20050981.pdfDATE RECEIVED
PERMIT EXPIRES Ai(,�
PERMIT f I
CITY OF EDMONDS NUMBER
ND
u" _"'"u
S
PPL JOB ,lSUITE
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION ADDRESS X (JA_, /APTA
OWNI�R NAME/NAME OF BUSINESS LAI,
LAI NAME/SUBDIVISION NO LOT NO L�D NEOP Jjj�k5�)
a: MAILINGAIDDRESS L D F S
Lu I
P p
LIBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP TESCIIApproved 0
0 RW Peerr'd Requited
Sliver 050 Permit Requited E3
CITY ZIP TELEPHONE EXISTING —PROPOSED Inspection Requited 13
SKIo*,ek Required 13
D DEDICATION FT Underqiound 0
REQUIRE Wifulu . loqui 0
2,2,11 LO-11—
NAME METER SIZE LINE SIZE No URES PRV REQUIRED
2� YES CI NO [3 K
Ce_rl Lu
Lid Lchtla) V I
ADDRESS REfAARKS W
3: NER/CONTRACTOR RESPONS113LE FOR EROSION CONTROL/DRAINAGE
Ow Lid
L'I I T ZIP ITELEPHONE 0 f V ki r—
.-7— s9K,(
-Wo. 1*4 -
C., F
N E �CBL#
INEERING REVIEWED BY DATE
X ADDRESS
-in - — 1 42:�/) , A
It D2,
VIRE REVIEWED BY DATE W
I.C�b ZIP TELEPHONE
0
U
) )p� 11�
STATE LICENSE NUMBER
VARIANCE OR CU
SHORELINE OR ADB#
INSPECTION
SEPA
I "�
13YREO'D
M
COKIPLETED EXENiPT
ES NO
CA#O 4 - --A, -a-
ZONE
SIGN AREA
HEIGHT
PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL NO.
IN19-7k) - t=7-%?`\
WAIVERb "
V--/
4::. — Cr I
ALLOWED
PROPOSED
I
ALLOWED PROPOSED
I I I
lga_NEW
1:1 ADDITION
El REMODEL
REPAIR
DEMOLISH
f;/ARAGE
00A)WM7M
STUDY M .
r—
—
W
4_n
I ID
ESIDENTIAL
?4COMMERCIAL
MIXED U . SE
MULTIFAMILY
CYDS
*PL UMBING I MECH
COMPLIANCE OR
El CHANGE OF USE
SIGN
FENCE
x FT.)
I
LOT COVERAGE
ALLOWED PROPOSED
REQUIRED SETBACK IF
FRONT SIDE S T'
REAR
PR POSED SETBACKS (FT.)
I FRONT LIRSIDE REAR
5-1 1 z
2
z
PARKIN G
REO'D PROVIDED
LOT AREA
09
PLANNING REVIEWED BY DATE
b EF
REMARKS
TANK
OTHER
RETAINING WALL
ROCKERY
FIRE SPRINKLER
FIRE ALARM
NUMBER NUMBER OF
OF DWELLING
STORIES UNITS
DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE
TYP . E O�YgRUC
SPECIAL INSPECTIO
REQUIREDXYES
REMARKS
CONSULTANT
BY: I V
S T R UIC ITUlt WN
BY:
PDT LA V I i E2 3-7,2 VALUATION
$
OCCUPANT —3
GROUP 9
OCCUPANT
LOAD
4
MA-) I -A 77_'f_Q
A/1 j
Description
FEE
Description
FEE
3 t ON, 2
Plan Check
State Surcharge
LOPEO/,,4:7�,
t7
VESTED DATE
Building Permit
City Surcharge
PLAN CHECK NO.
*/Nf� - Lj
Lt�)
Plumbing
C) —
� I
Base Fee I
1_�� —,iii, .,I%^ A 1
-1 1 '.7 e-.�
THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO
Mechanical
Grading
BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBIC
DONMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE
SEPARATE PERMISSION.
Engr. Review
2
PERMIT APPLICATION: SEE ECDC 19.00.005(A)(5)
Engr. Inspection
PERMIT LIMIT: SEE ECDC 19.00.005(A)(6)
SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION
'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 A MS DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
Landscapelnsp.
x FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE
CITY ORDINANCE
0 DEEMED TO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY
-I
0 NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITY'S ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.-
x
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 CONSTRLIC-
CALL
TION; AND IN G THE WORK AUTHORIZED4TJ EBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED
IN VIOLA N 0 THE C OF E ST TE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO
T N 0 E
FOR INSPECTION
is Co I DR
WORKM is CO PENSI rONIAS=LANOFANDR 18:27.
(425)
SIGN RE IN E It �OW-:
)OU Ak/
DAjfi�SIGNED
I W
Plan Chk. Deposit T111,11
Receipt #
Total Amt. Due
Receipt #
APPLICATION APPROVAL
This application is not a pornid until signed by the
Building Official or histher Deputy and Fees ate paid and
receipt is acknowledged in space provided
J 1 111' 1.1UP4411.11 RELrLCED BY Dil E
ATTENTIPN 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- ORIGINAL -FILE YELLOW - INSPICTC
FICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC109 if IBC110 / IRC110. PINK -OWNER GOLD - ASSESSOR
10104 PRESS HARD - YOU ARE MAKING 4 COPIES
z
0
i
0
M
CO
C
M
M
0
0
-40
0
C
M
M
Z
C
>
0)
0
n
-n
A
x
I I I
01 '( . 0 zij
0 r_
0 M
C
M
05-
M
0
Z
z
0)
z
0
M
CAN -'TOD! IS RESPONSIBLE FOP.
NERICONIffAl orlt't I . 10C AMD A@ ADDRESS SIGN REQUIRED AVERAQF- GRADE
AND DRAINAGE
N.88021'27" W F-04-0960)
(ORIGINAL GRADE SEE SURVEY
h�. 401.55'
13.413.95,
- - - - - - - - - -
G. 412.45'
_j= _Jw_L_ 0. 413. a
ltkomm�i2Ei�6511 /4= 410.25'
MAX HEIGHT: 436.25'
ALL EXPOSED SURFAC$$ TO �,CTLIAL HEIGHT: 425.25'
rn
�..BE COVERED Y rn
WITHIN 21[) S
FOOTING: 390-50'
L,13:399.50'
G,,�KAGE 01-
z:
ZG)�
15T FLOOK: 400-50'
2ND FLOOKI: 410,513'
M AMX IMPERVIOUS T.
203 IFR Q.
I I - FT.
KOGII: EKY) DUILDING (+ EMlF_5):2,625,O2 OL
MOPOSEE) USIPENCE.
-n
PKIVEWY: 1141-09 50, FT.
(D.O.F. JIM 0 5Q. Fl.
PATIO: 291.0
TOTAL: 4,060,1150. FT.
z:
50 -_%R1k. I
LOT COVESAGEs C/) c):
SDR 35 T =27% -D:j
2,167,78, Oa. FT./5,095.93 50. F I m
O.F. 3,97-0a 1
-SCH 40 C5 0
LOT SWEEL. m
11% E-MICHEL CON5TRUCTON ING,
Q5. Fr)KAnw0l;
L___j
�,TUM: OLYMPIC VIEW WATEK pI!3TKICT (M.L.L.W.)
T OF5ANITAKy5EWEK
-E5 5ENCH MAKK: INVEF 10
MANHOLE HO, 1-44, ELEV 350-C
LL
yo-6 13AE315 OF 5EAKING: A5ECTIONOUDDIV15ION 13Y
399,00' KU5KIN 1715HEK & A55OCIATE5
CONTRACT OL .60, CL E Zone,
Q f I ag-mc-)
ISEWFIR DI Setbacks RNWred Actual
__W 2
- I Front 5. _g / I
ENTRAN§� R WED Sides E
CALL 425-771. 0 1326234TH PLACE S.W. Rear
55 Other Vq
I P5
CITYCOP y AP PROVED . B Y P L A N.,N] I INJ G R ES U 13
zo oc"l, o,(,)
BUILDING DEPARTMENI
CITY Or- EDMONDS
TA
D95*93 5"' FT' 2TIo
LICTON INCJ.
3W
W.qpFcTl
NA n,
022
7 Kf
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical /Civil Engineer
R'E:C:EJVF-0
August 11, 2004
SEP 0 22005
City,of Edmonds PERMIT COUNTEP
c/o Michel Construction Inc.
CITY COPY
z
7907 212t' St. SW #102
0
Edmonds, WA 98026,
Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation Foundation Recommendations
proposed 9 Lot Single Family Residence Development
M
92nd Ave. W and 230 ST. SW Edmonds, Washington
M 0
0
0
C
This engineering report presents th e results of. a geotechnical evaluation of. the
nd 34h S
Michel Construction propert at the northwest comer of 92 Ave. W and 2 t. SW'.
�y
M
M Z
Edmonds, Washington. This evaluation was required due to ownerconcerns regarding
C
geotechnical conditions, as well as City of Edmonds requirements.
E:
REFERENCES:
0 -n
Vicinity Map and topographic survey by LSA
MM
Grading plans by. Donna. Breske, P. E.
0 Vi
0
Site photographs
OR!
ch.
MO
BACKGROUND:,
Z
nd. 4h St. SW is
The overall property at the northwest corner of 92 Ave. W 23
nd
-rectangular.in shape (approximately 253 feet along 92 Ave W, and 334 feet along
>
3 SW). See site survey map.
2 4h St.
Z
The majority of the overall property has not been developed and contains mature
z
trees, dense shrubberies, and areas of grasses. -An existing house occupies the
0
northern central portion of the property as indicated on the survey plan.
0
M
The overall site contains portions of slopes greater than 15% (less than 50%).
Some of the slopes are natural in origin, and some, are obviously the result 6 f historic
earthwork and associated road grading fill activities.
Visual evaluation of the property reveals no evidence of geotechn.ical distress: no
sides, no soil tension cracks, nor any evidence of erosional degradation.
SOILS - FOLINDA TIONS SITEDEVELOPMENT INSPECTION - DRAINAGE DESIGIV&PERNIT - LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502 Shoreline, W.A 98155 (206) 546-9217 FAX (206) 546-8442
City of Edmonds
c/o Michel Const. Inc.
August 11, 2004
Page 2
Evidence of -historic fill and associated debris is obvious adjacent 230 St. SW -
See photographs.
It is understood that Michel Construction proposes to develop the property for a
total of 9 individual lots with 9 single family residences. A new entrance cul-de-sac road
will also be required., See site plan and grading plan. It is understood that the existing
residence will be removed.
-EVALUATION:
In order to augment site geotechnical information, a series of 6 soil test pits were
CD
3M
dug on June 7, 2004. See test pit location lo 9.
rn 0
0
-10
th St.
2 Test Pits (TIR-11, TP-21 were dug on the slope adjacent 234 SW. Both test
pits revealed similar sub -grade conditions, namely:.
X M
M z
0" to 8" Organics, roots, forest duff.
C.2
8" to approx. 7.5' FILL: historic fill material consisting of
sandy loam, occasional gravel, debris,
and gravels. This engineer observes
o -n
that this fill material was, most likely
i
placed in conjunction with road grading
M M
�h St. SW.
activities for 234
C V5
0
7.5' to 10' (bottom of pits) Very -dense native sands.
or
C: M
Co
Cn
M 0
No Water was encountered in Test Pits No. 1 or No. 2. Test pit walls remained
Z
vertical (with some sloughing ofthe upper fill materials) and stable.
M
Test Pits Number 3 through 6:
Test pits number 3,4,5,6 were in the central portion of the property where no fill
placement had occurred.
It is distinctly possible that the central portion of the site had been partially
excavated or "scraped down a few feet".
0
Test pit 3.4.5.6:
0" to 6" Organics roots, forest duff.
6" to 8' (bottom of pits) Dense to very dense sands with
occasional gravels
No water was encountered in Test Pits No. 3 through 6. Test pit walls remain
vertical and stable. No sloughing or caving occurred.
City of Edmonds
c/o Michel Const. Inc.
August 11, 2004
Page 3
Note: A geotechnical re -inspection on August 10, 2004, verified the dense stable
nature of the underlying native soils. See photographs.
CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS:
Z
.0
Based on the findings of this engineer's investigation as well as experience in the
nd
area with similar projects, the Michel Construction site at the NW corner of 92 Ave. W
R!
230 St. SW is neotechnically approved for the proposed new 9 lot development and
associated access road, subject to the following:
0 M
Geotechnical compliance with grading plan by D. Breske, P.E. The grading plan
rn 0
0
�h St.
indicates. removal of the historic fill material adjacent 234 SW and slope
0 0
stabilization with rocke i
ries.
C::�
o The grading plan also indicates fill material properly placed in the low
M M
Z
central portion of the property with compliance to structural fill placement
C Z
regulations.
>
CO
The individual new residences may be founded on standard reinforced
o -n
continuous and spread footings with allowable bearing pressure 2,000 p.s.f.
M M
Equivalent fluid pressure of 35 p.c.f. is recommended for any retaining wall
Oro
0 r-
design provided drainage zone is inspected and Verified by this engineer..
0 M
CO)
KID
For retaining wall design, use friction factor of 0.55 and passive pressure of 350
rn 0
Z
P..c.f.
Geotechnical inspections by this engineer prior to any foundation concrete
placement.
Z
The proposed structures can be supported on conventional continuous and
spread footings bearing on undisturbed native soils or on structural fill placed above
Z
0
native soils. See the later sub -section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill for
structural fill placement and compaction recommendations. Continuous and individual
M
spread footings should have minimum widths of eighteen (18) and twenty-four (24)
inches, respectively, and should be bottomed at least eighteen (18) inches below the
lower adjacent finish.ground surface.
Depending on the final site, grades, some over -excavation may be required below,
footings to expose competent native soils. Unless lean concrete is used to fill the over
excavated hole, the width of the over -excavation' at the bottom must be at least as wide
as the sum of two times the depth of the over -excavation and the footing width. For
example, an over-excavati o*n 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.
City of Edmonds
c/o Michel Const. Inc.
August 11, 2004
Page 4
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,
z
native soils (or on structural fill up to five (5) feet in thickness) will be about one-half
0.
inch, with differential settlements. on the order of one -quarter inch.
0.
Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between
=i Tn.
the foundations and the bearing. soils, or by passive earth pressure acting on the,
55 --1
0
vertical, embedded po�tions of the foundations. For the latter condition, the foundations
C M
must either be poured directly against undisturbed soil or the backfill placed around the
M 0
0
-10
outside of the foundation must be level structural fill. We recommend the following
.0c
design values be used for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading:
M z
Parameter Design Value
z
Coefficient of Friction 0.55
Passive Earth Pressure, 350. p.c.f..
0 -n
Where:
MIM
0
0 r
p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot.
0 M
C CD.
(2) Passive earth, pressure is computed using.the equivalent fluid density.
K Cn
M
We recommend that a safety factor of at least 1.5 be used for design of the
0
Z r
foundation's resistance to lateral loading.
SLABS -ON -GRADE:
z
Slab -on -grade 'floors may be supported on undisturbed, competent native soils or
z
on structural fill. The slabs may be supported on the existing soils provided'these soils'
.0
can be re -compacted prior to placement of the free -draining sand or gravel underneath
the slab. This sand and gravel layer should be a minimum of four (4) inches thick. We
also recommend using a vapor barrier such as 6-mil. plastic membrane beneath the
slab with minimum overlaps of 12 inches for sealing purposes.
PERMANENT FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS:
illed on one side only should be designed to resist lateral
Retaining walls backfi
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 backfi.11:
City of Edmonds
c/o Michel Const. Inc.
August 11, 2004
Page 5
Desig
Parameter n Value
Active Earth Pressure* 35 p.c.f.
Passive Earth Pressure 350 p.c.f.
Coefficient of Friction 0.55
Soil Unit Weight 125 p.c.f.
z
.0
Where:
(1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot
(2). Active and passive earth pressures are computed using equivalent fluid
IS
densities.
MO
0
0
For restrained walls which cannot defect at least 0.002 times the wall
--I C
height, a uniform lateral pressure of one hundred (100 p.s.f. should be.
M
M z
added to the active equivalent fluid pressure).
Z
The values given above are to be used for design of permanent foundation and
CO
retaining walls only. An appropriate safet' factor should be applied when designing the
y
0,-n
walls. We recommend using a safety factor of at least 1.5 for overturning and sliding.
-n
--I
The above design values do not include the effects of any.hydrdstatic pressures
MM
0 CO
behind the walls and assume that no surcharge slopes or loads will be placed above the
0
0 M
walls. If these conditions exist, then those pressures should be added to the above.
C Cn
lateral pressures.. Also, if sloping backfill is desired behind the walls, then we will need
Q 0
to be given the wall dimensions and slope of the backfill in order to provide the
Z
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
Z
designed for the additional lateral pressures resulting from the equipment. Placement
and compaction of retaining wall backfill should be accomplished with hand -operated
Cn
equipment.
z
0
Retaining Wall Badkfill
Backfill placed within eighteen (18) inches of any retaining or foundation walls
should be free -draining structural fill containing no organics. This backfiH should contain
no more than five (5) percent silt or clay particles and have no particles greater than
four (4) inches in diameter. The percentage of particles passing the No. 4 sieve should
be between twenty-five (25) and seventy (70) percent. Due to their, high silt content, if
the native soils are used as backfill, a drainage composite, such as Mirafi and
Enkadrain, should be placed against the retaining walls. The drainage. composites
should be hydraulically connected to the foundation. drain system.
City of Edmonds
c/o Michel Const. Inc.
August 11, 2004
Page 6
The purpose of these backfill requirements is to assure that the design criteria for
the retaining wall is not exceeded because of a build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind
the wall. The subsection entitled General Earthwork and -Structural Fill contains
recommendations regarding placement and compaction of structural fill behind retaining
and foundation walls.,
EXCAVATION AND SLOPES:
Z
As stated, historic fill material had been placed adjacent 2 34th St. SW.
M
This engineer recommends removal of approximately 6 to 8 feet of historic fill
material in order to restore the pre -filled condition. This engineer has reviewed the
Q M
C
grading plan by D. Breske, P.E., dated August 11, 2004 and ' concurs with the propose d
rn
0
grading activities, subject to onsite inspections by this engineer.
0
0
In no case should excavation slopes be greater than.the limits specified in local,
:r PH
M Z
state and hational,government safety regu lations. Temporary cuts up to a height.of four
C= -2
(4) feet deep in unsaturated soils maybe vertical. For temporary cuts having a height
> -1
r
greater t han four (4) feet, the cut should have an inclination no steeper than. 1: 1
C/)
(Horizontal: Vertical) from the top of the slope to the bottom of the excavation. Under
0 _n
specific recommendations by the geotechnicall engineer, ex cavation cuts may be
modified for site conditions. All permanent cuts into native soils should be inclined no
M M
steeper than 2:1 (H:V). Fill slopes should not exceed 2H: 1 V. it is important to note that
a Cn
0
sands do cave suddenly, and without warning. The contractors should be m ade aware
0 M
of this potential hazard.
CO)
Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any temporary
M 0'
Z
or permanent slope. All permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an
X
appropriate species of vegetation to reduce.erosion and improve stability of the surficial.
X
layer of soil.
Z
DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS:
Z
Footing drains are recommended at the base of all footings and retaining walls.
0
0
These drains should be surrounded by at least six (6) inches of one -inch -minus washed
M
r . oc k 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.
City of Edmonds
c/o Michel Const. Inc.
August 11, 2004
Page 7.
-pits. Seepage into the
No groundwater was observed in any of the 6 soil test
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
connect of the excavation.
or trenches at the bottom
Z'
0
The excavation of the site should be graded so that surface water is directed off
s of slopes. Water should not be allowed to. stand in any
the site and away from the top
area where foundations, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Any exposed
slopes to be covered with, plastic to minimize erosion. Final site grading in areas
he building,
adjacent to buildings should be sloped at least two (2) percent away from t
t to the building is paved. 0
except where the area adjacen 0
0
C
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL:
M Z.*
This project (9 single family residences and new access road) will require
significant grading activities. See grading plan dated August 11, 2004 by D. Breske, >
P.E. 2;
0..-n
All fill material shall comply with the recommendations of the this report and
onsite inspections by this engineer. M M
CD
0-
r
Structural fill is defined as any fill placed under the building, behind permanent 0
M
CD
soils needs to C4
retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the underlying
support loads. This engineer should observe site conditions during and after excavation Al M 0
Z
ural fill.
prior to placement of any struct
All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a. moisture content at or
near the optimum. moisture content. The optimum moisture content isthat moisture Z
moisture content of fill
content which results in the greatest compacted dry density. The
st be closely controlled during the filling and compaction
ery important and mu
soils is V
Z.
process. .0
0
The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on.the material type, compaction M
no case should the
equipment, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. In
lifts exceed twelve (12) inches in loose thickness. The following table presents
recommended relative compaction for structural. fill:
City of Edmonds
c/o Michel Const. Inc.
August11,2004
Page 8
Location of Fill Placement Minimum Relative Compaction
Beneath footings, slabs or walkways 95%
Behind retaining walls 90%
for
Beneath pavem upper 12 inches of
ents
0'.
Sub -grade, 90% below that level
W ere: Minimum relative compaction is the ratio, expressed in percentages, of
h
the compacted dry density to the maximum dry density, as determined in
a ordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1 557-78 (Modified Proctor).
cc
3:
C
Use of On -Site Soils
0
If grading activities take place during. wet weather, or when the. sandy, on-sitb
m z
soils are.very wet, site preparation costs may be, higherbecause of delays. due to rains
and the potential need to import granular fill. The on -site soils are generally sandy and
thus are not particularly moisture sensitive. Grading operations will be diffic ult when the
CD
moisture content of these soils greatly exceeds the optimum moisture content.
0 -n
Moisture sensitive soils will also be susceptible,to excessive softening and
m m
91pumping" from construction equipment traffic when the Moisture content is greater than
co
0.
the optimum.moisture content.
0 m
'cc
J)
Ideally, structural fill, which is to be placed in wet weather, should consist of a
rn
mo
Z.
granular soil having no more than five (5) percent silt or cla particles. The percentage
y
of particles passing the No. 200 sieve should be measured from that portion of the soil
X
passing the three -quarter -inch sieve.
The use of "some" on -site soils for fill material may be acceptable if the upp.er
organic materials are segregated and moisture contents are monitored by engineering
inspection.
z
0
DRAINAGE CONTROLS.
0
No drainage problems were evident to this engineer during June, July, or August
ry
or 2004.'A buried.drainage outfall pipe was, called out on the project su ey and
observed by this en wineer. It is assumed that this outfall pipe re leases drainage from the
catch basins in 234t St. SW.
The sub -grade sandy soils will allow for onsite infiltration if desired by project
developer.
City of Edmonds
c10 Michel Const. Inc.
August 11,-2004
Page 9
Compliance with City of Edmonds drainage controls are geotechnically
acceptable.
CONCRETE:
All foundation concrete (footings, stem walls, slabs, any retaining walls, etc.)
Z
shall have a minimum cement content of 5-1/2 sacks per cubic yard of concrete mix.
0:
M
ROCKERIES:
This project requires extensive grading activities, both cutting andflling. See
0 M
C
grading plan.
M 0,
a along 234th St
In order to provide erosion I stabilization rockeries are required
0
0 C
X M
SW and "Wrapping around", the west propertyline. Additionally, interior rockeries are
M Z
proposed for individual lot grading purposes.
>
Geotechnical inspections of the project rockeries are required.
ca
y the following:
Inspections shall verif
o -n
0 Dense dub -grade soils
M M
0 Base rock embedment
0 Vi
0
Rock linkage and size
0 M
C
Rock face batter
C 01
M 0�
Drainage.zone
Zr
INSPECTIONS:.
X
The recommendations of this report are only valid when key geotechnical
Z:
aspects are inspected by this en-gineer during construction:
Soil Cuts
Z
0
Fill removal:and grading activities,
M
Foundation sub -grade verification
Retaining wall, or rockery placement
Fill placement
Subsurface drainage installation
Final erosion control and grading
City of Edmonds
c/o Michel Const. Inc.
August 11 2004
Page 10
SUMMARY:
nd
e rner of 92 Ave. W and 234�h St.�
The proposed 9 lot development at th NW co
Edmonds, Washington is geotechnically vilable when constructed in accordance with
the recommendations herein, compliance with City of. Edmonds approved plans and
z
requirements, and key geotechnical inspection during construction.
GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW FUTURE RESIDENCES: M
ew.
At the time of this report, specific house plans were not available for revi
Cn
M
This geotechni ding and development prior. co
cal report refers to overall property gra M
0
to individual house construction.
80
As discussed in this report, dense native sub -grade soils capable of providing M
M Z
excellent bearing capacity for foundations are present on the site. 1c) -1
C
z
Overall property development will include significant grading activities (as
W
discussed herein).
0
nstructed after
ual houses may be co
After overall property development, individ
M M
review and approval by,this enginee . CD
0
0 M
No significant foundation problems were anticipated for the future residences C 0
C C&
providing overall property grading activities are inspected. Q 0
Z r
CLOSURE:
The findings. and recommendations of this. report were prepared in accordance
z
with generally accepted professional engineering principles and practice. No other
on the
warranty, either expressed or implied, is made. The conclusions are based co
results of the field exploration and interpolation of subsurface conditions between
0
explored locations. If conditions are encountered during construction. that appear to.be
.0
different than those described in this report, this engineer should be notified to.observe
M
the situation and review and verify or modify the recommendations.
If there are any. questions, do not hesitate to call.
of
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
0 Geotechnical Civil Engineer
DMB:jpb
MAL
RPMES Im
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Ge6fib�hnidaill'Civil Enqineer
DEC
200
December 10, 2005
z
City of Edmonds
0
Department of Development and Planning
M
1215 1h Ave. N
Edmonds, WA 98020
CD
Q
Subject: Field Reports - Ge6technical Inspections
C M
Michel Construction - New 9 Single -Family Residence Project.
M 0
0
23e St SW and 92ndAve. W, Edmonds, Washington
0
0 C
M
9201,9202,9203, 9206 234thpi. W
M z
'10
This engineering report presents the results of ongoing geotechnical inspecti ons
C z
for the Michel Construction development at the above addresses. These inspections
were re quired as a condition of permit by the City of Edmonds building department.
0 -n
A�
REFERENCES:
MM
0 Cl)
.0 r
Approved Project.Plans
0 M
C Cn
*Geotechnical and Inspection Reports by D. Bruce, P.E.
r, Cn
MO
Site photographs
Z
INSPECTIONS:
X
This engineer has performed on -site geotechnical inspections for the overall
z
cluding: site excavation, perimeter rockery con
development, in struction, perimeter
X
drainage. improvements and overall site preparation (see previous Geoto chnical
co
z
Inspection Reports).
0
City of Edmonds required geotechnical inspections for the individual homes.
M
Construction began in late September 2005.
As of the date of this report (December 10, 2005), four house foundations have
been constructed (an additional five houses are understood to be forthcoming).
City of Edmonds Inspection Items:
Soil Cuts: All soil cuts for houses at 9201, 9202, 9203 and 9206 encountered
dense native sub -grade soils as anticipated by the Geotechnical Report. All
solLs - FoulvDA 7*IoNs - slrE DEvEwpww INSPECrION - DRAINAGE DESIGN & PERMIT - LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502 Shoreline, WA 98,155 (206) 546-9217 FAX (206) 546-8442
City of Edmonds
Department of Development Services
Re: Michel Construction
December 10, 2005
Page 2
excavation cuts for these four house foundations were stable. No adverse
geotechnical impacts were observed.
Grading Activities: This engineer verified all grading activities for the above
z
referenced four houses were performed in accord nce with the approved Plarr
a
0
and complied with good geotechnical practices. No adverse impacts occr
Foundation Sub -Grade: This engineer verified the presence of dense n a,
q 9
Cn —i
grade soils easily providing 2,000 p.s.f. bearin capacity.
9
"OK" to proceed with foundation formwork, reinforcing steel and concrete in
0
0
accordance with.City of Edmonds approved Plans and inspections..
C
X M
M z
Subsequently, concrete foundations were properly placed for the four houses
listed above.
>
Cn
Retaining Wall Rockery Placement: As' previously discussed, a significant
0 -n
perimeter rockery was constructed for the overall development. This rockery
-n
complied with approved Plans and good practices and is. neotechnically
M M
approved.
CO
r
The individual four houses (addresses above) do not require significant retaining
0 M
C (n I
K Cn
walls or rockeries for themselves. The foundation stem walls act as a retainin 9
M 0
Z r
wall (see photographs). Thus, all retaining walls and rockeries are approved
through this date (December 10, 2005
Fill Placement: No si nificant quantities of imported fill were required for
9
z
foundation purposes. This engineer recommended that contractor import small
X
quantities, (less than 20 cubic yards) of rock for improved working surface
CO
purposes. Subsequent inspections verified the proper placement of,sub-base
rock to allow for improved formwork and concrete placement. All fill placement is
app oved through this date (December 10,2005).
M
Subsurface Drainage: This engineer verified the proper placement of subsurface
drains for the above listed four houses. All drainage work complied with
approved Plans and good practices. Inspections are ongoing.
Erosion Control: The overall project is accessed via the interior paved road and
cul-de-sac. Natural slopes inhibit any storm water runoff from leaving the site.
Additionally, contractor has properly placed siltation fencing, rocked entrances for
individual houses, catch basin inlet socks and diligent cleanup.
11/04/2005 11:42 42577890BG MICHEL CONST PAGE 02
Sep 2'9 06 11:02a 0. Bruce, P. E. P. L
I P.
Dennis M. Bruce E. 15P T
JABta. USA. Geotechnicat /Civil Engineer
OA I
ILT
I mjq P. 67 (f T-to los
P_
Ary VJ
- JIS-t-ki-
z
0
-n
Fwrer
VQ
q �Lo
co
C M
LoT
Ar 7 3 A, 0 5-
ma
0
0
0C
X M
M Z
Lo 34
10
PCI)
:07 R EQ LLT,
0 n
-n
6 r
t m7 6EZTE04 INS FC
m M 1 .
-rs _ ALL C -T Al LE
SOIL Cu (11W
055
0 r-
0 M
FILL. JQ
C
mo
Z
EU E�J7-7V
Sol &OP-r- txAq
RES 12r" IL oil
z
- -----------
�A404-rAW5k -jkAAfAJ1JJ6 157
75
z
0
-P#_6UUC-r Vr(t- L
-r-s P, L 97-rF_ z;�;, LAW 0
=j I .
0
. I
T E it�,k PVW e%J T
-Aftv-
m
_ry
rt-7 I_o-r_s ,
e us
!!FA OeT K 's U _rF.. rp gF-
rA W61 j
9 TAB L E ije -rE7kAA
L -LEGAL
SOILS FOUNDATIONS SITE DEVELOPMEN T - INIPICTION DRA-INAGE - DESIGN & PERMIT
P.O. E3ox 55502 Shoreline, WA 98155 (206) 546-9217 FAX (206) 546-8442
r
Height Calculation Worksheet
' D 3-
ate
Pen -nit Number
Address
Inspector
Z,
Average Grade4'O
0
Max Height (25.'+Ave.) 'D
-n
Actual Height (A+B+C)
X,
M,
C
M 0.
0,
.3: M',
M Z,
10
Z,
0 -n
M M.
=(C ).0
0 M
C CD1
cn�
M 0:
Z r
z
0)
Z.
0'
M
Elevation of transit above Datum (B)
Datum Elevation (A),
1/temp/buildiiig/foniis/liciglit worksheet
b
FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL FORM