20060177.pdfDATE RECEIVED
I 6r5
Rm :��xpig
[P:E::,T E Es
CITY OF EDMONDS
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION
PERMIT
NUMBER
J2DRESS W UILTEIAPTV
I OL - I
OWNERNAMEINA EOFBUSINESS
I< liz o tvtI L, C� C
PLAT NAMEISUBDiVISION NO.
LOT NO,
L
LID NO
D FEE S
M ILING ADDRESS
f sl- r,
PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP
EXISTING --- PROPOSED
REQUIRED DEDICATION FT
E,OP,-
R. P A-1.
CITY ZIP ITELEPHONE
PZ0 Vlemv fy:�, -1 -7 114Z
7
NAME
z R I IV
METER SIZE
LINE SIZE
NO OF FIXTURES
Pal REQUIRED
YES 0 NO 13
ADDRESS
REMARKS'
OWNERICONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROUDRAINAGE
CITY .1
ITEL PHONE
NAME
CSLA
To p 1
cz.CT
-2
\DDRES
Vo C,
1+
'ITY
iVq S
IT
TELEPHONE
C1 4- 1-1 - C71 C, 9 '1
3TATE LICENSE NUMBER
EXPIRATION DATE
CHECKED BY
�ROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL NO,
CI-05 1 1 C 0, 0 1-2-
EW
[% RESIDENTIAL
JLUMSINGIMECIT
Ej COMMERCIAL
COMPLIANCE OR
ADDITION
0 MIXEDUSE
E
r[:]
CHANGE OF USE
REMODEL
MULTIFAMILY
E3 SIGN
[3 REPAIR
0 FENCE
CYDS X FTt
ITA.
f-1 DEMOLISH
OTHER
KABASE
CARPORT
RETAINING WALL FIRE SPRINK ER
o ROOKERY F RE ALARM
NUMBER NUM11RO1
OF OWE ING
STOR UNTTLSL
FIRE REVIEWED BY
ME
VARIANCE OR CU
5HORELINEORACEP BE -
HEIGHT
WAIVER 13 V,'� PP-D AUU— I 1R111E1 I 1U111D
STU.Y )k W02. - 0 4D 2-W 1
O=SED REQUIRED SETBACKS (IT) ROPOSED SETBACKS (FT.)
C P
LOT I
ALLOWED Fff1T f,21 REVI F ONT S,
QCRARKING LOTARE, DATE
RE PROVIDED I _.I PLANNING REVIEWED BY, 2_1 . L'�
'2 1 12, CI 033 7-st
ov�� -
TYPE OFIMUCTION 0 CUFANT
GROUP
SPECIAL Cc SU OCCUPANT
REQUIRE LOAD
REMARKS
6qA)Q,AC1iT?1 -Itb 6) q
2-2,5, q I
F-
I . `5 5 j
Description
FEE
Description
FEE
v- 1120
%E�T:�MOURCC
Plan Check
jq13
State Surcharge
LOT S DATE
VESTED
(1-011 �s _J:
Building Permit
City Surcharge
PLAN CHECK NO: os
Plumbing
Base Fee
95
THI PERMITAUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED, THISPERM COVERS WORK TO
Mechanical
Grading
BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PU `RC
X DONMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.� WILL REQUIRE
I
MID
ISPARATE PERMISSION.
M
PERMIT APP CATION: SEE ECDC 113.00,0115(AIS�
Engr. Review
Engr. Inspection
-Iqo 0
T PERMIT LIMIT SEE ECDC 19.00.005(A)(6)
SEESACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION
'APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSOR$
Fire Review
Plan Chk. Deposit
IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, BE END AND HOLD HARMLESS T14E CITY OF
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS. EMPL YEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND
ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMA05S OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
'Fire Inspection
Receipt
C FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT, ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE
DEEMED TO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE
Landscapeinsp,
1, Due
I -a d)a A I
NAN WAY THE CITY-S ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION,'
0 NOR LIMIT I y
Recording Fee I
_AMI
____f - .
To
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE RIAO THIS APPLICATION; THAT THE INFORMATION
APPLICATION APP-R-0—VAe'--'
GIVEN IS CORRECT. AND THAT I AM THE OWNER, OR T E DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF
TN.� PPI-L.11 IA �, I".
THE OWNER. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC.
CALL
F.,- 11a.d 111P
TION� AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL HE EMPLOYED
OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO
FOR INSPECTION P-K
IN VIOLATION
WORKMEN'S COMPENS21NSURAWCE AND RCW Is 27.
FFI LBSIGNAT DATE I
DATE B,Z
(425)
C
Cj771-0220�
R E Y
ATTENTION
EXT. 1333
W
ITS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL
A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTI-
OR GIN FILE
FICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC109 I IBCI10 I IRC110.
INK LIER
10104 PRESS HARD - YOU ARE MAKING 4 COPIES
z
0
`1
0
711
0
CIT!
M Q
-4 0
0 0
C
M M
z
0 -n
'n
rn M
a U5
0,
0 M
C (j)
K C/)
M 0
z
CD
z
9
0
rn
a ,
SCALE:1"..;�.20
SITE PLAN`
�_OT-2, STErt4MIkNS t4--b0WbPtL_c 6ij 6a
or & 10, , 21,
At-cFtAu,.c
s Ey r,STO�km STV5 MATERIAL
17124 6M PL IN SDR 36
EDMON WATER & SEWER cawwer--rab V"kr 'K"Tp-vj'r 1 "J 'H 40
PS,WA"026,* proln
18132 71st Avemie West
LynMNood. WA 98037
42&771:5132
-%-*-,T
LOT SUE
9M SM FT.
LOTGOVERME
2?18 90. FT.: WILDING FOOTPRINT
30SO.Ft COVERED FRONT PORCH
GO SO FT
WALKS. DRIVES & DECKS: ?w
TarAL impERmus ARFjL 38"
ASNOTEDONOMWM.
WILL BE COVERED WITM 24"OURS.
EXCFSSMATERAL FROM EXCAVATING
EXCESS MATERIAL TO BE USED AROUND PERMETER
OF FOUNDATION AND FOR LANDSCAPNG.
ILEB '12006
DEPARIMENI
r EDMONDS
DA'ru M
A- PQHTION OF SECTION 8,
TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, VV
.SEE SHEET C-5 FOR CONTINUATION
�j f,
-7 11-
c,
W7.1
22.5'R
-1" WATER SERVI�E -A,ND
4__ -
6-__
DETAIL E7.1
METER" 2 LOCATIONS
------ 380 ---------------
S
-4
4
DETAIL
---------------
NfAltBOXES
1 6" GATE
-T+4Ru_aL--BE�oe
19-Ar
-----------
'j-ROADW
(A's) I
2+00
8 5'R
3+00
_�S,
RpAaWA*-,J-
CB L
SSMH B
------ 390 ----------
+
I ---
------
-----
------- r - ----------------------------------------- -------
----------------------
� ------ -------- Tmf-srWEF� -STU B7-A-Na ---------
LOT
SS STUB INVERT �AA)
LOT NO.
SS STUB INVERT(AX)
I
CLEAtaQL_j_Z_LjQQ&jjONS
-
ELEV. @ PROP. LINE
ELEV. @ PROP. LINE
-------------
------
-§ff-EDMONDS STANDKRtT -------------- -
jNO.
1
5:?5.68
7
379.80
-------------
-------- DE_TAILS_-E6.2-_AND_.E5�A
2
5771.28
8
-448-le- SIMS
tOTS--2-4 SHOULD HA��ff-__::"T
-----
3
9
9.3
-------------
-------- �SE.WAGE
SEWAGE PUMPS SHALL
4
s".
10
--i
------
5
ll
44L�L.� 350. 8
-----
MAINTAINED BY HOME
------- -------- -----------------------------
6
12
T--------------------------- ------ ---- 4
T---------------------------------
1
------- 4---
1
----------------------------------------
------------
j_R_4-R'p0KER-Y ------------------
—Al
5TE ---PLNIJ
z
Zone—�k 0 c Omer NO FlagAo
�Let . backs 9�M—uired Aqtual
Front F—
CO
M
Sides P 1�,
00
0 C
Rear W
Other
M z
)�7 1�+
> z
APPROVED 13y PLANNIC-5 —7, -
NG. I V
0
-n
M M
RESIja
0
oc M
9 Cl)
FEB - 3 2006
TO
T
NT
M
z
y COPY
z
0
R- lk)
7777 7 n:
I I M
Cornerstone
17625-130th Ave. NE, C102, Woodinville, WA 98072
NMI Geotechnical, Inc.
Phone: 425-844-1977
Fax: 425-844-1987
January 6, 2005
RECEIVED
3
AIR
AUG 16 2005
Ms. Cathy Patterson
Hoover Premier Homes PERMIT COUNTER
16300 Mill Creek Boulevard, #108
Mill Creek, WA 98012
Nov I
z
RECEIVED
0
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Meadowdale Estates
EECE NOV 7 2005
Edmonds, Washington
CG File No. 1791
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR
CITY OF EDMONDS
m
Dear Ms. Patterson:
CITY COPY
In
0
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering investigation for your Meadowdale
Estates residential development in the Meadowdale area of Edmonds, Washington. The site is located at
6880 -172�d Street SW, as shown on the Vicinity Map in Figure 1.
Site development, including grading, road construction, and utility placement, has been substantially
completed. We understand that you have purchased all of the building lots, with the exception of1ot 2,
for the purposes of constructing single-family residences. The City of Edmonds has required a
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 ofa site plan by CHS
Engineering, dated September 2003, that shows lot, road, and utility layout. We have also been provided
with a Slope Stability Evaluation, prepared by GcoEnginecrs and dated June 18, 2002, that addresses the
detention facility. Additionally, we have been provided with field reports prepared by Sky Valley Testing
that document compaction testing performed during the main carthwork phase of the project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The L-shaped project site has maximum dimensions of approximately 640 feet north to south and 440 feet
cast to west. The development consists of a total of 12 lots. We understand that you intend to construct
mz
JD
CE
0 -n
m m
V _C
0 n
0 r-
ca
M 0
z r-
z
z
m
Geotcchnical Engineering Report
Meadowdale Estates
Edmonds, Washington
January 6, 2005
CG File No. 1791
Page 2
single-family residdriecs 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. The
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 vault is Z
located close to the western site boundary.
0
M
SCOPE
ne purpose of this Study is to explore and characterize the subsurface conditions and present
recommendations for site development. Specifically, our scope of services as outlined in our Services
Agreement, dated December 23, 2004, includes the following:
1. Review available geologic maps of the area and available project documentation.
2. Explore the subsurface conditions at the site with backhoe-excavated test pit&
3. Provide recommendations for building foundations, including lateral pressures for
retaining walls.
4. Provide recommendations for site preparation and grading,
5. Provide general recommendations for site drainage.
6. Prepare a written report to document our conclusions and recommen dations.
SITE CONDITIONS
Surface Conditions
At the time of our exploration, the access road (69"' Place W) was paved. Site grading wag also complete
and grass was growing on all of the lots. The storm water detention vault and utilities had ail been
completed, but no residences had been constructed yet. A layoutofthe site is shown on the Site Plan in
Figure 2.
Generally, the ground surface slopes downward towards the west at approximately 3 Horizontal to I
Vertical (311: IV). An existing residence borders the southwestern comer of the site and 172rd Street SW
borders the site to the south. The rest of the site is surrounded by a wooded area with brush and evergreen
trees up to approximately 2 f�et in diameter.
Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc.
-i 'n
C: m
m
0
80
C
'0 -q
C
> Z
0
n Lo
C o��
m
0_0
0
0
c: m
0)
M 0
V
Z
-4
M
Z
9
0
m
�Geotechnical Engineering Report
Meadowdale Estates
Edmonds, Washington
January 6, 2005
CO File No. 1791
Page 3
Geology
Most of the Puget Sound Region was affected by past intrusion of continental glaciation. 'ne last period
ofglaciation, the Vashon Stade ofthe 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 extent than those that were not. Part of a
typical glacial sequence includes recessional outwash sand underlain by glacial till.
m
The site is mapped as being underlain by glacial till (Preliminary Surficial Geologic Map of the Edmond
C
m
East and Edmonds West Quadrangles, Snohomish and King Counties, Mackey Smith, 1975). The map
80
C
also indicates the presence ofadvance and recessional outwash in the general area surrounding the site.
in
z
0-4
Our site explorations encountered glacial till, recessional outwash, and fill. Glacial till, commonly
C
>
r- -4
referred to as "hardpan," is an unsorted mixture of sand, silt, and gavel that is deposited at the bottom of
a continental glacier. As a result of having 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
in M
water during glacial recession is known as recessional outwash. In contrast to glacial till, recessional
0 cn
0
outwash has not been glacially consolidated.
0
C: in
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 I I �O 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. 'Me 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.
MO
X
z
z
0
0
In
Mi I
Gcotechnical Engineering Report
Mcadowdale 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 rill, respectively. Beneath the rill, Test Pit I encountered
recessional outwash. Test Pit 2 encountered a layer of topsoil underlying the fill. The topsoil layer was Z
underlain by weathered glacial till becoming glacial till. It should be noted that loose soils in the areas of 0
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 "tabW' within the upper soil horizons. Volumes of perched 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
sP
Urban Land Complex). The corre onding
using the SCS classification system as Unit 5 (Alderwood
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 Olowed 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 Geotechnical, Inc.
C: in
in
0
80
C:
--i
= m
in Z
'0-4
C
0
m M
a C-
0`-
CT
90)
M 0
M
Z
-4
Z
9
0
in
a ,
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
soft rock"). The IBC provides parameters and coefficients to be used in seismic design based upon this
Z
site class.
M
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
c: m
ground motion,
M 0
C:
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 pavement& 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 of site 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 stock -piled for later use as landscaping fill. The resulting subgrade should be compacted to a
Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc.
7-
mm
Z
ID -4 1" i
C 2
0 -n
*n
-4
X m m
a 6
0
C: 0
K co
M 0
Z r-
;U
Z
co
Z
m
M
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 rcpaired 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, ifnot impossible,
to compact to structural fill specifications in wet weather. We recommend that carthwork be conducted
during the drier months. Additional expenses of wet weather or winter construction would include extra
excavation and use of imported fill or rock spalls.
Structural Fill
General: All fill placed beneath buildings, pavements or other settlement sensitive features should be
placed as structural fill. Structural fill, by definition, is placed in accordance with prescribed methods and
standards, and is monitored by an experienced geotechrrical professional or soils technician. Field -
monitoring procedures would include the performance of a representative number of in -place density tests
to document the attainment of the desired degree of relative compaction.
Materials: Imported structural fill should consist of a good quality, free -draining granular soil, free of
organics and other deleterious material, and be well graded to a maximum size of about 3 inches.
Imported, all-weather structural fill should contain no more than 5 percent fines (soil finer than a Standard
U.S. No. 200 sieve), based on that fraction passing the U.S. 3/4-inch sieve.
The use ofon-site soil as structural fill will be dependent on moisture content control. Somedryingofthe
native soils may be necessary in order to achieve compaction. During warm, sunny days this could be
accomplished by spreading the material in thin lifts and compacting. Some aeration and/or addition of
moisture may also be necessary. We expect that compaction of the native soils to structural fill
specifications would be rfifficult� ifnot impossible, during wet weather.
Fill Placement, Following subgrade preparation, placement of the structural 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.
Z
0 m
m
0
80
a
in
in Z
0 M
in In
a 5
0
0
C in
CO
C Ch
M C)
Z r-
;U
Z
Z
m
Geotechnical 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. The
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 ofa type and size sufficient to attain the desired degree ofcompaction.
0
Temporary and Permanent Slopes
--4
Temporary cut slope stability is a function of many factors, such as the type and consistency of soils,
C: m
M
depth of the cut, surcharge loads adjacent to the excavation, length of time a cut remains open, and the
0
80
presence ofsurface or ground water. It is exceedingly difficult under these variable conditions to estimate
X M
a stable temporary cut slope geometry. Therefore, it should be the responsibility of the contractor to
in z
C) --I
maintain safe slope configurations, since the contractor is continuously at the job site, able to observe the
C
>
r-
nature and condition of the cut slopes, and able to monitor the subsurface materials and ground water
conditions encountered.
0 -n
in in
We anticipate cuts for the daylight basements of your proposed residences. For planning purposes, we
0 C-/)
0 r-
recommend that temporary cuts in the near -surface weathered soils be no greater than I H: IV. Cuts in the
0 M
C: 0)
fill should be no greater than 1.5H:IV. Cuts in the dense to very dense till may stand at a 0.75H:IV
9 co
Q C)
inclination or possibly steeper. If ground waterseepage is encountered, we would expect that flatter
X
inclinations would be necessary.
z
We recommend that cut slopes be protected from eros ion. 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, ifworkcr access is necessary. We recommend that
z
cut slope heights and inclinations conform to local and WISHAIOSHA standards.
m
Final slope inclinations for structural fill and the cuts in the native soils should be no steeper than 2HAV.
Lightly compacted fills or common fills should be no s teeper than 31-1: 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.
vegetation should be maintained until it is established.
Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc.
Ccotcchnical 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
bottom of footing elevation is not medium dense to very dense, it should be overexcavated to expose
suitable bearing soil, and the excavation should be filled with structural fill, or the footing may be
th extra concrete, For residences planned to be built on sloping ground, we recommend a
overpoured wi
minimum horizontal distance of 10 feet between the bottom ofthe footing and the slope face.
Id extend at least IS inches below the lowest adjacent finished ground surface for. frost
Footings shou
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.
mmend an allowable design bearing pressure of
For foundations constructed as outlined above, we reco,
2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) be used for the footing design. International Building Code (113C)
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 Vinch 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 ofa 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 "neat" 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
that an equivalent fluid density of 225 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) be used to calculate the
recommend
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
ate these pressures. The friction coefficient does not include a factor of
for required movements to gener
safety.
Cornerstone Geotectirfmi, Inc.
Z
M
m
MID
--1 0
0 0
C
;I K
m m
_Z
0
n
m M
a
0
0
a
90)
M
3:
Z
_q
3:
0)
Z
0
0
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 ofthe backfill. Walls that are free to yield at least one -thousandth ofthe height ofthe wall are
g an "at -rest"
in an "active' condition. Walls restrained from movement by stiffness or bracin are in
condition. Active earth pressure and at -rest earth pressure can be calculated based on equivalent fluid
density. Equivalent fluid densities for active and at -rest earth pressure of 35 pounds per cubic foot (pef)
and 55 pef, respectively, may be used for design for a level backslope. Equivalent fluid densities for
active and at -rest earth pressure of 45 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) and 75 pcf, respectively, may be used
for design for a 20 degree backslope. These values assume that the on -site soils are used for backfill,
and that the wall backfill is drained. The preceding values do not include the effects of surcharges due to
foundation loads, traffic or other surface loads. Surcharge effects should be considered where
appropriate.
The above lateral pressures may be resisted by friction at the base of the wall and passive resistance
against the foundation. A coefficient of friction of 0.45 may be used to determine the base friction when
supported on the above recommended foundation subgrade preparation alternatives. An equivalent fluid
density of 225 pcf should be used for passive resistance. The friction value does not incorporate a safety
movement.
factor. A safety factor of2 is applied to the passive pressure to limit
All wall backfill should be well compacted. Care should be taken to prevent the buildup ofexcess lateral
soil pressures due to overcompaction of the wall backfill. This can be accomplished by placing wall
backfill in 8-inch loose lifts and compacting with small, hand -operated compactors.
Slabs -On -Grade
Slab-on-gradc 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 brealc A suitable vapor barrier,
such as heavy plastic sheeting, should be placed over the capillary break.
Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc
z
9
0
m
-q -n
m
M 0
0
80
a
m m
z
,0-4
z
r- -4
0)
0
m M
y C,)
0 r-
0 m
C 0
C to
M 0
Z
;D
z
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
z
3 percent minimum for a distance of at least 10 feet away from the buildings. Surface water should be
collected by permanent catch basins and drain lines, and be discharged into a storm drain system.
We recommend that footing drains be used around all of the structures where moisture control is
Vi -1
important. The underlying till will pond water that accumulates in the crawl space. It is good practice to
C m
use footing drains installed at least I foot below the planned finished floor slab or crawl space elevation to
0
00
provide drainage for the crawl space. At a minimum, th e crawl space should be sloped to drain to an
X m
outlet tied to the drainage system. If drains are omitted around slab -on -grade floors where moisture
m z
10--i
control is important, the slab should be a minimum of I foot above surrounding grades.
C —
Where used, footing drains should consist of 4-inch-diameter, perforated PVC pipe that is surrounded by
0 -n
n
free -draining material, such as pea gravel. Footing drains should discharge into tightlines leading to an
M M
appropriate collection and discharge point. Crawl spaces should be sloped to drain, and a positive
a —C
0
connection should be made into the foundation drainage system. For slabs -on -grade, a drainage path
0 m
C: Cn
should be provided from the capillary break material to the footing drain system. Roof drains should not
9 co
M 0
be connected to wall or I boting drains.
z r-
MONITORING
We should be retained to provide monitoring and consultation services during construction to confirm that
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 fromi those
anticipated.
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. 'Me data and report should be provided to prospective contractors for their bidding and
Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc.
z
z
0
0
M
Gcotechnical Engineering Report
Meadowdale Estates
Edmonds, Washington
January 6, 2005
CG File No. 1791
Page I I
estimating purposes, but our report, conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty
ofsubsurface conditions.
The scope of our work does not include services related to construction safety precautions, and our
recommendations are not intended to direct the contractors' methods, techniques, sequences or
z
0,
procedures, except as specifically described in our report, for consideration in design. There are possible
variations in subsurface conditions. We recommend that project planning include contingencies in budget
and schedule, should areas be found with conditions that vary from those described in this report.
M
C
Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget for our work, we have strived to take care that our
M 0
0
--10
work has been completed in accordance with generally accepted practices followed in this area at the time
0 C
--I C
this report was prepared. No other conditions, expressed or implied, should be understood.
X m
m Z
Z
0
000
m M
0
0
In 0
M
z
-4
an
z
0
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
JeffLaub,LG
CA ;I
Project Geologist
m
0
80
m M
Z
c:
0 -n
M
m
00)
r"—piFE—S W16/77
0
0 Fn
a CD
(a
Rick B. Powell, PE
Principal
0
PAO:JPL:RBP:nt
Three Copies Submitted
z
Five Figures
z
0
m
Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc.
77777�
Vicinity Map
z
C
rn
0
0
MC
X M
z
-q
10
0
M
0 Co
C M
co
9 CO
Q 0
Z r-
3:
z
z
0
0
M
Cornerstone Phone: (425) 844-1977 RH Hoover - Meadowdale Estates
- Geotechnical, Inc. Fax: (425) 844-1987 File Number Figure
wo17625-130th Ave NE, C-102 - Woodinville, WA - 98072 1 1791 Ef, �j
I
=5 1
Site Plan based on scanned site plan by CHS engineering, dated 0912003,
Phone: (425) 844-1977
Cornerstone Fax: (425) 844-1987
go- Geotechnical, Inc.
1W 17625-130th Ave NE, C-102 - Woodinville, WA - 98072
LEGEND
Number and Approximate
Location of Test Pit
100 200
Scale 1" 100'
RH Hoover - Meadowdale Estates
TMber 1791 Figure 2
LOG OF EXPLORATION
DEPTH
use
SOIL DESCRIPTION
TEST PIT ONE
0.0-3.0
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 OUTWASWFILL?)
SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 3.5,8.0 AND 10.0 FEET
GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
TEST PIT CAVING WAS ENCOUNTERED BETWEEN 0.0 AND 4.0 FEET
TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 10.0 FEET ON 12128104
�TEBTPIT TWO
0.0-l'o
sm DARK BROWN To BLACK SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (LOOSE. WET) CrOPSOILIDUFF)
1.0-5.0
5.0-6.0
sm GRAY -BROWN SILTY FINE To COARSE SAND WITH G RAVEL (LOOSE, WET) (FILL)
sm DARK BROWN TO BLACK SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL AND ORGANICS (LOOSE, WET)
(TOPSOIL)
6.0-10.0
sm RED -BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL AND ROOTS (LOOSE TO
MEDIUM DENSE. MOIST) (WEATHERED TILL)
10.0-11.0
sm BROWN -GRAY SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH G RAVEL (DENSE, MOIST) (TILL)
SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 3.0.5.0.9.0 AND 11.0 FEET
GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS ENCOUNTERED AT APPROMMATFLY 1 .0 FEET
SLIGHT TEST PIT CAVING WAS ENCOUNTERED BETWEEN 0.0 AND 6 .0 FEET
TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 11.0 FEET ON 12r2alO4
TEST PIT THREE
0.0-1.0
SIM BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL (LOOSE� MOIST) (FILL)
1.0 - L0
sm GRAY SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL (VERY DENSE, MOIST) (TILL)
SAMPLE WAS COLLECTED AT 4.0 FEET
GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 4.0 FEET ON IV2afG4
TEST PIT FOUR
0.0-0.5
sm G RAY 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
TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 0.5 FEET ON 12/28104
CORNERSTONE GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
FILE NO 1791
FIGURE 4
z
3:
M
C
M
-40
0
0
-4
= M
M Z
0
0 -n
n itu
m m
0
0
c
M 0
z
3:
0)
z
0
0
m
im
LOG OF EXPLORATION
DEPTH
use SOIL DESCRIPTION
TEST,PIT FIVE
sm BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL tLOOSE. MOIST) (FILL)
1.0-1.5
sm GRAY SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL (VERY DENSE, MOIST) (TILL)
g,
NO SAMPLE WAS COLLECTED
GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 1.5 FEET ON 12/28/04
0 M
�'Z
c a
M
-40
0
0
--I
=
M
M z
ID -1
z
Om
-n
m M
0-
0
0
C 0)
9 0)
M C)
z
z
0
-4
M
CORNERSTONE GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
FILE NO 1791
FIGURE 5
7777M"ll
Dennis M. Bruce, RE.
M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical /Civil Engineer
R ES U B
FEB - 3 2006 January 24, 2006
BUILDING DEPARTMiNT
CITY OF F-DMONDS
z
City of Edmonds "V,
0
M
clo Tom Belt Homes
P.O. Box 314
65 --1
Edmonds, WA 98020
X
0 M
C
Subiect Geotechnical Evaluation — Foun dation Recommendations
M
0
-.:J 0
Proposed New Murdock Residence
17124 6e Pl. W (Lot No. 2 of Meadowdale Estates), Edmonds,
Washington
City of Edmonds Plan Check No. 05 - 534
This engineering reportzesents the results of a geotechnical evaluation of the
Murdock property at 171'24 69 Pl. W (Lot No. 2 — Meadowdale Estates), Edmonds,
Washington. ThisAvaluation was required due to owner I contractor concerns, as well
as City of Edmonds,66quirements.
_REFERENCES:
• Project Plans -for new residence (furnished by owner I contractor)
• Topographic Map
• Geotechnical Report by Cornerstone dated January 6, 2005
• City of Edmonds comments dated December 7, 2005
• Site photographs by D. Bruce, P.E.
_BACKGROUND:
It is understood that the overall Meadowdale Estates development consists of 12
single-family lots. Cornerstone Geotechnical Report dated January 6, 2005 addresses
11 of the 12 lots (excluding Lot No. 2).
Lot No. 2 is rectangular in shape with approximate dimensions of 100 feet by 90
feet (see Survey Map). This engineer was contacted by project contractor, Tom R. Belt,
with regard to performing a geotechnical evaluation with foundation recommendations
for the proposed new Murdock residence.
SOILS - FOUNDA TONS - SITE DEVEI OPUTNr - INSPECTION - DRAINAGE - DESIGN & PERMIT - LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502 - Shoreline, WA 98155 - (206) 546-9217 - FAX (206) 546-8442
C:
3:
m M
z
C:
>
0 -n
n La
3:9
M M
a
0
0 M
C ri)
C 0)
Q 0
3:
z
z
0
M
'
'
'
.City of Edmonds
`
c/o Tom Belt Homes
Re: Murduu
--
� January24, 2oos
` penou ^ `
' Initial visual evaluation of the No. 2)revealed evidence of
�
il mteoowm tension cracks
���uisv�evidence mso'
i evmonoenvvmumna�����mn.
m'
'
The overall umn�umou»uu�ommomnom
�
^
— ' various stages of construction. The main road (69th Pl. mVhas been constructed aawell
. | as a side road that runs westerly and northwesterly, ouindicated vnthe overall project
T
map
�"H
by Cornerstone has verified very
0 �
dense, glacially consolidated sub -grade soils mvarying depths.
m
' Lot No. 2 contains slopes at approximately 20 to 40 percent, as indicated on the
8
Topographic Map, At the time of this investigation and report, it is understood that the
M
bottom mfooting elevation will �~~`~'~(for the garage) --------ain
—Z
residence (see plano).
.
�m
| EVALUATION:
i |
0,In
|
order to augment the existing site geotechnical information, 4soil test holes
| were hand dug by this engineer on January m\0000(see Site Plan for test hole
- / �vuuono� m�4�mxo�apmna�uo�n�ouo��conditions, namely:
'C
o^mxr amn"meummdense sands v�x
-_' ~ — —
M a
�
! occasional omvom
1mrmmr(bottom mtest holes) with gravel. Very�
-��ao �omo:
�
| vonoo�o�uoo
.
usoDesignation: em
z
Nowater was encountered many mthe * test holes. All test hole walls remained
^
vertical and stable. wosloughing mcaving occurred.
0
'M
'
CONCLUSIONS I RECOMMENDATIONS:
Based on the findings of this investigation, and experience with similar sites m
i
the area, Lot No. 2 at MenuowdamEdmonds, Washington is geotechni
�s�m�m,mopm��u�m�^�m��v�v m==�"�
`
\ ° Standard reinforced continuous and spread footings. Allowable bearing
City of Edmonds
c/o Tom Belt Homes
Re: Murdock
January 24, 2006
Page 3
# Equivalent fluid pressure of 35 p.c.f. is recommended for any retaining wall
design provided drainage zone is inspected and verified by this engineer.
0 For retaining wall design, use friction factor of 0.55 and passive pressure of 350
Z
p.c.f.
* Soil cuts less than 4.5 feet in depth will not require temporary shoring.
Temporary shoring will be required, per on -site geotechnical inspections, for soil
cuts greater than 4.5 feet.
c: M
* Geotechnical inspections by this engineer Prior to any foundation concrete
M 0
0
80
placement.
C
3: M
The proposed structure can be supported on conventional continuous and
M Z
spread footings bearing on undisturbed native soils or on structural fill placed above
C 2
>
native soils. See the later sub -section entitled General Earthwork and Structural. Fill for
structural fill placement and compaction recommendations. Continuous and individual
0
spread footings should have minimum Widths of eighteen (18) and twenty-four (24)
'n
-4
inches, respectively, and should be bottomed at least eighteen (18) inches below the
3: M
M
lower adjacent finish ground surface.
—
a CO
Depending on the final site grades, some over -excavation may be required below
0
M
C Cn
footings to expose competent native soils. Unless lean concrete is used to fill the over
20
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.
Z
Footings constructed according to the above recommendations may be designed
CO
for an allowable soil bearing pressure of three thousand (3,000) pounds per square foot
Z
(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
0
rn
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.
Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between
the foundations and the bearing soils, or by passive earth pressure acting on the
vertical, embedded portions of the foundations. For the latter condition, the foundations
must either be poured directly against undisturbed soil or the backfill placed around the
City of Edmonds
c/o Tom Belt Homes
Re: Murdock
January 24, 2006
Page 4
outside of the foundation must be level structural fill. We recommend the following
design values be used for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading:
Parameter Design Value
z
Coefficient of Friction 0.55
Passive Earth Pressure 350 p.c.f.
0
M
Where:
(1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot.
M
C
M
(2) Passive earth pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid density.
0
80
We recommend that a safety factor of at least 1.5 be used for design of the
M
foundation's resistance to lateral loading.
M z
0--i V
C:
SLABS -ON -GRADE:
Slab -on -grade floors may be supported on undisturbed, competent native soils or
on structural fill. The slabs may be supported on the existing soils provided these soils
Gan be re -compacted prior to placement of the free -draining sand or gravel underneath
M M
D-0
the slab. This sand and gravel layer should be a minimum of four (4) inches thick. We
0
also recommend using a vapor barrier such as 6-mil. plastic membrane beneath the
0 M
slab with minimum overlaps of 12 inches for sealing purposes.
M 0
PERMANENT FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS:
Retaining walls backfilled on one side only should be designed to resist lateral
z
earth pressures imposed by the soils retained by these structures. The following
recommended design parameters are for walls less than twelve (12) feet in height,
which restrain level backfill:
z
Parameter Design Value
M
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
City of Edmonds
c/o Tom Belt Homes
Re: Murdock
January 24, 2006
Page 5
(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 z
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
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.
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 Mirafi and
Enkadrain, should be placed against the retaining walls. The drainage composites
should be hydraulically connected to the foundation drain system. 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.
0
0 M
C
MO
0
80
C
M
M z
0 _`1
C _Z
ca
om
n
-4
3:
M m
0
0
0
C
C CA
rn 0
;a
--I
3:
z
m
City of Edmonds
c/o Tom Belt Homes
Re: Murdock
January 24, 2006
Page 6
EXCAVATION AND SLOPES:
At the time of this investigation and report, it is understood that project contractor
(Tom Belt) proposes to "step-cut"the excavation in order to minimize excavation Z
depths. This procedure will result in slope cuts less than 4.5 feet in depth ... thus: no 9
temporary shoring is required. 0
M
If, however, slope cuts exceed 4.5 feet, this engineer recommends utilizing Eco-
Blocks as temporary shoring to minimize a slope cut horizontal dimension. In other
words, soil cuts greater than 4.5 feet may utilize Eco-Blocks placed in accordance With
on -site geotechnical recommendations and inspections.
In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local,
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 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
modified for site conditions. All permanent cuts into native soils should be inclined no
steeper than 2:1 (H:V). Fill slopes should not exceed 2H:1V. It is important to note that
sands do cave suddenly, and without warning. The contractors should be made aware
of this potential hazard.
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
appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve stability of the surficial
layer of soil.
DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS:
Footing drains are recommended at the base of all footings and retaining walls.
These drains should be surrounded by at least six (6) inches of one -inch -minus washed
rock wrapped 16 non -woven geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or similar
material). At the highest point, the perforated pipe invert should be at least as low as
the bottom of the footing and it should be sloped for drainage. All roof and surface
water drains must be kept separate from the foundation drain system.
No groundwater was observed in any of the 4 test holes during the fieldwork.
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
"A �n
F) -q L
0 X
C M
M
0
0
C
-4 C
=: M
M Z
C
0 -n
n
E
Mill
a U—)
.0
0
C
M 0
M
Z
9
0
M
City of Edmonds
c/o Tom Belt Homes
Re: Murdock
January 24, 2006
Page 7
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
I : I
area where foundations, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Any exposed
a
M
slopes to be covered with plastic to minimize erosion, Final site grading in areas
adjacent to buildings should be sloped at least two (2) percent away from the building,
74 =5
except where the area adjacent to the building is paved.
0
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL:
C M
M 0
80
The proposed building an d pavement areas should be stripped and cleared of all
3: M
surface ve getation, all organic matter, and other deleterious material. The stripped or
M Z
removed materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill.
Structural fill is defined as any fill placed under the building, behind permanent
retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the underlying soils needs to
0
n
support loads. This engineer should observe s ite conditions during and after excavation
-4
3:9
prior to placement of any structural fill.
M M
All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture content at or
0
0
0
c:
near the optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content is that moisture
C V)
Q 0
content which results in the greatest compacted dry density. The moisture content of fill
�5 F
soils is very important and must be closely controlled during the filling and compaction
process.
The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type, compaction
Z
equipment, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. In no case should the
lifts exceed twelve (12) inches in loose thicknes s. The following table presents
Z
recommended relative compaction for structural fill:
Location of Fill Placement Minimum Relati
M
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
City of Edmonds
c/o Tom Belt Homes
Re: Murdock
January 24, 2006
Page 8
Where: Minimum relative compaction is the ratio, expressed in percentages, of
the compacted dry density to the maximum dry density, as determined in
accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1 557-78 (Modified Proctor).
Use of On -Site Soils
z
If grading activities take place during wet weather, or when the sandy, on -site
soils are very wet, site preparation costs may be higher because of delays due to rains
and the potential need to import granular fill. T he on -site soils are generally sandy and
thus are not highly moisture sensitive. Grading operations will be difficult when the
C: 0
In
moisture co ntent of these soils greatly exceeds the optimum moisture content.
0
80
Moisture sensitive soils will also be susceptible to excessiv e softening and
C
rn
"pumping" from construction equipment traffic when the moisture content is greater than
m
the optimum moisture content.
C 2
E: ;I
Ideally, structural fill, which is to be place d in wet weather, should consist of a
granular s oil having no more than five (5) percent silt or clay particles. The percentage
O"n
of particles passing the No. 200 sieve should be measured from that portion of the soil
3: m
passing the three -quarter -inch sieve.
m
a-
The use of "some" on -site soils for fill material may be acceptable if the upper
0(4
0 F;
C co
organic materials are segregated and moisture contents are monitored by engineering
Kca
M 0
inspection.
Z
DRAINAGE CONTROLS:
No drainage problems were evident with the Murdock Lot No. 2 at Meadowdale
Estates. The sandy sub -grade soils allow for storm water infiltration, if necessary.
2;
It is understood that the new residence will comply with City of Edmonds Code
z
requirements for gutters, downspouts and tight line connections into the overall storm
0
m
water management system.
CONCRETE:
All foundation concrete (footings, stem walls, slabs, any retaining walls, etc.)
shall have a minimum cement content of 5-1/2 sacks per cubic yard of concrete mix.
City of Edmonds
c/o Tom Belt Homes
Re: Murdock
January 24, 2006
Page 9
TEMPORARY SHORIN—G—LIF—RIE-QUIREDI:
As understood at the time of this investigation and report, excavation for the new
Murdock foundation shall be less than 4,5 feet in depth. Thus, no temporary shoring will
be required.
Z
If soil cuts actually do exceed 4.5 feet, this engineer shall provide on -site
3
recommendations for temporary Eco-Block shoring to prevent erosional sloughing into
the foundation zone during construction.
'49i
INSPECTIONS:
C
M
T recommendations of this report are only valid when key geotechnical
he
0 C
aspects are inspected by thi engineer durinq construction:
X M
M Z
0 Excavation
* Temporary Eco-Block shoring (if required
C Z
* Foundation sub -grade verification
0
* Any retaining wall, or rockery placement
* Any fill placement
3:
M M
* Subsurface drainage installation
0 5)
* Temporary and final erosion control measures
0
01
C 91
9 Cn
SUMMARY:
Q 0
The proposed new Murdock residence on Lot No.2 — Meadowdale Estates,
Edmonds, Washington is geotechnically viable when constructe d in accordance with
the recommendations herein, compliance with City of Edmonds approved plans and
Z
requirements, and key geotechnical inspections qq[ing construction.
—1
X
STATEMENT F MINIMAL RISK:
Z
0
91h
The plans and specifications for the Mu rdock residence at 17124 6 PL W (Lot
0
M
No. 2 — Meadowdale Estates), Edmonds, Washington 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.
City of Edmonds
c/o Tom Belt Homes
Re: Murdock
January 24, 2006
Page 10
CLOSURE:
The findings and recom mendations of this report were prepared in accordance
with generally accepted professional engineering principles and practice. No other
z
warranty, either express or implied, is made. The conclusions are based on the results
of the field exploration and interpolation of subsurface conditions between explored
0
locations. If conditions are encountered during construction that appear to be different
than those described in this report, this engineer should be notified to observe the
q9i
situation and review and verify or modify the recommendations.
--j
M
If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call.
0
-40
C
M
jWA
MM
Mz
CE
0
-T
117 5
n�
NAM
M
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
0 CO
0
ites I
Geotechnical Civil Engineer
cm
Cj)
DMB:abj
MO
z
-4 F-
cc: Murdock
z
z
0
M
SITE PLAW,
SCALE: 1!..;F 20.W
J,:.oT�2, 5Tr=fVMPtN' mubowohi-e R R�rrzs� 1w w w a
A Do 131CC)o CXG I
S
ST-f- �0 L 15-S
L� -r T
17124 89TH PL W
"To 'PLA"r V�eTew't lot, 'ot
EDMONDS, WA 98026
OWNER
p
MIKE & RONDI MURDOCK
1813271StAVenUGW0d
LyRnwood, WA 98037
3.78-
LOTS=
T� p?ik�iet4 N
q= SO. Fr.
27185O.FT.-WILDINGFOOYPRINT
3D SOL FT. - COVERED FRONT PORCH
so SO. FT. - cql� mm. FOR C-H
cE -382-
-4)R0VbSEDRFS)M
I
ROOFARM- 3128 5Q1.
DECKS: m
WALKS, ORNES
GAS. /2CARGAIRAGE
384-1
TDrALIMPMMOUSARFA- 3m :
-
/f 1--4W RQOF-Y SVz =40
491
OWSION CONTROL—,% VIIJ
Im V
# .
AS NOTED ON DRAWING.
WILL BE COVERW WM-W 24 HOURS.
3R6
EX�ESS-MATERLAL 8(rAVATI"(:tL__,
A
=NIS -r
3
rl�i �--Avo*
HEIGH LATIONS
DATUM PT fST. -LT0f0FL40
DATUM S AT'*,)U-jL
A=387.01
91=383.V
C-374.7
Cm*".v
6 TH PL _W..—.
MAK ALLOWAK tUEtOW - 4070
— _ _
I AZILIAL HEIGHTt 4040
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE
IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
----- ------
0 ,
M.-21 20()r 4:51" West Coast Structural Ent 142b) J"'
M�ST
COAST
STRUCTUMII-�7 PP& �1'7
Sw.%W.9320B Pb',(426)347.WG$ Fx.(4261-- —.4
M=h 21, 20D6
The Laren Co. T 7 z
P0 Box 12863
Mill Creek, WA 98082 t 6—S
0
Attention: Ray Tennel 2,006
Subject! Murdock Residence
Edmonds, WA
WCSE Project No: W878
Dear Ray,
This letter Is a follow up to our conversations regarding the Murdock residence.
For this project, the typical stemwall and fooling is sufficient for retaining up to T-6" of soil, It Is our
understanding that In some places, the concrete stemwall extends up to et-o", however it Is retaining T-611
of soil or less. No corrective measures are required.
Use the retaining wall schedule for retaining soil over 31-6". Supporting calculations are attached,
If there ate any questions regarding this, or 9 we may be offurther assistance, Please contact this office.
Sincerely,
West Coast Structural Engineering Inc,
� 1
Engineer
:4 5i
0 m
m
0
80
m m
0 -n
'n
m M
0 Vi
Or-
0 M
C co
C C/)
M 0
z
z
m
Apr 04 2006 4!14PM West Coast Structural Eng
(425) 347-8996 P.1
WEST
COAST
STRUOTUIAt.
ENGINEF-f
$620HoIIyDr.,3d*M Ev&mtLWaQ82M Ph., (425) 3474M Fx (4251347-066
mWflat
April 4, 2006
The Leren Co.
PO Box 12e63
MIR Creek, WA 98082
z
Subject: Murdock Braced Wall
0
WOSE Project No: W878
Taw up to our conversations regarding the Murdock residence. For the basement wells, use the
All
following detail for the braced wall retaining Lip to g-D"of soill,
m
IN
0
0
C
-1 2-
Al
z
0 -n
r
m ITI
C-
0
0
C
C
ITI 0
X
10,VAI
z
200:f
04
%11 twe are any questions regarding this, or if we maybe of further assistance, please contact this office,
SIncerety,
West r
tas*Btructural Engineering Inc.
�M'C"dw.,
RECEIVED
Is PF
APR 10 1.006
Engineer
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTH.
CITY OF EDMONDS
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical /Civil Engineer
May 9, 2006
MAY 1 2006
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES z
City of Edmonds D.S.D. 9
121 51h Ave. N 0
M
Edmonds, WA 98020
Subject: Field Reports - Geotechnical Inspections
17124 69uPl. W, Edmonds, Washington
W-r-dock -New Residence
City of Edmonds Permit No. 05 - 534
This engineering report presents the results of ongoing geotechnical inspections
for the new Murdock residence at 17124 69th Pl. W, Edmonds, Washington (Lot No. 2
Meadowdale Estates). These inspections were required as a condition of permit from
City of Edmonds.
REFERENCES:
a Previous geotechnical reports (Cornerstone - January 6, 2005)
o City of Edmonds approved Project Plans
e Geotechnical Report by D. Bruce, P.E. dated January 24, 2006
e Site photographs
INSPECTIONS:
This engineer provides a minimum of 2 inspection visits per week during active
geotechnical activities (excavation, foundation preparation, any fill placement,
subsurface drainage, etc.).
- Excavation: This engineer verified excavation encountered dense native sub -
grade soils easily providing 3,000 p.s.f. bearing capacity. All excavation cuts
were stable and less than 5.0 feet in depth. No temporary shoring required.
* Temporary Eco-Block Shoring: Not required due to excellent geotechnical sub -
grade conditions and nominal excavation depths.
* Foundation Sub -Grade: This engineer verified dense stable native soils easily
providing 3,000 p.s.f. bearing capacity. "OK" to proceed with foundation
SOILS - FOUNDATIONS - SITE DEVELOPMENT - INSPECTION - DRAINAGE - DESIGN& PERMIT - LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502 - Shoreline, WA 98155 (206) 546-9217 - FAX (206) 546-8442
rn
rn
C_
> z
0 -n
n
M M
a @
0,
0 M
C Cn
C co
M 0
M
z
z
0
M
io-n
City of Edmonds
Development Services Division
Re: M. Murdock
May 9, 2006
Page 2
formwork, reinforcing steel and concrete per City of Edmonds approved Plans.
Contractor subsequently properly placed foundation footings and stem walls.
Retaining Walls I Rockery Placemen : Not yet. z
Fill Placement: No significant fill material was required for geotechnical purposes.
ic yards) or gravel was used for the rocked M
A small amount (less than 5 cub
construction entrance and subsurface drainage backfill. All placement of fill �n
material is geotechnically approved.
0 M
C 0
bsurface Draina-ge: This engineer inspected and verified proper installation of M
S --i
subsurface drainage in accordance with City of Edmonds approved Plans and 0 C
good practices. 3: M
erosion control
Erosion Co Contractor properly established temporary z
measures (rocked construction entrance, down -slope siltation fencing and
regular / diligent cleanup) :�
o -n
Ing — When installed, this engineer will
Final erosion control measures are pend
perform an inspection and issue a final report. M M
0
0
C:
S_UMMARY:
Ongoing geotechnical inspections have verified proper completion of Q 0
geotechnical activities to date (May 9, 2006). M
ntrol measures.
Geotechnical inspections pending for permanent erosion co >
z
If there are any questions, do, not hesitate to call.
z
WAVv,
M
1740S
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
Geotechnical I Civil Engineer
r;x;n Es 12/2
DMB:abj
cc: M. Murdock
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE
IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
Ila
F
GARY HAAKENSON
CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR
121 STH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 FAX (425) 771-0221
Websile: Ledmonds.waus
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning Building Engineering
June 6, 2006
Mike & Rondi Murdock
18132 71" Ave W.
Edmonds, WA 98037
Z
Re: Building Permit: 2006-0177
Site Address: 18132 7 1" Ave W.
Expiration Date: 03/09/07
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Murdock,
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the last remaining inspection on your
project is a final inspection(s). The final inspection(s) detem-lines that there are no
outstanding life -safety issues and approval allows the City to close your permit file.
The City considers the final inspection to be one of the most important inspections
conducted on a project. In order to grant final approval the following must be complete;
smoke detectors, house numbers, guardrails, handrails, self -close doors between garage
and residence, egress from sleeping rooms, safety glazing, weather-stripping, any
Engineering department requirements etc. Ofcourse not all ofthese things may
specifically apply to your project but it does give you an idea about the kinds of things
that must be complete as well as some items that do not need to be installed such as:
paint, carpet, moldings, wallpaper, etc. Please be advised pen -nits expire one year from
the date of issuance. if you will need more time to complete the work, permits can be
renewed prior to expiration for one half fees. Ifthe pen -nit expires without a final
w 11
approval granted by the Building Inspector, full fees are required in order to rene t c
permit. This can be very costly to you and we strongly encourage you to check your
permit expiration date and call for the required final inspection(s). Note: If more than
one department is required to final your project, this is noted on your Job Card.
Please feel free to contact me at 425-771-0220 if you have any questions.
*'cerely,
A. Z a
im, P c
Peiali.t
Incorporated August 11, 1890
"A 5i
m
C —
m Z5
0
C
C
rn
Z
m
CE
0
n
X m m
0 _C0
0
0
C
9 co
Q 0
Z r-
Z
Z
0
0
in
P Permit Inspection Details
Permit: BLD20060177
PERMIT-1 R-'�
116011 -E-Erosion Control/M6011taltion7",�-
09/0V2006 Ed 30
Y
Total Time:
3
1017 - E-Footing Dralm Connection
coolplatel?
:,,Y�j
09/01/2006 Ed 30
Y
Total Time:
30
MS�E-SeweiLaterallmal n Inspecii. on,,
"Co , to plate?,
i Y,
0 910 1 /2 006 Ed 30
Y
Total Time:
30
1033';.E.Watei.ServicetoMetet2�',or'�-le
0910V2006 Ed 30
Y
Total Time:
30
1034:- E-Water SeirviceUne
C 06
06/20/2006 e 15
Y
Total Time:
15
1077, mE-Engirieerftlg�Fina,.'�
d hills
09101/2006' Ed 30 6K to Final
Y
Total Time:
30
110� B-Setbacks,
omplete7V;,
03/20/2006 MS 25 PER STRUNG PROPERTY LINES
Y
Total Time:
25
1110&- B-Footing j'':
s
c le
0
03r2O/2006 Me 25 APPROVED
Y
Total Time:
25
1110 Br dundationWail
not
03127/2006 MS 26 APPROVED
Y
Total Time:
20
1122 - BwFirst Floor Frain n
Ok2120'06' MS 25 APPROVED
Y
Total Time:
25
1126 B-Plumb Rough Im
comp
05,1212006 MS 25 APPROVED
y
Total Time:
25
1128 - B-Gais Test/Pipe
Co I Its.?,
Y
05/0 2/ 20 06 MS 20 APPROVED
y
Total Time:
20
1132, B-Exterlor Sheathing
Complete?—,
05/M/2066 MS APPROVED
y
Total Time:
25
1136 - B-Shear Nailing:
:CornpletLe?.::
05122i�006 M . S 25 APPROVED
Y
Total Time:
25
11 , 42- , B-Framing.
Corn plete?::
Y
05122/2006 MS 30 APPROVED
Y
Total Time:
30
1144 - B-Wall Insulation/Caulk
Complete?
y':
05/24/2006 MS 20 APPROVED
Y
6/22/2009 11:36:48 AM
Page I of 2
z
9
0
M
3:
m
M 0
0
80
a
--j K
3: M
M Z
0 --1
C
0 -n
n
m M
a
0
0 M
C o)
K CD
In 0
X
z
z
IT!
Total Time: 20
05/2412006 MS
APP OVED
Total Time: 20
su m
64/011,2006 MS
20 APPROVED
Total Time: 20
1160 4§h 'k Walf
05/31/2006 MS
20 APPROVED
Total Time: 20
F itl�
1 44, In
. .........
C 0
z
/2006 MS
-F�IZA`L APPROVED
25
Total Time: 25
Total Inspections: 20
Total Time: 490
ITI
C
ITI
-4
0
0
C
I
IM: MZ
0 -n
n
M M
0
0 ITI
C
M 0
z
1"'k
z
0
ITI
6/2212009 11:36A8 AM
Page 2 of 2
C 9 rownlis
ity If
cerwate 9( occuYWICY
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS
PER INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE SECTION R110
Building Permft* 2006-0177
Occupancy established by this certificate: R3 Dwelling Units:
No. Stories: I Basement: -NIA Type of Construction:
�Mike & Ron
Owner of building: omplying with the requirements
The Single Family Reel ence at 17124 Place W as been inspected and approved c
ofthe 2003 edition of the International Residential Code as adopted by the City for the group and division of occupancy and the use for which
the proposed occupancy is classified.
issued this _,1m day of Sel3tember, 2006
Chief Building Official
Any change of occupancy or use requires a building permit and a new certificate of occupancy issued by the City of Edmonds Building Official.
RECORD OF INSPECTIONS
INSPECTOR DATE APPROVED
SETBACKS ............. -3
FOUNDATION:
Footing ...................... 3 -(9
'3
wall ..........................
aorc .................
Retaining Wall ...........
Slab Insulation ..........
PLUMBING:
Underground .............
Rough -in ...............
Commercial Final
HEATING:
Gas Test ............
Gas Piping .. ..............
Equipment .................
Commercial Final
EXTERIOR SHEATHING
NAILING ..............
FRAMING ........................
FIRST FLOOR FRAMING
INSULATION .............
Floor Insulation
Wall Insulation ...........
Ceiling Insulation
oL
SHEETROCK NAILING
SPECIAL INSPECTION
MISCELLANEOUS ..........
FINAL APPROVAL FOR
Cj
OCCUPANCY ..................
Sidesewer
AUUMP111110 275
121 70000'
WderbuWS10
t5 .015
ROW#
AM0UMFWd$—ReWPt#---.&—
Daft L%ved
z
0
0
C IT
IT, a
—4 0
02
=M
ITIZ
3:
0
"n
int M
a
0
0
C
Cl)
0
7`1
z
z
9
0
111