HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-196-82 - TSAO & COMPANY - MCNAMARA CONDOMINIUMMCNAMARA CONDOMINIUM
PRE-DRAFT
53AVS&KLICKJTAT
EPIG196 -82
VNIL4
4, City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
19
09
Gary L VanDusen, Mayor
September 22, 1982
Edward McNamara
2367 Eastlake Avenue East
Seattle, Washington 98102
The plan review of the drawings submitted for construction of the fifty -
four unit condominium project, near 53rd Avenue South and Klickitat
has progressed to a point where additional information..is needed.
The additional information that is required should be reflected on the
drawings or other data. The comments of the departments that are
reviewing the project are attached for your.:.: convenience.
The attached plan check comments are subject to errors and omissions,
and do not authorize any violation of any adopted code or ordinance.
If you need clarification of any of the items or additional information
please call 43.3 -1849.
City of Tukwila
Al Pi.e.=r
Building Official
AP /blk
xc: P1 ng. Dir.
Public Works- Dep ,t.
Planning Dept.
Fire Dept.
Planning Department Comments
1. Provide *children's play area per. TMC 18.60.200(.lc) and details of
equipment to be placed therein. ,
2. Provide landscape plan per TMC 18.60.200(.1g).
3. Obtain B.A.R. approval of recreation space plan per TMC 18.60.200(2).
4. Additional site modification may be necessary following outcome of SEPA
analysis.
Fire Department Comments
1. All buildings to be fully sprinkler.ed.th.roughout.
2. Fire hydrants required per Ordinance #729.
3. Fire lanes required by Ordinance #110 - Asphalt minimum 12' width,
35' turning radius throughout, maximum 15% grade.
4. Fire extinguishers, required per. NFPA 10.
5. Attic separation divided into maximum 9000 square feet.
6. Provide minimum fire flow requirements of I.S.O. & W.S.R.B.
7. In buildings "4 stories" in height, one stairwell shall extend to the
roof surface.
8. An approved automatic or manually operated fire alarm system required on
Buildings #2 and #3.'
9. Sprinkler systems shall be supervised by an approved central station.
10. Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all buildings in a
position as to be plainly visible and legible from street.
11. All exitways shall meet minimum class. rIflame spread rating per UBC 42 -B.
12. Provide visual alerting devices in both the sleeping areas and living
areas of all handicapped units.
• •
Building Division Comments
1. Provide handicapped units (.3) per handicapped code.
2. Show method of attic ventilation.
3. Show method of stack framing on all multistory units.
4. Show method of fire blocking per U.B.C. 2517 in all areas where fire
blocking is required.
5. Show location and routing of vents for bathrooms and clothes dryers.
6. Show method of routing D.W.V. plumbing, avoiding the excessive cutting
of headers, joists, and other framing members.
7. Show method of emergency exit from below grade bedrooms. (9' window
wells do not comply.)
8. Show foundation drain details and method of damp proofing foundation
walls.
9. Show or call out insulation on rim joists areas.
.S 1- �4 City %f Tukwila
k z
2 6200 Southcenter Boulevard
-o Tukwila, Washington 98188
Public Works Department 433-1850
September 14, 1982 Byron G. Sneva, Director
Via Planning Department
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
Mr. Edward MacNamara
2367 Eastlake Avenue East
Seattle, Washington 98102
• Re:- 54 Unit Condominium in Tukwila, Washington
Dear Mr. MacNamara:
The Public Works Department has reviewed your plan submittal for Job
No.. 8024A, Plan Sheets C -1, 2, 3. Requested at this time is a resubmittal
of your proposed site plans per the following comments:
1. Curb Cut /Access /Sidewalks /Improvements. to the Public Right -of -Way
The plan submittal is deficient with respect to defining the necess-
ary access onto 53rd Avenue South and improvements to the inter-
section of 53rd Avenue South and Klickitat Drive per past staff
reviews of TRANSPO GroupA.-s traffic analysis (11/24/81 memorandum
by Ted Uomoto, Public Works Director) and public. testimony (Tukwila
City Council 4 /15/81). A detailed plan submittal for this project
shall include the addressing of concerns of the public, concerns
of staff and include the rechannelization of the intersection of
53rd Avenue South and Klickitat Drive to allow for adequate turning
movements and lane stacking during peak hour traffic flows.
Also, on the plan resubmittal shall be shown access from the develop
ment to the existing trail system which is in the City of Seattle
Water Department pipeline right -of -way to the south of the project.
By this development, required is pedestrian walkway system per the
requirements of Ordinance Nos. 1158 and 1233 for sidewalks adjacent
to the development on 53rd Avenue South. How the roadway fronting
the property is to be developed with curbs and gutters and sidewalks,
is necessary as part of this plan submittal.
Vehicular accesses shall be completed including delineation of the
edge of pavement for the existing roadway in 53rd Avenue South and
the proposed edge of pavement for the access points from the develop-
ment to 53rd Avenue South including slopes with the pavement, drive-
way aprons, etc.
2. Soils Report - The staff review of the soils report (Hemphill
Consulting Engineers), requires the following information be
addressed as part of the final plan submittal:
a. Shown on plans area and approximate depth of unsuitable
soils to be removed.
b. Provide rockery details and specifications.
c. Indicate'how surface and groundwater to be handled from
the west of the development.
d. Provide assurances by the developer that Mr. Hemphill's
recommendations as described in the last portion of his
report will be carried out in the construction phase per
Item E -11 page 19 of his February 6th, 1982 report (Hemphill
Project No. 6290).
3. Water Fire Loop and Water Meters and Services - On Plan #C-3,-General
Notes under Note #5 take out the last line, "PVC pipe and fittings
may be used if approved by authorities.'' Also, under Note #10 add'
all water mains shall be built per Tukwila Municipal Code 14.04.060.
All hydrants shall include a hydrant secondary valve three to ten feet
from the hydrant. All mains shall be a minimum of ten feet from
any building.
4. Storm and Sanitary Sewerage Systems
A. Storm Drains: Drainage from this development shall go into
surface or sub- surface detention ponds and proceed into the
storm drain system but shall not bypass that detention system.
Because this development is on a side slope and involves a
substantial building program, both sanitary sewer and storm
main lines shall be of concrete and not corrugated metal. pipe.
A submittal analyzing the downstream storm system is necess-
ary unless the development is providing for retention of all
storm drainage flows.
B. Sanitary Sewers
(1) Clean outs are required outside of buildings and
at "Ys" and bends.
(2) A minimum 2% grade shall be provided on all sewer
lines.
(3) Class "B" bedding material shall be provided on all
sanitary and storm pipes.
(4) A 95% compaction shall be provided throughout.
.(5) For sanitary sewers, air tests only shall be provided.
(PVC pipe no loss is expected).
(6) Eighteen inches minimum cover shall be provided for
all metal and concrete pipe and 36- inches minimum cover
shall be provided for pipe which is PVC.
(7) Final plan submittal of the sanitary sewer system shall
be provided only after final approvals and criteria
have been met by the Val -Vue Sewer District.
(8) On Plan #C -3 note #15 eliminate water settlement as a
method by which either the foundations or utilities .
may be stabilized.
•
(9) On Plan #C -3 Note #17, elltinate the corrugated'
PVC for 6 -inch diameter pipe and substitute with
rigid pipe, corrugated metal pipe or concrete.
(10) On sheet #C -3, Note #22, water settlement shall be
eliminated as a manner by which utilities can be
compacted for this development.
If you have any questions regarding any of the issues, please do not hesitate
to call me at 433 -1856.
• Sincerely,
Phillip Fraser,
Senior Engineer
xc: Tukwila Maintenance Shops
Al Pieper, Building Official
William S. Tsao & Co., P.S.
file
• Attachment (1)
PRF:jst
co.i.oas
gutt.m6 roturr rt444 vaT cemog
r-
•
Nizsr___44_op dow.e.
o JMtMo 0_ Is o1/41TIMItP• gCf_tAce, pm/
geftect1 Sn4S g-_I zow11.16 (*Apt_ °gloom, FocOble Pecmgoz _Aftsicures
"ME ID Vest IXWL0f11011 MGM �t rtittiOr. IEKK £o.*IM) murts.rw
cottPtil'EXT__
,Nleef 4, I‘ stir au
ggagExpow $15.0 guulittAar.r Agm.zrsi4 (The- CO • zoo)._
Mit404014_5rWE RE•fiP reOjEGT_:__ _ s4 _Ut4rrs . x_ _24)047 /ourr 10_804 _
9 Na_gzessa)A.TEv_cAtt,pzeiYs—frr-Ageilk—recmv_Dv__fiesli_sec.____156._co._too_ (1_0_
pir41.M0,4 is _2570 t* MU- frote4. reedluigSa (.25_X_Ioboo 2:7-40-0
r-ioyki4 7O ekt.owev___R4 st.cm2 ozeL e-hcestisc 4-_:-1 (2-76° 10
D) ALTA& !EEG. 5r6(.4-_ riroviVev.: L71_96.0 ifs
+ 700 Urfr-¢ STolt-rptc.K.s
1 8 cc.
ektNtSk. tozsg., ..e.e.e.42.it-tc. 4 _SL_. I' 154o e_re
t) ttet0iMNEUrat —
0.) proviK odwIP-t-twr- Tb - 4--It4stuu- - -
titoulPir Li.opscihre RN.) - et-g- _I56. Ces, 740_0, 0_). SALM _suistwr satiC
s __P.. afg Affttam., (pi( , s .60 • Z40
S) eit6
opELs (WM r)%11) MOV I PEP- pLDC
DL,pc, LtS: 10 e 40 ) e 40 if
DLD4 415 ; 4 6 c_o
1908
•
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
Frank Todd, Mayor
14 September 1982
Thomas M. Walsh
Attorney -at -Law
1111 Third Avenue Bldg.
Seattle, WA 98101
SUBJECT: McNamara Building Permit Application
Dear Mr. Walsh:
Enclosed is a copy of the pre - draft scope -of -work which we have developed as
a guide to the preparation of a comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement
for the McNamara. Project. As previously agreed between your client and the
city, a draft EIS will be prepared by a consultant whom you select and who is
approved in advance by the Planning Director.. To date, we have not been ap-
praised of your choice of EIS consultant. As you wished .to.begtn tne_pr_e -draft
consultation process prescribed in WAC- 197 -10 -420 as soon as possible, we ask
that you advise us of your schedule for consultant selection and of a probable
date on which to meet and discuss the scope of work.
Please call me if you have questions on this matter; the telephone number for
the Planning Department is 433 -1849.
TUKWILA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Brad Collins
Director
encl.
xc: City Atty.
EPIC - 196 -82
MC /ibm
• •
PRELIMINARY SCOPE OF WORK
McNamara Condominium Proposal
'Checklist Section 1, Item 11: Plans by Others
- Disagree with "no" response: What about the Tukwila 6 -yr. T,I.P.?
• How about any plans by Val -Vue sewer?
Checklist Section 1, Item 12: Applications
- Disagree with "no" response: Building permit and related utility appli-
cations will be necessary.
Checklist Section 2, Itme 1: Earth.
- The preliminary project soils engineering reports are not conclusive as
to the ability of soil conditions drainage characteristics necessary vis-
a-vis the present scale of the project. Indeed, the soils consultant
indicates that a responsible conclusion on this topic is not feasible in
advance of actual foundation excavation. No conclusions are offered
regarding the cost feasibility, or the degree of disruption of existing
site covering conditions necessary to prepare the site for construction
based on soils requirements; these topics are appropriate disclosures
which should be included in the E.I.S.
- Disagree with explanation response to Items lb and lc.
Checklist Section 3, Item 3: Water
- E.I.S. should amplify and quantify the engineering solution proposed for
control and retention of run -off. A complete discussion of existing sub-
surface drainage characteristics of the site is also expected.
Checklist Section 2, Item.5: Fauna
- Vegetation removal /preservation plan required and strategy for replacement
of screening value required.
•
Checklist Section 2, Item 6: Noise
- Disagree with "explanation" response: concern is regarding interior noise
level compliance with HUD standards resulting from oximit to 1-5 corri-
dors as well as off-site noise- impacts produced by tie proseC .
Checklist Section 2, Item 8: Land Use
- Analysis should be combined with additional elements from Section 11 of
PRELIMINARY SCOPE - h' tli;
4ARA CONDOMINIUM PROPOSAL 0
Ordinance 1211 - "Quality of Life " / "Neighborhood Cohesion " / "Sociological
Factors ": Currently, there are no multiple - family developments in the
incorporated area of McMicken Heights. The proposed project, if imple-
mented, represents a significant departure from the prevailing low- density
residential land use pattern. The social implications and growth- inducing
impacts of this project relative to the policies of the Comprehensive
Plan should be analyzed.
Checklist Section 2, Item 13: Transportation
-Both the TRANSPO study'and theiPubTic Works Department follow -up agree::
that implementation of the McNamara project will entail the need
for turn - movement rechannelization and other lane- capacity improvements
at Klickitat Drive /53rd Avenue intersection. The exact configuration of
these improvements and suitable alternative mitigation should be determined
at the Draft E.I.S. stage.
Checklist Section 2, Item 14: Public Services
- Combine analysis of public service costs with elements 2 and 3 of Section
11, Ordinance 1211: "Tax Base /Economy°: The content should be focused
on a. cost /revenue analysis.of extending municipal . services or upgrading
existing services to this project site which is located at the urban
fringe.
Checklist Section 2, Item 16: Utilities
- Verify availability. and adequacy of utility infrastructure; discuss any
necessary interagency cooperation anticipated in the provision of utility .
services, especially storm drainage and sewerage.
Checklist Section 2, Item 18: Aesthetics
- Construction of the project may impact the visual character of the over
story growth of the easterly slope of McMicken Heights as perceived from
the valley floor. A view analysis should be conducted in the E.I.S.
Checklist Section,2, Item 19: Recreation
- Discuss adequacy of on -site recreation opportunity given the anticipated
project population level and the lack of nearby public park lands. Also
demonstrate compliance with Recreation /Open Space Standards of (old) TMC
18.60.200.
• MC /js
1908
City•
of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
Gary L VanDusen, Mayor
•
August 27, 1982
Thomas M. Walsh
1111 Third Avenue Building, Suite 2600
Seattle, WA 98101
RE: Your request for permit application extension
Due to the amount of time elapsed since the original application was
filed, the change in land use zoning, and various other considerations
the City does not feel obligated nor is it appropriate to extend the time
period for completion of the application procedure beyond October 18,
1982.. .
Therefore, your request dated August 25, 1982, for a 180 day extension
per Section 304CC) of the Uniform Building Code is denied.
City of Tukwila
•
Al Pi.e�'-r
Building Official
AP /bik
xc: Ping.. Dir. •
AMY L. KOSTERLITZ
THOMAS M. WALSH
LAW OFFICES OF
THOMAS M. WALSH
1111 THIRD AVENUE BUILDING. L UITE 2600,
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
(206) 464 -1560
August 25, 1982
Mr. Lawrence E. Hard
LeSourd, Patten, Fleming,
Hartung & Emory
3900 SeaFirst National Bank
Building
Seattle, WA 98154
RE :, McNamara Building Permit Application
Dear Mr. Hard:
p�(��OdI3
AUG
L
OF TUF KWILA
PLANNING DEPT.
Enclosed is a copy of our letter to the City of Tukwila
requesting an extension of time for review of our building
permit application.
Mr. Brad Collins, the Planning Director, has indicated
that he will be consulting with you regarding our request.
Therefore, I thought it would be appropriate to send you a
copy of our letter so that you would be acquainted with the
grounds for our request.
Needless to say, the decision on our request for an
extension is a matter of serious concern to our client.
Therefore, we would like the opportunity to discuss this
matter with you prior to your issuance of an opinion on the
request. It is to everyone's advantage to ensure that all
information has been carefully considered before a decision
is made on this request.
I will be out of town from now until Tuesday,
August 31, 1982. I will call you on Tuesday when I return
to the office, and I hope that you will give me the
opportunity to discuss this matter with you at that time.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
)144(elti
THOMAS M. WALSH
TMW /ehk
encl.
cc: Mr. Edward F. McNamara
AMY L. KOSTERLITZ
THOMAS M. WALSH
LAW OFFICES OF
THOMAS M. WALSH
1111 THIRD AVENUE BUILDING, SUITE 2600
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
(206) 464-1580
August 25, 1982
Mr. Brad Collins
Planning Director
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
RE: McNamara Building Permit Application
Dear Mr. Collins:
To: A- e'v�-�,y
ve=
IMME
AU G 2 6 1982
L OF TUKWILA
t=:.. -:NNING DEPT.
This letter will confirm the results of our meeting on
Monday, August 23, 1982, at Tukwila City Hall. In response
to our letter of August 17, 1982, the City has agreed to
omit the threshold determination requirement and move
directly to preparation of an EIS in accordance with WAC
197 -10 -300 (2)(a). However, the City has decided to reject
our EIS consultant, Hunt, Schultz.& Associates.
Regardless of the merits of the City's decision to
reject our consultant, the decision has now made it clear
that we will not be able to meet the October 18, 1982,
deadline for issuance of a building permit. We had invested
time in interviewing consultants, selecting Hunt, Schultz &
Associates, and negotiating the contract for their services.
During this time, Hunt, Schultz & Associates had spent
time "clearing the deck" of other work in their office in
preparation for working on the EIS, and they had begun
reviewing the project documents in preparation for their
,work on this project. Now we must begin this process again.
As you have acknowledged to us, there is not sufficient time
remaining prior to October.18, to select a new consultant,
discuss the scope of the EIS, prepare the draft EIS,
circulate it for the required time period, and get final
building permit approval.
Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of Section
304(c) of the Uniform Building Code (UBC), we hereby request
an extension of time for 180 days to complete the building
permit application process. This section provides as
follows:
Mr. Brad Coll •
August 25, 1982
Page 2
"The Building Official may extend the time for action
by the applicant for a period not exceeding 180 days
upon request by the applicant showing that circum-
stances beyond the control of the applicant have
prevented action from being taken. No application
shall be extended more than once."
There are circumstances beyond our control that have
prevented action from being taken. First, the City's
decision to reject our EIS consultant has cost us valuable
time as discussed above. We did not delay in advising the
City of our selection of Hunt, Schultz & Associates; we
notified the City on August 17 which was even before
finalizing our agreement with the firm. Hunt, Schultz &
Associates is a highly reputable and experienced firm, and
the City's decision was beyond our control. Secondly, the
Tsao firm's refusal to release vital documents and our
subsequent court action to get the documents was time
consuming. The decision by the Tsao firm to withhold these
documents was beyond our control, and we took prompt action
to gain control of that situation through expedited court
action. (King County Superior Court Cause No. 82 -2- 10879 -1)
This application has not been previously extended. The
earlier decision by the City to set a deadline of
October 18, 1982, was not an "extension" but merely an
administrative interpretation of when the initial 180 day
time period began and ended. The City's letter of May 25,
1982 advising us of this deadline, states as follows:
"Section 304 C of the Uniform Building Code 1979
edition allows 180 days for issuance of a building
permit after receiving application. In this case,
review of the application was delayed approximately one
year by consideration of the waiver requirement, which
was not entirely within the control of the applicant.
Accordingly, . the review of this application will need
to be completed and a building permit(s) issued by
October 18, 1982, in order to be timely."
Moreover, Section 304(c) provides that an extension may be
granted "upon request by the applicant." This indicates
that extensions are involved only when there is a request
from the applicant. But here, the applicant did not request
an extension. Finally, the intent of Section 304(c) is to
allow a maximum of 180 days for building permit review plus
an additional 180 days on extension. There was virtually no
building permit review activity during the waiver process.
Building permit review activity did not seriously begin
(AI
Mr. Brad Coll
August 25, 1982
Page 3
until spring, 1982. Therefore, we are still within the
initial 180 day period and an extension period has not yet
begun.
Thank you very much for your consideration of our
request.
Ver truly yours,
. (.14,0
THOMAS M. WALSH
TMW /ehk
cc: Mr. Lawrence Hard
Mr. Edward F. McNamara
1909
Ask
CitySf Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
Gary L VanDusen, Mayor
August 24., 1982
Mr. Ed McNamara
McNamara Investment Co.,.Inc.
1600 Dexter Ave. N., Suite 1
Seattle, WA 98109
Mr. Tom Walsh
1111 Third Avenue Building, Suite 2600
Seattle, WA 98101
RE: 4- 13 -81, McNamara Building Permit ApplicaUon
Dear Mr. McNamara. and Mr. Walsh:
In response to your requests at the August 23, 1982, meeting this letter -
reiterates information about the City's plan review process and the reason
why Mr. John Hunt of Hunt, Schultz & Associates was not accepted to do
consulting work on the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for your
project. I would also like to make it very clear to you again that the
City is acting in good faith to process your building permit application.
There should be no misunderstanding that the City is and has been ready
to review your plans as soon as you provide the necessary materials to
the City.
You specifically ask again why the City cannot guarantee that the thres-
hold determination will result.in a Declaration of Non - Significance. In
response, I have said that without reviewing an applicant's Environmental
Checklist, whic'h'identifies both impacts and explanation of the signifi-
cance of any impact, I cannot make a threshold determination. In your
particular case, much discussion of environmental concerns has occurred since
your latest application materials submittal with the result that the City
is informed about some impact, as well as additional technical studies
that may already adequately explain their significanbe or non - significance
without doing an EIS. However, the City has not assessed all environmental
review items per SEPA, nor has the fee required to undertake the review
been received. Until the City has actually completed the SEPA environmental
review, a threshold determination, which is the result of such a review,
has not occurred, nor my decision made on significance.
r
' Mr. Ed McNamara ,-
Mr. Tom Walsh L•
Au9uSt 24, 1382
With regard to the unacceptance at this time of John Hunt to do consulting
work in preparation of the EIS, the City Attorney advised that, since Mr.
Hunt was involved in.a:.matter of litigation with the City on another EIS,
he should not -be performing .a similar service for the City at the same
time. In discussions with Mr. Hunt, I indicated that it was his respon-
sibility to inform you and was informed that he had made his involvement in
this litigation known to you.
Finally, at the meeting of August.23, 1982, 1 believe we had an understanding
on the following five points with regard to your request to proceed ahead
with an EIS without a threshold determination:
1. The City will accept your reuqest to:proceed with an. EIS without
a threshold determination in order to save time which is of the
essence and would be spent for the threshold determination.
2. The responsibility to obtain issuance of the . building permit by
October 18, 1982, is the applicant's duty.
3. There does not appear to be sufficient time to complete the
EIS process prior to October 18, 1982, since it is the City's
estimate that without allowing any time for actual preparation
time 70 calendar days is the fastest (minimum) time needed to
simply process the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statement.
4. The cost of the EIS will be paid by you with the awareness that
the benefits of a building permit cannot be assured nor perhaps
expected and, therefore, the value of the ETS may be found in its.
use for other similar proposed actions such as a rezone application.
5. On advice from the City Attorney, another consultant will have to be
employed at this time to work on your EIS, since Hunt, Schultz &
Associates . is currently involved in litigation proceedings with the
City on another matter. (Several alternative consultants were dis-
cussed and not disqualified.)
Furthermore, it is your responsibility to initiate the plan and environmental
reviews by submitting previously identified materials.
Sincerely,
C�d�J■
Brad Collins,
Planning Director
BC /blk
xc: City Attorney Hard
Mayor Van Dusen
1
•
McNAMARA INVESTMENT CO., INC.
1600 DEXTER AVENUE NORTH • SUITE 1 • SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 96109 • [206] 285 -6646
CERTIFIED MAIL
Tune, 4, 1982
Mr. Mark Caughey
Associate Planner
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
Re: Letter dated May 27, 1982 to Mr. Thomas M. Walsh,
Attorney for McNamara Investment Co., Inc.
Dear Mr. Caughey:
You may expect a complete, updated State Environmental
Policy Act checklist for my 54 -unit condominium project
shortly. In talking with Mr. Bill Tsao he sees no need
for submitting this checklist prior to having the other
materials prepared that your office requests. Subse-
quently the S.E.P.A. checklist will be submitted along
with the additional information and drawings necessary
to complete the building permit application.
EFMcN /c
cc: Mr. Thomas M. Walsh
Mr. Bill Tsao
Sincerely,
MC NAMARA INVESTMENT CO., INC.
Edward F. McNamara
President
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
27 May 1982
Thomas M. Walsh
Attorney at Law
1111 Third Avenue Bldg. Suite 2600
Seattle, WA 98101
SUBJECT: McNamara Bldg. Permit Application
•
This letter is sent.in regard to. that portion of the building permit ap-
plication concerning compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act.
Since the proposed project constitutes -a major action within the language
of RCW 43.21C.030 (e),--compliance with the threshold. determination po -
cess is mandatory. As yet, we do, not have on file .a complete, up -.to -date
SEPA checklist.for the McNamara project.. This item will be needed to con-
tinue processing by this office of your building permit request. An ex
.ception to the required filing.of a checklist is found in WAC- 197 -10 -300
(2) in cases where the applicant and lead agency agree that an E.I.S. is
appropriate. So that.we may continue timely:action on your permit appli-
cation, we request that you take one of the following actions:
1) Submit a.complete,.up -dated SEPA checklist for the project,
including explanation of all "yes" and "maybe" answers con-
tained therein.
2) Submit a letter requesting agreement by the lead agency.(City
• of Tukwila) that an environmental impact statement for this
project is appropriate, per WAC 197 -10 -300.
We have discussed the matter of SEPA compliance with Mr. McNamara,'Mr. Tsao
and you on several occasions and have explained the procedural options avail-
able. In your letter of 20 April, 1982, the application; we ask your help, stated concern that the city
ter.as we have. not received a response to� our eprior ecommunications . this
Thankt
you for your attention and assistance.
TUKW PLANNING DEPARTMENT
M. Caughey
ssociate Planner
MC /ib.m
xc: P1 ng Dir
City Atty
Bldg Off
\IOLA
qs City/ % Tukwila
►•G 3'
1906
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
Frank Todd, Mayor
May 25, 1982
Mr. Thomas Walsh
1111 Third Avenue Building, Suite 2600
Seattle, WA 98101
RE: McNamara Building Permit Application
Dear Mr. Walsh:
The application on behalf of Mr. Edward McNamara for building permits to
construct a group of residential structures near Klickitat Drive and 53rd
Ave. So. in the City of .Tukwila is dated April 13, 1981. The Uniform
Building Code Section 304C expires applications by limitation when the
application process is not completed. Section 304C of the Uniform Building
Code 1979. Edition allows 180 days for issuance of a building permit
after receiving application. In this case, review of the application was
delayed approximately one year by consideration of a waiver requirement,
which was not entirely within the control of the applicant. Accordingly,
the review of this application will need to be completed and .a building
permit(s) issued by October 18, 1982, in order to be. timely.
The material submitted to date by the applicant for review by the City
has not been adequate for a complete review. A letter was sent to the
applicant on April 27, 1981, explaining many of the deficiencies and,.again
on April 23, 1982. As of May 24, 1982, the additional material needed to
complete the review process has not been received by the City.
City of Tukwila
Al Piep
Building Official
AP /BC /blk
cc: Brad Collins, Planning Director
Lawrence Hard, City Attorney
CITY OF ;TUKWILA C &T;° C = TUKWILA
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
AUG 2 1 t
GUIDING DEPT.'
This questionnaire must be completed and submitted with the application for
permit. This questionnaire must be completed by all persons applying for a
permit from the City of Tukwila, unless it is determined by the Responsible
Official that the permit is exempt or unless the applicant and Responsible
Official previously agree an Environmental Impact Statement needs to be completed.
A fee of $50.00 must accompany the filling of the Environmental Questionnaire
to cover costs of the threshold determination.
I. BACKGROUND
1. Name of Proponent: William S. Tsao & Co., P.S., agents for McNamara Invest -
Co. , Inc.
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 324 -8780
2367 Eastlake Avenue E., Seattle, Washington 98102
3. Date Checklist Submitted: / June, 1982
4. Agency Requiring Checklist: City of Tukwila
5. Name of Proposal, if applicable:
6. Nature and Brief Description of the Proposal (including but not limited
to its size, general design elements, and other factors that will give
an accurate understanding of its scope and nature):
54 unit condominium consisting of 34 Townhouse units, 20 flats, all in 5
buildings plus required parking area (s).
7. Location of Proposal (describe the physical setting of the proposal, as
well as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental im-
pacts, including any other information needed to give an accurate under-
standing of the environmental setting of the proposal):
Bordered on west by 53rd Avenue S., on East by Klickitat Dr., 2.69 acres.
Site downslopes gradually from S.W. to N.W. Flora is generally underbrush with
large shrubs to small or medium size trees.
. Estimated Date for Completion of the Proposal: December, 1985
9. List of all Permits, Licenses or Government Approvals Required for the
Proposal (federal, state and local):
(a) Rezone, conditional use, shoreline permit, etc. YES NO X
(b) King County Hydraulics Permit YES; NO X
(c) Building permit • • YES X NO
Azz,61' Ace Attenzie>2.972,774e/nera C44.4d 11,4 /0/17t1 aladdi aztimiegud
tdneeds.t. daza.t 6/2Q.a4 4/nee GI t/5454 aadt. „ a-' Awe "nee .6ll ,,
• .0.4P)-2,., D%
• •
(d) Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Permit YES NO X
(e) Sewer hook up permit YESX NO
(f) Sign permit YES NO X
(g) Water hook up permit YESX NO
(h) Storm water system permit YESX NO
(i) Curb cut permit YESX NO
(j) Electrical permit (State of Washington) YESX NO
(k) Plumbing permit (King County) YESX NO
(1) Other:
10. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or futher activity
related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain:
NO
11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by .
your proposal? If yes, explain:
NO
12. Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the pro-
posal; if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at some future
date, describe the nature of such application form:
NO
•
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required)
YES MAYBE NO
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic
substructures?
(b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcover-
ing of the soil?
(c) Change in topography or ground surface relief fea-
tures?
(d) The destruction, covering or modification of any
unique geologic or physical features? —
-7-
X
X
YES MAYBE NO
(e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils,
either on or off the site? X
(f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or
changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which
may modify the channel of a river or stream or the
bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
X
Explanation:
lb, c - Minimum amounts of gradning for the siting of structures may
have some effect on soil placement. However, the amount of soil to be
moved will be non - significant. See soils report by Hemphill dated 2/6/82 &
3/17/82.
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air
quality? x
(b) The creation of objectionable odors? X
(c) Alteration of air movement, moisture
or temperature, or any change in climate, either
locally or regionally? X
Explanation:
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements, in either marine or fresh
waters? X
(b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? X _
(c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? x
(d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water
body? ?�
(e) Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration
of surface water quality, including but not limited
to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? x
(f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of
ground waters? X
(g) Change—in-the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? x
-3-
•
• YES MAYBE NO
(h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either
through direct injection, or through the seepage
of leachate, phosphates, detergents, waterborne
virus or bacteria, or other substances into the
ground waters? x
Reduction in the amount of water otherwise avail-
able for public water supplies? x
Explanation:
3b - Addition of buildings and parking lots may affect absorption. Surface
water runoff will be controlled by means of an on -site runoff control system.
(i)
4. Flora. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Change in the diversity of species, or numbers
of any species of flora (including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)?
(b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of flora?
(c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area,
or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species?
X
X
X
(d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? x
Explanation:
4a - Some clearing will be required for structures. Most existing trees
will be saved, and placement of some additional trees will result in more
trees on the site than currently exist.
5. Fauna. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers
of any species of fauna (birds, land animals
including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms, insects or microfauna)? x
(b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of fauna? X
(c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an
area, or result in a barrier to the migration
or movement of fauna?
(d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat? x
Explanation:
YES MAYBE NO
6. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise
levels? x
Explanation:
During construction some additional noise will be generated. However,
this will be limited to normal work hour's.
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new
light or glare? x
Explanation:
The project when completed will have some outdoor parking area lighting.
However, source directed lighting will be used so there will not be glare.
8. Land Use. Will the proposal . result in the altera-
tion of the present or planned land use
of an area?
X
Explanation:. '
Presently, the site is undeveloped. jThe pree set ,one is R -1 (single - family;
However, this application is made retroactive-7ND the change of zone from
RMH (multiple residence high density) to R-1.
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources?
(b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural
resource?
Explanation:
10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an
explosion or the release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited
to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radi-
ation) in the event of an accident or
upset conditions?
Explanation:
x
x
x
•
11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location,
distribution, density, or growth rate
of the human population of an area?
YES MAYBE NO
X
Explanation:
New residents in project will increase area population by approximately
134 people.
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing,
or create a demand for additional housing?
Explanation:
13. Transportation /Circulation. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Generation of additional vehicular movement? X
(b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demand for new parking? X
(c) Impact upon existing transportation systems? x
(d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation
or movement of people and /or goods? x
(e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? x
(f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,
bicyclists or pedestrians? x
Explanation:
13a, b - Vehicular traffic may be increased on and around project by the
addition of approximately 80 more vehicles. Demand for new parking will
be satisfied by inclusion of sufficient number of on -site parking spaces.
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon,
or result in a need for new or altered
governmental services in any of the
following areas:
(a) Fire protection? x
(b) Police protection? x
(c) Schools? x
(d) Parks or other recreational facilities? X
(e) Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads? x
-6-
• • YES MAYBE NO
(f) Other governmental services?
Explanation:
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
(b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or
require the development of new sources of
energy?
x
X
x
Explanation:
15b - As with any new residential development, there may be a moderate
need for additional energy for lighting, heating, etc., primarily electrical
energy.
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for
new systems, or alterations to the
following utilities:
(a) Power or natural gas? X
(b) Communications systems? x
(c) Water? X
(d) Sewer or septic tanks? xx
(e) Storm water drainage? x
(f) Solid waste and disposal? X
Explanation:
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in the crea-
tion of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)?
Explanation:
X
• YES MAYBE NO
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruc-
tion of any scenic vista or view open to
the public, or will the proposal result
in the creation of an aesthetically of-
fensive site open to public view?
Explanation:
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact
upon the quality or quantity of exist-
ing recreational opportunities?
Explanation:
20. Archeological /Histroical. Will the proposal result in
an alteration of a signifi-
cant archeological or his-
torical site, structure,
object or building?
Explanation:
CERTIFICATION BY APPLICANT:
•
I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above
information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency
may withdraw any declaration of non - significance that it might issue in
reliance. upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation
or willful lack of full disclosure on my part.
June 23, 1982
Signature and Title ' Date
-8-
;.�.:� _
17 March, 1982
• SLOPE STABILITY STUDIES;.;
0)
z
o dl tiq
�.° 1600•Dexter Avenue N.
.' ' Seattle, Washington 98109 - `' WiU(am ".S:: Tsao
zz w Reference: 54 Unit Condominiums to be located in Tukwila,
o 0 Works Director, Tukwila, WA . 4
Z
- O
• •
McNAMARA ,INVESTMENT COMPANY
z Suite
o w' Subject:}" Response to comments from Phil Fraser, Acting Public
W
o•
FQ- W
(r' 0 0
W - F
Q
Q J
w
0 z w
z z
cc cE
0 0 w
• • •
z
z o
E I
U1 U
U1 w
Z (13
(7 Z
w z
FIETENTION STUDIES
0 z
z o
1
z o
U
a J
w w
Z w
0 a
a cc
0 ]D
0 7
0. w
• SOIL TESTING -LAB & FIELD
The purpose of this report . is to respond to comments and
questions presented by Phil Fraser, Acting Public Works Director
of Tukwila, WA, concerning the McNamara 54 Unit Condominium
project.
The following responses refer to questions A through G
Fraser's letter. A copy of Mr. Fraser's letter is enclosed
end of this letter.
Question A: HEMPHILL has studied the drainage system that was
installed by the State Department of
Transportation during the construction of I -5, and
has determined that the drainage system will
neither affect the site of the proposed McNamara
54 Unit Condominium, nor will construction
activities at the site, or the final completed
project, have any affect on the drainage system.
Question B: The utilities that exist off the property will not
be affected by construction activities at the
site, provided that normal precautions are taken.
Any interaction with adjacent utilities will be
the responsibility of the contractor and the owner
of the utilities. Adjacent utilities could effect
the site if they should malfunction, but those
conditions cannot be anticipated, and would be the
responsibility of others.
The location of the existing manhole and sewer
line in relation to Building 5 will be
investigated by the architect, and proper action
will be taken in the final design phase of the
project.
Question C: The site is presently composed of several-
different types of soils. Each soil type could be
supporting floor slabs and paving, either in an
undisturbed condition, or as a structural fill.
Imported soils might also be required as
structural fill and as backfill.
in Mr.
at the
1
4812 170th PLACE N.E. e REDMOND, WA.. 98052 • (206) 883 3924
Question D:
•any different types of sits can be suitable as
structural fill, provide that the moisture..
content can be controlled to achieve proper:._
compaction, therefore availability of the soils,
weather, and groundwater conditions-can .each
determine the types of soils that will be suitable-
for both compaction and drainage.
It would be difficult for HEMPHILL to specify any.
filter soils, drainage soils, or capillary break
soils that would be suitable for use with each of
the wide range of soils that would be suitable for
use at the site under each of the conditions. Such
a list of specified filter and drainage soils
would still require a person skilled in soil
mechanics to recognize the structural soil.
Some man -made materials are also:available for use
as filters that, under some difficult situations,
can save much construction time.
Interaction between the soil engineer and the
contractor can benefit the contractor by saving
time and making more materials available, thereby
lowering construction costs. The contractor can
request approval of available soils under .
different construction conditions, and can use
construction methods that are more suitable to his
equipment and knowledge with the approval of the
soil engineer. Such flexibility can be of benefit
to the owner, and still assure that the intended
results are achieved.
HEMPHILL has determined that no disturbed soils at
the site are suitable bearing soils. Generally
the description 'disturbed' soils means soils that
have been softened due to the weathering process,
such as freezing and thawing, and wetting and
drying, that have been loosened by root action, by
sliding and sloughing, or by man disturbance.
Disturbed soils are generally inconsistent and are
considered to be low in bearing and high in
compressibility.
The only soils permitted by HEMPHILL for bearing
are the natural, undisturbed soils described as
glacially compacted clays, silts, and sands.
Because of the inconsistency of those soils at the
site, HEMPHILL cannot specify a consistent depth
to the proper bearing soils; also some soils could
be difficult for untrained persons to recognize.
The other soil type that can be a suitable bearing
soil is structural fill. Structural fill can be
composed of a wide range of soils that must be
placed in a controlled condition that is not
HEMPHILL
necessarily consistent with afferent soils.
• A ro erly designed and constructed a all r :the
structural. Structural indicates nowo,.: the
physical parameters of the rockery are
the rockery can be placed in a specified manner'::
within a reasonable range that is exceeded by, the
safety factor.
The same soil parameters
required forethe design
design of a rockery wall, except
of a reinforced concrete retaining
that the rockery is a series of retaining s
each
with overturn and sliding points
intersection of rock.
Enclosed is a computer printout of a rockery
design. The various parameters used in this
program are exactly the same as the parameters
wall, would be k used fetai ing wall he data that is
wall, and like any r
used is only as good as the control of the
construction.
Question F: The rockery filter system is necessary to prevent
the soils behind the rockery from either pushing
or eroding through the void spaces .in the rockery.
rockery
The large crushed rock behind the ue main
of finer
members prevents the next the rock voids,
grained soils from eroding that would
creating void spaces behiround the
su face and create
eventually work to the ground
The number of different grain size on t ee vo dusred
behind a rockery is dependent size of the structural
or the rockery vs the grain
fill or natural soils that must
ofb the next larger
moving into the void spaces can filter material. Filter soils of h sbuyperc also
incorporated e es s even into
w without drainage
drainage.
necessary
Question :
Soil conditions can be highly variable, often
times within short distances, and thereforeSoil
revealed by the subsurface investigation. Soil
properties can also vary greatly
weather conditions. Soils are often affected
different ways by different construction
procedures that are not obvious to the untrained
technician.
3
HEMPHILL
ons
e complexity of soils andOroundwate ncon i iols
are such that a soil report that a
possible conditions would be extremely complex,
and difficult to comprehend, and each range of
condition would not be obvious to an untrained
technician, therefore the section of the soil
report titled, "Recommended Construction
Procedures", ny is to
phases es allow observe
of contstruction
control that are
co
affected by soils and groundwater.
There are numerous slopes at the site, and some
footings will be placed on slopes. The required
depth that a footing would be placed into a slope
to resist the lateral uphill pressures is
dependent upon the height of soils on the uphill
portion' of the footing wall, the type
condition of the backfill soils, the strength of
the soils on the slope, and the steepness of the
slope. Since those conditions can all be variable,
and the combination of the those variable
conditions could become very complex, then the
decision placing
onof the contractor, should or be
anyone not
eci
knowledgeable in soil mechanics.
Some soil information is sometimes required for
design purposes, and estimates of the worst
conditions are presented to the structural
engineer. That information should not be presented
to the contractor to be used at his descretion, or
to be used as an indication of exact conditions to
be expected throughout the site.
Since structural designs are sometimes based on
the estimated worst conditions, footings and
foundation walls can sometimes be raised with the
approval of the soil engineer to the benefit of
the owner.
Dale C. Hemphill, P.E
C
Registered Engineer Nb. 14777
State of Washington
4
HEMPHILL
Comments received from Phil Fraser, Acting Public Works Director, regarding
the soils investigation of 6 February 1982 prepared by Hemphill Consulting
Engineers for the McNamara 54 -unit condominium project:
A) Page 3, Item S(3), Paragraph 4:
The report indicates that extensive excavation occurred on the slopes
during construction of Southcenter; however, no mention is made of
similar excavation impacts as a result of constructing I -5. The
final soils report should evidence coordination with the State
Department of Transportation regarding measures taken to mitigate
excessive earth removal and drainage problems as a result of these
prior slope disturbances.
B) Utility Location /Identification:
Existing utilities adjacent to and traversing the property should be
shown as part of the preliminary soils report so that appropriate
conclusions can be reached as to the relationship of surrounding
soils to the maintenance of existing utilities. Utilities of concern
include sewers, water mains, storm systems and the retaining walls
adjoining Klickitat Drive.
The manhole near test pit 1 described on Page 5, S(6) paragraph 4
is not, and should be shown on the site analysis drawings.
The cautionary note at the top of page 6 is appropriate; however, without
adequate research of the existing sewer lines and its location and pur-
pose it is difficult to determine whether the sewer line can be
relocated as is suggested in the caution note.relative to the location
of the building 5 foundation.
C) Page 7, Item b:
There is an indication that some drainage requirements beneath the
project's paving slabs, retaining walls, and foundation walls could
require soils of specified grain sizes. Rather than provide the design
criteria in this report, it indicates that the requirement should
be determined after the excavations have exposed the natural soils
and water conditions have been determined. It would seem to me that
a report of this nature should provide background data and suggested
design criteria to be applied in the final plan.
0) Page 10, Item E(5A), Part 2:
While the report references foundation placement techniques in
undisturbed soils areas, it should include also a discussion of
appropriate techniques for foundation placement on disturbed soils, since
the initial text of the dc:ument indicates extensive presence of disturbed
soils on this site.
E) Page 11, Item E -6:
This section is entitled "Retaining Walls" and, in brackets, "rockeries."
Rockeries are not retaining walls and have no structural significance;
therefore, the equation of rockeries to retaining walls is rejected.
F) Figure 9:
Per the diagram, Fig. 9, Rockery Filter System, we question whether
French drains behind the rockery should be included in the design, con-
sidering there was mention of a great deal of seepage through the
filters of soil in the area.
G) Page 19, Item E -11:
It appears that there are several instances wherein the report cannot
be used to determine preliminary site design parameters in advance of
beginning actual field work. For example, i'n Item 5 of the "recommened
construction procedures" it seems that a determination of the project's
ability to pick -up subsurface drainage will be finalized in the field
since an adequate investigation of subsurface conditions is not
provided. We know that the State instituted elaborate improvements
to deal with the substantial drainage from the hillsides in this area.
Similar, though smaller -scale problems can reasonably be presumed to
exist on this site and preliminary design alternatives should be
discussed in relation to the scope and nature of anticipated drainage
problems prior to the construction phase.
The preliminary site plan for the project suggests that some portions
of the various condominium buildings will be placed on slopes
exceeding 20 %, yet no where in the preceding text is placement of
foundations relative to slope steepness discussed. Recommendations 1 and
2 suggest that final footing designs should be left to field investi-
gation. While the report discusses standard foundations designed for
placement in standard soil conditions, unusual soils conditions as they
influence stability and configuration of footing structures is not
included. Staff believes that design alternatives based on predictable
estimations of slope and soil instability should be included in the
report.
MC /blk
■
•
•
•
•
•
•
T
ZOW
w U O
W W N
Z a-
ZO.
Z
Z Z:
0 W
0 j
Q Cr
(J) w
Z
w °
• • •
N 0
Z 0 _W
w 4 W
w 0 rd
Z 0 CO
J
a J
WW1 Q
0 Q Z
a Q n
o 3 p-
J
2 W W
• • •
. FOR THE
.McNAMARA INVESTMENT COMPANY
DATE: 6 FEBRUARY, 1982
PROJECT NUMBER 6290
PTI-' SE 2467.
•
1-3 SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION AND,,REPORT •
'• •
• •
. .
1-4 DESCRIPTION'OF,PROjECT • • • .• -• • • • •
• . . . .• - -- •
• -
• • • . •
MPTIONS • : • . •
1-5
1-6 LIMITATIONS.OF,REPORT..
• .7 4.2.
-
'7.-14-Aki • •
• - ';-117Y-
• •
• •
•
• •
SUBSURFACE:4. INVEST.
QATIO.
PAGE NO.
1
1
1
1
1
2
S-1 GEOLOGIC RESEARCH....... • •.• • .• 3
S-2 SURFACE.DESCRIPTION. •• • • . • • 3
S-3 EXPOSED CONDITIONSON ADJACENT PROPERTIES. . • • 3
„,,,S-4.,-;SUBSURFAM'STUDIES
• • • • A
- • • r'
..'•
1. TEST PITJJOCATIONS
A. TEST,PIT,LOGS •
r:,• •
•..
S-4B. FIELD_TESTS
• •
• .. •
S-5 GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS
S-6 SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE STUDIES
ENGINEERING STUDIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
E-1 EARTHWORK OOOOO ••-••• OOOOOOO ••••
E-1A REMOVAL OF UNDESIREABLE SOILS
E-1B -STRUCTURAL -FILL -•
1. DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURAL FILL .
• • •
a. • 'STRUCTURAL FILL TO SUPPORT STRUC-
TURES AND PAVING
4
4
4
4
5
6
6
6
6
6
HEMPHILL
{
_ � ..
STRUCTURAL FILL FOR DONAGE .. . 7
PREPARATION OF SOIL TO. BE USED.FOR FILL 7
.COMPACTION OF STRUCTURAL FILL'.:. 7
_ . .- -
.ALLOWABLE.BEARING SOILS AND CAPACITIES . . . . 8
E- 2A ..,ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITIES IN UNDISTURBED
:SOILS. .. . • - • • • • -.. • • • • • • '. • • 8
ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITIES IN STRUCTURAL
•
FILL . . .. • • . • .• • • 8
-2C • . EARTHQUAKE • AND WIND, LOADS. ...;. ,. E ::.. 8
,FOOTINGS + .• ..•3'• �._, • `'`,'
8
MINIMUM, ALLOWABLE DEPTH. OF FOOTINGS. • • 8
▪ FOR FROST . PROTECT ION ; .: . • • • 8
2. FOR BEARING CAPACITY . . . . • •
• 8
9
9
9
3. PLACEMENT FOR STABILITY. • • .,. • • •
E -3B MINIMUM ALLOWABLE FOOTINGS SIZES .
E -3C .PREPARATION OF SUBGRADE FOR FOOTINGS
1. PREPARATION OF SUBGRADE IN..UNDISTURBED
SOILS ::
2. PREPARATION OF SUBGRADE IN STRUCTURAL
• • •
• • .
E -4 SETTLEMENT
FILL -. . . . • . ^. ..;; • .9
E -5 FOUNDATION WALLS
10
10
E -5A LATERAL DRIVING PRESSURES AGAINST FOUNDA-
TION WALLS 10
1. FOUNDATION WALLS SUPPORTING STRUCTURAL
FILL 10
2. FOUNDATION WALLS SUPPORTING UNDISTURBED
SOILS 10
3. DRAINAGE BEHIND FOUNDATION WALLS . . .11
E -5B LATERAL RESISTING PRESSURES AGAINST FOUN-
DATION WALLS 11
SASIVE‘`.. S OIL
—RESISTANCE
T
FICTIONAL RESISTANCE TO SLIDING
afi
a, `r ri: 1`tl tta � •,+, � ,+_..�� -,
>RETAININGW LS (ROCKEIES);.
E; 6A SLIDING BETWEEN .'ROCKSz. :,•
B .OVERTURNING-BETWEEN..ROCKS.
-6C - SLIDINGBETWEEN ROCK
.. • • • • • .•
AND SOIL. • • '`. • •
_fPASSIVE •RESISTANCE TO SLIDING..
SON REISTANCE TO.,SLIDING• Lam,
.. 1.`p. - -. _ �t' !1� .Jai '�__i . +:i'tr•n
D •
-6 E> •.PAC
=6F FILTER SYSTEM. ;.
• •. •
11
11
12
12
12
E -6G ROCKERY DESIGN OPTIONS
E -7 DRAINAGE ..::
!. -d.. •
E -7A SITE DRAINAGE
E -7B DRAINAGE FOR FOUNDATION WALLS
E -7C DRAINAGE -
E -8 FLOOR SLABS
E -9 PAVINGz
• • t, •,_,.,• •,..• • • ,• • Ste• "•• • • .• • • • • • • ' •
n �aeklwdSar�it�LL ••. wk
E -9A FULL -DEPTH ASPHALT PAVING. • • • • • . .
13
14
14
15
15
,1.5
17
E -9A1 'FULL -DEPTH ASPHALT PAVING FOR
—TRUCK PARKING 17
E -9A2 FULL —DEPTH ASPHALT PAVING FOR CAR
PARKING 117
E -9B PAVINGFOR- PARKING AREAS WITH MORE THAN 2
FEET OF STRUCTURALFILL • 17
E -9B1 ...PAVING FOR .TRUCK PARKING-ON STRUC-
- - TURAL . FILL 18
E -9B2 PAVING FOR CAR PARKING ON STRUC-
TURAL FILL 18
E -9C ALTERNATE ASPHALT PAVING • • 18
>: •,::
FOR HEAVING, TRUCKS. • • • • 18
OR PASSENGER ,CARS... • • •
18
E -9D ,.ROADWAY PAVING . .. . ... . . 18
E -10 RECOMMENDED 'DESIGN PROCEDURES = 19
•
. E -11 RECOMMENDED 'CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES 19
FIGURE
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10A
10B
10C
• "11
TITLE OR DESCRIPTION
LOCATION'OF SITE
PLAN OF PROPOSED SITE
PLAN OF EXISTING SITE
TEST PIT LOCATIONS
TEST PIT LOGS
BEARING AND SETTLEMENT
FOR FOOTINGS.
OPPOSITE
PAGE NO.
1
2
3
4
5
8
OVER- EXCAVATIONS..FOR FOOTINGS 9
LATERAL PRESSURES ON FOUNDATION WALLS 10
ROCKERY FILTER SYSTEM 12
ROCKERY DESIGN PARAMETERS 13
ROCKERY THICKNESS VS SAFETY FACTORS 13
ROCKERY THICKNESS. VS TILT -BACK 14
PROTECTION OF FLOOR SLAB FROM CAPILLARY
BREAK 15
•
• '
FIGURE 1 LOCATION. OF SITE
\ \\
\ \ ■
\ \ \
\ N \
A,;.-0:11M.P.t- •
•
• .; „
• •
!
•
NN X
% N N
■ \ N N
krisry-i
--tz‘
\• \\•\,
•
•
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE ; of ..REPORT,
The purpose of this report is to present the results of the
subsurface investigation, and to present recommendations
for designing the foundations, floor slabs, retaining
walls. drainage, and paving for the proposed 54 unit
condominiums for McNAMARA INVESTMENT COMPANY, to be located
as shown in Figure 1.
I -2., AUTHORIZATION for... INVESTIGATION and REPORT
On 14 January, 1981, Tony Mottar, of PITTSBURGH TESTINU
LABORATORY .gave a verbal authorization to Dale Hemphill of
HEMPHILL CONSULTING ENGINEERS to conduct a preliminary soil
investigation at the site of the proposed 54 unit
condominiums.
On 18 January. 1982, during a meeting at the site. Tony
Mottar authorized HEMPHILL to prepare a soil report.
I -3 SCOPE of INVESTIGATION and REPORT
The request by the client for HEMPHILL to act as soils
engineer obligates HEMPHILL to investigate and make
recommendations concerning all phases of design and
construction that would be affected by soils and
foundations. Included in the studies are groundwater" and
drainage, bearing capacities and settlements for footings
in both undisturbed soils and in structural fill, sub -
grade preparation for floor slabs and paving, lateral.: soil
pressures for retaining walls and foundation walls, and
drainage for groundwater.
I -4 DESCRIPTION of PROJECT.
The description of the existing site and proposed project
are approximately as shown in 18 drawings by William S.
Tsao and Co., identified as their Job No. 8024, and dated
approximately 6 April, 1981.
The project will include 5 buildings with 2 and 4 story
condominiums, each located approximately as shown in Figure
2.
I -5 ASSUMPTIONS
The analysis, conclusions, and recommendations contained in
this report are based on the following assumptions:
EMPHIL'L
o.
ore
or
•
w
•
�#� • oil
,/
or•- (2)
•
• •
1:-6
•
That site conditions will not change due to natural
eauSisconstruction operations.at or adjacent to the
• --
B. That the subsurface investigation revealed conditions
that are representative of subsurface conditions
throughout the site.
C. That the assumed soil properties are correct, and are
representative of all the soils at the, site, and that
those properties will be verified by HEMPHILL after the
excavations have exposed the true nature of all the
bearing
••• _
LIMITATIONS of REPORT
A. This report was •prepared for the exclusive use of the
owner, the architect, and the engineer to design the
project. and to prepare construction specifications.
B. The recommendations presented in this report are based
on the requirement that the presumptive soil properties,
the assumed soil conditions, and the drainage
requirements will be verified by HEMPHILL after the soils
have been exposed during the excavating process.
llIiUIIUIII!!Ii!ItF
".111• Warm ;Ar
on MUMMER
.
.iii
2
MN
HEMPHILL
OZT
2
,iii OZ T .
,gay .- ?fir 0 0; •
e��� --
1 f,,i
.
1
1
‘c,070111•1
OZT
SZT
OCT
SCI
Ott
1 •
•
•
I
•
•'
•
•
••• • ' I
`� / /
1 /
1.4;,Da.• . • ,S
%es,
O. fl , 'T .
/ .4
6;%
•
• •
•
•
/
,• • •
• •
•
I 1 I • •' • • / I
I I •
ss
• es. • • 0 I •
• ▪ I .' .'
• - . �n /
I
I i
I •
I
-� •• I • 1 •
- ,. , i
• /'� - ' ' o I -. ! / •
D IG d
.. ..• .+
•
£T
•
1 '
.
1 _.'
0'0
i 1
I •
/ • eat'
•
.....n.• •nu•.0 n.,r4
SST
09T
S9T
53rd AVENUE SOUTH
•
/ . I
■
•
91 t
I / .. 0 1 ' •
' l • . ,
. 1
165 , ,
'
.
/ I • • 1 •
• o 160'•/% /' . ■
'155, 0 0 t . • -6
150x• �,
•
144. `` -f.:0 „.
•
1 ”
I
' Q
r®• ' • - . ,,,. eto...)
1 .......
/ \ 03 0:4
14 =t:{ '1'
• 101"/ , / ,
ici O
•
®,
.'. -•.. ••
•
1 %
1
1
'1
•
•
•
•
1
•
•
•
\
•
•
140
135
130
125
120
120
SUBSURFA STUDIES'
S -4A.;: TESTPITS_
1.. TEST PIT LOCATIONS
10 test pits were located approximately as shown
in Figure 4. The locations were chosen to
minimize disturbance of the proposed building
areas, but in a manner that would determine the
consistency of the soils at the site.
Since the test pits and exposed eroded soils
revealed similar conditions, and since this
report is based on the condition that the soil
conditions will be verified after the excavations
are completed, then HEMPHILL assumed that further
testing within the building areas was not
necessary.
v.
2. TEST. PIT LOGS
Logs of the test pits are shown in Figure 5. The
logs show visual descriptions of the soils,
depths of changes in the soil types, groundwater
observations, and any other pertinent
observations or field tests.
S -4B FIELD TESTS
HEMPHILL conducted field penetration tests and vane
shear tests in the test pits to determine the
approximate strength characteristics of the soils.
S -5 GROUNDWATER OBSERVATIONS
The test pits revealed that groundwater is moving in the
upper sandy soils on top of the undisturbed, unweathered
clays. Some seepage surfaces at lower portions of the
site.
The source of the groundwater is probably storm -- water
infiltration from properties to the west-and-will require
an interception system. Additional studies will be required
during construction to determine the quantity and source of
groundwater. and to determine the required drainage
materials and filters.
4
HEMPHILL
.
FIGURE 5 TEST-:,I0 LOGS
DEPTH
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
DEPTH
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
TP 1
SEWER
BACKFILL
HARD
GRAY SILT
BOTTOM ..
TP 6
WEATHERED
HARD
GRAY a BROWN
SILT
TP 2 TP
WEATHERED
DENSE
BROWN
FINE SAND
BROWN
VERY DENSE
VERY FINE
SAND LAYERS
HD. GY. SILT
TP 7
FILL
MEDIUM DENSE
TO
DENSE
BROWN a GRAY
COARSE SILT
AND
V.F. SAND
3
WEATHERED
DENSE
BROWN
V. FINE
TO
SAND
HARD
GRAY
SILT
DENSE
GRAY
SAND
TP 8
•
TP 4 TP
WEATHERED
HARD
YELLOW
a
GRAY
SILT. SAND.
GRAVEL.
a COBBLES
TP 9
FILL
HARD •
BROWN a GRAY
SILT •
HARD
GRAY
SILT
_ _ ___ OP
5
MEDIUM DENSE
FINE TO MED.
SAND
HARD a DENSE
GRAY
SILT a SAND'
HARD
GRAY
SILT
TP 10
WEATHERED
DENSE
BROWN a GRAY
SILT i SAND
DEPTH
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
DEPTH
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
6 SUMMARY.• SUBSURFACE STUDIES
•
Visual observations and test pits conducted at the site
reavealed fairly consistent conditions that were similar to
exposures on adjacent properties.
The glacially compacted clays and silts are very strong,
and capable of very high bearing capacities. The sands
overlying the clays and silts could be combinations of the
original glacially deposited and compacted esperence sands,
and sands that have been eroded from uphill seepage zones.
The - fill> soils. encountered in the upper portion of the site
are•:of poor. quality 'and cannot be used .'for• support of
foundations or paving. .The fill soils-can be used for
buffer zones or other aesthetic purposes.
Test Pit 1 was located near a manhole not shown on the
drawings. The manhole appeared to be connected to another
manhole nearly directly south and on the adjacent property.
The sewer backfill was encountered to a depth of 10 feet.
Test Pit 11 revealed backfill, but was not completed to
avoid damaging the sewer pipe
Because of —the Thigh <;shear strength `.of :`.the, undisturbed
soils, deep seated-'slides would be.unlikely. Any
instabililty,wouhd -be the result of sloughing of-the upper
few feet of weathered soils, or movementwithin any fill
deposits which generally exist along the upper portion of
the site, or would result from heavy .water 'erosion.
Removal of the fill soils, and properly designed drainage,
should help to stabilize the upper portion of the site,
and will decrease future erosion and instability in the
lower portions of the site.
5
H`EMPHILL
• '• , - ••:**, . ,
•
•
•
• •- : • • -
- •
• -; •
ENGINEERING STUDIES and R•OMMENDATIONS
Because of the possibility that the present proposed
location of Building 5 is over a deep sewer line and
questionable backfill, HEMPHILL recommends that the
sewer line be located exactly. and that appropriate
action be taken. If the sewer line is located as
suspected by HEMPHILL, and if Building 5 is not moved,
then special footings must be designed to span the
excavation, or the backfill must be removed and
replaced with structural fill.
E -1 EARTHWORK
E -1A REMOVAL OF UNDESIREABLE SOILS
HEMPHILL.. ,re.commends -that, the 3 .to' . 5 feet :: of sof t
Organic . soi1rsat the= proposed 'iodation of the upper
level condominiums in the southwest corner of the
site be removed, and, if necessary,' replaced with
structural fill.
Those soils are composed of poor quality fill. and
should either be removed from the site, or used as
buffer zones, or other aesthetic purposes.
E -1B STRUCTURAL FILL
1. DESCRIPTION of STRUCTURAL FILL
a. STRUCTURAL FILL TO SUPPORT STRUCTURES AND
PAVING
Structural fill is defined as any soil that
can be properly compacted to have the
necessary . physical properties to support
foundations, to transmit the loads to the
softer soils below, to have minimum
compressibility, and to resist attracting
capillary water to the underside of the
floors and footings.
Any of the natural inorganic sandy soils from
the site can be used for structural fill,
provided the soil is properly compacted.
The ability of the existing sandy soils to be
compacted would depend on the water content
of the soils, as described below.
HEMPHILL
STRUCTURAL FILL FOR ARINAGE
Some drainage requirements, such as beneath
slabs, paving, and behind retaining walls and
foundation walls, could require soils of
specified grain sizes. Those requirements
should be determined after the excavations
have exposed the natural soils, and the water
conditions have been determined.
2. PREPARATION OF SOIL TO BE USED FOR FILL
Prior to placement and compaction, all soils to
be used for filling should be either wetted or
dried to the optimum water content to help to
achieve the required compaction.
To determine the required compaction and the
optimum water content, each soil used for filling
should be tested to determine the maximum density
that can be achieved in a Modified. Proctor Test
(ASTM D 1557, Method D).
3. COMPACTION of STRUCTURAL FILL
Structural fill at this site should be compacted
to a density equal to or greater than 95% of the
maximum density achieved in the Modified Proctor
test (ASTM D- 1557).
The procedures to achieve the proper density of a
compacted fill are dependent on the size and
number of passes, of the compacting equipment,
the water content of the soils, the thickness of
the layer to be compacted, and some soil
properties.
If it is determined that the laboratory and field
testing required to control the compaction of the
soils is not warranted at this site, then
HEMPHILL recommends that the soils be placed in
layers not thicker than 8 inches, and the soils
be compacted with several passes of a heavy
vibrating type compactor. The soils should not be
too wet or too dry during the compaction.
Generally. poorly compacted soils are the result
of poor workmanship, or soils with a high degree
of silt being too wet, or coarse grained soils
being too dry.
7
HEMPHILL
rn
--�
rn
r
0
33VA ns QN11OJ9
MINIMUM FOOTING SIZE (FEET)
V1 4:71
3S6 000 ./ • • •
SSA
....f J
.1_
•
-2 ALLOWAB BEARING SOILS AND CAPACITIES
NOTE: HEMPHILL should identify tlt design bearing soils,
and should verify their presumed bearing capacities
at the time that the excavations for the footings
are. conducted.
E -2A ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITIES in UNDISTURBED SOILS
The-:minimum allowable bearing capacity . of natural
undisturbed sandy soils between 2 and"5 "feet below
the existing ground surface is 2000 psf.
The bearing capacity of sand increases with depth
below the final proposed ground surface, as shown in
Figure 6.
Figure 6 can be used to design footings for bearing
capacity in accordance with the acceptable
settlement.
E -2B ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITIES in STRUCTURAL FILL
Structural fill that is properly placed and
compacted to a minimum density of 95% of the
Modified Proctor maximum density will have a minimum
allowable bearing capacity of-2000 psf. Higher
bearing capacities in fill can be achieved if
approved by HEMPHILL, or- in accordance with Figure
6.
E -2C EARTHQUAKE AND WIND LOADS
The allowable bearing capacities can be increased by
1/3 for temporary loadings from earthquake and wind
forces.
E -3 FOOTINGS
E -3A MINIMUM ALLOWABLE DEPTH of FOOTINGS
1. FOR FROST PROTECTION
Footings to be adjacent to unheated areas should
be placed a minimum of 18 inches below the final
ground surface to protect against uplift due to
frost expansion, or loss of bearing . capacity due
to softening from thawing conditions.
2. FOR BEARING CAPACITY
Footings should be placed on the undisturbed
soils which exist approximately 2 to 5 feet below
the existing ground surface.
HEMPHILL
FIGURE 7 PROCEINE FOR OVER-EXCAVATING AAPREPARING
FINAL GRADE
BASE COURSE FOR FOOTINGS
•
•
PLACEMENT FOR STABILITY
All footings located adjacent to slopes should be
placed at ,a depth so that the slope will not kick
out from the footing loads. The required depth
of footings placed on slopes should be verified
by HEMPHILL at the time of construction.
.E -3B MINIMUM ALLOWABLE FOOTING SIZES
The minimum allowable. footings:sizes` should.be. 18
inches :f or' °a three, story building, and 15 inches for
a 2.;_ st -ory building, in accordance with the
requirements of the UBC:
E -3C PREPARATION of
SUBGR ADEfor FOOTINGS
!
All organic soils and.grass or shrubs should be
,..-,,removed from beneath .,any... footing ,locations.
If soft soils are encountered at the proposed
elevation of any footing, then the excavation should
continue to competent soils approved by HEMPHILL.
1. PREPARATION OF SUBGRADE IN UNDISTURBED SOILS
The subgrade for footings in undisturbed soils
should be prepared by hand cleaning to remove
any soils loosened by the excavating process.
Fill soils should not be placed into
irregularities to smooth the bottom of the
excavation.
2. PREPARATION OF SUBGRADE IN STRUCTURAL FILL
If any footing is over- excavated" to remove
unsuitable soils from beneath the footing, the
over - excavation can be backfilled with
structural fill compacted to 95% of the Modified
Proctor maximum density.
The sides of the excavation should extend beyond
the edges of the footing by a distance equal to
1 foot for each 2 feet of depth of the over -
excavation, as shown in Figure 7. That allows
the stresses beneath the footing to dissipate
through compacted soils, rather than through the
weaker existing soils.
9
HEMPHILL
FIGURE 8 LATE.. PRESSURES AND BEND I NG: M•NTS.;
ON. FOUNDATION. WALLS
' D E S C R I P T I O N of P R O J E C T
PiOJEcT NAME s MCNAMARA CONDOMINIUMS
PNOJEcT NUMBER s 6290
LOCATION OF SECTION s FOUNDATION WALLS
D E S C R I P T I O N ot S L I D I N G W E D G E
A. SHAPE OP WEDGE
SLOvE.1
ANGLE of SLOPE - 90 DEG
HEIGHT of SLOPE - 14 FT
SLOPE 2
ANGLE of SLOPE 0 DEG
HEIGHT ot SLOPE 0 PT
B. NO SURCHARGE LuADS on WEDGE
C. SOIL PARAMETERS
UNIT WEIGHT
COHESION
INTERNAL FRICTION
120 PCP
A 9 PSI'
25 DEG
HEIGHT TOTAL INCxEMENTAL MOMENT
OF LATERAL LATERAL OF
SLOPE 1 FORCE FORCE OVERTURN .
(ft) (lbs) (LOS) (ft lbs)
0.00 0
1.00 16 16 5
2..0 64 10 41
3.00 144 80 139
4.00 256 112 334
5..0 100 111 657
6.00 576 176 1,140
7.00 785 208 1,816
8.00 1,025 240 2,715
9.01 1,297 272 3,810
10..0 1,601 394 5,314
11..0 1,9.17 336 7,078
12.00 2,306 368 9,194
13.00 2,706 400 11,694
14.00 3,138 432 11,611
SETTLEMENT,; "`
Settleme t of footings placed on disturbed soils should
be minimal, and will be dependent on workmanship during the
preparation of subgrades and placement of concrete for
footings. -
Settlement of footings placed in structural fill will vary
in accordance with the type and thickness of soil placed
beneath the footing. Any differential settlement should be
1 inch or less if placed in accordance with the
recommendations in this report, and using soils approved
by HEMPHILL.
.E -5 FOUNDATION WALLS
E -5A LATERAL DRIVING PRESSURES AGAINST FOUNDATION WALLS
The lateral pressures of soils against the exterior
foundation walls will vary with the soil type and
condition, the degree of compaction, and the
rigidity of the wall.
1. FOUNDATION WALLS SUPPORTING STRUCTURAL FILL
HEMPHILL recommends that the soils be well
compacted by hand within a 45 degree angle from
the base of the wall.
Figure 8 shows the anticipated lateral pressures
and bending moments that can be developed for
each foot of depth for a 14 ,foot- high . backf illed
foundation wall. The lateral pressures are for
the worst permissible backfill soils that
presently exist at the site, and assume no
surcharge loads, and no hydrostatic pressures.
The backfill soils, drainage materials and
filters, and compaction procedures should be
approved by HEMPHILL.
2. FOUNDATION WALLS SUPPORTING UNDISTURBED SOILS
When foundations walls are adjacent to
excavations into the existing undisturbed soils,
lateral pressures could be minimal. If the
soils are fine grained and hold water by
capillary tension, lateral pressures can be as
low as 10 pcf equivalent fluid pressure. Such
conditions cannot* be anticipated prior to
excavating for each foundation wall, and should
be approved by HEMPHILL at that time.
Any additional surcharge loads should be added
to the "at -rest" pressures.
10
HEMPHILL
DRAINAGE BEHIND FOUNDAT# WALLS
Any drainage materials placed behind foundation
walls should be properly filtered to prevent any
fine grained soils from eroding into the
drainage system. The required filter soils
should be determined by HEMPHILL after the
undisturbed soils have been exposed, or the
backfill soils have been chosen.
E -5B LATERAL RESISTING PRESSURES AGAINST FOUNDATION WALLS
1. PASSIVE SOIL RESISTANCE to SLIDING
The lateral passive resistance to kick -out
exterted by the soils adjacent to the sides of
the footings and foundaton walls will vary
according to the condition of the undisturbed
soils and workmanship. The- lateral-'pressures
for the worst conditions will -be approximately
equal to an equivalent fluid pressure of 300 pcf.
The lateral movement required to mobilize the
full value of passive resistance could be
damaging to the structure.
2. FRICTIONAL RESISTANCE to SLIDING
Frictional forces resisting sliding under the
footings will be approximately 0.3° x - -the vertical
loads.
E -6 RETAINING WALLS (ROCKERIES)
The three ways that a rockery can fail are by sliding one
rock over the top of the other, by overturning the entire
rockery above any section, or by sliding the entire rockery
on the soils below.
E -6A SLIDING BETWEEN ROCKS
The lateral pressures behind the rockery are resisted
by the friction forces between the rocks. The
friction forces are determined by the weight of rock
above. The greater the weight of rock above an
intersection between 2 rocks, the greater the
friction force that will resist sliding.
The resistance to sliding can be increased
dramatically by tipping the rockery back so that the
upper rock must slide uphill on the lower rock.
HEMPHILL
FIGURE 9 ROCKERY FILTER SYSTEM
- .40
;4)94
AO .4410
STRUCTURAL F ILL �10��'y'' •
oe;�1� -1��I _ .7:41016101104
. _ h (10A-11revt.--
. _ — . .UNDISTURBED SOILS
MIN. THICKNESS 6"
•
The values of friction are fairly consistent, and
generally are not dependent on the area of contact
between the two rocks, unless the area of contact
becomes so small that the total weight of rock above
causes the point of contact to pulverize, which then
lowers the frictional resistance to sliding.
Each rock should be placed so that there is a large
area of contact between rocks.
E -6B OVERTURNING BETWEEN ROCKS
Overturning can occur at any intersection between two
rocks. The upper portion of the rockery will rotate
at the outermost point of contact. If the outermost
point of contact is at the outer edge of the upper
rock, then the rocks above have the greatest'
resistance to overturning. If the outermost point of
contact is somewhere inside the outer edge of the
upper rock, then the resistance to overturning will
be decreased in direct proportion to the distance
from the backside of the rockery to the point of
contact related to the distance from the backside of
the rockery to the front point of the rockery.
When the minimum allowable thickness of rockery at a
section is required to resist sliding, then the pivot
point of the rockery can be behind the outer edge
and still be within the required safety factor. If
the required minimum thickness of rockery is to
prevent overturning, then a rock should be placed
that is in contact at or near the outer edge, or a
thicker rock should be placed.
E -6C SLIDING BETWEEN ROCK and SOIL:
1. PASSIVE RESISTANCE to SLIDING
The soils that will resist the movement of the
rockery wall are composed of silty sands. Those
types of soils can become stronger with depth if
the silt content is small. A conservative value
of 300. pcf equivalent fluid pressure was used to
calculate the resistance to sliding at the base
of the rockery resulting from the weight of the
soil in front of the rockery.
2. FRICTION RESISTANCE to SLIDING
Also resisting the sliding of the rockery will be
he friction forces between the bottom rock and
the natural undisturbed soils, which would be
approximately 0.4 x the value of the
perpendicular, or normal, load.
12
HEMPHILL
FIGURE 10A FIGURE 10B
D E S C R I P T I ON of S L I D I N G W E D G E REQUIRED WALL THICKNESS for VARYING SAFETY FACTORS (SLOPE of WALL - 25 DEGREES)
A. SHAPE OF WEDGE
SAFETY FACTOR 1.8 1.5 2.8 2.5 3.8 3.5
SLOPE 1
WALL
ANGLE - 65 DEG HEIGHT OVTn SLID OVTN SLID OVTN SLID OVTN SLID OVTN SLID OVTN SLID
SLOPEHEIGHT - 18 DE -_-- ---_ °_- ---- ---- ---- ---- - --- -___ ____ ____ ____
SLOPE 2 18.8 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
ANGLE - 6 DEG 9.8 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 5
SLOPE HEIGHT - 8 FT
8.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
8. NO SURCHARGE LOADS ON WEDGE
7.8 1. 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
C. SOIL PARAMETERS
6.8 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.7
UNIT WEIGHT - 120 PCP
COHESION - 8 PSF 5.8 1.) 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.8 1.5 2.1
INTERNAL FRICTION - 25 DEG
4.8 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.5 2.1 1.5 2.5
D E S C R I P T I O N of ROCKERY
3.0 1.s 1.) 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.5 2.0 1.5 2.S 1.6 2.9
A. ROCKERY DESIGN PARAMETERS
2.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.8 1.5 2.3 1.6 2.0 1.9 3.3
VERTICAL HEIGHT of ROCKERY - 10 FT
MINIMUM THICKNESS AT TOP - 1.5 IT 1.8 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.8 1.5 2.6 1.9 3.2 2.2 3.8
SLOPE ALONG BACK of ROCKERY - 25 DEG
DENSITY of ROCK - 165 PCP • 1.s 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.5 2.2 1.8 2.9 2.2 3.5 2.6 4.2
% MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE VOIDS - 28
FRICTION FACTOR for ROCK on ROCK - 0.55 -1.8 1.5 1.5 1.S 1.8 1.6 2.5 2.1 3.2 2.5 3.9 2.9 4.6
FR ACTION FACTOR for ROCK on SOIL - 0.48
FRICTION FACTOR for SOIL on ROCK - 8.38
PASSIVE SOIL RESISTANCE - 388 PCP DEP 1.0 1.8 1.8 1.0 1.8 1.8
DESIGN SAFETY FACTOR - 2.00
SAFETY FACTOR MINIMAL INSPECTION - 2.58 DEPF .4 .3 •.- -.3 -.6 -.9
SAFETY FACTOR CONSTANT CONTROL - 1.88
HR 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 12
B. CALCULATION VARIABLES
HDPT 5.1 5.4 6.0 6.6 7.3
INCKEMENTAL HEIGHT of ROCKERY - 1.0 FT
VOLR 18 28 24 28 33 37
MAXIMUM FAILURE PLANE ANGLE Is CALCULATED
for EACH INCREMENT of HEIGHT of ROCKERY BPRSH 3885 469 2539 3567 3984 4164
BPRST 6559 3712 191 -1122 -1720 -2025
NOTE: 25 DEGREES IS THE RECOMMENDED ANGLE OF TILT
E -6D Q•ITY AND SHAPE OF ROCKS •
NO GOOD!
NO
E -6E
GOOD!
GOOD!
E -6F
E -6G
To prevent deterioration from weathering, only top
quality rocks should be used. The rocks should be
hard, sound, and durable, and should be free from
seams, cracks, and other defects tending to destroy
resistance to weathering. The rocks should have a
density of at least 165 pcf.
PLACEMENT OF ROCKS
Rocks should have fairly flat tops and bottoms to
allow for adequate contact to resist overturning, and
to allow for a relatively tight wall.
Rocks should be placed so that the vertical seam
between 2 adjacent rocks is not above or below the
vertical seam for the upper and lower layers. In
other words, as much as possible, each rock should
overlap at least two different rocks below.
Rock shapes should be chosen and placed so that no
more than 20% of the wall face is voids. A lower
percentage of solid rock reduces the required weight
of rock needed to resist overturning and sliding.
FILTER SYSTEM
A properly constructed filter system behind the
retaining wall is imperative to prevent the loss of
structual fill behind the rockery resulting from
seepage erosion from infiltrated .rainfall or runoff.
As shown in Figure 9 the first layer of the filter
system behind the rockery should be composed of
crushed rock or other granular material that is well
graded from the approximate size of the void spaces
of the rockery to a coarse sand.
Any further filter requirements will depend on the
type of structural fill, and should be determined by
HEMPHILL.
ROCKERY DESIGN OPTIONS
The design of a rockery is based on numerous
variables, such as the lateral pressures induced by
the structural fill and surcharge loads behind the
rockery, the soils resisting sliding in front of the
rockery. the allowable percentage of void spaces, the
density of the rock, and the friction factors for
both rock and soil. Those values have already been
established for design purposes.
13
HEMPHILL
FIGURE 10c
REQUIRED WALL THICKNESS for VARYING ANGLES of TILT
(assuming constant location for top of wall)
SLOPE of WALL
DEGREES 8 5 18 15 29 25 39 35 48 45
WALL
HEIGHT OV•rr SLID OVTN SLID OVTN SLID OVTN SLID OVTN SLID OVTN SLID OVTN SLID OVTN SLID OVTN SLID OVTN SLID
18.8 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
9.1 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
8.1 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
7.8 1.3 2.6 1.5 2.8 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 *1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
6.8 1.5 3.5 1.5 2.7 1.5 2.1 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
5.8 1.o 4.4 1.6 3.4 1.5 2.6 1.5 2.8 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
4.8 2.2 5.3 1.9 4.1 1.6 3.1 1.5 2.4 1.5 1.8 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
3.8 2.b 6.2 2.3 4.7 1.9 3.6 1.6 2.n 1.5 2.1 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
2.8 3.0 7.1 2.6 5.4 2.3 4.2 1.9 3.2 1.5 2.4 1.5 1.8 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 11.3 1.5 1.5
1.8 3.4 7.9 3.8 6.1 2.6 4.7 2.2 3.6 1.7 2.7 1.5 2.8 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
3.8 8.8 3.4 6.8 2.9 5.2 2.5 4.8 1.9 3.8 1.5 2.2 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
-1.8 4.2 9.7 3.8 7.4 3.3 5.7 2.8 4.4 2.2 3.4 1.6 2.5 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
-2.8 4.7 18.6 4.1 8.1 3.3 5.7 2.b 4.4 2.2 3.4 1.6 2.5 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
-3.8 5.1 11.5 4.1 8.1 3.3 5.7 2.8 4.4 2.2 3.4 1.6 2.5 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
DEP 3.0 2.8 1.9 1.0 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8
Uri. 3.8 1.3 -.1 -.1 .- .1 .1 -.1
HR 13.0 12.0 11.2 11.4 11.7 12.1 12.7 13.4 14.4 15.6
HDPT 10.0 7.6 6.1 5.8 5.7 6.9 6.6 7.7 9.2 11.8
VOLR 84 58 48 34 28 24 21 28 22 23
BPRSB 4243 3989 3711 3620 3318 2539 618 26 1334 2688
BPRST -2382 -2867 -1781 -1584 -948 191 2650 3513 2145 676
NOTE: 25 DEGREES IS THE RECOMMENDED ANGLE OF TILT
0 r values that have an fect on the required
th ckness of the rockery arWthe angle of slope of
the rockery. and the factor of safety.
The-safety factor is an indication of the amount of
over - design to prevent a failure. Generally. the
more that is known about the materials and the better
their placement is controlled, the lower the safety
factor.
HEMPHILL has determined that if a high level of
inspection is conducted to control the placement of
the structural fill and the rockery, then a safety
factor of 1.8 could be employed. If minimal inspec-
tion is conducted, then a safety factor of 2.5 should
be employed.
HEMPHILL recommends a safety factor of 2 be employed,
and that some inspection of the rockeries be
conducted.
Once the degree of inspection to be conducted has
been determined by the owner based on the relative
costs, then the thickness requirements for the
rockery at each depth is shown in Figures 10 a, b,
and c for any slope of wall chosen by the owner..
Each design of wall has the same safety factors
against overturning and sliding.
E -7 DRAINAGE
E -7A SITE DRAINAGE
HEMPHILL recommends that an interceptor drain be
placed near the west property line on the top of the
site to intercept any water seeping onto the site
from adjacent properties. The excavating process
for the site might expose the surface that supports
the groundwater and other drainage methods might be
desireable.
If any interceptor ditch is placed, the size of pipe
should be determined by the quantity of water either
observed or anticipated.
It is important that the drainage ditch be
backfilled with a proper gradation of soils that
will permit the expected quantity of water to flow
to the drainage pipe, but will prevent the natural
soils from seeping into the drainage system. The
filter requirements should be determined by HEMPHILL
after the soils have been exposed.
14
HEMPHILL
•
FIGURE 11 PROTECTION OF FLOOR SLAB FROM CAPILLARY WATER
CONCRETE
FLOOR SLAB
PLASTIC
CAPILLARY
GRAVEL
FILTER-____
SAND
SILT
or
CLAY
▪ •
A. • • •t
•
•
�: .:0 �! rift ;�i iiiii *`i i i ...04.04 0. :6•••••: j:1 ••∎ �•�ii
E -7B •INAGE for FOUNDATION WALIL
Any drainage requirements for foundation walls
should be determined after the soils have been
exposed during the excavating.
The required height of drainage material and the
composition of the material, should be determined by
HEMPHILL after the soil and water conditions have
been exposed.
E -7C DRAINAGE for PAVING
Any drainage soils placed beneath the paving should
be properly filtered to prevent the existing fine
grain soils from seeping into the drainage system.
Any coarse soils placed beneath paving as a subgrade
should be underlain by, a proper filter soil to
prevent the coarse soils from punching into the
existing fine grain soils.
E -8 FLOOR SLABS
Floor slabs can!be placed directly on any granular
material, provided that the percentage of fines is low.
Silty soils are capable of raising water from the
groundwater table by capillary action.
As shown in Figure 11, any floor slabs placed directly on
silt soils where dampness could be undesireable, should be
underlain by a 4 inch thick capillary break composed of
gravel approximately 1/4 inch in size.
The gravel should be underlain by a 2 inch layer of fine
to coarse sand to prevent the gravel from punching into
the finer underlying soils.
The gravel should then be overlain by a plastic material
to prevent the wet concrete from seeping into the gravel
and clogging the pore spaces. The plastic material will
also act as a vapor barrier against the forming of
condensation on the underside of the concrete due to
differential temperatures.
E -9 PAVING
For minor parking lots and access roads in the Seattle
area, the usually accepted asphalt surface, base course,
and subbase have limitations that are generally tolerated
based on economic requirements.
15
HEMPHILL
A 'per vent' asphalt surface would require design and
constrilkion procedures similar the requirements for
highway paving. Those procedures Muire that the existing
site soils be investigated and tested for the soil
modulous, which determines the amount of deflection that
occurs for given loadings. If a structural fill is placed
to achieve the required grade, then the soil modulous of
that soil must be determined by either laboratory or field
testing of the structural fill in its specified compacted
condition. A base course and asphalt topping are then
designed to distribute the anticipated concentrated wheel
loads to the underlying soils in a manner to limit the
amount of deflection to the specified amount and to prevent
shear failures within the underlying soils. A critical
factor to be considered in the design of the base course is
the depth of freezing to be anticipated.
Generally the cost of the engineering, the testing, and the
materials required for a permanent asphalt surface is
considered to be excessive. Owners and architects usually
consider that repair and replacement is more feasible than
the costs for the overdesign required to cover all possible
modes of failure. The generally accepted practice is to
place a standard thickness of asphalt and base course over
the underlying soils that are compacted to 90 or 95% of the
Modified Proctor maximum density.
Such asphalt surfaces sometimes crack and rut because of
shear failures in the subgrade soils. after they have
softened from freezing and thawing conditions, or from
unusually heavy concentrated loads. The failures will occur
because the asphalt and base course cannot dissipate the
heavy loads to the allowable strength of the underlying
soils.
THE OWNER SHOULD BE MADE AWARE OF THE LIMITATIONS OF THE
ASPHALT PARKING SURFACE, AND SHOULD LIMIT THE ALLOWABLE
VEHICLE LOADS. AND SHOULD LOWER THE ALLOWABLE LOADS DURING
PERIODS OF THAWING.
If drainage is not installed, or if water is to be
acceptable in the upper load supporting soils, then free
draining soils must be placed as structural fill. If the
soils are too fine grained, then water trapped in the pore
spaces cannot escape as the soils are compressed under a
wheel load, and the load will be temporarily supported by
the pore water. Since the water has no strength, a
displacement failure will occur where the load punches into
the soil. and adjacent soils heave around the load.
16
HEMPHILL
•
•
-
E -9A •L -DEPTH ASPHALT PAVING •
Because a large portion of the site is covered with
silty soils, HEMPHILL recommends that a full depth
asphalt pavement be placed directly on any areas
with less than 2 feet of structural fill over the
existing site soils.
The advantages of full depth asphalt without a
gravel base course are:
a. Water will not collect under the pavement.
b. The pavement will be strong enough to
distribute traffic loads where any softening
of the soils occurs from thawing conditions.
c. There is no gravel to punch into the
underlying fine grained, softer soils.
d. The thicker asphalt can bridge larger soft
spots.
e. The thicker asphalt can withstand greater
differential settlement.
Prior to placement of any full -depth asphalt, the
areas to be paved should be proof - rolled to tighten
up any loose soils.
E -9A1 FULL -DEPTH ASPHALT PAVING FOR TRUCK PARKING
Where heavy trucks will be parked during
loading and unloading procedures, the
pavement should include a 1.5 inch asphalt
concrete surface, and a 5.5 inch asphalt
concrete base, for a total thickness of 7
inches.
E -9A2 FULL -DEPTH ASPHALT PAVING FOR CAR PARKING
In areas where only passenger cars will be
parked, a pavement with a total thickness
of 4 inches will be satisfactory, including
a 1 inch asphalt concrete surface and a 3
inch asphalt concrete base.
E -9B PAVING FOR PARKING AREAS WITH MORE THAN 2 FEET OF
STRUCTURAL FILL
If more than 2 feet of select structural fill is
placed directly over the existing site soils, an
alternate asphalt paving could be: (A filter soil
might be required to separate the crushed rock from
the structural fill)
17
HEMPHILL
• .,
E -9B1 PAVING for TRUCK PARA on STRUCTURAL FILL
In areas where heavy trucks will be parked, a
4.5 inch thick asphalt surface should be
placed over a 4 inch crushed rock base.
E -9B2 PAVING FOR CAR PARKING on STRUCTURAL FILL
In areas where passenger cars will be parked,
a 3 inch thick asphalt surface should be
placed over a minimum 3 inch thick crushed
rock base.
.E -9C ALTERNATE ASPHALT PAVING
An alternate asphalt paving for parking areas over
natural soils includes a crushed rock base overlain
by a thinner asphalt surface. A filter soil might
be required to separate the crushed rock from the
fine - grained natural soils.
E -9C1 FOR HEAVY TRUCKS
In areas where heavy trucks will be parked, a
4.5 inch thick asphalt surface should be
placed over a 6 inch crushed rock base.
E -9C1 FOR PASSENGER CARS
In areas where passenger cars will be parked,
a 3 inch thick asphalt surface should be
placed over a minimum 4 inch thick crushed
rock base.
E -9D .ROADWAY PAVING
Any roadway paving placed on the original
undisturbed site soils can be designed based on a
CBR value of 40 or a subgrade modulous of 300 pci.
Roadway paving placed on structural fill compacted
to 95% of the Modified Proctor maximum densiy can be
designed based on a CBR value of 30 or a subgrade
modulous of 250 pci.
18
HEMPHILL
E -10 •RECOMMENDED DESIGN PROCEDURES
HEMPHILL should review those portions of the final plans
and specifications which pertain to earthwork and
foundations to determine that they . are consistent with our
recommendations, that our recommendations have been
correctly interpreted, and that we have not misinterpreted
preliminary construction plans, or .omitted some
recommendations due to design changes, or because of our
incomplete knowledge of the project because of the
preliminary nature of the project at the time of our
involvement.
E -11 RECOMMENDED CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES
1. HEMPHILL should inspect the soils that are exposed
during excavating to verify that the the allowable
bearing soils have been encountered and that there are
no unexpected conditions that would require changes in
the foundation design.
2. HEMPHILL should inspect any footing excavations
located on or adjacent to slopes to determine that the
footings will be placed at the required depth into the
undisturbed soils to achieve stability.
3. HEMPHILL should inspect, and if necessary conduct
tests, to determine that any fill is composed of the
proper soils, and that the required density has been
achieved by the compaction process.
4. HEMPHILL should inspect the excavations to verify any
suspected groundwater conditions, or to determine any
unexpected conditions that will require design changes.
5. HEMPHILL should determine that any drain pipes are
placed at the proper locations, and within the
proper soils, and that any backfill has the required
Permeability, and that properly designed and installed
filter systems will protect against subsurface soil
erosion and clogging of drainage.
19
. HEMPHILL
REGISTERED ENGINEER NO. 14777
STATE of. WASHINGTON
HEMPHILL