20040560.pdfDATE RECEIVED
4
CITY OF EDMONDS
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION
OWNER NAME/NAME OF BUSINESS
_L\J� 1i (' 10 L - �7�c
W MAILING ADDRESS
W
z
0
CITY ZIP
k�l
TELEPHONE
i . - .
ADDRESS
--KICA- ZT2,
CITY Ue- ZIP TELEPHONE
7211
Lk — 211
NAME I CBL ts I
ADDRESS I
:m cq- 212-1-111 e�
CITY ZIP
STATE LICENSE NUMBER
'A 16 ) V ) I I _11r
TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL NO.
TELEPHONE
::-I- _j - ( (. )
�XPIRATION DATE
A . I (-I . / - 6-Itz
-&-NEW
-.Z-RESIDENTIAL
ADDITION
COMMERCIAL
REMODEL
MULTIFAMILY
REPAIR
'YDS
DEMOLISH
TANK
GARAGE
RETAINING WALL
CARPORT
ROCKERY
CrYPE OF USE, BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN.-
e._� :
I
L\�M
I �<
NUMBER
NUMBER OF
OF
DWELLING
STORIES
UNITS
DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE
1\)I L��\/\-J
(" (
l;IE URCE
t�_, illso,
'PLAN CHECK NO:
V
-:z
'7/
PERMIT EXPIRES L
USE PERMIT
ZONE
NUMBER
JOB SUITE/APT#
ADDRESSr'
PLAT NAME/SUBDIVISION NO, LOT NO. LID NO.
/8 7 lkvci,�Nor�;j) LID FEE $
TESCP Approved
PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP RW Permit Required
Street Use Permit Roq'd
EXISTING PROPOSED inspection Required
sidewalk Required
Underground
REQUIRED DEDICATION FT wiring required
METER SIZE LINE SIZE NO. OF FIXTURES PRV REQUIRED
Y ES
ES NO
REMARKS
OWN E R/CON TRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROUDRAINAGE
IZEO'l N:s t-'Ec -r / n r,4 Cs) ('VtSg:Z0_�, i n
i(ArCQ iiii`
EERING REVIE
),-/I Q
REVIEWED BY
DATE
:L/./
DATE
VARIANCE OR CU SHORELINE OR ADS# I INSPECTION I BOND
BY REWi POSTED
DYES �kNO Is
SEPA REVIEW SIGN AREA HEIGHT
COMPLETE EXEMPT ALLOWED PROPOSED ALLOWED PROPOSED
EXP
PLUMBING / MECH LOT COVERAGE REQUIRED SETBACKS (FT.) PROPOSED SETBACKS (Fr.)
ALLOWED. PROPOSED FRONT SID�
] ,;R,.,,,FRgNT 1.4RSID� REAR,
3 4Z
COMPLIANCE OR .3 q z
CHANGE OF USE z
5 Yc' —7 .7 6' �L7
PARKING OT AREA I P(�NINCG REVIEWFO Y DATE 5
EO
SIGN R , 'D I PRQ�IDED 61 /0 q
FENCE k 6
5
W
( X FT) REMARKS
OTHER
FIRE SPRINKLER
FIRE ALARM
C��EKED BY TYPE OF C RUCTION CODE OCCUPANT
GROUP
CRITICAL 12-
AREAS SPECIAL INSPECTION JAREA OCCUPANT
NUMBER -1,2 �r � ]�� REQUIRED M I LOAD
)Iz_
YES Cl
REMARKS
PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 108/FINAL INSPECTION REQ1D
FEE Description FEE
State Surcharge
City Surcharge
/ 7
�!, // c/ 4:::�
Mechanical
THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO
t BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC Grading
DOMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE o
SEPARATE PERMISSION.
Engr. Review
cc zV-40-
ut PERMIT APPLICATION: 180 DAYS
CL PERMIT LIMIT., I YEAR - PROVIDED WORK IS STARTED WITHIN 180 DAYS Engr. Inspection
SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION
Cn Fire Review Plan Chk. Deposit
(n 'APPLICANT. ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS. ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS
uj IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF
2 EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS. EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND Fire Inspection Receipt #
ALI- CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE
Landscapelnsp. Total Amt. Due
DEEMED TO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE
0 NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITY'S ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION,'
X1 Recording Fee Receipt #
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION, THAT THE INFORMATION APPLICATION APPROVAL
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 CONSTRLIC- CALL This application is not a permit until signed by the
TION, AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY. NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED Building Official or his/her Deputy: and Fees are paid, and
IN VI,01:A ON OF THE LABO 1700i� OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO FOR INSPECTION receipt is acknowledged in space provided.
W?RKME S COMPENSATA URA E AND RCW 18.2T
OFFIC41AUS SIGNATURE DATE
(425)
,tGNAOTU (bWNER A6 NT DATE SIGNED
_'7
771 RELEASED BY,
.0220 -4'� dATE
'I�E
ATTENT)bN EXT 1333
7//,
IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL L
A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTIFI- ORIGINA11,�fjL�� YELLOW - INSPECTOOR
CATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC SECTION 109 PINK - I ASSESSOR
04/02 PRESS HARD -YOU ARE MAKING 5 COPIES GREEN - ACCOUNTING
GLAZING % L SLO %
iA /47
"ESTED DATE
VALUATION
$
Description
Plan Check
Building Permit
z
0
M
(j)
M
M
0
--i C)
0 C:
--I K
X M
M Z
ID --I
C
X
(n
0 _n
n X
>
M M
0_(1)
0 r_
0 M
Cn
Cn
M 0
Z
z
__4
X
0)
z
0
A
0
ITI
I
I
SITE BENCHMARK
55MH
TOF'387.54
- , "r" A-
7, ( ril
:S,0 4 i
.n�- -�
q�R qon
0 r `1� ne. P, `50 z
Nx
r�'W-XTER
> 7-- LIN E7%
, 'a C #3-TYPE 1 1
uj -u r -
foF, = 40,0.9..,-r*
ri V6A Q�ADING I E (5 -y4-44 - 0t714- I N
2 ' )7 ;�nili
ROCKERY A 1�) L 407.3�OUT
'RY PERMIT
G_)!PT,()T GYR AT
470 29.50' D
RF.C:FIVF
40�396 3 8 0 4921
JUL 7 20b4
-40*-O,rop-404.20
SS
I E - 395.55 P6RMIT COUNTER
- -------- - I --- ,
0141Z�
,416
i A'i 9
422
/4,24
AVE. GRADE
03.25'
B. 414.75'(409.75+419.75'/2)
C. 425.00'
D. 404.00'
7-4= 411.75'
MAX HEIGHT: 436.75'
ACTUAL HEIGHT: 436.75'
FOOTING= 403.50'
SLAB = 412.00'
1STFL. =412.00'
2ND FL. = 422,00'
IMPERVIOUS AREA
BUILDING: 2,838.01 SQ. F1'.
DRIVEVVAY- 750.03 SQ. FT.
DECK: 118.77 SQ. FT.
PATIO: 170.67 SO. F-E
TOTAL: 3,384.35 SQ. Fr.
LOT COVERAGE:
2,385.25/9,638.00 = 25%,
PTA: 003-7360-0501-502
FILTER FENCE
-426
WATER & SEWER INSPECTION REQ-0
CD/
CALL 425.771,0220 EXT 1326
FOOTING DRAINS NOT TO 13E
TIED INTO DETENTION 5Y5TEM
8
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION
ENTRANCE REQ'D
77 w—,*. I
ALL EXPOSED SURFACES TO
"LA
13E COVERED WITHIN 2 DAYS
CONTRACTOR 15 RE5PON51DLE
SCALE: I" = 20'-0"
FOR ER05ION CONTROL & DRAINAGE
9
comer No Flag Yt
Zone
Setbacks
red Actual
Front
T-6
7 6' IG q
Sides
-7 7
Rear
11�7
Other
H�Zht
Height Calculation Worksheet
Address: 49K'J M 'J&js 4 A
_VI
Date: A - 2
Inspector(s): Dn 4�,
1. Datum Point:
2. Datum Point Elevation: if
3. AverageGrade:
.4. Maximum Elevation AHowed: LIU,- '25"
.7�(aver-Age e)' -S
&ad +
5. Reference Point Elevation Shot to House:
'shot to house) I �0, 0 3
B(datum elevation)— 2-7-2.2 (grade to transit level tine
6. Measurements from line shot onto house to roof ridge:
14
Totid
7. Actual Elevation: -LLLc,� (reference point elevation) + 2-L A4 -(measurements
from #6)
Conclusion:
es than 4U,T (allowed); therefore the house is/
(actual) is greater /0
is not over the height requirement per ECDC 16.20-30 requirements
z
0
i
0
M
r-"""ITY COPY
DONNA L. BRESKE, P.E. 6621 Foster Slough Rd. Snohomish, WA 98290
Phone: 425-334-9980 Fax: 425-334-7380
DETENTION SIZING WORKSHEETS
FOR
MICHEL CONSTRUCTION INC
RECEIV
4-LOT SHORT PLAT MAY 2 4 2004
PERMIT COUNTER
DATE: MAY 1, 2003
SITE:
8715 BOWDOIN WAY
EDMONDS, WA 98026
2W-3
DRAINAGE - DETENTION - INSPECTION - GRADING & TESC
SEWER & WATER - FEASEBILITY - SITE DEVELOPNIENT
z
0
M
SHARE)) 1�r_C255 PRIV5WAY- IMP ARE�9 = 1�570 SF
TABLE 1 —
DETENTION PIPE SIZES
IMPERMEABLE REQUIRED
PIPE DIAMETER
AREA SO FT VOL CU FT
15" 18" 24" 3011
2000 50
40 28 16 10
2500 62
3000 75
50 35 20 13
60 42 24 15 REQUIRED PIPE
3500 87
70 49 28 18 LENGTH IN FEET
4000 100
4500 112
80 56 32 21
90 63 C3�) 23
z
5000 125
100 70 _4D 25
0
NOTE: ALLO VABLE PIPE MATERIALS
ALLOWABLE TIGHTLINE MATERIALS
0
m
rRoNFORCED CONCRETE
'ED
SDR35 (ASTM D-30,54) PVC
N —12 ADS (DOUBLE WALLED)
IZ STEEL
)MINI
ALu
)AL MINUM (16GA)
U,
SCHED 40 PVC
CD m
0 M
Mp (ASPHALT COATED)
HANCOR (F81 0) PVC
c
M 0
CN-12 ADS (2' MINIMUM COVER UNDER
ROADS/DRIVEWAY S)
0
—1 0
0
IT!
TABLE 2— OUTLET
ORIFICE SIZES
m z
c —Z
> --I
IMPERVIOUS
SO FT
OUTLET ORIFICE DIAMETER (INCHES)
3:
cn
-AREA
2000
5/8
0 -n
-n
5/8
3/4
3000
3500
3/4
MITI
0 U5
4000
00-4500
7/B
0
0 M
C cn
5000
7/8
9 cn
M 0
Z r-
TABLE 3— RECTANGULAR CATCH BASIN REQUIREMENTS
[TABLE 3— RECTA NGU
DETENTION MAX SIZE
**CATCH BASIN
3:
>
z
PIPE DIAMETER KNOCKOUT
TYPE
<18" 20"
TYPE 1, CB 15
3:
cn
18" TO 24" 2611
TYPE IL, CB 16 -
z
24" TO 36" 3611
TYPE 11, CB 19 �48 BASIN�
0
36" TO 42" 42"
TYPE 11, CB 19 54" BASIN
m
**SOURCE: ASSOC. SAND AND GRAVEL CO. STDS.
N:* A
REVISIONS
STAN DAR D D ETAI L
DAlr__
TABLE OF STANDARD RESIDENTIAL DETENTION SYSTEM SIZES
1890-19913
DATE 7/24/01
SCALE NTS
DWG NO. E5.12
LOT-2 IMPERVIOD5 PrRP4 000- 5r'
Or- 3
ck
Lo-r-
TABLE 1 -
DETENTION
PIPE SIZES
IMPERMEABLE
REQUIRED
PIPE DIAMETER
AREA SQ FT
VOL CU FT
15"
18"
24"
301p
2000
50
40
28
16
10
2500
62
50
35
20
13
3000
75
60
42
24
15 REQUIRED PIPE
3500
87
70
49
18 LENGTH IN FEET
—0'4000
100
80
56
21
4500
112
90
63
36
23
5000
125
100
70
40
25
NOTE: ALLOWABLE PIPE MATERIALS
ALLOWABLE TIGHTLINE MATERIALS
REINFORCED CONCRETE
ALUMINIZED STEEL
SDR35 (ASTM D-3034) PVC
N-12 ADS (DOUBLE WALLED)
ALUMINUM (1 6GA)
SCHED 40
PVC
CMP (ASPHALT COATED)
HANCOR (F81 0) PVC
N-12 ADS (2' MINIMUM COVER UNDER
ROADS/ DRIVEWAYS)
TABLE 2-
OUTLET ORIFICE SIZES
IMPERVIOUS
OUTLET ORIFICE DIAMETER (INCHES)
AREA SID FT
2000
5/8
5/8
3000
3/4
3500
3/4-
--lim-4000
C7/8)
4500
7 8
7-
5000
7/8
FABLE 3- RECTANGULAR CATCH BASIN REQUIREMENTS
DETENTION MAX SIZE
Leklr%�I�r%l 1r,
"CATCH BASIN
-rvmrr
<1 8" 20': TYPE 1, CB 15
18" TO 24" 261 TYPE IL, CB 16
24" TO 36" 36" TYPE 11, CB 19 �48- BASIN�
36" TO 42" 42" TYPE 11, CB 19 54- BASIN
**SOURCE: ASSOC. SAND AND GRAVEL CO. STDS.
SCALE Dwr. NO. E5.12
REVISIONS STAN DAR D D ETAI L
APPROV0 BY
TABLE OF STANDARD RESIDENTIAL DETENTION SYSTEM S17-ES
DATE
lag()_, qc3o 7/24/01 NTS
z
0
i
0
m
3:
m
c 0
m 0
--1 0
0 C
M
M z
c:
3:
0
m m
0
0 m
c: W
9 co
M 0
Z
X
3:
z
cl)
z
0
i
0
m
17719 Ono d� -
Dennis M. Bruce, RE.
M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical/ Civil Engineer
April 28, 2004
RECEIVED
MAY 2 4 2004
Michel Construction, Inc. i
7907212 th St. SW, #1 02 -4 IT COV PERMIT COUNTER
Edmonds, WA 98026 C
Subject: Geotechnicall Evaluation — Fou.ndation Recommendations
Proposed 3 New Residences (7117 T-70i ?T�*,)
8717 Bowdoin Way, Edmonds, Washington
This engineering report presents the results of a geotechnical evaluation of the
Michel Construction, Inc. property at 8717 Bowdoin Way, Edmonds, Washington. This
evaluation was required due to owner / developer concerns, as well as City of Edmonds
requirements.
REFERENCES:
0 Property Survey by LSA, Inc.
0 Proposed new 4-lot Site Plan by Michel Construction, Inc.
0 Photographs by D. Bruce, P.E. dated April 20, 2004
BACKGROUND:
The overall property at 8717 Bowdoin Way is irregular in shape with
approximately 50 feet of frontage along Bowdoin Way and approximately 270 feet deep.
The rear property line is approximately 200 feet wide (see Survey and Site Plan).
The property contains an existing residence (to remain) in what is now defined as
Lot No. 1.
Three new lots are defined and indicated on the Site Plan. Each of the 3 new
lots will contain a proposed new single-family residence.
The site contains portions of slopes exceeding.40 percent.
Visual evaluation of the existing residence reveals no evidence of any
geotechnical distress: no settlements, no foundation cracking, or any evidence of
erosional degradation.
SOILS - FOUNDATIONS - SITE DEVELOPMENT - INSPECTION - DRAINAGE - DESIGN & PERMIT - LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502 - Shoreline, Washington 98155 - (206) 546-9217 - FAX 546-8442
z
0
1
0
M
=i 9
M
C
M
0
-10
0 C
--i C
X M
M z
10 --1
C -Z
C')
o -n
n
MM
055
0 r-
0 M
C (n
9 C/)
M 0
Z
z
--I
X
CD
z
0
1
0
M
Michel Construction, Inc.
April 28, 2004
Page 2
The properties surrounding this site contain single-family and multi -family
dwellings.
EVALUATION:
In order to augment the existing site geotechnical information, 3 soil test pits
were dug under this engineer's observation on April 20, 20034 (1 test pit per proposed
house location). See test pit layout plan.
The findings of all 3 test pits revealed similar sub -grade conditions, namely:
0" to 8" Organics, roots, and organic silt
8" to 18" Reddish -brown sandy loam, grading to
sandy silt. Dense
18" to 6' (bottom of test pits) Very dense, glacially consolidated sandy silt
with gravels
No water was encountered in any of the three test pits. All test pit walls
remained vertical and stable. No sloughing or caving occurred.
NOTE: Project developer (Michel Construction, Inc.) had partially cleared the site
in order to perform test pit excavations. Additionally, the soil cut along the northeast
portion of the slope provided excellent examination of the sub -grade soils (see
photographs). The soil cut is approximately 8 feet in height and reveals extremely
dense, glacially consolidated "hard pan" soils. The slope cut is stable and does not
require shoring through the construction phase. It is understood that final grading will
incorporate an erosion stabilization rockery on this exposed soil cut.
CONCLUSIONS I RECOMMENDATIONS:
Based on the findings of this investigation, and experience with similar sites in
the area, the Michel Construction, Inc. property at 8717 Bowdoin Way, Edmonds,
Washington is geotechnically approved for the proposed new three single-family
residence development, subject to the following:
Standard reinforced continuous and spread footings. Allowable bearing
pressure: 2,000 p.s.f.
Equivalent fluid pressure of 35 p.c.f. is recommended for any retaining wall
design provided drainage zone is inspected and verified by this engineer.
For retaining wall design, use friction factor of 0.55 and passive pressure of 350
p.c,f.
Z
0
0
M
=i:fi
r
M
0
0
0
0 C
-19
X rn
M Z
nc --i
C/)
0 71
n
M M
0
0
0 M
C/)
0
M 0
Z
Z
U)
Z
0
1
0
M
Michel Construction, Inc.
April 28, 2004
Page 3
Geotechnical inspections by this engineer prior to any foundation concrete
placement.
The proposed structure can be supported on conventional continuous and
spread footings bearing on undisturbed native soils or on structural fill placed above
native soils. See the later sub -section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill for
structural fill placement and compaction recommendations. Continuous and individual
spread footings should have minimum widths of eighteen (18) and twenty-four (24)
inches, respectively, and should be bottomed at least eighteen (18) inches below the
lower adjacent finish ground surface.
Depending on the final site grades, some over -excavation may be required below
footings to expose competent native soils. Unless lean concrete is used to fill the over
excavated hole, the width of the over -excavation at the bottom must be at least as wide
as the sum of two times the depth of the over -excavation and the footing width. For
example, an over -excavation extending two feet below the bottom of a three-foot wide
footing must be at least seven feet wide at the base of the excavation.
Footings constructed according to the above recommendations may be designed
for an allowable soil bearing pressure of two thousand (2,000) pounds per square foot
(p.s.f.). A one-third increase in this design bearing pressure may be used when
considering short-term wind or seismic loads. For the above design criteria, it is
anticipated that total post -construction settlement of footings founded on competent,
native soils (or on structural fill up to five (5) feet in thickness) will be about one-half
inch, with differential settlements on the order of one -quarter inch.
NOTE: The bearing capacity of 3,000 p.s.f. applies to over -excavated and
backfill conditions. Footings placed on native soils may be designed for 2,000 p.s.f.
Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between
the foundations and the bearing soils, or by passive earth pressure acting on the
vertical, embedded portions of the foundations. For the latter condition, the foundations
must either be poured directly against undisturbed soil or the backfill placed around the
outside of the foundation must be level structural fill. We recommend the following
design values be used for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading:
Parameter Design Value
Coefficient of Friction 0.55
Passive Earth Pressure 350 p.c.f.
z
0
4
0
M
-i -n
�5 -4
0 M
C
M 0
0
__10
0
3: M
M z
cf)
0 _T1
n
M M
061)
0 r-
0 M
C C0
9(/)
M 0
Z
3:
z
--i
X
W
z
0
1
0
M
0
Michel Construction, Inc.
April 28, 2004
Page 4
Where:
(1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot.
(2) Passive earth pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid density.
We recommend that a safety factor of at least 1.5 be used for design of the
foundation's resistance to lateral loading.
SLABS -ON -GRADE:
Slab -on -grade floors may be supported on undisturbed, competent native soils or
on structural fill. The slabs may be supported on the existing soils provided these soils
can be re -compacted prior to placement of the free -draining sand or gravel underneath
the slab. This sand and gravel layer should be a minimum of four (4) inches thick. We
also recommend using a vapor barrier such as 6-mil. plastic membrane beneath the
slab with minimum overlaps of 12 inches for sealing purposes.
PERMANENT FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS:
Retaining walls backfilled on one side only should be designed to resist lateral
earth pressures imposed by the soils retained by these structures. The following
recommended design parameters are for walls less than twelve (12) feet in height,
which restrain level backfill:
Parameter
Active Earth Pressure*
Passive Earth Pressure
Coefficient of Friction
Soil Unit Weight
Where:
Design Value
35 p.c.f.
350 p.c.f.
0.55
125 p.c.f.
(1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot
(2) Active and passive earth pressures are computed using equivalent fluid
densities.
For restrained walls which cannot defect at least 0.002 times the wall
height, a uniform lateral pressure of one hundred (100 p.s.f. should be
added to the active equivalent fluid pressure).
z
0
1
0
M
-1
OM
C
MO
0
--10
0 C
3: M
M Z
C')
0 -n
n
M M
0
0
0 M
C: (j)
9 Cn
M
Z
X
z
3:
0)
z
0
i
0
M
Michel Construction, Inc.
April 28, 2004
Page 5
The values given above are to be used for design of permanent foundation and
retaining walls only. An appropriate safety factor should be applied when designing the
walls. We recommend using a safety factor of at least 1.5 for overturning and sliding.
The above design values do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures
behind the walls and assume that no surcharge slopes or loads will be placed above the
walls. If these conditions exist, then those pressures should be added to the above
lateral pressures. Also, if sloping backfill is desired behind the walls, then we will need
to be given the wall dimensions and slope of the backfill in order to provide the
appropriate design earth pressures.
Heavy construction equipment should not be operated behind retaining and
foundation walls within a distance equal to the height of the wall, unless the walls are
designed for the additional lateral pressures resulting from the equipment. Placement
and compaction of retaining wall backfill should be accomplished with hand -operated
equipment.
Retaining Wall Backfill
Backfill placed within eighteen (18) inches of any retaining or foundation walls
should be free -draining structural fill containing no organics. This backfill should contain
no more than five (5) percent silt or clay particles and have no particles greater than
four (4) inches in diameter. The percentage of particles passing the No. 4 sieve should
be between twenty-five (25) and seventy (70) percent. Due to their high silt content, if
the native soils are used as backfill, a drainage composite, such as Mirafi and
Enkadrain, should be placed against the retaining walls. The drainage composites
should be hydraulically connected to the foundation drain system. The purpose of these
backfill requirements is to assure that the design criteria for the retaining wall is not
exceeded because of a build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. The
subsection entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill contains recommendations
regarding placement and compaction of structural fill behind retaining and foundation
walls.
EXCAVATION AND SLOPES:
In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local,
state and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts up to a height of
four (4) feet deep in unsaturated soils may be vertical. For temporary cuts having a
height greater than four (4) feet, the cut should have an inclination no steeper than 1:1
(Horizontal:Vertical) from the top of the slope to the bottom of the excavation. Under
specific recommendations by the geotechnical engineer, excavation cuts may be
modified for site conditions. All permanent cuts into native soils should be inclined no
steeper than 2:1 (H:V). Fill slopes should not exceed 2H: 1 V. It is important to note that
z
0
1
0
M
=i 9
0 M
C
M 0
0
0 C:
-4 F.
MM
M Z
g:) --I
C
icn-
o -n
n
M M
0 V5
0 r-
0 M
C cl)
9 cn
M 0
Z
z
C/)
z
0
M
Michel Construction, Inc.
April 28, 2004
Page 6
sands do cave suddenly, and without warning. The contractors should be made aware
of this potential hazard.
NOTE: As discussed, this engineer approved and verified the stable slope cut at
the northeast portion of the property. This cut reposes at an angle of 1 H:6V and is
-geotechnically stable. This cut will be protected for erosional sloughing purposes
during the final grading phase of the project.
Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any temporary
or permanent slope. All permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an
appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve stability of the surficial
layer of soil.
DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS:
Footing drains are recommended at the base of all footings and retaining walls.
These drains should be surrounded by at least six (6) inches of one -inch -minus washed
rock wrapped in non -woven geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or similar
material). At the highest point, the perforated pipe invert should be at least as low as
the bottom of the footing and it should be sloped for drainage. All roof and surface
water drains must be kept separate from the foundation drain system.
No groundwater was observed in any of the 3 test pits during the fieldwork.
Seepage into the planned excavation is possible, and likely if excavation occurs during
winter months, and if encountered should be drained away from the site by use of
drainage ditches, perforated pipe, French drains, or by pumping from sumps
interconnected by shallow connector trenches at the bottom of the excavation.
The excavation of the site should be graded so that surface water is directed off
the site and away from the tops of slopes. Water should not be allowed to stand in any
area where foundations, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Any exposed
slopes to be covered with plastic to minimize erosion. Final site grading in areas
adjacent to buildings should be sloped at least two (2) percent away from the building,
except where the area adjacent to the building is paved.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL:
The proposed building and pavement areas should be stripped and cleared of all
surface vegetation, all organic matter, and other deleterious material. The stripped or
removed materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill.
Structural fill is defined as any fill placed under the building, behind permanent
retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the underlying soils needs to
Z
0
1
0
M
=i 9
C M
M 0
0
0
0 C
M
M Z
0 -1
C
3:
0 -n
Ti
--I
mg
M M
0
0
0 M
C cl)
9 cn
Q 0
Z
;U
Z
--I
3:
CO
Z
0
i
0
M
Michel Construction, Inc.
April 28, 2004
Page 7
support loads. This engineer should observe site conditions during and after excavation
prior to placement of any structural fill.
All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture content at or
near the optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content is that moisture
content which results in the greatest compacted dry density. The moisture content of fill
soils is very important and must be closely controlled during the filling and compaction
process.
The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type, compaction
equipment, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. In no case should the
lifts exceed twelve (12) inches in loose thickness. The following table presents
recommended relative compaction for structural fill:
Location of Fill Placement
Beneath footings, slabs or walkways
Behind retaining walls
Beneath pavements
Minimum Relative
Compaction
95%
90%
95% for upper 12 inches of
Sub -grade, 90% below that level
Where: Minimum relative compaction is the ratio, expressed in percentages, of
the compacted dry density to the maximum dry density, as determined in
accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1557-78 (Modified Proctor).
Use of On -Site Soils
If grading activities take place during wet weather, or when the silty, on -site soils
are wet, site preparation costs may be higher because of delays due to rains and the
potential need to import granular fill. The on -site soils are generally silty and thus are
moisture sensitive. Grading operations will be difficult when the moisture content of
these soils exceeds the optimum moisture content.
Moisture sensitive soils will also be susceptible to excessive softening and
"pumping" from construction equipment traffic when the moisture content is greater than
the optimum moisture content.
Ideally, structural fill, which is to be placed in wet weather, should consist of a
granular soil having no more than five (5) percent silt or clay particles. The percentage
Z
9
0
M
=i
M
M 0
0
0
0 C:
4 K
X M
M Z
g) --I
C
0
M M
0
0
0 M
C Cn
K (n
M 0
Z
X
Z
C/)
Z
0
1
0
M
Michel Construction, Inc.
April 28, 2004
Page 8
of particles passing the No. 200 sieve should be measured from that portion of the soil
pan tng-th-eFthr-ee--�u-9rt6r-i rfch-si eve.
The use of "some" on -site soils for fill material may be acceptable if the upper
organic materials are segregated and moisture contents are monitored by engineering
inspection.
DRAINAGE CONTROLS:
No drainage problems were evident with the overall property at 8717 Bowdoin
Way. Currently, surface water flows westerly and southwesterly. No evidence of
erosional degradation was observed.
Contractor shall utilize standard City of Edmonds erosion control measures
during construction to minimize / prevent any siltation runoff.
Permanent drainage shall comply with City of Edmonds Code and standard good
practices.
CONCRETE:
All foundation concrete (footings, stem walls, slabs, any retaining walls, etc.)
shall have a minimum cement content of 5-1/2 sacks per cubic yard of concrete mix.
ROCKERIES:
As discussed, the current stable slope cut at the eastern portion of the property
will use an approximate 8-foot high rockery for erosion control purposes.
Rockery construction shall comply to ARC Standards and this engineer's on -site
inspections.
INSPECTIONS:
The recommendations of this report are only valid when key geotechnical
aspects are inspected by this engineer durinq construction:
• Soil cuts
• Foundation sub -grade verification
• Retaining wall, or rockery placement
• Any fill placement
• Subsurface drainage installation
Z
0
I
0
M
0
0
0 C
M
M Z
C
0 _n
n
M M
0
0
0 M
C Cj)
9 V)
Q 0
Z
X
Z
__4
X
C/)
Z
0
i
0
M
Michel Construction, Inc.
April 28, 2004
Page 9
SUMMARY:
The proposed Michel Construction 3 single-family residence development at
8717 Bowdoin Way, Edmonds, Washington is geotechnically viable when constructed
in accordance with the recommendations herein, compliance with City of Edmonds
approved plans and requirements, and key geotechnical inspections during
construction.
CLOSURE:
The findings and recommendations of this report were prepared in accordance
with generally accepted professional engineering principles and practice. No other
warranty, either express or implied, is made. The conclusions are based on the results
of the field exploration and interpolation of subsurface conditions between explored
locations. If conditions are encountered during construction that appear to be different
than those described in this report, this engineer should be notified to observe the
situation and review and verify or modify the recommendations.
If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call.
EXPIRES
DMB:abj
( �-00 A-
6L /�' 6��
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
Geotechnical / Civil Engineer
z
0
1
0
M
ri C4 42b7789086
388
- - - - - - - - - - - -
400
LOT
-402
404
ROM
t.,A
Us
40(1
9.301
408
410
4
EmsnN
418
4JU
422
424 1A
7,:r 42D
?17 428
430
432.
4,-�4
4uo
VURTIC.Al QAT-L;m
I -IN IN J�(�Aj�
SITUISENCH MARX
. MICHEL CONST PAGE e2
0
4,()ti
412
420
422
124
42.-,
z
z
0
1
0
m
-1 -n
M
c
m 0
0
0
0
M
M Z
c
3:
CD
0 -n
n
m m
0
0 m
c CD
r. cn
M 0
Z
3:
z
-4
3:
cn
z
0
m
0
Jul 23 04 UH:42a U. Bruce, P.h.
2ub-b46-H442 P.1
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
M. S. C. E., M. B. A. Geotechnical /Civil Engineer
July 22, 2004
City of Edmonds
Community Services Division
121 5�h Ave. N.
Edmonds, WA 98020
Subject: Geotechnical Inspections 8717 and 8719 Bowdoin
Michel Construction 3 New Residences
City of Edmonds Permit # 2004 — 0522
This engineering report presents the results of onsite geotechnical��
inspections for the Michel Construction project (1 existing residence plus 3 new
s.f.r.) at 8717 Bowdoin, Edmonds.
REFERENCES:
City of Edmonds approved project plans
Geotechnical Report by D. Bruce, P.E.
Site photographs Cal)
Required special inspections by City of Edmonds (geotechni
INSPECT[
This engineer has provided onsite geotechnical inspections for the above
project. Site visits occurred at a minimum of I inspection visit per week, with
more frequent inspections during active excavation and grading activities.
Excavations for this project began in April, 2004. See photographs.
City of Edmonds Inspec tion Items:
1) Excavation and Grading: This engineer verified subsurface conditions
consistent with the findings of the geotechnical report. The east property line
excavation . is stable dense glacially consolidated "hardpan" soils at a slope
approximately 1 H: 1 V. This slope cut is stable.
Additionally, excavation and IqMporary access road fill occurred west of
proposed house # 2 (see later discussion on slope stability).
SOILS - FOUIVDA TIOIVS - SIrE DEVEL 01WENT - WSPECrION - DRAIIVA6E - DES16N & FERUIT - LEGAL
P.O. BOX 55502 - Shoreline, WA 98155 - (206) 546-9217 Iq JtX-12P6 54JB-.qA
C E i V E 6
J U L 2 3 2004
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR.
CITY OF EDMONDS
01
z
0
rn
—i -T1
5S
M
0
0
-40
0
M
M Z
r') --i
C
F-
3:
W
0 -n
n
M M
055
0 r-
0 M
C/)
M 0
Z
X
z
C0
z
0
1
0
M
Jul 23 04 09:42a 11. Bruce, P.E. 206-546-8442 p.2
City of Edmonds
July 22, 2004
Page 2 of 3
2) Soil Bearing: This engineer verified dense native sub -grade soils easily
providing a minimum of 2.000 p.s.f. bearing capacity for the proposed house on
lot 2 and lot 4.
"OK' to proceed with foundation formwork, reinforcing steel placement,
and concrete per City of Edmonds approved plans for house on lot 2 and lot 4.
Z
0
Excavations for house # 3 have yet to occur.
3) Retaining Wall I Rockery Construction: A review of the project plans by
M
Civil Designer D. Breske, P.E. indicates a rockery of 1 to 6 feet in height west of
house # 2.
0
Existing conditions indicate approximately 12 to 16 feet of height is
M
C 0
M
0
required for stabilization wall.
0
0 C
It is unclear at this time if the access roadway will be significantly lowered
M
or if a significant stabilization wall will be required. This engineer is involved in
M Z
discu ssions and design work with Michel Construction and D. Breske, P.E.,
C
>
regarding this stabilization wall.
If a new design is required, this engineer will provide appropriate
0 -n
M
submittals to City of Edmonds.
4) Pla 3ment of Fill and Compaction: None yet required.
rn M
0 C—n
0 r-
0 M
5) Footing Drains: Not yet.
C Cn
9 Cn
Q 0
Z r-
SAFETY:
IT
This engineer has advised Michel Construction to use extra caution and
X
diligence regarding the access road and "marginally stable" side cut near house
# 2. See photographs.
Z
it is gssentiall that no heavy equipment be allowed to utilize this access
CD
road within 10 horizontal feet of top of cut.
Z
0
Additionally, safety fencing is recommended along the top of slope for the
M
access drive.
M �
Jul 23 04 09:42a D. Bruce, P.E. 206-546-8442
City of Edmonds
July 22, 2004
Page 3 of 3
SUMMARY
Geotechnical inspections items are gppLovedl through the date of this
report July 22, 2004.
Access road dimensions and stability issues will require further
geotechnical recommendations
"OK' to place foundation stem walls on lot 2 and footings on lot # 4.
11,ispections ongoing
tions, do not hesitate to call.
If there are any ques
WAR Al
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
NAL Geotechnical Civil Engineer
DMB:jpb
z
0
0
M
CE
Cn
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
M. S. C. E., M. B. A. Geotechnical /Civil Engineer
September 23, 2004
-------------
City of Edmonds
z
Community, Services Division
121 5"' Ave. N
M
Edmonds, WA 98020
=n-
Subject: Field Reports — Geotechnical Inspections
Ui -1
M
C
8717, 8719, 8721 Bowdoin, Edmonds, Washington
M 0
0
Michel Construction 3 New Residences
0
This engineering report presents the results of ongoing geotechnical inspections
M
M z
for the Michel Construction project (3 new residences and access ro ad) at the above
C:
z
referenced addresses.
REFERENCES:
0 -n
0 City of Edmonds approved Project Plans
MM 71
0 Geotechnical and Inspection Reports by D. Bruce, P. E.
0-
r
0 Site photographs
0 M
MO
INSPECTIONS:
Z
This engineer has provided and continues to provide on -site geotechnical
X
inspections for the 3 new Michel Construction residences.
>
z
8717 Bowdoin (Permit No. 2004 — 052
This engineer continues to monitor slope stability for the driveway adjacent this
z
0
residence. Access road has remained stable through this date (September 23, 2004).
?5
M
Foundation soils were previously verified to. provide a minimum of 2,000 p.s.f.
bearing capacity. The residence foundations were properly placed in accordance with
approved Plans.
Approved fill material (free draining gravel with fine content less than 15 percent)
was properly placed behind foundation stern walls under this engineer's inspections.
ro ed Plans and
Subsurface drainage properly placed in accordance with app v
normal good practices.
SOIL S FOUIVDArlolVS SITEDEVELOpI14EN7, INSpECI-10N DRA11VAGE - DESIGN& PERUI 7' - L EGA L
P.O. Box 55502 Shoreline, WA 98155 (206) 546-9217 FAX (206) 546-8442
City of Edmonds
Community Services Division
Re: Michel Construction
September 23, 2004
Page 2
It is understood that the road stabilization rockery will begin within the next 2
weeks. This engineer is to provide ongoing inspections.
8719 Bowdoin (Permit No. 2004 — 0560):
This engineer verified dense, native sub -grade soils capable of providing 2,000
p.s.f. bearing capacity. Foundation concrete was properly placed in accordance with
City of Edmonds approved Plans.
The slope cut immediately east of 8719 Bowdoin has remained stable throughout
the project. Recent rockery work (a two -tiered rockery) has been placed in accordance
with approved Plans and this engineer's on -site inspections. Base rocks were properly
-grade soils. Rock size, linkage, batter and drainage
embedded in dense, native sub
zone were properly placed.
Additionally, this engineer observed proper placement of structural fill material as
backfill against the stem walls. Subsurface drains were properly placed in accordance
with approved Plans and good practices.
Geotechnical work on 8719 Bowdoin is approved through this date (September
23,2004).
8721 Bowdoin (Permit No. 2004 — 0620):
This engineer verified stable excavation in creating house footprint zone for this
residence. All soil cuts remain stable in dense, native soils as anticipated.
Soil bearing of 2,000 p.s.f. (at a minimum) was verified. "OK" to proceed with
foundation footings and stem walls.
Localized grading will require landscape stabilization rockeries (forthcoming with
ongoing geotechnical inspections).
SUMMARY:
0 Geotechnical work to date (September 23, 2004) on the above 3 residences is
approved.
0 Geotechnical inspections are ongoing.
Z
0
0
M
--I -n
M
C
M 0
0
0 C
M
M Z
g) -1
C Z
0 71
n
X
M M
0
0
0 M
C/)
0
Q 0
Z
.4�
;U
X
Z
X
W
Z
0
M