20050767 (3).pdfDATE REC
CITY OF EDMONDS
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION
OWNER NAME/NAME OF BUSINESS
R-n-P4,\N.M�1�
MAILING ADDRESS
z
3: - -1( 141 sf. sL
0 :D�� 0 1 ID k.)
CITY ZIP TELEPHONE
L-vf\)rqwcn�,�
NAME (M
I=- ADDRESS
NE
CITY TELEPHONE
Klvlw� (9 S z0`3_3 144F - 2�z (9 1 ZM
NA CBL#
mbPAN ifn& I
cirn
ADDRESS
Aloy
CITY ZIP
TELEPHONE
L�A/00wib!A
STATE 6CENSE NUM13ER EXPIRATION
DATE
CH
PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL NO.
4n 14)0-1 t+ -C) clo - 0 1 -1 -
NEW RESIDENTIAL PLUMBING / MECH
COMPLIANCE OR
ADDITION COMMERCIAL CHANGE OF USE
REMODEL MULTIFAMILY M'SIGN
M REPAIR GgD"
CYDS
FENCE
M X FT)
DEMOLISH TANK
OT I HER
1 GARAGE RETAINING WALL
51 El
FIRE SPRINKLER
GARRa3z ROCKERY
FIRE ALARM
(TYPE OF USE, BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN:
NUMBER
OF
NUMBER OF
DWELLING
CRITICAL
AREAS
STORIES
UNITS
NUMBER
DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE
1% A
I
% LOT SLOM
L--.)
PERMIT EXPIRES 0)
USF PERMIT
ZONE 76?7
NUMBER
JOB SUITE/APT#.
ADDRESS 10
PLAT.N�ME/SUBDIVISION No LOT NO LID NO.
LID FEE S
LDur �Ppfovod
PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP nW Po(mil Hequirad
i Snoet use Pon -nit HO(I'd
EXISTING I tn&p(j ton Hortuvad
PROPOSED Sfdowca;k Roquired
REQUIRED DEDICATION FT underground
Winne rectimod
METER SIZE LINE SIZE 140, F FIXTURES PRV REQUIRED C)
z
it YES 13 NO IJ cc
4 La
FIEMARA
OWN ERICON TRACI OR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROL/DRAINAGE
-4 -A. &'�,LA W
REVIEWED BY
FIRE REVIEWED BY
Tit IZWL.
DATE ul
Ir
M
VARIANCE OR CU
SHORELINE OR ADB#
INSPECTION
BOND
.001�
REO'D
' L
)(XEI. ONO
POSTED
S
SEPA REVIEW
SIGN AREA -
HEIGHT
COMPLETE EXEMPT
ALLOWED PROPOSED
ALLOW PROPOSED
I )<
"'00,
,
opo I
iv
EXP
LOT COVERAG P-.D
REQUIRED SETBACKS (FT.)
PROPOSED SETBACKS (Fr.)
ALLOWED PROPO
;POW. 0 ;�
FRONT SIDE REAR
N e/W S I
I NT tVtSIDE REAR
C—/ Vj z
2z
to, 5 1 16;
G-/_5
PARKING
LOT AREj%
PLANNING REVIEWED BY DATE :1
CIL
REQ'D I PROVIDED
4-1;'Ft
I
REMARKS -5
�W �dytt,+ _f-reeo -t-p ple, 10 1
*We
'1;V)oVVV1 wi exolobf+
AA1 Of 19 f i-C, 17
CHECKED BY
I TYPE OF COWSTRUCTION
ICODE
I OCCUPANTr,, I
SPECIALINZPE5MN AREA _ t3=-C
.5E;2� P L r,
REOUIREDJ23�YES tE: I L-- _j �j LOAD
REMARKS z
PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC I 08/FINAL INSPECTION REaD
i q__71 %. no ll� . -e% A j 11414),l 4�71, OA " I h41A1_&, 114A 12
VALUATION
s, N .
(-- 1 1.
Description FEE Description FEE
Plan Check State Surcharge ql
Building Permit City Surcharge
PLAN CH ECK NO; elf
VESTED DATE
Plumbing
Base Fee
Mechanical
THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZCS ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO
BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC
Grading
2 DOMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE
:3 SEPARATE PERMISSION.
Engr. Review
LU PERMIT APPLICATION: ISO DAYS
IL PERMIT LIMIT: I YEAR - PROVIDED WORK IS STARTED WITHIN 180 DAYS
Engr. Inspection
SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION
'APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER S
La POUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS
Fire Review
Plan Chk. Depo i
7T
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
4
ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIREC1 LY
ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE
FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT.
Landscapelnsp.
Total Amt. Due
DEEMED TO MODIFY� WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE
iq
0 NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITYS ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.0
x
-2
Recording Fee
Receipt #
" v )
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION; THAT THE INFORMATION
ZPPLICATION
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
Bui!ding 011icial 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 is acknowledged in space provided.
WORKMEN'S Cyd"PATION INSURANCE AND RCW 18.27.
IGNUATE DATE
SIGNA NE R 3ENT)
DATE SIGNED
(425)
V0,
771-0220
RELISED
BY qATE
ATTENTION'
EXT 1333
r
IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL
A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN
MALjr_ ANIL; Arrr11UVML Uri
M utri I Iry OHIGINAL FILE YELLOW � INSP T
CATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN
GRANTED. UBC
SECTION 109
PINK OWNER GOLD - ASSESSOR
09/03
PRESS
HARD -YOU
'ARE MAKING 4 COPIES,
z
0
11
0
ITI
—11 -n
M
C
M
0
40
0 C
-4 ic
3: M
M Z
10--1
_z
0 _n
n
M ITI
0 6
0 r,
0 M
C Cn
9 Cn
ITI 0
Z
X
z
--I
X
Cn
z
0
--I
0
M
a
AO
17(
WATER SEWER
Lr
INSPE%"',*T10NS REQ'D.
CALL 425-771-0220 FXT. 1 6
MAINTAIN PLAT INSTALLED E ROSION CONTROL
311 51 T:
APHROVEII) AS NOTED z0t I
ox
GIANEERING Ve
BY ENk pl-
��,o D
HE I C- z
Date: 210TH F, LA�-�g
lle� to?o
m
E3
t
C 8-
10' UTILIT-r
EA5EM r, d ( r/-&v C-
.5 A
ENT
6mly a
M
C
M
AVE
0
A(fT1 0
Fj/v1 51,1&D 0
C
MAX
m M
E35E. M z
SUR\ 10
—4rE3
7-C AFRI
Z.
DRIVENAY >
I MPE
RCH20
RES
0
n
C,
:E m M
1\7
Q 1-- 0 r
00 FAT 0 m
FOOTING DRAINS NOf kn C co
4, 7 7 7 F. M 11�- I I . - . ,
9 CO)
TO BE. TIED INTO 0-)
r 0 NALI M 0
DETENTION SYSTE RE,-,? 10 E N C, U) Z r-
PLAN 2ci-7cf
TC:)T/
FF MA X
\ I N,
n 41cf.,
(,owtf 57
F007-IN& >
T C
ACCEPTABLE TIGHTLIW Z 4 ..4211 lio
MATERIAL E �553L X
.. 'I-- OT
15
SDR 35 FLAN z
SCH 40 3e2j vl-,"Z415
1`4 - 12 X. T< 225-7
7'0 (1 N(fLL m
F810 HANCOR
Zone FAQ-07- 1 +1 Corner Fla& N 0
60.00,
Setbacks Required Actual
EAST
Front tq ----AC)
Sides EIW---5-1 CITY OF EDMONDS SANITAR)
Rear 5 Pit
SEWER EASEMENT A.F. NO. 20/
Other'
H eip AND 2070846
ht
-c
d, 4yee, -1 10,-, p 5 C) \,4,1 y,
'w
APPROVED BY PLANNIF"Ic'. it) ITY
COP
ju
G L
F:
lei
-21C�TH
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
PEPPERWOOD
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
8526 MAIN STREET
z
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
0
j,.
0,
M�
E-10075
C M-
May 14, 2002
.
M 0,
`4 0,
00'
M
PREPARED FOR.
M Z,
PHOENIX DEVELOPMENT, INC.'
CO)
0 -n
40
0 M
C co
C/)*
M0
Z r
Iv
3:
>
z
Z.
Raymond A. Coglas, P.E.
Project Manager
0
M
Earth Consultants, Inc.
1805 -.136th Place Northeast, Suite 201
Bellevue, Washington 98005
(206) 643-3780
Toll Free 1-888-739-6670
C C
IT
I
IMPORTANT INFORMATK�14-
-ABOUT)(OUR
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
More construction problems are caused by site subsur-
face conditions than any other factor. As troublesome as
subsurface problems can be, their frequency and extent
have been lessened considerably in recent years, due in
large measure to programs and publications of ASFE/
The Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in
the Geosciences.
The following suggestions and observations are offered
to help you reduce the geotechnical-Telated delays,
cost -overruns and other costly headaches that can
occur during a construction project.
A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
REPORT IS BASED ON A UNIQUE SET
OF PROJECT -SPECIFIC FACTORS
A geotechnical engineering report is based on a subsur-
face exploration plan designed to incorporate a unique
set of project -specific factors. These typically include:
the general nature of the structure involved, its size and
configuration: the location of the structure on the site
and its orientation-, physical concomitants such as
access roads. parking lots. and underground utilities,
and the level of additional risk which the client assumed
by virtue of limitations imposed upon the exploratory
program. To help avoid costly problems, consult the
geotechnical engineer to determine how any factors
which change subsequent to the date of the report may
affect its recommendations.
Unl . ess your consulting geotechnical engineer indicates
otherwise, your geotechnical engineering report should not
be used:
• When the nature of the proposed structure is
changed, for examplei it 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 isa change of ownership. or
• for application to an adjacent site.
Geolechnical en . gineers cannot accept responsibility for problems
which may develop if they are not consulted after factors consid-
ered in their report's development have changed.
MOST GEOTECHNICAL "FINDINGS"
ARE PROFESSIONAL ESTIMATES
Site exploration identifies actual subsurface conditions
only at those points where samples are taken, when
they are taken. Data derived through sampling and sub-
sequent laboratory testing are extrapolated by geo-
technical engineers who then render an opinion about
overall subsurface conditions, - their likely reaction to
proposed construction activity, and appropriate founda-
tion design. Even under optimal circumstances actual
conditions may differ from those inferred to exist,
because no geotechnical engineer, no matter how
qualified, and no subsurface exploration program, no
matter how comprehensive. can reveal what is hidden by
earth, rock and time. The actual interface between mate-
rJals may be far more gradual or abrupt than a report
i . ndicates. Actual conditions in areas not sampled may
differ from predictions. Nothing can be done to prevent the
unanticipated, but steps can be taken to help minimize their
impact. For this reason, most experienced owners retain their
geotechnical consultants through the construction stage, to iden-
tify variances. conduct additional tests which may be
needed, and to recommend solutions to problems
encountered on site.
SUBSURFACE CONDITION S
CAN CHANGE
Subsurface conditions may be modified by constantly -
changing natural forces. Because a &otechnical engi-
neering report is based on conditions which existed at
the time of subsurface exploration, construction decisions
should not be based on a geotechnical engineering report whose
adequacy may have been affected by time. Speak with the geo-
technical consultant to learn if additional tests are
advisable. before construction starts.
Construction operations at or adjacent to the site and
natural events such as floods, earthquakes or ground-
water fluctuations may also affect subsurface conditions
and, thus. the continuing adequacy of a geotechnical
report. The geotechnical engineer should be kept
apprised of any such events, and should be consulted to
determine if additional tests are necessary
GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ARE
PERFORMED FOR -SPECIFIC.PURPOSES
AND PERSONS
Geotechnical engineers' reports are prepared to meet
the specific needs of specific individuals. A report pre-
pared for a. consulting civil engineer may not be ade-
quate for a construction contractor, or even some other
cons . ulting 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
� I
Z
0
4
0
M
Earth Consultants Inc.
Gootechnical Engineers, Geologists & Environmental Scknlists
May 14, 2002 -10075
E
Phoenix Development, Inc.
P.O. Box 3167
Lynnwood, Washington 98046-0958
Attention: Ms. Loree Quade
ca
C
M 0
Dear Ms. Quade:
0
We are pleated to submit our report titled "Geotechnical Engineerin Study, Pe pperwood,
C
M
M z
.9
Residential Development, 8526 Main.. Street, Edmonds, Washington." This study
presents the results of our field exploration and. geotechnical engineering analyses for the
r
proposed residential development.. Our scope of services for producing this study were
o.utlined in our proposal PR-10075, dated March 1, 2002.
o -n
-n
Based.on *the results of our study, development "of the site as pl nned is feasible from a
a
M M
geotechnical standpoint. Medium dense to very dense glacial till was observed at the test
0
pit locations. Fill and yard waste materials were observed along the top of the existing
0 M
C 0)
slope areas along the upper half of the site at sev eral of the test pit locations. The fill
-soils
C cl):.
were observed to depths of approximately four to five feet. 'Based on the
M 0
z -
r
subsurface conditions observed at the test pit locations, it is our opinion the proposed
family
X
single,* residences can be supported on conventional spread and continuous footings
bearing on the competent glacial till native soils, or on structural fill solls.used to modify
existing site grades.
z
The existing slope areas throughout the middle of the site a ppear stable. Due to the
z
dense. condition of the, native glacial till soils, the existing slope areas should not be
0
adversely impacted by the proposed construction. I ou*
n r ophion, the buffer requirements
0
M
for buildi ng construction adjacent to steep slope areas can be reduced.
Recommendations for setbacks and other geotechnica! recommendations are.prdsented in
this geotechnical engineering study.
1805 - 136th Place N.E., Suite 201, Bellevue, Washington M5 Bellevue (425) 603780 FAX (425) 74&M Toll free (088) 739-6670
Phoenix Development
May 14, 2002 E-1 0075
We appreciate the opportunity t during the design phase.of the
o provide our services
u hav questions about the content of this geotechnical engineering s,.udy,
project. If yo e
or if we can be.of further assistance, please call.
Z'
inc
S erely,
EA, CONSULTANTS, INC.
M
Co
M
M
0
0
C
ond A. Cogl E
M
Project Manager
Z'
0-n
Cl)
0
0 M
C
M 0,
z
_4
z
z
0
M.
Earth consultants, Inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
E-10075
ILLUSTRA71ONS
Plate 1
Plate 2
VicinityWap
Test Pit Locationflan
Z"
Plate 3
Typical Footing Subdrain Detail
Plate.4
Typical Utility Trench Fill
0
m
APPENDICES
CD
CO
Appendix A
Field Exploration
m
Plate Al
Legend
0
Plates A2 through A 12
Test Pit Logs
m:M
m Z.
Appendix B
Laboratory Test Results
Plate 131
.Grain Size Analyses
CO
0 10,
0 m
C
:fflo�
Z
Z
Z
0,
m
Earth Consultants, Inc.
lb�
GMTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
PEPPB;WOOb
RESIDENTIAL DEVB.OPM ENT
8526 MAIN STREET
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
E-1 0075
Z
0
INTRODUCTION
Genera
This I report presents geotechnical recommendations for the proposed Pepperwood.
Z t
0
Residential Development to be located at 8526 Main Street, Edmonds, Washington The
C M
M 0
general location of the site is shown on the Vicinity Map, Plate 1. The approximate
0
0 0
locations of the test pits and the approximate limits of the pro perty. are illustrated on the
C
Test Pit Location Plan, Plate 2. Our scope of services. included a subsurface exploration
= M
M Z
to characterize soil conditions at -the site, and preparation of this report w ith geotechnical
recommendations for the proposed site development.
C
>
ca
E�nqjed nescriptonn
O.-n
n
We understand development of the site will co. nsist of a 224ot: subdivision and
MITI
construction of a storm water detention vault. New access roadwaysw.ill be constru cted
throughout the property, and will connect to -Main* Street on the upper east half of the
0
0 M
property and Pioneer Way along the lower west portion of theproperty. At the time this
C Cn
ch
geotechnical engineering study was prepared, a final grading plan. had not been
Q01
Z,r,
completed. However, we anticipate that cuts and fills will be necessary to establish the
building I 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
Z
tw elve (12) to sixteen (16) f eet. Cuts along the toe of the existing steep slopes w ill likely
be necessary toestablish roadway grades for the new access roadway that will connect
ca
Z
to Pioneer Way.
0'
The use.of rockeries may be necessary to transition grades in landscaping areas and to
0:
M
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 area s. . preliminary
ed fill rockery may be
design information indicates that the alignment of the reinforc.
located on the,existing slopes.
Earth Conagants, Inc.
q.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFANG 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
developrrkent. 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
M
Proposed single family residences. We estimate wall loads will be in the range of,one to
:q =n
two kips per lineal foot, and column loads in the range of ten (10) to twenty (20) kips.
Cl)
If the above design criteria are incorrect or change, ECI should be notified and allowed to
X
0 M
C 0
review the recommendations contained in this report. In any case, ECI should be retained
M
-10
00
to perform ageneral review of the fin'al design.
C
3:
M
M Z
SITE CONDITIONS
Surface
X
CA
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,
0 -n
with the exception of several rental homes locatedalong Main Street. The topography is
M M,
partitioned into two halves, with a slope area approximately bisecting the site in a north-
0 &
M
south direction.. The slopes descend to the west at grades of approximately 30 percent
C Cn
C Co
to 40 percent. The overall height of the slope ranges from approximately forty (40) to
M 0
Zr
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.
z
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
Cn
northeast corner of the site. As previously discussed, the existing rockery will be
z
0
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
M
approximately ten 0 0) to twelve 0 2) feet.
The lower west portion of the development area is located at the toe of the existing
slope that approximately bisects the property in a north -south direction. The
immediate toe area of the site is relatively flat, and is located along an existing utility
easement corridor that connects to Main Street on the north and Pioneer Way on the
south. On the extreme west side of the property, west of the utility easement, there is
an area of ascending steep slopes. Development is not planned in this area.
Earth Constdtants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFUNG 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
the appear There were no indications of shallow
Z
observations, steep slope areas stable.
'0
or deep seated slide activity. The slope areas are generally heavily vegetated with mature
0
Douglas Fir, and there were no indications of severe erosion due:to surface water runoff.
M
Based on our observationsll� it.appears the slopes are stable.
Subsurface
0 M
C= 0
M 0
E leven test pits were excavated throughout the site. The test pits were excavated to
0
depths of approximately five to -eight feet, where very dense glacial till Soil conditions
M
were encountered.. Please refer to the test pit logs, Plates A2 through Al2, for a
M Z
description of the conditions encountered at the test pit locations.,
C: 2
The soils encountered at the test pit locations consisted of medium dense to very dense
V;
silty sand with gravel (Unified Soil Classification SM). Sand deposits were occasionally
o -n
observed throughout the glacial till deposit. The,depth of the topsoil layer varied, and
4
typically ranged between two inches to twelve (12) inches. The geologic map of. the area
M M
identifies the silty sand with gravel.deposit as glacial till. The upper three to four feet of
0
the Soil deposit generally consisted of weathered glacial till. The weathered till.was in..,a.
0 M
C CO
medium dense condition, and was characterized by brown to dark brown coloring. Dense
M
to very dense unweathered glacial till was encountered below the weathered glacialtill
0
Z r
layer. The unweathered glac ial till was generally characterized by, a gray to dark gray
coloring.
Fill was observed at test pit locations TP-4 and TP-5. The fill consisted of loose silty sand
Z
soils, and extended to depths of four to five feet. Yard waste piles were also observed.,
CO
alongthe top of the steep slope area in the vicinity of Test Pits TP-4 and TP-5.
Z
0
At the time the test pit exploration was performed (March:2002),, the upper deposit of
0
M
weathered glacial till was generally in a wet condition. Laboratory testing indicates
moisture contents of approximately 13 to 16 percent, or greater for the weathered glacial
till. The lower deposit of unweathered glacial till was in a moist to wet condition, and
had moisture contents generally in the range of approximately 8 percent to 10 percent.
Earth Consultants. Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFANG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075
May 14, 2002 Page 4
Gr'oundvater
Groundmter seepage was not observed at the time' of our exploration (March 2002).
The presence, of light to moderate groundvwter seepage, howevert should be expected in
deep. excavations. Based on the observed at the time of our field
z
conditions exploration,
04
we do not anticipate groundvoter seepage will adversely impact the earthwork.
Groundwater seepage. levels and the rate of seepage are not static; fluctuations in the
q:fi
level and rates can be expected depending on the season, amount of rainfall, surface
CA
water runoff, and other factors. Generally, the level and rate of seepage is higher in
X
0 M
C
the wetter winter months (typically October through May).
M a
0
O�
Laboratory Testin
�Xrn
Mz
The results of laboratory tests performed on specific samples are provided in Appendix 8,
10-4
C: 2
or at the appropriate sample depth on the test pit logs. It is important to note. that these,.
test , results may not accurately represent the overall in -situ soil conditions. Our
Cn
geotechnical recommendations r d on our interpretation of'these test results. ECI
a,e base
0 _n
_n
cannot beresponsible for the interpretation of these data by others.
rn r,n
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
V5
0-
r
d,
0 M
C Cn
General
K Co
M 0
Z
Based. on the subsurface conditions observed at the test pit locations, development of the
X
site is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The proposed single family residences can
be supported on conventional spread.and continuous footings bearing on the medium
z
dense to dense glacial till soils observed at the test pit locations., The building
foundations can also be supported on structural fill soils that are used to modify the
Cn
existing site grades. The. medium dense to dense glacial till soil suitable for support of
Z,
foundations was generally observed at a depth of approximately,two feet below -the
0
native ground surface elevation.
0
M
Earth ConotAtante, lnc�
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075
May 14F 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 buft
er of ten 0 0) 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 the
end of
site, adjacent. to Building Lot 9. In our opinion, reinforced fill rockeries can be
Z
0
successfully constructed on the existing steep slope, provided an, engineered rockery
0
design is completed. Steep slope buffer and foundation recommendations are provided in
ITI
the Steep Slope Buffer and Foundations sections of this report. Preliminary rockery
=n
design recommendations are provided. in the Rock6ries section of this report.
Y) -1
X
C) M
C
In our opinion, the majority of the existing rockery located along Main Street can be
M 0
utilized and incorporated into the new development. Several. of the existing rocks along
00.
the �upper row of the rockdry, however, will need to be replaced due to severe
C:
-1
X M
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
CD
design will also be needed for the proposed fill areas along the alignment of the existing
o -n
Main Street rockery.
M ITI
In our opinion, construction of the proposed storm. water detention vault is feasible from a
0
geotechnical standpoint. Medium dense to dense glacial till. soil will. likely be encountered
or
ITI
C C/)
in the excavation for the storm water detention vault. Based on, the conditions observed
at e encountered in the excavation for
the test pit locations, groundwater seepage may b
Q 0.
Z r
the storm water detention vault. However, in our opinion, geoundvyater seepage will
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
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 slo es. We
p
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 Constiltants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERNG 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.
z
conditions in this area. No other warrantV, expressed or implied, is -made. We
recommend that this geotechnical engineering study, in its entirety, be included in the
M
project contract documents for the. information of the contractor.
=i 5i
Site Preparation and General Earthwor
Cn
0 M
M 0
0
The proposed development areas of the site. should be stripped and cleared of existing
_10
0
surface vegetation, topsoil,, existing structures, and other deleterious materials. Existing
C
utility pipes that will be abandoned should be plugged or removed. Based on the
M
M.Z
conditions observed at the test pit locations, the thickness of the topsoil layer ranges
C
between approximately two (2) inches to twelve (12) inches. The thickness of the
topsoil layer will vary throughoutthe site.
Vj
o -n
-n
The ground surface where structural fill, or foundations are to be placed should be
observed by a representative of, ECI. An ECI representative should also observe the
MM
excavation for the proposed storm water detention vault and. roadway cuts. Existing fill
0 U;
0
s oil and organic debris that is encountered in the building and vault foundation
0 M
C CO
excavations should be overexcavated. Due to the relatively high fines content of the
K Cn.
native soils moisture sensitivity of the soils will be. moderate to high. Building, and
Q 0
Z
pavemen t subgrade areas that are exp I osed to extended periods of precipitation will like, ly
become unstable. If the subgrade soil in the proposed foundation and pavement areas
X-
becomes saturated and unstable, overexcavation of the unstable soil and replacement
>
with structural fill may be necessary.
z
In our opinion, the majority of the native soils can be considered for use as structural fill,
z
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.
M
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.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFJNG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075
May 14,2002 Page 7
Imported soil intended for use as structural fill should consist of a fairly well graded
granular soil with. a moisture content that is at or near the optimum moisture content, and
having a maximum aggregate size of four inches. During wet weather conditions,
imported fill should consist of 6 fairly well graded granular material having a maximum
size of four inches and no more than 5 percent fines passing the No. 200.sieve based on
the minus 3/4-inch fraction.
Structural fill is,defined as compacted fill placed under foundations, roadways, slabs,
pavements, or other load -bearing areas. Structural fill. under slabs and footings should be
placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding twelve 0 2) inches in loose thickness and
compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of its laboratory maximum dry density. The
maximum.dry density should be determined in accordance with ASTM Test Designation
D-11 557-91 (Modified Proctor). The fill materials should be placed at or near the optimum
moisture content. Fill under pavements and walks should also be placed in horizontal lifts
and compacted to 90 percent of the maximum dry density except for the top twelve (12)
inches, which should be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density. If 'a
structural fill berm is necessary to construct the storm water detention pond, the fill
should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density.
Steep Slope Buffer
In our opinion, due to the dense condition of the glacial till soils observed at the site, and
the stable condition of the existing slope areas, a minimum ten (10) foot buffer frorn'the
top and toe of the steep slope areas can be considered for the proposed single-family
residences., The City of Edmonds Development Standards for Geologically Hazardous
Areas. are found under Title 20 (Chapter 20.15B). The Development Standards allow the
-r distance to be educed f * m fifty (50). feet to ten (10) feet, provided a
required buffe r ro
geotechnical report can demonstrate that no adverse impacts to the slope or surrounding
developments will result. In our. opinion, reducing the buffer distance to ten (10) feet will
not adversely impact the stability of the steep slope areas. The observed stability of the
existing slope and the presence. of dense glacial till soils is the primary basis for this
recommendation.
Earth ConstAtants, Inc.
Z
0
1
0
ITI
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFJNG 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
z
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
0
rockery placement on the. slope will not adversely impact the stability of the slope. As
M
previously discussed, an engineered reinforced rockery design should be completed for
the proposed fill and rockery areas.
Cn
M
C:
Foundations
M 0
0
0 0
C
In our opinion, the proposed single. family residences can be supported on conventional
M
spread and continuous footings bearing on the medium dense to dense glacial till soil
M z
observed at the test pit locations. Where necessary, the proposed building foundations
can also be supporied on structural fill that is used to rnodifV the existing site gradesi
Foundations should not be supporled on the existing fill soils. The medium dense to
Cn
dense glacial till soils suitable for support of foundations was generally observed at a
0 -n
de pth of approximately two feet below the nativeground surface elevation.
MM
For foundations bearing on the medium dense to dense glacial till soil or structural fill, an
allowable soil bearing capacity of two thousand five hundred (2,500) pounds per square
0 M
C Cn
foot (psf) can be used.. This, allowable soil bearing capacity has a facto r-of-safety in
C Cn.
M 0
excess of 3.0 against shear failure, provided the foundations are placed on competent
Z
native soils or structural. fill. A one-third increase in the above allowable soil bearing
X
capacity can be assumed for short-term wind and seismic loading conditions. Continuous
and individual spread- footings should have minimum. widths of eighteen (18) and twenty-
z
four (24) inches, respectively.
Cn
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
overexcavation should extend a minimum of six inches beyond each edge of the
M.
foundation.
Exterior foundations elements. should be placed at a minimum depth of eighteen (18)
inches below final exterior grade. Interior spread foundations can be placed at a minimum
de th of twelve 0 2) inches below the top of slab, except in unheated areas, where
interior foundation elements should be founded at 'a minimum depth.of eighteen (18)
inches.
Earth ConstAtants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-1 0075
May 14, 2002
Page 9
Provided the foundations are. placed in accordance with the recommendations contained
in this report, we estimate total settlement of approximately- one inch and differential
settlement of approximately.one half, inch. Most of the. anticipated settlements should
z
occur during construction as dead loads are applied.
Lateral. loads can'be resisted by friction between. the base of the foundation and the
M
supportng soil, and. by Passive soil pressure acting on the face of the buried portion of
the foundation. Resistance to lateral loads from passive eart h pressures can be calculated
CD
using an equivalent fluid with a unit weight of three hu ndred fifty (350) pounds per cubic
0 M*
foot (pcf). To achieve adequate passive resistance, the foundations must be backfilled
M 0
—10.
with structural fill. As an alternative, the foundations can be' poured neat against the
0 C
undisturbed native soil. For frictional capacity, a coefficient of 0.40 can be used for
MM
foundations bearing on competent native soils,or structural fill. These lateral resistance
Mz
values are allowable values; a factor -of -safety of 1.5 has been included
C—
> z
Footing excavations should be observed by a representative of ECI prior to placing the
r
CO
0 -n
formwork and repar. ECI should also observe areas where overexcavation is required to
remove loose or unstable soils.
MM
Permanent. Retaining and Foundation Walls
0 M
C CO
Retaining and foundation walls should be designed to resist lateral, earth pressures from
K CA
M 0
the retained soils,, and any surcharge loading. Walls. that are unrestrained and free to
z
move at the top can be designed using an equivalent fluid with a unit weight of thirty-five
X
(35) pcf. The earth pressure imparted on restrained walls should be calculated using an
equivalent fluid with a unit weight of fifty. (50) pcf. The above e quivalent fluid values
>
z
assume surcharges due to traffic, adjacent foundations, construction loads, or any other
X
loadings will not apply. If surcharges are to apply, they should be added to the above
Cn
design lateral pressures..
z
For traffic. surcharge loading, a uniform pressure of seventy (70) psf should be applied in
0
M
a rectangular distribution along the height of the retaining wail. If sloping backfill
conditions are present behind the walls, ECI should review the slope configurations and
provide modified equivalent fluid values, as necessary.
Eanh ConstAtants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFING STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075
May 14, 2002 Page 10
Retaining and foundation walls should be provided with a fourinch 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
M
of a suitable granular structural fill.
Seismic Design Considerations
.0m
C
The, Puget Sound region is classified as Zone 3 by the Uniform Building Code. (UBC). The
rn 0
0
largest earthquakes in the Puget Sound region have been subcrusta.1 (intraplate) events,
0.0
C
ranging in depth from fifty (50) to seventy (70) kilometers. Such deep events have
MM
ITIZ
exhibited no surface faulting. Weaver and Shedlock 0 989) researched the probable. or
jo* -1
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
o -n
occur within the North American Plate, and typically do not exceed focal depths of
-h
approximately 20 . kilometers. Intraplate, earthquakes occur in the subducting Juan de
M M
Fuca plate, and typically occur below depths of 40 kilometers. The recent February 28,
CD
2001 earthquake that was focused just north of Olympia, Washington was an intraplate
0
0 M
earthquake,.and had a magnitude Of ML =6.8. The subduction zone earthquake, in which
C (D
9 CD
there is no historical record in the Washington.and Oregon area, would have its source
Q 0
Z r
along the interface between the North American Plate and the subducting Juan de Fuca
Plate.. Magnitude 8+ earthquakes are thought to be possible along this interface, and
would occur at depths of approximately. 50 to 60 kilometers (Weaver and Shedlock,
1989.).
Z
The UBC Earthquake regulations have established a series of soil profile types that are
Z
used as a basis for seismic design of structures. Based on the encountered soil
0
conditions, it is our opinion that soil type Sc from Table 16-J of the 1997 UBC should be
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.
Groundshaking of sufficient duration results in the loss of grain -to -grain contact and rapid
increase in:pore water pressure, causing the soil to, behave as a fluid for short periods of'
time.
Earth ConstAtents, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFING STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-1 0075
May 14, 2002 Page 11
To have potential for liquefaction, P soil must be cohesionless with a grain size
distribution of a specified range (generally sands and s.ilt); it must be loose to medium
dense; it must be below the groundmter table; and it must be subject to s ufficient
magnitude and duration of groundshaking.
Based on the soil and groundv%ater conditions observed at the site, it is our opinion that
Z
the site has a low susceptibility to liquefaction. The dense condition of the native soils is
0
the primary basis for this conclusion.
M
Slab -on -Grade Floors
4 -fl.
Slab -on -grade floors can be supporied on competent native soils or. structural fill. Loose
M
C
M
or. unstable subgrade soils should be.stabilized prior to construction of the slab. The use
0
0
of a geotextile and crushed rock can be considered for stabilizing the subgrade soils, if
C
—4
necessary., A -four4nch capillary break consisting of a free draining poorIV graded sand or
2: M.
M Z
gravel with less than. 5 percent fines (percent passing the No. 200 sieve, based on the
10-4
minus 3/4-inch fraction) should be placed below the slab. In areas where slab moisture is
C
>
r
undesirable, a vapor barrier such as a 6 -mil plastic membrane can be placed beneath the
CD
free draining sand or gravel. The subgrade soils in slab -on -grade areas of the site should
0 -n
be observed by a representative of ECI prior to placing the capillary break material.
—1
MM
Site Drainage
0 V5
0
During construction, surface water runoff must not be allowed to stand in construction
0 M
C Cn
C CO
areas. Interceptor trenches should be established, as necessary, along the perimeter of
Q 0
Z r
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
Finish around the buildings must be sloped such that surface water is
X
soils. grades
directed away from the buildings.
Z
Perimeter footing drains should be installed, around the perimeter foundations to intercept
CO
groundmter 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
i htlin6d to the
foundation wall drain systems. All roof downspouts must be separately. t g
M
site storm water system.
Earth Constiltanta, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFUNG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-1 0075
May.1 4. 2002 Page 12
Excavations and Slope
The following information is provided. solely as a service to our client. Under no
circumstances should this information be interpreted to mean that ECI is. assuming
responsibility for construction site safety or the contractor's
Z
activities; such responsibility
is not being implied and should not be inferred.
In no case excavation be
M
should slopes greater than the limits specified.in local, state,
�and Federal safety regulations. Based on the information obtained from our field
exploration, the upper deposit of weathered glacial till that extends to a depth of
0 M
C
approximately four feet below existing site grades would be classified as Type C soils by
M 0
OSHA. The existing fill observed at the site would also be classified as Type C soil.
0
Temporary cuts in Type C soils should be sloped at an inclinati on no, steeper than
X M
1.5H:1V (Horizontal: Vertical), respectively. The unweathered glacial till observed below a
M Z
depth of approximately four feet -would be classified as Type A and Type B soils by
OSHA.. Temporary slopes constructed in Type A and Type B soils should be inclined.no
steeper than 0.75H: 1 V and 1 H: 1 V, respectively. ECI should observe the excavat ions to
ca
assess soil and groundmter conditions, and to verify the OSHA soil type..
o -n
M
Permanent cut and fill slopes should be inclined no steeper than 2H: 1 V. Cut slopes
M
should be observed by ECI during excavation to verify that conditions are as anticipated.
0
Supplementary recommendations can then be developed, if needed,. to improve stability,
0 M
C CD
including flattening of slopes or installation of surface or subsurface drains. In any case,
W
M 0
water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the.top of slopes.
Z
X
Permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation
to reduce erosion and improve stability of thesurficial layer of soil.
Z
Utilily Trench Backfill
co
Z
Based on the soil conditions encountered at the time of our exploration, the native soils.
should provide adequate * support for utilities. . If remedial measures are necessary to
rn
provide adequate support for utilities, the unsuitable soils can be oiverexcavated and
replaced with a rock ballast and pipe bedding material such as pea gravel. The presence
of groundv%eter seepage should be expected in thedeeper utility trench excavations and
the proposed detention vault excavation.
Earth Constiltants, Inc.
GEOTIECHNICAL ENGINEENNG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-1 0075
May 14, 2002 Page 13
In our opinion, the native soils can be considered for use as backfill for the utility
trenches. At the time of the subsurface exploration, (February, 2002) the upper deposit
of weathered glacial till was generally in a wet condition, with moisture contents in
excess of 16 percent. The lower deposit of unweathered glacial till was generally in a
Moist to wet condition, and had moisture contents of approximately 10 percent. ECI will
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
conditions, and. the moisture content of the soil should.be at or near its optimum moisture
0
M.
content at the time of placement.
backfill is in the for settlement in
Om
Utility trench a. primary concern reducing potential
C
rn 0
pavement areas. It is important that. the utilities be adequately supported in the bedding
0
material. The material should be hand tamped to ensure support is provided around the
0 0
C
haunches of,these structures. Fill should be carefully placed and tamped to.. about twelve
X M
(12) inches above the crown of the pipe before heavy compaction equipment is brought
M Z,
into use. The remainder of the backfill should be placed. in lifts having a loose thickness
C
>
of less than twelve (112) inches. A typical trench backfill section and compaction
requirements for load supporting and non4oad supporting areas is presented on Plate 4.
-n
o
Rockeries
X C
M
M
We understand the existing. rockery located, along Main Street at the northeast portion of
055
0 r-. . .
0 M
the site will be incorporaWd into the new development. The rockery is approximately
C CD
C'M
180 feet in length, and ranges between four (4) feet to.twe.lve (12)'feet in height. We
Q 0
Z
estimate therockery has been in place for appro)dmately twenty-five years. Two existing
driveways that ramp up through the alignment of the rockery face will be filled as part. of
;U
the proposed development to establish a level, building lot area. Construction of new
X
reinforced 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
reinforced fill rockeries proposed for the site.
CO
z
Based on our observations, the majority of the existing r6ckery has experienced rninor to
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 Consultants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFUNG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075
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
Z
when subjected to proolrolling with a loaded dump
0
truck*,. . Structural fill in pavement areas.should be prepared as described in the Site
M
fr�paration.and General Earthwork section of this report.. This means the 'pavement
subgrad6 should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density. It is
CO
possible that some localized areas of soft, wet or unstable subgrade may exist after the
C M
pavement subgrade is prepared. Overexcavation.and a greater thickness of structural fill
-or
0
crushed rock may. be needed to stabilize these localized areas. A biaxial geogrid such
1 8 0�
C
as Tensar BX-1 200 can be considered for use below the crushed rock where bridging of
M
unstable subgrade is necessary.
MZ
Assuming a properly. prepared subgrade, the following pavement section for lightly -loaded
Z
r
areas can be used:
0 -n
o Two inches of asphalt concrete (AC) over four inches of crushed rock base (CRB)
material, or
M M
0
Two inches. of AC over. three inches of asphalt treated base (ATB) material.
0 M
C CD
C Cn
Heavier truck -traffic areas will require thicker pavement sections depending upon site
0
Zr
usage, pavement life, and site traffic. If necessary, ECI can provide pavement des'
ign
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
least 95 percent of the maximum dry density.
Z
LIMITATIONS
0
M,
Our recommendations and conclusions are based on the site materials observed, selective
laboratory testing and, engineering analyses, the design information provided to us, and
our experience and engineering judgement. The conclusions and recommendations are
professional opinions derived in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill
ordinarily exercised by other members of the 'profession currently -practicing: under similar
conditions in this area. No warranty is. expressed or implied.
Earth ConstAtants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFJNG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075
May 14,2002 Page 15
The recommendations submitted in this report are based upon -the data obtained from the
test pits. Soil and groundv%ater conditions between exploration sites may vary from.
-those
encountered. Th of variations between our exploratory
e nature and extent
locations may not become evident until construction. If variations do -appear, ECI should
be requested to reevaluate the recommendations of this report and allowed to modify or
z
verify our recommendations, in writing prior to.proce.eding with the construction.
'Additional
M,
Services
=i 5i
We recommend that ECI be retained to perform a general review of the final design and..
a
s ecifications to verify that the earthwork and foundaton recommendations have been
p
M
properly i nterpreted and implemented in the design and in the construction specifications.
C7
M 0.
0
0 C
We also recommend that ECI be retained to provide geotechnical services during
Xm
construction. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications or
rn z
recommendations and to allow design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ'
>
from those anticipated prior to. the start of construction. We do not accept responsibility
for the performance of the foundation or earthwork unless we are retained,to review the
Cn.
construction drawings and specificationsi and to provide construction observation and
-n
testing.
M
rn
Or
0 M
Cn.
Co
M 01
Z r-
X
z
0)
z
0
M
Earth ConstAtants, Inc.
E
, 77 ;Y1
FL
Ali
PU
7:,�'
Tot,
tr
GILAW R=
LEY
W_W"-::_` Is"EJUKO.M. -
'Aa r6 t M. a
W
ARK . .....
VISTA;
.6:_ i It
..at,
S
LANDIA
mj
244
4X
zz�� W1
v.
UNIX !A.-
Gk�
ELL, - -
MAIN
Or
35
�x
F6%PL
r
A,
.. ..... ...
P., f
f
am-, IM
PINE".
p
TH
17 ST
as CU
PL W, Fit,
iZ' 31
25
A
inj ST-. ST. 4'.
L
Z
MTW rL
woo
5W
2UNU
ram
29
Qcx
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.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
Geofechnical EngUlcets. Ge0kJoWs &.EnvircnmcntW SCL-ndsls
Vicinity Map
Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington
Dr wn. GLS
Date
ApH12002
Proj.No.
10075
Checked RAC
Date.
4112/02
Plate
1
W
m
C
0
0
0
M
M Z
Cn
0, _n
-n
mm
cf)
0
0 M
C Cn
9 U)
mo
Z
>
z
Cn
Z
0
M
z
0
m
Drwn. GLS
Date April 2002
Pro� No. 10075
Checked RAC
jDate 4112/02
IlPlate 2
Slope To Dir!,114�11
Z
.", zi
0�'
5
'�n 0
0 !Z-4 his
V. �� ...............
m
6 1 ch min
5
. . . . . . . . . . . .
a
0.
0 a
co
18 Inch min.
M
C
M
0
0 C
Inch min. M
m
Diameter,
Perforated Pip;---- Z
Wrapped In Drainage
r
Fabric
W
0
2 Inch min.
mm
2 Inch min. 4 inch max.
12 Inch
�CA
min. 0 f-
0 m
C
M 0,
SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE Z.
ION DRAWING
NOT A CONSTRUCT
3:
LEGEND
�z
Surface seal; native soil or other low permeability material.'
z
Fine aggregate for Portland Cement Concrete; Section 9-03.1(2) of the 0
? WSDOT Specifications.
M
Drain pipe; perforated or slotted rigid PVC pipe laid With perforations or
slots facing down; tight jointed; with a positive gradient. Do not use flexible
corrugated plastic pipe. Do not tie building downspout drains into footing
lines. Wrap with Mirafl 140 Filter Fabric or equivalent.
TYPICAL FOOTING SUBDRAIN DETAIL
Ec-ulh ConsLdtants Inc. Tepperwood
Caoftdv*W EngVIWM Gwiog� & &wkcnff=NW SC*Vftn Edmonds, Washington
Proj. No.* 10075 Drwn. GLS Date Apr.2002 Chocked RAC Date 4/12/02 Tplate 3
bo-
APPENDIX A
FIELD EXPLORATION
E -10075
Our field exploration:was performed on Mar ch 28, 2002. Subsurface conditions at the
z
site were explored. by observing a total of eleven test pit excavations. The test pits were
excavated by a sub contractor of Phoenix Development, Inc. The appro ximate test pit
0�
locations were'determined from existing landmarks presented on available plans. The
locations of the test be
M
pits should considered accurate only to the degree implied by. the
n
method, used. These appro)dmate test pit locations are shown on the Test Pit Location'
US __j
Plan, Plate 2.
C M
The field exploration was continuousl monitored by a geolo gist from our officei who
M
0
C
classified. the soils encountered and maintained 'a log of each test pit, obtained
M
representative samples, measured groundmter levels, and observed pertinent site
ITIZ
features
10-1
C
All samples. were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification
>
System that is presented on Plate Al, Legend. Logs of the test pits are presented in
0-M
Appendbc A Plates A2 through Al2,. The final I ogs �represent our interpretations, of the
field. logs and the results of the laboratory tests of field samples. The 'stratification lines
M ITI
on the logs.represent the approximate boundaries between* soil types. In actuality, the:
0
transitions may be ore gradual.
m
0 M
C (1)
M CA
M 0
Z
X
z
W
z
M,
Earth ConstAtents, Inc.
'v-25
H�
Inorganic Clays Of High
,e,41pZ**Z
V
A�Ch
Plasticity. Fat Clays.
Topsoil
-4, -4,
4- 4.1
Humus And Duff La , yer
Fill
Hliphly Variable Constituents
z
0
4
0
M
M
C
M
0
0.
0 C:
M
M Z
10-4
>
0 -n
n
M M
0
0 M
C: 0)
9 co
M 0
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE
IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
CL