The URL can be used to link to this page

20060169.pdfWWI DATE RECEIVED CITY OF EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION ER NAMEINAME OF BUSINESS NAME gill cl I ic ZIP (-�?�Mc, *� 0--) r1_ � r PERMIT EXPIRES PERMIT NUMBER ]goADDRESS PLAT NAMEISUBDIVISION NO FL_oT LID EE S PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP EXISTING ___ PROPOSED, REQUIRED DEDICATION —_ IT .L HER SIZE T7T._,Z� N��,,,XTUFSS �RV REQUIRED 13 A. 13 R MARKS OWNERICONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROUDRAINAGE 1, in r, Ij kV; @ ViWk 'a jj(/Aj C )LIJ DATE L S� IR E REVIEWED BY DATE TELEPHONE EXPIRATION SH.RELINEORAO.� INSPECTION S5PA RED, COMFE.TED EXEIPT 4 �- (1,*,LL I ?v�/,- -7-0067-5,!) Ad-itt DYE &NO: A I 11 E SIGN AR14 HEIGHT PROPERTY TAXACCOUNT PARCEL NO (A WM, STUDY IN Wo240, — I P", 'ar )k I—B I 1R.P.— I 15_1(� j,;3,oj HE- RESIDENTIAL PLUMBING I MECH LOT COVERAGE A LOWED PROPOSED L RED RED SETBA I I CRKSA(ET FRON SIDE PROPO ED SETBA KSLFT) FVT 1,�IDE REAR ADDITION El COMMERCIAL COMPLIANCE OR CHANGE OF USE 4) , 2-0 1 _] MIXEDUSE PARKING LOTAREA DPTlE *zircy, PLANNING REVIE WED BY rj REMODEL MULTIFAMILY SIGN RED D FR.,111E. 1 2— 1 -2, f 01 tW=M . Nj� I D 12-151 D5- REPAIR CYOS m (FENCE X REMARKS 0E.OLISH TANK _FT,) E3 OTHER N CT am AZU vayl,anu" GARAGRIT R RING WALL [3 FIRE SPRINKLER CARP. RETCAKIERY FIRSALARM (TYPE OF USE, BUSINESS ORACTIVITY) EXPLAIN. -c -,5Pd_ 4 1 7M TYPE qjqFTRUCTION RSUV�� NUMBER OF NUMBEROF SWE LING SPECI T AL "VN COMSULIWIT OCCUPANT STORIES U NITS REQUIRED YES LOAD DESCRIBE WORK TO BE ..N1 REMARKS lq4la (OA r7fmlpy I r! 111- D..crip;,on FEE Description FEE Plan Check State Surcharge Building Permit city Surcharge PLAN CHECK NO',, Plumbing Base Fee THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO Mechanical 2_1 Grading 9-0 THE BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE P UBIC IT 7.U' IS I DONMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS. DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES. ETC,) WILL REQUIRE SEPARATE PERMISSION. PERMIT APPLICATION: SEE ECDC 19.00,005(A)(5)) P R t E MITLMITSEEECOCiS.00.005A)(6) ION A N SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION Engr. Inspection 'APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS. ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS Fire Review Plan hk. Deposit N R LEE TH IT G IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEE NO AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF A , . S 2 EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND Fire Inspection Receipt IT - LL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE� ARISING DIRECTLY "RECTLY A OR IN x FROM THE 15SUANCE OF THIS PER— ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT 55 Landscapelnsp. Total Aim. Due DEEMED TO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITY'S ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISIDN.. —7 Recording Fee Receipt # 1 HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION; THAT THE INFORMATION APPLICATION APPROVAL GIVEN IS CORRECT. AND THAT t AM THE OWNER, OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF Th,j AML,X �s ml I pe—t ubd Is— by th. THE OWNER. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC- CALL BbIM,19 OL1.11 .1 b-11 0-1Y nd F,, pd, ,d TION; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYS OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO FOR INSPECTION 'p— 'd�b IN VIOLATION WORKMEN'S �O�PENSATION NSURM,ICE AND RCW 18:27. CIALS IG ORE DATE SIG —Sir E( W��75AGEI _ (425),--- I ' C V__ d ?Z-�r _G�.NID 771-0220 I LE��i D BY DAI �EJD WTTENt�O,h I EXT. 1333 IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTI- ORIGINAL - FLE YFI`O` PEtTO FICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. USC109 I IBC110 I iRC110, PINK -OWNER GOLD - ASSESSOR PRESS HARD - YOU ARE MAKING 4 COPIES z 0 i 0 X M C 0 M 0 _10 0 C M ITI z J) o -n n r M ITT 0 0 0 a C/) ITI 0 Z 71 z -4 z 0 IT! NO A9(A peffyVVJ- Vja,�, b4rAA (A P LI*.eci +D,- vy� mprvvv-c4 we,+ k;,A r 4,�" owvl ci 0 wvl -z-I D I Ar oql FENGL tR, "at Z'!; 111 126L*IMP/8"' OBW 110' C11 5TD, D T I tz purn pm W14M pm'.x LXAW I C94"Ov Pocc. -rop jmwy. -SAW. :,& 4' P116 T161ITLINE 1 11 4 6CW Aqr�. L&Ajj5r 10 ORM SYSTEM 505 11 ce LU STORM Zone 02--q0Comer?J0FIaizW0 " ) R' �oz -2 < cl) cl )DR 36 4 Setbacks ReqWred Actual_ Front Cli U) Sides 1,1 1.0 LU Z 6 -------- CO �;: lz I- Rear W 7W 1--to 13� 36p, __111`�_ u" 0 0 N -T U:Other. 5 10 rr LIJ Ind DEC —ROOF I' T (/) x 9 255 F� OVE NC_� "Height 0 F'P. BUMP -OUT V - Ul - 0 NER LEVEL 0 SE BASIN 0- 0 ()�Wia:WA-4 FORM_ -_ lz� T F Lr- CG j PER. "-T '0 0, U LL! z 3 NSPECTIONS REQUIRED C, z 4 PLAN 4154 1 ID CITY COPY 572 rF -MAIN = 587uq* T-111.11 ORA 311, , -I[ — !-= __ ___ — __ ____ — __ — — SANITARY KASTE 1" 5,5.1 EiEzToR SYSTEM NOTES TO STO RA'. 3'T __`6J_Fji - 518 1. MAIN FLOOR MASTER BATH ENTRY AND PONDER ROOM TO 233 SF 360 > , 6RAVITY FEED TO 5.5. (L Lu 2, MAIN FLR. LAUNDRY I 5132 (v LK y SIS-4 0- ALL LONER FLR. TO DRAIN < TO EJECTOR SYSTEM 235 5F. 382 14 L6P'F z _j 15 L m UJ 3. LONE5T FIXTURE ON [L < LONER FLR. In . > 'VAY SL -WA 110 —14% SA�(TARY` STU L 3 ;8.8' TE PORA Y CONSTRUCTION R E_ S u B � , I _F I RA C' 12 2,905 APPROVED BY — — — — — — — — — — — — — — I, DEPARTMEN7 ON5TRUr.TION ENTRANCE PER., r) .7,41 17 I�' GITY STD. [DETAIL 'DMONDS *wt ID -7,10 7- 60 61TH FL. K R'P-',4 U B S -- — — — — — 55 — — — — — — -- FEB 0 12006 S-1 Iq5 LF. 1-5 L�F. RIM 355.15' RIM = 5b(9.&ql SITE PLAN LIE. OUT 518.47' BUILDING DEPARTMENT I.E. IN =,P-7-73-1 LOT .4 CITY OF EDMONDS V-4rItten allmenslons on this dr—Ing shall hove pre —der— over 9—led almenslons. r—rt—tar shall verlftj all almenslons, '—diti.n. ot� pe'tolning to the rk 1—fore p—aceding. Th. 0—� m-1 1— ratffl.d of any valf.tlo-s from the cilmensions andlor conclitlons sh—n on these dr—1 lc3ll Any n —h varlatlen shall be resolved [�y the 0—er prior t Vre—olingg,lth the k, grtho C—lt—tor hall a—pt t r—pons 11ty For the to reatif y same. APPRE55 1-110 6qth PI. V1 z EDMONDS, NA. PARCEL NUMBER 0101-75-000-004-00 am a ma 0 LOT AREAi 11,6-70 5GUARE FEET 80 a m mz 0 LE(5AL DESCRIPTION LOT(5) 126, MEADONDALE BEACH, AGGORDINO TO THE PLAT THEREOF cl) RECORDED IN VOLUME 5 OF FLATS, PA6E(5) 55, RECORDS OF 0 -n 5NOHOM15H COUNTY, NA511INC2TON; EXCEPT THE EAST 200 FEET THEREOF; m m 6) AND EXCEPT THE SOUTH 205 FEET OF THE NEST 100 FEET THEREOF; 0 0 AND EXCEPT THE SOUTH 5 FEET OF SAID LOT l2rb GONVE(EP TO - cn THE CITY OF EDMON05 FOR ROAD PURPOSES BY DEEP UNDER M 0 REGORDINC7 NUMBER 25-75256. z ;0 51TUATE IN THE GOUNT-T- OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF NA5HIN(5TON. z cn VERTICAL DATUM: NAP 531ql PER RECORDED z SURVEY #20050514500 Z5 m E3ENGHMAR< (BM): RIM OF SANITARr 5EViER MANHOLE "G", ELEVATION 505.15'FEP, EN16INEERINC7 DRAKNGS. r5RAPIN(5 PLAN: CUT: 613 CU. Y05. FILL: CU. Y05. BALANCED ON SITE. AVERA(5E LOT SLOPE EA5T TO NE5T 556' 50' 50 VERTIGAL FEET 2cl.1% 5LOPE 105 LINEAR FEET HEI6HT GALGULATION - LOT 4 NI VARIANGE A= 5-71ff E3= 500.0, 583.1' AVERA&E ORIOINAL &RADE 5 (25.55')* M AXIMUM E3UILDIN6 HEI&HT 400-06 A GTUAL BUILDIN& HEICvHT 5qcI. -7q'* MAXIMUM MAIN FLR. ELE\/- 502.611'* *NOTE: PER APPROVED VARI ANGE, Ar-TUAL FIN15HED FLOOR ELEVATION NILL BE DETERMINED BY 14% MAX. 55MH "B" DRIVEHAY 5LOPE. F- I M LI.E. LOT GOVERA&E: IN=3 -7-7 .5cl (PROPOSED) RE51PENGE 2,4cib 5OUARE FEET GARAGE -70-7 5GUARE FEET GOV.AREA5 235 5GUARE FEET PEG< 255 50UARE FEET TOTAL 5,6cO 5GUARE FEET (51.&%) 55% MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE IMPERVIOU5 AREA5 (PROP05150) RE51PENGE 4,031 5aUARE FEET REFER! (NI OVERAHN(55) REGOF DRIVE, NALK PEGK 1,22 -7 5GUARE FEET PROPE UNDER TOTAL 5,258 5GUARE FE ET (45.1%) 5NOHG or 'Cornerstane' 17625-130th Ave. NE, C102, Woodinville, WA 98072 Phone; 425-844-1977 Geotechnical, Inc. Fax: 425-844-1987 August 16, 2005 Ms. Cathy Patterson z Hoover Premier Homes 16300 Mill Creek Boulevard, #109 Receive 0 Mill Creek, WA 98012 AUG 2 2 2005 =i *6 Pockery Design Revie Letter City OF DEPARIM m Meadowdale Estates - Lot 4 Edmonds, Washington -400 CG File No. 1791 0 C: --4 3: Dear Ms. Patterson: C1T:LCqpV m This letter presents our review of the proposed rockery design locate on the > V—i Meadowdale Estates development at 6880 — 1724 Street SW, in Edmonds, Washington. We have 0 -n prelliously prepared a Geotechnical Engineering Report for the site, dated January 6, 2005. For otir use in preparing this letter, we have been provided with a copy of the Lot 4 site plan that m rn shows the locations and eleva tions of the proposed rockeries, and the City of Edmond's handout 0 r- 0 m C #B63 regarding rockeries. This handout includes the City of Edmond's detail sheet for single C co 212 and tiered rockeries. Lot 4 is located along the west side of the Meado wdale Estates plat. The lot generally slopes > down trom the roadway to the west, toward the stormwatcr detention vault, Based on our z previors explorations, we expect that the material underlying this lot to be fill and recessional outwe sh. z 2 The provided site plan shows several low rookeries surrounding the planned residence ranging up 0 rn to 4.0 feet in height. We have reviewed the provided Rockery Detail and Tiered Rockai es Detail, dated April 1, 2003 and October 6, 200 3, respectively, and prepared by the City of Edmonds. Based on Us review of the Edmonds details, the provided plans, and our previous explorations, we expect that the detail by the City of Edmonds should be a suitable design for the planned rockerY system at Lot 4. Aug. 22. 2005 9: 38AM Hoover Premier Homes No. 1163 P. 3/3 Rockery Review Letter Meadowdale Estates — Lot 4 August 16,2005 CG File No. 1791 Page 2 However, given the variable subsurface conditions encountered during our exploration$, including the presence of fill material, we should be retained to provide monitoring and consultation services during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by our surficial observations, and to provide recommendations for design changes, should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated. As z 0 part of our services, we would also evaluate whether or not earthwork activities comply with 0 M contract plans and specifications. -6 Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget for our work, we have strived to take care 55 -q 0 M that our work has been completed in accordance with generally accepted practices followed in 0 this area at the time this letter was prepared. No other conditions, expressed or implied, should be 0 c: -4 M V, understood. m M z jo We appreciate the opportunity to be of seMce to you, If there are any questions concerning this report or if we can provide additional services, please c all. Cn 0 'n Sincerely, m IT! Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. 0 0 M C I U) 0 m 0 ;D A z 30530 z 0 NAL 0 M rE7XIRES 081161,z Rick B. Powell, PE President PL:RBP:nt One Copy Submitted Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. Aug. 22. 2005 9 3 7AM Hoover Premier Homes No. 1163 P. 1/3 16300 Mill Creek Blvd., #108 Mill Creek, WA 98012 Phone: 425-745-1370 HOOVER PREMIER HOMES Fax: 425-745-1466 A division of R.H. Hoo�ef, Inc. FAX 1�6q's�' U"w baUA-, To: U Fax #: Date: # of Pigs: Note: U Wnz '0 4f C ti 0(1 4 From: Scott Hoov Seniior VVice Presiident Cathy Patterson, Vice President MN MASTER BUILDERS A S S 0 It I A T 1 0 N z 0 0 M aj -X4 a M a a M 0 80 a -1 M z .0 M 11 co 0 0 a Cn Q 0 M z z 0 M iii Cornerstone 17625-1301h Ave. NE, C102, Woodinville, WA 98072 Phone: 4 5-844-1977 2 Geotechnical, lnc*. Fax: 425-844-1987 January 6, 2005 RECEIVED C y COPY IT AUG 16 2005 Ms. Cathy Patterson Hoover Premier Homes PERMIT COUNTER 1630OMill CreekBoulevard, 4108 z Mill Creek WA 98012 0 Geotechnical Engineering Report vi -4 Meadowdale Estates 3: a Edmonds, Washington ra C m CG File No. 1791 0 0 Dear Ms. Patterson: m in mz INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering investigation for your Meadowdale (a Estates residential development in the Meadowdale area of Edmonds, Washington. The site is located at O'n -n La 6880 -172" Street SW, as shown on the Vicinity Map in Figure 1 3: m M 0 r- Site development, including grading, road construction, and utility placement, has been substantially C 091 completed. We understand that you have purchased all of the building lots, with the exception of Lot 2, in 0 for the purposes of constructing single-family residences. The City of Edmonds has required a z geotechnical report for the lots with slopes greater than 15 percent, and you have requested that we evaluate the subsurface conditions of your lots and provide foundation recommendations for the proposed residences. For our use in preparing this report, we have been provided with a copy of a site plan by CHS Engineering, dated September 2003, that shows lot, road, and utility layout. We have also been provided z with a Slope Stability Evaluation, prepared by GeoEngineers and dated June 18, 2002, that addresses the 0 detention facility. Additionally, we have been provided with field reports prepared by Sky Valley Testing M that document compaction testing performed during the main carthwork phase of the project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The L-shaped project site has maximum dimensions ofapproximately 640 feet north to south and 440 feet east to west. The development consists of a total of 12 lots. We understand that you intend to construct M , Geotechnical Engineering Report Meadowdalc Estates Edmonds, Washington January 6, 2005 CG File No. 1791 Page 2 single-family residences -on all of the lots with the exception of Lot 2, which you do not own. The provided grading plan indicates cuts totaling 6,000 cubic yards (CY) and fills totaling 12,000 CY. 'Me grading plan also indicates that fills may be at least 12 feet deep in some areas, At this point in time, site grading has been completed and utilities have been installed. A completed storm water detention va ult is Z located close to the western site boundary. SCOPE ne purpose of this study is to explore and characterize the subsurface conditions and present 'M recommendations for site development. Specifically, our scope of services as outlined in our Services C MO 0 Agreement, dated December 23, 2004, includes the following: 0 k' M f,.' M in Z 1. Review available geologic maps of the area and available project documentation. 0-4 C 2. Explore the subsurface conditions at the site with backboe-excavated test pits. 3. Provide recommendations for building foundations, including lateral pressures for 0 -n retaining walls. -n 4. Provide recommendations for site preparation and grading. M In in 5. Provide general recommendations for site drainage. 0 6 0 r 6. Prepare a written report to document our conclusions and recommendations. 0 in C 0) SITE CONDITIONS Surface Conditions Atthe time of our exploration, the access road (691h Place W) was paved. Site grading was also complete and grass was growing on all of the lots. The storm water detention vault and utilities bad all been completed, but no residences had been constructed yet. A layoutoftbe siteis shown on the SitePlan in Figure 2. Generally, the ground surface slopes downward towards the west at approximately 3 Horizontal to I "d Street SW Vertical (MAV). An existing residence borders the southwestern comer of the site and 172 borders the site to the south. The rest oftbe site is surrounded by a wooded area with brush and evergreen trees up to approximately 2 feet in diameter. Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. � 0) MO. Z .'T ;0 Z M Fn Z in -Geotechnical Engineering Report Meadowdale Estates Edmonds, Washington January 6, 2005 CG File No. 1791 Page 3 Geology Most of the Puget Sound Region was affected by past intrusion of continental glaciation. The last period of glaciation, the Vashon Stade of the Fraser Glaciation, ended approximately 11,000 years ago. Many of the geomorphic features seen today are a result of scouring and overriding by glacial ice. During the z Vashon Stade, much of the Puget Sound region was overridden by over 3,000 feet of ice. Soil layers overridden by the ice sheet were compacted to a much greater "tent than those that were not. Part of a typical glacial sequence includes recessional outwasb sand underlain by glacial till. 0 3: 'The site is mapped as being underlain by glacial till (Preliminary Surficial Geologic Mai) of the Edmonds m C M East and Edmonds West Ouadrangles, Snohomish and King Countie , Mackey Smith, 1975). The map 0 80 also indicates the presence of advance and recessional outwasb in the general area surrounding the site. X in M Z Our site explorations encountered glacial till, recessional outwash, and fill. Glacial till, commonly C 2 referred to as "hardpan," is an unsorted mixture of sand, silt, and gravel that is deposited at the bottom of a continental glacier. As a result ofbaving been consolidated under the weight of the glacier, glacial till 0 'n exhibits both high strength and low permeability. Alluvial sand and gravel deposited by glacial melt m m water during glacial recession is known as recessional outwash. In contrast to glacial till, recessional 0 outwash has not been glacially consolidated. 0 m C 0 C co Explorations Subsurface conditions were explored at the site on December 28, 2004, by excavating a total of five test pits. The test pits were excavated to depths ranging between 0.5 and 11.0 feet below the ground surface. The explorations were located in the field by a representative from this firm who also examined the soils and geologic conditions encountered, and maintained logs of the test pits. Tle approximate locations of the test pits are shown on the Site Plan in Figure 2. The soils were visually classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System, a copy of which is presented as Figure 3. The logs of the test pits are presented in Figures 4 and 5. Subsurface Conditions A brief description of the conditions encountered in our explorations is included below. For a more detailed description ofthe soils encountered, review the test pit logs in Figures 4 and 5. Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. m 0 z z 0 in "07 Geoteelinical Engineering Report Meadowdale Estates Edmonds, Washington January 6, 2005 CG File No. 1791 Page 4 Our explorations encountered glacial till, recessional outwash, and fill. Test Pits 3, 4 and 5 were excavated in cut areas and all encountered very dense till within one foot of the surface. Test Pits I and 2 encountered approximately 4.0 and 5.0 feet of fill, respectively. Beneath the fill, Test Pit I encountered recessional outwash. Test Pit 2 encountered a layer of topsoil underlying the fill. The topsoil layer was Z 0 underlain by weathered glacial till becoming glacial fill. It should be noted that loose soils in the areas of Test Pits I and 2 extend at least 4.0 and 6.0 feet below the ground surface, respectively. Hydrologic Conditions Shallow ground water seepage was encountered in Test Pit 2 at a depth of approximately 1.0 foot. We consider this water to be perched, and associated with surface runoff. The on -site till, in particular, is considered poorly draining. During the wetter times of the year, we expect perched water conditions will occur as pockets of water on top of the till layer. Perched water does not represent a regional ground water "table" within the upper soil horizons. Volumes ofperched ground water vary depending upon the time of year and the upslope recharge conditions. Erosion Hazard The erosion hazard criteria used for determination of affected areas includes soil type, slope gradient, vegetation cover, and ground water conditions. The erosion sensitivity is related to vegetative cover and the specific surface soil types (group classification), which are related to the underlying geologic soil units. The Soil Survey of Snohomish County Area Washington by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) was reviewed to determine the erosion hazard of the on -site soils. The site surface soils were classified using the SCS classification system as Unit 5 (Alderwood — Urban Land Complex). The corresponding geologic unit for these soils is till, which is generally in agreement with the soils encountered in our site explorations. The erosion hazard for the soil is listed as being slight for slopes less than 8 percent. The moderately -sloping portions of the site may encounter higher levels of erosion, but not to such a degree that the site would be classified an erosion hazard. Best management practices (BMPS) and applicable codes should be fii1lowed during site grading to limit potential for erosion. We do not expect this site will require unusual or extreme erosion management methods. There are no water bodies adjacent to the site. Cornerstone Geolechnical, Inc. C in in 0 0 80 C --i MM mZ C 0) -n M m 0 0 0 a C o, in 0 Z ;u Z CA Z 9 0 M Geotechnical Engineering Report Meadowdale Estates Edmonds, Washington January 6, 2005 CG File No. 1791 Page 5 Seismic Hazard The site is classified based on its overall soil profile using Table 1615.1.1 of the 2003 International Building Code (IBC). Site conditions best fit the IBC definition for Site Class C ("Very dense soil and ic design based upon this soft rock"). Tbe MC provides parameters and coefficients to be used in seism Z 0 site class. 9 Additional seismic considerations include liquefaction potential and amplification of ground motions by soft soil deposits. The liquefaction potential is highest for loose sand with a high ground water table. The underlying dense till is considered to have a very low potential for liquefaction and amplification of ground motion. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General It is our opinion that the site is compatible with the planned development. The underlying medium dense to very dense glacial till deposits are capable of supporting the planned structures and pavements. We recommend that the foundations for the structures extend through any topsoil, fill, loose, or disturbed soils, and bear on the underlying medium dense to very dense, native glacial till, or on structural fill extending to these soils. Based on our explorations, we anticipate these soils will generally be encountered at typical footing depths in the cut areas of the site. Fill encountered in Test Pits I and 2 was loose. As a result, areas of fill may need to be over -excavated and properly compacted. Alternatively, foundations could be constructed to extend through the loose soils. The soils likely to be exposed during construction are highly moisture sensitive and will disturb easily when wet or during wet conditions. We recommend that construction take place during the drier summer months, if possible. If construction takes place during the wet season, additional expenses and delays should be expected due to the wet conditions. Site Preparations and Grading The first step ofsite preparation should be to strip the vegetation, topsoil, or loose soils to expose medium dense to very dense native soils in pavement and building areas. This material should be removed from the site, or stockpiled for later use as landscaping fill. The resulting subgrade should be compacted to a Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. 0 in C_ in ?I in Z r--i 1 � I co o -n n in in a 0 0 C M CA in 0 Z --I Z 0 in Geotechnical Engineering Report Meadowdale Estates Edmonds, Washington January 6, 2005 CG File No. 1791 Page 6 firm, non -yielding condition. Areas observed to pump or weave should be repaired prior to placing hard surfaces. The on -site glacial till likely to be exposed during construction is considered highly moisture sensitive, and the surface will disturb easily when wet. We expect these soils would be difficult, if not impossible, z to compact to structural fill specifications in wet weather. We recommend that earthwork be conducted 0 during the drier months. Additional expenses of wet weather or winter construction would include extra excavation and use of imported fill or rock spalls. m C Structural Fill m 0 -40 General: All fill placed be neath buildings, pavements or other settlement sensitive features should be 0 C: -4 placed as structural fill. Structural fill, by definition, is placed in accordance with prescribed methods and :r M M Z standards, and is monitored by an experienced geotechnical professional or soils technician. Field - monitoring procedures would include the performance ofa representative number ofin-place density tests E: 3: to document the attainment ofthe desired degree ofrelitiye compaction. 0 *n _n Materials: Imported structural fill should consist of a good quality, ftee-draining granular soil, free of m M organics and other deleterious material, and be well graded to a maximum size of about 3 inches. Vj 0 0 Imported, all-weather structural fill should contain no more than 5 percent fines (soil finer than a Standard C (n U.S. No. 200 sieve), based on that fiaction passing the U.S. 3/4-inch sieve. 0 The use of on -site soil as structural fill will be dependent on moisture content control. Some drying of the ;a native soils may be necessary in order to achieve comp, action. During warm, sunny days this could be z accomplished by spreading the material in thin lifis and compacting. Some aeration and/or addition of moisture may also be necessary. We expect that compaction of the native soils to structural fill z specifications would be difficult, ifnot impossible, during wet weather, 0 m Fill Placement: Following subgrade preparation, placement of the structu ral fill may proceed. Fill should be placed in 8- to 10-inch-thick uniform lifts, and each lift should be spread evenly and be thoroughly compacted prior to placement of subsequent lifts. All structural fill underlying building areas, and within a depth of 2 feet below pavement and sidewalk subgrade, should be compacted to at least 95 percent of its maximum dry density. Maximum dry density, in this report, refers to that density as Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. Geoteclinical Engineering Report Meadowdale Estates Edmonds, Washington January 6, 2005 CG File No. 1791 Page 7 determined by the ASTM D 1557 compaction test procedure. Fill more than 2 feet beneath sidewalks and pavement subgrades should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density. 'Me moisture content of the soil to be compacted should be within about 2 percent of optimum so that a readily compactable condition exists, it may be necessary to overexcavate and remove wet surficial soils z in cases where drying to a compactable condition is not feasible. All compaction should be accomplished by equipment of a type and size sufficient to attain the desired degree of compaction. m Temporary and Permanent Slopes Temporary cut slope stability is a function of many factors, such as the type and consistency of soils, depth of the cut, surcharge loads adjacent to the excavation, length of time a cut remains open, and the presence of surface or groundwater. it is exceedingly difficult under these variable conditions to estimate a stable temporary cut slope geometry. Therefore, it should be the responsibility of the contractor to maintain safe slope configurations, since the contractor is continuously at the job site, able to observe the nature and condition of the cut slopes, and able to monitor the subsurface materials and ground water conditions encountered. We anticipate cuts for the daylight basements ofyour proposed residences. For planning purposes, we recommend that temporary cuts in the near -surface weathered soils be no greater than IH: IV. Cuts in the fill should be no greater than I.5H:lV. Cuts in the dense to very dense till may stand at a 0.75HAV inclination or possibly steeper, If ground water seepage is encountered, we would expect that flatter inclinations would be necessary. We recommend that cut slopes be protected from erosion. Measures taken may include covering cut slopes with plastic sheeting and diverting surface runoff away from the top of cut slopes, We do not recommend vertical slopes for cuts deeper than 4 feet, ifworker access is necessary. We recommend that cut slope heights and inclinations conform to local and WISHA/OSHA standards. Final slope inclinations for structural fill and the cuts in the native soils should be no steeper than 2H: IV. Lightly compacted fills or common fills should be no steeper than 3H: IV. Common fills are defined as fill material with some organics that are "trackrolled" into place. They would not meet the compaction specification of structural fill. Final slopes should be vegetated and covered with straw or jute netting. The vegetation should be maintained until it is established. Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. co 0 in C: in 10 0 C: X m in C Z --1 co 0 -4 X in m a 0 0 C in 0 Z r- -4 z 3: ro z 0 m Geotechnical Engineering Report Meadowdale Estates Edmonds, Washington January 6, 2005 CG File No. 1791 Page 8 Foundations Conventional shallow spread foundations should be founded on undisturbed, medium dense to very dense, glacial till, or be supported on structural fill extending to those soils. If the soil at the planned Z oting elevation is not medium dense to very dense, it should be overexcavated to expose bottom of In ng soil, and the excavation should be filled with structural fill, or the footing may be m suitable bean overpoured with extra concrete- For residences planned to be built on sloping ground, we recommend a Fn feet between the bottom of the footing and the slope face. minimum horizontal distance of 10 0 M frost Footings should extend at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent finished ground surface for protection and bearing capacity considerations. Minimum foundation widths of 16 and 20 inches should be used for continuous and isolated spread footings, respectively. Standing water should not be allowed to accumulate in footing trenches. All loose or disturbed soil should be removed from the foundation excavation prior to placing concrete. For foundations constructed as outlined above, we recommend an allowable design bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) be used for the footing design, International Building Code (IBC) guidelines should be followed when considering short-term transitory wind or seismic loads. Potential foundation settlement using the recommended allowable bearing pressure is estimated to be less than I - inch total and V�-inch differential between footings or across a distance of about 30 feet. Higher soil bearing values may be appropriate for footings founded on the unweathered till, and with wider footings - These higher values can be determined after a review of a specific design. Lateral loads can be resisted by friction between the foundation and subgrade soil, and by passive soil resistance acting on the below -grade portion of the foundation. For the latter, the foundation must be poured "neaf' against undisturbed soil or backfilled with clean, free -draining, compacted structural fill. Passive resistance may be calculated as a triangular equivalent fluid pressure distribution, We recommend that an equivalent fluid density of 225 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) be used to calculate the allowable lateral passive resistance for the case of a level ground surface adjacent to the footing. An allowable coefficient of friction between footings and soil of 0.45 may be used, and should be applied to the vertical dead load only. A factor of safety of 2.0 has been applied to the passive pressure to account for required movements to generate these pressures. ne ftiction coefficient does not include a factor of safety. Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. C: a m 0 80 C __19 X m in Z X o"n n M In a 0 0 ,C CO C (1) M C) Z Z Cn Z M Geotechnical Engineering Report Meadowdale Estates Edmonds, Washington January 6, 2005 CG File No. 1791 Page 9 Lateral Loads The lateral earth pressure acting on retaining walls is dependent on the nature and density of the soil behind the wall, the amount of lateral wall movement that can occur as backfill is placed, and the inclination of the backfill. Walls that are free to yield at least one -thousandth of the height of the wall are z 0 in an "active" condition. Walls restrained from movement by stiffness or bracing are in an "at -rest" condition. Active earth pressure and at -rest earth pressure can be calculated based on equivalent fluid M density. Equivalent fluid densities for active and at -rest earth pressure of 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) =i _H Vi -4 and 55 pcf, respectively, may be used for design for a level backslope. Equivalent fluid densities for 3: M m active and at -rest earth pressure of 45 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) and 75 pcf, respectively, may be used C 0 ssume that the on -site soils are used for backfill, 80 for design for a 20 degree backslope. These values a d. The preceding values do not include the effects of surcharges due to m and that the wall backfill is draine m z foundation loads, traffic or other surface loads. Surcharge effects should be considered where c: appropnate. The above lateral pressures may be resisted by friction at the base of the wall and passive resistance 0 -n against the foundation. A coeffic: ient of friction of 0.45 may be used to determine the base friction when :C m M supported on the above recommended foundation subgrade preparation alternatives. An equivalent fluid 0 Ui 0 r- density of 225 pef should be used for passive resistance. The friction value does not incorporate a safety 0 a 9 a) factor. A safety factor of 2 is applied to the passive pressure to limit movement. M 0 r.- All wall backfill should be well compacted. Care should be taken to prevent the buildup of excess lateral X soil pressures due to overcompa ction of the wall backfill. This can be accomplished by placing wall z backfill in 8-inch loose lifts and compacting with small, hand -operated compactors. I Slabs -On -Grade Slab -on -grade areas should be prepared as recommended in the Site Preparation and Grading subsection. Slabs should be supported on medium dense to very dense native soils, or on structural fill extending to these soils. Where moisture control is a concern, we recommend that slabs be underlain by 6 inches of free -draining coarse sand or pea gravel for use as a capillary break. A suitable vapor barrier, such as heavy plastic sheeting, should be placed over the capillary break. Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. 0) z 0 M Geotechnical Engineering Report Meadowdale Estates Edmonds, Washington January 6, 2005 CG File No. 1791 Page 10 Drainage We recommend that runoff from impervious surfaces, such as roofs, driveway and access roadways, be collected and routed to an appropriate storm water discharge system. Final site grades should allow for drainage away from any buildings. We suggest that the finished ground surface be sloped at a gradient of 3 percent minimum for a distance of at least 10 feet away from the buildings. Surface water should be z collected by permanent catch basins and drain lines, and be discharged into a storm drain system. in We recommend that footing drains be used around all of the structures where moisture control is .ii important. underlying till will pond water that accumulates in the crawl space. It is good practice to m use footing drains installed at least I foot below the planned finished floor slab or crawl space elevation to m 0 provide drainage for the crawl space. At a minimum, the crawl space should be sloped to drain to an 0 outlet tied to the drainage system. If drains are omitted around slab -on -grade Doors where moisture M m z control is important, the slab should be a minimum of I foot above surrounding grades. z Where used, footing drains should consist of 4-inch-diameter, perforated PVC pipe that is surrounded by 0 "n free -draining material, such as pea gravel. Footing drains should discharge into tightlines leading to an -n appropriate collection and discharge point, Crawl spaces should be sloped to drain, and a positive m M connection should be made into the foundation drainage system. For slabs -on -grade, a drainage path 0 0 should be provided from the capillary break material to the footing drain syste m. Roof drains should not C C) 9 0) be connected to wall or footing drains. M C) Z M MONITORING > We should be retained to provide monitoring and consultation services during construction to confirm that z the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, and to provide recommendations for design changes, should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those z anticipated. m USE OF THIS REPORT We have prepared this report for Hoover Premier Homes and their agents, for use in planning and design of this project. The data and report should be provided to prospective contractors for their bidding and Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc, Geotechnical Engineering Report MR Meadowdale Estates Edmonds, Washington January 6, 2005 CG File No. 1791 Page I I z estimating purposes, but our report, conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of subsurface conditions. The scope of our work does not include services related to construction safety precautions, and our z recommendations are not intended to direct the contractors' methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as specifically described in our report, for consideration in design. There are possible 0 M variations in subsurface conditions, We recomniend that project planning include contingencies in budget and schedule, should areas be found with conditions that vary from those described in this report. CA a m C Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget for our work, we have strived to take care that our m work has been completed in accordance, with generally accepted practices followed in this area at the time M K this report was prepared. No other conditions, expressed or implied, should be understood. in z 0-4 C - > z O"n "n m M 000 cc) F-D 0 0 CO m 0 M z 0 m Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering Report Meadowdale Estates Edmonds, Washington January 6, 2005 CG File No. 1791 Page 12 We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you. If there are any questions concerning this report or if we can provide additional services, please call. Sincerely, Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. z 0 0 M JeffLaub, LG OM Project Geologist 0 0 C: M M Z 10-1 C z -n 0 n AL mm FEK-Pli a 0 0 IM9 Rick B. Powell, PE -Z Principal PAO:JPL:RBP:nt z Three Copies Submitted Five Figures 55 z m Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. Site Plan IN ..... .... .. ..... ... Q I :an � 77--, .......... k. I io N. , "V-4, LEGEND Tp.I Number and APproximate it Location of Test Pit 200 100 0 scale 1,, 100' -- ---- pl.. by CHS E',girewing, dated 0912003. Store p" " ' Phone'.(42 )144-'17' ne F.X. (425) 844-1 987 1 Inc . 2 W . 980 '11., WA' 98072 t "vaeN"E'C,102-Wo.dillville,WA= Phone: (426) 844-1977 RH Hoover - Meadowdale Estates C merstone Fax: (425) 844-1987 Geotechnical, Inc. File Number 1791 Vigure 1 6 7625�1 300 h =A TEST PIT ONE 0.0 - ZLO SM GRAY -BROWN SILTY FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH GRAVEL (LOOSE, MOIST) (FILL) 3.0-4.0 SM DARK GRAY SILTY FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH TRACE GRAVEL AND ORGANICS (LOOSE, WET) (FILL) 4.0-10.0 sm GRAY SILTY MEDIUM TO COARSE SAND WITH GRAVEL (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, WET) (RECESSIONAL OUTWASHIFILL?) SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 3.5. 8.0 AND 10.0 FEET z 0 GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED -4 TEST PIT CAVING WAS ENCOUNTERED BETWEEN 0.0 AND 4.0 FEET ?5 TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 10.0 FEET ON 12128104 m TEST PIT IWO 0.0-1.0 sm DARK BROWN TO BLACK SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (LOOSE, WET) (TOPSOILIDUFF) ca m m 1.0-5,0 SM GRAY -BROWN SILTY FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH GRAVEL (LOOSE, WET) (FILL) o 0 -40 5.0-6.0 sm DARK BROWN TO BLACK SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL AND ORGANICS (LOOSE. WET) 0 c: (TOPSOIL) --I M 6.0-10.0 SM RED�BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL AND ROOTS (LOOSE TO M Z a --1 -11 � MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED TILL) C: z- 10,0-11.0 sm BROWN -GRAY SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL (DENSE, MOIST) (TILL) > SAMPLESWERE COLLECTEDAT 3.0,5.0,9.0 AND 11.0 FEET GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS ENCOUNTERED AT APPROXIMATELY 1.0 FEET 0 in -n SLIGHT TEST PIT CAVING WAS ENCOUNTERED BETWEEN 0.0 AND 6.0 FEET -4 TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 11.0 FEET ON 12/28/04 X m m TEST PIT THREE Do—) 0 0.0-1.0 SM BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL (LOOSE, MOIST) (FILL) 0 a 1,0-4.0 SM GRAY SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL (VERY DENSE, MOIST) (TILL) C ca 0 SAMPLE WAS COLLECTED AT 4.0 FEET GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED m TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 4,0 FEET ON 12J28/04 TEST PIT FOUR 0.0 � 0.5 SM GRAY SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL (VERY DENSE, MOIST) (TILL) NO SAMPLE WAS COLLECTED z GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 0.5 FEET ON 12/28104 m CORNERSTONE GEOTECHNICAL, INC. FILE NO '1791 FIGURE 4 LOG OF EXPLORATION DEPTH Usc SOILDESCRIPTION TEST PIT FIVE 0.0-1.0 SM BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL (LOOSE. MOIST) (FILL) 1.0-1.5 Sm GRAY SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL (VERY DENSE, MOIST) (TILL) NO SAMPLE WAS COLLECTED GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED 0 TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 1.5 FEET ON 12128/04 0 c m -4 0 C m IT! 10 Q 0 -n M 0 C cj) M 0 Z r- , r�. z z 0 In CORNERSTONE GEOTECHNICAL, INE FILE NO 1791 FIGURE 5 I oApr. 11. 20067: 7:55AV92s8eiHoover Premier Homes CORNEPSTONEGEOTECHNI No. 3151 P. 2 02 FIELD REPORT Project: Meadowdale File No.: 1791 Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. Own,: RH 1400ver Date: 3-30-06 17625 130#1 Avenue NE C1 02 Location: Edmonds Report No: 10 Woodinville, WA 98072 Weather: Cloudy Page: I of 2 Purpose of Construction Observations Phonw, 425-344-1977 Visit: By: JRW z Fax: 425-844-1987 0 S 0 We were onsite on behalf of our client to evaluate bearing capacity within Lot 4. 65 On arrival we observed that the contractor had prepared footing subgrade witbin Lot 4. We probed the a M subgrade with a halfinch diameter steel probe rod and the probe rod did ootpenetrate more than 2 ma 0 8 0 C inches in depth. Material evaluated varied between native �Arie to coarse sand with gravel and fill m m material consisting of silty fine to coarse sand with gravel. Fill material, where observed, was z approximately 12 to 18 inches in depth and appeared well compacted. z Ji 0 in n it is our opinion chat the evaluated footing subgrade will support the designed 2000 psf bearing capacity. rn M 0 Orin C oo Q 0 z z z 0 m Attachment: Signed: Distribution - Received Time Apr. 7. 3:39PM Opt, 11, 20067: 7:55AVIi25841400ver Premier Homes CORNERSTONEGEOTECHNI No. 3151 P, ;Z5 PRIOR To COMMENCIHO ANY cuHh-1.1— 7, SIABIL12E ALL 1'11,..!,1S EXPOSED SY LAND N PLANS PRIOR TO 2 ANO 7, DEQUAIC DuT Col 1,TROL SEQUENCE. STANDARD NOTE% AND CoNsTFZVCTI0 MINIMUM. PF.OvIO,, A WATER TRUCK FOF RUCTION. TH ESC STANDARD 1�01E 8 PRIOR 10 COMMENCINO 0. UTILITY CONSTRUCTION SHALL IMPUFMEI ON-SITC IN ACCORDANCE �7 S. IN11- IF DRA",'Y PIF,,D A, "b"10, ,�'CILI,jiMP AT C.1-111, T� 1. j BASI, p,,,ECTIO�, ON 171.ND AVE PRIOR TO 1,SIRUCTION SN*MANCF. AND CATCA YTAINiO AS CCNpI7IONS T,,UCTION ESC FACILITIES SHALL OE UPDATED AND MAI j, REMOVE ERO�.�JON AND SEDIMENTATION T� CIDNiIROCTION PERIOD, REFER 10 COD STANDARD NOTE C *Joe .......... ............ 'QLL Fl I LIZ: &A - %VOW 4,��QE SJJVALE' 111HIj jilij! lij ft I j C41.`ROCXr4 v cu'r AA "V47 'ECT TE14PORARY DRAINAGE swALE SEE DEWL (TYP DrMOUSO EXIST ROOKERY I- HIGH FOCKgRy FILL TEi,,,ORARy oRmNAGE VALE �ecelveii Time Apr, I , J : 3 9 V W, z 0 -4 c ITT Mo 0 8 0 c --I K -L FIT M z 'o -i -z o IT ITT ITT u cin 0 r- 0 M In co M 0 Z ;a -q z C7 z 0 i 0 M Height Calculation Worksheet Date -7-0(,, Permit Numbcr:�T 61 ioT qu-- Address . 1 -7 118 (10, Inspector.. z 0 9 Average Grade -7 Max Height I -Ave.) 4 00, 06 -S q 5i qL-,3s 0 M C Actual Height (A+BA-C)_ 0 -10 0 -4 MM MZ ff on 3: MM =(C)9 (a4 0 C CO C Cj) 0 00, z z 0 M Elevation of transit above Datum (B) F DatumSSiv) 1� F-IlevaLion (A) 1/teiiip/buil(iiiig/foriiis/licigilt workshect 11/10/2006 10:07 4258441987 CORNERSTONEGEOTECHNI PAGE 02 Cornerstone 17525-130tl Ave. NE, C102, Woodinville, WA 98072 Geotechnica 1, Inc. Phone: 425-844-1977 Fax: 425-8444987 November 10, 2006 z Ms. Cathy Patterson 0 Hoover Premier Homes 16300 Mill Creek Boulevard, 108 Mill Creek, WA 98012 RECEIVED Vi :0 NOV 13 2906 am a Geotechnical Final Letter 0 0 Mcadowdale Estates - Lot 4 BUILDING DEPARMENT C rJTY OF EDMONDS C V c,umon.s' s' rigton CG FilcNo. 1791 Building Permit # 20060169 Dear Ms. Patterson: This letter summarizes our geotechnical construction observations for your single-fismilY residential project located at Lot 4 in your Meadowdale Estates Development in Edmonds, Washington. We have completed a geotechnical report, dated January 6, 2005. We observed geotechnical aspects of construction on a part-time basis from March 30. 2006 to June 13, 2006. Our observations have been documented in Field Reports 10 and 12. We also have been provided with geotechnical documents prepared by Sky Valley Testing who completed geotechnical tests during construction for the projcct. Sky Valley Testing documented their observations for consiruction within Lot 4 in a field report, dated June 3, 2004. Based on our documented observations and those documents prepared by Sky Valley Te.5tinp, we have SaTisfied the following geoicchnical tasks: 1. Verify structural fill material and required compaction. According documentation prepared by Sky Valley Testinp, structural fill was evaluated as meeting projects compaction specifications. The structural fill was placed within portions of the footing subgrade and throughout others areas surrounding the structure. MM mz > 0 'n n Zo —i x M M 0 0 C to k Cl) Ina z 0 z -4 3: z 0 m 11/10/2006 10:07 4258441987 CORNER�TONEGEOTECHNI PAGE 03 Geotechnical Final Letter Meadowdale Estates — Lot 4 November 10. 2006 CG File No. 1791 1�agc 2 2, Soil bearing verification. We evaluated foundation subgrade for the Structure and found the subgTadc to be adequate for the recommended 2,000 pounds per square foot bearing capacity. The footings were founded on subgradca excavated down to native $Oil$ Or z structural fill s oils, evaluated by Sky Valley Testing. We also evaluated the rookery subgrades to be adequate. it is our understandin g that the rockeries within Lot 4 are all less than or equal to 4 feet in height. In our opinion, the above described geotechnical aspects of construction have been completed in M C gencral accordance with our recommendations, City of Edmonds approved project plans, and our m -40 0 geotechnical report. m M Z Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget for our work, we have strived to take caTe our work has been completed in accordAncc with g encrally accepted practices followed in this area at the time this report was prepared. No other conditions, cxpresacd or implied, should be -n 0 understood. m 0 0 c: 0) C co M 0 0 0 0 7X1 z --4 z M Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. 11/10/2006 10:07 4258441987 CO RNERSTONEGEOTECHNI PAGE 04 Geotechnical Final Letter Mcadowdalc Ftatcs — Lot 4 November 10, 2006 CG File No. 1791 Page 3 We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you. Ifthere, are any questions concerning this Icttcrorifwc can provide additional services, picasc call. Sincerely, Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. z M V5 -4 V M AS C M 0 --10 0 C M mz 30530 0-4 t," CE > t�'� =08116ICrb EXPIRE., 0 -n j x M M Rick B, Powell, PE 0 Prcqident m CO K Cl) Three Copies Submitted m 0 MAS:RBP:nt cc: City of.Edmonds (via fax) z Z m Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. 11/10/2006 10:07 4258441987 CORNERSTONEGEOTECHNI PAGE 01 Cornerstone Geotechnic al, Inc. 17625-13 0' Avenue NE, C-1 02 Woodinville, Washington 98072 Facsimile Transmittal To: Teresa Umbaugh z Company: City of Edmonds Phone'. M Fax: 425-771-0221 Fro m: Rick Powell Vi -4 a A company: Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. M Phone: 425-844-1977 Fax: 425-844-1987 :0 C , M M Z Date: November 1 0� 2006 -4 C 2— CG File No.: 1791 RE: Meadowdale Estates — Lot 4 > 55 Geotechnical Final Letter 0 -n Pages Including Cover Page:, 4 M M 0 0 C OM M > z z J, 0 M 77717`�'�', 'All W Af ,0111' low air lot occgpancy DEPARTMENT OF BUILDIINGS PER INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE SECTION R110 AT: 17118 69" Place West Building Permit#: 2006-016 Occupancy established by this Certificate:- R3 Dwelling Units: No. Stories: 2 Basemerit:— NIA Type of Construction: VB Owner of building: R-.� W'Hoover_ Inc. The Sinale Family Residence at 1711869'"Placer.West � . 'has�been inspected and approved complying with the requirements of the 2003 edition of the International Residential Code as adopted by the Clty4dr the group and division of occupancy and the use for which the proposed occupancy Is classified. Issued this 13" day of November, 2006 Chief Building Official By:_ Any change of occupancy or use requires a building permit and a new Certificate of Occupancy Issued by the City of Edmonds Building Official. im Permit Inspection Details Permit: BLD20060169 PE;RMIT",--',:� 104:4 iii-priveway I Form &'S 10 1 IJL� V6 r. 0 1 9 1 129/2006 Sibrel 3o 6Kfo pour apron only- N 10/04/2006 Hawkins 15 Failed. Need to regrad. the d1w to meet the required 14% slope. N 10/05/2006 MCCONNEL 20 Adjusted string line - less than 14%, okay to pour. Y Total Time: 65 1077 - E;En Ineering Final 9 Co oriple ? 1110212006 Hawkins 30 Failed. Need to connect the d/s off of the back, deck into the V! system and recall for Ergr N final. z 11/0312006 MCCONNEL 10 Approved. Y Total Time: 40 1106 -S-Setbacks, ccmplaia?� 0411712006 MS 20 SETBACK$ APPROVED PER THE STRUNG , SURVEYOFVS REBAR PINS Y Total Time: 20 1108 6-Footings -Co plolIs?: 'in Y�, 3: 04/1712006 MS 20 FOOTINGS APPROVED Y IT! C M Total Time: 20 0 1,110:. B-Foundation Wall do ' lets? m1p 0 C: 04120/2006 MS 2o FOUNDATION APPROVED Y M Total Time: 20 ITT 1122 -13-First Floor:Frarnlnit� Com Wale? Y-, 05/18606d ms 20 FIRSTFLOC, ; R FRAMIN I G APPR OVED -4 Total Time: 20 a; 1126 B-Plumb Ron'lli lw: �com 'plete,?-1:6A�,� Y 4:1) 0 -n 06/28/2006 MS 20 PLUMBING ROUGH IN APPROVED Y Total Time: 20 x C 1129-B-04STs III I s Pipe m M 07/1812006 11 1 M I S 20 CORRECTION NOTICE WRITTEN N 0 6 Fn 07/21/2006 MS 15 CORRECTION NOTICE WRITTEN N C C/) C 0712412006 MS 20 GAS TEST AND GAS PIPING APPROVED Y M 0 Total Time. 55 11312 -' B-Exterfor §[tesithing, 'Complete? 06114/2006 MS 20 EXTERIC, R SHEATHING A PPROVED Y Total Time: 20 1136 - B-Shear Nalling Complete? Y-: z -4 07/18/2006 MIS 20 SHEARAPPROVED X Total Time: 20 Y) 1140 t VerifipatiOn: complete? T z 0511 1 812 006 MS 30 HEIGHT APPR OVED Y Total Time: 30 ITT 114 1 2 -.B-Framing complete? T 07MB12006 MS 20 FRAMING APPROVED Y Total Time: 20 1144 . Small Insulation/Caulk CompleteT 'y 07/21/2006 MS 20 WALL INSULATION APPROVED Y Total Time: 20 1146 - B-Floor Insulation/Caulk Complete? yi, 0712112006 MS 20 FLOOR INSULATION APPROVED Y Total Time: 20 6/22=09 11:X06 AM Page 1 of 2 ulittl n 11/0712006 Snook 25 APPROVED .0rill Total Time: 25 0713112006 MS 20 SHEETR06K APPROVED Total Time: 20 "i5 1110712006 Snook APPROVED Total Time: 25 2/2006 Ha�klns 30 oktopours&v. Total Time: 30 Total Time: 490 Total Inspections: 23 0 3: C M 0 C X M z __I C Z Cri 0 T, n —4 M M 0 0 0 C rj) M 0 ;D Y, M 6122/200911:30:06AM Page 2 of 2 777777�� RECORD OF INSPECTIONS INSPECTOR DATE APPROVED ,mg SETBACKS ..................... .......... FOUNDATION: Footing ...................... wait ............ I. .......... Pier/Porch ................. z Retaining Wall Slab Insulation PLUMBING: Underground ph C Rough -in .......... M 0 0 -40 Commercial Final 0 C HEATING: m J ITI z Gas Test z Gas Piping .......... Equipment .. ............... 0 _n -n 2D Commercial Final -4 EXTERIOR SHEATHING vv1\1 —ex- M M 0 NAILING .......................... 0 171 FRAMING ............ 6 C 0) k to FIRST FLOOR FRAMING yv.\ Q 0 Z INSULATION ........... Floor Insulation Wall Insulation z Ceiling Insulation -7 3 o Lp 3: co z SHEETROCK NAILING SPECIAL INSPECTION VY19 0 IT! MISCELLANEOUS FINAL APPROVAL FOR vo —DIP OCCUPANCY .................. $ ZA14 .0 1 PM AmowtpWd Row', 7 1A_ Xplr.S_.U4�