20060019.pdfDATE RECEIVED
CITY OF EDMONDS
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION
OWNER NAME—E OF BUSINESS
MAILINGAODRESS
rint 2o"I') <s1-- *I*CZ-
CITY ZIF TELEPHONE
�VWI qtC& -4-9-(,C,,- 2-2-1
0t0Ae'�--CQM)C-nC(\j 1K)
ADDRESS
jxA
ZIP TEL _7_7 fj
1:1 ADDITION
REMODEL
REPAIR
DEMOLISH
beARAGE
No Be,
OF
STORIES
PERMIT EXPIRES
PERMIT
N UMBER 0�) I q
'28
ADDRESS
, 1UIT1IAPT1
2 -��
Ft)-�� DIV7
LOT NO
LID
�6
PUBLIC RIGHT 05 WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET UAP
Cl
11. P-1.1 F-1. Cl
- 13
EXISTING PROPOSED
REQUIRED DEDICATION
FT
U=1 13
13
NIETER SIZE LINE SIZE
NO RES
PRV REQUIRED
I
t&IXT
I 0
YEsO No E3
REMARKS
OWNERICONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROL, RAINAGE
777-U
fl-
th
H-snit2ud /?--/- 0-5
5Z(01YEUEF
0 - Z7j i
?IRZ REV15WEO By
DATE
EXPIRATION ATE
VARIANCE ON
EKDRELINEORADS# 1 INSPECTt N SBPA
r>--s
j(WO1Y
REGD
13 YES 0 NO
LCIFLETF. nz,
CAF a
ZON E SIGN -,
1R.cL No
-
AIVER 0
W A" -Ir
ALL so
XUL-P---FF-
STUDY 0 f ;1
7,43 1 124.08
NEIH
LOT COVERAGE
[REGO
REQUIREDSIDEACRS(FT `
=SED SETBACKS JFT)�
COMMERCIAL
COMPLIANCE OR
ALLOWED PROP' ED
FRONT S EAR
I
MIXED USE
CHANGE OF USE
El MULTIFAMILY
SIGN
PARKING
PROVIDED
LOTAREA
11 1
PLANNING REVIEWED BY DATE
124
CYDB
FENCE X FT,)
,Z �Z-
I
zsoo
VAV"Ilh 2;
TANK
Oh7EN
jW'a a PA
C-rV &II M ff& Of ta , 5V
RETAINING WALL
ROOKERY
F RE SPRINKLER
FIRE ALARM
a;h-D 61�
&,Lb-tul- lib Z
-111 V
TYPE OF CINECTION
(C
10 CUPANT
GROUP
NUMBER Or
DWELLING
ON Ts I
SPECIAL INXT,11N
REQUIRE. Y
I
id
R MARKS
-1
E.
BY
M
r�to
VALUATION
Description
FEE
Description
FEE
Plan Check
N5
State Surcharge
1,56)
VISITED DATE
Building Permit
City Surcharge
PLAN CHECK NO:
Plumbing
Base Fee
THIS PERMIT A THORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED, THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO
Mechanical
BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY� ANY CONSTRUCT ON ON THE PUBIC
DONMAIN (CURSS, SIDEWALKS. DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES. ETC.) WILL REQUIRE
Grading
SEPARATE PERMISSIOM
F�IvUul
Z16
PERMIT APPLICATION: SEE ECDC 19.00.0051A)(5)
Engr Inspection
PERMIT LIMIT-. SEE ECDC 10,00.005(A)(61
SEE BACK or PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFOR ATION
'APPLICANT, ON BEHAL OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE. HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS
Fire REVIEW
Plan Chk. Deposit
N IN EREST. AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEF NO AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF
I T
EOMO DS, WASHINGTON� ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES� AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND
2 N
ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
Fire Inspection
Receipt #
FII M THE ISSUANCE OF HIS PERMIT I ... ANCE OF THIS ee— I I-- No. ..
DEEMED TO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE
Landscapeinsp.
Total Amt. Due
NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CFFY�S ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.-
Recording Fee
Receipt # -2:�cm
I HERE Y ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION; THAT THE INFORMATION
APPLICATION APPROVAL
GIVENISCORRECT, NO THAT I AM THE OWNER. OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF
Tlb� Fpl-bob I, - I u1b) 11911d by th,
THE OWNER. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC.
CALL
OIt.IX 11 h1whL, o1puy I'd F ... ... da'd. "d
TION; A THIWOR AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED
IN VOL HE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO
FOR INSPECTION .—b.� Ip— P—drd
W.RNM HSEEiZE,
/ 1�1 ALS EI.A.RE DATE
SIG R WN OR y, f E SIG
(425)
771-0220
1bATV
ION
EXT. 1333
.ATT
W,ULTOUSEOROCCUPYA BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL
S U�
T�
A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTI
DW` - INkPEC`(OR
FICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC109 I IBCI10 I IRC110.
PINK -OVINER GOLD - ASSESSOR
1.1" PRESS HARD - YOU ARE MAKING
4 COPIES
III
z
9
0
R1
-4 96
C ITI
M 0
-q 0
00
C
--i K
X M
M
z
CIO
o -n
n
MT
0
0 CO
0 M
C 0
9 (n i
M 0
Z
z
z
9
0
ITI
OD 05 -70
RECENED
M2005
Dennis M. Bruce, RE. 7NO2
M.S.C.E., M.B.A,
�eottai��eei
EECE
August 11, 2004
City of Edmonds
cto Michel Construction Inc. CITY C C112 1
7907 212'h St. SW #102
z
Edmonds, WA 98026 EEF 1
CE
9
Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation I Foundation Recommendations
Pr osed 9 Lot Single Family Residence Development
2FAve.
92 W and 234th ST. SW Edmonds, Washington
C m
M 0
0
This engineering report presents the results of a geotechnical evaluation of the
80
C
nd
Michel Construction property at the northwest corner of 92 Ave. W and 234h St� SW,
--i K
= M
Edmonds, Washington. This evaluation was required due to owner concerns regarding
Z'
geotechnical conditions, as well as City of Edmonds requirements.
0M
c: 2
REFERENCES:
RECEIVED
* Vicinity Map and topographic survey by LSA
OCT 2 B 2005
0 n
- Grading plans by Donna Breske, P.E.
mm
- Site photographs PERMIT COUNTER
0
0
BACKGROUND:
Cm
C co)
MO
The overall property at the northwest corner of 92nd Ave. W / 2341h St. SW is
Z
rectangular in shape (approximately 253 feet along 92"c' Ave W, and 334 feet along
23 SW). See site survey map.
0 St.
>
The majority of the overall property has not been developed and contains mature
z
3:
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.
0
The overall site contains portions of slopes greater than 15% (less than 50%).
0
m
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 rIONS - SME DEVEZORMENT - INSPECrION - DRAINAGE - DESIGN & PERA41T LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502 Shoreline, WA 98155 (206) 546-9217 FAX (206) 546-8442
City of Edmonds
c/o Michel Const. Inc.
August 11, 2004
Page 2
Evidence of historic fil I and associated debris is obvious adjacent 234 1h St. SW.
See photographs.
It is understood that Michel Construction proposes to develop the property for a
total of 9 individual lots with 9 single family residences. A new entrance cul-de-sac road
will also be required. See site plan and grading plan. It is understood that the existing
residence will be removed.
EVALUATION:
In order to augment site geotechnical information, a series of 6 soil test pits were
dug on June 7, 2004. See test pit location log.
2 Test Pits (TP-1, TP-2) were dug on the slope adjacent 234ih St. SW. Both test
pits revealed similar sub -grade conditions, namely:
0" to 8" Organics, roots, forest duff.
8" to approx. 7.5' FILL: historic fill material consisting of
sandy loam, occasional gravel, detids,
and gravels. This engineer observes
that this fill material was most likely
placed in conjunction with road grading
activities for 234h St. SW,
7.5' to 10' (bottom of pits) Very dense native sands.
No water was encountered in Test Pits No. I or No. 2. Test pit walls remained
vertical (with some sloughing of the upper fill materials) and stable.
Test Pits Number 3 throuah 6:
Test pits number 3,4,5,6 were in the central portion of the property where no fill
placement had occurred.
It is distinctly possible that the central portion of the site had been partially
excavated or "scraped down a few feet'.
Test pit 3.4.5.6:
0" to 6" Organics roots, forest duff.
6" to 8' (bottom (if 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.
z
M
C M
M
0
80
C
M
M z
0-1
0
n
M m
0
0
0
C Cn
Q 0
Z
z
U)
z
9
0
M
City of Edmonds
clo Michel Const. Inc.
August 11, 2004
Page 3
Note: A geotechnical re -inspection on August 10, 2004, verified the dense stable
nature of the underlying native soils. See photographs.
CONCLUSIONS I RECOMMENDATIONS:
Based on the findings of this engineer's investigation as well as experience in the
area with similar projects, the Michel Construction site at the NW comer of 92nd Ave. W
Z
234 th St. SW is geotechnically approved for the proposed new 9 lot development and
9
associated access road, subject to the following:
0
Geotechnical compliance with grading plan by D. Breske, P.E. The grading plan
indicates removal of the historic fill material adjacent 230 St. SW and slope
5i
0
stabilization with rockeries.
o The grading plan also indicates fill material properly placed in the low
C: M
0
-40
central portion of the property with compliance to structural fill placement
0 C
regulations.
-4 K
M
Z
The individual new residences may be founded on standard reinforced
,0-4
C -
continuous and spread footings with allowable bearing pressure 2,000 p.s.f.
-4
- Equivalent fluid pressure of 35 p.c.f. is recommended for any retaining wall
0 -n
-n LU
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 M
C CO
9 Cl)
Geotechnical inspections by this engineer prior to any foundation concrete
M 0
placement.
The proposed structures can be supported on conventional continuous and
spread footings bearing on undisturbed native soils or on structural fill placed above
-4
native soils. See the later sub -section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill for
2:
structural fill placement and compaction recommendations. Continuous and individual
Z
spread footings should have minimum widths of eighteen (18) and twenty-four (24)
0
inches, respectively, and should be bottomed at least eighteen (18) inches below the
0
M
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
inch, with differential settlements on the order of one -quarter inch.
z
Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between
0
F!
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 foundat ions
must either be poured directly against undisturbed soil or the backfill placed around the
outside of the foundation must be level structural fill. We recommend the following
0 M
design values be used for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading:
M 0
80
Parameter Design Val
X M
M Z
Coefficient of Friction 0.55
jo
C —Z
Passive Earth Pressure 350 p.c.f.
Where:
-n
-n
0
(1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot.
(2) Passive earth pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid density.
M M
0
0 CO
We recommend that a safety factor of at least 1.5 be used for design of the
0
C m
CO
C (n
M 0
foundation's resistance to lateral loading.
SLABS -ON -GRADE:
Slab -on -grade floors may be supported on undisturbed, competent native soils or
z
on structural fill. The slabs may be supported on the existing soils provided these soils
can be re -compacted prior to placement of the free -draining sand or gravel underneath
z
the slab. This sand and gravel layer should be a minimum of four (4) inches thick. . We
9
also recommend using a vapor barrier such as 6-mil. plastic membrane beneath the
6
slab with minimum overlaps of 12 inches for sealing purposes.
M
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 I in height,
which restrain level backfill:
City of Edmonds
c/o Michel Const. Inc.
August 11, 2004
Page 5
Param Design 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:
(1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot
(2) Active and passive earth pressures are computed using equivalent fluid
densities.
For restrained walls which cannot defect at least 0.002 times the wall
height, a uniform lateral pressure of one hundred (100 p. s.f. should be
added to the active equivalent fluid pressure).
The values given above are to be used for design of permanent foundation and
the
retaining walls only. An appropriate safety factor should be applied when designing
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 any hydrostatic pressures
behind the walls and assume that no surcharge slopes or loads will be placed above the
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, then we will need
to be given the wall dimensions and slope of the backfill in order to provide the
appropriate design earth pressures.
Heavy construction equipment should not be operated behind retaining and
foundation walls within a distance equal to the height of the wall, unless the walls are
designed for the additional lateral pressures resulting from the equipment. Placement
and compaction of retaining wall backfill should be accomplished with hand -operated
equipment.
Retaining Wall Backfill
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 Miraff and
Enkadrain, should be placed against the retaining walls. The drainage composites
should be hydraulically connected to the foundation drain system.
z
M
M
M a
0
0 0
C
M
C
O"n
n
M M
a
OU)
0 r,
C M
cn
9 co,
M 0
z
z
9
0
M
City of Edmonds
c/o Michel Const. Inc.
August 11, 2004
Page 6
The purpose of these backfill requirements is to assure that the design criteria for
the retaining wall is not exceeded because of a build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind
the wall. The subsection entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill contains
recommendations regarding placement and compaction of structural fill behind retaining
and foundation walls.
EXCAVATION AND SLOPES:
Z
As stated, historic fill material had been placed adjacent 23e St. SW.
This engineer recommends removal of approximately 6 to 8 feet of historic fill
"A
material in order to restore the pre -filled condition. This engineer has reviewed the
35 --1
X
grading plan by D. Breske, P.E., dated August 11, 2004 and concurs with the proposed
0 M
C
grading activities, suboect to onsite inspections by this engineer.
M
0
In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local,
0 0
C
M
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
M Z
c:
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 the excavation. Under
specific recommendations by the geotechnical engineer, excavation cuts may be
inclined
0
LO
modified for site conditions. All permanent cuts into native soils should be no
steeper than 2:1 (H:V). Fill slopes should not exceed 2H: IV. it is important to note that
M M
sands do cave suddenly, and without warning. The contractors should be made aware
g
0
of this potential hazard.
0 M
C (n
Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any temporary
r (n
Q 0
Z
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
X
layer of soil.
>
Z
DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS:
Footing drains are recommended at the base of all footings and retaining walls.
Z
These drains should be surrounded by at least six (6) inches of one -inch -minus washed
0
rock wrapped in non -woven geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac. 4NP, or similar
M
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
clo Michel Const. Inc.
August 11, 2004
Page 7
No groundwater was observed in any of the 6 soil test pits. Seepage into the
planned excavation is possible, and likely if excavation occurs during winter months,
and if encountered should be drained away from the site by use of drainage ditches,
perforated pipe, French drains, or by pumping from sumps interconnected by shallow
connector trenches at the bottom of the excavation.
The excavation of the site should be graded so that surface water is directed off
Z
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
F!
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,
except where the area adjacent to the building is paved.
65-1
a = I
C M
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL-
M 0
0
0 jr, .
This project (9 single family residences and new access road) will require
C
rri
significant grading activities. See grading plan dated August 11, 2004 by D. Breske,
0-1
P. E.
>
All fill material shall comply with the recommendations of the this report and
0
onsite inspections by this engineer.
Structural fill is defined as any fill placed under the building, behind permanent
M M
O-C
retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the underlying soils needs to
0
0
support loads. This engineer should observe site conditions during and after excavation
c:
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
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.
Z
The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type, compaction
9
equipment, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. In no case should the
0
M
lifts exceed twelve (12) inches in loose thickness. The following table presents
recommended relative compaction for structural fill:
I
City of Edmonds
cto Michel Const. Inc.
August 11, 2004
Page 8
Location of Fill Placeme 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-1557-78 (Modified Proctor).
65
Use of On -Site Soils
C:
M
0
80
C
If grading activities take place during wet weather, or when the sandy, on -site
--i K
X M
soils are very wet, site preparation costs may be higher because of delays due to rains
M Z
0
and the potential need to import granular fill. The on -site soils are generally sandy and
C: 2
thus are not particularly moisture sensitive. Grading operations w ill be difficult when the
>
moisture content of these soils greatly exceeds the optimum moisture content.
Moisture sensitive soils will also be susceptible to excessive softening and
0
n
"pumping" from construction equipment traffic when the moisture content is greater than
M M
the optimum moisture content.
065
0
Ideally, structural fill, which is to be placed in wet weather, should consist of a
0 M
C
k
granular soil having no more than five (5) percent silt or clay particles. The percentage
Q 0
Z
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 maybe acceptabl iftheupper
z
organic materials are segregated and moisture contents are monitored by engineering
inspection.
z
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 enRineer. It is assumed that this outfall pipe releases drainage from the
catch basins in 234i St. SW.
The sub -grade sandy soils will allow for onsite infiltration if desired by project
developer.
City of Edmonds
cto Michel Const. Inc.
August 11, 2004
Page 9
Compliance with City of Edmonds drainage controls are geotechnicallY
acceptable.
_CONCRETE:
All foundation concrete (footings, stem walls, slabs, any retaining walls, etc.)
Z
shall have a minimum cement content of 5-1/2 sacks per cubic yard of concrete mix.
ROCKERIES:
0
r9
This project requires extensive grading activities, both cutting and filling. See
-4
grading plan.
c: M
In order to provide erosional stabilizatio n, rockeries are required along 234 th St.
M
0
80
SW and "wrapping around" the west property line. Additionally, interior rockeries are
M
proposed for individual lot grading purposes.
M Z
0
Geotechnical inspections of the project rockeries are required.
c:
Inspections shall verify the following:
0 -n
n
* Dense dub -grade sails
0 Base rock embedment
M M
o Rock linkage and size
D_
0 Cn
r-
* Rock face batter
0
C M
W
�11
& Drainage zone
90)
M 0
Z
INSPECTION
The recommendations of this report are only valid when key geotechnical
-4
aspects are inspected by this engineer during cons
Z
0 Soil cuts
V5
Z
o Fill removal and grading activities
0 Foundation sub -grade verification
M
* Retaining wall, or rockery placement
* Fill placement
0 Subsurface drainage installation
& Final erosion control and grading
City of Edmonds
clo Michel Const. Inc.
August 11, 2004
Page 10
SUMMA
The proposed 9 lot development at the NW corner of 92 Id Ave. W and 2341h St.
Edmonds, Washington is geotechnically viable when constructed in accordance with
the recommendations herein, compliance with City of Edmonds approved plans and
requirements, and key geotechnical inspection qq[bg construction.
z
GEOTECHNICAL 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
M
C
to individual house construction.
M 0
As discussed in this report, dense native sub -grade soils capable of providing
80
C
excellent bearing capacity for foundations are present on the site.
M M
z
Overall property development will include significant grading activities (as
jo
discussed herein).
After overall property development, individual houses may be constructed after
0 -n
n
review and approval by this enginee
M M
No significant foundation problems were anticipated for the future residences
065
0
0
providing overall property grading activities are inspected.
C
C co
CLOSURE.
Q �O
z
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
--i
3:
results of the field exploration and interpolation of subsurface conditions between
Vj
explored locations. If conditions are encountered during construction that appear to be
z
different than those described in this report, this engineer should be notified to observe
9
the situation and review and verify or modify the recommendations.
0
M
If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call.
M.
WA
Of
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
z Geotechnical / Civil Engineer
DMB:jpb 0
Dennis M. Bruce, 'P.E.
'0
M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical /Civil Engineer
S
V- P
neL srr-C
G)
0
Z
0
q �Ld) -X2)4 8 U. Roo' -
0
R1
STATEMENT OF MINIMAL RISK.
CM
M 0
--10
The plans and specifications for the s 4*Bc\J5
OC
PL1-4 bATES,have been reviewed by this engineer and conform to the
recommendations of the analysis and report and, provided that those conditions and
ni IM
C
recommendations are satisfied during the construction and use, and inspected and
.0
verified by this engineer, the area disturbed by construction mIll be stabilized and remain i
:� 8
stable and will not increase the potential for soil movement, and the risk of damage to 1
to from soil
0 -n 1
-n
the proposed development and from the development adjacent properties
E�
instab ility will be minimal.
MIT!
V5
0 r
OM
TO V,
ko r— e
C: ch
9 CA
M 0
Z
Wgt-v C-T(Orj
>
Z
I OF WA
Z
0
17405
M
OALL� DEC 14 2005
IUMES 1
allILDINCI OEPARTMENT
C1'Ty OF EDMONDS
. . . . . . I DEVELOPMENT INSPECTION - DRAIAAGE DESIGN a PERMIT - LEGAL
S
horallne, Washington 98155 - (206) 546-9217 - FAX 546-8442
DEC 2 0 2005
CITY Copy.
CE
uennis m. tsruce, PLOO6
M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical /Civil Engineer
0 &J
-c-r
2
c- F- 000
A)EUJ
L6-r +4
t L A L 1-
t r- Is t' sewss
-kV ST6 -
�1003 L I L -r AJ
��JucftJ4, (5-rltAuJ
' f M.
SUM t�A AP-�e
Ili's pec-Ttoe') -f 0406
9.,4ut- e&0tAPLE--r(0#j
,c>r-
*j -In tk) eo'
SOILS - FOUNDATIONS SITE DEVELOPMENT - INSPECTION - DRAINAGE DESIGN&PERMIT
P.0, Box 55502 - Shoreline, WA 98155 - (206) 546-9217 - FAX (206) 546-8w
(J
z
0
!T1 x
c m
m 0
0
80
a
M
M z
ID
RI
0
n
m T
0
0
0 M
C co
9 (1)
M 0
Z
;a
--A
z
-4
3:
0
z
m
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical/Civil Engineer
January 2, 2007
City of Edmonds D.S.D. J41V 0 8
c/o Michel Construction, Inc. 1900/Afa
7907 212'h St. SW, # 102 cir? 0,�D P48 r
Edmonds, WA 98026
Subject: FINAL Report — Geotechnical Inspections — Lot Nos. 4, 5 and 6
9208,9209,9207 234-'Fi.vv, Edmonds, Washington —
Michel Construction, Inc. Project
City of Edmonds Permit Nos. 2006 — 0019, 0216, and 0008
This engineering report presents the final results of geotechnical inspections for
nd
Lot Nos. 4, 5, and 6 at the Michel Construction, Inc. development at 92 Ave.Wand
230 Pi. W, Edmonds, Washington. These 3 lots represent the last inspections for the
overall development of 9 lots total. Previous geotechnical reports have addressed
inspection issues at the other 6 lots.
_REFERENCES:
* City of Edmonds approved Project Plans
* Geotechnical and inspection reports by D. Bruce, P.E.
& Photographs
INSPECTIONS:
As previously stated, this engineer has provided ongoing geotechnical
inspections, as required by City of Edmonds permit conditions for the overall 9 lot
development. This report concludes inspections for Lot Nos, 4, 5, and 6..
Soil Cuts: All excavation and soil cuts remained stable throughout the project.
No geolechnical adverse conditions were observed.
Fill Removal: A small amount of fill (up to 18 inches thick) was removed during
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 . FOUNDA77ONS - SrrE DEMOPMEWr - INSPECT70N - DRAINAGE - DESIGN & PERMIT - LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502 Shoreline, WA 98155 - (206) 546-9217 - FAX (206) 546-8442
z
9
0
m
-1 -n
C: M
M a
0
80
C
M
M Z
0
.n
M M
0
0
091
a
9 co
M 0
Z
z
z
0
i
0
M
City of Edmonds
c/o Michel Construction, Inc.
January 2,2007
Page 2
Rockeries: As previously reported, the perimeter rockenes 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.
Localized gravel was utilized to improve working surface conditions. All fill
Z
0
material and placement is approved.
0
Subsurface Drainage: 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
C M
M a
"junction" (see photographs). This engineer understands that project drainage
0
0
8
engineer (Donna Breske, P.E.) has submitted plans for City of Edmonds review
C
-4 C
and approval regarding the "bypass" of the upper City of Edmonds street
X M
M Z
drainage to the "low spot' of the rear of Lot 5. Significant volumes of storm water
c:
continue to flow at this point.
>
Erosion Control Michel Construction properly maintained all erosion control
0
measures throughout the project.
Permanent erosion control measures have been installed as of the last
M M
a Cn
geotechnical inspection (January 2, 2007). Lawn, shrubbery and beauty bark
0
0 r
have been properly placed (see photographs). There are no exposed earth
surfaces.
Q 0
Z
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
Z
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 control
stabilizer.
Z
Additional erosion control rockeries and one -block high Eco-Block walls have
0
M
been properly placed to improve erosion control measures.
All permanent erosion control measures are approved.
City of Edmonds
c/o Michel Construction, Inc.
January 2, 2007
Page 3
SUMMARY:
All special geotechnical inspection items have been properly completed and are
verified as of January 2, 2007, including permanent erosion control measures.
z
It is understood that the "storm water junction zone" at the rear of Lot No. 5
0
complies with City of Edmonds approved drainage designs.
0
M
This report completes geotechnical inspection duties by D. Bruce, P.E.
Vi --A
If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call. x
OM
M
--40
M.
rn
MZ
C:
E:
0 -n
n
-4
n1m
a 59
0
0
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. CM
(0
Geotechnical Civil Engineer MO
F
DMB:abj X
Inc.
cc: Michel Construction
z
z
0
4
0
M
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 NL unber
Address aJQ2�
Inspectorvy)&
z
Average Gr� ide ei I D Ise)
0
RI
Max Height (25'+Ave.) 43S �DtS
Actual Fleight (A+B+QA3-)I
M
0
0
-10
C:
M
z
0 -n
m T
0
0
0 M
co
Q
-2 8-7
0
Z
>
Z
co
z
T
0
M
Elevation of transit above Datum (B) ';Q
Datum Flevation(A) -SM
1/teini)/builditig/fonlis/licigilt worksliect
g�roccgpa
ncy
DEF,P.,RTMi.�,T6P ILDINGS
D
PER INTERNATIONAL RE I ENTIAL C&DE , SECTION R110
AT: 9208 234"' Pi SW puliding i�41rlrnit #: 2066-001.9
Occupancy established by this certificate: R3 Dwelling Unit
No. Stories: 2 Basemed L t: 0 Type of Constru ction:— VB
Owner of building: 6i Coiis�iructicm,'., nm requirements of the
The Single Family Residen�ce�� pl-S-W.,;�% ��hiasibeen,lnspected and approved comp
— - ity. .. .1 1 11- 1 1 1 n of occupancy and the use for which
2003 edition of the International Residential Code as addipledby the '#dliAhegroup and divislo
the proposed occupancy is classified.
Issued this 4th day of Januarv� 2007
Chief Building Official
By:_
Any change of occupancy or use requires a building permit and a now Certificate of occupancy Issued by the City of Edmonds Building Official.
RECORD OF INSPECTIONS
SETBACKS .....................
INSPECTOR DATE APPROVED
FOUNDATION:
Footing ......................
Wall..........................
Pier/Porch ...........
z
Retaining Wall ...........
0
Slab Insulation ..........
=i =5
w PLUMBING:
Underground .............
M
171
0
Rough -in ...................
0
C
Commercial Final
M
HEATING:
M z
0-4
Gas Test ................
z
-4
*Gas Piping
C/)
.................
0 _n
Equipment .................
-In
x
Commercial Final
M rrI
EXTERIOR SHEATHING
0
NAILING ................
C
9 C/)
FRAMING ....................
FIRST FLOOR FRAMING
M 0
Z
INSULATION .................
-4
Floor Insulation
z
Wall Insulation ...........
-.4
3:
Calling Insulation
z
01
SHEETROCK NAILING
0
ITI
SPECIAL INSPECTION
MISCELLANEOUS ..........
FINAL APPROVAL FO
OCCUPANCY
0w(Q
Permit Inspection Details
Permit: BLD20060019
PERMIT
1077 - E-Engineering Final
C oroiIilete?:.,,
Y'
01/0212007 Sibrel 30 OK to final.
y
TotalTime:
30
1106 - BwSetbacks
Complete?
�y
61/24/2006 Snook 25 PER STRUN6 PROPERTY LINES
y
Total Time:
25
1108 - B-Footings
Complete?.
01124/2006 Snook 25 APPROVED
y
z
Total Time:
25
1110 -B-FoundationWall
Compipitez'':
Y"
0
61/31/2006 Snook 20 APPROVED
y
Total Time:
20
1122,: B-First Floor Framing
omp tei?,
!a
-4
03/10/2006 Snook 25 APPROVED
y
0 m
Total Time:
25
M
1126- B-PlumbRough In,
_q(t , r p
0
64124/�006 Snook 25 APPROVED
y
Total Time:
25
3:
m m
z
1128 - B-Gas Tastlploi)'�
iliia�
onap,
: , ", "m � �
Jo --I z
64i25/2006 Snook 20 APPROVED
y
C
>
Total Time:
20
-4
1132;- B-Ext eriorsh6athing:
om
C plefe?'�
04/1912006 Snook 25 APPROVED
y
0 *n
-n
Total Time:
25
-4
1136,6-!i1hLarNalling'
Co Ole
m T
05/0912006 Snook 25 APPROVED
y
ace
0 r-
Total Time:
25
0 M
11410 - 13-Height Verification
p a ?
Com I te.,
0510912006 Snook 25 APPROVED
y
MO
Z r-
Total Time:
25
1142 - B-Framing,
Cd`mplete?.:�,-
4Y,:
0510912006 Snook 25 APPROVED
y
x
Total Time:
25
>
z
1144 B-Wall Insulation/Caulk
imial t6?��'r
do a
05111/2006 Snook 20 APPROVED
y
C/)
Total TImw
20
z
1146 m:B-Floor Insulation/Caulk
dornplete?_,�,
. Y:�'�
0
-4
05/� 1/2006 Snook 20 APPROVED
y
0
Total Time:
20
1148.- B-Celling Insulation/Ciulk,
complete?
01/0312007 Snook 20 APPROVED
y
Total Time:
20
1150 - B-Sheetrock Nail'
Complete?
-'y
06/22�2006 Snook �0 APPROVED
y
Total Time:
20
1158 - B-Building Final
complete?,�,
71912009 9:14:11 AM
Page I of 2