Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
20050107.pdf
DATE RECEIVED PERMIT EXPIRES PERMIT CITYOF E®MONDS zorEiE �.� . ' Z NUMBER CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION JOB SUITE/APT# ADD ESQ OWNER NAME/NAME OF BUSINESS f(\ L 1 �,� L 1 I Si !•-- %sf �: / j L. % PLAT NAME/SUBDIVISION N0. LOT NO. LID NO. Ir MAILING ADDRESS ;e, 1 /f LU l rr t> —0 1 t i C" f- f (�� �'♦ LID FEE $ 3 / C ' CL 9 l� 1% j 4 ! PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP )ESOP Approves p O I (I 7�' t! 11J RW Permit Required CITY —. street use Permit Req'A /_, r ZIP TELEPHONE) �`. EXISTING PROPOSED Inspection Required [J _�, `l 7 _ Sidewalk Required 0 t..� REQUIRED DEDICATION Fr Underground .J J Wiring required 0 NAME METER SIIZt E LINE r SIZE NO. OF FIXTURES PRV REQUIRED 1.YESA NO ❑ O _ C ADDRESS REMARKS = 2(' OWNER/CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROL/DRAINAGE (� TS / ! J ZIP TELEPHONE /j� 1 - s e ~ wZ NAME CBL # _ l A I\l lq L . ;.F �� ►%'1�Y kIST-�' 1.,•J �--� � NGINE RING REVIEWED BY G .ADDRESS c DATE /p FI REVIEWED BY DATE w C CITY ZIP TELEPHONE C4 V STATE LICENSE NUMBER EXPIRATION DATEC ED BY VARIANCE OR Cu SHORELINE OR ADB# INSPECTION BOND ��- REO' POSTED LT / . 2 (� ❑YES 7/.F g -- L� 6c SEPA REVIEW SIGN AREA HEIGHT q PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL NO. COMPLETE EXEMPT ALLOWED PROPOSED ALLOWED PROPOSED EXP, NEW RESIDENTIAL Ba PLUMBING /MECH LOT COVERAGE REQUIRED SETBACKS (FT.) PROPOSED SETBACKS (FT.) ALLOWED PROPOSED FRONT SIDE REAR FRONT UR SIDE REAR ❑ ADDITION ❑ COMMERCIAL ❑ CHANGE OF USE v �� , Ct Zti COMPLIANCE OR 1 - �J 1 I t'? ( ( z PARKING LOT AREA PLANNING REVIEWED BY ATE S ❑ REMODEL ❑ MULTIFAMILY ❑ SIGN REO'D PROVID.}E-D //� /o+ aREPAIR FENCE t ct.�V t o ❑ CYDS ❑ ( X FT) REMARKS ❑ DEMOLISH ❑ TANK ❑ OTHER (� GARAGE RETAINING WALL FIRE SPRINKLERt4o D'C Q `—� CARPORT ❑ ROCKERY ❑ FIRE ALARM (TYPE OF USE, BUSINFSS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN: cFE % CHECKED BY TYPE,.W CTION CO GROUP T of NUMBER NUMBER OF CRITICAL //�� ' OF % DWELLING A� AREAS , SPECIAL INSPECTION AREA OCCUPANT �Fr REQUIRED YES LOAD LO STORIES UNITS NUMBER DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE Ell REMARKS c7 r PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 108/IBC109/IRC109 FINAL INSPECTION REQ'D 9 Ai tw VALUATION mike Uact iCS-tL2c 1 D I L2__0( Description FEE Description FEE y , • Plan Checkto 5/ State Surcharge HEAT SOURCE GLAZING % LOT S OPE % 00 ,L; L Building Permit City Surcharge �5 Pi,AN CHECK NMn %J VESTED DATE+� Plumbing , �' Base Fee r THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO Mechanical — t BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC r DOMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE Grading t SEPARATE PERMISSION. Q Engr. Review ul PERMIT APPLICATION: 180 DAYS Ill. PERMIT LIMIT. 1 YEAR - PROVIDED WORK IS STARTED WITHIN 180 DAYS Engr, Inspection SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION 'APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS Fire Review Plan Chk, Deposit IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF t' a EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND Fire Inspection Receipt # 7 �` ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY I FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE T,9 DEEMED TO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE Landscape Insp. Total Amt. Due = NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITY'S ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.' zage IF Lj� Recording Fee Receipt # 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 APPLICATION APPROVAL THE OWNER. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC- CALL This application is not a permit until signed by the TION; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, 140 PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED Building Official or his/her Deputy: and Foos are paid, and IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO FOR INSPECTION receipt Is acknowledged in space provided. WO KM N6 COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND RCW 18.27. QE ICI SIGN RE DATE S •4 TUR ( WNE OR AGENT) DATE SIGNED (425) 1 oil - 771-022U R AS D BY J TE ATTENTION EXT 1333,�,/.�:, A .,1 .�- ITIS UNLAWFULTO U OR OCCUPYA BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTILA FINAL / INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL ORA CERTIFICATE OF OCCU- PANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC109 / IBC110 / IRC110. 09/03 PRESS HARD =YOU ARE MAKING 4 COPIES RIGINAL - FILE YELLOW - PINK - OWNER GOLD - / .0 m (A cM Ma �O O0 C =m M IO � C z � z 000010 C0 0 In 40,011 mm_ O r M rwC4 1 m0 �r X S D t Z X f Z O. rn did t FIELD REPORT NELSON Project: Meyer Residence File Na.: 3978B04 GEOTECHNICAL Owner: Louis Meyer Date: 2/24/05 ASSOCIATES, INC Location: 18006 Kairez Drive, Edmonds Report No: 1 17311 135"' Ave. NE 11A-500 Weather: Sunny, 50's Page 1 of 2 Woodinville, WA 98072 Purpose of (425) 486-1669 FAX 481-2510 Visit: Observe Excavation By: MDR . _ z d 1.We visited the site today at the request of Louis Meyer to observe the excavation for the basement of the11 planned residence. We prepared a geotechnical engineering evaluation for this project dated August 5, ,� 2004. Co� 0 U on arrival we met with Louis. The excavation contractor. was removing the undocumentedid d fill o P. materials from the building footer►nt and driveway azeas. The fill consisted of silty sand with gravel and 0 c I did, organics and buried topsoil and stumps. The excavated material was being loaded into trucks and z m removed from the site. In the north central part of the building excavation, native fine sand was being mtJ exposed beneath the fill and buried organics& c z It appears that the driveway cut in the southwestern portion of the site will require a taller wall than the vi 4 -foot modular block wall indicated on the site plan. Louis informed us that he was looking into 11 that will be over 4 feet tall may need to be engineered. I alternatives for this wall. The portion of the wall ;. Mm We recommend that the excavation walls be protected from erosion. Erosion control measures may 0 include covering .cut slopes with plastic sheeting and diverting surface runoff away from the top of cut c N slopes. We do not recommend vertical slopes for cuts deeper than 4 feet if worker access is necessary. C 0) We recommend that cut slope. heights,and inclinations conform to WISHA/OSHA standards. If these � inclinations can not be met due to property line constraints an worker access issues, we recommend �n that shoring be considered for the planned cuts. 01z ...1 REcCIVED MAR 1 1 7005 M PERMIT COUNTER CITY COPY Attachment: Signed:. Distribution: FIELD REPORT NELSON Project: Meyer Residence File No.: 3978B04 GEOTECHNICAL Owner: Louis Meyer Date: 3/1/05 ASSOCIATES, INC Location: 18006 Kairez Drive, Edmonds Report No: 2 17311 135TH Ave. NE #A-500 Weather: Sunny, 50's Page 1 of 2 Woodinville, WA 98072 Purpose of (425) 486-1669 FAX 481-2510 Visit: Observe Excavation By: MDR T _ - O We visited the site today at the request of Louis Meyer to observe the excavation for the basement of the rn planned residence. ca Upon arrival we met with Louis, the structural engineer and the general contractor. Louis informed us v m that the undocumented fill layer extended deeper than anticipated in the western portion of , the m v i excavation. The excavation contractor was removing the undocumented fill materials from the building 0 footprint area. The excavation contractor had exposed the native sand beneath the fill and buried d � organic soil several feet below the planned footing elevation in a test pit in the west central part of the m z 'j d It excavation. The contractor informed us that he planned to place structural fill in this area to support the yz foundation. r i r; We recommend that all fill and or anic materials be removed from beneath the west footing line to p' g I exposed medium dense or better native soil for the structural fill subgrade. We should evaluate the fill 14 subgrade prior to fill placement. We should also monitor the placement of the structural fill and perform m , in place density tests. In the areas where the footings will be supported on structural fill, the fill zone v should extend outside the edges of the footings a distance equal to on of the de th of the over- o g g q P nm i; excavation below the bottom of the footings. C � r Z0 We understand that the contractorplans to use the native fine sand from the eastern portion of the 74 excavation for structural fill. The fill will be compacted with s hoe pack. We collected a sample of the native sand for laboratory compaction testing.. I Plastic sheeting had been placed over the south wall of the driveway excavation. O c M Attachment: Signed: Distribution: FIELD DEPORT NELSON Meyer Residence File NO.: 3978BO4 GEOTECHNICAL Owner: Louis Meyer Date: 3/8/05 ASSOCIATES, INC Location: 18006 Kairez Drive, Edmonds Report No: 6 17311 13571' Ave, NE #A-500 Weather: Sunny, 60's Page 1 of 3 Woodinville, WA 98072 Purpose of (425) 486-1669 1 Ax 481-2510 Visit: Construction Monitoring By: MDR , j . O' t We visited the site today at the request of Louis Meyer to observe the excavation and fill placement fol` n M the planned residence. Upon arrival we met with Louis and the general and earthwork contractors. Excavation of attic soil.was continuing in the northern portion of the garage area. Structural w M undocumented fill and oarg fill placement was continuing in the eastern portion of the residence and in the garage area. Ori-Site sand m v soil was excavated from the northern portion of the building footprint and was placed in lifts d �othe be rack �1 neap: O c hoe. A backhoe mounted.hoe pack was used to compact the fill. The fill material appear to t and was com acting readily. The fill was performing well under construction � z f optimal moisture conn P traffic. a z Density tests of the fill met or exceeded 95 percent of the ASTM D 1557 maximum dry density for the; Co O material: < i m our opinion, the structural fill beingplaced in the footing lines of the residence and gavage is being; m y suitably compacted and should provide adequate support for the plumed foundation Toads. v N i ;. i that the fill slope in the east central portion of the excavation be compacted with the% c We recommended Pe to 1' hoe pack and armored with 2- to 4-inch rock spalls. z n We recommend that the excavation walls be protected from erosion. Erosion control meas ma�� include covering cut slopes" with plastic sheeting and diverting surface 'runoff away from the top of cut , slopes. We do not recommend vertical slopes for cuts deeper than 4 feet if worker access is necessary. We recommend that cut slope heights and inclinations conform to WISHA/OSHA standards. if thest: ` Z inclinations can not be met due to property line constraints and/or worker access issues, we recommend CA that shoring be considered for the planned cuts. Z O 0 m tT Signed: i Attachment: Distribution: NELSON GEOTECHNICAL NIGA ASSOCIATES, INC. IN-PLACE MOISTURE AND DENSITY TESTS 40�GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS c. c Project Name Ni�� �s/D b�Gir - Job Number: 31719804 , Location: PMor�AS Report Number: !v Page � of Proctor Method: ASTM D-698-91 / �X ASTM DA 557-91 Tests Conducted By: /yjp Test General Approx. Approx. % Wet D Max. % %Pass Date Feet To Fill Dry kHa,,mer Number location Moisture Density Deni Density Com .S ec. Comments ws Fail � Grade Depth ty tY ty P P 05 S s 2 2 ,0 1 , Io ,0 log 9 �� 1�f o 117 109.1 113 O 1Q�t,2 10$ 57 i NGA Drafting AutoCAD0abCAD TemplatesVMDT.dwg i L) 131 lYJJ LUU:J lU. ILI FIEED REPORT NELSON Project: Meyer Residence File No.: 3978B04 GEOTIECHNICAL Owner: Louis, Meyer Date: 3/9/05 A,SSOCIA'I'ES, INC Location: 18006 Kairez Drive, Edmonds Report No: 7 17311 135TH Ave. NE #A -Soo Weather: Overcast, 50's Page 1 of 3 Woodinville, WA 98072 Purpose of (425)'186-1669 FAX X81-2510 Visit: Construction Monitoring By: CAM Z n We visited the site today at the request of Louis Meyer to evaluate, fill placement, and to evaluate M foundation subgrade for the planned residence. Upon arrival we met with Louis Meyer. Since our last visit, the contractor had placed 2 feet of fill along N = ' subgrade the southern portion of the planned garage, bringing he fill up to the planned footing s that the m elevation. Fill soils consisted of onsite orange -brown fine to medium sand. Louis informed u ..i 0 00 fill was compacted in 1 -foot lifts with a hoepack. We evaluated fill compaction with a nuclear densometer. Density tests of the fill met or exceeded 9S Mz e ASTM D 1557 maximum dry density for the materials. Individual test locations and. D Z percent of th _ details are given on the following pages. r Excavation and fell placement had been completed for the footing lines o£ the planned residence. The: p foundation subgrade con fisted of both in-place native sand and structural fill. We evaluated all footing; , subgrade with a'/x-inch diazueter steel probe rod. Sub�rade soils probed between 1 -and 4 -niches under m rn ON moderate pressure.. r - f or anic soil was exposed in a small area beneath the northern garage footing line. N A, 6 -to 8 -inch seam o g We recommended that this footing line be overexcavated through thus organic seam prior to constructing; r � footing forms or placing concrete. With the one exception noted above, M our opinion, the footing lines of the planned residence and + garage have been suitably prepared and should.provide_adequate support for the planned foundation Z xxnulate within the foundation excavation. Any loads. Water should not be allowed, to accuslough or water loosened soil should be removed from the footing Buses prior to placing concrete, if such 00010 N conditions develop. Z O We recommend that the excavation walls be protected from erosion.. Erosion control measures may n include covering cut slopes with plastic sheeting and diverting surface runoff away from the top of cut M. slopes. We do not recommend vertical slopes for cuts deeper than 4 feet if worker access is necessazy. We recommend that cut slope heights and izlclinations conforms to W1SHA/OSHA standards. If these: inclinations can not be met due to property line constraintsand/or worker access issues, we recommend that temporary shoring be considered for the planned cuts: 1 Attachment: Distribution: AtL NELSON GEOTECHNICAL NGA . ASSOCIATES, INC IN-PLACE MOISTURE AND DENSITY TESTS ' GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS Project Name L&%s cj xs►ae�^rc Job Number: 4 . hQ,*.d S W %A , Location. C Report Number: '�- Page 2 of 3 Proctor Method: ASTM Q698-91 ! _ ASTM Q1557-91Tests Conducted By: }� Test General rd. rox. Approx. % p� Date t To Fill Wet Dry Max.. % % Hammer Number Location Moisture Density Density Density Corn Spec. Comments Blows or aDepth tY tYY p. Fail 31� os �� S�-� �� ?.�S 1��•� ��1.3 0 cis 2 +1, 6 11g, 7 S.5 1.0q,6 16 112 Pass p3,6 os.6 b 5p,5 , NGA MmbV 2003VA4oCADVAoCAD TwrVWbMIR , Nq I U.3/ 1U/ LUUJ 1V.1V lYLJYVILJIV -- t` .x = O ion C C1CL a Q Q J 'O s` $ o CO n N EOp N o �. OCL C ♦n ._ e7 W Z J Q O V 9 , I Z t d c O a m 04 mn. L6c& a n C O M 5 • '1tCC�A a m O 0 ,. =rn mZ 10 Z � CO) _ ec. o t Qau m rn a II `. nm C 0) a to m t m t7 49 a Mal l— CT'E ` IBM rmZ - N 0 . m KAIREZ DR (92ND PL W) I m o iOj9Ci Number N6LsiON GEOTQCHNICAL. Nq. 006Rwvis(gn ay CK 3 1 397804 Planned Meyer Residence N q AssOG1ATEs, INC. 711104 o,,o,,�,l" '' B„„ t MOR v GLOTLCNNICAL £tvGiNiiRS & GROLOGtSTs 2 Ears AJC MDR Site Plan ����.� �,.� Ary .. . !43 Mfl w Ad '510 - WM ihr Mi fl11 ; . GARY HAAKENSON CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771.0220 •FAX (425) 771.0221 Website: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT .1ncp Planning • Building • Engineering .18c1 i;. 11 July 8, 2004 is Z (t 0t ( Mr. & Mies. Louis Meyer M 20419 Dayton Avenue North - ; Shoreline, Washington 98133 CA - 1 c rn '. 3 RE: Geotechnical Report for. Lot 2 Plat of Vista Del Mar rn ;s p Dear Mr. & Mrs. Meyer 3 : ; rnrn ' The City is in receipt of your, request for waiver of a site specific geotechnical report for p' development of Lot 2 within the plat of Vista Del Mar.. The criteria for establishing soils report y z requirements have been in place at the . City since 1988. Several different criteria apply as to when a soils investigation report is required which include; when the lot slope percentage is 15% or greater, where there are questionable or known poor soils, where expansive soils exist, where 4 ground water tables are high, when pile and .pier foundation systems are proposed, if rock strata m , exists, and where there is evidence of organic soils or evidence of fill materials. oCO) o n Fn In your specific case, the overall slope of Lot 2 is greater than 15% slope however, the more C� { serious issue is the placement of fill materials .(up to 12.5 feet deep). Based on both of these te z n conditions a soils report per Uniform Building Code Section 1,804 is warranted for this b a tate Licensed Geotechnical Engineer or State Licensed D. development and must be prepared y S goil Engineering Geologist. . If you have any questions please feel free to contact me during City business hours of 9:00am to z noon and 1:00pm to 4:00pm, Monday through Friday. I strongly suggest that you quickly N contact a geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist to prepare the required report such that 0 your project is not significantly delayed: rn SincerelyId; tic 1 Jeannine L. raf h Building Official 1 �• i . • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Ciclnr �';f_ {-:n1.;nan 1oron 1.-- i"i"Y117, 7. yM1. 44* .CITY OF EDMONDS GARY HAAKENSON. MAYOR 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425),771-0221 Website: vmm.dedniondsma.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 1 44 p Planning • BUilding • Engineering e :;. 1:. July 8, 2004 Z. r O Mr. 8c Mrs. Louis Meyer t 20419 Dayton Avenue North ,; i Shoreline, Washington 98133 =1 RE: Geotechnical Report for Lot 2 Plat of Vista Del Mar rn my ., O Dear Mr. & Mrs. Meyer: O C `r . -•ll Z =M The City is in receipt of your request for waiver of a site specific geotechnical report for p f'z development of Lot 2 within the plat of Vista Del Mar. The criteria for establishing soils report e Z requirements have been in place at the City since 1988. Several different criteria apply as to when a soils investigation report is required which include; when the lot slope percentage is 15% �N 011, ;.0 or greater, where there are questionable or known poor soils, where expansive soils exist, where .n M �; n; ground water tables are high, when pile and pier foundation systems are proposed, if rock strata exists, and where there is evidence of organic soils or evidence of fill materials. MITI v ca G` .. In your specific case, the overall slope of Lot 2 is greater than 15% slope however, the more c FnP serious issue is the placement of fill materials (up to 12.5 feet deep). Based on both of these Mca conditions a. soils report per Uniform Building Code Section 1804 is warranted for this n development and must. be prepared by a State Licensed Geotechnical Engineer or State Licensed Engineering Geologist. i If you have any questions please feel free to contact me during City business hours of 9:00am to Z noon and 1:00pm to 4:00pm, Monday through Friday. I strongly suggest that you quickly contact a geotechnical engineer or engineering geoloist to prepare the required report such that N z0 your project is not significantly delayed. m Sincerely, 2 Jeannine L. raf j Building Official • Incorporated August 11, 1890 Cicfnr'�*for e S c Uh " d�W' y r "1 J• _ GARY HAAKENSON CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98,020 • (425) 771.0220 • FAX (425) 771.0221 - Website: wwwxi.edmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT t- i -to C Planning Building • Engineering July 18, 2004 O lj', i i 0 Mr. & Mrs. Louis Meyer rn 20419 Dayton Avenue North _ s i Shoreline, Washington 98133 -n M j RE: Geotechnical Report for Lot 2 Plat of Vista Del Mar m .v O P, n Dear Mr. & Mrs. Meyer: i. . m m . The City is in receipt of your request for waiver of a site specific. geotechnical report for D c z. development of Lot:2 within the plat of Vista Del Mar. The criteria for establishing soils report s' requirements have been in place at the City since 1988. Several different criteria „apply as toca 5: when a soils investigation report is required which include; when the lot slope percentage is 15% p m or greater, where there are questionable or known poor soils, where :expansive soils exist, where'. ground water tables are high, when pile and pier foundation systems are proposed, if rock strata L In m t exists, and where there is evidence of organic soils or evidence. of fill materials: L v 0, nm' In your specific case, the overall slope of Lot 2 is greater than 15% slope however, the more r m serious issue is the placement of fill materials (up to 1.2.5 feet deep). Based on both of these z n l conditions a. soils report per Uniform Building Code Section 1804 is warranted for this �y development and must be prepared by a State Licensed Geotechnical Engineer or State Licensed Engineering Geologist. f . z J If you have any questions please feel free to contact me during City business hours of 9:00am to noon and 1:00pm to 4*00pm, Monday through Friday. I strongly suggest that you quickly t contact a geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist to prepare the required report such that p your project is not significantly delayed. 0 Sincerely, i Jeannine, L. raf Building Official I r • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • CIQf"V �'if11 _ F1nLinon lon�n i .. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL � ASSOCIATES, INC. lei A 4 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS 17311-135 Avenue NE, A-500 Snohomish County (425) 337=1669 Woodinville, WA 98072 (425) 486-1669 (425) Fax 481-2510 Wenatchee/Chelan (509) 784-2756 .F —, August 5, 2004 ZO 41t I n Mr. Louis Meyer 20419 Dayton Avenue Seattle, Washington 98133-3028 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation C p Proposed Meyer Residence nowt 18006 Kairez Drive O C Edmonds, Washington m m NGA File No. 397804 1, D Z s Dear Mr. Meyer: r CA s We are pleased to submit this report titled "Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation — Proposed Meyer O t' I' `mn s _ , Residence 18006 Kairez Drive Edmonds, Washington. This report documents our subsurface f explorations within the site and presents our opinions and recommendations for site grading, foundation m rn j support, and site drainage. Our services were completed in general accordance with the services p N `' agreement signed by. you on August 2, 2004. n m CC4 We monitored the excavation of four test pits in the project area. Our explorations within the site indicate r m o j that'the area beneath the planned residence is occupied by about 3 to 12 feet of undocumented fill and z -In } buried. organic soil, underlain by competent native material The fill layer appears to be thickest on the western edge of the planned building pad. The planned excavation for the basement and garage slab will remove much of the fill but we anticipate that several feet of fill and buried organic soil will remain under the western portion of the building footprint. y' Z From a geotechnical standpoint, we have concluded that the planned. residential project is feasible. However, due to the thick layer of fill and organics, we have recommended that the western side of the 2 O proposed residence be supported on pin piles extending down into the native soil to transfer the building loads through the undocumented fill down onto the native soils. Alternatively, this footing line could be m' excavated through the fill and organics and supported on .medium dense native soils underlying the fill and buried topsoil with concrete stem walls extending through the fill. The remainder of the residence foundations could also be supported on spread footings placed on native, competent soils or structural fill extending to these soils. Specific recommendations for design and installation of the piles and spread !, .footings are included in the attached report. General site grading and drainage recommendations have also been provided in this report along with recommendations for retaining wall design and construction: ' '' i r --, 3 ', ` r; TABLE OF CONTENTS �., INTRODUCTION 1 '.°'. ...................................................................................................................:.................. i k.. SCOPE 1 SITE CONDITIONS ...........................................:.................:...........:......:...:.:.........:..........:..............e....... 2 r Surface Conditions..:.:.:... :. . :.. �F> 0000. 0.694... ... _ - Subsurface Conditions ..................:..:......:......, ... ,.. .. -� Hydrologic Conditions : 0....000. .0090 .:0110...:. 06. 06......3 tt1 i — — k' 01 -1 �1 SENSITIVE AREA EVALUATION......:.......:.......................................................................................... 4 _ m € o, —1 Seismic Hazard :: :................:....... 6666 t 011.0. 6.00..0. ... 0640. 4 cm Erosion Hazard. ..............:.. m g r: ..............:.: 4 -1 n i -� Landslide Hazard/Slope Stability.:.. 4 :.. rn�`l. M n_ CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.......:............................................:.....................:........ 5 ss, D Z`` 5 E4' General..:.::. _ z I Erosion Control ............. .......... 6 r: 0000. .. ........ ... 0000. 0000 j - 6<' Site Preparation and Grading ........ ..................:..0 a 0 a a 0 1 0000... 7 g:, Temporary Excavations 6000 09. 90 ..: :. 0000 009.0.. �'N L' 0 !• Foundation Support........... q .N 4 Structural Fill .... ..: .... a*0* ... 0000 10 r m n Ia Z Slab-on=Grade 11 Retaining Walls. 11 Pavement Subgrade.:.::........ ... 0000. 1 Z 13 Site Drainage: 0000... ......... :............1 games ►'; 0000 .. ... 0000 Z USE OF THIS REPORT.............................:..........::...:..............:....:....,.......:........:....::............................14 ' O x - m LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1— Vicinity Map l� Figure 2 — Site Plan + {. �. Figure 3 — Cross Section A -A' " Figure 4 Soil Classification Chart 4�> Figures 5 and 6 - Test Pit Logs L NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. • i •, < �. Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Proposed Meyer Residence 18006 Kairez Drive Y Edmonds, Washington INTRODUCTION p '. This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering evaluation of your proposed single family n M residence in Edmonds, Washington., The project site is located at 18006 Kairez Drive; as shown on the a -i � Vicinity Map in Figure L The site is also known as Lot 2 of the Vista Del Mar development. We, as "Nelson-CouED vrette and Associates, prepared a geotechnical report for the Vista Del Mar project dated C April 26, 1993. We were also involved in construction monitoring of earthwork activities in this n 0 C development. ' m t. mz The purpose of this study is to explore and characterize the surface and subsurface conditions within the y Z room ;. a project site and provide geotechnical recommendations for the proposed residence. For our use in � 1 y - �,• preparing this report we have been provided with plan sheets.A-8 dated June 30, 2004, by Christiansonon . Design, Research, C-2 dated June 30, 2004 and S-1, S-2, and S-3, dated June: 28, 2004, by JRR m i Engineering. We have also been provided with an electronic file for a drawing titled "Site plan for Louis N O 0 Fn and Lynn Meyer," dated June 25, 2004, by Green Land Surveying. { m n jThe planned development will consist of.a new single family residence with,a daylight basement, a garage, and a driveway crossing the southern portion of the lot. We understand that the residence will f �, consist of a slab -on -grade with_concrete retaining walls.and wood frame construction. Z' ca SCOPE o - The purpose of this study is to explore and characterize the site surface and subsurface conditions, and n M provide geotechnical recommendations for the proposed residential construction. Specifically, our scope, f of services includes the following: i 1. Review our previous report for the Vista Del Mar project. 2. Explore the site subsurface soil and ground water conditions with trackhoe. excavated. test ' pits. The trackhoe was provided by our client. 3. Provide recommendations for site grading and earthwork including structural fill. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. ,_; r Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 18006 Kairez Drive, Edmonds, WA August 5, 2004 NGA File No. 397804 Page 2 i 4: Provide recommendations for foundation support. 5. Provide recommendations for slabs -on -grade.' 6. Provide recommendations for drainage and erosion control: 7. Provide recommendations for retaining wall design. 8. Document our findings, observations, and recommendations in oa written geotechnical . engineering report. Z` :`" 0 n SITE CONDITIONS Surface Conditions s - The site is an irregularly shaped lot and covers approximately one-quarter. acre: The site is -bordered by m s --� Kairez Drive on the west, an existing residence on the south, and undeveloped residential lots to the north. 0 C s The site layout is shown. on the Site Plan in Figure 2. The. lot is located on a west -facing slope m m overlooking Puget Sound. The eastern and central portions of the lot form a gently sloping building pad C iDz N_. and yard area. Along the west edge of the lot a 2H:1 V (2Horizontal: l Vertical) slope descends about 12 r feet to the street elevation. An east -west cross section of the site showing the existing grade, planned N ;4 O� M s + residence, and interpreted subsurface conditions is presented as Cross Section A -A' in Figure 3. The lot T has been cleared of most trees and brush and is vegetated. with grass. We noted a stump, near our mm G exploration in the southeast portion of the site. n F . C r Mo Subsurface Conditions `Geology: The geologic units for this area are shown ;on the Geologic Man of the Edmonds East and Part M. i . of the Edmonds West Quadrangles, Washington, by James P. Minard,(U.S.G.S., 1983). The site is ; 4 mapped as advance outwash (Qva). Contacts with glacial till (Qvt), recessional outwash, and transition beds (Qtb) are also mapped near the site. Advance outwash is described as mostly. clean pebbly sand N Z, deposited by meltwater streams in front of an advancing glacier. Our explorations generally encountered fill underlain by native sand with trace gravel and silt. m Explorations: The subsurface conditions within the site were explored. on July 8, 2004 by excavating four test holes to depths ranging from 7.3 to 12.0 feet below the existing surface using a small trackhoe. ;. shown on the Site Plan in Figure 2. An engineer from The approximate locations of our explorations are ' f �. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. _ 4 IL Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 18006 Kairez Drive, Edmonds, WA August 5, 2004 NGA File No. 397.804 Page 3 Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc. (NGA) was present during the explorations, examined the soils and geologic conditions encountered, obtained samples of the soil, and maintained logs of the explorations: The soils were visually classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System, presented in Figure 4. The logs of the borings are attached to this report and are presented as Figures 5 Z O and 6. We present a brief summary of the subsurface conditions in the following paragraphs. For. a .n m conditions, the exploration logs should be reviewed. detailed description of the subsurface M Mn Each of the explorations encountered a thin surficial layer of sod and organic soil extending about 0.2 feet C m below.the, ground surface. Underlying the surficial organics, TP-1 and TP-2 in the eastern portion of the Mp i '! 0 O C site exposed loose silty sand with gravel and debris, interpreted as fill, extending to about 3 to 4 feet ; . J F+y �. below the surface. Underlying the fill, these explorations exposed medium dense sand with silt and trace m Z i. 10 gravel interpreted as native outwash material. C z 3 j Underlying the surficial organics,TP and TP-4 in the western portion of the site exposed sand with silt, O I, r Y interpreted as fill, extending to about 1 to 2 feet below the surface. Underlying the sand fill, these C Mm explorations. exposed loose to medium dense silty sand with gravel and trace debris, also interpreted as 00 N r fill, extending 9.8 to 10.5 feet below the existing ground surface. Underlying the fill, these explorations C y- exposed loose dark brown silty sand with abundant organics that was interpreted as buried topsoil and Z r extended to 11.0 to 11.8 feet below the surface. Underlying the buried topsoil, these explorations exposed medium dense sand with trace silt interpreted as native outwash material. t Z Hydrologic, Conditions co We did not encounter ground water seepage in our explorations. However we would anticipate. that 0 _I during extended periods of wet weather perched water may exist in the site soils. Perched water occurs 0 M when surface water infiltrates through less dense; more permeable soils andaccumulates on top of underlying, less permeable soils. On this site, the more permeable soils would consist of loose sand fill materials. The less permeable. materials consist of the silty sand fill materials. Perched water does not represent a regional ground water "table" within the upper soil horizons: Perched water tends to vary ~ spatially and is dependent upon the amount of rainfall. We would expect the amount of perched water to decrease during drier times of the year and increase during wetter periods. The native sand materials appear to be well drained. ; t NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 18006 Kairez Drive, Edmonds, WA August 5, 2004 NGA File No. 397804 Page 4 SENSITIVE AREA EVALUATION Seismic Hazard The project is located within Zone 3 of the Seismic Zone Map shown as Figure 16-2 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC). This corresponds to a Seismic Zone Factor, Z, of 0.3. Since medium dense well drained sand materials were encountered underlying the site, the site conditions bestfit the UBC Z O description for Soil Profile Type SD. n rn Hazards associated with seismic activity include liquefaction potential and amplification of . ground M1 "n motion. Liquefaction is caused by arise in pore pressures in a loose, fine sand deposit beneath the ground m water table. The medium dense well-drained sand materials interpreted to underlie the site are considered m F to have a low potential for liquefaction or amplification of ground motion. However, the overlying loose fill materials in the western portion.of the site are considered to have a moderate potential for surficial m m sloughing failures during seismic events. Accordingly, our recommendations for foundation placementy Z should be followed to reduce the potential impact to the structure as a result of ground motion. ca amnn i Erosion Hazard m The erosion hazard criteria used for determination of affected areas includes. soil type, slope gradient, p N 0 Fn vegetation cover, and groundwater conditions. The erosion sensitivity is related to the vegetative cover S g C.N . and the specific surface soil types, which are related to the underlying geologic soil units. The Soil r m 0:1 Z Survey Snohomish County Area, Washington, by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) was reviewed to —t �n M determine the erosion hazard of the on-site soils. The site surface soils mapped for this site were classified by the SCS classification system as Alderwood-Everett gravelly sandy.loams, 15 to 25 percent Z slopes and 25 to 70 percent slopes. In our opinion, the fill materials on this site are also similar to the = CD description of the Alderwood-Everett gravelly sandy loams. These soils are listed as having a moderate Z O. to high erosion hazard if exposed. All undisturbed, vegetated areas should have a low hazard for erosion, C depending on how surface water is controlled on the site. rn Landslide Hazard/Slope Stability The criteria used for evaluation of landslide hazards include soil type; slope gradient, and groundwater. conditions. A fill slope with a gradient of up to approximately 27 degrees (51 percent) exists in the <' western area of the site. We understand that a Hilfiker wall was installed to support the road fill for j ` NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. WV - Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 18006 Kairez Drive, Edmonds, WA August 5,2004 NGA File No. 337804 Page 5 Kairez Drive west of this lot. We did not observe groundwater seepage on the slope at the time of our visit: The surficial soils in the fill embankment along the western portion of the site may consist of loose to medium dense fill soils. It is our opinion that while there is potential for soil creep and shallow. ;. sloughing on the western slope* there is not a significantpotential for deep-seated slope instability. Grading on this site should, however, be completed in a manner that enhances slope stability. Z O 0 M i .�, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Co It is our opinion, from a geotechnical standpoint, that the site is generally. compatible with the planned m Cp development. Our explorations within the site indicate that the area beneath the planned residence is n O occupied by about 3 to 12 feet of undocumented fill and buried organic soil, underlain by competent = rn native material. The fill layer appears to be thickest on the western edge of the planned building pad. m p 1D _ The planned excavation for the basement and garage slab will remove much of the fill but we anticipate D ZtF ! that several feet of fill and buried organic soil will remain under the western portion .of the building Cn s 1 O M footprint. There is potential for settlement if structures are supported on these materials: To avoid F problems related to fill settlement and subsidence we recommend that the western foundation line of the M rn i On co n o the native residence be supported on, in Piles, Supportingthe footings in Piles extending dowt r. soils should limit this settlement. potential. This is further discussed in the Pin Piles subsection of this C ca KOM - report. Alternatively, this footing line could be excavated through the fill and organics. Conventional Z j spread footings could be supported on medium dense native soils underlying the fill with concrete stem Walls extending through the fill. The remainder of the residence foundations could also be conventional spread footings supported on native competent material or structural fill extending to the native soils. S : Z' Our observations at the site indicate that the fill contains some substantial roots, cobbles, and debris. z Z There is a possibility that this material may obstruct some piles. There should be contingencies in the n budget and design for additional/relocated piles to replace.piles that may be obstructed by debris.in the rn fill. Or Slab on grade subgrade should be stripped of any fill or loose material and the slab supported on competent native soils or structural fill extending to these soils, if future settlement or cracking of the slab can not be tolerated. If some slab settlement and future maintenance can be tolerated, the slab could be Or Or� W"r NELSONr GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 18006 Kairez Drive, Edmonds, WA August 5, 2004 NGA File No. 397804. Page 6 reinforced and supported on the existing fill. Alternatively, a portion of the fill could be removed and replaced with rock or structural fill to further reduce settlement potential under the slab. i The surficial soils encountered on this site are considered moisture -sensitive and will disturb easily when Z' wet. To lessen the potential impacts of construction on the slope and to reduce cost overruns and delays; Off' t, 4we recommend that construction take place during the drier summer months. If construction takes place rn during the rainy months additional expenses and delays should -be expected. Additional expenses could include additional erosion control and temporary drainage measures to protect the slope, placement of a blanket of rocks alis to protect exposed subgrades, and the need for importing all-weather materials for C m c.,:. P P P g P g m y c; n structural fill. O C }_m r m Erosion Control _ !J a.l C Z The on site soils can have a high potential for erosion, depending on how the site is graded and how water is allowed to concentrate. Best Management Practices (BMPs) should be used to control erosion. Areas 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 m C Cn r _ water from flowing over the site slopes .or onto the adjacent road: Disturbed areas should be replanted n; . Fn C (/� with vegetation at the end of construction. The vegetation should be. maintained until established. Final m to (. grading should incorporate appropriate erosion control measures to route stormwater runoff away from . the top of slopes and to appropriate discharge locations. ` Z Site Preparation and Grading co Site preparation should consist of stripping any topsoil, undocumented fill, or loose soils to expose Z. medium dense or better native material in foundation and slab -on -grade areas, where deep foundation support is not planned. The stripped material should be hauled off-site: If the ground surface, after M stripping, should appear to be loose, it should be compacted to a non -yielding condition. Areas observed s to pump or weave during compaction should be reworked to structural- fill specifications or over excavated and replaced with properly compacted structural fill or rock spalls. If significant surface water flow is encountered during construction, this flow should be diverted around areas to be developed and the exposed subgrade maintained in a semi -dry condition. 41, NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. I Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 18006 Kairez Drive, Edmonds, WA _ . August 5, 2004 NGA File No. 397804 Page 7 z` Slab-on-grade subgrade should be stripped of any fill or loose material and the slab supported on competent native soils or structural fill extending to these soils, if future settlement or cracking of the slab can not be tolerated. If some slab settlement and future maintenance can be tolerated, the slab could be reinforced and supported on. the existing fill. Alternatively, a portion of the fill could be removed and replaced with rock or structural fill to further reduce potential settlement under the slab. The slab should be additionally reinforced to reduce settlement-related distress. Z O n rn Temporary Excavations Temporary excavation stability is a function of many factors, such as the type and consistency of soils, depth of the cut, surcharge loads adjacent to the excavation, length of time a cut remains open, and thec m M 0 presence of surface or ground water. It is exceedingly difficult under these variable conditions to estimate n YA O a stable, temporary, cut-slope geometry. Therefore, it should be the responsibility of the contractor to 1 m maintain safe slope configurations,, since the contractor is continuously at the job site, able to observe the m nature and condition of the cut slopes, and able to monitor the subsurface materials and ground water D Z conditions encountered. Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc, assumes no responsibility for job site s safety. Job site safety is the sole responsibility of the project contractor. '. Cut slope heights and inclinations should conform to WISHA/OSHA standards., We are available to o N provide. consultation during. construction regarding safe excavation inclinations.We recommend that cut C -: # -- slo es be protected from erosion. Measures taken may include covering cut slopes with plastic sheeting. �M 0 Z n and diverting surface runoff away from the top of cut slopes. We do not recommend vertical slopes for cuts deeper than 4 feet if worker access is necessary. If safe inclinations can not be met due to property line constraints and/or worker access issues, we recommend that shoring be considered for theplanned z cuts. Foundation Support O Generale Our explorations within the site indicate that the area beneath the planned residence is occupied m - - by about 3 to 12 feet of undocumented fill and buried organic soil, underlain by . competent native material. The fill layer appears to be thickest on the western edge of the planned building pad. The _. planned excavation for the basement and garage slab will remove much of the fill but we anticipate that several feet of fill and buried organic soil will remain under the western portion of the building footprint. There is potential for settlement if structures are supported on these materials. To avoid problems related NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 18006 Kairez Drive, Edmonds, WA August 5, 2004 NGA File No. 397804 Page 8 I !' to fill settlement and subsidence we recommend that the western foundation line be supported on pin piles - extending down into the native soils. Alternatively, this footing line could be excavated through the fill and organics. Conventional spread footings could be supported on medium dense native soils underlying the fill with concrete stem walls extending through the fill: The remainder of the residence foundations -� could also be conventional spread footings supported on native competent material or structural fill ;< O extending to the native soils. -� n M Pin piles should provide adequate vertical support for the foundations, but would not provide meaningful lateral resistance. Lateral loads should be resisted by either battering some of the piles and/or by passive N v m resistance or friction on the portions of the foundation that are not pile supported. to O On C F. ..:, Our observations at the site indicate that the fill contains some substantial roots and debris: There is a to possibility that these materials may obstruct some piles. There should be contingencies in the budget and p r iDZ design for additional/relocated piles to replace piles that may be obstructed by -debris in the Pill. r 4 i Pin Piles: We provide allowable pile loads and installation recommendations for 2-, 3-, and 4 -.inch diameter pipe piles in the paragraphs below. For 2 -inch pipe piles. driven to refusal using a hand-held, 90 -pound jackhammer, we recommend a design C F axial compression capacity of two tons for each pile. The refusal criterion for this pile and hammer size is } m n defined as less than one inch of movement during 60 seconds of continuous driving. We recommend" using extra strong (Schedule 80) steel pipe for the 2 -inch diameter pipe piles. We recommend that 3 -inch pipe piles be driven using a tractor -mounted hydraulic hammer with an energy rating of at least 850 foot -lb. For this pile diameter and hammer size, we recommend a design Z axial compression capacity of five tons for each pile driven to refusal. The refusal criterion for this pile O and hammer size is defined as less than one inch of movement during 20 seconds of continuous driving. C) M We recommend that 4 -inch pipe piles be driven 'using a tractor -mounted hydraulic hammer, with an energy rating of at least 1,100 foot -Ib. For this pile and hammer size, we recommend a design capacity of eight tons for each pile driven to refusal. The refusal criterion for this pile and hammer size is defined as less than one inch of movement during 20 seconds of continuous driving. - NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 18006 Kairez Drive, Edmonds, WA s August 51 2004 NGA File No. 397804 Page 9 The above design capacities for the 3- and 4-inch diameter piles are based on theoretical numerical pi st driving analysis. If higher pile capacities are , we recommend that a minimum of one pile desiredload d to verify the higher design values. We recommend that the. piles be loaded to at least 200 be performe Y percent of the design capacity, and that we be retained to observe the pile load test. A factor of safety of two could be used to reduce the ultimate capacity achieved from the pile load test to a design capacitylnot < Actual pile load test procedures could be discussed with your contractor at the time of testing. We O'' i using a design capacity of more than seven tons for 3-inch pin piles and 10 tons for 4-inch _ recommend g M1 f e regardless of the outcome of the pile load tests. We should be retained to review final plans, — _ pin piles, g -� monitor installation of the piles, and evaluate pile refusal as well as pile load tests. i N2 Final pile depths should be expected to vary somewhat and will depend on the actual dep th of the existing M O ,w in piles should OC Y ; ! fill and nature of .the underlying competent soils and ground water conditions. Thep Piles that do m k. M Z penetrate a minimum of five feet into the native soil in order to develop the design capacity. p is minimum embedment criterion or piles that are obstructed on debris in the fill should be CZ f not meet this ineer on the new _ '� ,� rejected, ,and replacement piles should be driven- after consulting with the structural engine � N 4 Or OMI ? pile locations. I mm relatively small slenderness ratio of pin piles, maintaining pin pile confinement and lateral . o N - Due to the r Y �. __. support is essential to preventing pile buckling. Pin piles should not stick above finished ground surface. � N f M Z rmPI- these D Shallow Foundations: For the portion of the residence supported on shallow spread footings se footings should be supported on native medium dense or better soils, or structural sill extending to the The foundation subgrade should be prepared as described in the Site Preparation and Grading t soils. the fill zone should extend outside the edges. N subsection above. If footings are supported on structural fill,Z 0 of the footin s a distance equal to one-half of the depth of the over below the bottom of the g M 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 16 and 24 inches ied based be used for continuous and isolated spread footings, respectively, but footings should also i on anticipated loads and allowable soil bearing pressure. Standing water should not be allowed to CIATES INC. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSO , Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation ' 18006 Kairez Drive, Edmonds, WA ' August 5, 2004 NGA File No. 397804 Page 10 accumulate in footing trenches. All loose or disturbed soil should be removed from the foundation excavation prior to placing concrete, i r• For foundations constructed as outlined above, we recommend an allowable design bearing pressure of 1 not more than 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) be used for the footing design for footings founded on Z the stiff/medium dense or better native soils or structural fill extending to the native competent material, s A representative of our firm should evaluate the foundation bearing soil. We should be consulted if n -, !". higher bearing pressures are needed. Current Uniform Building Code (UBC) guidelines should be used when considering increased allowable bearing pressure for shortPL -term transitory wind or seismic loads to �. ; Potential foundation settlement using the recommended allowable bearing pressure, is estimated to be less m p it �p than one inch total and 1/2 inch differential between adjacent footings or across a distance of about 20 p Ci C 4 e .. feet, based on our experience with similar projects. m m Ilt A.Z Lateral loads may be resisted by friction on the .base of the footing and passive resistance against the r_ CD subsurface portions of the foundation: A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used to calculate the base Mn , friction and, should be applied to the vertical dead load only. Passive resistance may be calculated as a f triangular equivalent fluid pressure distribution. An equivalent fluid density of 250 pcf should be used.for, m M vN passive resistance design fora level ground surface adjacent to the footing. This level surface should n m extend a distance equal to at least three times the footing depth. These recommended values incorporate N safety factors of 1.5 and 2.0 applied to the estimated ultimate values for frictional and passive resistance, Z 0 respectively. To achieve this value of passive resistance, the foundations should be poured "neat" against p ,. the native medium dense soils or compacted fill should be used as backfill against the front of the footing.: 1y We recommend that the upper one-foot of soil be neglected when calculating. the passive resistance. } Frictional resistance should be neglected for footing lines supported on pin piles. O • --1. _. Structural Fill m General: Fill placed beneath foundation 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 a 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 (; . NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 18006 Kairez Drive, Edmonds, WA August 5, 2004 i. . NGA File No. 397804 Page 11 should be suitably prepared as described in the Site Preparation and Grading subsection of this report, prior to beginning fill placement. Materials: Structural fill should consist of a good quality, granular soil, free of organics and other deleterious .material and be well-graded to a maximum size of about three inches. All-weather fill should Z 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 some on-site soils as structural fill may be feasible, but will be m Is depend on the moisture content of these materials at the time of construction. We should be retained toan i evaluate on site material proposed for use a$ structural fill prior to construction. vm C My o Fill Placement: Following subgrade preparation, placement of structural fill may proceed. All fill p C ., . placement should be accomplished in uniform lifts up to eight inches thick. Each lift should be spread soil m evenly and be thoroughly compacted prior to placement of subsequent lifts. All structural fill should be C _ Z compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of its maximum dry density. Maximum dry density, in this report, r' ;,. refers to . that density as determined by the ASTM D-1557 Compaction Test procedure. The moisture of the soils to:be compacted should be within about two percent of optimum so that a readily content p compactable condition exists. It may be necessary to over-excavate and remove wet soils in cases where m m C v Co } drying to a compactable condition is not feasible. All compaction should be accomplished by.equipment n m i e m� of a ty - pe and size sufficient to attain the desired degree of compaction. n Z Slab-on-Grade E The slab subgrade should be prepared as discussed in the Site Preparation and Grading subsection. We ' r' recommend that all floor slabs be underlain by at least six inches of free-draining sand or gravel for use as _ a capillary break. We recommend that the capillary break be hydraulically connected to the footing drain Z Z system to allow free drainage from under the slab. A suitable vapor. barrier, such as heavy L plastic n sheeting (6-mil minimum), should be placed over the capillary break material. A two-inch layer of damp m sand could be placed over the.vapor barrier to aid in curing the concrete. Retaining Walls The lateral pressure acting on subsurface retaining walls is dependent on the nature and density of the soil { behind the wall, the amount of lateral wall movement which 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 t NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 18006 Kairez Drive, Edmonds, WA F _._ August 5, 2004 ( ; NGA File No. 397804 Page 12 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. ' O0. ' Thesexecommended lateral earth pressures are for a drained backfill and are based on the assumption of a m �. horizontal ground surface behind the wall for a distance of at least the subsurface height of the wall, and -_i Mn ��. do not account for surcharge loads. Additional lateral earth pressures should be considered for surcharge co '! loads acting adjacent to subsurface walls and within a distance equal to the subsurface height of the wall. m p This would include the effects of surcharges such as traffic loads, floor slab loads; footing lines, slopes, or 't n 0C other surface loads. We could consult with you and your structural engineer regarding additional loads on tin ,,. m retaining walls during final design, if needed: p` C Z r it ,..; The lateral pressures on walls may be resisted by friction between the foundation and subgrade soil, and 40 � > -grade portion of the .foundation. Recommendations for by passive resistance acting on the below ' frictional, and passive resistance to lateral loads are presented in the Foundations subsection of this m m report: o Fn i. C { All wall backfill should be well compacted as outlined in the Structural Fill subsection of this report. n r— Care should be taken to prevent the buildup of excess lateral soil pressures, due to over -compaction of the X wall backfill This can be accomplished by placing wall backfill in six-inch loose lifts and compacting it with small, hand -operated compactors within a distance behind the wall . equal to at least one-half the ! Z height of the wall. The thickness of the loose lifts should be lessened to accommodate the .lowerCa Z compactive energy of the hand -operated equipment. The recommended level of compaction should still O be maintained. M Permanent drainage systems should be installed for retaining walls. The above lateral pressures assume drained backfill: Recommendations for these systems are found.in the Subsurface Drainage subsection of this report. We recommend that we be retained to evaluate the proposed wall drain backfill material and drainage systems. I NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, Me Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 18006 Kairez Drive, Edmonds, WA August 5, 2004 NGA File No. 397804 Page 13 Pavement Subgrade A driveway is planned to provide access from Kairez Drive. The pavement area preparation and grading should be completed as recommended in the Site Preparation and Grading subsection of this report. After the pavement subgrade has been stripped of unsuitable materials, structural fill can be placed to the planned pavement subgrade elevations. To lessen the potential for frost heave damage and to aid in z extending the useful life of the pavement, it is prudent to place a subbase course consisting of six inches �.,., of compacted clean pit run sand and gravel on the prepared subgrade prior to construction of the pavement section. The gravel subbase and crushed rock base materials should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the ASTM D-1557. Site Drainage Surface Drainage: Final site grades should allow for drainage away from the top of the steep slope and the structure., Runoff generated on this site should be collected and routed into a permanent discharge systema t nN Subsurface Drainage: Our explorations did not encounter groundwater seepage during our site visit on July, 8, 2004. If groundwater is encountered during construction, we recommend that the contractor slope the bottom o.f.the-excavation and collect the water into ditches and small sump pits where the water can I i be pumped out and routed into a permanent storm drain. .Chronic water seepage conditions may be controlled through the use of cut-off or "French" type drains.. The need, extent, and actual design of such 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 j foot below planned finished floor elevations.. The drains should consist of a minimum four -inch-. ' diameter, rigid, slotted or perforated, :PVC pipe surrounded by free -draining material wrapped in a filter fabric. We recommend that .the free -draining material consist of an 18 -inch -wide zone of clean (less than . T! three -percent fines), granular material placed along -the back of walls. Pea gravel is an acceptable drain 3 material or drainage composite may also be used instead. The free -draining material should extend up the wall to one foot below the finished surface. The top foot of soil should consist of impermeable soil placed over plastic sheeting or building paper to minimize surface water or fines migration into the footing drain. Footing drains should discharge into tightlines leading to an appropriate collection and NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. r-- Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 18006 Kairez Drive, Edmonds, WA E' August 5, 2004 NGA File No. 397804 Page 14 discharge point with convenient.cleanouts to prolong the useful life of the drains. Roof drains should not be connected to wall or footing drains. USE OF THIS REPORT z i` O NGA has prepared this report for.Louis.Meyer and his agents, for use in the planning and design of the cz ;. .. residence planned on this site only. The scope of our work does not include services related to constriction safety precautions and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractors' methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for M 1; consideration in design. There are possible variations in subsurface conditions between the explorations m 0. � ^( �' and also with time. Our report, conclusions, and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of C14 r'Kw subsurface conditions. A contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in the budget and M m f 10 schedule. C z Ca t...; We recommend that NGA be retained to provide monitoring and consultation services during 0M. y construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the J. m m explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the v O I'd work differ. from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether or not earthwork and foundation installation 6 Fn l ' CO) - activities comply with contract plans and specifications. We should be contacted a minimum of one week m n prior to construction activities and could attendp re -construction meetings if requested. i ;Ta `. _z 1 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 Z 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. - M o -O -o NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. i -� UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMA GROUP MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP NAME SYMBOL CLEAN GW WELL -GRADED, FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL COARSE- GRAVEL I GRAVEL GP POORLY -GRADED GRAVEL w,! GRAINED MORE THAN 50 % GRAVEL OF COARSE FRACTION GM SILTY GRAVEL RETAINED ON SOILS NO.4 SIEVE WITH FINES I GC CLAYEY GRAVEL CLEAN SAND SW WELL -GRADED SAND, FINE TO COARSE SAND SAN D I SP POORLY GRADED SAND MORE THAN 50 /° RETAINED ON MORE THAN 50 } OF COARSE FRACTION SAND SM SILTY SAND N0.200 SIEVE PASSES NO, 4 SIEVE WITH FINES Sc CLAYEY SAND i FINE SILT AND CLAY ML SILT l INORGANIC GRAINED LIQUID LIMIT CL CLAY LESS THAN 50 % SOILS ORGANIC OL ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC CLAY SILT AND CLAY MH SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY, ELASTIC SILT INORGANIC MORE THAN 50 PASSES LIQUID LIMIT CH CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FLAT CLAY NO, 200 SIEVE 50 % OR MORE ORGANIC OH ORGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC SILT HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT NOTES: 1) Field classification is based on visual SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS: examination of soil in general accordance with ASTM D 2488-93. Dry - Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch 2) Soil classification using laboratory tests is based on ASTM D 2488-93. Moist - Damp, but no visible water. 3) Descriptions of soil density or Wet - Visible free water or saturated, consistency are based on usually soil is obtained from below water table Interpretation of blowcount data, visual appearance of soils, and/or test data. Project Number NELSON GEOTECHNICAL No. Date, Revision By CK Meyer Residence � ASSOCIATES, INC. 897804 Y N G A mgioa Original BWN MDR GEOTECHNICALENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS Figure.4 Soil Classification Chart 17311.1551h Avg NE.A.500 Snoh r zh County 1425) M7.16W WonM1mib, WA 96072 - Wmat~Chdn(509) 784.2756 (425)466.16691 Fn. 461.2510 rw nU,o,ywuvl tam July 23, 2004 Mr. Louis Meyer 20419 Dayton Ave. N. Shoreline, WA 98133Im z ,` O RE: Height calcs for 18004 Kairez Dr. r , ;gym Mr. Meyer: First, I apologize for the time taken to respond to your request. I wanted to make sure that I was am considering all the facts before I stated the final position of the City. m o Although I agree that there are inaccuracies with the original topographic information that the City has requested you use to complete the height calculations for your new home, the x information you submitted in an effort to establish what the original grade really was will not be rn D adequate, to warrant the City using your proposed. figures. First, although the holes for the two western test pits, holes A and C, were 7' and 5' deep, those depths didn't even reach down to the elevation of the original grade. Second, hole D, which you were working in while I was on site, 0 Q had a tree stump at one end that your hole had not revealed the root zone for even though the F hole was at least 6' deep at that point. Original grade had not be reached in that hole. =ti' rn rn ; After considering your proposal I have come to the conclusion that sufficient evidence has not be v � demonstrated to allow the City to use the new elevation numbers for your height calculations. I : ' n still underco stand and agree that the original topographic map is likely. inaccurate, but it is all we Cco have and at this point I remain convinced that it more accurate than the numbers submitted with your proposal' �. However, in your favor, I have reviewed the SEPA Determination that was issued for the subdivision of the property and determined that the excavation you are proposing with your home is consistent with the grading that was considered with that original determination. What ► z this means for you is that although you will have to comply with the height limit as established by the original grades shown on the plat topo you will not have to complete a SEPA checklist for z grading in excess of 500 cu. yd. Hopefully this resolves the issues we had outstanding. Please contact me if you should have any rn questions at 771-0223. Sincerely, Steve Bullock Senior Planner ; • is NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS ' AND ENWRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS MAIN OFFICE101 East Marine View Drive 17311.1351h Ave..N.E., NA500 1344 Chain lake Road Orondo, WA 98943 Woodinville, WA 98072 Monroe. WA 98272 (209) 480.11189 FAX 481.2510 (206) 788.5612 • 794.4332 (509) 784.2758 April 26, 1993 ! , O y, 0 m Mr. George P. Kairez r P.O. Box 3197 i. Lynnwood, Washington 9804E — vm. m o ,` Refcrcnca: Geoleclulical to valualion C E Vista DO Mar Edmonds, Washington rn e NCA File No. I01593 m Z D Z 1 Dear Mr. Kairez: 0 1: -n �0 1 YNTTtODUCTION ti Galion for 'our ro oscd \lista Del Mar M.m This report presents the results of our geoteclutteal ►Hues b ) P P subdivision in Edmonds. The site is located north of l71)'nlpic View Drive and includes six lots adjacent to 0 F the top of a steep slope, The Citp of Edmonds has requested a gcolcchnical analysis of the slope stability m CO) below these lois, as required by their ordinanceECD Chapter 20.15BO We have also been requested to 00rt vide eoteclutical reconu»endatiotts for general site development. „� Pro g Tileplatuted subdivision consists of 15 lots on a parcel just Ices than '1 acres is size: The planned train ` Z access road ��'ill cross a shallow' s��'ale 1�hich will rcquiro some till and potcnti;111y a soil reinforced or _ gcogrid rclaining 1�'all: The geogrid ��•all.�ti'ould be designed by others. Rockeries may also be used to face Z native cuts in the ttorthcrn portion of the site. We understand that the plat detention system is not vct ' dcsisncd, Due to the proximity of site to the ruga sound, detention muy not be ncccssar?'. m T exploralor)' backhoe (test) Ails, surficial ' The scope of our setl•tces includes perfonuance of. obscrvalions, ph)'sical matsuring and mapping of the slope arca, and review of available geologic, stability and coastal drift maps of the arca. Using this data wehave developed billldutg setbacks and rrcon mtcndutions for site development above tl►c slope, including ,residential and roadmmcl)' conslt'uclion, carthl�ork parameters and draivago recommendations, The locations of the lest pits, Immured profiles an £j/E0 39dd 7ti0IMH031039 NOS�3N 0j5ZTBb5Zhj JEOET 5002/£Z/E0 l April 26, 1993 Vista Dcl Mtir ' NCA File No. 101593 j page Z alter observed conditions are shoa\'n on the enclosed Site flan, Figure 2 and Profiles A through F. Figures 3 through T. SITE CONDITIONS r; Z General O Tho site consists of about 6.83 apres lying north of Olytttptc View Drive, West of Talbot Road and along n the too of slope above the Burlington Northcnt Railroad tracks in Edmonds, The site m gists on planned Lot 9 and a sin� currently supports a !arse residence that llcr house located on planned -n Lot 11. The current access to these structures is all drive that c�tcnds trot» Olyn►pic View Drina C said crosses the western portions of the planned lots 1, 6 and 10. m : n C } The Porto the site adjacent to Olympic Vicw Drive slopes gently to moderately down to the west with a = m i-� sentlo :tope to the north. A sr•ale starts in the vicinity of the western portion of Lots 2 and 3. \Vc expect m MMMMI Z ' f recd soil wall will be regtaircd for the road fill iii this stale. Tho northern portion of the D Z that a fill and reinforced r site slopes gcntly'dotn to the northmacst to the. top of a steep slope. The norlhcastcrn portion, adjacent co 0) . ip the steep slope, slopcs.doa%•n to the north. This slope can be followed off-site down to the railroad grade. 0 -n { Lot IS is located on a parcel that suitl have access from a private road that connects to Talbot Road. This m m rnm _ portion of the site has gentle to moderate slopes to the northascst. O n r- Tltit lop of.slope is shoism on Lite -Site Plan, as surveyed by Lovell-5aucrland. Thin top of slope line is in t, our o onion considered relatively slabIa. We state this, in that Soule times the top of slope con be undercut r 410011 �' 1 M; and considered to be expected to fail .w'11iin a short period of tiOMNI me.. \'Ve adjust the top oC slope Linc to . acconantodata this condition. We did not obscr`�e any t,ndercuttinS or inunincnt slope failures on this slope. Bclo��' this top line, the slope las measured to rause from about 45 to 53 degrees. The Darlington Z Nortl►ern Railroad tracks were const along the toe of the slope many ycors ago. The constn�ction of r m the railroad bed included constn►ction or a !arse rock :casuall along the outboard side. This seoa�all and Z track extends to the north and south Iron, the properly, along the shoreline. The cross-sections showing the O measured profiles and geologic conditions logged on the bluff, arc :bosun on (`ibures 3 through 7. A rn ' sanitary, sewer line is located along the top of slope. The sewer lint is also �n on the Silt Plan. Vegetation ht the portion of the site adjacent to Olpitpic Vieav Drive consists of large cver5recn trees With a S dense undcrsrottlt, The developed portion of ttie site is mainly; covered xvith grass and occasional evergreen trees and shrubs. A stand of evergreen trees is located along a portion of the top of the steel) i. slope. Vegetation on the steep slope consists of brush, berry eines, ia�', ;and scattered decid►wus trees. the trees have an apparent ase of about 20 to 30 %cars old. '.cOUVRETTE a ASSOCIATES, INC. NELS ON E:T/b0 50ez/sz/t;e 3� dd IVOIW03103J 1%40S 3rl t�t5ztee5zvl; 1E E.I April 26. 1993 Vista Del Mar NCA Pile No. 101593 Page 3 Geologic Conditions i Landfornis within this region comprise a system of glacially sculptured features, which have been exposed `t Z by postglacial erosion. Locally, the terrain of this area is interpreted to have been glacially modified, and O to have been placed during the latest glaciation of the Puget Lowland arca. Glacial ice is thought to have m last occupied the region during the late Pleistocene epoch, some .11,000 to 13,000 years before presentwn OMNI . ' The latest glacial advance over the arca is referred to as the Vashon Stade of the Fraser Glaciation, of CO) which the geologic materials on site sire believed composed. C m O c" The general mrotigr•aphy within this area is observed and found to consist of advance glacial ouhvash, O C referred to as Esperance Sand (QvA/Qe). This is in agremcnl-with the geologic conditions described on m ren the geologic maps of this area. Advance outwash in this arcais composed of a dense, fine sand, with trace 10 .^C Z silt and occasional gravel, which has been ovcrriddeu and compacted by the weight of the thick glacial ice. The advanco•sands were observed in all of tlrc test pits, and also on exposures on the steep slope. It is not uncommon for more gravely and/or silty zones to occur in .these deposits, as ��'as. indicated in TP'-13 through Th-161 m rn CO) r Site Explors+lions� Mnppiaa said Subsurf�ct Condit O •1 c This data was used Co. . The steep slope geometry was measured using a hand held inclinometer and cloth 1 a p . to develop the sections of the slope. We also perfomied .slsallow hand explorations on the slope and Z�. observed exposures where present. The subsurface conditions were explored on the site using a tractor mounted backhoe. A represwtative of this firm was present during the explorations and maintnincd == Z` continuous .logs of the explorations. The locations of, tile, test pits are shown in the Site Plan on Figurc 2. } �~ The logs of the explorations aro presented on Figures 10 through 13. Z 0. Subsurface conditions.found on-sits consisted mostly of a fide. to medium sand that varied from loose at the n surface, to dense kith depth, Occasional gravelly lavers.as well as fine to coarse saird weic also obscr%cd. m We also found art occasional sill lens in tlse deposit, however, these lenses did not appear to be continuous. Test Pit l7, located on the south portion of Lot 1, encountered 11.5 feet of fill. We understand that this fill was associated with road construction on Ol�'mpic Viow Drive. ' C Hydrologic Conditions j e of round mater perched ground walcr or outcropping ground water along the slopes { No obvious evtdenc g .1. .vas observed within this site. The advance oulwash is considered fairly permeable and water is expected INELSONX 0UVRETTE ASSOCIATES, hIC. El/90 39Vd IVOIFIH331039 1-10SMN 0IGZ1t3b5Z01 1E *EL 500Z/EZ/E0 April 26, 1993 toot Vista -Del Mor NCA File No. 101593 page 4 t to Infiltrate, vertically in the deposit until a» undcrlyi►►g silt layer is encountered. We did not observe a continuous silt layer lit our test pits or on the bluff face. The site appears to be well drained, with the advance sands apparently being of sufficient thickness and extent to minimize any surface moatcr or ground water seepage on the steep slope fate. Z O SENSITIVE AREA EVALUATION rn Seismic Hnzitrd The Puget Sound region is classified as a Zotnc 3 by the Uniform Building Code. Seismic considerations —I vrn for this tylia of site includes liquefaction potential and aticnuntion of ground motions b,soft soil deposits. rn ' � ,round waer table• O ` The liquefaction potential is highost for loose sa►1d and sill sand with a h►sh b tn Seismically sensitive conditions wcrc not observed lit this site. _ m . , 10 Wool Erosion HMOC mmqZ The erosion hazard criteria used for detertninaliotI of afrected areas include soil t�Vc, slope gradient, r= vegetation cover, and ground water conditions. The Crosion sensitivity is.rclaled to vcgots►tivc cover m►d the to O Spec ific surface soil t;'pcs (group classification), which are related to the underlying geologic soil units. - mm The tollo��'ing tabic outlines the erosion hazard for the on-site soils that h1.ave Uccn stripped of vegetation. v to Tito soils have been classified in accordance with the Soil Conservation ServieC (SCS) classification system O r M and have been grouped with respect to the corresponding geologic unit• 0) t rn n 160 no >40 Ceel is Unit urfa i e is vii , A % Qvh/Qo Everett 1\4cd high high, ! 2 Z Landslide HaznrdlSloIle Stabilitydomino Slope stability was observed bclat�' the subject lots of Vista Del Alar arca to be only minintall�fictive in Z nmaril lhrou h t�calherin and surface sloughing of the slope through normal erosional O back�►asting, p Y . b. SMoment processes. This is in agreement ��'itit the conditions discussed for these slopes on the coastal zone stability m ata face sloughing can be seen across the bluff slbpe face, as indicated Local occurrences of shallvty sur p by older surface scarps, These scarps generally indicate inches r6v inches of sloughing per event, The slope has a uniformly common slope angle ranging from about 4S to 50 degrees, This is what would be expected for the dense underlying sand. As the surface of the sand looscits, shallow sloughing events ��'ill occur sitter ;. ,. which vegetation will re-estaUlish. The date of the trees on the slope indicate that the slope (ace has bccn l the past 2to stable for 0 : 30 years. Vegetation on the slope docs not indicate large scale I;tnd relatively ` sliding characteristics, but docs indicate tttinor localized soil, creep; The cut adjacent 10 the. Burlington Ni LSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 'o-MINH031039 NOS -13N 0[5Z[8b0i;b[ [E *E[ 500Z/Ei;/E0. E[/90 39Vd April 26, 1793 Vista pct Mar NCA File W.101503 Page 5 Northcn� Railroad tracks did not show any signs of backivasting which is conation where sccp9gc occurs near the !racks at other locations on the Puget Sound, Local cleaning of the slope toe just upslope of the tracks has created some surface sloughage, but is minor in extent. O Tltc occurrence of local debris atong the top of slope is of concern to long -terns slope stability. Where the rn debris occurs, an increase in the potential for surface slides and disturbance to iliaslopeintegrity docs CXISt. V) _ vm Cy CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS n ('►CIICI'n1 C2. In •cncral, we conclude that the site is suitable for the planned residcntial development, provided chat the m Z b guideline reeonuncndations and precautions presented heroin are followed. groin a geologic and C � D Z geotcclutical standpoint, .t]u arca above the top of bluff slope appears stable and should be capable of r— supporting the planned development: The underlyins.sand deposits have moderately high strength and is cousidercd stablc,�+ith respect to decp.seated landslides or slope failures. Surficial sloughing and erosionown G can occur, however, we did not observe evidence of large scale backwasting of the slope in recent piston•. m m The sand deposits should protide a good subgrnde for support of the structure foundations. Adequate v0 building setbacks front the top of slope "line" are considered appropriate to reduce the risk of future cfl'ccts y C m to the development front bluff recession for a reasonable life -span. r Z 0 74 do The slopes across the bluff within this development have receded ovcr. the past centuries due to slope f _ erosion and surface lend sliding proccsscs. This process has been significantly slowed by the constme6oit D Z of the DN1LR tracks and seawall, The processes that occur at present should be cxpccicd to persist at their current raft, presently, it is our opinion that the back laic +vithiit this slope arca is on the order of ca t less that One inch per year (cumulative) in the worst case. Development related impnls such as Site Z draitlpse control systems, eartin+tork control and slope protection should lcssbn the impact of perched water m �= outElo+��, aud, may slow the rale of backwasting to, almost nil. Thcsc improvcnwnts are commonly performed and should be expected for this project, Residence foundations placed into clic native sands also aid in reducing the effects of back+vasting oil structure development. We reconnnend that all), detention facility be lined and designed such that it cannot introduce groundwaier would breferable to use the direct discharge into the sound and not store water on site into the hillside, 1t e p if possible. I N!✓LSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. IrT- iwrNT 111no�Innn tInn-IItI n��--..n..r+.:. .r.'-. - ten.,-. .•,,..... 1_ i` April 26, 1997 Vista Dcl Mnr _ NCA File No. 101593 Page G The extent of the fill in ilia area of Tcst Pit 17,13 not known. We expect that it extends cions the south portion of Lot 1 and portions of Lots 3 and 4. Foundations in these areas. should extend through the fill. We recommend that ���e be retained to observe foundation excavations in these areas to dmcmi'ne if bearing We soils are exposed. ' Q P9. Building Setbacks 0 len Uncertainties related to building along steep slopes, and lit particular unstable. or actively backwasting slopes, are typically addressed by the use of building setbacks. The purpose of the setback is, to establish a CD_ "buffer zona" between the dwelling areas and the slope margin so that ample room is allowcd for nomial ,�.m slope rcgress(on or 'r.a slope failure were to occur, the likelihood of dwelling involvcmetit would be rn 00 minimized, 1n a gcncrul sense, the brei►ter the setback, the lower ilia risk. From a gcolorical stnndpaint, O C f,-� the setback dimension is usually based on the slope's physical characteristics, e.g., slope height, surface m Z angle, material composition, hydrology, etc. Other factors such as historical slope activity, rate of Q -I element regression, typeand dcsired.litc span of ilia development arc important considerations. as well, > z reete2 N Basad upon our explorations, slope evaluation and obsen'ations, we rccoinmcnd a mimmum building setback of 25 feet for all structures C�tIle ,to of slope. protection of the setback and siccp slope areas —� •,,.u�esx a^�a laawmcsa sa�rW m' m should be perfonned. as required by the Cite of Edmonds. Spceifieally, we reconuimid that the setback v CA arca not be used for placement or storage of fill materials, including "temporary excavation spoils from : n m building arca preparation and excavation, Ani• development or -encroachment into the setback Areas should to be evaluated by a specific geotcchllical evaluation and report. Reductions in setback areas are possible, but r �: only with (lie additional geotechnical investigation. It should be understood that the closer disturbance and X' r» development of the stricture is to the slope, the mora risk there is of future distress. D,, Z Selective thiiuiing or topping of trees should not'be a problcin. Cutting of trees located within the setback _ c and along 010 top of slope can be performed, but certain precautions should be made.. We rcconuncnd that Z (he root bundle/stump of felled trees be len in place. Pruncd materials and debris should be rcnrovcd fromMMI clic arca, and not allo��'ed veer the slope. Additional dumping of soil, sod, clippings or other matter over the m slope is not reconuncoded, SITE PREPARATION AN]) GRADING, General Site prepsrration and grading will consist of..stripliing the roadwa�� alignments of the til>per topsoil and organic laden soils, Based owthe conditions obscnied in our explorations, we expect a stripping depth on NELSON COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. E1/80 3Jtid wIdOINH031039 NOS13N 0T9z18VGz1)T IE*E1 900Z/EZ/E0 is I April 26, 199 Vistnbci Wr . NCA File No, 1o1S93 Page 7 the order of 6 to 12 incites. local areas may require additional stripping, particularly in areas of ceistinS till The underlying sails are considered marginally moisture sensitive and should be capable of being worked shortly Mier periods of wet %vcatlrcr. if the site is worked during wet conditions, additional stripping depth may be required, as the tujtper topsoil has a higher silt content. z t Ceogrid \fall eo rid wall consists of reinforced soil mass with a suitable facing, sucli as a rock Ag er)'. The soil mass is m g reinforced with gcogrids and essentially stands, by itself. The ince of the wall is typically covered to reduce T etosiott. Tical covering consist of rockeries or precast concrete blocks. The till in the reinforced mass N C • is placed and contpaeted as stnictural till. Tlu gcogrid is placed in horizontal layers as lite fill is placed. 0 m The grid should be stretched such that it is taught prior to placing the fill• The facing should be placed as O c the gcogrid wall,' Is conslrucled• .The length of the grid and the vertical spacing is dctamincd by the wall cl =m designer. Arens to receive a gcogrid Nvall should be prepared as outlined bclo%v in the subgradc preparation .10 m • Z section. Dowl We expect that the ote somn ils will be used for lltc gcogrid fill• for these soils compacted as outlined p below we the recommend using a value of 35 degfces :for lite angle of inlcrnal friction. This i�ould appy' to 2� both the soil in the grid and the soil being retained by the system• Foundation bearing pressure is a fiuiction in0 of iho �gidth of the grid; Nyhich is a•fimetion oE'the height of the ��'all. We rcconmicnd using an allowable � rossurc of 4000 ounds per square foot (psi) in design. If a higher value is needed, we should' beL. � bearing p p }: Z n requested to review the final %wall geometry. L 11 SubgrAdt: )I reparation ' areas to receive stn�ctural fill should include stripping of all topsoil do��n o firm native Z Preparation of ► bearing soils. Atter stripping, the areas to receive fill should be lhorottglily con,pactcd with a large steel • �s than have noted ��caving N dnim compactor, or equivalent, to a dense non-yielding condition. Any arc, Z under the compaction equihinent should lie repaired:. Repairs ntay consist of additional compaction or O averexcavation and rcplacemcnC ��'ilh structural Cill. Areas that are ��'et may require a blanket of spates be rn some other material prior to placing fill, in order to achieve a suitable base for compaction. This should } m cvalualcd tit lite tie of site preparation. Fill Plnccntcnt Following subgrade ptcparatioit, placcmeitt•of Fo lite stn�ctural .Gill may proceed. All backfilling should be �' S accomplished in. 6 to 8 inch thick uniform lifts. Lich lilt should be spread evenly and be thoroughly . I ELSON-COUVRETTE B ASSOCIATES. INC. f I 0I5ZI8bSZbI IE EI S©0Z/EZ/E0 E1/60 39Vd "1d0INH03103J NOS-13N April 26, 1997 Vista Del Mar NCA File No. 101 393 Parc 8 compacted prior to placement of subsequent lifts. We reconullend that the fill be compacted to a minimum maximum dr3� density -for all structural fi relative compaction of 95 percent of its ll underlying all buildin5 areas, a,td within 2 feet ofpavcmcnt subgrade. Maximum dry density in this rcpott refers to that density as deternlrrd by the ASTM D-1557 compaction test procedure. We reconullend that the fill be compacted to z a n>Iiltimtim of 90 percent, with more than 2 feel beneath sidett'alks and pavenlctlt subsrades. The moisturc O 0 content of the soils to be compacted should be within about 2 percent of optinm m, so that a readily m compactable condition exists. IE nlay be necessary to overexcavatc and remove wet soils in` cases where drying to a compactable condition is not feasible. All compaction should be accomplished by cquipntcnt.of cM t► type and size suffieieni to attain the desired degree of compaction. m O �0 O 0 Common Tills _m le not settletllcnt sensitive' should be sloped no steeper m Z Fills used for landscaping (common fills) which ill ~^ than 3H:1V. It is presumed that such yard arca ells will be comprised of stripping spoils or other poorer C Z quality site fill materials, and will contain a sparse to moderate •quantity of fine organic debris. Common rD_- L.fills should be placed in 1 to 2 foot lifts (loose measure) and be notliittally compacted using nvtIiltkblc In ry spreading equipmettt. Conutlon :fills should be thoroughly compacted along slope faces, and be graded O� so m that concentrated slope: surface erosion or other unstable conditions are avoided. rn m 0 0) i 0r 0 m FOUNDATIONS C CO) Structure foundations should be placed within the native sand deposits, expected to occur two to three feet r � o. below grade. Airy loose or disturbed soil in foundation excavations should be retloved.or recompacted prior to placing concrete. We recommend that founditions have a minimum burial depth of 13 inches Wd have ulinimwtl widths of IF4 and 18 inches for continuous and isolated' footings, respectively. For n y- t Z foundations fowlded as outfitted, l�'e�reconuncnd using an allownble soil bearing capacity of 2500 pounds _ ar per square foot (psf). Higher bearing capacities arc appropriate for specific nphlicnlions and should be Z reviewed al the time of design. The above �Ilo�l'ablc bearing prCSS11TC Can be increased b\� one-lhittl ��'hcn 0 considering temporary such as wind or seismic conditions. Settlement is cepccted to occur as the .m load is tipplicd and should be negligible. Foundations in the arca of the fill should extend dot%m to native soils. This can be accomplished b�� deeper L he stem walls, structural fill pads that extend to the native soils, Control )density Fill, or piers. The h��c of t foundations used will depend on the structure type, location, elevation of foundation a_ nd contractor k preference, We recommend that additional geotechnical studics be performed for the arca around Lot where the deep fill tuns found. These studics could ii1clude exploralions prior to design, or at the vcty least j I NELSON-COUVRETTE ASSOCIATES, INC. i I�tiDINM331039 MOS-13rt OtcjZt©b5Zh1, ZE Ei S©0Z/EZ/E0 EJ/01 3Ddd April 26, 1993 Vista Dcl Mar - •• E. ' NCA pile No. 101593 Pale 9 on site monitoring to determine if the foundation .system extends through the.fill, \�►e would be available to discuss foundation options at the time of lot development. z Drrrinage and Stability Considerations rns backwasting for the bluff is the existing surface and near -surface. m Of great importance to lila long-te water control, and erosion . protection. Adequate drainage protection should be provided around the = -n building and development areas. We recommend tilt use of foundation and roof drain systems that empt}'. N —t C into a proper storm ��'atcr system. 'I'hcsa drains should be routed independently until there i5 a minimum of C t I Coot of vertical fall below foundation elevation before, the tic in. rn We understand that the storm water n I 0 C system etvill be.routed domwt an casement to the north and not over the steep slope. „ = m mz We do not recommend that sloritt water be detained in a detention facility that would allow. Ill filtralion mto CD Z r the subsurface soils. This could incrcasagroundwator in locallzcd'areas.and could crc,�c local inslnbility Cn t aloes the slope. 0 -n i m � ` Also of intpotlance is the maintenance of the existing slope stability of the top of slope and slope areas, rn, m firosioil protection for exposed soil areas could be increased through placcrnent of jute netting, C� Fn hydrosceding and/orvegetation planting. Any exposed soils on Ilia steep slope will erode due to normal C erosion processes. Native vegetation will c%'cntually protect these areas, but could be aided through a Z � planting, Also, we rcconunei�d that no loose vcgelation or spoils should be iilaccd on the slopes. X. Additional Notes WC suggest that obscneation of the carth��'ork and drainagc control phases. of development, be observed and _ approved by us. This should include setback,' foundation placement, drainagc find, erosion 'control ca z measures. O m USE OF THIS REPORT AND WARRANTY We have prepared*this report for use by Mr. George Kairez and his agents for their use in planning and preliminary design of this project, The data and report should be provided to prospccliae contractors for ' their bidding and estimating purposes, but our report conclusions and. interpretations. should not be conslrvcd.as a warranty of subgrade conditions. ( , � : The scope of our Nvork docs not include services related to construction saR ty precautions, , and our rect the contractors' methods; techniques, sequences or procedures, rcconunendations are not huended to di I oCoU VRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. NELSON . I CT ITT •"1dH_1 ''1Hr1T1.11.11"1 I f 1-1n /lnr'-111,1 nTC7 T(1 FP 7�.T •r •r♦ .nen-r .r•+ ire I t.: w I tJ CD oo - SITE PLAN Ln E`�I,A!lPTICW: W TP•1-A/P11WWATS TEST rlt UOCAT�N ArwA.ut0655 GT10N11NE j `C i I i �.�3•'' 4.� m ►- is 04 so .amu•! \y. w. : ! `` -`3 `,e�. c /Was ♦y- 0 .• rvr�� i ♦ •�•n.•• -•. r .:. • _� w. i �•••+R11t_ ; t / ` L . ii' ,` i• I T'•L� l_ %: oo j' "••'ii%• 0.'''+• •« t► .•• i —• ~\•i �.����...,,- ;��•�y`\\\ ' 11 . L. 1 "r/ f ~ tr �__ i..—.\ so ♦... 1` 11)1 . 0.12 7 •� p>�. ��-- ra - \ .�� ...,; -I •�4 \ • t /' • 'j! ►. �i 1 '° `••1 • w•'�•��/�J �..�. ,•�J,•'n C.o• % j' ` ,• 4 -; ' - ''w� tt, ^r l`'� •` •ti �•� •.r• [•� ! w I w 1. ' t...:` r 22 No 11 1-i }f1 'i-�y l� -• /,r /•'T wy..•��,r_..•`♦•lam_""-•'•�.�, •�♦\ Y ; y `Dotq `tY _ l J�� `` I f2 •. •-i .;�, r� �T- • .}• fes' so gee so 16 09 \ j _ �' �\ �l.ar or i�A?._ M:.�a;T 010 stop 4000 0`4% js maul1t Z NELSOlY=CGUVRETTEEASSCCM i,S.fMG VI�tADEtN1AR AEfERENCE• ORANRKG &I(rMgO. *PWJU KIWY STORM AMC UMITY PLAN FOR VIS 7A-3EL �pl•wi 6loTo.�w t/ r�lat C�a � A/JU**WEB SEMMYEiioIM CRAWNVYWVILL SAUMAJ40A40ASSOCUCESoWCs rw..ew+wlwse�es� FlLEMa OATS �nQ�3 . 101 SA93 f •'. . i • 1 1 - .. .1J. . f.. j t` SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP GROUP NAME SYM1301 G13AVEL ,CLEAN GW COAFISE GRAVEIAVCL, INC TO COARSE GRAINED GRAVEL GP PooaLY•cnADEo GRAVEL SOILS MonE THAN Sox OF COARSE FRACTION GRAVEL WITH SIl71i GRAVEL RETAIKU ON Eve No. FINES GM Mone It 50% GC CLAYEY GRAVEL Z nZYMNE0 ON THE WELL•CnnDW SAND, FINE TO 0 No• 200 $give SA140 CLCAN SAND 5W C0/1nSE $AND Sp PoonL��•anADEo SAND M m MORE TMAN SO 76 OF SAND WITH SM SILTY SANG COARSE FRACTION FINES PASSES NO, A LILVE - $C CLAYEY SANG N •' EINE SILT AND' CLAY p ML SILT C m GRAINED INORGANIC CL CLAY m p SOILS 0 0 ; LIQUID LIMIT pRGANIC SILT, ORGANIC CLAY O C LESS IRAN 609E ORGANIC OL —4 SILT OF HIEN PLASTICITY, LAL IC _ m MORE THAN Sox SILT AND CLAY MH SILT m Z • PASSES ON THE :INORGANIC CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAY No. 209 cave CH D Z LIOVID LIMIT ORGANIC QW ORGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC SILT f� so% OR MORE HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT 0 an NOTES: SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS: g� 1. FIELD CLASSIFICATION IS bASEO ON VISUAL DRY. ABSENCE OF MOISTURE, DUSTY, DRY m rn EXAMINATION OF SOIL IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE TO THE TOUCH WITH ASTM 02450•l3o �. 0) !• SOIL CLASSIFICATION USING.LAbORAT011Y 7C37S MOIST - DAMP. OUT NO VISIBLE WATEn n (rT1 i iS BASED ON ASTM 01487.00. C (A 7, 'DESCRIPJIONS OF SOIL DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY WET VISIBLE FACE WATER On SATunATED, m N Anc BASSO ON INTinPItiTAT1oN of bLowcouNT WATERUSUALLY SOIL IS OBTAINED FROM BELOW WATER TABLE t z 0 DATA, VISUAL APPEAnANCE OF SOILS. ANDIOR TEST DATA. ;O IL ` Z N O' n m 1 FIGURE VISTA DEL MAR 9 I NELSON-COUVRETTE ASSOCIATES, INC. COnSIR11N0 GEOTECNN(CAL ENGImms, 6EoLo0rsrs DATE } No OvooNHCNUu sc(cNr(srs FILE NO: 1015A93 04/20/93 i FIELD REPORT , NELSON Project: Meyer Residence File No.: 3978B04 GEOTECHNICAL Owner: Louis Meyer Date: 2/24/05 ASSOCIATES, INC Location: 18006 Kairez Drive, Edmonds Report No: 1 17311 135TH{ Ave. NE #A-500 Weather: Sunny, 50's Page 1 of 2 Woodinville, WA 98072 Purpose of (425) 486-1669 FAX 481-2510 Visit: Observe Excavation BY MDR t ' O We visited the site today at the request of Louis Meyer to. observe the excavation for the basement of the rn fanned residence We prepared a geotechnical engineering evaluation for this project dated August 5, ' e ;�wn P 2004. CD Upon, we met with Louis. The :excavation contractor was removing the undocumented fill e. Up rn o materials from the building footprint and driveway.areas. The fill consisted of silty sand with gravel and S, ' and stumps. The excavated material was being loaded into trucks and O c organics .and buried topsoil removed from the site. In the north central. part of the building excavation, native fine sand was being M m v, exposed beneath the fill and buried organic. D P Dz It appears that the driveway cut in the southwestern portion of the site will require a taller wall than the r� block wall indicated on the site plan. Louis informed us that he was looking into Co 4-foot modularo m alternatives for this wall. The portion of the wall that will be over 4 feet tall may need to be engineered. T �. .. from erosion. Erosion control measures may m We recommend that the excavation walls be protected o co include covering cut slopes with plastic sheeting and diverting surface runoff away from the top of cut n ' slopes. We do not recommend vertical slopes for cuts deeper than 4 feet if worker access is necessary. co We recommend that cut slope heights and inclinations conform to WISHA/OSHA standards. If these M co due to property line constraints and/or worker access issues, we recommend �,n inclinations can not be met P P that shoring be considered for the planned cuts. �E�('.'EIV EL z MAR 1 1 '?c�05ol z ' PERMIT COUNTER M Attachment: Signed ,t Distribution: FIELD REPORT to NELSON Project: Meyer Residence File No.:'3978804 GEOTECHNICAL Owner: Louis Meyer Date: 3/1/05 r; ASSOCIATES, INC Location: 18006 Kairez Drive, Edmonds Report No: 2 17311 135TH Ave. NE #A-500 Weather: Sunny, 50's Page 1 of 2 Woodinville, WA 98072 Purpose of (425) 486-1669 FAX 481-2510 Visit: Observe Excavation By: MDR Z it O sWe visited the site today at the request of Louis Meyer to observe the excavation for the basement of the planned residence. un co Upon arrival we met with Louis, the structural engineer and the general contractor. Louis informed the c that the undocumented fill layer extended deeper than anticipated in the western portio Y excavation. The excavation contractor was removing the undocumented fill materials from the building o' footprint area. The excavation contractor had exposed the native sand beneath the fill and buried ,� ,M1 organic soil several feet below the planned footing elevation in a test pit in the west central part of the m excavation. The contractor informed us that he planned to place structural fill in this area to support the p cZ. foundation. We recommend that all fill and organic materials be removed from beneath the west footing line to exposed medium dense or better native soil for the structural fill subgrade. We should evaluate the fillOn f` P f. subgrade prior to fill placement. We should also monitor the placement of the structural fill and perform M' M M N in place density tests. In the areas where 'the footings will be 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 n r excavation below the bottom•of the footings. cato X ca We understand that the. contractor plans to use the native fine sand from the eastern portion of the Z �... eto xcavation for structural fill. The fill will be comp.10 acted with a hoe pack. We collected a sample of the �. Mai native sand for laboratory compaction testing. Plastic sheeting had .been placed over the south wall of the driveway excavation. N z O f M J � I Attachment: Signed: to Distribution: FIELD REPORT NELSON Project: Meyer Residence File No.: 3978B04 GEOTECNIC.AL Owner: Louis Meyer Date: 3/8/05 Ii ASSOCIATES, INC Location: 18006 Kairez Drive, Edmonds Report No: 6 17311 135 "Ave. NE #A.500 Weather: Sunny, 60's Page 1 of 3 WoodinvWe, WA 98072 Purpose of All (425) 486-1669 FAX481-2510 Visit: Construction Monitoring By: MDR - 0 {._.. We visited the site today at the request of Louis Meyer to observe the excavation and fill placement for 0'. { . the planned residence.MINIMUM :. MOO! T Upon arrival we met with Louis and the general and earthwork contractoirs. Excavation oi: N = - undocumented, fill and organic soil was coatinuing in the northern portion of the garage area. Structural v m On-site sand e v full placement was continuing in the eastern portion of the residence and in the garage area. m 0 soil was excavated from the northern portion of the building footprint and was placed in lifts by the track: O: c hoe. A, backhoe mounted hoe pack was used to compact the fill. The fill material appeared to be new d was eom actin readily. The fill was performing well under constructioxi m Z s : optimal moisture content anp 8 �' -� traffic. > z Density tests of the fillmet or exceeded 95 percent of the ASTM D 1557 maximum drydensity for thr. N material. O In our opinion, the structural fill being placed in the footing James of the residence and garage is'beinF; m suitably compacted and should provide adcquate support for the planned foundation loads, v o v, We recommended that the fillslope in the east central portion of the excavation be +compacted with the C N hoe pack and armored with 2- to 4 -inch rock spalls, c z 0 --i We recommend that the excavation walls be protected from erosion. Erosion control measures mar X include covering cut slopes with plastic sheeting and diverting surface runoff away from the top, of cut slopes. We do not recommend vertical slopes for cuts deepen' than 4 feet if worker access is necessary. We recommend that cut nope heights and inclinations conform to WISHA/OSHA standards. If these i Z -� inclinations can not be met due to property line constraints and/or worker access issues, we recommend _ that shoring be considered for the planned cuts. Z r a M Attachment.Signed: Distribution: FIT ELD REPORT NELSON Meyer Residence File No.: 3978.B04 GEO'�'ECHNICAL Owner: Louis Meyer Date: 3/9/05 SSOCIA'I'ES, INC Location%. .18006 Kairez Drive, Edmonds Report No: 7 17311 135 Ave. NE #A-500 Weather: Overcast, 50's Page 1 of 3 Woodinville, WA 98072 Purpose of � (425) 486-1669 FAX 481-2510 Visit: Construction Monitoring By: CAM nest of. Louis Meyer to evaluate fill placement, and to evaluate o We visited the site today at the req n foundation subgrade for the planned residence. rn Upon arrival we met with Lows Meyer.. Since our last visit, the contractor had placed 2 feet of fill along p the fill u to the planned footing subgrade SEEM the southern portion of the planned garage, bringing p _ elevation. Fill soils consisted of onsite orange -brown fine to medium sand. Louis informed us that the cM 0 5U was compacted in 1 -foot lifts with a hoepack. 4001 m O OC We exceeded 95. evaluated fill compaction with a nuclear densometer• . Density tests of the fill mtestet rlocations and. = m W mM percent of the ASTM D 1557 maximum dry density for the materials. Individual dotails acre given on the following pages. D z vation and Fill placement hao£ the planned residence. The: Exca d been completed for the footing lin_ lace native sand and structural fill. We evaluated all footing; foundation subgrade consisted of both p O �+ subgrade with a "/z -inch diameter steel probe rod. Subgrade soils probed between 1 -and 4 -inches under moderate pressure.m m 8 inch seam of organic soil was exposed in a small area beneath the northern garage footing line. v Co A, 640 anic seam prion to constructing, n We recommended that this footing line be overexcavated through this org K N W footing forms or plaeing.concrete4 r z n With the one exception noted above, in our opinion, the footing lines of the planned residence and � garage have been suitably prepared and should provide adequate support for the planned foundation hould not be allowed to aeeurrtulate within the foundation excavation. Any slough kl ! D loads. Water s water loosened soil should be removed from the footing lives prior to placing concrete, i t = conditions develop. to We recommend that the excavation, walls be protected from erosion.. Erosion a £rom thcontrol e to a ofl cut 0 include covering cut slopes wGREED ith plastic sheeting and diverting surface runoff aw y p m slopes. We do not recommend vertical slopes for cuts deeper than 4 feet i1 worker access is necessary. We recommend that cut slope heights and to W1SHA/OSHA standards. If these% nd inclinations confo inc mad can not be met due to property line constraints and/or worker. access issues, we recommend that temporary shoring be considered for the planned cuts. signed:: Attachment: Distribution:' • NELSON GEOTECHNICAL wooe NGA N. ASSOCIATES, INC. IN-PLACE MOISTURE AND DENSITY TESTS GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS c► G Project Name: LaUs a sa Job Number: 3 I(Is) Location: G aha s %A Report Number. '� Page Z of 3 Proctor Method. ASTM D-698-91 / ASTM Q1557-91 Tests Cgnducted By: 1� Approx. Approx. Paas Test General Feet To Fi11 % Wet Dry Max. % °Yb Hammer or - Date Number Location Grade Depth Moisture Density Density Density Comp. Spec. Comcr�ents t3la�ws Fall I os �� ��-� � � 2 a • S Fez 0& 1�-E•3 13.0 �� ti 5 cg Y.0 414S 1� 2 5. Og•G `lg 12 Q. SS Z �r CSS • I p3.6 ops Z b p• 5 NGA NalBnp MWWAOCADOUWAD TOWWWW"kWoft �1 Z OTKO o(L .. c a� CL U) v .� ,� S Q Fy N Ld O M Cl) Cn LSI .- N .5 �J Z J Q O N LU U 4> 'CD 1 C c z t CL N m Lwo _ S4To% A CC41 � c -- 80 C = 4 3 cx + p Z -� Z ;. MCI LoCo.-�ov� o� _ j.. M 1 ` S v i a \ _ 0 r � 0 M 5 c Ca Z 0 J2 c� � r H►tvF nS �I Mai ,- — y z o. - _ • is � rn _ 3�ti,o5 P KAIRI:Z DR. (92ND PL W) m ' NQL�ON GEOTQCNNiCAL. NQ• DOG Rwistan Sy GK Project Number Planned Meyer Residence 711104NSA AssoclA'r�s, tNc. �,,,a„,„,, �BWII Moa o 3.9%8Q4GLOT[CHNICAL ENGINR(Rfl 6 GROLOGISTa V 2a4 IJC MOR41 Site Plan q,��.p..��.aNL•IC.«•.��..,�.� a,.yo, ' w,,i'Lo►�t wra�••c*�Ilol rwnto 07/08/2005 0.5:58 FAX 206'542 1003 GOLDMAN MEYER AGENCY 2903/005 . Krazan ;L Associates, Inc: 19501 -144th Avenue NE *F-300, Woodinville, WA 98072, (425) 485.5519 Project No. 096-05066Cyl, Code 18703 Pour Date 3/16/05 Report No. 7598 Weather Rain Jurisdiction City of Edmonds Permit No. 2005-107 Project Meyer SFR Engineer Location 18004 Kairez Dr. Architect Client Louis Meyer Contractor Reported Batch Data Design Actual r ` Weights Weights Mix No. 1334271 Com: lbs. 470 471 F: Ash lbs. 2 ` r; C. agg. ibs.1 1683 1680 _ C. agg. lbs. 2 208 204 M m C. agg. lbs. 3 GetSand lbs. 1524 1514 CA Water lbs. 137 142 C? Air Ent, (oz) m01 Other(oz) 0 C Other (oz) m Other(oz) m Z Other (oz). D Z Water Added on Job(gals.) 10 inspector Dale Rierson m N z� laboratory Data Design Strength 3,500 @ 28 days Date Specimens Recd. 3/17/05 Cyl. Test Field Max. Comp. Tested Break y Code Date Cure Age Dim. Area C.F. Load Str. (psi) ,set By Type 18703-1 3/23105 7 3.99 12,50 1.0 52280 41180 11 PC 3. 18703-2 4/13/05 28 1990 12,50 1.0 73410 51870 1 CM 1 18703-3 4/13/05 28 3.990 12.51 1.0 73040 5,840 1 CM 1 18703-4 H 18703-5 18703-6 .18703-7 1.8703-5 < Remarks Results Reviewed By Date Reviewed Laboratory Test Methods X ASTM C39 ASTM C109 ASTM C617 X ASTM C1231 ASTM C780 Other Test Results X Conforming Non -Conforming to o M rn 0 cu��, inspector Dale Rierson m N z� laboratory Data Design Strength 3,500 @ 28 days Date Specimens Recd. 3/17/05 Cyl. Test Field Max. Comp. Tested Break y Code Date Cure Age Dim. Area C.F. Load Str. (psi) ,set By Type 18703-1 3/23105 7 3.99 12,50 1.0 52280 41180 11 PC 3. 18703-2 4/13/05 28 1990 12,50 1.0 73410 51870 1 CM 1 18703-3 4/13/05 28 3.990 12.51 1.0 73040 5,840 1 CM 1 18703-4 H 18703-5 18703-6 .18703-7 1.8703-5 < Remarks Results Reviewed By Date Reviewed Laboratory Test Methods X ASTM C39 ASTM C109 ASTM C617 X ASTM C1231 ASTM C780 Other Test Results X Conforming Non -Conforming 07/08/2005 05:59 FAX 206 542 1003 GOLDMAN MEYER AGENCY lih004/005. Krazan'� Associates, Inc. 19501 -144th Avenue NE #F-300, Woodinville, WA 98072, (425) 485.5519 Project No. 096-05066 Cyl, Code 18864 Pour Date 4/5/05 Report No. 13418 Weather Overcast Jurisdiction City of. Edmonds Permit No. 2005-107 Project Meyer SFR Engineer Location 18004 Kairez Dr. Architect Client Louis Meyer contractor Field Data CYLINDER REPORT Reported Batch Data Design Actual Concrete Walls Other Weights Weights Supplier Rinker Materials Plant No. 1800 Site Mix Mix No. 1276650 O' Cam. lbs. 517 513 Mix Air Unit F. Ash lbse rn Slump Temp, Temp. Wt. C. agg. lbs. 1 (3/4) 1683 1682 Time, Truckft Ticket !R •/. Air (in.) (F) (F) (pcf) C. agg. lbs. 2 (3/8) 208 204 S 12:20 5342. 2170706 7..5 54. C. agg. lbs. 3 v m Sand lbs. 1352 134x1 m Water lbs. 259 288 —t n Oc Air Ent (oz) 3 3 Placement Arearn Location Exterior, interior foundation stem walls. other (oz) 20.7 20.7 m Z A. Other (oz) D z Other (oz) r = r; Other (oz) N Water Added on Job ais. 40 T } Field Test Methods rrnn M Remarks Please refer to Field Report No. 57576, X ASTM C143 ASTM C138 �O N Concrete placed by pump and mechanically codsolidated: ASTM C1064 ASTM C173 C All resteel in place per plans. X ASTM C31 Other r m 0 z0 Inspector Dale Rierson Laboratory Data Design Strength 2,500 @ 28 days Date Specimens Recd. 4/7/05! . . Max. Comp. Tested Break Cyl. Test Field Sat* ey Type Code Date Cure Age Dim. Area C.F. Load Str. (psi) 18864-1 4!12105 7 3.990 12.50 1.0 48070 3,850 1 CM 2 18864-2 5/3/05 28 3.990 12.50 1.0 64550 5,160 1 CM 2 18864-3 5/3/05 28 3.990 12.50 1.0 64180 51130 1 CM 1 18664-4 H 1 18864-5 16864-6 18864-7 18864-8 Remarks l c Date Reviewed 7/:! Results Reviewed By fw / L Laboratory Test Methods X ASTM 09 ASTM C109 ASTM C617 X ASTM C1231 ASTM C780 Other Test Results X Conforming Non -Conforming 07/08%2005 05:59 FAX 206 542 1003GOLDMAN MEYER AGENCY 0005/005 Krazan-8► Associates, Inca 19501 -144th Avenue NE #F-300, Woodinville, WA 98072, (425) 485-5519 Project No. 096-05066 Cyl, Code 18863 Pour Date 4/5/05 Report No. 13419 Weather Overcast Jurisdiction City of Edmonds Permlt No. 2005-107 Project Meyer SFR Engineer. Location 18004 Kairez Dr. Architect Client LOUIS Meyer Contractor ti• Reported Batch Data Design Actual i Weights Weights Mix No, 1276650 Cem. lbs. 517 514 Z { F, Ash lbs. C. agg. lbs. 1 (3/4)1683 1684 m C. agg. lbs. 2 (3/8) 208 204 C. agg. lbs. 3 Sand Ibs. 1355' 1348 c rn Water lbs. 269 255 rn p n Air Ent. (oz) . 3.1 3:1 0 Cr Other (oz) 2047 20.8m M other (oz) C — f other(oz) D Z t Other (oz) _ Water Added on Job gals. 10 N x O �t Inspector Dale Rierson Laboratory. Data Design Stnength 3,500 @ 28 days Date Specimens Recd. 4/7/05 T. Cyl. Test Field Max. Comp. Tested Break Code Date Cure Age Dim. Area C.F. Load Str. (psi) Set # By Type 18863-1 4/12/05 7 3.990 12.50 1.0 59700 4,780 1 CM . 1 18863-2 5!3!05 28 3.990 12.50 1.0 77140 6,170 1 CM 2 12.50 1.0 77620 .6,210 1 CM 3 18863-3 5/3!05 28 3.990 18863-4 H 18863-5 18863=6 18863-7 18863-8 Remarks Results Reviewed By Date Reviewed 7/6/o i Laboratory Test Methods X ASTM C39 ASTM C109 ASTM 0617 X ASTM C1231 ASTM C780 Other Test Results X Conforming Non -Conforming rn . .vim Or r S' C (/) KIP . M01 Inspector Dale Rierson Laboratory. Data Design Stnength 3,500 @ 28 days Date Specimens Recd. 4/7/05 T. Cyl. Test Field Max. Comp. Tested Break Code Date Cure Age Dim. Area C.F. Load Str. (psi) Set # By Type 18863-1 4/12/05 7 3.990 12.50 1.0 59700 4,780 1 CM . 1 18863-2 5!3!05 28 3.990 12.50 1.0 77140 6,170 1 CM 2 12.50 1.0 77620 .6,210 1 CM 3 18863-3 5/3!05 28 3.990 18863-4 H 18863-5 18863=6 18863-7 18863-8 Remarks Results Reviewed By Date Reviewed 7/6/o i Laboratory Test Methods X ASTM C39 ASTM C109 ASTM 0617 X ASTM C1231 ASTM C780 Other Test Results X Conforming Non -Conforming Z003/004 0 ,005 06:36 FAX 206 542 1003 GOLDMAN MEYER AGENCY , 1.... Krazan & Associates, Inca 19501 -144th Avenue NE #F-300,.Woodinville, WA 98072, (425) 485-5519 Project No. 0.96-05066 Cyl. Code 18864 Pour Date 4/5/05 Report No. 13418 weather Overcast Jurisdiction City of Edmonds Permit No. 2005-107 Project Meyer SFR Engineer Location 18004 Kairez Dr. Architect client Louis Meyer Contractor I - 1 1, 1 1 1 1 1 =4 tE 1 1• Remarks Please refer to Field Report No. 57576. Concrete placed by pump and mechanically consolidated. All resteel in place per plans. Inspector Dale Rierson LaboratoryData Design Strength 2,500 @ 28 days. Date Specim ns Recd. 4/7/05 Cyl. Test Field Max. Comp, Tested Brea Code Date Cure Age Dim, Area C.F. Load Str. (psi) Set # By Type 18864-1 .4/12/05 7 3.990 12.50 1.0 48070 30850 1 CM 2 18864-2 5/3/05 28 3.990 12.50 1.0 64550 51160 1 CM 2 18864-3 5/3/05 28 3.990 12.50 1.0 64180 5,130 1 CM 1 18864-4 H 1 18864-5 18864-6 18864-7 18864-8 Remarks Results Reviewed By / Date Reviewed Break Laboratory Test Methods X ASTM C39 ASTM C109 ASTM C617 X ASTM C1231 ASTM C780 Other Test Results X Conforming Non -Conforming P.;.•/16/•%005 06;37, FAX 206 542 1003 GOLDMAN MEYER AGENCY 2004/004 _ Krazan b Associates, Inc. 19501.0144th Avenue NE #F-300, Woodinville, WA 98072, (425)485-5519 Project No. 096-05066 Cyt. code. 18863 Pour Date 4/5/05 Report No. 13419 to Weather Overcast Jurisdiction City of Edmonds Permit No. 2005-107 Project Meyer SFR Engineer Location 18004 Kairez Dr. Architect [' Client Louis Meyer Contractor Field, Data CYLINDER REPORT Reported Batch Data Concrete walls Other Design Actual Weights Weights Supplier Rinker Materials Plant No. 1800 Site Mix Mix No: 1276650 Z r Cem.lbs. 517 514 0 Mix Air Unit F. Ash lbs. 0 M Slump Temp. Temp: Wt ce agg. lbs.1 (3/4)1683 1684 Time Truck# Ticket % Air (in.) (F) (F) (pcf) C. agg. lbs. 2 (3/8) 208 204 1:40 2752 21701946 5 58 52 - C. agg: lbs. 3 m Sand lbs. 1355. 1348 m Water lbs. 269 255 0 Placement Area Air lent. (oz) 3:1 3.1 = M. Location Retaining wallOther (az) 20.7 2008 10 Other (oz) C— DZ Other (oz) Other (oz) t Water Added on Job als. 10 O" X .Field Test Methods mrn Remarks Please refer to Field Report No. 57576. x ASTM C143 ASTM 0138 o Cl) Concrete placed by pump and mechanically consolidated. ASTM C1064 ASTM C173 0 Fnp` X ASTM C31 Other K N Q Id Inspector Dale Rierson Z Laboratory Data . Design Strength 3,500 Q 28 days Date Specimens Rec'd. 4/7/05 ! Cyle ..Test Field Max, Comp. Tested Brea D j Codes Date Cure . Age Dim, Area C.F. Load Str. (psi) Set N By Type 18863-1 4/12105. 7 3.990 12.50 110 59700 4,780 1 CM 1 18863-2 5/3/05 28 3:990 12,50. 1.0 77140 61170 1 CM 2 18863-3 5/3/05 28 3.990 12.50 1.0 77620 61210 1 CM. 3 18863-4 M 18863-5 1 18863-6 18863-T 18863-8 Remarks _ Results Reviewed By _ Date Reviewed Break Laboratory Test Methods X ASTM C39 ASTM C109 ASTM C617 X ASTM C1231 ASTM 0760 Other Test Results X Conforming Non -Conforming 0) Z O n M i !! is I� 05/09/2005 10:16 FAX. 206 592 1003. GOLDMAN MEYER AGENCY [A003/003 FIELD REPORT NO 5.7 5 3 8 ; MKraia1 & Associates, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION TESTING AND INSPECTION DATE: 2 Ce % s CONTRACTOR C"I..lc�ci/, PROJECT JURISDICTION: 4S2e* .�•.JV S PROJECT: /ZdCS112A;Z& /cam PERMIT#: LOCATION: �Ffoa ks4i�C IP/G tl� INSPECTOR: ,�,al IIA2, 3 v1c. KRAZAN PROJECT MANAGER:WEATHER: roti/ TEMPS7l`' Z 't W/ r .- /r mea.:,! O �-�M1 n M0as :.. Co_ cm mo on C m m az r_= OT Mm O,r- m CN p Z r ? Z CA Z O n KAY 0.9 ME M CITY OF. EDMONDS To the best of my knowledge, the obov� / WAS NOf performed In accordance with the oppro plans, specifications, and regulatory requirements. I Sup efin1andenf/Represenfative: Technician i 215 West Dakota Ave., Clovis, CA 93612 0(559) 348.2200 4221 r„ Ontario, 91761 • (909) 974.4400 i 2205 Coy Ave.,. Balursheld, CA 933070 1661) 837.9200 15 5" SL NW Suite I , Aubum, WA 98002" 1253) 939.2500 1025 Lane Pblm Ave. 02E, Modesta, CA 95351 (209) 572.2200 20714 State Hwy 305 NE utte 3C, Poulsbo, WA 98370 (360) 598-2126 545 Parrott St., Son Jose, CA 95112 1408) 271.2200 19501.14e Ave. NE 0- , Woadlnville, WA 98072 • (425) 485.5519 5806 Price Ave. Bldg. 1016, McC'leflon, CA 95652 • (916) 561.2200 Revision o Effective Data. 11/16M, The tnfonnti provided on this tepon 11 Otepucd int the exclusive use of the chvit. This t'wal nuY not be teoroduced in env fnnnot ohms, 11w w;nm ,..,... min ,.r,t.o r1w%0 .• d ut,-•_ .. +--••'-•— 04/20/2005 01:30 FAX 206 542,1003 GOLDMAN MEYER AGENCYI{7j003/004 _. FIELD REPORT NO: 5 7 5 7 6 all- & Associates, Inc. GEOTECHMCAL ENGINEERING ' ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION TESTING AND INSPECTION 1 I Awo DATE: � C�' S CONTRACTOR: _ PROJECT#: 4f &e d✓tG-6 JURISDICTION:__,c,c_er.t/ s' j PROJECT: �Ad it1' F -s /� PERMIT #: �` INSPECTOR: LOCATION: �i� O 7 k�'� S /• ,�� _ �. /�• -�1 n ilc/ WEATHER: ie�Gd�S TEMP:•�2 KRAZAN PROJECT MANAGER: �Tc / -� k 19 Al A;r. e It _//_ �..II l J ,�[[' Lr 4 4v 7A9 /Vi tomYAW ,Z �ri J./��A�'.O Iib �' r0 a &4 Z1A*1r J % i i_� c w•i• / C�e�• %./L/ Dem//I/oY��- To.the best of my knowledge, theaOAS AS NOT performed in accordance with the approved plans, specifications grid regulatory requirements. Superintendent/RepresenlaAfve: Technician 2) S Wes) Dakota Ave., Clovis, CA 936 )? (559).348-2200 4221 Bric6ll St., Ontario, CA 91761 / i) • (909) 974.4400 2205 Coy Ave., Bakersfield, s, A 936 (661) 837.9200 1501.15St, Nurn, " W Suite 106, AubWA 98002 (253) 939.2500 1025 lone Palm Ave. #2E, Modesio, CA 95351 1209) 572.2200 20714 State Hwy 305 NE Suite 3C, Poulsbo, WA 98370 (360) 598.2126 545 Panoft St., San lose, CA 95112 (408) 271.2200 19501 • I Air Ave, NE #F•300, Woodinville, WA 98072 1425J 485-5519 S808 Price Ave. Bldg. 1016, McCWOin, CA 95652 • (916) 564-2200 Re.n oe0 Effective Date, I11/Ia02 The In6imullon pint Wed on thu report a prepared fur IFe e.elulIve use ol'Ote ulienl. Thu repoA maY not be reornducrd m env fnnnai .•iib„„ ,�..•.,,�,...--- -r •�_ .•:..... •• 04/20/.2005 07:30 FAX 206 542 1003 GOLDMAN MEYER AGENCY 004/004 ::L� K FIELD REPORT NO: 555 3 2 3 I an & Associates, lnc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION TESTING AND INSPECTION r DATE: ��`� [.� CONTRACTOR: PROJECT #: raw _ �� JURISDICTION:_ Leo d:2�-It PROJECT: _ PERMIT #::R 2no�r: //�j ;2'LOCATION: INSPECTOR: WEATHER:_ TEMP: KRAZAN PROJECT MANAGER: --C��; S ii. ra :z✓r" der Age 5.�._ 1 17A 6a zg lc ► I - PER � To the best of my knowledge, the abe W / WAS NOT performed in accordance wlfh the approved plans, specifications, and regulatory requirements, Superintendent/Reprenlative: Technician: se 215 West Dokofa Ave., Clovis, C4 93612 a (5595 348.2200 4221 Brickell St., Ontario, CA9Kum 1909) 974.4400 2205 Coy Ave., Bakersfield, CA 93307 • (661) 837.9200 1501 1SP St NW Suite 106, WA 98002 • (153) 939.2500 1025 tone Palm Ave. VE, Modesto, CA 95351 a (2091572.2200 20714 State Hwy 305 NE Suite 3C, Poulsha, WA 98370 (360) 598.2126 545 %rro t St., San lose, CA 95112 01408) 271.2200. 19501-1441 Ave. NE 0-300, Woodinville, WA 9.8072 1425) 485.5519 3808 Prim Ave. bldg. 1016, McClellan, CA 95652 • (9161564-2200 Re.unnn . ERectne Due 5/16n1 _ The tnfnmusun pt ondeJ on thu npnn is prcpmed fol the eacluRe use offt chan Thu rcpuil mey not be i ewduced m any formal wntwut the wrdtrn mmnunn n! i6. NF.m •wa Y..,.• •. 41...0t.... 1 04/02/2005 20,:16 FAX 206 542 1003 GOLDMAN MEYER AGENCY Z003/003 / �- FIELD REPORT NOV: 50185 Kr"an & Associates, Inc GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEENNG ' EWRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION TESTING AND INSPECTION .DATE:. 3-�G � CONTRACTOR: PROJECT #: �`�G - Q 57VV 0 JURISDICTION: PROJECT: Ad A AF PERMIT #: Id LOCATION: 20! 91 &zl /�,�( INSPECTOR: KRAZAN PROJECT MANAGER; WEATHER: RAIL.* Al TEMP: eAl Sr T ie S Aca gv& e. %P�?� / y Of T / Y r x r— % C AE do- 041d i -1, �r S. Z z 4 >r��. E `ir skzr a L WKAX 42e I i o bL /� AA 1-yWe s APR 0 4 2004 DEVELOPMENT 1;pav10E5 GT.R CITY OF EDMONDS To the best of my knowledge, ine abov WAS / WAS NOT performed In accordance with the approved plans specifications and regulatory requirements. Superintendent/Representative: Technician C 215 West Dakota Ave., Clovis, CA 93612 , • (559) 348.2200 4221 Erickell 51., Ontario, CA 91761 . (909) 974,4400 2205 Coy Ave., Bakersfield, CA 93307 16611837.9200 1501 -IS' St, NW Suite 106, Auburn, WA 98002 • (253) 939.2500 1025 tone Palm Ave. #2E, Modosto, CA 95351 (209) 572.2200 20714 State Hwy 305 NE Suite 3C, Poulsbo, WA 98370 • (360) S98.2126 545 Parrott St., Son Jose, CA 95112 (406) 27) •2200 19501.144' Ave. NE 0•300, Woodinville, WA 98072 (425) 495,3519 5808 Price Ave. Bldg. 1016, McClellan, CA 95652 1916) 564.2200 KcntronA EffeeuraDaut VIO-01 The mrurrruuon pm�tded on this repos is prrpared fur the exclusive use of the client. The roe et rimy not be reptedueed in am fomul without the wrtttm ,vie wtna ,.r it...I. o ..j r ». w ........ _ 44o A de .S' t:e T Aw" ire v 3s skzr a L WKAX 42e I i o bL /� AA 1-yWe s APR 0 4 2004 DEVELOPMENT 1;pav10E5 GT.R CITY OF EDMONDS To the best of my knowledge, ine abov WAS / WAS NOT performed In accordance with the approved plans specifications and regulatory requirements. Superintendent/Representative: Technician C 215 West Dakota Ave., Clovis, CA 93612 , • (559) 348.2200 4221 Erickell 51., Ontario, CA 91761 . (909) 974,4400 2205 Coy Ave., Bakersfield, CA 93307 16611837.9200 1501 -IS' St, NW Suite 106, Auburn, WA 98002 • (253) 939.2500 1025 tone Palm Ave. #2E, Modosto, CA 95351 (209) 572.2200 20714 State Hwy 305 NE Suite 3C, Poulsbo, WA 98370 • (360) S98.2126 545 Parrott St., Son Jose, CA 95112 (406) 27) •2200 19501.144' Ave. NE 0•300, Woodinville, WA 98072 (425) 495,3519 5808 Price Ave. Bldg. 1016, McClellan, CA 95652 1916) 564.2200 KcntronA EffeeuraDaut VIO-01 The mrurrruuon pm�tded on this repos is prrpared fur the exclusive use of the client. The roe et rimy not be reptedueed in am fomul without the wrtttm ,vie wtna ,.r it...I. o ..j r ». w ........ Krazan & Associates, Inc. 19501 -144th Avenue NE #F-300, Woodinville, WA 98072,(425) 48505519 Project No. 096-05066 Cyl. code 18703 Pour Date 3/16/05 Report No. 7598 Weather Rain Jurisdiction City of Edmonds Permit No. 2005-107 . Project Meyer SFR, Engineer Location 18004 Kairez Dr. Architect Client Louis Meyer Contractor Inspector Dale Rierson Laboratory Data Design Strength 3,500 @ 28 days Date Specimens Rec'd. 3/17/05 Cyl. Test Field Max. Comp... Tested Break Code Date Cure Age Dim. Area C.F. Load Str. (psi) Set # By Type 18703-1 3/23/05 X 7 199 12.50 1.0 52280 41180 1 PC 3 18703-2 4/13/05 28 RECEIVED 18703-3 4/13/05 28 187034 H APR 0 12004 187034 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR. CITY OF EDMONDS 18703-6 18703-7 18703-8 Remarks Results Reviewed By Date Reviewed Laboratory Test Methods X ASTM C39 ASTM C109 ASTM C617 X ASTM C1231 ASTM C780 Other Test Results Conforming Non -Conforming „&. mrn SEEMS nm rbN r. ZO . 05/02/2005 09:37 FAX 206 542 1003 GOLDMAN MEYER AGENCY 411003/005 Kraxan & Associates, Inc. 19501 -144th Avenue NE # '-300, Woodinville, WA 98072, (425) 485-5519 Project No. 096-05066 Cyl, Code 18863 Pour Date 4/5/05 Report No. 13419 Weather Overcast Jurisdiction City of Edmonds Permit No. 2005107 Project Meyer SFR Engineer Location 18004 KalreZ Dr, Architect Client Louls Meyer Contractor Field Data CYLINDER REPORT Concrete walls Other Supplier Rinker Materials Plant No. 1800 site Mix Mix Air. U lit Slump Temp. Temp. Vito. Time Truck# Ticket # % Air (in.) (F) (F) (p 1:40 2752 21701946 5 58 52 Placement Area Location Retaining wall. i I t z O n M --1 mn cM M s, 0 M.F.: mZ. DZ O in i Remarks. Please refer to Field Report No. 57576. Concrete placed by pump and mechanically consolidated. Inspector Dale Rierson 500 28 da Date S ecimens Rec'd. 4/7/05 . Laboratory Data Design Strength 3, @ days p Y Cyl.. Test Field Max. Comp, Tested Break Code Date Cure Age Dim. Area C.F. Load . Str. (psi) Set # By Type 18863-1 4/12/05 7 3.990 12.50 1.0 59700 4,7 i0 1 CM 1 18863-2 5/3/05 28 18863-3 5/3/05 28 18863-4 H 18863-5 18863-6 18863-7- 18863-8 Remarks Results Reviewed By Date Revie ed Laboratory Test Methods. X ASTM C39 ASTM C109 ASTM C617 X ASTM C1231 ASTM C780 Other Test Results Conforming Non -Conforming A rn C 0) f` K to r Zn Inspector Dale Rierson 500 28 da Date S ecimens Rec'd. 4/7/05 . Laboratory Data Design Strength 3, @ days p Y Cyl.. Test Field Max. Comp, Tested Break Code Date Cure Age Dim. Area C.F. Load . Str. (psi) Set # By Type 18863-1 4/12/05 7 3.990 12.50 1.0 59700 4,7 i0 1 CM 1 18863-2 5/3/05 28 18863-3 5/3/05 28 18863-4 H 18863-5 18863-6 18863-7- 18863-8 Remarks Results Reviewed By Date Revie ed Laboratory Test Methods. X ASTM C39 ASTM C109 ASTM C617 X ASTM C1231 ASTM C780 Other Test Results Conforming Non -Conforming 05/02/2005 09:37 FAX 206 542 1003 GOLDMAN MEYER AGENCY 9004/005 Kr.2an & Associates, Inc. 19501 -144th Avenue NE -300, Woodinville, WA 980729 (425) 485.5519 Project No,. 096-05066 C 1. Code 18703 Pour Date Cyl. 3/16/05, Report No, 759$ Weather Rain Jurisdiction City of Edmonds Permit No. 2005-107 Project .Meyer SFR Engineer Location 18004 Kairez Dr. Architect Client Louis Meyer Contractor Field Data CYLINDER REPORT Concrete Footings Other Supplier Rinker Materials Plant No, 1800 site Mix Mix Air U rilt Slump. Temp. Temp, V It* Time Truck#. Ticket # % Air (In.) (F) (F) (p cf) 2:30 5175 21884100 4" 52 38 - Placement Area Location Footings for single family residence including retaining wa I footing. Resteel per plan, concrete pumped H/F vibration to consolidate M �N r M0 Inspector Uaie mierson Laboratory Data Design Strength 3,500 @ 28 days Date Specimens Recd. 3/17/05 Z Cyl. Test Field Max. Carr P. Tested Brea Code Date Cure Age Dim.. Area C.F. Load Str. ( ial) Set 0 By Type 18703-1 3/23/05 7 3.99 12.50 1.0 52280 411 0 1 PC 3 18703-2 4/13/05 28 3.990 12450 1.0 73410 518 0 1 CM 1 03 187-3 4/13/05 28 3.990 12.51 1.0 73040. 51840 1 CM 1 18703-4 H 18703-5 18703-fi 18703-7 18703-8 Remarks Results Reviewed By Date Revle d Break Laboratory Test Methods X ASTM C39 ASTM C109 ASTM C617 X ASTM C1231 ASTM C780 Other Test Results X Conforming Non -Conforming 05/02/2005 09:37 FAX 206 542 1003 GOLDMAN MEYER AGENCY 0005/005 Was= & Associates, Inc. 19501 -144th Avenue NE #V300, Woodinville, WA 98072, (425) 485-5519 Project No. 096-05066 Cyl. Code 18864 Pour Date 4/5/05 Report No. 13418 Weather Overcast Jurisdiction City of Edmonds Permit No. 2005-107 Project Meyer SFR Engineer Location 18004 Kairez Dr. Architect Client Louis Meyer Contractor Field Data CYLINDER REPORT Concrete walls Other Supplier Rinker Materials Plant No. 1800 site Mix Mix Air U tit Slump Temp. Temp, M Its i Time Truck# Ticket # % Air' (in.) (F) (F) (p %f) 12:20 5342 2170706 7.5 54 Placement Area Location Exterior, interior foundation stem walls. I � r Remarks Please refer to Field Report No. 57576: Concrete placed by pump and mechanically consolidated. All resteel in place per plans. Inspector Dale Rierson Laboratory Data Design Strength 2,500 a@ 28 days Date Specimens Rec'd. 4/7/05. ? 2 D Cyl. Test Field Max. Co p. Tested Break Code Date Cure Age Dim. Area C.F. Load Str. ( si) Set # By, , .Type 18864-1 4/12/05 7 3.990 12.50 1.0 48070 31850 1 CM 2 18864-2 5/3/05 28 18864-3 5/3/05 28 18864-4 H 18864-5 18864-6. 18864-7 18864-8 Remarks _ Results Reviewed By Date Revie ted Laboratory Test Methods X .ASTM C39 ASTM C109 ASTM C617 X ASTM C1231 ASTM C780 Other Test Results Conforming Non.Conforming mm !` CN z0 Inspector Dale Rierson Laboratory Data Design Strength 2,500 a@ 28 days Date Specimens Rec'd. 4/7/05. ? 2 D Cyl. Test Field Max. Co p. Tested Break Code Date Cure Age Dim. Area C.F. Load Str. ( si) Set # By, , .Type 18864-1 4/12/05 7 3.990 12.50 1.0 48070 31850 1 CM 2 18864-2 5/3/05 28 18864-3 5/3/05 28 18864-4 H 18864-5 18864-6. 18864-7 18864-8 Remarks _ Results Reviewed By Date Revie ted Laboratory Test Methods X .ASTM C39 ASTM C109 ASTM C617 X ASTM C1231 ASTM C780 Other Test Results Conforming Non.Conforming FIELD REPORT,�D �ll1CF �? NELSON Project: Meyer Residence File No.: 3978B04 GEOTECHNICAL Owner: Louis Meyer Date: 4/19/05 ASSOCIATES, INC Location: 18006 Kairez Drive, Edmonds Report No: 8 17311 135T' Ave. NE 9A-500 Weather: Sunny, 60's Page 1 of 3 Woodinville, WA 98072 Purpose of (425) 486-1669 FAX 481-2510 Visit: Construction Monitoring By: CAM & MDR RECEI F' z r. q y�T" Wd,1W691ruction activities for the planned We visited the site todayat the request of Louis ivle s F _ residence, n M Upon arrival we met with Louis Meyer and examined the cut for the planned driveway along the south .� edge of the property. Louis informed us that during heavy rainfall last weekend water had flowed from in = the adjoining property and over the top of the cut for the new driveway, causing some erosion and c rn sloughing on the cut face. The area of erosion was approximately 6.5 feet high, tapering from 3.0 to 7.0 m o. feet wide, from top to bottom respectively. The driveway cut ranged from 1 to 7 feet in height. The O c exposed soil in the western portion of driveway cut wall and subgrade consisted of gray silty sand with = rn gravel that was interpreted as fill. The exposed soil in the eastern portion of driveway cut wall and m z subgrade consisted of brown fine to medium sand that was interpreted as native outwash sand. The fill a z and native soils exposed in the driveway cut could be penetrated 1 to 4 inches with a /2 inch diameter r = steel rod under moderate pressure and appeared to be performing well under construction traffic. However, we have noted that the fill was placed over a layer of organic materials and is not considered structural fill. Louis. informed us that he planned to construct a reinforced concrete retaining wall to wa cut along the south edge of the site, We understand that this wall will extend M m support the driveway g g slightly above the grade of the yard on the neighboring property. n m The excavation for the southeast corner of the residence foundation was adjacent to the north edge of the Qco proposed driveway. The foundation excavation in this area exposed 4 to 6. feet of fill below the driveway subgrade elevation and a layer of organic soil approximately 1 -foot thick underlying the fill. Native sand was exposed underlying the organic soil layer. z n The fill in the driveway area appears to be performing well, but the fill is assumed to be :resting ,on a z layer of organic soil and can not be considered structural fill. If the owner is willing to accept some risk of settlement, it may be practical to support the driveway and retaining wall on the undocumented fill z along the south edge of the site. It appears that these structures may be supported partly on native soil to O the east and partly on undocumented fill to the west, so there is potential for'differential settlement along M , the alignment. It may be possible. to reduce cracking from, differential settlement by adding reinforcement to the wall and foundation, especially in the area of transition from native subgrade to fill subgrade materials. As noted in our original geotechnical engineering report for this project, 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 i inclination of the backfill. For walls that are free to yield at the top at least one thousandth of the height Attachment: " Signed:t-- Distribution.� (COPS' FIELD REPORT NELSON Project: Meyer Residence File No.: 3978B04 GEOTECHNICAL Owner: Louis Meyer Date: 4/19/05 ASSOCIATES, INC Location: 18006 Kairez Drive, Edmonds Report No: 8 t731 I 135TH Ave. NE #A-5oo . Weather: Sunny, 60's Page 2 of 3 Woodinville, WA 98072 Purpose of (425)486=1669 FAX 481-2510 Visit: Construction Monitoring By: CAM & MDR Z of the wall (active condition), soil pressures will be less than if movement is limited by such factors as 0. wall stiffness or bracing (at -rest condition). We recommend that walls supporting horizontal backfill rn and not subjected to hydrostatic forces be designed using a triangular earth ,pressure distribution equivalent to that exerted b a fluid with a density of 35 cf for yielding active condition walls and 60 q Y Y P Y g( ) -n pcf for non -yielding (at -rest condition) walls. CO _ cm MO These recommended lateral earth pressures are for a drained backfill and are based on the assumption of .i n 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 m z surcharge loads acting adjacent to subsurface walls and within a distance equal to the subsurface height O of the wall. This would include the effects of surcharges such as traffic loads, floor slab loads, footing > Z . lines, slo es, or other surface. loads. We could consult with you and your structural engineer regarding CnCn 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 rn m by passive resistance acting on the below -grade portion of the foundation. A coefficient of friction of o 0.35 may be. used to calculate the base friction and should be applied to the vertical dead load only. n rn Passive resistance may be calculated as a triangular equivalent fluid pressure distribution. An equivalent N . fluid density of 250 pcf should be used for passive resistance design for a level ground surface adjacent r z I' 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 n' foundations should be poured "neat" against the native medium dense sails or compacted fill should be z used as backfill against the front of the footing. We recommend that the upper one -foot of soil be x neglected when calculating the passive resistance. Soils beneath the retaining wall footing should be Z z allowed a design bearing capacity no more than 1500 pounds per square -foot (psf). O We recommend the use of drains behind retaining walls. The drains should consist of a minimum four- m inch -diameter, rigid, slotted or perforated, PVC pipe surrounded by free -draining material wrapped in a filter fabric, and installed behind the base of the retaining wall foundation, 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 material or drainage -draining material should extend up the wall to one foot below composite may be used instead. The free the finished surface, The top foot of soil should consist of impermeable soil placed over plastic sheeting or building paper to minimize surface water or fines migration into the footing drain. Footing drains should discharge into tightlines leading to an appropriate collection and discharge point with convenient Attachment Signed: �l D Y Distribution: rt NELSON GEOTECHNICAL z; IN A ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLoG1STS 17311-135'" Avenue NE, X500 Snohomish County (425) 337-1669 Woodinville, WA 98072 (425) 4MI669 . (425) Fax 481=2510 Wenatchee/Chelan (509) 7642756 May 19, 2005 { 1: 2'`< o i Mr. Louis Meyer n , 20419. Dayton Avenue ". Seattle, Washington 98133-3028 v, ice: i Retaining Wall Plan Review Letter C m i 18006 Kairez Drive m 0: Edmonds, Washington 0 C NGA File No. 39781304 rn, ' M I Dear Mr. Meyer: c ZfA r, D. r , CA I This letter presents the results ofour geotechnical engineering review. of the planned retaining wall for 0Mill. your residence at 1.8006 Kairez Drive in Edmonds, Washington: .. INTRODUCTION i 0. C N F; We have previously prepared a geotechnical engineering report for the project site dated August 5, 20040 Z0 ' We have been provided with plan sheet S-3, dated June 28, 2004, and structural calculations for the wall ;} dated April 28 and 29, 2005, all prepared by JRR Engineering, Inc We have also been provided .with a copy of a correction notice for this project from the City of Edmonds Development Services Department, } Z dated. May 13, 2005. You have requested that we review geotechnical aspects of the provided plans and k prepare this letter documenting our opinions regarding plan compliance with our previous report. v Z a 0.1 ". SUMMARY OF CORRECTION NOTICE n The correction notice from the City of Edmonds requested that we evaluate geotechnical aspects of the plans for compliance with the original geotechnical report. The correction notice also requested that we review the surcharge loading used in the structural calculations. PLAN REVIEW We have reviewed geotechnical aspects of the provided plans and found the plans to be in general compliance with our geotechnical report. The foundation plans indicate continuous footings for the , j 05/31/2005 10:20 14254812510 NELSON GEOTECHNICAL PAGE ,02/04 NELSON GEOTECHNICAL �j ASSOCIATES, INC. 1RS & GEOLOGISTS GEO'a" ECNNICAL ENGINEE 17311-135"' Avsnue NE, A -b00 Snohomish County (425) 337.1569 Woodin0e, WA 98072 Wenetchev/Chetan (509) 784-2758 (426) 486.1669 (425) Fax 481-2510 May 31, 2005 Z 0 Mir. Louis Meyer m 20419 Dayton. Avenue Seattle, Washington 98133-3028 Wn Driveway Retaining Wall Excavation Letter C 18006 Kairez Drive m Edmonds, Washington '� n NGA Fide No. 3978B04 e mZ M Dear Mr. Meyer: io -1 Dz This letter preseints our opinion regarding the excavation for the planned driveway retaining wall for your i. residence at 18006 Kairez Drive in Edmonds, Washington. We have previously prepared a geoteehnibal engineering report for the project dated August' 5, 2004, and _ a retaining wall plan review letter dated May 19, 2005. We have also provided construction in FnON fa in mid April, water had C for the project on a partttme basis. You informed us that duriwg heavy rainfall p M flowed from the adjoining property and over the top of the cut for the new driveway, causing some erosion and sloughing on the cut face. The area of erosion was approxin>ately 6.5 feet high, tapering from 3.0 to 7.0 feet wide, from top to bottomrespectively. The driveway cut ranged from 1 to 7 feet in height. Z' The exposed soil in the western portion of the driveway cut wall and subgrade consisted of gray silty sand t With gravel that was interpreted aG fill. The exposed soil in the eastern portion of the driveway cut wall ca Z and subgrade consisted of brown fine to medium sand that was interpreted as native outwash sand. We G -3, dated June 28, 2004 and structural calculations for the wall dated have been provided with plan Sheet.S .0 ; I prepared by JRR Engineering, Inca April 28. 29, 2005, at You have informed us that the City of Edmonds has specified a maximum gradient of 14 percent for the planned driveway QaveMont. You have also informed us that the existing driveway subgrade cut is currently sloped at 14 percent. The driveway retaining wall plaia indicates a minimum embedment of f i