20051114.pdfDATE RECEIVED It -7 1
PERMIT EXPIRES Z,V,zk�a_
PERMIT
e-) — J/
CITY OF EDMONDS NUMBER
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION JOB SUITEIAPT#
ADDRESS
OWNER NAMEINAME OF 13USINESS "91m):2
_0 I PLAT NAMEISUBDIVISION NO. LOT NO LID —
MAILINGADDRESS LIE) osy�cl
-2211') PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP TESCPAt)provud 0
0 RW Permit Roqu,,,0d. 11
sireel use 1, ", M quiled a
CITY ZIP TELEPHONE EXISTING __ PROPOSED Inspocuon Roquirod [3
S.d,j*jlk Re-quited - 11
REQUIRED DEDICATION FT Undoigiound E3
NAME METER SIZE LINE SIZE NqqF tIXTURES PRV REQUIRED
YES 13 NOO z
I I rz
—W
ADDRESS REMARKS uj
OWNER/CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROUDRAINAG kpoC
Fu
rL
CITY ZIP TELEPHONE Ptr�C!—I-j Aofj
e-7 1
-:I(
.-T 0 Rpoot 60 2,!!�AFZ Nzu rcg!�.__
NAME CBL#
GINEERING REVIEW DATE
X ADDR r
U Id 2L t-ud-1
FIRE REVIEWED BY DATE W
z CITY ZIP TELEPHONE 0:
0
U
qfzjo 410"
STATE LICENSE EXPIRATION DATE J?AE�CK11ABY VARIANCE OR CU REO'D COMPLETED ;rT
E3Y E S XV-0 z
M D P� 4,o,uo I
CAH Cai ZONE SIGN AREA HEIGHT 0
PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT PARCCL NO.
4z WAIVER 13 ALLOWED 1 PROPO
0 IED 111LOWED PROP SED
Lu 0
_j STI 1[ M
RESIDENTIAL PLUMBING MECH LOT COVERAGE REQUIRED SETBACKS (FT.) PROPOSED SETBACKS (FT.)
NEW E;f AUOWED PROPOSED FRONT SIDE REAR FRONT URSIDE REAR
/4�t to I
A ITIO COMMERCIAL COMPLIANCE OR z ml rn-
Do N CHANGE OF USE t2 9 7 6- 5- / cb-- 16- IN-9 _/7 Fn --I
El MIXED USE PARKING . 1 3:
LOTAREA NNING REVIEWED BY DATE
1, � 0 M
REMODEL MULTIFAMILY SIGN REO'D PROVIDED
FENCE
G 4,A/09,e o- . M
uda W LJO 0
REPAIR CYDS x FT.) REMARKS --1 0
OTHER 0 C
DEMOLISH TANK
EGARAGE RETAINING WALL FIRE SPRINKLER M
l CARPORT 1:1 ROCKERY 1:1 FIRE ALARM III Z
(TYPE OF USE, BUSINESS OR ACT VVI) %LAIq _z
Ac__ IQ TYPE OF CqNSTRUCTION CODE OCCUPANT >
C�� GROUP — --I
(/,I L12� n. UL� RcaU21L r
in 3:
uj NUMBER NUMBER OF
Q OF DWELLING SPECIAL INSPECTION CONSUITNINT OCCUPANT
M UNITS LOAD 0 _n
0 STORIES REa_ Wyrcz
bo _n
DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE
_nk.,y
REMARKS —4
z 3:9
M M
GYE?M�kOJC
T
B
pA I�R toi
STRUCPPtC
r5r Uk V I Y.A__ BY: _ VSI N C
9 Cn
Cl_ VALUATION Q 0
_-2 Z
$ L� <;� -A
VILA 21�* Description FEE Description FEE
11 . X
Plan Check State Surcharge >
IF RCE T SLIPE%5 VESTED DATE
Building Permit 11) City Surcharge X
ar� � - 20--`
PLAN CHEC 10: Plumbing Base Fee. Cl)
)_& 0 z
GI 0
THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED, THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO Mechanical Dw _G _11
li- BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBIC 0
DONMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS. DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES. ETC.) WILL REQUIRE Grading M
SEPARATE PERMISSION.
t�*C!-Re'view
PERMIT APPLICATION: SEE ECDC 19.00.005(A)(5)
UJI
CL PERMIT LIMIT* SEE ECDC 19.00.005(A)(6) Engr. Inspection
SEE BACK *OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION
'APPLICANT. ON BEHALF OF HIS 0 Fire Review Plan Chk. Deposit
U) R HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS
Uj
IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF
2 EDMONDS, WASHINGTON. ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND Fire Inspection Receipt #
0: ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE
E Landscapelnsp.
DEEMED TO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANC Total Amt. Due
NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITY'S ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.'
Recording ee Receipt #
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION; THAT THE INFORMATION APPLICATION APPROVAL
,GIVEN IS CORRECT; AND THAT I AM THE OWNER, OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF This application is not a permit until signed by the
THE OWNER. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC_ CALL Building Official or hisJhor Deputy: and Fees aio paid. and
TION; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY. NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED receipt is acknowledged in space provided
IN VIOLATIO"F THE L� �DR CODER"E STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO FOR INSPECTION
WORKME�WCO�MPENSAJ W 'UR/NCE ANP RCW 18:27. F191ALS SIGN URE DAIF
0
SI DATE SIGNED (425) iA 1/4 1?
/e. L-5 771-0220 R A E 'BY
ATTE�NJION EXT. 1333
IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL x—
A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTI- ORIGINAL - FILE YELLOW - INSPEr'fOR
FICATE OF OCCUPANCY, HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC109 if IBC110 if IRC110. PINK -OWNER GOLD - ASSESSOR
10104 PRESS HARD - YOU ARE MAKING 4 COPIES
"ERAQIE QRAPg
333-95 N 158021. 9
C ir), (ORIGINAL GRAPE SEE SURVEY F-04-09.6)
A. 402.05'
— — — — — — 5. 400. 50'
LU
LD ROCKE&Y PER P-04-159Z C. 403.roO' a
-449 — , AM — MI, 4w---W, D. 406.051
............. ..............................................
mongoose women /4-- 403.1251
MAX HEIGHT: 42,513'
5. 01 20.00' [7.50 .5 1 ACTUAL HEIGHT: 427.54�
FOOTING:.399.00'
T I L
99
19T FLOOK: 402.50'
.... 2ND FLOOK: 406.56
p 9205 IMPERVIOL15
PR OSED RE bUILDING (+ EAVE5): 2,795.3150. FT.
ALL 5N 5WSU FACES TO PKIVEWAY: 77,3.85 5Q. FT. 04
9 PATIO: 35 0.17 5Q. FT. 3:: a
-roTAL: 3,949.33 5Q. FT.
for f- D WIT IN Zjplt,�%
z
LOT COVERAOIE:
CID 0
TIGHTI-0- ft
29%
2,335.,59 5Q. FT./6,053.90 50. FT.
LOT SLOPE:.
U
12% N
PTA-, 270-33roO-0105-500
19.50, ... Q z
MO. F.
(LOT 7 OF P-04-096) 00
Lu c,1
z (D
MICHEL CON5TKUCT6N INC.
i0 IHIANCO z
9205 254TH PL 5W W
'M ROJED A N, N I N
lelol: EDMON05, WA. 9,50205
LA�L, L-- CkIC-
- — — — — — - f2.
t'D tk
eLEANOUT YD-5
T
U., ".
c
Zone orner Flag
Setbacks ELMt6red
-&MAIL
it
24 fili
Front
FOR INS
Sides 7. S' -7 451
'!1DA L) w UA i.-wa
DDIRESS Sif Rear
—W
�.'P P B 0 V'L--- D A SS N W W Other
we
M A Z'— EeighL 7-45 z g�
BY B GINEERINIG,
.234T
Wflul
CON5B 9.08.05
MH#fEMP0F1A
10 at REVISIONS
RANCF- REQUIPE)
DATUM: OLYMFIC VIEWWATEK D15TRICT (M.L.L.W.) ENT
DENCH MARK: INVERT OF 5ANITAKY 5EWEP,
7D'V
MANHOLE NO. 1-44, ELEV 550.00
KIM 391.24' CiTY00-9ju JL
DA515 OF DEARING: A 5ECTION 5LIDDIV151ON DY
KL15KIN F15HER & A55OCIATE5 N PLOT PL AN.
SCALE: 1"- 20'
06- 1-19�r
Dennis M. Bruce, RE.
M. S. C. E., M. B; A. Geotechnical /Civil Engineer
71
V
August 11, 2004 RECEIVED
City of Edmonds SEP 12 2005
c/o Michel Construction Inc..
z
7907 212t St. SW #102 PERMIT COUNTER
01
Edmonds, WA 98026
0
M
Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation I Foundation Recommendations
sed 9 Lot S n le Family Residence Development
Pro 0 i
24 th
M
92n?Ave.W and ST. SW Edmonds, Washington
M 0
0
This engineering report resents the results of a geotechnical evaluation of the
P
0
C�.
nd
Michel Construction property at the northwest comer of 92. Ave. W and 234th St. SW,
M
Mz
Edmonds, Washington.This evaluation was required due to owner concerns regarding
C —
z
geotechnical conditions, as well as City of Edmonds requirements.
CA
REFERENCES:
0 -n
-n
Vicinity Map and topographic survey by LSA
omm
Grading plans by Donna Breske, P.E.
a 0)
0
Site photographs
OM
C cl)
BACKGROUND:
MO
Z
9 nd
The overall property at the northwest corner of 2 Ave. W 280 St. SW is
X
nd
2 Ave W
rectangular in shape (approximately 253 feet along 9 A.and 334 feet along
M:
>
1h St. 8VV). '
234 See site survey map.
I z
The majorit of the overall property has not been developed and contains mature
y
co
trees, dense shrubberies, and areas of grasses. An existing house. occupies the
z
northern central portion of the property as indicated on the survey plan.
M
The overall site contains portions of slopes greater than.1 5% (less than 50%).
e of historic
Some of the slopes are natural in origin, and some are obviously the r. suit
earthwork and associated road grading fill activities.
Visual evaluation of the property reveals no evidence of geotechnical distress: no
sides, no soil tension cracks, nor any evidence of erosional degradation.
SO11-S - FOUNDA TIONS - SITEDEVELOPMENT INSPECTION - DRA INA GE - DESIGN& PERMIT - LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502 Shoreline, WA 98155 (206) 546-9217 FAX (206) 546-8442
City of Edmonds
cto Michel Const. Inc.
August 11, 2004.
Page 2
h St. SW.
Evidence of historic fill and associated debris is obvious adjacent 234�
See photographs.
e rty for a
It is understood that Michel Construction proposes to develop th prope
total of 9 individual lots with 9 single family residences. A new entrance cul-de-sac road
z
will also be'required. See site plan and grading plan.. It is understood that the existing
0
residence will be removed.
0,
M
EVALUATION:
CD 3:
0M
In order to augment site geotechnical information, a series of 6 soil testpits were
C
dug on June 7, 2004. See test pit location log.
M0
0
0
C
th S
-1. TP-2) were d g on the slope adjacent.234 t. SW. Both test
2 Test Pits (TP u
M
pits revealed similar sub -grade conditions, namely:
M z
0" to 8" Organics, roots, forest duff.
C2
8" to approx. 7.5' FILL: historic fill material consisting of
sandy loam,. occasional gravel, debris,
0
and gravels. This engineer observes
that this fill materialwas most likely
M M
placed in conjunction with road grading
0 co
0 -
activities for 234�h St. SW.
0 M
C 0)
7.5'to 10' (bottom of pits) Very dense native sands.
C/)
M 0
Z r
e
No water was encountered in Test Pits No.1 or No. 2. Test pit walls r mained
vertical (with some sloughing of the upper fill materials) and stable.
>
z
Test Pits Number 3 through 6:
Test pits number 3,4,5,6 were in the central portion of the property where no fill
CD
z
placement had occurred.
0
It is distinctly possible thatthe central portion of the site had been partially
0
excavated or'scraped down a few feet",
M
Test pit 3.4.5.6:
0" to: 6" Organics roots, forest duff.
6". to 8' (b.otto m 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 th e* dense stable
nature of the underlying native soils. See photographs.
CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS:
Based on the findings of this engineer's investigation as well as experience in the
Z
0
nd
area with similar projects, the, Michel Construction site at the NW corn er of 92 . Ave. W 1
-1
234 th St. SW is geotechnically approved for the proposed new 9 lot development and,
0
M
associated access road, subject to the following:
Geotechnical compliance with grading plan by D. Breske, P.E. The grading plan
CD
�h
indicates removal of the historic fill material adjacent 234 St. SW and slope
M.
C 0
M
stabilization with rocke ries.
0
-10
0
The grading plan also indicates fill material properly placed. in the low
C
central portion of, the property with compliance to structural fill placement
M
M Z
regulations.
10
C Z
>
The individual new residences may befounded on standard reinforced.
continuous. and spread footings with allowable bearing pressure 2, 000 P.S.f.
ca
0 -n
Equivalent fluid pressure of 35 p.c.f. is recommended for any retaining w all
design provided drainage zone is inspected and verified by this engineer.
M M
a 0)
For retaining wall design, use friction factor of 0.55 and passive pressure of 350
0
0 M
C ci)
ch
p.c.f.
Q 0
Z
Geotechnical inspections by this engineer Prior to any foundation concrete
placement.
The proposed structures can be supported on conventional continuous and
Z
spread footings bearing on undisturbed n tive soils or on structural fill placed above.
a
Cn
native soils. See the later sub -section entitled General Earthwork and Stru ctural Fill for
Z
0
structural fill placement and compaction recommendations. Continuous and individual
spread footings should have minimum widths of eighteen (18) and twenty-four (24)
0
M
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 -excavation 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,
native soils (or on structural fill up to five (5) feet in thickness) will be about one-half
z
0
inch, with differential settlements on the order of one -quarter inch.
.0
M
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
MO
outside of the foundation must be level structural fill. We recommend the following
0
-10
0
design values be used for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading:
C:
M
M z
Parameter Design Value
C z
Coefficient of Friction 0.55
Passive Earth Pressure 350 p.c.f.
Where:
M M
(1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot.
r
0 M
(2) Passive earth pressure is. computed using the equivalent fluid density.
C Cn
CO
s
We recommend that a safety factor of.at least.1.5 be used for de ign of the
M 0
Zr
foundation's resistance to lateral loading.
X
SLABS -ON -GRADE:
z
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.
z
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
0
M
also recommend using a vapor barrier such as 6-mil. plastic membrane beneath the
slab with minimum overlaps of 1. 2 inches for sealing purposes..
PERMANENT FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS:
Retaining walls backfilled on one side only should be designed to resist lateral
earth pressures imposed by the soils retained by these structures. The following
recommended design parameters are for walls less than twelve (12) feet in. height,
which restrain level backfill:
City of Edmonds
cto Michel Const. Inc.
August 11, 2004
Page .5
Parameter Desi-qn Value
Active Earth.Pressure* .35 p.c.f.
Passive Earth Pressure. 350 p.c.f.
Coefficient of Friction 0.55
Soil Unit Weight 125 p.,c.f..
Where:
p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot
0
(2) Active and passive earth pressures are computed using equivalent fluid
densities.
am
C
For restrained walls which cannot defect at least 0.002 times the wall
mo
0
height, a uniform lateral pressure of one hundred (100 p.s.f. should be
0 C
added to the active equivalent fluid pressure).
The values given above are to be used for design of permanent foundation and
m z
Tetaining 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 a nd sliding.
X
Cn
The above design values do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures
0 -n
behind the walls. and assume that no surcharge slopes or loads will be placed above the
mm
walls. If these conditions exist, then those pressures should be added to the above
0
0 ca
r
lateral pressures. Also, if sloping backfill is desired behind the walls, then we will need
0 M
C 0)
to be given the wall dimensions and slope of the backfill in order to providethe
9 Cn
appropriate design earth pressures.
:m 0
Z
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
X
designed for the additional lateral pressures resulting from the equipment. Placement
and compaction of retaining wall backfill should be accomplished with hand -operated.
equipment.
Cn
Retaining Wall Backfill
0
Backfill placed within eighteen (18) inches of.any retaining or foundation walls
should be free -draining structural fill containing no organics. This, backfill should contain
no more than five (5) percent silt or clay particles and have no particles greater than
four (4) inches in diameter. The percentage of� particles passing the No. 4 sieve should
be between twenty-five (25) and seventy (70) percent. Due to their high silt content, if
the native soils are used as backfill, a drainage composite, such as Mirafi and
Enkadrain, should be placed against the retaining walls. The drainage composites
should be hydraulically connected to the foundation drain system.
City of Edmonds
cto MichelConst. Inc.
August 11, 2004
Page 6
The purpose of these backfill requirements is to assure that the desig n criteria for
the retaining wall is not exceeded because of a build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind
the wall. The subsectio n entitled* General Earthwork and Structural Fill contains
recommendations regarding placement and compaction of structural fill beh ind retaining
and foundation walls
EXCAVATION AND SLOPES:
Z
0
As stated, historic fill material had been placed adjacent 230 St. SW.-
0
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
dated Au 11, 2004 and with the proposed
a M
C a
grading plan by D. Breske, P.E., gust _concurs
grading activities, suboect to o nsite inspections by this engineer.
M 0
0
ed in lo
In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specifi cal,
C
M
M Z
state and national government safety regulations. Temporary cu ts up to a height of four
(4) feet deep in uns aturated soils may be vertical. For temporary cuts having a height
greater than four (4 feet, the cut should have an inclination no steeper tha n 1:1
(Horizontal: Vertical) from the t op of the slope tothe bottom of the excavation. Under
recommendations by the geotechnical engineer, excavation cuts may be
0 -n
n
specific
modified for site conditions. All permanent cuts into native soils should be inclined no
M M
pe should not exceed 2HAV. it is important to note that
steeperthan 2:1 (H:V). Fill slo s
sands do cave suddenly, and without war ning. The contractors should be made aware
O.r_
0 M.
of this potential. hazard.
C cn�
CO
Water should notbe allowed to flow uncontro lied over the top of any temporary
M 0
Z
or permanent slope. All perm anently. exposed slopes should be seeded with an
M
and improve stabilit of the surficial
appropriate species o f vegeta tion to reduce erosion y
layer of soil.
Z
DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIO
Cn
Footing drains are recommende d at the base of all footings and retaining walls.
Z
0
These drains should be surrounded by at least six (6) inches of one -inch -minus washed
01
ITI
rock wrapped in non -woven geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or similar
ighest point, the perforated.pipe invert should be at least as low as
material). At the h . .
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
No groundwater was observed in any of the 6. soil test pits. Seepage into the
planned exca sible, and likely if excavation occurs during winter months,
vation is pos
and if en from the site by use of drainage ditches,
countered should be drained away
perforated pipe, French drains, or by pumping from sumps interconnected by shallow
connector trenches at the bottom of the excavation.
The excavation of the site should be graded so that surface water is directed off
Z
0
the site and away from the tops of slopes. Water should not be allowed to stand in any
0
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
adjacent to buildings should be sloped at least two (2) percent away from the building,
CO
except where the area adjacent to the building is paved.
0 M
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL:
0
.80
This project (9 single family residences and new access road).will require
3: m
M Z
significant grading activities. See rading plan dated August 11, 2004 by D. Breske,
9
C Z
P. E.
>
All fill material shall comply with the recommendati.ons.of the this report and
0 -n
onsite inspections by this engineer.
M M
Structural fill is defined as any fill placed under the building,, behind permanent
retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the underlying soils..needs to
0.
0 M
support loads. This engineer should observe site conditions during and after excavation
C CD
C CD
prior to placement of any structural fill.
M 0
All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture content at or
near the optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content is that moisture
content which results in the greatest compacted dry density. The moisture content of fill
soils is very important and'must be closely controlled during the filling and compaction
process.
CO
Z
The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type, compaction
0
equipment,and the number of passes made to compact the lift. In no case should the
lifts exceed twelve. (12) inches in loose thickness. The following table presents
recommended relative compaction for structural fill:
City of Edmonds
clo Michel Const. Inc.
August 11, 2004
Page 8
Location of Fill Placement Minimum Relative Compaction
Beneath footings, slabs or walkways 95%
Behind retaining walls 90%
Beneath pavements 95% for upper 12 inches of
z
Sub -grade, 90% below that level
0
Where: Minimum relative compaction is the ratio, expressed in percentages, of
qq�
the compacted dry density to the maximum dry density, as determined in
0)
0
accordance with ASTM Test Design ation D-1557-78 (Modified Proctor).
M
M
Use of On -Site Soils
0
XM
If grading activities take place during wet weather, or when the sandy, on -site
M Z:
10. -1
Soils are very wet, site preparation costs may be higher because of delays due to rains
C 2
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 difficult when the
Cn
moisture. content of these soils greatly exceeds the. op timum moisture content.
0 _n
Moisture sensitive soils will also be susceptible to excessive Softening and
M M
ic when the moisture content is greater than
pumping" from construction equipment traff
0
the optimum moisture content.
or
M
C Cn
Ideally, structural fill, which is to b e placed in wet weather, should consist of a
M 0
Z r
granular soil having no more than five (5) percent silt or clay particles. The percentage,
X
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
z
organic materials are Segregated and moisture contents are monitored by engineering.
z
inspection.
DRAINAGE CONTROLS:
0
M
No drainage problems were evident to this engineer during June, July, or August
or 2004. A buried drainage outfall pipe was called out on the project survey and
observed by this enpineer. It is assumed that this outfall pipe releases drainage from the
catch basins in 234� St. SW.
The sub -grade sandy soils will allow for onsite infiltration if desired by project
developer.
City of Edmonds
c/o Michel Const. Inc.
August 11,
Page, 9
technicall
Compliance with City of Edmonds drainage controls are geO y
a eptable.
cr,
CONCRETE:
All foundati I on concrete (footings, stem walls, slabs, -any retaining walls, etc.)
shall have a minimu m cement content of 5-1/2 sacks per cubic yard of concrete mix
0
ROCKERIES:
e uires extensive -grading activities, both cutting and filling. See
This project r q.
CO
grading plan.
In order to provide ero sional stabilization, rockeries are re quired along 234' I St.
0.
80
SW and "wrapping around" the west prop erty line. Additionally, -in terior rockeries are
proposed for individual lot grading purposes.
Z
10 --i I
Geotechnical ins ections of the project rockeries are requ ired.
p
ca
ing:
Inspections shall verify, the followi
0 -n
Dense dub -grade soils
Base.rock embedment.
ITIM
Rock linkage and size
0
Rock face batter
.0 M
C ca
Drainage zone
CA
M 0
Z F_
INSPECTIONS:
The recommendations of this report are only valid when key geotechnical
>
aspects are inspected bv this engineer du ring construction:
Soil cuts
0
Fill removal and grading activities
_J:
Foundation sub -.grade verification
0
M
Retaining wall, or rockery placement
Fillplacement.
* Subsurface drainage installation
9 Final erosion control and grading
City of Edmonds
c/o Michel Const. Inc.
August 11, 2004
Page 10
SUMMARY:
The proposed 9 lot development at the NW corner of 92 nd Ave. W and 234 th St.
Edmonds, Washington is geotechnically viable when constructed in accordance with J
the recommendations herein, compliance with City of Edmonds approved plans and
ents, and key geotechnical inspection during construction.
requirem z
UTURE RESIDENCES:
GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW IF a
M
At the time of this report, specific house plans were not available for review.
This geotechnical report refers to overall property grading and development prior 0 M
C.
to individual house construction. M 0
0
0
0 C:
As discussed in this report, dense native sub -grade soils capable of providing
X M
excellent bearing capacity for foundations are present on the site. M Z
C z
Overall. property development will include significant grading activities (as
discussed herein).
o -n
After overall property development, individual houses may be constructed after
review and approval by.this en-ginee M M
No significant foundation problems were anticipated for the future residences 0M
C C/)
providing overall property grading activities are inspected. M Ch
Q 0
Z
CLOSURE:
;U
The findings and recommendations of this. report were prepared in accordance
with generally accepted professional engineering principles and practice. No other z
warranty, either expressed or implied, is made. The conclusions are based on the
results of the field exploration and interpolation of subsurface conditions between (n
z
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
0
the situation and review and verify or modify the recommendations. M
If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call.
M
of WAS
0 Dennis M. Bruce', P.E.
Geotechnical Civil Engineer
DMB:jpb
AM
EXPM3 I zr"
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
M.S.C.E., Geotech nical /Civil, Engineer
December 20, 2005
Pity of Edmonds
Department of. Development and Planning
z
0
121 5�' Ave. N
Edmonds, WA 98020
M
Subject: Field Reports Geotechnical Inspections
-n
,
Michel Construction New 9 Single Family Residence Project
Cn -i
4�h St. SW nd
23 and 92 Ave.. W. Edmonds, WA
M
C 0
M
Lot #7 9206 234�h Place SW
0
0
Permit #2005-1114
C
M
MZ
This engineering report presents the results of ongoing geotechnical
z
inspections for the Michel Construction development (9. new homes — total).
Cn
REFERENCES.
0 -n
n�
MM
City of Edmonds approved project plan
DEC.
0
OM
20
Geotechnical and inspection reports by D. Bruce, P.E.. 05
C CD .
9.0
M
Photographs C01JNt,6R
._10
X
INSPECTIONS:
X
Lot #7 (9205 234�h Place SW) has been excavated to reveal dense native .
z
sub -grade soils easily providing 2000 psf bearin g capacity.
Cn
oth -grade,
Geotechnical inspection. December 2 2005 verified proper sub
z
0
formwork and reinforcing steal in process.
0
M
"O.K." to proceed with completion of formwork, resteal, and concrete
placement in accordance with City of Edmonds approved plans a nd
inspection.
oth
The entire site (all 9 lots) is geo technically stable as of December 2
2005. Erosion control measures are w ell maintained with no adverse,
impacts.
SOILS FOUNDATIONS SITE DEVELOPMENT INSPECTION DRAINAGE's DESIGN &.PERMIT LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502. Shoreline, WA 98155 (206) 546 -9217 FAX (206) 546-8442
FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL FORM