20040927.pdfDATE RECEIVED
CITY OF EDMONDS
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION
OWNER NAMEMAME OF BUSINESS
MAILING ADDRESS
CITY ZIP TELEPHONE
()Zj L
NAME
ul
ADDRESS
CITY
11�
NAME
ZIP
TELEPHONE
q 2,z-,- t
jCBL At
ADDRESS
CITY ZIP TELEPHONE
STATO Ll�;N�E NUMBER
EXPIRATION DATE
C BY
-� �)k
1� �_\�
C L
('zl
EED
PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL NO.
0 c) — 0 (:30 —
0 111
1 o
NEW
RESIDENTIAL
PLUMBING / MECH
ADDITION
COMMERCIAL
COMPLIANCE OR
CHANGE OF USE
REMODEL
El MULTIFAMILY
SIGN
REPAIR
FENCE
GR DIN CYDS ( Ix FT)
DEMOLISH
TANK
OTHER
GARAGE
GARROW
RETAINING WALL
ROCKERY
FIRE SPRINKLER
FIRE ALARM
(TYPE OF USE, BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN:
NUMBER
OF
N IER OF
UMB
DWELLING
CRITICAL
AREAS
STORIES
UNITS
NUMBE
DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE
'If
HEAT SOURCE
PLAN CHECK I
GLAZING %
1'j_&4r'4 C*n %
LOT SLOPE %
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.
PERMIT APPLICATION: 180DAYS
PERMIT LIMIT. I YEAR - PROVIDED WORK IS STARTED WITHIN 180 DAYS
SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION
*APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE. HEIRS. ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS
IN INTEREST. AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF
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 THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE
DEEMEDTo MODIFN� WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE
NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITY'S ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION."
PERMIT EXPIRES
USE PERMIT
ZONE 'C'
NUMBER:
SUI E/APTIV
JOB
ADDRESS
PLAT NAME/SUBDIVISION NO LOT NO. LID NO.
2 LID FEE S
TESCP Approved 0
PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP RW Permit Required 0
Street Use Portnit Roq'd E3
inspection Required
EXISTING PROPOSED SidewAlk Required
Underground
REQUIRED DEDICATION F1 wiring required
PRV EAEOuiRED U)
METER SIZE LINE SIZE NO. OF FIXTURES z
YES 0 [3 rr
Lu
�N z
z
REMARKS 8
OWNER/CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROLIDRAIMAGE z
uj
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 WITH 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
WORKNIEN-S,COki�ENSATIO�,i�iUkANCE AND RCW 111.27.
- SIGNATLT�k (�wNEAVGENT) DATE SIGNED
1� I IN, , X -, I I
ENGINEERING REVIEWEID By
_-#� i AA 1"Z ^ ^A^ ') I I I I
DATE 111
cc
FIRE REVIEWED BY M
VARIANC�OFI CU C4SHORELINEORADBN I INS EC'FION I BOND
P POST
RE ED
[3YES
HEIGHT
SEPA REVIEW SIGN AREA
E EXEMPT ALLOWED PROPOSED ALLOWED PROPOSED
R
E
E 'D
S
D
NO S
S
HEIGHT
A Lo D P ROP OS ED
S T)
L P
S
0Y
GN AREA
D PROPOSED
CKS (FT)
LOT COVERAGE REQUIRED SETBACKS (FT.) PROPOSED SET13A
B
to
E REAR / FRO Va ID � REA
ALLOWED PRWOSED FRONT SIDI�, R R FROF Va SID'� REA
z
V 0 -2
P 0 c) z
FIARKING 1_01� AREA7 [Pj;�NZNING B�TE Y DATE A
'�4' IL
W
REQ'D I PRQXIDED 1660�) lflil() Ll
Z I
REMARKS
I— t1PT__0k_ 171 / F-01-' 17)-,.-
rC HE ED TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION I (jQDE OCCUPAN
Y 10/-A GROUP
1 bl�
AL JAREA Oc
SPECIAL INS�P5CTION CUPANT
I LOAD
REQUIRED &YES
REMARKS z
P 0 SSIJ
PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 108/IBC109/IRC109 FINALINSPECTION REG'D 5
M
� 1
00C019-
VALUATION
$
Description FEE Description
FEE
Plan Check
State Surcharge
Building Permit
City Surcharge
Plumbing Base Fee
�79
Mechanical
Grading
Engr. Review Z
Engr. Inspection
Fire Review
Plan Chk. Deposit
—
1_� 0
Fire Inspection
Receipt H
Landscapelnsp-
Total Amt. Due
Recording Fee
Receipt #
APPLICATION APPROVAL
CALL
Thisappiication is not a permit until signed by the
Builclin�g Official or his/her Deputy: and Fees are paid, and
FOR INSPECTION
receipt is acknowledged in space provided.
kOFFIGIALS
SIGNATURE
DATE
(425)
'�JZJ�;
7j
'4AT
7 —0220
71
REL 10
_L
E
ATT - ENTION, EXT 1333 X,
IT IS UNLAWFULTO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTILA FINAL
INSPECTION HASBEEN MADE AND APPROVAL ORA CERTIFICATE OF OCCU-
PANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC109/IBC110/IRC110.
09/03 PRESS HARD -YOU ARE MAKING 4 COPIES
ORIGINAL -FILE YELLOW- INSPECrTOR
PINK - OWNER GOLD - ASSESSOR
Ir'
z
0
1
0
ITI
--I -n
M
C
M 0
0
C)
0 C:
--I K
M M
M Z
g) --i
C
:r
W
0 _n
n;u
>
MM
0 —C/)
0 r_
0 M
C cir)
9 (n
M C-)
Z r-
M
r
z
__l
X
(1)
z
0
i
0
M
11
GARY HAAKENSON
CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR
S. WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 FAX (425) 77 1 -0221
12 1 5TH AV
ENUE NORTH EDMOND
Website: www.dedmondsma.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning - Building - Engineering
C
March 22, 2005
0
Brandel Custom Homes
2905 170"' St. SW
Lynnwood, WA 98037
M
C
M
Re: Building Pennit: 2004-0927 0
—40
Site Address: 8538 210"' Pl. S.W. 0 C
Expiration Date: 11/04/05 M
M Z
To: Brandel Custom Homes,
The purpose of this letter is to inforrn you that the last remaining inspection on your Ui
0 -n
project is a final inspection(s). The final inspection(s) determines that there are no
-n
outstanding life -safety issues and approval allows the City to close your permit file.
M M
The City considers the final inspection to be one of the most important inspections Ui
0
conducted on a project. In order to grant final approval the following must becomplete: 0 M
C Cn
smoke detectors, house numbers, guardrails, handrails, self close doors between garage C Cn
and residence, egress from sleeping rooms, safety glazing, weather-stripping, any M 0
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
at do not need to be installed such as:
that must be complete as well as some iterns th >
-tits expire one year from Z
paint, carpet, moldings, wallpaper, etc. Please be advised pern
the date of issuance. if you will need more time to complete the work, pen -nits can be
renewedprior to expiration for one half fees. If the pen -nit expires without a final Cn
Z
approval granted by the Building Inspector, full fees are required in order to renew the 0
permit. This can be very costly to you and we strongly encourage you to check your
pennit expiration date and call for the required final inspection(s). Note: If more than M
one department is required to final your project, this is noted on your Job Card.
Please feet free to contact me at 425-771-0220 if you have any questions.
Sincere
Jo 1111 11 11
Pet 1i SPecialis
1,Vl'c i np\I)ST' s\Nl aster I_et1ers\SRwaam1_trSFR
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.
E
LIKV1 JIB�-1 . .. ...
r6P-%f,,96 .50 .., In � ,
,V8 /,;�' Alrp C
24 11.9 ^ ACil 0.'
REMOVE
SHUT Ol
SERVICE
0
zn
r
0 M
C:
0
c
M
m z
-Z
0
m M
B.0'
0
S4
v ...... ....
ccz
9 cn
I M C-)
Z r-
A i m
U. A:,. >
mi D.1111,
V 0
tz
N 41
.� M
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
PEPPERWOOD
RESIDEN TIAL DEVELOPMENT
8526 MAIN STREET
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
E-1 0075
May 14, 2002
PREPARED FOR
PHOENIX DEVELOPMENT, INC.
VWAUL.
Raymond A. Coglas, P.E.
Project Manager
Earth Consultants, Inc.
1:91,0
1805 - 136th Place Northeast, Suite 201
Bellevue, Washington 98005
(206) 643-3780
Toll Free 1-888-739-6670
J
CIT
Z�
0
M
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 geoLechnical-related delays,
cost -overruns and other costly headaches that can
occur during a construction project.
A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
REPORT IS BASED ON A UNIQUE SET
OF PROJECT -SPECIFIC FACTORS
A geotechnical engineering report is based on a subsur-
face exploration plan designed to incorporate a unique
set of project -specific factors. These typically include:
the general nature of the structure involved, its size and
configuration; the location of the structure on the site
and its orientation; physical concomitants such as
access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities.
and the level of additional risk which the client assumed
by virtue of limitations imposed upon the exploratory
program. To help avoid costly problems. consult tile
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 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 tile 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
u,hich 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 comprellensive. 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 riot 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 ou,ners retain their
geotechnical consultants through the construction stage. to iden-
tify variances. conduct additional tests which may be
needed, and to recommend solutions to problems
encountered on site.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
CAN CHANGE
Subsurface conditions may be modified by constantly -
changing natural forces. Because a geotechnical engi-
neering report is based on conditions which existed at
the time of subsurface exploration, construction decisions
should not be based on a geotechnical engineering report u,hose
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 riot 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 u,ithout first conferring ulith the geolechnical
engineer. No person should apply this report for any purpose
other than that originally contemplated tvithout first conferring
ivith the geote(hnical engineer
I
Z
0
4
0
M
—i -n
0 M
C
M 0
0
0 C:
4 K
X M
M Z
1C) --i
C
X
Cn
0 _n
M M
0 5
0 17-
0 M
C Cf)
9 C/)
M 0
Z
3:
Z
C/)
Z
0
M
May 14, 2002
lit)Earth Col-Isultants Inc.
o"wChnical Fnginvos. Geologists & F"Mirotimeni'll scienlists
E-10075
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 supporied 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
9
0
rn
-4 -n
r
0 rn
C
M 0
0
0
0 C:
M
M z
C -Z
0 71
n
M M
0
0 M
C CJ)
K C/)
Q 0
Z
;U
z
z
0
0
M
Phoenix Development
May 14, 2002 E-1 0075
We appreciate the opportunity to provide our services during the design phase of the
project. If you have questions about the content of this geotechnical engineering study,
or if we can be of further assistance, please call.
Z:
Sincerely,
M
TAN
CONSULTANTS, INC.
EA CO SUL
"Cogla
Zond
Q M
C
M
0
C
A. E
M
Project Manager
M Z'
-i
RACrJme
C Z:
>
A
0).
0 -n
M M
C)
0
0 M
C C/);
Cl)
M 0
Z
z
C/)
z
M
Earth Consultants, Inc.
'Ise
TABLE OF CONTENTS
E,,10075
PAGE Z'
0
0
INTRODUCTION0644444094 do 4844040644 ad GeV 4 Go ON 00*00440444 0602404009 m
t General. 4 a q 0 0 a a 0 q a 0 4 4 0 a a a 1 0 a 4 4 0 a 0 a 6 a a 0 a 0 4 a a 0 0 a 4 a 6 4 6 a a 6 4 4 a a 0 4 a 0 a 4 a a 0 4 0 a 4 a 0 0 0 4 a 6 a 0 0 0 a 0 a a a a 6 a a a 0 a a a 0 0 a
GeV,
Proigct Description 040*00040 ago@ 0 4 0 a 0 0 a a a a 41 0 9 0 0 4 4 a 0 a a 4 a 4 0 a a a I a 0 4 a 0 0 a 4 4
CD
m
2 C
SITE CONDITIONSO 4 a a 9 a a 4 4 a 0 a 0 a a a 0 a 4 0 a 0 0 a 0 a 0 a 4 a 4 0 0 a 4 0 a & a 4 0 4 9 a a 0 a a 0 a a d 0 0 a 4 4 a 0 a a 0 0 4 a 0 a a a a a 0 4 4 a 0 a a a 4 0 a 0 0 6 0 a a a 0 0 a 0 a 0
rn 0
a a 4 0 of a a a 0 4 0 4 * 0 as 0 a me of 0 a a a 4 4 a a a 0 0 a a 4 0 4 9 4 4 a a 00 a
Surface. a 0 0 4 0 a a 4 0 a 0 0 a 4 a 0 6 a a 0 a 0 0 0 0 a a 4 a a 0 a a 0 d a 8 a a VGA
0
3 0 c
Steep Slope Evaluation. a a a 4 4 4 4 a 6 a a 0 a a 4 a 4 0 a 0 0 0 0 9 a * 0 0 a * 0 0 a a a a a 4 a 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 a 4 4 0 a 0 4 a 0 0 a 4 4 4 a * 4 0 4
a 0 4 4 0 4 a 4 0 a a 0 a a * 1 0 0 a 0 4 4 0 a a a a a a a 0 d a 0 0 a 0 4 4 0 0 d a * 0 0 a a a 0 9 a a 0 a 9 1 0 a a 4 4 0 a 0 0 e 0 0 4 a 4 a 0 a 4 a 4 a 0 0 * 4 a a 0 4 a * a a 0 a 0 4 0 4 3 m
Subsurftce mz�
4
Groundwater. a 4 a a 0 0 a 0 0 a a a 0 a q a 6 a a 0 0 a a a a a 8 a 4 a a 4 0 a a a a 0 4 4 0 0 0 4 0 a a 4 a 4 6 4 0 a 0 a a a a a 1 9 0 a a 4 a a a 4 a a 0 0 0 4 a 4 4 a a a a 0 a a a 0 0
4
Laboratory Testing. 4 9 4 0 0 a 4 0 0 a 0 a 0 4 a 6 a a 0 4 a a a 0 0 4 a 4 a 0 0 6 a v 0 4 4 0 1 a a a a a 4 a 4 4 0 0 0 0 a 0 a
roo
cn
4
DISCUS 31ON AND RECOMENDATIONSO 0 a a a 0 a a a 4 a a a 0 0 4 0 6 4 a a a a 0 a 0 0 0 a 0 0 4 0 a 4 6 4 4 a 0
4 on
j General. 4 a 0 d 4 0 0 a a 0 4 4 0 0 4 4 a 0 0 0 4 0 a a a 0 4 a 0 a a a a 0 a a a 0 0 4 0 0 9 . r. . 0 0 4 a 0 a 0 a a 0 0 0 0 0 a a a 0
OMNI
m
Site Prevaration and General 6
m M
7 COSteep Slope Buffer. 6 a a a 0 4 0 0 0 *4 0 a a a 0 a 0 a 4 a a a 0 a 0 0 0 a a a 4 a 0 a a a a a 0 0 44 a 0 0 4 9 0 1 0 0 0 a 0 a 0 6 a 1 4 4 0 0 4 9 a 9 0 4 0 4 4 a
8 0
Foundations. 0
m
c cl)
Permanent. Retaining and Foundation Walls. a 4 4 0 a a a a a 0 6 a 4 0 a * 4 4 0 0 4 * a 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 a 0 4 4 a a I a a a * a a a 0 a a 0 0 4 a 0 a a 9 0 a 4 9 9 cn
cgm;&m;f& naQinn rnnqiderations, a * a a a 0 a 4 4 9 * a 0 a * 0 0 a 4 0 a 0 4 . 6 6 a & 4 0 6 a a a a a 4 4 a a a 9 a 0 0 a a 0 & a 0 a 0 a a 4 0 4 8 a 4 4 0 * a a 10 M 0
Slab, -on -Grade Floors
;U
Site Drainage. I I ,
MGM!
Excavations and Slor)es 1 2
12 z
Utilily Trench Backfil I
Rockeries0009*064 %@fee to 0 a 4 4 0 a a 4 0 0 4 a as a 4 0 0 a 0 4 0 0 0 a a a a 0 0 0 0 a a 6 0 0 4 0 9 a a a 4 a a 0 a 4 1 0 a 0 0 0 4 a a a 0 9 a 0 0 a 4 a a 0 a 0 a 1 3
14 CD
Pavement Areas. .
z
0
Wei
LIMITATIONS 14 0
15 m
Additional Sermes.
Earth Consultants, Ina,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
E-10075
ILLUSTRATIONS
Plate 1
Vicinity Map
Z
Plate 2
Test Pit Location Plan
0
Plate 3
Typical Footing Subdrain Detail
Plate 4
Typical Utility Tre nch Fill
05-1,
X,
APPERDICES
Om
C
M 0
Appendix A
Field Exploration
00
C:
-4
Plate Al
Legend
m m
m zll�
Plates A2 through Al 2
Test Pit Logs
Z
-4
Appendix B
Laboratory Test Results
Plate B1
Grain Size Analyses
CO
0 -n
m M
.05
0 m
C W'
K C/)
M 0:
Z
;M
Z
0),
Z
0
0
m
Earth Consultants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
PEPPERWOOD
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
8526 MAIN STREET
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
E-11 0075
INTRODUCTION
rmpnp-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.
PlIniect nescdpfion
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
4
0
M
--I -n
M
M
0
0
0
M
M Z
—Z
cl)
o -n
n
3:9
M M
0
0
0 M
C C/)
9 C/)
Q 0
Z
>
Z
--q
M
Cn
Z
0
q
0
M
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY E-10075
Phoenix Development, Inc. Page 2
May 14, 2002
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 rela tively 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 (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
0
M
q 5i
Vi
M
0
80
C
X M
M z
Cn
0 -n
n
M M
0_0)
0 r-
0 M
C
(1)
K 0)
Q 0
Z
X
z
—4
M
C1)
z
0
1
0
M
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-1 0075
May 14, 2002 Page 3
Steep Slope Evaluation
At the time our field exploration was performed (March 2002), the steep slope areas of
the site were observed for signs of instability or severe erosion. Based on our
observations, the steep slope areas appear stable. There were no indications of shallow
or deep seated slide activity. The slope areas are generally heavily vegetated with mature
Douglas Fir, and there were no indications of severe erosion due to surface water runoff.
Based on our observations, it appears the slopes are stable.
Subsurface
Eleven test pits were excavated throughout the site. The test pits were excavated to
depths of approximately five to eight feet, where very dense glacial till soil conditions
were encountered. Please refer to the test pit logs, Plates A2 through Al 2, for a
description of the conditions encountered at the test pit locations.
The soils encountered at the test pit locations consisted of medium dense to very dense
silty sand with gravel (Unified Soil Classification SM). Sand deposits were occasionally
observed throughout the glacial till deposit. The depth of the topsoil layer varied, and
typically ranged between two inches to twelve (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
0
M
M
MO
0
--1 0
0
--j
X M
M Z
ID
CO)
0 -n
n
M M
0-0)
0 r-
0 M
C
M C/)
Q
Z
Z
--i
M
CO
Z
0
i
0
M
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEENNG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075
Page 4
May 14, 2002
Groundwater
Groundwater seepage was not observed at the time of our exploration (March 2002).
The presence of light to moderate groundv%ater 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%ater 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).
Labo ratotyjq sting
ix B,
The results of laboratory tests performed on specific samples are prov ded in Append
or at the appropriate sample depth on the test pit logs. it is important to note that these
test resu . Its 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 AN S
-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 supporled 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
1
0
M
=i "-fi
M. I
GEOTE H ICAL E GINEERING STUDY
E-10075
Phoenix Development, Inc.
Page 5
May 14, 2002
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\oter seepage may be encountered in the excavation for
the storm water detention vault. However, in our opinion, groundvQter seepage will
likely not adversely impact the stability of the detention vault excavation.
Recommendations for temporary excavations are provided in the Excavations and Slopes
section of this report.
Cuts will be perf ormed 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
A
0
M
M
M
0
0
0 C
.-1 9
M M
M Z
IC) --i
C —Z
0 -n
n
1`11 M
055
0 r-
0 M
C (n
90)
Q 0
Z
Z
0)
Z
0
M
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEMNG 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
We
conditions in this area. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made.
recommend that this geotechnical engineering study, in its entirety, be included in the
project contract documents for the information of the contractor.
Site Preawation -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
i
0
M
--I -n
M
C
M 0
0
0
0 C
M
M Z
j:) --i
C —Z
3:
V)
0 -n
n
3:9
M M
0
0
0 M
CO)
0)
M 0
Z
z
0)
z
0
1
0
M
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFUNG STUDY E-10075
Phoenix Development, Inc. Page 7
May 14, 2002
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,
ings; should be
pavements, or other load -bearing areas. Structural fill under slabs and footi
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
rials should be placed at or near the optimum
D-1557-91 (Modified Proctor). The fill mate
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 SIppe 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 surrounding
developments will result. In our opinion, 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
0
1
0
M
—1 -n
0 M
C
M
0
0
0 C
--I K
X M
M Z
6, 1
C _Z
X
W
o -n
n
M M
065
0 r-
0 M
C cf)
9 co
M 0
Z
X
-4
X
Z
__4
X
W
Z
0
M
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 adverse y impact the
stability of the slope. We understand fill placement along the backside of the upper
building lots adjacent to the slope areas may be necessary to establish relatively level
backyard areas. Reinforced fill rockeries can be used to transition the grade between the
fill and the slope. In our opinion, due to the dense glacial till soil conditions, fill and
rockery placement on the slope will not adversely impact the stability of the slope. As
previously discussed, an engineered reinforced rockery design should be completed for
the proposed fill and rockery areas.
Foundations
In our opinion, the proposed single family residences can be supported on conventional
spread and continuous footings bearing on the medium dense to dense glacial till soil
observed at the test pit locations. Where necessary, the proposed building foundations
can also be 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-of-safety in
excess of 3.0 against shear failure, provided the foundations are placed on competent
native soils*or structural fill. A one-third increase in the above allowable soil bearing
capacity can be assumed for short-term wind and seismic loading conditions. Continuous
and individual spread footings should have minimum widths of eighteen (18) and twenty-
four (24) inches, respectively.
If loose or unstable soil conditions are encountered at the footing subgrade elevation, the
soil should be overexcavated, and replaced with structural fill. The width of the
overexcavation should extend a minimum of six inches beyond each edge of the
foundation.
Exterior 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 0 8)
inches.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
z
0
i
0
M
CO
0 M
C
M 0
0
-40
0 C:
M M
M z
ic)
C —Z
C/)
o -n
Fn M
0 U5
0 r-
0 M
C cl)
9 C/)
M 0
Z
>
z
z
0
i
0
M
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFUNG STUDY E-10075
Phoenix Development, Inc.
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.
ation and the
Lateral loads can be resisted by friction between the base of the found ie rt
supporting soil, and by passive soil pressure acting on the face of the bur d po ion of
the foundation. Resistance to lateral loads from passive earth pressures can be calculated
using an equivalent fluid with a unit weight of three hundred fifty (350) pounds per cubic
foot (pcf). To achieve adequate passive resistance, the foundations must be backfilled
with structural fill. As an alternative, the foundations can be poured neat against the
undisturbed native soil. For frictional capacity, a coefficient of 0.40 can be used for
foundations bearing on competent native soils or structural fill. These lateral resistance
values are allowable values; a facto r-of-safety of 1.5 has been included.
Footing excavations should be observed by a representative of ECI prior to placing the
formwork and repar. ECI should also observe areas where overexcavation is required to
remove loose or unstable soils.
Permanent Retaining and Foundation Walls
Retaining and foundation walls should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures from
the retained soils, and any surcharge loading. Walls that are unrestrained and free to
move at the top can be designed using an equivalent fluid with a unit weight of thirty-five
(35) pct. The earth pressure imparted on restrained walls should be calculated using an
equivalent fluid with a unit weight of fifty (50) pcf. The above equivalent fluid values
assume surcharges due to traffic, adjacent foundations, construction loads, or any other
loadings will not apply. if surcharges are to apply, they should be added to the above
design lateral pressures.
For traffic surcharge loading, a uniform pressure of seventy (70) psf should be applied in
a rectangular distribution along the height of the retaining wall. If sloping backfill
conditions are present behind the walls, ECI should review the slope configurations and
provide modified equivalent fluid values, as necessary.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
z
0
4
0
M
--I -n
C()
0 M
M 0
0
-10
0
M
M Z
C —Z
0 -n
n
M M
0 5)
0 r-
0 M
C 0)
K C/)
Q 0
Z
z
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
Z
free -draining granular soil should extend along the entire height of the wall, and a distance
0
of at least eighteen (18) inches behind the wall. A surface se al consisting of a less
0
permeable silty sand soil can be placed along the upper one foot of the wall backfill, if
M
desired. The remainder of the backfill behind the zone of free draining soil should consist
=i 9
of a suitable granular structural fill.
-4
M
C
Seismic Design Consideration
M
-40
0
0 C
The Puget Sound region is classified as Zone 3 by the Uniform Building Code (UBC). The
M:
largest earthquakes in the Puget Sound region have been subcrustal (intraplate) events,
M
M Z
ranging in depth from fifty (50) to seventy (70) kilometers. Such deep events have
C:
>Z
exhibited no surface faulting. Weaver and Shedlock (1989) researched the probable or
--i
X
known source areas for the crustal, intraplate, and subduction zone earthquakes in the
Cn
Washington and Oregon area. Crustal and intraplate earthquakes are the only events in
0 -n
n
Washington and Oregon in which there is a historical record. Shallow crustal earthquakes
-
X
occur within the North American Plate, and typically do not exceed focal depths of
17171 M
0
approximately 20 kilometers. Intraplate earthquakes occur in the subducting Juan de
0
Fuca plate, and typically occur below depths of 40 kilometers. The recent February 28,
0 M
C CO
2001 earthquake that was focused just north of Olympia, Washington was an intraplate
F. Cn
Q 0
earthquake, and had a magnitude Of ML =6.8. The subduction zone earthquake, in which
Z r-
there is no historical record in the Washington and Oregon area, woul. d 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
>
Z
would occur at depths of approximately 50 to 60 kilometers (Weaver and Shedlock,
1989).
Cn
Z
0
The UBC Earthquake regulations have established a series of soil profile types that are
i
0
used as a basis for seismic design of structures. Based on the encountered soil
M
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.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEMINIG 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\ater table; and it must be subject to sufficient
Z
0
magnitude and duration of groundshaking.
-4
0
M
Based on the soil and groundv\eter conditions observed at the site, it is our opinion that
the site has a low susceptibility to liquefaction. The dense condition of the native soils is
-n-
the primary basis for this conclusion.
5i -4
M
M
-10
Slab -on -Grade Floors
0 0
C
Slab -on -grade floors can be supporied on competent n ative soils or structural fill. Loose
rn
M Z
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
C: Z
>
r- --i
necessary. A four4nch capillary break consisting of a free draining poorly graded sand or
I � CO
gravel with less than 5 percent fines (percent passing the No. 200 sieve, based on the
0 -n
minus 3/4-inch fraction) should be placed below the slab. In areas where slab moisture is
n
undesirable, a vapor barrier such as a 6-mil plastic membrane can be placed beneath the
M M
free draining sand or gravel. The subgrade soils in slab -on -grade areas of the site should
0 V5
b e observed by a representative of ECI prior to placing the capillary break material.
0 r-
0 rn
C Cn
9 W
Site Drainne
M 0
Z r-
During construction, surface water runoff must not be allowed to stand in construction
X
areas. Interceptor trenches should be established, as necessary, along the perimeter of
the building site before it enters the construction area. During construction, loose
Z
--I
surfaces should be compacted to reduce the potential for moisture infiltration into the
X
soils. Finish grades around the buildings must be sloped such that surface water is
Cn
Z
directed away from the buildings.
0
I
Perimeter footing drains should be installed around the perimeter foundations to intercept
0
M
groundv�ater seepage. A typical perimeter footing drain detail is illustrated on Plate 3.
Under no circumstances should roof downspout drain lines be connected to the footing or
foundation wall drain systems. All roof downspouts must be separately tightlined to the
site storm water system.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEMINIG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075
May 14, 2002 Page 12
3S
The following information is provided solely as a service to our client. Under no
circumstances should this information be interpreted to mean that ECI is assuming
responsibility for construction site safety or the contractor's activities; such responsibility
is not being implied and should not be inferred.
In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local, state,
and Federal safety regulations. - Based on the information obtained from our field
exploration, the upper deposit of weathered glacial till that extends to a depth of
approximately four feet below existing site grades would be classified as Type C soils by
OSHA. The existing fill observed at the site would also be classified as Type C soil.
Temporary cuts in Type C soils should be sloped at an inclination no steeper than
1.51-11V (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 groundwater 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.
Utility 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 groundwater seepage should be expected in the deeper utility trench excavations and
the proposed detention vault excavation.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
Z
0
i
0
M
--1 -n
M
C
RIO
0
---1 0
0 C
X M
M Z
C
o -n
n
M M
0
0
0 M
C
9 co
M 0
Z
7-1
X
Z
W
Z
0
1
0
M
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFUNG STUDY E-10075
Phoenix Development, Inc. Page 13
May 14, 2002
In our opinion, the native soils can be considered for use as backfill for the utility
er deposit
trenches. At the time of the subsurface exploration (February, 2002) the upp
of w . eathered 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
ose thickness
into use. The remainder of the backfill should be placed in lifts having a lo
of less than twelve (12) inches. A typical trench backfill . section and compaction
requirements for load supporting and non -load supportng 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 0 2) feet in height. We
estimate the rockery has been in place for appro)dmately twenty-five years. Two existing
driveways that ramp up through the alignment of the rockery face will be filled as part of
.the proposed development to establish a level building lot area. Construction of new
reinforced fill rockeries is currently being considered for purposes of retaining the new fill.
As discussed previously, an engineered rockery design will need to be completed for the
reinforced fill rockeries proposed for the site.
Based on our observations, the majority of the existing rockery has experienced minor to
moderate weathering. The minor to moderate weathering was primarily observed along
the lower rows of the rockery. In our opinion, these rocks are still structurally sound and
will not have to be replaced. Several of the upper rocks have experienced severe
weathering, and should be replaced. These rocks are located primarily along the higher
portions of the rockery. ECI will work with the contractor in identifying rocks that should
be replaced.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
z
0
i
0
M
--I -n
0 rn
C
M
0
0
0 C:
--I K
X M
M z
o -n
n
M M
0
0
0 rn
(J)
Cl)
M 0
Z
X
—i
X
z
Cl)
z
0
i
0
M
I
I
- I
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEPJNG 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
subgrade should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density. It is
possible that some localized areas of soft, wet or unstable subgrade may exist after the
pavement subgrade is prepared. Overexcavation and a greater thickness of structural fill
or crushed rock may be needed to stabilize these localized areas. A biaxial geogrid such
as Tensar BX-1 200 can be considered for use below the crushed rock where bridging of
unstable subgrade is necessary.
Assuming a properly prepared subgrade, the following pavement section for lightly -loaded
areas can be used:
• Two inches of asphalt concrete (AQ over four inches of crushed rock base (CRB)
material, or
• Two inches of AC over three inches of asphalt treated base (ATB) material.
Heavier truck -traffic areas will require thicker pavement sections depending upon site
usage, pavement life, and site traffic. If necessary, ECI can provide pavement design
recommendations for truck traffic areas.
Asphalt concrete (AQ, asphalt treated base (ATB), and crushed rock base (CRB) materials
should conform to WSDOT specifications. All rock bases should be compacted to at
least 95 percent of the maximum dry density.
_LIMITATIONS
Our recommendations and conclusions are based on the site materials observed, selective
laboratory testing and engineering analyses, the design information provided to us, and
our experience and engineering judgement. The conclusions and recommendations are
professional opinions derived in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill
ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar
conditions in this area. No warranty is expressed or implied.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
Z
0
A
0
M
--I -n
M
C
M
0
—10
0 C
M
M Z
C
> Z
o -n
n
M M
C)
0
0 M
C
9 C/)
Q 0
Z r-
X
-4
X
>
Z
__4
X
0)
Z
0
i
0
M
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFJNG STUDY E-1 0075
Phoenix Development, Inc.
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
verify our recommendations in writing prior to proceeding with the construction.
Add tional-ge-rvices
We recommend that ECI be retained to perform a general review of the final design and
specifications to verify that the earthwork and foundation recommendations have been
properly interpreted and implemented in the design and in the construction specifications.
We also recommend that ECI be retained to provide geotechnical services during
construction. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications or
recommendations and to allow design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ
from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. We do not accept responsibility
for the performance of the foundati ' on or earthwork unless we are retained to review the
construction drawings and specifications, and to provide construction observation and
testing.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
z
0
1
0
M
:; :h
55
M
0
0
--10
0 C
M
M. Z
jo —4
C:
X
CO
0 -n
n
M M
0
0
0 M
Cn
Q 0
Z r-
.qT
X
z
z
0
-I
0
M
CHE ST
9 6 rpi
Nu
13 Jai.
", V
f 4�-r Ic FR -cc M
-ELI-
VT'
7
SUM.
A 1-96T 4 ST
P PU
PQ�ET 0
MELODY LN wyr
'r 1, itz
tj� 14W
HINOL v WY
OR
BROWHERE ST:
ST771�74:. t-
'PARK' :4 Wy F�2901ffl
83W
NER YISTA J.- to
'd
ERIN
0� -201ST I
BRACKUM (ALA 'bwt- .5 tio. � �,:
Wir S1
, (( -j
"am W1 - . .
mm Pi
rT 5W -C,
GLEN
......... ...
-:35 7,7.
v 4z
. , LE -ST 9
Af VA em
,
SPMGUE ST
- &Lro
1AW
HILL' PK
-g
IWO
*MR T N
F11W �C,
.1 �61 R 7... �i .-sl
-1 UL
M�k
W LN
v Iz FS
ST
CEDAR CE AR 11 ST' W, I
�J-L`-T U� 7- PAW
WY
SPRUCE d- ST PL 3C
4N . I it I
oil,
Six- Flo -21 ST
N, -
9k Lit 214111 Pt.
215111,
ST
-7
14
OR- VAMW
:SY
r- n z
IT— 7-10kST
Oil
21
a. -
ST
?L7 il
i�j 7-
tj = W
;jI.012y" P1 -.W
LN I;n g =- S
I . 2181" -
2: ST11 2isklt' .. Z�%
niat
zi P1 :me
VLN
L L
It 30
-;C
�cn
A, TH
EU4 .--W' ST jC,)C ST zt SW
PL
LA
UG�T
au
El
cm
221ST
in) MY
L ZZ20D I W
00
F�
t-- MIRLI
C"
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.
I.-arth Consultants, 1"Ic.
Engineem cwokpaislr. & Envirt-Winvental sckmlin";
Vicinity Map
Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington
Drwn. GLS
Date
April 2002
Proi. No.
10075
checked RAC
Date
4/12/02
Plate
1
z
0
0
-n
M
C:
M 0
0
0
C
M
M Z
C —z
o -n
-n x
>
MM
0 Cn
0
0
M
Cn
Cn
M
z
;U
z
Cn
z
0
i
0
M
370
3,40 Il 3170
V i,\
% >1
�A I TP-6,
LQ
ITP74
390
open qpa(�. TP�-4 1,
7Z-
22.
v
--7 T 7*
380
C)
21
-112
370'
C,
-74
j 20
TPtp:-/
Q). I
J60
9
1.4.
7S
o.:, -F� ---� ell
3C17
37c7 V TP-21
I TP-8,
390
J00 V X�
J10 7177-
420
17
0
LEaE
NO
TP-1— Approximate Location of
ECi Test Pit, Proi. No. Approximate Scale
E-10075, Mar. 2002 0 50 100 20
Subject Site Earth Consultants, Inc.
Existing Building ccoiechnical rngincers, rcolo&As & rnvirmrnenol Sckmfisls
Test Pit Location Plan
6 Lot Number Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington
NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color.
ECI cannot be responsible for any subsequent Drwn. GLS Date April 2002 proj. No. 10075
misinterpretation of the information resulting
from black & white reproductions of this plate. Checked RAC I Date 4/12/02 1 Plate 2
z
0
1
0
M
-i -n
M
C
M
0
0
0
M
M z
C —Z
0 -n
n
M M
—V)
0
0 M
C V)
9 CI),
Q 0
Z
z
Cl)
z
0
0
M
0
Slope To Drain
6 inch min.
C
18 inch min.
4 inch min.
Diameter -'0
Perforated Pip���
C� 0
Wrapped in Drainage L
Fabric
2 inch min.
2 inch min. 4 inch max. 12 inch
min.
SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE
NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING
LEGEND
Surface seal; native soil or other low permeability material.
Fine aggregate for Portland Cement Concrete; Section 9-03.1(2) of the
WSDOT Specifications.
Drain pipe; perforated or slotted rigid PVC pipe laid with perforations or
slots facing down; tight jointed; with a positive gradient. Do not use flexible
corrugated plastic pipe. Do not tie building downspout drains into footing
lines. Wrap with Mirafi 140 Filter Fabric or equivalent.
TYPICAL FOOTING SUBDRAIN DETAIL
Earth Consultants Inc. Pepperwood
CA"C'C� r n�lnxvlvm r Edmonds, Washington
ital Sci nl6ts
Drwn. GLS Date Apr.2002 kChec7ked RAC /12/02 Plate -- 3
Prol. No. 10075 1 1
z
0
4
0
M
:q :-n
Non -Load Supporting Floor Slab or
Areas Roadway Areas
Backfill I
Bedding
Varies
1 Foot Minimum
Varies
Varies
LEGEND:
Asphalt or Concrete Pavement or Concrete Floor Slab
FT-7
0
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.
0
Bedding Material; Material Type Depends on Type of Pipe and
Laying Conditions. Bedding Should Conform to the Manufacturers
0..
Recommendations for the Type of Pipe Selected.
TYPICAL UTILITY TRENCH FILL
F,arth Consultants Inc. Pepperwood
CA"edulim 1; -wists
jjnghw�m-. C
A%*VNs&rjivifrxin"ta1.C* Edmonds, Washington
S Date Apr. 2002 Checked RAC Date 4/12/02 1 Plate 4
rol.
FP!No. 10075 FDrwn. GL
z
0
0
M
APPENDIX A
FIELD EXPLORATION
E-10075
Our field exploration was performed on March 28, 2002. Subsurface conditions at the
z
0
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
CD —1
method used. These approximat e test pit locations are shown on the Test Pit Location
M
C
Plan, Plate 2.
M 0
-40
0
0 C
The field exploration was continuously monitored by a geologist from our office, who
M
classified the soils encountered and maintained a log of each test pit, obtained
Mz
representative samples, measured groundvmter levels, and observed pertinent site
C z
features.
All samples were visually classified in accordance with the Un ified Soil Classification
System that is presented on Plate Al, Legend. Logs of the test pits are presented in
Appendix A, Plates A2 through Al 2. The final logs represent our interpretations of the
MM
CD
field logs and the results of the laboratory tests of field samples. The stratification lines
0 r-
on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. In actuality, the
0 M
C: CD
transitions may be more gradual.
K Cn
Z
71
>
z
-4
GRAPH
LETTER
TYPICAL DESCRIPTION
MAJOR DIVISIONS
iSYMBOL
SYMBOL
GW 777P
Well -Graded Gravels, Gravel -Sand
Gravel
0 00
9W
mixture s, Little or No Fines
And
Clean Gravels
fines)
4*'W 4
GP
Poorly- Graded Gravels, Gravel -
Gravelly
Soils
(little or no
gp
Sand Mixtures. Little or No Fines
Coarse
Grained
GM
Silty Gravels, Gravel - Sand -
Soils
More Than
gM
Silt Mixtures
50% oafse
Vraction
Gravels With
Fines( appreciable
GC
Clayey Gravels. Gravel - Sand -
Retained On
amourit of lines)
gC
Clay Mixtures
No. 4 Sieve
0 0
1
S W
Well -Graded Sands, GravbllY
SW
Sands. Little Of No Fines
Sand
And
Clean Sand
(little or no fin
0
.;: . . . . . . .
SP
Poorly -Graded Sands Gravelly
Than
Sandy
Soils
..... .
Sp
Sands. Little Or No Fines
More
. . . . . . . . . . . .
5o% Material
Larger Than
More Than
S
silly Sands. Sand- Silt mixtures
No. 200 Sieve
50% Coarse
Sands With
Size
Fraction
No. 4
Fines (appreciable
fines)
Clayey Sands. Sand -Clay Mixtures
Passing
amount of
SC
Sieve
inorganic Silts & Very Fine Sands, Rock Flotr,Silty-
ML
M,
Clayey Fine Sands;Clayey Silts w/ Slight Plasticity
CL
Inorganic Clays of Low To Medium Plasticity.
Lean
Fine
Silts
Liquid Limit
CI
Gravelly Clays. Sandy Clays. Silty Clays,
Grained
AAd
Less Than 50
Soils
Clays
OL
Organic Silts And organic
Plasticity
01
Silty Clays Of Low
M
Inorganic Silts. Micaceous Or Diatomaceous Five
Mh
Sand Or Silty Soils
More Than
50% Material
Silts
Liquid Limit
CH
Ch
Inorganic Clays Of High
plasticity, Fat Clays.
Smaller Ttan
And
Greater Than 50
No. 200 Sieve
Clays
OH
organic Clays Of Medium To High
Size
oh
Plasticity. Organic Silts
L, 11 11 It
PT
Peat, Humus, Swamp Soils
Highly organic So 16
1, !L% 1, %% I
pt
Witt, High organic Contents
4/ Humus And Duff Layer
Topsoil
Hl�,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 500 classificaMcin-
2- O.D. SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER
C
TORVANE READING, tsf
qu
PENETROMETER READING, tsf
24' I.D. RING OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER
W
MOISTURE, % dry weight
P
SAMPLER PUSHED
WATER OBSERVATION WELL
SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED
Pcf
DRY DENSITY, lbs. per cubic ft.
SZ
DEPTH OF ENCOUNTERED GROUNDWATER
LL
LIQUID LIMIT. %
DURING EXCAVATION
PI
PLASTIC INDEX
y
SUBSEQUENT GROUNDWATER LEVEL W1 DATE
WEailh ConsultantS IfIc.
i411161S
LEGEND
Proi.No. 100751Date Apr.2002 1PIate Al
Z
0
1
0
M
—1 -n
C/)
0 M
C
ITI 0
0
0
0 C:
--19
Tf rn
M Z
I[)
C
Cn
0 _n
n
-4
X
rn M
0
0
0 rn
(n
Cn
M 0
Z
7-1
Z
__q
:1
C0
Z
0
1
0
ITI
W
Test'Pit Log
Sheet of
e a ;Nw �-,,e:
pPr,o,,i
Pepperwood
Test Pit No.:
't
Job No. Logged by:
�Date: T
3/2�8/02 TP-1
��E
10075 KCS
Ground Surface Elevation:
r
E=avaltion Contactor
420'
Universal Land
Notes:
Surfaoe Conddions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod N': grass
-6
W n
General E
Cn 0
!& CL 0 .0
w U- E (n E
Notes
0 M 5 >'
(n Cn
SM
B silty SAN gravel, loose, moist
13.3
2
-30% fines
3
4 ML
Gray sandy SILT. medium dense, moist
16.4
5
SM
-mottlin at
SAND, medium dense to dense, moist
a
Gray s&
6
15A
14.5
7
Test at 7.5 feet below eAsting grade. No gi -oundwater
encountered uring excavation.
NOTES:
Elevations estimated by a TopograThic Site Plan provided by the
Client. Survey by Group Four Inc. ated 1/6/99.
Test Pit Log
Pepperwood
Earth Consultants Inc.
1."C". llbu-" Edmonds, Washington
. ...... ... . ..
C ... . . .... . . . .... .. [:P1�Ee::A:2:::
de A2
a. Date 4/10102
GLS Date April 2002 GheckeC —11 Igineering =15. analysis and
location of this oratory hole. modified by el
Subsufface s We can responsbifty for the use or interpretation by others of
judgrrient. They a not sarity represe t her times and locations. n ott
M�Mols— r�anf�4 ^n 4hi. t'—
z
0
4
0
M
A
Test Pit Log
Projed Name:
Sheet Of
Pepperwood
__1 I
Job No.
Logged by:
Test Ph No.:
10075
1
KCS
!8102
TP-2
Excavation Contacloc
Ground Surface Elevation:
Universal Land
424'
Notes:
-6
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 10": ferns
General
W
:E
E
A!
CL
cL E
0)
6.0
E
Notes
wi
U)
=' >�
Cn
SM
Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist
2
-roots may e)dend to 3'
3
mottling at 4'
4
SM
Brown silty SAND, dense, moist
11.9
5
-15% fines
6
7
Test pit terminated at 7.0 feet below e)dsting grade. No groundwater
encountered during e)cavation.
CL
a
Test Pit Log
C,
Earth Consultants Inc.
Pepperwood
C-rgm-Imw nI8ItW=% GM*VSN&
Edmonds, Washington
—FpWe
rn P No. 10075
Dom. GLS
Date Apri12002
checked KCS
Date 4/10/02
FD C
Plate A3
7A:3::l
if
Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this e)Voratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and
i-1- _M 'A �fnfh� nf rdhar lime-, nnd Inrntions- We cannot acceat resDonsibility for the use or interpretation by others of
,.fl— nn thk L�
z
0
4
0
M
-1 -n
M
m
0
__10
0 C
m
m Z'
IC)
C _Z
Cf)
0 _171'
-n
M
M M
0 _C/)
0
0 M
C/)
M 0
Z
X
z
3:
CI)
z
0
4
0
m
Mi I
Test Pit Log
Project Name:
Sheet Of
1
Pepperwood
1 1
Job No.
Logged by-
Test Pit No.:
10075
1 KCS
28/02
TP-3
Excavation Contaictor
Ground Surface Elevation:
Universal Land
416'
Notes:
-6
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 2": trees and ferns
General
w
J-- .0
cL E
E, CL
L _.; E
Cn
0 E
Notes
(0/0)
E >'
CO
u-
0 M
CO
(n
=) >'
CO
SM
Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist
10.6
2
-with some organics roots
3
-m ottling and iron o)dde staining at 3'
4
SM
Gray silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist
7.1
5
6
Test pit terminated at 6.0 feet below e)dsbng grade. No groundwater
encountered during e)cavation.
Is
W
a.
0
Test Pit Log
46
1'
C,
Earth Consultants Inc.
Pepperwood
Gt%*-CjUIjCW nji3l[WCV. rAK*)6kUS'& nIVI"WIMMM111
Edmonds, Washington
Proj. No.
tu 10075
Dwn. GLS FTate
April 2002
checked KCS
Date 4/10 /02
Plate A4
,_I
—AM—A Imi f�fc
nnnkmic ond
bU1)SUr1a0e COnianions oepK;tea repirew it uul Umul VO~ IQ M t". k" I — .... - -- -- — --r ------- I
j��� are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility Or the use or intiEirpretafion b9 others of
i �#OA — 4hi. 1�
Test Pit Log
Project Nam:
Pepperwood
Sheet Of
Job No.
0 'i .
07.
I Logged by:
KCS
�e
Date:
3/28/02
/28/02��
Test Pit No.:
TP-4
ExcavalJon Contactor
Universal Land
Ground Surface Elevation:
404'
Notes:
General
Notes
W
0/0)
:E 0
E
Cn
A!
CL
E
U)
10
-6
0
(n E
3 -
Cn
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 4": brush debris
SM
Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, MOist
2
3
4
11.2
7.7
5
6
SP-SM
Brown poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel, medium dense, moist,
5% fines
—
----- �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
ing excavation.
encountered duri
Test Pit Log
8 Earth Consultants Inc. Pepperwood
8 w4w- Ik-*IItb;N
Edmonds, Washington
Dvm. GLS f Date Apri12002 Checked KCS Date 4/10/02
tu
I.- - - -modffW by engineering tests, analysis and
Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this e)#oratory h .
judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and kx;ations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of
.f�mafl— �—#-4 r� W. I—
z
0
4
0
M
'rok�-* D;* I r%rl
judgment. They am not necessarily represu, 1-1— u, w" 1w, 1-- .11-
z
0
A
0
M
M�
4
Test Pit Log
Project Name: Shed Of
Pepperwood
Job No. Logged by- Date: Test Pit No.:
10075 1 KCS 3/28/02 TP-6
Excavation Contador Ground Surface Elevation:
Universal Land 395'
Notes:
— Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 2": grass
-6 Cn 0
W �O CL 0 .0
General CL
E w U_ E CO E
Notes >. 0 M =) >'
in CO CO
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
6 SM Gray sil,ty SAND with gravel, dense, moist
Test pit terminated at 5.5 feet below e)dsfing grade. No groundwater
encountered during excavation.
Test Pit Log
8 Earth Consultants Inc. Pepperwood
a S&
0 Edmonds, Washington
Checked KCS Plate A7
rn Date 4/1 /02 -A
.1 Prej. No. 10075 Dwn. GLS Date Apri12002 I
Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exp4oratory hole modified by engineering tests, anaty� and
are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept respon�ibility for the use or interpretation by others of
z
0
i
0
M
11 =
Test Pit Log
Project Name:
Sheet Of
Pepperwood
Job No.
Logged by:
Test Pit No.:
10075
KCS
28/02
TP-7—
Excavation Contactor
Ground Surface Elevation:
Universal Land
408'
Notes:
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 2": grass
General
W
J-- .0
cL E
CL
E
0
in
E
Notes
0 Cn
U)
Cl)
z
0
SM
Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist
........
M
SP
Brown poorly graded SAND wit h gravel, dense, moist
i7
5.9
2
0
3
m
C
M
0.
4
0
0
3: M
5
M z
SM
Gray silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist
Test pit terminated at 5.5 feet below e)dsbng grade. No groundwater
C —Z
encountered during excavation.
>
CD
0 -n
-n
m M
Cj)
0
0 m
CO
C/)
M 0
Z r-
z
--I
3:
z
0
0
M
us
CL
Q
Test Pit Log
OIL
Eailh Consultants Inc.
Pepperwood
Cw"mt it W.A CA-C*)gb;N& E.11VIrCilkli"Wal -SC-k-f I I LRS,
Edmonds, Washington
GLS Date April 2002 I Date 4/10/102 Plate A8
M, Praj. No. 10075 Checked KCS
Subsurfaoe conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hoLe, modified by engineering tests, analysis and
locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of
J��V,t,,�ey are not necessarily representative of other times and
&MCA — fhi. I—
Mi I
Test Pit Log
Project Nam:
Sheet of
Pepperwood
Job No.
Logged by:
Date:
Test Pit No.:
10075
KCS
3/28/02
TP-8
Exicavation Contactor:
Ground Surface Elevation:
Universal Land
416'
Notes:
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 2": grass
General
w
�r- .0
E
CL
LL- E
.8
con E
Notes
(n
0
z
0
Sm
Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose to medium dense, moist
M
21.2
2
3
M
C
M
Sm
Gray silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist
0
4
0
0
11.3
C
X m
Test pit terminated at 4.5 feet below e)dsting grade. No groundwater
encountered during e)cavation.
M z
0 -n
-n
m M
0
0 M
C (n
C Cn
m 0
Z
X
X
z
X
z
0
m
04
W
n
Test Pit Log
Earth Consultants Inc.
Pepperwood
G" -A V. C I U I I C. A I --I I gh V cw<*Vl-d� & 1 -11 A rtx u I ". W1, I I sw k-.I I I N.-
J
Edmonds, Washington
—]—plate
Checked KCS D A9
W1 Prq. No. )wn. GILS Date April 2002 __L_2aIte 4/10/02
Subsurface itions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, Modified by engineering tests, anaWs and
times locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of
judgment. They are not neciessarity representative of other and
enf^�-,fi�
Test Pit Log
Project Name: Shed of
Pepperwood 1 1
Logged by: oate, Test Pit No.:
Job No. 1�
10075 KCS 3 81�2 TP-9
Excavation Contactor Ground Surface Elevation:
Universal Land
Notes:
0 Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 6": trees and blackberries
w Z 0
General CL r3- .0
E E E
Notes >� _
Cn (n
SM Brown silty SAND, loose to medium dense, moist
2
SP-S Grades to gray poorly graded SAND with silt medium dense, moist
3
10.8
06"ib 4
5
-becomes with gravel at 5'
6
12.6
4
7 Test pit terminated at 7.0 feet below e)dsting grade. No groundwater
encountered during excavation.
C4
ILI
Test Pit LN
Earth Consultants Inc. Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington
t
a. Dwn. GL Date 4/10/02 Plate Al 0
t5 Apri12002 r-hecked
W
,I Proi. No. 10075
Subsurface concritions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this e)qkratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and
judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of
tnf�.fi�
z
0
4
0
M
Test Oit Log
Project Name:
Pepperwood
Shed Of
1 1 1
Job No.
10075
Logged by:
1 KCS
Date:
3/28/02
Test Pit No.:
TP-1 0
Excavation Contador
Universal Land
Ground Surface Elevation:
359'
Notes:
General
Notes
W
CL E
(n
CL
cL E
ca
CO
cl) E
:D >�
CO
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 12": ferns and trees
8.5
2
3
4
5
6
SM
Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist
SM
Gray silty SAND with gravel, medium dense,'moist
-becomes dense at 5'
i
Test pit terminated at 6.0 feet below e)dsfing grade. No groundwater
encountered during excavation.
Test Pit Log
C)
Eailh Consultants Inc. Pepperwood
9 Edmonds, Washington
Toz- GLS Date April 2002 1 Checked KCS Al I
�i
1.1 Proj. No. 10075 Date 4/10/02
location ot I tests, analysis and
Subsurface conditions _ depicted represent our observations at the time and his exploratory hole, modified by engi Mim Kv rdhpm of
Mt�' i ney are not neoessanry representative ui UtnU[ till Mb C11 lU WtMKA 10.
nrcbe�forl � thic 1�
z
0
m
Test Pit Log
Proled Nam: Sheet of
Pepperwood
Job No.
Logged by-
Date:
Test Pit No.:
10075
1 KCS
3/28/02
TP-1 1
Excavation Contactor
Ground Surface Elevation:
Universal Land
356'
Notes:
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 12": ferns, trees, blackberries
General
W
r- .0
CL E
EL ..; CL
u- E
Cn
6
u) E
Notes
ff -
(n
0 M
U)
=) >'
(1)
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
SM
Gray silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist
Test pit terminated at 7.5 feet below e)dsting grade. No groundwater
encountered during exr-avation.
C4
Test Pit Log
Earth consultants Inc.
Pepperwood
GICANNS&
Edmonds, Washington
w Proj. No. 10075 Dwn. GLS Date Apri12002 Checked KCS Date 4/10/02 e- Al2
I I
Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this e)pbratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and
-M—. — j --ih, �nnfnjkA� rtf nfhpr times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others Of
z
0
4
0
M
NOTICE:
IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE
IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
00
Lo
0
00
a)
c
0
c S 0
c
E
CL
0
>
a) cn
cl X 0
x 0 .0
z
c
0
Lo
rl%
c 0
00 c 4�
37
0
a. a:
0
ui
T)
0
-6
UJ
r c
uj
S?
CL
0
_"M
Height Calculation Worksheet
Address: a 5t 2- t
Date: '3 n!S
InSPeCtor(* M 5
1. Datum Point: _ JV\ jj
2. Datum Point Elevation: A-tis 11
3. Average Grade: 14, t,2-!5
.4,, Maximum Elevation Allowed: VLIi2�(iver�ag�,,g�ade)*'+'"25"'*--.Z/3j
5. Reference Point Elevation Shot to House:
(datum elevation) + I (grade to transit level line *shot to house) 41t
7 41 t
6. Measurements from line shot onto house to i-oof ridge:
Total: Xt , IL,
7. Actual Elevation: 417,44 (reference point elevation) + 2-IJ6 (measurements
from #6) h(S
Conclusion:
43ty,j, _Jactual) is greater 10�han4S9, 12 �� (allowed); therefore the house is/
is not over the height -requirement per ECDC 16.20.30 requirements
z
0
0
M
ll:�-%rth Consultants, Inc
Field Rep.
.
Job No.
Page of
I
Report No.
L __ 4L-. -
Ric
Time On Site
Off
Time Off Site
Date
Day of Week
1805 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 - Bellevue, WA 98005
Travel Time
RAE
Miles
Weather
Bellevue (425) 643-3780 - Toll Free (88B) 739-6670
FAX (425) 746-0860
1, -7- 5�"
Ltj-r
Per nit No.
Hrs. Charged
Visitors
DAILY FIELD REPORT
Project McvZc_. o�or--
Job Location
6�'5 46�
Client/Owner
<-_-'a Opt-
I
General Contractor's Sunerintendent
Received Unchecked By
Genera on ew o,
G—rading I —1-checked By I Date
Grading Contractor Grading Foreman
Are approved Plans/Permits on -site El Yes E] No If No, contact the building department or explain below:
Project No. Permit No.
in d. G A)
i Rf 5:2' 96 V r�
-J7 f - V _�/I. 71 1
—,4j� ItM55 6 C-11- Z)
C, 174T?
-7 1 \-)C77- (-�2U e��- _Z62 "7r-- S r5-r Ir- f, /1 L_�
e7
`7
L-47 zm4 _�o
11:5- 4�t 1� 4:�- c_,r,"V2 1 7 <2 I
ez
7 f
_7
CONTINUED ON NtA I [�AQIM LJ
COPY TO:
I'd.10
a
z
0
1
0
m
-i -n
C/)
C m
M 0
0
-40
0 C
-4 C
M M
M Z
--I
_Z
CAI
0 -n
n
M M
0 5)
0 171
0 rn
C Cl)
co)
M 0
Z
X
__11
3:
z
-4
M
Cl)
z
0
q
0
m
FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL FORM
TO:
DATE:
MEMO TO: PERMIT COORDINATOR, BUILDING DIVISION
FROM: FIRE DEPARTMENT DATE
PLEASE SIGN
J- M ENGINEERING DIVISION DATE
PLEASE sitm
PLANNING DIVISION DATE
PLEASESIGN
PROJECT__6%w���
SITE ADDRESS- 9Y 3Y V61
PERMIT DATE INSPECTED Lar
DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE INSPECTED
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:
X, 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
2.
3.
RE -INSPECTED OUTSTANDING ISSUES - GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL
Date Signature
1:temp:b1dg:fomis:ocaprv1 3/25/04
z
0
A
0
M
-n
U5
0 M
C
M
0
__10
0 C
X M
M Z
_Z
C/)
o -n
n
M M
0 U5
0 r-
0 M
C C/)
9 C/)
Q 0
Z
7-1
>
z
C/)
z
0
i
0
M
RECORD OF INSPECTIONS
INSPECTOR
DATE APPROVED
SETBACKS .....................
FOUNDATION:
-o4
Footing ......................
Wall..........................
Pier/Porch .................
Retaining Wall ...........
Slab Insulation ..........
PLUMBING:
Underground .............
Rough -In ...................
0,v,
Commercial Final ......
HEATING:
X-7-
Gas Test ....................
Gas Piping .................
DQ7
Equipment .................
3 .3 6,�
Commercial Final .......
EXTERIOR SHEATHING
NAILING ..........................
FRAMING ........................
t
FIRST FLOOR FRAMING...
INSULATION ...................
7—
Floor Insulation .........
Wall Insulation ...........
Ceiling Insulation .......
M 7-
X�
SHEETROCK NAILING ...
Mr
3 -a 2- n
SPECIAL INSPECTION
�j
MISCELLANEOUS ..........
FINAL APPROVAL FOR
OCCUPANCY ..................
Side Sewer i,
Arnou. t Pa-'e.a
Date
ILI
The initials MT are Miltoll litract
Thoilipso", a telliporary co
ilispector for the CitY-
z
0
A
0
ITI
-n
C/)
0 M
C
M
0
0
0 C
M
M Z
C
C/)
0 -n
n
M M
0
0 M
C Ct)
MCI)
M 0
Z
>
z
cf)
z
0
1
0
1711