20020441.pdfa/" I
PERMIT EXPIRES
CITY OF EDMOND
PERM T
.. I'ERW -bQ(41
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLIIA I lVtM
JOB
OWNER NAME�NAME OF BIG I
_g l4ow
A."IF S�
DESCRIPTION CHECK
SUBDIVISION 0
LIONO
_LEGAL
MAILING ADDRESS
0 z
-7-3;7f) -'6dNvl1lgw XV15
PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL
STREET MAP
RP -0
CITY ZIP
12
I)E
-SONG FE.UIBE..EDl.A`R.N-
111-11 - 11
70'jqf 7
PROPOSED
NAIVE
6AVI 5W4y�
REV REQUIRED
YE!y NO 0
F-,
N6 160
B
kzvwd �-wwl,, XAIIAW
CIT14L
NAME
PtL
ENGINEERING KEM0 DATED
z
ADD REE�� q WE
WW9?W KOAP
FIRE MEMO DATED REVIEWED By
CITY
4LL 2 `BP
j5tT �oi& I
'6qO - -710
VARI NCE OR CU A08i,
STATE LICENSE NUMBER
tT
EXPIRATION DATE
L07
SHORELINE 9
13LSERA
REVIEW
SIGN AREA
HEIGHT
COMPLETE 111"T
ALLOWED PRESED
'R:�
AL�;
m
c
LE;j��CRjIGNZWROPERTY��j��S
-1
Exp I
,
I
rn
0
LOT COVERAGE
A OWED PROPOSED
REQUIRED SETBACKS (FT�
FRONT SIDE REAR
PROPOSED SETBACKS (FT.)
FRONT UP SIG BEAR
0
c
C
4
3 �% IS,
'57
Z57 10 7
1 �,� 4;
M
ERST� NIT PARCEL NO.
ACCO
_00 6
0 -Oil - oq q
LOT AREA
PLANNING REVIEW By
DATE
Z,
m
9)
c 2
>
NEW
RESIDENTIAL
Y PLUM ING I MECH
4 5
-Itl"TA- S-
KA..ITION
Fj COMMERCIAL
COMPLIANCE 08
CHANGE Or USE
,
:1
REMODEL
APARTMENT
SIGN
0
"n
REPAIR Di D FENCE
El I X FT)
W<A*-L
mm
_
&V`6� OTHER
CHECKED8V ITYPPOT
;UTI.N C
OOCUPAk
GROUP
000"
DEMOLISH C] DIRK E]
_
RAG ING WALL
�4 C] R
E E]
B
B ECIALINCYTEOR
RE GUIRE
IAREAmi:w 1
OCCUPANT
LOAD
0 M
C rj)
COARPOET A�LAI RENEWAL
K Y
B
9:
(TYPE OF U 8 SINESS ORA TIVITY) EXPLAIN:
REMARKS
0
A,
A
PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC los
NUMBER
OF
GUM BERO
DWELLINGF
C11111 CAL ID
A E S
STORIES
Uj�j TS N
NUMBS
DESCRIBE WORK TO
mot
z
pe't1t, UD I UA-
FINAL INSPECTION REQUIRED
N�r'u -2
VALUATION
FEE
z
-W)*�PAIA
4L
of-cclod"
N CHECK FEE
GLAZING
I SLOP� � -
. i -
Z/
m
NAM-A-04
AT b
IT
G . LAC,
Rj DING
q/
.
PLAN
-
W�STEO DATE
PLUMBING
ln�
'�/ -
MECHANICAL
THIS PERMIT A.T.ORIZ11 014LY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK To
BE ONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC
GRADINGIFICL
DOMAIN (CURBS,SIDEWALKS. DRIVEWAY , MARGUEES,ETC.) WILL REQUIRE
SEPARATE PERMISSION.
STATE SURCHARGE
c/6
7z'
E
P MIT APPLICATION: IOU DAYS
PERMIT LIMIT. 1 YEAR - PROVIDED WORK IS STARTED WITHIN 180 DAIS
STORM DRAINAGE FEE
PPLICANE ON BEHALFOP BISON HER SPOUSE. HFIRS.ASSIGNSAND SUCC
END INSIECTIONIEE
Z IN INTEREST. AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS IRE CITY OF
E MONDS,WASHtNCTON, ITS OFF DIALS. EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANYAND
A L CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE. ARISING OIRrCTLYOR INDI RICIly
PH M THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT, ISSUANCE OF TIII�S PERMIT S"ALL No' BE
DEEMEOTOMOGIFY. WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT Of- ANY " ITY ORDINANCE
PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT
0 NOR LIMIT INANY WAYTHE CITY SABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE
HERESY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION, TH. NFORMATION
G1 EN IS CORRECT, AND THAT I AM THE OWNER. OR THE DULY AD 1, 1 ED AGENT OF
APPLICATION APPROVAL
I HE OWNER. I AGREE TO COMPLY WIT H OLIN AND STATE LAWS MEGULA I 14G CONS7 RNC
TION, AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED
CALL Th�
IN VIOLATI ON OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO
FOR NSPECTION
WORKMEN S C�,�4-ARON 'DSU.ANC E ADD NOW I. �l
SIGNATUR
T
0 cj�LS SfGNAILJ
(425)
17
1
771-0220
!RFLE�A
"
DRY
III, /
ATTENTION
IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL
A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTIR
CATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC SECTION 109
I AS
OH;GINAL FILE
F OW"ll COLD Al,�I:111,
ZONE
APPROVED BY PLANNING
FRONT---!
SIDE
1 ...— A". ETE
—'A. TEETI. REAR
AT.. I- I III M. Ell .-0- — -RIHS
HALL M. —.ATI-__
OTHER
"A'.. ITH .'IT- A
Y 0AIIII. HIT
)XIG
TI_ T. I
_1 YA_ —,I,
.. .........
ci C�py
.1-5711. IT 11M 111
NE
MATER IT
H,� 4
3 7
UL H/ NCC)f�,
"M g;
Eal T
EIy
T
1A;:4EE 'a
ET— 1�11 11
_I
..T iI,
A
y T
T�
A
ATER & SEVkF1
'VE
A %A
A
CT DNS VD
IN E
5 -0220
.13
T _771
all- ------
... ...........
ING J�RAINS kI)T
Ek
UpTi,
T VIA -bVE
------ D op D
T s
I T At
5. lay
'i T1- IL JU -3 20, 2
_-A
QIT
7; ------- Ty BUIL.DING DEIT
If GO
T� EET AIL
'�A
Ale M.,
_E. , , Ai
T,
1E
RING
�'44
T
AT P
T
AT. A UT
2_111�351T,t 7 IH
A1,11
-T - �"A
_ TE _IR MiL
IMPERVIOUS AREAS H-L'L. "'_ ETEA111- 111111
58iiORE 1977 EXiSTIM TO �EMAN P��GED o'_ � T A. I 0ITIEa
------- - _jSiW5 � ___ - __` _"I. _ I -IT
=4@4=:=1 1157 WNAGE
TOTI HEIGHT CALCS 01
NPEWIMS 4075
EI 315 ]17 30. ol . I- . 11o" I-
AVE. 6IIIADE
LOT AIiI!A 135111 IoE.25
EIGHT ALLi7HED IM 25 .1IV TIE
Ni. NIRVims �IsEo' �'..j MOPME0 EIGHT 13o, W
Asbestos Survey
N
7320 Soundview Dr
'NV
Edmonds WA 98026
R"
to locate and Identify
00,
suspected asbestos containing building materials
rn
rn
40�
R
0
Inspected on April 26, 2002
11:30 AM
0 mn:::
M M:
prepared for
Brandel Homes
I.J
115 4th Ave S
'0
0
Edmonds WA 98020
(425) 673-4614, fax: (425) 673-4169
V
5�
Z:
by AHERA accredited building Inspector
0
C.)
Bill Schroeder, of
Environmental Knowledge Organization, Inc.
2000 700 PINE
Marysville WA 98271
Survey
to locate and identify
Asbestos Containing Building Materials (ACBMs)
Subject property: DemoSFR&aarace ProPertYOwner: Dr.LloydJohnson
7320 Soundview Dr 7320 Soundview Dr
Edmonds WA 98026 Edmonds WA 98026
-L425) 745-9487
Z
Inspection date: A it 26,2002
Submitted to: Brandel Homes
9i
Lab analysis by: EKO Inc. 116 4th Ave S
VI -4
2000 701h PI NE Edmonds WA98020
M
C a
m
MarYsville WA 98271 (426) 673-4614, fax: L425) 673-4169
0
80
(360) 651-9390
C
VX-1 &X'96 WC8 Wes Wes Wes b9cs Wes WCO &XS WC9 WW a9w VXS WCZ WCS WC9 VMS
m m
Rurpose
C
The above address was Inspected to locate asbestos in accordance with federal and state I aws.
0 -n
n
The sampling methods specified In 40 CIFIR 763.86, a sub -section of the Asbestos Hazards
3�
mm
Emergency Response Act (AHERA), were employed with the following specific purpose In mind
0
C 0)
n Safety - Intended operations present the potential for disturbance of an ACBM. This
M
report was prepared to facilitate employees safe performance of normal activities,
;a
171 Removal. Specifically this survey anticipates
Renovation. This may not include use of destructive search methods (i.e., -
Z
Z
breaking into walls, etc.) unless expressly directed by client in writing.
W
Z
0
Demolition. Destructive search techniques are highly recommended and may
0
m
be implied by statutes which require Identification of all suspected ACBM's prior
to demolition. [as in 40 CFR 763.85 (a)(4)(1)]
f-1 Management. information herein will be used by the property owner to develop an
appropriate Operations & Management (O&M) policy to reduce the likelihood of
exposure to building occupants for ACBM's which will be left In place.
0 Property Sale - Public buildings, including commercial and Industrial facilities are
required to use an accredited Inspector [see the Asbestos School Hazard Abatement
2
Reauthorization Act (ASHARA)I. Private buildings may be inspected to compliment an
appraisal.
Methods
Currently only persons having the AHERA Building Inspector training are considered acceptably
accredited by all governmental agencies.
Mandated AHERA procedures are:
training (for the Inspector)
* examining (materials which the inspector suspects)
* identify (by sampling or by assuming material is an ACB"
assessing (friability, condition and potential for damage)
documenting (the above with locations)
Procedures for sample collection often seem complicated to the layperson. What appears to be the
same material located in different areas, may, or may not, require additional samples, depending on
the usage of each area. Sprayed and troweled on materials require at least three tests to confirm
they are not ACBM. Differing quantities of suspect homogeneous materials also affect the number
of samples needed.
6 Analysis of samples must be done by an accredited laboratory.
Assessing friability is done per the EPA definition that the material can be crumbled to a powder
using hand pressure. The forces expected to act on any material cannot be anticipated by this
Inspector.
An accredited Asbestos Management Planner should be consulted for assessments of condition or
potential for disturbance.
Estimated quantities are given as a courtesy and should not be relied on for bid purposes. &n
accredited Asbestos Proiect Designer is required for quantifyina ACBM's.
The inspector who prepared this report hereby certifies by signature below, that:
* has received training pursuant to 40 CFR Part 763, Sub -part E, Appendix C
9 has had at least ten (10) years professional experience In the asbestos abatement field
used his/her best efforts in locating suspect ACBM's
-P,�ap 5-a—.9" 999692 August15,2002
Bill Schroeder Certification # Expiration Date
3
Z iP.
0
0 m
C
MO
0
C
C ik�
M
M Z
jo
O"n
,n
Certificate of Completion
abill 114 to ctrtifp1bat
Bill Schroeder
Z
4 battrig of refralber trafitin jis an
Asbp�ptos 1$ufld' Inspector
M9
z:141"'W*=711011140 C�ft 703 (OfseAR) C m
M
CardficalaNuml- 9"M 0
'i!! 100
X4 Z
m
MZ
'0
0
mm
Limitations V5
0
0
H
_;, (j)
Destructive methods were were riot (check one) employed In collecting samples for M C)
Z
laboratory analysis. ,q S,
X
Sampling location drawings are not to scale.
Z
Samples are believed to be representative of similar materials found throughout the areas
inspected. ca
Z
Reasonable discovery efforts were used in preparing this report. Standard industry practices
0
m
recognize that every square inch of a building cannot reasonably be exposed during the survey
process, especially In occupied structures, Wall interiors, underground pipes, septic tank liners,
every area under carpets or bum debri, are all examples of this. Consequently, some materials
may remain concealed which are not Identified In this report. Materials not addressed in this
report should be assumed to contain asbestos until determined otherwise by an accredited
professional. The results of such analysis must be incorporated by addenda into this report prior to
disturbance of these materials. A copy of this report must remain onsits during such activities.
4
This report can be expected to become outdated as regulations, building Improvements and
Intended usage of this information may change over time.
Most. demolition projects must submit this report with their "Notice of Intent to Remove or
Encapsulat6 Asbestos" form required by local air pollution agencies, Typically these are filed by the
abatement or demolition contractor. Permit filings are not included with preparation of this report.,
however, the permit forms may be attached herein.
Structures
A survey of 2 structure(s) occurred on the date listed in the head of this report. This is an
occupied single story residence without basement which also has a detached garage. These
buildings are believed to have been built In the 1960's.
Historical
Historical records were were not (check one) examined for use In this survey.
General Notes
Following is a description of the construction systems noted at the site:
Roofing - Roofing on the house and gargae is mostly asphaltic shingles
over a tar paper vapor barrier. About half of the residence only is
a rubberized torch down membrane roof.
Wall surfaces, interior - Interior walls In the garage are smooth sheetrock only.' The
majority of Interior walls in the house have wood products
surfaces, but smooth sheetrock was found within the living room
and a few other areas.
Ceiling surfaces; Interior - The ceilings of the garage are non-existent. Almost half the
residence ceilings are exposed T&G sloped wood surfaces. The
remainder are smooth sheetrock. In the NE bedroom, there Is a
heavy paint build-up on the ceiling. The office (East of kitchen)
has stapled up cellulose ceiling tiles attached to the ceiling.
Wall surfaces, exterior - Exteriors of the garage are both planked and shingled wood
products. The house exterior is wood plank materials over a tar
paper vapor barrier.
Floors - Garage floors are a bare concrete slab. House floors are mostly
carpeted, but the kitchen and bathroom have vinyl tile coverings.
Z
9
0
am
C 0
m n
-46
C
m
M Z
10
mm
a
0
C
r ca
7-1
Z
Z
The bottom layer of floor tile In the kitchen contains
asbestos. The (North) main entry is an exposed aggregate floor.
Insulation, structural - Walls, attics and floors In the house are insulated with fiberglass.
In the garage, only walls are insulated, Fiberglass was found
there also.
Heat sources - No heat source was found in the garage. The house is he ated by
a gas fired furnace located in the below floor crawlspace area on
the North side of the home. There are two fireplaces in the home
Z'
which are more likely used recreationally.
0
m
Insulation, thermal system - No TSI's were found on ductwork under the home. Ducts are
:q
insulated using fiberglass.
coo R2
Insulation, domestic piping - Domestic water lines were insulated using fiberglass.
0 M
C
m 0
Glazing compounds - Windows were both aluminum and wood framed. No glazing
0
C
3f
putty compounds were discovered.
m
rn Z
10-4
Wiring - Wiring was newer plastic insulated Romex 111�
Doors - Doors are wood or glass only.
In
0 -n
n PD
Adhesives - Adhesive under floor tiles In the kitchen also contained
M M
asbestos.
0
0
Eunctional Spaces
M'
Functional spaces are Identified in order to determine a sampling plan which will be
representefiveof the materials found in areas of similar usage,
Ca
Z
0
m
Susj)ect Materials
Materials commonly suspected to be ACBM's which were found during this Inspection are:
Doors
Floor coverings
Insulation, structural
insulation, Thermal System
6
Mastic (adhesive)
mortar or grout
Putty (or caulking)
Roofing
Siding material
0 Vapor barrier membrane
Wall & ceiling finishes
0 Wiring insulation
Z
a
Homogeneous Area
Suspect materials are listed as shown below in order to determine the homogeneity of products
discovered. These are materials which are similar In age, color and texture.
This property
am
contained the following materials which appeared homogeneous:
a
mo
-40
0
I Adhesive
-4
M Z
2 Joint compound
jO-1
C
3 Roofing, shingle
> Z
4 Shestrock
Co
5 Vinyl floor tile
0 " ,
n
Findings
m M
Asbestos containing materials WERE found.
0
The following chart summarizes the materials addressed by this report.
C to
MC),
ID
Type
FS
HA
Fri
Description
Location
ACBM
City
;U
la
Misc
0
3
N
Rooling shingle, 3-tab
Garage & half of house
N
NIA
Z
2a
Mlso
L
6
N
\Anyl floor tile, 12'whfte
Bathroom
N
WA
3a
Misc
L
5
N
\Anyl floor die, 12' blue
Kitchen top layer
N
NIA
Z
0
-4
3b
Misc
L
5
N
Vinyl floor Ole, 12'whke
Kitchen bottom layer.
Y
70 sf
0
m
So
Mise
L
I
N
Mast1c, black
Kitchen under bottom layer of die
Y
70 sf
4a
Misc
UU
2]
Y
Joint compound
Select Interior walls & ceilings
N
NA
4b
Mise
UU
4
Y
Sheetrock
Select Interior walls & ceilings
N
WA
Legend
Abbre Qgfin Abbre Definition
TS1 Thermal System Insulation FS Functional Space
Surf Surfacing (troweled or sprayed on) HA Homogenous area
7
Misc Miscellaneous
Fri Friable
ACBM Asbestos Containing Building Material
a Assumed ACBM
TRA 'Tracer amounts, < I % by weight
31
fn�
M,
C 0
M
0 C,
M M,
0
mm,
C 0
0i
Z:
z
0
f
8
04
Bulk Sample Analysis for Asbestos Fibers
Art: Lynn
Project: Dr. Lloyd Johnson. Client Brandel Homes Sampling date : 04-26-2002 11:30. Lab: EKO, Inc.
By: Bill Schroeder Address: 2T 70th pIANE
Z320 S �ndvievv Or Ih der M rysvite �4 9827,
0 Address 115 41h Ave S
A 98025 Edmond" WA 980 Uelivered by:
dm.,da . 3. :1 GO -9390
Phone: (426) 673.4ral4, taxl�4261673-4169 Datelfime:TZZ 2'92 Phone: (360)651
Phone: (425) 745-M7
(206) 229-6611 cell
Sampi rti; Dole
Mi. Fulom, C.ommumh�
other Components
C " enll
Asbestos Found
Asbestos %uml
Speminum #
Layer Mat-11-1
Location
0.. inn
%
Type
7S
Type
Bitumen, romerals
%
%
NO
NO
T
T
I
RW.hht9l.
G ... go SW mom
Grey itaph.1tic 34ab
26
Flixtrifimm
98
Vinyl, mill mals, synthetic
V me
NO
2
VInyl:i .
Both,.. floor
12. . while ..H.U.k
2
Synthetic
99
VI 1, minersts, synthetic
.
try
Y' r
NO
3
Vinyl t
Kitchen floor
12" blue ..If..U.k
I
Synthsh.
97
Vinyl, minerals
or
3
Claysofile
na
b Vinyl 01.
U nder sample #3s
12* while embossed
N
NO
94
Bitumen, synthetics
6
se ".
Chrys.61.
Mean
Undar.mapla#31,
Black, t-Illm
NO
po
100
Minerals
,
N D
4
a
Joint corap und
Cl—t
Whit., fin. gniend
2
Cellulose
98
Mirm.l.
.
NO
b Sheetrock
Undersomplelf4a
White, porous, chalky
Qtv Notes
Reg (24 hour): 7 Distinct layers of non -homogeneous samples are analyzed separately from the
Analysr: Bill _Schroeder Rush (2 hour): upper layer (A), downward
Date: 04-26-21)02
—70-4-26d NO (None Detected) may require a more definitive method of analysis. The lower
Batch:
Temp: 62 - F limit of reliable detection by this method is I %, however, the EPA recommends the
Protocol EPA Method 600 - use of Polarized light microscopy (PLM) and dispersion staining techniques more definitive method of "point counting"if results are less than 10%.
Page 1 of I
GARY HAAKENSON
CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR
121 STH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - 1425) 771-0220 FAX (425) 771-0221
Wabsite: �dedrnonds.wa.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning Building Engineering
c' I
�'N
January 16; 2003
R"
zi
0
Sean Brandel
Seattle Remodeling Co.
0
M
115 0 Ave S, Suite C
Edmonds, WA 98020
4
V
RE: Lloyd P. Johnson, MD
m:
mol
7320 Soundview Drive
0
Edmonds, WA 98026
3: m
m
Dear Mr. Brandel,
10
This letter is being sent in response to your request to exceed the maximum allowed
driveway slope of 14%. Review ofthe submitted letter and site plan, with noted
0
elevations, indicates that site constraints prevent you from obtaining a 14% over the
entire length of the driveway. Therefore, a maximum slope of20% will be allowed
within the lower 10 feet of the driveway. As demonstrated on the site plan, slopes
05i
between 15% and 17% can be achieved in the subsequent 10 feet. You will be required
0
0 Fn..
to maintain a maximum slope of 14% for the remainder of the driveway.
C 0)
r. I
-
Please call the Engineering Inspection line at 425-771-0220, ext. 1326, to schedule your
In
driveway form inspection, prior to pour. If you have any questions regarding these
requirements please feel free to contact Jeanie McConnell at 425-771-0220, ext. 1338.
Thank yo, ,
#VID
z
0
-4
0
m
City Engineer
jm
cc:
street file
_.permit file 92002-0441
IncorporatedAugust 11, 1890
7;,-
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL
AssociATES, INC.
N A
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS
17311 - 135� Avenue NE, A-500 Snohomish County (425) 337-1669
Woodinville, WA 98072
(425)486-1669 Fax (425)481-2510 Wenatchee/Chelan (509) 784-2756
June 3, 2002
Z
Mr. Lloyd Johnson
7320 Soundview Drive
rn
Edmonds, Washington 98026
C
M
0
Plan Review Letter
7320 Soundview Drive
X Fill
Ina
Edmonds, Washington
NGA File No. 338601
Vi
Dear Dr. Johnson:
0 n
-n �0
This letter presents the results of our geotechnical engineering review of plans for the planned renovatio n
m M
of your residence, located at 7320 Soundview Drive in Edmonds, Washington.
a Vi
0
0 Fn
l�r��
C co
We have previously completed a geotechnical engineering evaluation for this site, the results of which
M 6
were summarized in our geotechnical report dated November 27, 2001. We also prepared a supplemental
geotechnical review letter for the site, dated March 25, 2002. In a letter dated May 9, 2002, you have
requested that we review geotechnical aspects of the project plans and prepare a letter documenting our
Z
plan review. You have provided us with Sheets AO through AS of a set of plans titled, "Residential
0)
Building Permit for Dr. Lloyd Johnson and Marianne Johnson," prepared by Bart L. Shorack Architects,
Z
dated April 11, 2002. We have also been provided with a facsimile copy of a Sheets AO through AS of a
m
set of revised plans dated May 31, 2002.
We have reviewed geotechnical aspects of the provided plans. The plans indicate that a design bearing
capacity of 2000 psf has been used for foundation design, and that footings will be embedded at least 18
inches below adjacent final grade. Footings adjacent to the south and southwest slopes will be embedded
a minimum of three feet into competent native material and satisfy a minimum horizontal setback of IS
RECEIVED
JUN — 3 2002
CITY Copy
13UILDING DEPT.
V,
x Plan Review Letter
7320 Soundview Drive
Edmonds, Washington
June3,2002
NGA File No. 338601
feet between the face of the slope and the bottom of the footing. A note on the plans states that the
geotechnical engineer shall observe site grading and wall and foundation construction.
It is our opinion that the planned development is feasible ftom a geotechnical standpoint, and that the
Z,
provided plans are generally consistent with the previous geotechnical report. We should be retained to
0
4i
provide construction monitoring services during the earthwork phase of construction.
01
M
It has been a pleasure to provide service to you on this project. If you have any questions or require
55
M:
ftirther information, please call.
in 0
0
Sincerely,
in
0
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
C: z
In in
Project Engineer
C) Fn'
V)
M. S
mo
M
z
0
0
EXPIRES
in
Khaled M. Shawish, PE
Senior Engineer
TRC:KMS:hnn
Three Copies Submitted
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL
AssoaATEs, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS
17311 - 1351 Avenue NE. A-500 Snohomish County (425) 337-1869
4
Woodinville, WA 98072
(425)486-1669 - Fax (426)481-2510 WenatchealChelan (609) 784-2756
March 25, 2002
Z
Mr. Lloyd Johnson
7320 Soundview Drive
Edmonds, Washington 98026
Supplemental Geotechnical Review Letter
A.
7320 Soundview Drive
M 0
Edmonds, Washington
NGA File No. 338601
C,
In In
Dear Mr. Johnson:
This letter is a supplement to our Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation that was issued on November 27,
CA
2001 for the planned renovation to your residence at 7320 Soundview Drive in Edmonds, Washington.
10
In In
Introduction
ra
0 F,
You have informed us that the City of Edmonds has requested that a supplemental geotechnical analysis
C (a
concerning seismic slope stability be completed. You have requested that we address the City's
0
requirement. This letter should be attached to, and considered part of the previous report.
;u
We have been provided with a facsimile of a City of Edmonds Planning Division Staff Report for the
Z
prqject� dated February 27, 2002. We have also been provided with a facsimile of a Geotechnical Review
co
Comments letter prepared by Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc., dated January 31, 2002. This review letter
Z
is referenced by the City of Edmonds report.
0
m
The Zipper Zeman Associates letter generally concurs with the conclusions in our previous evaluation,
but the letter recommends that a seismic hazard evaluation relative to landslide potential be performed for
the site. The Zipper Zeman Associates letter recommends a minimum factor of safety of at least 1. 1 for a
PY
Supplemental Geotechnical Review Letter
7805 Soundview Drive, Edmonds
'March 25, 2002
NGA File No. 338601
Page 2 of 3
seismically -induced landslide. The City ofEdmonds report, in turn, also recommends that this evaluation
be performed.
Slope Stability
We have disc ussed the stability ofthe existing slope in our previous report. We have recommended that a
minimum effective setback distance of 15 feet be maintained between the bottom of the residence
downhill footing line and the face of the slope. We have , estimated that a 5 -foot deep founddion.
Z
0
excavation would be required to maintain the setback. We have evaluated the stability of the slope in the
m
vicinity of the residence by performing a numerical global stability analysis assuming a 5-foot foundation
'fi
embedment.
Vj
C:
We analyzed global stability using a computer program titled XSTABL, version 5.2. XSTABL is a two-
in
00
dimensional, limit -equilibrium, slope stability program. XSTABL generates random potential failure
in
in
surfaces and determines their corresponding factors of safety with respect to failure. The factor of safety
is defined as the ratio of the internal soil strength divided by the gravity driving forces that cause failure.
By generating a large number of random surfaces, the factor of safety can be obtained as the lowest
number calculated.
01
n
m M
The shallow explorations at the site encountered glacially consolidated sand with gravel and silt. We did
0
0 Fn
not perform laboratory shear testing of the onsite materials. We established design strengths based on
C V)
visual evaluation and classification of the soils and our experience with similar soils.
rn 0
r
The geometry of Cross -Section A -A' from our previous report was used for the slope stability analysis
using a pse udostatic analysis with a horizontal peak seismic acceleration ofO.15g. The factor of safety
Z
against slope failures affecting the 5-foot.deep residence foundation was found to be above I.I. The
CO
parameters and results for this analysis, as well as the planned location of the residence foundation, are
-04
shown in Figure 1.
in
Closure
It is our opinion that site development should be feasible, from a geotechnical standpoint, provided that
the recommendations found in our original geotechnical report and this supplemental letter are
Supplemental Geotechnical Review Letter
7805 Soundview Drive, Edmonds
March 25,2002
NGA File No. 338601
Page 3 of 3
incorporated in the design and followed during construction. We should be retained to:review final
residence plans and provide construction,monitoring services during the earthwork phase ofthe project.
Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been performed in accordance
05
with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in effect in this area at the time this letter was
prepared. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Our observations, findings, and opinions ar
a means to identify and reduce the inherent risks to the owner.
We trust this letter should satisfy your needs at this time. If you have any questions or require further
"n
information, please call.
f
Sincerely,
O'�
0 C
V"�'
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
M m
10
C: Z'
0 -n
FA
Thor Christensen, PE
m In
Project Engineer
11 'Ivli
0
0
M. 8
M
21
15
ca
ES
0
In
Khaled M. Shawish, PE
Senior Engineer
TRC:KMS:Imn
One Figure
Three Copies Submitted
JOHNSON RESIDENCE 0.159
100
10 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS
1.184
80
Residence
Footing 5 feet Deep
FILL
280
(D
W
60
1� 120 pcf
y..= 125 pcf
c 0 psf
V)
x
<
40
3 80
125. pcf
20
y.,= 130 pef
c =Opsf
0
0
20 40 60 80 100 120
140 160
X—AXIS (feet)
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL
Johnson Residence
----N�GA ASSOCIATES, INC.
FILE NO.
FIGURE
GEOTEcHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS
3386 01
1
Company\ngadrafting2OO2\coreldraw\338601.odr,.Jaw,3/25/02
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL
ASSOCIATES, INC.
GEOTF-CHNICAL ENGINEMS & GEoLoGisirs
17311—13e Avenue NE, A -SOD Snohomish County (425) 337-1669
Woodinville,WA 98072
(425)4WI669 Fax(426)481-2510 Wenstchee/Chelen (609) 784-2756
November 27, =1
z
0,
Mr. Uoyd Johnson
ro
732o sound View Drive
m
Ci:
R.,
Edmonds, Washington 98026
M
0
80
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
[71
Johnson Residence Addition
Edmonds, Washington
NGA File No. 338601
65
0 -n
n ;d
Dear M. Johnson:
This report represents our geotechnical engineering evaluation of the proposed addition to your
M M
residence located in Edmonds, Washitigton.
0
0 rn,
M Cn,
INTRODUCTION
The site is located at 7320 Sound View Drive, as shown on the Vicinity Map in FWM L YOU
have retained us to explore the subsurface conditions within the site and Provide geolechnical
recommendations for constructing an addition to the existing resid— For our use in
Z'
completing this study, we have been provided with faxed copies of a partial plat map of the
Uj
Meadowdale Sound View Tracts, and a topographic map of the site, tided, "Johnson Lot Survey,"
z
0
which shows the existing residence and shed. The name of the surveyor and the date of the
0
M
survey were not legible on our faxed copy. We have also been provided with a faxed copy of an
undated, untitled site plan showing the footprint of the current residence and the planned addition.
We have been provided with a Critical Arm Determination letter from the City of Edmonds,
dated April 14, 1997. This letter indicates that slopes of 50 percent with greater thatia 20 fear of
vertical elevation change exist on the site. The letter also states that a Critical Awn Study is
required to delineate buffers and setbacks.
r
I
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Johnson Residence Addition
November 27, 2001
NGA File No. 338601
Pap 2
The site is identified as Lot C on the Meadowdale Sound View Tracts'plat map. The site consists
of a relatively flat -lying building pad currently occupied by the residence and a detached shed.
Below the building pad moderate to steep slopes face to the northwest and southwest, and a
gentle to moderate slope extends down to Sound View Drive on the northeast. We understand
you plan to remodel, your existing home. You plan to re -use some of the existing residence
foundations and also construct new foundations outside the existing building fbotpzint. The new
Z'
0
construction will extend into the area designated by the City of Edmonds as requiring a Critical
0
in
Areas Study.
SCOPE
'Is and hydrologic conditions within the
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the subsurface soi
in 01
80
site with shallow hand explorations and provide recommendations for site developmeTIL
specifically, our scope of services includes the following:
m
in z
0-4
I . Review available geologic and soil maps for the am.
C —
2. Explore the site subsurface soil and ground water conditions with shallow blind
oi
0
tool excavations.
3, Prepare a cross-section through the site showing the ground surface and slope
m
inclination.
0 oi
0
4. Provide geologic and geOtechnical findings to address the City of Edmonds
0 Fn'
C 0)
Development Standard, Section 20.15B. 1100))2
MO
5. Provide recommendations for site preparation and earthwork.
6. Provide recommiendations for building setbacks.
7. Provide recommendations for foundation support.
8, Provide general recommendations for site drainage and erosion control.
9. Doc I unient our findings, conclusions, and recommendations in a written
geotechnical report.
z
WE COMMONS
0
M
Surface
The site is an irregularly shaped Parcel covering an area of approximately 0.3 acres. The site is
bordered by Sound View Drive to the northeast and residential lots to die. northwest and
southeast. A steep slope and swale border the site to the southwest The location of the current
residence and other site features am shown on the Site Plan in Figure 2.
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Gwtwhial Engincering Evaluation
Johnson Residence Addition
November 27, 2001
NGA File No. 338601
Page 3
The site consists of a relatively flat -lying building pad currently occupied by the residence, a
detached shed, and lawn and patio areas. Below the building pad moderate to steep slopes face to
the northwest and southwest, and a gentle to moderate slope extends down to Sound View Drive
on the northeast The shorter slopes northeast and northwest of the residence am landscaped with
Z
shrubs. The udrsteep slope southwest of the residence is vegetated with mature evergreen trees
and underbrush.
During our field reconnaissance we observed a retaining wall south of the existing'residence and
4 9i
shed. This wall was constructed of railroad ties and was up to 4.5 feet tall. Portions of this wall
a in
C 0
were leaning in the downslope direction and sections of steel pipe had been placed against the
in 0
80
C:
face of the wall in an attempt to stabilize the wall.
-4 C
3: in
in
C
We measured Cross -Section A -A' on the steep slope below the area of planned addition
>
southwest of the existing shed. The cross-section i s shown in Figure 3. The alignment of the
cross-section is shown on the Site Plan in Figure 2.
0 -n
The ground surface within the southeastern portion of the site slopes down at an inclination of 5
in in
Fo
to 21 percent for 19 fect to the retaining wall constructed from raift-oad ties. Below the wall the
0 t-
o
ground slopes down with an inclination of 50 to 60 percent for 36 feet to the property line.
mo
Beyond the property line the ground surface slopes at an inclination of approximately 43 percent
to the bottom of the slope approximately 100 feet beyond the property line.
;u
Subsurface Conditions
the EdmQndLFA9
Z
Geology: The geologic units for this area are shown on the -QzLqlgg1Q2U p of
Vi
and of the Edmonds West Quadratigles. Washin , by James P. Minard (U.S.G.S., 1983).
Z
The site is mapped as advance outwash (Qva). Advance outwash in this area typically consists Of
0,
glacially compacted pebbl I y sand. Our shallow hand explorations encountered sand consistent
m
with the advance outwash unit
Explorations: The subsurface conditions at the site were explored on November 9, 2001 by
excavating three borings to depths of 3 to 6 feet below the existing ground surface using a hand -
auger. The approximate locations of our explorations are shown on the Site Plan in Figure 2. An
engineer I from Nelson Geotechnical Associates (NGA) was preswent during the explorations,
examined the soils and geologic conditions encountered, obtained samples of the different soil
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, JNQ
Centechnical Engineering Evaluation
Johnson Residence Addition
November 27, 2001
NGA File No. 338601
Page 4
types, and maintained logs of the hand -auger holes.
The soils were visually classified in general accordance with the Unified Sod Classification
systen), presented in Figure S. The logs of our hand -auger holes are attached to this report and
are presented as Figure 6. We present a brief summary of the subsurface conditions in the
Z
following paragraphs. For a detailed description of the subsurface conditions, the hand -auger
0
hole logs should be reviewed.
M
q MI
our explorations generally encountered a layer of surficial loose toPsoil/fill underlain by native
vi
weathered advance outwash. Undocumented fin was encountered in Hand Auger 2, extended to a
a M
MC 0,
0
depth 1.8 feet below the ground surface, and consisted of brown fine to medium sand with
0
charcoal, gravel, and silt. The surficial topsoil encountered in Hand Augers I and 3 was 0.2
M
thicL
C
E:
The advance outwash consisted of an upper, weathered horizon and a lower, unweathered
horizon. The weathered material consisted of a loose to medium dense, rust -stained gray to
0
:� I -,I I
brown, fine to medium sand with gravel and silt. The thickness of this layer in Hand Augers I
m M
and 2 was 1.8 and 3.2 feet� respectively. Hand Auger 3 was terminated in the weathered horizon
0
at a depth of 4.0 fect below thee surface. The unweathered outwash was encountered underlying
0
C
C
the weathered horizon in Hand Augers I and 2 to the depth explored. This material consi sted of a
M 0,
medium dense to dense, light brown to gray, fine to co arse sand with gravel and once silt
M
Hydrologic Conditions
did
Ground water seepage was not observed in any of our explorations. We not observe
indications of water seepage from the slope. A perched water condition is unlikely but could
Z
0
occur if low permeability soils underlie the advance outwash sand that exists near the ground
surface. Perched water occurs when surface water infiltrates through less dense, more -permeable
M
soils and accumulates on top of the underlying, less -permeable soils. 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.
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC,
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Johnson Residence Addition
November 27, 2001
NGA File No. 338601
Page 5
Erosion Hazard
The cntena used for evaluation of erosion hazards include soil type, slope gradient, vegetation
cover and ground water conditions. The surface soil "a (group classification) am related to the
underlying geologic soil units. The Soil Survey of Snohomish County Area, Washington, by the
Soil Conservation Service (SCS), was reviewed to evaluate the erosion hazard of the on -site sods.
Z
The surface soils in the region surrounding the site were mapped by the SCS and classified as
Alderwood gravelly sandy Ioam (15 to 25 percent slopes). The AlderwOOd gravelly sandy 1OR"
soils an not consistent with the advance outwash soil s encountered in our shallow explorations
m
and interpreted to underlie the site. The erosion hazard is listed as moderate for the Alderwood
M
0
80
gravelly sandy loam. In our opinion the erosion for the soils observed on the site, if disturbed, is
C
--j C
X
moderate to high.
M
C
Landslide Hazard/Slope Stability
Vi
The steep portion of the site slope has an average inclination of between 40 and 60 percent and a
0 -n
relief of about 24 feet to the southwest property line. However, the slope continues about 100
feet beyond the property line. We did not observe any evidence of significant slope instability
such as deep-seated landslides during our field reconnaissance. We did not observe evidence of
0
0
surficial sloughing even on the steep slopes. Much of the slope is covered with straight mature
C
C
M 0
evergreen trees, and a few old -growth stumps, We noted a bowed trunk on one young evergreen
Z r-
7q
tree on the steep slope below the garage and railroad tie retaining wall, which could be an
be
X
indication of surficial soil creep in this am. The milroad tie retaining wall appeared to
Z
inclined downhill, another indication of surficial soil creep. The native soil that is inferred to core
the subj ect slope area is glacially compacted material interpreted as dense advance outwash.
Z
Based on the site conditions, the lack of seepage from the steep slope, and the lack of evi dence of
stamping on the slope, we consider the site soils stable with respect to deep-seated
M
past
movement. The native soils appear to be performing well. We expect occasional shallow
sloughing may occur within the steeper portions of the slope, The lack of evidence of recent
failures indicates such failures are typically not frequent. The potential for sloughing may be
reduced by routing surface water away from the top of slope and maintaining vegetation on the
slope.
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC-
Getechnical Engineering Evaluation
Johnson Residence Addition
November 27, 2001
NGA File No. 338601
Page 6
City of Edmonds Development Code
the
We understand that the City of Edmonds has determined that due to the steep slope occupying
site, the project site is within a Critical Arm We have reviewed section 20-15B.110 of the City
of Edmonds Development Code, which addresses geologically hazardous areas. Subsection D of
'Wo development oral mti d
this section addresses steep slope hazard areas and states that, te on iall
be allowed in steep slope hazard areas unless the property is exempt under the provisions of this
section..." Sub -subsection 2 of Subsection D lists criteria that must be satisfied for a Property to
be exempted. A summary of these criteria follows:
a. The proposed development will not decrease stability on any adjacent property, and following
the permitted activity the site will be stable.
b. The development will occur on steep slope areas that either.
L are mapped as Till, Advance Outwash, or Gravel on the Geologic Mag of the
=Ies, WagW�- by Jams P. Minard
Ed s Fast and P
An of the Edmonds West
(U.S.G.S., 1983); or
11. we comprised of structural fill.
c. All excavations on steep slopes shall not extend below a 35-degree plane extending down
from the property lines.
d. AD retaining structures on steep slopes shall be engineered structures.
e. Steep slope areas cannot be altered if any of several conditions related to landslides we
present on or adjacent to the property. These conditions are: impermeable soils interbedded
with granular soils, springs or ground water seepage, significant visible evidence of ground
water seepage, previous landsliding or instability, or existing landslide deposits.
f. Steep slope areas cannot be altered if the total thickness of topsoil and sons in a 10ow
condition exceeds 3 feet.
g, A 15-foot buffer is required for commercial development adjacent to residential Properties -
our response, by subsection:
a. . The proposed addition is limited to a relatively small portion of the site. Based on our
observations and shallow explorations, it is our opinion that the proposed development should
not decrease stability on any adjacent property or on the site, provided the recommendations
found in this report are incorporated in the design and followed during construction.
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCUTES, INC.
Z
0
C
m M
0,71
n
M M
a
0
0
C o)
In C)
Z
4
M
t
Z
Z
0
0
In
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Johnson Residence Addition
November 27, 2001
NGA File No. 338601
Page 7
b. The site is mapped as Advance Outwash On the Geologic Map of jk.Edmonds End and
of the Edmonds uadran I Washwim by James P. Minard (U.S.G.S., 1983), as
descri bed in the Subsurface Conditions section of this report.
c. No excavation is planned to extend below a 35-degm plane extending down from any of the
property lines.
d. We understand that the retaining wall located at the top of the -steep Slope, which was
Z
0
-4
cons tructed using milroad ties, is planned to be removed and possibly replaced with a
0
retaining wall. We understand that this wall w ill be designed and engineered by others.
m
e. None of the listed conditions related to landslides were observed on or adjacent to the site as
—i n
d ussed in the Landsllide Hazard/Slope Stability subsection of this report
isc
E Based on our observations it is out opinion that the total thickness of topsoil and loose soil on
M
C
the slope is less than 3 feet as discussed in the Subsurface Conditions subsection of this
m 0
report-
0 r
9- No commercial development is planned for the site.
m
m Z
it is our opinion that all of the conditions required for development in a Steep Slope Ha7Ard Area
C
>
Mon me O(D
under the provisions of the City of Ed dsDevelop nt Code section 20.15B.11 )2 should
6;
be met by the planned development
0
m m
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOAMNDATIONS
a
0
General
0
C
It is our opinion that the soils that underlie the site and form the core of the slope should be stable
M 0
with respect to deep-seated earth movements, due to their inherent strength and slope geometry.
;u
-4
There is potential for shallow sloughing and erosion events to occur on the steeper portions of the
slope. We have provided recommendations to reduce the potential of such events and a
foundation effective setback distance to reduce the risk of adverse impacts to the residence should
Z
0
such events occur.
F)
The addition could be supported on conventional shallow spread footings, provided that the
M
foundation excavation is advanced through any surficial fill, topsoil, or loose material and
extended down to medium dense or better native soils. In addition to this criteria, fooftP
adjacent to the slope should be embedded a minimum of three feet into the competent native
material and satisfy a minimum horizontal setback distance of 15 feet between the face Of the
slope and the bottom of ft footing.
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Johnson Residence Addition
November 27,2001
NGA File No. 338601
Pap 8
men tee ope Hazard Area
It is our opinion that all of the conditions required for develop tinaS PSI
under the provisions of the City of Edmonds Development Code section 20.15B.1 10(D)2 should
be met by the planned development
It will be inVortant to maintain the vegetation on the slope to reduce the erosion potential.
Routing storm run-off away from the top of the slope into appropriate drain lines or piping storm
water to the base of the slope can reduce the occurrence of sloughing on the slope.
Some of the soils likely to be exposed during construction are considered moiswre-sensitive and
may disturb when wet. We recommend that construction take place during the drier summer
months, if possible. If construction takes place during the wet season, additional expenses and
delays should be expected due to the wet conditions. Additional expenses could include the need
to export on -site soil, the import of clean, granular soil for fill, and the need to place a blanket of
rock spalls or crushed rock in the construction traffic areas and exposed subgrades prior to
placing structural fill or structural elements. The on -site soils may be used as structimil fill
provided they could be compacted to plan specifications. We should be retained, to determine if
the on -site, soils could be used as structural fill at the time Of c—ftWti0n- Aiter Wading, the
exposed subgrade should be protected from construction traffic and surface runoff.
ial soils and vegetation indicate no signs of slope instability. The core of the hillside is
The surfic
inferred to consist of medium dense to dense native soils and is considered stable with regard to
deep-seated slope failures. However, we estimate that up to 4.5 feet of undocumented fill exist
near the top of the slope. This fill is in a loose to medium dense condition and, depending on
final grading plans, should be retained or replaced with compacted structural fin to maintain
stability. The planned residential construction should not decrease the stability of the slope,
provided our recommendations are implemented.
Slope Setback
Uncertainties related to building along steep slopes are typically addressed by the use of building
setbacks. The purpose of the setback is to establish a "buffer zone" between the dwelling areas
and the slope margin, so that ample room is allowed for normal slope surface regression, or if a
slope failure were to occur. This setback also protects the slope from the impacts of the
development. From a geological standpoint, a reasonable setback is based on the slope's physical
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC,
Z,
.0
0
—n
Om
C
ma
0
0
a
in in
0
in in
C)
0
5 Fn
a ra
in 0
;U
Z
Z
0
in
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
4'
Johnson Residence Addition
November 27,2001
NOA File No. 338601
Page 9
characteristics: e.g., slope height, surface angle, material composition, hydrology, etc. Other
factors such as historical slope activity, rate of regression and earthwork activity along the toe of
slope, are important considerations as well.
Based on our slope evaluation and observations, we recommend a minimum effective hofi=W
z
setback distance of 15 feet between the face of the slope and the bottom of the downhill footing
line- In addition to this recommended setback distance, the downhill footing line should be
embedded a minimum of 3 feet into medium dense or better nati ve soils. The recommended
4:5
setback and footing embedment values are shown on Figure 4. We should be retained to evaluate
Vi
a m
the foundation subgrade and effective setback prior to pouring footings.
C
in 0
Slope and Setback Protection
0
-4
Protection of the setback and steep slope areas should be performed as required by the City of
X in
z
I
Edmonds. Specifically. we recommend that the setback areas not be used for placement or
C
>
storage of fin materials, including temporary excavation spoils from building area preparation.
65
and excavation. Also, water should not be allowed to pond in the setback area or flow onto the
disturbance development
0 -n
-n
face of the slope. It should be understood that the closer site soil and
in in
are to the slope, the more risk there is of affecting slope stability. Care should be taken to
ra
ri d
ize disturbance to the slope and setback surficial soils and vegetative cover both do ng an
0
C
H
after construction.
C
in 0
From a geotechnical standpoint, selective pruning and thinning of vegetation in these areas should
M
be acceptable. Cutting and.pruning of trees located on the slope can be performed if allowed by
the city, but certain precautions should be taken. If tree cutting is allowed by the city, we
z
recommend that the trees be cut to or just below ground level and that the root bundle/stump be
left in place. Primed materials and debris should be removed from t he area and not allowed to
z
remain on the slope. Placement of soil, sod, clippings, or other matter on the slope is not
0
in
recommended. Disturbed areas should be promptly replanted with suitable vegetation to reduce
erosion.
Of great importance to the long-term stability of the slope is the control of surface and near -
surface water, and erosion protection. We recommend that all drains, including foundation, roof,
.and yard drains, be directed away from the top of slope and routed into a permanent discharge,
system, Surface drainage over the slope should not be permitted.
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Johnson Residence Addition
November 27, 2001
NGA File No. 338601
Page 10
Erosion Control Measures
The ero sion hazard for the on -site soils is considered moderate to high when disturbed, depending
on how the site is graded and surface water is managed. Best Management Practices (BMPs)
should be used to control erosion. Areas disturbed during construction should be protected from
z
erosion. Measures taken my include diverting surface water away from the stripped areas. Silt
fences or straw bales should be erected to prevent muddy water from leaving the site. Disturbed
M,
areas should be planted with vegetation at the end of construction. The vegetation should be
=i T
maintained until established. The erosion potential of areas not stripped of vegetation should be
Vi
low.
0 in
C
m 0
0
Structural M
amounts of fin will be placed for the planned
-4
X in
in Z
General: We do not anticipate that significant
development. However, if fill is placed beneath the foundations, slab, pavement, or other
C,
serilement-sensitive structures, it should be placed as structural fill. Structural fill, by definition,
Vi
0,
is placed in accordance with prescribed methods and standards and is monitored by an
�m
experienced gernechnic.] professional or soils technician. Field monitoring procedures would
in
Vj
include the performance of a representative number of in -place density tests to document the
0
attainment of the desired degree of relative compaction. The am to rece ive the fill should be
05
stripped of any topsoil and/or loose material and medium dense or better native mineral soils
m 0
in ondi on rior
exposed. The exposed subgrade should be compacted to a 11011-Yield 9 c ti P to
structurni fill placement. If structural fill is planned on sloping ground, die slope should be
benched to key the new fill into the slope. The bench es typically have a nominal width of 4 to 8
z
feet, and are separated vertically by about 3 feet.
Materials. Imported structural fill should consist of a good quality, free -draining granular soil.
z
0
free of organics and other deleterious material and be well -graded to a maximum size of about 3
in
inches. Imported, all-weather fill should contain no more than about five percent lines (still finer
than U.S. No. 200 sieve, based on that fraction passing the U.S. 3/4-inch sieve).
The use of the clean on -site outwash soils as structural fill Should be fe0sibi e. The use of the
siltier portion of the on -site soils as structural fill will be dependent on moisture -content control.
Some drying of the soils may be necessary in order to achieve compaction. Some aeration and/or
addition of moisture may be necessary to achieve the desired moisture content. We expect that
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Johnson Residence Addition
November 27, 2001
N43A File No. 338601
Page I I
compacting soils with high silt content to structural fill specifications would be difficult, if not
impossible, during wet weather. On -site soils with a high organic content should not be used as
structural fill material.
Fill placement- Following subgrade preparation, PI I acement. Of the structural fill may Proceed'
All backfilling should be accomplished in 6- to 8-inch-thick, uniform lifts. Each lift should be
spread evenly and be thoroughly conVacted prior to placement of subsequent lifts- All structural
fill underlying building areas and within 2 feet of pavement subgrade should be Compacted to I
minium of 95 percent of its —in— dry density. Maximum dry density- in this report, refers
to that density as determined by the ASTM D-1557 Compaction Test procedure- Fills 1110M than
2 feet beneath sidewalks and pavement subgrades should be compacted to 90 percent of their
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
ovelexcavate 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 and Slabs -on -Grade
The slab -on -grade and 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. Where less
dense soils are encountered at footing bea&g elevation or slab subgrade, the subgrade should be
overexcavated to expose suitable bearing soil. The overexcavation way be filled with structural
fill, or slab and foundations 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 one-half of the depth of overexcavation below the footing.
Footings, including interior footings, should extend at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent
finished ground surface for fiost protection and/or beafing capacity considerations. The downhill
footing line should extend a minimum of 3 feet into competent native soils, but also the
embedment should be such that a minimum horizontal setback distance from the bottom of the
footing and the face of the steep slope is maintained. Minimum foundation widths of 18 and 24
inches should be used for contirmiqns and isolated spread footings, wzp-dvclY- Standing water
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC-
z
In
Vi -4
in
0
80
a
in M
10
C
r- -4
X
0.n
rn in
0
0
C
Q
z
--i
3:
55
� I
z
0
1
0
M
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
johnson Residence Addition
November 27, 2001
NGA File No. 338601
Page 12
should not be allowed to accumulate in footing trenches. All loose or disturbed soil should be
removed froca the foundation and slab -on -grade excavation prior to placing concrete.
por foundations constructed as outlined above, we recommend an allowable design bearing
pressure of not mom than 2,000 pounds per square foot (pso be used for the footing design for
footings founded on the medium dense glacial drift or struchn-al fill. NGA should be retained to
evaluate the foundation bearing soil at the am of consuaction. Current Uniform Building Code
(mc) guidelines should be used when considering increased allowable bearing ' pressure for
short-term. transitory wind or seismic loads. potential foundation settlement using the
recommended all . owable bearing pressure is estimated to be less titan I inch total and 1/2 inch
differential between adjacent footings or across a distance of about 30 feet, based on our
experience with similar projects.
Where moisture -control is important, we recommend that the slab -on -grade be underlain by at
least 6 inches Of f=4raiaiag sand or gravel for use as a capillary break. We recommend that the
capillary break be hydraulically connected to the footing drain system to allow five drainage from
under the slab. A suitable vapor barrier, such as heavy plastic sheeting (6-mil Or thicker), should
be placed over the capillary break material. An additional 2-inch-thick sand blanket may be used
to cover the vapor barrier. This sand blanket is to protect the vapor barrier membrane and to aid
in curing the concrete. it win also prevent cement paste leaking down into the capillM break
through the joints or tears in the vapor barrier.
Site Drainage
Surface Drainage: Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where footings, slabs, or
pavements are to be constructed. FnW site grades should allow for drainage away from the
residence, We suggest that the finished ground be sloped away from the residence at a minimma
,,gradient of 3 percent for a distance of at least 10 feet. Run-off collected in the residence
downspout system or on hard surfaces should be routed into a permanent discharge system
Under no circumstances should runoff be allowed to flow over the slope Of drains terminated on
the slope.
subsurface Drainage: We recommend the use of footing drains around the addition. The drains
should consist of minimum 4-inch-diameter, rigid, slotted or perforated, PVC pipe surrounded by
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
z
0
M
M
MO
0
80
C
m m
z
0
.n
M M,
0
0
Fn
ca
C V)
M 0:
z
q
z
0)
z
9
0
rn
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Johnson Residence Addition
November 27, 2001
NGA File No. 338601
Page 13
free -draining material. We recommend that the free -draining material consist of a zone of clean
(less than 3 percent fines). Footing drains should discharge into tightlines leading to an
appropriate collection and discharge point with convenient cleanouts to prolong the useful life of
the drains. Roof drains should not be connected to wall or footing drains
Z,
USE OF TMS REPORT
NGA has prepared this report for Mr. Lloyd Johnson and his agents, for use in the planning and
0)
design of this project on this site only, The scope of our work does not include services related to
construction safety precautions and our recommendations ale not intended to direct the
M
-4
OR
contractors' methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, except as specifically described in
C
:4 C
our report for consideration in design. There are possible variations in subsurface conditions
in in
10
between the explorations and also with 6me. Our report, conclusions, and interpretations should
not be construed as a warranty of subsurface conditions. A contingency for unanticipated
conditions should be included in the budget and schedule.
0 -n V�
on
NGA should be retained to provide monitoring and consultation services during constnicti to
M in
a ra
0
confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to
0 Fn
provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work
m 0
Z
differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether or not earthwork and foundation
installation activities comply with contract plans and specifications.
Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been performed in
65
accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in effect in this area at the
Z
time this report was prepared. No other wan -anty, expressed or implied, is made. Our
0
observations, findings, and opinions are a means to identify and reduce the inherent risks to ft
M
owner.
All people who own or occupy homes on hillsides should realize that landslide movements are
always a possibility, although the likelihood that such an event will actuall y occur may be low.
The hillside should remain stable during normal environmental conditions; however, inherent to
steep slope arm is the risk of movement due to extreme environmental conditions such as severe
earthquakes and storms. Because of the existing sloping conditions, the area should be
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Geoteclutic al Engineering Evaluation
johmon Residence Addition
November27,2001
NGA File No. 338601
page 14
periodically irippecteri by the land owner, especially after a winter storm If distressJs evident, a
geotecimical engineer should be contacted for advice on remedial/ preventative measures The
probability that landsliding will occur is substantially reduced by the proper maintenance of
drainage measures at the site, Therefore, the homeowner should recognize the responsibility for
�Z'
performing such maintenance. We recommend that a copy of this report be provided to any
future owners of the property.
0
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you. If there are any ques tions, concerning this
Vi
a in
report or if we can provide additional services, please call.
m 0
Sincerely.
in
MZ
iD.4
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
>
r-
;ck
0 -n
lChnstensen,
PE
M M
Project Engineer
0
Fn
in 0'
Z
Z
Khaled M. Shawish, PE
SeniorEngincer
TRC:KMS:kmn
six Copies Submitted
Six Figures
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Vicinity Map
N
z
m
M 0
0
80
m m
10
CD
0 n
'n
Pro
m M
Si
0
0
0
C w
M 0
z
sT
co
n-4 ----- —
z
m
Not to scale
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL Johnson Residence
--N �A ASSOCIATES, INC. FILE NO. FIGURE
GEOTF-CHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS 338601
1
romDanv\noadriftinp2OOi\coretdraw%vidnityx338(
I
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
MAJOR MMIONS
=
L GROUP NAME
GRAVEL
CLEAN ORAVEL
GW
WELL-GRADEOGRiWILIFNIOCOARSEGRAVEL
COARSE -
—
GP
POORLY-GRAIDEDCAWEIL
GRAINED
MOREJ�MMOF
GRAVEL
WIIH FINES
Gm
SILTY GRAVEL
SOILS
COARSE FRACTION
WAWONNQ4
ME
GC
CLAYEY GRAVEL
MORE DM 50%
REEAM001
NO. 20D SEVE
SAND
CLEAN SAND
SW
WELL -GRADED MM FM 10 COARSE SAM
Sp
POORLY.GR�m We
MORE DIAN 60% OF
SAND
WITH FINES
Sm
UNSAND
COARSE FRACTION
FASSES NO. 4 SIEVE
SC
CLAYEY SAW
.
.. ..... T �MD CLAW
INORGANIC
14
Su
FINE -
—
CL
C LAY
GRAINED
LIQWLW
LESS TIM 60%
ORGANIC
OL
ORGAW SJX CRGAMC CLAY
SOILS
SILT AND CLAY
INORGANIC
W OF HW KASTICIFY, ELASTIC W
MORE THAN W%
FASSES NO, 2DO ME
CH
CLAY OF HIGH KASTI= FM CLAY
UQUOLM
60% OR MORE
ORGANIC
Oli
ORQq#C CLAY ORGAW SILT
HIGHLy ORGANIC SOILS
PT
PEAT
NOM SOIL MOMME MODIFIERS
1) Field cloSStflOdidn Is based on Dry. Absence of nxifte. dustV, dry
vlmd exm*mkn of So! In 99nefd to the IoLich
accordance w0h ASTM D 2486-93. MOW. DaM, W no vWbie water
2) Sol dossficallon u*v W-OtOW
tests Is based on ASTM D 2487-93. ftt- visue ftee woter or schgoted,
Lw.y* soll Is obtained ft0nn
3) DescrOORS of SO den* or below water table
oorWdercV are based an
Wwpmtdm d bilowoount doh
vhI,,d appearance of sok and/or
test data
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
—'--N �GA ASSOCIATES, INC.
GKOMCHNICAL ENGINFrm & GEOLOGISTS
FIGURE 5
I I I
z
0.
0
m
m
0
0
C:
m
0
"n LD
FTI rn
0
0
rn 0
z
ca
z
9
0
m
EXPLORATION
LOG OF
DEPTH
use SOILDESCRIFTION
HAND AUGER ONE
DARK BROWN FINE To MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT AND ORGANICS (LOOSE, MOIST
0.0-02
TO WET) (TOPSOIL)
SP-SM RUST-MOrtLED BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL. SILT, AND ROOTS
02-2.0
(LOOSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED OLITWASH)
SP LIGHT BROWN FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH GRAVEL AND TRACE SILT (MEDIUM
z
n�
24-3.0
DENSF� DRY TO MOIST) (OUTWASH)
0
-+
SAMPLE WAS COLLECTED AT 2.5 FEET
m
GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
HAND AUGER CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
HAND AUGER WAS COMPLETED AT &0 FEET ON I 1AW1
HANDAUGERTWO
m
c
0.0-1.8
SP-SM BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH CHARCOAL, GRAVEL. AND SILT (LOOSE,
M
-10
MOISI)(OW
0 0
1.8-6.0
SP-SM LIGHT BROWN To GRAY RUST-STAIINED FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL
rn
AND SILT (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED OUTWASH)
M Z
SP GRAY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL AND TRACE SILT (MEDIUM DENSE TO
z
DENSF- MOIST) (OUTWASH)
31
SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 1.0. 2.0,4.0, AND 5.5 FEET
GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
0 -n
HAND AUGER CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
HAND AUGER WAS COMPLETED AT 6.0 FEET ON 1118101
IT! m
HAND AUGER THREE
0
DARK -BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOOSE, MOIST To WET)
o Fn
0.0-0.2
(TOPSOIL)
C co,
0.2 2.5
SP-SM BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND W ITH GRAVEL AND SILT (LOOSE TO MEDIUM
m 0
z
DENSE, MOtST) 011)
Sp4m RUST.MOTTLED LIGHT BROWN I -0 GRAY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL
2.5-4.0
AND SILT (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED OUTWASH)
SAMPLE WAS COLLECTED AT 0.7 FEET
z
GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
HAND AUGER CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
HAND AUGER WAS COMPLETED AT 4.0 FEET ON 1 VOR11
zi
0
9
m
NELSOJN CAL ASSOCLATM INC.
TRO
FILE NO MMI
FIGURE 6
MA
city of edmonds
development information
13 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW
• OompitsHENSWE PLAN AMENDMENT
• OONDMONALUSEPBMIT FILE#
77 .0 ZONE
13 HOMEOCCUPATION DATE 11
0 FORMAL SUBDIVISION FEE
0 SHORT SUBDIVISION RSWPT# 43
0 YyrLtNsADjUSTMENr HEARINGDATE
D PLANN13D RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
0 OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT QHE )itl�ww OF8 DADS QCC
0 STRE13TVACATION
Q REZONIS
0 SHORBUNBPBRKIT
0 VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION
X OMER: —S4-cr�p —sbp
7
PROPERTY ADDR129S OR LDcAnoN 6
rooh, WA jyd2j
PRoiscr NAME (Ir'Arrucmx) X� ..j,
PR0PBKTYOwNER A-1;4"e JdAIMM CNIVI-A) I?NoNs#--�i2r- A3--f78,7
ADDRESS
E-MAILADDRSSS FAX#
TAXACODUNT# AgV3k0&6,t1oq SBC.- TWP. Z -7 N RNG. Z/
DESMMONOPPROJWrORPROPOSMUm
our�,;t 00;y 4— AWl" ch-
APPLICANT PHONE# V97
ADDRESS—
E-MAILADDREss 144;aAhsn 14 gc�4-cr FAX# e/Z5-,W—j,/5r7
COKTACrPtRSOWAGENT--, IrAo, as eLy,—PH0NB#
ADDRESS
E-MAILADDRESS FAX #
The undersigaw oppliand, and lds%writs heirs and asaigns, in consideration on the processing of tbe application
agrees to release, indernnifY, deflaW and hold i; City of Edmonds haroden from any and all darnages, including
reasonable attanney's fees, Wising Item any acdon or inlraction based in Whole Of Put Upon false6 ruideading,
inaccurate or incomplete infornnation finnixhad by the applicant, Wher/it. agent, a croployatm.
By my signsom I certify that the infortned:.3 "exhibito herewith subutitted am Due Rod correct an the beat *fany
Imowledge and that I arn sudwrized to fil� ication on the bcholfofft rwm as Rated below.
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANWAG DATE
Proputy Ow*Ws Authorization
By my Ids-lunk I certify that I have AudwrizOd the abow APPlicant/Agent to apply fw the aubject land ca,
application, and grant any P = M i on for the P up I C zlff, Of the City Of E&wn& to enter the subject
property for dw purposes of inspection AM p 1. cation.
SIGNATURSOPOWNER Z—DAT1
Tldsppfi-d-fimta--4-d41427/W- T*vm*wb0b-iti-NW-.1.4.H(425)771-0220.
LAL"RARyWL-W`"GW--* "-&-WUM 14-6.WA�A UWAWWW-& Attachment 3
MM
07/15/2002 10:08 14254812510
NELSON GEOTECAiICAL PAGE 02/02
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL
--N-GA ASSOCIATES, INC.
FIELD REPORT
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS
17,111,13$th AM NE. A-VID Project: 1, No,
W-&�AWWA&807 �O Fi
Fax(4481-2510 Owner, 'SdU&l�'W;'
Date: .107
Locatio
Report No.
Weather� Page:
Purpose
of visit: CQ��VIA
yfAky
UV 4, t4ll�l By:
rw��f
N UA J�vc�t (7m- MIA--
i, "AA V t,('3 ,A,-
zu;
V4.
L uoel'ucl
A!v
e, 44-
-iULI
0�-
Attachments:
Disuibution:
CTR
z
0
0
rp
C
ma
0
0
0C
m
0 -n
m
0
to
M
z
9
0
m
06/26/2002 15:09 14154812510 NELSON GEOTECHqICAL
FAGE 02/02
�NE"ON GEOTECHNICAL
NGA ASSOCIATES, INC. FIELD REPORT
GEOTF41HINICAL ENGINIKERS
imi.06 AYOAEA-500 File No.
v,ma,rL4,0TWAw 2 Projew
-11211=61110 Owncr:7 Date: wLfj07—
dA
Locatiowl c"AbUILE)C' 61o, No. I
Weathcit Page: -1 _of
Purpose By::16—
of visit: W—In
Attachment': Signed: I
Disaributlow JUN 2 7 2002
DEVELOPMENT SERVICCS CTR,
CITY OF EDMONDS
r ...... .. ...... . I Phone: (425) 432-5930
3806 19CP Avenue S.E.
9 Kent, WA 98042 Fax: (425) 432-5933
http://www.crones.com Email: crones@crones.com
.
. ...... .
AFFIDAVIT OF SURVEY
This is to certify that in Section 08, Township 27, Range 04, a Topographic survey was -
z
performed by Crones and Associates Land Surveyors. The physical address of the
0
k",
property surveyed is 7320 Soundview Dr., Edmonds WA, Field measurements for this
survey were performed with a 2" TOPCON GTS 3B and GPT 600 2C instrument, by
traverse methods, and meet or exceed accuracy standards of 1:20,000.
This lot survey was performed by me or under my direction, at the request of Lloyd
C
m 0,
t"�
Johnson on December 12, 2000 whh an asbuilt survey performed on October 23,2002.
80
C
Based on this topographic survey and the City of Edmonds methods, the calculated
m in
average grade elevation is 106.86 feet. The four elevations used in calculating this
z
average are as follows:
%:
r
West = 106.44 Feet
0
North = 102.55 Feet
n
South = 106.11 Feet
M
East me 112.33 Feet
a Vj
0
6 Fn
The proposed maximum height allowed is 131.86 feet. The measured asbuilt height is
C W
131.86 feet.
m 0,
A:
Receiver)
z
D.
T WA &
OCT 2 8 2002
0
PERMIT C()UjVTEFj
in
"'537
L
EXPIRES: 6/27/03
MICMFILW
Printed 101MM
V. P.P I of I
FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL FORM
TO:
DATE:
T,MM0 TO: PERmrr COORDINATOR, BUILDING DIVISION
FROM: FIRE DEPARTNIENT DATI�—
ENGIINEE DIVIS ION DATE -A 5710 -S
PLANNING DIVISION DATE—
P
SITEADDRESS
DATE INSPECTED
PERMIT #—AQQa:: �141 �ADB# J!glo -S
DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE INSPECTED
A field inspection was conducted to determine final compliance with approved plans. Final approval
denotes that there are no objections from the above signed Department to the release of
PERFORMANCE BONDS and the granting of:
GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL
GRANT PROJECT APPROVAL WrM CONDITIONS NOTED
u Copy of CONDITIONS given to owner/contractor by inspector
FAILED FINAL INSPECTION - OUTSTANDING ISSUES
a Copy of CORRECTION NOTICE given to owner/contractor by inspector
2.
3.
RE-WSPECTED OUTSTANDING ISSUES - GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL
Date_ Si
ocaprvl.doc.l:tenip:bldg:fomuIO/OI
z
M
C M
MO
0
80
C
MM
z
0 --1
co
0 -n
n
-1
M M
0
0
0 M
C (0
90)
M 0
Z
;0
-1
z
--q
3:
65
z
5
M
RECORD OF INSPECTIONS
INSPECTOR DATE APPROVED
_7
SETBACKS ..................
FOUNDATION:
Footing..................
Wall .................
PledPorch .................
Retaining Wall ...........
Slab Insulation ..........
PLUMBING:
Underground .............
Rough -In ....... ....
rn
Commercial Final
HEATING:
Gas Test ...............
yn�
6'Z
Gas Piping .................
Equipment .................
Commercial Final
EXTERIOR SHEATHING
NAILING .....................
FRAMING ..........
INSULATION ...................
Floor Insulation
Wall Insulation ...........
Ceiling Insulation
SHEETROCK NAILING
SPECIAL INSPECTION
MISCELLANEOUS ..........
FINAL APPROVAL FOR
OCCUPANCY .............
4jjs,11q&66 _p
off
, X
z
Rh
M
C
M
0
0 , � :
C
IT!
z
jo 4
C4
H
M M
0 V; � I
0,
C
ITI
Z
:1
z
z
9
0
ITI