20040826A.pdfDATE RECEIVED
4_7
CITY OF EDMONDS
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION
OWNER NAME/NAME OF BUSINESS
V �u \\\41 V), ( - _l,,
k�j
MAILING ADDRESS
r
%J
CITY ZIP rELEPHONE
ILI
NAME
Ntv'�,\_� �_VAVL� INN 1) U_Aok�
ADDRESS
CITY ZIP TELEPHONE
NAME CEIT
\3 KV��fyj L
ADDRESS
CITY
ZIP
TELEPHONE
STATE . LICENSE NUMBER
EXPIRATION DATE
CKED
CHE�M, BY
Y-->VL—A NT)U-�71':A
LV�
PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL NO.
C3 0 0
0 C)
NEW
8 RESIDENTIAL
119 PLUMBING / MECH
ADDITION
11 COMMERCIAL
COMPLIANCE OR
1:1 CHANGE OF USE
REMODEL
1:3 MULTIFAMILY
11 SIGN
REPAIR
FENCE
CYDS 1:1 X FT)
DEMOLISH
TANK
OTHER
GARAGE
RETAINING WALL FIRE SPRINKLER
E] ROCKERY FIRE ALARM
z
rL
(TYPE OF USE, BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN:
in
Lu
NUMBER
NUMBER OF
CR
a
ta
01
OF
STORIES
DWELLING
UNITS I
AREAS —it
1 NUMBER 0 2_
DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE
t&lw C_-�, V r<- k_�,)
FA
SOURCE GLAZING % LOT 7�7 %
11 1 �, �_k 4-n] / f 11
PLAN CHEC
VESTED DATE
THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO
I= BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC
DOMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, LTC.) WILL REQUIRE
SEPARATE PERMISSION.
PERMIT APPLICATION: 180 DAYS
(L PERMIT LIMIT. I YEAR - PROVIDED WORK IS STARTED WITHIN 180 DAYS
SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION
U) 'APPLICANT. ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS
t3 IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF
2 EDMONDS. WASHINGTON. ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND
cc
4 ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
x FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE
CI
_j DEEMED TO MODIF'� WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE
2 NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITYS ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.*
ETj 4 � �
PERMIT EXPIRES 4
USE x,
z.; / PERMIT Ll
ZON KII IRA
F C39:0
JOB
ADDRESS
J
z
PLAT NAME/SUBDIVISION NO
LOT NO
LID NU.
-) j I
LID FEE S
PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL
STREET MAP
FiW P",.t Rrictu"ort
use Permit Roci'd
EXISTING ----,�'PROPOSED
street
inspection Required
S,o,,,jh Require(]
REQUIRED DEDICAtION
Fr
Undergrotind
wiring required
METER SIZE LINE SIZ`E7N0Q
I
OF FIXTURES
PRV REQUIRED
11
ti I it
YES [I NO
REMARKS
OWNER/CONTRACIOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONIROL/DRAINAGE
EERING
6_1
FIRE REVIEWED BY
DATE
z
UJI
W
cc
U.
VARIANCE OR CU SHORELINE OR ADEIN 1��SpECTION BOND
N Q
RED 0 POSTED
I o
E S 0
S iNo S
SEPA REVIEW SIGN AREA HEIGHT
COMPLETE EXEMPT ALLOWED I PROPOSED4ALLOWED I PROPOSED
LOT COVERAGE REQUIRED SETBACKS (Fr.) PROPOSED SETBACKS (FT.)
ALLOWED PROPPSE FRONT SIDE REAR FROPT yR SIDf REAR,
10 5 _ 10 z
z
0 z
g�RE 5
PARKING LOT AREA 1[7P,4��NNINGVWIE By DATE 0.
REQ'D I PROVIDED �0
REMARKS
PRO -0), -
i2�/
CHEC4(ED BY
01
TYPE OF CONSTR TIQN
1 V,5
CODE
103
OCCUPANT
GROUP
&
SPECIAL INSPECTION JAREA OCCUPANT
REQUIRED LOAD
REMARKS z
PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC JOB/ IBC109/IRC109 FINAL INSPECTION REQ'D 5
--) i , /9 A Z-,612lj & Zkd )JI-7,111.4 �-A ,�J /) I 'm
I / N-0 i5fll�aff I
VALUATION
Description
FEE
Description
FEE
Plan Check
1&alf2ii -
State Surcharge
Building Permit
City Surcharge
15
Plumbing
;741;
Base Fee
Mechanical
—
Grading
_q_4
71:9
Engr. Review
Engr. Inspection
Y�n
Fire Review
Plan Chk. Deposit
Fire Inspection
Receipt
2
Landscapeinsp.
Total Amt:.:DDue
0�575
Recording Fee
Receipt ft
11
I
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION; THAT TIiE INFORMATIOJN
GIVEN IS CORRECT; AND THAT I AM THE OWNER, OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF APPLICATION APPROVAL
THE OWNER. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC- I his application is not a permit until signed by the
L Y CALL
TION; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED Building Official or his/her Deputy: and Fees are paid, and
IN VIOLATION OF THE LA13OR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO FOR INSPECTION receipt is acknowledged in space provided.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATIO�AURANCE AND RCW 18.27. OFFICIALS SIGNATURE
DATE
SIIGNA�URE (OWNE AGENT)) DATE SIGNED (425)
771-0220 RELIEA
ATTENTION "s EXT 1333
IT IS UNLAWFULTO USE OR OCCUPYABUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTILAFINAL k,
INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVALOR A CERTIFICATE OF OCCU-
PANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC109/IBC110/IRC110.
09/03 PRESS HARD -YOU ARE MAKING 4 COPIES
_a I )
DATE
LE YELLOW - It(SPE&C
EF1 GOLD -ASSESSOR
z
0
1
0
M
--i -n
3:
M
C
M 0
0
0
0 C
M
M Z
0 -n
n ;d
>
M M
0
0
0 M
C: Cl)
9 (n
M 0
Z
X
z
C0
z
0
i
0
M
0
cornerA/(u Flag A10
Zone
Actual
APPROVE Y PLANNING Setbacks
to
Ix
q1,10 j� Front
Sides io
Rear
Other
77� �)c
DDp-Ese, E�W&X 210TH F—LACE 5H
O'UTILIT-r or- 1�4,,j
EASEMENT 12v3Q4>.
%4� 12, 'k I LlAci' 0 yvi I Ftv(5/49�O 6(Z*Otr LE6,AL LOT 15, MADRONA COVE
kxmr- I-b DESCRIPTION:
A5T
Z
Lu
SITE AREA: C9q?-O SaUARE FEET
f Lh
.4, CA PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
mm r�AFZAC51E ZONIN,�:
41.4.co,
LOT IE33 :QE " ?�rd�El(�HT CALCULATION (5ASED FROM EX15TINO 6RADE)
z m -,,6420 TG.FT.
TyI I— — 9 A= 41r,-
RESIDENCE (N E3 = 41 q'
14D PLAN 2-712E3 r 4.221
MAI a
14.00 D= 4211
IT VVLSP C,
16-75/4= 41q.5'
5' 159151- A\/EFP-Ar-F= EX15TINO 6F;ZADE= 41cl.5-
23 — — ACTUAL BUILDIMS, HEIOHT= 45-7.5'
EA5 MAXIMUM F3IJII wi--,,,HT= 444.5
q\b IOcIALT LMO ZO � f3ENr-HMAF;Z< 10
ASWeD L44,67 EA5T qzz i FOR HEIr;,HT VERIFICATION. q15 3
1,yaur4r&3dt2t6(,11qe 012 5 10 15 20 ao 40 50 IMPERVIOUS AREA5
R4�VeY6 61mac
u 1 11 RE51DENCE 1,^V :246cl SOUARE FEET
LOT 15 CAIRD PORCHES
SEE r=r=Nr=-F:ZAL NOTE5 5r-ALr=. I"=:20' DRIVE ye &E5 5�n"A== ===-r
ACCEPTABLE TIGHTLINE
MATERIAL
SDR 35
SCH 40
N - 12
F81 0 HANCOR
(.Y_V- I E
J
Ito;
WATIEER & SEWER
INSPECT!ONS REQD.
CALL 425,771-0,220 EXT, 1326
PATIO 60 SGUARE FEET
VqALKV4AYS (NEN) 100 SGUARE FEET
TEMPORARY CONST RUCTION
ENTRANCE REQUIRED TOTAL 5,2ci-7 5aUARE FEE,00
LOT r-OVERAOE
ALL EXPOSED SURFACES TO ( LOT COVERArvr= 15 BASE0 UPON 55%OF ENTIRE
BE COVERED WITHIN 2 DAYS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT)
24&q SOUARE FEET OF PROP05ED LOT COVERA67E
(INCLUDE55TRUCTURE, COVERED PORC-HES, DECK5 OVER 30")
Pks NOTED
Tf'- QN bG*l IN E E R 1114
Date:_
3-�>ILQ C-4
V E I
20
CITYC'py
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
PEPPERWOOD
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
8526 MAIN STREET
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Z'
m
E-10075
9
C
May 14, 2002
M 01
--1
0
C�
m
PREPARED FOR
m z
PHOENIX DEVELOPMENT, INC.
z
3:
Cn
M
m
om
C
co
M 0,
z
wo
z
tEMRFS -7 12R
Raymond -A. Coglas, P.E.
Z:
0
Project Manager
m
Earth Consultants, Inc.
1805 - 136th Place Northeast, Suite 201
Bellevue, Was hington 98005
(206) 643-3780
Toll Free 1-888-739-6670
3
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 i ca I -related delays,
cost -overruns and other costly headaches that can
occur during a construction project.
A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
REPORT IS BASED ON A UNIQUE 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 recommencla Lions.
Unless your consulting geotechnical engineer indicates
otherwise, your geotechnical 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 ail 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.
Geotechnical 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 conditions
only at those points where samples are taken. when
they are taken. Data derived through sampling and sub-
sequent laboratory testing are extrapolated by geo-
technical engineers who then render an opinion about
overall subsurface 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 to help ininimize 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 geoLechnical 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 engineers' 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 client involved
and expressly for purposes indicated by "he 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 geoiechnical
engineer. No person should apply this report for any purpose
other than that originally contemplated without first conferring
with the geolechnical engineer.
Z
0
i
0
M
M
C
M
0
0 C:
M
M Z
C
3:
0 -n
3:9
M M
0-(/)
0 r-
0 M
C (1) 1
9 co
Q 0
Z r-
3:
Z
0)
Z
0
i
0
M
Earth Consultants inc.
C'mic-chnical Fliginvels. 0-olcogists e. 1:1110101111 willill sdolfisis
May 14, 2002 E-1 0075
z
0
I
Phoenix Development, Inc.
P.O. Box 3167
Lynnwood, Washington 98046-0958
U5
M
Attention: Ms. Loree Quade C
M
0
--10
Dear Ms. Quade: 0
C
M
M
We are pleased to submit our report titled "Geotechnical Engineering Study, Pepperwood, z
Residential Development, 8526 Main Street, Edmonds, Washington." This study C —Z
presents the results of our field exploration and geotechnical engineering analyses for the
X
proposed residential development. Our scope of services for producing this study were Cn
o.utlined in our proposal PR-10075, dated March 1, 2002. 0 -n
-n
ed M M
Based on the results of our study, development of the site as plann is feasible from a
geotechnical standpoint. Medium dense to very dense glacial till was observed at the test 0 5
0 r-
pit locations. Fill and yard waste materials were observed along the top of the existing 0 M
C: (D 11
along the upper half of the site at several of the test pit locations. The fill 9 (D
slope areas M 0
soils were observed to depths of approximately four to five feet. Based on the Z
subsurface conditions observed at the test pit locations, it is our opinion the proposed
single family residences can be supported on conventional spread and continuous footings
bearing on the competent glacial till native soils, or on structural fill soils used to modify >
z
existing site grades. -4
Cn
The existing slope areas throughout the middle of the site appear stable. Due to the z
0
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
M
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, kqashington 98005 Bellevue (425) 643-37 1 80 FAX (425) 746-0860 Toll Free (888) 739-6670
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.
z
Sincerely,
M.
EA CONSULTANTS, INC.
SULTAN
co
M
M
0
ZCO
0
M
M Z
ond A. Cogla E
Project Manager
C
>
F -4
RACr1rne
X
MM
0
M
0)
Cn
Q 0
Z
Z'
X
z
0
M
Earth Consultants, Inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
E,-10075
PAGE
z
.0
INTRODUCe"ON a a a a a 0 6 0 a 0 a 4 a a a a a 0 0 a 4 a a a 0 a a a 0 a a 0 a a a a 0 a a 4 a 0 a 0 4 a a 0 a a a 0 0 A a 0 0 a a a 0 4 0 4 0 a a a a 0 * a 0 4 a a 0 a a a a a a
M
General. a 4 d a 0 a a a a a a d 0 4 4 a 0 4 4 a a 6 1
I
%
Projpct Description 0406 640440 0404 4
L
2
SITE CONDITIONSO 0 4 a 0 a 0 0 0 0 a a 0 4 a 4 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 C M
2 M 0 0 0 a 0 a 0 0 4 a 4 4 a d
Surface. 64 0 0 0 4 O'�
Audi 0
4 a a 40 a a 0 some 0 me 4 a a 3
Steep Slope Evaluation as 000006040 doted of 860446960*60849 seems 0 C
3 model K
*@*eta* a 6 004
Subsurface
X M
4 M Za a a 4 4 a 0 0 a a a a a a 0 a 0
Groundwater
r4
Laboratory Testing. a a 0 0 0 a 4 a a a 0 a a 4 9 0 a 4 a c
> I
read owl
x
4 adds.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS& a a d 8 0 0 0 a I a a a a a 0 0 0 a a 0 a 0 4 0 a 0 0 4 a 0 a 0 a a 0 a 9 a a a ai 0 a a a 0 a 4 a a a a 0 0 a a a a a 0 a a
0
4
a at 0 go 0 so a 0 9 4 a 0 a 0 a a 4 a 6 a 0 9 a so 0 0 0 a 0 a as a as 6 as 0 a a a a
General seems games Goosed seems 60 00*00040
agal r
ego a a a I mass a a 4 a a 4 6
Site Preparation and General. Earthvvork a see I
x
7 M M
SteepSloDe Buffer. 0 0 a 4 0 0 a SO 0 a 0 a 0 0 a 0 0 a a a 4 a 0 a a a 0 0 0 0 a a 4 a 0 a a a a 0 a a a a 4 0 0 a 0 0 a a a 0 0 4 1 0 0 a 9 a 4 4 a a 0 a 0 0 0 a a a a 0 a a a 0 4 4 0 0 a 0 A 0 a a 0 mesa
0 Cn
8
Foundations. m a 0 0 a 4 a so a 0 a 0 4 0 0 a 0 6 0 0 0 a a 0 0 0 0 a a a 0 0 0 0 0 a a 4 0 0 6 a a a 1 0 4 0 q a 0 4 a 4 0 4 a 0
Ing"'
0
9 M Or,
Permanent Retaining and Foundation Walls C: 0)
10 rb Cn
M
Seismic Design Considerations. 0 0 0 a a a 0 0 a a a a a 9 a a 4 a a a a 6 a 0 6 a a 4 4 a 0 a a 0 a 0 a a a a a 0 a 0 4 a a a a a a a 0 a a 0 a a 0 a 6 0 a 0
z ran'
Slab -on, -Grade Floors meant 00 ego me same
Site Drainage 4* 00 too a 0 at 0 a 0 4 a a a a Games a a 0 0 a a a a 0 4 0 0 a 0 0 a a 0 0 9 4 a 0
12
Excavations and Slones I so 0 0 a a a a a a 4 0 a a a 0 0 4 4 4 0 0 a 0 0 a 4 a 8 0 0 4 a 0 ff a d 0 9 M . Ok�
12 >
Utility Trench Backfill.
z
13
Rockeries. 0 a 4 4 a 0 a a 0 0 a 0 a a a 0 0 a a 4 . 4 a a 6 a a a 0 6 0 a a a 4 0 a a a a a 0 r 0 4 4
ads,
Pavement Areas 0 14 0)
z
0 00..
LIMITAmnONS sea*4466464 a 6*064000*906 same 0 sea 040400400 too ode ego 14
0
AdditionalServices* 0 0 0 a 0 4 a a a 4 4 9 0 0 a a a 4 a 4 a 4 0 0 9 a a a 0 a a a 4 0 a a a 4 4 a 4 a 0 0 a a a a 0 0 0 a a 4 0 0 a 0 a a 0 0 a a 0 4 a 0 a 1 4 a 4 4 4 0 a a a 4 0 0 d a 15 M
r;
Earth Consultants. Inc,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
E-10075
ILLUSTRATIONS
Plate 1
Vicinity Map
Z�
0
Plate 2
Test Pit Location Plan
rrl�
Plate 3
Typical Footing Subdrain Detail
Plate 4
Typical Utility Tre nch Fill
=j 9
0
0
i7s,
M
C
APPENDICES
rn U
0
0:
0
Appendix A
Field Exploration
C::�
-4
Plate Al
Legend
X M
rn z
Plates A2 through A 12
Test Pit Logs
jo
C Z
Appendix B
Laboratory Test Results
M
W
Plate B1
Grain Size Analyses
0 -n
71
rn
m
W
0
C Cf)
M ot.
Z r
Z
Cn
Z
0
0
m
Earth Consultants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERNG STUDY
PEPPERWOOD
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
8526 MAIN STREET
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
E-10075
INTRODUCTION
Genprall
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 Way along the lower 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 Consultants, Inc.
I
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEPJNG 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
z
report.
0
0
The use of relatively lightly loaded wood frame construction is anticipated for the
R1
proposed single family residences. We estimate wall loads will be in the range of one to
9
two kips per lineal foot, and column loads in the range of ten (10) to twenty (20) kips.
Cn X
0
M
C:
If the above design criteria are incorrect or change, ECI should be notified an d allowed to
M
0
-10
review the recommendations contained in this report. In any case, ECI should be retained
0 C:
to perform a general review of the final design.
3: M
M z
SITE CONDITIONS
C
> z
Surface
0 -n
The approximate property limits and site topography are illustrated on the Test Pit
n
Location Plan (Plate 2). The majority of the site is undeveloped and heavily vegetated,
M M
with the exception of several rental homes located along Main Street. The topography is
0 V5
0 r-
partitioned into two halves, with a slope area approximately bisecting the sit e in a north-
0 M
C: Cn
south direction. The slopes descend to the west at grades of approximately 30 percent
K Cn
Q 0
to 40 percent. The overall height of the slope ranges from approximately forty (40) to
Z r-
71 T
fifty (50) feet. Based on the site survey prepared by Group Four Inc., the steep slope
X
areas within the planned development are limited to the north end of the property
adjacent to Building Lot 9.
z
The upper east half of the property is relatively flat, with gently sloping areas that
__q
X
Fn
descend to the east. An existing rockery and steep driveway area are located at the
z
0
northeast corner of the site. As previously discussed, the existing rockery will be
--I
incorporated into the new development, and the driveway areas will likely be filled to
0
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 ENGINEERING STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075
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 (12) 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 loca . tions 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 Consultants, Inc.
Z
0
A
0
M
—i -n
M
0
-10
0 C
--4 K
X M
M Z
C —Z
C/)
o -n
n
M M
0
0
0 M
C cl)
K C/)
Q 0
Z
Z
0)
Z
0
q
0
M
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEENNG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075
May 14, 2002 Page 4
Groundwater
Groundwater seepage was not observed at the time of our exploration (March 2002).
The presence of light to moderate groundv%oter seepage, however, should be expected in
deep excavations. Based on the conditions observed at the time of our field exploration,
we do not anticipate groundwater 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 supporied 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 0 0) 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 opinion, 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 recommendations 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 t he proposed storm water detention vault is feasible from a
geotechnical 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\ater seepage may be encountered in the excavation for
the storm water detention vault. However, in our opinion, groundv\Oter 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, Ino.
Z
0
i
0
M
M
C
M 0
0
0
0
M
M Z
6,
C
X
C/)
0 -n
MM
0
M
0)
C/)
Q 0
Z
X
Z
X
Z
0
i
0
M
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFUNG 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 Earthwor
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 Consultants. Inc.
z
0
0
0 rn
C
rn 0
0
0 C
rn
rn z
C: _Z
CD
0 _n
n
M M
0
0
0 M
C C/)
K co
M 0
Z
z
z
0
1
0
M
- * M
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFUNG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-1 0075
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
Z
0
size of four inches and no more th an 5 percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve based on
1 1. :
0
the minus 3/4-inch fraction.
M
Structural fill is defined as compacted fill placed under foundations, roadways, slabs,
=55
Ui
pavements, or other load -bearing areas. Structural fill under slabs and footings should be
C: M
placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding twelve (12) inches in loose thickness and
M 0
0
compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of its laboratory maximum dry density. The
0
0 C
maximum dry density should be determined in accordance with ASTIVI Test Designation
im
M
D-1 557-91 (Modified Proctor). The fill materials should be placed at or near the optimum
M Z
moisture content. Fill under pavements and walks should also be p laced in horizontal lifts
10-1
C -2
and compacted to 90 percent of the maximum dry density except for the top twelve (12)
>
inches, which should be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry densi ty. I f a
�
structural fill berm is necessary to construct the storm water detention pond, the fill
0 -n
-n
should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density.
M M
Steer) Slove Buffer
0 U5
0
0 M
C: Cn
In our opinion, due to the dense condition of the glacial till soils observed at the site, and
9 Cn
Q 0
the stable condition of the existing slope areas, a minimum ten (10) foot buffer from the
Z r-
top and toe of the steep slope areas can be considered for the proposed single-family
X
residences. The City of Edmonds Development Standards for Geologically Hazardous
_q
X
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
Z
geotechnical report can demonstrate that no adverse impacts to the slope or surrounding
Cn
developments will result. In our ophion, reducing the buffer distance to ten (10) feet will
Z
impact the stability of the steep slope areas. The observed stability of the
0
not adversely
existing slope and the presence of dense glacial till soils is the primary basis for this
M
recommendation.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-1 0075
May 14, 2002 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 foundatons
can also be supported on structural fill that is used to modify the existing site grades.
Foundations should not be supported on the existing fill soils. The medium dense to
dense glacial till soils suitable for support of foundabons was generally observed at a
depth of approximately two feet below the native ground surface elevation.
For foundations 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 foundatons elements should be placed at a minimum depth of eighteen (18)
inches below final exterior grade. Interior spread foundations can be placed at a minimum
depth of twelve (12) 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.
z
0
i
0
M
--I -n
M
C:
M
0
--10
0
M
M z
C
E:
X
CO)
o -n
T,
MITI
055
0 r-
0 M
C (1) i
?. CO
M 0
Z
z
--I
X
z
0
1
0
M
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFUNG STUDY E-10075
Phoenix Development, Inc. Page 9
May 14, 2002
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 soil, 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-safety 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 Consultants, Inc.
z
0
4
0
M
-i -n
Cl)
M
C
M
0
-40
0 C::
X M
M Z
—Z
F- --I
3:
0)
0 -n
n
MM
a
0
0 M
C C/)
K Cn
Q 0
Z r-
7-1 M
M
z
M
C/)
z
0
M
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY E-1 0075
Phoenix Development, Inc. Page 10
May 14, 2002
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 Consideration
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, would have 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 interface, 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 Consultants, Inc.
Z
0
1
0
M
--i -n
0 M
C:
M
0
0
0
M
M Z
r') --A
C
0 -n
n
M M
q
0
0 M
Cl)
Q 0
Z
Z
Z
0
1
0
M
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERNG STUDY E-1 0075
Phoenix Development, Inc. Page 11
May 14, 2002
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 groundvQter table; and it must be subject to sufficient
magnitude and duration of groundshaking.
Based on the soil and groundv�ater 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 supporied 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 geotextile and crushed rock can be considered for stabilizing the subgrade soils, if
necessary. A four4nch 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 Drainggge
During construction, surface water runoff must not be allowed to stand in construction
areas. Interceptor trenches should be established, as necessary, along the perimeter of
the building site before it enters the construction area. During construction, loose
surfaces 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
groundv�ater 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.
Z
0
4
0
M
--i -n
V5
M
0 . I
0
0 C
M
M Z
C —Z
W
0
n
M M
Cl)
0 r-
0 M
C ci)
K Cn
Q 0
Z r-
>
Z
Z
0
i
0
M
I
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc.
May 14, 2002
Excavations and Sloves
E-10075
Page 12
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
11.511:11 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 constructed 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 groundv%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.
Utilijy 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 groundvQter seepage should be expected in the deeper utility trench excavations and
the proposed detention vault excavation.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
z
0
4
0
M
q 9
M
C
M
0
0
0 C
—4 K
M M
M Z
() --I
C
C/)
0 -n
n
M M
.0
0
0 M
C/)
co
M 0
Z
X
z
z
0
i
0
M
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFJNG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075
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 supported in the bedding
material. The material should be hand tamped to ensure support 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.
flockeries
We understand the existing rockery located along Main Street at the northeast portion of
the site will be incorporated 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 approximately 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.
z
0
0
M
=i --fi
M
MID
0
0
0 C:
X M
M z
o -n
n
M M
a V;
0 r-
0 M
cl)
0)
M C-)
Z
X
z
C1)
z
0
1
0
M
E,
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFUNG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc.
May 14, 2002
Pavement Areas
E-1 0075
Page 14
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
su I bgrade 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 (AQ 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, ECI can provide pavement design
recommendations for truck traffic areas.
Asphalt concrete (AQ, 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 Consultants, Inc.
Z
0
1
0
M
--I -n
0 M
C
M
0
0
0 C:
M
M Z
C
0 71
.M
M M
a
0
0 M
cl)
C/)
Q 0
Z r-
;U
Z
C/)
Z
0
0
M
'. M
� I
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEPJNG 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 groundveter conditions between exploration sites may vary from
those encountered. The nature and extent of variations between our exploratory
z
locations may not become evident until construction. If variations do appear, ECI should
0
be requested to reevaluate the recommendations of this report and allowed to modifV or
1�4
0
verify our recommendations in writing prior to proceeding with the construction..
M
Add tional Services
M,
C
We recommend that ECI be retained to perform a general review of the final design and
M 0
0
specifications to verify that the earthwork and foundation recommendations have been
0
0 C:
properly interpreted and implemented in the design and in the construction specifications.
X IT!
M z
we also recommend that ECI be retained to provide geotechnical services during
—z
construction. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, spe cifications or
--i
recommendations and to allow design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ
CO
from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. We do not accept responsibility
0 n
n
for the performance of the foundation or earthwork unless we are retained to review the
construction drawings and specifications, and to provide construction observation and
X
M M
CO)
testing.
0
0 M
C cf)
C Cn
Q 0
Z
X
Z'
C/)
z
0
0
M
Earth Consultants, Inc.
M
&WA
1AAW
LH
A
Reference: dull I k-�" UZI, 11 1
Puget Sound Area
Snohomish County / Map,454
By Thomas Brothers Maps Vicinity Map
Dated 2002 Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington
NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color.
ECI cannot be responsible for any subsequent
misinterpretation of the information resulting
from black & white reproductions of this plate.
Drwn. GLS
Date
April 2002
Proi. No.
110075
Checked RAC
Date
4/12/012
e
Plate
z
0
M
---1 -n
C:
M
M
0
0
0
X
C
M
M
ID
Z
--i
—Z
0
-n
-n
x
>
M
M
0
Fn
0
r-
0
M
C
Cn
K
Cn
Q
0
Z
X
z
Cn
z
0
i
0
M
1.0
M'.
Subject Site
Existing Building
Lot Number
NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color.
ECI cannot be responsible for any subsequent
misinterpretation of the infort-nation resulting
from black & white reproductions of this plate.
noEarth Consultants, Inc.
Geoicchnical En8inects, GeOlO&SAS & EnvirMITIe4hil Sckmfisls
Test Pit Location Plan
Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington
GLS
Date April 2002
1
Proi. No. 10075
1
IDrwn.
Checked RAC
4
Date 4/12/02
1
Plate 2
z
0
4
0
M
". M
E" -
Slope To Drai n 7
. ..... ..
6 inch min.
18 inch min.
dk'
7
4 inch min.
Diameter
Perforated Pipe
C� 0
Wrapped in Drainage
Fabric
t
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 Mirafi 140 Filter Fabric or equivalent.
TYPICAL FOOTING SUBDRAIN DETAIL
F-,arth Consultants Inc. Pepperwood
C
Edmonds, Washington
roj. No.
[P :: 0075 1 Dr - wn. GLS Date Apr. 2002 1 Checked RAc Date 4/12/02 Plate 3
z
0
4
0
M
�1
Non -Load Supporting Floor Slab or
Areas Roadway Areas
j7
Varies
0
0 0
0 0
1 Foot Minimum
Backfill
....... ...... .
Varies
UN
PIPE
;4. .00
"00
. 1. . : .
Bedding Varies
d
40-
ij
0*0
6
LEGEND:.
Asphalt or Concrete Pavement or Concrete Floor Slab
9-0
1..o.%�-j 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.
F X 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 UTILITY TRENCH FILL
Earth Consultants Inc. Pepperwood
C^Xcdvjk-.jj "gftwv-m'. C^*YAKIS & jAvjtrxvj"va1 Sck-wileas Edmonds, Washington
Proj. No. 10075 1 Drwn. GLS 2002 Checked RAC Date 4/12/02 1 Plate 4
z
0
M
M
M 0
0
-40
0 C
X M
M z
JO 71
C z
0)
0 -n
3:9
MITI
0 -C/)
0 r-
0 M
C (1) 1 1
9 C/)
Q 0
Z
z
--I
X
0)
z
0
--i
0
M
—. IIIIIIIII
APPENDIX A
FIELD EXPLO-RATION
E-10075
Our field exploration was performed on March 28, 2002. Subsurface conditions at the
z
site were explored by observing a total of eleven test pit excavations. The test pits were
0
e cavated by a subcontractor of Phoenix Development, Inc. The approximate test pit
x
locations were determined from existing landmarks presented on available plans. The
M
locations of the test pits should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the
--n
method used These approximate test pit locations are shown on the Test Pit Location
--I
3:
Plan, Plate 2.
M
C
M 0
0
—10
The field exploration was continuously monitored by a geologist from our office, who
0 C
classified the soils encountered and maintained a log of each test pit, obtained
representative samples, measured groundv\eter levels, and observed pertinent site
Mz
10
features.
C
> Z
All samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification
3:
Cn
-n
System that is presented on Plate Al, Legend. Logs of the test pits are presented in
0
-n
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
M M
U5
on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. In actuality, the
0 r-
0 M
transitions may be more gradual.
C C()
C W
M 0
Z
;U
z
V5
z
0
4
0
M
Earth Consultants, Inc.
t
GRAPH LETTER DESCRIPTION
MAJOR DIVISIONS— LVURnl qVIVIRCH I TYPICAL
Coarse
— Gravel
And
Gravelly
Soils
Clean Gravels
ti
(little or no ines)
C-2k C—I <
0 " OA
GW
gW
Well -Graded Gravels. Gravel -Sand
Mixtures, Little Or No Fines
41111111, 4ft
; I ;
GP
g P
P oorly - Graded Gravels, Gravel -
Sand Mixtures, Little Or No Fines
Grained
Soils
More Than
GM
Silty Gravels, Gravel - Sand -
50% Coarse
Fraction
Retained On
No. 4 Sieve
Gravels With
Fines ( appreciable
amount of fines)
� M
Silt Mixtures
_71�9
?5_� �gc
Clayey Gravels. Gravel - Sand -
Clay Mixtures
Sand
And
Sandy
Clean Sand 1'
(little or no I inos I
0 a 0 a
SW
SW
Well -Graded Sands, Grav6lly
Sands, Little Or No Fines
. . ... ...
iiii'-f*Txv.
. .......
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .......
SP
Poorly -Graded Sands, Gravelly
more 1han Soils
50% Material
Larger Than More Than
No. 200 Sieve 50% Coarse Sands With
Size Fraction Fines (appreciable
Passing No. 4 amount of fines)
Sieve
Fine Silts Liquid Limit
Grained And Less Than 50
Soils I Clays
More Than
50116 Male I Silts Liquid Limit
m
laller
s r gi:n And Greater Than 50
No. 200 Sieve Clays
Size
Highly Organic Soilb
Sands, Little Or No Fines
SM Silty Sands. Sand - Silt Mixtures
SM
SC"s -Clay Mixtures
Clayey Sands, Sand
Inorganic silts & Very Fine Sands, Rock Flour,Silty-
Clayey Fine Sands; Clayey Silts w/ Slight Plasticity
C Inorganic Clays Of Low To Medium Plasticity,
Gravelly C1 . ays, Sandy Clays. Silty Clays. Lean
OL ol Organic Silts And Organic
Silty Clays Of Low Plasticity
I M1111
MH Inorganic Silts, Micaceous Or Diatomaceous Five
1111' .
I �� mhi qand or Siltv Soils
E E I I I a a
rff
inorganic Clays Of High
F/
_'O� A5��
ch
Plasticity. Fat Clays.
OH Organic Clays Of Medium ToHigh
on Plasticity, Organic Silts
PT Peat, Humus, Swamp Soils
Pt With High Organic Contents
Topsoil Humus And Duff Layer
Fill H(011y 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 soll classification.
C
TORVANE READING. tsf
2- O.D. SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER
qu
PENETROMETER READING, tsf
W
MOISTURE, % dry weight
24' I.D. RING OR SHELBY TU13E SAMPLER
P
SAMPLER PUSHED
SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED
WATER OBSERVATION WELL
pef
DRY DENSITY, lbs. per cubic ft.
LL
LIQUID LIMIT, %
v
DEPTH OF ENCOUNTERED GROUNDWATER
PI
PLASTIC INDEX
DURING EXCAVATION
T
SUBSEQUENT GROUNDWATER LEVEL W1 DATE
inEarth Consultants Inc.
(stigutitilk4d 019iih Cos. (k%A091%1S AL 1AWkWIVIC111-11 "W
LEGEND
Proi. No. 100751 Date Apr. 2002 1 Plate AL
Z
0
i
0
ITI
-4 -n
0)
M
C
M 0
0
-40
0 C
--A K
:E M
M Z
C) --I
C _Z
C0
o -n
ri
M ITI
0
0
0 M
C cf)
9 1:1)
M 0
Z
M
Z
--I
3:
C/)
Z
0
i
0
ITI
Te�t Pit Log
Project Name:
Sheet of
PeppenAwd
Job No.
Logged by:
Date:
Test Pit No.:
10075
1 KCS
3/28/02
TP-1
Excavation Contactor:
Ground Surface Elevation:
Universal Land
420'
Notes:
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 4": grass
General
W
cL r=
cL tZ E
E
Notes
>'
(n
' M
U)
a)
=) >�
(n
SM
Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist
13.3
2
-30% fines
3
4
MIL
Gray sandy SILT, medium dense, moist
16.4
5
SM
mottliZat 51
Gray SAND, medium dense to dense, moist
15.4
6
sil
14.5
I flffi,�
..
7
Test pit terminated at 7.5 feet below e)dsbng grade. No groundwater
encountered during excavation.
NOTES:
Elevations estimated by -a Topograghic Site Plan provided by the
Client. Survey by Group Four Inc. ated 1/6/99.
C4
6
Ui
n
n.
0
Test Pit Log
Earth Consultants Inc.
Pepperwood
niormi". wal sticlaws
Edmonds, Washington
-;e
6 )75 Dwn. GLS me April 2002
I
FDate 4/10/02
checked KCS Plate A2
I-
S u bs u rf ac—e c -on - ions depicted represent our observations at the time and localion
:_ - - 1--:---
?j�o�rcj�o� modified by engineering tests, analysis and
ot th�'
tA/- _ CiNfitv fhr thA use or internretation bv others of
nem. i ney allU FRA FtMA;�Z�0111Y I WIU;M11t0t
M.fi— ��#_i — 4hi. I—
z
0
1
0
M
-n
M
C
m 0
0
0
0
M M
M z
C _Z
0 _171
r
m M
0 _Cj)
0 r-
0 M
C (J)
C 0)
M 0
Z r-
.AT i�
;U
z
--I
z
0
0
M
4
Test Pit Log
Project Name:
Sheet Of
Pepperwood
Job No.
Logged by*
Date:
Test Pit No.:
10075
1 KCS
3/28/02
TP-2
Excavation Contactor
Ground Surface Elevation:
Universal Land
424'
Notes:
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 10": ferns
General
W
CL
E
S!
:E CL
cL u- E
0
Cn E
Notes
M
in
A
SM
Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist
2
-roots may e)dend to 3'
3
moftling at 4'
4
SM
Brown silty SAND, dense, moist
5
-15% fines
6
7
Test pit terminated at 7.0 feet below e)dsting grade. No groundwater
encountered during e)cavation.
W
Test Pit Log
8 Earth Consultants Inc.
Pepperwood
CK%xt,-I A I I ICW FJ 1811 MA" If I" Ira -klet I IL.;N,
Edmonds, Washington
rn Proj. No. 10075 Dwn. GLS We April 2002
Date 4/10/02
1 Checked Plate A3
KCS
Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location
41--41
of this e-*oratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and
%A/. �nnr4 ary-,Prh resneinsibilitv for the use or intefDretation bV others of
nent. They are not necessanty representative ol other t mea a"
"oli_ ~�On#.A � fhi. 1�
z
0
0
m
=n-
M
m
0
-10
0
C
-i K
3: M.
M Z
10
C _Z
Cn
0 -n
-n
M M
0
0
0 M
C CI)
9 C/)
M 0
Z
.-I
M
z F.
3:
C/)
z
0
I
0
m
ff �
Test Pit Log
Project Name:
of
Pepperwood
Job No.
Logged tyy:
Date:
Test Pit No.:
10075
1 KCS
3/28/02
TP-3
Excavation Contactor.
Ground Surface Elevation:
Universal Land
416'
Notes:
-6
-6
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 2": trees and ferns
General
W
0
Z Z
E
CL
E
0 Z
E
Notes
5.
U)
U-
0 M
U)
>-
(0
SM
Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist
10.6
2
-with some organics roots
3
-mottling and iron o)dde staining at 3'
4
SM
Gray silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist
7.1
5
Test pit terminated at 6.0 feet below e)dsbng grade. No groundwater
encountered during exravation.
W
Test Pit Log
Earth Consultants Inc.
Pepperwood
cv<xect DIVIRV I I I V.-M. I I .'XI(I I fNs.
Edmonds, Washington
t
Iu Proi. No. 10075
GLS
DTe April 2002
Checked KCS
Date 4/10/02
Plate A4
—h-;� —A
-buosurface ODricinions oeptcxea reve5tmit uui UUZMIV-dUVIIb C14 LIM U11M 011u w�tiwl' 1� others of
judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or I on
nr��farf � 4hi. 1�
M''
4 Teit Pit Log
Project Narne:
71
Sheet Of
Pepperwood
1
Job No.
LoKggCedSby:
Date:
Test Pit No.:
10075
3/28/02
TP-4
Excavation Contaoctor
Ground Surface Elevation:
Universal Land
404'
Notes:
-
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 4": brush debris
General
W .2
6
.0
E
e
_; CL
E
co 6
0 M
E
Notes
LL.
(n
Cn
SM
Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist
2
3
4
11.2
5
SP-SM
Brown poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel, medium dense, moist,
5% fines
7.7
6
SM
Gray silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist to wet
16.9
7
Test pit terminated at 8.0 feet below e)dsbng grade. No groundwater
encountered during e)cavabon.
Test Pit Log
Eallh Consultants Inc.
Pepperwood
c.�.m-miticia ni sit it swimlb; N.,
Edmonds, Washington
CL
�i
W
I
No. 10075
Lf�qL
Dwn. GLS rLe
I
April 2002
checked KCS
Date 4/10/02
— 11—&-
I Plate A5
--h—*— —A
.5ubsurtaoe concmions aepictea represem our ometvaumti tit tilt; U llu Culu IV-10LIVII V I V—.—
ju are not necessarily representative of other tirnes and locations. We cannot accept reysponsi� FWiW&-u* s*�e or interpretdion by others of
z
0
q
0
M
Te�t Pit Log
Project Name:
Sheet of
1
Pepperwood
1 1
Job No.
Logged by:
Date:
Test Pit No.:
10075
1 KCS
3/28/02
TP-5
Excavation Contactor:
Ground Surface Elevation:
Universal Land
395'
Notes:
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 2": grass
General
W
q
cL E
CL
U- E
0
6 .0
u) E
Notes
E >'
0 (n
0 M
Cn
=) 5'
CO
111111.1
1
SM
Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist
2
3
SM Brown silty SAND with gravel, occasional cobbles, medium dense,
4
110.8 moist
6
-mottling at 7'
7
10.8 ray silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist (Weathered Till)
SM Gra �
....... est pit terminated at 7.5 feet below e)dsbng grade. No groundwater
co
�Ten untered during e)cavation.
03
Test Pit Log
C�
Earth Consultants Inc. Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington
W 075 -FDwn. GLS Fc;e 4/10/02
I Praj. No. 10 1 Date Apri12002 Checked KCS I Plate A6
Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this e)Voratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and
--if;— m nfh� fimp-,qnnd w:ations. we cannot acoeot resDonsibilitv for the use or interpretation by others of
z
0
A
0
M
Test Pit Loq
Project Name:
Sheet of
1
Pepperwood
1 1
Job No.
Logged by:
e:
Test Pit No.:
10075
1 KCS
3/28/02
TP-6
Excavation Contactor
Ground Surface Elevation:
Universal Land
395'
Notes:
-6
-6
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 2": grass
General
W
'0
cL E
a.' E
CO
C) n
(n E
Notes
ff -
o in
0 M
U)
:) ;��
(n
SM
Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist
2
3
-some mottling at 3'- 4'
4
SP-SM
Brown poorly graded SAND with silt, medium dense, moist
5
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
Proj. No. 10075
Dwn. GLS
Date Ap ril 2002
Chec ked KCS
Date 4/10/02
Plate A7
tiumurtaoeconanionsoepictea represent our oo5elvatluilb tit t1lu %Ulm Ulu evvOt—, — "'.-1--y — --- - -
judgment. They are not neoessarity representative of other times and locations. We cannot acoept responsibility for the use or int on b� others of
inf��6� � fhi- I—
z
0
A
0
M
=i 9
Test Pit Log
Project Name:
of
Pepperwood
Job No.
Logged by:
Date:
Test Pit No.:
10075
1 KCS
312-8/02
TP-7
Ex=vation Contactor
Ground Surface Elevation:
Universal Land
408'
Notes:
IL) -6
0
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 2": grass
General
W
CL E
CL
u- E
0 n
Cn E
Notes
0
Cn
=) >'
U)
SM
Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist
SID
Brown poorly graded SAND with gravel, dense, moist
2
5.9
3
4
5
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.
,n
Ci
0
Ui
Test Pit Log
8 Earth Consultants Inc.
"t
Pepperwood
9
Edmonds, Washington
- n
LUI Prq. No. 10075
GLS F
April 2002
;e7
Checked KCS
TDate 4/10/02
Plate A8
subsurfaceconamonsoepictea represent our ooservinions at Mu 1111tu airu PJ�t�-
1��V.I�Tey are no( necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or ntefp4kion ers of
z
0
A
0
M
-.M
Project Name: of
Pepperwood I
Job No. Logged by: )ate: Test Pit No.:
10075 1 KCS 3/28102 TP-8
Excavation Contador: Ground Surface Elevation:
Universal Land 416'
Notes:
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 2": grass
General w
E u- E Z5 E
Notes M
(n Ca
SM Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose to medium dense, moist
21.2
2
3
SM Gray silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist
11.3 R M 4 Test pit terminated at 4.5 feet below e)dsting grade. No groundwater
encountered during exravation.
Test Pit Log
Earch Consultants Inc. Pepperwood
0 Edmonds, Washington
T-�;e 4/10/02 --T—P-I;e A9
-FEZ GLS Date April 2002 checked KCS
Prj. No. 10075
Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and
1��t elation by others of
,,�ey are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpr
#M — thi. I—
z
0
A
0
M
Mi
Test Pit Log
shed Of
Project Name:
Pepperwood 1
Job No. Logged W. FDate: Test Pit No.:
-9
1007 KCS 3128/02 TP
Exicavatioon Contactor: Ground Surface Elemation:
Universal Land 354'
Notes:
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 6": trees and blackberries
U) 0
W .0 -0 CL '.t �a
General
cL E E rn E
Notes M Z'
Cn
0
SM
Brown silty SAND, loose to medium dense, moist
L
2
SP-SM
Grades to gray poorly graded SAND with silt, medium dense, moist
55
flu
0 M
10.8
3
M
0
4
0
0
M
-becomes with gravel at 5'
M Z
C)
6
C z
> --q
12.6
r-
CD
7
Test pit terminated at 7.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater
0 -n
encountered during excavation.
_n
M M
0 Cn
0
0 m
C 0)
M Cn
M 0
Z
z
z
0
q
0
M
Earth C01-1sultants Inc.
Test Pit Log
Pepperwood
§ cx_A*-L1 Ical 1'.11itilic"t, Q-(�' & rjivinv it w1wal.scul U 61.", Edmonds, Washington
L
CL Date 4/10/02 10
�i
I Prq. No. 10075 Dn. GLS Date April2002 Checked KCS and
Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this e)#oratory hole, modified by engineedng tests, analysis
judgment. They are not neoessadty representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of
M ;i
Project Nam:
of
Pepperwood
1
Job No..
Logged by:
Date:
Test Pit No.:
10075
1 KCS
3/28/02
TP-1 0
Excavation Contactor
Ground Surface EL-Mion:
Universal Land
359'
Notes:
I
-
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 12": ferns and trees
General
W 1E.2
CL E
:5 . -N.
cL E
CO 0
0 .0
E
Notes
E -
a co
40
(0
Cn
>1
=) in
SM
Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist
2
3
SM
Gray silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist
4
8.5
5
-becomes dense at 5'
6
Test pit terminated at 6.0 feet below e)dsbng grade. No groundwater
encountered during e)cavation.
Test Pit Log
Ear(h Consultants Inc.
Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington
t
a-
�i
W1 Proi. No. 10075
DAm. GLS
FD April 2002
checked KCS J
Date 4/10/02
PI;e A
t-
. .
_ I.— __ &M-
i—m—a6nn fpqfR
nn:;I%mLq and
-junsuriaoe conomons oepictea repm5tau Vul Vuw;:IVdt"Iz) at LIM till— al— I-- W, ---------- I w
r int&pretation b� others of
ju are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsiMity for the use o
ln�n�AM_4 - thi. I-
z
0
0
m
--i -n
M
C
m
0
0,
0 C
M
M z
C
> z
o -n
n
m m
_Cn
0 r- i .
0 m
C/)
cn
M 0
Z
M
z
3:
Cn
z
0
i I'
0
m
Test Pit Log
Project Nam:
Pepperwood
Job No.
Logged by:
Date:
Pit No.
10075
1
KCS
3/28/02
TP-1 1
Excavation Contador
Ground Su
Universal Land
356'
Notes:
-
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 12":
General
W
:E 0
.0
CL
A!
CL
E cwl- G_ E
U) 6
0 .0
(n E
Notes
M
T ;),
0 0
=)
SM
Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist
13.4
2
3
4
5
SP-SM
Brown poorly graded SAND with silt medium
6
7.7
7
SM
silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist
—Gray
Test pit terminated at 7.5 feet below existing g
encountered during excavation.
W
Test P
Earth Consultants Inic.
Peppe
Edmonds,
t
0-
�W_11
Proj. No. 10075
Dwn. GLS
Apri12002
Checked KCS
F�ale 4/
Subsurface conditions
depicted
represent our observations at the time and location
of this e-lAoratory hole, modified
-rk—, — nf4 n�InHIV MMAr—entative of other times and locations. we cannot accept responsibility for th
Sheet Of
face Elevation:
ems, trees, blackberries
z
0
0
m
M
C
M
0
0
0
C
m
Jense, moist
m z
C _Z
r-
rade. No groundwater
0 -n
_n M
>
m M,
5
0 r-
0 M
C C/)
M 0
Z
z
3:
Cn
z
0
m
it Log
rwood
Vashington
10/02
PI;ate AN12
engineering tests, analysis and
e use or interpretation by others Of
-11' M
DISTRIBUTION
E-10075
6 Copies
Phoenix Development, Inc.
Z'
P.O. Box 3167
0
Lynnwood, Washington 98046-0958
M.
Attention: Ms. Loree Quade
--j'
M�
C
M
C
M.
M Z'
C
0 -n
F,
M M
c) —
0 M
C Cn
C.0
�Mo
Z
>
Z
Reviewed By:
z
0-
M
Scott D. Dinkelman, CEG
Associate Engineering Geologist
Earth Consultants, Inc.
Height Calculation Worksheet
Address:,<- 4
Date:
hispector(s):
1. Datum Point:
2. Datum Point Elevation:
Z,
3. Average Grade:
0
M
4. Maximum Elevation Allowed: qtq.r (averag6 giude):+ 25 i4 4 4
M
5. Reference Point Elevation Shot to House:
M 0
0
0 C
(datum elevation) +3,2S (grade to transit level tine shot to house)= 14 I'W�5 I
XM
M z
6. Measurements from line shot onto house to roof ridge:
C z
W
S.
o -n
MM
5,014
0 W
0
0 M
C Cn
9 W
Z
X
z
Total
z
0
0
M
7. Actual Elevation: I f�, S 7 (reference point elevation") + 9, t, 6 (measurements
from #6) 0
Conclusion:
qqo tq (actual) is gireater less than (allowed); therefore the house is/
is not over the height requirement per ECDC 16.20-30 requirements
NOTICE:
(40 60 0
1 6, 0 6,; 04 0 0 i 0 4�% 0 s 6 0 6 a s a 9 9 0 0 a 4 6 4 4 a 9 0 1:6 A.
It
fsa 0 $4 ^#s 0 s so 0 Is, 0 46# 0 a a 9 1 0 a a 0 0 0 04 so
1 $ . I I X
0 4 6 0 6 6 s 4 pop *seats s s s 0 4 0 0 o %*a*
pipe@$ 9 4 a 0% ofeellet 0 4
9 got
A 6 i a I 1 0 9 V� a a 1 6 6 a a 6 0 9 A 0 1 1 A a 0 0 a 0 1 6 0 4% 6 0 s 4 4
0 poe
2
6 a 0
cog
06
op.
'It .
a a eA40 a *too *&*Jt 0 1 4%.jt*gs 0�# 1�&.%
$1 so 0 0 a *#A 0 a 0% A
P
d
rl
0
le
rsoor
.4 - 06680
61
tr 4 -
or
0 r;
q
--Gel
0 ski ipA I I 1 4 s a 0% a 6 4 6 1 k 0 a 1 6 a a a 6 1 0 a 9 0 a 0 t% 0 a 6 1 4 1 0 a 1 0 6 44 is to.
fq V!
IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE
IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
2
E
V, 'o
prp c
7 ji
--..J8 24 1,?' AILP W
ll%- VERT.. BEN
L9,
REMOVE
--- . . . . . . . SWT 0
SERMCE
w!l
TWIC
----------
z
0
0 M
m
0
0 c:
M
M Z
>
cl)
0 -n
n ;u
>
m m
0
0
3.0
M
s C cf)
M 0
A "o
J"
0
MJ BEND
0
ACT 999,
MIT"
Earth ConSUItants, Inc
_ELeld Rep.
Job No.
Page of
Report No.
CA,;1vdmk-a1 DIWIWN.v-�
0 1 qnK1kX1'1'C'd119& 1010 1 NVA110111--imtkm I
Time On Site
Time Off Site
Dat
of Week
1805 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 - Bellevue, WA 98005
MDa
Bellevue (425) 643-3780 - Toll Free (888) 739-6670
Travel Time
Miles
Weather'
FAX (425) 746-0860
DAILY FIELD REPORT
Permit No.
Hrs. Charged
visitors
Project
Job Location
Clie nt/Owner
Veral Contractor
�&
General Contractor's Superintendent
Received Unchecked By
V-`% (,
I I
Gradft Contractor
Grading Forerrian
Checked By
Date
z
rre approved Plans/Permits on -site 0 Yes E] No If No, contact the building department or explain below:
Project No. Permit No.
)EeC_11 9 1:Z
CA�ISCL-C_e 4-t
( \e-(C, -� 'e,7 I
2- U-2,
aN- 4L
'AC. 4c, If
(1-C tA It e_1
s, -kzn- —i--%
e�� an
C.
_t�t' 1
44
t-
m4c,-cn zlon
_sc�
C-3
24
q
COPY TO: CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE C3
-4
0
m
—1 -n
M
M
0
0 C:
m
z
10--i
C
X
o -n
n
m
m M
0
0
0 M
cn
M 0
Z
;0
z
3:
0)
z
0
i
0
m
SEP-09-2004 .14t 40 P. 07.,'09
CITY OF EDMONDS
SPECIAL INSPECTION AND TESTING AGnEEMENT
The project.,tt _ZLOet m5dwed under building permit
ires special inspection and/or testing per 113C Chapter 17. The
number' requ
complete list of %pecial inspections is attacbed to this document.
BEFORE A PERINI IT CAN BE ISSUED: Tbc owner and contractor and special inspector shall complete
this agreement and the attached structural test(s) and inspections schedule including the required
acknowledgements.
,tPP110VAL OF SPECIAL INSPECTORS: Each special inspector shall be approved by the Buildiug
official prior to performing 20Y duties Or inspections. Each special inspector shall submit Statement of
Qualifications to the Building Official for review, Special inspectors shall displaY i0clitifIcatiOu when
performing special iusPectiOns on site. special inspection and testing shall meet the Minimum requirements
of IBC Chapter 17 and the following:
A Duties and Responsibilities of the Special Insp.RL
Lto r
I Observe Work
The special inspector shall observe the site work for couforcnaMe with the approYed (stamped) plans
and specificatious and applicable workmanship provisions of the JBC. Architect or Engineer
reviewed shop drawings may be used only as fin aid to inspection. Special Inspections are to be
performed on a continuous basis —meaning that the special Inspector is all site at all times observing
the,%vork requiring special inspection. Periodic inspections, if any, must have prior approval by tile
City based on a separate written plan reviewed and approved by the Building Official and tile
engineer or architect of record.
2. Report Non -conforming Items non -conforming items to the immediate attention Of tile contractor
The special inspector shall bring
and note all such items in the daily fleld report, Any ilem not resolved in a timelY manner shall be
immediate cause of the special inspector to notify the Building Official of the plan deviation, error,
change or omission. it shall also be the duty of the special inspector to promptly notify the engineer
or architect.
3. Complete Daily Reports
Each special inspector shall complete and sign both the special inspection record and the daily report
form for each day's inspection. These records shall remain at the jobsite with the contractor for
review by the City Building Inspector.
4. Furnish Weekly Reports
The special Inspector or Inspection agency shall furnisb the City with weekly reports of tests and
inspections. The project engineer or architect, and others as designated shall also be copied oil
reports. Weekly reports must include the following:
• Description ot'daily inspections nod tests made with applicable lOc2tiOlis
• List of all non -conforming items
• Report on $talus of HE,,)-couformin- items (reiolved or unresolved)
• Itemized changes authoAzed by the Architect, Engineer 3B(I (,ity if not included in non-
conformance Items.
1;. Furnish Final Construction Report
,rhe 4pecial in�pector or inspection agency shall submit a final signed report to tile CitYstating that
all item� requiring special inspection and testing were fulfilled and reported. And, to the best Of
L:*,TEIVIPBUILDIN(,il.Specialin.,;pcctior&AgTCCmentIBC.doc 71'04
Z
0
1
0
M
-1 -n
U5 -4
0 M
C
M
0
0
0 C
4 r.
M M
M Z
g:) --i
C _Z
0 -n
n
M M
0
0
0 M
C C/)
9 Cn
M 0
Z
;0
--i
3:
Z
--I
r
�5
Z
0
i
0
M
SEP-09-1-2004 14:40 P . ctl:2. / 013
his/her- knovvIedge the project is in conforinanct with the approved plans and specifications,
approved change orders and the applic2ble workmanship provisions of the IBC. Items not in
conformance or un "%oived items or any discrepancies in inspection coverage, (Le, Inissed
inspections, periodic inspection when continuous inspections were required. etc.) shall be specifica v
itemized in this report.
B. Contractor Rgspopsibilities
1 . Notify the Special Inspector
It is the duty of the contractor to notify the special inspector," J)en work is ready for special
inspection. Note, the items listed on the attached schedule and as noted oil the approved plans and
I ovided by file
specifications are required to have special inspections. Adequate notice A all be pr
contractor so that the special inspector has time to become familiar with the project.
2. Provide Access to Approved Plans
,rhe contractor is responsible for providing the special inspector access to approved plalls Rt the
jobsite.
3. Retain Special Inspection RecOtds
The contractor is responsible to retain at the jobsite all special inspection records submitted by the
special inspector. These records are to be provided to the City building inspector upon request.
City of Edmonds Building 11Wkrtment Resnonsibilities
1. Approve special inspectors or inspection agencies
The building department shall approve all special inspectors and special inspection requirements.
2. Monitor special inspection and approve weekly reports
Work requiring special inspection and the performance of special inspectors shall be monitored by
the City Building Inspector. His/Her approval musl be obtained prior to placement of concrete or
other similar activities in addition to that of the special inspector.
3. issue Certificate- of Occupancy )-special ivipection reports
The Building OtTicial ynay issue a Certificate of Occupancy after all -Aeekl
including the final report bave been submitted und,accepted,
ivner Resip sibilities
The project owner or the engineer or architect of record acting as the owner's agent shall fluld
special inspection services.
Enaipggr�or Architect of Record Resnonsibilities
The engineer or architect of record shall include special inspection requirements on the plans and
specifications. AC]KN OWLEDGEMENTS
V read and agree to comply with the rerms and conditions of this agreentent.
Owuer Drite V-,\
0-1
Special Inspectol Date
General (ontractor Date
City Building Official Date
��-- F
L:\,rEivil'\BIIILDING',Speci,tlliispectiotiAgTCCmentIBC.doc W04
z
0
A
0
M
--I -n
M
C
M 0
0
-40
0 C
M
M Z
W
o -n
n
M M
0 6)
0 r-
0 rn
C CD
K V)
M 0
Z
r
>
z
0)
z
0
M
P. 09 1,019
SEP-09-2004 14:41
SPECLAL INSPECTION AND TEsnNGSCHFDULE
MQ"714AME Fluu.Dwo PrAMIN
WA-nMQM4SYWMN AGV4CY WSKIMAL INSPEC"
PRUMM ADDRESS
REMORM CONCRETE, GuNM, GROUF AND MORTAP. STRUCTURAL STBELAWLDING.-
Grwd Malar ' — Sm* ud Ttg (lim spccWsc wsemben klaw)
_.'±AMe_cTcSu
Rehfivdar. Tcw
Mix Mfirn
UW=ciw Plaeuvlent
B"ph"hw[Mv oa-
IW*W 1pl"inf
Cw &Lrcqks
Pa-upsampla
Camprtsu" Tesu
SbW MalaW W-Atir-111M
VA'J&wc L75pe'.tiy& 0 Shop [3 Rc14
Ulauarvic lu4=dun 13 Shcol 0 rieW
High-Suctl& Bolung
lmptc� 0 SbW 0 Field
(3 A3Z5 0 X 0 F
0 A490
MeW DeLk Wot-Willf 111q=13"
Rewalvialp Swel Wttd!nS lnspc4�oh
0 kil-11V a
JVILIA9 I nX IMF—
PRECAS'rtFRESTRF.SbT.D CONCRETE. ConcMc Iraw wel"I Inspec-6m
p6m Poo Tew Pre -Tom ClodAng
AgpcMTP$U FMMOOFING:
iWaf0fdar Tam — placemot 11upectilm
TcrAn Tests — Dcrisity Tm
Mic .—ThicklmuTtsu
Reftromin placempil
plammm INSMATING CONCRM.-
calbactc bskcwng
Cawimg Plactnwnt W Test
I 17-jej Samolts Unit Weights
r---j , 1---
Ic, .jqn Tests mu, hixm RIAL:
— Accqxwe Tesii
MASONRY: — Flucnictu impertion
Spcci3l Inspwicm Simists Used — F1cW Dcnsijy
Pmlirninuy Acccptince Tests (Masocry Units. Wall Plism) STRUCTURAL WOOD:
Subjc�ucul Tcsts (Morta. Gmt, Firid W&H Pr4m) Sbgw W-111 "fins JASPectiOn
p1we"wa lnspwdw of Units laspwion of Glu-htm Rib.
Inspeckm Wrruss Joist Fab.
ADDITIONAL INSTRUICTIONS OR OTHER TESTS SwAtlk aiW Tot CQmpcw&-cty,
AND INSPEC31ONS.
hexvt�v
S 0/
rvm complaed byt Title.
Telephrinc No.:
TO7(4L P-09
z
0
A
0
M
-q -n
M
c:
M
0
0 C=
M
M z
Jc) --i
c
cl)
o -n
n
I
M
M M
0
0
0 M
C cn
9 cn
M 0
Z
z
--I
3:
cn
z
0
M
FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL FORM
TO:
DATE:
MEMO TO: PERMIT COORDINATOR, BUILDING DIVISION
FROM: FIRE DEPARTMENT DATE
PLEASE SIGN
z
0
ENGIN EERING DIVIS ION DATE
0
PLENSE SIGN
M
PLANNING DIVISION DATE
=fi
PLEASLSIGN
--I
0
PROJECT 1A
9
INUI. 0'aay)
M
C 0
M
0
--1 0
0 63 4
La
0 C:
I K
SITE ADDRESS
X M
PERMIT ADB# DATEINSPECTED
M Z
0 --1
DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE INSPECTED
cn
A field inspection was cond ucted to determine compliance with -approved plans. Final approval
0 -n
denotes that there are no objections from the above signed Department to the release of
M M
PERFORMANCE BONDS and the granting of:
0 -
101)
0 r—
M
C0
C0
RANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL
M 0
Z r-
GRANT PROJECT APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS NOTED
0 Copy of CONDITIONS given to owner/contractor by inspector
0
0
M
FAILED FINAL INSPECTION - OUTSTANDING ISSUES
0 Copy of CORRECTION NOTICE given to owner/contractor by inpector
2.
3.
RE -INSPECTED OUTSTANDING ISSUES - GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL
Date Signature
1:tet1ip:b1dg:rorn1s:ocaprV1 3/25/04
I . I
M:
RECORD OF INSPECTIONS
INSPECTOR DATE APPROVED
SETBACKS ..................... 0-7-
FOUNDATION:
Footing ......................
Wall ..........................
Pier/Porch .................
Retaining Wall ...........
Slab Insulation ..........
PLUMBING:
Underground .............
Rough -In ...................
Commercial Final ......
HEATING:
GasTest ....................
Gas Piping .................
Equipment .................
Commercial Final .......
EXTERIOR SHEATHING
NAILING ..........................
FRAMING ........................
FIRST FLOOR FRAMING ... 1'2 -YP-,n!5(
INSULATION ...................
Floor Insulation .........
Wall Insulation ...........
Ceiling Insulation .......
SHEETROCK NAILING ... M7
SPECIAL INSPECTION ...
r'Et ��
CZ
MISCELLANEOUS ..........
FINAL APPROVAL FOR
OCCUPANCY .................. a-0S7
Qide Sewer It
.3
7 jt;,� �7
Amout Paid $,17o 7 Rec ipt
/1 "11/1 /
PAK/,
Date Issued —7
q t4
zoo WaterMeterS,_-
Amount Paid Recelpt 0
Date Purchased —
The initials N4'1, cli-C Miltol, PLOW "I
Thoiul)sori, a te",I)orary coliti-act Amount Paid $___RCZ6Pt f1i
il'sPectol. for tile City.
z
0
i
0
M
--i -n
M
C
M
0
0 C
M
M Z
C:
3:
Cn
0 -n
.M
--I
3:9
M M
055
0
0 'M
C C/)
9 co
Q 0
Z
z
W
z
0
1
0
M