The URL can be used to link to this page

20040035.pdfDATE RECEIVED CITY OF EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION OWNER NAME/NAME OF BUSINESS M MAILING ADDRESS W z — 0 R L CITY ZIP TELEPHONE eoo`�41 61,72,772e) r-v Q, -2,7— Hr z;5--- 7,!��14-2 65--� j / 1; �)_ NAME I= ADDRESS CITY RVIA NAME ADDRESS CITY ZIP TELEPHONE 4�Dyez:t -60 TELEPHONE STATE LICENSE NUMBER EXPIRATION DATE ZIP PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL NO. NEW RESIDENTIAL ADDITION COMMERCIAL REMODEL MULTIFAMILY REPAIR GRADING _1675 CYDS- DEMOLISH TANK RETAINING WALL CARPO T ROCKERY (TYPE OF USE, BUWESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN: PERMIT EXPIRES j6VL,_' USE PERMIT ZONE NUMBER JOB SUITE/APT# ADDREF TIL"q NAME/SUBDIVISIO N NO, LOT NOj,, LID NO. t?_ LID FEE $ PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP TESCP Approved AW Permit Required Street Use Permit Roq-d 1/1 EXISTING PROPOSED Inspection Required REQUIRED DEDICATION FT Sidewalk Required Underground Wiring required METER SIZE LINE SIZE NO. OF. URES PRV REQUIRED 3,/ tt YE NO SA /T REMARKS OWNER/CONrRACIOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CON rROL/DRAINAGE IMSMC-jj&rj!> CBL # 1 (0 U I SNIGINEERING REVIEWE) 4P ) el 11� PLUMBING / MECH COMPLIANCE OR CHANGE OF USE SIGN FENCE ( X FT) OTHER FIRE SPRINKLER FIRE ALARM i NUMBER NUMBER OF CRITICAL OF c7!�z DWELLING JA ARE -AS STORIES I UNITS NUMBER DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE � WOOLTIMs i &�Rzwfrffi E �.m REVIEWED BY (7) r, vut DATE cc Uj z z 6 z Ili W VARIANCE OR CU SHORELINE OR ADB# INSPECTION BOND REOID . I POSTED I C3YES 'g�O S SEPA REVIEW SIGN AREA HEIGHT COMPLETE EXEMPT ALLOWED PROPOSED ALLOWED POSED I _ 1 -0, LOT COVERAGE REQUIRED SETBACKS (FT) PROPOSED SETBACKS (Fr.) ALLOWED PROPOSED FRONT SIDE REAR 1� I 14;�ONJ. LIRISI E REAR 0 ': - - 0 1 1 1 _ , I t i z zo z PARKING LOT AREA I PLANNING REVIEWED BY j6ATf, REO'D I PROVIDED CA N�l r__% .1 A i V_- , �1,4�qU, (3,. r 1 0. alk I C:1, CHECKED BY TYP TION OCCUPA t_ s7 GROUP SPECIAL INSPECTION JAREA OCCUPANT REQUIRED �QN LOAD D9YES REMARKS PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 108/FINAL INSPECTION REO'D F,::: /CID 12F,� f A,) VALUATION $ I Description Plan Check FEE -7 Description St ate Surcharge FEE &A< c:x,— li94 rn5gr HEAT SOURCE GLAZING % 10 LOT -SLOPE % e�A 1 6 1�3 �/v Building Permit City Surcharge —/—�7— PLAN CHECK NO: VESTED DATE Plumbing Mechanical THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO t: BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC Grading DOMAIN (CURBS. SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES. ETC.) WILL REQUIRE SEPARATE PERMISSION. Engr. Review PERMIT APPLICATION: 180DAYS IL PERMIT LIMIT I YEAR - PROVIDED WORK IS STARTED WITHIN 100 DAYS Engr. Inspection SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION 'APPLICANT. ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS. ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS Fire Review Plan Chk. Deposit IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF M EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND Fire Inspection Receipt # ir ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECILY x FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT HE 0 Landscapelnsp. Total Amt. Due �� _j DEEMED TO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE 0 01 NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITYS ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.- x - --- Recording Fee Receipt # I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION; THAT THE INFORMATION APPLICATION APPRIIJIVAL GIVEN IS CORRECT. AND THAT I AM THE OWNER, OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF THE OWNER. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC- CALL This application is not a permit until signed by the TION; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED Building Official or his/her Deputy: and Fees are paid, and IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO FOR INSPECTION receipt is acknowledged in space provided. WORKMEN�S-FOMPENSATION INSURANCE AND RCW 18.27, 1 OffICIAI - S QIGNA:ru DATE SIGNAT VREOWN�R' EN DA E SIGNEO (425) 1 _ _> < 771-0220 b/ft R171, SED BY AtfEN N(�/ EXT 1333 UNTIL 4V 1 IT IS UND� FU L TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTIFI- 0131GINAL - FILE YELLC�V' INIECTOR CATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC SECTION 109 PINK - OWNER GOLD - ASSESSOR 04,102 PRESS HARD -YOU ARE MAKING 5 COPIES GREEN - ACCOUNTING z 0 i 0 M —i -n M C M 0 0 40 0 C M M Z JD --i C x Cn 0 -n n M M 0 0 0 M M 0 Z z --i x W z 0 i 0 ITI EXISTING HOUSE UJI 2 FENCE CORNER IS OX LL WOOD FENCE CORNER IS 0.4'SOUTH OF NORTH AND 03 WEST OF PROPERTY UNF. PRnPFRTY CORNFR- R — ��5CS�IOESEWEI—1 Ir ACS_ QUARY ROCK 4"TO 6" FOR CONSTRUCTION ACCESS FIRE HYDRANT 182ND STREET SW (PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY) OOD FENCE HEIGHT CALULATIONS C t D"� 3 AVERAGE GRADE 368 MAX. RIDGE HEIGHT 396 ACTUAL 392 RIDGE HEIGHT DSm DOWN SPOUT FOOTING DRAIN DS TIGHT LINE z WATER LINE m 6 SIDE SEWER 2 810 SO. FT. OF I 4PERVIOUS AREA TOTAL EXCAVATION 400 YARDS LOT AREA m 9450 =TOE OF SLOPE 7� EXISTING HOUSE LU a z LU FENCE CORNER IS 0.4- ILL WOOD (ALL ED FENCE CORNER IS OWSOUTH OF NORTH AND 0.3'WEST F cl 0 PROP TY LINE. PROPERTY CORNER. PROP. LINE S 88008'50"E 134.99, VOO -...-:�6.5'WOOD FENCE 7 TOP OF SL PE OOD FENCE 0 �2 84— 7, PATI 7X1 5 DS A RETAINING WALL HEIGHT CALULATIONS < D 369 382 — rA"\ K B--� rC--'� /' �D AS - GA 80 u- 0 F 378 RETAINING WALL AVERAGE GRADE 368 W LU m c%j cn I 1890 SQ. FT. AX.. RIDGE HEIGHT 396 Mo 25- G A R AG EE ACTUAL 392 RIDGE HEIGHT w C4 > m 60— W I I FF 362 �T 37B 46' DS- DOWN SPOUT < 0 =i S'IL' rFENCE ci 6 FOOTING DRAIN �l m CL 376 tt- 241 -- — — — — -- DS TIGHT LINE ENCE c r 10 360 Al . L PORCH ts 74 U) — — — — — — — - 2 -91' 81. 273 z WATER LINE 56— z 04 SIDE SEWER 790 SQ. FT. 1 72 0 a: SIDE SEWER 411 0 n: 30' TYPE 2 DRIVE�14� STAIF S`k4 VALK —4— 2,810 SQ. FT. OF ------354 0 a: CATCH BASINS En -u-1- 68 — S—lcrp��68 wx— i IL IMPERVIOUS AREA W. a � 04 w , a. TOTAL EXCAVATION SIDE SEWER STUB 366 R, 400 YARDS Ju- u, A 64 --_PROP. LINE SILT FENCE 1 TI — LOT AREA -9460 �--- --l- .-- .-.,/ N 88008'50'% CONSTRUCTION ACCESS 182ND STREET SW (PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY) FIRE HYDRANT =====354 TOE OF SLOPE 7 ce) oe EXISTING HOUSE RIEC E IV ED z LL DEC' 2 9 2003 FENCE CORNER IS 0.4' NORTH AND OZWEST OF Lo FENCE CORNER IS OWSOUTH OF 0 PROPERTY LINE. PROPERTY CORNER. 0 PERMIT COUNTER PROP. LINE S 88'08'50"E --6.5'WOOD FENC�E L94 134.99' rx-m 0 T P OPE 'WOOD FENCE 6- S E III WALL HEIGHT CALULATIONS 382--- 72 74 4 63' PATI 15 41 1 369. A 369. t�: 8;�, B' 380 �382,07:i) 366 t36 9� -71 '\GAS �C4 RETAINING WALL q cn GA LL AVERAGE GRADI 0 1964 A F 7Z�- '- - ) a I., I" I - — _N, MAX.. RIDGE HEIGHT 396 1890 SQ. FT 2 ACTUAL 392 RIDGE HEIGHT GARA E 4 360 378 DS= DOWN SPOUT FF q -, /k SILT FENCE---,b 0 FOOTING DRAIN b L co C) -i 0 - 376 —W-- f b 1 —:L:�358— cl) w SILT c,j C I TIGHT LINE cy) FENCE Z4"3 �,360,1 B -374 t- I PORCH w o �1( _7 114 F -u 73y CL WATER LINE z 28g'y"---:— F1b.1-L--- 72 _j < —356— 1VA11 I I 1\1 N vv w rr 1 790 SQ. T _0 SIDE SEWER SIDE SEWEI tu '370 < a. - 30' a. DRIVEWAY 1, STAIF S VALK % <, TYPE CL CATCH AF 36a m 2 810 SQ. FT. OF 0 -w w a. IMPERVIOUS AREA Lo 0- c CN < u, 354-7 SI E SEW m .3 6 M- N TOTAL EXCAVATION SINS SILT-FENCE----�3613 400 YARDS STUB 366 � e_1 364 -_PROP. LINI cn cn 4 S CE)p d cn LOT AREA = 9450 N 88*08'50"W 134,99'-362 AfNS-- '352: 36o —360 R—ECEIVED SID S1 N 356 356 NOV 2 4 2003 S 354 T 0 54 OE OF SLOPE - PERMIT COUNTER cf) S A *11';.D ACe WATER TER ENCH MARK 355.81 QUARY ROCK 4" TO 6" FOR N 88008'50"W CONSTRUCTION ACCESS 182ND STREET SW \ b ----,_LINE IS CE cl RIGHT -A -WAY AE-1) By i- -ANNIW3 7 (PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY) FIRE _HXDRANT .; - ull DOUG JOHNSON CONSTRUCTION LEGAL:: LOT 43 HONEVIEW, ADDN, VOL. 13, PG. 19, BLCK 4. L SCALE 20'=l'-O' P.O. BOX MUKILTEO WA. 98275 i N. W. 1/4, N.W.1/4, SEC. 17, TWP, 27N. RANGE. 4 E., W.M. SNOHOMISH COUNTY WASHINGT 0 4257452813 Height Calculation/Grading Verification Worksheet Permit#: tqc�j+- Address: Date: A. Datum Point: -3 B. Datum Point Elevation: 0 rn C. Average Grade: (For Grading Verification Only) 1. Lowest Footing Elevation (shown on grading plan):- 2. Actual Footing Elevation: 3. Maximum Elevation Allowed:' (average grade) + 25' = _ 3C�G 3 4. Reference Point Elevation Shot to House: �datum elevation) + �� - S (grade to transit level line shot to house) =3 6. Measurements frorn line shot onto house to roof ridge: 3 ., 7o C;'I U Total 7. Actual Elevation: (reference point elevation) + _(measurements from #6)= 7 Conclusion: 7-)+,'f? (actual) isgreaterq"n (allowed); therefore the house is/ is not over the height requirement per ECDC 16.20.30 requirements LATEMMUILDINGWISC\Height CalculationGradinu Verification Worksheet.doc 0 LI 0 M rn 0 0 0 M M z W 0 -n n rn M 0-0) 0 r- 0 rn C 0) C W M 0 Z 7-1 z W z 0 M 01/05/200e 09:41 4257478551 GEOTECH PAGE 01 13256 NE 20" Sti-eet, Suite 16 GEOTECH' Belle-vue, "A'A 98005 CONSULTANTS5 INC. (425) 747-5618 FAX 747-8561 Memo To: Doug Johnson JH: 03422 ranWanp MIC Inc. Am James H. Stranqa� Jr., PX- z FAX: (4,25) 745-2813 Date. January 2, 2004 0 phone: (425) 745-2813 Pages: of 1 m Rre Lpndslide HIMard Area Concerns 3uuUvvvw--,L co -il X -1 Und Sirtmi, M C SdnwrWs, WaWmgtOn M a 0 Dear Mr. Johnson: 0 0 Wv, have reviewed our gecne&nioal Gtudy of the subject site and the copy of the EGDG M M z 2o,15B0.060.A,3.b provided, Based on our review of the documents and our knowledge of the su'oject site, it is our opinion, that the subject site does not meet the criteria set forth in the cited z sectiuf i ur 11,ie code, and is, therefore, not in a Landslido Hozard Area. Cn A 4111it- m"r at this tilme. Pleasc call w ith ony questions or If we can be of 0 -n -n vve trust this rTWITIQ further service. LJ BUILDING DL-'-:PT. JHS:Jhs Sincerely, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS INC. gmua= Jarnea H, Ftrango, Jr., RE. -Geotechnical Project Manager MICROFILM /0 V RECEIVED NOV 2 4 2003 13256 Northeast 20th Street, Suite 16 IEOTECH Bellevue. Washington 98005 CONSULTANTS, INC. PERMIT COUNTER ('425) 747-5618 FAN (42i) 747-8561 6 November 21, 2003 JN 03422 Doug Johnson Construction M 10 tROF I LM V P.O. Box 1508 Mukilteo, Washington 98275 Attention: Doug Johnson via facsimile: (425) 745-2813 z 0 Subject: Review of Plans 0 Proposed Residence M, 7320 Southwest 182nd Street Edmonds, Washington 5i --I Dear Mr. Johnson: We have completed a general review of the geotechnical aspects of the plans for the residence to be constructed at 7320 Southwest 182nd Street in Edmonds. We reviewed Sheets 1 through 10 of plans prepared by Leonard Sherstad and dated September 26, 2003, We also received a facsimile copy of an undated (sent on November 13, 2003) site plan and cross section prepared by Doug Johnson. We received Page 1 of 4 of the plan review comments from the City of Edmonds, dated November 7, 2003. We completed a geotechnical engineering study (GES) of this site on October 29,2003. 1. In regards to Comment 1.1 of the City of Edmonds corrections - Our explorations at the site indicate that very dense glacial till soils underlie 4 to 5 feet of looser weathered soils. Given the current inclinations of the site slopes, any potential slope instability at the site would be anticipated to be restricted to the looser near -surface soils without affecting the dense to very dense till soils. The proposed residence shall be founded on the very dense, native glacial till soils that, in our opinion, are not subject to slope instability at the site inclinations even when subject to a design earthquake. As discussed in the Seismic Considerations section of our GES (Page 4), the dense native soils are not subject to a loss of shear strength (liquefaction) because of their density. The comments in the Generai section (Page 3) of the GES regarding the potential for the site soils to become overly wet is related to general earthwork operations and the reuse of the site soils as structural fill. 2. In regards to Comment 1.3 of the City of Edmonds corrections — Following review of the documents, we have the following comments: Considering a 12-foot setback from the northern property line and when allowing for approximately 2 feet of working room behind the proposed basement wall, a cut of up to 17 feet would be possible if soil conditions are as expected. The conditions for making the steep cuts in the dense till soils are described in our GES. It appears that the finished floor elevations indicated on the supplied cross section are slightly higher than those depicted on the site plan. We understand that the elevations on the cross-section are the true proposed floor elevations. Based on these supplied excavation depths, it appears that the proposed temporary cut inclinations supplied in our report are satisfied. No extraneous excavation I(VI, M C M 0 0 0 0 C M M z 0 71 _n M M 0 0 M C Cl) K C0 Q 0 Z X 3: z z 0 M Doug Johnson Construction JN 03422 November 21, 2003 Page 2 into the slope shall be taken, or temporary shoring piling will be required. Our personnel should be onsite during the excavation to confirm soil conditions at depth. On the eastern portion of the structure (the area to the east of the garage), it appears that a rockery or retaining wall will be necessary to the north of the northern wall of the house to control the grades. A rockery could be used in this area, but since dense native soils will not likely be encountered behind the rockery in this location, its exposed height should be Z limited to 4 feet, and the lower two rows of rock units should be of three- to four -man size. 0 The base of the rockery should be excavated to bear on the dense native till soils. 0 Additional recommendations for rockery construction are included in our GES (Page 8). This M rockery will be located within the influence area of the basement foundation wall and will therefore enact a surcharge on the basement wall. The recommended surcharge would be a 70 psf uniform lateral pressure. M 0 The foundation drains shall be constructed as shown in our GES, and the wall backfill recommendations provided in our GES should be followed. In addition, a foundation drain should be installed behind the step-down wall between the garage level and the upper basement level. As discussed in our GES, no fill should be placed on the site slopes unless it is benched and keyed into the dense native soils and is compacted in accordance with our GES. In our judgement, considering the above clarifications, the plans conform to the recommendations in our geotechnical engineering report. If the recommendations and conditions of the geotechnical engineering report are satisfied during construction and use of the project, the proposed project will not increase the potential for soil movement. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. NjS-T ON s WA Iry I EX RES James H. Strange, Jr., P.E. Geotechnical Project Manager cc: Baker Engineers, Inc. — Edwin Baker, P.E., S.E. via facsimile: (425) 771-6558 JHS: esm GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. M0 0 -A 0 0 C M MZ _Z W 0 _n n M M 0 C-1) 0 r_ 0 M C 0) 9 Cl) Q 0 Z ;U Z Z 0 0 1711 GARY HAAKENSON CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR MIR 121 STH AVENUE NORTH EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: www.d.edmondsma.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning Building Engineering C. January 16, 2004 Doug Johnson DJC Inc. P.O. Box 1508 z 0 Mukilteo, WA 98275 0 M Dear Mr. Johnson, This letter is in response to your request to exceed the maximum allowed driveway slope of 14%. The submitted 14% M C letter and site plan, with noted elevations, indicates that site constraints prevent you from obtaining a the taining wall restriction that prevents you from lowering the house foundation any r" 0 —4 0 0 driveway slope. Due to re further, a maximum slope of 20% will be allowed for the entire driveway. The driveway slope must not to exceed 0 C 20% slope. M M z Please call the Engineering Inspection line at 425-771-0 220, ext. 1326, to schedule your driveway form inspection feel free to contact Jaime Hawkins > prior to pour. if you have any questions regarding these requirements please at 425-771-0220, ext. 1322. co 0 -n -n Thank M M cl): 0 0M AVID K. GEBERT, P.E. VI C: 0) 9 Cn CITY ENGINEER M 01 Z r Jh X z cc: X Street file W z Permit file #2003-480 0 0 M MICROFILM 9 Incorporated August fl, I S90 Sister City - Hekinan, Japan (425) 745-2813 RO. Box 1508 DOUG JOHNSON CONSTRUCTION9 INC. Cellular 1425) 876-0666 Mukilteo, WA 98275 Licensed Bonded GENERAL CONTRACTORS COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL Pax (425) 745-2813 d) Alp -r 2- X 44 AV5. z 0 0 A TE; d-1 14polzcs-T '22 z to IS2 A14 r;�, m C M 0 14, 0 0C 5C m m z 7-0 77MC .4c,7- —Z e4l-X7.41 -7,01L/ > d d 7'ge- 0) 0 -n 1511- S-e) Z -7-D mm 2-07�- of o e- 0 0 m 0) 4',-me- /-/eeo -r, Cl) 7719�,: mo Z >: z z 0 E'- -E VE D:..' 0 DEC-3-1-2003 m P T �00U 'NTER' pv� M10fROFILM 0- DA I LY, FIELD 'GEOrrIECH REPORT CONSU LTANTS, INC. TRAVELIPREP TIME z JOB NUMBER TIME ON SITE DATE 13256 NE 20Lh Street, Suite 16 // I �' I Bellevue, WA 98005 TIME OFF SITE DAY OF WEEK 425-747-5618 FAX 425-747-8561 tp HOUR�S TCHARGED W�EATHER A"m J0.13 LOCATION CLIENT/OWNER GENERAL CONTRACTOR GENERAL CONTRACTOR'S SUPERINTENDENT MILES PERMIT NUMBER z GRADING CONTRACTOR GRADING'SUPERINTENDENT VISITORS PAGE OF e. e Xr, f J Ile o) w"241 Lf/'- I —z-, LIS 1(11117.4 I'le - '1w'L 1plot( 971 If '71W 471 '11"1114 //1 ell 7 '1-1w //0 A, If If dW- /L 1. ;-)1'?1' �e' I //V /Z//-/ k�' le —/,/I/s 1'�J'e:et er Z I el �z ZZ 41e, iL ef�o Pe-12 eJ Zc, ZZ/1,11411 If Ilt 4,�IZZ f 7' el 42ke"ZI'drel-I -14: mf 41 e'i If Er- V E D -3-2004 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR. CITY OF EDMONDS NEXT SITE VISIT: COPY TO: SIGNATURE: eo r 1� n 111 DAILY FIELD REPORT o1E0r'r1ECH TRAVEUPREP TIME JOB NUMBER CONSULTANTS, INC. TIME ON SITE DATE 13256 NE 20th Street, Suite 16 TIME OFF SITE DAY OF WEEK Bellevue, WA 98005 425-747-5618 FAX 425-747-8561 HOURSCHARGED WEATHER JOB LOCATION CLIENTIOWNER GENERAL CONTRACTOR TGENERAL CONTRACTOR'S SUPERINTENDENT MILES PERMIT NUMBER GRADING CONTRACTOR GRADING ISU PERINTENOENT VISITORS PAGE OF z t e14- S 4W4 6c) k I IK� li.lk teo 5r e, x I 1<1/.S le A, Z-/ f —//(I 1c. s e -;e. f 4�, lo je'K �20c� q x jV '4111111d lie. 41-1 L)(' jC/ fd v III-Alldle* t--e� t) 1el I// Ilt'- I 'I. q / 'A /o jw 14/'2' 1 ell j /%"'7 2004 D I �-LQPMENT SERVICES CTR. NEXT SITE VISIT: SIGNATURE: e' COPY TO. DAILY FIELD REPORT 01BO"rECH I? TRAVELIPREP TIME JOB NUMBER A CONSULTANTS? INC. -1 ell TIME ON SITE DAT E 13256 NE 20th Street, Suite 16 TIME OFF SITE DAY OF WEEK Bellevue, WA 98005 425-747-5618 FAX 425-747-8561 HOURS CHARGED WEATHER JOB LOCATION CLIENT/OWNER &I A GENERAL CONTRACTOR GENERAL CONTR ACTOR'S SUPERINTENDENT MILES PERMIT NUMBER /AIP GRADING CONTRACTOR GRADING -SUPERINTENDENT VISITORS PAGE OF z ve" - I t-1;eIll zi i,,,1- e'l, Ile A.,11, e //I- r z w Itz, /L I�YLI Ll�-f -41/ t1. V livr ie' lt� X p -yx', 5 f 1 A 4 /t, z�W4,/'I If, Al w -4 ; C/ I /h- IL)Ifle I? /o P t, Ix -Ive k4 I-rfll e-ill -57ZI, 5 Z rx L L4( /'/( I r - h; 41) P114 j 1A bi P1111 III I Id. L/ d// Alld 5r� k t Jmiof. If I I ci-I 1' -16,1- lAr /L�/, 1�"4 1 41 I'd d vi" I r c Ir /I I - �nv) rf�rl —7� i(Irloq 0 t101111111w Of 'lift el RECEIVED UUFMENT—S�ES FCTR. CITY OF EDMONDS NEXT SITE VISIT: —[�ZNATURE: COPYTO m -n cl) --i m c rn 0 0 0 0 c m m z c cl) 0 71 n mm 0 0 rn c cf) 90) M 0 Z z z 0 0 m DAILY FIELD REPORT OEOrrECH TRAVEL]PREP TIME JOB NUMBER CONSULTANTS-P INC. TIME ON SITE DATE 13256 NE 20th Street, Suite 16 TIME OFF SITE DAY OF WEEK Bellevue, WA 98005 425-747-5618 FAX 425-747-8561 HOUR SCHARGED ATHER JOB LOCATION CLIENT/OWNER GENERAL CONTRACTOR GENERAL CONTRACTOR'S SUPERINTENDENT MILES PERMIT NUMBER z GRADING CONTRACTOR GRADING SUPERINTENDENT VISITORS PAGE OF 2— 114V t Id I I If/, I, I (W V I ftu I I o I-? oluLI'Led r?o tk ri ici A Ij 4,e I I'le //v I-/ t I -A it lid 41 /1 c� 1, Ul L."It (if A :5-i"IA5 re-ye4l, 1,/t.,// ot 1, 1 k" /I -'r I (e it ItIl /L 74/ 4 jc? ha .64,L) 6"Le IC't L-1 k),c At, 4. /p e-!P -//�fv I �e'IICC�drl 6�4r FEB 2 3 2004 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR. �!T F-EDWND&- NEXT SITE VISIT: L COPY TO. SIGNATURE z c m m z c —Z > 3: cn 0 -n M m M 0 0 M C C/) MCI) M 0 Z z c/) z 0 m 0, GARY HAAKENSON CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: www.d.edmondsma.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning - Building Engineering June 16, 2004 Z 0 Doug Johnson Construction Inc. PO Box 1508 M Mukilteo, WA 98275 =n- M Re: Second Address Correction C M 0 0 -10 Dear Mr. Johnson: 0 C M M Z This letter is to inform you of an address correction. It has been brought to our 0 182nd Street SW. Changing attention that you have changed the access to 732 C 2 rd > 73 the access will require changing the address. Your new address is 18117 Avenue W. One digit was mistakenly left off the address with the first address Cn I will inform all City Divisions including Fire, Police, Utility 0 correction letter. n Billing, Public Works and Building. M M It is your responsibility to inform the Post Office and all other interested parties of 0 V5 0 0 M this correction. We apologize for the inconvenience this may cause you and C Cn greatly appreciate your cooperation. 9 Cn Q 0 Z Sincerely, Z 4a fr Ne �r r Ps Z Development Services 0 0 Cc: Fire Department M Police Department Utility Billing Public Works Building Official/Street File Snohomish County Assessor Address Files Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister City - Hekinan, Japan GARY HAAKENSON CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR 121 5TH AVENUE NORTI I EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771 -0220 FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: vmwdedmondsma.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT C)" Planning Building Engineering August 11, 2004 0 Doug Johnson Construction Inc. 0 M PO BOX 1508 Mukilteo, WA 98275 :q 0 M C Re: Building Permit: 2004-0035 M 0 0 0 Site Address: 18117 73 r" Ave W. C Expiration Date: January 6, 2005 M M Z The purpose of this letter is to inforni you that the last remaining inspection on your r --A project is a final inspection(s). The final inspection(s) determines that there are no ui outstanding life -safety issues and approval allows the City to close your pennit file. 0 -n The City considers the final inspection to be one of the most important inspections M M conducted on a project. In order to grant final approval the following must be com plete: 0 C—D 0 -close doors between garage smoke detectors, house numbers, guardrails, handrails, self 0 M C CD and rcsidence, egress from sleeping rooms, safety glazing, weather-stripping, any M CD M 0 a Engineering department requirements etc. Of course not all of these things 11-lay specifically apply to your project but it does give you an idea about the kinds of things that must be complete as well as some items that do not need to be installed such as: paint, carpet, moldings, wallpaper, etc. Please be advised permits expire one year from the date of issuance. If you will need more time to complete the work, permits can be Z renewed prior to expiration for one half fees. If tile pen -nit expires without a tinal approval granted by the Building Inspector, full fees are required in order to renew the permit. This can be very costly to you and we strongly encourage you to check your pern-iit expiration date and call for the requited final inspection(s). Note: If more than one department is required to final your project, this is noted on your Job Card. Please feel free to contact me at 425-771-0220 if you have any questions. ncerely, J . *iney eReadCvv(�n iny Readwin Pcrmit Coordinator 1,VI'emI)\DST'sVvI aster I_ettcr.s\SIZwaaniLtrS Fit Incorporated August 11, 1890 0,icfor Cifsi - HoltinAl" 171n-,'n S 7ANDARD DRAINAGE DETENTION SYSTEM 1JR__% WORKSHEET -1) 6 L.,)&- Z-6A kSA00 1_1460-1 AO�SI'22-,Z�' CAMBY: OWNER rRONE: DATE: — IMPERVIOUS AREA 5_5 626 fe *****DESIGN DATA*****. PIPE DIA PIPE LG U L FINISHED3 I MTENTION PIPE LENGTH MINIMUM MINIMUM TIGHTL ZX TO IX SLOPE UPPER CATCH BASIN ORIFIC.E *AZAW6 or CDC IOX OR RISER TLET it q -k* OUTLET CONTROL IN. CONTROL CATCH BASIN SYSTEM CROSS SECTION 2'XVX6'.DEEP, 4-6' SPALLS OR EOUAL ' e FROM CONTROL CB 2'X 2'X 3' DEEP, 3/4' CRUSHED ROCK rROM CONTROL I U*L1" " -040 r LdW& 'ZOUTF V LEVEL L5' rRrLPDPfTRM 1� NIN I PERF PIPE W/ END CAPS ��7pp TR SHALL&HEMNEd IWI IATSHKI�' RAIN N= PRUHTO PLA Awpjup ounEr RUNOFF SPREADER. TRENCH FOOTING DRMNS SHAU NOT -BE CONNECTED TO DETENTION SYSTEM ==I I __ NOTES: 1. Call Engineering Division C771-MO) for a fightline and detentioa system insPecti0a before backfdfing and for final inspections. 2, Responsibility for opera . ti . on and maintenance o . f drainage systems on PrivaW.Pr0PeftY is the ibility of the property owner. Material accumulated in the -storage pipe must be flushed responsi et c0nt3r0 rifice out and removed from the catch basins to allow proper operation. Ile 01111 10 must be keut oDen at all times. A4 APPROVED BY z 0 i 0 M —i n Vi --I 3: 0 M C M0 0 --1 0 0 C: --I K 3: M M z cl) 0 -n n M M q F) 0 r- 0 M C cl) r. co M 0 Z z z 0 1 0 M City Of Edmonds October 20 2003 z 0 Planning & Engineering 1215" Ave. N. M, Edmonds, WA 98020 Att: Ms. Daniel Gilbert om C M 0 0. Re: sidewalk, driveway slope: 00, C -4 X M Dear Ms. Gilbert: M Z This letter is to request a site review and waiver of sidewalk requirements and a C Z' necessary waiver to allow for a 20% driveway grade due topography; for an existing lot CD nd St. @ 7320 182 SW Edmonds. 0 -n -n Due to existing open ditches in the surrounding area with no other sidewalks elsewhere, I M M would like to be allowed to install 12" abs pipe with a type I catch basin at comer) in existing ditch and fill in and grade with rock. 0 M C C() C W M 01 Z Sincerely, z Douglas G. Johnson C- 3: Cn OCT 3 0 z 0 BUILDIN(i DEPT 0 M r-'4 I ---' -'X Y - IF11h *r CUVV 4/0 (4 IdObl t2LU I LUH PAGE 01 13256 Nomhwt 20th Suta, Suite 16 C,]RC)-r]FCH YJc11cvuz, Wwhinftton 98005 0 CONStILTANTS. INC. (425) 747-5618 FAX (425) 747-8561 October 29, 2003 JN 03422 DOLIQ Johnson Construction P.O. Box 1508 Mukilteo, Washington 98275 z 0 Attention- Doug Johnson via facs1mile: (425) 745-2813 0 Subject: Tranernittal Letter — Gootechnicall Engineering Study R1 Proposed Residence 72XX $outhwest 182nd Street Edmonds, Washington X 0 M C M Dear Mr, Johnson: 0 00 Wo ury pl@z1c1Dd to precent thle geotachni=l engineering report for tho rocidonco to bo oonatruotod in Edmonds, Washington, The scope of our services consisted of exploring site surface and subsurface conditions, and then developing this report to provide recommendations for general earthwork and design criteria for foundations and retaining walls. This work was authorize'd by your acceptance of our proposal dated October 28, 2003, The attached report contains a discussion of the study and our recommendations. Please contact us If there are any questions regarding this report, or for further assistance during the design and construction phases of this project. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Jame�sH, Strange, Jr., P.E, Geotechnical Project Manager cc: Saker Engineers, Inc. — Edwin Baker, P.E., S.E. vla facsimfiv (425) 771-6558 JHS: esm 0 DEPT, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC. MM M z I[) o -n n m M 055 0 r- 0 M C co K C/) M 0 Z z z 0 4 0 m Aut d..Pt 4QUO A 1 44-0 ULU I WIN H A I-+- U J Doug John,son Construction JN 03422 October 29, 2003 Page 2 Soil Condition The two test pits on the site revealed very dense, native, gravelly. silty sands underlying 4 to 5 feet of loose to medium -dense, weathered silty sands. The very dense sands encountered In the test plts are commonly referred to as glacial till. Although our explorations did not encounter cobbles or boulders, they are often found in glacial till soils. z 0 Grou dwater Conditions -4 0 No groundwater seepage was observed in our test pits. However, the test pits were excavated at the and of an extended period of dry vveather and were left open for only a --i -n short time period, Therefore, the absence of seepage levels on the logs should not be --j assumed to preclude seepage in future excavations. m C It should be noted that groundwater levels vary seasonally Vdth rainfall and other factors. m 0 0 0 We anticipate that groundwater could be found in more permeable soil layers or pockets C within the till and between the near -surface weathered soil and the underlying denser glacial M till. M Z The final logs represent our interpretations of the field logs. The stratification lines an the logs rpprp",nt thp npprn-girnsti- hniindsrii-s hPtw,-Pn snil tyrps st thp i-ypinr*1nn Innntions. Tho WALI-al transition between soil types may be gradual, and subsurface conditions can vary between exploration locations. The logs provide specific subsurface Information only at the locations tested. The relative densities and moisture descriptions Indicated on the test pit logs are interpretive descriptions based on the conditions observed during excavation. The compacdon of backfill was not in the scope of our services. Loose soil will therefore be found in the area of the test Pits. If this presents a problem, the backflll will need to be removed and replaced with structural fill during construction. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL 7/4/S SECTION CONTAINS A SUMMARY OF OUR STUDY AND FINDINGS FOR THE PURPOSES OF A GENERAL OVERVIEW ONLY. MORE SP5CIFIC RJ5C0A§MeN1)A771ONS AND CONCLUSIONS Af�F CoAfrAINEID IN rHEREMAINDER OF THIS REPORT. ANY PARTY REJ YING ON THIS REPORT SHOULD READ THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT The test pits conducted for this study encountered very dense glacial till soils underlying approximately 4 to 5 feet of loose to medium -dense weathered soils, Due to the slope of the site, we would recommend excavating all of the proposed footings on the southern edge of the site to beer directly on the very dense till soils. Remaining footings should 1:Ie excavated to bear on the very dense soils. but may be restored to the proposed footing grade with structural fill if necessary, GEOMH CONSUL-IANTS, INC, 10-1 C 0 o -n n m M a 0 0 M C: (n 9 Cn M 0 Z X --I 3: z Cn z 0 1 0 m it:.Lf 4/_014td0b1 ULUILUH PAGE 02 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Proposed Residence 72XX Southwest 182nd Street Edmonds, Washington This report presents the findings and recommendations of our geotechnical engineering study for the site of the proposed residence to be located at 72XX Southwest 182nd Street in Edmonds,' Development of the property is In the planning stage, and detailed plans were not made available to us. The site plan provided to us showed site topography and the proposed house footprint. The plan Indicates that the new house will be located approximately 12 feet from the nQrthem property line, 25 feet from the eastern and southern property lines, and 45 fibet from the western property line. l'inished floor elevations were also indicated on the plan as 375 feet (main floor); 384 rWWJ (basement): and 360 feet (garage). Based onjhpe plans and discussion with you, we understand that the current plan calls for cuts of up to ,2T'Met below the existing grade near the northeastern corner of the proposed residence. Cuts of this depth at the proposed location of the house would require excavation sharing, but we also understand that you will be adjusting the location and f1mishao flaae alavatiam af the realelaAas as that you eam avoid shorlmg im this area. Sf rF COND177ONS SURFACE The Vicinity Map, Plate 1, illustrates the general location of the she. The subject site Is located on the northeastern comer of the Intersectlon of 73rd Avenue West and Southwest *162nd Street. Open ditches line the property along the right-cf-way5 to the south and west. The property to the north Is developed with a two-story residence located approximately 12 feet from the common property line. This adjacent house ricws not hiave a basement on It southern end, and the ap2ce between the house and the property'llne is used as storage. The adjacent property to the east is developed with a house that'lls remote from the subject site. The -site slopes up moderately from the street to the north, and site grades vary from 25 to near 40 percent. A locally steeper area (less than 10 feet tall) exists along portions of the northern property line where the neighbor appears to have placed fill soils in the past. The property is vegetated with scattered deciduous trees and moderately donee undergrowth. No inclicsti=5 of elope inatabiliti on the subject site were observed during our visit, SUBSURFACE The subsurface conditions were explored by excavating two test Pits at the approximate locations shown on the Site Exploration Plan, Plate 2. Our exploration program was based on the proposed construction, anticipated subsurface conditions and those encountered durIng explorabon, and the scope of work outlined in our proposal. The test pits were excavated on October 6, 2003 with a tracked ba ' ckhoe. A geotechnical engineer from our staff observed the excavation process, logged the test pits, and obtained representative samples of the soil encountered. "Grab" samples of selected subsurface soil were collected from the backhoe bucket, The Test Pit Loge are attached to this report as Plate 3. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. z 0 0 M =i 9 U5 -4 X M C MID 0 -10 0 C: X M MZ 0 _n n --4 m M 0 0 0 m C 0) K C/) m 0 Z X --i > z --i z 0 1 0 m 414:)14 tUbbi ULU I LCH PALE 04 Doug Johnson Construction JN 03422 October 29, 2003 Page 3 The proposed cuts to install the house basement are a concern as they approach the northern property line. Maximum temporary out slope Inclinations are included in the Excavations and Slope5 section of this report. If these slope cuts cannot be maintained on the subject property, excavation shoring would be required, Based on the plans provided, it appears that to avoid d shoring, the basement would need to be pulled out away from the northern edge of the house and a relatively shallow crawl space constructed along this no ' qhern edge of the structure: the layout of tho ctructuro adjuctod; or tha finichod floor hoighte micod - I Tho cut clopo inclination allawod fop tl�a glacial till soils is very steep and since the test pits did not extend to the maximum proposed cut Z 0 depth, we recommend that our engineers visit the site during excavation to confirm that competent --I cemented till soils are encountered to the base of the excavation. If the till layer is penetrated or 0 m significant groundwater Is encountered In the out, a modification of the temporary cut slope Inclination, drainage, or excavation shoring could be required. Planned cut slope$ should also -n reflect a reasonable amount of working space at the toe of the cut to allow stripping wall forms, Cn installation of dTains, and waterproofing. Aggressively extending the excavation outside the X 0 M building envelope to the north should be avoided as it could result In oversteepened cut slopes and C m 0 the need for excavation shoring. 0 0 0 C Any fill placed on this sloping porlions of the lot should be benched -4ind keyed into the drones notive soils; placed In horizontal lifts, and properly compacted as detailed in the General Earthwor* and Strucilural Fill section of this report, A significant geotechnical consideration for development of this site is the potential for the site soils to become overly moist to wet through rain or groundwater. Based an our observations, the moisture contents of the on -site soils at the time of excavation were generally below the optimum moisture content necessary for the required structural fill compaction, However, the test pits were excavated at the and of a long period of dry weather, and we would expect the moisture Content of the soils to be much higher during or following the wetter seasons of the year and following significant rainfall events. The onsite, fine-grained silty soils are sensitive to moisture, which makes them Impossible to adequately compact when they have moisture contents even 2 to 3 percent above or below their optimum moisture content. The reuse of these soils as structural fill on the site will only be successful when their moisture contents can be controlled through the additon of water or drying of the soils through aeration, Aeraticn of the soils would only be possible during hot, dry weather, Moisture conditioning of each loose lift of soil will be required to bdng it to a compactable moisture content before the lift is compacted. The earthwork contractor must be prepared to rework areas that do not achieve prop6r compaction due to high moisture content, Imported granular fill will be needed wherever it is not possible to dry the on -site soils sufficiently before compaction. The drainage and/or waterproofing recommendations presented in this report are intended only to prevent active seepage from flowing through concrete walls or slabs. Even In the absence of active seepage into and beneath structures, water vapor Can migrate through walls, slabs, and floors from the surrounding soil, and can even be transmitted from slabs and foundation walls due to 1he concrete curing process. Water vapor also results from occupant uses, such as cooking and bathing. Excessive water vapor trapped within structures can result In a variety of undesirable. conditions, Including, but not limited to, moisture problems with flooring systems, excessively moist air within occupied areas, and the growth of molds, fungi, and other biological organisms that may be harmful to the health of the occupants, The designer or architect rnust consider the potential vapor sources and likely occupant uses, and provide sufficient ventilation, either passive or mechimical, to prevent Fi hidirl iip nf F-yrPsgim- mfpdr-tr vapnr within the planned sfn inti irp GEOTSCH CONSULTANTS, INC, --I K M M mZ JO --i C _Z C') 0 -n n m M 0 5) 0 r- 0 M C: ct) 9 C() M 0 Z ;U Z X 65 Z 0 i 0 m 1U/2W2IJUJ lf:it ULU I LUH IJAL+- Ub Doug Johnson construction JN 03422 October 29, 2003 Page 4 The erosion control measures needed during the site development will depend heavily on the weather conditions that are encountered. Site clearing will expose a large area of bare soil, and the erosion potential on the site would be considered moderate to high due to the slope of the ground and the silt content of the native soils, Therefore, we recommend that erosion control measures be Implemented during the development of the site. We anticipate that a silt fence will be needed around the downslope sides of any cleared areas. Rocked construction access roads Ghould bo oxtondod into tho cito to roducc tho cimount of mud carried off the property by trucks and equipment. Wherever possible, these roads should follow the alignment of planned pavements. z Cut slopes and soil stockpiles should be covered with plastic during wet weather. Following rough 0 grading, it may be necessary to mulch or hydroseed bare areas thht will not be immediately covered with landscaping or an impervious surface. I M Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be allowed to review the final development plans to verify that the recommendations presented in this report are adequately addressed in the design. Such a plan review would be additional work beyond the current %cope of work for this study, and it may Include revisions to our recommendations to accommodate site, development, and geotechnical constraints that become more evident during the review process. We reoQmmend including this report, in its entirety, In the project contract documents. This report should also be provided to any future property owners so they will be aware of our findings and recommendations. sEISMIC 0ONSIDERATIONS The site Is located within $eismic Zone 3, as illustrated on Figure No. 16-2 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (USC). In accordance with Table 1&i of the 1997 UBC, the site soil profile within 100 feet of the ground surface is best represented by Soil Profile Type So (Very Dense Soil). The design criteria presented in this report consider the effects of a one-in-100-years seismic event. The site soils are not susceptible to seismic liquefaction because of their dense nature and the absence of near�-surface groundwater, CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATIONS The proposed structure can be supported an conventional coniinuous and spread footings bearing on undisturbed, dense native glacial till soil. As discussed in the General section, the footing$ along tho southern edge of the etructure ehould be exc;9vated to bear diro,01y Qn the dense native soils, but the remaining footings may be overexcavated to the dense native soils and restored to tho nmrnrpd fnntino C;rmr]R with (%rirnT-A&Ari c4trijmtiml fill qAa thR speflon Pnfltlpd Ganaral Earthwork and Striucturai Fill for recommendations regarding the placement and compaction of structural fill beneath structures, We recommend that continuous and individual spread footings have minimum widths of 16 and 24 inches, respectively. Footings should also be bottomed at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent finish ground surface. The l000l building codes should be reviewed to determine If different footing widths or embedment depths are required, Footing subgrades must be cleaned of loose or disturbed soil prior to pouring concrete, Depending upon site and equipment constraints, this may require removing the disturbed soil by hand. Depending on the final site grades, overexcavation M ' ey be required below the footings to expose Competent native soil. Unless lean concrete is used to fill an overexcavated hole, the overexcavation must be at least as wide at the bottom as the sum of the depth of the GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. 5i m 0 0 0 0 C M M MZ Jz) C 0 m M 0 —M 0 r- 0 m Cl) Cn M 0 Z 71 > z z 0 1 0 m d6j, &UWIJ L f A t "ILje4 t 0�jol Ur_U 1 r-111ri �IAUL Ub Doug Johnson Construction JN 03422 October 29, 2003 Page 5 overexcavation and the footing width. For example, an overexcavation extending 2 feet below the bottom of a 2-foot-wide footing must be at least 4 feet wide at the base of the excavation. If lean concrete is used, the overexcavation need only extend 6 inches beyond the edges of the footing, An allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf) is appropriate for footings constructed as described In this report and supported on competent native soil. A one-third increase in this design bearing pressure may be used when considering short-term wind or seismic I ` loads For the above desian criteria it is anticipated that the total post -construction settlement of footings founded on competent native soil, or on structural fill up to 5 feet in thickness, will be three. quarters of an inch, with differenUal settlements on the order of one-half inch In a distance of 50 feet along a continuou5 footing with a uniform load. Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction be*teen the foundation and the bearing soil, or by passive earth pressure acting on the vertical, embedded portions of the foundation. For the latter condition, the foundation must be either poured directly against ral3fively level, undisturbed soil or be surrounded by level structural fill, We recommend using the following ultimate values for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading: L;oettcient or i-riction U.4b Passive Earth Pressure 350 pcf Whom: (1) pef Is pounds per cubic foot, and (11) passivo earth pressure is womputed using the equivalentfluid density. If the ground in front of a foundation is loose or sloping, the passive earth pressure given above will not be appropriate. We recommend maintaining a safety factor of at least 1.5 for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading, when using the above ultimate values. PERMANENT FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS Retaining walls backfilled on only one side should be designed to resist the lateral earth pressures imposed by the soil they retain. The following recommended parameters are for walls that restrain level backfill: GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. z 0 i 0 m M C mo 0 -10 0C --I K X M M Z -i _Z C/) 0 _n n M M 0 —0) 0 r- 0 M C cl) ?. Cl) M 0 Z ;U z M z 0 0 m 0 f 4ZO 14 ft:10bl HAL-*- U I Doug Johnson Constructfon JN 03422 October 29, 2003 Page 6 Active Earth Pressure 35 pcf Passive Earth Pressure 350 Pci Coefficient of Friction 0.45 $oil UnItWelght 130 Pcf Whem: (1) pef is pounds per cubir foot, and (G) activo and passive earth pressures are computed using the equivalent fluid Z pressures. 0 For a restrained wall that onnot clefloot M 10W 0,00Z times its 0 tlqigK a unifom ixtirel pr"sure equal to.10 psf times the height M of the wall should be added to the above active equivalent fluid pressure. -n The values given above are to be used to design permanent foundation and retaining walls only. The V21USS for friction and passive resistance are ultimate values and do not Include a Safety factor, We recommend 2 safety factor of at least 1.5 for overturning and sliding, when using the above values to design the walls. Restrained wall soil parameters should be utilized flar a distance of 1.5 times the wall height from comers or bends in the walls. This is Intended to reduce the elmount of cracking that can occur where a wall Is restrained by a corner. The design values given above do not Include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures behind the walls and assume that no surcharges, such as those caused by slopes, vehicles, or adjacent foundations will be exerted on the walls. If these conditions exist, those pressures should be added to the above lateral soil pressures. Where sloping backfill Is desired behind the walls, we will need to be given the wall dimensions and the slope of the backi'lil in order to provide the appropriate design earth pressures. Heavy construction equipment snould not be operated oenincl retaining and Tounclation walls witnin a distance equal to the height of a wall, unless the walls are designed for the additional lateral presSures resulting trom tMe equipment. I ne wall clesign ontena assume tnai the DacKtill will be well -compacted in lifts no thicker than 12 Inches. The compaction of backfill near the wells should be accomplished with hand -operated equipment to prevent the walls from being overloaded by the higher soil forces that occur during compaction, Retaining Wall Backrill and Waferproorin Backfill placed behind retaining or foundation walls should be coarse, free -draining structural fill containing no organics. This backfill should contain no more than 5 percent silt or clay particles and have no gravel greater than 4 inches In diameter. The percentage of particles passing the No. 4 sieve should be between 25 and 70 percent. If the native silty sand Is used as backfill, a minimum 12-inch width of free -draining soil (such as imported builder's sand or pit -run sand and gravel) and a drainage composite similar to Miradrain 6000 should be placed against the backfilled retaining walls. The drainage composites should be hydraulically connected to the foundation drain system. Free -draining backfill or gravel should be used for the entire width of the backfill where seepage is encountered. For increased protection, drainage composites should be placed along cut slope flaces, and the walls should be backfilled entirely with freeI--draining soil. GEOTSCH CONSULTANIS. INU M C m 0 0 C M M Z C _Z 0) 0 _n n m M 0 U5 0 r- 0 M C: cl) 9 Cn M 0 Z X Z U5 Z 0 1 0 m I 0 ooug Johnson Construct.on JN OZ422 October 29, 2003 Page 7 The purpose of these backfill requirements is to ensure that the design criteria for a retaining wall are not exceeded because of a build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. The top 12 to IS inches of the backfill should consist of a compacted, relatively Impermeable soil or topsoil, or the surface should be paved. The ground surface must also slope away from backfilled walls to reduce the potential for surface water to percolate into the backfill. The section entitled General EarthworAr and Structural Fill contains recommendations regarding the placement and compaction of structural fill behind retaining and foundation walls. The above recommendations are not Intended to waterproof below�grade walls. Over time, the performance of subsurface drainage systems can degrade, subsurface groundwater flow patterns oan change, and utilities can break or develop leaks, ' Therefore, waterproofing should be provided where future seeMe through the walls is not acceptable. This typically Includes limiting cold -joints and wall penetrations, and using bentonite panels or membranes on the outside of the walls. Waterproofing systems should be installed by an expw itel iut::d UUI III cal.tV Millillar w1bi tic anticipated coristruatiaM amd $Ubsuffeee e6mdifiams- Applying a thin coat of asphalt emulsion to the outside face of a wall is not considered waterproofing, and will only help to reduce moisture generated from water vapor or capillary action from seeping through the concrete.. As with ahy project adequate ventilation of basement and crawl space areas is important to prevent a build up of water vapor that is commonly transmitted through concrete walls from the surrounding soil, even when seepage Is not present. This is appropriate even \A/hen waterproofing is applied to the outside of foundation and retaining walls, ihe General, Slabs-On-Orade, wnU Dridrtuyv Curtaddwradvtm wit-Liwitz, *I1VVlJ 1.)v reviewed for additional recommendations related to the control of groundwater and excess water vapor for the anticipated construction. SL.ABS-ON-GRADE The building floors may be constructed as stabs -on -grade atop medium -dense native soil, or on structural fill placed above competent native scils. The subgrade soil must be in a firm, non - yielding condItIon at the tIFTit: Ur bIdU UU11tilluu1jull ul uIIjwI* * IOU Fill fjl4e,*ment. Any .5oft area3 encountered should be excavated and replaced with select, Imported structural fill. All slabs -on -grade should be underlain by a capillary break or drainage layer ccnsistlng of a minimum 4-inch thickness of coarse, free -draining structural fill with a gradation similar to that discussed In Permanent Foundation and Retaining Wails. As noted by the Amedcan Concrete Institute (ACI) in the Guides For Concrete Floor and Slab Structures, proper moisture protection is desirable irnim-.diately, below any on -grade alab that will bc Covered by tile, wood, carpot, impermeable floor coverings, or any moisture -sensitive equipment or products. ACI also notes that vapor retarders, such as 6-mil plastic sheeting, are typically used, A vapor retarder Is defined as a material with a permeance of less than 0.3 US perms per square foot (psf) per hour, as determined by ASTM 1- 96, it Is possible that concrete admixtures may meet this specification, although the manufacturers of the admixtures should be consulted. Where plastic sheeting is used under slabs, joints should ovedep by at least 6 inches and be sealed with adhesive tape. The sheeting should extend to the foundation walls for maximum vapor protection. if no potential for vapor passage through the slab is desired, a vapor barrier should be used. A vapor barrier, as defined by ACI: is a product with a water transmission rate of 0,00 perms per square foot per hour when tested In GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. z 0 4 0 m "q 9 55 j M 0 m C M 0 0 0 C —4 r. M M M Z 10--i C 0 -n mm 055 0 r- 0 M C (J) 9 W M 0 Z r z 0) z 0 1 0 M ULU I EQH PA5E 09 Doug Johnson Construction A 03422 October 29, 2003 Page 8 accordance with ASTM E 96. Reinforced membranes having sealed overlaps can meet this requirement. in the recent past, ACI (Section 41.5) recommended that a minimum of 4 inches of well -graded compactable granular material, such as a 5/8 inch minus crushed rock Pavement base, should be placed over the vapor retarder or barrier for protection of the retarder or barrier and as a "blotter" to aid In the cudng of the concrete slab. Sand was not recommended by ACI for this purpose. However, the use of rnwlvii�jl vvt�r the Vapor retarder Is controversial as noted In current A01 literature because of the potential that the proteclion/blotte'r material can become wet between the time of Its placement and the installation of the slab. If the matedal is wet Prior to slab placement, which is ahAlays possible in the Puget bound area, it cou!a cause vapor transmission to occur up through the slab In the future. essentially destroying the purpose of the vapor barderfretarder. Therefore, if there is a potential that the protectiontblotter material will become wet be -fore the slab is installed, ACII now recommends that no protectionfblofter material be used. However, ACI then recommends that, because there is a potential for slab cure due to the loss ot the blotter material, joint spacing in the slab be reduced, a low shrinkage concrete mixture be used, and "other measures" (steel reinforcing, etc.) be used. ASTM F--1643-98 "Standard Practice for Installation of Water Vapor Retarders Used in Contact with Earth or Granular Fill Under Concrete Slabs" generally agrees with the recent ACI literature. We recommend that the contractor, the project materials engineer, and the owner discuss these issues and review recent ACI literature and ASTM E-1643 for Installation guidelines and guidance on the use oF ihe protection/blotter material. Our opinion is that with impervious surfaces that all means should be undertaken to reduce water vapor transmission. ROCKERIES We anticipate th2t mck.ories M2y be used in the site develnpmiant. A rnr.ki-ry is nnt inti-ndi-H tn runc,tiun aa c2n crisinc=rcd oirvoture to reoiat lateral earth pr000uro*, a* a rotaiming wall would do. The primary function of a rocKery Is to cover the exposed, v=;,ivwLwd sufraC* ;alld there0y retaixi the erosion process. We recommend limiting rockerles to an exposed height of 6 feet and placing them against only dense, competent native soil. The lower 12 inches of any rockery must be embedded below the finish grade that will exist at the face of the rockery, Rockeries that are taller than 6 feet, or that are placed in front crf loose soil or In areas of compacted fill will require additional engineering. The construction of rockedes is, to 2 large extent, an art not entirely controllable by engineering methods and standards, it is imperative that rookeries, if used, are constructed with care and in a proper manner by an experienced contractor with proven ability in rockery construction. The rookeries should be constructed with hard, sound, durable rock in accordance with accepted local practice and City of Edmonds standards. In general, the lowest two rows of rocks should have a minimum depth (as measured perpendicular to the rockery's face) of 113 of the rockery's height. Soft rock, or rock with a significant number of fractures or inclusions, should not be used, in order to limit the amount ol maintenance and repair neeaeci -over lime. t-rovisions for maintenance, such as access to the rookery, should be considered In the design, In general, we recommend that rockarles have a minimum dimension of one-third the height of the slope out above them. Tiered rockerie5 are not recommended, unless there Is sufficient space to construct Lipper tiers that do not exert lateral pressure on the lower fiers. The base of a tiered rockery's upper wall should be set back from the rear of the lower rocks an amount equal to the height of the lower tiers. GEOTECH cONSULTANTS. INC. z 0 1 0 M :q 9 M C M 0 0 C: --i K M M M Z JO o -n n m M 0 V; 0 r- 0 M C CD 9 Cn M 0 Z ;13 --A a: z --I M Cn z 0 i 5 M I U I 21J I ;Mull I f : I t 4�4:)l 4 tdObi ULU I LUH HftE I U Doug Johnson Construcdon JN 03422 October 29, 2003 page 9 EXCAVATIONS AND SLOPES Excavation slopes should not exceed the limits specified in local, state, and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts to a depth of about 4 feet may be attempted VertiC211Y in unsaturated soil, if there are no indications of slope instability. However, vertical cuts should not be made near property boundaries, or existing utilities and structures. Based upon Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 296, Part N, the dense soils at the subject site would generally be classified as Type A. Therefore, temporary cut slopes greater than 4 feet in height cannot be excavated at an Inclination steeper than 0.75:1 (Hodzontal:Vartical), extending continuously between the top and the bottom of a cut. It is our professional opinion that the very dense glacial fill soil on this site could be safely excavated to a temporary slope angle . of 0.5:1 (H:V). However, this is steeper than the recommend ations presented in WAC-296. If this steeper inclination is used for temporary cut slopes, a competent person must make a daily inspecton prior to the start of each work day to look for evidence of possible instability or hazardous conditions related to worker safety near the out slopes. A "competent person" is defined by WAC 296 as someone that can Identify existing or predictable hazards related ' to safety and exercise the authority to take corrective action to eliminate the hazard, if necessary. The upper soils above the dense till should still be inclined at a maximum of 0.751 (H:V), and the out slopes should be covered with weighted plastic sheeting as soon as completed. Additional considerations for the slope cuts at the site are includiad in the General section of this report. Tho abovc r000mmandod tomparary alopo inolinationa arc b000d an what han boon nuoccouful at other sites with similar soil conditions. Temporary cuts are those that will remain unsupported for a I w1ciliveply 61,1&1 dul,atlon to allow for tile k!,ollsiruction of foundation5, retaining Walls, or utiliti,66. Temporary out slopes should be protected with plastic sheeting during wet weather. The out slopes should also be backfilled or retained as soon as possible to reduce the potential for Instability. riamse mats that lease sell eam eave sudelamly and without WBPMIM§. r-Meavatlam, f8umdatiam, amd utility contractors should be made especially aware of this potential danger, All permanent cuts Into neLlve soil should be inclined no steeper than 2:1 (H:V). Fill slopes should also not be constructed with an inclination greater than 2:1 (H:V). Placement of structural fill on the site slopes is discussed in the Generel section of this report.. To reduce the potential for shallow sloughing, fill must be compacted to the face of these slopes. This can be accomplished by overbuilding the compacted fill and then trimming It back to Its final Inclination. Adequate compaction of the slope face is important for long-term Stability and is necessary to prevent excessive settlement of patios, slabs, foundations, or other improvements that may be placed near the edge of the slope. Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any temporary or permanent slope. All permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve the stability of the surficlal layer of soil. Topsoil Is often placed on regraded slopes to promote growth of vegetation. Proper preparation of the regraded surface, and use of appropriate topsail is necessary to prevent the topsoil from sliding off the slope. This is most likely to occur following extended wet weather If a silty topsoil Is used. On steeper slopes, it may be necessary to "track walk" the slope or cut small grooves across the slope prior to placing the topsoil. GEOTECH cONSULTANTS,!NC. Z 0 0 m =i :ii M C M 0 0 C -i K M M M Z r') --I C Cl) o -n m M 0 —Cf) 0 r- 0 M cl) Cn M 0 Z Z --I M 0) Z 0 4 0 m 1U12W21010d 1t:11 L:kU I LUH Doug Johnson Construction JN 03422 October 29, 2003 Page 10 DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS Foundation drains 6hould be used where (1) crawl spaces or basements will be below a structure, (2) a slab is below the outside grade, or (3) the outside gr-ade does not slope downward from a building, Drains should also be placed at the base of all earth -retaining walls. These drains should be surrounded by at least 6 inches of 1-inch-minus, washed rock and then wrapped in non -woven, geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or similar material). At its highest point, a perforated pipe invert should be at least 6 inches below the bottom of a slab floor or the level of a crawl space, and it should be sloped for drainage. All roof and surface water drains must be kept z tiuptj, tiiv r, u, , , ii tv rwui�oatlon d?alll 8yatemmi. A typiezil draim dato is atteahad ie ihis raport as riate 0 4. For the best long-term performance, perforated PV(Z� pipe is recommended for all subsurface -4 0 drains. M Underslab drainage or drainage inside the building'ts fdutpdril t5fluuld idlwu b#.- Wvvidt�d wl NN w (1) t, I =i 9 crawl space will slope or be lower than the surrounding ground surface, (2) an excavation encounters significant seepage, or (3) an excavation for a building will be close to the expected high groundwater elevation*. We can provide recommendations for interior drains, should they become necessary, during excavation and foundation construction. As a minimum, a vapor retarder, as defined in the Slabs-On-Orade section, should be provided in any crawl space area to limit the transmission of water vapor from the underlying Bolls. Also, an outlet drain is recommended for ail crawl spaces to prevent a build up of any water that may bypass the footing drains. No groundwater was observed during our field work. if seepage is encountered in an excavation, it should be drained from the site by directing it through drainage ditches, perforated pipe, or French drains, or by pumping it 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 810POs. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where foundations, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Final site grading In areas adjacent to the residence should slope away at least 2 percent, except where the area is paved. Surface drains should be provided where necessary to prevent ponding of water behind foundation or retaining walls. Water from roof, storm, water, and foundation drains should not be discharged onto slope$; it should be tightlined to a suitable outfall located away from any sloPes. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL All building and pavement areas should be stripped of surface vegetation, topsoil, organic soil, and other deleterious material. The stripped or removed materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill, but they could be used In non-structural areas, such as landscape beds. Structural fill 16 defined as any fill, Including utility backfill, placed under, or close to. a building, behind permanent retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the underlying soil needs to support loedt;. All shuuLuieil rill �huulj be plazed in horizontal lift-5 with a rMoisture e8mient at, or near, the optimum mcisture content. The optimum moisture content is that moisture content that results In the greatest compacted dry density. The moisture content of fill is very importanj and must be closely controlled during the filling and compacton process. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. U5 M 0 M C m 0 C) 0 C: M MIZ 0) 0 _n n m M 065 0 r- 0 M C CJ) K cn M 0 Z 7-1 X > z -1 a: 55 z 0 1 0 m ULU I t�;H 12 c)oug Johnson Construction A 03422 October 29, 2003 Page I I The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the matedal type selected, the compaction equipment used, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. The loose lift thickness should not exceed 12 inches. We recommend testing the fill as q, is placed. If the fill is not sufficiently compacted, it can be recompacted before another lift is placed. This eliminates the need to remove the fill to achieve the required compaction. The following table presents recommended relative compactions for structural fill: LOC.kTION OF FILL NIININIIJ�`[ RELATIVE z C011P.NCTLON 0 aneath footings, slabs 95% 0 or walkways I I M F�Filled slopes and behlnd 1 90% 1 Where: Minimum ItelatiYe Compaction i5 the ratio, *XPMsed In percentages, of tha compacted dry density to the maximum dry density, as determined in accordanc* with ASTM Test besignation D 1 $57-91 (Modified PWtor). Use of On -Site Soil If grading advities take place during wet weather, or when the silty, on -site soil is wet, site preparation costs may be higher because of delays due to rain and the potential need to import granular fill, The on -site soil is generally silty and therefore moisture sensitive. Grading operations VVIII be difficult during wet weather, or when the moisture content of this soil exceeds the optimum moisture content. The moisture content of the silty, on -site *oil must be at, or near, the optimum moisture content, as the soil cannot be consistently compacted to the required density when the moisture content is significantly greater than optimum. The moisture content of the on -site soil was generally above the estimated optimum moisture content at the time of our explorations, The on -site silty sands underlying the topsoil * could be used as structural fill, if grading operations are conducted during hot, dry weather. when drying the wetter soil by aeration is possible. During excessively dry weather, however, it may be necessary to add vv.1t6r to achieve the optirmurm rmolature contont. moisture -sensitive soil may also be susceptible to excessive softening and "pumping" from construction equipment, or even foot traffic, when the moisture content is greater than the optimum moisture content. It may be beneficial to protect subgrades with a layer of imported sand or crushed rock to limit disturbance from traffic. The General section should be reviewed for considerations related to the reuse of on -site soils. Structural fill that will be placed in wet weather should consist of a coarse, granular soil with a slit or clay content of no more than 5 percent, The percentage of particles passing the No. 200 sieve should be measured from that portion of soil passing the three -quarter -inch sieve. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. m 0 0 0 0 C M M Z 10 --1 1 11 C: CD o -n n m M 0 om C cn 9 Cn M 0 Z > z CD z 0 i 0 m .LVJI 141V &UUJ I I A r 14 ZV 14 0001 tAtu I LUH VAL+- I J Doug Johnson Construcrion JN 03422 October 29, 2003 Page 12 LIMITATIONS The analyses, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions as they existed at the time of our exploration and assume that the soil and groundwater conditions encountered in the test pits are representative of subsurface conditions on the site, if the subsurface conditions encountered during construction are significantly different from those observed in our explorations, we should be advised at once so that we can review these conditions and reconsider our recommendations where necessary. Unanticipated soil condItIons mite z commonly encountered on construction sites and cannot be fully anticipated by merely taking soil 0 samples in test pits. Subsurface conditions can also vary between exploration locations. Such unexpected conditions frequently require making additional expenditures to attain a properly m zonstrueted p*rojeet. It i5 recormrmerided that the owner conaider providing a eontlngen�,Y fund- 1.6 accommodate such potential extra costs and risks. This Is a standard recommendation for all projects. The recommendations presented in this report are directed toward the protection of only the proposed residence from damage due to slope movement. Predicting the future behavior of steep slopes and the potential effects of development on their stability is an inexact and imperfect science that is currently based mostly on the past behavior of slopes with similar characteristics. Landslides and soil movement can occur on steep slopes before, during, or after the development of property. At additional cost, we can provide ieuornmeridationts for reducing the risk of future movement on the steep slopes, which could Involve regrading the slopes or Installing subsurface drains or costly retaining structures. However, the owner must ultimately accept the possibility that some slope movement could occur, resulting in possible lbss ot &ourid or dama& W tWfacilfties around the proposed residence. This report. has been prepared for the exclusive use of Doug Johnson Construction, and its repro$ entatIVOS, for specific application to this project and site. Our recommendatons and conclusions are based on observed site materials. Our conclusions and recommendabons are professional opinions derived in accordance with current standards of practice within the scope of mir neirvine.5 nnd %Mthin hudgf-,t and timn constraints. No warranty is expressed or implied. The scope of our services does not include services related to construction safety precautions, and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, except as spedfically described in our report for consideration in design. ADDMONAL SERMES In addition to reviewing the final plans, Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be retained to provide geotechnical consultation, testing, and observation services during construction. This is to confirm that subsurface conditions are consistent with those indicated by our exploration, to evaluate whether earthwork and foundation construction activities comply with tile general intent of the recommendations presented In this report, and to provide suggestions for design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. However, our work would not include the supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor and its employees or agents, Also, job and site safety, and dimensional measurements, will be the responsibility of the contractor. GCOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC, C M 0 --10 0 C --4 K M M M Z C Fn 0 -n n M M 0 —(n 0 r- 0 M Cl) K Cn M 0 Z M > z Cn z 0 1 0 M1 � 13 0*10 r- 1AV1M4ir%n Plmn . ct 19 X3 Ap Plate 3 Test Pit Logs Z� 0 Plate 4 Typical Footing Drair. 0 M We appreciate the opportunity to be -of service on this project. If you have any questions, or if we --i -n may be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact us, M C Respectfully submitted, M 0 0 0 GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INO. M M z > z Cn 0 -11 -n M M Cn 0 .00 0 M co WEXPIRES 01-31- o4 Cn M Z 0 James H. Strange, Jr., P.E. GwuLdO it iival Pt ujwA Mou id�it�l' M z JHS; esm Cn z 0 M I GEOTECH CONSULTANIS� INC. ULU I LUH PAGE 15 Ad hL AV RK VICINITY NL4LP 72XX Southwest 182nd Street Edmonds, Washington b No: Date: Scale: Plate: 03422 0 ctobe r 2003 1 Not to scaig I I I z 0 4 0 M --i -n U5 -1 0 M C M 0 --10 0 C --i C M M M z IC) --I C X o -n n --i 3:9 M M 0 F) 0 r- 0 M C CI) 9 Cn M 0 Z 7-1 r z --i M W z 0 1 0 M GEOTECH CONSULTANT,$ INC. FGK& CORINVA 12 O-A' DOWN a FENCE CQRnM IS 0.4' ---------- EA = Approximate Test Pit Location SITE EXPLORATION PLAN 72XX Southwest 182nd Street Edmonds, Washington Job No. Date: -Scale: Plate: 03422 October 20D3 I Not to Scale I z 0 A 0 M --i -n M M 0 0 M M Z > z o -n n M M 0 0 0 M C Cn r. C/) M 0 Z > z z 0 M Test Pit I Depth (feet) Observations 0.0-5.0 Brown, silty SAND with gravel and roots, fine- to medium -grained, dry, loose to medium -dense. [SM] 5.0-8.0 Gray, gravelly, silty SAND, fine- to medium -grained, moist, very dense. (Glacial 'rill) ISM] Test Pit terminated at 8 feet on 10/812003. No caving. No groundwater. Test Pit 2 Depth (feet) Observations 0.0 - 4,0 Brown, silty SAND with gravel and roots, fine- to medium -grained, dry, loose to medium -dense, [SM] washed rock and perforated drain pipe encountered at 1.5 feet 4.0-6.0 Gray, gravelly, silty SANC, fine- to madlum-grained, mcist, dense. [SM] (Glacial Tifl) Test Pit terminated at 6 feet on 10/812003. No caving. No groundwater. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. TEST PIT LOGS 72XX Southwest 182nd Street Edmonds, Washington Job No: Date: - __ — I Ptate. 03422 "1 Octoter 2003 ] 3NC!otWto' Scale 1 3 z 0 1 0 m q 9 OM C MO 0 -40 0 C -i K x M mz ID --I C —Z X CI) o -n n -4 x M M 0 0 0 M C CO 9 CD M 0 Z .A z M Cn z 0 q 0 m Uhu I h-UH FJAL-i-- 18 z 0 Tightilne Roof Drain 0 M (Do not connect to footing drain) Backfill (See text for W requirements) M C M 0 0 0 Nonwoven Geotextile C M VV9!Med Rock RIter Fabric M M Z (7/8" min. size) Slab C > ...... Cl) 40� 0 -n 6 min. M M CD 0 0 M 4" Perforated Hard PVC Pipe C CD K Cn (invert at least 6 inches below M 0 Z slab or crawl space. Slope to drain to appropriate outfall. Place holes downward.) z M 5i NOTES: z 0 1 (1) Refer to report text for additional drainage and waterproofing considerabons. --I 0 M GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC- TYPICAL FOOTING DRAIN 72XX Southwest 182nd Street Edmonds, Washington ob No: Dam: -50210: Plate: 03422 October 2003 1 Not tc Scale I DATE: MEMO TO: PERMIT COORDINATOR, BUILDING DIVISION FROM: FIRE DEPARTMENT DATE. PLEASE SIGN 12&��..ENGINEERING DIVISION DATE PLEASE SIGN PLANNING DIVISION DATE PLEASE SIGN PROJECT SITEADDRESS— lvr) ? .3 r&,- Ale- UJ PERMIT ADB# DATE INSPECTED DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE INSPECTED :2513—z- A field inspection was conducted to determine 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 WITH CONDITIONS NOTED El Copy of CONDITIONS given to owner/contractor by inspector 1. FAILED FINAL INSPECTION - OUTSTANDING ISSUES 1:1 Copy of CORRECTION NOTICE given to owner/contractor by inpector L 2. 3. RE -INSPECTED OUTSTANDING ISSUES - GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL Date Signature 1:temp:b1dg:rorti1s:ocapr%,1 3/25/04 z 0 1 0 M --i -n Ui -4 0 M C M 0 0 0 0 C M M Z g) -i C _Z Cn 0 _n n M M 0 0 0 M C Cn 9 Cn M 0 Z z Cn z 0 i 0 M Sound/noise originating teinpol-ary constrLiCtion sites as a reSLIlt Of c0jjsjj-ucjjt)jj activity are exempt ' from the noise hillits of ECC Chaptcr 5.30 only during tile hot"'S (it' 7:.001.%, 1�) 6:001im on weekdays and 10:00,iiii and 6:00pin on S;jtLjj-(jj,N1s, excluding Sundays and Federal Holidays. A[ all other tinies the'noise originating front construction PERMIT#:Izz I ;,, -1 ... ... );,,. hmits of Chapter 5 30 unless act i � it es intist conip y sitesh W ariance has been granted pursuant lo ECC 5.30.120. EXPIRES: ISSUED: -2�� sm__ ip V. - k-,ity oi Eamonas THIS CARD MUST BE POSTED ON SITE AND AVAILABLE TO THE INSPECTOR (yo, Site Address: Z 'RW L Setbacks for Zone Front Rear: I 71 Side: —T 9i Height: 2-SI 1 Variancek <fc-gk4� L-4::M J Inspections Appi te Notes #1 ENGINEERING MOBILIZATION AND EROSION CONTROL INSTALLATION MUST BE APPROVED PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF ADDITIONAL WORK. (425) 771-0220 x1326 Mobilization/ Erosion Control Tip,htline Detention Forms (sidewalk, driveway) Water Service )f ----------------------- y- CA- 7V- 13 ��K F I -4,e- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.T?q-2-27- 4( 3 -24 - -- Permit # Side Sewer — Permit # Right -of -Way (s/w, c/g, paving) #2 SITE/DEMOLITION Pre -Demolition Asbestos SAPCA Permit SewerCap Cleaned Site/Final lellp, -jif ts- -z!0-'b6 -Cp-CeD-- FML E! —8z #3 FOUNDATION Setbacks I YA. -y - ry �e - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footings i- �n b - - - - - - F dl-� Foundation Wal - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Piers - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Retaininp- Wall -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - #4 PLUMBIN I G Ground Work W-Y-z, —La - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1, 1 Rough In - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - UAW) Permit # ) � I Grease Fixture Cross Connection Control #5 PUBLIC WORKS (425) 771-0235 ;6 MECH/HVAC Gas Test/Pipe y -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Permit# I r4MDM Equipment A #7 FRAMING Exterior Sheathing 4u,' - Shear Nailing First Floor Framing/ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - L/ Framing -- �p_ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Height Check #8 INSULATE CAULK Wall - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - Floor - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ceilinp- #9 SHEETROCK NAIL #10 FIRE Hydrant - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (425) 771-0215 FQC - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Fire Protection §yLtem — — - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Extinguishers - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Addressinp, Visibilitv FINAL PROJECT APPROVALS FINAL OCCUPANCY APPROVAL UILDING INSPECTOR �Bj 09. UNTIL ALL RE F N E I ED �ER,� L-- THI B ILDIN RANYPORTI NT14I=RF F B HE p p To p PPL, L__,T L T. "T APPLICABLE ITY DEPARTM—F-NT_, HHAVE �RAN�TFEQ A �FINA� R I�IA L Call (425) 771-0220 x1333 for BUILDING INSPECTIONS z 0 1 0 M -1 -n 0 M C M 0 --10 0 C -4 C = M M Z 3: C/) 0 -n n M M 0 0 0 M C: cl) 9 Cn M 0 Z X z Cl) z 0 i 0 M 9 RECORD OF INSPECTIONS INSPECTOR DATE APPROVED SETBACKS ..................... FOUNDATION: Footing ...................... Wall .......................... Pier/Porch ................. Retaining Wall ........... Slab Insulation .......... PLUMBING: Underground ............. Rough -In ................... Commercial Final ...... HEATING: Gas Test .................... Or\� Gas Piping ................. Equipment ................. Commercial Final ....... EXTERIOR SHEATHING W9 /(7� NAILING .......................... FRAMING ........................ FIRST FLOOR FRAMING ... INSULATION ................... Floor Insulation ......... Wall Insulation ........... Ceiling Insulation ....... SHEETROCK NAILING ... SPECIAL INSPECTION ... MISCELLANEOUS .......... FINAL APPROVAL FOR OCCUPANCY .................. 0 -7 SideSewer# �L 0 4. '7 7L5- Amout Paid llecelpt#= Date Lssued_I/S/0� voq � I 4,q "o WaterMeter ize_ ) Ll r-) 2 AmnunfP_,441 11nenini �131 A, DatePurchased ROW# Amount Paid $.Re%caipt f' IM z 0 i 0 M —11 Fn- M C M 0 0 -40 0 C: M M Z r') C C/) 0 im M M 055 0 r- 0 M C cl) 9 C/) Q 0 Z z z 0 i 0 M I