Correspondence 7 I 1999 - 7_
R O B E R T
• F OSSATTI A RVIC ESSIONAI. SUIT 203
SEATTLE. E. (206) 256 -1803
SERVICES 203
SUITE 203 TELEPHON FAX:(206)256 -0197
CORPORATION SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98121 E -MAIL: fossattl @nwlink.com
A S S O C I A T E S \S O
CONSULTING ENGINEERS (
6 '
December 20, 1999 1 L
City of Tigard Building Department
13125 SW Hall Blvd
Tigard, OR 97223
Attention: Hap Watkins
Reference: New Magnolia Hi -Fi Store
Tigard, Oregon
Dear Mr. Watkins:
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that Robert Fossatti Associates is no longer associated
in any way with the above referenced Magnolia Hi -Fi store. The structural engineer of record is
now Mr. Marshall R. Pihl of Olympic Associates. Their address and phone numbers are as
follows:
Olympic Associates
701 Dexter Avenue N #301
Seattle, WA 98109
• Phone: (206) 285 -4300
Fax: (206) 285 -4371
Very truly yours,
• ROBE' - • SS • TTI •_SSOCIATES, INC., P.S.
AOP,
Robert J. • • ssatti
RJF /jw
cc: Marshall R. Pihl, Olympic Associates
Sent By: OLYMPIC ASSOCIATES; 206 285 4371; . Dec-17-99 11:10; Page 2/2
OLYMPIC MEMORANDUM
i A _. ASSOCIATES Seattle lam: ( 285-4300
— / COMPANY - Fax: (206) 285-4371
I t! I r I r 701 Dexter Ave. N., 1301 E -Mail: info ( oac -mti.com
tssociires segue. 90109
coarArt
•
DATE: August 31, 1999
JOB NO: 98214 •
TO: Dave Fletcher
FROM: Marshall Pihi
RE: Magnolia Tigard
Dave,
This memo is to clarify issues realted to the Magnolia Tigard project.
• The required typical reinforcing of the masonry walls at the Magnolia Tigard project: The vertical
reinforcing is as follows: For walls up to 15' -0" high,-provide #4 32" o.c.; for walls between 15' -0" to
25' -0" tall, provide #4 @ 16" o.c.. Horizontal reinforcing should be (2) /5 in bond beams at the top,
bottom and at a maximum spacing of 4' -0" o.c. between.
• The 4x4 column at the north corner of the plan that supports the (3) 2x10 header over the window should
be attached to the sill wall with a CB44 column base and to the (3) 2x10 header with an EPC46 (shimmed).
• The (3)2x10 header should be hung off the end of the masonry wall at it's south end with a type W hanger.
• Please note that detail callout 9/S5 at the GL5.125 x 18 beam at the North corner of the building should
rear to "9/S5 sim".
Please call if you have any questions: •
•
For Your information: 0 Via Mail: ❑ Via Fax: 0
For Your Use: Rand Delivered: 0 Fed1Ex: 0
For Your Approval: 0 Other Courier: fl
• For Your Signature and Return:
'Fax#: 283 - 6112
Total Pages, including this page: 1
Copy to: OLYMPIC ASSOCIATES COMPANY
By: (
• Marshall Pihi
•
e:1my dncumaits ■tamplateslmewosVo rp Im construction mano.doc
•
Sergt By: OLYMPIC ASSOCIATES; 208 285 4371; Dec -17 -99 11:10; Page 1/2
r n � � � OLYMPIC vSM ITAL
♦ A ASSOCIATES Seattle Phone: (206) 285 -4300
Pas COMPANY Far. (206) 285 -4371
O T I A I T I E 701 nester Ave. N., 9301 • E-Mail: trbates.olympicaoac- intl.com
ASSOCIATES sue, wA 95109
EOMIPIII
DATE: December 17, 1999
JOB NO: 99216
TO: , City of Tigard
Building Department
ATTN: Ms. Bap Watkins
RE: Magnolia Retail Store
Mr. Watkins,
This memo is to address the issue of the rebar spacing at the masonry walls.
Our design requires the masonry walls up to 15' in height be vertically reinforced with #4 bars @ 32" o.c. and
masonry walls between 15' and 25' in height be vertically reinforced with #4 bars Cgs 16 "o.c. Please find
attached a copy of our memo where the reinforcement was clarified.
It is our derstanding that the vertical dowels around the entire perimeter of the concrete skirt walls were spaced
at 32" o.c. This spacing occurred at both the tinder 15' wall segments and the wall segments greater than 15'
in height. The question, as I understand it, is whether or not it is acceptable to have that spacing at the taller
walls where the reinforcing is correctly spaced at 16" o.c. in the masonry above.
The vertical reinforcing spacing in the walls was based on out of plane bending. While there is a bending .
moment across the horizontal joint between the concrete skirt wall and the masonry wall above, the 32" spacing
of the dowels out of the concrete does not adversely affect the structural integrity or safety of the masonry
walls. 0 ,V PR
Please call if you have any questions. ` b pi Ne
cc
GuN
fG Ne 4 vi
-0-HALL ft-
Expires: tz-dk,
For Your Information: ❑ Via Mall: ❑ Via Fax: (g) -
Fur Your Use: ❑ Hand Delivered: ❑ FedEx: ❑
For Your Approval: ❑ Other Courier: ❑
For Your Signature and Return: ❑
Original in Mall. YES 0 Faza: 503- 624-3681
NO 0 Total Pages, induding this page: 2
Copy to: Dave Fletcher - 283 -6112 OLYMPIC ASSOCIATES COMP Y
By: �L�� � / ,
Marshall . ', P
•
\1pylamuatpublmag<mlta hi•fl (dgatd Inrcdnr) 99216 - ala,rrespoudence\mep to tigard I21799.duc
•
amp
June 25, 1999 CITY OF TIGARD
OREGON
Carlson Testing
P.O. Box 23814
Tigard, OR 97281
PERMIT NO: SIT 1999 -00021
OWNER: P & F Properties
PROJECT ADDRESS: 11680 SW Pacific Hwy.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Magnolia Hi -Fi
TYPES OF SPECIAL INSPECTION: Fills special inspections.
Dear Mr. Leach:
The owner has notified us that he /she will retain your services to perform Special Inspections in accordance
with the provisions of the State Building Code, permit documents, and special inspection requirements.
The owner or the owners agent must also confirm with you that they have authorized you to do the special
inspection,work.
As the regulatory agency, the City requires that you do the following:
1. Submit copies of all inspection reports promptly to the Building Division, architect, engineer,
and the contractor.
2. Maintain one copy of each field report at the job site.
3. Submit a final report at the completion of each category of work that you inspect. (See
U.B.C. 3318 for soils special inspection final report requirements).
If you fail to comply with the above requirements, there may be cause for the City to revoke your authority
as special inspector for this job.
Should you have any questions, please call the Building Division at (503) 639 -4171.
Sincerely,
! im Funk
Building Division
Enclosure
I:bis%template% notify.dot
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639 -4171 TDD (503) 684 -2772
( 1 Construction Management • Project Management
701 Deite� Avenue North #301, Seattle, Washington 98109 -0891
♦
A Tel: (206) 285 -0300 n Fax: (206) 285.4371
E-mail. olympicC�?oaritl
I OLYMPIC
t ASSOCIATES
COMPANY
June 23, 1999
RE: Magnolia Hi- Fi
RECR iED
11680 S.W. Pacific Hwy JUN 2 41999
Site Plan Review Response COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PC #: 5 -49c
BUP #: 1999 -00021
Attn: Jim Funk
Plans Examiner
The plans have been changed in response to your correction letter, dated May 27, 1999, in the
following way:
Corrections to Sheet A -1 numbers:
/1. 1997 OSSC with 1998 Oregon Amendments — added
/ 18. Reference to required fire alarm removed
/ 36. Reference to UPC Section 409.6 removed
/37. Reference to UBC Section 710.2 removed
ite:
1. A geo- technical report that provides liquefaction potential and a soils strength loss report are
e nclosed.
c2 Structural calculations for the retaining wall exceeding 4 feet in height are enclosed. The
retaining wall is indicated sheet 1 of 4 — civil drawings.
3. completed Soils Special Inspection Form is enclosed
e detail numbers on sheet S2 through S6 have been corrected.
dew e. . 6 C - ( t 1
second exit out of the basement was added — please see pages A1.1, A2.1, A2.2, A3.1, A4.2,
S2 & S3 for plans and details.
We have enclosed three copies of revised submittal documents in addition to all of the forms
indicated above.
Sincerely,
OLYMP ASSOCIATES COMPANY
arry K. o -
Vice Presi eriit
•
Sent By: OLYMPIC ASSOCIATES; 206 285 4371; Jun -10 -99 10:24; Page 1/5
•
OLYMPIC TRANSMITTAL RECORD
ASSOCIATES Phone: (206) 285 -4300
COMPANY - Fax: (206) 285 -4371
701 Dexter Ave. N #301
Seattle WA 98109
Date: June 10, 1999
Job No.: 99079
Attn: Bob Poskins
To: City of Tigard
Subject: Magnolia Tigard
PC #: 549c
•
SIT #: 1999 -00021
Copies Description
(1) Letter from OSBEEIS granting permit to practice in Oregon.
() For Information () Original to be MAILED
() For Use (X) Via FAX
() For Approval FAX# S 6 3 694 7297
( ) No Exception Taken _Total pages, including this page
() Make Corrections Noted
() Revise and Resubmit
Copy to:
OLYMPIC ASSOCIATES CO ANY
-,Q 4
by ___•• Marshall Pilot
•
Sent By OLYMPIC ASSOCIATES; 206 285 4371; Jun -10 -99 10:24; Page 2/5
( 4;4., x � ,= ' State Board of Examiners for
1 °` Engineering & -L-and Surveying
� 4":"!-'t . egon '�. -r 72$ Hawthorne Ave. NE ` Salem, OR 97301
(503) 362 -2666
Fax (503) 362 -5454
E -mail: osbeels @osbeels.org
June 4, 1999
MARSHALL ROBERT PIHL
19114 14TH CT. NW -
SHORELINE, WA 98177
Re: Temporary Permit
•
In compliance with your request, the Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land
Surveying is issuing you a temporary permit to be effective from 06/03/1999. Your application for
registration in Oregon, based on your registration as a professional engineer especially, qualified in
Structural Engineering, is being processed.
The use of this temporary permit will be in conjunction with the use of your current states' stamp or
seal. Upon issuance of your permanent registration number, this temporary permit to practice is
invalid. Until that time, you shall place the following statement below the seal followed by your
signature.
A permit to practice in Oregon has been granted to MARSHALL ROBERT PIHL valid only until
official action is taken on application for Oregon registration dated 05/10/1999.
Sincerely, /`
&. 'f
• Edward B. Graham, P.L.S.
Executive Secretary
•
•
OREGON STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS FOR ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING
•
Sent By: OLYMPIC ASSOCIATES; 206 285 4371; Jun -10 -99 10:24; Page 3/5
, OLYMPIC TRANSMITTAL RECORD
ASSOCIATES Phone: (206) 285 -4300
4 ComPANY
Fax: - (206) 285�4371
`.. 701 Dexter Ave. N #301
Seattle WA 98109
Date: 6 - 10
Job No.: 99079
Attn: Bob Poskin
To: City of Tigard
13125 S.W. Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
Subject: Magnolia Hi -Fi
•
Copies Description
1 Liquefaction Report from Redmond & Associates
This was faxed to Jim Punk earlier this week, but we wanted to make sure that you also had a copy of
it. Our structural engineer, Marshall Pihl also faxed you a copy of his temporary permit. If you need
anything else to continue on with your review, please give me a call and I will take care of what it is
that you need.
Thanks,
Jean Bates
•
() For Information () Original to be MAILED
( x) For Use (x) Via FAX
() For Approval FAX 503-684-7297
() No Exception Taken 3 Total pages, including this page
() Make Corrections Noted
() Revise and Resubmit
Copy to:
OLYMPIC ASSOCIATES COMPANY
by Jean Bates
•
Sent By'. OLYMPIC ASSOCIATES; 206 285 4371; Jun -10 -99 10:25; Page 4/5
•
. REDMOND & ASSOCIATES
•
•
Project No. 319.007.G
Page No. 1
June 2, 1999
•
Mr. Chris G. Budeski
Westech Engineering, Inc. .
3841 Fairview Industrial Dr., SE
Suite 100
•
• Salem, Oregon 97302
Dear Mr. Budeski: •
•
Re: Supplemental Geotechnical Consultation Services, Evaluation of Liquefaction
Potential, Proposed Magnolia Hi -Fi Store Site, 11680 SW Pacific Hwy,
Tigard, Oregon
•
In accordance with the request of the•City of Tigard Building Official, we are providing you with
•
the following information with regard to out recent evaluation of the potential for liquefaction at
the above subject project site. As you are aware, we previously performed a Geotechnical
Investigation at the site, the results of which were presented in our formal report to you dated
February 16, 1999. •
•
Specifically,. we previously performed a total of four (4) exploratory test borings at the site. The
test borings were advanced to depths ranging. from about 11.5 to 21.5 feet beneath existing site
grades utilizing truck-mounted, solid stem, hollow- flight, auger drilling equipment. The test boring
• generally encountered an upper unit of medium dense, silty fine sand soil to depths of about 9 to _
19 feet beneath existing site grades. These sandy soils were inturn underlain by loose silty
sand to the maximum depth explored: Additionally. ground water was also encountered at the
site at depths ranging from about 6.0 to 17.0 feet.
As such, based on our recent field exploration work at the site as well as our past experience in
the area of the subject site, we are of the opinion that the potential for liquefaction at the site
within the loose saturated silty fine sand soils located below a depth of about 9 feet is considered
to be low for the earthquake events typically associated with the Tigard area.
•
•
•
•
P.O. Box 301545 • Portland, OR 97294 • Phone: 760 -1060 • Fax: 760 -1372
•
d
Page 515
Sent By: OLYMPIC ASSOCIATES; 206 285 4371; Jun -10 -99 10:25;
•
Project No. 319.007_G
Page No. 2
•
We trust that the above information is suitable to your present needs. Should you have questions
regarding the above information or if you require any additional assistance during the balance of
the design phase for this project, please do not hesitate to call.
incerely, . PRO
G
f D
v 9 IV
Daniel M. Redm P.E. - 0
President/Principal Engineer �►
OREGON
O 9
,
� 41 v is a O�
AF ,
L M. REV
•
•
REDMOND & ASSOCIATES
REDMOND & ASSOCIATES
Project No. 319.007.G
Page No. 1
June 2, 1999
Mr. Chris G. Budeski
Westech Engineering, Inc.
3841 Fairview Industrial Dr., SE
Suite 100
Salem, Oregon 97302
Dear Mr. Budeski:
Re: Supplemental Geotechnical Consultation Services, Evaluation of Liquefaction
Potential, Proposed Magnolia Hi -Fi Store Site, 11680 SW Pacific Hwy,
Tigard, Oregon
In accordance with the request of the City of Tigard Building Official, we are providing you with
the following information with regard to our recent evaluation of the potential for liquefaction at
the above subject project site. As you are aware, we previously performed a Geotechnical
Investigation at the site, the results of which were presented in our formal report to you dated
February 16, 1999. •
Specifically, we previously performed a total of four (4) exploratory test borings at the site. The
test borings were advanced to depths ranging from about 11.5 to 21.5 feet beneath existing site
grades utilizing truck- mounted, solid -stem, hollow - flight, auger drilling equipment. The test boring
generally encountered an upper unit of medium dense, silty fine sand soil to depths of about 9 to
19 feet beneath existing site grades. These sandy soils were intum underlain by loose silty
sand to the maximum depth explored. Additionally, ground water was also encountered at the
site at depths ranging from about 6.0 to 17.0 feet.
As such, based on our recent field exploration work at the site as well as our past experience in
the area of the subject site, we are of the opinion that the potential for liquefaction at the site
within the loose saturated silty fine sand soils located below a depth of about 9 feet is considered
to be low for the earthquake events typically associated with the Tigard area.
P.O. Box 301545 • Portland, OR 97294 • Phone: 760 -1060 • Fax: 760 -1372
Project No. 319.007.G
• Page No. 2
We trust that the above information is suitable to your present needs. Should you have questions
regarding the above information or if you require any additional assistance during the balance of
the design phase for this project, please do not hesitate to call.
incerely,
a • ��O PROF
�•�' I� , �J�� G
w 09 4s9 y,
Daniel M. Redmond, P.E. / -
President/Principal Engineer � o p ,
OREGON
9 a 4, G /y 15 AO O H O
'7 °- M. RE '
r2_7=5 t
•
•
REDMOND & ASSOCIATES
44
May 21, 1999
CITY OF TIGA
•
OREGON
David Fletcher
TM Construction •
PO Box 20820
Seattle, WA 98102
RE: Plans Check Number: 5-49C •
This letter is to confirm receipt of your building plans which have been routed to the plans
examiner.
As a reminder, the associated land use case(s) is /are: SDR99 -00006
Please be you are responsible for satisfying the conditions of the land use case(s)
and must submit plans directly to the appropriate staff person(s) indicated on your final
order.
Your building plans are not routed to the planning or engineering departments; you must
satisfy the land use permit conditions independent of the building permit plans review
process.
After the building plans review process has been completed, your building permit will
not be issued without approval from the engineering and planning departments.
If you have any questions regarding this notice, please feel free to telephone me and . I will
be happy to explain further.
- 1 J t'U► � '/f'4(!Zuo , --
Bonnie Mulheam
• Development Services Technician
•
cc: Building file
cc: Planning Department
cc: Engineering Department
IMSTSWPLUC.DOT
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639 -4171 TDD (503) 684 -2772
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON --� ti1►
TO: Mark Roberts
•
FROM: Robert Poskin, C.B.O. Senior Plans Examiner
Community Development — Building Division
DATE: April 16, 1999
SUBJECT: Magnolia Hi -Fi Video — Comments
Accessibility
The accessible route from and to the public way must comply with OSSC, ADAAG Figure 14.
Fire Code
• The parking lot entrance from Pacific Highway does not meet the radius requirement for fire
truck access.
• Provide two (2) hydrants within 250 feet of all portion of the proposed construction. The
hydrants must be on the same side of the street as the construction. TVFD ordinance.
Drainage
• Provide hydrodynamic calculations by a Oregon Licensed Engineer for the sizing of the storm
pipe system which exceeds the allowable in OPSC, Table 11 -2.
Asbestos removal
• Provide DEQ approval for potential asbestos removal
Seismic Requirements
• A seismic induced liquefaction and soil instability analysis by a licensed Oregon Geological
Engineer will be required at Site Permit application.
SITE PLAN REVIEW Aro
COMMENTS CRY OF TIGARD
Community (Development
Shaping A (Better Community
Date: (((/
Staff Person Commenting: a
..
Department: `) (l∎fi C\L
Phone Number /Extension: ` 4 3t3
Project Name: 4 c Lii 4 &k. --Ft
Site Permit No.: tp/t:crre gAi!
Land Use Case File NMI:. E �( — O� Z (t.t: -nhs ;s k{ow < <s � N P
THE PROPOSED PLANS SUBMITTED FOR A SITE PERMIT HAVE BEEN REVIEWED BY
. OUR DEPARTMENT AND WE HAVE THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS:
❑ Plans are approved. All land use conditions related to this department have been
satisfactorily met.
Plans are generally consistent with the land use approval, but there are still land use
conditions that must be met prior to release of the site and /or building permit,
or prior to a final building inspection.
Specifically,
i
— ► — .� f . 1 TS u.x itt L • '
i .� `'1 � t
:�•\ Zoo, _. • :_ r . �— is t i — ..,�
1 � 1.,:► '
6 /
❑ Plans are NOT consistent with the land use approval and must be revised.
Specifically,
❑ Revised plans are approved.
NOTE: IF THE PERMIT APPLICANT HAS ANY QUESTIONS WITH REGARD TO THE COMMENTS ABOVE,
THEY MUST CONTACT THE STAFF PERSON SPECIFIED AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE.
i:\brianr\masters\siteplan.frm
SITE PLAN REVIEW
COMMENTS CITY OF TIOARD
Community bevelopment
Shaping A Better
Community
Date: (0(Zg (
Stall Person Commenting: M / (Z /14//4C,2_
Department ?iau.
Phone Number /Extension: k 3qs
Project Name: 144 extio uA
Site Permit No
Land Use Case File Nolsl.
THE PROPOSED:<PLANS SUBMITTED FOR A SITE PERMIT HAVE BEEN REVIEWED BY
OUR :DEPARTMENT AND WE HAVE THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS:
❑ Plans are approved. All land use conditions related to this department have been
satisfactorily met.
❑ Plans are generally consistent with the land use approval, but there are still land use
conditions that must be met prior to release of the site and /or building permit,
or prior to a final building inspection.
Specifically,
1/,11 S 6/76 /N Lt ✓f2Zr Tint IA 41401 1
❑ Plans are NOT consistent with the land use approval and must be revised.
Specifically,
❑ Revised plans are approved.
KM: IF THE PERMIT APPLICANT HAS ANY QUESTIONS WITH REGARD TO THE COMMENTS ABOVE,
THEY MUST CONTACT THE STAFF PERSON SPECIFIED AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE
i:\brianr\rnasterslsiteplan.frm
SITE PLAN REVIEW
COMMENTS
cm of noaao
Community Development
Shaping A Better
Community
Date: CQ Z 11
Staff Person Commenting:A
Department
Phone Number /Extension: g 1 e)
Project Name: 1/4 N P,
Site Permit No - on `k — cy-c Z I
Land Use Case File Nofs]: 51) `kckc _ oL f:D co
THE PROPOSED PLANS SUBMITTED FOR A SITE PERMIT HAVE BEEN REVIEWED BY
OUR DEPARTMENT AND WE HAVE THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS:
❑ Plans are approved. All land use conditions related to this department have been
satisfactorily met.
Er Plans are generally consistent with the land use approval, but there are still land use
conditions that must be met prior to release of the site and/or building permit,
or prior to a final building inspection.
Sp cifically,
R ev-:t cel,/ I I
vJ � o.ckdc Z�4�s �L - Th�._+�tn s AH4,
❑ Plans are NOT consistent with the land use approval and must be revised.
Specifically,
❑ Revised plans are approved.
NOTE: IF THE PERMIT APPLICANT HAS ANY QUESTIONS WITH REGARD TO THE COMMENTS ABOVE,
THEY MUST CONTACT THE STAFF PERSON SPECIFIED AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE •
i:\brianr\masters'siteplan.frm
Sent By:. OLYMPIC ASSOCIATES; 206 285 4371; May -20 -99 11:42; Page 3
Str1999 erz.)
G ?5
REDMOND & ASSOCIATES
n
Project No. 319.007.G
Page No. 1
February 16, 1999
Mr. Chris Budeski
Westech Engineering, Inc.
3841 Fairview Industrial Drive, SE
• Suite 100
Salem, Oregon 97302
Dear Mr. Budeski: •
Re: Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Magnolia Hi-Pi Store Site, 11680 SW Pacific
Highway, Tigard (Washington County), Oregon
•
INTRODUCTION
In accordance with the request of Mr. Chris Budeski of Westech Engineering, Inc., we have
11. completed our Geotechnical Investigation at the above subject proposed Magnolia Hi -Fi Store
site. The scope of our services for this project was detailed in our formal proposal to Mr. Budeski
which was dated December 16, 1998. Verbal authorization of our services was provided by Mr.
Budeski on February 4, 1999.
The proposed new store site, a rectangular shaped property consisting of approximately 0.81
acres, Is located to the south of SW Pacific Highway and east of SW Dartmouth Street in the city
of Tigard (Washington County), Oregon. •
PROJECT DESCRiP 1ON
A We understand that present plans are to develop the site by constructing a new Magnolia Hi-Fi
store. The new building will reportedly be a one and/or two -story, wood- or steel - framed structure
with a concrete slab-on-grade floor. Support for the new building is anticipated to include both
conventional shallow strip (continuous) footings as well as individual column (spread) footings.
Additionally, due to the existing site grades and sloping nature of the site, we understand that a
portion of the new building will include a partial and/or below grade retaining wall. Structural
loading information, although presently not available, is expected to be fairly typical and light for
this type of commercial construction. Other associated site improvements are expected to •
include concrete and/or asphaltic concrete pavements for automobile parking and drive areas as
well as underground utility services and landscaping.
2 .
P.O. Box 301545 • Portland, OR 97294 • Phone: 760 -1060 • Fax: 760 -1372
t,.
Sent By:- OLYMPIC ASSOCIATES; 206 285 4371; May -20 -99 11:43; Page 8
Project No. 319.007.G
Page No. 4
The primary feature(s) of concern at the site is the presence of the existing fill materials and/or
existing site improvements. Although the existing fill materials have been present at the site for
some time, the overall composition of the existing fill materials and the manner in which they
= may perform following the redevelopment of the site is somewhat uncertain. In this regard, the
existing fill materials may have been placed and compacted sufficiently for support of the
existing pavements and /or other surface improvements but may not be adequately compacted
for the proposed new building loads. As such, we are of the opinion that all existing fill materials
and /or site improvements be removed from the area(s) proposed for the new Magnolia Hi-Fi
store and /or building down to firm native subgrade soils. However, depending on the risk which
may be considered acceptable at the site and for the protect, consideration with regard to leaving
the existing fill materials inpiace beneath the proposed new pavement areas may be also be a
factor in the planning for the project. At a minimum, we recommend that the surface of the
existing fill materials be recompacted in all proposed new pavement areas.
The following sections of this report present our recommendations for site preparation and
grading as well as building foundation and retaining well design and construction for the
proposed commercial project. However, due to the presence of the existing fill materials and /or
• other site improvements at the site as well as the overall sensitivity of the subsurface soils
across the site, we strongly recommend that our office be consulted as the planning for the
project proceeds so that any changes and/or modifications to this report can be made as
necessary. Additionally, on -site inspection and monitoring of the site grading and foundation
preparation work for the project should also be performed by the Geotechnical Engineer.
SITE PREPARATION
In general, we recommend that all planned structural improvement areas for the new commercial
building and/or pavement areas be stripped of all existing vegetation, topsoil materials and any
other deleterious materials as well as cleared of all existing structures and associated surface
improvements present at the time of construction. In areas outside of the existing fill materials,
we envision that about 6 to 12 inches of vegetation and/or topsoil stripping may be required.
Holes resulting from the removal of any buried obstructions, such as foundation remnants,
should be backfilled 'and compacted with structural fill materials. Areas resulting in deeper
stripping end removals, such as the existing fill areas, should be evaluated at the time of
construction by the Geotechnical Engineer. The stripped and deared materials should be
properly disposed of as they are generally not considered suitable for use/reuse as structural fill
Following the stripping and clearing operations, and prior to the placement of any required
structural improvements, the exposed subgrade soils within the planned commercial building
and/or pavement areas should be inspected by the Geotechnical Engineer and possibly proof -
rolled with a half - loaded dump truck. Areas found to be soft or otherwise unsuitable for support of
7 structural loads or improvements should be scarified and recompacted or overexcavated and
replaced With structural fill. During wet or inclement weather conditions, proof rolling as
recommended above will not be appropriate.
In general, we do not recommend that site grading and earthwork construction be performed
during wet or inclement weather conditions due to the moisture sensitivity of the near surface
fine - grained silt soils across the site. However, should wet weather grading and construction be
planned or required, the use of a granular working surface of at least 12 inches as well as ,
possibly a geotex11e fabric such as Mirafi 600nx may be needed to protect the sensitive
subgrade soils from disturbance due to repetitive wheel loading.
•
REDMOND & ASSOCIATES
•
Sent By:.OLYMPIC ASSOCIATES; 206 285 4371; May -20 -99 11:44; Page 9
•
Project No. 319.007.G
Page No. 5
All required structural till materials placed within the commercial building and /or pavement
(structural) areas should be moistened or dried as necessary to near (within 3 percent) optimum
moisture conditions and compacted by mechanical means to a minimum of 92 percent of the
L ; maximum dry density as determined by the ASTM D -1557 (AASHTO T -180) test procedures. Fill
materials should be placed in lifts (layers) such that when compacted do not exceed about 8
inches.
FOUNDATION SUPPORT
Based on the results of our investigation, it is our opinion that the proposed commercial
structure may be supported directly on the native subgrade soils and /or a properly compacted
structural fill material with conventional continuous and individual spread footings. However, as
previously noted, the existing till soil materials may not be suitably compacted to a sufficient
degree for direct support of foundation and/or floor slab loads without the risk for some future
consolidation or settlement. In this regard, we are of the opinion that complete removal of the
existing fill materials from beneath the planned new commercial building followed by the
•
placement of a structural fill material and/or founding the footing elements below the existing fill
materials on the underlying native subgrade soils would eliminate all associated future risks with
regard to excessive consolidation or settlement.
As such, were the new commercial building foundations are constructed on approved native
subgrade soils or properly placed and compacted structural fill materials, an allowable contact
bearing pressure of about 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) Is recommended for design. This
allowable contact bearing pressure is intended for dead loads and sustained live loads and may
_ be Increased by one -third for the total of all loads Including short-term wind or seismic loads.
In general, continuous (strip) footings should have a minimum width of at least 16 inches and be
embedded at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent finish grade (includes frost protection).
Individual column footings (if required) should be embedded at least 16 inches below grade and
have a minimum width of about 24 inches.
Total and differential settlements of foundations constructed as recommended above and
supported directly by approved native subgrade soils or structural fill materials are expected to
be well within tolerable limits for this type of commercial structure and should generally be less
than about 1-inch and 1/2- inch, respectively.
Allowable lateral frictional resistanoe•between the base of the footings and a silt or granular
subgrade soil can be expressed as the applied vertical load multiplied by a coefficient of friction
of 0.30 and 0.45, respectively. In addition, lateral loads may be resisted by passive pressures on
footings poured 'neat' against in -situ native soils or properly compacted structural fill materials.
For passive earth pressure resistance we recommend that an equivalent fluid density of 300
pounds per cubic foot (pcf) be used for design.
•
•
REDMOND & ASSOCIATES
•
•
Sent By:- OLYMPIC ASSOCIATES; 206 285 4371; May -20 -99 11:44; Page 10
• Project No. 319.007.G
Page No. 6
FLOQR SLABS
In order to provide uniform subgrade reaction beneath concrete slab -on -grade floors, we
recommend that floor slabs be underlain by a minimum of 6 inches of free - draining (less than 5
percent passing the No. 200 sieve), well- graded, crushed rock, The crushed rock should provide
a suitable capillary break against moisture penetration through the slab and a modulus of
subgrade reaction of about 100 psifin. The base course materials should be compacted to at
least 95 percent of the maximum dry density determined in accordance with the ASTM D-1557
(AASHTO T -180) test procedures.
BELOW GRADE/RETAINING WALLS
Below grade and /or retaining walls should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures imposed
by native soils or granular backfill materials. For walls which are restrained form rotation at the
.top and retaining silty or granular soils, we recommend that at -rest earth pressures be computed
a on the basis of an equivalent fluid density of 80 pcf and 55 pcf, respectively. For walls which are
free to rotate at the top and retaining silty of granular soils, we recommend that active earth
pressures be computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid density of 40 pd and 30 pd,
respectively. The above recommended values assume that the walls will be adequately drained
to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressures. A suitable below grade•wall drainage system is
provided on Figure No. 3.
Backfill materials behind walls should be compacted to 90 percent of the maximum dry density
determined by the ASTM D -1557 (AASHTO T -180) test procedures. Special care should be
taken to avoid over compaction near the walls which could result in higher lateral earth pressures
than indicated above. In an area within about 3 feet behind the walls, we recommend the use of
hand- operated compaction equipment.
PAVEMENTS
T
Pavement design for the project was determined on the basis of projected traffic volume and
loading conditions relative to assumed subgrade soil strength characteristics. Based on an
assumed subgrade "R" -value of about 30 (CBR =3,5) and utilizing the Oregon State Highway
Flexible Pavement Design Procedures. we recommend the following asphaltic concrete
pavement sections for automobile parking and drive areas:
Asphaltic Concrete Crushed Base Rock
Thickness (inches1 Thickness finchesL
Automobile Parking Areas 2.5 8.0
Automobile Drive Areas 3.0 10.0
Truck Drive Areas 3.5 14.0
Note: The above recommended pavement sections assume that the existing fill materials will
be removed and replaced with properly compacted structural fill materials. However,
should the existing fill materials be left in -place and only recompacted at the surface,
the above recommended crushed base rock thicknesses should be Increased by at
least 2.0 inches for all pavement sections. •
REDMOND & ASSOCIATES
•