Loading...
20050957.pdfDATE RECEIVED5/:r A '14_� F-Flil MIT EXPIRES /zOv W7 ER PERMIT __7 CITY OF EDMONDS NUMBER 6 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION JOB ADDRESS /EIAPT# OWNIR NAMEINAME OF BUSINEIS r to PLAT NAMEISUB DIV I SION NO. LOT NO LT6 NO MAILING ADDRESS LID FEE S PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP TESCP Approved 0 RW Permit Required 13 C) ?-610 Street USe Permit Required 13 CITY ZIP TELEPHONE EXISTING PROPOSED Inspection Required 0 Sidewalk Required C3 V\ EQUIRED DEDICATION FT Undergiciund [3 Lyyl 311612-5 - 71� L 2-1-1 (0, R Witinq requirrid E3 NAME METER SIZE LINE SIZE NO. OF FIXTURES PRV REQUIRED YES 0 NO E3 U, tj C, -;V4 t= ADDRESS REMARKS ILI z OWNER/CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROUDRAINAG U St CITY ZIP TELEPHONE N IS EaLZZ0 Al (-S /10AI 07i4t47-42 -*) 1% el 1 8) r� `4,�02tl L11.6- IL-IcIt 'It ­ NAME CBLOC 1,1,5,�5 - El a�w 11i - I GINEERING REVIEWED B DATE ix ADDRESS t V �11 2 T-L— —k) + W �5 U 2-clib i 0 FIRE REVIEWED BY DATE W z CITY TELEPHONE 0 impluxyid q&3 11 L LO I z RCU SHORELINE ORADB# INSREOTION SEPA STATE LICENSE NUMBER EXPIRATION DATE CHECKED BY D COMPLETED I EXEMPT 0 .1,00 0 13 YES ONO 0 Z. CA# 0;--I3:!j ZONE SIGN AREA HEIGHT M W -j PROPERTYT ACCOUNT PARCEL NO. ROPOSED AL ! ED -% 0 WAIVER 13 P12-P ALLOWED P PROPOSED LU 0 00 — STUDY _j Mb -74 NEW RESIDENTIAL PLUMBING if MECH LOT COVERAGE REQUIRED SETBACKS (FT.), PROPOSED SETBACKS (FT.) ALLOWED PROPOSED FRONT SIDE REA COMPLIANCE OR 7_0 & /V./ &RONT +�R SIDE RW M COMMERCIAL 110 2- 9 ElADDITION K 2-157 1 157 2� 2� C: CHANGE OF USE 05 -st /110 M 0 MIXED USE 0 PARKING LOTAREA PLANNING REVIEWED BY DATE 0 REMODEL MULTIFAMILY SIGN REO'D PROVIDED fft&Wf� 11) 11 DI lmDD5- 0 C WT�NG FENCE —4 K El REPAIR CYDS x FT.) REMARKS X M U6 jr:;�U* lrtx,-- requ�,r-f,� Mz OTHER MM dam 0 . DEMOLISH El TANK PRV-�;Ivaeyl+ tv afPkW%4 1"tj!�7 t,41 f L6 P Ila n /FPO C z GARAGE RETAINING WALL FIRE SPRINKLER > C1111111111111"11111,17 1:1 ROCKERY FIREALARM r (TYPE OF SINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN: IL U TYPE OF COTjUCnN QODE OCCUPANT GROUP 0 -n wo r7) -n Lu NUMBER NUMBER OF 0 OF DWELLING SPECIAL INSMCTIEN CONSULTANT OCCUPANT W 0 STORIES UNITS LOAD M X DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE REQUIRED M M REMARKS z 0 0 M GEOVgEPORT 10 C 0 BY: otj o U ic C/) Z r- ST� A M 0 DM B ILIA VALUATION ;U k I 11�- -y- $ *7 > 461 D� Description FEE Description FEE z tru-1i"a It rw_� Plan Check State Surcharge W Cn __jjEAT SOURCE LOT SLOPEQ/6 VESTED DAT . E Building Permit City Surcharge z 0 PLAN CHEC Plumbing Base Fee I M 0 Mechanical THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NO`fED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO 140 It BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBIC DONMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE Grading SEPARATE PERMISSION. Engr. Review PERMIT APPLICATION: SEE ECnC 19.00.005(A)(5) PERMIT LIMIT'. SEE ECDC 119.00.005(A)(6) Engr. Inspection SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION S Fire Review Plan Chk. Deposit U) 'APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSOR I- >I 11d, Uj IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF _j -7 :E EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND Fire Inspection Receipt # ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE, EDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE Landscapelnsp. Total Amt. Due _j DEEMED TO MODIFY. WAIVE OR R 41V 60 X1NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITY'S 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 This application is not a permit until signed by the THE OWNER. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC- CALL Building Official or his/her Deputy: and Fees are paid, and TION; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED receipt is acknowledged in space provided. IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO FOR INSPECTION WORKMEN'S COMPENSATIO�� RANCE AND RCW 18:27. F ALS SIGNAT �E DATE S E OWNE GeNT):i DATE SIGNED (425 J() 7125- 1( W 771-02.26( EL IED BY IDATE 3 ATTb+T404 N-� EXT. 133 IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL L 5 1 A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTI- ORIGINAL - FILE - YEII OW INSPICTOR FICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC109 if IBC110 f IRC110. PINK -OWNER - GOLD - ASSESSOR 10104 PRESS HARD - YOU ARE MAKING 4 COPIES XXXX 210TH PLACE 5N LEr--;7AL LOT CT, MAE:;)RONA 0OVE -RIPTION: DESC, 151TE A-REA. -7,0285 15aUARE FEET m ZONINO: PLANNEE:>- UNIT DEVELOPMENT -4EI6,HT OALOULATION (F-3A5EI:�> FROM EX15TIN(::--, <�RADE) CO Ma 0 A= 0 E3 5115' m 40 z 10 4%VERA67E EX15TINr---7 r---7RADE= 5qe5.-75, &,CTUAL BU I LD I N(� I HElr--.,HT= 424.c[2$ 0-n --lAXIM UM F-3UILF-,>INC-7 HElr--.7HT= -42-7.q2( PER \/ARIANr-,E V-05-101) 5,UR\,E TO PROVIDE F-3E,NCHMAR< M05T. mm NPROPRIATE FOR HEIOHT VERIFIOAT ION) cn or- IMPERVIOU5 AREA5 om c cn RE51F,>ENOE 1,-V ict-76 5OUARE FEET K cn. M 0, -75 5 r->RI\,EV4A-r5: OUARE FEET 0 > E C, < 100 15GZUARE FEET ^4AL<NAr5 50 5OUARE FEET TOTAL .5,0 -7cl 5OUARE FEET z m ir=t-MNT P41TH < vvi ep iv+- a LOT r-,O\IERAr-.7E LOT C-,O%,/EF;Z 67E 15 F-3A5Er:;) UPON 5596OF ENTIRE A PLANNEr:;) UNIT DEVELOPMENT) lcile> 50UARE FEET OF PROP05EL;> LOT (f OVERAC.7E (I NOLUPE5 5TRUC-,TURE, C.O\/EREI:;) PORGHE!5, OVER .50. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING'STUDY PEPPERWOOD RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Z' 0 8526 MAIN STREET EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 0 q:9,. E-10075 Cl) QM C M a., May 14,,2002 0 C., C PREPARED FOR PHOENIX DEVELOPMENT, INC. Cn 0 -n T.- M ni 10 0— A.. 0M C 9 0). MO. izr- M wo Ar z JEMPF -7 CC> Z. 01 Raymond -A. Coglas, P.E. 0 M Project Manager Earth Consultants, Inc. 1805 - 136th Place Northeast, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington. 98005 (2-06) 643-3780 Toll Free 1-888-739-6670 ILE IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT More construction problems are caused by site subsur- technical engineers who then render an opinion about face conditions than any other factor. As troublesome as overall subsurface conditions, their likely reaction to subsurface problems can be, their frequency and extent proposed construction activity, and, appropriate founda- have been lessened considerably in recent years. due in tion design. Even under optimal circumstances actual large measure to programs and publications of ASFE/ conditions may differ frorn those interred to exist, The Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in because no geotechnical engineer. no matter how I lie Gcosciences. qualified, and no subsurface exploration program. no Z The following suggestions and observations are offered matter how comprehensive. can reveal what is hidden by earth. rock and time. The actual interface between mate- 0 -4 to help you reduce the geotechnical-related delays, rials may be far more gradual or abrupt than a report 0 M cost -overruns anclother costly headaches that can indicates. Actual conditions in areas not sampled may occur during a construction project. differ from predictions. Nothing can be done to prevent the -n unanticipated. but steps can be taken to help minimize their Cn A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING impact. For this reason. most experienced owners retain their geolechnical consultants through the construction stage. to iden- 0 M C REPORT IS BASED ON A UNIOUE SET tify variances, conduct additional tests which may be ma 0 OF PROJECT -SPECIFIC FACTORS needed. and to recommend solutions to problems 80 -A geotechnical engineering report is based on a subsur- encountered on site. M face exploration plan designed to incorporate a unique lude: set of project specific factors. These typically ind SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS M Z C Z the general nature of the structure involved. its size and CAN CHANGE configuration: the location.of the structure on the site and its orientation: physical concomitants such as tly- Subsurface conditions.may be modified by constan, 5) access roads, parkin g lots. and underground utilities, changing natural forces. Because a geotechnical engi- neering report is based onconclitions which existed at 0 -n n.� and the level of additional risk which the client assumed by virtue of limitations imposed upon the exploratory the time of subsurface exploration, construction decisions should not be based on a geotechnical engineering report whose M M program. To help avoid costly problems, consult the geotechnical engineer to determine how any factors, adequacy may have been affected by time. Speak with the geo- 0— Cn 0 which change subsequent to the date of the report may technical consultant to learn if additional tests are advisable before construction starts. 0 M C Ca affect its recommendations. Unless your consulting geotechnicai engineer indicates Construction operations at or adjacent to the site and natural events such as floods. earthquakes or ground C Cn Q 0 Z r- otherwise. your geotecht iical engineering report should not water fluctuations may also affect subsurface conditions M be used: I When the nature of the proposed structure is and. thus. the continuing adequacy of a geotechnical report. The geotechnical engineer should be kept changed. for example. if an office building will be apprised of any such events, and should be consu Ited to > Z erected instead of a parking garage. or if a refriger- ated warehouse will be built instead of an unre- determine if additional tests are necessary. frigerated one. When the size or configuration of the proposed GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ARE Cn Z structure is altered; PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES 0 When the location or orientation of the Proposed AND PERSONS structure is modified: 0 When there is a change of ownership. or Geotechnical engineers� reports are prepared to meet - for application to an adjacent site. the specific needs of specific individuals. A report pre - Geolechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility for problems pared for a consulting civil engineer m ay not be ade- for a construction contractor. or even some o ther which may develop if they are not consulted after factors consid- ered in their report's development have changed. quate consulting civil engineer. Unless indicated otherwise.. this report was prepared expressly for the client involved and expressly for purposes indicated by the client. Use MOST GEOTECHNICAL "FINDINGS" by any other persons for any purpose. or by the client result in No indi- ARE PROFESSIONAL ESTIMATES for a different purpose may problems. vidual other than the client should apply this report for its Site exploration identifies actual subsurface conditions intended purpose without first conferring with the geolech nical only at those points where samples are taken. when they are taken. Data derived through sampling and, sub- engineer. No. person should apply this report for any purpose other than that originally contemplated without first conferring Sequent laboritory testing are extrapolated by geo- with the geole(hiii(al engineer. Phoenix- Development May 14, 2002 E-10075 We, appreciate the opportunity to provide our services during the dosi gn phase of the project. If you have questions about the content of this geotechnical engineering study, or if we can be of further assistance, please call. z Sincerely 7r): EA CONSULTANTS INC. ED M C rTl F 02 ond A. Cogi :XM ..E Project Manager. M z RACrJrne o -n MM 0 0 C Cal M 0: Z.rl 7 X z z M Earth Consultants, Inc. V TABLE OF CONTENTS E-10075 ILLUSTRATIONS Plate, 1 Vicinity Map P14te.2 Test Pit Location Plan 0 Plate, 3 Typical Footing Subdrain Detail Plate 4 Typical Utility Trench Fill APPENDICES Appendix A Field Exploralion �.0 m 0 PlateAl Legend 0 C. Plates A2 through Al 2 Test Pit Logs m m rn z.. Appendix B. Laboratory Test Results C 'Plate Bi Grain Size Analyses vi O.-W m M 0- r Ow. m CA m 0 Z r Z, 0 m Earth Consultents, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEF;dNG STUDY PEPPEF;1WOOD RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 8526 MAIN STREEIF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON E-10075 Z 0 MON Qmara This report presents geotechnical recommendations fo r the proposed Pepperwood CD 0 M C Residential Development to be located at 8526 Main Street, Edmonds, Was hington. The, MO 0 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 XIM, Test Pit Location Plan, Plate 2. Our scope of services included asubsurface exploration. ITIZ to characterize soil conditio' ns at the site, and preparation of this report w ith geotechnical C recommendations for the proposed site development. Pinied na-gr-ripti 0 -n -n We understand development of the site will consist of a 22-lot subdivision and 3: ITIM construction of a storm water detention vault. New access roadways will be constructed 0 throughout the propert y, and will connect to Main Street on the upper east half of the 0 M -property and Pioneer est portion of the property. At the time this Way along the lower w CA ITI 0 geotechnical engineering study was prepared, a f inal grading plan had not been Z r completed. However, we anticipate that cuts and fills will be necessary to establish the X building lot and roadway grades. Construction of a storm water detention vault Is --I proposed for the lower west portion of the site, along the new access roadway that 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 roadw ay grades f or. the new access roadw ay that w ill connect Z 0 to Pioneer Way. 0 M The use of rockeries may be necessary to transition grades in landscaping areas an d to s provide permanent erosion control along c uts. Reinforced rockeries may al o 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 ConsUtants, Inc. .GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 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 02) feet in height and was likely constructed during widening and improvements to Main Street. An assessment of the existing rockeey is provided in the Rockeries section of this report. z The use of relatively lightly loaded wood frame construction is anticipated for the 0 M, proposed single family residences. We estimate wall loads will be in the range of one to two kips per lineal foot, and column loads in the range of ten (10) to twenty (20) kips. _n ca, OM C If the above design criteria are incorrect or change, ECI should be notified and allowed to MID review the recommendations contained in this report. In any case, ECI should be retained 0 -40 to perform a general review.of the final design. C M. -M z SITE CONDITIONS 10--i C Z Surface The approximate property limits and site topography are illustrated on the Test Pit 0 -n -n 'Location Plan (Plate 2). The majority of the site is undeveloped and heavily vegetated, X 9 with the exception of several rental homes located along Main Street. The topography is M M partitioned into two halves, with a slope area approximately bisecting the site in a north- 0 M ist at grades of approximately 30 percent south direction. The slopes descend to the we C 0) C CD A to 40 percent. The overall height of the slope ranges from appro mately forty (40) to IT! o Z 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 northeast corner of the site. As previously discussed, the existing rockery will be z incorporated into the. new development, and the driveway areas. will likely be filled to, 0 create a level building lot area. The maximum height of the existing rockery is approximately ten (10) to twelve (12) feet. The lower west portion of the development area is located at the toe Of the existing slope that approximately bisects the property in a north -south direction. The immediate toe area of the site is relatively flat, and is located along an existing. utility easement corridor that connects to Main Street on the north and Pioneer Way on the south. On the extreme west side of the property, west of the utility easement, there is an area of ascending steep slopes. Development is not planned in this area. Eatth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEPJNG STUDY Phoenix Development, Inc. E-1 0075 May 14, 2002 Page 3 Steep Slope Evaluation At the time our field exploration was performed (March 2002), the steep slope areas of the site were observed for signs of instability or severe erosion. Based on our Z observations, the steep slope areas appear stable. There were no indications.of shallow or deep seated slide activity. The slope areas are generally hea vily vegetated with mature 0 Douglas Fir, and there were no indications of severe erosion due to surface water runoff. Based on our, observations, it appears the slopes are stable. :n CD 0 Subsurface M C rn 0 Eleven test pits were excavated throughout the site. The test pits were excavated to 0 C depths of approximately five to eight feet,, where very dense glacial till soil conditions M rn were encountered. Please refer -to the test pit logs, Plates A2 through Al 2, for a rn z JO -I description of the conditions encountered atAhe test pit locations. CE > 0) The soils encountered at the test.pit locations consisted of medium dense to very dense o -n silty sand with gravel (Unified Soil Classification SM). Sand deposits were occasionally n observed throughout the glacial till deposit. The depth of the, topsoil layer varied, and. rn typically ranged between two inches to twelve 0 2) inches. The. geologic map of the area m identifies the silty sand with gravel deposit as glacial till. The upper- three to four feet of 0 0 M the soil deposit generally consisted of weathered glacial till. The weathered till was in a C W C Cn medium dense condition, and was characterized by brown to dark brown coloring. Dense M 0 Z to very dense, unweathered glacial till was encountered below the weathered glacial till layer. The unweathered glacial till was generally characterized by a gray to dark gray X coloring.� M Z Fill was observed at test pit locations TP-4 and TP-5. The fill consisted of loose silty sand soils, and extended to depths of four to five feet. Yard waste piles were also observed W along thetop 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 wectithered 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 ENGINEENNG STUDY Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075 May 14, 2002 Page 4. Groundwater Groundwater seepage was not observed at the time of our exploration (March 2002). The presence of light to moderate groundwater seepage, however, should be expected in deep excavations. Based on the conditions observed at, the time of our field exploration, z 0 we. do not anticipate groundv%oter seepage will adversely impact the earthwork. Groundwater seepage..levels and the rate of seepage are not static; fluctuations in the =i:9 level and rates can be expected depending on the season, amount of rainfall, surface water runoff, and other factors. Generally, the. level. and rate of seepage is higher in 0M C the wetter winter months (typically October through May). M 0 0 0 0 Laboratory TegLng M M z C) --I The results of laboratory tests performed on specific samples are provided in Appendix B,' C: or at the appropriate sample depth on the test pit logs. It is important to note that these X test results may not accurately represent the overall in -situ soil conditions. Our Vj geotechnical recommendations are.based on our interpretation'of these test results. -ECI 0 -n n cannot be responsible for the interpretation of these data by others. MM DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS co 0 r- . . I 0 M C 0) General �Qo Z Based on the subsurface conditions observed at the test pit locations, development of the M 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 CD existing site. grades. The rnedium dense to dense glacial till soil suitable for support of z 0 foundations was generally observed at a depth of approximately two feet below the native ground surface elevation. rn Earth Consultants, Inc. 11110 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Phoenix Development, Inc. E-1 0075 May 14, 2002 Page 5 Due to the dense condition of the glacial till soils and the stable condition of the steep slope area, a minimum steep slope buffer of ten (10) feet from the top and toe of the steep slope areas can be considered for the proposed single-family residences. As previously discussed, the, site survey prepared by Group Four,, Inc. indicates. that the Z steep slope areas within the planned development area. are limited to the north end of the site' adjacent to. Building Lot 9.- In our opinion, reinforced fill rockeries can be successfully constructed on the existing steep slope, provided an engineered rockery M design is completed. Steep slope buffer and foundation recommendations are provided in =i 9 the Steep Slope Buffer and, Foundations sections of this report. Preliminary rockery a design recommendations are provided in the Rockeries section of this report. M C M 0 0 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 3: M the upper, row of the rockery, however, will need to be replaced due to severe, M Z weathering. ECI will work with the contractor to identify the rocks that need to be. C: replaced. With regard to the existing driveway areas that will likely be filled and brought X 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 o n design will also be needed for the proposed fill areas along the alignment of the existing. Main Street rockery. M M 55 0 In our opinion,. construction of the proposed storm water detention vault is feasible from a. 0 M CO geotechnical standpoint. Medium dense to dense glacial till soil will likely be encountered, M 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 ;U the storm water detention vault. How I ever, in our opinion, groundv�eter 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 Way. These cuts may encroach into the toe of the existing steep slope areas on the west M side of the property. Due to the dense glacial till soil conditions observed at the site, it is, our opinion the roadway cuts will not compromise the stability of the slopes. - We anticipate''the roadway cuts will not.exceed six feet along the toe of the steep slopes. In our opinion, construction of a rockery along the planned roadway cuts can be considered. Earth Consultants Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFUNG STUDY Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075 May 14, 2002 Page 6 This geotechnical engineering study has been prepared for the exclusive use of Phoenix Development, Inc. and their representatives. This study was prepared for specific application to this project only and in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar z conditions in this area. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. We 0 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 CO) Site Preparation and General Earthwork M M 0 The proposed development areas of the site should be stripped and cleared of existing 00 C: surface vegetation, topsoil, existing structures, and other deleterious materials. Existing M utility pipes that will be abandoned should be plugged or removed. Based on the M z conditions observed at the test pit locations, the thickness of the topsoil layer ran ges C: z > between approximately two (2) inches to twelve (12) inches. The thickness of the topsoil layer will vary throughoutthe site. o -n -n The ground surface where structural fill, or fou ndations are to be placed should be Ic . I X M, observed by a re presentative of ECI. An ECI representative should also observe the M V5 excavation for the proposed storm water detention vault and roadway cuts. Existing fill 0 soil and , organic debris. that is encountered in the building and vault foundation 0 M C Cn excavations should be overexcavated. Due to the relatively high iin*es content of the 9 CO ffl�o native soils,- moisture sensitivity.of the ' soils will be moderate to high. Building and Z pavement subgrade areas that are exposed to extended periods of precipitation will likely X become unstable. If the subgrade soil in the proposed foundation and pavement areas becomes saturated and unstable overexcavation of the unstable soil 'and replacement z with structural fill may be necessary. Vi In our opinion, the majority of.the native soils can be considered for use as structural fill, z 5 provided the soil is placed, during dry weather conditions, and provided the moisture 0 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 ENGINEEFIING 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 optimu rn moisture content, and. having a maximum aggregate size of four inches. During w et weather.. conditions, imported fill should consist of a fairly well graded granular material having a maximum Z 0 size of four inches and no more than 5 percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve based on the minus 3/4-inch fraction. M Structural f ill is defined as compacted fill placed under found ations, roadways, slabs, Cj) pavements, or other loa&-bearing areas. Structural fill under slabs and footings should be X M placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding twelve (112) inches in loose thickness and C M compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of its laboratory ma ximurn dry density. The 0 .80 maximum dry density should be determined in accordance with ASTIVI Test Designation C D-1 557-91 (Modified Proctor). The fill materials should be placed at o r near the optimum X M M Z moisture content. Fill under pavements and walks should also be placed in horizontal lifts C and,comp acted to 90 percent of the maximum dry density except for the top twelve (112) > -s, which should be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density. If a incht Cn structural fill berm is necessary to construct the, storm water detention pond, the fill dry density. 0 -n should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum. m m Ste6p Slope Butte 0. - In our opinion, due t o the dense condition of the glacial till soils observed,at the site, and. Om C CZ) C 0 i MU ten (110) foot buffer -from the the stable condition of the existing slope areas,.a m ni m t M ZO top: and to' of the steep slope areas can be considered for the proposed. single4amily e residences. The ds Development Standards for Geologi cally Hazardous City'of Edmon X Areas are found und er Title 20 (Chapter 20.15B). The Development Standards allow the. X > f et, provided a required buffer distance to be reduced from fifty (50) feet. to ten .(10) e Z geotechnical report can demonstrate that no adverse impacts t o the slope or surroundirig developmen -result. In our -opinion reducing the buffer distance : to ten (10) feet Will ts will Z not adversely impact the stability of.the steep slope areas. The observed stability of the 0 0 existing slope and the. presen ce of dense glacial till soils is the primary basis f r this M recommendation. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Phoenix Development, Inc. May 14, 2002. In our opinion, grading and the placement of fill on. the slope will not advers stability of the slope. We understand fill placement along the backside budding lots adjacent to the slope areas may be necessary to establish backyard areas. Reinforced fill rockeries can be used to transition the grad fill and the slope. In our opinion, due to the dense glacial till soil cond rockery placement on the slope will not adversely impact the stability of previously discussed, an engineered -reinforced rockery design should be the proposed fill and rockery areas. Foundations In our opinion, the proposed single family residences can be supported oi spread and continuous footings bearing on -,the medium dense to. dense observed at the test pit locations. Where necessary, the proposed buildit can also be supported on structural fill that is used to modify the existir .Foundations should not be supported on the existing fill soils. The mei dense glacial till soils suitable for support of foundations was generally depth of approximately two feet below the native ground surface elevation. For foundations bearing. on the medium dense to dense glacial till soil or sl allowable soil bearing capacity of two thousand five hundred (2,500) pou foot (psf) can be used.. This allowable soil bearing capacity has a faci excess of 3.0 against shear, failure, provided the foundations are placed native soils or structural, fill. A one-third increase in the above allowat ,capacity can be assumed for short-term wind and seismic loading conditior .and individual spread footings should have minimum widths. of eighteen (1 four (24.) inches, respectively. If loos.e.or unstable soil conditions are encountered at thef6oting subgradi soil should be overexcavated, and replaced with structural fill. The overexcavation should extend a minimurn of six inches beyond eact foundation. Exterior foundations elements *should be placed at a minimum depth o' inches below final exterior grade. Interior spread foundations can be placei depth of twelve (12) inches below the top of slab,. except in unheatei interior foundation elements should be founded at a minimum depth o inches. Earth Consultants, Inc. 10075 Page 8 ict the upper V level !en the 111 and z ie. As 0 --I ted for 0 RI Cn -14 M C !ntional M 0 —10 0 till soil C dations M. M Z 3rades. ,rise to C Z ,d at a Cn 0 -n fill, an X M M square ''0 CA ifety in 0 0 M, ripetent C Cn bearing M 0 Z tinuous iwenty- z ion, the 3: of the of the z 0 0 M en (18) flnimum where en (18) JNG STUDY. GEOTEC"NICAL ENGINEER Phoenix Development, Inc. t-10075. May 14, 2002 Page 9 o nda ions contained Provided the foundations are placed in accordance with ther ec; mme in this report we estimate total. settlement of approximately one inch and differential settlement of approximately on e half inch. Most of the anticipated settlements should occur during construction as dead loads are applied. z Lateral. loads can be resisted by friction between the base of the foundation and the 0 supporting soil, and by passive soil pressure acting on the face of the buried portion of the foundation. Resistance to lateral loads from passive earth pressures can be calculated using an equivalent fluid with a unit vveight of three hundred fifty (350) pounds per cubic foot (pcf). To achieve adequate passive resistance the foundations must be. backfilled M C M with structural fill. As an alternative, the foundations can be poured n eat 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 X in M Z values are allowable values; a facto r-of-safety of 1.5 has been included. f ECI prior to placin g the Footing excavations should be observed by a representative o. formwork and repar. ECI should also observe areas w here overexcavation is required to .0 -n remove loose or unstable soils. MM Permanent Retaining and Foundation Walls Retaining and foundation walls should be designed to resist lateral earth. pressures f rom 0 rn C Ca" C CD the retained soils, and any surcharge loading. W alls 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 X -4 equivalent fluid with a unit weight of fi fty (50) pcf. The above equivalent fluid yalues X > assume surcharges due to traffic, adjacent foundations, -construc ion loads, or any o ther z loadings will not apply. If surcharges are to apply, they. should be added to the above design lateral pressures. CD z For traffic surcharg. e loading, a uniform pressure of seventy (70) psf should be applied in 0. 0 a rectangu tar distribution along the height of the retaining . wall. It sloping backfill M h slope configurations and conditions are present behind the Walls, ECI should review t e, provide modified equivalent fluid.values, as necessary. Eafth ConstAtants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 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 3W inch fraction). The zone of free -draining granular soil should extend along the entire height of the wall, and a distance Z of at least eighteen (18) inches behind the wall. A surface seal consisting of a less. 0 permeable silty sand soil can be placed along the, upper one foot of the wall backfill, if 0 M desired. The remainder of the backfill behind the zone of free draining soil should consist of. a suitable granular structural fill. _n Seismic Design Considerations M C: M 0 0 —40 The Puget Sound region is classified as Zone 3 by the Uniform Building Code (UBC). The 0 C largest earthquakes in the Puget Sound region have been subcrustal (intraplate) events,. MM M Z ranging in depth from fifty (50) to seventy (70) kilometers. Such deep events have C Z exhibited no surface faulting. Weaver, and Shedlock (1989) researched the probable or > r known source areas for the crustal, intraplate, and subduction zone ear thquakes. in the Washington and Oregon area. Crustal and intraplate earthquakes are the only events in 0 _n Washingtonand Oregon in which there is a historical record. Shallow crustal earthquakes -n occur within the North American Plate, and ty ically do not exceed focal depths of P M M approximately 20 kilometers. intraplate earthquakes occur in the subducting Juan de 0.5 0'r— Fuca plate,. and typically occur below depths of 40, kilometers. The recent February 28, OM earthquake that was focused just north of Olympia, -Washington was an intraplate C: 0) earthquake, and had a magnitude of ML 6.8. The subduction zone earthquake, in which Q 0 Z F there is no historical record in the Washington and Oregon area, would have its source along the interface between the North American Plate and the subducting Juan de. Fuca X Plate. Magnitude 8 + earthquakes are thought to be possible along this i.nterface, and would occur at depths of approximately 50 to 60 kilometers (Weaver and Shedlock, Z 1989). The UBC Earthquake regulations have established a series of soil profile types that are Z 0 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 LIBC should be M* 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 ENGINEEFUNG STUDY Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075 May 14, 2002 Page 11 To. have potential for liquefaction, a . soil must be cohesionless with. a grain size distribution of a specified range (generally sands and silt); it must be loose to medium dense; it must be below the groundv%ater table; and it must be subject to sufficient magnitude and duration of groundshaking. Z Based on the soil and groundv%eter conditions observed at the site, it is our opinion that 0 M the site has.a low susceptibility to liquefaction. The dense condition of the native soils is the primary basis for this conclusion. -n CD Slab -on -Grade Floors M C M 0 Slab -on-grade floors can be supported on competent native soils or structural fill. Loose, 80 C or unstable subgrade soils should be stabilized prior to construction,of the slab., Theuse M M Z of a geotextile and crushed rock can be considered for stabilizing the s.ubgrade* soils, if necessary. A four4nch capillary break consisting of a free draining poorly graded sand or, 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 0 _n -undesirable, a vapor barriersuch as a 6-mil plastic membrane can be placed beneath the -n free draining sand or. gravel. The subgrade soils in.slab-on-grade'areas of the site sho uld M M be observed by a representative of ECI. prior to placing the capillary break material. CO 0- 0 M C CD Site Draingge C Cn M 0 Z r During construction, surface water runoff must not be allowed. to stand in construction areas. Interceptor trenches should be established, as necessary, along the perimeter of 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 Z soils. Finish grades around the buildings must be sloped, such.that surface water, is directed away from the buildings. Z 0 Perimeter footing drains should be installed around the perimeter foundations to intercept 0 groundv�eter seepage. A typical perimeter footing drain detail is illustrated'on Plate 3. M Under no circumstances should roof downspout drain lines be connected to the footing or foundation wall drain systems. All roof downspouts must be separately tightlined to the site storm water system. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEENNG ES DY 'TU Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075 May 14, 2002 Page 12 Excavations and Slopes The following information is provided solely as a service to our client. Under no circumstances should this information be interpreted to mean that ECI is assuming Z 0 responsibility for construction site safety or the contractor's activities; such responsibility is not being implied and should not be inferred. M In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits, specified in local, state, =i 9. ca and Federal, safety regulations. - Based on the information obtained from our field 0M C exploration, the upper deposit of weathered glacial till Ahat extends to a depth of M0 —40 approximately four feet below existing site grades would be classified as Type C soils by 00 OSHA. The existing fill ob rved at the site would also be classified as Type, C soil. ped eper than Temporary cuts in Type C soils should be slo at an inclination no ste M M Z 11.5HA V (Horizontal: Vertical), respectively. The unweathered glacial till observed below a C depth of approximately four feet would be classified as Type A and Type B soils by' OSHA. Temporary slopes constructed in Type A and Type B soils should be inclined no steeper than 0.75H: 1 V and 1 H: 1 V, respectively. ECI should observe the excavations to 0 -n -n assess.soil and groundv%eter conditions, and to verify the OSHA soil type. M M Permanent cut. and fill slopes should be inclined no steeper than 2H:1V. Cut slopes 0 should be observed by ECI during excavation to verify that conditions are as anticipated. 0 C M Ch Supplementary recommendations can then be developed,.if needed, to. improve stability, 9 Cn M including flattening of. slopes or installation of surface or subsurface drains. In any case,. 0 Z water should not be allowed, to flow uncontrolled over the top of slopes. Permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation > to reduce erosion and improve stability of the surficial layer of soil. Z Cn Utilily Trench Backfill Z 0: Based on the soil conditions encountered at the time of our exploration, the native soils 0 M should provide adequate support for utilities. If remedial measures are necessary to provide adequate support for utilities, the unsuitable soils can be ovierexcavated and replaced with a rock ballast and pipe bedding material such as pea. gravel. The presence of groundv%oter seepage should be expected in the deeper utility trench excavations and the proposed detention vault excavation. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEENNG 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 z excess of 16 percent. The lower deposit of unweathered, glacial till was generally in a 0 moist to wet condition, and had moisture contents of approximately'10 percent. ECI will work with the contractor to assess the suitability of the on -site soils for use as utility M trench backfill. As previously mentioned, the soil should be placed during dry weather :n conditions, and the moisture content of the soil should be at or near its optimum moisture content at the time of placement. C� M M -40 Utility trench backfi.11 is a primary concern in. reducing the potential for settle merit in 0 0 C pavement areas. It is important that the utilities be adequately supporbed in the bedding -4 X M material. The material should be hand tamped to ensure support is provided around the M Z. -4 haunches of these structures. Fill should be carefully placed and tamped to about twelve C >Z. (1*2) inches above the crown.of the pipe before heavy compaction equipment is brought Ca into use. The remainder of the backfill should be placed in lifts having a loose thickness 0 -n of less, than twelve (12) inches. A typical trench backfill.. section and compaction -n -requirements for load supporting and non4oad supporting areas is presented on Plate 4. M M 0 U5 Rockeries 0 r 0 M C CD We understand the existing rockery located along Main Street at the northeast portion of the site'will be incorporaled into the new development. The rockery, is approximately Z 180 feet in length, and ranges between four (4) feet to twelve (12) feet in height. We estimate the rockery has been in place for approximately twenty-five years.. Two existing driveways that. ramp up through the alignment of the rockery face will be filled as part of z -the proposed development to. establish a level building lot area. Construction of new reinforced fill rockeries is currently being considered for purposes of retaining the new fill. CD As discussed previously, an engineered rockery design will needto be completed for the Z 0 reinforced fill rockeries proposed for the site. .0 M Based on our observations, the majority of the existing Fockery has experienced minor to moderate weathering. The minor to moderate weathering was primarily observed along the lower rows of the rockery. In our opinion, these rocks are still structurally sound and will not have to be replaced. Several of the upper rocks have. experienced severe weathering, and should be replaced. These rocks are located primarily along the higher portions of the rockery. ECI will work with the contractor in identifying rocks that shou ld be replaced. Earth Consultant_�, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFUNG STUDY Phoenix Development, Inc. E-101075 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 forpavements, the subgrade should be in a firm and unyielding condition when subjected to proofrolling with a loaded dump Z truck:. Structural fill in pavement areas should be prepared as. described in the Site 0 Preparation. and General Earthwork section. of this report. This means the pavement M subgrade' should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density. It is, possible that some localized areas of soft, wet or unstable subgrade may exist after the -n ' pavement subgrade is prepared. Overexcavation and a greater thickness of structural fill X or crushed rock may be needed to stabilize these localized areas.. A biaxial geogrid such C M M as Tensar BX-11 200 can be considered for use below the crushed rock where bridging of 0 0 unstable subgrade is necessary. M MZ -load Assuming a properly prepared subgrade, the following pavement section for lightly ed areas can be used: Z W Two inches of asphalt concrete (AQ over four inches of crushed'rock base (CRB) 0 -n material, or. -n M M Two inches of AC over three inches of asphalt treated base (ATB) material. 0 75 0- r 0 M C 0) Heavier truck -traffic areas will. require thicker pavem ent sections depending upon site usage pavement life, and site traffic. If necessary, EQ can provide pavement d esign M Zo recoW�endations for truck traffic areas. M Asphalt concrete (AC), asphalt treated base (ATB), and crushed rock base, (CRB) materials > should conform to WSDOT specifications. All rock bases should be compacted to at Z least 95 percent of the maximum dry density. 5i LIMITATIONS Z 0 0 M Our recommendations *and conclusions are based on the site materials observed s elective laboratory testing and engineering analyses, the design information provided to us, and our experience and engineering judgement. The conclusions and recomm endations 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 simi ar conditions in this area. No warranty is expressed or implied. Earth Consultants, Inc. "NIT ut,, cz (W) C�4 0 cu *H 0 POP 14111111 o"We 691 c 0 CD a 921 0 0 (L CO 1,,p ottam (1) a LL um 0 a) 2 cu FItt cu 0 9 Fm 0 08 timmil 0. M W 1110,11, 0 0 %MPOR 0 DOMINION (1) ,Ito oiw,fo III,atOD 0 0 or( Sell I pst .1 ..1.. 1 1 4rm 6 LL It, 0 so 0 0 cl) j 01 cz 4:3 I't"" D3 0 0 0 4 .0 . 68 M 0 %! 0 002 0 1 (1) cu FL 00 U) L) c TWOR 0 cu % (f) D CL cz .00 IAICZ, I 00 a C) CL 75 0 10 & 0 Oft Into 0) 0 0 X. 410`0 W II,, E ItIt' 9 (D co cc ate a < GROIN 4, 6 tow" .5 f (D 0"', "'Itt 19 I 42,w, ac 0 ..Of: co 0 0' 10 0 (S .'a - 1. 0!".. It 0 CL m 0 CL It te, 1 0 CD4 01 . . ... co Gott, 9 t r oft co oil I a) 40,00 04- 4 c c 0 c < '0-4 9, 1 10 (a) 0 0 0 oimof III,@ 0 111, U Posts, 0 00 ... .... .... Lc) I cu -.N CO 0 if IQ 4 0 000 twtof co 4 CL 2 to I"', 0 a Aloof 0 to < 0 Co CL 0 cu a= I Od ...... too 00 0 E E cu to 4100"m 0 0 Itt, I,tt VS9 E c 0 Lutim,ol 'E am 0 9,,,, a) I � 0 cc Co ca cc Items cc cc Lu too la,4 00 :2 L) cu m 0 ... it;VvIet IT ut) C) 0 0 CL -7 o NOTICE:' 1�'THE - DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN'THis'NOTICE. APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION E-10075 Our field exploration was performed on March 28, 2002. Subsurface conditions at the site were explored by observing a total of eleven test pit excavations. The test pits were z 0 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 pits should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the. =Pii method used.. These approximate test pit locations are shown on the Test Pit Location Vi -4 Plan, Plate 2. M C rTI 0 The field exploration was continuously monitored by. a geologist from our office, who 80. C classified the soils encountered and maintained a log of each test pit, obtained rn representative samples, measured groundv%eter levels, and observed pertinent site M z a es. fe tur C 2 All in Unified. Soil Classification r samples were visually a.sified accordance with the -cl s System that is presented. on Plate Al, Legend. Logs of the test pits are presented in. 0 -n Appendix.A, Plates A2 through Al 2. he final logs represent our interpretations of the rn field logs.and the results of the laboratory tests of field samples. The stratification lines . . rn 0 ca a on th e I ogs represent the a pproximate boundaries between soil types. In actu lity, th e 0 transitions may be more gradual. or C M CD C Cl) M 0 z r z Z .0 M Earth ConstAlants, Inc. P-- - III PI pp -- I Inorganic Clays 01 Ifigh Ch I I'lasticilY. Fat Cl ayS Topsoil Ilumus And Duff Layer Fill Iligily V.IrLi6le Constituents z 0 0 m =i 9 cj) -1 x m c rn -40 O.c -4 K X M M Z, 0 -n mm mm 0 0 rn C (J) c co MO Z z z 0 0 m Tvit'pit Log Projed Name: Sheet of Pep perwood Job No. Logged by: Date: Test Pit No.:. 10075 KCS 3128/02 3, TP-1 Excavation Contactor Ground Surface Elevation: Universal -Land 420'. Notes: -6 A Surface Cxinditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 4": grass General W M Go- E :S . CL cL -E '00) E Notes %) C, z SM Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist 0 M 13.3 2 -30% fines -n 0M 3 C M 0 4 ML Gray sandy SILT, medium dense, moist 0 C 16.4 5 M M z SM -mottling at 5 Gray silty SAND medium dense to dense, moist 10 5A 6 Z 7 r 14.5 Test pit terminated at 7.5 feet below e)dsfing grade. No groundwater 0 -n. n encountered during e)cavation. NOTES: Elevations estimated by a TopograThic Site Plan provided by the M M Client- Survey by Group Four Inc. ated MM. 0 0 M C C/) M 0 Z z Cj) z 0 M CM C3 U1 Test Pit Log Earth Consultant's Inc. Pepperwood Edmonds, Washington CL — 10075 Dwn. GLS Date April 2002 Checked KCS Date 4/10/02 Plate A2 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the tirm and location of this exploratory hole. modified by engineering tests. analysis and juckjmenL They are not necessarily represwitative of othK tirnes and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of rj) .0 . M 'co :mo io 0 C MM .mz 1c) --I 0 -n M m 0 0 0 M C cj) c ch M 0 Z z z 0 1 0 m z M =i T, Projed Nam: StHMA Of Pepperwood 1 1 Job No Logged by: Date: Test Pd No.: 1 00�5 KCS 3/28/02 TPA Excavation Contactor. Ground Surface Elevation: Universal Land 404' Notes: R 6 surface Corwitions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 4". brush debris General W 0 CL .0 E �r_ ra. CL , CL E U) 0 �O (0 E Notes >' U) _ C1 :) _ SM Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist 2 3 4 11.2 5 SP-SM Brown poorly graded,SAND with silt and gravel, medium dense, moist 5% fines 71 6 SM Gray silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist to wet 16.9 7 8 Test pit terminated at 8.0 feet below e)dsting grade. No groundwater encountered during e)cavation. Ci up Test Pit Log Eard-i Consullan(s Inc. Pepperwood Edmonds, Washington n. W Pfoi. No. 10075 I Dmi. GLS -Fw e April 2002 UK6wd KCS I Date 4/10/02 - A5 =i'-fi Tedt' Pit Log Proiect Narne: el Of Peppenvood Job No. Logged by: Dal Test Pit No.: 10075 KCS 3/28/02 TP-6 Excavation Contactor. Ground Surfaoe Elevation: Universal Land 395'. Notes: :E A U) 0 surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 2": grass General Notes, W OL M E CL _; CL E n E z 0 SM Brown silty SAND with gravd, medium dense, moist 0 M 2 Cj) 10 3 M C MO 4 -some mottling at 3- 4' 0 0 0 i a SP-SMI Brown poorly graded SAND with silt medium dense, moist C 5 - M M z SM Gray silty SAND with gra\&4, dense, moist Test p terminated at it .5.5 feet below e)dsting grade. No groundwater during C z > encountered e)cavation. r Cn 0 -n -n MIT! 0 OM C M 0 Z r M Z X. z 0 M r4 Uj Test Pit Log Earth Consultants Inc. Pepperwood 0 C. loon Edmonds, Washington -Zed .1 Prq. No. 10075 Dwri. GLS F�;. April 2 002 Fc KCS (me 4/10/02 PU e A7 Subsudace oondilmns depicted represent our observations at the tune and location of this en:iloratofy hole. modified by engineering tests, anatysis mid !t�brc�=t are not necessarily representative of other tirries and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation bY others of