20000954.pdfDATE RECJI�q
PERMIT EXPIRES
CITY OF EDMONDS
USE
ZONE
PERMIT
'UM.ER
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION
JOB
I'D SUITEIAPTO
2-
V
:E�MEeIAMEIII_� S
lt�
No.
LOT No*
LIDNO-
, , - S� s,
I
UO FE
,c MAIUNGADDRESS
PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER
OFFICIAL STREET MAP
RW e.,
Z"TELIPHONE
EXISTING — PROPOSED
......... s'-
_7 -N
A QUIREDDEDICAHON—
-METER
FT
NAME
SIZE I LINE
S12��
PRY REQUIRED
I YES 0 NO 0 .3
ADDRESS
R MARKS
OWNERICONTRACTOR RESPONSIB�E FOR EROSION CONTS
Z
CITY zip
IN
h1c r
ITELIPHONE
me, n d
REVIEWEMDATE
ADDRESS
e�l �7
FIRE REVIEWED BY
DATE
CTY ITELEPHONE
ip
z
to 40 — kln<
VARIANCE OR CU
SHORELINE OR AOBN
INSPECTION
REGO
BOND
0
STATE LICENSE NUMBER hXPFAJIONOATE
IPOSTED
IICKEDBY
OYES ONO
PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL NO,
SEPA REVIEW
COMPLETE EXEMPT
SIGN AREA
ALLOWED PROPOSED
HEIGHT
ALLOWED PROPOSED
1� o o - 027-- or:Z,
EXP I
I
I
LOT COVERAGE
REQUIRED SETBACKS JFTI
PROPOSED SETBACKS (FT.)
m
C
NEW
PLUMBING NEON
ALLOWED PROPOSED
FRONT SIDE REAR
FRONT URSIDE REAR
m 0
C3 ADDITION
cl COMPLIA CE OR
C HAN EOFUSE
.00
0 a 1,
C3 REMODEL
M SIGN
EA
PUNNING REVIEWED BY DATE
A,
14m
III ,
,
m
�i
C] REPAIR
FENC
0 G14ADING CYDS cl I X FT)
F—H..
I
z
0 OTHER
zl;—moll�. 0 TANK
GARAGE RETAININGWALL
r-1 [3 RENEWAL
o 2 ARPORT
!N:
i� (TYPSS�, Zy�; A��l
CHECKED BY
E OF
0 CCUPA
'so UP
0 -11
11
-L
=N
--z
-4
:r
-n ITICAL
VA
IICIALI'SPECIOA
PANT
mm
ad OF
STORIES 2,
PEAS
N UMSEIA
JAREA
REQUIRED C] YES
IOCCU
LOAD
0
DESCIII!V7 TO BE DONE
REMARKS
PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 1081FINAL INSPZCTION REQ'D
Cc:
ad
M 0
z
VALUATION
FEE
fill
z
HEAT SOURCE GLAZING I
LOT SLOPE I
BUILDING
Igo ID-
0
IVESTEO DATE
PLUMBING
m
MECHANICAL
THIS PERMIT AUTHO IZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED, THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO
R
L BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON, THE PUBLIC
GRADINGJFILL
a U..S, SIDEWALKS , DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) IN IL REQUIRE
.DNA'. 'r
SEPARATE PERMISSION.
STATE SURCHARGE
PERMIT APPLICATION: III0 DAYS
0
PERMIT LIMIT, I YEAR - PROVIDED IN RK IS STARTED WITHIN 180 DAYS
ENG. REVIEW FEES
SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION
END, INSPECTION FEE
'APPLICANT. ON BEHALF OF HIS 08 HER SPOUSE. HEIRS, A SIGNS AND SUCCESORS
IN INTEREST, AGREES To INDEMNIFY. DEFEND AND HOL D HARMLESS THE CITY OF
EDMONDS. WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AN AGENTS FROM ANY AND
AULCLAIMSFOR DAMAGESOFWHATEVEA NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLYOR INDIRECTLY
EIPT
FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE
PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT
DEEMED To MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE
NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITY'$ ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.'
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION; THAT THE IN FORMATION
APPLICATION
APPROVAL
GIVEN IS CORRECT. AND THAT I AM THE OWNER, OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF
CONSTRUC-
I lel IpPlIcle's I' IM A polml unts lqIlld ey al
THE OWNER, I AORE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING
E
NO PERSON WILL EMPLOYED
CALL
BuMaq, OfMial .1 lasth., D.PUIY:,,d Fees as p,,d, and
TION; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, -BE
CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO
FOR INSPECTION1
-di" is —a—'ado. 1. ap.. F—d.d.
IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR
WORKMEN'S C E AND RCW 18.27�
�WNEF. A
DATE SIGNED
(425)
, LOATION.INSURAN
-1-/
/— leg
771
/
-1 -0220
EXT 333
ATTENTION
IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE O-SOCCU.PAYDESAILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL 771-0221
EEN NO APPROVAL OR A CERTIFI,
ORIGINAL FILE YELLOW INSPECTOR
AF,NAL,NSpE.T,.N.AS
HAS BEEN GRANTED. USC SECTION 109
FAX
PINK OWNER GOLD ASSESSOR
CATE OF OCCUPANCY
5196
oj
�x — ---------
7�.
61
ID
.0 ov :5e; 4-e-
x
0 10 /D
Dal,"
q
--a— b 0 -10
06
>
x
A,
1.7d 61
v/
ht 0
0
14
ou
Ob
I / . / t / ZZ, ---- - -77b . i I �
X,1 -------
As
0 PILO pas�p
/It/ 13 zi
-- -- --- ---
c,
m
Xl�-
X
pla
00
(n co
e (A
ix rn
N! c) m co,
02:1
6,
M
ZE 2;
I'D
Z1
17 "6('g
0
x C,
4(t \1 11 f 11 / I r,
x
x
rn icy
XA
0 co
-----------
r c
0 46
m C.0
0
0-
74a
Pk;Tl s Z�
Mm
-RED 1'0 U)
0:
0
0 'A o -i
'0I � ; m m
1 0'53"W m a
0 1 o
0 "'po "p 0 A r
'o C'O - I—
N.
'c'
I, MIAPLE VILLA GE 1\10, 10. oc
0 Z
APPROVED BY �ENGINFER!N6 A-411,4 '24
44/.
... ..... ................. ....
I— I c v 5 p .
SEP 12 2000
DEVV -NT SERVICES CTR-
LOPIAE
C1, OF EOMONDS OWNEIVOONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
EROSION CONTROL AND DRAINAGE
APPROVED BY PLIANNINU
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical /Civil Engineer
February 1, 2001
FER 1 2
i �4.
City of Edmonds
z
121 Fifth Avenue South
Edmonds, Washington 98020
5 i_
M
subject: Geotechnical Inspections - 1142 Vista Place, Edmonds
New Single Family Residence
This engineering report presents the results of on -site geotechnical inspections
C=
M 0
for the new single family residence at 1142 Vista Place, Edmonds, Washington,
80
M
BEFERF�NQES:
City of Edmonds approved project plans
Geotechnical evaluation report by D. Bruce, P.E., dated October 16, 2006
0
CE
om
Photographs
MM
This engineer has provided on -site inspe otions with regard to geotechnical
0
0
C:
aspects of the Pacific Emerald Homes project at 1142 Vista Place, Edmonds,
MO
Washington.
Soil Cuts I Slope Stability: Project contractor successfully demolished and
removed the preexisting residence. Excavation cuts encountered dense, native
Z
subgrade soils, as anticipated by this engineer's geotechnical report.
Excavation cuts varied in depth from approximately two feet (2') to
app roximately six feet (6). Slope cuts remained stable in the dense, native
z
subgrade soils. No sloughing, no caving, nor erosional degradation has
occurred. Slope cuts stable as of January 30, 2001.
rn
Setback Distance from Jop of Slo Excavation cuts com plied with the
recommendations of this engineer's geotechnical report. The setback distance
from the adjacent top -of-slope meets / a xceeds geotechnical recommendations.
Setback distance is 922wMM19my aR2roved, (Note: City of Edmonds
inspectors verified setback distance from property lines.)
SOILS FOUNDATIONS - SITE DEVELOPMENT INSPECTION - DRAINAGE - DESIGN& PERMIT LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502 Shoreline, Washington 98155 (206) 546-9217 FAX 546-8442
Re: Geotechnical inspections - 1142 Vista Place, Edmonds
February 1, 2001
Pagetwo
aMbarade As anticipated, the excavation encountered dense,
.Egundalion
native subgrade soils capable of meeting / exceeding 2,000 p.s.f. bearing
capacity. "O.K." to proceed with foundation formwork, reinforcing steel
Z
placement, and foundation footing concrete placement in accordance with City
0
of Edmonds approved plans and City of Edmonds inspection.
Reta*nina Wall and / or P&QkqU E6&QMjU: Not yet occurred.
EaLBjgQgM%a. Not yet occurred -- none anticipated.
Subsurface DraInAgajOAjWW=- Not yet occurred.
0
0
Cz
EWALQLadi�. Not yet occurred.
m
0
C:
F
AUMMARX.
All special geotechnical inspection aspects have been properly completed to
0
date. "O.K." to proceed with foundation concrete in accordance with approved
:r 9
plans and City of Edmonds inspections.
M M
0
This engineer to continue to provide on -site geotechnical inspections and
0
a 0 , �' 11
9 CO I
,
monitoring. Additional inspection reports forthcoming.
M 0
z
I
If there are any cluestions, do not hesitate to call.
cot
17405
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
gr Geotechnicai Civil Engineer
DMB:vIb
cc: Pacific Emerald Homes
FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL FORM
TO:-
DATE: -
MEMO TO: PERM[lT COORDINATM BUILDING DIVISION
FROM: FIRE DEPARTMENT DATE -
ENGINEERING DIVISION DATE---!��
z
LANNING DIVISION DATE -
PROJECT
a rn
SITE ADDRESS. 1140 114SIx P1
M 0
--10
0
WOO 7 ADB#______PATE INSPECT �kl LO I
-4
M
M Z
_-6tF
PERMT # -3
DESCR I IpTION OF WORK TO BE INSPECTED ALA L
E: -4
A field inspection was conducted to determine compliance with approved plans. Final approval denotes that
o -n
there are no objections from the above signed Department to the granting of:
approval of the described work
MM
________Yinal
2C_GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL
S M
co
M 0
z
GRANTPROJECT APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS NOTED
>
z
ca
z
FINAL INSPECTION - OUTSTANDING ISSUES
m
2.
3.
RE-INSpECTED OUTSTANDING ISSUES - GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL
ocaprvl.doc.l:ternp-.bldg:fom)s6/98
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
Geotechnical/ Civil Engineer
j�.S.0 -E, M.B.A.
RECEIVED
October 16, 2000 OCT 2 3 2DA60
DEVELOPMENT 8UNWES CTR.
CITY OF EDMONDS
z
Pacific Emerald Homes
6
P.O. Box 822
Edmonds, Washington 98020
'45i 4
Attn: Mr. Sigve Helleren
C:
Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation and Foundation Recommendations
In 0
0
8 C:
Proposed New Residence
-4
Mm
1142 Vista Place, Edmonds, Washington
rnz
This engineering report presents the results of a geotechnical evaluation of the
> Z �;'r
C
property at 1142 Vista Place, Edmonds, Washington. This evaluation was required
E� .
�
due to owner / developer concerns, as well as City of Edmonds requirements.
0
REFERENCES:
MM
- Vicinity Map
- Lot survey map with topography and layout of proposed new residence
0
0
C: 0
- New house plans
mo�
Z
S>n
- Photographs
BACKGROUND:
>
The property at 1142 Vista Place contains an existing residence (one level with
z
daylight basement) that is es timated to be approximately 35 to 45 years old. It is
0)
z
understood that Pacific Emerald Homes propos as to demolish the existing residence,
9 i
and construct a new one in approximately the same footprint location (see plans).
0
M
The overall property is approximately one hundred fifty -five foot (155') wide (in
the north -south direction), and approximately two hundred forty (240') deep.
The existing resideric a occupies a relatively flatter portion of the overall lot.
Both the eastern portion and southwestern portion of the propert y contain slopes
exceeding fifty percent (50%).
Visual evaluation of the existing residence revealed no ev idence of any
geotechnical distress: No settlements, no fou ndation cracking, no sloughing, or any
SOILS FOUNDATIONS - SITE DEVELOPMENT - INSPECTION - DRAINAGE - DESIGN & PERMIT - LEGAL
. P Box 55502 - Shoreline, Washington 98155 (206) 546-9217 FAX 546-8442
C1
Pacific Emerald Homes
Pagetwo
significant erosional degradation. Additionally, visual evaluation of the overall
property revealed no evidence of any geotechnical distress. The natural drainage
pattern follows the topography down hill to the southwest. The property adjacent
(southerly) to this property is a heavily vegetated drainage swale / forested greenbelt
zone (see photos).
The existing residence is approximately fifteen to eighteen feet (15' - 18')
-of-slope to the south. It is understood that the new residence will
setback from the top
be in the same alignment and setback distance as the existing residence with regard
to the southerly top -of -slope.
EVALUATION:
In order to augment the existing site geotechnical information, soil test pits were
dug under this engineers observation on October 10, 2000, using a rubber -tired
backhoe (see photographs). A total of two soil test pits were dug. Test Pit No. 1 was
dug approximately fifteen feet (15') off the northwest corner of the existing residence.
Test Pit No. 2 was dug approximately twelve feet (12') off the southwest corner of the
existing residence. Both Test Pit No. 1 and No. 2 revealed similar subgrade
conditions, namely:
U' to 6" Lawn, organics, roots, and organic silt
6" to approx. 14!' Brown reddish -brown sandy loam, grading to
sandy silt
silt with occasional
ldV' to approx. 34�' Increasingly dense sandy
gravels
34" to approx. 8' (bottom of pit) Dense to very dense weathered glacial till
(hardpan) grading to glacial till
No water was encountered in either of the two test pits. Both test pit walls
remained vertical and stable. No sloughing or caving occurred.
CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS:
Based on the findings of this investigation, and experience with similar sites in
on, is geotechnically
the area, the property at 1142 Vista Place, Edmonds, Washingt
approved for the proposed new (replacement) single family residence, subject to the
following:
Standard reinforced continuous and spread footings. Allowable bearing
pressure: 2,000 p.s.f.
Z
0
am
M 0
0
0
-4
M M
M Z
Z
0
M M
0
0
0
M
a
M 0
Z
0
Z5
M
Pacific Emerald Homes
Page three
Setback from top -of -slope: This engineer to verify setback distance from new
foundation to top -of -slope. It is understood that the setback distance will be
greater than twelve feet (12'). A setback of less than twelve feet may be
geotechnically acceptable with specialized foundation designs.
Equivalent fluid pressure of 35 p.c.f. is recommended for any retaining wall
design provided drainage zone is inspected and verified by this engineer.
For retaining wall design, use friction factor of 0.55 and passive pressure of
350 p.c.f.
tion by this engineer adgL� any foundation concre a
otechnica inspec
placemen
The proposed structure can be supported on conventional continuous and
spread footings bearing on undisturbed native soils or on structural fill placed above
native soils. See the later sub -section entitled General Earthwo[k and Structural Fill
for structural fill placement and compaction recommendations. Continuous and
individual spread footings should have minimum widths of eighteen (18) and twenty -
least eighteen (18) inches
four (24) inches, respectively, and should be bottomed at
below the lower adjacent finish ground surface.
Depending on the final site grades, some overexcavation may be required
below footings to expose competent native soils. Unless lean concrete is used to fill
the over excavated hole, the width of the overexcavation at the bottom must be at least
as wide as the sum of two times the depth of the overexcavation and the footing width.
For example, an overexcavation extending two feet below the bottom of a three-foot
wide footing must be at least seven feet wide at the base of the excavation.
Footings constructed according to the above recommendations may be
designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of three thousand (3,000) pounds per
square foot (p.s.f.). A one-third increase in this design bearing pressure may be used
when considering short-term wind or seismic loads. For the above design criteria, it is
anticipated that total post -construction settlement of footings founded on competent,
native soils (or on structural fill up to five (5) feet in thickness) will be about one-half
inch, with differential settlements on the order of one -quarter inch.
Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between
the foundations and the bearing soils, or by passive earth pressure acting on the
vertical, embedded portions of the foundations. For the latter condition, the
foundations must either be poured directly against undisturbed soil or the backfill
placed around the outside of the foundation must be level structural fill. We
Z
0
M
M a ' I
0
0
-4
X M
M Z
C -
M M
0 M
M
Z
Z
0
M
Pacific Emerald Homes
Page four
recommend the following design values be used for the foundation's resistance to
lateral loading:
Z,
Paramete Design Val
Coefficient of Friction 0.55
Passive Earth Pressure 350 p.c.f.
a M
Where:
M 0,
(1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot.
0,
C
(2) Passive earth pressure is compute d using the equivalent fluid density.
M
M Z;
We recommend that a safety factor of at least 1.5 be used for design of the
C 2
u"
foundation's resistance to lateral loading.
CA
SLABS -ON -GRADE.:
0 -n
ay be supported o patent native soils
Slab -on -grade floors rn n undisturbed, corn
M M
or on structural fill. The slabs may be supported on the existing so its provided these
0
soils can be recompacted prior to placement of the free -draining s and or gravel
C CA
underneath the slab. This sand and gravel laye r should be a minimum of four (4)
M 0
F
inches thick. We also recommend using a vapor barrier such as 6-mil. plastic
membrane beneath the slab with minimum over laps of 12 inches for sealing purposes.
M
PERMANENT FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS:
Retaining walls ba ckfilled on one side only should be designed to resist lateral
earth pressures imposed by the soils retained by these structures. The following
z
recommended design parameters are for wa Ils less than twelve (12) feet in height
which restrain level backfill:
Parametp Design Value
Active Earth Pressure* 35 p.c.f.
Passive Earth Pressure 350 p.c.f.
Coefficient of Friction 0.55
Soil Unit Weight 125 p.c.f.
Pacific Emerald Homes
Where:
(1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot
s are computed using equivalent fluid
(2) Active and passive earth pressure
densities.
For restrained walls which cannot deflect at least 0.002 times the wall
height, a uniform lateral pressure of one hundred (100 p.s.f. should be
added to the active equivalent fluid pressure).
The values given above are to be used for design of permanent foundation and
retaining walls only. An appropriate safety factor should be applied when designing
the walls. We recommend using a safety factor of at least 1.5 for overturning and
sliding.
The above design values do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures
behind the walls and assume that no surcharge slopes or loads will be placed above
the walls. If these conditions exist, then those pressures should be added to the above
lateral pressures, Also, if sloping backfill is desired behind the walls, then we will
need to be given the wall dimensions and slope of the backf ill in order to provide the
appropriate design earth pressures.
Heavy construction equipment should not be operated behind retaining and
foundation walls within a distance equal to the height of the wall, unless the walls are
designed for the additional lateral pressures resulting from the equipment. Placement
and compaction of retaining wall backfill should be accomplished with hand -operated
equipment.
Retaining Wall Backfill
Backfill placed within eighteen (18) inches of any retaining or foundation walls
should be free -draining structural fill containing no organics. This backfill should
contain no more than five (5) percent silt or clay particles and have no particles greater
than four (4) inches in diameter. The percentage of particles passing the No. 4 sieve
should be between twenty-five (25) and seventy (70) percent. Due to their high silt
content, if the native soils are used as backfill, a drainage composite, such as Mlrafi
and Enkadrain, should be placed against the retaining walls. The drainage
composites should be hydraulically connected to the foundation drain system. the
purpose of these backfill requirements is to assure that the design criteria for the
retaining wall as not exceeded because of a build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind
the wall. The subsection entitled General Earthwgrk and Structural Fill contains
z
a M
rn
0
0
C
m
10-4
0'
-n Ld
-4
M
0
0 Fn
a
0
rn
z
M
Pacific Emerald Homes
Page six
recommendations regarding placement and compaction of structural fill behind
retaining and foundation walls.
EXCAVATION AND SLOPES:
In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local,
state and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts up to a height of
four (4) feet deep in unsaturated soils may be vertical. For temporary cuts having a
at, the cut should have an inclination no steeper than 1: 1
height greater than four (4) fe
(Horizontal:Vertical) from the top of the slope to the bottom of the excavation. Under
specific recommendations by the geotechnical engineer, excavation cuts
may be modified for site conditions. All permanent cuts into native soils should be
inclined no steeper than 2:1 (H:V). Fill slopes should not exceed 1:1 (H:V). It is
important to note that sands do cave suddenly, and without warning. The contractors
should be made aware of this potential hazard.
Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any temporal y
or permanent slope. All permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an
ability of the
appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve st
surficial layer of soil.
DRAINAGE CONSIL)ERATIONa--.
Footing drains are recommended at the base of all footings and retaining walls.
These drains should be surrounded by at least six (6) inches of one -inch -minus
ilter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or
washed rock wrapped in non -woven geotextile I
I
similar material). At the highest point, the perforated pipe invert should be at east as
low as the bottom of the footing and it should be sloped for drainage. All roof and
surface water drains must be kept separate from the foundation drain system.
No groundwater was observed in either of the test pits during the field work.
Seepage into the planned excavation is possible, and likely if excavation occurs
during winter months, and if encountered should be drained away from the site by use
j of drainage ditches, perforated pipe, French drains, or by pumping from sumps
interconnected by shallow connector trenches at the bottom of the excavation.
The excavation and site should be graded so that surface water is directed off
the site and away from the tops of slopes. Water should not be allowed to stand in any
area where foundations, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Any exposed
slopes to be covered with plastic to minimize erosion. Final site grading in areas
Pacific Emerald Homes
Z
m
F,
C
MO
0
0
C
M
MZ
3:
M.
0 _n
.n
m m
0
Co Fn
Ch
MCO, 1
MO
Z
0)
Z'
0
9 m
Pacific Emerald Homes
Page seven
adjacent to buildings should be sloped at least two (2) percent away from the building,
except where the area adjacent to the building is paved.
GENERAL EARTHWOBK AND STRUCIURAL FI
The proposed building and pavement areas should be stripped and cleared of
Z
5
all surface v egetation, all organic matter, and other deleterious mat erial. The stripped
M
or removed materials should not be mixed with a ny materials to be used as structural
fill.
a5 -q
X
Structural fill is defined as any fill placed under the building, behind permanent
rn
retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the underlying soils needs to
0
0
support loads. This engineer should observe site conditions durin g and after
-49 : v'��
excavation prior to placement of any structural fill.
X M
M Z
All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture content at or
go
C Z
-4
near the optimum moisture cc ntent. The optimum moisture content is that moisture
content which results in the greatest compacted dry density. The moisture content of
X
55
0 -n
fill soils is very important and must be closely controlled during the fillinq and
n;p i
compaction process.
X 5-6
rn M
The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type,
CA
0
0
compaction equipment, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. In no case
lifts twelve (12) inches in loose thickness. The following table
C= 0,
M 0
should the exceed
presents recommended relative compaction for structural fill:
Lo ation of Fill Placement Minimum Relative
Compaction
Z
Beneath footings, slabs or walkways 95%
Z
Behind retaining walls 90%
0
Beneath pavements 95% for upper 12 inches of
subgrade, 90% below that level
M
Where: Minimum relative compaction is the ratio, expressed in percentages, of
the compacted dry density to the maxim um dry density, as determined in
accordance with AST M Test Designation D-1 557-78 (Modified Proctor).
Use of On -Site Soils
Pacific Emerald Homes
Pacific Emerald Homes
Page eight
it grading activities take place during wet weather, or when the silty, on -site soils
are wet, site preparation costs may be higher because of delays due to rains and the
potential need to import granular fill. The on -site soils are generally silty and thus are
moisture sensitive. Grading operations will be difficult when the moisture content of
these soils exceeds the optimum moisture conte nt.
z
Moisture sensitive soils will also be susceptible to excessive softening and
5
17
"pumping" from construction equipment traffic when the moisture content is greater
than the optimum moisture content.
4.fi
Fft -4
Ideally, structural fill which is to be placed in wet weather should consist of a
X
0 M
C
granular soil having no more than five (5) percent silt or clay particles. The percentage
No. 200 sieve should be measured from that portion of the soil
C)
M 0
0
0
of particles passing the
passing the three -quarter -inch sieve.
M
rn
The use of "some" on -site soils for fill material may be acgeptable if the upper
z
jo
C
organic materials is segregated and moisture contents are monito red by engineering
2;
inspection.
0 _n
DRAINAGE CONTROLS:
-n
M
No drainage problems were evident with the existing residence and property at
M
V5
0,
1142 Vista Place, Edmonds. Currently, the existing residence con trols its impervious
0 M
C
storm water by means of gutter and downspout and tightline relea se into the natural
It is that the new residence will control
9
Q 0
drainage swale to the southwest. understood
drainage in a similar fashion.
Compliance with standard storm water detention methods in accordance with
z
City of Edmonds requirements is geotechnically acceptable.
cn,
CONCRETE:
z
All foundation concrete (footings, stem walls, slabs, any retaining walls,
M
etc.) shall have a minimum cement content of 5-1/2 sacks per cub ic yard of concrete
mix.
INSPECTION -
The recommendations of this report are only valid when key geotechnical
aspects are inspected by this engineer during constructign:
Pacific Emerald Homes
Pacific Emerald Homes
Page nine
- Soil. cuts
- §-e'tb'ac'k distance verificationArpm top -of -slope
- Foupdatkin�su-bgrade' verification
ry placement
- Retainingmall, or rocker
z
- Any fillrolacem a nt,
-�'Sdbsurface rainag
d a installation,,
SUMMARY:
The proposed new single family residence at 1142 Vista Place, Edmonds,
0 M
C
Washington, is geotechnically viable when constructed in acco, rdance with the
MO
0
80 i,
recommendations herein, compliance with City of Edmonds approved plans and
C:
requirements, and key geotechnical inspection during construction.
:d C
MT
FINAL GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW OF PLANS:
C
>
r
Prior to permit issuance, geotechnical rev iew of final project plans is required.
ca
0
The purpose of this final review is to verify compatibility with the un derstood nature of
n
the project and the geotechnical conditions, as well as have an opportunity to make
XC
in
final recommendations for any design changes incurred prior to construction.
M
CLOSURE'
Cn
C&
The findings and recommendations of this report were prepared in accordance
0
with generally accepted professional engineering principles and practice. No other
warranty, either express or implied, is made. The conclusions are based on the results
of the field exploration and interpolation of subsurface conditions between explored
>
z
locations. If conditions are encountered during construction that appear to be different
than those described in this report, this engineer should be notifi ad to observe the
CD
situation and review and verify or modify the recommendations.
z
If there are any questions, do not hesitat a to call.
M
_01 WA Bill,
DO
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
Geotechnical Civil Engineer
DMB:vlb AL
MY 0
on 101PERMITEA LQ1
SE
U BE
'0 PERMIT
Z NE (2
CltY OF EDMONDS I' NUMBER ;?0ca5k/
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION JOB ITE.PT,
ADD
Do
4RESS -p
011
'LO.T NO, L�D NO,
7E, 9
Ll PL
PL
L 0 FEE S
MAILINGADDREII All— 0
PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP P-1 ..W_
6r --e et_P�
fill r) t
CITY NONE EXISTING — PSOPOSED--L--
TILIP P.
REQUIRED DEDICATION_ FT
__7 le 0
0201
NAME P, REQUIRED
L.YES.0 NO 0 .3
ADDRESS REMARKS
OWNERICONTRACTOR RESPONSIB�E FOR EROSION CONTRO
CITY ZIP 51
ITILIPHONE
v
pUll
Vj e' REVIEWEDIDATE
ow ADDRESS
FIRE REVIEWED BY DATE�
zip TELEPHONE
c
i&2D 6040-1,f)�� _T BOND
SHORELINE 08 ADSK INSPECTION
STATE LICENSE NUMBER EXPIRATIONDATE CHE�IE.Ry VARIANCE OR CU F'-o POSTED
In �j YE� 'NO I
I
SERA REVIEW SIGN AREA HEIGHT
PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL NO, COMPLETE EXEMPT ALLOWED PROPOSED ALLOWED PROPOSED
-022 I ,
ILLI R2- QDQ Qa EXP
LOT COVERAGE REQUIRED SETBACKS (FT-) PROPOSED SETBACKS (FT.)
PL ... IN. I MECH _", E SID
0 NEW ALLOW D PROPOSED FRONT E REAR FRONT URSIDE REAR
.r.TIA
C] ADDITION COMMERCIAL COMPLIANCE OR
CHANGE OF USE
PARKlhl. EDDY DATE
PARKING
REMODEL SIGN PEO'D IF. I.E.
0
I
GRADING FENCE E R S
�AE ARK.
C] REPAIR 0 B X R M�
OTHER
ZIEMU�1111 0 TANK
A0 GARAGE d
RETAILING. WA .0 RENEWAL
CARPORT 0
ACm-LLB.,LeX,: —
ITYPEOFCONSTQ UT", 0
C�0-�pp,��
\ �A
ECHECKEDBY
[NU SHOP R TICAL
OF D ELLNG AREAS PECIALINSPEuTOR AREA
�,E jf0.CAC.UPAlIT
NUMBS =IRED Cl,�I;s
1. STORIES UNITS' (DOD
BE DONE
DESCR�r
REMAWK
_)TO
lFSS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 108/FINAL IN7 REO'D
,JCTION
e,
3:,,l 3
VALUATION
PLAN CHE�K FEE7-
HEAT SOURCE GLAZING LOTSLOPE%
UL.NG
1111110OATE
PLUMBING
MEH C L
MECHANICAL
THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVER WO RKTO
I
p
BEDONEON IVATE PROPMTY ONLY` ANYCONSTRUrTIONON REGUSIRlD
GRADINGIRLL
f YS MARQUEES To WILL
WAL E%oRRAI
MAIN U� VEWA
Do ( r K
T RMISSION.
S E PE
'TA�TE SPRCHARGE.
PERMITAPPL N ATV�S.,`W
180DAY15
P. PERMITUMtT.'l 1011.1.411 ITHtN _`
YEAR� PROVIDED
SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION
NG. REVIEW, FEES 1
P
'A PILICAOT ONI*HALF OF HI OR HER SPOUSE HEIRS. ASSIGNS AND BUG ESORS
P
tE
EN INS E RON I` -
P
INIPEC
IN INTE EST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY F
R
;G_
eo MONDS. WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS. EMPLOYEES, AND AD NTS FROM ANY AND
ALL C AEGTLY OR NDIPECTLY�
LAIMSFoR DAMAGISOFWHATEVSR NATUFE,AR$StNGDI
I S
I R;::
N;
FROM THE IS ANCE OF THIS PERMIT ISSUANCE PERMIT SHALL NOT BE
ED OF THIS
PLA�N CHFCK DEPOSIT
Q
ANY
DEEMEDTO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF c Y oCol
NYWAYTHECITY'SABI oRDINAN I
NOR LIMIT IN A LITY TO ENFORCE ANY ep 10
TOTAL AMOUNT D4 FIT
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION ORT PON
z J'l
_' '
R op�
GIVEN IS CO RECT. AND THAT I AM THE OWNJER� OR THE OUI AGE
THE OWNER� I AGREE To COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRVC-
CALL BtI
TION: AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY. NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED
CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON ACILATING TO
FOR INSPECTION
IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR
WORKMEN'S CqMPENkATION INSURANCE AND RCW 18 27
IFFI
DATE SIGIIIED
(425)
:::=ENT)
'=) �
771-0220
ATTENTION
EXT 333
IT It UNLAWFUL To USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING .11 STRUCTURE UNTIL
771'.'0221
A FINAL INS, ECT,.N HAS BEEN ADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTIFI-
,
CATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC SECTION 100,
FAX
,"�I,CATPN APPROVAL
"' I-- P,mit uem,ighed by the
Ofkl.l.t hitIlh., D.Puly:.ed F .. p.,d, hd
_,ipl I, ,k,,wi,dged;n space prllidad.
-S SIGNffU�E DATE
T"_
ORIGINAL - FILE YELLO , INSPECTOR
PINK - OWNER GOLD -ASSESSOR
z
0
M
m 00
ca
0
m M
co
0
0, M,
go 1.1t
m
20
z
ca
z
IT,