The URL can be used to link to this page

17110 72ND PL W.PDFlill iiiiiiii 5720 1,7110 72ND PL W V'� I CITY OF EDIVIONDS' ' - - CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION NAME (0 NAME OF BUSINESS) cc TOGAL k� w MAILING ADDRESS Z 3: too 0 CITY TELEPHONE NUMBER 5�;l4l ---71 o-, uz�t W40V PERMIT ZONE /;�o 1 NUMBER JOB ADDRE56 1711-0 �21oo -EGAL DESCRIPTIO HECK�SUBDIVISION NO. LID NO, I �i�- — L4 <'� 1 PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP EXISTING —A-,-- JkE-OUI RED DEDICATION — NL-- U Ic -- t<- 1 :1 CJ U ^J RIGHT OF WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT REQUIRED i ADDRESS STREET USE PERMIT REQUIRED 81 D MCI, R TT-J 1 -7 5--r� T- SEE ENGINEERING MEMO DATED < CITY TELEPHONE NUMBER -5-q 2 3 1 c? REMARK NAME Ed &-42:z - �Vog4l'A Ov)C5-r- 6// ADDRESS 0 METER SIZE G SUPPLY SIZE FIXTURE UNITS TELEPHONE NUMBER 7 REMARKS STATE LICENSE NUMBER 'Pr)SAtr- (C(-( Le af-Description of Property - includi all easemknts �, 0, h' below or attach four copies) 15-r. NEW RESIDENTIAL PLUMBING ADD/ALTER COMMERCIAL MECHANICAL REPAIR RETAINING WALL El SIGN DEMOLISH EXCAVATE OR FILL FENCE EIREMODEL PRE -MOVE INSP.1 I— x —FT) swim COMPLIANCE INSP. POOL '[:]WOOD STOVE/ INS APT.BLDG RENEWAL Z 2 CL M 0 NUMBER OF STORIES NUMBER OF 0 DWELLING 0 UNITS 1 NATURE OF WORK TO BE DONE (ATTACH PLOT PLAN) SIGN AREA ALLOWED PROPOSED ENV. EVIEW COMPLETE EXEMPT ADB NO. SHORELINE# AT VARIANCE OR CU PLANNING REVIEW BY DA T-1 YARDS_, HEIGHI 2� LOT COVERAGE FRONT SIDE REAR REMARKS V4-y- —Z5 CHECKED BY TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION CODE HEIGHT 0 SPECIAL INSPECTOR AREA OCCUPANCY OCCUPANT REQUIRED GROUP R7'�, LOAD n YES IINO REMARKS PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 305 PLAN CHECK FEE BUILDING PLUMBING MECHANICAL This Permit covers work to be done on private property ONLY. GRADINGIFILL Any construction on the public domain (curbs, sidewalks, driveways, marquees, etc.) will require separate permission. STATE SURCHARGE Permit Application: 180 Days Permit Limit: 1 Year - Provided Work is Started Within 180 Days ENERGY CODE "Applicant, on behalf of his or her spouse, heirs, assigns and w 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 a: < whatever nature, arising directly or indirectly from the issuance of this permit. Issuance of. this permit shall not be deemed to PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT modify,. waive or reduce any requirement of any city ordinance nor limit in any way the City's ability to enforce any ordinance TOTAL AMOUNT DUE provision." I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application; that the information given is correct; and that I am the owner, or the duly ATTENTION authorized agent of the owner. I agree to comply with city and state laws regulating construction; and in doing the work authoriz- THIS PERMIT AUF110H17ES ed thereby, no person will be employed in violation of the Labor ONLY THE Code of the Ote of Washington relating to Workmen's Compensa- WORK NOTED tion lnsurg.MA. A --- INSPECTION SIGNATU rUNNER OR AG DATE SIGNED DEPARTMENT CITY OF EDMONDS A TENTI 771-3202 IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC CHAPTER 3. 102-87 VALUATION I FE APPLICATION APPROVAL This application is not a permit until signed by the Building Official or his Deputy; and fees are paid, and receipt is acknowledged in space provided. OFFICIAL'S SIGNATURE DAI E RELEASED BY: DATE ORIGINAL — File YELLOW -- In!;IwcIoi PINK — Owner GOLD — Assessor Z 7 Q1) Z W Z Z a. 0 D PRWIDCT RiVIEW CffmwffsT `4,FhjLTJ9Cr NAME: S/",C A9 slql 4 PrOJECT ADDRESS: APPLICATION RFCEIPT DATE: Reviewed by: (initial/date), PIANNING WrRISWR FIRE SIN= FAMILY/KILTIPLE/Ca+o�CrAL (Circle,One) BUIMING SMACKS CIDDO(ED Planning 177777777 VARIANCE/SF.TMCK �AD-7.* CONDITIONAL USE PEMIT 77TI1111T .7777777777 ADB REQUIREMEWS CHOCKIM 11111T 777777/// 71117111 q CYTIM ZONM REQUIRD4MS 111177 777 Uff 7TI77 77T17T1 7 77 T11111 1171TIll EWIRONMFVrAT, FMnffTS T ACCESS SWPF & VEHICT2 ACCESS 777777TIT7TI77711[ 1/�- DRAX WuM, PLAN (On Site) 1111117TI 7 S'PREET FILE TECAL DESCRTMT(W Vr -'ICATION RTF 177717-71-7771-1-7 WIT CIAIM/DI'DICATIONS' 77777 7777TI77 7777 1777T 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 T17777777777777777 EASEMENr - IILJf3TIC/PR.TVArn!' 7/7T/7-/7T/77T/7 CALCMATE SEWER COMEOPION IF NO LIiD# /. Lz� -1�1 ////// ///////// PLAT/SURDWISIal RE"_JIREKENTS IT1111 111TITFIT 77/77777 7TI77 77771 F/77 7 1'(TCjFr--op-wAy CONSTRUCTI()N PERMIT RP IMD REM T-Y)R P(jBr,IC J.mpROVEMWjS ............... 7Tff// T1111T11T TFF1 71-1 77707 U14JUND WITFI-I -rrf77777T 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 WATER FIEM CHECKED FRJ� PAVING REQUIR M- 'T/T777 IT1111-17 CtMB AND M YI-PER REQUTRED� 111771 T77777T/T 7777-17 TITITIT17 STDEWAIX RFMIRED -/7T/-R-/7 CURB CUP rOR DRIVEWAY REOD 77-7777 '11flIT1171 2 /-f/7-//T/7 777F/TI/7 77TITIT17 S'FREIT NAME SIGN RFM 2 CMrM SICAING RECO /T/T77777777777777 ///////// ///////// J 7 7 2 T17-17-11777777 111117111 77777V7 STDE SLWER AVAILAR11,1111Y 2 F-XISTTNG WATIM MATN SIZE TIT177 ////// 111111177 ///////// 1/ / IT[ //////// 77TTT17177 2 WATER MF'rER SIZE 7-/Tf/7 -/-/-/T/T/77 T777/777 //////// T7T777TI-17 - 2 SF31VICE L" SIZE T T// /7/// �4"71111177T77TR7Tf7T177T1TR 1777777T //////// 7777777777 2 IrMRAMP REQUIRED - 2 HYDRWr SIZE EXISTING 777-77'77/7///// ////// ///////// 117 //////// 2 77T17T 7TTR 7 7 7 7 7777777T/7 CROSS CQJ�=ION INSPECTIM REM 2 OV//W/ 11111T1111 VMTER MMER MARGE REU) 44 //////// 3 FIRE LTNE cHARGE ro--o - SPRTNKLER 111U7W 7777T/7T/7 - 3 STREET CLTr 3: OPEN DIMi EXISTING M." 3: HTUT177 77 7 ITIT 'IT RBQD 31 77T77T 7T/T/7T/ 7 39 SIZE 777TI-177T T11111111 3( CAMI BASM REQD 3, INDTCATM CN SITE PLAN 3E SHOULDER DRAINAGE MAINrAIN 7 111117 TI-ITIT17T SHAU OPM RUNOrF 3S MISC: 4 C 2 .7 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 13 14 5 16 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 MEMO TO: Building Division FROM: Engineering Division SUBJECT: IZI /0 zz"/ After review of the subject building per-mi t appl Ication, vie have the following comments: 1) Connection to City water system required. 2) Connection to City sanitary sewer system required. 3) Right -oft -way permit required for any work on City property. 4) Driveway slope not to exceed 14*.. 5) Back water valve required if downstairs plumbing is below ele,ia'Lion of upstream manhole. 6) Water and sewer lines to be separated by 10 foot minimum. 7) 9E Rm Builder/owner responsible for containing all temporary runoff And eros ion on site and may pot impact neighboring properties in any way. Construction hours from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.im. on we�ekdays and 10:00 a.-.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays. No burning of construction refuse withcvut apprairal by Fire Dept. 41 L ---------- - 00 CD af CITY of EDMOND'S DE 'S'EVER PERM'14r STREET FLE S I For Inspection Call 771-3202 . PERMIT NO. 07069 Address of Construction: /0 1k) Prope.rty Legal Description (Include all easements): R I f/%P_15 ckc�lf . Owner and/or.Builder: Q-, Contractor &,License*No: 6 14, e C_ 0 07 Singl:e Fami ly Residence Mul ti-Family (No. of Units FLYNNWOOD LtN� Commercial (No. of fixture Units ht Invasion into City Right -of -Way: No Yes (I'f.Yes, Rig -of-Way Construction Permit required. 'Call One -Call -Center (1-800-424-5555) before any excavation.) Cross other Private Property: No Yes (If Yes, easement required, attach legal description and county easement number.) PLEASE READ THE ITEMS LISTED ON THE BACK IREC mix VW%P I certify that I have read and shall coFP__1y DatEr with the items listed on the back. PUBLIC AlUldl 50 "00 Permit Fee: Issued By: Trunk'Charge: _tDate Issued: Assessment Fee:' Receipt -No.: Partial Inspection: -e - 3 -e? 'TOP? Comments Date Initial Final Inspection Approved': D a —te Ini tial- - Rejected: Reason —Ta—te 7—nitial ** PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOB SITE ** Wh.ite Copy - File Green Copy -:Inspector Puff Copy - Applicant �r The City of Edmonds Side Sewer Drawing EASEMENT NO - -------------------------------------------- NEW CONSTRUCTION REPAIRS n LID NO . .................. . ASMT. NO - ------------------ OWNER........... 0-2-2�� ------- ------------------------------ CONTRACTOR ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PERMIT NO. JOB ADDRESS A-71A.VP ------ ---- ?\ -------- --------------------- LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT NO - ----- 1--� ...... .................... BLOCK NO - ------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ NAME OF ADDITION .5 V-C� ---- ------------------------------------------------------------------ pproved :—:7 LYNNVVOOD LINEE PWW-0001-1 1/75 (REV.1 1/78) DATE R:::�JL771-� ................... CITY OF EDMONDS ASSET INFORMATION SHEET 10NEW E] ADDITION 1:1 RETIREMENT ASSET NO. ADDITION TO ASSET NO. - lzz� V3 DESCRIPTION 1"7 1 SERIAL NO. LOCATION D E �TN 0 PURCHASE ORDER NO. PURCHASE ORDER DATE COST PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT COMPLETION DATE COST le�,Ia,2 B.A.R.S. ACCOUNT NO. .66-6-3 57- ESTIMATED LIFE INITIATED BY DATE APPROVED BY "SUBMIT ASSET INFORMATION SHEET WITH FINAL PAYMENT REQUEST *SUBMIT ASSET INFORMATION SHEET UPON CLOSE OF PROJECT ACCOUNTING ONLY nZDEPRECIATE MONTHLY DEPRECIATION AMOUNT ANNUAL DEPRECIATION AMOUNT G.L. ENTR REFERENCE rb VERIFIED BY DATE PROCESSED BATCH NO. - vp) INITIAL DEPARTMENT FILE A Ok UJ. STREET FILE ConverseWard Da. vis Dixon Geotechnical Consultants ,YF6 26 January 30, 1980 80-5251-02 Whiteley Jacobsen and Associates 2118 Third Avenue Seattle,*Washington 98121 Attention: Mr. Robert McClendon Subject: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Edmonds View Property., Phase I Meadowdale Beach Road Edmonds, Washington Gentlemen: This report presents the results of our subsurface investigation con- ducted at the Edmonds View Property, a planned residential development. The site is located near 172nd Street and Meadowdale Beach Road in Edmonds, Washington. The site encompasses approximately 12.5 acres. It is our understanding that project plans are to subdivide the property into residential lots, and construct roadways and associated utilities. Present plans call for the site to be developed in two phases. Phase I would consist of development of the southern approximate 5 acres and Phase II the northern 7.5 acres. At the present time, preliminary lay- outs for both Phase I and II areas have been provided. This layout dated January 25, 1981 consists of 12 building areas in the Phase 1 area and 16 building areas in the Ph ase II area. In general, the building areas are clustered on the higher elevations. It is understood that the remainder of the area will be left in a natural state. Access into the Phase I area is presently planned via 172nd Street, while the access to the Phase II area would be via Meadowdale Beach Road. Converse Ward Davis Dixon. Inc. 300 Elliott Avenue West Suite 150 Seattle. Washington 98119, Telephr NG 235-520-0 It is our understanding that the proposed structures will be wood -frame and be both one and two stories in height. In general, the foundations reportedly will consist of poles based in drilled holes on the downhill side and some conventional wall footings for the uphill areas. The purpose of this study was to obtain subsurface information and develop geotechnical design and construction recommendations. The scope. of services for this investigation was outlined in our letter of confir- mation dated January 20, 1981. Verbal authorization was given by Mr. Robert McClendon on January 13, 1981. The primary effort during this investigation has been directed toward the Phase ' I area; however, a limited overview of the entire development has been completed. Our scope of services in the Phase I area consisted,& the following: 1. excavation of approximately�18 hand -excavated test pits, 2. continuous logging of subsurface conditions, 3. obtaining. samples of representative soils encountered in the test pits, visual classification of the soils encountered, 5.. engineering evaluation of field exploration results, 6. preparation of a geotechnical report. A preliminary geotechnical evaluation of the site has been completed by -our f i rm. The results of this evaluation were summarized in a letter report dated December 29, 1980. For completeness, this report includes the basic information and findings developed in this previous report. Site Conditions The Phase I area is irregular in plan, approximately 700 feet in width in an east -west direction and approximately 700 to 900 feet in a north - south direction. The property is characterized by moderate to moderate- ly steep slopes. The steeper slopes are approximately 2H:IV (horizontal to vertical). The maximum amount of relief across the site is approxi- mately 180 feet. A maximum elievation of 380 feet occurs in the southern oortion of the Phase I area and the minimum elevation of approximately 200 feet occurs in the extreme northwest corner of the Phase II area. Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc. -3- With the exception of an old logging road near the central portion of the site, there are no roads into the site. The higher portions of the site are covered by a moderately thick growth of second -growth evergreen trees while the lower portions of the site are dominated by -deciduous trees and low brush. Geoloqv The subject area is located on an upland surface in the Puget Lowland. The Puget Lowland was invaded by continental glaciers during at least four separate periods during the Pleistocene Epoch. During these glacial and accompanying non -glacial periods, a thick sequence of soils was deposited. It is estimated that these sQ--71p#s reach thicknesses on the order of a thousand feet. The oresent surface characteristics and. near -surface soils are the re- sult of the last period of continental glaciation which occurred between 15,000 and 13,500 years ago. It is assumed that these sediments are underlain by older glacially -related soils. . Field Exploration The subsurface conditions in the area of proposed development in the Phase I area were explored by means of excavating 18 test pits on Janu- ary 16 and 18, 1981. The test pits were excavated by hand, as the moderately dense growth of trees and irregular terrain prohibited the use of power -operated equipment. The depth of the test pits rarged 'in depth from a few feet to 6.5 feet. The locations of the test pits were concentrated in the building and roadway areas at approximate locations shown on Drawing I. The test pits were excavated by a engineering geo- logist from our office who maintained a continuous log of the subsurface conditions encountered. Representative bag samples were secured for visual examination and classification. Summary field logs are presented at the end of this report. All soils have been cl.assified according to the Unified Soil Classification System. Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc. -4- Subsurface Conditions The near -surface soils which underlie the site were deposited during the last period of qlaciation, the Vashon Stade of the Fraser Glaciation. These soils (from oldest to youngest) are referred to as the Whidbey Fomation, the Esperance Sand, and the Vashon Drift. The Vashon Drift is composed of three separate units: advance stratified drift, glacial till, and recessional stratified drift. It appears that the only drift unit present at the site is the glacial till. Glacial till consists of a homogeneous mixture of.silt, sand and gravel and was deposited direct- ly beneath the glacial ice. The subsurface conditions encountered at the te�slk pit locations consist of a thin dark brown organic layer of forest duff which ranges up to a few inches in thickness. This surface layer is underlain by a layer of silty sand or sand which represents either a residual soil layer and/or slopewash. This layer ranges in thickness between approximately one to four feet and ranges between loose to medium dense. Underlying these soils is either a medium to very dense silty sand or medium dense to dense. sand. The denser silty sand unit represents glacial till and, based on our explorations, is restricted to the upper elevations of the site. The glacial till forms a thin cap over the underlying sand and is estimated to be on the order of ten feet in thickness. The underlying sand represents the Esperance Sand unit. The sand unit generally under- lies the steeper sloping portio-ns of the site. The sand is underlain by the oldest unit, the Whidbey Formation, which is exposed in the lower slopes, along the extreme north property line of the Phase I area below approximate elevation 280 feet. The Whidbey For- mation consists of silt and clay with some interbeds of fine sand. With the exception of the near -surface soils, all of 1 the soils which underlie the site have been overconsolidated by glacial ice. Weatherinq of the near -surface soils has resulted in loosening of these soils. I Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc. -5- The soils encountered in the test pits ranged from slightly moist to dry and no aroundwater was encountered. The static groundwater table at the site is anticipated to be in older granular soils which underlie the Whidbey Fomation. However, there is a perched qroundwater table which exists within the Esperance Sand. Because of the clean nature of the sand, surface water infiltrates rapidly, percolating downward to the boundary -of the Whidbey Formation. The Whidbey Formation is sufficient- ly fined -grained so as to greatly reduce the downward percolation of the water. The result is a general downslope movement of the water above the sand -clay contact. Springs or areas of seepage generally occur where this contact intersects a slope. 'The approximate locations of the geologic boundaries are shown on Drawing 1. No areas of instability were noted during our investigations of the si te. On the steeper slopes there was evidence of a aeneral down - slope creep of the near -surface soils as evidenced by the bowing of tree trunks. Creep of these looser surface soils is -a nomal occurrence on steeper slopes. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following conclusions and recommendations apply specifically to thp. Phase I area. Somewhat different subsurface conditions are anticipated in the Phase Il area and should be examined in detail. On the basis of the information obtained durinq this investigation and our preliminary qeotechnical evaluation, it is our opinion that the proposed development is feasible from a geotechAcal standpoint. The stpepness of some of the terrain will restrict development without extensive grading. The major portion of the proposed structures will be founded on sloping around and excavations into the hillside are anticipated. Footinqs and lower floor slabs should be supported on. competent, undisturbed moder- ately dense to dense native soils where exposed in the excavations. In areas where the lower floor will be above the existing ground surface, 0 Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc. -6- it will be necessary to install footings well below the around surface on a relatively steep slope. A pole -type footing would be suitable at these locations. At locations where the ground is not steeply sloping, it should be possible to place compacted structural fill which would be suitable for support of spread footings and slabs-on-arade. Our following recomm.endations are general. We have reviewed the planned. lower floor elevations for the proposed structures relative to the existing ground surface as shown on the topographic drawing. In our opinion, our recommentions are adequately complete to cover foundation design and construction of the proposed structures; however, if design changes are made such as changing structure locations or floor eleva- tions, it would be prudent to review our recorapWdations and their ap- plications. For each structure, it will be necessary to determine the required exca- vation and fillin,3, and the foundation system. Site Preparation All areas within the limits of excavations or where fill is to be placed should be stripped to remove -vegetation and debris. The vegetation and debris should be removed from the site or placed in non -building areas. No material should be placed on the hillside downslope from the proposed houses. It is important that the slopes not be disturbed by the con- struction. Surface water must be controlled so that it is not allowed to become channelized and spill down the slope. The preliminary plans indicate that the maximum depth of excavation will be approximately 17 feet. Based on our explorations, the soils in the excavations will generally be silty sands with some gravel. The upper two to four feet of soil is loose to medium dense and grades to dense to very dense below. We recommend that the contractor be made responsible for the stability of temporary excavations. He is continually at the site and can evaluate the stability of the soils as they are exposed. I Converse Word Davis Dixon, Inc. -7- Structural fill to support floor slabs or footings should not be placed on the moderately to steeply sloping ground. Fills may be constructed on flatter slopes provided the areas to receive the fill area benched to provide a level surface to support the fill. A bench should be at least six feet wide and the difference in elevation between adjacent benchs should be two feet or less. All structural fill should be placed in layers approximately eight inches in thickness, conditioned to a mois-- ture content suitable for compaction, and compacted to at least 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density as determined by the ASRI D1557 compaction test. Fill slopes should be inclined at 2.5H:lV (horizontal to vertical) or less. Soil for structural fill should be free from Q anic matter and debris 01 and should have a granular texture free from clay lumps. There are on -site soils that are suitable and we recommend that soils containing a minimum of silt or clay be utilized as they will be easier to compact and less sensitive to moisture content. Foundation Support The proposed structures may be supported on conventional shallow spread footings or a combination of spread footings and pole -type foundations. We recommend that the foundation system be designed so that all hori- zontal forces, such a's those due *to earthquakes, are resisted by the shallow spread footing portion of the foundation system. Shallow footings founded on undisturbed medium dense to dense soils may be designed for an allowable net bearing pressure of 3,000 psf (pounds per square foot) Suitable bearing soils were observed at shallow depths across the site in our explorations, generally two to four feet below the existing ground surface. Wal I footings should have a minimum width of 16 inches and individual column footings should be a minimum of 18 inches wide. All footings should be founded at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. t Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc. d = A — - 6F) T + /1 +7 —A where A = 2.34P Slbi P = applied horizontal force in pounds S, = allowable lateral soil bearing pressure h, = diameter of pole h = distance in feet from ground surface to point of appl ication of P d = depth of embedment of pole in feet A value of 300 pounds per square foot may be used for the allowable lateral soil bearing pressure (S1). The diameter of the pole (bl) may be increased to the effective diameter of the hole provided the annulus is backfilled with low -shrink concrete. Shallow footings can resist horizontal forces through the horizontal passive pressure of backfill adjacent to the footing and by friction across the base of the foundation. Horizontal passive pressure may be calculated using an equivalent fluid weight (triangular distribution) of, 250 pcf (pounds per cubic foot). This assumes the backfill is drained and compacted to at least 95 percent of the AST14 D1557 maximum dry density. Resistance to sliding may be calculated using a base friction factor of 0.45. The. above values do not include a safety factor. A minimum safety factor of 1.5 should be used to design for resistance to sliding and overturning. Basement Walls All subsurface walls should be backfilled with a free -draining granular soil and foundation subdrains installed behind the walls to minimize the potential for hydrostatic pressure to develop. The walls must be sup- ported on dense undisturbed soil. Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc. -0- our recommended criteria for footings founded in areas of sloping ground are that the outside edge of the footing on the downhill side should be at least eight feet back from the face of the slope measured in a hori- zontal direction. Footings founded on structural fill may be designed for an allowable net bearing pressure of 2,000 psf. Minimum size and depth of embedment are the same as recommended above. The outside edge of the footings founded on fill should be at least five feet back from the face of the fill measured in a horizontal direction. Pole -type footinqs may be utilized on sloping ground where it is not feasible to construct shallow footings. A pol ?,*footing would be con- structed by 'dri 11 i ng a hol e wi th a power auger � i nserti ng the pol e and then backfilling the annulus area. We recommend the annulus. area be backfilled with low -shrink Portland cement concrete. Our recommended minimum depth of pole embedment below the ground surface is six feet. The base of the poles should have a minimum diameter of eight inches. our recommended allowable bearing capacity for a pole embedded six feet is 18,000 psf. For a pole embedded eight feet, the allowable bearing capacity may be increased to 24,000 psf. The effective area of the foundation is equal to that of the base of the pole. The effective area of the foundation could be increased to the area at the bottom of the hole if a concrete footing was poured in the bottom of the hole to sup- port the pole. Such a concrete footing should be at least 12 inches thick. The foundation systems for the proposed structures will generally con- sist of a combination of shallow footings and pole -type footings. We recommend that the horizontal loads be resisted by the shallow footings. However, if pole -type footings are required to resist horizontal loads, it may be necessary to deepen the footings to greater than the minimum six-foot embedment depth. The following formula may be used to deter - nine embedment depth to resist horizontal loads: I Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc. The on -site sandy soils described as the Esperance Sand unit would gen- erally be suitable for backfill behind walls. The silty glacial till soils present in the southern portions of the site should not be used for backfill behind walls. Backfill behind walls should be placed in layers not exceeding eight inches loose thickness and compacted with relatively light vibratory equipment to at least 90 percent of its maximum ASMT D1557 dry density. An 18-inch thick layer of impermeable soil should be placed on the ground surface and compacted to prevent surface water from seeping down- ward into the granular backfill. The ground surface should be sloped to drain away from the wall. Four -inch diameter perforated footing drains must be placed behind base- ment walls. The invert of footing drains should be at least 12 inches below finished interior floor grades and sloped to drain at a grade of at least 0.5 percent. Convenient cleanouts should also be provided. All 'Perforated footing drains should be protected by a filter of drain- age sand and gravel. There should be at least four inches of this mate- rial below the drains, six inches along the sides, and 12 inches above the drains. In addition, the filter material should extend upward, adjacent to the wall so that it is a minimum of 12 inches thick measured perpendicular to the wall. Our recommended gradation for filter mate- ri-al i s: U.S. Standard Percent Passing, -Sieve Size by Dry Weight 1 1/2 inch 100 3/4 i nch 70 - 90 No. 4 30 - 60 No. 8 20 - 50 No. 30 8 - 30 No. 51, 3 - 12 No. 200 0 - 1.5 I Conver5e Ward Davis Dixon, Inc. We recommend that subsurface or retaining walls up to approximately 12 feet high be designed for horizontal pressures equivalent to that of a fluid weighing 40 pcf (triangular distribution). Surface Water The exterior ground surface should be sloped to drain away from the building and surface should either be paved or covered with at least 18 inches of imperviouls soil to inhibit surface water from infiltrating into the subdrain5. It is our understanding that it is desirable to dispose of roof drainage in dry wells. We anticipate that this scheme .9111 work satisfactorily based on certain requirements. These requirements are as follows: 1) the dry wells be located in the Esperance Sand unit, 2) the wells should .not. be located on the very steep slopes, and 3) they should not be located in the proximity of the basement wall perforated drains. The use of dry wells will be somewhat restricted in the Phase II area, these are anticipated to generally be those areas underlain by the Whidbey Formation. We understand th at the storm drain system, relative to the roadways, will be designed to flow into a retention system. We recommend that the retention system have a controlled orifice and be tight lined away from the slopes. Summary This report has been prepared to aid in the evaluation and development of this site for its intended use. The discussion of site development is conceptual in nature and must be refined to take into account final roadway grades, slope locations, and construction sequencing. It is recommended that we continue our involvement with the design engineers to assure that final site development plans and specifications are con- sistent with the findings of our investigation. a Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc. -12- We recommend that site preparation, foundation excavations, fill place- ment and drainage installations be observed by personnel aualified by training and experience to see that the work is perfomed in accordance with these recommendations, the plans and specifications, and good engi- neering practice. The findings and conclusions of this report were prepared in accordance. with generally accepted professional engineering principles and prac- tice. We make no other warranty, either express or implied. Please do not hesitate to call us if there are any questions regarding the conclu- sions and recommendations contained herein. Respectfully submitted, CONVERSE WARD DAVIS DIXON, INC. William S. Bliton' Senior Geologist Jack M. Hogan Senior Engineer 00:e4-Xk M. lfo-o.�� ........... . ONAL I Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc. 9 z IL U) C\1 JI Z:- Qvt r zc- - ---sow, F� o F-IJ A i6 Qw EXPLA1114'ATION P- i P-49 _�T QVT Glacial Till OE Esper-ance Sand ITP L- 7 P� 1�O 1-r Whi-Jbey Formation (oo, 'I �#V 4 9 11 \IJ v Q Approximate Geologic �16.100 T 2/ Cori* -, c' inferred d �j I lea ,.I e r e P I T Tes4 P;1 I A P, i i f-'N r-) A -D k I I k—) ". i . , !--. I 0 80-5152-02 31 SUMMARY LOGS OF TEST PITS Test Pit 1 0.0'-0.2' SM FOREST DUFF, SILTY SAND, dark brown, fine to medium, with little coarse sand and fine to medium gravel, organics, numerous roots; slightly moist, loose. 0.2--l.5- SM/SP RESIDUAL TILL SOIL, SILTY SAND, gray -brown, with orange oxidized layers, fine to medium, with some coarse sand and fine to medium gravel, occasional cobble, trace organ- ics, few roots; slightly m oist, loose to medium dense. 1.51-1.91 SM GLACIAL TILL, SILTY SAND., gray -brown, fine to medium, with some coarse sand and fine to medium gravel, occasional cobble to 6" diameter; dry, very de J Xe. --------------------------------------------- M --------------------- Test Pit 2 0.01-0.11 SM FOREST DUFF, SILTY SAND, dark brown, fine to medium, with little coarse sand and fine to medium gravel, organics, numerous roots; slightly moist, loose. 0.11-2.5' SM/SP RESIDUAL TILL SOIL/SLOPEWASH, SILTY SAND, gray -brown, with orange oxidized layers, fine to medium, with some coarse sand and fine to medium gravel, occasional cobbles, trace organics, few roots; slightly moist, loose to medium dense. 2. 5'- 2. 7' SM GLACIAL TILL, SILTY SAND, gray -brown, fine to medium, with some coarse sand and fine to medium gravel, occasional cobble; dry, very dense. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Test Pit 3 0.0'-0.2' SM FOREST DUFF, SILTY SAND, dark brown, fine to medium, with little coarse sand and fine to medium gravel, organics, numerous roots; slightly moist, loose. 0.2-1.2' SM/SP SLOPE WASH, SILTY SAND, brown, fine to medium, with some coarse sand and fine to medium gravel, occasional cobble, -trace organics,some roots; slightly moist, loose to medium dense. 1.2'-3.5' SP SAND. brown to reddish brown, with mottled gray streaks, fine to medium, with some coarse sand and fine to medium gravel, little silt; slightly moist, medium dense to dense. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 2 Tact Pit d 0.0'-0.3' SM FOREST DUFF, SILTY SAND, dark brown, fine to medium, with little coarse sand and fine to medium gravel, organics, numerous roots; slightly moist, loose. 0.31-3.21 SM/SP RESIDUAL TILL SOIL/SLOPE WASH, SILTY SAND, gray -brown, fine to medium, with some coarse sand and fine to medium gravel, occasional cobble, trace organics, some roots; slightly moist, loose to medium dense. 3.2'-3.6' . SM GLACIAL TILL (moderately weathered), SILTY SAND., gray -brown, fine to medium, with some coarse sand and fine to medium gravel, occasional cobbles; dry, medium dense to dense. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Test Pit 5 0.01-0.11 SM FOREST DUFF, SILTY SAND, dark brown, fine to medium, with little coarse sand and fine to medium gravel, organics, numerous roots; slightly moist, loose. 0.11-2.81 SPISM SLOPE WASH, SAND, brown, fine to m6lium, with some silt, coarse sand., and fine to medium gravel, occasional cobble, trace organics, some roots; slightly moist, loose to medium dense. 2.8'-4.0' SP SAND, brown, fine to medium, with little coase sand and gravel, trace silt; dry, medium dense to dense. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Test Pit 6 O.W-0.11 SM FOREST DUFF, SILTY SAND, dark brown, fine to medium, with little coarse.sand and —fine to medium gravel, organics, numerous roots; slightly moist, loose. 0.11-2.71 SP/SM SLOPE WASH, SAND, brown, ' fine to medium, with some silt, coarse sand, and fine to medium gravel, occasional cobble, trace organics, some roots; slightly moist, loose to medium dense. 2.71-3.11 SP SAND, brown, fine to medium, with little coarse sand and gravel,. occasional cobble, trace silt; dry, medium dense to -------------------------------------------------------------------- dense. Test Pit 7 0.0'-0.2' SM FOREST DUFF, SILTY SAND, dark brown, fine to medium, with little coarse sand and fine to medium gravel, organics, numerous roots; slightly moist, loose. 0.2'-3.4- SP/SM SLOPE WASH/WEATHERED SAND, SAND, reddish brown, fine to medium, with some silt, little fine to coarse gravel, some roots, trace organics; slightly moist, loose. 3.4'-6.5' SP SAND, brown to gray -brown, fine, with little silt and medium to coarse sand, trace fine to medium gravel; slightly moist, medium dense to dense. I Page 3 Test Pit 8 0.0'-0.2' SM FOREST DUFF, SILTY SAND, dark brown, fine to medium, with little coarse sand and fine to medium gravel, organics, numerous roots; slightly moist, loose. 0.2'-2.5' SP/SM SLOPE WASH/WEATHERED SAND, SAND, reddish brown, fine to medium, with some silt coarse sand, and fine to coarse el, some roots, tr grav ace organics; slightly moist, loose to medium dense. 2.51-4.01 SP SAND, gray -brown, fine to medium, with some coarse sand and Tine to coarse gravel, trace silt, occasional cobble -------------------------------------------------------- slightly moist, medium dense to dense. ------------ Test Pit 9 0.01-0.31 SM FOREST DUFF, SILTY SAND, dark brown, fine to medi.um, with little coarse sand and fine to medhvm gravel, organics, numerous roots; slightly moist, 1,66se. 0.3'-4.5' SP/SM SLOPE WASH/WEATHERED SAND, SAND, reddish brown to brown, fine to medium, with some silt, coarse sand, and fine to coarse gravel, some roots, trace organics; slightly moist, loose to medium dense. (Includes zone of moderately cemented sand at 1.5'-2.5', possible Till layer.) 4.5'-5.0' SP SAND, gray -brown, fine to medium, with some coarse sand Tn—dfine to coarse gravel, trace silt, occasional cobble; --------------------------------------------------------------------- slightly moist, medium dense to dense. Test Pit 10 1 0. 0'-0. 2' SM FOREST DUFF, SILTY SAND, dark brown, fine to medium, with little coarse sand and fine to medium gravel., organics, numerous roots; slightly moist, loose. 0.31-4.21 SP/SM SLOPE WASH/WEATHERED SAND, SAND, reddish brown to brown, fine to medium, with some silt, coarse sand, and fine to coarse gravel, some roots, trace organics; slightly moist, loose to medium dense. 4.2'-5.1' SP SAND, gray -brown, fine to medium, with some coarse sand and fine to coarse gravel, trace silt, occasional cobble; ---------------------------- slightly moist, medium dense to dense. ----------------------- ;; --------- -------- Page 4 Test Pit 11 0.01-0.11 SM FOREST DUFF, SILTY SAND, dark brown, fine to medium, with little coarse sand and fine. to medium gravel, organics, numerous roots; slightly moist, loose. O.V-3.0' SP/SM SLOPE WASH/WEATHERED SAND, SAND, reddish brown to brown, fine to medium, with some silt, coarse sand, and fine to coarse gravel, some roots, trace organics; slightly moist, loose to medium dense. 3.0'-4.0' SP SAND, gray -brown, fine to medium, with some coarse sand and. fine . to coarse gravel, trace silt, occasional cobble; -------------------------------------------------------------------- slightly moist, medium dense to dense. Test Pit 12 0.01-0.31 SM FOREST DUFF, SILTY SAND, dark brown, fine to medium,.with little coarse sand, fin'e to medium gravel, organics, numerous roots; slightly moist, loose. 0.3'-3.31 SP/SM SLOPE WASH/WEATHERED SAND, SAND, t46ddish brown to brown, fine to medium, with some silt, coarse sand, and fine to coarse gravel, some roots, trace organics; slightly moist, loose to medium dense. 3.31-4.11 SP SAND, gray -brown, fine to medium, with some coarse sand, and.fine to coarse gravel, trace silt, occasional cobble; -------------------------------------------------------------------- slightly moist,,*medium dense to dense. Tpqt Pit 13 0.01-0.11 FOREST DUFF, SILTY SAND, dark brown, fine to medium, with little coarse s-and and fine to medium gravel, organics, numerous roots; slightly moist, loose. 0.11-1.01 SM/ML SANDY SILT ' , light gray, very fine to fine, with trace medium to coarse sand and fine gravel, organics and roots; slightly moist, soft. i.Ol-3.11 SP/SM RESIDUAL TILL SOIL, SAND, brown, fine, with little medium to coarse sand, gravel, and silt, trace organics, some roots, occasional chunks of weathered hard till; slightly moist, medium dense. 3.1'-3.4- SP/SM GLACIAL TILL, SAND, gray -brown, fine, with some silt, little medium to coarse sand, and fine to coarse gravel, occasional cobble, slightly moist to dry, very dense. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 5 Test Pit 14 0.0'-0.3' SM FOREST DUFF, SILTY SAND, dark brown, fine to medium, with little coarse sand and fine to medium gravel, organics, numerous roots; slightly moist, loose. 0.3'-3.5' SM/SP SLOPE WASH/RESIDUAL TILL SOIL, SILTY SAND, brown, fine to medium, with some coarse sand, and fine to medium gravel, trace organics, some roots; slightly moist, loose to medium dense. 3.5'-3.6- SM/SP (As above, but harder, with chunks of till. Possibly top of till but not sure because could not dig further.) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Test Pit 15 0.01-0.2' SM FOREST DUFF, SILTY SAND, dark brown, fine to medium, with little coarse sand and fine to medium gravel, organics, numerous roots; slightly moist, loose. 0.2'-3.0' SM/SP SLOPE WASH/RESIDUAL TILL SOIL, SILIX SAND., brown, fine to medium, with some coarse sand, anKfine to medium gravel, trace organics, some roots; slightly moist, loose to medium dense. 3.0'-3.3' SM GLACIAL TILL, SILTY SAND, dark brown, fine to medium, with some coarse sand and fine to medium gravel, occasional cobble; dry, very dense. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Tac+ Pi+ 1A 0.0'-0.3' SM FOREST DUFF, SILTY SAND, dark brown, fine to medium, with little coarse sand and fine to medium gravel, organics, numerous roots; slightly moist, loose. 0.31-3.51 SP/SM SLOPE WASH/RESIDUAL TILL SOIL, SAND, brown, fine to medium, with little to some silt, little coarse sand, fine to coarse gravel, occasional cobble, trace organics, some roots, (with chunks of hard till); slightly moist, loose to medium dense. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Test Pit 17 0.01-0.10 SM FOREST DUFF, SILTY SAND, dark brown, fine to medium, with little coarse sand and fine to medium gravel, organics, numerous roots; slightly moist, loose. 0.1'-3.4' SM/SP SLOPE WASh/RESIDUAL TILL SOIL, SILTY SAND, gray-brown,.fine ,to medium, with some coarse sand and fine to coarse gravel, occasional cobble, trace organics, some roots; slightly moist, loose to medium dense. 3.4'-3.5' SM (Harder, probably till.) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Test Pit 18 Road Cut SM GLACIAL TILL, SILTY SAND, gray -brown, fine to medium, with Surface Sample some coarse sand, and fine to coarse gravel; dry, very danse. --------------------------------------------------------------------