20040709.pdfDATE RECEIVED
I PERMIT EXPIRES - 41- ���
USE 1-1,11-HIVII I �-f
n1iry nc 9MRA111"ONKIrte ZONE 1,y� _ !
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION
OWNER NAME/NAME OF BUSINESS
MAILING ADDRESS
7 Z
CITY
ZIP TELEPHONE
NAME
tur
A
NAME
ADDRESS
CITY
LICENSE NUMBER
ZIP
rAIV
09!::
TELEPHONE
�7 '07,1q �
r 5
TELEPHONE
DATE
I
NUMBER C-/ L
OB
ADDRESS
SUITEIAPT#
PLAT NAME/SUBDIVISION NO.
LOT NO.
LID NO.
LID FEE $
PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP
IF SCP APPIOMI
9W Permit Horivifed
13
Q
Street Use Permit Roqd
13
EXISTING. PROPOSED
inspection Roquitad
Sidowilk Rom"fild
REQUIRED DEDICATION FT
underground
wiring feritilred
METER SIZE
LINE SIZE
NO. OF FIXTURES
PRV REQUIRED
FYEP*
I / 14
1 -e
NO 0
REMARKS
OWNER/CONIRACIOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROL/DRAINAGE
d- � I - I - - , - - - . , _ , - -- ,
1'i r. ri, 6 (4) '�70 K" r,-)Iq N (�)Si'
CBL r, C) F
VANEERING REVIEWED BY DATE
71
IREE REVIEWED BY IIATE
V4 PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL NO.
W
ol ieVl�� Inn I
NEW
RESIDENTIAL
PLUMBING / MECH
ADDITION
COMMERCIAL
COMPLIANCE OR
CHANGE OF USE
REMODEL
MULTIFAMILY
SIGN
REPAIR
G�A
4'N7G CYDS
FENCE
( X FT)
E]
DEMOLISH
TANK
OTHER
15�
GARAGE
RETAINING WALL
FIRE SPRINKLER
CARPORT
ROCKERY
FIRE ALARM
(TYPE -OF USE, BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN:
NUMBER NUMBER OF CRITICAL
OF DWELLING AREAS
STORIES UNITS NUMBER
DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE
Frx A
6 F-_
g, L/o E --; r.::: -
GLAZING % LOT SLOPE %
HEAT SOURCE _To_� am/ � r(56
r� pit.,5
VESTED DATE
PLAN CHECK qO:
THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS P�RMIT LOVERS WORK TO
t: BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC
DOMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE
SEPARATE PERMISSION.
UJI PERMIT APPLICATION: 180 DAYS
CL PERMIT LIMIT I YEAR - PROVIDED WORK IS STARTED WITHIN 180 DAYS
SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION
V) 'APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS
Ln
IN INTEREST. AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF
n EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND
a:
ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIREC TLY On INDIREC I LY
FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF I [ITS PERMI I SHALL NOT BE
DEEMED TO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE
0 NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY T14E CITYS ARRAY 10 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 AUIIIORIZED 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
WORK��'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND RCW 18.27.
SIGJATURh ((DWNEFI OR 456�T�7%p DATE SIGNED
I
UJI
z
z
E5
z
us
W
VARIANCE OR CU HORELINE OR ADB# I INSPECTION I 13OND
RE41D?- POSTED
YES A.NO S —
SEPA REVIEW SIGN AREA HEIGHT
COMPLETE EXEMPT ALLOW.EDPROPOSED ALLOWED IPSED
I PROT
rA b
*xr, *c 5'
LOT COVERAGE REQUIRED SETBACKS (FT.) PROPOSED SETBACKS (FF.)
ALLOWED PROPOSED FRONT SIDE PEAR FRO�T Up SIDE REAR
I f z
-2 (zo ao, 15 1
,;� 5 1, — z
PARKING LOT AREA I PLANNING REVIEWEDAY . DATE
REO'D I PROVIDED
I 7q q I em- (4w q/miq
REMARKS
CHECKEDBY ITYPE!MTION OCCUP
+GROUP
R
___0d
JAREA 0
SPECIAL INSPECTION OCCUP
L AD
LOAD
REQUIRED t3d YES
REMARKS 0
z
PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 108 / IBC109 / IRC1 09 FINAL INSPECTION REO'D zi
VALUATION
$ 2
Description
Plan Check
Building Permit
Plumbing
Mechanical
Grading
Engr. Review
Engr. Inspection
Fire Review
Fire Inspection
Landscapelnsp.
Recording Fee
FEE Description FEE
State Surcharge
City Surcharge
77'��
Base Fee
I
Plan Chk. Deposit
Receipt #
Total Amt. Due
Receipt #
APPLICATION APPROVAL
I his application is not a permit until signed by the
Building Official or his/tier Deputy. and Fees are paid, and
receipt is acknowledged in space provided.
OFFICIALS SJGJ))ATURE DATE
q
RELE7
ATTEN-PON t:,& 1 1 JJ43 L
ITIS UNLAWFULTO USE OR OCCUPYABUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTILAFINAL
INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR ACERTIFICATE OF OCCU-
PANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC109/IBC110/IRC110.
9/03 PRESS HARD -YOU ARE MAKING 4 COPIES
CALL
FOR INSPECTION
It
(4 2 5)
771-02,20
I
ORIGINAL - E YELLOW: INSPECTOR
PINK'CM �A_
NER GOLD -ASSESSOR 'A
z
0
i
0
M
q =5
M
C
M
0
0
0 C
M
M Z
K) --I
C
Cn
0 -n
nx
_j >
M 9
M M
0 Un
0 r-
0 M
C cir)
9 Cn
M C-)
Z r-
.im
z
z
0
i
0
M
�.. I
W
ALLEXPO-so- suRFACE.8
13L C)o 1650.50' MAIMAL
VERED WITHIN 2 DAYS
—0-DK 3b
C3 7
U.j 8 8
�— 0 ui SCH 40
0 :7 cr- F Roslu DRAi��6�ri� N-12
EA5EMENT �810 HANGUH
LU,j
U, vi
cf) C�l III I
M. '43VW
0 Ul+.UU'
:z — 0 TE DENCHNARU EW
F-
N VERTICAL DATJM: 4—
U-1
Lu ui U� -- — ---
0 G4,TGH DA51N ;ZIM
.15
(N
LoGATED AT G E.
(NI
1� TERHGTIO� OF A B Mill"
&fH AVE & M E 5T.
247.00
AVE. GRADE
U3 pl:�
A. 248.00'
B. 251.83,, PROP06EP
C) cl)
LU C. 252.00' HOU4E
F- 0 D, 248.166'
�14 1 rTE DE 71HI,
z_w_-
Lu LOT 1 (�59) Mkbow
4 = 250.00'
MAX HEIGHT: 275.00' 7991.44 ft
20.0.0'.
t-- LU ACTUAL HE'lGHT: 274.50'
LL- FOOTING= 246-83'
ISTFL = 260.50' RoQr
CVN�M N
'i. = — L
gNin i� gr;n nn,
LU
�> r�
0
SCALE: 1" = 20.00'
UJI-R, �y
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical/ Civil Engineer
July 2, 2004
JUL 6 20N
PERMIT COUNTER
z
Mr. Rob Michel
Michel Construction, Inc.
M
7907 - 212th Street S.W. #102
Edmonds, Washington 98026
M
C
Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation "Soils Report"
M 0,
--10
Proposed (2) 4 Lot S.F.R. Development
0
0 C
8th
Ave. S & Pine Street, Edmonds, Washington
M
M z
C
> z
This engineering report presents the results of a geotechnical evaluation
Cn
of the property at the N.E. corner of 8h Ave. S. and Pine Street, Edmonds,
0 -n
Washington, with respect to the proposed 8 lot development. This evaluation
was required due to owner developer concerns, as well as City of Edmonds
requirements.
rn M
0 —
Cn
0 F-
0 M
Cn
Cl)
REFERENCES:
M 0
Z
Survey by L.S.A.
Location map
Site CIT %.YJL- K
C
>
z
plan
Project drainage plan by Donna Breske, PE
Photographs
C/),
z
0
BACKGROUND:
0
M
The proposed eight lot project, to be constructed by Michel Construction,
Inc., will occupy the majority of the overall property, with access drive to 7 lots off
8 1h Ave S.
SOILS FOUNDATIONS - SITE DEVELOPMENT INSPECTION - DRAINAGE - DESIGN & PERMIT LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502 - Shoreline, Washington 98155 - (206) 546-9217 - FAX 546-8442
Michel Construction, Inc. 811 Ave. S & Pine Street
Page two
CHARACTERISTICS:
A survey of the subject property was conducted on June 12, 2004 by
L.S.A. The property is rectangular, and consists of approximately 62,510
frontage feet along the east side of 8 1h Ave. S and 179.26 frontage feet along the
north side of Pine Street. The adjoining properties, as well as the neighborhood,
consist of single family residences on similar size lots.
The subject property contains mature trees, shrubs, and lowland grassy
areas. The property is moderately sloped (less than 14%), and drains
southwesterly to the existing wetland.
EVALUATION:
Visual assessments of the property at the N.E. corner of 81h Ave. S and
Pine Street revealed no evidence of any geotechnical distress. No slides, no
settlements, no creep, nor any significant erosional degradation were observed.
This engineer has considerable experience in the immediate vicinity and
understands the foundation subgrade conditions.
Experience has proven that the subgrade soils are fully capable of
properly supporting the proposed 8 new single family residences.
This engineer evaluated the 8 1h Ave. S & Pine Street property on July 1,
2004. Significant clearing, grading, and drainage work had already occurred.
(see photographs).
The S.W. corner of the property is understood to be designated a W.Z., in
accordance with drainage plans by Donna Breske, P.E.
The utility work has exposed a large number of "soil test trenches"
throughout the property. Subgrade conditions were uniform.
0 -8" "Former" grasses, roots, organic silt (removed as of July 1,
2004)
8"-16" Sandy loam, medium dense
16"-4' Dense to very dense slightly sandy SILT.-
Z
0
1
0
M
-4 -n
M
C
M
0
0 C
M
M Z
,C) --4 r ,
C
F—
C/)
q -n
n
-4
M M
0 6)
0 r,
0-M
C Cl)
F. Cn
Q 0
Z
7-1
M
Z
3:
CD
Z
0
M
E, _
[viicnei uonsirucuon, inc. /-\ve. at r-mu otreet
Page three
Ground water was present in the southern portion of the property. See
photographs.
Z
0
This engineer has reviewed drainage plans by Donna Breske, P.E. and
?5
concurs with the system of drains and detention for geotechnical integrity.
M
The very dense subgrade soils will provide excellent foundation bearing
0
with proper drainage controls.
M
M
0
0
CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS:
M
M Z
C 2
Based on the findings of this investigation, and experience with similar
Cn
th
sites in the area, the property at 8 Ave. S and Pine Street is geotechnically
0 -n
approved for the proposed Michel Construction 8 lot S.F.R. development,
n
-4
subject to the following:
X
M M
- Standard reinforcing continuous and spread footings. Allowable bearing
0—
Cn
0
0 M
pressure: 2,000 p.s.f.
C W
9 Cn
M 0
Z
0 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.
>
Z
0 For retaining wall design, use friction factor of 0.55 and passive pressure
of 350 p.c.f.
Fn
Z
0
0 Geotechnical inspection by this engineer prior to any foundation concrete
0
placement.
M
The proposed structures 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
Michel Construction, Inc. 81h Ave. S & Pine Street
Page four
eighteen (18) and twenty-four (24) inches, respectively, and should be bottomed
rf
at least eighteen (18) inches below the lower adjacent finish ground su ace.
Depending on the final site grades, some overexcavation may be required
below footings to expose competent native soils. Unless lean concrete is used to
tt
fill the over excavated hole, the width of the overexcavation at the bo om must
be at least as wide as the sum of two times the depth of the overexcavation and
the footing width. For example, an overexcavation 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
-third increase in this design bearing pressure may
per square foot (p.s.f.). A one
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.
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.
Where:
(1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot.
(2) Passive earth pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid
density.
z
0
i
0
M
-n
0 M
C
M 0
0
0
0 C:
M
M Z
j) --I
C _Z
3:
CJ)
0 71
ri
M M
055
0 r-
0 M
C (J)
C co
M 0
Z
X,
z
—i
X
C0
z
0
M
Michel Construction, Inc. 8 1h Ave. S & Pine Street
Page five
A safety factor of at least 1.5 is recommended 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 recompacted 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 ne-zirin Value
Active Earth Pressure* 35 p.c.f.
Passive Earth Pressure 350 p.c.f.
Coefficient of Friction 0.55
Soil Unit Weight 125 p.c.f.
Where:
(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 deflect 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
i
0
M
Michel Construction, Inc. / 8 1h Ave. S & Pine Street
Page six
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
ould be
placed above the walls. If these conditions exist, then those pressures sh
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 co.nstruction 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 Backf ill
Backfill placed within eighteen (18) inches of any retaining or foundation
kf I
walls should be free -draining structural fill containing no organics. This bac i I
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 as 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.
z
0
A
0
M
--I -n
C M
M 0
0
0 C:
—i C
X M
M z
C')
o -n
n
M M
0
0
0 M
C Cn
C (1)
Q 0
Z
M
z
C/)
z
0
1
0
M
a
Michel Construction, Inc. 8" Ave. S & Pine Street
Page seven
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
Z
0
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
0
M
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
M
cuts into native soils should be inclined no steeper than 2:1 (H:V). Fill slopes
M 0 1 z
should not exceed 1:1 (H:V). it is important to note that sands do cave suddenly,
0
__10
0
and without warning. The contractors should be made aware of this potential
C
—4 r.
hazard.
X M
M Z
Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any
C 2
>
temporary or permanent slope. All permanently exposed slope s should be
Cn
seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve
0 -n
stability of the surficial layer of soil.
M
rn M
DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS
0 Fn
0 r-
0 M
CO
Footing drains are recommended at the base of all footings and retaining
Cn
Q 0
Z
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
Z
should be at least as low as the bottom of the footing and it should be sloped for
--I
drainage. All roof and surface water drains must be kept separate from the
X
foundation drain system.
Z
0
The excavation and site should be graded so that surface water is directed
0
M
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) pe rcent
away from the building, except where the area adjacent to the building is paved.
E,
Michel Construction, Inc. 8" Ave. S & Pine Street
Page eight
GENERA - EARTHVVORK AND QTRUCTURAL 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 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
Minimum RelativeCompaction
Beneath footings, slabs or walkways 95%
Behind retaining walls 90%
Beneath pavements 95% for upper 12
inches of subgrade, 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 on -site soils
are wet, site preparation costs may be higher because of delays due to rains and
Z
0
i
0
M
Michel Construction, Inc. 8 1h Ave. S & Pine Street
Page nine
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 of particles passing the No. 200 sieve should be measured from that
portion of the soil passing the three -quarter -inch sieve.
-site soils for fill material may be acceptable if the
The use of "some" on
upper organic materials is segregated and moisture contents are monitored by
engineering inspection.
DRAINAGE CONTROLS:
The overall property at B" & Pine contains upslope seepage. The road (81h
Ave. S.) has created a long term historical "dam". Thus, the S.W. corner of the
property has become a man-made "moisture -zone".
Drainage plans by Donna Breske, P.E. have incorporated intercept drains,
tightlines and detention/ orifice mitigations.
Geotechnically, this engineer will provide onsite inspections to verify
proper foundation subgrade conditions exist prior to any concrete placement.
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.
INSPECTION:
The recommendations of this report are only valid when key geotechnical
aspects are inspected by this engineer during construction:
Z
0
M
--I -n
M
C 0
MO
80
C
M
M Z
r'.) -4
C _Z
X
o -n
n
MM
0
0
0 M
C cl)
Q 0
Z
Z
W
Z
0
M
I
Michel Construction, Inc. 8 1h Ave. S & Pine Street
Page ten
Soil cuts
Foundation subgrade verification
Retaining wall, or rockery placement
z
Any fill placement 0
Subsurface drainage installation
0
M
Temporary and final erosion control measures.
0 M
SUMMARY:
C:
0,
The proposed Michel Construction 8 lot SFR project at 8 1h & Pine 00
C
Edmonds, is geotechnically viable when constructed in accordance with the M M
M z
recommendations herein, compliance with City of Edmonds approved plans and
C
requirements, and key geotechnical inspection during construction, > z
0 -n
CLOSURE: -n
The findings and recommendations of this report were prepared in MM
0 5
accordance with generally accepted professional engineering principles and 0
Om
practice. No other warranty, either express or implied, is made. The conclusions C Cn
F, CD
are based on the results of the field exploration and interpolation of subsurface MO
Z
conditions between explored locations. If conditions are encountered during
e different than those described in this report, this
construction that appear to b
engineer should be notified to observe the situation and review and verify or M
modify the recommendations. z
If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call. cn_
z
0
M
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
Geotechnical / Civil Engineer
MA
rWrRE-5 12W/ 1,7;C=)]
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
M. S. C. E., M. B. A. Geotechnical /Civil Engineer
RECEIVED
December 30, 2004
City of Edmonds
121 5 1h Ave. N.
Edmonds, WA 98020
Subject: Field Reports/ Geotechnical 11n t*
- specions
Michel Construction Project( 8T—and �Pine
8 New Residences
JAN G � 20,95
ENGINEERING DIV10,10Iq
This engineering report presents the results of ongoing geotechnical
inspections for the 8 new homes constructed by Michel Construction at 8th and
Pine.
REFERENCES:
0 City of Edmonds approved project plans
0 Geotechnical reports by D. Bruce, P.E. July 2, 2004
0 Previous inspection reports
0 Photographs
INSPECTIONS:
This engineer has provided and continues to provide onsite geotechnical
inspections as required by City of Edmonds authorization.
W ement of
Pine St. (2004-0697): This engineer verified proper plac
compacted structural fill (crushed rock) to improve constructability on sub -
grade soils. This engineer previously verified dense native sub -grade soils
providing 2,000 p.s.f. bearing capacity. The structural fill was effectively
placed as a construction expedient and is geotechnically approved.
Subsurface drainage was properly placed in accordance with approved
plans and normal practices. *
The rear soil cut required erosion stabilization and this engineer verified
proper placement of the rockery. Base rocks were properly founded in
dense native sub -grade soil. Rock size, rock linkage, and batter were
properly installed.
959 81h Ave. S. (2004-07091: Subsurface soil bearing previously verified
and approved. Foundation installation, subsurface drains, and site grading
approved through this date (December 30, 2004).
SOILS - FOUNDATIONS - SITE DEVELOPMENT - INSPECTION - DRAINAGE - DESIGN& PERMIT - LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502 - Shoreline, WA 98155 - (206) 546-9217 - FAX (206) 546-8442
Z
0
i
0
M
--i -n
M
C
M
0
0
C
M
M Z
g) -1 - .
C —
> Z
0)
0
M M
q
0
0 M
C C()
90)
M 0
Z
7-1
Z
--I
Z
0
0
rn
9
953 8" Ave. S. (2004-0711): Subsurface soil bearing previously verified
and approved. Foundation installation, subsurface drains, and site grading
approve through this date (December 30, 2004).
945 8" Ave. S. (2004-0712): This engineer verified proper placement of
Z
0
compacted structural fill (crushed rock) to improve constructability on sub-
grade soils. This engineer previously verified dense native sub -grade soils
0
M
providing 2,000 p.s.f. bearing capacity. The structural fill was effectively
placed as a construction expedient and is geotechnically approved.
Subsurface drainage was properly placed in accordance with approved
plans and normal practices.
The rear soil cut required erosion stabilization and this engineer verified
M
0
0
--to
proper placement of the rockery. Base rocks were properly founded in
0 C:
dense native sub -grade soil. Rock size, rock linkage, and batter were
M M
M Z
properly installed.
10-4 r I .
C _Z
933 81h Ave. S. (2004-0710): Subsurface soil bearing previously verified
and approved. Foundation installation, subsurface drains, and site grading
CO
0 -n
approved through this date (December 30, 2004).
n
Ih rified proper placement of
925 8 Ave. S. (2004-06981: This engineer ve
M M
0 5
compacted structural fill (crushed rock) to improve constructability on sub-
0 r-
0 M
grade soils. This engineer previously verified dense native sub -grade soils
C CD
9 Cn
providing 2,000 p.s.f. bearing capacity. The structural fill was effectively
M 0
Z
placed as a construction expedient and is ge otechnically approved.
71
Subsurface drainage was properly placed in accordance with approved
plans and normal practices.
The rear soil cut required erosion stabilization and this engineer verified
>
Z
proper placement of the rockery. Base rocks were properly founded in
dense native sub -grade soil. Rock size, rock linkage, and batter were
properly installed.
Z
0
1
921 8 Ih Ave. S. (2004-0713): This engineer verified proper placement of
0
M
structural fill material atop the dense native soils. As previously verified,
the dense native soils easily provide a minimum of 2,000 p.s.f. bearing
capacity. Contractor chose to place rock as an improved sub -grade
material. Placement of structural fill and compaction were inspected and
jeotechnically approved.
are c
This engineer verified proper placement of subsurface drainage in
accordance with approved plans and good practices.
City of Edmonds
December 30, 2004
Page 3 of 3
915 8t' Ave. S. (2004-0714): Subsurface soil bearing previously verified
and approved. Foundation installation, subsurface drains, and site grading
a proved through this date (December 30, 2004).
z
SUMMARY:
Ongoing geotechnical inspections verified proper foundation, drainage,
and rockery work through this date (December 30, 2004).
C: M
d to this site or neighboring
0 No adverse geotechnical impacts have occurre M 0
0
0
properties as a result of the construction activities.
x M
* All geotechnical aspects are approved through this date (December 30, IT! z
2004). C
> z
r
0 Geotechnical inspections ongoing as required by City of Edmonds.
CD
o -n
If there are any questions, do. not hesitate to call. MM
0 —C/)
0
0 M
V WAS C C/)
IT!
0
X
17406 M
>
z
0 A
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. M
Geotechnical Civil Engineer Cn
t-mme ==3/ z
0
C.C. Michel Construction Inc.
7907 212 th St. SW #102 IT!
Edmonds, WA 98026
DMB:jpb
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
M. S. C. M. B. A. Geotechnical /Civil Engineer
September 29, 2004
City of Edmonds
121 5�h
DIVISION Z
Ave. N. 0
Edmonds, WA 98020 0
M
Subject: Field Reports I Geotechnical Irispections =i
Michel Construction Project 48'" and Pine-)
------------ 11
8 New Single Family Residences a M
C
M 0
0
This report presents the ongoing results of geotechnical inspections for --40
8th 0 C
the 8 new residences at and Pine (by Michel Construction Inc.). ic
M
M Z
REFERENCES: C —Z
0 Geotechnical report by D. Bruce, P.E. July 2, 2004
0 City of Edmonds approved project plans for 8 new residences 0 -n
n
0 Inspection authorization by City of Edmonds
& Construction photographs MM
BACKGROUND:
Michel Construction has received permits for the construction of 8 new
residences at the northeast intersection of 8th Ave. and Pine St.
This engineer prepared a geotechnical report dated July 2, 2004 with criteria for
foundation work, excavation, and rockeries.
Excavation for the project began in August of 2004 (see photographs).
This engineer provided qqi!.y onsite inspections during periods of active
excavation and foundation work.
915 81h Ave. S. (2004-0714): All excavation stable and approved. Soil
bearing of 2,000 p.s.f. verified. "OK' to proceed with foundation formwork,
reinforcing steel, and concrete placement per City of Edmonds approved
plans.
SOILS - FOUNDATIONS - S1rEDE11ELORUEN7* - INSPECTION I D17A INA GE , DESIGN & PERA41 7' - L EGA L
P.O. Box 55502 * Shoreline, WA 98155 - (206) 546-9217 - FAX (206) 546-8442
City of Edmonds
September 29, 2004
Page 2 of 3
921 8" Ave. S. (2004-0713): All excavation stable and approved. Soil
bearing of 2,000 p.s.f. verified. "OK' to proceed with foundation formwork,
,nr4 , I .
reinforcing steel, and concrete placement per City of Edmonds approved
plans.
925 8" Ave. S. (2004-0698): All excavation stable and approved. Soil
bearing of 2,000 p.s.f. verified. "OK' to proceed with foundation formwork,
reinforcing steel, and concrete placement per City of Edmonds approved
plans.
933 8 Ih Ave. S. (2004-0710): All excavation stable and approved. Soil
bearing of 2,000 p-s-f. verified. "OK'to proceed with foundation formwork,
reinforcing steel, and concrete placement per City of Edmonds approved -
plans.
945 8" Ave. S. (2004-0712): All excavation stable and approved. Soil
bearing of 2,000 p.s.f. verified. "OK' to proceed with foundation formwork,
reinforcing steel, and concrete placement per City of Edmonds approved
plans.
953 8 Ih Ave. S. (2004-0711 : All excavation stable and approved. Soil
erified. "OK to proceed with foundation formwork,
bearing of 2,000 p.s.f. v
reinforcing steel, and concrete placement per City of Edmonds approved
plans.
959 8" Ave. S. (2004-070 : All excavation stable and approved. Soil
bearing of 2,000 p.s.f. verified. "OK' to proceed with foundation formwork,
reinforcing steel, and concrete placement per City of Edmonds approved
plans.
821 Pine St. (2004-0697): All excavation stable and approved. Soil
bearing of 2,000 p-s-f. verified. "OK to proceed with foundation formwork,
reinforcing steel, and concrete placement per City of Edmonds approved
plans.
SUMMARY:
Geotechnical inspections verified proper work through this date
September 29, 2004.
0 The excavations for all 8 lots are stable and approved.
z
0
i
0
M
-4 -n
M
C
M
0
C-)
0 C
3: M
M Z
C
0 -n
3:9
M M
0 5)
0
0 M
C M
9 Cj)
M 0
Z
z
0
i
0
M