20060008.pdfAll �IEIEIIIC�
r
CITY OF EDMONDS
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION
ER NAMEINAME OF BUSINESS
CITY
AD
02-
ZA 2, \_SW\J
EI CITY ZIP , I TELE-ONE
PERMIT EXPIRES
PERMIT
NUMBER 2q'f1121ti19
ADDHISS
A� A", He LOT He LID NO
LID FEE S
PLAIL ic fitcHT a, WAY PER o ... CIA
L STREET MAP
PROPOSED
HE QUIRf D Ot OCATtON FT
.1 T L 11 SIZE I LINE lIze a ol FIXTURES IRV RECLINED
YES 13 NO 13
REMARKS
OWNFRT.ONTRACTON RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROUDRAINAGWII�,1-t
�IIIANI 'N"G DATE
DATE
VAMAN�r OR CO ORAIII I INSPECTION S777
0 YREo - =E
ES kWNO
X IINI SIGN ARER, HEIGHT
0
STUDY 13
o 1 REQUIRED AD SEDS TBAC
SETS K"'T' [
'�WW&SED E, UR�
EW R SIDENTIAL PLOMIING I MSCII ALL. I FRONT BE RE. ?IT
3 COMMERCIAL COMPLIANCE OR Z4-
ADDITION MIXED USE CHANGE OF USE PAR z Di
KING LIDTAREA P�NN R 1I.WEG D
E] REMODEL MULTIFAMILY SIGN PR!gEB
FENC zC I
REPAIR Y.S ( W
)6�1�1 T I REMARKS
DEMOLISH E] TANK El .1—
P�Z=AGE 0 RETAIIING WALL Fill SPRINKLER
P.RT ROCBERY 13 FREEALVIM
(TYPE OF USE, BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXP-H,
TYPE OF CO
�RUCTION OCCUP N
1 10 PA T
vT_&;ADa ROU
NUMBER OF UT"
OF DWELLING SULTANT OCCUPANT
STORIES UNITS LOAD
DESCRIBE WORK TOSE DONE
I E.ARKS
Description FEE Description FEE
Plan Check 5. State Surcharge
VESTED DATE
,�GURC5
BUilding Permit
City S.rch.rge
PLAN CHECK NO: Plumbing Base Fee
THI PERMITAUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED, THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO Mechanical
-
8 DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY NLt ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE IUSIC
U E
DONMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC,) WILL RED IR G.ding
SEPARUNE PERMISSION. E.g, R.,ie.
PERMIT APPLICATION: SEE ECDC 19.00.005(AI(5)
ECO
PERMIT LIMIT, SEE C 19*00,IKSUH(s, Engr. Inspection
SEE SACK Of PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION
'A P ICANT. ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS Fwe Rav Plan Chk. Deposil
P L
IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF
2 EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS =NYCATNO Fire Inspection Receipt ft
x RE Ly
< ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES Of WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY
. FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT HE
c E Landscape Insp TmI Annt. Dee
DEEMED TO MODIFY. WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANG
C NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITY'S ABILITY To ENFORCE ANY ORIHNANc. 1R.WISI.N.'
Raculding Fee 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 AUTHORIZE A.ENTOF
THE OWNER. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC CALL 8'�M,19 Oft.,.Aj V, h,g— Dty a.d To,, � P,,d.
TION; AND i� DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY� NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED
IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO FOR INSPECTION
WORKM3" COMPENSATION INSU=U ROW 27. CIALSSIGNAJUIF, DATE
DATE SIGNED
(425) .3
7 -0220 y
71 0 SE
EXT. 1333 L
IS UNMWFUL T SE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL
A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTI- ORIGINAL - FILE YELL.Vf INS'PECTOR
FICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBclog I JBCii0 I IRC110. PINK -OWNER GOLD � ASSESSOR
1010"I PRESS HARD - YOU ARE MAKING 4 COPIES
z
0
-i �n
0 I'll
C
m
0
80
C:
m
m
z
Cl)
o
n
m In
05
0
0
4= co
g co
M 0
Z
;0
--I
z
_q
m
(a
z
9
0
m
Description FEE Description FEE
Plan Check 5. State Surcharge
VESTED DATE
,�GURC5
BUilding Permit
City S.rch.rge
PLAN CHECK NO: Plumbing Base Fee
THI PERMITAUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED, THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO Mechanical
-
8 DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY NLt ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE IUSIC
U E
DONMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC,) WILL RED IR G.ding
SEPARUNE PERMISSION. E.g, R.,ie.
PERMIT APPLICATION: SEE ECDC 19.00.005(AI(5)
ECO
PERMIT LIMIT, SEE C 19*00,IKSUH(s, Engr. Inspection
SEE SACK Of PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION
'A P ICANT. ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS Fwe Rav Plan Chk. Deposil
P L
IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF
2 EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS =NYCATNO Fire Inspection Receipt ft
x RE Ly
< ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES Of WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY
. FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT HE
c E Landscape Insp TmI Annt. Dee
DEEMED TO MODIFY. WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANG
C NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITY'S ABILITY To ENFORCE ANY ORIHNANc. 1R.WISI.N.'
Raculding Fee 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 AUTHORIZE A.ENTOF
THE OWNER. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC CALL 8'�M,19 Oft.,.Aj V, h,g— Dty a.d To,, � P,,d.
TION; AND i� DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY� NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED
IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO FOR INSPECTION
WORKM3" COMPENSATION INSU=U ROW 27. CIALSSIGNAJUIF, DATE
DATE SIGNED
(425) .3
7 -0220 y
71 0 SE
EXT. 1333 L
IS UNMWFUL T SE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL
A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTI- ORIGINAL - FILE YELL.Vf INS'PECTOR
FICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBclog I JBCii0 I IRC110. PINK -OWNER GOLD � ASSESSOR
1010"I PRESS HARD - YOU ARE MAKING 4 COPIES
z
0
-i �n
0 I'll
C
m
0
80
C:
m
m
z
Cl)
o
n
m In
05
0
0
4= co
g co
M 0
Z
;0
--I
z
_q
m
(a
z
9
0
m
1010"I PRESS HARD - YOU ARE MAKING 4 COPIES
z
0
-i �n
0 I'll
C
m
0
80
C:
m
m
z
Cl)
o
n
m In
05
0
0
4= co
g co
M 0
Z
;0
--I
z
_q
m
(a
z
9
0
m
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE
IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT�
(OPIGINA GRADE SEE SURVEY P-11,1096)
L
DOE
A�
.......... . i ........
... ... 5.59790'
C, 4404.10'
. . ..... 1). W7.50'
............ /4-- 393.?V
Z� CKE
MAX HEIGHT: 41&.75'
ACTUAL HEIGHT� 415
c
FOOTING: 369.50'
DA51EMENT. 393-99
To zE-�W� I FLOOR: 402.50'
1 EIT
MpEPVIOUr2
3UILI)JNG (+ EAVE5):2,550.17 50, FT.
)KIVEWAY: 1,639,45 50. FT. C\l
ATIO: 300.4�o 50. FT.
'I E (n cz
rOTAL: 4,79ro.11 50. FT
LOT _COVEIZAGE-
25.10 2,255.50 SQ. FT./9,912.00 90. FT, 24% 1 0 7
.50' 11 00, LOT 5LOP
15% N-S,
13.0,F. 6,36, . KA, 270-3300-010&-500 z
(LOT 6 OF P-04-096)
(N
CON5TKUCTON INC.
MICHEL
9207234TH Ft 5W
EOMON05, WA. 9502ro
d)
nr I
r
..........
tn
-KQOF P�IN CONNE
C u
u 4
[)ATum: OLYMFIIG VIEW WATEK D15TRICT (M.L.L.W.)
0 v
UT -a
u
DENCH MARK. INVEKT OF 5ANITAKY 5EWF
MANHOLE NO. 1-44, ELEV = 580-00 C�5 94 o x
T w
�e KIM = 591.242 Y04
DA515 OF 5EAKING: A 5ECTION 5UE501VI510N 15Y � 59 .90'
KU5KIN F15HEK & A550CIATE5 397.
C) C)
C) ;14
MH-16" 9.13.05
REVISIONS
13-6, TYPF
NO"i
CIT COPY
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
M.S.C.E., M.B.,A. I -CIV.1 Engin..,
to
ts'
Mid" L-
Z
in
C
STATEMENT. OF MINIMAL RISK.
M
0
0
C
The plans and specifications for the t5w
k PLPW ATES,have been reviewed by this engineer and conform to the
rn MZ
0,:2
Z
a t those condifion s and
recommendations of the analysis and r port and, provided tha
recommendations are satisfied during the construction and use, and inspected and
verified by. this engineer the area disturbed by construction will be stabilized and remain
stable and will not incre ase the potential for soil movement, and, the risk of damage to
01
-n
the proposed development and from the development to adjacent properties from soil
in M
C)
instability will be minimal.
0
0
C cl)
I PEF5
M 0
X
-7�
W
FW
Z
.;
C AZ 1
Z
2
57'
1 0
In
SOILS FOUNDATIONS - SITE DEVELOPMENT INSPECTION DRAINAGE DESIGN a PERMIT LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502 Shoreline, Washington 98155 (206) 546-9217 FAX 546-8442
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. SFP 1 S WON
M
M.S.C.E., M.B.A. G..techn
August 11, 2004
City of Edmonds Vy
c/o Michel Construction Inc. C' co
7907 212� St. SW #102
Edmonds, WA 98026
Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation I Foundation Recommendations
Pr I osed 9 Lot Single Family Residence Development
9r Ave. W and 234ih ST. SW Edmonds, Washington
This engineering report presents the results of a geotechnical evaluation of the
Michel Construction property at the northwest comer of 92nd Ave. W and 23,e St. SW,
Edmonds, Washington. This evaluation was required due to owner concerns regarding
geotechnical conditions, as well as City of Edmonds requirements.
REFERENCES:
9 Vicinity Map and topographic survey by LSA
0 Grading plans by Donna Breske, P.E.
* Site photographs
BACKGROUND:
The overall property at the northwest corner of 9�m Ave. W 23e St. SW is
rectangular in shape (approximately 253 feet along 92 "d Ave W, and 334 feet along
234 th St. SVV). See site survey map.
The majority of the overall property has not been developed and contains mature
trees, dense shrubberies, and areas of grasses. An existing house occupies the
northern central portion of the property as indicated on the survey plan.
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 of historic
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.
SOILS - FOUNDA TIONS - SITE DEVFZoPmE1vr - INSPECTION - DRAINAGE - DESION & PER"Ir - ZSGAI
P.O. Box 55502 - Shoreline, WA 98155 - (206) 546-9217 - FAX (206) 546-8442
z
9
0
M
C M
M 0
0
-40
0 C
--i K
= M
M
�z
o"n
n Ld
M M
065 f
0
0
C
M C)
Z
z
--4
co
z
9
0
M
City of Edmonds
c/o Michel Const. Inc.
August 11, 2004
Page 2
Evidence of historic fill and associated debris is obvious adjacent 22W h 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
z
0
residence will be removed.
:d
0
EVALUATION
-fi
In order to augment site geotechnical information, a series of 6 soil test pits were
a m
dug on June 7, 2004. See test pit location log.
0
0
2 Test Pits (TP-1, TP-2) were dug on the slope adjacent 234�h St. SW. Both test
0 0
C
pits revealed similar sub-gra de conditions, namely:
m m
z
0" to EY, Organics, roots, forest duff.
0
C 2
--4
8 to approx. 75 FILL: historic fi 11 material consisting of
3:
sandy loam, occasional gravel, debris,
0 -n
and gravels. This engineer observes
-n
that this fill material was most likely
X
MM
placed in conjunction with road grading
0
activities fo I r 234 th St. SW.
0
0
75 to 10' (bottom of pits) Very dense native sands.
a cl)
KC0
M 0
Z
.1�
No water was encountered in Test Pits No. 1 or No. 2. Test pit walls remained ;U
vertical (with some sloughing of the upper fill materials) and stable.
>
z
Test Pits Number 3 through 6:
3:
Test pits number 3,4,5,6 were in the central portion of the property where no fill (n
placement had occurred. z
portion of the site had been partially 2
It is distinctly possible that the central 0
excavated or "scraped down a few feet". m
Test pit 3.4,5,6,
011 to 6' Organics roots, forest duff.
6 11 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 2004, verified the dense stable
nature of the underlying native soils. See photographs.
CONCLUSIONS/ RECOM ENDATIONS:
Based on the findings of this engineer's investigation as well as experience in the
the Michel Construction site at the NW comer of 92d Ave. W
z
area with similar projects,
234uSt.SWisgeotechni Ily approved for the proposed new 9 lot development and
associated access road, subject to the following:
M
Geotechnical compliance with grading plan by D. Breske, P.E. The grading plan
removal of the historic fill mate rial adjacent 234 ith St. SW and slope
--i
X o
indicates
stabilization with rockeries.
o The grading plan also indicates fill material properly placed in the low
M
C
M 0
0
central portion of the property wi th compliance to structural fill placement
80
C
regulations.
M
M Z
The individual new residences may be founded on standard reinforced
10-1
continuous and spread footings with allowable bearing pressure 2,000 p.s.f.
CA
Equivalent fluid pressure of 35 p.c.f. is recommended for any retaining wall
0 -n
n
design provided drainage zone is inspected and verified by this engineer.
—4
For retaining wall design, use friction factor of 0 .55 and passive pressure of 350
M M
0-
0
p.c.f.
0
c: M
V)
M CO
Geotechnical inspections by this engineer prior any foundation concrete
rn 0
Z
placement.
The proposed structures can be supported on conventional continuous and
z
spread footings bearing on undisturbed native soils or on structu rat fill placed above
See the later sub -section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill for
--I
i
native soils.
structural fill placement and compaction recommendations. Continuous and individual
have widths of eighteen (18) and twenty-four (24)
V)
z
0
spread footings should minimum
inches, respectively, and should be bottomed at least eighteen (18) inches below the
m
lower adjacent finish ground surface.
Depending on the final site grades, some over -excavation may be required below
Unless lean concrete is used to fill the over
footings to expose competent native soils.
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,
fill up to five (5) feet in thickness) will be about one-half
z
native soils (or on structural
inch, with differential settlements on the order of one -quarter inch.
Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between
0
the foundations and the bearing soils, or by passive earth pressure acting on the
For the latter con dition, the foundations
vertical, embedded portions of the foundations.
must either be poured directly against undisturbed soil or the backfill place d around the
a M
C
M 0
outside of the foundation must be level structural fill. We recommend the following
0
80
design values be used for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading:
C
Paramete Design Value
M
M z
0 --1
Coefficient of Friction 0.55
350 p.c.f.
Passive Earth Pressure
-4
Where:
x 9
M M
1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot.
(2) Passive earth pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid density.
0
0
C Cn 1
We recommend the t a safety factor of at least 1.5 be used for design of the
90
M 0
Z
foundation's resistance to lateral loading.
W
SLABS -ON -GRAD
>
z
Slab -on -grade floors may be supported on undisturbed, competent native soils Or
Fn
on structural fill. The slabs may be supported on the eAsting soils provided these soils
to of the free -draining sand or gravel underneath
z
can be re -compacted prior placement
the slab. This sand and gravel layer should be a minimum of four (4) inches thick. We
a
M
also recommend using a vapor barrier such as 6-mil. plastic membrane beneath the
slab with minimum overlaps of 12 inches for sealing purposes.
PERM NENT FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WAL
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 michell Const. Inc.
August 11, 2004
Page 5
Parameter Design Val
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:
z
(1) p.c,f. is pounds per cubic foot
(2) Active and passive earth pressures are computed using equimaient fluid
M,
densities.
Vi
0
C: m
For restrained walls which cannot defect at least 0.002 times the wall
M 0
0
height, a uniform lateral pressure of one hundred (100 p. s.f. should be
0
C:
added to the active equivalent fluid pressure).
M M
The values given above are to be used for design of permanent foundation and
fa should be applied when designing the
z
E:
retaining walls only. An appropriate safety ctor
walls. We recommend using a safety factor of at least 1.5 for overturning and sliding.
The above design values do not include the effects of an, y hydrostatic pressures
slopes or loads will be placed above the
0 -n
M M
behind the walls and assume that no surcharge
if these conditions exist, then those pressures should be added to the above
V 5
0
walls.
lateral pressures. Also, if sloping backfill is desired behind the we Ils, then we will need
of the backfill in order to provide the
0
C: M
M
90)
to be given the wall dimensions and slope
M 0
Z
appropriate design earth pressures.
Heavy construction equipment should not be operated behind retaining and
X
foundation walls within a distance equal to the height of the wall, unless the walls are
lateral resulting from the equipment. Placement
>
designed for the additional pressures
and compaction of retaining wall backfill should be accomplished with hand -operated
z
equipment.
Retaining Wall Backfill
z
9
Backfill placed within eighteen (18) inches of any retaining or foundation walls
This backfill should contain
0
m
should be free -draining structural fill containing no organics.
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
Due to their high silt content, if
be between twenty-five (25) and seventy (70) percent.
backfill, a drainage composite, such as Mirafi and
the native soils are used as
Enkadrain, should be p!aced 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 F contains
recommendations regarding placement and compaction of structural fill behind retaining
and foundation walls.
EXCAVATION AND SLOPE
Z
9
As stated, historic fill material had been placed adjacent 230 St. SW.
0
R1
This engineer recommends removal of approximately 6 to 8 feet of historic fill
ii
material in order to restore the pre -filled condition. This engineer has reviewed the
grading plan by D. Breske, P.E,, dated August 11, 2004 and concurs with the proposed
0 M
C
M
grading activities, subject to onsite inspections by this engineer.
0
0 C
In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local,
rn
M Z
state and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts up to a height of four
(4) feet deep in unsaturated soils may be vertical. For temporary cuts having a height
C 2
greater than four (4) feet, the cut should have an inclination no steeper than 1: 1
(Horizontal: Vertical) from the top of the slope to the bottom of th e excavation. Under
o n
specific recommendations by the geotechnical engineer, excavation cuts may be
-n Ld
modified for site conditions. All permanent cuts into native soils should be inclined no
M ITT
steeper than 2:1 (H:V). Fill slopes should not exceed 2H: 1 V� it is important to note that
sands do cave suddenly, and without warning. The contractors should be made aware
0
0
0
of this potential hazard.
Cl)
CO
Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any temporary
M 0
or permanent slope. All permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an
appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve stability of the surficial
layer of soii.
Z
DRAINAGE CONSIDERATION
Footing drains are recommended at the base of all footings and retaining walls.
Z
9
These drains should be surrounded by at least six (6) inches of one -inch -minus washed
0
M
rock wrapped in non -woven geoteWi e 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
No groundwater was observed in any of the 6 soil test pits. Seepage into the
likely if excavation occurs during winter months,
planned excavation is possible, and
and if encountered should be drained away from the site by use of drainage ditches,
perforated pipe, French drains, or by pumping from sumps interconnected by shallow
connector trenches at the bottom of the excavation.
The excavation of the site should be graded so that surface water is directed off
Z
9
the site and away from the tops of slopes. Water should not be allowed to stand in any
where foundations, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Any exposed
e
0
area
slopes to be covered with plastic to minimize erosion. Final site grading in areas
be sloped at least two (2) percent away from the building,
adjacent to buildings should
except where the area adjacent to the building is paved.
M
C
GENE L EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURA
M
0
0
C
This project (9 single family residences and new access road) will require
See p Ian dated August 11, 2004 by D. Breske,
X M
M Z
significant grading activities. grading
> Z
P.E.
-4
r
All fill material shall comply with the reco mmendations of the this report and
0
-n
onsite inspections by this engineer.
-4
3:
Structural fill is defined as any fill placed under the building., behind permanent
M M
0,
retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the und erlying soils needs to
site conditions during and after excavation
C
001
C 0)
support loads. This engineer should observe
prior to placement of any structural fill.
Q 0
Z
All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture content at or
X
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
Z
soils is very important and must be closely controlled during the filling and compaction
process.
Vi
Z
The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type, compaction
9
0
equipment, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. In no case should the
m
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.
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
Sub -grade, 90% below that level
Where: Minimum relative compaction is the ratio, expressed in percentages, of
the compacted dry density to the maximum dry density, as determined in
accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1 557-78 (Modified Proctor).
Use of On -Site SOi s
If grading activities take place during wet weather, or when the sandy, on -site
soils are very wet, site preparation costs may be higher because of delays due to rains
and the potential need to import granular fill. The on -site soils are generally sandy and
whe
thus are not particularly moisture sensitive. Grading operations will be difficult n the
moisture content of these soils greatly exceeds the optimum moisture content.
Moisture sensitive soils will also be susceptible to excessive softening and
pumping" from construction equipment traffic when the moisture content is greater than
the optimum moisture content.
Ideally, structural fill, which is to be placed in wet weather, should consist of a
granular soil having no more than five (5) percent silt or clay particles. The percentage
of parficles 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 a ceptable if the upper
organic materials are segregated and moisture contents are monitored by engineering
inspection.
DRAINAGE CONTROLS:
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 enwineer. It is assumed that this outfall pipe releases drainage from the
catch basins in 23& St. SW.
The sub -grade sandy soils will allow for onsite infiltration if desired by project
developer.
z
9
?5
C M
M a i
0
80
C:
M
M z
C
> z
0
M M
0
0
0
M
C cf)
KV)
Q 0
Z
X
z
—i
z
9
0
M
City of Edmonds
c/o Michel Const. Inc.
August 11, 2004
Page 9
Compliance with City of Edmonds drainage controls are geotechnically
acceptable.
CONCRETE:
All foundation concrete (footings, stem wa Ils, slabs, any retaining walls, etc.)
Z
0
shall have a minimum cement content of 5-1/2 sacks per cubic yard of concrete mix.
0
ROCKERIES:
This project requires extensive grading activities, both cutfing and filling. See
a m
C
grading plan.
a
M 0
-40
In order to provide erosional stabilization, rockeries; are required along 23e St.
C
SW and "wrapping around" the west property line. Additionally, interior rockeries are
M
proposed for individual lot grading purposes.
>
Geotechnical inspections of the project rockeries are required.
Inspections shall verify the following:
o -n
9 Dense dub -grade soils
M M
* Base rock embedment
a
0
* Rock linkage and size
0
C m
CO
* Rock face better
(D
M 0
* Drainage zone
INSPECTIONS:
X
__4
The recommendations of this report are only valid when key geotechnical
aspects are inspected by this engineer during constru
0 Soil cuts
Z
* Fill removal and grading activities
0
& Foundation sub -grade verification
M
0 Retaining wall, or rockery placement
0 Fill placement
9 Subsurface drainage installation
* 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"' Ave. W and 2341h St.
Edmonds, Washington is geotechnically viable when constructed in accordance with
the recommendations herein, compliance with City of Edmoads approved plans and
requirements, and key geotechnical inspection AgljM construction.
GEO HNICAL REVIEW I FUTURE RESIDENCES:
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
to individual house construction.
As discussed in this report, dense native sub -grade soils capable of providing
excellent bearing capacity for foundations are present on the site.
Overall property development will include significant grading activities (as
discussed herein).
After overall property development, individual houses may be constructed after
review and approval by this enginee
No significant foundation problems were anticipated for the future residences
providing overall property grading activities are inspected.
CLOSURE:
The findings and recommendations of this report were prepared in accordance
with generally accepted professional engineering principles and practice. No other
warranty, either expressed or implied, is made. The conclusions are based on the
results of the field exploration and interpolation of subsurface conditions between
explored locations. if conditions are encountered during construction that appear to be
different than those described in this report, this engineer should be notified to observe
the situation and review and verify or modify the recommendations.
If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call.
a Z,
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
DMB:jpb VA ti�l Geotechnical / Civil Engineer
I EXPMES 12aY
z
9
0
C M
M 0
-4 0
0 0
C:
X M
M z
jo-1
C
-4
o -n
M M
055 f
0
0
C M
In
co
Q 0
z
z
9
0
m
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnicai /Civil Engineer
January 2, 2007
ftc
't-.1
JAIV
City of Edmonds D.S.D.
0 8
Michel Construction, Inc. AYXD1&G
z
c/o
7907 2121h St. SW, # 102 0,: DtpA�
0
Edmonds, WA 98026
M
Subject: EINAL Regort — Geotechnical Inspections — Lot Nos. 4, 6 and 6
208,9209,9207 234"'PI.W, Edmonds, Washington—
9 9
0 M
C
Michel Construction, Inc. Project
0
In 0
-40
City of Edmonds Permit Nos. 2006 — 0019, 0216, and 0008
0 a:
-4 r
= M
M z
This engineering report presents the final results of geotechnical inspections for
0-4 p
C 2
nd
Lot Nos. 4, 5, and 6 at the Michel Construction, Inc. development at 92 Ave. W and
>
2 th
34 K W, Edmonds, Washington. These 3 lots represent the last inspections for the
overall development of 9 lots total. Previous geotechnical reports have addressed
0'
inspection issues at the other 6 lots.
-n
REFERENCES:
0
a City of Edmonds approved Project Plans,
orn
C Cn
- Geotechnical and inspection reports by D. Bruce, P.E.
MO
Z
* Photographs
INSPECTIONS:
As previously stated, this engineer has provided ongoing geotechnical
z
inspections, as required by City of Edmonds permit conditions for the overall 9 lot
z
development. This report concludes inspections for Lot Nos, 4, 5, and 6.
Soil Cuts: All excavation and soil cuts remained stable throughout the project.
rn
No geotechnical adverse conditions were observed.
Fill Removal: A small amount of fill (up to 18 inches thick) was removed durin 9
initial excavation and site clearing. Approved.
Foundation Sub -Grade: Previously verified and approved. All foundation footings
were properly placed in accordance with City of Edmonds approved plans.
SOILS - FOUNDAT70NS - SITE DEVELOPMSVr - imspEc77cm - DaVmAGE - DEstoN & PERmrr - LEa4i.
P.O. Box 55502 - Shoreline, WA 98155 - (206) 546-9217 - FAX (206) 546-8442
City of Edmonds
c/o Michel Construction, Inc.
January 2, 2007
Page 2
Rockeries: As previously reported, the perimeter rockeries for the overall
development were completed at the beginning of the project (see previous
reports). All rockeries have performed properly (good performance through the
record November 2006 rains). All rockeries are approved as placed.
- Fill Placement, None required for geotechnical foundation support purposes.
calized gravel was utilized to improve working surface conditions. All fill
material and placement is approved.
- Subsurface Drainacle: All subsurface drainage for the new houses on lots 4, 5
and 6 were inspected, verified, and approved as placed.
NOTE: The rear (westerly side) of Lot No. 5 contains a significant drainage
"junction" (see photographs). This engineer understands that project drainage
engineer (Donna Breske, P.E.) has submitted plans for City of Edmonds review
and approval regarding the "bypass" of the upper City of Edmonds street
r
drainage to the "low spot" of the rear of Lot 5, Significant volumes of storm wate
continue to flow at this point.
Erosion Con : Michel Construction properly maintained all erosion control
measures throughout the project.
Perman erosion control measures have been installed as of the last
geotechnical inspection (January 2, 2007). Lawn, shrubbery and beauty bark
have been properly placed (see photographs). There are no exposed earth
surfaces.
During construction, temporary Eco-Blocks were placed at the rear of Lot No. 5
for slope stabilization purposes. This engineer recommended that these
temporary Eco-Blocks be removed and slopes "back -graded" to avoid any
potential surcharge on the temporary Eco-Blocks. The rear of Lot No. 5 has
been satisfactorily back -grades with beauty bark placed as an erosion contro
stabilizer.
Additional erosion control rockeries and one -block high Eco-Block walls have
been properly placed to improve erosion control measures.
All permanent erosion control measures are gpAto-yed.
Z
9 1 1
0
R1
C M
M 0
0
80
C:
3: M
M Z
0
n
M M
0
0
0
C M
U)
90
M 0
Z
.4
X
Z
-4
X
V;
Z
9
0
M
City of Edmonds
c/o Michel Construction, Inc.
January 2, 2007
Page 3
SUMMARY:
All special geotechnica I inspection items have been properly completed and are
verified as of January 2, 2007, including permanent erosion control measures.
It is understood that th e "storm water junction zone" at the rear of Lot No. 5
Z
complies with City of Edmonds approved drainage designs.
F)
M
This report completes geotechnical inspection duties by D. Bruce, P.E.
If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call.
CD
M
M 0
0
M.
C:
W,
MAL
0 T
0
0
Off==3 Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
C
Geotechnical Civil Engineer
M 0
DMB:abj
;0
cc: Michel Construction, Inc.
Z
Z
0
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE
IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
Height Calculation Worksheet
Date
Permit Number' q--Jo - o a a
Address 1�
Inspector
z
AverageGrade 393 "-?15
Max Height (25'+Ave.) 41 (3, '75
Actual Height (A+B+Q41(),<?—
OM
MO
0
0
C
M
z
>
r
0
M M
=(C 4, C6-
C CO
CO
M 0
'75
M
>
z
ca
z
0
M
Elevation of transit above Datum (B)
Daturninn 14 Elevation (A) '37/
1/temp/building/fornis/height worksheet
Permit Inspection Details
Permit: BLD20060008
PERMIT i
1077 - E-Engineering Final
Complete?
Y
01/0212007 Sibref 30 OK to Final
Y
Total Time:
30
1106 - B-Setbacks
Complete?.
Y
03/2?J2006 MS 20 SETBACKS APPROVED PER STRUNG PROPERTY LINES
y
Total Time:
20
1108 - B-Footings,
Complete?.
Y
0312212000 MS 20 FOOTINGS APPROVED
y
z
Total Time:
20
1110 - B-Foundation Wall
complete?
Y
04106/2006 MS 20 FOUNDATION APPROVED
Total Time;
20
1118 -S-Slab Insulation
Complete?
y
06/0112006 MS 15 SLAB INSULATION APPROV613'
y
Total Tim.:
is
0 Im
1120 - B-Plumb Ground Work
Co lete?,�
TIP
Yi�
C
mo
0
-40
05126/2006 MS 20 UNDERGROUND PLUMBING APPROVED
y
0 C:
Total Time:
20
-4 C
X m
1126 - B-Plumb Rough In
Comi leti?:
p
0710712006 MS 20 R OUGH IN PLUMB ING APPR OVED
y
z
Total Time:
20
1128 - B-Gas TeSt/Pipe
Complete?.
Ts�
GV1912006 MS 20 GAS TEST AND GAS PIPING APPROVED
y
0 -n
Total Time:
20
1132 . B.Exterior Sheathing
CompjeteT�
In M
0�/�,If2006 MS 20 CORRECTION NOTICE WRITTEN
IN
a
07/19/2006 MS 20 EXTERIOR SHEATHING APPROVED
y
0
0
Total Time:
40
1136,.B.ShearNailin 91
orn
Cn
M 0
07/19/2006 MS 20 SHEAR APPROVED
y
Z r-
Total Time:
20
, �)r
.4p
1140 - BuHelght,Verlficatlon..
comilete?
I
09112/2006 MS 30 APPROVED
y
>
Total Time:
30
z
1142 - B-Framing.
Complete?
07/19/2006 MS 25 CORRECTION NOTICE WRITTEN
N
09/1212006 MS 20 APPROVED
Y
Total Time:
4 5
1144 - S-Wall insulation/Caulk:
com�plete?,l
:y!
0
IT
09/15/2006 MS 20 APPROVED
Y
Total Time:
20
1146 - B-Floor Insulation/Caulk
complete?
l�
09/15/2006 MS 20 APPROVED
y
Total Time:
20
1148 - B-Celling Insulation/Caulk
Complete?,
Y'
09115/2006 MS 20 APPROVED
Y
Total Time:
20
7/9/2009 9:14:36 AM
Page I of 2
ki a
1166:4;s eeii6c NW,
09/27/2006 Snook
APPROVED
Total Time: 20
0
C ritiol
01,03/2007 Snook
25 APPROVED
Total Time: 25
Total Inspections:
19 Total Time: 405
M
M
40)
0 -n
M
C:
M 0
7/9/2009914:36AM
Page 2 of 2
J4W
owgPancy
ART I M 11 E . NT BUILDINGS
DM
PER INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE SECTION R1 10
AT: 9207 230 PI SW Building Permit M 2006-0008
Occupancy established by this certificate: R3 Dwelling Units:
No. Stories: 1 Basement: I Type of Construction: VB
Owner of building: Michel Con , struction, hic..
The Sinale Family Residence at 9207 — 2 4" PI?SW- � �. _�� has! boron Inspected and approved complying with the requirements of the
2003 edition of the International Residential Code as adopted by the.City for the group and division of occupancy and the use for which
the proposed occupancy is classified.
Issued this 0 day of January, 2007
Chief Building Official
By:_
Any change of occupancy or use requires a building permit and anew Certificate of Occupancy Issued by the City of Edmonds Building Official.
RECORD OF INSPECTIONS
INSPECTOR
DATE APPROVED
SETBACKS ...................
FOUNDATION:
Footing ..................
Wall ....................... ..
Pier/Porch .................
Retaining Wall ...........
z
Slab Insulation ..........
9
PLUMBING:
vv)
0
Underground .............
Rough -In ...................
x
0
in
C
Commercial Final
a
ITI 0
HEATING:
0
Gas Test ...........
07 1-
M
ITI
0
Gas Piping
C
Equipment ................
E:
Commercial Final
0 _n
EXTERIOR SHEATHING
n
_q
=
NAILING ..........................
to
IT ITI
0 C/)
FRAMING ................
0
FIRST FLOOR FRAMING
0
4= C/)
1710
INSULATION ..............
.4po
Z
Floor Insulation
;U
Wall Insulation ...........
Ceiling Insulation
z
—4
SHEETROCK NAILING
SPECIAL INSPECTION
z
ITI
MISCELLANEOUS ..........
FINAL APPROVAL FOR
OCCUPANCY ............
C), V.