The URL can be used to link to this page

20060224A.pdf'01 GATERECEVEG U PERMIT EXPIRES 2 Ci PERMIT ITY OF EDMONDS NUMBER auD Q zLq CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION jos y SUITEIAPTtt nDORESS ` " 11�L -z Tit — OWNER NA4M^E�INAME OF BUSINESS I LJ 1 l,. 1� PLAT NAMEISUBOIVISION NO, LOT NO. LID NO. w MAILING ADDRESS L- ��„ V 1••_ + UD FEES PUBLIC RIGHTOF WWAA�Y PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP pEEpPAppiRo.pE� O l / PROPOSED vooiuse�nrml aovunoe CITY ZIP TELEPHONE EXISTING tnspvawn r 77( � LTH ""' U REQUIRED DEDICATION •� FT •� NAME ``^^ ,> METER SIZE LINE SIZE N0. FFIXTURES wn PRV REQUIRED c_"- l4�.t �.�.•1, i 11 iI YES L� NO❑ uAGGRESS 1 `' 'V REMARKS z Plot L 1_ _J �, r ' 61 /1 OWNERICONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROUORAINAGENO Z CITY 1 ZIP TELEPHONE 1/l.� r t Lo, i Alt>ec +71 v lle �j7 `I2 , `i k7 . ltc'UU C�t2 st N . } c c r S�� 'W F.NGINEEftING REV_IEWEO.IIY � �AE GI I + ti FIRE E IEW V DATE 21P TELEPHONE 1 G DY V NANCE OR of SHORELINEORADB# INSPECTION SEPA STATE LICENSE NUMBERNih\ I L _ L PIM?IOi[.�5/� ..-. / ./' Q NO COMPLET[o Exen,r, ` ILL yE50� c J PROPERTY TA%ACCOUNT PARCEL NO. QQ _0010-C^C) I -Cif CAtt QCt tti1 WAIVER❑ ��IZ STUDY ZONE SIGN AREA ALLDwEa PaaaasED HEIGHT ALLOWED PaoPoSED 151 2 Au NEW RESIDENTIAL ® PLUMBING I MECH LOT COVERAGE ALLOWED PROPOSED- REQUIRED SETBACKS(FT) PROPOSED FRONT SIDE "AGAR"F SETBACKS (FT.) ONNSIDES^RCBC COMMERCIAL ��''11 COMPLIANCE OR 3f� f- 3t}.>�y 1AFl NL 5�fv ADDITION MIXED USE LJ CHANGE OF USE PARKING LOT JJ��n a n ARE RNIA'dHE`�RWEDBY ATEpyl9/DQ REMODEL MULTIFAMILY ❑ SIGN REDO 2- PROVIDED (21D4S +, a� t��,{�/�J •--L,/D 3tZV1� ,'L ZITi Lt❑�Y pn G FENCE REPAIR �p GA�: /T EYES❑ ( XFT.) „EMARY J 11 ; n G••,- a.l.• lam-• (l DEMOLISH TAANNK�y-• OTHER c, W •'exL e) t rt Z Qri V� z GARAGE RETAINING WALL FIRE SPRINKLER ®CARPORT ❑ ROCKERY ❑ FIREALARM I -•, W _I e - (AODV USEUSS(RAtA^T,VITY) XP�PU�'N \_. u(6PE-OF u C t.. tlyilcivrti If1�•LM' S`I• i�l.i. TYPEOF O S UCTION E OGRCCUPANT �� OUP .] - w NUMBER ^ NUMBER OF OF IJy DWELLING ' SPECIAL INSPECTION CONSULT OCCUQ LOAD PANT p U; STORIES UNITS REQUIRED YES DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DON _ REMARKS TW S 1'VL\J✓'LAC� 1 I Z GEOTEC R RT 7 K�,l tit)\ 191,`r: Y� \ K STR I 1%Wffi ter' `11 < - 8Y: VALUATION 7 Description FEE Description FEE Plan Check State Surcharge .HEAT SOURCE LOT RI OESYo ;Y VESTED DATE Building Permit O City Surcharge PLAN CHECK NO: /.�,.- Ll PlumbingO Base Fee Mechanical THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO - BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBIC Grading g -7 (/ f DONMAIN ICURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE t SEPARATE PERMISSION. Engr, RBVIBW rc PERMIT APPLICATION: SEE ECDC IS00.00MAH A.PERMIT LIMIT: SEE ECDC 19.00,005(Ai(6) Engr. IDSpeCllOn SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION Deposit n "I �� v� •APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS Fire Review Plan Chk. w INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY. DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF E ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND Fire Inspection pp Receipt A y EONONOS, WASHINGTON, B INDIRECTLY ALL AMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE ARISING SHALL NOT BE IMO !.�•�- O FROM THE ISSRECTLY UANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT pEEMEDOR MODFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OIF ANY CITY ORDNANCE Landsca a Ins p T t, Due i NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THECITY'SABILITYTOENFORCEANYORDINANCEPROWSION' Recording Fee Recepin# Z, 1 HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT 1 HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION: THAT THE INFORMATION I AM THE OWNER, OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF APPLICATION APPROVAL This IM1,11tien a not a permit until signed by Ih0 GIVEN IS CORRECT; AND THAT THE OWNER. (AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATELAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC. CALL 8,,Id,ng Official 0r1iislher Deputy: antl Foos ace bad. and TION; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED CODE OF HE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO FOR INSPECTION receipt is mkr.w d9e -space prpvidod. IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR WORKMEN'S TION INSURA DRCW 10:27. UR �771��22o ATEATTEN N EXT.13332IT tFICSNATUR(425)EIGHT IS UNLAWFULTO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTI- IGNAL .FILE . Y LLOW INSPECTORFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC1091 IBC110I IRC110, PI .OWNER OLD - ASSESSOR10104 PRESS HARD - YOU ARE MAKING 4 COPIES 4.i r -L�I,s NErjIoA�o FOR ER0SltNVT�0L%NE ALL OJD SUhFACE" E COE ' B 0 RED WIT�tlff2 FJRE HYDRANT 5EMBLY 2r,.00' L 16 '44'45"1 '1 1 GB I R, 'o a 120' 5q&' L 4 6� 4 * lbo4l'52" fy E - tf 16.1 ()1 WATER PE ER .� INSPEC: <,,,13 PEQ'D, 9ALL 425-7-ii-ff'q FXT.1 421-11 3/4" GORNER OF BLDG. LocgrlON 20 40 J G 00 N-/ / -mno Xa*� R ES U B r- t-a- / 5, 0 ul JILDING DEPARTMLN I CITY OF rDl ✓JNDS R = 20.00' L = 25,61' \-JA 1,vl(q 8 1 vle, z ELEV.� 11553 \Do BUIL CI 0 C c M MR c M MZ c: EA 0"" 3: MITI 141*\ 00) 0 0; C cl) c ca QL MO 1-m p 0 R 0 ;a NCE Q PR.1; ENAY\ z Q RA E,' v @ T_ OF F-Trv. z UY tv / IU' Other Height ONNER OP MILLER GON5TRUOTION, LLC 22515 HWY as N, 5TE 4 EDMOND5, WA a802& !_ PH: 425.776.8a45 SITE AL;)l:;)RESS LOT 4 KAIREZ DRIVE EDMON05, WA BECNWM Rr, I? 81(e rlcoo, 2Z_ LOT CO\/EFA&E LOT AREA: 12045 S.F. HOU5E/GARAGE AREA: 3444 5.F, PORCH/DEG1<5 AREA: 752 S.F. �- TOTAL AREA: 41-16 = 34.1% AREA LOT AREA: 12045 S.F. HOU5E/GARAGE AREA: 3444 S.F. 4uo c,y CK7 PORCH/DEGK5 AREA: -152 S.F. t / DRIVEWAY/PATIO AREA: 1120 S.F. C 4�t.c- 3%13/Zoot I TOTAL AREA: 52a6 S.F. HT. C ALC QLATiQNS A = 16 f.4 ' RESUB I B 1 = �5 j 0 = 188.0 FEB 15 2006 D = 152 = 713.2 % 4 = 1-Cg•3 (AVE. EXIST'. GRADE) BUILDING DEPARTMENT CITY OF EDMONDS + 25 (MAX. HT. ALLOWABLE) = 203.3 (MAX. RIDGE ELEVATION) - 202.4 (PROPOSED RIDGE ELEVATION. O.a FT. (BELOW HT. LIMIT) I�N ry 5CALE I" = 20'-O" O N 0 1 ' 0 m_ c 0 m. io O' P C mz! Ai c2 u' 9_ m� mm E 0 0 mw 1� a z z O m' 1 1 2 , .� '('(fin ,(j �f(�� E LETll. 1 0 �.. U1t V DEC 2 1 2005 EECE 1 Vt `i GEOTECIINICAL EVALUATION REPORT O m t; v; FOR VISTA DEL MAR Si7DDIVISION N EDMONDS, WASHINGTON � p mO ; O c r` �m A 74 z ;' a { o� �m ON c N mn r Z rr 1 i o, d 1` m I TY Poff"�g ``. NELSON-COUVRETT E & A5S061ATES, INC. CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERs, GEOLOGISTS AND. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS + I MAIN OFFICE 134�4 chain lake Rvad 101 Eaet Marine Viev+Odve • 11311.135th Ave. N.E., t1A500 Monroe, WA 98272 Orondo, WA 98843 1 Woodlnvllla, WA 96012 - (200) 4084889 •FAX 481.2510 t2061706.5612 • T94.4332 (509) T84.2758 April 26, 1993 O Mr. George P.'Kairez n m P.O. Box 3197 Lynnwood, Washington 98046 N ' 0 m i Reference: Geotec)mical tvatuation mo: O O C Vista Del Mar tdmonds, Washington m S @, 14CA FilcNu. 101593 m ` { Z 4 D-1 Z Dear Mr. Kairez: f INTRODUCTION O 'n the results of our geoteclwical investigation for your proposed Vista Del Mar m m Z This report presents in Edmonds. Thp site is located north of Olympic View Drive and includes six lots adiaccnt to QO.y ?: subdivision the top of a steep slope. The City of Edmonds has requested a geotechnical analysis of the slope stability been to C lots, by their ordinance ECDC Chapter 20.15B. We have also requested 10 F below these as required development. provide ge0tectutieal rewnuuendatons for general site ✓o 3ff 71te planned subdivision consists of 15 lots On a parcel just less than 7 acres is site. The planned main Z shale which will require some fill and potentially a soil reinforced or access road will cross a shallow be designed by others. Rockcr;cs may also be used to face gcogrid retaining aaIL The gcogrid Wall would in the Uathcru portion of the site. We understand that the plat detention systcnr is not ya Z O nalive cuts Duc to the proximity+of the site to are Puget sound, aclentionn)ny not be necessary. m designed. )ic+al The of our services inelades performance of. 17 exploratoryhackhoc (test) pits, sur scope mcttsaring and (napping of the $lope area, and review of available geologic, stability observations, physical Using this data vve have developed building setbacks and and coastal drift maps of dre area. the slope, including re idential and roadway co»sUudion. rcconmhendalions for site development above Ttrc locations of the test pits, measured protilcs and canhdork paranlcters and drainago recommendations. ' 'Voli,jH331039 NOS-13N OtSZT0V5ZOt le:Et 500Z/EZ/E0 - EUEO 39Vd April 76, 1993 Vista Del Mar NCA File No. d01593 Page 2 other observed conditions are sho+wt on the enclosed Site plan, Figure 2 and profiles A through F, Figures 3 dirough 7. SITE CONDITIONS General The site consists of about 6.83 acres lying north of Olympic Viaw• Drive, west of Talbot Road and along the top of slope above the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks In Edmonds, Washington. The site currently supports a large residence that exists on planned Lot 9 and a smaller houselocated on plaencd Lot I1. The current access to these structures is an asphalt drive that extends Ctoro 013'nnpic View Drive and crosses the western portions of the planned lots 1, 6 and 10. Tltc portion.cif the site adiaccut to Olympic View Drive slopes gently to modcratcly down to true t+r st ++'ith a i gc"tlo shorn to the north. A s+vale starts in the vicinity of tine western portion of Lots 2 mid 3. We expect g that a fill mid reinforced soil wallwill be required for the road fill in this Swale.Tluo northern portion of the site slopes gently down to the northwest to the top of a deep slope. The northeastern portion, adjacent to the steep slope, slopes down to the north. This slope eau be followed off -site down to the railroad grade. Lot 15 Is located ou a parcel that will have access from a private road that co"uccts to Talbot Road. This portion of the site has gentle t0 moderate slopes to the northwest. The top of slope is shown on the Site plan, as surveyed by Lovell -Saucland. This top of slope till is in our opinion considered relatively stable. We state this, in that some times the top of slope call be undercut j and considered to be expected to fait within a short period of time. We adjust the top of slope line Io accommodate this condition. We did not observe any undercutting or inuuincnt slope failures on this slope. Below (Iris top line, the slope was measured to range from about 45 to 53 degrees. The Burlington Northern Railroad tracks were constructed along the toe of the slope runny years ago. Tim construction or the railroad bed included construction or a large rock seawall along tine outboard side. This seawall and track extends to the north and south from the properly, along the shoreline, The cross•sections sho++'ing the measuredprofiles and geologic conditibns logged on the bluff. arc shown on Figures 3 through 7. A sanitary sewer line Is located along the top of slope. The solver line is also show" on tine Site plan. Vcgctation in the portion of the site adjacent to Olympic View Drive cmrsisls of large evergreen trees with a dense undergrowth, The developed portion or the site is mainly covered with grass and occasional evergreen trees and shrubs. A stand of evergreen trees is located along a portion of the top of the steep slope. Vegetation on the steep slope consists of brush, berry vines, ivy, -.)ad scattered deciduous trees. The { trees have no apparcot age of about 20 to 30 years old. j NELSOWCOUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Ei/60 391eld '1tl0INH031039 NOTUN 0196101,9601 TE:Et c00b/El/E0 z O, n m M o m �. mo On k,. M (; M z yz i. N E' O ,.n m m S ON F m" z�1 z N z m April.26, 1993 Vista Del Mar NCA File No. 101593 Page 3 Geologic Conditions Landfomts within this region comprise a system of glacially sculplored features, Which have been exposed by post -glacial erosion. Locally, the terrain of this area is interpreted to have been glacially modified, and to have been placed during the laiest glaciation of the Puget Lowland area. Glacial icc is thought To have last occupied the region during ilia late Pleistocene epoch, $011ie 11,000 to 13,000 years before present. The latest glacial advance over the area is referred to as the Vashon Stade of die Fraser Glaciation, of wbieh tilt geologic nsaterials on site are believed composed. The general slratigraphy within this area is observed and found to consist of advance glacial Otitwash, rererred to as Esperanto Sand (QvA/Qe). This is in agreement with tlse geologic conditions describdd on Use geologic maps of this area. Advance outuash in this area is composed of a dense, fine sand, with trace silt and occasional gravel, which has been overridden and compacted by the weight of tine thick glacial ice. jThe advance sands were observed in all of the test pits, and also on exposures rID tite steep slope. it is not unconurron for more gravely and/or silty zones to occur in .these deposits, as was indicated in TP-13 i through TP-16. Site Explorations, Mapping and Subsurface Conditions The steep slope geometry was measured using a hand livid inclinometer and cloth 131M This data was used to develop the sections of the slope. We also performed shallow hand csplorations on the slope and observed exposures where present. The subsurface conditions were explored on the site using a tractor mounted backboe. A representative of this firm was present during the explorations and ninintaincd continuous logs of the explorations. The locations of tilt test pits are shown in the Site Plan oil Figure 2. !� Ilia logs of ilia explorations are presented at) Figures 10 through 13. Subsurface eonditions•found on -situ consisted mostly of a fntva e to medium sand that ried CIO"' loose , the surface, to dense with depth, occasional gravelly layers as well as fine to coarse sand were also obserxcd. We also found au occasional silt Icns in ilia deposit, however, these lenses did not appear to be continuous. Test Pit 17, located on the south portion of Lot 1, encountered 11.3 feel of fill. We understand that this fill was associated with road construction on olympic View Drive. Hydrologic Conditions No obvious evidence of ground water, perched ground water or outcropping ground water along the slopes was observed within this site. The advance oulwash is considered fairly permeable and wafer is expected NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. ET/90 3Dtld 1u3INH331039 NOS13N BTSLT865L6T lE £I 50tl1lEL1E0 LIM O 0 m -4 m to � k a v rrt i rn O C) 1K m O_ DZ -n mM O CIn O -Z1 F� I� ( i tint,;--^�'"jx. s•:, April 26, 1993 Vista Del. Mar NCA File No. 101593 Page 4 to infiltrate vertically in the deposit until arunderlying silt layer is encountered. We did not observe a continuous silt layer in our test pits or on the bluff face. The site appears to be well drained, with the advance sands apparently being of sufficicn( thickness and extent to minimize any surface water or ground water seepage on the steep slope face. SENSITIVE AREA EVALUATION Seismic Hnzm'd The Puget Sound region is classified as a Zone 3 by the Uniform Building Code. Seismic considerations for this type or site includes liquefaction potential and attenuation of ground motions by soil soil deposits. :Tire liquefaction potential is highest for loose sand and silty sand with a high ground water table. Seismically sensitive conditions drone not obscn•ud in This site. n Erosion l)nzard The erosion hazard criteria used for determination of affuAcd areas include soil type, slope gradient, s vegetation cover, and ground water conditions. The crosion sensitivity is related to vegetative corer and the specific surface soil hypes (group classification), which are related to the underlying geologic soil units. The following table outlines the erosion hazard for the on -site soils that leave been stripped of vegetation. j The soils havebeeu classified in accordance with the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) classification system and have been grouped with respect to the corresponding geologic unit, solo in c Unit Surface i ScuSilivitv Al Slonc 0-15% 16.39% >40 % QvA/Qo Everett Mcd High High Landslide HazardiSlope Stability Slope stability was observed below the subject lots of vista Del Mar area to be only minimally aelivc ill backwasting, primarily through weathering and surface sloughing of the slope through normal crosionnl processes. This is ill agreement with the conditions discussed for these slopes om the coastal zone stability map. Local occurrences of shallow surface sloughing call be seen across the bluff slope face, as indicated by older surface scarps. These scarps generally indicate a few inches of sloughing per event. The slope has a uniformly common slope angle ranging front about 45 to 50 degrees. This is what would be expected for the dense underlying sand. As the surface of the sand loosens, shallow sloughing events will occur after which vegetation will re-establish. The date of the trees on the slope indicate that tine slope tact. has been relatively stable for the past 20 to 30 years. Vegetation on the slope does not indicule large scale land sliding characteristics, but does indicate minor localized soil creep. Tine cut adiacenl to the Burlington NELSON-COUVRErrE & ASSOCIATES, INC. EI/90 Mild -1VOIN-1031039 NOS-13N 0t5Z1869Zb1 lE M 000Z/EZ/E0 Z O, mm cm m0 On C mz C i r >Z ,rim t O 11 mm O rn E r W Z 1� M Z Z O cl m April 26, 1993 Vista Del Mar NCA File No. 101503 Page 5 Northern Railroad tracks did not show any signs of 6ack{vasting Whieh is common where seepage occurs near the tracks at other locations on the Puget Sound. Local cleaning of the slope toe just upslopc of the tracks has created some surface sloughage, but is minor in extent. Tile occurrence of local debris along the top of slope is of conecrn to long-term slope stability. Wherc the debris occurs, an increase in the potential for surface slides and disturbance to the slope integrity does exist. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Ccoerai 3 In general, we conclude that the site is suitable for the planned residential development, provided that the guideline rcconuncndations and precautions presented heron are followed From a geologic and geoteclmical standpoint, the area above the top of bluff slope appears stable and should be capable of supporting the planned development. The underlying sand deposits have moderately high strength and is considered stable with respect to deep.scatcd landslides or slope failures. Surficial.sloughing and erosion can occur, however, we did not observe evidence of large scale backjvasting of the slope in recent history. The sand deposits should provide a good subgrade for support of the structure foundations. Adcgeatc building setbacks from the top of slope "line" are considered appropriate to reduce the risk of future ctTects to the development front bluff recession for a reasonable life -span. i The slopes across the bluff within this development have receded over the past centuries due to slope erosion mid surface land sliding processes. This process has been significantly slowed by the construction of the DNRR tracks and seawall. The processes that occur at present should be expected to persist at their current rate. Presently, it is our opinion that tite backwasting rate within this slope area is on the order of less that one inch per year (ctnnulative) in tiro worst case. Development related improvements such as site drainage control systetus, eartinvork control and slope protection should lessen the impact of perched water outflow, and may slow the rate of backwasting to almost nil. Time inspromucnts are coomtoniy performed and should be expected for this project. Residenee foundations placed into the native solids also aid in reducing the effects of backwisting on structure development. We recommend that any detention facility be lined and designed such that it cannot introduce groundwater into the hillside. it would be preferable to use the direct discharge into the sound and not store water on site i f possible. NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. April 26,1993 Vista Dat Mar NCA Pile No. 101593 Page 6 The extent of the fill in ilia area of Test I'd 17 is not known, We expect that it extends along ilia south portion of Lot I and portions of Lots 3 and 4. Foundations in these areas should extend through ilia rill. We recommend that we be retained to observe foundation excavations In these areas to dcten nine if hearing soils are exposed. Building Setbacks Uncertainties related to building along steep slopes, and in particular unstable or aciively backtvasting slopes, are typically addressed by the use of building setbacks. Tire purpose of. the setback is to establish a "buffer zone" between ilia dwelling areas and the slope margin so that ample room is allowed for nornial slope regression or if a slope failure were to occur, the likelihood of dwelling involvement would be eminimired. In a general sense, the granter the setback, the lower ilia risk. Front a geological standpoint, the setback dimension is usually based on the siopcs physical characteristics, e.g., slope height, surface r� angle, material composition, hydrology, etc. Other factors such as historical slopeactivity, rate of C regression, ty a and desited life span of ilia development arc inrporsant considerations as welt. { Based upon our explorations, slope evaluation and observations, we recommend a nduinmun building setback of 25 feet for all structures front ilia of slo>cAprotection of the setback and snap slope arias should be performed as required by the City of Edmonds. Specifically, we recommend that the setback area not be used for placement or storage of fill materials, including "temporary" excavation spoils from building area preparation and excavation. Any deveiopment or areroachment into the setback areas should be evaluated by a specific geoteclmieal evaluation and report. Reductions in setback areas are possible, but only with the additional geoteehnical investigation. It should be understood that the closer disturbance and development of the stn aura is to the slope, the more risk there is of future distress. Selective thinning or topping of trees should not'be a probiran. Cutting of trots located within ilia setback and along die top of slope can be perfonnod, but certain precautions should be made, We reconuncnd that lire root bundlctstump of felled trees be lea in place. Pruned materials and debris should be ranovcd from the area, and not allowed over the slope. Additional dumping of soil, sod, clippings or other matter over the slope is not reconuncoded. SITE PREPARATION AN15 GRADING General Site preparation and grading will consist of stripping the roadway alignments of the upper topsoil and organic laden soils. Based on (tie conditions observed in our explorations, we expect a stripping depth on NELSON-COUVl?EI-7'E & ASSOCIATES, INC. .Ei100 Mild 1VOIWD31039 NOS-134 0t9Zi069Z0t 1C:C1 900UME0 firA Z 0 m 1 m om 1, co mO 80 R x m mjA n C Z l; D �m r O �t mM G f 00 F cm 3 to �b Z to O n m April 26, 1993 r Vistnbc! Mar NCA File No: 101593 Pace 7 the order of 6 to 12 inches. Lora! areas May require additional stripping, particularly in areas or csistidg fill. The underlying soils arc considered marginally moisture sensitive and should be capable of being worked shortly after periods of wet heather, if the site is worked during +vet conditions, additional stripping depth may be required, as tite nipper topsoil has a higher silt content. Ceogrid Wall A geogdd wall consists of a reinforced soil mass with a suitable facing, such as a rockery. The sett Mass is reinforced will% gcogrids and essentially stands by itself. Tlm face of the wall is typicaily covered to reduce erosion. Typical coverings consist of rockeries or precast concrete blocks. The fill in the reinforced mass i The gcogrid is placed in horizontal layers as the fill is placed. is placed and compacted as structural fail, i The grid should be stretched such that it is taught prior to plueing the fill, The facing should be placed as the geogrid wali,ls constructed. Tire length of the grid and the vertical spacing is dctcrmioed by tl+e wall designer. Areas to receive a googiid Bail should be prepared as outlined below in the subgrade preparation i section. We expect that the on -site sods will be used for the gcogrid fit. For these soils compacted as outlined below, the reeommcod•using a value of 35 degices for the angle of internal friction. This would apply to both the soil in tile grid and the soil being retained by the system. Foundation bearing pressure is a ftunction of tile width of the grid, w+i+ich is a function of the height of the wall. 1Ve recommend using am allowable bearing pressure of 4600 pounds per square fact (psf) in design. Ira higher value is needed, we should be requested to review the final wall geometry. Subgrade Preparation preparation of areas 10 receive stnictural fill should include stripping of all topsoil down to firm native Dearing soils. After stripping, the areas to receive fill should be thoroughly compacted with a large steel dnuu compactor, or equivalent, to a dense non-yicidiog condition. Any areas that have noted +weaving under the compaction equipment should be repaired. Repairs nnay consist of additional compaction or overexcavation and replacement with structural fill. Areas that are wetmarequire a blanket of spills or t some other material prior to placing fill, in order to achieve a suitable base for compaction. This should be evaluated at the time of site preparation. Fill Placcma%t Following subStade preparation, placement of the structural .GII may proceed. All hackfiiling should be accomplished in 6 to 8 inch thick uniform lifts. Each lift should be spread evenly and be thoroughly NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. ' ETJ60 39tid 1d01NH03103%J NOS-13N 015zi0hSzbT TE:ET ,OOUCSJEO MA 0 Q m om mO i 0 O c k- r: z �, i YZ O 'n m m O m 71 D z S N O m a rt i 1 { Apr!! 26, 1993 Vista Del Mar NCA File No. 101593 tngc 8 . compacted prior to placclnralt of subsequent lifts. We reconunend that the fill be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent of its maximum dry density for all structural fill underlying all building areas, and within 2 feet of pavenncut subgrade. hfaximum dry density in this report refers to Ihat density as detenniaed by the ASTM D-1557 compaction test procedure. We recommend that the Gil be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent, with more than 2 feet beneath sidewalks and pavement subgrades. The moisimc content of the soils to be compacted should be within about 2 percent of optimum, so that a readily connpactabie condition exists. It may be necessary to overexcavate and remove wet soils in cases where drying to a eompactable condition is not feasible. All eonnpaction should be accomplished by equipment of a type and size sufticient to attain the desired degree of compaction. Common Fills Fills used for landscaping (cou+rnen fills) which are not seulcmcnt sensitive should be sloped no sicelrer than 3H:1 V. It is presumed that such yard area tills will be comprised of stripping spoils or other poorer quality site fill materials, and will contain a sparse to moderate quantity of fine organic debris. Common fills should be placed ill I to 2 foot lifts (loose measure) and be nominally compacted using available spreading equipment. Coalition fills should be thoroughly compacted along slope faces, and be graded so that concentrated slope surface erosion or other mutable conditions are avoided. FOUNDATIONS Structure foundations should be placed within the native sand deposits, expected to occur two to three feet below grade. Any loose or disturbed soil in foundation excavations should be removed or recompacted prior to placing concrete. We recommend that foundations have a minimum burial depth of 13 inches and have mininnmn widths of14 and 19 iuclucs for continuant and isolated' feotiogs, respectively. For 14 foundations founded as outlined, we recommend using an allownble soil bearing capacity of 2500 pomnds per square foot (psQ. Higher bearing capacities are appropriate for spccirc applications and should be reviewed at the time of design. The above oliowable bearing pressure can be increased by ono-thhd when considering temporary loads such as wind or seismic conditions. Scnicmcnt is expceied to occur as the load is applied and should be negligible. Foundations in the area of ti+e WI should Ostend douse to native soils. This can be accomplished by deeper stem avails, structural fill pads that extend to the native soils, Control Density Fill, or piers. The type of the foundations used avid depend on the stnncture type, location, elevation of foundation and contractor for the area around Lot 1 preference. We recommend that addilioli �l geotechnieal studies be perfomned where tic deep fill was found. Tl+ese swilics could include explorations prior to design, or nl the very (east NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. EI/01 39gd ICOINN931039 NOS-13N OTSZT065Z6T TE Et S00Z{EZ/E0 t,✓ O 1 m 1 :=n N cM m0 Oq m m m ,. fJ DZ ,r , 0 i -n L S mM O f_ r m� 1� M Z Z O n In Apiii 26, 1993 Vista Acl Mar r NCA Fite No, 101$93 Page 9 on site monitoring to determine if tile foundation system extends through tbe'fdl. We would be available to discuss foundation options at the time of lot development. Drainage and Stability Considerations Of great importance to the long-ternt backwasting for the bluff is the existing surface and near -surface water control, and crosion.protection. Adequate drainage protection should be provided around the building and development areas. We rccolumend the use of foundation and roof drain systems that empty into a proper stern+ water system. '1'hese drains should be routed independently until there is a mininnum of ,j I foot of vertical fill below foundation elevation before, the tic in. We understand that the storm water system willbe' routed down all casement to the north and not over the steep slope. We do not rcconrutcad that Storm water be detained in a detention facility that would allele infiltration into fire subsurface soils. This cold incrense.groundwater in localized areas and could create local instability along tiro slope. I cc of the existing slope stability of tine top of slope and slope areas. Also of ingpotyapce is the nnainlenan Erosion protection for exposed soil areas could be increased through placra1 Cl t of jute ncning, bydrosecding and/or vegetation planting. Any exposed soils on like steep slope trill erode due to normal erosion processes. Native vegetation will eventually protect these areas, but could be aided through planting. Also, we recommend that no loose vegetation or spoils should be placed on the slopes. Additional Notes We suggest that observation of the earthwork and drainage control phases of development, be obsen•cd and approved by us. This should include setback, foundation placement, drainage and CfoslOn Control measures. USE OF THIS REPORT AND WARRANTY We Crave prepared -this report for use by Mr. George Kairez and his agents for their Ilse in planning and preliminary design of this project. The data and report should be provided to prospective contractors for their bidding and estimating purposes, but our report conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of subgrade conditions. The scope of our work does not include services related to construction safety precautions, and out recommendations are not Intended to direct the contractors' methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, I, NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. OR O n m -n N Cm m� 0o y. C i rn ;. Az DZ r= 1 O-n m3 I rnrn n F ¢.a. -C rn ! n X F "j1 Z O A m U t.: Apri146, 1993 Vista Del Mar NCA File No. 101593 Page 10 e.;ccpt as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. There are possible variations in - subsurface conditions. We recomtendlitat project planning include contingencies in budget and schedule. ' should areas be found with conditions that vary from those described jn this report Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget for our work, we warrant that our work has been done O } " in aeeorda nec with generally accepted practices followed in this area at live time this report was prepared, m No other conditions, expressed or itinpiied should be understood. y` Thank you for the opportuMty to be of scn'ice. if you have ally questions, or if uvc'mavbe of further •assistance, feet free to call oo us at any time. - m n Sincerely, m i !c NELSON-COMPLETTE &: ASSOCIATES, INC. p 2 l > 1 _ O art` -4 mm ])avid L. Nelson, PG _:.... Professional Engineering Geologist n r- . a al to O k. V�si w sO�L • z NY ,a � b w ��6�q3 D q aotrs sSIONAt. 1'� ZO -.. E%PITIES p - m Charles P. Couvrette, PE Gcotethnical Eugincar cc: LevcII-Sauerland & Associates, Inc. i NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. ET/ZT 39tld 1tl0I141-1331039 H05l3N 0T9ZT8h9ZPT TE:ET 800Z/EZ/E0 Flu 1 NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. VISTA DEL MAR CGNSMiMIG Cgor#CNNICAI ENGINFCMS. GCOLGGISTS DATE 04/z0193 ANO ENVIGONMCNTAI SGCNNSTS FILE NO. 1015A93 MET 30bd 'lVDINH031039 NOS-13N 0i5Z T869ZGi TE:ET seen/EZ/E0 i e 0 rn =1 9 f �m m O o c' m Z 3;<. s mm_ ON r z 41 Z O O m, 1 - _ SITE PLAN { �'t �.. �.n.!-uPPaz+fAts aFsr rrt �cuncN 13 j A -A •eaosssEenonuNa i } ;'•`s�Y •'`14 rv.ia/ f.�f •m.,c• �: �: -;, ,no l , eP.;i�� f% f �jf ; i pi;.•: /, :,.a � ISO' t,- _ _, '•� _ . �;,� // � A ! ,� fT'`• iV:a cap -� _ + ^6 /� •,��\� •�� arh`a�� - , 9 i' 4 �,.'.� fT3 � - . t ! .fi-__'.+., > t Or idAPL2 MS,N6R \ I . K ll3E3TV3 \� • FIOURC NELSON COUYAETTF BASSUJARS. tAG VISTA OEL MAA R€FERFNCE CPAwWO ENTRlCO.`iREUNINMYSTOPY IIM U}RITYPVW:OR V�S:A ]=_L �K�p y�Kp�y.y�.l G 'm HJA'.MfE�3EPTEMEEA,fl920AAWNEY I�VEI,I•fAUEALWaAN[IM90CIA[ES, �r.C.. � ^^• iiIC MQ 1Oc$A.93 OATS 04/20193 i CROSS SECTION B-B EXPLANATION: k TP•12 - APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TEST PIT " RELATIVE TO CROSS SECTION " TOS -TOP OF SLOP£ ":. • Ovata. - VASHON GLACIAL ADVANCE DEPOSIMESPERANCE SAND iv- 8EGINNING ELEVATION OF CR0.5S SECTION 50"• DENOTES STEEP�SLOPE ANGLE SCALE 1" = SW SAWNLOGS PROPERTY LINE TO$ •TP-12 / 127- SEWERLINE SO' TPt133•��.,,r �••�.,� ` WOOD OSSRIS 11 `SILL- - . FINE SAND WITH GRAVEL PROPERTY LINE (OvatQe —------------ RAILROA3 TRACKS _ 1 SILTY FINE SAND ` FIGURE VISTA DEL'MAR 4• NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIA 'ES, INC. I I -� -ANL ENYNCMN[NtK SCIfNTIS�S j FILE NO. 101 SA93 I GATE p4120193 1 1 i CROSS SECTION C-C k EXPLANATION: _ TP•12 -APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TEST PIT RELATIVE TO CROSS SECTION TOS-TOP Of SLOPE 1 0%%/Oe - VASHON GLACIAL ADVANCE DEPOSITSIESPERANCE SAND SCALE: 1"=56' SAWN LOGS 140' - BEGINNING ELEVATION OF CROSS SECTION 48' • DENOTES STEEP SLOPE ANGLE PROP£RTYLINE �. TP-71.'�TOS 140'. 7P-72. 1 _t. f 48° /} . � oh LINE FINE SANO WITH / SEWER LINE •PROPERTY OCCASIONAL GRAVEL J RAILROAD SILTY FINE SAND TRACKS . _ �, 1 .BEACH FIGURE VISTA DEL MAR 5 NELSON-COUVRET7E 8 ASSOCIATES, INC. [ Enwrtanutntai Susnrtsrs FILE NO. GATE (L I--=-`��.vo 1015A93 04/20t93 j r�s ors j CROSS SECTION D-D x SCALE: i" = 50" EXPLANATION: , TP-10- APPROAMATE LOCATION 07 ..TEST PIT RELATIVETO CROSS SECTION PROPERTY LINE. - TOS-TOP OFSLOP£.... Ovalce-VASHONGLACIAL ADVANCE ' 185'. TP-10 TOS DEPOSITSIESPERANCE SAND 165' -BEGINNING ELEVATION OF CROSS SECTION 52'• DENOTES STEEP SLOPE ANGLE TP-11 SEWER LINE . FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL PROPERTY LINE -. • FINE SAND {4va1Ge} - RAILROAD i TRACKS • "--___ __ _�...._ t BEACH SILTY FINE SANO -.1 i VISTA OELMAR FIGURE s NELSON-CDUVRET7-E 8 ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSUilIMCi GFOtECMNo$ fmammmrALSC�OWS � _�/�^ xa frmaonn+tnr,�c Sotnrtan � FILE NO. 1015A93 DATE 04120/93 �y "r S 1 �'- CROSS SECTION E-E FxruXAnoN ,. TP4•YER0.91NATELCGfT1oNCFTESTPR ECALC 1•a- REWIVE TO CR0313[CTICf9 QYifu7�. VASFosmam LLA'c'u DEPCSIclAVArQk09blY0 faP•EECiryXiNo ELF.VA11tY9of fACSS SFCTipI ^ St•-o6VOTE] STEEP lIO/EANGLE 1 PRWFATY LmE HY M4 Alll bANQYfRN 9lT• Q•�:. t, � �- _ p SEW9f CINEI � �. Fmwo NFAW v_Ec� nnoN jrovfmq PRaPaxTr I �UNE R/dW10 ]R.TY FlNF lArA `MtM 6fACN - CC:.L]okk o AL .. ' Fl60R! 7 NELSON.Couv)?F fE A ASSOCIATE!, INC. NbtA ou. mAR ..!\. tsr.ewenm.•wrt<fnevrt —��®_ rwnrn FllE X0. GA7E tO15A93 i I z GROSS SECTION F-F z: 0 0 x. a m � I ..* . SCALE. I'" 5D' m0 O C 1 TOS S m �. ! rn z Ai - D z y. � TOS r' 170' .. TP-4 TP_3 TP-2 0 .T„ S r y iix FINE SAND WITH OCCASSIONAL GRAVEL m m �`- O r Y` • - FINE SAND m0 K - EXPLANATION: - p t TP-1 - APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF z f d TEST PIT RELATIVE. TO CROSS SECTION TO$ - TOP OF SLOPE N •- gvwQ.- VASHON GLACIAL ADVANCE- 0 -.. DEPOSITS/ESPERANCE SAND —{ , 170'- BEGINNING ELEVATION OF m. CROSS SECTION . t FIGURE VISTA DEL MAR 8 NELSON-CouvRErrE d ASSOCIATES, INC- i _ CaNSUl GEUTECNNICAL EN4$NEERS• GlmmoS/3 11 �ANOENNAONMCMAI $p(NNSfS FILE NO. 1015A93 DATE 04/20/93 I ,- •- LOG OF EXPLORATION DEPTH USC SOIL DESCRIPTION y ; YESTPITONE 0.0-0.1 TOPSOIL 0.1 - 5.0 SPISM DARK BROWN TO BLACK FINE SAND WITH SILT AND ROOTS AND ORGANICS (LOOSE. MOIST) 1.0-4.0 SP LIGHT BROWN FINE SAND (LOOSE, MOIST) 4.0• ib.b. SP SLIGHTLY GRTLY UARK BROWN' FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (DENSE, ' MOIST) GROUND WATER NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 10.0 FEET ON 419193 Z TEST PIT TWO. 0.0-0.4. TOPSOIL m {; j 0.4.1.0 SPISM DARK BROWN TO CLACK FINE SAND WITH SILT, ROOTS AND ORGANICS 14 1 (LOOSE, MOIST) ( 1.0- 2,0 SPISM BROWN FINE'SANO WITH SILT AND ROOTS (LOOSE, MOIST) 2; �m .�,. 2.0.2S SP RUST TO BROWN FINE SAND WITH WOOD DEBRIS (LOOSE, MOIST) ma ), I 2.5.5.0 SP LIGHT BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL COBBLES AND GRAVEL O C I= I (MEDIUM DENSE; MOIST) = Ill5.0. 10.0 SP BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (DENSE, MOIST) p 1 -; GROUND WATEA NOT ENCOUNTERED - C Z ba i TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 10.0 FEET ON 4M/93 r TEST PIT THREE 0.0.0.2 TOPSOIL 012. 1,0 SPISM DARK BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT AND ROOTS WITH. ORGANICS (LOOSE, - MOIST TO DRY) m m ON 1. • 1.0.2.0 SP RUST FINE SAND WITH ROOTS (LOOSE, MOIST TO DRY) 2.0. 10.0 SP RUST FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (OENSE TO HARD, MOIST) c: 0) " GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST.PIT COMPLETED AT 10.0 FEET ON AM103 TEST PIT FOUR 0.0.0.2 70PSbit Z g:r 0,2-1.5 SPISM DARK BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT, ROOTS AND ORGANICS (LOOSE, MOIST) N 1.5-10.0 SP- BROWN FINE SAND (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE. MOIST) Z GROUND WATER NOT ENCOUNTERED " TEST Pit CpMPLETEO AT 10.0 FEET ON 419123 • m NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. FILE NO. 1015A93 FIGURE 10 7 j ^� •' • • LOG OF EXPLORATION DEPTH USC SOILOESCRIPTION TEST PIT FIVE TOPSOIL SPISM - BROWN FINVSANO WITH SILT, ROOTS AND ORGANICS (LOOSE. DRY) f I' 1.5 -8.0 SP LIGHT BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL AND COBBLES (MEDIUM - DENSE, DRY) GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED " I TEST COMPLETED AT 8.0 PEET ON 419M3 TEST PIT SIX ZO - 0.0.0.2 TOPSOIL • 0.2.O.S SPISM DARK BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT, ROOTS AND ORGANICS I{ (LOOSE, MOIST) i 0.5.2,0 6P DARK BROWN TO RUST FINE -SAND (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) N � 2.0.6.0 SP RUST TO LIGHT BROWN. FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (DENSE, C m MOIST) E7 y" GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED 0 C) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 6.0 ON 419103 C =m / t TEST PIT SEVEN m Z i` , 0.0.0.3 TOPSOIL c a z ' 0.3.0.5 SPISM DARK BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT AND ROOTS (LOOSE. MOIST) r }" O.S-0.0 SP RUSTY ... T BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL CODDLES AND GRAVEL c'o Q (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST) 0 GROUND WATER -NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT COMPLETED AT6.0 FEET ON 419193 mm'- I f• TEST PIT,EIOHT r 0,0.0.4 TOPSOIL L03 R (co 0.4.1.5 SPISM OARKBROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT. ROOTS AND ORGANICS (LOOSE. MOIST) TO 1.5.7.0 III,LIGHT BROWN .PINE SANG WITH OCCASIONAL GOBBLES AND GRAVEL m (MEDIUM DENSE. MOIST) 7.0.10.0 SP LIGHT BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL COBBLES AND GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) Z • GROUND WATER NOT ENCOUNTERED. TEST PIT FOMPLETED AT 10.0 FEET ON 419193 S i• TEST PIT NINE _ z.. 0.0.0.4 TOPSOIL n 0.4-1.0 SPISM DARK BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT AND ROOTS (LOOSE, MOIST) rn _ 1.0.7.0 SP BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, •. - GROUND WATER NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT COMPLETED AT Tp PEET ON V9193 NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. _ ' FILE NO. IOISA93 FIGURE It 9 m LOG OF CXPLORATION USC SOIL DESCRIPTION TEST PR TEN , 0,0.0.4 TOPSOIL 0.4.6.0 SP BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE. MOIST) . 6.0-1.0 SP BROWN FINE SAND WITH GRAVEL AND OCCASIONAL CODDLES (MEDIUM " DENSE,MOIST) 7,0.• 9.5 SP BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE. MOIST) GROUND WATER NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT COMPLETEV AT.S.S FEET ON V9J93 S _ TESTPITELEVEN 0.0.0.5 SPISM TOPSOIL - I 0.5-9.0 SP. UGHT BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) GROUND WATER NOT ENCOUNTERED ,:. TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 8.O FEET ON 4MI93 l{ (. TEST PIT TWELVE ". 0.0.0.3 TOPSOIL, " 0.3.510 SP LIGHT BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL • (LOUSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) 0.0.5.0 SP LIGHT BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (0ENSE, MOIST) GROUND WATER NOT ENCOUNTERED " TEST PIT COMPLETED ATTO FEET ON 4/9/93 1 TEST PIT THIRTEEN " ) 0,0-0.5 TOPSOIL 0.5-2.0 SP LIGHT BROWN FINE SANE) WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) 3.0.5V ML GRAY SILT WITH OCCASIONAL SAND (STIFF, MOIST TO DRY) 5.0.6.0 SW LIGHT BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SANG ( DENSE. DRY) " 6.0.8.0 - - SW LIGHT BROWN FINE SAI)D(VERY DENSE, DRY) . GROUND WATER NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 0.0 FEET ON 419103 , " TEST PIT FOURTEEN 0.0.0.3 TOPSOIL 0.3.6.0 SP BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WIT14 GRAVELAND OCCASIONAL COBBLES " - - 6.0. 10.0 ML GRAY SILT WITH OCCASIONAL LENSES OFGRAVEL AND SAND (STIFF, MOIST) " NO GROUND WATER ENCOUNTERED - TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 10.0 FEET ON 419193 NELSON-COUVRETTE d ASSOCIATES. INC. " FILE NO. IOISA93 FIGURE 12 (' ^ LOG OF EXPLORATION .. DEPTH USC SOIL DESCRIPTION • ' } • TEST PIT FIFTEEN I 0.0.1.5 DARK BROWN FINE SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOOSE, MOIST) (TOPSOIL) SW BROWN TO RUST FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH GRAVEL AND FINE AND OCCASIONAL LENSES OF GRAY SILT (LOOSE, MOIST) 0.0.9,0 SP GRAY TO BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL AND COBBLES t, (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST) GROUND WATER NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 9.0 ON 410193 �^ Z ' TESTPITSIXTEEN O 0.0.0.7 DARK BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT (LOOSE, MOIST) (TOPSOIL) O m 0.7.• 0.0 SP BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL AND COBBLES (LOOSE, MOIST) .8.0. 7.0 SW BROWN MEDIUM TO COARSE SAND WITH GRAVEL AND FINE SAND (MEDIUM '('R G, i .. DENSE.,MOIST) .. v m _ Nf ,S 7,0.10.6 SP GRAY TO B' AOWN FINE SAND (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST) m —1 n`. GROUND WATER NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 10.5 ON 419193 O C .. f� 7E9r .PIT m m }1 y SEVENTEEN. 1 0.0. OA SPISM DARK BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT ANO ORGANICS (LOOSE. D Z sr MOIST) 5 j! 0.4.11.5 SPISM DARK GRAY TO BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT AND OCCASIONAL 'C N 1 COBBLES, GRAVEL AND CONSTRUCTION OEBRIS (CONCRETE AND ASPHALT) 0 --n (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (FILL) ' 11,5-1Z.0 .BP RUST FINE SAND ILOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST)(NATIVE SOIL) mrn E. ' GROUND WATER NOT ENCOUNTERED - 0 V) - TEST PIT COMPLETED.AT 12.0 ON 4(0193 'S 0) ._,,• I ;Q _ Z �? _ N O 0 m M NELSON•COUVRETTE d ASSOCIATES, INC. - FILE NO. IOISA93 FIGURE 13, e.. u A 00.30 (.0) etxv- 610-30 CF r � Mgdnnis M. Bruce, P.E. m.5.U.t., I i.a. �L ueoiecnnicatruivii tngineer .;05 2006 FECF RECEIVED �-Oef-19; 2005 14#3 S 2m� City of Edmonds ✓ R ESUB ElEe—a4—M c/o D.P. Miller Homes, LLC JAN 1. 1 2906 22315 Hwy 99 N., Suite 4 DP MILLER CONSTRUCTION Edmonds, WA 98026 BUILDI OF EQMON6SNl Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation t Foundation Recommendations Proposed 2 New Residence (Lots #4, #5) Kairez Dr. Edmonds, WA This engineering report presents the results of a geotechnical evaluation of Lots #4, and #5 owned by D.P. Miller Homes, LLG.at the Vista Del Mar subdivision on Kairez Dr. This evaluation was required due to owner concerns, as well as City of Edmonds requirements for critical areas — steep slopes. { REFERENCES: # Preliminary Site Plans by Architects Northwest # Geotechnical Evaluation Report dated April 26, 1993 by Associates #- Site photographs by D. Bruce, P.E. BACKGROUND: This engineer understands that the overall Vista Del Mar — Kairez Dr. development consists of approximately 7 acres with a number of single family residence lots. The April 26, 1993 geotechnical report provided recommendations for the overall development, access roads, and top -of -slope stability issues above the Burlington Northern right-of-way. It is Understood that DP Miller Homes proposes to construct a single family residence on lot #4 and another residence on lot #5. See project plans. Each of these lots is "nominally" rectangular in shape with approximately 12,000 sq. ft. of total area. Visual evaluation of lots #4 and #5 reveal no evidence of any geotechnical distress: no slides, no soil tension cracks, nor any evidence of erosional degradation. The access road into the overall development (Kairez Dr.) has been constructed as evidence in the photographs. Lots #4 and #5 exist above the access road. It is SOILS • FOUNDATIONS • SITE DEVELOPMENT • INSPECTION # DRAINAGE • DESIGN & PERMIT • LEGAL P.O. Box 55502 • Shoreline, WA 98155 • (206) 546-9217 • FAX (206) 546-8442 City of Edmonds c/o D.P. Miller Homes, LLC December 19, 2005 Page 2 understood that each of the two new residences will be built in the relatively "flatter" portion of the lots above the access road. See site plans. The 1993 geotechnical report utilized 17 soil test pits to find a consistent sub - grade soil of dense sand. The 1993 report recommended that the future residencesbe founded on standard reinforced concrete footings. Using an allowable bearing pressure of2,500 p.s.f. EVALUATION: In order to augment site geotechnical information,2 soil test pits were dug under this engineer's observation by track on November 17, 2005 (One test pit per lot). Both test pits revealed similar sub -grade conditions, namely: 1 0" to 6" Grasses, roots, organic silt. 6" to 8' Dense sands with occasional gravels. No water was encountered in either test pit. Test pit wails remained vertical and stable. No sloughing or caving occurred. CONCLUSIONS ! RECOMMENDATIONS: Based on the findings of this engineer's investigation as well as experience in the area with similar projects, lots #4 and #5 are geotechnically approved for the proposed two new residences, subject to the following: + Temporary Shoring: At the time of this investigation and report, specific excavation plans were not available for review. It is understood that soil cuts may be made up to 8 feet in depth (below existing grade). Temporary shoring using eco-blocks are required, subject to this engineer's onsite inspections. • Standard reinforced continuous and spread footings founded in dense native soils. Allowable bearing pressure: 3,000 p.s.f. + Equivalent fluid pressure of 35 p.c.f. is recommended for any retaining wall design provided drainage zone is inspected and verified by this engineer. For retaining wall design, use friction factor of 0.55 and passive pressure of 350 p.c.f. Z i 0 0 m �m cm mp oC c m Z.::. 'r 4 aZ m m o� Kca 1� Z Z 0 5 m City of Edmonds c/o D.P. Miller Homes, LLC December 19, 2005 Page 3 + Geotechnical inspections by this engineer prior to any foundation concrete placement. The proposed structure can be supported on conventional continuous and spread footings bearing on undisturbed native soils or on structural fill placed above native soils. See the later sub -section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill for structural fill placement and compaction recommendations. Continuous and individual spread footings should have Dti um�widths�,af'eighteen? 8);'and,twenty=four'(24) inches, respectively, and should be bottomed at least eighteen (18) inches below the tower adjacent finish ground surface. Depending on the final site grades, some over -excavation may be required below footings to expose competent native soils. Unless lean concrete is used to fill the over excavated hole, the width of the over -excavation at the bottom must be at least as wide as the sum of two times the depth of the over -excavation and the footing width. For example, an over -excavation extending two feet below the bottom of a three-foot wide footing must be at least seven feet wide at the base of the excavation. Footings constructed according to the above recommendations may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of three thousand (3,000) pounds per square foot (p.s.f.). A one-third increase in this design bearing pressure may be used when considering short-term wind or seismic loads. For the above design criteria, it is anticipated that total post -construction settlement of footings founded on competent, native soils (or on structural fill up to five (5) feet in thickness) will be about one-half inch, with differential settlements on the order of one -quarter inch. Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between the foundations and the bearing soils, or by passive earth pressure acting on the vertical, embedded portions of the foundations. For the latter condition, the foundations must either be poured directly against undisturbed soil or the backfill placed around the outside of the foundation must be level structural fill. We recommend the following design values be used for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading: Parameter Design Value Coefficient of Friction 0.55 Passive Earth Pressure 350 p.c.f. Where: (1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot. (2) Passive earth pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid density. 4.. z o, M =i -n City of Edmonds c/o D.P. Miller Homes, LLC December 19, 2005 Page 4 We recommend that a safety factor of at least 1.5 be used for design of the foundation's resistance to lateral loading. SLABS -ON -GRADE: Slab -on -grade floors may be supported on undisturbed, competent native soils or on structural fill. The slabs may be supported on the existing soils provided these soils can be re -compacted prior to placement of the free -draining sand or gravel underneath the slab. This sand and gravel layer should be a minimum of four (4) inches thick. We also recommend using a vapor barrier such as 6-mil. plastic membrane beneath the slab with minimum overlaps of 12 inches for sealing purposes. PERMANENT FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS: ( Retaining walls backfilled on one side only should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures imposed by the soils retained by these structures. The following recommended design parameters are for walls less than twelve (12) feet in height, which restrain level backfill: j Parameter Design Value Active Earth Pressure* 35 p.c.f. Passive Earth Pressure 350 p.c.f. Coefficient of Friction 0.55 Soil Unit Weight 125 p.c.f. Where: (1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot (2) Active and passive earth pressures are computed using equivalent fluid densities. For restrained walls which cannot defect at least 0.002 times the wall height, a uniform lateral pressure of one hundred (100 p.s.f. should be added to the active equivalent fluid pressure). The values given above are to be used for design of permanent foundation and retaining walls only. An appropriate safety factor should be applied when designing the walls. We recommend using a safety factor of at least 1.5 for overturning and sliding. The above design values do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures behind the walls and assume that no surcharge slopes or loads will be placed above the walls. If these conditions exist, then those pressures should be added to the above z i 0 m CA om _. f -� 0 oc mz fJ -i c: 01 I mm 0m a z CA o . a m City of Edmonds c/o D.P. Miller Homes, LLC December 19, 2005 Page 5 lateral pressures. Also, if sloping backfill is desired behind the walls, then we will need to be given the wall dimensions and slope of the backfill in order to provide the appropriate design earth pressures. Heavy construction equipment should not be operated behind retaining and foundation walls within a distance equal to the height of the wall, unless the walls are designed for the additional lateral pressures resulting from the equipment. Placement and compaction of retaining wall backfill should be accomplished with hand -operated equipment. Retaining Wall Backfill Backfill placed within eighteen (18) inches of any retaining or foundation walls should be free -draining structural fill containing no organics. This backfill should contain no more than five (5) percent silt or clay particles and have no particles greater than four (4) inches in diameter. The percentage of particles passing the No. 4 sieve should be between twenty-five (25) and seventy (70) percent. Due to their high silt content, if the native soils are used as backfill, a drainage composite, such as Mirafi and Enkadrain, should be placed against the retaining walls. The drainage composites should be hydraulically connected to the foundation drain system. The purpose of these backfill requirements is to assure that the design criteria for the retaining wall is not exceeded because of a build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. The subsection entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill contains recommendations regarding placement and compaction of structural fill behind retaining and foundation walls. EXCAVATION AND SLOPES: At the time of this investigation and report, specific excavation soil cuts were not available for review. It is understood that soil cuts up to 8 feet in depth may be required. Thus, temporary shoring using eco-blocks, subject to this engineer's inspections, are required. If soil cuts are less than 5 feet in total depth, temporary shoring may not be required subject to this engineer's onsite evaluation. In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local, state and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts up to a height of four (4) feet deep in unsaturated soils may be vertical. For temporary cuts having a height greater than four (4) feet, the cut should have an inclination no steeper than 1:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) from the top of the slope to the bottom of the excavation. Under specific recommendations by the geotechnical engineer, excavation cuts may be modified for site conditions. All permanent cuts into native soils should be inclined no steeper than 2:1 (H:V). Fill slopes should not exceed 2H:1V. It is important to note that sands do cave suddenly, and without warning. The contractors should be made aware of this potential hazard. 0 1 City of Edmonds c/o D.P. Miller Homes, LLC December 19, 2005 Page 6 Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any temporary or permanent slope. All permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve stability of the surficiai layer of soil. DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS: Footing drains are recommended at the base of all footings and retaining walls. These drains should be surrounded by at least six (6) inches of one -inch -minus washed rock wrapped in non -woven geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or similar ` material). At the highest point, the perforated pipe invert should be at least as low as the bottom of the footing and it should be sloped for drainage. All roof and surface water drains must be kept separate from the foundation drain system. i No groundwater was observed in either of the 2 test pits. Seepage into the planned excavation is possible, and likely if excavation occurs during winter months, and if encountered should be drained away from the site by use of drainage ditches,. perforated pipe, French drains, or by pumping from sumps interconnected by shallow connector trenches at the bottom of the excavation. The excavation of the site should be graded so that surface water is directed off the site and away from the tops of slopes. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where foundations, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Any exposed slopes to be covered with plastic to minimize erosion. Final site grading in areas adjacent to buildings should be sloped at least two (2) percent away from the building, except where the area adjacent to the building is paved. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL; The proposed building and pavement area should be stripped and cleared of all surface vegetation, all organic matter, and other deleterious material. The stripped or removed materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill. Structural fill is defined as any fill placed under the building, behind permanent retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the underlying soils needs to support loads. This engineer should observe site conditions during and after excavation prior to placement of any structural fill. All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture content at or near the optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content is that moisture content which results in the greatest compacted dry density. The moisture content of fill soils is very important and must be closely controlled during the filling and compaction process. z' o- a m 1 T N= cm m 0 80 c mz' A -4 DZ �r= i 'n mM y i O r CO z i N z 0 a m City of Edmonds c/o D.P. Miller Homes, LLC December 19, 2005 Page 7 The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type, compaction equipment, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. In no case should the lifts exceed twelve (12) inches in loose thickness. The following table presents recommended relative compaction for structural fill: Location of Fill Placement Minimum Relative Compaction Beneath footings, slabs or walkways 95% Behind retaining walls 90% 1 Beneath pavements 95%for upper 12 inches of i Sub -grade, 90% below that level Where: Minimum relative compaction is the ratio, expressed in percentages, of the compacted dry density to the maximum dry density, as determined in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1557-78 (Modified Proctor). Use of On -Site Soils If grading activities take place during wet weather, or when the sandy, on -site soils are very wet, site preparation costs may be higher because of delays due to rains and the potential need to import granular fill. The on -site soils are generally sandy and thus are not highly moisture sensitive. Grading operations will be difficult when the moisture content of these soils greatly exceeds the optimum moisture content. Moisture sensitive soils will also be susceptible to excessive softening and "pumping" from construction equipment traffic when the moisture content is greater than the optimum moisture content. Ideally, structural fill, which is to be placed in wet weather, should consist of a granular soil having no more than five (5) percent silt or clay particles. The percentage of particles passing the No. 200 sieve should be measured from that portion of the soil passing the three -quarter -inch sieve. The use of "some" on -site soils for fill material may be acceptable if the upper organic materials are segregated and moisture contents are monitored by engineering inspection. z 0 0 m cm rn � 40 . c mZ. 0-4 Cz O"n mm Ow r C !m!� mN z -a s z 0 0 m i (, City of Edmonds c/o D.P. Miller Homes, LLC December 19, 2005 Page 8 i DRAINAGE CONTROLS: No drainage problems were evident with lots #4 and #5 of the Vista Del Mar overall development, i It is understood that the existing access road and driveway have complied with City of Edmonds approved plans and overall development storm water controls. Lots #4 and #5 contain porous sub -grade sands and are thus good candidates for onsite storm water infiltration. This engineer is available to provide specific storm water infiltration designs if necessary. CONCRETE: All foundation concrete (footings, stem walls, slabs, any retaining walls, etc.) I shall have a minimum cement content of 5-1/2 sacks per cubic yard of concrete mix. TEMPORARY SHORING: At the time of this report, soil cuts up to 8 feet in depth are anticipated. Temporary shoring consisting of eco-blocks is required subject to this engineer's onsite inspections. See attached typical eco-block design criteria. INSPECTIONS: The recommendations of this report are only valid when key geotechnical aspects are inspected by this engineer during construction: Excavation • Temporary Shoring (eco-blocks) if required • Foundation sub -grade verification • Any retaining wail, or rockery placement • Any fill placement Subsurface drainage installation - Temporary and Permanent erosion control measures z m r cm, mp O ?: o0 m Z 1 a z �; r� a 0-n „� m M o r N 0 X z r' rn z 0 n m r r: O City of Edmonds c/o D.P. Miller Homes, LLC December 19, 2005 Page 9 SUMMARY: The proposed 2 new residences by D.P. Miller Homes on Lots #4 and #5 (on Kairez Dr.) are geotechnically viable when constructed in accordance with the recommendations herein, compliance with City of Edmonds approved plans and requirements, and key geotechnical inspections Burin construction. GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW OF FINAL PLANS: At the time of this investigation and report, final house plans for dots #4 and #5 were not available for review. As stated in this report, normal reinforced concrete foundations are geotechnically approved, subject to inspections by this engineer. Additionally, excavation cuts require temporary shoring per this engineer. Prior to final permit issuance, this engineer should review the final house plans to verify compliance with the recommendations of this report. i Upon satisfactory review, a "Statement Of Minimal Risk" will be issued. CLOSURE. - The findings and recommendations of this report were prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering principles and practice. No other warranty, either express or implied, is made. The conclusions are based on the results of the field exploration and interpolation of subsurface conditions between explored locations. If conditions are encountered during construction that appear to be different than those described, in this report, this engineer should be notified to observe the situation and review and verify or modify the recommendations. If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call. .� sabot wespra % A rii T r Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. 0,S Geotechnical / Civil Engineer exr 'es iLc3i 0 Oc. - -- m m z A "i Or . g Tf m0 ,. 74 Z �4 9 `l 97d 20.05 _ I' r j ; o L = 25.0-7' I 1 0 = 73°32'04" , _ 5q,5b, / o - 5Q 05'25" o o' LINE OF DCGh .4N MA,4q.GKERY//�_ CLEV. c� 1849'++ 50 'h TOP (9' 110 / - +\ a Fj u i , a to , � r � �75 � M52,57 4�E'�—QIQE3'\ ++ p t pIT, T MAiN FLR� IS4G \ / LOWER FLR ® 1'74q, �/a \ \o r \ + \ . 16°41 32" , i ; I74 I 1 GOV DFORCH ` +' l / <( J fy d • j "j o " /' / DRIVEYyAY, ILI , i (Y) N Apr ++ 2 0 1= 11M® �a�GK RY 6ARA(5E \\ + �pP�� ?o f Lo7 1 TOP (�4 HI SLAB 183.4 4 I i , SOT LLO SLAB 0 183.0' \ q ! f A ry O �1 °� , �rr�a JIV , 3/4" GORNER OF. gLD6. L GO A ��__ _.._ 40 50 Z O 0 0m m M -4 n k.. i ct 0 i aZ l' r O G' mm o Fc CO . mm Z r 2 Z S y Z 0 m Feb"15 06 01:03p C1j m ot� �30 M.S.C.E., M.B.A. D. Bruce, P.E. Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. February 9, 2006 8442 JUN 0 9 tons p.1 PV4 Resus FEES 1 City of Edmonds D.S.D. 121 5�h Ave. N g ci v of Eon�sonNos�� Edmonds, WA 98020 E` hHED Subject: Geotechnical Response City of Edmonds D. P. Miller Homes - Proposed New Residen e JUL 0 5 2006 17910 Kairez Dr., Edmonds, WA 98026 City of Edmonds Plan Check No. 05474 EECE This engineering report presents a geotechnical response to the City of Edmonds comment letter dated January 12, 2006 by Jenny Readwin, Plans Examiner regarding the proposed new residence at 17910 Kairez Dr. by D. P. Miller Homes. REFERENCES: • Geotechnical Report by D. Bruce, P.E. dated December 19, 2005 Geotechnical Report for the overall project development by Nelson — Cauvrette dated April 26, 1993 Proposed residence site plans from Architects Northwest Photographs PROPOSED SOIL CUTS — TEMPORARY SHORING: As stated in the December 19, 2005 Geotechnical Report, it is understood that the proposed new residence will require soil cuts into the very dense, native, stable sands. The City of Edmonds review comment letter requests clarification and design for the proposed Eco-Block shoring. This engineer has been provided a Site Plan (by D. P. Miller Homes —attached). No cross-section plans were provided. Based on the attached Site Plan, it is understood that the bottom of the basement footings will be at elevation 173.13. The adjacent existing ground elevations SOILS FOUNDATIONS • SITE DEVELOPMENT • INSPECTION • DRAINAGE - DESIGN & PERMIT • LEGAL Feb"'15 06 01:03p D. Bruce, P.E. 206-546-e442 City of Edmonds D.S.D. Re: D. P. Miller Homes February 9, 2006 - Page 2 vary from approximately 178 to elevation 174. Thus, minor excavations will be required for the majority of the lower basement slab. It is understood that the garage bottom of footing elevation will be at 182,23. Thus, the majority of the garage excavation will require approximately 5-foot (maximum) soil cut from the adjacent native grade. Evidently, at the garage / basement interface, there will be a 10-foot differential. { At the time of this report, it is unknown how the excavator proposes to phase the I excavation cuts. Additionally, it is unknown at the time of this report what the structural design for the basement stem wall will be at the garage interface. This engineer has been advised by D. P. Miller Homes to provide geotechnical criteria for a 10-foot (maximum) cut at the garage / basement interface. Extremely dense, native sands perform extremely well with Eco-Block shoring, a provided on the attached design. ECO-BLOCK — TEMPORARY SHORING: The attached design allows for a geotechnical soil cut up to 10 feet using standard 2-foot by "2-foot Eco-Blocks. It is essential that on -site geotechnical inspections verify the following during Eco-Block installation: Soil cut stability Bearing verification of sub -grade soils Base block embeddment, batter and alignment Eco-Block linkage and overall face batter Backfill of Eco-Blocks, if over -excavation occurs behind blocks i Placement of basement stem wall with relation to Eco-Block shoring • Garage slab sub -grade preparation with regard to Eco-Blocks NOTE: It is essential that the'Eco-Blocks be placed at a batter of 1 H:6V under geotechnical inspection. p.2 s v o Feb.15,.06 01:03p D. Bruce, P.E. 206-546-8442 p.3 City of Edmonds D.S.D. Re: D. P. Miller Homes February 9, 2006 - Page 3 The excavation contractor may choose to have a shallower excavation cut and provide structural fill placement (when the basement retaining wall has cured) to minimize soil cut and Eco-Block shoring. Based on this engineer's extensive experience, the proposed 10-foot high (maximum) Eco-Block wall will provide stable facing on the underlying stable soils. Eco- Block temporary shoring is not a retaining wall, but rather a stable facing on stable soil cuts as verified by on -site geotechnical inspections. If City of Edmonds permit review requires, the project structural engineer could ( evaluate the stacked Eco-Blocks for slide resistance and over -turning capacity, based on geotechnical criteria. I , NOTE: If actual soil cuts exceed 10 feet; this engineer recommends a structurally designed shoring system, most likely utilizing soldier piles with lagging. i Eco-Block temporary shoring has proven a very effective technique to allow for soil cuts up to 10 feet in depth when soil conditions and weather conditions allow. The native sub -grade sands on this site are very compatible with the proposed Eco-Block shoring, subject to geotechnical inspections by this engineer. If there are any questions,.do not hesitate to call. t pb .3"""'� l.G EriPIRE�• ' "+J r — Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. Geotechnical J Civil Engineer. i DMB:abj i cc: D. P. Miller Homes 0 9 m Fph.,IS,06 01:03p D. Bruce, P.E. 206-546-8442 p.4 Lo C*--t L 0 C V-4 Y- q4 ------- 0 0 1A SLTE MOP- -T ANY &Y-CA13 \j�#Uiptivt. 781 vY F-�bkooxs A-mi a. 7E Nte' 6 It 06 17406 ba 'p MAY "CA\j P'--rl A ©m SITE 6iFo r6eO. Lii5o Or z 0 m -4 A loo 0 C: -4 r. m m zM > z 0, I m m M 0, 0 M To z z 0 m a'M;W'80',�iiec.iniweiiiaw� enyu I' June 19. 2006 City of Edmonds 121 5" Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: Geotechnical Response City of Edmonds ! Structural Review DP Miller new SFR 17910 Kairez Dr. i Plan Review #05-474 This engineering report presents geotechnical responses to City of Edmonds / H. Jeter, P.E. review comments regarding DP Miller Homes new residence at 17910 Kairez Dr., Edmonds, WA. REFERENCES: R E C E � U E • Previous geotechnical reports by D. Bruce, P.E. JUL 0 5 2006 • May 18, 2006 review of plans for Lot #4 by D. Bruce, P.E. • June 13, 2006 inspection report with pin -pile logs. EECE • Structural review comments by H. Jeter, P.E. June 14, 2006. BACKGROUND: This engineer undertook a geotechnical investigation for the overall property (Lots #4 and #5) and submitted a December 19, 2005 report based on conventional foundations founded in the dense native sands. Initial design submittals incorporated a standard reinforced concrete foundation founded on dense native sands with geotechnical inspections. During initial site grading, this engineer observed localized zones of historic sand fill material in the overall dense native sand zone. Discussions with DP Miller evaluated the cost effectiveness of unknown excavation and probable structural backf ill versus an augmented foundation design utilizing pin -piles with reinforced grade beams. The general overall sub -grade soils were competent dense native sands. DP Miller desired to eliminate any future possibility of any foundation problems and made a construction management decision to augment the conventional design with pin -piles and reinforced grade beams. SOILS FOUNDATIONS- • SITE DEVELOPMENT • INSPECTION • DRAINAGE • DESIGN & PERMIT • LEGAL P.O. Box 55502 • Shoreline, WA 98155 • (206) 546-9217 FAX (206) 546 8442 1_. 0 9 M N � i 0M M a0 `. oC mZ 1 AZ ,r= y N fo n MM oc' Qm - ,Zi r. T i z z V) 0 M $Jun 22 06 02:26p D. Bruce, P.E. 206-546-6442 p.2 June 19, 2006 City of Edmonds Page 2 of 3 This engineer provided geotechnical criteria to structural engineer Mike Mitchell, P.E. (an experienced structural engineer with pin -piles and grade beam design). Mr. Mitchell provided a pin -pile layout and grade beam design to DP Miller Homes, subject to geotechnical inspections by this engineer. Thus, the foundation system for this home is primarily a conventional system bearing on the dense native sub -grade soils, as verified by this engineer's onsite inspections. In order to minimize any possibility of localized "questionable fill" areas, DP Miller chose to install the augmented foundation system incorporating the pin -piles with reinforced grade beams. Thus, the residence should be viewed as a "combination" foundation support: conventional bearing with augmented pin -piles and grade beam support. In terms of a structural analysis review, this concept is a "hybrid" foundation system. This engineer recommends that a structural review consider that the conventional footing is supported on competent sub -grade soils providing 1,500 p.sJ. bearing capacity, with the additive support from the pin -piles and grade beams. { SPECIAL INSPECTIONS: This engineer agrees with H. Jeter, P.E. that special inspections "quality assurance plan" is required for a pin -pile and grade beam foundation. This engineer has already provided such onsite inspections and has submitted a field report (June 13, 2006). All pipe piles were driven to refusal depths as verified by this engineer. Pile contractor (Pile King — McDowell) is extremely experienced in pin -pile installation. • Pile Spacing: This engineer has reviewed Mike Mitchell's design layout and understands that the nominal spacing was approximately 10 feet on center for the piles. Actual site specific layouts resulted in slight variations of this dimension_ As stated above, the pin -pile foundation system is an augmentation to the conventional foundation footing system per geotechnical conditions. The structural comment issues are understood to be responded to by Mike Mitchell, P.E. project structural engineer. PIN -PILE CAPACITIES: This engineer has done extensive work on pin -pile installation and load testing. Each 4-inch diameter schedule 40 pile easily provides a minimum of 12 ton vertical capacity. Numerous load tests under similar conditions have verified w z 0 0 m "'ti . .Jun 22 U6 U2:26P U. Bruce, F.E. 2us-S46-8442 P.3 June 19, 2006 City of Edmonds Page 3 of 3 i 20 tons (40,000 pounds) load held for 20 plus minutes with no deflection on a 4- inch pin -pile. t Thus, the pin -piles as installed on this site are extremely capable of providing the desired "augmented" foundation support. Subsequent inspections of the grade beams (reinforcing steel design per Mike Mitchell) have verified diligent workmanship and alignment along the pin - pile zones. See photographs. z O, SUMMARY: n Localized minor zones of possible historic sand fill resulted in a choice by DP Miller to augment the conventional foundation, system with pin -piles N and grade beams. c m Structural engineer, Mike Mitchell, P.E. has performed calculations and mi ? pin -pile layout based on conservative geotechnical criteria. These pin -piles 0 i t, are augmenting the conventional foundation system. m m Onsite geotechnical inspections by this engineer have verified dense c native sub -grade soils and properly installed pin -piles with grade beams j as an augmentation. O, The overall site at 17910 Kairez Dr. is geotechnicaily stable through this date. m m If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call Q r rn to ads M. ep Ob i4 111106 fj Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. _ Geotechnical / Civil Engineer m artwr<s t t�► ate' *'yt'1 m DMB:jpb i f: Jul 06 06 01:34P D. Bruce, P.E. 206-546-8442 P•1 Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. 3 ''aooe� M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geetechnic31/Civil Engineer . Cc—r`f CITY COPY b":'N', Kk(L Lz-�L REDU13 K\k,-. W--eRFIL-L, Jtlt 062006 SUILDINq DEPARTMENT 5u87�ott OTEGNNtCdrL 4�p1�1�(C�T1oN% CITY OFEOMOND8 t7q�0 Ka�tc �3� New C4Ffo7�ctt , lZ 1�itcH151,t_ F-F- • ST2ott, i� EsiGIJs ^'tQ�"� _ 4. ;re-rEc �' � 04 ' C1Yi 'P E • C'ONSOLYAWT t��VIE� (o — Or ,p Sl-rE' eoN'►'ArNE11 V. be-osf . gr°koX. g 000 s. �+EftRtNG �rcovrAruG 3r � ��AppctYy 1.lAT(v� Spies �irStLY im,,AAAy" WAv- (!aWrAru&a AT l�osr � t0(• eF Rim, ri-L ENsS Scare �LaeEb AS �ice ts��a No7 8Ae , C6MPACTO " -kh- eR- CLEAN A' joIt •�((�N'tfAiG Cb�, MILLEIz, WA0—rE6� TD Ttol✓ ' bumbm agwr6o0 �1cALoRPr 4� pok For r(LL' ioNES �/ At,o-rL SPENb ADD-rr- ( eNas� 70 T,aAt p1�yGMEOJTE� �vunMA E ACE TIFAAn rs5vE5 To-rAL -'tu- Pit- vYvkE ,s M w S -pORT -n �t tMrrJRTE A'iJ"�CN�SE -1-0 ,w.sar.�G µosT 8�1�bERs wout NoT MoAsuc) (IaRme ` +(E Fop Pp.,-vEu'rA-r(vE Lxl SPEAR. V'x-r&A TKE t JJ"CCtt:E"�UO'r�RtN p • � Et)7G Cf4"IC'kt- y S $EAt�tNC b AREA ' Ro\jtDEs t�soo P rs A� *9i40sa a O t'cran.�e' CA4 ,ATt eCrY wt'tttouT PctawP ��h�� $CRM i'RouteEs SroNAL, •TNE A5 C3cwr �(ti'Pr4E5 c TitE 1AS�PS _� J�MAMOijAL-- SuPPO&-r SOILS • FOUNDATIONS • SITE DEVELOPMENT • INSPECTION • DRAINAGE DESIGN 8 PERMIT • LEGAL P.O. Box 55502 • Shoreline, WA 98155 • (206) 546-9217 • FAX (206) 546-8442 4.. O m =Ili N 1 cm m0 i0 Oc i zjo CZ ,r= n m m o �' r C 0) .�-zi trDn i N' z 0 m m I Eagle Eye Consulting Engineers, P.S. PO Box 523 hoytj, r@ 983ur ® IVI �a j hoytjeter@centurytel.net lyd FILAh 253 857 4151 iV/ Fax 253 857 5759 CITY p To: JoAnne Zuiauf July 11, 2006 City of Edmonds Edmonds, WA 98020 ` Re: Revision: Pin Pile Design z . 17910 Kairez Dr O Edmonds, WA 98020 m Plan Review #: 05-474 n E ' EECE #: EDM 06-30 Vi i cm } This project is approved for the Structural Only permit. The Structural drawing review m o has been completed and accepted for permit with the approved stamped drawings o c returned to the City of Edmonds. m z z The following items are required to be redlined on the drawing per the geotechnical rJ D z r , report. 1. Maximum spacing of the pin piles shall not exceed 10 foot on center as = m i required per the geotechnical report. -e � , 2. Soil under the slab must be compacted in order to resist the sliding force _ k, from the retaining wall. mm a w i. Your plans are being reviewed concurrently with the Building Department, Planning r C Department, and Public Works Engineering. Changes, clarifications or additional ca in ca corrections may be required subsequent to the Building Department review, when 1 comments are received from the other concerned departments. ;D i r Should you have any inquiries regarding this letter, please call Hoyt Jeter at (253) 857- 4 4151 between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm. w z O m By: Hoyt Jeter, PE President j- -Jun 14 06 09:18a D. Bruce, P.E. 206-546-8442 P.1 VN POMICROFILMCITY COPY JUN 14 996 Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. f3U1lUINQ DEPARTj,t � _ _ Geotechnical/Civil Engineer SOrEcr 11�Eo� ��SO'cTto� KAk eo��t 2�aRY (O �o �t,auj 1, O-TTACY p� 7'o t�t�oCED wj t2�- S-t�ECL�c�tU�' . As O� (� _ 13 -a6 �eaRetv�o�t�C Cn(�A�%s: �tM VJokK 1S c9>ro-tECtfratCALLY APpRovEt� <' NOTE ecr7' 7' E. 1tJS$'EG'ttoN �21i�7' �EF�R �GPrc�t�iE E STkuC"r PLANS j ANt, (oLOAQ ALIL S'- fidL-p�r-t� (tt£�u {� M .Dt-71� t\� S��t � S C �O��k (Y 4y��Iw+se��✓� �oSt`Cl�kt�t� LAN ALL Ptu V(LES ob �_ �A� emote `ram Co z t� A, A 'ism.. � C.:J �a�� C•tt . j O�.�S P'��Tt t� � S -To ExMREB 1 31 ..w.ir�+�r SOILS FOUNDATIONS • SITE DEVELOPMENT INSPECTION • DRAINAGE DESIGN & PERMIT LEGAL P n Rnv rggnJ . Ch—ti— wa PR'C.F (7nR1 CA C_nn1T GnV /nnci cnG on nn Jun 14 06 09:18a D. Bruce, P.E. { 206-546-8442 P.2 McDowell NW Pile King, Inc. PILE LOG Customer Name: D.P. Miller Homes, Inc. Project Job/Name: Lot Vista Del Mar Job Address: 17910 Kairez Dr. Edmonds WA Date Completed: 5/5/06 See Attached Drawing i 1 20.0' 21 20.0' 41 20.0' 61 N/A 2 20.0' 22 20.0' 42 20.0' 6220.0' 3 25.0'� 23 20.0' 43 20.0' 63 20.0' 4 24 20.0' 44 20.0' 64 20.0' _20.0' t 5 20.0' 25 20.0' 45 20.0' 6 NIA 26 20.0' 46 20.0' 7 20A' 27 ^ 20.0' 47 20.0' x 8 20.01^ 9 20 0' 28 20.0' 48 29 20.0' 49 20.0' 20.0' 45 M b� «�sd,� 10 20.0' 30 20.0' 60 20.0' 11 20.0' 31 20.0' 51 N/A o 12 20.0' 32 20.0' 52 _20.0' y�� Q 17405� 13 20.0' _ 33 20.0' 53 20.0' FFSStONA4C�C' 14 20.0' 34 20.0' 54 _20.0' �xwaEs" 15 20.0' 35 N/A 55 20.0' _ 16 20.0' _ 36 20.0' 56 20.0' - ALL Tlue S 17 20.0' 37 20.0' 57 202 J_ Ott ' i, 18. 20.0, 38 20.0 58 20.0' S-I k LL D 19 20.0' 39 20.0' S9 �20.0= S 1U 20 _ 20.0' 40 20.0' 60 20.0' Pile Size/Grade: 4" Galvanized, Schedule 40 - All pile driven to refusal* *3 cycles of less than 1" in 10 seconds using a 1100 FTILB hammer TB-425 Installed by: Byron R, KellY� Total LF: PIN (PIPE) PILE FOUNDATIONS' RETAINING WALLS . MANTA RAY ANCHORS' C-LOC VINYL SHEETPILE 18905 84TH Avenue S. ' Kent, WA 98032' (425) 251-8535' Fax (425) 251-5940 IN 0 0 m 749n C:m m0 80 c mz DZ co co mm_ or m ca s z W.. Jul 06 06 01:30P D. Bruce, P.E. 20G-546-8442 P.1 MICROFILM Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. .To t_,f Z) aoo� M.S.C.E., M.B.A. GeotechnicaliCMI Engineer Mttp -�� sTowcr Cm&k, M1tc� TCE-F�t_tr � 5uB7t✓GY' � �O`T'EC•C� N(Cch L � (.-�-�c,l a�tCd�r'i (+a h1 yew s.�. w LAN �.1: 11lEW t�(E� : . C�o"t"�.C(-r.. tZEp��--r �.i3Re�CE,p�"• �,-t`��o� � • ST/ColT, ES(G!J C1 cY 4 E. CpNsu4r r TZEvt 1 - E+. TE-rE & - 4 ab "/ op SITE CON-rAiuEd V, 4EUSE �PPtcoX. ��% �S /� oao s B�AlW44 uFt tvE SA-Nbs 67A5I1.Y t�RoutbtnJ,Gn 31 d' �C PAocY �oO7PR, , 'MAY y(AU� Co N7Al UEd ° AT Most r lU(• Na> gFt� r,,-L, ��NsE SA,�e �LacEb A.s �'� C4M!'ACT�d SANL • 1r C (�t�-i{�Ei� CLEA+u ((vNTtnt� hi', dAtt.L�� wf{f.17E� To i}volb • �UIL� w t)t,'rL lsG0`fE�� F1c�'LoRl4?rk 4Nfl CHasE Tp SA�Ne keaYL yak �o� �ci-L zZoNES r A ©valEk( —-BACKr/1 L Co�pbE�EAM Al E D �evNJaATioA/ �t YAL_ TIIM- OIL' t55vES �L tMt1JRTE AMA �vYOR� �r�5 M 8� �vpyoRT To a-r eNoosE To UILi�E t 5 `1loULia /i M�5"a4SuPF� �wSlyFS£�w�ay,N � *V SPEAIa �)c i RA TKO' �1.►TctNr~ �oa't'Rco ( ° �-�o7lGt'ffN%IC�sLG-i � s 'g,EA-�fIJ6 t�RE�t �Rbli tl� �s t soo i' ss �, O 4fc,rrcff Cdkd'R't7CM Y WtTEl0U7 j PtN-4tt_Es� fc0Vt�E5 r�ONAt,,, •'i`Kt A6 L3o(L t t+v art r✓ s w( At-bt"rtau At- SUS Po�T THE /jSoO eiS woes 1 2�/ a=1 SOILS • FOUNDATIONS SITE DEVELOPMENT INSPECTION • DRAINAGE DESIGN & PERMIT LEGAL p 0 Rnx FFSOP • Rhnralina WA QR1 RR • f9n9) 4dR-Q917 • FAX i9nR1 44R-Add9 0 O m om C: mo oC c 3: i CZ 'c= �F o-n m M O 5 E. _ r C Cl) i z Z 0 m 06/28/2006 05:11 4257475403 PAGE tchell Engineering, I;160FUM 7821- 168Ch Ave NB Redmond, WA48052 (425)747-1500 • Fax (425) 747-5403 —_ Date: 2 r 2=e� r�rcr�W Job#: c5-3� Dip r.�- Job Naxue: �52 �7 `�?✓�—�5�-1u� `jG%r subject: r ,mil fLG1��tli{/Q. �`a'a2Co Fax. �i�%l�d c.%Hr'�1�• 1 °1 * /".a 6r.�t,. �J`/ !/�Mf-f6*✓-.".. F�� ;.... IoV XlO eW 74 , LL-W.4 & rG :&tull-ly. :14 Z:5x,r�F. ..... t 715- AI�r7A 74....A"�7' r lr %AL/.11S440At--41 M , 471 jr �7 A 1 t_ . ad U 6 5 2096 � r EECE 20775 i 4.. o' Q m G =t -n cm mo 80 M z.' - O ' Dz r— _ O- mM Om r $ co - 71 (r11 DA Z 0 m Jun 22 06 02:19p D. Bruce, P.C. 206-546 6442 p.1 CIO) 0V Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. ". kA-rC. M.B.A. Geotechnical/Civil Engineer June 19. 2006 MICROFILM City of Edmonds 121 5th Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: Geotechnical Response City of Edmonds I Structural Review DP Miller new SFR 17910 Kairez Dr. Plan Review #05-474 This engineering report presents geotechnical responses to City of t Edmonds 1 H. Jeter, P-E. review comments regarding DP Miller Homes new residence at 17910 Kairez Dr., Edmonds, WA. REFERENCES: • Previous geotechnical reports by D. Bruce, P.E. • May 18, 2006 review of plans for Lot #4 by D. Bruce, P.E. June 13, 2006 inspection report with pin -pile logs. • Structural review comments by H. Jeter, P.E. June 14, 2006. BACKGROUND: This engineer undertook a geotechnical investigation for the overall property (Lots #4 and #5) and submitted a December 19, 2005 report based on conventional foundations founded in the dense native sands. Initial design submittals incorporated a standard reinforced concrete foundation founded on dense native sands with geotechnical inspections. During initial site grading, this engineer observed localized zones of historic sand fill material in the. overall dense native sand zone. Discussions with DP Miller evaluated the cost effectiveness of unknown excavation and probable structural backfill versus an augmented foundation design utilizing pin -piles with reinforced grade beams. The general overall sub -grade soils were competent dense native sands. DP Miller desired to eliminate any future possibility of any foundation problems and made a construction management decision to augment the conventional design with pin -piles and reinforced grade beams. SOILS • FOUNDATIONS • SITE DEVELOPMENT • INSPECTION - DRAINAGE - DESIGN & PERMIT • LEGAL P.O. Box 55502 • Shoreline, WA 98155 • (206) 546-9217 • FAX (206) 546-8442 0 m U/ 0 m Jun 22 06 02:1Sp D. Bruce, P.E. June 19,2006 City of Edmonds Page 2 of 3 206-546-8442. p.2 This engineer provided geotechnical criteria to structural engineer Mike Mitchell, P.E. (an experienced structural engineer with pin -piles and grade beam design). Mr. Mitchell provided a pin -pile layout and grade beam design to DP Miller Homes, subject to geotechnical inspections by this engineer. Thus, the foundation system for this home is primarily a conventional system bearing on the dense native sub -grade soils, as verified by this engineer's onsite inspections. In order to minimize any possibility of localized "questionable fill" areas, DP Miller chose to install the augmented foundation system incorporating the pin -piles with reinforced grade beams. Thus, the residence should be viewed as a "combination" foundation support: conventional bearing with augmented pin -piles and grade beam support. In terms of a structural analysis review, this concept is a "hybrid" foundation system. This engineer recommends that structural review consider that the conventional footing is supported on competent sub -grade soils providing 1,500 p.s.f. bearing capacity, with the additive support from the pin -piles and grade beams. SPECIAL INSPECTIONS: This engineer agrees with H. Jeter, P.E, that special inspections "quality assurance plan" is required for a pin -pile and grade beam foundation. This engineer has already provided such onsite inspections and has submitted a field report (June 13, 2006). All pipe piles were driven to refusal depths as verified by this engineer. Pile contractor (Pile King - McDowell) is extremely experienced in pin -pile installation. Pile Spacing: This engineer has reviewed Mike Mitchell's design layout and understands that the nominal spacing was approximately 10 feet on center for the piles. Actual site specific layouts resulted in slight variations of this dimension. As stated above, the pin -pile foundation system is an augmentation to the conventional foundation footing system per geotechnical conditions. The structural comment issues are understood to be responded to by Mike Mitchell, P.E. project structural engineer. PIN -PILE CAPACITIES: This engineer has done extensive work on pin -pile installation and load testing. Each 4-inch diameter schedule 40 pile easily provides a minimum of 12 ton vertical capacity. Numerous load tests under similar conditions have verified I. Jun 22 OG 02:19p D. Bruce, P.E. 206-546-8442 P.3 June 19, 2006 City of Edmonds Page 3 of 3 20 tons (40,000 pounds) load held for 20 plus minutes with no deflection on a 4- inch pin -pile. Thus, the pin -piles as installed on this site are extremely capable of providing the desired "augmented" foundation support. Subsequent inspections of the grade beams (reinforcing steel design per Mike Mitchell) have verified diligent workmanship and alignment along the pin - pile zones. See photographs. SUMMARY: Localized minor zones of possible historic sand fill resulted in a choice by DIP Miller to augment the conventional foundation system with pin' -piles and grade beams. Structural engineer, Mike Mitchell, P.E. has performed calculations and pin -pile layout based on conservative geotechnical criteria. These pin -piles are augmenting the conventional foundation system. Onsite geotechnical inspections by this engineer have verified dense native sub -grade soils and properly installed pin -piles with grade beams as an augmentation. The overall site at 17910 Kairez Dr. is geotechnically stable through this date. If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call. 1WWAR Im DMB:jpb Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. Geotechnical / Civil Engineer Z 9 0 M M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical/Civil Engineer RECEIVED November 2, 2006 NOV ' 8 2006 Cil of l=imortds c/o D. P. Miller Homes Z o 22315 Hwy 99 N, Suite # 4 0 Edmonds, WA 98036 !?' Subject: Field Reports - Geotechnical Inspections 1 m w Vista Del Ma — D.P. Miller Homes Il Za0(p.02,2t� Washington No. 4) PP�+�-�l M C: { 1910 Kairez Dr ,Edmonds, (Cot 17909 Kairez D , Edmonds, Washington (Cot No. 5) i2nrn%� 2o0(0 -oS3'7 rn 80 This engineering report presents the results of ongoing geotechnical inspections M -, for the D.P. Miller Homes project at Vista Del Mar (17910, 17909 Kairez Dr., Edmonds, A -+ Washington). These inspections were required as a condition of permit by City of z Edmonds. N REFERENCES: RECEIVED n i' • City of Edmonds approved Project Plans NOV 13 ?.066 rn 0 55 • Previous Geotechnical and Inspection Reports by D. BruC9tyIyAENT SERVICES c7a. o �n • Site photographs ciry of eoMoroos m 17910 KAIREZ DR. (COT NO. 4): • Previous geotechnical inspection reports have verified the proper installation of X pin -piles with reinforced grade beam to provide additional support for the home. z As previously stated, this engineer has worked closely with project structural _ engineer (Mike Mitchell) and verified that all pin -piles were driven to refusal v, depths. All pin -piles and foundation footings are aeotechnically approved for o . this house site. =� 0 In • Site grading: The excavation for the home site has been properly back filled in accordance with this engineer's inspections and recommendations. The final site grading and frontage rockeries have yet to be completed. Geotechnical inspections are ongoing. • Soil bearing: Previously approved with pin -piles ! grade beams, as well as dense, native soils. SOILS • FOUNDA77ONS • SITE DEVELOPMENT • INSPEG7/0N • DRAINAGE • DESIGN & PERMIT - LEGAL P.O. Box 55502 • Shoreline, WA 98156 • (206) 546-9217 • FAX (206) 546-8442 r. �r City of Edmonds `0/6 D.P. Miller Homes November 2, 2006 Page 2 Subsurface drainage: This engineer observed and verified proper installation of subsurface drains in accordance with City of Edmonds approved plans and normal good practices. All subsurface drains are approved. Final grading / permanent erosion control measures: Not yet — inspections are ongoing. 17909 KAIREZ DR. (LOT NO.5): j This engineer continues to provide dai{ on -site inspections during active geotechnical phases. j _ • Excavation: All excavation encountered the dense, native sands as anticipated i by the geotechnical report. Sufficient setback distances were available to perform the excavation with no temporary shoring required. - All soil cuts were stable throughout the project. The entire site is stable through this date (November 2, 2006). Temporary shoring{Eco-Blocks): The dense, sub -grade sands allowed for a stable open cut without the requirement for Eco-Block shoring (see photographs). Total depth of cut was less than 5 feet (vertical) with an appropriate "lay back" slope above. The Eco-Blocks were not required. • Foundation sub -grade: This engineer verified extremely dense, native, sub - grade sands easily providing 3,000 p.s.f. bearing capacity. "OK" to proceed with foundation formwork, reinforcing steel and concrete placement in accordance with City of Edmonds approved plans and inspections. This engineer observed that the residence foundation footings were properly placed. • Retaining wall: The foundation stem walls function as retaining walls. This engineer verified that all foundation stem walls were properly placed in accordance with City of Edmonds approved plans. Rockery Placement: Not yet. } • Fill placement: No fill material was required for geotechnical support purposes. Inspections continue to monitor any placement of fill, if required. • Subsurface drainage: This engineer inspected and verified proper placement of subsurface drains in accordance with City of Edmonds approved plans and normal good practices. 0 0 M cm m0 , OC mz 0 yZ O � t -n mm 0 O� C fm1� mN z i in 0 1 is m City of Edmonds c/o D.P. Miller Homes f E November 2, 2006 Page 3 € l j • Erosion control: Contractor continues to properly maintain erosion control measures: rocked construction entrance, siltation fencing and diligent cleanup. SUMMARY: z 0 • Ongoing geotechnical inspections have verified proper completion of 0 ' geotechnical aspects to date for 17910 and 17969 Kairez Dr., Edmonds, M Washington. om 6°s • Geotechnical inspections are ongoing. � i; m� If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call. o zM 1� �• �' m w. iFY• �0-n 1 po ♦e�4 �ry }� m m `ONALE'aG\tJ 1� O -- Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. c !: EXPIRES ll1J231"` - Geotechnical ! Civil Engineer m rn z DMB:abj cc: D.P. Miller Homes i f z' is { z a } m t 1- r k: 09/21/2007 07:37 4257475403 MITCHELL ENGINEERING PAGE 01 Mitchell Engineering, Inc. xU 7821 _ 168ch Ave NE Redmond, WA 48052 ffu (425) 747-150D * Pax (425) 747.5403 To- Date: Avg[ 7 C) p Job#: Jab NWne: Subject: {j"s a Fax m wm I: ,. 80 Pf A P: i 1 ~ O m�7 �.. _. .. .�. .,.t f ca I j C0 a 7 m 1 1 I I 1 p' pti�� E. Z©�� sy DEYE � MIENT SEAVICE$ CTR . .. _.,...... ..... _....... .......,CITY dF EDMONDS _...__-... . __...: I. m 4 h1GR-14-2007 12:59 Frar17:CG ENGINEE(2ING 4257753553E ENGINEERING To:914257763943 P.2/4 �su�+� ytfk 1j I) FIELD OBSERVATION Project: Miller Homes CS Job No.: 07049.11 Field Re .: DMT Report No.: 1 Date of Observation: 03/08/07 Location: 17909 & 17910 Kairez Dr. Purpose of Site Visit: Epoxy Edmonds, WA Inspection ! Site walk Client/Owner: DP Miller Homes General Contractor: OP Miller r�li ,rt? Homes hX Hm: ^ ASSESSMENT REPORT i A site observation was performed March, 9" 2007 to oliserve epoxy anchor installation. The project involves two wood framed, two story, single family rosidenras. Simpson STDH14RJ hold-duwns were originally specitiod but could not be installed in all locations and were substituted for Simpson HTT22 hold-downs by Mitchell Engineering Inc. At the time of the observation the majority of the hold-downs had already been epoxied and installed. Two epoxy anchor installations were observed. The holes were drilled prior to the observation. The holes were cleaned during the observation using compressed air and n wire brush. After cleaning the holes were inspected for dust and were found to be clean. The epoxy used was Powers AC55plus which is equivalent to the Simpson SET epoxy specified. Two 5/8" dia. threaded rods were installed during the observation per the manufactures recommendations. All of the epoxy anchors observed were installed per the detail issued 9/11106 by Mitchell Engineering inc. (see attached) and the epoxy manufacturers specifications, DISCLAIMER OEVEtoPMERT SERVICES cn?. This observation was performed on 3/8/07 and is therprofef'MO s ona� opinion of CIS Enginer:.riny PLLC based on the information available during this assessment nr evaluation. This report does not warrant or guarantee that all conditions were discovered at the time of the observation or evaluation. This report was prepared subject to the Standard of care applicable to professional services at the time the services were provided. 4.. 0 m ENfi1NEE1S/$�IVfY4A5lPtA111ifA5/OEYfl4VMENT (4NA1tiAN6 March 20, 2007 File No. 4866-0-06 Edmonds Building Department z' � 250 51" Avenue N. n m Edmonds, Washington 98020 re: D.P. Miller Homes, LLC -Residence at 17'►10 Kairez Drive (Lot -n N Dear Sirs, m O oC z' At the request of D.P. Miller Homes, LLC, the project contractor, we have dispatched a K f F survey crew to the above referenced property to ascertain the elevation of the residence of the roof sheathing to be 261.54: This m z currently under construction. We find the elevation elevation is based upon CB#16 as -built top el, 16022 taken from Vista Dal Mar as built 1 storm drainage plans. rsz Should you require any additional information, please call me at 425-775-1591. -n mm (Y�RX pxx8tr{ cm av3 t3 mo Sincerely, PTV % TRF�D � p w" A3r96F� zi r Z i Jeffrey Treiber P.L.S. a �• alb. W`y � °' President °nir LeN9� '� 3 al^�—t .� z z �rwc. /OJ fa dI m RECEIVED MAR 2 1 2007 I. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR. -"- CITY OF EDMONDS ! 5 Love 11.%Auerland & Associates, Inc. 19600 33rd Ave. W.. Suitt 100. Lynnwavd WA M036 415.775-1541 425•GII.794R fax Isaenglneering.<om aged `WtlSt f4 LO lZ ��W °•966LZL9SZ4 `•0NI833NI0N3VS1 :AS }uaS 1 Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. M.S.C.E., M.B.A. GeotechnicallCivil Engineer November 11, 2007 RECEIVED City of Edmonds N O U 19 2001 Development Services Division BtJlLLtiA1G DEPT. 121 5th Ave. N Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: Final Reponkr Geotechnicat Inspections 17910 Kairez Dr. (Lot No. 4), Edmonds, Washington D. P. Miller Homes This engineering report presents the final results of geotechnical inspections for the new single-family home at 17910 Kairez Dr. (Lot No.4). These inspections were required as a condition of permit by City of Edmonds. i REFERENCES: j . City of Edmonds approved Project Plans Previous Geotechnical and Inspection Reports by D. Bruce, P.E. Site photographs INSPECTIONS: This engineer has performed ongoing geotechnical inspections for the new residence at the above address. Summary - Inspection Items: Excavation: All excavation for this project was stable. Previous inspection reports verified dense native sub -grade soils with no adverse impacts. All excavation has been properly backfiiled and is aP removed. I Foundations: Previous inspection reports verified the use of pin -piles with reinforced grade beam. All piles were properly driven, in accordance with structural design plans. piaequent inspections verified p cementand all foundation elements per approved p ans.roper grade beam Soil Bearing: Dense native sub -grade soils were verified in addition to the pin -pile and grade beam foundation system. SOILS - FOUNDA77ONS • SUE DEVELOPMENT • INSPEC77ON • DRAINAGE • DESIGN & PERMrr t LEGAL, P.O. Box 55502 - Shoreline, WA 98155 - (206) 646.9217 - FAX (206) 546-8442 0 1 0 m :;:ii City of Edmonds — D.S.D. Re: D. P. Miller Homes November 11, 2007 Page 2 • Fill Material: No structural fill was required for foundation bearing purposes. The dense native clean sands provided excellent backfill material. All fill material is approved, as placed. • Subsurface Drainage: Previously verified and approved. • Rockeries: Lot No. 4 required extensive tiered rockeries, in accordance with City of Edmonds guidelines and this engineer's inspections (see photographs). All base rock were properly embedded in dense native soils. Rock size, linkage, batter, drainage zone and "blending in" with the existing contours were properly completed. All rockeries are approved, as constructed. • Erosion Control: Contractor properly placed and maintained temporary erosion control measures: rocked construction entrance, perimeter siltation fencing and confinement of all work within property lines throughout the project. There are no adverse erosional impacts observed. Final erosion control: This engineer's final inspection (November 9, 2007) verified proper installation of all permanent landscaping and erosion control measures: lawn, plantings, beauty bark and final surfiicial grading. There are no exposed earth surfaces. All permanent erosion control measures are aeotechnicaliv approved. SUMMARY: • All special geotechnical inspection items have been properly completed, and are approved, as placed. • This report completes special inspection duties for 17910 Kairez Dr. (Lot No. 4) by D. Bruce, P.E. If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call. Dennis M. Bruce, P. Geotechnical / Civil DMB:abj cc: D. P. Miller Homes EIfPIRES I:IIY `>z ,r o 2 M mm o a, (' MO Z M x z Z i z —o 0 m �M f �'lt 0 2c y 0 ocaoawy DEPARTMENT 44UILDINGS PER INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE SECTION R110 AT: 17910 Kairezbrive Building Permit M 2006-0224A Occupancy established by this certificate: R3 Dwelling Units: 1 ti yB No. Stories: 2 Basement: N/A Type of Construction: Owner of building: DPMUIer Homes Inc The Single Family Residence at 17910 Kalrez Drive has.been inspected and approved complying with the requirements of the 2003 edition of the International Residential Code as adopted by the —It fdr. the group and division of occupancy and the use for which the proposed occupancy is classified. i Issued this 29te day of November. 2007 Chief Building Official sued by the City of Edmonds Building Official. Any change of occupancy or use requires a building permit and a now certificate of Occupancy is Permit Inspection Details Permit: BLD20060224A PERMIT" -:... 1013 - E-Storm Tightline Complete? Y ' 10/12/2006 MCCONNEL 10 Partial, South side house okay to backfil. N 05129/2007 Sibrel 30 Tightline installed. Y " Total Time: 40 1014 - E-Storm Connect to Stub Complete? Y 05/29/2007 Sibrel 0 Slerm connection verified. Y Total Time: 0 1018 - E-Footing Drywall Complete? Y 05/31/2007 Sibrel 30 Drywall connected and OK to backfili. Y - Total Time: 30 1034 - E-Water Service Line Complete? Y r 10/11/2006 Hawkins 15 partial, ok to backLll. Not connected at the meter. N 11/13/2007 Sibrel 0 Approved Y Total Time: 1s 1077 -E-Engineering Final Complete? Y` 1111=007 Sibrel 30 OK to Final Y 1 Total Time: 30 - 1106 - B-Setbacks Complete? Y 07/1312006 MS 20 SETBACKS APPROVED PER STRUNG PROPERTY LINES - Y - j Total Time: 20 1108-.B-Footings Complete?'. Y:. 07/13/2006 MS 20 FOOTINGS APPROVED Y Total Time: 20 1110 - B-Foundation Wail Complete? Y " 08/10/2006 MS 20 FOUNDATION APPROVED Y Total Time: 20 1118 - B-Slab Insulation Complete? Y - 08/31/2006 JR 0 R-10 RIGID UNDER HYDRONIC IN -FLOOR HEAT SYSTEM APPROVED Y Total Time: 0 1120- B-Plumb:Ground Work Complete? Y " 08/25/2006 JR 0 INSPECTED UNDERGROUND PLUMBING. THEY ALSO CALLED FOR FOOTING Y - DRAINS. I EXPLAINED THOSE ARE BY SPECIAL INSPECTION (GEOTECH). Total Time: 0 1122 - B-First Floor Framing Complete? Y 03/21/2007 Snook 30 APPROVED Y Total Time: 30 1126- B-Plumb Rough In Complete? Y 11/07/2006 Snook 25- CORRECTION NOTICE WRITTEN N " 01/18/2007 Readwin 20 INSPECTED AND APPROVED - Y Total Time: 45 1128 - B-Gas Test/Pipe Complete? Y 03/12/2007 Snook 20 APPROVED Y " Total Time: 20 1132 - B-Exterior Sheathing Complete? Y " 01/18/2007 Readwin 20 WROTE CORRECTION -PARTIAL APPROVAL N 03/21/2007 Snook 30 APPROVED Y Total Time: s0 " 11/29/200710:59:49 AM - Page 1 of 1136 - B-Shear Nailing Complete? Y" 03/21/2007 Snook 30. APPROVED Y Total Time: 30 1140 - B-Height Verification Complete? '; Y 03/2112007 Snook 30 APPROVED Y Total Time:. 30 , 1142 - B-Framing Complete? `[ 03/21/2007 Snook 30 APPROVED Y Total Time: 30 1144 - B-Wail Insulation/Caulk Complete? Y r 03123/2007 Readwin 0 NOT READY N x' 03/26/2007 Snook 25 APPROVED Y ZO ?' Total Time: 25 1146 - B-Floor Insulation/Caulk Complete? Y m 03/23/2007 Readwin 10 NOT READY N 03/2612007 Snook 25 APPROVED. Y -1 9i' i. - Total Time: 35 1148 - B-Ceiling Insulation/Caulk Complete? ` Y 03/2312007 Read,(n 10 NOT READY N m v O ,. 11/27f2007. .TEMP- 20 APPROVED Y : 0 C 7z7: 5` NATOLA Total Time: 30 : m m 1160 - B-Sheetrock Nair Complete? ' Y O 1 0410212007 Snook 25 APPROVED Y D Z - Total Time: 25 r- -4 1� 1168 - B-Building Final Complete? Y N -n r' 11/07/2007 TEMP- 0 WROTE CORRECTIONS N &' i NATOLA - 11/27/2007 TEMP- 20 APPROVED Y m m NATOLA Total Time: 20 - pO N 3000 - B-Hydronic Test Compfete7 Y O M 08/31/2006 JR 0 VERIFIED PRESSURE TEST ON IN -FLOOR HYDRONIC PIPES N o) 03/19/2007 Snook 20 NOT READY N mZZ 11/27/2007 TEMP- 20 CHECKED MANAFOLD FINAL INSPECTION Y i In D,-p NATOLA Total Time: 40 , Total inspections: 33 Total Time: 585 Z ,. Z 0 m 11/291200710:59:49 AM Page 2of2 1 pill Permit Inspection Details 11-1-1 Permit: BLD20060224A PERMIT 1013I- E-Storm Tightiine Complete2 W 10/1212006 MCCONNEL 10 Partial, South side house okay to backfill. N .. 05/29/2007 Sibrel 30 Tightiine installed. Y Total Time: 40 1014-• E-Storm Connect to5tub� . , . Complete?� Y:' " 05/2912007 Sibrel 0 Storm connection verified Y Total Time: 0 1018t- E•FootingMrywell' "- Complete?' - - 0513V2007 Sibrel 30 Drywall connected and OK to backfill. Y Total Time: 30 1034- E-WaterServiceLine Complete?,±'i Y'I' 10/11/2006 Hawkins 15 Partial, ok to backfill, Not connected at the meter, N 11/13/2007 Sibrel 0 Approved Y Total Time: 15 1077:•E-Engineering Final.,Compiete7� 11/13/2007 Sibrel 30 OK to Final Y Total Time: 30 1106-8•Setbacks Complete 07/13/2006 MS 20 SETBACKS APPROVED PER STRUNG PROPERTY LINES Y Total Time: 20 07/13/2006 MS 20 FOOTINGS APPROVED Y Total Time: 20 111 a o;� B•Foundation Wali =� '` t �.; `, - omplete? Y 08/10/2006 MS ,.. 20 FOUNDATION APPROVED Y Total Time: 20 1118 - B-Slabinsulation -. Complete? Y - 08/31/2006 JR 0 R-10 RIGID UNDER HYDRONIC IN -FLOOR HEAT SYSTEM APPROVED Y Total Time: 0 1120 - B-Plumb Ground 1Nork Complete? .,, Y; - 08/25/2006 JR 0 INSPECTED UNDERGROUND PLUMBING. THEY ALSO CALLED FOR FOOTING Y DRAINS, I EXPLAINED THOSE ARE BY SPECIAL INSPECTION (GEOTECH). - Total Time: 0 - 1122 - B•First+loor Framing 03/212007 Snook 30 APPROVED Y Total Time: 30 1126,-B•Plumb'Roughin" rComplete?-,'Y, 11/07/2006 Snook 25 CORRECTION NOTICE WRITTEN N 0111812007 Readwin 20 INSPECTED AND APPROVED Y " Total Time: 45 - 1128 - B-Gas Test/Pipe,. Complete? f Y - 03/12/2007 Snook 20 APPROVED Y Total Time: 20 1132-B•ExteriorSheathing,`' .-' '', , Complete? - Y; 01/18/2007 Readwin 20 WROTE CORRECTION -PARTIAL APPROVAL N 03/21/2007 Snook 30 APPROVED Y Total Time: 5o 1136 • B-Shear. Nailing Complete? Y i 6/5/2009 9:04:40 AM Page 1 of 2 �._ ... 03/2V2007 Snook 30 APPROVED - Y - Total Time: 30 11dt1`-8 HeightiVerifioatlon":- 03/21/2007 Snook 30APPROVED Y Total Time: 30 1142-�.B-F.raming 03/21/2007 Snook 30 APPROVED Y - Total Time: 30 1144 B-4Va111nsulatlontCaUlk -.,, , , , , c_ ;- "Complete?=- Y 03/23/2007 Readwin 0 NOT READY N 03/2612007 Snook 25 APPROVED Y - Total Time: 25 1148=B=Floorinsulation/Caulk t,Y.< � ...:. 03123/2007 Readwin t0 NOTREADY IN 03/26/2007 Snook 25 APPROVED Y Total Time: 35 Com lete? 114.8 B Ceding InsulAtwPICaulk„ $ P Y , :.." . ..,? .. .... 03/23/2007 Readwin 10 .NOT READY .._.. ....... N 11/27/2007 TEMP- 20 APPROVED Y I NATOLA Total Time 30 04l02/2007 Snook 25 APPROVED�� Total Time 25 - 1158 B Building Flnai N 11/07/2007 TEMP- 0 WROTE CORRECTIONS NATOLA Y 11/27J2007 TEMP- 20 APPROVED NATOLA Total Time 20 3000 B Hydronic TestY- ....:,... . , _�_a ..._ .�.. ..:..__a . »..:..... _.. ... . . . . ON IN HYDRONIC PIPES ......: ........... _a.....i..: N 08/31/2006 JR 03119/2007 Snook 0 VERIFIED PRESSURE TEST -FLOOR 20 NOT READY - N 11127/2007 TEMP- 20 CHECKED MANAFOLD FINAL INSPECTION Y - NATOLA - Total Time: 40 Total Inspections: 33 Total Time: 585 m � � t c m i• 0 m 1 0 OC mz y I O -n T � I m I�TI 0 y O 'T r .i1 1 D S O n m RECORD OF INSPECTIONS INSPECTOR DATE APPROVED " `7— i 3-etv pe ti�g 'SETBACKS ....:... .. ` FOUNDATION: . �q,,e�j V " 1 1 .. Footin'y....... �' Wall Pier/Porch" Z O t.-- Retaining Wall ........... Slab Insulation '.......... M 1 PLUMBING --, .• 1 . Underground ............ - •{�;: to C Rough -in .... .... m � O ' Commercial Final .:.... O0 C HEATING:: rn Z Gas Test ... Gas Piping .............. �Nl� �' iC"u•% D = �;: r Equipment ................. .' O n Commercial Final ....... EXTERIOR SHEATHING n/� •� „U r I=fl ITI .. r / NAILING .........:................ Ins M 3 o2i �1 00 In C '.- FRAMING ........................ 'f_� I- rR 0 FIRST FLOOR FRAMING.... y 'S .a G'• J� i 'INSULATION ..................... ` __ W - Floor Insulation ......... D Z Waif Insulation ........... —{ S_ _ .. Ceiling Insulation SHEETROCK NAILING E Z " SPECIAL INSPECTION ... m . :. MISCELLANEOUS .......... FINALL APPROVAFOR i OCCUPANCY .AL............ OCCUPANCY i 1 P