20040291.pdfDATE RECEIVED
CITY OF EDMONDS
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION
OWNER NAMENAME 041DUSINESS T,
MAILING ADDRESS
CITY
.k
U1 Z, A_L,7�JL�17,5
t= ADDRESS
x
0
CITY
NAME
cc ADDRESS
0
U4 A.;, t o
rz CITY
ZIP TELEPHONE
i�� o, *17 6
ZIP TELEPHONE
CBL 0
j )I
ZIP I TELEPHONE
0
Z
9 `110 71206
(" 0
�� /�,; ,.,j 0 119
1
ST*E LICENSE NUM13ER
EXPIRATION
DATE
CHECKED BY
(�, 14
0 2,'Llc
x
-<j
PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL NO.
C3 J�. 00
NEW
RESIDENTIAL
PLUMBING / MECH
ADDITION
COMMERCIAL
COMPLIANCE OR
CHANGE OF USE
REMODEL
MULTIFAMILY
SIGN
REPAIR
CYDS
FENCE
X FT)
DEMOLISH
TA�K
OTHER
GARAGE
RETAINING WALL
ROCKERY
El
FIRE SPRINKLER
FIRE ALARM
CARPORT
0
(TYPE OF USE, BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY),
0
U)
w
NUMBER
NUMBER OF
DWELLING
OF
0
STORIES
UNITS
DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE
I
USE
ZONE
[PERMIT EXPIRES
PERMiT -`1
NUMBER
JOB SUITE/AP
AV
ADDRESSzy C
z
PLAT�Alvl E/S U BDIVI SION NO. LOT.NO LID NO.
22 t to FEE $
I ESCP APP70v0d
PUBLIC Rj�ff OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP RW permit Required E3
Street Use permit Hoq'd [3
inspection Required 13
EXISTING-1-f I I LAC-- PROPOSED Sidewalk Required 0
Underground
REQUIRED DEDICATION- FT Wiring required 13
METER SIZE NO. OF FIXTURES PRV REQUIRED 93
YES No 0
Lu
REMARKS z
OWNER/CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROLIDRAINAGE z
W
ENGINEERING n7EVIE ED BY,,��` DATE
4
71RE REVIEWED BY DATE w
M
ic
VARIANCE OR CU SHORELINE OR ADI3# INSPECTION BOND
REO'D POSTED
OYES S
SEPA REVIEW SIGN AREA HEIGHT
COMPLETE , EXEMPT ALLOWED I PROPOSED ALLOWED PROPOSED
'7
EXP 10 21571
LOT COVERAGE REQUIRED SETBACKS (Fr.) PROPOSED SETBACKS (FT.)
ALLOWED PROPOSED FRONT SIDE REAR FRONT UR SIDE REAR 0
3,* z
!7 , I E
35 'A 1113, L, 57, 7- -7, 5 ) 5 1 z
'ATr: 5
PARKING LOT AREA PLANNING REVIEWED BY DATE IL
REO'D I PROVIDED
C
T.:I.TUPII�R
CHECKED By OF CONSTRUCTION OCCUPANJ�7...,
5,#
4M V /I/ GROUP
]TYPE cly�_
SPECIAL INSPECTION JAREA OCCUPANT
LOAD
REQUIRED bo YES
REMARKS
PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 108/FINAL INSPECTION REQ1D
VALUATION
$ hAl-I "
Description FEE Description FEE
FEE
Plan Check State Surcharge 2161
HEAT SOURCE GLAZING % LOT SLOPE % Building Permit City Surch arge
ECK 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
a DOMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE
A SEPARATE PERMISSION.
t= Engr. Review
:E
cc PERMIT APPLICATION: 180DAYS
Lu
PERMIT LIMIT. I YEAR - PROVIDED WORK IS STARTED WITHIN 100 DAYS Engr. Inspection
SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION Fire Review Plan Chk. Deposit
tn -APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS
U) LD HARMLESS THE CITY OF
IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY. DEFEND AND HO
M EDMONDS, WASHINGTON. ITS OFFICIALS. EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND Fire Inspection Receipt
M OR INDIRECTLY
49 ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY
x FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE
!3 DEEMED TO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE Landscapelnsp. Total Amt. Due
0 NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITY'S ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.*
Recording Fee Receipt
11 1 7�
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION; THAT THE INFORMATION APPLICATION APPROVAI
GIVEN IS CORRECT; AND THAT I AM THE OWNER, OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF I his application is not a perinit until signed by the
THE OWNER, I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC- CALL Building Official or his/her Deputy: and Fees are paid, and
TION; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY. NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED
IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO FOR INSPECTION tecLipt is acknowledged in space provided.
WORKMqTS COMPENZTION INSURANCE AND RCW IB 27. OF I I IGNAATUBE DATE
(OWN R A T) DATE SIGNED (425)
SIGN M,
zo - 771-0220 _NA.ErA�D BY
ATTENtION EXT 1333(
IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL
OfP311GINAOLWFI LE - YELLOW - 14PECTIR
A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTIFI NK NER - GOLD -ASSESSOR
CATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC SECTION 109 GREEN - ACCOUNTING
04/02 PRESS HARD -YOU ARE MAKING 5 COPIES
z
0
`1
0
M
q =5
M
C
M
0
10
0 C
-4 K
2: M
M Z
0 _n
n
M M
a
0
0 M
C C/)
9 Cn
M 0
Z r-
M
z
z
0
1
0
M
10
Owner: Greg Hale Const. Inc.
Address: 16605 7 1 s' Pl. W.
Lynnwood Wa. 98037
Ph. (206) 650-0699
Tax Parcel : 005550-000-047-02 Lot 4
Property Address: 24219 104 1h Ave. W.
Edmonds Wa. 98020
COD �� q..# (� L_01�j
-� , 0-1 - '_' -1 61-Y
LOT COVERAGE
LOT AREA= 11256 S.F.
HOUSE & DECKS = 1550 S.F.
COVERAGE 1550/11256 = 13.77%
IMPERVIOUS SURFACES
HOUSE, EAVES & PATIO = 1800 S.F..
DRIVEWAY & WALKS = 1124 S.F.
TOTAL = 2924 S.F.
tj
-_'PArt 10
U
1xv gc).
9 Lu
tA V,
HEIGHT CALCS - < C.&.1xXGe 2551.00 f\ -roj> ri
I- N , I I
A= �96.0& 0 LO
6T_ MeTAO—
B Q'i
C
D k Z -7
Avg. Grade —49-.2-5, k
Actual =-424-.8-7 051.(os \14 11:) e
Ir
Maximum =424-.25-- t
MN Q WAJ rop 0
XT
e? AIA
CIT'u (A-V
4M
ED
R 401 V \"V
K,, rA
MAR J 9; 2004
PERMIT coUNTER
7 C"
5T
Z APPRO" _'S' R'y PLAN'.
SIDE_
C 7—_ ft ........
REAR PLOTPLAN
OTHER
HEIGHT— Scale: I"= 20 Feet
I
z
0
4
0
M
--I -n
M
C
M
0
-40
0
3: M
M Z
10 --1
C
0)
0 -n
n
--I
3:9
rn M
0 —C')
0 r-
0 M
C cl)
9 Cn
M 0
X
-4
3:
z
C/)
z
0
1
0
M
Height Calculation Worksheet
Address:
Date: b — 9-
fiWe��tos):
1. Datum Point: t4
Z
0
2. Datum Point Elevation:
r9
3. Aver-dgeGrade: LL(
4.. Maximum Elevation Allowed.1 db,9'� 6veritgb giade)4" 25""—
0 M
C
rn 0:
5. Reference Point Elevation Shot to House:
Oc
M
(datum elevatign) + 71 rade to transit level line 'shot to house)
M z
6. Measurements from line shot onto house to roof ridge:
C Z,
CD
C)
0 -T1
OIL
M M
0
0 r
0 M
C W
Q 0,
Z
X
z
z
0
Total 6
M
7. Actual Elevation: (reference point elevation') + (measurements
from #6)
Conclusion:
I -7-?_ (actual) is greater 4KS 3"A (allowed); therefore the house is/
is not over the height requirement per ECDC 16.20.30 requirements
1.17 C. 1 S () \1
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221
Website: www.ci.edmondsma.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning - Building - Engineering
July 16, 2004
Greg Hale Construction
16605 71" Place W
Lynnwood, WA 98037
Re: Building Permit:
Site Address:
Expiration Date:
Dear Mr. Hale:
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
Z
0
A
0
M
2004-0291
24219 104"' Avenue W
April 21, 2005
The purpose of this letter is to inforri-i you that the last remaining inspection on your
project is a final inspection(s). The final inspection(s) detennines that there are no
outstanding life -safety issues and approval allows the City to close your pen -nit 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 detectors, 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 sorne items that do not need to be installed such as:
paint, carpet, moldings, wallpaper, etc. Please be advised pennits 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 pennit 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
permit 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 oil your Job Card.
Please feel free to contact me at 425-771-0220 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Permit Coordinator
1,\I'c mp\DST' sW aster l.etters\SRwaaniLtrSFR
Incorporated August 11, 1890
Sister Citv - Hekinan, Japan
1,
0 kRTY COPY
TUBBS080o"Coosmso
January 9, 2004 1RecE:1VE:r)
MAR 18 2004
Greg Hale Construction, Inc. PERMIT COUNTER
16605 - 7 1 st Place West
Edmonds, Washington 98037
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Residential Property
10300 Block of 242 d Place West
Edmonds, Washington
File No. HAL2-01
INTRODUCTION
This letter presents our conclusions and recommendations regarding geotechnical
conditions pertinent to proposed residential development of your property located in the
10300 block of 242 d Place West in Edmonds, Washington. Our services have been
performed at your request and in accordance with our services agreement dated
December 16, 2003.
The subject property consists of Lot 4 of Short Subdivision S-2000-82. We understand
that you propose to develop the property to include one single family residence. You have
asked us to evaluate geotechnical conditions within the property as a basis for providing you
with information and recommendations pertinent to the proposed development. Specifically,
our scope of services includes:
1. Review of published geologic and topographic information regarding the subject site and
adjacent areas.
2. Surface geologic reconnaissance of the site and adjacent areas.
3. Subsurface investigation of soil conditions at the site by means of test pits excavated by
a backhoe and operator you provided.
4. Preparation of this geotechnical engineering report providing our observations relative
to geotechnical conditions at the site and providing our conclusions and
recommendations regarding geotechnical elements of the proposed development.
Our services have been provided on the basis of a review of existing information
availabletous, geologic reconnaissance of thesiteand adjacentareas during December 2003,
observation of test pit explorations on December 19, 2003, discussions with you and Mr.
Gary S. Cooper, and our experience.
7505-A West Lake Sammamish Parkway Northeast Redmond, Washington 98052 425-882-4850 www.tubbs.com
z
0
q
0
M
—4 -n
W
M
0
--10
0
—49 '- .
= M
M z
jo
—Z
0 -n
M M
—0)
0
0 M
C V)
K 0)
Q 0
Z
;U
z
0)
z
0
M
Greg Hale Construction, Inc.
January 9, 2004
Page 2
SITE CONDITIONS
The property is located between 104 th Avenue West and 242" Place SW in Edmonds,
Washington as shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. As shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2,
which is based on a drawing dated 4-2-02 by JBMF Consulting Engineers, the subject
property consists of a Lot 4, located in the northwest part of the shortplat and adjacent to
104 1h Avenue West.
Our Critical Areas Evaluation report dated April 10, 2002 for the area of the short plat
that includes the subject property, described topographic, vegetative and prior development
conditions within the area of the short plat. Since that report was submitted, the area of the
short plat has been cleared and graded to create three building pads, driveways accessing the
three lots have been constructed and paved, and storm and sanitary side sewers have been
installed. Site grading included construction of a keystone block wall and two rockeries.
Recommendations for design and construction of these improvements was not included in
either our previous or present scope of services. We understand that the existing roCKenes
will be reconstructed based on recommendations by others.
Geologic conditions within the area of the short plat were also described in our earlier
report. As part of our present services we explored subsurface conditions within the area of
the short plat via six test pits, including three test pits within the subject property, excavated
at the locations indicated on the Site Plan. A description of the subsurface exploration
program and the logs of the test pits are presented in the Appendix. The observed subsurface
conditions are consistent with those described in our earlier report. The subject property is
underlain by glacial outwash consisting of sand and gravel deposited during the advance and
retreat of the last glacier to occupy this area some 13,500 to 15,000 years ago. Local patches
of glacial till, deposited directly by the glacial ice, exist within the area of the short plat but
none was observed within the subject property. Some fill locally exists within the site.
Because of the high infiltration capacity of the surficial soils, little or no surface 'water runoff
occurs within the site, and no emergent groundwater seepage was observed in the test pits,
on the slope adjacent to 104 1h Avenue West, or elsewhere within the site.
7505-A West Lake Sammamish Parkway Northeast Redmond. Washington 98052 425-882-4850 www.tubbs.com
z
0
4
0
M
=i --fi
U5 --i
0 M
C
M
0
--10
0
M
M Z
g) --i
C —Z
0)
o -n
n
M M
055
0 r-
0 M
C/)
Cl)
M 0
Z
z
C/)
z
0
1
0
M
0
Greg Hale Construction, Inc.
January 9, 2004
Page 3
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
GENERAL
The subject property is suitable for the proposed residential development provided that
proper site development procedures and the recommendations below are followed. The
native soils underlying the site consist of glacial outwash sand and are suitable for
conventional residential foundation design and construction procedures.
SITE PREPARATION AND EARTHWORK
We recommend that all sod, organic soil, fill and debris be removed from settlement
sensitive areas (e.g., building, pavement and slab areas). The subgrade surface in slab and
pavement areas should be proof -rolled with heavy rubber -tired equipment after excavating
to the desired grade. The purpose of the proof -rolling is to bring the near -surface soils to a
uniform density and to identify any loose areas which might require recompaction or removal
and replacement with structural fill.
Temporary cut slopes for foundation excavations are expected to be as much as ten feet
in height. Temporary cut slopes in the medium dense to dense native soils may be inclined
as steeply as IH: IV and, except for minor sloughing, can be expected to stand at that
inclination for a period of several weeks if protected from drying. Temporary cut slopes in
existing loose or fill soils may be inclined as steeply as 1.5H: IV if protected from drying.
Protection from drying applies to natural soil moisture only. Do not add water to temporary
cut slopes to improve stability. If steeper temporary cut slopes are required we should be
consulted to develop shoring recommendations.
We understand that you anticipate new permanent cut slopes up to 6 feet in height within
the eastern portion of the subject property, and rockery walls for erosion protection of those
slopes. If rockery walls are used for this purpose, we recommend that they be no more thdii
6 feet in height, and that the toe of the rockery (see Figure 3) be located above a plane
sloping 45 degrees downward from any adjacent property line and from any existing buried
utilities. Cut slopes faced by rockery walls shall be no closer than 3 feet to the edge of storm
or sanitary sewers, or a greater distance if required by the sewer district. If higher cut slopes
are required we shall be consulted to provide other recommendations for slope protection.
STRUCTURAL FILL
All new fill in settlement -sensitive areas shall be placed as compacted structural fill after
the site has been prepared as described above. All structural fill material shall be free of
debris, organic contaminants and rock fragments larger than 6 inches. The suitability of
7505-A West Lake Sammamish Parkway Northeast Redmond, Washington 9B052 425-882-4850 www.tubbs-com
z
0
i
0
rn
=i 9
X
M
M
0
0 C
-4 K
X M
M Z
IC) --I
C
CO
o -n
n
M M
0 5)
0 r-
0 M
C 0)
9 Cn
M 0
Z r-
z
C/)
z
0
1
0
M
Greg Hale Construction, Inc.
January 9, 2004
Page 4
material for use as structural fill will depend on the gradation and moisture content of the
soil. As the amount of fines (material passing No. 200 sieve) increases, soil becomes
increasingly more sensitive to small changes in moisture content and adequate compaction
becomes more difficult to achieve. Structural fill shall contain no more than 5 percent fines
for placement in wet weather. The percent fines can be higher for placement in dry weather,
providing that the fill material is moisture -conditioned as necessary for proper compaction.
The sandy native outwash soils at the site are suitable for structural fill.
Structural fill placed in building or pavement areas shall be compacted to at least
95 percent of the maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM D-1557.
Utility trench backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent, except for the upper 2 feet
which shall be compacted to 95 percent. We recommend that structural fill be placed in
loose layers not more than 8 inches thick if a small vibratory roller compactor is used (or not
more than 12 inches if a 10-ton or larger vibratory roller compactor is used), conditioned to
the proper moisture content for compaction, and uniformly compacted before placing
subsequent layers.
FOUNDATION SUPPORT
The proposed residence can be supported on conventional spread and strip footings
founded on firm native soil, or can be supported on structural fill directly overlying firm
native soil. Footings may be proportioned using an allowable bearing value of 2000 pounds
per square foot. This value applies to the total of dead plus long term live loads and may be
increased by one-third when considering design loads of short duration such as wind or
seismic forces. This value also assumes a minimum width of 16 inches for continuous
spread footings and 24 inches for isolated spread footings. The minimum depth of
embedment below final adjacent grades is 18 inches for exterior footings and 12 inches for
interior footings on firm native soil. Footings adjacent to a downhill slope shall be
sufficiently deep to provide at least 6 feet of horizontal separation between the footing and
the slope face, and shall be sufficiently deep or distant from the slope that a 1: 1 plane
extended from the edge of the footing does not intersect the slope face. Because local areas
of loose soil may be encountered at the same level as the medium dense to dense soils, we
recommend that the soils beneath the footings be compacted using hand operated vibratory
equipment in lifts as described above. Any loose or disturbed soils in the footing
excavations, including any test pit backfill, should be recompacted prior to concrete
placement.
7505-A West Lake Sammamish Parkway Northeast Redmond, WashIngton 98052 425-882-4850 www.tubbs.com
Z
0
i
0
M
=i 9
C M
M 0
0
—i C)
0 C
4 r.
M M
MZ
10--1
C
0 -n
n
i
M
M M
0
0
0 M
C
M 0
Z
Z
__q
M
Cl)
Z
0
1
0
M
0
Greg Hale Construction, Inc.
January 9, 2004
Page 5
0
Floor slabs can be supported on grade if site preparation is accomplished as
previously recommended, or can be supported by structural fill directly overlying firm native�
soil. The subgrade soils should be proof -rolled as recommended above and compacted using
vibratory equipment or replaced with compacted structural fill if loose areas are observed.
A base course layer consisting of a minimum thickness of 4 inches of clean gravel containing
no more than 5 percent fines should be placed beneath the floor slab to provide uniform
support and a capillary break.
FOUNDATION RETAINING WALLS
The basement walls for the proposed residence function as retaining walls and shall
be designed as such. Assuming that the walls that are allowed to deflect 0.01 times the
height of the wall, we recommend an active lateral pressure equivalent to a fluid density of
40 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), assuming level backfill compacted and drained as outlined
below. If the backfill surface slopes no steeper than 2H: IV percent upward away from the
wall, a lateral soil pressure value of 60 pcf should be used.
Resistance to lateral footing loads can be developed both through friction on the base
of the footings and passive pressures along the sides. Friction resistance on the base of the
footing be computed using an internal soil friction angle of 30 degrees. Passive soil
pressures may be computed using an equivalent fluid pressure of 300 pounds per cubic foot,
providing the backfill around footings is compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry
density (ASTM D-1557). These resistance values include a factor of safety of about 1.5.
The above lateral soil pressures assume the walls will be backfilled with clean, free -
draining sand or sand and gravel containing less than 5 percent fines (material passing the
No. 200 sieve). This drainage zone should be at least 18 inches thick horizontally. The
drainage material and remaining backfill placed behind the wall and not supporting structural
elements should be compacted to a pproximately 90 percent of the maximum dry density.
Heavy compaction equipment should not be operated within 3 feet of the retaining walls; no
compaction tests will be necessary within 3 feet of the walls.
A permanent subsurface drainage system should be installed at the base of all
subsurface walls. These subdrains should consist of rigid, smooth -wall, 4-inch-diameter
(minimum) perforated PVC pipe, nonwoven filter fabric such as Mirafi drainage product or
equal, and surrounded by pea gravel or well -graded gravelly sand or sandy gravel with less
than 3 percent fines (soil finer than the No. 200 mesh sieve) based on the fraction smaller
than 3/4 inch. The drainpipes should discharge into tightlines sloped to drain by gravity to
7505-A West Lake Sammamish Parkway Northeast Redmond, Washington 98052 425-882-4850 www.tubbs.com
Z
0
0 M
C
M
0
__40
0 C
M
M Z
C
0 -n
n
M M
0
0
0 M
C C/)
90)
M 0
Z
M
Z
Z
0
0
M
0
Greg Hale Construction, Inc.
January 9, 2004
Page 6
0
the existing storm sewer system. Roof drains shall not discharge into the footing drain
system.
SITE DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL
We understand that the City of Edmonds requires water to be routed through an on -
site infiltration trench prior to being conveyed to the storm sewer system. We recommend
that the bottom of the infiltration trench be sufficiently deep and distant from any adjacent
downhill slopes so as to meet the setback requirements specified above for footings. We
recommend that water from footing drains be routed directly to the storm sewer via a tight
line. If the footing drains must be routed through the infiltration trench, the outlet from the
infiltration trench to the storm sewer shall be at an elevation at least 3 feet lower than the
footing drains in order to avoid the possibility of water from roof drains backing up into the
footing drain system.
The surficial soils within the subject property are susceptible to potential erosion and
ro are
shallow debris slides if disturbed by construction or other activities. Erosion cont Is
therefore recommended, including the proper control of surface water runoff, minimizing the
time of exposure in the area stripped during construction, and prompt revegetation.
LIMITATIONS
This report has been prepared for Greg Hale Construction, Inc. and its representatives
for use in planning, pen-nitting and designing residential development of Lot 4. Descriptions
of subsurface conditions relative to foundation support and other aspects of the proposed
development are based on surface observations and shallow subsurface explorations, and
conditions should be confirmed by observations in the excavations at the time of
construction.
Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been
accomplished in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical practices followed in this
area at the time the report was prepared. No warranty, expressed or implied, should be
understood.
7505-A West Lake Sammamish Parkway Northeast Redmond, Washington 98052 425-882-4850 www.tubbs.com
z
0
M
=i 96
r
M
M
0
0
0 C:
M
M Z
0 -n
n
MM
0
0
0 M
C cl)
90)
Q 0
Z
3:
z
--I
X
Cl)
z
0
i
0
M
E''-
Greg Hale Construction, Inc.
January 9, 2004
Page 7
We trust that this report meets your present needs. If you have any questions
regarding this report or if we can provide additional services, please call.
Yours very truly,
0j a s Tubbs Geosciences
".0 0
56
ed 0
Donald W. Tubbs Donald W. Tubbs, Ph.D.
Engineering Geologist
NT S.
WAS
0
V)
24330
ON L Enayat S. Aziz, P.E.
EXPIRES: 12/24/04 Geotechnical Engineering consultant to
Tubbs Geosciences
Document ID: HAL201 R I
7505-A West Lake Sammamish Parkway Northeast Redmond, Washington 98052 425-882-4850 www.tubbs.com
Z:
01
M
-n
M
0 M
C
M
0.
0
0 C
M
M z
C —Z'
>
C/)
0 -n
-n
M M
0
0 M
C 0)
Mo
Z
z
--i
M
z
0
M
ri�irr To f
p.m some
so
m so ft
VICINITY MAP
FIGURE 1
z
0
A
0
m
-n
M
c
m 0
0
--40
0 c:
-4 K
M M
M Z
ID
cn
0 -n
ri
--I
m M
0 U5
0 r-
0 M
CD
co
M 0
z
3:
>
z
cn
z
0
0
m
I*
le
dwp
00
4.
1� Pw -Ctd 43�0
� I�w " d3.11
loift "I VOP
(L33J M)
Orr
Z
CM
<
w
IL
a:
UJ
U.
En
co
ca
alb
E -
G' I BATTElt.
W
J
CD
> co
OPLIGINA-L
VARIABLE
EXCAV,kT%OI4 OWL"(
0
& MIN.TNICKHM
4'- V QUAKILY 5 Z�Z
9ax
I"MINUS VVASHED VtOC.V- AS NEEDSD
--PILTIEIL FABRIC AS NSEDS-D
G;' PEMF PIPE AS NSEDSD
Fop SU13SLip-PI-CE WN'Mk.
Rockery walls shall be constructed of rocks in the following size categories,
Two -man rocks (300 to 600 pounds), 13" in least dimension;
Three-man rocks (800 to 1200 pounds), 16" in least dimension;
Four -man rocks (1500 to 2200 pounds), 18 " in least dimension.
The rock material shall be hard, sound, durable and free from weathered portions, seams, cracks, and
other defects. Rocks should be as tabular in shape as possible; rounded or very angular rocks shall be
avoided.
The larger rocks shall be placed at the base of the wall. Four -man rocks shall be used for the bottom
course in walls higher than 6 feet. The lowest course of rocks shall be keyed into firm foundation
material at least 12 inches below the adjacent grade.
Rocks shall be selected and placed to minimize void space between rocks. Rocks shall be placed in
a manner such that the long axis of the rock is normal to the face of the wall. To the greatest extent
possible, rocks shall be placed with faces in contact; point contact shall be avoided. Inclining interfaces
between rocks shall slope downward toward the back of the wall. After setting each course of rock,
voids between the rocks shall be chinked on the back with quarry rock to eliminate any voids larger than
two inches across.
ROCKERY WALL SCHEMATIC
TUBBSO&DOMOSM80 FIGURE 3
Z
0
i
0
m
M
0
0
0 C
M
M Z
C _Z
071
_n
M M
0 C-1)
0 r-
0 M
C C0
9 C0
M 0
Z
X
>
Z
X
Cf)
Z
0
4
0
m
APPENDIX A
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS
z
0
The subsurface conditions within the subject site and adjacent areas were explored by
excavating six test pits with a track -mounted backhoe on December 19, 2003. The test pit
M
locations are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. The locations are approximate an d were
estimated in the field based on site features shown on the Site Plan. The explo rations were
0 M
C
backfilled with the excavated material and compacted with the backhoe bucket.
M 0'
0
The test pits were continuously monitored by an engineenng ge ologist from our firm
80
C
--i
who observed the materials encountered, noted ground water conditions and maintained a
M
M Z!
detailed log of each exploratio n. The soils encountered were classified in general accordance
C 2�
>
with the classification system shown in Figure A- 1. The test pit logs are presented in Figures
3:
CD
A-2 through A-3.
o -n,
-n
M
M
0 V5
0
0 M
C 0)
C/)
�Mo
3:
>
z
3:
C()
z
0
__4
0
M
SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
GROUP
MAJOR DIVISIONS
SYMBOL
GROUPNAME
GRAVEL
CLEAN GRAVEL
GW
WELL -GRADED GRAVEL, FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL
GP
POORLY -GRADED GRAVEL
COARSE
GRAINED
GRAVEL
GM
SILTY GRAVEL
SOILS
More Than 50%
of Coarse Fraction
GC
CLAYEY GRAVEL
Retained
WITH FINES
on No. 4 Sieve
SAND
CLEAN SAND
SW
WELL -GRADED SAND, FINE TO COARSE SAND
More Than 50%
Retained on
No. 200 Sieve
SP
POORLY -GRADED SAND
More Than 50%
SAND
SM
SILTY SAND
of Coarse Fraction
SC
CLAYEY SAND
Passes
WITH FINES
No. 4 Sieve
FINE
SILT AND CLAY
ML
SILT
-
CIL
CLAY
GRAINED
INORGANIC
SOILS
ORGANIC
OL
ORGANIC SILT. ORGANIC CLAY
Liquid Limit
Less Than 50
SILT AND CLAY
MH
SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY, ELASTIC SILT
More Than 50%
INORGANIC
Passes
CH
CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAY
No. 200 Sieve
Liquid Limit
ORGANIC
OH
ORGANIC CLAY. ORGANIC SILT
50 or More
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
PT
PEAT
on" MOISTURE MODIFIERS:
NOTES:
1 Field classification is based on visual examination of soil in Dry - Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch
general accordance with ASTM D2488-90. Moist - Damp, but no visible water
2. Soil classification using laboratory tests is based on ASTM . Wet - Visible free water or saturated, usually soil is obtained
02487-90. from below water table
3. Descriptions of soil density or consistency are based on
Interpretation of blow count data, visual appearance of soils,
.1 and/or test data.
6---Z 0
TUBBSUBDOCOM032
SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
FIGURE A-1
z
0
11
0
M
I
0 LOG OF TEST PIT
DEPTH BELOW SOIL GROUP
GROUND CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION
SURFACE SYMBOL
(FEET)
TEST PIT TP4
011.0
SP
Dark brown sand with some gravel, some silt, some roots (loose, damp)
[topsoil]
1.0-4.0
SM
Medium brown silty sand with some gravel, some roots
(medium dense, damp) [Vashon recessional outwashl
4.0,5.0
SP
Gray sand with some gravel, trace of silt, trace of roots (dense, damp)
[Vashon recessional outwashl
5.0-7.0
SM
Gray silty sand with some gravel (very dense, damp)
[Vashon till]
7.0-9.0
SP
Gray sand with some gravel, trace of silt (very dense, damp)
[Vashon advance outwashl
Bottom of test pit at 9.0 feet on 12/19103
No groundwater seepage observed
TEST PIT TP-2
0.0.5 SM Dark brown silty sand with some gravel, some roots (loose, damp)
[topsoil]
0.5-1.5 SP Brownish gray gravelly sand with trace of silt, trace of roots
(medium dense, damp) [Vashon recessional outwashl
1.5-3.5 SP Gray sand with some gravel, trace of silt, trace of roots (medium dense, damp)
[Vashon recessional outwashl
3.5-5.5 SM Gray sand with some gravel, trace of silt, trace of roots (very dense, damp)
[Vashon advance outwash)
Bottom of test pit at 5.5 feet on 12/19/03
No groundwater seepage observed
DEPTHS ON THE TEST PIT LOGS, SHOWN TO 0.1 FOOT, SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE TO 0.5 FOOT
oem cln-a
Tuimsuko ks-ML-7 ks-�w
LOG OF TEST PIT
FIGURE A-2
LOG OF TEST PIT
DEPTH BELOW SOIL GROUP
GROUND CLASSIFICATION
SURFACE SYMBOL DESCRIPTION
(FEET)
TEST PIT TP.3
0.2.5
SP
Brown sand with some gravel, some silt, trace of roots, some construction debris
(loose, damp) [fill]
2.5-3.5
SP
Gray sand with some gravel, some silt, some roots, some construction debris
(medium dense, damp) [fill]
3.5-4.0
SM
Dark brown silty sand with some gravel, some roots (medium dense, damp)
[buried topsoil]
4.0-7.0
SM
Medium brown silty sand with some gravel, some roots (medium dense, damp)
[Vashon recessional ourwashl
7.0-9.0
SP
Brownish gray sand with some silt, trace of gravel, trace of roots (dense, damp)
[Vashon advance outwashl
Bottom of test pit at 9.0 feet on 12/19/03
No groundwater seepage observed
TEST PIT TP-4
SP Dark brown sand with sorn
0.0.5 e gravel, some silt, some roots (loose, damp)
[topsoil]
6.0-3.0 SP Brownish gray sand with trace of gravel, some silt, trace of roots
(medium dense, damp) [Vashon recessional outwash]
3.0-6.0 SP Brownish gray sand with some gravel, some silt, trace of roots (very dense, damp)
[Vashon advance outwashl
Bottom of test pit at 9.0 feet on 12/19103
No groundwater seepage observed
DEPTHS ON THE TEST PIT LOGS, SHOWN TO 0.1 FOOT, SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE TO 0.5 FOOT
LOG OF TEST PIT
FIGURE A-3
z
0
0
M
0)
M
C
ITI
0
0
0
M
M Z'
C —Z
o -n
-n
M ITI
0 C—/)
0
0 M�
#;I
C W
9 Cn
M 0
Z
z
z
0
M
0 LOG OF TEST PIT *
DEPTH BELOW SOIL GROUP
GROUND CLASSIFICATION
SURFACE SYMBOL DESCRIPTION
(FEET)
TEST PIT TP,5
0.3.5
SM
Dark brown silty sand with some gravel, some roots (medium dense, damp)
[fill]
3.5-4.5
SM
Reddish brown silty sand with trace of gravel, trace of roots (medium dense, damp)
[Vashon recessional outwashl
4.5-7.0
SP
Medium brown sand with some silt, trace of gravel, trace of roots
(medium dense, damp) [Vashon recesssional outwash]
Bottom of test pit at 7.0 feet on 12/19/03
No groundwater seepage observed
TEST PIT TP-6
0-1.0
SM
Medium grayish brown silty sand with some gravel, trace of roots (dense, damp)
[fill]
1.0-2.0
SM
Dark brown silty sand with trace of gravel, some roots ( medium dense, damp)
[buried topsoil]
2.0-6.0
SP
Medium grayish brown sand with some silt, trace of gravel (medium dense, damp)
Ivashon recessional outwashl
6.0-7.0
SP
Brownish gray sand with some silt, some gravel (dense to very dense, damp)
[Vashon advance outwashl
Bottom of test pit at 7.0 feet on 12/19/03
No groundwater seepage observed
DEPTHS ON THE TEST PIT LOGS, SHOWN TO 0.1 FOOT, SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE TO 0.5 FOOT
0 LOG OF TEST PIT
San
TUBB 0 85 n 0 @ 0
r�it EE FIGURE A-4
z
0
M�
cnl 3:
M
C
0
0 0
C,
M
M z
C z
-n
M M
0)
0
0 M
C V)
9 C/)
Q 0,
z
X
3:
z
z
0
0
M
TU13BS(MCM8aC�6nC8a Date: 5/4/04
F I E L D REPORT Page: I of I
Owner: Greg Hale Construction, Inc.
File #: HAL2-01
Purpose of visit: Foundation inspection
Weather: Partly cloudy
I arrived at the site at 10:45 am.
Project: 24219 - 104 1h Avenue West
Permit#: 2004-0291
Field report #: 1
Prepared by: Donald W. Tubbs
The foundation excavation is complete. The footing excavations are directly underlain by native
soils consisting of glacial outwash sand; a small area of glacial till appears to exist beneath at
least part of the area of the gara ge floor slab. I probed the soils within the footing areas using a
half -inch steel probe, and observed that the native soils are generally medium dense to dense,
except for two small areas (near the southeast comer of the house and near the center of its west
wall) where loose soils existed to a depth of over a foot. I recommended that those two are a*s be
overexcavated and replaced with some of the nearby stockpiled gravelly sand, placed and
compacted in 8-inch lifts. I also recommended that the footing areas be subsequently
recompacted to a uniformly dense condition using hand -operated vibratory compaction
equipment. This will be verified during a second field inspection tomorrow morning.
No temporary or permanent cut slopes greater than 10 feet in height exist within the site. The
permanent cut slopes to the north and east of the house are approximate 6 feet in height. The
slope includes an upper segment inclined approximately 3H: IV, and a lower segment consisting
of a single tier keystone block wall 3 feet in height. It is our opinion that the keystone block
walls that have been constructed will adequately provide the intended erosion protection along
the lower portion of the slope.
I left the site at 11: 15am.
Attachments:
Distribution:
Signed:
MM
-S CTR.
Cgly oF EDMOtlo'
7505 West Lake Sammamish Parkway Northeast Redmond, Washington 98M 425-882-4850 www.tU
z
9
0
M
'M
Date: 5/5/04
F I E L D REPORT Page: 1 of 1
owner: Greg Hale Construction, Inc. Project: 24219 - 104" Avenue West
File #: HAL2-01 Permit #: 2004-0291
Purpose of visit: Foundation inspection Field report #: 2
Weather: Partly cloudy Prepared by: Donald W. Tubbs
I arrived at the site at 10:00 am.
The two areas of loose soils that were observed yesterday have been excavated and replaced with
structural fill consisting of compacted gravelly sand. The footing areas have been compacted
using hand -operated vibratory compaction equipment.
The compacted native and structural fill soils within the foundation area were probed with a half -
inch steel probe, and verified as suitable for the design bearing value of 2000 psf provided in our
geotechnical report dated January 9, 2004.
I left the site at 10: 15am.
R C FIVED
MAY 10 2004
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR.
CITY or EDMONDS
Attachments:
Distribution: Signed:
7505 West Lake Sammamish Parkway Northeast Redmond, Washington 98059- 425-882-4850 www.tubbs-com
FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL FORM
TO:
DATE:
MEMO TO: PERMIT COORDINATOR, BUILDING DIVISION
FROM: FIRE DEPARTMENT DATE—__�
T ENGINEERING DIVISION DATE zli
nLUZWN
z
0
PLANNING DIVISION DATE�__
M
PROJECT
2,1q 104 tL fille-
SITE ADDRESS -------------
:�h),J� �1.ADB#________pATE.INSPECTED_
PERMIT #-.
DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE INSPECTED 01,
A field inspection was conducted to determine flnal, compliance with approved plans. Final approvat
denotes that there are no objections from the above signed Department to the release of
ONDS and the granting of:
PERFORMANCE BO
GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL
GRANT PROJECT APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS NOTED
0 Copy of CONDITIONS given to owner/contractor by inspector
FAILED FINAL INSPECTION - OUTSTANDING ISSUES
a Copy of CORRECTION NOTICE given to owner/contractor by inspector.
2.
3.
RE -INSPECTED OUTSTANDING ISSUES GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL
Date Si
ocapr4docItem
, p:b1dg:fb=s10/01
q :T,
M
C 0
M 0
--A C)
0 C:
4 g.
r M
M Z
J0
C0
0 _n
>
MM
0 Y)
0 r-
0 M
C Cn
9 Cn
M
Z
M
z
co
z
0
M
RECORD OF INSPECTIONS
INSPECTOR
DATE APPROVED
SETBACKS .....................
FOUNDATION:
Footing ......................
Wall..........................
Sm
Pier/Porch .................
Retaining Wall ...........
Slab Insulation ..........
PLUMBING:
Underground .............
Rough -In ...................
Commercial Final ......
HEATING:
Gas Test ....................
Gas Piping .................
Equipment .................
Commercial Final .......
EXTERIOR SHEATHING
NAILING ..........................
FRAMING ........................
FIRST FLOOR FRAMING ...
INSULATION ...................
Floor Insulation .........
Wall Insulation ...........
Ceiling Insulation .......
SHEETROCK NAILING ...
SPECIAL INSPECTION ...
MISCELLANEOUS ..........
FINAL APPROVAL FOR
OCCUPANCY ..................
n7
z
0
q
0
M
—i -n
C/)
0 M
C
M
0
0
0 C
M
M Z
ID
C
C/)
o -n
n
M M
0 0)
0 M
C Cl) i
9 C/)
M 0
Z
z
--I
W
z
0
0
M
The Initials MT are Milton
Thompson, a temporary contract
inspector for the City.