20050253.pdfFBATE RECEIVED
CITY OF EDMONDS
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION
O�YVER NAME/NAMEtOF RUSINESS
Ilk
-3 yy-)
MAILING ADDRESS
CITY ZIP TELFPHONE
NAME 1 1 %
ADDRESS
CITY ' ZIP
NAME
TELEPHONE
Ll. L\,- - I
I A- I CBL #
ADDRESS
CITY ZIP TEVPHONE
1i -u t\mra\a,=A ot 10 Lf -2- S - 9 11 -
PERMIT EXPIRES
USE 07- '71 PERMIT
ZONE "'3 �,;,
NUMBEF
JOB .7 SUITE��P`rj
00,
Z
ADDRESS 1471
I_A _.40
U Z� - /A
PLAT NAME/SUBDIVISION NO. LOT NP. LID NO.
�- &41 LID FEE $
TESCP Approved
PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP Rw Permit Required
Street Use Permit Hoq'd E3
EXISTING �_�11 PRO>SED Inspection Required �fo
L Sidewalk Hequifed 13
REQUIRED DEDICATIOtr Fr underground
Wifing required
METER SiIZE LINE SIZE NO. OF FIXTURES PRV REQUIRED
YES 1:1 NO 13 z
UJI
z
REMARKS
OWN E R/CON TRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROL/DRAINAGE
RING
FIRE REVIEWED BY
_YA
DATE
Tr
VARIANCE OR CU
SHORELINE.ORADB#
I INSPECTION
REO'D
OYES blq'�O
I BOND
POSTED
S
S 210ENSE NUMBER EXPIRATION DIE
WD B
HEC D B
SEPA REVIEW
COMPLETE EXEMPT
EXP
SIGN AREA
ALLOWED , PROPOSED
HEIGHT
ALLOWED ROPOSED
Pz S"IT
PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT, P�RCEL NO.
\T (30 c><�)
Ja
EADDITION
]
NEW
REMODEL
REPAIR
RESIDENTIAL
P&
COMMERCIAL
MULTIFAMILY
PLUMBING / MECH
COMPLIANCE OR
CHANGE OF USE
SIGN
FENCE
( — X.� FT)
LOT COVERAGE
ALLOWED PROPOSED
plffi,#- v7 top- a
3,t� - 3,5 A
REQUIRED SETBACKS (Fr.)
FRONT SIDE REAR
10 10
PROPOSED SETBACKS (Fr.)
FRONT LIR SIDE REAR
z
1 7-0 5115-z
-
PARKING
REO'D .1 PROVIDED
Z_ 2
LOT AREA
41-0 2-
PLANNING REVIEWED BY DATE
I -
CYOS
REMARKS p 0 -71 L/
DEMOLISH
TANK
OTHER
GARAGE
CARPO
RETAINING WALL
ROCKERY
FIRE SPRINKLER
FIRE ALARM
(TYPE OF USE, BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN:
NUMBER NUMBER OF CRITICAZ5F;7\i� C
OF DWELLING AREAS
UNITS NUMBE
STORIES C= ). I
DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE
C
mBY TYPE OF N LICTION CQDE. OCCUPANT
pk I T 1 GROUP03
SPECIAL INSPECTION AREA OCCUPANT
REQUIRED ISS LOAD
6 rAw )4:—
REMARKS z
PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 108/IBC109/IRC109 FINAL INSPECTION REQ'D —
f I A��] A t) A � n 1 .1 -P') A I& I I/ 'T' k &.n t, I , I 'M
VALUATION
LK iij $
.5 Description" FEE Description FEE
Plan Check State Surcharge
HEAT SCIURCE GWING LOTAI OPE % 49
-7,
Building Permit City Surcharge
PLAN CHE��11401. VESTED DATE Plumbing Base Fee
4 xj�� Mechanical
THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO
t: BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC
DOMAIN (CURDS. SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES. ETC.) WILL REQUIRE Grading
SEPARATE PERMISSION.
t: Engr. Review
3
3 PERMIT APPLICATION: 180DAYS
0. PERMIT LIMIM I YEAR - PROVIDED WORK 15 STARTED WITHIN 180 DAYS Engr. Inspection
SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION
S Fire Review Plan Chk. Deposit
'APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESOR
IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY. DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF
2 EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND Fire Inspection Receipt #
ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE
E Landscapelnsp. Total Amt. Due
DEEMED TO MODIFY� WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANC �o
0 NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITYS ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.'
x Recording Fee Receipt #
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION; THAT THE INFORMATION APPLICATION APPROVAL
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- CALL this application is not a permit until signed by the
TION; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY. NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED Building 011icial or his/lier Deputy: and Foos are paid, and
IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO FOR INSPECTION receipt Is acknowledged in space provided.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION I.NkURANCE AND FICW 10-27. DATE
LS S113 TURE
NA,�RE �(OWNEI R ENT) DATE SIGNED (425)
. _�U -.00 -
if -QVASF. 1) BY
771-0220
E)ff 1333
AFTENTO�
IT IS UNLAWFULTO USE 0 CCUPYABUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTILAFINAL
INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVALOR A CERTIFICATE OF OCCU- ORIGINAL -FILE YELLOW. INSPECTOR
PANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC1 09 / IBC1 10 / IRC1 10. PINK -OWNER GOLD -ASSESSOR
09/03 PRESS HARD -YOU ARE MAKING 4 COPIES
z
0
11
0
M
--I -n
0 M
C
M 0
0
0
0 C
M
M Z
>
3:
co
0
n
M M
0
0
0 M
Cn
M 0
Z
z
3:
z
0
M
-0
A
/0 Z17
Z_0/�5 16) A2
S7-
Ll
I., \14
z
7r,
C 0
m
0
00
V4. 414
m z
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION
c-
Ar
ENTRANCE REQUIRED
AINTAIN PLAT -INSTALLED EROSION CONTROL o -n
Zo
mm
5f
0. cl)
5-/0 go 0
m
c 0
APPI'.)VED AS NOTED .9 1 . a
cn
ALL EXPOSED SURFACES TO ENGINEERING M 0
Z
BE COVERED WITHIN 2 DAYS -7L
Fla-
4. 17t Comer_ ;u
Zone FeO,03�
ctual
Setbacks j�g�red �A
_210� z
Front
E I V f- f-,)
S/ R C-,
Sides
FOOTING DRAINS NOT Rear cn
z
TO BE TIED INTO JAN 2, 6 0
DETENTION SYSTEM Other _LL�_
Z3. 5 0
Re ITEB
PERN11T ("/'0UN m
0V ED BY
R EC E�-� 5 If Er. P
fPk(,'0EP1ABLE TIGHTLINE
WATER & SEWER 005
MATERIAL
SDR 35 INSPECT)ONS REQ'D.
PERMIT COUNTER
2.0 r
S, CH 4 0 CALL 4257,71-02 'XT, 1326
N '12
HANCOR
CITY COPY
DONTROL
0 N 0 v E
L-OT MAE�)RONA GOVE
SITE AREA:. _,5�40�2- _Sa.FT.
ZONIN& PLANNE0 UN IT DEVEL-OPMENT
HEI&HT 6AL-CULATION (E3A!5EQ FROM tLg�- C, R,6�2-E-2
A
z
ol
E3
:fll lit
9
4
15TIN& 61RA
AVERA&E �Ex-
4SA-0.
m 0
0
DIN6 HE16HT
;ACUTAL E3U'LI:;Iv-
0
< AL-L-06EDEWIL DIN& HEI&HE
c
c r;,�
5Up-\./p--�rER TO PROVIVE BE NC.Hm,&,Rr, M05T APPROPRIATE-; FOR HF-IrzHT...
m A
VERIFIOATIO�41
10
IMPERVIOU5 AREAS r
ro
cl)
RE51PENCE W/COVEREP 1`0�96HF-5
&80 5.
DRIVE�NA`(5 Do S.
m m
PATIO5 6 Vq LK -----------------
Z5�
0
TOTAL
om
0
Sa FT OF PROPO SFp L-oT GOVERA6E
71
I LUPE5 5TR PF-01<5 30" AE3 OVE C-R,60E)
NC
LOT COVERA(SE aA5EI:�� UPON 3 5016 OF ENTIRE PLANNEP UNIT
0
M
RECENVED
DEC 8 2004
PERMIT COUNTER
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
PEPPERWOOD
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
8526 MAIN STREET
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Z
0
E-10075
May 14,2002
M
C
00
M
0
C
PREPARED FOR
mm
M Z'
PHOENIX DEVELOPMENT, INC.
0
C
0)
M 0
Zr.
Nol
z
XPIRFS -7
Raymond -A Coglas, P.E.
0)
z
Project Manager
0
Earth Consultants, Inc.
1805 - 136th Place, Northeast, Suite 201
Bellevue, Washington 98005
(206) 643-3780
Toll Free 1-888-739-6670
CITY COPY
IMPORTANT INFORMATION
ABOUl"YOUR
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
la . rge measure to programs and publications of ASFE/
The Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in
the Geosciences.
The following suggestions and observations are offered
to help you reduce the geotech n ical -related delays,
cost -overruns and other costly headaches that can
occur during a construction project.
A GEOTE CHNICAL ENGINEERING
REPORT IS BASED ON A UNIOUE SET
OF PROJECT -SPECIFIC FACTORS -
A geotechnical engineering report i . s based on a subsur-
face exploration plan designed to incorporate a unique
set of project -specific factors. These typically include:
the general nature of the structure involved, its size and
configuration; the location of the structure on the site
and its orientation: physical concomitants such as
access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities.
and the level of additional risk which the client assumed
by virtue of limitations imposed upon the exploratory
program. To help avoid costly problems, consult the
geo ' technical engineer to determine how any factors
which change subsequent to the date of the reportm6y
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 size or configuration of the proposed
structure is altered:
when the location or orientation of the proposed
structure is modified:
when there is a change of ownership. or
for application to an adjacent site.
Geolechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility for problems
which may develop if they are not consulted after factors consid-
ered in their report's development have changed.
MOST GEOTECHNICAL "FINDINGS"
ARE PROFESSIONAL ESTIMATES
Site exploration identifies actual subsurface conditions
only at those points where samples are taken. when
they are taken. Data derived through sampling and sub-
sequent laboratory testing are extrapolated by geo-
technical enginws who then render an opinion about
overall subsurface condition!-,. their likely reaction to
proposed construction activity, and appropriate founda-
tion design. E'ven under optimal circumstances actual
conditions may differ trorn 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 rnote 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 consultanis 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 con stantly-
changing naturalforces. Because a geotechnical engi-
neering report is based on conditions which existed at
the time of subsurface exploration, construction decisions
should not be based oil 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 engineqff 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 geolechnical
engineer..No person should apply this report for any purpose
other than that originally contemplated without first conferring
with the geotechnical engineer
Z
0
0
M
M
M 0
0
0 C
M
M Z
K) -1
C _Z
0 .-n
n
M M
0 CO)
0 r-
0 M
C (J)
C CO)
Q 0
Z r-
X
Z
-4
3:
0)
Z
0
i
.0
M
f
Earth Consultants Inc.
Cwolmlinical Eligineets. CK�ologisis* ritivironmetual SidmNSIs
May 14, 2002 E-1 0075
z
Phoenix Development, Inc
0
P.O. Box 3167
0
Lynnwood, Washington 98046-0958 M
Attention: Ms. Loree Quade
Cl)
M
C
Dear Ms. Quade: M-0
0
0
We are pleased to submit our, report titled ",Geotechnical Engineering Study, PeppeNVood, C
Residential Development, 8526 Main Street, Edmonds, Washington." This study MM
z
resents the results of our field exploration. andgeotechnical engineering analyses for the
p
C
proposed residential development. Our scope of services for producing this study were > Z
outlined in our proposal PR-10075, dated March 1, 2002.
Cn
-n,
.0
Based on the results of our study, development of the site as planned is feasible from a
geotechnical standpoint. Mediu m* dense to very dense glacial till was observed at thetest
MM
Pit locations. Fill and yard waste materials were observed along the top of the existing
0
slope areas along the upper half of the site at several of the test pit locations. The fill r
0 M
soils were observed. to depths of approximately four to five feet. Based on the C Cn
C Cn
'M 0,
subsurface conditions observed at the test pit.locations, it is our opinion the proposed
Z
n be supported on conventional sp
single'family residences ca read and continuous footings
..:bearing on the competent glacial till native soils, or on structural fill soils used to modify
existing site grades. X
Z
The existing slope areas -throughout the Middle of the site appear stable.. Due.to the X
dense condition of the native glacial till soils, the existing slope areas should not be
i z
adversely impacted by the proposed construction. In our opinion, the buffer requirements
0
for building construction adjacent to steep - slope areas can be reduced.
0
M
Recommiendations for setbacks and other geotechnical recommendations are presented in
this geotechnical engineering study.
-3780 FAX (425) 746-0860 Toll Free (888) 739-6670
1805 - 186th Place N.E., Suite 201, Bellevue, Washington 98005 Bellevue (425) 643
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 en neering study,
gi
or if we can be of further assistance, please call.
Z'
Sincerely,
0,
Ri
EA CONSULTANTS, INC.
3:'
C
M
0
C:
ond A. Cogl E
X M
Project Manager
rn Z�
RACJJme
C Z''
_n
M M.
orn.
C V)
M 0;
z
X
z
z
M
Earth Unsultantsi I.ne.
7_
TABLE OF CONTENTS
E-10075
ILLUSTRATIONS
Plate 1
Vicinity Map
Plate 2
Test Pit Location Plan
Plate 3
Typical Tooting Subdrain Detail
Z
0�
Plate 4
Typical Utility Trench Fill
M,
b,
APPENDICES
-4:9
Appendix A
Field Exploration
CA
C M.
Plate Al
Legend
M 0�
Plates A2 through Al2
'Test Pit Logs
0'
.1
Appendix B
Laboratory Test Results
m MT
Plate Bi
Grain Size Analyses
0 m
m M
Ovj
0
0 m
C
m
ZO
M
Z
Z
0
01
m
Earth Consultants, Inc.
_0110
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEMNG STUDY
ERWOOD
RESIDENTIAL DBIELOPM ENT
8526 MAIN STREET
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
E-10075
INTROnu
Z
0
Genem
M
This report presents geotechnical recommendations f or the proposed. Pepperw ood
6_4
Residential Development to be located at 8526 Main Street, Edmonds, Washington. The
0 M
C:
general location of the site is shown on the Vicinity Map, Plate 1. The approximate
M 0
locations of the test pits and the approximate limits of the property are illustrated on the
0
0.
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
ITI
M'Z
recommendations for the proposed site development.
C Z
r
Elrojea nmqnripto
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.
ITI M
throughout the property, and.will connect to Main Street on the upper east half of the
0
property and Pioneer Way along the lower west portion of the property. At. the time this
0
C M
CD
geotechnical engineering study was prepared, a final grading plan had not been
Cn
M0
completed. However, we anticipate that cuts and fills will be necessary to. establish the
Zr
building lot and roadway grades. Construction of a storm. Water detention vault. is
X
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
M
twelve (12) to sixteen (16) f eet. Cuts along the toe of the existing steep slopes w ill.likel.y
Z
be necessary to establish roadway grades for the new access roadway that will connect
ca
to Pioneer. Way.
The use of rockeries may be necessary to transition grades in landscaping areas and to.
0
ITI
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 f ill rockery may be
located on the existing slopes.
Earth consultants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFUNG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-1 0075
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.
z
.0
The use of relatively lightly loaded wood frame construction is anticipated for the
0
proposed single family residences. We estimate wall loads will be in the range of one to
M
two kips per lineal foot, and column loads in the range of ten 0 0) to twenty (20) kips.
49
If the above design criteria are incorrect or change, ECI should be notified and allowed to
CD
C M
review the recommendations contained in this report. In any case, ECI should be retained
M 0
to perform a general review of the final design.
0
0
C
SITE CONDITIONS
M M
z
Surface
C
> z
E:
CA
The approximate property limits and site topography are. illustrated on the Test Pit
.0 -n
Location- Plan (Plate 2). The majority of the site is undeveloped and heavily vegetated,,
n
I
with the exception of several rental homes located along Main Street. The topography is
X 9
J. . .
partitioned into two halves, with a slope area approximately bisecting the site in a north-
ITI 171
65
south direction. The slopes descend to the west at grades of approximately 30 percent
0
0 r
M.
to 40 percent. The overall height of the slope ranges. from approximately forty. (40) to
C CA
K Co.
fifty (50) feet. Based on the site s u*rvey prepared.by Group Four lnc.� the steep slope
Q 0
Z
areas within the planned 'development are, limited to the north end of the property
adjacent to Building Lot 9.
X
The upper east half of the property is relatively- flat, with gently sloping areas that
Z
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
Cn
incorporated into the new development, and the driveway areas will likely be filled to
z
Create a level building lot area. The maximum height of the existing rockery is.
approximately ten (110) to twelve 0 2) feet.
M
The lower west portion of the development area is located at the toe of the existing
slope that approximately bisects the property in a north -south direction. The
immediate toe area -of the site is relatively flat, and is located along,an existing utility
easement corridor that connects to Main Street on the north and Pioneer Way on the
south. On the extreme west side of the property, west of the utility easement, there is
an area of ascending steep slopes. Development is not planned in this area.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Phoenix. Development, Inc. E-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
Z
Douglas Fir, and there were no indications of severe erosion due to, surface water runoff.
0
4
Based on our observations, it appears the slopes are stable.
Submjrftce
q 9
CD
Eleven test pits were excavated throughout the site. The test pits were excavated to
M
C
depths of approximately five to eight feet, where very dense glacial till soil conditions
M 0
0
were encountered. Please refer. to the. test. pit logs, Plates A2 through Al 2, for a
00
C
description of the conditions encountered at the test pit locations.
X M
M Z
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
X
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
0 n
n
identifies the silty sand with gravel deposit as glacial till. The upper three to four feet of
M
the soil deposit generally consisted of weathered glacial till. The weathered till was. in a
M
Vi
medium dense condition, and was characterized by brown to dark brown coloring. Dense
0 r-
to very dense unweathered glacial till was encountered below the weathered glacial till
0 M
C 0)
layer. The unweathered glacial till was generally characterized by a gray to dark gray
QO
coloring.
Z
X
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
Z
along the top of the steep slope area in the vicinity of Test Pits TP-4 and TP-5.
CO
At the time the test pit exploration was performed (March 2002), the upper deposit of
Z
0
weathered glacial till was generally in a wet condition. Laboratory testing indicates
0
moisture contents of approximately 13 to 16 percent, or greater for the weathered glacial
M
till. The lower deposit of unweathered glacial,till was in a. moist to wet condition, and
had moisture contents generally in the range of approximately 8 percent to 10 percent.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFING STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075
May 14, 2002 Page. 4
Groundviater
Groundwater seepage was.not observed at the time of our exploration (March 2002).
The presence of light to moderate groundv�eter seepage, however, should be expected in
deep excavations. Based on the conditions observed at the time of our field exploration,
we do not anticipate groundv%oter seepage will adversely impact the earthwork.
z
0
Groundwater seepag6 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
=i =n
water runoff, and other factors. Generally, the level and rate of seepage is higher in
CD -1
the wetter winter months (typically October through May).
C M
0
0
Laboratory Testing
0 0�
XM
The results of laboratory tests performed on specific samples are provided in Appendix B,
M Z
or at the appropriate sample depth on the test pit logs. It is important to note that these
C
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
annot be responsible for the interpretation of these da others.
C ta by
0 -n
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
rn M.
CD
0
General
0 M
C cl)
M CD
Based on thesubsurface conditions observed at the test pit locations, development of the
M 0
Z
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
>
z
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
(n
foundations was generally observed at a depth of approximately two feet below the
z
.0
native.ground surface elevation.
0
M
Earth Consultants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFUNG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075
May 1.4, 2002 Page 5
Due to the dense condition of the glacial till soils and the stable. condition of the steep
slope area, a minimum steep slope buffer of ten (10) feet from the top and toe of the
steep slope areas can be considered for the proposed single-family residences. As
previously discussed, the site s urvey 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
Z
0
design is completed. Steep slope buffer and foundation recommendations are provided in
the Steep Slope Buffer and Foundations sections of this report. Preliminary rockery
M
design recommendations are provided in the Rockerles section of this report.
In our opinion, the majority of the existing rockery located along Main Street can be
X
0 M
C
utilized and incorporated into the new development. Several of the existing rocks along
M 0
the upper row of the rockery, however, will need to be replaced due to severe
0
0
0
weathering. ECI will work with the contractor to identify the rocks. that need to be
C
replaced. With regard to the existing driveway areas that will likely be filled and brought
X M
M Z
up to the level of the existing rockery, the 'use of a geogrid reinforced fill will be
10-4
C: Z
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
X
Ca
Main Street rockery.
0 -n
In our opinion,. construction of the proposed storm water detention vault is fe asible from a
X M
M
geotechnical standpoint. Medium dense to dense glacial till soil will likely be encountered
CO
0
in the excavation for the storm water detention vault. Based on the conditions observed
0 M
at the test pit locations, grouhdv%ater seepage may be encountered in theexcavation for
C Cn
M CD
the storm water detention vault. However, in our opinionj groundmter seepage will*
M 0
Z r-
likely not adversely impact the stability of the detention vault excavation.
Recommendations for temporary excavations are provided in the Excavations and Slopes
X
section of this report.
>
Z
Cuts will be performed for the proposed access roadway that will connect to Pioneer
Cn
Way. These cuts may encroach into the toe of the existing steep slope ar . eas on the west
Z
side of the property.* Due to, the dense glacial till soil conditions observed at the site, it is
0
our opinion. the roadway cuts will not compromise the stability of the slopes. We.
M
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.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFONG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075
May 14, 2002 Page 6
This geotechnical engineering study has been prepared for the exclusive use of Phoenix
Development, Inc. and their representatives. This study was prepared for specific
application to this project only and in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill
ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar
conditions in this area. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made.. We
z
recommend that this geotechnical engineering study, in its entirety, be included in the
project contract documents for the informat ion of the contractor.
0
M
Si te Preparation and General Earthwork
9
CO
The proposed development areas of the site should be stripped and cleared of, existing
M
CO
M
surface vegetation, topsoil, existing structu res, and other deleterious materials. Existing
0
—10
0
utility pipes that will be abandoned should be plugged or removed. Based on the
C
conditions observed at the test pit locations, the th ickness of the topsoil layer ranges
M
M Z
between approximately two (2) inches to twelve (12) inches. The. thickness of the
topsoil layer will vary throughoutthe site.
C:
>
The ground surface where structural fill, or foundations are to be placed should be
o -n
observed by a representative. of ECI. An ECI representative should also observe.the
excavation for the proposed storm water detention vau It and roadway cuts. Existing fill
M M
soil and. organic debris that is encoun tered in the building and vault foundation
0 (n
excavations should be overexcavated. Due to the relatively high fines content of the
01
r
0 M
native soils, moisture -sensitivity. of. the soils will be moderate to high. Building and
C Cn
C Cn
pavement subgrade areas that are exposed to extended periods of precipitation will likely,
M 0
r
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.
3:
>
z
In our opinion, the majority of the native* soils can be considered for use as structural fill,
X
provided the soil is placed during dry weather conditions,, and provided the, moisture
Cn
z
content of the soil is at or near the optimum moisture content at the time of placement.
0
At the time of the subsurface exploration (March, 2002) the upper deposit of weathered
0
n sture
glacial till was generally in a wet condition. Laboratory testi g indicates. moi
M
contents of 13 percent or greater for the weathered glacial ti 11. The. lower deposit of
unweathered glacial till was g enerally 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.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFUNG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-1 0075
May 14, 2002 Page 7
Imported soil intended for use as structural fill should consist of a fairly well graded
granular soil. with a moisture content that is at or near the optimum moisture content, and
having a. maximurn 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.
Z
0
Structural fill is defined as compacted fill placed under foundations, roadways, slabs,
0
M
pavementst or other load -bearing areas. Structural fill under'slabs and footings should be
placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding twelve (12) inches in loose thickness and
compacted to, a mini mum of 90 percent of its laboratory maximum dry density. The
OM
C
maximum dry density should be determined in accordance with ASTM Test Designation
M
D-1 557-91 (Modified Proctor). The fill materials should be placed -at or near the optimum
0
0 C
iz a
moisture content. Fill under pavements and walks should. also be placed in hor, ont 1. lifts
X M
and compacted to 90. percentof the maximum dry density except for the.top'twelve (12)
M Z
inches, which should be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density. . If a
Z
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.
63
0 -n
Steep Slope Buffe
M M
In bur opinion, due to the dense condition of the glacial till soils observed at the site, and
Cn
0
the stable condition ofthe existing slope areas, a minimum ten (10) foot buffer from the
0 M
C Cn .
top and toe of the steep slope areas can be considered for the proposed single-family
C CA
M 0
residences.. The City of Edmonds Development Standards for Geologically Hazardous
Z
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
X
geotechnical report can demonstrate that no adverse impacts to the slope or surrounding
>
Z
developments will result. In our-ophion, reducing the.buffer distance to ten (10) feet will
not adversely impact the stability of the steep slope areas.. The observed stability of Ahe
Cn
existing slope and the presence of dense glacial till soils is the primary basis for this
Z
0
recommendation.
M
Earth Consultants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-1 0075
May 14, 2002 Page 8
In our opinion, grading and the placement of fill on the slope will not adversely impact the.
stability of the slope. We understand. fill placement along the backside of the upper
building lots adjacent to the slope areas may be necessary to establish relatively level
backyard areas. Reinforced fill rockeries can be used to transition the grade between the
fill and the slope. In our opinion, due -to the dense glacial till soil conditions, fill and
rockery placement on the slope will not adversely impact the stability of the slope. As.
p reviously discussed, an engineered reinforced rockery design should be completed for
0
the proposed fill and rockery areas.
Foundations
Cn
In our opinion, the proposed single family residences can be supported on conventional
M
C
M
spread and continuous footings bearing on the medium dense to dense glacial till soil
-10
0.
0
observed at the test pit locations. Where necessary, the propo sed building foundations
C
can also be supported on structural fill that is, used to modify the existing site 'grades.
M
M Z
Foundations should not be supported on the existing fill soils. The medium dense to
—4
dense glacial till soils suitable for support of foundations was generally- observed at a
>
depth of appro)dmately two feet below the native ground surface elevation.
For foundations bearing on the medium dense to dense glacial till soil or structural fill, an
0
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 factor-of-sa.fety in
M M
0 V5,
excess: of 3.0 against shear failure, provided the foundations are placed on compe ent
0
0 M
native soils'or structu . ral fill. A one-third increase in the above allowable soil bearing
C Cn
9 CD
c . apacity can b e assumed for short-term wind and seismic loading conditions. Continuous
Q 0
Z
and individual spread footings should have minimum widths of eighteen (18) and twenty
four (24) inches, respectively.
--J
X,
If loose or unstable soil conditions are encountered at the footing subgrade elevation, the
z
soil should be overexcavated, and replaced with structural fill. The width of the
X
overexcavation should extend a minimum of six inches beyond each edge of the
z
foundation.
0
Exterior foundations elements should be placed at a minimum depth of eighteen (18)
0
M
inches below final exterior grade. Interio d foundations can be placed at a minimum
r sprea
depth of twelve (12) inches below the top of slab, except in unheated.areas, where
interior foundation elements should be founded at a minimum'depth of eighteen (18)
inches.
Earth Consultants. Inc.
ENGINEENNG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075
May 14, 2002 Page 9
Provided the foundations are placed in accordance with the recommendations contained
in this report, we.estirnate total settlement. of, approximately one inch and dif ferential.
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
z
0
supporting soil, and by passive soil pressure acting on the face of the buried portion of
-j
the foundation. Resistance to lateral. loads from passive earth pressures can be calculated
0
71
using an equivalent fluid with a unit weight of three hundred fifty (35.0) pounds per cubic
foot (pcf). To achieve adequate passive resistance, the foundations must be backfilled
CO
with structural fill. As an alternative, the foundations can be poured neat against the
C
undisturbed native soil. For frictional capacity, a coefficient of 0.40 can be used for
m 0
foundations bearing on competent native soils or structural fill. These lateral resistance
0
0
values are allowable values; a facto r-o f-safety of 1.5 has been included.
C
3: M
M Z
Footing excavations should be observed by a representative of ECI prior to placing the
1C) H
C
formvvork and repar. ECI should also observe areas where overexcavatio.n is required to
>
remove loose or unstable soils.
Vi
0
Permanent Retaining an d Foundation Walls
A
m M
Retaining and foundation walls should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures from
Cl)
the retained soils, and any surcharge loading. Walls that are unrestrained and free to
or
C m
move at the top can be designed using an equivalent fluid with a unit weight of thirty-five
C (n
(35) pcf. The earth pressure imparted on restrained walls should be calculated using an
M 0
Z r-
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.
z
For traffic surcharge loading, a uniform pressure of seventy (70) psf should be applied in.
z
a rectangular distribution along the height of the retaining wall. If sloping backfi.11
0
conditions are.present behind the walls, ECI.should review the. slope configurations and
m
provide modified equivalent fluid values, as necessary.
Earth Constiltants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075
May 14, 2002 Page 10
Retaining and foundation walls should be provided with a four inch diameter perforated
drainpipe and backfilled with a free -draining granular soil with less than 5 percent fines
(percent passing the No. 200 sieve based on the minus % inch fraction). The zone of
free -draining granular soil should extend along the entire height of, the wall, and a distance
of at least eighteen (18) inches behind the wall. A surface, seal consisting of a less
permeable.silty sand soil can be placed along the upper one foot of the wall backfill, if
Z
0
desired. The remainder of the backfill behind the zone of free draining soil should consist
of a suitable granular structural fill.
M
Seismic Design Consideration
=n
CO -1
0 M
C
The Puget Sound region is classified as Zone 3 by the Uniform Building Code (UBC). The
M 0
0
largest earthquakes in the Puget Sound region have been subcrustal (intraplate) events,
00
C:
ranging in depth from fifty (50) to seventy (70) kilometers. Such deep events have
-4
X M
exhibited no, surface faulting. Weaver and. Shedlock (1989) researched the probable or
MZ-
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
0 -n
-n
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,
M M
2001 earthquake that was focused just north.of Olympia, Washington was an intraplate
0
earthquake, and had a magnitude Of ML =6.8. The subduction zone earthquake, in which
0 M
C W
there is no historical record in the Washington and Oregon area, would haveits source
9 CD
M 0
along the interface between the North American Plate and the subducting Juan de Fuca
Z
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).
Z
The UBC Earthquake regulations have established a series of soil profile types that are
Cn
used as a basis for seismic design of structures. Based on the encountered soil
Z
.0
conditions, it is our opinion that soil type Sc from Table 16-1 Of the 1997 UBC should be
used for design.
0
M
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
foundations found in the lique ing soils.
differential settlement for structures with ed fy
Groun.dshaking 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 ConstAtants, Inc.
GEOTEGHNICAL ENGINEEFUNG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-1 0075
May 14, 2002 Page 11
To have potential for liquefaction, a soil must be c6hesionless 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
magnitude and duration of groundshaking.
Based on the soil and groundv�eter conditions observed at the site it is our opinion.that
Z
the site has a low susceptibility to liquefaction. The dense condi tion of the native soils is
0
the primary basis for this conclusion.
0
S -on-Grade Floor
lab
:q .9'
0
Slab -on -grade floors can be supported.on competent native soils or structural fill. Loose
M
C
or unstable subgrade soils should be stabilized prior to construction of the slab. The use
M 0
0
of a geotextile and crushed rock can be considered for stabilizing the s.ubgrade soils, if
0
0 C
necessary. A four4nch capillary break consisting of a free draining poorly graded sand or
X M
gravel with less than 5 percent fines (percent passing the, No. 200 sieve, based on the
M Z
minus 3/4-inch. fraction) should be placed below the slab. In areas where slab moisture is
C 2
undesirable, a vapor barrier such as a 6-mil plastic membrane can be placed beneath the
free draining sand or gravel. The subgrade soils in slab -on -grade areas of, the site should
be observed by a representative of ECI prior to placing the capillary break material.
0 -n
Site Drainagge
M M,
0 6
0
During construction, surface water runoff must not be allowed to. stand in construction
0, M
C Cn
M CO
areas. �nterceptor trenches should be established, as necessary, along the perimeterof
MO
Z
.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
M.
soils. Finish grades around the buildings must be sloped such that surface water is.
X
directed away from the buildings.
Z
3:
Perimeter footing drains should be installed. around the perimeter. foundations to intercept
Cn
groundv%eter seepage. A typical perimeter footing drain *detail is illustrated on Plate 3.
Z
0
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,
M
a
site storm w ter system
Earth Consultants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFANG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075
May 14, 2002 Page 12
Excavations and Slopes
The following information is provided solely as a service to our client. Under no
circumstances should this information be interpreted to mean that ECI is assuming
responsibility for construction, site safety or, the contractor's activities; such responsibility
Z
0
is not being implied and should not be inferred.
M
In no case should excavation slopes be, greater than the limits specified in local, state,
=i ffi
and Federal safety re ulations. - Based on the information obtained from our field
9
Cl)
exploration, the upper deposit of weathered glacial -till that extends to a depth of
0M
C
approximately four feet below existing site grades would be classified as Type C soils by
MID
�OSHA. The existing fill observed at the site would also be -classified as Type C soil.
0
0
Temporary cuts in Type C soils should be sloped at an inclination no steeper than
C:.
1.5H:1 V (Horizontal: Vertical), respectively. The unweathered glacial till observed below a
M
M Z
depth of approximately four feet would be classified as Type A and Type B soils by
p
C2
OSHA. Temporary slopes constructed in Type A and Type B soils should be inclined no
steeper than 0.75H:1V and 1H:1V, respectively. ECI should observe the excavations to
Cn
assess soil and groundv%eter conditions, and to verify the OSHA soil type.
0 -n
n
Permanent cut and fill slopes should be inclined no steeper than. 2111V. Cut slopes
M�m
s hould be observed by ECI during excavation to verify that conditions are as anticipated.
Cn
0
Supplementary recommendations can then be developed, if needed, to improve stability,
0 M
C Cn
including flattening of slopes or installation of surface or subsurface drains. In any case,
C Cn
water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of,slopes.
M 0
Z
Permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation
X
to reduce erosion and improve stability of the surficial layer of soil.
>
Z
Utilily Trench Backfill
55
Based on the soil conditions encountered at the time of our exploration, the native soils
Z
0
should provide adequate support for utilities.. If remedial measures are necessary to
0
M
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 groundmter seepage should be expected in the deeper utility trench excavations and
the.proposed detention vault excavation.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEENNIG STUDY
'Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075
May 14,2002 Page 13
In our opinion, the native soils can be considered for use as backfill for the utility
trenches.. At the time of the subsurface exploration (February, 2002) the upper deposit
of weathered glacial till was generally in a wet condition, with moisture contents in
excess of 16 percent.. The lower deposit of unweathered glacial till was generally in a
moist to wet condition, and had moisture contents of approximately 10 percent. ECI will
z
work with the contractor to assess the suitability of the on -site soils for use as utility
'0
trench backfill. As previously mentioned, the soil should be placed during dry weather
0
conditions, and 1he moisture content of the soil should be at or near its optimum moisture
M
content at the time of placement.
'Utility trench backfill is a primary concern in reducing the potential for settle ent in
m
M
M 0
pavement areas. It is impodant that the utilities be adequately. supporied - i n the bedding
0
material., The material should be hand tamped to ensure support is provided around the
0 C
haunches of these structures. Fill should be carefully placed and tamped to about twelve
X M
0 2) inches above the crown of the pipe before heavy compaction equipment is brought
M Z
. I to use. The remainder of the backfill should be placed in lifts having a loose thickness
n
C:
> z
of less than twelve 0 2) inches. A typical trench backfill section and compaction
requirements for load supporting and non4oad supporting areas is presented on Plate 4.
0 -n
-n
Rockeries
M M
We understand the existing rockery located along Main Street at the northeast portion of.
0
Om
the site will be incorporaled into the new development. , The rockery is approximately
C CJ)
C Cn
180 feet in length, and ranges between four (4) feet to twelve (12) feet in height. We
Q 0
estimate the rockery has been in place for appro)dmately twenty-five years. Two existing
Z
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
r einforced fill rockeries is currently being considered for purposes of retaining the new fill.
>
z
As discussed previously, an engineered rockery design will need to. be completed for the
X
reinforced fill rockeries proposed for the site.
CD
z
0
Based on our observations, the majority of the existing rockery has experienced minor to
0
moderate weathering. The minor to moderate weathering was primarily observed along
M
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 ConstAtants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEWNG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-1 0075
May 14, 2002 Page 14
Pavement Areas
The adequacy of site pavements is related in part to the condition of the underlying
subgrade. To provide a properly prepared subgrade for pavements, the subgrMe should
be in a firm and unyielding condition when subjected to prookolling with' a loaded dump
Z
truck:. Structural fill in pavement areas should be prepared as described in the Site
0
Preparation. and General Earthwork section of this, report. This means the pavement
0
subgrade'should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density.. It is
0
possible that s me localized areas of soft, wet or unstable subgrade may exist after the
-n
pavement subgrade is prepared. Overexcavation and a greater thickness of structural fill
Vi --i
or.crushed rock may be needed to stabilize these localized areas. A biaxial geogrid such
0 M
C
as Tensar BX-1 200 can be cons idered foruse below the crushed rock where bridging of
M
-10
unstable subgrade is necessary.
00
C
XMI
Assuming a properly prepared subgrade, the following pavement section for lightly -loaded
M Z
areas can be used:
C Z
Two inches of asphalt concrete (AC) over four inches of crushed rock base (CRB)
Cn
material, or
0 -n
n
Two inches of AC over three inches of asphalt treated base (ATB) material.
MM
0
Heavier truck -traffic areas will require thicker pavement sections depending upon site
0 M
C C/y
C Ca
usage, pavement. life, and site traffic. If necessary, ECI can -provide pavement design
Q 0
recommendations for truck traffic areas.
Z
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
Z
least 95 percent of the maximum dry density.
65
LIMITATIONS
Z
0
Our recommendations, and conclusions are based on the site materials observed, Iselective
0
M
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 profe ssion currently practicing under similar
conditions.in this area. No warranty is expressed or implied.
Earth ConstAtants, Inc.
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE
IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
IMP
COLO
SWOOP
E um
IE Log x 0
0
logo z
wo Au w
I IV
ct a) 0 googol
CL a
(D I
0 Iva a
Log
a LL iT. ca
co cz co a) "m
LL a)
cu low 0
g,,,
(D :3
a) ommor tag 4%
(D a 0 Clo
og, � CL 41"aff "g
;(y 0 a) W"m 1 0 >.g 0
to OV
LL Pot gogg crm
Log cu 0 IZ)o 1. 0)
E
0
0 um
cl)
vtoo0q.60,0 q= 0 (n u
to
40,
Low
0 C13
co ci. 0 0 11g) c
........... . Tom cu I CL
to 10 C)90.91 0 2 0 1
. .......... .. oft E cv CL log,,
cu 0
00,
wa,
LNJ < LL U.
Log
0-40gle logo
E'S -5 o
I a log
cr. oc.600 E CL CL
logo,
logo
Lu 69we:99 >% >%
(L L I
It
00-009
to
SIMON
L)
E
Ir e. 9g,,` co
cn %dw,' logo
log >
cri c') 78
ol,,, 0, For L)
0 A 0, 0 or)
a. 0 * I
10 O)m CL co im
0
......... ...... '8.0 co c:
Log
co
Cn 01 'IS Clegg cc c Q) c blow
U) Log 0 1 low, 0.
'olo%
co Od
NS
WO �w
cu Q) wo 00
logo,
E
(L ca C-C
cn dome
co... . .. Log
E E
ca
"mo,a, 0
MUNK
logo,
1,,,p E E
co CU E 0
uJ logo, W
logo, 08
cn rm
cu 1,,w, a) c
uJ ca cc
ca co ui
ggg�
co
eftl
APPENDIX A
FIELD EXPLORATION
E-10075
Our field exploration was performed on March 28, 2002. Subsurface conditions at the,
site were explored by observing a total of eleven test pit excavations. The test pits were
excavated by'a subcontractor of Phoenix Development, Inc. The approximate test pit
z
0
locations were determined from existing landmarks presented on available plans. The
0
locations of the test pits should be.considered accurate only to the degree implied by the
M
method used. These approximate test pit locations.are shown on the Test Pit Location .
Plan.- Plate 2.
OM
C
The field, exploration was continuously monitored by.a geologist from our office, who
M 0
classified the soils encountered and maintained a log of each test pit, obtained
0
0
representative samples, measured groundv%eter levels, and observed pertinent site
features.
M
M Z.
10
All sampleswere visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification
Z
F- -4 -
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,
0
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 actualityl the.,
mm
transitions may be more -gradual.
OM
co
M Cn.
Q 0
z
z
CD
z
0
0
M
Earth ConstAtants, Inc.
GRAPH
LETTER
MAJOR DIVISIONS
TYPICAL DESCRIPTION
iSYMBOL
SYMBOL
Gravel
GW
Well -Graded Gravels, Gravel -Sand
And
. Clean Gravels
0 0
9W
M ixtures, Little Or No Fines
G P��
Poorl y-Graded Gravels, Gravel -
Gravelly
(little or no fines)
a se
Co r]
Soils
r%
gp
Sand Mixtures, Little Or No Fines
Grained
Silty Gravels, Gravel - Sand -
Soils
More Than
50% Coarse
Gravels Willi
Silt Mixtures
Vraction
Fines (appreciable
Retained On
amount of fines
GC
Clayey Gravels, Gravel - Sand -
No. 4. Sieve
gC
Clay Mixtures
Sand
SW
Well -Graded Sands, Grav6llY
And
Clean Sand
0
SW
Sands, Little Or No Fines
More Than
Sandy
(little or no I ines)
S
�Sp
Poorly -Graded, Sands, Gravelly
50% Material
Soils
7___
Sands, Little Or No Fines
Larger Than
More Than
SM
No. 200 Sieve
50% Coarse
Sands With
Sm
Silty Sands. Sand - Silt Mixtures
Size
Fraction
Fines (appreciable
Passing No.4
Sieve
amount of fines)
S
SC
Clayey Sands, Sand -Clay Mixtures
ML
Inorganic Silts & Very Fine Sands, Rock Flotr,Silty-
MI
Clayey Fine Sands: Clayey Silts w/ Slight Plasticity.
Fine
Sil.ts Liquid Limit
CL
Inorganic Clays Of Low To Medium Plasticity.
Grained
And Less Than 50
CI
Gravelly Cl . ays, Sandy. Clays, Silty CAays, Lean
Soils
Clays
�01
Organic Silts And Organic
Silty Clays Of Low. Plasticity
H
Inorganic Silts. Micaceous Or Dialomaceous Fire
.,More Than
Mh
Sand Or Silty . Soils
50% Material
Smaller Tt-an
Silts
And Liquid Limit
CH
Inorganic Clays Of High
No. 200 Sieve
Clays Greate r Than 50
�c�h
Plasticity, Fat Clays.
Size
I
1001 Z
Organic Clays Of Medium To High
V�ez;05Z
�/Z" RZO NO �R I
6h
'. Plasticity, Organic Silts
.
Peat, Humus, Swamp Soils
Hig hly Organic Soilb
Pt
I With High Organic Contents
Topsoil
Humu s And Duff Laver
4, 4, 41
.
Fill
Hitfily Variable Constituents
Z
0
0
M
-n
X
rn
.co
M0
40
0'C
rn
M Z
JC) —1
9Z
0 -n
n�
X
M M
0-0)
0 r_
0 rn
C 0)
M 0
Z
X
--I
Z
Z
0
--i
0
M
z
0
i
0
M
Sheet of
Project Narne:
Pepperwood
Job No. Logged by: Date: Test Pd No.:
.10075 KCS 3/28102 TP-1
Excawation Coritactor
Grou Surface Eler�:
Universal Land
420'
Notes -
Surface Condidions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 4": grass
General
w
CL E
CL
0 ti- E
0
A3
ca E
Notes
e 1.
Cn
a
Cn
:3 >-
SM
Brown silty SAND with gravle�l, loose, moist
13.3
2
-30% fines
3
4
ML
Gray sandy SILT, medium dense, moist
16A
5
SM
-mottling at 5'
Gray silty SAND, medium dense to dense, moist
15A
6
7
Test pit terminated, at 7.5 feet below eAsting grade. No groundwater
.14.5
encountered during e)cavation.
NOTES:
Elevations estimated by a TopograThic Site Plan provided by the
Client Survey by Group Four Inc. ated 116/99.
tu
Test Pit Log
8 Earth ConSultantS InC.
Pepperwood
8 CA10k'.CtVdCW HlghWXI--� C1C%*)9a!;LS&
Edmonds, Washington
J
rn
GLS FDate
April 2002
U�ecked KCS�
Date 4/1
Plate A2
W
I--
-
—
hm-
--criewl 1w P-nfunpmm tp-qfq
anatvsis and
Test Pit Log
Project Nam:
Sheet of
Pepperwood
Job No.
Logged trf.
Date:
Test Pit No.:
10075
KCS
3/28102
TP-2
Excavation Contador:
Ground Surface Elevation:
Universal Land
424'
No(es:
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 10": ferns
General
Notes
W
ICCL E
CL
u- E
0
v) E
z
0
SM
Brown silly SAND with gravel, loose, moist
0
M
2
-roots may e)dend to 3'
_n
3
M
C
mottling at 4'
M 0
4
M
Brown silly SAND, dense, moist
0
0 0
C
5
-15% fines
R1
M Z
6
Z
r
7
Test pit terminated at 7.0 feet below eAsting grade. No groundwater
x , . ' -
Cl)
encountered during e)cavation.
�'�
0 -n
M m
0
0 r
0 M
CD
M 0
z r
z
CA
z
0:
0
M
UJ
Test Pit Log
Earth Consultants Inc.
Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington
UJ
No. 10075
GLS I
Date April 2002
Checked KC�
FE�e 4/10/02
P;e A3
I
ied by engineering tests, andysis and
Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at.the brne and kx;ation of this cooratory hole, modif
are rid necessanly representative of other Wres and Wations. We cannot accept responsibft forthe use or interpretation by others of
z
0
m
Cl)
m
MO
0
-40
oc
K
M
M Z
c
0-11
-n
m M
0
0 m
c V)
m Cl)
M 0
Z
Z
3:
C/)
z
0
m