20040620.pdfI
DATE RECEIVED
CITY OF EDMONDS
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION
FR,NAME/NAME OF BUSINESS
L1
cc MAILING ADDRESS
W
z
,0, 7451o7 01Z�x� -57 ;r1oz
CITY ZIP LEPHONE I
NAME
0
t1_1 W(
NAME
M ADDRESS
0
r)
cc 7A
CITY
0
U
_.�, 1 9
F, P_
'. 7Z. 7,?- 1A
a *In 57,
f
TELEPHONE
lef—l? �\_
ZIP TELEPHONE
776 -M
ICBLP
"_ M491, do
STATE LICENSE NUMBER EXPIRATION DATE
W�cI4 r-cl or. / c>5--
PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL NO.
uj
70?
o �
�ONEW
t2pHESIDENTIAL
ADDiTION
COMMERCIAL
REMODEL
MULTIFAMILY
REPAIR
G
'jjrGP . , YDS
DEMOLISH
TANK
GARAGE
RETAINING WALL
CARPORT
ROCKERY
(TYPE OF USE, BUSINESS
OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN:
0
U)
w
93
NUMBER
NUM13ER bF
M
OF
DWELLING
o
STORIES
UNITS
DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE
t
PLUMBING / MECH
E]
COMPLIANCE OF
CHANGE OF USE
SIGN
FENCE
( x FT)
OTHER
FIRE SPRINKLER
FIRE ALARM
Y
[PERMIT EXPIRES 7 Z 7et A -
USF PERMIT
ZONE
j
) 7C)
NUMBER _( _.
JOB SUITE/APT#
ADDRESS -1 � 1.
PLAT NAME/SUBDIVISION NO
LOT NO
LID NO
LID FEE $
PUBLIC HIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL
STREET MAP
TI SCP Appeoved
rAW Peirnit Rtjq,j.ff?d
0
13
EXISTING PROPOSED
h1rool Use Perinit Perin
Inspection Fie(lutred
0
13
Si(lri-aflk i1equired
10
REQUIREO DEDICATION
F1
undelglotind
Wiring roctwited
0
METER SIZE LINE SIZE
NO OF FIX*TURES
PRV REQUIRED
YES NO 0
C)
REMARKS
W
z
z
OWNER/CON1RACTOR HESPONSIBIE FOR EROSION
CONTROL/DRAINAGE
6
o , /N s eE C 7-
c-S
LClizo-S I
z
IJA t-F (J)
7
�2 �- I t�LA_c
_NGINEER DATE
:_ZG REVIEWED BY
7119 /Z
FIRE/REVIEWED BY DATE W
cc
rL
VARIANCE OR CU SHORELINE OR ADOM INSPECTION BOND
REq'Df POSTED
OYES )kN
SEPA REVIEW SIGN AREA HEIGHT
COMPLETE EXEMPT ALLOWED PROPOSED ALLOWED PROPOSED
- I —+—L -O—)L 5, ,, I -.V;� 5 ,�
eOT COVERAGE REQUIRED SETBACKS (FT) PROPOSED SETBACKS (FF.)
ALLOWED ' PROPOSED FRO, SIDE AR1_ LJR SIDE RVR
% d
1*,.ef z
7d W'Gl 1
35 '16 1 - 7 it 7 6' 76 " K 1 .1% z
PARKING I LOI AREA I 4NNING REVIEJED BY DATE
REQ'D I PRTED jj��
�A, 7
REMARKS
CHECKED BY PE OF CONSTRUCTION CO E OCCUPANT
GROUPP7
CRITICAL
AREAS qg _Z
SPECIAL INSPECTIO� OCCUPANI
NUMBER REQUIRED XYES LOAD
REMARKS
z
]PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 108/FINAL INSPECTION REO'D 3
9E 6
-7 4TZ
J I
IE811:�ke5y- 3
t va A F I L+
.AT SOUBJE GLAZING % LOT SLOPE %
A r_—
F_1`5 I 0jjU M(7�5,D h2
CHECK NO: ^ . I I VE9TFD,DATE
VA../ I I V
THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVEhs WbRK 40
BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC
DOMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE
SEPARATE PERMISSION.
Lu PERMIT APPLICATION: 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
Lu IN INTEREST. AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF
_j
2 EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND
< ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHArEVER NATURE, ARISING DiRECri-YORINDIRECTI-Y
FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT ISSUANCE OF [HIS PERMIT SHALL NOT 13E
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
mi
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION, 7HAT1HE INFORMATION
GIVEN IS CORRECT, AND THAT I AM THE OWNER, OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF
THE OWNER. I AGREE TO COMPLY WII'll CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC
TION; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY. NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED
IN VIOLAVQN OF THE LABQR CODEfi"--�HE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO
WORKMFfi'j COMPENSATAN INSURAKCE AND RCW 18 27.
(OlkN OR T)
DATE SIGNED
7 rk_,� �no�t
VALUATION
$ 3 C11 rt�
Description FEE
Plan Check / �3 C/
Building Permit
Plumbing Z I
Mechanical '7
; 7
Grading
Engr. Review Z-1 -2jr-,r-1
Engr. Inspection ._1 __ r
4_4_�
Description
State Surcharge
City Surcharge
Base Fee
to
.01
FEE
Fire Review Plan Chk. Deposit
Fire Inspection Receipt #
Landscapelnsp. Total Amt. Due
Recording Fee Receipt # LL;5L4
APPLICATION APPRdWAL
CALL Thisapplication is riot a permit until signed by the
Building Official or his/her Deputy. and Fecsilre paid, and
FOR INSPECTION recLipt is acknowledged in space Provided
A I IF DATE
(425)
7
771 -0Af2_20 _RFI FA�1711) BY/ DA E'
ATTENZION EXT 1333 t /
IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL Lz I z""
A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTIFI-
01j�l-r4L-1:10' YELL - INSPE On
CATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC SECTION 109 PINK OWNER GOLD - ASSESSOR
09,'03 PRESS HARD -YOU ARE MAKING 4 COPIES
z
0
1
0
M
—i -n
M
171
0
--1 0
0 C:
M
M Z
01
C:
0 71
n
M M
0
0
0 M
C cf)
9 U)
M
Z
71 171
z
U)
z
0
1711
N
I
392
394
w
0
z
ul
LL
3�
2
0
.-C
8721 1: DR AIN
AVE. GRADE
40,2
A. 401.50'
I B. 398.00'
C. 403.00'
A I
D. 412-90'
4 = 403.75'
4041, ROPOSED
NIAX HEIGHT: 428.75' D
ACFUAL HEIGHT: 428.50' HOUSE
FOOTING= 391.41'
SLAB =400.91' 406
i ISTFL. =411.00' LA
I E E
0�4. ro
v i L
INIPERVIOUS AREA
I tF. I
jj-,-
BUILDING: 2738.05 SQ. Fr.
408
DRIVEINAY. 534.98 SQ. FT.
P.-\TIO: 274.05 SO. I-]. ------
7n c
TOTA L: 3,547.08 SQ. Fl".
'--410
LOT COVERAGE:
2,385.25/9,63,83.00 = 2-5",',
DING,
T,
0
i P A: 003-73h0-0501-502 4 R
_4 'BY PER�N,1117
4 412
FILTER FENCE 4 PT
- - - - - - - EXIST CONT
PROPOSED C ONT Z
LEGEND 41
ExisuN
... ........ ...........
1�4,0 \4' ROC R
Corner /V nzg,te
— - Ll/ \ \ �ft
Zone---,-,-. 41
Actual
Setbacks Reci—gired
�/p ff
7�f,
IIEDGE 4�r tt D5,p(,rj,. )0
C
Y FO B �5T 41 )0
Sides
__IL 6L
Rear
PROPOSED
Other ---- 77-� �, q
it
HOUSE
RECEIVED
�8113)7-64 ft
42) 4,
ENT, JUL 13 2004 TPI
IWILDING DEPARTMENT
CITy OF EDMONDS
7Q I 6c, w lbo I IQ
By iDl (CITY (COPY
ED
7
M
7 _ - __/�, q PT nT / QTTV
z
0
1
0
m
=i 9
m
m 0
0
0
0 c:
M
M z
_z
r
J)
0 _n
n
m M
a
0
0 M
C cl)
c (1)
M 0
Z
z
W
z
0
i
0
m
Height Calculation Worksheet
Address: 7 IL I
Date: 1%
hispector(s):
1. Datum Point: (I lk�>
2. Datum Point Elevation: 411 '7 -5
3. Average Grade: 4 Ob. -t -5
4.. Maximum Elevation AHowed.
5. Reference Point Elevation Shot to House:
(grade to transit level line'shot to house)
.,_�(datum elevation)"
6. Measurements from line shot onto house to k6of ridge:
Total
7. Actual Elevation: (reference point elevation) + 19, 4 1 (measurements
from #6) 19,
Conclusion:
All q.q q _ (actual) is gr eater Mathan 4M 7, S _ (allowed); therefore the house is/
is not over the height requirement per ECDC 16.20-30 requirements
z
0
M
N
CITY Copy
DONNA L. BUSKE, P.E. 6621 Foster Slough Rd. Snohomish, WA 98290
Phone: 425-334-9980 Fax: 425-334-7380
RECEIVED
8 2004
JUN
DETENI ION SIZING WORKSHEETS
PERMIT COUNTER
FOR
M1CHEL CONSTRUCTION INC
4-LOT SHORT PLAT
DATE: MAY 1, 2003
SITE:
8715 BOWDOIN WAY
EDMONDS, WA 98026
7
1115/203:1
DRAINAGE - DETENTION INSpECTION GRADING & TESC
SEWER & WATER - FEAS113ILITY - SITE DEVELOPNIENT
z
9
0
M
SHhR21D nc(-255 DRlv5wAy- IMP. AREq = lj,570 sl=
TABLE 1 — DEI-EN11ON PIPE SIZES
IMPERMEABLE
REQUIRED
PIPE DIAMETER
AREA SO FT
VOL CU FT
15"
1B"
24"- 30"
2000
50
40
28
16 10
2500
3000
62
75
50
60
35
42
20 13
24 15 REQUIRED PIPE
3500
87
70
49
28 1B LENGTH IN FEET
4000
100
80
56
32 21
W4500
112
90
63
0� 23
5000
125
100
70
4—D 25
NOTE: ALLOWABLE PIPE MATERIALS
ALLOWABLE TIGHTLINE MATERIALS
0
C�LEUINF DIED CONCRETE
SDR35 (ASTM D-3034) PVC
N-12 ADS (DOUBLE WALLED)
JMI N�IZED STEEL
)AL MINUM (16GA)
U,
SCHEID 40 PVC
Mip (ASPHALT COATED)
HANCOR (F810) PVC
N-12 ADS (2' MINIMUM
COVER UNDER
ROADS/DRIVEWAY,j
TABLE 2— OUTLET ORIFICE SIZES
IMPERVIOUS
AREA SQ FT
OUTLET ORIFICE DIAMETER (INCHES)
2000
5/8
2500
5/8
3000
3/4
3500
3/4
4000
---*4500
7/8
7/B
5000
7/8
TABLE 3— RECTANGULAR CATCH BASIN REQUIREMENT
DETENTION MAX SIZE
**CATCH BASIN
PIPE DIAMETER KNOCKOUT
TYPE
<18" 20"
TYPE 1, CB 15
18' TO 24" 26':
TYPE IL, CB 16
24" TO 36" 36'
TYPE 11, CB 19 �4 8" BASIN�
36" TO 4-2" 42"
TYPE 11, CB 19 54" BASI . N
"SOURCE: ASSOC. SAND AND GRAVEL CO. STDS.
r\:, . A
I.Vi D'- - 5-
REVISI- I ONS
STANDARD DETAIL
Appwfim w
TABLE OF STANDARD RESIDENTIAL DO EN I ON SYSTEM SIZES
1890-19,313
DATE 7/24/01
SCALE NTS
1
DWG NO. E5.12
1
z
0
i
0
m
:-n
M
c
m 0
0
0
0 C
M
M Z
—z
3:
cl)
0 -n
n
i
m rrl
0
0
0 M
C cn
9 cl)
M 0
Z
X
z
--i
3:
c/)
z
0
A
0
m
LoT-2 2 IMPERV10*05 PrREA = -1;000- 5F
Or- 3
Lo-f-
TABLE 1 -
DETENTION
PIPE ��7s]
IMPERMEABLE
REQUIRED
PIPE DIAMETER
AREA SO Fr
VOL CU FT
15n
18"
24"
30"_
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
4000
100
80
56
21
4500
112
90
63
36
23
5000
125
100
70
40
25
NOTE: ALLOWABLE PIPE MATERIALS
ALLOWABLE TIGHTLINE MATERIALS
rREINFORCED CONCRETE
SDR35 (ASTM D-3034) PVC
N-12 ADS (DOUBLE WALLED)
)MINIZED STEEL
ALU
ALUMINUM (1 6GA)
CMP (ASPHALT COATED)
SCHED 40 PVC
HANCOR (17810) PVC
N-12 ADS (2' MINIMUM
COVER UNDER
ROADS/DRIVEWAYS)
TABLE 2-
OUTLET ORIFICE SIZES
IMPERVIOUS
AREA SQ FT-
OUTLET ORIFICE DIAMETER (INCHES)
2000
5/8
5/8
3000
3/4
3500
3/4
—4, 4000
C7/8)
4500
7 8
7-
5000
7/8
TABLE 3- RECTANGULAR CATCH BASIN REQUIREMENTS
DETENTION MAX SIZE
1-r
"CATCH BASIN
-rvoc,
<1 8" 20$' TYPE 1, CB 15
13" TO 24" 26': TYPE IL, CB 16 8: BASIN)
24" TO 36" 36' TYPE 11, CB 19 �4
,36- TO 42" 42 11 TYPE 11, CB 19 54 BASIN)
**SOURCE: ASSOC. SAND AND GRAVEL CO. STDS.
REVISIONS STANDARD D ETAI L
By DATE
TABLE OF STANDARD RESIDENTIAL DETENTION SYSTEM SIZES
D' 7/24/01 NTS DWG NO. E5.1 2
7890-19c3o
z
0
m
--I -n
M
c
M
0
0
0 C
--i K
X M
M Z
g) --I
c
0
o -n
n
MITI
0
0
0 M
C cl)
9 (n
M 0
Z
z
z
0
i
0
m
0
q7 z I PW (+Cx
CITY COPY
JJJN - � Ku
Dennis M. Bruce, RE. PERMIT cOUNTER
M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical/ Civil Engineer
April 28, 2004
Michel Construction, Inc.
7907 212" St. SW, #102
Edmonds, WA 98026
Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation — Foundation Recommendations
Proposed 3 New Residences ( 1771-1) V 19 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:
• Property Survey by LSA, Inc.
• Proposed new 4-lot Site Plan by Michel Construction, Inc.
• 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
i
0
M
=i 9
3:
M
0
0
0
0
M
M z
C) --i
C —Z
3:
Cn
0 -n
n
M M
0
0
0 M
C (n
9 (n
Q 0
Z
.A�
X
--I
3:
z
Cn
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 geotechnicalIV 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 1p.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
=-n
M
0
0
0
0 C
M
M Z
—Z
o -n
n
q
X9
MM
0
0
0 M
C cl)
9 Cn
Q C)
Z
X
--I
r
Z
--I
X
0)
Z
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 Desiqn Value
Coefficient of Friction 0.55
Passive Earth Pressure 350 p.c.f.
z
0
4
0
M
_q 9,
0 M
C 0
M 0
0 C
--I r.
X M
M z
10--i
C
cl)
o -n
n
i
3:9
M M
0 5)
0 r-
0 M
C 0)
9 Cn
M 0
Z
r
z
-i
3:
(1)
z
0
i
0
M
Michel Constr�ction, Inc.
April 28, 2004
Page 4
Where:
(1) c.f. is pounds per cubic foot.
(2) �assive earth pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid density.
We rec mmend that a safety factor of at least 1.5 be used for design of the
foundation's r sistance to lateral loading.
SLABS-ON-G ADE:
Slab -or -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 recommeid 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
recommendec design parameters are for walls less than twelve (12) feet in height,
which restrain level backfill:
Active arth Pressure*
7 �-
Passhv arth Pressure
Coeffic ent of Friction
Soil Urlit Weight
Desian 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) 1 ctive and passive earth pressures are computed using equivalent fluid
�;nsities.
or restrained walls which cannot defect at least 0.002 times the wall
eight, a uniform lateral pressure of one hundred (100 p.s.f. should be
dded to the active equivalent fluid pressure).
z
0
i
0
M
-i -n
M
C
M
0
-40
0 C:
M
M Z
C —Z
o -n
-n
MM
0
0
0 M
C cl)
90 i
M 0
Z
X
z
C/)
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
9
0
M
=i
M
0
0
0
0 C
M
M z
X
C
0 _T1
n
M M
055
0 r-
0 M
C: rj)
9 Cl)
Q 0
Z
M
z
--I
M
Fn
z
0
1
0
M
Michel Construction, Inc.
April �8, 2004
Page �6
sand do cave suddenly, and without warning. The contractors should be made aware
of thi�,' potential hazard.
NOTE: As discussed, this engineer approved and verified the stable slope cut at
the n )rtheast portion of the property. This cut reposes at an angle of 1 H:6V and is
cleote�clhnicaft stable. This cut will be protected for erosional sloughing purposes
clurin� 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
laverof soil.
11
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
mate�ial). 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
wate- drains must be kept separate from the foundation drain system.
No groundwater was observed in any of the 3 test pits during the fieldwork.
See age into the planned excavation is possible, and likely if excavation occurs during
wint r months, and if encountered should be drained away from the site by use of
I
drai age ditches, perforated pipe, French drains, or by pumping from sumps
I
inter onnected 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
slop s to be covered with plastic to minimize erosion. Final site grading in areas
adja -.ent to buildings should be sloped at least two (2) percent away from the building,
eXCE Pt where the area adjacent to the building is paved.
GE�ERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL:
The proposed building and pavement areas should be stripped and cleared of all
surf ce vegetation, all organic matter, and other deleterious material. The stripped or
remted 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
reta ning or foundation walls, or in other areas where the underlying soils needs to
Z
0
i
0
M
q 9
65
M
M
0
--10
0
M M
M Z
0-4
—Z
0 -n
n
M M
0 V5
0 r-
0 M
C C/)
9 Cn
M 0
Z
X
Z
--i
X
C/)
Z
0
1
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
0
M
=i 9
U5
M
0
0
-10
0 C
--I K
X M
MZ
g) --i
C
cl)
0 _n
n
M M
0 5
0 r-
0 M
C C/)
K C/)
Q 0
Z
X
__4
M
Z
-4
3:
5
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
passing the three -quarter -inch sieve.
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 during construction:
• Soil cuts
• Foundation sub -grade verification
• Retaining wall, or rockery placement
Any fill placement
Subsurface drainage installation
Z
0
i
0
M
-i -"
C M
M 0
0
0
M
M Z
g:) --I
C —Z
0
M M
055
0 r-
0 M
C: Ct)
C (1)
Q 0
Z
Z
Z
0
1
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.
I MKS 195-707 F I
DMB:abj
� 9 ( rl� 004-
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
Geotechnical / Civil Engineer
z
0
i
0
M
t . QQ 4:db/789086
388
400
LOT
IW2
404 VRnPri
408
410
r2
414
418
4 —J0
422
424
r420
?17-
42's
410
4 32-
4,^4
436
. * . 1-4Q
�80N,4� ,
NTRTIC.,kL LXATL;M
SITVIDENCH
MICHEL CONST PAGE 02
4(R--
400
AkS
141H
420
422
124
42.-,
z
z
0
i
0
m
-n
X
m
0
0
0
0
M
M Z
cl)
o -n
n
rn m
0 —cl)
0 r-
0 m
cf)
cl)
M 0
Z
X
z
z
0
1
0
m
Jul 23 04 09:42a
D. Bruce, P.E.
206-546-8442 P.1
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
M. S. C. M. B. A. Geotechnical /Civil Engineer
July 22, 2004
City of Edmonds
Community Services Division
121 5h Ave. N.
Edmonds, WA 98020
Subject: Geotechnical Inspections 8717 and 8719 Elowdoin
Michel Construction 3 New Residences
City of Edmonds Permit # 2004 — 0522
This engineering report presents the results of onsite geotechnicak,
ce
inspections for the Michel Construction project (I existing residen plus 3 new
s.f.r.) at 8717 Bowdoin, Edmonds.
REFERENCES:
monds approved project plans
City of Ed
Geotechnical Report by D. Bruce, P.E.
Site photographs
Required special inspections by City of Edmonds (geotechnical)
INSPECTIONS:
This engineer has provided onsite geotechnical inspections for the above
project. Site visits occurred at a minimum of 1 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 Inspection Items:
Excavation and Grading: This engineer Kerified 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 temporary access road fill occurred west of
proposed house # 2 (see later discussion on slope stability).
SOILS . FOUNDArIONS - S1rFDEI1EZOPb1ENr - INSPECRON - DRAINAGE - DESIGN& PERUIr - LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502 - Shoreline, WA 98155 - (206) 546-9217 - FAX (206) 546RECEIVED
JUL 2 3 2004
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR.
CITY OF EDMONDS
z
0
4
0
rn
--1 -n
Ui --i
0 M
C
M 0
0
--10
0 C
--i K
X M
M Z
I[) -i
C —Z
0)
0 -n
n
M M
0
0
0 M
CI)
Cn
M 0
Z
z
W
z
0
i
0
M
Jul 23 04 09:42a D. Bruce, P.E. 206-546-8442
City of Edmonds
July 22, 2004
Page 2 of 3
2) Soil Bearing: This engineer y_erified 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.
Excavations for house # 3 have yet to occur.
3) Retaining Wall I Rockefy Construg�M A review of the project plans by
Civil Designer D. Breske, P.E. indicates a rockery of 1 to 6 feet in height w6st of
house # 2.
Existing conditions indicate approximately 12 to 16 feet of height is
reguired for stabilization wall.
It is unclear at this time if the access roadway will be significantly lowered
or if a significant stabilization wall will be required. This engineer is involved in
discussions and design work with Michel Construction and D. Breske, P.E.,
regarding this stabilization wall.
If a new design is required, this engineer will provide appropriate
submittals to City of Edmonds.
4) Placement of Fill and Com2gqjt�ion* None yet required.
5) Footing Drains: Not yet.
SAFETY.
This engineer has advised Michel Construction to use extra caution and
diligence regarding the access road and "marginally stable" side cut near house
# 2. See photographs.
It is essential that no heavy equipment be allowed to utilize this access
road within 10 horizontal feet of top of cut.
Additionally, safety fencing is recommended along the top of slope for the
access drive.
P.2
Z
0
i
0
M
--i -"
m
m
0
--40
0 C
--I K
X M
m z
JO --i
C
Cn
0
n
m m
0
0
0 M
Cn
Cn
M 0
Z
Z
Cn
Z
0
i
0
M
C - 0 A A �:) c.3
Jul 23 04 09:42a D. Bruce,
City of Edmonds
July 22, 2004
Page 3 of 3
SUMMARY
Geotechnical inspections items are gRpLovedl through the date of this
report July 22, 2004.
rt
Access road dimensions and stability issues will require fu her
geotechnical recommendations
,OKI to place foundation stem walls on lot # 2 and footings on lot # 4.
111spections ongoing
If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call.
WAR
It.
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
Geotechnical / Civil Engineer
DMB:jpb
z
0
1
0
M
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
M. S. C. E., M. B. A. Geotechnical /Civil Engineer
September 23, 2004
City of Edmonds
z
0
Community Services Division
0
1h
121 5 Ave. N
!T1
Edmonds, WA 98020
q =6
Subject: Field Reports — Geotechnical Inspections
7:
0 M
8717,8719,8721 Bowdoin, Edmonds, Washington
C 0
M
0
Michel Construction 3 New Residences
__10
0
This engineering report presents the results of ongoing geotechnical inspections
X M
M z
for the Michel Construction project (3 new residences and access road) at the above
_Z
referenced addresses.
C:
>
M
CD
REFERENCES:
0 -n
-n
0 City of Edmonds approved Project Plans
rn rn
0 Geotechnical and Inspection Reports by D. Bruce, P.E.
a Site photographs
of -
0M
C CD
9 Cn
INSPECTIONS:
rn 0
Z
This engineer has provided and continues to provide on -site geotechnical
inspections for the 3 new Michel C onstruction residences.
z
8717 Bowdoin (Permit No. 2004. — 0522):
CD
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).
0
M
Foundation soils were previously verified to provide a minimum of 2,000 p.s.f.
bearing capacity. The residence foundations were prop erly placed in accordance with
approved Plans.
Approved fill material (free draining gravel with fine content less than 15 percent)
was properly placed behind foundation stem walls under this engineer's inspections.
Subsurface drainage properly placed in accordance with approved Plans and
normal good practices.
SOILS FOUNDA TIONS. , SITE DEVELOPMENr - INSPECTION - DRAINAGE - DESIGN 8 PER"Ir - LEGAL
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.
Z
8719 Bowdoin (Permit No. 2004 — 0560):
0
M
This engineer verified dense, native sub -grade soils capable of providing 2,000
=i 9
p.s.f. bearing capacity. Foundation concrete was properly placed in accor dance with
CO
City of Edmonds approved Plans.
M
The slope cut immediately east of 8719 Bowdoin has remained stable throughout
M 0
0
0
the project. Recent rockery work (a two -tiered rockery) has been placed in accordance
C
with approved Plans and this engineer's on -site inspections. Base rocks were properly
M M
Z
embedded in dense, native sub -grade soils. Rock size, linkage, batter and drainage
Z
zone were properly placed.
Cn
Additionally, this engineer observed proper placement of -structural fill material as:
0 _n
backfill against the stem walls. Subsurface drains were properly placed in accordance
with approved Plans and good practices.
M M
Geotechnical work on 8719 Bowdoin is approved through this date (September
0-
0 (n
0 M
23,2004).
C Cn
Cn
M 0
Z
8721 Bowdoin (Permit No. 2004 — 06 20):
This engineer verified stable excavation in creating house footprint zone for this
residence. All soil cuts remain stable in dense, native soils as anticipated.
Z
Soil bearing of 2,000 p.s.f. (at a minimum) was verified. "OK" to proceed with
Cn
Z
foundation footinns and stem walls.
0
Localized grading will require landscape stabilization rockeries (forthcoming with
M
ongoing geotechnical inspections).
SUMMARY:
• Geotechnical work to date (September 23, 2004) on the above 3 residences is
approved.
• Geotechnical inspections are ongoing.