Loading...
2014, 03-18 Permit App: BLD-2014-0521 Residence Vjg' W(4- C5 Community Development Department (Staff Use Only) Permit Center 0001111\` 11703 East Sprague Avenue, Suite B-3 PERMIT NUMBER: CITYOFk e Spokane Valley, WA 99206 ,. —._ ._.__._-e...._.-...a__.___....w_ -- Tel: (509) 720-2540 PERMIT FEE: ( Fax: (509) 688-0037 JI c t- ,,, Valley. Fax: center@ spokanevalley.orcl / _ II I RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION PliRMIT AO ICA ON I 1= NEW CONSTRUCTION 0 ADDITION/REMODEL ( AdassowtByympgNG 0 DECK 0 OTHER -- -- SITE ADDRESS:5528 E 15TH - _M_ / ASSESSORS PARCEL NO.:35234.0203 LEGAL DESCRIPTION:L3 B1 SLOANS ADD- BUILDING OWNER NAME:STEVE AND CATHY THOSATH NAME:STEVE AND CATHY THOSATH ADDRESS:PO Box 30037 CITY:SPOKANE STATE:WA ZIp:99223 PHONE:509 329 8296 FAX: CELL:509 329 8296 CONTACT NAME:STEVE THOSATH PHONE:509 329 8296 Fax: CELL:509 329 8296 CONTRACTOR NAME:THOSATH CORPORATION MAILING ADDRESS:PO Box 30037 CITY:SPOKANE STATE:WA ZIP:99223 PHONE:5090 329 8296 FAX: CELL:509 329 8296 CONTRACTOR LICENSE NO.:THOSAC*886QN EXPIRES:11/15/2014 CITY BUSINESS LICENSE NO.: DESCRIBE THE SCOPE OF WORK IN DETAIL AND INDICATE USE & PROPOSED USE: NEW HOME FROM GROUIND TO COPLETION-PERSONAL RESIDENCE ****YOU MUST COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING**** MARK N/A IF NOT APPLICABLE Height to Peak:24 Dimensions:28x61 No. of Stories:2 Total Habitable Space:2158 Main Floor SQ FT:1567 Upper Floor SQ FT:591 Unfinished Basement SQ Finished Basement SQ FT: FT: Garage SQ FT:1040 Deck/Covered Patio SQ Impervious Surface 30%Slopes on FT: Area:250 Property:N/A No. of Bedrooms:3 Construction Type:wooD Heat Source:GAS Sewer or Septic:SEwER TOTAL COST OF PROJECT: $240,000 DISCLAIMER The permitted verifies,ackn. ledges and Agrees by their signature that: 1)if this permit is for construction or on a dwelling,the dwelling is/will be served by potable water 1 2 Ownership of this Cit •f Spokane Valley permit inure to the property owner. 3) The signatory is the property owner or has permission to 1- esent t ,- p operty • n:r in this transaction._l) Al,construction is to be done in full compliance with the City of Spokane Valley DeveJopme,t ode. •,-fe -nced .}ie are available for review a the City of Spokane Valley Permit Center. 5) The City of Spokane Valley permit is n.t permit or .pprova r :ny violation offedera ate or local laws, codes or ordinances. 6) Plans or additional information may be requir J. sue iand bs-quentl ... . •efore this application ca be proce sed. r � L / / .i Ana. 'i/e' r4 / /q Updated 1-11-11 Page 1 of 2 C:\Users\Owner\Downloads\Res_Permit(1).doc L P 20 I Le 061( Simple Heating System Size:Washington State This heating system sizing calculator is based on the Prescriptive Requirements of the 2012 Washington State Energy Code(WSEC)and ACCA Manuals J and S.This calculator will calculate heating loads only.ACCA procedures for sizing cooling systems should be used to determine cooling_ loads. The glazing(window)and door portion of this calculator assumes the installed glazing and door products have an area weighted average U-factor of 0.30. Tlie incorporated insulation requirements are the minimum prescriptive amounts specified by the 2012WSEC. Please fill out all of the green drop-downs and boxes that are applicable to your project.As you make selections in the drop-downs for each section, some values will be calculated for you.If you do not see the selection you need in the drop-down options,please call the WSU Energy Extension Program at(360)956-2042 for assistance. Project Information Contact Information Thosath Residence Thosath Corporation.' 5528 E 15th Steve Thosath Spokane Valley,WA 329 8296 Heating System Type: O All Other Systems 0 Heat Pump To see detailed instructions for each section,place your cursor on the word"Instructions". Design Temperature Instructions 4 Design Temperature Difference(AT) 60 Spokane CO AT=Indoor(70 degrees)-Outdoor Design Temp Area of Building Conditioned Floor Area Instructions Conditioned Floor Area(sq ft) 2,158 Average Ceiling Height Conditioned Volume Instructions Average Ceiling Height(ft) 8.5 18,343 Glazing and Doors U-Factor X Area = UA Instructions 0.30 460 138.00 Skylights U-Factor X Area = UA Instructions 0.50 --- Insulation Attic U-Factor X Area = UA Instructions R 49 ' v» 0.026 1,560 40.56 Single Rafter or Joist Vaulted Ceilings U-Factor Area UA Instructions • Select R-Value v No selection --- Above Grade Walls(see Figure 1) U-Factor Area UA Instructions R-21 Intermediate 0.056 2,528 141.57 Floors U-Factor Area UA instructions Select R-Value No selection --- Below Grade Walls(see Figure 1) U-Factor Area UA Instructions R-21 Interior 0.042 472 19.82 Slab Below Grade(see Figure 1) F-Factor Len r th UA Instructions R-5 Thermal Break at slab edge 0.570 1,560 889.20 Slab on Grade(see Figure 1) F-Factor Len UA InstructionsNo selection '" Select R-Value Location of Ducts Instructions Duct Leakage Coefficient Conditioned Space V 1.00 Sum of UA 1229.15 Envelope Heat Load 73,749 Btu/Hour Figure 1. Sum of UAXAT -.41111111 -. ` Air Leakage Heat Load 11,886 Btu/Hour VolumeX 0.6XATX.018 Above Grade Building Design Heat Load 85,635 Btu/Hour Air Leakage+Envelope Heat Loss Building and Duct Heat Load 85,635 Btu/Hour Ducts in unconditioned space:Sum of Building Heat Loss X 1.10 Ducts in conditioned space:Sum of Building Heat Loss X1 Maximum Heat Equipment Output 119,890 Btu/Hour Building and Duct Heat Loss X 1.40 for Forced Air Furnace Building and Duct Heat Loss X 1.25 for Heat Pump (07/01/13) 2012 Washington State Energy Code:UA Alternative Worksheet,Type R-3 Occupancies 1 +` R r Thosath Residence . C t "—"---.T— ):RECE 1 V ....t I t MAR 1 8 201k i i ; :.;V.V PERMIT CENTER 4 Conditioned Floor Area 2,158 Conditioned Building Volume 25,948 Weather Station Spokane AP V, Component Performance,R-3 occupancies Code Target Values Area UA Area UA Doors U=0.300 56 17 56 16 Overhead Glazing U=0.500 0 0 0 0 Vertical Glazing U=0.300 324 97 405 102 FlatNaulted Ceilings U=0.026 1,388 36 1,388 28 Wall(above grade) U=0.056 2,609 146 2,528 144 Floors U=0.029 0 0 0 0 Slab on Grade F=0.540 160 86 160 48 Below Grade Wall U=0.042 472 20 472 27 Below Grade Slab F=0.570 160 91 160 91 Target UA Total 494 Proposed UA Total 456 Target Credits from Table 406.2 1.5 Proposed Credits from 1.5 Table 406.2 Qualifies If the Proposed UA<_the Target UA,and the Proposed Credits From Table 406.2 are Z those required in Section R406.2 than the home meets the 2012 WSEC. Exterior Doors Plan Component Door Width Height ID Description Ref. U Qt. Feet 'a, Feet Inth Area UA 1 Eagle Full Lite Argon filled entry door • Custom 0.28 2 3 6 8 ° 56 16 •! 0 0.00 0 0 • 0 0.00 0 0 •' 0 0.00 0 0 • 0 0.00 0 0 •' 0 0.00 _ 0 0 • 0 0.00 0 0 Sum of Area and UA 56 16 Overhead Glazing: Plan Component Glazing Width Height ID Description Ref. U Qt. Feet Inth Feet inch Area UA • 0 0.00 0 0 •. 0 _ 0.00 0 0 • 0 _ 0.00 0 0 •. 0 0.00 0 0 • 0 0.00 0 0 Sum of Area and UA 0 0 Copyright 2013,WSUEEPI 0-009(Version 11)Copied by permission from Washington State University Extension Energy Program. (see copyright restrictions) 3/14/2014 1 of 4 20112 Washington State Energy Code:UA Alternative Worksheet,Type R4 Occupancies Vertical Glazing Plan Component Glazing Width Height ID Description Ref. U Qt. Feet 1"th Feet '"u' Area UA 1 • 0 0.00 ° 00 0 2 Eagle Ascent Sliding glass door+argon V; 0 0.26 1 WI °El 0 64 17 3 V 0 0.00 El °INE 0 0 4 Eagle Axiom Case,metal clad low e4 V 0 0.25 3 6 °M ° 54 14 5 Eagle Axiom Fixed,metal clad low e4 V 0 0.25 3 © °© 0 27 7 6 Eagle Axiom Fixed,metal clad low e4 • 0 0.25 1 © °© ° 15 4 7 Eagle Axiom Fixed,metal clad low e4 V 0 0.25 3 En ° 6 NE 78 20 8 Eagle Axiom Case,metal clad low e4 V 0 0.25 2 ©111 © ° 15 4 1 1 Eagle Axiom Fixed,metal clad low e4 V 0 0.25 5 iii5o ir 0 80 20 12 Eagle Axiom Case,metal clad low e4 • 0 0.25 3 6 MI 0 72 18 •' 0 0.00 MEM. 0 0 V 0 0.00_-■-■ 0 0 _ • 0 0.00_i...i. 0 0 • 0 0.00_-EEM 0 0 _ • 0 0.00_-E-. 0 0 _ •i 0 0.00 EM-M 0 0 • 0 0.00_-E-. 0 0 _ • 0 0.00_-E-. 0 0 • 0 0.00 ..... 0 0 • 0 0.00_-■-E 0 0 •' 0 0.00_-MME 0 0 _ - 0 0.00_-E-. 0 0 • 0 0.00_=NEM 0 0 _ • 0 0.00_-E-. 0 0 _ • 0 0.00_-E-E 0 0 _ • 0 0.00_-E-. 0 0 _ • 0 0.00_ENEEM 0 0 • 0 0.00_-E-. 0 0 •', 0 0.00_-E-. 0 0 _ • 0 0.00 -E-E 0 0 • 0 0.00_-E-. 0 0 _ • 0 0.00_-E-. 0 0 • 0 0.00_-.-. 0 0 •, 0 0.00_-E-. 0 0 _ V 0 0.00_-E-. 0 0 • 0 0.00 M.M._ 0 0 • 0 0.00_-E-. 0 0 _ • 0 0.00 -M-E 0 0 • 0 0.00_-E-■ 0 0 _ • 0 0.00■.,II1 0 0 • 0 0.00 0 0 _ � • 0 0.00 0 0 _ • 0 0.00 MIMI 0 0 • 0 0.00_MEM. 0 0 ■ • 0 0.00 .,MI0 0 • 0 0.00 0 0 • 0 0.00 0 0 • 0 0.00 0 0 • 0 0.00 1111o 0 • 0 0.00 0 0 • 0 0.00 0 0 • 0 0.00 0 0 • 0 0.00 0 0 •' 0 0.00 0 0 Sum of Area and UA 405 102 Glazing Area Weighted U 0.252 Copyright 2013,WSUEEP10-009(Version 11)Copied by permission from Washington State University Extension Energy Program. (see copyright restrictions) FlatNaulted Ceilings 3/14/2014 2 of 4 2012 Washington State Energy Code:UA Alternative Worksheet,Type R-3 Occupancies Plan Component Attic ID Description Ref. U Area UA 1 Par.Chord Truss R-60 Batt.Dense Pack • Custom 0.020 1,388 28 • Custom 0.000 0 •' 0 0.000 0 •' 0 0.000 0 Sum of Area and UA 1,388 28 Walls(Above Grade) Plan Component Wall ID Description Ref. U Net Area UA 1 R21 cavity+RO foam STD 2X6W lap •' 10-5 0.057 2,528 144 • 0 0.000 0 • 0 0.000 0 • 0 0.000 0 Sum of Area and UA 2,528 144 Floor(over crawl or exterior) Plan Component Floor ID Description Ref. U Area UA 1 • 0 0.000 0 •' 0 0.000 0 • 0 0.000 0 • 0 0.000 0 Sum of Area and UA 0 0 Slab on Grade(less than 2 feet below grade) Plan Component Slab Slab ID Description Ref. F Length UA 1 RiS Fully insulated V WSU 0.300 160 48 •' 0 0.000 0 •: 0 0.000 0 • 0 0.000 0 Sum of Area and UA 160 48 Below Grade Walls and Slabs Plan Component Wall Wall Wall Slab Slab Slab ID Description Ref. U Area UA F Length UA 1 R12 Foam Ext 3.5'depth V 10-1 0.057 472 26.9 0.570 160 91 •' 0 0.000 0.0 0.000 0 • 0 0.000 0.0 0.000 0 • 0 0.000 0.0 0.000 0 Sum of Area,Length and UA 472 26.9 160 91 Copyright 2013,WSUEEP10-009(Version 11)Copied by permission from Washington State University Extension Energy Program. (see copyright restrictions) 3/14/2014 3 of 4 2012 Washington State Energy Code: Table R406.2 Summary • Opt. Description la Efficient Building Ern lb Efficient Building Err 1c Efficient Building Em 2a Air Leakage Control 2b Air Leakage Control 2c Air Leakage Control 3a High Efficiency HVA' 3b High Efficiency HVA' 3c High Efficiency HVA' 3d High Efficiency HVA' 4 High Efficiency HVAI 5a Efficient Water Heati 5b Efficient Water Heati 6 Renewable Electric E Total Credits `Please refer to Table R40 Copyright 2013,WSUEEP10-009(Version 11)Copi, • ;hipster 19.40 DISTRICT PURPOSE AND SUPPLEMENTAL USE REGULATIONS—RESIDENTIAL ... Page 1 of 12 Chapter 19.40 DISTRICT PURPOSE AND SUPPLEMENTAL USE REGULATIONS— RESIDENTIAL ZONES Sections: 19.40.010 General provisions. 19.40.020 Residential standards. 19.40.030 R-1 —Single-Family Residential Estate district. 19.40.040 R-2 —Single-Family Residential Suburban district. 19.40.050 R-3—Single-Family Residential district. 19.40.060 R-4—Single-Family Residential Urban district. 19.40.070 MF-1 — Medium Density Multifamily Residential district. 19.40.080 MF-2— High Density Multifamily Residential district. 19.40.090 Residential accessory uses and structures. 19.40.100 Accessory dwelling unit (ADU). 19.40.110 Other accessory structures. 19.40.120 Manufactured housing. 19.40.130 Manufactured home parks. 19.40.140 Home occupations. 19.40.150 Animal raising and keeping. 19.40.010 General provisions. A. No principal or accessory structure shall be located within the clearview triangle (Chapter 22.70 SVMC). B. In the districts where the height of buildings is restricted to 35 feet, cooling towers, roof gables, chimneys and vent stacks may extend for an additional height, not to exceed 40 feet, above the average grade line of the building. Water stand pipes and tanks, church steeples, domes and spires and school buildings and institutional buildings may be erected to exceed maximum height requirements; provided, that one additional foot shall be added to the width and depth of front, side and rear yards for each foot that such structures exceed the required height. C. No structure may be erected to a height in excess of that permitted by applicable airport hazard zoning regulations. D. Recreational vehicles shall not be used as permanent or temporary dwelling units in any residential zone. Guests may park and/or occupy a recreational vehicle while visiting the occupants of a dwelling unit located on the same lot for not more than 30 days in one consecutive 12-month period. The intent is to accommodate visiting guests and not to allow the recreational vehicle to be used as a dwelling unit. E. Cargo shipping containers and similar enclosures are not a permitted accessory structure in any residential zone. F. The following features attached to structures are allowed as exceptions to the setback standards: 1. Minor Projections Allowed. Minor features of a structure, such as eaves, chimneys, fire escapes, bay windows no more than 12 feet long and which cantilever beyond the foundation of the structure, uncovered stairways, and uncovered decks or balconies, may extend into a required setback up to 20 percent of the depth of the setback. However, they may not be within three feet of a lot line when a setback is required. Wheelchair ramps are allowed to project into the setback based on SVMC Title 24, Building Codes. Attached mechanical equipment such as heat pumps, air conditioners, emergency generators and water pumps are allowed to project into the side or rear setback only. t -5 ? E15TH ,AVE k 1 , 5•" 35234.1 s'l" 35234_.iT ., 5507 E 15 H t , s a {`k . F x r it 5604 E SUM 35234.0204 35234. 1203 1505 S STANLEY RD ' 352340202 35234,02, '. t2' alangainaal .. 5521E 16TH O 5607E 4.0208 35234.0209 ,. 352 STAN 13 , 6THAVE3523 0210 • 1511 5 STANLEY RD wilg 4 y. • "k 4 n r Target Date sheet ["limi"I".""al""1""ullawalimlmaalhwluillm"lm"Is"""1"N"I"N""""Pw"""limiMl""iw"m""mll"""1""mmllNall""m""1"m"*°"\IlIl For City Use Only Siiokane � ;LA PLUS Project 1 -\ Project Address Valley v 11703 E Sprague Ave Suite B-3 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.720-5240 ♦ Fax: 509.688.0037 ♦ permitcenter®spokanevalley.org As part of our on-going commitment to customer service during the review process of your project application, we are providing you with a TARGET DATE for the initial technical application review. If for any reason we cannot meet this date,we will contact you with a revised target date. Your application review TARGET DATE is The TARGET DATE is the date we estimate your project application will have had its initial technical review. It is not the date for approval or permit issuance. Tips for a Smoother Project Application Review ➢ Submit complete,accurate plans and documents. Extra time may be required for re-submittals as project application reviewers work on multiple applications and it may be several days before they can look at your new or revised information. ➢ Designate a specific contact person to communicate with the City. While the person designated as the applicant's contact person with the City can be changed, one individual with the expertise for dealing with reviewer comments would be the best choice for the entire review process. ➢ Call staff regarding the status of your project only after the target date shown at the top of the page. Although you should be contacted on or by the target date,please feel free to contact us if you haven't heard from us by your target date.Staff may contact you before the target date if the initial review is complete.By following this procedure,you will save time and allow the reviewers to complete the work more expeditiously. Steps in the Permit Process 1. Counter Complete. Your application has been accepted as counter complete. This means all of the required documents, as indicated on your Pre-Application Checklist have been submitted or have been approved for deferred submittal. This does not prevent technical staff from requesting additional information as a result of their technical review. 2. Quality Check. The next step in the process is a quality check to make sure that the application is reviewable and free from substantive flaws that would prevent technical staff from completing the technical review once it is started. When this step is complete,your application will be routed to the appropriate staff and remain in their review queue until it comes up for review. 3.Technical Compliance.Once an application is administratively complete,it is routed to technical staff for compliance review. Depending on the type of project, technical staff may include multiple reviewers. You should be contacted by phone, fax, email, or mail by your TARGET DATE once the initial technical compliance review is complete. 4. Permit Issuance. When the technical compliance review of the application is complete, including any subsequent re- submittals, each reviewer will approve their section of the application and route it to the Permit Center. When all sections of the application are received, a Permit Specialist will process the application and contact the person specified on your application for permit pick-up.Information regarding fees and pre-construction meetings(if required)will be provided by the Permit Specialist at that time. CD-003 V-7/06-21-11 Page 1 of 1 11707 E Sprague Ave. •Suite 106• Spokane Valley WA 99206 Spokane 509.720.5240• Fax: 509.688.0037 • permitcenter@spokanevalley.org doo.Valley VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE VIOLATIONS The Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 17.100.100 provides authority for person(s) responsible for violations of the SVMC to enter into a voluntary compliance agreement with the City of Spokane Valley (the "City") to address the identified violations. The City has determined that Stephen J. Thosath has caused violations of the SVMC as detailed in this voluntary compliance agreement to exist at 5528 E. 15th, Spokane Valley, Washington. The City and Stephen J. Thosath enter into this voluntary compliance agreement to address clean-up and abatement of the violations within the terms set forth herein. By signing below, Stephen J. Thosath and the City hereby acknowledge with respect to this voluntary compliance agreement that: 1. It is a written, signed commitment by Stephen J. Thosath, as a person responsible for a code violation(s), to agree to abate the violation(s), remediate the site, and/or mitigate the impacts of the violation(s) as specified in this agreement. 2. By entering into this voluntary compliance agreement, Stephen J. Thosath, as a person responsible for a code violation(s), waive the right to administratively or judicially appeal the determination of the code violation(s). By entering this agreement, you thereby admit that the conditions described in this voluntary compliance agreement exist as described and constitute violation(s) of the City of Spokane Valley Municipal Code. 3. This voluntary compliance agreement is not a settlement agreement. 4. This voluntary compliance agreement specifies the shortest reasonable time period for compliance, as determined by the Community Development Director (the "Director"). 5. Extensions of the time limit for compliance, or a modification of the required corrective action may be granted by the Director if you, as a person responsible for the code violation(s), have shown due diligence or substantial progress in correcting the violation(s), but circumstances render full and timely compliance under the original Page 1 of 5 J conditions unattainable. Any such extension or modification must be in writing and signed by the Director and you and any other person(s) who signed the original voluntary compliance agreement. To suspend civil monetary fines,please initial/date and sign the highlighted areas and return all pages in the enclosed envelope The City and Stephen J. Thosath hereby agree, based upon the consideration set forth herein, to the following terms and conditions of this voluntary compliance agreement: I. FACTUAL INFORMATION AND COMPLIANCE TERMS: NAME: Stephen J. Thosath ADDRESS OF Stephen J. Thosath IF NOT THE SAME ADDRESS AS SITE OF VIOLATION(S): P.O. Box 30037, Spokane, WA 99223 SITE ADDRESS: 5528 E. 15th Ave., Spokane Valley, WA PARCEL NO: 35234.0203 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 23-25-43 PTN OF SLOAN ADD L2-3 B1 LYG ELY OF LN DAF: BEG AT NE COR L2; TH S82*13'45"W 3.21FT ALG NLY LN L2; TH S06*25'02"E 173.15FT TO PT ON SLY LN OF SAID L3, SAID PT BEARS N89*58'52"E 20FT FROM SW COR OF L3 AND IS END PT OF SAID LN; TOG W/AND SUBJ TO EASEMENTS, ROW, COVENANTS, RESERVATIONS AND RESTIRCTIONS OF RECORD OR IN VIEW (PARCEL 'B' IN ROS AFN 6172253) DESCRIPTION OF VIOLATION, INCLUDING REFERENCE TO SVMC SECTION VIOLATED: 1. 19.40.020 Residential standards. (B). All residential driveways and off-street parking areas shall be paved with asphalt, Portland cement, grasscrete, paver blocks or other equivalent hard surface material. REQUIRED CORRECTIVE ACTION: Page 2 of 5 I 1. Driveways and off-street parking improvements must be provided according to 19.40.020 (B) SVMC DATE/TIME FOR COMPLETION OF CORRECTIVE ACTION: Friday, July 31, 2015 AMOUNT OF CIVIL PENALTY IF AGREEMENT NOT SATISFIED: $500.00. If the terms of this voluntary compliance agreement are not met by the date specified above, the City shall notify you of such failure and assess you the civil penalty, which shall be paid within 20 days from date of such notification. Page 3 of 5 II. FURTHER AGREEMENT: Pur .ant to SVMC 17.100.110, the City and Stephen J. Thosath hereby further acknowledge and agrf e Ini,`:, s pat MD 1/ A. I, Stephen J. Thosath, acknowledge that if the Director determines that the terms of this voluntary compliance agreement are not met, the City may, without issuing a notice and order or stop work order, impose any remedy authorized by SVMC 17.100, enter the real property and perform abatement of the violation by the City, assess the costs incurred by the City to pursue code compliance and to abate the violation, including reasonable legal fees and costs, and the suspension, revocation / or limitation of a development permit obtained or to be sought by me. i'-3 i '. s Pa � J B. I, Stephen J. Thosath, acknowledge that if the penalty described above is assessed, and if any costs of code compliance are assessed, I will pay such amounts within the time specified. I further acknowledge if I fail to pay such amounts within the time specified, the City may charge the unpaid amount as a lien against the property where the code violation occurred and that the unpaid amount will be a joint and several personal obligation of myself and all other persons, if any, responsible for the violation(s). I 11,6 27 t#z' . C. I, Stephen J. Thosath, acknowledge that by entering into this G voluntary compliance agreement, I admit that the conditions described in this voluntary compliance agreement exist or existed and constitute or constituted a violation(s) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. I ' Is1. e, L.-} D. I, Stephen J. Thosath, acknowledge that I understand that I have the right to be served with a Notice and Order or Stop Work Order for any violation identified in this voluntary compliance agreement, have the right to administratively or judicially appeal any such Notice and Order or Stop Work Order, and that I am knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waiving those rights by entering into this voluntary compliance agreement. Mf' J L E. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ALL TERMS OF THIS VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT MAY RESULT IN LEGAL ACTION TO ABATE THE NUISANCE VIOLATIONS Pursuant to SVMC 17.100.120, if the terms of this voluntary compliance agreement are not completely met, and an extension of time Page 4 of 5 has not been granted, the person responsible for the violation(s) may, without being issued a Notice and Order or Stop Work Order, be assessed a civil penalty as set forth in SVMC 17.100 and in this voluntary compliance agreement, plus all costs incurred by the City to pursue code compliance and to abate the violation(s), and may be subject to other remedies authorized by SVMC 17.100. All penalties imposed for violations of this voluntary compliance agreement accrue from the date that an appeal of any preceding Notice and Order or Stop Work Order was to have been filed or from the date of this voluntary compliance agreement if there was no preceding Notice and Order or Stop Work Order. The City may, but is not required to, issue a Notice and Order or Stop Work Order for failure to meet the terms of this voluntary compliance agreement. SIGNATURES COD' ENFORCEMENT OFFICER: Si• _ - Signed by Luis act,c:ie,.,J! this day of , 20 /S—. PERSON RESP 1SIBLE OR 1E CoI- 1-117-TION: / ,, X / I%. ►u Signa urs Signed by(")`le i �� rthis 742'day of , 20 Page 5 of 5 IPEC Inland Pacific Engineering Company Geotechnical Engineering and Consulting July 14, 2014 Project No. 14-049 Mr. Steve Thosath Thosath Corporation P.O. Box 30037 Spokane,WA 99223 Re: Excavation Observation Proposed House 5528 East 15th Avenue Spokane Valley, WA Dear Mr. Thosath: As you authorized, we have completed excavation observation services for the proposed house addition at the above-referenced site in Spokane Valley,Washington. The purpose of the observations was to evaluate the soils encountered at foundation subgrade elevation relative to support of foundations. This report summarizes the results of our site observations,opinions, and recommendations. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project consists of constructing a one to two-story,wood frame residential structure with a slab- on-grade floor. At this time, specific design criteria are not available. For our purposes,we have assumed that wall loads will be on the order of 0.5 to 1.0 kips per lineal foot and that column loads, if any,will be on the order of 50 kips or less. AVAILABLE INFORMATION Inland Pacific Engineering Company performed a geotechnical evaluation at the site in April 2014. In general,the test pits encountered silty sand topsoil at the surface extending to a depths of 1 to 2 feet. Below the topsoil,the test pits encountered silty sand(colluvium)overlying weathered bedrock or residual lean clay (highly eroded bedrock). P.O. Box 1566.Veradale,WA 99037 Phone 509-209-6262 Excavation Observation Project No. 14-049 Proposed House 5528 East 15'h Avenue Spokane Valley,WA July 14,2014 Inland Pacific Engineering Company Page 2 FIELD OBSERVATIONS The foundation subgrade soils were evaluated by a geotechnical engineer on June 26, 2014. At that time,the footing excavation was completed on the south, west, and north footings. The excavation extended through approximately 2 to 6 feet of silty sand and 1 to 2 feet of residual or weathered bedrock. Groundwater seepage was routed to a sump at the northeast corner and pumped out. OPINIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of our field observations, it is our opinion that the soils encountered at foundation subgrade elevation are suitable for support of the anticipated foundation loads. REMARKS Services performed by the geotechnical engineers for this project have been conducted in a manner consistent with that level of care ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in this area under similar budget and time restraints. No warranty,expressed or implied, is intended or made. The content of this report and supporting documents are for the exclusive use of addressee. GENERAL REMARKS We appreciate the opportunity to provide our services to you. If you have any questions or need additional information,please do not hesitate to call me at (509) 209-6262 at your convenience. Sincerely, Inland Pacific Engineering Company NELr_, S i -0 co Alk Jr Paul T. Nelson,P.E. Principal Engineer T' 96'ois372282rE`1/4: t? S/ONAL� 7-/ -/y Thosath Corp. PO Box 30037 Spokane, Washington 99223 LIC. THOSAC*886QN ThosathCo@gmail.com 509.329.8296 July 11, 2014 FOUNDATION FOR 5528 E 15th- Excavation and Foundation • Remove vegetation and top soil and dig 16" below top of slab on grade. • Dig perimeter to bedrock or material suitable to support structure (leaving interior at slab on grade depth) • Footings and foundation with weep holes in fdn at the footings. Backfill interior and exterior to bottom of SOG depth with pea gravel fines, fabric over at ext, and complete ext. backfill with material excavated from the site • Concrete slab - 10 mil visqueen vapor barrier, minimum 4" of pea gravel (passive radon), 4" (R-20) foam, #4 rebar at 18" EW, 4" of concrete. 1c cif ja teve Thosath, pres. Thosath Corp. PO Box 30037 Spokane, Washington 99223 LIC. THOSAC*886QN ThosathCo@gmail.com 509.329.8296 April 24, 2014 FOUNbATION FOR 5528 E 15th- Excavation and Foundation • Remove vegetation and top soil and dig to crawl elevation (4' deep) • big perimeter to bedrock or material suitable to support structure (leaving interior at crawl depth) • Footings and foundation and a footing to support steel or glue lam beam (for interior floor and wall support) weep holes in fdn at the footings. • Line excavation with filter fabric and backfill interior and exterior to crawl depth with pea gravel, fabric over at ext, and complete ext. backfill with material excavated from the site • Concrete slab at crawl L -61-1 AppER� 14T�C �RSteve Thosath CSV Geotechnical Evaluation Project No. 14-049 Proposed House 5528 East 15th Avenue Spokane County,WA April 17,2014 Inland Pacific Engineering Company Page 3 4.0 ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 Discussion The soils encountered above the weathered bedrock or residuum are generally saturated and have very low strength. Based on the data obtained from the test pits, it is our opinion that these soils are not suitable for support of conventional spread footings. It is our opinion that these soils should be removed and replaced with a compacted backfill or that foundations extend down to bear on the weathered bedrock or residuum. With either option, it will be necessary to dewater the excavation. If a full-depth basement is considered, we recommend that all below-grade walls and slabs be waterproofed and that perimeter and underslab draintile be installed to direct groundwater to a sump with a pump. The floor slab for the garage can be supported on the native inorganic soils below the topsoil or on structural placed over the native inorganic soils. 4.2 Site Preparation 4.2.1 Excavation and Replacement Option We recommend that any existing topsoil, root zone, and soils be excavated and removed from the proposed house area to expose the weathered bedrock or residuum. After these soils have been removed, we recommend placing structural fill in 6- to 8-inch-thick loose lifts at near optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557 (modified Proctor). We recommend that the excavations be oversized (widened) 1 foot horizontally from the outside edges of the perimeter footings for each foot of excavation below bottom-of- footing grade (1:1 oversizing). 4.2.2 Crawl Space Option We recommend that any existing topsoil, root zone, and soils be excavated and removed from below the proposed footings to expose the weathered bedrock or residuum. Spread ' footings can be formed and poured on the weathered bedrock or residuum. However, we recommend that the bearing surfaces be evaluated by a geotechnical engineer prior to placing forms for footings. Also, transitions from soil to intact bedrock can be abrupt and result in differential settlement. To reduce this potential, we recommend that intact bedrock be subexcavated a minimum of 12 inches and replaced with compacted structural fill. 4411 4.3 Foundations We recommend that continuous foundations be placed at least 24 inches below the exposed ground surface for frost protection or as required by local building codes. We recommend that subgrades be evaluated by a geotechnical engineer for support of the proposed construction. Soils judged to be unsuitable should be subexcavated and replaced with compacted structural fill. Geotechnical Evaluation Project No. 14-049 Proposed House 5528 East 15th Avenue Spokane County,WA April 17,2014 Inland Pacific Engineering Company Page 4 We recommend that any subexcavations be oversized (widened) 1 foot horizontally from the edges of the footings for each foot of excavation below bottom-of-footing grade (1:1 oversizing). All foundation bearing surfaces should be free of loose soil and debris. If the foundation bearing soils are disturbed by excavation, the exposed soil should be re-compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density. Fill or backfill placed and compacted as previously recommended would be suitable for support of continuous footings designed for a net allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf). This recommended bearing capacity includes a safety factor of at least 3.0 against shear failure. The maximum net allowable bearing pressure values may be increased up to 30 percent to account for transient loads such as wind and seismic. If the previous recommendations are implemented, it is our opinion that total settlement will be less than 1 inch. It is also our opinion that differential settlement will be less than th inch across a distance of 40 feet. We recommend that all backfill placed on the exterior sides of the foundation walls be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density. Beneath slabs, steps, and pavements, it should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density. Backfill should be brought up uniformly on both sides of the foundation walls to minimize displacement of the foundation walls. 4.4 Floor Slabs 4111 After the construction of the garage and basement building pads has been completed, the slab subgrades will consist of weathered bedrock, residuum, or granular structural fill. Interior footing and mechanical trenches should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density. We recommend using a subgrade modulus of 150 pounds per cubic inch per inch of deflection (pci) to design the slabs. If a minimum of 6 inches of crushed gravel road base is placed above the subgrades and below the aggregate cushion, a modulus of 200 pci could be used for design. We recommend placing a minimum of 6 inches of crushed aggregate having less than 5 percent by weight passing a 200 sieve immediately below the garage slab. This aggregate cushion will reduce moisture transmission to the floor slabs from the subgrade soils by creating a capillary 10 break. The aggregate cushion should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density. For a full-depth basement slab, we recommend placing a minimum 12 inches of coarse-grained, free-draining pea gravel or drain rock below the aggregate 411 cushion to allow for placement of underslab drains. If moisture-sensitive floor coverings or coatings will be used, a vapor retarder beneath the slabs should be considered. The designer of the buildings is best suited to make the decision regarding use of a vapor retarder, placement, and location relative to the slab base. We would be available to discuss the methods available. Geotechnical Evaluation Project No. 14-049 Proposed House 5528 East 15'Avenue Spokane County,WA April 17,2014 Inland Pacific Engineering Company Page 5 4.5 Basement Recommendations If a full-depth basement is considered, we recommend that all below-grade walls and slabs are waterproofed. We further recommend placing perimeter draintile around the exterior and interior sides of the perimeter footings. We recommend placing underslab drains below the floor slab. We recommend a maximum spacing of 10 feet. We recommend that the draintile lines be routed into a sump with a pump and discharged to the ground surface outside of the house. A 0.0 cross section showing a typical basement underslab drain system is included in Appendix A. We recommend that foundation wall backfill consist of free-draining granular soil as recommended in Section 4.8 of this report. 4.6 Exterior Slabs The silty sands at the site are considered to be moderately to highly frost-susceptible. If these soils become saturated and freeze, 1/2 to 1 inch of heave may occur. This heave may become a nuisance for slabs or steps in front of doors or at other critical grade areas adjacent to the building. One way to reduce this heave is to remove the frost-susceptible soils down to bottom- of-footing grade and replace them with non-frost-susceptible sand or sandy gravel. Sand or sandy gravel having less than 5 percent of the particles by weight passing a 200 sieve is considered to be non-frost-susceptible. 4.7 Friction Coefficients For mass concrete placed over granular structural fill, we recommend using a coefficient of friction against sliding of 0.45. For mass concrete placed over the native weathered bedrock or residuum, we recommend using a coefficient of friction against sliding of 0.35. -40 4.8 Lateral Earth Pressures Any below-grade or retaining walls will retain low to significant amounts of soil. To reduce the potential for hydrostatic pressures to develop against the walls, we recommend using a free- draining granular material with less than 5 percent passing a 200 sieve as backfill. The backfill material should consist of a sand or sandy gravel having 100 percent by weight passing a 11 inch sieve and less than 5 percent passing a 200 sieve. The equivalent fluid pressure used to design the walls will depend on the soil type used as backfill and whether the walls are designed to be flexible (allowed to move) or rigid (not allowed to move). Assuming a sand or sandy gravel with an internal friction angle of 34 degrees and a unit weight of 125 pound per cubic foot (pcf), we recommend using the following values for design: A. Flexible Walls Active Earth Pressure Coefficient, Ka: 0.28 Equivalent Fluid Pressure, pcf: 35 B. Rigid Walls At-rest Earth Pressure Coefficient, Ko: 0.44 Equivalent Fluid Pressure, pcf: 55 Geotechnical Evaluation Project No. 14-049 Proposed House 5528 East 15th Avenue Spokane County,WA April 17,2014 Inland Pacific Engineering Company Page 6 For passive pressures, we recommend using a passive earth pressure coefficient KP of 3.54 and an equivalent fluid pressure of 440 pcf for design. We do not recommend using the on-site silty clays to backfill against below-grade or retaining walls. 4.9 Seismic Conditions An Ss coefficient of 0.335g should be used for the project site per Figure 1613.3.1(1) in the 2012 edition of the International Building Code. An Si coefficient of 0.115g should be used for the project site per Figure 1613.3.1(2). The seismic coefficients should be modified for a soil site class D per Table 1613.3.5(1) of the International Building Code. 4.10 Utilities Support soils for utilities will consist primarily of weathered bedrock or residuum. It is our opinion that the weathered to intact bedrock will provide adequate support for utilities. We recommend that the bedrock be subexcavated a minimum of 12 inches below pipe invert elevation and replaced with a compacted structural fill to provide uniform support for the pipe and to avoid point loads from developing on the pipe. Unsuitable soils (e.g., loose, soft, organic, etc.), if encountered, should be removed and replaced with structural fill. For trench sidewall support, the site soils are considered Type C soils according to Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines. Backfill placed over the utilities should consist of a debris-free mineral soil. Soils from the Ati trench excavation can be used as backfill above the pipe. Backfill should be placed and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density. 1 Compaction to 85 percent would be suitable in landscape areas. 4.11 Site Grading and Drainage We recommend that the site be graded to provide positive runoff away from the proposed house and garage. We recommend that landscape areas be sloped a minimum of 6 inches within 10 feet of the structures and that slabs be sloped a minimum of 2 percent. 9 5.0 CONSTRUCTION 9 5.1 Excavation Based on our observations of the test pit excavations, it is our opinion the on-site soils can be excavated with standard soil excavation equipment. We recommend excavations greater than four feet deep be sloped no steeper than 1.5:1 (horizontal to vertical), or that deeper excavations be shored or braced in accordance with OSHA specifications and local codes. The soils present 41 at the site are considered to be Type C soils by OSHA. 5.2 Observations "t' We recommend that a geotechnical engineer observe all subgrades prior to placing fill or forms for footings to evaluate if the bedrock is suitable for support of the proposed structure and to evaluate whether the subsurface conditions are consistent with the test pits. 9 Geotechnical Evaluation Project No. 14-049 Proposed House 5528 East 15th Avenue Spokane County,WA April 17,2014 Inland Pacific Engineering Company Page 7 5.3 Backfills and Fills We recommend that structural fill consist of a granular sand or sandy gravel having less than 15 percent by weight passing a 200 sieve. Backfills and fills should be placed in thin lifts not exceeding 6 to 8 inches. The on-site native soils are not considered suitable for use as structural fill. 5.4 Testing We recommend in-place density tests be performed on all fill placed. We recommend at least one test for every 2,500 square feet in the building area for each foot of fill placed. We recommend at least one test for every 100 cubic yards of fill placed in the parking and drive areas with at least one test for every 2 feet of fill placed. At least one density test should be taken for every 100 feet of trench at vertical intervals not exceeding 2 feet. 5.5 Cold Weather If site grading and construction are anticipated during cold weather, we recommend that good winter construction practices be observed. All snow and ice should be removed from excavated and fill areas prior to additional earthwork or construction. No fill, footings, or slabs should be placed on soils which have frozen or contain frozen material. Frozen soils should not be used as backfill or fill. Concrete delivered to the site should meet the temperature requirements of ASTM C 94. Concrete should not be placed upon frozen soils or soils which contain frozen material. Concrete should be protected from freezing until the necessary strength is achieved. Frost should not be permitted to penetrate below footings bearing on frost-susceptible soils since such freezing could heave and crack the footings and/or foundation walls. 5.6 Wet Weather The silty sands encountered at the site are moderately to highly sensitive to disturbance when wet. If these soils become wet and unstable, we recommend that construction traffic be minimized where these soils are exposed. Low ground pressure (tracked) equipment should be used to minimize disturbance. For high traffic areas, such as access or haul roads, we recommend placing a woven, water-permeable geotextile fabric (e.g., Mirafi 500X or 600X) and 12 to 18 inches of crushed gravel to reduce disturbance. Specific options should be evaluated during construction in order to select the most cost-effective option. 6.0 PROCEDURES 6.1 Excavation and Sampling The test pits were excavated on April 14, 2014 using a tracked excavator operated by an independent firm working under subcontract to Thosath Corporation. A geotechnical engineer from our firm continuously observed the test pit excavations and logged the surface and subsurface conditions. After we logged the test pits, the test pits were backfilled. Geotechnical Evaluation Project No. 14-049 Proposed House 5528 East 15th Avenue Spokane County,WA April 17,2014 Inland Pacific Engineering Company Page 8 6.2 Soil Classification The soils encountered in the test pits were visually and manually classified in the field by our field personnel in accordance with ASTM D 2488, "Description and Identification of Soils (Visual- Manual Procedures)". 7.0 GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 Basis of Recommendations The analyses and recommendations submitted in this report are based on the data obtained from the test pits excavated at the locations indicated on the Log of Test Pit sheets in Appendix A. It should be recognized that the explorations performed for this evaluation reveal subsurface conditions only at discreet locations across the project site and that actual conditions in other areas could vary. Furthermore,the nature and extent of any such variations would not become evident until additional explorations are performed or until construction activities have begun. If significant variations are observed at that time, we may need to modify our conclusions and recommendations contained in this report to reflect the actual site conditions. 7.2 Groundwater Fluctuations We made water level observations in the test pits at the times and conditions stated on the test pit logs. These data were interpreted in the text of this report. The period of observation was relatively short and fluctuation in the groundwater level may occur due to rainfall,flooding, irrigation, spring thaw and other seasonal and annual factors not evident at the time the observations were made. Design drawings and specifications and construction planning should recognize the possibility of fluctuations. 7.3 Use of Report This report is for the exclusive use of the addressee and the copied parties to use in design of the proposed project and to prepare construction documents. In the absence of our written approval, we make no representations and assume no responsibility to other parties regarding this report. The data, analyses, and recommendations may not be appropriate for other structures or purposes. We recommend that parties contemplating other structures or purposes contact us. 7.4 Level of Care Services performed by the geotechnical engineers for this project have been conducted in a manner 4111 consistent with that level of care ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in this area under similar budget and time restraints. No warranty,expressed or implied, is intended or made. Geotechnical Evaluation Project No. 14-049 Proposed House 5528 East 15`h Avenue Spokane County,WA April 17,2014 Inland Pacific Engineering Company Page 9 7.5 Professional Certification This report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and I am a duly registered engineer under the laws of the State of Washington. /14f2TNF/ QP�OF wAsy 44, Paul T. Nelson, P.E. -o corf'ti cc Principal Engineer W q41 F 3"28 �0 S QISTER C? S1�NAL �N4 4 4 4 4 4 APPENDIX A -441 SITE LOCATION MAP, NRCS MAP I IFIGURE 1 I I IA1 .,61,,,,,,, ‘''iott I SITE ,,, I ,..d 1t a ... e 4 rs, a . ,,,,:,4.,.i,4 il, ,,,, c,_____le:)., 1''.''i c- - _ ;te r CSS ,n- ___ _ iAty_ L„...1 � it.- 4,,, -.14r ..: n cls rr i ea . X , , -dirt, . iv/ ;1.44 ,0,) .,,rt. -j.** . , icar' r imir 1 I 1" -7.-- A4. I Site Location Map Project No. 14-049 IPFI1 IProposed House April 17, 2014 I 2ntandPaci&cEngineering Company 5528 East 15th Avenue GeoEngnieering technical Spokane Valley,WA I I FIGURE 2 I ., r ‘ I' I Pr SITE01 L. 4 14th Aft ilt\ a C;. at w ,:g. „--3 - I -- , -4.' , ,.,,- (n2: '— ' ...,4,,,,,,:r 11:1 . IE teth Ave .�. . app I d • tom ` K ' 1,12 ar • a m' a n 4 I J 446,04. NRCS Map I IPEC Project No. 14-049 Proposed tHouse April 17, 2014 I Inland Pacific Engineering Company 5528 East 15 Avenue Geotechnical Engineering and Consulting Spokane Valley, WA I I 4 4 a 4 APPENDIX B LOGS OF TEST PITS, DECRIPTIVE TERMINOLOGY 4 4 4 4 4 4 9 a 4 9 IPEC LOG OF TEST PIT Inland Pacific Engineering Comp any Geotechnical Engineering and Consulting PROJECT: 2014-049 TEST PIT: TP-1 Geotechnical Evaluation LOCATION: Northwest corner of Proposed House house 5528 East 15th Avenue its Spokane Valley,WA DATE: 4/15/14 SCALE: 1"=2' DEPTH ASTM D2487 DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS WL TESTS OR NOTES 0.0 Symbol SILTY SAND,fine to medium grained,with roots, dark brown, moist to wet. SM (Topsoil) 2.0 SILTY SAND,fine grained,gray to brown, wet to water-bearing. (Colluvium) a SM 6.0 SILTY GRAVEL WITH SAND,fine to coarse grained,tan, water-bearing. GM (Weathered Bedrock) " 8.0 End of Test Pit Groundwater encountered at 4' Test pit immediately backfilled. IPEC LOG OF TEST PIT Inland Pacific Engineering Comp any Geotechnical Engineering and Consulting PROJECT: 2014-049 TEST PIT: TP-2 Geotechnical Evaluation LOCATION: Southeast corner of Proposed House house 5528 East 15th Avenue Spokane Valley,WA DATE: 4/15/14 SCALE: 1"=2' DEPTH ASTM D2487 DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS WL TESTS OR NOTES 0.0 Symbol SILTY SAND,fine to medium grained, with roots, dark SM brown, moist. 1.0 (Topsoil) SILTY SAND, fine to medium grained,with Boulders, brown, moist. (Colluvium) SM 4 4.0 LEAN CLAY, ironed stained,gray mottled with tan, moist to wet. (Residuum) CL 7.0 End of Test Pit Seepage @ 5' Test pit immediately backfilled. Ali 4111 4 IPEC LOG OF TEST PIT Inland Pacific Engineering Comp any Geotechnical Engineering and Consulting PROJECT: 2014-049 TEST PIT: TP-3 Geotechnical Evaluation LOCATION: North side of garage Proposed House 5528 East 15th Avenue Spokane Valley, WA DATE: 4/15/14 SCALE: 1"=2' DEPTH ASTM D2487 DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS WL TESTS OR NOTES 0.0 Symbol SILTY SAND,fine to medium grained, with roots, dark SM brown, moist. 1.0 (Topsoil) SILTY SAND,fine to coarse grained, with Cobbles, tan, moist. SM (Weathered Bedrock) 3.0 End of Test Pit Ground water not encountered Test pit immediately backfilled. 4 i 4 4 .411 ITEC Inland Pacific Engineering Company I Geotechnical Engineering and Consulting RELATIVE DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY VERSUS SPT N-VALVE COARSE-GRAINED SOILS FINE-GRAINED SOILS DENSITY N(BLOWS/FI) CONSISTENCY N(BLOWS/FT) Ai Very Loose 0-4 Very Soft 0- 1 Loose 4- 10 Soft 2-3 Rather Soft 4-5 Medium-Dense 11 -30 Medium 6- 8 Dense 31 50 Rather Stiff 9- 12 Stiff 13 - 16 4 Very Stiff 17-30 Very Dense >50 Hard >30 USCS SOIL CLASSIFICATION MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP DESCRIPTIONS Coarse- Gravel and Gravel GW Well Graded Gravel .4411 Grained Gravelly Soils ,.;,hi„ne,.„fi"r=, GP Poorly Graded Gravel ,. Soils <50%coarse fraction Gravel GM Silty Gravel passes#4 sieve :with>12%tines) GC Clayey Gravel Ar <50% Sandy and Sand SW Well Graded Sand passes#200 Sandy Soils SP Poorly Graded Sand r sieve >50%coarse fraction Sand SM Silty Sand passes#4 sieve (with>t2%lines) SC Clayey Sand Fine- ML Silt 'A Grained Silt and Clay CL Lean Clay _ Soils Liquid Limit<50 OL Organic Silt and Clay(low plasticity) >50% MH Inorganic Silt passes#200 Salt and Clay CH Fat Clay — sieve Liquid Limit>50 OH Organic Clay and Silt(med to high plasticity) Highly Organic Soils PT Peat Muck is - MODIFIERS MOISTURE CONTENT 4 DESCRIPTION RANGE DESCRIPTION FIELD OBSERVATION Occasional <5% Dry Absence of moisture,dusty,dry to the touch Trace 5%- 12% Moist Dry of optimum moisture content Ifoi With >12% Wet Wet of optimum moisture content MAJOR DIVISIONS WITH GRAIN SIZE SIEVE SIZE — 12" 3” 3/4" 4 10 40 200 GRAIN SIZE(INCHES) to 12 3 0.75 0.19 0.079 0.0171 0.0029 Boulders Cobbles Gravel Sand Silt and Clay 41 Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Henry Allen From: Paul Nelson <pauln@ipengco.com> Sent: Wednesday,July 16, 2014 7:47 AM To: Henry Allen Cc: Rob Guerry; Gabe Gallinger Subject: RE: Geotech Eval for house at 5528 E 15th Ave Attachments: 14-049 Geotechnical Report.pdf Henry, I have attached our geotechnical report for you. As for your questions, a. There is no map showing the test pit locations. The locations are described on the Log of Test Pit sheets in Appendix B b. The basement cross section is shown in Appendix A (Figure 3) c. I concur with Steve Thosath's excavation and foundation letter I hope this helps you. Please call me if you have any other questions or concerns. Thanks Henry. Paul T. Nelson, P.E. Principal Engineer Inland Pacific Engineering Company Geotechnical Engineering and Consulting P.O. Box 1566 Veradale, WA 99037 (509) 209-6262 From: Henry Allen [mailto:hallen@spokanevallev.org] Sent:Tuesday,July 15, 2014 11:53 AM To: 'pauln@ipengco.com' Cc: Rob Guerry; Gabe Gallinger Subject: Geotech Eval for house at 5528 E 15th Ave Hi Paul, Looked through portions of the Geotech report and had a couple questions: • Do you have a map showing test pit locations on property? • Section 4.5 mentions a cross section showing a typical basement underslab drain system but I couldn't find it. Please provide. • Attached is a July 11th letter from Steve Thosath describing steps for the excavation and foundation. Do you concur with the procedure described? Thank you, Henry Thank you, 1 Henry Allen Development Engineer City of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Ave, Ste. 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 (509) 720-5319 (509) 921-1008 Fax hallen@spokanevalley.org (Contents of this email and any reply are subject to public disclosure.) 2 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION PROPOSED HOUSE 5528 EAST 15th AVENUE SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON tot Inland Pacific Engineering Company Project No. 14-049 April 17, 2014 11 Project # '20(� 'O�j/�) RECEIVED APP 14 2014 CSVPERMIT CENTER S U B ,.-.1111 R E V. # I I 41IPECr Inland Pacific Engineering Company Geotechnical Engineering and Consulting GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION PROPOSED HOUSE 5528 EAST 15th AVENUE SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON Inland Pacific Engineering Company Project No. 14-049 April 17, 2014 dd 411 Prepared for: Thosath Corporation Spokane Valley, Washington 41 odi IPEC Inland Pacific Engineering Company Geotechnical Engineering and Consulting IPEC Inland Pacific Engineering Company Geotechnical Engineering and Consulting April 17, 2014 Project No. 14-049 Mr. Steve Thosath Thosath Corporation P.O. Box 30037 Spokane, WA 99223 Re: Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed House 5528 East 15th Avenue Spokane Valley, WA Dear Mr. Thosath: We have completed the geotechnical evaluation for the proposed house located at the above- referenced site in Spokane Valley, Washington. The purpose of evaluation was to assess subsurface soil and groundwater conditions to assist in design and construction of foundations and slabs for the proposed structures. We appreciate the opportunity to provide our services to you on this project. If you have any questions or need additional information,please do not hesitate to call me at(509) 209-6262 at your convenience. Sincerely, Inland Pacific Engineering Company 42 Paul T. Nelson, P.E. 44 Principal Engineer Attachment: Geotechnical Evaluation Report 4(4 P.O. Box 1566,Veradale,WA 99037 Phone 509-209-6262 TABLE OF CONTENTS -4 Project No. 14-049 Proposed House 5528 East 15th Avenue Spokane Valley, Washington page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Project Description 1 1.2 Purpose 1 1.3 Scope 1 1.4 Available Information 1 1.5 Locations and Elevations 1 2.0 RESULTS 1 2.1 Logs 1 2.2 Site Conditions 2 2.3 Soils 2 2.4 Groundwater 2 3.0 DESIGN DATA 2 4.0 ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3 4.1 Discussion 3 4.2 Site Preparation 3 4.2.1 Excavation and Replacement Option 3 4.2.2 Crawl Space Option 3 4.3 Foundations 3 4.4 Floor Slabs 4 4.5 Basement Recommendations 5 4.6 Exterior Slabs 5 4.7 Friction Coefficients 5 4.8 Lateral Earth Pressures 5 4.9 Seismic Conditions 6 4.10 Utilities 6 4.11 Site Grading and Drainage 6 5.0 CONSTRUCTION 6 5.1 Excavation 6 5.2 Observations 6 5.3 Backfills and Fills 7 5.4 Testing 7 5.5 Cold Weather 7 5.6 Wet Weather 7 6.0 PROCEDURES 7 6.1 Excavation and Sampling 7 6.2 Soil Classification 8 7.0 GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS 8 7.1 Basis of Recommendations 8 7.2 Groundwater Fluctuations 8 7.3 Use of Report 8 7.4 Level of Care 8 7.5 Professional Certification 9 40 Appendix A-Site Location Map,NRCS Map,Basement Cross Section Appendix B-Test Pit Logs,Descriptive Terminology a 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Description We understand that the proposed project will consist of constructing a one to two-story, wood- frame, residential structure that will likely have a crawl space or, as an option, a full-depth basement. At this time, design criteria are not available. For our purposes, we have assumed that wall loads will be on the order of 0.5 to 1.0 kips per lineal foot and that column loads,if any, will be on the order of 50 kips or less. 4 1.2 Purpose The purpose of this geotechnical evaluation was to assess the subsurface soil, bedrock and/or groundwater conditions to assist in design of foundations and slabs and in preparation of plans and specifications for construction of the project. 411 1.3 Scope Our services were requested by Mr. Steve Thosath of Thosath Corporation. Mr. Thosath authorized us to proceed on April 11, 2014. The scope of work agreed upon consisted of the following: • Review of existing geotechnical data and reports, if available, • Observe the excavation of two to three test pits at the site to depths ranging from 5 to 10 feet, • Classifying the soils and preparing test pit logs, and • Submitting a geotechnical report containing logs of the test pits,results of our field investigation, our analyses and our recommendations for design and construction. 1.4 Available Information • Mr. Thosath showed us site plans for the project. These plans showed the locations of the proposed house and detached garage in plan view. 1.5 Locations and Elevations The test pits were excavated at or near locations selected by us. The test pit locations are described on the Log of Test Pit sheets in Appendix A. The test pits were located based on stakes set for the house footprint. 2.0 RESULTS 2.1 Logs 4 Log of Test Pit sheets indicating the vertical sequence of soils and materials encountered and groundwater observations are included in Appendix B. The strata changes were measured during excavation of the test pits. Please note that the depths shown as changes between the strata are only approximate. The changes are likely transitions and the depths of changes vary between the test pits. Geologic origins for each stratum are based on the soil type, available geologic maps, w Geotechnical Evaluation Project No. 14-049 Proposed House 5528 East 15`h Avenue Spokane County,WA April 17,2014 Inland Pacific Engineering Company Page 2 previous geotechnical reports for this and adjacent sites, and available common knowledge of the depositional history of the site. 2.2 Site Conditions The site is located at 5528 East 15`h Avenue in Spokane Valley, Washington. The location of the site is shown on the Site Location Map in Appendix A. The site slopes down to the north with approximately 5 to 10 feet of relief across the site. 2.3 Soils Geologic maps indicate the soils in this area consist primarily of glacially deposited silts and silty to lean clays. According to the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey of Spokane County, the site soils are classified as the Urban land-Lenz, disturbed complex. This soil is described as well drained soil that formed in loess with minor amounts of volcanic ash over residuum and/or colluvium derived from granitic and metamorphic rocks. The native soils encountered in the test pits were consistent with the NRCS data. All of the test pits encountered silty sand topsoil at the surface extending to a depths of 1 to 2 feet. Below the topsoil, Test Pits TP-1 and TP-2 encountered silty sand(colluvium) to depths of 4 to 6 feet. Below the colluvium,Test Pit TP-1 encountered weathered bedrock to its termination depth of 8 feet. Below the colluvium in Test Pit TP-2,residual lean clay(highly eroded bedrock) was encountered to its 7-foot termination depth. Below the topsoil in Test Pit TP-3, weathered bedrock was encountered to its 3-foot termination depth. 2.4 Groundwater 41 Groundwater was encountered in Test Pits TP-1 and TP-2 at depths of 4 and 5 feet,respectively, during excavation. Groundwater was not encountered in Test Pit TP-3 during or immediately after excavation. Based on our observations, it appears that groundwater is migrating down the slope above the residuum and/or weathered bedrock. 3.0 DESIGN DATA We understand that the proposed project will consist of constructing a one to two-story, wood- frame, residential structure that will likely have a crawl space or, as an option, a full-depth basement. At this time, design criteria are not available. For our purposes,we have assumed that -40 wall loads will be on the order of 0.5 to 1.0 kips per lineal foot and that column loads, if any, will be on the order of 50 kips or less. If design loads or elevations change, we should be contacted. Additional analyses may be necessary.