Loading...
20050768.pdfDATE RECEIVED CITY OF EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION OWNER NAME/NAME OF BUSINESS = MAILING ADDRESS LU ?1: zo CITY ZIP TEI.EPHONE _�?05 3 N N W cDom, kA 60 172x�qlj N A( tN& -ADD ESS x L) 1(014LI t� r; IKCyl--k% S CITY ZIP TELEPHONE 'ICA \A 033 4�2z� -*9 NAME CBLN M ADDRESS 0 0, CITY ZIP TELEPHONE 0 L) ��o L4)Y-- IT .40 I STATE LICENSE NUMBER EXPIRATInN QjNTE I 19"M" N2.4 ri D UA LAA ol 10 PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL NO. I I C) j C5 0-1 L=0 C30 — Cn C)s�* NEW RESIDENTIAL PLUMBING / MECH El ADDITION El COMMERCIAL COMPLIANCE OR CHANGE OF USE REMODEL MULTIFAMILY SIGN REPAIR GjjgDIN% CYDS FENCE X FT) DEMOLISH El TANK OTHER IrE GARAGE RETAINING WALL FIRE SPRINKLER FIRE CARPORT ROCKERY . ALARM (TYPE OF U$E, BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN: Sy 12� NUMBER NUMBER OF L CRITICA %kl OF STORIES DWELLING UNITS AREAS NUMBER DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE AA \%iIi 0 1 ?) L-. 0 tj UL I C) FPERMIT - EXPIRES USE PERMIT ZONE NUMBER JOB SUITE1APT# ADDREL f)L 1� PLAT NAME/SUBDIVISION NO. LOT N 0. __w LID NO. /-/j LID FEE $ TESCP Approved PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP RW Permit Required Strew use Permit Req'd EXISTING — PROPOSED Impaction Required Sidewalk Required REQUIRED DEDICATION Underground FT Wiring required METER PIZE LINE SIZE NO. OF FIXTURES PRV REQUIRED I /? YES 13 NO E3 z 14' 1 4 z REMARKS z OWNERICONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROL/DRAINAGE e fle'. :4 A 10- .7k T,5;4 -91 A, im. I ?'-'% -e / 4 A-. , t I Y,: '0�. A f&A re FIRE REVIEWED BY .0"? d _00� gnpi'M "W'S DATE PR CU SHO LINE OR ADB# I INSPECTION BOND WARIANCE vx 0 -t:; 1 :7 REO'D kyES. POSTED IS 2�0 v 3P - q :�_ 0 NO SEPA REVIEW . SIGN AREA I ' HEIGHT COMPLETE EXEMPT ALLOWED PROPOSED ALLOWED PROPOSED I )< , W. Ey fS L+. Ll q, EXP LOT COVERAGE t7K REQUIRED SETBAcKS (FT) PROPOSED SETBACKS (Fr.) ALLOWED PROPOSED, FRONT SIDE R�g W "ifirep FRONT ttR SIDE REAR z t7l tz; to' sqii I I to 2) 02-A5 T! z PARKING LOT AREAJ PLANNING REVIEWED BY DATE REO'D I PROVIDED C6 11,?) / 0 15 ZVKSAA_ n�ay)� j to �j it A WAl oY\ 5�jt,,- pl4vx Y e-A LA. i re-dAt s)V11D\A=Z0Q') jCHECKED BY TYPE OFONSTRUCTION CODE — OCCUPANT D-H) GROUP S SPECIAL INSPEPTION JAREA % OCCUPANT P Cl I a IR FREQUIREAYES U R R EMARKS z P PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 108/ IBC109/IRC109 FINAL INSPECTION REGID zi A-7 'VALUATION,,. $ VS t !k,ovtr& 1201r�Vl, Izo Description FEE Description FEE A-7Z 0 Plan Check /7/ State Surcharge HEAJ40URCE \40 KS �ALAZING YLxN LOT SLOPE % Building Permit City Surcharge Plumbing Base. Fee PLAN CHECK NO- VESTED DATE Mechanical THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO It= BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC Grading DOMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE 2 SEPARATE PERMISSION. It= 2 Engr. Review at PERMIT APPLICATION: 180 DAYS W G-1 PERMIT LIMI-111 I YEAR - PROVIDED WORK IS STARTED WITHIN 180 DAYS Engr. Inspection SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION U) 'APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS Fire Review Plan Chk. Deposit 9 IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF 2 EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND Fire Inspection Receipt # ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY, OR INDIRECTLY X FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE Landscapeinsp Total Amt. Due 9 DEEMED TO MODIFY. WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE 01 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 D6puly: and Fees are paid, and IN VIOLATIO NHE LjA011OR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING To FOR INSPECTION receipt is acknowledged in space provided. SirWORKMEN' MPE W 'N INSURANCE AND RCW 18.27. SIGNATUqE DAII� SIG�N WNE R A T) DATE SIGNED (425) P "/1 771 -0220 Y DA RELr B A! �It:NTIO EXT 1333 ITIS UNLAWFULTO USE OR OCCUPYABUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTILAFINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL ORA CERTIFICATE OF OCCU- '6-�tG 1NAL - FILE - YFI 1 0, 4S ECTO� PANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC109/IBC110/IRC110. PINK -OWNER - GOLD -ASSESSOR 09/03 PRESS HARD -YOU ARE MAKING 4 COPIES z 0 A 0 M -I -n 0 M C M 0 __40 0C -1 K 3: M M Z C Cn o n -n M M 0.6 0 r- 0 C M Cn 9 Cn Q Z 0 .1 z CA1 z 0 0 M )S F. ^DoRE XXXX 210TH PL/Nr.,E SV4. 738 L E 6, A L LOT 5, M^DRONA COVE :;)E= -.,RIPTION: 151TE AREA: E5,4-76 SOUARE FEET z 0 ZONINC5,: PLANNEO UNIT E?E-VELOPMENT HEIC-7HT GALGULATION (BASEE? FROM EXISTINr--;, 6vFRADE) C. A= 4q 0 E3= 80 C,= 400 c 0= M mz 16 12�14 40 A\/r=RAC--:;,E EXISTINr---7 6::,RADE= 40 > C I ACTUAL BUILDIN6, HEI67HT= 42-7.4ci Co. M.A%XIMUM E3UILOIN6v HFIcF,,HT= 428>.oS;5(25.5E5' PER \/ARIANCE \1-05—q 0 SURVE -rOR TO FRO\/11:;>E BENGHMAR< MOST AFROPRIATE FOR HEIOHT VERIFIGATIC)N) m IMPERVIOUS AREA5 0 RE-510ENGE I^V I -70ro SGWARE FEET CO. cf) (f,\/RD POR(:�,HE!S M 0 z Df-Zl\/ENA',r5 4 -75 SOUARE'FEET PATIO SOUARE FEET 50 SOUARE FEET TOTAL 2,551 SOUARE FEET z _4 LOT GOVERAC m L(�:)T CO\IERAr--.:,E 15 BASED UPON E355b'OF ENTIRE FL,,-\NNElD UNIT DEVELOPMENT) 1-706501JARE FEET OF PROP05ED LOT C,-OVERA6,F (I NCLUDES �TRUCTURE, COVERED FORCHES, 0�Er-,<S OVER 5011). GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PEPPERWOOD RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 8526 MAIN STREET z EDMONDS, WASHINGTON M. E-10075 Cn 0 M May 14,�2002 M 0, O� 8C M PREPARED FOR M z -1, PHOENIX DEVELOPMENT, INC. C > MM 0 M :C 0) M 0 Z 146t z tEXPIRF, �R7 /Z 65 Raymond A. C09laS, P.E. z Project Manage*r M. Earth Consultants, Inc. 1805 - 136th Place Northeast, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washingto n 98005 (206) 643-3780 Toll Free 1-888-739-6670 'Copy CIT E IiAPORTANT INFORMATIC�A- ABOUTYOUR GEOTECHNiCAL ENGINEERING REPORT More construction problems are caused by site subsur- technical engineers who then render an opinion about ons,-their likely reaction to face conditions than any other factor. As troublesome as overall subsurface conditi 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 publications of ASFE/ conditions may differ from those inferred to exist, large measure to programs and atter how The Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in because no geotechnical engineer, no m qualified, and no subsurface exploration program, no the Geosciences. Z matter how comprehensive, can reveal what is hidden by 0 The following suggestions and observations are offered earth, rock and time. The actual interface between mate - to help you reduce the geotechnical-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. M occur during a construction project. differ from predictions. Nothing can be done to prevent the 9 unanticipated, but steps can be taken to help minimize their -4 CD GINEERING impact. For this reason, most experienced owners retain their 3: A GEOTECHNICAL EN geotechnical consultants through the construction stage. to iden- OM C BASED ON A UNIQUE SET tify variances. conduct additional tests which may be MID REPORT IS solutions to problems 0 needed, and to recommend 0 OF PROJECT -SPECIFIC FACTORS encountered on site. 0C -4 K, A geotechnical engineering report is based on a su.bsur- X M MZ face exploration plan designed to incorporate a unique SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 10 --1 . These typically include: C — set of project -specific factors. > Z the general nature of the structure involved . its size and CAN CHANGE configuration; the location of the structure on the site Subsurface conditions may be modified by constantly- x and its orientation: physical concomitants such as Cn changing natural forces. Because a geotechnical engi- cess roads. pa nclerground utilities, neering report is based on conditions which existed at 0 -n ac rking lots, and u t assum d n e and the level of additional risk which the clien the time of subsurface exploration, construction decisions by virtue of limitations imposed upon the exploratory should not be based on a geotechnical engineering report whose mm p rogram. To help avoid costly problems, consult the by time. Speak with the geo- 0 otechnical engineer to determine how any factors adequacy may have been affected 0 ge technical consultant to learn if additional tests are ubsequent to the date of the report may 0M which change s advisable before construction starts. C Cn affect its recommendations. K CD Construction operations at or adjacent to the site and M0 Unless your consulting geotechnical engineer indicates natural events such as floods, earthquakes or ground- Z r- otherwise. your geolechnical engineering report should not water fluctuations may also affect subsurface conditions be used: and, thus. the continuing adequacy of a geotechnical When thenature of the proposed structure is report. The geotechnical engineer should be kept changed, for example. if an office building will be apprised of any such events, and should be consulted to > erected instead of a parking garage, or if a refriger- determine if additional tests are necessary. Z ated warehouse will be built instead of an unre- frigerated one; GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ARE Z when the size or configuration of the proposed structure is altered: PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES 0 e Proposed when the location or orientation of th 0 AND PERSONS M structure is modified; of ownership, or I engineers� reports are prepared to meet When there is a change Geotechnica for application to an adjacent site. the specific needs of specific individuals. A report pre- ponsibility for problems pared for a consulting civil engineer may not be ade- Geotechnical engineers cannot accept res clors consid- quate for a construction contractor, or even some other which may develop if they are not consulted after fa consulting civil engineer. Unless indicated otherwise, ered in their report's development have changed. this report was prepared expressly for the client involved d by the client. Use and expressly for purposes indicate, MOST GEOTECHNICAL "FINDINGS" by any other persons for any purpose. or by the client n problems. No indi- for a different purpose. may result ii ARE PROFESSIONAL ESTIMATES vidual other than the client should apply this report for its site exploration identifies actual subsurface conditions. intended purpose without first conferring with the geotechnical only at those points where samples are taken. when engineer. No person should apply this.report for any purpose they are taken. Data derived through sampling and sub- other than that originally contemplated without first conferring sequent laboratory testing are extrapolated by geo- with the geolechnical engineer. Earth Consultants Inc. GeolechnIcal Engineers, Geologists & EnvirOnrriental Sclenfists May 14, 2002 E-1 0075 z Phoenix Development, Inc. P.O. Box 3167 0 M. Lynnwood, Washington 98046-0958 Attention: Ms. Loree Quade Dear Ms. Quade: M 0 0 We are pleased to submit our report titled nGeotechnical Engineering Stud y, Pepperwood, C M M z Residential Development, 8526 Main . Stre et, Edmonds, Washington." This study presents the results of ou'r field exploration and. geo chnical engineering analyses for the te CE > -4 r proposed residential development. Our scope of services for producing,this study were 1 CAI o.utlined in our proposal PR-10075, dated March 1 2002. 0 M, -h Based on the results of our study, development of the site as planned is feasible from a M M geotechnical standpoint. Medium dense to very dense glacial till wa's observed at the test 0 pit locations. Fill and yard waste materials were observed along the top of the existing oln 0 M slope areas along the upper half of the site at several of the.test pit locations. The fill M CD soils Were observed to de ths of ap p proximately four to five feet Based on the i M 0 Z subsurface conditions observed at the. test pit locations, it is our.opinion the proposed single* family residences can be supported on conventional spread footings and continuous bearing on the competent glacial till native soils, or on structural fill soils used to modify 3: existing site grades. Z' The existing slope areas throughout the middle of the site appear stable. Due to the z dense condition of the native glacial till soils, the existing slope areas should not be adversely impacted by the proposed construction - In our opinion, the buffer requirements for building construction. adjacent to steep slope areas can be reduced M Recommendations for setbacks and other geotechnical recommendations are presente d in this geotechnical engineering study. 1805 - 136th Place N.E., Suite 201, Bellevue, Washington 98005 Bellevue (425) 643-3780 FAX (425) 746-OBW Toll free (888) 739-6670 phoenix Development E-1 0075 May 141 2002 We appreciate the opportunity to provide our s ervices during. the design phase of the. project if you have questions about the content of this geotechnic al engineering study,: or if we can be- of further assistance, please call... z 0 Sincerely, 0: EA CONSULTANTS, INC. C M 0' 0. C M. hon A. C'o 9 1 M Z. -1 Project M Raer > Z' Mc4me 0 n M M, 0 0 CM CD M 0 z d X z :2� 0 M Earth Cmsultants, Inc. r TABLE OF CONTENTS E-10075 ILLUSTRATIONS Z Plate 1 Plate 2 Vicinity Map Test Pit Location Plan m: Plate 3 Typical Footing Subdrain Detail =j :5; Plate 4 Typical Utility Trench Fill C APPENDICES. O� cf� Appendix A Field, Exploration m Plate Al Legend M Z -4 Plates A2 through A 12 Test Pit Logs C 2 Appendix B. Laboratory Test Results 65 plate 131. Grain Size Analyses M,M 0 mf C 0)'' m 0; �Z Z Z pi Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PEPPERWOOD RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 8526 MAIN STREET EDMONDS, WASHINGTON E-10075. Z. 0 INTRODUCTION M Gnera co 0 This report presents geotechnical recommendations for the proposed Pepperwood Residential Development to be located at 8526 Main Street, Edmonds, Washington. The m C M 0. -40 general location of the site is shown on the Vicinity Map,. Plate 1. The approximate 0 C: locations of the test pits and the approximate. limits of the property are illustrated on the M -Test Pit Location Plan,. Plate 2. Our scope of services included a.subsurface exploration M Z to characterize soil conditions at the site, and preparation of this report w ith geotechnical C: Z reco mmen dations for the.pr6posed site, development.. 0 Flwnjea nascrjgAe 0'M We understand development of the site will consist of a' 22-lot subdivision and M M Cn construction of.a storm water detention vault. New access roadways will be constructed OM throughout the property, and w ill connect to -Main, Street on the upper east half of the C: property and Pioneer Way along the lower w.est.portion of theproperty. At the time this M Cn Q 0 geotechnical engineering study was prepared, a final grading plan had not been Z completed. However, we.anticipate that cuts and fills will be necessary to establish the building lot and. roadway grades. Construction of a storm water detention vault is proposed for the lower west portion of the site, along the new access ro adway th at will Z connect to Pioneer Way. Cuts for the detention vault will probably be in the range of twelve (12) to sixteen (16) feet. Cuts along the toe.of the existing steep slopes will likely be necessary to establish roadway grades for the new access roadway.that will connect Z 0 to Pioneer Way.. M The use of rockeries may be necessary to transition grades in landscaping areas and to provide permanent erosion control. along cuts. -Reinforced rockeries may also be utilized along the back of the building lots located at, the top of the slope areas. Preliminary design information indicates that the alignment of the reinforced fill rockery may be located on the existing slopes. Earth consultants. Inc GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFJNG STUDY Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075 May '14, 2002. Page 2 An existing rockery along Main Street will be maintained. and incorporated into the final development. The.existing rockery is up to approximately ten (10) feet to twelve (12) feet in height and was likely constructed during widening and improvements to Main z 0 Street. An assessment of the existing rockery is provided in the Rockeries section of this report. T The use of relatively lightly loaded wood frame construction is anticipated for the :n proposed single family residences. We estimate wall loads will be in the range of one to C ITI two kips per lineal foot, and column loads in the range of ten (10) to twenty (20) kips. M 0 0 -40 If the above design criteria are incorrect or change, ECI should be notified and allowed to 0 C -4 C 3: review the recommendations contained in this report., In any case, ECI should be retained m M Z to perform a general review of the final design. 10--i C SITE CONDITIONS CD Surface 0-n ITI The approximate property limits and site topography are illustrated on the Test Pit M 0 Location Plan (Plate 2). The majority of the site. is undeveloped and heavily vegetated, 0 0 M with the exception of several rental homes located along Main Street. The topography is C CJ) partitioned into two halves, with a slope area approximately bisecting the site in a north- south direction. The slopes descend to the west at grades of approximately 30 percent 0 Z Ao 40 percent. The overall height of the slope ranges from approximately forty (40) to X 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 z adjacent to. Building Lot 9. The upper east half' of the property is relatively flat, with gently sloping areas that z 0 descend to the east. An existing rockery and steep driveway area are located at the 0 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 prea. Th e. 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 area of the site is relatively flat, and is located along an existing utility easement corridor that connects to Main Street on the north and Pioneer Way on the south. On the extreme west side of the property, west of the utility easement, there is an area of ascending steep slopes. Development is not planned in this area. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL 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 observations, the steep slope areas appear stable. There were no indications of shallow Z or deep seated slide activity. The slope ar eas are generally heavily vegetated with mature 01 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: :5 Subsurface q Cl) Om C Eleven test pits were excavated throughout th e 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 A 12, for a M description of the conditions 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 silty sand With gravel (Unified, Soil Classification SM). Sand deposits were occasionally 0 n observed throughout the glacial till deposit. The dept h* of the topsoil layer varied, and n typically ranged between two inches to twelve (112) inches. The geologic map of the area identifies the silty sand. with gravel deposit as glacial till. The upper three to four feet of MM 0 V5 the soil deposit generally consisted of weathered glacial till. The weathered till was in a 0 r- . I . 0 M medium dense condition,.and was characterized by brown to dark brown coloring.. Dense C: Ca to very dense unweathered glacial till.was encountered below the weathered glacial till * C CD MO Z layer. The unweathered glacial till was generally characterized by a gray to dark gray coloring. Fill was observed at test pit locations TP-4 and.TP-5. The fill consisted of loose silty sand Z soils, and extended todepths 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 At the ti me the test pit exploration was performed (.March 2002), the upper deposit of 'glacial 3 weathered 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 md,isture contents generally in the range of approximately 8 percent to 10 percent.' Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFING STUDY Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075 May 14, 2002 Page 4 Groundvvater Groundwater seepage was not observed at the time of our exploration. (March 2002). The presence of light to moderate groundvvater seepage, however, should be expected in z �0 deep excavations. Based on the conditions observed at the time of our field exploration, we do not anticipate groundmter seepage will adversely impact the earthwork. M Groundwater seepage levels and the rate of seepage are not static; fluctuations in the level and rates can be expected depending on the season, amo unt of rainfall, surface a M C water runoff, and other factors. Generally, the leveland rate of seepage is higher in M 0 -40 the wetter winter months (typically October through May). C: M kaborator y Testing M z 4 The results of laboratory tests performed on specific samples are provided in Appendix B, r or at the appropriate sample depth on the test pit logs. Itis. important to note that these �M Ch test results may not accurately represent the overall in -situ soil conditions. - Our 0 n n geotechnical recomm endations are based on our interpretation of these test re*sults.* ME I I cannot be responsible for the i terpretation of these. data by others. n ITIM DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 0 M C (D Q 0 Z General 0 n est pit locations, development of the Based on the subsurface c ndkio. s observed at the t X site is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The proposed single family r esidences can. .> z Ium be supported on conventional spread and continuous footings bearing on.the medi -4 dense to dense glacial till soils observed at the test pit locations. The building Co foundations can also be supported on structural fill soils that are used to modifV the z existing site grades. The medium dense todense glacialtill soil suitable for support of --q foundations was generally observed at a depth of approximately two feet below the .0 M, native ground surface elevation. Earth Conetiltants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075 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 Z steep slope areas within the planned development area are limited to the north end of the 0 0_4 site, adjacent to Building Lot 9. * In our opinion, reinforced fill rockeries can be IT! successfully constructed on the existing steep slope, provided an engineered rockery design is completed. Steep slope buffer and foundation recommendations are provided in the Steep Slope Buffer and Foundations sections of this report. Preliminary rockery CD 0 design recommendations are provided in the Rockeries section of this report. rn C M 0 -10 In our opinion, the majority of the existing rockery located along Main Street can be 0 C utilized and incorporated, into the new development. Several of the existing rocks along X M the upper row of the rockery, however, will need to be replaced due to severe M Z .0 weathering. ECI will work with the contractor to identify the rocks that need to be C Z > replaced. With regard to the existing driveway areas that will likely be filled and brought 3: � 0i up to the level of the existing rockery, the use of a geogrid reinforced fill will be. o n necessary where the fill heights exceed approximately four feet An engineered rocker y -n design will also be needed for the proposed fill areas along the alignment of the existing -4 :c Main Street rockery. M M :C) Vi In our opinion, construction of the proposed storm water detention va ult is feasible from a 0 M C Cn J geotechnical standpoint. Medium dense to dense glacial till soil will likely be encountered C Cn Q 0 in the excavation for the storm water detention vault. Based on- the conditions observed Z at the test pit locations, groundv%eter seepage may be encountered in the excavation for X the storm water detention vault. However, in our opinion, giroundAkiter seepage will likely not adversely impact the stability of the detention vault excavation. > Z Recommendations for temporary excavations are provided in the, Excavations and Slopes section of this report.. Z Cuts* will be performed for the proposed access roadway that will connect to Pioneer 0 Way. These cuts may encroach into the toe of the existing steep slope areas. on the west IT! side of the property. Due to the dense glacial till soil conditions observed at the site, it is our opinion the roadway cuts will not compromise the. stability of the slopes. We anticipate the roadway cuts will. not exceed six feet along the toe of the steep slopes. In our opinion, construction of a rockery along the planned roadway cuts can be considered. Earth Constiliants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFANG STUDY.. Phoenix Development, Inc. E 10075 May 14, 2002 Page 6 This geotechnical engin eering study has been prepared for the exclusive use of Phoenix Development, Inc. and their representatives. . This study was lrepared for specific application to this project only and in a manner consistent with tha t level of care and skill z 0 ordinarily exercised by.other members of the protession currently practicing under similar --I . . conditions in this, area. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is Made. We 0 M recommend that this geotechnical engineering study, in its entirety, be. included ih the =i5i project contract documents for the information of the contractor. Site Preoaration and General Ear work 0 M CO M 0 -10 The proposed development areas of the site should be stripped and cleared f existing 01 .0 C surface vegetation, topsoil, existing structures, and other deleterious materials. Existing M M Z. utility , pipes that will be abandoned should be plugged or removed. Based on the ID C Z conditions observed at the tes t pit locations, the thickness of the topsoil layer ranges )" !: —1 1 1 between approximately two (2) inches to twelve 0 2) inches. The thickness of the X topsoil layer will vary throughoutthe site. 0 -n The ground surface where structural fill, or foundations are to be placed should be MITI observed by a representative of ECI. An ECI repr observe the esentative should also 0 6 0 r- excavation for the proposed storm water detention vault 'and roadway cuts. Existin fill 9 0 M C Cn soil and -organic debris that is encountered in the building and vault foundation 0. MO excavations should be overexcavated. Due to the relatively high fines content of the Z n ative 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 propo sed foundation and pavement areas > z becomes saturated and unstable, overexcavation of the unstable soil and replacement with structural fill may be necessary. CO In our opinion, the majority of the native soils can be considered for use as structural fill, z 0 provided the soil is placed during dry weather conditions, and provided the moisture 0 M, conte t of t n he 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 'or conterits.of 13 percent greater for the weathered gi acial 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. Eanh ConstAtants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFING STUDY' Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075 May 14, 200.2 Page 7 Imported soil intended for use as structural fill should consist of a fairly well graded granular soil with a moist -ure 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 ITI Structural f ill is defined as compacted fill placed under foundations, roadways, slabs, pavements, or other load -bearing areas. Structural fill under slabs.and footings should be X 0 placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding twelve- (12) inches in loose thickness and rn C rn compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of its laboratory maximum dry density. The 0, 00 maximum dry density should be determined in accordance with ASTM Test Designation' C D-1 551-91 (Modified Proctor). The fill materials should be placed at or near the optimum :r M moisture content. Fill under pavements and walks should also be placed in horizontal lifts M Z and compacted to 90 percent of the maximum dry density except for the top twelve.0 2) > 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 o -n should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density. M. Steep Slope Buffer rn Vi 0 O.M In our opinion, due to the dense condition of the.glacia.l. till soils observed. at the. site, and C Ch the stable condition of the existing slope areas, -a minimum ten (10) foot buffer from the M 0 Z top and toe of the steep slope areas can be considered for the proposed single-family residences. The City of Edmonds Development Standards for Geologically Hazardous W.: Areas are found under Title 20 (Chapter 20.1513). The Development Standards allow the r equir ed buffer distance to be reduced from fifty (50) feet to ten (110) feet, provided a Z geotechnical report can demonstrate that no adverse impacts to the slope or surrounding 3: 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 Z existing slope and the presence of dense glacial, till. soils is the primary. basis for this recommendation. rn Earth Constiltants, Inc. GEOTE'CHNIC.AL 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 z backyard areas. Reinforced fill rockeries can be used to transition the grade between the 0 fill and the slope. In our opinion, due to the dense glacialtill, soil conditions, fill and 0 M rockery placement on the slope will not adversely impact the stability of the slope. As previously discussed, an engineered reinforced rockery design should be completed for the proposed, fill and rockery areas. OM Foundations MID 0 0 In our opinion, the proposed single family residences can be supported on conventional C Mm spread and continuous footings bearing on the medium dense to dense glacial till soil M Z C) —1 observed at the test pit loc ations. Where necessary, the proposed building foundations C: 2 > can also be suppomd on structural fill that is used to modify the existing site grades. Foundations should not be supporled on the existing fill soils. The me dium dense to dense glacial till soils suitable for support of foundations was generally observed at a o n depth o.f approximately two feet below the native ground surface elevation. M M Forfoun dations bearing on the medium dense to dense glacial till soil or structural fill, an 0 r, . allowable soil bearing capacity of two thousand five hundred (2,500) pounds per square 0 M IC (n foot (psf) can be used. This allowable soil bearing capacity has a facto r-of-safety in C 0) MO 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 h ave minimum widths of eighteen (18) and twenty- > z four (24) inches, respectively. X Cn If loose or unstable soil conditions are enco untered at the footing subgrade elevation, the z soil sho uld be overexcavated, and replaced with structural fill. The width of the :0 0 overexcavation should, exten d 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. grad e. Interior spread foundations can be placed at a.minimum, -depth of twelve (12) inches below the top of slab, except in unheated areas, where interior foundation elements should be founded at a minimum depth of eighteen (18) inches. Earth Constsitants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Phoen ix 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 appro)dmately one inch and differential settlement of appro)dmately 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 foundati on and the 0 !.9 suppor-dng 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 :q using an equivalent fluid with a unit weight of three hundred fifty (350) pounds per cubic 0 foot (pcf). To achieve adequate passive resistance, the foundations must be backfilled C M M with structural fill.. As an'alternative, the foundations can be poured neat against the 0 0 0 undisturbed native soil. For frictional capacity, a coefficient of 0.40 can be used for C foundations bearing on competent native soils or structural fill. These lateral resistance M M Z values are allowable values; a facto r-of-safety of 1 5 has been included. C: z Footing excavations should be -observed by a representative of ECI prior to placing the formwork and repar. ECI should also observe areas where overexcavation is required to 0 _n remove loose or unstable soils. 3: M Permanent Retaining and Foundation Walls M C/) 0 r 0 M Retaining and foundation walls should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures from - C CO r"CD the retained soils, and any surcharge loading. Walls. that are unrestrained and free to M 0 z move at the. top can be designed using an equivalent fluid with a unit weight of thirty-five (35) pcf. The earth pressure imparted on restrained walls should be calculated using an. equivalent fluid with a unit weight of fifty (50) pcf. � The above equivalent fluid values assume surcharges due to traffic, adjacent foundations, construction loads, or any other z loadings will not apply. If surcharges are to apply, they should be added to the above design lateral pressures.. (D z 0 For traffic surcharge loading, a uniform pressure of seventy (70) psf should be applied in .0 a rectangular distribution along the height of the retaining wall. If sloping backfill M conditions are present behind,the walls, ECI should review. the slope configurations and �p rovide modified equivalent fluid values, as necessary. Earth Consultants, Inc STUDY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075 May 14, 2002 Page 10 Retaining and foundation walls should be provided with a fourinch d ameter 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 Z 0 n of at least eighteen (18) inches behind the wall. A surface seal, co sisting of a less permeable silty sand soil,can be placed along the upper one foot of the wall backfill, if ITI desired. The remainder of the backfill behind the zone of free draining soil should consist of a suitable granular structural fill. 0 M C Seismic Design Considerations M 0 0 The Puget Sound region is classified as Zone 3 by.the Uniform Building Code (UBQ The 0 0 C: largest earthquakes in the Puget Sound region have been subcrustal Ontraplate) events, M M Z ranging in depth from fifty (50) to seventy (70) kilometers. Such deep events have 10-1 C —Z exhibited no surface faulting. Weaver and Shedlock (1989) researched the probable o * r F --I known source areas for the crustal, intraplate, and subduction zone earthquakes in the 0) Washington and Oregon area. Crustal and intraplate earthquakes are the only events in 0 -n -n Washington and Oregon in which there is a historical record. Shallow crustal earthquakes occur within the North American Plate, and typically do not exceed focal depths of M M approximately 20 kilometers. Intraplate earthquakes occur in the subducting Juan de' 0 V5 r_ Fuca plate, and typically occur below depths of 40 kilometers. The rece nt February 28, .0 0 M 2001 earthquake that was focused just north of Olympia, Washington was an intraplate 9 ch M earthquake, and had a magnitude of ML =6.8. The subduction zone earthquake, in which 0 Z --I there is no historical record in the Washington and Oregon area, would have its source X 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 > w uld occur at depths of approximately 50 to 60 kilometers JWeaver and Shedlock, o Z 1989). The UBC Earthquake regulations have est ablished a series of soil.profile types that are Z used as a basis for seismic design of structures Based on the encountered soil M C o nditio I ns, it is our opinion that soil type Sc from Table 16-J of the 1997.UBC should be used for design. Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which soils lose all shear strength for short periods of time during an earthquake. The effects of liquefaction may be large total and/or differential settlement for structures with foundations founded in the liquefying soils.. Groundshaking of sufficient duration results in the loss of grain -to -grain contact and rapid increase in pore water pressure, causing the soil to behave as a fluid for short periods of time. Earth ConstAtants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFING STUDY. Phoenix Development, Inc. E-1 0075 May 14, 2002 9 Pa *e 11 To have potential for liquefaction, a soil must be cohesionless with a grain size distribution of a specified range (generally sands and silt); it must be loose to medium - dense; it must be below the groundmter table; and it must be subject to sufficient magnitude and duration of groundshaking. Z 0 Based on the soil and groundwater 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 Floor OM C Slab -on -grade floors can be supporied on competent native soils or structural fill. Loose �Ma 0 ..40. OC or unstable subgrade soils should be stabilized prior to construction of the slab. The use of a geotextile and crushed rock can be considered.for stabilizing the subgrade soils, if X M M Z necessary. A four4nch capillary break consisting of a free draining poorIv graded sand or 10 C 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 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 -n be observed by a representative of. ECI prior to placing the capillary break material. M M Site DrainNIAG 0Z 0 OM C CD C CD During construction, surface water runoff must not be allowed to. stand in construction areas. Interceptor trenches be the M 0, z � :i� should established, as necessary, along perimeter of the building site before it enters the construction area. During construction, loose M -1 surfaces -should be compacted to reduce. the potential for moisture infiltration into the soils; Finish the buildings be is > Z grades around must sloped such that surface water directed away from the buildings. Cn Perimeter footing drains should be installed around the perimeter foundations to intercept Z 0 groundv%eter seepage. A typical perimeter footing drain detail is illustrated on Plate 3. Under no circumstances should roof downspout drain lines be connected to the footing or M foundation. wall drain systems. All roof downspouts must be separately tightlined to the site storm water system. Earth Constiltants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL, ENGINEEFUNG STUDY Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075 May 14, 2002 Page 12 Excavations and SIORS 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 z 0 site.safety or the contractor's activities; such responsibility =j is not being implied and should not be inferred. �0 m In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local, state, -n CD and Federal safety regulations. Based on the information obtained from our field am exploration, the upper deposit of weathered glacial till, that extends. to a depth of C m 0 approximately four feet below existing site grades would be classified as Type C soils'by 0 0 0 OSHA. The existing fill observed at the site would also be classified as' Type C soil. Temporary cuts in Type C soils should be sloped at an inclination no steeper than M Z 1.5H:1 V (Horizontal:Vertical), respectively. The.unweathered glacial till observed below a C: 2 depth of approximately four feet would be classified as Type A and Type B soils by > -1 r OSHA. Temporary slopes constructed in Type A and Type B soils should be inclined no 2; Cn steeper than 0-75H: I V and 1 H:1 V, respectively. ECI should observe the excavations to O"n assess soil. and groundvmter conditions, and to verify the OSHA soil type. m M Permanent cut and fill slopes should be inclined no steeper than 2H: 1 V. Cut slopes .0 co r should be observed by ECI during excavation to verify that conditions are as anticipated 0 m ementary recommendations can th Supple en be developed, if needed, to improve stability, C CD Zn including flattening of slopes or installation of surface or subsurface drains. In any case, M 0 Z water should not b e allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of slopes. . Permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation > to reduce erosion and improve stability of the surficial layer of soil. z Utility Trench Backfill Zn 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 m provide adequate, support for utilities, the unsuitable soils can be overexcavated and replaced with a rock ballast and pipe bedding material such as pea gravel. The presence of groundv%eter seepage should be expected in the deeper utility trench excavations and the proposed detention vault excavation. Earth ConstAtants, Im GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEPANG STUDY Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075 May 14, 2002 Page 13 in our opinion, the native soils can be considered for use as backfill for the utility trenches. At the time of the subsurface exploration (February, 2002) the upper'deposit of weathered glacial till was generally in a wet condition, with moisture contents in excess of 16 percent. The lower deposit of unweathered glacial till was generally in a moist to wet condition, and had moisture contents of approximately 10 percent. ECI will, z 0 work with the contractor to assess the suitability of the on -site soils for use as utility -4 0 trench backfill. As previously mentioned, the soil should be placed during dry weather conditions, and the moisture content of the soil should be at or near its optimum moisture content at the time of placement. CD M C Utility trench backfill is a prima in reducing the. potential for settlement in ry concern M 0 .-io pavement areas. It is important that the utilities be adequately supporled in thebedding 0 Oc material. The material should be hand tamped to ensure support is provided around the haunches of these structures. Fill should be carefully placed and tamped to about twelve M M Z (112) inches above the crown of the pipe before heavy compaction equipment is brought into use. The remainder of the backfill should be placed in lifts having a loose thickness of less than twelve (12) inches. A typical trench backfill section and compaction requirements for load supporting and non-loadsupporling areas.is presented on Plate 4. O-n _n Rockerles M M. Cn We.understand the existing rockery located along Main Street at the northeast portion of 0 r 0 M the site will be incorporated into the new development. The rockery is approximately C Ca M C/) 180 feet in length, and ranges between four (4) feet to twelve (12) feet in height. We Q 0 Z estimate the rockery has been in placefor approximately twenty-five years. Two existing driveways that ramp up through the alignment of the rockery face will be filled as part of X the- proposed development to establish a level building lot area. Construction of new > reinforced fill rodkeries 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. z .0 9 Based on our observations, the majority of the existing r6.ckery has experienced minor to 0 M 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 Constiltants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFUNG 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 Z subgrade. To provide a properly prepared subgrade for pavements, the subgrade should 0 be in a firm and unyielding condition when subjected to proolrolling with a loaded dump M truck:. Structural fill in pavement areas should be prepared as described in the Slte frTaration.and General Earthwork section of this report. This means the pavement i -n subgradei should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density.. It.is 0 possible that some localized areas of soft, wet or unstable subgrade may. exist after. the M M pave ment subgrade is prepared. Overexcavation and a greater thickness of structura I fill 0 —10 0 or crushed rock may be needed to stabilize these localized areas. A biaxial geogrid such C as Tensar BX-1 200 can be considered for use below the crushed rock where bridging of M M Z unstable subgrade is necessary. C Z Assuming a properly prepared. subgrade, the following pavement section for lightly -loaded Cl) areas can.be used: o -n Two inches of asphalt concrete (AC) over four inches of crushed rock base (CRB) M M material, or a 0) 0- Two inches of AC over three inches of asphalt treated ba se (ATB) material. 0 M a Co C Cn M 0 Z Heavier truck -traffic areas will. require thicker pavement sections depending upon site. usage,'pavement life, and site traffic., If necessary, ECI can provide pavement design recommendations for truck traffic areas. > Z Asphalt concrete (AC), asphalt treated base (ATB), and cru shed rock base (CRB) materials should conform to WSDOT specifications. All rock bases should be compacted to at Cn Z least 95 percent of the maximum, dry density. LIMITATIONS 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 w ith 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 ENGINEEFANG 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 roundvwter conditions between exploration sites may vary from 9 those encountered. The nature and extent of variations between our. exploratory z locations may not become evident until constructiom If variations do appear, ECI s hould 0 -4 be requested to reevaluate the recommendations of this report and allowed to modifV or ?5 verify our recommendations in writing prior to proceeding with the.construction. RI Additional Service 9, M C We recommend that ECI be retained to perform a general, review of the fi nal design and have been M 0 0 0 0 specifications to verify that the earthwork and foundation recommendations inter in the design and in the construction specifications. properly preted and implemented X M M Z We also recommend that ECI be retained to provide geotech*nical services during C construction. This. is to, observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations and to allow design changes in the event subsurface. conditions. differ 0 0 e do not accept responsibility from those anticipated prior t the start of construction. W -n for the performance of the foundation or earthwork'unless we are retained to review the M construction drawings and: specifications, and to. provide construction observation and M 065 testing. d 0 r Om C Cn C CD Q 0 Z X z Cn z 0 0 Earth.ConstAtente, Inc. z 0 0 m C/) -n co mo --lo 0 C: M M z -4 3: 0 n i -n M M. 0 0 M C: 9 M cn cn 0 Z X z -4 3: z 0 0 z 0 q 0 m =i 9 Drwn. OLS Date April 2002 Prcq. No. 10075 Chocked RAC jDate 4/12102 1 Pkde 2- Slope To Drain . . . . . . . . . . . .......... . . . . . ...... 'T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 A- . 0 i"A ..... 6 Inch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *014 18 inch min. C M --10 0C X M M Z 4 Inch min. Diameter 10-1 0 0 0 Z Perforated Pipe Wrapped In Drainage CP r :% .0.0; , Fabric 0 -n 2 Inch min. m m 2.1nch min. 4 Inch max. C4 12 Inch 0 min. 0 m C (n, C co M 0 z SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING IEGEND z Surface seal; native soil or other low permeability material. co 0* Fine aggregate for Portland Cement Concrete; Section 9-03.1(2) of the 0. 6 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. Mirafi 140 Filter Fabric or equivalent. TYPICAL FOOTING SUBDRAIN DETAIL Eaoh.Consultants Inc. Pepperwood CmoWdv*W &Wnmm cao� & &wkonnimad SCW*- Edmonds, Washington Proj.N,o Date Apr. 2002 Chocked RAc Date 4/12/02 :10075 n. GLS Tprw Plate 3 A ZV 7 00 0 0 : ...... . . . . . . . . 1. ,� : I. - .-N K. '80 �"­N ........ . ... . ..... Is, -�-*XaWs: ..... . ... jV "I PIPE, as. 4WOO-6 '60F T z 0 i 0 m -n c M 0 0* 0 c M M Z c _Z > Cl) 0 -n n'� m m 0 0 0 M C cl) ic Cl) M 0 Z,r- Z. Z 0 i 0 m APPENDIX A FIEL EXPLORATION E-10075. Our field exploration was performed on March 28, 2002. Subsurface conditions at the site were explored by observi ng a total of eleven test pit excavations. 'The test pits were Zr excavated . by a subcontractor of Phoenix. Development, Inc. The approximate test pit 0 locations were determined from existing landmarks presented on available plans.*. The locations of the test should be pits considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. These approximate test pit locations are shown on the Test Pit Location :49 Plan, Plate 2.. Co 0 C M The field 'exploration was continuously monitored by a -geologist from our office, who. MO 0 0 0� classified the soils. encountered. and maintained a log of each test pit, obtained C representative samples, measured groundv%eter levels, and observed. pertinent site X M M Z' features. All samples were visually'classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification Cn System that is presented on Plate, All, Legend. Logs of the test pits are, presented in 0 -n -n en App dix A, Plates A2 through A 12. The final logs represent our interpretations of the field logs and the results of the laboratory tests of field samples. The stratification lines M M - on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. In actuality, the CA transitions may be more gradual. 0 0 Fn C M 0 z z z 0 0 ITI Earth ConstAtents, Inc. GRAPH LETTER . MAJOR DIVISIONS iSYMBOL SYMBOL TYPICAL DES CRIPTION Gravel GW well -Graded Gravels, Gravel -Sand And 9W Mixtures, Little Or No Fines Clean Gravels tWa GP Poorly -Graded Gravels. Gravel - Gravelly (little or no fines) Coarse Soils gp Sand Mixtures, Little Or No Fines Grained Gm M Silly Gravels, Gravel -Sand - Soils More Than 50% Coarse Gravels With 1122 gM Silt Mixtures Praction Retained On Fines (appreciable amount of fines) - Clayey Gravels, Gravel - Sand - No. 4 Sieve Clay Mixtures Sand SW Well -Graded Sands, Gravblly And Clean Sand SW Sands. Little Or No Flnei More Than Sandy (little or no f Ines) SP �Sp Poorly -Graded Sands. Gravelly 50% Material Soils Sands, Little Or No Fines Larger Than More Than SM No. 200 Sieve 50% Coarse SM Silty Sands. Sand - Silt Mixtures Size Fraction Sands With Fines (appreciable A. Passing No.4 Sieve amount of fines) SC SIC Clayey Sands, Sand -Clay Mixtures Inorganic Silts & Very Fine Sands, Rock FloLr,Silty- Clayey Fine Sands; Clayey Silts w/ Slight Plasticity Fine Silts Liquid Limit CL Inorganic Clays of Low To Medium Plasticity, Grained Arid Less Than 50 A CI Gravelly Clays, Sandy Clays. Silty Clays. Lean Soils Clays Organic Silts And Organic Silty Clays Of Low Plasticity 1H �Mh Inorganic Silts, Micac.eous Or Diatomaceous Fire More Than !!!` .1 Sand Or Silty Soils 50% Material Smaller Tt-an Silts Liquid Limit And Inorganic Clays Of High No. 200 Sieve Greater Than 50 Clays _dh Plasticity, Fat Clays. Size OH organic Clays Of Medium To*High Silts V V oh Plasticity, Organic LI-11 L1.1-1 Peat, Humus. Swamp Soils Highly Organic S0116 P1 With High Organic Contents Topsoll H umus And Du if Layer Fill Hloly Variable Constituents 0 0 M NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS. CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. Test Pit Log Pr*d Narne: C�ee` of Pepperwood Job No. Logged by'. Test Pt No.: 10075 KCS 8/02 TP-10 E'Ca�n Contactw. Universal Land Ground Surface Elevatim: Notes: General W YE? CO Surface Cond�: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 12": fiems and bees Notes LO E () E U) >� Ca z sm Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist m 2 3 - C5 sm Gray silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist M, C m 4 0 0 oc� 8.5 5 -becomes dense at 6 M M z Test pit terminated at 6.0 feet below eAsting grade. No groundwater C encountered during e)cavation. Cn 0 -n M m 0 0 r 0 M C Ca ic Ca Q 0 z X Z 3: z Test Pit Log E.-Inh ConSL&MtS Inc. Pepperwood C*Med� FXOWA . M Gft*)056 FAMMMWN" SC*3*x.1. Edmonds, Washington IL Pro. No. 10075 Dwn. GLS Date Apri 2002 avecited KCS 5;; 4/10/02 Plate All 1 Subsurface conditions dePicted repasent our observatiom at ft One arvJ location of this exploratory hole, modffied by engine Luc!Lmnt ey am not necessarty representathoe of oew tknes and locations. Vve cannot accept res*onwbft for the use or% Of nn We L�n NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. Height calculation Work.shee.t FINAL.PROJECT APPROVAL FORM TO: DATE: ME MO TO: PERMIT COORDINATOR, BUILDING DIVISION FROM: FIRE DEPARTMENT DATE PLEASESIGN ENGINEERING DIVISION DATE QW, _Z16 z 0 PLANNING DIVISION DATE PLEAM SiGN M :�:PROJECT f r SITE ADDRESS K54,5 M C 0 M 0 A -PERMIT# 7 ADB# DATE INSPECTED- C M MZ DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE INSPECTED C Z' A.1ii Id inspection was, cond e ucted to det liance with approved plans. Fin I approval ermine comp a r denotes that there are no - objections from the above signed Department to the release of Cn 0 -n PERFORMANCE BONDS and the granting of: -n ;d > M M Cn 0 X GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL. M C: U) Cl) M C) Z M GRANT PROJECT APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS NOTED z .0 C 'f CONDITIONS given to owner/contractor by inspector o0y 0. Cn z 0 'FAILED FINAL INSPECTION - OUTSTANDING ISSUES M El. Copy of CORRECTION NOTICE given to owner/ contractor by inpector' ;3. RE, -INSPECTED OUTSTANDING ISSUES - GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL Date Signature. 1:teinp:b1dg:f0,mis:ocaprv1 3/25/04 FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL FORM TO: DATE: o Lo L'q 10 (0 MEMO TO: PERMIT COORDINATOR, BUILDING DIVISION FROM: FIRE DEPARTMENT DATE PLEASESIGN ENGINEERING DIVISION DATE z PLEASC SIGN OA�� VJ1AA,1V- 0 � PLANNING DIVISION DATE 0 PIXASC SIGN PROJECT M 01 AVDM 0 V e- F P- P -Ib o j- I CO --i SITE. ADDRESS 13' 4 C5 S\'V t5 0 M C M 0 0 0 0C PERMIT# 1/006— 0 2; ADB# DATEINSPECTED cei U1, V, cr 6 5 �1 o Ltryi 6-n X M M Z DES CRIPTION OF WOR K TO BE INSPECTED ZA11*Vq1*-F + &I '5(4r, 06vi ef- d 'e 61 ki C _Z 51io651,1 0-Y) SIA-r- plan. > r A. field inspection was conducted to determine compliance with -approved plans. Final approval, Cn denotes that there are no objections from the above signed Department to the release of. 0 -n PERFORMANCE BONDS and the granting of MM GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL 0 M ccn 9 C0 Q 0 z r M X GRANT PROJECT APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS NOTED z Copy of CONDITIO NS given to owner/contractor by inspector M z 0 FAILED FINAL INSPECTION- OUTSTANDING ISSUES 0 M Copy of CORRECTION NOTICE given to owner/contractor by inpector iyef'— FkavAi m-c_. a ci �1 o wo M Sf+r' P�avl 2- 6L VA au CA r (4 F k'a. VAI Y1 uA r 6L f-c> 3 pp At 17-tvi A vi VV AIKWA to-,n c,-" C+t cA L4 L-�, V i+ 61 C, RE -INSPECTED OUTSTANDING ISSUES - GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL Date Signature 1:temp:b1dg:fomis:ocaprv1 3/25/04 FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL FORM Gr TO: DATE: MEMO TO: PERMIT COORDINATOR, BUILDING DIVISION FROM: FIRE DEPARTMENT DATE PLEASESIGN ENGINEERING DIVISION DATE z PLEASE SIGN 0 PLANNING DIVISION DATE M PLEASE SIGN PROJE T MaCkVDVIIA CD\fe' PF C -P 7­0 0 7- 11 C M 2- 10 P 1 5 W SITE ADDRESS, Lo+ M 0 .0 0 C PERMIT 17,OL) 15 C)':f(P 5� ADB# DATE INSPECTED M MZ DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE INSPECTED clytet _ty"' VP 6(a+t C '+t' i avi C: > F_ A. field inspection was conducted to determine compliance with -approved plans. Final approval denotes that there are no objections from the above signed Department to the . release of 0 n -n;u PERFORMANCE BONDS and the granting,of M M. 0 r GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL 0M C CD .9 0) Q 0 Z q > GRANT PROJECT APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS NOTED Z El Copy of CONDITIONS given to owner/contractor by inspector z 0 M FAILED FINAL INSPECTION - OUTSTANDING ISSUES E1 Copy of CORRECTION NOTICE given to owner/contractor by inpector 2. 3. RE -INSPECTED OUTSTANDING ISSUES - GRANT FINAL PROJEC, T APPROVAL Date Signature 1:teMp:b1dg:f6nus:ocapn,1 3/25/04 A RECORD OF INSPECTIONS INSPECTOR DATE APPROVED SETBACKS ..................... FOUNDATION: Footing ...................... Wall ..... ...... ............. Pier/Porch .......... Retaining Wall ........... z Slab Insulation .......... M PLUMBING:. -n Underground .......... 1-Y) LO 3: M C Rough -In ................... 1711 0 Commercial Final ...... 0 0 0 C HEATING: M 1711 z Gas Test .................... C z Gas Piping ................... Equipment ................. -n Commercial Final ........ EXTERIOR SHEATHING M M NAILING ................... ; ...... O,M FRAMING ........................ vy) C co FIRST FLOOR FRAMING... M 0 Z INSULATION .................... Floor Insulation ......... Wall Insulation ........... z Ceiling Insulation ....... SHEETRO CK NAILING ... Z, 0 SPECIAL INSPECTION ... 0 M MISCELLANEOUS .......... FINAL APPROVAL FOR, 43 OCCUPANCY .................. Lp AMoutftm$ R` lined. pip wallffmdwifte 1?k 'Among DaleftfdMed— ROW 2- AMO=tPWd$ Expi I