20050199.pdfNTS RECEIVED
//-30—'0-5t I PERMIT EXPIRES
PERMIT
CITY OF EDMONDS NUMBER
On
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION '29DREES
OWNER OF OU INESS
/� I / / - _PILAT NAMEISUBDI'ASION NO LOT NO, LI .0.
MAILINGAODRESS I Lt. FEE
IC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP TESCP4M,W
F.= R
CI :ISTING _ PROPOSED
:OUIRED DEDICATION __ FT
NAME METER SIZE I LINE SIZE I NO, OF FIXTURES PRV REQUIRED
' /,f YES 13 No 13
ADD ESS REMARKS
OWNERICONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROLDRAINAGE
CITY
ol
STATE
A i'(C'
1`111"i "I I
—
__"` U
fj
NEW
RESIDENTIAL
PLUMBING I MEC R
COMMERCIAL
COMPLIANCE OR
ADDITION
MIXED USE
CHANGE OF USE
REMODEL
MULTIFAMILY
13
SIGN
REPAIR
GRADING Yos
C]
FE CE
X FT.)
DEMOLISH
TANK
T7_
HER
GARAGE
C AIRPORT
RETAINING WALL
ROCK RY
F SPRINKLER
RE ALARM
FIR
I I
41. A)
JT�LEPH i'2 11
�w' 'uz�' <I,;,< -77�,
1
ICELe
_57006 E GINEERING REV
S
7 7�
FIRE REVIEWED BY
ZIP
dir A
ITELEPHO E
1- 11 (' )
- ')� 7'��' '?'�
DATE
(-01222 izzq 10 YES O'Nol I
CAo !7 `� - 11, ZONE SIGN AREA I HEIGHT
WAIVER AULOWED I 1B.I.SE. AULOWE. E
2,5,
STUDY 2
LOTCOVERAGE REQUIRED SET ACKS (FT) PR P SED SETBACKS (FT.)
ALILOW�ED PROPOS%EO ' FR NIT L
FRONT SIDE REAR �SIOE REAR
V 25_ 1
ZS.
3S,7 12. 5 z-,5 Z5 27
LOT � E
L R 4 1 P
PA,KING LOTAREA I-ANNING REVIEWED By IOZE.
REOrD . PROVIDED
E F ION 0 GUPANTp
I"' T' C Up
TYPE ""I" UCT GR
T
NUMBER 1111EI OF
OF DWELLING SPECIAL T"� CONSULTA�� GCAlUFANT
OF
. I, L
STORIES UNITS "_RYEPQUIR�. �YE.
U
'0
DESCRIBE WORK TOO) DONE 0
S
a-f4m i -t -7-1) All;'I'll
_V ", W""�
V
T R REP T
U�J,'M GEOTECH REPORT
B Sy
Y:
11ft 1) j -,Zq,
$57, ))51
$�
— 1
ffiriAr",
a. C'ip"
FEE Description FEE
ou I
'
Plan Check
plan Check
V.WDescription
State Surcharge
HEATPOURCE LOT.I.P.1
VESTED DATE
dle rant
Building Permit
in
City Surcharge
) ir
g
PLAN CHECK 110�.3Z
'5�
I
b rg
Plumbing
A�
Base Fee
THI PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED, THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO
..ch.nical
BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY C NSTRUCTION ON THE PUBIC
Grading
DONMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES. ETC.) WILL REQUIRE
SEPARATE PERMISSION.
PERMIT APPL CATION: SEE ECDC 19.00.ODS(A)(S)
EGgr, Review
PERMIT L�Mrr. SEE ECDC 19.0a005(AIRI) Engr. Inspection
SEE SACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION
'APPLICANT. ON BEHALF OF HI: OR HER SPOUSE. HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS
Fire Review
Plan Chk. Deposit
IN INTEREST. AGREES T IND NIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF
OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM A14Y AM.
M
Inspection
Receipt #
I EDMONDS' TS
WASHINGTON' I
ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES 0, WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
Fire
FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL Nor BE
CITY ORDINANCE
Landscapensp.
Total Amt. Due
DEEMED TO MODIFY. WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY
NOR LIMIT IN ANYWAY THE CITY'S ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PRO ISION.'
Recording Fee
Receipt It
1 HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE REA. THIS APPLICATION; THAT THE INFORMATION
APPLICATION APPROVAL
GIVEN IS CORRECT; AND THAT I AM THE OWNER. OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF
T',E p tonm not , permit met �,Xd by the
THE OWNER. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC-
CALL
Elmiding O"!`LnmhoehmDIPuIY ,dF,,,.,Ip,id,.,d
TION; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED
IN VIOLAT OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO
Tice
nic
FOR INSPECTION ,or I, cle,1111d9ld 11 space Omvidedo
WORKM EN'S COMPENSATION IN SUR,U`1C E AND ROW 18:27.
ISO
(425)
E DATE
771-0220
DATE
_4T_TEN_Ti3O_N
EXT. 1333 )v)_
IT IS UNLAWFULTO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL
U. 1 '4&)'V'
A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTI-
bRIGINAL -FILE YELLOW -INSPECTOR
FICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC109 / IBC110 I IRC110.
PINK -OWNER GOLD - ASSESSOR
10104 A pn _vnii A 12p: MASCI Mr. A
z
9
0
71
q9
C: ITI
M 0
1 0
0 0
C
IT
M Z
0 —1
C Z
Cn
0 -n
-1
3: 9
M M
U 0)
0 r-
0 M
C cn
F. CI)
ITI 0
Z
z
--I
x
co
z
0
0
T1
RECORD OF INSPECTIONS
INSPECTOR
DATE APPROVED
SETBACKS .....................
FOUNDATION:
Footing ......................
wall ....................
PiedPorch .. . .............
Retaining Wall ...........
Slab Insulation ..........
PLUMBING:
Underground .............
Rough -in
Commercial Final
HEATING:
Gas Test ....................
Gas Piping .................
Equipment .................
Commercial Final
EXTER OR SHEATHING
1(:
NAILING ..........................
FRAMING ........................
FIRST FLOOR FRAMING...
INSULATION ...................
Floor Insulation
Wall Insulation ...........
Ceiling Insulation
SHEETROCK NAILING
SPECIAL INSPECTION
MISCELLANEOUS ..........
FINAL APPROVAL FOR
OCCUPANCY ..................
;2z
The Initials MT are Milton
Thompson, a temporary contract
inspector for the City.
z
0
M
0M
C:
m
10
0 C:
I x Fn
TIZ
0-4
C:
0 -n
_n
__4
af
m ITI
CI C-1)
0
0-
9 0)
m 0
z
--I
2;
(j)
z
0
4
0
ITI
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE
IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
OL'Ilt W10J. 9NINNVId Aia (33AO)JddV
a:jzing ONVI13M,GZ N Id
A.1019 =10 301 - - - -
133NII Nn(911,10-1,9 - - - - .99'VLI =V
UN-= 0, 13) ilvasis -&,ksoqaWl
� s
JAol �VSO (lYNINON) 301M.0 10
rm �lz
M
yl ...............
tL) \0
/it
it'
—r—B 'I'..
... .........
,got CD,--- - — — — — —
Lij
2z, c j/�
-op
c()
2ril", i\ migK
I , >- a; C5 "
a zk-
i-Z
1�0
ar
cl
c)
tr)
3:2
LU In 11i a
tit
-7— LIJ
<
u- <
�7
to �: m
4N��3
I/
Dennis M. Bruce, RE.
M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical /Civil Engineer
August 29, 2005 RECEIVED
SEP 0 - 2005
City of Edmonds DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Community Services Division
121 5"' Ave. N
Edmonds, WA 98020
'j—
Subject: C7F...l �Rgplt� Geotechnical Inspections
�5_917 74" 01 W Edmonds, Washington
Michel Construction - New Residence
Edmonds Permit No. 2004 - 0050
This engineering report presents the final results of on -site Y, eotechnical
inspections for the Michel Construction new residence at 15917 74 PI. W, Edmonds,
Washington. These inspections were required as a condition of permit authorized
January 22, 2004 by City of Edmonds.
REFERENCES:
• Geotechnical Report by D. Bruce, P.E.
• City of Edmonds approved Project Plans
• Structural Designs by A. Moresos, P. E.
• Seasonal Grading Extension Letter by D. Bruce, P,E. dated December 1, 2003
• Site photographs, pile logs and layout
• Previous Inspection Reports
INSPECTIONS:
This engineer has provided on -site geotechnical inspections, as required for the
new residence and associated geotechnical aspects at 15917 74 th pl. W.
City of Edmonds Special Inspection Items:
1 Start of Work Letter: Previously completed.
2) General Site Monitoring: Project contractor had properly installed temporary
erosion control measures consisting of., rocked construction entrance, siltation
fencing, straw bales, plastic tarps on exposed earth surfaces, and diligent
cleanup.
SOILS - FOLINDA FIONS - SITE OEVELOPMEN7' - INSPECTION - DRAINAGE - DESIGN& PERvIr . LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502 - Shoreline, WA 913155 - (206) 546-9217 - FAX (206) 546-8442
Z
0
1
0
M
M 0
-4 0
0 0
C
M
M Z
0-4
Z
V)
0 _n
M M
0 M
C (D
90)
M 0
Z
.'T
;U
Z
co
Z
M
City of Edmonds
Commercial Services Division
Re: Michel Construction
August 29, 2004
Page 2
All temporary erosion control measures were properly maintained throughout the
project.
Permanent Erosion Control Measures: The recent (August 26, 2005) site
inspection verified proper installation of permanent erosion control measures:
landscaping shrubbery, final grading, grass plantings and completion of all
landscaping rockeries.
All permanent erosion control measures have been properly installed and are
geotechnically approved.
3) Excavation and Grading: All excavation and grading for this project has complied
with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report and on -site inspections.
All excavations encountered dense sub -grade soils with no erosional sloughing
or geotechnical instabilities.
All excavation and grading are peotechnically approved.
4) Soil Bearing Verification: Note that the residence itself was founded on pin -piles
with reinforced grade beams (discussed previously).
Areas of the project outside the house foundation itself encountered dense sub -
grade soils providing 2,000 p.s.f. bearing capacity. These sub -grade soils
provided a stable base for site rockeries, driveways and appurtenances. All soil
bearing is approved.
5) Pin -Piles: Previous inspection reports dealt in specific detail regarding the
number of pin -piles, specific refusal depths, and proper "tie in" with the reinforced
grade beams. All pin -piles are approved.
6) Reinforcing Steel for Grade Beam: Previously discussed and approved.
7) Concrete Testing: Performed by other agencies.
8) Placement of Fill and Compaction: No significant quantity of imported fill was
required for the foundation aspects for the residence. Localized grading for the
driveway and rockeries did require importation of gravel. This engineer verified
proper placement of gravel behind rockeries and as a sub -base for the access
driveway. All fill material is geotechnically approved as placed.
Z
0
=j
0
C: M
rn 0
__10
0
M M
M Z
'D -i
C 2
o -n
--4
M 7-
MM
a-
0
C: M
M 0
Z
Z
Z
0
M
City of Edmonds
Commercial Services Division
Re: Michel Construction
August 29, 2004
Page 3
9) Retaining Wall / Catchment Wall: The rear foundation stem wall for the residence
was properly constructed in accordance with approved plans.
The up -slope portion of the property contains a driveway access wall with
rockeries. The slope above the driveway wall contains dense shrubbery and
trees. This slope was not impacted by construction of this residence and
remains stable.
10) Rockery Construction: All rookeries were properly founded in dense sub -grade
soils as verified by this engineer. Rock size, linkage, batter, and drainage zone
were properly placed. All rockeries are approved as constructed.
11) Perimeter Foundation Drainage Installation: All subsurface drainage, including
perimeter drainage was properly installed and inspected by this engineer.
Drainage for the access driveway and keystone block wall (at the base of
driveway) utilized an effective drainage zone with tight line release into the storm
water system. All perimeter foundation drainage is approved.
12) Subsurface Drainage Installatio : Previously verified and approved.
SUMMARY:
• All special geotechnical inspection items for 15917 74 1h Pl. W have been properly
completed and are approved.
• This report completes the on -site geotechnical inspections for the new residence
and property.
If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call.
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
Geotechnical / Civil Engineer
DMB:abj
cc: Michel Construction
Z
9
0
0 M
C:
M
--1 0
0 0
M M
Z
-4
C: 2
W
0 _111
MIT!
a
0
0 M
C C)
9 ri)
M 0
Z �
Z
Z
0
M
Dennis M. Bruce, RE.
M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical/Civii Engineer
RECEIVED
September 29, 2004 OCT 12 2004
BUILDING DEPT,
City of Edmonds
Community Services Division
121 51h Ave. N
Edmonds, WA 98020
Subject: , Geotechnical Inspections
Michel Construction — New Residence
1591774 1h Pl. W, Edmonds, Washington
Edmonds Permit No. 2004 - 0050
This engineering report presents the results of on -site geotechnical inspections
for the Michel Construction new residence at 15917 74 th PI. W, Edmonds, Washington.
These inspections were required as a condition of permit authorized January 22, 2004
by City of Edmonds.
REFERENCES:
• Geotechnical Report by D. Bruce, P.E.
• City of Edmonds approved Project Plans
• Structural Designs byA. Moresos, P.E.
• Seasonal Grading Extension Letter by D. Bruce, P.E. dated December 1, 2003
• Site photographs, pile logs and layout
• Previous Inspection Reports
INSPECTIONS -
This engineer has provided a minimum of one inspection visit per week, with
additional inspections during periods of heavy rain.
City of Edmonds Special Inspection Items:
I Start of Work Letter: Previously completed.
2) General Site Monitoring: Michel Construction continues diligent protection of the
area by use of siltation fencing, straw bales, plastic tarps, and rocked
construction entrance. Additionally, diligent cleanup of the street is performed
daily.
SOILS - FOUNDA r10/VS - S17E DEVELOPMENT - INSPECTION - DRAINA05 DESIGN &PERMIT . ZHGAL
P.O. Box 55502 - Shoreline, WA 98155 - (206) 546-9217 - FAX (206) 546-8442
Z
0
j
0
C M
Ma
0
80
C
�c
M M
Z
jo
E:
4
0
n
M M
0 Vi
0 F_
0 M
C: cl)
C ca
M 0
Z r-
;0
Z
co
Z
0
0
M
City of Edmonds
Commercial Services Division
Re: Michel Construction
September 29, 2004
Page 2
Temporary erosion control measures are approved through this date (September
29,2004).
3) Excavation and Grading: No significant grading activity has occurred since last
inspection report (May 19, 2004). Rockeries have been undertaken with minor
excavation performed satisfactorily under this engineer's inspections. All
excavation and grading approved through this date (September 29, 2004).
4) Soil Bearing Verification: In areas outside of the pin -pile and grade beam
foundation zone, this engineer has verified localized sub -grade soils capable of
providing 2,000 p.s.f. bearing. Soil bearing is approved.
5) Pin-Pi(es: Previously approved.
6) Reinforcing Steel for Grade beam: Previously approved.
7) Concrete Testin
_q: Performed by others.
8) Placement of Fill and Compaction: No significant quantities of imported fill has
yet to be required for this project. Appropriate gravel drainage zone has been
placed behind the rockeries. Inspections are ongoing.
9) Retaining Wall / Catchment Wall: The rear foundation stem wall for the residence
has been properly constructed in accordance with approved plans. The rear
(easterly) catchment wall has yet to be constructed. Inspections are ongoing.
10) Rockery Construction: This engineer verified proper placement of base rock in
dense sub -grade soil. Rock linkage, Tace batter, and chinking was verified.
Additionally, the drainage zone and perforated drainage pipe were properly
installed behind all site rockeries (see photographs).
All rockeries are approved through this date (September 29, 2004).
11) Perimeter Foundation Drainage Installation: This engineer verified proper
installation of the foundation footing drains, as well as the perimeter drainage
system incorporated behind the up -slope rockeries. All drainage systems are
approved. NOTE: Final perimeter drainage work has yet to be completed.
Inspections. are ongoing.
Z
0 1
0
0
C: rn
rn 0
10
00
X M
rn
Z
C.
0 _n
n
rn M
a-
0 V)
0 F_
M
U)
0)
M 0
Z r-
Z
Z
9
0
M
City of Edmonds
Commercial Services Division
Re: Michel Construction
September 29, 2004
Page 3
12) Subsurface Draina -ge Installation: This engineer verified proper installation of
subsurface drainage through this date (September 29, 2004). Additional
S bsurface drainage work is ongoing,
u
SUMMARY:
All special geotechnical inspection items for 15917 741h Pl. W have been properly
z
completed through this date (September 29, 2004).
M.
Geotechnical inspections are ongoing.
05
See separate letter dated September 29, 2004 allowing for grading to continue
0 M
past September 30, 2004 "rainy season" date.
M
0 C
1A
If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call.
--19
M M
:,
M Z
M.
C -Z
>
WAS
0)
00
0
-n
-4
M M
0 U)
0
C: M
Q 0
EXPIRES
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
;a
Geotechnical / Civil Engineer
DMB:abj
z
M
cc: Michel Construction
z
0
M
Dennis M. Bruce, RE.
M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical /Civil Engineer
May 19, 2004 ]RECEIVE[)
City of Edmonds OCT 12 2004
Community Services Division BUILDING DEPT,
121 51h Ave. N
Edmonds, WA 98020,
1.
Subject: Geotechnical Inspections
Michel Construction — New Residence
1591774 1h Pl. W, Edmonds, Washington
Edmonds Permit No. 2004 - 0050
This engineering report presents the results of on -site geotechnical inspections
for the Michel Construction new residence at 15917 74 th pl. W, Edmonds, Washington.
These inspections were required as a condition of permit authorized January 22, 2004
by City of Edmonds.
REFERENCES:
• Geotechnical Report by D. Bruce, P.E.
• City of Edmonds approved Project Plans
• Structural Designs by A. Moresos, P.E.
• Seasonal Grading Extension Letter by D. Bruce, P.E. dated December 1, 2003
• Site photographs, pile logs and layout
• Previous Inspection Reports
INSPECTIONS:
This engineer has provided a minimum of one inspection visit per week since
piling and active grading has been completed. Additional visits are made during days of
heavy rain.
City of Edmonds Special Inspection Items:
1 Start of Work Letter: Previously completed.
2) General Site Monitoring: Michel Construction continues diligent protection of the
area by use of siltation fencing, straw bales, plastic tarps, and rocked
SOILS - FOUIVDA 7'10NS - SITE DEVROPMENr - (INSPECrYON - DRAINAGE , DESIGN & PERM17 - LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502 - Shoreline, WA 98155 - (206) 546-9217 - FAX (206) 546-8442
Z
9
0
am
C
ma
0
M
M Z
10 -1
C 2
0)
om
n I
X 9
m M
a
0
0 M
C co
90)
M
X
Z
Z
0
m
City of Edmonds
Commercial Services Division
Re: Michel Construction
May 19, 2004
Page 2
construction entrance. Additionally, diligent cleanup of the street is performed
daily.
Temporary erosion control measures are approved through this date (May 19,
2004).
3) Excavation and Grading: No significant grading activity has occurred since last
inspection report (February 26, 2004). The foundation grade beams
(interconnection pin -piles) has been completed with final concrete pour pending.
The upper (easterly) excavation has remained stable, with temporary Eco-Block
shoring performing as intended.
All excavation and grading approved through this date (May 19, 2004).
4) Soil Bearing Verification: The primary foundation support for this residence is
achieved through the pin -piles and reinforced grade beams (previously
discussed).
Localized isolated footing pods were excavated per this engineer's on -site
inspections. This engineer verified dense, native sub -grade soils providing
2,000 p.s.f. bearing capacity in foundation areas outside of the pin -piles and
grade beams. Soil bearing is approved.
5) Pin -Pile and Stirrup Installation: Previously discussed and approved.
6) Reinforcing Steel for Grade Beam: As of this date (May 19, 2004) all grade
beams have been properly constructed in accordance with structural design
plans. Final concrete placement is pending. All pin -pile and reinforced grade
beam formwork and steel are approved.
7) Concrete Testing: Performed by others.
8) Placement of Fill and Compaction: No significant quantities of imported fill have
been required to date. The access driveway consists of compacted gravel and
has performed well. Inspections are ongoing.
9) Retaining Wall / Catchment Wall: Not yet.
10) Rockery Construction: Not yet.
Z
9
0
C M
M 0
--1 0
0 0
C
� C
MM
Z
-4
o -n
n
M rn
06
0
0 F;
C (a
K W
M 0
Z
;U
Z
Cn
Z
9
0
M
City of Edmonds
Commercial Services Division
Re: Michel Construction
May 19, 2004
Page 3
11) Perimeter Foundation Drainage Installation: This engineer has observed and
verified initial installation of footing drains around the grade beams completed to
date (see photographs). All drainage work is approved through this date (May
19, 2004). Inspections are ongoing.
12) Subsurface Drainage Installation: Not yet.
SUMMARY:
• All special geotechnical inspection items for'! 5917 74 th Pl. W have been properly
completed through this date (May 19, 2004).
• Geotechnical inspections are ongoing.
If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call.
.1 WAS
goo+
EXPIR S 12Z23/ q-
DMB:abj
cc: Michel Construction
E-
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
Geotechnical / Civil Engineer
z
9
0
M
M
C:
M
0
80
C
-4
M M
z
jo
c:
o -n
n
--I
M M
0
0
0 M
C CO
9 CD
M
0
z
z
0
1
0
M
2004
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnicall Civil Engineer
March 26, 2004
City of Edmonds
Community Services Division
121 5" Ave. N
Edmonds, WA 98020
Subject: Geotechnical Inspections
Michei Construction
15917 741h Pl. W, Edmonds, Washington
Edmonds Permit No. 2004 - 0050
This engineering report presents the results of on -site geotechnical inspections
for the Michel Construction new residence at 15917 741h Pl. W, Edmonds, Washington.
These inspections were required as a condition of permit authorized January 22, 2004
by City of Edmonds.
REFERENCES:
• Geotechnical Report by D. Bruce, P.E.
• City of Edmonds approved Project Plans
• Structural Designs by A. Moresos, P.E.
• Seasonal Grading Extension Letter by D. Bruce, P.E. dated December 1, 2003
• Site photographs, pile logs and layout
• Previous Inspection Reports
iNSPECTIONS:
This engineer has provided a minimum of three inspection visits per week, with
daily inspections during periods of heavy rain.
City of Edmonds Special Inspection Items:
I Start of Work Letter: Previously completed.
General Site Monitoring: Michel Construction continues diligent protection of
erosion potential (siltation fencing, straw bales, plastic tarp over excavation
spoils, rocked construction entrance). Erosion control measures approved
through this date. - ,
SOILS - FOUNDATIONS - SITE DEVELOPMENT - INSPECTION - DRAINAGE - DESIGN & PERMIT - LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502 - Shoreline, Washington 98155 - (206) 546-9217 - FAX 546-8442
Z
0
=j
0
M
rn
M 0
0
80
C
�K
A M
Z
in
0 -n
-4
3:
M M
a
0
C: rn
co
9 C0
M
Z
Z
0
rn
City of Edmonds
Commercial Services Division
Re: Michel Construction
March 26, 2004
Page 2
3) Excavation and Grading: No significant grading activity since last inspection
report (February 26, 2004). Foundation grade beam work, currently underway,
requires no excavation.
4) Soil Bearing Verification: Not yet.
5) Pin -Piles: Previously discussed and approved.
6) Grade Beam: Foundation grade beam work underway. Inspections are ongoing.
SUMMARY:
• All special geotechnical inspection items for 15917 74 th Pl. W have been properly
completed through this date (March 26, 2004).
• Current work involves reinforced grade beam placement.
• Geotechnical inspections are ongoing.
If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call.
JURRE8 JWY
V/cDMB:abj
c: Michel Construction
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
Geotechnical / Civil Engineer
z
M
M
C 0
M 0
C
M
M Z
10-4 .1�
C
0 -n
0
C M
CD
. 0)
mo
z
Cn
z
0
M
A
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geolechnical I Civil Engineer
February 26, 2004
RECEIVED
City of Edmonds MAR 0 3 2004
Community Services Division
121 5 1h Ave. N DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Edmonds, WA 98020
Subject: Geotechrical inspections
Michel Construction
1591774 1h Pl. W, Edmonds, Washington
Edmonds Permit No. 2004 - 0050
This engineering report presents the results of on -site geotechnical inspections
for the Michel Construction new residence at 15917 74'h Pl. W, Edmonds, Washington.
These inspections were required as a condition of permit authorized January 22, 2004
by City of Edmonds.
REFERENCES:
• Geotechnical Report by D. Bruce, P.E.
• City of Edmonds approved Project Plans
• Structural Designs by A. Moresos, P.E.
• Seasonal Grading Extension Letter by D. Bruce, P.E. dated December 1, 2003
• Site photographs, pile logs and layout
INSPECTIONS:
This engineer has provided a minimum of three inspection visits per week, with
daily inspections during periods of heavy rain. I
CitV of Edmonds Special Inspection Items:
I Start of Work Letter: City of Edmonds received start of work authorization letter
by this engineer as of December 12, 2003.
2) General Site Monitoring: This engineer has provided regular inspections to YEEL
site work complies with Project Plans, City of Edmonds erosion control practices
and normal work methods. Contractor began clearing the lot on January 30,
SOILS - FOUNDATIONS - SITE DEVELOPMENT - INSPECTION - DRAINAGE - DESIGN & PERMIT - LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502 - Shoreline, Wasnington 98155 - (206) 546-9217 - FAX 546-8442 .
Z
0
1
0
Ri
55
M
Ma
-40
0 0
C
__19
X M
M Z
0-1
a
Q)
o n
"n
rn M
0 V;
0
0
C
C u)
M
Z
X
Z
Z
9
0
rn
City of Edmonds
Commercial Services Division
Re: Michel Construction
February 26, 2004
Page 2
2004. Contractor properly installed siltation fencing and straw bales. Erosion
control inspections are ongoing.
3) Excavation and Grading: Contractor properly prepared the site in preparation for
installation of pin -piles. Site sub -grade conditions were as anticipated by the
geotechnical investigation. No adverse conditions were created during the initial
site excavation and grading.
4) Soil Bearing Verification: Not yet.
5) Pin -Piles: This engineer provided on -site inspections to Y2[!ht proper installation
of pin -piles. A total of fifty-one 4-inch diameter pin -piles (including select
battered piles at specific locations) were driven by pile contractor (McDowell NW
Pile King, Inc.). All piles were driven to refusal depths (less than one -inch
penetration per 15 seconds of full driving effort with an 1,100 ft.-lb. hammer.
Pile Load Test: This engineer observed a pile load test on Pile No. 7 on February
10, 2004. Pile No. 7 was driven to a depth of 37.5 feet. This engineer observed
increasing load capacity applied to the pile with corresponding instrument gauge
readings. Load increments were applied up to 20 tons (40,000 lbs.) and held for
5 minutes.
No pile creep or deformation was observed. A gradual un-loading process
resulted in zero permanent deflection.
Thus, Pile No. 7 (which is typical of all piles installed on the lot) easily provides a
minimum of 20 ton capacity.
6) Grade Beam: This engineer approves of all foundation pin -piles as installed.
"OK" to proceed with grade beam formwork, reinforcing steel placement, and
concrete in accordance with City of Edmonds and ongoing inspections.
7) Geotechnical inspections are ongoing for remainder of inspection items.
SUMMARY:
• All special geotechnical inspection items for 15917 741h Pl. W have been properly
completed through this date (February 26, 2004).
• tl<" to proceed with foundation grade beam formwork, reinforcing steel, and
concrete placement per approved Plans.
Z
9
0
C: M
M 0
0
80
C
X rn
M Z
10-1
Z
0 -n
n
M M
055
0
0
C
M 0
Z
X
Z
Z
9
0
rn
City of Edmonds
Commercial Services Division
Re: Michel Construction
February 26, 2004
Page 3
Geotechnical inspections are ongoing.
If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call.
A4.
0
NAL
EXPMFS 12w
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
Geotechnical Civil Engineer
DMB:abj
cc: Michel Construction
z
0
:j,
0
. 1� �.
m
-10
0 C
3! K
. —
M M
Z
0-4
C
0
n
-1
M M
0
0
0 M
C
M 0
Z
z
z
0
I
0
Feb-fts'll4"'dYl dld� McDowell NW Pile King 425-251-594TJ
p.2
Lan "nu
McDowell HW Pile King, Inc.
,PILE LOG
Customer Name
Job Address
k1 it b,-1 C"' 516 Project/Job Name o�
W.- F mOAA-T_ Date Completed I&
3 L a: oi 91
121
2 �4q , !;I
I
.12 4-1) 62 92
122
3 i4 4?
33 q. 63 93
12:1
4 itf
34 7. S 64 94
124
A" A 6 65 95
17"
z
0
30 36" 66_ 'Jf�
126
0
Loo 1 7-15-
:17 61 97
127
!19
8
38 GS 9H
128
—n
1.)
19
12's
Cn
0
12 31'
40 31.5, 0()
130
m
C
rn
11
41 /1 101
1
0
0
1
42 102
13
43 7�_103
.,.I
M
M z
14 3.3'
44 17' /'l 104
13
C:
>
1'5 3
4S 75 105
.5
E:
16
46 7tL 106
CO
0 n
1/
41 to
I
Oe
8
48 78 108
4
ON
x C
M M
11)
49 /1) 1 m)
319
Cl
0 CA
r- .
L(i
-M MO .1 10
38
0 M
C Ca
71 yo,
51 8 1 111
141
M 0
52 82. 1 1 �l
142
Z
!,3 14 1 13
143
;a
.1-11
-1 HI_ 1 14
1.1.1
B5 IS
14"
z
26
56 86 1 1 Fj
CO
V/
147
z
2t, Li
SH I 11`�
148
"1
149
M
it) ALI .1,
W UO
15 0
Pilo SiZe/Grado:
q" Lf,f-k &W,d, yo
All pile driven to refusal" '3 C 5 of I*SS than 11" in
Using a 1(40 FTILS me
h.r" r���
econcis
InSlall.d by Ch,rl;P-
31!J101- Total LF: I
PIN JOPE) PH C- FOUNDATIONS- R177AINING WALLS- MANIA RAYANCNORS - C-LOC VINYL SHEETPIL17
18006 1141h AvenUr. 9 - KPnI, WA 98032 - (425) 2.51-8535 - Rix (425)
251-5940
Wob: �w Oi1i*nfp:OrY, - Email: mr.dnwpk@iO1.COn,
Feb 26 04 01:09p MODOWC11 NW Pile King 425-251-5940 P., 3
A U-11.6 ZM6
McDowell NW Pile lOng, Inc.
. . . . .........
T
.4 —7
12,
. . . .... . . .
If
. . . . . . .. . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
'
-4z� r
1U.
L1
. . . . . . . . . . .
cl
ONAL
fEXPIRE�a2_Zj
HETAINW6 WALLS PIN IPIPE) PILE MANU RAY EARTH ANCHORS - C-LOC VINYL SHEETPILE
SHIP TO: 18905 84th Avenue S. Kent, WA 98032 (425) 25 1 -8535 Fax (425) 25 T -5940
REMIT TO: 16000 80m Place S. Kent, WA 98032 (425) 251-8570 Fax (425� 251-8628
z
0
C
M
m
to
o -n
m
0
mo�
z
m
FIELD REPORT RF—CSIVED
APR 2 2 2004
Date: April 9, 2004
Location: 1591774"1 PL SW PEFUTPOUNTER
Jurisdiction: City of Edmonds, Snohomish County WA
PermitNumber:
Owner: Michel Construction
Item inspected: Grade beam, size and reinforcement.
Custom design and Engineering (CDE) was contracted to inspect the grade beams on above
referenced project. The grade beams were inspected and found to comply with drawing
requirements. The 4" steel piles were slightly of center from the grade beam, however
additional reinforcement (adjacent to piles, 3-No 4) was added to reduce torsional effects.
inspection details
Grade beam width 14"
* ......................... * ............................. .............................
P
'10
011FUli
r.eW.
'U-
.......... ..........
.........................
........ 1
f�& btm bar size No 6 ...........
.......... ..........
...................... ..
.........................
2!iK�yp e.&.�.p.�p!nq
...........
.....
4
....... I ................
... .... . . ......................................................
Reinforcement to lower surface = 4"
2
.......... .......... I ............................ .......... I ..........
p 12"
............ ..........
.........................
...........
distance of reEGRi��Wi--=- 9
Tig.f. 9-r-a-da lb-e-a-m--a . s . s .. am . b . ly ...................................
............
........
..........
colum 1
............... ................................ ....... .................. .....
............ 4
............
tersection ....
ly I
....... ..........
................ ........
........ ..........
..................
Twical basement wall reinforcei��W 1-91*i�
q
:
Alex K Moroseos, PE
No 36923
Custom Design I D. a. Analysis Document: Page: I
And Engineering, Inc 4;,a, tl i2 0 0 4
(425) 343-7517 1 Job Number: D4-176
Z
rn
M
C m 0
0
M M
Z
0)
0 -n
m M
C) V5
0
0
C: co
M 0)
M 0
Z r-
Z
-4
X
V5 1 1 1
Z
0
rn
FIELD REPORT RECE")
AUG z 6 -:%
DEVELOPMENT SERVICE�
Date: August 20, 2004 CITY OF EDMONDS
Location: 1591774 TH PL SW
Jurisdiction: City of Edmonds, Snohomish County WA
Permit Number:
Owner: Michel Construction
Item inspected: Retaining wall reinforcement & concrete compressive strength.
Custom design and Engineering (CDE) was contracted to inspect the reinforcement of the
retaining wall.
Findings:
We measured the vertical & horizontal reinforcement and found it to comply with the drawing
requirements. The vertical & horizontal bar diameter comply with drawing requirements. The
footing and wall dimensions comply with drawing requirements.
Also, upon evaluation of the concrete mix batch report provided by Michel construction (for the
above referenced), we found the compression strength to nxceed 3000 psi.
Alex K Moroseos, PE
No 36923
ICustom Design Date' Analysis Document: Page: I
And Engineering, Inc 81,411004
(425) 343-7517 1 1 Job Number. D4-176
Z
0
M
-n
3:
M
Inn
o
—10
0 C:
--I C
X M
Inn �
V6
C:
3:
O"n
n
3:
Irn Inn
- rn
0 �
0 M
C
CO)
cl)
M 0
X
--I
Z
--I
Z
9
0
Inn
LP*,24 FAX 4257127279 Q 001
NO EXCISE TAX
REQUIRED
NOV 14 2002
BOB DAIlTim, snonunssl.duhly Ifeasurar
AFTER RECORDING MAM TO: dy� BOB DANTINI
Name: Rqb Micbrl-
Address: 7907 2122 LNV #102
City/State- Edmoridn, )MA 98026 CONFORMED COPY
200211140882
11/14/2002 04.10 PM Snohomish
P.0003 RECORDED county
ACCESS EASFIAENT,
uTILITY BASEMENT ANI) AGREEMMENT
Whereas "Thomas W. Hillman and Linda B.
Ijillman trustees for the Hillman Family Trust dated Februar I y 25, 1999."Are the
owners of the following legally described property:
All that portion of Tract 33, supplemental plat of Meadowdale. 13cach, according to the
plat thereof recorded in Volume 5 of Plats, page 42, in Snohomish County, Washington,
&scribed as follows:
Beginning at the Northwest comer of said Tract 33, Thence East along the North line
said Tract 220.91 feet; Thence South in a straight line to a point of the South line of said
Tract, which is 230.29 feet West of the Southeast corner of said Tract;Thcnce West
along the South line of.said Tract to the Southwest comer of said Tract 33; Thence
Northerly along Westerly line of said Tract 33 to the point of beginnitig.
New Tax account number. 00-5133-000-033-00
Commonly know as 15915 70 place West, Fdmonds, WA 98026
Where&, Michel Con truction, Inc. is the owner of the following legally described
property-.
Tract 34, supplemental plat of Meadowdale Beac . h, according 10 the plat thereofiecorded
in Volume 5 of Plats, page 42, in Snohomish County, Washington, FAcePt the East half
thereof.
New Tax account number. 00-5133-000-034-00
Commonly know as 15919 74�� Place West, Ecurtonds, WA
Now, therefore, the panics agree as follows;
Thomas W. Hillman and Linda B- Hillman, Trustees for the Hillman Family Trust
dated February 25, 1998, Grantor, for valuable consideration, grants to Michel
A:;R-1 2 i 20,
P E R MI T C 0 UN E R
z
0
0
M
0 M
C 0 "1 .
M 0
80
C
--I C � I
MM
MZ
jo -4
C —Z
0 -n
n
M M
0
0
C
K to
M 0
Z
-4
z
-4
z
0
M
11/16/02 15:25 FAX 4257279 IN02
Construction, Inc- an access and utility easement over, tinder and across the
f lowing described portion of its property!
01
Commencing at the Southwest comer of said Tract 33; Thence Easterly along
the South property line 115.00 feet; thence rZorth, perpendicular to the
South property line, a distance of 10.00: Thence; Westerly parallel to the
South property line to a point on West property line, thence Southerly to
the Southwest comer of said Tract 33-
Michel Construction, Inc., for valuable consideration, grants to Thomas W. Hillman
and Linda B. Hillman. Trustees for the Hillman Family Trust dated February 25,
199g,an access and utility easement over, under and across the following d6scgibed
portion of its Property:
Commencing at the Southwest comer of said Tract 34; Thence Easterly along
the South property line 25-00 Lett; thence Northerly, parallel to the West
to a point 10.00 South of the North property line*, Thence
property line, I Tb n
Easterly, parallel to the North property, a distance of 95-00 feet-, e cc
icular to the North Property line, to the North property line;
North, perpend
perty line to the Northwest corner of said
Lion- the North pro
Thence West 2 ' er of
Tract; Thence South along the West Property line to the Southwest corn
said Tract 34.
Both parties shall have the right and the duty to maintain the access road and
utilities in equal shares.
Dated this day o 2002,
/z A,
"Thoman W. Hillman and Linda B . Hillman, Trdstecs for the Hillman Family
Trust dated February 25, 1998."
Robin W. Michel, President,
Michel Construction, Inc.,
STATE OFWASITINGTON
CoiUNTY OF SNOHOMISH
q4 e, i (_rlt ri Notary Public in and for the State
1. iA on this day
440tl-1 pq!S (A R14J-M A A)
per�onally appeared before me, to
me known to be the trustees ivy E= Hillman k-armly Trust dated February 25,
1999. Page 2 of 3.
z
C')
M
M 0
—1 0
0
M M
z
0 -n
- n
M M
0
0
0
M C.)
z
z
z
9
0
M
__L1/18/02 15:25 FAX 425, 271—
Q003
of described in and who executed the within instrument and acknowledged thatTh--Y
signed and sealed the same a-'InMfree and voluntary act and deed for the uses and
purposes herein mentioned. -1�1- day of M
GIVEN under my hand and official seal this 2002.
Notary Public in and for the State
Washington, residing at F-40 ;M �s
STATE OF WAsmNGTON
) ss.
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH )
EL -
On 2 , before me, the
undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly
commissioned and xoz, usonally appeared
6 ('J. M I r--Ad F-- L- to me
i;own to be the President of —,M I CHOT L CZ-306 �j
—the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged
the said instrument to be the; fter, and voluntary � act and deed of said corporation,
for the uses and purposes themm. and oath stated or proved to me on the basis of
satisfactory eyidence that he is authorized to execute the said instrument.
GIVEN h d d ffj' ' I seal this J_j�d.y of hk —1/ 2002.
Nouitry Public in and for
Washington, residing at_%B"A'0"O'�'
Pago 3 of 3
Z
0
0 M
M
0 C:
M
Z
-Z
0 -n
n
M M
a
0
0;;
C V)
(j) , 1i
M 0
Z
X
Z
Z
9 1
0
rn
7�Y-
RE TURN ADDRESS:
City of Edmonds, City Clerk
121 5th Avenue North 20040AONFORMED Copy
20405 5 PGS
Edmonds, WA 98020 02-02-2004 01'33PM $23 oo
SNOHOMISH COUhTY) WASHiNGTON
COVENANT OF NOTIFICATION
'AND INDENINIFICATION/HOLD HARMLESS.
ence #:
Refer Val -,Q25e
Grantor(s): (1) #16#La ditional on pg.
—Ad
Grantee(s): City of Edmonds
Legal Description (abbreviated): Se - c Twn__4 Rog
- Qtr V&l
OR Lot lock Plat
Assessor's Tax Parcel ED#(s). (1) 4XXV-3 '0000 ? 50,6,22 (2)
__-_..Msessor's Tax Parcel 10# not yet assigned
CITY OF EDMONDS
APPROVED FOR RECORDING
BY: DATE ��L PAGE _�L OF
Under the review procedures established pursuant to the State Building Code,
incorporating amendments promulgated by the City of Edmonds, and as a
prerequisite to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of a residential
structure and attendant facilities, the undersigned OWNERS of property do hereby
covenant, stipulate and promise as follows:
z
-1 _n
V in
C
M
0
0
C
in Fo
z
jo-1
C
r -4
X � 11
O'n
n
--I
X
M M
0
0 M
C o)
9 (j) 11
rn
0
X
-4
z
-4
0)
z
0
M
-I R..E&RIDI,
L
1. Description ofSuMect Property, This covenant of notification and
indemnification/hold harmless relates to a tract of land at the street address of
IS?l 7 S-JI (insert street
address), Edmonds Suohomish County, Washington and legally described as:
?t4-4*�
P�e-& 7
2. Notification and Covenant ofNotification. The above referenced site.
(hereinafter "subject site") lies within an area which has been identified by the City
of Edmonds as having a potential for earth subsidence or landslide hazard. The
risks associated with development of the site have been evaluated by technical
consultants and engineers engaged by the applicant as a part of the process to
obtain a building permit for the subject site. The results of th e consultant's reports
and evaluations of the risks associated with development are contained in building
permit Me number4gj24��� (insert number) on rile with the City of
Edmonds Building Department Conditions, limitations, or prohibitions on
development may have been imposed in accordance with the recommendations of
Z
0
1
0
9
0
C M
r" 0
0
80
C
M
M Z
g) -i ,
C
Ca
0 -n
n
-q
M M
U C/)
or-
0 M
,C C4)
E CO
M 0
Z
Z
0)
Z
M
IAP VED OR
BY: DATE
PA OF
the consultants in the course of permit issuance. The conditions, limitations, or
prohibitions may require ongoing maintenance on the part of any owner or lessee or
may require modifications to the structures and earth stabilization matters in order
to address future or anticipated changes in soil or other site conditions. The
statements and conditions proposed by the OWNERS' geotechnical engineer,
geologist, architect and/or structu . ral engineer are hereby incorporated by reference
from the contents of the file as fully as if herein set forth. Any future purchaser,
lessee, lender or any other person acquiring or seeking to acquire an interest in the
property is put on notice of the existence of the content of the file and the City urges
review of its contents. The file may.be reviewed during normal business hou rs or
copies obtained at the Building Department, City of Edmonds, 121 5th Avenue
North, Edmo nds, Washington 98020.
3. indemnification and Hold Harmless. The undersigned OWNERS
hereby waive any and all liability associated with development, stating that they
have fully informed themselves of all risks associated with development of the
property and do therefore waive and relinquish any and all causes of action against
the City of Edmonds, its officers, agents and employees arising from and out of such
development In addition, the OWNERS on behalf of themselves, their successors in
interest, heirs and assignees, do hereby promise to indemnify and hold harmless the
City of Edmonds, its officers, agents and employees from any loss, claim, liability or
damage of any kind or nature to persons or property either on or off the site
resulting from or out of earth subsidence or landslide hazard, arising from or out of
the issuance of any permit(s) authorizing development of the site, or occurring or
Z
0
1
0
C M
M 0
0
80
C
�c
PH mz
jo
E:
C)
0 -n
n
M M
W (J)
0 r-
0 M
C 0)
� Cn
M 0
Z
X
Z
Z
M
�App
P�AG
arising ,)ut of any false, misleading, or inaccurate information provided by the
OWNERS, their employees, or professional consultants in the course of issuance of
the building permit.
4. Insurance Requirement. In addition to any bonding which may be
required during the course of development, the Community Services Director
has/has not (strike one) specifically required the mainte nance of an insurance policy
for public. liability coverage in the amount and for the time. set fortli'liclow in order
to provide for the financial responsibilities established through the indemnification
and hold harmless agreement above:
5. Covenant to Touch and Concern the Land. This covenant of
notification and indemnification/hold harmless touches and concerns the subject
tract and shall run with the land, binding, obligating and/or inuring to the benefit of
future owners, heirs, successors and interests or any other person or entity
acquiring an interest in property, as their interest may appear. This provision shall
not be interpreted to require a mortgagor or lender to indemnify the City except to
the extent of their loss nor to obligate such persons to maintain the insurance above
required.
z
9
0
C in
in V
0
80
C
--i C
MM
M Z
10-1
z
CA
O'n
n
--i
M in
W CO
0 �
0 M
C 0)
K 0)
in C-)
Z
z
CD
z
9
0
M
dayof
-?0
AP
DONEthis
OWNER(S
By:
. .......... ..
By:
By
STATE OF WASMNGTON
COUNTY OF:5AY))46M ss:
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that
P);
signed this instrument and
acknowledged it to be (his/her) free and
voluntary act for the purposes mentioned in
this instrument.
V day L
DATED this of,
W9--.
-T�
NOTARY PU13LIC
My commission expires:
L:\TEMPkBUELDING�AMAI)OVACOVENANT
z
M
M
C 0 i
M 0
0
C
M
M Z
JD
>
0 -n
n
M M
0 V; I
0,-
0 M
C 0)
K Ca
M 0
z
z
-4
z
0
i
0
M
CONFUt—ED COPY
200310080763 3 PGS
10-08-2003 12:02pm $21.00
SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON
AFTER RECORDING MAIL TO:
NO EXCISE TAX
Name: Rob Michel REQUIRED
Address: 7907 212" SW, #102 OCT 0 S 2003
City/state. Fdmonds, WA 98026 808 DANT161, Snonoinisn 6ounly frea,r.
.r
9Y—BOB DANTINI
ACCESS EASEMENT_
UTILITY EASEMENT AND AGREEMENT
Whereas "Thomas W. Hillman and Linda B. Hillman trustees for the Hillman Family Trust dated February 25,
1998" are the owners of the following legally described property:
All that portion ofTract 33, supplemental plat ofMeadowdale Beach, according to the
plat thereofrecorded in Volume 5 ofPlats, page 42, in Snohomish County,
Washington, described as follows:
Beginning at the Northwest comer of said Tract 33, Thence East along the North line
of said Tract 220.81 feet; Thence South in a straight line to a point ofthe south line of
said Tract, which is 230.29 feet West ofthe Southeast comer ofsaid Tract; Thence
West along the South line of said Tract to the Southwest comer of said Tract 33;
Thence Northerly along Westerly line of said Tract 33 to the point ofbeginning.
New Tax account number: 00-5133-000-033-00
Commonly known as 15915 74h Place West, Edmonds, WA 98026
Whereas Michel Construction, Inc. is the owner of the following legally described property:
Tract 34, supplemental plat ofMeadowdale Beach, according to the plat thereof
recorded in Volume 5 ofPlats, page 42, in Snohomish County, Washington, Except
the East half thereof
'R
-ECEIVF-D
New Tax account number: 00-5133-000-034-0 0 0 C T h. 12 rl' ' `3
Commonly known as 15919 74 1h Place West, Edmonds, WA PERN11T COUNT—E;4
NOW, therefore, the parties agree as follows:
I Thomas W. Hillman and Linda B. Hillman, Trustees for the Hillman Family Trust dated February 25, 1998,
Grantor, for valuable consideration, grants to Michel Construction, Inc. an access and utility easement over,
under and across the following described portion of its property:
z
0
q
0
C M
rn 00
80
a
M
M z
—z
o -n
n
M M
a
0
02
C
K Ca
Q 0
X
--I
z
ca
z
M
Commencing at the Southwest comer of said Tract 33; Thence Easterly along the South property line
130.00 feet; thence North, perpendicular to the South property line, a distance of 8.50 feet; Thence
Westerly parallel to the South property line to a point on West property line; thence Southerly to the
Southwest comer of said Tract 33.
Michel Construction, Inc., for valuable consideration, grants to Thomas W. Hillman and Linda B. Hillman,
Trustees for the Hillman Family Trust dated February 25, 1998,an access and utility easement over, under and
across the following described portion ofits property:
Commencing at the Southwest comer ofsaid Tract 34; Thence Easterly along the South Property line
25.00 feet; thence Northerly, parallel to the West property line, to a point 6.50 feet South of the North
property line; Thence Easterly, parallel to the North property line, a distance of 105.00 feet; Thence
North, approximately perpendicular to the North property line, to the North property line; Thence West
along the North property line to the Northwest comer of said Tract; Thence South along the West
property line to the Southwest comer of said Tract 34.
Both parties shall have the right and the duty to maintain the access road and utilities in equal shares.
This easement replaces access easement recorded November 14, 2003 under recording #20211140882.
Dated this 7 day of 2003.
"Thomas W. Hillman and Linda B. Hillman, Trustees for the Hillmdn Family Trust dated February 25,
1998.11
Robin W. Michel, President,
Michel Construction, Inc.,
Page 2 of 3
z
0,
M
n
M
rn
0
80
C
--I
M M
M Z
0-4
C
CA
0 -n
.4
M M
V)
a
In
(n
0
z
z
0
In
STATE OF WASHINGTON
) ss.
COLINTY OF SNOHOMISH
,,Tku,(-) HAP -A,' (--, A A J Notary Public in and for the State of .
Washington, do hereby certify that on this — -2 21- d ofQC7-6AEk
—2003�7t-64"Aa560-Hii-, m#6j-tL , tj il,4 -6. 7i L I- M 15 Aj
— personally appeared before me, to me known to be the trustees for the Hillman
Family Trust dated February 25, 1998 of described in and who executed the within instrument and
acknowledged that they signed and sealed the same as their free and voluntary act and deed for the uses
and purposes herein mentioned.
GIVEN under my hand and official seal this-ilz- day of OC 2003.
.::,
It.
Notary Public in and for the State COS
.0
Washington, residing a
. ......... 0 Z
STATE OF WASHINGTON e 4� -
) as.
COLNTY OF SNOHOMISH )
On This_ 7 M day OCT06F-P- 2003, before me, the undersigned, a
Notary Public in and
,�orth tZ of��ngtoAduly commissioned and swom, personally appeared--
gS
, C
to me known to be the President of M i e-H F , CnQS'TPQC T-fO -
the Corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said
instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein. and
oath stated or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence that he is authorized to execute the said
instrument.
GIVEN under my hand and official seal this day of (nC- —t .2003.
Notary Public in and for die State
Washington, residing at 6-� 1) Mb AJ 10
Page 3 of 3
0
C)
or
Z
0
C
M
0
80
M M
o -n
MM
0
0 M
C co;
M 0
X
Z
0
0
M
Dennis M. Bruce, RE.
M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical /Civil Engineer
December 1, 2003
Mr. Rob Michel
Michel Construction, Inc.
7907 - 212th Street S.W. #102
Edmonds, Washington 98026
Subject: Grading Season Extension Geotechnical
Proposed Single Family Residence
15917 - 74th Place West, Edmonds, Washington
It is understood that the above- referenced property is subject to the ECC chapter
for landslide hazard development, and rainy season regulations regarding excavation,
drainage, grading and groundwork performed after September 30.
This engineer has performed inspections on the property located at 15917 - 74th
Place West, Edmonds, Washington, and is familiar with the site. Additionally, the
property immediately to the north is currently under development, and evidences no
adverse impacts due to this season's winter weather conditions.
Based on this engineer's on -site inspections, and subject to installation and
maintenance of temporary erosion control measures, it is geotechnical aRproved
for Michel Construction to perform groundwork for the single family residence project
at 15917 - 74th Place West, subject to this engineer's on -site inspections, beyond the
nominal seasonal grading time table of September 30, 2003.
. If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call. rl
r- C_ E I V E J-L)
DEC 12 2003
PERMIT COUNTER
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
3eotechnicai / Civil Engineer
DMB:vlb
SOILS - FOUNDATIONS - SITE DEVELOPMENT - INSPECTION - DRAINAGE - DESIGN& PERMIT LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502 - Shoreline, Washington 98155 - (206) 546-9217 - FAX 546-8442
Z
9
0
Ri
'49
C M
MO
-40
0 0
C
-4 C
= M
M Z
0 -1
C
0
n
1`11 M
0
0
0
C V)
C 0
M 0
Z
Z
0)
Z
9
0
M
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.,
E A N a
November 20 2003
Project No. i&03537A
01 "i
City of Edmonds,
Community Services Depar tment
12151' Avenue North
Edmonds, Washington 98020 RE-CEIVED
Attentio& Ms. Jeannine Graf NOV 2 4 2003
BUILDING DEPT.
Subject: Geotechnical Corrections Plan Review
Michel Residence
15917 74" Place West
Edmonds, Washington
References:. Geotechnical Plan Review.
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., Sept6mber 8, 2003
Grading Plan.
Donna L Breske, P.E., October 28, 2002.
2 d Revision September, 2003
Architectural Plans
Mc . Grew Michel, July 16,2003
Revised October.7, 2003
Dear Ms. Graf:
As requested, Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) his completed a geotechnicalreview of
the abbve-referenced corrected development plans for t ' he'subject Michel residence.. These
ents, which are
plans have been revised to include, AEST's initial geotecbnical review ' comm
are the previous AESI
contained it ' i our letter of September 8, 2003. Presented below i i n italics
comment items, and our responses to the corrections. shown on the revised plans.
Review Comments.
To mitigate the poten I rial for debris flow landsliding,. the fou�idarlon i�all along the. east
perimeier.of the gara�e should be extended to the fidl ivall height of 9.5feer. nisivillprovide
heights above the grotind line ranging from 2 to.5 feet. Altenzatively, so . me type of
firqboard osed residence site.
debris �7oiv containment it -all muld be constructed upslope ofthe prop
911 Fifth Avenue. Suite 100 Kikl��d. WA 98033 - Fhone 425 827-7701 Fax 425 827-5424
Z'
0
vz
M
to
in
M C3
01
fn m z
0
m M Bi
a-
0 (a ['�.
0 Fn
C co)
z Cat
M 0
z
ca
z
0
m
The, foundation wall on the east wall of the garage has been raised uniformly to 10 feet, see
Sheet A-1.2: This should provide mitigation for the potential risk of debris flow landsliding.
No further modification appears necessary.
Notes should be added to these sheets calling out that pile beating should be Within the
undisturbed s6ils-at a minimum depth of 25 feet below the existing ground surface. Further,
the notes should callfor pile inspection by the project geotechnical engineer,
Notes 9dded to Sheets S-4 and'S-5 adequat ely address these comments.
77ze project geotechnical engineer should be on site to evaluate the suitability of any temporary
z
0
slope cuts over 4 feet high. 77ze rockery planned to face cut soils on the south side of the
0
garage should be limited to a height of 4feet, unless anengineered rera ining wall is used.
The rockery walls shown on the east and south elevation views of Sheet A1.2 have, been
Ui --I
modified to show the retained portion of the cut slope limited to 4 feet in height. No further
C: M
in 0
revision of rockery heights is required. Add a note to the grading plans that qate that the
0
0
project geotechnical engineer should be on -site to evaluate the suitability/siability of any
temporary slope cuts over 4 feet high. .
M
M Z
Detailsfor construction ofthe Keystone retaining wall along the driveway should be added to
jo -4
C: 2
>
theplanset. Include a -specific Keystone wall constiuction'detailf6r th e driveway embahkment
designed by Alex K. Moroseos, P.E. The derail should show gfid placementand length,
0 -n
drainage, and construction details.
McGrew Michel, AESI understands. that the
Based on the October 8, 2003 correction. lettef by I
. I
M M
0 Y)
0'_
Keystone retaining wall is not part of this permit per Jeanine Graf. It is part of the
0 rn
C rJ)
neighboring Hillman residence permit, and was reviewed and approved by AES1 in July of
?. Co
1003. Thus, no action is required concerning this comment item.
Q 0
Z
Add notes identibing the perimeter drainage trench ref�renced in -the reyiew letter by Dennis
M. Bruce, P.E. The drain. within the rockery located adjacent to the driveway. parking ared
z
should not be used for this purpose, because the drain rock would be vulnerable to infi 11 by
-4
slope sedimentation. . City 'code allows for non -building at -grade surface improvements i vithin
1
CD
e -should be placed above
the 15-foot building setback. Thus; a shallow graveled surfa�e swal 1
z
0
the rockery within the fiatter portion of the 15-foot'building setback. 77iis drainage feature
would be intended to intercepi slope surface fiow and shallow ground waier seepage prio r to.
M
flowreaching therocketyandbuilding site. The sivale should be approximately 3 feet wide by
1.5feet.deep.
Drainage swale details have been added t6 the to the revised Grading Plan, Sheet 2, by Donna
.
L. Breske, P. E. No further addition of draina ge swale details is required.
Conclusion
In summary, it is AESI's opinion that if the note concerning site cut slope review by the
project geotechnical engineer -is added to the grading plans, then the construction plans for the '
proposed Michel residence substantially satisfy the requirements of Chapter 10.05 of the
ECDC, and no further geotechnical plan review appears necessary.
This letter has been prepared for the. . exclusiv . e use of the City of Edmonds Community'Services
Department, Engineering Division and their agents, for specific application to ',this project..
Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have. been performed in -
ted geotec nical engineering and engineering geology practices
accordance with generally accep
in effect in this area at the.time'our review was completed. No other warranty-, expressed or
implied, is made.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to the City of Edmonds on this project. Should
ioject, please
you -have any questions regarding this letter or. other geotechnical aspects of the p
call us at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
ES, INC.
ASSOCIATED EARTH SQIENC
IGrkland, Washington
Mc
A I
S 7--,
33222
JSTS
MFRS 1:277�=�
G. Aafon McMicha�l, P.E.. P.E.G.
technical En-ineer,
Senior Geo
GAMIld
KE03537A2
!%1003537WE%WP - W29
3
z
m 0
-10
0 C=
X M
m
;z
o,n
n
m M
0
0 Fn
C Co.
z C9
M
z
ca
z
Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.
September 8, 2003
Project No. KE03537A
COPY
City of Edmonds
Community Services Department
1215' Avenue North
Edmonds, Washingt6n 98020 c_-
Attention: Ms., Jeannine Graf BUILDING DEFT.
Subject: Geotechnical Plan Review
Michel Residence
15917 74" Place West
Edmonds; Washington
References: Geotechnical Review r
D. Bruce, P.E., dated July 14, 2003
Grading Plan
Donna L Breske, P.E., October 22, 2002
Revised April 7, 2003
Architectural Plans
McGrew Michel
Revised July 16, 2003
Dear Ms. Graf:
As requested, Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) has completed a geotechnical review of
the . above -referenced geotechnical report and development plans for the subject Michel
residence. Our geotechnical -review was completed with respect to the MeadowdOe Earth
Subsidence Landslide Hazard, Area Checklist criteria as -contained in the City of Edmonds
Ordinance # 2661 and the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 19.05.
Project. Summary
AESI previously completed a similar geo�echnical review for the adjacent Hillman lot. The
above -referenced geotechnical report contains information indicating that both the Hillman and
Michel lots are underlain by landslide debris and may be susceptible to deep-seated landsliding,
911 Fifth Avenue. Suite.100 KiM,tnd. WA98033 Phone415 827-7701 Fax425 827-5424
0
M
M
MO
0
0
m M
co
0
n
--I
x
M M
0 5
0
5 Fn
C cl),
M 0
Z r,
X
Z
Cn
Z
9
0
in
and shallow -seated debris flow landslides originating on the adjacent steep slopes. As such,
pile foundation support, debris flow protection, and surface drainage control were
recommended for the Hillman lot, and are also recommended for the Michel lot.
Review of the above -referenced plans indicates that the residence will be constructed by.
completing a tiered bench cut within the eastern section, and filling within the western section.
The cut will be completed within the gently sloping area near the base of the steep bluff slope
forming the eastern section of the lot. Maximum cut slope heights will range between
approximately 4 to 10 feet, and maximum fill depths will range between approximately 2 to 6
feet. The residence will be supported on a pile foundation consisting of 4-inch-diameter pipe
piles and grade beams. A 4- to 7-foot-high Keystone soil reinforced wall will be constructed
along the northwest margin of the lot to provide driveway access.
Review Conanents
It is AESI's opinion that the most critical geotechnical issues associated with development of
the site consists of landslide hazard mitigation, foundation support within the existing landslide
debris, and site grading and drainage. A discussion and our conclusions regarding each issue
are presented below. Review comments are shGwn in italics.
Landslide Hazards
The general landslide hazard risk at the site has been defined by the GeoEngineers Landslide
Hazard Map as ranging between 2 to 30 percent. Project geotechnical information noted that
fractured silt zones were encountered at depths of 9 to 20 feet, indicating. that the site has
experienced deep-seated landsliding in the past. Medium dense to dense soils located below 25
feet do not appear to havebeen disturbed by landsliding. No definite signs of current deep
seated landsliding are present. Given these site conditions, no change in the current landslide
haza�d risk designation appears necessary. Since the landslide hazard risk does not exceed 30
percent, site development would not be restricted.
The upper 15 feet of soil appears.to consist of unconsolidated landslide debris deposits with
entrained peat and woody debris. This would indicate that the site does experience debris flow
types of landslides within the site's -colluvial slope soils, which reach onto the proposed
building site.
To Mitigate the potential for deep-seated landsliding, we propose the use of deep foundations.
These foundations should extend through the sheared, fractured silt zone and gain bearing, in
the undisturbed soils 25 feet below the existing ground surface. 77ze deep foundations would
also be required to support the residence above the upper 15 feet of unconsolidated debris
deposits. To mitigate the potential for debris flow landsliding, the foundation wall along the
east perimeter of -the garage should be extended to the All wall height of 9.5 feet. Ihiswill
provide fteeboard heights above the ground line ranging from 2 to 5 feet. Altern I atively, some
2
Z
9
0
0 in
C: 0
in 0
0 C
� C
in m
Z
o -n
m in
a 6
0 r-
0 in
C: ci)
9 V),
M 0
Z
Z
CO)
Z
9
0
m
type of debris flow containment wall could be constructed upslope of the proposed. residence
site.
Foundation Support
The upper 15 feet of soil within the proposed building area appears to consist Of unconsolidated
landslide debris deposits with entrained peat and woody debris. Thus; this material would not
provide suitable bearing support for conventional spread footing foundations� due to the
long-term differential settlements. To mitigate these poor bearing conditions,
potential f0i e undisturbed soils as discussed above should be utilized.
deepJoundations bearing in th
Review of the project structural engineering plans by Custom Design and Engineering, Sheets
S-4 and S-5 dated July . 15, 2003 show that the residence will be supported on 4-inch-diameter
driven pipe �iles, Notes should be added to these sheets calling out that pile bearing should be
within the undisturbed soils at a minimum depth of 25 feet below the existing ground surface.
Further, the* notes should call for pile inspection by the project geotechnical engineer.
Site Gr g and Drainage improvements
Given the variable consistency and loose to medium dense, unconsolidated, condition of the
surficial site soils, the planned excavation slopes are likely to -be unstable and may require
laying back the excavation face at 1.511AV (Horizontal:Vertical), or shallow er as necessary.
ite to evaluate the suitability of any temporary
The project geotechnical engineer should be on s ed to face 'cut soils on the south side of the
slope cuts over 4 feet high. The rockery plann ss an engineered retaining wall is used.
garage should be limited to a height of 4feet, uhle
Details for construction of the Keystone retaining wall along the driveway should be added to
the plan set. include a specific Keystone wall construction detailfor the driveway embankment
designed by Alex K. Moroseos, P.E. 77te detail should show grid placement and length,
drainage, and construction details.
Site drainage improvement should consist of controlling surface water flow and ground water
seepage from the base of the,adjacent slope.. Add notes identifying the perimeter drainage
Bruce,.P.E. ne drain within the rockery
trench referenced in the reviewi letter by Denni ' s M. ose, beca e the
located adjacent to the driveway parking area should not be used.for this purp us
drain rock would be vulnerable to infill by slope sedimentation. City code allows for no.n-
building at -grade surface improvements within the 15-foot buildl 'ng setback. 77ius, a shallow
graveled surface swale should be placed above the rockery within the flatter portion of the 15-
foot building setback. This drainage feature would be intended to intercept slope surface flow
and shallow ground water . seepage prior to flow reaching the rockery. and building site.. Die
swale should be approximately 3 feet wide by 1.5 feet deep.
3
Z
0
0
C: M
M 0
0
M
M Z
Z
0 -n
'n
M M
0 Fn
0 �
0 M
C U)
K (D
M 0
Z
T
Z
Z
0
1
0
M
Conclusion
In summary, it is AESI's opinion that if the conditions discussed in this review are included
with the construction plans for the proposed Michel residence, the requirements of Chapter
19.05 of the ECDC should be substantially satisfied.
This letter has been prepared for the exclusive use of the City of Edmonds Community Services
Department, Engineering Division and their agents, for specific application to this �rcject.
Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been performed in
accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering and engineering geology practices
in effect in this area at the time our review was completed. No other warranty . , expressed or
implied, is made.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to the City of Edmonds on this project. Should
you have any -questions regarding this letter or other geotechnical aspects of the project, please
call us at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.
Kirkland, Washington
Me
AS
0 222
GISTS
EXPIFtES 2/27
G. Aaron McMichael, P. E., P. E. G.
Senior G66fechnical Engineer
GAM/sn
KE03537AI
P,.j,.M\2003537\KMWP — W2K
4
z
F1
rri 0
C
M
rn z
10
it-
ca
0,n
n
� K
m M
0 Fn
0
01-
M
m
;o
z
z
9
0
m
Dennis M. Bruce, RE.
M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical/ Civil Engineer
July 14, 2003
Z
0
City of Edmonds CITY (COPY
c/o Michel Construction, nc.
7907 - 212th Street S.W. #102
Edmonds, Washington 98026
C m
rn
-i 0
Subject: Geotechnical Review - New single Family Residence
00
C
15917 - 74th Place West, Edmonds, Washington (Lot 34)
rn
This engineering repott presents the results of a geotechnical evaluation for the
A Z
jo
C
new residence at 15917 - 74th Place W., Edmonds, Washington.
>
REFERENCES:
0 n
'n
• Geotechnical reports by D. Bruce, P.E., dated March 29, 2001.
MM
• City of Edmonds Geotechnical Consultant Report (AESI, Inc.) dated May 23,
6i
2003
• Grading plan by Donna Breske, P.E., dated June 9, 2003
C m
C 0)
MO
• Historical report by Geotech Consultants dated December 27, 1990
GEOTECHNICAL BACKGROUND:
This engineer has undertaken numerous investigations of the adjacent Hillman
Z
Lot (Lot No. 33), and the subject property. These investigations have included test
ca
pits, test trenches, review of historical bore hole data, and numerous on -site
Z
observations.
All adjacent residences in the vicinity of this property have been founded on
M
standard reinforced footings (or possibly non -reinforced foundations if sufficiently old)
in relatively shallow soils. None of these homes have experienced any significant
settlements or foundation problems.
Currently, the Landslide Hazard Map depicts a hazard risk as ranging between
two and thirty percent. Interestingly enough, the original hazard risk was depicted at
ninety percent, circa 1976.
SOILS FOUNDATIONS - SITE DEVELOPMENT - INSPECTION - DRAINAGE - DESIGN & PERMIT LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502 - Shoreline, Washington 98155 (206) 546-9217 - FAX 546-8442
City of Edmonds
c/o Michel Construction, Inc.
July 14, 2003
Page two
FOUND TION PLANS - PIN -PILES WITH REINFORCED GRADE -BEAM:
This engineer has reviewed the Custom Engineering foundation plans
incorporating 4-inch diameter pin -plies and reinforced grade beam (see plans).
This foundation design utilizes 4-inch diameter pin -piles driven to refusal
depths (as monitored on -site by a qualified, experienced geotechnical engineer).
Similar pin -pile designs have been used extensively in the Puget Sound area
with documented load capacities and performance criteria. (submitted separately to
City of Edmonds). Each properly driven, 4-inch diameter pipe -pile will provide a
minimum of. 20,000 pounds (10 tons) vertical capacity. Extensive historical testing
has verified lateral load capacity to be minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the
vertical load. Additionally, the structural designs incorporate select locations of
battered piles to resist any potential lateral forces.
The battered piles shall be driven at a declination of 1 H:5V. Additionally, the
reinforced grade beam design is significantly massive and heavily reinforced. This
engineer anticipates refusal depths to be less than thirty feet (30').
The project plans also include a perimeter drainage trench with perforated pipe
and gravel to collect any slope seepage and direct it to the project drainage system.
The east garage retaihing wall will function as a "catchment wall" to mitigate any
potential slope debris flow. NOTE: March 2003 slope test pits verifle extremely
dense, native, glacially consolidated soils.
SUMMARY:
• To expedite the permit and review process, owner has chosen to use a deep
foundation system: 4-inch pin -piles with reinforced grade beams.
• The foundation design by Custom Engineering is geotechnically approved,
for the proposed Michel Construction single family residence, and more than
complies with the recommendations of the geotechnical invest igation and
report.
Z
0
M
M 0
--1 0
0 0
C
rn M
Z
D —4
C :E
> __1
Mcn
0 _n
n
M M
0
M
W
M 0
Z
Z
Z
M
City of Edmonds
c/o Michel Construction, Inc.
July 14, 2003
Page three
On -site inspections by a qualified, experienced geotechnical engineer to y9flUty
proper installation of pipe -piles.
Geotechnical inspections to mg[ift installation of perimeter drainage ditch and
proper "tie-ins" to the overall storm water system.
If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call.
NA
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
Geotechnical'/ Civil Engineer
rw 'Mm 8 1
vb
cc: Michel Construction
z
0
0
M
_n
M
rn 0
0
80
C
M M
z
> z
0 -n
M rn
U 0)
0 r-
0 M
C co
90)
mo�
Z
71
z
z
0
0
M
! N
-i�— -- Dennis M. Bruce, RE. Geotechnical /Civil Engineer
M.S.C.E., B.A
March 29, 2001
Michel Construction, Inc.
7907 212th St. S.W., #102
Edmonds, WA 98026
RECEIVED
DEC 12 2002
PERMIT COUNTER
Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation and Foundation Recommendations
Proposed Three New Single Family Residences
74th PI. W. - North of Meadowdale Rd.
This engineering report presents the results of a geotechnical evaluation for three
building lots on 7e Pl. W., north of Meadowdalle Rd. in Edmonds, Washington.' This
evaluation was required due to developer concerns as well as City of Edmonds
requirements.
REFERENCES:
• Vicinity map
• Site Plan
• Project plans (by Michel Construction)
• Site photographs
BACKGROUND:
The three single family residence building lots (Lot 34, 33, and 32) are
rectangular in shape (see site plan). Each lot is agproximately one hundred (100) to
one hundred twenty-five (125) feet wide (along 74 PI. W), and approximately two
hundred (200) to two hundred fifty (250) feet deep. These lots have never been
developed and contain dense vegetation consisting of mature trees, shrubs and
grasses.
The entire area surrounding these three, lots slopes generally westerly toward the
Puget Sound. These three lots contain relatively steeper slope portions toward the
east, and relatively gently sloped to flatter portions in the central and western parts of
the properties.
The toe of steep slope zone has been delineated and indicated on the survey site
plan, as well as the building requirement steep slope setback line.
CITY COPY STREET FILE
SOILS - FOUNDATIONS - SITE DEVELOPMENT - INSPECTION - DRAINAGE - DESIGN& PERMIT - LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502 - Shoreline, Washington 98155 - J206) 546-9217 - FAX 546-8442
Z
0
i
0
M
0
CZ rn
rn 0
0
80
M
rn Z
0-1
C -Z
--i
X
(n
0 -n
n
-1
M
M M
0 Fn
0 r-
0 M
CI)
M 0
Z r-
Z
-1
X
0)
Z
9
0
rn
Michel Construction, Inc.
March 29, 2001
Page 2
In addition, a seasonal historic streambed/water course has been identified in the
southwest portion of Lot 34.
Additionally, the City of Edmonds has installed storm water interceptor drains and
discharge lines along the property line boundary between Lots 33 and 32. Several inlet
catch basins have been constructed to service and feed the drainage line.
NOTE: On site engineering investigations have revealed some deferred
maintenance regarding proper tight line connections of the City of Edmonds catch
basins. It is essential that the City of Edmonds inspect and maintain these drainage
lines to prevent unwarranted discharge onto Lots 32 and 33.
Visual evaluation of the three lots revealed no evidence of geotechnical distress.
No sloughing, slides, no soil creep nor significant soil degradation was observed. As
mentioned, the City of Edmonds catch basins and drain lines require proper
maintenance to prevent future, unacceptable erosional degradation.
EVALUATION:
In order to augment the existing site geotechnical information, soil test pits were
dug under this engineer's inspection on February 28, 2001 using a small track hoe (see
photographs). A total of three (3) test pits were dug (one in the probable house
location for each lot). Test Pit No. I was dug on Lot 32, Test Pit No. 2 was dug on Lot
33, and Test Pit No. 3 was dug on Lot 34 (see site plan for test pit locations).
Test Pit No. I
0" to 6" Organics, roots, and organic silt. Moist
andloose
6" to approx. 48" Increasingly dense silty sand. Fine
grain, slightly moist, Medium to dense.
48" to approx. 8'(boftom of pit) Increasingly dense to very dense gray silt
A very slight water trickle was observed at the contact layer at 4 foot depth. No
sloughing or caving occurred. Test pit walls remained vertical and stable.
Test Pit No. I
0" to 6" Organics, roots, and organic silt. Moist
andloose
6" to approx. 40" Increasingly dense silty sand. Fine g rain,
slightly moist. Medium dense to dense.
40" to approx. 8'(boftom of pit) Increasingly dense to very dense gray silt
z
9
0
7
C: M
M 0
--1 0
0 0
C
� M
M M
z
g) -1
C: -2
0 -n
n
MM
D
0
0 M
C co
K 0)
M 0
Z
X
-4
z
--i
X
ri)
z
9
0
m
M�ichei Construction, i;.
March 29, 2001
Page 3
No water was encountered in Test Pit No. 2. No sloughing or caving occurred,
Test pit walls remained vertical and stable.
Test Pit No. 3
0" to 6" Organics, roots, and organic silt. Moist and
loose
6" to approx. 40" Increasingly dense silty sand. Fine grain,
slightly moist. Medium dense to dense.
40" to approx. 8' (bottom of pit) Increasingly dense to very dense gray silt.
No water was encountered in Test Pit No. 3. No sloughing or caving occurred.
Test pit walls remained vertical and stable.
CONCLUSIONS / RECOMMENDATIONS:
Based on the findings of this investigation, and experience with similar sites in
the area, the three building lots on 74th Pl. W (Lot No. 34, Lot 33, Lot 32) are
geotechnically approved for the Michel Construction new single family residences
subject to the following:
• Standard reinforced continuous and spread footings. Allowable bearing
pressure: 2,000 p.s.f.
• Equivalent fluid pressure of 40 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 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 twenty-four (24) inches and should be
bottomed at least eighteen (18) inches below the lower adjacent finish ground surface.
On site geotechnical inspection to verify.
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
Z
0
Z!
0
C rn
M 0
0
80
C
M
M Z
10-4
c:
0 -n
M M
0
0
0 M
c: CO
C (n
M 0
Z
Z
0
1
0
M
Michel Construction, fric.
March 29, 2001
Page 4
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
G.L.C. Construction 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 three thousand (3,000) 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
We recommend that a safety factor of at least 1.5 be used for design of the
foundation's resistance to lateral loading.
SLABS -ON -GRADE
Slab -on -grade floors may be supported on undisturbed, competent native soils or
on structural fill. The slabs may be supported on the existing soils provided these soils
can be 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.
z
0
0
0
c: M
M 0
-1 0
0 0
c:
M M
z
> z
X
Cn
0 -n
'n
m rn
0 �i
0 �
M
fn
K CD
M
Z
z
W
z
0
0
M
Michel Construction, i,oc.
March 29, 2001
Page 5
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 Design Value
Active Earth Pressure' 40 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 defect at least 0.002 times the wall
height, a uniform lateral pressure of one hundred (100 p.s.f. should be
added to the active equivalent fluid pressure).
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 slo s or load will be placed above the
__p@-_Ir loaas
walls. If these conditions exist, then —those pressures should be added to the above
lateral pressures. Also, if - sloping backfill is desired be—h—in—d—th—e—w—alls-, then we will need
to be given the wall dim6nsiOns 6—n-d-s—lope 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.
z
0
0
M
C: M
M 0
--1 0
0 0
C
M M
z
o -n
'n
M M
0
0
0 M
C:
M 0
Z
z
CD
z
M
Michel Construction, Inc.
March 29, 2001
Page 6
Retaining Wall Backfill
Back,fill 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
Z
0
Enkadrain, should be placed against the retaining walls. The drainage composites
0
should be hydraulically connected to the foundation drain system. The pu rpose 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
=i
Fh
subsection entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill contains recommendations
0 M
regarding placement and compaction of structural fill be6d retaining and foundation
C
M 0
0
walls.
_q
00
EXCAVATION AND SLOPES:
M M
Z
In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local,
jo
C
>
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
0 n
height greater than four (4) feet, the cut should have an inclination no steeper than 1:1
A
-A
(Horizontal: Vertical) from the top of the slope to the bottom of the excavation. Under
=
M M
specific recommendations by the geotechnical engineer, excavation cuts may be
0 Fn
modified for site conditions. All permanent cuts into native soils should be inclined no
0 �
0 M
steeper than 2:1 (H:V). fill'slopes should not exceed 1; 1 (H:V). It is important to note
C CD
9 CD
that sands do cave suddenly, and without warning. The contractors should be made
M 0
Z
aware of this potential hazard.
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
>
Z
appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve stability of the sufficial
layer of soil.
DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS:
Z
0
Footing drains are recommended at the base of all footings and retaining walls.
0
M
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.
Michel Construction, ii,c.
March 29, 2001
Page 7
Slight groundwater trickle was observed at four (4) foot depth in Test Pit No. I
during the field work. Seepage into the planned excavation is possible, and likely if
excavation occurs during winter months, and if encountered should be drained away
from the site by use of drainage ditches, perforated pipe, French drains, or by pumping
from sumps interconnected by shallow connector trenches at the bottom of the
excavation.
The excavation and site should be graded so that surface water is directed off
Z
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
M
slopes to be covered with plastic to minimize erosion. Final site grading in areas
:q =Fi
adjacent to buildings should be sloped at least two (2) percent away from the building,
U5 --I
except where the area adjacent to the building is paved.
0 X
M
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL:
C::
M 0
-40
00
C
The proposed building and pavement areas should be stripped and cleared of all
-49
T M
M Z
surface vegetation, all organic matter, and other deleterious material. The stripped or
10 --4
C:
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
o n
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
M M
prior to placement of any structural fill.
0-
CO
All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture content at or
0
0 � 1 1
M
C CO
r. U)
near the optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content is that moisture
M 0
Z
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.
Z
The allowable thickness ofthe 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) inchesin loose thickness. The following table presents
Z
0
recommended relative compaction for structural fill:
4
0
M
Location of Fill Placement Minimum Relative
Compaction
Beneath footings, slabs or walkways 95%
Behind retaining walls 90%
Michel Construction,
March 29, 2001
Page 8
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-1 557-78 (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
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:
No drainage problems were evident on Lots 34, 33 and 32. Surface water flows
generally westerly following the natural topographic gradient.
As discussed, the City of Edmonds's drainage intercept catch basin and tight line
between Lot 33 and Lot 32 requires maintenance and probable improvements. This
engineer would be happy to meet on site with City of Edmonds's drainage engineers
and maintenance personnel to reach agreements as to scope of work required.
The proposed three new residences should be constructed in compliance with
City of Edmonds's standard storm water detention / management regulations.
z
0
C: M
M 0
0
80
C
rn mz
C 2
:E
0 -n
af 9
M M
U Cn
0 �
0 M
C U)
9 co
Q C.)
Z r-
z
--I
Tz
V)
z
0
rn
Michel Construction, Inc.
March 29, 2001
Page 9
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 en-gineer during construction:
• Foundation subgracle verification
• Any retaining wall, or rockery placement
• Any fill placement
• Subsurface drainage installation
SUMMARY:
The proposed three new single family residences (Lot 34, Lot 33 and Lot 32) on
70 Place W., north of Meadowdale Rd. are geotechnically vialble when constructed
in accordance with the recommendations herein, compliance with City of Edmonds
approved plans and requirements, and key geotechnical inspection Aucing construction.
GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW OF FINAL PLANS:
This engineer continues to work with Michel Construction regarding specific site
plans for the proposed three new residences. When each specific house plan has been
determined and finalized, this engineer shall provide a geotechnical review to verify
compliance with the recommendations of this geotechnical report.
A final letter of geotechnical approval or recommended modifications will be
issued at that time.
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 subsurfdce 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.
Z
0 1
0
C: M
M 0
--1 0
0 0
C
M M
Z
'0
C:
>
o -n
n
M
0
0 M
a CD
K 0
M 0
Z
Z
-4
Cn
Z
M
Michel Construction, h—
March 29, 2001
Page 10
If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call.
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
Geotechnical / Civil Engineer
z
am
C
a,
mot
80
C
m m;
Z�
0. -n'
m
0
0
w
rn 0
Zr-1
z
0
C,
Wetlalid 7�egow reo, Air
Delineation/ Mitigation Restoration; Habitat Creation,, Permit Assistance 9505 19th Avenue S.E
Suite 106'
Everett, Washington 98208
(425) 337-3174
Fax (425) 337-3045
Wetland Mitigation Plan
for
th
Michel Construction - 74 Place West
Lots 15911, 15915 and 15917
Wetiond Resources, Inc. Project #03287
Prepared By:
Wetiond Resources, Inc.
9505 19th Ave. SE
Suite 106
Everett, WA 98208
(425) 337-3174
- APPROVED BY PLANNING
I -f
p. 7
For:
Michel Construction
Attn. Rob Michel
RECEIVED
7907 212" St. SW #2.12
Edmonds, WA 98026
JAN 2 2 2004
.
WILDING DEPT.
0 ctober 8, 2003
Revision 1: December 2, 2003
CITY Copy
z
M
�n
M
C
M
0
80
C
E� C
M M
10
a
CA
0 -n
"n
m M
0
0 M
M 0
z
z
z
0
0
M
Is
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Site Description
Project Description
WetLand Functions and Values Assessment
Mitigation Procedure
Grass Seeding
Project and Planting Notes
Performance Bond
Project Monitoring Program
Maintenance
Performance Goals
Contingency Plan
Use of this Wetland Mitigation Plan
References
Wetland Mitigation Map
2
4
5
5
6
7
8
8
8
9
10
1/1
z
0
q , P:
0
M
M 0
0
0 0
M rn
z
C—
ca
0
n
M M
0
0
0 M
C CA
K (n, , " I
M 0
z
CD
z
M
SITE DESCRIPTION
Wetland Resources, Inc. conducted a wettand delineation on January 11, 2002 to
locate jurisdictional. wetlands on three haLf-acre lots located at 15911, 15915, and
15917, 74th Place West in the city of Edmonds, Washington. The site is located as
part of Section 5, Township 27N, Range 4E, W.M. All. three Lots were investigated
for the presence of critical areas. Critical areas are present only on Lot 15917 and
this it the only property that will be discussed hereafter.
This site is located east of the right of way of an unopened portion of 74th Place
West. This site is located on a hilt that slopes down from the east to the west. It
appears that this hilt was terraced at some time in the past. Topography of the site
slopes up from 74 th Place West in the west. A Category 3 wettand is Located in the
western portion of this property. This wetLand drains to a Category 2 stream that
flows along the southern property boundary. In the city of Edmonds, Category 3
wetlands and Category 2 streams are given 25 foot protective buffers. Typical
vegetation on -site is represented by a canopy of big leaf maple (Acer
mocrophyllum, FacU) and red alder (Alnus rubro, Fac), with an understory of
salmonberry (Rubus spectobilis, Fac+), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor, FacU),
and dewberry (Rubus ursinus, FacU.). Vegetation in the wettand is represented by
Himalayan blackberry (R. discolor, FacU), small fruit buRrush (Scirpus micro.corpus,
Obt), field horsetail (Equiseturn arvense, Fac), and Lady fern (Athyrium filix-fernina,
Fac).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is proposing to construct one single-family residence on this
property. Due to site topography and the location of the on -site wettand,
complying with ECDC 20.15B would deny reasonable use of the property, as found
by the Hearing Examiner (Case No. V-2002-222, 223, 224, Et 225). To achieve a
reasonable use of this property, the applicant is proposing to construct a single-
family residence white minimizing impacts to the wetLand and on -site stream buffer
to the greatest extent possible. As a result of site preparation and placement of
the house, 2,445 square feet of the on -site wettand is proposed to be filled. In
addition, the 25-foot buffer from the remaining non -impacted portion of the on -site
Category 3 wettand is proposed to be graded to provide appropriate side slopes
from the development. This will temporarily impact 1,195 square feet of buffer area
which will be restored upon completion of grading activities. To accommodate the
driveway and required setbacks from the house, a total of 585 square feet of buffer
is proposed to be impacted. This buffer is currently dominated by Himalayan
blackberry and Japanese knotweed. To replace lost functions and values provided
by the filled wetland and to comply with the no net loss of size requirement in the
City of Edmonds code, mitigation is offered in the following manner.
The on -site portion of the Category 2 stream buffer (560 square feet) is proposed
to be enhanced through control of invasive species and planting of native species.
To prevent grading or other impacts to the stream buffer, silt fence shalt be placed
around outer perimeter of this buffer prior to any site disturbance. To ensure that
Z
0
3:
C M
M 0
-4 0
0 0
C
M
M Z
Z
M
0 -n
n
M M
a 6
0
5
c: M
U)
cr)
M 0
Z r-
Z
Z
0
M
any inadvertent impacts are restored, the proposed buffer enhancement will take
place after completion of grading activities and concurrent with buffer restoration
(discussed below).
Upon completion of grading within the 25-foot buffer from the existing wettand,
this 1,195 square foot area will be restored through planting of native trees and
shrubs.
To comply with the no net loss of size requirement in the City of Edmonds code,
the applicant is proposing to replace the 2,445 square feet of impacted wetland
with additional buffer at a 2.5 to 1 (additional buffer to wettand impact) ratio. This
will amount to 6,113 square feet of additional buffer. As mitigation for the 585
square feet of buffer impacts, the applicant is proposing to designate 585 square
feet of additional buffer. This will amount to a total of 6,698 square feet of
additional area as buffer. The area to be designated as additional buffer is
represented by a canopy of big Leaf maple with sword fern in the understory. This
is proposed to be enhanced by planting conifers throughout this area on 15-foot
centers.
To ensure that stream flows are not impacted by this project, a French drain WiLl
be placed in the yard of the proposed -house. This drain will outflow into the
stream buffer via a Level spreader trench.
WETLAND FUNCTIONS AND VALUES ASSESSMENT
Methodology
The methodology for this functions and values assessment is based on professional
opinion developed through past field analyses and interpretation. This assessment
pertains specifically to the on -site wettand system, but is typical for assessments of
similar systems common to western Washington.
Functions and Values Components
Wetlands in western Washington perform a variety of ecosystem functions.
Included among the most important functions provided by wetlands are stormwater
control, water quality improvement, fish and wildlife habitat, aesthetic value,
recreational opportunities, and education. The most commonly assessed functions
are Stormwater Storage/ Roodflow Attenuation, Water Quality, and Wildlife Habitat.
Assessments of these functions for the project site are provided below.
Analysis
Stormwater Storage/ Floodflow Attenuation
Due to the Location of this wetLand within the landscape, this wetLand has the
potential to make beneficial contributions to the functions of stormwater storage
and floodflow attenuation. The size of the wettand allows it to collect and store
water as it drains from the surrounding hillside and slowly release it to the
associated stream.
Z
0
9i
C rn
MO
0
80
M
M Z
'0
c:
W
0 -n
n
-4
M M
0
0
0 M
a 0)
M CO)
Q 0
Z
Z
U)
Z
9
0
M
Water Quality
This wettand has the ability to make moderate contributions to the function of
water quality. As water passes through this wettand, the size and presence of
emergent vegetation slows the water, allowing suspended sediments to settle.
Along with this, the emergent vegetation takes up and traps nutrients, thus
preventing downstream eutrophication.
Wildlife Habitat
Given the small size, lack of vegetative structure, limited species diversity, and
proximity to surrounding development, this wetland on[y has the potential to make
minimal contributions to wildlife habitat. The most important benefit is food and
cover to birds, amphibians, and small mammals.
Proposed Impacts to Functions and Values
In order to accommodate a single-family residence and associated infrastructure on
this site, the applicant is proposing to fill 2,445 square feet of the on -site Category
3 wetland and to impact 585 square feet of associated buffer.
Post Mitigation Functions and Values
As mitigation for impacts to the on -site wetland and buffer, the applicant is
proposing to designate and enhance a total of 6,698 square feet of area as
additional buffer. This 6,698 square feet of additional buffer along with the entire
on -site portion of the stream buffer (560 square feet) is proposed to be enhanced
through control of invasive species and planting of native species. In addition, the
1,195 square feet of wetland buffer to be graded will be restored using native
shrubs.
To ensure that stream flows are not impacted by this project, a French drain will
be placed in the yard of the proposed house. This drain will outflow in to the
stream buffer via a Level spreader.
Although impacts are proposed to occur in the majority of the on -site wetland and
portions of the buffer, the level of functions and values provided by this system will
remain approximately equivalent or will improve. Preservation and enhancement of
the on -site stream buffer, restoration of the 1,195 square feet of on -site wettand
buffer to a better than existing condition, and designation and enhancement of
6,698 square feet of additional buffer area is proposed. This mitigation will help to
increase species diversity, improve vegetative structure and control invasive
species which are currently dominant in the stream buffer. Other benefits will be
an increase in wildlife habitat, including a movement corridor along the southern
border of the property. Planting conifer trees throughout the area designated as
additional buffer will facilitate the transition from a deciduous to a mixed and
eventually a coniferous canopy, and wilt result in Long term im I provements to
functions and values of the site.
Z
9
0
C: M
MO
--10
0 0
C
�M
M M
Z
0 -1
C -
Z
-4
C0
0 -n
n
-i
M M
0 U;
0 r-
0 M
0)
M
M 0
Z �
M
Z
-4
M
V;
Z
M
Stormwater storage, floodflow attenuation, and water quatity values will. be
maintained if not improved by collecting stormwater runoff from the site, treating
it in a detention system and releasing it downstream. Stream flows will be
maintained by collecting water from the yard in a French drain and releasing it into
the stream buffer via a level spreader.
Given the relatively low initial quality of this wetland and the proposed mitigation
measures, this project should result in negligible impacts, or even slight
improvements to analyzed functions and values.
MITIGATION PROCEDURE
As partial mitigation for on -site wettand and buffer impacts, the applicant is
proposing to designate 6,698 square feet of area as additional buffer. This area will
be enhanced through, control of invasive species and planting of native conifer
trees. To accommodate existing native vegetation, these trees will be planted
throughout this area on 15-foot centers.
The 1,195 square feet of on -site wetland buffer will be graded as a part of site
preparation. This grading will remove all invasive species. After grading the level
spreader should be installed. Upon completion of site work, the buffer restoration
area should be seeded with the grass seed mixture recommended in this plan, and
planted with the species listed below.
No grading will take place in the stream buffer. To ensure this, the edge of this
buffer will be marked with silt fence before commencement of any grading
activities. Should any inadvertent grading occur, the graded areas should be
restored in the same manner as the additional buffer area. In areas not graded, all
invasive species (mainly Himalayan blackberry and Japanese knotweed) should be
removed by the root. Of the 560 square feet of on -site stream buffer, 215 square
feet of this is wetland. This area will remain wetLand. Following control of invasive
species, the species recommended below should be installed in the appropriate
locations.
Additional Buffer 6,698 square feetl
Common Name
Latin Name Size
Spacing
Quantity
1. Douglas fir
Pseudotsuga menziesH 1 gallon
15'
10
2. Western hemlock
Tsuga heterophyllo 1 gallon
15'
10
3. Western red cedar
Thuja plicata 1 gation
15,
10
Stream Buffer (upland 345 square
feetl
Common Name
Latin Name Size
Spacing
Quantity
1. Vine maple
Acer circincturn 1 gallon
91
2
2. Sitka mountain ash
Sorbus sitchensis 1 gallon
91
2
3. Snowberry
Symphoricarpos albus I gallon
4.5'
7
4. Oregon grape
Berberis nervosa 1 gallon
4.5'
7
Z
9
0
M
M
C
m
0
80
M M
Z
10-4
in
Oil
n
m m
0 —00
0
0 Fn
C (1)
9 Cn
M 0
Z
X
Z
—4
:r
C')
Z
0
0
m
Stream Buffer (wetland 215 square feet
Common Name Latin Name Size Spacing Quantity
1. Red -osier dogwood Cornus sericea 1 gallon 91 1
2. Black twinberry Lonicera involucrata 1 gallon 91 1
3. *Stough sedge Carex obnupta plugs 1.5' 20
4. *Small -flowered butrushScirpus microcarpos plugs 1.5' 20
*Stough sedge and smatt-ftowered bulrush should be planted in clumps, each
covering 20 percent of the wettand area.
Z
Wettand Buffer Restoration (1, 195 square feLtJ
0
Common Name Latin Name Size Spacing Quantity
1. Vine maple Acer circinaturn 1 gatlon 91 8
2. Sitka mountain ash Sorbus sitchensis 1 gallon 91 7
22
3. Snowberry Symphoricarpos albus 1 gallon 4.5'
C M
4. Oregon grape Berberis nervosa 1 ga[Lon 4.5' 22
rn 0
0
0
c:
GRASS SEEDING
ALI disturbed soil within critical areas and buffers shall be seeded to the
M
M
recommended, certified grass seed mixture below. Fertilizer shalt only be used
CE
when absolutely necessary due to potential runoff into sensitive stream and
>
wettand systems. If deemed absolutely necessary by the consulting biologist
Cn
and/or the County Biologist, a fertilizer such as 16-16-16 shalt be applied at 100
0 -n
n
pounds per acre.
M rn
Buffer Grass Seed Mixture
0
Common Name Latin Name tbs./1,000 s.f.
0 m
C CA
Colonial bentgrass Agrostis tenuis 0.6
rn 0
Annual ryegrass Lolium multiflorum 0.3
Z
White clover Trifollum repens 0.2
X
Wetiand Grass Seed Mixture
>
Z
Common Name Latin Name lbs./1,000 s.f.
Annual ryegrass Lolium multillorum 0.4
Redtop bentgrass Agrostis alba 0.4
Z
0
Meadow foxtaiL Alopecurus pratensis 0.6
American sloughgrass Beckmannia syzi.gachne 0.6
M
PROJECT AND PLANTING NOTES
A meeting wilt take place between the consulting biologist and the contracted
Landscaper prior to commencement of enhancement activities. This will provide an
opportunity to clarify any questions that may arise and ensure success of the
enhancement project in a timely manner. Siltation fencing shalt be placed as shown
on the TESC design and be inspected prior to any mitigation site disturbance.
These measures wilt help to ensure that the on -site construction activities will have
5
the minimum impact to on -site critical. areas necessary to achieve completion of
the project.
Mulch: Wood chips, or other appropriate material, shalt be used for mulching in
the planting area. Any existing vegetation is to be removed from a two -foot
diameter area at each planting site. Wood chips are to be placed in this two -foot
diameter area at a depth of three to four inches. A four -inch diameter ring around
the base of each plant shalt be kept free of mulch.
Ptanting holes should be dug to twice the required size and partially backfilled with
a high quality compost.
Plant in the early spring or late fall. Order plants from a reputable nursery. Care
Z
0
I
and handling of plant materials is extremely important to the overall success of the
0
m
project. All plant materials recommended in this plan should be available from local
and regional sources, depending on seasonal demand. Some limited species
=i
substitution may be allowed, only with the agreement of the consulting wetLand
m
professional.
c:
M 0
0
Plants shalt be arranged with the appropriate numbers, sizes, species, and
80 � :
C
distribution to achieve the desired vegetation coverage. The actual placement of
3: M
M Z
individual plants shalt mirmic natural, asymmetric vegetation patterns found on
Z
similar undisturbed sites in the area.
>
Lath stakes or similar approved marking system should be placed next to each
o -n
planted tree and shrub to assist in locating the plants during monitoring and while
removing the competing non-native vegetation. This will be done for all installed
M M
plants.
a
0
PERFORMANCE BOND
0 M
c: 0)
K ca
A performance bond shalt be provided to the City of Edmonds for the period of
M C)
Z
three years from the completion of the project, in the amount of 120% of the
estimated cost for plant material and labor. Annual monitoring reports and
seasonal maintenance witI. be required to assure the success of this enhancement
plan. The City of Edmonds shalt release this bond at the end of the three years,
Z
upon successful determination for at[ portions of this mitigation project. The
following is an estimate of plant materials and labor only. This does not represent a
ca
bid to install:
Z
9
QUANTITY OF ONE GALLON PLANTS @ $8.25 per plant 109
0
M
QUANTITY OF PLUGS @ $2.00 per plug 40
ESTIMATED COST OF PLANT MATERIAL AND LABOR $979.25
ESTIMATED COST OF MONITORING (3 YEARS@ $500/yr) $1,500.00
ESTIMATED COST OF MAINTENANCE (3 YEARS@ $500/yr) $1,500.00
6
979.2.5
TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS (Plant Material and Labor) $979.25 1, 5DO �
120% OF TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS $1,175.10
,�Z,rhL;
Plant prices are based on a quote from Van den Akker's Landscaping and include 112W
tabor.
PROJECT MONITORING PROGRAM
Requirements for monitoring project:
1. Initial compliance report
z
0
2. Annual site inspections (in the fall) for three years
-4
3. Annual reports (One report submitted in the fall of each monitored year)
M
Purpose of Monitoring:
The purpose of monitoring this project is to evaluate the success of the
n
a M
enhancement plantings. Success will be determined if monitoring shows that at
C 13
m
the end of three years the performance standards are being met and that habitat
0
80
values in the enhancement areas are equivalent to similar ecosystems in the
C
immediate area.
3:
A M
z
Inspection Schedule:
Upon completion of the mitigation project, an inspection by a qualified wetLand
C 2
>
co
biologist wilt be made to determine plan compliance. A compliance report (as -built)
0
will be supplied to the City of Edmonds regarding the completeness of the project.
-n
Condition monitoring of the plantings will be done by a qualified wettand biologist
X 9
M M
in the fall annually for the three-year monitoring period. A written report
results will be submitted to the City of Edmonds shortly
C) Vi
0 � .
0 M
describing the monitoring
after the fall inspection of each monitored year. Final inspection wilt occur three
C: 0)
C W A
years after completion of planting. The contracted wetLand professional will
M C.)
z
prepare a final report as to the success of the project.
Definition of Success / Performance Standards:
>
The enhancement areas shall support at Least 8076 survivorship, and at Least 80%
z
areal coverage of the native plants set forth in this plan by the end of three years.
The species mix should resemble that proposed by the planting plans, but strict
z
adherence to obtaining all of the species shalt not be a criterion for success.
Reproduction of volunteer native species may be used to establish areal coverage
more than 10% areal coverage of invasive,
0
M
requirements. If a given area contains
non-native species within the planting areas, the enhancement shall not be
considered successful for that area.
7
MAINTENANCE
The enhancement areas wilt require periodic maintenance during the monitoring
period. These will be maintained at least one time during the spring and fall for
each of the three monitored years, or as needed to assure the success of the
mitigation project. Maintenance may include, but wit[ not be Limited to, removal of
invasive vegetation (by hand or chemical means as necessary), thinning of volunteer
red alder and black cottonwood to 10-foot centers, replacement of plant mortality,
and/or the replacement of mulch for each maintenance period.. Chemical control,
if necessary, shall be applied by a licensed applicator following all label
instructions. The temporary irrigation system wilt be maintained for at [east two
years or as necessary to achieve firm establishment of the planted species.
I. PERFORMANCE GOALS
The goat of this mitigation plan is to establish a self sustaining natural wetland
system with supporting buffers. The mitigation area wilt become a functioning
portion of the Larger stream and wetLand system to the south and help to support
an overall complex natural environment.
CONTINGENCY PLAN
If more than 20% of the plants are severely stressed during any of the inspections,
or it appears more than 20% may not survive, additional plantings of the same
species or, if necessary, alternative species may be added to the enhancement
areas. If this situation persists into the next inspection, a meeting with a
representative for the City of Edmonds, the consulting wettand biologist and the
property owner will be scheduled to decide upon contingency plans. Elements of
the contingency plan may include, but will not be limited to more aggressive weed
control, expansion of the irrigation system, plant mortality replacement, species
substitution, fertilization, and/or soil amendments.
8
z
9
V M
c: 0
rn 0
--10.
0 C
--I K
X M
M z
0 --1
c: 2
0 -n
n
M M
D —
0 ch
0 �
M
(n
co
M
X
--i
3:
z
ca
z
M
USE OF THIS WETLAND MITIGATION PLAN
This Wettand Mitigation Plan is supplied to Michel Construction as a means of
mitigating critical area impacts, as required by the City of Edmonds during the
�port is based largely on readily observable conditions
permitting process. This rL
and to a lesser extent, on readily ascertainable conditions. No attempt has been
made to determine hidden or concealed conditions. Reports may be adversely
affected due to the physical condition of the site and the difficulty of access
which may lead to observation or probing difficulties.
The laws applicable to wetlands are subject to varying interpretations and may be
changed at any time by the courts or legislative bodies. This report is intended to
provide information deemed relevant in the applicant's attempt to comply with the
laws now in effect.
The work for this report has conformed to the standard of care employed by
wetland ecologists. No other representation or warranty is made concerning the
work or this report and any implied representation or warranty is disclaimed.
Wettand Resources, Inc.
I - s Emlen
r
ior Wettand Ecologist
9
z
0
0 M
C
M
0
80
C
M M
z
0 -n
>
M M
0
0 M
C CA
Ch
M 0
Z
X
z
z
0
M
REFERENCES
City of Edmonds Code Chapter 20.1513 Critical Areas.
Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Mabitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-
79/31. December 1979. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service. Washington, D.C.
Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, 198 . TechnicaL Report Y-87-1.
Environmental Laboratory. U.S. Army Engineer Waterway Experiment Station.
Vicksburg, MS.
Soil Survey of Snohomish County Area Washington United States Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (1978).
National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands, Northwest Region. 1996.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and WiLdLife Service. Washington, D.C.
Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Washington
State Department of Ecology. Publication #96-94. March 1997.
10
I
z
9 . ti'
0
M
0 M
M
0
80,
M M
z
c:
0 -n
n
-4
X
M M
I a.
0
o Fn
C
�MO
z
7-1
;0
.-I
z
--I
z
M
MICHEL CONSTRUCTION - 74TH PLACE WEST
WETLAND MITIGATION MAP
PORTION OF SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 27N, RANGE 4E, W.M.
WETLAND BUFFER IMPACT
- 585 SF TOTAL
SCALE V 20'
CATEGORY 3 WETLAND
----------------------------------- 2,445 SF TO BE FILLED 0 10 20 30 40
--------------- ---------------
WETLAND
---- Dil
PROPOSED --- - ---
-----------
YARD WETLAND FILL
. ........
---- - .....
PROPOSED
---------------------- HOUSE WETLAND BUFFER TO BE
25' -- -------------------------- GRADED AND RESTORED
- --- --- ----- --
BUFFER
STREAM BUFFER (UPLAND)
- ------ - .. ............................ . ADDITIONAL BUFFER TO BE ENHANCED
................................ 6,698 SF
....... .. .................. - --------- ---------- TO BE ENHANCED TLAND)
STREAM BUFFER (WE
TO BE ENHANCED
--- - ------- ---
BUFFERIMPACT
ADDITIONAL BUFFER
OUTFALL FROM CURTAIN TO BE ENHANCED
DRAIN TO LEVEL SPREADER
STREAM
L- -IL- 11 -
EXISTING 12"
CULVERT
WETLAND MTIGATION MAP
I
WETLAND BUFFER MICHEL CONSTRUCTION - 74TH PLACE WEST
CATEGORY 2 STREAM
TO BE GRADED AND RESTORED
1,195 9505 19 ffi Av—eS.E.�tte1G6E—tt.WashM9tw 8ZG8
Phone: (425) 337-3174 Sheet 1/ 1
Fax: (425) 337-3045 Michel Construction Job # 03287
STREAM BUFFER Ernafl! mai(box(pwet1andre=,ces.com Attn. Rob Michel Drawn by: L. Emenhiser
ENHANCEMENT 7907 212th St, SW #212 Date:October 8, 20031
560 SF Edmonds, WA 98026 Revision 91: December 2, 20031
RECORD OF INSPECTIONS
INSPECTOR
DATE APPROVED
SETBACKS .....................
FOUNDATION:
Footing ......................
Wall ..........................
Pier/Porch .................
z
0
1
Retaining Wall ...........
0
Slab Insulattlon ..........
PLUMBING:
—4
x
lTI
Underground
M 0
0
0
Rough -In ...................
C
Commercial Final
9
A ITI
z
HEATING:
C:
Gas Test ....................
A2 �2_-
Gas Piping .................
Equipment .................
0 -n
Commercial Final
M ITI
w Cl)
EXTERIOR SHEATHING
0
0
NAILING .� ........................
M T
C (A
C 0)
ITIO
FRAMING ........................
Z
FIRST FLOOR FRAMING
INSULATION ...................
Floor Insulation
z
Wall Insulation ...........
Ceiling Insulation
z
9
SHEETROCK NAILING
0
M
SPECIAL INSPECTION
MISCELLANEOUS ..........
FINAL APPROVAL FOR
OCCUPANCY ..................
SideSewer# 'Y= 7
Amout Paid $27,S'
Date lssue4�".Plms—
Water,MeterSize
AmountPaId /"5,1 R Ipt#
nf.D.—S. / P.4
asuu
A"unit Paid
_Vjj9_