20050707.pdfif
r DATE �RECEIVED
CITY OF EDMONDS
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION
OWNER NAMEINAME OF BUSINESS
V —a <,e r
MAILING ADDRESS
2 'Ig� /� V-42-
CITY ZIP TELEPHONE
L102 774 / 7-&-_�33
NAME
ADDRESS
CITY zi I P —]TELEPHONE
NAME 5 i� CBL#
t�OAIE / *'Z-F - I
ADDRESS
CITY
STATE LICENSE NUMBER
TELEPHONE
Lu
_j
PROPER7 Y TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL NO.
q 600�onr
QA-,l __2
NEW FRI RESIDENTIAL
ADDITION COMMERCIAL
MIXED USE
REMODEL MULTIFAMILY
GRADING
REPAIR CYDS
DEMOLISH TANK
GARAGE RETAINING WALL
z
CARPORT ROCKERY
)�
01
P1
n
(TYPE OF USE, BUSINESS 9�ACTIYITY) EXPPIN:.
— - - -
DATE
PERMIT EXPIRESSfl I
PERMIT
NUMBER ro 7
JOB SUITEIAPTO
ADDRESS 02,10 C72 4'
A
PLAT NAMEISUBDIViSION NO
LOT NO.
LID NO
LID FEE $
PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP
TESCPApproved 13
RW Permit Reutufud 0
Strew Use Pernin Required 13.
EXISTING PROPOSED
Inspection Required E3
Sidewalk Required
REQUIRED DEDICATION FT
underground 13
Wiring required E3
METER SIZE LINE SIZE NO� OF FIXTURES
PRV REQUIRED
YES13 NOO
z
0—
rx
REMARKS
W
W
OWNER/CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROUDRAINAGE
z
uj
CHECKED BY
PLUMBING / MECH
COMPLIANCE OR
CHANGE OF USE
SIGN
FENCE
( — X FT.)
OTHER
FIRE SPRINKLER
FIRE ALARM
EERING REVIEWED
N
A 12-10
FIRE REVIEWED BY
It
DATE
VARIANcr OR CU
SHORELINE RADB#
INSPECTIO
SEPA
REO'D
I
COMPLETED
EXEMPT
13YES N NOI
I X
CA#
ZONE
SIGN AREA
HEIGHT
WAIVER 13.
ALLOWED PROPOSED
ALLOWED PROPOSED
I
S
STUDY
,
LOT COVERAGE
REQUIRED SETBACKS (FT)
PROPOSED SETBACKS (FT.)
ALLOWED PROPOSED
FRONT
SIDE REAR
FRONT UR SIDg REAR
C2
CD
I
W
�z
PARKING
LOTAREA
PLANNING REVIEWED BY DATE
z
REO'D
PROVIDED
1
`ZD31f'(� I
15
1-
19
AA A)IxA,�A
,.- 0 �</ n 2,/ n i.;;
fie�&s
I ctot
17 lext
M
TYPE OJUUCTION
C
NUMBER
OF
STORIES �hzs-e m-ent
NUMBER OF
DWELLING
I UNITS
jMe
SPECIAL INSPkTION
RE U RED YES
CRIBE,WnRK Tn RP
As
I�MDU., w—
1-111imc: n
CRAX, rdlell q6l
77r —7
4200
C_01 I LL;RVIN&
7
M S
REMARKS!
\L61
OF6M v
8VA-N�> ",f
GEOTECHREPORT
BY:
ME
M M
'T V11 4NU P.00O
9
VALUATION
$ ��, 9K)
O"b�6 102-1 t� �LWI,!� 10'r-,
;;?.% I 1011
.18 1 F 111-0121H
52-7 t#
Description
Plan Check
HEAT SOURCE/
6
LOT SLOPE%
VESTED DATE
Building Permit
C1 Ci -a - 3 1 - ni q
OCCUPANT
GROUP
T ?� I I R T
CONSUL
PLAN CHECK NO: 121 -- - , C) ;_;> 5 Plumbing
04� . C-) 1
THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO Mechanical
BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBIC
DONMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE Grading
SEPARATE PERMISSION.
PERMIT APPLICATION: SEE ECDC 19.00.005(A)(5) Engr. Review
PERMIT LIMIT. SEE ECDC 19.00.005(A)(6)
SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION Engr. Inspection
L
'APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS Fire Review
IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND Fire Inspection
ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL. NOT BE
DEEMED TO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE Landscapelnsp.
NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITY'S ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION. -
Recording Fee
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION; THAT THE INFORMATION
GIVEN IS CORRECT; AND THAT I AM THE OWNER, OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF
THE OWNER. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC-
TION; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED CALL
IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO FOR INSPECTION
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND RCW 18:27.
SIGNATUR( DATE SIG7,ED (425)
6 1
&./ C le� 7 771-0220
ATTENTION EXT. 1333
IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL
A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTI-
FICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC109 / IBC110 if IRC110.
OCCUPANT
LOAD
FEE Description
I Q State Surcharge
49-3c) City Surcharge
17411 1 Base Fee
FEE
Plan Chk. Deposit
Receipt # X
Total Amt. Due
.?� 10
,Receipt#
APPLICATION APPROVAL
This application is not a permit until signed by the
Building Official or tits/her Deputy and Fees are paid, and
receipt is acknowledged in space provided
IALS SIGN )RE DATE
10104 PRESS HARD - YOU ARE MAKING 4 COPIES
INAL - FIL.1
K
-INSPECTOR
ASSESSOR
C
z
r �
z
0
1
0
M
--I _n
C/j
M
C
M
-jo
0
oc�
Im
X M
M Z
10
C
X
0)
0 -n
n
x
M M
0
0
0 M
C (1)
9 Cn
Q 0
Z
X
z
C/)
z
0
1
0
M
4022 sf Old Roof OverhWQ- — I FOR INSPEUTIUM I
4"7 sf New Roof Ov -1 =91 . I . . . . . Benchmark
(smaller are . I
cc n� PCO AO
Top of Mom
EL-36M
WR
18B. 0
N09542BW
ExIsUng Saw Ikv - -------
S-UVFACF--S 10 1 k
A�L .5 *We* -
7"' /
-�B!3�0,7. 'I 2v Existing D
BE "QOVLF �E-D! LT41 N— 2- DAYS rivieway
CD
Bda�l' Bk Rii ffr Lee— —t-� - — — — — —
T N893428-W iiB.17
2Q1,376 Sf
ACCEPTAB�E- -TIGH I LINE
01 MATER& 4-
\ ' /-\ N' Y I in
SDR 35 CD
ID Cg CS z SCH 40 \J
C- N6W Ac d area I I
< IM I (D
N-12
> 0
F810 HANCQR C9
.2= sf C4
6� Ro(�ker I sf M LO *%
House 1021 CD
W A
c
M
Bidsting .9 Fir Gai- "12395 -Sf
87, 0' C14
U R 4WO
1 72x4O .2
L
< >
—.1 1 LO (D
CL
WR
.9 rCL
.L
%1FI&- 12) O'j*j'§pObTj NesSS48W CIO :.q -0
"Ir - I j >
�EGTl TO I SYM
Vj
L . it LLI
0
It W
Zone I- ComerND-Flag .5 W F=-
(D
S
etbacks Required Actual
Is LU ca CD
t >
W-
Aettr E i DI
cy)
'27190 It
St
Hei
wit
/1-9395 Sf
titi
MD.' E
LL 4—
LL
N, NOM
or C3 W
Cornerstone 17625-130th Ave. NE, C102, Woodinville, WA 98072
Phone: 425-8"-1977
Geotechnical, Inc. Fax: 425-844-1987
July 13, 2005
Mr. Jeff Mietzner
z
20210 - 92n' West
0
Edmonds, Washington 98020
M
Geotechnical Report
Single -Family Residence
X.
M.
Edmonds, Washington
..0
M
CG File No. 1913
.80
0
C
3: W.
Dear Mr. Mietzner:
mz�
INTRODUCTION
C z
>
This report presents the results.of our geotechnical evaluation for your single -family residence
Ca
nd site plan
located at 20210 - 92 West in Edmonds, Washington., We have been provided with a
0 _n.
showing existing topography and planned residence location. You have requested that we
M M
provide this report that addresses the bearing capacity for the existing foundation system.
�.0
0 Fn.
C Ca
ic Cf)
We understand that you plan to remodel the existing residence and use the existing. foundation
M O�
Z r-:,
system.. The existing house is a single-efamily residence with a daylight basement and was
constructed in approximately the 1950's. Concrete basement walls exist on the north, east and
south sides of the residence. We have not been provided with plans of the new remodel. We
Z?
understand that the existing remodel will require a bearing capacity of at least 3,364 pounds per
-A
square foot.
z
0�
0
M
-SCOPE
The purpose of our services was to evaluate -site conditions and to provide recommendations for
development. Our scope of services included the following:
1. Review available geologic maps for the site area.
2. Evaluate the subsurface conditions in holes adjacent to the daylight basement.
Geotechnical Report
Mietzner Single -Family Residence
Edmonds, Washington
July 13, 2005
CG File No. 1913
Page 2
3. Provide recommendations for foundation support.
4. Document our findings, observations, and conclusions in a report.
SITE CONDITIONS
z
Surface Conditions
0
d
The site is rectangular with an access driveway that extends east towards 92 Avenue West. The
site is approximately 179 feet in the east to west direction and approximately 100 feet in the north
C4
X
C:
to south direction.
M 0
0
0
C
The site slo es gently down to the west before reaching the top of a steep slope. Based on the
p
M
provide d site plan, there is a vertical relief of approximately 14 feet from the east to west property
M z
lines. The steep slope is located off the property to the west and it is approximately 90 feet from
C
>
the residence based on the site plan. The.steep slope extends down to the adjacent residence to
r
ca
the west.
0 _n
_n
M
The existing foundation appears to be performing adequately with no noticeable signs of cracks.
M
ettled behind the basement r
We observed some areas where the backfill appears to have s etaining
0
0 M
C CD
walls and caused distress in the surrounding sidewalks.
E co
M 0
z r
Geology
Most of the Puget Sound Region was affected by past intrusion of continental glaciation. The last
>
period of glaciation, the Vashon Stade of the Fraser Glaciation, ended approximately 10,000 to'
z
11,000 years ago. Many of the geomorphic features seen today are a result of scouring and
overriding by glacial ice. During the Vashon Stade, the Puget Sound region was overridden by
z
0
over 3,000 feet of ice. Soil layers overridden by the ice sheet were compacted to a much greater
M
extent than those that Were not.
The geology of the site is shown on the Preliminary Surficial Geologic Map of the Edmonds East
and Ed monds West Quadrangle, Snohomish and King Counties, Washington, Mackey Smith,
1975. The geologic unit mapped in the project is Vashon Glacial Till. The glacial till consists of
a dense, non -sorted mixture of clay, silt, sand and gravel. We encountered sand deposits that
appear to be advancebutwash and glacial drift. Advance outwash was a geologic unit that was
Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc.
Ge'otechnical Report,
Mietzner Single -Family Residence
Edmonds, Washington
July 13, 2005
CG File No. 1913
Page 3
deposited during the melt waters as the gl acier advanced over the area. Therefore, the outwash
has been compacted by the weight of the glacier. Glacial drift is similar to glacial till, but has
some sand seems and may not be as dense.
Z
Explorations
0
Subsurface conditions were explored at the site on July 5, 2005, by excavating a total of two
holes with a hand auger. The explorations were excavated to depths of approximately 1.5 feet
n.
below the ground surface. The explorations'were located in the field by a representative from this
11A
M
C
firm who also examined the soils and geologic conditions encountered, and maintained logs of
0.
the hand augers. The approximate locations of the explorations are shown on the Site Plan in
0
C
Figure 2. The soils were visually classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil
M
M Z
Classification System, a copy of which is presented as Figure 3. The logs of the explorations are
presented in Figure 4.
CO
Subsurface Conditions
0 _n
-n
We encountered gray -brown, dense to very dense, fine to medium sand in Hand Auger 1 (HA-1)
M M
underlying the surface fill. We have interpreted these soils to be advance outwash. The footing
0
0 r
0 M
for- the e xisting residence is, sup orted by the advance outwash. The footing appears to be a
p
C (A
M CO
conventional footing with a width of 16 inches.
�Mo
Z r-
We encountered gray -brown, silty sand to.sand with silt in HA-2 underlying the surface fill. We
3:
have interpreted these soils to be advance outwash or glacial drift. We where unable to evaluate
Z
the width and depth of the footing in this area, but we expect the foundation systemis supp orted
Cn
on the advance outwash or glacial drift.
Z
0
Hydrologic Conditions
0
M
Shallow ground water seepage was not encountered in our explorations. During the wetter times
of the year, we expect perched water conditions may. occur within the upper sand on top of the
low permeable soil layers. Perched water does not represent a regional ground water "table"
within the upper soil horizons. Volumes of perched ground water vary depending upon the time,
of year and the upslope recharge conditions.
:Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc.
I V
Geotechnical Report
Mietzner Single -Family Residence
Edmonds, � Washington
July 13, 2005
CG File No. 1913
Page 4
Seismic Hazard
The site is classified based on its overall soil profile using Table 1615.1.1 of the 2003
International Building Code, (IBC). Site conditions best fit the IBC definition for Site Class C
0
("Very dense soil and soft rock"). The IBC provides parameters and coefficients to be used in
seismic design based upon this site class.
49
Additional seismic considerations include liquefaction potential and amplification of ground
C4 X
-0 rn
C
motions by soft soil deposits. The liquefaction potential is highest for loose sand with a high
M 0
ground water table. The underlying dense soils are considered to have a very low potential for
0 C
liquefaction and amplification of ground motion.
M
M Z
F- -4
SLOPE STABILITY
3:
CA
The core of the site is inferred to be comprised of advance outwash. We did not observe signs of
0 _n
deep-seated slope failures.. The existing structure has -an adequate. setback from the steep slope.
M
M
and does not pose a.significant stability concern.
0 r-
0 M
cl)
ca
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
M01
General
It is our opinion that the site is compatible with the planned development. The underlying dense
or better soils are capable of providing adequate support for the remodeled structure. It is our
opinion the existing residence has large setback from,tbe steep slope and it is acceptable.
CD
0
We did not observe any noticeable distress from settlement of the existing structure. We expect
the any future settlement, even with the slightly additional loads, will not be significant enough to
M
cause more than cosmetic cracking.
Foundations
We are not aware of new foundations, but if some are. needed, we recommend they be completed
in accordance with this section. Conventional shallow spread foundations should be founded on
undisturbed, medium dense to very dense, advance outwash, or be supported on structural fill
extending to those soils. If the soil at the planned bottom of footing elevation is not medium
dense to very dense, it should be overexcavated to expose suitable bearing soil, and the
Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc.
Geotechnical Report
Mietzner Single -Family Residence
Edmonds, Washington
July 13, 2005
CG File No. 1913
Page 5
excavation should be filled with structural fill, or the footing may be overpoured with extra
concrete.
Footings should extend at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent finished ground surface for
0,
frost protection and b ty considerations. Minimum foundation widths of 16 and 20
earing capaci
inches should be used for continuous and isolated spread footings, respectively. Standing water
�should not be allowed to accumulate in footing trenches.' All loose or disturbed soil should be
M
removed from the foundation excavation prior to placing concrete.
M 0
For foundations constructed as outlined above, we recommend an allowable design bearing
M,
pressure of 3,500 pounds per square foot (pso can be used for the footing design. International
M Z'
Building Code (MC) guidelines should be foll owed when considering short-term transitory wind
or seismic loads. Potential foundation settlement using the recommended allowable bearing
M,
pressure ween footings or
is estimated to be less than 1-inch total and V2-inch differential bet
0 -n
-n
across a distance of about 30 feet. We should be retained to evaluate any new fboting,E2hgades
M M
prior to placing concrete.
0
M.
Cn
Lateral loads can be resisted by friction between the foundation and subgrade soil', and by passive
C/)
Q
soil resistance acting on the below grade portion of the foundation. For the latter, the foundation
Z r
must be poured "neat" against undisturbed soil or backfilled with clean free -draining, compacted
structur al fill. Passive resistance may be calculated as a triangular eq alent fluid pressure
distribution. We recommend that an equivalent fluid density of 225 pounds.per cubic foot (pcf)
be used to calculate the allowable lateral passive resistance for the case of a level ground surface
CO'
z
adjacent to the footing. An allowable coefficient of friction between footings and soil of 0.45
0
may be used, and should be applied to the vertical dead load only.. A factor of safety of 2.0 has
rri
been applied to the paissive pressure to account for required movements to generate these
pres . sures. The friction coefficient does not include a factor of safety.
Drainage
rom impervious surfaces, such as rooifs, driveway and access
We recommend that runoff f
roadways, be collected and routed to an appropriate storm water discharge system. Final site
grades should allow for drainage away from any buildings. We suggest that the finished ground
Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc.
Geotechnical Report
Mietzner Single -Family Residence
Edmonds, Washington
July 13, 2005
CG File No. 1913
Page 6
surface be sloped at a gradient of 3 percent minimum for a distance of at least 10 feet away from
the buildings as specified in the I13C.
z
0.
USE OF THIS REPORT
We have prepared this report for Mr. Jeff Mietzner and his agents, for use in planning and design
of this project. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget for bur work,, we have
strived to take care our work has been completed in accordance with generally accepted practice s
CD M,
M
C
I Ai
followed in this area at the time this report was prepared. No other conditions, expressed or
M 0
implied, should be understood.
0.
0 a
X m
mz�
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you. If there are any questions concerning this
letter or if we can provide additional services, please call.
Sincerely,
0 -n
-n
Cornerstone Geo'technical, Inc.
M M
0 M.
0
0M
C
M O�
z —
r
AS
Z'
0530
3:
z
0
M,
Rick B.'Powell, PE
Principal
RBP:nt
Three Copies Submitted
Four Figures
a Engi eering Report
Information about this Geotechnic I n
Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc.
20,
5 (V
SPRAGUE
H
LU 2D6T
-4
OTrH
BE 2
208TH
D "0
1.209TH
MAPLEJ
ALDER
*AL 71L,
6 1 0 121 'H
0 JwF
CEDAR
HO LL
> "S-"P,- -R,
UCE
213T 41
214TH
NT
LAURELr
--- po
V) Ivi
HEM 0!�K
Sii� Mo
PINE r
@11995 Thomas Bros. Maps
Phone: (425) 844-1977 Mietzer Residence
cornerstone Fax: (425) 844-1987
Geotechnical, Inc. File Number Figure
17625-130th Ave NE, C-1 02 Woodinville, WA 98072 1913 1
M
Site Plan
R-Jv
Leciend
HP-1 Hand pit number and
approximate location
Not to scale
0�9
Unified Soil Classification System
MAJOR DIVISIONS
GROUP
SYMBOL
GROUPNAME
GRAVEL
CLEAN GRAVEL
GW
WELL -GRADED GRAVEL, FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL
COARSE -
GRAINED
MORE THAN 50% OF
GP
POORLY-GkADED GRAVEL
COARSE FRACTION
GRAVEL
WITH FINES
GM
SILTY GRAVEL
SOILS
RETAINED ON NO. 4
SIEVE
GC
CLAYEY GRAVEL
MORETHAN50%
RETAINED ON
number 2 00 SIEVE
SAND
CLEAN SAND
SW
WELL -GRADED SAND, FINE TO COARSE SAND
SID
POORLY -GRADED SAND
MORE THAN 50% OF
SAND
WITH FINES
SM
SILTY SAND
COARSE FRACTION
PASSES NO. 4. SIEVE
SC
CLAYEY SAND
SILTAND CLAY
INORGANIC
ML
SILT,
FINE -
GRAINED
LIQUID LIMIT
LESS THAN 50%
CL
CLAY
ORGANIC
OL
ORGANIC SI LT, ORGANIC CLAY
SOILS
MORETHAN50%
PASSES NO. 200 SIEVE
SILT AND CLAY
INORGANIC
MH
SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY, ELASTIC SILT
CH
CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAY
LIQUID LIMIT
50% OR MORE
ORGANIC
OH
ORGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC SILT
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
PT
PEAT
NOTES:
SOILMOISTURE MODIFIERS
1) Field classi fication is based on Dry- Absence of moisture, dusty, dry
visual examination of soil in general to the touch
accordance with ASTM D 2488-83. Moist- Damp, but no visible water
2) Soil classification using laboratory
tests is based on ASTM D 2487-83. Wet- Visible free water or saturated,
Usually Soil is obtained from
3) Descriptions of soil density or below water table
consistency are based on
interpretation of blowcount data,
visual appearance of soils, and/or
test data.
Cornerst one Phone: (425) 844-1977
Unified Soil Classification. System
Fax: (425) 844-1987
Geotechnical, Inc.
IV 17625-130th Ave NE, C'l 02 - Woodinville, WAO 98072
Figure 3
z
0
m
=i 9
am
0
0,
0
M
.mz
0 -n.
n
M M
q
0
0'm
C
0)
M 0
Z
Zr
X
z
0
m
..........
LOG OF EXPLORATION
DEPTH
Usc
SOIL DESCRIPTION
HAND AUGER ONE
0.0-1.0
sm
BROWN, SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (ELLL)
SP.
GRAY -BROWN, FINE TO MEDIUM SAND (DENSE TO VERY DENSE, MOIST) (ADVANCE
OUTWASH)
GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
Z,
CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
HAND AUGER WAS COMPLETED AT 1.5 FEET ON 7/05�05
FOOTING WIDTH is APPROXIMATELY 16 INCHES AND IS PART OF A LARGE STEM
WALL FOR THE DAYLIGHT BASEMENT
HAND AUGER TWO
CA
0.0-1.0
sm
BROWN, SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (ELL-Lj
x
a m
c
1.0-1.5.
SM/SP-SM
GRAY -BROWN, SILTY SAND TO SAND WITH SILT (DENSE TO VERY DENSE, MOIST)
m
Ol
(ADVANCE OUTWASH/DRIFT)
0 O'�
GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED.
C:''
3: M
CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
z
HAND AUGER WAS COMPLETED AT 1.5 FEET ON 7/05/05
10
z
cn
0
-n
:m m
0 m
C (jj�
lz 0
Z
O�
M,
CORNERSTONE GEOTECHNICAL, INCI
FILE NO 1913
FIGURE 4
IMPOMM. OPMR000 AboOt. Youll
Z
0
The foll6winginformalion isprovidedtohe) you,mnoge your risks.
0
M
C5
M
C
Geotechnical Sepvices Ape Pepfopmed fop
elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the
M
0
Specific Pupposes, Pepsons, a nd PpoJects
proposed structure,
80
C
Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of
composition of the design team, or
C :1. 1
M
their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engi-
project ownership.
M Z
neer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another
civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each
As a general rule, always inform your geotech.nical eng ineer of project
geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. No
changes —even minor ones —and request an assessment of their impact.
one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without
Geotechpidal engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems
first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one
that occur because their reports do not consider developments, of which
0 -n
-n
not even you — should apply the report for any purpose or project
they were not informed.
except the one.originally contemplated.
Subsupf ace Conditions Can Change
M M
0 V5
Read the Full Repopt
A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at
0 r_
O,M
Serious problems have occurred because those relying o n a geotechnical
the time the study*was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineer-
C cl)
M co
engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary.
ing-report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of
M 0
Do not read selected elements only.
time; by man -made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site;
fluctua-
Z r—
T .
or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater
A Geotechnical Engineeping Repopt Is Based on
tions. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report
X
A Unique Set of PpoJect-Specific Factops
to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or
Gootechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project -specific fac7
analysis could, prevent major problems.
Z
tors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the
client's goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general
Most Geotechnical Findings Ape Ppolessional
6i
nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of
the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements,
Opinions
Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where
Z
01
-1
such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the
subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engi-
0
geotechni . cal engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates oth-
neers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional
M
erwise, do not rely on a geolechnical engineering report that was:
judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the
0 not prepared for you,
site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ —sometimes signitica.ntly.
0 not prepared for your project,
from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geolechnical engineer
a not prepared for the specific site explored, or
who developed your report to provide construction observation is the
0 completed before important project changes were made.
most effective method of managing the risks associated w ith unanticipated
conditions.
Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical
A Repopt's Recommendations Ape Not Final
engineering report include those that affect:
the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a
Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your
parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant
report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical angi-
to a -refrigerated warehouse,
neers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical
engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual
ASFE
The Best People on Earth
8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MID 20910
Telephone: 301/565-2733 Facsimile: 301/589-2017
e-mail: into@aste.org wwaste.oig
Copyright 2004 by ASFE, Inc. Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with ASFE's
specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise eKtracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission ofASFE, and only for
purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of ASFE may use this'doCUMMI is a complement to or as an element Of a g0t6chnicaf engineering report. Any other
firm, Individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being an ASFE member could be committing negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.
IIGER06045.OM
CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC.
& INSPECTION
PREVIOUS
2 17
TESTING
REPORT No.
No.
12919 N.E. 126TH PLACE
KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON 98034 (425) 823-9800
EVERETT (425) 259-OE117
DATE
CERT. NO.
CIRT
FIELD REDC01
PROJECT
LOCATION
TO:
BLDG. PERMIT NO.
OWNER
TEMP.- AT AM
WEATHER
0./7,/Z 7- L2�;
AT PM
ENGINEER
ARCHITECT
ATTN:
CONTRACTOR
(2)
INSPECTION PERFORMED
FOUNDATIONS
co
M.
c 0
(3)
ITEMS INSPECTED
RESTEELICONCRETE RESTEELONLY
FOOTINGS.
SLAB.—
M
0
0
0 C
RESTEEUMASONRY STR.ST/WELDING
AUGER CAST PILES
COLUMNS
4 C
m
OTHER STR.ST/BOLTING
DRILLED PIERS
WALLS.
rn z
BEAMS
c: z
(4) //04
0 71
LOCAT ION (AREAS)
A
M
m
00)
0 r-
0 M
c cl)
(5)
CONCRETE/MASONRY MIX NO
-TR TH (1cl
DESIGN S E TH (f'c)
c 0) .
M 0
I
SUPPLIER_
P C
TOTAL CU. YD. PLAC
SLUMP (INCHES)
,A ST
SPECIMENS CAST
AIR CONTENT (%)
SEE CYLINDER REPORT NO.
z
��—YES INSPECTED WERE IN CONFORMANCEWITH BLDG. DEPT. APPROVED PLANS
_NO —ITEMS
z
REMARKS:
A117
0
m
s
7,4.FIJV I.-
IlIV76 h�
-21'v
Z. 6 1,J 7,�4
D
7 2006
0 t N sERVIC C
, WN N TR.
S
J
TEST RESULTS APPLY ONLY TO THE ITEMS
HEREIN TESTED. THIS REPORT 9HALL NOT
INSPECTOR(S), NA ME(S) PRINTED
BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN. FULL, WITH-
OUT THE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF.CASCADE
INSPECTOR SIGNATURE
TESTING LABORATORY, INC.
REVISED 7105
SIGNED BY
COPIES TO'
L
(425) 023.9000
(425) 2S9-0817
FIELD REPORT
TO:
/4 -,r=v
ATTN:
THE FOLLOWING WAS NOTED;
DATE
=�XENQ�U=M�� �CERT.
zz Ame-IM-106
�
�NO.
Z�-
PROJECT
LOCATION
PERMIT NO.
OWNER
EBLDG.
WEATHER
7__EEd
TEMP. AT AM
AT PM
ENGINEER
ARCHITECT
L"-65
CONTRACTOR
hf1&7eav_ lwlAga:5 lAr,
V7
M 0.
8c:
Mm
m
10 71
7OF I "
c z
v :3= Btr, ZAV7
r
LiTrAob -
_n
m M
0
0 r
0 M.
M 0.
z
z
3:
m
RECEIY_E�D
TEST RESULTS APPLY ONLY -TO THE ITEMS
HEREIN TESTED. THIS REPORT SHALL NOT
INSPECTOR(S), NAME(S) PRINTED A 7AV6oW" khe
BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL WITH-
OUT THE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF CASCADE
DEVELOPMENIf SEFiVicl:s
CTR.
TESTING LABORATORY. INC.
INSPECTOR SIGNATUR CITY OF FONIONE
'000p�
s
LREVISED 1102
:N
Cop STO.MM_
IE Id
I
CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, JNC.
TESTING & INSPECTION PREVIOUS
1 2919 N.S. 126TH PLACE REPORT No. No.
"IRKLAND, WASHINGTON 98034 (425) 823-9800
EVERETT (425) 259-0817 DATE
�E
F/aD REFIC)RT PROJECT
LOCATION
TO:
BLDG. PERMIT NO.,
OWNER
(&
tj
u
WEATHER
S
TEMP. AT AM
AT PM
ENGINEER
ARCHITECT
ATTN:
CONTRACTOR
(2)
INSPECTION PERFORMED
(3)
ITEMS INSPECTED FOUNDATIONS
RESTEEL/CONCRETE
RESTEEL ONLY
FOOTINGS SLAB
RESTEEL/MASONRY
STR.STfWELDING
AUGER CAST PILES COLUMNS
OTHER
STR.STIBOLTING
DRILLED PIERS WALLS
BEAMS
(4)
LOCATION (AREAS)
Z"1sz_1x"Z__"1 T lye),
(5)
CONCRETE/MASONRY MIX NO.
DESIGN STRENGTH (f'c),-.
SUPPLIER
TOTAL CU. YD. PLACED
SLUMP (INCHES)
SPECIMENS CAST
AIR CONTENT (%)
SEE CYLINDER REPORT NO.
—YES —NO ITEMS INSPECTED WERE IN CONFORMANCEWITH BLDG. DEPT. APPROVED PLANS
Gel -
REMARKS:
Ale
j/l
7b L
/m
Zv RECEIVED
MAR 2 2006
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR.
CITY OF EDMONDS
TEST RESULTS APPLY ONLY TO THE ITEMS
HEREIN TESTED. THIS REPORT SHALL NOT
INSPECTOR(S), NAME(S) PRINTE
BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL, WITH-
OUT THE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF CASCADE
Z
TESTING LABORATORY, INC.
INSPECTOR SIGNATURE
------------
elflKirzil QV
0
m
-4
0
m
Height Calculation Worksheet.
Date CA,
Permit. Number 77o-7
Address �j .
Inspector NNn�
Zi
A e Grade
v. rage
ght (25'+Av
Max Rei e.)
Actual Height (A+B+C) -2)
-4
3:
M
C
0:
0:
C
M Z�
0
M M
0
—(C
Q
0
Z r
X,
C
(40
z
v
Elevation of transit abo e Datum (B).
Datum MID n'. Elevation (A) 3U 8) -06
1/temp/b u i Idi nW fonns/hei gilt workilleet
FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL FORM
TO:
DATE:
MEMO TO: PERMIT COORDINATOR, BUILDING DIVISION
FROM: FIRE DEPARTMENT DATE
PLRASr SIGN
ENGINEERING DlVtSIONIDATE
SIGN
z
0
PLANNING DIVISION DATE
0
M
PLEASESIGN
PROJECT
CO
C M
SITE ADDRESS
M 0
ADB#_DATE INSPECTED �e_
0 C:
-1 K
PERMIT
3: M
MZ
DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE INSPECTED
C z
A field, inspection was conducted to determine comp liance with -approved, plans. Final approval
denotes that, there are n o objections from the above signed Department to the release. of
0 -n
PERFORMANCE BONDS and the granting of
M M
0 ui
FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL
0
0 M
C rj)
F. Cn
____,LGRANT
MO
Z
7-1 M
GRANT PROJECT APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS NOTED
z
IONS iven to owner/contractor by. inspector
0 Copy of CONDIT 9
Cn
z
0
.4
'FAILED FINAL INSPECTION OUTSTANDING ISSUES,
0
M
Copy of CORRECTIONNOTICE given. to owner/contractor by inpector
2.
3.
RE INSPECTE D OUTSTANDING ISSUES - GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL
Date Signature
1:tcmp4b1dg:fomis:oca prvl 3/25/04
p
FINAL PROJECT APPRO'VAL FORM
TO:
DATE:
MEMO TO: PERMIT COORDINATOR, BUILDING DIVISION
FROM: FIRE DEPARTMENT DATE
PLEASE SIGN
ENGINEERING DIVISION DATE 912
z
.0
Pix.&SE SOM
--i
0
PLANNING DIVISION DATE
M
PIXASE SIGN
=n
PROJECT 2 F- (P,-
C/) x
0
4
C M
M0
0
SITE ADDRESS- C7,2 0 -92
0
0 C
PERMIT 1t,2VV)__-3 — (Z) Zo Z ADBft DATE'fNSPECTED
a: M
�M Z
DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE INSPECTED 6�2 /Ir/ t— (76)
C: z
Cn
A field inspection, was conducted to determine compliance with -approved plans. Final. apprioval
0 -n
denotes that there are no objections from the above signed Department to the release of
-n
PERFORMANCE BONDS and the granting of
M M
0 r
0 M
C (n
GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL
MO
z
X
z
GRANT PROJECTAPPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS NOTED
0 Copy of CONDITIONS given to owner/contractor by inspector
(n
z
0
M
FAILED FINAL INSPECTION -.OUTSTANDING ISSUES
0 Copy of CORRECTION NOTICE given to owner/contractor by inpector
2.
.3.
RE -INSPECTED OUTSTANDING ISSUES - GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL
Date Signature
I:Ietiip.:bl(lg:fornis:ocal)i-vI 3/25/04
RECORD OF INSPECTIONS
INSPECTOR DATE APPROVED
SETBACKS .....................
FOUNDATION:
Footing.......................
Wall..........................
Pier/Porch .................
z
0
Retaining Wall ...........
0
Slab Insulation ..........
46� jpk.!��
PLUMBING:
I c�
Underground ............. 0) --j
M
Rough -In ................... C
M
0
V-14 Commercial Final ...... 0 0
C
HEATING: 3: M
M z
3
Gas Te 10-4
st ........ ..........
C z
>
Gas Piping ................. EPT9Y -4
Equipm ent ................... 0)
0 -n
-n
4
s commercial Final ....... -1
3:9
6 M ITI
EXTERIOR SHEATHING 055
NAILING.......................... 0
0 ITI
FRAMING ......................... C
C0
(j)
FIRST FLOOR FRAMING... Q0
Z r
INSUL ATI.ON ... I ................
Floor Insulation ......
>
Ar Wall Insulation ............ z
Ceiling* Insulation* .......
SHEETROCK NAILING ... z
0
SPECIAL INSPECTION ... 0
ITI
MISCELLANEOUS ..........
1�7a
FINAL APPROVAL FOR v-
OCCUPANCY .................. r
rLtytt
AMootm$ Ree*t
A &V t
DW ed
walwMetwSize—
AMOUDtpwd- /zk�—Recdpt#�a
0 7
pateft
ROW#
AMOUntPWd$ Reedpt
Datelssued
ed