Loading...
980434.pdfZ 2 Z W cc W J U U O No cn W LUin u- H O F. tr tr J ma X _. Z F- 1.- 0. W W U U) 0 f-- W WI' _ `, LL C Lu to U =� F- F— Z ' O O 0 CITY OF EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION OWN NA 1 1E OF SINESS i CT Q'F ZIP TELEPHO !:0 L,� - )RESS t% .11 Description of Property - include all easserr n ] re: Account T� 63�- — 0 / (/%✓/— Paroel El NEw t�l RESIDENTIAL PLUMBINGRAECH ADDITION COMMERCIAL CHANGE OF USE REMODEL APT. BLOC. SIGN REPAIR G/) CYDS ❑ FENCE K_F DEMOLISH 7 NSERT TOVE POOL HO TUB SPA RETAINING WALL/ 15�GARAGE ARPORT ROCKERY RENEWAL OFMBEn I IIIIIIIER S DWELLING F I CRITICAL I IfAREAS STORIES UNITNUMBER DESCRIBE Wt)RiK TO BEDONE (NrT4CH s?"T PLAN) X iovE PERMIT NUMBER CJv`'F.T`j .noaess �� I EGAL DESCRIPTION CHECK SUBDIVISION NO LIO NO ,k-- 595-ZOZ N/A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP TESCP APProv.d ❑ EXISTING OUIRED DEDICATION_ RW P&I"t R—Ild ❑ SINKII Um P01111 R"IT O PROPOSED /YI^XPICNon Rlpu,LIf o — SId.w.I. Req-,d ❑ MST/{,R StZE LIN 51ZE NO OFF FIXTURES Pnv REQUIRED /`' 11 ) 1 )I YES W NO ❑ 007 W /,e /,Vo EE7;2 D 6�lrsio ca � ry PcAT - �Y Ac/ /7 /f- In — VARIANCE OR CU ADS A SHORELINE 6 SEPAREVIEW SIGN AREA HEIGHT COMPLETE EXEMPT ALLOWED PROPOSED ALLOWED PROPOS/E/4 (�/� EXP iX, c� v .x /�� �U LOT COVERAGE REWIRED SETBACKS (Ff.) PROPOSED SETBACKS (FT.) ALLOWED PROPOSED FRONT SIDE REAR FRONT UP 5111E REAR LO A A N BY pAT REMARKS CHECKED BY I TYPE OF C NS RUCTION I COOq L// OCCUP GROU .i SPECIAL INSPECTORj� REQUIRED ❑YES 7 M-G7 7 L 1, OCApCUPANT LO REMARKS PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 108 KQe1A t L— n �- FINAL INSPECTION REQUIRED PLAN CHECK FEE L 0 Z 1 HEAT SOURCE GLAZING [� �. a/a BUILDING / ' ( ,.(J PLUMBING Plan Check No. -�S MECHANICAL This Permit covers work to be done on private property ONLY. GRADINGIFILL /^ S r<� Any construction on the publld domain (curbs, sidewalks, driveways, marquees, etc.) will require separate permission. STATE SURCHARGE Penult Application: 180 Days Permit Limit: 1 Year - Provided Work I6 Started Within 180 Days STORM DRAINAGE FEE "Applicant. on behalf Of his Dr her spouse, heirs, assigns and ENG. INSPECTION FEE V successors in interest, agrees to indemnify, defend and hold w harmless the City of Edmonds. Washington, its officials, s employees, and agents from any and all claims for damages of >_ whatever nature, arising directly or indirectly from the issuance be PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT of this permit. Issuance of this permit shall not deemed to omodify, waive or reduce any requirement of any city ordinance V J z norin any way the City's ability to enforce any ordinance TOTAL AMOUNT DUE 'limit pro Vl Sion." I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application; that the Information given is correct; and that 1 am the owner, or the duly ATTENTION APPLICATION APPROVAL authorized agent of the owner. I agree to comply with city and THIS PERMIT slate laws regulating construction; and in doing the work authoriz• AUTHORIZES This application is not ) permit until ad thereby, no person will be employed in violation of the Labor ONLY THE signed by the Building Official or his/her Code oft State of Washington relating to Workmen's Compensa. WORK NOTED Deputy; and fees are paid, and receipt is lion Insur Ce Silo RCW 18.27. INSPECTION acknowledged in space provided. SIGN4%t�F I 11E1 CR GENTI DATES NE ^ A DEPARTMENT OFFI �S ATURE / r ' L) `r / CITY OF EDMONDS .11 I A 11 471,71116 CALL FOR RELEASE nD n ATTENTION INSPECTION `I IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR 771-02(J20 ORIGINAL — File YELLOW — Inspector A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC SECTION 109 102 6) i < PINK — OArer GOLD — Assessor 7 97i 3 ![:.. X i no F7=1 11 z < ~ I X Z L) 0 0 uj Lu Ln LL LU cc LL FI - z F- F- 0 z F- Lu LU go LU L 0 z di CA 0 z r, [a [a p1pp ING 4)0, \�L MAC qj gjv� L QATO(a A I GOT aEA; 15?0� � I 1,�, vas rb M a j6p -,\�o I " l.. el cn —irk W, Ga to L- P96 41 AP,,,T.-o jyV -1 ACCEPTABLE Sch 40 Fll'�,,c SDR 35 (A8-170 D30. PROVED E eel 1'7V 7- 151 A% R - 9!5- - V --) Q llprr. 0p,.c,4 'o T6- - j CITY COPY malro 32XI Z = Z F- W aL WV JO U O wW J F- tn LL W O. }++ cc JI LL j Ln F =. ZF- 1.-o Z �- WW i0 U u7, O —! o =L rF- LLO 'Z w to U = O~ Z 7 10 Cal A 8 NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. _N CONSULTING GEOTECNNICAL ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS 17311-1351h Avenue NE, A-500 Snohomish County (425) 337.1669 Woodinville, WA 98072 (425) 486.1669 - Fax 481-2510 Wenatchee/Chelan (509) 784.2756 November 24, 1997 City of Edmonds Planning Department 250 — 5th Avenue Edmonds, Washington 98020 Supplemental Letter Four Lot Short Plat Edmonds, Washington NCA File No. 178096 Dear Sirs: CITY COPY This is a supplemental letter to our preliminary geological investigation letter for this site, dated July 11, 1996 (NCA File No 178096). The purpose of this letter is to clarify our use of the term "buffer zone" in the Building Setback subsection of our report. We have been requested to provide this clarification by Jeff Vehrs of the Emerald Coast Group. In our report, we recommended a minimum building setback of 10 feet for structures on Lots 3 and 4, to establish a "buffer zone" between dwelling areas and the slope margin. We did not intend the word "buffer" to be used as referenced and defined by the City of Edmonds in their Development Code. We understand that these definitions were provided in the new code which was enacted after our report was prepared. The City of Edmonds defines "buffer" as the area immediately next to and part of a steep slope. The buffer is intended to protect the stability of the slope. A 15-foot setback is required from the edge of the buffer. The topographic map provided corresponds with our field measurements taken at the time of our explorations. The topographic map of the steep slope area shows that the slope the maximum slope t 1. .��o... • I ' LJ 32 X z = Z w aU w U J 0 U N w w S J : 0F- - and LU F =, Z� �0 ww �o p N1 w iLJl 2 L: r LL� ui U y O~ Z Supplemental Letter Edmonds Short Plat November 24, 1997 NCA File No. 178096 Page 2 inclination is about 58 percent for a total height of 8 to 10 feet. The portion of the slope with an average slope above 40 percent is less than 20 feet in vertical height. Therefore, this slope does not qualify as a steep slope hazard area under the City of Edmonds Code. It is our opinion that a building setback of 10 feet from the toe of the slope is appropriate. This allows for maintenance of the area in the event a slough event occurs. The term "buffer" used in our original report was not intended to be used as defined in the code, but was intended to be used as a setback of the structure from the toe of the slope. In the event that the steep slope hazard is still applied, it is our opinion that moving the buffer onto the slope and having the standard building setback start at the toe of the slope would be appropriate. We trust this letter provides you with the information you requested and appreciate the opportunity to be of continued service to you on this project. If you have any questions concerning this letter, do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 0 Charles P. Couvrette, PE Principal Engineer B LIvII-I:CPC:nt '-J Three Copies Submitted i NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. �l11�R� i e z FLu. s g' O' N 0' N w` Lu in u.Lu U. <� y C� _ ui° z ~ 0 W W 7; U y, O F, = Lu LLO — z U= O~ z m E GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT FOUR LOT SHORT PLAT EDMONDS, WASHINGTON FOR THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND LOVELL-SAUERLAND & ASSOCIATES, INC. I 0 t C h l 1'. NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSUL77NG GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS -- AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS 17311.1351h Avenue NE, A•500 Snohomish County (206) 337.1669 Z Woodinville, WA 98072 (206) 486.1669 • Fax 481.2510 Wenatchee/Chelan (509) 784.2756 = z' w cc U I U0 to I] Lw u J L' N u_' July 11, 1996 _ 0,. Lu S =p LL 31 to 0, = City of Edmonds i I— Planning Department z 0H' 250 - Sth Avenue w uu Edmonds, Washington 98020 U tn;� Geotechnical Investigation Report 0 L-ji Four Lot Short Plat w wl Edmonds, Washington _ LTZ ' NCA File No. 178096 LLo 71 w INTRODUCTION v This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for the planned LSA/Echelbarger four 0 lot short plat in Edmonds, Washington. The site is located on the south side of Olympic View Drive near the 9200 block. We Have been retained to evaluate a critical area and provide recommendations for site development. For our use in preparing this report, we have been provided with a copy of the plans, dated May 1996, prepared by Lovell-Sauerland & Associates, Inc. (LSA). P The project will consist of four residential lots that will be accessed along the western property line. The access road will have a few feet of fill with a planned rockery as high as 4 feet on the downhill side. An O existing slope will be regraded on the east side of Lot 3. A rockery4 to 6 feet in height is planned at the base of this slope. The excavated material from the slope regrading will be used as fill to raise the road grades and to fill a low area on the west side of Lots 1 and 2. A steep slope located in the southeast corner of the site is to remain undisturbed. The steep slope will be within Lots 3 and 4, and we have been requested to provide setbacks from the toe of slope for these lots. Existing structures will be 0 removed from the site during project development. The grading required to develop the lot areas will need to be accomplished during plat development as it incorporates building and roadway areas. I I 32 x z iZ f- w x w� LUU UO U)LIJ O w J y LL - O'. LU LL and H =, z f- �_o z i- w? �o U U N O - 0t ww 2 t.. F_ LL Q —z w (f U S OF z M Ex u h Geotechnical Investigation Report Four Lot Short Plat I NCA File No. 178096 July 11, 1996 Page 2 1 SCOPE The purpose of this study is to explore the subsurface conditions and to provide recommendations for project development. Specifically, our scope of services includes the following: l . Review the geologic map for the area. 2. Explore the subsurface conditions with backhoe excavated test pits. 3. Evaluate the ground water conditions. 4. Provide recommendations for site preparation, grading and structural fill. 5. Provide recommendations for foundation design and setbacks from steep slopes. 6. Provide general information for on -site drainage considerations. l 7. Prepare a written report to document our findings and recommendations. 1 j SITE CONDITIONS Surface The site is over 1.3 acres in size and has a residence, garage, shed, and fallout shelter. The site is accessed in the middle of the north property line from Olympic View Drive. A couple of short retaining i walls and hedges exist along side of the driveway. The site slopes generally to the northwest with a total vertical relief of approximately 50 feet. We measured the slopes on site with a clinometer. These measurements were compared to the site plan provided to us. Our slope angles are similar to the grades shown on the topography map provided to us. A steep slope exists in southeastern portion of the site. The steep slope has angles up to 30 degrees (58 percent) with a vertical relief of approximately 15 feet. Near the top of the steep slope, the neighboring property owner has been using the area as a garden. Debris has been placed on the steep slope, in the approximate area shown on the site plan, creating a pile approximately 3 to 4 feet in height. A low area exists in the northwest portion of the site. The lowest point is approximately 5 to 6 feet below the road elevation. The area is covered with tall grass. We suspect that the area was previously used as a borrow pit. Vegetation consists of a few large evergreen and deciduous trees with a dense undergrowth in the southern portion of the site. The developed portion of the site is covered with grass, trees and small NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 32 X ! u M Geote'chnical Investigation Report Four Lot Short Plat NCA File No. 178096 July 11,1996 Page 3 Z underbrush or shrubs. Tall strands of hedges occur along side the existing driveway. Vegetation on the Fw steep slope consists of brush, berry vines, and scattered deciduous trees. The trees on the steep slope wU range up to 22 inches in diameter. J UO N o Geologic Conditions W t' Landforms within this region comprise a system of glacially sculptured features, which have been (n I.L. i 0 exposed by post -glacial erosion. Locally, the terrain of this area is interpreted to have been glacially �i modified, and to have been placed during the latest glaciation of the Puget Lowland area. Glacial ice is LL Q, h a' thought to have last occupied the region during the late Pleistocene Epoch, some 11,000 to 13,000 years _ before present. The latest glacial advance over the area is referred to as the Vashon Stade of the Fraser Z F- . p+ Glaciation, of which the geologic materials on site are believed composed. Z�. ww M0. U to i The general stratigraphy within this area was observed and found to consist of advance glacial outwash, o -ij referred to as Esperance Sand (Qva/Qe). Advance outwash in this area is composed of a dense, fine _ (—� sand, with trace silt and occasional gravel, which has been overridden and compacted by the weight of LL p the thick glacial ice. The advance sands were observed in all of the test pits. It is not uncommon for w more gravelly and/or silty zones to occur in these deposits. U O~ Z The Ge logic Map of the Edmonds East and Edmonds West Quadrangle- Snohomish and King Countigc, Washinglon by James P. Minard, published by U.S. Geological Survey in 1975, was referenced for the geologic and soil conditions at the site. The soil unit mapped at this site is classified as a Whidbey Formation (Qw), with glacial till (Qvt) and Esperance Sand in the near vicinity. We did not encounter Jthe Qw or Qvt in the subsurface conditions of the site. The Esperance Sand deposit is the geological unit which commonly lies between the Whidbey and till deposits. O Subsurface Conditions The subsurface conditions at the site were explored on June 8, 1996 by excavating ten test pits with a tire -mounted backhoe, The depths of the backhoe test pits range from 4.0 to 7.5 feet. The approximate locations of the test pits are shown on the Site Plan in Figure 2. A representative from our film was present during the explorations. He examined the soils and geologic conditions encountered and © maintained logs of the test pits. 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 through 6. I i NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. I 32 X z i zZ, w w J U U O N 0 ww S J H N LL' w 0. LL� zi �_O z w j f 0 U to O—' 2 L LL Q _z ui U) U = O~ z s- 0 am U Geotechnical Investigation Report Four Lot Short Plat NCA File No. 178096 July 11,1996 Page 4 i Subsurface conditions found on site consist mostly of a fine sand with silt or trace silt that varied from loose at the surface, to medium dense to dense with depth. We have interpreted these soils to be the Esperance Sands. Test Pit 9, located on the east portion of Lot 2, encountered 4 feet of fill. The fill consists of similar native material with some organics and bottles. We also expect localized fills in areas behind structures and/or retaining walls. The site is covered with a thin layer of topsoil. The topsoil ranged up to 0.8 feet in depth. Hydrologic Conditions No obvious evidence of ground water, perched ground water or outcropping ground water along the slopes was observed within this site. The advance outwash is considered fairly permeable and water is expected to infiltrate vertically in the deposit until it encounters a less permeable layer, such as the Whidbey Formation. We do not know the depths of these less permeable layers. The site appears to be well drained with the advance sands. SENSITIVE AREA EVALUATION Seismic Hazard The Puget Sound Region is classified as a Zone 3 by the Uniform Building Code. Seismic considerations i for this type of site includes liquefaction potential and attenuation of ground motions by soft soil i deposits. The liquefaction potential is highest for loose sand and silty sand with a high ground water table. The sand deposits at the site below a few feet were at least medium dense or better. These soils have a low potential of liquefaction. Seismically sensitive soft soils were not observed at this site. Erosion Hazard The erosion hazard criteria used for determination of affected areas include 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 soils have been classified in accordance with the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) classification system and have been grouped with respect to the corresponding geologic unit. The geologic unit is Esperance Sand which corresponds to the SCS classification of Everett soils. The erosion hazard is greatest when the on -site soils have been stripped of vegetation. Provided the surface water flowing over the exposed sands are properly controlled during construction, and vegetation is re- established after development, we do not expect a significant erosion concern. NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. _ 10 32XI z aF� ~w Cr a:, w U JO yO mw; J h U) LL —O W y }F cr J! LL �i Ln d, W: S z t- r O z ww �O �n U N o FI w wl S t- LL Oi — z .i3 j U O~ z 7' f7 5 0 Geotechnical Investigation Report Four Lot Short Plat NCA File No. 178096 July 11, 1996 Page 5 Landslide Hazard An evaluation of potential landslide hazard was performed for this site. This evaluation includes soil type, underlying stratigraphy, slope gradient, ground water conditions, and vegetation cover. The soil conditions at the site commonly have high strengths and the slope angles are not excessively steep for these types of soils. We also did not observe any signs of instability such as shallow or deep-seated failures. Accordingly, it is our opinion that the native site slopes are stable and large scale failures are not expected. Localized slough events may occur in the steep portions depending on the area specific conditions. These would be expected to be shallow, involving the near -surface soils. The garden debris placed on the top of the steep slope is considered unstable may cause shallow sloughs of the steep slope. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General The site is suitable for the planned residential short plat. The underlying sand deposits have moderately high strength, and the existing slopes are considered stable with respect to deep-seated landslides or failures. Surficial sloughing and erosion can occur, however, we did not observe evidence of slope failures. The risk of these sloughs can be minimized by maintaining vegetation on the slopes and controlling any surface water that may exist. We consider that minimum setbacks from the toe of slope are considered appropriate to reduce the risk of future effects from surface sloughing. The outwash sand deposits should provide a good subgrade for support of the structure's foundations. The soil to be used as structural fill will be obtained from the east side of Lots 1, 2 and 3. Excavating these soils to be used as fill, will cause a portion of the trees and the existing structures to be removed during the initial development activities. The fill soil will be placed in the roadway area and also the low depression on the west side of Lot 1. Building Setbacks Uncertainties related to building along steep slopes are typically addressed by the use of building setbacks. The purpose of the setback is to establish a "buffer zone" between the dwelling areas and the slope margin so that ample room is allowed for normal slope regression, or if a slope failure were to occur, the likelihood of dwelling involvement would be minimized. In a general sense, the greater the setback, the lower the risk. From a geological standpoint, the setback dimension is usually 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, type, and desired life span of the development are important considerations as well. NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 32 x z =Z F- LU w U U U 0 N UJ mLU J � rn LL 0. LU cc JI LL Q Ln _:. z� LULU i� �o U m n L— =L LLFI Q z U T o~ z s 0 Geotechnical Investigation Report Four Lot Short Plat i NCA File No. 178096 July 11, 1996 Page 6 Based upon our explorations, slope evaluation and observations, we recommend a minimum building setback of 10 feet for structures on Lots 3 and 4. Setbacks are not necessary on the other lots from the toe of the steep slope. Specifically, we recommend that the setback area not be used for placement or storage of fill materials, including "temporary" excavation spoils from building area preparation and excavation. The landscape debris on the upper portion of the steep slope should be removed. The area should be re-established with vegetation if the soil is exposed. Any development or encroachment into the setback areas should be evaluated by a specific geotechnical evaluation and report. Site Preparation and Grading Site preparation and grading should consist of stripping the vegetation and topsoil layer to the planned subgrade. The exposed surface should be compacted to a non -yielding condition using a steel -drum vibratory compactor. The subgrade should be observed for indication of disturbance of the lower soils both during excavation and compaction. If the subgrade shows signs of disturbance, we should be retained to provide recommendations for repair or potentially alternate construction techniques. The on -site soil is expected to be only somewhat moisture sensitive with a uniform grain size, and may be difficult to work and compact during periods of wet weather. Earthwork should be suspended during rainfall and for a period of time afterward. The actual ability to work the site during the wet time of the year will be dependent on the performance of the soils under load when wet. These conditions should be observed and the site work adjusted accordingly. We recommend that all soil stock piles that are intended to be used as backfill be covered with plastic during rainy weather to help maintain a moisture content suitable for compaction. Sometimes a layer of crushed gravel or 2- to 4-inch spalls is used to provide wet season access and to improve pavement and foundation subgrade. The use of the gravel and spalls should be based on conditions observed in the field. Excavation Slopes Temporary slopes greater than 4 feet in height should be sloped at an inclination no steeper than 1.5H:1 V for the loose to medium dense sands, and IHAV for dense sands for cuts up to 12 feet in height. These slopes should be protected from rain by well secured plastic sheeting. If ground water or seepage is encountered, we should be retained to comment on the stability of the slopes in the excavation. The above cut slope angles should be considered preliminary in nature. The contractor should be ultimately responsible for the stability of the cut slopes, as he is continuously at the site and can observe the performance on a daily basis. All state and federal standards should be followed with respect to cut slopes and workman safety. r NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. V, 10 32 x M i Geotechnical Investigation Report Four Lot Short Plat i NCA File No. 178096 July 11, 1996 Page 7 • Z l Structural Fill a F rz General: Fill will be placed with the current design. Fill to be placed beneath buildings, pavements or cc other settlement sensitive features, should be placed as structural. fill. Structural fill, by definition, is soil w p placed in accordance with prescribed methods and standards described in this report, and is monitored by 0 N w an experienced geotechnical professional or soils technician. Field monitoring procedures would include J ~ a representative number of in -place density tests to document the attainment of the desired degree of Ln LL w O relative compaction. a �I O' Materials: Imported structural fill should consist of a good quality free draining granular soil, free of U,• organic and other deleterious material, and be well graded to a maximum size of about 3 inches. Z F- Imported all weather fill should contain no more than about 5 percent fines (soil finer than a U.S. No. '0 200 sieve) based on that fraction passing the U.S. 3/4-inch sieve. w w v0 (n The on -site outwash soil can be used as structural fill but these soils contain some fine-grained particles o —, o ill and are considered slightly moisture sensitive. The use of the soils as fill should be limited to extended w Lull L, periods of dry weather. These soils have a uniform grain size and are sometimes more difficult to `—` v compact than well graded soils. Depending on the moisture content of the soil, adding water may be v necessary to achieve compaction. Soils with a high organic content should not be used as structural fill. O ~( Z ` Fill Placement: Following subgrade preparation, placement of the structural fill may proceed. All backfilling should be accomplished in 8- to 10-inch thick uniform lifts. Each lift should be spread evenly and be thoroughly compacted prior to placement of subsequent lifts. Alllstructural fill underlying building areas, and within 2 feet of pavement subgrade, should be compacted to a minimum of 95 1 r1 percent of its maximum dry density. Maximum dry density in this report refers to that density as determined by the ASTM D 1557 compaction test procedure. Fills more than 2 feet beneath sidewalks and pavement subgrades should be compacted to at least 90 percent of their maximum dry density. The 0 moisture content of the soils 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 soils in cases where drying to a compactable condition is not feasible. All compaction should be accomplished by equipment of a type and size sufficient to attain the desired degree of compaction. Care should betaken when compacting the soil condition near to adjacent houses. A photo documented survey of the 0 neighboring structures is suggested prior to any heavy equipment arriving at the site. Sometimes the use of smaller compaction equipment and thinner lifts is better if adjacent structures are being impacted. NELSON-COUVRETTE ?i ASSOCIATES, INC. �. 0 32 x 6 z =Z' �w w U J U U O ww 2 J N LL wO J� LL ?i T d' Z H Z� w w' i� 0 ULn o —i w LO = L' LL 0, U � o� z r n E 0 Geotechnical Investigation Report Four Lot Short Plat NCA File No. 178096 July 11, 1996 Page 8 Foundations The foundations should be placed either on undisturbed medium dense or dense native sand or structural fill extending to these soils. If footings are to bear on structural fill, the fill zone should extend outside of the footing a distance equal to the depth of fill beneath the footing. The soil conditions should be evaluated for appropriate density and disturbance at the time of construction. Exterior footings should extend a minimum of 18 inches below the adjacent outside ground surface, with interior column footings a minimum of 12 inches below the bottom of the adjacent slab. All loose or disturbed soil should be removed from the foundation excavation prior to placing concrete. Standing water should not be allowed to accumulate in the building pad or footing trenches. For foundations constructed as outlined above, we recommend an allowable design bearing pressure of not more than 2,500 pounds per square foot(psf) be used. Higher bearing values may be available based on specific soil conditions, footing size and settlement tolerance. This can be reviewed at the time that the structure is designed and foundation loads are determined. A one-third increase in the above allowable bearing pressure may be used when considering short-term transitory wind or seismic loads. Although structural loading information was not available at the time of this study, based on our experience with similar structures supported on similar soil conditions and for the above allowable soil bearing pressures, we estimate that the maximum total post -construction settlement for medium dense sands should be 3/4 of an inch or less, and that the differential settlement across the building width should be 1/2 inch or less. We expect larger differential settlements may occur if the building is constructed part on fill and part on native soils. Lateral Pressures The lateral pressure acting on retaining walls is dependent on the nature and density of the soil behind the wall, the amount of lateral wall movement which can occur as backfill is placed and the inclination of the backfill. Soil pressures will be less for walls that are free to yield at the top at least one -thousandth of the height of the wall, than if movement is limited by such factors as wall stiffness or bracing. We recommend that yielding walls supporting horizontal backfill be designed using an equivalent fluid density of 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Non -yielding walls should be designed using an equivalent fluid density of 50 pcf. These lateral soil pressures do not include the effects of surcharges such as traffic loads or other surcharge loads. Surcharge effects should be considered, if appropriate. If desired, we can provide recommendations for surcharge loads as they become apparent. NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 32X lJ 0 77 r Geotechnical Investigation Report Four Lot Short Plat NCA File No. 178096 July 11, 1996 Page 9 z All backfill for subgrade walls that will. not act as structural fill should be compacted to between 90 and FZ 92 percent of the maximum dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557. Care should cc UJ be taken to prevent the buildup of excess lateral soil pressures due to overcompaction of the backfill ¢� LU p behind the wall. This can be accomplished by placing the backfill within 18 to 24 inches of the wall in U O E w lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness, and compacting this zone with hand -operated vibrating w= _j plate compactors. m w' — O'. w Lateral loads can be resisted by friction between the foundation and subgrade or the passive earth _JI w < pressure acting on the below -grade foundation. For the latter, the foundation must be placed "neat' dlagainst the undisturbed soil, or backfilled with a clean, free draining, compacted structural fill. We z Fes., I recommend that lateral passive resistance be calculated by using an equivalent fluid weight of 250 pcf. Z or : An allowable coefficient of friction between footings and the subgrade of 0.40 may be used. These o values include a factor of safety of 2.0 for lateral resistance and 1.5 for the coefficient of friction. U cn,. 0 -, o The wall pressures, listed above, are based on the assumption that the soil directly behind the wall is free wi LU Li draining or a drainage composite is used. All of the on -site surface soils are not free draining. Some free LL Zj draining soil may exist at depth. Wall drains are discussed in the Subsurface Drainage sub -section of this report. o~ z Site Drainage Surface Drainage: The finished ground surface should be graded such that storm water is directed off of the site. 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 the building. We suggest that the finished ground be sloped at a gradient of 3 percent minimum for a distance of at least 10 feet away from the building. Surface water should be collected by permanent catch basins and drain lines, and be discharged into a storm drain system. O The surficial soils are loose to medium dense, fine sand. These soil types erode easily, especially when directly exposed to precipitation and runoff. Surface water should be diverted away from the steep to moderate slopes. Stripped areas should be revegetated to improve the stability of the near -surface slope soils. The vegetation should be maintained until it is established. O Subsurface Drainage: Where slabs are located below the surrounding grades, a system of perimeter footing drains should be included in the design. The perimeter footing drains should consist of 4-inch diameter perforated smooth -walled PVC pipe surrounded by pea gravel. The footing drains should be NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. _........... O f B 32 x u n ' Geotechnical Investigation Report Four Lot Short Plat i NCA File No. 178096 i July 11, 1996 Page 10 located at the elevation of the footing. The drains should be tightlined to the storm drain system. We do Z Fw not consider foundation drains necessary for standard foundations construction. o= Jo A drainage system should be planned behind all retaining walls. The drainage system should consist of U o U) an 18-inch wide blanket of free draining material, Pea gravel would be a suitable material. If 0.5-inch or cn uj larger washed rock is used, filter fabric may be required to surround the rock. A drainage composite wLL p approved by geotechnical engineer could be used in place of the rock blanket. A 4-inch diameter perforated pipe should be placed along the base of the wall within the free draining material. The drains J, LL a L dl should be routed to an appropriate discharge point. ZFi Slabs -on -Grade Slabs should be supported on native subgrade soils or structural fill prepared as described in the Site o' j Preparation and Grading and Structural Fill sub -sections of this report. Where moisture control is v N 1 important, we recommend that the floor slabs be underlain by 6 inches of free draining granular material, o —;, for use as a capillary break. A suitable vapor barrier, such as heavy plastic sheeting, should be placed =L + F V_, over the capillary break material. A 2-inch thick sand blanket may be placed over the vapor barrier to LL - Z) protect it during placement of the concrete and to help the concrete cure. tit U o Rockeries Z Rockeries are used in the Puget Sound region to face stable soil exposures to reduce weathering and slough type failures. Although it is not always common to consider a rockery as a retaining wall, in reality, the rockery can act as a gravity wall. The problems associated with using the rockery as a retaining wall is the quality of the rockery construction and the compacted backfill. There is some risk .r associated with rockeries since the rocks are not tied together. Therefore, the methods in which they are stacked are very important. Rockeries should be designed and constructed in accordance with. Association of Rockery Contractors (ARC) guidelines, unless otherwise recommended in this report. O Inspection of the rockery construction by the geotechnical consultant is recommended, We consider the rockery at the base of the cut slope to be appropriate. However, we recommend that the rock sizes be increased to H/2 instead of the H/3 as recommended in the ARC manual. We recommend that the same standards be used for the rockery that retains the driveway fill. However, since the wall O could be exposed to unknown wheel and traffic loads, it may be prudent to design it as a reinforced soil wall. The reinforcement could consist of either fabric or geogrid. NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 32 X I 0 Geotechnical Investigation Report Four Lot Short Plat i NCA File No. 178096 i July 11,1996 Page I I i Z USE OF THIS REPORT = i We have prepared this report for The City of Edmonds, Lovell-Sauerland & Associates, Inc, and their F- w cc g agents, for use in planning and design of this project. The data and report should be provided to j `-J U prospective contractors for their bidding or estimating purposes, but our report, conclusions and U 0' winterpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. The scope of our services does not include services related to construction safety precautions and our recommendations M LLi o' are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as specifically described in this report for consideration in design. U. j d There are possible variations in subsurface conditions between the explorations and also with time. A H w" Z i- contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in the budget and schedule. We should be i z retained to provide monitoring and consultation services during construction to confirm that the UJ 2 �; conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide �o U m;recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those O� w anticipated, and to evaluate whether or not earthwork and foundation installation activities comply with i LLFl contract plans and specifications. _O 7J ' LLi Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget for our services, we have strived to take care that U ~p �"- our work has been completed in accordance with generally accepted practices followed in this area at the Z ` time this report was prepared. No other conditions, expressed or implied, should be understood. i I 1 J O i NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES INC. v� 8. tV z = Z �- W L) U U 0 v1 � W: W =' N LL Q W Q J U. j Td H= zr �o z F- W W UCn OUJ LL C W V U = OF z FE Geotechnical Investigation Report Four Lot Short Plat NCA File No. 178096 July 11, 1996 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, NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. � - gux Rick B. Powell, PE Project Engineer EXPIRES L•1�r•99 Charles P. Couvrette, PE Principal Engineer Three Copies Submitted Six Figures cc: Mr. Jurgen Sauerland - Lovell-Sauerland & Associates, Inc. I NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Z = Z F- w cc wU U UO 1n O w J F- cn w' wQ LL QI, to F—=- 2 Z F- r O' Z i ww ]p, w w) = L_ u) U O~ Z td7 X DEPTH USC LOG OF EXPLORATION SOIL DESCRIPTION TEST PIT ONE 0.0.1.3 SM DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, WET) (TOPSOIL) 1.3-4.0 SP-SM RED -BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED Ova) 4.0-6.5 SP-SM GRAY -BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST TO WET) (Ova) SAMPLE WAS COLLECTED AT 6.0 FEET GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 6.5 FEET ON 6/15/96 TEST PIT TWO 0.0-0.4 SM DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH SOME ORGANICS (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, WET) 0.4.4.0 SP-SM GRAY -BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT AND ORGANICS (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST TO WET)(Ova) SAMPLES WERE NOT COLLECTED GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 4.0 FEET ON 6115/96 _ TEST PIT THREE 0.0 - 0.2 TOPSOIL 0.2 - 2.0 SP LIGHT BROWN FINE SAND (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST) LEIW 2.0 - 3.5 SP-SM/SM BROWN TO DARK BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT TO SILTY FINE SAND (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (OLD TOPSOIL) 3.5 - 5.0 SP LIGHT BROWN FINE SAND (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST TO WEB (Ova) SAMPLES WERE NOT COLLECTED GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 5.0 FEET ON 6115/96 TEST PIT FOUR 0.0. 0.2 TOPSOIL 0.2-2.0 SP-SM BROWN TO DARK BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT AND SOME ORGANICS (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (TOPSOIL/Ova) 2.0 - 4.0 SP LIGHT BROWN TO BROWN FINE SAND (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (Ova) SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 1.5 AND 4.0 FEET - GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 4.0 FEET ON 6115/96 NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. FILE NO. 178096 FIGURE 4 0 0 32 X \` Approximate Location of Debris / Site Plan Ti • ``` y •4' ••'•P ` _ mod' •^F� \ '�\`'ti ��1 1\'. .. 'rl7P•S ••"��, —t ti.."TP 7 `, _� ••,' .-�.2 \ • f FYI � � `.1 33 _ d \.._.,..,;;t \�\\ �\ LEGEND ;<I '\ •\ NUMBER AND APPROXIMATE •\ LOCATION OF TEST PITS a 40 so scale I' - 40• 'y i •, RGUFE NELSON.couvRE7TE&As5aCIATES:INC. LSA/EChelbarger 2 Reference: Site Plan was created from a drawing provided by Lovell-Sauerlond & Associates, Inc., c,",,,,,,,cb i <.b.....=G<«�"� ao. oere !B dated May 16, 1996 •c-- `_"xO :""'"""' 178096 June 1996, 32 x z S Z F w QU w U w0 U � N W W = J F- L_n L L w0 Q J LL 2 W I— = z I— 'O zF- LU w �0 0 0 0 (n CI I_ w w = L. F- P LL C _ z Uj (/ U = OF z E ICI T SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM GROUP MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOL GROUP NAME COARSE GRAVEL CLEAN GRAVEL GW WELL -GRADED GRAVEL, FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL GRAVEL GP POORLY -GRADED GRAVEL GRAINED GM SILTY GRAVEL SOILS MDRETUNW%OFOawSE FRAGTOq RETAINED ON WITH FINES NO.4 SIEVE GC CLAYEY GRAVEL MORE TUN SO% RETAINED ON no. 2W SIEVE SAND CLEAN SAND SW WELL -GRADED SAND, FINE TO COARSE SAND SP POORLY -GRADED SAND MORETUN W%OF COARSE FRACTION PASSES NO. ♦ SIEVE SAND WITH FINES SM SILTY SAND SC CLAYEYSAND FINE SILT AND CLAY INORGANIC ML SILT CL CLAY GRAINED LIOl1ID UMR LESS TUN 50% ORGANIC OL ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC CLAY SOILS SILT AND CLAY INORGANIC MH SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY, ELASTIC SILT CH CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAY MORE TUN SO% PASSES N0, 200 SIEVE UOUW UMrT 50% OR MORE ORGANIC OH ORGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC SILT HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT NOTES: SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS 1) Field classification is based on Dry - Absence of moisture, dusty, dry visual examination of soil In general to the touch accordance with ASTM D 2488 - 83. Moist - Damp, but no visible water 2) Soil classification using laboratory tests is based on ASTM D 2487 - 83. Wet - Visible. free water or saturated, usually soil is obtained from 3) Descriptions of soil density or below water table consistency are based on Interpretation of blowcount data, visual appearance, of soils, and/or test data. NELSON -COUVRETTE&ASSOCIATES, INC. SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM - EONSULTINO GEOTECNNICAL ENGINEERS. GEOLOGISTS �ANOENVIRONMENIALSCIENTISTS FIGURE 3 ...................... +,�.. 0 I� 32XI O LOG OF EXPLORATION DEPTH USC SOIL DESCRIPTION TEST PIT ONE z 0.0 -1.3 SM DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, WET)(TOPSOIL) HW" _ cc 1.3-4.0 SP-SM RED -BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED j Ova) w U V O 4.0-6.5 SP-SM GRAY -BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST TO tn W WET) (Ova) H SAMPLE WAS COLLECTED AT 6.0 FEET to LLO: GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED w TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED Q TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 6.5 FEET ON 6/15/96 <� LL Q j TEST PIT TWO to a i = 0.0-0.4 SM DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH SOME ORGANICS (LOOSE TO MEDIUM I- _� DENSE, WET) z� 01 z I.- 0,4 -4.0 SP-SM GRAY -BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT AND ORGANICS (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST TO WET) (Ova) ww j p SAMPLES WERE NOT COLLECTED V tn. GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED O —I o Hj i TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED w wl TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 4.0 FEET ON 6115/96 = L ' F- H- TEST PIT THREE LL pi 7) 0.0.0.2 TOPSOIL ui H 0.2 -2.0 SP LIGHT BROWN FINE SAND (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST) (ELL) O z 2.0-3.5 SP-SMISM BROWN TO DARK BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT TO SILTY FINE SAND (LOOSE i TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (OLD TOPSOIL) 3.5 - 5.0 SP LIGHT BROWN FINE SAND (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST TO WET) (Ova) SAMPLES WERE NOT COLLECTED GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED .r / TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 5.0 FEET ON 6115/96 TEST PIT FOUR 0.0. 0.2 TOPSOIL O 0.2.2.0 SP-SM BROWN TO DARK BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT AND SOME ORGANICS (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (TOPSOILIOva) 2.0 - 4.0 SP LIGHT BROWN TO BROWN FINE SAND (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (Ova) SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 1.5 AND 4.0 FEET GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED © TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 4.0 FEET ON 6/15196 Z I 2 2 W Q Q a W LJ JO U� N W J H N LLO W pQ� JI It Q D d� F- 2 Z F r O' Z � O U 07' S F LL Q' W to U = O~ Z z LOG OF EXPLORATION DEPTH USC SOIL DESCRIPTION TEST PIT FIVE 0.0 - 0.4 TOPSOIL 0.4.4.0 SP LIGHT BROWN WITH SLIGHT RUST STAINING FINE SAND WITH TRACE SILT (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST) (Ova) SAMPLES WERE NOT COLLECTED GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 4.0 FEET ON 6/15196 TEST PIT SIX 0.0 - 0.5 TOPSOIL 0.5.4.0 SP-SM LIGHT BROWN TO BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST TU WET) (Ova) SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED FROM 3.0-4.0 FEET GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED - TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 4.0 FEET ON 6/15/96 TEST PIT SEVEN 0.0 - 0.5 TOPSOIL 0.5 - 2.0 SP-SMISM BROWN TO RED -BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT TO SILTY FINE SAND (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED Ova) 2.0-7.5 SP LIGHT BROWN TO BROWN FINE SAND WITH TRACE SILT (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST) (Ova) SAMPLE WAS COLLECTED AT 6.0 FEET GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 7.5 FEET ON 6/15/96 TEST PIT EIGHT 0.0 - 0.4 TOPSOIL 7 0.4-3.0 SP-SM TAN -BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST TO WET) (WEATHERED Ova) 3.0.5.5 SP-SM GRAY -BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, O MOIST TO WET) (Ova) SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED FROM 4.0.5.0 FEET GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 5.5 FEET ON 6/15/96 1 i i B i NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. FILE NO. 176096 FIGURE 5 l� O • r 32 X Z = Z f- W: Q � - U U Q yW w S J f- �LL O' W J LL to d F =. Z F 1. O Z W W �0 U Vl, �F H LL Q - Z W (q U = O~ Z �l E TEST PIT NINE 0.0 - 0.7 TOPSOIL 0.7.4.01 SM/SP-SM BROWN TO DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND TO FINE SAND WITH SILT, ORGANICS AND A BOTTLE (LOOSE, MOIST) (FILL\ ' 4.0.5.0 SP-SM BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (Ova) SAMPLES WERE NOT COLLECTED GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 5.0 FEET ON 6115196 TEST PIT TEN 0.0-0.8 TOPSOIL 0.8-4.0 SP-SM RED -BROWN TO LIGHT BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT AND OCCASIONAL COBBLES (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST TO WET) (Ova) .SAMPLES WERE NOT COLLECTED GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 4.0 FEET ON 6/15/96 NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. FILE NO. 178096 FIGURE 6 '�.. Q ■ ������/ ���I I �w���Pll�ir��wllll�I� .JYW z Z. F- W J U U 0 N w, J F y LL! wO �a LL _: z 'o z W Lu 7 0 U a- �- = L. F F W c -z w« Uz o� z 1 01 92 O 2 De- edNN t �JCTiT , 7-e hL5 ae2 P1A7- 6-9 s - P�oa gab FrLL _------ - G M T CN £ IkU? JTLNF 2 cc �. W U L) U. Ua rn LU w 2' J F— rA LL �a JI LL �I 2 Z F- F- OF, W W U y. O F LU LU LL C Z W TT UI OF Z as 5 Ky lyre Valley P.O. Box 835 Monroe, WA. 98272 Testing (Z06i 794-4555 December 4, 1996 DEC 1 0 1996 Project No. 6854 BDZ Developers, Inc. 19400 33rd Ave W, suite 200 Lynnwood, Wa. 98036 Reference: Olympic View S.P. 92 Ave W. a Olympic View Dr. Edmonds, Wa. To Whom It May Concern: The Above referenced site was monitored by observing fill placement and the taking of density tests as fill was placed and compacted. These were taken in the fill area located in the west portion of lots 1 a 2. Results are enclosed along with (proctor) maximum density. We trust this information is of value and if you have any questions please call. i ncere�'g'l7"y�,A�� Jerry Boyd Soil. consultant Soils Lab — Drainfleld Design 01 _. . SKY VALLEY' P. 0, Box 835 Monroe, WA 98212 (360)194A555 (206) DAILY FIEL 'ESTING 188.6600 D REPORT "AVtU"CP1 M 10 ms No. TIMoNsRR 3.S t(Ct3 TIDelonsrm rAOR or Xtw el mve aaa VISR00.3 aL ,oMRR UPORT ate•No. z 1— W' Q 7 J LU U U0 to o Cn w J H w LL! w 0 , � �j LL '1 Nd z t- f- o zF- LU LU �o U to o� W LU LL f7 z LU fn U = O~ z 0 ,(/ Tot Poinl No. lncntlon FIII Depth Ft. Ele, Ft. Moirtore Content % Dry Denftty pcf Max. Dry Density pcf Perttat Campaallon it 1-o7-4 2j�- - //o_ q6 13.E 17A rl NOTES: S l,D�,�iiLS iN� �IAcE S� CD/21D�,�n�L/6- _— /,uiTH CASE /l_�1!L�8�o2Y /PULl,F� �/4�JF C �4GGul�TE Tlf� Nl\ urn IhyrsTL1�P�_D�siz� M, v Ex 05'06,98 12:42 FAX 1-425-481-6149 C L%1 F7 BDZ DEVELOPERS — LSA Z 02 SKY VALLEY TESTING P. O. Box 835 Monroe, WA 98272 (360) 7944555 (206) 788-6600 DAILY FIELD REPORT TYAVEUPR.U. ME �p JOBNO. TIME ON SITE D MILES TDM OFF SITE ?AGE OF THER '00!X6$57- VISITORS elfroWNER�t r REPORTSEQ.NO. roe 10 C�w1:AiwN DATEL oi'i`6.4i1,�� CONTRACTOR FOREMAN + IIRS.CIIARGED Test Point No. Lacatlon Fill Depth Ft. Elev. Ft. Moisture Content % pry Density pcP Max. Dry Density per Percent Compaction 17 NOTES: (941--T/4v if/D�2T�{ �SiD� Off" turf rS/DE p Ldr z =z F- w oc w U J O U � OJ w J H Ln U. cc J LL F =. zF- 1.- O WLU �o U N S w ui LL C Z w (n U = O~ z r 0 C [•] 05,06+08 12:42 FAX 1-425-481-6140 BDZ DEVELOPERS — LSA 0o8 SKY VALLEY TESTING P. O. Boa 935 Monroe, WA 98272 (360) 794-4555 (206) 788-6600 DAILY FIELD REPORT TRA`ELRREP TE.S ha JOB No. �J!¢ TIME ON SrrE z- t7 MILES 111105 OFF SrM PAGE OF 10A,10f CI&fdKISyMwy v'stTons -- CLIMr/OWNflt SEQ. NO. JOF D�f��P/G JOB F.'J�'c. 1e,02� Im, �RE�ORT 4 I I7 AY WEUK '' / i/i D4 / CONTRACTOR FOREMAN MRS7. CHARGED J,0 Test Point No. Location Fill Depth FL Elev. Ft. Moisture Content. '/ Dry Density pcf Me:. Dry Density pcf Percent Compection 5 -- ry-17 /' / �J�^ NOTES: AA Day _/fiLGSifiCM/,& tt�iTh� �Psd�L. %ffzS 6y1�i/lY plCfii�D / 1�/GG '0051et AWS b' 1� o s 10 32X Z Z F w w= J U U 0 fna w J H u) LL' _ 0 w Q J LL Ln O H = Z F- H O Z ~ uw w ON LU O � S L F f LL C Z ui u U S OF Z 0 0 U Z = Z � w cc ¢� w U O U 0 In w W= J F' 0 C w } Q �d = w z H ,= 0 w w U In ' Off, w w!' w_ C Z/ w In U =; o ~' z 0 0 O L91 FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL FORM RECEIVED TO; L-arc_1 MAR 2 11999 DATE: YNA►LU l -0A DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR. MEMO TO: PERmJ,?Udb95ftTOR, BUILDING DIVISION FROM: FIRE DEPARTMENT DATE PLEASE SIGN t w ENGINEERING DIVISION DATE �pnC 24i4 PLEASESIGN PLANNING DIVISION DATE PLEASE SIGN PROJECT ? M A ais rA SITE ADDRESS 9 20 2 oy 9 PERMIT # (R Sa 4 3 ADB# DATE INSPECTED DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE INSPECTED FINAL RCIWEiTEn /1AtgYLCN -L4 } i A field inspection was conducted to determine compliance with approved plans. Final approval denotes that there are no objections from the above signed Department to the granting of Final approval of the described work Performance Bonds associated with the project may be released GJTE IUF!FC_T10Q CAW NC c o N 5 IT£ vG GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS NOTED 1 1. 2. 3. FAILED FINAL INSPECTION - OUTSTANDING ISSUES RE -INSPECTED OUTSTANDING ISSUES - GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL oc apry1. do c.l; temp; bldg: fomu 6/9 g 0 U c 0 RECORD OF CONTACTS I 21 2 22 _-- -- 3 23 4 24 5 25 6 26 7 27 8 28 RW PERMIT U DATE ISSUED RECEIPT # 9 29 10 30 11 31 12 32 13 PAID RECEIPT DATE 33 SS PERMIT # C d DATE D C ZSZ'l 14 PAID $ RECEIPT # DATE 34 15 35 16 36 17 37 METER SIZE PAID $ ,P DATE (i 11 S RECEIPT # S-Z) 18 38 19 39 20 40 1 C' C 0 PROJECT REVIEW CHECKLIST PROJECT NAME:_ T� I`' l V''" \ PLAN CHECK #: PROJECT ADDRESS: C RECEIPT DATE:5 L cl rEII EWD BY: Initial Da e) PLAN WATER COMMENTS FIRE BLDG. SEWER ISTREE ENG_ :Conditional Use Permit CS Other Zoq!gp Requirements Underground Wirin Required AWRNIN ME SEPA Environmental Checklist/Hydraulics Perm it •e Cutting Plan Plat/Subdivision Requirements .010 Legal Description • Dedications A�-ri�za's Easements - Public/Private Engineering Storm Drain Review Fee En • 2 2 Inspectiongineer pc�N:S© tim.6��.8via.<."r:.G Uq' • 3 X ., Setback - Storm Drain Line S S . E. 1.0m Ditch - Existing U Required �?y�0.a�y�u^�sen"��' e`rneJ>ta°k Shoulder Drainage/Shale Open Runoff ess Bs lwvfm� ;Sidewalk Required x %•�,�y 'Curb & Gutter Required Curb Cut • • • yy • • • -� �`�fW: OEM a. • • M. • IMT.50: • • r • r S'•. ^wi . •if'�kik. • • • I - a' 3.i '"-A"h�°l �''rr,t 3Ai 'n+w !�a "�'ixa•w Im �zr; � C�•En • r ,n. Reviewed By; N6.1 it FIRE PLANNING "9F ORKS E N RIryry,qP�1.;�1C51'� lt; iu EN'K, J f'� c O Z 2 Z w Q Q 7 w U J O U 0 Lf)Cn w J F to Lu � JI LL a: (n Z H r O Z ~ w w � O U u) 0 F- uJ S G N F- LLO Z w n U = O~ Z L N RECORD OF INSPECTIONS INSPECTOR DATE APPROVED SETBACKS ................ _cJ �i2-�• AY FOUNDATION:���N/._ pj.�rQ S Footing .................... r � r s o. • Wall......................r. ��"�.� /�A, • 2.5 �c/ G ----r O Pier/Porch................ Retaining Wall............ Slab Insulation . , .......... PLUMBING: Underground ............. Rough -in ................. Commercial Final........ HEATING: Gas Test .................. Gas Piping ................ Equipment ................ Commercial Final ......... EXTERIOR SHEATHING NAILING .................... FRAMING .................. INSULATION: Floor Insu lation........... Wall Insulation ....... s� Ceiling Insulation......... SHEETROCK NAILING ...... SPECIAL INSPECTION...... MISCELLANEOUS FINAL APPROVAL FOROCCUPANCY.......... qeo434