The URL can be used to link to this page

23406 99TH PL W.PDFlill 11111111- 9790 23406 99TH PL W Cornerstone lo Gelotechnical Inc. June 9, 2003 17625-130tl Ave. NE, C102 Woodinville, WA 98072 Phone: 425-844-1977 Fax: 425-844-1987 www.cornerstonegeotechnical.com '�_A RECEINIF-D Mr. Jeff Dye R'll 10 Metco Homes 1910 - 120'h Place SE BUILDING DEPT. Everett, WA 99208 Soil Bearing Evaluation Letter 100'h Avenue West Site (Woodbury at Edmonds, a.k.a. Lincoln Estates) Edmonds, Washington CG File No. 1071 Dear Mr. Dye: We have prepared this letter in response to a request by Mike Snook, Building Inspector for the City of Edmonds. He requested that we prepare this letter as a summary of our foundation evaluations for building lots at the Lincoln Estates project. We, as Nelson-Couvrette and Associates, have previously prepared a geotechnical report for the site dated December 20, 1999. Foundation subgrade evaluations for individual lots began on March 14, 2002 (Field Report #19) and ended on May 30, 2003 (Field Report #31). During the project, we visited the site and evaluated the foundation subgrades for Lots I through 12, 14, 15, 17 through 20, and 24 through 27. These site visits, along with our foundation evaluations and, where necessary, our recommendations for foundation subgrade improvement, are documented in Field Reports 19, 20, 22 through 3 1, and 3 3 through 3 7. Provided that our recommendations were followed, it is our opinion that the foundation subgrade soils for the evaluated lots should provide a bearing capacity of 2,500 pounds per square foot for the planned single-family residences. rn I STREET riLE Soil Bearing Evaluation Letter 100th Avenue West Site (Woodbury at Edmonds, a.k.a. Lincoln Estates) June 9, 2003 CG File No. 1071 Page 2 We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you. If there are any questions concerning this report or if we can provide additional services, please call. Sincerely, Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. 3 0/-1 is AL EXPIRES 08 16 /�Z Rick B. Powell, PE Principal JPL:RBP:nt Two Copies Submitted cc: Mr. Mike Snook Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc.. PLANNING DATA REDUCED SITE PLAN PROVIDED Z! PS/ UO MAP PAGE: 00'4 CORNER LOT: ffes;4�� FLAG LOT: affj�� ZONING: CRITICAL AREAS DETERMINATION #: Study Required: ;E�Walver 0 Conditional Waiver SEPA DETERMINATION: 13 Fee Ll Checklist 0 APO list w/ notarized form (Needed for 500 cubic yards of grading, Shoreline Area- site within 200 ft. of Puget Sound or Lake Ballinger) Exempt SETBACKS: Required Setbacks: i Street: 20 Left Side: Right Side:_ JS Rear: Actual Setbacks." r Street: Left Side: Right Side: G7 Rear: Street map chocked for ac il setback required? (Ye NA) %�� L3 DETACHE TRUCTURES: R OC IES: OCK S/ L3 FEW ES/TRELLISES: Y WI OW AY WINDOWS / PROJECTING MODULATION: �a STAIRS / DECKS: - PARKING: Required: 2— Actual:,-7.� LOT AREA:5T(R,-/q 2-oo-+-7 LOT CO RAGE:1 Calculations: &;�w BUILDING HEIGHT: Datum Point: cg4-e-� bn vi -Datum Elevation: -3 2-q Maximum AJlowed: -2d tual Height: A.D.U. CREATED?: (No / Yes SUBDIVISION: 1P LEGAL NONCONFORMING LAND USE DETERMINATION ISSUED: Plan Review Bir NewBPP1anningDataForm.D0C „�oTREET FILE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT 100” AVENUE DEVELOPMENT SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHNGTON FOR METCO HOMES, LLC RECEIVED JAN - 3 2002 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR. CITY OF EDMONDS 1i N I NELSON- COUVRE7TE & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING GEoTECHNICAL ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS 17311-135th Avenue NE, A-500 Woodinville, WA 98072 (425) 486-1669 - Fax 481-2510 December 20, 1999 Mr. Daniel O'Connor Metco Homes, LLC 1910 - 120t" Place SE Everett, Washington 98208 Geotechnical Engineering Report 100"' Avenue Development Snohomish County, Washington NCA File No. 271599 Dear Mr. O'Connor: INTRODUCTION Snohomish County (425) 337-1669 Wenatchee/Chelan (509) 784-2756 www.nelson-couvrefte.com This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering investigation for your single-family residential development in Snohomish County, Washington. The site is located in the Edmonds area on the southeast comer of 100th Avenue West and 234h Street Southwest, as shown on the Vicinity Map in Figure 1. You have requested that we explore subsurface conditions and prepare a geotechnical engineering report for site development. For our use in preparing this report, we have been provided with a plat map, titled "Richmond Fruit -Garden, Lots 1 and 2". The project consists of an unspecified number of single-family residential homes with associated roadways, utilities and detention pond. Four residences exist along the eastern property line, one of which will be incorporated as part of the development. A sanitary sewer easement is located on the east side of 100'h Avenue West. There is also an asphalt driveway that provides accesses to the existing residences. The site will be accessed from 234th Street Southwest and end in a cul-de-sac. As per our understanding, significant cut/fill operations could occur along the existing slope in the'northeast comer of the site. The depth of cut/fill is not known at this time. We were informed that two infiltration pond Geotechnical Engineering Report I OOh Street Development December 20, 1999 NCA File No. 271599 Page 2 areas are being considered. Both pond locations are in the northern end of the site. Plans for the infiltration pond were not available to us at the time the report was written. SCOPE The purpose of this study is to explore and characterize the subsurface conditions and present recommendations for site development. Specifically, our scope of services includes the following items: I . Review of soils and geologic maps of the area. 2. Explore the subsurface conditions by excavating trackhoe-excavated test pits. Trackhoe to be provided by you. 3. Provide recommendations for site preparation and grading. 4. Provide general recommendations for foundation support. 5. Provide general recommendations for drainage. 6. Provide preliminary recommendations for detention pond design. 7. Provide recommendations for access roadway design. 8. Prepare a report to document our findings and recommendations. SITE CONDITIONS Surface The project site is an irregularly- shaped parcel of land, approximately 5.8 acres in size. The eastern and southern property lines are bounded by residential plats of various configurations. The western and northern property lines are bordered by 100thAvenue West and 234th Street Southwest, respectively. The western half of the site, north of the asphalt driveway, is wooded with young deciduous trees and young to mature evergreen trees. The underbrush includes blackberry vines, salal and ferns. The eastern half of the site, north of the.driveway, and the area south of the driveway is vegetated with grass. The eastern third of the site slopes up to the east. Geology The geologic units mapped for this area are shown on the Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and Part of the Edmonds West Quadrangles, Washington, by James P. Minard, 1983. The site area is mapped as NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Report 100'h Street Development December 20, 1999 NCA File No. 271599 Page 3 bordering glacial till (Qvt) and advance outwash (Qva). Glacial till is a dense, unsorted mixture of sand, silt and gravel deposited at the base of the continental glaciers. The advance outwash consists of mostly stratified sand and gavel and silt. Both glacial till and advance outwash have been glacially consolidated. Our explorations encountered glacial till, advance outwash and fill soils. Subsurface Conditions The subsurface conditions at the site were explored on October 26, 1999. Ten test pits were excavated with a trackhoe to depths that ranged from 5 to 13 feet below the existing ground surface. The approximate locations of the test pits are shown on the Site Plan in Figure 2. A geologist from our firm was present during the explorations, examined the soils and geologic conditions encountered, and maintained logs of the test pits. The soils were visually classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System, a copy of which is shown on Figure 3. The logs of the test pits, edited to reflect examination of soil samples in our laboratory, are shown on Figures 4 through 6. Our explorations encountered a surficial layer of forest duff and sod in all test pits that was between 0.2 to 1.0 feet in thickness. Topsoil was observed only in Test Pit 6 and consisted of loose, brown silty fine sand with gravel, organics and roots to a depth of I foot. Slightly weathered glacial till, consisting of medium dense to dense, gay -brown, slightly rust -mottled, silty fine sand with gravel and roots, was encountered between 0.5 and 4.0 feet in Test Pits 2 and 3. Unweathered glacial till, consisting of dense to very dense, gray silty fine sand with gravel and occasional cobbles was observed to depths of 8.5- and 5.0-feet in Test Pits 2 and 3, respectively. Underlying the glacial till at 8.5-feet in Test Pit 2 we observed dense, gray fine to medium sand with gravel that we interpreted to be advance outwash. Underlying the surface soils between 1.7 and 2.5 feet in Test Pits 1, 4 and 5 we encountered weathered advance outwash that was medium dense, light brown to brown -gray fine to medium sand with gravel, roots and trace silt. Underlying the weathered outwash in Test Pits 1, 4 and 5, as well as underlying the topsoil in Test Pit 6, we encountered unweathered advance outwash to the extent of the excavation. The unweathered advance outwash consisted of dense to very dense, gray fine to medium sand with gravel and gravel with fine to medium sand interbeds. Fill was encountered in Test Pits 7, 8, 9 and 10 underlying a 0.2-foot layer of sod. Fill composition was variable and generally consisted of loose to medium dense, light gray to dark brown silty fine sand with gravel and trace metal fragments, wood, plastic and rubber. The fill soils extended to depths that ranged NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 41 Geotechnical Engineering Report I 00th Street Development December 20, 1999 NCA File No. 271599 Page 4 between I and 7 feet. Underlying the fill soils our explorations encountered medium dense to dense advance outwash or weathered glacial till. Hydrologic Conditions Ground water seepage was not encountered in any of the test pits. The rust mottling that was observed in Test Pits 3 and 9 is most likely due to perched water and not a seasonal ground water table. Perched ground water occurs when surface water infiltrates through less dense, more permeable soils and accumulates on top of the underlying, less permeable soils. The more permeable soils consist of the upper zones of the weathered till where roots allow water to infiltrate. The depth at which the roots end is normally where the competency of the soils increases, and the permeability would decrease. Perched water does not represent a regional ground water "table" within the upper soil horizons. It should be noted that the local volumes of perched ground water could vary depending upon the time of year and the upslope recharge conditions. SENSITIVE AREA EVALUATION Seismic Hazard The site 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. This, in turn, corresponds to an effective peak horizontal acceleration of 0.3 g. Site conditions best fit the UBC description for Soil Profile Type SD ("Stiff Soil Profile"). Additional seismic considerations include liquefaction potential and attenuation of ground motions by soft soil deposits. The liquefaction potential is highest for loose sand with a high ground water table. The underlying dense till and advance outwash soils are considered to have a very low potential for liquefaction and attenuation of ground motion. Landslide Hazard The core of the slope is inferred to be comprised of the advance outwash deposits. We consider these soils to be of moderate to high strength and they are considered to be stable with regard to deep-seated slope failures. There is a potential that the surficial soils on the steeper sections of the slope could slough over time. However, we did not observe any active evidence of sloughing. Any slough events are expected to be surficial, and are affected by surface water and man made impacts. The risk of slough NEL SON- CO U VRETTE & A SS 0 CIA TES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Report 100t" Street Development December 20, 1999 NCA File No. 271599 Page 5 events can be minimized if proper drainage is installed, vegetation on the slope is maintained, and yard waste and other debris are kept off the slopes. We would expect if a slough event were to occur, it would be small in scale and relatively shallow. Sloughs events would be expected to be a low probability if the final geometries are in accordance with our recommendations. Erosion Hazard The erosion hazard criteria used for determination of affected areas include soil type, slope gradient, vegetation cover, and ground water conditions. The erosion potential is related to vegetative cover and the specific surface soil types (group classification), which are related to the underlying geologic units. We have referenced the Soil Survey of Snohomish County Area Washington by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) to determine the erosion hazard of the on -site soils. The surface soils were mapped by SCS and classified as both Everett gravelly loam and Alderwood-Urban land complex. The eastern half of the site is mapped as 8 to 15 percent slopes, while the western half of the site is mapped as 0 to 8 percent slopes. The erosion hazard for these soils is listed as being slight. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General The underlying medium dense to dense glacial soils are capable of supporting the planned structures and pavements. The I to 7 feet of fill observed in the area surrounding Test Pits 7 trough 10 could impact the foundations of the planned structures in this area, and will likely need to be over -excavated and replaced with suitable structural fill material or the building supported on piles. All other test pit locations indicate that the medium dense to dense glacial soils will generally be encountered at normal foundation depths after site stripping. Where dense native soils are not encountered at design depth, foundations should extend through, and bear on the underlying medium dense or better native soils or structural fill extending to these soils. The soils likely to be exposed during construction range from the highly moisture -sensitive silty glacial till and fill soils, to the slightly moisture -sensitive advance outwash sand and gravel. The highly moisture -sensitive silty soils will disturb easily when wet. We recommend that construction take place during the drier summer months. If construction takes place during the wet season, additional expenses and delays should be expected due to the wet conditions. Additional expenses could include the export of NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Report 100th Street Development December 20, 1999 NCA File No. 271599 Page 6 on -site soil, the import of clean granular soil for fill, and the need to place a blanket of rock spalls prior to placing structural fill. Erosion Control The on -site soils have a slight erosion potential when disturbed depending on how the site is graded and water is allowed to concentrate. Best Management Practices (BMPs) should be used to control erosion. Areas disturbed during construction should be protected from erosion. Measures taken may include diverting surface water away from the stripped areas. Cut slopes may be protected from erosion by diverting surface water away from the top of slope and covering cut slopes with plastic sheeting. Silt fences or straw bales should be erected to prevent muddy water from leaving the site. Disturbed areas should be re -vegetated at the end of construction. The vegetation should be maintained until established. The erosion potential of areas not stripped of vegetation should be minimal. Site Preparation and Grading The first step of site preparation should be to strip the surficial topsoil or fill, to expose medium dense or better native soils in pavement and building areas. This stripped material should be removed from the site, or stockpiled for later use as landscaping fill. The western third of the site is underlain by silty soils that are considered highly moisture -sensitive, and will disturb easily and become difficult to work with when wet. We recommend that earthwork be conducted during the drier summer months, if possible. If earthwork is to be accomplished during wet weather, a blanket of rock spalls will be needed in the planned access roadway. The thickness of the spalls should be based on soil conditions at the time that the site is developed and the -performance under heavy equipment. For wet weather considerations, we recommend using a minimum of a 1 -foot thickness of spalls in traffic areas for estimating purposes. Temporary and Permanent Slopes Temporary cut slope stability is a function of many factors, such as the type and consistency of soils, depth of the cut, surcharge loads adjacent to the excavation, length of time a cut remains open, and the presence of surface or ground water. It is difficult under these variable conditions to estimate a stable temporary cut slope angle. Therefore, it should be the responsibility of the contractor to maintain safe slope configurations, since he is continuously at the job site, able to observe the nature and condition of the cut slopes, and able to monitor the subsurface materials and ground water conditions encountered. NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Report I OOh Street Development December 20, 1999 NCA File No. 271599 Page 7 Construction of utilities may include unsupported temporary excavations. For planning purposes, we recommend that unsupported temporary cuts in the near -surface weathered soils be no steeper than 1.5 Horizontal to 1.0 Vertical (1.5H:I.OV). Cuts in the unweathered till may stand at a steeper inclination, and for planning purposes, I H: IV may be used. If ground water is encountered, we would expect that flatter inclinations would be necessary. We recommend that cut slopes be protected from erosion. Measures taken may include covering cut slopes with plastic sheeting and diverting surface runoff away from the top of cut slopes. We do not recommend vertical slopes for cuts deeper than 4 feet, if worker access is necessary. We recommend that cut slope heights and inclinations confonn to appropriate local, state and federal regulations. Final slope inclinations for structural fill and the native soils should be no steeper than 2H: IV. Cuts within dense native till could stand at steeper inclinations, but this should be determined with a site - specific evaluation. Lightly compacted fills or common fills should be no steeper than 3H: IV. Common fills are defined as fill material, potentially with some organics, that are "trackrolled" into place and used for landscaping. They would not meet the compaction specification of structural fill. Final slopes should be vegetated and covered with straw or jute netting. The vegetation should be maintained until it has been established. Structural Fill General: All fill placed beneath buildings, pavements or other settlement- sensitive features should be placed as structural fill. For the purpose of this report, structural fill is defined as material that is placed in accordance with prescribed methods and standards, and is monitored by an experienced geotechnical professional or soils technician. Field monitoring procedures would include the performance of a representative number of in -place density tests to document the attainment of the desired degree of relative compaction. The areas to receive fill should be prepared as outlined in the Site Preparation and Grading subsection of this report. 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 meet these requirements, and also should contain no more than about 5 percent fines (soil passing a U.S. No. 200 Sieve), based on that fraction passing the U.S. 3/4-inch sieve. NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Report 100'h Street Development December 20, 1999 NCA File No. 271599 Page 8 The on -site native soils that most likely will be cut are located on the sloping, northwest portion of the site. These soils are weathered and unweathered glacial till that consist of silty fine sand with gravel. It may be feasible to use this material as structural fill if the soil can be moisture -conditioned to near - optimum moisture content for compaction. We expect the necessary moisture conditioning will consist of drying the material, which would require an adequate area to spread the material out. Drying the material may not be possible outside of the summer season. Fill Placement: Following subgrade preparation, placement of the structural fill may proceed. All fills should be placed in 6- to 8-inch-thick uniform lifts. Each lift should be spread evenly and be thoroughly compacted prior to placement of subsequent lifts. All structural fill underlying building areas, and within 2 feet of pavement subgrade, should be compacted to at least 95 percent of its maximum dry density. Maximum dry density, in this report, refers to that density as determined by the ASTM D-1557 compaction test procedure. Fill more than 2 feet beneath sidewalks and pavement subgades should be compacted to at least 90 percent of its maximum dry density. The moisture content of the soils to be compacted should be within about 2 percent of optimum, so that a readily compactable condition exists. It may be necessary to over -excavate and remove wet soils in cases 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 soils, or be supported on structural fill or rock spalls extending to those soils. At the exploration locations, the depth to medium dense or better native soils was between 0.5- to 7.0-feet (Table A). Soft or loose soils should be over -excavated to expose suitable bearing soil. The over -excavation could be filled with structural fill, or the footing may be extended down to the bearing native soils. If footings are supported on structural fill, the fill zone should extend outside the edge of the footing a distance equal to the depth of over -excavation below the footing. NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Report 100th Street Development December 20, 1999 NCA File No. 271599 Page 9 Table A Approximate Depth to Suitable Bearing Soil & Bearing Soil Type Test Pit Depth to Bearing Soil* (in feet) Bearing Soil Type (USCS) (in feet) Depth of Observed Seepage (in feet) TPI 1.0 SP-SM None TP2 0.6 Sm None TP3 0.5 Sm None TP4 0.3 Sm None TP5 0.2 SP-SM None TP6 1.0 SP None TP7 7.0 SP-SM None TP8 6.0 Sm None TP9 1.0 Sm None TP10 2.0 Sm None USCS — Unified Soil Classification System (definition of symbols used) SM — Silty Sand SP — Poorly -Graded Sand GP — Poorly -Graded Gravel SW — Well -Graded Sand GW — Well -Graded Gravel I I I Bearing soil must be proofrolled and compactedprior to placement of structuralfill, pavement, footings, or slabs. I ___F_ Footings should extend at least 18 inches below the lowest ad acent finished ground surface for frost 1i protection and bearing capacity considerations. Minimum foundation widths of 16 and 20 inches should be used for continuous and isolated spread footings, respectively. Standing water should not be allowed to accumulate in footing trenches. All loose or disturbed soil should be removed from the foundation excavation prior to placing concrete. For foundations constructed as outlined above, we recommend an allowable design bearing pressure of not more than 2,500 pounds per square. foot (psf) be used for the footing design. Higher bearing pressures may be applicable in the dense or better glacial till, or for wider footings. We should be consulted if higher capacities 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. NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Report 100'h Street Development December 20, 1999 NCA File No. 271599 Page 10 Potential foundation settlement using the recommended allowable bearing pressure is estimated to be less than I inch total and 1/2 inch differential between footings or across a distance of about 50 feet. Lateral loads can be resisted by friction between the foundation and subgrade soil, and by passive soil resistance acting on the below -grade portion of the foundation. For the latter, the foundation must be poured "neat" against undisturbed soil or backfilled with clean, free -draining, compacted structural fill. Passive resistance may be calculated as a triangular equivalent fluid pressure distribution. We recommend that an equivalent fluid density of 250 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) be used to calculate the allowable lateral passive resistance for the case of a level ground surface adjacent to the footing. We recommend an allowable coefficient of friction between footings and soil of 0.45 for the silty sands. These values should be applied to the vertical dead load only. These values include a factor of safety of 2.0 and 1.5 for passive pressure and frictional resistance, respectively, applied to our estimate of ultimate soil strength values. We recommend that the upper I foot of soil be neglected when evaluating the passive resistance. Slabs -on -Grade The subgrade for slabs -on -grade should be prepared as outlined in our Site Preparation and Grading subsection. Areas of fill or soils that are observed to weave during compaction should be over -excavated and replaced with structural fill. Where moisture c ' ontrol is important, we recommend that at least 6 inches of free -draining material be placed under slabs -on -grade to act as a capillary break. The capillary break material should be separated from slabs by a vapor barrier, such as plastic sheeting. An additional 2-inch-thick damp sand blanket may be used to cover the vapor barrier, to protect the membrane and to aid in curing the concrete. This will also prevent cement paste bleeding down into the capillary break through joints or tears in the vapor barrier. The capillary break material should be connected to the footing drains to provide positive drainage. Utilities We do not anticipate significant ground water will be encountered in trenches over most of the site during the summer months; however, local areas of ground water may exist. If utilities are excavated in the wetter months, the potential increases that some seepage may be encountered and impact excavation cuts. A more specific evaluation can be done when utility grades are established. NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Report 100th Street Development December 20, 1999 NCA File No. 271599 Page 11 Pavement Areas Roadway subgrade preparation should be prepared as recommended above in the Site Preparation and Grading subsection of this report. The pavement sections should consist of at least I foot of granular soils underlying the asphalt. It will be important to proofroll the roadway areas with a heavy, rubber -tired piece of equipment, such as a loaded 10-yard dump truck prior to paving, and to repair areas that yield under proofrolling equipment. We should be retained to observe the proofrolling, prior to placement of the base course or asphalt. If subgrade conditions become unsuitable due to weather conditions or other factors, repairs will be required to improve the subgrade prior to paving. Other options would be to place a layer of asphalt treated base (ATB) over the subgrade, prior to asphalt placement. Typically, the ATB is used as the traffic surface during construction of the structures. The final pavement course is placed after any necessary repairs are completed. Provided the site is prepared as outlined above, standard pavement sections could be used. Storm Pond The two possible locations proposed as infiltration ponds are located in the northern end of the site. We have described these ponds as Location A and B to provide more specific details. Location A (northwest corner of the site): Test Pit 1 was excavated in this area. We observed weathered and unweathered advance outwash. We consider the advance outwash soils to be moderately permeable. The advance outwash was observed to the extent of this exploration. Location A would be a feasible location for ah infiltration pond. Location B (middle north): Test Pit 2 was excavated in this area. We observed weathered and unweathered glacial till overlying advance outwash. The glacial till is considered to have very low permeability. If the infiltration pond will be constructed in this area, we recommend that the base of the pond extend into the advance outwash sand and gravel. Our exploration in this area encountered the advance outwash at 8.5 feet below the surface grade. If a deep infiltration system could be design, this location would be feasible. Other concerns that would have to be evaluated would be depth to ground water. We recommend that further study be conducted, including field infiltration tests, upon final determination of the infiltration pond location. We are available to provide verbal infiltration estimates to verify if an infiltration pond system is feasible. NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Report I OOh Street Development December 20, 1999 NCA File No. 271599 Page 12 Drainage Surface: We recommend that runoff from impervious surfaces, such as roofs, driveway and access roadways, be collected and routed to an appropriate storm water discharge system. Final site grades should promote for drainage away from any buildings. We suggest that the finished ground be sloped at a minimum gradient of 3 percent for a distance of at least 10 feet away from the buildings. Surface water should be collected by permanent catch basins and drain lines, and be discharged into a storm drain system. Subsurface: Should. ground water seepage be encountered, or if excessive rainfall occurs during construction, we recommend that the contractor slope the bottom of excavation during construction and collect the water to ditches and small sump pits from which the water can be pumped and discharged into a permanent storm drain. We recommend the use of footing drain systems around the perimeter of the planned buildings. The drains should consist of 4-inch minimum diameter, perforated or slotted, rigid, PVC pipe at the bottom of footings. The drain line should be embedded in, surrounded by, and covered with a free -draining washed rock, pea gravel, or other free -draining granular material wrapped in a layer of filter fabric. The excavation within an 18-inch horizontal distance behind the footing should be backfilled with a free - draining, granular structural fill, except for the top 12 inches, which should be a layer of compacted, native, low permeability soil. This impermeable cap material should be separated from the granular soil by a layer of building paper or visqueen sheeting. The footing subdrain should be tightlined to discharge into a permanent storm drain. It is good practice to use footing drains for moisture control. However, footing drains may be optional if the final site grade slopes away from the planned structures and if the slabs are a minimum of I foot above surrounding grades. This should be evaluated prior to construction. If perimeter footing drains are not used, appropriate moisture control should be utilized. Measures taken should include providing a suitable capillary break and vapor barrier for slabs -on -grade and sloping crawl spaces to drain. Capillary'breaks and vapor barriers should be used for slabs in any case where moisture control is important. An outlet drain should be installed to allow water that may accumulate in a crawl space to drain from the crawl space. Site grading should be designed such that all crawl space drains have a minimum of I foot of fall. NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Report I 00th Street Development December 20, 1999 NCA File No. 271599 Page 13 Roof downspout drainpipes should not be connected to the footing drain system. All roof downspout drains should be separately tightlined to discharge. The footing drain system should have a minimum of 12 inches of vertical fall before it is connected to the roof drain system. We recommend that sufficient cleanouts be installed,at strategic locations to allow for periodic maintenance of the footing drain and downspout drainpipe system. USE OF THIS REPORT We have prepared this report for Metco Homes, LLC and their agents, for use in planning and design of this project. The data and report should be provided to prospective contractors for their bidding and estimating purposes, but our report, conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of subsurface conditions. Final development plans were not available at the time this report was prepared. We recommend that we be retained to review the final plans and provide additional design input, as necessary, prior to construction. The scope of our work does not include services related to construction safety precautions, and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractors' methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. There are possible variations in subsurface conditions. We recommend that project planning include contingencies in budget and schedule, should areas be found with conditions that vary from those described in this report. We recommend that we be. retained to provide monitoring services for geotechnical aspects of the work during construction. As part of our services, we would verify site conditions found during construction, and compare them with the data obtained in our explorations and evaluate soil bearing during construction. In the event that conditions vary, we would provide recommendations as appropriate. We would also evaluate the construction to determine if it is in compliance with the design concepts, specifications and recommendations, and to allow for design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget for our services, we have strived to take care that our work has been completed in accordance with generally accepted practices followed in this area at the time this report was prepared. No other conditions, expressed or implied, should be understood. NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Report I 00th Street Development December 20, 1999 NCA File No. 271599 Page 14 We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you. If there are any questions concerning this report, or if we can provide additional services, please call. Sincerely, NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. M011 VA PM Kenneth J. Reid Senior Staff Geologist P / , dP JEXPIRES 0811-,'!'�V 7 Rick B. Powell, P.E. Senior Engineer KJR:RBP:nt Three Copies Submitted Five Figures IN NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Vicinity Map N G H J A B C .4 �A: C, �l E � I- ��,9?, 42 TH C 21 H 7 FT 77 0 EL� 220TH 222' IR M W 134 5 4T CA T-7 -2 TH Au.. coo. —4�- i : I "A > t—j CO 5 9 ro 42 tot I—TI 11. -J, Y I T 2! CD, -2t OLLY _ZND H J�PLE 2 T 34 MADRONA Project tun) Site 0 2 238 'H U /ENTl 240TH ENTE T--J 1247ST ISNO)HbmiSH' 242NO T ,j .244, 0 ','J209RD' 201ST Z; CI < I z L KZ 20OTil IT c: 19 ILL -0 z aTtH cl: z LL r I.. �L,93RDi�ll ...... j If D --f-907, -, X. 4- Of RICHM z z wl � 1, 1 0 :774TH :4- . ...... LL) 0 A AUTH T, nc 1995 Thomas Rms Mans Metco - 1 00th Ave. Site NELSON-COUVRETTE &ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS FILE NO. I AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS 271599 1 FIGURE December 1999 ____j mreldrawkvicinity�2715vic.odr,kjr, 11112199 t. Pond Location A Pond Location B \ SW=p4rE Iwo TP-1 ty SEWER 1�1 C Site Plan 234TH ST. sw. SW=4�8E TP-2 Sol SAMTARY SEWLR LLNE PER RECORD DRAMNC (APPROX- LOCATION) —S W 2 274 r E cn I PARCEL C 13C.0% 00 1 - 00 TP-3 C4'r: J'z if. — 04 TP-4 AENT FOR VCRESS. c LMLMES -4 14C<M 91-5 A' _C_ 30' EASEIAENT' I R TP-8-" INGREMSS, E & t. f—,, AFN 21402,47 < TP-5 CD (�:�s TP-9- _TP-A Uj % TP-6 TP-7 Z SOW ECRESS EASEVE.14r Q PARCEL C < 6 T_ JL SAMMARY SEWER NW19ww 236rH ST. Sw. CVAC .%7M) w a LEGEND TP-1 0 100 200 NUMBER AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TEST PIT Scale 1" = 100' I Ref: Site plan created from a plat map titled "Richmond Fruit -Garden Tracts, Lots 1 & 2", undated. NELSON-COUVRETTE &ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING GEOTECHNIcAL ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS FIGURE Metco - 1 00th Ave. Site 1 2 FILE NO. 271599 1 DATE December 1999 NCAdmffing I 999kcoreldnhoskeplaM271 Sspxdft�Al I A 2199 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MNOR DIVISIONS GROUP SYMBOL GROUPNAME COARSE - GRAVEL CLEAN GRAVEL GW WELL -GRADED GRAVEL, FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL GP POORLY -GRADED GRAVEL GRAINED MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE FRACTION GRAVEL WITH FINES GM SILTY GRAVEL SOILS RETAJNED ON NO. 4 SIEVE GC CLAYEY GRAVEL MORE THAN 50% RETANED ON NO. 200 SIEVE SAND CLEAN SAND SW WELL -GRADED SAND, FINE TO COARSE SAND SID POORLY -GRADED SAND MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE FRACTION SAND PASSES NO. 4 SIEVE WITH FINES SM SILTY SAND Sc CLAYEY SAND FINE - SILT AND CLAY INORGANIC ML SILT CIL CLAY GRAJNED LIQUID LIMIT LESS THAN 50% SOILS ORGANIC OL ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC CLAY MORE THAN 50% PASSES NO. 200 SIEVE SILT AND CLAY INORGANIC MH SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY, ELASTIC SILT CH CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAY LIQUID LIMIT 50% OR MORE ORGANIC OH ORGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC SILT HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT NOTES: SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS I ) Field classification is based on Dry- Absence of moisture, dusty, dry Visual examination of soil in general to the touch accordance with ASTM D 2488-83. Moist- Damp, but no visible water 2) Soil classification using laboratory tests Is based on ASTM D 2487-83. Wet- Visible free water or saturated, 3) Descriptions of soil density or usually soil Is obtained from consistency are based on below water table Interpretation of blowcount data, Visual appearance of soils, and/or test data. NELSON-COUVRE'rrE&ASSOCIATES,INC. UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM CON.SULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS FIGURE 3 LOG OF EXPLORATION DEPTH Usc SOIL DESCRIPTION TEST PIT ONE 0.0-1.0 FOREST DUFF, ROOTS, WOOD AND CHARCOAL (LOOSE,MOIST) 1.0-2.0 SP-SM LIGHT BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT, GRAVEL AND ROOTS (MEDIUM DENSE, DRY TO MOIST) (WEATHERED ADVANCE OUTWASH) 2.0-13.0 SP GRAY INTERBEDDED FINE SAND AND GRAVEL LAYERS WITH OCCASSIONAL COBBLES, SILT CHUNKS, AND TRACE ROOTS (DENSE, DRY TO MOIST) (ADVANCE OUTWASH) SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 3.0, 7.0 AND 11.5 FEET GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 13.0 FEET ON 10/26/99 TEST PIT TWO 0.0-0.6 FOREST DUFF 0.6-3.0 SM GRAY -BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH GRAVEL AND ROOTS (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED TILL) 3.0-8.5 SM GRAY SILTY FINE SAND WITH GRAVEL (DENSE TO VERY DENSE, DRY TO MOIST) (TILL) 8.5-11.0 SP GRAY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL AND TRACE COARSE SAND (DENSE, MOIST) (ADVANCE OUTWASH) SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 5.0 AND 11.0 FEET GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 11.0 FEET ON 10/26/99 TEST PIT THREE 0.0-0.5 SOD 0.5-4.0 SM GRAY -BROWN SLIGHTLY RUST MOTTLED SILTY FINE SAND WITH GRAVEL (DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED TILL) 4.0-5.0 SM GRAY SILTY FINE SAND WITH GRAVEL AND OCCASSIONAL COBBLES (VERY DENSE, MOIST) (TILL) NO SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED - TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 5.0 FEET ON 10/26/99 TEST PIT FOUR 0.0-0.3 FOREST DUFF 0.3-1.7 SM BROWN -GRAY SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL AND ROOTS (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED ADVANCE OUTWASH) 1.7-8.0 SP GRAY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH TRACE GRAVEL AND GRAVEL WITH FINE TO MEDIUM SAND INTERBEDS (VERY DENSE, DRY TO MOIST) (ADVANCE OUIWASH) SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 1.0, 4.5 AND 8.0 FEET GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 8.0 FEET ON 10/26/99 kjr NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. FILE NO. 271599 FIGURE 4 LOG OF EXPLORATION DEPTH Usc SOIL DESCRIPTION TEST PIT FIVE 0.0-0.2 SOD 0.2-2.5 SP-SM BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT, GRAVEL AND ROOTS (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED ADVANCE OUTWASH) 2.5-8.0 SP GRAY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL AND GRAVEL WITH FINE TO MEDIUM SAND INTERBEDS (DENSE, DRY TO MOIST) (ADVANCE OUTWASH) SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 1.5, 5.0 AND 8.0 FEET GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 8.0 FEET ON 10/26/99 TEST PIT SIX 0.0-0.2 SOD 0.2-1.0 sm BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH GRAVEL, ORGANICS AND ROOTS (LOOSE, MOIST) (TOP SOIL) 1.0-13.0 SP GRAY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL AND GRAVEL WITH FINE TO MEDIUM SAND INTERBEDS (DENSE, MOIST) (ADVANCE OUTWASH) SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 4.0, 9.0 AND 13.0 FEET GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 13.0 FEET ON 10/26/99 TEST PIT SEVEN 0.0-0.2 SOD 0.2-1.5 SM DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH GRAVEL, ROOTS AND OCCASSIONAL METAL FRAGMENTS (LOOSE, MOIST) (FILL) 1.5-3.0 SM LIGHT GRAY SILTY FINE SAND WITH TRACE ROOTS (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (FILL) 3.0-7.0 SM DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH GRAVEL AND TRACE METAL FRAGMENTS, WOOD, PLASTIC SCRAPS, PVC, PLASTIC HOSE, RUBBER, LOGS, AND A HUBCAP (LOOSE, MOIST TO WET) (FILL) 7.0-11.5 SP-SM GRAY FINE TO COARSE SAND (DENSE, MOIST) (ADVANCE OUTWASH) SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 4.0 AND 9.0 FEET GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED MODERATE CAVING WAS ENCOUNTERED FROM 3.0 TO 5.8 FEET. TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 11.5 FEET ON 10/26/99. TEST PIT EIGHT 0.0-0.2 SOD 0.2-2.3 SM BROWN FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (FILL) 2.3-6.0 sm DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH GRAVEL AND TRACE CHROME, RUBBER AND CHARCOAL (LOOSE, MOIST) (FILL) 6.0-7.5 SM GRAY SILTY FINE SAND WITH GRAVEL (VERY DENSE, MOIST) (TILL) SAMPLES WAS COLLECTED AT 4.0 AND 6.5 FEET GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 7.5 FEET ON 10/26/99 kjr NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. FILE NO. 271599 FIGURE 5 LOG OF EXPLORATION DEPTH TEST PIT NINE 0.0-0.2 0.2-1.0 1.0-6.0 6.0-7.5 TEST PIT TEN 0.0-0.2 0.2-2.0 AT 2.0 FEET 2.0-4.0 4.0-5.0 kjr Usc SOIL DESCRIPTION SOD SM DARK BROWN SILTY SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOOSE, MOIST) (FILL) sm GRAY SLIGHTLY RUST MOTTLED SILTY FINE SAND WITH GRAVEL (DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED TILL) sm GRAY SILTY FINE SAND WITH GRAVEL (VERY DENSE, MOIST) (TILL) SAMPLES WERE NOT COLLECTED GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 7.5 FEET ON 10126/99 SOD sm DARK BROWN SILTY FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH GRAVEL (LOOSE, MOIST) (FILL) LAYER OF BLACK PLASTIC sm BROWN TO GRAY SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED TILL) SM GRAY SILTY FINE SAND WITH GRAVEL (DENSE, MOIST) (TILL) SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 3.0 AND 5.0 FEET GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 5.0 FEET ON 10/26/99 NELSON-COUVRETTE &ASSOCIATES, INC. FILE NO. 271599 FIGURE 6 TRACT 9,97 COMMON OPEN SPACE 1.&0 t4 08-24!59 BUILDtIG* SETBACK LINE(TYP.) > ---------- 0 _0 329.36 m 0 — — — < m < TRACT 908 DETENTION FACLITES N 00*32*57* W 28.97' tun) rn SCALE : 1"=20' -t-� ---------- LOT COVERAGE Ob 329.05 LOT AREA 5,644 S.F. 5' 4 3 (D 5,644 LOT S.F. F.F. = 332.00 z co Z G) .5' EX. FIRE HYDRANT c F329.16�' 330 - 1 i, - E�j --- 18' CONC. — MCI%= W, ss 60.00' N OOrl 3'4-8" E TAX ACCT. PARCEL #: NEW PLAT(NOT ASSIGNED) 00 2 IR co 16 00 Ci �j LOT SLOPE 10% MAX. t328.7215D EX. 10' OVWDS/SSE -------- ---- PER A.F. NO. 1982525 EX. SIDEWALK 7"�-,_BENCCHMARK j. CATCH BASIN '%' I.E. 324.13(18-S) 99TH PLACE W. ---/ ------- I -- w RECEIVE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CALCS. MAR 112002 PROPOSED BLDG. ROOF S.F. PROPOSED PATIO: N/A PROPOSED DRIVEWAY: 432 S.F. PLOT PLAN PERMIT COUNT PROPOSED DECK: N/A FOR HEIGHT CALCS. A = 329.36 LINCOLN ESTA 7ES LOT 3 13 = 329.05 C = 329.16 IN NE1/4 OF SECTION 36,T.27 N.,R.3 E.,W.M. D = 328.25 CITY OF EDMONDS AVG. GRADE = 328.95 Ar'TlIAI SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON MAXIMUM 356.48 (25' + 2.53' PER VARIANCE) SHEET 1 OF 3 TRACT 90-8 1.01 B Ul LDI' UILDING SETBACK LIN7E(TYP ---------- ------ 7 ---------- 1----330 SCALE : 1"=20' — — — — — — NOTE: EXACT LOCA11ONS OF UTILITY CONNECTIONS TO HOUSE TO BE DETERMINED BY CONTRACTOR IN FIELD. (CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY UTILITY STUB LOCATIONS -PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.) 4 3 2 5,644 LOT S.F. F.F. 332.00 1"WATER SERVICE 6"PVC @ EX. WATER METER 1.0% MIN. CONNECT HOUSE ROOF -10 CONNECT TO D FOOTING DRAINS TO AN 330 p Er --&�SS- --STUB ---EX-.-6"PVC STUB. a (5- DEEP) r ss EX. SIDEWALK ss EX. CB so 99TH PLACE W. — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — / — - — - — - - d - �Wl . w P'7 I DRAINAGE & UTILITY PLAN FOR LINCOLN ESTA 7ES - LOT 3 IN NE1/4 OF SECTION 36,T.27 N.,R.3 E.,W.M. CITY OF EDMONDS SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON SHEET 2 OF 3 `;t SILT FENCE TRACT 9,97 AS REQ'D-, '-�o TRACT -998 BUILDING I SETBACK LINE(TYP.)-_, -4 ---------- I ------------------ 1----3,30 L 2 5,644 LOT S.F. F.F. = 332.00 330 ------------------ ss so SCALE : 1"=20' APPROXIMATE EARTHWORK QUAN11'nES EXCAVATION: 1 oo�: CUBIC YARDS FILL 20± CUBIC YARDS GRADING AND T.E.S.C. PLAN FOR LINCOLN ESTA7ES — LOT 3 IN NE1/4 OF SECTION 36,T.27 N.,R.3 E.,W.M. CITY OF EDMONDS SNOHOMISH - COUNTY, WASHINGTON SHEET 3 OF 3 City4bf,.Edmonds Permit No: RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT-,, Jssue Dktic'-." t A. Address or Vicinity of Construction: q141 P1. WV_-ST'_'6410CQf_A) ES:MTIPS tOr B. Type of Work (be specific): C. Contractor: Contact: illk!) Phone: Mail mig Address: State License Liability Ins4ainice: --,Bond:$ 'D. Building Permit# (if applicable): Side Sewer Permit # (if applicable): 6 E. F1 Commercial �,[3.,,.,Subdivision El City Project [I EUiC (PUD, VERIZON, PSE, AT& T, OVWD) R Multi -Family F�1 Single Family D Other INSPECTOR: PAVEMENT CUT: YES F-1,4NQ G. SIZE OF CUT X CONCRET"EktUT: �,E] YES [JNO AlI'LICANT TO IZEAI) ANI) SIGN 'armless from TY. 'Applicant understands -by his/her signature to this application helshe holds the City of Edmond� in uries- ddmdg�s or claims of whatsoever,, foreseen or unforeseen, that may be made against the City of Edmonds or qny o Fepartmehtl or employe�esk inclu4ink but not limited to the defense of a�ny legal proceedings: including d�fense fits a costs and attorneyfees by reason ofgranting this peemjt..� THE CONTRACTOR IS IRESPONSIBLE, FOR WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR, FOLLOUING THE. FINAL INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF,THE WORK, ESTIM�TED'RESTORATION FEES WILL BE HELD UNTIL THE FINAL STREET PATCH IS COMPLETED BY CITY, FORCES, AT WHICH TIMEA DEBITbAlCkEDIT WILL BE PROCESSED FOR ISSUANCE TO THE APPLIC4NT. Traffic control and public safety shall be, im"accordance with City regulations as required by the City. n i e E y e r y,� ffagger musi-be trained as required (�WAC) 296-155-305 and must have certificatiofi"veri ymg_cqTp1.eti'iiJof-the required training.' q,.their possession. Restoration is to. be in-acc6rdance witWiCity codes.. All street -cut trench work shall be patched with asphalt or City - approved material prior to the end of the workday - NO EXCEPTIONS. Three sets of construction drawings of proposed work are requffre� with the permit application. CALL DIAL-A'DIG (1-800-424-5555) PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK I HAVE READ THE ABOVE STATEMENTS AND UNDERSTAND THE -PERMIT REQUIREMENTS ANI)'ACKNOWLEDGE THA T I MUST MAKE THE PINK V C OPYOF THE PERMITA VAILABLE ON SITE A TALL TIMES FOR IASPECTtO*S 0 Date: J, Signature 60ton-tractor or Agent) POR CITY USE ONLY A roved bv: cQn�� vv Riaht-ofwa4ee: "076 f, 5 �11P UPON COMPLETION OF PERMITTED WORK, AN ENGINEERING FINAL INSPECTION -IS REQUIRED PER CHAPTER 18.00 OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY -DEVELOPMENT CODE (Phone 425-771-02iO, Ext. 1326) FINAL APPRO VAL'OF PERMITTED., WORK.- C-31 I DATE: -711-1 10-L- Ihkpector's Signature" For-inspedion requirements see Engineering Inspection Information handout. 13AMy Documents\Forms\Eng=g\ROWpermit—.doc