20050276.pdfPERMIT EXPIRES
DATE RECEIVED
USE PERMIT
ZONE
CITY OF EDMONDS FRO:, NUMBER
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION JOB SUITE/APT#
ADDRESS
OWNER NAME/NAME OF BUSINESS
PLAT NAMEISUBDIVISION NO. LOT NO. LID NO.
L Le� ' I
MAILING ADDRESS Oil LID FEE $
TESCP Approved
PU13LIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP RW Permit Required
kCZ6 170 Street Use Permit Roq'd E3
C1(Y ZIP TELEPHONE EXISTING PROPOSED inspection Required
Sidewalk Floquired
REQUIRED DEDICATIONao_f'�� FT Undo
ZJ/74 A- n =idrod
-7,;ltlij
VaE METER S)ZE LINE SIZE NO �E PRV REQUIRED
A ewe (7 1 0i-,OF FIXTU
eAre'r& fjQIff.FN'r t40 S 13 NO 13 z
I ( A 0
ADDRESS
REMARKS z
OWNER/CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROL/DRAINAGE
z
Lu
CITY ZIP TELEPHqNE
Z t+-ri
NAME _TLJj I I I A I
UZ I C13L # &'I
�MINEERING REVIEWED BY DATE
ADDRESS '6njjLu"
FIRE REVIEWED BY DATE LU
CITY ZIP TELEPHONE
'NW YSQ3 ND
V4TE( VARIANCE OR Cu SHORELINE OR ADB# INSPECTION BO
LICENSE NUMBER EXPIRATION DATE CHECKE/ POSTED
P REQ'D
41 V\� D Z_ L' (,D -, 0�� 10YES 13NOIS
SEPA REVIEW SIGN AREA HEIGHT
PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL NO. Ll —00 COMPLETE EXEMPT ALLOWED , PROPOSED ALLOWED I PROPOSED
4 (25 1&ztls — (=)f>I EXP I \"-,- NA Z*5 z 4
RESIDENTIAL LUMBING / MECH LOT COVERAGE REQUIRED SETBACKS (FT.) PROPOSED SETBACKS (F
NEW P�P ALLOWED PROPOS FRONT SIDE REAR FRONT UR SIDE REAR
COMPLIANCE OR lar. - �a z
ADDITION E] COMMERCIAL 17, 10
,�� 5 12-
CHANGE OF USE 71 3 5, 5- 10 z
PARKING PLANNING REVIEWED BY DATE
REMODEL MULTIFAMILY SIGN REO'D PROVIDED LOT AREA ';41,
FENCE 2- 2- '�3 *2
REPAIR CYDS ( X Fr) REMARKS 1-71
DEMOLISH TANK OTHER
GARAGE RETAINING WALL FIRE SPRINKLER
CARPORT ROCKERY FIRE ALARM
(TYPE OF USE. B S OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN:
1"* CHECKED BY TYPE OF IC01111:6 CTION OCCUPANT
GROUP
NUMBER IUMBER OF CRITICAL
3 OF )WELLING AREAS SPECIAL INSPVTION JAREA OCCUPAAT
0 INITS NUMBER REQUIRE S LOAD
3 STORIES PCL wj_��
DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE
REMARKS z
PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 108/IBC109 IRC109 FINAL INSPEC�ON E
NF—W si� 9, W/ rM
\311\0
ci) 6tA75
V" _VA L I UATION '?E� H 31 pole?
r
Description ;FE jE: Description FEE
Plan Check State Surcharge
T SOURCE GLAZING % LOT SLO7 % City Surcharge
Building Permi
I ..
a -:E-AmAto 15 - 'qe "� �
PLAN CHECK NO- VESTED DATE Plumbing Base Fee
Mechanical kV
THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WCAK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO
DOMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE
It BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC Grading
SEPARATE PERMISSION.
Engr. Review
Ir —
W PERMIT APPLICATION: 180 DAYS
PERMIT LIMIM I YEAR - PROVIDED WORK IS STARTED WITHIN 160 DAYS Engr. Inspection
SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION
Fire Review Plan Chk. Deposit
8APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS
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 0
ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
X FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE Landscapelnsp. Total Amt. Due
DEEMED TO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE
0
NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITYS ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION. 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 Official or his/her Deputy: and Fees are paid, and
IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO FOR INSPECTION receipt 13 acknowledged in space provided.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND RCW 18.27.
CIALS SIGIAT(RE
SIGN OWI�ER ENV DATE SIGNED (4251
e 771'0220 DATE
-REL b BY
NZI
ATTEN EXT 1333
ITIS UNLAWFULTO USEOR OCCUPYABUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTILAFINAL
INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADEAND APPROVAL ORA 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
V
z
0
1
0
M
-n
M
C
M
0
10
0C
MM
Mz
IC)
C
F—I
x
0
n
W
-Ti
M
M
0
0
0
C-1)
r-
M
C
M
Z
.AT
0
r-
M
--I
z
X
55
z
0
1
0
M
ADDRESS :2 1 OTH FLACIE i5N
0!
LEOAL :LC)T 4- MAI:;)RONA r-,O\IE
0
m
1:;)E5C-,RIPTION:
51 TE AREA: 5GUARE FEET
c D
m
0
-4.0
0 C,
ZONINC--;,- PLANNEr:;) UNIT DEVELOPMENT
HE-101-iT CALC-,ULATIC)N (OA5ED FROM EX15TIN67 ORAC)E)
m
A- 4
E3:
co
(fl.= -4-10
0
m m
AVERAOE LXISTINO ORADE= 4C)7- OQ'
0
ACTUAL BU I LE) I NO Hr=IC-.;,HT= 43
c co
MAX I MUM BU I LI:;> I N<5 HF-IOHT=' YZ -
cn
0
'HMARK
BENG r-101, PL� Wfis.S4
Zr-
FC)f:2. HEIOHT \/r=Rlf=ICATI.ON'
IMPE
ERVIOUS AREAQ
RE
-5IDf=NrE I^V Zc,40 E)OUAf:?-E FEET
z
CAIRD FOR r-,HE!5
o.0 eauARE FEET
.0
FATIO .120 501JARE f=EET
0,
m
NALKHA-r5 (NE 1,00 501JARE FEET
TOTAL Zg(C4 5GZUARE F=EET
LOT rOVERA(�
(.LOT ro\/r=f:?-AOE 115 BASEI:;> UPON E35% OF ENTIRE
PLANNEO UNIT F->E\/ELOF`m:aNT)
-75-7 5GUARE FEET 6f= FRORCE)ED LOT co\/ERA<��,F-
-S, 5E- K5 OV
(INCLUDE5 5TRUC-,TIJf:ZE, C,0VEREE> PORCHE C, ER 3019
LA
t5
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
PEPPERW OOD
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
8526 MAIN STREET
Zi
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
0.
E -10075,
CO)
M
May 14, 20.02
M 0
C.
M
M z
PREPARED FOR
PHOENIX DEVELOPMENT, INC.
>
V5
-T1 ;M
M M
r
0 M
C
M 0
3w
Z
tF-MRFS ��V_Iocp Z_
0)
'Raymond -A. Coglas, P.E.
Project Manager
0
M
Earth Consultants, Inc.
18051- 136th Place Northeast, Suite 201
Bellevue, Washington 98005
(206) 643-3780
Tollfree 1 888 -739-6670
"M
IMPORTANT INFORMATION
ABOUTYOUR
GEOTECHNiCAL ENGINEERING REPORT
More construction problems are caused by site subsur-
technical engineers who then render an opinion about
face conditions than any other factor. As troublesome as
overall subsurface conclitions.-their likely reaction to
subsurface problems can be, their frequency and extent
proposed construction activity. and appropriate founda-
have been lessened considerably in recent years. due in
tion design. Even under optimal circumstances actual
large measure to programs and publications of ASFE/
conditions may differ froin those inferred to exist,
'The Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in
because no geotechnical engineer. no matter how
the Geosciences.
qualified, and no subsurface exploration program, no
The following suggestions and observations are offered
matter how comprehensive. can reveal what is hidden by
earth. rock and time. The actual interface between mate-
Z
to help you reduce the geotech n ica I -related delays.
rials may be far more gradual or abrupt than a report
0
cost -overruns and other costly headaches that can
indicates. Actual conditions in areas not sampled may
0
occur during a construction project.
differ from predictions. Nothing can be done to prevent the
M
unanticipated. but steps can be taken to help minimize their
A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
impact. For this reason, most experienced owners retain their
geotechnical consultants throug h the construction stage. to iden-
9
Cn -1
REPORT IS BASED ON A UNIOUE SET
tify variances, conduct additional tests which may be
X
0M
OF PROJECT —SPECIFIC FACTORS
needed. and to recommend solutions to problems
C
M0
A geotechnical engineering report is based on a su.bsur
encountered on site.
0
OC
face exploration plan designed to incorporate a unique
set of project -specific factors. These typically include:
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
-4 C . .
MM
the general nature of the structure involved, its size and
CAN CHANGE
MZ
configuration; the location of the structure on tile site
and its orientation; physical concomitants such as
Subsurface conditions may be modi I fied by constantly-
changing natural forces. Because a geotechnical engi-
CZ
r-
access roads. parking lots, and underground utilities.
the level risk which the client assumed
neering report is based on conditions which existed at
and of additional
by virtue of limitations imposed upon tile exploratory
the time of subsurface exploration, construction decisions
should not be based on a geotechnical engineering report whose
0 -n
program. To help avoid costly problems. consult the
how factors
adequacy may have been affected by time. Speak with the geo-
geptechnical engineer to determine any
technical consultant to learn if additional tests are
MM
which change subsequent to the date of tile report may
advisable before construction starts.
0 C-1)
0-
affect its recommendations,
Unless your consulting geotechnical engineer indicates
Construction operations at or adjacent to the site and
n atural events such as floods, earthquakes or ground-
r
OM
C CD
ic co
otherwise. your geolechnical engineering report should not
water fluctuations may also affect subsurface conditions
Q 0
Z
be used:
and, thus, the continuing adequacy of a geotechnical
When the nature of the proposed structure is
changed. for example. if an office.building will be
report. The geotechnical engineer should be kept
appr ised of any such events, and should be consulted to
X
erected instead of a parking garage. or if a refriger-
ated warehouse will be built instead of an unre-
determine if additional tests are necessary.
X
>
frigerated one;
when the size or configuration'of the proposed
GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ARE
Z
structure is altered.
PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES
CD
When the location or orientation of the proposed
AND PERSONS
Z
0
structure is modified:
when there is a change of ownership, or
Geotechnica'l engineers' reports are prepared to.meet
M
for application to an adjacent site.
the specific needs of specific individuals. A report pre-
Geolechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility for problems
pared for a consulting civil engineer may not be ade
for a construction contractor. or even some other
which may develop if they are not,consulted after factors consid
quate
consulting civil engineer. Unless indicated otherwise.
ered in their report's development have changed.
this report was prepared expressly for the client involved
and expressly for purposes indicated by "he client. Use
MOST GEOTECHNICAL "FINDINGS"
by any other persons for any purpose, or by the client
result in problems. No indi
ARE PROFESSIONAL ESTIMATES
for a different purpose, may
vidual other than the client should apply this report for its
Site exploration I identifies actual subsurface conditions
intended purpose without first conferring with the geotechnical
only at those points where samples are taken. when
they are taken. Data derived through sampling andsub-
engineer. No person should apply this report for any purpose
other than that originafly contemplated without first confe rring
sequent laboratory testing are extrapolated by geo-
with the geotechnical engineer .
Earth Consultants Inc.
oc-oled It lical U-11gif I(". S.GfX)10gi54%&
May 14, 2002 E-10075
Z;
Phoenix Development, Inc. .0
P.O. Box 3167 0
M
Lynnwood, Washington 98046-0958
Attention: Ms. Loree Quade V)
M
C
M 0
Dear Ms. Quade:
0
0
0 C
We are pleased to submit our report titled `Geotechnical Engineering Study, Pepperwood, X M
Residential Development 8526 Main Street, Edmonds, Washington." This study MZ
JO
presents the results of our field exploration and. geotechnical engineering analyses for the Z
proposed residential development.. Our scope of services for producing this study were
-10075, dated March 1, 2002.
outlined in our proposal PR
-n
nned is feasible from a 7n
Based on the results of our study', development of the site as pla
M
geotechnical standpoint. Medium dense to very dense glacial till was observed at the. test M
it locations. Fill and yard waste materials were observed along the top of the existing
p 0
0 M
slope areas along the upper half of the site at several of the test pit locations. The fill -C
soils were observed to depths of approximately four to five feet. Based on the Co
MO
subsurface. conditions observed at the test pit locations, it is our opinion the proposed, Z
single family residences can be supporled on conventional spread and continuous footings
structural fill soils used to modifV
bearing on the competent glacial till native soils, or on.
existing site grades. >
Z.
The existing slope areas throughout the middle of the site appear stable. Due to the
Cn
dense condition of the native glacial till soils, the existing. slope areas should not be. z
0
adversely impacted by the proposed construction In our opinion, the buffer requirements
for building construction adjacent to steep slope areas can be reduced.
M
m
Recommendations for setbacks and other geotechnical recom endations are presented in
this geotechnical engineering study.
1805 - 136th Place N.E., Suite 201, Bellevue, Washington 98005 Bellevue (425) 643-3780 F9 (425) 746-0860 Toll Free, (888) 739-6670
Phoenix Development
May.1 4, 2002 E-1 6075
We appreciate the opportun to. provide our services during the design phase of the
p roject.. If you have questions about the content of this geotechnical engineering study,
t ce, please call.
or if we can be Of further assis an
Sincerely,
z
0
EA CONSULTANTSI'INC.
C SULTANT
01
C,
M 0
ond0A. Cogl
Ond A. Cogl
0
0c;
Project Manager
I m
m zo.
RAqme
C
>
m M
.0 r
m
00
%mo
z
Z
.0
M
Earth Consuftants, Inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
E-10075
ILLUSTRATIONS
Plate 1
Vicinity Map
Z'
Plate 2
Test Pit. Location Plan
Plate 3
Typical Footing Subdrain Detail
Plate 4
Typical Utility Trench Fill
A PPENDICES
CD
M,
C
Appendix A
Field Exploration
m 0
Plate Al
Legend
0'
C,
Plates A2 through Al 2,
Test Pit Logs
m
m z
Appendix B
Laboratory Test Res ults
Z�
Plate 131
...Grain SiZe. Analyses
Om
MITI
Om
C
C CO,
M
Zr
X,
W
z
M,
Earth Consultants., Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERJNG STUDY
PEPPEFW400D
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
8526 MAIN STREET
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
E-10075
INTmntjCTinm
Z
0
Ganara
0
M
This report presents geotechnical recommendations for the proposed Pepperwood
Co
Residential Development to be located at 8526 Main Street, Edmonds, Washington. The
0
9 eneral location of the site is shown on the Vicinity Map, Plate 1. The approximate
M
C
M a
locations of the test pits and the approximate limits of the property are illustrated. on the
0
80
Test Pit Location Pian, Plate 2. Our scope of services. included a subsurface exploration
C
to characterize soil conditions at the site, and preparation of this report with g eotechnical
M
M Z
recommendations for the proposed site development.
C Z
Rnied na-gr-rigita
co
We understand development of the site will consist of a 22-lot subdivision and,
0 -n
-n
construction of a storm water detention vault. New a ccess roadways will be constructed
MITI
throughout the property,- and will connect to Main Street on the upper east half of the
0 C/)
0
property and Pioneer Way along the lower west portion of the property. At the time this
0 M
geotechnical. engineering study w as prepared, - a f inal grading plan had not been
C: Cn
ic Co.
completed. However, we anticipate that cuts and fills will be necessary to establish the
M 0.
Z
building lot and roadway grades. Construction of a storm water detention vault is
s ess roadway that will
propo, ed for the lower west portion of the site, along the new acc
X
connect to Pioneer Way. Cuts for the detention vault. will probably bb. in the range of
twelve (12) to sixteen (16) feet. Cuts alon the toe of the existing steep.slopes will likely
9
Z
be. necessary to establish roadway grades for the new access roadway that, will connect
to Pioneer Way.
co
Z
0:
The use of rockeries may be necessary to transition grades,in landscaping areas and to.
0
M
pr ent erosion control rockeries may also be utilized
ovide perman along cuts.. Reinforced
along the back of 'the building lots loca* ted 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.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFdNG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075
May 14, 2002 Page 2
An existing rockery along Main Street will be maintained and incorporated into the final
development. , The existing rockery is up to approximately ten (10) feet to.twelve 0 2)
feet in height and was likely constructed during widening and improvements to Main
Street. An assessment of the existing rockery is provided in the Rockeries section of this
report.
The. use of relatively lightly loaded wood frame construction is anticipated for the
proposed single family residences. We estimate wall loads will be in the range of one to
two kips per lineal foot, and column loads in the range of ten 0 0) 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 descendto the west at grades of a proximately 30 percent
p
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 0 0) 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 are.a.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
M
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEPJNG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075
May 14, 2002 Page 3
Steep Slope Evaluation
At the time our field exploration was'performed (March 2002), the steep slope areas of
the site were observed for signs of instability or severe erosion. Based on our
observations, the steep slope areas appear stable. There were no indications of shallow
Z.
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.
0
Based on our observations, it appears the slopes are stable.
M
Subsurface
0
M
C
Eleven test pits. were excavated throughout the site. The test pits were excavated. to.
M
0
depths of approximately five to eight feet, where very dense glacial till soil conditions
0 C
were encountered. Please refer to the test pit logs, Plates A2 through Al 2, for a
M
description of theconditions encountered at the test pit locations.
M Z
C Z
>
The soils encountered at, the test pit locations consisted of medium'dense to very dense
X
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.
0 n
typically ranged between two. inches to twelve 0 2) inches. The geologic map of the area
M
identifies''the silty sand with gravel deposit as glacial till. The upper three to four feet of
M
0
the soil deposit generally consisted of weathered glacial till. The weathered till was. in a
0
0 M
medium dense condition, and was characterized by brown to dark brown coloring. Dense
C: Cn
to very dense unweathered glacial. till was'encountered below the weathered glacia ti 1
9 Cn.
M 0
layer. : The unweathered glacial till was generally characterized by a gray to dark gray
Z
ing.
olori
Fill was* observed at test pit locations TP-4 and TP-5. The. fill consisted of loose silty sand
>
Z
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.
CD
Z
0
At. the time the test pit exploration was performed (March 2002), the upper deposit of'
.0
weathered glacial till was generally in a wet condition Laboratory testing indicates
M
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 irnoisture contents generally in the range of approximately 8 percent to 10 percent.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFONG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E 100'i5
May 14, 2002 Page 4
Groundvoter
Groundv%ater seepage was not observed at the time of our exploration. (March 2002).
The presence of light to moderate groundv%oter seepage, however, should be expected in
deep.excava tions. Based on the conditions observed at the time of our field exploration,
z
.0
we do not anticipate groundv%ater seepage will adversely impact the earthwork.
0
M
Groundwater seepage levels and the rate of seepage are not static; fluctuations in the
d level'and rates can be expected depending on the season, amount of rainfall,, surface
=i 5i
Cn
water runoff, and other factors. Generally, the level and rate of seepage is higher in
0 M
C
the wetter winter months (typically October through May).
M 0
0
0
C
Laboratory Testing
M
M Z
The results of laboratory tests performed on specific sanioles are provided in Appendix B,:
C Z
or at the appropriate s ample depth on the test pit logs. It is important to note that these
>
r -4
test results may not accurately represent the overall in -situ soil conditions. Our
W
9 eotechnical recommendations are based on our interpretation of these test results. ECI
O.T!
cannot be responsible for the interpretation of these data by others.
M M
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
0
or
M
C:
General
C ca
M 0
Z
Based on the subsurface conditions observed at the test pit locations, development of the
site is feasible from a. geotech.nical standpoint. The proposed single family residences can
X
be supporied on conventional spread and continuous footings bearing on the medium
>
dense to dense glacial till soils observed at the test J)it locations. The building
z
_4
foundations can also be. supported on structural fill soils that are used to modifV the
existing site grades.. The medium dense to -dense glacial till soil suitable for support of
z
foundations was generally *observed at a depth of approArnately two feet, below the
0
__q
native ground surface elevation.
0
T
Earth Consultants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFING STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-1 0075,
May 14, 2002 Page 5
Due to the dense condition of the glacial till soils and the stable condition of the steep
slope area, a minimum steep slope buffer of ten (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
Z
site, adjacent to Building Lot 9.* In our opinion, reinforced fill. rockeries can be
0
successfully constructed on the existing.steep slope, provided an engineered rockery
design is completed. Steep slope buffer and foundation recommendations are provided in
M
the Steep Slope. Buffer and Foundations sections of this report. Preliminary rockery
:q -ji
design recommendations are provided in the Rockeries section of this report.
CO
X
C M
In our opinion, the majority of the existing rockery located along Main Street can be
MO
utilized and incorporated into the new development. Several of the existing rocks along
0
Oc
the upper row of the rockery, however, will need to be -replaced due to severe
XM
weathering. ECI will work with the contractor to identify the rocks that need to be
M Z:
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 existi ng
0 n
n
Main Street rockery.
M
M
In our opinion,. construction of the proposed storm water detention vault is feasible from a
CO
0
geotechnical standpoint. Medium dense to dense glacial -till soil will likely be encountered,
0 M
C(J)
in the.excavation for the storm water detention vault. Based on the conditions observed,
9 Ch
Q 0
at the test pit locations, groundv%oter seepage may be encountered in the excavation for
Z
the storm water detention vault. However, in our opinion, groundv�ater seepage will
n e
likely. not adversely impact the stability of the dete tion vault xcavatioil.
Recommendations for temporary excavations are provided in the.Excavations and Slopes'
Z
section of this report.
CD
Cuts will be performed for the proposed access roadway that will connect to Pioneer
Z
Way. These cuts may encroach into the toe of the existing steep slope areas on the west
.0
side of the property. Due to the dense glacial till soil conditions observed at the site, it is
M
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.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Phoenix. Development,. Inc. E-1 0075
May 14, 2002 Page 6
This geotechnical engineering study has been, prepared for the exclusive use of Phoenix
Development, Inc. and their representatives. This study was prepared for specific
application to this project only and in a manner consistent with that level of care and. skill
ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar
conditions in this area. No other. warranty, expressed or implied, is made. We
recommend that this geotechnical e.ngineering study, in its entirety, be included, in the
project contract documents for the information of the contractor.
Site Preparation and General Earthwork
The proposed development areas of the site should be stripped and cleared of existing.
surface vegetation, topsoil, existing structures, and other deleterious materials. Existing
utility pipes that will be abandoned, should be plugged or removed., Based on the
conditions observed at the test pit locations, the thickness of the topsoil layer, ranges
between approximately, two (2) inches to twelve (12) inches. The thickness of the
topsoil layer will vary throughoutthe site.
d should be
The ground surface where structural fill, or foundations are to b place
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
s oil 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
1
0
M
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075
May 14, 2002 Page 7
Imported soil intended for use as structural fill should consist of a fairly well graded
anular soil with a moisture content that is at or near the optimum moisture content, and
having a maximum aggregate size of four inches. During wet weather conditions,
imported fill should consist of a fairly well graded granular material having a maximum.
Z
size of four inches and no more than 5 percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve based on,
the minus 3/4-inch fraction.
0
RI
Structural fill is defined as compacted f ill placed under foundations, roadways, slabs,
n
pavements, or other load -bearing areas. Structural fill, under slabs and footings should be
-4
placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding twelve 0 2) inches in loose thickness and
M
C
compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of its laboratory maximum dry density. The
rn
0
maximum dry density should be determined in accordance with. ASTM Test Designation
00
C=
D-1 557-91 (Modified Proctor). The fill materials should be placed at or near the optimum.
X M
r moisture content Fill under pavements and walks should also be placed in horizontal lifts
M Z
JO
and compacted to 90 percent of the maximum dry density except for the top twelve (12),
C
Z.
inches, which should be compacted to 95. percent of 'the maximum dry density. If a
>
stru ctural fill berm is necessary to construct the storm water detention pond . the fill
should be compacted.to at least 95 per cent of the maximu rn dry d ensity.
0 -n
-n
M.
Steep Slope Buffer
M
U5
0
In our opinion, due to the dense condition of the glacial till soils observed at the site, and
0 M
C Cn
the stable condition of the. existing. slope.areas, a minimum ten (.10) foot buffer from the
C Cn
MO
top and toe of the steep slope areas can be considered for.the proposed single-family
Z
residences. The City of Edmonds Development Standards Jor Geologically Hazardous
X
Areas are found under Title 20 (Chapter 20.15B). The Development Standards allow the
required buffer distance to be reduced from fifty (50) feet to ten (10). feet, provided a
>
Z
geotechnical report.can demonstrate that no adverse impacts to the slope or surrounding
developments will result. In our -opinion reducing the buffer distance to ten (10) feet will
X
Cn
not adversely impact the stability of. the steep slope areas. The observed stability of the
Z
0
existing slope and the presence of dense glacial till soils is the primary basis for this
recommendation.
rn
Earth Consultants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075
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
z
rockery placement on the slope will not adversely impact the stability of the slope. As
0
previously discussed, an engineered reinforced rockery design should be completed.for
0
M.
the proposed fill and rockery areas.
Foundation
CD X
C: M
In, our opinion, the proposed single family residences can be supported on conventional
0
-+0
0
spread and continuous footings bearing on the medium dense to dense glacial till soil
C
observed at the test pit locations. Where necessary, the proposed building foundations
M
z
can also be supported on structural fill that is used to modify the existing site grades..
Foundations. should not be supported on the existing f ill soils. The mediu.m dense to
C
>
dense glacial till soils suitable for support of foundations was generally observed at, a
CD
depth of approximately two feet below the native ground surface elevation.
0 -n
-n
For found.ations bearing on the m edium dense to dense glacial till soil or structural fill, an
X
M
allowable soil bearing capacity of two thousand five hundred (2,5021 pounds per square.
M
0 CD
0
foot (psf) can be used. This allowable soil bearing capacit�O'rlras�a" facto.r-of-safety in
0 M
excess of 3.0 against shear failure, provided thefoundations are placed on competent.
C C()
9 CD
,.,W,�k4A.,Lqqease in the above allowable. soil bearing
native soils or.structural fill. A a
M 0
z -
r
capacity can be assumed for short-term.wind and seismic loading conditions. Continuous
and individual spread footings should have minimum widths of eighteen (118) and twenty-,
four (24) inches, respectively.
X
If loose or unstable soil conditions are encountered at the footing subgrade elevation, th
soil should be overexcavated, and replaced with structural fill. The width of the
V5
z
overexcavation should extend a minimum of six inches beyond each edge of the
0
foundation.
0
M
Exterior foundations elements should be placed at a minimum depth of
inches below, final exterior grade. Interior spread foundations can be placed at a minimum
depth of twelve (112) inches below the too of slab, except in unheated areas, where
interior foundation elements should be founded at a minimum depth of eighteen (118)
inches.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075
May 14, 2002 Page 9
Provided the foundations are placed in accordance with the recommendations contained
in this report, we estimate total settlement of approArnately one inch. and differential
settlement of approximately one half inch. Most of the anticipated settlements should
occur during construction as dead loads are applied.
z
0
Lateral loads can be resisted by friction between the base of the foundation and the
0.
supporting soil, and by passive soil pressure acting on the face of the buried portion of
the foundation. Resistance to lateral loads from passive. earth pressures can be calculated
using an equivalent fluid with a unit weight of three hundred fifty (350) pounds per cubic
foot (pcf). To achieve adequate passive, resistance, the foundations must be backfilled
0M
C
with structural fill. As an. alternative, the foundations can be poured neat against the
M 0
__10
undisturbed native soil. For frictional capacity, a coefficient of 0.40 can be used for
0 0,
foundations bearing on competent native,soils or structural fill. These lateral, resistance
C:
values are allowable values; a facto r-of-saf6ty of 1.5. has been included.
3: M
mz�
Footing excavations should be observed by a representative of ECI prior to placing the
formwork and. r epar. ECI should also observe areas where overexcavation is required to
Cn
remove loose or unstable soils.
Permanent Retaining and Foundation Walls
X
M M
C/)
0
Retaining. and foundation walls should be.,designed to resist lateral earth pressures from
0 M
C Cn
the retained soils, and any surcharge loading., Walls that are unrestrained and free to
C CO
Q
move at the top can be designed using an equivalent fluid with a unit weight of thirty-five
z 0
(35) pqf 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.
z
design lateral pressures.
X
z
.0
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
0
M
conditions are present behind the walls" ECI should review the slope configurations and
provide modified equivalent fluid values, as necessary.
Earth Consultants, 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
Z
permeable silty sand soil can be placed along the upper one foot of the. wall backfill, if
0
desired. The remainder of the backfill behind the zone of free draining soil should consist
0
of a suitable granular structural fill.
M
"n
Seismic Design Consideration
Cn
0
C: M
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,.
0
C
ranging in depth from fifty (50) to.seventy (70) kilometers. Such deep events have
X M.
exhibited no surface faulting. Weaver and Shedlock (1989) researched th e probable or
M Z.
known source areas for the crustal, intraplate, and subduction zone earthquakes in the
C
> Z
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
I
approximately 20 kilometers. Intraplate, earthquakes occur in t he subducting Juan de
X9
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 CJ)
there is no historical record in the.Washington and Oregon area, would have its.source
K Cn
Q 0
along the interface between the North American Plate and the subducting Juan de Fuca
Z r
Plate. Magnitude 8 + earthquakes are thought to be. possible along this interface, and
M
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 Ore
co
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-J of the 1997 UBC should.b.e
0
used for design.
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
differential settlement for structures with foundations founded in the liquefying soils.
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.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEMNIG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075
May 14, 2002 Page 11
To have potential for liquebctio.n, 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%oter table; and it must be subject to sufficient
magnitude and duration of groundshaking.
Z
0
Based on the soil and groundv%eter conditions observed at the site, it is our opinion that
the site has a low susceptibility to liquefaction. The, dense condition of the native soils Is
M
the primary basis for this conclusion.
Slab -on -Grade Floors
M
C
Slab -on -grade floors can be supporled on competent native soils or structural fill. Loose
M
0
0
or unstable subgrade soils should be stabilized prior, to constructionof the slab. The use
C
of a geotextile and crushed rock can be.co nsidered for stabilizing the subgrade soils, if
M M
Z
necessary. 'A four4nch capillary break consisting of a free draining poorly graded sand or
gravel with less than 5 percent fines (percent passing the No. 200 -sieve, based on the
minus 3/4-inch fraction) should be placed below the slab. In areas where slab moisture is
Cn
undesirable, a vapor barrier such. as a 6-mil plastic membrane can be, placed.beneath the
0
-n
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..'
M M
0 V5
0 r_ . _ .
Site Drainage
0 M
C Cn
During construction,. surface wa ter runoff must not be allowed to stand in construction
M 0
Z
areas. Interceptor trenches should be established, as necessary, along the perimeter.0
n During construction, loose
the building site before it e ters the construction :area.
M
surfaces should be compacted to reduce the potential for moisture infiltration into the
soils. Finish grades around the buildings must be sloped such. that surface water is
Z
t
directed away from the buildings.
Perimeter footing drains should be installed around the perimeter foundatons.to intercept
Z
0'
groundv%ater seepage. A., typical perimeter footing drain detail is illustrated on Plate 3.
M
Under no circumstances should roof downspout drain lines be connected to the footing or
foundation wall drain systems. All roof downspouts must, be se parately tightlined to the
site storm water system.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFUNG 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 EC is assurn ng
responsibility for construction. site safety or the contractor's activities; such responsibility
is not being implied and should not be inferred.
Z
0
in no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local, state,
M
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
CD -1
approximately four feet below existing site grades would be classified as Type C soils by
0 M
OSHA. The existing fill observed at the site would also be classified as Type C soil.
C
M 0
Temporary cuts in Type C soils should be sloped at an inclination no steeper than
__10
00
C,
rved be
1.5H:1 V (Horizontal: Vertical), respectively. The unweathered glacial till obse low a
-1
X M
depth of approximately four feet would be classified as Type. A and Type B soils by
M Z.
OSHA. Temporary slopes constructed in Type.A and Type B soils should be inclined no
C Z..
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.
co
0 -n
Permanent cut and. fill slopes should be inclined no�steeper than 2HAV. Cut slopes
should be observed by ECI during excavation to verify that conditions are as anticipated.
M M
s c n then be developed if needed, to impro bility,
..Supplementary recommendation a ve sta
0 co
0
including flattening I of slopes or installation of surface or subsurface drains. In any case,
0 M,
water, should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled -over the top of slopes.
0)
M
0
Z
--I sn
Permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation
Jo reduce erosion and improve stability of the surficial layer of soil.
Z
Utiiily Trench Backfill
CD
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
proWe adequate support for utilities, the unsuitable soils can be overexcavated and
M
esence
replaced with a rock ballast and pipe bedding material such as pea gravel. The.pr.
of groundv%oter seepage should be exp per utility trench excavations and
ected in the dee
%the proposed -detention vault excavation.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFJNG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075
May 14, 2002 Page 13
In our opinion, the native soils can be considered for use as backfill for the utility
trenches. At the time of the subsurface. exploration (February, 2002) the upper, deposit
of weathered glacial till was generally in a wet condition, with moisture contents in
excess of percent. The lower deposit of unweathered glacial till was generally in a
.16
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
trench backfill. As, previously mentioned, the soil should be placed during dry weather
M
conditions, and the moisture content of the soil should be at or near its optimum moisture
n
content at the time of placement.
cr,
OM
C
Utility trench backfill is a primary concern in reducing the potential for settlement in I
.
rn
—10
ed 1
pavement areas. It is important that the utilities be adequately suppor ed in the b d ng
00
C
material. The material should.,be hand tamped to ensure, support is provided around the
3: M
haunches of these structures. Fill should be carefully placed and tamped to about twelve
rn z
10-1
(12) inches above the crown of the pipe before heavy compaction equipment is brought.
C z
into use. The remainder of the backfill should be placed in lifts having a loose thickness.
of less than twelve (12) inches. A typical trench I backfill section and compaction
CO
'requirements for load supporting and non4oad supporting areas is presented on Plate 4.
0 _n
n
Rockeries
MM
Cn
We understand the existing rockery located along Main Street at the northeast portion of
0 M
C 0)
the site will be incorporated into the new development. The rockery is approximately
cm
Q 0
180 feet in length, and ranges between four (4) feet to twelve (12) feet in height. We
Z
estimate the rockery has been in, place for appro)dmately twenty-five years. Two existing
X
driveways that ramp up through the alignment of the rockery face will be filled as part of
X
th e proposed. development to establish 9 level building lot area. Construction of new
>
z
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
X
Cn
reinforced fill rockeries proposed for the site.
z
0
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 ConstAtants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERJNG 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 subgrade should
be in a firm and unyielding condition when subjected to proofrolling with a loaded dump
Z
truck*. Structural fill in pavement areas should be prepared as described in the Site
0
Preparation. and General Earth work section of this report. This means the pavement
subgradei should be compacted to at least, 95 percent'of the maximum dry density. it is
Fn
possible that some localized areas of soft, wet or unstable subgrade may. exist after the
=1
pave ment subgrade is prepared. Overexcavation and a greater thickness of structural fill
'0 M
C0
or crushed rock may be needed. to stabilize these localized areas. A.biaxi.al geogri,d such
M 0
as Tensar BX-1 200 can be considered for use below the crushed rock where bridging of
00
unstable subgrade is necessary.
M
M Z
Assuming a properly prepared subgrade, the following pavement section for lightly -loaded
Z
areas can be used
Cn
Two inches of asphalt concrete (AC) over four inches of crushed rock base (CRB)
0 -n
material, or
MM
Two inches of AC over three inches of asphalt treated base (ATB) material.
0 Cn
0 r- .
0 M
C (A
Heavier truck -traffic areas will require. thicker pavement sections depending upon site
Q 0
usage, pavement life, and site traffic. If necessary, ECI can.pro%.4de pavement design.
z F
recommendations for truck traffic areas.
X
Asphalt concrete (AC), asphalt treated base (ATB), and crushed rock base (CRB) material s
>
Z
should conform to WSDOT specifications. All rock bases should be compacted. to at
least 95 percent of the maximum dry density.
V;
Z
LIMITATIONS
0
M
Our recommendations, and conclusions are based on the site material s observed, �elective
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 ConstAtants, Inc.
co
a)
CD
cl 0)
m 03
M 01) 03 ch M,
2. a a 0 U) G)
0 CL CID CD Cl) CD
C) -% m
3
V-U:
0
O'do
0
a C) a 0
CD 0 cc 14)
CD
M.
0
cr
(a. a CD
CD
CD ......
o OD '0
0) CD CO
0 :3
U) A) 00
0 CD 0
CD C/)
plow >= 00
0
CD CD
U)
C/)
0.
U)
-0 CD
0 CD
w Vo 0
o 0 =r
CL CD CD
Cc CD, (D 77 B
� b) 0 CD Ma
ID 5* 'D > 0
CD
cy)
(D -0 C/) C/)
CD 0
0 0
CD CD
pr
CT) CD 0 0
go 0 (D CL 0 . .....
2L CL 0
CL 0. CD
>
q-t
0* "Y
C) CD -2
0
(D CJ
0 CD =1 Cn ;�m U,
0 cr 10 0
CD CL 0 LT, 0
ocx
M 0
cn =r 0 CD we > cr
Cj) 0 (D ;z 0.0.,
0 CD CD .....
CL 0 CD 0
0
r
-n
0
0
z Po
(D
Ct) 0
0 cp
CD
0)
—j
�73 0
= CD CD
;4 0 co
ro
8 CD
0
Ct) (D cr
0 4
rn 0
0 -0 CD A)
:3 — 0 CD
-n
0
(D
0
CL
CD
CD Ch
W
0
z
m
z
0)
0 0 CA
8.�
rt
0
a
% 0
0.
CD
3
r
LN3wnooa3HI =10 AllIVnO 3HI oi 3na sui
A01ION SIHI NVHI NV3-10 SS31 Sl 3WV8=1 SIHI NI IN3r4n000 3HI =11
777
- 7:7
:30110N
APPENDIX A
FIELD EXPLORATION
E-10075
on'March S
Our. field exploration was perforn 28, 2002. Subsurface condition 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
lo onsidered accurate only to the degree implied by the
cations of the test pits should be c
method used. These approximate test pit locations are shown on the Test, Pit Location
Plan, Plate 2.
—4
M
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
—10,
00
iv measured groundvQter levels, and observed pertinent site
representat e samples,
C'
—4 M
features.
M.
M Z:
All samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification
z
System that is presented on Plate Al, Legend. ' Logs of the test pits are presented in
Appendix A, Plates A2 through A 12. The f inal logs represent our interpretations of the
0 -n
field logs and the results of the laboratory tests of field samples. The stratificati on lines
-4.
on the.logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. In actuality, the
M M
transitions may be more gradual.
r
0 M
C Ch..
C CI).
M 0,
Z
z
z
0 .
0
Earth ConstAtants, Inc.
GRAPH
LETTER
M AJOR DIVISIONS
SYMBOL
SYMBOL
TYPICAL DESCRIPTION
Well -Graded Gravels, Gravel -Sand
Gravel
gW
Mixtures, Little Or No Fines
And
Clean Gravels
Gravelly
(little or no fines)
(��P�g
Poorly -Graded G(avels. Gravel -
Coarse
Soils
P
Sand Mixtures. Little Or No Fines
Grained
Soils
More Than
GM
Silty Gravels, Gravel - Sand -
50% Coarse
Gravels With
gM
Silt Mixtures
I:raction
Fines (appreciable
Retained On
amount of fines
GC
Clayey Gravels. Gravel - Sand -
No. 4 Sieve
gC
Clay Mixtures
SW
well -Graded Sands, Gravblly
Sand
And
Clean Sand
SW
Sands, Little Or No Fines
Sandy
(little or no fines)
S
�Sp
P06rly-Graded Sands, Gravelly
More Than
Soils
Sands. Little Or No Fines
50% Material
Larger Than
No. 200 Sieve
More Than
50% Coarse
�Sm
Silty Sands. Sand - Silt Mixtures
Size
Fraction
Sands With
Fines (appreciable
Passing No. 4
amount of fines)
�Sc
Clayey Sands, Sand -Clay Mixtures
Sieve
�
inorganic Silts a Very Fine Sands, Rock Flour.SiltY-
Ml
Clayey Fine Sands; Clayey Silts wif Slight Plasticity
Fine
Silts
Liquid Limit
CL
Inorganic Clays Of Low To Medium Plast-IcitY,
.
Grained
Atid
Less Than 50
A
cl
Gravelly Cl ays, Sandy Clays, Silty Clays, Lean
Soils
Clays
OL
Organic Silts And Organic
01
Silly Clays Of Low Plasticity
MH
Inorganic Silts, Micaceous Or Diatornaceous Fire
More Than
Mh
Sand Or Silty Soils
50% Material
Smaller 'TI-an
Silts
And
Liquid Limit
.Li uid Limit
�ch
norganoic Clays of High
No. 200 Sieve
Clays
Greater Than 50
Plasticity, Fat Clays.
Size
H
Organic Clays Of Medium To High
oh
Plasticity, Organic Silts
Peat, Humus, Swamp Soils
Highly Organic
Soil6
b
With High Organic Contents
T ops oi I
A/ 4-
Hurnus And Duff Layer
I
lie -41 41
Fill
Hitfily Variable Constituents
The discussion in the text of this report . is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature
of the material presented in the attached logs.
DUAL SYMBOLS are tned to Indicate bordedirm soil dweification.
C TORVANE READING, tsf 2' O.D. SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER
qu PENETROMETER READING, tsf
W MOISTURE, % dry weight 24' I.D. RING OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER
P SAMPLER PUSHED
SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED WATER OBSERVATIONWELL
pcf DRY DENSITY, lbs. per cubic ft.
LL LIQUID LIMIT, % sz DEPTH OF ENCOUNTERED GROUNDWATER
PI PLASTIC INDEX DURING EXCAVATION
7 SUBSEQUENT GROUNDWATER LEVEL W1 DATE
Earth Consultants Inc. LEGEND
(kxw% I wik�a 1-iiAgh"xis. 4L 1"Alykimm I ?A W-11 S41ilflh"
Proj. No. 10075 FDate Apr.2002 JPIate At
L
Z
0
0
M
n
0)
C.171
ma
0
0
0 C:,
M
Z
C _Z
0 _n
n ;U
_j >
x 9 . .
M M
0 5)
0 171
0 M
C 0)
C C0
-Mo
Z
;U
--I
Z
Z
0
0
M
z
0
4
0
m
=i 71
M
M
0
-40
.oc
-4 K
M, M
M Z
C-1
0
Ti
M
0
.0
0 M
C cj)
M 0
Z r-
;u
z
-1
3:
0)
z
.0
m
Test Pit Log
Project Name:
Of
Pepperwood
Job No.
Lorled by-
ate:
Test Pit No.:
10075
KCS
3/28102
TP-2
Excavation Contactor
Ground Surface Ek--vation:
Universal Land
424'
Notes:
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 19': fems
General
W
.1=
CL E
CL CL
E
(n
c) JO
Cn E
Notes
SM
Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist
Z''
0
.0
2
M
roots may e)dend to 3'
3
CO),
mottling at 4'
M
C
IT
4
SM
Brown silty SAND, dense, moist
M 0
0
5
-15% fines
0.
C
M
6
M z
10--i
Z.
7
Test pit terminated at 7.0 feetbelow e)dsting grade. No groundwater
>
encountered during e)cavafion.
CD
0 -n
M M
0)
0 r
0 M
C 0)
M 0
Z
M
z
X
z
0
M
Test. Pit Log
Earth Consultants Inc..
Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington
No. 0075
LS T
Date April 2002
checked KCS
Date 4/1062
Me A3
Subsuda0e conditions depicted represent our observations at the tkne and location of this expkxalory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and
ive her rnes , responsibility for the use or interpretation by d1mrs of
tx ma �sanlyrepresentat ofo( ti and locations. We cannot accept
are to neoes
I
z
0
A
0
M
Project Narne:
Sheet Of
Pepperwood
Job No.
Logged by,
Test Pit No.:
IG075
KCS
28/02
TP-3
Excavation Contactor
Ground Surface Elevation:
Unhersal Land
416'
Notes:
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 2": trees and fems
General
W
f
I
CL
CL -;
U- E
0
JD
(a E
Notes
CO
CO
SM
Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose� moist
10.6
2
-with some organics roots
T 1
3
mottling and iron o)dde staining at 3'
4
SM
Gray silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist
7.1
T
6
Test pit terminated at 6.0 feet below e)dsbng grade. No groundwater
encountered during excavation.
Test.pit Log
Earth Consultants Inc.
Pepperwood
Gtoledu" nighx"-� RM"wUl."Wal kkiweas
Edmonds, Washington
—5);.-
P(q. No. 10075
GLS
FDate April 2002
1 checked KCS
Date 4/10/02
Plate A4
Test Pit Log
Project Name:
Sheet of
Pepperwood
1 1
Job No'
LoWed by:
Date:
Test Pit No.:
10075
KCS
3/28/02
TP-4
Excavation Contactor
Ground Surface Elevation:
Universal Land
41M
Notes:
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 4�': brush debris
General
W
Ix n
E
CL
E
0
c) M
E
Notes
ff >�
(9 Cn
Ul" )
>,
(n
SM
Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist
z
2
M
-n
3
4
M
T:
M U
0
11.2
0
0 C
SP-SM
Brown poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel, medium dense, moist
5% fines
M
7.7
6
SM
Gray silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist to wet
M:z
C
16.9
7
>
0 -n
8
Test pit terminated at 8.0 feet below e)dsting grade. No groundwater
encountered during wcavation.
-n
M M
0
0 m
C V)
C 0)
MO
Zr
;U
Z
Cn
z
.0
M
is
W
Test Pit Log
Earth Consultants Inc.
Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington
No. 10075
Dwn. GLS
Date April 2002
Ched(ed KCS
Date 4/10/02
Pwe A5
Subsurface conditions ed at the time and kicatiori
it our observations
of this emloratory hole, modified by eroneering tests, analysis and
sanTirw"esentative of dtier times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by offiers of
Test Pit Log
Project Narne:
Sheet of
Pepperwood
Job No.
Logged by:
Date:
Test Pit No.:
10075
KCS
3/28/02
TP-5
Excavation Contaictor:
Ground Surface Elevation:
Universal Land
395',
Notes:
Surface Conditions: -Depth of Topsoil & Sod Z': grass
General
Notes
w
M
CL E
CL
CL E
0 -0
E
SM
Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, mo t
0
0
M
2
3
4
SM
Brown silty SAND with gravel, occasional cobbles, medium dense,
m
C
10.8
moist
M
0
0
0
5
�C
M
6
M Z
7
-mottling at 7'
z
10.8
U.
SM
Gray silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist (Weathered Till)
Test pit terminated at 7.5 feet below e)dsting grade. No groundwater
encountered during e)cavation.
0 M
-n
M m
Cn
'0
0 M
C
C Cn
M 0
Z
Z
CO
z
0
m
CIA
tu
[L
Test Pit Log
Earth Consultants Inc.
Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington
MI
Proi. No. 100 75
T�;� GLS
F;;e April 2002
Checked S
KC
Date 4/10102
Plate A6
Subsurface conditions deWed represent our observations at the tirne and kxation
of this exploratory hole, modilied by encjineering tests, analysis and
for the int&pretafion by others of
are no( 68cessarilY representative of other tknes and loicadions. We cannot accept responsibility use or
q
Test' Pit Log
Project Name:
Shoet of
Pepperwood
1
Job No.
Logged by:
(Me:
Test Fit No.:
10075
KCS
3/28/02
TP-6
Excavation Contactor
Ground Surface Ek-4afion:
Universal Land
399
Wes:
1, � I . I
0
X A!
ig
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 2": grass
General
Notes
w
M
f
0-.0
ff E
rL CL
E
0
cn E
:� I . . .
(n
CO
(n
SM
Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist
z
0
2
3
0
4
-some-mottling at 3'- 4'
M
C
rh
Sp- SM
Brown poorly graded SAND with silt, medium dense, moist
0
5
0 0
C
SM
Gray silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist
M
est pit terminated at 5.5 feet below e)dsting grade. No groun dwater
M
M z
encountered during e)cavation.
10-1
Z
>
Cn.
0
rh M
0 r
0 M
C 0)
M 0
Z
M
z
3:
CD
z
0
M
C4
LU
Test Pit Log
-
Earth Consultants Inc.
Pepperwood
0
0
Edmonds, Washington
t
MI
No. 10075
GLS
e April 2002
KCS
I pTe 4/10/02
A7
Subsurface owditions depicted represent our observations at the time and Wation
of this evioratory hole, moddied by enginealng tests, analysis arkl
are not necessarily representatKe of other times and bcations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or Int&pretation by others of
enf�,l *hie k�
Tesi Pit Log
Project Nam:
Sheet Of
Pepperwood
Job No.
Logged by:
'at
Test Pit No.:
10075
KCS
3128/02
TP-7
EAcavation Contactor
Ground Surface Elevation:
Universal Land
408'
Notes:
-6
Cn 0
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod Z'- grass
General
Notes
w
cL E
CL
CL E
M
E
Z.
SM
Brown. silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist
SID
Brown poorly graded SAND with gravel, dense, moist
5.9
2
3
M
4
C
M
01
.0 0
C
SM,
Gray silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist
M
Test pit terminated at 5.5 feet below eAsting grade. No groundwater
M z
encountered durin g e)cavafion.
r
0)
O.-n
n
M M
Cl)
0-
0 M
C CO)
K CD
M 0
z
z
z
0
M
tu
J
Test Pit Log
8
Earth Consultants Inc.
Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington
Praj. No. 10075
Dwn. GILS
Date April 2002
Checked KCS
Date 4/10102
Plate A8
Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the tirne and location
of this w0oratory We, rooffed by enOneering tests, analysis and
q
1��]= am not rwoeswaily representative of other tknes and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or inteVetation by others of
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEENNG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E -10075
May 14, 2002 Page 15
The recommendations submitted in this report are, based upon the data obtained from the.
test. pits. Soil and groundv%eter conditions between exploration sites may vary from
those encountered. The nature and extent of variations between our exploratory
ion. If variations do appear, ECI should
locations may not. become evident until construct'
be requested to reevaluate the 'recommendations of this report and allowed to modify or
Z
verify our recommendations in writing prior to proceeding with the construction.
0
0..
r9
Addkional Services
er e
We recommend that ECI be retained to perform a gen al 'review of th final design and,
CO
X
0
specification s to verify that the earthwork and foundation recommendations have been
M
M 0
e struc.tion specifications.
properly interpreted and implemented in th design and in the con
—10
0
0
We also recommend that ECI be retained to provide. geotechnical services during
c:.
M
M z .
construction. This is to. observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications or
recommendations and to allow design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ
C.Z
>
from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. We do not accept responsibility
for the, performance of the foundation or earthwork unless we are retained to review the
O."n
construction drawings and specifications, and to provide construction observation and
testing.
MM
0
Om
V)
CD:
M 0
z -
z
z
0
M
Earth Consultants, Inc.
CHERRI, St'
7i
13,
19 ch,
x
UK
AXE618A
A
GET
T
t ET j
.::,:,
77
kt Fz
H K
IM law
V, IIJ
Fa�
01
t
VMKETTS
ST
IF
E
who
TV
3ELL
-IST
PLE
iqi
SW
S CE
104= `.�;e
sit
1� �Z
nVkU %
. . . . . . . . ......
LUM
2A6
ON
ZkTrvt
'd
ST
Its
z
L9TH
T
t;
-221 Tfl
lit
90)0 zb�wn
XT
st
�i�
-M2� 4! mg I�L
;112� -E t
Ix CT
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.
Drwn. GLS
Date
April 2002
Proi. No.
1 G075
Checked RAC
Date
4/12/02
Plate
1
I FAM
z
0
0
M
Zi
L
0
M
C
M
0
0
0
C
M
M
Z
Cn
0
-n
-n
;U
>
M
M
—Cn
0
M
C
Cn
9
Cn
Q
0
gC
z
Cn
z
0
0
M
z
0
m
Drwn. GLS
Date April 2002
proj. No. 10,075
Checked RAC
I Date 4/12/02
1 Plate 2
Test Pit Log
Project Narne:
Sheet of
Pepperwood
Job No
Logged by:
Date:
Test Pit No.:
10&5
KCS
3/28/02
TP-8.
E-vcaM!on Contactor:
Ground Surface Elevation:
Universal Land
416'
Notes:
-6
dims: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 2": grass
surfaw condi
General
Notes
W
M
.0
E
L _; CL
U E
0
E
M ;"'
5
.
.
SM
Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose to medium dense, moist
z
0
21.2
0
2
=i 9
am
3
SM
Gray silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist
m
11.3
0
Test pit terminated at 4.5 feet below e)dsting grade. No groundwater
0
0 C
encountered during e)cavation.
-4
mZ
>
C/)
0 M�
M
m M
0
0 m
CO,
m 0
Z r
;U
M,
z
z
0
0
m
04
U1
Test Pit Log
Earth Consultants Inc.
Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington
100 75
Dwn. GLS
Date April2002
Checked KCS
at
D e 4/10/02
Plate A9
a
Subsurface oonclkions depided represent our observations at the firne and location of this e)pwatory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and
are not necessarily rWesentative of other Hines and kx�ations. We cannot accept responsbitity for the use or Intepetat
tIgment ion by others of
z
0
A
0
m
:i '-fi
m
�mo
0
-40
O,C:
-4 C
X M
M Z
,C) -4
a
E:
o,-n
n
.--4
�mm
0
0 M
,C co
9 Cl)
M 0
Z
3:
z
0
m
:;:H
Project Name:
ShOEA Of
Pepperwood
Job No.
Logged by-.
Test PA No.:
10075
KCS
28/02
—TP-1 1
Excavation Contactor
Ground Surface Ele%mtion:
Universal Land
356'
Notes:
Surface Concfitions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 12": ferns, trees, blaGkberTies
General
Notes
W
cL E
E I ::-
I tL. E
8 -
U)
(.)
co E
-
=)
z
SM
Brown silty SAND WM gravel, loose, moist
0
0
M
13.4
2
3
Cl)
M
C
4
M'O
0
-40
0
5
C
sp-sM
Brown poorly graded SAND with silt medium dense, moist
6
M
M z
7.7
....
10
Z
7
> -4
r
SM
Gray silty SAND with _qravel, dense, moist
Test pit terminated at 7.5 feet below e)dsting grade. No groundwater
ca
e ncountered during e)cavation.
0 -n
n
M M
0 W
0
0 M
C W
M CO
M 0
z
z
-A
0)
z
0
0
M
C4
Test Pit Log
Earth Consultants Inc.
Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washin*gton
—Fp;e
No. 10075
Dwn. GLS
Date April 2002
KC
Checked S
e 4/10/02
A
Subsurface conddions depided represent our observations at the tirne and location of this poor;atory ho4e, modified by engineering tests, analym� and
iudmienL Thei are not necessarily representative of other tknes and kx;ations. We cannot accept responsbidy for the use or inteqxelation by others of
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEARTHAN THIS NOTICE
IT IS DUE TO. THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
Lu
02
cc
z
Z
uj
LLI
0
0
DISTRIBUTION
E-10075
6 Copies
Phoenix Develo ment, Inc.
P
P.O. Box 3167
Lynnwood, Washington 98046-09.58
Attention: Ms. Loree Quade
m
co)
0
M
�:c
m 0
.80
C
M.
m z
JO
C
0.
M
m
m
C. 0)
M 0,
Z
Reviewed By:
z
Z.
m
e
Scott D. Dink Iman, CEG
Associate Engineering Geologist
Earth Constdtants, Inc.
Yes No
Are approved Plans/Permfts ort-sile, If No. contact the building department or explain below: M
Project NP. Pem* No.
Cl)
04 &VV3 I I ZU 8A Ce!) �J 13 4 2 b b D
10002/003
--7
Earth Solutions NW LLC
11"m
FMd Rep.
Job No.
Per of
L,,,th
SO,UtionS C,,,6rical Engirwom Ccaloglos, ElmrommeAtmi 5civn(litt &
Cortmucijun Muniteflng
'155
TIms Off Sft
DW
of weft
NW,11 2W3151atP1.NE#R0dM0r)d.WA98052
(425) 284-3300. FAX (425) 284-2856
TrwAM TIme
Mkm
Wm*W
-;IQ
DAILY RELD REPORT
Pemt No.
Hrs. CtmWd
Vo*=
IP�
Job-LOC85M
V*nVoww
M—ADA0MV.4 to
494 o%�A/40-5
AAC-096
rz-c
.
Gemal Conhmtor OmAl Cw&acWs SUPWrftndent
ROGOW UW By
z
Grefing cmbww Ckidng Forwmn
BY
DVA
m
Are approved. PlanstPenvits on -she Yes [3 No
5 i
If No. coritact the building departinent or explain below:
Cl)
fl—mied No. Permit No.
ox
m
Height CalculationWorksheet
Address:
Date:' S'� 0'
IWector(s):
1. Datum Point: fv-\ I -A
2. Datum Point Elevation: 405, o
0
I Averige Grade:
4. Maximum Elevation Allowed: 467 6)
L#gb grad 25$
5. Reference Point Elevation Shot to House:
O.n
C
M
(datum elevation) +4��4,y (grade to transit level fine'shot to house) -4 t),�Oq
0�
0
C
ni
6, Measurements from line shot onto house to roof idge.
n
M z
F- -mi
C&.
0 -n
R7
MM
0. vi,
0
0 M
M 0;
z
z
Total:
z
0
ation: eference point elevation)
7. Actual Elev (r +�3L3,-a� —,(measurements
0
M
from #6)
Conclusion:
1) is gres allowed); therefore the house is/
4.31 es� (actua iter Clwsi�kb
is not over the height requiremenTper ECDC 16.20.30 requirements
FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL FORM
To:
DATE:
MEMO TO: PERMIT COORDINATOR, BUILDING DIVISION
FROM: FIRE. DEPARTMENT DATE
PLEASE SIGN
J ENGINEERING DIVISION DATE zo
0
PLEASESIGN
PLANNING DIVISION DATE
71
PLEASE SIGN
PROJECT
CD
OM
C
SITE ADDRESS
M 0
0 C)
PERMIT #_200.:55-� &Z -7 i� ADB# DATEINSPECTED
C
M
Mz
DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE INSPECTED 5!::? a 6
C
Fn
A field inspection was conducted to determine compliance with -approved plans. Final ap �6val.
F
0 -n
denotes that there are no objections from the above signed Department to the release of
-n;u
PERFORMANCE BONDS and the granting of:
M M
0 U5
O.r.
0 M
GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL
C(0
9 (n. i
M
zr
GRANT, PROJECT APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS NOTED
z
Copy of CONDITIONS given to owner/contractor by inspector
Cn
0
M
FAILED FINAL INSPECTION - OUTSTANDING ISSUES
Copy of CORRECTION NOTICE given to owner/contractor by inpector
.2.
RE -INSPECTED OUTSTANDING ISSUES - GRANT FINAL PROJECTAPPROVAL
Date, Sigriature
1:teinp:b1dg:t*ornis:ocaprv1 3/25/04
I