Loading...
116 2ND AVE S (2).PDF116 2ND AVE S • ..SUBSURFACE E�LORATION AND , G�EOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PROPOSED COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL BUILDING Edmonds, Washington Pre' ared For McBride Raftery Construction W-6113 April, .1989 k, ri� 15 May 1989 W-6113 McBride-Raftery Construction 224 Nickerson Street Seattle, Washington 98109 Attention: Mr. Ken McBride Subject: Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Commercial/Residential Building For the Hansen Partnership 116 2nd Avenue South Edmonds, Washington Gentlemen: We are pleased to present herein a copy of the above referenced report. This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering study relative to the foundation and construction considerations for the proposed project. Authorization to proceed with this study was provided in a letter from Mr. Ken McBride dated 10 April 1989. This study has been completed in general accordance with our proposal letter dated 31 March 1989. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you and would be pleased to discuss the contents of this report or other aspects of the project with you at your convenience. Respectfully submitted, RITTENHOUSE-ZEMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Eric C. Pond Geotechnical Engineer cc: Mr. James R. Perrault, P.E., Harvey R. Dodd & Associates, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS W-6113 Page 1.0 SUMMARY 1 2.0 PRODUCT DESCRIPTION 2 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS 2 3.1 Surface Conditions 3 3.2 Subsurface Conditions 3 3.3 Groundwater 4 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4 4.1 Site Preparation 4 4.2 Structural Fill 5 4.3 Excavation Considerations 7 4.3.1 Soldier Piles and Underpinning 10 4.4 Excavation and Shoring Monitoring 12 4.5 Foundation Recommendations 13 4.6 Floor Support 14 4.7 Drainage Recommendations 15 4.8 Backfilled Walls 16 5.0 CLOSURE 17 Figure 1 Site and Exploration Plan Figure 2 Shoring and Underpinning Alternatives APPENDIX A Subsurface Exploration Boring Logs B-1 to B-4 1 Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Commercial/Residential Building For the Hansen Partnership 116 2nd Avenue South Edmonds, Washington Prepared for McBride-Raftery Construction 224 Nickerson Street Seattle, Washington 98109 Prepared by RITTENHOUSE-ZEMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1400 140th Avenue NE Bellevue, Washington April 1989 W-6113 Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation W-6113 Commercial/Residential Building For the Hansen Partnership 116 2nd Avenue South Edmonds, Washington 1.0 SUMMARY The proposed project construction is feasible with respect to the subsurface conditions encountered at the subject site. A brief summary of the project geotechnical considerations is presented below. o The subsurface conditions disclosed at our exploration locations generally consisted of dense to very dense gravelly silty sands overlain by 3 feet to 5 feet of loose soils at the surface. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered, we recommend that the building be supported on conventional spread footings founded on undisturbed, dense to very dense native soils, : utilizing a maximum allowable soil bearing pressure of 5000 pounds per square foot (psD. o We understand that the excavation for the building will be to a maximum depth of approximately 17 feet along 2nd Avenue South. An existing office building exists on the south side of the site. The excavation will extend below the existing footings for this building. This report contains geotechnical criteria for design of a shoring and/or underpinning system to retain this area, as well as excavation shoring considerations for other excavations on the site. Open -cut excavations along the property lines may also be feasible, provided permission and easements can be obtained from the City of Edmonds and adjacent property owners. O Each of our explorations disclosed occasional water bearing layers of sands and gravels with relatively high groundwater seepage rates. For this reason, special attention to wet site construction will be necessary. Control of surface and groundwater will be important to successful excavation and earthworks. Import fill will be necessary for all fills placed on the site in wet site conditions. t McBride-Raftery Construction • W-6113 15 May 1989 Page 2 This summary is presented for introductory purposes only and should be used in conjunction with the full text of this report. The project description, site conditions and our design recommendations are presented within the text of this report. The exploration procedures and logs are presented in Appendix A. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project site is located at 116 Second Avenue South in Edmonds, Washington. The site is a rectangularly shaped parcel with approximately 110 feet of frontage along 2nd Avenue South. The north and south property lines have a dimension of approximately 120 feet. We understand that the proposed project consists of development of a two level residential/commercial building with a daylight basement type parking garage provided below. We understand that the basement is to be concrete framed with slab -on -grade floor support. The purpose of this study was to establish general subsurface conditions at the site from which conclusions and recommendations for foundation design and construction for the project could be formulated. The scope of work consisted of field explorations, geotechnical engineering analyses, laboratory analyses, and report preparation. In the event that any changes in the nature, design or location of the structure are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report should be reviewed and modified, if necessary, to reflect the changes. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of McBride-Raftery Construction, Harvey R. Dodd and Associates and their agents, for specific application to this project in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS The site conditions were evaluated for this study in April, 1989. The surface and subsurface conditions are described below, while the exploration procedures and interpretive logs of the explorations are presented in Appendix A. The proposed site development and approximate locations of the explorations. are indicated on the Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 1. Ji ` 3 McBride-Raftery Cons ction 15 May 1989 3.1 Surface Conditions • W-6113 Page 3 The proposed project site is currently occupied by two single level office buildings with daylight basements and a single level single family residence. The site topography slopes generally down from east to west with the maximum relief across the site on the order of 17 feet. Existing ground surface elevations vary from approximately 37 feet at the northeast corner and 32 feet at the southeast corner to 20 feet at the southwest corner. Vegetation on the site generally consists of lawn grass and ornamental shrubbery. Two deciduous trees are present near the southeast property corner. 3.2 Subsurface Conditions Our subsurface exploration program consisted of advancing four hollow -stem auger borings. The subsurface conditions were found to be generally consistent at our exploration locations across the site. Our borings generally encountered loose to medium dense sands with varying amounts of silt and gravel overlying dense to very dense gravelly silty sands at depth. Borings B-1 and B-2 encountered a crushed rock surfacing over loose gravelly silty sands to a depth of approximately 5 feet. Boring B-3 encountered similar loose soil conditions to approximately 3 feet depth. Boring B-4 revealed sod and topsoil to a depth of one foot with loose soils extending to approximately three feet below the surface. Boring B-2 and B-4 encountered very dense soils at 5 feet and 3 feet respectively, extending to the full depths explored. Boring B-1 exposed medium dense soils at 5 feet which graded to very dense at approximately 10 feet. Boring B-3 revealed dense soils at approximately 3 feet which graded to very dense at the base of the exploration. All borings encountered dense to very dense native soils at or above lower finished floor elevation of 21.5 feet, with the exception of Boring B-4. Dense soils in Boring B-4 are approximately 3 feet below planned lower finished floor elevation of 21.5 feet. McBride-Raftery Construction 15 May 1989 3.3 Groundwater • W-6113 Page 4 Groundwater was encountered at each of our boring locations. Water was present in various layers in the very dense soils. The samples obtained showed varying moisture contents with variation in silt and gravel contents of the samples. The majority of the samples obtained revealed rust mottling, which is indicative of oxidation and intermittent saturation. Groundwater is present within permeable zones in site soils above the planned base of excavation. Groundwater conditions and flow volumes on this site should be expected to fluctuate with changes in season, precipitation, site conditions, on -/or off -site utilization or other factors. 4.0 CONCLUSIONS We understand that the proposed project consists of construction of a two -level structure with a daylight -basement type parking garage provided below. Planned lower level finished floor elevation is 21.5 feet, requiring an excavation up to 17 feet below 2nd Avenue. Based upon the subsurface conditions encountered in our exploration program, the site appears well suited for building support on conventional spread footings founded in the dense to very dense native soils, with slab -on -grade floor support. 4.1 Site Preparation Debris, concrete slab foundations, and below grade elements of the existing structures, underground utilities or buried tanks, should be removed from the site or abandoned in accordance with applicable state and local codes. Excavation for the structure is expected to extend to a maximum depth of about 17 feet below 2nd Avenue South. Excavation of the soils at the site can, in our opinion, be accomplished utilizing large, conventional construction equipment. To facilitate removal of the very dense soils, some ripping or jack -hammering may be necessary. Following installation of temporary shoring (if necessary) and excavation to subgrade depths, we anticipate that the base of most of the excavation would consist of dense, non -yielding native soils. We recommend that a representative of Rittenhouse -Zeman & Associates (RZA) be present to confirm the soil conditions at the base of the excavation. The excavated surface should be observed to detect the presence of pockets of disturbed soils, which, if McBride-Raftery Consfction • W-6113 15 May 1989 Page 5 encountered, should be removed and backfilled in 'accordance with the recommendations for "structural fill" as outlined later in this report. About 3 feet of loose soils were encountered in borings near the west end of the building. We recommend that site preparation include excavation of loose soils below proposed footings. Overexcavation depths and widths should be as described in the "Foundation Considerations" section of this report. Overexcavation may also be required for slab -on -grade or pavement support. We recommend that existing loose soils which are present below planned pavements or slab -on -grade floors be compacted to at least 90 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM:D 1557). This would require removal of the upper few feet of loose soil, compaction at the base of the excavation, and backfill of the excavation with compacted structural fill. Compaction of existing site soils as structural fill can only be accomplished during extended dry weather periods. The subgrade soils in the building area should be protected by the contractor from disturbance during wet site conditions. Towards this end, it may be prudent to spread a working surface of clean, well -graded sand and gravel or quarry spalls over the slab subgrade soils. Footing excavation surfaces should be protected by a lean concrete mud slab if footing subgrade soils are exposed to water. We anticipate that groundwater seepage will be encountered within the depths. of the excavation. The contractor should be prepared to dewater the excavation as necessary. This could be accomplished through the use of pumping wells or well points located around the perimeter of the excavation or by directing the water into a sump area where it can be pumped from the site. Temporary excavation slopes which expose groundwater seepage zones should be protected from erosion and piping by placement of a layer of quarry spalls or gravel. 4.2 Structural Fill All fill material and utility backfill placed in building, pavement, and non -landscaped areas should be placed in accordance with the recommendations herein for structural fill. Prior to fill placement, the surfaces to receive structural fill should be prepared as previously described. All structural fill should be free of organic material, debris, or other McBride-Raftery Consolction • W-6113 15 May 1989 Page 6 deleterious material. Individual particle size should be less than six inches in diameter. In the case of roadway and utility trench filling, the backfill should also be placed and compacted in accordance with current local codes and standards, if those standards exceed the minimum criteria set forth herein. Structural fill should be placed in lifts no greater than 8 inches in loose thickness and each lift compacted to at least 90% of the modified Proctor maximum dry density as determined by the ASTM:D-1557 test procedure. We recommend that a geotechnical engineer, or his representative, be present during grading such that a representative number of density tests may be conducted as structural fill placement occur. In this way, the adequacy of the earthwork may be evaluated as it proceeds. The suitability of soils for structural fill use depends primarily on the gradation and moisture content of the soil when it is placed. As the amount of fines (that soil fraction passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve) increases, soil becomes increasingly sensitive to small changes in moisture content and adequate compaction becomes more difficult, or impossible to achieve. Generally, soils containing more than about 5 percent fines by weight (based on that soil fraction passing the U.S. No. 4 sieve) cannot be compacted to a firm, non -yielding condition when the moisture content is more than a few percent from optimum. The optimum moisture content is that which yields the greatest soil density under a given compacted effort. The site soils consist predominantly of gravelly silty sand, which appear suitable for use as structural fill only during extended dry weather periods when drying of the soils to near optimum moisture content is possible. Groundwater is present in permeable zones within the dense native soils. It is likely that the excavated soils will initially be at moisture contents above optimum, and would require drying prior to use as structural fill. Because of the high percentage of fines, use of the site soils for structural fill should be limited to the relatively dry summer and early fall months depending on the weather. Basement wall backfill will require imported, free -draining fill. On -site soils should not be used for backfill within 3 feet behind basement walls. If rain occurs during placement of on -site soils, the compacted, in -place soils should be allowed to dry prior to additional filling. It may be necessary to scarify, dry and recompact the upper layer prior to additional filling. . , McBride-Raftery Cons#tion W-6113 15 May 1989 Page 7 In the event that inclement weather or wet site conditions preclude the use of on -site soil or nonselect material as structural fill. We recommend that a "clean", free -draining gravelly sand be used. Such material should generally contain less than 5 percent fines based on that soil fraction passing the U.S. No. 4 sieve and not contain discrete particles greater than 6 inches in diameter. It should be noted that the placement of structural fill is in most cases heavily weather dependent. Delays due to inclement weather are common even when using select granular fill. We recommend that site grading and subsurface utility work be scheduled for the drier months if at all possible. 4.3 Excavation Considerations Construction of the proposed facility will require excavation of up to about 17 feet in depth. The maximum height of cut will be located along 2nd Avenue South and will decrease to the west. Along the south side of the excavation, adjacent to the existing office building, it appears that the excavation will extend up to 6 feet below the existing footings. Therefore, underpinning or rigid shoring will be necessary to support these footings during excavation. We recommend that accurate as -built information be reviewed to determine the existing footing elevations, loads, and condition. Due to the proximity of the existing building, as well as the street, alley, and any underground utilities, the contractor should include provision for protection of the existing structures, street, alley and underground utilities which are satisfactory to the owner and structural engineer. In addition, the contractor should be allowed to implement additional protective measures, if appropriate, depending on the conditions disclosed in the excavation, once construction is underway. It is generally not the purpose of this report to provide specific criteria for construction methods, materials or procedures. It should be the responsibility of the excavation or shoring subcontractor to verify actual ground conditions on the site and determine the construction methods and procedures needed for installation of an appropriate shoring system or maintenance of stable temporary open -cut excavation slopes. McBride-Raftery Consoction 15 May 1989 • W-6113 Page 8 Temporary excavation slope stability is a function of many factors including soil type, density, cut inclination, depth, the presence of groundwater and the length of time that the cut is to remain open. As the cut is deepened, or as the length of time that the excavation is open increases, the likelihood of a bank failure increases. For this reason, temporary slope safety should remain the responsibility of the contractor, who is present at the site to observe changes in the site soil conditions and to monitor the performance of the excavation. A maximum temporary slope of 1 H:1 V (horizontal:vertical) is recommended for planning purposes in the loose to medium dense site materials which are not below or adjacent to existing foundations. Borings on the east side of the property encountered 5 to 7 feet of loose to medium dense soils. Dense to very dense soils could be sloped as steeply as 1/2H:1 V. If seepage or surface runoff occurs and is not controlled, flatter temporary slopes will be necessary. In all cases, cut slopes and slope shoring should conform to applicable federal, state and or local safety guidelines. Open cut excavations adjacent to existing foundations require flatter slopes in order to protect bearing materials below the footings. On a preliminary basis, we recommend such open cuts slope down at 1.5 HAV or flatter within the dense to very dense soils. This criteria may require revision after the soils are exposed during excavation. Open -cut excavation appears feasible along the north, west, east, and part of the south property lines, provided the city and any affected property owners provide open -cut easements. Along the street and alley, the open -cut feasibility will also depend on existing utility depths and locations, as the excavation may extend on the order of 10 to 15 feet outside the planned basement wall location. In the event that utilities are present in the planned excavation location, or easements of sufficient width can not be obtained, shoring would be necessary to allow steeper excavation. Along the south property line, the foundation of the adjacent office building appears to require underpinning, or rigid shoring. Open -cut excavation below the level of the existing foundation would only be feasible if limited to relatively flat slopes as described previously in this report. Underpinning of the existing foundations south of the site could utilize either cast -in - place concrete underpinning installed in sequenced narrow excavations, or drilled soldier piles set under the footings. Either should be designed and constructed as described subsequently in this report, and could settle on the order of I/2 inch or less. McBride-Raftery Constftion W-6113 15 May 1989 Page 9 The underpinning should also be designed to support "at -rest" lateral earth pressures, Figure 2 of this report. As an alternative to underpinning, rigid shoring, designed for "at -rest" lateral earth pressures, could be installed inside the property lines without exposing the existing office building foundations. Rigid shoring could consist of either soldier piles with timber lagging, or cast -in -place, reinforced concrete. Lateral pressures for design of rigid shoring are presented on Figure 2. Structural design should be accomplished to limit bending deflection at the top of the rigid shoring to a magnitude which would be acceptable if the adjacent footing moved laterally and vertically an amount equal to the shoring deflection. Shoring and underpinning, even if well -designed, present a risk of damage to the existing structure. The risk can be minimized by selected a shoring contractor experienced in similar installations, and by continuously monitoring shoring, underpinning, and excavation operations near the existing structure. We recommend that the project construction budget and schedule include a contingency sufficient for additional protective measures, in the event that construction difficulties or variable soil conditions require redesign of the shoring efforts. It appears that protection of the existing structure could utilize a combination of open -cut (where the footing. elevation allows) and rigid shoring. This option would be cost- effective compared to underpinning, and reduces the risks caused by exposing the existing footings for underpinning installation. Since the selection of underpinning and shoring techniques affects the level of risk, we recommend that the final selection of underpinning and shoring methods and design criteria be made by the owner in conjunction with the structural engineer, construction manager, and other design team members. Shoring of the north and east sides of the excavation, if necessary, could be provided by several different methods. In our opinion, the two methods which we consider most appropriate for the project include soldier pile and lagging shoring with tie -back anchor support as necessary, or a combination of "soil nailing" and temporary slopes. The most widely used and commonly accepted method in the Puget Sound area typically is soldier McBride-Raftery Constiftion W-6113 15 May 1989 Page 10 pile and tie -back anchor shoring support. Alternatively, soil nailing is a relatively new shoring system for the United States and local experience in its use is relatively limited. Soil nailing consists of installing non -prestressed grouted anchors in drilled holes (soil nails) during the excavation process and facing the cut soil face with welded wire mesh, rebar and shot crete. Soil nailing eliminates the need for soldier piles, therefore, it can result in a more economical shoring system. However, the loose soils encountered on the site, and ranging to depths of 3 feet to 5 feet, are not considered well suited for standard soil nailing techniques. Temporary slopes may be required for the upper loose soils, therefore reducing the potential available excavation size or requiring excavation outside the property lines. Soil nailing is not considered adequate for shoring adjacent to the existing structures south of the property. If shoring is considered necessary on the north and east sides of the excavation, our firm should be consulted for design and construction recommendations. 4.3.1 Soldier Piles and Underpinning Soldier piles for shoring or underpinning are typically set in pre-augered holes and backfilled with lean or structural concrete. Vertical loads on such piles could be resisted by a combination of friction and end bearing below the base of the excavation. We recommend an allowable side friction value of 1000 psf and an end bearing value of 20 ksf (kips per square foot) for design. Side friction should be neglected within the upper two feet below the base of the excavation. The 20 ksf end bearing value is predicated on embedment of at least 7 feet below the base of the excavation and assumes penetration into the very dense soils. If soldier piles are utilized for permanent foundation support, we recommend that the above values be reduced by at least 1 /3 to provide a higher factor of safety. The above values include a factor of safety of 1.5. As mentioned previously, seepage may be encountered during drilling or excavation on the site. The contractor should be prepared to handle seepage and prevent caving or loss of ground with casing or other means if necessary. Embedment depth of soldier piles below final excavation level must be designed to provide adequate lateral, "kick -out", resistance to horizontal loads. We recommend a minimum embedment of 7 feet below the base of the excavation. For design, the lateral resistance may be computed on the basis of the design passive pressures presented on Figure 2 of this report, acting over twice the diameter of the concreted soldier pile McBride-Raftery Constotion 15 May 1989 • , W-6113 Page 11 section, or the pile spacing, which ever is less. Passive resistance within the upper two feet of soil below the excavation base should be neglected. Active pressure should be assumed to act over the concreted pile diameter below the base of the excavation and over the pile spacing above the base of the excavation. We recommend lagging or some other form of protection, be installed in all shored or underpinned areas. Due to soil arching effects, lagging may be designed for 50 percent of the lateral earth pressure used for shoring design. Prompt and careful installation of lagging will reduce potential loss of ground. The requirements for lagging should be made the responsibility of the shoring subcontractor to prevent soil failure, sloughing and loss of ground and to provide safe working conditions. We recommend any voids between the lagging and soil be backfilled. However, the backfill should not, allow potential hydrostatic pressure to build up behind the wall. Drainage behind the wall must be maintained. A permeable sand or pea gravel may be considered for lagging backfill. If underpinning is planned as an alternative to rigid shoring, it will be necessary to provide vertical support for existing perimeter footings of the office building adjacent to the south excavation face. The footing elevation is estimated to be up to 6 feet above the proposed excavation base. Underpinning could utilize soldier piles supporting the footing base, or cast -in place concrete underpinnings in narrow pits. Temporary underpinnings should be constructed in short isolated segments in order to maintain adequate support for the footing at all times. The specifications for underpinning segment length and spacing should be based on structural capabilities of the existing footing. The underpinning also should be designed to adequately resist lateral "at rest" pressures as shown on Figure 2. Design of vertical support for underpinning members may utilize design parameters described in the Foundations section of this report. It is anticipated that very dense soils will be encountered below the existing footings. It may be feasible to excavate for temporary underpinning members with temporary vertical faced excavations, although laborers working in the area would have to be protected. McBride-Raftery Conoction W-6113 15 May 1989 Page 12 4.4 Excavation and Shoring Monitoring Any time an excavation is made below the level of existing. buildings, utilities, or other structures, there is a risk of damage even if a well designed shoring system and excavation has been planned. We recommend, therefore, that a systematic program of observation be conducted during the project construction to delineate the effects of construction of adjacent facilities and structures. We believe that such a program is necessary for two reasons. First, if excessive movement is detected sufficiently early, it may be possible to undertake remedial measures which could prevent serious damage to existing facilities or structures. Second, in the unlikely event that problems do arise, the responsibility for damage may be established more equitably if the cause and the extent of damage can be better defined. The monitoring program should include measurements of the horizontal and vertical movements of the adjacent structures and -of the shoring system itself. At least two reference lines should be established adjacent to the excavations at horizontal distances back from the excavation faces or top of cut of about 5 and 15 feet. Monitoring of the shoring system should include measurement of vertical and horizontal movement at the top of each soldier pile or underpinning location, as well as monitoring of any structures or settlement sensitive features located within a setback of 30 feet from the shoring or excavation. If local wet areas are noted within the excavation, additional monitoring points should be established at the direction of the soils engineer. The measuring system used for monitoring should have an accuracy of 0.01 feet. All reference points on the existing structures should be installed and readings taken prior to commencing the excavation. All reference points should be read prior to and during critical stages of construction. The frequency of reading will depend on the results of previous readings and the rate of construction. As a minimum, readings should be taken once a week throughout the construction and until the lower level walls are completed and backfilled. All readings should be submitted to the geotechnical engineer in a timely manner. In order to establish the condition of existing facilities prior to construction, we recommend that the owner and/or his representative make a complete inspection near the project site. This inspection should be directed toward detecting any previous McBride-Raftery Consotion 15 May 1989 • W-6113 Page 13 movement. The observation should be documented by pictures, notes, survey drawings, or other means of verification. The contractor should also establish, for their own records, the existing conditions prior to construction. 4.5 Foundation Recommendations Continuous and individual spread footing foundations can provide suitable foundation support for the structure. The footings should extend to the undisturbed, very dense native soils. It appears that suitable soils for footing support are present at the lower floor grade for much of the building, however, loose to medium dense soils were encountered to a bottom elevation of about 19 feet near the southwest property corner. Previously placed fill may also be present, requiring deepened footings. If the planned footing elevations do not extend to the very dense soils, they should be overexcavated to very dense soils and the over excavations immediately backfilled with a lean concrete up to the bottom of the footing elevation. Alternatively, footings could be extended to the very dense soil elevation. The on -site soils are readily subject to disturbance from construction or foot traffic when damp or wet. If construction is accomplished during wet weather or if seepage enters the excavation, it would be necessary to protect the footing subgrade soils from disturbance prior to concrete placement. The footing subgrade could be protected by placement of a . thin, lean concrete mudslab immediately following excavation of the footing and cleanout of any loosened or disturbed soils. We recommend utilizing a maximum allowable soil bearing pressure for foundation design equal to 5,000 psf for these support conditions, based on total dead plus live load. This bearing pressure could be increased up to one-third to resist transient, dynamic loads such as wind or seismic forces. Continuous footings should have a minimum width of 18 inches and isolated spread footings a minimum width of 24 inches. We recommend that the base of all spread footings be located a minimum depth of 11/2 feet below the top of floor slab or adjacent exterior grade, whichever is lower. We recommend that all footing excavations be observed by a representative of Rittenhouse - Zeman & Associates prior to concrete placement to verify the adequacy of the bearing soils. Use of 5,000 psf bearing pressure does not allow support of foundations on McBride-Raftery Consotion 15 May 1989 • W-6113 Page 14 structural fill. As described previously, any over excavations below footings should be backfilled with lean concrete. Assuming the foundation elements are founded in very dense soils or lean concrete extending to the very dense soils, we estimate that total settlements should be less than 3/4-inch with differential settlements on the order of 1/2-inch or less. Most of the settlement should occur during the construction of the building. However, if any disturbed or soft materials are left within the footing areas prior to concrete placement, settlements may be increased. For that reason, the condition of the footing subgrade soils should be evaluated by a representative of Rittenhouse -Zeman & Associates, prior to concrete placement, to confirm that the condition of the bearing soils are consistent with those assumed during design, and that all loose materials are removed. Lateral loads applied to the footings and foundation walls could be resisted by a combination of passive resistance and frictional sliding resistance. We recommend that an allowable passive equivalent fluid unit weight equal to 325 pcf be used for passive resistance of footings and walls cast neatly against the very dense native soils. An allowable passive equivalent fluid unit weight of 200 pcf could be used for compacted structural fill next to the footings. An allowable passive equivalent fluid unit weight of 100 pcf should be assumed for foundations next to existing loose soils or loose, poorly compacted backfill. An allowable coefficient of friction equal to 0.45 could be used along the base of the foundation. Frictional resistance is computed by multiplying the resultant vertical foundation load by the frictional coefficient. A factor of safety equal to at least 1.5 has been incorporated into these allowable values. 4.6 Floor Support The slab on -grade subgrade should be prepared in accordance with the previous site preparation recommendations. The slab on -grade areas should be founded on pre - rolled or compacted native ground or structural fill compacted to at least 90 percent density (as determined by the ASTM:D 1557 test procedure). We recommend that the floor slab be underlain by at least a 6-inch thickness of coarse sand and gravel, crushed rock, or pea gravel containing less than 3 percent fines based on that soil fraction passing the U.S. No. 4 sieve. We recommend the capillary break contain at least 30 percent gravel. This layer of granular fill is intended to serve as a capillary break and McBride-Raftery Consotion 15 May 1989 • W-6113 Page 15 working surface. An impervious moisture barrier should also be placed beneath the slab. Subsurface drains may be necessary below the floor, in the event that groundwater seepage encountered during excavation appears to warrant them. We recommend that the final decision of whether to provide subsurface drains below the slab be made at the time of construction in consultation with Rittenhouse -Zeman & Associates, Inc., based on the conditions encountered during excavation. 4.7 Drainage Recommendations All backfilled walls surrounding structures, below grade sumps, or mechanical pits should be provided with subsurface drainage. To protect walls and floors from moisture and to avoid the buildup of hydrostatic pressures, we recommend that the backfill material within 36 inches outside backfilled walls and extending the full height of the wall consist of clean, free -draining sand and gravel conforming to the recommended gradation for drainage material. Washed or screened gravel could be substituted for sand and gravel drainage material, provided filter fabric is placed to separate the washed gravel from adjacent site soils or fill. The backfill should be sealed at the ground surface with a minimum of 1-foot thickness of impervious soils in any unpaved area to prevent surface water from entering directly into the wall backfill. Final site grades should be designed to carry surface water away from the structures in order to prevent it from accumulating and ponding next to the building. Walls poured flush against shoring should be provided with drainage by placing a continuous, prefabricated geotextile drainage medium against the shoring. There are a number of products available, and the product should include a high transmissivity drainage medium with a geotextile filter fabric on at least the side adjacent to the soil. We recommend that we review the specifications for the product chosen. A plastic or visqueen sheet should be attached against the drainage panel prior to pouring the concrete in order to protect it. Water proofing should be provided as considered necessary by the owners and engineers. It should be realized that the primary purpose of the prefabricated drainage medium is reduction of hydrostatic pressures. Some potential for moisture to contact the back face of the wall may exist even with this treatment, which may require that extensive waterproofing be specified for walls which McBride-Raftery Consloction 15 May 1989 • W-6113 Page 16 require interior or moisture sensitive finishes. The drainage medium should drain directly to the footing drains. At the base of the walls, we recommend providing continuous footing drains. The footings drains (with cleanouts) should consist of perforated pipe, sloped to drain, with perforations placed down. The footing drains should be tightlined to a storm sewer or other suitable discharge. The free draining backfill adjacent to the backfilled walls should also be continuous to and envelope the footing drains for at least 6 inches in all directions. Roof drains should not be connected to the subdrains. ,4.8 Backfilled Walls r The lateral soil pressures on foundation walls backfilled on one side only will primarily depend on the degree of compaction and the amount of lateral movement permitted at the top wall during backfilling operations. If the walls are free to yield at the top an amount equal to 0.001 times the height of the wall, then the soil pressures will be less than if the movement is more limited by stiffness or by building construction prior to backfilling. Utilizing the recommended backfill compaction of 90 percent of the modified proctor maximum dry densities, we recommend that an equivalent fluid pressure of 30 pcf and 45 pcf be used for yielding and non -yielding backfilled walls, respectively. Any walls poured flush against shoring should be design for the same lateral pressures as the shoring. These equivalent fluid pressures are based on the assumptions of a uniform backfill and no buildup of hydrostatic pressures behind the wall. The effect of surcharges, such as floor loads, should also be included. For a uniformly distributed load behind the backfilled wall, the corresponding uniformly distributed lateral earth pressure equal to 30 percent of the surcharge for yielding walls and 50 percent for a non -yielding wall, should be added to the equivalent fluid pressure. Also, to prevent the buildup of lateral earth pressures in excess of the above design pressures in excess of the above design pressures, overcompaction of fill behind the walls should be avoided. This can be accomplished by placing backfill within 36 inches of the wall in lifts not exceeding 6 inches in loose depth and compacting with hand -operated or self-propelled equipment. McBride-Raftery Consoction 15 May 1989 • W-6113 Page 17 Care should be taken where utilities penetrate through basement walls. Minor settlement of the backfill can put significant soil bearing on utilities, and some form of flexible connection may be appropriate at backfilled wall penetrations. 5.0 CLOSURE The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the explorations accomplished for this study. If any modifications of the design as discussed in this report are made, we recommend that we be provided the opportunity to review the recommendations and considerations provided herein to determine whether any changes are appropriate. The integrity and performance of .the shoring and foundation system depends greatly on proper site preparation and construction procedures. Therefore, we recommend that we be retained to provide geotechnical services during the excavation and foundation construction phases of the project. If variations in the subsurface conditions are observed at that time, we would be able to provide geotechnical engineering recommendations to the owner and contractor in a timely manner as the foundation construction progresses. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you on this project. Should you have any questions regarding this report, or other aspects of the project, please do not hesitate to call. Respectfully submitted, RITTEN OUSE-ZEMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 7v,' j �- Eric C. Pond Geotechnical Engineer 6b2h!nE2!Z_ippe4r, P. Associate cc: Harvey R Dodd & Associates, Inc. Attention: Jim Perrault ECP:pp4 ALLEY PROPERTY LINE -- B-1 B-3 I EXISTING I OFFICE I ' --� BUILDING' . i -�--TO BE REMOVED LIMITS OF .PROPOSED f- -- I BUILDI_NG EXISTING I RESIDENCE I L-J EXISTING j I OFFICE I BUILDING 1116 SECOND AVE. S. -I-------� ®2 L_ _I B-4 EXPLANATION 0-4 INDICATES BORING NUMBER AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION DRAWING BASED ON PLAN BY HARVEY R.DODD 8 ASSOCIATES. DATED FEB 1989. 0 20 40 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET PROPOSED COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL BUILDING EDMONDS, WASHINGTON ADJACENT OFFICE BUILDING SITE & EXPLORATION PLAN FIGURE 1 RITTENHOUSE-ZEMAN & RZA W O W — 61 13 ASSOCIATES, INC. BY E C P Geotechnical & Hydrogeological Consultants r DATE APR 1989 1400140th Avenue N. E. SCALE NOTED Bellevue, WA 98005 APPENDIX A SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION APPENDIX A Field Exploration The field exploration program conducted for this study consisted of advancing a series of four hollow stem auger borings. The approximate exploration locations are illustrated on the Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 1. The exploration locations were obtained in the field by taping from site features shown on a plan provided by Harvey R. Dodd and Associates. Elevations were estimated by reference to spot elevations for property corners shown on the referenced site plan. The locations and elevations of the explorations should be considered as accurate as the degree implied by the method used. Hollow Stem Auger Borings The borings were drilled on 18 April 1989 by a local exploration drilling company under subcontract to our firm. The borings consisted of advancing a 4-inch inside diameter hollow stem auger with a truck -mounted drill rig. During the drilling process, samples were obtained at generally 21/2 or 5-foot intervals. The borings were continuously observed and logged by a geotechnical engineer from our firm. Disturbed samples were obtained by using the Standard Penetration Test Procedure as described in ASTM:D 1586. This test and sampling method consists of driving a standard 2-inch outside diameter split barrel sampler a distance of 18 inches into the soil with a 140 pound hammer free -falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows for each 6-inch interval is recorded. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches is considered the Standard Penetration Resistance ("N") or blow count. The blow count is presented graphically on the boring logs in this appendix. If a total of 40 blows is recorded within one 6-inch interval, the blow count is recorded as 50 blows for the number of inches of penetration. The resistance, or "N" value, provides a measure of the relative density of granular soils or the relative consistency of cohesive soils. Appendix A Page 2 The soil samples obtained from the split -barrel sampler were classified in the field and representative portions placed in plastic containers. The samples were then transported to our laboratory for further classification and laboratory testing. Samples are generally saved for a period of 30 days unless special arrangements are made. The boring logs presented in this appendix are based on the drilling action, inspection of the samples secured, laboratory results and field logs. The various types of soils are indicated as well as the depths where the soils or characteristics of the soils changed. It should be noted that these changes may have been gradual, and if the changes occurred between sample intervals, they were interpreted. RITTENHOUSE-ZE N & ASSOC., INC. GeotechWcal / Hydrogeological Consultants w rn SOIL DESCRIPTION = F w km A.......A Q, s....e C1....n•1-.. enn—l—f.ly qR Cunf G BORING NUMBER W.O. N-6113 PROJECT NAME Hansen Partnership O I I STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE a? ¢ ♦ BLOWS PER FOOT O a (140 Ib. hammer, 30 Inch drop) cc y a 3� 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 Crushed rock surfacing over loose, damp to moist, tan and brown with rust mottling, silty, fine to — — — — - - medium SAND, trace to some coarse sand and gravel ------------------------ Medium dense grading to very dense, moist to wet gray with some rust mottling, silty fine to medium SAND, some coarse sand and gravel, with 5 2I -- - - - - - occassional water -bearing sand and gravel layers 31 10 4I 1 -- — — - -• -- 62 - .. 15 50/6' . 20 6T — 50/ 5' 25 Very dense, saturated, blue -grey, silty fine;SAND, some medium to coarse sand and gravel -30 T 71 _ — _ - _ -. 5_0/4' - Boring terminated at 29 feet 18 April 1989 35 t SAMPLING I 2 2' OD SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE i ][ 3' OD SHELBY SAMPLE ® 2.5' ID RING SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE * SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED t f GROUND WATER M SEAL DATE WATER LEVEL AT TIME OF DRILLING ATD OBSERVATION WELL TIP LABORATORY TESTS % WATER CONTENT NP NON PLASTIC • ++— LIQUID LIMIT k--NATURAL WATER Z CONTENT PLASTIC LIMIT RITTENHOUSE-ZEAM&ASSOC., INC. GeotechWcal / Hydrogeological Consultants W co y SOIL DESCRIPTION _ �u w ca r1mund illrfnrA Flavatinn Annrnylmataly 32 Faat o J BORING NUMBER W.O. W-6113 PROJECT NAME Hansen Partnership a I I STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE a ? BLOWS PER FOOT ly O a (140 Ib. hammer, 30 Inch drop) y cc a 3 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 Crushed rock surfacing over loose, moist, tan rust - - - - - - and brown, silty, fine to coarse SAND, some gravel _ 1 - -- -- - -- - - Very dense, moist to wet, gray with some rust mottling, silty, fine to medium SAND, some coarse .sand and gravel, with occassional water bearing - -- -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - sand and gravel layers ., 3 0/5 10 4 15 51 - - - -- - - - 0/6' . _. Very dense, wet grading to damp, blue -grey, silty fine SAND, some medium to coarse sand and gravel 2 0 61 — - - - - - - - 0/5" - 25 3 0 1 0/3" Boring terminated at 29 feet 18 April 1989 35 SAMPLING GROUND WATER LABORATORY TESTS 2 SEAL 2' OD SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE 0 %WATER CONTENT 3r T OD SHELBY SAMPLE DATE Np NON PLASTIC ® 2.5' ID RING SAMPLE WATER LEVEL AT TIME OF DRILLING nT� OBSERVATION ��- LIQUID LIMIT B BULK SAMPLE 2PLASTIC NATURAL WATER * SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED WELL TIPCONTENT LIMIT RZA RITTENHOUSE-ZENW, & ASSOC., INC. BORING NUMBER W.O. W-6113 Geotecltttica! / Iliydrogeologrcnl COttSIIltRlltS PROJECT NAME Hansen Partnership F w .ww. 0 STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE SOIL DESCRIPTION F ~ a Z tr BLOWS PER FOOT a m O a (140 lb. hammer, 30 Inch drop) Ground Surface Elevation Approximately 27 Feet 0 y O 3 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 Crushed rock surfacing over loose, wet, brown tan and gray, silty fine to coarse and, trace to some — — — — — — — gravel — — — — - - - — — Dense grading to very dense, moist to wet, tan and gray with rust mottling, silty, fine to medium SAND, trace to some coarse sand and gravel, with occassional water -bearing; -.sand and gravel layers 5 21 1 10 15 20 1 56 Boring terminate at 19 feet 18 April 1989 25 30 35 40 — - - — — SAMPLING I 2' OD SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE ]L 3' OD SHELBY SAMPLE ® 2.5' ID RING SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE * SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED GROUND WATER SEAL DATE WATER LEVEL AT TIME OF DRILLING JIDOBSERVATION WELL TIP LABORATORY TESTS % WATER CONTENT NP NON PLASTIC i---ice— LIQUID LIMIT. NATURAL WATER CONTENT 2PLASTIC LIMIT , JMZA W-6113 RITTENHOUSE—ZAN & ASSOC., INC. BORING NUMBER— _ W.O. Geoteclnfical / Hydrogeological Consultants PROJECT NAME Hansen Partnership W b h flr' co a STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE ,• SOIL DESCRIPTION _ ~a co z 0. z Cr BLOWS PER FOOT �y ! �yGround Surface Elevation Approximately 22 Feet m g y p a (3 (140 lb. hammer, 30 Inch drop) 0 10 20 30 40 50 SVd and topsoil 0 loose, -moil i'o weff--tYr and-ru"s1-,-f1-1.iy Tine to - — - - - - - - coarse SAND, some gravel ---------------------------------------- Anse grading to very dense, moist to wet, gray with some rust mottling, silty, fine to medium AND, some coarse sand and gravel, with occassional ter bearing sand and gravel layers 5 I - _- _- - -_ - - — -10 3 90 15 20 5 /5�"- Boring terminated at 19 feet 18 April 1989 25 30 35 40 SAMPLING I 2' OD SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE ][ 3' OD SHELBY SAMPLE ® 2.5' ID RING SAMPLE B BULK SAMPLE * SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED i I. 1 a GROUND WATER SEAL DATE WATER LEVEL AT TIME OF DRILLING ATD OBSERVATION WELL TIP LABORATORY TESTS % WATER CONTENT NP NON PLASTIC t— LIQUID LIMIT NATURAL WATER CONTENT PLASTIC LIMIT .: 9107Z5 w — .a - asso-a'law"atata -tI■tatmw DNIdOUswaso—WaSlassa0--vasso.; Mrs." NVId 2 A3)1 SO'MQ IAIHA5:Ad",;)*V"ru"v 0 v . ASIVIS Savor jA W, -WA.Wffi� swum co z c,crn■, —.a Usual ")VAN.W Asaao 00 M 0. Mor U.8-aCUM rA , jussaU101 WOUS3 a3UAMWaAM 309 saWaS 'Mo.—Aass —.sNu r wUast" ML�— x 3. A —1NO3 NOLLVnUb:—iNrFC—IOO TZ 0 -C AlmAs slow wo"Tow] nuts a outs va as." ow,m/1 :V... cram . I A— — I go* foot • too goo WVS** llwt4 arw*zv xv, -.N.A moll — , r twol Was mooa . .... MV ANG'. Ats' our —M • las� "as aaft -m— As- assotaftsosalat M, SM05 jr aaM a0out®.O assa—Z )—.xxwvw :SIONMO •losa.— -u— ....s 7 *'FM. a : m til "swe or, Taa—.—. —,w-. * VMW-sW4-- ,aU NOIJdIH3S30'lVD3-1 rmvcCasrjo r. ric couvu)— a A P, ■um am 0 dVn AJJMDIA covensuawwwavingisoll Uattutor Isar a,,al byi Sas s-wuWWTaWMMWM fit caadst am cataa am aroav P a &w■ cmu all swasco wt... nvw ova NOtLVRUO*a30o* . .......... . . .. . . . ,, a -111*130F a. too. Siam c. aura SONIMvea do XBOM 5- -;Vv PAO If/ 3-11A 13381S ..'CITY OF EMMONIE32- 200 DAYTON ST. • EDMONDS. WASHINGTON 98020 • (206) rr;; DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 1t,1rc:h .16, 1981. +rtARVE I i. r IARRISON "AMA rq Dear Resident: On February 17, 1981, the -Edmond, City Council passed Resolution 488 for construction, reconstruction and repair of deteriorated sidewalks. A public hearing will be held in the Council Chambers at the Civic Center on April 21, 1981 at 7:30 P.M, You are invited to attend this hearing for discussing construction ofrnew:-:Si(3dwa�l;k'��abutting your property . The installation offl� r ,now dewal'k:5, at the expense of the abutting property owner., is provided by City Ordinance, Chapter 7.20 and Revised code of Washington, Chapter 35.68• The area needing sidewalks ha:) 1;, rn marked adjoining your property. Construction of thO!-;(� si-dewalks must be completed on or before September .l , ]'�1.31.. In the event improvements are not completed with .in th�� above specified time, the City will perform and com(-).lc.te the improvements at.the expense of the abutting property owner. This action is in response to II1r,3ny citizen requests and increased pedestrian traffic it, sr�ecifiecl Ur.eas. S i.ncer. ply, Director. of Public Works a APPLICATION for The City of Edmonds SIDE SEWER PERMIT EASEMENT No . .......................................... NEW CONSTRUCTION ❑ REPAIRS ❑ 113-03100 OWNER.......... Thomas...J.....P.owe.11......................................................... ADDRESS ...... 1.16-- 2nd.--AVe. $. . ... 1 CONTRACTOR-•-•-•--•------•.........................•--..............-•------................................ PERMIT No....................... LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT No . .............................................. BLOCK No. ............................................ NAMEOF ADDITION..-•---•--•-•...........................••--••---••-•--.......--•--...................................................................... Dye Tested On Sewer 1972 Approved: DATE................................................ BY.............-•-•-•--•---............................................. .R f M M 1� Mr. Robert A P. 0. Box 11' Edmonds, ryas] Dear Sire T1 to me for in, P, Avenue is be, you will be I. the west gut, property. LRL s rf cc: Don Lawson, City Supervisor ^ecprnber 1, 1965 LEIF R. LARSON City Engineer Your letter Second * study, fatede vy rain, spate 8, N N 117 8-4789 ROBERT A. JORGENSEN `: ARCHITECTURE • INDUSTRIAL DESIGN P. O. BOX 245 116 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH PR 6-6002 EDMONDS. WASH. • 98020 Mr. D. Lawson City Supervisor Edmonds, Washington Dear Sir: The grades on the new street as paved at 116 2nd avenue south, Edmonds, in front of our property are completely unsatisfactory. The east side is about two feet higher than the west and. the storm water comes in a flood to our sid.e. There is also an alley to the east which adds considerably to the surge that comes over the curb and floods our property, basement area and parking. In addition,there is a storm drain at the north east corner of James and 2nd which is at a high point and collects no water whatsoever. We respectively request that this situation be investi- gated. and corrective measures taken. This should be done right away before the situation becomes real serious. v yours, Ro t J rgensen CHK. BY COMPUTATION SHEET HARVEY R. DODD & ASSOC., Inc. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 820 MINOR AVENUE NORTH SUITE 200 SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98109-4420 (206)682-1500 FAX # (206) 682-2623 E>x sty)q Situ J UN PERMIT COUNTER JOB NO. 9728100 �H SHEET I OF COMP. BY CONTENTS i 07 (1 1.1 ` 4 _. I . COMPUTATION SHEET JOB NO. g%?-83.00 DATE 5-3043i SHEET Z OF JOB NAME rl3aHARM R. DODD & ASSOC., Inc. n CONSULTINGENGINEERS COMP. BY �r CHK. BY 820 MINOR AVENUE NORTH SUITE 200 SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98109.4420 (206)682-1500 FAX *(206)682-2623 CONTENTS - t COMPUTATION SHEET HARVEY R. DODD & ASSOC., Inc. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 820 MINOR AVENUE NORTH SUITE 200 SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98109-4420 (206) 682-1500 FAX r (206) 682-2623 JOB NO. 67ZP-3 DATE JOB NAMEi��P-� COMP. BY li r f� f CHK. BY CONTENTS ��Ider I" /e, re,5-V, n 59 /ey' %_Shari 3Z. abo✓e x-x Ib:OS Z : 3 624,515.05 /`'%h. + . z M,�ax for e(evercc 601er SHEET --- OF Z i Gh��c �ld��r- files G ctd�c_ent 11T COUN Savne-- IDWI Y)774 /`l 4, K� prop- 1 isle'. 'COMPUTATION SHEET JOB NO. DATE JOB NAME HARM R. DODD & AMOC., Inc. �/� CONSULTING ENGINEERS COMP. BY Iz CHK. BY _ i43 820 MINOR AVENUE NORTH SUITE 200 SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98109-4420 r(206) 682-1500 FAX r 206)682.2623 CONTENTS 7n 11 I 0 18 " S 1 .75 i T::',\, 4-1 37 pc{ �0 �+ Y25 dZ oll, 3<O-34. = 4 00—E , al v--pfh Cor 17'-4(,,ou) exca041,0n� 4eE Coy- /a t SHEET � OF G{�e�- �acy� ing sip e = 20 p -4sCB) _ ggo 1107 8 try 311Z 5 - )1.7Z' 3 //137 /Z - 11,77 1,1&liyrj�- COMPUTATION SHEET JOB NO.972-85, 00 DATE 5-1370-537 SHEET OFr'— HARVEY R. DODD & ASSOC., Inc. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 820 MINOR AVENUE NORTH SUITE200 SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98109-4420 (206)682-1500 FAX # (206) 682-2623 R" i U "Ni: PERMIT COUNTER' JOB NAME COMP. BY CONTENTS E7 7ofed Area-- 6* 07 _&Xr,vjoC.t,s 37 '�4 7 o; C70 lo Area i o-F r v�J L foo ra9L LAM, 5' .=i7457/0 /57 1 0 1 J Tooyr. *-h!>"� CHK. BY COMPUTATION SHEET JOBNO. 97;?83-OODATE 5-30-0'? SHEET Z OF JOB NAME HARM R. DODD & ASSOC., Inc. CONSULTING ENGINEERS COMP. BY CHK. BY N 820 MINOR AVENUE NORTH SUITE200 rSEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98109-4420 's (206) 682-15M FAX # (206) 682-2623 CONTENTS v . COMPUTATION SHEET JOB NO. DATE All l JOB NAME ri3aHAVEGR. DODD & ASSOC., Inc. 8ENGINEERS COMP. BY CHK. BY 20MINORAVENUNORTH SUITE200 SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98109-4420 ' (206)682-1500 FAX # (206) 682-2623 CONTENTS 1� %cc r %I��J/i� %�_ M �► 6urchavr�' e `�pmdm 5 @ XX a�✓e x-x. , �J.oS Z 3 :z M,�x �vr ��� �%rcd soldier 0/c- SHEET T- OF Z 61�5E WIZ J3 141 Gh��c p z5.50 iw -lAlT COUN' vGpVYI � �oa,�l Yl 9. M_ Z0z5�o-1775�� ab Z p t 39 1 4,1 ��-- Qx C 1)(5E d) /Ox prop, 00--E ~ J COMPUTATION SHEET Joe NO. 872763— DATE SHEET OF JOB NAME HARM R. DODD & AWOC.. Inc. CONSULTING ENGINEERS COMP. BY IZE CHK. BY� p3820 MINOR AVENUE NR C�'H D PTE 200 SEATTLE. WASHINGTOt; G810Q 4420 �� r(206) 682-1.00 T :x • (206)682-2623 CONTENTS J- geo �-- x172$n o+✓ev 3. i f tryC3X1Z. 5_ 11,7Z" /107 /Z- LIZr 1 Cz Z El� 3 -- /� IS7,-' » = 11 [3-7 K » 07, Z'< , 15 ' Cor 17 "Meu) C��CGI�.�IbYI� CITY OF EDMONDS NEW ❑ ADDITION ❑ RETIREMENT ASSET INFORMATION SHEET ASSET NO. ADDITION TO ASSET NO U� DESCRIPTION ERIAL NO. LOCATION I DEPT. NO. * * PURCHASE ORDER NO. PURCHASE ORDER DATE COST *PROJECT NUMBER V V U 1 Sy C PROJECT COMPLETION DATE 7 " (� ! �� COST o2T r s- B.A.R.S. ACCOUNT NO. ` 1 I -ow — O N — 0 U - (�3 ESTIMATED LIFE 2--E �j (S- INITIATED BY DATE APPROVED BY "SUBMIT ASSET INFORMATION SHEET WITH FINAL PAYMENT REQUEST *SUBMIT ASSET INFORMATION SHEET UPON CLOSE OF PROJECT ACCOUNTING ONLY E DEPRECIATE MONTHLY DEPRECIATION AMOUNT ANNUAL DEPRECIATION AMOUNT 0 G.L. E REFERENCE DATE a��) VERIFIED BY n, PROCESSED BATCH NO. b P INITIA DEPARTMENT FILE 1 The City of Edmonds Side Sewer Drawing EASEMENT NO- -------------------------------------------- # NEW CONSTRUCTION CR REPAIRS ❑ LID NO ................... ASMT. NO.------------------ OWNER .......................................... CONTRACTOR PERMIT NO QQ 15 I II JOB ADDRESS-----1.-_1_-•-- ALLE.�l -i N z cl Ilt�. ZND SO. mM � D AREA S4iow�1 PWW-0001-11/75 (REV.11/78) -----------•------••--•---••--•...................... .--------------------....---------------•---•-------------------------------------- ►.I D -------.SO-•----------------------•--------- LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT NO. -------------------------------------- BLOCK NO. ------•----------------------------- NAMEOF ADDITION -----------------•-•----••------------•--•----------•----------•-•------•------••-------•-•-•--•----------•--------•--- mi L) p� 0 �I I 3 C0w40u L TS (N 2..S' DEEP M/14 87A -7 G s ul s (c"G.O, rc suRvACE GARAGE LEVEL FLOOR FLOOR DRAINS TO SAW SEWER 'PER EWG. I�PTRAP ED�P,OU05 PLANT TREA � MEAT n� AP'rRTIAL - II-14 a9 DATE /f....�....`t..�................ BY U..`�.. .... ............... 00 0 v a� V) •r CITY of EDMONDS SIDE SEWER PE11, .ITT For Inspection Call 771-3202 PERMIT NO. 08095 Address of Construction: 116 Property Legal Description (Include all easements): 1pTS . Nreef L.o7-6 09l4 Z �'AAW&IT Owner and/or Builder: /r/,8P_"9_-Pp'T f2f C�si Contractor & License No: /%aar//6` D '0' Singl:e Family Residence;' Multi -Family (No. of Units -3 ) E� �I'YJJ ^ TREATMENT PLANT Commercial X (No. of fixture Units Invasion into City Right -of -Way: No Yes (If Yes, Right -of -Way Construction Permit required. Call One -Call -Center (1-800-424-5555) before any excavation.) 169 SZp Cross other Private Property: No X Yes (If Yes, easement required, attach legal description and county easement number.) PLEASE READ THE ITEMS LISTED1 ON THE BACK U• '/10/1' //-&.(-� (fJ ' RECEIVE4b I certify that/I have read and" shal l comply NOV 151989 Date with.the items listed on the back. PUBLIC WORKS Permit Fee: ,30� 'Issued By: Trunk Charge: A�)o Date Issued: //--/s'89 Assessment Fee: E.59 Z/ �L Receipt No.: E..4 rer Partial Inspection: 6btV1,(ti GIn400ej ►J K1114 ��, l��'9 s•t/ Comm nts Date Initial Final Inspection Approved: u'?-�0 (: �_el ?4 Date Initial Rejected: Reason ** PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOB SITE ** Date Initial Wh.ite Copy - File Green Copy - Inspector Buff Copy - Applicant ail y OUIL.G> INit 149 9E! )4�1N .p 1 1 i; ►1 r 12 Flo i r o �v ti j L.I N OOTTC9M 0 t27 I EXIST, W'O� C2 t3L�I� PIN E I1 I 70 r3r=; r F-M,9VE Pl l= ELF-V'� FA' VINE ( I 60TC— 5 , (:* 26, LU 23. ! t 4 N Li rt�E✓E i �xe�r-rlr =''7 PeN 4,90-0-7 i �v a _ I � ` 1 'P9TT014 e,-F rWTI N fit I� i© y A� Ir Tt2 ,T" 20,22 ) `7 fPEIA1 N. \ 1 1 TO I 0 ;�k4,KF7 L.. F 'h . r-XG,4VA-rI o N f� I I� 5;2 14>j • f JVIV1:-�- Nr W INWIA-Me,1110t?., WAY'IAT O/AleH SNP /�� r,-A/,,H AUI,15;Y f e,P,- G I-rY 0E- 1�-.pMGNP�v 6 ANPAf�r�,5. W/ I 7k'Arl:�14, 1 N !-qv I r xx•xx �I :NDT�S NSW [�-I OVATION xx L� a SIT ( f?�INMmi� *- 6KIA\F,)IN6 ,:-�IiA I,, r-, I,AN t � 1 KIN/4 ANP /'OVA. 50 THAT' f TiI %0r - F'ULLUTION 1:215vio,4 If VI`IDL.f, G14E� 0F0FTNIN'�� ANC PIRL f\/ffF� THE i.AGIPeK .CITY OF EDMONDS DRAINAGE NOTES I. All construction shall be in accordance with APWA Standard Specifications for Municipal Public Works Construction, 1981 Edition and City of Edmonds Standards. 2. The storm drainage system shall be constructed according to the approved plans which are on file in the City of Edmonds Engineering Department. Any deviation from the approved plans will require written approval from the Department. 3. A copy of these approved plans must be on the job site whenever construction is in progress. 4. All sedimentation/erosion facilities must be in operation prior to clearing and building construction, and they must be satisfactorily maintained until construction is completed and the potential for on -site erosion has passed. 5. All retention%detention facilities must be installed and in operation prior to or in conjunction with all construction activity unless otherwise approved by the department. 6. All pipe and appurtenances shall be laid on a properly prepared foundation accordance with Section 7-02.9(1) of the current State of Washington Standard .Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction. This shall include necessary leveling of the trench bottom or the top of the foundation material as well as placement and compaction of required bedding material to uniform grade so that the entire length of the pipe will be supported on a uniformly dense unyielding base. If the native material in the bottom of the trench meets the requirements for "Gravel Backfill for Pipe Bedding", the first lift of pipe bedding may be omitted, provided the material in the bottom of the trench is loosened, regraded and compacted to form a dense unyielding base. 7. Construction of dewatering (groundwater) system shall be in accordance with the APWA Standard Specification, Section 61-3.02. 8. Galvanized steel pipe utilized as detention facilities shall have Asphalt Treatment #1 or better inside and outside. 9. Open cuts through existing public right-of-way will not be allowed unless specifically approved by the City of Edmonds Engineering Department. 10. Rock for erosion protection of roadway ditches, where required, must be of sound quarry rock, placed to a depth of 1' and must meet the following specifications: 4"-8" rock/40-70% passing; 2"- 4" rock/30-407. passing; and -2" rock/10-20% passing. 11. All building downspouts and footing drains shall be connected to the storm drainage system, unless otherwise approved by the Engineering Department. 12. The Contractor shall be responsible for providing adequate safeguards, safety devices, protective equipment, flaggers, and any other needed actions to protect the life, health, and safety of the public, and to protect property in connection with the performance of work covered by the contract. Any work within the traveled right-of-way that may interrupt normal traffic flow shall require at least one flagger for each lane of traffic affected. All sections of the W.S.D.O.T. Standard Specifications 1-07.29 - Traffic Control, shall apply. 13. Existing utility locations are approximate only. It shall be the contractor's responsibility to verify locations and inverts prior to construction. 14. Unless otherwise noted, storm drain pipe shall be rubber gasketed concrete (ASTM C14-11 for 12" diameter or less, and ASTM C76-11 for greater than 12" diameter); galvanized steel with asphalt coating, aluminum, aluminized steel (16 gauge min.) helically corrugated metal pipe with watertight connecting bands; or PVC, Schedule 40 (D1785, SDR 35; Joints ASTM D2466; Gaskets ASTM F477; Installation ASTM D2331). 15. If the Contractor elects to use dissimilar metals within the detention system, it shall be his responsibility to provide adequate electrolytic insulation. 16. The Contractor shall be responsible for cleaning and flushing all storm drains not in public right-of-way prior to acceptance by the Owner. 17. All cleanouts in paved areas .and as otherwise shown, shall be extended to finish grade and fitted with traffic bearing covers. Cleanouts not in paved areas shall be extended to with 12" of finished grade and the location marked. 18. Asphalt concrete pavement shall be placed in accordance with W.S.D.O.T. Standard Specifications. 19. Where new paving matches existing paving, apply tack coat for proper sealing per Snohomish County requirements. 20. Existing boundary and topographic information based on survey by Hebrank and Associates, dated January 10, 1989. 21. Oppn cut road crossings for utility trenches on existing traveled roadway shall be backfilled only with pea gravel or 5/8 minus crushed rock and mechanically compacted. Cuts into the existing asphalt shall be neat line cut with saw or jackhammer in a continuous line. A temporary cold mix patch must be placed immediately after backfill and compaction. A permanent hot mix patch shall be placed within 30 days and shall be the thickness of the original asphalt or two inches, whichever is greater. 22. Soil compaction shall be in accordance with ASTM 0-1557 (Modified Proctor). 23. Datum shall be City of Edmonds datum. Bench mark Elevation. 43.16', the top bolt on the bonnet of the fire hydrant located at the S.W. Corner of the intersection of 2nd Avenue and Main Street as noted in City of Edmonds Engineering Department Field Book No. 14, Page 30. lil.ly I.C%liKiNCx Iv b � 04, f• e'OUPLINCj L JIJ�'AL.1- MIN.: MIN - ----- -� T\\-, r> I Irk F Il A 11r=, v � \ \� I r i Z rl F_;Nu I:�,LATT t'A _ Chi 0Ucqc, N Z W O N O c"') O CM 14r "it it) (0 7 cm cm OD O O w id1 CO 0) (D Z w 0 N v 2 Z X N W W Pt Ll J ,I Q444 Q m V ' i i Z Z W d cc O Z N 2 W 00 V 0, W 4 h z0 Z 04 00 Z �_ Z C/). W it, Z WZ O V «vey. ALL. INFOHMATICON ON THIS DOCUMENTtM C 2, Is `ttw r.=AJsIVh Immur Y or X I1Ill1 VI7_-.Y H. I.1Ot. D & 1��,+SO(::I/"1ITH f. INC. -- - --- .._ Jf1Cl N0117' it ,00 f j� A�. MAMMO sk "_:l le, 110 4 ­:V, EVA V� 11#5 N. s 1, NA EN 1 . . ,, , ,, ... I 6 1, W 6 31 871 A nAINIP ';A y QW, A j Q Q ""Jon QW, A-, A - TO A A." A 1, To Q 1104 k". VOW A WAS f Inq�2110"A" 4 Qjf ti, 4 �;Yveq I it `6 0,44, AW", ''J MY OOZE, TAW AN wanly., A, VOW"My 777 7 "e, Rl, 071 J W! PWMW-W.",��t: . .. ... mood 01 Wor"WR - -W --A icy"tc int, nut JAN v- 1 jAP v Ilya oil �A tj z e t 14 W 7100 aj� t F-7777 -t,, 4 "'o �x ij "i�, 1p, epaps AIP M A OR '4P W utl No 1�', I Rl P Aviv T :ft ftll ac TT, _11K - �4�' - 1 t 'J�tji t 't "At ij, At": MM �,; : P �1004'It`ru,` t Up AS I MW 1 ools­� �,iq tti,�,:totg n Ur r toli 01 - aq a tolts", X. Ot Wn K.P t VtRREAWSCAW W1,01; "Ott," 1 ky Aso 4Z 4 00:>v �"V" 7 Q, T �,Jj X"M 04 lit T - JAMUM t" Y "O"ve Wr umea I tips (too" M ih ME, &WAWA _4 tj ,NA A Y, 0,04, qtt�4 * TA NPA Ol 0 W h IF okv: too Rom 0 �T -AWN AN A A WON, 0 ANY &a to j 1p 0 40 A EBB— J, Mal V _7 "';A it NOR WM to". Ip motor, n 'Asks 0A IT X awl 50TY" rA,�i­,: :17 3"i 7 it' To v? 11,111 PVZ,� IN, ttji� v W P v CIE tt,,; �0 &Q.. T M shoots �:, ". : , . - U_ 'Y 1 , ;, : �v , I , , , �Avyj n A Ana 000"W" W. 01 AT -_4 4, 1 WV- 4 tf ow 0 Ify 1-001 0 MY P AMAW A �, - , I" ""Y' , , I - r - �j I ; ; 0 Ai4 I'M A Z 2; y� � "; I , , - , " - jc ji"t, 0 AV H AN P- SAM io W P:, .,VAIJV�,�­�t, d, R u oA th ex tit :00 j r , 4", t bo 11,1111th t2l WAS toj W., IV- - - 1A # , I -.t i I . I - , r, . , , , * 'i - , 10"i , f" f4r, 00 d6ft, J4 "'Ut 0,* "0"1", q, ',",4 "U P ,,,�tj 44 nor - of, ro t aft 0, A T) on - No M got IN 11 A _4 ,00 Wv A fe 6T "t'fit Otis i", IV, 00",­�i I I , , Nil C z1b 1 N qg� v"v_­ :i j, 117- MOP of v, A �Mvs M yyy n Post 117j, WV 0) TOFF j 0 A lot K; - , W"I'l UT) si, Y' et 't lu 140 t#4 'r, cop "-s kit J'Ai M tv solo' ', .. . ....... ­j 'j, s �j u S"'t"Jobb, A oft � 7 , - , ti- tj ppravet v 4,11", W P 0, Od? WL""foy vrih WAIT T dt t, U, NP Y Y�'i, 411,44, d�,W1tht_#t4_ b, ioA 00 J .. . ..... ..... 9 P-' qY la 10 AW, op lit 801 fl, n 3v, A "tt i "'d, th Q ARA" QW& t J_ M, N 4$' 77e; ex-i C itf "tib" tro "14AY11 its A %011',",� i tit" i'7l" V_00 PA wf"A,14 My, lily 7k: D % ;"'� I , ', .A� � , , , , , . : :1, , - lot MR00-; 1�4 NMI 0, A go 00MURMSA a sit V Q OWN; Qvwvx sn� MW, 10 An 110 A, A, v oc :4� Y �O R A k A: OWNS ­4 jsx� it AMMATOIX snow, �nyngj '44 7, look off, 13 % a, AM"i OPPOSES,_ t 00, Wow 491W R? i�7 j 2 My L 4 1 7 J n 00 �4 �7 MAINE 11 Z is sktit MISS', V c"': tit Q "A '�A t": t 00, TV� Z", ZY % -"t POO W ................... c Al 'ryj tj POK t� r::W I WW lily -1m; "N A- W WIT Somali �nATW":, >: vou > I M, 0:4 1 �j;o> r C77 77 ATION NT QAQ fi YL AW "07 H UTS 17 '4_ V_ 0011 TWA too sic 1 F wV v Joe " 14 t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M 11 1 6,ew' L it A MR a ;VAOW SAO. MRW 0 IFA, jW MITI owh zo .. . ........ Q NUT P 0 T Y"S e Qyv�,�0,7 1, 4 ... .... ............ ..... 4 j t W owl 4 hill I, Vol T tv, 71 17��7 'oel E "Off 1�:,L") RAKY Ettze)li!6 4�. ETIM N U *)UM x I�T_ M Ht t4 . , 1; � 17011F L x, PON ' 'X I *T 0 WTO W �W L, 5 Ill:-- 101 OKI/ F, �AN 011 'N­0T6o,�v"WW tMA�WT, TAT 10 H ONT "QjvQ "10 i, US v i q V:, Af LOW v 100 FAA Illy I li,� it NES-STREET' 6. ,A we ACV. HIMIA! poll sit h ZOO W win a - A fit 7 1 A t , :, ' ­ _ ' � I . t , , I . I " .: � x. :t Woo A to V I Inc - gin W& �:J TOM If A Now �,.:! +�:, li:: :, � .,, .:a� �� '_ ""., r , I, ' I :, ­:r � , _ - ­ - , I I , I - : � : i" � % � , _ ' 'IL L , " i - , , :, �­ - ,, j; 7 nz �-A0 1 1 - �`t : � , - � I, : , , , � :: ' � . I L � , '. . ' �4- � � � , :* : , 1� : ", n� Y, J V& PIT �� 0 YNO N 1 :(Y, jn�Q I � I i : I I I �_ :,: Zo � n n 1, vYk lv� t_.