Loading...
BLD20070954.pdfGY FDh, 2 CITE' OF EDMONDS V Y N 121 5TH AVENUE NORTFI- EDMONDS,WA 98020 PHONE: (425) 771-0220 - FAX: (425) 771.0221 .... ... .. STATUS: ISSUED Pelmit#: BLD2007095. . Expiration Date: 6/7/2008 :PrDlecrAddress 18416}OLXMPTGxV1E�' DRtEDMOND,S; Parce I No: 00565600200301 HOWARD BOBRY HOWARD BOBRY PVF CONSr RUCTION LLC 1509 6TH PMB 223 18416 OLYMPIC VIEW DR 18416 OLYMPIC VIEW DR EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS, WA 98020 MARYSVILLE, WA 98270 425-775.4415 425-775-4415 425-931-5214 LICENSE 8: PVFCOCL938CF EXP:2/6/2009 240 SQ. FT, DECK AND PATIO AND REFA INING W ALL. VALUATION: S4,080 K.— PERMITTYPE: Residential PERMIT GROUP: 22 - Deck/Porch/Patio Cover GRADING!Y CYDS:O TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: DECK RETAININGWALL ROCKERY: Y OCCUPANT GROUP: OCCUPANT LOAD: FENCE: N 0 X 0 FT.) CODE: 2006 OT HER:N-------OTHERDESC: ZONE: RS-12. NUMBER OF STORIES:0 VESTED DATE: NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS: 0 BASEMENT, 0 I Sf FLOOR: 0 2ND.FLOOR, 0 BASEMENT; 0 1 ST FLOOR:0 2ND FLOOR' 0 3 RD FLOOR:0 GARAGE:0 DECK:0 OTHEK0 13RD FLOOR:0 GARAGE,0 DECK: 240 OTHER:0 ItHQUIRED: (E) 25' PROPOSED: 25'+ REQUIRED: (N) 10' 1 PROPOSED: 10'+ REQUIRED: (W) 25PROPOSED: 25'+ HEIGHT ALLOWED:25 PROPOSEM25 REQUIRED:(S) 10' PROPOSED: 10'+ SETBACK NOTES: Per ECDC 111.20.040, the patio may project into the southern side setback by 3.33' as long as the patio is less than 30" high and uncovered and wenclosed. The retaining vall must be less than Thigh over original grade nfiere located Within the sclbacks. 1 AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUCTION AND IN DOING'I'HE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND RCW 18:27. THIS APPLICATION IS NOT A PERMIT UNTIL SIGNED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL OR HISIHER D UTY AND ALL FEES ARE PAID. Signature Print Name Date Released By OWE ATTENTION ITIS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING ORSIRUCNRE UNUL A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CER11FICA7-Of OCCUPANCY IIASSEEN GRANIED.UBC109/IBCI10/IRCI10. ARCHIVE O APPLICANT ASSESSOR OTHER Z O 1 n m UI = om m0 -i O On C mm O Z4 DZ —r1 = C V) O -n n 2 mm_ Or' r �N 0 ?D D Z S N Z O m m STATUS: ISSUED BLD20070954 • REQUIRED SPECIAL INSPECTIONS FOR THIS PROJECT: • Monitor demolition of the pool including backfrll and compaction ofstructuml fill. • Soil Bearing Verification • Pin pile installation including pile cap • Temporary and Final erosion Control • Subsurface drainage installation • General Site Monitoring during wet weather construction • Follow the recomrrendations set forth in the geotechnical report and addendum by The Golf Group dated 7/3I/07 and 10/24/07 respectively. • Submit all special inspection reports to the City Building Inspector on a weekly basis. • Sound/Noise originating fronitenTomry construction sites as a result ofconstruction activity are excnipl fromthe noise limits of E;C Chapter 5.30 only during the hours of 7:00am to 6:00pm on weekdays and 10:00am and 6:00pm on Saturdays, excluding Sundays and Federal Holidays. At all other times the noise originating from construction sites/activites must comply with the noise limits of Chapter 5.30, unless a variance has been granted pursuant to ECC 5.30.120. THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC DOMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE SEPARATE PERMISSION. PERMIT TIME LIMIT: SEE ECDC 19.00.005(A)(5) - BUILDING 425 771-0220 EXT. 1333 FNGINFEMG 425 171-0220 EYT. 1326 1 FIRE 425 771-0215 PUBLIC WORKS 425 771-0235 PRETREATMENT 425 672-5755 RECYCLOVG 425 2754 When calling tar an inspection please leave the following information: Permit Number, Job Site Address, Type of Inspection being re ested, Contact Name and Phone Number, Date Prefereed, and whether you prefer morning or a4crown. &Erosion Control/Mobilization &Engineering Final B-Setbacks B-Footings B-Framing B-Building Final IN] z O 1 O m (n = cm ma �o o° c mZ A "t Dz r_ -I S rn O 'n m� MruM m_ OON �m C Cn co ,zH rm D zz x m z 0 0 m / --A— /U iip I 0 y City of Edmonds Permit Application Form" Form A g9� Permit Application for: ❑ New Single Family ❑ New Com/Apt ❑ Addition ❑ interior Remodel ❑ Garage/Carport ❑ Repair ❑ Sign ❑ Fence ❑ Grading cvds ❑ Storage/Shed ❑ Tenant improvement/Change of Use ❑ Fire System (Specify) ❑ ockery/Retainin W II �ol� f, / �� DATE: %t.22 o j0Other (Specify) � Tl2G�' 2 Brief Description: law-% al / ,,Od+ 0 —I T Site Address:_/ VVAC t/e yl Suite # 5 c m v Sno County Tax Account Parcel #: (7 b 5 G 5 L ^ �OZ �Ud D/ 80 Business/Tenant Name (if applicable): mZ PROPERTY OWNER: 0 k � Rdbr3:L- Mailing Address:�f�� �✓ �%'L/�O /mil ✓>� --- -- vi ,/ City: ��/l �i State: —zip: 02 O ° � / Phone: ("/ 2� %Z 411% JFAX: (�i.l %%��3 -MaiLI7%?hOL7✓1YjOi Inm o' o n17 c (D CONTRACTOR: ❑Same as Property Owner ❑Other (Name) �m Z C) 1� Mailing Address: z City: State: Zip: 2 z Phone: ( ) FAX: ( ) E-Mail: --I _ CD State License Number: Exp: Date: City Business License No: p 0 m APPLICANT/CONTACT: Lp6�ame as Property Owner ❑Same as Contractor ❑Other Fill out the following information if "Other". Name & Mailing Address: City: State: Zip Phone: ( ) FAX: ( ) E-Mail:_ L:\TEMP\BUILDING\WEBchecklislslSFR.COMM.APP.doc5/24f2007 1 DETAILED SCOPE OF WORK Please provide a complete detailed written scope of work for the proposed project. Additions (additional square footage): Specify room use, floor level and square footage and direction if applicable (i.e. 545 square foot master bedroom/bathroom addition on the second floor with 140 square foot deck and 245 square foot kitchen addition on the main floor at south side of p house). o m Remodels (interior renovations): Specify room uses and floor levels (i.e. combine bedrooms 1 and 2 on the main floor to create new master bedroom/bathroom; replace dining room sliding glass door F with new French doors, reconfigure kitchen with new island prep counter and install new gas fireplace c m in the living room). M o 00 Jr, 5 foL �� h� !�✓ l7NL%'�Pi/(% /�Pi /c�i�%%l�l ✓��7i ///� m z oco n _M mm oN 0 m 3m Z� X x D Z x co Z O n m i L:\TEMP\BUILDING\WEBUiecklists\SFR.COMM.APP.doc5/24/2007 3 Nai(EU RING EEAASE ENT"E \` MULCK A 1 EXPOSED SOILS \ . , ... \ -, AND /ORPIANT THROUGH SC150 EROSION CONTROL ... ) MATS PEA MMENDA11ONS p:CAL ) AECOMMENOADWS \ {f:ENCINEER \ \ 'T FILTER FABRIC FENCE 1� PROVIDE ROCK OR HOG FUEL OVER r %} \ TO PROTECT AIIRAFl 500% O CONSTRUCTION SglS FROM CWSDTUCAON TRAFFIC A 11 •:<, n REMOVE PRIOR TO FINAL SITE 1 STABNZADON. IX TOP OF ROPE .: E 0 OP OF SLOPE j =� �. 11 ��• } NA 1��'�i�IO��yI Off,:' -11 P �y E%. HOUSE :'PROPOSED• CONC. PA.TIO. 'EX 1 .V POOL TO' 1 / 4 BE RMOUSHE0: V� 'RETAIN EXISTING POOL ///---EX*•DECK 2ND STORY DECK \ - WA11 FOR STABILITY. / ''- •. \\ WTyOFF NO MORE THAN 12' BELOW FINAL GRABS \ 'I PROPOSED 2ND STORY DECK,,'.PATO PAVED '� OR 1 1 :TOW =2805 � i BOW = 2760 - MINIMUM EXTEND OF .'POOL WALL REMAIN 11 I 1 PROPOSED I RETAINING WALL DECK I ��f'•'. TOW = 280.5' W .5 TO280 BOW 274.0 BOW 2740'� l TOW = 2805 1 N CA, BOW - 2740 1 a .1gVY `' OF WA `19 - PROPOSED.CWTOURS. 1 a(�T�S,�p -• FOLLOW RET. V 4, WALL .{'o _Cory' ��_��yI,1,'VP,C� W. zvo SITE PLAN SCALE: 1 "=20' BOBRY RES. POOL DEMO 6 DECK ADDITION DATE 9/13/07 DRAWING NO. 18418 OLYMIC VIEW DR PROJECT N0. OTtSo,10 ENGINEERM EDMONDS WA 88020 SCALE I' - zo' DRAWN B DMT so,1 TDLL / asa 4nr AVC. s., swi[ goo eouox0s, wwsxlxmox ue0xo CHECKED BI BUT '��"ET- I, ; ; SITE PLAN G,� APPRO ED B ccc O -_T 0 m cm m0 1n OC �m mZ 0-1 Cca r= O-n mm O as cm 9 Cn 1 r z 2 2 co Z O m OWNER HOWARD BOBRY 18416 OLYMPIC VIEW DR EDMONDS, WA 98020 TAX ACCOUNT NUMBER 00565600200301 LEGAL DESCRIPTION SEAHURST PLAT OF BLK 002 D-01 - TH PTN LTS 3 & 4 DAF BEG SE COR SO LT 3 TH N86*12 40W ALG S LN SO LT 140.95FT TH N17*22 22E 166.48FT TO ANINT WITH NLY LN OF SO LT 4 TH S74*42 OOE ALG NLY LN 137.63FT TO NE CDR SO LT 4 TH SLY ALG ELY LN OF LTS 4 & 3 THE ARC OF A CRV TO L HAVG RAD OF 1462.69FT & CONS CENT ANG OF 4*21 22 AN ARC DIST OF 111.21FT TO PT OF TANG TH S15*51 OOW & CONT ALG ELY LN SO LT 3 FOR 27.19FT TPB SUBJ ESE TO EDMONDS IF ANY & SUBJ ESE PUD LOT AREA GROSS LOT AREA 20806 SF NET LOT AREA 16104 SF LOT COVERAGE BUILDING FOOTPRINT 3595 SF EX. DECK UNDER EX ROOF LINE DECK ADDITION 125 SF NET LOT COVERAGE 3720 SF (237) IMPERVIOUS AREA EX. BUILDING FOOTPRINT 3595 SF (1971) EX. DRIVEWAY 5699 SF (1971) EX. UNCOVERED PATIO 1298 SF (1971) PROPOSED PATIO ADDITION 48 SF EX. PATIO TO BE REMOVED -300 SF (1971) GROSS EX. IMPERVIOUS 10592 SF (507) GROSS PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS 10340 SF (497) GRADING PATIO 5 CY (FILL) POOL 85 CY (FILL) APPROVED BY PLANNING Zone RS-12 CornerBs, Flag /y Setbacks Required Actual— F-,- Front6- 25' aS'a Sidesals tO' a�+* RearW Other Height Ar Per EciX 16,�o.oyo i41e pakio r xy Pfc) Qo} Ak' c so u ern sire seek by 3.33' as low as '�'s \ems }1,an ao" t, Z., °Nothingg in this permit approval process shall be interpreted as allowing or permitting the maintenance of any currently existing illegal, nonconforming or unpermitted building, structure or site condition which is outside the scope of the permit application, regardless of whether such R ECEI V EE building, structure or condition is shown on the site plan or drawing. Such building, structure or N U V — j ZU" / condition may be the subject of a separate enforcement action." BUILDING DEPT. SOBRY RES. POOL DEMO & DECK ADDITION DATE 9/13/07 DRAWING NO. PROJECT NO. 07190.10 18416 OLYMIC VIEW DR EDMONDS WA 98020 9 DRAWN s DWI cQ�A �7 G ENGNUEERINIG TALE 2. *1H AVE. s, sorts Tao CHECKED ByDNT ea mart n"' "«.""aa2a rAz (ass) ne-sass SITE PLAN CALCULATIONS APPROVED BY OCC z O 0 m N= CM rn 0 00 c mz Dz r= O� min_ ON r 3N Zr M zz 1 x rn z 0 n m M .. Eagle Eye Consulting Engineers, P.S. — PO Box 523 e, WA983 hoyt hoytjeter@cenlurur yteLnet 360 874 0562 Fax 360 874 0591 To: Marie Harrison October 10, 2007 121 5th Ave. N { Edmonds, WA, 98020 Re: Bobry Deck Addition er 18416 Olympic View DR Edmonds, WA, 98020 Plan Review #: 2007-0954 EECE #: EDM 07-43 l This project is approved for the Structural Only permit. The Structural drawing review has been completed and accepted for permit with the approved stamped drawings returned to the City ofEdutonds. i Your plans are being reviewed concurrently with the Building Department, Planning Department, and Public Works Engineering. Changes, clarifications or additional corrections may be required subsequent to the Building Department review, when comments are received from the other concerned departments. i ,n Should you have any inquiries regarding this letter, please call Hoyt Jeter at (360) 874- 0562 between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm. By: �� L Hoyt Jeter, PE President RECEIVE:E) CITY COPY .'-'t-.'p 2 0 2007 DEVELCOITY PMEOF ROMONT SERVI.011.s CIR. Geotechnical Report Bobry Residence 18416 Olympic View Drive Edmonds, Washington Project 1474-01 July 31, 2007 Prepared for: Howard Bobry 18416 Olympic View Drive Edmonds, WA 98020 Prepared by: The Galli Group 5034 18'h Avenue NE MEMO Seattle, Washington 98105 206-525-5097 EECE Table of Contents SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION.......................................................................................1 3.0 SITE FEATURES.....................................................................................................2 3.1 CRITICAL AREAS AND CODE REQUIREMENTS......................................2 3.1.1 Erosion Hazard Areas..............................................................................2 3.1.2 Landslide Hazard Areas...........................................................................2 3.1.3 Seismic Hazard Area...............................................................................2 3.2 SURFACE CONDITIONS................................................................................3 3.3 GEOLOGY........................................................................................................4 3A SITE SOIL AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS......................................4 3.5 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS.................................................................4 3.6 STABILITY ANALYSES.................................................................................5 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS..........................................................................................7 4.1 SITE GRADING AND EARTHWORK...........................................................7 4.1.1 Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control......................................7 4.1.2 Seasonal Grading Restrictions.................................................................8 4.2 TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS AND RETAINING ELEMENTS ...............8 4.3 SLOPE MITIGATION MEASURES................................................................8 4.4 FOUNDATIONS...............................................................................................9 4.4.1 Conventional Spread Footings on Structural Fill....................................10 4.4.2 Pile Supported Deck Footings.................................................................10 4.5 SLABS-ON-GRADE.........................................................................................11 4.6 DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING POOL.....................................................12 4.7 BACKFILL AND COMPACTION...................................................................13 4.8 DRAINAGE RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................13 4.9 PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL.............................................................13 4.10 ASSESSMENT OF RISK TO CRITICAL AREAS........................................13 5.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES AND LIMITATIONS..................................................14 5.1 ADDITIONAL SERVICES...............................................................................14 5.2 LIMITATIONS..................................................................................................14 _LIST OF FIGURES: Figure 1 Vicinity Map Figure 2 Site Features Figure 3 Generalized Soil Stratigraphy A -A' Figure 4 Generalized Soil Stratigraphy B-B' Figure 5 Slope Stability Analyses Section A -A' Figure 6 Slope Stability Analyses Section B-B' Figure 7 Pile Supported Deck Footings APPENDIX Z O. n m cm ma o 8c mZ aZ r= n m m m or C� it Z Z x rA Z 0 n m Geotechnical Report Bobry Residence 18416 Olympic View Drive Edmonds, Washington July 31, 2007 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Galli Group performed a geotechnical investigation on the property located at 18416 Olympic View Drive in Edmonds, Washington. The purpose of our investigation was to identify the subsurface soil conditions on the site and to provide recommendations for site development and foundation support, This geotechnical report or critical areas report summarizes observations from our research and subsurface exploration performed for the above referenced property. It also presents our recommendations for the geotechnical design elements of the project. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site is located on the west side of Olympic View Drive on the upper portion of a west -facing slope that descends toward Puget Sound below (see Vicinity Map, Figure 1). The existing site contains a two story single-family residence with daylight basement, exterior patio, and pool on the west side of the house. A shared asphalt drive encircles the property on the west, north and east sides and serves the project site and three adjoining lots. The slope descends westerly from the pool deck to the drive below at greater than 40 percent. Site features and topography are provided on Figure 2, Site Features. The owner plans to decommission the existing pool by breaking up the base of the pool and backfilling the area. The sides of the pool will remain in place to help stabilize the upper portion of the steep slope. Additional plans for a remodel possibly include an elevated deck z o 0 m 1 -n E 0� vm my On t C 1 3 mz t, Off_ DMZ rn ,n mm ON r 3� Z . X T z -i i r rn O 0 M Bobry Residence -- 18416 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds July 31, 2007 ., a$ that would extend from the upper floor out over a portion of the rear yard previously covered by the pool decking. Final plans for the remodel and deck were not available at the time of this report. 3.0 SITE FEATURES 3.1 CRITICAL AREAS AND CODE REQUIREMENTS A review of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) indicates that site might Z be governed by Critical Areas regulations. Below we have discussed the elements that apply 9 to the project site with reference to ECDC code requirements. m 3.1.1 Erosion Hazard Areas =i T The ECDC defines Erosion Hazard Areas as areas possessing steep slopes in excess of 40 v percent (see below.) c m m0 Erosion hazard areas include: "areas of the city of Edmonds that may experience severe to -4 0 c very severe erosion hazard. This group of soils includes, but is not limited to, the following when they occur on slopes of 15 percent or greater: � M m Z a. Alderwood soils (15 to 25 percent slopes); b. Alderwood/Everett series (25 to 70 percent slopes); c z c. Everett series (15 to 25 percent slopes)." (ECDC 23.80.020 A(1) D r _ 4 Co The slopes on the west side of the house are inclined from about 45 to 70 percent. Soil Conservation Service o -n maps the area as underlain by Alderwood gravelly sandy loam. _ Because of these topographic and mapping conditions the project site would be designated an m in Erosion Hazard Area. 0O rn r 3.1.2 Landslide Hazard Areas ca m N The inclination of the slope at the west side of the residence and steepest portion of the slope Z r appears to be on the order of about 70 percent. The slope has a rockery at the toe that defines X the lower limits of the slope. Section 23.80.020B defines "Landslide Hazard Areas" as follows: Z Landslide hazard areas are areas potentially subject to landslides based on a combination of 1 = 9 geologic, topographic, and hydrologic factors. Within the city of Edmonds landslide hazard Z areas specifically include: "any area with a slope of 40 percent or steeper and with a vertical 0 relief of 10 or more feet except areas composed of consolidated rock." (ECDC n 23.80.020B(2). m The project site qualifies for designation of "Landslide Hazard Area" due to topographic features. 3.1.3 Seismic Hazard Area "Seismic hazard areas" are areas subject to severe risk of damage as a result of earthquake - induced ground shaking, slope failure, settlement, soil liquefaction, lateral spreading, or surface faulting." (ECDC 23.80.020C) 1474 Bobry RPT 2 The Galli Group Bobry Residence -- 18416 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds July 31, 2007 The project site appears underlain by dense glacially consolidated soil, or glacial outwash. This dense material does not present a risk of deep-seated slope movement, seismic liquefaction, lateral spreading, or surface rupture. Provided the new foundations are supported on native undisturbed soil, the risk of seismic -induced settlement is not significant. As shown in our slope stability analyses, the risk of slope failure due to seismic ground ow slumps in the loose surficial soil rather than deep-seated slope shaking is limited to shall failures or failures that would impact the residence or planned improvements. In our opinion the site does not represent a severe risk of damage due to seismic induced ground shaking. In the report sections that follow we have described the site soil conditions and the subsurface geologic conditions. The site appears underlain by dense glacially consolidated sediment. The project site contains steep slopes and presents risks of erosion. In our opinion it does not present a significant risk of seismic liquefaction, slope movement, or erosion if conventional Best Management Practices are followed during recommendations are followed during project development. site development, and our 3.2 SURFACE CONDITIONS The project site is located west of Olympic View Drive on the upper portion of a west -facing slope that descends toward Puget Sound below. The slope declines westerly at an overall . declination on the order of 25 percent for about 160 feet and then declines steeply to Puget Sound below. The toe of the slope appears located more than 250 feet away and is protected from wave action by BNSF railroad tracks. The slope immediately west of the house descends at approximately 70 percent to the driveway below. The driveway serves three lots on the topographic bench below the subject lot. The toe of the steep slope on the lot is formed by an eight -foot rockery adjacent to the driveway (see Figures 2 and 3.) The slope surface is fairly well vegetated with bamboo, small shrubs, and a few deciduous trees. The top of the slope is defined by decking that surrounded the existing pool. The decking appeared to be timber framed with anchor cables attached to the pool retaining walls. The timber deck also appeared to have been topped with concrete. The decking has been removed leaving some of the wooden vertical posts, some concrete rubble, and the exposed slope surface below. The pool was empty and not utilized. Downspouts appear to routed toward a tightline collection system that descends the slope westerly toward the asphalt concrete driveway below. There is a single catch basin below that appears to collect water from the driveway and the downspouts, but we do not know the specific route of the drainpipes. The downspout at the southwest comer of the. existing residence appears to discharge directly onto the slope face about 10 feet from the house. We did not notice any significant signs of erosion on the site due to storcnwater runoff or springs, or seepage. No wet conditions were evident on the slope face. 1474 Bobry RPT 3 The Galli Group =i =5 Bobry Residence -- 18416 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds July 31, 2007 3.3 GEOLOGY Geologic maps of the area indicate that the vicinity is likely underlain by a complex sequence of glacial outwash and pre-Vashon and interglacial sediments such as the Whidbey formation and lacustrine clays and silts (Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and Part of the Edmonds West Quadrangles, James P. Minard, 1983.) Glacial outwash tends to consist of granular soil deposited in fluvial environments in front of the most recent glacial advance thousands of years ago. The deposit can appear braided with the sorting dependent upon the energy of the depositional environment. It can often contain beds or seams of varying material but tends to z consist mostly of sand and pebbly gravel. The advance outwash unit is often underlain by the Whidbey formation or other transitional c� rn beds that were either deposited during previous glacial periods or in between glacial =i T N advances. These units have all been consolidated by tons of ice. The older units tend to = exhibit more advanced weathering. The contact between the advance outwash and an c m m� underlying unit of fractured clay or silt tends to be notorious for slope stability problems due r0� to intrusion of groundwater and underlying layers that inhibit downward infiltration of C ground water. m z Based upon our site reconnaissance and subsurface investigation it appears that the project pz y Z site is underlain by dense advance outwash soil. m 3.4 SITE SOIL AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS O -n During our subsurface investigation on June 19, 2007, we advanced borings at the locations m rn shown on Figure 2, Site Features. We encountered dense silty SAND with gravel at about 6 o rn feet in B-1 at the top of the slope. We encountered dense silty SAND at the ground surface 0 m below the rockery in B-2. Blanketing the dense silty SAND in B-1 we encountered loose ca � N silty SAND. This material might represent soil excavated during construction of the pool. z 0 Based upon the results of our subsurface investigation, the site appears underlain by very dense z dense silty SAND with gravel. We interpreted this unit as advance outwash. The very unit was blanketed with a unit of loose silty SAND near the top of the slope. We interpreted z the upper unit as undocumented fill. No groundwater was observed in our borings. _ 3.5 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS m o The site appears underlain by glacially consolidated silty SAND blanketed by a unit of loose 0 silty SAND and loose fill. Geologic maps show the site as underlain by advance outwash and m other glacially consolidated sediments. No groundwater was evident in our borings. Based upon these site factors seismic liquefaction does not appear to be a significant concern. The risk of seismically induced slope movement is not significantly increased with the proposed demolition of the pool and does not represent a significant threat to the project site. The upper fill unit might be more prone to seismic induced settlement or minor downslope 1474 Bobry RPT 4 The Galli Group Bobry Residence -- 18416 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds July 31, 2007 creep than the core of the hillside, but this would not adversely affect the proposed improvements or adjacent properties. Based upon the latitude and longitude of the site we consulted the USGS Seismic Hazards Maps and estimated the site coefficients for an event with 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years (corresponding to a 500-year seismic event. In conformance with the 2003 International Building Code the following design parameters should be used for the project site: TABLE 1 Seismic Site Coefficients Site St Spectral Fv SpSs ectral Acceleration F. Class Acceleration Site Coefficient (0.2 second Site Coefficient (1 second period) period) C 0.462 1.34 1.3 1.0 3.6 STABILITY ANALYSES The site appears underlain by very dense silty SAND with gravel or glacially consolidated material that we interpreted as glacial outwash. This material is generally stable provided that it is protected against erosion and provided that it is not underlain by seepage zones along the contact with interglacial units or lacustrine clay. We did not observe any seepage zones within or immediately adjacent to the property that might tend to compromise the stability of the slope. We conducted slope stability analyses on the two cross sections A -A' and B-B' as shown on Figure 5 and Figure 6 respectively. In order to arrive at apparent soil values to use in the analyses, we assumed a slope stability of unity for seismic conditions similar to those recorded during the Nisqually quake of 2001. The owner indicated that he observed no apparent movement of the slope during that event. We then back calculated using the slope stability program XSTABL to determine the apparent soil parameters for the slope. The following parameters were utilized to identify the critical failure surfaces on the slopes for various conditions: TABLE 2 Slope Stability Design Model Parameters Unit Internal Apparent Cohesion Lateral acceleration Soil Weight Friction c' psl due fo seismic Type cf de Tees event Loose sil SAND 115 34 0 0.28 1474 Bobry RPT 5 The Galli Group Bobry Residence -- 18416 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds July 31, 2007 Dense sit SAND 125 38 100 0.28 Compacted 120 34 0 0.28g Fill We modeled the slope for existing conditions for both the upper (near the existing pool) and lower (near the rockery at the toe) slopes of Section A -A'. We also modeled the slope B-B' in the vicinity of the proposed elevated deck. The results of our analyses are provided in Table 3, below. TABLE 3 Slope Stability Analyses Results Critical Failure Surface Description Factor of Safety' (FOS) Reference File Static Seismic . XSTABL Files Model Existing Slope Condition — 1.05•` 1474R2D Section A -A' Upper Slope 1.6 0.98 1474RN2S; 1474RN2D Section A -A' Lower Slope 1.8 1.276 1474RN3S; 1474RN3D Section A -A' plus 10 foot buffer 2.1 1.23 1474RN4S; 1474RN4D Section B-8' 1.95 1.1 1474R1S;1474R1D Section B-B' plus 10 foot buffer — 1.28 1474R3S; 1474R3D Used to model slope conditions based upon measured representative PGA values during 2001 Nisqually Quake and owner observations of no movement during event. (PGA = 0.18g) It appears from our analyses that the most likely form of slope movement on the project site would be a shallow colluvial slide involving the loose surficial soils on the site during seismic induced ground shaking. These failures appear unlikely to exceed a few feet in depth and more than about 10 feet in length. These types of failures do not pose significant risk to the site, the adjacent sites or to nearby structures. For elements located more than 10 feet back from the top of the slope the FOS for seismic conditions exceeds 1.2 and the FOS for static conditions easily exceeds I.S. The critical failure surfaces are likely to progress back toward the existing pool since the dense soil likely intersects the pool wall at that point. For this reason we recommend retaining the pool wall after demolition of the pool bottom. Our analyses indicate that the proposed deck footings would be situated near the top of the potential failure surface for our seismic analyses with a FOS of 1.2. The static FOS would be 1474 Bobry RPT 6 The Galli Group z 0 n m �r n_ Cm ma �O On C mZ O� DZ r= O-n T mm Om r C in MCI) �r W z Z X Co z 0 n In Bobry Residence --. 18416 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds July 31, 2007 greater than 1:5 for the new deck footings. Therefore we have recommended pile -supported foundations for the proposed deck footings with battered piles or earth anchors to provide additional lateral resistance. This would protect the deck footings from rotating outward in the event of surficial ground movement. or erosion. 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The site contains steep slopes comprised of very dense silty sand or glacial outwash blanketed by loose sand or fill near the top of the slope. The loose soils represent a significant risk of erosion if left unprotected or exposed to concentrated discharges from downspouts or other runoff. No groundwater or seepage was evident during our site visit or subsurface exploration. Planned improvements appear confined to areas that are disturbed or developed by the pool deck and pool area. No new development is planned beyond the existing pool deck. The following geotechnical issues should be addressed in the proposed development of the site: ■ The pool retaining walls should be preserved to help maintain stability at the top of the slope. The demolition of the pool should take place according to our recommendations in the report. ■ All stormwater runoff should be captured and directed toward the existing storm drain. No downspouts or area drains should discharge onto the slope. • The elevated deck should be supported on piles augmented by lateral support to prevent rotation. We recommend pin piles in order to minimize slope disturbance. ■ All structural members should either be situated at least 10 feet back from the top of the slope or supported on the underlying native dense soil and designed with additional lateral support. ■ Best Management Practices should be followed during site development to prevent erosion of the site soils. The sections below address these geotechnical issues and other aspects of site development for the proposed project. Provided the recommendations supplied in this report are followed during design and construction of the residence, development of the site to include an elevated deck and demolition of the existing swimming pool and patio may proceed safely under appropriate geotechnical supervision. 4.1 SITE GRADING AND EARTHWORK 4.1.1 Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control The site contains silty SAND soils that represent severe erosion potential if left unprotected from concentrated discharges during construction. Best Management Practices commonly observed should be employed during construction. We anticipate these will include the following: 1474 Bobry RPT 7 The Golli Group z 0 1 0 m -i n rn -� cm rnp On c mm O Z aZ r_1 T r1 _In mm °_ o o' r go) Zr x z x z 0 n m Bobry Residence -- 18416 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds July 31, 2007 1. Maintain vegetation on the slope area between the construction activity and the toe of the slope to help reduce siltation and retard site runoff. 2. Maintain the street and driveway free of sediment during excavation and hauling and when mobilizing equipment to and from the site. Mud and silt tracked from the site should be removed or cleaned by the contractor. 3. The existing drainage system should be protected from sedimentation by placing a silt sack in the existing catch basin grate and placing straw wattles where runoff from the construction area might leave the site. Wattles can be move during construction activity to allow foot traffic and equipment in and out of the site. 4. From October through April we recommend mulching exposed soils with straw or other fertile mulch until permanent landscaping is installed. In areas planned for future flatwork such as patios, clean crushed gravel may be substituted for mulch to stabilize the soil. 4.1.2 Seasonal Grading Restrictions Due to the erosion potential of the site we recommend confining grading activities including excavation, utility installation, backfill and compaction to the drier summer months. Construction activity such as flatwork, framing, and above grade activity can continue after October I" provided the site is stabilized against erosion by means mentioned in the section above. The geotechnical engineer should evaluate the erosion control measures to verify that the site appears stabilized for wet season construction activity. 4.2 TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS AND RETAINING ELEMENTS The proposed improvements require minimal excavation. We anticipate activity will be limited to shallow excavations for pile caps for the deck footings. We recommend conducting the excavation by hand on slope areas to avoid damaging surficial vegetation as much as possible. The proposed site development does not incorporate retaining elements except for the existing swimming pool wall which we recommend keeping in place. We have recommended the use of pile supported deck footings in order to limit tie amount of disturbance to the area. 4.3 SLOPE MITIGATION MEASURES The existing swimming pool and partially demolished pool deck appear situated within ten feet of the top of the steep slope on the project site. These existing elements are all within the recommended minimum buffer or building setbacks (ECDC 28/.80.070 A(la and lb). The proposed improvements are confined to previously developed area and include the following: ■ Break up the pool bottom and backfill the pool with imported structural fill soil. Construct an elevated deck over the previously existing pool deck. ■ Possible construction of a patio area in place of the abandoned pool.] 1474 Bobry RPT 8 The Galli Group z 0 n m cm ma -1O On c mz p -a DZ O-n mm_ O� r CN KN A z x z O 0 m Bobry Residence -- 18416 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds July 31, 2007 Alterations to areas within buffers or steep slope areas must meet the following requirements . in order to be permitted: 1. "The development will not increase the surface water discharge or sedimentation to the adjacent properties beyond predevelopment conditions." (ECDC 23.80.070 2a). Previous runoff occurred as sheet flow from the pool deck and concentrated discharge from one downspout at the southwest comer of the residence. We recommend the following mitigation measures to satisfy this requirement: ■ The downspout runoff must be directed via a tightline pipe to the existing downspout collection system near the north end of the pool. ■ All disturbed slope areas should be seeded and covered with erosion control mats prior to the wet season. 2. "The development will not decrease the slope stability on adjacent properties." (ECDC 23.80.070 2b) Our slope stability analyses indicate that the proposed improvements will not significantly alter the slope stability of the site or adjacent sites. We recommend the following measures to help maintain slope stability: The perimeter wall of the pool area should be maintained intact. It can be cut below grade to allow placement of backfill, but we recommend maintaining the outboard edge as a retaining feature in order to preserve the slope stability and avoid erosion. ■ The rubble from the demolished pool deck should be removed and the area stabilized with erosion control mats and vegetation as described above. Proposed deck footings must be pile supported and provide lateral resistance through either battered piles or earth anchors as describe din Section 4.4 below. • We recommend isolated deck footings instead of a retaining wall or grade beam to limit disturbance to the top of the slope. Lateral support for the deck can be provided by above grade bracing or driven pile elements. 3. "Such alterations will not adversely impact other critical areas." (ECDC 23.80.070 2c) The project site is circumscribed on three sides by the existing asphalt driveway. The proposed improvements will not impact other critical areas. No additional mitigation measures beyond those described above are'needed to protect adjacent sites or critical areas. 4.4 FOUNDATIONS We anticipate that the proposed deck will be supported on pile -supported foundations within the area currently covered by the deteriorated pool decking. Once the pool is backfilled the owner might elect to construct landscape features such as planters or possibly additional 1474 Bobry RPT 9 The Galli Group O n m V5_ om m 0 --1c OC mm A 1 cz rD -4 �� n m mm o, r 3 0 Z� zz x z 0 a m Bobry Residence -- 18416 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds July 31, 2007 support for a future addition within the building footprint. Some of the footings could be supported on the structural fill provided they are situated sufficiently behind the top of the slope. Below we have provided recommendations for conventional footings and pile- . supported footings. 4.4.1 Conventional Spread Footings on Structural Fill Z Column or wall loads within the backfilled pool area and more than 15 feet away from the O top of the slope may be supported on conventional spread footings. For spread footings we m recommend the following: 1. An allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 psf may be used for footings bearing on =i T undisturbed glacial soil or properly compacted structural fill. This may be increased o M by 1/3 for temporary loads such as wind loads or seismic loads. C p mo 2. Minimum footing size for isolated column footings should be 24 inches square. Strip p c footings should be at least 16 inches in width. = m 3. The footing area must be free from loose or wet soil prior to placing reinforcing or p Zi pouring concrete. The geotechnical engineer should verify the bearing. C Z 4.4.2 Pile Supported Deck Footings O T The proposed elevated deck is approximately 12 feet by 10 feet and situated near the n southwest comer of the existing residence as shown on Figure 2. The wood -framed deck m m should be supported on small diameter pipe piles with either batter piles or earth anchors as rn needed for additional lateral support. A structural engineer should analyze the deck to 0 m determine the lateral resistance needed at the foundation for the deck. The structural engineer Cco should also design the pile cap. We anticipate that a group of battered piles can provide the z 0 needed lateral resistance, but this should be confirmed by the structural engineer's analysis. 1 We recommend the following for installation of the pile supported deck footings. A D 1. Install 2-inch diameter galvanized steel pipe piles at the locations determined by the .Z.i structural engineer and shown on the plans. Each 2-inch pile may be considered to = co have an axial capacity of 4,000 pounds (includes a FOS of 2.0). The spacing for the pin piles is dependent upon the loads of the deck and should be determined by the 00 structural engineer. m 2. Pile caps for the post support will require pile groupings of two or three piles driven at a batter to provide the needed lateral resistance. We recommend that battered piles be no flatter than 4V:IN. 3. The piles should be driven to nominal refusal. Refusal for a 2-inch pile is defined as the pile advancing less than- 1 inch in 60 seconds when driven with a 90-pound hammer. If a 140-lb hammer is used to install the pipe, the contractor shall be prepared to verify the refusal criteria with a 90-1b hammer at the request of the geotechnical engineer. 1474 Bobry RPT 10 The Galli Group Bobry Residence -- 18416 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds July 31, 2007 4. For planning purposes the pile lengths may be estimated at 15 to 20 feet, however the in the field determines the length of the pipe. The 2-inch piles may not refusal criteria 30 feet in length. The 2-inch piles shall be Schedule 80 extra strong steel exceed pipe 5. The pipe sections shall be connected with a ring coupler assembled in the shop by a shall be permitted for the pile if it is certified welder. No more than three sections less than 20 feet. No more than four pile sections or three couplers shall be used if Z the pile is between 20 feet and 30 feet. m 6. If the refusal criteria cannot be met within the 30-foot limit, the geotechnical engineer might require testing of the piles to determine the installed capacity. At least 3 be tested. The contractor shall supply the T percent of the non -conforming piles shall to test the piles. The Galli Group will monitor the load test and verifythe c m o equipment allowable capacity of the driven pile. If the piles appear inadequate, The Galli Group in with the structural engineer. m p o c will make recommendations for changes consultation =m 7. A geotechnical engineer from The Galli Group should monitor the pile installation to to those anticipated in our design O Z verify that field conditions are similar z recommendations. i 0 A licensed structural engineer familiar with the installation and performance of pin piles shall The Galli Group must review the provide the pile layout and design of the pile caps. engineer's design prior to plan submittal. A schematic of the pile -supported deck m m structural footing is provided in Figure 7. y Or- c urn, MCI) 4.5 SLABS -ON -GRADE on properly prepared subgrade soils or structural . Reinforced concrete slabs can be placed fill 1 For slabs on grade, we recommend that granular import be placed as soon as the subgrade is soil. The following additional recommendations are X prepared to protect the subgrade _ provided for construction of patios, slabs, or continuous paves: Z • We recommend that the contractor use deformed reinforcing steel for slab fabric. A minimum reinforcement scheme x w reinforcement rather than welded wire be #3 or # 4 bars, 18 inches on center, both ways. Fibermesh may be used to Z p would help decrease drying shrinkage cracks, however it is not a replacement for structural a m reinforcing. ■ The slab should not extend beyond the existing outboard edge of the pool wall or beyond the existing pool deck area beneath the proposed elevated deck. ■ If the impervious area of the patio slab or pavers exceeds 250 square feet, we drains and routing them toward the existing recommend capturing the runoff in area storm drainage system. • For slabs or patios less than 250 square feet the runoff should leave the slab as sheet flow. Concentrated runoff from impervious areas should be avoided. 1474 Bobry RPT 11 The Galli Group Bobry Residence -- 18416 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds July 31, 2007 4.6 DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING POOL The proposed project includes demolition of the existing pool. The limits of the existing pool are shown on Figure 2 and related cross sections. The general plan is to break up the base of the pool into small chunks, remove long pieces of rebar, preserve the perimeter of the pool walls but cut them off at or below grade, backfill the pool with structural fill, and compact the backfill. We recommend keeping the perimeter walls of the pool in order to maintain the stability of the upper reaches of the slope. This will also promote better compaction of the backfill. We recommend the following for the demolition of the pool: 1. Break up the base of the pool by putting holes into the bottom of the pool and breaking up the concrete into rubble. All chunks of concrete shall be no larger than 12 inches in the longest dimension. Where long strands of rebar or mesh are exposed they should be removed from the site. The concrete chunks may be buried within the backfill provided they are surrounded by granular backfill and no voids are left in the backfill area. 2. No broken concrete shall be used as fill on the existing slope outside the perimeter of the pool walls. No organic matter such as wood, lumber, posts, or organic -rich soil shall be used as backfill. 3. All pool piping must be removed as well as mechanicar equipment. 4. The drain for the pool should be scoped with a camera to identify the discharge point. The drain may not be abandoned in place without first closing off the discharge point . and filling the drain with cementitious grout. 5. The perimeter pool wall shall be left intact to help maintain stability at the top of the slope and to promote compaction during backfill. The top of the pool wall may be cut off no more than 18 inches below grade in order to allow for a new patio surface. 6. The top of the pool wall currently extends about 1 foot above grade at the outboard edge of the pool. This may either be left as a small retaining wall or the wall may be cut off at grade. No new patio surface or improvements shall extend beyond the outboard edge of the pool as shown on Section A -A'. 7. Much of the pool area will remain covered by the roof overhang (see Figure 2). The net impervious area from the alterations is expected to decrease. Drainage from pavers or patios will runoff as sheet flow similar to pre-existing conditions and the net amount of infiltration will be minimal in the area of the abandoned pool. Provided relatively clean backfill is used we do not see any need for additional drainage behind the walls left in place. 8. Backfill for the pool shall consist of well -graded sand and gravel with a maximum particle size no greater than 4 inches and no more than 7 percent passing the number 200 sieve. For the first few lifts we recommend using sand as backfill in order to fill 1474 Bobry RPT 12 The Galli Group z 0 0 m lA = cm m0 0 80 C mz O -a D2 r_-4 co _M mm_ 0 0m KCn m x z z x O 1 0 m Bobry Residence -- 18416 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds July 31, 2007 the voids between the broken concrete rubble. Compaction shall be achieved by mechanical methods. 9. A representative from The Galli Group should monitor the demolition of the pool and placement and compaction of the backfill. 4.7 BACKFILL AND COMPACTION Imported fill soil used as backfill behind walls and under slabs should be moisture conditioned to within 3 percent of optimum in content, placed in loose, horizontal lifts nt of the maximum dry less than 8 inches in thickness, and compacted to at least 92 perce density, as determined using ASTM D1557 (Modified Proctor). The 92 percent compaction criteria should apply to any material intended to support pavement or intended as backfill behind walls. If structures are supported on the structural fill the compaction criteria should be 95 percent of the Modified Proctor. In areas not constructed as fill slopes or not intended to support pavement or structures, fill material should be placed in loose lifts ldensity.sthan 12 inches in thickness and compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry 4.8 DRAINAGE RECOMMENDATIONS As indicated in previous sections, the existing downspouts appear to collect in a tightline system that drains downslope into the catch basin in the driveway below. We recommend verifying this as well as the pool drain location prior to commencing demolition and constructing new improvements. No downspout discharge ecommendari permns itted provided for the or within 20 feet of the slope. The following general drainage: ff 1. Impervious areas shall direct runoassheet flow. For patios larger than 250 square feet the area shall direct runoff toward an area drain that is tied into the existing storm drain as discussed above. 2. No concentrated runoff shall be permitted onto the slope face. 3. The owner should remain vigilant about maintenance of the downspouts and area drains on site in order to prevent overflow that might create erosion on the site. 4.9 PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL Following backfill of the swimming pool, installation of the foundation system, utilities and drainage system, and completion of the flat work, the site must be permanently sbnches 4 All exposed soils on site must either be covered with a thick layer of mulch (3 — ) that is incorporated into the final landscaping plan or vegetated with other groundcover. It is highly recommended that the site vegetation be established prior to October 15. 4.10 ASSESSMENT OF RISK TO CRITICAL AREAS The proposed deck improvement and demolition with backfrlling of the pool, plus re- development of the backfill area with pavers, patio or other landscaping meet the following - requirements accordin to ECDC 23.80.060: 1474 Bobry RPT 13 The Galli Group z 0 0 m cm m0 O 80 �K mZ D� r- OT A ZI mm oco r- r m v' it M Z x Q) z O m m Bobry Residence -- 18416 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds July 31, 2007 • The improvements will not increase the threate of the geologic hazard to adjacnet properties beyond predevelopment conditions; • The improvements will not adversely impact other critical areas; ■ The improvments are or will be designed so that the hazard to the project is mitigated to a level equal to or less than predevelopment conditions; and • The improvements, provided they are designed and constructed in accordance with our recommendations, are safe under anticipated conditions according to our. professional engineering judgment. 5.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES AND LIMITATIONS 5.1 ADDITIONAL SERVICES Additional services by the geotechnical engineer are important to help insure that report recommendations are correctly interpreted in final project design and to help verify compliance with project specifications during the construction process. For this project we anticipate additional services might include the following: 1. Coordinate with the architect and structural engineer to clarify design specifics and alternatives for the deck footings. 2. Review final design and construction drawings for conformance with geotechnical recommendations. 3. Monitor demolition of the pool including backfill and gompaction of structural fill. 4. Monitor the installation of the pile -supported deck footings and anchors (if needed.) 5. Provide periodic construction field reports, as requested by the client and required by the City. We would provide these additional services on a time -and -expense basis in accordance with our Standard Fee Schedule and General Conditions already in place for this project. If our firm is not utilized to provide these services or if the contractor fails to notify us and request construction monitoring we cannot be held responsible for performance of the geotechnical design elements. 5.2 LIMITATIONS This geotechnical investigation was planned and conducted in accordance with generally accepted engineering standards practiced presently within this geographic area. Geotechnical investigations performed by these standards reveal with reasonable regularity soils that are representative of subsurface conditions throughout the site under consideration. Recommendations contained in this report are based upon the assumption that soil conditions encountered in explorations are representative of actual conditions throughout the building site. However, inconsistent conditions can occur between exploratory borings or test pits and 1474 Bobry RPT 14 The Galli Group z O n m rA = om m O- -1O On C mZ O -Z DZ r� Ch n m M m rum_ O� r 3y Zr xt 1 D Z x rn z O 0 m Bobry Residence -- 18416 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds July 31, 2007 not be detected by a geotechnical study. If, during construction or subsequent exploration, subsurface or slope conditions are encountered which differ from those anticipated based upon results of this investigation, The Galli Group should be notified so that we can review and revise our recommendations where construction, we should be consulted so thatnecessary. we may alter our recommendations if necessary. This report is prepared for the exclusive use of the owner or the owner's consultants for specific application on this project at this particular site. Copies of this report should be made available to the design team, and should be included with the contract drawings issued to the contractor. Our report, conclusions, and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions on the site and should not be applied to neighboring sites. No warranty, expressed or implied is made. We recommend that geotechnical observation and testing be provided during the construction phases to verify that the recommendations provided in this report are incorporated into the actual construction. If our firm is not utilized to provide these services or if the contractor fails to notify us or request construction monitoring we cannot be held responsible for performance of the geotechnical design elements. Respectfully submitted, ST 0 RM AS �� P H o 4 Paul L. Stoltenberg, P.E. 28339� Project Geotechnical Engineer 10NA7.�;,m:5 1474 Bobry RPT 15 The Galli Group Z o. 0 s'? m 4< Vl = %; CU O Oc MZ A c,`f C Z rn i' n mm Or G0) m y Z0 1 Z 2 N Z O n m Z O d n m m= cm MO �O On c mZ DZ r� O� M m_ oCl) r 9� ,Zi mr D X 1 z Z 2 y Z O mm m�9 m OT O om • "° w m �y o n Oc _m ' mz v OT r mm 0 m 3co o� a m n Z r- N .tyyt :%1 .eyt Z � n a'r'ox ms ez : ais as z . aLttz�ws A.w tC�YI A Ni t :. A� •dv�mn uvyw aural i 1 N V Z O u of om k ma; pC CD N mm t z Es Q DZ, (} mm •s as $ C vM �� o N ,mac).,, O 0 m cm. D -1 m � � j . \ & . . � � E I \ . 0 `\ \ 6 § §a B k #fig . 4 �f \y. k2 �m 105 \ .. mks :c CO O"n . § M: < \ o� C0 » ¥ \ �§¢ . . f \ .. . zco \. / . . . k�\:. . §� ( 2 m2 \\» $m . .;0 / # / K 2 -2 k . f 7-4 } $ M \ / \ :z R �M\�\ . . z m �\ . �� y . % S b \ / �� � � � # � $ k �§k � )) 6§ 2 _ G� 3:a 7$ k .� 2\ 3 y . £� . k .®§ k� 2E k co . R m\; . k 0 11 Ioo O— C) k LU 0 Ufa U /) . . . . . $. k%� ... . LL . k §§ §co ro - §\k %. .~ �.~ .r§US < Z ^ ..\�(��� .§* & . 8 §§\»� \. Piz, mm80 : z { . [ 2 ` \ ] -n� \ mM \ y. ? .0 . &' »k © K �. .q�. \ .. Z' ^ . (n . . \. . k ( . Pile Supported Deck Footings Deck Footing j (reinforcing per structure) engr.) Ignore PassiveResistance Compacted 3/4" - us Backfill • . v'+.,a: ;' :. ? °.,a' dad Steel Plate 4" Min. - I 20 degrees Undisturbed soil , Pipe Pile driven to refusal Batter Pile as needed for lateral support. Drive at no steeper than / ; Manta Ray Anchor if needed su o and weld with plate to vertical / / , (Minimum length shall pile. Space and direction as req'd ` 1 ; be 7 feet, see report — b structural engineer. text for details) , Length as req'd , Lj Note: For Illustrative purposes only. Details shall l engineer in consultation with geotechmcal engibe provided by neer forcontract drawings. Howard Bobry 18416 Olympic View Dr. Project 1474 01 Edmonds, Washington Figure 7 z O m t' is x t,. mIm 0 pO rj c �C mz ) -4_ yz r O 'n 1 x� m rn Oy r mN z zk x m z O O m 4 -; {.,�: �. Appendix A: Logs of Exploratory Borings and Test Pits System; from American Society for Testing and Materials,1985 Unified Soil Classification GROUP GROUPNAME MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOL WELL -GRADED GRAVEL, Flt GRAVEL CLEAN GRAVEL MORETHANFRACTION GW COARSE GRAVEL POORLY -GRADED GRAVEL COARSE COARSE FRACTION RETAINED ON N0.4 GRAVEL WITH GP GM SILTY GRAVEL GRAINED SOILS SIEVE FINES GC CLAYEY GRAVEL MORE THAN 50% SW ELL -GRADED SAND, FINE RETAINED ON SAND CLEAN SAND COARSE SAND NO.200 SIEVE MORE THAN 50% OF SP POORLY -GRADED SAND COARSE FRACTION SM SILTY SAND PASSES NOA SIEVE SAND WITH FINES SC CLAYEY SAND SILT AND CLAY INORGANIC ML CL SILT CLAY FINE GRAINED LIQUID LIMIT LESS THAN 50 ORGANIC OL ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC SOILS SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY MORE THAN 50% PASSES NO.200 SILT AND CLAY INORGANIC MH SILT CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICIT SIEVE LIQUID LIMIT 50 OR CH CLAY cna RAND AND GRAVELS FOR SILTS AND CLAYS Figure A-1 The Galli Group z O m i-n = cm ma -4O On �C s. mZ 1 CZ 0 -n mm Oy r 3Cn 1m A 1 z Z 1 2 co Z O 1 n m Boring Log B-1 Project1474-01 Elevation = t 98.5 feet S I Descd tion - De th Sam le SPT \Loose, dark brown, silty sand wl trace small gravel \ ; (FILL) 1-2-1 Brown, silty fine SAND wl trace fine gravel, 5 moist 1-24 Dense, very silty SAND wl trace fine gravel, wet in top T (GLACIALOUTWASH) T 1 12_p3 23 Brown, silty SAND wl trace gravel 10'. T s 18 21-22 i Water added at 12' y ------------------ ---------------- t Very dense, brown, silty SAND wl trace gravel, _ 50 / 5.5" 05 moist 50+ Bottom of boring at 15.6 depth No water encountered in boring Boring located 5' west of pool at top of bank 26 39 .36 40' -� "5 The Galli Group Geotechnical consulting 184,E Olympic View Dr. 5034-181hAvenue NE Edmonds, Washington 8.25-2007 Figure A-2 - Boring Log B-2 rr252o0' Pmlect 1474 - 01 Elevation = t 75 feet De th Sam le SPT Soil DeserlifflOn Dense, silty SAND w/ gravel silt content 10 15% I (GLAL OUTWASH) CIA 12-14-24 f:? 5, Anchor refused on gravel at N depth Bottom of boring at 4' depth (. No water encountered in boring p Boring located at tce of rockery in driveway 10' m m m o 0 f: I mM 20' t� MT v ur ka c0im C:V Zo 30 Z sz I 2 V) ZO 35' 0 m { 40 5' The rani Group 18416 Olympic View Dr. Consulting Figure A-3 Geotechnical 5034 - 18th Avenue NE Edmonds, Washington o.. M. MA QR1n.5 Jan 08 08 11:58p Stoltenberg 2065255091 p.4 GG IRI111ON? Geotechnical Consulting DAILY FIELD REPORT PROJECT n�zdrof PQ. JOB NO. /L•Z�S`Cj� BUILDING PERMITOR JOB NO. DAZE _S'TriLTEJY�i� i - FTII.D REPRESENTATIVE � CLIENT/OWNER okg CONTRACTOR CONSTRUCCIONOPERATIONS 11114zG41 OBSERVATION NO1ES: M 7 oy,rT.aacY �N<'r4c(.I-a 2 f/c�G/rs/G s�»�GrFdIIS" _t��Z /it�sT.C[lrl� Zd A er/lazy �C,it�z �ncTctt /jfa.ru«/e��ra//! _S�' J t ,rr t Z inrtr�utfn -�� /3 ,.1<prri l_SGS /b .Aat-zv�c �vii��'1i/o+*J f72�/dEJ.FNi✓ � GF�%,C7 5�':d-iisa '%l?' i �![a�/G.d Fl �' �GJ✓ Tit �?E.NJ G.: LE'*/ s9lS�C�IFS• /PEE CC: BY ;• t l p,pa D D 2DD6 While -Job File, Yallow•Contreclor, Pink -Client _�,t i,yl, pEpARTMEtII qT Or ivon. )__ z O O m 1 'TI fA = �m MO �o oa mm z 0 Dz 2 c') 0 �1 'n �1 m Dm_ O� r mN —I z z 2 N z O 1 mm Jan 08 08 11:57p Stoltenberg 20G5255091 p.3 0 y �� GG THE 6Rlli BE GYM Geolechnical Consulling DAILY FIELD REPORT '08 NO. DATE 7 rz:M BUILDING pERMITOR JOB NO. �---- FiE1.D REPRESFN'TAnVE CLENTIOWNER CON UCIUR CONSTRUCIION OPERATIONS OBSERVATION NOTES: - �S� lnT�tc, ?Ji/.ld'Lr�s�Q A� �QP�X'Y /4�'i'G C7'JJ � C— CC: BY 't\il � Z1'iva White - Job File, Yellow - Contractor, Pink - Client tjUII,,.�IPiU OEPAFtT1dEtIT z O 0 m u1= cm m0 --10 00 C m Z Ai Dz r= �N n mM ON r C co 9 fm 1mr D �1 z z i y z O -i 0 m Jan 06 OB 11:57p Staltenberg 2065255091 p.2 GG THE M10hp Gtokchnical Consulting DAILY FIELD REPORT PROJECT {/6 Ul,%�� JOB NO. BUILDING PERMIT OR JOB NO. ;f6n70724-f DATE FMI) REPRESENTAME- CLwMrroWNER CONTRACTOR CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS OBSERVATION NOTES: /FlG 64✓Et' �c ?�z QiYti/r b i® r"/h/lsf / LSTi� s 9'/3-si�cv.•;� c�v ,o�-u�czts �c/�an�— CC: BY .TAN Q "� i0it8 White - Job File, Yellow - Contractor, Pink - Client �CI,gHpEEtt' PU t N11 CITY Jan 08 08 11:57p Stoltenherg DAILY FIELD REPORT 2065255091 G� THE Ra l GRM Gtotechnical Consulting p.I /S_f16 QJ /t�/�tc tea. JOB NO. Ig7y'Uf PROJECT /0- ZG- Gi BUIIAINGPERMIT ORJOB No' DATE -- FJEI.D RFPRESFSi1'ATIVE —. — Q.IFT7'f/OWNEEt �J 1 %�AG� IU�sY� �` ' nr/✓E+C��I�rY/!YCo CONTRACTOR /iprle �"!NA! CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS a � nPWRVA71710NN0'IES: m m 'Zr6Y�� Post-iP Fax Note 7671 Dare 868 a 9 s► c.. f BY :CGA From / !1G S coaoePr.�d � co. lA.lcy �geuP ����'9� - Phone p Phone iL �. , 5Z5-�i1 rn , 200� —contractor, Pink -Client Bl' E61dotAOS ctr{ cF z O O m -a �1 fn = � m m� 0 8C m m Z p —I Dz r_ —i y n T m m OON r 9� .Z't r X z z x z 0 m REVESE, D PLAN APP"'OVER e _ CITN OF, EDMONDSI3UI+,0iis:", DIVISION �— 0 PLANS EXA 's r'. I V E 0 014-1i ENGINEERING DATE DEVELCPf'- CTR. CITY if IDIIOIlnc Memorandum To: Howard Bobry CITY copy Fax: p r From: C. Chevy Chase, PE, SE n i m ;t Date: Feb 11, 2008 I _ x t Re: Handrail Design �_ m O .. CG Engineering was retained to evaluate the proposed handrail assembly provided by Railcrafl O C International Inc. for Howard Bobry. The handrail is for a single family second story deck. 2 m mz _� r ✓ < We have reviewed the handrail specifications designed by Railcraft International Inc. The rail p —t - system has been designed to the 1995 Canadian National Building Code (1995 NBC). The loads D Z used in the design of hand rail system by the manufacturer are greater than required by the 2006 ' ° r IBC. Refer to the table below for a comparison of the 1995 NBC design and required 2000 IBC ' i design criteria. O r m Description 1995 NBC 2006IBC C(1607.7.1) _ mm Design Line Load 0.75 kN/m (51.4 pll) 50 plf p N O r i. Design point load 1.0 kN (224.8 Ibs) 200 Ibs C m Intermediate member 0.5 kN (112.4lbs) - 50 lbs Z �0II ter, fiti�w This memo is based on the limited information that was available to us. Please note that we have - r not performed an analysis of the handrail. CG Engineering should be contacted immediately if . there are any discrepancies with the assumptions stated in this memo. S s G�� oFYr, s Elr to m cT O Q 23111 9 2so4ihAve swth' 1LS>�olsres� suite 200 h r` . ` SrONAl' � ZIP 1'�Oii EdmdijtlsiWA95020 `•; Phone:42577005003; EXPIRES: 7 6 20U8 FaX 4257785536 is Permit Inspection Details \, Permit: BLD20070954 I� ' Eft MIT �.' -. 1001 - E-Erosion Control/Mobilization Complete? Y + 01/11/2008 collinsj 30 CORRECTION NOTICE GIVEN -SEE ATTACHED N { 0111812008 collinsj 30 TESCISADEQUATE Y }[ Total Time: 80 f. i 1077 - E-Engineering Final Complete? Y 04/10/2008 Sibrel 30 OK to Final. Y Total Time: 30 1106 - B-Setbacks Complete? Y 01/10/2008 Ostheller 20 Approved Y O Total Time: 20 j 1108 - B-Footings Complete? Y m fl 01/10/2008 Ostheller 20 Approved subject to Erosion Control N j 01/18I2008 Readwin 10 EC APPROVED BY ENGINEERING - Y k Total Time: 30 2 i 1142 - B-Framing Complete? Y • m F i 02/11/2008 Readwin 20 NROTECORRECTION N O 02114/2008 TEMP- 20 APPROVED Y O C NATOLA r! m i. Total Time: 40 m 1168 - B-Building Final Complete? Y 10—1 04114/2008 steinike 25 Y tit; Total Time: 25 F I? t&' Total Inspections: 9 Total Time: 205 O -n m � 1 m rn - Oa(�. 4. r � Ul .. _ 1 r- m z . S l/1 O n IT! 512/2008 2:37:33 PM j Page 1 of