20040828.pdfDATE RECEIVED
CITY OF EDMONDS
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION
OWNER NAMEINAME OF BUSINESS
MAILING ADDRESS
NAME
L- ADDRE�SS
a:
4t
NAME
ZIP TELEPHONE
1�:,li - Llz� __V 2-
k , I I
zV
ZIP ITELEPHONE
-'+Nk%4 I )_ L L, V kl,% I (. -) q -) \ V,:) WL
ADDRESS
CBL 0
C
CITY
ZIP
TELEPHONE
STATE LICEASE NUMBER EXPIRATION DATE
CHECKED BY
PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL NO.
I qsco) -
4 -00011
NEW
RESIDENTIAL
PLUMBING / MECH
7
El ADDITION
COMMERCIAL
COMPLIANCE OR
CHANGE OF USE
13 REMODEL
MULTIFAMILY
SIGN
1:1 REPAIR
GRADING
19i CYDS
FENCE
I X FT)
1:1 DEMOLISH
TANK
OTHER
�GARAGE
Et Cnmfqm�x
RETAINING WALL
ROCKERY
FIRE SPRINKLER
FIRE ALARM
(TYPE OF USE, BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN:
I c-)
F' fk�
NUMBER
OF
L-
NUMBER OF
DWELLING
I z
CRITICAL
AREAS 0 /7)
4V
STORIES
UNITS
NUMBER/")/V—
DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE
I PE RMIT EXPIRES
USE PERMIT
ZONE
NUMBER
JOB
ADDRESS
ML
PLAT NAMEI;UBDIVISION NO. LOT NO.
W
PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP
EXISTING - PROPOSED
REQUIRED DEDICATION Fr
METER SIZE TL17NE SIZE NO. OF FIXTURES
17
SUITE/APT#
LID NO.
LID FEE S
TESCP APPIOVOO
RW Pe,mit Requited
Spoel Use Permit Req'd
jilspection Required
sidewalk Rectijifed
Undolground
wiring gertuired
YES
REMARKS
OWN ER/CON TRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROL/DRAINAGE
F.
a
FIRE REVIEWED BY
I
DATE
JIFIED
NO 1:3
z
z
F3
Z
LU
LLI
cc
iE
VARIANCWFI CU
SHORELINE OR ADBN
A
P EQC.TION
REqD,,
BOND
POSTED
LINS
] S
YES P�NO
S
SEPA F IEW
COMPLETE EXEMPT
SIGN AREA
ALLOWED PROPOSED
HEIGHT
ALLOWED PROPOSED
LOT COVERAGE
ALLOWED PROPOSED
REQUIRED SETBACKS (FT)
FR SjDE RE�AFI
PROPOSED SETBACKS (Fr.)
FRqNT /UR S.PE R
OK CC/- W
�PNT
0 5' 1615.
16 �i5,,
z
z
PARKING
REO'D VID
PRC� D
LOT AREA
b
NNING REVIEWED BY DATE
r� /0 L
_E
REMARKS
P-00 -17,�,
CHECKED BY
TYPE OF gpNSTRUCTION
I C.ODE
OCCUPANT
GR
SPECIAL INS
r
AREA
OCCUPANT/
REQUIRED WY
LOAD
�
0
REMARKS/
INSPECTIONS
PER UBC 108/IBC1091IRC109
FINAL INSPECTION REQ'D
z
a
ROGRESS
j
P
-6 A'A 0 1 -/,"7 YCIS
HEAT �kIOURCE GLAZING % IN SLqPE %
"Q� ir /c,
I
PLAN CHEC�10*
VESTED DATE
.........
THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO
BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC
DOMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE
SEPARATE PERMISSION.
IL
C11
Lu PERMIT APPLICATION: 180 DAYS
PERMIT LIMIT I YEAR - PROVIDED WORK IS STARTED WITHIN 180 DAYS
SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION
in 'APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS. ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS
V)
!H IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF
M EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES. AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND
ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE. ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF 1HIS PERMIT SHALL NO] BE
DEEMED TO MODIFY WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE
0 NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITYS ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY CRDINANCE PROVISION."
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION; THAT THE INFORMATION
GIVEN IS CORRECT; AND THAT I AM THE OWNER, OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF
THE OWNER. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITI I CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC-
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
WORKMEN'S COf�PENSATION INSURANCE AND RCW 18.27.
SI �TTLRE (OWN�R OR kd?�T),'
DATE SIGNED
(ALLIATION
; 121 17
Description
FEE
Description
FEE
31an Check
State Surcharge
3uilding Permit
City Surcharge
3lumbing
Base Fee
1
EAechanical
irading
S radi n g
Engr. Review
Engr. Inspection
Fire Review—
Plan Chk. Deposit
Fire Inspection
Receipt #
Landscapelnsp.
Total Amt. Due
Recording Fee
Receipt #
APPLICATION APPROVAL
CALL
This application is not a permit until signed by the
Building official or his/tier Deputy: and Fees are paid. and
FOR INSPECTION
receipt is acknowledged in space provided.
OFFICIALS SIGNATURE DATE
(425)
771-0220
RELEASE" DATE
/ / - - A 11 1 1 /
- I/
ATTENTION \'�CUPYA BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTILAFINAL
IT IS UNLAWFlJLT0 USE OR 0 LL
INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTIFICATE OF OCCU-
PANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC109/iBC110/IRC110.
09/03 PRESS HARD -YOU ARE MAKING 4 COPIES
L-FILE YELI_CM-INbIT_WU
OWNER GOLD -ASSESSOR
&A
z
0
1
0
M
--i _n
W
3:
0 M
C
M 0
0
-40
0 C:
-49
x rn
M z
_z
3:
W
0 -n
n
-4
3:9
M M
0
0
0 M
C: (/)
9 Cn
M 0
Z 17,
z
W
z
0
i
0
M
3
WATER & SEWER
INSPECTIONS REQ'D.
CALI. 425-771-0220 EXT. 1326
III - 0
A C 0 E !:` I'Al '-.3 'E -f IGHTLINE
MATERIAL
SDA 35
SCH 40
N - 12
ir-*81 0 HANCOR
FOOTING DRAINS NOT,
TO BE TIED INT6:!.�""
DETENTION SYSTEM
%01 5f:mf'�%dm
et
10'UTILIT'r—
Ir Vxo'D EASEMENT_
Zone 4� Corner IV Flag IV
�jcfbacks Emuired Actual
ALL EXPOSED SURFACES TO Front 10 16
BE COVERED WITHIN 2 DAYS ___6-
7
Sides
13 7to I A1c_Cd1^,f1' �,,q
Rear
Other
,xv 4
I I wfi/ ADDRESS XXXX 210TH FLACELWO—It
- - _\. /- ?�(q _IW6
Q1 VAI
MAkNi'd NI T-
ALLOWED 140/A\J- Ft4r-
01
44/0,'� 9*,q,,W10TH FLACE SN
LOT I
5r=I=_ (�f=—Nr=R^L NOTES 5c:-,ALE. I"=20'
/7
(y
'z 0
r-z
LEOAL LOT 1, MADRONA COVE
DESCRIPTION:. APPROVED Ry PLANNING
1 A/O
SITE AREA: q06cl 5GUARE FEET
ZONIN6,t . PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
HEIrvHT CALCULATION (BASED FROM EX15TIN(S, ORADP)
A= 40q'
5= 406.5'
C = 412'
.D= 411'
1655.5/4= 40q.625'
AVERAOE EX15TINO &F;ZADE= 40q.625'
ACTUAL BUILDINO Hr=1(3HT= 454.25' 4E
MAXIMUM BUILDINO HEIOHT= 454.625' ,—'
BENCHMAR-l< Hee,4_ EjeV'k_r:'1"'-\
ARFZAZI�� FOR HEIeHTVERIFI(�:,ATION)
IMPERVIOUS AF:ZEAS
RESIDENCE I^V 1-75-7 eGUARE FEET
r-\/F:ZD PORCHEE)
-NOTED
DF;Zl\/EkqA'r5 400 5GUARE FEET ;VED AS
PATIO 120 5GUAR-E FEET v-j,4c%21NEERING
NALKVqA'7'5 (NE" 100 501JARE FEET'- WA
.11?.41good
TOTAL 2,55-7 SGUARE FEE-r0a0:
tat C-1
LOT COVERAC-YE-
( LOT COVER'ArvE 15 BASED UPON 5591, OF ENTIRE
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT)
1-75-7 50UARE FEEt OF PROP05ED LOT COVERACE
(INCLUDES STRUCTURE, COVEF;ZED PORCHES, r.)Er-<S 0\/Ef;z 50")
iv
2 000 4
y
C I T Y& C
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
PEPPEFWOOD
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
8526 MAIN STREET
z
0
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
0
E-10075
0 M
May 14, 2002
0
C
PREPARED FOR
z
PHOENIX DEVELOPMENT, INC.
vi
0 -n
MM
C/)
0 M
C CD
C Cn
M 0
Z
;U
z
rE7R FS 7
CD
z
Raymond -A. Coglas, P.E.
Project Manager
M
Earth Consultants, Inc.
1805 - 136th Place Northeast, Suite 201
Bellevue, Washington 98005
(206) 643-3780
Toll Free 1-888-739-6670
CITY
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 publiCaLions of ASFE/
The Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in
tile Geosciences.
The following suggestions and observations are olfered
to help you reduce tile geotech n ical- related delays.
cost -overruns and other costly headaches that can
occur during a construction project.
A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
REPORT IS BASED ON A UNIOUE SET
OF PROJECT -SPECIFIC FACTORS
A geotechnical engineering report is based on a subsur-
face exploration plan designed to incorporate a unique
set of project -specific factors. These typically include:
the general nature of the structure involved, its size and
configuration; the location of the structure on the site
and its orientation; physical concomitants such as
access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities.
and the level of additional risk which the client assumed
by virtue of limitations imposed upon the exploratory
program. To help avoid costly problems. consult tile
geo ' technical engineer to determine how any factors
which change subsequent to the date of tile report may
affect its recommendations.
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 an unre-
frigerated one;
• when the si ze or con f igu ration of the proposed
structure is altered;
• when the location or orientation of tile 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 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 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 the client. Use
by any other persons for any purpose, or by the client
for a different purpose, may result in problems. No indi-
vidual other than the client should apply this report for its
intended purpose without first conferring with the geotechnical
engineer. No person should apply this report for any purpose
other than that originally contemplated without first conferring
with the geoiechnical engineer
Z
0
4
0
M
=i 9
C/)
M
0
0
0
0 C
—4 r.
X M
M Z
C) -1
C
Cn
0 -n
n
M M
0
0
0 M
C Cn
9 C/)
M 0
Z
X
Z
Cn
Z
0
1
0
M
I
Earth Consultants Inc.
1111olla sdenlists
& i-twitot
May 14, 2002 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-10075, dated March 1, 2002.
Based on the results of our study, development of the site as planned is feasible from a
geotechnical standpoint. Medium dense to very dense glacial till was observed at the test
pit locations. Fill and yard waste materials were observed 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.
Recomrnendations for setbacks and other geotechnical recommendations are presented in
this geotechniGal engineering study.
1805 - 136th Place RE, Suite 201, Bellevue, Washington 98005 Bellevue (425) 643-3780 FAX (425) 746-0860 Toll Free (888) 739-6670
z
0
4
0
M
--i -n
M
M
0
-10
0 C
--I K % . , I
M M
M z
J0
0 -n
n
M M
0 —Cn . I
0 F-
0 M
C C/)
9 CD
M 0
Z
z
Cn
z
0
i
0
M
I
Phoenix Development
May 14, 2002 E-10075
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,
0
M
ISULTANTS, INC.
CO SULTAN
EA CM
"Cogla
M
:ond
M
0
C
A.
E
X M
Project Manager
M Z
RACJJrne
C —Z
0 -n
3:
IT! M
C)
0-
r
0 M
MCI),
Q 0
Z
X,
3:,
�z
Z'
0
0.
171
Earth Consultants, Inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
E-,10075
PAGE
z
INTRODUCTION a a 0 0 a 0 6 0 0 0 a 0 4 0 & 0 0 6 a 0 0 a a dead
0
General a a a a a a a a a 0 4 a 4 0 4 a a a a 0 0 a a a a a 4646004040 0 0 0 a a 0 a 4 0 4 0 4 a a a a of 4 @@seemed 04 a do 000 0 4 0 0 0 a 4 0 a a a 0 a 4 0
m
Proigct Descripfions a 4 a a a a a a 0 a 4 a 0 4 4 0 a a 0 a 0 4 a a 9 a a a 0 a 4 a a a a a a 4 a a 4 a a 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 a & a 0 4 0 0 a 4 a 6 0 a 4 a
sell
adds
2
SITE CONDITIONS 0400 added a a's 0*0 0 0 0 eased Goosed a @so 6000000060 Cn
2 m
0 a a a a a 0 0 4 a 4 0 4 a 0 0 6 a 0 a 0 0 0 a 4 a
a a 0 a a 0 4�6 0 a a a a a a a a a 0 a 0 0 a a
Surface C
M
0
3
Steep Slope EvalualLon deal 0
3 0 C
Subsurface
4 m
6 0 0 a 0 a 0 a a 0 a 0 4 a a 0 a a a a a a a 9 0 a 0 8 a 4 6
Groundwater. m Z,
4 10 deal
a 4 4 0 a a 0 a 0 0 0 0 a a 0 0 0 a a 4 a 6 0 a 0 0 a 9 a a 0 a a a 4 a 0 4 0 0 0 a 0
Laboratory Tesmg dead
C z
>
momil
4
N AND RECOMMENDATIONSO a a 6 0 0 a a a 4 6 0 6 0 4 a 4 0 a 0 0 0 a 0 a 4 0 0 a 4 a 0 4 4 4 a a 6 a 0 0 a a 0 0 a a 4 leads
DISCUSSIO
4 M
General80440 oeseasome added *does 4 4 4 a a a 4 0 4 as a ad a a a 0 a a 0 a a a a 00000 0 04 a a losses a *seems 4 0 am
a 6 den
Site Preparation and General Earthwork. a a 0 a a 4 a 0 a a 4 a 4 a 0 0 0 0 a 6 1 a 6 a 4 a 0 0 1 a a a 0 a 4 0 0 a 4 6 4 0 0 a 0 a a "Mai
7
Steep Slope Buffer m M
a 8
Foundations. dead
CD
0
9 red
Permanent Retaining and Foundation Walls .......possessed 0.6404 0000000*0 on 8464444 4 a a a 6 0 a a 0 9 0 0 0 4 a a a 0 m
I I samovosoes 10 Cn
Seismic Design Considerations...... �4468 ad goddesses 0 Models 0 losses 64400 0 0044409 6*044 sea 00000000
cn,
Slab —on —Grade Floors. M 0
z resed
dead!
Site Drainacie.
Excavations and Slopes adooloodasome adds eggs a 0 a 4 a 4 a 0 a a 6 6 4 0 a a 9 a a a a 0 0 a a a 4 4 0 a a a 0 a 4 0 4 a 0 a a a a 9 1 0 4 a 0 0 a 0 1 2
Wilily Trench Backfill 664464644 eased 4 lasso a 4 a A a 6 a 1 2
13 z
Rockeriesa 0 a 4 a 0 4 0 a a a 4 0 0 a a 0 a 0 4 4 8 0 a 0 a a a a 6 0 a 0 4 4 4 a 0 a 0 a 0 a 0 a 0 a 4 6 4
14
Pavement Areas 00000 od4*0004 ago "oes 40 a a 0 0 a 4 0 0 0 a 6 4 4 0 6 0 a a 9 a a a 4 0 a a a a
dead
Cn
z
LIMITATIONS*0604000000 fleas asoodeael 4 a 9 a 6 a a a 6 a 0 a 9 a 9 a 0 a 9 4 0 0 a 0 4 d 0 4 a 0 a a 6 4 a 0 4 0 0 0 14 0
15
AddftionalServicess 0 a 0 a a 4 a 0 0 a 4 0 0 a a 0 a 4 4 0 a 0 4 0 4 a 4 0 a 0 0 0 a a a a 0 a 0 0 a 0 a a a a a 0 a a a a 9 0 0 a a 0 a 0 0 a 0 a 0 4 0 a 0 A a 0 4 9 4 a a 4 0 4 0 0 0 a 0 a a 0
m
Earth Consultantse Inc,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
E-10075
ILLUSTRATIONS
Plate 1
Vicinity Map
Z
0
Plate 2
Test Pit Location Plan
Plate 3
Typical Footing Subdrain Detail
K
Plate 4
Typical Utility Trench Fill
9
m
APP ENDICES
C
M,
Appendix A
Field Exploration
0
0
0 C
Plate Al
Legend
IT!
Plates A2 through Al 2
Test Pit Logs
ITIZI
Appendix B
Laboratory Test Results
-4
X
plate 131
Grain Size Analyses
CD
0 -n
M
m
0 m
C CA
K W
�mo
I Z
;U
Z:I
Z
0
j:.
0
m
Earth consultants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
PEPPERWOOD
RES! DENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
8526 MAIN STREET
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
E-11 0075
INTRODUCEON
rjpnp-ra
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.
P-mopet Dp-scdpfim
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.
Z
0
rn
--i -n
3:
M
0
0
0
0 C
-49
X M
M Z
C')
o -n
n
M M
0
0
0 M
C: cl)
K Cn
M 0
Z
7-1
3:
Z
--i
3:
0)
Z
0
M
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFUNG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075
May 14, 2002 Page 2
An existing rockery along Main Street will be maintained and incorporated into the final
development. The existing rockery is up to approximately ten (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 t o
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 (40) to
fifty (50) feet. Based on the site survey prepared by Group Four Inc., the steep slope
areas within the planned development are limited to the north end of the property
adjacent to Building Lot 9.
The upper east half of the property is relatively flat, with gently sloping areas that
descend to the east. An existing rockery and steep driveway area are located at the
northeast corner of the site. As previously discussed, the existing rockery will be
incorporated into the new development, and the driveway areas will likely be filled to
create a level building lot area. The maximum height of the existing rockery is
approximately ten (10) to twelve (12) feet.
The lower west portion of the development area is located at the toe of the existing
slope that approximately bisects the property in a north -south direction. The
immediate toe area of the site is relatively flat, and is located along an existing utility
easement corridor that connects to Main Street on the north and Pioneer Way on the
south. On the extreme west side of the property, west of the utility easement, there is
an area of ascending steep slopes. Development is not planned in this area.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
z
0
1
0
M
M
C
M
0
__10
0 C
M
M Z
0)
0 -n
n
M M
0 6)
0 r-
0 M
C cl)
K 0)
Q 0
Z
X
z
--I
z
0
--I
M
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEPJNG 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.
ble.
Based on our observations, it appears the slopes are sta
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 locations TP-4 and TP-5. The fill consisted of loose silty sand
soils, and extended to depths of four to five feet. Yard waste piles were also observed
along the top of the steep slope area in the vicinity of Test Pits TP-4 and TP-5.
At the time the test pit exploration was performed (March 2002), the upper deposit of
weathered glacial till was generally in a wet condition. Laboratory testing indicates
moisture contents of approximately 13 to 16 percent, or greater for the weathered glacial
till. The lower deposit of unweathered glacial till was in a moist to wet condition, and
had moisture contents generally in the range of approximately 8 percent to 10 percent.
Earth Consultants. Inc.
Z
0
'I
0
M
--i -n
0 M
M 0
0
—40
0 C
M
M Z
0 -n
n
M M
0
0
0 M
Cl)
Cn
M 0
Z
Z
CO
Z
0
I
0
M
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFUNG 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 groundvvmter seepage, however, should be expected in
deep excavations. Based on the conditions observed at the time of our field exploration,
we do not anticipate groundvwter 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 Testing
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 RECOMMEWATIONS
General
Based on the subsurface conditions observed at the test pit locations, development of the
site is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The proposed single family residences can
be supported on conventional spread and continuous footings bearing on the medium
dense to dense glacial till soils observed at the test pit locations. The building
foundations can also be supported on structural fill soils that are used to modify the
existing site grades. The medium dense to dense glacial till soil suitable for support of
foundations was generally observed at a depth of approximately two feet below the
native ground surface elevation.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
z
0
0
M
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 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, groundwater seepage may be encountered in the excavation for
the storm water detention vault. However, in our opinion, groundveter 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
M
M
C
MID
0
0
0 C
X M
M Z
C _Z
Cl)
0 -n
n
M M
0
0
0 M
C cl)
9 Cl)
Q 0
Z
Z
Z
0
M
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFJNG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc.
May 14, 2002
E-10075
Page 6
This geotechnical engineering study has been prepared for the exclusive use of Phoenix
Development, Inc. and their representatives. This study was prepared for specific
application to this project only and in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill
ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar
conditions in this area. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. We
recommend that this geotechnical engineering study, in its entirety, be included in the
project contract documents for the information of the contractor.
Site Preparation and General Earthwork
The proposed development areas of the site should be stripped and cleared of existing
surface vegetation, topsoil, existing structures, and other deleterious materials. Existing
utility pipes that will be abandoned should be plugged or removed. Based on the
conditions observed at the test pit locations, the thickness of the topsoil layer ranges
between approximately two (2) inches to twelve (12) inches. 'The thickness of the
topsoil layer will vary throughoutthe site.
The ground surface where structural fill, or foundations are to be placed should be
observed by a representative of ECI. An ECI representative should also observe the
excavation for the proposed storm water detention vault and roadway cuts. Existing fill
soil and organic debris that is encountered in the building and vault foundation
excavations should be overexcavated. Due to the relatively high fines content of the
native soils, moisture sensitivity of the soils will be moderate to high. Building and
pavement subgrade areas that are exposed to extended periods of precipitation will likely
become unstable. If the subgrade soil in the proposed foundation and pavement areas
becomes saturated and unstable, overexcavation of the unstable soil and replacement
with structural fill may be necessary.
In our opinion, the majority of the native soils can be considered for use as structural fill,
provided the soil is placed during dry weather conditions, and provided the moisture
content of the soil is at or near the optimum moisture content at the time of placement.
At the time of the subsurface exploration (March, 2002) the upper deposit of weathered
glacial till was generally in a wet condition. Laboratory testing indicates moisture
contents of 13 percent or greater for the weathered glacial till. The lower deposit of
unweathered glacial till was generally in a moist to wet condition, and had moisture
contents of approximately 10 percent. ECI will work with the contractor to assess the
suitability of the on -site soils for use as structural fill.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
z
0
4
0
R!
=i --fi
M
C
MO
0
__10
0 C
M
M z
0
M M
0
0
0 M
C cl)
9 Cn
M 0
Z
X
z
z
0
1
0
M
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEPJNG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075
May 14, 2002 Page 7
Imported soil intended for use as structural fill should consist of a fairly well graded
granular soil with a moisture content that is at or near the optimum moisture content, and
having a maximum aggregate size of four inches. During wet weather conditions,
imported fill should consist of a fairly well graded granular material having a maximum
Z
0
ize of four inches and no more than 5 percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve based on,
s
the minus 3/4-inch fraction.
M
Structural fill is defined as compacted fill placed under foundations, roadways, slabs,
--j
pavements, or other load -bearing areas. Structural fill under slabs and footings should be
X
M
C
placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding twelve (12) inches in loose thickness and
M C)
0
compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of its laboratory max imum dry density. The
0
0 C
maximum dry density should be determined in accordance with ASTIVI Test Designation
-4 r.
I the optimum
D-1 557-91 (Modified Proctor). The fill materials should be paced at or near
X M
M Z
moisture content. Fill under pavements and walks should also be placed in horizontal lifts
C _Z
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 maxi mum dry density. If a
55
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
Steep Slgpg Buffer
C)
0
0 M
C Cn
In our opinion, due to the dense condition of the glacial till soils observed at the site, and
9 (D i I
M
the stable condition of the existing slope areas, a minimum ten (10) foot bu ffer from the
0
Z
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
Z
geotechnical report can demonstrate that no adverse impacts to the slope or surrounding
X
developments will result. In our opinion, reducing the buffer distance to ten (10) feet will
Z
not adversely impact the stability of the steep slope areas. The observed stability of the
0
i
existing slope and the presence of dense glacial till soils is the primary basis for this
0
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
Z'
fill and the slope. In our opinion, due to the dense glacial till soil conditions, fill and
0
rockery placement on the slope will not adversely impact the stability of the slope. As
0
previously discussed, an engineered reinforced rockery design should be completed for
M
the proposed fill and rockery areas.
=i
r
Foundations
rn
C 0
M
0
-10
In our opinion, the proposed single family residences can be supported on conventional
0 C:
spread and continuous footings bearing on the medium dense t o dense glacial till soil
-4 C
X M
observed at the test pit locations. Where necessary, the proposed building foundations
M z
can also be supported on structural fill that is used to modify the existing site grades.
C: 2
Foundations should not be supported on the existing fill soils. The medium dense to
E:
dense glacial till soils suitable for support of foundations was generally observed at a
Cn
-"
depth of approximately two feet below the native ground surface elevation.
0
For foundations bearing on the medium dense to dense glacial till soil or structural fill, an
M rn
0
allowable soil bearing capacity of two thousand five hundred (2,500) pounds per square
0
foot (psf) can be used. This allowable soil bearing capacity has a facto r-O f-safety in
0 M
C CD
9 Cn
excess of 3.0 against shear failure, provided the foundations are placed on competent
rn 0
Z
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.
z
r
If loose or unstable soil conditions are encountered at the footing subgrade elevation, the
CO
soil should be overexcavated, and replaced with structural fill. The width of the
z
0
overexcavation should extend a minimum of six inches beyond each edge of the
--I
0
foundation.
M
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.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEMINIG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc.
May 14, 2002
E-10075
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-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 Found_afionWalls
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
:; 9
Om
C
RIO
0
0
0 C
--I K
X M
M Z
r') --I
C
C1)
0 _n
n
M M
0 F)
0 r-
0 M
C cl)
9 V)
Q 0
Z
z
a:
65
z
0
1
.0
M
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEMNIG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc.
May 14, 2002
E-10075
Page 10
Retaining and foundation walls should be provided with a four inch diameter perforated
drainpipe and backfilled with a free -draining granular soil with less than 5 percent fines
(percent passing the No. 200 sieve based on the minus % inch fraction). The zone of
free -draining granular soil should extend along the entire height of the wall, and a distance
of at least eighteen (18) inches behind the wall. A surface seal consisting of a less
permeable silty sand soil can be placed along the upper one foot of the wall backfill, if
desired. The remainder of the backfill behind the zone of free draining soil should consist
of a suitable granular structural fill.
Seismic Design 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
i
0
M
:; --fi
M
C
M
0
0 C:
M
M Z
—Z
Cn
0 _rl
n
M M
0 5)
0 r-
0 M
C cl)
9 0
M 0
Z
X
Z
Z
0
i
0
M
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFUNG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-1 0075
May 14, 2002 Page 11
To have potential for liquefaction, a soil must be cohesionless with a grain size
distribution of a specified range (generally sands and silt); it must be loose to medium -
dense; it must be below the groundv\eter table; and it must be subject to sufficient
magnitude and duration of groundshaking.
Z
0
Based on the soil and groundv\eter conditions observed at the site, it is our opinion that
0
M
the site has a low susceptibility to liquefaction. The dense condition of the native soils is
the primary basis for this conclusion.
CD
M
Slab -on -Grade Floors
C 0
M 0
-40
0 C:
Slab -on -grade floors can be supp oried on competent native soils or structural fill. Loose
-4 r.
or unstable subgrade soils should be stabilized prior to construction of the s lab. The use
X M
M Z
of a geotextile and crushed rock can be considered for stabilizing the subgrade soils, if
ID -1
C
necessary. A four4nch capillary break consisting of a free draining poorly graded sand or
>
gravel with less than 5 percent fines (perce nt passing the No. 200 sieve, based on the
X
Vi
minus 3/4-inch fraction) should be placed below the slab. In areas where slab moisture is
0 -n
undesirable, a vapor barrier such as a 6-mil plastic membrane can be placed beneath the
n
free draining sand or gravel. The subgrade soils in slab -on -grade areas of the site should
X
M M
be observed by a representative of ECI prior t o placing the capillary break material.
0 U5
0 r-
0 M
C
Site Drainne
9 Cn
M 0
During construction, surface water runoff must not be allowed to stand in construction
Z
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
Z
soils. Finish grades around the buildings must be sloped such that surface water is
directed away from the buildings.
Z
0
Perimeter footing drains should be installed around the perimeter foundations to intercept
M
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.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEPJNG STUDY E-1 0075
Phoenix Development, Inc.
May 14, 2002 Page 12
Excavations and Slope
The following information is provided solely as a service to our client. Under no
circumstances should this information be interpreted to mean that ECI is assuming.
responsibility for construction site safety or the contractor's activities; such responsibility
is not being implied and should not be inferred.
In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local, state,
and Federal safety regulations. - Based on the information obtained from our field
exploration, the upper deposit of weathered glacial till that extends to a depth of
approximately four feet below existing site grades would be classified as Type C soils by
OSHA. The existing fill observed at the site would also be classified as Type C soil.
Temporary cuts in Type C soils should be sloped at an inclination no steeper than
1.5H:1 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�ater 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.
Uitility-Trench Backfill
Based on the soil conditions encountered at the time of our exploration, the native soils
should provide adequate support for utilities. If remedial measures are necessary to
provide adequate support for utilities, the unsuitable soils can be overexcavated and
replaced with a rock ballast and pipe bedding material such as pea gravel. The presence
of groundv\ater seepage should be expected in the deeper utility trench excavations and
the proposed detention vault excavation.
Earth Consultants. Inc.
z
0
1
0
M
--i -n
0)
M
C
M
0
-10
0 C
M
M Z
10--1 .1
C —Z
0 -n
n
--i
X
MM
0
0
0 M
C cn
9 C/)
Q 0
Z
X
z
W
z
0
-1
0
M
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEENNG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc.
May 14, 2002
E-1 0075
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.
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
R!
=i --fi
M
M 0
0
0
0 C
4 r.
= M
M Z
1[) —1
C
0)
0 71
n
M M
0
0
0 M
C (n
90)
M C)
Z
3:
z
--i
X
C1)
z
0
1
0
M
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERNG 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. Strvctural fill in pavement areas should be prepared as described in the Site
Preparation and General Earthwork section of this report. This means the pavement
subgrade should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density. It is
possible that some localized areas of soft, wet or unstable subgrade may exist after the
pavement subgrade is prepared. Overexcavation and a greater thickness of structural fill
or crushed rock may be needed to stabilize these localized areas. A biaxial geogrid such
as Tensar BX-11 200 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
0 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
1
0
M
—i -n
f
M
C:
M
0
__10
0 C:
X M
M Z
C
o -n
n
M M
0 5)
0 r-
0 M
0)
C/)
M 0
Z
Z
Z
0
M
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�eter conditions between exploration sites ma y vary from
those encountered. The nature and extent of variations between our exploratory
I ld
locations may not become evident until construction. If variations do appear, EC shou
be requested to reevaluate the recommendat ions of this report and allowed to modify or
Z.
0
verify our recommendations in writing prior to proceeding with the construction.
Additional Services
We recommend that ECI be retained to perform a general review of the final design and
C M
pecification hat the earthwork and foundation recommendations have been
s s to verify t
M 0
0
p roperly interpreted and implemented in the design and in the construction specifications.
80
C
M
We also recommend that ECI be retained to provide geotechnical services during
M z
construction. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications or
C z
recommendations and to allow design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ
>
from those anticipated prior to the start of c onstruction. We do not accept responsibility
Cn
for the performance of the foundati ' on or earthwork unless we ar e retained to review the
0 -n
j
construction drawings and spec ifications, and to provide construction observation and
testing.
M M
C/)
0
0 M
C C/)
K cly
MO
Z
M
Earth Consultants, Inc.
e CHERRI ST "'W lolls
;f,
N%
9601
-,13
57---s W& 1
RFU %4
-A
0,
ri mi
lat?
St
J z
01141310a 1, 0 Fol't% FE
194
CIL
V,
1-96T 4. -:ST.
..Am �r SW F �ftoo,�:r."',
PU ET PU�ET
MELODY LN wyr 7! lr� j,
Wy
157
HINOL
OR SMOMSE ST :A
jip
S7.
iwERWu I-C P S ST,7
. . . . ......
. _. ..- , - - " 11 � I �14._
15T L MI "Ni
W,
-A
SIERPA-,- 202NO
S-R.ACKEnS >1
U _rx
: . PT A, t
--LA010 L I 13M `1`
My
Y
pt-Y,
:200TH'
PARK HER U YTSTA'�
51
OLEN let' ST
SEACH
I- : , SE
24 Cn
X
R CL
7'77
PRAGUE
MT
P
iEE 111U,
1AW1
S4 MI
--%%qmw 00
ELL
ST W
ton
L
MIN
TIN ST
00
W
MAPLC
;J_
V).
1z
LNUI C,
CEDAR ST-': LA_R FL -
POW IL S
CE A _11
WY PL
14W SWCE ST z
4M SX1 W,: 1, . 11 .. . — SW
< E;
t-A
'Lit -W
20 215TH se
2 1 Sql ST PL - %_G� 215 f
Laid
OR, ST;: Win PLC
F
-pill 710H
OY
0,
ST.
Ft ST. !6
> _9W_ , . 0
..< e
LK ;jI I
9 S
5_ 218TH
ST 216 MU
PL F R
LLJ
ne . — i I . s I ..: 30.
S1
SW
221 TH
10
ATE
UP S'F
Sc
;rzo�rdn
TnD
UH W."
Ci
_j 22
Cis yy
CC) 22-711D bi
_j
L
Cl jv
C.,
VH 9v KNST
Reference:
Puget Sound Area
Snohomish County / Map 454
By Thomas Brothers Maps
Dated 2002
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.
1.-arth Consultants, Inc.
& iinvirt-xiinvoital
Vicinity Map
Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington
Drwn. GLS
Date
April 2002
Proi. No.
10075
checked RAC
Date
4112/02
Plate
1
z
0
1
0
M
=n-
Cn
0 M
C
M
0
-10
0 CZ
M
M Z
ID --i
C: _Z
x
U)
0 _n
n
M M
0 _U)
0 r-
0 M
C Cn
9 C0
M 0
Z
z
Cn
z
0
M
Subject Site
Existing Building
6 Lot Number
NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color.
ECI cannot be responsible for any subsequent
misinterpretation of the information resulting
from black & white reproductions of this plate.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
Geotediniral Engineerr, Geologists & E:nvircntnental scienfists
Test Pit Location Plan
Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington I
GLS
Date April 2002
Proi. No. 10075
I I
IDrwn.
Checked RAC
I I
Date 4/12/02
Plate 2
z
0
1
0
M
W -
Slope To Drain A
zID
0
6 inch min.
0
M
18 inch min.
0 M
C
M
0
0
0
C
4 inch min. X M
M
z
Diameter
0 0
Perforated Pipe C
G. 0 >Z
Wrapped in Drainage 01, r
Fabric
0 -n
-n
2 inch min.
2 inch min. 4 inch max. M M
12 inch 0 —co
min. 0 r-
0 M
C Cn
Cn
Q0
SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE Z
NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING
LEGEND >
z
Surface seal; native soil or other low permeability material.
CD
Fine aggregate for Portland Cement Concrete; Section 9-03.1(2) of the z
0
WSDOT Specifications.
M
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 Miral'i 140 Filter Fabric or equivalent.
TYPICAL FOOTING SUBDRAIN DETAIL
Earth Consultants Inc. Pepperwood
Cx0109L'As En%imM%mlial Sck-ni6ts I Edmonds, Washington
Checked RAC Date 4/12/02 _lPlate 3
Proj. No. 10075 GLS Date Apr. 2002_
Non -Load Supporting Floor Slab or
Areas Roadway Areas
Backfill . �
Bedding
Varies
1 Foot Minimum
Varies
Varies
LEGEND:
&J. Asphalt or Concrete Pavement or Concrete Floor Slab
9_5 —..-V 771
I o o o-1 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
.�Oo- -0 Laying Conditions. Bedding Should Conform to the Manufacturers
Recommendations for the Type of Pipe Selected.
TYPICAL UTILITY TRENCH FILL
3ftF,arth Consultants Inc. Pepperwood
& Nivinvui"val ","nimm Edmonds, Washington
Prol. No. 10075 Drwn. GLS Date Apr. 2002 Checked RAC jDate 4/12/02 1PIate, 4
1 - L I _ I - - j
z
0
A
0
M
.'M
M1
APPENDIX A
FIELD EXPLO-RATION
E-10075
Our field exploration was performed on March 28, 2002. Subsurface conditions at the
site were explored by observing a total of eleven test pit excavations. The test pits were
excavated by a subcontractor of Phoenix Development, Inc. The approximate test pit
locations were determined from existing landmarks presented on available plans. The
locations of the test pits should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the
method used. These approximate test pit locations are shown on the Test Pit Location
Plan, Plate 2.
The field exploration was continuously monitored by a geologist from our office, who
classified the soils encountered and maintained a log of each test pit, obtained
representative samples, measured 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
M
MAJOR GRA PH LETT Ell TYPICAL DESCRIPTION
DIVISIONS 1;QV"Rr)I _qVMRCN
Coarse
Gravel
And
Gravelly
Soils
Clean Gravels
(little or no lines)
�0'�OAOA
GW
gW
Well -Graded Gravels. Gravel -Sind
Mixtures, Little Or No Fines
4111111, Ift
GP
gp
Poorly -Graded Gravels, Gravel -
Sand Mixtures, Little Or No Fines
Grained
Soils
T
More Than
ore
n.j. r
% Coarse
Praction
Retained On
No. 4 Sieve
Gravels With
Fines (appreciable
amount of fines)
j
��gm
Silty Gravels, Gravel - Sand -
Silt Mixtures
�gc
Clayey Gravels, Gravel - Sand -
Clay Mixtures
Sand
And
Sandy
Clean Sand
(little or no lines)
000 000
—
SW
_�� SW I
Well -Graded Sands, Gravblly
Sands, Little Or No Fines
rf'_Nlrv�
Poorly -Graded Sands, Gravelly
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 Silts Liquid Limit
Grained Arid Less Than 50
Soils I Clays
More Than
5o% Material Silts
S 11 TI, Liquid Limit
ma"e' ' an And Greater Than 50
No. 200 Sieve Clays
Size
Highly Organic SOU
SP
Sands. Little Or No Fines
SM
Silty Sands. Sand - Silt Mixtures
SM
3C Sc
Clayey Sands, Sand -Clay Mixtures
M L
Inorganic Silts a Very Fine Sands, Rock Flour,Silty-
Clayey Fine Sands; Clayey Silts wl Slight Plasticity
CL
Inorganic Clays Of Low To Medium Plasticity,
Cl
Gravelly Clays, Sandy Clays, Silty Clays, Lean
�01
Organic Silts And Organic
Silly Clays of Low. Plasticity
I
MH
Inorganic Silts. Micaceous or Diatomaceous Five
Sand or Silly Soils
son mill jhv�'
Clays Of High
�InorgaNc
c h
Plasticity, Fat Clays.
? 0 Organic Clays Of Medium, To High
Plasticity, Organic Silts
Peat, Humus, Swamp Soils
With High Organic Contents
Topsoil Humus And Duff Layer
Hk,hly Variable Constituents
Fill
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 scill classification.
C
TORVANE READING, tsf
2- O.D. SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER
qu
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
LL
DRY DENSITY, lbs. per cubic ft.
LIQUID LIMIT, %
sz
DEPTH OF ENCOUNTERED GROUNDWATER
PI
PLASTIC INDEX
DURING EXCAVATION
T
SUBSEQUENT GROUNDWATER LEVEL W/ DATE
Earth Consultants Inc.
utimiiuikad 1-�1911kvf-s. 16 121VII(MMIX111111 '""'bAs
LEGEND
Proi. No. 100751 Date Apr. 2002 1 Plate Al
Z
0
0
M
0)
0 171
C
M
0
--i C-)
0 C
M
M Z
C _Z
0
M M
0
0
0 M
C cl)
9 C/)
M 0
Z
;U
Z
Z
0
i
0
M
Test Pit Log
Project Narne:
Sheet of
Pepperwood
1 1
Job No.
Logged by:
Test Pit No.:
10075
1 KCS
__�j 8102
_ _
TP-1
Excavation Contactor:
Ground Surface Elevation:
Universal Land
420'
Notes:
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 4": grass
General
w
Z
CL E
CL
U E
co
0 E
cn
Noles
(0/6)
>'
(n
M
in
0 U>.
SM
Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist
13.3
2
-30% fines
3
.......
4
ML
Gray sandy SILT, medium dense, moist
16.4
... 7
5
SM
-mottlin at 5'
Gray s& SAND, medium dense to dense, moist
15A
6
14.5
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
E
Client. Survey by Group Four Inc. ated 116/99.
Uj
Test Pit Log
Earth Consultants Inc.
Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington
�i April 2002 Checked KCS Date 4/10/02
.�,pral.r1,10075,J Dwn. GLS Date I Plate
I __ _ _ ied by engineering tests, analysis and
d'i. cted represent our observations at the time and location of this e)#oratory hote, modif
�urf or�
Ah' —.Mfh� nf r4har fimr—z and locations. we cannot accept responsiblity for the use or interpretation by others of
z
0
m
_-A
Test Pit Log
Project Narne: Sheet of
Pepperwood
Job No.
Logged by:
Test Pit No.:
10075
1 KCS
!8102
TP-2
Ocavabon Contactor
Ground Surface Elevation:
Universal Land
424'
Notes:
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 10": ferns
General
W IZ
CL
E
_E
'WL
0
5 n
E
Notes
ff >'
0 U)
M
0
(n
D. >1
CO
SM
Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist
2
-roots may e)dend to 3'
3
mottling at 4'
4
__§M
Brown silty SAND, dense, moist
11.9
-15% fines
6
7
Test pit terminated at 7.0 feet below e)dsting grade. No groundwater
encountered during excavation.
Test Pit Log
Earth Consultants Inc.
Pepperwood
&
Edmonds, Washington
1002 4/10/02
No. 10075 Dwn. GLS Checked KCS TD
Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this e)ploratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and
!-1- --A � __ __# - —i �f ofiva nf dhi-r f imf_-, and locations. we cannot acceot responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of
z
0
0
m
Test Pit Log
Project Name:
Of
Pepperwood
Job No.
Logged by:
Date:
Test Pit No.:
10075
1 KCS
3/28/02
TP-3
bcavation Contactor
Ground Surface Elevation:
Universal Land
416'
Notes:
_0
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 2": trees and ferns
General
w
J2
CL -0
E
cEL
U)
E
Notes
M
,
a -
Cn
0
(n
>'
CO
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
6
Test pit terminated at 6.0 feet below e)dsfing grade. No groundwater
encountered during e)cavation.
IL
0
Test Pit Log
Earth Consultants Inc.
Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington
----FDwn.
.1 proi. No. 10075
GLS I
Date April2002
Checked KCS
Piate A4
Subsurface conditions deplaea represent our ooservations at ine time am tuldut.- v, ulla vAp"o—Y 11�w. -Y
'Ron by others
judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or i�OrWd i Of
lnf�mof;^n rw��#M � flile 1�
z
0
4
0
M
Test Pit Log
Project Name: Sheet Of
Pepperwood Test Pft No.:
Da�te:
Job No. Logged by:
10075 -
I
KCS
3/28/02-
1 r-q
Excavation Contactor
Ground Surface Elevation:
Universal Land
404'
Notes:
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 4!': brush debris
General
W
r- .0
CL E
VL -; CL
E
U)
E
Notes
(OA)
(-n
v LL
0 CO
U)
n
:3 >.
SM
Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist
2
3
4
11.2
-§P—�M
B Iwn poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel, medium dense, moist,
5% fines
7.7
6
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.
W
Test Pit Log
C,
(MEArthCOrISUItMtS
Inc.
Pepperwood
Croed FJIVIr" IMMIr'll "KIM ltb;m'
Edmonds, Washington
t
(L.
1;i
W
oj. No. 10075
rp-roj
Dwn. GLS
Date April 2002
1 checked KCS
Date 4/10/02
Plate A5
depicted represent our observations at the time and location
. I. I .. - —6;—
of this exploratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and
AA/m �nnrJ Priy" ri*qnonsibilftv for the use or interDretation by others of
Subsurface conditions
judgment. i ney are not neumbdilly IUPIUbUIILOU� VI —I... 111—
z
0
i
0
m
ff.
Test Pit Log
Project Name: Sheet Of
Job No. Logged by: Date: Test Pit No.:
10075 KCS 3/28102 TP-5
Excavation Contactor: Ground Surface Elevation:
Universal Land 395'
Notes:
U — W Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 2": grass
0 = —
General W z -0 '� j CL
CL E 4D E E
Notes >1 0 >'
(0/6) U) Cn (n
SM Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist
2
3
SM Brown silty SAND with gravel, occasional cobbles, medium dense,
4 moist
10.8 T
5
6
-mottling at 7'
7
10.8 SM Gray sil!y SAND with gravel, dense, moist (Weathered Till)
Test pit terminated at 7.5 feet below e)dsting grade. No groundwater
encountered during excavation.
C4
12
. .... . .. ......
Test Pit Log
8 Earth Consultants Inc. Pepperwood
cokv;ts kim b;N Edmonds, Washington
.... . .. . . ...... .. .....
tu Prcj. No. 10()'Iil'"'151� Dvn. GLS Date April2002 Checked KI ti Date 4/10/02 plate A6
I Subsurfloe conditilon's depicted represent our observations at the time and location oT ints expioralory nole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and
ju�Mn,t�= are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsi0i ity for the use or interpretation by others of
�fowi ^M fhk U-t
z
0
A
0
M
Test it Loa
Project Narne: Sheet Of
Peppetwood - -- — 1 1 1
Job No. Logged by: Date: Test Ph No.:
10075 1 KCS 3/28/02 TP-6
Excavation Contador. Ground Surface Elevation:
Universal Land —1-395'
Notes:
-6 Cn Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 2": grass
General W q- n CL
0 E
E t� E ch
Notes CO
U) U)
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 vel, dense, moist
SM Gray silty SAND with q
Test pit terminated at 5.5 feet below e)dsbng grade. No groundwater
encountered during excavation.
Test Pit Log
8 Earth Consultants Inc. Pepperwood
0 Edmonds, Washington
4/10/02
April 2002 Checked K Plate A7
Ui proi. No. 101375 Dwn. GLS Date
Subsurface con(rdions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and
L — * .. —41.4;— IN" �nnrd nnPPH m-qnonsibilitv for the use or interpretation by others of
ju*jment. iney are not nuuabbailly iw—'
z
0
M
Test Pit Log
Project Name:
Sheet Of
1-
Pepperwood
1 1
Job No.
-
Logged by:
Date:
Test Pit No.:
10075
1 KCS
3/28/02
1 TP-7
bravation Contador
Ground Surface Elevation:
Universal Land 1
408'
Notes:
0
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 2": grass
General
W
.0
CL E
jrL CL
LL E
0 .0
Cn E
Notes
(%)
E -
U)
(n
A
SM
Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist
SP
Brown poorly graded SAND With gravel, dense, moist
5.9
2
3
0 4 ::
4
SM
Gray silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist
Test pit terminated at 5.5 feet below existing grade. No groundwater
encountered during excavation.
W
Test Pit Log
8 Eanh Consultants Inc.
Pepperwood
C1-~-U--.& FJIARX III %M9,11 It"S
Edmonds, Washington
Proj. No. 10075
Dm. GLS
Date April2002
Ched(ed KCS
4/10/02
Plate A8
but)sunaoe conamons oepK;tea represent out L%)bWV-dlKAth dt tilt; illitU Cillu ruk'at— � ...... -1 ' h of
judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility or the use or in erpretation by ot ers
,M,wmaftin-
z
0
0
m