20040827.pdfDATE RECEIVED
CITY OF EDMONDS
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION
OWNER NAMEINAME OF BUSINESS
cc MAILING ADDRESS
W
z
1: 'D�0 1
CITY ZIP TELEPHONE
Lj -I
NAME
li-
Lu
I- ADDRESS
cc
CITY. ZIP TELEPHONE
NAME JCBLN
E F
V4\00t`_L W�
cc ADDRESS
0
UV
CITY ZIP TELEPHONE
0
L-\j-NNWk_>-JA\1 �-I%
STATE LICENSE NUMBER EXPIRATION DATE I btkCKE5 By
CVA ac\\, `Iiic
PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL NO.
L-> � 0
W c) 0
_j
NEW RESIDENTIAL PLUMBING / MECH
ADDITION COMMERCIAL COMPLIANCE OR
CHANGE OF USE
REMODEL MULTIFAMILY SIGN
FENCE
F-1 REPAIR CYDS ( X Fr)
DEMOLISH 1:1 TANK El OTHER
GARAGE RETAINING WALL FIRE SPRINKLER
z C*Rfeff ROCKERY El FIRE ALARM
(TYPE OF USE, BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN:
U;
tu NUMBER NUMBER OF CRITICAL
OF DWELLING AREAS
UNITS
o STORIES NUMBER
DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE
PERMIT EXPIRES
USE E '7 PERMIT 2a)
NUMBER
JOB
ADDRESS
SUITE/APT#
v
PLAT NAMEISUBDIVISION NO
LOT NO
LID NO.
VL
LID FEE $
7_F7S7CrPA�PP(oVP
PUBLIC RIGHT OF
WAY PER OFFICIAL
STREET MAP
RW Permit Requited
Street Use Permit Auq'd
EXISTING -
PROPOSED
inspection Roquirod
Sidewalk RtIquir0d
REOUIHFD DEDICATION
FT
Undulground
Waing required
METER SIZE
LINE SIZE
I
NO, OF FIXTURES
1
PRV REQUIRED
,�;/.A it
1 11'
YES)6 NO 1:1
REMARKS
OWNER/CONrRACTOH RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONIROLIDRAINAGE
7NGINEERING REVIE
.-T� m r,
FIRE REVIEWED BY
BY
DATE
W
z
z
8
z
Lu
W
cc
a:
VARIANCE OR CU SHORELINE OR ADBN INSPECTION I BOND
REQ:D POSTED
See P� r k 5 OYES KNO S
SEPA REVIEW SIGN AREA HEIGHT
COMPLETE , EXEMPT ALLOWED PROPOSED ALLOWER, PROPPSED
9 rp 316 > 6 it
LOT COVERAGE REQUIRED SETBACKS (FT.1 PROPOSED SETBACKS (FT)
ALLOWED FrR POSED FRYNT SIDE /REAR/- FRONT QR SID� R
z
PARKING LOT AREA I rNNING REVIE D Y DATE
RE.Q DI PRg.VIDED
ell,10 I/
REMARKS
I FW-0�_— i7l 1[_`,Od,�17d, I
CHECKED BY PE OF CONSTRUCTION I PODE OCCUPANT
A /11 ITY L/m G
SPECIAL INSPECTION JAREA OCCU;A T
REQUIRED &YES LOAD
REMARKS
z
PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 108/lSC109/IRC109 FINAL INSPECTION REO'D a
�n 17 M
VALUATION
$ 4x
Description
hf 6 '-7)oeZ_ lrye�s
Plan Check
HEAT SOURCE
Q_\Wi�,,
GLAZING %
I
LOT SLOPE
?I Ch ;
Building Permit
PLAN CHEC VESTED DATE
Plumbing
Mechanical
THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO
Grading
t:
2
:1
I-
9 W
IL
BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC
DOMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS. DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE
SEPARATE PERMISSION.
Engr. Review
PERMIT APPLICATION: 180DAYS
PERMIT LIMIT i YEAR - PROVIDED WORK IS STARTED WITHIN 180 DAYS
SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION
Engr. Inspection
Fire Review
2
*APPLICANT. ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS. ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS
IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF
EDMONDS. WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND
ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OFWHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTIY OR INDiREC FLY
FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE
DEEMED TO MODIFN� WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE
Fire Inspection
Landscapelnsp.
01
NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITYS ABILITY 70 ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.'
Recording Fee
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION; THAT THE INFORMATION
GIVEN IS CORRECT, AND THAT I AM THE OWNER, OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGEN1 OF
THE OWNER. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC- CALL
TION; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED
IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO FOR INSPECTION
WORKMEN'S COM�IENSATICr��UIJ�NCE AND RCW 18 127
SIG�i'JlRE�'(OWN 09"AGENT)' DATE SIGNED
1 (425)
FEE
Description FEE
State Surcharge
City Surcharge _Z�
Base Fee 15�4y_ —
Plan Chk. Deposit q
Receipt #
Total Amt. Due
Receipt P
APPLICATION APPROVAL
I his application is not a permit until signed by the
Building Official or his/tier Deputy. and Fees are paid, and
receipt is acknowledged in space provided.
OFFICIALS SIGNATURE DATE
4 J*
B DATE
771-0220 RELEASW Y
ATTENTION EXT 1333 kz
IT IS UNLAWFULTO USE OR OCCUPYABUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTILAFINAL /11
INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVALOR A CERTIFICATE OF OCCU- ORIGI . NAL - FILE ELLOW - INS I PECAR
PANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBCI09�IBC110ilRCII0 PINK O�%Efj_j GOLD -ASSESSOR
09/03 PRESS HARD -YOU ARE MAKING 4 COPIES
V/
z
0
M
--i -n
0 M
C
M 0
0
—1 0
0 C:
M
M Z
�x
U5
0 _n
n X
>
MITI
0 Y)
0 F.-
0 M
C C/)
91:1)
M
Z
M
r
z
--I
z
0
M
APPROVED AS NOTED ALL EXPOSED SURFACES TO
BY El`�GINEERING BE COVERED WITHIN 2 DAYS
R Y PLANNING
OVEQ D
Kp'pZ--
Date:
0A
10'UTILIT'r —
E=-A5r=MENT0,Z'
b'�
qv
IF, 0
z
%4
�04ATER & SEWER
INSPEC-1 IONS REQ"-)-
(.,,ALL 42.5-771.-�,220 EXT. 1326
1
9A (N6
r �11111;9ql a .2
ADDR15-55
LEOAL
OESr-RIPTION:
SITE AREA:
ro 09 6-
�,,c,fv4-r&10 Z_QNIN(�,
bm
Z
�— q10
Zone CornerYe,5FIag 10
CA_
Setbacks RegL�ired Actual
Front to, it'
Sides
Rear
Other
Height q '6
XXXX :2 1 OTH FLAr-E SV4
LOT :2, MADRONA COVE
6 -7 f I SOUARE FEET
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
HEIr,HT -r-ALr-ULATION (BASED FROM EXISTINO 6RADE)
A = 410.-75'
E3= 410'
c = 412'
D = 412'
1645/4= 410.-75'
AVERAOE EX15TIN6, 6RADE= 410.-75'
Ar-TUAL E3UILDINry HEIOHT= 455.25-
MAXIMUM E3UILDIN(S HEI(�HT= 455.75' M 14 *- 3 ;L lorl
BENCHMARK
FOR HEI&HT VERIFICATION)) ql!;, 3Y
IMFERVIOU5 AREA5
RESIDENCE 1,^V 246ci e0UAF;ZE FEET
o\/Ro POF;Zr-HE5
PATIO 60 5OUAR-E FEET
k,IALKk4A`r5 (NEVO too 5GUARE FEET
TOTAL 5,2-1-1 5GUARE FEET
210 -NMTL/l\(,t t:WN -RA&E
LOT r-O\/E
012 5 10 15 20 90 40 50 ( LOT COVERAOE IS BA5ED UPON 5596OF ENTIRE
9UP1 IF =E==F== PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) -O\/ERArE
Acc'-r)*."'l,8L,7- TIGHTLINE 246cl 5GUAR-E FEET OF PP-OP05ED LOT r
MATERIAL L c.::) 7 :2 (INCLUDE5 STRUCTURE, COVERED PoFzc.HEs, DEcr-!5 ovEp- oo-)
sr=E c:�,ENER-lAl- NOTES 5r-AL-E- i"=20'
Sum 30 >
SCH 40
12
F8jo HANCOR FOOTING )RAINS NOT
TO BE TIED INTO
DETENTION SYSTEM
I
GEOTECHNICAL EN GINEEMNG STUDY
PEPPEFWOOD
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
8526 MAIN STREET
Z'
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
0
0
E-10075
CD
M
May 14, 2002
M 01
0 0
C,
--i
M M
z
PREPARED FOR
10 --1
PHOENIX DEVELOPMENT, INC.
C —
> z
C/)
0 _n
ILA"
M M
0)
0 M
C C/)
K Cn,
Q 0,
Z
z
Raymond -A. Coglas, P.E.
Z,
0
Project Manager
M
�f 17
Earth Consultants, Inc.
1805-1 36th Place Northeast, Suite 201
2004
Bellevue, Washington 98005
PEMJff COLJNTER
(206) 643-3780
Toll Free 1-8 88-739-6670
CITY
Cut
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 geotechnical-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 hell) 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 geolechnical 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.
Geolechnical 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 Linder 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 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 geolechnical 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 conStrUCLio ' n 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 *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 geolechnical
engineer. No person should apply this report for any purpose
other than that originally contemplated without first conferring
with the geote(hnical engineer
Z
0
4
0
M
-i -n
M
C
M
0
C)
0 C
.--i K
X M
M Z
—Z
o -n
n
M M
0 5)
0 r-
0 M
C Cl)
9 Cl)
M 0
Z
Z
0)
Z
0
M
May 14, 2002
Earth Consultants Inc.
E-1 0075
Phoenix Development, Inc.
P.O. Box 3167
Lynnwood, Washington 98046-0958
Attention: Ms. Loree Quade
Dear Ms. Quade:
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-110075, 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 along the 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 supported on conventional spread and continuous footings
bearing on the competent glacial till native soils, or on structural fill soils used to modify
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) 739-6670
z
0
i
0
M
TABLE OF CONTENTS
E,,10075
PAGE
z
0
Gods!
INTRODUCTION 44646066800*66 008404
0
M
General.
Proipct Description.
gen
sees,
2
SITE CONDITIONS 0086004*06 00040 gods 0040400066 so 00080 goes
am
Surface 0 4 0 4 of go 0 0 a 4 go a 0 to 04 0 0 a 0 a a *4 as so 0 a a 4 a 0 04 00 a sole a 00 8 0 0 0 a a 4 0 00 00 6 44 a 0 a a a me a 0 4 a 40 0 000 4 2 C
m
0
3 =A
0
Steep Slope Evaluation Goes soeseeeoess 00 004000006900 80*004000
0 C
*3
Wool 9
Subsurface. d 0 0 a a a a a a a 0 e 6 a a a a 0 a 4 0 4 a a a a 0 a 0 0 4 a 0 a a 0 0 a a 0 0 0 a 0 a 0 4 a 0 a a 0 0 a 0 a 0 6 0 6 a 0 0 a 0 0 a a 4 4 0 4 4 0 0 a 0 a a 0 0
m
4
Groundwater m z
4
Laboratory Testing
C
>
regge
4
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS*
Cn
4 0 0 0 a a a 0 6 9 see 0 a a a a a sees 6 a a a a a a a a a a 4 a a 4
General 0000040 age a 00004 see 0060
Site Preparation and General Earthwork a Goes a *606 Gooses a 004 a 0 9 6
7
Steep Slope Buffer see 460446 as 0*4400 as so goes m m
8 Cl)
Foundations. e Be 0 4 4 a a a a 4 0 4 a 0 4 a 4 0
0 Fees
9 0
Permanent Retaining and Foundation Walls. m
1 0 C CD
Seismic Design Considerations. 9 CD d
M 0
Slab -on -Grade Floors. 0 z ress
goes!
SiteDrainage. 0 a s a 0 0 a a 0 0 a 0 a a a 0 0 0 4 a a a 0 a 0 0 0 a 4 a e 4 4 0 a 0 a a a a a 0 a 4 4 a a 4 6 a a a a 9 0 0 4 0 a a 0 6 0 4 a a 0 a 4 a 0 a 0 0 0 a 0 a a a 0 4 4 a a a a a 4
12
Excavations and Slopes ease foodoeve
12
Utilfty Trench Backfill sees I *a a 0 a 0 0 0 a a a 9 0 9 4 a 0 a a a a a 0 a a a 0 Go 4 0 a 0 9 a % go so 0 a a a a 0 a a 8 a a a a a sees* >
z
13
Rockeries 00 0 0 0 0 0 600048408 00040
14
Pavement Areas. sole,
CD
z
LIMITATIONS@ 14 0
15
Additional Ser%n'ces. . a 0 9 9 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 a a 0 0 0 a a 0 0 4 a a a a a a a 0 0 0 a 4 a 0 m
-.,. 111111
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
E-10075
ILLU ;T TIONS
Plate 1
Vicinity Map
Z:
Plate 2
Test Pit Location Plan
0
1;
Typical Footing Subdrain Detail
Plate 3
Typical Utility Trench Fill
m
Plate 4
APP -ENDICES
Ui
0 rn
C:
Appendix A
Field Exploration
m 0
0
-10
0
Plate Al
Legend
C'
-4
Plates A2 through Al 2
Te st Pit Logs
M
M Z
Appendix B
Laboratory Test Results
C —Z.
> -j:
Plate 131
Grain Size Analyses
65
o -w
m M
0 m
C CO
C CO
mo
Z
Z
Cn
Z'
m
Earth Consultants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
PEPPERWOOD
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
8526 MAIN STREET
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
E-1 0075
INTRontiCTION
General
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.
praaert ne-cil-rintion
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.
Th e 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.
EarVr% Consultants, Inc.
Z
0
-1
0
M
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEENNG 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 (10) 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 (10) 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
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 (4.0) 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.
z
0
A
0
M
—i -n
U5
M
0
0
0
0 C
4 K
M M
M Z
—Z
0)
0 _n
ri
M M
0
0
0 M
cl)
0)
M 0
Z
r
z
--i
M
0)
z
0
M
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFUNG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075
May 14, 2002 Page 3
Steep Slope Ev iluatio—n
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
Z
0
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.
M
Based on our observations, it appears the slopes are stable.
Subsurface
0 M
C
Eleven test pits were excavated throughout the site. The test pits were excavated to
M
0
-40
0
depths of approximately five to eight feet, where very dense glacial till soil conditions
C:
were encountered. Please refer to the test pit logs, Plates A2 through Al 2, for a
M
M Z
description of the conditions encountered at the test pit locations.
jo --i
C
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
0 -n
observed throughout the glacial till deposit. The depth of the topsoil layer varied, and
n
typically ranged between two inches to twelve 0 2) inches. The geologic map of the area
X
M M
identifies the silty sand with gravel deposit as glacial till. The upper three to four feet of
a U5
the soil deposit generally consisted of weathered glacial till. The weathered till was in a
0 r-
0 M
medium dense condition, and was characterized by brown to dark brown coloring. Dense
C: Cn
9 Cn
to very dense unweathered glacial till was encountered below the weathered glacial till
M 0
Z
layer. The unweathered glacial till was generally characterized by a gray to dark gray
X
coloring.
Fill was observed at test pit locations TP-4 and TP-5. The fill consisted of loose silty sand
Z
--I
soils, and extended to depths of four to five feet. Yard waste piles were also observed
X .
U5
along the top of the steep slope area in the vicinity of Test Pits TP-4 and TP-5.
Z
0
1
At the time the test pit exploration was performed (March 2002), the upper deposit of
0
M
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.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc.
May 14, 2002
Groundwater
E-10075
Page 4
Groundv%ater seepage was not observed at the time of our exploration (March 2002).
The presence of light to moderate groundvmter seepage, however, should be expected in
deep excavations. Based on the conditions observed at the time of our field exploration,
we do not anticipate groundv%eter 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.
z
0
i
0
rn
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFUNG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc.
May 14, 2002
E-10075
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 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 the 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,.eter 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, Inc.
Z
0
0
M
M
MO
0
0 C
—4 K
3: M
M Z
co
o -n
n
M M
0
0
0 M
C/)
Cn
Q 0
Z
X
--I
3:
Z
--I
3:
Cn
Z
0
i
0
M
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFJNG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-1 0075
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 approxk-nately 10 percent. ECI will work with the contractor to assess the
suitability of the on -site soils for use as structural fill.
Earth Consultants, Ino.
z
0
M
C M
M 0
0
0
0
M
M z
C
0
n
M M
051)
0 r-
0 M
Cl)
C/)
M 0
Z
.'T
X
z
X
z
0
I
0
M
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFUNG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc.
May 14, 2002
E-1 0075
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 ASTIVI 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 (12)
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 opinion, 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 surroundirig
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 Consultants, Inc.
Z
9
0
M
--i -n
M
C
M 0
0
0 C:
M
M Z
CO
o -n
n
M M
0 U5
0 r-
0 M
C C/)
F. Cn
M 0
Z
X
Z
--I
X
0)
Z
0
i
0
M
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFUNG 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 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 foundations 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-o f-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 foundations 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 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.
z
0
i
0
M
:; =n-
M
C
M
0
-1 (-)
0 C
--i K
X M
M Z
JO --I
C
0 -T1
n
M M
0
0
0 M
Cl)
C/)
M C)
Z
X
-4
M
z
z
0
-1
0
M
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 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-o f-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
A
0
M
M
C
M
0
-10
0
M'
M Z
0-1 %
C
0
M M
055
0 r-
0 M.
C C/)
C lw�
Q 0
Z
X
z
Cl)
z
0
0
M
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
Z
of at least eighteen (18) inches behind the wall. A surface seal consisting of a less
0
permeable silty sand soil can be placed along the upper one foot of the wall backfill, if
desired. The rernainder of the backfill behind the zone of free draining soil should consist
M
of a suitable granular structural fill.
=i :5
Seismic Design Considerations
M
C
M
0
The Puget Sound region is classified as Zone 3 by the Uniform Building Code (UBC). The
—10
0 C
largest earthquakes in the Puget Sound region have been subcrustal (intraplate) events,
M
ranging in depth from fifty (50) to seventy (70) kilometers. Such deep events have
M Z
exhibited no surface faulting. Weaver and Shedlock (1989) researched the probable or
C= -2
known source areas for the crustal, intraplate, and subduction zone earthquakes in the
in
F)
Washington and Oregon area. Crustal and intraplate earthquakes are the only events
-n
Washington and Oregon in which there is a historical record. Shallow crustal earthquakes
0
n
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
M M
0
Fuca plate, and typically occur below depths of 40 kilometers. The recent February 28,
0
0 M
2001 earthquake that was focused just north of Olympia, Washington was an intraplate
C: (D
earthquake, and had a magnitude Of ML =6.8. The subduction zone earthquake, in which
9 Cn
M 0
there is no historical record in the Washington and Oregon area, would have its source
Z
I
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
3:
would occur at depths of approximately 50 to 60 kilometers (Weaver and Shedlock,
>
Z
1989).
--I
3:
The UBC Earthquake regulations have established a series of soil profile types that are
Z
0
used as a basis for seismic design of structures - Based on the encountered soil
i
0
conditions, it is our opinion that soil type Sc from Table 16-J of the 1997 UBC should be
M
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.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFUNG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc.
May 14, 2002
E-10075
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 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 Drainagge
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,eter 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
i
0
rn
-n
M
C
M 0
0
--40
0 C
rn
M Z
C —Z
W
o -n
n
M M
0
0 M
C CO
9 co
M 0
Z
Z
W.
Z
0
0
M
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEMINIG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc.
May 14, 2002
Excavations and Slopes
E-1 0075
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
11.51-1:11 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.
Utilily 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 groundvvater seepage should be expected in the deeper utility trench excavations and
the proposed detention vault excavation.
Earth Consultants. Inc.
Z
0
0
M
M
C
RIO
0
--10
0 C
--I K y -
X M
M Z
0
T!
M M
0
0
0 M
C cl)
r, Cn,
M C)
Z
X
Z
--I
X
Z
0
M
I
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFJNG 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 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.
Rockeries
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
4
0
M
—i -n
Vi —4
0 M
C
M 0
0
—10
0 a
--i r.
3: M
M Z
g:) --I
C
0)
0 -n
n
M M
C)
0
0 M
C cf)
9 Cf)
M 0
Z
z
3:
65
z
0
i
0
M
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFUNG STUDY
E-10075
Phoenix Development, Inc.
Page 14
May 14, 2002
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
s . ubgrade 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 (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.
LIMIT-ATIONS
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
4
0
M
--i -n
C()
M
rn
0
0
0 C
M
M Z
o -n
M M
0 5)
0 r-
0 M
C Cn
K C1)
M 0
Z
Z
Z
0
0
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 groundv�ater 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 modify or
z
verify our recommendations in writing prior to proceeding with the construction.
0
-4
0
M
Additional Services
We recommend that ECI be retained to perform a general review of the final design and
X
specifications to verify that the earthwork and foundation recommendations ha ve been
M
C
M 0
properly interpreted and implemented in the d esign and in the construction specifications.
0
--1 0
0
We also recommend that ECI be retained to provide geotec hnical services during
C
M
Mz
c onstrucfion. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications or
recommendations and to allow design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ
9z
from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. We do not accept responsibility
X
55
for the performance of the foundation or earthwork unless we are retained to review the
0 -n
construction drawings and specifications, and to provide construction observation and
n
testing.
M M
0
0 M
C V)
Q 0
Z
M
z
Cl)
z
0
0
M
Earth Consultants, Inc.
Reference: 1-:AJILil AAA',, -
Puget Sound Area 54 it!(: 11111 rat t'n gin, !crs. (w()1o9i-;IS &F' I v0tA I I I Wnt" 1 scit I oil Ism
Snohomish County / Map 4
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.
GLS
Date
April 2002
Proi. No.
10075
EDrwn.
ChecEked RAC
Date
4112/02
Plate
1
z
0
M
Zi
om
C
0
M
0
-A
0
0
C
X
M
M
Z
JC)
--I
C
o
-n
-n
7d
>
M
M
0
0
0
M
cl)
M
C-)
z
z
U5
z
0
q
0
M
LEGEND
TP-1— Approximate Location of
ECI Test Pit, Proj. No.
E-10075, Mar. 2002
SubjectSite
Existing Building
6 Lot Number
NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color.
ECI cannot be responsible for any subsequent
misinterpretation of the inforrnation resulting
from black & white reproductions of this plate.
420
Approximate Scale
0 50 iOO 200ft.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
Geolechniult Engineet s. Geologists & Environmental Scientists
Test Pit Location Plan
Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington
Drwn. GLS
Date April 2002
1
Proi. No. 10075
1
Checked RAC I
Date 4/12/02
Plate 2
z
0
i
0
M
Slope To Drain
6 inch min. ..... . .. . .
18 inch min.
4 inch min.
Diameter
a a 0
Perforated Pipe
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
ri
Surface seal; native soil or other low permeability mate al.
Fine aggregate for Portland Cement Concrete; Section 9-03.1(2) of the
W
SDOT 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
Earth ConsultWits Inc. Pepperwood
CA"Cawlical Fnowr
SOM16(S Edmonds, Washington
10-0—IDrwn. GLS —TDate Apr.2002 Checked WX Date 4/12/02 Plate - 3
Prol. No. 75 - I
z
0
0
M
W
Areas Roadway Areas
Backfill I
Bedding
Varies
1 Foot Minimum
Varies
Varies
LEGEND:
0M
Asphalt or Concrete Pavement or Concrete Floor Slab
I
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 UTILITY TRENCH FILL
F-arth Consultants Inc. Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington
N Drwn. GLS-lDateApr.2002 Checked RAC Date 4/12/7027Plate 4
1pr0j. o. 10075 1 1
z
0
i
0
rn
-n
M
0
0
__10
0
M
M z
C _Z
cn
o -n
n
M M
0
0
0 M
cn
Zn
M 0
Z
X
z
z
0
M
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
n on the Test Pit Location
method used. These approximate test pit locations are show
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 groundv�ater levels, and observed pertinent site
features.
All samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification
System that is presented on Plate Al, 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 logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. In actuality, the
transitions may be more gradual.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
z
0
0
M
M
0
0
0
M
M Z�
C z
0
M M
0 —0)
0 r,
0 M
C V) �k
9 CI),
M 0
Z
X
z
C/)
z
0
0
M
MAJOR DIVISIONS GRAPH LETTER TYPICAL DESCRIPTION
iSYMBOL SYMBOL
I — — I
Coarse
Grained
Soils
Gravel
And
Gravelly
Soils
More Than
50% Coarse
t:raction
Rotained On
No. 4 Sieve
C__'A Well-Grided Gravels, Gravel -Sand
0 0 W Mixtures, Little Or No Fines
Olean Gravels ro" AOA g -
(little or no fines) GP�� Poorly -Graded G(avels,Gravel-
r W g;p
g P Sand Mixtures, Little Or No Fines
g P
Gravels With
Fines( appreciable
amount of fines )
Sand
And
Clean Sand
Sandy
(little or no lines)
More Than
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 Sills Liquid Limit
Grained And Less Than 50
Soils I Clays
More Than
50% Material Silts
S 11 Tt' Liquid Limit
ma er _. an And Greater Than 60
No. 200 Sieve Clays
Size
Highly Organic Soils
GM
Silty Gravels, Gravel - Sand -
gm
Silt Mixtures
GC
Clayey Gravels. Gravel -Sand
9C
Clay Mixtures
Sw
Well -Graded Sands, Gravblly
0 0
SW
Sands, Little Or No Fines
..........
SID
Poorly -Graded Sands. Gravelly
Sp
Sands, Little Or No Fines
SM
sm
Silty Sands. Sand - Silt Mixtures
! s
Clayey Sands, Sand -Clay Mixtures
Inorganic Silts & Very Fine Sands, Rock Flotr,Silty-
Clayey Fine Sands; Clayey Silts w/ Slight Plasticity
CL
Inorganic Clays Of Low To Medium Plasticity,
CI
Gravelly Clays, Sandy Clays, Silty Clays, Lean
OL
Organic Silts And Organic
;
0,
;
Silty Clays Of Low Plasticity
MH
Inorganic Silts. Micaceous Or Diatomaceous Fire
I
M01h
I Sand Or Siltv Soils
BEEN MEN RILI'-__
C��
Inorgar-4c Clays Of High
Ch
1'�
Plasticity, Fat Clays.
?!OTH organic Clays Of Medium To High
�-�Ohd - Plasticity, Organic Silts
PT Pt Peat, Humus, Swamp Soils
Pt With High Organic Contents
Topsoil -11 "1 -11 %1" 4 1 Humus And Duff Layer
Fill Waa Uhly Variable Const-ituents
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 "I classification.
C
TORVANE READING, tsf
2' O.D. SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER
clu
W
PENETROMETER READING, tsf
MOISTURE, % dry weight
24' I.D. RING OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER
P
SAMPLER PUSHED
SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED
WATER OBSERVATION WELL
pef
DRY DENSITY, lbs. per cubic ft.
SZ
DEPTH OF ENCOUNTERED GROUNDWATER
LL
LIQUID LIMIT, %
PI
PLASTIC INDEX
DURING EXCAVATION
Earth Consultants Inc.
OxAtilulkid 019ith-v9s. 0%gogLits A Svk111WS
T SUBSEQUENT GROUNDWATER LEVEL W/ DATE
LEGEND
Proj. No. 100751 Date Apr. 2002 1 Plate Al
Z
0
i
0
M
=i 9
M
C
M0
0
-4 0
0 C:
M
M Z
--i
Z_
o -n
n
MITI
0 _C1)
0 r_
0 M
C C/)
C C/)
M 0
Z
Z
Z
0
1
0
M
. Test Pit Log
Proj� Name:
I
Sheet of
Pepperwood
1 1 -
Job No.
Logged by:
Date:
Test Pit No.:
10075
KCS
3/28/02
TP-1
_I
Exavation Contactor:
Ground Surf" Elevation:
Universal Land
420'
Notes:
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 4": grass
General
w
I_- .0
CL E
CL
LL- E
.8
Cn E
Notes
(0/6)
E >-
Cn
M
(n
>1
Cn
SM
Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist
13.3
2
-30% fines
3
4
IVIL
Gray sandy SILT, medium dense, moist
16.4
5
SM
-mottlin at 5'
4 SAND, medium dense to dense, moist
Gray sil
15.4
6
14.5
114
1 7
1
Test pit terminated at 7.5 feet below e)dsbng grade. No groundwater
encountered during excavation.
NOTES:
Elevations estimated by a TopograThic Site Plan provided by the
Client. Survey by Group Four Inc. ated 1/6199.
Test Pit Log
-ic
Earth Consultants It -
Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington
t
)75
pm, GLS
Date April 2-002
checked KCS
TDate 4110/02
Plate A2
Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location
A 1�finna
of this e)Voratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and
Wa cannot acy-Ant responsib ility for the use or interpretation by others of
mwt. They are not necessarily representative ol Ln"Of L MeS a"
z
0
q
0
m
-n
3:
m
C
m 0
0
—40
0
m
m z
C
0 -n
n
m M
0
0
0 m
co
Cn
M 0
Z
X
z
—1
CAI
z
0
0
M
ff -
. Test Pit Log
Projed Name: Sheet of
Pepperwood
Job No. Logged by* Date: Test Pit No.:
10075 1 KCS 3128/02 TP-2
Ex=vation Contactor
Universal Land
Ground Surface Elevation:
424'
Notes:
General
Notes
W
M
0
Z
CL E
Cn
CL
CL U; E
OU
in
0
C.) .0
u3 E
=) >1
Cn
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 10": ferns
11.9
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 e)dsting grade. No groundwater
encountered during e)cavation.
5
W
I I t I I
Test Pit Log
0 r-
4kYQ&1-'�-_brt-h Onncl III-e-Int-cz In 93annarumv-di
(x wora
m Edmonds, Washington
n. Plate A3
W Dwn. GLS April 2002 Checked KCS �DAe 4/10/02
proj.No. 10075 1 1
Subsurface condtions, depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this wooratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and
__&_A;- _f Mi- Vm� ond 1rd,_,3finnQ WP rnnnd accent resnonsibilitv for the use or interpretation by others of
z
0
4
0
M
Test Pit Log
Projed Nam: Sheet of
Pepperwood
Job No. Logged by: Date: Test Ph No.:
10075 KCS 3/28/02 TP-3
Emmmation Contactor
Ground Surface Elevation:
Universal Land
416'
Notes:
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 2": trees and ferns
General
w
n
CL
E
-rL CL
E
U) 0
E
Notes
Y
a Cn
U-M
V)
cn
:3 >'
(n
SM
Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist
10.6
2
-with some organics I roots
3
-mottling and iron oAde staining at 3'
4
SM
Gray silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist
7.1
5
6
F
Test pit terminated at 6.0 feet below e)dsbng grade. No groundwater
encountered during e)cavation.
NI
0
Test Pit Log
,9 Earth Colisultants Inc. Pepperwood
0
2 Edmonds, Washington
—T-P-I;e A4
Proj. No. 10075 Dwn. GLS !002 checked KCS Date 4/10/ 2
Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the tirne and location of this exploratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and
0— AL. --"k— -f jh— ti—� and kv--ntInn.q We cannot accent resoonsibilitv for the use or interpretation by others of
P
"=�-Y
n rw��#—i — #hl- I—
z
0
1
0
M
Test Pit Log
Project Name:
Sheet Of
1
Pepperwood
1 1
Job No.
Jged tyy:
LMKCS
Date*
Test Pit No.:
10075
3/2*8/02
TP-4
Excavation Contactor
Ground Surface Elevation:
Unhiersal Land
404'
Notes:
-6
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 4": brush debris
General
W
.9
r- .0
cL E
C T
r3. CL
E
in 6
0 �a
E
Notes
>�
CO
w M
U)
cn
Z) >'
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
X.O.6
6
1 �M
Gray silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist to wet
16.9
7
8
Test pit terminated at 8.0 feet below e)dsbng grade. No groundwater
encountered during excavation.
Test Pit Log
Earth Consultants Inc. Peppenivood
C�"%-
Edmonds, Washington
t7e 4/10/02
Pr0j. No. 10075 Dwn. GLS Date April 2002 Checked KCS
I F; Plate A5
Riffisurface conditions deoicted rewesent our observations at the time and location of this e)Vor" hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and
judgment. They are not necessarily representative oT omer times ano iocmions. VVU G-dillitA UU--JJA JUZbi,"1aMM1LY
lnf�afi— rw-Q�#—q � fhi. 1�
z
0
0
m
M� I
. Test Pit Log
Projed Nam: --[Sheet
Pepperwood
-Sh of
1 1
Job No.
10075
Logged by:
1 KCS
Date:
3/28/02
Test Pit No.:
TP-5
Excavation Contactor
Universal Land
Ground Surface Elevation:
395'
Notes:
General
Notes
W
M
CL
E
.6 CL
LL. E
u) E
5 -
CO
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 2": grass
10.8
10.8
FM
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
Graysilty SAND with gravel, dense, moist (Weathered Till)
Test pit terminated at 7.5 feet below e)dsbng grade. No groundwater
encountered during excavation.
6
Test Pit Log
Earth Consultants Inc. Pepperwood
C�Mldlnk�,d nighm".F. Q1.(*V,�1*9'- & F-JIV111MI-Irlitll. *31INN Edmonds, Washington
li w 75 Dwn. GLS Date Apri12002 Checked K 4/10/02 Plate A6
JI Proj. No. 100 1
suEsurfam conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this e-*MtOry hole, modified by engineeiing tests, analysis and
. . . . - - -- - - - !-- � t-- --- . -�-- - ;�#� 1^4�#L- F., Jh.—
ment. ThW are not necessanty representaim oT oiner umuj d, lu 1--allun — VVt; L'01 11 IV&
z
0
4
0
M
Test Pit Log
Project Name:
of
Pepperwood
1
Job No.
Logged by:
Test Pit No.:
100-75
1 KCS
28/02
TP-6
Excavation Contactor:
Ground Surfam Elevation:
Universal Land
395'
Notes:
-6
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 2": grass
General
.2
w .0
J3
E
CL
rL E
0
X1
E
Notes
I
'D 5- M
U)
co
=) >'
(0
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)dsting grade. No groundwater
encountered during excavation.
C4
Q
W
Test Pit Log
Earth Consultants Inc.
Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington
W Prq. No. 10075
Dwn. GLS
?002
Checked KCS
4/10/02
Plate
,_I
C" iei-f� —%rfir— rpcire-sent our observations at the time and location
of this exploratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and
are not j"sa* representative of other times and locations. We cannot acoept responsitNuty ior me use or interpretation uy w-1—
z
0
M
. Test Fit Loq-
Project Name:
Sheet Of
Pepperwood
Job No.
Logged by:
Date:
Test Pit No.:
10075
1 KCS
3/28/02
TP-7
Emavation Contactor
Ground Surface Elevation:
Universal Land
408'
Notes:
-6
0
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 2": grass
General
W
M
CL E
CL
E
CO
d .0
E
Notes
M
12
0 M
(n
co
=) >'
Cn
SM
Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist
SIP
Brown poorly graded SAND with gravel, dense, moist
2
5.9
3
::4
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.
Test Pit Log
Earth Consultants Inc.
Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington
—T—Pl;e
U)
W 10075
Roj. No.
Dwn GLS F;;
�e April 2002
Checked KCS
D
_±e 1/1 _0/�2
Subsurfacelconmonsoepictea represent our ouservatiOns in Lilt: 1,111MCIllU KJL;dtl%Ag UI 41�1 —
are no( necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of
Ok I—
z
0
M
--i -n
M
C
M
0
-10
0 C
-4 M
M M
M Z'
10--1
C
V)
0 -n
n
4
x
M M
0
0
0 M
Cl)
Cn
M 0
Z
7'
z
C/)
z
0
1
0
m
.'. M
Test Pit Log
Project Name:
Sheet of
Pepperwood
Job No.
Logged by:
Date:
Test Pit No.:
10075
KCS
3/28102
TP-8
Exc,avation Contactor
Ground Surfaoe Elevation:
Universal Land
416'
Notes:
-6
Surface CorMions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 2": grass
General
w
CL E
CL
L LL. E
0
' E
Notes
>'
CO
a M
Cn
D
z
0
0
SM
Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose to medium dense, moist
M
21.2
2
X
M
C
SM
Gray silty SAND with gravel, dense, mo ist
3
M 0
--10
0
11.3
4
C
Test pit terminated at 4.5 feet below e)dsbng grade. No groundwater
M
encountered during e)cavation.
M z
C —Z
0 -n
-n
x
M m
0
0 M
C C/)
M 0
Z
M
z
M,
z
0
0
m
W
Test Pit Log
C)
Earth ConSultantS Inc.
Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington
6 KCS Date 4/10/02 Plate A9
tul Proj. No. 10075 T�;n7 GLS Date April 2002 J
Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this e)Voratory hole, modffied by engineering tests, analysis and
times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility f- the use or interpretation by others of
judgment. They are not necessarily representathe of other
. Test Pit Log
Project Name: Sheet Of
Peppen&,00d ---
Job No. I Lo%jed by. Date: Test Pit No.:
10075 KCS 3/28/02 TP-9
Excavation Contador: Ground Surface Elevation:
Universal Land 354'
Notes:
.2 6 Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod &': trees and blackberries
Gerwal w r- .0 : & _; CL 0.0
c:L E w u- E E
Notes (0/6) - 0 WO
Cn
SM Brown silty SAND, loose to medium dense, moist
2
SP-SM Grades to gray poorly graded SAND with silt, medium dense, moist
3
10.8
4
5
-becomes with gravel at 5'
6
12.6
7 Test pit terminated at 7.0 feet below e)ds ng grade. No groundwater
encountered during e)cavation.
CM
8
W
Test Pit Log
F-Horth Consultants Inc. Pepperwood
C'NM-finscig n1for'd-, & I-
0 Edmonds, Washington
Date April 2002 checked KCS TDate 4/10/02 Pi e Al 0
Proj. No. 10075 Dwn. GLS E��
Subsurface conditions icted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and
are not neoessaritY representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of
z
0
4
0
M
M
-,' M
Test Pit Log
Projed Name:
Pepperwood
-T
Sheet of
Job No.
10075
Logged
I by'.
KCS
Date:
3/28/02
Test Pit No.:
TP-1 0
Excavation Contactor
Universal Land
Ground Surface Elevation:
359,
Notes:
General
Notes
w
(0/.)
.8
CL E
E! >�
a U)
S!
CL
E
M
(n
Cn -6
0.0
in E
Z) >-
Cn
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 12": ferns and trees
8.5
2
3
4
5
I6
SM
Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist
SM
Gray silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist
-becomes dense at 5'
H--1
Test pit terminated at 6.0 feet below e)dsfing grade. No groundwater
encountered during excavation.
09
Test Pit Log
8 Earth Consultants Inc. Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington
e 4/10/02 Plate Al I
Proj. No. 10075 Dwn. GLS Date April 2002 checked KCS
I I I
Subsurfaoe concritions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and
M-. - -,A -A tafluo nf rih,-r fimpznnd IrA--,4tinnq- We cannot accent resoonsibility for the use or interpretation by others of
z
0
1
0
m
M -
Test Pit Log
Sheet of
13 --4
Prood Name:
--I-Date:
Job No.
Logged by:
Test Pit No.:
10075
KCS
3/28/02
TP-1 1
Excavation Contactor
Ground Surface Elevation:
Universal Land
356'
Notes:
—0
-6
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 12": fems, trees, blackberries
General
W
0
Z n
CL E
;- CL
E
0.0
E
Notes
M
2
U)
ti- M
CO
u)
:D :11
(n
SM
Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist
13.4
2
3
4
5
SP-SM
Brown poorly graded SAND with silt medium dense, moist
6
7.7
7
Gray silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist
--SM
Test pit terminated at 7.5 feet below e)dsting grade. No groundwater
encountered during excavation.
12
Test Pit Log
F -ii-t-h Consultants Inc.
Pepperwood
CA-mm I It 1W
Edmonds, Washington
t
a_
�i rDate Apri12002 Checked S Date 4/10/02 Plate
Proi.No. 10075 Dwn. GLS I
Subsurfaoe conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this e)#o ory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and
— —6 A --ftdh= nf rdhpr finip-q nnci incations. We cannot acceDt responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of
�'= "I , , �'- *' . # A � # h k 1� ...
DISTRIBUTION
E-10075
6 Copies
Phoenix Development, Inc.
P.O. Box 3167
Z
Lynnwood, Washington 98046-0958
Attention: Ms. Loree Quade
0
M:
MIX
C M
M 0
0
0 C:�
M
M Z
z
cf)
o -n'
M
M
.0 M
C OY
Cn
M 01
Z
;U
Reviewed By:
z
0)
z
171
Scott D. Dinkelman, CEG
Associate Engineering Geologist
Earth Consultants, Inc.
� I -z-
VL- � -?::,
)
Aadffl--H-k�w FEarth Consultants, 111C.
Id Rep.
1��
Job No.
:3
Page of
1
Report No.
01MICHWill Filltill(TV, CA% lkn&W; & 11WIttly I It 'I Ili It "(11ILSIS
IqrIIL1*NlT(-4iII9& ICIN)l WAt" It I-SIXIClikm I SMWIN
-
Time On Site
Time Off Site
Datj
of Week
1805 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 - Bellevue, WA 98005
f!Da
Bellevue (425) 643-3780 - Toll Free (888) 739-6670
Travel Time
Miles
Weather
FAX (425) 746-0860
zz eD
C- I Cle-&:,
DAILY FIELD REPORT
Permit No.
Hrs. Charged
Visitors
C-0 Cc
Project
vf\;
Job Location
Clientlowner
eral ontractor General Contractor's Superintendent
Received Unchecked By
t *� Jer-
I I ej )+-
Gra Contractor Grading Foren�an
Checked By
Date
L Lm N L
Ere approved Plans/Permitson-site []Yes F1 No if No, contact the building department or explain below:
Pro. ect No. Permit No.
16,C-11 --9 1 \C,
4--
-tz--x- -0 < -C-e
ToA4
a- ,
t \4
-tn' UO-(-C-
N
n 44
--
h-
C,
-44\c-
k:)1,
-1 1 el
4-1 er
l')J
19=4 C. s,
22�� ::�q2
z-
COPY TO: CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE M-1
z
0
4
0
m
V
m
0
0
0
0 C
M
M Z
-Z
0 -Ti
m M
0
0
0 M
C cly
9 C1)
M 0
z
X
Cn
z
0
i
0
m
Height Calculation Worksheet
Address: S S
Date:- I -I
hLspector(s): .0
1. Datum Point:
2. Datum Point Elevation: 44 15, Z4
3. Average Grade: 1-0 -7 6
+
4. Maximum Elevation Allowed: 76(avera&- giude)"' 2
5. Reference Point Elevation Shot to House:
_�L�34datu m elevation)+ 3, 2 (grade to transit level Une *shot to house)=
6. Measurements from line shot onto house to roof ridge:'
Total
7. Actual Elevafion: _LLJ2- (reference point elevation) + (measurements
from #6) qA ri , le) el
Conclusion:
(actual) is greater / less than -LI .35 (allowed); therefore the house ii/
is not over the height requirement per ECDC 16.20.30 requirements
z
0
M
I
W_
GARY HAAKENSON
CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR
12 1 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221
Websile: wwwdedmondsmams
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
117 S9,3 Planning - Building - Engineering
February 4th, 2005
Brandel Custom Homes
Attn: George Brandel
2905 170th St SW
Lynnwood, WA 98037
Building Permit: 2004-0827
Site Address: 8533 210th PI SW
Expiration Date: 10/5/05
Dear George Brandel:
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the last remaining inspection on your
project is a final inspection(s). The final inspection(s) detennines that there are no
outstanding life -safety issues and approval allows the City to close your permit file.
The City considers the final inspection to be one of the most important inspections
conducted on a project. In order to grant final approval the following must be complete:
smoke detectors, house numbers, guardrails, handrails, self -close doors between . garage
and residence, egress from sleeping rooms, safety glazing, weather-stripping, any
Engineering department requirements etc. Of Course not all of these things may
specifically apply to your project but it does give you an idea about the kinds of things
that must be complete as well as some items that do not need to be installed such as:
paint, carpet, moldings, wallpaper, etc. Please be advised pern-iits expire one year from
the date of issuance. if you will need more time to complete the work, permits can be
renewed prior to expiration for one half fees. If the pem-iit expires without a final
approval granted by the Building Inspector, full fees are required in order to renew the
permit. This can be very costly to you and we strongly encourage you to check your
permit expiration date and call for the required final inspection(s). Note: If more than
one department is required to final your project, this is noted on your Job Card.
Please feel free to contact me at 425-771-0220 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Permit Coor inator
Incorporated August 11, 1890
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE
IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
0 ass 6 a a 60 so too a 0
0
1p
a
Arm
cr. Af
t Lj s
%no 0
0
At 4 1 9 1� 6 0 0 a a a 0 4 4 0 4 a I a 9 a 0 6 6 1 4 0% a 4 0 6 0 a a a a 6 4 0 1 8 4 4 i4a 0 a 0 4 0 a a 0 4 0 0 0 1 1
de.
off
8 4 0 8 4 06 4060*0 to
r
0
Ago a 0
4ee 0
ON
J4
1 '44 1 6 loot 0 to to I
cta$ 0 so &as 1 9 4.11 to .1 1 t
Oa 7—RI t -
ft .ld a.- I
k to
W4 0 a 4 8
to 0 9 0 1 0 ;got to of - #4 a w it * a 9
.4
vb�'.
0#6 0 ilA 0 so 6 0 6 SAIG 4 6 69 t@46 I 6""goo too 4 a 4
w ler..
jr
it
_It
b
0
I P.
)8
E
'64
2
L
0
Rrfj f
..:' )),�Y 24 1,,;' A'(71 W
REMOVE
SHUT 0
SER%ACE
0
0
T, 0
Dj E 01)
5
60, 0
s 0
c: cn
9 cl)
M 0
A
RIP
cl)
z
MJ BEND 0
TRACT 999
It
I SEP-09-2004 16:16
CITY OF EDMONDS
SPECIAL INSPECTION AND TESTING AGREEMENT
P.07,119
The project at tied under building permit
number requires special inspection andlor testing per IRC Chapter 17. The
completc- list of special inspections is attached to this document.
BEFOREA PE1,041T CAN BE ISSUED; The owner and contractor and special inspector shall complete
this agreement and the attached structural test(s) and inspections schedule including the required
is
ackno,,yledgements.
APPROVAL OF ' SPECIAL INSPECTORS: Fact' special inspector shall be approved by the Building
Officia) prior to performing any duties or inspections. Each special inspector shall submit Statement of
Qualifications to the Building Official for reNiew, Special inspectors shall display identification Wheil
per -forming special inspections on site. Special inspection and testing shall meet the minimuni re(joirements
of IBC Chapter 177 and the following:
A. Duties and Responsibilities of the Special LnD-Lc—tor
1. Observe Work aniped) plans
The special inspector shall observe the site work for conformance with the approved (st
and specificutl'onsand applicable workinanship provisions of the IBC. Architect or Engineer
reviewed shop drawings may be used only as an aid to inspection. Special lospections are to be
performed on a continuuus basis--okeaning that the special inspector is on site at all times observing
the work requiring special inspection. Periodic inspections, if any, must have prior approval by the
City based on a separate written plan reviewed and approved by the Building Official and the
engineer or architect of record.
2. Report Non -conforming Items he immediate attention of the contractor
The special inspector shall bring non-coflfOtming items to t
and note all such items in the daily field report. Any item not resolved in a timely mannershall 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 duTV Of �he special inspector to promptly notify the engineer
or architect.
3. Complete Daily Report.%
Each special inspector shall complete and Agn both the �pecial inspection record and the daily report
form for each day's inspection. Tbese records shall remain at the jobsitewith the contractot- for
revievy by the Citv Building Inspector.
4. Furnish Weekly Reports city with -weekly reports of tcsts and
The special inspector or inspection agency shall furnish the
inspections. Tbe project engineer or architect, and others as designated shall Also be copied on
reports, Weekly reports must include the following:
• Description of daily inspections and tests made with applicable locations
• List of all non -conforming items
• Report on status of n0ii-confOrl"i110" itenis (resol-ved or unresolved)
• Itemized changes authorized by the Architect, Engineer and City if not included in non-
confomiance items.
Furnish Final Construction Report
Tho special inspector or inspection agenevshittl submit a final signed report to the City stating that
all items requiring special inspection Alld testingwere fulfilled and reported. And, to the best of
L.:\Tf,-Nll'\BL'ILDINCi\SpLiciallnspeuti(ttlAgreeilientiBc.doc. 7104
a
Z
0
i
0
M
=i =n-
Fn
M
0
0
-10
0 C
-49
M rn
M Z
JO -4
C —Z
Cn
o -n
n
rn M
0
0
0 M
C cl)
K Cn
M 0
Z
Z
-1
M
6
Z
0
i
0
M
P. 0131�11011-1
his/her l(nowledge the. project is in conformance with the apprv% cd platus alid Specifications,
approved change orders and the applicable workmanship provisions of the YEIC. ftenis not in
conrormance or unresolved items or any discrepancies in inspection Covey. 1ge, (i.e.. inissed
inspections, periodic inspection when continuous iuspcction.� were required, etc,) sh;lll be specificall)
itemiLed in this report.
B. Contractor ResINnsibilities
I , Nlotfl�y the Special Inspector when work is ready for speCi3l
It is the duty of the contractor to notify the Special insPectOl'
inspection. Note, the items listed oil the attached schedule and as noted on the approved Plans,111d.
specifications are required to have special inspections. Adequate notice shall be provided by the
contractor so that the special inspector has time to become fhft�Uar with the proect.
2. Provide Access to Approved Plans -ed plans t the
The contractor is responsible for providing the special inspector accevi I. pproN a
z
0
i
jobsite.
0
Retain Special Inspection Records
The contractor is responsible to retain at the jobsite all special inspection records sOmitted by the
--i
special inspector. These records are to be proNided to the Cit,.v building illspector upon request.
M
C
M
0
Buildine Dep rt
Ci!3- of Edmunds ment Res bilities
0
0 C:
1. Approve special inspectors or inspection agencies
The building department shall approve all special inspectors and special inspi�ction requirellke0t.S.
--i M
X M
M
Z
2, Monitor special insPectiOn and approve weekly reports
ectors shall be mo0torcd by
inSPectiOu the of special insP I
—Z
>
r- -q
Work requiring special and performance I
the City Building inspector. Ilis/Her approval must be obtained prior t 0 placenient of concrete or
x
� W
other similar activities in Adition to that of the special inspector.
0 -n
3. Issue Certificate of OCCUPWKY
The Building Official may issue a Certificate of Oecupallcv after all weekly special ii1SPc'ctiOr' "POx-t`
M M
0 —cn
including the final rePOrt'have been submitted and accepteel.
0 r-
0 M
C Cn
D. Owner Resvonjhjlit�-N;
,— d
The pl-oject owner or the engineer or architect of record actin� as the wxner's 20 nt %hail fund
M 0
Z
4
special inspection services.
X
KEgiacer or rchitect of Ilecard' "e, .2millil Wes
N �— 11(le special inspection I-equirenlents on tile plans find
incl
>
The engineer or arebitect of record shall
z
Specifications.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
i veread and ikgrae to contply Ivith (he torms and conditions Ophig agreement.
CD
z
`ZA
Date
0
Ov% ner
0
M
Special Inspecto D rite
G eneral Contractor Date
Building Official D3te 01
City
1.;\TEJvll1',Bk JI 11) IN G'S pez jail n�-,pcct; onA grec 71,'04
SEP-09-2004 16: 1; P. 01.:� 109
SPECIAL INSFEL-110N AND TFSTM SCHEDULIF,
mcoWTHAW
Z I pf'- - K7—.
AMMMU msnmGufspu—nrm miecy ow spfcLaLL tm spwycA
REWORCED CONCRETE, GUNITE, GROUT AND MORTAX; STRUCTURAL smr.,LWELDING-
cootsm Guaft crWA mwtxw — Surrpk and Tea (Hu tpecitfic jounbm below)
Rri"farcint Ttsa
itA
Ittip(Min FlAccamm
"wing
un lc�
Sm"E—rezim Tests
_shop Wtaiml Idodficatica
— %wag Impaw" 0 shcr 0 Sew
— tlww"ic Insptaim Elsbop 0 FW4
— fligtt's-trusth Boiling
Inspm-tion D Shop 0 Fkid
0 A325 ON Ox OF
0 A490
Mew DtW1 WeWing lmpmwn
?&ul sw %ldiftj Inspectou
PRECAISTIPRLME.SSED CONCRETE: Cormse imn Weding Inspectitm
Pik$ Pw-:Tms hv-TqW cuddim
A sMak'761s
TeAdcaTesis
Mix RS!�jns
Reinfoiche Piacement
hmT1 Havernew
Comm Bitching
Ccxg:mlc Flammal
lamlla6on lm�cpctlon
cAst sampirs
Lc�mmioa Teas
FIRMOMINU.'
Plicuncnt lospectiod
L)cmty Tms
Ttiickncu Tests
INSULAIING CONCRISTE:
Samplt andresr
Plutmem Inspeetioo
FILLNIATERIAL;
Accepume TeAs
MASONRY- Placenwnt l"pection
spccial lWmian suesses rLeW Dmity
PmWrnlimtry Acctp4= Tam (M&Sonry Unim. Wall Priwui STRUCTURAL WOOD:
Sutacquent Tesm (Mom. Gam. Field WO Fr6ml)
Pixemw Impectim of Units shfu Wall Nailing Ingetim
lopwtion of Giu.lam Fab.
laspi.%lioa of Truss Joilt Fab.
ADDITIONAL INSTRUMONS OR ME R TESTS Szmp�r wW Tcm Q"Mcrtu
AND I NSPECn ONS:
SOIL &4&tW6 1611"6944rei
Form mmpincd by. Mile.
'Cck**C No.;
T07AL P.09
z
0
4
0
m
-n
cl) -4
m
c
m
0
-40
0
--i
X M
mZ
c
0 -n
n
m M
0
0
0 M
C c)
9 co
M 0
Z
X
__q
X
z
z
0
1
0
m
09
FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL FORM
TO:
MEMO TO: PERMIT COORDINATOR, BUILDING DIVISION
FROM:
DATE: 1
FIRE DEPARTMENT DATE
PLEASE SIGN
K-Jw. ENGINEERING DIVISION DATE
PLANNING DIVISION DATE
PLEASE SIGN
L
PROJECT
77.
SITE ADDRESS— -95-33 4-
PERMIT #--I& -d 9"2 -7 ADB# DATE INSPECTED
DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE INSPECTED 15 .-
A field inspection was conducted to determine compliance with -approved plans. Final approval
denotes that there are no objections from the above signed Department to the release of
PERFORMANCE BONDS and the granting of:
GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL
GRANT PROJECT APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS NOTED
0 Copy of CONDITIONS given to owner/contractor by inspector
I .
FAILED FINAL INSPECTION - OUTSTANDING ISSUES.
0 Copy of CORRECTION NOTICE given to owner/contractor by inpector
I .
2.
3.
RE -INSPECTED OUTSTANDING ISSUES - GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL
Date Signature
1:tenip:b1dg:ronns:ocaprv1 3/25/04
z
0
1
0
M
--I -n
M
C
M
0
0 C:
M
M z
JO
C'n
o -n
n
M M
0
0
0 M
C: C/)
K Cn
M C)
Z
z
--i
3:
Cn
z
0
1
0
M
RECORD OF INSPECTIONS
INSPECTOR DATE APPROVED
SETBACKS .....................
FOUNDATION:
Footing ...................... Ix) —t 1� - 3
Wall ..........................
Pier/Porch ................ i'D
z
Retaining Wall ........... 0
Slab Insulation ..........
PLUMBING:
71 :Fi
Underground .............
M
Rough -In ................... f -2- 0
M
0
Commercial Final ......
0 C
HEATING: M
ITIZ
Gas Test ....................
Gas Piping ................. >
CD
Equipment ................. 0 -n
-n
Commercial Final . .......
EXTERIOR SHEATHING MITI
NAILING .......................... 055
0 r-
FRAMING ................... 0 M
C C/)
FIRST FLOOR FRAMING... M 0
Z
INSULATION ...................
Floor Insulation ......... 'Z_ CL<
>
Wall Insulation ........... -2- ( 6_ —0,5 z
Ceiling Insulation ....... M7-
C/)
SHEETROCK NAILING ... v", z
0
SPECIAL INSPECTION
-1 T 171
MISCELLANEOUS ..........
FINAL APPROVAL FOR
OCCUPANCY ..................
-7
Side Sewer
Amout Paid$ P..ccc!Pt
Date Issued r,-
WaterMeterSize_ !2)
Amount Paid_N_9?�
The initials m,r ai-e Milton DatePurchased
Thompson, a temporary contract rZOW#
illspectol- flor tile City. .24i m ount Paid
D--le