20040320.pdfI
I
DATE RECEIVED
CITY OF EDMONDS
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION
OWNER NAMEMAME OF BUSINESS
D A S-r rF-oR-ID 6RA14 AM NO F-TH W a-T I 1A
MAILING ADDRESS
2_1 0 1. o (D 15
CITY ZIP FEIEPHONE
A1ozQu,JVIi-t-E
NAME
be!;i6rq L
ADDRESS
19115 A)
CITY
El ekC--r T
NAME
4,NA
ADDRESS
72—kIDID rqF—
CITY
_5 I
TELEPHONE
42-5 - -7 8B -ZBc1
EXPIRATION DATE I C"Vp"
STATE LICENSE NUMBER
e ) IVI . I V
�AWARA Nl 641 11 PH
PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL NO. /--I
t5t4Q11z-T OPLJ" 2-1130b 0 r- 2A
NEW RESIDENTIAL
ADDITION COMMERCIAL
REMODEL MULTIFAMILY
G
REPAIR GJK'4 CYDS
DEMOLISH TANK
GARAGE RETAININGWALL
CARPORT ROCKERY
(TYPE OF USE, BUSINESS OR ACTIVIM EXPLAIN:
5jN(.:PLE
NUMBER NUMBER OF
OF DWELLING
STORIES z UNITS
DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE
C,0 r,4 5-rP— V C:T S 10 brLE
- F-a
(0
17)9--0171 ,
E_
1 -4 2_5 - _T8 02) - 2.16 ot Ili
ST.
ZIP TELEPHONE
zC13 14Z5 - 555
ICBLN
51-14
ZIP
HEAT SOURCE GLAZING %
I
c
1051zolj5z
MIN .... zi
0 PLUMBING / MECH
COMPLIANCE OR
1:1 CHANGE OF USE
11 SIGN
1 FENCE
1 ( X FT)
OTHER
FIRE SPRINKLER
FIRE ALARM
CRITILAL
AREAS
NUMBEFIC A -1-1-
LOT SLOPE %
PERMIT EXPIRES
USE ERMIT e7%\
ZONE (j2 P
NUMBI'ER
�a�A_ ' ba2L
JOB
SUITE/APT#
ADDRESS
1h1w
PLAT NAME/SUBDIVISION NO
LOT No.
LID NO.
o-3 I
LID FEE $
'34
__O�
TESCP Approved
PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL
STREET MAP
AW Permit Required
Street Use Formit Raq'd
EXISTING PROPOSED
inspection Required
sidewalk Requited
REQUIRED DEDICATION�
FT
underground
Writing required
M ETER SIZE
7LI;NTE SIZE
�NO OF TFIXTURE�S
PRV REQUIRED
I OU
it
ii�
Y y ES NO 13
VESTED DATE
PLAN CHECK NO
zh 41:i 3
THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO
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
W
PERMIT LIMIT. I YEAR - PROVIDED WORK IS
IL 7= STARTED WITHIN 180 DAYS
SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION
'APPLICAN1, 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 WHAT EVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
BE
x FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF 1 HIS PERMIT SHALL NOT
9 DEEMED TO MODIFV� WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE
01 NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITYS ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.'
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 VIOLATIO��TIIE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO
. �� I CATInH INRURANCE AND RCW 11127.
REMARKS
OWNER/CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROLYDRAINAGE
ZIAN G
k'j: IQ Me� IdL- C 7-1 C, N Z =:]
A 4-
FENGINEERING REVI E BY DATE
IF FIRE REVIEWED BY DATE
VARIANCE OR CU
SHORELINE OR ADB#
INSPECTION
BOND
POSTED
0 REO'D
VS ONO
S
', 0(_Y�� - "(
SEPA REVIEW
COMPLETE EXEMPT
SIGN AREA
ALLOWED PROPOSED
HEIGHT
ALLOWED PROPOSED
I
V
- -
ct�
LL
EXP
LOT COVERAGE
REQUIRED SETBACKS (FT.)
PROPOSED SETBACKS (FT.:
ALLOWED PROPOSED
FRONT SIDE REAR
FRONT
LIR SIDE REAR
LOT AREA PLANNING REVIEWED BY DATE
PARKING
REO'D
PROVIDED
;>
I I
I
By ITYPE OF
GROUP
OAKIT
0
z
rz
Lu
z
z
E3
z
Lu
Lu
i
SPECIAL INSPECTION JAREA vu�v
REQUIRED A YES LOAD — I
REMARKS z
PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 108,11FINAL INSPECTION REG-D 1 5
e) CA/
z /S
V
VALUATION
Plan Check
Building Permit
Plumbing
Mechanical
Grading
Engr. Review
Engr. Inspection
Fire Review
Fire inspection
Landscapelnsp-
Recording Fee
FEE Description FEE
) T I, State Surcharge
City Surcharge
CALL
FOR INSPECTION
(425)
771-0220/1
ATTENTION t)k I ldjj��
IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL
A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTIFI-
CATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC SECTION 109
04102 PRESS HARD -YOU ARE MAKING 5 CO
N�TURVNE OR AGENT) DATE SIG ED
V
4 Plan Chk. Deposit (D
#
Receipt #
Total Amt. Due
Receipt #
APPLICATION APPROVAL
This application is not a permit until signed by the
Building Official or his/tier Deputy: and Fees are paid, and
receipt is acknowledged in space provided.
FFICIALS SIGNATURE
(f r
� 11',f LA,, :A-/ 7 (1
ORIGINAL�FILE - YEL±-INSPTl�CTO
PINK -OWNER - GOL -ASSESSOR
S GREEN - ACCOUNTING
z
0
1
0
M
-n
4
x
0 M
C
M 0
0
C-)
0 C:
--j K
7- M
ITIZ
rt) —4
C —Z
x
Cl)
o -n
n
M M
0
0
0 M
Cl)
Cn
M
Z
3:
z
z
0
1
0
M
a
-t -I C. i S 9 ,,
April 23, 2004
GARY HAAKENSON
CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR
121 STH AVENUE NORTH * EDMONDS, WA 98020 1 (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771 -022 1
Website: wwwxi.edmondsma.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning - Building - Engineering
David Stafford
Graham Northwest Inc.
2101 ONE 165th
Woodinville, WA 98077
Subject: LANDSC��&BOND 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 Pen -nit Coordinator
Subdivision File, S-03-34
Plan Check Files 03-563 and 03-564
Incorporated August 11, 1890
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
Z
0
1
0
M
--I
0 M
C
M 0
0
0
0 C
M
M Z
Z
o -n
n
M M
—C/)
0 r-
0 M
Cn
Q 0
Z
Z
Z
0
i
0
M
Height Calculation Worksheet
Addressi >
Date:
inspector�s):
1. Datum Point:
z
2. Datum Point Elevation:
0
M
3. AverageGrade: �3
+
-.(av Agib giade): 25
.4. Maximum Elevation Allowed:��3y-o er
0 M
C
M
5. Reference Point Elevation Shot to House:
0
C
n) +
L-4datum elevatio (grade to transit level Une'shot to house)
M M
z
6. Measurements from line shot onto house to kdof ridge:
> z
CD
0 -n
M M
0 CI)
0 M
C CO.
C CO
Q 0,
Z
7-1
z
Total:
Z
0
M
7. Actual Elevation: ("(reference point elevation) + (measurements
from #6)
Conclusion:
ess -it Anp llowed); therefore the house is/
(actual) is greater,� �ls lh` (a
�
le
is not over the height requir ie r ECDC 16.20.30 requirements
rj
GARY HAAKENSON
CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH EDMONDS. WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 FAX (425) 771-0221
Website: www.d.edmondsma.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning - Building - Engineering
October 4, 2004
0
M
Graham Northwest Inc.
2 10 10 NE 165"' St.
q =6
Woodinville, WA 98077
0M
C
M 0
0
Re: Building Permit: 2004-0320
0
0 C
Site Address: 1230 7"' Ave S.
M
Expiration Date: April 29, 2005
M Z.
> Z
The purpose of this le tter is to inform you that the last remaining inspection on your
W
project is a filial inspection(s). The final inspection(s) determines that there are no
0 -n
-n
outstanding life -safety issues and approval allows the City to close your permit file.
M M
The City considers the final inspection to be ot le of tile most important inspections
0—
0 CD
conducted on a project. In order to grant filial approval the following must be compl te:
0 M
si-noke detectors, house numbers, guardrails, handrails, self- close doors between garage
C co
C CD
and residence, egress from sleeping rooms, safety glazing, weather-stripping, any
Q 0
Z
Engineering department requirements etc. Of course not all of these t iings may
specifically apply to your project but it does give you an idea about the kinds of things
that must be complete as well as some items that do not need to be installed such as:
3:
paint, carpet, moldings, wallpaper, etc. Please be advised pern its expire one year frorn
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 perillit expires without a filial
co
approval granted by tile Building Inspector, full fees are required in order to renew tile
Z
0
permit. This call be very costly to you and we strongly encourage you to check your
permit expiration date and call for the required filial inspection(s). Note: If more than
M
one department is required to filial your project, this is noted oil your Job Card.
Please feel free to contact me at 425-771-0220 if you have any questions.
r*ely,
q11
J1c in R e a d w i 11
Pen lit Coordinator
Urenip\DS'Psw aster
Incorporated August 11, 1890
Sister Citv - Hekinan. JaDan
GARY HAAKENSON
CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR
5
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH EDMONDS. WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 FAX (425) 771-0221
Website: wwadedmondsma.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning - Building Engineering
May 31, 2006
Z
0
Frontier Bank Lake Stevens
0
M
Dawn Miller, New Accounts
? PO Box 527
�n-
Lake Stevens, WA 98258
0
M:,
M 0
-40,
0 C
Re: Performance Frozen Fund Account #1820045001, Cedar Hills Investment
ff
Corp. at 1230 & 1232 7"' Avenue S, Edmonds WA
q M Z.
C
>
Dear Sir or Madam:
0 -n
n
The City of Edmonds hereby authorizes the release $4,000 from the ab ove referenced
:MM
-ormance Frozen F und. All interested City departments have approved the release of
Perf
0 U5,
0 r-1
the Performance Frozen Fund.
.0 M
Cn
W
Q 0
Zr
-.j
Z
Sincerely,
cr)
on
Z
0
0
M
Senior Permit Coordinator
Cc: Applicant
File
i.j,reiiil)/DS'l"s/Masterl-etters/IteleaselleribrillailceO2/0I
Incorporated August 11, 1890
ZONE
SETBACKS-
L- ki M -To t> w F t L--M. M14 �/F LONJ
0 + 7.> ST19,411 0 Q
SIDE tj ..tj 30
L7,—T-a NJ
AREAF.& -Z- '7 0,-7 0 1 N ri �r, Z,�o I
'7 F
R.--- WA,
r-,(V7, r--Jz:., -D m m M-El 'Elz
HE,GHT- 246-- - I
10 46, 0 \jj Ter- Lill& --
APPROVED BY
EN4EERIN� G m 1 -1-1 Aj r 1 0
1 7. a, I-Sto. Orr-,-(
P., q- rfvAV-, ELI
0 'm I -
-Ivc
Ax 0 Lu 4-440 m4c.l V2 y
cn �--4- -ry lz I'l cn
SLAM 40
-/zz
m
Date: i� L -ro
2 K 1� -f- I ol vi lbr- r I L-:l E
IS LD
uj
o r =0 -n
CIO V) — 0
33
AY z
MAX L Lu
0
(0,3>f Kr * 6 a % 1
ALLO 140/6 jq 9 r,\Aio \ L, I
ho � Fo%Z�l I
DIE TEI I SEWER#
ALL EXPOSED SURFACES T �4c A I INSPEC- S REQ'[l
BE COVERED WITHIN 2 D All 425iT[1-0,'2,
VE m rAA�,Lsu r Fu <-- --rc- ft, S-m 1326
141 COVE-= E -4-
L:
.................. N)
cam% 9 PIC
Abb... Q
m,in J,>"r I C) I W I i =0 cn
r,
C�^
F- 0 r:; -I -ro-koocoes, -Tr) 'PV-o vI T> m rr,
H t4.4_ Q 0 Z-Go ol men-,r-�17
ST' "-S-7_Oo
F- _7 -
C.) uj L-b4zjJE-qs r #.A cv u 3>
-FAX, 7 7D
cc E5 ( 0 F-) u= 7— -5
cy
uj L- 0-7— 2
-A D v
0 3Y' 01
0 uj Lj/p A C--l- Ut,, L- Z-5 8 .0 13 0 5- Fo cr-% I w 6,
C.) Z-Z-G.9 I
Z 1- 7
cl- 1.31 7-7+ -,:; Q. I=-[ -0
m X
k �J I='- ft-DLL-T- 0 F- L_D-T-
or m
lE,,/ 10 u S F- t LL A%,L- c- o N-1-0 I c- w Aw 6 is-z.)
Lij �?-oof= Z�3G c-, E=>< I S.-T i�.A if� c-o �,m j rz
m
Lu
\,I E- /s, U<� :5 7 c-0 - 14 0 -5 L F- I INJ
Z-5 0 C-0. eb-c-. cm
!i2
clf= r mav G t)
S u -r I Tp- r=-- r= F-t)Q -T- L- 0-r -Fo
- v
-tt? C. 1 99\3
April 23, 2004
GARY HAAKENSON
CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH , EDMONDS, WA 98020 * (425) 771-0220 1 FAX (425) 771-0221
Website: www.dedmondsma.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning - Building # Engineering
David Stafford
Graham Northwest Inc.
2101 ONE 165th
Woodinville, WA 98077
Subject: LANDSCMRBOND 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 pek
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 Gr�uwe ;eninr lninn-r
muL vUH111L k-OUFUMULor
Subdivision Pile, S-03-34
Plan Check Files 03-563 and 03-564
Incorporated August 11, 1890
.qistpr (itw - Hpkinan AAmin
Z
0
0
M
M
M 0
0
0
0 C
M
M Z
C2
0 -n
-n
M M
0
0
0 M
C Cl)
C Cn
Q 0
Z
Z
C/)
Z
0
A
0
M
I
U01UJ1.LUU13 Lf.uo 44U1410U01 MU 1 r-kjn rmot
"S
Z50 7�
13256 Northeast 2LXh SUCCL Suite 16
TECH Bollcvue, Washiogioll 9800.5
CONS LTANTS, INC. (425) 747-5618 FAX (425) 747-8561
L:
September 3, 2003
JIN 03322
cop,Alai Jackson
16� 0 1 Highway 99 Z
Lyr nwood, Washington 99037 0
0
s4ect: Geotechnical Engineering Study
Proposed Wilderness Bluff Short Plat
1230 — 7th Avenue South =i 5i
Edmonds, Washington
M
De r Mr. Jackson: via facsimile: (425) 787-9112 C 0
M 0
--I C)
W are pleased to present this geotechnical engineering report for the proposed single-family 0 C
el r dences to be constructed in Edmonds, Washington. The scope of our work consisted of --A C
es X M
ex loring site surface and subsurface conditions, and then developing this report to provide M Z
J0 4
rec6mmendations for general earthwork and design criteria for foundations and retaining walls. C _Z
Thi work was authorized by your acceptance of our Contract for Professional Services dated July >
24,2003.
co
0 -n
site plan that includes some topographic information. AFM
We were provided with a preliminary n and -n
Ind istries, Inc, developed this plan, which is dated September 14, 2002. Based on this pla
on nonversations with Alan Jackson, we anticipate that the development will consist of dividing the ig
M M
mately 1.8-acre site into four lots and constructing one single-family ' residence on each lot. 0
0
=uses will be accessed via driveways off of 7th Avenue South and will be set back 25 feet
0 rn
e over a daylight C Cn
fro ine street. Each house will consist of one floor of living space and a garag 9 Cn
ba. ement. Some cuts and fills will be necessary to achieve the proposed finish floor elevation of rn 0
apl roxilmately 8 to 10 feet below existing street grade, and a small backyard will be filled at finish Z
floc r elevation. No development is proposed on the western side of the site, as this area is a
de4ignated wetland.
If t e scope of the project changes from what we have described above, we should be provided >
Z
wil revised plans In order to determine if modifications to the recommendations and conclusions of
thil report are warranted.
SITE CONDIT10
SltFACE
Tht Vicinity Map, Plate 1, illustrates the general location of the site. The undeveloped, wooded site
is I cated on the western side of 7th Avenue South ' in Edmonds. The site slopes from east to west,
wit elevations varying from approximately 246 feet at the southeastern comer to approximately
20� feet at the southwestern corner. Most of the western part of the site is a relatively flat
deAignated wetland, and. there is a creek that winds along the western property line. The proposed
cle4elopment area is located on the sloped, eastern porflon of the site. The slopes are inclined at
I roximately 30 percent and are covered with tall deciduous and evergreen trees. The ground is
apT
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. RECEIVED
OEC 12 2003
PERMIT 001UNTFI?
Z
0
i
0
m
UIV UJIYUL13 I t: UU '1:1b t4 /8bbl GELI I EL;H PAGE 03
Alar I Jackson JINI 03322
September 3, 2003 Page 2
covered with blackberry and morning glory vines near the street and with fems and other low
growth 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
locations shown on the Site Exploration Plan, Plate 2. Our exploration program was based on the
pro osed construction, anticipated subsurface conditions and those encountered during
exio oration, and the scope of work outlined in our proposal,
Th test pits were excavated on July 24, 2003 with a small, rubber -tracked trackhoe provided and
op rated by Alan Jackson. A geotechnical engineer from -our staff observed the excavation
process, logged the test pits, and obtained representative samples of the soil encountered. "Grab"
sani pies of selected subsurface soil were collected from the backhoe bucket, The Test Pit Logs
arelprovided in Plates 3 and 4 of this report.
The test pits encountered a 6- to 24-inch layer of topsoil and 2 to 3 feet of weathered sand
and gravel with abundant roots overlying dense to very dense sand and gravel with cobbles
and occasional boulders. One to 2 feet of sand and gravel fill was encountered overlying
the topsoil in Test Pits 1, 4, and 7. The dense to very dense sand and gravel was
encountered to the maximum explored depth of 9 feet below existing grade. The depths of
soil layers, including topsoil, that are indicated on the logs are approximate. More exact
definition of soil unit thicknesses would require more explorations.
Large amounts of yard waste, garbage, and construction debris were observed scattered
throughout the site and were encountered in the topsoil and in ihe fill. This debris will need
to be removed during site clearing.
Groundwater seepage was observed at depths of 6 to 6.5 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.
ThI6 final logs represent our interpretations of the field logs. The stratification lines on the logs
re dresent the approximate boundaries between soil types at the exploration locations. The actual
trap sition between soil types may be gradual, and subsurface conditions can vary between
exploration locations. The logs provide specific subsurface information only at the locations tested.
Th� relative densities and moisture descriptions indicated on the test pit logs are interpretive
descriptions based on the conditions observed during excavation.
I
h paction of backfill was not in the scope of our services, Loose soil will therefore be found
com . backfill will need to be removed and
in h e area of the test pits. If this presents a problem, the
re laced with structural fill during construction,
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, ING,
I
z
0
i
0
m
-i -n
M
C
M 0
0
-40
0 C:
X M
M Z
C _Z
0 -n
n
m M
0
0
0 m
C 0)
?. Cl)
M 0
Z
X
--I
3:
z
X
z
0
i
0
m
UDI U01 zutf-I I e; ria 4ZO 14 103bi k3tu I tL;m PAGE 04
Al n Jackson JN 03322
Se tember 3, 2003 Page 3
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
GINERAL
TH S SECTION CONTAINS A SUMMARY OF 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 RELYING ON TH/S REPORT SHOULD
RE 40 rHIF ENTIRE DOCUMENT.
The proposed development will consist of dividing the site into four roughly equal lots and
cotistructing one single-family residence on each lot. The recommendations presented in this
report are based on the assumption that the earthwork for all of the houses can be completed at
once. If the development plans change, we should be notified so that we may update our
reclornmendations accordingly.
Th� test pits conducted for this study encountered loose fill, topsoil, and highly weathered sand and
grIvel overlying dense to very dense sand and gravel. Competent, native soils were encountered
between I and 4 feet below existing grade, with the thicker loose, surficial layer encountered near
th4 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
c ventlonal foundations. These soils are also suitable for reuse as structural fill throughout the
s . The topsoil and weathered sand may be reused as fill in non-structural areas such as
laddscaping beds. Dumped construction debris, yard waste, and garbage were observed
thr�ughout the site. This material is not suitable for reuse as fill and should be removed during site
Be ed 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 w existing street grade, Because the proposed houses will be set back at least 25 feet from
� 0
th 'edge of the street, cut slopes inclined no steeper than 1:1 (Hadzontal;Vertical) can be made
Wi in the eastern property line. Please note that this inclination applies only to the native sand and
gr vel; the fill and debds encountered near the surface on most of the site should be removed
du �ling 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,
tht'cut slopes below the groundwater table will likely experience some sloughing or caving. To
mil igate the potential for instability of the cut slopes below the groundwater table, the cuts may
ha/e 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
top 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,�oved as part of the mass excavation where it cannot be inclined at 1:1 (H;V). Taking into
, I
ount a space allowance of 2 feet on each side for footings, drains, and forms, cuts cannot
eed 3 feet between the foundation walls.
GCOTECH CONSWANTS. INC.
z
0
rn
--I -n
M
C
M
0
0 C:
--i C
3: rn
M z
JO --I
C: _Z
Cn
o -n
n
M M
0
0
0 M
C Cn
9 Cn
M 0
Z
X
--I
3:
z
Cf)
z
0
i
0
m
M
U1J/UJ/ZUUJ 11:M q:l�tg/bDbl L*-U I LUH PAGE 05
Alan Jackson JN 03322
Ser tember 3, 2003 Page 4
Based on the site plan, it appears as though cuts on the order of 6 to 8 feet will be necessary to
achieve finish floor elevations of the northernmost houses and southernmost. The plan shows
eac 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.
Base-d on the topographic information pro vided to us, fill on the order of 6 to 8 feet will be required
to I avel 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
sho Ad not be inclined steeper than 2.5:1 (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
downsllop� foundations on native, dense sand and gravel and leave a tall crawl space, or to step
the buildings down the slope. Alternatively, a reinforced fill rockery could be constructed near the
weltern edge of the development area to level the site. Regardless of which method is chosen, we
reammend that the clownslope foundation wall be designed as a retaining wall to retain the soi)
witHin the crawl 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.
Thel site sand and gravel below the root line is suitable for reuse as structural fill, The earthwork
con:ractor 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 native soils. Each horizontal lift of fill should be tested to ensure that adequate
con'lipaction is being achieved.
The foundation walls should be baokfilled 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
bas.- of each foundation wall. We recommend that each residence have its own independent
fouticilation drainage system, so two separate drains would need to be placed in the backfill
belhveen the adjacent houses. Drainage should also be provided behind all retaining walls and
rockeries.
Th erosion control measures needed during site development will depend heavily on the weather
conditions that are encountered during construction. Site clearing will expose a large area of bare
soll, 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 clownslope sides of any cleared areas and around the
wet ands. Straw bales should be placed against the silt fence for added protection during grading.
Roclked 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
alig iment of planned pavements. Soil stockpiles should be covered with plastic during wet
weather. Following rough grading, it may be necessary to mulch or hydroseed bare areas that will
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 the
rec6menclations 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 geolechnical
con traints that become more evident during the review process.
GEOTr.-cH CONSULTANTS. INC.
Z
0
M
0 M
C
m 0
0
C)
0 C:
—i K
M M
M Z
g) --I
C —Z
Cn
o -n
n
M M
0
0
0 M
C Cn
?. cn
M C)
Z
7-1
Z
cn
Z
0
1
0
m
ULU I tUH PAGE 06
Ala ri JacKson JN 03322
September 3, 2003 Page 5
We recommend including this report, in its entirety, In the project contract documents. This report
shculd also be provided to any future property owners so they will be aware of our findings and
rec3mmendations
SEJSMIC CONSIDERATIONS
The site is located within Seismic Zone 3, as illustrated on Figure No. - 16-2 of the 1997 Uniform
'lu ding Code (1.11214, In accordance with Table 16-J of the 1997 UBC, the site soil profile within
10 feet of the ground surface is best represented by Soil Profile Type Sc (Very Dense Soil). The
S soils are not susceptible to seismic liquefaction because of their dense nature.
iti
C06VEN'TIONAL FOUNDATIOAM
Th , proposed residences can be supported on conventional continuous and spread footings
bee ring on undisturbed, dense, native sand and gravel, or on up to 5 feet of properly compacted
stri ctural fill placed above this competent native soil. See the section entitled General Earthwork
anA ( Structural Fill for recommendations regarding the placement and compaction of structural fill
bedeath structures. Adequate compaction of structural fill should be verified'with frequent density
tesilng during fill placement. Prior to placing structural fill beneath foundations, the excavation
should be observed by the geotechnical engineer to document that adequate bearing soils have
beln exposed. We recommend that continuous and individual spread footings have minimum
widths of 16 and 18 inches, respectively. Footings should also be bottomed at least 18 inches
below the lowest adjacent finish ground surface. The local building codes should be reviewed to
det rrnIne If different footing �Vidths or embedment depths are required. Footing subgrades must
be cleaned of loose or disturbed soil prior to pouring concrete. Depending upon site and
eqL ipment 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
supported on the dense, native sand and gravel found below the root line or on structural fill placed
above these competent native soils.
A o ieAhird Increase in this design bearing pressures may be used when considering short-term
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 mess, will be about one-half inch. with differential settlements on the order of one-half inch in a
cl'sttrnce of 50 feet along a continuous footing with a uniform load,
Lat al loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between the foundation and
the I bearing soil, or by passive earth pressure acting on the vertical, embedded portions of the
fou clation. For the latter condition, the foundation must be either poured directly against relatively
lev I , , undisturbed soil or be surrounded by level structural fill, We recommend using the following
ultiiate values for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading:
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC.
z
0
i
0
M
m
C
M
0
__10
0 C
--I r. - :
M M
M Z
C _z
0
n
m m
0 _M
0
0 m
C Cl)
M 0
Z r-
X
z
M
z
0
q
0
m
Alln Jackson JN 03322
S4ternber 3, 2-003 Page 6
PA ZAMETER U LTI MAI F
Coefficlen of Friction 0.40
Passive Earth Pressure 250 pcf
Where: (1) pcf is pounds per cubic toot and (11) passive earth
pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid density.
If e ground in front of a foundation is loose or sloping, the passive earth pressure given above Wil
no be appropriate and we should be contacted for a revised recommendation. We recommend
mdintaining a safety factor of at least 1.5 for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading, when
usling the above ultimate values.
IMANENT FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS
aining walls backfilled on only one side should be designed to resist the lateral earth pressures
ased by the soil they retain. The following recommended parameters are for walls that restrain
-1 backfill:
P A R A M E �TE R
Active Earth Pressure
VALUE
30 pef
Passive Earth Pressure
300 pcf
Coefficient of Friction
0.40
Soil Unit Weight
135 pof
Where- (i) pef Is pounds per cubic foot, and (11) active and
passive earth pressufes are computed using the equivalent fluid
pressures.
For a restrained wall that cannot dellect at leaut 0.002 times its
height, a uniform lateral pressure equal to 10 pst times the height
of the wall should be added to the above aefive equivalent fluid
pressure.
La values given above are to be used to design permanent foundation and retaining walls only,
e passive pressure given is appropriate for the depth of level structural fill placed in front of a
ining or foundation wall only. The values for friction and passive resistance are ultimate values
do not Include a safety factor. We recommend a safety factor of at least 1.5 for overturning
ding, when using the above values to design the walls. Restrained wall soil parameters
s" Is.
ul�d be utilized for a distance of 1.5 times the wall height from corners or bends in the wa I
s is intended to reduce the amount of cracking that can occur where a wall is restrained by a
- design values given above do not include the effects of any hydrostaUc pressures behind the
Is and assume that no surcharges, such as those caused by slopes, vehicles, or adjacent
ndations will be exerted on the walls. If these conditions exist, those pressures should be added
GeOTECH CONSULTANtS. INC.
z
0
4
0
m
-4 -n
m
0
0
0
0 C
-4 K
7- M
mz
Cn
0 -n
n
m M
0
0
0 M
C cl)
9 cn
M 0
Z
z
—i
:C
Cn
z
0
1
0
m
09/03/2003 17:OB 4257478561 GEOTECH PAGE OB
Alan Jackson JN 03322
Sep �ernber 3, 2003 Page 7
to the above lateral soil pressures. Where sloping backfill is desired behind the walls, we will need
to be given the wall dimensions and the slope of the backfill in order to provide the appropriate
des 0 n earth pressures. The surcharge due to traffic loads behind a wall can typically be
accounted for by adding a uniform pressure equal to 2 feet multiplied by the above active fluid
density: a traffic surcharge should be applied to the eastern foundation wall of each residence.
Heavy construction equipment should not be operated behind retaining and foundation wails within
a distance equal to the height of a wall, unless the walls are designed for the additional lateral
pre ures resulting from the equipment. The wall design criteria assume that the backfill will be
well compacted in lifts no thicker than 12 inches. The compaction of backfill near the walls should
be accomplished with hand -operated equipment to prevent the walls from being ovedoaded by the
higher soil forces that occur during compaction.
,Retaining WaIl Backfili and Watetprooftnu
Lackfill placed behind retaining or foundation walls s*hould be coarse, free -draining
�tructural fill containing no organics. This backfill should contain no more than 5 percent silt
0 ay pa ices and have no gravel greater than 4 inches in diameter. The percentage of
rticles passing the No. 4 sieve should be between 25 and 70 percent. The native $and
nd gravel encountered below the root line during our explorations is suitable for reuse as
etaining wall backfill.
h
,: purpose of these backfill requirements is to ensure 'that the design criteria for a
e ining Wall are not exceeded because of a build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind the
tvall . The top 12 to 18 inches of the backfill should consist of a compacted, relatively
impermeable soil or topsoil, or the surface should be paved. The ground surface must also
slope away from backfilled walls to reduce the potential for surface water to percolate into
e backfill. The section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill contains
e commendations regarding the placement and compaction of structural fill behind retaining
n r
d foundation walls.
The above recommendations are not intended to waterproof the below -grade walls. The
Ptotmance of subsurface drainage systems YAII degrade over time. Therefore,
aterproofing should be provided where moist conditions or some seepage through the
ivalls are not acceptable in the future. This typically includes limiting cold -joints and wall
nnetrations, and using bentonite panels or membranes on the outside of the walls.
�pplying a thin coat of asphalt emulsion is not considered waterproofing, but will only help
o prevent moisture, generated from water vapor or capillary action, from seeping through
he concrete. With any project, adequate ventilation of basement and crawl space areas is
Important to prevent a build up of water vapor that may be transmitted through concrete
al s from the surrounding soil.
SL �GRADE
The building floors may be constructed as slabs -on -grade atop the native sand and gravel, or on
stru:;tural fill. The subgrade soil must be in a firm, non-ylelding condition at the time of slab
con truction or underslab fill placement. Any soft areas encountered should be excavated and
re2ced with select, imported structural fill.
GEOTECH coNSULTANTS. INC.
z
0
1
0
m
-4 -n
Q M
C
m
0
__10
0 C
M
M z
rL)
C
ICI)
o -n
n
m M
0 _C/)
0 r-
0 m
C U)
K U)
M 0
Z
M
z
CI)
z
0
1
0
m
UW Mit zutoll L I t3tJ LIZO t4 f tjotl kX_U I WIN r-MUL t)
Ala Jackson JN 03322
Se ember 3, 2003 Page 8
All labs-oin-gracle should be underlain by a capillary break or drainage layer consisting of a
min)mum 4-inch thickness of coarse, free -draining structural fill with a gradation similar to that
95 11 0—dation and Retaining Walls As noted by the American Concrete
dis ussed in up ninne"
Insttute (ACI) in Section 3.2.3 of the Guides for Concrete Floor and Slab Struatures, proper
moliture protection is desirable immediately below any on -grade slab that will be covered by tile,
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 (psf) per hour,
as determined by ASTM E 96. it is possible that concrete admixtures may meet this specification,
although the manufacturers of the admixtures should be consulted. However, if no potential for
vap)r passage through the slab is desired, a vapor barrier should be used. A vapor barrier, as
def! ed by ACI, is a product wK6 a water transmission rate of 0.00 perms, per square foot per hour
wh in tested in accordance with ASTM E 96. Reinforced membranes having sealed overlaps can
me I this requirement,
In t st, ACI (Section 4.1.5) recommended that a minimum of 4 inches of well -graded
tie recent pas minus crushed rock pavement base, should be
co pactable granular material, such as a 5/8 inch rder or barrier and as a "blotter" to
plaid over the vapor retarder or barrier for protection of the reta
aid in the curing of the concrete slab. Sand was not recommended by ACI for this purpose.
However, the use of mateHal 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
tiM6 of its placement and the installation of the slab. If the material is wet prior to slab placement,
whi6 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.
e the slab
Th refore K there is a potential that the protection/blotter material Wit become wet.befor
il . iohlblotter material be used. However, ACI then
I stalle�, ACI now recommends that no protect
recommends that, because there is a potential for slab cure due to the loss of the blotter matedal,
join spacing in the slab be reduced, a low shdnkage concrete mixture be used, and "Other
melsures" (steel reinforcing, etc.) be used. ASTM E-1643-98 "Standard Practice for Installation of
Wa:er Vapor Retarders Used in Contact with Earth or Granular Fill Under Concrete Slabs"
ger erally agrees with the recent ACI literature.
We recommend that the contractor, the project materials engineer, and the owner discuss these
and review recent ACI literature and ASTM E-1643 for installation guidelines and guidance
i$s"Es C 6 a
e use of the protection/blotter material. Our opinion is that with impervious surfa 0 th t all
s should be undertaken to reduce water vapor transmission,
on
me
nj anticipate that' rockerier, may be used to level the backyards. At least 12 inches of quarry
SpAlls should be placed behind rookeries to reduce the potential for soil eroding through them. A
pe orated drain pipe surrounded by drain rock should be installed behind the rockeries.
VV recommend limiting fill rockeries 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 Jill should be placed and compacted to structural fill requirements. Prior to rockery
construction, the fill should be placed beyond the planned rookery location and then cut nearly
ve so that the soil in back of the rookery is thoroughly compacted. Since grading plans were
Ical f this report, the relatiDnship between the proposed footings and
no established at the time o
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS PINC.
z
0
4
0
M
-1 -n
0 M
C
M 0
0
-4 (-)
0 C
M
M z
_Z
M
o -n
n
M M
0
0
0 M
Cn
Cl)
M 0
Z
X
>
z
W
z
0
1
0
M
t: UU 4:1b 14 t Ubb I L*_U I EL;ti PAGE 10
JN 03322
Ala�, Jackson
Se�tember 3, 2003 Page 9
pro osed rockeries could not be determined. Foundations closer to the back of the rockery than
two times the height of the rookery would exert a surcharge on the adjacent rookeries; surcharged
rocl eries or rookeries taller than 4 feet will require the use of geogrid reinforcement in the backfill.
We car) provide a rockery detail if necessary.
Th construction of rockeries Is, to a large extent, an art not entirely controllable by engineering
me hods and standards. It is Imperat ' Ive that rockeries, if used, are constructed wt care an in a
PTO r manner by an experienced contractor with proven ability in rockery construction, The
roc eries should be constructed with hard, sound, durable rock in accordance with accepted local
pra ice and City of Edmonds standards, Soft rock, or rock with a significant number of fractures
or 1 clusions, should not be used, In order to limit the amount of maintenance and repair needed
OV tirne. Provisions for maintenance, such as access to the rockery, should be considered in the
de i n.
EX&VATIONS AND SLOPES
Ex Avation slopes should not exceed the limits specified in local, state, and nadonall government
safety regulations. Temporary cuts to a depth of about 4 feet may be attempted vertically in
un aturated soil, if there are no indications of slope instability. However, vertical cuts should not be
ties and structures. Based upon Washington
mave near property boundaries, or existing utili rally be classified as
Administrative Code (VVAC) 296, Part N, the soil at the subject site would gene excavated at an
Tyr e B. Therefore, temporary cut slopes greater than 4 feet in height cannot be
incl nation steeper than 1:1 (Hodzontal:Vertical), extending continuously between the top and the
bot om of a cut, As discussed in the General section of this report, groundwater exiting cut slopes
roundwater is encountered in any of the cuts at the
car lead to rapid destabilization of the cut. If 9 and the
site, the excavation should be immediately backfilled to above the line of seepage
gec I �teChnical engineer should be called to the site to evaluate the need for remedial measures.
The above -recommended temporary slope inclination Is based on what has been sucoessful at
oth r sites with similar soil conditions. Temporary cuts are those that will remain unsupported for a
reittively short duration to allow for the construction of foundations, retaining walls, or utilities.
Te thiporary cut slopes should be protected with plastic sheeting during wet weather. The cut slopes
sh9uld also be backfilled or retained as soon as possible to reduce the potential for instability.
PI se note that gravel ran cave suddenly and without warning. Excavation, foundation. and utility
cc) tractors should be made especially aware of this potential danger.
All permanent outs into native soil should be inclined no steeper than 2:1 (H:V). Fill slopes should
nol 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 )e face is important for long-term stability and is necessary to prevent excessive settlement of
pal os, slabs, foundations, or other improvements that may be placed near the edge of the slope.
T4 s can be accomplished by overbuilding the compacted fill and then tdmming it back to it5 final
inc: ination. Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any temporary or
pe manent slope, Also, all permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate
spqcies of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve the stability of the surficial layer of soil,
A4 disturbance to the existing slope outside of the building limits may reduce the stability of the
slolpe. Damage to the existing vegetation and ground should be minimized, and any disturbed
arOas should be revegetated as soon as possible. Soil from the excavation should not be placed
on Ithe slope, and this may require the off -site disposal of any surplus soil.
GEUTECH CONSULTAN-rS, INC.
Z
0
i
0
m
—i -n
Ui
m
0
0
__10
0
M M
M Z
C Z
0 71
n
X
m M
0
0 M
cl)
C/)
M 0
Z
>
C/)
Z
0
m
09/03/2003 17:08 4257478561 GEOTECH PAGE 11
Alai i
Jackson JN 03322
September
3. 2003 Page 10
We
anticipate that cuts on the order of 6 to 8 feet will be required to achieve the proposed finish
floo�
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
sid
of the northernmost house and the southern side of the southernmost house. If the house
lo
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
sh,
Ing it it is necessary.
z
0
DR,
q1MAGE CONSIDERATIONS
0
M
Foundation
drains should be installed around the perimeter of each of the residences. We
that each residence have its own independent foundation drainage sy stem. Drains
=i 9i
0)
recommend
sh
Id also be placed at the base of all earth -retaining walls. -These drains should be surrounded
filter
0 M
C
by at least 6 inches of 1-inch-minus, washed rock and then wra pped in non -woven, geotextile
fabic (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or similar material). At its highest point, a perforated pipe invert
0
m 0
-i C-)
0
shc
uld be at least 6 inches below the bottom of a slab floor or the level of a crawl space, and It
C:
shc
uld be sloped for drainage. All roof and surface water drains must be kept separate from the
A typical drain detail is attached to this report as Plate 3. For the best
M
M Z
fou idation drain system.
long' -term performance, perforated PVC pipe is recommended for all subsurface drains.
C _Z
in JIeneral,
an outlet drain is recommended for all crawl spaces to prevent a build up of any water
tha�
may bypass the footing drains, We can provide recommendations for interior drains, should
ch
0 n
th4
become necessary, dueing excavation and foundation construction.
n
Groundwater
was observed during excavation of the test pits. if seepage is encountered in an
from the site by directing it through drainage ditches, perforated
M M
0 Vi
excavation,
it should be drained
or French drains, or by pumping it from sumps interconnected by shallow connector trenches
0 r-
0 M
plpi,-,
at
e bottom of the excavation.
C cn
9 c/)
ThIT
excavation and site should be graded so that surface water is directed off the site and away
foundations,
m 0
Z
f
ria
I the tops of slopes. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where
Final site in areas adjacent to the residence$
X
shitulld
s, or pavements are to be constructed. grading
slope away at least 2 percent, except where the area is paved. Surface drains should be
provided
where necessary to prevent poncling of water behind foundation or retaining walls.
a drainage swale shou Id be provided upslope of each residence to intercept surface
>
z
__4
Ad
rur
litionally.
-off and direct it into the storm drains. We recommend that catchbasins be placed in each of
Water from roof,
X
ch
th
W2 stem.
driveways to capture surface water and direct it into the storm ter sy
not be discharge on o s opes; it should be tightlined to
z
0
st
rm water, and foundation drains should
a
suitable outfall located away from any slopes.
0
m
G18NERAL
EARTHWORK AND srRUCTURAL FILL
All
building and pavement areas should be stripped of surface vegetation, topsoil, organic soil, and
I ard waste were observed
of dumped garbage and y
ot
thr
er deleterious material. A large amount
ughout the site; th ese materials will need to be removed during site clearing. The stripped or
oved sand and gravel above the root line should not be mixed with any materials to be used as
re
str
ctural fill, but they could be used in non-struc tural areas, such as landscape beds.
GEOTSCH CONSULTANTS, INC.
I =
0
09103/20133 17:0B 4257478561 GEOTECH PAGE 12
Alan Jackson
Sepl,ember 3 . 2003
JN 03322
Page 11
Stru-,tural fill Is defined as any rill, including utility backfill, placed under, or close to, a building,
behind permanent retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the underlying soil needs
to Is pport loads. All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture content at, or
nea , the optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content is that moisture content that
resi. Its in the greatest compacted dry density. The moisture content of fill is very important and
mut t be closely controlled during the filling and compaction process. As discussed in the General
sec, !on, the on -site gravel below the root line is suitable for reuse as structural fill. However, we
recdmmend that footings be placed on no more than 5 feet of structural fill.
The I 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
sho9ld not exceed 12 inches. We recommend testing the fill as it is placed. If the fill is not
suff ciently compacted, it can be recompacted before another lift is placed. This eliminates the
need to remove the fill to achieve the required compaction. The follovving table presents
recommended relative compactions for structural fill'.
Where: minimum Relativa Compaction is the ratio, expressed in
percentages, of the compacted dry density to the maximum dry
density, as deterrWned in accordance with ASTM Test
Designation D 15ST-91 (Modified proctor).
I
The General section should be reviewed for considerations related to the reuse of on -site soils; the
gra el be ow e ro, ot line is suitable for reuse as structural fill. Structural fill that will be placed in
wel weather should consist of a coarse, granular soil with a silt or clay content of no more than 5
percent. The percentage of particles passing the No. 200 sieve should be measured from that
portion of soil passing the three -quarter -inch sieve.
LIMMATIONS
Th& analyses, conclusions. and recommendations contained in this report are based on site
corilditions as they existed at the time of our exploration and assume that the soil and groundwater
coZditions encountered in the test pits are representative of subsurface conditions on the site. If
th� subsurface conditions encountered during construction are significantly different from those
observed in our explorations, we should be advised at once so that we can review these conditions
anh reconsider our recommendations where necessary. Unanticipated soil conditions are
coponly encountered on construction sites and cannot . be fully anticipated by merely taking soil
Sa pies in test pit$.
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC.
Z
0
i
0
M
-4 -n
M
C:
M 0
0
0
M
M Z
ID
C
o -n
n
M M
0 5)
0 r_
0 m
C: 0)
9 Cn
M 0
Z
Z
--I
X
Cn
Z
0
1
0
M
09M/2003 17:013 425747B561 GEOTECH PAGE 13
Alar Jackson JN 03322
Sep ember 3, 2003 Page 12
Sub urface conditions can also vary between exploration IoWions. Such unexpected conditions
fra -j�jxzntl roMHira making additional expenditures to attain a properly constructed pr ect. It is
Imi J
rec mmended that the owner consider providing a contingency fund to accommodate such
potintial extra costs and risks. This is a standard recommendation for all projects.
Thk report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Alan Jackson and his representatives for
spe6ific application to this project and site. Our recommendations and conclusions are based on
obshrved site materials, and selective engineering analyses. our conclusions and
rec nimendations are professional opinions derived in accordance with current standards of
prMa Ice within the scope of our services and within budget and time constraints. No warranty is
expTessed or implied. The scope of our services does not include services related to construction
saf ty precautions, and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods,
tecAniques, sequences, or procedures, except as specificaily described in our report for
consideration in design.
AMMONAL -SERVICES
In �ddition to reviewing the final plans. Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be retained to provide
geoke-chnical consultation, testing, and observation services during cons.truction. This is to confirm
tha subsurface conditions are consistent with those indicated by our exploration, to evaluate
wh ther earthwork and foundation construction activities comply with the general intent of the
rec nimendations presented in this report, and to provide suggestions for design changes in the
eve it subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction.
HoN fever, our work would not include the supervision or direction of the actual work of the
s! as re
con:ractor and its employees or agents. Also, job and site safety, and dimen onal me u ments
will :>e the responsibility of the contractor.
Su se I quent consultation and testing services during the design and construction phase would be
charged on a time-and-matedals basis in accordance with terms and conditions of our attached
schadule of fees and general conditions. This work often Includes a review of the geotechnical
aspects of the plans and interaction with the architect, civil engineer, and structural engineer. Also,
it rr ay involve geotechnical observation and testing services during the construction phase, which
wo�ld also be charged on a time -and -materials basis. Unless otherwise notified by the owner, we
wo Id assume that your acceptance of this proposal is also authorization to consult with the design
tea t` as required an a time -and -materials basis.
Duging 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
ob erve. It is still the responsibility of your contractor or on -site construction team to verify that our
reirnmenclations are being followed, whether we are present at the site or not.
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC.
z
0
A
0
m
--I -n
m
C
M
0
0
0 C
M
M z
,C) -4
C _z
M
C/)
0 _n
m M
0 —C1)
0 r,
0 m
C: Cn
90)
M 0
Z
z
z
0
A
0
m
UJI UJI ZrJVJJ L 1 120 4,ZO f4 I U00 I t-*-U I tL;h PAUL 14
Alan
A 03322
Jackson
Page 13
September
3, 2003
The
following plater, are attached to complete this report:
Plate 1 Vicinity Map
Plate 2 Site Exploration Plan
plate 3 - 4 Test Pit Logs
z
0
Plate 5 Typical Footing Drain
M;
We
appreciate the opportunity to be of service on It his project. If you have any questions, or if we
may
be of further service, please do not hesltat e to contact us.
M
M
0
Respectfully submitted,
0
0
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
m
m z
F- --4
Erin M. Toland
0 -n
Geotechnical Engineer
-n
M M
0 0)
0
0ml
C Cl)
-51ONS
CN
C/).
M 0
Z
0 WAS
z:
0)
41
z
0
James H. Strange, Jr., P.E.
m
Geotechnical Project Manager
ENT/JHS:
esm
GEOTeCH CONSULTANTS. INC.
VW Yuu I 11: utj 4:1b f 4 8bb I GEUTECH PAGE 15
COUN"
19TH po. PAO
YIN
Its .26
NIX
OV[PjMK PK
=1i Tom-
-I- lovi-Imm fell u su lv�m
01 4 It, V-
41�p [kTm- k,-"
OL i; ' - u
. i A , v-
MITT
PK T rL I T IV
ISITO ST
S� 10
'k- 4A
lig s ft sw
91 ME z
VAT ER ST 141 1 0
�v I SY sw 190THIST Sw
4A�'
CHERR' 51
0
m
FORM
;Sig
IT
oltil, 11111. 14
r.;Z, I. rL It
Inn, 196TH STI 8w
ET P D sw a "Do — . 1 0 M
HELMY ul 'IrIllafto I I c
m
4 0
"IkDL El WY t 0
pt
2:f it 0 C:
SPE& ST�_
M
'.tt i Wo v STA 200TH ST SW M Z
.1 330D I
p
Lm I .;d 6 E
MIT
OPACKEM SIERRA NJ Z'- c
L001M
sr >
4r le7 GLEN
, i
8&4m * .1 1 I< III
24 sr ow c
�w 2 TH
19
J Vito r sj sv )mr
T 4�j a a C0
G" In
3rw 0
"for PK I T
LL ST'7' L
mmw; m Im
Oli i lit Pr;
3
T
IN
ST
X a m M
!tit co
0
fit Mli FL
4XI 11
"PLC ar 0 r
i Ems;
c 0 m
"t. Ilk-
23 A i c
C4
I _.'4
Ell . . '.e' 9 C/)
UNION ,,,"r fs
V14. ST 4M� E .- m 0
OIL 04 — ARV. .jp 1, ST sw.
L wr MEE le g . R1 % Z
It
IC3 114V OL Ski
ix oil jig",
It !
�14 1 1;# M5_MST Jim sr.%
Ic) �i Y. pc�4.
X
L 4111"ols $4 1
ST jz�. Z1VL_ti'
tx '.9 . - p1m -- — i --I
Awl.. X
ms OL >
Tr" z
�4 sw 1Z
urlm
tic LA
511
F R ISTI V; i - r Z!
s
Flat Fti
Ju
*'t p- x .sl 11ITM
IELI sm .1 22ml. �ti 0cST 181 CP �m sw
M ST EO -Ai Ile not told z
i 10 0
31,
I N
I,
_�,T w 0
m
A
Al sl 19 z! :T I I a
AR
Ill LA
GEOTECH
CONSIJUIANTS. INC,
JOAD ": I I ca P12fe.
Vare' I 'S cao
03322 1— N
LIIJ/ Uj/;IUUj I t: lot$ QY!.)/4tUbbI L*-U I LL;H PAGE 16
N
TP-5
approximate
TP-7
wetland boundary
TP-4
proposed SFRs
LJP-6r-]
1-A
TP-31.1
TP-2
proposed plat lines
TP-1
z
0
0
M
c
0
M 0
-4
CD
0 0
c
>
M z
<
c —Z
>
3:
co
q -n
M M
0 —Cf)
0
0 M
c CD
9 C&
M 0
Z
3:
>
z
230 240
z
0
i
0
SITE EXPLORATION PLAN
GEOTECH 1230 - 7th Avenue South
Edmonds, 'Washington
CONSULWTS, INC.
IVO; :2]
it to Sca
ffO3322
M:
1: U8 4:1bt4t8bb1 GE01-ECH PAGE 17
Test Pit I
Depth (ft) Soi-I Classification Soil DescHiption
0-1.0 TOPSOIL Dark brown silty TOPSOIL with abundant roots,
dry, loose
1.0-5.0 Sw Brown SAND with gravel and cobbles, slightly
moist, medium -dense
5.0-6.0 -becomes dense to very dense
*No groundwater encountered, some caving from 0 - 3.0 feet during excavation
Test Pit 2
Depth (ft) Soil Classification Soil Description
0-1.0 FILL Brown sand and gravel FILL, ;Tvith yard wasie,
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, vAth ab6ndant roots, slightly moist
medium -dense
4.0-9.0 Brown, gravelly SAND with cobbles, very moist,
dense
*No groundwater encountered, some caving from 0-2.0 feet during excavation
Test Pit 3
Depth (ft) Soil Classification Soil Description
0-1.0 TOPSOIL Dark brown silty TOPSOIE with abundant roots,
dry, loose, mixed with construction debris incl. 12-
inch concrete rubble
1.0-6.0 SW Gray -brown SAND Wth gravel and cobaes,
medium -grained, slightly moist, dense
6.0-7.0 -with more cobbles, becomes very wet
*Groundwater encountered at 6.5 feet, some caving from 4.0 - E3 .0 feet during excavation
Test Pit 4
Depth (ft) Soil Classification Soil Description
0-0.5 TOPSOIL Dark brown silty TOPSOIL with abundant roots,
dry, loose
0.5-2.0 FILL and TOPSOIL Gray -brown sand FILL with gravel and oc,casional
cobbles, medium -grained, slightly moist, loose to
medium -dense, mixed with old TOPSOIL at 1.5 —
2.0 feet
2.0-5.0 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
CONSMTAN17S, UqC. Edmonds, Washington
.p
Joh No: I ZpatV 1 3
V- 1 03322 1 August 20 3
z
0
4
0
m
—i -n
m
C
m
0
0
0
M
M z
0 71
3:
m M
0
0 M
C C/)
C Cn
M 0
Z
3:
z
-4
X
Cl)
z
0
1
0
m
� M
KJ'J/ Ual 4UUJ L rjo 4z;j (4 U�JQI
Test Pit 5
Uepth (ft) Soil Classification �Soil Mescription
0-2.0 TOPSOIL Brown silty TOPSOIL with abundant roots, dry,
loose
2.0-4.0 Sw Gray SAND with gravel and cobbles, moist,
medium -dense
4.0-7.0 SP -becomes gray -brown, medium -grained, wet,
dense
*Groundwater encountered at 6.0 feet some caving from 6.0 - 7.0 feet during excavation
Test Pit 6
Depth (ft) Soil Classification Soil Description
1 0-1.0 TOPSOIL Dark brow silty TOPSOIL with abundant roots,
dry, loose
1.0-3.0 Sw Gray-brom SAND with gravel and cobbles,
moist, medium -dense
3.0-6.5 SP -becomes medium -grained, very moist, dense
*No groundwater encountered, some caving from:3,0 - 5.0 feet during excavation
I -St Pit 7
Depth (ft) Soil Classification Soil Description
0-2.0 FILL Gray -brown. sand and gravel FILL, ary, loose and
Old TOPSOIL
2.0-4.0 Sw Gray -brown, highly weathered SAND with gravel
and cobbles, with occasional roots, sfightly moist,
medium -dense
4.0-7.5 -dense, wet.at 7.0 feet
*No ara-undwater encountered. some caving from 6.0 - 7.0 feet during excavation
GEOTECH
CONSMTANTS, INC.
TE ST PIT LOGS
1230 - 7th Avenue South
Edmonds, Washington
26'Ve: '037e: I L
03322 August 2D031
z
0
A
0
m
--I -n
m
C
M
0
0 C
M
M Z
0
n
3:
M M
0
0
0 M
0)
M 0
Z
3:
z
--I
3:
Cn
z
0
0
m
VVI tij/ zuri-I I f 00 qZ014 IbObl tatu I tUi HAUL 19
S ope backfill away from
foundation, Provide surface
drains where necessary.
Tightline Roof Drain
(Do not connect to footing drain)
Backfill
(Sbe text for
requirements)
Nonwoven Geotextile
I ter Fabric
Washed Rock
S
(7/8" rrin. si e)
.0 tM.. —jj
It
.1 24
:0 "'o
-CO3
&0
6 min 00. 0.
4" Perforated Hard PVC Pipe
(Invert at least 6 inches below
slab or crawl space, Slope to
drain to appropriate outfall,
Place holes downward.)
LAB I
00
0'a
?
Free -Draining Gravel
(if appropriate)
NOTES:
(1) In crawl spaces, provide an outlet drain to prevent buildup of water that
bypaE ses the perimeter footing drains.
(2) Refer to report text for additional drainage and waterproofing considenations.
TYPICAL DRAIN DETAIL
GEOTECH 1230 - 7th Avenue South
CONSULTAMS� JNC
Edmonds, Washington
A 7a 7 Date_- scalev -I -Fwe..
03322 August 2003 1 Not to ca 5
z
0
1
0
M
M
M
0
0
0 C
M
M Z
C —Z
0 -T1
n
M M
a
0
0 M
C C/)
9 Cn
M 0
Z
z
M
0)
z
0
0
M
I
AN
ER-5498
LEGACY REPORT
Reissued August 1, 2003
ICC Evaluation Serviceg Inc. Bu**wAeg1aW Office 0 5360 Worlaw K6 Pcacl, WWJK COM11B 90601 n (562) M40543
pagional office w goo WftlWr Road, Suite A, INm*XJarn, Alaimm 3W13 0 (M5) 599-98M
www.icc-es.org
PagkwW Office m 4051 West Fbsmw Mad, Cwrtry Club Fft, 1111nois W478 a VW) 799-M
Legacy report on the 1997 Uniform Building CodeTm, the 2000 International Building CodeP and the 2000
Z
international Residential CodeR
0
0
R1
DIVISION: 03--CONCRETE
alternative to forms described in Section 1906 of the 1997
Uniform Building Codem (UBC) and the 2000 Intemational
--fi
Section: 031130—Permanent Forms
Building Codd* (I BC). ECO-Block ICFs comply witti Section
ECO-BLOCK INSULATED CONCRETE FORMS (ICFs)
R611.3 of the 2000 intemational Residential CodeP as flat
--I
3:
0
insulating concrete form wall systems.
M
C
ECO-BLOCK, LLC
2.2 Material:
0
M 0
-40
4100 POWERLINE ROAD
2.2.1 ECO-Block Forms: The EPS panels are 16 inches
0 C
BUILDING 1, SUITES I AND 2
POMPANO BEACH, FLORIDA 33373
(406 mm) high, 48 inches (1219 mm) long and 2.5 Inches
(63.5 mm) thick. The panels are molded by injecting and
--I ?.
X M
M Z
LIFE -LIKE PRODUCTS, INC.
expanding polystyrene beads, described In the approved
quality control manual, Into molds. The resulting expanded
0 --1
C:
1000 WEST HIGHWAY 287
polystyrene foam plastic complies with ASTM C 578 Type 11.
>
r—
WAXAHACHIE, TEXAS 75165
The polystyrene has a flame -spread index of 25 or less and
a smoke -developed index of 450 or less at a nominal 1.5 pcf
Cn
MARKO FOAM PRODUCTS, INC.
(24 kg/m') density. High -density plastic webs are placed 8
0 -n
-n
2990 W. DIRECTORS ROW
inches (203 mm) on center and recessed V, inch (6.4 mm)
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84104
from the panel surface. Plastic connectors, of one of three
different lengths, connect the webs of two units to form 4-
M M
CONTOUR PRODUCTS, INC.
inch-, 6-inch or 8-inch-thick (102 mm, 152 mm or 203 mm)
The webs and connectors are high -density
0 _Cn
0 r-
4001 KAW STREET
KANSAS CITY, KANSAS 66102
concrete walls.
polypropylene, a Class CC2 approved plastic, manufactured
0 M
C W
by Product Moulders, Ltd. The form units have a preformed
F. CD
PREMIER INDUSTRIES, INC.
interlocking mechanism on their top and bottom edges, to
M 0
Z
7800 SOUTH 192 ND STREET
facilitate stacking. Figure 1 includes unit profiles.
KENT, WASHINGTON 98032
2.2.2 ECO-Block Commercial Forms: ECO-Block
Commercial Forms are similar to ECO-Block Forms, except
1.0 SUBJECT
panels measure 24 inches (610 mm) high, 48 inches (1219
>
ECO-Block Insulated Concrete Forms (ICFs) for Concrete
e EPS used has
mm) long, and 2 inches (51 mm) thick, and th M3),
a higher nominal density, 1.7 pcf (27.2 kg/ than the
Z
Walls.
density of ECO-Block forms.
2.0 DESCRIPTION
2.2.3 Concrete: Concrete must be normal -weight concrete
Cn
Z
2.1 General:
complying with Chapter 19 of the UBC or IBC, as applicable,
0
ECO-Block insulated concrete forms (ICFs) consist of
with a 28-day minimum compressive strength of 2,000
pounds persquare inch (13.8 MPa). Maximum aggregate size
--1
0
expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam plastic panels, plastic
is 3/4 inch (19 mm). Underthe IFIC, concrete must complywith
M
webbing and plastic connectors that serve as formwork for
concrete load -bearing and nonload-bearing walls, foundation
Section R611.6.1 of the IRC.
I
stem walls and basement walls. These forms are deflned as
2.2.4 Reinforcement: Walls are reinforced With deformed
I
a flat ICF wall system, allowing for a solid concrete wall of
steel bars complying with Section 1903.5 of the LIBC, Section
uniform thickness (solid rectangular cross section). The ICFS
3.5.3.1 of ACI 318-99 (IBC), or Section R611.6.2 of the IRC,
are stacked In a running bond pattern to create formwork that
as applicable.
remains in place after the concrete has cured, and that
becomes the insulation for the walls. Walls made from the
2.2.5 Other: Wood members for plates or window and door
ICFs are limited to combustible construction and must be
framing shall be treated wit h an approved wood preservative
with corrosion -resistant steel fasteners in
covered with an approved Interiorthermal barrier and exterior
weather -resistive barrier and wall covering, as noted in this
and attached
accordance with UBC Section 2304.3, IBC Section 2304.9.5
report. ECO-Block Insulated concrete forms (ICFs) are an
or IFIC Section R323.3.
ICC-ES legacy reports are not to be construed as representing aesthetics or any other attr butes not specifically addressed. nor are they to be construed as I
ir ry , nc express or implied, as to
an endorsement afthe subject ofthe report or a recommendation for its use. There is no Yva ranty by ICC Evaluation Se ke I Co
arki-finding or other matter in this report, or as to any product covered by the report. V�ZMW
Pap I of 5
Copyright 0 2003
I
Age 2o'f 5
2.3 Design:
2.3.1 UBC or IBC Method: Concrete walls formed by the
ECO-Block and ECO-Block commercial forms are designed
and constructed In accordance with Chapters 16 and 19 of
the UBC or IBC, as applicable. Footings and foundations are
designed and constructed in accordance with Chapter 18 of
the UBC or IBC, as applicable.
2.3.2 Alternative Design Method: For walls limited to a
maximum of two stories plus a basement, and a maximum
unsupported wall span of 10 feet (3048 mm), walls may be
designed in accordance with Publication No. EB1 18,
Prescriptive Method for Insulating Concrete Forms in
Residential Construction, dated May 1998, published by the
Portland Cement Association, subject to all applicability limits
in Table 1.1 of that document.
2.3.3 IRC Method: Insulated concrete walls formed by
ECO-Block and ECO-Block Commercial Forms comply with
Figure F611.3 of the IRC as flat insulating concrete wall
forms. Wall design, construction and materials shall comply
with Section R404.4 or R611 of the IRC as applicable to flat
insulating concrete form wall systems.
2.4 Installation:
The ICFs and resulting concrete walls shall be supported on
concrete footings complying with Chapters 18 and 19 of the
UBC or IBC or Chapter 4 of the IRC, as applicable. Two side
panels are placed next to each other and the plastic webs are
connected with connectors of the appropriate length, to form
the required wall thickness. Placement of the form units
begins at a corner and proceeds around the perimeter in one
direction only. The amount of reinforcing, placement and
spacing required shall be determined for each project, based
on the approved plans and the applicable code. Vertical
rebars; embedded in the footing must extend the minimum
development length necessary for compliance with Section
1912 of the UBC or Chapter 12 of ACI 318-99 (IBC and IRC).
Additional reinforcement around doors and windows is
required to be described in the approved drawings. Concrete
quality, mixing and placement must comply with Section 1905
of the UBC, Chapter 5 of ACI 318-99 (IBC) and Section
R611.6.1 of the IRC. Window and door openings are built into
the form units, with wood or polyvinyl chloride plastic frames
of the same dimensions as the"rough stud opening" specified
hv thA window or door manufacturer, Prior to the Pouring of
ER-5498
sheathing paper as required by Section R703 of the IRC. This
barrier or paper is installed in accordance with either the
applicable code or a current evaluation report. The wall
covering is attached to the plastic webs with No. 6, coarse -
thread, gypsum wallboard steel screws. The screws must be
corrosion -resistant and have sufficient length to penetrate
through the 0.2-inch-thick (5 mm) portion of the webs at least
3/, inch (19 mm), or, when loaded In withdrawal, to penetrate
through the web at least 1 inch (25 mm). Fasteners have an
allowable withdrawal capacity of 190 pounds (845 N) and an
allowable lateral capacity of 42 pounds (187 N). The
maximum screw spacing is 12 inches (305 mm) on center or
as specified in the applicable code, evaluation report, or
calculations, whichever is most restrictive. Negative wind
pressure capacity of the exterior finish material is recognized
in the applicable code, for generic materials, and In a current
evaluation report for proprietary materials.
2.6.2 Below Grade: Materials used to damp-proof
basement walls shall be specified by ECO-Block, LLC, and
shall comply with the applicable code or an evaluation report,
and shall be compatible with the foam plastic units. Applicable
damp -proofing and waterproofing requirements are in
Appendix Chapter 18 of the UBC, Section 1806 of the IBC,
and Section R406 of the IRC. Compliance with drainage
requirements in Section 1804.7 of the UBC, Section 1806.4
of the IBC, or Section R406.1 of the iRC, Is necessary.
2.7 Crawl Space Installations:
ECO-Block Standard Forms with a solid concrete core are
permitted to be used as walls of crawl spaces without a
covering, subject to the following conditions:
1 . Entry to the attic or crawl space is only to service utilities,
and no heat -producing appliances are permitted.
2. There are no Interconnected basement areas.
3. Air in the crawl space is not circulated to.other parts of the
building.
4. Underfloor ventilation complying with Section 2306.7 of
the UBC, Section 1202.3 of the IBC, or Section R408.2 of
the IFIC is provided.
2.8 Fire -resistance -rated Construction:
ECO-Block Standard Forms can be used to construct fire -
resistance -rated wall assemblies as follows:
_J - __
the concrete. Anchor bolts used to connect wood plates or
ledgers to the concrete shall be cast in place, with the bolts
sized and spaced as required by design.
1
CONCRETE THICKNESS
(inches)
FIRE -RESISTANCE RATING
(hours)
4
2
Wood ledgers are attached to the concrete wall by
removing the face shell of the form units, with the height of
1 # #k A ik 4 tk� wnr%d
6
4
8
4
the removed portion being equa u e up u For SI: I Inch = 25.4 mm, I pIf = 14.6 N/m.
ledger. Wood plates are anchored to the top of the wall.
Anchor bolts used to connect the wood ledgers or plates to The normal -weight concrete shall have carbonate
the concrete are cast in place, with the bolts sized and aggregate and a minimum 28-day compressive strength of
spaced as required by design. 3,500 psi (24.1 MPa). The minimum reinforcement is No. 5
reinforcing bars centered In the concrete, and spaced 12
2.5 Interior Finish: inches (305 mm) on center vertically and 16 inches (406 mm)
Form units exposed to the building interior shall be finished horizontally. The axial compression load must be 7 percent
with minimum 1/2-inch-thick (12.7 mm) gypsum wallboard (maximum) of the load determined in accordance with
placed with the long side vertical. The wallboard is attached Chapter 19 of the UBC or IBC.
to plastic webs with minimum V/2-inch-long (38 mm), No. 6, 2.9 Special Inspection:
Type W, buglehead screws, spaced 12 inches (305 mm) on 2.9.1 UBC: Special inspection is required as noted in
center to each web spaced 8 inches (206 mm) on center, Section 1701 of the LIBC for placement of reinforcing steel
penetrating through the web '/,, inch (6.4 mm). and concrete, and for concrete cylinder testing. When
2.6 Exterior Finish: approved by the building official, special inspection may be
2.6.1 Above Grade: The form units shall be covered on the waived when all of the following conditions are met:
exteriorwith an approved weather -resistive barrieras required > Walls are a maximum of 8 feet (2.4 m) high, and are
by Section 1402 of the UBC, water -resistive barrier as limited to use in single -story construction of Group R,
required by Section 1403 of the IBC, or weat he r- resistant Division 3, or Group U, Division 1, occupancies.
Z
0
0
M
--I -n
0 M
C
rn 0
0
0
0 C
3: M
M Z
r) --I
C _Z
U)
o -n
n
M M
0
0
0 M
9 Cn
M 0
Z
X
>
Z
3:
(1)
Z
0
0
ITI
Plge 3 'of 5
ER-5498
height of a concrete pour Is 48 Inches (1219
Interim Criteria for Concrete and Concrete Masonry Wall
L9Ma)dmum
mm). Succeeding lifts must be placed in accordance with
Systems (AC1 5), dated June 2003; reports of room fire tests
Section 1905.10.5 of the UBC.
in accordance with UBC Standard 26-3; and a quality control
(9 Installation is by'in'stallers approved by ECO-Block, LLC.
manual.
4.0 ANDINGS
/0 Half the allowable stresses or loads permitted by the UBC
are used for the design of the walls.
That the ECO-Block Insulated Concrete Forms (ICFs) for
49 installation instructions Indicate methods used to verify
Concrete Walls described in this report comply with the
1997 Uniform Building CodeTIA, the 2000 International
proper placement of concrete.
Building CodaP, and the 2000 International Residential
2.9.2 IBC: Special inspection Is required as noted in Section
CodaP, subject to the following conditions:
1704 of the IBC for placement of reinforcing steel and
concrete, and for concrete cylinder testing. When approved
4.1 Form units are me nufactured, Identified and
z
by the building official, special inspection may be waived for
Installed In accordance with this report and ECO-
construction of Group R, Division 3, or Group U Occupancies.
Block's published Installation Instructions.
Quality assurance plans for seismic resistance and wind
4.2 Concrete walls formed by the units are limited to
requirements shall be prepared in accordance with Sections
combustible construction as defined In Chapter 6 of
1705 and 1706 of the IBC, respectively, when required.
the USC or IBC, as applicable.
--i
2.9.3 IRC: For walls designed In accordance with Section
2.3.3, special Inspection Is not required. For walls designed
4.3 Plans and calculations showing compliance with
this report are submitted to the building official for
M
C 0
M
In accordance with the IBC, as permitted by Sections R104.11
and R301.1.2 of the IRC, special Inspection In accordance
each structure.
0
-10
0
with Section 2.9.2 of this report is required.
4.4 Form units are separated from the building Intedor
C:
--I K
2.10 Identification:
with minimum 1/2-inch4hick (12.7 mm) regular
gypsum wallboard, Installed as noted In Section 2.4
X rn
M z
JO
Each bundle of forms is labeled with the product name (ECO-
of this report.
C —Z
Block Standard or ECO-Block Commercial); the ECO-Block,
LLC, name, address and telephone number; the evaluation
.4.5 Special Inspection Is provided In accordance with
>
r
report number (ER-5498); the manufacturing date; the lot
Section 2.9 of this report.
� Cn
number; the manufacturing location; and the name of the
quality control agency (Intertek Testing Services NA, Inc.).
4.6 Form units are manufactured by the additional
listees noted in this report, with quality control
0 -n
3.0 EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
inspections conducted by Intertek Testing Services
Data in accordance with the ICC-ES Interim Criteria for Foam
NA, Inc. (AA-647-2).
rn M
0
Plastic Insulation (AC12), dated July 2002, and the ICC-ES
This report is subject to re-examination In two years.
0
0 M
C CD
9 CD
M 0
Z r—
z
X
z
0
0
M
1.1
Pake 4 O'f 5 ER-5498
Standard System
4*0
vnB -r LocANOMP65
I
, , , , I
4
- --- --- GICCMWWTDK,
t z
0
1, Oic DCCPM QrjOOVC5 davirry
wa
0
M
r
cc Isms wes-rLOCAnomb
-n
4
M
0
M
0
0
0
11 H
M
L M z
SL �
Commercial System rwzT COUM JO
C:
> z
0 -n
n
fir M rn
Cn
0 r-
0 M
C cl)
9 Cn
M 0
O.r- GI=VE5 IMDICOkTE Z r-
wtv Ir LOCATK" z
F
214 z
2 0
0
M
FIGURE 1
0
GARY HAAKENSON
CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS. WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221
Website: www.dedmondsma.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
� . M"Urfin a Ennineerina
\3 no"" to
C. is()
September 4, 2003
Mr. Al Jackson
16401 Highway 99
Lynnwood, Washington 98037
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 Uniform 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 inform 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 1:00pm to 4:00pm, Monday through Friday at 425-771-0220 extension
1226.
Sincerely, R ECE IV E D
6�;�w OEC 12 2003
Jeannine L. Graf PERMITCOUNTER
Building official
Cc: Dave Gebert, City Engineer
. . I . , n '-, r, .
z
0
i
0
M
3:
M
M
0
-10
0 C
M
M z
C
0
3:9
M M
0
0
0 M
C: Cn
9 C/)
M 0
Z
r
z
3:
z
0
-1
0
04/16/2004 15:02 4257478561
CXIBCYrl�-CH
CONSUETANTS, INC.
GEOTECH PAGE 01/02
13256 Northcast 2ft Saw, Suhe 16
Bellevue. Washington 98005
,425)747-5619 FAX(425)747-8561
coy April 16, 2004
JN 03322
Alan Jackson
16401 Highway!99
Lynnwood, Washington 99037
SUED
Subject: Review of Dispersion System Plans
0
1
Proposed Residences - Lots 1, 2, and 3
OR A 3
4
0
1230 - 7th Avenue South
M
Edmonds, Washington
PEIRM11
=n-
Dear Mr. Jackson- via facsimile* (425) 787-9112
C 0
We have completed a general review of the geotechnical aspects of the plans for the proposed
m 0
-1 0
stormwater dispersion trenches to be constructed on the northern three lots (Lots 1, 2, and 3) of the
0 C
subplat, The plans we reviewed included Sheets C-1 through C-6, The plans were prepared by
-4 K
X M
GSP Engineering and are dated October 13, 2003. We completed a geotechnical study of this site
M Z
on September 3, 2003.
-Z
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
0 -n
at approximately 20 to 30 percent and the slope is fully vegetated with mature trees and
n
undergrowth. The grading plan and drainage plans indicate that the new dispersion systems will be
_4
X
located at existing grades with no fill added to the existing grades above or below the system. A
M M
vegetated filter strip will be installed along the downslope side of the dispersion trenches to create a
0
0
level'discharge area and to reduce potential erosion.
0 M
C Cn
Given the relatively gentle inclination of the slope below the proposed dispersion system and the
9 CD
Q 0
Z
soil conditions observed in our test pits, it is our opinion, provided that the recommendations
7-1
provided in the geotechnical study are followed, that the installation of the planned dispersion
;U
system will not result in slope instability at the subject site.
GGOT12CH CONSULTANTS, INC.
04/16/2004 15:02 4257478561 GEOTECH PAGE 02/02
Alan Jackson JN 03322
April 16, 2004 Page 2
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
WAS
0
M
0
M
C
M
0
James H. Strange, Jr., P.E.
0 C,
Geotechnical Project Manager
M
M z
cc, Graham Northwest, Inc. — Kris Stotz or Dave Stafford
z
>
via facsimile: (425) 984-0120
Usa Bilde
0 -n.
via facsimile: (425) 672-9182
M M
Mountain Shadow Construction — Jerry Dawes
.0 Cn
0 r—
via facsimile: (425) 745-5BO5
0 M
C Cn
9 C/)
JHS: jhs'
M 01
Z
z
55,
z
0
M
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC.
Property address: 1230 7h Ave. S. Edmonds, WA 98020
Client: Alan Jackson
Overview:
The lots being developed at 1230 7h Ave. S. in Edmonds are positioned with an
exiting wetland running along the west end of the properties, As such the primary
Z
emphasis of the development will occur at the far east end of the priorities. The current
0
development plans include a 50-foot buffer zone immediat ely west of the actual
1881 square feet of mitigation
0
M
footprints of the houses going in. There are approximately
area and 956 square feet of impacted area. These are the proposed re -vegetation areas of
concern in this report. [See attachment]
0
C M
Current property conditions:
M 0
--1
The lots on this property run east and west and are sloped up to the east. The
0
0 C
-4 K " .
M
lower two-thirds of the property are serves as a watershed for the entire hillside a is wet
M Z
nearly 12 months a year. The upper third of the lots are fairly typical Northwest urban
ID
C
forest in their vegetation make-up.
The predominant trees are Douglas Fir, Western Red Cedar, Big -Leaf Maple, Red
X
� W
Alder and some native cherry. Understory growth is mainly blackberry, Elderberry,
n
Sword Fem with a deal of perennial and an ual weed
0 -n
n
Ocean Spray, Salal and great
growth (Nettles, grasses and broadleaf weeds).
M M
0
0
Plant material recommendations:
0 M
C Cn
The plants recommended for re -vegetation of the areas that will be disturbed are
9 C/)
Q 0
Z
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
were chosen for their ability
wetlands plant would need to do. Rather, these native plants
to survive in a Northwest urban f6rest.
Z
q I 7F APPROX. $
PLANT
6-7 feet 9 $30.00 ea.
X
Cn
Z
0
Vine Maple (Acer circinaturn)
Douglas Fir (Pseudotsuga menzeseii) 6-7 feet 4 $30.00 ea.
--i
0
Red Elderberry (Sambucus racemosa) 5 gal. 12 $13.00 ea.
M
Ocean Spray (Holodiscus discolor) 5 gal 12 $13.00 ea.
Red Flowering Currant (Ribes sanguiniurn) 2 gal 12 $7.00
$7.00
Salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) 2 gal 12
50 $3.00
Swordfern (Polystichum muniturn) I gal
Approximate cost for all plant material is $1020.00
All plants should be healthy nursery grown stock. Spacing 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
Le
height.
Plants of similar species should be planted in groups of three with a minimum
spacing o f 5 feet and a maximum of 10 feet. The Elders w ill spread out so spacing
should be the maximum for them. The Salmonberry shou Id have the minimum spacing.
The Swordfern should also be planted in groups wit h a spacing of 18 inches.
z
The ultimate survival of the plant material will be the care they get immediately
afterthey are planted. It is essential that their water requirements be met for the next full
M
growing season. Ideally the planting should take place in the fall of the year, if pos sible,
for the plants to get a really good start. Generally this will fulfill the watering needs for
establishing the plant material unless we have a really dry fall and winter. Continued
--4
watering in the spring and summer will insure the survival of the plants.
0 M
C
M 0�
0 0
M
M Z
> Z
0
r
M M
0)
0 r
Om
W
mo�
Z r
z
z
0
M
it'll,
I ELM FILA CE'
;jig
0
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + +
wit + As '
1 1 4 6 4 + +
Ul
+ + +
&
+ + +
. Ai + + I +
+ 4 + + 4 1 4 #
4 4 4
+ NAS
+ + + + + 4 + �uf +
v * + %, t +
----------------------------- + + + # 4
+ + +
+ 4 * + +
+ + + + + + + + + +
+ + +
+ +
+ 4 + 1604 0
4 + 4 + +
be -
I I + +
+ + 4 + + + + + 4
+ + 4 + +
tv
Q5 4
11
jrAll 4 --------- ---
+ +
21(
+ + A,
------------
----------------
----------- ---- -------
-- ----------------------
-- ---------------
L? 2J
----------
IA----------
--------------- - %J
24o-
-----------
%%% A
------ ------
------ AMOS-\ 16-
26 )
0.-.4
A* Ave, a
Rn
--- ---- Tj� "'717 -7 — — — —
'-4L
MN
oil
- AlIrF
Qt
IA
4ZZI fAl ULU I Qtln
13256 Northem 2(kh SucM Saite 16
TIECH Mlcvue, %shinglon 9800
(425) 747-5618 PAX (425) 747-8561
CONS LTANTS, INC.
RECEIVED
September 3, 2003
SEP 08 2033
JN 03322
DEVELOPMENT
BUILDING
Ala i Jackson
Z
0
1& 01 Highway 99
SEP 2 2 2003
Lyr nwo(>d, Washington 99037
M
Suliject: Geotechnical Engineering Study
=n
proposed Wilderness Bluff Short Plat
Cn
1230 — 7th Avenue South
m
Edmonds, Washington
m 0
0
Dear Mr. Jackson: via facsimile: (425) 787-9112
0
0 C
I
W . are pleased to present this geotechnical engineering report for the proposed single-family
9
M
M Z
J0
dences to be constructed In Edmonds, Washington. Th e scope of our work consisted of
res part to provide
surface and subsurface conditions, and then developing this re
C:
> Z
exploring site
rec:)mmendations for general earthwork and design criteria for foundations and retaining walls.
July
Thi� work was authorized by your acceptance of our Contract for Professional Services dated
-n
24, 2003.
o
-n
We were provided with a preliminary site plan that includes some topographic information. AFM
X
m m
Ind istries, Inc. developed this plan, which is dated September 14, 2002. Based on this plan and
055
on -,onversations with Alan Jackson, we anticipate that the development will consist of dividing the
lots constructing one single-family residence on each lot.
0 r-
0 M
C cl)
approximately 1.8-acre site into four and
Th� houses will be accessed via driveways off of 7th Avenue South and vAll be set back 25 feet
daylight
K Cn
M 0
froi n the street. Each house will consist of one floor of living space and a garage over a
Z
ba.- ement. Some cuts and fills will be necessary to achieve the proposed finish floor elevation Of
8 to 10 feet below existing street grade, and a small backyard will be filled at finish
approximately
floc r elevation. No development is proposed on the western side of the site, as this area is a
de�ignated wetland.
>
Z
if t e scope of the project changes from what we have described above, we should be provided
if to the recommendations and conclusions of
X
65
wit revised plans in order to determine modifications
Z
thi report are warranted.
0
RECEIVED
SITE CONDIT10
2 2003
m
sltFACE "'FAMIT COUNTER
Plate 1, illustrates the general location of the site. The undeveloped, wooded site
Tht Vicinity Map. Wes
of 7th Avenue South in Edmonds. The site slopes from east to t,
is I rated on the western side i
elevations varying from approximatelY 246 feet at the southeastern comer to approximately
wit of the site is a relatively flat
20� feet at the southwestern comer. Most of the western part y lin . Th proposed
that winds along the western propert e e
de ignated wetiand, and there is a creek
de�elopment area Is located on the s loped, eastern portion of the site. The slopes are inclined al
is
I roximately 30 percent and are covered with tall deciduous an d evergreen trees. The ground
ape
GEOTECH CONS ULTANTS, INC.
I
ur_u 1 W-In FAUL 03
JN 03322
Alar Jackson
September 3. 2003 Page 2
cov�red'wlth blackberry and morning glory vines near the street and with fems and other low
gro%Mh 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
Meter slope. Dumped garbage, yard waste, and construction debris were observed scattered
throughout the she. The adjoining properties are developed with single4amily residences.
SU13SURFACE
The subsurface conditions were explored by excavating seveh test pits at the approximate
loc I tions shown on the Site Exploration Plan, Plate 2. Our exploration program was based an the
proposed construction, anticipated subsurface conditions and those encountered during
exp oration, and the scope of work outlined In our proposal.
Th test pits were excavated on July 24, 2003 with a small, rubber -tracked trackhoe provided and
op rated by Alan Jackson. A geotechnical engineer rorn-our s observed the excavation
process, logged the test pits, and obtained representative samples of the soil encountered. "Grab"
ackhoe bucket. The Test Pit Logs
sa,�,ples of selected subsurface soil were collected from the b
are Provided in Plates 3 and 4 of this report.
The test pits encountered a 6- to 24-inch layer of topsoil and 2 to 3 feet of weathered sand
and gravel with abundant roots overlying dense to very dense sand and gravel WI& cobbles
and occasional boulders. One to 2 feet of sand and gravel fill was encountered overlying
the topsoil in Test Pits 1, 4, and 7. The dense to very dense sand and gravel was
encountered to the maximum explored depth of 9 feet below existing grade. The depths of
soil layers, including topsoil, that are indicated on the logs are approximate. More exact
definition of soil unit thicknesses would require more explorations.
Large amounts of yard waste, garbage. and construction debris were observed scattered
throughout the site and were encountered in the topsoil and in ihe fill. This debris will need
to be removed during she clearing.
Gro ridwatgr Conditigns
Groundwater seepage was observed at depths of 6 to 6.5 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.
Thib 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 V sition between soil types may cific subsurface information only at the Jocations tested.
exploration locations. The logs provide spe
Thil relative densities and moisture descriptions indicated on the test pit logs are interpretive
de s1criptions based on the conditions observed during excavation.
Th, a 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 -back -fill will need to be removed and
redlaced with structural fill during construction.
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
z
0
A
0
m
-4 -n
0 m
C:
m
0
__40
0 C:
M
M Z
10--4
C=
CD
o -n
n
m M
0
0
0 M
CD
M 0
Z
.4
z
Cn
z
0
m
r-6*= 04
01
0 "it V'Dr Zriv.2 L 1 00 4Z_W 14 k3mu I r_%on
Al
n Jackson JN 03322
Se
tember 3, 2003 Page 3
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
GiNERAL.
THfS
SECTION CONTAINS A SUMMARY OF OUR STUDY AND FINDINGS FOR THE PURPOSES OF A
z
0
A
GENERAL
OVERVIEW ONLY MORE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ARE
0
CC
NTAINED IN THE REMAINDER OF THIS REPORT. ANY PARTY REL YJNG ON THIS REPORT SHOULD
M
RE14D
-rHE ENTIRE DOCUMENT.
Th
proposed development will consist of dividing the site into four roughly equal lots and
L d In this
=n
55 --1
X
co6structing
one single-family residence on each lot. The recommendations presente
m
ard based on the assumption that the earthwork for all of the houses can be completed at
0
report
on
M. if the development plans change, we should be riptified so that we may update our
0
-4 0
0
redommendations
accordingly.
C:
-4 K
Til
test pb conducted for this study encountered loose fill. topsoil, and highly weathered sand and
X M
M Z
I vel overlying dense to very dense sand and gravel. Competent, native soils were encountered
C:
gr
be=n
1 and 4 feet below existing grade, with the thicker loose, surficial layer encountered near
>
E::
th-
top of the slope on the eastern side of the site. The native sand and gravel soils encountered
co
be
OW the root line are competent to support the four proposed single-family residences on
These also suitable for reuse as structural fill throughout the
0 n
n ;0
co
sit
ventional foundations. soils are
The topsoil and weathered sand may be reused as fill In non-structural areas such as
-4 >
a: 9 1�
lardscaping
. e were observed
beds. Dumped construction debris, yard waste, and garbag
is for reuse as fill and should be removed during she
mm
0
thmughoUt
the site. This material not suitable
0
clearing.
0 M
C: Cn
Ba
ed on the topographic Information provided to us, and on our understanding of the project.
C Cn
M 0
so
e cuts and fills will be required to achieve the proposed finish floor elevation of 8 to 10 feet
feet from
Z
be
ow existing street grade. Because the proposed houses will be set back at least 25
th�fedge
of the street, cut slopes inclined no steeper than 1:1 (Hodzontal:Vertical) can be made
that this inclinatio nappiles only to the native sand and
w*in
the eastern property line. Please note
near the surface on most of the site should be iemoved
>
g
du
I
vel; the fill and debris encountered
ing site clearing. Also, groundwater was encountered in two of the downslope test pits during
z
--I
ex
oration. if groundwater is encountered during the excavation on the upslope side of the site,
a:
co
thtut
slopes below the groundwater table will likely experience some sloughing or caving. To
z
mifigate
the potential for instability of the cut slopes below the groundwater table. the cuts May
is
0
ha
ie to be baGkfilled with rock ballast. We Should be contacted at once if groundwater
All cut slopes should be protected
--i
0
en
Immediately
muntered during the excavation of the cut slopes.
with plastic sheeting and should be monitored dally by the superintendent for
m
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
the site plan. The soil between the foundation walls of the proposed residences should be
on
as part of the mass excavation where it cannot be inclined at 1:1 (H;V). Taking into
re
oved
a space allowance of 2 feet on each side for footings, drains, and forms, cuts cannot
ac-,ount
Px::eed
3 feet between the foundation walls.
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC.
I
ii V131 ZUU0 A f; VC 4AL)AW UMU 1 r-11.1n 1100
Alai i Jackson JN 03322
Ser tember 3, 2003 Page 4
Beqed on the site plan, it appears as though cuts on the order of 6 to 8 feet will be necessary to
achieve Finish floor elevations of the northernmost houses and southernmost. The plan shows
eacl 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 tel 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
should not be inclined steeper than 2.5:1 (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
clovnslop� 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 rockery could be constructed near the
w I tern edge of the development area to level the site. Regardless of which method is chosen, we
recTmmend that the downslope foundation wall be designed as a retaining wall to retain the soil
witHin 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.
Th I site sand and gravel below the root line is suitable for reuse as structural fill. The earthwork
co 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 native solls. Each horizontal lift of fill should be tested to ensure that adequate
c paction is be ng 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
basa of each foundation wall. We recommend that each residence have its own independent
fouticlation drainage system, so two separate drains would need to be placed in the backfill
bebveen the adjacent houses. Drainage should also be provided behind all retaining walls and
rockeries.
Th 'erosion control measures needed during site development will depend heavily on ihe weather
con Itions that are! encountered during construction. Site clearing will expose 2 large area of bare
soil and the erosion potential on the site is moderate due to the slope of the site. We anticipate
the a silt fence will be needed around the clownslope sides of any cAeared areas and around the
wet ands. Straw bales should be placed against the silt fence for added protection during grading.
Ro8ked construction access roads should be extended into the site to reduce the amount of mud
Carl 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
weather. Following rough grading, it may be necessary to mulch or hydroseed bare areas that will
not be immediately covered with landscaping or an impervious surface.
Gedtech Consultants, Inc. should be allowed to review the final development plans to verify that the
reAmmendations 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 geolechnical
con tra i nts that become more evident during the review process.
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Z
0
1
0
m
—i -n
0 M
C:
M
0
--10
0 c:
i ?.
MM
mZ
c:
0 -n
n
m M
0
0
0 M
C
M 0
Z
Z
0)
Z
0
1
0
m
U0 d.;J f 41K A Mu I WIn 10b
Alain Jackson JN 03322
Se tember 3, 2-003 Page 5
W recommend including this report, in its entirety, In the project contract documents. This report
sh uld also be provided to any future property owners so they will be aware of our findings.and
relitirnmendations.
SE, SMIC CONSIDERATIONS
z
0
Th I site is located within Seismic Zone 3, as illustrated on Figure No. 16-2 of the 1997 Uniform
0
M
Building Code (UBC). In accordance with Table 16-J of the 1997 UBC, the site soil pmfile within
1 OC feet of the ground surface is best represented by Soil Profile Type Sc (Very Dense Soil). The
:9
site soils are not susceptible to seismic liquefaction because of their dense nature.
co -4
M
0 m
C
ColvVEAfTIONAL FOUNDATIONS
M 0
0
0 0
Th� proposed residences ran be supported on conventional continuous and spread footings
be on undisturbed, dense, native sand and gravel, or on up.to 5 feet of properly compacted
C
M M
M Z
ring
strL CtUral fill placed above this competent native soil. See the section entitled General Earthwork
C z
Structural Fill for recommendations regarding the placemen t and compaction of structural fill
>
an re nt density
bei eath structures. Adequate compaction of structural rill should be verifiedwith f que
tes ing during fifl placement. Prior to placing structural fdl beneath foundations, the excavation
_n
shc uld be observed by the geotechnical engineer to document that adequate bearing soils have
footings have minimum
0
-n
be( n exposed. We recommend that continuous and individual spread
wid hs of 16 and 18 inches, respectively. Foo.tings should also be bottomed at lea st 18 inches
m m
below the lowest adjacent finish ground surface. The local b uilding codes should be reviewed to
0 _Cn
I
determine If different footing vVidths or embedment depths are required. Footing subgrades must
0
0
be cleaned of loose or disturbed soil prior to po uring concrete. Depending upon site and
M
C Cn
eqjiprnent constraints, this may require removing the disturbed soil by hand.
9 Ch
M 0
An allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (Psf) is appropriate for footings
Z
supported on the dense, native sand and gravel found below the root line or on structural fill placed
abcve these competent native soils.
A one-third increase In this design bearing pressures may be used when considering short4erm
>
z
--I
wirvi or seismic loads. For the above design criteria, it is anticipated that the total post -construction.
M
seti lement of footings founded on competent, native soil, (or, on structural fill up to 5 feet in
he -half inch In a
differential settlements on t order of one
Cn
z
thickness, will be about one-half inch, with
dist nce of 50 feet along a continuous footing with a uniform load.
0
--i
Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between the foundation and
0
m
the bearing soil, or by passive earth pressure acting on the vertical, embedded portions of the
I foundation must be either poured directly against relatively
fou dat on. or he latter condition, the
IevX11, undisturbed soil or be surrounded by level structural fill. We recommend using the following
ultir nate values for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading:
rEOTECH CONsULTANTS. INC-
Alln Jackson JN 03322
S4tember 3, 2003 Page 6
PARAMETER ULTIMATE
VALUE
Coefficient of Friction OAD
Passive Earth Pressure 250
Where: (I) pd is pounds per cu0ic took and (if) pasilve earth
pressure is computed using the e4ulvalent fluid density.
If tie ground In front of a foundation is loose or sloping, the passive earth pressure given above will
no, be appropriate and we should be contacted for a revised. recommendation. We recommend
m intaining a safety factor of at least 1.5 for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading, when
using the above ultimate values.
PERMANENT FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS
R aining walls backfilled on only one side should be designed to resist the lateral earth pressures
im osed by the soil they retain. The following recommended parameters are for walls that restrain
lelill backfill:
where: (I) pef Is pounds per cubic foot, and (11) active and
passive earth pressures are computed using the equivalent fluid
pressures.
For a m-strained wall t4at cannot deflect at least 0.002 One Its
height, a uniform lateral pressure equal to 10 pst times the height
of the wall should be added to the above active equivalent fluid
pressure.
Th� values given above are to be used to design permanent foundation and retaining walls only.
Tha passive pressure given is appropriate for the depth of level structural fill placed in front of a
retaining or foundation wall only. The values for Miction and passive resistance are ultimate values
an, J do not Include a safety factor. We recommend a safety factor of at least 1.5 for overturning
an J sliding, when using the above values to design the walls. Restrained wall soil parameters
should 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 hydrostatic pressures behind the
wils and assume that no surcharges, such as those caused by slopes, vehicles, or adjacent
foiindations will be exerted on the walls. If these conditions exist, those pressures should be added
GGOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC.
z
0
i
0
m
--i -n
0 m
C
M
0
0
M
ITI Z
JD --i
C
o -n
n
m M
055
0 r-
0 M
C (1)
9 co
Q 0
Z
>
z
--I
C/)
z
0
i
0
m
I
k=u I CL'n rAtit M5
Ala Jackson JN 03322
Septlember 3, 2003 Page 7
to t e above lateral soil pressures, Where sloping backfill is desired behind the walls, we YAII 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
density: a traffic surcharge should be applied to the eastern foundation wall of each residence.
Heavy construction equipment should not be operated behind retaining and foundation walls within
a distance equal to the height of a wall, uniessthe walls are designed for the additional lateral
pre ures resulting from the equipment The wall design Criteria assume that the backfill will be
well compacted in lifts no thicker than 12 inches. The compaction of backfill near the waft should
be - iccomplished with hand -operated equipment to prevent the walls from being overloaded by the
higt er soil forces that occur duriin.g compaction.
Retainina Wag Backfin and Wate propfing
Lackfill placed behind retaining or foundation walls should be coarse, free -draining
�tructural fill containing no organics. This backfill should contain no more than 5 percent silt
clay'particles and have no gravel greater than 4 inches in diameter. The percentage of
rticles passing the No. 4 sieve should be between 25 and 70 percent. The native sand
nd gravel encountered below the root line during our explorations is suitable for reuse as
e i
taining wall backfill.
The purpose of these backfill requirements is to ensure that the design criteria for a
fetaining wall are not exceeded because of a buikl-uP of hydrostatic pressure behind the
Jwall. The top 12 to 18 inches of the backfill should consist of a compacted, relatively
mpermeable soil or topsoil, or the surface should be paved.. The ground surface must also
slope away from backfilled walls to reduce the potential for surface water to percolate into
ihe backfill. The section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill contains
�ecommenclations regarding the placement and compaction of structural fill behind retaining
ncl foundation walls.
wal . The
The above recommendations are not intended to waterproof the below -grade Is
prformance of subsurface drainage systems will degrade over time. Therefore,
aterproofing should be provided where moist conditions or some seepage through the
g cold -joints and wall
Nalls are not acceptable in the future. This typically includes limitin
xnetrabons, and using bentonite panels or membranes on the outside of the walls.
�kpplying a thin coat of asphalt emulsion is not considered waterproofing, but will only help
o prevent moisture, generated from water vapor or capillary action. from Seeping through
1he concrete. With any project, adequate ventilation of basement and cravA space areas is
mportant to prevent a build up of water vapor that may be transmitted through concrete
Nails from the surrounding soil.
S E
The building floors may be constructed as slabs -on -grade atop the native sand and gravel, or on
stru:;tural fill. The subgrade soil must be in a firm, non -yielding condition at the time of slab
con truction or underslab fill placement. Any soft areas encountered should be excavated and
replPed with select, imported str�uctural fill.
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC.
z
0
i
0
m
--I -n
0 M
C
m 0
0
0 C
3: M
M Z
C
C/)
0 -n
n
--I
mm
0
0
0 M
C Cl)
K C/)
M 0
Z r-
>
z
z
0
0
m
M t
Alat i Jackson JN 03322
September 3, 2003 Page a
All Llabs-bri-grade should be underlain by a capillary break or drainage layer consisting of a
minimum 4-inch thickness of coarse, free -draining structural fill with a gradation similar to that
discussed in Permanent Foundation and Retaining Walls, As noted by the American Concrete
Instturte (ACI) in Section 3.2-3 of the Guides for Concrete Floor and Slab Structures, proper.
mDi lure protection is desirable immediately below any on -grade slab that will be covered by file,
wocd, carpet, impermeable floor coverings, or any moisture -sensitive equipment or products. ACI
a1sc notes that vapor retarders, such as 6-mil visqueen, are typically used. A vapor retarder is
defiled as a material with a permeance of less than 0.3 US perms per square foot (ps� per hour,
as etermined by ASTM E 96. it is possible that concrete admixtures may meet this specification,
alth ugh the manufacturers of the admixtures should be consulted. However. if no potential for
va r passage through the slab is desired, a vapor banier should be used. A vapor barrier, as
defi ed 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 95. Reinforced membranes having sealed overlaps can
d
meet this requirement.
In the recent past, ACI (Section 4.1.5) recommended that a minimum of 4 inches of well -graded
co pactable, granular material, such as a 5/8 inch minus crushed rock pavement base, should be
pla 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. Sand 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,
w4h 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 refore if there is a potential that the protection/blotter material will become wetbefore the slab
is i stalle�, 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
meisures" (steel reinforcing, etc.) be used. ASTM 5--1643-98 "Standard Practice for Installation of
Water Vapor Retarders Used in Contact with Earth or Granular Fill Under Concrete Slabs"
generally agrees with the recent ACI literature.
We recommend that the contractor, the project materials engineer, and the owner discuss these
issues and review recent ACI literature and ASTM E-1643 for installation guidelines and guidance
aterial. Our opinion is that with impervious surfaces that all
on 1he use of the prote ction/bI otter m
means should be undertaken to reduce water vapor transmission.
VVJ anticipate that'rockeries may be used to level the backyards. At least 12 inches of quarry
SPAS should be placed behind rockeries to reduce the potential for soil eroding through them. A
perforated drain pipe surrounded by drain rock should be installed behind the rockeries.
VV recommend limiting fill rockeries to a height of 4 feet and constructing them on only competent
natrve 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 rockery
construction, the fill should be placed beyond the planned rockery location and then cut nearly
ve�ical so that the soil in back of the rockery is thoroughly compacted. Since grading plans were
not! established at the time of this report, the relationship between the proposed footings and
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC.
z
0
1
0
m
--I -n
0 m
C
m 0
0
0 C
--i C
M M
M z
6,
C
M
0 _n
n
m M
0 6)
0 r-
0 m
C CD
K C ()
M 0
Z
3:
z
65
z
0
1
0
m
I
aM 4ZZ) t rRM 1 V
'ZVV.1
JN 03322
Na Jackson Page 9
1
Se tember 3, 2003
pro- I osed I 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
rockeries or rookeries taller than 4 feet will require the use of geogrid reinforcement in the backfill.
We can provide a rockery detail if necessary.
1-h construction of rock6ries Is, to a large extent, an art not entirely controllable by engineering
me, hods and standards. it is Imperative that rockeries. If used. are constructed with care and in a
pro )er manner by an experienced contractor with proven ability in rookery construction. The
roc,,eries should be constructed with hard, sound, durable rock in accordance with accepted local
pra ice and City of Edmonds standards, Soft rock, or rock with a significant number of fractures
or I clusions, should not be used, In order to limit the amount of maintenance and repair needed
ov I time. Provisions for maintenance, such as access to the rockery, should be considered in the
cle gn.
EXCA VA TIoNS AND SLOPES
the limits specified In local, state, and national government
Ex9avation slopes should not exceed
safety regulations. Temporary cuts to a depth of about 4 feet may be attempted ver0caNy in
un aturated soil, if there are no indications of slope instability. However, vertical cuts should not be
s! ries, or existing utilities and structures. Based upon Washington.
ma r V e near property bounda t the subject site would generally'be classified as
Ad Flinistrative Code (WAC) 296, Part N, the soil a 4 feet. in height cannot be excavated at an
Tyre B. Therefore, temporary cut slopes greater than the
inel nation steeper than. 110 (Horizontal:Vertical), extending continuously between the top and
bo om of a cut. As discussed in the General section of this report, groundwater exiting cut slopes
car lead to rapid destabilization of the cut. if groundwater is encountered in any oi the cuts at the
site, the excavation should be immediately backfilled to above- the line of seepage and the
gec technical engineer should be called to the site to evaluate the need for remedial measures
I ucoessful at
The above-recom mended temporary slope. inclination Is based on what has been s
oth r shes YAth similar soil conditions. Temporary cuts are those that will remain unsupported for a
reltively short duration to allow for the construction of foundations, retaining walls, or utilities.
T I Porary cut slopes should be protected with plastic sheeting during wet weather. The cut slopes
Mid also be backfilled or retained as soon as possible to reduce the potential for instability.
sh u clenly and without warning. Excavation, foundation. and utility
PI se note that gravel can cave sud
+ Id be made especially aware of this potential danger.
Contra ors s
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
sloighingy flil must be keyed and benched into the existing slopes. Adequate compaction of the
slo )e face is important for long-term stability and is necessarY to prevent excessive settlement of
pal:os, slabs, foundations, or other improvements that may be placed near the edge of th ' e slope.
This can be accomplished by overbuilding the compacted fill and then trimming it back to its final
inc ination. Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any temporary or
pe Innanent slope. Also, all permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate
i' es of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve the stability of the surficial layer of soil.
sp reduce the stability of the
Anrdisturbance to the existing slope outside of the building limits may
slope. Damage to the existing vegetation and ground should be minimized, and any disturbed
ar4as 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.
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS.-INC.
Z
0
i
0
m
-i -n
Cn —J
X
C m
m 0
0
0 C:
M M
M Z
C: —Z
CD
0 -n
n
m M
0 _cn
0 17-
0 m
C (1)
9 0)
M 0
Z
;U
M
Z
3:
U)
Z
0
m
-Vil Vs/ i'voi 11: lots 4 Zt) I "Ob i L*_U I LUH PAGE 11
Alaf i Jackson JN 03322
September 3,2003 Page 10
We�anticipate that cuts on the order of 6 to 8 feet will.be required to achieve the proposed finish
floo, 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
sid� of the northernmost house and the southern side of the southernmost house. If the house
lou 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
sh Ing it it is necessary.
DR, q1NA GE CONSIDERATIONS
Fo ndation drains should be installed around the perimeter of each of the residences. We
I n*d that each residence hav
recomme e its own independent foundation drainage system. Drains
sh uld 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 fitter
fab ic (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or similar material). At its highest point, a perforated pipe inveIrt
should be at least 6 inches below the bottom of a slab floor or the level of a crawl space, and It
shquid be sloped for drainage. All roof and surface water drains must be kept separate from the
fouhdation 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 JIeneral, an outlet drain Is recommended for all crawl spaces to prevent a build up of any water
that ai should
e�rnay bypass the tooting drains, We can provide recommendations for interior dr ns,
th 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
pip.-, or French drains. or by pumping it from sumps interconnected by shallow conne or ren es
at t le bottom of the excavation.
Th excavation and site should be graded so that surface water is directed off the site and away
f I the tops of slopes. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where foundations,
ro j cent to the residences
sla s, or pavements are to be constructed. Final site grading in areas ad a
shFulld slope away at least 2 percent, except where the area.is paved. Surface drains should be
pr+ided where necessary to prevent ponding of water behind foundation or retaining walls.
Additionally. a drainage Swale should be provided upslope of each residence to intercept surface
ru -off and direct it into the storm drains. We recommend that catchbasins be placed in each of
thi driveways to capture surface water and direct it into the storm water system. Water from roof,
storm water, and foundation drains should not be discharged onto slopes: it should be tightlined to
a uitable outfall located away from any slopes.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCrURAL FILL
All building and pavem . ent areas should be stripped of surface vegetation, topsoil, organic soil, and
other deleterious material. A large amount of dumped garbage and yard waste were observed
thmughout the site; these mate . rials will need to be removed during site clearing. The stripped or
rer oved sand and gravel above the root line should not be mixed with any materials to be used as
str ctural fill, but they could be used in non-structural areas. such as landscape beds.
GEOTFCH CONSULTANTS, INC
z
0
1
0
m
—i -n
CD
m
C
m 0
0
0 C
3: M
M z
Cn
o -n
n
m m
0
0
0 M
C Cn
9 Cn
m 0
Z
z
z
0
I
0
m
L*-U I ECH PAGE 12
JN 03322
Ala Jackson Page I I
sep ember 3. 2003
Stru tural fill IS defined as any rill, Including utility backfill, placed under, or close to, a building,
M soil needs
beh d permanent retaining or foundation walls. or in other areas where the unde ying
to s pport loads. All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture content at, or
nea , I the optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content is that moisture content that
resi Its in the greatest compacted dry density. The moisture content of fill is very important and
mur. t be closely controlled during the filling and compaction process. As discussed in the Gen"
sec, !on, the on -site gravel below the root line is suitable for reuse as structural fill. However, we
rect 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
I ness
equipment used, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. The loose lift thick
shotild not exceed 12 inches. We recommend testing the fill as it is placed. if the fill is not
suff'iderilly compacted, it can be recompacted before another lift is placed. This eliminates the
neep to remove the fill to achieve the required compaction. The . follovAng table presents
recommended relative compactions for structural fill:
Where: Minimum Relativib Compaction it the ratio, expressed ir,
percentages, of the compacted dry density to the maximum dry
density, as deterrnined in accordance wtth ASTM Test
Designation 0 155T.91 (Mod1fied ProctO4.
The General section should be reviewed for considerations related to the reuse of on -site soils; the
gravel below the root line is suitable for reuse as structural fill. Structural fill that will be placed in
wel weather should consist of a coarse, granular soil with a sit or day content of no more than 5
percent. rhe percentage of particles passing the No. 200 sieve should be measured from that
portion of Soil passing the three-quarter-inoh sieve.
LiMfTATIONS
Th . analyses, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report are based on site
co ditions as they existed at the time of our exploration and assume that the soil and groundwater
cottions encountered In the test pits are representative of subsurface conditions on the site. If
the Subsurface conditions encountered during construction are significantly different from those
observed in our explorations, we should be adviseclat once so that we can review these conditions
Unanticipated soil conditions are
anh reconsider our recommendations where necessary.
cotmonly encountered on construction shes and cannot . be fully anticipated by merely taking soil
sa ples in test pdS-
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, 114C.
z
0
4
0
m
-i -n
Cl)
M
C
m
0
0
0 C
M
M Z
C
r-
C1)
o -n
n
m M
0
0 M
C/)
C/)
M 0
Z
z
C/)
z
0
0
m
� �J
Dal 2010-1 'L r: lots 4,401% L*-U I hUH PAGE 13
Ala� Jackson JN 03322
Sepember 3, 2003 Page 12
sub urface conditions can also vary between exploration locations. Such unexpected conditions
fieq ently require making additional expenditures -to attain a properly constructed project. It is
recirmmended that the owner consider providing a contingency fund to accommodate such
pot8ntial extra Costs and risks. This Is a standard recommendation for all projects.
Thi.- report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Alan Jackson and his representatives for
spebific applical.ion to this project and site. Our recommendations and conclusions are based on
site materials, and selective engineering analyses. Our coliclusions and
obsi rved rofessional opinions derived in accordance with current standards of
recommendations are p and within budget and time constraints. No warranty Is
pra ice within the scope of our services ervices does not include services related to construction
exp essed cw implied. The scope of our s
sa ty precautions, and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contraCtoes methods,
te niques, sequences, or procedures, except as specifically described in our report fbr
con ideration in design.
ADnMONAL SERVICES
P
fl
Cli
s
In �ddition to reviewing the final plans, Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be retained to Provide
ge - echnical consultation. testing, and observation services during cons ' truction. This Is to confirm
2 sistent wilth those indicated by our exploration, to evaluate
tha subsurface conditions are con
w ther earthwork and foundation construction activities comply with the general intent of the
rec Immendations presented in this report, aind to' provide suggestions for design changes in the
eve it subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction.
Hov 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 De the resporisibIlity of the contractor.
Subsequent consultation and testing services dudng the design and construction phase would be
ch,-, rged on a tima-and-materials basis in accordance with terms and conditions of our attached
scl- edule of fees and general conditions. This work often includes a review of -the geotechnical
asr ects of the plans and interaction with the architect, civil engineer, and structural engineer. Also,
it may involve geotechnical observation and testing services during the construction phase, which
n a time -and -materials basis. Unless otherwise notified by the owner. we
would also be charged o this proposal is also authorization to consult with the design
wot ld assume that your acceptance of
tearn as required an a time -and -materials . basis.
Duting the construction phase, we will provide geotechnic3l observation and testing services only
whi n 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
reeDmmendations are being followed, whether we are present at the site or not.
_6�61`ECH CONSULTANTS. INC,
z
0
1
0
m
-1 -n
0 M
M
0
0 C:
M
M Z
g) --I
C
C/)
0 -n
n
M M
0 F)
0 r-
0 M
C cl)
9 C/)
M 0
Z
z
151)
z
0
0
m
ticu I rk Al 14
JN 03322
Ala
Jackson Page 13
Se
ember 3, 2-003
The
folioNWing plates are attached to complete this report:
Plate 1 Vicinity Map
Plate 2 Site F-xploration Plan
plate 3 - 4 Test Pit Logs
z
Plate 5 Typical Footing Drain
We
appreP late the opportunity to be of service on this project. if you have any questions or if we
=n-
CO
ma!
be of fu rther service, please do not hesitate t o contact us.
0 M
C 0
m
0
0
Respectfully submitted,
C
GEOTECH CONsuLTANTS. INC.
mm
M z
> Z�
r
X
Erin M. Toland
0 -n
-n
Geotechnical Engineer
M
m
0
0 m
C C1)
-$'tO?V
OX)
MCI)
M
z 0
WA
71
0 360
z
X
101VAL
1EXPIRES 0:1-=31- 0=1
z
0
M
James H. Strange. Jr., P.E.
Geotechnlcal Project Manager
ENT/JHS-
esm
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE
IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
. AV -u Kw -
A
4 at 4 all Q
I
JS c i �"
"710N, ncf bmt )i l- Is
m Afe Arlarc +..w 11 AV vw affir
L
11 ace
liml j AV flace
al
CO rl AV off
V HDO
ILO
&Lai
a ol
11TV P AV Rm tv lute
All- 143 0
zi�
V, ace
c -FR, t
t t I Id tn
i m $4161
9 KIIS
IV
'f. AR at U193
u gal
bi
ell i*V itco, se NFE I
aw
AT — � � Am its 741 L51 02
41 A— Kv IM - — . - - __ * - 'J.—
it,
ON -T.-A
Well Al CIO WL AbL
it
4 -mum
wn
S.- M--:-
C4916
7
XI b; T—W796
R�_
01 IM16
of 14
L
-4 Yam
Ski
AV K6
r2
El
uj kr I- il-
me— j,"', -2
4W." )"'o
HIS
t AV
ftr
*
s
Eli
eve aw
r td
AV
Ali
010
fit I cr)
1"AL. JA
cli
g75
3
A
UMU 1 r_�.,M VALiL 16
N
approximate TP-5
TP-7
wetland boundary
TP-4
proposed SFRs
-TP-6
TP-311: TP-2
proposed plat lines
TP-1
n A r%
GEOTECH
CONSULTAKM, M
/-.3 U C.-T %f
SITE EXPLORATION PLAN
1230 - 7th Avenue South
cEcimonds, Washingion
--V--0&fd7 -scale: 1 ""0; 2
03322 1 July 2003 Not to scale _j
z
0
1
0
m
0:1
am
m a
0
-10
0 C
M
M z
> z
CO)
0 -T1
n
m M
—C1)
0
0 m
C/)
CO)
M 0
Z
;Cl
z
M
C/)
z
OL
-4
0
m
, U�r W�; � I . WW 11_1�WA -JK:.0 I r-%A'l 0
rf4k= I (
Test Pit I
Depth.(ft) Soil Classificati7n Soil Description
1. 0 TOPSOIL Cark brown silty TOPtbIL with abundant roots,
dry, loose
1.0-5.0 SW Brown SAND with gravel and cobbles, slightly
moist, medium -dense
5.0-6.0 -becomes dense to very dense
*No groundwater encountered, some caving from 0 - 3.0 feet during excavation
Test Pit 2
Depth (ft) Soil bassification Soil Description
0-1.0 FILL Brown sand and p—avel-R—LL,
with yard 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, slightly moist
medium -dense
4.0-9.0 Brown, gravelly SAND with cobbles, very moist,
dense
"No groundwater encountered, some caving from 0-2.0 feet during excavation.
Test Pit 3
Depth (ft) Soil Classification Soil Description
0-1.0 TOPSOIL 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 cobbies,
medium -grained, slightly moist, dense
6.0-7.0 -with more cobbles, becomes very wet
Groundwater encountered at 6.5 feet, some caving from 4.0 - 6.0 feet during excavation
T*est Pit 4
Depth (11) Soil Classification Soil Description
G- 0.5 TOPSOIL Dark brown silty TOPSOIL —with abundant roots,
dry, loose
0.5-2.0 FILL and TOPSOIL Gray -brown sand FILL with gravel and occasional
cobbles, medium -grained, slightly moist loose to
medium -dense, mixed with old TOPSOIL at 1.5
2.0 feet
2,0-5.0 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
TIEST PIT LOGS
GEOTECH 1230 - 7th Avenue South
Me C . ()NSULTANTS, WC_ Edmonds, Washington
Job No DOW Ao&td W.
3
03322 1 August 20031 EMT
z
0
A
0
m
--I -n
0 M
C
M 0
0
0 C:
M
M Z
C
Cl)
0 -n
n
mm
0
0
0 M
Cj)
C/)
M 0
Z
;U
--i
M
>
z
Cn
z
0
1
0
m
r Pq,= 10
1W
Test Pit 5
Depth (ft) Soil Classification SoilDescription
0-2.0 TOPSOIL Brown silty TOPSOIL with abundant roots, dry,
loose
2.0-4.0 sw Gray SAND with gravel and cobbles, moist,
medium -dense
4.0-7.0 SIP -becomes gray -brown, medium-grainied, wet
dense
'Groundwater encountered at 6.0 feet some caving from 6.0 - 7.0 feet during excavation
%.M4 Dit A
Depih (ft) Soil Classification Soil Description 1b
TOPSOIL Dark brown silty TOPSOIL with abundant roots,
dry, loose
11.1) - 3.0 Sw Gray -brown SAND with gravel and cobbles,
moist, medium -dense
3.0-6.5 SP -becomes medium -grained, very moist, dense
'No aroundwater encountered, some caving from 3,0 - 5.0 feet during excavation
nt Pit 7
Depth (ft) Soil Classification Soil Description
2.0 FILL Gray -brown. sand and gravel FILL, ary, loose aW
Old TOPSOIL
2.0-4.0 SW Gray -brown, highly weathered SAND with gravel
and cobbles, with occasional roots, sfightly moist
rriedium-dense
4.0-7.5 -dense, wet.at 7.0 feet
*No aroundwater encountered, some caving from 6.0 - 7.0 feet during excavation
TEST PIT LOGS
GEOTECH 1230 - 7th Avenue South
CONSULTAN'M, VC Edmonds, Washington
.106-N-0: I oaf& L000"I"_ PLWP-' 4
03322 1 August 2003 EMT
z
0
q
0
m
-1 -n
M
C
m
0
__40
0
M M
M Z
C
q -n
n
m M
0
0
0 M
C Cl)
9 Cn
M 0
Z
-A
;U
--I
z
--i
Cl)
z
0
m
Washed
(7/8P mn.
6"
pe backfill away from
ridation. Provide surface
iins where necessary.
Backfill
(See text for
requirements)
Nonwoven Geotextile
Filter Fabric
to . . . .
0.0 " 0
—0
"00 9
:0:(
.60
Tightfine Roof Drain
(Do not connect to footing drain)
SLAB
42.
77-
do
4" Perforated Hard PVC Pipe
(Invert at least 6 inches below
slab or crawl space. Slope to
drain to appropriate outtad.
Place holes downward.)
11
Free -Draining Gravel
(if appropriate) , I
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.
TWICAL DRAIN DETAIL
GEOTECH 1230 - 7th Avenue South
CONSEJLTANTS� Mr— Edmonds, Washington
Job No., AM&
03322 August
Daft scak-
2003 Not to Scale 5
z
0
A
0
m
C/)
m
C
m
0
0
0
M
M Z
10-4
C —Z
3:
0
m M
0 Vj
0 r- I
0 M
C Cj)
9 Co
M 0
Z
z
Co
z
0
1
0
M
. . M
k14 KLEINFELDER
An employee owned company
October 28, 2003
Kleinfelder Project Number: 3 6170
Ms. Jeannine Graf
City of Edmonds Rr:CE:,1
121 Fifth Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020 0 C T 3 0
Subject: Third -Party Geotechnical Review BUILDING1 DEPT.
Wilderness Bluff Short Plat
1230-7 tb Avenue South
Edmonds, Washington
Dear Ms. Graf -
This letter presents Kleinfelder, Inc. (Kleinfelder's) responses to the October 24, 2003 letter
prepared by Mr. Alan Jackson (site developer). Kleinfelder performed a third -party independent
geotechnical review for this site. Kleinfelder's review comments are presented in our October
15, 2003 letter.
Mr. Jackson's October 24, 2003 letter addresses Kleinfelder's review comments presented in our
October 15, 2003 letter. Kleinfelder has no additional geotechnical issues associated with this
site at this time.
Please call us at (425) 562-4200 if you have any* questions regarding this letter or other
geotechnical issues with this site.
Sincerely,
KLEE�FELDER, INC.
0.—.,A
James M. Schmidt
Senior Geotechnical Engineer
James A. McElroy
Manager, Geotechnical Engineering RECEIVED
12 2003
Page I of 1
36170/SEA3L295.doc
Copyright 2003 Kleinfelder, Inc. COUNTER
-4200 (425)562-4201 fix
K L E I N F E L D E R 2405 140th AvellLie, NE, Suite Al 01, BelleVLle, WA 98005 (425) 562
z
0
4
0
M
--I -n
M
C
M
0
-40
0 C
--I K
M rn
M z
10 -1
_Z
Cn
0 _n
n
M M
0
0
0 M
co
Cn
M 0
Z
z
Cn
z
0
M
0 � I
U" KLEINFELDER
An employee owned company
October 15, 2003
YJeinfelder Project Number: 36170 RECEIVED
Ms. Jeannine Graf
City of Edmonds 0 T 1 7
121 Fifth Avenue North
Edmonds, Washington 98020 BUILDING DEPT.
Subject: Third -Party Geotechnical Review
Wilderness Bluff Short Plat
1230 — 7t" 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 1.8-acre site into four 'lots and
The short plat will consist of dividing an approximately th
constructing one single-family residence on each lot. The site is bounded by 7 Avenue South to
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 grass 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.
Paae I of 4
36170/SEA3L28O.doc
Copyright 2003 Kleinfbider, 1nc.
KLE1 N FEL DER 2405 140th Avenue, NE, Suite A101, Bellevue, WA 98005 (425) 562-4200 (425) 562-4201 fax
z
0
i
0
M
E:
k4KLEINFELDER
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
One single-family residence will be located only on the ' easternmost quarter of each lot, while the
ct. Each home will consist of one floor of
larger remaining portion will be a critical areas tra
living space and a garage over a daylight basement. The homes will also be set back
approximately 25 feet from 7th Avenue South. Cuts and fills on the order of 8 to 10 feet will be
required to achieve the proposed finish floor elevation. Some filling in the home backyards will
be necessary to create a lawn area.
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of our geotechnical engineering services was to provide third -party independent
review of available geotechnical documents for the site and preparation of this report.
TIHRD-PARTY INDEPENDENT REVIEW
Our third -party review consisted of reviewing the following documents that were provided by
the City of Edmonds:
0 Five letters of complaint from local neighbors.
0 critical Areas Report 1230 7h Avenue South, Edmonds, Washington, prepared by
Landau Associates for the City of Edmonds, Dated May 8, 2003. th
0 Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed Wilderness Bluff Short Plat, 1230 — 7
Avenue South, Edmonds, Washington, prepared by Geotech Consultants, Inc. for Alan
Jackson, dated September 3, 2003.
0 Letter of Interest, prepared by the City of Edmonds to Mr. Alan Jackson.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
sou
Geotech Consultants, Inc. (Geotech) explored subsurface conditions at the site by excavating
seven backhoe test pits in August 2003. The test pits were located in the east portion of the'site
where the residential homes will be located and extended to a maximum depth of about 9. feet
below ground surface. Subsurface conditions encountered by Geotech consist of up to 24 inches
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.
36170/SEA3L280.doc
Copyriot 2003 Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page 2 of 4
z
0
i
0
M
-n
M
C 0
M 0
-A 0
0 C
M
M z
C
0 -Ti
,n
M M
0)
0 r-
0 M
C C0
9 C/)
M 0
Z
X
z
--i
3:
0)
z
0
M
.. M
kNJ KL E IN FELDER
Groundwater
Groundwater seepage was observed at depths of 6 to 6.5 feet below ground surface in two test
pits. Because the test pits were open only for a short time period, the static water level was not
confirmed.
the west portion
The Landau Associates (Landau) critical areas report encountered drain tiles on
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 COMMENTS
As previously stated, the purpose of our services was to provide third -party independent review
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
ot been investigated. Consequently, the potential for impact to the development
waste has n
cannot at I 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.
n
The documents reviewed do not address the potential for chemical contamination of the soil a d
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.
Page 3 of 4
36170/SEA3L280.doc
copyfight 2003 Kleinfelder, Inc.
z
0
i
0
M
M
C
M
0
0
0 C
M
M Z
g) --i
C —Z
0)
0 -n
M M
0
0
0 M
C Cn
K 0)
Q 0
z
z
W
z
0
0
M
k'9 KLEINFELDER
CLOSURE
to discuss the above comments with You an d representatives from the design
We will be pleased
Should you have any questions or wish to arrange a in eeting to
team at your convenience.
discuss this letter, please call us at (425) 562-4200.
Sincerely,
7-
0
--I:
KLEINFELDER, INC.
0
M
-n
CO
OM
James M. Schmidt, P.E.
M 0
Senior Geotechnical Engineer
0
or
M
Mz
Z
C/)
0 -T1
n�.
ITIM
0-1
r
0M
M
Mo
Zr.
>
z
z
0�
0
M
Page 4 of4
36170/SEA3L280.doe
Copyfight 2003 Kleinfelder, Inc.
Frozen Fund Posted 0CJ
Fund Expires
Fund Number I CX 7, 62A Q 0 1
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 FAX (425) 771-0221
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning - Building - Engineering
��)
PERFORMANCE FROZEN FUNID-
Edmonds Building PermitNo.
ProjectAddress 7003-057-0
Owner/Developer C
ON
With reference to the above identified project, this will certify that this imstitution has a ing§LU�M
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
Edmonds in the amount of
pendi!kvm*tten auithorization for release of said funds by the City of a_AA_
$ 00 (D
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 Ed:monds building permit
file and are in compliance with the Edmonds Community Development Code of said City.
in th event the owner/developer fails to complete the indicated improvernents within
vo�ntuv�e c
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 t:he event that any legal
action must be taken to enforce the provisions of this agreement or to collect said frozen flind, 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 settlemen-t 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 fro3m the proceeds of this
frozen fund account, but also over and above said body as a part of any rec�overy in any judicial
proceeding, in addition to recovery of the ftinds.
L:temp:b1dg:fomisj1g2/99
Z
0
A
0
M
--i -n
M
C
M
0
C)
0 C
-4 C
X M
M Z
C) -q
C
cl)
o -n
n
M M
055
0 r-
0 M
C U)
C C/)
M C-)
Z
Z
Z
0
1
0
M
City of Edmonds Performance Frozen Fund Account
Page Two
Frontier Barik Lake 6tevens
Fir - ion
,,c
titut
New Accounts
Dawn iiiiier
officer/Title
po Box 527 Lake Stevens_Wa 98258
-----------
Mailing Address
18Z00450ul
A r.r.ount Number
by Development Service Technician
Cedar Hills
owner/Developer
Title
219 140 AVE NE Lake Stevens Wa 98258
Mailing Address
42-')-422-0877
Telepho
-47?,q
' bate
F
JNANCIAL INST TUTTUQ—N—A—C—K—N—QMXD-G��
STATE OF WASUNGTON)
) ss
COUNTY OF )::�01 oh
me, the
On this ---22 day of before
undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly corramissioned and sworn,
personally appeare e y- to me known to be the Q-P- u-Y IQ ((- CXj 'n� 7�s
Of 5AMf A& trument, and
+n L --, the corporation that executed the foregoing ins
acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said coiporation, for the
uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that -3 h was
authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate scal of said corporatio . n.
WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above written.
(0)
'. 1�1' - 4.,
'goTAR Y NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the
State of Washington, residing at
PuBur, -Z�
.9 - 2008
OF WN
L:teniP:bJdg:fomisj1g2/99
Z
0
A
0
M
--i -n
3:
M
rn
0
-10
0
M
M Z
0 -n
n
M M
0 —C/)
0 r- I .
0 M
C()
co
M 0
Z
X
3:
Z
Z
0
M
City of Edmonds Performance Frozen Fund Account
Page Three
DEVELOPERIOWNER ACKNONYLED—GENM
STATE OF WASHNGTON
) ss.
C UNTY OF Shohum i-vk)
0
On this day of —A42-Y-1 cR 0 before me, the under -signed,
a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and swom, personally
y- to me known to be the f
appeared
Cored
in
the igRjaj__parU=ship that executed the foregoing
instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of.said
partnershi . p, for the uses and pwposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated . that
authorized to execute said instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above written
C'
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of
NRY U" Wa0i
ri on:,;Ff&Wmg at
Z t
Pulaoo "0
OX .(3.4001a
L:teInP:b1dg:fomjsj1g2/99
Z
0
i
0
M
K,
FROM JRR ENGINEERING,Inc. PHONE NO. 425+697 4506 Mar. 19 2004 12:34PM P1
AR Engineering, Inc.
18609 760'Avenue West, Suite B
Lynnwood, WA 98037-4149
Phone: (425) 697-5108
Payc (425) 697-4506
March 17, 2004
Dave Stafford
Graham Northwest Inc.
21010 NE 165h ST
Woodinville, WA 98072
porg-fto Fax Note 7671
TO "e
baus, ..5 A�vc
CoMePt.
00.
Phone 0
phone #
Fax 0
O/Z�o
SUBJECT. Foundation Revisions, Plans 3298 & 3226,Graham Northwest Inc., Edmonds, WA.
JRR# 03-79
Dear Mr. Stafford:
Per your request JRR Engineering, Inc. has reviewed the plans and calculations for the above
subject building using the Eco-Block wall system, JRR has determined the vertical reinforcing may
be #4 bam at I a" o.c. rather than the #5 bars at 8" o.c. called for on wall detail "B"IS-3 for plan 3225
and detail "D"/S-2 for plan 3298- This revision only applies to the 40" ma)dmum backrill basement wall
shown on those plans.
I
Please advise if you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
;JIRIRK Ezngin ning, Inc.
fir
�r"'g
Karl osman, E.I.T
Ronald K. Rlach, P.E.
\\Ron543x\JRR\I.EWERS\0391AL02-doc
'RIECEIVED
MAY 1 -8 2004
I)EVELOPMENT SERVICES CYR,
CIT'y Or EDMONDS
z
0
A
0
M
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE
IT. IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
IJ
W �
FROM JRR ENGINEERING,Inc. PHONE NO. 425+697 4506 May. 11 2004 11:22AM P3
ENGINEERING & PLANNING SERVICES
ProjeCt NaMeb
3�b
/-7
7-L
7#�
:jr;t-W 78.
-j—
YlF-f
F,., I 4-a
—T
A -lo
sileet of
DeSigr)ed Checked- Date G1
z
0
1
0
m
M
c
m
0
0
0
M
M Z
jo
co
0 -n
.m
m m
0
0 M
C cf)
9 cly
M 0
Z
z
z
0
1
0
m
ATTN:
CAS ADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC.
TESTING & INSPECTION / ENGINEERS PREVIOUS.. 0
12919 N.E. 126TH PLACE REPORT N No. 120403
KIRKLAND. WASHINGTON 98034 (425) 823-9800
(425) 259-0817 DATE C
CERT. NO.
4/
EVERETT 7-0 �/Vog Al-
10 S 7777 L-17Z
PROJECT/,,
FIELD REPORT 13
_
ATION
D /.-)- 3 a-
BLDG. PERMIT NO. OWNER
,� Od V— e3,�,o
WEATHER TEMP. AT AM
r " Ir r—\ e - AT A/Ocy-/Pm
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CT C) V
Or tum. NGINEER
�� 6) /- 4- t- 12
(2)
INSPECTION PERFORMED
—k-R--ESTEEUCONCRETE — RESTEEL ONLY
RESTEEUMASONRY — STR.ST[WELDING
OTHER — STR.ST/BOLTING
CONTRACTOR
rev
(3)
ITEMSINSPECTED
— FOUNDATIONS
FOOTINGS
— SLAB
AUGER CAST PILES
— COLUMNS
DRILLED PIERS
L-�WALLS
— BEAMS
4 e— e- - 5
(4) Z- zP 7—
LOCATION (AREAS)
(5) DESIGN STRENGTH (f'c)
CONCRETEIMASONRY MIX NO.
SUPPLIER TOTAL CU. YD. PLACED
SLUMP (INCHES) SPECIMENS CASTV/,'-�
AIR CONTENT I(%) SEE CYLINDER REPORT NO.
YES _NO — ITEMS INSPECTED WERE IN CONFORMANCE WITH BLDG. DEPT. APPROVED PLANS
REMARKS:
5ZZ
"j, 19- -5 I'Z f IQ L) / /Z T X-9,
j
TEST RESULTS APPLY ONLY TO THE ITEMS j
HEREIN TESTED. THIS REPORT SHALL NOT INSPECTOR(S), NAME(S) PRINTED
BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL. WITH- It
OUT THE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF CASCADE
TESTING LABORATORY. INC. INSPECTOR SIGNATURE
REVISED SM SIGNED BY
COPIES TO:
z
0
1
0
m
-1 -n
M
c
m
0
--lo
0 c:
M
M Z
c
0 -n
>
m M
0
0
0 M
C c)
9 C/)
M C-)
Z
7-1
>
z
V5
z
0
i
0
m
m;
CAS ADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC.
TESTING & INSPECTION / ENGINEERS PREVIOUS 115220
12919 E. 126TH PLACE REPORT No. No.
KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON 98034 (425) 823-9800
(425) 259-0817 DATE CERT. NO.
EVERETT 9'
I n,
b —10-0
FIELD REPORT PROJECT
vi � 18 P, L
LOCATION
TO: 1
BLDG. PEFUM—ITNO. -OWNER
-),�4- oa,-,zO
WEATHER TEMP, AT AM
AT PM
ENGINEER
ii '%'Q U �-_ R
AHUMI I tL, I
ATTN:
CONTRACTOR
(2)
INSPECTION PERFORMED
(3)
ITEMS INSPECTED
— FOUNDATIONS
RESTEEL/CONCRETE
RESTEEL ONLY
— FOOTINGS
— SLAB
RESTEELJMASONRY
— STR.STfWELDING
— AUGER CAST PILES
— COLUMNS
OTHER
— STR.ST/BOLTING
— DRILLED PIERS
— WALLS
— BEAMS
(4)
LOCATION (AREAS)
(5)
CONCRETEIMASONRY
MIX NO.
DESIGN STRENGTH (f'c)
TOTAL CU. YD. PLACED
SUPPLIER
A
SPECIMENSCAST—
SLUMP (INCHES)
\
SEE CYLINDER REPORT NO.,/
AIR CONTENT
YES —NO ITEMS INSPECTED
WERE IN CONFORMANCE WITH BLDG. DEPT. APPROVED PLANS
U
01c
REMARKS:
OlU cbvvA 07\)9
v
TEST RESULTS APPLY ONLY TO THE ITEMS
HEREIN TESTED. THIS REPORT SHALL NOT INSPECTOR(S), NAME(S) PRINTED
00"
BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL. WITH-
OUT THE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF CASCADE
TESTING LABORATORY. INC. INSPECTOR SIGNATURE
REVISED 8100 SIGNED BY
COPIES TO - I
z
0
A
0
m
--i -n
c m
m 0
0
0 C
M
M Z
r') --I I I
c _Z
0 _n
n
m M
0
0
0 M
C cl)
F. cl)
M 0
Z
z
--I
z
0
I
0
m
CAS ADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC.
& INSPECTION / ENGINEERS
118926
TESTING
PREVIOUS
No.
12919 N.E. 126TH PLACE
REPORT N..
KIRKLAND. WASHINGTON 98034 (425) 823-9800
EVERETT (425) 259-0817
DATE
CERT. NO.
I
4,�4b 5-
14-511'
424�
FIELD REP(C.) R T
PROJECT
i ve-rpi
ION
7- 7.- -71 Al
TO:
BLDG. PERMIT NO. f
OWNER
7�f
7 Z f i n
WEAT ER
TEMP.
AT AM
t f,
! — T.— ',
I
AT PM
I
EN*tKER
z
�AR �HITECT
0
0
RI
ATTN:
CONTRACTO
7
(2)
INSPECTION PERFORMED
(3)
ITEMS INSPECTED
— FOUNDATIONS
0 rn
C
— RESTEEL ONLY
— FOOTINGS
— SLAB
0
m 0
-1
-ZRESTEELICONCRETE
0
RESTEELIMASONRY
— STR.STfWELDING
— AUGER CAST PILES
— COLUMNS
0 c:
K
Z-WALLS
M
OTHER
— STR.STIBOLTING
— DRILLED PIERS
M z
g:) --i
BEAMS
c
c/)
(4) 7
,jr,,1j,
LOCATION (AREAS)In
o -n
-n
i
m
m M
06
0 r-
0 M
a cn
(5)
Z2NSI.R�MASONRY
N 0.',24:2
DESIGN STRENGTH (f'c)
9 0
M 0
TOTAL CU. YD. PLACED bZ9
Fit
-
Z r-
SLIPPLIER_
4
SLUMP (INCHES)
SPECIMENS CAST ��b
SEE CYLINDER REPORT NO.
X
>
AIR CONTENT
z
INSPECTEDWEREIN CONFORMANCEWITH BLDG. DEPT. APPROVED PLANS
--i
m
-v-/yES _NO _ITEMS
cn
z
lit ell
REMARKS:
0
m
9
I
TEST RESULTS APPLY ONLY TO THE ITEMS
HEREIN TESTED. THIS REPORT SHALL NOT INSPECTOR(S), NAME(S) PRINTE
BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL, WITH-
OUT THE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF CASCADE INSPECTOR SIGNATURE
TESTING LABORATORY. INC.
REVISED 8100 SIGNED BY
COPIES TO: aAa�� 6
CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC.
TESTING & INSPECTION / ENGINEERS PREVIOUS 115208
12919 N.E. 126TH PLACE REPORT No. No.
KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON 98034 (42S) 823-9800
(425) 259-0817 DATE
EVERETT Cr NO
FIELD RE1l_k_')lRT PROJECT
- ws'
LOCATION
I
To. BLDG. PERMIT NCY OWNER
I / �/,j n ri /. -U�f /i , , /* ip , 9 q6 't 2-,- —
ATTN:
WEAUER k e TEMP. AT AM I
f-" I yi) I AT PM
ENGINEER
I C, �,
(2)
INSPECTION PERFORMED
(3)
ITEMS INSPECTED
— FOUNDATIONS
RESTEEL/CONCRETE
ESTEEL ONLY
— FOOTINGS
— SLAB
RESTEELIMASONRY
— STR.STfWELDING
— AUGER CAST PILES
— COLUMNS
OTHER
— STR.STIBOLTING
— DRILLED PIERS
WALLS
BEAMS
(4)
LOCATION (AREAS)
(5)
CONCRETEIMASONRY
MIX NO.
DESIGN STRENGTH (I'c)
TOTAL CU. YD. PLACED
SUPPLIER
YJ
SPECIMENS CAST
SLUMP (INCHES)
SEE CYLINDER REPORT NO.
AIR CONTENT (%)
WERE IN CONFORMANCE WITH BLDG. DEPT. APPROVED PLANS
4YES —NO _ ITEMS INSPECTED
/,-1 0
A)CW, A
nV-C__0rJ'.xq -hj<fp'j-A0r0\)(26
REMARKS:
TEST RESULTS APPLY ONLY TO THE ITEMS
HEREIN TESTED. THIS REPORT SHALL NOT INSPECTOR(S), NAME(S) PRINTED
13E REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL. WITH-
OUT THE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF CASCADE
TESTING LABORATORY, INC. INSPECTOR SIGNATURE
REVISED 8100 SIGNED BY —
COPIES TO: --- I
z
0
1
0
m
--I -n
c m
m 0
0
0 c:
4 r.
X M
M z
in
0 -ri
n
m M
q
0
0 rn
C
M 0
Z r-
rn
z
cl)
z
0
1
0
m
FIELD
REPORT No. NO. 4 ii 'u, 2 21)
C SCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC.
MCITESTING & INSPECTION / ENGINEERS UA—TE GERT. NO.
1 2919 N.E. 126TH PLACE
KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON 9803A (A251823-9800
EVERETT (A251 259-08 17 PROJEC
COMPRESSION REPORT LOCATION
fifflLwAe.j
gAKswAw_w'pr'
;7
_Z� OWNER
BLDG. PERMIT NO.
J
VVIzA 1117 TEMP. AT AM
e
4.1a AT PM
EN!GqA1EER
k I 0—c kL
ARCHITECT
ATTN:
THE FOLLOWING WAS NOTED: CON RACTO
FIELD TEST DATA
TRUCK SAMPLED 12g�> TRUCK TICKET NO. MIX NO.
TIME
---
SLUMP
ASTM C-1 43
% AIR
UNIT
WEIGHT
ASTM C-138
YIELD
CEMENT
FACTOR
TEMP.
ASTM C-1064
CONC
AIR
-7
BA Fol
"A
YD.
DESIGN
WEIGHTS
41
Z-7 �5Z>
% I
MOIST.
ADJUSTED
\�LEIGHTS
9
CEMENT
LY ASH
F L
C.A.
C.A.
C.A.
FINE AGG.
J,4 7- 4q,
-7 j,"
zlez)
AIR TEST METHOD: [] PRESSURE ASTM C-231 OR E] VOLUME ASTM C-1 73 WATER
EQUIPMENT USED I.D. 7,
SLUMPCONE CSLC0q_ THERMOMETER CCOTH0_ �TOTAL e.51'2
AIRMETER CCOAIO OTHER
TYPE OF BREAK: (A) Cone (C) Cone and Shear
b\ Cwe and Split 1d) Shear (e) Columnar COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
CYLINDER
NUMBER
DATE
MADE
DATE
TESTED
AGE
DAYS
SIZE
AREA
(SO. IN)
TOTAL
LOAD
STRENGTH
PSI
TYPE
BREAK
-74, 7,
-7 Ze
5'1
46 0 Z-
4,!� -e'�
of
15 &
/4
002
/ )c
f2
,,-'9
ey
CONCRETE COMPRESSION MACHINE I.D. #CCOCOOO 0 ASTM C-1231 SAMPLING IN ACCORDANCE WITH
SAMPLE P/U DATE TEST METHOD C1 ASTM C-617 APPLICABLE CODES & SPECS.
SUPPLIER CEMENTTYPE CU. YARDS PLACED
AEA DMI)616ft % DESIG STRENG
I
A Jvl-�"C C12
7—,,s 2, t",
14leC k
— THE ITEMS j I
TEST RESULTS APPLY ONO
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 SI G-NATURE
REVISED 8/00 SIGNED BY
COPIES TO:
z
0
4
0
M
4 -n
M
c
M
0
0
0 c
M
M Z
0 --1
c —Z
0 -n
n
MITI
C) F)
0 r-
0 M
C C/)
K cn
M C-)
Z
z
z
0
1
0
M
TO:
ATTN:
CAS ADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC.
TESTING & INSPECTION / ENGINEERS PREVIOUS
12919 N.E. 126TH PLACE REPORT No.
KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON 98034 (425) 823-YE100
EVERETT (425) 259-OB17 DATE
PROJECT
FIELD REPORT
(2)
INSPECTION PERFORMED
—4,:� , RESTEEL/CONCRETE — RESTEEL ONLY
RESTEELIMASONRY — STR.STIWELDING
i-%TW9:9a - STR.STIBOLTING
No. 11. 8 926
CERT. NO.
AZ 71-, A—i
;'/'- -� 7- - /,,. 5�, -1
BLDG. PERMIT NO. OWNER -
r
le
(3)
ITEMS INSPECTED
FOOTINGS
AUGER CAST PILES
DRILLED PIERS
AT AM
AT PM
FOUNDATIONS
SLAB
COLUMNS
-�4/WALLS
— BEAMS
(4)
C'
LOCATION (AREAS)
NCRETEIMASONRY
MIX NO.
DESIGN STRENGTH (f'c)
TOTAL CU. Y D. PLACED
SUPPLIER
SPECIMENS CAST_
SLUMP (INCHES)�
CYLINDER REPORT NO. ZAU'�7-J
AIR CONTENT I(%)
SEE
4ZYES —NO
ITEMS INSPECTED WERE IN CONFORMANCE
WITH BLDG. DEPT. APPROVED PLANS
REMARKS:
T
194w( 1 r Q. V
TEST RESULTS APPLY ONLY TO THE ITEMS
, �� /�./ -
HEREIN TESTED. THIS REPORT SHALL NOT INSPECTOR(S), NAME(S) PRINTEI
BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL, WITH- A)
OUT THE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF CASCADE
TESTING LABORATORY, INC. INSPECTOR SIGNATURE
REVISED 8100 SIGNED BY
COPIES TO:
z
0
A
0
m
—4 -n
0 M
c
m
0
0
0 C
M
M Z
W
0 -n
-n
m M
0 —C/)
0 r-
0 M
C cf)
F, cl)
M 0
Z
z
z
0
0
m
I
FIELD
No.
4 4 8 2 3
A-re-NDV ll�,Ie- REPORTNo.
CAS ADE Ir-5111-41— L.-D-J-, I
TESTING & INSPECTION / ENGINEERS
1 2919 N.E. 126TH PLACE (A251 823-9800
KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON 9803A (A251 2S9-0817
EVERETT
COMPRESSION REPORT
ATTN:
THE FOLLOWING WAS NOTED:
mci n drrrr nATA
DATE
CERT. NO.
PROJEC[
LOCATION
BLDG. PERMITNO
OWNE
031q1 3-Z
'fH'
WZW 6EAf, E R
'7al'�
TEMP. AT AM
c '_
T PM
:'S�I�EEFI
E N:Z
I
ARCHITIECT
C�ON_�RACTO
TRUCK SAMPLED J��cloll
SLUMP % AIR
T I M E [A ;ST:M:C71 4 3
TRUCKTICKETNO.
UNIT
WEIGHT YIELD
ASTM C-138
TEMP.
CEMENT ASTM -1064
FACTOR CONC AIR
-7
AIR TEST METHOD: 0 PRE,95UHL Ati I M U-eO I Un LJ vw"wtv—
EQUIPMENT USED I.D.
SLUMP CONE csLCOO_ THERMOMETER CCOTHO
AIRMETER CCOAIO_ OTHER —
TYPE OF BREAK: (A) Cone (C) Cone and Shear
n-1--
R
aATCH DATA FOR
CU. YD.
DESIGN
WEIGHTS
%
MCI
I
ADJUSTED
W EIGHTS
CEMENT
/j/
FLY ASH
C.A.
C.A.
C.A.
FINE AGG.
WATER
!
TOTAL
tup-,ulluallu F
AGE
DAYS
SIZE
AREA
(SQ. IN)
TOTAL
LOAD
STRENGTH
PSI
TYPE
BREAK
CYLINDER
NUMBER
DATE
MADE
DATE
TESTED
--7
Z1102
-7 47
CONCRETE COMPRESSION MACHINE I.D. ff El ASTM C-1 231 SAMPLING IN ACCORDANCE WITH
SAMPLE P/U DATE TEST METHOD El ASTM C-617 APPLICABLE CODES & SPECS.
CEMENTTYPE CU. YARDS PLACED '0
SUPPLIER
AEA 'ADMIX. c C12— % DESIGN STRENGTH i Z�
PLACEMENT AREA& NOTES:
TEST RESULTS APPLY ONLY TO THE ITEMS AME(S) PRINTED -
HEREIN TESTED. THIS REPORT SHALL NOT INSPECTOR(S), N
BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL, WITH-
OUT THE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF CASCADE
TESTING LABORATORY, INC. INSPECTOR SIGNATURE
REVISED 8/00 SIGNED BY
COPIES TO:
z
0
q
0
m
CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC.
TESTING & INSPECTION / ENGINEERS PREVIOUS
12919 N.E. 126TH PLACE REPORT No. No. 11.5208
KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON 98034 (425) 823-9800
EVERETT (425) 259-0817 DATE CEPT NO
FIELD RE-P ORT PROJECT A
W�l
LOCATION
TO: BLDG. PERMIT NO, OWNER
WEATHER TEMP. AT AM
,9,- -p AT PM
[NEER
p% i. oc
ATTN:
(2)
INSPECTION PERFORMED
RESTEEL/CONCRETE ESTEEL ONLY
RESTEEUMASONRY — STR.STIWELDING
OTHER — — STR.STIBOLTING
(3)
ITEMS INSPECTED
FOOTINGS
AUGER CAST PILES
DRILLED PIERS
(4)
LOCATION (AREAS)
(5) DESIGN STRENGTH (f'c)
CONCRETEWASONRY MIX NO.
TOTAL CU. YO. PLACED
SUPPLIER
SLUMP (INCHES) y SPECIMENS CAST
AIR CONTENT I(%) i / SEE CYLINDER REPORT NO.
YES —NO _ ITEMS INSPECTED WERE IN CONFORMANCE WITH BLDG. DEPT. APPROVED PLANS
REMARKS: Na')
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 8/00 SIGNED BY
COPIES TO:
FOUNDATIONS
SLAB
COLUMNS
WALLS
BEAMS
z
0
i
0
m
-4 -n
m
c
m
0
0 c
m
m z
c
3:
cl)
0 -n
m m
0
0
0 m
c cn
r. cn
M 0
Z
3:
z
cl)
z
0
1
0
m
CITY OF EDMONDS
SPECIAL INSPECTION AND TESTING AGREEMENT
9 0 issued under building
The project at/
permit number nt_-0320 requires special insVction and/or testing per UBC Chapter 17
and WAC Amen ments'1702. The complete list of specia inspections is attached to this document.
BEFORE A PERMIT CAN BE ISSUED: The owner and contractor and special inspector shall
complete this agreement and the attached structural test(s) and inspections schedule including the
required acknowledgments.
APPROVAL OF SPECIAL INSPECTORS: Each special inspector shall be approved by the
Building Official prior to performing any duties or inspections. Each special inspector shall submit
Statement of Qualifications. to the Building Official for review. Special inspectors shall display
identification when perforining special inspections on site. Special inspection and testing shall meet
the minimum requirements of LJBC Chapter 17 and the following:
A. Duties and Responsibilities of the Special Inspector
1. Observe Work
The special inspector shall observe the site work for conformance with the approved
(stamped) plans and specifications and applicable workmanship provisions of the UBC.
Architect or En�ineer reviewed shop drawings may beused only as an aid.to inspection.
is
�pecial inspections are to be performed on a continuous basi --meaning that the special
Inspector is on site at all times observing the work requiring spoecial inspection. Periodic
inspections, if any, must have prior ap )roval by the City.based n a separate written plan
reviewed and approved by the Building 8fficial and the engineer or architect of record.
2. Report Non -conforming Items
The special inspector shall bring nonconforining items to the immediate attention of the
contractor and note all such items in the daily field report. Any item not resolved in a timely
manner shall be immediate cause of the special inspector to notify the Building. Official of the
plan deviation, error, change or omission. It shall also be the duty of the special inspector to
promptly notify the engineer or architect.
3. Complete Daily Reports
Each special inspector shall complete and sign both the special inspection record and the daily
report form for each day's inspection. These records shall remain at the jobsite with the
contractor for review by the City Building Inspector.
4. Furnish Weekly Reports
The special inspector or inspection agency shall furnish the City with weekly reports of tests
and inspections. The project engineer or architect, and others as designated shall also be
copied on reports. Weekly reports must include the following:
Description of daily inspections and tests made with applicable locations
List of all nonconforming items
Report on status of nonconformingitems (resolved or unresolvetty if not included in
Itemized changes authorized by the Architect, Engineer and
nonconformance items
5. Furnish Final Construction Report
The s ecial inspector or inspection agency shall subrnit a final signed report to the City stating
that af] items requiring special inspection and testing were fulfilled and reported. And, to the
best of his/her knowledge the project is in conforinance with the approved i plans and
ifications, approved change orders and the applicable workmanship provis ons of the
speci
T_JBC. Items not in conformance or unresolved items or any discrepancies in inspection
coverage, (i.e., missed inspections, periodic inspection when continuous inspections were
required, etc.) shall be specifically itemized in this report.
Z
0
4
0
M
-1 -n
M
C
M
0
0
0
M
M Z
C
C/)
o -n
n
M M
055
0 r-
0 M
cl)
Cn
Q 0
Z
;U
--I
X
Z
Cl)
Z
0
1
0
M
Feb 02 04 08:36a CASCHUE IESTING 425-823-2203 -.P.2
U ILI A j Ju UJ. A
P. 04104
JW-30-2M4 09:12
APOPM DLVTCTM
MMRCSO Co"=M QUNrM GROUT AND MORTAP-' bjjxUCnTRALgrxKLWELDlNG:
P-os alum Saolpk ad V= (ft OPCd wAmWn bL'Dw)
AUNIM ThS._--- SbL* Manial MMMMMUCR 0 sbap 0 Fhdd
Rehomotat Tem
6"
grialwaial
Soitb PkW karmtWu 4"roc6- Oshm
lopmPhtims DAM ON Ox OF
CAAW
M@W Dock %WMJv4 lngwctk*
Tim
EE
pRECASTMRLTMOSED r-ONCREM cam-ac law" tkidin IMF="
EJ
�Lj T; 1,
YRAULrFLSJ%jir A iq%&;
rm"Mo wIpwtinm
Dowigy it=
ThViDUUM-M
JMSUIAMNG CONCRET
E6'
S""k S" Tou
2
rv"nww lasperdor,
PER441T
wl %%0"
COL"VTER
ML MATFJUAL-
MASONRY.
14 MMn" )A�
rw-w
rMlimilmy hctqw=,rcw lmuwy Lw". V42 ftural
STRUL-MRAIL WOOD:
sawc"Mum 166ww. Cava. Fww Wag Ntmd
M" W "IlrAF b"Pwdm
wqcd. .1 uim
Lwmccr;aa of Ch-Imn F66-
juqpKdnocrTrw%s JcAA Pak
AmDiTvoNAL mmucnoNs OR aM ER TESrs
ss.,qm am Tw Cmnpmnu
A-RD INSPFZTIONS:
e4
47
p trr.
'nib:
Due:
TOTPL P.04
z
0
i
0
m
I:eb 02 04 08:36a CASCADE TESTING 425-823-2203 P.3
4259040120
P.03/04
N ole $�rectx� ial irugpwtur whet work is roadY for RPee"al
It is the duty Of the conalOOT W WybfY the SPec wd as noted on the zppt0VCd
P, the itam listed cm d1c attaclied mhoduk
Not Tgred to have Tecial iu�ctions. Adequate 110mr- "' be
PISM6 xnd spedficafiom QM re al inspeotOr la5 time to become fismiliar with the
dad by tue contr*cWr V0 tbAt the 3peci
ProV`
project. z
0
2. provilie Aotew to Approwd Phul the -1
'big fbr providing, , spe,6ml inspector acctsll to WfOved Pl= a' 0
The contracturr ig rmpo= M
tbejobr-itc.
Ingpection Remrds
3, pxtain Special ection mords submitted
rmponisible to TtWln 81 the Jobsite �11 q)ec
The cantrz=r is N buiklb4 in3P0r-t`r uPDn
ruese reconts arc tD be pmYldod W &"Lity X
by the Mwisl in�or M
request. rn 00
0
0
C- L C
rw or lawpecdft 118encics speetam and RMCial ifsPect'on
1. Approve, sped@[ tamp &ball aMove all BMW in x M
The building departneot M Z
roquirernents.
I jmq)ection nod approve we" reports inmpwtorl; &hall be �cz
2. Monitor sp" f Special >
. =tion and th afam"co 0 'butimed prior to F- --4
Work Special ' ' Inspoe.t" ' appruval MVJJt be 0
MUM= 'Mr, City aNding I . . 05 in addition to fti of the pecial inspector-
07concrda or other siuluilar activill
plactmcnt 0 -n
-n
3. Inue cerallem" of Occupancy ial inspection
ding issue a Ccrtificate, of Owvancy after au wcw x 9
TheBu,U * Offidld"'Y have bwn gUbrnittcd and =Wed- M M
repolls incluaing the finlu rup—t 0 —Cn
0 r-
0 M
or =hited of rewrd, 2rtinr, as the ownds agad &hAU ruod C co
enginwr
speclal Jngpecbon MMM. M 0
Z
or
,ial insrpection requircinCOU On the Plans MLd
ambitcct of recoid sW1 include sp
The cn6new Of
ocations.
EPC6 >
ACKN0VVLEDGi9MXNTS z
compty with the ter= and conditions of MiS aVeem"'-
I haw read and agrec to
Ownei
Id bwpectorZ�
special
C,emal CorttractOr
FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL FORM.
TO:
DATE:
MEMO TO: PERMIT COORDINATOR, BUILDING DIVISION
FROM: FIRE DEPARTMENT DATE
PLEASE SIGN
T ENGINEERING DIVISION DAT E
z
0
i
VLLAN� h1UN
0
PLANNING DIVISION DATE
PLEASE SIGN
--fi
3:
PROJEC
M .
C
12 �3 Q
a
M 0
--I C-)
0
SITE ADDRESS—
C:
PERMIT# —ADB# DATEINSPECTED Z Itev-S
M
M Z
C) 3 2- 0
DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE INSPECTED
icn
A field inspection was conducted to determine compliance with -approved plans. Final approval
0 -n
n
denotes that there are no objections from the above signed Department to the release of
PERFORMANCE BONDS and the granting of:
M M
0 _Cn
0
0 M
C cq
GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL
Q 0
Z
7-1
;U
z
GRANT PROJECT APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS NOTED
3:
0 Copy of CONDITIONS given to owner/contractor by inspector
CD
z
0
1
5
M
FAILED FINAL INSPECTION - OUTSTANDING ISSUES
0 Copy of CORRECTION NOTICE given to owner/contractor by inpector
2.
3.
RE -INSPECTED OUTSTANDING ISSUES - GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL
Date Signature
1: teinp:bldg: forms: ocaprvl 3/25/04
FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL FORM
TO:
DATE:
MEMO T 0: PERMIT COORDINATOR, BUILDING DIVISION
FROM: —FIRE DEPARTMENT DATE
MXASE SMN
" �_�ENGINEERING DIVISION DATE ;Z
z
0
i
PLANNING DIVISION DATE'
0
M
MXASIZ SIGN
rn
PROJECT ALL(
SITE ADDRE ss IZ30 7' A
M
0
0
PERMIT _ADB# 'DATE INSPECTED 112A /0--i-
0
C
K
MM
MZ
DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE INSPECTED 5:::;,Z�
10 -1
C -Z
>
A field inspection was conducted to determine final compliance with approved plans. Final approval
Cn
denotes that there are no objections from the above signed Department to the release of
0 -n
-n;u
PERFORALANCE BQNDS and the granting of:
>
M M
0 V5
0 r-
GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL
0 M
C Cl)
K U)
Q 0
Z
.'T
M
GRANT PROJECT APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS NOTED
z
u Copy of CONDITIONS given to owner/contractor by inspector
co
z
0
FAILED FINAL INSPECTION - OUTSTANDING ISSUES
M
u Copy of CORRECTION NOTICE given to owner/contractor by inspector
2.
3.
RE -INSPECTED OUTSTANDING ISSUES - GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL
Date Si
ocaprvi.doc.l:tenip:bldg:fonnsIO/OI
FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL FORM
7
TO:
DATE:
S T.-M,
MEMO TO: PERMIT COORDINATOR, BUILDING DIVISION
FROM: PLEASESIGN FIRE DEPARTMENT DATE
z
ENGINEERING DIVISION DATE 0
PLEASE SIGN A
0
PLANNING DIVISION DATE
I'LEASE SIGN
PROJECT M
co
M0
SITE ADDRESS P-11
0 C
M
M Z
PERMIT# ADB# DATE INSPECTED
C:
DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE INSPECTED >
A field inspection was conducted to determine compliance with -approved plans. Final approval (n
0 -n
n ;d
above signed Department to. the release of >
denotes that there are no objections from the
PERFORMANCE BONDS and the granting of: rn M
0 U5
0 r-
0 M
C cn
K Cf)
GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL M 0
Z r-
71 M
GRANT PROJECT APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS NOTED
El Copy of CONDITIONS given to owner/contractor by inspector C/)
z
0
i
0
M
FAILED FINAL INSPECTION - OUTSTANDING ISSUES
R Copy of CORRECTION NOTICE given to owner/contractor by inpector
I
2.
3.
RE -INSPECTED OUTSTANDING ISSUES - GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL
Date Signature
1:temp:b1dg:f6rnis:ocaprv1 3/25/04
RECORD OF INSPECTIONS
INSPECTOR DATE APPROVED
SETBACKS .....................
FOUNDATION:
Footing ......................
Wall..........................
Pier/Porch ................. z
0
Retaining Wall ...........
0
rn
Slab Insulation .......... _1D 9
PLUMBING:
Underground .............
�9r M
C
Rough -In ................... M
0
Commercial Final ...... C:
M
HEATING: M Z
-A
Gas Test ....................
Cf� — 13 >
Gas Piping .................
0 _T1
Equipment ................. -n
L�, Commercial Final .......
M M
EXTERIOR SHEATHING 0
Lo, NAILING ..........................
0 M
C Cn
FRAMING ........................ C/)
fn 0
Z
--I
FIRST FLOOR FRAMING...
INSULATION ...................
Floor Insulation ..... >
z
Wall Insulation ........... -A
Ceiling Irts6l tio . ....... C0
n z
0
SHEETROCK NAILING ... I
0
M
SPECIAL INSPECTION ...
MISCELLANEOUS ..........
FINAL APPROVAL FOR Z7 05
OCCUPANCY ..................
i�z IP7.d JUX,
-1 =hp,
f Ti—Q-7 Ai 0
77r,—,d junomV
s 1,31-aw Jam
panssIm'(1
The Initials NIT are IN/111toll r
T110111psoll''I tullipol"Iry Contract $ p-,ul Inowy
oza- �7w
ilispcctol- 601. tile City.
TF7