The URL can be used to link to this page

20040319.pdfDATE RECEIVED CITY OF EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION OWNER NAME/NAME OF 13USINESS DANiD h---45TPrFFb!!�b 1012AH+A !!�w ST fi� MAILING ADDRESS 2-1010 NF— I k,5"r,4 CITY ZIP TELEPHONE WODDIINVIL-Liff, IlRoll 1 4Z5- -188-'Z891 NAME [)Ei!5 I (I j\j L I N &S ADDRESS Icills MADISI)o -ST CITY ZIP 15VEKFaIT 98?-0�3 NAME 0 TELEPHONE jq Z"5 - -3 5-3 rC B �LM I tJL. ADDRESS 2� I ri t CITY ZIP TELEPHONE Wow I r4v I W-r-- 31ba -7.1 1 42-c�?- i 7-IBI i STATE LICENSE NUMBER �jlo 'lift TE Z' PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL NO. 0'�? 0 0 Ckb 61413ZI PLKr-14:5-2rio3-34 cI.F20t)5)1Z0I67,z-7 NEW RESIDENTIAL PLUMBING / MECH ADDITION COMMERCIAL COMPLIANCE 08 CHANGE OF USE REMODEL MULTIFAMILY SIGN REPAIR GX21 CYDS FENCE ( X Fr) DEMOLISH TANK OTHER GARAGE E] RETAINING WALL FIRE SPRINKLER El CARPORT ROCKERY FIRE ALARM �TYPE OF USE. 13USINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN: :5 1 WILE FAM I S�j POAAE NUMBER NUM13ER 6F CRITICAL OF ST RIES z— DWELLING UNITS I -I AREAS I NUM13ER _j'0 D DESCI ESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE C I -oms-rPlvx.-r i4gwi./ Kmj"--F— r-Amluo Z�L GLA71N? LOT SLOPE % -7. PLAN CHECK NO: 03 - ! I VESTED DATE THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORKTO L- BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC DOMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE SEPARATE PERMISSION. PERMIT APPLICATION: 180 DAYS PERMIT LIMIT 1 YEAR - PROVIDED WORK IS STARTED WITHIN 180 DAYS SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION tn -APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES. AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NA1URE, ARISING DIRECrIYOR INDIRECTLY FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT ISSUANCE OF 1141S PERMIT SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE 0 NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE Cl TVs ABILI TY 10 ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.- x I I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION. THAT THE INFORMATION GIVEN IS CORRECT; AND THAT I AM THE OWNER. OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF THE OWNER. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC- TION AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY. NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED IN V;6LATION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASIAINGTON RELATING TO WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND RCW 18.27. SfGNjtul`le��' OR AGENT) DATE Slffl) W ] PERMIT EXPIRES USE PERMIT - ZONE ) 01 L(2 NUMBER/�() � L JOB ADDRESS -7 �-fke, 32 SUITE/APT# 3 JI 111111111 PLAT NAMEISUBDIVISION NO LOT NO, LID NO. LID FEE $ PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP TESCP Approved RW Permit Required EXISTING PROPOSED — street use Permit Haq'd Inspection Required REQUIRED DEDICATION- FT Sidewalk Required Underground I wiring required METq SiIZE,, LINE SIZE NO. OF FIXTURE S PAV REC WIRED YE NO REMARKS z OWNER/CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROL/DRAINAGE &6011, bis ,6) rw'"'r/r) REVIEWED BY DATE INIG31NEERING � n,.f ."Ii ��f gx , .kIRE REVIEWED BY DATI� W VARIANCE OR CU SHORELINE OR ADB# I INSPECTION BOND L , REO'D POSTED �kES ONO IS ----------- SEPA REVIEW SIGN AREA HEIGHT COMPLETE EXEMPT ALLOWED PROPOSED ALLOWED I PROPOSED EXP LOT COVERAGE REQUIRED SETBACKS (Fr.) PROPOSED SETBACKS (FT) ALLOWED PROPOSED FRONT SIDE REAR FRONT URSIDE REAR I z L QU -)o E PARKING LOT AREA PLANNING REVIEWED BY DATt - :5 REGO PROVIDED IL 01 REMA�. q -- I& [pwrl-A - I A: U" CHECKED BY ITYPE F CONSTRUCTJON ODE OCCUR GROUP SPECIAL INSPECTION AREA REQUIRED WYES V15 REMARKS a z PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 108/FINAL INSPECTION RE 'D 6 R, /00r, P me-/-/ . PzF z C,14945� M Sods VALUATION Description FEE Description FEE Plan Check State Surcharge 5 Building Permit_ L City Surcharge Plumbing 61s" S5 Mechanical Grading Engr. Review Engr. Inspection Fire Review Fire Inspection Landscapelnsp. Recording Fee CALL FOR INSPECTION (425) fl fill ATTENTION E)ff 13,33 IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL INAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTIFI- - OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC SECTION 109 PRESS HARD -YOU ARE MAKING 5 CO PlanChk.Deposit J�11 Receipt # '50'� c_-, ci Total Amt. Due ? -) Receipt,,# [at) q-0 APPLICATION APPROVAI this application is not a perinit until signed by the Building Official or his/tier Deputy: and Fees are paid, and receipt is acknowledged in space provided. OFFICIALS SIGNATURE I DAT E ov"') -4g3-1ozfi Ell EA - L)S E 114Y /I ) 1. uA ORIGINAL - FILE - YELLOW - INSPECT6R PINK - OWNER - GOLD - ASSESSOR 21 GREEN - ACCOUNTING IES z 0 M "4 =55 0 M C M 0 0 10 0 C M M z K) -i C —z o -n n M M 0 0 0 M C U) r, Cn M Z z z 0 1 0 1711 ZONE 8.5 -TBAC�,,"' SE S MAXIMUM UHIVEWA -'PLUFL ED 14%-Q -,j -Q Q AL19W ID N N m SI D E N 10 'q 0, 7 A-( R 41— 1 L JF -1 41' 1 0 f HE R!—L�- K 1-1 L-[-=,, \,/I T W ),A 1-4 0 rL 5 HEIGHT2-ciL FOOT NO� 00BE ED I 3c APPROVED BY ENGINEERING �Aq z- qNTIO� SY 5M Vim so 1p (VAl u t-?>c-Kl &� Ltd" I -t:>F-TEjA-rioQ ................ . kC--VJ kir, �A C- cc ;tl F=4 Ndtkt: ffi IC�'-* 2- LCy I-ILI.E. - PV-OVI st LLI F=eAjcr-- Hegr-- w E ed 16 1 - , c--o kic. r r-tvE- ALL EXPOSED SURFACES TO I Tuek co MA,'b CE- 13E COVERED WITHIN 2 DAYS to I!j / - -am, . e p_,,( :0 0 M Z.�9. .0 -r6. kn C-oW L4 r= rC_-r- C: WATER & SEWER -7 E� �57 W A T G C :x) a IONS REQ'D. mo L 425- 1-0220 EXT. 13 ki E- -T F- L O'vJ g- ST R C--rO Ll L:,T-z ,b <3 %-i kj T-=- �-i (z--n4 \,,j 9,. -7 G r Z�40, 0 TL-ur-F=- 00 So. z- 6 At- F,-,t�7— 0 P C/) Fld. IT! L 1-4 D z- a r- F 601- * :]O!> r- R l%Z-7-7 Kim', ?� V, ;u I- ,, - �Evr is zA-0. Sz Ll rp-o Q -r o p Lrj -r m --n aiz�A *j ZS�" rr, ti,-PEre-vious s%�)p-r=AcE: P :13 �2-001�:: Z-3G(.) f-= X % S-r 11,1 rb co lSr6 u e- -5 w rrE F% U, I l'i (b '5 A, L F- 1 7- 0 0 j -1-7D -T-;AL_ -3 7- C) c) -5 F-- C= Z-(00 C- J --- m or- m A-RSA� OF A-io r m-cry ra-"o !; 1 TG_ k4(SF'A, IWF�Ft=-K-Ljk4C.� 5-KrOSE-0 SOILI-M OF- LO-F/ 7-0 GARY HAAKENSON CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR 1215TH AVENUE NORTH -EDMONDS. WA98020 (425) 771-0220 -FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: www.d.edmondsma.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning - Building Engineering (:03 May 31, 2006 Z' 0 Fronticr Bank Lake Stevens 01 Dawn Miller, New Accounts rn: PO Box 527 Lake Stevens, WA 98258 X rn: C rn 0 0 0 Re: Performance Frozen Fund Account #1820045001, Cedar Hills Investment C Corp. at 1230 & 1232 7"' Avenue S, Edmonds WA M M > r Dear Sir oi- Madarn: o -n The City of Edmonds hereby authorizes the release $4,000 from the above referenced M M Performance Frozen Fund. All interested City departments have approved the release of CD 0 the Performance Frozen Fund. 0 M W M 0 Z ;U X, Sincerely, Z -4 Z 0 M Senior Permit Coordinator Cc: Applicant File Incorporated August 11, 1890 Frozen Fund Posted -�. I Z I 10a Fund Expires 21 o 0 0 FundNumber CITY OF EDMONDS A 98020 .(425) 771-0220 FAX (425) 771-0221 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, W DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning - Building - Engineering QQJ C. PERFORMANCE FROZEN FUND Edmonds Building PermitNo. 'Ap�v" —,S(, z' co Project Address 121-21,C� 4 IJ-222— �7 Owner/Develope I (_ With reference to the above identified project, this will certify that this institution has a savings account (or loan) for the above -referenced developer/owner for the project so identified. In consideration of the permitted development of the property, and in lieu of a performance bond, this institution hereby agrees that it will freeze the sums of money for the indicated site improvements s by the City of Edmonds in the amount of pendmi written authorization for release of said fund 00 0 The total sum indicated will be withheld by this institution from any disbursements of any kind until written authorization has been received by the institution from the City of Edmonds to release the sum of money indicated by the written authorization from the City. The design, location, materials and other specifications for the indicated site improvements are those required by the City of Edmonds and appear in the above -referenced Edmonds building permit file and are in compliance with the Edmonds Community Development Code of said City. In the event the owner/developer fails to complete the indicated improvements within V4--weeks/months, (not to exceed 24 months) the City of Edmonds may demand, and the institution shall make, payment to the City of said funds so that the improvements can be installed or completed immediately to City standards. The institution shall not be liable to the owner for any disbursement of said funds to the City of Edmonds. It is hereby specifically agreed by and between the parties hereto that in the event that any legal action must be taken to enforce the provisions of this agreement or to collect said frozen fund, that the prevailing party shall be entitled to collect its cost and reasonable attorneys' fees as a part of the reasonable costs of securing the obligation hereunder. In the event of settlement or resolution of these issues, prior to the filing of any suit, the actual costs incurred by the City, including reasonable attorneys' fees, shall be considered a part of the obligation hereunder secured. Said costs and reasonable legal fees shall be recoverable by the prevailing party, not only from the proceeds of this frozen fund account, but also over and above said body as a part of any recovery in any judicial proceeding, in addition to recovery of the funds. L:temp:b1dg:fbrmsj1g2/99 Z 0 0 M M C M 0 0 C M M Z CE 0 -Ti n M M 0 r- 0 M C (1) K CO Q 0 Z ;0 -4 3: Z —i 3: U) Z 0 1 0 M City of Edmonds Performance Frozen Fund Account Page Two Frontier Bank' Lake Stevens Cedar Hills t . ion Owner/Developer Fi I IM ltut ra/cibll� IM&I Dawn Miller New Accounts Officer/Title Title PO Box 527 Lake Stevens Wa 98258 219 140 AVE NE Lake Stevens Wa 98258 Mailing Address Mailing Address 18ZOO450ul 42-)-422-0377 Account Number Telep] 0 CV/1 n /,))]I) t - 4 7?,—q /0 t by Development Service Technician FINANCIAL INSTITUTION C'KNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) ss COUNTY OF 51 jq a?yj j-5 h, On this day of __1qpfjj_, Za-�V, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared ffltA jer tomeknowntobethe 0eLL) of . the corporation that executed the foregoing instrurnent, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that was authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporatio I n. WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above written. 6 '7 ou 212 �Ikl Cd��" tAOTARY NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at PUE11-10 4.9-2008 0 L:temp:b1dg:formsj1g2/99 Z 0 4 0 M 74:9 9 City of Edmonds Performance Frozen Fund Account Page Three STATE OF WASIUNGTON ss. COUNTY OF Shu6m it;kv -signed, On this day of -A- 42 n c2 00 before me, the under a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly cormnissioned and sworn, personally appeared po-Ktcy' to me known to be the of C�orpd-rq.�,oyi that executed the foregoing the and deed of said instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act d purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that partnership, for the uses an —was authorized to execute said instrument. i WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above wr tten. C' S\QtN4 E C� (P NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of 01 P'sy ;Aing at W Z 0 Pull C OF 4 L:temp:b1dg:fomisj1g2/99 Z 0 :j 0 M .1 6 I -A k'9 KLEINFELDER RECEIVED An employee owned company DEC 12 2003 October 28, 2003 YJeinfelder Project Number: 3 6170 PERMIT COUNTER Ms. Jeannine Graf City of Edmonds FZECE:, z 121 Fifth Aven u*e North 0 Edmonds, WA 98020 0 OCT 30 M BUILDINC3 DEPT. nical Review Subject: Third -Party Geotech Wilderness Bluff Short Plat 5i M: 1230 - 7th Avenue South 0 C Edmonds, Washington M0 0 __10 0 C, xM Dear Ms. Graf- Mz ses to the October 24, 2003 letter —Z This letter presents Kleinfelder, Inc. (Kleinfelder's) respon ormed a third -party independent prepared by Mr. Alan Jackson (site developer). Kleinfelder perf esented in our October 0 _n geotechnical review for this site. Kleinfelder's review comments are pr n 15, 2003 letter. MM 0 C-1) r addresses Kleinfelder's review comments presented in our 0 Mr. Jackson's October 24, 2003 lette 0M r has no additional geotechnical issues associated with this C Cn October 15, 2003 letter. Kleinfelde K CD M0 Z site at this time. ;U Please call us at (425) 562-4200 if you have any questions regarding this letter or other geotechnical issues with this site. z z Sincerely, 0 KLEUiFELDER, DiC. __4 0 M J Tn ames M. Schmidt Senior Geotechnical Engineer James A. McElroy Manager, Geotechnical Engineering Page I of I 36170/SWL295.doc Copyright 2003 Kleinfclder, Inc. KLEINFELDER 2405 140th Avenue, NE, Suite A101, BelleVLle, WA 98005 (425) 562-4200 (425) 562-4201 fax J kTJ KLE1 N FELDER An employee owned company October 15, 2003 YJeinfelder Project Number: 36170 RECEIVED Ms. Jeannine Graf City of Edmonds 0 ("'1 T 1 7 2 i0l 3 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, Washington 98020 BUILDING DEPT. Subject: Third -Party Geotechnical Review Wilderness Bluff Short Plat 1230 — 7"' Avenue South Edmonds, Washington Dear Ms. Graf - This letter presents Kleinfelder, Inc.'s (Kleinfelder's) third -party independent review comments regarding geotechnical aspects for the Proposed Wilderness Bluff Short Plat located at 1230 — 7 th Avenue South in Edmonds, Washington. Kleinfelder's services were performed in accordance with The City of Edmonds Task Order Number 2, dated September 26, 2003. SITE DESCRIPTION The short plat will consist of dividing an approximately 1.8-acre site into four lots and dence on each lot. The site is bounded by 7h Avenue South to constructing one single-family resi. the east, residential homes and lawn space to the north and west, and single-family residences to the south. The east portion of the site is fairly level and consists of mowed gr ' ass and forbs. The middle portion of the site slopes down steeply (up to 30 percent) to the west. Vegetation in the middle portion of the site consists of deciduous and conifer trees and shrubs. The west portion of the site is relatively flat and comprises a forested wetland. Willow Creek flows along the west edge of the site. The local neighbors have reported that up to approximately 10 feet of yard waste and construction debris has been dumped along the southern half of the site and extends approximately halfway down the steeply sloping portion of the site. Vehicles dumping yard waste and construction debris have become stuck and required assistance for removal. The neighbors have also reported that historic construction in this area has exposed springs within the slope. Pan I of 4 36170/SEA3L280.doc Copyright 2003 Kleinfelder, Inc. KLE1 N FEL DE R 2405 140th Avenue, NE, Suite A101, Bellevue, WA 98005 (425) 562-4200 (425) 562-4201 fax z 0 M INFELDER PROJECT DESCRIPTION One single-family residence will be located only on the easternmost quarter of each lot, while the ct nsist of one floor of larger remaining portion will be a critical areas tra . Each home will co living space and a garage over a daylight basement. The homes will also be set back 25 feet from 7th Avenue South. Cuts and fills on the order of 8 to 10 feet will be approximately required to achieve the proposed finish floor elevation. Some filling in the home backyards will z be necessary to create a lawn area. 0 0 M PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of our geot echnical engineering services was to provide third -party independent Cn -4 review of available geotechnical documents for the site and prep aration of this report. a rn C M 0 THIRD -PARTY INDEPENDENT REVIEW 0 0 C our third -party review consisted of reviewing the following documents that were pro vided by M M Z the City of Edmonds: • Five letters of corn plaint from local neighbors. • Critical Areas Report 1230 7ffi Avenue South, Edmonds, Washington, pr epared by Landau Associates for the City of Edmonds, Dated May 8, 2003. 0 -n n� hort Plat, 1230 — 7 th • Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed Wilderness Bluff S . for Alan Washington, by Geotech Consultants, Inc rn M 0 Avenue South, Edmonds, prepared 0 Jackson, dated September 3, 2003. 0 M C: Cn • Letter of Interest prepared by the City of Edmonds to Mr. Alan Jackson. 9 ch, M 0 Z SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS sou Geotech Consultants, Inc. (Geotech) explored subsurface conditions at the site by excavating r > z seven backhoe test pits in August 2003. The test pits were lo cated in the east portion of the* site X Cn the residential homes will be located and extended to a maximum depth of about 9 feet z 0 where below ground surface. Subsurface conditions encountered by Geotech consist of up to 24 inches M of topsoil overlying up to 3 feet of weathered sand and gravel with abundant roots. This layer overlies dense to very dense sand and gravel with cobbles. Up to 2 feet of fill was encountered in three test pits. Geotech stated that large amounts of yard waste, garbage, and construction debris were observed scattered throughout the site and were encountered in the topsoil and fill. The site soils are classified as "Everett Series" according to the Soil Survey of Snohomish County Area Washington prepared by the United States Department of Agriculture. Page 2 of 4 36170/SEA3L280-doc Copyright 2003 Kleinfelder, Inc. 0 M I NFELDER Groundwater Groundwater seepage was observed at depths of 6 to 6.5 feet below ground surface in two test I as not pits. Because the test pits were open only for a short time period, the static water leve w confirmed. The Landau Associates (Landau) critical areas report encountered drain tiles on the west portion of the property. The drain tiles reportedly collect water from the east side of 7th Avenue and deliver it to the project site as a point source approximately 6 inches below the ground surface. REVIEW CONMENTS rd-part independent review As previously stated, the purpose of our services was to provide thi y of available geotechnical documents for the site. Based on our review of the referenced project, we offer the following review comments. Review Comment No. 1: Geotech's geotechnical report, Landau's critical areas report, and information provided by the local neighbors all identify the presence of yard waste on the site. However, the lateral and vertical extent and the material type and chemical make up of the yard waste has not been investigated. Consequently, the potential for impact to the development cannot at this time be determined. We suggest that the developer identify the lateral and vertical extent of the yard waste. The yard waste limits should be shown on a map with respect to the proposed home locations. The documents reviewed do not address the potential for chemical contamination of the soil and groundwater below the yard waste. Because the yard waste has been placed on this slope over several years, we believe that there is a potential that chemicals (such as total petroleum hydrocarbons) may have also been dumped along with the yard waste. We suggest that the developer prepare a . sampling and analysis plan for evaluating soil and groundwater conditions beneath the yard waste. Site cleanup, if required, should be performed in accordance with Washington State and City of Edmonds regulations. Review comment No. 2: The documents reviewed do not indicate whether the yard waste that might be located outside the residential home footprint will remain. We suggest that a slope stability study be performed to assess the potential for slope instability following site development if yard waste is to remain on the property. 36170/SEA3L280.doc Copyfi6t 2003 Kleinfelder, Inc. W Page 3 of 4 z 0 i 0 M CA 0 M C rn 0 0 --1 0 0 C: —q M z —q C: o -n n —4 rn M 0 0 0 rn C Cn M 0 Z > z z 0 I 0 M I Mu I WIn rw= UZ 1f;V0 4AZ) 14 1 13256 Nwthe= 20th Succt- Saim 16 Bdlcvuc, WkUhinglon 98M TIECH (425)747-3618 FAX(425)747-8561 CONS LTANTS, INC. L: RECEIVED September 3, 2003 SEP 0 8 20-33 JN 03322 DEVELOPMENT SERVKC/ES. Ala iJackson BUILDING 1 & 01 Highway 99 A%JV-2P 2 2 2003 Lyr nwood, Washington 99037 su�ject: Geotechnical Engineering Study DEC proposed Wilderness Bluff Short Plat 1230 — 7th Avenue South cc)kj�410 Edmonds, Washington via facsimile: (425) 787-9112 Dear Mr. Jackson: Wel are pleased to present this geotechnical engineeiring report for the proposed single-family res dences to be constructed in Edmonds, Washington. The scope of our work consisted of Zlodng site surface and subsurface conditions, and then developing this report to provide rec:)mmendations for general earthwork and design criteria for foundations and retaining walls. This work was authorized by your acceptance of . our Contract for Professional Services dated July 24,2003. We were provided with a preliminary site plan that includes some topographic information. AFM Ind istries, Inc. developed this plan, which is dated September 14, 2002. Based on this plan and on ronversations with Alan Jackson, we anticipate that the development will consist of dividing the approximately 1.8-acre site into four lots and constructing one single-family residence an each lot. I u v�rl e eet Th� houses will be accessed via driveways off of 7th Avenue So th and 11 b set back 25 f fro the street. Each house will consist of one floor of living space and a garage over a daylight ba ement. Some cuts and fills will be necessary to achieve the proposed finish floor elevation of C ap roximatety 8 to 10 feet below existing street grade, and a small backyard will be filled at finish this area is a fl;�r elevation. No development is proposed on the western side of the site, as de4ignated wetiand. If t e scope of the project changes from what we have described above, we should be provided cluslons of wit revised plans in order to determine if modifications to the recommendations and cow thi report are warranted. SITE CONDITIONS S�F:ACE I -ation of the site. The undeveloped, wooded she Th Vicinity Map . Plate 1, illustrates the general lor is itcated on the western side of 7th Avenue South ' in Edmonds. The site slopes from east to West, wit elevations varying from approxirnately 246 feet at the southeastern comer to.approximatelY 29 feet at the southwestern comer. Most of the western part of the site is a relatively flat deAignated wetiand, and there is a creek that winds along the western property line. The proposed de�elopment area is located on the sloped, eastern portion of the site. The slopes are inclined at I roximately 30 percent and are covered with tall deciduous and evergreen trees. The ground is app GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC. Z 0 4 0 m -1 -n m C m 0 0 0 C M M Z E: 3: Cn o -n n m M 055 0 r- 0 M C cl) 9 Cn M 0 Z Z M 55 Z 0 m uau I r LIM PAUL 03 Ala I Jackson JN 03322 September 3, 2003 Page 2 covered *with blackberry and morning glory vines near the street and with ferns and other low gro h vegetation elsewhere. There is an area on the southern Part of the site where app oximately 10 feet of yard waste and construction debris have been dumped to form a locally ste per slope. Dumped garbage, yard waste, and construction debris were observed scattered throughout the she. The adjoining properties are developed with single-family residences. SUBSURFACE The subsurface conditions were explored by excavating seveh test pits at the approximate loc,? tiQns shown on the Site Exploration Plan, Plate 2. Our exploraltion program was based an the pro osed construction, anticipated subsurface conditions and those encountered during exp oration, and the scope of work outlined In our proposal. Th I test pits were excavated on July 24, 2003 with a small, rubber -tracked trackhoe provided and from - our s observed the excavation ope ted by Alan Jackson. A geotechnicall engineer oil encountered. "Grab" process, logged the test pits, and obtained representative samples of the s sa4ples of selected subsurface soil were collected from the backhoe bucket. The Test Pit Logs are 1provided in Plates 3 and 4 of this report. e test pits encountered a 6- to 24-inch layer of topsoil and 2 to 3 feet of weathered sand d gravel with abundant roots overlying dense to very dense sand and gravel wfW cobbles d occasional boulders. One to 2 feet of sand and gravel fill was encountered overtying ,- topsoil in Test Pits 1, 4, and 7. The dense to very dense sand and gravel was countered to the maximum explored depth of 9 feet below exisbng grade. The depths of 11 layers, including topsoil, that are indicated on the logs are approximate. More exact finition of soil unit thicknesses would require more explorations. rge amounts of yard waste, garbage. and construction debris were observed scattered Vughout the site and were encountered in the topsoil and in ithe fill. This debris will need be removed during she clearing. Groundwater seepage was observed at depths of 6 to 5.5 feet in Test Pits 3 and 5; however, the test pits were left open for only a short time period. Therefore, the seepage levels on the logs represent the location of transient water seepage and May not indicate the static groundwater level. It should be noted that groundwater levels vary seasonally with rainfall and other factors. The final logs represent our interpretations of the field logs. The stratification lines on the logs re resent the approximate boundaries between soil types at the exploration locations. The actual 11 be gradual, and subsurface conditions can vary between tra r. sition between soil types may subsurface information only at the Jocations tested. e [oration locations. The logs provide specific T x;" h relative densities and moisture descripflcns indicated on the test pit logs are interpretive descriptions based on the conditions observed during excavation. Th compaction of backfill was not in the scope of our services. Loose soil will therefore be found in the area of the test pits. If this presents a problem, the-backfill will need to be removed and reolaced with structural fill during construction. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. z 0 4 0 M --i -n Ui --i 3: M C m 0 0 0 0 C M M Z c: 3: 0) 0 -n n M M 0 0 0 M C cl) 9 ri) M C-) Z X X z C() z 0 4 0 m .. M kX_U I t"n r-f*= 04 �-J/ Fiat zrjuj f Coo 4z�) 14 Air, n Jackson JN 03322 Se 3tember 3, 2003 Page 3 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14JUPPAL. rHfS SECTION CONTAINS A SUMMARy OP OUR STUDY AND FINDINGS FOR THE PURPOSES OF A GENERAL OVERVIEW ONLY MORE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ARE CCNTAINED IN THE REMAINDER OF THIS REPORT. ANY PARTY RELVAIG ON THIS REPORT SHOULD RE 4D THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT The proposed development win consist of dividing the site into four roughly equal lots and collstructing one single-family residence on each lot. The recommendations presented in this reg,ort ard based on the assumption that the earthwork for all of the houses can be completed at once. if thoe development plans change, we should be notified so that we may update our rec6mmendations accordingly. Til test pits conducted for this study encountered loose fill. topsoil, and highly weathered sand and r I vel overlying dense to very dense sand and gravel. Competent, native soils were encountered 9 ntered near be=n I and 4 feet below existing grade, with the thicker loose, surficial layer encou th top of the slope on the eastern side of the site. The native sand and gravel soils encountered be OW the root line are competent to support the four proposed single-family residences on co iventional foundations. These soils are also suitable for reuse as structural fill throughout the Sit, . The topsoil and weathered sand may be reused as fill in non-structural areas such as la scap ng s. Dumped construction debris, yard waste, and garbage were observed throughout the site. This material is not suitable for reuse as fill and should be removed during she clearing. Based on the topographic Information provided to us, 'and on our understanding of the project. so e cuts and fills will be required to achieve the proposed finish floor elevation of 8 to 10 feet be ow existing street grade. Because the proposed houses will be set back at least 25 feet from th�tedge of the street, cut slopes inclined no steeper than 1:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) can be made W*in the eastern property line. Please note that this inclination applies only to the native sand and gr vel, the fill and debris encountered near the surface on most of the site should be removed duling site clearing. Also. groundwater was encountered in two of the downslope test pits during ex oration. If groundwater is encountered during the excavation on the upslope side Of the site, thtut slopes below the groundwater table will likely experience some sloughing or caving. To mitigate the potential for instability of the cut slopes below the groundwater table. the cuts may ha ee to be backfilled with rock ballast. We should be contacted at once if groundwater is en;ountered during the excavation of the cut slopes. All cut slopes should be protected Immediately with plastic sheeting and should be monitored daily by the superintendent for inc ications of instability, Soil stockpiles and debris from site clearing should not be stored at the to of any cut Slope. The foundation walls between the adjacent residences are approximately 10 feet apart as shown on the site plan. The soil between the foundation walls of the proposed residences should be re I oved as Part of the mass excavation where It cannot be inclineci at 1:1 (H:V). Taking into ac ount a space allowance of 2 feet on each side for footings, drains, and forms, cuts cannot ex, eed 3 feet between the foundation walls. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC. z 0 4 0 m --i -n 0 m m 0 0 -40 0 C M m z > z 0 _n _n m M 0 0 0 M C (n 7 9 Cn M 0 Z X —i M z z 0 i 0 m W! f-#4= too UJI Fiat /UVJ I (; VO 4d.;j r %=U I W.In Ala Jackson JN 03322 I Se tember 3, 2003 Page 4 Be led on the site plan, it appears as though cuts on the order of 6 to 8 feet will be necessary to ach eve finish floor elevations of the northernmost houses and southernmost. The plan shows each of these houses set back 5 feet from the northern and southern property lines. respectively. Because the site soils may be inclined no steeper than 1:1 (H:V) shoring will be required to Make the proposed cuts unless the finished floor elevations of these structures are revised. We can make recommendations for the design of these temporary shoring walls if they are required. Be ed on the topographic information provided to us, fill on the order of 6 to 8 feet will be required to t vel the finish floor of each house at its proposed finish floor elevation, However, we recommend that footings be placed on no more than 5 feet of structural fill. Finished fill slopes shoild not be inclined steeper than 2.51 (H:V). Depending on the desired back yard layout and the location of the wetland buffer. it may prove more economical to overexcavate, place the clov nslope foundations on native, dense send and gravel and leave a tall. crawl space, or to step the buildings down the slope, Alternatively, a reinforced fill rookery could be constructed near the wee, tern edge of the development area to level the site. Regardless of which method is chosen, we recommend that the downslope foundation wall be designed as a retaining wall to retain the sail witilin the craW space or beneath the slab down to the footing level. Fill rockeries taller than 4 feet will irequire geogrid reinforcement; we can provide a design if necessary. We should review the grading plans once the house layouts are finalized. Thi site sand and gravel below the root line is suitable for reuse as structural fill. The earthwork Go sactor should prepare the fill areas by removing the topsoil and highly weathered sand above the root line. The new fill should be benched Into the dense native soils by cutting flat benches into the dense naVve soll[s. Each horizontal lift of fill should be tested to ensure that adequate paction is being achieved. The foundation walls should be backfilled with free -draining structural fill. The site sand and gravel below the root line is acceptable for use as wall backfill. Footing drains should be installed at the baso of each foundation wall. We recommend that each residence have its own independent foutclation drainage system. so two separate drains would need to be placed in the backfill between the adjacent houses. Drainage should also be provided behind all retaining walls and rockeries. Th emsion control measures needed during site development will depend heavily on the weather co ditions that are encountered during construction. Site clearing will expose a large area of bare soil and the erosion potential on the site is moderate due to the slope of the site. We anticipate that a silt fence will be needed around the downslope sides of any cAeared areas and around the wet ands. Straw bales should be placed against the silt fence for added protection during grading. Roaked construction access roads should be extended into the site to reduce the amount of mud can led off the property by trucks and equipment, Wherever possible, these roads should follow the aligiment of planned pavements. Soil stockpiles should be covered with plastic during wet re at will weather. Following rough grading, it may be necessary to rnulch or hydroseed bare a as th not be immediately covered with landscaping or an impervious surface. Geatech Consultants, Inc. should be allowed to review the final development plans to verify that dw rec6mendations presented in this report are adequately addressed in the design. Such a plan revi w would be additional work beyond the current scope of work for this study, and it may include revi ions to our recommendations to accommodate site, development, and geotechnical con traints that become more evident during the review process. GEOTECH CONSuLTANTS. INC. Z 0 1 0 m --i -n V5 m 0 --10 0 C M M Z r') -1 C —Z 0 -n n M M 0 Fn 0 r- 0 M C C/) F. Cn M 0 Z > Z C/) Z 0 -1 0 M 0 rizi Ww AVO.-I L r . Lou 4 d.�.P f A L ULU 1 WIn Ob Ala n Jackson JN 03322 September 3, 2003 Page 5 We recommend including this report, in its entirety, in the project contract documents. This report shc uld also be provided to any future property owners so they will be aware of our findings.and rec 3mmendations. SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS Th site is located wIthin Seismic Zone 3, as illustrated on Figure No. 16-2 of the 1997 Uniform Bui ding Code (UBC). In accordance with Table 16-J of the 1997 UBC, the site soil profile within 1 OC feet of the ground surface is best represented by Soil Profile Type Sc (Very Dense Soil). The site soils are not susceptible to seismic liquefaction because of their dense nature. cofVVEN TIONAL FOUNDATIONS n conventional continuous and spread footings Thq proposed residences can be supported o peri ed be ring on undisturbed, dense, native sand and gravel, or on up.to 5 feet of pro y compact st (tural fill placed above this competent native soil. See the section entitled General Earthwork ,1c an Structural Fill for recommendations regarding the placement and compaction of structural fill bei eath structures. Adequate compaction of structural fill should be verified'with frequent density tes ing during fiH placement. Prior to placing structural fill beneath foundations, the excavation shc uld be observed by the geotechnical engineer to document that adequate bearing soils have be( n exposed. We recommend that continuous and individual spread footings have minimum widths of 16 and 18 inches, respectively. Foo * tingt should also be bottomed at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent finish ground surface. The local building codes should be reviewed to det rmine If different footing widths ' or embedment depths are required. Footing subgrades must be cleaned of loose or disturbed soil prior to pouring concrete. Depending upon site and eqiuipment constraints, this may require removing the disturbed soil by hand. An allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (Psf) is appropriate for footings sur ported an the dense, native sand and gravel found below the root line or on structural fill placed abc ve these competent native soils. A one-third increase In this design bearing pressures may be used when considering short4erm win J or seismic loads. For the above design criteria, it is anticipated that the total post -construction. seti ement of footings founded on competent, native soil, or on structural fill up to 5 feet in thic (ness, will be about one-half inch, with differential settlements on the order of one-half inch in a dist inCe Of 50 feet along a continuous footing with a uniform load. La Iral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between the foundation and the bearing soil, or by passive earth pressure acting on the vertical, embedded portions of the I a 6 lativelY foundation. For the latter condition, the foundation must be either poured directly ag in t re level, undisturbed soil or be surrounded by level structural fill. We recommend using the follovVing uhimate values for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC. z 0 i 0 m -i -n m C m 0 0 0 C --i r. X M M z JO -i _z 0 _n n m m 055 0 r- 0 M C cl) C 0) IT! 0 Z X __4 :C > z CD z 0 A 0 m Ateln Jackson Se�tember 3, 2003 1 1 PARAMETER ULTIMATE VALUE Coefficient of Friction 0.40 Passive Earth Pressure 250 pd- Where: (I) pd is pounds per cubic took and (H) passive earth pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid density. JN 03322 Page 6 If tie ground In front of a foundation is loose or sloping, the passive earth pressure given above vdil no, be appropriate and we should be contacted for a revised. recommendation. We frecommend me intaining a safety factor of at least 1.5 for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading, when uslinq the above ultimate values. Pf RMANENT FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS Retaining walls backfilled on only one side should be designed to resist the lateral earth pressures im msed by the soil they retain. The following recommended parameters are for walls that restrain le% el backfill; Where: (i) per is pounds per cuble foot and (if) active and passive earth pressures art computed using the aqLdvalelt fluid pressures. I For a restrained wall that cannot deflect at least 0.002 tinws its hei^ a uniform lateral Pressure equal to 10 p3l times the height of the wall should be added to the above active equivalent fluid pnessure. JTh values given above are to be used to design permanent foundation and retaining walls only. passive p . ressure given is appropdate for the depth of level structural fill placed in front of a ret ining or foundation wall only. The values for friction and passive resistance are ultimate values an do not Include a safety factor. We recommend a safety factor of at least 1.5 for overtum . Ing an sliding, when using the above values to design the walls. Restrained wall soil parameters sh)uld be utilized for a distance of 1.5 times the wall height from corners or bends in the walls. This is intended to reduce the amount of cracking that can occur where a wall is restrained by a corner. T,� design values given above do not Include the effects of any hydrostabc pressures behind the W is and assume that no surcharges, such as those caused by slopes. vehicles, or adjacent Wndations will be exerted on the walls. If these conditions exist, those pressures should be added GEOTECH CONSULTANtS. INC. z 0 4 0 m C m M 0 0 --40 0 C M M Z C 0 m M 0 0 0 M C CJ) C CD m 0 Z z z 0 mo tjAt.*- tj t% d'UVO A. f . LOU JN 03322 Ala Jackson Page 7 September 3, 2003 to t e above lateral soil pressures. Where sloping backfill is desired behind the walls, we YAll need to given the wall dimensions and the slope of the backfill in order to provide the appropriate des n earth pressures. The surcharge due to traffic loads behind a wall can typically be acc. unted for by adding a uniform pressure equal to 2 feet multiplied by the above active fluid den ;lty: a traffW surcharge should be applied to the eastern foundation wall of each residence. Hez vy construction equipment should not be operated behind retaining and foundation walls within a d stance equal to the height of a wall, unless.the walls are designed for the additional lateral ures resulting from the equipment. The wall design criteria assume that the backfill vAll be 11 compacted in lifts no thicker than 12 inches. The compaction of backfill near the wells should be � iccomPlished with hand -operated equipment to prevent the walls from being overloaded by the higf er soil forces that occur during compaction. Lou placed behind retaining or foundation walls should be coarse, free -draining ttructural fill containing no organics. This backfill should contain no more than 5 percent silt X clay'particles and have no gravel greater than 4 inches in diameter. The percentage of )articles passing the No. 4 sieve should be between 25 and 70 percent. The native sand and gravel encountered below the root line during our explorations is suitable for reuse as -etaining wall backfill. I he purpose of these backlill requirements is to ensure that the design criteria for a Mining wall are not exceeded because of a build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind the 611. The top 12 to 18 inches of the bacMi I should consist of a compacted, relatively impermeable soil or topsoil, or the surface should be paved.. The ground surface must also r to percolate into slope away from backfilled walls to reduce the potenUal for surface wate ihe backfill. The section entitled General Earlhwork and structural Fill contains �ecommendations regarding the placement and compaction of structural fill behind retaining nd foundation walls. I he a ve ecommendations are not intended to waterproof the below -grade walls. The xrformance Of subsurface drainage systems will degrade over lime. Therefore, Naterproofing should be provided where moist condifions or some seepage through the Nails are not acceptable in the future. This typically includes limiting c-old-joints and wall xnetrabons, and using bentonite panels or membranes on the outside of the walls. Applying a thin coat of asphalt emulsion is not considered waterproofing, but vAll only help io prevent moisture, generated from water vapor or capillary action. from seeping through the concrete. With any project, adequate venblation of basement and crawl space areas is Important to prevent a build up of water vapor that may be transmitted through concrete ClIs from the surrounding soil. The building floors may be constructed as slabs-on�grade atop the native sand and gravel, or on structural fill. The subgrade soil must be in a firm, non -yielding condition at the time of slab ountered should be excavated and con truction or underslab fill placement. Any soft areas enc replPed with select. imported structural fill. GEOTECH Cot4SULTANTS. INC. z 0 1 0 m -4 -n M C m 0 -40 0 C: -4 M M M M Z C -Z o -n n -4 M M 0 0 0 M C CJ) 9 C/) M 0 Z M z -4 M C/) z 0 q 5 m M Alai i Jackson JN 03322 September 3, 2003 Page 8 All labs-bn-grade should be underlain by a capillary break or drainage layer consisting of a I al fill with a gradation similar to that minimum 4-Inch thickness of coarse, free -draining structur dis ussed in Permanent Foundation and Retaining Walls. As noted by the American Concrete I Institute (ACI) in Section 323 of the Guides for Concrete Floor and Slab StructiLrqs, proper. moi. ture protection is desirable immediately below any on -grade slab that will be covered by file, woccl, carpet, impermeable floor coverings, or any moisture -sensitive equipment or products. ACI aisc notes that vapor retarders, such as 6�mil visqueen, are typically used. A vapor retarder is deflied as a material with a permeance of less than 0.3 US perms per square foot (ps!) per hour, as determined by ASTM E 96. It Is possible that concrete admixtures may meet this specification, afth I ugh the manufacturers of the admixtures should be consulted. However, K no potential for vaX passage through the slab is desired, a vapor barrier should be used. A vapor barder, as defilied by ACI, is a product with a water transmission rate of 0.00 perms per square foot per hour wh n tested in accordance with ASTM E 96. Reinforced membranes having sealed overlaps can meet this requirement. In t e recent past, ACI (Section 4.1.5) recommended that a minimum of 4 inches of well -graded conipactable granular material, such as a 5/8 inch minus crushed rock pavement base, should be Plac ed over the vapor retarder or barrier for protection.of the retarder or barrier and as a '.'blotter" to aid in the curing of the concrete slab. Send was not recommended by ACI for this purpose. However, the use of material over the vapor retarder is controversial as noted in current ACI literature because of the potential that the protection/blotter material can become wet between the time of its placement and the installation of the slab. If the material is wet prior to slab placement, whiLh is always possible in the Puget Sound area, it could cause vapor transmission to occur up thrJugh the slab In the future, essentially destroying the purpose of the vapor barrier/retarder. Th,�irefore. if there is a potential that the protection/blotter material Wil become wetbefore the slab i stalled, ACI now recommends that no protection/blotter material be used. However, ACI then recommends that. because there Is a potential for slab cure due to the loss of the blotter material, join spacing in the slab be reduced, a low shrinkage concrete mixture be used, and "other metsures" (steel reinforcing, etc.) be used. ASTM F--1643-98 "Standard Practice for Installation of Wa er Vapor Retarders Used in Contact with Earth or Granular Fill Under Concrete Slabs" getrally agrees with the recent ACI literature. We recommend that the contractor, the project materials engineer, and the owner discuss these isstfes and review recent ACI literature and ASTM E-1643 for installation guidelines and guidance on �he use of the protectioniblotter material. Our opinion is that with impervious surfaces that all me ns should be undertaken tD reduce water vapor transmission. VV I anticipate thatrockerles may be used to level the backyards. At least 12 inches of quarry SpAs should be placed behind rocker es to reduce the potent al or soil eroding through them. A perforated drain pipe surrounded by drain rock should be installed behind the rockeries. w recommend limiting fill rookeries to a height of 4 feet and constructing them on only competent natve soil. The lower two-thirds of the rookery should be constructed with 3- to 4-man rocks and the fill should be placed and compacted to structural fill requirements. Prior to rookery co struction, the fill should be placed beyond the planned rockery location and then cut nearly ve4ical so that the soil in back of the rookery is thoroughly compacted. Since grading plans were not! established at the tirne of this report, the relabonship between the proposed footings and GEOTr=CH CONSULTANTS. INC. z 0 i 0 m --i -n M m 0 0 0 C: M M Z C) —i C co 0 -n n m M 065 0 r- 0 M C Cn 9 Cn M 0 Z ;o z --I 3: Cn z 0 A 0 m f 00 4ZZ) 1 k=U I ts'n r"m I rJ JN 03322 Ala jackson I Se tember 3, 2003 Page 9 pro- osed rockeries could not be determined. Foundations closer to the back of the rookery than two times the height of the rookery would exert a surcharge on the adjacent rookeries; surcharged rocl �edes or rockeries taller than 4 feet will require the use of geogrid reinforcement in the backfill. We can provide a rookery detail if necessary. -T'h J construction of rockeries Is, to a large extent, an art not entirely controllable by engineering e and in a rn e hods and standards. it is Imperative that rockeries, If used, are constructed with car The pro r manner by an experienced contractor with proven ability in rookery construction. roc eries should be constructed with hard, sound, durable rock in accordance with accepted local prattice and City of Edmonds standards. Soft rock, or rock with a significant number of fractures or inclusions, should not be used, In order to limit the amount of maintenance and repair needed over time. Provisions for maintenance, such as access to the rookery, should be considered in the design. S AND SLOPES EXCAVATION Ex vation slopes should not exceed the limits specified in local, state, and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts to a depth of about 4 feet may be attempted verticaRY in un aturated soil, if there are no indications of slope instability. However, vertical cuts should riot be s! isting utilities and structures. Based upon Washington. ma?e near property boundaries, or ex Ad . nistrative Code (WAC) 296, Part N, the soil at the subject sfte would generally be classified as Ty; B. Therefore, temporary cut slopes greater than 4 feet, In height cannot be excavated at an inclination steeper then. 1.: 1 (Horizontal:Vertical), extending continuously between the top and the General section of this report, groundwater exiting cut slopes bo :om of a cut. As discussed in the If neountered in any of the cuts at the car lead to rapid destabilization of the cut. roundwater is e he -d to above- the line of seepage Sind t site, the excavation should be immediately backfilIL geotechnical engineer should be called to the site to evaluate the need for remedial measures I cessful at The above -recommended temporary slope inclination Is based on what has been suc; oth r sites with similar soil conditions. Temporary cuts are those that will remain unsupported for a rettIvely short duration to allow for the construction of foundations, retaining walls, or utilities. I porary cut slopes should be protected Mh plastic sheeting during wet weather. The cut slope$ Tefln ible to reduce the potential for instability. shduld also be backfilled or retained as soon as poss PI se note that gravel ran cave suddenly and Wthout warning. Excavation, foundation. and utility + ade especially aware of this potential danger. contractors s oUld be m All permanent Cuts into native soil should be Inclined no steeper than 2:1 (H:V). Fill slopes should not be constructed with an inclination greater than 2.5:1 (H:V). To reduce the potential for shallow sloighing, fill must be keyed and benched into the existing slopes. Adequate compaction of the slo oe face is important for long-term stability and is necessary to prevent excessive settlement of lbs foundations, or other improvements that may be placed near the edge of th ' e slope. patios. sla omplished by overbuilding the compacted fill and then trimming it back to its final This can be acc; inclination. Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any temporary or per,anent slope. Also, all permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate sp6 as of vegetation to reduce erosion and Improve the stability of the surficial layer of soil. Anrdisturbance to the existing slope outside of the building limits may reduce the stability of the s4e. Damage to the existing vegetation and ground should be minimized, and any disturbed ardas should be revegetated as soon as possible. Soil from the excavation should not be placed on the slope, and this may require the off -site disposal of any surplus soil. rEOTECH CONS ULTANTS' INC Z 0 1 0 m 3: M C M 0 0 0 C:: —i M M M M Z ID C Cl) 0 -n n --I m M 0 0 0 M C (J) 90) M 0 Z 3: Z --I 3: U5 Z 0 1 0 m .0 J1 . u.11 2t:10.1 . 11: tM C4zo 196bi ULU I tGH PACE 11 PNda Jackson JN 03322 Se rnber 3, 2003 Page 10 We anticipate that cuts on the order of 6 to 8 feet will be required to achieve the proposed finish flooir elevations. Based on the setbacks indicated on the site plans, the only locations where there ma be insufficient room within the property lines to make the proposed cuts are on the northern sld� of the northernmost house and the southern side of the southernmost house. If the house lorA tions or elevations cannot be adjusted to maintain the recommended cut slope inclinations, sho -Ing will be required to make the proposed cuts. We can provide design recommendations for sho,ing it it is necessary. DR, VIVAGE cONSIDERATIONS FoLindation drains should be installed around the perimeter of each of the residences. We recolmmend that each residence have its own independent foundation drainage system. Drains should also be placed at the base of all earth -retaining walls. -These drains should be surrounded by at least 6 inches of 1-inch-minus, washed rock and then wrapped in non -woven, geotextile filter faloic (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or similar material). At its highest point, a perforated pipe invert shc uld be at least 6 inches below the bottom of a slab floor or the level of a crawl space, and R shc uld be sloped for drainage. All roof and surface water drain6 must be kept separate from the fou idation drain system. A typical drain detail is attached'to this report as Plate 3. For the best long' -term performance, perforated pVC pipe is recommended for all subsurface drains. In Jleneral, an outlet drain is recommended for all crawl spaces to prevent a build up of any water I that may bypass the footing drains. We can provide recommendations for interior drains, should th4 become necessary, during excavation and foundation construction. Griundwater was observed during excavation of the test pits. if seepage is encountered in an ex lavation, it should be drained from the site by directing it through drainage ditches, perforated pipe, or French drains. or by pumping it from sumps interconnected by shallow connector trenches at t le bottom of the excavation. The excavation and site should be graded so that surface water is directed off the site and away fro' the tops of slopes. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where foundation$, sla s, or pavements are to be constructed. Final site grading in areas adjacent to the residences I ! pe away at least 2 percent, except where the 2rea.is paved. Surface drains should be shiuld slo riding of water behind foundation or retaining walls. pr vided where necessary to prevent po residence to Intercept surface Adtitionally, a drainage Swale should be provided upslope of each ru -off and direct it into the storm drains. We recommend that catchbasins be placed in each of thl driveways to capture surface water and direct it into the storm water system. Water from roof, sic rm water, and foundation drains should not be discharged onto slopes; it should be tightlined to a s ukable outfall located away from any slopes. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL All building and pavem . ent areas should be stripped of surface vegetation, topsoil, organic soil, and otter deleterious material. A large amount of dumped garbage and yard waste were observed throughout the site; these materials will need to be removed during site clearing. The stripped or removed sand and gravel above the root line should not be mixed with any materials to be used as strictural fill, but they could be used in non-structural areas, such as landscape beds. GF-OTECH CONSULTANTS, INC- z 0 1 0 m --i -n Y) --i M M C M 0 -40 0 C: M M Z C z Cn o -n n m M 0 0 0 M C (1) K in M 0 Z z -i X 0) z 0 1 5 m t*-U I ECH PAGE 12 Ala Jackson JN 03322 San ember 3. 2003 Page I I I Stru-.tural fill Is defined as any.fill, Including utility backfill, placed under, or close to, a building, behl nd permanent retaining or foundation walls. or in other areas where the underlying soil needs to 5 pport loads. All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture content at, or nea -, " optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content is that moistuM content that resi Its in the greatest compacted dry density. The moisture content of fill is very important and muc, t be closely controlled during the filling and compaction process. As discussed in the Ger?GrW sec, ion, the on -site gravel below the root line is sUilable for reuse as structural fill, However, we rec mmend that footings be placed on no more than 5 feet of structural fill. The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type selected, the compaction equ pment used, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. The loose lift thickness sho, Id not exceed 12 Inches. We recommend testing the fill as it is Placed. If the fill is not 5 ciently compacted, it ran be recompacted before another lift is placed. This eliminates the need to remove the fill to achieve the required compaction. The following table presents recommended relative compactions for structural fill: Where: Minimum Relative Compaction is the ratio, expressea in percentages, of the compacted dry damIty to the maximunt dry density, as deterrnined in accordance with ASTM Test Designation 0 15ST-91 (Modified FrocW. I -site soils; the The General section should be reviewed for considerations related to the reuse of on gra I el below the root line is suitable for reuse as structural fill. Structural fill that will be placed in weMeather should consist of a coarse, granular soil with a sit or day content of no more than 5 pe ent. The percentage of particles passing the No. 200 sieve should be measured from that ootn of soil passing the three-quarter-inoh sieve. LIMMATIONS � analyses, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report Eire based on site ditions as they existed at the time of our exploration and assume that the soil and groundwater ditions encountered In the test p4s are representative of subsurface conditions on the site. If subsurface conditions encountered during construction are significan0y different from those erved in our explorations, we should be advised at once so that we can review these conditions I reconsider our recommendations where necessary. Unanticipated soil conditions are imonly encountered on construction 5ftes and cannot . be fully anticipated by merely taking soil iples in test pRS. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC- z 0 i 0 m -1 -Ti 0 m C 0 m 0 --1 0 0 C M M z r'.) --i C C/) o -n Ti m M 0 Cl) 0 r- 0 M C Cj) 9 Cl) M 0 Z z --I :C Cl) z 0 A 0 IT! wil oil 20aj A rats 4-101% L*-U I t:.L;H PAGE 13 Ala Jackson JN 03322 Sep ember 3, 2003 Page 12 Sub 5urface conditions can also vary between exploration locations. Such unexpected conditions fieq ently require making additional expenditures -to attain a properly constructed project. It is rectmended that the owner consider providing a contingency fund to accommodate such potintial extra costs and risks. This Is a standard recommendation for all projects. Thit report has been -prepared for the exclusive use of Alan Jackson and his representatives for spebific application to this project and site. Our recommendations and conclusions are based on obshrved site materials, and selective engineering analyses. Our conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in accordance with current standards of p ra I lee within the scope of our services and within budget and time constraints. No warranty Is exp ssed or implied. The scope of our services does not include services related to construction ct the contractWs methods, sa ty precautions, and our recommendations are not intended to dire tecAniques, sequences, or procedures, except as specifically described In our report for lideration in design. cons ADDMONAL SERMES In E-ddifion to reviewing the final plans, Geotech Consultants. Inc. should be retained to provide ge echnical consultation. testing, and observation services during construction. This is to confirm tha subsurface conditions are consistent with those Indicated by o6r exploration, to evaluate wa ther earthwork and foundation construction activities comply with the general intent of the he rec mmenclations presented in this report, and to provide suggestions for design changes in t eve it subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. Ho% rever, our work would not include the supervision or direction of the actual work of the con:ractor and its employees or agents. Also, job and site safety, and dimensional measurements, will m the responsibility of the contractor. Su sequent consultation and testing services during the design and construction phase would be charged on a time -and -materials basis in accordance with ternis and conditions of our attached schedule of fees and general conditions. This work often includes a review of -the geotechnical aspects of the plans and interaction with the architect, dvi( engineer, and structural engineer. Also, it rr ay involve geotechnical observation and testing services during the construction phase, which would also be charged on a time -and -materials basis. Unless otherwise notified by the owner, we woild assume that your acceptance of this proposal is also authorization to consult with the design teai -n as required on a time -and -materials. basis. Du Ing the construction phase, we will provide geotechnical observation and testing services only when requested by you or your representatives. We can only document site work that we actually obE erve. it is still the responsibility of your contractor or on -site construction team to verify that our rec:)mmendations are being followed, whether we are present at the site or not. -GEOTECH CONSULTANTS.-INC. z 0 i 0 m -1 -n M m C M 0 0 M M Z C) 4 C 65 0 -n n m M C) V5 0 r- 0 M C: Cl) 9 Cl) M C) Z M z 55 z 0 1 0 m I vu�p A. r W4J umu I WIM 14 AlaT JN 03322 Jackson Page 13 Sep ember 3, 2003 The following plates are attached to complete this report: Plate 1 Vicinity Map Plate 2 Site rzxploration Plan plate 3 - 4 Test Pit Logs z 0 Plate 5 Typical Footing Drain 0 m We appreP late the opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions, or if we Mai f be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact us. M M 0 __10 0 C� C Rospectfully submitted, -49 M m z GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC. JO --I C z (�V d4 Td" Erin M. Toland 0 n Geotechnical Engineer 7-9 m M 0 Cn 0 r 0 ML Cn M 01 Z -%V WAS X > 3 094 z V) I INVAL e% z EN qS: esm [E X-PIRES Oi--31- ai410 zi James H. Strange, Jr., P.E. GeotechnIcal Project Manager NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. 41111y L t; Effa MILO' a IF I& a, LA _1_ Ito& rw.la I tt 15 1% m it k- Ilk *Zt-1 Lifu 4;? % r d t t k is 9 film V re. fir WRIP ill- . A.0 net CKI JR c 4zX,-.,- Y"W% --- %L R ji A) 9 NOR if U) c A oil, 01 iN R Awal 0.4 It" I PU fv in lilt 29. It - A Id kilo AV Wo > g U192 4 < me Vu _N4 cc N 074 s It, Cc 90 0-4 0 AV a - >co I N Ll V -RH AV RAM A Kv 106 111.16 t; r N AY FOG ski -3 AV j Ar .1 lie irvvolti His Iff JE A :1 A C X -VA Ay� Ki TC9 to AV RN z S1 .9 -Itp — 7 " w All r z It Eli' AV Wilt f, AM V31" 'A Vigo At cri Q C> cli iI6 >1 g75 .N wit W." e.V . W�J A. I IJIJ d..j 0, uLu i r-%,n VAL*- 16 N approximate TP-5 rqqq 1% wetland boundary It TP-7 it ! TP-4 proOosed SFRs TP.3.: TP-2 proposed plat lines TP-1 I 230 240 co d) SITE EXPLORATION PLAN GEOTECH 1230 - 7th Avenue South CONSULTANTS, INC I I r: 4, L-,dmonds. Washington 03322 July 2 -::2 scah.- 003 1 Not to Scale z 0 A 0 M low TW Pit 1 MR FM 1��M I IMM 0� 1.0 TOPSOIL Dark brown silty TOPSOIL with abundant roots, 15.0-6.0 dry, loose 1.0-5.0 Sw Brown SAND with gravel and cobbles, slightly moist, medium -dense -becomes dense to v ry dense *No gruundwater encountered, some caving from 0 - 3.0 feet during excavation Test PU 2 , 70, 1 M. � �., � 0-1.0 FILL Brown sand and grwe—IFILL, with y—ard waste, loose 1.0-2.0 TOPSOIL Old, black TOPSOIL with abundant roots, dry, loose 2.0-4.0 Sw Brown SAND with gravel and cobbles, highly weathered, with ab6ndant roots, slighfly moist medium -dense 4.0-9.0 Brown, gravelly SAND Yvith cobbles, very moist, dense *No groundwater encountered, some caving from 0-2.0 feet during excavation. Test Pit 3 TOPSO11- Dark brown sifty TOPSOIL with abundant roots, dry, loose, mixed with construction debris incl. 12- inch concrete rubble 1.0-6.0 Sw Gray -brown SAND with gravel and co"s, medium -grained, slightly moist, dense 6.0-7.0 -with more cobbles, becomes very wet Groundwater encountered at 9.5 feet, some caving from 4.0 - 6.0 feet during excavation T Test Pft 4 0-0.5 TOPSOIL Dark brown silty TO SOIL with abundant roots, dry, loose 0.5-2.0 FILL and TOPSOIL Gray -brown $and FILL with gravel and occasional cobbles, medium -grained, slightly moiq loose to mediurri-dense, mixed with old TOPSOIL at 1.5 2.0 feet 2.0-6.0 Sw Gray -brown SAND with gravel and cobbles, medium -to coarse -grained, very moist, dense 6.0-7.0 -becomes wet *No groundwater encountered, Some caving from 4.0 - 6.0 feet during excavation TEST PIT LOGS GEOTECH 1230 - 7th Avenue South it) 0 C. ONSMTANTSO WC. Edmonds, Washington 'Job No.- Dam, RAM Lo&%r 03322 Augmi 20031 z 0 i 0 m --i -n US --I M m 0 0 0 C M M Z C M 0 -n n mm ous 0 r- 0 M C (n K C/) M 0 Z > z z 0 i 0 m 0 40 Test Pit 5 11- 0 1 . IM. a 0 8�6l4LOJAM D- 2.0 TOPSOIL Brown silty TOPSOIL vAth abundant foots, dry. loose 2.0-4.0 M Gray SAND with gravel and cobbles, M01st, medium -dense 4.0-7.0 SIP -becomes gray -brown, medium-grair*d, wet dense *Groundwater encounbered at 6.0 feet some caving from 6.0 - 7.0 feet during excavation Test Pit 6 0-1.0 TOPSOIL oark brown silty TOPSOIL with abundant roots, dry, loose 1.0-3.0 Sw Gray -brown SAND with gravel and cobbles, 7 moist, medium -dense 3.0-6.5 Sp -becomes medium-Nmined. very moist, dense *No groundwater encountered, some caving from 3.0 - 5.0 feet during excavation I em r1L I RROMMIMI M-MM- I =�� 0-2.0 FILL Uray-broyin. sand and gravel t�ILL_ dry,, -loose and Old TOPSOIL weathered SAND with gravel 2.0-4.0 SW Gray -brown, highly and cobbles, with occasional roots, aghtlY M0115t medium -dense 4.0-7.6 -dense, wet.at 7.0 'No groundwater encountered, some caving from 6.0 - 7.0 feet duiring excavificn TEST PIT LOGS GEOTECH 1230 - 7th Avenue South CONRJUrANTS, INC Edmonds, Washington Job No., LO Raft" 4 03322 VA3ur&qust20(Y 91" Ir 3T"WE;:MF--T" z 0 i 0 M -1 -n m C M 0 --10 0 C: M M z JO --11 C —Z o -n n 3:9 M M 0 5; 0 r- Q M C C/) ?. C/) M 0 Z z --I . . 3: CO z 0 0 M A J S pe backfill away from fc undation. Provide surface dains where necessary. Washed (7/81 rnin. 6" min Backfill (Sbe text for requirements) Nonwoven Geatextile Filter Fabric � 7E 5 0 60 PNIA. 6.0 A. 10. Tightline Roof Drain (Do not connect to footing drain) SLAB 0.0 Free -Draining Gravel fif annronriafa-) 4" Perforated Hard PVC Pipe (Invert at least 6 inches below slab or crawl space. Slope to drain to appropriate outfall. Place holes downward.) NOTES: (1) In crawl spaces, provide an outlet drain to prevent buildup of water that bypaEses the perimeter footing drains. (2) Refer to report text for additional drainage and waterproofing considerations. TYPICAL DRAIN DETAIL GEOTECIR 1230 - 7th Avenue South CONSULTANTS� Mr— Edmonds, Washington No.- Bale I Sc&Ar-- PLW& 03372 AuquSt 2003 Not to Scale z 0 1 0 M -n M C m 0 --10 1 1 0 C M M z 0 -n -n mm 0 0 0 M C Cl) 9 Cl) M 0 Z z --4 3: C/) z 0 0 M E, - � i 171 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: ww6edmonds.wa,us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT ; , 0 ;1,4; 9 Pn inaaring riann "y U "�:J tf September 4, 2003 GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR RECEIVED Mr. Al Jackson DEC 12 2003 16401 Highway 99 Lynnwood, Washington 98037 PERMIT COUNTER RE: 7th & Elm Short Plat Dear Mr. Jackson: The purpose Of this letter is to inform you that during the short plat review process it has been brought to my attention that the property in question may have had unclean fill and construction debris illegally dumped and abandoned on the property over the period of many years. Due to the potential of contaminated soils, and the unknown amount of possible illegal fill material placed on site, the following shall be required of the project: Prior to the start of tree removal, site preparation work, grading, utilities, etc. a geotechnical report shall be provided to the City as required by Unifonn Building Code. The report shall include all criteria as described in Uniform Building Code Section 1804.3 including but not limited to a narrative on possible soil contamination and soil cleanup/remediation if necessary, as well as exportation of unclean fill material. Note, if contaminated soils are found you are required by State Law to infonn the Department of Ecology (local- contact 425-649-7000) and follow their regulatory guidelines. By copy of this letter I am instructing the City Engineer to withhold final approval of the civil plans for this short plat until the geotechnical report is received, reviewed and approved by appropriate City staff, including but not limited to outside peer review as deemed necessary by the City. if you have any questions please . feel free to contact me during normal City business hours of 9:00am to noon and 1:00prn to 4:00pm, Monday through Friday at 425-771-0220 extension 1226. Sincerely, aA*19r Jeannine L. Graf Building Official Cc: Dave Gebert, City Engineer z 0 1 0 M ff -, dc)INSULTANTS. INC. 13256 Northeast 2ft Street, Suite 16 Beilevue. Washington 98005 (425)747-5619 PAX(425)747-8561 April 16, 2004 JN 03322 Alan Jackson 16401 Highway 99 RECEIVED Lynnwood, Washington 99037 APR 19 2004 Subject: Review of Dispersion System Plans Proposed Residences — Lots 1, 2, and 3 PEWT coutaER 1230 — 7th Avenue South Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. Jackson, via facsimile, (425) 787-9112 We have completed a general review of the geotechnical aspects of the plans for the proposed stormwater dispersion trenches to be constructed on the northern three lots (Lois 1, 2, and 3) of the subplat, The plans we reviewed included Sheets C-1 through C-6. The plans were prepared by CSP Engineering and are dated October 13, 2003. We completed a geotechnical study of this site on September 3, 2003. The proposed dispersion trenches are to be located along the western edge of the development area. The natural grades on the land to the west of the proposed dispersion trenches are inclined at approximately 20 to 30 percent and the slope is fully vegetated with mature trees and undergrowth. The grading plan and drainage plans indicate that the new dispersion systems will be located at existing grades with no fill added to the existing grades above or below the system. A vegetated filter strip will be installed along the downslope side of the dispersion trenches to create a level'discharge area and to reduce potential erosion. Given the relatively gentle inclination of the slope below the proposed dispersion system and the soil conditions observed in our test pits, it is our opinion, provided that the recommendations provided in the geotechnical study are followed, that the installation of the planned dispersion system will not result in slope instability at the subject site. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. z 0 M -i -n Cn M C rn 0 0 -40 0 C 3: M M z g) --I :. . . C z 0 -n n M M 0 0 0 M C C1) C 0) M 0 Z 3: z co z 0 i 0 M Alan Jackson JN 03322 April 16, 2004 Page 2 00 We trust this letter fulfills your needs at this time. Please contact us with any questions or if we can further assist you. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Z�. 0 CA James H. Strange, Jr., P.E. M C M 0 Geotechnical Project Manager 0 C M M z cc, Graham Northwest, Inc. — Kris Stotz or Dave Stafford via facsimile: (425) 984-0120 C z > Lisa Bdde 6 via facsimile: (425) 672-9182 0 -n Mountain Shadow Construction — Jerry Dawes M M via facsimile: (425) 745-5805 0— Cn 0 JHS: jhs' 0 C M Cn 9 Cn Q O� Z X z z 0 0 M GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. 14� DAVE TIMBROOK CONSULUNG ARBORIST - ISA Certified ON 1199 359 NE 195th Street Shoreline, WA 98155-2138 Home (206) 3 62-64 10 Cell (425) 343-2248 RF CEIVED W17 CITY UqJJL x APR 19 2004 z 0 0 M 0 X PLANT REC OMMENDATIONS C M, rn 0 for 0 0 C 1230 7TH AVENUE SOUTH x M EDMONDS WA M z z -n -n x MM CO), 0- r 0 M C CI) r, C/) Prepared for Q 0 Z Alan Jackson August 5, 2003 M z 3: BQm��a z 0 0 M Property address: 1230 7h Ave. S. Edmonds, WA 98020 Client: Alan Jackson Overview: The lots being developed at 1230 7th Ave. S. in Edmonds are positioned with an exiting wetland running along the west end of the properties, As such the primary emphasis of the development will occur at the far east end of the priorities. The current development plans include a 50-foot buffer zone immediately west of the actual footprints of the houses going in. There are approximately 1881 square feet of mitigation area and 956 square feet of impacted area. These are the proposed re -vegetation areas of concern in this report. [See attachment] Current property conditions: The lots on this property run east and west and are sloped up to the east. The lower two-thirds of the property are serves as a watershed for the entire hillside a is wet nearly 12 months a year. The upper third of the lots are fairly typical Northwest urban forest in their vegetation make-up. The predominant trees are Douglas Fir, Western Red Cedar, Big -Leaf Maple, Red Alder and some native cherry. Understory growth is mainly blackberry, Elderberry, Ocean Spray, Salal and Sword Fern. with a great deal of perennial and annual weed growth (Nettles, grasses and broadleaf weeds). Plant material recommendations: The plants recommended for re -vegetation of the areas that will be disturbed are not specifically wetland plants due to the conditions they will be planted in. They will not be required to withstand standing water for any great length of time, as a true wetlands plant would need to do. Rather, these native plants were chosen for their ability to survive in a Northwest urban forest. PLANT SIZE OTY APPROX. $ Vine Maple (Acer circinatum) 6-7 feet 9 $30.00 ea. Douglas Fir (Pseudotsuga menzeseii) 6-7 feet 4 $30.00 ea. Red Elderberry (Sambucus racemosa) 5 gal. 12 $13.00 ea. Ocean Spray (Holodiscus discolor) 5 gal 12 $13.00 ea. Red Flowering Currant (Ribes sanguinium) 2 gal 12 $7.00 Salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) 2 gal 12 $7.00 Swordfern (Polystichum munitum) I gal 50 $3.00 Approximate cost for all plant material is $1020.00 z 0 4 0 M All plants should be healthy nursery grown stock. Sp acing should allow for the growth of the plant and should not crowd each other. The Maple and Fir should be evenly planted in the area allowing for the mature height. Plants of similar species should be planted in groups of three with a minimum 5 feet and a maximum 0 f 10 feet. The Elders will spread out so spacing spacing of be the maximum for them. The Salmonberry should have the minimum spacing. should The Swordfern should also be planted in grou ps with a spacing of 18 inches. be the care they get immediately e plant material will The ultimate survival of th full they are it is essenti al that their water requirements be met for the next z 0 after planted. growing season. Ideally the planting should take place in the fall of the year, if possible, Genera Ily this will lulfill the watering needs for -4 0 for the plants to get a really good start. establishing the plant material unless we have a really dry fall an d winter. Continued T :q watering in the spring and surnme r will insure the survival of the plants. —.n, CA M M 0 0 0 C M M z C 0) 0 M M M Cj) 0 0 M C C/) 9 0) M 0 z z 0 0 M EFIM FLA Cj5 aw. CY t t + + 77 + t . t_� + + + + + + + + + + + # # 4 + 4 4 + + + + + + + + + 4 t + + + + + t + + + + + 4 + + + + + + 4 + 4 + *+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 4 + 1+11+1 A 1 -4 + + + + + + + t + + ----------------------------- + t + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ----------------------- + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + t I + ori + + + + + + + + + + + i . 4 + + + + &A + + 4 * + + 4 + + + + + + 4 + + + 4 4 f 4 + + 4 + + + + + + 4 * f 4 4 # f 4 # t + + + + + f + t . . . . . . + + f + + + + + 4 + 4 1 4 + + + 4 4 + + + + + + + + ��410 + + + tx + + 4 + + 4 + + + + A.. * * * + t + + A t + + i �__ + + + + + --------- 4 .,F ------ 21 N,! + - -- --- 4 4 Iw ---- ----- 4p Ct -------- % -------- g,D ------- - -- --------------- L? 230- ---------- ILI ------ ----------- _4 ----------- Ais -------- %% 1% to 'JPFF W V% 1K ---- 76t% %\ 7-:14W.7 to 7th Am a COO t fo L "Oft& 44 C. is(),) April 23, 2004 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH * EDMONDS, WA 98020 * (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: wwwxi.edmondsma.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning - Building - Engineering GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR David Stafford Graham Northwest Inc. 21010 NE 165th Woodinville, WA 98077 Subject: LANDSC��RBOND REQUIREMENT FOR PROPOSED RESIDENCES AT 1230 AND 1232 7 AVE S. (PLAN CHECK FILES 03-563 AND 03-564) Dear Mr. Stafford: The purpose of this letter is to document the landscape bond requirement for the two proposed residences at the above referenced addresses. The reduction of the wetland buffer from 15' to 10' and presence of the 10' filter strip within the wetland buffer required a letter of approval from Diane Brewster, Landau Associates. Associated with Ms. Brewter's approval (per the March 31, 2004, memorandum) was the revegetation of the wetland buffer, including the 10' filter strip area. Staff has determined that this may be done according to the Dave Timbrook's August, 5, 2003 plant recommendations report. We have noted, however, that the map referenced by this report does not accurately call out the entire area to be revegetated. In addition, the bond submitted during the subdivision process for revegetation in the wetland buffer was only based on a portion of the buffer area as indicated by the Timbrook letter. In order to ultimately approve the proposed development plans on each of the lots for which you seek permits, we need to ensure that the entire filter strip is indicated to be revegetated on.a. plan. We were able to 'redline' the site plans with the permits to call out these areas for revegation. In addition, we need to secure a landscape bond to ensure that the planting ultimately happens. Our estimate of the cost of materials and labor for replanting this area is slightly over $2000.00 per lot. Prior to release of the building permits for each of these lots, a bond or frozen fund account in the amount of $2000.00 per lot will be required to posted. A permit coordinator will be able to provide you with the applicable paperwork. If you have any questions, you may contact me at (425) 771-0220. Sincerely, Development Services Department - Planning Division Star Campbell, Planner C.C. Duane Bowman, Development Services Director Meg Gruwell, Senior Planner Jennifer Readwin, Senior Permit Coordinator Subdivision File, S-03-34 Plan Check Files 03-563 and 03-564 Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister City - Hekinan, Japan Z 0 4 0 M --i -" M M 0 0 0 C —4 C X M M Z 1[) --4 cn, 0 -n n M M 0 0 0 M C 0) F. Cn M 0 Z .4� X Z --I 3: (n Z 0 4 0 M 9 FROM JRR ENOINEERING,ino, PF0\1E NO, 425+697 4506 Mar, 19 2004 12:34PM P1 JRR Engineering, Inc. 18609 7e Avenue Wes� Suite B Lynnwood, WA 98037-4149 Phone: (425) 697-S 108 Fax: (425) 697-4506 March 17, 2004 Dave $Word Graham Northwest Inc. 21010 NFE 16e ST %Ai --Al All— %A1A nuri-yo!) Post4r FaX Note 7671 D"M TO . JDM4:, --.2 �- F—qZ_ CoJDQM. PhD" 0 PhWW 0 CE I ,va—x 4 Wig a !1 0 / zo -5 CD -17 0 SUBJECT. Foundation Revisions, Plans 3298 & 3226,Graham North"at Inc., Edmonds, WA, m JRR# 03-79 rn 0 0 OC. Dear Mr. Stafford: m m z Per your request JRR Engineelng, Inc. has reviewed the plans and calculations for the above z subject building using the Eoo-Block wall system. JRR has determined the vertical reinforcing may > be#4bamat16"o.c*. ratherthenthe#5 bars atfl'o.c. called fbron wall deta]IWIS-3 for plan 3225 "W/S-2 X and detail for plan 3298- This revision only applies to the MY ma)dmum backfill basement wall shown on those plans. 011 -n Please advise If you have any questions or cDnr, oms regarding this matter, m M Sincerely, 0 r- JRR Engin ringlno. 0 M C Cn ;Ka C 0) osm an,"E M 0 Z X A?& z X Concurrence: E$ �p ch Ronald K. Rlach, P.E. z 0 0 M RECE:IVE:E) MAY 18 2004 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR. CITY OF EDMONDS , * m FROM JRR ENGINEERINGPInc. PHONE No. 425+697 4506 May. 11 2004 11:22AM P3 Z"Co ENGINEER= & PLANNING SERVICES Project Name- No.* 7 -Ad r,fF -A 44 i .... . ...... Degigned gAe ---- checked smot 3 Of ]� z 0 4 0 m E, � GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR CITY OF EDMONDS tT q (425) 771-0220 FAX (425) 771-0221 A 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH EDMONDS, WA 98020 Website: wwwdedmondsmams OP- DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Z. C1 Planning - Building - Engineering C October 4, 2004 0 Graham Northwest Inc. M 21010 NE 165t)l Woodinville, WA 98077 Ui M 0 9 Re: Building Perrnit: 2004-031 0 Site Address: 1232 7'11 Ave S. 0 Expiration Date: April 29, 2005 M M Z C Z_ The purpose of this letter is to inform you that tile last remaining inspection on Your X project is a final inspection(s). The final inspection(s) determines that there are no CD, outstanding life -safety issues and approval allows the City to close your perrilit file. o -n n The City considers the final inspection to be one of the nlost important inspections M M nust be complete: 0 Ui conducted on a project. In order to grant final approval the f ollowing 1 0 C CD smoke detectors, house numbers, guardrails, handrails, self -close doors between garage M and residence, egress from sleeping rooms, safety glazing, wcather-stripping, any M 0 Engineering department requirements etc. Of course not all of these things may Z r- our project but it does give you an idea about the kinds of things specifically apply to y ed to be installed Such as: that must be complete as well as some items that do not ne X. 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 CD approval granted by the Building Inspector, full fees are required in order to renew the Z permit. This can be very costly to you and we strongly encourage You to check your 0 permit expiration date and call ror the required final ins ection(s). Note: If more than 0 P M is is noted n your Job Card. one department is required to final your project, th 0 Please feel free to contact me at 425-771-0220 ifyou have any questions. Sill rely, 1111Y dwin y crinit Coordinator 1,\1'e11iIA)ST's\N,1aster I_euers\SR%vaarnl_trSFR Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister Citv - Hekinan. Janan Height Calculation Worksheet Address: AAJ Date: fiLspector(s):' 1. Datum Point: z 2. Datum Point Elevation: 0 M 3. Average Grade: .4. Maximum Elevation Allowed: (average &de) 25 0 M C M 0 5. Reference Point Elevation Shot to House: 0 0 C 6 d4'�S'-'Jdatum elevation) + (grade to transit level Une 'shot to house) -4 M M z ID --I 6. Measurements from line shot onto house to roof ridge: > z r W 0 -n -n MM 0 M C W 9 W Q 0 Z ;U z 0) 3, z 0 Total: 0 M 7. Actual Elevation: (reference point elevation) + (measurements from#6)= onclusion: (actual) is greater 16S tj an S9, �'z (allowed); therefore the house is/ L&AT(5D--C is not over the height requireme�n��;er 16.20.30 requirements �. m FIELD REPORT No. /:20v03 No. 52155 r,%c -rs=CTIt-,Ir'_ I Ekf--lQAT0RY INC. ,- 0 %_ t-N I TESTING & INSPECTION I ENGINEERS 12919 N.E. 126TH PLACE (A25) 823-9800 KIRKLAND, 'WASHINGTON 98034 EVERETT (A2S) 259-08 17 COMPRESSION REPORT . . o[vELOPtwIF!,' ATTN: THE FOLLOWING WAS NOTED: mm n TFRT DATA '� (9 0 0 '0> C) 9511 DATE & // --C�/ I CERT. NO. o — _�ROI_EC�L)� L_'OT r_� 1- -5 5 LOCATION / �? '3a —7 BLDG. PERMIT NO. OWN ER e-( E WEATHER TEMP. 6' AT)' -AM AT PM ENGINEER c ji c ARCHITECT CONTRACTOR I TRUCKSAMPLED j__2 ol TRUCK TICKET NO. 7,07 MIX NO._ --S TIME SLUMP ASTM C-143 % AIR UNIT WEIGHT ASTM C-138 YIELD CEMENT FACTOR TEMP. ASTM C-1064 CONC AIR 5;421-( LA 0 AIRTESTIVIETHOD: M PRESSURE ASTM U-231 UH UVULUMt:tAa11Vl k,-IfQ EQUIPMENT USED I.D. SLUMP CONE CSLCOO---- THERMOMETER CCOTHO AIRMETER CCOAIO OTHER TYPE OF BREAK: (A) Cone (C) Cone and Shear --- - I—. I C� � BATCH A cu - DESIGN WEIGHTS % MOIS ADJUSTED WEIGHTS GEM ENT - FLYASH .A. C C. I 4 C.A. C.A. FINE AGG. MATER ITOTAL Z_ 4-T Y\l C CYLINDER NUMBER DATE MADE DATE TESTED AGE DAYS SIZE AREA (SO. IN) TOTAL LOAD STRENGTH PSI TYPE BREAK 2 -/; 6 4 d:l -7 6 x (Z 7- 0. -Z,-7 �3 e:2 0 Z CONCRETE COMPRESSION MACHINE I.D. i7UUUUUUU 0 ASTM C-1231 SAMPLING IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAMPLE P/U DATE TEST METHOD 0 ASTIVI C-617 APPLICABLE CODES & SPECS. SUPPLIER C'� CEMENTTYPE CU. YARDS PLACED 5_0 1) AEA ADMIX. CAC1 2 % DESIGN STRENGTH Lev PLACEMENT AREA & NOTES 7 TEST RESULTS APPLY ONLY TO THE ITEMS HEREIN TESTED. THIS REPORT SHALL NOT INSPECTOR(S). NAME(S) PRINTED. BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL, WITH- OUT THE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC. INSPECTOR SIGNATURE REVISED 1/02 SIGNED BY COPIESTO: 5�2- c/z z 0 i 0 m FAI FIELD --A Cf— An r- Tr--,Tl G LABORATORY, INC. REPORT No. 120 4(60 3 No. 52155 TESTING & INSPECTION I ENGINEERS 129 1 9 N. E. 12 6TH PLACE KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON 9803A (A251 823-9800 EVERETT (A251 259-08 17 M="*' I COMPRESSION REPORT 2004 ATTN: THE FOLLOWING WAS NOTED: CITY Or ru_-NU, cici n ccT nATA '-) 0 3p"f:) g< DATE & — / / CERT. NO. 4/b,5-- 47/' 7S' PROJECT ('L)� L-0�� oO e�4 1-5 5 LOCATION f-7f5c)- BLDG. PERMIT NO. OWNER ,2 0,e) e-,l WEATHER TEMP. At" --AM AT PM ENGINEER j ARCHITECT CONTRACTOR TRUCK SAMPLED j- -7a TRUCK TICKE7-r NO. 66 70 -7 mxNO. c )LUMP SLI LUMP TIME 70% AIR UNIT WEIGHT CEMENT YIELD FACTOR TEMP. ASTM C-1064 rM C-14 AS�M C 143 ASTIVI C-1 38 CONC AIR 0 L 0 AIR TEST METHOD: [] PRF-bbUHt Atj I M u-eil Uri Lj V�"..--- EQUIPMENT USED I.D. SLUMP CONE CSLCOO--' THERMOMETER CCOTHO AIRMETER CCOAIO OTHER _ TYPE OF BREAK: (A) Cone (C) Cone and Shear - — 0 l;f IA! Ch.— fal rnhimnar rnuopPRRIVE STRENGTH aATCHI)ATA FOR I cu. YD. DESIGN WEIGHTS % MOIST. ADJUSTED WEIGHTS CEMENT FLYASH C.A. C.A. C.A. FINE AGG. pq (4 WATER ,TOTAL -3 , cp -z— 3 -, 0 ` a -7. -/ Z.,-,IC A66C- DATE MADE DATE TESTED AGE DAYS SIZE AREA (SQ. IN) TOTAL LOAD STRENGTH PSI TYPE BREAK CYLINDER NUMBER -ZAE > -,7 0, 7 -7&(90/ —7—ZeZ 6-7-4)1 CONCRETE COMPRESSION MACHINE I.D. fFUUUUuuU 0 ASTM C-1 231 SAMPLING IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAMPLE P/U DATE — TEST METHOD El ASTIVI C-617 APPLICABLE CODES & SPECS. SUPPLIER K-""q 01-4,4w CEMENTTYPE CU. YARDS PLACED 1� AEA ADMIX. CACI 2 % DESIGN STRENGTH ""s-670 PLACEMENT AREA& NOTES TEST RESULTS APPLY ONLY TO THE ITEMS :D HEREIN TESTED. THIS REPORT SHALL NOT INSPECTOR(S), NAME(S) PRINTE BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL, WITH. OUT THE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY. INC. INSPECTOR SIGNATURE REVISED 1102 SIGNED BY COPIES TO: 77 z 0 IT! I FIELD No. 4 4 ") 2' *' 3 REPORT No. SCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC. TESTING & INSPECTION / ENGINEERS 1 29 1 9 N.E. 126TH PLACE 1IRKLAND, wASHINGTON 9803A (A25) 823-9800 EVERETT (A251 259-0817 COMPRESSION REPORT THE FOLLOWING WAS NOTED: FIELD TEST DATA -ffAT -E CERT. NO. LOCATION ch, 12--57-- BLDG. PERMIT NO. OWNER H71RI TEMP. AT AM rENjG�It AT PM EER ' a.c ARCHITECT CON�RACTC,R TRUCK SAMPLED TRUCKTICKETNO. M X NO2.4,'Q-r& SLUMP UNIT CEMENT TEMP. TIME ASTIVI C-143 %AIR WEIGHT YIELD FACTOR ASTIVI C-1064 ASTM C-138 CONC AIR A -7 '-7 14 AIR TEST METHOD: 0 PRESSURE ASTM C-231 OR E] VOLUME ASTM C-1 73 EQUIPMENT USED I.D. SLUMP CONE CSLCOO THERMOMETER CCOTHO AIRMETER CCOAIO OTHER TYPE OF BREAK: (A) Cone (C) Cone and Shear ihi r.nnp;;nel Rnlit (dl Shear (e) Columnar PnMPRFR-c;IVF -(;TRFNGTH aATCtj DATA FOR _q cu. YD DESIGN WEIGHTS Z-7 -.5P M% DIST. ADJUSTED WEIGHTS 7:7z,6 CEMEN FLY ASH C.A. /'�z) Z-0 plyb C.A. C.A. FINE AGG. ,WATER ITOTAL CYLINDER NUMBER DATE MADE DATE TESTED AGE DAYS SIZE AREA (SQ. IN) TOTAL LOAD STRENGTH PSI TYPE BREAK 7-5 -74 e 5-5 4/ Z) 6 -14� 14 1011 5 &022 Z615 '74, 561 -7/7 7 CONCRETE COMPRESSION MACHINE I.D. fFUUUUUUU D ASTM C-1231 SAMPLING IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAMPLE P/U DATE .. TEST METHOD El ASTM C-617 APPLICABLE CODES & SPECS. SUPPLIER — 69vzy)� CEMENT TYPE -j CU. YARDS PLACED TEST RESULTS APPLY ONLY To THE ITEMS HEREIN TESTED. THIS REPORT SHALL NOT INSPECTOR(S), NAME(S) PRINTED BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL. WITH. OUT THE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF CASCADE INSPECTOR SIGNATURE TESTING LABORATORY. INC. REVISED 8100 SIGNED BY COPIES TO:'�M'da)a --- 2 I z 0 1 0 M DAILY FIELD REPORT 5-1VED 19 2004 TRAVELIPREP T12 1he JOB NUMBER CONSULTANTS, INC. MAY z PMENT SERvicES CT9. TIME ON SITE O�F� 1125-&) 13256 NE 20th Street. Suite 16 GITY OF EDMONDS TIME OFF SITE DAY OF Bellevue, WA 98005 m-00 /-/o 6) - --1 ML 425-747-5618 FAX 425-747-8561 I/ HOURS CHARGED WEATHER JOB LOCATION . /2:L-' — 7ZI-flleme CLIENTIOWNER 4�lzl :Z;,f -- GEN RAIL 0AITRACTOR GENERAL CONTRACTOR'S SUPERINTENDENT ml�� PERMITPUMBER G DING CONTRACTOR' I - j*,- GRADING SUPERINTENDENT , PAGE OF 7 I &15 A,—,-/ el-,-- ene��m � exe,,a ,,AM ox omox 14 q q"p"a Pell .5-e?,,!fWs alfl-/ 5912�j 1/0 1ff11^tw11,09Pj \j j 50We 441 6V14ddl -4p12 i \j :5teAZqe 5-41214 a)l -ew'h Ade lynkal'A eg�Xc th AA 4 k-Ag m ml, . ol A P lu -56 t fe -ShOtt -i . Ij I/ rftw)U(�J- 4edL� �/Q Ae,,s V212)-o12 +p e&,kjot��? 4 e- 4/,,,, Jftwtep- �ftx 4L e?(*e 11110 hbAl & , , V -/L - -1 1,;,4 / ILI 54 061slo-1,1?d tx/�,A, J�mek� IV -.1 kp4- —r14 we-jew 4vnj tA 1j,1 Us -edlofJj �e. 6�sl-,xAtc as -<61r llfltleiol -fa 111"I IV AM111'e- (&.I I Jjll V C &)L'Af. clel-iA A 5L& 4� j we--A(c A< iwd- AeJ,),-110-4ej1L, -4(" rwan!5'e a"'d L".'m 14 A, Ve. I - -]Lt, 1).?e4 I'o —It /A/ rdd'1A1*A1 -11v w"111n, ?Ile 001111e, ck fz;�?djl �rQ 1 0 d yl A J1211 A "k skellz 5-14 A� ij I I "i IAI�k A0 �'Ajel el PLI) e4-10,, I.IL�Irl pie pe (,f 6A E E L-- 4-17 A] A,11V z3o c t MT -5 =-i j toela-!�- S644'el ki�- LckfiLJ wilk 4'm, d6wikJ4 let pl- n/ -91k nenemr4 4((( 14)1 Y-�� 4--)ell :14;e j NEXT SITE VISIT: JAZJ� l4eAJ SIGNATURE: 1 COPY TO: T!� 2 z 0 i 0 m M M 0 0 0 C M M Z —Z cl) 0 -n -n --I m m M 0 0 0 M C C/) 9 cn M 0 Z r- z 0) z 0 0 m I., m DAILY FIELD REPORT OEOTECHTRAVELIPREP TIME JOB NUMBER CONSULTANTS INC TIME ON SITE DATE 13256 NE 20th Street, Suite 16 TIME OFF Slrp DAY OF _-Yr 9EK Bellevue, WA 98005 Zw/ 1 ��ML 425-747-5618 FAX 425-747-8561 HOU CHARGED WEATHER JOB LOCATION. CLIENTIOWNr 7—Ayemyu S�-4-e P-Amo-'js dw GENERAL CONTRACTOR GENERAL CONTRACTOR'S SUPERINTENDENT MILES PERMIT NUMBER z (f Aly k;�" 5 -oc>4 /0 3 19 76 41---�7 0 k e, GRADING SUPERINTENDENT VISITORS PAGE 6F .ONTRACTOR _7 Alt- d),JygW 64 PoJ f)(aric 56,0 be al'116ve"_4 1!�-40144 7�� 160&;Is �6 WlAeendej. 74 A / - - Ll,'Al PX-6- 4 4 d 1006AI't I L I 242 1. �" W —/ < Aez-lg C144 Sclbpes, f-:3,14 J�i '.-Os4egm Vd�e- 111� 411 igt=kL 11j-1 V </� s-L'ds 'aew 2(,j_�ec a,e�. 1,-,qLr qfj�! I/, "A 74 4,6 /"o� -4'e 1z"e - 4 c- r4rf K-1 11'( -L� &Z V e,, l �1" tflfl� �5e e ell Lg;, ke, 116 A �a I F411 n 1-ki M2 c""A m --I -n M c m 0 0 —40 0 c M M Z jc) -1 1 1 1 c —Z co) o n m M 0 0 0 M C c) 9 c1) M 0 Z 7-1 X z 0 m 0 sio"ALL sirnmG mm 9*xr s-1. 0 I1r OM &a SPAIVIG (INCHIES CLQN W/ 2xrx3/16" PLATE WASHERS PER BMr- 0 SIMPSON HOLLOW TO F=MTlCN AT EP.0i EM OF CUM SHICA"ML PO S"W S-1- NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. SAM MASS TO FOMMY W1 UBC 2406 AND FED & ST. REGLILATIONS SIMIS TO BE DEIL PANEL SHATTER RESIST. CC2 PLASM (IOX AND 5* UN. DOME FOR FITCH I.INDER 4L-12) I OR LAINNATED SAFETY GLASS. PROMOE 4� MIN CURB (OR SELF FEASHM ASSIBLY. 3:12 UK PITCH) ,!;=g,gw=,dG 94SPECTED BEFORE STAIR NOTES Z1003.3.3 S' MAX RISERS V MIN. TREAM 34--38' HT. HANDRAIL Ilr-2- DLOL OW CONTOL FLILL STAR LENGTH RMRN ENDS ED WALL OR NEWL PROTECT IN" STAIR WALLS/CLG IF ENCLOSED USEABLE SPAM W1 5/r TYPE X cm / 100.13.3.9 FIRESIW BTM STUDS 0 S71MOM s*-r L&L MW. HEAD CLEARANCE 0MRMLmaumu EGRESS VINDOWS / UBC 310.4 FIN SILL HT 44* MAX ABV FLR NET W14S TO BE 5.7 SF UIN. 2D* WE MIN. & 24- HT. M. BATHROOM NOTES FLvEsTcp TUBS a SHWM/70&2 SHJIR WK 3or d & 1024 SCL IK 22' MIN. WOTH 940VAER DOOR TO OPEN OUTWAM F HINGED ENCLOSURES TO BE SAF. CLASS SMOOTH NO*-ABS0RB WAINSCOT UP 70- W1 IILP. GM BAO(*M VAPOR BARRIER HOT PERMITTED 8000 W.P. GIB AT EXT. WALL XS GPM SHIM FLOW RESTRICTOR TW OR SHVIFL CONTROL VALVES To BE PRESWRE BALANCE OR THERMOSTATIC MIXING TYPE 1.6 GAL PER FLUSH MAX TORM 30' OEM MTN REQ* 0 TOILET INSTALL Wo FIXG. FOR TOWEL BARS UP 49' AFF OR BELOW SILL HT. F AT WINDOW. INSTALL BLOCKING FOR TP HOLDERS. CE INSTALI. PER MFGFL SPECS & LW- SPECS. M BE ON SITE FOR FRUG. INSPECTWON. NONCOMetbTRI FREBLOCK REQD. AT %T AT FLOOR CjTU&OPNr- INSTALL GWlI FIROELOCK BETWEEN CHASE a ATTTc- WFil SEPARATION ALL WRIL A L� WALLS. CoLs. & amS.. & BOT. FACE OF FLOOR JIMSTS ABOVE WAIN 5/r TYPE -r 0010. EXTEND TO ROOF SHEATHING OR PROTECT ENTIRE CEJLJW� W/ Doult Put 1505.1 *a& & WEADIERSIRIP Ir HT. INSIN DAM 30r WIN CLEAR. ABV FPfE NS Sh� A MT 3 I FGENE)z STANDARD PLATE- W-lir RAISED PLATE- W-O' Fr. MAIN FLOOR �olr 110 2A/ YA I NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. 0 SEMWIL SWADM PM SW 3--l- 0 11r M& AA SpN26 OKIn oa), W/ rXrx31lr RAW WSM NM Mt 0 ar3W WU)M W MtMA7M AT UW M CF UM 9""WL PM SM -m vmv nil FOUNDATION PLAN SCAM 1/4'