The URL can be used to link to this page

20060331.pdfDATE RECEIVED A2 5- [PERMIT EXPIRES / — CITY OF EDMONDS 10ERMIT NUMBER �� CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION I ILIT11AIT, lon 'Do"'I -7 7-6 Jqc `,A/ OWNER NAME'NAME c od")'52 PLI (20nip??y 1OL' - �A " I I 1�1 1� "I 11T11 IL�rl N. MAILINGADDRESS 'A c) S1 PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL S111,VT MAP CITY Eve (e44 9 .3 LIE1.10 L A7��-ASCI- 7 7Y FX15T�NG P"OP ED P, U� ouRrn oicATsoN F1 13 NAME >5 N..11,.IU..1 1.vNEQUI.I. E sO NO E3 ADDRESS Woe Prve 71,� - RUMA-S OWNERCONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR IROSION CONTROLDRAINIGI CITY TVI 1PHONE (1) I V)4,r,i le— 9 2,;� C) '3 tpo: (Ps 2?- 0_� 7�) -11/,Ll f—bi Vld,' V'W'-L NAME CUL. (d" , 1) , z IGINEERING RrVIE 0 TIE I ADDRESS 31-11 I lyv � ?Z 1,4 CITY ZIP 11LIPHON1 ".E. By 4+ 1 1/.29- 1 ic STATE LICENSE NUMBER EXPIRATION A; 21 1.37 " I VARIANCE 11 1U 1"011111NI OR 1111 �SRP�E.CTION G Y. B 13 SEp ...... No PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL NO P FIONE VER 13 f 0 _ SIG AREA ..re U) R'"'", A�l 1-101r. 2-7trqc2 /",400 wo i v a UDY a —1k= 5 OCNEW QrRESIDENTIAL ��PLUIAMN. I NBECH IOTCOVERAGE.Vl* ALLOWE PROPOSED REGUIRIDSETBA KSEFT) FRONT 'eo,'5 0 ETUACKS(FT) " SIDE PEAK COMMERCIAL COMPI. OR I+ I - 55D 4 ADDITION - MIXED USE CIANCE El CHAN EOFUSE 1 REMODEL M MULTIFAMILY SIGN G EPARKING LOTARE10 RE PROVIDED I 2- 1 7- ur55 I PLAONINGRIVIEW51)[1(l), DATE _11 &014m 5 1 Dt- REPAIR CyD IFENCE X FT) fQAWY,_,CL - DEMOLISH TANK OTH ER +D GARAGE RETAINING WALL F LER CARPORT NOCKERY FIRE SPRINK Z El REALARN o cjM-hf�A -to P b f 61D pr- -fbr Jr6pl-d c (TY��BUSINESS OR X r WHY" F TYPE OF Cjt 0 CUFANT G cup 6 �i NUMBER NUM ER OF I OF S RIES OW LUNG U NITS SPECI TION ALINX REOUIRED YES OCCUPANT LOAD DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE a AXS f�,! m-, GEOTp9t�%FATr #A v� j 0-4k 1 1�.7-1 if P-F1'LT Description FEE Description FEE ftq� RIM 1110 Plan Check State Surcharge V6RCI I LYT40P VESTED DATE , f I Building Permit city Surcharge PLAN CHECK NO: (515— Plumbing Fee mechanical 6z _11V4 THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY� ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBIC X�? EQUEES W1 REQU DONMAtN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS. MA ETC.) LL IRE SEPARATE Grading PERMISSION._ Engr. Review PERMIT APPLICATION: SEE ECDC 19.00.005(A)(5) Engr. Inspection 3-� PERMIT LIM" SEE ECDC 19.0"OS(A)(6) SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION 'APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS Fire Review Plan Chk. Deposit w , IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDE NIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF Fire Inspection Receipt # J 71T 2 EDMONDS . WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND A C-IMSFORDAMAGES F WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY LL Landscape map, Total Amt. Due F OM THE ISSUANCE 11 THIS PERMIT, ISSUANCE OF TH13 11 TALL NOT DEEMED TO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ZN`YrT1`TR ORDINANNE NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITY'S ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISIDW- Recording Fee Receipt 4 IHER9 Y ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION: THAT THE INFORMATION APPLICATION APPROVAL GIVEN IS CORRECT;AND THAT I AM THE OWNER, OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF r, THE OWNER. I AGREE To COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC' CALL B.10P, 01 .1 hlVh�l D.Pull: i,d 1— - pr,d, Pd TION; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO FOR INSPECTION —PI,, K,kA,.I1d91d,P 111 Flolded S SIGNATU WORKMEN'=ATION NSURANCE AND RCW 18:27, 4 SIGNAYUR AGE1 1 DATE( 771 Z20 ATTENTION EXT. 1333 ITISUNLAWFULTOUSEOROCCUPYA BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL T, 1 A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTI- ORIGINAL - FILE YELLOW - NSPJ!CTOR FICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC109 I IBC110 I IRC110, PINK OWNER GOLD - ASSESSOR 10104 PRESS HARD - YOU ARE MAKING 4 COPIES z 6 R1 '49i T) :0 0 rn C M 0 80 C: ;I r M IT1 to C: 0 -n 'n A A 0 F) 0 r- 0 M C ty) C Q) IT 0 Z z V) z 9 0 IT1 E�(iON CONTROL AND DRAINAGE RIM 11,11'HUVLO AS NXED ALL L -D SURFACES To SP"LAN, LOT # BY ENGINEERING Owner: Hillcrest Construction Co.,'in'c. r PE COVE-11210 WITHIN 9 r)A)(8 4003 Nassau Place Pp-rl> T;,—iE AND AID AD D RESS SiGN REQ1 AL6 Everett, WA 98201 Date: Corner-- Fh1PLz— Tax ParcellNumberAN A4%jMffl%k' . . . . . . . �etbacks acquired Actual N Site Address: Front W. 10 10 1 Sides Lot Coverage Impervilou area Rear C— 7- 5' 2141 1 House House SF: 1432 Other — I .t :F :�F L F� F� Overhangs 212 35% All DrIve/Walk 520 Under/0 Tota 2164 ver .161-55 Bench Mark- Top of sewertFinhole, (a SW corIner of prolect = 191.26' Height Calcs 1z. I p �rqt A J., des-Mckvi B -2 C FWP— a I I: -Wag 7 D Total l� Average 487-42- t9 -7 0 ( , N � W 4 .25'Allowed 25 14 N112 M" 10 �1.4 Max.M.Aliowed 242-19 -Z 0( , 145 Main Floor Elev. Ir"Ok K X Bldg. Height Actual Height 212.00 GRADING CALCS. 7? Footing Elev. ,c@W �C, Cut Area WATER & SEW1 R ((A+B)12)-Foofing Elev. 0.25 ((B+D)/2)-Footing Elev. 2,625 INSPECTIONS RE YD ((D+C)/2)-Footing Elev. 6125 RIGHT -OF R-1 I tALL 425-771-0220 E) T. 1326 lie (11 It4 ttq is 7- tjo ((C+A)/2)-Footing Elev. 3.75 AND' SPECTION REQUIRED SG4 a F &-- - Average Cut = 3,1875 SEWAGE PUMP CALCS. A a; V1,ge-Z R3 Volume 4462.5 Pump size ca Units Quan Totals Cubic Yds.t- 165.28 Bathtubs 4 1 4 APPROVED.By PLANNING jAN i (,t Comb. Tub/& 4 1 4 C)-)�-' I �,D(o Clothes West I 1 1 SURDING rj=r, Downspouts will be connected to storm Dishwasher 1.5 1 1.5 ;p, stub. Footing drains will also be con- Lavatory ink 115 4 1 4 Kitchen a .5 nected to storm stub if grade allows, Laundry sink 1.5 1 1.5 r"ITY Copy and connection will be no less than .75' Shower 2 1 2 below invert of footing drain line. Water closet � 2.6 3 7.5 UkWUM DRIVEWAY SLON SCALE 1 INCH 20 FT If grade precludes such connection, IDeMand-GPM from Chart 4U Al I OWED U% ,then a sump will be provided. _ UWN,_�RICONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL EXPOSED SURFACES TO EROSION CONTROL AND DRAINAGE SITE PLAN, LOT # "I ~N041 Owner: Hillcrest Construction Co., Inc. AP OWED AS 9; GMERED WITHIN 2 DAIS�"E 4003 Nassau Place AND A:D A 3 SIGN 000l WIFIED Everett, WA 98201 PAD r1a_7,_QQ1L 0 Corner — Flag RR Tax Parcel Number: 22-uj_red A ront W IDI ID Sit ddress: ides N .51 /FT( 1432 Lot Coverage Impe a area Rear R.Lis 'vioF Ho se SF F. a SR Other Lot SF. N. Overhangs 212 u S 35% Allowed: .,S.F. Drivefflalk 520 Total —2164 5:rS SW corner of prolect = 191-26' El. nd-r/Over -1 SPUnChMPrk-T-2qf'.1.w ZanholeCil Height CaIcs pecliceityf a V71 1 4. 11) ISO t18 A vvial Y-wA� cl 111.715, __+ N92:%.e B P 0. C �82 Fk 117.0 D qt It q, 0 BL Total -74&63- -7'1 if, 2 G- pe Uj M TLINE, Average 4974 1 )�'-7, 0 z IAL d 25 Lid SC 25'Al -2+2-t9-- 2- _7A t._ Max.HtAiowed t REVISION Main FloHr �iehvi & 25, B COR JUN 15 20126 Ml6D'N0GrD.E.P=AEhr Actual Height 212.00 07 C a GRADING CALCS. c9a :171 WAT ER & SEWEI I Footing Elev. =ERW 1 ,, mC Cut Area INSPECTION ((A+B)/2)-Footing Elev. 0.25 S REQ'D -Footing Elev. x 17 ICALL 425-771-0220 EX` 1326 ((B+D)/2) Z625 RIGHT-OF- ((D+C)/2)-Footing Elev. 6.125 lull 1-1:100 N9 IqV fit 14 t1q 117 1 Ir ((C+A)/2)-Footing Elev. 3.75 AN 0 IRIE�Ql UIRED RES UIB Average Cut = 3.1875 SEWAGE PUMP CALCS] Volume 4462.5 Pump size ca Units Quan Totehi (K CITY Cop'Y'"'006 Cubic Yds.=� Bathtubs 4 1 4 Comb. Tub/Sl 4 1 4 +r'd Clothes West 1 1 1 BUJI.DING DEPARWINT A TY IND, ffo—wnspoufs-will be connected to storm Dishwasher 1.5 1 1S Cl OF EDML stub, Footing drains will also be con- Lavatory 1 4 4 94 HR. NOTICE REQ. L Kitchen sink 1.5 1 1.5 Laundry sink 1.5 1 1.5 APP MR INSPECTION nected to storm stub if grade allows, and connection will be no less than .75' Shower 2 1 2 b I invert 0 oting drain line. Water closet 2.5 3 7�5 SCALE 1 INCH = 20 FT w = Ifeglade precludes such connection, Demand -GPM fro Chart 40 MAXIM the a sump will be provided. t GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING m EVALUATION TALBOT PARK ESTATES EDMONDS, WASHINGTON PREPARED FOR CITY OF EDMONDS FEC m M 0 o Cc A, ' 3'1 m C, -QD RECEIT COPY SEP 11. 2001 Western Engineers, NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. NGA: N A GEOTECHNicAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS IiM-13eAvenue NE,A-500 Snohomish County (425) 337-1669 Woodinville, WA M72 Wenatchee/Chelan (09) 784-2756 (425)486-1669 - Fax(425)481.2510 Fcbnimy 14, 2003 0 M City ofEdmonds Development Services Department 121 - 5' Avenue North Washington 98020 0 in Edmonds, C rn 0 Attn: Nk. Steve Bullock Cc Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation MM M� Talbot Park Estates io C�: - Edmonds, Washington NGA File No. 360902 Dear Mr. Bullock: 0 -n -n We are pleased to submit this report titled "Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation - Talbot Park Estates, in in Edmonds, Washington." This report summarizes the existing surface and subsurface conditions on the site a 6 0 r- and contains geotechnical recommendations for specific aspects of this development. Our services were 0 completed in general accordance with the contract signed by you on December 11, 2002. C K co It has been a pleasure to provide service to you on this project. Please contact us if you have any questions M 0 Z r- regarding this report or require further information. 'z Sincerely, Z NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Z m KQ-W—M. Shitvvi�h, PE Senior Engineer Five copies submitted INTRODUCTION.................. ........................................... ................ ................... I .... .................... ....... 1 SCOPE............................................................................... ................... . .......... . . ...... .............. ........ I SITECONDITIONS ......................... . ........................................................................... ..... ........ ...... —.2 SURFACE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................ .............................................. 2 0 m SUBSURFACECONDITIONS ..................................... ................................................................................................... 3 GEOLOGY......... . ..... . .. . ........ . ......... . ..... 3! EXPLORATIONS ................................................................................................ ........................... .............. ........... -.3 M 4 0 HYDROLOGICCONDITIONS ................................................................................................................................ M SENSITIVE AREA . ....... . .. M z SEISMIC HAZARD ....................................................................................................................................................... 5 EROSIONHAZARD -5 c- > Z .................................................................................................................................................... LANDSUDE HAZARD/SLOPE STABILITY ....................................................................................................... .......... 5 0 -n 6 n SLOPESTABILITY ....................................................... I ............................................................................. -q 3:9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECObMNDATIONS .. . ........... mm —co 0 0 GENERAL................................................................................................................................................................... 7 C con 8 ERosioNCoNTROLMEAsuRES .................................. . .............................................................................................. m 0 STEEPSLOPE SMACK ................................ ........................... .......................................................... 8 SLOPEAND SMACK PROTECTION . .......................................................................................................... ................ 9 SITEPREPARATION AND GRADING ...................... ...................................................................................................... 9 TEMPORARYEXCAVATIONS ........................................................... .................................. 10 z -4 m STRucTuRALFILL................................ I. .................................................................... FOUNDATIONS........................................ ....................................................................................... ......................... 12 z SLABs-oN-GRADE ..................................................................................................................................... *,,****,**,**,* 13 SITEDRAINAGE ........................................................................................................................................................ 13 USEOF THIS . ........................ . ..... ... ...... —... ........... 14 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Talbot Park Estates Edmonds, Washington INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the results of our Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation on Talbot Park Estates located 'in Edmonds, Washington. The site is located at 7707 — 17 1 " Street SW in Edmonds as shown on the Vicinity Map in Figure 1. A single-family residence is currently located on the site. The developer plans to construct an access road near the western property line and divide the site into seven residential lots. We understand that the existing residence will remain and will occupy one of the lots. We have been retained to explore the subsurface conditions within the site, observe and map the slope surficial conditions, and provide geotechnical engineering recorturiendations for foundations and this study, we have been provided with a site plan residence setback. For the purpose of completing prepared by Lovell-Sauerland Associates, Inc. titled, "Preliminary Plat for Talbot Park Estates," dated October 22 2002. The site plan shows the planned lot layout and access road alignment, and has topographic, information. We have also been provided with a copy of a preliniinary geotechnical ur er evaluation report for the site, dated September 12, 2001, prepared by Liu & Associates, Inc. In yo lett dot ds mmun ty ertinent sections of the E on CO i to us dated October 17, 2002, the City stated that the p Development Code for this project are 20.15B.110.A & D and 19.05. SCOPE The purpose of this study is to evaluate the site subsurface soils and hydrologic conditions and provide recommendations for site development. Specifically, our scope of services includes the following' 1. Review available geologic and soils maps of the area, and the provided geotechnical report for the site. 2. Explore the site subsurface soil and ground water conditions using a subcontracted backhoe. 3. Perform field mapping and develop cross sections on the steep slope at selected locations. 4. Evaluate slope stability on the site, and complete slope stability analysis. ded setback/buffer from the top of slope for building siting. 5. Provide a recommen 6. Provide recommendations for site grading and earthwork, including structural fill- Z 0 m C: 0 m 0 -40 0 C M mZ 0 -n n -4 m M U 0 091 C: 9 0) M 0 Z Z 0 m Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Talbot Park Estates Edmonds, Washington February 14, 2003 NGA File No. 360902 Page 2 7. Provide recommendations for foundations and slabs -on -grade. 8. Provide recommendations for site drainage and erosion control. 9. Document our explorations, findings, and conclusions and recommendations in a written geotechnical report. The report to address the pertinent sections of the ECDC. SrrE CONDMONS Surface Conditions The site is a semi -rectangular -shaped parcel covering approximately 2.1 acres. The site is bordered by 171" Street SW to the south and a residential lot to the west. A ravine borders the site on the eastern and e time of our field reconnaissance northern sides. A stream was flowing at the bottom of the ravine at th on December 18, 2002 and February 3, 2003. The site features are shown on the Site Plan in Figure 2. A residence with some outbuildings is situated in the southern portion ofthe site. This area is vegetated with a grass lawn and young to mature deciduous and evergreen trees. The northern portion of the site is undeveloped, and is vegetated with blackberry bushes, brush, and young to mature deciduous and evergreen trees. The main portion of the site slopes gently down toward the south. The ravine on the eastern side of the site slopes moderately to steeply down toward the cast. The steep ravine slope is covered with ferns, blackberry bushes, and young to mature deciduous and evergreen trees. Old growth stumps were observed on the slopes. We measured Cross -Sections A -A!, B-131, and C-C' using a 100-foot tape measure and a hand-held clinometer. The cross -sections are presented as Figures 3, 4, and 5. The portion of the steep slope at Cross -Section A -A', which has an approximate east -west orientation, has a total relief of approximately 30 feet. This portion of the ravine slopes toward the cast with inclinations as steep as 27 degrees. The portion of the steep slope at Cross -Section B-B', which has an approximate southwest -northeast orientation, has a total relief of approximately 60 feet. This portion of the ravine slopes down toward the northeast with inclinations as steep as 40 degrees. The portion of the steep slope at Cross -Section C-C', which has an approximate east -west orientation, has a total relief of approximately 25 feet, and slopes down toward the east with inclinations as steep as 3 8 degrees. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. z 9 0 to m rn 0 0S m 0 Z 0 n in M a 0 0 C 9 0) M 0 X -4 z -4 z m � I Gcotechnical Engineering Evaluation Talbot Park Estates Edmonds, Washington February 14, 2003 NGA File No. 360902 Page 3 Subsurface Conditions Geology Most of the Puget Sound region was affected by past intitision of continental glaciation. Thelastperiod of glaciation, the Vashon Stade, ended approximately 10,000 to 11,000 years ago. Many of the geomorphic features seen today are a result of scouring and overriding by glacial ice. During the Vashon Stade, 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 The geologic units for this area are shown on the Geoloidc May of the Edmonds East and Part of the in (U Edmonds West Ouadrangles, Washin , by James P. M ard S Geological Survey, 1983). The site is mapped as till, which is described as an unsorted mixture of silt, sand, and gravel. Drift is a similar unit to till but has some sorting. Advance outwash and transitional bed materials are mapped a short distance from the site. Advance outwash is described as sand with varying amounts of gravel. Transitional bed cc t ed al consistent en un er materi material consists of bedded clay, silt, and fine sand. Our explorations with the descriptions of drift and advance outwash, and we observed transitional bed material in the northeast section ofthe site, near the bottom of the ravine. Explorations The subsurface conditions within the site were explored on December 18, 2002 by excavating two hand auger explorations, and on February 3, 2003 by excavating nine test pits with a backhoe. The hand auger explorations extended to 'depths of 2.8 to 3.4 feet below the ground surface, and the test pits were excavated to depths of 4.0 to 7.0 feet below the ground surface. The approximate locations of the explorations are shown on the Site Plan in Figure 2. A representative ofNelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc., (NGA) was present during the explorations, examined the soils and geologic conditions encountered, hand augers and test pits. obtained samples ofthe different soil types, and maintained logs ofthe ti in, The soils were visually classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classifica on Syste presented in Figure 7. The soil logs are attached to this report and arc presented as Figures 8 through I I - tailed We present a brief summary of the subsurface conditions in the following paragraphs. For a de description of the subsurface conditions, the logs should be reviewed. Our two hand auger explorations were located on the slope of the ravine feature. These explorations NEL.SON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. z in =19i 0 m C m 0 80 C m in 0 -n -n in M CO 0 0 C 0) 90 0 z -4 X 8 z 9 0 m M � Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Talbot Park Estates Edmonds, Washington February 14,2003 NGA File No. 360902 Page 4 encountered 0.6 to 1.5 feet of surficial topsoil material. Underlying the topsoil, we encountered silty fine to medium sand with gravel to fine to medium sand with silt and gravel. These soils extended to the bottom of the hand auger explorations, 2.8 to 3A feet below the ground surface. Test Pit 6, located near the north end of the planned access road, encountered 1.5 feet of loose surficial fill material composed of silty fine sand with roots and pieces of concrete. Our other eight test pit explorations encountered a surficial layer of topsoil 1.0 to 2.8 feet thick Test Pits 3 and 4, located in the northern portion ofthe site, encountered material generally consisting of sand with silt below the surficial topsoil and extending to the bottom of the explorations. We interpret this material as outwash. The remaining seven test pit explorations encountered silty sand with gravel beneath the topsoil and fill. This material extended to the depth explored in these test pits, and was interpreted as glacial dri& Fine to medium sand seams were observed within this material in Test Pits 5, 6, and 7. We observed silt and clay material in several shallow hand excavations in the northeastern portion of the site, on the slopes near the bottom of the ravine. We interpreted this silt and clay material as part of the Transitional bed unit. Hydrologic Conditions Ground water seepage was not observed in any of our subsurface explorations or on the steep slope, however, a perched gTound water condition could possibly develop above the low -permeability soils found underlying the site. Perched water occurs when surface water infiltrates through less dense, more permeable soils and accumulates on top of the underlying, less permeable silts or flow into the joints found in the silt. The more permeable soils, in this case, consist of topsoil and fill. The less permeable soils consist of the underlying silty sand and silt. Perched water does not represent a regional ground water table within the upper soil horizons. Perched water tends to vary spatially and is dependent upon the amount of rainfall. We would expect the amount of ground water to decrease during drier times of the year and increase during wetter periods. Also, ground water seepage could outcrop on the face of the steep slope during the wetter periods of the year. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Z 0 2 Gcotcchnical Engineering Evaluation Talbot Park Estates Edmonds, Washington February 14, 2003 NGA File No. 360902 Page 5 SENSITIVE AREA EVALUATION Seismic Hazard Z The project is located within Zone 3 of the Seismic Zone Map shown as Figure 16-2 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC). This corresponds to a Seismic Zone Factor, Z, of 0.30. We recommend that the subsurface soils be considered Soil Profile Type So, as described in the UBC. Hazards associated with seismic activity include liquefaction and amplification of ground motion due to M C M 0 soft soil. The glacially compacted soils inferred to underlie this site do not have a significant potential for 0 0 C h liquefaction or amplification of ground motion. M M Z C Erosion Hazard 3: The criteria used for evaluation of erosion hazards include soil type, slope gradient, vegetation cover and ra groundwater conditions. The surface soil types (group classification) are related to the underlying 0 -n _n geologic soil units. The Soil Survey of Snohomish County Area, Washington, by the Soil Conservation m M Service (SCS), was reviewed to evaluate the erosion hazard of the on -site soils. C3 Vi 0 r- 0 M ca co The surface soils at the site were mapped by the SCS and classified as Alderwood-Urban land complex (8 MO to 15 percent slopes). The erosion hazard for these soils is listed as slight The slopes on the site have inclinations steeper than 15 percent in some areas. The erosion hazard for the steeper areas of the site is considered moderate to high. Z Landslide Hazard/Slope Stability Z The steeply sloping portion of the site has inclinations as steep as 40 degrees as measured in the field. 0 M We estimate that there is a change in elevation of up to 60 feet across the steep slopes along the eastern side of the site. The native soils that form the core of the slope are inferred to consist of competent glacially -compacted soils. We observed small scarps on the slope that appeared to be the result of shallow failures. A neighbor informed us that a failure occurred last year on a steep slope on the eastern side of the creek We observed the scarp resulting from that failure, and some of the failed material near the bottom of the slope. This failure is interpreted to have been a shallow surface failure, and may have been the result of saturated slope conditions. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Talbot Park Estates Edmonds Washington February'14,2003 NGA File No. 360902 Page 6 We did not observe seepage on the steep slopes. We did observe several bowed mature deciduous and evergreen trees on the steep slopes. This is likely the result of soil creep. Based on the competent soils that are believed to form the core of the slope, the absence of indications of past deep-seated slope movement, and the absence of water seepage on the slope, we consider the slope to be stable with respect to deep-seated movements. However, we did observe indications that the slope has experienced shallow failures and gradual slope movement. We would expect that such events to continue in the future. There is a significant potential for shallow sloughing events to occur within the steeper portions ofthe site due to the steep inclination of the slopes. The potential for sloughing may be reduced by routing surface water away from the top of slope, maintaining vegetation on the slope, and repairing any areas disturbed during construction. Periodic monitoring of the site steep slopes is also recommended. With the recommended setback these sloughing events should not adversely impact the planned structures. Slope Stability We analyzed global stability of the steep slope using a computer program titled XSTABL, version 5.2. XSTABL is a two-dimensional, lirmt-equilibriurn, slope stability program. XSTABL generates random potential failure surfaces and determines their corresponding factors of safety with respect to failure. The factor ofsafety is defined as the ratio of the internal soil strength divided by the gravity driving forces that cause failure. By generating a large number of random surfaces, the factor of safety can be obtained as the lowest number calculated. The geometry ofCross-Section B-B' was used for the slope stability analysis. ne factor of'safety against slope failures affecting the ground surface 35 feet beyond the top ofthe steep slope was found to be above 1.5. The parameters and results for this analysis are shown in Figure 6. This analysis along with our field observations is the basis for establishing the recommended building setbacks. The shallow explorations within the upper portion of the cross-section B-B' encountered glacially consolidated sandy soil. We observed transitional bed material consisting of silt and clay in the lower section of the northern portion of the steep slope at cross-section B-B'. We did not perform laboratory shear testing of the onsite materials. We established design strengths based on visual evaluation and classification ofthe soils and our experience with similar conditions. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Z 0 m M 0 il 0 80 C -4 C m CA -n Zo 4 M m m a 6; 0 0 C m 9 V) M C) Z -4 Z -4 M 5; Z 9 0 m Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Talbot Park Estates Edmonds, Washington February 14,2003 NGA File No. 360902 Page 7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General It is our opinion that the planned development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. It is also our opinion that the soils that underlie the site and form the core of the site slopes should be stable with respect to deep-seated earth movements, due to their inherent strength and slope geometry. These soils Tb should provide adequate support to standard shallow foundations. ere is a potential for shallow sloughing and erosion events to occur on the steeper portions of the slope. We have provided recommendations to reduce the potential of such events and a slope setback distances to reduce the risk of adverse impacts to the residences should such events occur. This is further discussed in the Steep Slope Setback subsection of this report. The residences could be supported on conventional spread footings, provided that the foundation excavations are advanced through any surficial fill, topsoil, or loose material and extended into medium dense or better native oil.. overexcavated material should be replaced with rock spalls or structural fill. The downhill footing lines, however, should be cast on native material. Surface water nmoff and water from roof downspouts and yard areas should be collected and directed into appropriate drainage systems to reduce the amount of water flowing onto the steep slopes. It will be important to maintain the vegetation on the slope to reduce the erosion potential. The occurrence of sloughing on the slope can be reduced by routing storm run-off into appropriate water lines away from the slope or piping storm water to the base of the slope. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to flow over or concentrate on the site slopes, both during construction and after construction has been completed. The soils likely to be exposed during construction are considered moisture -sensitive and will disturb and erode easily when wet. 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 expecteddue to the wet conditions. Additional expenses could include the need to export on -site soil, the import of clean, granular soil for fill, and the need to place a blanket ofrock spalls or crushed rock in the construction traffic areas and exposed subgrades prior to placing structural fill or structural elements. We do not recommend the use of on -site soils as structural fill in wet weather. After grading, the exposed NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC- z 0 M C: rn f 0 C: M rn Z C: < 0 0 n n -.1 2: m m a -C 0 0 m z z -q 3: V) z 0 m Geotecbnical Engineering Evaluation Talbot Park Estates Edmonds, Washington February 14, 2003 NGA File No. 360902 Page 8 subgrade should be protected from construction traffic and surface runoff Erosion Control Measures The erosion hazard for the on -site soils site is considered moderate to high, depending on how The site is graded and water is allowed to concentrate. Best Management Practices (BNWs) should be used to control erosion. Areas disturbed during construction should be protected from erosion. Measures taken may include diverting surface water away from the stripped areas and from flowing over the slope. Silt wi ver fences and/or straw bales should be erected to prevent muddy water from leaving the site or flo ng o the top of the slope. Disturbed areas should be planted with vegetation at the end of construction. The vegetation should be maintained until established. The erosion potential of areas not stripped of vegetation should be low. Steep Slope Setback Uncertainties related to building along steep slopes are typically addressed by the use of building ture an setbacks. The purpose of a setback is to establish a buffer zone between a strue d the slope Margin, so that ample room is allowed for normal slope surface regression or a minor slope failure. This setback also protects the slope from the impacts of the development From a geological standpoint, a reasonable setback is based on the slope's physical characteristics; e.g., slope height, surface angle, material composition, hydrology, etc. Other factors such as historical slope activity, rate of regression and earthwork activity along the toe of slope, are important considerations as well. Based on our slope evaluation and observations, we recommend a minimum horizontal setback distance of 25 feet between the top of the steep slope and the planned residences on Lots 2, 3, and 4. The slope in the northern portion of the site is higher and has a steeper inclination. In addition, we observed silt and clay material in the lower portion of the slope in a area. Silt and clay usually have lower strengths than sand and gravel. For these reasons, and also based on our numerical slope stability analysis, we recommend a minimum horizontal setback distance of 35 feet between the top of the steep slope and the planned residences on Lots 5, 6, and 7. The 35-foot setback for Lots 5, 6, and 7 could be reduced to 25 feet if the downhill foundation lines for these residences are suitably deepened. For these lots, we recommend that the downhill foundation lines NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC- Z C M M a 0 80 C M M 0 Z 0 -n M M W Cn 0 0 C C/) C (a M 0 Z CA Z M M � Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Talbot Park Estates Edmonds, Washington February 14, 2003 NGA File No. 360902 Page 9 be advanced a minimum of 7 feet below the existing ground surface if a 25-foot setback is desired. We should be retained to evaluate the residence foundation subgrade and setback distances prior to placing foundation forms, The existing residence on this site is located within 15 feet from the top of the steep slope. We do not lmow the depth of this residence's foundations, and have not evaluated the suitability of the residence setback from the steep slope. Slope and Setback Protection Protection of the setback and steep slope areas should be performed as required by the City of Edmonds. Specifically, we recommend that the setback areas not be used for placement or storage of fill materials, and excavation. Also, water should including temporary excavation spoils from building area preparation not be allowed to pond in the setback area or flow onto the face of the slope. It should be understood that the closer site soil disturbance and development are to the slope, the more risk there is of decreasing slope stability. Care should be taken to minimize disturbance to the slope and setback surficial soils and vegetative cover both during and after construction. Of great importance to the long-term stability of the slope is the control of surface and near -surface water, and erosion protection. We recommend that all drains, including roof and yard drains, be dire a away fi,om the top of slope and routed into a permanent discharge system. Surface drainage over the slope should not be perruritted. Site Preparation and Grading The first step of site preparation should be to strip any topsoil and loose soils to expose medium dense or better native soils in foundation, slab, and pavement areas. The stripped material should be removed from Tb mpacted to a the site or stockpiled for later use as landscaping fill. e exposed subgrade should be co non -yielding condition. If wet conditions are encountered, alternative site stripping and grading de tracks techniques might be necessary. These could include using a large excavator equipped with wi gra gra er ding and covering exposed sub des with a lay of crushed and a smooth bucket to complete site rock for protection. If wet conditions are encountered, the subgrade should not be compacted as this NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC- z 0 m in C m 0 0 C: Mfg X M in z C — > o -n n m in 0 r- 0 M C: ift C Co M 0 z z 0 0 m Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Talbot Park Estates Edmonds, Washington February 14,2003 NGA File No. 360902 Page 10 could cause subgrade disturbance. The prepared subgrades should be prote d from construction trattic and surface water should be diverted around prepared subgrades. ne on -site soils likely to be exposed during construction are considered highly moisture -sensitive and fficult to compact when wet of optimum will disturb easily when wet. These soils become very di moisture content, This often results in extra excavation and the need for importing all-weather material for fill, which could significantly raise costs. We recommend that earthwork be conducted during the drier summer months, ifpossible. Temporary Excavations Temporary excavation stability is a function of many factors, such as the type and consistency of soils, ength ti e= en, an th depth of the cut, surcharge loads adjacent to the excavation, I of me a cut r ins op d e 0 tim presence of surface or groundwater. It is exceedingly difficult under these variable conditions t es te a stable, temporary, cut -slope geometry. Therefore, it should be the responsibility of the contractor to site, able to observe the maintain safe slope configurations, since the contractor is continuously at the job nature and condition of the out slopes, and able to monitor the subsurface materials and ground water conditions encountered. The following information is provided solely for the benefit ofthe owner and other design consultants and should not be construed to imply that Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc., assumes responsibility for job site safety. Job site safety is the sole responsibility of the project contractor. For planning purposes, we recommend that temporary cuts in the upper loose soils be no steeper thim 2 Horizontal : I Vertical (211: IV). Cuts in the underlying medium dense to dense native materials may stand at an inclination as steep as IH: IV. if ground water seepage is encountered or construction traffic planned near the top of the cuts, flatter inclinations may be necessary. We reconarriend that cut slopes be a taken may include covering cut slopes with plastic sheeting and protected from erosion. Measure c diverting surface runoff away from the top of cut slopes. We do not recommend vertical slopes for uts t cut slope heights and inclinations deeper than 4 feet if worker access is necessary. We recommend tha conform to WISHA/OSHA standards. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC- Z "45i C m ma 0 0 C m in Z Z < 0 _n in in a V5 0 0 C co r I . o) M 0 Z X X 0) Z 0 m M , Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Talbot Park Estates Edmonds Washington Feb..ry'14,2003 NGA File No. 360902 Page I I Structural Fill General: We do not anticipate significant amounts Of structural fill for the planned development th ettlement-sensitive structures, behind However, any fills placed beneath foundations, pavements, o er s retaining walls, or on steep slopes 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 geotechnical professional or soils tectmician. Field monitoring procedures would include the performance of a representative number of in -place density tests to document the attainment of the desired degree ofrelative compaction. The area to receive the fill should be prepared as Le nches be outlined in the Site Preparation and Grading subsection of this report. vel be should ill to key the new fill into excavated into slopes with greater than 20 percent inclination that will receive f 8 feet, and are separated the slope. These benches typically have a nominal width of approximately 4 to vertically by about I to 4 feet. should consist of a good quality, firee-draining, granular soil, free of Materials. imported structund fill organics and other deleterious material and be well -graded to a maximum size of about 3 inches. No. imported all-weathcr fill should contain no more than about five percent fines (soil finer than U.S 200 sieve, based on that fraction pa ssing the U.S. 3/4-inch sieve). Ile use of the native on -site soils as structural fill would be dependent on the nature of the material e soils may be necessary in order to achieve encow—ed and moisture content control. Somedryingofth compaction. We expect that compaction of most of the native soils to structural fill specifications would be difficult, if not impossible, during wet weather. We should be retained to evaluate the suitability of using the on -site soils as structural fill at the time of construction. Fill placement: Following subgrade preparation, placement of structural fill may proceed. All backfilling should be accomplished in uniform lifts up to 10 inches thick Each lift should be spread evenly and be thoroughly compacted prior to placement of subsequent lifts. All struchn-al fill should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the material's maximum dry density. Maximum dry density, in this report, refers to that density as determined by the ASTM D-1557 Compaction Test procedure. The moisture content of the soils to be compacted should be within about 2 percent of optimum so that a NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC- z 0 0 0 m mo m z C_ >Z 0 -n m M 0 1 C C V) M 0 z z z m GLoteclmical Engineering Evaluation Talbot Park Estates Edmonds Washington Febniary'14, 2003 NGA File No. 360902 Page 12 readily-compactable condition exists. It may be necessary to overexcavate and remove wet soils in eases 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. Foundations Conventional shallow spread foundations should be placed on undisturbed medium dense or better native soils or be supported on structural fill or rock spalls extending to those soils, with the exception of the downhill footing lines which should be cast on the native material. Where less -dense soils are encountered at footing bearing elevations, the subgrade should be overexcavated to expose suitable bearing soil. The overexcavation may be filled with structural fill or concrete, or the footing May be extended to the bearing native soils. If footings are supported on structural fill, the fill zone should extend outside the edges of the footing a distance equal to one-half of the depth of overexcavation below the finished subgrade. Both perimeter and interior footings should extend at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent finished ground surface for frost protection and bearing capacity considerations. Nfininium foundation widths of 16 and 24 inches should be used for continuous and isolated spread footings, respectively, for tw0-stmY structures and 18 and 24 inches for continuous and isolated footings, respectively, for thre-stOry structures. 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 ofno more thart 2,000 pounds per square foot (psi) be used for designing footings founded on the native medium dense soils or structural fill extending to the silt. The foundation bearing soil should be evaluated by NGA at the time of construction. We should be consulted if higher bearing pressures we needed. Current Uniform Building Code (UBQ guidelines should be used when considering increased allowable bearing pressure for short-term transitory wind or seismic loads. Potential foundation settlement using the recommendcd allowable bearing pressure is estimated to be less than I inch total and 1/2 inch differential between adjacent footings or across a distance of about 30 feet, based on our experience with sintilar residential projects. NELSOAf GEoTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. M ! Geoteclmical Engineering Evaluation Talbot Park Estates Edmonds, Washington February 14, 2003 NGA File No. 360902 Page 13 Lateral loads may be resisted by friction on the base of the footing and passive resistance against the subsurface portions ofthe foundation. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used to calculate the base friction and should be applied to the vertical dead load only. Passive resistance may be calculated as a triangular, equivalent fluid pressure distribution. An equivalent fluid density of 200 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) should be used for passive resistance design for a level ground surface adjacent to the footing. This level surface should extend horizontally a distance equal to at least three times the depth of the footing. These recommended values incorporate safety factors of 1.5 and 2.0 applied to the estimated ultimate values for frictional and passive resistance, respectively. To achieve this value ofpassive resistance, the foundations should be poured "neat" against the native medium dense soils or compacted fill should be used as backfill against the footing. We recommend that the upper foot of soil be neglected when calculating the passive resistance. Slabs -on -Grade Slabs -on -grade should be supported on subgrade soils prepared as described in the Site Preparation and Grading subsection of this report. We recommend that all floor slabs be underlain by at least 6 inches Of free -draining sand or gravel for use as a capillary break- We recommend that the capillary break be under the slab. A suitable hydraulically connected to the footing drain system to allow free drainage from vapor barrier, such as heavy plastic sheeting (6-mil minimum), should be placed over the capillary break material. An additional 2-inch-thick sand blanket may be used to cover the vapor barrier. This sand blanket is to protect the vapor barrier membrane and to aid in curing the concrete. Site Drainage Surface Drainage: The finished ground surface should be graded such that storm water is directed to an appropriate storm water collection system. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where footings, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Final site grades should allow for drainage away from ent the residence and the steep slope. We suggest that the finished ground be sloped at a minimum gradi Under no circumstances of 3 percent for a distance of at least 10 feet away from the improvements should surface water be allowed to concentrate or flow over the site slopes. rains around the residences and behind any Subsurface Drainage: We recommend the use of footing d subsurface walls. Footing drains should be installed at least I foot below planned finished floor slabs. The drains should consist of minimum 44nch-diameter, rigid, slotted or perforated, PVC pipe surrounded NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC- Z 0 4 :9 0 in C in 40 C 9 M in Z 10 -q a - V > V) 0 *n - n in m a —ch 0 0 Fn C (0 in C) Z r- M Z -q M 55 Z 0 in =1 , Gcotechnical Engineering Evaluation Talbot Park Estates Edmonds, Washington February 14, 2003 NGA File No. 360902 Page 14 by free -draining material wrapped in a filter fabric. We recommend that the free -draining material consist of an 18-inch-wide zone of clean (less than 3 percent fines), granular material placed along the back of the wall. Pea gravel is an acceptable drain material or drainage composite may be used instead. The free - draining material should extend up the wall to I foot below the finished surface. The top foot of soil should consist of impermeable soil placed over plastic sheeting or building paper to minimize surface water or fines migration into the footing drain. Footing drains should discharge into tightlines leading to an appropriate collection and discharge point with convenient clearrouts to prolong the useful life of the drains. Roof drains should not be connected to wall or footing drains. USE OF TMS REPORT This report is the property of Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc. and has been prepared for the City of Edmonds for use in the review and permitting of this project on this site only. Ile scope of our work arc not does not include services related to construction safety precautions and our recommendations ences, or ocedures, except as specifically intended to direct the contractors' methods, techniques, sequ pr described in our report for consideration in design. There are possible variations in subsurface conditions between the explorations and also with time. Our report� conclusions, and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of subsurface conditions. A contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in the budget and schedule. NGA 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, to provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether or not earthwork and foundation installation activities comply with contract plans and specifications. All people who own or occupy homes on hillsides should realize that landslide movements are always a possibility, although the likelihood that such an event will actually occur may be low. The hillside should t to steep slope as is the risk remain stable during normal environmental conditions; however, inheren are of movement due to extreme environmental conditions such as severe earthquakes and storms. Because of the existing sloping conditions, the area should be periodically inspected by the landowner, especially after winter storms. If distress is evident, we should'be retained to provide advice on remedial/ NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Z 0 0 m in C D M 0 -40 C X in Z --I CM 0 -n "n in in 0 ra 0 r- I'( 0 in C a) in 0 Z V5 Z m Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Talbot Park Estates Edmonds, Washington February 14,2003 NGA File No. 360902 Page 15 preventative measures. The probability that landsliding will occur is substantially reduced by the proper maintenance of drainage measures at the site. There fore, the homeowner should recognize the responsibility for performing such maintenance. Consequently, we recommend that a copy of our report Z oe provided to any future homeowners of the property. 0 Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been performed in accordance :5 ivith generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in effect in this area at the time this report was m prepared. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made Our observations, findings, and opinions are m 0 a means to identify and reduce the inherent risks to the owner. 0 0 C m m Z It has been a pleasure to provide service to you on this project. If you have any questions or rcquir e further information, please call. Sincerely, 0 -n NqLSO ASSOCIATES, INC. m m Vi �OTECHNICAL T7 0 0 Wor Ch(ristensen, PE Project Engineer m Z 0 Z Z 0 EXPIRES Khaled Shawish, PE Senior Engineer TRC:KMS:knm Eleven Figures NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC- N Project Site z V5 --j 0 2 M (Z MCI 0 0 It "Rm IT M MZ jo S�T 0 -n MITI ,L Sl Sr Not to Scale orql. JECTNUMBER NELsoN GEOTECHNICAL NO. Date Revision y CK 360902 ADJ JGL Talbot Park Estates NGA AssociATIE% INC. I 2tM 0 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS Vicini Figure 1 0 0 Om C 0) 9 (D M 0 z 74 z z m NGA D.Mn Ut TOW PM380902M Om U z u 1; z I --: o U , 0 w 0 U z 0 0 z W, z LEGEND w Z� TO TP-1 Number and Approximate Location of Test Pit KA-1 Number and Approximate Location of Hand Auger A N Approximate Location n3 of Cross Section W M Property Line a. 76 CO Top of 40% Slope Setback Una 0 100 PROJECT NUMBER 360902 Approximate State: 1 Inch 50 fed Figure 2 6' Southwest Northeast Top of Steep Slope 190 Igo- M TP-3 C2 -170 28* 170- Fine to Medium 40* 150 Sand with Silt 150- Z Silt and Clay Stream r, in -130 32* 130- 0 1-9 9Z 11 n 110 110 Z Scale: 1 inch 20 feet (Horizontal and Vertical) Elevations are Approximate Reference: Cross section based on field measurements using a hand hold clinometer and 100 bot tape. IGAOmift= r2ft )CAMMMUMPMEMAm UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM GROUP MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUPNAME SYMBOL CLEAN GW WELL -GRADED. FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL GRAVEL GRAVEL z GRAVEL GP POORLY -GRADED GRAVEL 0 GRAVEL GM SILTY GRAVEL GRAINED MORE THAN 50 % =i 9i OF COARSE FRACTION GC CLAYEY GRAVEL SOILS RETAINED ON NO, 4 SIEVE WITH FINES M C fR 0 CLEAN SW WELL -GRADED SAND, FINE TO COARSE SAND 0 C SAND M ; � SAND M MT SIP POORLY GRADED SAND ORE THAN 50 % MORE THAN 50 % C > r- RETAJINED ON OF COARSE FRACTION SAND sm SILTY SAND x NO. 2130 SIEVE PASSES NO. 4 SIEVE F) SC CLAYEY SAND WITH FIN ES 0 -n In MM FINE- SILT AND CLAY MIL SILT 0 INORGANIC 0 CIL CLAY CM MCI) GRAINED LIQUID LIMIT ITIO LESS THAN 50 % ORGANIC OL ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC CLA SOILS X MH SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY. ELASTIC SILT > SILT AND CLAY INORGANIC z ORE THAN 50 % CH CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY. RATOAY PASSES LIQUID LIMIT CO NO. 200 SIEVE 50 % OR MORE z ORGANIC OH ORGANIC CLAY. ORGANIC SILT ITI HIGHLYORGANICS ILS PT PEAT NOTES: i ) Field classification Is based on visual SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS: examination of soll in general Dry. Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to accordance with ASTIM D 2488-93. ft touch 2) Soil classification using tabralM tests Moist - Damp, but no visible water. is based on ASTIM D 24W93. Wet . Visible free water or saturated, 3) Descriptions of soll density or usually soil Is obtaftled from o istancy are based on on$ below water table interpretalion of blowcount data. visual appearance of s0i[S. and/Or testdata. — /-*._ NELSON GEOTIECHNICAL No. Date Revision BY CK UM 09, 02 Talbot Park Estates 'GA—'% ASSOCIATES, IINIC- I 2h2X3 009" �N �6 GECTEcHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS I.U. 7 Soll Classification 1— LOG OF EXPLORATION DEPTH(FEET) Usc SOIL DESCRIPTION HAND AUGER ONE 0.0-0.6 TOPSOIL 0.6-1.6 SM LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH TRACE GRAVEL (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED DRIFT) 1.6-2.8 SM RUST -BROWN MOTTLED LIGHT GRAY TO LIGHT BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE. MOIST) (WEATHERED DRIFT) SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 1.5, 1.8, AND 2.8 FEET GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED HAND AUGER CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED HAND AUGER WAS COMPLETED AT 2.8 FEET ON 12/18102 HANDAUGERTWO 0.0-1.5 TOPSOIL 1.5-2.0 SP-SM LIGHT BROWN TO BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL (LOOSE. MOIST) (WEATHERED DRIFT) 2.0-3.4 SM RUSTaROWN MOTTLED LIGHT GRAY SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH TRACE GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED DRIFT) SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 1.0, 2.0.2.8, AND 3.4 FEET GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED HAND AUGER CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED HAND AUGER WAS COMPLETED AT 3.4 FEET ON 12118102 NELSON GEOTECHNICA L ASSOCIATES, INC. JGL:MDR FILE NO 360902 FIGURE 9 z 0 0 am a a M 0 -40 a m m MITI a 0 o Fn c In 9 co M 0 3: z z 0 m LOG OF EXPLORATION DEPTH (FEET) Usc SOIL DESCRIPTION TEST PIT ONE 0.0-1.0 TOPSOIL SM BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH TRACE FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE, 1.0-3.5 MOIST To WET) (WEATHERED DRIFT) GRAY SILTY FINE SAND WITH FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL (DENSE, MOIST) (DRIFT) 3.5--7.0 SM SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 2.0,5.0. AND 6.5 FEET GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 7.0 FEET ON 2J3103 TEST PIT TWO 0.0-1.0 TOPSOIL 1.0-4.0 Sm BROWN SILTY FINE SAND( MEDIUM DENSE, WET) (WEATHERED DRIFT) SM GRAY SILTY FINE TO ME DIUM SAND WITH FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL (MEDIUM 4.0-7,0 DENSE TO DENSE, WET) (DRIFT) SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 3.0, 5.0, AND 7,0 FEET MODERATE GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS ENCOUNTERED AT 3.0 FEET SLIGHT TEST PIT CAVING WAS ENCOUNTERED FROM 0.0 TO 7.0 FEET TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 7.0 FEET ON 2rJ/03 TESTPITTHREE 0.0-1.0 TOPSOIL SP BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH TRACE SILT (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, 1.0-3.0 MOIST) (WEATHERED OUTWASH) SP-SM GRAY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH FINE TO COARS E GRAVEL AND SILT (MEDIUM -3.0-6.0 DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST TO WET) (OUTWASH) SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 2,5 AND 4.5 FEET GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 6.0 FEET ON 2f3f03 TEST PIT FOUR 010-1.0 TOPSOIL SP BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT (MEDIUM DENSE. MOIST) (WEATHERED 1.0-3.0 OUTWASH) 3.0-7.0 SPISM RUST -BROWN MOTTLED BROWN -GRAY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND AND SILT SEAMS (DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED OU y SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 2.0.4.0, AND 7.0 FEET GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED c TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 7.0 FEET ON 2003 JGL NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC- FILE NO 360902 FIGURE 9 z ITT ma 0 80 c m z 0 c u > 0 n 3) m M 0 0 0 c M 0 ;u z z 0 0 m I LOG OF EXPLORATION DEPTH(FEET) Usc SOIL DESCRIPTION TEST Pff FfVE 0.0-2.8 TOPSOIL 2.6-4.5 sm BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH TRACE FINE To COARSE GRAVEL AND SILT (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED DRIFT) 4.5-7.0 SMISP GRAY SILTY FINE SAND WITH FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL AND FINE TO MEDIUM SAND SEAMS (DENSE, MOIST TO WEI) (DRIFT) SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 3.5,4.5, AND 6.5 FEET z GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 7.0 FEET ON 213103 TEST PIT SIX 1.5-3.0 V 3.0-7.0 TESTPITSEVEN 0.0-1.0 1.0-3.5 3.5-6.0 TEST PIT EIGHT 0.0-1.0 1.0-4.0 4.0-5.0 SM DARK GRAY SILTY FINE SAND WITH CONCRETE CHUNKS AND ORGANICS (LOOSE, MOIST TO WET) (BLJL sm BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH TRACE FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, WET) (WEATHERED DRIFT) SMISP RUST -BROWN MOTTLED GRAY SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL AND FINE TO MEDIUM SAND SEAMS (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, WET) (WEATHERED DRIFT) SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 1.0, 2.0. AND 6.0 FEET MODERATE GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS ENCOUNTERED AT 3.0 FEET SLIGHT TEST PIT CAVING WAS ENCOUNTERED FROM 0.0 TO 7.0 FEET TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 7.0 FEET ON 21W03 TOPSOIL SM BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH TRACE FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED DRIFT) SMISP GRAY SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL AND FINE TO MEDIUM SAND SEAMS (DENSE TO VERY DENSE, MOIST) (DRIFT) SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT ZO, 4.0, AND 6.0 FEET GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 6.0 FEET ON 2rJI03 TOPSOIL SP-SM BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT AND TRACE FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST To WET) (WEATHERED DRIFT) SP-SM BROWN.GRAY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT AND FINE To COARSE GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, WET) (DRIFT) SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 3,0 AND 4.5 FEET GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 5.0 FEET ON 2rNO3 NEILSOM GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC- JGL FILE NO 360902 FIGURE 10 3: ITT TIT 00 -40 0 C --I C �1- = TIT M z 0) 0 n -4 IT! IT! 0 0 0 m ca M 0 Z z z 0 TIT LOG OF EXPLORATION DEPTH (FEET) usc SOIL DESCRIPTION TEST PIT NINE 0.0-1.0 TOPSOIL 1.0-3.5 SM BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED DRIFT) .5 3 -4.0 SM GRAY SILTY FINE SAND WITH FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL (DENSE TO VERY DENSE. MOIST) (DRIFT) z SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 3.0 AND 4.0 FEET GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED m TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 4.0 FEET ON 2f3/03 m c IN m 0 80 c M M Z 10-4 c > fc: 0 -n m m 0 0 C co M 0 ;u z z 0 m JGL NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. FILE NO 360902 FIGURE 11 m Dee 28 05 05:18p ROBERT M PRIDE ING 425 814 5672 P.1 Consulting Robert M. Pride, Inc. Engineer December 28,200.5 Mr. Jon Xvern 010 Hillurest Construction P. 0. BOX �'4121 z Everett, WA 98213-1121 Re: Geotechnical Itivestigation 0 R1 Proposed Residences — LM 3 6 77" Place WeA Edmonds, Washington Vi RMP Project No. 05-352-01 0 m Dear Mr. Kvornmo, 0 0 oq e be At your request I have reviewed the plans forthe prop cd single family r sidences to m mz constructed on 3 through 6 in the Charlotte Gardens plat on 77th Place West in 10 -1 Edmonds. These, remidenees have been sited within the building setback limitsas shown z on the. dr4wi ngs, by Home Design. X F) W-L%ed on my site inspections and geoteclinical evaluationns discussed in my December 0 -n -n �_ud and , 51h reporu-, these suvetures can be nonstructed A their proposed locations without any impact on the adjacentsteepslope areas. Minimum slope setback distauces In M from the face of the slope to the exterior foundation walls is at luist ir feet oil LoLJ' 30 0 feet on Lot 4, 35 feet on Lot 5 and 3.5 feet on Lot 6. Tn my opinion Lhese setback 0 m distancesare satisfacLoty for the sittand subsurface conditions on these properties, and C CA they will satisfy the requirements of tCDC #23.8c) and —oq.40. hill 0 Please call me ifthore, kire any questions regarding this suhnikial. Respectfully, N1. an Rc�bert M. Pri�e-, P. E. Principal Geotechnical En ri JAN 2006 n 1')�rPARTM&JT dist: Addressee CHY OF ct)�.40""s rinp: Hflh:rcaPlat2 CITY COPY 13203 Holmes Point Orwe NE Kirkland, WA 98034 Phone: 42" 14-3970 Fax; 426-014-5672 z z 0 In � t Consulting Robert M. Pride, Inc. Engineer December 2, 2005 DEC 14 2 5 Mr. Jon Kvernmo Hillcrest Construction BUILDING DEPT. P. 0. Box 3121 Everett, WA 98213-1121 Re: Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Residence — Lot 3 17007 771h Place West Edmonds, Washington RMP Project No. 05-352-01 Dear Mr. Kvernmo, This report presents the results of our site exploration and geotechnical evaluation for a proposed single family residence in the Charlotte Garden development in Edmonds. The property is situated on the east side of 771h Place West and just north of an existing residence. It is understood that the two story structure will extend from the front ten foot building setback line to near the top of a steep slope located on the east side of the property. The purpose of this investigation was to establish the nature of the subsurface soil conditions that will provide support to the structure, and to provide recommendations for the design and construction of the residence. Preliminary plans for the house show a finish floor elevation Of 103 feet, and site grades that range from 107 to io2 feet. USGS mapping for this area of Edmonds was used as a reference for this investigation. Site Conditions Previous clearing and grading have been performed on this site in connection with the overall seven lot development. The access street has been paved and utilities have been installed to serve the residential lots. Observations of the ground conditions indicate that fill has been placed on this and adjacent lots to create the existing grades that slope generally toward the northeast. A steep slope descends down toward the easterly side of this lot approximately 20 feet to an existing drainage channel. The slope is heavily covered with vines and native shrubs, and there are some mature trees located on this slope that has a gradient of about 11/2 HaV. Observations of this slope showed no evidence of gross failures or instability that would affect the proposed construction. According to Minard (USGS — 1983) this area of Edmonds is underlain by glacial till Phone: 425-814-3970 1320 --as Point 0 ive NE Kirkland, WA 98034 Fax: 425-814-5672 rm GON z 0 M rn 0 —4 C-) 0 X M rn Z C > z 0 -n n M M V —C/) 0 0 C 0) M 0 Z r- z 0) z 0 M December 2, 2005 Mr. Jon Kvernmo Page 2 (Qvt) and advanced outwash deposits (Qva). Two exploratory trenches were dug in the area of the proposed residence to confirm the presence of fill soils and to classify the underlying native soils. Both test pits encountered soft fill soils to a depth of two feet that contained organics. Below the fill were topsoil and medium dense silty sands that were categorized as weathered till. Groundwater seepage was not encountered in either exploratory test pit. Summary logs of these test pits are shown on Appendix A. Geotechnical Recommendation on the basis of our site inspection and subsurface exploration, the proposed residence may be supported on the medium dense to dense native silty sands using conventional bearing wall footings. An allowable soil bearing value of 2000 psf may be used in the design of these footings that should have a minimum depth of 18 inches below final exterior grade., This value may be increased by 1/3 to account for temporary seismic or wind loadings. A passive earth pressure Of 200 pcf may be used to resist lateral forces. Because the house is to be constructed within five feet of the top of slope on the easterly side of the lot, it is recommended that the east foundation wall be supported on driven two inch diameter pipe piles. These piles should be Schedule So galvanized pipe that are driven to refusal into the native till soils. Refusal is defined as less than one inch of penetration over a period of one minute of driving with ago# pneumatic hammer. Each pile may be loaded UP to 4 kips. Some excavation will be required to establish the building pad for the residence foundations. Excavated soils should not be used for structural fill under the residence, but may be placed in landscape areas or hauled offsite. Normal erosion control procedures should be in place for construction of this residence in the coming winter months. Site drainage improvements will include the installation of footing subdrains, area drains and roof down drains. Discharge of these drains should be into the existing storm water system installed as part of the street improvements. Summm Construction monitoring and consultation services should also be provided to verify that subsurface conditions are similar to those described in this report. Should conditions be revealed during construction that vary from the anticipated subsurface profile, we will evaluate those conditions and provide alternative recommendations where appropriate. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on 1) our interpretation and evaluation of soil conditions on this site, 2) confirmation of the actual Phone: 425-814-3970 13203 Holmes Point Drive NE Kirkland, WA 98034 Fax: 425-814-5672 Z 0 a M a a M 0 80 a 3: M M 0 Zq 0 -n - n 3: M a 5 0 0 In C) Z ;U Z Cn Z 2 0 In December 2, 2005 Mr. Jon Kvernmo Page 3 subsurface conditions encountered during construction, and 3) the assumption that sufficient observation and testing will be performed during the appropriate phases of the work. Our findings and recommendations in this report were prepared in accordance with generally accepted principles of geotechnical engineering as practiced in the Puget Sound area at the time our work was performed. We make no warranty, either express or implied. Please call me, if there are any questions or you wish to discuss this report in greater detail. s ecllly, Al. p - ASIt., o rt b�eide, E. Principal Geotechnical Enginee "A dist: (2) Addressee 7oNXL rrap: HillcrestLot3 '0 --- 13203 Holmes Point Drive NE Kirkland, WA 98034 Phone: 425-814-3970 Fax: 425-814-5672 z Im -40 0 M Z 0 -n n In Im 0 20 -1 z --I 3: z 01 0 Height Calculation Worksheet Date Permit Number 00(o Address inspector z Average Grade 0 Ri Max Height (2�7+Ave.) Actual Height (Al-BA-C) 09 4 9 U C: M M 0 0 6 z C 2 o -n -n m M T =(C )j7 01 0 M C (A M z z 0 M Elevation of transit above Datum (B) Datum AA 14 Elevation (A) I - 2,LO l/temp/building/fonns/height worksheet Consulting Robert M. Pride, LLC Engineer October 24, 2oo6 Mr. Jon Kvernmo Hillerest Construction P. 0. Box 3121 Everett, WA 98213-IL121 Re: Final Inspection Report Single Family Residence 17007 771h Place West — Lot 3 Edmonds, Washington RMP Project No. 05-125-01 Dear Mr. Kvernmo, This report presents the results of our site inspections and field observations made th din Place West in E onds during construction of the single family residence at 17007 77 Following our final plan review and onsite pre -construction meeting, we performed periodic site inspections that included the following: Erosion Control — this site is on a gentle hillside development that is protected by heavy native shrubs and mature trees on the descending slope area to the east; a silt fence was placed along the east side of the building pad area to control storm water runoff and to prevent siltation on the adjacent slope; no erosion or siltation problems occurred during site excavation and foundation construction on this site; final landscape planting will provide permanent erosion control for this site. Observe and Monitor Excavation — the building pad was excavated to the final subgrade elevation and there were no temporary cut slopes required for this site; maximum depth of excavation was on the order of three feet on the south side of the building pad; Foundation Installation —the foundations consisted of continuous bealing wall footings for the house and garage; exposed soils in the footing trenches consisted of medium dense to dense silty sands and stiff silts; the entire building pad was in native soils; the recommended bearing value of 2000 psf was confirmed by site inspection; Subdrains— Perimeter subdrains were installed around the house and garage foundations, and they were embedded in drain rock and covered aeofilter w*ZCelver material; NOV 0 3 2006 DEVELOPMEN _,T_SE"GES CTR. —cln(761: EoMONI), 13203 Holmes Point Drive NE Kirkland, WA 98034 Phone: 425-814-3970 Fax: 425-814-5672 z 0 C M rn 0 80 C M 0 I M M 0 0 0!; C U) C G) Q 0 Z z z 0 =j 0 M -October 24, 2oo6 Mr. Jon Kvernmo Page 2 On the basis of our field inspections, it is my opinion that the areas requiring special inspection were satisfactorily completed in accordance wi th th e plans and project specifications. The site excavation and the bearing wall footings were constructed in a workmanlike manner an d were approved as constructed. Please call me if there are any questions. z 0, Respectfully, I M. WAS,, 0 Lert "MPride, P. E. 0 M a Principal Geotechnical Enginee M 0 0 C dist: (2) addressee 16271 M M Z (i) Mike Snook 10-1 NAL rmp: HilicrestFinal#3 tD C 2 EXPIRES -n 0 M M 0 0 M C Co in z 0 r z V) z M 132 Holmes Point Drive NE Kirkland, WA 98034 Fax: 425-BI4-5672 Phone: 425-814-3970 77777�';` Oct 26 06 07:35p R Pride 425 814 5672 p.3 Consulting Robert M. Pride, LLC Engineer October 24, 2oo6 Mr —Jon Kvernmo 14111crest Construction RECEIVED P. 0. Box 3121 Everett, WA 98213-1121 OCT 2 6 2006 z BUILDING DEPT. Re: Final Inspection Report 0 Single Family Residence 17007 771h Place West — Lot 3 Edmonds, Washington 01 RMP Project No. 05-125-01 CM M , 0 Dear 1�ft. Kvernmo, This report presents the results of our site inspections and field observations made M M z during construction of the single family residence at 17007 77"' Place'"Test in Edmonds. > Following our final plan review and onsite pre -construction meeting, we performed periodic site inspections that included the following: 0, Erosion Control — this site is on a gentle hillside development that is protected by rn heavy native shrubs and mature trees on the descending slope area to the east; a M a �5 silt fence was placed along the cast side of the building pad area to control storm 0 water runoff and to prevent siltation on the adjacent slope; no erosion or siltation 0 F; C co problems occurred during site excavation and foundation construction on this C ca TO site; final landscape planting will provide permanent erosion control for this site. Observe and Monitor Excavation — the building pad was excavated to the final M -i subgrade elevation and there were no temporary cut slopes reqWred for this site; M i > maximum depth of excavation was on the order of three feet on the south side of z the building pad; Foundation Installation —the foundations consisted of continuous bearing wall z 9 footings for the house and garage; exposed soils in the footing trenches consisted 0 of medium dense to dense silty sands and stiff silts; the entire building pad was in M native soils; the recommended bearing value of 2000 psf was confirmed by site inspection; Subdrains— Perimeter subdrains were installed around the house and garage foundatior�s, and thqywere embedded in drain rock and covered with geofilter material; 13203 Holmes Point Orive NE Kirkland, WA 98034 Phone: 425-B14-3970 Fax: 425-814-5672 M Oct 25 06 07:36p R Pride 425 814 5672 P.4 October 24, 2oo6 Mr. Jon KverrMIG Page 2 th ling special On the basis of our field inspections, it is my opinion at the areas requi P inspection were satisfactorily completed in accordance with the plans and project re constructed in a specifications. The site excavation and the bearing wall footings we d were approved as constructed. workmanlike marmer an z Please call me if there are any questio-- 0 Respectfully, M T -4 n WAS --I il�'-' M .R1 rt M. Pride, P. E. C Principal Geotechnical En e 0 0 C 2-1 dist: (2) addressee * *�k IC'.1 I R M, 1. - MM (i) Mike Snook M NA raip: Hillcresffinal#3 3: On "n M M 0 6 FTi C Ch 9 CI) M 0 M z z 0 0 M 13203 Holmes Point Drive NE Kirldand, WA 98034 Far 425-814-5672 Phone: 425-814-3970 M , P DEPARTMENT &4WILDINGS PER INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE SECTION R1 10 AT: 17007 77TI pi W -0331 Building Permit M 2006 Occupancy established by this certificate: R3 Dwelling Units I No. Stories: 2 Basement: N/A Type of Construction: VB Owner of building: The Single Family Residence at 1700777"PIW.�,"'�� pactbd and approved complying with the requirements of the Ills 2003edition ofthe International Residential Code as and division of occupancy and the useforwhich The —proposed occupancy is classified. Issuedthis— 11 th day of December, 2006 Chief Building Official By:_ Any change of occupancy or use requires a building permit and a now Certificate of Occupancy Issued by the City of Edmonds Building Official, Permit Inspection Details 14i�,* ') Permit: BLD20060331 PERMIT pe ion 16�5,- t4ewer Lateralifill6in Ins ` Ct Corl an 0611512006 ad 26 Legacy SS permit # 10139 homeowner found that SS for this lot will gravity to main and y received authorization to not install a grinder pump. Lateral installed prior to foundation pour - will need to return to get ss, dimensioning In terms of bldg location at a later date. 06/2712006 ad 20 Balance of SS line instld. OK to backfill, C/O installed with plat. SS complete y Total Time; 40 10214 - E411ker SeMmLine' co �iiiltiha �"Y 06127 1 /200 1 6 ad 15 OK to BF. Need gd @ hse WM N 11/20/2006 Hawkins 15 tracer wire grounded at the house and meter. Y Total Time: 30 107t . E�Efiglneering Final- , ornialelte 'y 111201i0 1 66 Hawkins 30 as to gr - a . n I t - E I ngineering fi net. Y Total Time: 30 C 1106 -B-Setba Its 71 , 06116/2006 MS 20 SETBACKS APPROVED PER STRUNG PROPERTY LINES Y Total Time: 20 do ,in 14W?,,�' 06/16/2606 INS 20 FOOTINGS APPROVED Y Total Timw. 20 I 110 - 21717oundationVall' c oir ate 06/20/2006 NIS 5 FOUNDATION APPROVED Total Time: 11�2-B-Flist��loorFrimin-9�..'.��:�, Corn 0 1 7 1 1 1012006 M I S i5 SUBFLOORFRAMINGAPPROSVED Y Total Time: 25 1i26-'B-PlurnlyRoU9 ly� Corn et I, 'y 081 1 0 1 7/2 1 0 0 6 NIS 20 PLUMBING APPROVED Y Total Time: 20 08�22/2006 NIS 'P, 20 GAS TEST AND GAS PIPING APPROVED Total Time: 20 1136. BrEqulpment-MeCh,: 11/22/2006 Snook 20 APPROVED y Total Time: 20 It 1132 - B-Exterior Shea hlng�, 08/0212006 MS 20 EXT ER IOR S HEATHING AP PROVED y Tot.[ Time: 20 1136 - B-Shear Nalling Co [a imp 'te?!� 08/28/2 006 MIS 20 SHEARAPPROVED Y Total Time: 20 1140 - B-Height Verification, late? 08128/2006 ME 25 HEIGHT A PPRO VED Y Total Time: 25 1142 - B-Framing co Plow?, in 6812812006 MS 30 CORRECTION NOTICE WRITTEN N 0813012006 JR 0 CHECKED CORRECTIONS FROM MS 8/28/06. FRAMING APPROVED Y Total Time: 30 1144 - Iii-Wall Instilitionlill Corinpllelte�,: 6123/2009 11:44:51 AM Page 1 of 2 z 0 T11 —4 x C m rn 0 -40 00 a � K In IT! z jo-4 U) 0 n M M 0 0 0 C co C (j) M z z to z 0 m 0813012006 JR 0 APPROVED Total Tlmw. 0 0 8/3012006 JR' 0 APPROVED Total Time: 0 ..... e ..... .. ..... .... 09/0812006 MS 20 APPROVED 'F: Total Time: 20 ;B By Id 11121/2006 Snook 'i6 '6ORRkilON NOT16E WRITTEN 1112212006 Snook 20 APPROVED Total Time: 45 1112212006 Coccia 30 Planning signs off 11122106. Total Time: 30 otal Inspections: 23 Total Time: 430 tT x ITI 02 'N -4 X M ITI z —4 0, "n M M 0 0 C w Q 0 GM/2009 11:44:51 AM Page 2 of 2 M , RECORD OF INSPECTIONS INSPECTOR DATE APPROVED SETBACKS FOUNDATION: 6_j I, Footing ................ Le wait PierlPorch Retaining Wall ........... z Slab Insulation PLUMBING: Underground ............. =i 9i Rough -In,... ............ M Commercial Final C M 0 0 HEATING: C M Test .................... zGas 10-4 Gas Piping ................. ........ . . Equipment Commercial Final EXTERIOR SHEATHING NAILING ................. FRAMING ........................ 7- t M M Q 0) 0 0 0) FIRST FLOOR FRAMING INSULATION ................. Q 0 Floor Insulation Wall Insulation ........... z Ceiling Insulation SHEETROCK NAILING SPECIAL INSPECTION z 0 M MISCELLANEOUS .......... FINAL APPROVAL FOR try-o) OCCUPANCY .................. SideSMW# -033 Am=tM$ Dw vvdametersin P01 Date ROW LL-4, A10=tPWd$L-�;L'_ Dsfthsued�E* 9