20060015.pdf1-1 DATE RECEIVED
CITY OF EDMONDS
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION
110"5 _ FP—ERMITEXPIRES
PERMIT
6— Co
NUMBER
(Do
'08
SUITEIAPTo
ADDRESS
�;o �41,
FLAT NAMEISUBDlVISION NO
'T!!�
L 0
I'IDDNIFE s
PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP
It,sr"Ae—
—'�PROPOSED
EXISTING
R.
REQUIRED DEDICATION —
FT
U-N=
""ZTEOUIRED
METER SIZE
LINE Sell
XTURES
III
YES E3 No C!
REMARKS
OWNERICONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROLIORAINAGE
F�162_
re"am �2418`
ADDREJS
E,NG1,NCEwR—INTGF;R-;EkVIEnWIE6D'B"y
[FIRE REVIEWED BY DATE
C
C
T(
E_)j (411
1E1A
STATE LICENSE NUMBER
RCU
1HORILINEORID11
INS�IE.ITION
I ......
It
1%(Y�a 13
Nol
CAI W
ZONE
11
HEIGHT
P ROPERTYTAXACCOUNTPARDELNO,
M
11
'A
.
WAIVER 13 PIS
STUDy'j( a I
— C,
'GN'AR
DWE. IERA.F-
ALLOWED , 1111111D
Z51 7-51
[5a NEW
RESIDENTIAL
E" E.N
:DJAP'll'ANCE
A BE.
REQUIRE SETSA S(FT� PROPOSED
F SIDE EAR 1pforr
SETBACKS (FT.)
67WE Re
ADDITION
COMMERCIAL
.a
ITNT
C 1VV
_/w
2-8
'XIsr 19.
REMODEL
Lj
snu...
MULTIFAMILY
El ION
S:s
P K 0
as N B
REDO 'a P NOW
LOT AREAJ
PLANNING REVIEWED By DATE
C,�� 0 1
1 (0
col
(0 C
REPAIR
!a2k Cy.S
ENCE X FT)
[3,
DEMOLISH
TANK
13 oT77ER
P-eQQl,P" VIJP-WA-14T TO 000bIRT
I GARAGE
AT
V(CAR. o
BETA] NING WALL
ROCKERY
Ei FRE SPRINKLER
FIREALARM
(�EIQLSEQE OW,;Ny,1TY)
EXPLAIN:
TYPE WUCTION
OCCUPANT
GROUP
w UMBEA
ABER OF
OF
STORIES
ELLING
TS
S ECIALMSISPTION
RsQUIREO YES
I
CON
DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE
4
REMARKS
Descriptictin
FEE
Description
FEE
W�r
Plan Check
r.Uuilding
State Surcharge
HTr SOURCE I. V11T111ATE
Ci ly Surcharge
90��, g1j,
,
P Nn't
U Permit
PLAN CHECK NO:
06 A-54
P, m I g
Plumbing
C-c- Ir
Base Fee
Mechanical
THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO
Grading
BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBIC
2 DONMAIN (CURBS, SJDEWALKS� DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE
3
SEPARATE PERMIS SION.
PERMIT APPLICATION: SEE ECDC 19.00.005(A)(5)
Engr
PER MIT LIMIT, SEE ECDC 19.00.05(A)16)
SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION
'APPLICANT. ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSOR$
Fire Revi.w
Plan Chk. Deposit
IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF
2 EDMONDS, WASHINGTON. ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM A Y AND
I ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
Fire Inspection
Receipt
I FR M THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE
0 C
ANY CITY ORDINAN E
nd..PB IrIsp�
Total Amt. Due
DEEMED TO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF
NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITY'S ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.-
Cordmg Fee
Receipt #
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATIW THAT THE INFORMATION
APPLICATION APPROVAL
GIVEN IS CORRECT�, AND THAT I AM THE OWNER, OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF
This rehl-hoo 11 not It patent Ind 11911d by the
THE OWNER� I AGREE To COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC.
CALL
8,4dog Offichd 11 t11,01.1 OEPUIT old Foss— pad, end
T ON; A ORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED
I Not�ooNGTHELWA.OR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO
nOopIn, csoW,j.d9.d In sP.C. Psd.A
FOR INSPECTION
IN Al
VIOL
WORKMEP TION INSURANCE AND RCW 18:27.
91-
DA�714
(425)
771-0220
AffENTP
J�TEJ
EXT. 1333
_ "% U
IT IS UNLA F SE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL
A FINAL INPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTI-
OJIK.I,0�1�11L�U- YELLOW -INSk
FICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. USC109 I lBC110 I IRC110L
N . GOLD -ASSESSOR
10104 PRESS HARD - YOU ARE MAKING 4 COPIES
v
I
z
0
0
M
M 00
0
C
M
M�
'S
r
0 -n
n
_4
11 A
A
a
0
0 M
C 0)
F. Ch
M 0
Z
71
z
Cn
z
0
M
G) CornerNOFlagNO
OPY
—'-:=cks Reguired .6ctual A OtGr�
741
Sidesp-1w- 5_1
kEyi Kocaw Yv eu 5 —1.15'
20
11tJ2,' ther
IN'll P-11 i i 1-11,11 Ittom 11�.0 411eip
DAL If, ST EET
RESUB
1) � . 7 � I
INUY I JUU'j r91' ___
SUILDING DEPARTMENT 102'—
CITY OF EDMONDS �04'�
oa,
106'—,
TER
LtANOI
'7 �_`
112, MEtER
NORTIH I I&, N L
Ila, 5 lkl;�
SCALE: 1 2 Nil 5
0
122,111,
124'
Pr CLEV.
(Z� 121D
125�25
1120
125h
4-9� 4 Z
46qh5'1 4- 122.46'- AV& ORADS
"Z-_ON5TRLh:,TJON 15LIP6. HT. FROM
ZxI5T. 6RAVE To H16J411ST RIPSE HT.
AVMXA6E &RAPE, 122.46'
ALLOY041LE BILD6. KT. (20� 141.4b'
1,116+1125T RIPSE, MIAW
_-4 '10'
,89
P rir 60.
FFER
FROM CREEK
100' * DT-T. -
911E 5ur-Fef
104'p-eq,j � F-E
Op-
T12-F-A �A
WIPTR FVPA5U�
TO p3l 01
'011
Job LAwc>Ak
P, �' 6 o C, I A 7 r_�
ROCAMY &:)L1;)c`L1;)�0
SMACK LINZ
"I"[" ORAVE
ON
PROPOZO 6'"OE
SILT FEW.E X X X X X
Uj
WATER K SEWER
a 124'
1N8PE-(2'10','4S REQ'D.
—0
Ill
CALL 425-T/1.922.0 F)M.12213
OAS-
KALK
PAVED
JIL
0
POYJER
CA15LE
Z)Rl\/r:
14% SLOPE
i
z
PRO
F9RTY Ljt��
�tl
N. 89:49 10' E
\m
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
_DALEY
?4 -q(>-
Tio sTREE-r
W04
ALI MY
E FROM
601451. 8� op,
510tv-
LINE To PROP, LINE.
PROP.
Tax Lot # 0043420840080C
4T00
OCCIPWRAf5e:
NOV o 12005
2252- Scafr § 6600 5&.FT O.E3 $1.
Kw-_ L.01 I .7E
BUILDINO DEPARTMENT
clTy OF EDMONDS
A PRE59
:n NEAGLEWOOD HOMES
i5o PALEY
STREET
0 13 n "'Ol OLympla \.'JEj-1 PRIVE, EDMONDS, KA '15020
lmmmum,MPAW
EDMONDS.,
VIA q5O2O
0 0 0 (425) -7-11-6022
PATIO OR DECK
MUM E VATE, . SEPTEME3ER 21,2005 tol3ijos
BY. Xm
z
m
a m
C: 0
m 0
-40
0
-4
X M
M z
E::�
�
0
m M
0 U5 1 1
0,-
0 M
C cl)
c U)
M 0
z
X
-4
z
z
m
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
M.S.C.E.. M.B.A. Geotechnical/Civil Engineer
RECEIVED
July 4, 2004
OCT 12 M
Eaglewood Homes, Inr pERMIT ColiNTER
Olympic View Drive
z
18W7 rev -IV
Edmonds, WA 98020
0
Subject Gootechnical Evaluation I Found Ptl one
M
Reasonable Use Exemption
M
Eaglewood Hornes proposed 3 residence deVelOPMOnt
Cc:
M 0
722 Daley, Edmonds
0
80
C
This engineering report presents the results of a geotechnical evaluation of the
M
AM z
Eaglewood Homes property at 722 Daley. Edmonds, Washington. This.evaluation was
j) --I
C
required due to owner I developer concerns, as well as City of Edrwnds requirements
for reasonable use exemption to steep slope standards.
REFERENCES:
0 -n
* Location Map
* Property Survey (furnished by Eaglewood Homes)
M M
0
0
0
9 Photographs
C co
M 0
BACKGROUND:
Z
>
The property at 722 Daley, is rectangular in shape and is understood to const L
M
X
>
of several 30 feet vAde parcels. (See survey map).
z
Currently, the overall property contains a single family residence. Access tolhe
z
existing residence is via the alleyway south of Daley Place.
The property contains some slopes in excess of 40 pemriL The slopes are
0
M
primarily atiulting Daley Place (to the north) and the private property to the east
The sloped portions of the property steeper than 40 perm nt are heavily
vegetated with mature trees, shrubs, and grasses.
The existing garage structure (at the eastern portion of the overall property)
contains some lower.stabilization walls consisting of stacked concrete segments. See
photographs.
SOILS - FOINVARM-S SMIT DEVELOPMENT - WSPECTION DRAIM4GE - DESIGN A PERUff LEGAL'
P.O. Box 55502 shoreline, Washington 98155 (206) 546-9217 FAX 546-W2
Eiigliawood Homes, Inc.
July 4, 2004
Page 2
It is understood that Eaglewood Homes proposes to *short Plar the overall
property to result in 3 new single family residences. it is further understood that access
to the new 3 residences will be via the existing alleyway.
Visual evaluation of the overall prop" reveals no evidence of any geolechnical
distress: no slide, no sloughing, no soil tension cracks, nor any evidence of er0eional
z
degradation. This engin I ear observed that the existing residence does not have a
functioning fight line storm water system. Rather, gutter down spouts merely 'dumipP
onto the surface. Nevertheless, no evidence of erosional degradation was observed.
MAIL
--U
�n
IM,
C
In order to augment site geotechnical information, and acquire data for the
M 0
8 0
reasonable use exemption to sleep slope standards, 4 soll test holes were dug by
C
power hand auger to depths of 5.6 feet on July 1, 2004.
3: M
M z
The findings of all four test holes revealed similar sub -grade conditions, namely:
Ca
0' to 61 Duff, roots, and intermittent organic silt.
0 -n
6' to 5.5' Dense sand. Relatively dean dine to
M M
0 C-0
coarse sand.
0
0 M-
MO
No water was encountered in any of the test holes. Test hole walls remained
vertical and stable for six hours (prior to backfilling). No sloughing or caving occurred.
M
'This engineer has performed numerous geotechnical investigations in the
immediate areas and verifies that the dense native sands are stable and provide
-4
excellent beating support for foundation development.
The sub -grade soils are consistent with the deposits on the geologic map of the
Edmonds East and part of ft Edmonds West quadrangles by James P. Minard
rn
(DepartMent Of the interior, United States Geological Survey, 1983, Map MIF — 1641
Advance Outwash).
C -NS I RECOMMENDATIONS:
ONCLUSIO
Based on the findings of this engineeft investigation as we 11 as experience in'the
area with similar projects, the Eaglewood Homes property at 722 Daley is
asofthnically aporoved for the proposed 3 new residences, subject to the following-
Homes, Inc.
july 4,2004
Page 3
Geotechnical review Of specific house plans by this engineer prior to permit
issuance.
Temporary shoring may be required, depending on specific house plans.
ings. Allowable bearing
Standard reinforced continuous and spread foor
pressure. 7,000 p.91
Equivalent fluid pressure of 35 p.c.f. is raw mmended for any retaining *all
=i �n
design provided drainage zone is inspected and verified by this engineer.
For retaining wall design, use friction factor of 0.55 and passive pressure or 350
C M
M 0
-4
p.cf.
0
Temporary Shoring: For the south property line cuts (up to 12 feet in depth)
M
temporary shoring consisting of staggered Ecology Blocks may be used(see
i 7
attached Eco-Block Shoring Design.
Vi
Geotechnical inspections by this engineer prior to any foundation concrete
0 ml
-n
placement
M M
The proposed structure can be supported on conventional continuous and
CO
0
0 M
spread footings bearing on undisturbed native soils or on structural fill placed above
C 0)
C CO
tructm
native soils. See Me later sub-secfion entitled General Earthwork an S I Fill for
M 0
z
ividual
stuctural.fill placement and compaction recommendations. Continuous and indi
spread footings should have minimum widths of eighteen (18) and twenty4bur (24)
Inches, respectively, and should be bottomed at least eighteen (18) inches below the
-4
lower acrjacent finish ground surface.
z o!�
-Depending on the final site grades, some over-excavaVion 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-excavatilon and the fooling 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 Me excavation.
Footings constructed according to the above recommendations may be designed
for an allowable soil bearing pressure of three thousand (2,000) pounds per square foot'
(p.s.f.). A on6-third increase in this design bearing pressure may be used when
considering short-term wind or seismic loads. For the above design criteria, it is
anticipated that total post -construction settlement of footings founded on competent,
native soils (or on structural fill up to five (5) feet in thickness) will be about one-half
inch, with differential settlements on the order or one -quarter inch
-Eag" Homes, Inc.
July4,2004
Page 4
Isted by friction between
Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be res*
the foundations and the bearing soils. or by passive earth pressure acting on the
vertical, embedded portions of the foundations. For the letter condition, the foundations
must either I be poured directly against undisturbed soil or the backfill placed around the
reco end the following
outside of the foundation must be level structural fill. We mm
design values be used for the foundations resistance to lateral loading:
Paramate DesignValue
Coefficient of Friction 0.55
M
Passive Earth Pressure M p.cf.
C A
Whom.
M
0 C)
(1) p.c.t is pounds per cubic foot.
(2) passive earth pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid density�
C
z
M
M z
We recommend that a safety factor of at least 1.5 be used for design of the
C
fbundatloWs resistance to lateral loading.
SLAIS"— -N-GRADE
0 n
n
Slab -on -grade floors may be supported on undisturbed, competent native soils or
M M
Q
on structiiral fill. 7be slabs. may be supported on the existing sofli s provided these soils
0
09
-can be re-oompacted prior to placement of the free -draining sand or gravel underneath
I
C.
the slab. This sand and gravel layer should be a minimum of four.(4) inches thidL We
M
also recommend using a vapor barrier such as 6-mil. plastic membrane beneath the
ro
T ' �,i
slab with minimum overlaps of 112 inches for sealing purposes.
NT FOUNDATION AND -RETAINING WALLS
g walls baddilled on one side only should be designed to rest I a I
Retbinin at ra
earth pressures imposed by the soils retained by them structures. The following
9
recommended design parameters are for walls less than twelve (12) feet in height,
which restrain level backfill:
0
Para Desion Value
Active Earth Pressure* 35 p.c.f.
Passive Earth Pressure 360 p.c.f.
Coefficient of Friction 0.65
soil Unit Weight 125 P.O.
Homes, Inc.
Juty4,2004
Page 5
Where:
(1) p.cf. is pounds per cubic foot
(2) Active and passive earth pressures are computed using equivalent fluid
densities.
For restrained walls which cannot defeid: at least 0.002 times the wall
z
height a unifoffn lateral pressure of one hundred (100 p.s.f. should be
0
M
added to the active equivalent fluid pressure).
The values given above are to be used for design of permanent foundation and
retaining walls only. An appropriate safety factor should be applied when designing the
walls. We recommend using a safety factor of at least 1.5 for overturning and sliding.
0
0 0
The above design values do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures
C:
X M
M Z
behind the walls and assume that no surcharge slopes or loads will be placed above the.
'0-1
walls. If these conditions exist then those pressures should be added to the above
>
lateral pressures. Also, if sloping backfill is desired behind the walls, theri we will need
to be given the wall dimensions and slope of the backfill in order to provide the
"n
appropriate design earth pressures.
-4
Heavy construction equipment should not be operated behind retaining and
M C
M M
foundation walls within a distance equal to the height of the wall, unless the walls are
designed for the additional lateral pressures resulting from ft equipment Placement
0
0
and compaction of retaining wall backfill should be accomplished With hand -operated
C CO
C (n
equipment
M 0
Z r- -:,
Retaining Wall Backfill
Backfill placed within eighteen (18) inches of any retaining or foundation walls
should be five -draining structural fill containing no organics. This backfill should.00ntain
no more then five (5) percent silt or day particles and have no particles greater then
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 contem if
Me native soils are used as backfill, a drainage composite,- such as Mirall and
Enkadrain, should be placed against the retaining walls. The drainage composites
should be hydraulically connected to the foundation drain system. The purpose of the"
backfill requirements is to assure that the design criteria for the retaining wall is not
exceeded bemuse 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.
Eaglewood Homes, Inc.
July 4,2OD4
Page 6
EXC FATION AND SLOPES:
NOTE. Excavation greater than 3 feet will require temporary shoring. At the time of this
;:;�Zproject developer had not finalized house plans. Experience has shown that
temporary shoring consisting Of eco-blocks will provide suffident stabilization for cuts up
to 10 feet in depth.
in no case should excavation slopes be greate r than the limits specified in local,
onal government safety regulations cuts up to a height of four
state and natit Temporary
(4) feet deep in unsaturated soils may be vertical. For temporary cuts having a Wight
than i four (4) feet, the cut should have an inclination no steeper than 1:1
greater
(Horizontal: Vertical) from the top or the slope to the bottom of the excavation. Under
by the geotechnical engineer, excavation cuts imay be
spectile recommendations
modified for site conditions. All permanent cuts into native soils should be inclined no
steeper thar 12:1 (H:V). Fill slopes should not exceed 2HAV.. It is important to note that
0 C:
--i C !��'
sands do cave s uddenly, and without warning. The contractors should be made aware
M M ,
M Z
of this potential hazard.
C —Z
>
Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any temporary
or permanent slope. All permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an
i ity.of the surficial
appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve stabil
0,
-n
layer of sell.
M M
DRAINAGE CO-N—SIDERATIONS*.
0
0 M
C C)
Footing drains are reco mmended at the base of all footings and retaining wall&
M 0
These drains should be surrounded by at least six ( 6) inches of onewinch-minus washed
rock wrapped in nonAvoven geote x1ile filter fabric (Mirafi MN; Supac 4NP, or similar
material). At ft highest point, the perforated pipe inve rt should be at least as low as
the bottom of the fooling and it should be sloped for drainage.. All roof and surface
water drains must be kept separate from the foundation drain system.
No groundwater was observed in any of the 4 test holes. Seepage into the
planned excavation is possible, and likely if excavat ion occurs during winter months,.
and if encountered should be drained away from the site by use of drainage ditches,
perforated pipe, French drains, or by pumping from sumps interconnected by shallow
connector trenches at the bottom of the excavation.
The excavation of the site should be graded so that surface water is directed off
the site and away from the tops of slopes. Water should not be jilowed.to stand in any
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
Homes, Inc.
july4,2004
Page -7
adjacent to buildings should be sloped at least two (2) Percent away from the building,
except where the area acqacent to the building is paved.
GENERAL vK AND STRUC*n'-a' 0"
The proposed building and pavement areas should be stripped and cleared of all
surface vegetation, all organic matter, and other deleterious material. The stripped Or
materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill.
Z
removed
ROTE- Specific clearing limits to be established at pre-constrUdOn meeting
M
with City of Edmonds building officials.
Structural fill is defined as any fill placed u inder Me building behind permanent
—M
retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the u ndailying,soils needs to
�a
M_
support loads. This engineer should observe site conditions during and after excavation
--46 �1�
OC
prior to placement of any structural fill.
-4: 9
rn
All structural fill should be placed in horizontal liftsWith a moisture content at or
M Z
C—
near the optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content is that moisture
content which results in the greatest compacted dry density. The moi sture content of fill
>Z
4
soils is very important and must be closely controlled during the filling and compaction
0
PrAicess.
-n
The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type, compaction
Mill
co .
equipment, and the number of passes made to compact the I!fL In no cose.should the
r- ,
M"
lifts exceed twelve (12) inches in loose thickness. The following table presents
CF:
.0)
recommended relative compaction for structural fill:
MO
Z
Location of -Fill Placement Minimum Relative
M
Compaction
>
Beneath footings, slabs or walkways
Z
Behind retaining walls 96%
Z
0
Beneath pavements 95% for upper 12 inches of
M
Sub -grade, 90% below that level
Whow. Mininium relative compaction is the ratio, expressed in peroentageS, or
the compacted dry density to the maximum dry density, as determined in
accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1557-78 (Modified Proctor).
1*.*Egglewood Homes, Inc
July4,2004
Page 8
Use of On -Site Soils
If grading activities take place during wet weather, or when the sand1j, an -site
soils are wet site preparation costs may be higher bemuse of delays due to rains and
the oderifial now to import granular fill. The on -site soils are sandv and thus are both
particularly moisture sensitive. Grading operations will be difficult when the moisture
imum moisture content
content of these soils greatly exceeds the opr
0
d
Moisture sensitive soils will also be susceptible to excessive softeniing and
0
pumpIW from construct ion equipment traffic when the moisture content is greater than
:;:R
the optimum moisture content.
OM
Ideallyj structural fill, which is to be placed in wet weather, should consist of a
ca
M 0
granular soll having no mom, than live (5) percent silt or day particles. The percentage
0
of particles passing the No. 200 sieve should be measured from that portion of the soil
passing the three-quarter4rich sieve.
z
The use of *somer on -site soils for fill material May be accit—ftble if thd upper
C
>
I-
X
organic materials are segregated and moisture contents are monitored by engineering
0 n
inspection.
DRAI IMAE CONTROLS:
M M
No drainage problems were evident with the existing residence and property at
0
0
a
722 Daley. As noted, the existing residence has downspouts Idumping! on the surface.
M 0)
M 0
Nevertheless, the sandy sub -grade soils obviously infiltrate storm water runoff propedy.
Z
An open drainage course exists to the east and under Daley Plam.,
;0
It is understood that the future 3 residence developments will comply with City of
Edmonds drainage standards and release storm water flow into the existing Cfty,of
CA
Edmonds storm system.
z
CONCRETE:
0
M
All foundation concrete (footings, stem walls, slabs, any retaining walls, etc.)
shall have a minimum cement content of 6-1/2 sacks per cubic yard of concrete mix
REASONABLE USE M(EMPTION:
Based on the geotechnical investigation in dense sub -grade sands present on
the site, as well as specific experience with similar properties in the immediate area, this
E*Eeglewood Homes, Inc.
July4,2004
Page 9
engineer recommends that the City of Edmonds grant a *reasonable use exemption* to
the geologic huardous development standards.
The property at 722 Daley cornplies with ECDC 20.15B.170 (A).
The proposed 3 residence development will not decrease stability on any
adjawnt property, and the site following I he permitted activity will be stable within
the meaning of chapter 19.05 ECDC, as demonstrated by engineering analysis
meeting requirements of the state building code as adopted by this code, when
inspected by this engineer.
The sub -grade soils qualify as: advance Out Wash.
As pi;eWously stated, final house plans are not.complete. Thi s engineer shall
M
rn
review final house plans for recommendations regarding temporary shoring and
excavations.
-4 C
Any retaining structures shall be reviewed by this geolechnical engineer for
M
C 2
specific recommendations and inspections during construction.
>
-4
None of Me following exist on the steep slope portions of 722 Daley.
0 -n
impermeable soils inter-bedd ed with granular soils, springs or groundwater
seepage, significant visible evidence of groundwater seepage, previous land
M in
sliding, or instability, or existing landslide deposits.
0
The only organics present on the site are the upper 6 inches or forest duff and
0 M
C (n
R cn
M 0
vegetative mots.
z
ion to
Thus, it is geotechnically recommended to grant a reasonable. use exempti
X
-4
steep slope development standards.
z
INSPEC71ONS
0
The recommendations or this report are only valid when key geolechnical
z
nstruction:
aspects are inspected by this on-gineer during co_
0 toil cuts
Temporary Shoring, if required
Foundation sub -grade verification
Retaining wall, or rockery placement
o Any fill placement
e Subsurface drainage installation
o Final erosion control and grading
EAglawood Homes, Inc.
July4,2004
Page 10
MMM—ARY'
The proposed 3 residence development at 722 Daley� Edmonds, Washington is
rdance with the recommendations
geotechnically viable when constructed in acoo
herein, compliance with City of Edmonds approved plans and requirements, and key
geotechnical Inspections by this engineer ggfiM construction.
HNICAL
GEOT—EC _REVIEW OF FINAL PLANS
As stated, trial house plans for the new 3 residences are not completed at the
time of this report M
C
M
atcavations, may require temporary shoring depending on final house plans. 0
80
_Prjor to final permit issuance, this engineer should review final house plans to verify C
compliance with the recommendations of the report. M M
z
C
Upon satisfactory review, a "Statement of Minimal Risk," will be issued. >
r- -4
CLOSURE:
0
mendations of this report were prepared in accordance
The findings and r9oom ITIM
with generally accepted professional engineering principles and practice. No other 0 U5
0
warranty, either expressix! or implied, is made. The conclusions are based on the Om
remits of the field exploration and interpolation of subsurface conditions between C 0)
expl6rW locations. ff conditions are encountered during constivc0on that appear to be M
zo
difftrent than those described in this report, this engineer should be notified to observe
the situation and review and verify or modify the recommendations. M
If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call. z
X.
M
AIL61
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
DMB-jpb Geotechnical I Civil Engineer
WES INC.
Hydrogeotogy - Gcoenvironmental Services - Inspection & Testing
"'N
Mmii r'y 9 2005
HWA roject No. 1005-009-21
PL4 �005
City of Edmonds
Development Services Department
121 5dAvenucNorth
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Attn: Steve Bullock, Senior Planner
Re: GEoncumcAL PEER REvjEw
STEEP SLOPE EXEMPTION — EAGLEWOOD HOMES
3-LO,r DEVELOPMENT - 722 DALEY STREET, EDMONDS, WASIUNGTON
Dear Mr. Bullock:
As requested, HWA GeoSciences Inc. (HWA) has completed a review of a geotechnical report
provided in support of a proposed steep slope exemption application for the property situated at
municipal address 722 Daley Street, in the City ofEdmonds. Because steep slopes are present
on the north and east sides of the property, this review has been undertaken with regard to
compliance with ECDC 20,15B. I 10, Development standards — Geologically hazardous areas.
'Me following document was provided for our review:
Letter report entitled: "Geotechnical Evaluation lFoundation Recommendations,
Reasonable Use Exemption, Eaglewood Homes proposed 3 residence development,
722 Daley, Edmonds"; dated July 04, 2004, prepared by Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
in addition to this document, we have performed a review of relevant in-house soils, geologic
and topographic mapping, aerial photography ofthe site area, and a brief visual reconnaissance
of the property -
BACKGROUND
Based on the information provided, we understand that the property is proposed as a three -lot
development, and that future residential structures may extend onto the north and east slope
areas, portions of which meet the definition of a Steep Slope Hazard Area as indicated in
ECDC 20.15B.060(A)(3)(c). Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. (Bruce) was retained by Eaglewood Homes
to perform a geotechnical evaluation of the site and prepare a geotechnical report to address
teen- stone hazards as outlined in the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC).
Lynnsvo4YT,
'ji
- .� "I vv - r �
February 8, 2005
UWA Project No. 2005-009-21
The geotechnical investigation by Bruce consisted of four power hand auger test holes to depths
of5.5 feet below existing ground. Boring locations are, however, not indicated on any ofthe
plans submitted with the report for review purposes. Nevertheless, all the test holes were
reportedly terminated in dense, relatively clean, fine to coarse sand, lying below 6 inches ofduffi
The r�port concludes that this sand is consistent with Advance Outwash material, which ,
underlies the site according to Bruce's interpretation ofgeol,ogic mapping of the area. Theholes
remained open for reportetl periods of 6 hours and no water, sloughing or caving was observed in
any ofthe holes. The report records that a visual evaluation ofthe slopes revealed no evidence
ofsoil movement of instability and no drainage problems were evident on the property.
In the absence of specific development plans for each of the lots, general conclusions and
recommendations are provided by Bruce for such aspects as foundations, slabs -on -grade,
retaining walls, excavation slopes, drainage considerations, and general earthworks.
Based on the explorations and site reconnaissance, Brace further concludes, as itemized on
Pages 8 and 9 of his July 04, 2004, report, that: "The property at 722 Daley complies with
ECDC 20.15B. 170(A). Accordingly, he "recommends that the City of Edmonds grant a
.reasonable use exemption" to the'geologic hazardous development standards",
OBSERVATIONS AND COMMEM
As part ofour review, a geotechnical engineer from HWA, Mr. Lome Balanko, P.E., visited the
site briefly an February 4, 2005. This visit generally confirmed the findings and site
observations provided in the Bruce geotechnical report. We also generally concur with the
conclusions and recommendations provided by Bruce and consider that the lots may be
developed subject to certain conditions relative to ECDC requirements. Lastlyj we concur that a:
qualified geotechnical engineer should be retained for future development of appropriate designs
for foundations, drainage measures, site grading and stability, and ensure implementation oesuch
designs during construction on site.
Our additional observations and comments are as follows:
I . On Page I ofhis report, Bruce indicates that the subject property consists "ofseveral 30 feet
wide parcels", and references the survey map. However, the copy ofthe survey map'
provided for this review indicates that each parcel is 60 feet Wide. Our understanding from
discussions with the City is that initially the lots in this area were platted as 30 feet wide and
this may be the reason for the apparent discrepancy.
Peer review report (722 Daley Strmt-Rev) 2 HWA GeoScient
Z
3:
0 -n
m M
0
C,
m
M 0
Z
X
Z
Z
m
February 8, 2005
'AWA Project No. 2005-009-21
2. Also on Page I ofhis report, Bruce indicates: "The property contains some slopes in excess
of40 percent." However, based on the topographic information shown on the survey plan, it
- lis our opinion that 3drqIgIly all of the east and north slopes bounding1comprising the site are
.401/6 or greater. These slope sections identified in the report meet the definitions for both
Steep Slope Hazard Areas and Erosion Hazard Areas, as provided in ECDC 20.15B. 060..
3. on Page 2, Bruce indicates that the sub -grade soils are consistent with the deposits indicated
on the geologic map by Minard for the area. Based on our experience in the area and recent
sewer work on Daley Street, we agree that the deposits are typical of Advance Outwasb, but
point out that the mapping is not quite correct in this area, as Minard shows the site area to lie
within a Transitional Beds area. The boundary wi . th the Advance Outwash is shown on the
map to be a bit further east and south and, in our view, needs to be adjusted locally to
encompass the topographic feature on which Us site is located.
4. Reference is made on Page 3 to an Eco-Block Shoring design, included with the report, for
temporary shoring needs, but this was not in the package received for review.
5. There appears to be a typographical error in the last paragraph on Page 3, with reference to
the allowable soil bearing pressure. We presume it is two rather than "three'th6usafid
pounds per square foot.
6. On Page 6, there is some confusion with respect to the requirements for temporary shoring of
excavated slopes. In the first paragraph it is indicated that: "Excavation greater than 3 feet
will require temporary shoring." 116wever� in the next paragraph, . Bruce indicates that:
"Temporary cuts up to a height of four (4) feet deep in unsaturated soils may be vertical."
Which recommendation applies?
7. In the report section Reasonable Use Exemption, Bruce."...recommends that the City of
Edmonds grant a "reasonable use exemption" to the geologic hazardous development
standard..." for this site. He fiirther goes on to indicate that "...the permitted activity will be
stable within the meaning of chapter 19.05 ECDC, as demonstrated by engineering analysis
meeting the requirements of the state building code as adopted by this code, when inspected
by this engineer." Whereas we do not necessarily disagree with this conclusion, we do not
know what "analysis" he is referring to. There were no formal stability analyses attached to
the report and no specific reference to factors of safety with respect to sl . ope failure was
made.
8. We are not clear as to whether a "reasonable use exemption" is required for all of the lots or
not If the requirements for a 50 foot buffer and a 15 foot building setback line (BSBL) were
to be imposed, per ECDC 20.15B. I I O(A), all of Lot 3 and the majority of Lots I and 2 would
Peer review report (722 Daley Stroct-Rev) 3 ITWA GeoSciences Inc.
Z
0
0
C
3: m
M Z
,0-1
o n -n
m M
0
. r,
C
0
M
Z
3:
5
Z
0
0
m
M I
Febntary 8,2005
'JWA Project No. 2005-009-21
be rendered practically undevelopable, However, this section also permits the buffer to be
reduced to 10 feet provided that the geotechnical engineer or geologist provides a report
"...which clearly demonstrates that the proposed buffer alteration will have no adverse
impact upon the site, public or any private party." It is our view that sufficient information
has been provided by Bruce to permit such a buffer reduction, and would allow sufficient
developable area on Lots I and 2, but not on Lot 3. Some exemption on lane setback might
also be required in conjunction with such a buffer adjustment. To allow development on
Lot 3, and/or encroachment into the reduced buffer or steep slope areas on this or the other
in this latter
lots, it appears an exemption per ECDC 20.15B. I 10 D.2 would be required
regard, we believe that it is probable that all of the conditions for exemption are likely to
exist, but we have some concerns that the report prepared by Bruce clearly demonstrates this.
For example, since the test hole locations are not shown, we have no way of confirming that
the conditions outlined in ECDC 20.1513.110 D.2 (1) are satisfied. Accordingly, we suggest
that Mr. Bruce provide a plan indicating the test hole location, and/or demonstrate that the
conditions observed and reported for the test holes applies to the steep slope areas to which
exemption is being requested. This may be accomplished within subsequent phases of
geotechnical engineering evaluation specific to each of the lots and proposed developments
thereon.
Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our review of geotechnical documents
submitted to the City of Edmonds for the proposed short platting at 722 Daley Street, in
Edmonds, was completed in accordance with generally accepted principles and practices in this
area at the time this letter was prepared. We make no other warranty either express or implied.
ti n ormation, please do not
If you have any questions regarding this review, or need addi onal i f
hesitate to contact us.
S Inc.
!:XPUZE3
Lome Balanko, P.E.
Principal'GeDlechnical Engineer
LAB:BEH:Iab
Peer review report (722 Daley Street -Rev) 4
Brian E. Hall, P.E.
Vice President
HWA GcoSciences Inc.
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. Oc:T, 7&, ;ioo r
M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotlechnical /Civil Engineer.
(" (—(� � �1'&f') C(+Eev-
15-5 -a- 05% AE 4-
GiFo-rvegikllte AL- Tc—im-YJ
'S� (i,W,0d#-r0#J
-Moe V,
CITY COPY
STATEMENT,OF MINIMAL RISK -
The plans and specifications for the 7)p
opo&FA
h L.&Y S TP- Wr -have been reviewed by this engineer and conform to the
recommendations of the analysis and report and, provided that those conditions and
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 increase the potential for soil movement, and the risk of damage to
the proposed development and from the development to adjacent properties from soil
instability will be minimal. r- 77,10 P
Su-b'Te'C-r To- &rO-7-Ee
-BY
koe-V-Mlf r P-0\) It b t; J�
RE 153 P I B
1EXPIRES 12W/ Q=cb
NOV 0 12005
BUILDING EpA
CITY orpEDMRTMNT
0,406
SOILS . FOUNDATIONS - SITE DEVELOPMENT - INSPECTION - DRAINAGE - DESIGN & PERMIT LEGAL
P.0, Box 55502 - Shoreline, Washington 98155 - (206) 546-9217 - FAX 546-8442
Z
0
M
0
M
Z
>
0 -n
-n
M M
a
0
0 M
0)
0)
M 0
Z
X
Z
Z
0
M
LANDAU
ASSOCIATES
January 3, 2006
.4-f %-
City of Edmonds
Development Services Department
121-5" Ave. North COPY
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Attn: Steve Bullock
RE: EAGLEWOOD HOMES, INC. PLAN CHECK 05-454
Dear Mr. Bullock:
This letter is in response to the Development Services Department's comments from Gina Coccia
dated November 16, 2005. Ms Coccia added a new comment requesting that Eaglewood Homes submit a
stream classification study to determine the required buffer width of the stream, which is located on the
adjacent property, to meet the requirements of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC)
passed on May 17, 2005. Landau Associates completed a stream classification study on the adjacent
property for Paul and Charlotte Bushue, the previous owners of that property. We concluded that the
stream is a Type F non-anadromous-fishbearing stream per the new ECDC passed on May 17, 2005 (see
the attached letter dated August 2, 2005). Thus, the buffer requirement is 75 ft based upon the new
ECDC.
The plans submitted to the Development Services Department by Eaglewood Homes, dated
September 21, 2005, show a stream buffer of 50 ft and a building setback of 15 ft on the lot proposed for
development by Eaglewood Homes. Eaglewood Homes designed the house on the lot to meet the 50-ft
buffer and the 15-ft setback per the old development code. Eaglewood Homes will not be able to
construct the house without a buffer reduction. In our opinion, there are no viable options for Englewood
Homes to enhance the stream buffer and still maintain the value of the buffer in terms of fish, stream, and
wildlife protection because the stream and the majority of the buffer are on the adjacent property and not
on Eaglewood Homes' property. Per Ms. Coccia's suggestion, Landau Associates, on behalf of
Eaglewood Homes, has been in contact with the adjacent property owner, now Mr. Dennis Walcker, to
see if buffer enhancement and buffer reduction are feasible on his site.
Landau Associates is also working with Mr. Walcker on the parcel east of the Eaglewood Homes
lot at 742 Daley Street. We are designing a buffer enhancement plan per the ECDC for Mr. WaIcker that
will reduce the buffer width by 50 percent while still maintaining the value of the buffer area in terms of
ENVIRONMLWAL I GEOTECHNICAL I NAWMRESOURCES
1302nd AvenueSouth - Edmonc�, WA9M - (4251778�M7 - I= (425) 7784407 - �3WMUIM.COM
SEATTLE - SPOKANE - TACOMA - PORILAND
z
0
S
0 in
C
in
0
80
C
3: M
z
z
0 -T1
M
in in
V
0
in 0
z
74
;a
z
-4
x
z
in
fish, stream, and wildlife protection. This enhancement will include a variety of plantings in the stream
buffer to increase and improve fish, stream, and wildlife habitat over existing conditions. When
completed, the enhanced buffer will be reduced to approximately 35 ft, removing the buffer boundary
from the Eaglewood Homes site at 730 Daley Street. However, the Eaglewood Homes development is
scheduled for construction as soon as approvals from the City can be obtained. Craig Reimer of
Eaglewood Homes needs a plan approval from the Devehoment Services Department as soon as possible
to avoid additional carrying charges and interest payments on the Eaglewood Home site. Eaglewood,
Homes cannot afford to wait for design review and approval on the Walcker property. Therefore,
Eaglewood Homes agrees to participate in the buffer enhancement plan on the Walcker property when
that plan is approved and implemented. We believe that this is an innovative approach that will enhance
the stream buffer and protect fish, stream, and wildlife habitat as required by the ECDC; it will also allow
the City to approve Eaglewood Homes' development plans immediately.
Landau Associates has determined that approximately 16 percent of the total square footage of
the 75-ft buffer on both sites is on the Eaglewood Homes site. Given that Mr. Walcker is paying for the
design and implementation of the buffer enhancement, Eaglewood Homes agrees to supply up to
26 percent of the plant material (not to exceed $1,000) for the buffer enhancement on Mr. Walcker's
property when the buffer reduction plan is approved and implemented. Mr. Walcker will be responsible
for planting. The additional 10 percent in plant material (above the 16 percent) will help deftay Mr.
Walcker's buffer design and implementation costs. If Mr. Walcker's buffer enhancement plans are not
implemented, Eaglewood Homes further agrees to plant $1,000 worth of plants in accordance with an
approved buffer enhancement plan. Eaglewood Homes' willingness to supply up to 26 percent of the
plant material is based upon the assumption that this agreement will meet the City of Edmonds' concerns
expressed in the new comment by Gina Coccia on November 16, 2005, and that the City of Edmonds will
approve Eaglewood Homes' development plans upon receipt of this letter.
2
LANDAU ASSOMATES
z
0
m
0
C M
m
X
0 C:
M
M Z
z
0
n
m m
0 F-
ca,
M 0
z
z
z
m
Jan 04 06 0�22a Caravel Resod
5096823551
p.2
01MM 1�7(4 FAW005
You bow &my questiow please rcol fito to �Ojktwt S= C,,MM or Shal"lon
Mucre pt Lumfju
AsSOIAMS fit (4*—);) 778-0907,
LANDAU ALSSOMAM, DC
Safflad It catuo
Sbaimen E. Mocre
Project 13�1'=Motal Scicati.t
SRr-SL%cjr
AIJTR0=ATloN
The City, of Mumuis, Mr, Dclinis Wobimr, aW EsSleymod Homw IMF" with
the recomimdatiou
prevented itt jWo ktM
A/m
I
waicker
Due
CityotEdvwndg:'
Glina Coc�uoi
ot 1015 o Lo
prialed W��
Date
*Name dpamn wAl cml�cwhl audwrity,
9=d ROM"
Ct" 0 01-414
"MIN
3
LANuu Assocwto
z
n
M
c
M
X M
M Z
c
0 "n
"n
M M
'ik
CIO—)
0
o Fn
M 0
z
74
"I'l,".
X
X
z
-4
x
z
"Y
96se 944 SEV
S3WOH aDCM3nDUa
WJ ST:20 90OZ-20-HUr
0
Jan 18 06 03:1SP D. Bruce, P.E. 206-546-8442 P.1
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical/GIVII tngineer
KU14f
S7
7-0 ST
i
/ ?'W ca"V-45.� �
L------------------
z
'T �C %A
Tm
0": st, 411 pt-e -rf aur
-Tips aQjherS bAtLY
m
80
C
'j k povN�,A NASErz,
&kWe, pyeAvA-rtt) Q. Elirsisr
m
z
q
L
AL�- -c�-rARL-16- 5:01 -8MV6J6
SOIL ?"tittatic.
1>
-n
� I
0 pkoe
r:;F. Al?WUu"
I
mm
Ak\jlss'&
0
a4l�
0
C
'/S -rf_-0e--r. RgFr,
M C-)
z
AT KL E - V�-UeA'HLE%
A
WALL
70
r-
;0
tor
M.
--i
z
--i
3:
z
L
L
0
m
EMRES j=-*w-1
SOILS - FOUNDATIONS SITEOEvELopmENr - INSPECTION - DRAINAGE DESIGN PERMIT LEGAL
P.O. B.. 55502 Shoreline, WA 98155 (206) 546-9217 FAX (206) 546-8442
Height Calculation Worksheet
Date
Pen
Address —7 3
Inspector_
z
Average Grade 10 P 1(,,
Max Height (25'4-Avc.)I��
I -n
Vi
Actual -Icight (A+B+Q
V M
C:
M 0
0
M MT
C:
1, z
0
MM,
0
=(C 36
0
Fn
;a
z
0
M
Elevation of transit above Datum (B)
Datum Rn Elevation(A) 3
1/temp/buil(litig/forins/liciglit workshect
777
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical /Civil Engineer
June 6, 2006
/City of Edmonds
c/o Eaglewood Homes
18607 Olympic View Dr.
z
Edmonds, WA 98020
0
Subject: Final Reports — Geotechnical Inspections
Eaglewood Homes — 2 new s.f.r.
726, 730 Daley St.
:ME
c:
City of Edmonds Plan Check #s 04-627, 05-464
m 0
0
80
This engineer rep ort presents final results of geotechnical inspections for
C:
m m
z
the above two residences.
0--1
c:
REFERENCES:
2;
City of Edmonds approved project plans
0-.
Geotechnical and inspection reports by D. Bruce, P.E.
mm
Photographs
0-
00)
INSPECTIONS:
0 F;
C co
C Cn
a 726 Dale St. #04-6�27):,
MO
Z
This engineer has provided geotechnicall inspections for 726 Daley St. in
M
accord ance with City of Edmonds permit requirements. Previous inspection
>
z
report (February 21, 2006) completed all geotechnical inspection items except
-1
X
for permanent erosion control.
Cn
Follow up geotechnical inspections have verified that the permanent
z
erosion control measures (landscaping, final grading, duty bark, shrubbery
m
placement, etc.) have been successfully installed. There are no exposed earth
surfaces on the slopes at 726 Daley St. The entire site is ggpk with regard to
erosion control measures.
R E C E I V E E)
JUN 13
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR
CITY OF EDMONDs
SOILS FOUNDATIONS SITE DEVELOPMENT INSPECTION DRAINAGE DESIGN& PERMIT - LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502 Shoreline, WA 98155 (206) 546-9217 FAX (206) 546-8442
M
City of Edmonds
cto Eaglewood Homes
June 6, 2006
Page 2 of 3
730 Daley St. (#06464)*
This engineer has completed geotechnical inspections for 730 Daley St.
(except for permanent erosion control measures).
Soil Cuts: As previously reported, all soil cuts encountered dense native
sands that were extremely stable, All excavation and soil cuts performed
Z
well with no sloughing, caving, or erosional degradation throughout the
9
0
project. As of this report, all soil cuts have been properly backfilled.
M
Temporary Shoring: Not required due to excellent soil cut stability.
:q:9
Vi
Foundation Sub::grad : Previously verified to meet a minimum of 2,000
a M
C
M
p.s.f. bearing capacity. Contractor successfully placed foundation
0
80
formwork, reinforcing steel, and conc rate placement in accordance with
C
City of Edmonds approved plans and onsite geotechnical
M M
Z
recommendations.
01
c:
Rookeries: As previously reported, this engineer inspected and verified
V3
proper rookery construction: base -rock embedment, rock size, rock
0 -n
linkage, drainage zone, set back distance between rookery tiers, batter,
-n
_4
and overall "blending in" with the existing slope contours. All rockeries are
3:9
M M
approved as constructed.
0 FA
0,
Fill Placeme : No imported fill was required due to the excellent native
0
c:
9 Cn
sand. A small quantity of crushed rock was utilized as a sub -grade
M 0
Z
improvement for the driveway and garage slab areas.
* Subsurface Drainage: All verified and approved.
0 Erosion Control Contractor has successfully maintained temporary
Z
erosion control measures throughout the project: rocked construction
entrance, sturdy and well maintained siltation fencing, and diligent clean
Z
Op.
0
M
Note: Permanent Erosion Control measures have yet to be installed.
When notified by the contractor, this engineer will perform a final
inspection and issue a report regarding permanent erosion control
stability, at that time,
City of Edmonds
c/o Eaglewood Homes
June 6, 2006
Page 3 of 3
SUMMA
All geotechnical inspection items includding permanent erosion control z
measures have been properly co—m—pTef-ed for 726 Daley St. Inspections 0
completed. 0
IT
All geotechnical inspection items excgpt for permanent erosion control
measures have been completed 30 na ey St.
M
M
C:
0
0
C
If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call. C
M M
M
M. z
0 n
n
0
AU 0
C:
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. go
Geotechnical Civil Engineer rn 0
c.c, Eaglewood Homes
-4
18607 Olympic View Dr. 3:
Edmonds, WA 98020
J
B:jpb
DM
z
of occuyancy
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS
ATIONAL RESI
PERINTERN DENTIAL CODE SECTION R110
AT: 730 Daley St Building Permit #: 2006-0015
Occupancy established by this certificate: R3 Dwelling Units:,
No. Stories: 2 Basement: N/A Type of Construction: VB
iewo dH
tau �!! : ,
, -;� 0
Owner of building: d
The Single Family Residence at 730 Daley hai-,b-oi4klj�4p�ictdd�and,eipproved complying with the requirements of the
2003 edition of the International Residential Code as ado binoup and division of occupancy and the use for which
gted !by ttfe','C1tY,1f6r7tWW
the proposed occupancy Is classified.
Issued this I 81h day of Octo 2006
Chief Building Official
By:_
Any change of occupancy or use requires a building permit and a new Certificate ofoccupancy Issued by the City of Edmonds Building Official.
".11110
0.4 Permit Inspection Details
Permit: BLD20060015
1077:- E-En'gintiering Final
Complete?
081 1 24/20 1 06 1 JH 30 Engineering final granted on 8123106 by JH
Y
Total Time: 30
1106- B-Setbacks
complete? Tr
OV2012006 MS 20 SETBACKS APPROVED PER STRUNG PROPERTY LINES.
Y
Total Time: 20
11106- B-Footings
Complete? :y
01/201 1 2 . 006 1 MS 20 FOOTINGS APPROVED
Y
Total Tim.: 20
1110 A.FoundatihMall
�yomp 11 "1 � - :1 .1 . ,
O�ClWiOG'6 MS �2� FOUNDATION APPROVED
Y
Total Time: 20
i1mm,B-Slabinsulatio, 1
'
d, late
am
C
02MTii666 MS 20 SLAB INSULATION APPROVED
Y
M a
Total Time: 20
0
0
1,1126i,-�B.30hirnb.Ground Mirk
Y,
�.Y
C:
2/ 712006 MS 20 APPROVED
X
m IT
z
Total Time: 20
11122_;w',13.01rst�FloorFriuning
y
C:
04/26/ . 20 1 06 MS 25 SUBFL 6 Oh"A�PPROVED
C:
Total Time; 25
112d,4-PIumiiRou6Ihhn.-�' ,
1
'
0 y
y
0 -n
0 4106/2 006 MS 20 APPR'0V ED
-4
3:
Total Time: 20
Im m
_B� i 11 t :,� : , �e `:� 1.
t/P pw�
It28, Gas Te,s I I � - I , - 11 - I , -1
, , RTO! te
-1-, .1 -, � 1111 a 1 5 .1
0
Nil 1/2006 MS 20 GAS TEST AND GAS PIPING APPROVED
Y
0
Total Time: 20
_,_Ih
�Exterlot.Sh In
1 i32 �'Ei'
41
o pie 0
M 0
r
04106/�006 MS 25 APPROVED
Y
Total Time: 25
X
C orn
1130 � 6 -Shear
0 , 4/2612006 MS 25 SHEAR APPROVED
Ay
Y
z
Total Time: 25
-4
Y, .
1140 � B�Helght Verifi�jtlon
04126/2006 MS 30 HEIGHT APPROVED
Y
z
Total Time: 30
1142 - 9-Framing
omp a it?. -Y
0
04/2612006 MS 35 AP PROVED
Y
Total Time: 35
1144 - B-Wall Insulation/Caulk
con" ple,te?,� y
0510112006 MS 20 APPROVED
y
Total Time: 20
1146 - B-Floor Insulation/Caulk
fit y:
co plate
05/01/2006 MS 20 APPROVED
Y
Total Time: 20
1148 - B-Celling insulation/Caulk
c late? 'Y
08/29/2006 MS 20 APPROVED
Y
5/2912009 9:53:02 AM
Page I of 2
Total Time; 20
Q
05108/2006 JR 20 APPROVED
Total Time: 20
08/2912006 MS 20 FINALAPPROVED
Total Time: 20
10/1 8120(� 30 PLANNING SIGNS OFF:)
y
Total Time: 30
Total Inspections: 19
Total Time: 440
z
0
0
M
C
80
ITI
Mz
M
C:
O'n
-n
M ITI
0
z 10
Z
X
z
M
5/29/2009 9�53:02 AM
Page 2 of 2
RECORD OF INSPECTIONS
INSPECTOR
DATE APPROVED
0-16 Pla
SETBACKS ..................... . .....
FOUNDATION:
Footing ................
La
Wall ........... ..........
Pier/Porch .................
Retaining Wall ...........
Slab Insulation ..........
PLUMBING:
S
-7
Underground
M
Rough -in ...................
0
Commercial Final
C:
-4
HEATING:
4-t I
M
M z
C-
Gas Test ..........
z
Gas Piping .................
4--11
Equipment
n
Commercial Final
M T
E ERIOR SHEATHING
XT vle �%
NAILING ..........................
FRAMING ........................
V)
M 0
Z r-
FIRST FLOOR FRAMING
INSULATION ...................
Floor Insulation
z
Wall Insulation
Ceiling Insulation
SHEETROCK NAILING
SPECIAL INSPECTION
0
M
MISCELLANEOUS ..........
FINAL APPROVAL FOR
P,
OCCUPANCY ..................
SWS~#
AMODUM0
waamdashe 6111k
AMO=ItNd�R=100�
006
DaftPaMhMd
Z 00 G — 00 C) 14
ROW#
1-7
DWelMed