207 5TH AVE N.PDFIIIIIIIIIIII
5129
207 5TH AVE N
. 07 �.- , ; 0 ,
City of Edmonds
Development Services Department
Planning Division
Phone: 425.771.0220,,'
Fax: 425.771.0221
The Critical Areas Checklist contained on this form is to
be filled out by any person preparing a Development
Permit Application for the City of Edmonds prior to
his/her submittal of the application to the City.
The purpose of the Checklist is to enable City''staff to
determine whether any potential Critical Areas are, or.
may be, present on the subject property. The information
needed to complete the Checklist should be easily
available from observations of the site or daw available at
City Hall (Critical areas inventories, maps, or soil
surveys).
Date Received:
City Receipt#:
Critical Areas File 0:
Prit.1-cal. Areas -Checklist Fee: $45.00
Date Mailed to Applicant:
A proper�y owner, or his/her authorized representative,
-must fill'out the checklist, sign and date,it, and submit it
to the Ciiy. The City will review the checklist, make'a
precursory site visit, and make a determination of the
,subsequent: steps necessary. to complete a development
permit application.
Please submit a vicinity map, along with the signed copy
of this form to assist City staff in finding and locating the
specific piece of property described' on this form. In
addition, the applicant shall include other pertinent
information (e.g. site plan, topography map, etc.) or
studies in conjunction with this Checklist to assistant staff
in completing their preliminary assessment of the site.
The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in. consideration on the processing of the application agrees
to release, indernnify, defend and hold the City of -Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable
I
attomey's fees, arising from any action or infraction -,based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or
incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/fieVit5 agents or employees.
By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and that I am authorized to file thi application on e If of the owner,aCs listed below.
---9 1 77
SIGNATURE OF APPLIcANT/AGENT DATE
Property Owner's Ant horization
By my signature, I cer* that I have au!�Prized the above (1421=�gent to apply for the subject land use application,
pu I
and grant my permission for the bl, a ff of theCity of Edmonds to enter the subject'! property for the
purposes of inspection and pos tt a ication. 31-Z 71�
SIGNATURE OF OWNER DATE
PLEASE PRINT CLEAR LY
Owner/Applicant:
tA�//Z� &,-eA1A/\1
Name
LIZ?, r J -7 fZ-
Street Address
WA
City �State Zip
Telephone:
Email address (optional):
Critical Areas Checklist.doc/3.19.2001
Applicant Representative:
141AXgEw �
Name
ZA--A16
Street Address'
97VW9AC-25 ,
City Stat6 zip
Telephone:
Email Address (optional):
Critical Areas Checklist CA File No:
Site Inforniation� (soils/ topography/ hydrology/vegetation)
1. Site Address/ Location: Z67 kzE
2. Property Tax Account Number: Itz9I - coq54(406 zoo zcd _Za �WZ_-W-7-
3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): 4:
4. Is this site currently developed? X yes; — no.
If yes; how is site developed? 4-6M S:5
5. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply -
Flat: less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site.
Rolling: slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal
distance of 66-feet).
Hilly: slopes present on site of more than 15% and less than 30% ( a vertical rise of 10-feet
over a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet).
Steep: grades of greater than 30% present on site (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal
distance of less than 33-feet).
Other (please describe):
6. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: dQ Approx. Depth:
7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: Approx. Depth:
What season(s) of the year?
0
Site is in the floodway bjQ floodplain —,of a water course.
0. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flows are year-round?
A16 Flows are seasonal? (What time of year?
10. Site is primarily: forested ;:6rteadow ;shrubs mixed
urban landscaped Oawnshrubs etc) K
A -1 C)huinim wpflainrl,iq nrpqpnt nn.qitp- )"1,6
'SGI
F&JC Staff -U§e'O
y,
ki, iftip indi I a
_771
V1j.Y REQbdU
PyVed li�r_';
1 :12 7141 N_.�'
4,
-Dafik
Critical Areas Check] ist.doc/3.19.2001
.Naturialow 1.2.~
AVYtMt*%"EMWCVM&V Addendum to: City of Edmonds
Right,of Way
Permit Application
Kt
Submitted by: Marlamne Kingsbury
4Daglueering Aide
Washington Natural Gas
0356-7500 X7596
A
" I t
c-
A
Key:
-V- Water
Vatermain d th -G- Gas
-SS- Sever
Vateir hydrant
gas main vatelq valve
9(01 2
2,07
Was%ington Naturafloas Company
1122 75th Street S.W.. Everett, Washington 98203, (206) 355-3331 �j 0
NawrM on!
AWa#*VbnEneWCaqwV Addendum to: city of FAmonds
Right,of Vay
Permit Application
Submitted by: Mariamne Kingsbury
Angineering Aide I Ga I s
VashLngton Natura
r-t:) fA P's 0356-7500 X7596
I 'I
Key:
-V- Vater
Vatermain d th --G- Gas
ffo -SS- Sever
I& Vatet hydrant
gas main ST 0 Vater valve
9G I
A I
T At Walington Naturaitas Company 2,07
1122 75th Street S.W., Everett, Washington 98203, (206) 355-3331 �jo
8 9 0 - 199 -
1 1. City of Edmonds
RIGHT-OF-WAY WNSTRUCTION
PERMIT Permit Number. 19�1.
Issue Date:
A. Address or Vicinity of Construction: - 207 5 AV N (9618164)
B. Type of Work (be specific): i-nrt-n11 gpryiep
C. Contractor: - Washingtou Natural Gas Contact: Mariamne Kingsbury
MailingAddress: 1122 75 St SW Eveyett Phone: 356-7500 ext 7596
State License #: 98203 Liability Insurance: Bond:$
D. Building Permit # (if applicable):
Side Sewer Permit # (if applicable):
n Commercial [:]Subdivision El City Project (3 Utility (PUD, GTE, WNG, CABLE, WATER)
E] Multi -Family [J Single Family E] Other
INSPECTOR: 114SPECTOR:
F. Pavement or Concrete Cut U Yes LJNo G. Size of Cut- x H. Chargq_$
Q-)
APPLICANT TO READ A SIGN
INDEMNITY. Applicant understands and by his signature to this application, agrees to hold the City ofEdmonds harmless from injuries, damages, or
claims of any kind or description whatsoever, foreseen or unforeseen, that may be made against the City of Edmonds, or any of its departments or
employees, including or not limited to the defense of any legalproceedings including defense costs, and attorney fees by reason ofgranting thispermit.
THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FOLLOWING THE FINAL
INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK ESTIMATED RESTORATION FEES WILL BE HELD UNTIL THE FINAL STREET PATCH
IS COMPLETED BY CITY FORCES, AT WHICH TIMEA DEBIT OR CREDIT WILL BE PROCESSED FOR ISSUANCE TO THEAPPLIGANT.
Construction drawing of proposed work required with permit application.
A 24 hour notice is required for inspection; Please call the Engineering Division, 771-0220.
Work and material is to be inspected during progress and at completion.
Restoration is to be in accordance with City Codes.
Street shall be kept clean at all times.
Traffic Control and Public Safety shall be in accordance with City regulations as required by the City Engineer.
All street cut ditches shall be patched with asphalt or City approved material prior to the end of the working day;
NO EXCEPTIONS.
Ihave read the above statements and understand thepermit requirements and thepink copy of thepermit will be
available on s,�e at all imes for inspectio purposes.
V 7,
Signature- 11-TWI-121� M'v'/ Date: 1-96-96
r o -��n-i7
0, ontract,6'
, /111�
CALL DIAL -A -DIG PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK
FOR CITY USE ONLY
APPROVED BY: RvJ RIGHT OF WAY DEPOSIT
TIME AUTHORIZED: VOID AFTER DAYS
SPECIAL CONDITIONS: N A,
DATE:
DISRUPTION FEE/FUND Ill:
RESTORATION FEE:
PERMIT FEE:
TOTAL FEE: ou
RECEIPT FEE,.,,,
ISSUED BY:
NO WORK SHALL BEGIN PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE Eng. Div. 1994
FIELD INSPECTION NOTES
Comments:
Diagram.:
(Fund 111 - Route copy to Street Dept.)
CONTRACTOR CALLED FOR INSPECTION 0 YES El NO
Partial Work Inspection by P.W.:
Work Disapproved By: Date:
FINAL APPROVAL BY: Date:
APPLICATION
for
The City of Edmonds SIDE SEWER PERYaT EASEMENT No . ..........................................
NEW CONSTRUCTION [] REPAIRS 0
114-02100
OWNER ....... R. S. Luxton
....................................................................................................... CONTRACTOR -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PERMIT No . ......................
ADDRESS....... 2Q.7 .... 5t.la ... Ave ....... N .............. .......................................
Ob Lij
j
QW--ft
LL
Lu
llJLJ
0
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT No . .............................................. BLOCK No . ............................................
NAME OF ADDITION ...........................................................................
Dye Tested On Sewer 1972
Approved:
DATE................................................ By ......................................................................
K L E I N F E L D E R
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
I
I
I
I
Prepared for: 2DI
Jones Brothers Development LLC
585 Bethany Drive
Scotts Valley, California 95066
Prepared by:
Frank D. Reinart, P.E.
Geotechnical Engineer
David M. Cotton, PE
Seattle Area Manager
KLEINFELDER WEST, INC.
2405 - 140th Avenue NE
Suite All 01
Bellevue, WA 98005
Phone: (425) 562-4200
Fax: (425) 562-4201
January 16, 2008
Kleinfelder Project Number: 90589
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
Ali Rights Reserved
6+h AJ & r4 �**J
y I
-�Vp� to�di@q S
&L-& 0) q8) 0 1 qq
Geotechnicall Report
Proposed Townhouse Development
207/211 Sth Avenue North
Edmonds, Washington
MAR � 0 2008
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF EDMONDS
U . NAUTHORIZED USE OR COPYING OF THIS DOCUMENT IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED BY ANYONE OTHER THAN THE
CLIENT FOR THE SPECIFIC PROJECT.
0
KLE1 N FELDER
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE ............................................................................ 1
1.1 GENERAL .................................................................................................. 1
1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................................... 1
1.2.1 General Information ......................................................................... 1
1.2.2 Propo sed Buildings ......................................................................... 1
1.3 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES ................................................... 1
2.0 SITE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ........................................ 3
2.1
2.2
EXPLORATION PROGRAM ...................................................................... 3
LABORATORY TESTING .......................................................................... 3
3.0 SITE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................... 3
3.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS ........................................................................... 3
3.2
SOIL CONDITIONS ...................................................................................
4
3.3
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS ............................................................... 4
........................................................................................ 5
4.1
SITE PREPARATION AND GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS ................
4.1.1 Clearing, Grubbing, and Stripping ...................................................
5
5
4.1.2 Demolition .......................................................................................
5
4.1.3 General Excavation .........................................................................
.4.1.41 Subgrade - Preparqt�ion .....................................................................
6
6
4.1.5 Slopes and Excavations ...................................................................
6
4.2
4.1.6 Weather Considerations ..................................................................
STRUCTURAL FILL RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................
7
8
4.2.1 Materials ..........................................................................................
8
4.3
4.2.2 Placement and Compaction ....... ....................................................
GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ................................
9
10
4.3.1 Shallow Spread Footing Foundations ............................................
10
4.3.2 Floor Slabs ....................................................... .........................
11
4.3.3 IBC Seismic Design Criteria ..........................................................
12
4.4
TEMPORARY SHORING .................................... ; ....................................
12
4.4.1 General ..........................................................................................
12
4.4.2 Soil Nails .......................................................................................
13
4.4.3 Soldier Piles ..................................................................................
14
5.0 ADDITIONAL
SERVICES ...................................................................................
15
6.0 LIMITATIONS ..................................................................................................... 16
90589/SEABROO5.doc Page i of ii January 16, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
KLE1 N FELDER
LIST OF FIGURES FOLLOWING TEXT
Figure 1 —Vicinity Map
Figure 2 — Site Plan
Figure 3 — Typical Utility Trench Fill
Figure 4 —Typical Footing Subdrain
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A , Field Exploration
Appendix B Geotechnical Laboratory Testing
Appendix C Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report
90589/SEABROO5.dDC Page ii of ii January 16, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
I
KLE1 N FELDER
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE
1.1 GENERAL
This report presents the results of Kleinfelder, Inc.'s (Kleinfelder's) geotechnical
engineering study performed in support of the design and construction of the proposed
townhouse development. The proposed development is located on two adjacent
parcels of property with current addresses of 207 and 211-5 th Avenue North in
Edmonds, Washington. The project site is shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1.
1 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1.2.1 General Information
Our understanding of the proposed development was based on architectural drawings
and sections, dated January 3, 2008 and telephone conversations with Mr. Tony
Shapiro of AD Shapiro Architects.
The proposed site development, along with exploration locations, are presented on the
Site Plan, Figure 2.
1.2.2 Proposed Buildings
The proposed development is anticipated -to include two multi -family residential
structures. The west building is anticipated to comprise two above -ground stories and
one level of underground parking. A finished floor elevation of 96.5 feet above mean
sea level was provided for the underground parking level. The east building is
anticipated to comprise three above -ground stories and one level of underground
parking. A finished floor elevation of 95.5 feet above mean sea level was provided for
the underground parking level.
Estimated structural loads were not available at the time of this report. However, we
anticipate that the typical dead and live loads will be on the order of 150 kips for
columns and 4.5 kips/foot for load -bearing walls. Interior floor slab loads are anticipated
to be approximately 250 pounds per square foot.
1.3 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES
The purpose of our study was to explore subsurface conditions at the site and provide
geotechnical recommendations for design and construction of the proposed
development.
I
90589/SEABROO5.doc Page 1 of 17 January 16, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
KLE1 N FELDER
IOur scope of services included the following elements:
Field Exploration: Soil and groundwater conditions at the site were explored
with a series of 3 exploratory borings. The exploration program is discussed in
further detail in Section 2.1 and Appendix A.
Laboratory Testing: Laboratory testing included a series of soil characterization
tests. A detailed discussion of the laboratory testing program is presented in
Section 2.2.
Geottechnical Analysis: Engineering analyses were performed as a basis for
developing geotechnical design and construction recommendations for the
proposed development. Our recommendations are presented in Section 4.0. In
summary, the recommendations developed and discussed herein include the
following:
Site clearing, grading and general earthwork recommendations including a
discussion of anticipated excavation conditions, stability and sloping
recommendations for temporary excavations, subgrade preparation, wet
if
..weather -earthwork, -and-treatment and/or,removal of unsuitable soils,.
encountered;
Structural fill material and compaction recommendations including
suitability of on -site native soils and existing stockpiled fill material for re-
use as structural fill;
Seismic design considerations;
Recommended foundation type and depth, allowable bearing pressures,
estimated settlement and lateral resistance;
Recommendations for design of concrete slab -on -grade floors;
Recommendations for temporary shoring during construction;
• Moisture protection and surface drainage provisions during construction;
and
• Recommendations regarding the scope of services for construction
observation and testing during construction.
Geotechnical Report: The findings, conclusions, and recommendations
developed by our study are presented in this geotechnical report.
I
90589/SEA8ROD5.doc Page 2 of 17 January 16, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
KLE1 N FELDER
2.0 SITE EXPLORATIO N AND LABORATORY TESTING
2.1 EXPLORATION PROGRAM
Site exploration involved a series of three exploratory borings (designated B-1 through
B-3) advanced between December 2007 and January 2008. The exploration locations
discussed herein are illustrated on Figure 2 —, Site Plan. A discussion of the drilling,
excavating, and sampling procedures, as well as logs for borings and test pits, are
presented in Appendix A.
Borings were advanced to depths of approximately 35 to 45 feet below the existing
ground surface.
2.2 LABORATORY TESTING
Geotechnical laboratory testing was performed on selected soil samples in general
accordance with ASTM standards to determine index and engineering properties of the
on -site soils. These test results are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A and/or
on laboratory test reports included in Appendix B.
3.0 SITE CONDITIONS
3.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS
The site is presently developed with two single-family residences with driveway access
towards the alley along the west side of the project site. Concrete retaining walls and
rockeries occupy the northwest portion of the project site, and appear to retain
landscaped areas to the north. A wood -frame shed building is located along the alley
and between the existing driveways. The driveway for the north house has a layer of
gravel; the driveway for the south house is paved with Portland cement concrete. The
rest of the site is mostly landscaped, though there are areas west of the two existing
residences that are moderately to thickly vegetated with weeds and brambles.
The site topography slopes from east to west, and appears to have been previously
graded by the development of the two houses and surrounding landscaped areas. The
site generally slopes from approximately 114 feet above sea level to the east down to
100 feet above sea level to the west.
90589/SEABROO5.doc Page 3 of 17 January 16, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
K L E I N F E L D E R
3.2 SOIL CONDITIONS
A general characterization of the on -site soil units encountered during our exploration is
presented in this section. The boring and test pit logs in Appendix A present details of
the soils encountered at each exploration location. The on -site soils are generally
characterized as follows:
Topsoil: The topsoil was observed in exploration locations in vegetated or
landscaped areas of the project site. The observed topsoil was generally 1 to.2
inches thick.
Fill: Fill was identified at the ground surface in the driveway area at the location
of B-1. This fill generally co nsisted of very loose to loose silty sand with gravel
and was observed to a depth of approximately 3 feet below ground surface.
Recessional Outwash: Recessional outwash was observed at each of the
boring locations beneath either topsoil or fill. Recessional outwash was generally
comprised of medium dense sand with gravel and a varying amount of silt, and
was observed to depths ranging from 3.5 feet below the ground surface in the
northeast portion of the site to approximately 13 to 15 feet below ground surface
0 - ver the remaining area of the site.
Glacial Till: Glacial till was observed at each of the boring locations beneath the
recessional outwash, and was encountered to the maximum depth explored at
the location of B-3. Glacial till was generally comprised of very dense silty sand
with gravel, and was observed to depths ranging from 32 to 40 feet below the
ground surface.
Advance Outwash: Advance outwash was observed beneath the glacial till and
to the maximum depths explored at the locations of B-1 and B-2. Advance
outwash was generally comprised of medium dense to dense sand with varying
amounts of gravel.
3.3 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
A significant amount of groundwater seepage was observed in the recessional outwash
in B-1. This boring was advanced the day after a significant amount of rainfall in
Edmonds. Therefore, this rainfall is anticipated to have been the source of the
seepage. Only a minor amount of seepage was observed within the recessional
outwash in B-2 and B-3.
90589/SEA8ROD5.doc Page 4 of 17 January 16, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
�1
KLE1 N FELDER
Based on samples taken and water on the drill piping, the advance outwash is
saturated. B-2 was converted to a groundwater piezometer after drilling was completed,
and the water level in that piezometer was measured on January 8, 2008. The static
water level -in the well was approximately 36 feet below the existing ground surface,
approximately 4 feet above the subsurface contact between the glacial till and the
underlying advance outwash. At the time of this report, proposed excavation activities
at the project site are not anticipated to extend lower than 30 feet below the existing site
grade. If deeper excavations are proposed in the future, however, Kleinfelder should be
permitted to review the potential impacts of the advance outwash aquifer on the
proposed development.
Groundwater levels fluctuate seasonally, and are generally based on the amount of
precipitation that occurs in the vicinity of the project site. The current annual variability
in groundwater depth at this site has not been measured.
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 SITE PREPARATION AND GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1-.-1 C tearing, Gnibbing, and Stripping
Prior to site grading, all vegetation and man-made debris should be removed and
properly disposed of off -site. Where bush and tree removal is desired as part of the
development of the site, root balls and roots in excess of 1-inch diameter should also be
removed. Holes created by removal of trees or other vegetation should be backfilled
with compacted structural fill as recommended herein.
We estimate topsoil stripping on the order of 2 inches will be required. Topsoil should
not be left beneath structures and drive areas. Topsoil not re -used in landscaping at the
project site should be removed and properly disposed of off -site.
4.1.2 Demolition
On -site buildings, retaining walls, utilities, pavements, and other site features not to be
retained by the proposed site development should be demolished and the demolition
debris removed and properly disposed of off -site.
Excavations and holes created by the demolition activities, including possible
basements or other subgrade structures associated with the existing buildings at the
site should be backfilled with compacted structural fill as recommended in Section 4.2.
90589/SEA8ROO5.doc Page 5 of 17- January 16, 2008
copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
IKLEI N FELDER
4.1.3 General Excavation
Excavation of the onsite soils can be performed with conventional earthmoving
equipment. However, the contractor should be prepared to excavate soils containing a
considerable amount of cobbles on the order of 3 to 12 inches in dimension, particularly
within the glacial till soils anticipated in the excavations for the east building. Cobbles in
excess of 6 inches should be removed from native soils that will be re -used as structural
fill.
4.1.4 Subgrade Preparation
Following clearing, grubbing and stripping, and prior to placing fill or founding structures,
all exposed subgrades should be compacted with a minimum of four passes of a heavy,
vibratory roller followed by a proof -roll (two -passes minimum) with a fully loaded . dump
truck, scraper, or front-end loader. Proofrolling should be performed under the full-time
observation and guidance of a representative of Kleinfelder. Subgrade in footing
excavations should be evaluated by use of a steel T-probe and observation of
excavation conditions by a representative of Kleinfelder.
l - Any areas that are identified as being soft or yielding during proofroiling should be over-
-excavated -to -a firm bind unyielding subgrade-- or to. the depth determined by the
geotechnical engineer of record". Over -excavated areas should be backfilled with
structural fill compacted as recommended herein. Where over -excavation is required
for structure footings, the width of over -excavation should extend beyond the outside of
the footing a distance equal to the depth of the over -excavation below the footings, or
on a 1 horizontal to 1 vertical projection.
4.1.5 Slopes and Excavations
All excavations and slopes must comply with applicable local, state, and federal safety
regulations including the current OSHA Excavation and Trench Safety Standards and
WISHA Safety Standards for Construction Work. Temporary excavations in excess of
4 feet in height must be sloped or supported in accordance with Part N of Washington
Administrative Code (WAC) 296-155.
Construction site safety is the sole responsibility of the Contractor, who shall also be
solely responsible for the means, methods, and sequencing of construction operations.
Factors such as exposure time, moisture content, precipitation, seepage, and other site
90589/SEABROO5.doc Page 6 of 17 January 16, 2008
Copyright 2ooa Kleinfelder
KLE1 N FELDER
conditions and construction activities may significantly reduce the stability of temporary,
unsupport ed, cut slopes.
We are providing soil type information solely as a service to our client for planning
purposes. Under no circumstances should this information be interpreted to mean that
Kleinfelder is assuming responsibility for construction site safety or the Contractor's
activities.
In general, the on -site recessional outwash soils classify as Type C and should be
inclined no steeper than 11/2H:lV per WAC 296-155 (horizontal:vertical). This slope
inclination can be increased to IIHAV if the excavation face is covered with a minimum
1 -inch flashcoat of shotcrete or equivalent after excavation.
The on -site glacial till soils classify as Type B and should be inclined no steeper than
1 H:1V per WAC 296-155 (horizontal:vertical). This slope inclination can be increased to
% H:1V if the excavation face is covered with a minimum 1-inch flashcoat of shotcrete
after excavation.
Permanent slopes should be inclined no steeper than 3H:1V, unless designed on a
case -specific_ basis �.y--KIe:1afeIder,-jn which steeper slopes may be suitable. All
permanent slopes should be planted with a deep-rooted, rapid -growth vegetative cover
as soon as possible after completion of slope construction. Alternatively, the slope
should be covered with plastic, straw, etc. until it can be landscaped.
4.1.6 Weather Considerations
The -silty on -site soils, particularly the glacial till, are moisture sensitive and will become
soft and difficult to compact or traverse with construction equipment when wet. During
wet weather, the contractor should take measures to protect the exposed subgrades
and limit construction traffic once the geotechnical engineer has approved them. These
measures could include, but are not limited to, placing a layer of crushed rock or lean
concrete on the exposed subgrade, or covering the exposed subgrade with a plastic
tarp and keeping construction traffic off the subgrade. Once subgrade has been
approved, any disturbance because the subgrade was not protected should be repaired
by the contractor at no cost to the owner.
During wet weather, earthen berms or other methods should be used to prevent runoff
from draining into excavations. All runoff should be collected and disposed of properly.
Measures may also be required to reduce the moisture content of on -site soils in the
90589/SEABROO5.doc Page 7 of 17 January 16, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
KLE1 N FELDER
event of wet weather. These measures can include, but are not limited to, air drying
and soil amendment, etc.
Further periods of wet weather are likely to result in groundwater seepage, particularly
from the recessional outwash overlying the glacial till. This seepage should be
controlled during construction to prevent lose of face or slope instability during
construction. Seepage should not be allowed to collect at the bottom of . cut slopes or
temporary shoring faces.
Since the silty on -site soils will be difficult to work with during periods of wet weather
and seepage may be more difficult to control, we recommend that earthwork activities
generally take place in late spring, summer or early fall.
4.2 STRUCTURAL FILL RECOMMENDATIONS
4.2.1 Materials
All mat erial placed below structures or paved areas should be considered structural fill.
Structural fill material should be free off deleterious material, should have a maximum
particle size of 6 inches, can be moisture -conditioned properly, and should be
compactable to the percent compactions recommended herein.
Existing fill and native soils at the project site are generally suitable for re -use as
structural fill, provided the materials meet the conditions described above. Portions of
the existing fill and native recessional outwash, and all of the glacial till soil, have high
fines contents and should be considered moisture sensitive. These soils will be very
difficult to re -use as structural fill if allowed to become too wet, and are not
recommended for use during periods of wet weather. These soils will be difficult to dry
out if allowed to become too wet.
Imported material can be used as structural fill. Imported structural fill material should
conform to Section 9-03.14(l), Gravel Borrow, of the most recent edition (at the time of
construction) of the State of Washington Department of Transportation Standard
Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction (WSDOT Standard
Specifications).
Contro, I led -density fill or lean mix concrete can be used as an alternative to structural fill
materials.
905891SEMR005.doc Page 8 of 17 January 16, 2008
CDpyright 2008 Kleinfelder
IKLE1 N FELDER
The contractor should submit samples of each of the required earthwork materials to the
geotechnical engineer for evaluation and approval prior to use. The samples should be
submitted at least 4 days prior to their use and sufficiently in advance of the work to
allow the contractor to identify alternative sources if the material proves unsatisfactory.
4.2.2 Placement and Compaction
Prior to placement and compaction, structural fill should be moisture conditioned to
within 3 percent of its optimum moisture content. Loose lifts of structural fill should not
exceed 12 inches in thickness; thinner lifts will be required for walk -behind or hand
operated equipment.
All structural fill should be compacted to a dense and unyielding condition and to a
minimum percent compaction based on its modified Proctor maximum dry density as
determined per ASTIVI D1 557. It should be noted that the minimum percent compaction
may be . achieved in the silty alluvium with the material still not exhibiting a firm and
unyielding condition due to a high moisture content. In this instance, the fill material will
not be considered acceptable. The earthwork contractor should be aware of this and
be prepared to moisture condition the native so ils accordingly.
Structural fill placed beneath each of the follbwing should be compacted to the indicated
percent compaction:
Foundation and Floor Slab Subgrades: 95 Percent
Non -Building Subgrades (upper 2 feet): 95 Percent
Non -Building Subgrades (below 2 feet): 90 Percent
We recommend structural fill placement and compaction be observed on a full-time
basis by a Kleinfelder representative. A sufficient number of tests should be performed
to verify compaction of each lift. The number of tests required will vary depending on
the fill material, its moisture condition and the equipment being used. Initially more
frequent tests will be required while the contractor establishes the means and methods
required to achieve proper compaction.
Trench backfill should be placed and compacted as structural fill. A schematic depicting
the typical backfill for utility trenches is presented in Figure 3. Pipe bedding material
should conform to the manufacturers' recommendations and be worked around the pipe
to provide uniform support. Cobbles exposed in the bottom of utility excavations should
be covered with pipe bedding or removed to avoid inducing concentrated stresses on
90589/SEA8ROO5.doc Page 9 of 17 January 16, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
KLE1 N FELDER
the pipe. Jetting or flooding is not a substitute for mechanical compaction and should
not be allowed.
4.3 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
4.3.1 Shallow Spread Footing Foundations
We recommend the following for design of the proposed foundations:
Allowable Soil Bearing Capacity: For the west building, which should be
founded on firm and unyielding native recessional outwash or compacted
structural fill, an allowable bearing capacity of 3,500 pounds per square foot (psf)
should be used for foundation design. For -the east building, which should be
founded on firm and unyielding native glacial till, an allowable bearing capacity of
4,500 psf should be used for foundation design. The allowable bearing capacity
may be increased by 1/3 for transient loading due to wind and seismic events.
Minimum Footing Depth and Frost Depth: All exterior and interior footings
should be embedded a minimum of 18 and 12 inches below the lowest adjacent
finished grade, respectively.
_s ould. have a minimum width of 2
Minimum Footing Width:. All -s.trip..foot-ings ..h.
feet and isolated footings should have a minimum width of 3 feet.
Estimated Settlements: We estimate that the maximum settlements will be on
the order of 1 inch, or less, with a differential settlement of Y2 inch, or less, over
50 lineal feet. Settlement is anticipated to be elastic and is anticipated to occur
primarily during building construction.
Lateral Load Resistance: Lateral loads can be resisted by passive pressure
against buried portions of the footings and sliding resistance between the bottom
of the footings. We recommend an allowable passive earth pressure equal to
that generated by a fluid with an equivalent unit weight of 250 pounds per cubic
foot (pcf). This value assumes footings are backfilled with structural fill and
includes a factor of safety of 2. The upper 18 inches of soil should be ignored
unless the area is paved or covered with concrete, due to soil softening
associated with freeze/thaw.
90589/SEABROO5.doc Page 10 of 17 January 16, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
IKLEI N FELDER
Sliding resistance between subgrade soils and foundations should be evaluated
using an allowable coefficient of friction of 0.40; this value assumes concrete cast
directly on the subgrade and includes a factor of safety of 1.5.
Drainage: We recommend that permanent subgrade wall drainage and footing
drains be provided, based on the amount of long-term seepage anticipated to
develop against subsurface wall. A typical footing drain is illustrated in Figure 4.
All drains should convey water under control to a positive and permanent
discharge point well away. from the structure. Roof downspouts should not be
connected to footing drains, but should be tight -lined separately to a positive
discharge system.
Lateral Earth Pressures: The following lateral earth pressures are provided for
the design of on -site subgrade walls and other structures. These recommended
earth pressures do not take into account load influences of buildings adjacent to
the project site or traffic surcharges . The following recommended pressures'are
equivalent fluid weight (EFW) values:
Active Earth Pressure - Walls Free to Rotate: 30 pcf EFW`
Walls-- 48 pcf EFW
At -Rest Eadh PressureL.
Note: The recommended earth pressure values assume that backfill is free
draining; a drain is provided to convey water; and that no hydrostatic pressure
is allowed to develop behind the wall.
4.3.2 Floor Slabs
Floor slabs, including capillary breaks, can be placed directly on a firm and unyielding
native subgrade. Concrete slab -on -grade floors should be underlain by a minimum 6-
inch thickness of capillary break material. Capillary break material should consist of an
open -graded, free -draining, angular aggregate material such as Crushed Surfacing
Base Course per WSDOT Standard Specification 9-3.9(3). Crushed surfacing top
course and many gravel borrow products are not suitable because they are not coarse
enough, or contain too high of a fine sand and silt content to be free draining.
A modulus of subgrade reaction of 150 pounds per cubic inch (pci) is recommended for
the design of the slab.
90589/SEA8ROO5.doc Page 11 of 17 January 16, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
I
KLE1 N FELDER
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The need for a moisture barrier, such as plastic sheeting, should be evaluated by the
project team and building owner based on the long-term needs to keep moisture out of
the areas above the floor slab. Moisture barriers are generally recommended if tile,
carpets, or other floor covering will be used; or if the building usage does not permit
intrusion of moisture through the floor slab. The vapor barrier should be placed over the
capillary break.
4.3.3 IBC Seismic Design Criteria
in accordance with Section 1615 of the 2003 International Building Code (IBC) and
based on explorations at the site and our regional experience, we recommend use of
Site Class of D for this project site. The following factors were obtained in accordance
with the 2003 IBC:
Tahla 11- IRC Seismic Factors
Based on the factors indicated above, we recommend the following design spectral
response parameters.
Table 2: IBC Seismic Design Parameters
Notes:
1. Design PGA (g) = SDs/2-5
4.4 TEMPORARY SHORING
4.4.1 General
We understand that the proposed excavation will incorporate temporary shoring to
support the excavation sidewalls during construction. Based on discussions with Mr.
Shapiro and our review of the'on-site soils, it is our opinion that soil nailing is a feasible
shoring option for this project. Alternatively, cantilever soldier piles can also be used,
90589/SEABROO5.doc Page 12 of 17 January 16, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
IKLE1 N FELDER
though some of the proposed wall heights approach heights where the cantilever
soldier -pile is likely to be a less cost-effective option. Recommendations for the design
of both wall types are presented, in this section.
It is generally our understanding that the project team would prefer not to need to
secure easements from the adjacent property owners and, if possible, not from the City
of Edmonds. Based on an evaluation of the set -backs indicated on architectural
drawings provided by AD Shapiro architects, it is our preliminary opinion that both soil
nail and cantilever soldier -pile options can be used without need for easements from
adjacent property owners or the City of Edmonds. However, this opinion will need to be
finalized as part of the shoring design process, which is outside the scope of this
Igeotechnical report.
4.4.2 Soil Nails
It is our preliminary opinion that soil nailing is an acceptable temporary shoring option
for the proposed construction shoring, provided the recommendations in this section are
incorporated into the design. It should be noted that, as of the date of this report, we
have not performed an evaluation of the utilities, vaults, or other subgrade structures
within or adjacent to the project site. The ultimate feasibility of soil nailing as an option
is dependent on that evaluation being pefformed as part of the soil nail design process.
Kleinfelder has extensive experience designing soil nail shoring systems in the State of
Washington and can provide soil nail design services for this project, if desired.
Soil nail shoring design should be performed by a civil engineer registered in the State
of Washington and specifically experienced in the design of soil nail shoring systems.
The scope of this design typically includes a review of publicly -available as -built records
of adjacent utilities and underground structures, the complete design process, and the
development of drawings and design documentation for submission to the City of
Edmonds for permitting and subsequent construction. Kleinfelder can also provide
construction observation and testing services related to soil nail installation. If soil
nailing is selected for this project site and once a civil engineering drawing showing the
planned shoring wall alignments and top -of -wall and boftom-of-wall elevations is
finalized, Kleinfelder can provide you with a proposal for soil nail design services.
The following preliminary design parameters for use in soil nail shoring design are
presented in Table 3 below. Final design parameters will be developed as part of the
soil nail design process.
90589/SEABROO5.doc Page 13 of 17 January 16, 2008
Copyright 2DO8 Kleinfelder
KLE1 N FELDER
Table 3: PreliminarV 5011 Nan uesign varameters
41:tl'�
A:nc6ot..,,Ad:h,;dti.o.ii*�-��&P-�..�....
....
. ..... .. ..
.... ... ....... .
P . ....... .... t.!
.... . .. .....
T.
n;: i t,:...W 6 - j ht:
. .....
4412:
fp_44:1�;:
... . .... ..
tl
P n I
d i t
U Iti M'd
ff
Recessional
50
32
125
2,500
1,250
Outwash
Glacial Till
600
41
130
4,000
2,000
Existing fill at the site (mostly on the west side of the proposed excavation, but also
possible between the existing residences at the site and the adjacent buildings to the
north and south) and the native recessional outwash is anticipated to perform poorly
during the top -down excavation method of soil nail installation, particular during and
after period of wet weather when groundwater seepage may cause raveling or erosion
of the cut face prior to installation of the shotcrete facing of the soil nail wall. We
recommend that, where possible, recessional outwash soil should be slope -cut as
recommended in this report instead of soil nailed. In some areas, vertical elements may
be incorporated into the soil nail shoring design to support fill and recessional outwash
soils until the soil naif shoring system can be completely constructed.
Anchor adhesions are highly dependent upon the installation techniques and installation
care employed by the contractor. The adhesion values indicated above are our best
estimate of the allowable adhesion based on previous experience with similar soils,
using continuous flight auger drilling methods and careful installation practices.
However, different drilling methods and different degrees of care may result in
substantially higher or lower adhesion values and must be verified by the contractor
prior to installation of production nails.
4.4.3 Soldier Piles
Typically, soldier -pile shoring systems are designed through collaboration with the
structural engineer. For taller soldier pile walls, such as this one, we recommend that
final wall design be developed by performing a soil -structure interaction with L-pile,
wherein the structural engineer will provide input parameters for the steel H-sections
and Kleinfelder will generate deflection, movement and shear information for the wall
elements based on the soil conditions. In our experience, this can provide the most
efficient wall design.
90589/SEABROD5.doc Page 14 of 17 January 16, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
I
KLE1 N FELDER
I
I
E
For preliminary design, the following earth pressures and resistances can be used:
Lateral Active Earth Pressure: 65 pcf EFW
Note: This value assumes a back slope behind the wall no steeper than
1 H: 1V and a fully drained condition with no hydrostatic pressure acting on
the wall. This value further does not take into account load influences of
buildings adjacent to the project site or traffic surcharges.
Design Passive Earth Pressure: 250 pcf EFW
Note: This value includes a factor of safety of 2. The upper 18 inches of
soil should be ignored unless the area adjacent to the wall is paved.
Passive pressure can be assumed to act over 2Y2times the pile diameter.
Minimum Pre -drilled Hole Depth: 10 feet below the base of wa I I
Note: Cantilever soldier -pile embedment depth is typically a minimum of
1.5 times the total height of the wall.
5.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES
The recommendations made. --in. . this report are based. -on the - assumption that an
adequate program of tests and observations will be made during construction to verify
complian ce with these recommendations. Testing and observations performed during
construction should include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following:
• Observations and testing during site preparation, earthwork, shoring construction
and monitoring, structural fill, and pavement section placement;
• Testing and inspection of concrete, masonry, structural steel, fireproofing, and
roofing materials; and
Consultation as may be required during construction.
We further recommend that project plans and specifications be reviewed by us to verify
compatibility with our conclusions and recommendations.
Also, Kleinfelder retains fully accredited, WABO-certified laboratory and inspection
personnel, and are available for this project's testing and inspection needs. Information
concerning the scope and cost for these services can be obtained from our office.
905891SEMR005.doc Page 15 of 17 January 16, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
IKLE1 N FELDER
6.0 LIMITATIONS
Recommendations contained in this report are based on our field observations and
subsurface explorations, limited laboratory tests, and our present knowledge of the
proposed construction. It is possible that soil and groundwater conditions could vary
between or beyond the points explored. If soil or groundwater conditions are
encountered during construction that differ from those described herein, we should be
notified immediately in order that a review may be made and supplemental
recommendations provided. If the scope of the proposed construction, including the
proposed loads or structural locations, changes from that described in this report, our
recommendations should also be reviewed.
We have prepared this report in substantial accordance with the generally accepted
geotechnical engineering practice as it exists in the site area at the time of our study.
No warranty, express or implied, is made. The recommendations provided in this report
are based on the assumption that an adequate program of tests and observations will
be conducted by Kleinfelder during the construction phase in order to evaluate
compliance with our recommendations. Other standards or documents referenced in
any.given standard cited in th.is report, or otherwise -relied upon by the author of this
report, are only mentioned in the'given standard; they are not incorporated into it or
.'included by referenced", as that latter term is used relative to contracts or other matters
of law.
This report may be used only by the Jones Brothers Development LLC and their design
consultants and only for the purposes stated within a reasonable time from its issuance,
but in no event later than 12 months from the date of the report.
Land or facility use, on- and off -site conditions, regulations, or other factors may change
over time, and additional work may be required with the passage of time. Based on the
intended use of the report, Kleinfelder may recommend that additional work be
performed and that an updated report be issued. Non-compliance with any of these
requirements by Jones Brothers Development LLC or anyone else will release
Kleinfelder from any liability resulting from the use of this report by any unauthorized
party and Jones Brothers Development LLC agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold
harmless Kleinfelder from any claim or liability associated with such unauthorized use or
non-compliance.
905B9/SEA8ROO5.doc Page 16 of 17 January 16, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
IKLE1 N FELDER
The scope of work for this subsurface exploration and ge.otechnical report did not
include environmental assessments or evaluations regarding the presence or absence
of wetlands or hazardous substanc es in the soil, surface water, or groundwater at this
site. Environmental assessments are provided in separate report.
Kleinfelder has conducted subsurface exploration and provided recommendations for
this project. We recommend that Kleinfelder be given the opportunity to review the final
project plans and specifications to evaluate if our recommendations have been proper ly
interpreted, we assume no responsibility for misinterpretation of our recommendations.
We recommend that all earthwork during construction be monitored by a representative
from Kleinfelder, including site preparation and. placement of structural fill and trench
backfill. The purpose of these services would be to provide Kleinfelder the opportunity
to observe the actual soil conditions encountered during construction, evaluate the
applicability of the recommendations presented in this report to the soil conditions
encountered, and recommend appropriate changes in design or construction
procedures if conditions differ from those described herein. Further guidelines and
information regarding the use of this geotechnical report can be found in the ASFE
publication entitled, Important Information About Your Geotech . ni.cal Engineering Report,
which is included in Appendix C of this report.
90589/SEA8ROO5.doc Page 17 of 17 January 16, 2008
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
E=
6
W6
LL.
LU
cc
9x
n n
Lu Uj
siouth
Ji,
'Ant&(
DRAWN BY:
K L E I N F E L D E R Site Vicinity REVISED BY:
2405 140th Avenue NE, Suite A101 CHECKED BY:
Bellevue, WA 98005-1877 FIGURE
PH: (425) 562-4200 FAX: (425) 562-4201 Proposed Townhouse Development
www.kleinfelder.com 2071211 Sth Avenue North
IEdmonds, Washington
DRAWN: Jan. 2008 APPROVED BYL- I PROJECT NO. 90589TFILE NAME: 90589-Finures.dwq
J=
5L
J.S.
F.R.
@ by Kleinfelder West Inc., 2008
XV14-
C
ii"X 5
A
_Z�
OM
,-,)ASP
Lu
W CD
_j
_j 91
4 t
zo A"&
CO WALL- B-M
\' z
00
CY)
%11
00
G
Oi 'CO
LL
CO
ell— -IV LO _j
0
C
C')
N
z
>
91 ID
CO I
U-)
0 Okse,
04
G
z �Cj _j
CO <
GO 3:
�j= I lJj
*B- 2
V)
OD
LL
104
C�
z
7
CY, 0
p:
Pk -7-
CU,11(
WALL
S60*52'58"E 120.00 11 rz��"nW
C5
51D
Legend
B-1* Boring Number and Approximate Locations
0 20
Scale in Feet Reference: Base Drawing proVided by AD. Shapiro Architects PS, dated 1-3-2008
DRAWN BY:
K L E I N F E L D E R Site Plan REVISED BY:
2405 140th Avenue NE, Suite A101 CHECKED BY: F.R.
Bellevue, WA 98005-1877 Proposed Townhouse Development FIGURE
PH: (425) 562-4200 FAX: (425) 562-4201 207/211 Sth Avenue North
www.kleinfelder.com Edmonds, Washington 2
DRAWN: Jan. 2008 1 APPROVED BY- PROJECT NO. 90589 1 FILE NAME: 90589-Figures.dwg I
(0 Dy rueintetuer west anu., vo
Backfill
Bedding
M
17M.-
SCHEMATIC ONLY -NOT TO SCALE
NOTA CONSTRUCTION DRAWING
Non -Structural Floor Slab or
Areas RoadvitayAreas
Varies
4 feet
Varies
Varies
LEGEND
Asphalt / Concrete Pavement / Concrete Floor Slab
Base Material/ Slab Base Rock
Backfill, compacted on -site soil or imported select fill
material
Bedding material; material type depends on type of pipe and
laying conditions. Bedding should conform to the manufacturers
recommendations for the type of pipe selected.
Minimum percentage for compaction, based on the maximum
laboratory dry density of the material as determined by ASTM
Test Method D 1557 (Modified Proctor).
K L E I N F E L D E R Typical Utility Trench Fill
2405 140th Avenue NE, Suite A101
Bellevue, INA 98005-1877
PH: (425) 562-4200 FAX: (425) 562-4201 Proposed Townhouse Development
www.kleinfelder.com 207/211 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, Washington
___�APPROVED BY:- I PROJECT NO. 90589 1 FILE NAME:
DRAWN: Dec. 2007
DRAWN BY: J.S.
REVISED BY:
CHECKED BY: F.R.
FIGURE
3
@ by Kleinfelder West Inc., 2008
0
E
V
Lu
0
z
W1LL
SCHEMATIC ONLY -NOT TO SCALE
NOTA CONSTRUCTION DRAWING
LEGEND
Surface Seal, native soil or other low permeability material
Gravel Backfill for Drains: WSDOT Standard Specifications,
ym Section 9-03.12(4).
Drain Pipe; perforated or slotted rigid Schedule 40 PVC laid with
perforations or slots facing down; tightjointed; with a positive
gradient
Do not use coffugated plastic pipe.
Do not tie building downspout drains into footing drains.
K L E I N F E L D E R Typical Footing Subdrain
2405 140th Avenue NE, Suite A101
Bellevue, WA 98005-1877
PH: (425) 562-4200 FAX: (425).562-4201 Proposed Townhouse Development
www.kleinfelder.com 207/211 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, Washington
DRAWN: Dec. 2007 [APPROVED BY;- I PROJECT No. 90589 FFILE NAME:
4 inch minimum
DRAWN BY: J.S.
REVISED BY:
CHECKED BY: F.R.
FIGURE
�1
S by Kleintelder west Inc., zuuij
KLE1 N FELDER
APPENDIX A
FIELD EXPLORATION
Soil samples were collected from the borings at 2Y2 -foot intervals to a depth of 10 feet
below the proposed grades, and 5-foot intervals thereafter, using Standard Penetration
Test (SPT) sampling techniques (ASTM D1586). The SPT consisted of driving a 1-3/8-
inch inside diameter (2-inch outside diameter) split spoon sampler a distance of 18
inches into the bottom of the boring. The sampler was driven with a 140-pound auto -
hammer calibrated to free -fall 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the
sampler each of three 6-inch increments was recorded on the boring logs. The number
of blows required for the last 12 inches of penetration is called the standard penetration
resistance (N-value). This value is an indicator of the relative density of granular soils
or the consistency of fine-grained soils.
Soil samples collected during the field exploration were classified in accordance with
ASTM D2487. Ali samples were placed in sealable plastic bags to limit moisture loss,
labeled, and returned to our laboratory for further examination and testing.
The borings were monitored by our geotechnical engineer who examined and classified
the Materialsencountered, obtained representative -soil- samples, and recorded pertinent
information including soil sample depths, stratigraphy, soil engineering characteristics,
and groundwater occurrence. Upon completion of drilling, the borings were backfilled
with a combination of native soil and bentonite chips.
The stratification lines shown on the individual logs represent the approximate
boundaries between soil types; actual transitions may be either more gradual or more
severe. The conditions depicted are for the date and location indicated only, and it
should not necessarily be expected that they are representative of conditions at other
locations and times.
'0
a
0
E
10
LU
0
z
Oil
I
10
'41
LL
SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
SYMBOLS
TYPICAL'
MAJOR DIVISIONS
DESCRIPTIONS
I
LETTER
GRAVEL
AND
GRAVELLY
SOILS
CLEAN
GRAVELS
(LITTLE OR NO FINES)
PGPRAPH
'DID O'D 04
. o0:0 I
GW
WELL -GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL -
SAND MIXTURES, 0% TO 15%
FINES
0 U —
00
00 0 0
00 000
00 000
0 (
"0 _c
000 00(
0 00 00-01
GP
POORLY -GRADED GRAVELS,
GRAVEL -SAND MIXTURES, 0% TO
15% FINES
GRAVELS WITH
FINES
(APPRECIABLE
AMOUNT OF FINES)
)0
0
0
000
0
0
0000
0-0
0
0
ISM
SILTY GRAVELS, SILTY GRAVEL -
SAND MIXTURES
COARSE
GRAINED
SOIL
MORE THAN 50%
OF COARSE
FRACTION
RETAINED ON NO.
4 SIEVE
GC
CLAYEY GRAVELS, CLAYEY GRAVEL-
SAND MIXTURES
SAND
CLEAN SANDS
............
.............
.............
.............
Sw
WELL -GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY
SANDS, 0% TO 15% FINES
MORE THAN 50%
OF MATERIAL IS
LARGER THAN NO.
200 SIEVE SIZE
AND
SANDY
SOILS
(LITTLE OR NO FINES)
.............
.............
...........
............
...........
S P
POORLY -GRADED SANDS,
GRAVELLY SAND, 0% TO 15%
FINES
SANDS WITH
FINES
...
...
.......
....
SM
SILTY SANDS, SILTY SAND -GRAVEL
MIXTU RES
MORE THAN 50%
OF COARSE
FRACTION
SC
CLAYEY SANDS, CLAYEY SAND-
GRAVEL MIXTURES
PASSING ON NO.
4 SIEVE
(APPRECIABLE
AMOUNT OF FINES)
INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE
ML
SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR
CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY
SItTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY
FINE
GRAINED
SILTS
L QUID LIMIT
I(
AND LESS THAN 50
C L
INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOWTO
MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY
CLAYS. SANDY CLAYS, SILTY
SOIL
CLAYS
CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS
OL
ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC
SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY
---------
MORE THAN 50%
OF MATERIAL IS
MH
INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR
DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR
SMALLER THAN NO.
SILTY SOILS
200 SIM SIZE
SILTS LIQUID LIMIT
AND GREATER THAN 50
CLAYS
CH
INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH
PLASTICITY
OH
ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO
HIGH PLASTICITY
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
I ..........
FIT
PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH
HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS
NOTE: DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS
DRAWN BY: J.S.
K L E I N F E L D E R soil classification Legend REVISED BY:
2405 140th Avenue NE, Suite A101 CHECKED BY: F.R.
Bellevue, WA 98005-1877 APPENDIX
PH: (426) 562-4200 FAX: (425) 562-4201 Proposed Townhouse Development
www.kleihfelder.com 207/211 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, Washington A-1
DRAWN: Dec.2008 TAPPROVED BY:- I PROJECT NO. 90589 1 FILE NAME:
(S) by Kleintelder West Inc., ZUUIJ
I
TESTING PROGRAM
LABORATORY
I
FIELD
CD
,—W WELL/PIEZO
>
U>
CONSTRUCTION
ZW
"..'
L_.�
=
- —
6
6
r/) COD
co
�;
�:
z
U
0
I
Z
0
0
5
110
15-
120
IRR
31
31 :
7
4
1 X S1-2
1
4
9 X SI-3
10
8
6 X SI-4
6
7
5 S1-5
8
6
16 SI-6
31
ft/&
40 M SI-7
28 N SI-8
45
32
U.S.C.S.
SOIL DESCRIPTION
rn
Surface: gravel fill
SM brown to dark brown, medium dense moist
SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, fine- to
m d' -grained sand.
e ium
(FILL)
grades to very loose.
SM 7 7. bro—wn—, ioo—se—, wetS—IL—TV —SA—N`5—W-1T—H—
GRAVEL, fine-grained sand.
(RECESSIONAL OUTWASH)
grades to light grey -brown, medium
d
grades to trace apparent gravel in sampler.
— - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
SM grey, very dense, wet SILTY SAND WITH
GRAVEL, fine- to medium -grained sand,
fine -gained gavel.
(GLACIAL TILL)
— — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — gr ii�Td_wet SANDY SILT, fine -gained
ML ey, I
sand, thin (approximately 1 -inch thick)
seams of fine- to medium -gained silty
sand.
(GLACIAL TELL)
>
.0
a
a
P-S�',,,��
— — — — — — — — — — — — — - �A_ TP
grey, medium dense, wet S��
SILT, fine- to medium-gai.ned sand, thin
3
N DATE DRILLED: 12-5-07 SURFACE ELEVATION (feet):
DRILLING METHOD: HSA
LOGGED BY: F. Reinart TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 37.0
DRILLER: Subsurface Technologies
REVIEWED B Y: F. Reinart DIAMETER OF BORING (in): 8 inches
CASING SIZE: N/A
M
D
Proposed Townhouse Development
Appendix
2
207/211 5th Ave N
k4KLEINFELDER
Edmonds, Washington
A -2a
<
0
z GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS
BORING LOG
SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING
PROJECT NUMBER: 90589
B-1
I PAGE I of 2
TESTING PROGRAM
U.S.C.S.
LABORATORY
I
FIELD
I.Q. WELL/PEEZO
.5
W
0
CONSTRUCTION
>
_�L4
96,
:9
Z
01-
z
U
ZA
go
U
19LIZ
I FL&72
I KYA
DI
SOIL DESCRIPTION
6
S1-9
(approximately 1-inch thick) seam of silt
7
X
with sand.
(ADVANCE OUTWASH)
Sz15
SP
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -
grey, medium dense to dense, wet SAND,
fine- to medium -grained sand, trace silt.
(ADVANCE OUTWASH)
1
si-10
9
27
b
Linning term1nateu at a Ut:PL11 UL .3 / ICUL
below ground surface because of excessive
apparent sand heave in boring. Heavy
groundwater seepage observed from
approximately 3 to 16 feet below ground
surface. Groundwater was also observed
below 32 feet below ground surface during
drilling. Boring was backfilled with
mixture of cuttings and bentonite chips.
*SAMPLER Cal. (3"OD) SPT q2" OD) 0 Core Shelby Grab No
TYPE Split Spoon Split poon Sample Tube Recovery
300 lbs 140 lbs
**HAM114ER WEIGHT 112n" T%___1 12ill, "_1
k%IKLEINFELDER
GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS
SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING
Proposed Townhouse Development
207/211 5th Ave N
Edmonds, Washington
BORING LOG
B-1
Appendix
A -2b
PAGE 2 of 2
TESTING PROGRAM
LABORATORY
I
FIELD
:F
,421 WELL/PIEZO
>
'�c
E
S2
CONSTRUCTION
ZW
W
0
W
(3Z
5
At=
ei
W
W
U�z
0 F11-11A IXIA
5.2 6 X S2-1
a a
10
25
511 9.2 17 S2-2
18
21
50/3"2� S2-3
1011 13 N S24
22
29
15 19 S2-5
32
30
120-0 0 1 1 32 KA S2-6
125-0 0 1 47 V
S2-7
.0
531t
N DATE DRILLED: 1-7-08
LOGGED BY: F. Reinart
REVIEWED BY: F. Reinart
U.S.C.S.
W 0 SOIL DESCRIPTION
grass
?-Sly. 77 Topsoil (I inch thick)
brown, medium dense, moist SAND WITH
SILT AND GRAVEL, fine- to
medium -grained sand, fine-grained gravel.
(RECESSIONAL OUTWASH)
grades to yellow -brown to brown, trace
SM
- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
grey -brown, dense to very dense, moist
SILTY SAND WITTI GRAVEL,
fine-grained sand, fine-grained gravel.
(GLACIAL TILL)
grades to dense, sporadic small lenses of
wet.
grades to very dense, wet.
grades to grey, moist.
grades to sporadic small lenses of wet.
grades to moist.
SURFACE ELEVATION (feet): DRILLING METHOD: BSA
TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 45.9 DRILLER: Subsurface Technologies
DIAMETER OF BORING (in): 6 inches CASING SIZE: N/A
Proposed Townhouse Development
207/211 5th Ave N
KLEINFELDER Edmonds, Washington
< lk"
0
z
< GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS
SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING BOPJNG LOG
0
' 0 B-2
.1PROJECTNqJMBER: 90589 1
Appendix
A -3a
PAGE I of 2 1
I
I
I
8
0
TESTING PROGRAM
U.S.C.S.
LABOLL�TTORY I FIELD
WELL/PIEZO
z
SOIL DESCRIPTION
CONSTRUCTION
ZW
C9
W
E* Z
W
COD
WD U
F) z
Ln
0
U Z
96
3V
.0/4.5'X
S2-8
grades to wet.
36
X
S2-9
grades to moist.
50/611
25
S2-10
1j
47
50
SP
--
777
— — - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -
grey, ajn�e, wet SAND, medium -grained
sand.
(ADVANCE OUTWASH)
45—
27
S2-11
-45.9
3U/3
Boring -completed to a depth of 45.9 feet
below ground surface. Minor and sporadic
groundwater seepage observed during
drilling. Boring was converted to a I ' -inch
diameter groundwater piezometer after
drilling.
*SAMTLER Cal. OD)
TYPE Splitqp"oon
SPT q2" OD)
Split
Core Shelby Grab No
Sample Tube Recovery
poon
300lbs
"HAMMER WEIGHT (30" Drop)
140lbs
(30" Dr
Proposed Townhouse Development
Appendix
207/211 5th Ave N
k4KLEINFELDER
Edmonds, Washington
A -3b
GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS
BORING LOG
SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING
PROJECT NUMBER: 90589
B-2
PAGE 2 of 2
4
0
z Cn
0—
z Z
0
Z
0
0
U
1#0
0
co Z:
U
Z
Z
ow 0
ow —
U
<0
Cn
WELL/PIUEZO
LABORATORY
I
FIELD
E
CONSTRUCTION
�z
W
cz
C,
U
Z
0
04
6.� '
1 5
110
IM-1
120
125
U
r
30—
DATE DRILLED: 1-7-08
LOGGED BY: F. Reinart
REVIEEWED BY: F. Reinart
6
7
5
4
5
4
3
18
15
16
6
6
11
S3-1
S3-2
U.S.C.S.
W 0 SOIL DESCRIPTION
z >4
W)
Surface: grass
Topsoil (2 inches thick) — — — — —
--------------
brown, medium dense, moist SAND WITH
SILT AND GRAVEL, fine- to
medium -grained sand, fine- to
coarse -grained gravel.
(RECESSIONAL OUTWASH)
grades to yellow -brown, loose.
grades to wet.
_u - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SM i': yellow -brown to gray -brown, dense, moist
S3-3 SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL,
fine-grained sand, fine-grained gravel, thin
(0.5 to I -inch thick) interbeds of sand with
silt.
S34 (RECESSIONAL OUTWASH)
grades to medium dense, wet.
- ----------------------
SM . . ..
grey, very dense, moist SILTY SAND
WITH GRAVEL, fine-grained sand, fine -
to coarse -grained avel.
34 X S3-5 (GLACIAL TILL)
50/5"
19 S3-6 grades to dense, wet, occasional small
15 lenses of sand with silt.
18
32"X S3-7 grades to very dense.
50/5
SURFACE ELEVATION (feet)- DRILLING METHOD: HSA
TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 41.5 DRILLER: Subsurface Technologies
DIAMETER OF BORING (in): 6 inches CASING SIZE: N/A
Proposed Townhouse Development
Z
207/211 5th Ave N
Edmonds, Washington
k4KLEINFELDER
GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS
BORING LOG
SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING
B-3
5 PROJECT NUMBER: 90589
.N
Appendix
A 4a
PAGE 1 of 2
>
0
99
TESTING PROGRAM U.S.C.S.
LABORATORY FIELD
F
S SOIL DESCRIPTION
WELL/PIEZO P� ;4 : E
W W:.i . — U> , r- �R
CONSTRUCTION Z�� 7- 2 ZW E-3 co
z
Ln Z
Oz
>
20
z
0 7 1-somm<1 zri 1 1, __nr1PCfAd t-moist
I RM
r105
N
41 N/I S3-9
24
29
32
S3-10
grades to wet, fine- to medium -grained
sand.
Boring completed to a depth of 41.5 feet
below ground surface. Sporadic
groundwater seepage observed during
drilling. Boring was backfilled with a
mixture of cuttings and bentonite chips.
SAMPLER Cal. (YOD) SPT g" OD) H Core Shelby Grab No
TYPE H Split Spoon Split poon Samp Tube Recovery
"HAMMER WEIGHT 300 lbs 140 lbs
12n" n___i 11fill nl
k4KLEINFELDER
z
GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS
SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING
PROJECT NUM13ER: 90589
Proposed Townhouse Development
2.07/211 5th Ave N
Edmonds, Washington
BORING LOG
B-3
Appendix
A 4b
PAGE 2 of 2
I
KLE1 N FELDER
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX B
GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING
B.1 GENERAL
Laboratory tests were conducted on several representative soil samples to better
identify the soil classification of the units encountered and to evaluate the material's
general physical properties and engineering characteristics.. A brief description of the
tests performed for this study is provided below. The results of laboratory tests
performed on specific sam.ples are provided at the appropriate sample depths.on the
individual boring and test pit logs. However, it is important to note that these te * st results
may not accurately represent in situ soil conditions. All of our recommendations are
based on our interpretation of these test results and their use in guiding our engineering
judgment. Kleinfelder cannot be responsible for the interpretation of these data by
Iothers.
I
I
I
In accordance with your requirements, the soil samples for this project will be retained a
period of 6 months following completion of this report, or until the foundation installation
is complete, unless we are otherwise directed in writing.
___1 B.2 SOIL -CLASSI FICATI ON
Soil samples were visually examined in the field by our representative at the time they
were obtained. They were subsequently packaged and returned to our laboratory
where they were reexamined and the original description checked and verified or
modified. With the help of information obtained from the other classification tests,
described below, the samples were described in general accordance with ASTM
Standard D2487. The resulting descriptions are provided at the appropriate locations
on the individual boring and test pit logs, located in A ppendix A, and are qualitative only.
B.3 MOISTURE CONTENT
Moisture content tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM Standard
D2216 on representative soil samples to approximately ascertain the in -place moisture
content of'soil samples at the times they were collected. The information obtained
assists us by providing qualitative information regarding soil compactability. The results
are presented at the appropriate sample depths on the exploration logs.
I
KLE1 N FELDER
B.4 GRAIN -SIZE DISTRIBUT ION
Grain -size distribution analyses were conducted in general accordance with ASTM
Standard D422 on representative soil samples to determine the grain -size distribution of
the on -site soil. The information gained from these analyses allows us to provide a
description and classification of the in -place materials. In turn, this information helps us
to understand how the in -place materials will react to conditions such as heavy
seepage, traffic action, loading, potential liquefaction, and so forth. The results are
presented in this Appendix.
e
% COBBLES
% GRAVEL
% SAND
% SILT % CLAY
0.0
23.0
46.0
31.0 -��d
SIEVE
SIZE
PERCENT
FINER
SPEC.*
PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)
I in.
100.0
3/4in.
93.0
1/2in.
85.0
3/8in.
82.0
#4
77.0
#10
72.0
#16
69.0
#30
64.0
#40
60.0
#50
54.0
#100
41.0
#200
31.0
Soil Description
Silty sand with gravel
Laboratory No.: 7742B
Atterbera Limits
PL= LL= Pl=
Coefficients
D85= 12.7 D60= 0.425 D50= 0.244
D30= D15= D10=
CU= cc=
Classification
USCS= SM AASHTO=
Remarks
Tested By: B. Kocbanski
Checked By: J. Schwartz
Entered By: B. Kochanski
- (no specification provided)
Sample No.: SI-3 Source of Sample: B-1 Date: 1/15/08
Location: Elev./Depth: 5'
Client: Jones Brothers Development, LLC
Project: 207/211 5th AVE N. Edmonds, WA
KLEINFELDER, INC.
Project No: 90589 Figure
Particle Size Distribution Report
100
90
80
:F
70
W
Z
LL
F—
Z
0
W
W 40
IL
30---
20
10
0— V I
Li
500 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE - mm
% COBBLES
% GRAVEL
% SAND
% SILT I % CLAY
�
1 0.0
19.0
1 50.0
31.0
SIEVE
SIZE
PERCENT
FINER
SPEC.*
PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)
I in.
100.0
3/4 in.
92.0
1/2 in.
89.0
3/8 in.
87.0
#4
81.0
#10
78.0
#16
75.0
#30
71.0
#40
66.0
#50
58.0
#100
43.0
#200
31.0
Soil Description
Silty sand with gravel
Laboratory No.: 7742C
Atterbera Limits
PL= LL= Pl=
Coefficients
D85= 7.67 D60= 0.326 D50= 0.211
D30= D15= D1 O=
CU= cc=
Classification
USCS= SM AASHTO=
Remarks
Tested By: B. Kochanski
Checked By: J. Schwartz
Entered By: B. Kochanski
- (no specification provided)
Sample No.: SI-5 Source of Sample: B-1
Location:
Date: 1/15/08
Elev./Depth: 10'
Client: Jones Brothers Development, LLC
KLEINFELDER, INC. Project: 207/211 5th AVE N. Edmonds, WA
Project No: 90589 Figure
Particle Size Distribution Report
d d d d 0 a 0 0
100
ki
90
80
70
LLJ 0 1 1
Z
LL
Z 0
W
W 40
CL
30
20
10
1. p
I T I
0
500 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE - mm
1 % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT % CLAY
0.0 1 14.0 79.9 6.1
SIEVE
SIZE
PERCENT
FINER
SPEC.*
PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)
3/4 in.
100.0
1/2 in.
98.0
3/8 in.
93.0
#4
86.0
#8
81.0
#16
78.0
#30
70.0
#40
59.0
#50
41.0
#100
12.0
#200
6.1
Soil Description
Poorly graded sand with silt
Laboratory No.: 7742A
Atterberg Limits
PL= LL= Pl=
Coefficients
D85= 4.15 D60= 0.435 D50= 0.354
D30= 0.242 D15= 0.167 D10= 0.136
Cu= 3.19 CC= 0.99
Classification
USCS= SP-SM AASHTO=
Remarks
Tested By: B. Kochanski
Checked By: J. Schwartz
Entered By: B. Kochanski
(no specification provided)
Sample No.: S3-2 Source of Sample: B-3 Date: 1/15/08
Location: Elev./Depth: 5'
Client: Jones Brothers Development, L LC
Project: 207/211 5th AVE N. Edmonds, WA
KLEINFELDER, INC.
LEE!Rject No: 90589 Figure
I
KLEI N FELDER
IAPPENDIX C
IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
REPORT
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1�
I
I
I
I
F
I
Geolechnical Efloineeping Repopt
Geotechnical Sepvices Ape Pepfopmed fop
Specific Pupposes I Pepsons, and Ppojects
Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of
th ' eir clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engi-
neer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another
civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each
geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solelyfor the client. No
one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without
first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one
— not even you — should apply the report for any purpose or project
except the one originally contemplated.
Read the Full Repopt
Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical
engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary.
Do not read selected elements only.
A Geotechnical Engineeping Repopt Is Based on
A Unique Set of Ppoject-Specific Factops
Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project -specific fac-
tors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the
client's goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general
nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of
the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements,
such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the
geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates oth-
erwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was:
• not prepared for you,
• not prepared for your project,
• not prepared for the specific site explored, or
• completed before important project changes were made.
Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical
engineering report include those that affect:
the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a
parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant
to a refrigerated warehouse,
• elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the
proposed structure,
• composition of the design team, or
• project ownership.
As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project
changes ---even minor ones —and request an assessment of their impact.
Geofechnical engineers cannot accept responsibilihl or fiability for problems
that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which
they were not informed.
Subsupface Conditions Can Change
A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at
the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geolechnical engineer-
ing report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of
time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site;
or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctua-
tions. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report
to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or
analysis could prevent major problems.
Most Geotechnical Hndings Ape Ppolessional
Opinions
Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where
subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engi-
neers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional
judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the
site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ —sometimes significantly —
from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer
who developed your report to provide construction observation is the
most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated
conditions.
A Repopt's Recommendations Ape Ngt Final
Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your
report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engi-
neers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical
engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual
I
I
subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical
engineer who developedyour report cannot assume responsibility or
liability for the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform
construction observation.
A Geotechnical Engineering Repopt Is Subject to
[Wisintepppetation
Other design team meimbers'misinterpr6tation otg'eotechnical e . ng . in . eering .
reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geo-
technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after
submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti-
nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can
also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by
having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstructio n
conferences, and by providing construction observation.
Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs
Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon
their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or
omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should
neiver bia,redrawn for inclusion* in* architectural or -other design -drawings. --- � -
Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, b�tfecognize
that separating logs from the report can elevate risk
Give Contractors a Complete Repopt and
G—Hidafi-cFe
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make
contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what
they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give con-
tractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, -but preface it With a
clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the
report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the
report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical
engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to
conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they
need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contrac-
tors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you
be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you,
while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities
stemming from unanticipated conditions.
Read Responsibility Provisions Closely
Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that
geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disci-_ .
plines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that
have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk
of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of
explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes I ' abeled 'limitations . ,
many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers' responsi-
bilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibiliti�s
and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical
engineer should respond fully and frankly.
Geoenviponmental Concerns Ape Not Covered
The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to pertoftn a ge6envit6n-
mental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geolechnical
study. For that reason, a geotechnf6al —engineering report does not usLFally—
relate any geoenvironmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations;
e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or
regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led
to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own geoen-
vironmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk man-
agement guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for
someone else.
Obtain Professional Assistance- To -Deal with Mold
Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction,
operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from
growing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be
devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a GOm-
prehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional
mold prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or
moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, a num-
ber of mold prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry�
While groundwater, water, infiltration, and similar issues may have been
addressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose findings
are conveyed in -Ibis report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this
project is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services per-
formed in connection with the geotechnical engineer's study
were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven-
tion. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed
in this report will not of itself be sufficient to prevent mold from
growing in or on the structure involved.
Rely,, on Your ASFE-Membep Geotechncial
Engineer fop Additional Assistance
Membership in ASFURe Best People on Earth exposes geotechnical
engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of
genuine benefit for everyoneinvolved with a construction projeft Confer
with you ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information.
ASI=r=
The Best People on Earth
8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone: 301/565-2733 Facsimile: 301/589-2017
e-mail: info@asfe.org www.asfe.org
Copyright 2004 by ASFE, Inc. Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is shictly prohibited, except with ASFFs
specific written permission. Excerpling, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission ofASFE, and only for
purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of ASFE may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical engineering report. Any other
firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being an ASFE member could be committing negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.
��l
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
�1
IIGER06D45.DM
I
)X<� -O�q6 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4\f p I t. ahun's
Storm Drainage Report
fo r
5'* Avenue Eight
Edmonds, Washin
July 3, 2008
By:
; 10 "4� a TICO
f I LFOOO
WHPacific, Inc.
3350 Monte Villa Parkway
BotheU, Washington 98021
(425) 951-4800
I
Storm Drainage Report
Section
I Introduction
2 Off -Site Analysis
3 Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design
4 Conveyance System Analysis and Design
5 Special Reports and Studies
6 ESC Analysis and Design
AD Shapiro ISIorm DraingLe Report for P Avenue Eight WVPacific, Inc.
P: 'AD Shapiro ArcliiiectsP9,035193,De.,dgii�Rep�isi2OO8-07-03- repart.doc July 3, 2008 /Page I
Section I
Project Overview
The 5 th Avenue Eight project is a proposed multi -family project to be developed on a 0.33 acre
site in the city of Edmonds, Washington with mailing addresses 207 & 211 5h Avenue North.
The development will include a 6-unit multifamily building with underground parking and two
town houses. The remainder of the property will be landscaping, walkways and a driveway into
the parking garage. Other improvements consist of underground utilities and stormwater
detention. Stonnwater facilities were designed according to the 1992 Department of Ecology
Stormwater Manual as amended by City of Edmonds Code. The site fronts on 5h Avenue and is
bounded by buildings to the north and south, and an alley to the west. Bell street is one property
to the south. The site is located in the SW 1/4 of Section 24, Township 27 North, Range 3 East,
Willamette Meridian.
Existing Site Conditions
The existing site is composed of two lots, 207 & 211 5th Avenue North. Two existing single
family residences are located on the properties. Curb, gutter, landscape strip and sidewalk exist
along the eastern property frontage. Both existing single family residences are set back from the
eastern property line approximately 15-feet. The existing ground slopes down from east to west
with approximately 12-feet of relief across the property. Both single family residences have
accesses to garages from a pavement and gravel surfaced alley along the western property
boundary. Existing ground cover for the lot consists of 2,131 sf or roof, 1,425 sf of concrete,
1,057 sf of deck, 3,185 sf of gravel driveway and 5,597 sf of lawn. 2,500 square feet of the roof
surfaces will be planted as a green roof.
Stormwater runoff from the project area sheet flows to the alley and is collected by catch basin
structures. Based on Edmonds utility records, the stormwater is conveyed by underground pipe
from the alley to the drainage system in Bell Street. This is in the drainage basin for Shell Creek.
Also, according to City of Edmonds records, there is a sanitary sewer main located within the
alley extending between Bell and Edmonds Streets. Water service is in 5th Avenue North.
There are no signs of erosion or sedimentation deposits on or adjacent to the site. In addition,
there are no critical areas on or adjacent to the site.
Proposed On -Site Drainage System
Stormwater fro,-,n this site will be collected and detained before being conveyed offsite to the
natural discharge location, the storm drainage system in the alley. The site will include 6,405sf of
roof area, of which 2,500sf will be green roof. The remainder of the site will consist of 1,804 sf
of asphalt and 6,189sf of pervious landscaping for a total site area of 14,397sf or 0.33 acres.
Roof drainage and any runoff from landscaping areas will be collected in a series of pipes and
route by gravity to a detention vault adjacent to the alley. Stormwater that falls on the driveway
will flow down to a trench drain in front of the parking garage entrance, at which point the water
AD Shapiro/ Storm Drainage Reportfor Yh Avenue Eight WHPacific, Inc.
PA4D Shapiro ArchitecisPE1035193,Dcsip',Reporis�2008�07-03- report.doc July 3, 2008 /Page 2
Section I
will be pumped to the detention vault. From the detention vault, water is discharged by gravity to
a pump manhole using a multiple orifice riser sized to match the peak flows from the 2-year, 10-
year and 100-year storms. Stormwater from this manhole will be pumped into the existing alley
storm system, which has an invert approximately 2' from ground surface, at a rate not to exceed
the pre -developed 100-year storm. The vault will be near the surface, allowing for a gravity
overflow to the alley system.
AD Shapiro / Stonn Drainage Reportfor 5h Avenue Eight WHPacific, Inc.
P:'AD SlapiroArchirecuP-S,.035193�Des4n'Bepom!2008-07-03- report.doc July 3, 2008 /Page 3
XREF INDEX
t
Vi
L)
a a
2
- g
W
I
niA
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LEGAL DESCRIPTION PER OWNER. THE BENEFIT OF A TITLE REPORT WAS
NOT USED FOR THIS SURVEY.
LOTS 2 AND 3, BLOCK 2. PLAT, OF CITY OF EDMONDS.. ACCORDING TO
THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED N VOLUME 1 OF PLATS ON PAGES 26
AND 27, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY. WASHINGTON.
DATUM
ASSUMED
N
NOTES 7
THIS FIELD TRAVERSE SURVEY USED A WILD T10OO/DIlOOO
TOTAL STATION WITH ELECTRONIC DISTANCE MEASURING
UNIT MEETING OR EXCEEDING REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH INI
1 11
WAC 332-130-080
UTIUTIES SHOWN HEREON WERE DERIVED FROM PHYSICAL
FEATURES ON THE GROUND SURFACE AND ARE NOT
GUARANTEED TO BE ALL INCLUSIVE. CONTRACTOR TO
cf)
VERIFY PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVA'nON.
TOPO AND BOUNDARY BY ALLIED
SUPPLEMENTED BY WHPACIFIC
F----j
LEGEND
— —im— — EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR
— —102— — EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR
PROPERTY LINE
ROAD CENTEPUNE 0
EXISTING CONCRETE OR CURB LINE
EXISTING PAVEMENT E
------ EXISTING WATER MAIN b!
0 EXISTING WATER VALVE/METER
(A
EXISTING SEWER MAIN
—D— EMSTING STORM MAIN
@ 0 EXISTING SDMH & SSMH
—p— EXISnNG POWER LINE
—OPL— EXISTING OVERHEAD POWIER
Q X
Q.-
Lo
E[] EXISTING POWER STRUCTURES
—G— — EXISTING GAS LINE 13
-----D—D— EXISTING WOOD FENCE
EXIS IING BUILDING
cicxilo EX]SnNG ROCKERY
0 BENCHMARK/REBAR
SW 1/4. SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 27 N, RANGE 03 E, W.M.
SNOHOMISH COUNTY, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
..51.-E
�p
V
D
.01
>
o�
A
5", wALt; L.
%
oh
c
ID,
rd
i2 L W 'L
0.75' BUILDING
ENCROACHMENT
CONTRACTOR To
PROTECT IN PLACE
S60-W59'E
311.OW(PLAT)
J
S6O'5r5lrE 120.00' CONC. WALL
d
—0.21' BUILDING
ENCROACHMENT
CONTRACTOR TO
PROTECT'. PLACE
N
N
FOU D
REDAR AND
CAP #9 91
0 _ —
BELLSTREET
-3
Ccl)
Lo
0
z
u,
Z
Lu %
OL
x
X
IN1
r
OPL
vsM
N
V:ll
C)
SCALE
70 0 5 10 2 0
�5�� ,
( FEET )
NC)17mcifO- 19TAI-El
U)
z
LD U)
z
La
Z F— CD
0 m s
L) (D m
C) of C,
o LU
z 2� :1
CL Z
uj C',
m
U) 3:
57< CD
Lu Lo
SHEET NUMBER
C2.0
3d10
0
-------------------------------------------------------------- - -- - - - - - --------- ........................................ . ............ . ................ . ............. ---------- ................... . ... ..... ......... ............................ ....................................................... -------------- ..... .....
----- - ------- ---- UIVINCORPORA TZ-19
SNOHOMISH COUNTr
FIGURE I
G CH
OF z Z)UONZ)S
WA YA F
'gog A
A
LE GE ID
A
�/TA Of
SYMBOL MEANING
_rN)WOOD
CREEK OR STREAM OWDWZ —8
L KE,POArD OR MARSH
A
T, ('I,- ("ll ll�l 7
— — — — — — WATERSHED BOUNDARY
-1 T
STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM c,
i80TH ST
...... CORPORATE BOUNDARY
MUJVlCfPAL FACILITIES
184TH ST C//,Y OF
9D
T PA /?ff L rNA(WOL
NOTE UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, WATERSHEDS WERESTbDIED INBA511VSTUDYOF THESAMENAAff
(1) EVALUATED IN TALBOTPARKBASJNSTVDY
(2) DRAINS TO SHELL CREEK, E VALUA TED IN SHELL CREEK BASIN STUD Y 1881H ST PL-RIFIN Vl�
(3) OVERFLOWS 70 SHELL CREEK, EVALUATED INFIVE CORNER5 BASJNSTUDY
(4) DRAINS TO UNION Off, MARSH
(5) DRAINS TO UNION OIL MARSH, EVALUATED LNEDIVIONL6 WA YBASWSTUDY
(6) OVERFLOWS TO SHELL CREEK, EVALUATED IN SHELL CREEK BASIN STUDY 1=2
(7) DRAINS TO LAKE BALLINGER, E VAL UA TED IN CHASE LAKEILAKE BALLINGER BASIN STUD Y
(8) DRAINS TO LAKERALLINGER, EVALUATED IN CHASELAKEILAKEBALLINGER BASINSTUDY
(9) EVALUATED INEDMONDS WAYBASYVSTUDY
r
19 TH
SCALE 1 1000'
I Ar I I it 200TH ST
j Cy 1,1 NOR
/V'
Q
I B I C//,)/ OF
A L YNNWOOD
MAIN ST
—T
'j, P.Al
212TH ST
F"-Tl
'UNION
MA RSH 216TH Sl
WES Tf
tUNLI
6 j 22 TH ST
F
3
0/
r
224TH ST
7
L—TUI 22EITH b
8 C= C'u
232ND ST
TO WN OF 228Lh 5 8
WOOD WA r 171
CA Of-
yo�IV�LAKE TERIFACf
;13.. ST
SOUT, T
I EDY Z-,gU Aln A LL 'v,
'ON05
238 T 238TH ST
L242ND ST
j
4 I�H_�]
Cl T) 7f 777�1 777T
E
.... .........
............ . . ......... ..... ...........................................................................
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
I
I
I
F
I
Section 2
Off -site Analysis
Upstream Analysis
The property to the north of the site has the topography to indicate that it is upstream of our
project. However, it does not appear to contribute surface flow to our site. The existing building
has roof drains that are piped to the alley and the landscaping areas are terraced with landscaping
walls that make the alley a more likely discharge point for runoff.
Downstream Analysis
Runoff from this site is collected in the alley, which is the natural discharge location for this
project. The storm drain system in the alley is an 8" line that runs by gravity to a system in Bell
Street. From Bell Street the drainage follows the public storm drain system to Shell Creek, and
ultimately Puget Sound.
No capacity problems were evident for the portion of the downstream system visually inspected.
AD Shapiro I Storm Drainage Reportfor Yh Avenue Eight WHFacific, Inc.
P:kAD SluTpiroA7,chifecisPS1035193,DeSig77�ReporrsLI008-07-03- report.doc July 3, 2008 /Page 4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
H
I
I
I
Section 3
Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design
Flow control will be provided for on this site by way of a detention vault. This site has 8,209 sf
of impervious surfaces, which is more than the City of Edmond's threshold of 2,600 sf for
requiring flow control. Conveyance from the site will gravity from the roof areas and be pumped
from the driveway to the detention vault. The vault has been sized using the SBUH method and
the Stormshed Software program to match the peaks of the 2-year, 10-year and 100-year storms
per the City of Edmonds code for a site less than one acre that discharges directly or indirectly to
a stream.
The project is proposing to add 2,500 sf of green roof area for a Low Impact Design. Snohomish
County has adopted the "Low Impact Development Technical Guidance Manual for Puget
Sound" written in January 2005 by the Puget Sound Action Team and Washington State
University Pierce County Extension. According to section 7.3 in the manual, vegetated roofs with
3-8 inches of soil/growing material are to be modeled as "till landscaped area7. For the purposes
of our SBUH model, we modeled the green roof area in the same manner as we modeled the rest
of the landscaping on site, with a curve number of 86.
See the attached calculations for a full narrative of the design process.
Water Quality is required when there is more than 2,000 square feet of new pollution generating
surfaces. The driveway associated with this project contributes only 1,804sf of Pollution
Generating Impervious Surfaces. Therefore, the project will not be required to provide water
quality treatment.
The new storm system is designed in accordance with the following publications:
i. City of Edmonds Code, Chapter 18.30-Storm Water Management
ii. Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, 1992
iii. Snohomish County Addendum to the 1992 Department of Ecology Stormwater
Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin, Volumes I-V.
iv. Low Impact Development Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound, 2005
L;
AD Shapiro /Storm Drainage Reportfor Yh Avenue Eight WHPacific, Inc.
PAO Shapiro Architects PS'IO35193'DesignkReports,,2008-0,1.-03-?-Cpor't.doc July 3, 2008 1 Page 5
I
Stormshed Runoff Control BMP Design Report
Design Narrative: Design began by developing the hydrographsfor the 2-year, 10-
year, and I 00-year storms associated with the pre -developed and developed conditions
of the project Precipitation values are per City of Edmonds code.
Project Precipitation
[2 yr] 1.50 in
[10 A 2.00 in
[100 yr] 3.00 in
Pre -developed & Developed Site Hydrology
* * Design Narrative: Soil on -site was modeled as Alderwood, soil type C. Curve
Numbers associated with this soil classification are asfollows:
Second Growth Forest 81
Impervious 98
Developed Landscaping 86
Basin1D
Peak Q Peak T
Peak Vol
Area Method
Raintype
Event
(efs)
(hrs)
(ac-ft)
ac
/Loss
PreDeveloped-Fores . t
0.0100
8.17
0.0087
0.33
0.33
SBUH/SCS
SBUIVSCS
TYPElA
TYPElA
2 yr
10 YT
PreDeveloped-Forest
PreDeveloped-Forest
0.0321
0.0909
8.00
8.00
0.0167
0.0362
0.33
SBUH/SCS
TYPElA
100 yr
Developed
6.0588
8.00
0.0221
0.33
SBUIUSCS.
TYPElA
2 yr
Developed
0.0923
8.00
0.0334
0.33
SBUMSCS
TYPEIA
10 yr
Developed
0.1652
8.00
0.0578
0.33
SBUIVSCS
TYPEIA
100 yr
Drainage Area: PreDeveloped-Forest
Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd
Peak Factor: 484.00
Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs
Area
CN
Pervious 0.3310 ac
81.00
Impervious 0.0000 ac
98.00
Total 0.3310 ac
Supporting Data:
Pervious CN Data:
Forested
81.00
Pervious TC Data:
Flow type: Description:
Fixed Minimum Tc
Drainage Area: Developed
Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd
Peak Factor: 484.00
Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs
Area CN
Loss Method: SCS CN Number
SCS Abs: 0.20
Intv: 10.00 min
TC
0.11 hrs
0.00 hrs
0.3310 ac
Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Tine
0.00 ft 0.00% 6.3300 6.33 min
Loss Method: SCS CN Number
SCS Abs: 0.20
Intv: 10.00 min
TC
t
5' Avenue Eight
WBPacific #035193.0010
2/29/2008
Page 1 of 2
Pervious 0.1990 ac;
86.00
0.11 hrs
Impervious 0.1310 ac
98.00
0.11 hrs
Total 0.3300 ac
Supporting Data:
Pervious CN Data:
Pervious
86.00
0. 1420 ac
Green Roof
86.00
0.0570 ac;
Impervious CN Data:
Building
98.00
0.0900 ac
Driveway
98.00
0.0410 ac
Pervious TC Data:
Flow type: Description:
Length:
Slope:
Fixed Minimum
0.00 ft
0.00%
Impervious TC Data:
Flow type: Description:
Length:
Slope:
Fixed minimum
0.00 ft
0.00%
Vault & Discharge Structure Design
Coeffi Travel Time
6.3300 6.33 min
Coeff: Travel Time
6.3300 6.33 min
* * Design Narrative: Vault sizing is based on matching 100% of the 2-year, 10-year
and I 00-year storms. However, we also have a minimum orifice size of 518" or 0. 625"
The vault riser was sized to match peaks and then the orifices were adjusted to the
nearest 118" of an inch. This resulted in a detention vault with dimensions of 101x8'
and a storage depth of 5.93. Orifices are sized at 0.625", 1.25" and 0.625" with
elevations 0, 4.67' and 4.92' above the outlet elevation, respectively.
Node ID: Vault
Start El:
100.0000 ft
Max El:
105.0000 ft
Contrib Basin:
Contrib Hyd:
Length
Width
Void Ratio
10.0000 ft
8.0000 ft
100.00
Control Structure ID: Discharge - Multiple Orifice Structure
Descrip:
Multiple Orifice
Start El
Max El
Increment
100.0000 ft
105.0000 ft
0.10
Orif Coeff-.
0.62
Bottom El:
0.00 ft
Lowest Diam:
0.6250 in
out to 2nd:
4.6700 ft
Diam:
1.2500 in
2nd to 3rd:
0.2500 ft
Diam:
0.6250 in
Vault Discharge Flows and Peak Stages Summary:
RLPCONTUTE [RILPooll SUNDURY '
2 yr Match Q: 0.0100 cfs Peak Out Q: 0.0163 cfs - Peak Stg: 102.37 ft - Active Vol: 189.70 cf
10 yr Match Q: 0.0321 cfs Peak Out Q: 0.0221 cfs - Peak Stg: 104.33 ft - Active Vol: 346.24 ef
100 yr Match Q: 0.0909 cfs Peak Out Q: 0.0841 cfs - Peak Stg: 105.93 ft - Active Vol: 474.28 cf
5th Avenue Eight 2/29/2008
VVTIPacific #035193.0010 Page 2 of 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L
L
I
L
I
I
I
I
r-rot": It Low 1n\Poc�--UvvzJcYma4- 7—&,hr7ict'1 audanu— tPa-n,1J
Depth to the average annual maximum groundwater elevation should be at
least 3 feet
Type C and D soils must be compost -amended following guidelines in Section
6.2: Amending Construction Site Soils. The guidance document Guidelines
and Resources for Implementing Soil Depth & Quality BMP T5.13 in WDOE
Western Washington Stormwater Manual, 2003 (revised 2005) can be used, or an
approved equivalent soil quality and depth sp * ecification approved by Ecology.
o Dispersion area must meet the 6.5 to I ratio for ftffl dispersion credit.
e Type A and B soils that meet the 4 inches per hour initial saturated infiltration
rate minimum (See Section 7.2.4 a above) must be compost -amended in
accordance with guidelines in Section 6.2: Amending Construction Site Soils.
Compost may be incorporated into the soil in accordance with the guidance
document cited above, or can be placed on top the native soil.
* 20 feet of impervious flow path needs 10 feet of dispersion area width.
* Each additional foot of impervious flow path needs 0.25 feet of dispersion
area width.
• Average longitudinal (parallel to road) slope of dispersion area should be < 15
percent
• Average lateral slope of dispersion area should be < 15 percent.
• The dispersion area should be planted with native trees and shrubs.
(4) Other characteristics for dispersal areas
• Dispersal areas inside the urban growth area must be protected through legal
agreements (easements, conservation tracts, public parks).
• if outside urban growth areas, legal agreements should be reached with
property owners of dispersal areas subject to stormwater that has been collected
and is being re -dispersed.
• An agreement with the property owner is advised for uncollected, natural
dispersion via sheet flow that is a continuation of past practice. If not a
continuation of past practice, an agreement should be reached with the
property owner.
7.3 Vegetated Roofs
7.3.1 Option I Design Criteria
0 3 to 8 inches of soil/growing media
Runoff Model Representation
* till landscaped area
7.3.2 Option 2 Design Criteria
9 > 8 inches of soil/media
Runoff Model Representation
9 till pasture
V
]G-ALW�cq
I
LID Design and Flow Modeling Guidance - 149-
Section 4
Conveyance System Analysis and Design
System capacity was determined by verifying that a 8" pipe has capacity to carry the flow from
the 1 00-year post -developed condition. The 1 00-year post -developed, un-detained, peak flow is
0.1652 cfs. Pipe slopes on -site range from 1.0% to roughly 15%. To be conservative, capacity
was analyzed with a 0.5% pipe slope. Using Hydraflow Express, an 8-inch pipe at a slope of
0.5% has the capacity to carry 0.90 cfs (see attached report). By observation, the existing and
proposed 8" pipes are adequate to convey flows.
The conveyance system consists two lines of gravity roof drains and yard drains flowing to the
vault. A third line begins with a trench drain at the garage entrance capturing all storm runoff in
the driveway. This runoff is pumped to the vault by pump station # 1. Storm water then is
released from the vault with a gravity line into pump station #2 which pumps into the existing
alley storm system.
The pumps for this project are called out as SK50's by Hydromatic Pumps. Pump Station #1
associated with the garage trench drain shall pump 13.5 gallons per minute (0.03cfs) with
approximately 19.4 feet of total dynamic head. Pump Station #2 associated with the detention
vault shall pump 40 gallons per minute (0.09cfs) with approximately 16.9 feet of total dynamic
head. See attached pump specifications and calculations for more inforrnation.
AD Shapiro / Storm Drainage Reportfor Yh Avenue Eight WHPacific, Inc.
P:WD Shapiro Architects PS'�.035193Design�Reporrsl,2008-07-03- report.dx July 3, 2008 /Page 6
Culvert Report
Hydraflow Express by Intelisolve
Cir Culvert
Invert Elev Dn (ft) =
1.00
Pipe Length (ft) =
6.00
Slope (%) =
1.00
Invert Elev Up (ft) =
1.06
Rise (in) =
8.0
Shape =
Cir
Span (in) =
8.0
No. Barrels =
1
n-Value =
0.012
Inlet Edge =
Projecting
Coeff. K,M,c,Y,k =
0.0045, 2, 0.0317, 0.69, 0.5
Embankment
Top Elevation (ft) =
3.00
Top Width (ft) =
5.50
Crest Width (ft) =
6.00
Elev (ft]
<Name),
4.00
3.50
3.
2. 0
2-00
1.50
1.00
0.50
Friday, Feb 29 2008, 10:27 AM
Calculations
Qmin (cfs)
= 0.10
Qmax (cfs)
= 1.00
Tailwater Elev (ft)
= (dc+D)/2
Highlighted
Qtotal (cfs)
= 0.90-;�- CAMC-11TV
Qpipe (cfs)
= 0.90
Qovertop (cfs)
= 0.00 ?IPE.
Veloc Dn (ft/s)
= 2.88 (3,15%
Veloc Up (ft/s)
= 3.21 'SLOM
HGL Din (ft)
= 1.56
HGL Up (ft)
= 1.56
Hw Elev (ft)
= 1.74
Hw/D (ft)
= 1.02
Flow Regime
= Inlet Control
Hw Depth VO
2.94
INN
ENNOWEENE
OPENS
on
Nl�
Wet"
I'V
0 1 b f
Cir Culyert HGL Emb&*
Z44
1.94
1.44
0.94
0.44
-0.06
-0.56
Reach (ft)
SW 114. SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 27 N, RANGE 03 E, W.M.
SNOHOMISH COUNTY, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 4
LEGEND
ICB t2mw — EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR
ROCii 7RDOO
swmwe
TIE — E)OSMNG MINOR CONTOUR
E-97M LE
PROPERTY LINE
rRr)ai.54i--,, 2OLF r ROAD CENTERLINE
K
EOSTING CONCRETE OR CURB LINE
Bp. los, 110 1 BUILDING 11 WATER SERVICE E)OSTING PAVEMENT EDGE
r L&j VAULT DRAIN I CONNEC17TODOSTING ------ W - - - - - E)aSTING WATER MAIN
WATER METER
SPOUT
I FIRE SERVICE CONNECTION
D4 E)OSTING WATER VALVE
PIV
—G DOUBLE CHECK DETECTOR 'WETTAP
BULMG 8 ELEVATION ASSEMBLYIN 4 0 E)OSTING WATER METER
GARAGE 9&0 PER CITY OF EDM`ON0TSMDEVTAALljLLT0N Wl C TAPPING GATE VALVE
E)QSTING FIRE
FIRST FLOOR 107.0
SECONO FLOOR117.0 SHEET 08.3. r DOMESTIC SERVICE TAP
CONTRACTORTDVERIFYRRE OONTRACTORTO VERIFY SIZE
PRIMTOCONSTRUCTION
E)OSTING SEWER MAIN
PROPOSED TOWNHOUSL
DESIGNER PRIOR TO SEESHEETC&4 EXISTING STORM MAIN
—D
GAR CONSTRUCTION
_A_QE i I, RRIGATIONMETER AND
E @ 0 E)OSTING SOMH & SSMH
SUB METER FOR DOMESTIC RBPA AND HOTBOX PER CITY
WATER TO BE DESIGNED BY STANDARDS EM & E?.I I
BUILDING WMHMICAL SEE SHEET OBA —P— EXISTING POWER LINE
_0PL— EXISTING OVERHEAD POWER
E[] E)as-nNG POWER STRUCTURES
.1 S.T =..'.n N BUILDING A ELEVATION
TO ED
DE GARAGE 95.75 —G— E)CSTING GAS LINE
FIRST FLOOR 106.0
0
4. THIRD FLOOR 126.0 z EXISTING WOOD FENCE
CON RIM-0.75 EXISTING BUILD
NECT TO MAN E-91.138 ING
PROPOSED 6 UNITS
TING ROCKERY
PER w
ST CITY OF 13
1 B LF OF ADD KLASSIKDRAW OR C=C E)aS
(E.91 EQUIVALENT TRENCH DRAIN 0 z 00 13ENCHMARKREBAR
0.6% SLOPE Wl CAST RON GRATE
E3 RIM - W75 uj 00 PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR
oll IE(14):9537 PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR
IS
PROPOSED BUILDING
t DUPLEX PLUP STATION I
C PROPOSED CURB
ICE
'q�WbIUKIAMANHOLE
WIMTEDLOCIONGOOVER
U
24r5iUffldMANm= - - - - - - - - - GARAGE FLOOR OUTUNS
RIM- 05JIM) I
IMFUM=992 IE IN M'�- 83.511
IE OUT (I- FORCE WJN)= 0.5
I'M VAULT BOTTOM- 8925 ROOF —G
ri
IBOTTWKW INLET 11!03S� ARCHITECTURAL WALL
IE=97.3D
PROPOSED ASPHALT PAVEMENT
13 DOM a DOOR PROPOSED CONCRETE
00
—RD UILDING C 0"ATION s
io, immo GARAGE 97.5
2 [1 E DRIVEWAYISIDEWALK
-irsDvALLT FIRST FLOOR 08.5 1 —
I EM C WATER SEIV.
iNLET SECOND FLOOR 16.5 PROPOSED SANITARY LINE
- -------- ----------------
LOWER BE [E=97.05 ----- 15
INVEFUT097-58 PROPOSED TOINNHOUSE CDNNECTT0E)BS)NG PROPOSED SANITARY MANHOLEACLEMOUT
I WATER_M�j_
PROPOSED STORM ..NIROOF DRAdN
REMOVE AND RERACE EX CB.
Dow PROPO ED STORM MANHOLE/
CB95,TYPEI
ULF r RD 0
RDA-9924 01429% CATCH'BASINICLEANOUT
BE 110 S7.6B (Ir NE & r SP
E our= g7.61 (r Nm L
/ FR SERVICE
r DIA DOYN Y
WERFUN SPOUT PROPOSED PIVIWATER METERI
105 1 r Al 41 5 N
CDNNIE9P GATE VALVE
104
NED \ \ \ x \ N \
12MW
DETENMONVAULT E-IO&O A
SEE DETAX.
OR OZ TYPE I OB
RlIM D4SD NOTES:
EW0125
IE OUT=9835 IL M-M GNU= m BE WNW m No SsIm
2. M AIMM W THE MAMA " M THIS SM IS
MaMIT W M OMLCU OF ME IIIIIIIE1311 ROW. IF
A DIFFERE)IT RDW SYM 0 026MCM IM 'BE
DEISM UM SHM ON NN MARM 6 NDT
10 bW CITY CIF ENM SUMDARDS.
I aJEANWT SHALL HhVE A am WIIIER LOCIIIED Wm
HEX emn SIM MVL wra 9 ON sm
N
N
=?
co
U)
z
V) Lu
FOM L)
REIBM AM
"POW
a. 0 Lu
EL Z
LLI
P: cr)
D uj
op SCALE
1; lw� L �w 10 15 1.0 SHEET NUMBER
0- (FEEr) WMLL 1-800
<1 1 INCH = 10 FF. C6.0
CL 0 Of 13
BELLSTREET 0 1
_J
planners
surveyors
engineers
landscape architects
101CIA060 <��1477DAI 24�SWI- -ek -V
gy,25- PAWA "007 "/---0- 79
45
J14141 '-e A�AO 34�314,V 142�OV Aw
>2�60S
.01
... .. ......... .......
Alloqe 1434S
Uzi
79
4.
,6q,r ,e
Project Subject Sheet No. of
job No. Prepared by Date Checked by — Date
planners
surveyors
engineers
rid'' landscape architects
A"w S.V-4z"aV Z)vvwl epwl-
41.3D/
vzo
12
7—,9 49, 0141le,
Project Subject Sheet No. of Z
lob No. PreDared by Date Checked by Date
planners
surveyors
engineers
landscape architects
.. .... ......
go 6'
AW r, 49
el S
;7S19S >21%
w 9
9
f z
4
IZ, -6-1
OV ev
T-7
Project Subject Sheet No. of
lob No. Prepared by Date Checked by — Date
planners
surveyors
engineers
landscape architects
/�If 40ZIA14'
w5t
40�e� 14)W 41'Al
Project Subject 4-0 Sheet No. of
Job No. Prepared by Date (hecked by Date -
CONDENSED HYDRAULIC DATA
WATER DATA
Losses In Pi-e! 10=100 (For old pipe)
CONDENSED HYDRAULIC DATA
WATE R DATA
Friction losses in pipe fittings
Example: The dotlad line shows that
the resistance of a 6-Inch Standard Elbow
Is equivalent to approLdmately 16 feet
of 64nch Standard Pipe.
Notez For sudden enlargements or sudden
36 lim, itudde dia 42 In. inside dim 0 0 contra . ctions, use the smaller diameter. d,
an the pipe size scale.
charge Henid Discharge Head Globe Valvc, Open G- V.1- -3000
veloc- 1� in V S ganons Vd.c-
illao" izt veloc- in ity tel.e. on- 3A Clased
feet feet �6- Closed -2000
he d head �4 Closed
ZpFrf, -M 2,4"br 'B=' in f� I 00,f,
- Fully Open
1000
2,016,000 .44 .09 :000 20 0 2;880.000 -46 OM AM
2,448.000 S3 .00 - 01 25go 3,600 000 .58 .005, 005, 48--so
--L"DO 63 .01 .007 3000 .70 . D07 :007
:M .0 .010 42-
156 :75 1 016 3500 5,040.000 .81 .00,10 009, [-IDO
- .48 . 01 . " 4000 fi,76O.OD0 .92 . 3 .012 AnlilcVaJ�. Open Standard T�e
032.000. 1016 36
. 019 4500 6,480.000 1.04 .016 .015 A --30
=896.000 1.07 :D2 30
5,760,000 2.26 . 02 :026 5000 7.2DO.000 1.16 .021 .01& .Oa
6.912,001) 1.51 .04 .036 Mg. 8,610,000 1.39 .030 :021 Ir
8.064-.ODD 1. 76 .05 . -048 7000 10.080.000 1.62 .041 033 Sq- Elbow 22=-
11 20 GOO I as 053 .043
1.95 .06 -001 ouuv I
2.20 .07 .. 0 . 9000 12.96000 0 2,08 o67 .053
0. 2.39 .09 log 10000 14.400:000 2.31 .083 .065 *,ving ChFkVhl�c.,""
.952,DW 2.61 AD .099 1200D 17.290,000 2.78 .120 ..092
960 DOD 2.93 12 .114 14000 20,160.000 3.24 .163 122 Fullyopep
13:�6ii:000 3.05 :14 �131 16000 23,040,000 3.70 .212 :1157
400 . DDO 3.14 .16 39 18000 25920,000 4.16 .269 .194
:840:DOO 3.46' .19 :1164 200go 28:800,000 4.62 331 .238
280.00D 3.78 .22 22OU& 31,680,001) 5.10 :404 2E2
:720,ODD 4.09 .26 :22"6 24000 34560.000 5.55 .477 :332 Close R�m Bend
1.40 .30 .260 26000 37:440,ODO 6.02 -561 .�z
21,600,DDO 4.71 .651
34 .294 28000 40.320,ODO 6.48
23 040.000 5.03 39 -339 30000 43,200.000 6.94 .74S
Ow 5.66 .51 412 32000 46.080.000 7.40 .850 6
:000 5.91 . .16 :454 34000 49,960-000 7.86 .9 .632 Smad2rd Tee
000 6.30 .61 .504 36000 51,940,000 8.33 1.07 702 'Through SideOuil.
.24O,ODO 6.60 .67 .544 33000 54.no.000 B-80 1.20 . .773
.680,000 6.92 74 -59 40000 67,600.ODD 9.125 1.22 .95
I 60,48O.DOO 9.72 1-46 .936
M 120 000 7.24 .91 .640 42000 0.18 1.61
54:560:000 7.55 .88 .695 44000 63,360.000 1
37.440,000 L. 101 41010 66,241,100 10,63, 1*71 1-101 MD1 11
320.0013 9,90 1.21) -9M 48 . 000 69.020,ODO . 11.10 1.92 1 . .194 Tee .4-d t4
:200.000 9.44 1.38 1.066 00 72,000 ODD 11-58 Z 08 1.290
.96O.ODO 10.70 1.77 .340 520 0 74.880:ODO 12.01 2.25 380
2.20 1. 11 500 0 12.93 1- fin
no,000 11.95 .650 64000 77,760,000 12.49 2.41 1 490
:480,ODO 13.20 2.70 1.990 56000 80,540,001) ;.6D I
Med"urn, Sweep Elbow or
of T= reduced
for ecting to Factor For corrwting to
Ect.o.r.. PZZ BL:ves other P. ies H I
7 oae
Lmg Sweep Elbow or
41 1-1-1 of Sas-d- T-
40 N'
39 11-.30
d 'oes pi. 00 er
f
I . 1 24
1-1 47 1.268
1 M
1.527 Copyright by C=e Co.
1.774 39 7 .71 Re.pri.td by por=".ioo�
2:1
orda Enmn,ce
:
:-56
14
12-
30
ID-
-10
.
.s 9
.dd- &L-ii-xEment
-20 1!
7--
d/r,- &4
'or -6
d/j) - 1h
-10
dJD- 3
A
2 5-
4�j
4--
Xclinary Entrance
-3 or
T 3--3
-2
2!j -
2-2
-
udden Concraction
-d/D-'A
1
-d/D- 1A
I.,
-d/D-34
M3
1-71
5' Elbow
Oa
This chart easy be used for any liq.id or gas
23
THERMOPLASTIC UPPER RAIL BRACE
JUNCTION Box
10, SM.
I
STAINLESS STEEL-`
FLOAT BRACKET.
SHOWN ROTATED 4W
OUT OF TRUE
POSITION
60 IN
EI-93.58
INLET GROMMET
&7W
PUMPS
OFF
BOTTOM a. 89.25
DUPLEX PUMP STATION 1
SCHEMATIC LAYOUT
SEE PUMP MANUFACTURER FOR INSTALLATION DATA
ELECTRICAL BY OTHERS
SST EXTENSION HANDLE
REQUIRED FOR DISCHARGE
DEPTHS EXCEEDING r-O* FROM
TOP OF BASIN
/-SST EXTENSION BRACE RECIUIRED
FOR USE WITH EXTENSION HANDLE
BRASS GATE
VALVE
PVC BALL CHECK
VAVLE w/a.EANOUT
PVC UNION
rxlo REDUCER
REQUIRED
m
DRAINING INFO SH INFO
035193-5TH & BELL DRAwN ABN
PUMP E)(HIBITS dmr cHECKED SRS
j LAS EDIT UMM
SCALE=N.T.S. JL!E2fLL!Ln
a."
4.2W:h
IWHPT(Iflic
SST EXTENSION HANDLE
THERMOPLAS11C UPPER RAIL BRACE—\ REQUIRED FOR DISCHARGE
DEPTHS EXCEEDING 20—Cr FROM
JUNCTION BOX TOP OF BASIN
ler SM.
STAINLESS STEEL FLOAT—`
BRACKET. SHOW ROTATED
45' OUT OF TRUE POS17ION
INLET GROMMET
r IN —
EI-91.71
4.W
Pl.
F—Al
BOTTOM EIL' SILO
rn DUPLEX PUMP STATION 2
z
c SCHEMATIC LAYOUT
00 SEE PUMP MANUFACTURER FOR INSTALLATION DATA
ELECTRICAL BY OTHERS
SST EXTENSION BRACE
REQUIRED FOR USE VATH
EXTENSION HANDLE
BRASS GATE
VALVE
STAINLESS STEEL
DISCHARGE HUB
PVC BALL CHECK
VAVLE w/CLEAN0UT
PVC UNION
2-xl 11r REDUCER
REQUIRED
EA]
DRAWNG INFO
SHEU INFO
035193-5TH & BELL
PUMP EXHIBITS.dwg
SCALE = N.T.S.
ll.cgr
8.61:1:
'WHpacift- c
I
0 1 Lbil 0 1 IVA V"
SK50
Submersible Sewage
Ejector Pump
• Residential Sewage
• High -Ca a A Sump
• Septic �apnkcE fluent
CP
IL,90 HYDROMATICO
Pentair Pump Group
FEATURES
The Hydromatic SK50 submersible pump is specifically designed to. meet the demands of
residential wastewater and sewage applications. The 2 inch NPT discharge pump ( 3 inch
discharge optional) is available with a powerful 1/2 horsepower motor, in both automatic
and manual configurations; and can handle capacities
up to 120 gallons per minute and heads
to 21 feet.
-duty cast iron
The SK50 features a heavy
construction that provides durability in rugged
applications, as well as assisting in dissipating
heat from the motor, for cooler operation.
The pump's high -capacity, non -clog, cast iron
impeller, which is threaded to a stainless
steel shaft provides long life even
in demanding applications; and is capable
of handling up to 2 inch spherical solids
and lint.
IV-51PHYDROMATIC The SK50's oil -filled motor provides
superior cooling characteristics, allowing
the motor to run cool and quiet for years.
This oil -filled design also provides
permanent lubrication of the shaft
bearings, minimizing maintenance and
extending the service life of the pump.
In addition, to protect against overheat-
ing, the motor windings con-
tain an automatic reset
thermal overload.
HYDROMATIC@
Pentair Pump Group
Page 2
BENEFITS
The SK50 is a completely submersible ejector A. Oil -filled motor provides superior cooling and
pump for use in handling wastewater and permanent lubrication of bearings minimizing
sewage in residential and commercial building maintenance and extending service life.
applications; and is available in automatic or B. Lower ball and upper bronze -sleeve bearings
manual configurations. support motor shaft, minimizing the effects of
Automatic models feature a wide-angle float impeller thrust loads. This design results in
switch with piggyback plug-in arrangement. minimum friction and perfect alignment of rotor, for
Switch is adjustable, easy to service and allows longer service from pump.
for simple conversion to manual operation. C. Mechanical shaft seal is carbon and
-17
Ilion
BI I L;
C. L�
ceramic -faced for long, leakproof li .
D. Bottom inlet has no screen to become clogged,
providing optimum pump performance and
minimal maintenance.
E. Water-resistant power cord with molded plug is
available in 10 or 20 foot lengths, and is easily
field serviceable.
F. Heavy-duty, cast iron construction provides
long life and assists in heat dissipation for cooler
motor operation.
G. Energy -efficient 1/2 HP motor runs cool and
quiet for long life. Motor windings contain
automatic -reset, thermal overload protection.
H. Discharge is standard 2 inch NPT (3 inch
is optional).
1. The high -capacity, non -clog, cast iron impeller,
which is threaded to a stainless steel shaft,
efficiently handles up to 2 inch spherical solids.
Pump -out vanes on back on impeller prevent
stringy materials from binding impeller or shaft.
'0 L HYDROMATIC
Pentair Pump Group
Page 3
I
Details
PUMD Characteristics Performance Data
Pump/Motor Unit
Submersible
Manual Models
SK50M1
SK5OM2
Automatic Models
SKSOA1
Horsepower
1/2
Full Load Amps
12.0
F-6.0
Motor Type
Split Phase w/ Thermal Overload Protection
R.P.M.
1750
Phase 0
1
Voltage
115
1 230
Hertz
60
Operation
Intermittent
Temperature
1301F Ambient
NEMA Design
A
Insulaticri
Class A
Discharge Size
2' NPT std. (3* opt.)
Solids Handling
2-
UnitWelght
54 lbs.
Power Cord
16/3, SJTA, 11 5V = 1 0'std-
(20'opt)
230V = 101 std.
aterials of Construction
Handle
Steel
Lubricating Oil
Dielectric Oil
Motor Housing
Cast Iron
PurypCasing
Cast I rcn
Shaft
Stainless Steel
Mechanical
Shaft Seal
Seal Faces: Carbon/Ceramic
Seal Body: Brass
Spring: Stainless Steel
Bellows: Buna-N
Impeller
Cast I rcin
Upper Bearing
BronzeSleeve
Lower Bearing
Single Row Ball Bearing
Fasteners
Stainless Steel
Dimensional Data
"lie B.Itlo*
(109) 7 " (128)
r MNPT
Dig C 2a
4-314'
'7,3
114;1
(120)
3.1311 5"
(9a)
t
11.1ir
(29
Fuml
DISCHARGE ON 124W
11-71,161 HEIGKT (312)
(290)
"Ile
(166)
14a"
P(, 3,4
U.
OFF
- — 4 1 -
All dimensions In Inches. Metric for International use. Component dimensions may Vary ± 1 /8 Inch.
Dimensional data not for construction purpose unless certified. Dimensions and weights are approAmate.
on/Off level adjustable. We reserve the right to make revisions to out product and their specifications
without notice.
C 1999 Hydromatic ', Ashland, Ohio. All Rights Reserved.
1'990 HYDROMATIC Your Authorized Local Distributor -
Pentair Pump Group
1840 Baney Road Ashland, Ohio 44805
Tel: 419-289-3042 Fax: 419-281-4087
www.hydromatic.com
Item #: W-02-6270 7/99 5M
Section 5
Special Reports and Studies
Special reports that have been prepared directly related to this proposal are as followsw
"Geotechnical Report Proposed Townhouse Development 207/211 5th Avenue North
Edmonds,WA," prepared by Klienfelder, Inc, dated January 16, 2008.
AD Shapiro I Storm Drainage Reportfor Yh Avenue Eight WBPacific, Inc.
P:AD Shapiro Architects PS.035193Design�Reporu,.2008-07-03- report.doc July 3, 2008 /Page 7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
I
I
I
I
k4 KILE I N F E LID ER -
An employeL own�d company
January 16, 2008
Kleinfelder Project No.: 90589
Mr. John Jones
c/o Mr. Tony Shapiro
AD Shapiro Architects
624 Edmonds Way
Edmonds, WA 98020-4641
Subject: Geotechnical Report
Proposed Townhouse Development
2071211 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, Washington
Dear Mr. Jones
This letter transmits 4 hard, copies of our geotechnical report for the proposed
townhouse development to Mr. Tony Shapiro of AD Shapiro Architects. In additional,
electronic copies of our geotechnical report have been provided in Portable Document
Format (POF), "Covered by this letter,a-nd-- emailed to you, Mr. Rick Jones of Jones
Brothers Development, LLC, and Mr. Shapiro. This report was prepared in accordance
With our November 27, 2007, Proposal.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide geotechnical services to you on this project.
Please contact the undersigned at (425) 562-4200 if you have any questions regarding
this report, or if we can provide assistance with other aspects of the project.
Sincerely:
KILEINFELDER WEST, INC.
5-1 OXI-
Frank D. Reinart, P.E.
Geotechnical Engineer
Attachment: January 16, 2008, Geotechnical Report
90589/SEABROD5.doc Page 1 of I
Copyright 2DO8 Kleinfelder
KLEINFELDER 2405 140th Avenue NE, Suite Al 01, Bellevue, WA 98005
January 16, 200B
(425) 562-4200 (425) 562-4201 fax-
KLE1 N FELDER
Prepared for:
Jones Brothers Development LLC
585 Bethany Drive
Scotts Valley, California 95066
Prepared by:
Frank D. Reinart, P.E.
Geotechnical Engineer
David M. C6tton, PE
Seattle Area Manager
KLEINFELDER WEST, INC.
2405 - 140th Avenue NE
Suite Al 0 1
Bellevue, WA 98005
Phone: (425) 562-4200
Fax: (425) 562-4201
January 16, 2008
Kleinfelder Project Number: 90589
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
All Rights Reserved
Gootechnicall Report
Proposed Townhouse Devd1lopment
2071211 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, Washington
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
UNAUTHORIZED USE OR COPYING OF THIS DOCUMENT IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED BY ANYONE OTHER THAN THE
CLIENT FOR THE SPECIFIC PROJECT.
K L E I N F E L D E R
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE ............................................................................. I
1.1 GENERAL .................................................................................................. 1
1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................................... 1
1.2.1 General Information ......................................................................... 1
1.2.2 Proposed Buildings ......................................................................... 1
1.3 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES ................................................... 1
2.0 SITE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ........................................
2.1 EXPLORATION PROGRAM, ....................................................................
2.2 LABORATORY TESTING ..........................................................................
3
3
3
3.0 SITE CONDITIONS ...................................................................................................
3.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS ............................................................................
3.2 SOIL CONDITIONS ................ ................
3.3 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS ...............................................................
3
3
.... ** .......... 4
4
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................... 5
.4.1 SITE PREPARATION AND GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS ................ 5
4.1.1 Clearing, Grubbing, and Stripping ................................................... 5
4.1.2 Demolition ........................................................................................ 5
4.1.3 General Excavation ......................................................................... 6
4.1...4 Subgrade Prepkrgfion .................... .............. ........ .................. 6
4.1.5 Slopes and Excavations ................................................................... 6
4.1.6 Weather Considerations .................................................................. 7
4.2 STRUCTURAL FILL RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................. 8
4.2.1 Materials ........................................................................................... 8
4.2.2 Placement and Compaction ............................................................ 9
4.3 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ................................ 10
4.3.1 Shallow Spread Footing Foundations ............................................ 10
4.3.2 Floor Slabs ................... :*""*****"*"'*"*""""**"* ....... ' ............... ' .... - 11
4.3.3 IBC Seismic Design Criteria .......................................................... 12
4.4 TEMPORARY SHORING .................................... .................................... 12
4.4.1 General .......................................................................................... 12
4.4.2 Soil Nails ....................................................................................... 13
4.4.3 Soldier Piles .................................................................................. 14
5.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES ................................................................................... 15
6.0 LIMITATIONS ..................................................................................................... 16
9D5B9/S EABROD5.doc Page i of ii
January 16, 2008
copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
I
K L E I N F E L D E R
LIST OF FIGURES FOLLOWING TEXT
Figure 1 —Vicinity Map
Figure 2 — Site Plan
Figure 3 — Typical Utility Trench Fill
Figure 4 —Typical Footing Subdrain
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A , Field Exploration
Appendix B Geotechnical L�boratory Testing
Appendix C Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report
90SMSEABRO05ADC
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
Page ii of ii
January 16, 2008
i
I
KLE1 N FELDER
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE
1.1 GENERAL
This report presents the results of Kleinfelder, . Inc.'s (Kleinfelder's) geotiechnical
engineering study performed in sopport of the design and construction of the proposed
townhouse development. The proposed development is located on two adjacent
parcels of property with current addresses of 207 and 21 1 _5th Avenue North in
Edmonds, Washington. The project site is shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1.
1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1.2.1, General Information
Our understanding of the proposed development was based on architectural drawings
and sections, dated. January 3, 2008 and telephone conversations with Mr. Tony
Shapiro of AD Shapiro Architects.
The proposed site development, along with exploration' locations, are presented on the
Site Plan, Figure 2.
1.2.2 - Proposed Buildings
Tho-, proposed development is anticipated to include two- -multi-family residential
structures. The west building is anticipated to comprise two above -ground stories and
one level of underground parking. A finished floor elevation of 96.5 feet above mean
sea level was provided for the underground parking level. The east building is
anticipated to comprise three above -ground stories and one level - of underground
parking. A finished floor elevation of 95.5 feet above mean sea level was provided for
the underground parking level.
Estimated structural loads were not available at the time of this report- However, we
anticipate that the typical dead and live loads will be on the order of 150 kips for
columns and 4.5 kips/foot for load. -bearing walls. Interior floor slab loads are anticipated
to be approximately 250 pounds per square foot.
1.3 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES
The purpose Of our study was to explore subsurface conditions at the site and provide
geotechnical recommendations for design and construction of the proposed
development.
9o5B9/SEA8R005.doc Page 1 of 17 January 16, 2008
Copy(ight 20DS Kleinfelder
KLEINFELDER
Our scope of services included the following elements:
Field Exploration: Soil and groundwater conditions at the site were explored
with a series of 3 exploratory borings. The exploration program is discussed in
further detail in Section 2.1 and Appendix A.
Laboratory Testing: Laboratory testing included a series of soil characterization
tests. A detailed discussion of the laboratory testing program is presented in
Section 2.2.
Geotechnical Analysis: Engineering analyses were perfor med as a basis for
developing . geotechnical design and construction recommendations for the
proposed development. Our recommendations are presented in Sectio.n 4.0. In
summary, the recommen.dations developed and discussed herein include the
following:
Site clearing, grading and general earthwork recommendations including a
discussion of anticipated excavation conditions, stability and sloping
recommendations for temporary excavations, subgrade preparation, wet
weather earthwork, and.. treatment -.and/or _rpmwal of unsuitable soils,-.-i-f
encountered;
Structural fill material and compaction recommendations including
suitability of on -site native soils- and existing stockpiled fill material for re-
use as structural fill;
Seismic design considerations;
Recommended foundation type and depth, allowable bearing pressures,
estimated settlement and lateral resistance;
Recommendations for design of concrete slab -on -grade floors;
Recommendations for temporary shoring during construction;
Moisture protection and surface drainage provisions during construction;
and
Recommendations regarding the scope of services for construction
observation and testing during construction.
Geotechnical Report: The findings, conclusions, and recommendations
developed by our study are presented in this geotechnical report.
90589/SEABROD5.doc Page 2 of 17 Ja�uary 16, 20D8
CDpydght 20DS Klainfelder
I
I
11
I
11
I
KLE1 N FELDER
2.0 SITE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
2.1' EXPLORATION PROGRAM
Site exploration involved a series of three exploratory borings (designated B-1 through
B-3) advanced -between December 2007 and January 2008. The exploration locations
-discussed herein are illustrated on Figure 2 7 Site Plan. A discussion of the drilling,
excavating, and sampling procedures, as well as logs for borings and test pits, are
presented in -Appendix A.
Bodngs were advanced to depths of approximately 35 to 45 feet below the existing
ground surface.
2.2 LABORATORY TESTING
Geotechnical laboratory testing was performed on selected soil samples in general
accordance with ASTM standards to determine index and engineering properties of the
on -site soils. These test results are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A and/or
on laboratory test reports included in Appendix B.
3.0 SITE CONDITIONS
3.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS
The site is presently developed with two single-family residences with driveway access
towards the alley along the west side of the project site. Concrete retaining walls and
rockeries occupy the northwest portion of ' the project site, and appear to retain
landscaped areas to the north. A wood -frame shed building is located along the alley
and between the existing driveways. The driveway for the north house has a layer of
gravel; the driveway for the south house is paved with Portland cement concrete. The
rest of the site is mostly landscaped, though there are areas west of the two existing
residences that are moderately to thickly vegetated with weeds and brambles.
The site topography slopes from east to west, and appears to have been previously
graded by the development of the two houses and surrounding landscaped areas. The
site generally slopes from approximately 114 feet above sea level to the east down to
100 feet above sea level to the west.
90589/SEABRO05-doc Page 3 of 17 January 16, 2008
Copyright 2008 Klainfelder
I
I
K L E Q N F E L D E R
3.2 SOIL CONDITIONS
A general characterization of the on -site soil units encountered during our exploration is
presented in . this section. The boring and test pit logs in Appendix A present details of
the soils encountered at each exploration location. The on -site soils are generally
characterized as follows:
ion locations in vegetated or
Topsoil. The topsoil was observed in explorati
landscaped areas of the project site. The observed topsoil was generally 1 to.2
inches thick.
• Fill: Fill was identified at the ground surface in the driveway area. at the location
of B-1. Th . is fill generally consisted of very loose to loose silty sand with gravel
and was observed to a depth'of approximately 3 feet below ground surface.
• Recessional Outwash: Recessional outwash was observed at each of the
boring locations beneath. either topsoil or fill. Recessional outwash was generally
comprised of medium dense sand with gravel and a varying amount of silt, and
was observed to depths ranging from 3.5 feet below the ground surface in the
northeast portion of the site to approximately 13 to 15 feet below ground surface
over the-r&Maininq eire2i of the site.
Glacial Till: Glacial till was observed at each of the boring locations bene ath the
recessional outwash, and was encountered to the maximum depth explored at
the location of B-3. Glacial till was generally comprised of very dense silty sand
with gravel, and was observed to depths ranging from 32 to 40 feet below the
ground surface.
Advance Outwash: Advance outwash was observed beneath the glacial . till and
to the maximum depths explored at the locations of B-1 and B-2. Advance
outwash was generally comprised of medium dense to dense sand with varying
amounts of gravel.
3.3 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
A significant amount of groundwater seepage was observed in the recessional outwash
in B-1. This boring was advanced the day after a significant amount of rainfall in
Edmonds. Therefore, this rainfall is anticipated to have been the source of the
seepage. Only a minor amount of seepage was observed within the recessional
outwash in B-2 and B-3.
9D589/SEA8RDD5.doc Page 4 of 17 January 16, 2008
copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
I I
I
I
I
ri,
KLE1 N FELDER
Based on samples taken and water on the drill piping, the advance DUtwash is
saturated. B-2 was converted to a groundwater piezometer after drilling was completed,
and the water level in that piezometer was measured on January 8, 2008. The static
water level in the well was approximately 36 feet below the existing ground surface,
approximately 4 feet above the subsurface contact between the glacial till and the
ti
underlying advance outwash. At the time of this report, proposed excavation activi ies
at the project site are not anticipated to extend lower than 30 feet below the existing site
grade. If deeper exc . avations are proposed in the future, however, Kleinfelder should be
permitted to review the potential impacts of the advance outwash aquifer on the
proposed development.
Groundwater levels fluctuate seasonally, and are generally based on the amount of
precipitation that occurs in the vicinity of the project site. The current annual variability
in groundwater depth at this site has not been measured.
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 SITE PREPARATION AND GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS.
4.1-1 Cibarit7gGtubbing,6iidStilppin4
Prior to site grading, all vegetation and man-made debris should be removed and
properly disposed of off -site. Where bush and tree removal is desired as part of the
development of the site, root -balls and roots in excess of 1-inch diameter should also be
removed. Holes created by removal of trees or other vegetation should be backfilled
with compacted structural fill as recommended herein.
We estimate topsoil stripping on the order of 2 inches will be required. Topsoil should
not be left beneath structures and drive areas. Topsoil not re -used in . landscaping at the
project site should be removed and properly disposed of off -site.
4.1.2 Demolitfon
On -site buildings, retaining walls, utilities, pavements, and other site features not to be
retained by the proposed site development should be demolished and the demolition
debris removed and properly disposed of off -site.
Excavations and holes created by the demolition activities, including possible
basements or other subgrade structures associated with the existing buildings at the
site should be backffl led with compacted structural fill as recommended in Section 4.2.
905B91SEA8RDD5-doc Page 5 of 17 January 16, 2008
copyright 2008 KILinfelder
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
KLEI NFEL DER
4.1.3 General Excavation
Excavation of the onsite soils can be performed with conventional earthmoving
equipment. However, the contractor should be prepared to excavate soils containing a
considerable amount of cobbles on the order of 3 to 12 inches in dimension, particularly
within the glacial fill soils anticipated in the excavations for the east building. Cobbles in
excess of 6 inches should be removed from native soils that will be re -used as structural
fill.
4.1.4 Subg ' rade Peeparation nding structures,
Following* clearing, grubbing and stripping, and prior to placing fill or fou sses of a . heavy,
all exposed subgrades should be compacted with a minimum of four pa
vibratory roller followed by a proof -roll (two -passes minimum) with a fully loaded . dump
truck, scraper, or front-end loader. Proofrolling should be performed under the. full-time
observation an . d guidance of a representative of Kleinfelder. Subgrade in footing
excavations should be evaluated by use of a steel T-probe and observation of
excavation conditions by a representative of Kleinfelder.
Any areas that are identified as being soft or yielding during proofrolling should be over -
excavated -to- a firm and unyielding subgrade- or to -the- depth determined by the
11geotechnical engineer of record". Over -excavated areas should be backfilled with
structural fill compacted as recommended herein. Where over -excavation is required
for structure footings, the width of over -excavation should extend beyond the outside of
the footing a distance equal to the depth of the over -excavation below the footings, or
on a 1 horizontal to 1 vertical projection.
4.1.5 Slopes and Excavations
All excavations and slopes must comply with applicable local, state, and federal safety
regulations. including the current OSHA Excavation and Trench Safety Standards and
WISHA Safety Standards for Construction Work. Temporary excavations in excess of
4 feet in height must be sloped or supported in accordance with Pa.rt N of Washington
Administrative Code (WAC) 296-155.
Construction site safety is the sole responsibility of the Contractor, who shall also be
solely responsible for the means, methods, and sequencing of construction operations.
Factors such as exposure time, moisture content, precipitation, seepage, and other site
9D589/SEABRD05.doC
copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
Page 6 of 17
January 16, 2008
i
H
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
KLE1 N FELDER
conditions and construction activities may significantly reduce the stability of temporary,
unsupported, cut slopes.
We are providing soil type information solely as a service to our client for planning
purposes. Under no circumstances should this information be interpreted to mean that
Kleinfelder is assuming responsibility for construction site safety or the Contractor's
activities.
in general, the o ' n-site recessional outwash soils classify as Type C and should be
inclined no steeper than IY?H:lV per WAC 296-155 (horizontal:verfical). This slope
inclination can be increased to 1 H: IV if the excavation face is covered with a minimum
1-inch flashcoat of shotcrete or equivalent after excavation.
The on -site glacial till soils classify as Type B and should be inclined no steeper than
1H:1V perWAC 296-155 (horizontal:vertical). This slope inclination can be increased to
% H:IV if the excavation face is covered with a minimum 1-inch flashcoat of shotcrete
after excavation.
Permanent slopes should be inclined no steeper than 3H:1V, unless designed on a
may, be suiJtahle. All
case -specific basis -.by Kjeinfeld-Q[, . in, which steeper s.lopes
pen-nanent slopes should be planted with a deep-rooted, rapid -growth vegetative cover
as soon as possible after completion of slope construction. Alternatively, the slope
should be covered with plastic, straw, etc. until it ran be landscaped.
4.1.6 Weather Considerations
The sifty on -site soils, particularly the glacial till, are moisture sensitive and will become
soft and difficult to compact or traverse with construction equipment when wet. During
wet weather, the contractor should take measures to protect the exposed subgrades
and limit construction traffic once the geotechnical engineer has approved them. These
measures could include, but are not limited to, placing a layer of crushed rock or lean
concrete on the exposed subgrade, or covering the exposed subgrade with a plastic
-tarp and keeping construction traffic off the subgrade. Once subgrade has been
approved, any disturbance because the subgrade was not protected shuuld be repaired
by the contractor at no cost to the owner.
During wet weather, earthen berms or other methods should be used to prevent runoff
from draining into excavations. All runoff should be collected and disposed of properly.
Measures may also be required to reduce the- moisture content of on -site soils in the
90589/SEASR005ADC
Copy6ght 20DB Kleinfelder
Page 7 Df 17
Januaryl6,20DB
I
I
7
KLEI N FELDER
event of wet weather. These Measures can include, but are not limited to, air drying
and soil amendment, etc.
Further periods of wet weather are likely to result in groundwater seepage, particularly
from the recessional outwash overlying the glacial till. This seepage should be
controlled during construction to prevent lose of face or slope instability during
construction. Seepage should not be allowed to collect at the bottom of . cut slopes or
temporary shorling faces.
Since the silty on -site soils will be difficult to work with during periods of wet weather
and seepage may be more difficult to control, we recommend that earthwork activities
generally take place in late spring, summer or early fall.
4.2 STRUCTURAL FILL RECOMMENDATIONS
4.2.1 Mateflals
All mat . erial placed below structures or paved areas should be considered structur . al fill.
Structural . fill material should be free off deleterious material, should have a maximum
particle size of 6 inches, can be moisture -conditioned properly, and should be
compactable to the percent compactions recommended herein.
Existing fill --and native soils at the project site are generally suitable for re -use as
structural fill, provided the materials meet the conditions described above. Portions of
the existing fill and native recessional outwash, and all of the glacial till soil, have high
fines contents and should be considered moisture sensitive. These soils will be very
difficult to re -use as structural fill if 'allowed to become too wet, and are not
recommended for use during periods of wet weather. These soils will be difficult to dry
out if allowed to become too wet.
Imported material can be used as structural fill.- imported structural fill material should
conform to Section 9 . -03.14(l), Gravel Borrow, of the most recent edition (at the time of
Construction) of the State of Washington Department of Transportation Standard
Specifications for Road, Bfidge, and Municipal Construction (VVSDOT Standard
Specifications).
Controlled -density fill or le an mix concrete can be used as an alternative to structural fill
materials.
90589/SEABRD05.doc Page B of 17 January 16, 2008
CopyTight 2DOB Kleinfelder
I
K L E I N F E L D E R
The contractor should submit samples of each of the required earthwork materials to the
geotechnical engineer for evaluation and approval prior to use. The samples should be
submitted at least 4 'days prior to their use and sufficiently in advance of the work to
allow . the contractor to identify alternative sources if the material proves unsatisfactory.
4J.2 Placement and Compaction
.Prior to placement and compaction, structural fill should be moisture conditioned to
within 3 percent of its optimum moisture content. Loose lifts of structural fill should not
exceed 12 inches in thickness; thinner lifts will be required for walk -behind or hand
operated equipment.
All structural fill should be compacted to a dense and unyielding condition and to a
minimum percent compaction based on its modified Proctor maximum dry density as
determined per ASTM D1 557. It should be noted that the minimum percent compaction
may be achieved in the silty alluvium with the material still not exhibiting a firm and
unyielding condition due to a high moisture content. In this instance, the fill material will
not be considered acceptable. The earthwork contractor should be aware of this and
be prepared to moisture condition the native soils accordingly.
'ath * achof the f6llo\A(ing should bd i�..drnpaCted t6the'indicated
Structural fill placed bene e
percent compaction:
Foundation and Floor Slab Subgrades: 95 Percent
Non -Building Subgrades (upper 2 feet): 95 Percent
Non -Building Subgrades (below 2 feet): 90 Percent
We recommend structural fill placement and compaction be observed on a full-time
basis by a Kleinfelder representative. A sufficient number of tests should be performed
to verify compaction of each lift. The number of tests required will vary depend * ing on
the fill material, its moisture condition and the equipment being used. Initially more
frequent tests will be required while the contractor establishes the means and methods
required to achieve proper compaction.
Trench backfill sho uld be placed and compacted ' as structural fill. A schematic depicting
the typical backfill for utility trenches is presented in Figure 3. Pipe bedding material
should conform to the manufacturers' recommendations and be worked around the pipe
to provide uniform support. Cobbles exposed in the bottom of utility excavations should
be covered with pipe bedding or removed to avoid inducing concentrated stresses on
January 16, 2008
90589/SEA8ROD5.doc Page 9 of 17
Copyright 20D8 Kleinfelder
I
KLEINFELDER
the.pipe. Jetting or flooding is not a substitute for mechanical compaction and shou d
not be allowed.
4.3 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
4.3.1 Shallow Spread Footfng Foundations
We recommend the following for design of the proposed foundations:
Allowable Soil Bearing Capacity: For the west building, which should be
founded on firm and unyielding native recessional outwash or compacted
structural fill, an allowable bearing capacity of 3,500 pounds per square foot (psf)
should be used for foundation design. For -the east building, which sh ' ould be
founded on firm and unyielding native glacial till, an allowable bearing capacity of
4,500 psf should be used for foundation design. The allowable bearing capacity
may be increased by 1/3 for transient loading due to wind and seismic events..
Minimum Footing Depth and Frost Depth: All exterior and interior footings
should be embedded a minimum of 18 and 12 inches below the lowest adjacent
finished grade, respectively.
Minimum Footing Width:.,.All strip..foQtings should. have a minimum width of .2
feet and isolated footings should have a minimum width- of 3 feet.
Estimated settlements: We estimate that the maximum settlements will be on
the order of 1 inch, or less, with a differential settlement of Y7 inch, or less, over
50 lineal feet. Settlement is anticipated to be elastic and is anticipated to occur
primarily during building construction.
Lateral Load Resistance: Lateral loads can be resisted by passive pressure
against buried portions of the footings and sliding resistance between the bottom
of the footings. We recommend an allowable passive earth pressure equal to
that generated by a fluid with an equivalent unit weight of 250 pounds per cubic
foot (pcf). This value assumes footings are backfilled with structural fill and
includes a factor of safety of 2. The upper 18 inches of soil should be ignored
unless the area is paved or covered with concrete, due to soil softening
associated with freezelthaw.
9D589/SEA8RDD5.doc page 10 of 17 January 16, 20DS
Copyright 20D8 Kleinfelder
KLEONFELDER
Sliding resistance between sub . grade soils and foundations should be evaluated
using an allowable coefficient of friction of 0.40; this value assumes concrete cast
directly on the subgrade and includes a factor of safety of 1.5.
Drainage: We recommend that pen-nanent subgrade wall drainage and footing
drains be provided, based on the amount of long-term seepage anticipated to
develop against subsurface wall. A typical footing drain is illustrated in Figure 4.
All drains should convey water under control to a Positive and permanent
discharge point well away. from the structure. Roof downspouts should not be
connected to footing drains, but should be tight -lined separately to a positive
discharge system.
Lateral Earth Pressures: The following lateral earth pressures are provided for
the design of on -site subgrade walls and other structures. These recommended
earth pressures do not take into account load influences of buildings adjacent to
the project site or traffic surcharges. The followin . g recommended pressures are
equivalent fluid weight (EFW) values:
Active Earth Pressure - Walls Free to Rotate: 30 pcf EFW
At-i:�6st _��6 Pressure-1:4k6d WaIlT 48-00f EFW
Note: The recommended earth pressure values assume that backfill'is free
draining; a drain is provided to convey water; and that no hydrostatic pressure
is allowed to develop behind the wall. I
4.3.2 Floor Stabs
Floor slabs, including capillary breaks, can be placed directly on a firm and unyielding
native subgrade. Concrete slab -on -grade floors should be underlain by a minimum 6-
inch thickness of capillary break material. Capillary break material should consist of an
open -graded, free -draining, angular aggregate material such as Crushed Surfacing
Base Course per WSDOT Standard Specification 9-3.9(3). Crushed surfacing top
course and many gravel borrow products are not suitable because they are not coarse
enough, or contain too high of a fine sand and silt content to be free draining.
A modulus of subgrade reaction of 150 pounds per cubic inch (pci) is recommended for
the design of the slab.
9 o58g/SEA8ROD5.dor Page I I of 17 January 16, 2008
copyright 2ODB Kleinfelder
KLEIN FELDER
The need for a moisture barrier, such as plastic sheeting, should be evaluated by the
project team and building owner based on the long-term needs to keep moisture out of
the areas above the . floor slab. Moisture barriers are generally- recommended if tile,
carpets, or other floor covering will be used; or if the building usage does not permit
intrusion of moisture through the floor slab. The vapor barrier . should be placed over the
capillary break.
4.3.3 lBC Seismic Design Critella e Building Code (IBC) and
In accordance with Section 1615 of the 2003 Int mational
based on explorations at the site and our regional experience, we recommend use of
Site Class of , D for this project site. The following factors were obtained in accordance
with the 2003 IBC:
Based on the factors indicated above, we recommend the following design spectral
response parameters.
Table 2: IBC Seismic
Notes:
1. Design PGA (g) = SDs/2.5
4.4 TEMPORARY SHORING
4.4.1 Gener.al
We understand that the proposed excavation wil.1 incorporate temporary shoring to
support the excavation sidewalls during construction. Based on discussions with Mr.
Shapiro and our review of the on -site soils, it is our opinion that soil nailing is a feasible
shoring option for this project. Alternatively, cantilever soldier piles can also be used,
9D5s9/SEA8R0D5.doc Page 12 o'f 17 January 16, . 2 1 008
Copyright 2608 Kleinfelder
KLE1 N FELDER
though some of the proposed wall heights approach heights where the cantilever
soldier -pile is likely to be a less cost-effective option. Recommendations for the design
of both wall types are presented* in this section.
it is generally our understanding that the project team would prefer not to need to
secure easements from the adjacent property owners and, if possible, not from the City
of Edmonds. Based on an evaluation of the set -backs indicated on architectural
drawings provided by AD Shapiro architects, it is our preliminary opinion that both soil
nail and cantilever soldier -pile options can. be used without need for easements from
adjacent property owners or the City of Edmonds. However, this opinion will need to be
finalized as part of the shoring design process, which is outside the scope of this
geotechnical report.
4.4.2 SO Mails'
it is our preliminary opinion that soil nailing is an acceptable temporary shoring option
for the proposed construction shoring, provided the'recommendations in this section are
incorporated'into the design. It should be noted that, as of the date of this report, we
have not performed an evaluation of the utilities, vaults, or other su.bgrade structures
within or adjacent to the project site. The ultimate feasibility of soil nailing as an option
I'S depe"ndent on that evaluation being performed as part ofthe soil nai design proce s.
Kleinfelder has extensive experience designing soil nail shoring systems in the State of
Washington and can provide soil nail design services for this project, if desired.
Soil nail shoring design should be performed by a civil engineer registered in the State
of Washington and specifically experienced in the design of soil nail shoring systems.
The scope of this design typically includes a review of publicly -available as -built records
of adjacent utilities and underground structures, the complete design process, and the
development of drawings and design documentation for submission to the City of
Edmonds for permitting and subsequent construction. Kleinfelder can also provide
construction observation and testing services related to soil nail installation. If soil
nailing is selected for this project site and once a civil engineering drawing showing the
planned shoring wall alignments and top -of -wall and bottom -of -wall elevations is
finalized, Kleinfelder can provide you with a proposal for soil nail design services.
Th . e following preliminary design parameters for use in soil nail shoring design are
presented in Table 3 below. Fi . nal design parameters will be developed'as part of the
soil nail design process.
905MSEABROOS.doc Page 13 of 17 January 16, 20D8
copyri,ht 2D111 Kleinfelde,
KLEINFELDER
Table 3: Preliminary Soil Nail Design Parameters
Recessional 50 32 125 2,500 1,250
Outwash 2,000
Glacial Till 600 41 130 4,000
Existing fill at the site (mostly on the west side of the proposed excavation, but also
possible between the existing residences at the site and t . he adjacent buildings to the
north and south) and the native recessional outwash is anticipated to perform poorly
during the top -down excavation method of soil nail installation$ particular during and
after period of wet weather when groundwater seepage may cause raveling or erosion
of the cut face prior to installation of the shotcrete facing of the soil nail wall. We
recommend that, where possible, recessional outwash soil should be slope -cut as
recommended in this report instead of soil nailed. In some areas, verti . cal elements may
be incorporated into the soil nail shoring design to support fill and recessional outwash
soils until the soil nail shoring system can be complete,ly. constructed.
Anchor adhesions are highly dependent upon the installation techniques and installation
care employed by the contractor. The adhesion values indicated above are our best
estimate of the allowable adhesion based on previous experience with similar soils,
using continuous flight auger drilling methods and careful installation practices.
However, different drilling methods and different degrees of care may result in
substantially higher or lower adhesion values and must be verified by the contractor
prior to installation of production nails.
4.4.3 Soldier Piles
Typically, soldier -pile shoring systems are designed through collaboration with the
structural engineer. For taller soldier pile walls, such as this one, we recommend that
final wall design be developed by performing a soil-struct . ure interaction with L-pile,
wherein the structural engineer will provide input parameters for the steel H-sections
and Kleinfelder will generate deflection, movement and shear information for the wall
elements based on the soil conditions. In our experience, this can provide the most
efficient wall design.
90589/SEABROO5.dDC
copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
page 14 of 17
January 16, 2008
Le
KLE1 N FELDER
For preliminary design, the following earth pressures and resistances can be used:
Lateral Active Earth Pressure: 65 pof EFW
Note: This value assumes a back slope behind the wall no steeper than
1H:1V and a fully drained condition with no hydrostatic pressure acting on
the wall. This value further does not take into account load influences of
buildings adjacent to the project site or traffic surcharges.
Design Passive Earth Pressure: 250 pcf EFW
Note: This value includes a factor of safety of 2-. The upper 18 inchea of
soil should be ignored unless the area adjacent to the wall is paved.
Passive pressure can be assumed to act over 2Y2times the pile diameter.
Minimum Pre -drilled Hole Depth: 10 feet below the base of wall
Note: Cantilever soldier -pile embedment depth is typically a minimum of
1.5 times the total height of the wall.
6.0 ADDITIONAL SERVIGES
The r . ecommendations made,'in..this report. are based --on the.assumpbon that an
adequate program of tests and observations will be made during construction'to, verify
complian . ce with these recommendations. Testing and observations performed during
construction should include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following:
rthwork, shoring construct -ion
. Observations and testing during site preparation, ea
and monitoring, structural fill, and pavement section placement;
a Testing and inspection of concrete, masonry, structural' steel, fireproofing, and
roofing materials; and
0 Consultation as may be required dur ing construction.
We further recommend that project plans and specifications be reviewed by us to verify
compatibility with our conclusions and recommendations.
Also, Kleinfelder retains fully accredited, WABO-certified laboratory and inspection
personnel, and are available for this project's testing and inspection needs. Information
concerning the scope and cost for these services can be obtained from our office.
905891SEMR005.doc Page 15 of 17 JanuaTy 16, 2008
Copydght 2008 10einfelder
KLE1 N FELDER
6.0 LIMITATIONS
Recommendations contained in this report are based on our field observations and
subsurface explorations, limited laboratory tests, and our present knowledge of the
proposed construction. it is possible that soil and groundwater conditions could vary
between or beyond the points explored. If soil or groundwater conditions' are
encountered during construction that differ from those described herein, we should be
notified immediately in order that a review may be made and supplemental
recommendations provided. If the scope of the proposed Construction, including the
proposed loads or structural locations, changes from that described in this report, our.
recommendations should also be reviewed.
We have prepared this report in substantial accordance with the generally accepted
geotechnical engineering practice as it exists in the site area at the time of our study.
No warranty, express or implied, is made. The recommendations provided in this report
are based on the assumption that an adequate program of tests and observations will
be conducted by Kleinfelder during the construction phase in order to evaluate
compliance with our recommendations. Other standards or documents referenced in
any.given standard cited in this report, or otherwise. -relied upon by the author of this
report, are only mentioned in the given standard; they are not incorporated into it or
"included by referenced", as that latter term is used relative to contracts or other matters
of law.
This report may be used only by the Jones Brothers Development LLC and their design
consultants and only for the purposes stated within a reasonable time from its issuance,
but in no event later than 12 months from the date of the report.
Land or facility use, on- and off -site conditions, regulations, or other factors may change
over time, and additional work may be required with the passage of time. Based on the
intended use of the report, Kleinfelder may recommend that additional work be
performed 'and that an updated report be issued. Non-compliance with any of these
requirements by Jones Brothers Development LLC or anyone else will release
Kleinfelder from any liability resulting from the use of this report by any unauthorized
party and Jones Brothers Development LLC agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold
harmless Kleinfelder from any claim or liability associated with such unauthorized use or
non-compliance.
9D589/SEABROD5.doc
Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder
Page 16 of 17
January 16, 2008
KLE1 N FELDER
The scope of work for this subsurface exploration and geotechnical report did not
include environmental assessments or evaluations regarding the presence or absence
of Wetlands or hazardous substances in the soil, surface water, or groundwater at this
site. Environmental assessments are provided in separate report.
Kleinfelder has conducted subsurface. exploration and provided recommendations for
this project. We recommend that Kleinfelder be given the opportunity to review the final
project plans and specifications to evaluate if our recommendabons, have been properly
interpreted, we assume no responsibility for misinterpretation of our recommendations.
We recommend that all earthwork during construction be monitored by a representative
from Kleinfelder, including site preparation and p.lacement of structural fill and trench
backfill. The purpose of these services would be to provide Kleinfelder the opportunity
to observe the actual soil conditions encountered during construction, evaluate the
applicability of the recommendations presented in this report to the soil conditions
encountered, and recommend appropriate changes in design or construction
procedures if conditions differ from those described herein. Further guidelines and
information regarding the use. of this geotechnical report. can be found in the ASFE
publication entitled Important Infon-nation About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report,
which is include'd'in Appendix C of this report.
90589/SEABR005.doc Page 17 of 17 January 16, 2008
Copyright 2DDB Mainfelder
LA
uj
L)
4
'I;-b
-P
C3 I
/I C�-
LLI 1b ,
0
B—(
CONC. WALL
CO
vo C�
bo
'3C LL LLI
�V' 00
00
CD
z
Ld
00 isb
In
0 e<
C'4
z
Cb
CD
(L -1 104
us f?
0
>-
�O5 58 E 120.00'
0
C4
*B-3�
z
0
-10
—1 -ILi
A
0
Legend
U
B-i*
Boring Number and Approximate Locations
'2 0
0 20
6
5
Scale in Feet
Reference: Base Drawing provided by AD. Shapiro Architects PS, dated 1-3-2008
E
DRAWN BY: JI.S.
BY:
K L E I N F E L D E R
Site Plan
2405 140th Avenue NE, Suite A11011
REVISED
CHECKED BY: F.R.
FIGURE
a X
Bellevue, WA 98005-1877
Proposed Townhouse Development
00
W W
PH: (425) 562-4200 FAX: (425) 562-4201
207/211 5th Avenue North
www.kleinfelder.com
Edmonds, Washington
2
DRAWN: Jan. 2008
APPROVED BY:—
PROJECT NO. 90589TFILE
NAME: 90589-Figur...dwg
@ by Kleinfelder West Inc., 2008
0
>1
as
0
0
LLI
z
a)
C.4
t-
CNI
'm
co
La
0
u_
Backfill
Bedding
1 � Mtl
�m
16,
SCHEMATIC ONLY -NOT TO SCALE
NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING
Non -Structural Floor Slab or
Areas RoadwayAreas
i - . i
Varies
4 feet
Varies
Varies
LEGEND
Asphalt I Concrete Pavement I Concrete Floor Slab
Base material / Slab Base Rock
Backfill, compacted on -site soil or imported select fill
material
Bedding material; material type depends on type of pipe and
laying conditions. Bedding should conform to U79 manufacturers
recommendations for the type of pipe.selected.
Minimum percentage for compaction, based on the maximum
laboratory dry density of the material as determined by ASTM
Test Method D1557 (Modified Proctor).
K L E N F E L D E R
Typical Utility Trench Fill
UC' uLU_
205 140th Avenue NE, Suite Al 11
9
Bellevue, WA 98005-1877
Proposed Townhouse Development
00
PH: (425) 662-420D FAX: (426) 562-4201
207/211 5th Avenue North
Lu vi
www.kleinfelder.com
Edmonds, Washington
L) L)
<
r F_
DRAWN: Dec. 21307 1 APPROVED BYL--
PROJECT NO. 90589
1 FILE NAME:
DRAWN BY: J.S.
REVISED BY:
CHECKED BY: IF.R.
FIGURE
3
by lGeinfelder West Inc.. 2DOB
SCHEMATIC ONLY -NOT TO SCALE
NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING
Slope to D rain
M":
7'
Q
�RRS
6 inch
minimum . . . . . . . . . . . .
... ... .
t
4 inch
minimum
!;x .
0
diameter
0
2 inch minimum
4 inch maximum
12 inch m imum
0
-E
"a
Uj
z
LEGEND
LO
Surface seal; native soil or other low permeability material
C4
to
CD
Gravel Backfil for Drains WSDOT Standard specifications,
Section 9-03.12(4).
j)
a.
Drain Pipe; perforated or slotted rigid Schedule 40 PVC laid with
.S
0
perforations or slots facing down; tightjointed; with a positive
0
U- -j
gradient
Do not use corrugated plastic pipe.
@ T-
In
Do not tie building downspout drains into footing drains.
.2
Typical Footing Subdrain
lu co
L') LL
LLI
2405 140th Avenue NE, Suite A101
0�
X
Bellevue, WA 9BD05-187T
Proposed Townhouse Development
PH: (425) 562-4200 FAX: (425).562-4201
2071211 5th Avenue North
www.kleinfelder.com
Edmonds, Washington
DRAWN:
PROJECT 0. 9os8q
FFILE NAME:
4 inch minimum
DRAWN BY: J.S*
REVISED BY:
CHECKED BY: F.R.
FIGURE
4
@ by Kleinfelder West Inc., Z0D8
I
I
I
I
P
I
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
K L E I N F E L D E R
APPENDIX A
FIELD EXPLORATION
ings at 21/2 -foot intervals to a depth of 10 feet
Soil samples were collected from, the bor
below the proposed grades, and 5-foot intervals thereafter, using Standard Penetration
Test (SPT) sampling techniques (ASTM D1586). The SPT consisted of driving a 1-3/8-
inch inside diameter (2-inch outside diameter) split spoon sampler a distance of 18
inches into the bottom of the boring. The sampler was driven with a 140-pound auto -
hammer calibrated to free -fall 30 inches. The number of blows required to- drive the
sampler each of three 6-inch increments was recorded on the boring logs. The number
of blows required for the last 12 inches of penetration is called the standard penetration
resistance (N-value). This value . is an indicator of the relative density of granular soils
or the consistency of finem-grained soils.
Soil samples collected during the field exploration were classified in accordance with
ASTM D2487. All samples were placed . in sealable plastic bags to limit moisture loss,
labeled, and retumed to our laboratory for further examination and testing.
The borings were monitored by our geotechnical engineer who examined and classified
thb'iWateflals encountered, obtained. representative -soil- samples, and recorded pertinent -
information including soil sample depths, stratigraphy, soil engineering charactedstics,
and groundwater occurrence. Upon completion of ddiling, the borings were backfilled
with a combination of native soil and bentonite chips.
The stratification lines shown on the individual logs represent t * he approximate
boundaries between soil types; actual transitions may be either more gradual or more
severe. The conditions depicted are for the date and location indicated only, and it
should not necessarily be expected that they are representative of conditions at other
locations and times.
I
SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
S SYMBOLS
Y'
TYPICAL,
MAJOR DIVISIONS
GRrAPH
LETTER
DESCRIPTIONS
see
WELL -GRADED GRAVELS. GRAVEL -
CLEAN
0
to go 'w's
000 0 4
,0(0
*Pea
GW
SAND MIXTURES, 0% TO 15%
FINES
V LS
GRAVELS
estpoo
GRAVEL
00 oo
POORLY -GRADED GRAVELS,
AND )0
(LITTLE OR NO FINES)
GRAVELLY
00 01
00 0
0100
GP
GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES. 0% TO
FINES
SOILS
000C
0 C
15%
COARSE GRAVELS NTH Flo
011 0 0-0
0 0
C 0
GM
SILTY GRAVELS, SILTY GRAVEL -
SAND MIXTURES
GRAINED MORE THAN 50% FINES 10
CI h 0
000 OC-
OF COARSE
SOIL FRACTION (APPRECIABLE
0
CLAYEY GRAVELS. CLAYEY GRAVEL -
RETAINED ON NO. AMOUNT OF FINES)
GC
SAND MIXTURES
4 SIEVE
CLEAN SANDS
Sw
SAND
MORE THAN 5D%
OF MATERIAL IS
AND
SANDY
(LITTLE OR NO FINES) ............
.............
S P
LARGER THAN NO
SOILS
20D SIEVE SIZE
... I ........
...........
0
MORE THAN 50%
SANDS WITH
S M
OF COARSE
FINES
FRACTION
0
PASSING ON NO.
(APPRECIABLE
4 SIEVE
AMOUNT OF FINES)
SC
Z
ML
E
FINE
SILTS
LIQUID LIMIT
CL
GRAINED
AND
LESS THAN 50-
0
z
SOIL
CLAYS
CD
0 L
>
--------
MORE THAN 50%
MH
OF MATERIAL IS
SMALLER THAN NO.
CD
20D SIEVE S17F
SILTS
LIQUID LIMIT
CH
AND
GREATER THAN 50
CLAYS
OH
0-1 ... ::.::.:
PT
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS ..........
W1 - -------
=4
ILL DERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS
a NOTE.- DUAL SyMBo!_S ARE USED TO INDICATE BOR
Q
WELL-GPADED SANDS. GRAVELLY
SANDS, D% TO 15% FINES
POORLY -GRADED SANDS,
GRAVELLY SAND. 0% TO IS%
FINES
SILTY SANDS, SILTY SAND -GRAVEL
MIXTURES
CLAYEY SANDS, CLAYEY SAND -
GRAVEL MIXTURES
INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE
SANDS, ROCK FLOUP. SILTY OR
CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY
"SiCTS WITH'SUGHT PLASTICITY
INORGA141C CLAYS OF LOW TO
MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY
CLAYS. SANDY CLAYS. SILTY
cLAYs, LEAN CLAYS
ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC
SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY
INORGANIC sILTS. MICACEOUS OR
DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR
SILTY SOILS
INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH
PLASTICITY
ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO
HIGH PLASTICITY
rPEAT.. HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH
T UMUS W
HIGH ORGANI�CSCD=TENITIS
K L E I N F E L DO E Rk son classification Legend
CD 6i
ul D E D S i' 'as
SiiCa'
(D LL 01
< Lu 2405 140th Avenue NE, Suite Ai 01
h'US
Bellevue, WA 98005-1877 Town
; 1 )5 Proposed Townhouse Development
PH: (425) 562-4200 FAX: (425) 562-4201 0 1 t
Uj Ul 2071211 Sth Avenue North
www.kiainfelder.com Edmonds, Washington
m
< < 90589 ILE
-Lj;; z
Iz V PROJECT NO. 90589 FILE NAME:
DRAWN: De,.2008 I APPROVED BYL___
DRAWN BY: J.S.
REVISED BY:
CHECKED BY: F.R.
APPENDIX
A=1
by Kleinfelder West Inc, 2008
TESTING FROUICAM U.S S.
BORATORY
F 9. W 0 SOH, DESCRIE ION
0 WELL/PIEZO
>
W
CONSTRUCTION
j-4
F�W
rn �4
0
S�—rf-ce-g"a'cl
Z:
0
0
5
10
151
20
25
DATE DRILLED: 12-5-07
LOGGED BY: F. Reinart
REVIEWED BY: F. Reinart
A. I . 1 4, — A�nSe Moist
31 :
31 :
7
4
4
9
10
8
6
6
7
5
8
6
16
31
brown to dark, DrOwn, U
'M SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, fine- to
medium -grained sand.
SI-2 grades to very loose.
os ,
SM T7
GRAVEL, fin `-grained sand.
e
(RECESSIONAL OUTWASM
S1-3 -brown, medium
grades to light grey
dense.
SI-4 grades to trace apparent gravel in sampler
SM
SI-6 GRAVEL, fine- to medium -grained sand,
f13 el
fme-grained grav
'�M'T
40 N/1 SI-7
—Jfi�� gi�d
a:T
hard, wet S
ML
s , thin (approximately 1-inch thick)
-grained silty
seams of fine- to medium
28 SI-8 sand.
GLACIAL TILL)
45
32
WITH
grey, medium jens ,
SILT, fine- to medium -grained sand, thin
SURFACE ELEVATION (feet): DRILLING METHOD: HSA
TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 37.0 DRILLER: Subsurface Technologies
DIAAIETER OF BORING (in): 8 inches CASING SIZE: N/A
Proposed Townhouse Development Appen
,M17/111 Fth Ave
lk"KLEMELDER Edmonds, Washington A -2
GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS
BORING LOG
rERMLS TESTING PAGE I of 2
B-1
TESTING PROGRAM
U.S.C.S.
LABORATORY
W
W
0
>
=.2 g4
-.2 WELLIPfEZO
CONSTRUCTION
e.
PH con,
z
z C12
U Q
Q
0=
coz
Oz
-4s co
OL)
1 2, 4
0
130-
135-
137
SOIL DESCRIPTION
6
7
X.
SI-9
(approximately 1-inch thick) seam of silt
with sand.
(ADVANCE OUTWASH)
15
SP
L: -
- - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
grey, medium dense to dense wet SAND,
fine to medium -grained sand, trace silt.
(ADVANCE OUTWASH)
1-10
9
27
T,%�;m— +—;nof�ri nt n rlp.nth nf 17 feet
-be-1-o`w---jround surface because of excessive
apparent sand heave in boring. Heavy
groundwater seepage observed from
approximately 3 to 16 feet below ground
surface. Groundwater was also observed
below 32 feet below ground surface during
drilling. Boring was backfilled with
mixture of cuttings and bentonite chips.
*SAMTLER Cal. OD SPT q2" OD) U Core Shelby Grab No
TYPE Splitqp"oon Split poon Samp Tube Recovery
300 lbs 140 lbs
**HA1%DEER WEIGHT Mil' T)rnnl (3011 DroM
Proposed Townhouse Development Appendix
207/211 5th Ave N
k%IKLEINFELDER Edmonds, Washington A -2b
GEOTECMIGCAL AND ENVIROMUNTAL ENGINEERS BORING LOG
SOILS AND MATERLALLS TESTING B-1 PAGE 2 of 2
1 PROJECT NMMi: 90589 1 —
0
E-
0
0
z
It
0
e.
TESTING PROGRAIM4
U.S.C.S.
LABORATORY FIELD
7�1� 0 Y
'T�
SOIL DESCRIPTION
WELIRIEZO
we.
0
CONSTRUCTION ;;;)j�
IS e-
0
.5
Surlace: grass
0�
;;0
U Z; 0
Topsoil (1 inch thick) — — — — _W_I
0
KI
brown, medium dense moist S'6
SILT AND GRAVEL, fine- to
sand, fine-grained gravel.
CELO
medium -grained
(RECESSIONAL OUT WASH)
Z U0
5.2 q
6
S2_1
grades to yellow -brown to brown, trace
10
25
Sm
Xs Lt: --- — — — — — — — — — — — — — Fst
dense to very dense, m0is
.....1grey-brown
SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL,
0
U
9.2
17
S2-2
fine -grained sand, fine-grained gavel.
(GLACIAL TILL)
to dense, sporadic sm all lenses of
21
grades
wet.
5013"
S2_3
a
IE�o
a
13
S24
grades to very dense, wet.
10 a
a
22
29
z 0
19
S2-5
grades to grey, moist.
15
0
32�
30
T.
Z
a
32
S2-6
grades to sporadic small lenses of wet.
LO I
20
50/4"
A4 0
>1
a
0
q
47
X S2-7
grades to moist.
25
50/31'
a
>W
c5f
3
SURFACE ELEVATION (feet):
DRILLIN G ME THOD: HSA
DATE DRILLED. 1-7-08
TOTAL DEPTH
(feet) :45.9
DRILLER: Subsurface Technologies
LOGGED BY: F. Reinart
DIAMETER OF BORING (in):
6 inches CASING SIZE: N/A
REVIEWED BY: F. Reinart
Proposed. Townhouse Development
Appendix
207/211 5th Ave N
0
Edmonds, Washington
A -3a
K%IIKLEINFELDER
AND ENVIRONNENTAL ENGINEERS
BORING LOG
z
<
GEOTEC ]3[NICAL
SOILS AND AIATERIALS TESTING
PAGE 1 of 2
W2
N1 PROJECT ER: 90589
TESTING PROGRA-M
U.S.C.S.
LkBORATURT
YLK LV
ZZ
W
�49
W
WELL/PIE7,0
>
Fq
CONSTRUCTION
'j
c&�� W
5
CO
z
ow
45
MEN
W=E
HER
His
IMMM
imm M
n W
36 M S2-9
25 N S2-10
47
50
27 M S2-11
SOIL DESCRIPTION
grades to wet.
fi- grades to moist.
` -----------
q, dense, wet SAND, n�e_jj�ir_�-Ta��d
sP s:
(ADvANcE OUTWASH)
Boring -co I to a depth of 45.9 feet
below ground surface, Minor and sporadic
groundwater seepage observed during
drilling. Boring was converted to a I. -inch
diameter groundwater piezometer after
drilling.
SAAIPLER Cal. OD)
N
SPT " OD)
Split9pDon
Shelby
Core Grab
I I D
n Sample Tube
No
Recovery
TYPE Spljtqpoon
300lbs
**EljA3BffR WEIGHT (30" Drop)
1401bs
(30" Dro))
Proposed Townhouse Development
Appendix
207/211 5th Ave N
k%IKLEINW
Edmonds, Washington
A -3b
L-DER
AND ENVERONTMENTAL ENGINEERS
BORING LOG
GEOTECENICAL
SOMS AND AIATERIALS TESTING
B-2
PAGE 2 of 2
___fABORATO1
TESTING PILOGRAM
RY FEEL
E.E
P4
U.S S.
AIELLIPEEZO
CONSTRUCTION
Z4
:gxv
z
ox
V)z
07
U Z
0
SOIL DESCRIPTION
grass
0
jjjpLo LI(—? inches thic1c) 4
0 — — — — — — — — — — — — --
A 1,Tn UTT
6.i :
5
10
115
20
25
6
own, medium aense, moiSE a
SILT AND GRAVEL, fine- to
medium -grained sand, fine- to
0
7
SM
coarse -grained gavel.
(RECESSIONAL OIJTWASH)
r
0
—
grades to yellow -brown, loose-
E.
4
0
5
S3-2
grades to wet.
U W
4
P.
3
SM
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — --
yell6w-brown to gray -brown, dense, mois
0
18
S3-3
SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL,
�4
15
J,
fine-grained sand, fine-grained gravel, thin
(0.5 to 1-inch thick) interbeds of sand with
.0
9r4
16
silt.
6
S34
(RECESS IONAL OUTWASH)
grades to medium dense, wet.
z
6
0
SM
_Ve_1y�ijn_�e,_ii;o_iit SAND
_zM
V,= GRAV , fine-grained sand, fine -
EL
0
to coarse -grained gravel.
<
34
S3-5
(GLACIAL TILL)
U
MA
J4
.J....- grades to dense, wet, occasional sn
lenses of sand with silt.
grades to very dense.
0 1 1 SURFACE ELEVATION (feet): DRILLING METHOD: HSA
DATE DRILLED: 1-7-08 DRILLER: Subsurface Technologies
LOGGED BY: F. Reinart TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 41.5
REVIEWED BY: F. Reinart DIAMETER OF BORING (in): 6 inches CASING SIZE: N/A
Proposed Townh ouse Development
207/211 5th Ave N
Edmonds, Washington
AILM"RKLEINFELDER
GEOTECM'41CAL - AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS BORING LOG
SOILS AND AUTERIALS TESTING
oz;
all co -t4
rn 0
5 �
Z
Aopendix
A 4a
PAGE I of 2
>
TESTING PROGRAM
LkBORATORY
F -F-
M
W94
�t4
U.S S.
4 0
WELLIPIEZO
Z4
r4
Lo
Z�' CONSTRUCTION
a
ow
22
Z
W
i-z V)
U M <=
0
cnz
0z
0
41 N/1 S3-9
SOUL DESCRIPTION
grades to dly to.
j
0
40
24 S3-10
grades to wet, fine- to medium -grained
0
29
sand.
z
0
--------
Boring corilpl Led w a depth of 41.5 feet
-
32
below ground surface. sporadic
<
-epage observed during -PU
groundwater se
z 0
drilling. Boring was backfilled with a
-'et'Q
mixture of cuUngs and bentonite chips. -
Z�2
0=
OL4
_0Z
0
_�o
rn j_(
cc 0
Ll
SAAIPLER Cal. (YOD)
SPT (21( OD)
Spi it Spoon
No
[I Core Shelby Grab Recovery
U Samp Tube
TYPE split spoon
300 lbs
**aAADIEER WEIGHT (30" Drop)
140 lbs
(30" Dro
Proposed Townhouse Development
Appendix
207/211 5th Ave N
Z
JUXLEINFELDER
Edmonds, Washington A -4b
GEOTECENICAL AND ENVIRONA'ENTAL "MERS
BORING LOG
SOILS AND MATFRIALS TESTING
PAGE 2 of 2
B-3
PROJECT NUMER: 90589
KLE1 N FELDER
APPENDIX B
GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING
B.1 GENERAL 1 representative soil samples to better
Laboratory tests were conducted on severa
identify the soil classification of the units encountered and to evaluate the matedai's
general physical properties and engineering characteristics. A brief description of the
tests p�rformed for this study is provided below. The results of laboratory tests
performed on specific samples are provided at the appropriate sample depths on the
individual boring and test pit logs. However, it is important to note that these test results
may not accurately represent in situ soil conditions. All of our recommendations are
based on our interpretation of these test results and their use in guiding our engineering
judgment. Kleinfelder cannot be responsible for the interpretation of these data by
others.
In accordance with your requirements, the soil samples for this project will be retained a
period of 6 months following completion of this report, or until the foundation installation
is complete, unless we are otherwise directed in writing.
--'B-.2 SOIL c-LAS-SIFICATION'x".
Soil samples were visually examined in the field by our representative at the time they
were obtained. They were subsequently packaged and returned to our laboratory
where they were reexamined and the original description checked and verified or
modified. With the help of information obtained from the other classification tests,
described below, the samples were described in general accordance with ASTM
Standard D2487. The resulting descriptions are provided at the appropriate locations
on the individual boring and test pit logs, located in Appendix A, and are qualitative only.
B.3 mOISTURE CONTENT
Moisture content tests were performed in general accordance with ASTIVI Standard
D2216 on representative soil samples to approximately ascertain the in -place moisture
content of soil samples at the times they were collected. The information obtained
assists us by providing qualitative infon-nation regarding soil compactability. The results
are presented at the appropriate sample depths on the exploration logs.
KLE1 N FELDER
B.4 GRAIN -SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Grain -size distribution analyses were conducted in general accordance with ASTM
Standard D422 on representative soil samples to determine the grain -size distribution of
the on -site soil. The information gained from these analyses allows us to provide a
description and classification of the in -place materials. In turn, this information helps us
to understand how the in -place materials will react to conditions such as heavy
seepage, traffic' action, loading, potential liquefaction, and so forth. The results are
presented in this Appendix.
(Y
UJ
Z
r -I
Particle Size Distribution Report
% COBBLES % G WEL % SAND
__23.0
--�IEVE
—�ERCENT
---�PEC.'
--�ASS?
SIZE
FINER
PERCENT
(X--NO)
I in.
100.0
3/4 in.
93.0
1/2 in.
85.0
3/8 in.
82.0
#4
77.0
#10
72.0
416
69.0
#30
64.0
#40
60.0
#50
54.0
#100
41.0
#200
31.0
i ication rnvided)
kDo sp— F
Sample No.: SI-3
Location:
7/.—S I —LT CLAY
31.0 —
Soil Descrip—tion
Silty sand with gravel
Laboratury No.: 7742B
Atter 3erg Wm—lts
PL= LL= PI=
Coefficients
D85= 12.7 D60= 0.425 L)50= 0.244
D30= D15= D10=
cu= cc=
Classification
USCS= SM AASHTO=
Remarks
Tested By: B. KochansId
Cbecked By- J. Scbwartz
Entered By: B. Kochanski
Source of Sample: B-I
Client: Jones Brothers Development, LLC
Project: 207/211 5th AVE N. Edmonds, WA
KLEINFELDER, INC.
Proiect No: 90589
Date: 1/15/08
Elev./Depth: 5'
ure
100
9C
8C
7(
Ui 6(
Z
U_
F-
Z 51
U.1
0
W
LLI 4
a-
3
2
1
Particle Size Distribution Report
d c
011
IN
11111
HI
11111
gill
11
IN
11011111
HE
MEN
_)UV
SIEVE
SIZE
PERCENT.
FINER
PEC.'
PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)
I in.
1070.0
3/4 in.
92.0'
1/2 in.
89.0
3/8 in.
87.0
#4
81.0
#10
78.0
#16
75.0
#30
71.0
#40
66.0
#50
58.0
#100
43.0
#200
31.0
GRAIN SIZE - mm
silty sand with gravel
Laboratory No.: 7742C
Atterberg Limits
PL= LL=
Coefficients
D85= 7.67 D60= 0.326 D50= 0.211
D30= D15= D1 O=
CU= C . C=
Classification
USCS= SM ATSHTO=
Remarks
Tested By: B. Koebanski
Checked By: J. Schwartz
Entered By: B. Kochanski
(no specification PrOvIllea)
Sample No.: SI-5 Source of Sample: B-1
Location:
Client: Jones Brothers Development, LLC
KLEINFELDER, INC. Project: 207/211 5th AVE N. Edmonds, WA
Proiect No: 90589
Date: 1/15/08
Elev./Depth: 10'
re
W
W
Z
u-
I--
Z
W
W
CL
Particle Size Distributioh Report
% SAND % SILT % CLAY
0% (�()EII:11' %
- n n '79.9 6.1
SIEVE
SIZE
PERCENT
FINER
SPEC.*
PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)
-7/4 in,
--TOO 0
1/2 in.
98.0
3/8 in.
93.0
44
86.0
#8
81.0
#16
78.0
#30
70.0
#40
59.0
#50
41.0
#100
12.0
#200
6.1
SOH2�q��
Poorly graded sand with silt
Laboratory No.: 7742A
Atterberg Limits
PL= LL= PI=
Coefficients
D65= 4.15 D60= 0.435 U50= 0.354
D30 = 0.242 Dix;= 0.167 D10= 0.136
Cu= 3.19 C��— 0.99'
Classification
USCS= SP-SM AASHTO=
Remarks
Tested By: B. Kochanski
Checked By- J. Schwartz
Entered By: B. Kochanski
- (no specification provided)
Sample No.: S3-2 Source of Sample: B-3
Location:
Date: 1/15/08
Elev./Depth: 5'
Client, Jones Brothers Development, LLC
KLEINFELDER3 INC. Project� 207/211 5th AVE N. Edmonds, WA
Project No: 90589 F!
K-LE I N FELDER
APPENDIX C
IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
REPORT
X
Geolechnicol Engineeping Repopt,
Geotdchnical Services Ape. Performed. top
specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects.
GeDfechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of
their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engi-
neer may riot fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another
civil engineer, Because each geoh . achnical engineering study is unique, each
geDlechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solelkf6r the client.No
one except you should rely on your geotechnicall engineering report without
first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it And no one
— not even �ou — should apply the report for any purp9se or project
except the* one originally cont emplated.
Read� the. Full, Report
Serious problems have occurred bemuse those relying on a gplechnical
engineer ing report did not read it all. Do not rely an an executive summary.
Do not read selected elements only.
A Gdatechnical Engineeping , Report Is Based on
A Unique Set of Project -specific: Factops
Geotechnical engineers consider a nurnber of unique, project -specific fac-
tors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the
client's goals, objectives, and risk management preferences: the general
nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of
the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements,
such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilifies. Unless the
geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates oth-
erwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that w3s:
* not prepared for you,
not prepared for your project
not prepared for the specific site explored, or
completed before important project changes were made.
Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing gedechnical
engineering report include those that affect
the function of the proposed structure, as when ifs changed from a
parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial piant
to a refrigerated warehouse,
elevation- configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the
propo�� structure,
composition of the design team, or
project ownership.
As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project
changes --even minor ones —and request an assessment of their impacL
Geolechnical engff Mrs cannot accqot responsibility or R&Iffy for proDlaw
Mgt ocmr because tbeif repors do not consider develppinents of which
they Were not inforwed.
Subsurface Conditions Can Change
A geotachnicall engineering report is based on canditions that existed at
the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geolechnia engineer-
ing reportwhose adequacy may have been affected by. the passage of
time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site;
or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctua-
tions. AlwJys contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report
to determine ff it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or
analysis could prevent major problems.
Most Geotechnical Hndings Ape Professional
Opinions
Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where
subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geofechnical engi-
neers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional
judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the
site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ ---sometimes significantly—
from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechniml engirear
who developed your report to provide construcrion observeton is the
most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated
conditions.
A Repopt's Recommendations Are. Not final
Do not overrely on ft construction recommendations included In your
reporL Those recommendaNions are not final, because geotechnical mgf-
neers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geolachnical
engineers can final ize their recommendations only by observing actual
subsurface conditions revealed duf ing construction. Rio geolechnicol
engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility Or
liability for the reports recommendations if that engineer does not perform
construction obseritation.
A Geotechnical.Engineeping Report Is SUbjeCt to
Mitintoppoetation.
Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering
reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geo-
technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the desijn team after
submitting the repDrL Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review parti-
nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can
also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report Reduce that risk by
having your geotechnical engineer participate in pireNd'and preconstruction
conferences, and by providing construction observation.
Do Not Redraw the Engineepts, Logs
Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon
their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To preventerrors or
omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should
nevat be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings.
Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but fecognize
that separating logs from the toport can elevate risk.
Give Contractors a Complete Report and
Guidance
Some owners and design professionals. Mistakenly believe they can make
contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limitii ng what.
they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give con-
tractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, but preface it with a
clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, aditse contractors that the
report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the
report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geolechnical
engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to
conduct addiffional study to obtain the specific types of infom-kton they
need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be stire contrac-
tors ftave sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you
be in a position to give contractors the best information.available to you,
while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities
stemming from unanticipated conditions.
Read Responsibility provisions Closely
Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that
geotechnicall engineering is far less exact than other engineering disd-
plines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that
have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk
of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of
explanatory provisions in their reports, Sometimes labeled "limitations"
many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers' responsi-
bilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities
and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical
engineer should respond fully and frankly.
Geoenwiponmental Concerns Ape Not Covered
The equipment, khrliques, and personnel used to perform a geoenviron-
mental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geolachnical
study. For that reason, a geotachnical I engineering report does not usually.
relate any geoenvironmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations;
e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or
regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems haveled
to numerous project failures. It you have not yet obtained your own geoen-
vironmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk man-
agement guidance. Do not rely on an environmental fe#oit prepared for
someone else.
Obtaft Ppolessional Assistance To Deal with Mold
Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction,
operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from
growing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be
devised for the Wess purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a com-
prehensive plan, and executed with.diligent oversight by a prAssio ral
mold prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or
moisture can lead to the development of severe mold intestafions, a num�
ber of mold.prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces #
While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been
addressed as pad of the geotechnicat engineering study whose findings
are conveyed in this report, the geotechnical en ' gineer in charge of this
project is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services per�
formed in connection with the geotechnical engipeer!s study
were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven-
tion. proper. implementation of the recommendations conveyed
in this report will not of itself be sufficient to prevent mold from
growing in or on the structure involved.
Rely, on Your ASFE-Membep Geotechncial
Engineer top Additional Assistance -
Membership in ASFEfrhe Best People on Earth exposes geotechniCall
engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of
genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer
with you ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more inlormation.
ASFEThe Bost people in fortl
8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, KAD. 20910
Telephone: 3011565-2733, FacsimileA01/589�2017
e-mail: info@asfe.org wwW.a3fe.0fg
Copyright 2004,OyASFE, Inc. DoPllai0n, Wrodudion, or copying of this docummt. in mWe Orin part, by any means tybatsoovor is strictly prohibited, except o4thAISFE;
spe,ffic wyaea permgmm Exceipting, quoting, or otherwise alracting wording from Ififs eocumgrit is I pem7md o,7fy uQL4 the express wriften pemisslon of ASFE, and onty for
purposes of scholarfy research or book revi6vv Ontymemb6gotASfEmaymlhfsdocvn)eNB3COflIPI-OffeNtooras2ngigmglllofageoW.hnicalonginOgfingMpDfLA17YOMBr
firm, inAOual, or other entity that SO Lives th, is it=, inent udhoul being an ASIT-iriembercould be commitUng negligent or latentional Oraudul6nt) misrapresentatioa
IIGEHOWUM
Section 6
Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) Analysis and Design
Following demolition, the site will be cleared and excavated for a purely cut condition. Shoring
will be done in the form of soil nail walls. Drainage will flow into the excavation pit where the
contractor will maintain a sediment trap (minimum dimensions) and pump stormwater to the
alley storm drainage system. In addition to the sediment trap, other Erosion control BMPs will
include marking limits of construction, establishing a construction entrance, installing catch
basin inserts, stabilizing soils, and maintaining BMPs.
The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan follows the City of Edmonds standards. Specific items
not mentioned below are found on the ESC plan notes. The following ESC measures are
proposed and will be shown on the ESC Plan:
> Seeding if soil is to be left unworked as fall approaches.
> Filter fabric fence filtration at all downhill perimeter locations.
> Rock -stabilized construction entrance.
> Catch basin protection applied to all existing catch basins.
> One sediment trap of minimum dimensions has been sized using 1992 DOE Manual. The
basin area is approximately 0.33 acres. The sizing calculations are included on the following
pages.
> Dust control measures will be specified in the plan notes.
AD Shapiro I Stonn Drainage Reportfor 5'h Avenue Eight WHPacific, Inc.
PJAD Shapiro Architects PS103�1930asig77*,Reportst2OO8-02-29-report�doc March 3, 2008 IPage 8
Section 6
Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) Analysis and Design
Following demolition, the site will be cleared and excavated for a purely cut condition. Shoring
will be done in the form of soil nail walls. Drainage will flow into the excavation pit where the
contractor will maintain a sediment trap (minimum dimensions) and pump stormwater to the
alley storm drainage system. In addition to the sediment trap, other Erosion control BMPs will
include marking limits of construction, establishing a construction entrance, installing catch
basin inserts, stabilizing soils, and maintaining BMPs.
The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan follows the City of Edmonds standards. Specific items
not mentioned below are found on the ESC plan notes. The following ESC measures are
proposed and will be shown on the ESC Plan:
> Seeding if soil is to be left unworked as fall approaches.
> Filter fabric fence filtration at all downhill perimeter locations.
> Rock -stabilized construction entrance.
> Catch basin protection applied to all existing catch basins.
> One sediment trap of minimum dimensions has been sized using 1992 DOE Manual. The
basin area is approximately 0.33 acres. The sizing calculations are included on the following
pages.
I> Dust control measures will be specified in the plan notes.
I
AD Shapiro ISIom Drainage Reportfor 5h Avenue Eight WHPaciftc, Inc.
P:IAD Shapiro Architects PSiO35l93'Design',ReportsL'008-07-03- report.doc July 3, 2008 /Page 8
f
d
r:�)f I VE STREET FILE
PLANNING sp
New Commercial / Multi Family P ject
Name: t3i* 4v�,i:.::7 ,z�ot4—
�
Date: �!7_ 1 S7— :�2��VS 12--12-,
Site Address: *"7
1-15-
Plan Check #: BLD
ri, it -
7s� 2--T Shmv-1na
Projec?_Se on:
Use(s) Proposed: VktA, HTfA+104
AllowedUseo OES NO)
CUP File Number: _--=,
To Allow What Uses:
Legal Nonconforming Land Use Determination Issued: (YES c! TF )
Reduced Site Plan Provided: (YES / NO)
Zoning: 12--M — I -
Map Page:
omp Plan Designation:
Corner Air
Flag Lot: (YES(��
ADB Fi limb te iv
ki
Lot Arej*f1j"
limp,
Plans MaVDB p AS / NO) 1�
Sh quired: (YES
Critical A s Determinatio #. 8,9KS
EE11 st y Required
�EKW e r
SEPA Determination: 5 f > 15y"
Exempt _1d *s
Needed (for sites with 500 cubic rk nf nradin it 0 of uget Sound or Lake
Ballinger. Requires: (1) Fee, (2) Environmental Chec t PO List with notarized form).
Required Setijago
Street:
Side:
Side:
Rear:
Actual Setbacks
Street:
Side:
Side.
Rear:
Lot Coverage/FAR Required: L-4 r--O/
>
le
Lot Coverage/FAR Provided: Z_/0
Lot Coverage/FAR Calculations: 6q-7o, 0
+,F ZI V-:;
AaW119ft t
urn Point: /4- 61tion:
If ID
Plot A
h Actu ght
2 27
AMA %k A
Ag ga n Required:
plffg
Landscaping Matches ADB Approved: I
Landscaping Bid Providedjas*ftar'
Bond Amount (100% Bid): 1�
WK,
Plan Review By:
M4
C37
PLANNING DATA
t*W Commercial I Multi -Family Projects
11 STREET=FILE I
Commercial Parking Analysis
Business Name
Type/Use
Parking
Ratio
Tenant
Area
Required
Parking
A
Total Parking R�qu#ed.-
A
TotalParkingProvided.
-Mulff-F.4m ParkingAna
4
# Bedrooms per Dwelling Unit
Parking Ratio
# Units
Required
Parking
Studio A
1.2/P.U.
1 Bedroom
1.5/D.U.
2 Bedrooms
1.8/D.U.
3 + Bedrooms
2.0/D.U.
Total Parking Required.
Total Parking Provided. -
Other
fil
Plan Review By:
VJ STREET=FfLE
PLANNING D T
I;q a a dia [:S:T
New Comfq4Qrcial i Multi -Family Proje
Name: [Dae:
-2 P
Site Address: Ian Check #: BLD
- 00
f �2,01
Pro'ec MesJ on:
Use(s) Proposed: Allowed UseKj OES NO)
CUP File Number. To Allow What Uses:
Legal Nonconforming Land. Use Determination Issued ES D),
(ro "I
i.11
Reduced Site Plf*Mlked: (YES / NO) S7
Map Page: 0 Plan Designation:
,2<�,) -- M
Corner Lot: (YES agL ot: (YES
ADB File Number (d e waived):
Lot ?T7
-e-Tq
Plans Match ADB A roved: (YES I N ore e Required: (YE
Aft.. 00 A�v S 0)
pi t n�
Critical Areas Determination #7 11
El Study Required -7 f(
�Kwaiver
SEPA Determination: e
0 C /V li-P
Exempt
El Needed (for sites with 50 ic yards of grading or ithin feet of Puget Sound or Lake
Ballinger- Req ires: (1) ee, (2) Environmental ChecUst, APO List with notarized form).
Required jjejAV*V
Street Is/ Side: Rear:
IV_:A0
A
Street:
Side
Rear -
Lot Coverage/FAR Required: Lot Coverage/FAR Provided:
owl
Lot Coverage/FAR Calculations:
4-
Building Height
Datum Point: u v
-w-aiiiii6-m-Height:
Subdivision: AIA W
Lot Aggregation Requi d:
Landscaping
Landscaping Matches ADB Approved:
Landscaping Bid Provided: (YES / NO) j
Bond Amount (100% Bid):
Plan Review By:
'A
PLANNING DATA
New#comnftVcial I Multi -Family Projects
Commercial Parking Analysis
Business Name
Type/Use
Parking
Ratio
Tenant
Area
Required
Parking
Total Parking Jfquired.-
Tola /Parking Provided-,
Multi -Family Iffarking Anal is
# Bedrooms per Dwelling Unit
Parking Ratio
Units
Required
Parking
Studio
1.21D.U.
I Bedroom
2 Bedrooms
All-
3 + Bedrooms
TOW Parking Required. -
Total Parking Provided.
I
Other
J
Plan Review By:
09
0 WM
LEGEND
CONCRETE SURFACE
GRAVEL SURFACE
CONIFER TREE
MONUMENTIN CASE
WATER METER
ROCK WALL
FOUND CONCRETE
MONUMENTIN CASE
VISITED 8-4-02
O���60 �4
0�5
dg
06,
UnHNlr)
1- u 1 14 �.l 1 11 L- I L-
MONUMENTIN CASE
VISITED 8-4-02
f
CALCULATED
POSITION PEF
RECORD OF
SURVEY
AF#19990622
RVEY
'BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHiC
SW 1/4 SECTION 24 TOWNSHIP 27N RANGE 3E g
�4
04t,
-0
lVao
A
all
0 7:
01
,4r/
40
Cb
55
LOT 4
A
"',l n,
ok98
/DECK
LOT 2
7
74 4 .
14.27
0 .28..
'D,EC�/li -C�
A
EXISTING 01 051\ c�
EXISTING V-
BUILDING 6 30" FIR HOUSE #207
IN
14V
lb /,-S
3.6� 0)
rl\b a)
WM
/A
V,
gl.
20 - 10 0 20 40 60
1
SCALE IN FEET
CALCULATED
POSITION PER
RECORD OF
SURVEY
AF#1 99906225007
Q). . . . . . . . . . . MERIDIAN
2.72 RECORD OF SURVEY RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 199906225007
TBM:
LOT 1 EXISTING COR CONCj
BUILDING ELEV= 113.04
DATUM
12.01
ASSUMED
S9,
1 �
FOUND
-00 REBAR AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION
CAP #�891 LEGAL DESCRIPTION PER OWNER. THE BENEFIT OF A TITLE REPORT WAS NOT
ab USED FOR THIS SURVEY.
LOTS 2 AND 3, BLOCK 2, PLAT OF CITY OF EDMONDS, ACCORDING TO THE
PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 1 OF PLATS, ON PAGES 26 AND 27,
RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
NOTES T COPY
THIS FIELD TRAVERSE SURVEY USED A WILD T10OO/DI1000 TOTAL STATION
WITH ELECTRONIC DISTANCE MEASURING UNIT MEETING OR EXCEEDING jE-WMj
REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN WAC 332-130-080 MAR 1 4 2008
UTILITIES SHOWN HEREON WERE DERIVED FROM PHYSICAL FEATURES ON THE
GROUND SURFACE AND ARE NOT GUARANTEED TO BE ALL INCLUSIVE. B Y. -0- 13
CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION. RECEIVED
MAR 10 2008
BUILDING DEPARTME147
CITY OF EDMONDS
JOB No. 02-017
C)
0
0
Z
m
Cl)
U)
C-
(D
;r,
z
o
M
m
MM3M
m
CD
G)
11
m
C)
m
0
F,
rel
4�
rw &., tM IT
5k4vt ,
LLM: MOM:;