_ O� r Cv) 9 rn m Zr D Z 2 Z O 0 M CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC. TESTING & INSPECTION 12919 N.E. 126TH PLACE KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON 9803A (425) 823-9800 EVERETT (425) 259.0817 COMPRESSION REPORT . . . s 4 J, i(lllri ATTN• THE FOLLOWING WAS NOTED: FIELD TEST DATA FIELD REPORT No.J� ` 6 No. 57397 DATE � � CERT. NO. PROJECT LOCATION C5 Z 1 � 17 rl BLDG, PERMIT NO. OWNER WEATHER elvz:: �/bJ / TEMP. AT AM M ENGINEER ARCHITECT CONTRACTOR KEA M L E 96LAA TRUCK SAMPLED 3 TRUCK TICKET NO. MIX NO. I d /LZ TIME SLUMP ASTM C143 %AIR UNIT WEIGHT ASTM C-138 YIELD CEMENT FACTOR TEMP. ASTM C-1064 CONC AIR 7j! AIR TEST METHOD: ❑ PRESSURE ASTM C-231 OR ❑ VOLUME ASTM C-173 EQUIPMENT USED I.D. f SLUMP CONE CSLC00�1 THERMOMETER CCOTHO AIRMETER CCOAIO OTHER TYPE OF BREAK: (A) Cone (C) Cone and Shear thl r.nna nnri Rnlit !(i) Shear (e) Columnar enun[tFRSIVF STRFNGTH BATCH DATA FOR cU.YD. DESIGN WEIGHTS % MOIST. ADJUSTED WEIGHTS CEMENT FLY ASH pi C.A. " C.A. " C.A. " FINE AGG, WATER TOTAL CYLINDER NUMBER DATE MADE DATE TESTED AGE DAYS SIZE AREA (SQ.IN) TOTAL LOAD STRENGTH PSI TYPE BREAK Z - ,�yo S7!� O z-13 y5 3 r 3c� sss©5 8sb� -3 2,z CONCRETE COMPRESSION MACHINE I.D.77UUUUUUU SAMPLE P/U DATE - SUPPLIER AEA PLACEMENT AREA & TEST METHOD /"Ov//0/ CEMENTTYPE ADMIX a O CAC12 TEST RESULTS APPLY ONLY TO THE ITEMS HEREIN TESTED. THIS REPORT SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL, WITH- OUTTHE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC. REVISED 8I04 COPIES TO: 7 -r, Z INSPECTOR(S), NAME(S) PRINTED INSPECTOR SIGNATURE SIGNED BY -f O ❑ ASTM C-1231 SAMPLING IN ACCORDANCE WITH ❑ ASTM C-617 APPLICABLE CODES & SPECS. • --=-� CU.YARDS PLACED 7 50 % DESIGN STRENGTH �� G '00�- ri SI Ur 'J' % Z O 0 M vm m0 �O Oc mwiK =m mZ p� DZ r -I CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC. TESTING & INSPECTION 12919 N.E. 126TH PLACE KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON 98034 (425) 823.9800 EVERETT R EC� E I (425)2S9.0817__ COMPRESSION REPORT %1/ E D DEC 3 0 2004 ATTN: THE FOLLOWING WAS NOTED: 020 FIELD TEST DATA FIELD REPORT No. No. 57400 DATE CERT. NO. 7- PROJECT 40 LOCATION t7�o� � �! FZ brZIUF BLDG, PERMIT NO, OWNER WEEA�TH�ERR Jai l TEMP. AT AM T cm ENGINEER ARCHITECT CONTRACTOR TRUCK SAMPLED TRUCK TICKET NO. / ).30 MIX NO.L,0 `T Z7d TIME SLUMP ASTM C-143 % AIR UNIT WEIGHT ASTM C-138 YIELD CEMENT FACTOR TEMP. ASTM C-1064 CONC AIR AIR TEST METHOD: El PRESSURE ASTM C-231 OR ❑ VOLUME ASTM C-173 EQUIPMENT USED I.D. SLUMP CONE CSLCOO THERMOMETER CCOTHO AMMETER CCOAIO OTHER TYPE OF BREAK: (A) Cone (C) Cone and Shear (b) Cone and Split (d) Shear (e) Columnar COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH BATCH DATA FOR cu.YD. DESIGN WEIGHTS % MOIST. ADJUSTED WEIGHTS CEMENT yffc— FLY ASH 70 C.A. /4 Z C.A. " z0 C.A. " FINE AGG. , WATER TOTAL CYLINDER NUMBER DATE MADE/ DATE TESTED AGE DAYS AREA (SQ.IN) TOTAL LOAD STRENGTH PSI TYPE BREAK 1-13 z /SIZE 3 617 CONCRETE COMPRESSION MACHINE I.D.#UUUUUUU_If � C]UTM C-1231 � � `!J� El ASTM ACCORDANCE WITH SAMPLE P/U DATE TEST METHOD ASTM C-617 APPLICABLE CODES & SPECS�j' SUPPLIER /l ��Y I CEMENT TYPE / _ CU.YARDS PLACED AEA J ' v 0 Z ADMIX, GZ" CAC12 % DESIGN STRENGTH PLACEMENT AREA & NOTES •F��l.��'1 /5 �� AIZ L G .f TEST RESULTS APPLY ONLY TO THE ITEMS HEREIN TESTED. THIS REPORT SHALL NOT INSPECTOR(S), NAME(S) PRINTED BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL, WITH- OUT THE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC. I INSPECTOR SIGNATURE REVISED8/04 '1 SIGNED BY COPIESTO: ���� �� iJ I z Z O �q n M cm m� 0. -i 0C mz p� DZ r- --I �G N 7 71 Mmi MM 0 1' r 9cn Z0 D Z 2 N 0 m CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC. TESTING & INSPECTION 12919 N.E. 126TH PLACE KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON 9803A (A251 823.9800 EVERETT (A251 259.0817 COMPRESSION REPORT ATTN: DEC 2 1 20 THE FOLLOWING WAS NOTED: FIELD TEST DATA su►LDiNG DEFT. FIELD J! I 4 REPORT No. No. 57392 � C r DATE CERT. NO. PROJECT LOCATION 8c)F_ P? Lvi BLDG. PERMIT NO. OWNER WEATHER r, TEMP. AT AM h/V/V T PM ENGINEER ARCHITECT CONTRACTOR TRUCK SAMPLED v 33-+ TRUCK TICKET NO. Z d MIX NO JJ&Z TIME SLUMP ASTM C-143 %AIR UNIT WEIGHT ASTM C-138 YIELD CEMENT FACTOR TEMPP, ASTM C-1064 CONC AIR 45 58- AIR TEST METHOD: ❑ PRESSURE ASTM C-231 OR ❑ VOLUME ASTM C-173 EQUIPMENT USED I.O. SLUMP CONE CSLCOO.,L2, THERMOMETER CCOTHO. AIRMETER CCOAIO OTHER TYPE OF BREAK: (A) Cone (C) Cone and Shear (b) Cone and Split (d) Shear (e) Columnar COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH BATCH DATA FOR cU.YD. DESIGN WEIGHTS % MOIST. ADJUSTED WEIGHTS CEMENT O FLY ASH C.A. C.A. Q_ . FINE AUG. WATER z [� TOTAL CYLINDER NUMBER DATE MADE DATE TESTED AGE DAYS SIZE AREA (SQ.IN) TOTAL LOAD STRENGTH PSI TYPE BREAK 5750 55if0 8PV 10z31b 550 CONCRETE COMPRESSIO MAC NE I.D. #GC;ODUUU_ SAMPLE P/U DATE TEST METHOD SUPPLIER CEMENTTYPE AEA ADMIX. CAC12 % DESIGN STRENGTH PLACEMENT AREA & NOTES "Z l'/ "/, TEST RESULTS APPLY ONLY TO THE ITEMS HEREIN TESTED. THIS REPORT SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL, WITH- OUT THE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC. REVISED 8/04 r. COPIES TO: INSPECTOR(S), NAME(S) PRINTED INSPECTOR SIGNATURE SIGNED BY Ef STM C-1231 SAMPLING IN ACCORDANCE WITH (/ ❑ ASTM C-617 APPLICABLE CODES & SPECS. ! 1 - I / r CU.YARDS PLACED ` v 1C M FIN L PROJEC' 'PROVAL FORM. TO: DATE: MEMO TO: PERMIT COORDINATOR, BUILDING DIVISION FROM: FIRE DEPARTMENT DATE I'IXASC SIGN {V Mn_ed ENGINEERING DIVISION DATE 1 Z Z4V ` KrASL SIGN .. PLANNING DIVISION DATE PLEASE; SIGN PROJECT ITo Jh1r1K U17 SITE ADDRESS O qw 2 lZatIYP �� PERMIT # 04 D 7_ADB# DATE INSPECTED DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE INSPECTED 17� i A field inspection was conducted to determine 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 ❑ Copy of CONDITIONS given to owner/contractor by inspector I. FAILED FINAL INSPECTION - OUTSTANDING ISSUES ❑ Copy of CORRECTION NOTICE given to owner/contractor by inpector 1. 2. 3. RE -INSPECTED OUTSTANDING ISSUES - GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL Date Signature 1: temp:bldg: rorms:ocaprvl 3/25/04 z 0 n M �-n oM m 0 �o o� c Mz p� Dz r -1 OD mrn_ or r CM �Cn '1 D X D z z 0 0 M t 1 RECORD OF INSPECTIONS INSPECTOR SETBACKS ..................... 0 DATE APPROVED FOUNDATION: Footing' a n Wall) 1d� ^ mot ass- Pier/Porch ................. Retaining Wall ........... Slab Insulation .......... PLUMBING: Underground ............. Rough -In ..................a Commercial Final ...... HEATING: Gas Test ................... Gas Piping ................. Equipment ................. Commercial Final ....... 7 Lc_:1 tom:=cam.©@ L 5Czt:. W rncl q rz 4Lr 5 \uji ofpc0e.�wtT IM 05-- MT EXTERIOR SHEATHING i NAILING FRAMING ........................ FIRST FLOOR FRAMING... N u t � � ° � tom' A Fff INSULATION Floor Insulation ........ Wall Insulation ........... Ceiling Insulation ....... SHEETROCK NAILING ... SPECIAL INSPECTION ... I cL f" MISCELLANEOUS .......... FINAL APPROVAL FOR OCCUPANCY .................. Zovq 7 'File Initials Ml' are Milton Thompson, a temporary conk act inspector for the City. 8 r ? Gam. �- ►'n0.yc , Side Sewer #-- q Amout Paid $_o-Receipt #�^ Date Issue S-expires WaterMeterS' -- -r _ Amount Paid Z Receipt # Date Purchased r�OW # .mount Paid $ - Receipt rfm .� r Z O rn E-