20040713.pdfDATE RECEIVED
I --I-- I u
CITY OF EDMONDS
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION
A
OWNER NAME/NAME OF BUSINESS
LM
zo
MAILING ADDRESS
-T'V7 24-1 u 2
CITY ZIP
]TELEPHONE
IcCO2-L
1 —1 (c) - 221
NAME
Lu
c c
ADDRESS
-7
CITY ZIP
I>v \ M ()
rELEPHONE
A_-�l _gO
NAME
CBL#
k�
IX
0
ADDRESS
—41
�kAA n___4
I
Ij
0
CITY ZIP
TELEPHONE
--n(O-'WA
ri
a�LINIL L21(II
-
STATE LICENSE NUM13EFI EXPI�ATJON DATE
BY
CM
,*"t6R-
01,
-<j
ul
PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT PAR EL IND.
_j
[24-RESIDENTIAL PLUMBING / MECH
COMMERCIAL COMPLIANCE OR
ADDITION CHANGE OF USE
REMODEL MULTIFAMILY SIGN
7ING CY.S FENCE
REPAIR G�AD
( — X
DEMOLISH TANK OTHER
GARAGE o RETAINING WALL FIRE SPRINKLER
ALARM
z
CARPORT ROCKERY FIRE
OF USE. BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN:
GaA V-��
W
0
NUMBER
NUMBER OF
CRITICAL
M
OF
DWELLIN G
AREAS
0
STORIES
UNITS
NUMBERqt(
DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE uw)
X4 lc�_F
�70
,,RURCE
(.*H
.�41 gT
��)1�4V(ING %
f%,11 I
'T SLOPE %
�5 /
PLAN CHEC
USTED
DATE
.2L
U f1k, 9 V11
THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO
I=
BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC
9
DOMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE
.j
I.
-SEPARATE PERMISSION.
cc
PERMIT APPLICATION: 100 DAYS
PERMIT LIMIr 1 YEAR - PROVIDED WORK IS STARTED WITHIN 180 DAYS
SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION
'APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS
IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF
2
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON. ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES. AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND
ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE. ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT ISSUANCE OF THIS PERM11 SHALL NOT BE
DEEMED TO MODIFY. WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINA14CE
0
NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITYS ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION
x
I
-
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION, THAT THE INFORMATION
GIVEN IS CORRECT. AND THAT I AM THE OWNER, OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF
THE OWNER. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC-
,LiQEIIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED
TION; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUT
IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR COVE OF-�HE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO
W05M'E�'S COMPENSATION INSUTNCE AND RCW 18,27,
S,
DATE SIGNED
AWNE7RRXG
�E
ONE
OB
DDRESS
PERMIT EXPIRES
PERMIT I )N/
NUMBER t7
9;-n I - AV, 5UITE/APT#
I- rz-_, <-�
P,A NAME/SLIBDIVISION NO. LOT NO.
PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP
EXISTING PROPOSED
REQUIRED DEDICATION — FT
METER SIZE LINE SIZE NO. OF FIXTURES
-3 Lv I I I / , , I
LID NO
LID FEE $
TESCP Approved
AW Pernitt Required
Street Use Permit Roq'd
Inspection Required
Sidewalk Required
underground
Wiring required
PRV REQUIRED
YE�g NO 13
1EMARKS
)WNER/CON TRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROLYDRAINAGE
?r 0' / N _� ( -7-1 :),% - ��I& f_"C� I r.�
I
Ll L 1 1'
rINEERING
:IRE REVIEWED BY
DATE
7/ . 2-
DATE
z
z
5
z
Lu
LU
cc
M
VARIANCE OR CU SHORELINE OR ADB# INSPECTION BOND
REQ-13. POSTED
OYES IgiN 0 IS
SEPA REVIEW SIGN AREA HEIGHT
COMPLETE EXEMPT ALLOWED PROPOSED ALLOWED PROPOSED
xP i 0/o I __i� ;;;L\ 5 , I Is
LOT COVERAGE REQUIRED SETBACKS (Fr.) PROPOSED SETBACKS (FF.)
%LLOWED . PROPOSED. FRONT SIDE REAR FRO�T L/RSIDI� REAF�,
'YO 3 15 "J10 �_o **' 5 - 15 010 '7 5 z
PARKING LOT AREA I PrNING REV WE B I
REQ'D I PROVIDED CL
16 > mw �6
�EMARKS
"HECKED 13Y I TYPE OF CQNSTRUCTION I CODE
SPECIAL INSPECTION
REQUIRED M YES
GROUP
OCCUPANT
LOAD
IEMARKS
IROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 108/IBC109/IRC109 FINAL INSPECTION REQ'D
VALUATION
$ 500.
Description
Plan Check
Building Permit
Plumbing
Mechanical
Grading
Engr. Review
Engr. Inspection
Fire Review
Fire Inspection
Landscapelnsp.
Recording Fee
FEE Description FEE
IS-25 — State Surcharge
,-2MFEE
City Surcharge
Base Fee
70
Plan Chk. Deposit
CALL
FOR INSPECTION
Receipt #
Total Amt. Due
1 Receipt # 7jl I
4 /A x
APPLICATION APPROVAL
This application is not a permit until signed by the
building Oflicial or his/her Deputy: and Fees are paid, and
receipt is acknowledged in space provided.
— I
FFJCIXIS I
S-SIGNOLIkRE DATE
I Let-"
EASED 0
ATTEP I N EXT 1333
4'"
L:
IT IS UNLA LTO USE OR OCCUPYABUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTILAFINAL
INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVALOR A CERTIFICATE OF OCCU- ORIGI�
PANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC109/IBC110/IRC110. PINK
09/03 PRESS HARD -YOU ARE MAKING 4 COPIES
(425)
771-0220
YE__/CT R
LLOW - INISPE
GOLD -ASSESSOR
z
0
1
0
M
=i =n-
M
C
M
0
40
0 C:
M
M Z
C0
0 -n
n
M M
0 C-1)
0 r_
0 M
C cf)
F, Cn
Q 0
Z
7-1
X
z
-4
X
Cn
z
0
1
0
M
�50 255 AVE. GRADE
ACCEPTABLE MERLINr- IN 90000'0�� 269.39 �60 A. 251.00'
--p=M9.00, B. 257.50'
--ALL EXPOSED SURFACES C. 257.25'
S%-9 35 D. 251.75' RECEIVED
SfQl 40 BE�QOVERED WITHIN 2 D T4 —=254.37'
I MAX HEIGHT. 279.37' jtjN 3 Pi 2004
........... ----- I oc ACTUAL HEIGHT: 279.13'
FooTING= 250.50' GUILDINu s
1ST FL. = 255.50' cirtim5f. 6 A -,-
mi- etc) NOTEL)
2ND FL. = 265-50'
IMPE11VIOUS AREA BY ENGINEERING
PROP05ED BUILDING: 2,772.11 SQ. FT.
DRIVEWAY: 471-37 SQ. FT.
HOL15E PA'I'lo: 86.00 SQ. FT.
COVERAGE.
TOTAL: 3,329.48 SQ. FT.
r - A
LOT 2 (921) 1 LOT
R;
2,187.26 6,300.37 357o
ml.4
c 0
p
PTA: 207-3250-0217-100
ont
FILTER FENCE
es
MICHEL L
Z!
NC ar
CONSTRUCTION, INC
- ------------ - ------ 921 8TH AVE ler ......
EDMONDS, WA-WION�—
R F DRAIN P,=210.00 55G H s�ht -As
C NE"ON ib ----
r
2
At�PROV ) EQ $Y PLANNING
�)cvk khA
TOP= 25 76 10'UTILITY iro-O —4L 7�
I E 249.2 EASEMENT WATER METER LOCATED AT
WATER' & SEWER 20 01 THE 5W CORNER OF LOT 1
100.50' INSP�0T10—N`SMQ'U FAR. "A" ON bTH AVE
CALL 425- 7t-- M2TBff--1-530 SS�H VERTICAL DATUM: CITY COPY
yp# F-10'UTILITY ..... . CATCH 13A51N KIM
--1 LOCATEP AT 5.E.
C)AINERICOlklTR�0TOIR IS RESPONSIBLE 1`0� INTERSECTION OF
FOOTING DRAINS NOT &TH AVE & FINE ST.
TO BE TIED INTO ELEV: 247.00
DETENTION SYSTEM A
PT,OT / C-YR ADING PLA N
SCALE: 1" = 20.00'
0''-
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical/ Civil Engineer
July 2, 2004
Mr. Rob Michel
Michel Construction, Inc.
7907 - 212th Street S.W. #102
Edmonds, Washington 98026
Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation "Soils Report"
Proposed (2) 4 Lot S.F.R. Development
8th Ave. S & Pine Street, Edmonds, Washington
"CEIVEID
JUL - 6 20N
PERMIT COUNTEF�
This engineering report presents the results of a geotechnical evaluation
of the property at the N.E. corner of 8h Ave. S. and Pine Street, Edmonds,
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.
REFERENCES:
Survey by L.S.A.
Location map
Site plan "ITY COPLAL7
Project drainage plan by Donna Breske, PE
Photographs
BACKGROUND:
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
z
0
0
M
-4 =H
Michel Construction, Inc. 8" Ave. S & Pine Street
Pagetwo
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 B" 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.
E
VALUATION:
Visual assessments of the property at the N. E. corner of 81h Ave. S and
ine Street revealed no evidence of any geotechnical distress. No slides, no
attlements, no creep, nor any significant erosional degradation were observed.
'his engineer has considerable experience in the immediate vicinity and
nderstands the foundation subgrade conditions.
Experience has proven that the subgrade soils are fully capable of
roperly supporting the proposed 8 new single family residences.
This engineer evaluated the 8" Ave. S & Pine Street property on July 1,
004. Significant clearing, grading, and drainage work had already occurred.
3ee photographs).
The S.W. corner of the property is understood to be designated a W.Z., in
,ccordance with drainage plans by Donna Breske, P.E.
The utility work has exposed a large number of "soil test trenches"
iroughout 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
I
0
M
Michel Construction, Inc. / 8 1h Ave. S & Pine Street
Page three
Ground water was present in the southern portion of the property. See
photographs.
This engineer has reviewed drainage plans by Donna Breske, P.E. and
concurs with the system of drains and detention for geotechnical integrity.
The very dense subgrade soils will provide excellent foundation bearing
with proper drainage controls.
CONCLUSIONS I RECOMMENDATIONS:
Based on the findings of this investigation, and experience with similar
sites in the area, the property at 81h Ave. S and Pine Street is geotechnically
approved for the proposed Michel Construction 8 lot S.F.R. development,
subject to the following:
• Standard reinforcing 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.
• Geotechnical inspection by this engineer prior t any foundation concrete
placement.
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
Z
0
1
0
M
Michel Construction, Inc. / 81h Ave. S & Pine Street
Page four
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 overexcavation 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 overexcavation at the bottom 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
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.
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
A
0
M
-4 -n
M
M
0
__10
0 C
M
M z
JO 4
C
0 -n'
n
M M
0
0 M
C 0)
K V)
Q 0
Z
M
z
z
0
M
1h
Michel Construction, Inc. 8 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.
Z
SLABS -ON -GRADE:
0
Slab -on -grade floors may be supported on undisturbed, competent native
CD
soils or on structural fill. The slabs may be supported on the existing soils
0 M
C
provided these soils can be recompacted prior to placement of the free -draining
M 0
sand or gravel underneath the slab. This sand and gravel layer should be a
0
__10
0
minimum of four (4) inches thick. We also recommend using a vapor barrier
C
such as 6-mil. plastic membrane beneath the slab with minimum overlaps of 12
M
M z
inches for sealing purposes.
C z
PERMANENT FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS:
o -n
Retaining walls backfilled on one side only should be designed to resist
M M
lateral earth pressures imposed by the soils retained by these structures. The
0-
(n
0
following recommended design parameters are for walls less than twelve (12)
0 M
C Cn
feet in height which restrain level backfill:
C CD
M 0
Z
Parameter Design Value
X
3:
Active Earth Pressure* 35 p.c.f.
>
z
Passive Earth Pressure 350 p.c.f.
Coefficient of Friction 0.55
Soil Unit Weight 125 p.c.f.
z
0
Where:
M
(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).
9
Michel Construction, Inc. / 8" 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
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 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 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 as not exceeded because of a
build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. The subsection entitled Gener
Earthwork and Structural Fill contains recommendations regarding placement
and compaction of structural fill behind retaining and foundation walls.
z
0
A
0
M
3:
OM
C
MO
0
—1 0
0 C
X M
M z
C _Z
0)
0 -n
-n
mm
C)
0
0 M,
C Cn
9 0)
Q 0
Z
;U
>
z
-4
3:
z
0
A
0
M
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
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 1:1 (H:V). It is important to note that sands do cave suddenly,
and without warning. The contractors should be made aware of this potential
hazard.
lied over the top of any
Water should not be allowed to flow uncontro
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.
The excavation and 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.
Z
0
i
0
M
--I -n
M
C
M 0
0
-40
0 C
M
M Z
10--i
C
Cn
0 -n
n
M M
q
0
0 M
C C/)
9 Cn
M 0
Z
;U
X
Z
__q
X
W
Z
0
i
0
M
Michel Construction, Inc. 8" Ave. S & Pine Street
Page eight
)RK 'kNQ STRUCTURAI PILL:
The proposed building and pavement areas should be stripped and
Z
cleared of all surface vegetation, all organic matter, and other deleterious
0
material. The stripped or removed materials should not be mixed with any
0
materials to be used as structural fill.
M
Structural fill is defined as any fill placed under the building, behind
Cn
0
permanent retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the underlying
M
C
0
soils needs to support loads. This engineer should observe site conditions
M
0
during and after excavation prior to placement of any structural fill.
0
0 C
M
All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture content
M Z
at or near the optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content is that
C Z
moisture content which results in the greatest compacted dry density. The
moisture content of fill soils is very important and must be closely controlled
o "n
during the filling and compaction process.
-n
The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type,
M M
0 6
compaction equipment, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. In
0 r-
0 M
no case should the lifts exceed twelve (12) inches in loose thickness. The
C Cn
9 Cn
following table presents recommended relative compaction for structural fill:
M 0
Z
Location of Fill Placement Min.im um RelativeCompaction
Beneath footings, slabs or walkways 95%
X
Z
Behind retaining walls 90%
Cn
Z
Beneath pavements 95% for upper 12
0
M
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-1 557-78 (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
Michel Construction, Inc. 811 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.
The use of "some" on -site soils for fill material may be acceptable if the
upper organic materials is segregated and moisture contents are monitored by
engineering inspection.
DRAINAGE CONTROLS:
The overall property at 81h & Pine contains upslope seepage. The road (8 'h
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
A
0
M
Michel Construction, Inc. 8" Ave. S & Pine Street
Page ten
Soil cuts
Foundation subgrade verification
Retaining wall, or rockery placement
Any fill placement z
0
Subsurface drainage installation
0
Tempora[y and final erosion control measures. rn
5i
SUMMARY:
0 M
C
M
0
The proposed Michel Construction 8 lot SFR project at 8" & Pine 0
0
C
Edmonds, is geotechnically viable when constructed in accordance with the
M
recommendations herein, compliance with City of Edmonds approved plans and M z
requirements, and key geotechnical inspection during construction.
C P
E:
0)
CLOSURE: o -n
-n ?a
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.
i4"�� M'Z--� �- e-,
r
Dennis M. bruce, P.E.
Geotechnical /Civil Engineer
F-XF4R!E'S 12/2312 00 S I
- - - - FM "M
MM
—Cn
0 r-
0 M
C Cn
K Cn
M 0
Z
z
Cn
z
0
4
0
M
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
M. S. C. M. B. A. Geotechnical /Civil Engineer
RECEIVED
December 30, 2004 JAN G � 2095
City of Edmonds ENGINEEWIG D1111SION
121 5 th Ave. N.
Edmonds, WA 98020
Subject: Field Reports / Geotechnical Inspections
Michel Construction Project(8uha—n—d—P—in—e--�
8 New Residences
This engineering report presents the results of ongoing geotechnical
8th
inspections for the 8 new homes constructed by Michel Construction at 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.
Pine St. (2004-0697): This engineer verified proper placement of
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 8th Ave. S. (2004-0709): Subsurface soil bearing previously verified
and approved. Foundation installation, subsurface drains, and site grading
approve through this date (December 30, 2004).
SOILS - FOUNDATIONS - SITE DEVELOPMENT - INSPECTION - DRAINAGE . DESIGN& PERA41T - LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502 - Shoreline, WA 98155 - (206) 546-9217 * FAX (206) 546-8442
Z
0
i
0
M
—1 -n
65 --1
0 M
0
0
0
0 C::
rn
M Z
10-1
C
o -n
MM
0
0
0 M
C (J)
MCI)
M 0
Z
Z
Z
0
4
0
M
City of Edmonds
December 30, 2004
Page 2 of 3
953 8" Ave. S. (2004-0711): Subsurface soil bearing previously verified
and approved. Foundation installation, subsurface drains, and site grading
ppploved through this date (December 30, 2004).
945 8 Ih Ave. S. (2004-0712): This engineer verified proper placement of
Z
compacted structural fill (crushed rock) to improve constructability on sub-
0
grade soils. This engineer previously verified dense native sub -grade soils
0
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
CD
plans and normal practices.
0 M
C
The rear soil cut required erosion stabilization and this engineer verified
M
0
proper placement of the rockery. Base rocks were properly founded in
0
0 C
dense native sub -grade soil. Rock size, rock linkage, and batter were
A K
M M
properly installed.
M Z
ID --I
81h
0 933 Ave. S. (2004-0710): Subsurface soil bearing previously verified
C
>
and approved. Foundation installati on, subsurface drains, and site grading
CD
approved through this date (December 30, 2004).
0 _n
81h
0 925 Ave. S. (2004-0698): This engineer verified proper placement of
M
M M
compacted structural fill (crushed rock) to improve constructability on sub-
0 U5
0 r-
grade soils. This engineer previously verified dense native sub -grade soils
0 M
C: 0)
providing 2,000 p.s.f. bearing capacity. The structural fill was effectively
Cn
placed as a construction expedient and is geotechnically approved.
M 0
Z
nri
Subsurface drainage was properly placed in accordance with approved
71
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
Z
dense native sub -grade soil. Rock size, rock linkage, and batter were
properly installed.
CO
Z
921 81h Ave. S. (2004-0713): This engineer verified proper placement of
0
structural fill material atop the dense native soils. As previously verified,
M
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
are geotechnically approved.
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 8" Ave. S. (2004-0714): Subsurface soil bearing previously verified
and approved. Foundation installation, subsurface drains, and site grading
approved through this date (December 30, 2004).
SUMMARY:
z
Ongoing geotechnical inspections verified prop er foundation, drainage,
0
and rockery work through this date (December 30, 2004).
M
No adverse geotechnical impacts have occurred to this site or neighboring
--j
properties as a result of the construction activities.
M
0
All geotechnical aspects are approved through this date (December 30,
0
0 C
2004).
M
Geotechnical inspections ongoing a s required by City of Edmonds.
M z
C -Z
If there are any questions, do. n-ot hesitate to call.
I V,F.
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
Geotechnical / Civil Engineer
C.C. Michel Construction Inc.
7907 212 th St. SW #102
Edmonds, WA 98026
DMB:jpb
--A
Tin-
o -n
Ti
M M
0
0
0 M
cl)
C/)
Q 0
Z
X
z
z
0
i
0
M
0
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
Geotechnical /Civil Engineer
M.S.C.E., B.A.
2004
September 29,
City of Edmonds
th [)J\JIS10H
Z
121 5 Ave. N. NG t4
0
Edmonds, WA 98020
0
gci ions
Subject: Field Reports Geotechnical IpW t"
M
Michel Construction Project 48t" and Pine)
q :n
8 New Single Family Residences
0 M
C
This report presents the ongoing results of geotechnical inspections for
M
--10
8th truction Inc.).
the 8 new residences at and Pine (by Michel Cons
00
C
M
M Z
REFERENCES:
CZ
0 Geotechnical report by D. Bruce, P.E. July 2, 2004
0 City of Edmonds approved project p lans for 8 new residences
W
0 -n
0 Inspection authorization by City of Edmonds
-n
0 Construction photographs
MM
BACKgROUND:
0 5
0
0 M
Michel Construction has received permits for the construction of 8 new
C Cn
M0
Z
residences at the northeast intersection of Bth Ave. and Pine St.
This engineer prepared a geotechnical report dated July 2, 2004 with criteria for
foundation work, excavation, and rockeries.
Z
Excavation for the project began in August of 2004 (see photographs).
This engineer provided 40y onsite inspections during periods of active
Z
0
I
excavation and foundation work.
0
M
1h table and approved. Soil
915 8 Ave. S. (2004-0714): All excavation s
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 - SITE DEVELOPMENT - INSPECTION - DRAINAGE - DESIGNV PERA41T - LEGAL
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 &h Ave. S. (2004-0713Y All excavation stable and approved. Soil
bearing of 2,000 p.s.f. verified. "OK'to proceed with foundation formwork,
ri
reinforcing steel, and concrete placement per City of Edmonds approved
plans.
925 8 Ih 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 8th Ave. S. (2004-07101: 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 th 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 81h Ave. S. (2004-Qy 111: All excavation stable and approved. Soil
bearing of 2,000 p.s.f. verified. "OW to proceed with foundation formwork,
reinforcing steel, and concrete placement per City of Edmonds approved
plans.
959 8 Ih Ave. S. (2004-_07091: 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 gppLo—yed.
z
0
i
0
M
--I -n
M
rn
0
0
0 C:
-4 K
M M
M Z
g) --i
C
CI)
o -n
n
M M
0
0
0 M
C C/)
9 Cn
M 0
Z
r
z
C/)
z
0
q
0
M
City of Edmonds
September 29, 2004
Page 3 of 3
Foundation bearing for all 8 residences was verified and approved for
foundation placement.
required by City of Edmonds.
Geotechnical inspections ongoing as
z
y questions, do not hesitate to call. 3
if there are an M.
-n
OM
C
M
0
C)Ok --10
0
M
117405
M z
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
NA C
z
Geotechnical Civil Engineer >
EXPWES I
0
C.C. Michel Construction Inc.
MM
7907 212" St. SW #102
Edmonds, WA 98026 0
0
M
C C/)
M 0
z
DMB:jpb
X
z
0)
z
M
Height Calculation Worksheet
Address:
Date:
Inspector(s):_M TIC,
1. Datum Point: 96. (o), S itk- S k
2. Datum Point Elevation: Lk
z
3. Average Grade:
M
=i 9:
4.. Maximum Elevation Mowed: �LG 4.31(average &ade)41 25" 9,1 N. Sl
Cn
M
C
5. Reference Point Elevation Shot to House:
M 0
0 0
(datum elevation)+ 12,919 (grade to transit level line shot to h* ouse)
M M
M z
6. Measurements from line shot onto house to roof ridge:
C1.
0 -n
-n
M
M
0 CI)
Tota: I A. Lt j . .
7. Actual Elevation:Irzq,,IpS (reference point elevation) + (measurements
from #6) 2,S
Conclusion:
Jactual) is greater)�tbaul-1q,_5 (allowed); therefore the house is/
is not over the height requirement per ECDC 16.20.30 requirements
Mar 28 06 09:31a D. Bruce, P.E. 206-546-8442 P.1
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
M. S. C. M. B. A. Geotechnical /Civil Engineer
March 25, 2006
City of Edmonds z
0
1215 1h Ave.N -1 1 .",
Edmonds, WA 98020
Subject: FINAL Report - Geotechnical Inspections
Michel Construction, Inc. 8 Now Homes
8th
and Pine, Edmonds, Washington
915 8th Ave. S I Permit No. 2004-0714 945 8th Ave. S / Permit No. 2004-0712
921 Sth Ave. S I Permit No. 2004-0713 953 8th Ave. S / Permit No. 2004-0711
925 8th Ave. S I Permit No. 2004-0698 959 8th Ave. S I Permit No. 2004-0709
933 8th Ave. S I Permit No. 2004-0710
821 Pine St I Permit No. 2004-0213 (final report submitted June '14, 2005)
This engineering report presents the final results of ongoing geotechnical
inspections for the 8 new homes constructed by Michel Construction at 8th and Pine in
Edmonds, Washington. NOTE: Final report dated June 14, 2005 completed inspections
at 821 Pine St.
REFERENCES:
0 City of Edmonds approved Project Plans
0 Geotechnical and inspection reports by D. Bruce, P.E.
0 Site photographs
INSPEg.TIONS,
This engineer provided on -site geotechnical inspections as required by City of
Edmonds in accordance with special inspection agreements. Geotechnical inspections
occurred ga�y during key aspects of excavation, foundation preparation, fill placement,
subsurface drainage, rockery construction and grading activities.
The following summaries refer to all 7 homes listed above (821 Pine St. already
completed).
Excavations: The excavation for all 8 homes encountered dense native sub -
grade soils as anticipated by the geotechnical investigation and repo#Z FC, E IV E D
MAR 2 8 2006
SOILS , FOUNDATIONS a SITE DEVELOPMENT - INSPECTION * DRAINAGE - DESIGN & %J9t1bPRiEWQWVlCES CTK
P.O. Box 55502 - Shoreline, WA 98155 - (206) 546-9217 - FAX (206) 546-8 �A�Y OF EDMONDS
M
Mar 28 06 09:31a D. Bruce, P.E. 206-546-8442 p.2
City of Edmonds
Re: Michel Construction, Inc.,
March 25, 2006
Page 2
All excavations were stable and are approved.
a Soil Bearina: This engineer verified dense native sub -grade soils easily
providing 2,000 p.s.f. bearing capacity. Subsequent foundation formwork
reinforcing steel and concrete placement occurred in accordance with City of
Edmonds approved Plans and good practices. Approved.
0 Fill Material: No significant quantities of fill material were required for
geotechnicai purposes. Contractor brought in localized amounts (less than 10
cubic yards per lot) and placed as a sub -base in order to optimize foundation
formwork procedures. All placement of fill material is in accordance with this --
engineer's geotechnical inspections. Approved-
0 ockery Construction: This project required a number of rockeries both between
lots and at the up -slope east portion of the project (see Project Plans and
photographs).
This engineer _verified the following: Base rock embeddment in dense sub -grade
soil, rock linkage, rock size, rock chinking, drainage zone, face batter, and final
"blending in" with existing grades.
All project rockeries comply with approved Project Plans, this engineer's on -site
recommendations and normal good practices. All rockeries are ARpLovedd as
constructed.
• Subsurface qEqLnaqe: This engineer inspected and verified placement of
subsurface drains in accordance with City of Edmonds approved Plans and good
practices. All subsurface drainage is geotechnically appEoved.
• Erosion Control: Contractor properly established temporary erosion control
measures consisting of: Rocked construction entrance, siltation fencing, straw
bales as required, inlet catch basin filter socks, and diligent. cleanup. All
temporary erosion control measures were properly maintained throughout the
project.
Permanent Erosion Control Measures: Permanent erosion control measures
have been properly established for the entire 8-home project: Final surficial
grading has been completed, all driveways have been paved, rockehes
completed, landscaping consisting of lawn, shrubbery and small trees have been
properly installed. Additionally, the native growth zone at the southwest portion
of the overall property appears to comply with City of Edmonds approved Plans.'
Z
0
4
0
M
-1 -n
M
C
M
0
0 C
4 C
X M
M Z
01
C
o -n
ri
M M
0
0
0 M
C cl)
K Cn
M 0
.Z
Z
Z
0
i
0
M
P. E. 206-546-8442 p.3
Mar 28 OG 09:31a D. Bruce,
City of Edmonds
Re: Michel Construction, Inc.
March 25, 2006
Page 3
ures have been installed. There are no
All permanent erosion control meas
r1h surfaces on the project. Approved.
geotechnical instabilities or exposed ea
Z'
SUMMARY: 0
mpleted,
technical inspection items have been properly co M
All special geo
ontroi measures.
including permanent erosion c
—C
I inspections by D- Bruce, P.E.
This report completes the geotechnica
C M,
M U
If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call. 0
0
Oc
M
Mz
w C
z
0 -n
M M
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. 0 CO)
0
Geotechnical Civil Engineer 0 M
C Cni
9 Cn
M 0'
DMB:abj Z
cc: Michel Construction, Inc.
X
z
z
0.
0
M
QEagle Eye Consulting Engineers
PO BOX 523
Olalla WA 98359
C:206 356-7790
P:253 857-4939 MICROFILM
August 18, 2004
0
To: Michel Construction
0
M
7907 212 SW # 102
Edmonds, WA 98027
U5
Re: Michel. Single Family Home M
C
959 8" Ave M 0
0
0
Edmonds, Washington 98026 0
C
M
M z
C —z
EECE ED04-24 >
Client's Reference Number # 04-302
Cn
0 -n
n
This project is approved for "Architectural, Structural.. Plumbing, Mechanical, VIAQC
and Energy " Permit only. The drawing review has been completed and accepted for
M M
permit with the Approved Stamped drawings returned to the City of Edmonds on August
Cn
0
0
18,2004. M
C Cn
9 Cn.
6 M 0,
This plan has been redlined on A Z
Your plans are being reviewed concurrently with the Building Department, Fire
Department, Zoning Department and Public Works Engineering. Changes, clarifications
z
or additional corrections may be required subsequent to the Building Department plan
d from the other concerned departments.
review, when comments are receive
Cn
z
se Hoyt Jeter at (253) 857-4151 0
Should you have any inquiries regarding this letter, plea
between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm.
M
City of Edmonds
By:
Hoyt Jeter, PE
President
C-\ Documents and Smi ngs\ I loyi\ Desktup\ Eagle Eye Consulting Engineers\ Plait Review\ Ed nionds\2004\ ED-04600-01\ ED-04600-04 d pproval.doc
'14NAL PROJECTAPTROVAL, FORM'
TO:
DATE.
CQO INATOR: BUILDING DIVISION
MEMO TO: "PERMIT. RQ
..,%'FROW RREDEPARTMENT, DATE
r7
ENGINEERING DIVISION D E
AT
4.
0
PtANNING DIVISIONDATE
-!:,PLr.AS ESIG.N
-n
.%...!,,P,ROJECT'..
'E ADDRESS'.
M
m 0
-YERMIT412 W11 7 3 ADB# . DXrE INSPECTED'
.7—
'DESCRIPTION. OF,WORK TO BE'INSPECT8b S
M
MZ
c z
>
:'A Fi
t* onduct6d,to.,determlqc,,, tia,nec with'' d plaps.��..,:,. linal �approvi
approve
sppc ion. was c �-Xqlpp_ .
3:
above'signed Deipartin ent t . 6 % t c ,
denotes Ahat- there- are 7uo,-o!hj&tiofis. f, h rcie''ase -of
cn
-n
i,RFORMANCE BONDS -and the gran I f
0
-n ;u
>
m M
0 uj
:,",..-GRANT PCT.APPROVAL
JlNALr.:PR03]F
Q M
c: cn
M
Z r
M
>
E
ROJECT APPROVALWITH CONDITIONS N t. D
given to'.`Q n6up ad -tor. Win podior
I)y 0. NDITtONS,.' 6ilir" 'S
cl)
0
:NSPECTION -OUTSTANDING JSS,
m
f CORRE CTION NOTICE!"'!' hen contektbrb t
'OPY,0.1� y.inpqp or.,
§,PL,.CI,'ED OU T,,kNDING",ISSUES�"':..,,�Gk'AN"l�, FINAL P 0
TS
imia t
t foiem�-.660M -3 /25104`�-_.�
'17
RECORD OF INSPECTIONS
INSPECTOR DATE APPROVED
SETBACKS .....................
FOUNDATION:
07-
vv",��
Footing ......................
'7
c-4-
Wall..........................
Pier/Porch .................
Retaining Wall ........... z
0
Slab Insulation ..........
M
PLUMBING:
Underground ............. =n
0 s�
Rough -In ................... M
C
M 0
Commercial Final ...... 0
0
HEATING:
2 A-05 3: M
Gas Test .................... M Z
Gas Piping .................
Equipment ................. MIT 3:
Cn
Commercial Final ....... 0 -n
n�
EXTERIOR SHEATHING 3:
NAILING .......................... M ITI
0 5
0 r-
FRAMING ........................ 0 M
C Cn
4�i
FIRST FLOOR FRAMIN 9 Cn
Q 0
Z
INSULATION ................... --I
Floor Insulation .........
Wall Insulation ........... >
z
Ceiling Insulation .......
Cl)
SHEETROCK NAILING ... z
0
SPECIAL INSPECTION ... I
IA�r ITI
MISCELLANEOUS ..........
FINAL APPROVAL FOR
OCCUPANCY ..................
SideSewer#-..
Z00q o�j j Amout,Pald$ necelpt
0A Exp1w S
Datebsue
si.,
WaterMeter .an
#
ro
nt Paid 115� [,,I pt 1!
Amou
The initials MT are Miltoll Date Purdnscd
Thollipson, a temporary contract IzOlv 4-
inspector for tile City.
rn c -U, n t TYa