20040349.pdfDATE RECEIVED
CITY OF EDMONDS
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION
OWN9"AME/NAME OF BUSINESS
MAILING ADDRESS
a
0
J,
T-Y ZIP TEI EPHONE
C1 T,/I
7
NAME
F_- ADDRESS
; c
Y ZIP TELEPHONE
NAME
ADDRESS r
zi P TELEPHONE
STATE LICENSE NUMBER EXPIF
0 C
,19 A& 1�)r
,6 07
PROPERTY TAX A�S;OUNT PARCEL NO.
',6 -�b P 00C) — (7 9'
r illn
NEW RESIDENTIAL
ADDITION COMMERCIAL
REMODEL APARTMENT
REPAIR );�r G1? CYDS
4
DEMOLISH TANK
WARAGE RETAINING WALL
CARPORT ROCKERY
(TYPE OF USE. BUSINESS OR AUW" EXPLAIN
NUMBER NUMBER OF
OF DWELLING
STORIES UNITS
DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE /1
hiv)�- M1
11
PLAN CHECK NO:
I AZING %
PERMIT EXPIRES
U 0S E
ZONE
PERMIT
'Iel-
OK i
I Z_
NUMBER,� �
JOB
ADDRESS
%WTE/APT#
PLAT NAME/SUBDIVISION NO.
LOT NO,
LID NO.
LID FEE S
PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP
TESCP APD,,�Id
RW Permit Roquiled
[3
0
EXISTING. PROPOSED
Street Use Permit Fioq'd
inspection Required
Sidewalk Required
[3
a
E3
REQUIRED DEDICATION
FT
Underground
Wiring required
13
METER SIZE
314
LINE SIZE
NO. OF FIXTURES
PRV REQUIRED
YES$( NO 0
Uj
REMARKS
z
OWN ERIC ONT RACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROL/DRAINAGE
0
z
lu
e- I #�j r A z
GINEERING
t
REVIEWED BY
REVIEWED/DATE
4- -.zo-
DATE
W
cc
rL
TION DATE VARIANCE OR CU SHORELINE OR ADB# INSPECTION BOND
C REO POSTED
13 YES kNO
3EPA REVIEW SIGN AREA HEIGHT
COMPLETE I E17MPT ALLOWED , PROPOSED ALLOWED PROP,OSED
a �
_0 EXP 7 1 a I .
LOT COVERAGE REQUIRED SETBACKS (FT) PROPOSED SETBACKS (Fr.)
PLUMBING I MECH ALLOWED PROPOSED FRONT SIDE REAR FRONT L/R SIDE REAR
COMPLIANCE OR 31
3� i� 1A, 76 1'41 YIN i r Z
CHANGE OF USE z
PARKING �OT AREA P NING REVIEWED BY DATE 5
SIGN REOID I PTIDED ic� IL
qc
Ei FENCE 9L, f- I t-1/0
X FT) REMARKS
5 -00 -gr�, Ape�i,l ---
OTHER I
FT-,f —1k-,) q,4 t,
1,-C tT d
RENEWAL
CHECKED BY ITYPE OF CON�TRUCTION OCCUPANT
(4:5;nj111 Av4ll; CODE GROUP
T -
__Tv3 2 -t5FT
CRITICAt Iz 2 ko)
AREAS SPECIAL INSPECTOR JAREA OCCUPANT
NUMBERl REQUIRED)t YES LOAD
LOT SLO_
-7
VESTED DATE
THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO
I= BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC
DOMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE
SEPARATE PERMISSION.
PERMIT APPUCATION: 180 DAYS
PERMIT LIMIT I YEAR - PROVIDED WORK IS STARTED WITHIN 180 DAYS
SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION
'APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS
IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY. DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF
M EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND
ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE. ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT HE
DEEMED TO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE
0 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 VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING To
WORKMEN'S QJMP144SATION INSURANCE AND RCW 18.27.
SIGNATUREk E �bR AGENT),' DATE.�IGNED
VN
ATTENTION
REMARKS 130
PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 108/FINAL INSPECTION REO'D a
V,
I
VALUATION $
Description
FEE
Description
FEE
Plan Check
Building
" 1. 7 z 11�_ 1�
Plumbing
Mechanical
Grading
Recording Fee
Engr. Review
City Surcharge
Engr. Inspection
State Surcharge
Traffic Mitigation
Plan Chk Deposit
Fire Review
Receipt #
Fire Inspectior
Tiount Due
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
10/01
Landscapelnsp.
CALL
FOR INSPECTION
(425)
771-0220
EXT 1333
771-0221
FAX
I Receipt # I /I - �j
APPLICATION APPROVA_L__T
This application is not a perinit until signed by the
Building Official or his/her Deputy, and Fees are paid, and
receipt is acknowledged in space provided.
FFIC SIGN�rVRE DATE
� VI __0
.D BY ATE
A 'f " 7�
(
ORIGINAL - FILE - YELLOW -iNSPE6TOR
PINK -OWNER - GOLD -ASSESSOR
V
z
0
i
0
ITI
0 M
C:
ITI 0
0
C-)
0 C
M
M Z
C) --I
C _z
x
Cn
0 -n
ri
MM
0
0
o M
C: (n
K (0
ITI
Z
z
--i
X
W
z
0
ITI
C-0 Ij ,,— -T'. 5
1561 - co
Owner: Firstfine Construction
Address: 944 Maple ST, -
Edmonds Wa. 98020
Ph. (206) 498-5339 '
-rax Parcel : 005550-000-047-01
roperty Address: 10308 242ad PL. S.W.
Edmonds Wa. 98020
LOT COVERAGE
LOT AREA - 8953 S.F.
HOUSE & DECKS - 2505 S.F.
COVERAGE 2505/8953 - 28.01 %
IMPERVIOUS SURFACES
HOUSE, EAVES & PATIO -2680 S.F.
DRIVEWAY & WALKS - 634 S.F.
TOTAL - 3314 S,F.
.3(A. Do
CITY COPY
M
CD
10.'
HEIGHT CALCS Y\\\ J' Z9,\�ISWAY \>- ,.. - 0
A tp ';rs; ��'
B - Al- -0, 0
C --w
D-00— '000
00 Jk
Avg. Grade
Actual = 14w:ff- 1 n,
Mwximurn
FZECEIVED
SETBACKS:
FRONT ILI APR 1 9 2004
SIDE '�Cc
ftOT PLAN
14LAR- q-""Ic: 1/8 - I Foot � I', P'ERMIT COUNTER
OTHER i�- tvLl
HEIGHT
4
TUBBS08(oac,06nC82
January 9, 2004
RECEIVED
MAR - 8 2004
PERMIT COUNTER
Fir.-ttline Cranstruct.'.0a, Inc.
16605 - 7 1 st Place West
Edmonds, Washington 98037
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Residential Property
10300 j3lock of 242 nd Place West
J_%A (COPY Ed m'onds, Washington
UITY File No. HAL2-01
INTRODUCTION
This letter presents our conclusions and recommendations regarding geotechnical
conditions pertinent to proposed residential development of your property located in the
10300 block of 242 d Place West in Edmonds, Washington. Our services have been
perfon-ned at your request and in accordance with our services agreement dated
December 16, 2003.
The subject property consists of Lots 2 and 3 of Short Subdivision S-2000-82. We
understand that you propose to develop the property to include two single family residences.
You have asked us to evaluate geotechnical conditions within the property as a basis for
providing you with information and recommendations pertinent to the proposed
development. Specifically, our scope of services includes:
1. Review of published geologic and topographic information regarding the subject site and
adjacent areas.
2. Surface geologic reconnaissance of the site and adjacent areas.
3. Subsurface investigation of soil conditions at the site by means of test pits excavated by
a backboe and operator you provided.
4. Preparation of this geotechnical engineering report providing our observations relative
to geotechnical conditions at the site and providing our conclusions and
recommendations regarding geotechnical elements of the proposed development.
Our services have been provided on the basis of a review of existing information
available to us, geologic reconnaissance of the site and adjacent areas during December 2003,
observation of test pit explorations on December 19, 2003, discussions with you and Mr.
Gary S. Cooper, and our experience.
7505-A West Lake Sammamish Parkway Northeast Redmond, Washington 98052 425-882-4850 www.tubbs.com
z
0
A
0
M
--i -n
M
C
M
0
-10
0
X M
M Z
_Z
F- -4
X
0)
o -n
n
M M
0
0
0 M
C C/)
9 0
M 0
Z
71
z
__4
X
C/)
z
0
1
0
M
Firstline Construction, Inc.
January 9, 2004
Page 2
SITE CONDITIONS
The property is located between 104 1h Avenue West and 242"' Place SW in Edmonds,
Washington as shown*on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. As shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2,
which is based on a drawing dated 4-2-02 by JBMF Consulting Engineers, the subject
property consists of a Lots 2 and 3, located in the southeastern part of the shortplat and
accessed via 242 nd Place SW.
Our Critical Areas Evaluation report dated April 10, 2002 for the area of the short plat
that includes the subject property, described topographic, vegetative and prior development
conditions within the area of the short plat. Since that report was submitted, the area of the
short plat has been cleared and graded to create three building pads, driveways accessing the
three lots have been constructed and paved, and storm and sanitary side sewers have been
installed. Site grading included construction of a keystone block wall and two rockeries.
Recommendations for design and construction of these improvements was not included in
either our previous or present scope of services. We understand that the existing rockeries
will be reconstructed based on recommendations by others.
Geologic conditions within the area of the short plat were also described in our earlier
report. As part of our present services we explored subsurface conditions within the area of
the short plat via six test pits, including four test pits within the subject property, excavated
at the locations indicated on the Site Plan. A description of the subsurface exploration
program and the logs of the test pits are presented in the Appendix. The observed subsurface
conditions are consistent with those described in our earlier report. The subject property is
underlain by glacial outwash consisting of sand and gravel deposited during theadvance and
retreat of the last glacier to occupy this area some 13,500 to 15,000 years ago. Local patches
of glacial till, deposited directly by the glacial ice, exist within the area of the short plat but
none was observed within the subject property. Some fill locally exists within the site.
Because of the high infiltration capacity of the surficial soils, little or no surface water runoff
occurs within the site, and no emergent groundwater seepage was observed in the test pits,
on the slope adjacent to 104 1h Avenue West, or elsewhere within the site.
7505-A West Lake Sammamish Parkway Northeast Redmond. Washington 98052 425-882-4850 WWW.tubbs.com
z
0
1
0
M
=i 9
Firstline Construction, Inc.
January 9, 2004
Page 3
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
GENERAL
The subject property is suitable for the proposed residential development provided that
proper site development procedures and the recommendations below are followed. The
native soils underlying the site consist of glacial outwash sand and are suitable for
conventional residential foundation design and construction procedures.
SITE PREPARATION AND EARTHWORK
We recommend that all sod, organic soil, fill and debris be removed from settlement
sensitive areas (e.g., building, pavement and slab areas). The subgrade surface in slab and
pavement areas should be proof -rolled with heavy rubber -tired equipment after excavating
to the desired grade. The purpose of the proof -rolling is to bring the near -surface soils to a
uniform density and to identify any loose areas which might require recompaction or removal
and replacement with structural fill.
Temporary cut slopes for foundation excavations are expected to be as much as ten feet
in height. Temporary cut slopes in the medium dense to dense native soils may be inclined
as.steeply as IH:lV and, except for minor sloughing, can be expected to stand at that
inclination for a period of several weeks if protected from drying. Temporary cut slopes in
existing loose or fill soils may be inclined as steeply as 1.5H: IV if protected from drying.
Protection from drying applies to natural soil moisture only. Do not add water to temporary
cut slopes to improve stability. If steeper temporary cut slopes are required we should be
consulted to develop shoring recommendations.
We understand that you anticipate a permanent cut slope up to 8 feet in height within the
eastern portion of the subject property, and two -tiered rockery wall for erosion protection of
that slope. If rockery walls are used for this purpose, we recommend that each wall be no
more than 4 feet in height, and that the toe of the rockeries (see Figure 3) be located above
a plane sloping 45 degrees downward from the adjacent property line. If higher cut slopes
are required we should be consulted to provide other recommendations for slope protection.
STRUCTURAL FILL
All new fill in settlement -sensitive areas shall be placed as compacted structural fill after
the site has been prepared as described above. All structural fill material shall be free of
debris, organic contaminants and rock fragments larger than 6 inches. The suitability of
material for use as structural fill will depend on the gradation and moisture content of the
soil. As the amount of fines (material passing No. 200 sieve) increases, soil becomes
7505-A West Lake Sammamish Parkway Northeast Redmond, Washington 98052 425-882-4850 www.tubbs.com
z
0
0
rn
=n-
M
C
M 0
0
0
0 C
M
M z
o -n
n
M M
0 _0)
0 r,
0 M
Cn
C/)
M 0
Z
7-1
X
>
z
CD
z
0
M
A
Firstline Construction, Inc.
January 9, 2004
Page 4
increasingly more sensitive to small changes in moisture content and adequate compaction
becomes more difficult to achieve. Structural fill shall contain no more than 5 percent fines
for placement in wet weather. The percent fines can be higher for placement in dry weather,
providing that the fill material is moisture -conditioned as necessary for proper compaction.
The sandy native outwash soils at the site are suitable for structural fill.
Structural fill placed in building or pavement areas shall be compacted to at least
95 percent of the maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM D-1557.
Utility trench backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent, except for the upper 2 feet
which shall be compacted to 95 percent. We recommend that structural fill be placed in
loose layers not more than 8 inches thick if a small vibratory roller compactor is used (or not
more than 12 inches if a 10-ton or larger vibratory roller compactor is used), conditioned to
the proper moisture content for compaction, and uniformly compacted before placing
subsequent layers.
FOUNDATION SUPPORT
The proposed residence can be supported on conventional spread and strip footings
founded on firm native soil, or can be supported on structural fill directly overlying firm
native soil. Footings may be proportioned using an allowable bearing value of 2000 pounds
per square foot. This value applies to the total of dead plus long term live loads and may be
increased by one-third when considering design loads of short duration such as wind or
seismic forces. This value also assumes a minimum width of 16 inches for continuous
spread footings and 24 inches for isolated spread footings. The minimum depth of
embedment helow final adjacent grades is 18 inches for exterior footings and 12 inches for
interior footings on firm native soil. Footings adjacent to a downhill slope shall be
sufficiently deep to provide at least 6 feet of horizontal separation between the footing and
the slope face, and shall be sufficiently deep or distant from the slope that a 1: 1 plane
e I xtended from the edge of the footing does not intersect the slope face. Because local areas
of loose soil may be encountered at the same level as the medium dense to dense soils, we
recommend that the soils beneath the footings be compacted using hand operated vibratory
equipment in lifts as described above. Any loose or disturbed soils in the footing
excavations, including any test pit backfill, should be recompacted prior to concrete
placement.
Floor slabs can be supported on grade if site preparation is accomplished as
previously recommended, or can be supported by structural fill directly overlying firm native
7505-A West Lake Sammamish Parkway Northeast Redmond, Washington 98052 425-882-4850 www.tubbs.com
Z
0
1
0
M
--I -n
M
M 0
0
0
0 C:
M
M Z
g:) --I
C
0)
0 71
n
M M
0
0
0 M
C (/)
9 C/)
M 0
Z
X
Z
Z
0
0
M
.4
Firstline Construction, Inc.
January 9, 2004
Page 5
soil. The subgrade soils should be proof -rolled as recommended above and compacted using
vibratory equipment or replaced with compacted structural fill if loose areas are observed.
A base course layer consisting of a minimum thickness of 4 inches of clean gravel containing
no more than 5 percent fines should be placed beneath the floor slab to provide uniform
support and a capillary break.
FOUNDATION RETAINING WALLS
The basement walls for the proposed residence function as retaining walls and shall
be designed as such. Assuming that the walls that are allowed to deflect 0.01 times the
height of the wall, we recommend an active lateral pressure equivalent to a fluid density of
40 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), assuming level backfill compacted and drained as outlined
below. If the backfill surface slopes no steeper than 2H: IV percent upward away from the
wall, a lateral soil pressure value of 60 pcf should be used.
Resistance to lateral footing loads can be developed both through friction on the base
of the footings and passive pressures along the sides. Friction resistance on the base of the
footing be computed using an internal soil friction angle of 30 degrees. Passive soil
pressures may be computed using an equivalent fluid pressure of 300 pounds per cubic foot,
providing the backfill around footings is compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry
density (ASTM D-1557). These resistance values include a factor of safety of about 1.5.
The above lateral soil pressures assume the walls will be backfilled with clean, free -
draining sand or sand and gravel containing less than 5 percent fines (material passing the
No. 200 sieve). This drainage zone should be at least 18 inches thick horizontally. The
drainage material and remaining backfill placed behind thewall and not supporting Structural
elements should be compacted to approximately 90 percent of the maximum dry density.
Heavy compaction equipment should not be operated within 3 feet of the retaining walls; no
compaction tests will be necessary within 3 feet of the walls.
A permanent subsurface drainage system should be installed at the base of all
subsurface walls. These subdrains should consist of rigid, smooth -wall, 4-inch-diameter
(minimum) perforated PVC pipe, nonwoven filter fabric such as Mirafi drainage product or
equal, and surrounded by pea gravel or well -graded gravelly sand or sandy gravel with less
than 3 percent fines (soil finer than the No. 200 mesh sieve) based on the fraction smaller
than 3/4 inch. The drainpipes should discharge into tightlines sloped to drain by gravity to
the existing storm sewer system. Roof drains shall not discharge into the footing drain
system.
7505-A West Lake Sammamish Parkway Northeast Redmond, Washington 98052 425-882-4B50 www.tubbs.com
Z
0
A
0
M
--i -n
Fn
M
0 i
0
__10
0 C
M
M Z
—Z
0 -n
MIT!
5)
0 r-
0 M
C Cn
9 0
M 0
Z
Z
US
Z
0
q
0
M
Firstline Construction, Inc.
January 9, 2004
Page 6
SITE DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL
We understand that the City of Edmonds requires water to be routed through an on -
site infiltration trench prior to being conveyed to the storm sewer system. We recommend
that the bottom of the infiltration trench be sufficiently deep and distant from any adjacent
downhill slopes so as to meet the setback requirements specified above for footings. We
Z
0
that water from footing drains be routed directly to the storm sewer via a tight
0
recommend
line. If the footing drains must be routed through the infiltration trench, the outlet from the
M
infiltration trench to the storm sewer shall be at an elevation at least 3 feet lower than the
=i 9
footing drains in order to avoid the possibility of water from roof drains backing up into the
M
C
footing drain system.
M
0
--10
0
The surficial soils within the subject property are susceptible to potential erosion and
C
shallow debris slides if disturbed by construction or other activities. Erosion controls are
M
M Z
therefore recommended, including the proper control of surface water runoff, minimizing the
C Z
time of exposure in the area stripped during construction, and prompt revegetation.
co
LIMITATIONS
0 -n
n
This report has been prepared for Firstline Construction, Inc. and its representatives
3:9
MIMI
for use in planning, permitting and designing residential development of Lots 2 and 3.
0 V5
0 r-
Descriptions of subsurface conditions relative to foundation support and other aspects of the
0 M
C cn
proposed development are based on surface observations and shallow subsurface
K CD
Q 0
Z
explorations, and conditions should be confirmed by observations in the excavations at the
time of construction.
X
Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been
>
Z
accomplished in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical practices followed in this
3:
area at the time the report was prepared. No warranty, expressed or implied, should be
Cn
Z
understood.
0
M
7505-A West Lake sammamish Parkway Northeast Redmond, Washington 98052 425-882-4850 www.tubbs.com
Firstline Construction, Inc.
January 9, 2004
Page 7
We trust that this report meets your present needs. If you have any questions
regarding this report or if we can provide additional services, please call.
Yours very truly,
0% ash
Tubbs Geosciences z
0
V4
0
M
756
0 rn
ed 0
rn
0
-40
Tubbs Donald W. Tubbs, Ph.D.
M
Engineering Geologist M
z
NT S.
C
W z
3:
0
o -n
-n
24330
rn M
j /ST
/0 AL Enayat S. Aziz, P.E. 0 r_:
0 M
FEXPIRES: 12/24/04 Geotechnical Engineering consultant to CO
rn 0
Tubbs Geosciences Z r"
Document ID: HAL201R 1 3:
z
3:
C()
z
0
0
M
7505-A West Lake Sammamlsh Parkway Northeast Redmond, Washington 98052 425-882-4850 www.tubbs.com
11
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE
IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
all f
'0�
so
ul
It as
A a
A
em
..... .....
ul
LL
WAR 40 1
Ion
7'
V or
Ib
JrL It
oil A
a _J1
A
5 A a 0 9
0 11
L I,
ik
41
j. 0 one.
Is
Ir—
u-"o.80
L
Nil
%
a was
ir a
—IN
zl�i -
k! LIJ
fl" Am
Alp,
Pb a
94
ca
r V
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE
IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
to
dF"
Zi C-4
rr, 101
V5 LL
IL
19
VA
co k
'64- .,-A
.0 P,
J� P. ftw cw
dO Z1
All. G..,
1� me
(LIIJ
cn
co
FT Are CEI
I-O,RIGINA.L
4'- V QUARZY 5 zusz
I"MINUS WASHED TkOCK- AS NSEDE-D
FILTIM FA%VUC AS NEEDG-0
PEOLF PIPE AS NSEDr--D
FOV- 5LJ155LJV_r-Ar_E wk-TF-p'.
EXCA\1'eknow ONLN(
Rockery walls shall be constructed of rocks in the following size categories:
Two -man rocks (300 to 600 pounds), 13" in least dimension;
Three-man rocks (800 to 1200 pounds), 16" in least dimension;
Four -man rocks (1500 to 2200 pounds), 18 " in least dimension.
The rock material shall be hard, sound, durable and free frorr weathered portions, seams, cracks, and
other defects. Rocks should be as tabular in shape as possible; rounded or very angular rocks shall be
avoided.
The larger rocks shall be placed at the base of the wall. Four -man rocks shall be used for the bottom
course in walls higher than 6 feet. The lowest course of rocks shall be keyed into firm foundation
material at least 12 inches below the adjacent grade.
Rocks shall be selected and placed to minimize void space between rocks. Rocks shall be placed in
a manner such that the long axis of the rock is normal to the face of the wall. To the greatest extent
possible, rocks shall be placed with faces in contact; point contact shall be avoided. Inclining interfaces
between rocks shall slope downward toward the back of the wall. After setting each course of rock,
voids between the rocks shall be chinked on the back with quarry rock to eliminate any voids larger than
two inches across.
TUBBSU@08COSM3 .3
ROCKERY WALL SCHEMATIC
FIGURE 3
Z
0
i
0
M
APPENDIX A
�J
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS
The subsurface conditions within the subject site and adjacent areas were explored by
0
excavating six test pits with a track -mounted backhoe on December 19, 2003. The test pit
M
locations are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. The locations are approximate and were
estimated in the field based on site features shown on the Site Plan. The explorations were
5i
backfilled with the excavated material and compacted with the backhoe bucket.
C M
The test pits were continuously monitored by an erigineering geologist from our firm
M 0
0
-10
0
who observed the materials encountered, noted ground water conditions and maintained a
C
M M
detailed log of each exploration. The soils encountered were classified in general accordance
M Z
with the classification system shown in Figure A- 1. The test it logs are presented in Figures
p
C z
A-2 through A-3.
co
0 _n
_n
M M
0 U5
0
0
CM
CI).
9 0)
M 0
Z
M
z
0
M
SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
GROUP
MAJOR DIVISIONS
SYMBOL
GROUPNAME
GRAVEL
CLEAN GRAVEL
GW
WELL -GRADED GRAVEL, FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL
COARSE
GRAINED
GP
POORLY -GRADED GHAVEL
SOILS
More Than 50%
of Coarse Fraction
-GRAVEL
GM
SILTY GRAVEL
Retained
WITH FINES
GC
CLAYEY GRAVEL
on No. 4 Sieve
SAND
CLEAN SAND
SW
WELL -GRADED SAND, FINE TO COARSE SAND
More Than 50%
Retained on
No. 200 Sieve
SP
POORLY -GRADED SAND
More Than 50%
of Coarse Fraction
SAND
SM
SILTY SAND
Passes
WITH FINES
SC
CLAYEY SAND
No. 4 Sieve
FINE
SILT AND CLAY
ML
SILT
GRAINED
INORGANIC
-
CL
CLAY
SOILS
ORGANIC
OL
ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC CLAY
Liquid Limit
Less Than 50
SILT AND CLAY
MH
SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY, ELASTIC SILT
More Than 50%
INORGANIC
Passes
CH
CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAY
No. 200 Sieve
Liquid Limit
ORGANIC
I
OH
ORGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC SILT
50 or More
I
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
PT
PEAT
NOTES: SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS:
1 Field classification is based on visual examination of soil in Dry - Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch
general accordance with ASTM D2488-90.
Moist - Damp, but no visible water
2. Soil classification using laboratory tests is based on ASTM Wet - Visible free water or saturated, usually soil is obtained
D2487-90. from below water table
3. Descriptions of soil density or consistency are based on
interpretation of blow count data, visual appearance of soils,
and/or test data.
TUBBSUBDOCT31no(Ba
SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
FIGURE A-1
z
0
A
0
M
--i -n
M
C
M
0
0
0 C
M
M z
C
0 -n
n
M M
0
0
0 M
C ce)
9 Cl)
M 0
Z
X
>
z
X
Cn
z
0
M
I
LOG OF TEST PIT
DEPTH BELOW
SOIL GROUP
GROUND
CLASSIFICATION
SURFACE
SYMBOL
DESCRIPTION
(FEET)
TEST PIT TP� I
0-1.0
SP
Dark brown sand with some gravel, some silt, some roots (loose, damp)
[topsoil]
1.0-4.0
SM
Medium brown silty sand with some gravel, some roots
Z'
(medium dense, damp) [Vashon recessional outwashl
0
1"
4.0-5.0
SP
Gray sand with some gravel, trace of silt, trace of roots (dense, damp)
0
M
[Vashon recessional outwashl
5.0-7.0
SM
Gray silty sand with some gravel (very dense, damp)
--I -n
[Vashon till]
0
fJ"
M
C
7.0-9.0
SP
Gray sand with some gravel, trace of silt (very dense, damp)
M 0
[Vashon advance outwashl
0
0
0 C
Bottom of test pit at 9.0 feet on 12/19/03
M
No groundwater seepage observed
ITIZ
-1
TEST PIT TP�2
CD
0.0.5
SM
Dark brown silty sand with some gravel, some roots (loose, damp)
0 -n
-n
[topsoil]
x
0.5,1.5
SP
Brownish gray gravelly sand with trace of silt, trace of roots
M M
(medium dense, damp) [Vashon recessional outwashl
0 C-0
1.5 -3.5
SP
Gray sand with some gravel, trace of silt, trace of roots (medium dense, damp)
0 F—
0 M
C CD
[Vashon recessional outwashl
9 Cn
M 0
z
3.5 5.5
SM
Gray sand with some gravel, trace of silt, trace of roots (very dense, damp)
[Vashon advance outwashl
Bottom of test pit at 5.5 feet on 12/19/03
-4
X;
No groundwater seepage observed
z
co
z
0
0
M
DEPTHS ON THE TEST
PIT LOGS, SHOWN TO 0.1
FOOT, SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE TO 0.5 FOOT
LOG OF TEST PIT
TUBBS �Wr'On-7)o a (,;Z� 0 (�:'=:D n C 65, IrR3
FIGURE A-2
DEPTH BELOW
GROUND
SURFACE
I (FEET)
0-2.5
2.5-3.5
3.5-4.0
4.0-7.0
7.0-9.0
0-0.5
6.0-3.0
3.0-6.0
SOIL GROUP
CLASSIFICATION
SYMBOL
M
SP
SM
SM
SP
SP
SP
SP
LOG OF TEST PIT
DESCRIPTION
TEST PIT TP-3
Brown sand with some gravel, some silt, trace of roots, some construction debris
(loose, damp) [fill]
Gray sand with some gravel, some Silt, some roots, some construction debris
(medium dense, damp) [fill]
Dark brown silty sand with some gravel, some roots (medium dense, damp)
[buried topsoil]
Medium brown silty sand with some gravel, some roots (medium dense, damp)
[Vashon recessional ourwashl
Brownish gray sand with some silt, trace of gravel, trace of roots (dense, damp)
[Vashon advance outwashl
Bottom of test pit at 9.0 feet on 12/19/03
No groundwater seepage observed
TEST PIT TP-4
Dark brown sand with some gravel, some silt, some roots (loose, damp)
[topsoil]
Brownish gray sand with trace of gravel, some silt, trace of roots
(medium dense, damp) [Vashon recessional outwashl
Brownish gray sand with some gravel, some silt, trace of roots (very dense, damp)
[Vashon advance outwashl
Bottom of test pit at 9.0 feet on 12/19/03
No groundwater seepage observed
DEPTHS ON THE TEST PIT LOGS, SHOWN TO 0.1 FOOT, SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE TO 0.5 FOOT
TUBBS Uc� @"s, 602) a 0 e-\; n C a
LOG OF TEST PIT
FIGURE A-3
n
DEPTH BELOW
GROUND
SURFACE
I (FEET)
0.3.5
3.5-4.5
4.5-7.0
0-1.0
1.0-2.0
2.0-6.0
6.0-7.0
SOIL GROUP
CLASSIFICATION
SYMBOL
SM
SM
SP
SM
SM
SP
SP
LOG OF TEST PIT
DESCRIPTION
TEST PIT TP-5
Dark brown silty sand with some gravel, some roots (medium dense, damp)
(fill]
Reddish brown silty sand with trace of gravel, trace of roots (medium dense, damp)
[Vashon recessional outwashl
Medium brown sand with some silt, trace of gravel, trace of roots
(medium dense, damp) [Vashon recesssional outwashl
Bottom of test pit at 7.0 feet on 12/19/03
No groundwater seepage observed
TEST PIT TP-6
Medium grayish brown silty sand with some gravel, trace of roots (dense, damp)
[fill]
Dark brown silty sand with trace of gravel, some roots ( medium dense, damp)
(buried topsoil]
Medium grayish brown sand with some silt, trace of gravel (medium dense, damp)
(Vashon recessional outwashl
Brownish gray sand with some silt, some gravel (dense to very dense, damp)
[Vashon advance OUtwashl
Bottom of test pit at 7.0 feet on 12/19/03
No groundwater seepage observed
DEPTHS ON THE TEST PIT LOGS, SHOWN TO 0.1 FOOT, SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE TO 0.5 FOOT
LOG OF TEST PIT
TUBBS�W5
1�mt FIGURE A-4
z
0
0
M
=n-
0
IT!
C
M 0
0
0
0 C
M
M Z
> z
CD
0 -n
-n
MITI
0
0
0 ITI
C
0)
M 0
z
z
z
0
0
M
A
W _..
TUBBS (3900C � 9 n C 8,03 Date: 5/18/04
F I E L D REPORT Page: I of I
Owner: Firstline Construction, Inc. Project: 10308 - 242"" Place SW
File #: FIR 1 -0 1 Permit #: 2004-0349
Purpose of visit: Foundation inspection Field report #: 2
Weather: Sunny Prepared by: Donald W. Tubbs
I arrived at the site at 1: 15 Orn.
The foundation excavations are complete. The floor of the foundation excavation is directly
underlain by native soils consisting of glacial outwash sand. The soils within the footing areas
have been compacted using hand -operated vibratory compaction equipment.
I probed the soils within the foundation area usinar a half -inch steep probe, and observed that the
native soils have been compacted to a dense condition. The compacted soils within the
foundation area were verified as suitable for the design bearing value of 2000 psf provided in our
geotechnical report dated January 9, 2004.
I left the site at t:45 pm.
Attachments:
Distribution:
7505-A West U
Parkway
kEl C E I V
200
Vic!
D L-.>Vh I E N T S VICES CTR.
r 'ITY 0<
m
.ITy OF EDM S
Signed:
RECEIVED
W 2 0 2004
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR.
CITY OF EDMONDS
eLl"I
42b-882-4850 WWW.tUt)DS.COM
z
0
M
X
m
MO
0
--1 0
0 C
-4
:C m
m z
C - z
0 -n
m M
a
0
0 M
C C/)
K CO)
M 0
Z
z
0)
z
0
i
0
M
Height Calculation Worksheet
Address: 0366c) L I
Date:
hWect
1. Datum Point:
z
2. Datum Point Elevation:
3.
M
3. Average Grade: 3 S b
A 3--S3
4.. Maximum Elevation Allowed L_(averttgd grade) 4 25'"
0 M
C
M 0
-40
5. Reference Point Elevation Shot to House:
0 C
(datum elevatign) 4tc:) Z)
(grade to transit level line shot to house) I OLD I,--
M
M z
--i
6. Measurements from line shot onto house to roof zidge:'
C z
"7 -7
o -n
M M
0
0
0 M
C W
M 0
Z
:C
z
W
z
0
Total
0
M
7. Actual Elevatiow) (reference point elevation) + (measurements
from #6) �& -1-7
Conclusion:
ater less a I I
'na
(actual) is gre th-, 9 (allowed); therefore the house is/
is not over the height requiremZ per E& 16.20.30 requirements
n
0
4
GARY HAAKENSON
CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR
f
EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 FAX (425) 771-0221
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH Website: www.ci-edmondsma.us
DEVELOPMENTSERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning - Building Engineering
sc)"
August 24, 2004
0
0
M
Firstline Construction Inc.
944 Maple St. :R
US
Edmonds, WA 98020
0 M
C
M
0
0
Re: Building Perrilit: 2004-0349 0 C
Site Address: 10308 242"" P1. SW
M
M z
Expiration Date: May 11, 2005 10
z
the last remaining inspection on your >
The purpose of this letter is to infOrM You that
-lines that there are no
project is a final inspection(s). Tile final inspection(s) detern
co
rill -n
-et _n
outstanding life-saf y issues and approval allows the City to close your pe it file. 0
The City considers the final inspection to be one of the most important inspections M M
conducted on a project. In order to grant final approval tile following must be complete: 0—
co
0
se numbers, guardrails, handrails, self -close doors between garage r
smoke detectors, hou 0 M.
C C0
and residence, egress from sleeping rooms, safety glazing, weather-stripping, any M Cn
Engineering department requirements etc. Of course not all of these things 1-nay M 0.
Z
specifically apply to your project but it does give you an idea about the kinds of things
that must be complete as well as some items that do not need to be installed such as:
paint, carpet, moldings, wallpaper, etc. Please be advised pernlits expire one year from
the date Of issuance. If You will need nlore time to complete the work, permits can be
renewed prior to expiration for one hal f fees. if tile permit expires without a final
approval granted by the BuildingInspector, full fees are required in order to renew tile
permit. This can be very costly to you and we strongly encourage you to check your 0
permit expiration date and call for tile required Final inspection(s). Note: If more than
one department is required to final your project, this is noted oil your Job Card. M
Please feel free to contact me at 425-771-0220 if you have any questions.
Ile- ly
J, 11 y Rcadwv
Ppin
Ilit Coor
P -nit Coordinator
1X1'en11)\DS'1— 5% taster 1-c(1crs\,SR%vaam1-trS1'-R
Incorporated August 11, 1890
Sister Citv - Hekinan, Japan
FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL.FORM
TO:
DATE:
MEMOTO: PERMIT COORDINATOR, BUILDING DIVISION
FIRE DEPARTMENT DATE—__�
..FROM:.
ENGINEERING DIVISION DATE
fix
-*XAd I"
PLANNING DIVISION DATEL—__�_
5
SITE ADDRESS_J�Jo ZVI/
#_________PATE.INSPECTED—
PERMIT# ADB
DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO -BE INSPECMD___��E
A fleld inspection was cbndu'cted to determine final compliance with.approved Plans- Final approval
t to the release of
denotes that there an no objections from the above signed Departmen
PERFORMANCE BONDS and the granting of:
GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL
...............
GRANT PROJECT APPROVAL wrrH CONDITIONS NOTED
C, Copy of CONDITIONS given to. owner/contractor by inspector
FAILED FiNAL INSPECTION - OUTSTANDING ISSUES
a Co , of,CORRECTION NOTICE given to owner/contractor by inspector
py
2.
3.
RE -INSPECTED OUTSTANDING ISSUES - GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL
Si
0CaMLdoc.1:temp:b1dg:f0=S10101
I
z
0
M
--i -n
U5 ---ri
0 M
C
M 0
0
C)
0 C::
—i g
3: M
M Z
r') -4
C 1> -2
Cn
o -n
n 7d
>
M M
0 &5
0 r-
0 M
C: cl)
9 C/)
M C-)
Z r-
M
z
--I
3:
Cn
z
0
1
0
M
RECORD OF INSPECTIONS
INSPECTOR DATE APPROVED
SETBACKS ..................... i4
FOUNDATION:
Footing ......................
Wall ..........................
Pier/Porch .................
Retaining Wall ...........
Slab Insulation ..........
PLUMBING:
Underground .............
'An
V" v
Rough -in ...................
Commercial Final ......
HEATING:
Gas Test ....................
Gas Piping .................
Equipment .................
Commercial Final .......
EXTERIOR SHEATHING
NAILING ..........................
tJ —,z i
FRAMING ........................ Cn CZ
_4
FIRST FLOOR FRAMING ... 0
INSULATION ...................
U
Floor Insulation ......... . ....
0
C,4_
Wall Insulation ...........
7:
Ceiling Insulation .......
ct
C)
4- rn
SHEETROCK NAILING ...
SPECIAL INSPECTION ...
MISCELLANEOUS ..........
FINAL APPROVAL FOR
OCCUPANCY ..................
200qww.03q7 v0000'
The Initials MT are Milton
Thompson,a temporary contract
inspector for the City.
z
0
4
0
M
--I -n
0 M
M 0
0
0
0
M
M Z
C _Z
Cn
0 _n
n
x
M M
0 _V)
0 r-
0 M
C (1)
F. Cn
Q 0
Z
z
z
0
i
0
M