The URL can be used to link to this page

20050867.pdfDATE RECEIVED [PERMIT EXPIRES 16 PERMIT CITY OF EDMONDS NUMBER vs,c) JOB SUITEIAPI# CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION ADDRESS L) 2R NAMEINAME OF BUSINESS I lV/;V)/ f_,� _�_ Ix MAILINGADDRESs- Lu z ry-) 0 31"W71- CITY ZIP 'TELEPHONE pai 1) LM NAME LU U t: ADDRESS x U -1b t ' -1 - q 21T� Lot I Y 4W ITELEPHONL NAME ICBL# 05M 11LOLVII-jazi 06-01v�__ (_)o PLAT NAMEISU DIVISIgN NO. LOT NO LID NO LID FEE S PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP TESCPApproved [3 RW Permil Required Street Use Pernid Required E3 EXISTING PROPOSED Inspeclian Required Cl Sidewalk Required REQUIRED DEDICATION FT Underground Wsvinq required METER SIZE LINE SIZE NO OFf4XTURES PRV REQUIRED YES 13 NOO z REMARK6 W W z OWNERICONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROUDRAINAGE 10 PA:*4n I f%� 4c 17 �.- 7- j /n kx j t^� AgA-% � P d-N I I al 11 REVIEWED r BY 0. M DATE DATE Lu a . — �� - I — VARIANCE OR CU SHORELINEORADB# INSPECTION REO'D SEPA - EXPIRATION DATE E 1-01 I OYES IN 01 COMPLETED EXEMPT �)< ZONE SIGN AREA HEIGHT CA#_9� WAIVER 13 STUDY ALLD�WEDIPRO&SED ALLOWED PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE REQUIRED SETBACKS (FT.) Pos PROPOSED SETBACKS (FT�y IE C .5epLUMB'NG / MECH ALLOWED PROPOSED FRO14+ HR 0 N S [221 0 COMPLIANCE OR I 3D"/' 9 SRH CHANGE OF USE :5 PARKING REO'D P VIDED LOTAREA PLANNING REVIEWED BY DATE 916 SIGN I FENCE ( X FT.) REMARKS 1j`-eAj9+- f�fGP1a[,&, YID OTHER I V1 to 40C� 44� FIRE SPRINKLER FIREALARM PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL NO. Z39 0 Z;CRESIDENTIAL 13 ADDITION 0 COMMERCIAL 0 MIXED USE E3 REMODEL 0 MULTIFAMILY REPAIR G CYDS DEMOLISH TANK GARAGE M=0=16 RETAINING WALL pnrltrpv (TYPE 06F�SE. BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) F.XPLAIN:, 11. cc L) I TYPE OFq RUC 41 0 NUMBER NUMBER OF OF DWELLING STORIES UNITS SPECIAL IN, REQUIRED 101 YES DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE REMARKS I GEOTEC4_RI -PLIT . :im STRUCTVIiZA DFqj9 L ZA " I I V:-::� I VALUATIC 4 vvn Ill 1-7, 0 $ 4'"W-1A t - 4 V� I —Iza� i Descrip ion kvm � Li. ( o it Plan Chec — Es s I 'rS PE% I VESTED DATE Building Permit PLAN CHECK NO: Z� Plumbing Mechanical CG THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO Grading BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBIC DONMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS. MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE SEPARATE PERMISSION. Engr. Re iew PERMIT APPLICATION: SEE ECDC 19.00.005(A)(5) PERMIT LIMIT* SEE ECDC 19.00.005(A)(6) SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION Endr. Ins ection 0 x 'APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON. ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITY'S ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.- Fire Revi W Fire Inspe tion Landscap3lnsp. Recordinc Fee I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION; THAT THE INFORMATION GIVEN IS CORRECT, AND THAT I AM THE OWNER, OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF .CODE OCCUPANT GROUP K3 ;ULTANT OCCUPANT LOAD I FEE Description FEE State Surcharge City Surcharge C) Base Fee THE OWNER. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC- ALL TION; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED IN VIOL;A;T��IHE LABOR CODE OF TUf._6*i1,4 OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO FOR IN SPECTION S P WORKM S P SATION INSURANC�,AVD RCW 11�27. --lef j_f_ Sl�rh VINE A ;NtT (425) 'RI PATE SIGNED -0220 *t, (a. (9 71 77, ATTENT10fi IT IS UNLAWKL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTI- FICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC109 / IBC110 / IRC110. 10/04 PRESS HARD - YOU ARE EXt. 1333 PlanChk.Deposit 11TAL Receipt # 7 Total Amt. Due Receipt # APPLICATION APPROVAL This application is not a permit until signed by the Building Official or hisither Deputy: and Fees are paid, and receipt is acknowledged in space provided. NG 4 COPIES :M A- �17 I Z$ ORIGINAL FILE - YELLOW - INSPECTC PINK -OWNER - GOLD � ASSESSOR z z 0 1 0 M --i -n M C M j 0 0 0 C M ITIZ 0 -n MITI 0 0 M C (1) 9 Cn. M C) Z ;U z C/) z 0 --I 0 M NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. FOOTING DRAINIS TICE REQ. C5-12, E C5-12, E INTO Top_ 3be, APPRaVi -',S El' TO BE TIEL .7 PErCTION TO 358,31 BY DEf"ENTION ��YIST!:7 f. (!5W 71' (5W,N) - 3 rv-i V z c1l )k C5_111 TYPE 1 IIE ppbaro X C'i TOP = 3ba.88 < 0) o_4 at TOP:4-0b.00' N 58*21'27'W IE (NE,5W) 3b6- 0 I AVERAOE MA UL) -1,831 1 1 - 0 (ORIGIN L GRADE SEE suRyEY P-04-0-96) w A. 405. uuubtz. 51 04 4ATERIALI f3. 4�1 0.( 15' ,N-- - '' : �A s OR - c=1 ........... 394�: 56 -_ �' -(p, - O� \\A (31 0K IN E I ks) SICH 401 �o D. 394. L5: z �;::� ----------------- 71-11n < 25 /4= 40 13 C 0 TKA�,' IC MAX H IGHT- 426.1 < U 'fAN -.-- - I I 14 0 Ti qME ACTUA HEIGHT. 422-95' c: I FOOTIN :393-00' 7- 0 T I I I I - I - : 0 15T FL , IZ: 390-50' 01 1" 1 1Z 3�: 2NE) FL")O?,: 406-56 MAX 3" FROPOS P RE51DENC z I IMPERV101.15 Cr EKY I Ko 93. 01 TOP: 3 n, E5): 2,573-00 50- FT .0- [3U I L01 � G (+ EAV _To= PRIVEWAY. b1b.75 50. FT. .0o'l I fATI(): 16.00 50. F T -2 �sn w I TAL: 507.76 50. FT TO .25 LOT CO 2,159.4 5Q. FT.16,752.33 5.0. FT. 25% LOT 5L F 0) 11% E-W (s) INC. (0, PTA. PIN �5 234TH PL!5W kp LUE=10 N05, WA. 96026 ' J507.715 R A 50 . FT., F ;;.201' IWO ALL EXPOSEM. -..UfIF E T OITH 2 )2 U, BE -',",'OVE 9iTH 9 A 'NOUT a . . . . . . EA 5-1, TYPE 1 w 77 - I I I �%._ m '-, -o 'F0 or��) Dennis. M. Bruce, P.E. M.S.,C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical /Civil Engineer RECEIVED JUL 0 7 2005 August 11,.2004. PERMIT COUNTER City. of Edmonds c/o Michel Construction Inc. 21h St. SW 7907 21 #102 CITY COPY z Edmonds, WA 98026 M Subject- Geotechnicall Evaluation I Foundation Recommendations Cn a Pr� Lot Single Family Residence Development C M �Mo nrosed.9 92 234th: n Ave.W and ST. SW Edmonds, Washington 0 0 This engineering report presents the results of a geotechnical evaluation of the M M nd h St. Michel Construction, property at the northwest corner of 92 Ave.Wand234� SW, .10 Edmonds, Washington. This evaluation was required due to owner concerns regarding C > z geotechnical conditions, as well as City of Edmonds requirements. A., Cn REFERENCES: 0 _n -n MM Vicinity Map and topographic survey by LSA Grading plans by Donna Breske, P.E. of - OM Site photographs C Cn 'Qo� z BACKGROUND: nd 4h St. SW is The overall property at the northwest corner of 92 Ave. W 23 nd n rectangular in shape (approximately 253 feet along 92 Ave W, and 334 feet alo g > z 234h St. SW). See site survey map. The majority of the overall property, has not been developed and contains mature z .0 trees, dense shrubberies, and areas of grasses. An existing house occupies the northern central portion of the property as indicated on the survey plan. M The overall site contains portions of slopes greater than 15% (less than 50%). Some of the slopes are natural in origin, and some are obviously the result of historic earthwork and associated road grading fill activities. Visual evaluation of the property reveals no evidence of geotechnical distress: no sides, no soil tension cracks, nor any evidence of erosional degradation. SOILS FOUNDA 7 IONS - S/rEDEVELOPMENT - INSPECTION -,DRAINAGE DESIGN& PERA41T - LEGAL P.O. Box 55502 Shoreline, WA 98155 (206) 546-9217 FAX (206) 546-8442 City of Edmonds cto Michel Const. Inc. August 11, 2004 Page 2 h St Evidence of historic fill and associated debris is obvious adjacent 234t SW. See photographs. It is understood that Michel Construction proposes -to develop the property for a total of 9 individual lots with 9 single, family residences. A new entrance cul-de-sac road z will also be required. See site plan and gr ding. plan. It is understood that the existing a residence will be removed. 0 EVALUATION: In order to augment site geotechnical information, a series of 6 soil test pits were dug on June 7, 2004. See test pit location log. 2 Test Pits (TIR-1. TP-21 were dug on the. slope adjacent 230 St. SW. Both test 0 pits revealed similar sub -grade conditions, namely. M z 0" to 8" Organics, roots, forest duff. C Z 8" to approx. 7.5' FILL: historic fill material consisting of 2; sandy loam, occasional gravel, debris, 0) 0 -n and gravels. This engineer observes that this'fill material was most likely M place d in conjun ction with road grading 0 co activities for 230 St. SW. 0 M 7.5'to 10' (bottom of pits) Very dense native sands. (n z 0� No water was encountered in Test Pits No. 1 or No. 2. Test pit walls remained X vertical (with some sloughing of the upper fill materials) and stable. X > Test Pits Number 3 through 6: Test pits number 3,4,5,6 were in the central portion of the property where no fill placement had occurred. z It is distinctly possible that the central portion of the site had been partially excavated or "scraped down a few feet". 0 Test pit 3,4.5.6:. 0" to 6" Organics roots, forest duff. 6" to 8' (bottom of pits) Dense to very dense sands with occasional gravels No water was encountered in Test Pits No. 3 through 6. Test pit walls remain vertical and stable. No sloughing or caving occurred. City of Edmonds c/o Michel Const. Inc. August 11, 2004 Page 3 Note: A geotechnicalre-inspection on August 10,2004 verified the dense stable nature of the underlying native soils. See photographs. CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS: Based on the findings of this engineer's investigation as well as experience in the Z. 0 a rea with similar projects, the Michel Construction site at the NW corner of 92nd Ave. W -4 34 SW is geotechnically approved for the proposed new 9 lot development and 2 th, St. 0 M associated access road, subject to the following: Geotechnical compliance with grading plan by D. Breske, P.E. The grading plan rn indicates removal of the historic fill material adjac ent 230 St. SW and slope M 0 stabilization with ro'ckeries. 0 0 o The grading plan also indicates fill material properly placed in the low C central portion of the property with compliance to structural fill placement M MZ regulations. Z The individual new residences may be founded 'on standard reinforced E: continuous and spread footings wit h allowable bearing pressure 2,000 p.s.f. 0 -n Equivalent fluid pressure of 35 p.c.f. is recommended for any retaining.wall M M design provided drainage zone is inspected and verified by this engineer. 0 Cn 0 0 M For retaining wall design, use friction factor of 0.55 and passive pressure of 350 C: CO Cn P. C. f. M Z 0 Geotechnical inspections by this engineer Prior to any. foundation concrete placement. The proposed structures can be supported on conventional.continuous and Z spread footings bearing on undisturbed native..soils or on structural fill placed above . native soils. See the later sub -section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill for Z 0 structural fill placement and compaction recommendations. Continuous and individual spread footings should have minimum widths of eighteen (18) and twenty-four (24) M inches, respectively, and should be bottomed at least eighteen (18) inches below the lower adjacent finish ground.surface. Depending on the final site grades, some over -excavation may be required below footings to expose competent native soils. Unless lean concrete is used to fill the over excavated hole, the width of the over -excavation at the bottom must be at least as wide as the sum of two times the depth of the over -excavation and the footing width. For example, an over -excavation extending two feet below the bottom of a three-foot.wide footing must be at least seven feet wide at the base of the excavation. City of Edmonds c/o Michel Const. Inc. August 11, 2004 Page 4 Footings constructed acciording to the above recommendations may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of three thousand (3,000) pounds per square foot (p.s.f.). A one-third increase in this design bearing pressure may be used when. considering short-term wind or seismic loads. For the above design criteria, it is anticipated that total post -construction settlement of footings founded on competent, native soils (or on structural fill up to five (5) feet in thickness) will be about one half z 0 inch, with differential settlements on theorder of one -quarter inch. 0 M Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between the foundations and the bearing soils, or by passive earth pressure acting on the =i :n vertical, embedded portions of the foundations. For the latter condition, the foundations CO 0 must either be poured directly agai.nst undisturbed soil or the backfill placed around*the M M outside of the foundation must be level structural fill. We recommend the following 0 -10 0 design values be used for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading: C: M M Z Parameter Design Value CP Coefficient of Friction 0.55 CO Passive Earth Pressure 350 p.c.f. 0 Where: M M (1). p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot. 0 r 0 M (2) Passive earth. pressure is computed.using the e quivalent fluid density. a CD M Cn M 0 We recommend that a safety factor of at least 1.5 be used for design of the Z r foundation's resistance to lateral loading. SLABS -ON -GRADE: > z Slab -on -grade floors may be supported on undisturbed, competent native soils or Cn on structural fill. The slabs may be supported on the existing soils provided these soils z can be re -compacted prior to placement of the free -draining sand or gravel underneath 0 the slab. This sand and gravel layer should be a minimum of four (4) inches thick. We 0 M also recommend using a vapor barrier such as 6-mil! plastic membrane beneath the slab with minimum overlaps of .12 inches for sealing purposes. PERMANENT FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS: Retaining walls. backfilled on one side only should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures imposed by the soils retained by these structures. The following recommended -design parameters are for walls less than twelve (12) feet in height, which restrain level backfill: City of Edmonds c/o Michel Const. Inc. August 11, 2004 Page 5 Parameter Design Value Active Earth Pressure* .35 p.c.f. Passive Earth Pressure 350 p.c.f. Coefficient of Friction 0.55 z Soil Unit Weight 125 p.c.f. 0 Where: 0 (1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot (2) Active and passive earth pressures are computed using equivalent fluid 0 M densities. M __10 For restrained walls which cannot defect at least 0.002 times the wall 0 0 C height, a uniform1ateral pressure of one hundred (100 p.s.f. should be M. ITIZ added to the active equivalent fluid pressure). C The values given above are to be used for design of permanent foundation and CO retaining Walls only. An appropriate safety factor should be applied when designing the O.M walls. We recommend using a safety factor of at least 1.5 for.overturning and sliding. -n M M The above design values do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures .0 r behind the walls and assume that no surcharge slopes or loads will be, placed above the 0 M walls. If these conditions exist, then those pressures should be added to the above C.CO 9 Cn latiaral* pressures. Also, if sloping backfill is desired behind the walls, then we will need M 0 Z to be given the wall dimensions and slope of the backfill in order to provide the appropriate design earth pressures. Heavy construction equipment should not.be operated behind retaining and. a foundation walls within a distance equal to the height of the wall, unless the w lis are Z designed for the additional lateral pressures resulting from the equipment. Placement and compaction of retaining wall backfill should be accomplished with hand -operated Cn equipment. z Retaining Wall Backfill 0 M Backfill placed within eighteen (18) inches of any retaining or foundation Walls should be free -draining structural fill containing -no organics. This backfill should contain no more than five (5) percent silt or clay particles and have no particles greater than four (4) inches in diameter. The percentage of particles passing the No. 4 sieve should be between twenty-five (25) and seve their high silt content, if nty (70) percent. Due to the native soils are used as backfill, a drainage composite, such as Mirafi and Enkadrain, should be placed against the retaining walls. The drainage composites should be hydraulically connected to the foundation drain system. City of Edmonds cto Michel Const. Inc. August 11, 2004 Page 6 The purpose of these backfill requirements is to assure that the design criteria for the retaining wall is not exceeded because of a build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind' the wall. The subsection entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill contains recommendations regarding placement and compaction of structural fill behind retaining and foundation walls. Z EXCAVATION AND SLOPES: 0 0 As stated historic fill material had been placed adjacent 234th St. SW. This engineer recommends removal of approximately 6 to 8 feet of historic fill & M C material in order to restore the pre -filled condition. This engineer has reviewed the rn 0 0 grading plan by D. Breske, P. E., dated August 11, 2004'and concurs with, the proposed 00 C grading activities, sub"ect to onsite inspections by this engineer. -4 C M In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the mits specified in lo cal, M Z C state and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts up to a height of four > (4) feet deep in unsaturated soils may be vertical. For temporary cuts having a height g; CD greater than four (4) feet, the cut should have an inclination no steeper than 1:1 0 -n (Horizontal: Vertical) from the top of the slope to the, bottom of the excavation. Under n specific recommendations by the geotechnicall engineer, excavation cuts may be M M modified for site conditions. All permanent cuts into native soils should be inclined no 0 CO 0 rt steeper than 2:1 (H:V). Fill slope's.should not exceed 2H:1V. It is impo ant to. note that 0 M sands do cave suddenly, and without warning. The contractors should be made aware C CD C Cn of this potential hazard. Q 0 Z Water should not be allowed to flow u ncontrol led. over the top of any temporary. or permanent slope. All permanently exposed slopes should be seeded, with an 3: > appr priate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve stability of the surficial Z layer of soil. X ca DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS: Z Footing drains are recommended at the base of all footings and retaining walls. 0 M These drains should be surrounded by at least six (6) inches of one -'inch -minus washed rock wrapped in non -woven geotextile. filter fabric (Mirafi 140N,Supac 4NP, or similar material). At the highest point, the perforated pipe invert should be at least as low as the bottom of the footing and it should be sloped for drainage. All roof and surface water drains must be kept separate from the foundation drain system. City of Edmonds. cto Michel Const. Inc. August 11, 2004 Page 7 No groundwater was observed in any of the 6 soil test pits. Seepage into the planned excavation is possible, and likely if excavation occurs during winter months, and if encountered should be drained away from the site by use of drainage ditches, perforated pipe, French drains, or by pumping from sumps interconnected by shallow connector trenches at the bottom of the excavation. The excavation of the site should be. graded so that surface water is directed off Z 0 -4 the site Water should not be allowed to stand in any and away from the tops of slopes. 0 area where foundati s are to be constructed. Any exposed ons, slabs, or pavement slopes.to be covered with plastic to minimize erosion. Final site.grading in areas adjacent to buildings should be sloped at least two (2) percent away from the building, CO except where the area adjac ent to the building is paved., M, C M 0 GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL: 0 rn This project (9 single family residences and new access road) will require M Z significant grading activities. See grading plan dated August. 11, 2004 by D.. Bteske, C Z P. E. Cn All fill material shall comply with the recommendations of the this report and 0 -n A onsite inspections by this engineer. I M M Structural fill is defined as any fill placed under the building, behind permanent 0 V5 0- r retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the underly ing soils needs to 0 M C 0) support lbads. This engineer should observe site conditions during and after excavation Q 0 prior to placement of any structural fill. Z.r All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture content at or near the optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content is that moisture content which results in the greatest compacted.dry density. The moi sture content of fill soils is very important and must be closely controlled during the filling and compaction process.. Z The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type, compaction 0 equipment, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. In no case -should, the lifts exceed twelve (12) inches in loose thickness. The following table presents recommended relative compaction for structural fill: City of Edmonds clo Michel Const. Inc. August 11, 2004 Page 8 Location of Fill Placement Minimum Relative Compaction Beneath footings, slabs or walkways 95% Behind retaining Walls 90% Beneath pavements 95% for upper 12 inches of Sub -grade, 90% below that level 0 Where: Minimum relative compaction is the ratio, expressed in percentages, of the compacted dry density to the maximum dry density, as determined in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1 557-78 (Modified Proctor).. 0 M C= M 0 Use of On -Site Soils 80 If grading activities take place during wet weather, or when the sandy, on -site M z Soils are very wet, site preparation costs may be higher because of delays due to rains C: z and the potential need to..import granular fill. The on -site soils are generally, sandy and > r thus are not particularly moisture sensitive. Grading operations will be difficult when the CO moisture content of these soils.greatly exceeds the optimum moisture content. _n 0 n Moisture sensitive soils will also be susceptible to excessive softening and A rn pumping" from construction equipment traffic when the moisture content is greater than 0 the optimum Moisture content. 0 r K 0 Ideally, structural fill, which is to be placed in wet weather, should consist of a M 0 z - granular soil having no more than five (5) percent silt or clay particles. The percentage of particles passing the No. 200 sieve should be measured from that portion of the soil X passing the three -quarter -inch sieve. The use of "some" on -site soils for fill material may be accebtAble if the upper 'd and moisture contents are monitored by engineering organic materials are segregate Cn inspection. z DRAINAGE CONTROLS: 0 No drainage problems were evident to this engineer during June, July, or August or 2004. A buried drainage outfall pipe was called out on the project survey and observed by this enwineer. It is assumed that this outfall pipe releases drainage from the catch basins in 234t St. SK The sub -grade sandy soils will allow for onsite infiltration if desired by project developer. City of Edmonds c/o Michel Const. Inc. August 11., 2004 Page 9 Compliance with City of Edmonds'drainage controls are geotechnically acceptable. CONCRETE: All foundation concrete (footings, stem walls, slabs, any retaining Walls, etc.) Z shall have a minimum cement content of 5-1/2 sacks per cubic yard of concrete mix. 0: ROCKERIES: This project requires extensive grading activities, bothcutting and filling. See M grading plbn. �h St. In order to provide erosional stabilization, rockeries are required along 2 34 0 OC Mm SW and "wrapping around" the west property line. Additionally, interior rockeries are M Z proposed for individual lot grading purposes. �Z Geotechnical inspections of the project rockeries are required. Ins'ections shall verify the following: p o -n Dense -dub-grade soils ITIM Base rock embedment Rock linkage and size Om C 0) Rock face batter V) MO Drainage zone INSPECTIONS: The recommendations of this report are only valid when key geotechnical aspects are inspected by this engineer during construction: CO soil cuts Fill removal and. grading activities 0 Foundation sub -grade verification Retaining wall, or rockery placement e Fill placement 9 Subsurface drainage installation Final erosion control an d grading City of Edmonds clo Michel Const. Inc. Au' ust 11, 2004 9 Page 10 SUMMARY: nd The proposed 9 lot development at the NW corner of 92 Ave. W and 234" St. Edmonds, Washington is geotechnically viable when constructed in accordance. with the recommendations herein, compliance with City of Edmonds approved plans and ru requirements, and key geotechnical inspection gg Ling const ct.ioh z GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW FUTURE RESIDENCES: 01 At the time of this report, specific, house plans were not available for review. This geotechnical report refers t perty grading and development prior o overall pro to individual house construction. 0 As discussed in this report, dense native sub -grade soils capable of providing C excellent bearing capacity for foundations are present on the site. M M z JO Overall property development will include significant grading activities (as > discussed herein). 0 -n After overall property development, individual houses may be constructed after review and approval by this enciineer. M M No significant foundation problems were anticipated for the future residences 0 0 M C CD providing overall property grading activities are.inspected. Q 0 Z r CLOSURE: 71 The findings and recommendations of this report were prepared in accordance with -generally accepted professional engineering principles and practice. No other warranty, either expressed or implied, is made. The conclusions are based on the results of the field exploration and interpolation of subsurface conditions between explored locations. If conditions are encountered during construction that appear to be different than those described in this report, this engineer should be notified to observe the situation and review and verify or modify the recommendations. If there are any questions, do not. hesitate to call. ..M V WA all Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. Geotechnical Civil Engineer 0 DMB:jpb t MAL Height Calculation Wo r*ksheet Date -77 P er it Numberao3G 06U m Address P- 3 4 PISLJ Inspector Z, 0 M Average Grdde Max Height (25'+Ave.)101� 13 Actual Height (A+B+C) '42 2 M M 0 C.. M�. Mz z W: 0 -n. M M, or- O,M C =(C)Zr— M 0 ;U Z., Ca z Elevation of transit above Datum (B) Datun6�5M Elevation (A) lftemp/buildiiig/foniis/height worksheet, Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Gkifth '017.'Oivi p:ineer DEC 1 5 200.5. D cember 10, 2005 e Z. 0 City,of Edmonds 3 M Department of Development andflanning 121 !E�h AV e. N Edmonds, WA 98020 C M Subject: Field Reports - Geotechnical Inspections M 0. 0 Michel Construction - Now 9 Single -Family Residence Project 0 0 C 234th St SW and 92nd Ave. W, Edmonds, Washington X M 9201, 9202, 9203, 9206 230 PI. W M z C 2 > This engineering report pre sents the results of ongoing geotechnical inspections for the Michel Construction development at the.above addresses. . These inspections 0 -n were required as a condition of permit by the City of Edmonds building department. M M REFERENCES: 0 0 M C CO) Approved. Project Plans M (n M 0 Geotechnical and Inspection Reports by D. Bruce, P.E. Z'r-' Site photographs INSPECTIONS: > This engineer has performed on -site geotechnical inspections for the overall Z development, including: site excavation, perimeter rockery construction, perimeter z drainage improvements and overall site preparation (see previous, Geotechnical 0� Inspection Reports). 0 M City of Edmonds required geotechn.ical inspections for the individual homes. Construction, began in late September 2005. As of the date of this report (December 10,. 2005), four house foundations have been constructed (an additio nal five houses are understood to be forthcoming). City of Edmonds Inspection.1tems: Soil Cuts: All soil cuts for houses at 9201, 9202, 9203 and 9206 encountered. dense native sub -grade soils as anticipated by the Geotechnical Report. All SOILS FOLINDA TIONS SITEDEVEZOPMENT - INSPECTION - DRAINAGE DESIGN& PERMIT LEGAL P.O. Box 55502 Shoreline, WA 98155 (206) 546-9217 FAX (206) 546-8442 City of Edmonds Department of Development Services Re: Michel Construction December 10, 2005 Page 2 excavation cu ts for these four house foundations were stable. No adverse geotechnical impacts were observed. Grading. _Acfivifies: This engineer verified all grading activities for the above in acco rdance with the approved Plar, z referenced four houses were performed and complied with good geotechnical practices. No adverse imp acts occl- 0 4' 3 Foundation S ub-Grade: This engineer verified the presence of dense na, _Grade grade soils easily provid ing 2,000 p.s.f. bearing capacity. "OK." to proceed with foundation formwork, reinforcing steel and concrete in 0 M C accordance with City of Edmonds approved Plans and inspections. 0 0 0 Subsequently, concrete foundations were properly placed for the four houses C M Z. listed above. 10-1 Retaininc ously discussed, a significant Wall Rocke!y Placement: As previ -1 erimeterrockery was constructed for the overall development.. This rockery 0 -n complied with approve d Plans and good practices and is aeotechnically -n approved. M M The individual four houses (addresses above) do not require significant retaining 0 U5 0 0 M walls or rock The foundation stem walls act as a retaining eries for themselves. w ails and rockeries are approved C W. C Cl) Q 0 wall (see photographs). Thus, all retaining Z through this date (December 10, 2005). Fill Placement: No significant quantities of imported fill were required. for recommended that contractor import small > foundation purposes.. This engineer quantities (less than 20 cubic yards) of rock for improved working surface z Subsequent inspections verified the proper pla cement of sub -base purposes. tis to for improved formwork and concrete placement. All fill placemen z rock allow ap roved through this date (December 10, 2005). p Subsurface eer verified the proper placement of subsurface This engin M _Q1qbgO: drains for the above listed four houses. All drainage work complied with approved Plans and good practices. Inspections are ongoing. Erosion Control: The overall project is acces sed via the interior paved road and cul-de-sac. Natural sl opes inhibit any storm water runoff from leaving the site. fencing, r cked entrances for has placed si o Additionally, contractor properly individual houses, catch basin inlet socks and diligent cleanup. Sep 29 06 11:02a D. Bruce, P.E. 206-546-8442 P.1 C) ZOOG_064' Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. 15P -r Geotechnical /Civil Engineer 17 A4 CC #j 1% T PLT 6 E7,0-r&(' g.. E*0 PL7 S U Sze eT r(m A, L_ E+ - 141c:- LOY-& 481" DIS-W 0 m q �Lo Cm 0 Lo-r LCD-r 3 7100 57 - it S' rn 0 0 0 M m z *.. ';L34 10 1 , Cz > ?Ezmrr R- EJQ Lk T"s 0 n _n <:;EF6T5ef4 1#JS":C X rn m 'Srr15 0 T A '1k Alpt ovsh M. - .4 1, L I L E 0 w 0 U5 0 r.. I . . 0 M 16 PILL skEM" ff C Cn. FfAm rn 0 z r 17 N L A(C- U Z 'S 01 tj P-r- MtC 4 tr. L Ca 14S.-T. m t-Y 60RES 12123/ 400 7' tAA(w. rArijrk - C? 'P -7 &0_rs z 0 -pp-buecr I T(j, L L Aw 0 M IPI L 67TF ki rn . T6 S (� U_ry.3A_,w rtO-7 G;4f-()BS Apmaugl At-L- Orr If 1157oo's b Aj wrF To tF- Aht-�L qeeoL= 116x) wout TAb LE' -rA" fN Rio F - LoAJe -rW R_ AA kmosfo#3 C) -r�.s -9 6v, a PERMIT 9�LS FOUNDATIONS SITE DEVELOPMENT - INSPECTION - DRAINAGE -_ DESIGN P.O. Box 55.502 Shoreline, WA 98155 (206) 546-9217 FAX (206) 546-8442 ENGINEERING DIVISION DATE 014!�_Y PLEASF SIGN z 0 PLANNING,l)[VISION DATE— M PLEASESIGN' PROJECT: OM SITE ADDRESS co M 0 0 C: IT # DATE INSPECTED— PERM Ore 7ADB# M M Z IDESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BEINSPECTED i�) vtq u Fie ',A Cn field1nspection wasiconducied to determine compliance with approved plans. Y i nal app rova 0 -n denotes that the I re� a I re no objections from the. above..signed Department to the release:: 0 _n x PERIFOPLMANCE BONDS and the granting of M M zii GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL 0 M C: Cn K Cn M( Z r- --i M > X GRANT PROJECT APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS NOTED. z Copy of CONDITIONS given to owner/co.ntractor by inspector. Cn z M� FAILED FINA ECTION OUTSTANDING ISSUES.' L INSP. El Copy',of CORRE CTION NOTICE given to owner/contractor by-inpector 4 2 3 RE —INSPECTED OUTSTANDING ISSUES - GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL, Date Ynature Sig 1.:te..mp:b1dg:fomis:0caprv1 3/25/04