20901 PIONEER WAY.PDF12818
20901 PIONEER
WAY
0, . I a
BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE):
COVENANTS (RECORDED)
CRITICAL AREAS: DETERMINATION: r-1 Conditional Waiver YStudy Required 0 Waiver
DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S:
DRAINAGE PLAN DATED:
PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED:
EASEMENT(S) RECORDED
PERMITS (OTHER):
PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED:
SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED:
SEWER LID FEE $:- - LID #:
SHORTPLAT
SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED:
SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S)
SOILS REPORT DA
STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT #:
FOR:
WATER METER TAP CARD DATED:
OTHER:
LOT: BLOCK:
LATEMP\DSrs\Fomis\Street File Checklist.doc
1,7 —C
. Is 9,z�
PERMIT NO: 10.0.52
City, Edmonds
0a,
PERMIT EXPIRE
SIDE SEWE.31-1 ERMIT
Address of Construction
Property Tax Account P.
Attach copies.of all access and utilityeasement * s Verified and Approved b
Owner and/or Contradtor: (Z'COW-c�e- R y tan A
Contractor License #:
ingle Family
(KS
R Multi-Fam.ily (No.'of Units
El Commercial (No. of Units*
Public
Invasion i ntd City *Rig . ht-of Way 0 Yes
*RW Construction Permit #
Cross other "Private P rope rty: ."El yes
"Attach legal description and copy of recorded easement.
Owner/contractor
Owne r c�ntractorsignatu' I re and', acknow"Iedgetnent statement: D
By 9iining for this permit I c e*rtify that I have read the City's public handout entitled
ide Sewer Specifications, and- shall comply with all City requirements outlined thereim
9 CALL DIAL -A -DIG (1-800-42'*'5555) BEFORE ANY -EXCAVATION 9
R FOR IN'SPECTI.ON CALLA25-771A220 extension,�I�R
24 HOUR NOTICE REOUIRED FOR'ALL INSPECTION REQUESTS
.... ... .. FOR OFFICE USE ONLY.' .......
Permit Fee Repair Fee $ Issued By
Trunk Charge $ Date Issued:
Assessment Fee $ .-Rdedipt'No: e!Q -1,17
City Permit Surcharge Fee_ $55'. 0 0 Total Fees Pai . d $ `775
NOTE: IF JOB.'SITE IS NOT READY FOR INSPECTION WHEN
INSPECTOR ARRIVE'S A $.45 RE -INSPECTION FEE WILL BE.CHARGED,'
Job.Site Ready YES - NO —Date. Initial: —
Partial Inspection: Date: Initial:
Initial:
Partial Inspection: Date:
FINAL INSPECTION APPROVEM Date'. 9 7- -:5 hitialZ As -built to Street File:
TF37 PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON. JOB.SITE t-'.
White Copy: File Green Copy: lnspe�cto.r Buff Copy: Applicant .
L;temp;bldgtonns;sspertnitjlg4/00
4, . � ft 0
6
yj SDR-35 Sleeve
GARAGE
6" C/O
w/ C.I. Locking Lid
PIL
CITY OF EDMONDS SIDE SEWER AS — BUILTS
ADDRESS:
1 20901
HOMEOWNER:
GEORGE BRANDEL
DATE DRAWN: DRAWN BY:
9/7/05 1. ABILA
PIONEER WAY
CONTRACTOR:
CAJUN
SCALE:
INTS
PERMIT NO.
10052
a
PLANNING DATA
NAME: -Q- DATE: L4 - 10-7�
SITE ADDRESS: 000 ( P, ov-x Eoa PLAN CHK#: OCS- L:2- I
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: t-J, -k . - 5
REDUCED SITE PLAN PROVIDED?1�-/ No)
MAP PAGE: 2 0 t� - CORNER LOT: (Yes / FLAG LOT: (Yes /
ZONING:,FV-O-Oa - 1"71 CRITICAL AREAS DETERMINATION #: 'QL-00-2-1-71-A
12 Study Required: - 0 Coon P-P , t n.
Ll Waive[
UConditional Waiver
SEPA DETERMINATION:
LJ Fee
Ll Checklist
Ll APO list / notarized form
LJ(Needed for 500 cubic yards of grading, Shoreline Area- site within 200 ft. of Puget Sound or Lake Ballinger)
W Exempt q co :7- - :�) , , --r-6
SETBACKS:
Required Setbacks:--*'
Street: 1 Left Side: Right Sidl�: ��' Rear
Actual Setbacks: I S 8
-'Ireet, 44. S Rea
ft Side: Right Side: r:
Street map checked for additional setback required? (Yes / No DN
LJ DETACHED STRUCTURES:
U ROCKERIES:
U FENCES/TRELLISE*S:
LJ BAY WINDOWS / PROJECTING MODULATION:
Q STAIRS1 DECKS:
PARKING: Required: '2-Actual: -2-
LOTAREA: :,:�, C42
LOT COVERAGE
/,2.;, -Pc>—
R111111001111111dowl-7M99
BUILDING HEIGHT: ion:
Datum Poinfnez,,2-1� D Elevati 4
Maximum Allowed: Q(v I Height..
N
A.D.U. CREATED?ZT�L/ Y6)-� 2 3)
SUBDIVISION: k, ;L-
q, LEGAL NONCONFORMING LAND USE DETERMINATION ISSUED: (Yes No
to
OTHE!.�Sh 0 X A e----
P0
3 Co 2-
- -5-:;, (0 . .:; L S,
r - Cj�D/LA�— J()l
-C C-c
Viantevinewo'By:':-]��'92'=e=' C�L� -:�o
J e- -
NewBPP1anningDataFortn.D0C
0,
x
;a I o
S'-U A
Lc4
d-, CL-- C', +E
C�,
P-Q
L-D 1-.,74
0. 0 coo
,,,- -1 - ��
�A
The Critical Areas Checklist contained on this form is to
be filled out by any person preparing a Development
Permit Application for the City of Edmonds prior to
his/her submittal of the application' to the City.
The purpose of the Checklist is to enable City staff to
determine whether any potential Critical * Areas are, or
may be, present on the subject property. Ile information'
needed to complete the Checklist should be easily
available. from observations of the site or data available at
City Hall (Critical areas irry soil
,.Surveys).
I . AUG 2 3 2902
47-
P Eint-111; T C C- U N" E R
A property owner, or his/her authorized representative,
must fill out the checklist,.sign and date it, and submit it
i� ihC City. The City will review the checklist, make a
prec site visit and m6k � a determination: of the
subse
— . quent steps necessary to complete a development
permit application.
Please submit a vicinity map, along with the signed copy
of this form to assist City staff in finding and locating the
specific piece of property described on this form. In
addition, the applicant shall include other pertinent
information (e.g. site plan, topography map, etc.) or
I . ;tudi't� in 6onJunction with this'.,Checklist to assistant staff
in completing their prel :6 miniary'aissessment of the site.
The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees
to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable
attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, rrdsl.eading, inaccurate or
incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees.
Ilomy signature, I certify. that ithe information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my
wledge and that I am authorized to file this appli tio I;he behalf of the owner as listed below.
hqa
op t(y--
C�t!Arlm hvr%
SIGNATLYU OF AppucANVAGEI�T A A&IIA I VQVk V)aI*N0L!�YDATE--YIIHJ()9
Property Owner's Authorization
By my signature, I cer* that I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application,
and. grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the
purposes of inspection and posting attendant to this application.
en
Owner/App! Lcant:
Name
Street Address
�qp*-)wnd MA, qW�U
C.
Ityl State zip
AppHeant �tepreaen.tative:
yte-,. C-*�Uadf-.,
Name
Street Address
city State zip
fh W. j Telephone:
0"e*'
address (optional): IQYUAr--I\AdQUikbU=. Fmail-Addrm (optional);
I Wn -
Critical Areas ChecklisLdod3.192001
P�A File No!
S: Chec, s'
Witic.a.1 Area'.
Site Information (soils/topography/hydrology/ vegetation),.
bw C)
1. Site Address/ Location:
2. Pr erty Tax Accou . ntNumber:
9P
are A2
3. Approxiinate Site Size (acres PT.squ feet)::.
4. Is a-ds site currently developed? X.
yes, -no
0UV,6-�)jdjws'
If yes; how is site developed?'�--ff,A X-A-W.
site to ography. Check all. t app y.
5. Describe the general p tha I
Flat less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site.
Rolling: slopes on s . ite generally less ff=L 15% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal
distance of 66-feet).
v1 Hilly: A . opes; present on site of more dm 15% and less than 30% a vertical rise: of 10-feet
over a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet)e
Steep: griades of L greater than 30% present on site (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal
distance of less than 33-feet).
Other (please describe):
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Site contains areas of year-round standing water: Approx. Depth;
Site contains areasof seasonai standing water Approx. Depth -
What season(s) of the year?
Site is in the floodway floodplain of. a water dours.e.
Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across. the. grounds surface? Flows are ye
Flows are seasonal? ffhat timepf year?.
Site is primarily: forested X meadow. -,shrubs n-dxed
urban landscaped (layhohrubs etc)
obvious wetland is present ort site:
) ��ubt�
okw W
jtw'y
UF�
J? M
CridcW Arm ChwjdisLdoc/3-19-M1
0
1 0
f
City of Edmonds
Critical Areas Determination
Applicant: I Phoenix Development Inc Determination #: CA-02-174
Site Location: [8526 Main St (5.23 acres) Property Tax Acct #: [�736 0'05 0
Project Description:
Non -Project Specific
Determination: Study Required:
During review and inspection of the subject site, it was found that the,site appears to contain
an&or is adjacent to a number of critical areas, including possible wetland soils and vegetation
pursuant to Chapter 20.15B of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC).
Based on these findings, prior to submission of any development permit you will be required
satisfy the requirements of ECDC 20.15B by completing the following: -
Wetland:
My site *investigation has shown that the site contains wetlands.6ils and vegetation that . are
possibly part of a stream. Based on the above findings, a Critical Areas Study is required to
determine the hydrology of the area and to delineate the approximate boundaries of any stream
and/orwetland and identify its buffers. T'he required qualified critical areas consultant needed to
perform the study shall be a specialist in wetland biology and/or streams with a minimum of two
years' field experience with streams in the Pacific Northwest. All critical areas studies shall be
performed as three party agreements with the city 'selecting the consultant and the property owner
or applicant paying the fees.
The qualified critical areas consultant shall perform the following:
1. Cl�ssify the stream/wetland.
2. Physically mark the top of the bank of the strewn and/or wetland.
3. . Map the strearn/wetland location. (see ECDC 20.15B).
The land surveyor licensed by the State of Washington shall perform the following:
1. Determine the building setback from the buffer (required setback is'15 feet).
2. Create a map showing the stream/wetland, the buffer and the building setback.
If the results of the Critical Areas Study determine that the lot may not be developed, the
applicant may apply for a Reasonable Use Exception and Variance pursuant to ECDC
20.1511.170A and 20.1511.049CA. 4 / zI
QMT,
Signature
Date
I
it"Af-boal'Sk,
tt:��4.
.f.- "A'
R'— N -e-r
,iew-. CA-2002-0174
3/2002
*TSV 18/t
Phoenix Dev.
""BldifiNUM�'
I M
-AMain
str et,
ST
F.
A 7i
RKA Mlll."�
ff,
2939
3736-005-001-01
kr 1
I?Mll
zgi
Z
City of Edmonds PERMI 10: 10 0 5 2:
SIDE SEWER PERMIT PERMIT EXPIRE
Address of Construction:
Property Tax Account Pa
Attach copies of all access and utility easements Verified and Approved b
Owner and/or Contractor: cxe,
Contractor License #: 14—Building Permit
(Ksingle Family Invasion into City *Right -of Way: 0 Yes XNO
F] Multi -Family (No. of Units *RW Construction Permit #
n Commercial (No. of Units Cross other "Private Property: Ej Yes �60
El Public "Attach legal description and copy of recorded easement.
0 w ;ne
g r c&ffgctor signati.6 and acknowledgement statement:
r
entitled
igmng' for this permit I certify that I have read the City's public handout'
Side Sewer Specifications, and shall comply with all City requirements outlined therein.
(Oh/05
Ddte '
2 CALL DIAL -A -DIG (1 -800-42q-5555): BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION W
W FOR INSPECT ION CALL 425-771-0220 extension A396 W
24 HOUR NOTICE REQUIRED FOR ALL INSPECTION REQUESTS
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Permit Fee $ -m-� —Repair, Fee $ Issued By: �r4ILJ!il_ -
Trunk Charge $ Date Issued:
Assessment Fee $ Receipt No: �2< /Z
City Permit Surcharge Fee 00 Total Fees Paid $ `7
NOTE: IF JOB SITE IS NOT READY FOR INSPECTION WHEN
INSPECTOR ARRIVES A $45 RE -INSPECTION FEE WILL BE CHARGED.
Job Site Ready YES NO —Date: Initial:
Partial Inspection: P/-- to —Date: / 1/2 5451nitial: ��5
Partial Inspection: Date* Initial:
WIA Anitial: As -built to Street File: El
FINAL INSPECTION APPROVED: Date:
11, PERMIT MUST 135POSTED ON J013 SITEI_�,
White Copy: File Green Copy: Inspector Buff Copy: Applicant
L,temp;bldg-,forms;ssperTnitj Ig4/00
A OF
6
12 SDR-35 Sleeve
GARAGE
6" C/o
w/ C.I. Locking Lid
PIL
ED,jj,_ I CITY OF EDMONDS SIDE SEWER AS - BUILTS
-&t. 1890
ADDRESS:
Q1 20901
HOMEOWNER:
GEORGE BRANDEL
DATE DRAWN: DRAWN BY
9/7/05 1. ABILA
PIONEER WAY
CONTRACTOR:
CAJUN
SCALE:
INTS
PERMIT NO.
10052
.1 ()f E.Di,,,_
20901 PIONEER WAY
4" SDR-35
SLEEVE
p
I
200psi
1-1/4" Poly
. w/ Tracer
I
5t
CITY OF EDMONDS WATERLINE AS -BUILT
ADDRESS HOMEOWNER
20901 PIONEER WAY BRANDEL CUSTOM HMS
CONTRACTOR SCALE
CAJUN NTS
DATE DRAWN WATERLINE
7/05 B.y . 1. ABILA NO. 2005-0643
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
PEPPERWOOD
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
8526 MAIN STREET
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
E-10075
May 14, 2002
PREPARED FOR
PHOENIX DEVELOPMENT, INC.
ye'.
Raymond A. Coglas, P.E.
Project Manager
Earth Consultants, Inc.
1805 - 136th Place Northeast, Suite 201
Bellevue, Washington.98005
(206) 643-3780
Toll Free 1-888-739-6670
9
FILE
IMPORTANT INFORMATION
ABOUTYOUR
GEOTECHNiCAL ENGINEERING REPORT
More construction problems are caused by site subsur-
face conditions than any other factor As troublesome as
subsurface problems can be, their frequency and extent
have been lessened considerably in recent years, due in
large measure to programs and publications of ASFE/
The Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in
the Geosciences.
The following suggestions and observations are offered
to help you reduce the geotech n ical -related delays,
cost -overruns and other costly headaches that can
occur during a construction project.
A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
REPORT IS BASED ON A UNIOUE SET
OF PROJECT -SPECIFIC FACTORS
A geotechnical engineering report is based on a subsur-
face exploration plan designed to incorporate a unique
set of project -specific factors. These typically include:
the general nature of the structure involved. its size and
configuration: the location of the structure on the site
and its orientation: physical concomitants such as
access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities.
and the level of additional risk which the client assumed
by virtue of limitations imposed upon the exploratory
program. To help avoid costly problems, consult the
geotechnical engineer to determine how any factors
which change subsequent to the date of the report may
affect its recommendations.
Unless your consulting geotechnical engineer indicates
otherwise, your wotechnical engineering report should not
be used:
• When the nature of the proposed structure is
changed. for example. if an office building will be
erected instead of -a parking garage, or if a refriger-
ated warehouse will be built instead of an unre-
frigerated one.
• When the size or configuration of the proposed
structure is altered.
• When the location or orientation of the proposed
structure is modified;
• When there is a change of ownership. or
• for application to an adjacent site.
Geofechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility for problems
which may develop if they are not consulted after factors consid-
ered in their report's development have changed.
MOST GEOTECHNICAL "FINDINGS"
ARE PROFESSIONAL ESTIMATES
Site exploration identifies actual subsurface condi tions
only at those points where samples are taken. when
they are taken. Data derived through sampling an ' d sub-
sequent laboratory testing are extrapolated by geo-
technical engineers who then render an opinion about
overall sub§urface.conditions, -their likely reaction to
proposed construction activity, and appropriate founda-
tion design. Even under optimal circumstances actual
conditions may differ from those inferred to exist.
because no geotechnical engineer, no matter how
qualified, and no subsurface exploration program, no
matter how comprehensive. can reveal what is hidden by
earth. rock and time- The actual interface between mate-
rials may be far more gradual or abrupt than a report
indicates. Actual conditions in areas not sampled may
differ from predictions. Nothing 'Can be done to prevent the
unanticipated. but steps can be taken t.o help minimize their
impact. For this reason. most experienced owners retain their
geotechnical consultants through the construction stage. to iden-
tify variances, conduct additional tests which may be
needed, and to recommend solutions to problems
encountered on site -
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
CAN CHANGE
Subsurface conditions may be modified by constantly -
changing natural forces. Because a geotechnical engi-
neering report is based on conditions which existed at
the time of subsurface exploration, construction decisions
should not be based on a geotechnical engineering report whose
adequacy may have been affected by time- Speak with the geo-
technical consultant to learn if additional tests are
advisable before construction starts.
Construction operations at or adjacent to the site and
natural events such as floods. earthquakes or ground-
water fluctuations may also affect subsurface conditions
and, thus, the continuing adequacy of a geotechnical
report. The geotechnical engineer should be kept
apprised of any such events, and should be consulted to
determine if additional tests are necessary.
GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ARE
PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES
AND PERSONS
Geotechnical engineeff reports are prepared to meet
the specific needs of specific individuals. A report pre-
pared for a consulting civil engineer may not be ade-
quate for a construction contractor. or even some other
consulting civil engineer. Unless indicated otherwise.
this report was prepared expressly for the dient involved
and expressly for purposes indicated by the client. Use
by any other persons for any purpose, or by the client
for a different purpose, may result in problems. No indi-
vidual other than the client should apply this report for its
intended Purpose without first.conferring with the geotechnical
engineer. No person should apply this report for any purpose
other than that originally contemplated without first conferring
with the geotechnical engineer
May 14, 2002
Phoenix Development, Inc.
P.O. Box 3167
Lynnwood, Washington 98046-0958
Attention: I Ms. Loree Quade
Dear Ms. Quade:
Earth Consultants I nc.
Ceolechni(;a]F-ngincers.(3cologisls&EnOronn-iental-�deniists
E-10075
We are pleased to submit our report titled "Geotechnical Engineering Study, Pepperwood,
Residential Development, 8526 Main Street, Edmonds, Washington." This study
presents the results of our field exploration and. geotechnical engineering analyses for the
proposed residential development. Our scope of services for producing this study were
outlined in our proposal PR-10075, dated March 1, 2002.
Based on the results of our study, development of the site as planned is feasible from a
geotechnical standpoint. Medium dense to very dense glacial till was observed at the test
pit locations. Fill and yard waste materials were observed alongthe top of the existing
slope areas along the upper half of the site at several of the test pit locations. The fill
soils were observed to depths of approximately four to five feet. Based on the
subsurface conditions observed at the test pit locations, it is our opinion the proposed
single family residences can be supporled on conventional spread and continuous footings
bearing on the competent glacial till native soils, or on structural fill soils used to modifV
existing site grades.
The existing slope areas throughout the middle of the site appear stable. Due to the
dense condition of the native glacial till soils, the existing slope areas should not be
adversely impacted by the proposed construction. In our opinion, the buffer requirements
for building construction adjacent to steep slope areas can be reduced.
Recommendations for setbacks and other geotechnical recommendations are presented in
this geotechnical engineering study.
1805 - 136th Place N.E., Suite 201, Bellevue, Washington 98005 Bellevue (425) 643-3780 FAX (425) 746-0860 Toll Free (888) 739a70
Phoenix Development
May 14, 2002
E-1 0075
We appreciate the opportunity to. provide our services during the design phase of the
project. If you have questions about the content of this geotechnical engineering. study,
or if we can be of further assistance, please call.
Sincerely,
CONSULT,
Ra�thond A. Co�
Project Manager
RACrIme
�. E
INC.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
E-10075
PAGE
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. �. 1
General........................................................................................................... 1
ProigctDescription ............................................................................................. 1
SITECONDITIONS .................................................................................................. 2.
Surface............................................................................................................ 2
Steep Slope Evaluation ...................................................................................... 3
Subsurface...................................................................................................... 3
Groundwater....................................................................................... ........... 4
LaboratoryTestiqg � ........................................................................................... 4
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................ 4
General........................................................................................................... 4
Site Prpparation and General Earthwork .............................................................. 6
SteepS lope Buffer ........................................................................................... 7
Foundations........................................................................................................ 8
Permanent Retaining and Foundation Walls ......................................................... 9
Seismic Design Considerations ...... .................................................................... 10
Slab -on -Grade Floors ........................................................................................ 11
SiteDrainage ................................................................................................... 11
Excavations and Slopes ..................................................................................... 12
Utilfty Trench Backfill ........................................................................................ 12
Rockeries........................................................................................................ 13
PavementAreas ............................................................................................... 14
LIMITATIONS....................................................................................................... 14
AdditionalServices ............................................................................................ 15
Earth Consultants, Inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
E-10075
ILLUSTRATIONS
Plate 1 Vicinity Map .
Plate 2 Test Pit Location Plan
Plate 3 Typical Footing Subdrain Detail
Plate 4 Typical Utility Trench Fill
APPENDICES
Appendix A Field Exploration
Plate Al Legend
Plates A2 through Al2 Test Pit Logs
Appendix B Laboratory Test Results
Plate B1 Grain Size Analyses
Earth Consultants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERNG STUDY
PEPPERWOOD
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
8526 MAIN STREET
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
E-1 0075
This report presents geotechnical recommendations for the proposed Pepperwood
Residential Development to be located at 8526 Main Street, Edmonds, Washington. The
general location of the site is shown on the Vicinity Map, Plate 1. The approximate
locations of the test pits and the approximate limits of the property are illustrated on the
Test Pit Location Plan, Plate 2. Our scope of services included a subsurface exploration
to characterize soil conditions at the site, and preparation of this report with geotechnical
recommendations for the proposed site development.
We understand development of the site will consist of a 22-lot subdivision and
construction of a storm water detention vault. New access roadways will be constructed
throughout the property* and will connect to Main Street on the upper east half of the
property and Pioneer ��y along the low er west portion of the property. At the time this
geotechnical engineering study was prepared, a final grading plan had not been
completed. However, we anticipate that cuts and fills will be necessary to establish the
building lot and roadway grades. Construction of a storm water detention vault is
proposed for the lower west portion of the site, along the new access roadway that will
connect to Pioneer Way. Cuts for the detention vault will probably be in the range of
twelve (12) to sixteen (16) feet. Cuts along the toe of the existing steep slopes will likely
be necessary to establish roadway grades for the new access roadway that will connect
to Pioneer Way.
The use of rockeries may be necessary to transition grades in landscaping areas and to
provide permanent erosion control along cuts. Reinforced rockeries may also be utilized
along the back of the building lots located at the top of the slope areas. Preliminary
design information indicates that the alignment of the reinforced fill rockery may be
located on the existing slopes.
Earth Constiltants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFUNG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075
May 14, 2002 Page 2
An existing rockery along Main Street will be maintained and incorporated into the final
development. The existing rockery is up to approximately ten 0 0) feet to twelve (12)
feet in height and was likely constructed during widening and improvements to Main
Street. An assessment of the existing rockery is provided in the Rockeries section of this
report.
The use of relatively lightly loaded wood frame construction is anticipated for the
proposed single family residences. We estimate wall loads will be in the range of one to
two kips per lineal foot, and column loads in the range of ten 0 0) to twenty (20) kips.
If the above design criteria are incorrect or change, ECI should be notified and allowed to
review the recommendations contained in this report. In any case, ECI should be retained
to perform a general review of the final design.
SITE CONDITIONS
Surface
r
The approximate property limits and site topography are illustrated on the Test Pit
Location Plan (Plate 2). The majority of the site is undeveloped and heavily vegetated,
with the exception of several rental homes located along Main Street. The topography is
partitioned into two halves, with a slope area approximately bisecting the site in a north -
south direction. The slopes descend to the west at grades of approximately 30 percent
to 40 percent. The overall height of the slope ranges from approximately forty (40) to
fifty (50) feet. Based on the site survey prepared by Group Four Inc., the steep slope
areas within the planned development are limited to the north end of the property
adjacent to Building Lot 9.
The upper east half of the property is relatively flat, with gently sloping areas that
descend to the east. An existing rockery and steep driveway area are located at the
northeast corner of the site. As previously discussed, the existing rockery will be
incorporated into the new development, and the driveway areas will likely be filled to
create a level building lot area. The maximum height of the existing rockery is
approximately ten (10) to twelve (12) feet.
The lower west portion of the development area is located at the toe of the existing
slope that approximately bisects the property in a north -south direction. The
immediate toe area of the site is relatively flat, and is located along an existing utility
easement corridor that connects to Main Street on the north and Pioneer Way on -the
south. On the extreme west side of the property, west of the utility easement, there is
an area of ascending steep slopes. Development is,not planned in this area.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFUNG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-1 0075
May 14, 2002 Page 3
Steep Slope Evaluation
At the time our field exploration was performed (March 2002), the steep slope areas of
the site were observed for signs of instability or severe erosion. Based on our
observations, the steep slope areas appear stable. There were no indications of shallow
or deep seated slide activity. The slope areas are generally heavily vegetated with mature
Douglas Fir, and there were no indications of severe erosion due to surface water runoff.
Based on our observations, it appears the slopes are stable.
Subsurface
Eleven test pits were excavated throughout the site. The test pits were excavated to
depths of approximately five to eight feet, where very dense glacial till soil conditions
were encountered. Please refer to the test pit logs, Plates A2 through Al 2, for a
description of the conditions encountered at the test pit locations.
The soils encountered at the test pit locations consisted of medium dense to very dense
silty sand with gravel (Unified Soil Classification SM). Sand deposits were occasionally
observed throughout the glacial till deposit. The depth of the topsoil layer varied, and
typically ranged between two inches to twelve 0 2) inches. The geologic map of the area
identifies the silty sand with gravel deposit as glacial till. The upper three to four feet of
the soil deposit generally consisted of weathered glacial till. The weathered till was in a
medium dense condition, and was characterized by brown to dark brown coloring. Dense
to very dense unweathered glacial till was encountered below the weathered glacial till
layer. The unweathered glacial till was generally characterized by a gray to dark gray
coloring.
Fill was observed at test pit locations TP-4 and TP-5. The fill consisted of loose silty sand
soils, and extended to depths of four to five feet. Yard waste piles were also observed
along the top of the steep slope area in the vicinity of Test Pits TP-4 and TP-5.
At the time the test pit exploration was performed (March 2002), the upper deposit of
weathered glacial till was generally in, a wet condition. Laboratory testing indicates
moisture contents of approximately 13 to 16 percent, or greater for the weathered glacial
till. The lower deposit of unweathered glacial till was in a moist to wet condition, and
had moisture contents generally in the range of approximately 8 percent to 10 percent.
Earth Constiltants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFUNG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075
May 14, 2002 Pag e 4
Groundwater
Groundv%eter seepage was not observed at the time of our exploration (March 2002).
The presence of light to moderate groundv%eter seepage, however, should be expected in
deep excavations. Based on the conditions observed at the time of our field exploration,
we do not anticipate ground%-mter seepage will adversely impact the earthwork.
Groundwater seepage levels and the rate of seepage are not static; fluctuations in the
level and rates can be expected depending on the season, amount of rainfall, surface
water runoff, and other factors. Generally, the level and rate of seepage is higher in
the wetter winter months (typically October through May).
Laboratory Testin
The results of laboratory tests performed on specific samples are provided in Appendix B,
or at the appropriate sample depth on the test pit logs. It is important to note that these
test results may not accurately represent the overall in -situ soil conditions. Our
geotechnical recommendations are based on our interpretation of these test results. ECI
cannot be responsible for the interpretation of these data by others.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General
Based on the subsurface conditions observed at the test pit locations, development of the
site is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The proposed single family residences can
be supported on conventional spread and continuous footings bearing on the medium
dense to dense glacial till soils observed at the test pit locations. The building
foundations can also be supported on structural fill soils that are used to modify the
existing site grades. The medium dense to dense glacial till soil suitable for support of
foundations was generally observed at a depth of approximately two feet below the
native ground surface elevation.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-1 0075
May 14, 2002 Page 5
Due to the dense condition of the glacial till soils and the stable condition of the steep
slope area, a minimum steep slope buffer of ten (10) feet from the top and toe of the
steep slope areas can be considered for the proposed single-family residences. As
previously discussed, the site survey prepared by Group Four, Inc. indicates that the
steep slope areas within the planned development area are limited to the north end of the
site, adjacent to Building Lot 9. In our opinio I n, reinforced fill rockeries can be
successfully constructed on the existing steep slope, provided an engineered rockery
design is completed. Steep slope buffer and foundation recommendations are provided in
the Steep Slope Buffer and Foundations sections of this report. Preliminary rockery
design recommend ations'are provided in the Rockeries section of this report.
In our opinion, the majority of the existing rockery located along Main Street, can be
utilized and incorporated ' into the new development. Several of the existing rocks along
the upper row of the rockery, however, will need to be replaced due to severe
weathering. ECI will work with the contractor to identify the rocks that need to be
replaced. With regard to the existing driveway areas that will likely be filled and brought
up to the level of the existing rockery, the use of a geogrid reinforced fill will be
.necessary where the fill heights exceed approximately four feet. An engineered rockery
design will also be needed for the proposed fill areas along the alignment of the existing
.Main Street rockery.
In our opinion,- construction of the proposed storm water detention vault is feasible from a
geolechnical standpoint. Medium dense to.dense glacial till soil will likely be encountered
in the excavation for the storm water detention vault. Based on the conditions observed
at the test pit locations, groundv�eter seepage may be encountered in the excavation for
the storm water detention vault. However, in our opinion, groundvQter seepage will
likely not adversely impact the stability of the detention vault excavation.
Recommendations for temporary excavations are provided in the Excavations and Slopes
section of this report..
Cuts will be performed for the proposed access roadway that will connect to Pioneer
Way. These cuts may encroach into the toe of the existing steep slope areas on the west
side of the property. Due to the dense glacial till soil conditions observed at the site, it is
our opinion the roadway cuts will not compromise the stability of the slopes. We
anticipate the roadway cuts will not exceed. six feet along the toe of the steep slopes. In
our opinion, construction of a rockery along the planned roadway cuts can be considered.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
.1 r 4 . C1
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERNG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075
May 14, 2002 Page 6
This geotechnical engineering study has been prepared for the exclusive use of Phoenix
Development,. Inc. and their representatives. This study was prepared for specific
application to this project only and in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill
ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar
conditions in this area. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. We
recommend that this geotechnical engineering study, in its entirety, be included in the
project contract documents for the information of the contractor.
Site Preparation and General Earthwork
The proposed development areas of the site should be stripped and cleared of existing
surface vegetation, topsoil, existing structures, and *other deleterious materials. Existing
utility pipes that will be abandoned should be plugged or removed. Based on the
conditions observed at the test pit locations, the thickness of the topsoil layer ranges
between approximately two (2) inches to twelve (12) inches. The thickness of the
topsoil layer will vary throughoutthe site.
The ground surface where structural fill, or foundations are to be placed should be
observed by a representative of ECI. An ECI representative should also observe the
excavation for the proposed storm water detention vault and roadway cuts. Existing fill
soil and organic debris that is encountered in the building and vault foundation
excavations should be overexcavated. Due to the relatively high fines content of the
native soils, moisture sensitivity,of the soils will be moderate to high. Building and
pavement subgrade areas that are exposed to extended periods of precipitation will likely
become unstable. If the subgrade soil in the proposed foundation and pavement areas
becomes saturated and unstable, overexcavation of the unstable soil and replacement
with structural fill may be necessary.
In our opinion, the majority of the native soils can be considered for use as structural fill,
provided the soil is placed during dry weather conditions, and provided the moisture
content of the soil is at or near the optimum moisture content at the time of placement.
At the time of the subsurface exploration (March, 2002) the upper deposit of weathered
glacial till was generally in a wet condition. Laboratory testing indicates moisture
contents of 13 percent or greater for the weathered glacial till. The lower deposit of
unweathered glacial till was generally in a moist to wet condition, and had moisture"
contents of approximately 10 percent. ECI will work with the contractor to assess the
suitability of the on -site soils for use as structural fill.
Earth Constiltants. Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFUNG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075
May 14, 2002 Page 7
Imported soil intended for use as structural fill should consist of a fairly well graded
granular soil with a moisture content that is at or near the optimum moisture content, and
having a maximum aggregate size of four inches. During wet weather conditions,
imported fill should consist of a fairly well graded granular material having a maximum
size of four inches and no more than 5 percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve based on.
the minus 3/4-inch fraction.
Structural fill is defined as compacted fill placed under foundations, roadways, slabs,
pavements, or other load -bearing areas. Structural fill under slabs and footings should be
placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding twelve (12) inches in loose thickness and
compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of its laboratory maximum dry density. The
maximum dry density should be determined in accordance with ASTM Test Designation
D-1 557-91 (Modified Proctor). The fill materials should be placed at or near the optimum
moisture content. Fill under pavements and walks should also be placed in horizontal lifts
and compacted to 90 percent of the maximum dry density except for the top twelve (112)
inches, which should be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density. If a
structural fill berm is necessary to construct the storm water detention pond, the fill
should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density.
Steep Slope Buffer
In our op.inion, due to the dense condition of the glacial till soils observed at the site, and
the stable condition of the existing slope areas, a.minimum ten (10) foot buffer from the
top and toe of the steep slope areas can be considered for the proposed single-family
residences. The City of Edmonds Development Standards for Geologically Hazardous
Areas are found under Title 20 (Chapter 20.15B). The Development Standards allow the
required buffer distance to be reduced from fifty (50) feet to ten (10) feet, provided a
geotechnical report can demonstrate that no adverse impacts to the slope or surrounding
developments. will result. In our opiriion, reducing the buffer distance to ten (10) feet will
not adversely impact the stability of the steep slope areas.. The observed stability of the
existing slope and the presence of dense glacial till soils is the primary basis for this
recommendation.
Earth ConstAtants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc.
May 14, 2002
E-1 0075
Page 8
In our opinion, grading and the placement of fill on the slope will not adversely impact the
stability of the slope. We understand fill placement along the backside of the upper
building lots adjacent to the slope areas may be necessary to establish relatively level
backyard areas. Reinforced fill rockeries can be used to transition the grade between the
fill and the slope. In our opinion, due to the dense glacial till soil conditions, fill and
rockery placement on the slope will not adversely impact the stability of the slope. As
previously discussed, an engineered reinforced rockery design should be completed for
the proposed fill and rockery areas.
Foundations
In our opinion, the proposed single family residences can be supported on conventional
spread and continuous footings bearing on the medium dense to dense glacial till soil
observed at the test pit locations. Where necessary, the proposed building foundations
can also be supporled on structural fill that is used to modify the existing site grades.
Foundations should not be supporied on the existing fill soils. The medium dense to
dense glacial till soils suitable for support of foundations was generally observed at a
depth of approximately two feet below the native ground surface elevation.
For foundatons bearing on the medium dense to dense glacial till soil or structural fill, an
allowable soil bearing capacity of two thousand five hundred (2,500) pounds per square
foot (psf) can be used. This allowable soil bearing capacity has a facto r-of-safety in
excess of 3.0 against shear failure, provided the foundations are placed on competent
native soils or structural fill. A one-third increase in the above allowable soil bearing
capacity can be assumed for short-term wind and seismic loading conditions. Continuous
and individual spread footings should have minimum widths of eighteen (18) and twenty-
four (24) inches, respectively.
If loose or unstable soil conditions are encountered at the footing subgrade elevation, the
soil should be overexcavated, and replaced with structural fill. The width of the
overexcavation should extend a minimum of six inches beyond each edge of the
foundation.
Exterior foundalions elements should be placed at a minimum ' depth of eighteen (18)
inches below final exterior grade. Interior spread foundalions can be placed at a minimum
depth of twelve 0 2) inches below the top of slab, except in unheated areas, where
interior foundation elements should be founded at a% minimum depth of eighteen (18)
inches.
Earth Consultants. Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075
May 14, 2002 Page 9
Provided the foundations are placed in accordance with the recommendations contained
in this report, we estimate total settlement of approximately one inch and differential
settlement of approximately one half inch. Most of the anticipated settlements should
occur during construction as dead loads are applied.
Lateral loads can be resisted by friction between the base of the foundation and the
supporting so.il, and by passive soil pressure acting on the face of the buried portion of
the foundation. Resistance to lateral loads from passive earth pressures can be calculated
using an equivalent fluid with a unit weight of three hundred fifty (350) pounds per cubic
foot (pcf). To achieve adequate passive resistance, the foundations must be backfilled
with structural fill. As an alternative, the foundations can be poured neat against the
undisturbed native soil. For frictional capacity, a coefficient of 0.40 can be used for
foundations bearing on competent native soils or structural fill. These lateral resistance
values are allowable values; a facto r-of-sa fety of 1.5 has been included.
Footing excavations should be observed by a representative of ECI prior to placing the
formwork and repar. ECI should also observe areas where overexcavation is required to
remove loose or unstable soils.
Permanent Retaining and Foundation Walls
Retaining'and foundation walls should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures from
the retained soils, and any surcharge loading. Walls that are unrestrained and free to
move at the top can be designed using an equivalent fluid with a unit weight of thirty-five
(35) pcf. The earth pressure imparted on restrained walls should be calculated using an
equivalent fluid with a unit weight of fifty (50) pcf. The above equivalent fluid values
assume surcharges due to traffic, adjacent foundations, construction loads, or any other
loadings will not apply. If surcharges are to apply, they should be added to the above
design lateral pressures.
For traffic surcharge loading, a uniform pressure of seventy (70) psf should be applied in
a rectangular distribution along the height of the retaining wall. If sloping backfill
conditions are present behind the walls, ECI should review the slope configurations and
provide modified equivalent fluid values, as necessary.
Earth Constiltants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075
May 14, 2002 Page 10
Retaining and foundation walls should be provided with a four inch diameter perforated
drainpipe and backfilled with a free -draining granular soil with less than 5 percent fines
(percent passing the No. 200 sieve based on the minus % inch fraction). The zone of
free -draining granular soil should extend along the entire height of the wall, and a distance
of at least eighteen (18) inches behind the wall. A surface seal consisting of a less
permeable silty sand soil can be placed along the upper one foot of the wall backfill, if
desired. The remainder of the backfill behind the zone of free draining soil should consist
of a suitable granular structural fill.
Seismic Design Considerations
The Puget Sound region is classified as Zone 3 by the Uniform Building Code (UBC). The
largest earthquakes in the Puget Sound region have been subcrustal (intraplate) events,
ranging in depth from fifty (50) to seventy (70) kilometers. Such deep events have
exhibited no surface faulting. Weaver and Shedlock (1989) researched the probable or
known source areas for the crustal, intraplate, and subduction zone earthquakes in the
Washington and Oregon area. Crustal and intraplate earthquakes are the only events in
Washington and Oregon in which there is a historical record. Shallow crustal earthquakes
occur within the North American Plate, and typically do not exceed focal depths of
approximately 20 kilometers. Intraplate earthquakes occur in the subducting Juan de
Fuca plate, and typically occur below depths of 40 kilometers. The recent February 28,.
2001 earthquake that was focused just north of Olympia, Washington was an intraplate
earthquake, and had a magnitude Of ML =6.8. The subduction zone earthquake, in which.
there is no historical record in the Washington and Oregon area, wouldhave its source
along the interface between the North American Plate and the subducting Juan de Fuca
Plate. Magnitude 8+ earthquakes are thought to be possible along this i ' nterface, and
would occur at depths of approximately 50 to 60 kilometers (Weaver and Shedlock,
1989).
The UBC Earthquake regulations have established a series of soil profile types that are
used as a basis for seismic design of structures. Based on the encountered soil
conditions, it is our opinion that soil type Sc from Table 16-J of the 1997 UBC should be
used for design.
Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which soils lose all shear strength for short periods of
time during an earthquake. The effects of liquefaction may be large total and/or
differential settlement for structures with foundations founded in the liquefying. soils.
Groundshaking of sufficient duration results in the loss of grain -to -grain contact and rapid
increase in pore water pressure, causing the soil to behave as a fluid for short periods of
time.
Earth Constiltants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFUNG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075
May 14, 2002 Page 11
To have potential for liquefaction, a soil must be cohesionless with a grain size
distribution of a specified range (generally sands and silt); it must be loose to medium -
dense; it must be below the groundv%eter table; and it must be subject to sufficient
magnitude and duration of groundshaking.
Based on the soil and groundv%eter conditions observed at the site, it is our opinion that
the site has a low susceptibility to liquefaction. The dense condition of the native soils is
the primary basis for this conclusion.
Slab -on -Grade Floors
Slab -on -grade floors can be supported on competent native soils or structural fill. Loose
or unstable subgrade soils should be stabilized prior to construction of the slab. The use
of a geo textile and crushed rock can be considered for stabilizing the subgrade soils, if
necessary. A four�nch capillary break consisting of a free draining poorly graded sand or
gravel with less than 5 percent fines (percent passing the No. 200 sieve, based on the
minus 3/4-inch fraction) should be placed below the slab. In areas where slab moisture is
undesirable, a vapor barrier such as a 6-mil plastic membrane can be placed beneath the
free draining sand or gravel. The subgrade soils in slab -on -grade areas of the site should
be observed by a representative of ECI prior to placing the capillary break material.
Site Drainne
During construction, surface water runoff must not be allowed to stand in construction
areas. i.nterceptor trenches should be established, as necessary, along the perimeter of
the building site before it enters the construction: area. During construction, loose
surf -aces should be compacted to reduce the potential for moisture infiltration into the
soils. Finish grades around the buildings must be sloped such that surface water is
directed away from the buildings.
Perimeter footing drains should be installed around the perimeter foundations to intercept
groundvoter seepage. A typical perimeter footing drain detail is illustrated on Plate 3.
Under no circumstances should roof downspout drain lines be connected to the footing or
foundation wall drain systems. All roof downspouts must be separately tightlined to the
site storm water system.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
N 1�
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERNG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075
May 14, 2002 Page 12
Excavations and Slopes
The following information is provided solely as a service to our client. Under no
circumstances should this information be interpreted to mean that ECI is assuming
responsibility for construction site safety or the contractor's activities; such responsibility
is not being implied and should not be inferred.
In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local, state,
and Federal safety regulations. - Based on the information obtained from our field
exploration, the upper deposit of weathered glacial till that extends to a depth of
approximately four feet below existing site grades would be classified as Type C soils by
OSHA. The existing fill observed at the site would also be classified as Type C soil.
Temporary cuts in Type C soils should be sloped at an inclination no steeper than
1.51-11 V (Horizontal: Vertical), respectively. The unweathered glacial till observed below a
depth of approximately four feet would be classified as Type A and Type B soils by
OSHA. Temporary slopes cionstructed in Type A and Type B soils should be inclined no
steeper than 0.75H: 1 V and 1 H: 1 V, respectively. ECI should observe the excavations to
assess soil and gr6undv%eter conditions, and to verify the OSHA soil type.
Permanent cut and fill slopes should be inclined no steeper than 2H:1V. Cut slopes
should be observed by ECI during excavation to verify that conditions are as anticipated.
Supplementary recommendations can then be developed, if needed, to improve stability,
including flattening of slopes or installation of surface or subsurface drains. In any case,
water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of slopes.
Permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation
to reduce erosion and improve stability of the surficial layer of soil.
Utilfty Trench Backfill
Based on the soil conditions encountered at the time of our exploration, the native soils
should. provide adequate support for utilities. If remedial measures are necessary to
provide adequate support for utilities, the unsuitable soils can be overexcavated and
replaced with a rock ballast and pipe bedding material such as pea gravel. The presence
of groundv%eter seepage should be expected in the deeper utility trench excavations and
the proposed detention vault excavation.
Earth Conauttents. Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFUNG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-1 0075
May 14, 2002 Page 13
In our opinion, the native soils can be considered for use as backfill for the utility
trenches. At the time of the subsurface exploration (February, 2002) the upper deposit
of weathered glacial till was generally in a wet condition, with moisture contents in
excess of 16 percent. The lower deposit of unweathered glacial till was generally in a
moist to wet condition, and had moisture contents of approximately 10 percent. ECI will
work with the contractor to assess the suitability of the on -site soils for use as utility
trench backfill. As previously mentioned, the soil should be placed during dry weather
conditions, and the moisture content of the soil should be at or near its optimum moisture
content at the time of placement.
Utility trench backfill is a primary concern in reducing the potential for settlement in
pavement areas. It is important that the utilities be adequately supporied in the bedding
material. The material should be hand tamped to ensure suppon is provided around the
haunches of these structures. Fill should be carefully placed -and tamped to about twelve
(12) inches above the crown of the pipe before heavy compaction equipment is brought
into use. The remainder of the backfill should be placed in lifts having a loose thickness
of less than twelve (12) inches. A typical trench backfill section and compaction
:requirements for load supporting and non -load supporting areas is presented on Plate 4.
Rockeries
We understand the existing rockery located along Main Street at the northeast portion of
the site will be incorporaled into the new development. The rockery is approximately
180 feet in length, and ranges between four (4) feet to twelve (12) feet in height. We
estimate the rockery has been in place for appro)dmately twenty-five years. Two existing
driveways that ramp up through the alignment of the rockery face will be filled as part of
the proposed development to establish a level building lot area. Construction of new
reinforced fill rockeries is currently being considered for purposes of retaining the new fill.
As discussed previously, an engineered rockery design will need.to be completed for the
reinforced fill rockeries proposed for the site.
Based on our observations, the majority of the existing rockery has experienced minor to
moderate weathering. The minor to moderate weathering was primarily observed along
the lower rows of the rockery. In our opinion, these rocks are still structurally sound and
will not have to be replaced. Several of the upper rocks have experienced severe
weathering, and should be replaced. These rocks are located primarily along the higher
portions of the rockery. ECI will work with the contractor in identifying rocks that should
be replaced.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFUNG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-1 0075
May 14, 2002 Page 14
Pavement Areas
The adequacy of site pavements is related in part to the condition of the underlying
subgrade. To provide a properly prepared subgrade for pavements, the subgrade should
be in a firm and unyielding condition when subjected to proofrolling with a loaded dump,
truck* * Structural fill in pavement, areas should be prepared as described in the Site
Preparation. and General Earthwork section of this report. This means the pavement
subgrade* should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density. It is
possible that some localized areas of soft, wet or unstable subgrade may exist after the
pavement subgrade is prepared. Overexcavation and a greater thickness of structural fill
or crushed rock may be needed to stabilize these localized areas. A biaxial geogrid such
as Tensar BX-1 200 can be considered for use below the crushed rock where bridging of
unstable subgrade is necessary.
Assuming a properly prepared subgrade, the following pavement section for lightly -loaded
areas can be used:
Two inches of asphalt concrete (AC) over four inches of crushed rock base (CRB)
material, or
* Two inches of AC over three inches of asphalt treated base (ATB) material.
Heavier truck -traffic areas will require thicker pavement sections depending upon site
usage, pavement life, and site traffic. If necessary, IECI can provide pavement design
recommendations for truck traffic areas.
Asphalt concrete (AC), asphalt treated base (ATB), and crushed rock base (CRB) materials
should conform to WSDOT specifications. All rock bases should be compacted to at
least 95 percent of the maximum dry density.
LIMITATIONS
Our recommendations, and conclusions are based on the site materials observed, 'selective
laboratory testing and engineering analyses, the design information provided to us, and
our experience and engineering judgement. The conclusions and recommendations are
professional opinions derived in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill
ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar
conditions in this area.. No warranty is expressed or implied.
Earth Constdtants, Inc.
Non -Load Supporting Floor Slab or
Areas Roadway Areas
Backfill
Bedding
LEGEND:
Varies
I Foot Minimum
Varies
Varies
Asphalt or Concrete Pavement or Concrete Floor Slab
Base Material or Base Rock
Backfill; Compacted.On-Site Soil or Imported Select Fill
Material as Described in the Site Preparation of the General
Earthwork Section of the Attached Report Text.
Minimum Percentage of Maximum Laboratory Dry Density as
Determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557-91 (Modified Proctor),
Unless Otherwise Specified in the Attached Report Text.
Bedding Material; Material Type Depends on Type of Pipe and
Laying Conditions. Bedding Should Conform to the Manufacturers
Recommendations for the Type of Pipe Selected.
TYPICAL UTIUTY TRENCH FILL
Earth Consultants tnc. Pepperwood
Geow0"mi Enoms Cco"Ists & 1FMWfflMnmrd Sa"Weas Edmonds, Washington
Proi. No. 10075 1 Drwn. GLS Date Apr. 2002 1 Checked RAC Date 4/12/02 1 Plate 4
APPENDIX A
FIELD EXPLORATION
E-10075
Our field exploration was performed on March 28, 2002. Subsurface conditions at the
site were explored by observing a total of eleven test pit excavations. The test pits were
excavated by a subcontractor of Phoenix Development, Inc. The approximate test pit
locations were determined from existing landmarks presented on available plans. The
locations of the test pits should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the
method used. These approximate test pit locations are shown on the Test Pit Location
Plan, Plate 2.
The field exploration was continuously monitored by a geologist from our office, who
classified the soils encountered and maintained a log of each test pit, obtained
representative samples, measured groundvQter levels, and observed pertinent site
features.
All samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification
System that is presented on Plate All, Legend. Logs of the test pits are presented in
Appendix A, Plates A2 through Al2. The final logs represent our interpretations of the
field logs and the results of the laboratory tests of field samples. The stratification lines
on the I ogs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. In actuality, the
transitions may be more gradual.
Earth ConstAtants, Inc.
GRAPH
LETTER
.
MAJOR DIVISIONS
SYMBOL
SYMBOL
I
TYPICAL DES CRIPTION
P ca a'
�JGW
Wel-Graded Gravels, Gravel -Sand
Grav el
' gW
Mix ures, Little Or No Fines
And
Clean Gravels
�
GP
Poorly -Graded Gravels. Gravel -
Gravelly
(little or no fines)
C arse
0
Soils
gp
Sand Mixtures, Little Or No Fines
Grained
GM
Silty Gravels, Gravel - Sand -
Soils
More Than
50% Coarse
Gravels With
Wag
9M
silt Mixtures
�raction
Fines (appreciable
mo
GIC
Clayey Gravels. Gravel - Sand -
Retained On
amount of fines
No. 4 Sieve
gC
Clay Mixtures
Sand
P 0% a
Sw
well -Graded Sands, Gravblly
And
Clean Sand
SW
Sands, Little Or No Fines
More Than
Sandy
(little or no fines)
�Sp
Poorly -Graded Sands. Gravelly
50% Material
Soils
Sands. Little Or No Fines
Larger Than
More Than
SM
No. 200 Sieve
50% Coarse
Sands With
Sm
Silty Sands, Sand - Sift Mixtures
Size
Fraction
Fines (appreciable
�SC
Clayey Sands, Sand -Clay Mixtures
Passing No. 4
amount of fines)
Sieve
Inorganic Silts & Very Fine Sands, Rock Flotr.Silty-
Clayey Fine Sands; Clayey Silts w/ Slight Plasticity
Fine
Silts Liquid Limit
�cl
Inorganic Clays Of Low To Medium Plasticity.
Grained
And Less Than 50
Gravelly Clays, Sandy Clays, Silty Clays. Lean
Soils
Clays
Organic Silts And Organic
_�L__
Silly Clays Of Low, Plasticity
MH
inorganic Silts. Micaceous Or Diatomaceous Fim
.More Than
mn
Sand Or Silty soils
50% Material
Smaller TI-an
Silts Liquid Limit
And
Inorganic Clays Of High
No. 200 Sieve
Greater Than 50
Clays
'1Z ',O�
V
,ff4
_!��Ch
Plasticity. Fat Clays.
Size
7Z Z Z
Z Z /I
ff"
VNEE
0
0 . H
0 rganic Clays Of Medium To'High
, ,
oh
Plasticity, Organic Silts
!!_11
PT
Peal, Humus, Swamp Soils
Highly Organic Soilis
L, L' 11 21-11
Pt
With High Organic Contents
Topsoil
4
Humus And Duff Layer
Fill
�gm
Hioly Variable Constituents
The discussion In the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature
of the material presented In the attached logs.
DUAL SYMBOLS are used to Indicate borderline adl classification.
C
TORVANE READING, tsf
2' O.D. SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER
qu
PENETROMETER READING, tsf
W
MOISTURF- % dry weight
24' I.D. RING OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER
P
SAMPLER PUSHED
SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED
WATER OBSERVATION WELL
pcf
DRY DENSITY, lbs. per cubic IL
LL
LIQUID LIMIT, %
a DEPTH OF ENCOUNTERED GROUNDWATER
PI
PLASTIC INDEX
DURING EXCAVATION
Earth Consultants Inc.
T SUBSEQUENT GROUNDWATER LEVEL W/ DATE
LEGEND
Proj. No. 100751 Date Apr. 2002 1 Plate Al
t Pit Log
Projed Narne--
Pepperwood
Sheet of
I 1 1
Job No.
10075
Logged by:
f KCS
Date.
3128/02
Test Pit No.:
TP-1
Excavation CA)fdaCtOr
UniversalLand
Groo ind Surfam Eleuafion:
420'.
Notes:
General
Notes
w
-6
M
E
CL
u- E
0
-6
oQ
M E
:3. >'
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 4!': grass
13.3
16-4
15A
14.5
7 T:
2
3
4
6
SM
Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist
-30% fines
ML
Gray sandy SILT, medium dense, moist
SM
-mottling at 5'
Gray silty SAND, medium dense to dense, moist
Test pit terminated at 7.5 feet below e)dsbng grade. No groundwater
encountered during e)ravation.
NOTES:
Elevations estimated by a Topographic Site Plan provided by the
Client Survey by Group dated 1/6/99.
Earth Consultants Inc.
Test Pit Log
Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington
A Prqj- w. 10075
I Dwn- GLS
Date Aprfl2002
checked KCS
Date 4/10102
T;;e A2
Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations .1 the tirne and location of this exploratory hole. rnodffied by engitneering tests, analysis and
Luc��`]��ar,e
.��r=rily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept respomVity for the use or interpr elation by others of
TestlPit Log
Project Nam:
Pepperwood
Sheet Of
1 1 1
Job No.
10075
Logged by-
T KCS
Date:
3/28102
Test Pit No-:
TP-2
Excavation Contactor
Universal Land
GrcK nd Surface Elevation:
424'
Notes:
General
Notes
W
CL E
cL
G_ E
46
M
fn E
J >'
CO
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 19': ferns
9
...
2
3
4
5
6
7
SM
Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist
-roots may e)dend to 3'
mottling at 4'
SM
Brown silty SAND, dense, moist
-15% fines
Test pit terminated at 7.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater
encountered during excavation.
EaTth Consultants Inc.
Test Pit Log
Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington
P4 No. 10075 J
Z_ GLS
Date April 2002
checked KCS
wte 4/10/02
Plate A3
Subsuff,ace =xWons depicted represent our obsentations at the tirne and location of this exlAoratory tide, rnoddied by engineering tests, analysis arid
am not necessarily rep(esentative of other twnes and locations- We cannot aooept responsbility for the use or interpretation by others of
i , Test'Pit Log
Project Narne:
Pepperwood
Sheet of
1
Job No-
10075
Logged by-
1 KCS
Date:
3/28/02
Test N No.:
TP-3
Emcavation Contactor-
Universal Land
Ground Surface Elemlion:
416'
Notes:
General
Notes
(0/6)
CL E
CL
E
JO
E
0 >'
Surfam Corgfitions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 2": trees and ferns
10-6
7.1
7 77 7.
2
3
4
6
SM
Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist
-Mth some organics roots
-mottling and iron o)dde staining at 3'
—
SM
Gray silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist
Test pit terminated at 6.0 feet below e)dsbng grade. No groundwater
encountered during e)cavabon.
FZfth ConSultantS Inc.
GnOwIn" Hnpv"z� & F�rMmmjverw.V �-Wwnfk;e;
Test Pit Log
Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington
r—pfq No. 10075
Dwn. GLS
Date Apri12002
checked KCS
Date 4/1 OtO2 --j
Plate A4
IOLA-, %AARMMIbUqAUW IW=VMtUUI ouseFl4aUOnsm tnewmano ocauonomtseWoratorynm, modified by engineering tests, ana" and
am rtr=rity representative of other tknes and locations. We cannot accept responsbility for the use or interpretation by odxNs of
':'� T. .—t-Pit Log
Project Narne:
Pepperwood
Sheet Of
Job No.
10075
Logged by-
KCS
Date:
3/28/02
Test Pit No.:
TPA
Excavation Contactor
Universal Land
Ground Surface Elevation:
404'
Notes:
General
Notes
W
(OA)
E
-
7&
E
0
0 M
E
-
Surfam Condidions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 4!': brush debris
11.2
7.7
6-
1 9
2
3
4
6
7
8
SM
Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist
SP-SM
Brown poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel, medium dense, moist
5% fines
SM
Gray silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist to wet
Test pit terminated at 8-0 feet below e)dsbng grade. No groundwater
encountered during e)cavation-
Earth ConsLdtants Inc.
Test Pit Log
Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington
Prol. No. 10075
Dwn- GLS
we April 2002
che&eci KCS
Date 4110/02
Plate A5
bu0surface condMons cleptcled reVesent our oWervations at Vie brne and locabon of thts e)ploratory hole, mKiffied by engirteering te-A, analysis and
Ljc!!.mwL1= are not necessanly representatm of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsblity for the use or integwetation by others of
�r —*.A — fhi� "
Test'Pit Log
Pro*d Nam:
Pepperwood
stmet Of
I I I
Job No.
10075
Logged by-
1 KCS
Date-
3/28102
Test Pit No.:
TP-5
Excavation Contactor:
Universal Land
Ground Surfaw Elevation:
395'
Notes:
General
Notes
W
M
-0
g--
CL E
2! >'
CO
:s_
a: E
0 0
W
E
Z) >-
CO
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 2": grass
10.8
10.8
. . . . . . . . . . .
2
3
4
6
7
SM
Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist
SM
Brown silty SAND with gravel, occasional cobbles, medium dense,
moist
-mottling at 7'
SM
Gray silty SAND with. gravel, dense, moist (Weathered Till)
Test pit terminated at 7.5 feet below e)dsting grade. No groundwater
encountered during e)cavation-
Earth Consultants Inc.
Test Pit Log
Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington
Proi-No. 10075
Dwn- GLS
Date Aprd'2002
checked KCS
Date 4/10/02
Plate A6
bubsurface conditions dq)Kled our observations at ft finve and location of this enAoratory hole, modil'ied by engineering tests, analysis and
jucNnxxt They are not neoessa representathe of otha Wnes and locations. We cannot accept responsblity for the use or interpmtation by others of
-�V
�'� Test'Pit Log
Project Narne-
Pepperwood
Sheet Of
1 1 1
Job No-
10075
Logged by-
T KCS
Date:
3/28102
Test N No.:
TP-6
Excavation Contactor:
Universal Land
Ground Surface Elevation:
395'
Notes:
General
Notes
w
M
�c
c,L E
5 >1
:S CL
4c)' E
a 0
0 .0
0 E
=) >-
Surface conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 2": grass
2
3
4
5
SM
Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist
-some mottling at X- 4'
SP-SM
Brown poorly graded SAND with silt medium dense, moist
SM
Gray silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist
Test pit terminated at 5.5 feet below e)dsbng grade. No groundwater
encountered during excavation.
Earth Consultants Inc.
Gr"edvVMFkigbWYiM Gff*)O;ts& RrAnvmwr" Sckiuk;N
Test Pit Log
Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington
Proj. No. 10075
Tz- GLS
I Date' April 2002
checked KCS I
oate 4/10/02
Plate A7
5ubsurlace conditions depicted represent our observations at the firne and location of this exploratory hole, rnoffed by engineering tests, analysis and
are not necessarily representative of other tirnes and locations- We cannot accept responsUfty for the use or interpretation by others of
TestPit Log
Project Narne-- —F
Sheet of
Pepperwood
Job No.
Logged by-
Date.
Test Pft No.:
10075
KCS
3/28/02
TP-7
ExUWdfion Contactor
Ground Surface Elevat-10n:
Universal Land
408'
Notes:
Surface ConcRions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 7': grass
General
Notes
W
E
L
it cE
-0
E
CO
U)
SM
Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist
SP
Brown poorly graded SAND with gravel, dense, moist
5.9
3
4
...
SM
Gray silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist
Test pit terminated at 5.5 feet below e)dsbng grade. No groundwater
encountered during e)cavation.
Test Pit Log
Earth Consultants Inc.
Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington
No. 10075
T�ffl- GLS
Date April 2002
aiedw KCS
FDate 4/1.0102
Pue A8
---JUU*Ulgcg.�VVAKMMMMIJRAeU"qXeSen(OtffOoservanonsamemieanowamotmiseVor;moryflm, ModfUledbyaWmeringtests, anaksisand
f
.Pment �anU�n=s w4 repesentatme of ottm tffnw and bcatwns. We cannot accept responsWity for ft use or ffdeVdation by ottiers of
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEENNG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075
May 14, 2002 Page 15
The recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the
test pits. Soil and groundmter conditions between exploration sites may vary from
those encountered. The nature and extent of variations between our exploratory
locations may not become evident until construction. If variations do appear, ECI should
be requested to reevaluate the recommendations of this report and allowed to modifV.or
verify our. recommendations in writing prior to proceeding with the construction.
Additional Services
We recommend that ECI be retained to perform a general review of the final design and
specifications to verify that the earthwork and foundabon recommendations have been
properly interpreted and implemented in the design and in the construction specifications.
We also recommend that ECI be retained to provide geotechnical services during
construction. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications or
recommendations and to allow design c hanges in the event subsurface conditions differ
from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. We do not accept responsibility
for the performance of the foundati ' on or earthwork unless we are retained to review the
construction drawings and specifications, and to provide construction observation and
testing.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
Ul)
Own-:
co
0)
(L CL
CU 04
ZgOdr—
MA
n,
Ile" -s;
C\l
;
CL
CL 0
uj
a —C6
X-N
co
_3
Y-,Cr;) T�1511:or
Z7
7
.f�v,q
it"
CD
R
KV
0
C x 0
:Q0 A.9
—V
0
it 0
CL 0
CL
ca
0 4)
0 o
C
0
_log
a
C E 0 cm C
0) 0
4 "N
V z a 0 C5
cc CL z w E
LEGEND
I
TP-1—s— Approximate Location of
ECI Test Pit, Proj. No.
E-10075, Mar. 2002
Subject Site
Existing Building
6 Lot Number
NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color.
ECI cannot be responsible for any subsequent
misinterpretation of the informabon resuMng
from black & white reproductions of this plate.
ApproAmate Scale --- 77771
0 50 100 200ft.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
G"echfdcW Engkiects. Geolog�sls & "VironnienSW SCIMists
Test Pit Location Plan
Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington
Drwn. GLS
Dat e April2OO2
Pm� No. 10075
1
Checked RAC
I Date 4/12102
Plate 2
1. :Q1
Slope To Drain
6 inch min.
18 inch min.
7-
4 inch min.
Diameter. a.
Perforated Pip4;
0
Wrapped in Drainage
Fabric
2 inch min.
2 inch min. 4 inch max. 12 inch
min.
SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE
NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING
LEGEND
Surface seal; native soil or other low permeability material.
Fine aggregate for Portland Cement Concrete; Section 9-03.1(2) of the
WSDOT Specifications.
Drain pipe; perforated or slotted rigid PVC pipe laid with perforations or
slots facing down; tight jointed; with a positive gradient. Do not use flexible
corrugated plastic pipe. Do not tie building downspout drains into footing
lines. Wrap with Miraft 140 Filter Fabric or equivalent
TYPICAL FOOTING SUBDRAIN DETAIL
Earth Consultants Inc. Pepperwood
W Edmonds, Washington
Proj. No. 10075 1 Drwn. GLS Date Apr. 2002 Checked RAc TDate 4/12/02 1 Plate 3
Tes�!Pit Log
Project Narne:
Pepperwood
of
I
Job No-
10075
Logged by:
KCS
Date:
3/28/02
Test Pit No-:
TP-8
Excavation Contactor-
Universal Land
Ground Surface EL-vation:
419
Notes:
General
Notes
w
E
>1
E
0
E
z)
Surface Colditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod Z': grass
.21.2
11.3
2
3
4
SM
Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose to medium dense, moist
SM
Gray silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist
Test pit terminated at 4.5 feet below e)dsting grade. No groundwater
encountered during e)cavation.
Earth Consultants Inc.
-T-(�n-
Test Pit Log
Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington
Proi. No. 10075
GLS
Date April 2002
checked KCS
Date 4/10/02 -F
Z A9
Subsurfaoe conditions depicted represent our observations at the tirne and location of this e4ftatory hole, modilied by engineering test, analysis and
are not necessarily representathe of other tknes and locations. We cannot accept responsbility for the use or interpretation by others of
..0-4 — fhk I—
'.. Tes&it Log
Project Narne:
Pepperwood
(if
I
Job No.
10075
Logged by-
KCS
Date:
3/28102
Test Pit No.:
TP-9
Excavation Contactor:
Universal Land
Ground Surface EL-warion:
354'
Notes:
Geneial
Notes
W
A? -6
C M
CL E
R
CL
E
V) -6
6.0
E
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 6!': trees and blackberries
10-8
12.6
2
3
4
6
7
SM
Brown silly SAND, loose to medium dense, moist
SP-SM
Grades to gray poorly graded SAND with silt medium dense, moist
-becomes with gravel at 5'
Test pit terminated at 7.0 feet below e)dsbng grade- No groundwater
encountered during e)cavation.
Earth Consultants Inc.
Ckiwdtnical Rngftwhi�� G�c*�& Fmv1mFtnvtWA.Sc*t:nflsm
Test Pit Log
Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington
Pr4_ No. 10075
Dwn- GLS
Date April 2002,
Ched(ed KCS
oate 4/10/02
Pwe A10
Subsurface corxfdmm depicted represent our cbservations; at the tffne and location of the e)#oratory hole, moMed by erqneertng tests. analysis and
are not neoessanly representaM of other ftes and locations. We cannot accept responsb1fty for the use or interpretatim by odws of
t��W_M.A — O'k I-
I -�% Tei&ft Log
Project Name -
Pepperwood
Sheet of
Job No.
10075
Logged by.
KCS
Date.
3/28/02
Test Pit No-:
TP-10
Excavation Contactor
Universal Land
Ground Surface Elevation:
359'
Wes:
General
Notes
W
CL E
CL
U- E
cc
(0 -6
M E
D >1
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 12": ferns and trees
8.5
....
2
3
4
5
SM
Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist
SM
Gray silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist
4x=mes; dense at 5'
Test pit terminated at 6.0 feet below e)dsbng grade. No groundwater
encountered during e)cavation-
Earth Consultants Inc.
Test Pit Log
Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington
Prci. No- 10075 j
Z- GLS
Date April 2002
KCS
Date 4/10/02
Plate Al I
owsuilaue conutuons oepKaeu represem our ooservMORS at UM Urne ancl Malion of this Oplor" hole, rnodffied by engineering tests� analysis and
are not necessarily rePresentative of other tirnes and locations. We cannot accept responsibift for the use or interpretation by others of
- Test�Oit Log
Project Narne:
Pepperwood
Sheet of
I I I
Job No.
10075
f Logged by
KCS
Date:
3/28102
Test Pit No.:
TP-1 I *
Excavation Contactor
Universal Land
Ground Surface Eleiiation:
356
Notes:
General
Notes
W
0 —
:2 0
CL ,
E
CL CL
tA- E
0a
a) E
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 112"Jerns, trees, blackberries
13.4
7-7
.....
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
3
4
5
6
7
SM
Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist
SP -SM
Brown poorly graded SAND with silt medium dense, moist
SM
Gray silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist
Test pit terminated at 7.5 feet below e)Mng grade. No groundwater
encountered during e)cavation.
Earth Consultants Inc.
& FJMMMWr*M
Test Pit Log
Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington
Prcj- No- 10075
Dwn- GLS
Date April 2002
chedw KCS
Date 4/10102
Plate Al2
Subsurface condIrtions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this e)ploratory hole, rnodified by engineering tests, analysis and
are not necessarily reptesentateve of other tirnes and locations- We cannot accept resspmblity for the use or interpretation by others of
t #—# — #hk I—
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING RESULTS
E-10075
Earth Consultants, Inc.
6 Copies
Reviewed By:
Scott D. Dinkelman, CEG
Associate Engineering Geologist
DISTRIBUTION
E-10075
Phoenix Development, Inc.
P.O. Box 3167
Lynnwood, Washington 98046-0958
Attention: Ms. Loree Quade
Earth ConstAtants, Inc.
DATE RECEIVED
CITY OF EDMONDS
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION
MAILING ADDRESS
CITY ZIP
L;�j
NAME��
ADDRESS
CITY ZIP
:AAWyak
ADDRESS
C3
TELEPHONE
L-h z , -7
1 J-V.-
TE�EPHONE
'BL #
ZIP
TE-LffHONE
7—j
STATE UdENSE NUMBER XPIRATION DATE
CKED
13a.'uA
(41"'Ot
IROFFERTY TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL: NO
0
00 0 0 0
EW
RESIDENTIAL
PLUMBING/MECH .
ADDITION
COMMERCIAL
COMPLIANCE OR
CHANGE OF USE
REMODEL
MULTIFAMILY
SIGN
o FENCE.,
REPAIR !���CYDS ( _ X_FT
DEMOLISH TANK
OTHER
GARAGE RETAINING WALL
F RE SPRINKLER
El ME
JV,l CARPORT ROCKERY-
ALARM_
(TYPE OF USE. BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN:
qa�y PL
NUMBER
NUMBER OF
CRITICAL
OF
STORIES
DWELLING
UNITS
AREAS
NUMBER
DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE
U 05
Yc, Y
�r A0\ 2--J'�----�
HEAT SOURCE QLAJING % NV�, LJOT SLOPE %
PLAN CHECK
THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED, THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO
BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC
DOMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE
SEPARATE PERMISSION.
PERMIT APPLICATION: 180 DAYS
ERMIT LIMIT 1 YEAR - PROVIDED WORK IS STARTED WITHIN 1 8d;DAYS
SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION
.APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS
IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND:AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF
EDMONDSvWASHINGTON: . ITS b0ICIALS. 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
,,DEEMEQ;TO, MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE
NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITVS ABILITY TO EN FORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.'
I HEAi6Y`A6KNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION: THAT,THE INFORMATION
GIVEN IS CORRECT; AND THAT I AM THE OWNER, OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF
THE OWN�R. I.,AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC-
TION: A01114 6ONG THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED
IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO
WOR!Iell&�� COM�KATION INSURANCE- AND RCW 18.27.
9=-4
SIGNAT����; DATE. SIGNED
� �/O(
I
PERMIT EXPIRES 22//.74
AS E PERMIT
ZONE NUMBER
//"0,-
JOB
ADDRESS
SUITE/APT#
PLAT NAME/SUBDIVISION NO.
LOT NO.
LID NO.
17-
LID FEE $
PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP
TESCP Approved
RW Permit Required 4
EXISTING
Street Use Permit Req'd
Inspection Required I
---,'.*'^PROPOSED
REQUIRED DEDICATION FT
Sidewalk Required 0
Underground
Wiring required
METER SIZE
LINE SIZE
NO. OF FIXTURES
PRV REQUIRED"
'A ]A %1
1 1 1 1
1 17 j
YES C1 NO I0
OWNER/CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROL/DFAINAGE
ft&.uwp i Krw,(,f itw<, - in v�f wd
fu
-Ml NEERIN G REIVIEWEDJJT�, DATE
I .
.FIRE REVIEWED BY DATE
LL
r:��VARLANCEbR CU
1
SHORELINE OR ADB#11,-�
INSPECTION
BOND
V, P-x
REO'D
POSTED
ES 0
$
SEPA REVIEW
SIGN AREAZ,
I HEIGHT
COMPLETE EXEMPT
ALLOWED PROPOSED
�OWED PROPOSED
EXP , )0( �
a &a f�: I 9c,
LOT COVERAGE
OT OV'
REQUIRED. SETBACKS (Fl`)�
-PROPOSED SETBACKS (FT.)
ALLOWED,Z,FW�
FRONT SIDE REAR
FRONT. LIR SIDE REAR
0
Ys 10
z
PARKING
P
rARK
LOT AREA�
PLANNING REVIEWEb4y DATE
EQ'D
REO'D PRO
PR( VIDEO
-2
E
R R M S
EMAJ!., 1 -1 -2-
CHECKED BY I TYPE
occu
GROU
SPECIAL INSPfCTION , OCCUPANT
REQUIRED &YES AA ) hl,�, IkILOAD
REMARKS
z
PROGRESS INSPECIIONS,PERUBC,10t/.IBC109"/IRC109 FINAL INSPEC71ON REG D !3
1661fDr 11 t7A1MAKttN PIAA-J Alr— ME
VALUIAnON
$07-7/ 1-7-7 —
Descriotion
��FEE
Description
FEE
Plan Check
State Surcharge
4
'Building Permit
City Surcharge
�Plumbing
OU0
Base Fee
.
Mechanical
/ -Po
Grading
Engr. Review
Engr. Inspection
Fire Review
Plan Chk. Deposit
Fire Inspection
Receipt #
Landscapelnsp.
Total Amt. Due
Recording Fee
Receipt #
CALL
FOR INSPECTION
(425)
771-022
APPLICATION APPROVAL
This application Is not a permit until signed by the
Building Official or his/her Deputy: and Fees are paid, and
receipt Is acknowledged in space provided.
LS SIGN RE DATE
-�a 0
DAk7t
ATTENTIOUJI Off 1333
ITIS UNLAWFULTO USEOR OCCUPYABUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTILAFINAL
LE
-
INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL ORA CERTIFICATE OFOCCU-
I ORIGINAL - FILE YELLOW - INIP TOR
PANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC109/IBC110/IRC110. TR
. PINK - OWNER GOID-ASSE /So
09/03 PRESS HARD -YOU ARE MAKING 4 COPIES
0
WATER & SEWER 5.r,4 / a5 -ro Aju -t ee
INSPECTIO14S REQ'D, ',/Ive��cTiC/VT
CALL 425-771-n220 EXT. 132�.--- -
10' UTILIT-T'
EA5EMENT
CON -f;RJ
< 5TAI=17,
r
z
0 co
0-1 C�NTUAJY C r
OWNER/CONTRAICT 0.31S RESPONSIBLE
FOR EROSION CONTWOL AND DAMAGE
MAINTAIN PLAT INSTALLED EROSION CONTROL
APPROVED AS NOTED
BY ENGa�,ERING
�;W.
Date: = —5
ACCEPTAKE TIGHTLINE
MATERIAL
SDR 35
SCH 40
N - 12
IF81 0 HANCOR
FOOTING DRAINS NOT
TO BE TIED INTO
DETENTION SYSTEM
,� 5 0,
,- '61,0F446Alf
6a
. A 06-
10' PRDE
LOTS 18
3& -2-
0
0-p�,
0
OCTI
cj�b
C.110
10 (2 05 0 r-
0 p- c-
5EE C7ENEF-'AL NOTE5 SrALE: I " = 20'
Zone_2gQ,Qe-
A-, I Comer Fla&_
�!e.tbacks Required Actual
Front
Sides
Rear 110
Other
Heie
,ht
APPROVED 8
PI-ANIVIN
FOR
— 22
ADDRE55 XXXX PIC)NEER NA*r
LEOAL LOT 22, MADRONA rO\IE
'OESC,RIPTION:
5 1 TE AREA: 5,54a SOUARE FEET
ZONIN(�: f=LANNEI:;) UNIT 01EVELOPMENT
HEIr-:;,HT r-,ALr-,ULATION (BASED F=ROM EX15TINr=;, r--:;,fz:;,,ADE)
A = 550' 111-
F-3= 560'
C, 555,
1425/4= 356.25'
AVERAC-7E EXISTIN6, C--,RAOE= E356.25'
AGTUAL BUILE�)INO HEIOHT= 55=f.500-
MAXIMUM BUILI:;)INO HEIOHT (25'+ 1.-75 \/ARIANGE)= 26.-75'
gel. — f
00
SURVE-rOR TO PFOVII:;)E BENGHMAR< MOST
APROPRIATE f=OF- HEIOHT VERIFIGATION)
IMPERVIOUS AREAS
RESIOENGE N1 1440 5OUARE FEET
GVRE? PORGHES
I::>F,IVENA-rS 556 SOUARE FEET
PAT 10 120 SOUARE FEET'
VqAL<NA-*rS 100 SOUARE FEET
TOTAL 2,216 SOUARE FEET
LOT C,-OVERACvE
( LOT CO',1ERA6,E IS E3A5EF,> UFON 5596' Of= ENTIRE
FLANNEZ? UNIT 1:;)EVELOPMENT)
1440 SOUARE FEET OF FROFOSE0 LOT C-,OVERAr-.;,E
(INC,LUDE5 STF;ZUC-,TURE, COVEREO FC)RC,-HES, E;)ECf<S OVE E3c)19
hESUB
STREET FILE JUL 13 26'u"J`
BUILDING DEPARTMEN-f
CITY OF EDMONDS
3,
L/e, 9��/
RESUB
JUL 13 2005
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF EDMONDS
STREET FILE
0
--1- 17
)Z/ A9--r.7JF-005-aqi-j2q I lZe W-J7-W-MS-0401 -a6-
r-ap
06
AW C4P
q ArWA9 Dr
4m �AW
g:
t45,lrxa
Ur Ar iSAJW
14
-�A ZSIM7.9557
3
0
Ix
15
ar ool 370
I"rcwo
cz
-Jw
a. 00 -.W-00,1 — /F
J80-
it
Put RE, Q-
A WALL-", 360
qFrA
, 4EA..
It
y
"IN
V.
if Rn
. ;,t 5,66
14 , I " A �) 5,660
M
7 PA.
fb
W
aw
It
-71
x
EP,
L
,t,40 3 PRO Ol
It
05 R) 39'\ 20- BLI
V,
Tlu
It
5' ACC SEM NT
L-------
XM 39
5NT N It
e7 le, c6wc N t T7 L-V I IV 5 SF�—\ It \
cvwc S
94 011 -JOIN
,---j 7 if
019
--tASF-M
)21 _ENT -LOTS
8&9
7651S op 396
It
00 ZASIWON�
-06*467,r A
1?- 0- W Aror —4r)
.4
L ---- @L Z%4U
an Is 44S It
J f 20
ZO%W 1W A03:VVkrY Aol1U
1V
-74A9-6LV-004- N,;** o�,
)24F 4EW #Cn
5'JUNIr",r -QrBfp
L
U
A )� E3SB
App
3 It l4z� t It
LZ 81, \
7 12 on -1
/,I, /,to,/ S
hoa--Ul. 47 14
C)p? 58,tF NT 3� SF
7 603
* li-� \\42\ It It 5' SCAP\E
600'S&WA1,9RAIM4a� *7.�� L
,SVr Ar 905,rf2j 47
E: f�r rE�-�,L C
It
00 Y J-/
OLIK43, ISF,
T-7
1p,,o)qlv,, TE
74v- ff7az-
r
6.429 SF - lk 16,858 SFl\'
T ff 1)0 J00 00'
R -;E
lo
T I
_j
i4\
SEA 141 loll 4 W
00,0 , v \ Ai�, -
koz. 47 po r
\-'5-699 Sk
OY4RZ eS & A4 Malf RARZAT p- I A \\ 1� 1\ \ k . sr At'* 4." 1 �l
R', 00- 7460- O&V- 005- 00 It AARCa 7--
47�
63'
A
/*
P N u
sw
lq z, N
Nt
69
I \
r 043 - 5F
.771
R5 Iq 0%v, v, Z
V.? *.f -
�048\ 4 od