20040207.pdfDATE RECEIVED
PERMIT EXPIRES
n I c) I I
U - PERMIT
CITY OF EDMONDS ZAE *:��_NUMBER )2-0
A
u
JOB SUITE/APT#
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION ADDRESS
OWNER NAME/NAME OF BUSINESS
PLAT NAME/SUBDIVISION NO. LOT NO. LID NO.
PA Nj --i LID FEE $
LM MAILING ADDRESS T
U 7ESCP Approved [3
PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP Rwr Permit Required 13
street use Permit Req'd
0 He 4>'T EXISTING — PROPOSED inspection Required
CITY ZIP TELEPHONE Sidowelk Required E3
TION'� FT Underground
-7,7 REQUIRED DEDICA wiring required
3 7clTi-I
NAME METER SIZE LINE SIZE F-FIXTURES PRV REQUIRED
`7 YESX NO 13
W
U Z z
REMARKS z
ADDRESS OWNEFIXONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROL/DRAINAGE
X
\j E_
TELEPHONE
P
1:j - 1 -
CITY A 98 ZIP T `73
NAME
I 7>
PA 4 fr-tJ 1 00 ENGINEERING REVIEWED BY DATE
M ADDRESS
0 Ila
8 -3 4/� 3 DATE
4 FIRE REVIEWED BY
CITY ELEPHONE
0 ZIP 2.c4, - 7
%03cl VARIANCE OR CU HOREL114E OR ADBO INSPECTION BOND
S 1 0 1
STATE LICENSE NUMBER EXPIRATION DATE CFEC E R E O'D POSTED
OYESYr
S NO S
X.
/isL6 L HEIGHT
7, SEPA REVIEW tIGN AREA
I
P OP D LOW OPOSED.
U11 PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNY PARCEL NO. IF COMPLETE EXEMPT ALLOWED PROPOSED A _ ILLOWED PR
2--7o
_j EXP
LOT COVERAGE REQUIRED SETBACKS 'PROPOSED SETBACKS (Fr.)
NEW RESIDENTIAL PLUMBING MECH ALLOWED PROPOSED FRONT SIDE R��- FRONT LJR SIDE I REAR
0 z
COMPLIANCE OR
ADDITION COMMERCIAL CHANGE OF USE L14. Z
PARKING LOT AREA�WLANNING REVIEWED BY DATE _:X 5
MULTIFAMILY /IDED
REMODEL SIGN REQ'D I PF10%N
FENCE
GRADING
REPAIR CYDS x —FT) EM S
OTHER
DEMOLISH TANK C C
GARAGE RETAINING WALL FIRE SPRINKLER A-
z CARPORT ROCKERY FIRE ALARM
(TYPE OF USE. 13USINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN:
CHPC ED B TYPE OVC NST7CTION C�QE OCCU
__. 11 . 11 �/ t GRO UR�
Y 7-
LU NUMBER NUMBER OF CRITICAL OCCUPA
:7 AREAS SPECIAL INSPECTION JAREA) NT
OF DWELLING
Nb REQUIRED
0 STORIES UNITS NIIMBE41 YES
DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE
REMARKS z
PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 108/FINAL INSPECTION REO'D Ei
SIX
VALUATION
$
Description FEE Description FEE
Plan Check `31
I State Surcharge
HEAT SOURCE GLAZING % LOT SLOPE %
Building Permit e:�L. city Surcharge 6-
A< 14q,3
PLAN CHECK NO- VESTED DATE Plumbing
0 I�L-) � --- Mechanical
THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO
BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC Grading
DOMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE Iq
M SEPARATE PERMISSION.
Engr. Review
Ix PERMIT APPLICATION: 180DAYS
W
IL PERMIT LIMIT., 1 YEAR - PROVIDED WORK IS STARTED WITHIN 180 DAYS Engr. Inspection
SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION
W 'APPLICANT. ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS Fire Review Plan Chk. Deposit
U)
IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF
2 EDMONDS, WASHINGTON. ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND Fire Inspection Receipt #
ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE Landscapelnsp. Total Amt. Due q�
DEEMED TO MODIFY WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE
NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITYS ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION." Recording Fee
21 Receipt #
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION, THAT THE INFORMATION N APPROVAL
GIVEN IS CORRECT; AND THAT I AM THE OWNER, OR TIRE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF APPLICATIO
R. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC- I his application is not a perflnit Until signed by the
THE OWNE CALL Building Official or his/tier Deputy: and Fees are paid, and
TION, AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED receipt is acknowledged in space provided.
IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO FOR INSPECTION
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATIO OFFICIALS SIGNATURE
,P,rInWANCE AND RCW 18.27. DATE
I I
0 AGENI (425)
(OWNER DATE SIGNED
SIGNATURE. 'd, ; q
/iTi
A 771 0220 R _EA 13Y
ATTENTION E)ff 1333
IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL
A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTIFI- ORIGINAL-FILIE YELLOW-14SPECT
CATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED, UBC SECTION 109 PINK -OWNER GOLD -ASSESSOR
04/02 PRESS HARD -YOU ARE MAKING 5 CO I, S GR , EEN-ACCOUNTING
z
0
i
0
M
MW
M
M
0
10
0 C::
-4 K
X M
M Z
jC) --I
_z
o -n
n
M M
055
0 r-
0 M
C cf)
90)
M 0
Z
z
Cl)
z
0
i
0
M
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE
IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
O?Apq--., 'O"-f-cc, t.AJ'O
OAXXr c
_k�
51q-k- J-A_A+_ �Jnoz�ij::kjlo
-c
04
1+
L4+
C9
4�' d& C, I
4- -V 0`0
170 c_ C+
Iva
LAID.LF ID11 -d I Z) b
-40
aL� 00
p
Z(71 —
ob -
O)b —
Noll
A�,
14 7�,-
0 -IN
_LnF4
j _P1
C4- \_G
j
:30
.6 4-10
4- 90
oo
4P
A'C-
L-b
V
-tS N
A'
lzy"l
a GSL0.09 9
AIN.
w "�
4�� sve,
poot 00,99
1331Nnoo imum
*--LG !r;lcg+ I
L-!�, 1-6
-,400� --,4ewm
CGAI, jw
MODAll
INIVId Ag C131\0
IM
-4%
N,
fl-.4
Ilk
,ar%rz%n V40.,1;4
V snorzoa-4ki %
, jo --/7
J"5 sf-vi
:J-4 Zif-P
-cf,)e7q2 V,�w
snolls*ej"l
St
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE
IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
os,oz-1 -L-At a3'10�
-9'aZI -690arV 1-2ti 'Y-VV4
; WGV�7 ,
of--j 'so) -
-zo--ZO) 2
-Zs V?
.1vitayo -j-
on
,I,iNnooHGlW0H0NG
9CINOW0a
aAlZ�lCl M41A CINnos xxx
tval A- wa-0 � --iwj
---01
-9td -,Tw
P,-& x --Ji 06
11
11/22/2004 17:44 3606814859
MS WEBB SURVEYING
E F T I F [ G A T
PAGE 02
M.S. WEBB I a
PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR MICROFILM
362 Buck Loop Road
Sequim, WA 98382
Phone: (360)681-4858/(206)718-5323
November 22, 2004
TOM BRAATEN CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.
3443 Evergreen Pt. Rd.
Medina, WA 98039
Regarding: 18916 Sound View Place
To Whom ft May Concern:
Our firm, at your request, undertook to determine the height of the roof for the home
under construction at the address indicated above. The highest point of the roof was
measured on this date, using the bench mark specified on the site topographic survey,
and was found to be 120.85.
Please contact me at the address or telephone number indicated above should you have
any question or need finther assistance.
RespectfWly submitted,
Michael S. Wcbb, PLS
Certificate No. 16230
z
.A
F.VF,'R7F, 7!1-hm�
RECEIVED
DEC 0 2 2004
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR.
CITY OF EDMONDS
4
07,
;3 -9*4�
(p 5
LOTAgeA
--RING
i s n
szt?
rt,
A n6
19d
12W%J6
19
1,d �?
�WAY
R VE D
VA t.., tj Vj,�
A
APR 0 1 2u,;,l
PERMIT COUNTEI
z
0
q
0
m
--i -n
CO
M
c
M 0
0
--lo
0 C
M
M Z
c
Cl)
0 -n
n
m M
0
0
0 M
C cf)
9 cf)
M 0
Z
3:
>
z
Cf)
z
0
A
0
m
41, C. 1 S L) 1)
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 STH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221
Website: wwwdedmondsma.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning - Building - Engineering
January 18th, 2005
Attn: Dan & Margret Voctinann
1704 198th St SW
Lynnwood, WA 98036
Building Pernlit: 2004-0207
Site Address: 18916 Sound View Place
Expiration Date: 3/17/05
Dear Dan & Margret Voetmann:
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the last remaining inspection on your
project is a final inspection(s). The final inspection(s) determines that there are no
outstanding life -safety issues and approval allows the City to close your permit file.
The City considers the final inspection to be one of the most important inspections
conducted on a project. In order to grant final approval the following must be complete:
smoke d ' etectors, house numbers, guardrails, handrails, self -close doors between garage
and residence, egress from sleeping rooms, safety glazing, weather-stripping, any
Engineering department requirements etc. Of course not all of these things may
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 iterns that do not need to be installed such as:
paint, carpet, moldings, wallpaper, etc. Please be advised pen -nits expire one year from
the date of issuance. If you'will need more time to complete the work, permits can be
renewed prior to expiration for one half fees. If the permit expires without a final
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
peni-ift expiration date and call for the required 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.
Sincerely,
Perrnit Coordinator
Incorporated August 11, 1890
Sister Citv - Hekinan, Japan
I
4.
Consultants, Inc
Field Rep.
-Job No.
Page of
_F_�irth
Time On Site
Tim e Off Site
Date
11805 1361h Place N. E., Suite 201 - Bellevue, WA 98005
1
.1 Z_
Lt '�F I C�; Li
Bellevue (425) 643-3780 - Toll Free (888) 739-6670
Travel Time
Miles
Weather
FAX (425) 746-0860
DAILY FIELD REPORT
Permit No;
1
Hrs. Charged
Visitors
1
)101-2
Report No.
I
Day of We
IH—Z�
Project J Job Location Client/Owner
Y16 7 VIM, 4 CC,"��-77Z_.
General Contractor General Contractors Superintendent Received Unchecked By
Grading Contractor Grading Foreman Checked By Date
Are approved Plans/Permits on -site [] Yes [:] No If No, contact the building department or explain below:
Project No. Permit No.
r�'
�5 I -1-r-
-7
--7
F5 >� Cl-%
4;�:� �67� 'i
Vm77�61z:�
r�.
L-rt, 7 K� I -7-'f �'Aiz
C'�"
Cz e5
;77
Lv;'Y7 /-7-J)0
k -77
77�-
L4.-
_—q
*P e-* IF IL Jr
let=
V
NZIVIEZ,
APR IML
'P
LUW
QFVF1 no ael� ��16�
_'Ctf;-
- CTR.
e�� 6W EDMotine
0111 V,
---- --- 3L
COPY TO:'- E
CONTINUED ON NEXT PAG
z
0
i
0
m
--i -n
Cn
0 M
C
mo
0
10
0 C:
M
M Z
g:) —i
_z
co
0 -n
n
m M
0 _Cn
0 r-
0 m
C: (n
k cn
M 0
Z
X
z
Cn
z
0
1
0
m
I
Earth Consultants, Inc
Field Rep.
Job No. Page of
Report NO.
1:11011clT-, & EnNirtmunmial SdmtLms
C-m'4nVkX1 Tc.'-41119 A IaX) i WIN00 11 1P'C1kX1
Time On Site
Time Off Site Date
Day of Week
L-1 *7;,
r
1805 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 - Bellevue, WA 98005
to'
Bellevue (425) 643-3780 - Toll Free (888) 739-6670
Travel Time
Miles Weather
FAX (425) 746-0860
1
U I
Hrs. Charged Visitors
DAILY FIELD REPORT
Project/-O--t/
Jo b Location
Client/Owner
General Contractor
General Contractor's superintendent
d
Received Unchecked By
Grading Contractor
Grading Foreman
Checked By
T5DaWe
z
0
i
Are approved Plans/Permits on -site [3 Yes [:1 No If No, contact the building department or explain below:
Project No. Permit No.
(7
I-T t5-. Cf�y"Llr'—' PLO
ty 77_rL-L, <7r- e,
5— 115 k a
NO
-
""rFS 09.
VOPMEsEFRVICES cTH-
()EVELOPME
5E,
CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE Q
COPY TO:
--- --- - - ---------
0
m
Vj X
0 m
C
M
0
0
0 C
M
M Z
C
CD
0 -T1
-n
m m
0 C—D
0 r-
0 m
C CD
9 CD
M 0
Z
7-1
X
--I
X
>
z
--I
z
0
i
0
m
,1
Earth Consultants, Inc
iml it ik-al I �iWlvwl, ('o1)kyA1;1s & D I %if' x u I w I Hill Sk -k I 11LqtS
('jjj-,4nKjk,11 'I(-4i11g& 10V) 1 WAIIOIWJ.171� A I .1kn11:M
Field Rep.
Time On Site
Job No.
Page of
Report No.
Time Off Site
Date
E�avyof Week
1805 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 - Bellevue, WA 98005
Miles
4-11-1
Weather
Bellevue (425) 643-3780 - Toll Free (888) 739-6670 Travel Time
FAX (425) 746-0860 1 -4-�;
DAILY FIELD REPORT
Permit No.
Hrs. Charged
Visitors
Project,,�il`7/c
- -
I V t
ation
(, ��A_., r - d U I
_qlLent/Owner
-
General Contractor
General Contractor's Supeirintenclent
Received Unchecked By
Grading Contractor
Grading Foreman
Checked By
Are approved Plans/Permits on -site [] Ye 3 Ej No If No, contact the building department or explain below:
Project No. Permit No.
) V- t,-
1�',
C-A,0e5P---,]7—,V tr,—
)1. -77 (,jr
16
v V--0.
10
---M �,--L, e27442?2 E
'-7-e Ij 1574 07 Le
41"o ic-'l—mv
1;?
++.F- Z-r,
rj <S:�
1.7
It;
REqE
7g
AM Z
..5 rjB-
DEVELOPMERf.�yl_ S CTR.
FC—OPY TO: CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE
z
0
Cn
0 m
C
m 0
0
-40
0 C
rn
M z
rj)
o -n
n
--i
m M
a
0
0 m
C cl)
9 Cl)
M C-)
Z
z
Cl)
z
0
0
m
01.
at
102
10.
107
PATIO
52 103
PR PO D 104
R . E ... D . EN ...... CRE K
CE
LIV
105
106
110. fo.
APPROX. LOCATION OF EX.
41
%T 12" N-12 OUTLET
"Nobb, 50 6
112
EX. LINE TO BE RELOCATED GARAGE 12
(APPROXIMATE LOCATION)
18916 SOUND VIEW DRIVE 4
EDMONDS
SNOHOMISH COUNTY
SCALE 1: 40 b DRIVE Y C3
Zq
9- a it
EX CATCH BASIN 8V33 Go" w 0
27.41. 4, $
CDNETRUCTIDN SURVEY
191f
EDGE DF CREEK LDCA TIDN
18916 SDUND VIEW PLACE
RRS INC. TOM BRAATEN CONSTRUCTION
Land Surveying
12855 NE 145TH PL, 12.12.03
KIRKLAND, WA, LSA JOB NO. 4598
qpn'�4 4P5-RA4-nq44
16/30./Ol TUE 1.1'03 FAX 253 471 5571 Y-4 41t_
z
Rub=
c1d
NO SALES TAX
P-EQUIRED
N 0 T 1 0 E 0 F E 1AE 14 E
AY 12 19,2
TO ALL WHN TIVESE MES&IM C01XM:
NOTIM-11S HEREBY GIVEN thct CWOC E_ LIUMAY, owrted. Qmn, &,nd ELIXHIA
CWt
ly
aa
BL* I lbottoti k6i-� -Wlilm 440 J*ek Wft,:"q
S=tlad:
fo*+ Me
of SaW C-Dvormmt; mstw I y
Im".1.1 fibi *F sald,
Lot"' K46WAgr.,
461iicof eit!gw04 io
r gbt a my I N4; `411
144 j�rlvwmv I "t4 efti-
'310 _-G:
MPE,
Wo 5 arwom, !.feet
d so
V
'0114
61111ii;�W AW Ovat'i"I 0~11M4 of SamiM.Vjew
1.2 1011594.-il. 1. 1 ,
v flat: 2"JQ'foe tip the
ItW plart ib&reof r":*rdj&, Iiiii 6f Pjj%L,
ON rc= a
Of W�hmlzh owr4y, -Mum 111106011 2043'W'K, al" f"
v�lv 11"s of sard LatrSok, 00 fW; *theftc* V..-W41 I011",
MaV said southorly I Ire, W.46 -foe
*f S*td �vt 4, "&no& S.W1005", 15.00 fmt; lbsa= W W07239-d.,
044-42 feet to the Troa Point iif-'fiVlnnlna.t'
lr&Mlf tfr b*SL. Unto
do bv" gmc7t, convey, Im dal I prmAnt wW futwe ownbrs.
itaIr twirs, ma=ctsom xrW asjAWm, of ell of, any pm-tion W the &bcWe dezzrlb4d
property, and unto Public UtT I i+y District No. I cf Snoh=iO DDm", " unto
Goiveral Talephene Coupany of tha Moc-ffimest, I ='.. wW uni-o WaWngittm natural Gas
Cowpany, and unto tte City of Edvjafwdst, is raunicipal corporation. an rAsgMani, for
Ing-ass end egress and for "to Installation, aparatfort, immintaftwree and r"Ir of
uTHITIes and necAm"ry appurtanbncss, o"r. under. 6cross, +hmugh and upor The
follcwlN described property, slTuatod In ttva Cou" of Smohcolsh, State of
Kashln3ton, to v1t:
tha-: portion of Soci-lon 13, T27N, P3E, W."., t:,=rlbed vs fol[cws:
CocmamClMg It The Interroaction of the 6arllpr !Prght of way I Ino
of Ito Utirl1rogron f4orlharn Flallway (rTqht-Qf-WCy 00 f6bt, With 1`60 E
rx>.rth 11" of Goyttrnmnt Lot 3 In atova cAld 'Saztlon 13, �ald
!nTer5�octizn bairq S 081.33'0M. aq�.AA feet FrDm norjha�-ST
wr.-w ot said Goverrymnt Lat 5: Thoncer 5 37*1713-91W. trion.- 7,51d EB 2 6 21
easTorly r7gh7-of-uby lina, 676.99 feet to tho
-.or of that carTaim trbct of la"d described in ae!pd f I lad for
rL<ar� vr,,(:er Audttcrl� File 4j. 13M594. remrd!j of Br�ahomllh PERM .,ou
L�;ovnTv, Wa-,h:r-gTc�n- 1%znce 5 52'431�Q"F, a of 45.62 fe-ot;
,',JrCa S 59036'::5"E'. 6 �;5ttknce of 92.99 TC Tr�e Tt'UCI -)f
escripti,'m; Thar:e Df
C,A
594
4
11006
z
0
m
--I -n
0 M
m 0
0
--I (-)
0 C:
M
M Z
_z
:E
o -n
n ;u
>
M M
0
0
0 M
U)
M
Z
z
C/)
z
0
m
10/30/01 TUE 11:04 FAX 253 471 5571 FATCO
abstarly"'16:0*9 the &M Of''SaW curvw, b*TD9 a curw* to Ame right
eavd comunIA2.0 ccairbf aivle of W53".Ww. ao ara cstar,:,v of
60 54.EsGrf; . i6� S -SZ-43v00*E, 0 41stanc* of 65-13 fewt.-to tta
point of curvvrj�f.'a.curve k"16g 42'r.m4IuS.0rf 20.0D fwt; ftome
of -.)I d i
g the WC bel-ps In carv* to tim right
W)d consm4-�ij
'S ft.nli of i1tv distance of
74i'po iNt'eq a A "a *mm PWO
11411"with and 11rit
30.00 fter;.- r-a
fr*m th9
salid
h
Ion
right
to
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
di i0f ;d
11,1111&* '* A'. 'of
00
.2D. 1iWg4,
Acw Ug.
cwm to
an arc Z-
pilbsen;t
end fUrthoc do
-r!oa. of It*
Var "'pw
aba". 64scri bed.'
MM -
W" 7
d:
an oacsomont 10r; I of a stom
sewer I ins and..Iwlwr�.
F'aayss' through mw upon the
following dwcxlbed prop"� st ta th� omaty of- Stahmish, Sfzto of
Wash I Dom' to wit!
1:x
The S*vtbeazfnir�ly Tim:140-*D) wommirod mt right arxjlcs,
V-1L descrilm! as
101 10ws-. CONANC-Ing art"the lvrtarsect�=*f. Itm easterly right
of way I Ins of i�e OW-11 ImIfto Morltiori R8111val �rlj*T-of-wzy BD
foot) with Tbe r*rffi line of Governmarit Lat'3 N ntov* said
Section 13, said l"tDrSOCTIOn b-6109 5 W*M'OrW. M.44 feet
f rxw the norttommt carner of %a] d Governoont Lot 3; ttww
S 37'1710". alon
_q !SaTd easterly right-of-way I Itm, 314.25 twat
-to the scouthwosterly corrjw of Lot 5. 'Urmisay"s Addition,"
according to the plat thereof rc=u-dv4 in volum# fS cyf plats, on
-ds Of SmAxmish County, Vasb[N'.ion. the Trxte PDlftT
Page racrx
of BeginoIN; lba.-oce wnttxvj*#N S 37-1710orv. al" sold easterly
right-of-wtry I ine, a dtstaim-a -at 167.64 I>: Jb*w-0 S 5244310crE,
110.00 feet; t,',ama N 9883310M. 2D.00 fwrt; tb&=e N 37.'7100"E,
50.00 feet; ttwj=o N WiD45!PiE, r distance of 64.36 f&e+ to The
5�outtlwarzTjrly corna�r of Lot 4 In sold piv'r of 'Und=y's Addi-
TIOn"; th*nc* N '57'9?�00r":, &long tM vevttc'lv I Inv of said Lot
A. a d:stanca of *at to the 1<xjtboAstr-�- , cornar oi Lot 5
in Wd plat of mUm;-;'s A44idl.--, tt*. -, 52-43'Coo"w, atiorg
M4% sou-Merly ilne of spid Lot 5. a diri-ame of 148.5,6 f"t 4-�>
tbe True Point of Beginning .
Kaintenance �.f CoftSf1--%CT6d wil"Jin tho initial eas&--�rt
t
igrantad, conveYed, transferred and bestckro4d herein, s�:afl. be t,%e r�afpcm',';�',jity
ni ant the ciz-IT: of sa;d mt--v-erancu b,--rno jtjirt!-,- and equa! 11 ��y T"�. orj=ye
,,(.ni io- Z)".d lu":,jrc tnef�' t,eirj:
OFFICIAL Kr-�095,�
f
rM4 427
�2:2442-15
1:0
I
11009
t'4
z
0
m
'q 5 i
CD
M
C
M
0
0
0 C
M
M Z
0-1
C —Z
co
0 711
n ;U
>
m M
0 6
0 r-
0 m
C U)
K(n
M 0
Z
3:
z
--I
3:
0)
z
0
m
I
I
.61
10/30/01 TUE 11:04 FAN 253 471 5571 FATCO
v
I'm VI rw--1,,l mlUit-OF we hay* hereunto ;�Qt Q#jr slSollatur&Z this
day o f me , 1972 A.D.
W
UAXWIC lLina$Ay
r
:l r
STATE C)F WhMOUTCH I
LUUNTY MAM*w4w)
M. know
dor� roaml Y
Pe n to:
440, M*jP,1nq,_-1rtstru-
I descrIbW 'in I �
he-41
fhxt he signood4lip"'saim'as his fe, vaij, -act eM
Sod -us"
All,
14
hand and *f f lvlaii' I's
0972 A.D.
STATE OF VMHIIGM
0n IhIm day peclvoml ly 80poard'd' a S u z a rim" .-to so
krcmn to to the individual ease-Mbed tn. ted the otf-In jbrw fore-
SRI ng I rtstrummr, am =krom I 4dow thtt% SW s I gned lthe * glem as twr f evo
act arId dead for.the purp*zas wA uses ItAwoll
mention ed.
GlVei VIDER my bwbd and of f Icial I a
day of &,W 1972 A. D.
Residing st.
4,
STATE OF WASHINGTON
I ss 17
WJNTY OF��
On t h I S day POrso" I I y appeared before me *11 0 0 to me known
Do Tha lndiVidqal described IM and Who IWCcUte4 To
the ;Ith-In- a-n-d—foregoing instru.-
M.-IT, Ord bcktowlOdged that she signed the sm& as her free volur.twu �.4 and
deped for the purposes am us&s tfivirain moriflonoid.
(Jay of UIVEN UN;QR my hatic and official sej<`)ttIls
1972 A.D.
AM r1/19i
- 01 �.q $&
Rin I d I r-9 a!
STArE OF V.4_S1flNGTLr1 I
ss.
40.
COUN '-f OF N
r rsora!!y appoarcd bofora Me Winnifrad G. M!tcD.,131d, to r*
0
�10 0% 4' individua:! deExrlbt�d in and who executed thO WIThfj iond fore-, �N. 2
brza lhat smo Signed tho same as her free volunjal-).
_r The ;I.r:,:ses tlml� q&ot Therein WnTioned,
rr7
LO Inc --:4 s
"�7
Go
4 -121 4'
fop Pe TaN.,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Lo 010
z
0
1
0
m
-i -n
0)
m
C
m
0
C-)
0 C
-1 K
3: M
M z
10 --1
C: —Z
o -n
n
-i
3:9
m M
0 Fn
0 r-
0 M
C C/)
K Cf)
M 0
Z
X
--I
3:
z
--I
M
C/)
z
0
i
0
m
v
i
0
7
SANITARY SIDE SEWER EASEMENT
The Grantor, CEDRIC E LINDSAY, a married man, for his separate estate, for and in
consideration of TEN DOLLARS ($10. 00) and other valuable consideration, in hand paid,
conveys and warrants to DONALD A. JANGARD and LYNNE F. JANGARD, Husband and
Wife, a 10 foot wide easement for underground sanitary side sewer over that portion of Lot B,
Edii�6-rid�,'Wasliffigt6i�'U6f-LEe—Adjifgtfff6iit-No. LL-2000-74 Recording NO.
I the centerline of which is described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the common line between said Lot B and Lot D, said Boundary Line
Adjustment, which point is North 4f44143 " East 22.23 feet from the Northwesterly comer of said
Lot D, thence North 54*4 P West 60 feet, thence North 1*00' West 28 feet, thence North 50*46'
West 89 feet, thence North 4*48' West 33 feet to a point on the existing 10 foot wide sanitary
sewer easement and end of side sewer easement.
TOGETHER WITH the right to enter said premises to maintain and/or repair said side sewer line.
Dated,,&;, 2002
CEDRIC E. LINDSAY, a married dian, for his separate estate
STATE OF WASERNGTON I)EN10-conv OF EDMONDS
ss
COUNTY
On this day personally appeared before me CEDRIC E. LINDSAY, a married man, for his
separate estate, to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the foregoing
instrument, and acknowledged that he signed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed for
the uses and purposes therein mentioned. --4-1-
GIVEN under my hand and official seal thi.sg�> —day oi�kQ Uykje Y. 2002.
OFFICIAL SEAL 1,)A-.
LINDA TUDOR gin 114. (Printed nme)
NOTARY PUBLIC-WASHINGTON Notary Public in and for ' the State of Washington,
My COMMISSION EXPIRES JUNE 15, 2005 residing aT_
z
0
A
0
F!
=i 9
M
C
M
0
0
0 C
-i K
3: M
M Z
10 --1
C
3:
Cn
0 -n
n
M rn
0
0
0 M
C: Cn
9 cn
Q 0
Z
3:
z
--I
3:
Cl)
z
0
1
0
M
E
-7 -37 '/ 7' 11V
-7,91VI7',9RY .yewele— e.s0r.
lb
fu
00
-,,V C.
ru
r, Vs
fu
/o,w/
ve iv#vree a.ms a-mr,
601 , to
ru
.;ao
A/ 3 7 .1.7..
cr
S 0 UND V'l E W, RCA�C E
wn�
.W,tW. it. ID Iflof.&TER LINE EASEMENTS! ACROSS LOTS P.
ANDL. D CITY OF EDMONDS LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT.
No.. LL-2000-74.,
z
0
1
0
m
-1 -n
m
c
m
0
--lo
0 C
M
M Z
—Z
3:
cl)
o -n
n
4
x
m M
0
0
0 M
C cl)
9(t) I L
M 0
Z
7-1
3:
z
--i
m
c/)
z
0
1
0
m
Wednesday, September 07, 2005 8:15 AM Tom Braaten 425-637-1410
09/05/2005 22.41 FAX 42574BOBBO
—FaIrth 0XISLAtants, inc.
September 2, 2005
Tom Braaten Construction
3443 Evergreen Point Road
Medina, Washington 98039
Attention: Mr, Tom Braaten
Subject: Final Report
Construction Monitoring Services
18916 Soundview Place
Woodinville, Washington
Ref erence: Earth Consultants, Inc.
Geotechnical Engineering Study
E-10934, dated January 23, 2004
Dear Mr. Braaten:
0
Z002/003
Estahlish(xt 11975
E-1 0934-1
As requested, Earth Consultants, Inc, (ECI) provided construction monitoring services at the
subject site, ECI previously prepared the referenced geotachnical engineering study for the
proieot and provided on -site observations and Testing on a parmime basis from April 8, 2004,
to April 27, 2004.
An ECI representative visited the site three times to observe the building foundation fooling
subgrade, The subgrade was established on native soils and prepared in accordance with
ECI's recommendations, Soil conditions were observed to be dense and stable, and suitable
for the allowable Soil bearing capacity of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf).
Based on our observations, the earthwork was performed in accordance with our
recommendations and the approved plans.
1 B05 136th Place KE , Suite 201, Bellevue. WA 98005 Other Localions
Bellevue (425) 643-3780 FAX (425) 746-0960 Tall Free (808) 739-6670 Fife
p.02
z
0
1
0
M
C/)
o -n
n
M M
_Cn
0
0 M
C 0)
M 0
Z
7-1
z
z
0
4
0
M
5-637-1410
Wednesday, September 07, 2005 8:15 AM Tom Braaten 42
oa/05/2005 22:41 FAX 4257460BGO
Tom Braaten Construction
September 2, 2005
We trust this letter meets your needs. it you have any questions, please
Respectfully submitted,
EARTH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Chul P. Gugich
Geotechnical Field Manager
WA
33182
j=W-5 02-M 0-7 j
Kristina M. Weller, PE
Manager of Geotechnical Services
CPG/KMW/lap
Ear(h ConSUltanls. inc,
FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL FORM
TO:
DATE:
MEMO TO: PERMIT COORDINATOR, BUILDING DIVISION
FROM: FIRE DEPARTMENT DATE
PLrASC SIGN
G E
IN -ERING DIVISION DATE
f
PLANNING DIVISION DATE
PLEASE SIGN
PROJECT
4)z
SITE ADDRESS— z L
PERMIT #2ac;0 4 OZa 7 ADB#_DATE INSPECTED 6z�zza_-S:
r
DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE INSPECTED
71
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
Copy of CONDITIONS given to owner/contractor by inspector
FAILED FINAL INSPECTION - OUTSTANDING ISSUES
0 Copy of CORRECTION NOTICE given to owncr/contractor by inpcctor
2.
3.
RE -INSPECTED OUTSTANDING ISSUES - GRANT FINAL PROJECTAPPIZOVAL
Date Signature
1:temp:b1dg:fomis:ocaprv1 3/25/04
z
0
1
0
M
=1 =-n
0 M
C
M
0
0 C:
-4 K
x M
M Z
C')
o -n
nx
--I >
= 9
M M
0 C—n
0 r-
0 M
C Cf)
9 U)
M 0
Z
X
z
--i
3:
F)
z
0
M
IL
RECEIVED
DEC 1 2 2003
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
ENGINEERS / SURVEYORS / PLhNNiRS / DEVELOPMENT (ONSULTANTS
z
0
i
0
m
Um
C
m 0
0
0 C
m
m
z
Just?ficatiom
C
>
1. Granting the waiver would allow this developer the saille discharge that was granted to tile owner to tile
north oil Lindsey Place under City File Number 97-294. V5
0 -n
-n
2. Since tile existing drainage from tile site currently directly discharges to the Creek, granting this waiver
m M
Would allow tile developer to replace and improve the existing direct discharge systern. The existing pipe
discharges at tile top of tile slope. The new systern would discharge at the toe of tile slope.
0
0 m
0)
0
During Construction tile contractor shall employ the required Temporary erosion control BMPs to control M 0
Z
silt forin leaving tile site.
X
X
Your favorable approval of this waiver is requested. If you require additional information, please let me
z
know. A site plan has been enclosed foi- your information.
C/)
Sincerely,
Don Fiene, P.E. December 12, 2003
Assistant City Engineer LSA File No. 4958
City Of Edmonds, DSD, Engineering
121 5"' Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Re: 18916 Sound View Place — Drainage Waiver Request
Dear Don:
Oil belialf of our Client, Tom Braaten Construction Inc., this is a formal request for a drainage waiver for
Tl tile developed site
a proposed single family residence. The developer proposes to discharge runoff froi
directly into Fruitdale Creek very near its connection to Puget Sound. Tile outlet would be thrOugh a
dissipater 'tee* with appropriate riprap pad. All surface, roof and footing drains will be connected to tile
discharae line.
"t--GOVED
DEC 12 2003
ENGINEERING DIVISION
K __C
r
_(?
IIAI.SA Engineering Does\4500 thni 4599\4598\43I 5-jo-ItrAf I 21103.doe
Lovell -Sauerlaild & Associates. 111c
19400 33rd Ave. W., Suite 200, Lynnwood, WA 98036 425-775-1591 425-672-7998 fa
z
0
0
m
x
7.
Tom Braaten 425-637-1410
STANDARD DRAINAGE DETENTION SYSTEM
WORKSHEET
OV VOE 7-"A A1�4J
vWS
ij�.jr-=,1jVI0US AREA
CALCM:
PHONE:
DATE:
*****DESIGN DATA*****
PIPE DIA PIPE
ORIFIC.E
�Vlg -
p.07
Z LOCKING LID
DDTTENTION PIPE,LM"GTH1 VT ICAL)
ST
rtmtsmo
f *A%acPR'016 or
TIGHTL M
CMX RCIX OR RISER
.5% TO I% SLOPC
IE40 OUTLET
OUTLET CONTROL
MIN.
UPPER C CH BASIN ORIFICE
CONTROL CATCH BASIN
SySTEM CROSS SECTION
2'X2'Xfi'.DEEP. 4-6' SPALLS OR EQUAL OCT 3 0 2003
1 e
21X 21X 3' DEEP. 3/4' (;RUSMLU RUC.K DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTn.
CITY OF EDMONDS
MITLE WASHED R=
rR
MpfjVTR KIN 11Y LdM,
L
PC Mn
PER 1, LEVEL
PERF PIPE V/ DO CAPS
H LL
IR TEKA
PLhc1V
tANU V I TH $41
PRUN VASHEI) IDUN ROCK
juPRAP owur
RUNOFF SPREADER. TRENCH
pippip 0 r
DRAINS SHALL NOT -RE CONNECTED TO DETENTION SYSTEM
NOTM: e an etw a em inspection
.1. CLt F-ugineering Division (77 I -MO) for a Lightlin d d tio SYst
v.nd for final inspections.
rty is the
c .jity f
). or operation and maintenance of drainage systems On Private propel
of the property owner. Material accumulated in the. storage pipe Must
-can
Ile, outlet control orifice
out and remved ftow the catcb basins to allow proper operatioicL
E>0V9LT7(0.0 tifis
Fzg�o Mon \1 Ez
_F941-
APPROVED BY
DATE
z
0
i
0
M
--I -n
0 M
C
M
0
0
0
M
M Z
10 —1
C
(j)
0 -n
n
M M
0
0
0 M
C cf)
9 Cl)
M 0
Z
3:
z
Cl)
z
0
i
0
M
flit
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY -RESIDENCE
18916 SOUNDVIEW PLACE
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
E-1 0934 FEE
PERM
January 23, 2004
PREPARED FOR
TOM BRAATEN CONSTRUCTION
UTI"
86iit-S�. Riegler
SWtPip
.2logist
%7A
33182
A 510q
1/z
Kristina M. Weller, P.E.
Project Manager
Earth Consultants, Inc.
1805 - 136" Place Northeast, Suite 201
Bellevue, Washington 98005
(425) 643-3780
Toll Free 1-888-739-6670
0
0
m
CE:IVED
92004
V5 j
Cm
IT COUNTER
mo
--1 0
0
0 C
3: M
M Z
C
-n
-n
m m
6
0 r-
0 m
C Cn
C Cn
M 0
Z
3:
>
z
Cn
z
0
0
m
IMPORTANT INFORMATION
ABOUTYOUR
GEOTECHNiCAL ENGINEERING REPORT
More construction problems are caused by site subsur-
face conditions than any other factor As troublesome as
subsurface problems can be, their frequency and extent
have been lessened considerably in recent years, due in
large measure to programs and publications of ASFE/
The Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in
the Geosciences.
The following suggestions and observations are olfered
to help you reduce the geotechnical-related delays,
cost -overruns and other costly headaches that can
occur during a construction project.
A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
REPORT IS BASED ON A UNIOUE SET
OF PROJECT -SPECIFIC FACTORS
A geotechnical engineering report is based on a subsur-
face exploration plan designed to incorporate a unique
set of project -specific factors. These typically include:
the general nature of the structure involved, its size and
configuration; the location of the structure on the site
and its orientation: physical concomitants such as
access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities,
and the level of additional risk which the client assumed
by virtue of limitations imposed upon the exploratory
program. To help avoid costly problems. consult the
geotechnical engineer to determine how any factors
which change subsequent to the date of the report may
affect its recommendations.
Unless your consulting geotechnical engineer indicates
otherwise, your geotechnical engineering report should not
be used:
• When the nature of the proposed structure is
changed. for example, if an office building will be
�erected instead of a parking garage, or if a refriger-
ated warehouse will be built instead of an unre-
frigerated one;
• when the size or configuration of the proposed
structure is altered;
• when the location or orientation of the proposed
structure is modified;
• when there is a change of ownership, or
• for application to an adjacent site.
Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsi0ility for problems
which inay develop if they are not consulted after factors consid-
ered in their report's developnient have changed.
MOST GEOTECHNICAL "FINDINGS"
ARE PROFESSIONAL ESTIMATES
Site exploration identifies actual subsurface conditions
only at those points where samples are taken, when
they are taken. Data derived through sampling and sub-
sequent laboratory testing are extrapolated by geo-
1
technical engineers who then render an opinion about
overall subsurface conditions, their likely reaction to
proposed construction activity. and appropriate founda-
tion design. Even under optimal circumstances actual
conditions may differ from those inferred to exist.
because no geotechnical engineer, no matter how
qualified, and no subsurface exploration program, no
matter how comprehensive, can reveal what is hidden by
earth, rock and time. The actual interface between mate-
rials may be far more gradual or abrupt than a report
indicates. Actual conditions in areas not sampled may
differ from predictions. Nothing can be done to prevent the
unanticipated. but steps can be taken to help rnininiize their
inipact. For this reason, ivost experienced owners retain their
geotechnical consultants through the construction stage, to iden-
tify variances, conduct additional tests which may be
needed, and to recommend solutions to problems
encountered on site.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
CAN CHANGE
Subsurface conditions may be modified by constantly -
changing natural forces. Because a geotechnical engi-
neering report is based on conditions which existed at
the time of subsurface exploration, construction decisions
should not be based on a geotechnical engineering report whose
adequacy inay i'lave been offected by tinie. Speak with the geo-
technical consultant to learn if additional tests are
advisable before construction starts.
Construction operations at or adjacent to the site and
natural events such as floods, earthquakes or ground-
water fluctuations may also affect subsurface conditions
and, thus, the continuing adequacy of a geotechnical
report. The geotechnical engineer should be kept
apprised of any such events, and should be consulted to
determine if additional tests are necessary.
GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ARE
PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES
AND PERSONS
Geotechnical engineers' reports are prepared to meet
the specific needs of specific individuals. A report pre-
pared for a consulting civil engineer may not be ade-
quate for a construction contractor, or even some other
consulting civil engineer. Unless indicated otherwise.
this report was prepared expressly for the client involved
and expressly for purposes indicated by the client. Use
by any other persons for any purpose, or by the client
for a different purpose, may result in problems. No indi-
vidual other than the client should apply this report for its
intended purpose without first conferring with the geolechnical
engineer. No person should apply this report for any purpose
other than that originally conteniplated without first conferring
with the geotechnical engineer
Z
0
0
M
=i
om
C
M0
0
-1 0
0 C:
—4 K
M M
M Z
g) --I
C _Z
Cn
o -n
n
M M
0
0
0 M
C C/)
9 Cn
M 0
Z
.A
X
--I
Z
Fn
Z
0
1
0
M
A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
REPORT IS SUBJECT TO
MISINTERPRETATION
Costly problems can occur when other design profes-
sionals develop their plans based on misinterpretations
of a geotechnical engineering report. To help avoid
these problems, the geotechnical engineer should be
retained to work with other appropriate design profes-
sionals to explain relevant geotechnical findings and to
review the adequacy of their plans and specifications
relative to geotechnical issues.
BORING LOGS SHOULD NOT BE
SEPARATED FROM THE
ENGINEERING REPORT
Final boring logs are developed by geotechnical engi-
neers based upon their interpretation of field logs
(assembled by site personnel) and laboratory evaluation
of field samples. Only final boring logs customarily are
included in geotechnical engineering reports. These logs
should not under any circumstances be redraum for inclusion in
architectural or other design drawings, because drafters
may commit errors or omissions in the transfer process.
Although photographic reproduction eliminates this
problem, it does nothing to minimize the possibility of
contractors misinterpreting the logs during bid prepara-
tion. When this occurs, delays, disputes and unantici-
pated costs are the all -too -frequent result.
To minimize the likelihood of boring log misinterpreta-
tion, give contractors ready access to the complete geotechnical
engineering report prepared or authorized for their use.
Those who do not provide such access may proceed un-
der the mistaken impression that simply disclaiming re-
sponsibility for the accuracy of subsurface information
always insulates them from attendant liability. Providing
the best available information to contractors helps pre-
vent costly construction problems and the adversarial
attitudes which aggravate them to disproportionate
scale.
READ RESPONSIBILITY
CLAUSES CLOSELY
Because geotechnical engineering is based extensively
on judgment and opinion, it is far less exact than other
design disciplines. This situation has resulted in wholly
unwarranted claims being lodged against geotechnical
consultants. To help prevent this problem, geotechnical
engineers have developed model clauses for use in writ-
ten transmittals. These are not exculpatory clauses
designed to foist geotechnical engineers' liabilities onto
someone else. Rather, they are definitive clauses which
identify where geotechnical engineers' responsibilities
begin and end. Their use helps all parties involved rec-
ognize their individual responsibilities and take appro-
priate action. Some of these definitive clauses are likely
to appear in your geotechnical engineering report, and
you are encouraged to read them closely. Your geo-
technical engineer will be pleased to give full and frank
answers to your questions.
OTHER STEPS YOU CAN TAKE TO
REDUCE RISK
Your consulting geotechnical engineer will be pleased to
discuss other techniques which can be employed to mit-
igate risk. In addition, ASFE has developed a variety of
materials which may be beneficial, Contact ASFE for a
complimentary copy of its publications directory
Published by
THE ASSOCIATION
OF ENGINEERING FIRMS
A F= - _; IN THE GEOSCIENCES
8811 Colesville Road/Suite G 106/Silver Spring, Maryland 20910/(301) 565-2733
0788/3M
Z
0
a
:q 9
M
C
M
0
C-)
0 C::
4 K
X M
M Z
r') -4
C _Z
cn
o -n
n
MM
0 -C/)
0 r-
0 M
C CD
9 C/)
M 0
Z
X
Z
0)
Z
0
1
0
M
tA
Earth Consultants, Inc.
January 23, 2004
Tom Braaten Construction
3443 Evergreen Point Road
Medina, Washington 98039
Attention: Mr. Tom Braaten
Dear Mr.'Braaten:
1-1:s1�0flislwd 1975
E-1 0934
Earth Consultants, Inc. (ECI) is pleased to submit this report titled "Geotechnical
Engineering Study, Proposed Single -Family Residence, 18916 Soundview Place
Edmonds, Washington". This report presents the results of our field exploration,
selective laboratory tests, and engineering analyses.
In general, our field explanation indicates the site is underlain by medium dense to very
dense silty fine to medium sand with gravel. Based on our study, in our opinion, the
proposed residence can be supported on a conventional foundation system bearing on
competent native soil or structural fill. Slab -on -grade floors can be similarly supported.
ECI appreciates this opportunity to be of service to you. If you have any questions, or
need further assistance, please call.
Respectfully submitted,
EARTH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Kristina M. Weller, P.E.
Project Manager
SSR/SDD/KMVV1csm
1805 136th Place N.E., Suite 201, Bellevue, WA 98005
Bellevue (425) 643-3780 FAX (425) 746-0860 Toll Free (888) 739-6670
z
0
i
0
m
-i -n
C/)
3:
am
co
m 0
-10
0 C:
-19 ; .
3: M
M z
3:
0 -n
n
m M
0 V5
0 r-
0 M
cl)
0)
M 0
Z
3:
z
--I
3:
Cf)
z
0
m
TABLE OF CONTENTS
E-10934
PAGE
INTRODUCTION, 0 8 0 a 0 a 2 4 a 9 a 0 a a 4 a a 0 0 a 8 a 0 a 9 0 9 4 a a a 0 0 9 0 a 0 0 0 a 0 0 1
General 1
Project Description 1 0 0000*00090M 0 a sea I as so as a$***@, 8 0 9 4 0 8 0 0 a 6 a a a a 0 0 0 0 4 8 a a a a 0 8 0 a 0 a a 4 2
SITE CONDITIONS 2
Surface 2
Subsurface 3
0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 a 0 pasameage 4 $sees$ 0080000860 0 a 8 a If 0 fee a sees a seeasse 4
Laboratory Testing 00 @@assess see someasse a a as sea of 0 9 0 0 0 6 a 8 0 1 as page a 0 0 0 a 0 0 6, 9 0 9 0 0 0 0 a 4
DISCUSSION AND 5
5
General 0 4 a a a a 8 0 0 0 a 0 A a 0 0 0 a 0 4 0 a 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 4 4 0 a 0 a 0 5 0 0 0 a a 4 a a 0 a 0 a 8 8 8 0 a 0 6 1 a a 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 a 8 0 a a a 6 0 0 0 a 9
Site Preparation and General Earthwork. 0 8 9 6 0 0 a 0 a 0 0 a 0 a a a 0 a 0 a 0 5
Foundations 7
Slab,,on-Grade Floors . a 0 a 5 a 9 0 4 0 0 a $@estates a 9 a 0 a a a 0 mass *gooses@ a 0 0 6 a 0 a 8 8 4 Rose a a 0 a 019 a 9 0 8
a a 1 1 8
Retaining Walls
Seismic Design 9
Ground Rupture 6 a a 0 a 6 Oslo a gooses@ 9 0 a 8 0 9 00 0 a sea a v$ a 0, 6 6 a a 0 a @gasses@$* 2 0 9
Liquefaction 9
Ground Motion Response 1 0
Excavations and 1 0
Site Drainage
Utility Support and Backfill,
LIMITATIONS. 12
Additional Services 12
Earth Consultants, Im
I I , I �.. �
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS, Continued
E-10934
Vicinity Map
Test Pit Location Plan
Retaining Wall Drainage and Backfill
Z
0
Typical Footing Subdrain Detail
--i -n
Field Exploration
m
Legend
0
Test Pit Logs
0
0 C
m
Laboratory Test Results
m Z
jo -i
Grain Size Analyses
cb. P
0)
0 -n
-n
mm
0
0
0 M
C: CD
9 Cl)
M 0
Z
;U
X
Z
Earth Consultants, Inc.
z
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
18916 SOUNDVIEW PLACE
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
E-1 0934
INTRODUCTION
General
This report presents the results of the geotechnical engineering study completed by
Earth Consultants, Inc. (ECI) for the proposed single-family residence, 18916
Soundview Place, Edmonds, Washington. The general location of the site is shown on
the Vicinity Map, Plate 1 .
The purpose of this study was to explore the subsurface conditions at the site and,
based on the conditions encountered, develop geotechnical recommendations for the
proposed site development. Our scope of services included an evaluation of the
following:
• Site geologic setting, including a description of the subsurface soil and
groundwater conditions and their influence on the proposed development;
• Grading, earthwork, fill compaction, drainage, cut and fill slopes, stripping,
proofrolling, and other site development recommendations;
• A description of suitable fill soils, as well as the suitability of the on -site soils
for use as fill;
• Design criteria for shallow foundations including minimum width and depth
requirements and allowable design bearing pressures for shallow footings;
• Depth of frost penetration and effect; and
• Seismic design parameters.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
z
0
A
0
M
--I -n
C()
M
C
M
0
__10
0
M
M Z
C _Z
X
0)
o -n
n
M M
0 Vj
0 r-
0 M
C Cn
C 0)
M 0
Z
>
z
X
Cn
z
0
1
0
M
1.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Tom Braaten Construction E-1 0934
January 23, 2004 Page 2
Project Description
ECI understands it is planned to re -develop the site by demolishing the existing single-
family residence and replacing it with a new residence. The new residence will have a
larger footprint than the existing building, but will maintain the same grades as much
as possible. At the time this study was performed, the site, proposed residence and
our exploratory locations were approximately as shown on the Test Pit Location Plan,
Plate 2.
Based on our experience with similar projects, anticipated wall loads for the proposed
residence will be in the range of 2 to 3 kips per lineal foot, column loads in the range of
10 to 20 kips, and slab -on -grade floor loads of 150 pounds per square foot (psf).
We anticipate the proposed residence will be constructed near existing site grades
using a crawl -space basement, and/or a slab -on -grade floor with cuts and fills of less
than five feet.
If the above project description is incorrect or the project information changes, ECI
should be consulted to review the recommendations contained in this study and make
modifications, if needed.
SITE CONDITIONS
Surface
The subject site is located at 18916 Soundview Place, Edmonds, Washington (see
Plate 1, Vicinity Map). The site is roughly rectangular in shape, with an area of
approximately one-half acre. The site is currently developed with an abandoned single-
family residence surrounded by a yard and landscaping. The site is bordered to the
north and east by developed residential parcels, to the south by a residential parcel and
access street frontage, and to the west by a Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF)
railroad line.
The site is vegetated with a mixture of grass landscaping and sparse trees.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
t "'#
z
0
A
0
M
—i -n
Cn
M
0
0.
0 C:
M
M z
C
o -n
n
M M
0
0
0 rn
C 0)
9 Cn
M 0
Z
z
z
0
A
0
M
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Tom Braaten Construction
January 23, 2004
E-1 0934
Page 3
The existing topography slopes very gently to the west, with approximately five feet of
elevation change across the width of the site. There is a creek channel that trends
east to west along the northern site boundary. The channel elevation is approximately
ten feet below the developed portion of the site. There is a bluff along the western
site boundary that descends approximately ten feet to the BNSF line.
Subsurface
Subsurface conditions were evaluated by excavating three test pits at the site to a
maximum depth of nine feet below existing grades at the approximate locations shown
on Plate 2. Please refer to the Test Pit Logs, Plates A2 through A4, for a more detailed
description of the conditions encountered at each location explored. A description of
the field exploration methods is included in Appendix A. The following is a generalized
description of the subsurface conditions encountered.
At all our test pit locations, approximately four inches of topsoil was encountered. The
topsoil was characterized by its dark brown color and organic content. Under no
circumstances should the topsoil be used as, or mixed into, structural fill.
Underlying the topsoil, in all our test pit locations, medium dense, grading to very
dense, silty sand with gravel (Unified Soil Classification SM) was encountered
extending to the maximum exploration depth of nine feet.
Review of the geologic map for the Edmonds East and part of the Edmonds West
Quadrangles indicates the site is immediately underlain by Olympia Gravel deposits.
These deposits are characterized by fluvial sands and gravels with localized oxidation
and cementation, deposited prior to the Fraser Glaciation.
Our field exploration generally correlates with this geologic designation.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
-4
Z
0
A
0
M
--I -n
3:
M
C:
M
0
0
0 C:
—i K
3: M
M Z
0 -n
n
-q
3:9
M M
0
0 M
cy)
C/)
M 0
Z
Z
--q
3:
0)
Z
0
i
0
M
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Tom Braaten Construction
January 23, 2004
Groundwater
E-1 0934
Page 4
No groundwater seepage was encountered at the time of the subsurface exploration,
(December 2003). Based on the limited amount of grading required to achieve footing
elevation, groundwater seepage is not anticipated to adversely impact site
development. However, the contractor should be made aware that groundwater is not
static. There will be fluctuations in the level depending on the season, amount of
rainfall, surface water runoff, and other factors. Generally, the water level is higher,
and seepage rate is greater, in the wetter fall and winter months (typically October
through May).
Laboratory Testing
Laboratory tests were conducted on several representative soil samples to verify or
modify the field soil classification and to evaluate the general physical properties and
engineering characteristics of the soil encountered. Visual field classifications were
supplemented by grain size analyses on representative soil samples. Moisture content
tests were performed on all samples. The results of laboratory tests performed on
specific samples are provided either at the appropriate sample depth on the individual
test pit logs, or on a separate data sheet contained in Appendix B. It is important to
note that these test results may not accurately represent the overall in -situ soil
conditions. Geotechnical recommendations provided in this study are based on
interpretation of these test results. ECI cannot be responsible for the interpretation of
these data by others.
In accordance with the Standard Fee Schedule and General Conditions, the soil samples
for this project will be discarded after a period of fifteen (15) days following completion
of this report unless directed otherwise in writing.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
Z
0
M
—1 -n
M
C
M
0
0 C
M
M Z
C
o -n
n
M M
0
0
0 M
C C/)
90),
Q 0
Z
Z
W
Z
0
1
0
M
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Tom Braaten Construction E-1 0934
January 23, 2004 Page 5
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General
Based on the results of this study, in ECI's opinion, the proposed residence can be
constructed generally as planned. Support for the new residence can be provided using
a conventional spread and continuous footing foundation system bearing on competent
native soil or structural fill. Competent native soil, capable of providing adequate
support for the residence, was encountered at approximately 18 inches below existing
grades. Slab -on -grade floors can be similarly supported. Any organic or unsuitable
soils encountered during the excavation for the building foundation, pads or walkways
should be removed and replaced with a granular structural fill.
This report has been prepared for specific application to this project only and in a
manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised ' by other
members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area for
the exclusive use of Tom Braaten Construction and their representatives. No warranty,
expressed or implied, is made. This report, in its entirety, should be included in the
project contract documents for the information of the contractor.
Site Preparation and General Earthwork
The building area should be stripped and cleared of surface vegetation, organic matter,
existing structures and other deleterious material. The existing concrete foundation
can be used as structural fill provided it is reduced to a maximum grain size of four
inches and that it is mixed with other moisture conditioned granular soils prior to
placement.
Following the stripping operation, a representative from ECI should observe the ground
surface where structural fill, foundations, slabs, or pavements are to be placed. Soil in
loose or soft areas, if recompacted and still yielding, should be overexcavated and
replaced with a granular structural fill. A woven geotextile fabric may also be used to
stabilize the overexcavation surface. For this application, a woven geotextile such as
Mirafi 60OX or an equivalent material can be placed directly on the subgrade. The
geotextile should be used in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
t�. 10
Z
0
1
0
M
74 =n-
M
C
M
0
--40
0 C
M
M Z
JO --i
C
Cn
o -n
n
M M
0
0
0 M
C cl)
9 Cn
M 0
Z r—
X
Z
C/)
Z
0
i
0
M
I
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Tom Braaten Construction E-1 0934
January 23, 2004 Page 6
Any organic -rich soils exposed during excavations that will be under structural
elements such as foundations, building pads or pavement/walkway areas, are not
Z
suitable for building support and will require removal and replacement with an approved
0
granular, non -organic structural fill.
0
M
There are several existing underground utility lines beneath the site. Underground
utilities that will be abandoned should be plugged or removed and replaced with
U5 --j
X
structural fill.
M
0
0
__10
Structural fill is defined as compacted fill placed under buildings, roadways, floor slabs,
0 C:
4 K
pavements, or other load -bearing areas. Structural fill under floor slabs, footings and
3: M
M Z
pavements should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding twelve (12) inches in
JO -q
loose thickness. Fill placed under footings should be compacted to 90 percent of
C:
>
maximum density determined in accordance with ASTM D1 557-91 (Modified Proctor) I
:X
� CD
except for the top twenty-four (24) inches which should be compacted to 95 percent of
0 _n
maximum dry density. Fill placed under slabs -on -grade, pavements, and walks should be
n
compacted to 90 percent of maximum density except for the top twelve 0 2) inches
M M
which should be compacted to 95 percent of maximum density.
0 U5
0 r-
0 M
C CD
During dry weather, most granular soils, which are compactable and non -organic, can
9 CD
Q 0
be considered for use as structural fill. Based on the results of laboratory tests, the
Z
native silty sand with gravel soils, at the time of our exploration, appear to be near or
;U
above their optimum moisture content. Due to the fines content of the on -site soils,
they are moderately moisture sensitive and may degrade rapidly if exposed to moisture
a:
>
and heavy traffic. Therefore, moisture conditioning of the on -site soil may be
Z
--I
necessary prior to use as structural fill depending on the conditions at the time of
3:
Cn
placement. Laboratory testing indicates the native silty sand with gravel soils have
Z
0
moisture contents in the range of 3 to 9 percent.
0
M
If imported structural fill is necessary, a non -organic, compactable, granular soil with a
maximum grain size of four inches can be considered for use during dry weather
conditions. Fill for use during wet weather or in wet subgrade conditions should
consist of a fairly well graded granular material having a maximum grain size of four
inches and no more than 5 percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve based on the minus
3/4-inch fraction. A contingency in the earthwork budget should be included for this
possibility.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
�'q
9
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Tom Braaten Construction E-1 0934
January 23, 2004 Page 7
Foundations
The proposed residence should be supported on a conventional spread and continuous
foundation system bearing on competent native soil or structural fill. Concrete slabs can
be similarly supported. Competent native soil capable of providing adequate foundation
support was encountered at approximately 18 inches below existing grade.
Loose or organic soil encountered during site grading activities that will be under
structural areas such as the building foundation, pavement and walkways, should be
removed and replaced with a granular structural fill as necessary. An ECI
representative should be on -site during the foundation excavation operations to assess
subgrade conditions.
Exterior foundation elements should be placed at a minimum depth of eighteen (118)
inches below final exterior grade. Interior spread foundations can be placed at a
minimum depth of twelve (12) inches below the top of slab, or on competent soils
exposed in the crawl space surface. Continuous and individual spread footings should
have minimum widths in accordance with applicable building codes.
With foundation support obtained as described, an allowable soil bearing capacity of
two thousand five hundred (2,500) psf can be used for design. Loading of this
magnitude would be provided with a theoretical factor -of -safety in excess of three
against shear failure. For short-term dynamic loading conditions, a one-third increase in
the above allowable bearing capacities can be used.
With structural loading as expected, and provided the above design criteria is followed,
total settlement in the range of one inch is anticipated, with differential settlement of
about three-quarters of one inch. Most of the anticipated settlements should occur
during construction as dead loads are applied.
Earth Consultants, Inc,
ME
z
0
1
0
M
--i -n
C M
M 0
0
—40
0 C
—4 K
X M
M Z
JD —i
C
0)
0 71
ri
M M
0
0
0 M
C cl)
9 Cn
M 0
Z
z
__4
3:
Cn
z
0
M
I
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Tom Braaten Construction E-1 0934
January 23, 2004 Page 8
Horizontal loads can be resisted by friction between the base of the foundation and the
supporting soil and by passive soil pressure acting on the face of the buried portion of the
foundation. For the latter, the foundation must be poured "neat" against the competent
native soils or backfilled with structural fill. For frictional capacity, a coefficient of 0.35
can be used. For passive earth pressure, the available resistance can be computed using
an equivalent fluid pressure of three hundred fifty (350) pounds per cubic foot (pcf).
-of-safety of 1.5 has been
These lateral resistance values are allowable values, a factor
included. As movement of the foundation element is required to mobilize full passive
resistance, the passive resistance should be neglected if such movement is not
accepta . ble or the grade adjacent to the foundation is steeper than 5H:1V
(Horizontal:Vertical).
Footing excavations should be observed by a representative of ECI, prior to placing forms
or rebar, to verify that soil conditions are as anticipated in this report.
Slab -on -Grade Floors
Slab -on -grade floors may be supported on competent native soil or structural fill.
Loose or unstable subgrade soil must be either recompacted or over -excavated and
replaced with structural fill.
The slab should be provided with a capillary break consisting of a minimum of four
inches of free -draining sand or gravel. A vapor barrier such as a 6-mil plastic
membrane should be placed beneath the slab. Two inches of damp sand may be
placed over the membrane for protection during construction and to aid in curing of the
concrete.
Retaining Walls
Retaining walls should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures imposed by the
retained soils. Walls that are designed to yield can be designed to resist the lateral earth
pressures imposed by an equivalent fluid with a unit weight of thirty-five (35) pcf. If
walls are to be restrained at the top from free movement, the equivalent fluid weight
should be increased to fifty (50) pcf. These values are based on horizontal backfill and
the assumption that surcharges due to backfill slopes, hydrostatic pressures, traffic,
structural loads or other surcharge loads will not act on the wall. If such surcharges are
to apply, they should be added to the above design lateral pressure. The foundation
bearing, passive pressure, and friction coefficients previously provided in the foundation
section are applicable to retaining walls.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
Z
0
i
0
M
M
0
0
0
0 C
4 K
3: M
M Z
JO —i
C —Z
3:
0 -n
n
M M
0
0
0 M
C cl)
9 Cn
M 0
Z r-
Z
Z
0
1
3
M
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Tom Braaten Construction E-1 0934
January 23, 2004 Page 9
To reduce the potential for hydrostatic forces building up behind the walls, retaining walls
should be backfilled with a column of suitable free -draining material such as pea gravel or
washed rock extending at least eighteen (18) inches behind the wall. The remainder of
the backfill should consist of structural fill. A perforated drain pipe should be placed at
the base of the wall and should be surrounded by a minimum of one cubic foot per lineal
foot with three -eighths inch pea gravel. The perforated pipe should consist of a rigid,
smooth wall pipe such as schedule 40 PVC or SDR 35 pipe. A typical retaining wall
backfill detail is attached as Plate 3.
Seismic Design Considerations
The Puget Lowland is classified as a Seismic Zone 3 in the 1997 Uniform Building Code
(UBC). Earthquakes occur in the Puget Lowland with regularity However, tile majority
of these events are of such low magnitude they are not felt without instruments.
Large earthquakes do occur, as indicated by the 1949, 7.2 magnitude earthquake in
the Olympia area and the 1965, 6.5 magnitude earthquake in the Midway area and the
2001, 6.8 magnitude earthquake in the Nisqually area.
There are three potential geologic hazards associated with a strong motion seismic
event at this site: ground rupture, liquefaction, and ground motion response.
Ground Rupture
The strongest earthquakes in the Puget Lowland are widespread, subcrustal events,
ranging in depth from thirty (30) to fifty-five (55) miles. Surface faulting from these
deep events has not been documented to date. In our opinion, the risk of ground
rupture at this site during a strong motion seismic event is negligible.
Liquef action
Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which soils lose all shear strength for short periods of
time during an earthquake. Groundshaking of sufficient duration results in the loss of
grain -to -grain contact and a rapid increase in pore water pressure, causing the soil to
behave as a fluid. To have potential for liquefaction, a soil must be cohesionless with
a grain size distribution of a specified range (generally sand and silt); it must be loose;
it must be below the groundwater table; and it must be subject to sufficient magnitude
and duration of groundshaking. The effects of liquefaction may be large total and/or
differential settlement for structures founded in the liquefying soils.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
M
Z
0
1
0
R1
:; =n-
M
M 0
0
0
C
X M
M Z
J0 4
C:
Cn
0 -n
n
M M
0 5
0 F_
0 M
C (n
9 Cn
Q 0
Z
M
--I
Z
Cn
Z
0
i
0
M
0
J.-
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Tom Braaten Construction E-1 0934
January 23, 2004 Page 10
Due to the dense soil conditions and lack of a shallow groundwater table observed at
our test pit locations, in our opinion, the susceptibility to liquefaction -induced
settlement at this site is negligible.
Ground Motion Response
The 1997 UBC Earthquake regulations contain a static force procedure and a dynamic
force procedure for design -based shear calculations. Based on the soil conditions
encountered, it is our opinion soil profile type Sc, Very Dense Soil or Soft Rock as
defined in Table 1 6-J should be used to characterize the native site soils.
Excavations and Slopes
The following information is provided solely as a service to our client. Under no
circumstances should this information be interpreted to mean that ECI is assuming
responsibility for construction site safety or the Contractor's activities; such
responsibility is not being implied and should not be inferred.
In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local, state,
and Federal safety regulations. Based on the information obtained from field
exploration and laboratory testing, the soils encountered on this site would be classified
as Type B by OSHA. Temporary cuts greater than four feet in height in Type B soils
should be sloped at an inclination of 1H:1V. If slopes of this inclination, or flatter,
cannot be constructed, temporary shoring may be necessary. Shoring will help protect
against slope or excavation collapse, and will provide protection to workers in the
excavation. We can provide shoring recommendations, if needed.
Permanent cut and fill slopes should be inclined no steeper than 2H:lV. Cut slopes
should be observed by ECI during excavation to verify that conditions are as
anticipated. Supplementary recommendations can then be developed, if needed, to
improve stability, including flattening of slopes or installation of surface or subsurface
drains. In any case, water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of
slopes.
Permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of
vegetation to reduce erosion and improve stability of the surficial layer of soil.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
Z
0
1
0
Cn
X
M
0
0
-40
0 C
--I K
2: M
M Z
C) --I
C
Cn
0 -n
n
M M
0
0
0 M
C rj)
9 Cn
Q 0
Z
M
Z
Cn
Z
0
1
0
M
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Tom Braaten Construction
January 23, 2004
Site Drainage
E-1 0934
Page 11
Groundwater seepage was not observed at the time of our exploration (December
2003). However, if seepage is encountered, ECI should be contacted to provide
recommendations for groundwater control.
The appropriate locations of subsurface drains, if needed, should be established during
grading operations by ECI's representative, at which time the seepage areas, if present,
may be more clearly defined.
During construction, the site must be graded such that surface water is directed away
from the buildings. Water must not be allowed to stand in areas where buildings,
slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Loose surfaces should be sealed by
compacting the surface to reduce the potential for moisture infiltration into the soils.
Final site grades must allow for drainage away from the building foundations. The
ground should be sloped at a gradient of 3 percent for a distance of at least ten feet
away from the building, except in paved areas, which can be sloped at a gradient of 2
percent.
Footing drains should be installed around building perimeters at, or just below, the
invert of the footing, with a gradient sufficient to initiate flow. A typical detail is
provided on Plate 4. Under no circumstances should roof downspout drain lines be
connected to the footing drain system. Roof downspouts must be separately tightlined
to an approved discharge. Cleanouts should be installed at strategic locations to allow
for periodic maintenance of the footing drain and downspout tightline systems.
Utility Support and Backfill
The site soils should generally provide adequate support for utilities. Utility trench
backfill is a primary concern in reducing the potential for settlement along utility
alignments, particularly in pavement areas. It is important that each section of utility
line be adequately supported in the bedding material. The material should be hand
tamped to ensure support is provided around the pipe haunches. Fill should be
carefully placed and hand tamped to about 12 inches above the crown of the pipe
before heavy compaction equipment is brought into use. The remainder of the trench
backfill should be placed in lifts having a loose thickness of less than twelve (12)
inches and compacted to the structural fill specifications detailed in this report, or
specifications required by the appropriate municipal codes.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
z
0
=iii
Fn
rn
M
0
0
0
M
M Z
C) --I
C —z
3:
Cn
0 71
n
M M
0 F)
0 r-
0 M
C Cn
K 0)
M 0
Z
3:
z
--I
M
0)
z
0
1
0
M
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Tom Braaten Construction
January 23, 2004
LIMITATIONS
E-1 0934
Page 12
The recommendations and conclusions provided in this study are based on the site
materials observed, selective laboratory testing and engineering analyses, the design
information provided by the client and our experience and engineering judgment. The
conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in a manner
consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the
profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. No warranty is
expressed or implied.
The recommendations submitted in this study are based upon the data obtained from
the test pits. Soil and groundwater conditions between test pits may vary from those
encountered. The nature and extent of variations between our exploratory locations
may not become evident until construction. If variations do appear, ECI should be
requested to reevaluate the recommendations of this report and to modify or verify
them in writing prior to proceeding with the construction.
Additional Services
ECI should be retained to perform a general review of the final design and
specifications to verify that the earthwork and foundation recommendations have been
properly interpreted and implemented in the design and in the construction
specifications.
ECI should also be retained to provide geotechnical services during construction. This
is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations
and to allow design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those
anticipated prior to the start of construction.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
z
0
A
0
M
--i -n
C/)
M
M
0
0
0
M
M z
—Z
o -n
M M
0 6
0 r-
0 M
C Cn
9 Cn
M 0
Z
.--i
X
--I
a:
z
--I
X
C0
z
0
M
M
v
IN
OI-A 11:1
4,
I/ I I
WfTF.R ST
Z, 4�1
CHLR11
13 ck,-
-0
7
COUNTY
1�9TH PL,
PARK,
12
OVERLOOK,'
Z�
IB01
1�11 101-7
PL SW
FAQ
AN PK
187TIl
187TH ST SW
;I SW
i88ni ST SW
IlIgIll Sl sw
1
2
"goill
19011I.Si sw
S1
lwll 51 slim
41921W, 51 �SW t a;
CUI
41 :,
2
IS
196TH ST� SWI
infil)l
PUGET', DR
MELODY L14
( PLEWM
4
11INDLEY
vir.W14 WY
co
LN
2ST
HITCYPER1. 99PI
NO 5 10
:2: T 21f
UNDERWAiIR CkPEVS ST
y
PARK 1 2001-11 ST SW 10W,
ATER 1-H
51FRRA 202NO
HRACK[TrS PL S
LANDING 1 SW
SFACH GLEtJ �ST
6 '1 �w
DkLEY
24 ST 19
I Vic b
SPRAGUE IST Z7-z i�
CTR
I LA YFIE1. 17 PINE
D I
140HAT0191 I a, = VOGE
HIIL FIX PR
S1 16 1 It , 1:%�. -C 706111
co ST SW
�E S1 MI,
It jr Is, M ST
LAI N
11W
DAY1OH IS I
YOST
-1APLE Sf
t MRIORIAL P!
I �; L
NA�
Reference:
Snohomish County
Map 454
By Thomas Brothers Maps
Dated 2004
NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color.
ECI cannot be responsible for any subsequent
misinterpretation of the information resulting
from black & white reproductions of this plate.
Earth CMISLIltants, Inc.
Gcoledillical Ell�ljneefin�� Gcok)9�1. Lilvironmenlal Sciences
1(:130 1,,\L10 Inspection Services
Vicinity Map
18916 Sound View Place
Edmonds, Washington
Drwn. GLS
Date Jan. 2004
Proi. No. 10934
Checked SSR
Date 1/14/04
Plate 1
z
0
1
0
M
-n
CD
3:
0 M
C
M
0
0
0 C
--i K
3: M
M z
jC) --4
—Z
X
Cl)
0 -n
n
M M
0
0
0 M
C: Cj)
9 0)
M 0
Z
3:
>
z
3:
55
z
0
1
0
M
z
0
1
0
m
-i -n
m
0
--Io
0
M
mz
n,
o -n
n�
-4
3:
m M
0
0
0 M
C cl)
9 co
M 0
Z
X
—1
3:
z
Cl)
z
0
i
0
m
v �v
A
: A
�-A
� 4
Free Draining
Backfill
8 inches min.
0 0
Min 2"Dia.
'-0-0 0C
0
12 inches
Weep Hole
0 (D 0
"T
0 0
5 .1 - U 0 01-1 000 0
0 0() 0 0 0 0 .0 0
0 0 0 C
0 0 0 0
0 0 00
0 'Zi 0 0004Z) 0 0 Q�
0
00 C
.
0 0 0 0 13 0.:.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0
Min. 6"
0
80- 0
0 IZ, 0
1" Drain
0 000 0 Z
0 1Z, 0 001Z, 0,000
10 0 C,'�, 0 C
Rock
0
0Q) 00 0 0 00 0
0 0
0
0 0 0C
0.10
0 , Excavated Slope
0 0o 0 () 0 0 0 0
0 0 Q1 0 0 0 0'. .0
0
0 Z) C)%O 000 0
0 0 000
0 0 1%7 Z ri.
J
a 00 000000 0 .
0 0000t3 coo 00 00
0 qzt, 0 0 0 'Zoo a
0 00 00001Z)
WEEP HOLE
DETAI
0 0 0 oq� c
'Zi. , 0 0 0 0 00 0 1
0 , 0 0 0 OtZi 00000Q,
0 Zo 0 0 '0
0
aqz, 00 00 000000Z Perforated Pipe
00
00 00 0 0-Q)0 .00 0 0: Wrapped with
C6
1 foot min.
0 Z -90-0 . - Filter Fabric
11 'foot min. Compacted Subgrade
STANDARD NOTES
1 ) Free Draining backfill should consist of
granular soil having no more than 5
percent passing the #200 sieve and
no particles greater than 4 inches in
diameter. The percentage of particles
passing the #4 sieve should be between
25 and 75 percent.
2) Structural backfill should be free of
organics, clayey soils, debris and other
deleterious materials. It should be
placed at or near the optimum moisture
content.
3) Where weep holes are utilized, surround
each weep hole with 3 cubic feet of I inch
drain rock. Maximum horizontal spacing
of weep holes should be 6 feet.
4) Drain pipe; perforated or slotted rigid
PVC pipe laid with perforations or slots
facing down; tight jointed; with a positive
gradient. Do not use flexible corrugated
plastic pipe. Drain line should be bedded
on and surround with free draining 1 inch
drain rock. The drain rock may be
encapsulated with a geotechnical drainage
fabric at the engineers discretion.
LEGEND
Surface Seal; Native Soil or other Low
Permeability Material
0 0000Z
0
ree Draining Backfill
4Z)o 0 0
Structural Fill compacted to 90 percent
i -10
relative compaction
I inch Drain Rock
SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE
NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING
4DEarth Consultants, Inc.
cicotechnical Engineem Geologists & En%ifonnicnial scientists
consirtic.tion Tesling & ICBO I WABO Inspection Services
RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE AND BACKFILL
18916 Sound View Place
Edmonds, Washington
Drwn. GLS
Date Jan. 2004
Proj. No. 10934
Chocked SSR
Date 1/15/04
Plate 3
Z
0
4
0
M
-1 -n
C m
M 0
0
-10
0
M
M Z
0)
o -n
n
M M
0 U5
0 r-
0 M
C 0)
9 Cn
M 0
Z
X
Z
Z
0
M
N
I �.'
1 0
6 inch min.
Slope To Drain
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 1z) 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C) a 0 0 0 0 0 a C30
0 00(3 0
0 0 a 0 0 C�00 0 0 0
0 0
0 0 a 0 a 0 000q�, 000 0 0 000 0 (1 "a 0 a
00 0 a 0 00
00 0 0 00 00 0 00
0 C3 0 0 0 C3 000050 0004Z10 0 0 00or3 0 cc
0 a 0 04z) 0 00 a 0 0 0 0 a 0 C
0 00 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 00
0 00 C) 0 OZ 0 0 000 0 013 OOC
0 CZ 0 000 qZ10 0
0 000 t30 a 0 00 0 0 0
0 00 0 00 0 00 0
4 inch min. 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 C
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04Z 0 0 n 0-
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Diameter 0 0 0 4z� 0cb0 0 0 (D 0 Q1 C>
CD 0
0 C:' 0 0 0 00 0
Perforated Pipe 0 0 0 qz�
000 0 0000 0 a
00 Cl 00,0Z 00 0 0 0 00
Wrapped in Drainage 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0
cj 0 000 1z
0 0(3 0
Fabric 00 00 00
C) 0000 c�
0 0 r3 0
0 a 400 00
2 inch min. 4 inch max. 12inch
min.
I inch
nin.
2 inch min.
Surface seal; native soil or other SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE
low permeability material. NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING
0 0 0 0
I Q1 0 00 0
0 0 c� 1" Drain Rock
a �00
Drain pipe; perforated or slotted rigid
PVC pipe laid with perforations or
slots facing down; fight jointed; with a
positive gradient. Do not use flexible
corrugated plastic pipe. Do not be
building downspout drains into footing
lines. Wrap with Mirafi 140 Filter Fabric
or equivalent.
GEarth Consultants, Inc.
Geolechnical Engineers. Geologists & Environmental Sc�--nfists
Construction Testing & 1CB0 / WABO Inspection Services
TYPICAL FOOTING SUBDRAIN DETAIL
18916 Sound View Place
Edmonds, Washington
Drwn. GLS
Date
Jan. 2004
Prol. No.
10934
Checked SSR
Date
1/15/04
plate
4
0
I
=i :R
W --i
3:
0 M
C
M C)
0
--10
0 C
--4 K
X M
M Z
r') --I
C -z
X
CA
to -n
n
M M
065
0 r-
0 M
cl)
CO)
M 0
Z
z
--I
3:
(1)
z
0
q
0
m
APPENDIX A
FIELD EXPLORATION
E-10934
Our field exploration was performed on December 12, 2003. Subsurface conditions at
the site were explored by excavating three test pits to a maximum depth of nine feet
below grade. The test pits were excavated by Northwest Excavating and Trucking,
Inc. using a backhoe.
Approximate test pit locations and elevations were determined by pacing from the
existing lot boundaries and referencing plans provided by the client. The locations and
elevations of the test pits should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by
the method used. These approximate locations are shown on the Test Pit Location
Plan, Plate 2.
The field exploration was continuously monitored by a geologist from ECI, who
classified the soils encountered, maintained a log of each test pit, obtained
representative samples, measured groundwater levels, and observed pertinent site
features. The samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil
Classification System, which is presented on Plate Al, Legend. Representative soil
samples were placed in closed containers and returned to the laboratory for further
examination and testing.
Logs of the test pits are presented on Plates A2 through A4. The final logs represent
the interpretations of the field logs and the results of laboratory examination and
testing. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries
between soil types. In actuality, the transitions may be more gradual.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
V"'q
1 `1
z
0
1
0
M
--I -n
M
C:
M
0
C)
0 C
M M
M z
0-11
C
C0
o -n
n
M M
0 V5
0 r-
0 M
C C/)
M 0
Z
;U
z
0)
z
0
0
M
MAJOR DIVISIONS GRAPH LETTER TYPICAL DESCRIPTION
I ISYMBOL SYMBOL
Gravel
And
Clean Gravels
Gravelly
(little or 0o fines)
Coarse
Soils
Grained
Soils
More Than
,50% Coarse
Gravels With
- Fraction
Fines ( appreciable
Retained On
amount of lines
No. 4 Sieve
Sand
And
Clean Sand
Sandy
(little or no fines)
More Than
Soils
50% Material
Larger Than
More Than
No. 200 Sieve
Size
50% Coarse
Sands Witt)
Fraction
Fines (appreciable
Passing No. 4
amount of fines)
Sieve
Fine
Grained
Silts
And
Liquid Limit
Less Than 50
Soils
Clays
More Than
50% Material
Smaller Than
No. 200 Sieve
Size
Silts
And
Clays
Liquid Limit
Greater Than 50
C
qu
W
P
pef
LL
PI
y
1 4
Highly Organic Soils
GW
Well -Graded Gravels, Gravel -Sand
,OAOAOO
n
gW
tf 'v
Mixtures, Little Or No Fines
G P _777::'
Poorly -Graded Gi'avels,Gra%;el-
g P
Sand Mixtures, Little Or No Fines
G M
Silly Gravels, Gravel - Sand -
Sill Mixtures
GC
Clayey Gravels, Gravel - Sand -
9C
Clay Mixtures
00
Sw
Well -Graded Sands, G ravblly
0 0
0 00
Sw
Sands, Little Or No Fines
SP
Poorly -Graded Sands, Gravelly
. . ....
Sp
Sands, Little Or No Fines
S_��S
Silty Sands. Sand - Silt Mixtures
M
iliiffi-W
SC
Clayey Sands, Sand - Clay Mixtures
ML
Inorganic Silts & Very Fine Sands, Rock Flour,Silty-
M
Clayey Fine Sands; Clayey Sills w/ Slight Plasticity
CL
inorganic Clays of Low To Medium ' Plasticity,
Cl
Gravelly Cfays, Sandy clays, Silty Clays, Lean
OL
Organic Silts And Organic
01
Silty Clays Of Low Plasticity
MH
d
Inorganic Sills. Micaceous Or Diatomaceous Fine
mh
Sand Or Silly Soils
01111IIIIIII-�
it High
I
K-0101-A
is
OH Organic Clays Of Medium lo Higll
oh Plasticity, Organic Silts
A Peat, Humus, Swamp Soils
PT
Pt With High organic Contents
Topsoil Humus And Duff Layer
Fill
The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature
of the material presented in the attached logs.
DUAL SYMBOLS are used to indicate borderline soil classification.
TORVANE READING, tsf
PENETROMETER READING, tsf
MOISTURE, % dry weight
SAMPLER PUSHED
SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED
DRY DENSITY, lbs. per cubic ft.
LIQUID LIMIT, %
PLASTIC INDEX
-4
--arth consultant's Inc.
01)[4,01111k,11 1:119hkcc1.Sj"flog1S1S& Nwilixlnl('111.111� WOWS
2" O.D. SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER
24" I.D. RING OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER
WATER OBSERVATION WELL
DEPTH OF ENCOUNTERED GROUNDWATER
DURING EXCAVATION
T SUBSEQUENT GROUNDWATER LEVEL W/ DATE
LEGEND
Proj. No. 10934 1 Date Jan. 2004 1 Plate Al
Z
0
A
0
M
:q =6
M
C
M
0
10
0 C:
M
M Z
g) -1
C
0
n
M M
055
0 r-
0 rn
C (/)
9 C0
M 0
Z
;U
Z
C/)
Z
0
i
0
M
I
I
Test Pit Log
Project Name:
18916 Sound View Place
Job No.
Logged by:
112/12/03
nale:
Test Pit No.:
10934
SSR
TP-1
Excavation Contactor:
Ground Surface Elevation:
NW Excavating
95'
Notes:
S urface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 4": grass
General
W
-6
cl E
CL
U_ E
U) Z
0 M
E
Notes
0)
to
M
U)
>'
U)
Sm
Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist
2
-dense
-oxide staining
3
4
-very dense
5
-contains cobbles
6
7
-gray
8
9.2
9
Test pit terminated at 9.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater
encountered during excavation.
8
Test Pit Log
Earth
Consultant's Inc.
18916 Sound View Place
Grolmillik-di
n18111mls.
C�.010LAI-aS& Filvircm In wntal.Lklm WsTs
Edmonds, Washington
tii
Proj. No. 10934 Dwn.
4
GLS Date 1/15/ Plate A2
Date Jan. 2004 Checked SSR
Subsurface conditions depicted represent
our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and
locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of
juc They are not necessarily
representative
of other times and
f�mir.
z
0
1
0
M
--i -n
0 M
C
M
0
-10
0
X M
M z
g) --I
C
o -n
n
MM
OU—)
0 r-
0 M
C 0)
9 Cn
M 0
Z
z
z
0
i
0
M
Test Pit Log
Project Name: Sheet of
18916 Sound View Place 1 1
Date: Test Pit No.:
Job No. Logged by: —P5`1
10934 1 SSR 12/12/03 TP-2
Excavation Contactor: Ground Surface Elevation:
NW Excavating 95,
Notes:
-6 -6 Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 6": grass
General W
0- E cL
5- E E
Notes M 12 >' a, M >'
0 Cn U)
SM Brown silty fine to medium SAND, medium dense, moist (Possible Fill)
2
SM Grayish brown silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist
4
12.5 5
6
7
8.4 8 -29.2% fines
Test pit terminated at 8.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater
encountered during excavation.
Test Pit Log
E zirth Consultants Inc. 18916 Sound View Place
c
CA-.(9t%l it lk-dl Fj lglne".S' C�.dNlsrs & Fj 1VI nin w111,11 I'm I M. 01sts
Edmonds, Washington
Plate A3
wl Proj. No. 10934 Dwn. GLS Date Jan.2004 Checked SSR Date 1/15/04
Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and
L. ---6 lru— — --6 --Ah, m �4h— #imaq nnri lnr-qtinnq Wo rAnnnt arceDt responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of
z
0
A
0
M
--I -n
M
C
M 0
0
0
0 C:
M
M z
M
o -n
-n
m m
0
0 M
C Co
9 U)
M 0
z
z
--I
M
z
0
1
0
M
Test Pit Log
Project Name:
Sheet of
18916 Sound View Place
1 1 1
J ob No.
Logged by:
Date:
Test Pit N o.:
10934
SSR
12/12/03
TP-3
-1
Excavation Contactor:
Ground Surface Elevation:
NW Excavating
95'
Notes:
General
Notes
W
c,L E
5"
C5
CL
u- E
M
C, cn
U)
U) E
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 4": grass
S M
Brown silty fine SAND, medium dense, moist
15.9
2
-trace organics, roots
-26.8% fines
3
4
-dense
38.2
5
-oxide staining
-contains cobbles
6
7
8
8.2
9
Test pit terminated at 9.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater
encountered during excavation.
Earth Consultants Inc.
Test Pit Log
18916 Sound View Place
(k7m.01111(ill Filgillmls. C-ffqO8ISt';& Filvit" III W.1 11,11.'kl
Edmonds, Washington
Proj. No. 10934
Dwn. GLS
Date Jan.2004
Checked SSR
Date 1/15/04
I Plate A4
bubsurtace conditions depicted represent our ooservations at Ine time ana iocation oT inis exploratory noie, moumeo Dy engineering Tesis, analysis anu
u c� min
,L They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of
z
0
11
0
M
11 -n
M
M 0
0
0
0
M
M z
3:
o -n
n
MIT!
0
0 M
C (n
9 UY
M 0
Z
3:
z
--I
3:
0)
z
0
i
0
M