20060330.pdfDATE RECEIVED
1,
F
PERMIT EXPIRES
CITY OF EDMONDS
PKIRMIT
NUMBER ,5�
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION
JOB SUITEIAlTd
.... 11 oos 7 7d ?I,, c e V
BUS NESS
�A "Ps'
�al
_
LID NO
_LID FEES
ZOF
�,N,E�NA,M;; NIIAIIC��,lll
W,
MAILINGADDRESS
P BLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP
EXISTING PROPOSED
REQUIRED DEDICATION 4" FT
On, Zip
t3
TELEPHONE
5-� 7 7y
bl-'s
METE7 LINE
SlZq
t
NO -F FIXTURES
I PRV REQUIRED
YES Cl No
IB
.5 111
I:
IR
ADDRESS
1� I I 1 2 &Ate
REMARKS
OWNERICONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROUDRAINAGE
col
f;j 1' 7 72 0 a.
N4AE'4"
Cmo,oij'Ind
E GINEERING REVI DATE
z0'lBykL ut—
ADDRESS
DATE
ZIP
CITY TELEPHONE
FIRE REVIEWED BY
e-7 %25- -��'7 - ;:17 -7S-
�Vere4+ YW/ 3
x
STATE LICENSE NUMBER EIPIRATI. JAIE
_7C) b L_
CKED 'Y
VARIANCE OR CU
SHOREIANEORAD11
�SRP.I.CTION
E
ye
SEPA
COMPLET" I ""T
NOI
OA# joRpi - ;q
ZONE
SIGN AREA
HEIGHT
PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT NCELI
WAIVER 13
STUDY
99_r, -
I C,
AUD-D
AL
rg�-NE W
& RESIDEN IAL
PLUMBING I MECH
!,s%LOT COVE E
ALLOWED PROPOSED
E IRED SETBACKS IFT) PROPOSED
T EAR FRONT
SETBACKS (FT.)
REAR
Fl COMMERCIAL
'E�
C MPLIANCE OR
F 4SID
�IUIZ
9SIDE
M ADDITION
El COANGE OF USE
�, 15
M MIXEDUSE
PARKING
LOT REA
PLANNING REVIEWED By DATE
rl REMODEL
MULTIFAMILY
rl SIGN
REOD I PROVIDED
I
D
REPAIR g_2
eyes F-1 FINCE X FT) R'fA44--r-DIWVV f",O
— — VA
[:] DEMOLISH
E]
TANK
o
OTHER
11
ezQfalm
/w
jg�RAGE
PC FIT
(3
RETAINING WALL
ROOKERY
ESPRINKLJER
F:'REALARM
�ACTIVB`YiEXPLAIN:
ITYIN
TYPE OF CrfRSN
0 CUPANT
GROUP
NUMBER
NUMBER OF
OF
DWELL NO
PECIAl INXYTIIN
CONSULTANT
STORIES
'NITS
R SQUIB..
I
BF -SCRIBE WORK
TO BE DONE
REMARKS
UFfMFU)DF—
-
WWI -
I
Descri�ton
FEE
Description
FEE
Plan Check
State Surcharge
16.LZE% VESTED DATE
qt:URCE LOT
Buitcling Pe -it
Fvlew
j
tFEE
zz
CitYS—harge
PLAN CHEC:2!�. 7:3
Piumbing
B ... Fee
THI PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO
Mechanical
Grading
BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY, ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBIC
W1
5 DONIMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS. DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) LL REQUIRE
- SEPARATE PERMISSION,
PERMIT APPLICATION: SEE ECDC ISAOA05(A)(5)
Engn Re
Eng'. Inspection
PERMIT LIMIT. SEE ECDC 19,00,005(A)(6)
BACK .1 PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION
_SEE
'APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIR$, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS
Fire Review
PlanChk.D.posit
IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM,A,,N,YAND
Fire Inspection
Receipt If
ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE. ARISING DIRECTLY OR IN ;TLY
FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT -
Landscapeins
, "_I Due
TRB
DEEMED TO MDOIFY. WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE
3 NOR LIMIT 10 ANY WAY THE CITY'S ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION�
P
Recording Fee
C 'p,
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION; THAT THE INFORMATION
APPLICATION APP OVA
GIVEN IS CORRECT, AND THAT I AM THE OWNER� OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF
Th,� PPIlcdIl.n 1� n. A Inn""I "'"e'd "y"d
THE OWNS � I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC-
CALL
Bv�jd,rq OB-I , NsInor DaputW dd Fe—N, pd,d. and
TION; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED
IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO
FOR INSPECTION vp- .wl.d9.d,n pn-d.d
WOR:�MEWS COMPEN ATION INSURANCE AND RCW 18;W�
SiGNATUR
SIGITURE (?7R AGENT): DATE SIGNED
(425)
r
771-0220
JOFFILS
R ED By AT
ATTENTION
EXT. 1333
IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL
A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTI-
FICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. LIBC1 09 1 ISC 110 1 IRC1%
PINK -OWNER GOLD ASSESSOR
10104 PRESS HARD -YOU ARE MAKING 4 COPIES
z
9
0
C m
rn 00
0
mz
10-1
cl)
om
n
m
IT, A
0 @
0
0
C
m
M 0
Z r-
z
m
M !
OWNN' ;R/CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FF-I>
EROSION CONTROL AND DRAINAGE 4010 r rne�IND FlaR1,11D MIA47� -PnII0\Af ireujmmwAa-t-f0y1,4
-7 eoJ1ctAe'v11'c,0Lt Y-ePCO2
0
T " backs
!SITTE PLAN, LOT # M, ",�fitbg.ks
Owner: Hilicrest construction colitic. Front W
T # n
4 0 a. PI ce s
003 Nassau Place Sides N c' FIE.
V,
Everett. WA 98201 F-A 1N6PECTION
Rear I —
Number the:r
Tax Parcel
NUMMM!,PPROVED AS N
site Address����� Ae j
BY ENGINEEMMIG WATER & SEWER
Bench Mark-ToPof sewermanhole @swcornerof project.= 191.26' INOPECTIONS REQ'D
Lot Covergg Me: 3 CALL 4-28-""-0220 EXT. 13 6 11
House SF:
Lot SF: NF�
A lit, J-171.
35% Allowed: S.F. CL 1 7
Under/Over -36.95 S.F. = Fl,%
0=
4_.
Height Caics -0 - 2,0'
A
B LlJ
t
J-1
L
C 0
COL, CL
Total
Average =54-
25'Allowed 25 r-
MaX.M.Allowed
RES B
Main Floor Elev. P C9
B
-ity
Actual Height 209.6 MAR-72 6
BUILDING DEPAR WENT
APPROM BY PLANNING CITY OF EDMO 08
SEWAGE PUMP CA CS. 12"+ 1 t) 67 ALL EXPOSED SURFACES TO
LC
p Mp size ca Units Quan Totals
3 6
E�
J2
4 1 LCSJ BE COVERED WITHIN 2 DAYS GRADING CALCS.
u 1 4]
Bathtubs 4 4
0 '1 ,
b/S! , , 4 Footing Elev, =Rl MMF,4 Avg.Cut
[CmIc. TU71
, I
i clothes West Downspouts will be connected to storm ((A+B)/2)-Footing Elev, 1.275
as
Dishwasher -'s stub. Footing drains will also be can- ((B+D)/2)-Footing Elev, 2.025
t:
LavatOrY impervious area arm tu ((D+C)/2)-Footing Elev. 4.4
b If
0 s ti. II
I n k nected to storm stub if grade allows.
Kitchen sink
iLoundry sink .5 Ho as SF: 1432 and :�onnection will be no less than .75' ((C+A,42)-Footing Elev. 3.65
1 v. 0 " w
2 1 2 Overhangs 212 f I, g
575 below invert of footing drain line. Average Cut = 2.8375
1=.r,met, 2s 3 7.5 DrivelWalk if grade precludes such connection. Volume 3972.6
then a sump will be provided. Cubic Yds.
17119E
Engle Eye Consulting Engineers, PS
PO Box 523
Olalla, WA 98359
hoytjeter@centurytel.net
253 857-4151
Fax 253 857-5759
To: Marie Harrison 1/31/2006
City of Edmonds
z
Edmonds, WA 98020
Re: Hillcrest Construction, #17005
410%p)
0
17005 77th Place W
Edmonds, WA 98020
. Vi
a m
Plan Review #: 05-573
m
-40
EECE #: ED 05-78
0
-4
X
This project is approved for the Structural Architectural V&IAQC and Energy Only
M z
0-4
permit The drawing review has been completed and accepted for permit With the
C: z
approved stamped drawings returned to the City ofEdmonds.
The following items have been redlined on the drawings:
5i
On
Sheet 7 requires 15 roof vents.
m M
0
0
Sheet 9 Shearwall & Hoiddown Notes:
Item #3 requires 3x foundation sill plate only.
M 0
z r-
Item #7 requires minimum 3x abutting panel edges.
-q
Item SW-3 footnote 3 applies.
Your plans are being reviewed concurrently with the Building Department, Planning
z
-4
X
Department, and Public Works Engineering. Changes, clarifications or additional
corrections may be required subsequent to the Building Department review, when
z
comments are received from the other concerned departments.
0
m
Should you have any inquiries regarding this letter, please call Hoyt Jeter at (253) 857-
4151 between 8:00 am and 5:00 pro.
RECEIVED
FEB — 2 ?nn6
By:
Hoyt Jeter, PE BUILDING DEPT.
President
Consulting
Robert M. Pride, Inc. Engineer
February 10, 2oo6
Mr. Jon Kvernmo
20
Hillerest Construction Company
06
P. 0. BOX 3121
Everett, WA 98213
Re: Geotechnical Review
Proposed Residences
170OItOI7009 77th Place West
Edmonds, Washington
Plan Check #o5-566,67,73,76,77
Dear Mr. Kvernmo,
As requested by the City of Edmonds I have reviewed my prior reports prepared for the
five proposed residences on Lots 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 in this subdivision located along 771h
Place West in Edmonds. Our geotechnical investigation performed on Lots 2 through 7
was summarized in the December 15th report, which will be submitted along with the
plans and specifications for obtaining residential permits on these lots.
The plans forthe residential structures on each of the five lots were previously reviewed
and they were found to comply with the recommendations made in our geotechnical
-report. Although Nelson Geotechnical was involved in the original platting of this
subdivision, we will be acting as the geotechnical engineer of record during construction
ofthe residences. Any field inspections that are required during site excavation/grading
and during foundation installations will be performed, and field memos will be
submitted for City review.
Individual Agreement Forms for each lot will be signed and submitted along with this
final review letter.
Please call me if there are any questions. -P. �_._ �
Respectfully, JFSV/"<" &I +V,A*t
Robert M. Pride, P. E. 'V T6_'F
ineer
Principal Geotechnical Engi
nl�
dist: 0) addressee NAL
rmp: HillcrestRes4 EXP,R,S
13203 Holmes Point Nve NE 98034
Phone: 425-814-3970 nay Oily, Fax: 425-814-5672
Z
0,
C
0
0
C
M
M
C
o"n
n LU
M M
a C-0
0
0
C:
Q 0
Z
Z
9
0
Doc 15 0.5 137:53P ROBERT M PRIDE IMG 425 814 51372 P-1
Consulting
Robert M. Pride, Inc. Engineer
December 15, 2005 R ECE* IV ED
Mr. Jon Kvcmmo
Hillorest Consi.ruction PERMIT COUNTER
P. 0. BOX 3121
Everett, WA 98213-1121
z
Re: Geotechnical 1nve-.t1gati00 RESUB
9
0
Proposed Residences — Lots 2 and 4-7
FEB 15 2006
1,7007 77u� Place West
NM
Edmonds, Washington BUILDING'DF.PWA E"T
RMP Projoct No. 05-352-01 V 0 Nor.
--j
M � I
m
C
M
Dear Mr. Kvernmo,
0
0
nical evaluation for
This report presents the regial IS of our Site exploration 'Ind geotech Edmonds.
developmen]. ill
C
X m
M
iaTden
five single family residences in the Chairlot.rc C W. it is
t to 77th Place and just norLh of 171,,*L Street S
z
K) --I t-
propet'lly is situated adjacen
understood that single family residence-4 will be constructed On these lots'
> z
ation was to establish the nature (.If 1-he sol-)surface soil
The, purpose of this investig :11res, and to provide recommendations
to the strud
0 -n
n Zo
support
conditions that will provide -y plans for these, houses
for the design and construction of the foundations. prelinlinal
building pad grades. USGS
-4
In M
ig will be required to establish
show hat 1�inor site gradir 7.
I a, I eference for this investigation,
for this area of EdIn ,ads was used_;,
1 U; , "
0
'F�
mapping
0
A
V)
MO
ing have been performed on this site, in 00 nnoution with the
Provioas clearing and grad has been and utilities have been
X
paved
overall six IOL development. The access street - s indicate
installed to serve the resid ential lot.,.;. observations of the ground condition
the existing grades that SIOPC
that fill has been placed over -0' A of the lots to create
z
generally toward the norLheasL
:0 �
I
.P slope descends down towardthe easterly sj(lt, (If Lhis development and there is a
A stee
JA)t #6. nie slope on the easterly side of the plat is heavily
z
—01
st of
designated wetland we trees located on this
covered with vinens and native shrubs, and there are some mature ce of gross failures
no eviden
0
m
native li/2 I 1.,Iv slope. Observations of this slope showed
instabirAy that would affe et the, proposed construction.
or
rding to Minard (USGS — 1983) this area of Edmonds is underlain by glacial till
Acco Lreliches were dug in
(QVC) and advanced outwash deposits (Qva) Seven exploratory
to confirm ilie presence of fill soils and to classify
the area of the proposed residences
--,-----------j-3203i�lolme$FointD6veNE KA19ft0,--- FaX: 426-814-5672
phojje� 42"14-3970
Dee 15 05 07!53p ROBERT M PRIDE ING 425 814 5672 p.2
December 15, ZOO.c.;
Mr. Jon Kvernmo
Page 2
the underlying native soils. The test pits encuonlered soft t1l soils and otganics to
debris and tree remnants that
depLhS.Of two feet and there Was obvioOS construction
were buried in the fill, Below the fill were topsoil and modium dense silty swids that
were categorized as weathered till.
A majority ofthe fill material oil this plat is located on Lots 6and 7 that are on the.
feet softand louse fill with organics and
Z
westerly side ofthe property. Up te,,;eve11 of
06bris were encountered G� LOL #7. Lots 2 th rough 6 had rill and disturbed soils tba I.
ranged from 1 to as much as 4 feet as disclosed by the test pits. Groundwatcrs(...upage
was not encountered in any of the exploratory test Pith. Summary logs of tbe.se test pits
'4 -fi
ate shown on Appendix A and their locations art, shown on Drawing No. i.
Vi -4
M i
0
CtutLechjtical Recormilendation,
M
C
0
0
On the basis of our site insp ection and subsurface exploration, the proposed resideoce
through the fill and bear on the medivall
C
M
M MZ
foundat ions for Lots 2 through 6 rnustexLend
dense to dense native silty san& l;ooling depths are expected to range from to as
soil bearing value
>
Inuch a, 5 feet to bear on the undisturbed nativesoils. An allowable
of -->ono pbf may be used in the design ofthese footings that should have a minimum
depth of 18 inches M. ow fin al exterior grade, This value may he. increased by 1/,3 to
for temporary seismil! or windloadings A passive earth pressure of 200 PCf
Co
0'"
-n
account
may be used to resist. lateral forces.
:C
m M
Where fill soils exceed n depth ofabout five feet on 14t 47, it is recommended that the,
bearing wall footings besupported on drive" In pe piles either 3 Or I. inches in diameter.
0 Vi
0 , t,�
0 ul , -
These pile-s.should be Schedule 80 galvanized Pi pe that are driven to refusal into the
- .1 Period of
inch of ovni ,
C
Co
M 0
ne penetration
native till soils. Refusal is definf-X1 as less than o Lacli pile
30 and 15 seconds, respectively using a4,50# 01'850# Puetlmllt": han"ner'
Z
may be loaded up to 8 and a�o tons, respectively for -orldng capacity.
Where pipe piles are used for foundation support they should be connected with
for & concreteslabs. If the up er fill
P
-4
Z
rxmcrete grade beams that also pr(pidesupport
compacted with a vibratory roller to a depth of two feet, the. floor slabs can be
soils are
poured on the curnpacLed fill. Some interior sla b settlement can be expected where the
Z
depth of fill exceeds three feet.
Some excavation wit I be required to establish the building pid for the residence
rxcavated soils should not be used for structural till under the residence,
m
foundations.
but maybe placed in landscape' 8TCaS or hauled offiite� Nornialero-ion control
for coni4ructiou of this residence. in the coming winter
procedures should be in place
months.
Site drainage improvements will include the installation offooting subdruins, allea.
Fax: 426-814-5672
Phom 42."14.3970
Bee 15 05 07:53F ROBERT M PRIDE INC 425 814 SG72 P.3
December 15, 2005
Mr..Ton Kvernmo
Page 3
drains and roof down drains. T)js�ebarge ofthese drains should lit- into the existing
Storm water system installed as part of the street improvenients.
z
construction monitoring a n d consultation Service.,; should also be provided to verify that,
0
Subsurface condiLiong are similar to these descri bed in Lhig report. Should conditions be
fron, Lbe anticipated sub Surface profile, we will
M
revealed during construction that vary
Lbose conditions and pro�vide alternative recommendations wb ore appropriate.
evaluate
ed ased on I) our
Tho conclusions and recommendations PreSc"t, in this reporL are b,,
Lhis site, 0—) confirm ation ofthe actual
0 In
C
in 0
interpretdtiou and evaluation of Wl conditions on
conditions encountered during Construction, And j) theassumption that
-40
0 C:
i.mbsurface
sufficient observation and Les Ling will be performed during the appropriate phases of
M M
the work.
z
our findings and recommend ations in this report were prepared in accordancu, w4h
generally accepted principles of geoteelinical engineeri iig as priletictgi in Lbe Puget
M
r, `-
Sotmdamiat the time our work was PerfOrMcd, Wc in ale no warranLy, either express
, �-
O'n
or implied.
-n Lo
-q
s qS rtin grealer
Please call me if there are. any (piesLions, or you wish to di.. eu—thi. repo
M M
a Vj
detail.
0
0
C
peeffullY,
'p 'u"
0
Cj
Robeft M. Pride, P. E.
>
Geotechnical En i -er
z
Principal
(list; (2) Addressee
Co
----------------
mip:
0
m
Iles i5ifk1wild, 98034
'13255iiio�, Fax: 425-814-5872
Phone: 425-814-3970
0
DOC 15 O5� 67:53p ROBERT M PRIDE ING 425 814 5672 p.4
APPENDIX A
Summary Logs of Test Pits
Test Pit No, I —Lot 7
0.0 — 4.0ft FILL: Silty sand; gray brown, soft, very moist; with organics;
4.0 — 5.0 ft NATIVE SOIL: Silty sand and sandy silt; brown, moist, medium dense;
Test Pit No. 2 —Lot 7
soft, very moist; with
0.0 — 5.0ft FILL: Silty sand and sandy silt; gray brown,
organics and concrete debris; buried tree branch and roots;
6.0 — 7.Oft NATIVE SOIL: Silty sand; brown, moist, medium dense to dense;
Test Pit No, 3 — Lot 7
— 0 7.01t FILL: Silty sand and Sandy silt; gray brown, very moist, soft; with
.0
organics and roots;
7.0 — 7.5ft NATIVE SOIL: Silty sand; brown, moist, medium dense: no
groundwater;
Test Pit No, 4 — Lot 2
0.0 — 1.0ft FILL: Topsoil; Silty sand and sandy silt; brown, very moist, soft;
no groundwater;
1.0 — 4.Oft NATIVE $OIL: Silty sand; brown moist, medium dense,
Test Pit No 5 — Lot 3
0,0 — 2.Oft FILL: Silty sand; brown, very moist, soft and loose;
2.0 — 3.011 NATIVE SOIL: Silty sand; brown, moist, medium dense: no
groundwater;
Test Pit No. 6 — Lot 4
0.0 — 1.0ft FILL: silty sand; brown, moist, loose;
1.0 — 2.5ft NATIVE SOIL: Silty sand; brown, moist, medium dense:
Test Pit No. 7 — Lot 6
0.0 — 3.Oft FILL: Silty sand; gray brown, very moist, loose;
moist, medium dense;
3.0 — 4.Oft NATIVE SOIL: Silty sand; brown,
Test Pit No. 8 — Lot 6
0.0 — 4.Oft FILL: silty sand; brown, very moist, loose;
4.0 — 5.0ft NATIVE SOIL: Silty sand; brown, moist, medium dense;
Phone: 426-814-3970 1,n% Pjol Doe NF Kirkl.nd, WA 902�
c
z
0
M
C
MO
C
MM
MZ
C
0 -n
m m
0
0
C
M 0
Z
M
Z
1 1
3:
z
0
m
Dec 15 UP 07!54p ROBERT M PRIDE INC 425 814 5672 P.5
isw
7RACT 297 r-
Sr I
4
IRACT on
L
z
*TP
WRAM 08
A Jr.
m
jk
mo
0
0
m
mz
jo-4
4
L
JTP-
v
q
0 -n
-n Lo
"5
f 5
-4
x
mm
0
0
4�
0
z
< ro '
z
0
m
Rc& plot Map for chariotte Gardens
SITE ILAN
zpr Charlotte Garden
W=13 SVV and 1710S"Ot orawingNc. i
----------
dmonds, WasWngWn
W. Fride. lnc.
Robert
Dec 28 05 05-18p ROBERT M PRIDE INC 425 814 5672 P.1
Consulting
Engineer
Robert M. Pride, Inc.
December 28, 2005
Mr. Jon l(vornalo
Hillerest Construction
P. 0. Box 3121 z
Everett, WA 98'-113-1121
0
Re: Geoltechnical investigation
proposed Residences - Lots 3 - 6
77th Place We.%L
Edmonds, Washington
RMP Project No. 05-352-0 1 m
M 0 1
0
Dear Mr. Kvcrnmo, C
On m
At your request I have revieweA the plans for the proposed single family residences to be z
constructed on 1 -0171; 3 through 6 in tile Charlotte 0ardens plat on 77LI, Place West in
hin the building setback limits as shown z
Edmonds. These residences have been sited wit >
onthe dniwings by Home Design. Vi
Based on my site inspections and geotecbnical evaluation as discussed in my December
_nud and ie reports, these structures can be constructed at their proposed locations
without any impact on the adjacent steep slope areas. Mininallm. sJopesetback distances mm
from the face of theslope to i6e exterior foundation walls is it least 155 feet on Let,% 30 0(ft
feet on Lot 4, 35 feet on 1A)t 5 and 35 feet on L 6. In my opinion these setback 0 Fn
ot C 0
e conditions on these properties, and 9 Cie
distances are satisfactory for the siteandsubsurfac M 0
they willsaLisfy the requirements of ECDC #�-3.8o and q-3.4o. Z r-
Please call me if there. are any questions regarding this stibrnklal. ;U
-4
Respectfully, z
RESUB
WA St
,AN �, JAN 19 2006 z
Robert M. Pride, 11. H. BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Principal GeotechniM En n 'r CITY OF EDMONDS
m
diSt: (2) Addressee
rinp;
STREET FILE
. . ........ .
98034
WO Holmes Point
Phone: 425-814-3970 Fox; 426,614-5672
eb -78
E (G k !I IV" lb
EAN 2 �2
ZO
m
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
EVALUATION
TALBOT PARK ESTATES
m
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
PREPARED FOR
c
CITY OF EDMONDS
m A
C-
>Z
mm
a
0
0
M 0,
CA
m
RTITCEIVED
SEP 1, 12003
Wastorn Enginmrg,
NELSON GEoTECHNICAL
—'N A AssociATEs, INC.
GEOTECHNicAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS
17311 -13e Avenue NE, A-500 Snoh(xnisb County (425) 337-1W9
WoodinvUle, WA 98072
(425)4WI669 - Fax(425)481-2510 Wenatchee/Chelan (509) 784-Z756
Fchniary 14,2003
z
0
CityefFAmonds
Development Services Department
;I
121 — 5" Avenue North
m
t3
Edmonds, Washington 98020
0
Attn: W. Steve Bullock
0 C
:0 r
m
m z
GeotCchnical Engineering Evaluation
--I
Talbot Park Estates
C 9;
>
Edmonds, Washington
NGA File No. 360902
0)
0,
Dear M. Bullock:
We am pleased to submit this report titled "GeOtechnical Engineering Evaluation — Talbot Park Estates,
—C
Edmonds, Washington." This report summarizes the exist ing surface and subsurface conditions on the site
0
0
and contains geotechnical recommendations for specific aspects of this development. our services were
completed in general accordance with the contract signed by you on December 11, 2002.
rn 0
Z r- V.
It has been a pleasure to provide service to you on this project Please contact us if you have any questions
regarding this report or require further information.
z
Sincerely,
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
z
0
In
Khaled M. Shawish, PE
Senior Engineer
Five copies submitted
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SCOPE -- -------
0
SITE CONDITIONS .............
0
M
SURFACECONDITIONS ...................... .................. .......... ........................................................................... 2
SUBSURFACECONDITIONS ............... .................. ................. ........................... ............. ........................... 3
1 -n
GEOLOGy.
'c m
ma
0
EXPLORATIONS ........... .......................................... ................ ................................................................................. 3
0
c
HYDRoLoricCONDITIONS— ........................................ .........................................................................................
m
SENSrlTVE AREA EVALUATION
CE .
5
SusmicHAZARD ..... ..................... - ....................................................................................................................
EROSION HAZARD ......................................... . ............................................................................. ............................. 5
0 -n
LANDSLIDEHAZARD/SLOPE STABILITY ................................................... ......................................... ....................... 5
SLOPESTABILITY................... ............. ............................................................................................................ 6
M m
a co
0
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOM3fENDATIONS--..---...--------.--.--.
0
C In
............................. ............................ ............. ....................................................... 7
EROSIONCONTROLMEASURES .................................................................................................................................. 8
m 0GENERAL
8
STEEPSLOPE SETBACK ......................... I .......................................................... I ................................ . 1*111*111- ............
SLOPE AND SMACK PROTECTION ................................................................................................................... 9
z
SITE PREPARATION AND GRADING .......................................... . .......................................... ............... .....................
TB4PoRApYEXCAvATIONS .............................................................. .................................................. * ................... 10
z
STRuCTURALFILL.................................................................... .................... ...................................
.............. .................................................................................... ...........
FOUNDATIONS ......................... ............ 12
m
SLABS -ON -GRADE ................................................................................. ................................ ............. 13
SrrEDRAINAGE........................................................................................................................................................ 13
USE OF THIS . . . .....
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Talbot Park Estates
Edmonds, Washington
INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes the results of our Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation on Talbot Park Estates
located in Edmonds, Washington. The site is located at 7707 — 17 1" Street SW in Edmonds as shown on
the Vicinity Map in Figure 1. A single-family residence is currently located on the site. The developer
plans to construct an access road near the western property line and divide the site into seven residential
lots. We understand that the existing residence will remain and will occupy one of the lots.
We have been retained to explore the subsurface conditions within the site, observe and map the slope
surficial conditions, and provide geotechnical engineering recommendations for foundations and
residence setback. For the purpose of completing this study, we have been provided with a site plan
prepared by Lovell-Sauerland Associates, Inc. titled, "Preliminary Plat for Talbot Park Estates," dated
October 22, 2002. The site plan shows the planned lot layout and access road alignment, and has
topographic information. We have also been provided with a copy of a preliminary geotechnical
evaluation report for the site, dated September 12,2001, prepared by Liu& Associates, Inc. Inyourletter
to us dated October 17, 2002, the City stated that the pertinent sections of the Edmonds Community
Development Code for this project are 20.15B.110.A & D and 19.05.
SCOPE
The purpose of Us study is to evaluate the site subsurface soils and hydrologic conditions and provide
recommendations for site development. Specifically, our scope of services includes the following:
I . Review available geologic and soils maps of the area, and the provided geotechnical
report for the site.
2. Explore the site subsurface soil and ground water conditions using a subcontracted
backhoe.
3. Perform field mapping and develop cross sections on the steep slope at selected locations.
4. Evaluate slope stability on the site, and complete slope stability analysis.
5. Provide a recommended setback/butTer from the top of slope for building siting.
6. Provide recommendations for site grading and earthwork, including structural fill.
Z
0
in
2 in
ii a �,:�
0
90
C
-i
X in
T1
Z
m in
0
0
0
C in
V)
in 0
X
Z
Z
0
in
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Talbot Park Estates
Edmonds, Washington
February 14,2003
NGA File No. 360902
Page 2
7. Provide recommendations for foundations and slabs -on -grade.
8. Provide recommendations for site drainage and erosion control.
9. Document our explorations, findings, and conclusions and recommendations in a written
z
.0
geotechnical report. The report to address the pertinent sections of the ECDC.
0
SITE COMMONS
Surface Conditions
X
The site is a serni-rectangular-shaped parcel covering approximately 2.1 acres. The site is bordered by
m
M
0 U
17V Street SW to the south and a residential lot to the west. A ravine borders the site on the eastern and
80
5
norfficinsides. A stream was flowing at the bottom of the ravine at the time of our field reconnaissance
mm
on December 18, 2002 and February 3, 2003. The site features are shown on the Site Plan in Figure 2.
z
A residence with some outbuildings is situated in the southern portion of the sit e. This area is vegetated
3:
t
with a grass lawn and young to mature deciduous and evergreen trees. The northern portion of the site is
-n Lo
undeveloped, and is vegetated with blackberry bushes, brush, and young to mature deciduous and
m m
evergreen trees.
0
0 Fn
The main portion of the site slopes gently down toward the south. The ravine on the eastern side of the
C ca
Co
M 0
site slopes moderately to steeply down toward the east. The steep ravine slope is covered with ferns,
z
blackberry bushes, and young to mature deciduous and evergreen trees. Old growth stumps were
observed on the slopes.
>
z
We measured Cross -Sections A -A!, B-13', and C-C' using a 100-foot tape measure and a hand-held
Co
clinometer. The cross -sections arc presented as Figures 3, 4, and 5. The portion of the steep slope at
z
Cross -Section A -A', which has an approximate east -west orientation, has a total relief of approximately
—
0
30 feet. This portion of the ravine slopes toward the east with inclinations as steep as 27 degrees. The
m
portion of the steep slope at Cross -Section B-B', which has an approximate southwest -northeast
orientation, has a total reliefof approximately 60 feet. This portion of the ravine slopes down toward the
northeast with inclinations as steep as 40 degrees. The portion of the steep slope at Cross -Section C-C',
which has an approximate east -west orientation has a total relief of approximately 25 feet, and slopes
down toward the cast with inclinations as steep as 38 degrees.
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Talbot Park Estates
Edmonds, Washington
February 14,2003
NGA File No. 360902
Page 3
Subsurface Conditions
Geology
Most of the Puget Sound region was affected by past intnision of continental glaciation. The last period
of glaciation, the Vashon Stade, ended approximately 10,000 to 11,000 years ago. Many of the
the VaShon
geornorphic features seen today are a result of scouring and overriding by glacial ice. During
Soil layers overridden by the ice
Stade, the Puget Sound region was overridden by over 3,000 feet of ice
sheet were compacted to a much greater extent than those that were not
The geologic units for this area are shown on the Geologic Mar,of the Edmonds East and Part of the
Edmonds West Om—drangles, Washindori by James P. Minard (US Geological Survey, 1983). The site is
similar unit
mapped as till, which is described as an unsorted mixture of silt sand, and gravel. Drift is a
to till but has some sorting. Advance outwash and transitional bed materials are mapped a short distance
from the site. Advance outwash is described as sand with varying amounts of gravel. Transitional bed
ons encountered material consistent
material consists of bedded clay, silt, and fine sand. Our explorati
with the descriptions of drift and advance outwash, and we observed transitional bed material in the
northeast section ofthe site, near the bottom ofthe ravine.
Explorations
The subsurface conditions within the site were explored on December 18, 2002 by excavating two hand
auger explorations, and on February 3, 2003 by excavating nine test pits with a backhoe. The hand auger
explorations extended to depths of 2.8 to 3.4 feet below the ground surface, and the test pits were
excavated to depths of 4.0 to 7.0 feet below the ground surface. Ile approximate locations of the
explorations are shown on the Site Plan in Figure 2. A representative ofNelson Geotechnical Associates,
Inc., (NGA) was present during the explorations, examined the soils and geologic conditions encountered,
obtained samples ofthe different soil qVs, and maintained logs ofthe hand augers and test pits.
The soils were visually classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System,
gh 11.
presented in Figure 7. The soil logs are attached to this report and arc presented as Figures 8 throu
We present a brief summary of the subsurface conditions in the following paragraphs. For a detailed
th i
description ofthe subsurface conditions, e logs should be rev ewcd.
Th
Our two hand auger explorations were located on the slope of the ravine feature. ese explorations
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
z
in
m
0
0
M in
0 -n
'-n4
in in
a
0
0 Fn
C o)
C co
in 0
z
7-1
;u
z
z
0
in
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Talbot Park Estates
Edmonds, Washington
February 14,2003
NGA File No. 360902
Page 4
encountered 0.6 to 1.5 feet of surficial topsoil material. Underlying the topsoil, we encountered silty fine
to medium sand with gravel to fine to medium sand with silt and gravel. These soils extended to the
bottom of the hand auger explorations, 2.8 to 3.4 feet below the ground surface.
Test Pit 6, located near the north end of the planned access road, encountered 1.5 feet of loose surficial fill
material composed of silty fine sand with roots and pieces of concrete. Our other eight test pit
explorations encountered a surficial layer of topsoil 1.0 to 2.8 feet thick Test Pits 3 and 4, located in the
northern portion of the site, encountered material generally consisting of sand with silt below the surficial
t a as u h. Ile
topsoil and extending to the bottom of the explorations. We interpret this ma eri I o twas
with gravel beneath the topsoil and fill. This
remaining seven test pit explorations encountered silty sand
material extended to the depth explored in these test pits, and was interpreted as glacial drifL Fine to
medium sand seams were observed within this material in Test Pits 5, 6, and 7.
We observed silt and clay material in several shallow hand excavations in the northeastern portion ofthe
site, on the slopes near the bottom of the ravine. We interpreted this silt and clay material as part of the
Transitional bed unit.
Hydrologic Conditions
Ground water seepage was not observed in any of our subsurface explorations or on the steep slope,
however, a perched ground water condition could possibly develop above the low -permeability soils
found underlying the site.
Perched water occurs when surface water infiltrates thmugh less dense, more permeable soils and
accumulates on top of the underlying, less permeable silts or flow into the joints found in the silt. The
more permeable soils, in this case, consist of topsoil and fill. The less permu:able soils consist of the
underlying silty sand and silt. Perched water'does not represent a regional ground water table within the
u r rainfall
ppe soil horizons. Perched water tends to vary spatially and is dependent upon the amount of
We would expect the amount of ground water to decrease during drier times of the year and increase
during wetter periods. Also, groundwater seepage could outcrop on the face of the steep slope during the
wetter periods of the year.
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
-4 -n
0 m
C
m
0
0 C
--4 C i
in
M Z
C 2
0)
0 -n
in M
0 C-9
0
0
C
C co
in 0
Z
Z
m
Geoteclinical Engineering Evaluation
Talbot Park Estates
Edmonds, Washington
February 14,2003
NGA File No. 360902
Page 5
SENSITIVE AREA EVALUATION
Seismic Hazard
The project is located within Zone 3 of the Seismic Zone Map shown as Figure 16-2 of the 1997 Uniform
Building Code (UBC). This corresponds to a Seismic Zone Factor, Z, of 0.30. We recommend that the
subsurface soils be considered Soil Profile Type SD, as described in the UBC.
Hazards associated with seismic activity include liquefaction and amplification of ground motion due to
soft soil. The glacially compacted soils inferred to underlie this site do not have a significant potential for
liquefaction or amplification of ground motion.
Erosion Hazard
The criteria used for evaluation of erosion hazards include soil type, slope gradient, vegetation cover and
ying
groundwater conditions. The surface soil types (group classification) are related to the underl
geologic soil units. The Soil Survey of Snohomish County Area, Washington, by the Soil ConscmtiOn
Service (SCS), was reviewed to evaluate the erosion hazard of the on -site soils.
The surface soils at the site were mappcd by the SCS and classified as Alderwood-urban land complex (8
to 15 percent slopes). The erosion hazard for these soils is listed as slight. The slopes on the site have
inclinations steeper than 15 percent in some areas. The erosion hazard for the steeper areas of the site is
considered moderate to high.
Landslide Hazard/Slope Stability
The steeply sloping portion of the site has inclinations as steep as 40 degrees as measured in the field.,
We estimate that there is a change in elevation of up to 60 feet across the steep slopes along the eastern
side of the site. The native soils that form the core of the slope are inferred to consist of competent
glacially -compacted soils, We observed small scarps on the slope that appeared to be the result Of
shallow failures. A neighbor informed us that a failure occurred last year on a steep slope on the eastern
side ofthe creelL We observed the scarp resulting from that failure, and some of the failed material near
the bottom of the slope. This failure is interpreted to have been a shallow surface failure, and may have
been the result ofsaturated slope conditions.
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Z
C in
in
C-)
0
-4
X in
>
o"n
n
3: C
in in
0
0
in 0
Z
;u
Z
Z
in
M
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Talbot Park Estates
Edmonds Washington
February 14, 2003
NGA File No. 360902
Page 6
We did not observe seepage on the steep slopes. We did observe several bowed mature deciduous and
evergreen trees on the steep slopes. This is likely the result of soil creep. Based on the competent soils
that are believed to form the core of the slope, the absence of indications of past deep-seated slope
movement, and the absence ofwater seepage on the slope, we consider the slope to be stable with respect
to deep-seated movements. However, we did observe indications that the slope has experienced shallow
failures and gradual slope movement. We would expect that such events to continue in the future.
There is a significant potential for shallow sloughing events to occur within the steeper portions ofthe site
due to the steep inclination of the slopes. The potential for sloughing may be reduced by routing surface
sturbed
water away from the top of slope, maintaining vegetation on the slope, and repairing any areas di
during construction. Periodic monitoring of the site steep slopes is also recommended. With the
recommended setback, these sloughing events should not adversely impact the planned structures.
Slope Stability
We analyzed global stability of the steep slope using a computer program titled XSTABL, version 5.2.
XSTA13L is a two-dimensional, limit -equilibrium, slope stability program. XSTABL generates random
potential failure surfaces and determines their corresponding factors of safety with respect to failure. The
factor ofsafety is defined as the ratio ofthe internal soil strength divided by the gravity driving forces that
cause failure. By generating a large number of random surfaces, the factor of safety can be obtained as
the lowest number calculated.
The geometry ofCross-Section B-B' was used for the slope stability analysis. The factor ofsafety against
slope failures affecting the ground surface 35 feet beyond the top ofthe steep slope was found to be above
I.S. The parameters and results for this analysis are shown in Figure 6. This analysis along with our field
observations is the basis for establishing the recommended building setbacks.
The shallow explorations within the upper portion of the cross-section B-B' encountered glacially
consolidated sandy soil. We observed trarisitional bed material consisting of silt and clay in the lower
section of the northern portion of the steep slope at cross-section B-B'. We did not pbrforrit laboratory
she. testing of the onsite materials. We established design strengths based on visual evaluation and
classification ofthe soils and our experience with similar conditions.
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Z
9
0
in
-4 -n
M
C a i�'
0
0
C k
In j�
C
0 -n
m In
0
0
m
Cn
V)
M 0
Z
W
Z
r
Z
0
m
Geoteclurical Engineering Evaluation
Talbot Park Estates
Edmonds' Washington
F.bruary 14,2003
NGA File No. 360902
Page 7
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMAWNDATIONS
General
It is our opinion that the planned development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint It is also our
opinion that the soils that underlie the site and form the core of the site slopes should be stable with
respect to deep-seated earth movements, due to their inherent strength and slope geometry. These soils
should provide adequate support to standard shallow foundations. There is a potential for shallow
sloughing and erosion events to occur on the steeper portions of the slope. We have provided
recommendations to reduce the potential of such events and a slope setback distances to reduce the risk of
adverse impacts to the residences should such events occur. This is further discussed in the Steep Slope
Setback subsection ofthis report.
The residences could be supported on conventional spread footings, provided that the foundation
extended into medium
excavations are advanced through any surficial fill, topsoil, or loose material and
de. or better native soil.. Overex..vted material should be replaced with rock spalls or structural fill.
The downhill footing lines, however� should be cast on native material.
Surface water runoff and water from roofdownspouts and yard areas should be collected and directed into
appropriate drainage systems to reduce the amount of water flowing onto the steep slopes. It will be
important to maintain the vegetation on the slope to reduce the erosion potential. The occurrence of
sloughing on the slope can be reduced by routing storm run-offinto appropriate water lines away from the
slope or piping storm water to the base of the slope. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to
flow over or concentrate on the site slopes, both during construction and after construction has been
completed.
The soils likely to be exposed during construction are considered moisture -sensitive and will disturb and
erode easily when wet. We recommend that construction take place during the drier summer months, if
possible. If construction takes place during the wet season, additional expenses and delays should be
-si il, C
expected due to the wet conditions. Additional expenses could include the need to export on teso th
import of clean, granular soil for fill, and the need to place a blanket ofrock spalls or crushed rock in the
construction traffic areas and exposed subgrades prior to placing structural fill or structural elements. We
do not recommend the use of on -site soils as structural fill in wet weather. After grading, the exposed
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
z
m
-4
m
ma
0
0 C
q C 1-
X M
M z
,0-4
C
0 -n
n Lo
m M
0
0
6 Fn
C o)
M 0
Z
;V
z
z
m
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Talbot Park Estates
Edmonds, Washington
February 14,2003
NGA File No. 360902
Page 8
subgrade should be protected from construction traffic and surface runoff.
Erosion Control Measures
The erosion bamrd for the on -site soils site is considered moderate to high, depending on how the site is
gem t Practices (BMPs) should be used to
graded and water is allowed to concentrate. Best Mana en
control erosion. Areas disturbed during construction should be protected from erosion. Measures taken
Pe.
may include diverting surface water away from the stripped areas and from flowing over the slo Silt
e site or flowing over
fences andfor straw bales should be erected to prevent muddy water from leaving th
the top of I the slope. Disturbed areas should be planted with vegetation at the end of construction. The
The erosion potential of areas not stripped of
vegetation should be maintained until established.
vegetation should be low.
Steep Slope Setback
uncertainties related to building along steep slopes are typically addressed by the use of building
setbacks. The purpose of a setback is to establish a buffer zone between a structure and the slope margin,
so that ample room is allowed for normal slope surface regression or a minor slope failure. Ibis setback
tandpoint, a reasonable
also protects the slope from the impacts of the development From a geological s
setback Js based on the slopes physical characteristics; e.g., slope height, surface angle, material
composition, hydrology, etc. Other factors such as historical slope activity, rate of regression and
earthwork activity along the toe of slope, are important considerations as well.
Based on our slope evaluation and observations, we recommend a minimum horizontal setback distance
of 25 feet between the top of the steep slope and the planned residences on Lots 2, 3, and 4. The slope in
the northern portion of the site is higher and has a steeper inclination. In addition, we observed silt and
clay material in the lower portion of the slope in this area. Silt and clay usually have lower strengths than
erical slope stability analysis, we
sand and gravel. For these reasons, and also based on our num
slo d e
recommend a minimum horizontal setback distance of 35 feet between the top Of the steep pe an th
planned residences on Lots 5, 6, and 7.
The 35-foot setback for Lots 5, 6, and 7 could be reduced to 25 feet if the downhill foundation lines for
these residences are suitably deepened. For these lots, we recommend that the downhill foundation lines
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Z
0
C:
m
M
M Z
10-4
in in
05
0
0 in
C co
in 0
M
Z
ro
Z
0
m
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Talbot Park Estates
Edmonds Washington
Februay'14,2003
NGA File No. 360902
Page 9
be advanced a minimum of 7 feet below the existing ground surface if a 25-foot setback is desired. We
should be retained to evaluate the residence foundation subgra de and setback distances prior to placing
foundation forms.
The existing residence on this site i s located within 15 feet from the top of the steep slope. We do not
0
m
know the depth of this residence's foundations, and have not evaluated the suitability of the residence
-R
setback from the steep slope.
M
Slope and Setback Protection
M
-40
Protection of the setback and steep slope areas should be performed as required by the City of Edmonds.
C
M M
Specifically, we recommend that the setback areas not be used for placement or storage of fill materials,
z
including temporary excavation spoils from building area preparation and excavation. Also, water should
-4
not be allowed to pond in the setback area or flow onto the fare of the slope. It should be understood that
"n
the closer site soil disturbance and development are to the slope, the more risk there is of decreasing slope
0
71 La
-4
th n
stability. Care should be taken to minimize disturbance to e slope and setback surficial soils a d
M M
vegetative cover both during and after construction.
0 r-
0 M
C Co
Of great importance to the long -term stability of the slope is the control of surface and near -surface water,
0
r
and erosion protection. We recommend that all drains, including roof and yard drains, be directed away
M
from the top of slope and routed into a permanent discharge system. Surface drainage over the slope
should not be permitted.
z
3:
ra
Site Preparation and Grading
z
0
The first step of site preparation should be to strip any topsoil and loose soils to expose mediurn dense or
0
1b stri pe ma cri
better native soils in foundation, slab, and pavement areas. e p d t al should be removed from
M
the site or stockpiled for later use as landscaping fill. Ile exposed subgrade should be compacted to a
non -yielding condition. If wet conditions are encountered, alternative site stripping and grading
ca trac
techniques mi ght be necessary. These could include using a large ex vator equipped with wide ks
and a smooth bucket to complete site grading and covering exposed subgrades with a layer of crushed
rock for protection. If wet conditions are encountered, the subgrade should not be compacted as this
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
M
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Talbot Park Estates
Edmonds Washington
February'14, 2003
NGA File No. 360902
Page 10
could cause subgrade disturbance. The prepared subgrades should be protected from construction traffic
and surface water should be diverted around prepared subgrades.
The on -site soils likely to be exposed during construction are considered highly moisture -sensitive and
will disturb easily when wet. These soils become very difficult to compact when wet of optimum
moisture content. This often results in extra excavation and the need for importing all-weather material
for fill, which could significantly raise costs. We recommend that earthwork be conducted during the
drier surnmer months, ifliossible.
Temporary Excavations
c d consi of soils,
Temporary excavation stability is a function of many factors, such as the typ an stency
depth of the cut� surcharge loads adjacent to the excavation, length of time a cut remains open, and the
presence of surface or groundwater. It is exceedingly difficult under these variable conditions to estimate
it should be the responsibility of the contractor to
a stable, temporary, cut -slope geometry. Therefore,
tin I th
maintain safe slope configurations, since the contractor is con uousyat e job site, able to observe the
e subs ce t als d ground water
nature and condition of the cut slopes, and able to monitor th urla. ma eri an
conditions encountered.
The following information is provided solely for the benefit of the owner and other design consultants and
should not be construed to imply that Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc., assurnes responsibility forjob
site safety. Job site safety is the sole responsibility offlic project contractor.
For planning purposes, we recommend that temporary cuts in the upper loose soils be no steeper than 2
Horizontal : I Vertical (2H: IV). Cuts in the underlying medium dense to dense native materials may
stand at an inclination as steep as IH:IV. If groundwater seepage is encountered or construction traffic
planned near the top of the cuts, flatter inclinations may be necessary. We recommend that cut slopes be
protected from erosion. Measures taken may include covering cut s-lopes with plastic sheeting and
diverting surface runoff away from the top of cut slopes. We do not recommend vertical slopes for cuts
deeper than 4 feet if worker access is necessary. We recommend that cut slope heights and inclinations
conform to WISHA10SHA standards.
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
z
9
0
in
-4 -n i"
3:
C m
m
0
-40
0 C
C il
in
m
C
r--4
0 -n
-n
4
X
m in
0
0
6 Fn
C oi
M 0
z
4
;U
z
z
in
c
Geoteclurical Engineering Evaluation
Talbot Park Estates
Edmonds, Washington
February 14,2003
NGA File No. 360902
Page I I
Structural FBI
General: We do not anticipate significant amounts Of structural fill for the planned development
Howcvei� any fills placed beneath foundations, pavements, other settlement -sensitive structures, behind
retaining walls, or on steep slopes should be placed as structural fill.
Structural fill, by definition, is placed in accordance with prescribed methods and standards and is
monitored by an experienced geotechnical professional or soils technician. Field monitoring procedures
would include the performance of a representative number, of in -place density tests to document the
attainment of the desired degree ofrelative compaction. The area to receive the fill should be prepared as
outlined in the Site Preparation and Grading subsection of this reporL Uvel benches should be
excavated into slopes with greater than 20 percent inclination that will receive fill to key the new fill into
the slope. These benches typically have a nommid width of approximately 4 to 8 feet� and are separated
vertically by about I to 4 feet.
Materials: Imported structural fill should consist of a good quality, free -draining, granular soil, free of
organics and other deleterious material and be well -graded to a maximum size of about 3 inches.
Imported all-weather fill should contain no more than about five percent fines (soil fmcr am U.S. No.
200 sieve, based on that ftaction passing the U.S. 3/4-inch sieve).
The use of the native on -site soils as structural fill would be dependent on the nature of the material
encount . ered and moisture content control. Some drying of the soils may be necessary in order to achieve
compaction. We expect that compaction of most of the native soils to structural fill specifications would
be difficult, if not impossible, during wet weather. We should be retained to evaluate the suitability of
using the on -site soils as structural fill at the time of construction.
Fill Placement: Following subgrade preparation, placement of structural fill may proceed. All
backfilling should be accomplished in uniform lifts up to 10 inches thick Each lift should be spread
evenly and be thoroughly compacted prior to placement of subsequent lifts. All structural fill should be
compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the material's maximum dry density. Maximum dry density, in
this report, refers to that density as determined by the ASTM D-1557 Compaction Test procedure. The
moisture content of the soils to be compacted should be within about 2 percent of optimum so that a
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
z
0
4 =5
C m
ma
0
80
C
m
in
C
> z
0 "n
'n
-4
m in
a fn
0
0
C in
0)
C Cn
in 0
z
z
9
0
in
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Talbot Park Estates
Edmonds, Washington
February 14,2003
NGA File No. 360902
Page 12
readily-compactable condition exists. It may be necessary to overexcavate and remove wet soils in eases
where drying to a compactable condition is not feasible. All compaction should be accomplished by
equipment of a type and size sufficient to attain the desired degree of compaction.
Foundations
Conventional shallow spread foundations should be placed on undisturbed medium dense or better native
the
soils or be supported on structural fill or rock spalls extending to those soils, with the exception of
-den
downhill footing lines which should be cast on the native material. Where less se soils are
encountered at footing bearing elevations, the subgrade should be overexcavated to expose suitable
bearing soil. The overexcavation may be filled with structural fill or concrete, or the footing may be
extended to the bearing native soils. If footings are supported on structural fill, the fill zone should extend
outside the edges of the footing a distance equal to one-half of the depth of overexcavation below the
finished subgrade.
Both perimeter and interior footings should extend at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent finished
ground surface for frost protection and bearing capacity considerations. Minimum foundation widths of
respectively, for two-story
16 and 24 inches should be used for continuous and isolated spread footings,
structures and 18 and 24 inches for continuous and isolated footings, respectively, for three-story
structures. Standing water should not be allowed to accumulate in footing trenches. All loose or
disturbed soil should be removed from die foundation excavation prior to placing concrete.
For foundations constructed as outlined above, we recominend an allowable design bearing pressure ofno
more than 2,000 pounds per square foot (psi) be used for designing footings founded on the native
medium dense soils or structural fill extending to the silt. The foundation bearing soil should be
evaluated by NGA at the time of construction. We should be consulted if higher bearing pressures are
needed. Current Uniform Building Code (UBC) guidelines should be used when considering increased
allowable bearing pressure for short-term transitory wind or seismic loads. Potential foundation
settlement using the recommended allowable bearing pressure is estimated to be less than I inch total and
112 inch differential between adjacent footings or across a distance of about 30 feet, based on our
experience with similar residential projects.
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
z
0
R1
-4 :H
m
0
0
mm
S
—z
0 -n
n
m M
D 5)
0
0
C (J)
9 (J)
0
z
z
0
m
M
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Talbot Park Estates
Edmonds, Washington
February 14, 2003
NGA File No. 360902
Page 13
Lateral loads may be resisW by friction on the base of the footing and passive resistance against the
subsurface portions ofthe foundation. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used to calculate the base
hiction and should be applied to the vertical dead load only. Passive resistance may be calculated as a
triangular equivalent fluid pressure distribution. An equivalent fluid density of200 pounds per cubic foot
(pct) should be used for passive resistance design for a level ground surface adjacent to the foDting. This
epth oo
level surface should extend horizontally a distance equal to at least three times the d of the f ting.'
These recommended values incorporate safety factors of 1.5 and 2.0 applied to the estimated ultimate
hi
values for frictional and passive resistance, respectively. To ac eve this value ofpassive resistance, the
foundations should be poured "neat" against the native medium dense soils or compacted fill should be
o gI ed when
used as backfill, against the footing. We recommend that the upper foot of s il be ne ect
calculating the passive resistance.
Slabs -on -Grade
Slabs-on-gradc should be supported on subgMde soils prepared as described in the Site PreparatiOn and
Grading subsection of this report. We recommend that all floor slabs be underlain by at least 6 inches of
free -draining sand or gravel for use as a capillary break. We recommend that the capillary break be
hydraulically connected to the footing drain system to allow free drainage from under the slab. A suitable
vapor barrier, such as heavy plastic sheeting (6-mil minimum), should be placed over the capillary break
material. An additional 2-inch-thick sand blanket may be used to cover the vapor barrier. This sand
blanket is tq protect the vapor barrier membrane and to aid in curing the concrete.
Site Drainage
Surface Drainage- The finished ground surface should be graded such that storm water is directed to an
appropriate storm water collection system. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where
ouid allow for drainage away from
footings, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Final site grades sh
th shed ground be sloped at a itnum, gradient
the residence and the steep slope. We suggest that e fini min
Und no c s
of 3 percent for a distance of at least 10 feet away from the improvements. er ircumstance
should surface water be allowed to concentrate or flow over the site slopes.
Subsurface Drainage: We recommend the use of footing drains around the residences and behind any
I armed finished floor slabs.
subsurface walls. Footing drains should be installed at least I foot be ow pI
The drains should consist of minimum 4-inch-diameter, rigid, slotted or perforated, PVC pipe surrounded
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC
Z
0
Ch
m
m
0 C
M
M Z
10-1 i,
C
0
m m
0
0 Fn
C 0)
M 0
Z r-
Z
--i
V)
Z
In
Geoteclinical Engineering Evaluation
Talbot Park Estates
Edmonds, Washington
February 14,2003
NGA File No. 360902
Page 14
by free-drainingmateri.1 wrapped in a filter fabric. We rec"Mcnif tht the fl--dr-ining inat""' consist
of an 18_inch_wide zone of clean (less than 3 percent fines) , granular material placed along the back Of
the wall. Pea gravel is an acceptable drain material or drainage composite may be used instead. The frec-
draining material should extend up the wall to I foot below the finished surface. The top foot of so',
should consist of impermeable soil placed over plastic sheeting or building Paper to minimize surface
water or fines migration into the footing drain. Footing drains should discharge into tightlines leading to
an appropriate collection and discharge point with convenient cl.eanouts to prolong the useful life of the
drains. Roof drains should not be connected to wall or footing drains.
USE OF THIS REPORT
This report is the property of Nelson Geotechnical As I sociates, jnc. and has been prepared for the City Of
ennitting of this project on this site only. The scope of our work
Edmonds for use in the review and P construction safety precautions and our recommendations are not
does not include services related to
intended to direct the contractors' methods, techniques, sequences, Or Procedures, except as specifically
described in our report for consideration in design. There are possible variations in subsurfhce conditions
between th explorations and also with time. Our report, conclusions, and interpretations should not be
construed as a warranty of subsurface conditions. A contingency for unanticipated conditions should be
included in the budget and schedule.
NGA should be retained to provide monitoring and consultation services during construction to confirm
that the conditions encountered are consistent with those in I dicated by the explorations, to Provide
ri
recommendations for design changes should ft conditions revealed do ng the work differ from those
anticipated, and to evaluate whether or not earthwork and foundation installation activities comply with
contract plans and specifications.
s on hillsides should realize that landslide movements are always a
All people who own or Occupy home y occur may be low. The h . illside should
ibility, al ough e likelih t such an event will ac
possi th th oodtha man
remain stable during normal environmental conditions; however, inherent to steep slope areas is the risk
of movement due to extreme environmental conditions such as severe earthquakes and storms. Because
of the existing sloping conditions, the area should be periodically inspected by the landowner, especially
after winter storms. if distress is evident, we should'be retained to provide advice on remediall
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC'
Z
0
Ri
'A 5i
Vi
m
M 0
0
80
a
X in
Z
4
C
Z
-1
0)
0
in in
a
0
0
m 0
Z r-
Z
V)
Z
m
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Talbot Park Estates
Edmonds, Washington
V
February 14, 2003
NOA File No. 360902
Page 15
preventative measures. The probability that landsliding will Occur is substantially reduced by the proper
t
maintenance of drainage measures at the site. Therefore, the homeown- should recognize the
responsibility for performing such maintenance. Consequently, we recorrunend that a copy of our report
z
0
'oe provided to any future homeowners of the property.
'Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budgct� our services have been performed in accordance
55 --1
with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in effect in this area at the time Us report was
m
prepared. No other wananty, expressed or implied, is made. Our observations, findings, and Opinions are
M a
0
80
a mems to identify and reduce the inherent risks to the owner.
= M
M z
It has been a pleapure to provide service to you on this project. If you have any questions Or require
z tlll�'
further information, please call.
0)
0 -n
Sincerely,
m M
N LSO�
ASSOCIATES, INC.
0
�EOTECHANICAL
0
C
M 0
or Chfistensen, PE
Project Engineer
S
z
co
z
0
M
PIRES
Khaled Shawisb, PE
Senior Engineer
TRC:KMS:kmn
Eleven Figures
NELsoN GEoTEcHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
N
Project
z
0
i
Site
0
b
C,)
0 m
SW
172A ST�
C
m 0
—10
0
01
z
C
M
Z
415M ST
Y
>
O"n
ms I
m M
r
01
C
C CO
SY sw
MO
Sr
z
z
O.m 5 Bq,� MaRs
0
0
m
Not to Scale
=CHNICAL No*
NELso,N GEOTr
I RvI.J. ley CK
NGA '%- ASSOCIATES, INC-�.w
3 2 Talbot Park Estates
Od*W AW JGL
GKaMCHKICAL ENGINEMM GEOLOG'STS
Vicinity Mi
z
w W,
z
.LEGEND
q
z if,
TP-1
Number and Approximate
Location of Test Pit
HA-1 Number and Approxin'tate,
Location of Hand Auger
Approximate Location
of Cross Section
w R
*4 CL
M a
Property Line
IL
CO
'Topof4O%Slope
Setback Line
PRWECT NUMBER
0 50 IOD
360902
A proximte Scale: 1 Inch 50 feet
p
Figure 2
eirland
N
B"
Wi
Southwest
Northeast
Top of Steep Slope
190
190-
m
TP-3
170
28' 170-
Fine to Medium 40'
-160
Sand with Slit 150-
Z
?
0
Slit and Clay Stream
Za
>
0
-130
32* 130-
Z
110-1
-110
Scale: I inch 20 feet (Horizontal and Vertical)
Elevations are Approximate
Reference: Cross section based on field measurements using a hand held clinometer and 100 foot tape.
CW
0 64
West
East
220
220
M
0 1
260 Top of Steep Slope
200
Z
P.1
P 1
7.
7- Stream
180
F Z
180 27*
27-
ravel
Silty Sand with Trace Gravel 38*
Z is Z
160)
160,
Z
1401
140
scale: I inch 20 feet (Horizontal and Vertical)
Elevations are Approximate
Reference: Cross section based on field measurements using a hand hold clinometer
LOG OF EXPLORATION
DEPTH (FEET)
Usc
SOIL DESCRIPTION
HAND AUGER ONE
0.0-0.6
TOPSOIL
0.6-1.6
SM
LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH TRACE GRAVEL (LOOSE TO
MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED DRIFT)
1.6-2.8
SM
RUST -BROWN MOTTLED LIGHT GRAY TO LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM
SAND WITH GRAVEL (LOOSETO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED DRIFT)
z
SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 1.5. I.S. AND 2.8 FEET
GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
m
HAND AUGER CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
HAND AUGER WAS COMPLETED AT 2,8 FEET ON 12118102
HAND AUGER TWO
m
0.0-1.5
TOPSOIL
c 0
m
1.5-2.0
SP-SM
LIGHT BROWN TO BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL (LOOSE,
0
0
MOIST) "FATHERED DRIFT)
c
ZO - 3.4
SM
RusTaRowN MOTTLED LIGHT GRAY SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH TRACE
M
GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED DRIFT)
SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 1.0. 2.0,2.8. AND 3.4 FEET
GROUNDWATER SEEPAGEWAS NOTENCOUNTERED
HAND AUGER CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
HANDAUGERWAS COMPLETEDAT 3.4 FFETON 12fl8/02
0 -n
-n
m M
,a-
0)
0
o Fn
C 0)
M 0
z
3:
z
0
-4
m
V
JGL:MDR
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOMTES, INC.
FILE NO 360902
FIGURE 8
LOG OF EXPLORATION
DEPTH (FEET)
Usc
SOIL DESCRIPTION
TEST PIT ONE
0,0-1.0
TOPSOIL
1.0-3.5
SM
BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH TRACE FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE,
MOIST To WET) (WEATHERED DRIFT)
3.5-7.0
Sm
GRAY SILTY FINE SAND WITH FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL (DENSE, MOIST) (DRIFT)
SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 2.0,5.0, AND 6.5 FEET
GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 7.0 FEET ON 213103
TEST PIT TWO
0.0-1.0
TOPSOIL
1.0-4.0
SM
BROWN SIL rY FINE SAND (MEDIUM DENSE. WET) (WEATHERED DRIFT)
A.0 - 7.0
sm
GRAY SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL (MEDIUM
DENSE TO DENSE, WET) (DRIFT)
SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 3.0,5.0, AND 7.0 FEET
MODERATE GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS ENCOUNTERED AT 3.0 FEET
SLIGHT TEST PIT CAVING WAS ENCOUNTERED FROM 0.0 TO 7.0 FEET
TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 7.0 FEET ON Z'X03
TEST PIT THREE
0.0-1.0
TOPSOIL
1.0-3.0
SP
BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH TRACE SILT (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE,
MOIST) (WEATHERED OUTWASH)
3.0-6.0
SP-SM
GRAY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL AND SILT (MEDIUM
DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST To WET) (OUTWASH)
SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 7-5 AND 4.5 FEET
GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 6.0 FEET ON 2W03
TESTPITFOUR
0.0-1.0
TOPSOIL
1.0-3.0
SP
BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED
OUTWASH)
3.0-7.0
SPISM
RUST -BROWN MOTTLED BROWN -GRAY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND AND SILT SEAMS
(DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED OUTWASH)
SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 2.0,4.0. AND 7.0 FEET
GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
TEST PIT CAMINGWAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 7.0 FEET ON 2rj/03
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
JGL FILE NO 360902
FIGURE 9
z
0
m
c m
m
c
m
c
> Z
3:
0 -n
"T1
m m
a —
0
C
To
Z
z
m
LOG OF EXPLORATION
DEPTH (FEET) Usc SOILDFSCRIPTION
TEST PIT FIVE
0.0-2.8
TOPSOIL
2.8-4.5
SM
BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH TRACE FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL AND SILT
(MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED DRIFT)
4.5-7.0
SMISP
GRAY SILTY FINE SAND WITH FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL AND FINE TO MEDIUM
SAND SEAMS (DENSE, MOIST TO WET) (DRIFT)
SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 3AC5. AND 6.5 FEET
GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 7.0 FEET ON 2/3/03
TEST PIT SIX
0.0-1.5
SM
DARK GRAY SILTY FINE SAND WITH CONCRETE CHUNKS AND ORGANICS (LOOSE.
MOIST TO WET) ULU
1.5-3.0
SM
BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH TRACE FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL (LOOSE TO
p
MEDIUM DENSE, WET) (WEATHERED DRIM
3.0-7.0
SWSP
RUST -BROWN MOTTLED GRAY SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH FIN E TO
COARSE GRAVEL AND FINE TO MEDIUM SAND SEAMS (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE,
WET) (WEATHERED DRIFT)
SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 1.0. 2.0. AND 6.0 FEET
MODERATE GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS ENCOUNTERED AT 3.0 FEET
SUGHTTEST PIT CAVING WAS ENCOUNTERED FROM Q.0TO 7.0 FEET
TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 7.0 FEET ON 2/3103
TESTPITSEVEN
TOPSOIL
1.0-3.5
SM
BROWN SILTY FINE SAND W ITH TRACE FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE,
MOIST) (WEATHERED DRIFT)
3.5-6.0
SMISP
GRAY SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL AND FINE TO
MEDIUM SAND SEAMS (DENSE TO VERY DENSE. MOIST) (DRIFT)
SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 2-0.4.0. AND 6.0 FEET
GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 6.0 FEET ON 2003
TEST PIT EIGHT
0.0-1.0
TOPSOIL
1.0-4.0
SP-SM
BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT AND TRACE FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL
(MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST To WET) (WEATHERED DRIFT)
4.0-5.0
SP-SM
BROW"RAY FINE TO M EDIUM SAND WITH SILT AND FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL
(MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, WET) (DFUFT)
AND - 5 FEET
SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED — ..
GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
TEST PIT CAVING WAS NCrr ENCOUNTERED
TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 5.0 FEET ON 213/03
JGL NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC-
FILE NO 360902
FIGURE 10
z
0
0
M
n
C M
In
-40
0
M
z
co
0 -n
n
-4
M M
ro
0
c:
c co
M 0
X
z
-4
3:
z
0
0
M
LOG OF EXPLORATION
DEPTH(FEET)
Usc SOIL DESCRIPTION
TEST PIT NINE
0.0-1.0
TOPSOIL
1.0-3.5
SM BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST)
(WEATHERED DRIFT)
3.5-4.0
SM GRAY SILTY FINE SAND WITH FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL (DENSE TO VERY DENSE,
MOIST) (DRIFT)
S AMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 3.0 AND 4.0 FEET
z
GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
0
TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
m
TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 4.0 FEET ON 2/3103
m
c
m
0
-40
0
C
m
—z
0 -n
M m
0
0
0 M
C co
M 0
Z r
z
Z
0
IT!
JGL
NELSON GEOTECHNICA L ASSOCIATES, INC.
FILE NO 360902
FIGURE I I
P.O. Box 3121
Everett, Washington 98213=1121 HILLCREST,
CONSTRUCTION CO-9
Ofrice: (425)259-2775 Mobilw (425)870-1178 INC I
Fax: (425)259-0799
E-mail: jonkvemmo@vedzon.net
Fax
To: Dave Gebert, Engineering
z
From: Jon Kvemmo
CC: RECEIVEC) 0
NOV 0 3 2006
Date: 11/3106
Re: Charlotte Gardens Lot 4 — Plan check #05-573 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR
CITY OF EDMONDS
M
17005 77" Place West C 0
0
Mr. Gebert, C
We have been in the process of building six new homes on Lots 2-7 of the Charlotte Gardens
plat for several months. In preparing for peratit application and construction, we used the C
utmost care to comply with the Edmonds height restriction and design criteria when >
calculating the placement of these homes. r " IL " I
0 -n
In spite of our careful calculations, the right hand side of the driveway on lot 5 will exceed the
normal 15% grade maximum. it will in fact be just under 20%.
im M
We are asking for a variance to allow this driveway to exceed the 15% slope maximum. - Do
0,
091
Please call me as soon as possible if you have any questions regarding this matter.
M 0
Respectfully,
X
>
z
P
Jon Kvemmo
z
m
0 Page I
Apr 20 06 11!53a ROBERT M PRIDE INC 425 814 SG72 P.1
FIELD MEMO'M:"f
To- Date.,
Fr:
Re-ct�. 4(�,Om u7s ,I Project No:
YVIANA-. MY
L
TO-.
IVV� -V�
74
i 7
- ----------
Rubell M. Pridu, Coo$Ulth�& Engincer
z
0
4
0
a
m 0
80,
3� C,
m
0 -n
n 31
m M
13 vi
0
0
M 0
z
--i
29
co
z
0
m
Height Calculation Worksheet
Date 9-1
Permit Numbe
Address S
Inspector
z
Average Grade
'M
Max Height (2 5'+Ave.) U3.
Actual Height (A+B+C)
-4 -n
ca
2 rn
ifl 0
0
80
C
M
M z
C
0
-n
M M
0
0
=(C
C, T
C
M 0
—7
;L Cl\
z
z
M
Elevation of transit above Datum (B)
p,
DatumS S M 44 Elevation(A)
1/temp/building/romis/height worksticet
Consulting
Robert M. Pride, LLC Engineer
October 24, 2oo6 Pecerveo
Mr. Jon Kvernmo 3 ?006
Hillcrest Construction
P. 0. Box 3121 SER
Everett, WA 98213-1121 C4 rY OF Ma
Re: Final Inspection Report
Single Family Residence
17005 77th Place West — Lot 4
Edmonds, Washington
RMP Project No. 05-125-01
Dear Mr. Kvemmo,
Tiiis report presents the results of our site inspections and field observations made
during construction of the single family residence at 17005 77th Place West in Edmonds.
-construction meeting, we performed
Following our final plan review and onsite pre
periodic site inspections that included the following:
Erosion Control — this site is on a gentle hillside development that is protected by
heavy native shrubs and mature trees on the descending slope area to the east; a
silt fence was placed along the east side of the building pad area to control storin
water runoff and to prevent siltation on the adjacent slope; no erosion or siltation
problems occurred during site excavation and foundation construction on this
site; final landscape planting will provide permanent erosion control for this site.
Observe and Monitor Excavation — the building pad was excavated to the final
subgrade elevation and there were no temporary cut slopes required for this site;
maximum depth of excavation was on the order of two feet on the south side of
the building pad;
Foundation Installation —the foundations consisted of confinuous bearing wall
footings for the house and garage; exposed soils in the footing trenches consisted
of medium dense to dense silty sands and stiff silts; the entire building pad was in
native soils; the recommended bearing value of 2000 psf was confirmed by site
inspection;
Subdrains— Perimeter subdrains were installed around the house and garage
foundations, and they were embedded in drain rock and covered with geofilter
material;
13203 Holmes Point D�ve NE Kirkland, WA 98034 Fax: 425-814-5672
Phone: 425-814-3970
z
9
0
M
M
M
0
0
M M
M z
jo
z
K V)
0
n
rn M
a
0
0
C 0)
9 ca
Q 0
Z r-
7-4
z
-4
z
0
M
October 24, 20o6
.. ..... ...
Mr. Jon Kvernmo
Page 2
On the basis of our field inspections, it is my opinion that the areas requiring special
inspection were satisfactorily completed in accordance %ith the plans and project
specifications. The site excavation and the bearing wall footings were constructed in a
workmanlike manner and were approved as constructed.
Please call me if there are any questions.
0
Respectfully
WASJ, 1
t�bed
4 -H
M. Pride, P. E. CA& -Z
CI M
C 0
Principal Geotechnical Engineer nV,
0
0
16271
dist: (2) addressee -
C
r.
IN
(1) Mike Snook
m M
F4
QONAL
rmp: Hillcrestfrinal#4
0
'0
C -Z
>
0 -n
M III
0
0
07
0
r-
M
z
z
0
M
13203 Holmes Point Drive NE Kirkland, WA 98034
Phone: 425-814-3970 Fax: 425-814-5672
��7777�'
Oct 25 06 07:36p R Pride 425 814 5672 P.5
Consulting
Robert M. Pride, LLC Engineer
October 24, 2oo6
Mr. Jort Kverruno RECEIVED
Hillcrest Construction
P. 0. BOX 3r2l OCT 2
Everett, WA 98213-1121 BUILDING DEPT
Re: Final inspection Report
Single Family Residence
17oo5 77th Place West — Lot 4
Edmonds, Washington
RMP Project No. 05-125-01
Dear Mr. Kvernmo,
This report presents the results of our site inspections and field observations made
5
during construction of the single family residence at 1700 771 Place Westin Edmonds.
Following our final plan review and onsite pre -construction meeting, we performed
periodic site inspections that included the following:
Erosion Control — this site is on a gentle hillside development that is protected by
heavy na shru d mature trees on the descending slope area to the east-, a
silt fen te bs an
cewa. placed along the east side of the building pad area to control storm
water runoff and to prevent siltation on the adjacent slope; no erosion or siltation
problems occurred during site excavation and foundation construction on this
site; final landscape planting will provide permanent erosion control for this site.
Observe and Monitor Excavattion — the building pad was excavated to the final
subgrade elevation and there were no temporary cut slopes required for this site;
maximum depth of excavation was on the order of two feet on the south side of
the building pad;
Foundation Installation —the foundations consisted of continuous bearing wall
footings for the house and garage; exposed soils in the footing trenches consisted
of medium dense to dense silty sands and stiff sUts; the entire building pad was in
native soils; the recommended bearing value of 2000 psfwas confirmed by site
inspection;
Subdrains— Perimeter subdrains were installed around the house and garage
foundations, and they were embedded in drain rock and covered with geofilter
material;
Phone: 425-814-1970 13203 Holmes Point Drive NE Yir I d. WA 98034 Fax 425-814-5672
z
0
M
M
0
80
C
M
M
CE
vi
0 -n
M M
065
0
0
C
90)
Q 0
M
z
z
0
M
Oct 25 06 07:36p R Pride 425 814 5672 p.6
October24,2006
Mr. Jon Xvernmo
Page 2
On the basis of our field inspections, it is my opinion that the areas requiring special
inspection were satisfactorily completed in accordance %ith the plans and project
specifications. The site excavation and the bearing wall footings were constructed in a
worlananlike manner and were approved as constructed.
Please call me if there are any questions.
z
Respectfully,
aq
RI
M
obert M. Pride, P. E.
0
Principal Geotechnical eer
If, ',-
rn 0
-40
16271
dist. (2) addressee
M
(i) Mike Snook
NAL
M
unp HillerestFinal#4
C —Z
>
C
0 -n
-n E
M M
0
M P
X
z
z
in
NE �*WwdWA98034
Fox; 425-814-5672
Phonei 425-314-3970
occgpawy
I)EeARTIVIENT6�61UILDINGS
PER INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE SECTION R110
AT: 17005 77T' PI W Building Permit M
2006-0330
Occupancy established by this certificate: R3 Dwelling Units�
No. Stories: 2 Basement: NIA
Type of Construction:
VB
Owner of building:_
The Single Family Residence at 17005 77'" and approved complying with the requirements of the
2003 edition of the International Residential Code as'ddop_ted,by!hd�Cit�.'�6r.,Ahi,!gr96 and division of occupancy and the use for which
the proposed occupancy Is classified.
Issued this lith
day of December, 2006
Chief Building Official
By:_
Any change of occupancy or use requires a building permit and a now Certificate of Occupancy Issued by the City of Edmonds Building Official.
Permit Inspection Details
Permit: BLD20060330
PERMIT
1001 - E-Erosion Control/Mobilization
Complete?
y
05104/2006 Chrisman
15 TESC ok. Inspection result Input by JH on 12/7106
y
Total Time:
Is
1013 - E-Storm Tightline
Complete?
y
0610612006 Chrisnum
15 ok to bit tit. Inspection results Input by JH on l2t7/2006
Y
Total Time:
is
1014 - E-Storm Connect to Stub
Complete?
y
0610612006 Chrisman
15 ok to bif storm connection. Inspection result Input by JH on 12012006
y
Total Tim.:
Is
1034 - E-water Service Line
Complete?
y
0611512006 ad
20 OK to backfill--need ground @ hse & meter
N
11/20/2006 Ha.kins
15 tracer wire grounded at house and meter.
y
Total Time:
35
1077 - E-Engineering Final
Complete?
y
11/2012006 Ha.kirs
30 ok to grant Engineering final.
Y
Total Thmn
30
1106 - B-Setbacks
Complete?
y
0510412006 MS
20 SETBACKS APPROVED PER STRUNG PROPERTY LINES
Y
Total Time:
20
1108 - B-Footfings
Complete?
y
0510412006 MS
20 FOOTINGS APPROVED
Y
Total Time:
20
1110 - B-Foundation Wall
Complete?
y
05/0812006 JR
20 FOUNDATION APPROVED
y
Total Thna:
20
1122 - B-Finst Floor Framing
Complete?
y
0613012006 MS
20 FIRST FLOOR FRAMING APPROVED
Y�
Total Time:
20
1126 - B-Plumb Rough In
Complete?
y
08103/2006 MS
20 PLUMBING APPROVED
y
Total Time:
20
1128. B-Gas Testflalpe
Complete?
y
0810312006 MS
20 GAS TEST AND GAS PIPING APPROVED
Y
Total Time:
20
1132 - III -Exterior Sheathing
Complete?
y
08102/2006 MS
20 EXTERIOR SHEATHING APPROVED
y
Total Time:
20
1136 - 13-Shear Nailing
Complete?
y
08/1512006 MS
20 SHEAR APPROVED
y
Total Time:
20
1140 - B-Height Verification
Complete?
y
08115/2006 MS
25 HEIGHTAPPROVED
y
Total Time:
26
1142 - B-Framing
Complete?
y
08/1512006 MS
25 CORRECTION NOTICE WRITTEN
N
08/2212006 MS
20 FRAMING APPROVED
Y
Total Time:
45
11/16120079:55:07AM
Page 1 of 2
0
m
Ali
0
80
M
in Z
jo
0-4
M im
C) V5
of-
0
Im 0
Z
Z
2
0
m
1144. B-Wall Insulation/Caulk
Complete?
y
08/2212006 MS 20 INSULATION APPROVED
y
Total Time:
20
1146 - B-Floor InsulationiCaulk
Complete?
y
08/2212006 MS 20 INSULATION APPROVED
y
Total Time:
20
1148 - B-Celling insulation/Caulk
Complete?
y
11122/2006 Snook 20 APPROVED
y
Total Time:
20
1150 - B-Sheetrock Nail
Complete?
y
C
08/2612006 JR 0 S IGNED OFF
Time:
y
0
z
Total
0
Complete?
y
—1
1168 - B-Building Final
0
11121/2006 Snook 25 CORRECTION NOTICE WRITTEN
N
M
1112212006 Snook 20 APPROVED
y
Total Time:
46
4 9i
Complete?
y
:0
2000 - P-planning Final
y
m
11122/2006 Coccla 30 Planning signs off 11122106.
C
Total Time:
30
m
0
T otal inspections: 24
Total Time:
475
C
-4 C
�i�
X m
M z
1E
0-4
Z
.....
0 -n
. . . . .
in JL)
rn M
0
0
6 Fn
v)
0)
M 0
z
z
in
Page 2 of 2
11116/20079:55:07AM
-'q Permit Inspection Details
Permit: BLD20060330
PERM IT-T�'-*�,��
lool-E-ErosionCohtroiiM4�biliz�it6n'�
dompleite?,
y
05/04/2o66 Chelsm.n
15 iiik ok. inspection result input by JH on 1217/06
Y
Total Time:
Is
1013 - E.Storrn Ti Wine
9
Pornplete?
Y,
0610612006 Chri—on
15 ok to bit tfl. Inspection results input by JH on 12R12006
Y
Total Time:
is
1014..: E-Storna Connect to Stub
torniblete?
Y"
06/06 1 20 . 06 Chrism I an
15 ok to b/1' slorm connection, Inspection nesult input by JH on 121712006
Y
Total Time:
15
z
1034 m E-Water,ServIce Line,
Complete?
06/1512006 ad
20 OK to backfill-need ground @ hSe & meter
N
0
M
11/2012006 Hawkins
15 tracer wire grounded t house and meter.
y
Total Time:
35
:q 9
1077:' IlE4EogIreer1ng�FiqaI:
J1126/2006 Hawkins
30 ok to grant Engineering final,
30
orn
C a
Total Time:
171
0
inno eta,
80
1106 - 1314etbacks
05 , 104/200 6 MS
20 SETBACKS APPROVED PER STRUNG PROPERTY LINES
�Co
Y
C
Total Time:
20
ITI M
C ate
B-Fdofings;'
20 FOOTINGS APPROVED
Y
C z
>
oweit�IxI6 ms
Total Time;
20
E: -4
'Ficiunditidw,
0
M168/2666 JR
20 F86N;DATION APPROVED
Y
n
Total Time:
20
"'j
In M
1122'- 131i'list Floorfrearil
06/36/2606 Ms
20 FIRST Fi-66k FIRMING APPROVED
Y
0
0
Total Time:
20
C
1126 - B-PlumbAough In.
'Y'
ITIO
0810krl(J6 MS
26 FL6MBING APPROVED
Y
Z r-
Total Time:
20
Y,
13'-G as TeStl0i
We
�'l
�6- G�S-T: E�S� T AND GAS PIPING APPROVED
Y
>
Total Time:
20
z
at ng
11132-13-ExterlorShe hl
C I
0 eta?,
y
08162/2006- MS
20 EXTERIOR SHEATHING APPROVED
y
z
Total Time:
20
1136 - B43hear Nailing .
Complete?, 1 i
0
08115/2006 MS
20 SHEAR APPROVED
Y
M
Tobd Time:
20
1140 - B-Height Verification
CoraPatb?1.'.,:,,
�Y.
0811512006 Ms
25 HEIGHT APPROVED
Y
Total Time:
25
1142 - B-Frarning
Corn late
y
0811512006 MS
25 CORRECTION NOTICE WRITTEN
N
08/22/2006 MIS
20 FRAMING APPROVED
Y
Total Time:
45
612312009 11 A4;06 AM
Page 1 of 2
0812212006 MS 20 INSULATION APPROVED
y
Total Time: 20
08/22/2006 MS 20 INSULATION A��PR6VE
y
Total Time: 20
k�,
inglinsul to Maul
Claim late, ''Y,,Z
11122/2006 Snook 20 APPROVED
y
Total Time: 20
liw
08/2512006 JR 0 SIGNED OFF
y
Total Time: 0
M,
"011 p",
1 1 - /2006 Snook 2 5 CO RRECTION NOTICE WRITTEN
N
I 11 21
1112212006 Snook 20 APPROVED
y
M
Total Tim.; 45
26
Coccla 30 Planning signs off 11/22106.
11/22/2006
Total Time: 30
M
0
0
Total Inspections: 24
Total Time: 475
C
N,
M
M z
>
E:
0 -n
-n
M M
0 M
C (1)
M 0
z
0
612312009 11:44:06 AM
Page 2 of 2
RECORD OF INSPECTIONS
INSPECTOR
DATE APPROVED
SETBACKS .....................
FOUNDATION:
Footing ...........
16
wall� ......................
Pier/Porch
z
Retaining Wall ...........
Slab Insulation ..........
j
PLUMBING:
Underground .............
M
Rough -in ..............
m 0
Commercial Final
0
C
HEATING:
Gas Test
I(VN
0, —
X M
z
4 :,,
....................
vvl�� ,
C,3 —:I
a —
z
Gas Piping . ..........
—.4
x
Equipment .................
0
Commercial Final
M
EXTERIOR SHEATHIN
a
M 11111
a
NAILING ....................
0
0
FRAMING ............
Lo
C 0)
K 0)
FIRST FLOOR FRAMING
M 0
INSULATION .............
Floor Insulation
c
Wall Insulation ...........
>
z
Ceiling Insulation
SHEETROCK NAILING
z
SPECIAL INSPECTION
0
M
MISCELLANEOUS ..........
FINAL APPROVAL FOR
OCCUPANCY ..................
Sldeftwer#
ZaYj -0330
A101IPWd$
Dafthimed 414W
AMOOMPAId 2��--�ReMptk-'
D8WPard=W_
ROW#— zpaz
AlowtPlaidVa' _ReceJpt#---20-A;f