Loading...
11720 UNOCO RD (2).PDFiiiiiiii lill 11 15976 11720 UNOCO RD 165. 0- 64.8 �10b-i'iu1ft C 1-tp& 4e- EXISTING awrew STA; 14S5.5, '[WAY CURB CUT I '16a /ASGUI MrCH IS77NG 1 7 WALK A ','LANDING EVS717NG 'S' Ir EASEM EN� EXTEND SIDEWALK EASEMENT -164-92 ILANDSCAPE zt. 1�_462.28 i 62.11. 61.6 t "-162.34 ASOUIL T A-110C, I­ LANDSCAPE1, XIS77NG- CLOSE E CURB CUT FOR 'CURB .RAMP ASBUILT EXIS)7NG GAS VALVE IN Q♦ . C1 7 (ADJUST. RIM ':FINISW- GRADE) - YJSjWG-LIGHT -POI-E BASE ..AUG. 1.9 BUILDiNe DrzpARTMENT CITY -OF. EDN40NDS 'CLOSE C-90-5.5 WALKCURB - CURB --- - — -- --------- 0 RAMP.-S.t; WSDOT STANDARD, E. \VIA FIL... s m LA4,jni&y-r 4V' n,a A0 LEdE1.. _ 19 t56C.-RoH A s3tivnDS S-.SSY'3A S5 3H Wz 69E zi pueJB feuelJe�'f 53tivMs s -.35v39A3 5133H5 W t eZ 0 1 53uvn05S-.3sv3 35133H5m tm-z> - 16 �0 " M,o.M ti)S>crr, C7'0> V lm p --40. 12_a REVISION AUG 19 2010 BUILDING DEPARTMENT CITY OF EDMONDS r . Form Approved by VP Law PERSONAL PROPERTY WAIVER 03-25692 20. ALL PERSONAL PROPERTY, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, FIXTURES, EQUIPMENT, OR RELATED MATERIALS UPON THE PREMISES WILL BE AT THE RISK OF LICENSEE ONLY, AND NO INDEMNITEE WILL BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGE THERETO OR THEFT THEREOF, WHETHER OR NOT DUE IN WHOLE OR IN PART TO THE NEGLIGENCE OF ANY INDEMNITEE. INSURANCE 21. Licensee shall, at its sole cost and expense, procure and maintain during the life of this Agreement the following insurance coverage: A. Commercial General Liability Insurance.. This insurance shall contain broad form contractual liability with a combined single. limit of a minimum of $5,000,000 each occurrence and an aggregate limit of at least $10,000,000. Coverage must be purchased on a post 1998 ISO occurrence or equivalent and include coverage for, but not limited to, the following: ♦ Bodily Injury and Property Damage ♦ Personal Injury and Advertising injury ♦ Fire_ legal liability ♦ Products and completed operations This policy shall also contain the following endorsements, which shall be indicated on the certificate of insurance: ♦ It is agreed that any workers' compensation exclusion does not apply to Licensor's payments related to the Federal Employers Liability Act or a Licensor Wage Continuation Program or similar programs and any payments made are deemed not to be either payments made or obligations assumed under any Workers Compensation, disability benefits, or unemployment compensation law or similar law. ♦ The definition of insured contract shall be amended to remove any exclusion or other limitation for any work being done within 50 feet of railroad property. ♦ Any exclusions related to the explosion, collapse and underground hazards shall be removed. No other endorsements limiting coverage may be included on the policy. B. Business_ Automobile Insurance. This insurance shall contain a combined single limit of at least $1,000,000 per occurrence, and include coverage for, but not limited to the following: ♦ Bodily injury and property damage ♦ Any and all vehicles owned, used or hired 8 of 15 Form 424: Rev11/19/o2 Form Approved by VP Law 03-25692 C. Workers Compensation and Employers Liability Insurance. This Insurance shall include coverage for, but not limited to: Licensee's statutory liability under the worker's compensation laws of the state(s) in which the work is to be performed. If optional under State law, the insurance must cover all employees anyway. Employers' Liability (Part B) with limits of at least $500,000 each accident, $500,000 by disease policy limit, $500,000 by disease each employee. D. Railroad Protective Liability Insurance. This insurance shall name only the Licensor as the Insured with coverage of at least $5,000,000 per occurrence and $10,000,000 in the aggregate. The coverage obtained under this policy shall only be effective during the initial installation and/or construction of the PIPELINE. THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PIPELINE SHALL BE COMPLETED WITHIN ONE (1) YEAR OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE. If further maintenance of the PIPELINE is needed at a later date, an additional Railroad Protective Liability Insurance Policy shall be required. The policy shall be issued on a standard ISO form CG 00 35 10 93 and include the following: ♦ Endorsed to include the Pollution Exclusion Amendment (ISO form CG 28 31 10 93) ♦ Endorsed to include the Limited Seepage and Pollution Endorsement. ♦ Endorsed to include Evacuation Expense Coverage Endorsement. ♦ No other endorsements restricting coverage may be added. ♦ The original policy must be provided to the Licensor prior to performing any work or services under this Agreement In lieu of providing a Railroad Protective Liability Policy, Licensee may participate in Licensor's Blanket Railroad Protective Liability Insurance Policy available to Licensee or its contractor. The limits of coverage are the same as above. The cost is $1000.00. I elect to participate in Licensor's Blanket Policy; ❑ 1 elect not to participate in Licensor's Blanket Policy. Other Requirements: Where allowable by law, policies (applying to coverage listed above) shall contain no exclusion for punitive damages and certificates of insurance shall reflect that no exclusion exists. Licensee agrees to waive its right of recovery against Licensor for all claims and suits against Licensor. In addition, its insurers, through policy endorsement, waive their right of subrogation against Licensor for all claims and suits. The certificate of insurance must reflect waiver of subrogation endorsement. Licensee further waives its right, of recovery, and its insurers also waive their right of subrogation against Licensor for loss of its owned or leased property or property under its care, custody, or control. 9 of 15 Form 424: Rev1 1/19/02 Form Approved by VP Law 03-25692 Licensee's insurance policies through policy endorsement, must include wording which states that the policy shall be primary and non-contributing with respect to any insurance carried by Licensor. The certificate of insurance must reflect that the above wording is included in evidenced policies. All policy(ies) required above (excluding Workers Compensation and if applicable, Railroad Protective) shall include a severability of interest endorsement and shall name Licensor and Staubach Global Services -RR, Inc. as an additional insured with respect to work performed under this agreement. Severability of interest and naming Licensor and Staubach Global Services -RR, Inc. as additional insureds shall be indicated on the certificate of insurance. Licensee is not allowed to self -insure without the prior written consent of Licensor. If granted by Licensor, any deductible, self -insured retention or other financial responsibility for claims shall be covered directly by Licensee in lieu of insurance. Any and all Licensor liabilities that would otherwise, in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, be covered by Licensee's insurance will be covered as if Licensee elected not to include a deductible, self -insured retention or other financial responsibility for claims. Prior to commencing the Work, Licensee shall furnish to Licensor an acceptable certificate(s) of insurance including an original signature of the authorized representative evidencing the required coverage, endorsements, and amendments and referencing the contract audit/folder number if available. The policy(ies) shall contain a provision that obligates the insurance company(ies) issuing such policy(ies) to notify Licensor in writing at least 30 days prior to any cancellation, non -renewal, substitution or material alteration. This cancellation provision shall be indicated on the certificate of insurance. Upon request from Licensor, a certified duplicate original of any required policy shall be furnished. Any insurance policy shall be written by a reputable insurance company acceptable to Licensor or with a current Best's Guide Rating of A- and Class VII or better, and authorized to do business in the state(s) in which the service is to be provided. Licensee WARRANTS that this License has been thoroughly reviewed by Licensee's insurance agent(s)/broker(s), who have been instructed by Licensee to procure the insurance coverage required by this Agreement. Allocated Loss Expense shall be in addition to all policy limits for coverages referenced above. Not more frequently than once every five years, Licensor may reasonably modify the required insurance coverage to reflect then -current risk management practices in the railroad industry and underwriting practices in the insurance industry. If any portion of the operation is to be subcontracted by Licensee, Licensee shall require that the subcontractor shall provide and 'maintain insurance coverages as set forth herein, naming Licensor as an additional insured, and shall require that the subcontractor shall release, defend and indemnify Licensor to the same extent and under the same terms and conditions as Licensee is required to release, defend and indemnify Licensor herein. 10 of 15 Form 424; Rev11/19102 Form Approved by VP Law 03-25692 Failure to provide evidence as required by this section shall entitle, but not require, Licensor to terminate this License immediately. Acceptance of a certificate that does not comply with this section shall not operate as a waiver of Licensee's obligations hereunder. The fact that insurance (including, without limitation, self-insurance) is obtained by Licensee shall not be deemed to release or diminish the liability of Licensee including, without limitation, liability under the indemnity provisions of this License. Damages recoverable by Licensor shall not be limited by the amount of the required insurance coverage. For purposes of this section, Licensor shall mean "Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation°, °The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company" and the subsidiaries, successors, assigns and affiliates of each. ENVIRONMENTAL 22. (a) Licensee shall strictly comply with all federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations in its use of the Premises, including, but not limited to, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended (RCRA), the Clean Water Act, the Oil Pollution Act, the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, CERCLA (collectively referred to as the "Environmental Laws"). Licensee shall not maintain a treatment, storage, transfer or disposal facility, or underground storage tank, as defined by Environmental Laws on the Premises. Licensee shall not release or suffer the release of oil or hazardous substances, as defined by Environmental Laws on or about the Premises. (b) Licensee shall give Licensor immediate notice to Licensor's Resource Operations Center at (800) 832-5452 of any release of hazardous substances on or from the Premises, violation of Environmental Laws, or inspection or inquiry by governmental authorities charged with enforcing Environmental Laws with respect to Licensee's use of the Premises. Licensee shall use the best efforts to promptly respond to any release on or from the Premises. Licensee also shall give Licensor immediate notice of all measures undertaken on behalf of Licensee to investigate, remediate, respond to or otherwise cure such release or violation. (c) In the event that Licensor has notice from Licensee or otherwise of a release or violation of Environmental Laws arising in any way with respect to the PIPELINE which occurred or may occur during the term of this License, Licensor may require Licensee, at Licensee's sole risk and expense, to take timely measures to investigate, remediate, respond to or otherwise cure such release or violation affecting the Premises or Licensors right-of-way. (d) Licensee shall promptly report to Licensor in writing any conditions or activities upon the Premises known to Licensee which create a risk of harm to persons, property or the environment and shall take whatever action is necessary to prevent injury to persons or property arising out of such conditions or activities; provided, however, that Licensee's reporting to Licensor shall not relieve Licensee of any obligation whatsoever imposed on it by this License. Licensee 11 of 15 Form 424, Rev11/19/o2 Form Approved by VP Law 03-25692 shall promptly respond to Licensor's request for information regarding said conditions or activities. ALTERATIONS 23. Licensee may not make any alterations to the Premises or permanently affix anything to the Premises or any buildings or other structures adjacent to the Premises without Licensor's prior written consent. NO WARRANTIES 24. LICENSOR'S DUTIES AND. WARRANTIES ARE LIMITED. TO THOSE EXPRESSLY STATED IN THIS LICENSE AND SHALL NOT INCLUDE ANY IMPLIED DUTIES OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, NOW OR IN THE FUTURE. NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES HAVE BEEN MADE BY LICENSOR OTHER THAN THOSE CONTAINED IN THIS LICENSE. LICENSEE HEREBY WAIVES ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, WITH. RESPECT TO THE PREMISES OR WHICH MAY EXIST BY OPERATION OF LAW OR IN EQUITY, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY, HABITABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. QUIET ENJOYMENT 25. LICENSOR DOES NOT WARRANT. ITS TITLE TO THE PROPERTY NOR UNDERTAKE TO DEFEND LICENSEE IN THE PEACEABLE POSSESSION OR USE THEREOF. NO COVENANT OF QUIET ENJOYMENT IS MADE. DEFAULT 26. If default shall be made in any of the covenants or agreements of Licensee contained in this document, or in case of any assignment or transfer of this License by operation of law, Licensor may, at its option, terminate this License by serving five (5) days' notice in writing upon Licensee. Any waiver by Licensor of any default or defaults shall not constitute a waiver of the right to terminate this License for any subsequent default or defaults, nor shall any such waiver in any way affect Licensor's ability to enforce any Section of this License. The remedy set forth in this Section 26 shall be in addition to, and not in limitation of, any other remedies that Licensor may have at law or in equity. LIENS 27. Licensee shall promptly pay and discharge any and all liens arising out of any construction, alterations or repairs done, suffered or,permitted to be done by Licensee on Premises. Licensor is hereby authorized to post any notices or take any other action upon or with respect to Premises that is or may be permitted by law to prevent the attachment of any such liens to Premises; provided, however, that failure of Licensor to take any such action shall not relieve Licensee of any obligation or liability under this Section 27 or any other Section of this License. 12 of 15 Form 424; Rev11119/02 Form Approved by VP Law TERMINATION 03-25692 28. This License may be terminated by Licensor, at any time, by serving thirty (30) days' written notice of termination upon Licensee. This License may be terminated by Licensee upon execution of Licensor's Mutual Termination Letter Agreement then in effect. Upon expiration of the time specified in such notice, this License and all rights of Licensee shall absolutely cease. 29. If Licensee fails to surrender to Licensor the Premises, upon any termination of this License, all liabilities and obligations of Licensee hereunder shall continue in effect until the Premises are surrendered. Termination shall not release Licensee from any liability or obligation, whether of indemnity or otherwise, resulting from any events happening prior to the date of termination. ASSIGNMENT 30. Neither Licensee, nor the heirs, legal representatives, successors or assigns of Licensee, nor any subsequent assignee, shall assign or transfer this License or any interest herein, without the prior written consent and approval of Licensor, which may be withheld in Licensor's sole discretion. NOTICES 31. Any notice required or permitted to be given hereunder by one party to the other shall be in writing and the same shall be given and shall be deemed to have been served and given if (i) placed in the United States mail, certified, return receipt requested, or (ii) deposited into the custody of a nationally recognized overnight delivery service, addressed to the party to be notified at the address for such party specified below, or to such other address as the party to be notified may designate by giving the other party no less than thirty (30) days' advance written notice of such change in address. If to Licensor: Staubach Global Services - RR, Inc. 5650 N. Riverside Drive, Suite 101 Ft. Worth, TX 76137 Attn: Licenses/Permits With a copy to: The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company 2500 Lou Menk Dr. — AO63 Ft. Worth, TX 76131 Attn: Director Real Estate If to Licensee: City of Edmonds 121 5m Avenue N Edmonds WA 98020 13 of 15 Form 424; Revi Ill9/02 Form Approved by VP Law SURVIVAL 03-25692 32. Neither termination nor expiration will release either party from any liability or obligation under this License, whether of indemnity or otherwise, resulting from any acts, omissions or events happening prior to the date of termination or expiration, or, if later, the date when the PIPELINE and improvements are removed and the Premises are restored to its condition as of the Effective Date. RECORDATION 33. It is understood and agreed that this License shall not be placed on public record. APPLICABLE LAW 34. All questions concerning the interpretation or application of provisions of this License shall be decided according to the substantive laws of the State of Texas without regard to conflicts of law provisions. SEVERABILITY 35. To the maximum extent. possible, each provision of this License shall be interpreted in such manner as to be effective and valid under applicable law, but if any provision of this License shall be prohibited by, or held to be invalid under, applicable law, such provision shall be ineffective solely to the extent of such prohibition or invalidity, and this shall not invalidate the remainder of such provision or any other provision of this License. INTEGRATION 36. This License is the full and complete agreement between Licensor and Licensee with respect to all matters relating to Licensee's use of the Premises, and supersedes any and all other agreements between the parties hereto relating to Licensee's use of the Premises as described herein. However, nothing herein is intended to terminate any surviving obligation of Licensee or Licensee's obligation to defend and hold Licensor harmless in any prior.written agreement between the parties. 1.4 of 15 Form 424; Rev11/19/02 Form Approved by VP Law MISCELLANEOUS 03-25692 37. In the event that Licensee consists of two or more parties, all the covenants and agreements of Licensee herein contained shall be the joint and several covenants and agreements of such parties. 38. The waiver by Licensor of the breach of any provision herein by Licensee shall in no way impair the right of Licensor to enforce that provision for any subsequent breach thereof. 1N WITNESS WHEREOF, this License has been duly executed, in duplicate, by the parties hereto as of the day and year first above written. THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY P.O.13A 961050 Fort W h, TX 76161-0050 By: Title: SENIOR MANAGER SEAL ESTATE CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5'h Avenue North Edmonds WA 98020 By: Title: /hAX2R 15 of 15 Form 424; Rev11/19/02 J TRACKING NO.03-25692 EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED TO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY AND CITY OF EDMONDS SCALE: 1 IN.=11 0 FT. NORTHWEST DIV. SCENIC SUBDIV. L.S.0050 DATE 09/03/2003 REVISED 04/23/2004. `ry �c&. do to 0 D.� "dbk ea t4Ir °�'�Q —��,Pc d o 9v m o ,'EXISTING LINEN 1 rl SEC.26 V- WA-15 T 27N MA' --16 R 3W PARCEL - \ \ dN.77� i7 JF • \ t N,SOLD BY AS R. 2845 �--� tj a PROPER1 •I LINE - - ] �— 4 a � a T +r � t m � '7C°�7� e9''!r�, ,Jib+'LL'•.rf' ^o. , r , � �... , .r_ EATTLE 100PcI ��w—��3-- — ~ c_+ t TO WENATCHEE 10 �——.-� MP 17.09 p . 't o ES_1Q0.3j.6_, ' '« n � tll.ro PROPERTY LINE 9 .`t u I � r DESCRIPTION OF PIPELINE PIPELINE SHOWN BOLD CARRIER CASING CARRIER CASING PIPE PIPE PIPE PIPE SIZE: 12" 20" LENGTH ON R/W: 93' 93' CONTENTS: WATER WORKING PRESSURE: 100 PSI PIPE MATERIAL: _ STEEL BURY: BASE/RAIL TO TOP OF CASING 5,T SPECIFICATION / GRADE: � GR-8 BURY: NATURAL GROUND WALL THICKNESS: 0.31 .344� BURY: ROADWAY DITCHES COATING: N/A N/A CATHODIC PROTECTION VENTS: NUMBER . N/A SIZE - HEIGHT OF VENT ABOVE GROUND NOTE: CASING TO BE JACKED OR DRY BORED ONLY AT EDMONDS COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH STATE OF WA scc DRAWING NO. 1-31728 }7 RECEIVED JUN 16 20011 ENGINEERING DIVISION June 17, 2004 Mr. David Gebert City of Edmonds Development Services Department 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: PIPELINE LICENSE Dear Dave, Please find the enclosed copy of the fully executed Pipeline License for Point Edwards, which we received from BNSF today. The original is being kept at our offices and another copy is on site. Thank you for your patience. Sincerely, Point Edwards LLC e�- Shana Hinds 2801 Alaskan Way, Suite 107 206-374-0414 phone Seattle, WA 98121 206-374-0415 fax Approved by VP Law 03-25692 PIPELINE LICENSE THIS LICENSE ("License"), made as of the lhday of _1 n �J 2004, ("Effective Date") by and between THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY, a Delaware corporation ("Licensor") and CITY OF EDMONDS, a Washington municipal corporation ("Licensee"). NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties agree to the following: GENERAL 1. Licensor hereby grants Licensee a non-exclusive license, subject to all rights, interests, and estates of third parties, including, without limitation, any leases, licenses, easements, liens, or other encumbrances, and upon the terms and conditions set forth below, to construct and maintain, in strict accordance with the drawings and specifications approved by Licensor as part of Licensee's application process (the "Drawings and Specifications"), one (1) PIPELINE(s), twelve (12) inches in diameter inside a twenty (20) inch steel casing ("PIPELINE"), across or along the rail corridor of Licensor at or near the station of Edmonds, County of Snohomish, State of Washington, Line Segment 0050, Mile Post 17.09 as shown on the attached Drawing No. 1-31728, dated September 3, 2003, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof ("Premises"). 2. Licensee shall not disturb any improvements of Licensor or Licensor's existing lessees, licensees, easement beneficiaries or lien holders, if any, or interfere with the use of such improvements_ 3. Licensee shall use the Premises solely for construction and maintenance of a PIPELINE in accordance with the Drawings and Specifications carrying water. Licensee shall not use the PIPELINE to cant' any other commodity or use the Premises for any other purpose. Licensee covenants that it will not handle or transport "hazardous waste" or "hazardous substances". as "hazardous waste" and "hazardous substances" may now or in the future be defined by any federal, state, or local governmental agency or body through the PIPELINE on Licensor's property. Licensee agrees periodically to furnish Licensor with proof, satisfactory to Licensor, that Licensee is in such compliance. Should Licensee not comply fully with the above -stated obligations of this Section, notwithstanding anything contained in any.other provision hereof, Licensor may, at its option, terminate this License by serving five (5) days' notice of termination upon Licensee. Upon termination, Licensee shall remove the PIPELINE and restore Licensor's property as herein elsewhere provided. 1 Of 15 Form 424; Rev. 11/19/02 Form Approved by VP Law 03-25692 4. In case of the eviction of Licensee by anyone owning or claiming title to or any interest in the Premises, or by the abandonment by Licensor of the affected rail corridor, Licensor shall not be liable to refund Licensee any compensation paid hereunder, except for the pro-rata part of any recurring charge paid in advance, or for any damage Licensee sustains in connection therewith. 5. Any contractors or subcontractors performing work on the PIPELINE or entering the Premises on behalf of Licensee shall be deemed servants and agents of Licensee for purposes of this License. TERM 6. This License shall commence on the Effective Date and shall continue for a period of twenty-five (25) years, subject to prior termination as hereinafter described. COMPENSATION 7. (a) Licensee shall pay Licensor, prior to the Effective Date, the ' sum of Two Thousand Five Hundred and No/100 Dollars ($2,500.00) as compensation for the use of the Premises. (b) Licensee agrees to reimburse Licensor (within thirty (30) days after receipt of bills therefor) for all costs and expenses incurred by Licensor in connection with Licensee's use of the Premises or the presence, construction and maintenance of the PIPELINE, including but not limited to the furnishing of Licensor's Flagman ($500.00 per eight hour day, $95.00 per hour thereafter) and any vehicle rental costs incurred. Licensee acknowledges that a twelve-hour day is often required to support an eight -hour work day due to travel, placement, and removal of advance protection signage, safety briefings, and other duties as required. (c) All invoices are due thirty (30) days after the date of invoice. In the event that Licensee shall fail to pay any monies due to Licensor within thirty (30) days after the invoice date, then Licensee shall pay interest on such unpaid sum from thirty (30) days after its invoice date to the date of payment by Licensee at an annual rate equal to (i) the greater of (a) for the period January 1 through June 30, the prime rate last published in The Wall Street Journal in the preceding December plus, two and one-half percent (2 1/20/6), and for the period July 1 through December 31, the prime rate last published in The Wall Street Journal in the preceding June plus two and one-half percent (2 1/2%), or (b) twelve percent (12%), or (ii) the maximum rate permitted by law, whichever is less. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS 8. (a) Licensee shall observe and comply with any and all laws, statutes, regulations, ordinances, orders, covenants or restrictions ("Legal Requirements") relating to the construction, maintenance and use of the PIPELINE and the use of the Premises. 2 of 15. Form 424; Rev11/19/02 Form Approved by VP Law 03-25692 (b) Prior to entering the Premises, Licensee shall and shall cause its contractor to comply with all Licensor's applicable safety rules and regulations. Prior to commencing any work on the Premises, Licensee shall complete and shall require its contractor to complete the safety training program at the following Internet Website"http://www.contractorodentabon.com". This training must be completed no more than one year in advance of Licensee's entry on the Premises. DEFINITION OF COST AND EXPENSE 9. For the purpose of this License, "cost' or "costs" "expense" or "expenses" includes, but is not limited to, actual labor and material costs including all assignable additives, and material and supply costs at current value where used. RIGHT OF LICENSOR TO USE 10. Licensor excepts and reserves the right, to be exercised by Licensor and 'any other parties who may obtain written permission or authority from Licensor. (a) to maintain, renew, use, operate, change, modify and relocate any existing pipe, power, communication lines and appurtenances and other facilities or structures of like character upon, over, under or across the Premises; (b) to construct, maintain, renew, use, operate, change, modify and relocate any tracks or additional facilities or structures upon, over, under or across the Premises; or (c) to use the Premises in any manner, as the Licensor in its sole discretion deems appropriate, provided Licensor uses all commercially reasonable efforts to avoid material interference with the use of the Premises by Licensee for the purpose specified in Section 3 above. LICENSEE'S OPERATIONS 11. (a) Licensee shall notify Licensor's Roadmaster at 2750 S Occidental Ave, Seattle WA 98134, telephone (206) 625-6462, at least five (5) business days prior to installation of the PIPELINE and prior to entering the Premises for any subsequent maintenance thereon. (b) In performing the work described in Section 3, Licensee shall use only public roadways to cross from one side of Licensor's tracks to the other. 12. (a) Under no conditions shall Licensee be permitted to conduct any tests, investigations or any other activity using mechanized equipment and/or machinery,. or place or store any mechanized equipment, tools or other materials, within twenty-five (25) feet of the centerline of any railroad track on the Premises unless Licensee has obtained prior written approval from Licensor. Licensee shall, at its sole cost and expense, perform all activities on and about the Premises in such a manner as not at any time to be a source of danger to or interference with the existence or use of present or future tracks, roadbed or 3 of 15 Form 424; Rev9 1/19/02 Form Approved by VP Law 03-25692 property of Licensor, or the safe operation and activities of Licensor. If ordered to cease using the Premises at any time by Licensor's personnel due to any hazardous condition, Licensee shall immediately do so. Notwithstanding the foregoing right of Licensor, the parties agree that Licensor has no duty or obligation to monitor Licensee's use of the Premises to determine the safe nature thereof, it being solely Licensee's responsibility to ensure that Licensee's use of the Premises is safe. Neither the exercise nor the failure by Licensor to exercise any rights granted in this Section will alter the liability allocation provided by this License. (b) Licensee shall, at its sole cost and expense, construct and maintain the PIPELINE in such a manner and of such material that it will not at any time be a sourceof danger to or interference with the existence or use of present or future tracks, roadbed or property of Licensor, or the safe operation and activities of Licensor. Licensor may direct one of its field engineers to observe orinspect the construction and/or maintenance of the PIPELINE at any time for compliance with the Drawings and Specifications. If ordered at any time to halt construction or maintenance of the PIPELINE by Licensor's personnel due to non-compliance with the same or any other hazardous condition, Licensee shall immediately do so. Notwithstanding the foregoing right of Licensor, the parties agree that Licensor has no duty or obligation to observe or inspect, or to halt work on, the PIPELINE, it being solely Licensee's responsibility to ensure that the PIPELINE is constructed in strict accordance with the Drawings and Specifications and in a safe and workmanlike manner in compliance with all terms hereof. Neither the exercise nor the failure by Licensor to exercise any right granted by this Section will alter in any way the liability allocation provided by this License. If. at any time Licensee shall, in the sole judgment of Licensor, fail to properly perform its obligations under this Section, Licensor may, at its option and at Licensee's sole expense, arrange for the performance of such work as it deems necessary for the safety of its operations and activities. Licensee shall promptly reimburse Licensor for all costs and expenses of such work, upon receipt of an invoice for the same. Licensor's failure to perform any obligations of Licensee shall not alter the liability allocation hereunder. 13. During the construction and any subsequent maintenance performed on the PIPELINE, Licensee shall perform such work in a manner to preclude damage to the property of Licensor, and preclude interference with the operation of its railroad. The construction of the PIPELINE shall be completed within one (1) year of the Effective Date. Upon completion of the construction of the PIPELINE and after performing any subsequent maintenance thereon, Licensee shall, at Licensee's own cost and expense, restore Licensor's Premises to their former state as of the Effective Date of this License. 14. If at any time during the term of this License, Licensor shall desire the use of its rail corridor in such a manner as would, in Licensor's reasonable opinion, be interfered with by the PIPELINE, Licensee shall, at its sole expense, within thirty (30) days after receiving written notice from Licensor to such effect, make such changes in the PIPELINE as in the sole discretion of Licensor may be necessary to avoid interference with the proposed use of Licensor's rail corridor, including, without limitation, the relocation of the existing or the construction of anew PIPELINE(s). 4 of 15 Form 424; Rev11/19/02 Form Approved by VP Law 03-25692 15. (a) Prior to Licensee conducting any boring work on or about any portion of the Premises, Licensee shall explore the proposed location for such work with hand tools to a depth of at least three (3) feet below the surface of the ground to determine whether pipelines or other structures exist below the surface, provided, however, that in lieu of the foregoing, the Licensee shall have the right to use suitable detection equipment or other generally accepted industry practice (e.g., consulting with the Underground Services Association) to determine the existence or location of pipelines and other subsurface structures prior to drilling or excavating with mechanized equipment. Upon Licensee's written request, which shall be made thirty (30) business days in advance of Licensee's requested construction of the PIPELINE, Licensor will provide Licensee any information that Licensor has in the possession of its Engineering Department concerning the existence and approximate location of Licensor's underground utilities and pipelines at or near the vicinity of the proposed PIPELINE. Prior to conducting any such boring work, the Licensee will review all such material. Licensor does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of information relating to subsurface conditions and Licensee's operations will be subject at all times to the liability provisions herein. (b) For all bores greater than 20-inch diameter and at a depth less than 10.0 feet below bottom of rail, a soil investigation will need to be performed by the Licensee and reviewed by Licensor prior to construction. This study is to determine if granular material is present, and to prevent subsidence during the installation process. If the investigation determines in Licensors reasonable opinion that granular material is present, Licensor may select a new location for Licensee's use,or may require Licensee to furnish for Licensors review and approval, in its sole discretion a remedial plan to deal with the granular material. Once Licensor has approved any such remedial plan in writing, Licensee shall, at its sole cost and expense, carry out the approved plan in accordance with all terms thereof and hereof. 16. Any open hole, boring or well constructed on the Premises by Licensee shall be safely covered and secured at all times when Licensee is not working in the actual vicinity thereof. Following completion of that portion of the work, all holes or borings constructed on the Premises by Licensee shall be: (a) filled in to surrounding ground level with compacted bentonite grout; or (b) otherwise secured or retired in accordance with any . applicable Legal Requirement. No excavated materials may remain on Licensor's property for morethan ten (10) days, but must be properly disposed of by Licensee in accordance with applicable Legal Requirements. 17. Upon termination of this License, Licensee shall, at its sole cost and expense: (a) remove the PIPELINE and all appurtenances thereto, or, at the sole discretion of the Licensor, fill and cap or otherwise appropriately decommission the PIPELINE with a method satisfactory to Licensor, 5 of 15 Form 424; Rev11/19/02 Form Approved by VP Law 03-25692 (b) report and restore any damage to the Premises arising from, growing out of, or connected with Licensee's use of the Premises; (c) remedy any unsafe conditions on the Premises created or aggravated by Licensee; and (d) leave the Premises in the condition which existed as of the Effective Date of this License. 18. Licensee's on -site supervision shall retain/maintain a fully executed copy of this License at all times while on the Premises. LIABILITY 19. (a) TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, LICENSEE SHALL AND SHALL CAUSE ITS CONTRACTOR TO RELEASE, INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS LICENSOR AND LICENSER'S AFFILIATED COMPANIES, PARTNERS, SUCCESSORS, ASSIGNS, LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES, OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, SHAREHOLDERS, EMPLOYEES AND AGENTS (COLLECTIVELY, "INDEMNITEES") FOR, FROM AND AGAINST ANY AND ALL CLAIMS, LIABILITIES, FINES, PENALTIES, COSTS, DAMAGES, LOSSES, LIENS, CAUSES OF ACTION, SUITS, DEMANDS, JUDGMENTS AND EXPENSES (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, COURT COSTS, ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS OF INVESTIGATION, REMOVAL AND REMEDIATION AND GOVERNMENTAL OVERSIGHT COSTS) ENVIRONMENTAL OR OTHERWISE (COLLECTIVELY "LIABILITiES'1 OF ANY NATURE, IUND OR DESCRIPTION OF ANY PERSON OR ENTITY DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY ARISING OUT OF, RESULTING FROM OR RELATED TO (1N WHOLE OR IN PART): (i) THIS LICENSE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ITS ENVIRONMENTAL PROVISIONS, (11) ANY RIGHTS OR INTERESTS GRANTED PURSUANT TO- THIS LICENSE, (iii) LICENSEE'S OCCUPATION AND USE OF THE PREMISES, (IV) THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITION AND STATUS OF THE PREMISES CAUSED BY, OR CONTRIBUTED BY LICENSEE, OR (v) ANY ACT OR OMISSION OF LICENSEE OR LICENSEE'S OFFICERS, AGENTS, INVITEES, EMPLOYEES, OR CONTRACTORS, OR ANYONE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY EMPLOYED BY ANY OF THEM, OR ANYONE THEY CONTROL OR EXERCISE CONTROL OVER, EVEN IF SUCH LIABILITIES ARISE FROM OR ARE ATTRIBUTED TO, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, ANY NEGLIGENCE OF ANY INDEMNITEE. THE ONLY LIABILITIES WITH RESPECT TO WHICH LICENSEE'S OBLIGATION TO 6of15 Form 424; Rev11/19/02 Form Approved by VP Law 03-25692 INDEMNIFY THE INDEMNITEES DOES NOT APPLY ARE LIABILITIES TO THE EXTENT PROXIMATELY CAUSED BY THE GROSS NEGLIGENCE OR WILLFUL MISCONDUCT OF AN INDEMNITEE. (b) FURTHER, TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, NOTWITHSTANDING THE LIMITATION IN SECTION 19(a), LICENSEE SHALL AND SHALL CAUSE ITS CONTRACTOR TO NOW AND FOREVER WAIVE ANY AND ALL CLAIMS, REGARDLESS WHETHER BASED ON THE STRICT LIABILITY, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE, THAT RAILROAD IS AN "OWNER", "OPERATOR", "ARRANGER", OR "TRANSPORTER" WITH. RESPECT TO THE PIPELINE FOR THE PURPOSES OF CERCLA OR OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS. LICENSEE WILL INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD THE INDEMNITEES HARMLESS FROM ANY AND ALL SUCH CLAIMS REGARDLESS OF THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE INDEMNITEES. LICENSEE FURTHER AGREES THAT THE .USE OF THE PREMISES AS CONTEMPLATED BY THIS. LICENSE SHALL NOT IN ANY WAY SUBJECT LICENSOR TO CLAIMS THAT LICENSOR IS OTHER THAN A COMMON CARRIER FOR PURPOSES OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS AND EXPRESSLY AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, . DEFEND, AND HOLD THE INDEMNITEES HARMLESS FOR ANY AND ALL SUCH CLAIMS. IN NO EVENT SHALL LICENSOR BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITION OF THE PREMISES. (c) TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, LICENSEE FURTHER AGREES, AND SHALL CAUSE ITS CONTRACTOR TO AGREE REGARDLESS OF ANY NEGLIGENCE OR ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE OF ANY INDEMNITEE, TO INDEMNIFY, AND HOLD HARMLESS THE INDEMNITEES AGAINST AND ASSUME THE DEFENSE OF ANY LIABILITIES ASSERTED AGAINST OR SUFFERED BY ANY INDEMNITEE UNDER OR RELATED TO THE FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT ("FELXI WHENEVER EMPLOYEES OF LICENSEE OR ANY OF ITS AGENTS, INVITEES, CONTRACTORS CLAIM OR ALLEGE THAT THEY ARE EMPLOYEES OF ANY INDEMNITEE OR OTHERWISE. THIS INDEMNITY SHALL ALSO EXTEND, ON THE SAME BASIS, TO FELA CLAIMS BASED ON ACTUAL OR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS . OF ANY FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL LAWS OR REGULATIONS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT, THE BOILER INSPECTION ACT, THE OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT, THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT, AND ANY SIMILAR STATE OR FEDERAL STATUTE. (d) Upon written notice from Licensor, Licensee agrees to assume the defense of any lawsuit or other proceeding brought against any Indemnitee by any entity, relating to any matter covered by this License for which Licensee has an obligation to assume liability for and/or save and hold harmless any Indemnitee. Licensee shall pay all costs incident to such defense, including, but not limited to, attorneys' fees, investigators' fees, litigation and appeal expenses, settlement payments, and amounts paid in satisfaction of judgments. 7 of 15 Forth 424; Rev11119102 3, To: From: Date: File: CITY OF EDMONDS 121 - 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 PLANNING DIVISION FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION Triad Point Edwards LLC / File #SD-2001-201 Ro rt Chave, AICP Planning Manager January 8, 2002 SD-2001-201 14*?Y� jWuiine Graf--*- Building Official Applicant: Triad Point Edwards LLC / UNOCAL TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page I. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................................. 2 A. APPLICATION...................................................................................................................................................2 B. DECISION.........................................................................................................................................................2 H. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................2 A. SITE DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................................................2 B. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE............................................................3 C. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE..................................................................................................................................4 D. CONFORMANCE TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: .................................................................................................... 4 E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: ...................................................................................................................... 5 F. CRITICAL AREAS REVIEw:...............................................................................................................................6 M. RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS.......................................................................................................6 A. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION....................................................................................................................6 B. APPEALS..........................................................................................................................................................6 C. TIME LIMITS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS........................................................................................ 6 IV. NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR................................................................................................................6 V. APPENDICES....................................................................................................................................................7 VI. PARTIES OF RECORD...................................................................................................................................7 SD-2001-201.doc / January 8, 2002 / Staff Report File No. SD-2001-201 Page 2of 7 I. II. INTRODUCTION A. Application 1. Applicant: Triad Point Edwards LLC (Property Owner: Unocal Corporation) 2. Site Location: 11720 Unocal Road, generally known as the UNOCAL tank farm (see vicinity map, Attachment 1) 3. Re uest: Establishment of "undisturbed soil" contours for the purpose of determining height calculations for future structures (see Attachments 2 and 3). 4. Review Process: Planning Staff makes an administrative decision, appealable to the Hearing Examiner. Major Issues: a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 21.105.010, definition of "undisturbed soil." b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.95, staff review requirements. B. Decision Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, Attachments and Exhibits submitted with the application, the City of Edmonds Planning Division issues the following decision: For the subject property, the contours and topographic map to be used to determine "undisturbed soil' for the purposes of calculating height of future structures are those described in the following report: Edmonds Unocal Tank Farm Undisturbed Ground Study and Request for Consideration, prepared by Gregers F. Krabbe, PE, of Triad Associates, dated December 14, 2001. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. Site Description 1. Site Development, Neighboring Development, And Zoning: a) Facts: (1) Size and Location: The subject property consists of approximately 22.9 acres of land in the southwest corner of the city, generally west of SR-104, south of the Port of Edmonds and the Edmonds marsh, and adjacent to the northern boundary of the Town of Woodway. (2) Land Use: The property is the site of the former Unocal oil tank farm. The site in question is the upland hillside portion of the Unocal property, sometimes referred to as the "upper yard." (3) Zoning: The zoning of the subject property is Commercial Waterfront (CW) (see Attachment 1). (4) _Terrain and Vegetation: The subject property consists of a disturbed hillside, generally sloping downward from the Woodway town limits toward SD-2001-201.doc / January 8, 2002 / Staff Report File No. SD-2001-201 Page 3of 7 the north. The site was dominated by the former Unocal oil tank farm (recently demolished), while portions of the site are wooded. 2. Surrounding Development and Zoning: a) Facts: (1) North and West: Beyond the base of the slope is the "lower yard" of the Unocal property, with the city's Marina Beach Park to the west, the Port of Edmonds to the northwest, and the Edmonds marsh to the northeast. Zoning is CW — Commercial Waterfront (Unocal and Port properties) or OS — Open Space (marsh). (2) South: Single family homes are directly south within the Town of Woodway. B. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance 1. ECDC Section 21.105.010 (definition of "undisturbed soil'). a) Facts: (1) The ECDC defines two terms, "height" and "undisturbed soil," as follows: 21.40.030 Height. Height means the average vertical distance, from the average level of the undisturbed soil of the site covered by a structure, to the highest point of the structure.... `Average level' shall be determined by averaging elevations of the downward projections of the four corners of the smallest rectangle which will enclose all of the building, excluding a maximum of 30 inches of eaves. If a corner falls off the site, its elevation shall be the average elevation of the two points projected downward where the two sides of the rectangle cross the property line. 21.105.010 Undisturbed soil. Undisturbed soil means the condition of the site at the time a building permit application is made to the city, before any site work occurs. However, where the site has been altered by grading, cutting, or filling or similar activities before the application for a building permit, the building official shall make the determination from then available data of the mean elevation of the undisturbed soil. If the undisturbed soil elevation is not readily determined due to demolition of an existing structure, the contours may be reconstructed by the building official to coincide with adjoining topography to determine the undisturbed soil elevations. If the proposed structure occurs where no setbacks are required, the elevation of the surface (sidewalk, alley, or soil) of the property line at or nearest the intersection of the sides of the building height rectangle will be considered undisturbed soil. Where the building official deems it necessary, he shall have the right to require establishment of a datum point from which all height measurements shall be made. SD-2001-201.doc / January 8, 2002 / staff Report File No. SD-2001-201 Page 4of 7 (2) Unocal Corporation has submitted an engineering study entitled Edmonds Unocal Tank Farm Undisturbed Ground Study and Request for Consideration, prepared by Gregers F. Krabbe, PE, of Triad Associates, and dated December 14, 2001 (see Attachment 4 for an excerpt and summary). The study attempts to reconstruct the original undisturbed topography of the site by examining historical information, reviewing existing contours that still exist in the vicinity, and analyzing the composition of soils on the site. The study constructs a contour map derived from a total of 18 radial cross sections through the site. This contour map (included as Figure 6 in the study) depicts the derived "undisturbed soil" for the purposes of applying the ECDC definitions of "undisturbed soil" and "height" when the city reviews plans for future structures when the site is redeveloped. b) Conclusions: (1) The referenced study takes a multi -dimensioned approach to analyzing the topography of the site, and appears to be a reasonable interpretation of historical information combined with data taken from on -site soils examinations and the existing topography of nearby undisturbed slopes. 2. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.95, staff review requirements. a) Facts: (1) This application is related to a potential development project of undetermined nature. However, because the request is site -specific, the application is being considered as a staff decision with public notice required. All public notice requirements are being complied with, including mailing to adjacent properties within 300 feet, a legal notice placed in the newspaper, and posting of notices on -site. b) Conclusions: (1) The requirements of ECDC Section 20.95 have been met. C. Technical Committee a) Facts: (1) No comments were received from other city departments. (2) The city contracted with Reid Middleton Inc., an engineering consultant, to review the Krabbe study. The Reid Middleton review concluded that the contours presented in the study are "a reasonable interpretation of the data." (See Attachment 5) D. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan: 1. Comprehensive Plan Policies a) Facts: (1) The city's Comprehensive Plan contains policies related to development and topography. Although a specific development application has not yet been made for the subject property, the plan policies do make it clear that SD-2001-201.doe / January 8, 2002 / Staff Report Pile No. SD-2001-201 Page Sof 7 development should be related to the topography of the site. In as much as the subject application seeks to clarify what the "undisturbed" contours of the site are, this will assist in making future development proposals be in keeping with the topography of the site, and hence in compliance with city policy. The following Comprehensive Plan policies apply: [from Land Use: Soils and Topography] B. Goal. Future development in areas of steep slope and potentially hazardous soil conditions should be based on site development which preserves the natural site characteristics in accordance with the following policies: B.1. Large lots or flexible subdivision procedures, such as PRD's, should be used in these areas to preserve the site and reduce impervious surfaces, cuts and fills. B.2. Streets and access ways should be designed to conform- to the natural topography, reduce runoff'and minimize grading of the hillside. C. Goal. Development on steep slopes or hazardous soil conditions should preserve the natural features of the site, in accordance with the following policies: C.1. Grading and Filling. C La. Grading, filling, and tree cutting shall be restricted to building pads, driveways, access ways and other impervious surfaces. Cl.b. Grading shall not jeopardize the stability of any slope, or of an adjacent property. C.l.c. Only minimal amounts of cut and fill on hillsides exceeding 1 S- slope should be permitted so that the natural topography can be preserved. Fill shall not be used to create a yard on steeply sloped property. C. Ld. Fill and excavated dirt shall not be pushed down the slope. C.2. Building Construction. C.2.a. Buildings on slopes of 1 S% or greater shall be designed to cause minimum disruption to the natural topography. C.2.b. Retaining walls are discouraged on steep slopes. If they are used they should be small and should not support construction of improvements which do not conform to the topography. C.2.c. Water detention devices shall be used to maintain the velocity of runoff at predevelopment levels. b) Conclusions: (1) The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. E. Environmental Assessment: 1. An environmental checklist under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) is not required for this application. SD-2001-201.doc / January 8, 2002 1 Staff Report File No. SD-2001-201 Page 6of 7 F. Critical Areas Review: 1. Critical Areas Review number: CA-1994-0180 2. Results of Critical Areas Review: A critical areas study was completed in June, 1995, analyzing wetland and slope conditions on the Unocal property. III. RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsiderations and appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information. A. Request for Reconsideration Section 20.095.050.B.2 allows for planning staff to reconsider their decision if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the posting of the notice required by this section. The reconsideration request must cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed. B. Appeals Section 20.095.050.B.3 describes how appeals of a Staff decision shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the name of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community Development Director within fourteen (14) calendar days after the date of the decision being appealed. C. Time Limits for Reconsideration and Appeals The time limits for Reconsiderations and Appeals run concurrently. If a request for a reconsideration is filed before the time limit for filing an appeal has expired, the time "clock" for filing an appeal is stopped until a decision on the reconsideration request is completed. Once the staff has issued his/her decision on the reconsideration request, the time clock for filing an appeal continued from the point it was stopped. For example, if a request is filed on day 5 of the appeal period, an individual would have 9 more days in which to file an appeal after the staff issues their decision on the reconsideration request. IV. NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the staff request a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessor's Office. SD-2001-201.doc / January 8, 2002 / Staff Report File No. SD-2001-201 Page 7of 7 V. APPENDICES Attachments: 1. Vicinity / Zoning Map 2. Application and Letter from Richard E. Gifford dated 12/14/2001 3. Letter from Carl Kellar dated 12/14/2001 4. Excerpt from Edmonds Unocal Tank Farm Undisturbed Ground Study and Request for Consideration, prepared by Gregers F. Krabbe, PE, of Triad Associates, dated December 14, 2001; pages Al-A11 and Figures 1-6 5. Memo from Mike Mickiewicz, Reid Middleton, dated 12/21/2001 VI. PARTIES OF RECORD Carl G. Kellar Richard E. Gifford, Attorney Union Oil Company 600 Main Street, Suite E Real Estate and Remediation Services Edmonds, WA 98020 11720 Unoco Road, Building C Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds Planning Division Edmonds Building Division Triad Point Edwards LLC Pier 70, 2801 Alaskan Way Suite 107 Seattle, WA 98121 SD-2001-201.doc / January 8, 2002 / Staff Report . t -: _ L -..G J1 �� k•. v...Y :_.,ice: ., } _.� a • .t ++r .z. �• vzi J t _ Sib ect StPaff.Deciaion g .. P T. on N:atnural i rade;` A m A M nam aA a aA av o N { . "a c� fi.. rENnTars R&4 4— Os .N..,�., - - C .r'r E1WG1DlIY1-IM 3 Ani - "' : - rnonnuraarr J CWTa m mn _ - m P w M a oo w M W NRMa alaa N + _ RpW/OERY CVr,BP - - mIM wr lra 01 m 4 . a m n naA gr� - o ma rora E - 7 4: Nn^ Tml ryy R4 - • � raA rp rma .aron ' nna • ron reT' r. rru naA- .' �TOI rrN Iro0 ' Hem rrA nw I ,arm :: a nN rrn nA 8l 1rA TIA ' rNa1 rrA1 � 7♦' arlar � rrA rrA w � Zoning and Vicinity Map 1 Attachment 1 File No. SD-2001-201 city of edmonds development information 0 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW 0 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 0 CONDITIONAL- USE PERMIT ❑ HOME OCCUPATION 0 FORMAL SUBDIVISION ❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION O LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT O PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT O STREET VACATION 0 REZONE ❑ SHORELINE PERMIT 0 VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION K OTHER: STAFF DECISION UNDER ECDC & 20.95 050 FILE# 7' D-0t—W1 ZONE C_kV DATE LI12M1 REC'D BY _ -!. FEE RECEIPT # HEARING DATE O HE ❑ STAFF O PB ❑ ADB O CC RECEIVED DEC 14 2001 PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION UNOCAL TANK FARM (UPPER YARD) SITE (S$L itMMPA1Yl'M LEGAL DESCRIPTION) PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE) TRIAD POINT EDWARDS LLC REQUEST FOR STAFF DECISION PROPERTY OWNER `UNION 011, COMPANY OF CALIEQ NIA PHONE # 425-640-7611 ADDRESS 1720 UNOCO ROAD, BLDG, C E-MAIL ADDRESS CCIKELL A , UNOCAL.COM FAX # 42L_ftQ-7601 TAX ACCOUNT #'s: 27032600102600; 26270320060006; SEC. 23 AND 96 TWP. 27 boam RNG. 3 EA,gT. W.M. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED USE: APPLICANT REQUESTS A STAFF DECISION UNDER ECDC § 20.95.050 CONFIRMING THE DETERMINATION OF THE LEVEL OF THE UNDISTURBED SOIL OF THE SUBJECT SITE FOR PURPOSES OF HEIGHT CALCULATIONS UNDER ECDC § 21.40.030. APPLICANT TRIAD POINT EDWARDS LLC; PHONE # 206-374-0414 ADDRESS PI&R 7Q.2801 ALAStLAN WAY SUITE 1Q7 SEATTI.E WA 98121 E-MAIL ADDRESS BOSS ADDEV.COM; FAX # 206-374-04j� CONTACT PERSON/AGENT RICHARD E. GIFFORD, ATTORNEY; PHONE # 425-673-9591 ADDRESS 600 mow STREET SUITE E. EDDMONDS WA 98020 E-MAIL ADDRESS RICK(aRGIFFORDLAW.COM; FAX # 425-673-0631 The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees. By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I am authorized to file tTaition o e behalf of the owner as listed below. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENT: RICHARD E. GIFFORD, ATTORNEY FOR TRIAD POINT EDWARDS, LLC Property Owner's Authorization By my signature, I certify that I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application, and grant my permission for the public officials and the —staff of th City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purposes of inspection and posting attendant to s p li o . SIGNATURE OF OWNER: UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA DATE A. 14 O This application form was revised on 1/27/00. To verify whether it is still current, call (425) 771-0220. C:IWINDOWS,TEMATriadUnoalCodelntapApp.121)2001.doc Attachment 2 RICHARD E. GIFFORD PLLC Richard E. Gifford Email: rick a rgt;Dord1a*com Mr. Robert Chave Planning Manager Development Services Dept. City of Edmonds 121— 5m Ave. North Edmonds WA 98020 RECEIVED r11 14 7nn1 December 14, 2001 PERMIT COUNTER Hand Delivered Re: Unocal upper yard at Point Edwards; request for staff decision Dear Mr. Chave: I am the attorney for Triad Point Edwards LLC ("Triad'). Triad is reviewing the feasibility of redeveloping a portion of certain property owned by Union Oil Corporation of California ("Unocal") at Point Edwards in the City of Edmonds, commonly known as the "upper yard" ("Subject Property"). The Subject Property is legally, described on Schedule 1 attached. In connection with its reviews of the Subject Property, Triad is requesting a staff decision by your department under Edmonds Community Development Code ("ECDC') § 20.95.050, Staff Decision —Notice Required, as more fully outlined below and in the accompanying materials. In addition to Schedule 1, the following materials are enclosed: 1. City of Edmonds Development Information form dated December 14, 2001 for the requested staff decision, signed by me on behalf of Triad and by Carl G. Kellar for Unocal; 2. Four (4) sets of the engineering report entitled "Edmonds Unocal Tank Farm Grading Study and Request for Consideration" dated December 14, 2001 ("Engineering Report"), prepared by Gregers F. Krabbe, PE, Triad Associates, the consulting engineers for the project; 3. Chicago Title Insurance A.L.T.A. Commitment for title insurance Order No. 366419 dated October 17, 2001, and Supplemental thereto dated December 14, 2001, showing Unocal's ownership of the Subject Property; 4. Copy of a letter to you dated December 14, 2001 from Mr. Kellar confirming, among other things, Unocal's ownership of the Subject Property and its authorization to Triad to take this action; and 600 MAIN STREET, SUITE E - EDMONDS, WASHINGTON - 98020 PHONE: (425) 673-9591 - FAX: (425) 673-0631 Mr. Robert Chave, Planning Manager December 14, 2001 Page 2 5. Triad's check made payable to the City of Edmonds in the amount of $255.00, the stated fee for the requested action and surcharge. Unocal acquired the Subject Property in the early 1920's and developed it as a bulk fuel terminal and storage facility. This use continued until approximately 1991 when the fuel storage tanks located on the site were decommissioned. The site currently is undergoing environmental review and cleanup. The fuel storage tanks located on the site were demolished by Unocal earlier this year. The topography of much of the Subject Property has been substantially altered over the 80-year period of Unocal's ownership and use. As part of its site assessment, Triad needs to establish the appropriate elevations to be used for purposes of height calculations under ECDC § 21.40.030. This code section provides, in pertinent part, that "Height means the average vertical distance, from the average level of the undisturbed soil of the site covered by a structure, to the highest point of the structure ... " (emphasis supplied). Triad interprets "level of the undisturbed soil' to refer to the original elevations for the site before it underwent development by Unocal. It is Triad understands that this interpretation is consistent with your department's position and with the City's historic interpretation of its development code. In addition to the plain language of the referenced code section, the current City of Edmonds Development Information publication, "Height Calculation Information", states that "Height must be calculated prior to any on -site grading or alteration of the property," and directs applicants to determine the maximum permitted height on a site by using a specified averaging method with a baseline elevation "at original, undisturbed soil". Triad's objective is to determine these baseline elevations for the site so that appropriate height calculations can be made. For undeveloped sites or undisturbed portions of property, this is a direct and relatively easy surveyor's calculation. For parcels that have undergone substantial regarding, alteration and disruption, existing topography may not accurately represent "original, undisturbed" soil elevations. This is the case with the Subject Property. In order to approximate original grade as closely as possible, it is necessary to reconstruct the topography of the site as it likely existed before development activity commenced. Triad commissioned Triad Associates (no affiliation) to assess these issues and, if possible, to develop an acceptable methodology to reconstruct the original, undisturbed grade of the Subject Property to a reasonable, "best engineered" standard. Mr. Krabbe spearheaded this effort. Triad Associates conducted field inspections and reviewed relevant historic information and aerial photos, onsite and offsite soils data, soils quantification studies, surrounding topography, and other appropriate information, and developed an engineering model of the undisturbed topography of the Subject Property. Triad Associates' analysis, methodology, findings, and conclusions are set forth in the Engineering Report. I refer you to the Report for the particulars of the technical processes utilized in this assessment and for Triad Associates' professional judgments. Mr. Krabbe has certified the results of the study as a "best engineered" reconstruction of the original, undisturbed topography of the Subject Property. _ Mr. Robert Chave, Planning Manager December 14, 2001 Page 3 Based on the Engineering Study, Triad respectfully requests your determination, as Planning Manager, that the reconstructed topography of the Subject Property established by Triad Associates, is an approved representation of the "level of the undisturbed soil" for all purposes of calculating permitted heights of structures that may be proposed by Triad -for the Subject Property, and that Edmonds Community Development Code § 21.40.030 be interpreted and applied to the Subject Property accordingly. In addition to the materials and information submitted to you under cover of this letter as part of Triad's application for staff review and decision, we intend to provide the following supplementary information as soon as it is available to us: 1. The street address information required for notice of the staff decision by the director of development services under ECDC §§ 20.95.050(B)(1) and .20.91.010(B)(1)(a)(ii); and 2. A review of relevant decisions and precedent of the City of Edmonds hearing examiner, architectural design board, or other departments, agencies, or staff of the City relating to the interpretation and application of ECDC § 21.40.030 in cases involving other sites with disturbed soil levels. We believe that the materials submitted to you with this letter will enable you to begin your review of the Engineering Report immediately. Extra copies of the Engineering Report have been included to facilitate distribution to other City departments as may be needed, and to any outside engineering.consultant retained by the City to assist in the requested review. If you have questions about these materials, the request for staff review and decision under this letter, or related considerations, or if there is any further information that you require in order to process Triad's request and render a decision, please so advise. We appreciate the opportunity to make this submission and look forward to your decision. Very truly yours, Richard E. Gifford Enclosures cc: Frederick W. Grimm Ross W. Wood Greg F. Krabbe Blain Weber T. Ryan Durkan Carl Gs Kellar REG/ms Unocal Corporation Real Estate 8 Remediatiow. - 11720 Unoco Road, Building C Edmonds, Washington 98020 Telephone (425) 640-7611 Facsimile (425) 640-7601 UNOCAL76 Mr. Robert Chave, Planning Manager December 14, 2001 Development Services Department City of Edmonds 121— 5b Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. Chave: Unocal is the owner of property at Point Edwards including the area known as the upper yard. Unocal submits this letter in support of the request made on behalf of Triad Point Edwards LLC for a staff decision by the Planning Division of the Development Services Department, City of Edmonds. Triad's.request was made by letter to you dated December 14, 2001 from its attorney, Richard E. Gifford. Triad is requesting a staff decision *establishing the undisturbed soil levels of the site for purposes of making height calculations under Edmonds Community Development Code § 21.40.030, Height. Triad's request is based on the engineering analysis and methodology described in the report entitled "Edmonds Unocal Tank Farm Undisturbed Ground Study and Request for Consideration" ("Engineering Study") prepared for Triad by Greg Krabbe of Triad Associates . ("Triad Engineers').. The Engineering Report accompanied Mr. Gifford's submittal to you on behalf of Triad. Unocal has been supplied with, and has reviewed, a complete copy of the Engineering Study as submitted to you, including all supporting materials and attachments. The descriptions and assumptions contained in the Engineering Study are true and justifiable to the best of Unocal's knowledge based on its ownership, development, and use of the site as a bulk fuel terminal and storage facility over the last eight decades. As recounted in the Engineering Study, the site has been substantially altered and regraded over this period of time and, in its current condition, the terrain does not represent the original, undisturbed soils levels for the much of the site. Mr. Krabbe's analysis and methodology as described in the Engineering Study are consistent to the best of our knowledge with Unocal's historic development and use of the site. Unocal agrees with Triad Engineers' conclusion that the reconstructed undisturbed grade of the site as modeled in the Engineering Study, is a reasonable and logical determination of the predevelopment, undisturbed level of the soils since original engineering design dating back to the early 1920s is not available. Accordingly, Unocal concurs with the conclusions stated in the Engineering Study. Further, Unocal supports and consents to Triad's request that your department issue a staff decision confirming that the reconstructed site topography represents the "level of the undisturbed soil" of the site for purposes of calculating heights of structures in connection with anyproposed redevelopment of the site. On behalf of Unocal, I have signed the City of Edmonds land use application form -being submitted on Triad's behalf in connection with its request for a staff decision, expressly authorizing Triad to take this action with respect to the Subject Property and authorizing the City of Edmonds and its staff to enter the site for posting and inspections attendant to its review of the requested action. Aye yoe1 Consultant to Unocal cc: Rick Tackett, Unocal Ross W. Woods, Triad Point Edwards, LLC Attachment 3 Richard E. Gifford TRLAD ASSOCIATES 11814 11 Sth Avenue NE Kirkland, WA 98034-6923 425.821.8448 425.821.3481 fax 800.488.0756 toll free www1riadassoccom EDMONDS UNOCAL TANK FARM UNDISTURBED GROUND STUDY AND REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION. Edmonds, Washington Prepared For: Point Edwards LLC December 11, 2001 Attachment 4 Job # 01-027 Unocal Tank Farm undisturbed ground study 1 1 Executive Summary This report outlines the engineering consideration used to establish a true undisturbed ground line for the upper yard or "tank farm" of the Unocal site located ' in The City of Edmonds. This study was undertaken in order to evaluate ' development constraints in relation to the City's height limitations for structures, which require the undisturbed ground elevation be used. as the baseline measurement. Data used to establish the undisturbed ground elevation is as follows: • Historical photos ' • Onsite soils logs g ' • Evaluation of surrounding topography • Earthwork quantity evaluation • Offsite soils logs It was assumed that the original 1920'S site design was conceived to minimize the ' amount of mass grading done to the site. ' Original ground was estimated in disturbed areas by creating cross sections of the existing ground and adding planes projected through points known to be ' undisturbed. These points were identified using historic photos, soils logs taken II 12i14 01 Page A 1 Job #01.027 ARLAD Unocal Tank Farm undisturbed ground study onsite, and field observation. The resulting adjusted sections were then checked against regional maps for consistency with surrounding topography. The reconstructed topography was then compared to the existing site to calculate an ' estimate of excavation cut and fill material. This analysis provided estimates of 70,000 CY of cut, and 30,000 CY of fill. Based on review by the Geotechnical ' engineer, it is assumed that the excess material generated from the original grading of the site was either pushed over the embankment or transported to the lower yard and used as fill material. ' The resulting topography is a best, engineered estimate of original undisturbed grade, for. the subject site, and can be used to calculatebuilding height limitations per ' City of Edmonds code. I 1 11 12/14/01 Page A-2 Job #01-fl27 ARLAD 1 f Of IAT I Unocal Tank Farm undisturbed ground study 1 1 2 Introduction The subject site lies at the far southwest corner of The City of Edmonds, between Unoco Rd. And Pine St., abutting the city limits of Woodway, just at the apex of Edwards Point, and is commonly known as the Unocal "Tank Farm". Photographs of the site are included in section 3.1 of this report. Site topography is rolling to steep with slopes between 2% and 75%. Soils are identified as native sands, silty sand, sandy silt and laminated to massive silt and clay in the Geotechnical report (See appendix, Terra Associates Project No. T-4893, Preliminary Geotechnical Report, Unocal site,10/21/01). Unocal Corporation, the current owner, began site development in the early 1920's as a bulk fuel terminal, with 23 above ground storage tanks ultimately located on the subject parcel, and a facilities yard on the parcel below. Construction was accomplished in phases; the first phase was completed in the early 1920's and consisted of the construction of 14 storage tanks on the subject parcel. The second phase consisted of the construction of 6 additional tanks on the subject parcel and occurred sometime in the early 1950's. The remaining 3 tanks were built subsequent to 1955. All storage facilities have been decommissioned by Unocal, and demolished in the summer of 2001. In its current state, the site is substantially cleared and graded with areas of steep terrain left undisturbed. As a first step toward redevelopment of the site, City of Edmonds height restrictions for structures must be considered in order to evaluate potential building types. Edmonds Community Development code, section 21.40.030 establishes the baseline for building height calculations as "the average level of the undisturbed soil of the site". Because the tank farm site has been substantially altered as a part of the development process, the original, undisturbed topography can only be reconstructed by reference to available historic information and engineering analysis. This study was performed in order to establish a model of the undisturbed 12/14/01 Job #01.027 ARJAJ) �f Page A•3 Unocal Tank Farm undisturbed ground study ground topography of this site for use as the baseline measure in making height calculations. Analysis was based on the creation of a series. of cross sections through the site. ' Undisturbed ground lines were estimated using onsite points and grades established as undisturbed. Contour lines were then drawn through elevations ,. established by the cross sections to produce a best engineering approximation of the original topography. 3 Establishment of Original Ground Elevations. Even with the historic grading of the site, there are still significant indicators of ' where original undisturbed grade had been: ' • Perimeter areas left undisturbed ' • Soils logs indicating evidence of topsoil layers reminiscent of the original ground surface t 3.1 Undisturbed areas ' It has been generally stated that the top of the site, located inside of Pine St, and the steep perimeter have not been disturbed by Unocal's past development or use of the site (See figure 1). These conclusions have been verified by site inspection and ' review of a series of aerial photographs of the site taken in 1947,1955 and 1967. i-1 L 12/14/01 Page A-4 Job #t01-027 TRIAD xsoc ni r:s S_ Unocal Tank Farm undisturbed ground study ' These photos show virtually no change in the vegetation at the peak or perimeter of the site, indicating that these areas are in their original, undisturbed condition. This ' further determination that they substantiates our professional represent undisturbed ' grade. ' 3.2 Soils Logs Soils logs contained in the geotechnical report (See appendix) note where topsoil was observed in the strata. Specifically, logs 3,4,6,7,8,9 and 15 (See figure 1.) have traces of organic soils immediately below the fill materials identified onsite. This is ' noted as the "old top soil horizon' and has been interpreted as an indicator of where the original ground surface was prior to construction of the tank farm. Logs ' containingevidence of on ground are scattered throughout the site, and give � 8� g � ' additional references for calibrating the estimated undisturbed ground line interior to the site, within the perimeter conditions described above. 4 Creation of Cross sections ' In order. to construct a contour map that is representative of the undisturbed ' topography, created cross sections need to be frequent enough throughout the site to present an adequate number of data points. For this site, a total of 18 sections were taken radial from a central point along the west boundary, spaced every 100' along an alignment bisecting the site (See figure 2). Cross sections were created by first establishing an existing ground profile along the section to be evaluated. The undisturbed ground line was then projected from the undisturbed perimeter or end grades, and through soil log data exhibiting signs of ' the old topsoil horizon located in the interior of the site. ' Undisturbed ground lines were adjusted between known data points using the following assumptions: 12/14/01 Page A•8 .lob #01*021 AR11AD,AD i.i Unocal Tank Farm undisturbed ground study 1 Equipment available during the time of the original site excavation did not allow for the massive site adjustments we are familiar u7ith. today. We assume that the original 1920's grading concept was designed to minimize excavation. This assumption is ' applied to the Western most 60% of the site. The. eastern section of the site was constructed in approximately 1950, when excavation equipment had evolved to the ' point where massive earth movement was more economical (See 1955 photo). • With the benefit of better earthmoving equipment, it is assumed that more massive ' excavations can be expected in the eastern half of the site (See 1955 Photo). ' • It is assumed that grades located between tank pad excavations and berms are. likely to be undisturbed (this assumption is collaborated by soil logs in several locations). • In order to minimize compaction requirements and to assure sound bearing strength ' for tank foundations, it is assumed that tank pad excavations themselves were formed entirely in cut, slightly keyed into the ground on the doumhill side. ' Figures 3 and 4 are examples of the resultant cross sections showing both existing gu P g g ground and reconstructed undisturbed ground lines. These were constructed using existing topographic data and the undisturbed ground data and assumptions ' explained above. 5 Creation of undisturbed contour lines ' Contours representing the reconstructed undisturbed ground topography were created by setting points every 25' along each section line at the elevation of the iestimated undisturbed ground line. A Triangulated Irregular Network (TIN) between these points was using the Land Development Desktop R2i design ' software. From the TIN, lines of equal elevation between the cross sections were identified as topographic contour lines. 12/14/01 Page A-9 .lob #01-027 hRIAD xxxori�T r:s Unocal Tank Farm undisturbed ground study ' The resulting topographic map was then compared to regional topography as represented by the USGS Quadrangle maps. The map for this area (See figure 5, USGS City of Edmonds Quadrangle) indicates steep slopes against the Puget Sound ' shoreline, and more gradual eroded slopes within the draw east of the site and along its northern border. The site itself is shown as a gradual transition from the steep shoreline condition along the west coast to the milder terrain on the interior draw, which is consistent with both the reconstructed and undisturbed topography. ' As a second check of the created topography, earthwork estimates were done by ' subtracting the undisturbed topography from the existing. Results indicate a total of 70,000 CY of cut, and 30,000 CY of fill. ' Wasting of extra material during construction was probably done through a ' combination of pushing material over theembankment, and transporting fill material into the lower section, or lower yard"of the Unocal site. It is assumed that ' the amount of material wasted over the embankment was not significant enough to disturb the larger trees in these steep areas. Review of the aerial photos clearly shows a graded connection between the subject site and the lower yard, and consequently the potential to transport material. In addition, soil logs taken in the ' lower yard indicate the presence of fill material_ consistent with that found on the subject site. ' 6 Conclusion t The undisturbed ground topography predicted by this analysis indicates elevation adjustments ranging from increases of 2' to 25' in the areas of extensive grading activity directly associated with the construction of the storage tanks. Grade ' adjustments in surrounding areas are minimal, and consist of both increases and ' decreases of the current elevations, or, no changes in areas where original ground elevations are believed to remain. 12/14/01 Page A•10 Job #01.027 /hU.ADAT F.t Unocal Tank Farm undisturbed ground study ' These results do not represent radical alterations of the existing ground elevation favorable to evaluation of the City's height code, but are modest adjustments ' consistent with the assumptions made in the analysis, which reflect common ' construction practices. To the extent possible, this analysis has been substantiated by historic information, ' or current data believed to be similar to original site conditions. Results were checked against the following: • Surrounding topography • Construction practice • Geotechnical data ' • Earthwork calculations In addition,. this study has been prepared with the supervision of a series of professionals with experience in civil engineering, geotechnical engineering (See ' appendix), surveying / mapping and construction practice. ' As such, we believe the "undisturbed ground topography' predicted by this study is a reasonable, best engineered estimate of the site topography prior to construction, ' and meets the City's criteria for establishing the undisturbed ground elevation cited in code 21-040.030. 1 1 1 12/14/01 Job #01.027 Page A-11 Unocal Tank Farm undisturbed ground study 7 Appendix 7.1 Geotechnical letter 7.2 Figures 7.2.1 Figure 1. Undisturbed site map and soil log locations 7.2.2 Figure 2. Site sections. locations 7.2.3 Figure 3. Modified cross section 7.2.4 Figure 4. Modified cross section 7.2.5 Figure 5. USGS Quadrangle Map 7.2.6 Figure 6. Created, undisturbed topographic map of site 7.3 Geotechnical report 7.4 Earthwork Calculations 12/14/01 Page A•12 Job #01.027 ARMD A`iffICIAT P.S TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences December 13, 2001 Project No. T-4893 Mr. Ross Woods Triad Point Edwards 2801 Alaskan Way, Suite 107 Seattle, Washington 98121 Subject: . Geotechnical Review Comments Original Grade Evaluation UNOCAL Site Pine Street and Unoco Road Edmonds, Washington Reference: Grading Study and Request for Consideration, Edmonds Unocal Tank Farm, by Triad Associates, dated December 12, 2001 Preliminary Geotechnical Report, UNOCAL Site, by Terra Associates, Inc., dated November 21, 2001 Dear Mr. Woods: As requested, we reviewed the referenced report by Triad Associates (Triad). In our opinion, the geotechnical information presented in the referenced geotechnical study has been accurately interpreted and applied by Triad in developing their conclusions. Based on, our review, we concur with the findings of the Triad report with regards to the predicted original ground topography. We trust the information presented is sufficient for your current needs. If you have any questions or require additional information, please call. Sincerely yours, TERRA ASSOCIATES, INC. J ;a J ojo 1 J cc: ?'>? £abbe, Triad Associates VORES 1219103 12525 Willows Road, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034 PhnnP (4751 R71-7777 9 Fax f471;1 R71-4414 9 tPrraOtPrra-associates.rom D SOILS .LOGS/ UNDISTURBED AREA MAP FIGURE I UNOCAL TANK FARM GRADING INTERPRETATION V fma cot wry, WASGNGTGN �•' .�',�;•;.'�w. .=�e^_,.:. ��.� •\`•\tip\�,\\, ,,• /' +may\ 'r s;,t- a ��•.1��''•\,, ''ti' '' ' t '\'i •"•.,�•. 1. \ / 1 \ /' 'i Imo, %• .:x � - °q \ /i - r � i, W; i 41 •;,, ,;.,'�j. ,.; Yam;,.'.., r. ,w,: �., r E 1. , •��: _ , . �i .. , ..•'' , . , . , . �� `r:?�,�F „� i O J g o_ SITE SECTIONS LOCATIONS A FIGURE 2 UNOCAL TANK FARMS B� �I GRAD/NG INTERPRETATION V gm cowry, wASMMTOv - 176 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1d .......... ........ ..... _....... _... -................... ... ... - - ........ -...._ ._-....... _.._...._.._...._._. ... { . _...._..._..... _......._._.........__._.._..,........_....__.. .._.._ ___ _ _.........- -.. __.....__ ,-._...........y .............. ..._.__.. �.... .....1.......... _........... , _....__..._.......... - -- ----....... ---- • ----:._.._... ... ... _ ....__ I iI I _._...-- - .............. ............_... ..... _.... _._ i.................. ---.._._... �' / _ -- ---...... ... ..._....__. ............._.... 1.... .............- i ....... ........... -_.......... _..... ... i -r - i - - IEV -- - -- - -- --- - - I ! t : f I i E ! I I `.._..-- --... - - - ... ---- -- --- ---- -- - --_...._ -......._.._._i........ .. - . -... i : ..... _ ................. i ---..._......: - -- - .i._� - - - - - -.._...._:.._.....__-....;......._......__;• 1 "� 16'` - VERT. 1----- �_.._ �____._.__.._..........___....._ ............._.._-_...i......__ - C OS SE T/O 3+`DO _____. _ ......._..._............ __......._ .._........ 170 160 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 1 02001 TRIAD ASSOCIATES 1 16C 15 140 lio 12C lic 10 9( 8( A 6( 5 4 3( .•.. ..... . ........ ..... .. . ......... ...... ------------- "A. _4 -------------- --- ------------ - 7—t A ot 00or i GROEM Z- ----------- ---- - .................. .... ... .............. ...... ........ ....... . ........ ........ ........... ............. .....CALL 1 80 ........... 6— ................................. ..I ........................... ...... . ... 16 \/Ek * ............... ................. ............ .......... ............ ..................... ........ ................ . . ......... .......................... ..... ... CROSS. SECTIO ..............................1..........i V 1400 J*T ....' ... .............. .............. I .................. ..................................... ...................... ...... . ............ ......... . .......... ..................... 170 160 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 Jo 20 Q 2001 TRIAD A.oCIATES O ITV 24 tl ww mv 'AM wo w WD 01-027 A -N X All i Ai P j Iv Zl- A; vp at ewbp 4;v eA ESTIMATED, UNDISTURBED TOPOGRAPHIC MAP 0 FIGURE 0 UNOCAL TANK FARM GRADING INTERPRETATION I&M cot*", WAWWWCG;TaV Dec 21 01__ U8: 14 Keia niaaiecon TGJ GJO OLVV r f Reid M iddIeton December 21, 2001 File No. 21-01-013-017-80 Mr. Lyle Christman Engineering Division City of Edmonds 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: Edmonds Unocal Tank Farm Peer Review Dear Mr. Christman: As requested by the City of Edmonds, we have reviewed the December 14, for Point Edwards LLC report prepared by Triad Associates. This report was prep ared in an effort to establish the "undisturbed" ground elevation for structure height limitations per your development requirements. Bob Galteland, P.E., the Director of our Civil Projects Group, and I reviewed the report and based on the existing topography, aerial photos, and soils information provided in the report, we believe the prc-existing contours provided in the report to be a reasonable interpretation of the data We trust this letter will satisfy your requirements relative to this requested review. Please contact either Bob or I should you have any questions or require any additional information. Sincerely, Reid Middleton, Inc. Michael G.1vlickiewicz, PIS Director, Survey Group. sjs\21Cp\O1W 13_Edmonds\O17Lmdoc\mgm Attachment 5 J:q, usst P(.ranc, J 1'111-trf.,rf Reid'Middlet0n, Inc. 2906 (01by Avenue fverctt, WA 98201 Ph: 42S 259-S500 Fox: 425 259.6200 ISTREET FILE PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL REPORT UNOCAL Site Pine Street and Chinook Road Edmonds, Washington Project No. T-4893 Terra Associates, Inc. RECEIVED AUG 19 2003 PERMIT COUNTER Prepared for: Triad Point Edwards Seattle, Washington November 21, 2001 TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering,. Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences November 21, 2001 Project No. T-4893 Mr. Ross Woods Triad Point Edwards 2801 Alaskan Way, Suite 107 Seattle, Washington 98121 Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Report UNOCAL Site Pine Street and Chinook Road Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. Woods: As requested, we have conducted a preliminary geotechnical engineering study for the subject project. The attached report presents our findings and recommendations for the geotechnical aspects of project design and construction. Our field exploration indicates that the site is generally underlain by medium dense to very dense native sand, silty sand, sandy silt, and laminated to massive, very dense silt and/or hard clay. Fill has been placed at locations across the site in thicknesses ranging from about 1 to 12 feet. The consistency of the fill soil is variable, but generally appears to have been derived from the on -site soils. Much of the fill we observed contained organic material and/or debris. We observed light seepage of perched groundwater in several test pits at depths ranging from about 2.5 to 11.0 feet below the ground surface. In our opinion, the subsurface conditions at the site are suitable for the proposed development of the property. In general, conventional spread footings may be used for supporting the buildings bearing on undisturbed native soil or compacted structural fill. The slopes on the site are generally stable, and the stability is not expected to be affected by the proposed development. The uncontrolled fill encountered on the site will not be suitable for directly supporting structural loads or pavements. Conceptual plans for development indicate significant cuts in the uphill part of the site, adjacent to Pine Street. These excavations will most likely need to be provided with temporary support during construction. 12525 Willows Road, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034 Phone (425) 821-7777 • Fax (425) 821-4334 • terra@terra-associates.com Mr. Ross Woods November 21, 2001 Once project plans have been finalized, we will conduct additional detailed analyses to evaluate impacts on slope stability and prepare final recommendations for the geotechnical aspects of site development. We trust the information presented is sufficient for your current needs. If you have any questions or require additional information, please call. Sincerely yours, TERRA ASSOCIATES, INC. t(/a(/pl 4. �..yiry.. caiu.v�r. +jj�R..Mn•`CG � Project No. T-4893 Page No. ii 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Palze No. 1.0 Project Description......................................................:.................................................. 1 . 2.0 Scope of Work................................................................................................................ 1 3.0 Site Conditions............................................................................................................... 2 3.1 Surface............................................................................................................... 2 3.2 Soils................................................................................................................... 3 3.3 Groundwater......................................................................................................3 4.0 Geologic Hazards........................................................................................................... 4 4.1 Erosion.................:.............................................................................................4 4.2 Steep Slope........................................................................................................ 4 4.3 Landslide........................................................................................................... 5 4.4 Seismic.............................................................................................................. 5 5.0 Discussion and Preliminary Recommendations............................................................. 5 5.1 General..............................................................................................................5 5.2 Site Preparation and Grading............................................................................ 6 5.3 Excavations........................................................................................................7 5.4 Foundations....................................................................................................... 8 5.5 Basement and Retaining Walls.......................................................................... 9 5.6 Slab -on -Grade Floors...................................................................................... 10 5.7 Drainage.......................................................................................................... 10 5.8 Utilities............................................................................................................ 11 5.9 Pavements........................................................................................................11 6.0 Additional Services...................................................................................................... 11 7.0 Limitations....................................................................................................................12 Fiy,ures VicinityMap................................................................................... Exploration Location Plan.............................................................. General Slope Fill Detail................................................................. Appendix Field Exploration and Laboratory Testing ..................................... .............................. Figure 1 .............................. Figure 2 .............................. Figure 3 ....... Appendix A 1 1 Preliminary Geotechnical Report UNOCAL Site Pine Street and Chinook Road Edmonds, Washington 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION We understand the project will consist of a residential development. Detailed building and site development plans are currently not available. However, a preliminary site plan by GGLO indicates the development will consist of 15 multi -unit buildings. We understand that the buildings will be three to four stories, with daylight basements and attached garages. We expect that the buildings will be wood -framed, with lower floors constructed at grade. We expect structural loads will be about five to seven kips per linear foot for continuous bearing walls. Column loads may be on the order of 200 kips. ' Our review of an unreferenced preliminary grading plan, dated February 20, 2001, indicates that the planned site development will require extensive grading with cuts and fills up to about 20 and 30 feet, respectively. In addition, it appears that temporary construction cuts up to about 20 feet will be required along the downgradient side of Pine Street. Proposed permanent cut and fill slopes are shown with an inclination of 2:1 (Horizontal: Vertical). ' The recommendations contained in the following sections of this report are preliminary and are based on the conceptual information described above. We should review design drawings as they become available in order to ' supplement or amend our recommendations, as required. 2.0 SCOPE OF WORK ' On October 18 and 19, 2001, we excavated 17 test pits to depths ranging from 9.5 to 16.0 feet below existing surface grades. In addition, we reviewed existing subsurface information from previous environmental studies at the site to augment the information obtained in our subsurface investigation. Using this subsurface information, ' we performed analyses to develop preliminary geotechnical recommendations for project design and construction. Specifically, this report addresses the following: ' Soil and groundwater conditions • Geologic hazards and site stability • Site preparation and grading ' • Excavations • Foundations 1 ' November 21, 2001 Project No. T-4893 • Basement and retaining walls ' • Slab -on -grade floors ' • Drainage • Utilities • Pavements ' 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS 3.1 Surface ' The project site is the approximately 15-acre upper yard area of the UNOCAL Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal located approximately between Unoco Road and Pine Street in Edmonds, Washington. The upper yard area was ' formerly used as a tank farm having 23 aboveground storage tanks (ASTs). All of the tanks and associated aboveground piping had been removed prior to our field investigation. The approximate location of the site is shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. ' The site is situated on the upper portion of a predominantly north -facing hillside. An undated site plan by Triad Associates indicates elevations in the planned development area range from about Elev. 170 in the south-central portion to about Elev. 70 in the northeastern portion. Surface grades at the site have been significantly altered for siting fuel tanks. In general, the fuel tanks were constructed on large excavations cut into the hillside. The cut slopes are typically 15 to 20 feet in height with inclinations of about 60 to 70 percent. The downgradient sides of ' several tank areas are enclosed by a containment berm constructed of fill. The heights of the berms are about 6 to 12 feet above the bottom of the tank excavation. We observed a tar -like coating covering the surface of the ' berms and most of the interior slopes of the tank areas. The western and northern margins of the planned development area are near the top of a steep natural slope. The ' topographic information provided to us indicates the slope is approximately 70 to 90 feet high, with inclinations ranging between about 50 and 80 percent. The areas beyond the toe of the slope to the north-northwest are relatively flat UNOCAL yard and parking areas. Burlington Northern railroad tracks run along the toe of the ' slope to the west. Portions of the slope have been subjected to shallow erosion and localized sloughing; however, we did not observe indications of deep-seated instability. Slope vegetation consists predominantly of young to mature deciduous trees and brush. The portion of the site located south of Pine Street is undeveloped forest except at the western end, which is occupied by two small buildings located within a fenced enclosure. This portion of the site slopes down to the ' north and northeast at grades of about 20 to 25 percent. Vegetation consists of predominantly of mature coniferous and deciduous trees and brush undergrowth. 1 Page No. 2 November 21, 2001 Project No. T-4893 3.2 Soils The native soils encountered in the test pits consist of medium dense to very dense native sand, silty sand, sandy silt, and laminated to massive, very dense silt and/or hard clay. The soils we observed in the test pits are generally consistent with those described in the environmental studies performed at the site by others. We encountered the very dense silt/hard clay underlying the medium dense to dense sand, silty sand, and sandy silt in eight of the test pits at depths ranging from about 2.5 to 10.0 feet below the ground surface. Test Pits TP-11, TP- 12, and TP-14 through TP-17 all terminated in medium dense to very dense sand, silty sand, or sandy silt. These test pits are all located at lower elevations in the northeastern to eastern portion of the site. The very dense silty sand and sandy silt occasionally contained fine gravel and appeared glacial till -like. We observed fill overlying the native soils in 11 of the 17 test pits. The fill soils consist primarily of loose to firm silty sand, sandy silt, silt, and clay, with varying amounts of organic material and debris. The thickness of the fill is generally less than about three feet; however, we observed fills of 12 and 11 feet in Test Pits TP-6 and TP-16, respectively. Test Pit TP-6 was located on a berm between two large tank excavations. Test Pit TP-16 was located on the northeast -facing slope, below the two large tank areas in the eastern portion of the site. In general, we observed the original topsoil horizon beneath the fill soils. The Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and Part of the Edmonds West Quadrangles, Washington by James P. Minard, 1983, shows the soils at higher site elevations mapped as Vashon till, Vashon advance outwash, and Transitional beds. Soils at lower site elevations are mapped as medium- to coarse -grained sand of the Whidbey Formation. Transitional bed sediments are described by this publication as massive to bedded clay, silt, and fine to very fine sand. The soils encountered in the test pits are generally consistent with the descriptions of transitional bed deposits. Detailed descriptions of the subsurface conditions encountered in the test pits are presented on the Test Pit Logs in Appendix A. The approximate test pit locations are shown on Figure 2. 3.3 Groundwater We encountered light groundwater seepage in 7 of the 17 test pits at depths ranging between about 2.5 and 11.0 ' feet. The seepage was generally perched on the very dense siltihard clay, or on the dense to very dense glacial till -like silty sand/sandy silt. ' The groundwater conditions described above are typical for sites underlain by relatively impermeable materials, such as glacial till and glacially consolidated silts and clays. Surface water will infiltrate through the upper sandy ' or weathered soils and become perched on the underlying, relatively impermeable material. When combined with a positive gradient, the groundwater will flow laterally along this contact, emerging at lower elevations as seeps and springs. Perched groundwater levels and flow rates will fluctuate seasonally and typically reach their ' highest levels during and shortly following the wet winter months (October through May). We did not observe indications of significant groundwater seepage on the site slopes. 7, L Page No. 3 1 1 1 November 21, 2001 Project No. T-4893 4.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 4.1 Erosion The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) has mapped the site soils as Alderwood-Urbanland complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes and Kitsap silt loam, 8 to 25 percent slopes in the upper southern portion of the site, and Alderwood- Everett gravelly sandy loams, 25 to 70 percent slopes in the area of the former tank farm and the steep slope below the tank farm area. The soils we observed in the test pit generally conform with the SCS mapping; however, the very dense silt and hard clay observed in the former tank areas would better correlate with Kitsap silt loam, 25 to 50 percent slopes. The erosion hazards for soils classified as Alderwood-Urbanland complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes and Kitsap silt loam, 8 to 25 percent slopes are classified as slight and moderate, respectively. Alderwood-Everett gravelly sandy loams, 25 to 70 percent slopes is classified as having a moderate to high erosion hazard. The erosion hazard for soils classified as Kitsap silt loam, 25 to 50 percent slopes is considered high. The City of Edmonds defines erosion hazard areas as those areas containing soils that may experience severe to very severe erosion hazard. These soils include, but are not limited to, the following when they occur on slopes of 15 percent or greater: i. Alderwood soils (15 to 25 percent slopes) ii. Alderwood-Everett Series (25 to 70 percent slopes) iii. Everett Series (15 to 25 percent slopes) Based on the SCS mapping, much of the site would be considered an erosion hazard area. We did not observe indications of significant active erosion in the planned development area; however, the soils will be susceptible to erosion when exposed during construction. Best Management Practices (BMPs) must be used during construction to mitigate the erosion hazard. If the erosion control measures are properly implemented and maintained, it is our opinion that the planned development will not adversely impact the erosion potential for the site or adjacent properties. All erosion and sediment control BMPs should conform to City of Edmonds requirements. 4.2 Steep Slope The City of Edmonds defines steep slope hazard areas as any ground that rises at an inclination of 40 percent or more within a vertical elevation change of at least 20 feet. Based on this definition and the topographic information provided to us, the steep slope located below the development area and the cut slopes on the uphill side of several of the tank areas are considered steep slope hazard areas. The steep slopes located within the former tank farm area will be graded to inclinations of 2:1 or flatter. It does ' not appear that site grading will directly impact the steep slope located below the western and northern portions of the development area. We will evaluate potential impacts regarding the steep slope hazard areas once final ' site grading information is developed. I Page No. 4 ' November 21, 2001 Project No. T-4893 4.3 Landslide ' The City Edmonds defines landslide hazard follows: of areas as ' 1. Any area with slopes of 15 percent or greater and impermeable soils (typically silt and clay) frequently interbedded with soils (predominantly sand and and springs or granular gravel) groundwater. 2. Any area that includes areas with significant visible evidence of groundwater seepage, which also ' includes existing landslide deposits, regardless of slopes. 3. Any area that has shown movement during the Holocene epoch (from 10,000 years ago to present), or is underlain by mass wastage debris of that epoch, as determined by a qualified geologist or geotechnical engineer. 4. Any area potentially unstable as a result of rapid stream incision or stream bank erosion. 5. Any area located on an alluvial fan, presently subject to or potentially subject to, inundation by debris . flow or deposition of stream -transported sediments. ' Based on our observations of site soil conditions and the above definition, many of the site slopes would be considered landslide hazard areas. We expect that the steep slopes located below the western and northern ' portions of the development area would also be considered a landslide hazard area due to soil conditions. Based on our field observations, it does not appear that the site slopes have been subjected to deep-seated instability. An evaluation of potential impacts of development and any necessary mitigation will be made after the site development plans have been finalized. These evaluations will include additional subsurface exploration by deep test borings in areas of deep excavations and near the top of the slope. ' 4.4 Seismic The Puget Sound area falls within Seismic Zone 3, as classified by the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC). ' Based on the soil conditions encountered in our test pits and described in the environmental report by others, a soil profile type of Sc, from Table 16-J of the 1997 UBC, should be used in design. Liquefaction is a phenomenon where there is a reduction or complete loss of soil strength due to an increase in water pressure induced by vibrations. Liquefaction mainly affects geologically recent deposits of fine-grained sands that are below the groundwater table. Based on the soil and groundwater conditions we encountered, it is our opinion that the risk for liquefaction to occur in potential building areas at this site is negligible. ' 5.0 DISCUSSION AND PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 General Based on our study, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed development. Buildings can be ' supported on conventional spread footings bearing on competent native soils below the surficial topsoil layer and/or uncontrolled fill, or on structural fill placed and compacted on the competent native soils. Floor slabs and pavements can be similarly supported. I Page No. 5 1 November 21, 2001 Project No. T-4893 The uncontrolled fill encountered should not be considered suitable for directly supporting foundations or slab - on -grade floors. The existing fill we observed in the northeastern portion of the site is at least 11 feet thick in locations, contains a significant amount of organic material, and does not appear to have been placed in a ' controlled manner on a properly prepared subgrade. To reduce the potential of unacceptable differential settlements of the structures and to avoid impacting the stability of the fill slope in this portion of the site, we recommend transferring building loads to competent native soils beneath the fill using deep foundations. In our ' opinion, a foundation system consisting of augercast piles or drilled piers will provide an economical and suitable building support system. Removing the uncontrolled fill and replacing it with an engineered structural fill pad is an alternative to using a deep foundation system. Because of uncertainties in the consistency of the fill, there are risks that -cannot be quantified associated with constructing pavements over the existing fill. Therefore, the existing fill soils should also be removed from pavement areas and replaced with structural fill. ' Much of the existing fill soils observed at the site will not be suitable for reuse as structural fill because of excessive organic material and debris. The native silty sands, silts, and clays are moisture sensitive and will be ' difficult to compact as structural fill when too wet. The ability to use the soils from site excavation as structural fill will depend on the soils' moisture content and the prevailing weather conditions at the time of construction. If grading activities will take place during the winter. season, the owner should be prepared to import free - draining granular material for use as structural fill and backfill. The following recommendations should be incorporated into the project design drawings and construction ' specifications. These recommendations are preliminary and may be altered or augmented upon review of the final plans. 5.2 Site Preparation and Gradinp, To prepare the site for construction, all vegetation, organic surface soils, and other unsuitable materials including the existing fills should be stripped and removed from the portions of the site to be developed. Once clearing and grubbing operations are complete, cuts and fills can be made to establish design grades. Prior to placing fill, we recommend proofrolling all exposed surfaces to determine if any isolated soft and yielding areas are present. Cut areas that will provide direct support for new construction should also be proofrolled. If excessively yielding areas are observed and cannot be stabilized in place by compaction, they should be cut to a firm bearing surface and filled to grade with structural fill. If the depth of excavation to remove unstable soils is excessive, you can consider using a geotextile fabric, such as Mirafi 500X or equivalent, 'in conjunction with structural fill to limit the depth of removal. In general, a minimum of 18 inches of a clean granular structural fill placed over the geotextile fabric should establish a stable bearing surface. A representative of Terra Associates, Inc., should observe all proofrolling operations at the time of construction to verify stable subgrades. Excavations up to about 20 feet below the existing ground surface are proposed along the northern side of Pine Street in the southern portion of the site. Based on our observations, and considering the time of year our investigation was performed, it does not appear that significant drainage efforts will be required to complete the excavation as proposed. However, this should be verified by field observations at the time of construction. Page No. 6 ' November 21, 2001 Project No. T-4893 Most of the granular site soils contain a moderate percentage of fines (silt and clay particles), which will make them sensitive to moisture. The use of silt and clay soils as structural fill may be possible during dry weather. However, it will be extremely difficult to control their moisture content and to place and compact them satisfactorily. Some of the site soils are wet and will require drying to reduce their moisture content and facilitate compaction. Drying can be accomplished by aeration during dry weather conditions or by the use of an additive such as cement kiln dust or Portland cement. If fill activities must take place during wet weather or on a wet subgrade, the owner should be prepared to use wet weather structural fill. For this purpose, we recommend using a granular soil that meets the following grading requirements: U.S. Sieve Size Percent Passing 3 inches 100 No. 4 75 maximum No. 200 5 maximum* *Based on the 3/4-inch fraction. Prior to use, Terra Associates, Inc. should examine and test all on -site or imported materials proposed for use as structural fill. Structural fill should be placed in uniform loose layers not exceeding 12 inches, and then compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the soil's maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM Test Designation D-698 (Standard Proctor). The moisture content of the soil at the time of compaction should be within two percent of its optimum, as determined by this same standard. In non-structural areas or for backfill in utility trenches below a depth of 4 feet, the degree of compaction could be reduced to 90'percent. Embankment fills placed on slopes exceeding a grade of 20 percent must be keyed and benched into competent native soils. A general slope fill detail is shown on Figure 3. Subsurface drains may also be required. The need for subsurface drains should be evaluated in the field at the time of construction. The proposed fill areas should be stripped of topsoil, duff, existing fill soils, and soils containing organic material prior to creating horizontal benches for the placement of the fill. All permanent cut and fill slopes should be graded with a finished inclination no greater than 2:1. Upon completion of grading, the slope face should be appropriately vegetated or provided with other physical means to guard against erosion. Final grades at the top of the slope must promote surface drainage away from the slope crest. 5.3 Excavations All excavations at the site associated with confined spaces, such as utility trenches and lower building levels, must be completed in accordance with local, State, or Federal requirements. Based on current Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations, the upper medium dense to dense granular soils would be classified as Group C soils. The very dense silt and hard clay soils fall into the Group A category. Page No. 7 November 21, 2001 Project No. T-4893 Accordingly, for temporary excavations more than 4 feet and less than 20 feet deep, side slopes in Group C soils should be laid back at a minimum slope inclination of 1.5:1. Temporary slopes in the Group A soils can be completed with a gradient of 0.75:1. If there is insufficient room to complete the excavations in this manner, or if excavations greater than 20 feet deep are planned, temporary shoring may need to be used to support the excavations. The above information is provided solely for the benefit of the owner and other design consultants and should not be construed to imply that Terra Associates, Inc. assumes responsibility for job site safety. Job site safety is the sole responsibility of the project contractor. Based on the grading information provided to us, it appears that portions of the temporary excavation along the northern side of Pine Street will require shoring. We recommend using a cantilevered soldier pile and timber lagging shoring system. We will provide design parameters for temporary shoring once more details are known regarding final site grading. 5.4 Foundations Spread Footings The buildings may be supported on conventional spread footing foundations bearing on competent native soils or on structural fill placed above competent native soils, as recommended in the Site Preparation and Grading section of this report. Perimeter foundations should be placed at least 1.5 feet below final exterior grades for frost protection. Interior foundations can be constructed at any convenient depth. On a preliminary basis, foundations can be dimensioned for a net allowable bearing capacity of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf) where supported by the medium dense to dense native soils and compacted structural fill. Foundations supported by the very dense silt and hard clay soils can be dimensioned for a net allowable bearing capacity of 5,000 psf. For short-term loads, such as wind and seismic, a one-third increase in this allowable capacity can be used.. With structural loading as anticipated and these bearing stresses applied, estimated total settlements are about one inch, with one-half to three -fourth inches differential in nature. These settlements should be immediate in nature, occurring during and shortly following application of building loads. For designing foundations to resist lateral loads, a base friction coefficient of 0.4 can be used. Passive earth pressures acting on the side of the footing and buried portion of the foundation stem wall can also be considered. We recommend calculating this lateral resistance using an equivalent fluid weight of 300 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). We recommend not including the upper 12 inches of soil in this computation because it can be affected by weather or disturbed by future grading activity. This value assumes the foundation will be constructed neat against competent native soil or backfilled with structural fill, as described in the Site Preparation and Grading section of this report. The recommended friction and passive values include a safety factor of 1.5. Page No. 8 1 November 21, 2001 Project No. T-4893 Drilled Piles Where footing elevations cannot be readily lowered to the competent native soil, we recommend supporting building, wall, and floor loads on augercast piles or drilled pier foundations that penetrate a minimum of five feet into the native bearing stratum. Allowable axial and lateral pile capacities for varying pile diameters are as follows: Pile Diameter inches Allowable Axial Load tons Allowable Lateral Load tons 16 30 4 18 35 5 The above allowable axial capacities include a safety factor of 2.0. Full single -pile capacities can be used, ' provided pile spacing is at least three pile diameters. For closer spacing, there will be a slight reduction in the allowable single -pile capacity due to group effects. The amount of this reduction will depend on the number of ' piles in the grouping and their spacing. We anticipate that settlements under the pile foundations will be less than one-fourth inch. For augercast piles, the pressure used to inject the grout and construct the pile column will compress the soils immediately adjacent to the pile. As a result, the amount of grout needed to form the pile may be greater than the theoretical grout volume. Also, piles should be constructed at a minimum spacing of five diameters. Once the grout has achieved its initial set, installation between these locations can be completed. The auger should be extracted slowly and uniformly below a sufficient and consistent head of grout. If the auger is extracted too quickly, the pile may neck down and soil may collapse into the pile, reducing its structural integrity. At a point along the injection line, the piling contractor should use a pressure gauge to monitor the grout pressure during construction. The amount of grout used in forming the pile should also be monitored. 5.5 Basement and Retaininp, Walls The magnitude of earth pressures developing on basement or retaining walls will depend on the quality and compaction of the wall backfill. We recommend placing and compacting wall backfill as structural fill. Below improved areas, such as pavements or floor slabs, the backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of its maximum dry unit weight, as determined by American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Test Designation D-698 (Standard Proctor). In unimproved areas, the relative compaction can be reduced to 90 percent. To prevent hydrostatic pressure development, wall drainage must be installed. Drainage behind basement walls can be provided by attaching prefabricated wall drainage panels, such as Miradrain G100W, to the outer side of the wall, or by backfilling the wall with a clean granular material, such as pea gravel. A foundation drain consisting of a four -inch diameter perforated PVC pipe should be installed at the base of the wall for collection and removal of the intercepted groundwater. The foundation drain should be surrounded by at least six inches of pea gravel extending two feet above the pipe. All drains must be routed to an approved point of controlled discharge. Cleanouts should be installed at appropriate and easily accessible locations along the drain alignments. These ceanouts should be serviced at least once each year. Page No. 9 November 21, 2001 Project No. T-4893 With wall backfill placed and compacted as recommended and drainage properly installed, we recommend ' designing unrestrained walls for an active earth pressure equivalent to a fluid weighing 35 pcf. For restrained walls, an additional uniform lateral pressure of 100 psf should be added. These values assume a horizontal backfill condition and that no other surcharge loading, such as traffic, sloping embankments, or adjacent ' buildings, will act on the wall. If such conditions will exist, then the imposed loading should be included in the wall design. ' Friction at the base of foundations and passive earth pressure will provide resistance to these lateral loads. Values for these parameters are provided in the Foundations section of this report. ' 5.6 . Slab -on -Grade Floors ' Slab -on -grade floors may be supported on subgrades prepared as recommended in the Site Preparation and Grading section of this report. Immediately below the floor slab, we recommend placing a four -inch thick capillary break layer of clean free -draining sand or gravel having less than three percent passing the No. 200 sieve. This material will reduce the potential for upward capillary movement of water through the underlying soil and subsequent wetting of the floor slab. Where. moisture by vapor transmission is undesirable, a durable ' plastic membrane should be placed over the capillary break material. The membrane should be covered with two inches of clean moist sand to guard against damage during construction and to aid in curing the concrete. ' 5.7 Drainage ISurface Final exterior grades should promote free and positive drainage away from the building areas. We recommend providing a gradient of at least three percent for a minimum distance of ten feet from the building perimeter, except in paved locations. In paved locations, a minimum gradient of one percent should be provided unless ' provisions are included for collection and disposal of surface water adjacent to the structure. Surface water must not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the crest of the site slopes and embankments. Surface water should be directed away from the slope crests to a point of collection and controlled discharge. If site grades do not allow for directing surface water away from the slopes, then water should be collected and tightlined to the bottom of the slope in a controlled manner. 1 Subsurface We recommend installing a continuous drain along the outside lower edge of the perimeter building foundations. The foundation drains and roof downspouts should be tightlined separately to an approved point of controlled ' discharge. Subsurface drains must be laid with a gradient sufficient to promote positive flow to the discharge point. All drains should be provided with cleanouts at easily accessible locations. These cleanouts should.be ' serviced at least once each year. .' Page No. 10 1 November 21, 2001 Project No. T-4893 5.8 Utilities Utility pipes should be bedded and backfilled in accordance with American Public Works Association (APWA) or City of Edmonds specifications. Trench backfill should be placed and compacted as structural fill as described in the Site Preparation and Grading section of this report. If the granular soils excavated on -site are free of excessive deleterious material or debris, and are not excessively moist, they should be suitable for use as backfill material. The very dense silt and hard clay will not be suitable for use as backfill. If the silt and/or clay soils are exposed in utility trench excavations, or construction takes place during periods of wet weather, it may be necessary to import structural fill for backfilling purposes. 5.9 Pavements Pavements should be constructed on subgrades prepared as described in the Site Preparation and Grading section of this report. Regardless of the relative compaction achieved, the subgrade must be firm and relatively unyielding before paving. Proofrolling the subgrade with heavy construction equipment should be completed to verify this condition. The appropriate thicknesses of the various components of the pavement depend on the subgrade soils and the traffic conditions to which the pavement will be subjected. We expect traffic to mainly consist of light passenger vehicles with only occasional heavy service vehicles. Based on this information and a properly prepared and stable subgrade, we recommend the following pavement sections: • Two inches of asphalt concrete (AC) over six inches of crushed rock base (CRB) • Two inches of AC over four inches of asphalt -treated base (ATB) ' All paving materials should conform to the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) specifications for Class B asphalt concrete, ATB; and CRB. ' Long-term pavement performance will depend on surface drainage. A poorly drained pavement section will be subject to premature failure as a result of surface water infiltrating into the subgrade soils and reducing their supporting capability. To improve performance, we recommend surface drainage gradients of at least two percent. Some longitudinal and transverse cracking of the pavement surface should be expected over time. Regular maintenance should be planned to seal cracks when they occur. 6.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES ' Terra Associates, Inc. should review the final,design and specifications in order to verify that earthwork and foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and incorporated into project design and construction. We should also provide geotechnical services during construction in order to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications, and recommendations. This will also allow for design changes if subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. ' Page No. 11 November 21, 2001 Project No. T-4893 7.0 LIMITATIONS We prepared this report in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. This report is the copyrighted property of Terra Associates, Inc. and is intended for specific application to the UNOCAL Site project. This report is for the exclusive use of Triad Point Edwards and their authorized representatives. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. The analyses and preliminary recommendations presented in this report are based upon data obtained from the on -site test pits. Variations in soil conditions can occur, the nature and extent of which may not become evident until construction. If variations appear evident, Terra Associates, Inc. should be requested to reevaluate the recommendations in this report prior to proceeding with construction. Page No. 12 11 L kj 7 L HUET si - PC SY-� l3 '. UT - y BSTx rc ,197TH 1B6M s S. PL I87pT ST uw TH 'efao ST 188TH > /�_L,p ,n B4fN5 5Y `gyp 1ST >< `v\ VA7ER E. PL 1 Sli 1907V Si A7 CHERR $T �� �+' ➢ nln z1Jm . D2N O �! 13.+vwe - 7 �' 1 �• gg ty ,O OEL 1 OR wl'O 8. MELODY'LN PUGET PU _E 1 rY p D Sz = - .BR00NIL L� 82= F H ISBn1r�w //�SPE OR RE :w t',EOIJONO'SzSi :$,yUNOE&ATER ' S . ST p1EYlO0R ---- ---- _ �: <_ . ,�.� w � .g. PARK ]EMUI visa W -u T MT. 200TH ST S1i 8000 '� BRACKETTS < Q au.Vt udu �^aaw uioL< a < tole SIERRA � .P 202NO. BEACN ti �Q $2 6LEII 51 � < � Q GLEN ST r slE � ALEY 24 $. y7 nvr rtwl \'a Ib 9 Sl< F� SPRAGUEw EMM = HILL ➢K ft 1T H ��� TI`��1 eG- �\, 8 Po i' a �`• .8e e r � la rn 2=: ELL ^ - our, xrtI 2p �+ 206TH m �'t a W 5 rt ti NISI _ �� ----ELL s sr p w iPL R / \/ a* �'cP ♦ s ♦a Ns' 'IN e. .o sT. R'nsv m \ \\\ nu. DAYTON NA00 �'". �.S �• "� W a�> n 20BM PL w > MAPLE 3 ` ■ 3'^ P4 !FARINA, nx!=>> ��. a s 209TN Sw s_ 23 D R a _ ., a M- Y UNION �< m 'e N rn E. „ Fy E� cis J il2TM .m s ~` LNUi .. y _ CFDAR-- < ST ' �E OIL ! HONELL IDNY':.. xour oa v �.., OpIN PAwc Ro F— SN SITE HOCO HARSN 'PD $� .m N~' ` NFMEYS rtF < W : �. fl �PIMEE0. S a n•d G A.p sAELI N 3 21TN ST T3 M nt SR �SFRUCEN 8 EDM7N NE�aatS.<' EPBE a Sa. ". SENl1Nr � - G .a - NV. WRFL ST .. 1 n. $. .'.' 211 .215M pL SY= �, �N. a .: S u :. 215TV - r: ..n 215TH 5T �� 211T1 ST-SV Sw DVA 2a n PT BEACH aoLNr [Mums s d $ taa><ix'� x_ $ $> sv ...: 217TH ST SY -ii-- �- I'm `.f-- $.- c•v nR '^ Lr ^ ST >< c & n 218TH ' ST 3' SV u <> K i fiR PE =307 N i 1 I E sT W E ST 22 ^'> ST g SW S 0 � <' � 'tu.H � i � '. � � 2 $ m $ ` � i20M PE Q wo TC z ro ;'ss �� $ h i> xi sg $Srn �' fd a� �� r L u '� r= d \ aln n sw BIRCH M` DOG Y �+ Y B PQI PL c c ,p � z2 W, i P�`l, Y , SOURCE: Thomas Guide, Pierce, King and Snohomish County,1999. Page 454. NOT TO SCALE VICINITY MAP Terra UNOCAL SITE EDMt�N�JS, WASHINGTON .•• ••• Associates, Inc. • Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. T-4893 Date NOV 2001 Figure 1 .�/�-� - • �r B-23D i� 0.1. SB-217 TP-11 ` TP 4 SB-219� / r ` Ulyy-20q, &2O n SB 21• ^ ' �SB �20 / P 12 • - •SB-221 �✓�\ _,` \-202 SB 227•SB-214 / i SB 232 - / �TP 5 'SB 211 j \ SB-216 ) . ,`- TP-14�� jj 9813-228 �I / / •B 210 I SB-231 TF TP-2 �M P-13 r ' TP-7 U � P-203 r / • , �SB-222� SB-2os SB 22\ l $B 23�5 JI T 'SB-208 • P 20 \ ` P$I • •'�.` � SB-22 SB-2 - �l r � / �� � \ �\ ` •` S13-2 f i �� TP-10 �\ TP- SB :.\ / -226 i Ix xv\,i ! i --I SB-20� - --- 1 SB-224•--' - - l TP- , l -I� NOTE: '� LEGEND THIS SITE PLAN IS FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY AND ® TP-1 APPROXIMATE TEST PIT LOCATION (TERRA) IT SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION OR DESIGN • EMCON EXPLORATORY BORING PURPOSES. REFERENCE: 0 200 400 SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY TRIAD ASSOCIATES FT T!Tn APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET STRUCTURAL FILL REVERSE SLOPE TO DRAIN 2 B TOE OF NEW SLOPE �.�,��\ \�� . �� 2'' �— 6' --� I— 6' ---I KEYWAY AND DRAIN (SEE NOTE 1) 1 1 6' \"— TYPICAL SLOPE BENCH (MAY 1 A REQUIRE SUBDRAIN IF SEEPAGE CONDITIONS ARE INDICATED) TOE BENCH CUT AND DRAIN (SEE NOTE 1) NOT TO SCALE NOTES: 1) DRAINS SHALL CONSIST OF 6" DIAMETER PERFORATED PVC PIPE ENVELOPED IN 1 cu. ft. OF WASHED 3/4" MINUS DRAINAGE GRAVEL. 2) OA — TOPSOIL REMOVAL THICKNESS BETWEEN KEYWAY AND BENCHES. (IF NECESSARY) © — VERTICAL ELEVATION DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TOP OF LOWER BENCH BACKCUT AND UPPER BENCH ELEVATION. GENERAL SLOPE FILL DETAIL Terra UNOCAL SITE iNGeotechnical Associates, Inc. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Consultants Proj.No. T-4893 Date NOV 2001 TFigure 3 I� ' APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING UNOCAL Site Edmonds, Washington ' On October 18 and 19, 2001, we performed our field exploration using a track -mounted excavator. We explored subsurface soil conditions at the site by excavating 17 test pits to a maximum depth of about 16 feet below ' existing surface grades. The test pit locations are shown on Figure 2. The test pit locations were approximately determined by pacing from existing surface features. The Test Pit Logs are presented on Figures A-2 through A- 10. ' An engineering geologist from our office maintained a log of each test pit as it was excavated, classified the soil conditions encountered, and obtained representative samples. All soil samples were visually classified in ' accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. A copy of this classification is presented as Figure A-1. ' Representative• soil samples obtained from the test pits were placed in sealed plastic bags and taken to our laboratory for further examination and testing. The moisture content of each sample was measured and is reported on the Test Pit Logs. The Atterberg limits of four samples were determined and are reported on the Test ' Pit Logs. Grain size analyses were performed on 11 of the samples, the results of which are shown on Figures A- 11 through A-16. I I' Project No. T4893 1 1 MAJOR DIVISIONS LETTER SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTION Clean GW Well -graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures, little or no GRAVELS Gravels fines. Jrn (less than GP Poorly -graded gravels; gravel -sand mixtures, little or O 19 N More than 5% fines) no fines. U) �'6 .c 50% of coarse fraction is GM Silty gravels, gravel -sand -silt mixtures, non -plastic o w aD Q) > larger than No. Gravels with fines fines. Z ca E 4 sieve GC Clayey gravels, gravel -sand -clay mixtures, plastic fines. - 0 O 0 N d SANDS Clean Sands SW Well -graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines. co Z (less than SP Poorly -graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no = c More than /° 5 fines) fines. Q ca a) r 50% of coarse O o" fraction is Sands SM Silty sands, sand -silt mixtures, non -plastic fines. U g smaller than SC Clayey sands, sand -clay mixtures, plastic fines. No. 4 sieve with fines ML Inorganic silts, rock flour, clayey silts with slight � O SILTS AND CLAYS plasticity. O �o co N CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, (lean clay). E o Liquid limit is less than 50% OL Organic silts and organic clays of low plasticity. 0 o Z co Z_ Lo Q Co c Y a'_� MH Inorganic silts, elastic. Ir co6 0 SILTS AND CLAYS W a CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays. Z_ 0 N Liquid limit is greater than 50% [z OH Organic clays of high plasticity. HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat. DEFINITION OF TERMS AND SYMBOLS to U) Standard Penetration Density Resistance in Blows/Foot 2" OUTSIDE DIAMETER SPLIT I w SPOON SAMPLER z0 Very loose 0-4 2.4" INSIDE DIAMETER RING SAMPLER rn Loose 4-10 OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER W Medium dense 10-30 = Dense 30-50 1 WATER LEVEL (DATE) Very dense >50 Tr TORVANE READINGS, tsf Pp PENETROMETER READING tsf Standard Penetration W Consistency Resistance in Blows/Foot DD DRY DENSITY, pounds per cubic foot > Very soft 0-2 LL LIQUID LIMIT, percent w Soft 2-4 = 0 Medium stiff 4-8 PI PLASTIC INDEX U Stiff Very stiff 8-16 16-32 N STANDARD PENETRATION, blows per foot Hard >32 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM UNOCAL SITE RogTerra Associates, Inc. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. T-4893 Date NOV 2001 Figure A-1 Test Pit No. TP-1 Logged by: JCS Approximate Elev. 104 Date: 10/18/01 Depth Moisture (ft.) Soil Description Content FILL: crushed rock surfacing over brown to gray silty sand to sandy silt, fine grained, firm moist. SM/ML Rusty brown silty SAND fine grained, medium dense, moist, with occasional fine gravel and fine roots. (SUM) Gray to mottled gray silty SAND, fine grained, medium dense to dense, 5 moist, with occasional fine gravel. (SM) Becomes light brown at approximately 6 feet. 10. -1 Gray CLAY, hard, moist, massive. (CL) 15 1 Test pit terminated at 14 feet. No groundwater seepage. Test Pit No. TP-2 Logged by: JCS Approximate Elev. 124 Date: 10/18/01 Depth Moisture Content (ft.) Soil Description 0 FILL: crushed rock surfacingg over brown siltv sand to sandy silt, fine grained, firm, moist. 4-inch thick organic layer at base. SM/ML Old topsoil horizon Brown silty SAND fine grained, medium dense moist. SM Mottled grayish -brown silty SAND, fine grained, medium dense, moist. 20 5 (SM) Grayish -brown silty SAND, fine grained, medium dense to dense, moist. (SM) 26 PP = 4.5+ tons/ft' LL = 35.8 PI=15 10 1 Gray CLAY, hard, moist, laminated with light gray silt partings. (CL) I I Pp = 4.5+ tons/fe 15 Test pit terminated at 14 feet. No groundwater seepage. 20 Terra Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Consultants 37 TEST PIT LOGS UNOCAL SITE EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Test Pit No. TP-3 Logged by: JCS Approximate Elev. 121 Date: 10/18/01 Depth Moisture (ft.) Soil Description ContNent FILL: brown silty sand, fine grained, firm, moist, with occasional fine gravel and organic material. (SM) (Hydrocarbon odor) Dark brown organic silty SAND, fine grained, soft, moist to wet. Old topsoil horizon 15 5 Tan to light gray silty CLAY to clayey SILT, hard, moist. (CUML) (Hydrocarbon odor) 10 Gray CLAY, hard, moist, laminated with partings of light gray silt and gray fine sand. (CL) Pp=4.5+ 32 tonstft' Test pit terminated at 13 feet. 15 Light groundwater seepage from point source at 4.5 feet. 20 Logged by: JCS Date: 10/18/01 Depth (ft.) 0 TFftt-liaa Test Pit No. TP-4 Soil Description Approximate Elev. 92 Moisture Content organic layer at base. Old to soil horizon ' Light brown to tan silty SAND, fine grained, medium dense to dense, dry. (SM) 5 Mottled grayish -brown silty SAND, fine grained, medium dense to dense, 29 moist. SM LL = 42.7 Light grayish -brown to light brown CLAY and SILT, hard, moist, laminated 29 PI = 19.7 with partings of dark gray fine sand. (CUML) Pp = 4.5+ 10 tonslft' Gray CLAY, hard, moist. (CL) Pp = 4.5+ 29 1 tons/fP Test pit terminated at 13 feet. 15 Trace groundwater seepage at 6 feet. 20 TEST PIT LOGS EiiogTerra UNOCAL SITE Associates, Inc. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. T-4893 Date NOV 2001 FFigure A-3 Test Pit No. TP-5 Logged by: JCS Approximate Elev. 110 Date: 10/18/01 Depth Moisture (ft.) Soil Description Content 6 inches DUFF and TOPSOIL. Light brown SAND with silt to silty SAND, fine grained, medium dense, moist. SP-SM/SM 23 5 Mottled grayish -brown SAND to SAND with silt, fine grained, medium dense to dense, moist. (SP/SP-SM) Becomes wet at approximately 9 feet. 26 10 34 LL = 44.5 Grayish -brown to gray CLAY, hard, moist, generally massive, with Pi = 21.3 occasional thin laminations of gray silt. (CL) Pp = 4.5+ tons/fe 15 20 Test pit terminated at 16 feet. Light groundwater seepage between 9 and 10 feet. Test Pit No. TP-6 Logged by: JCS Approximate Elev. 150 Date: 10/18/01 Depth Moisture (ft.) Soil Description Content 0 FILL: brown to grayish -brown SILT, CLAY, and fine grained SAND, firm moist to wet, with some fine gravel and occasional organic material. G� FILL: gray to brownish gray silt, clay, and fine grained sand, firm, moist to wet, with moderate organic material (including wood debris) and some gravel. 12-inch thick organic layer at base. (Old top soil horizon) Ire Gray silty SAND to sandy SILT, fine grained, dense, moist, 15 with occasional fine to coarse gravel. (SM/ML) (Glacial till -like) Test pit terminated at 16 feet. No groundwater seepage. 911 V�oTerra Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Consultants 32 11 TEST PIT LOGS UNOCAL SITE EDMONDS, WASHINGTO.N Logged by: JCS Date: 10/18/01 Depth (ft.) 0 5 10 1r 20 Test Pit No. TP-7 Soil Description Approximate Elev. 121 Moisture Content (%) FILL: dark brown organic silty sand, fine grained, firm, moist. Mottled gray to brown SAND with silt to silty SAND, fine grained, medium dense to dense, moist. (SP-SM/SM) (Hydrocarbon odor) 20 Tan to light grayish -brown silty CLAY to CLAY, hard, moist, occasional 24 mottling. (CL) Pp • 4.5+ tons/tf 31 Test pit terminated at 15 feet. No groundwater seepage. Logged by: JCS Date: 10/18/01 Depth (ft.) 0 5 10 15 20 Test Pit No. TP-8 Soil Description Approximate Elev. 121 Moisture Content FILL: light brown to gray silty sand, firm, moist to wet, with organics. FILL: dark brown organic silty sand, loose, wet, with significant wood debris timbers and branches). 2.5-foot diameter boulder. Gray SILT to SILT with sand, fine grained, dense, moist to wet. (ML) 25 Light grayish -brown to tan sandy SILT, fine grained, very dense, moist, with occasional fine gravel. (ML) (Glacial till -like) 16 Test pit terminated at 15 feet. Light groundwater seepage at 6 feet. Terra Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Consultants TEST PIT LOGS UNOCAL SITE EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Proj. No. T-4893 I Date NOV 20011 Figure A-5 Logged by: JCS Date: 10/18/01 Depth (ft.) 0 5 10 15 Test Pit No. TP-9 Soil Description Approximate Elev. 150 Moisture Content FILL: crushed rock surfacing over grayish -brown sandy silt and clay, firm, moist. 6-inch thick organic layer at base. (Old topsoil horizon) Mottled grayish -brown sandy SILT to sandy CLAY, stiff, moist. (MUCL) Pp = 4.5+ 30 tons/H' 37 Grayish -brown CLAY, hard, moist, massive. (CH) PI = 30.11 Gray SILT and CLAY, hard; moist, with occasional laminations of gray fine sand. (MUCL) 1 22 Pp - a 5+ 1 tons/ft' Test pit terminated at 15 feet. No groundwater seepage. Logged by: JCS Date: 10/18/01 Depth (ft.) 0 5 10 15 20 Test Pit , No. TP-10 Approximate Elev. 157 Moisture Content Soil Description (%) 6 inches DUFF and TOPSOIL. Brown sandy SILT, fine grained, medium dense, moist. (ML) 40 Grayish -brown SILT and CLAY, hard, moist. (MUCL) Pp=4.5+ tonsift' 34 Gray SILT and CLAY, hard, moist. (MUCL) Test pit terminated at 15 feet. No groundwater seepage. TEST PIT LOGS Terra UNOCAL SITE Associates, Inc. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. T-4893 Date NOV 2001 Figure A-6 1 1 1 F, Test Pit No. TP-13 Logged by: JCS Approximate Elev. 86 Date: 10/18/01 Depth ' Moisture (ft.) . Soil Description Content 12 inches crushed rock surfacing. Mottled grayish -brown silty SAND to sandy SILT, very dense, moist. (SM/ML) 25 (Hy drocarbon odor 31 5— Bluish-gray CLAY, hard, moist, with partings of gray fine sand and light gray silt. (CL) Pp=4.5+ tonstf 10 15 1 Test pit terminated at 14 feet. Trace groundwater seepage at 2.5 feet. Logged by: JCS Date: 10/18/01 Depth (ft.) 0 5 10 15 20 Test Pit No. TP-14 Soil Description Approximate Elev. 76 Moisture Content (%1 FILL: bluish -gray silty sand with gravel to sandy silt with gravel, fine sand, fine gravel, medium dense to dense, moist. (SM/ML) 10 Light brown sandy SILT, fine grained, dense, moist, with occasional fine gravel and thin layers of fine grained silty sand. (ML) 19 15 Test pit terminated at 15 feet. No groundwater seepage. TEST PIT LOGS 909 Terra. UNOCAL SITE Associates, Inc. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. T-4893 Date NOV 2001 Figure A-8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Logged by: JCS Date: 10/18/01 Depth (ft.) O 5 10 15 NEI Test Pit No. TP-15 Soil Description Approximate Elev. 86 Moisture Content FILL: gray silty sand to sandy silt, fine grained, medium dense, moist, with occasional fine ravel. S IVIL Dark brown organic sandy SILT, fine grained, firm, moist, with occasional roots. (OL) Old topsoil horizon Mottled grayish -brown silty SAND with gravel to SAND with silt and gravel, fine sand, fine to coarse gravel, medium dense to dense, moist.. 10 (SM/SP-SM) Becomes brownish -gray and moist to wet at approximately 8 feet. 1 Brownish -gray silty SAND with gravel to sandy SILT with gravel, fine sand, fine gravel, dense, moist. (SM/ML) ( Glacial till -like) 18 Test pit terminated at 15 feet. Trace groundwater seepage at 11 feet. Test Pit No. TP-16 Logged by: JCS Approximate Elev. 68 Date: 10/18/01 Depth Moisture (ft•) Soil Description Content 0 FILL: gray to brown silty sand with gravel, fine grained, firm to loose, moist to wet. (SM) 5 FILL: grayish -brown silty sand with gravel, fine grained, firm, moist to wet, with significant organic soils and wood debris. 10 dense 15 � Test pit terminated at 13 feet. No groundwater seepage. 23 16 TEST PIT LOGS Terra UNOCAL SITE Associates, Inc. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. T-4893 Date NOV 2001 Figure A-9 Test Pit No. TP-17 Logged by: JCS Date: 10/18/01 Depth Approximate Elev. 82 Moisture ft. Soil Descri tion Content Rusty brown silty SAND with gravel, fine sand, fine to coarse gravel, medium dense. moist. SM ottl grayis - rown silty ND with gravel, fine sand, fine to coarse gravel, medium dense to dense moist. SM 13 Grayish -brown silty SAND with gravel to sandy SILT with gravel, fine sand, 5 fine to coarse gravel, dense to very dense, moist. (SM/ML) (Glacial till -like) Sand content increases with depth. ffel 15 20 Test pit terminated at 9.5 feet. No groundwater seepage. TEST PIT LOGS Terra UNOCAL SITE Associates, Inc. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. T-4893 I Date NOV 2001 1 Figure A-10 1 1 1 TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences December 13, 2002 Project No. T-4893 Mr. Ross Woods Point Edwards, LLC 2801 Alaskan Way, Suite 107 Seattle, Washington 98121 Subject: Steep Slope Hazard Review Point Edwards Condominiums (UNOCAL Site) Pine Street and Unoco Road Edmonds, Washington Reference: Preliminary Geotechnical Report, UNOCAL Site, by Terra Associates, Inc., dated November 21, 2001 Dear Mr. Woods: As requested, we have performed a steep slope hazard review for the subject site. Steep slope hazard areas (SSHAs), as defined by the City of Edmonds, exist on -site and will be impacted by the proposed development. Section 20.15B.060 (A)(3)(c) of the City of Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) defines steep slope hazard areas as any ground that rises at an inclination of 40 percent or more within a vertical elevation change of at least 20 feet. According to this section of the Code, a slope is delineated by establishing its toe and top, and measured by averaging the inclination over at least 20 feet of vertical relief. The ECDC requires maintaining a 50-foot buffer and a 15-foot building setback adjacent to geologically hazardous areas, .which includes SSHAs; however, provisions in the Code allow the buffer width to be reduced to 10 feet, subject to administrative review and approval of a critical areas study. The.purpose of our study is to evaluate potential impacts to the SSHAs due to the proposed site development, and to provide documentation sufficient to support the following: 1. SSHA exemptions where proposed buildings, yard grading, and trails encroach into the SSHA, or more than ten feet into its associated buffer. 2. A reduction in the SSHA buffer from 50 feet to 10 feet where buildings encroach in the 15-foot building setback adjacent the buffer. Triad Associates determined SSHAs on the subject site using the criteria described above. Their locations, associated buffers, and building setback distances are shown on Sheet C1, titled Preliminary Grading Plan, Point Edwards Condominiums, prepared by Triad Associates and stamped on December 9, 2002. Our review addresses the SSHA.s shown on this plan. 12525 Willows Road, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034 Phone (425) 821-7777 • Fax (42.5) 821-4.3.34 • terra@tPrra-assoc-iatPs.c-.om ' Mr. Ross Woods December 13, 2002 SITE CONDITIONS ' The site is situated on the upper portion of a predominantly north -facing hillside. The Preliminary Grading Plan indicates elevations in the planned development area range from about Elev. 170 in the south-central portion to ' about Elev. 70 in the northeastern portion. The western and northern margins of the planned development area are near the top of a steep natural slope. The topographic information provided to us indicates the slope is ' approximately 70 to 90 feet high, with inclinations ranging between about 50 and 80 percent. The areas beyond the toe of the slope to the north-northwest are relatively flat. Burlington Northern railroad tracks run along the toe of the slope to the west. Portions of the slope have been subjected to shallow erosion and localized sloughing; ' however, we did not observe indications of deep-seated instability. Slope vegetation consists predominantly of young to mature deciduous trees and brush. ' In general, the soils we observed on and immediately above the steep slope areas consist of silty sand, sandy silts, and laminated to massive, very dense silt and/or hard clay. These soils are generally consistent with soil types we observed in test pits excavated near the slope, and those encountered in several deep borings drilled near the top ' of the steep slope in environmental studies performed at the site by others. We did- not observe indications of significant groundwater seepage on the slope; however, we observed wet surficial soils in one isolated area near ' the top of the steep slope west of the proposed development. The wet conditions at this location appear to be from surface runoff from areas above the top of the steep slope, and possibly from seasonal perched groundwater emerging near the top of the slope. ' POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION The SSHAs shown on the Preliminary Grading Plan are located on the forested slope west of the proposed ' locations of Buildings 5, 6, and 7 in the western portion of the site, and northeast of the proposed location of Building 2 in the northeastern portion of the site. ' Buildings Portions of the proposed Buildings 5 and 6 will encroach approximately 28 and 20 feet into the SSHA, respectively. The western portion of Building 7 will encroach into the 50-foot buffer, to within approximately 5 feet of the SSHA. Building 2 will not encroach into the 50-foot buffer, but is situated within the 15-foot building ' setback from edge of the buffer. Potential impacts to the SSHAs due to the planned building locations include increasing the erosion potential on ' and/or adjacent the slope by exposing soils during grading incidental to building construction, and impacts to slope stability from building surcharges. In addition, natural weathering and downslope movement of soil due to surficial creep can result in soil loss from beneath and/or adjacent building foundations, which may impact the ' stability of buildings. 1 Project No. T-4893 ' Page No. 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Mr. Ross Woods December 13, 2002 In our opinion, potential erosion and sedimentation impacts to the SSHAs due to the planned building locations will be eliminated or significantly reduced by applying Best Management Practices (BMPs) for erosion prevention sedimentation containment. These would include, but are not limited to the following items: Prevention • Limit site clearing and grading activities to the relatively dry months (typically May through September). • Limit disturbance to areas where construction is imminent. • Provide temporary cover for cut slopes and soil stockpiles during periods of inactivity. Temporary cover may consist of durable plastic sheeting that is securely anchored to the ground surface, or straw mulch. • Establish permanent cover over exposed areas that will not be disturbed for a period of 30 days or more by seeding, in conjunction with a mulch cover or appropriate hydroseeding. ' Containment • Install a silt fence along the downgradient margins of the work area. The silt fence should be in place ' before clearing and grading is initiated. • Construct shallow drainage swales to intercept surface water flow and route the flow away from the ' construction area to a stabilized discharge point. Surface water must not discharge at the top or onto the face of the steep slope. Potential impacts to the stability of the steep slope due to building surcharges, and potential impacts to the buildings due to loss of shallow soil support, will be mitigated by supporting building loads with a deep foundation system. A foundation system consisting of augercast piles extending to depths determined by tgeotechnical analysis will eliminate building surcharge loads that may adversely impact slope stability. A deep foundation system will also eliminate the potential of adverse impacts to the stability of the buildings, in the event ' of shallow soil loss adjacent the buildings. Additionally, drainage systems associated with the finished buildings will improve the current stability of the steep slope. IYard Grading ' Yard grading associated with Buildings 2 and 6 will encroach approximately 10 feet and 15 feet into the SSHAs, respectively. Proposed elevations shown on the grading plan indicate that cuts of about six to seven feet are proposed within the SSHAs at these locations to create relatively flat yard areas on the downgradient sides of the ' buildings. Similar cuts are shown on the downgradient sides of Buildings 5 and 7. This grading extends into the 50-foot buffer, to within several feet of the SSHA. 1 Project No. T-4893 Page No. 3 Mr. Ross Woods December 13, 2002 The proposed yard grading will increase the potential of impacts to the SSHA with regard to erosion and ' sedimentation. In our opinion, potential erosion and sedimentation impacts to the SSHAs due to the proposed yard grading will be eliminated or significantly reduced by applying BMPs for erosion prevention and ' sedimentation containment. The proposed grading will remove a significant volume of material from the top of the slope, resulting in a net reduction of soil load imposed on the slope and; therefore, improving slope stability. Improved site drainage associated with the yard areas will also positively affect slope stability. 'Tree Removal and Slope Reve tation ' The proposed project will include removing trees from the upper portion of the SSHA located west of Buildings 5, 6, and 7, and revegetating the slope with new restoration plants. Details of this work are presented in a report ' prepared by City Foresters, Inc. (CFI), dated November 8, 2002. The results of the CFI report indicates that most of the existing trees located above Elev. 60 on the slope are ' diseased, and may threaten slope stability in the future. CFI provides specific recommendations for removal of these trees, revegetation, and concurrent installation of permanent erosion and sedimentation measures. ' In general, we concur with CFIs recommendations for revegetating the slope, and for installing permanent measures for erosion prevention and sedimentation control. However, we recommend that all permanent erosion protection measures be in place by October 1. In our opinion, revegetating the slope and installing the erosion control measures as recommended in the CFI report will provide adequate mitigation of the steep slope hazard. ' Trails The Preliminary Grading Plan indicates a footpath/trail will encroach into the SSHA located adjacent Building 2. ' Potential impacts to the SSHA that are associated with the trail include increasing the erosion potential due to clearing and grading along the trail corridor, and surface water runoff from the trail. In our opinion, the potential of erosion and sedimentation will be eliminated or significantly reduced by applying ' BMPs for erosion prevention and sedimentation containment, and through proper design and construction of the trail so that surface runoff is collected and conveyed in a controlled manner to an approved discharge point. DISCUSSION Exemption ' Section 20.15B.110 (D) of the ECDC (Development Standards — Steep Slope Hazard Areas) states that no development or alteration shall be allowed in SSHAs unless the property is exempt under the provisions of Section 20.15B.110 (D) or ECDC Section 20.1513.040 (Exemptions and exceptions). The proposed development may not meet the criteria for general exemptions, a public agency or utility exception, or a reasonable use exception described in Section 20.15B.040. Project No. T-4893 ' Page No. 4 ' Mr. Ross Woods December 13, 2002 Review of Section 20.15B.110 (D)(1) of the ECDC indicates that the construction of trails is an exempt activity ' on SSHAs. Section 20.15B.110 (D)(1)(b) states that trail construction shall be designed to the best available technical standard approved by the city (U.S. Forest Service, Trails Management Handbook, FSH 2309.18, dated 1987, and Standard Specifications for Construction of Trails, EM-7720-102, dated 1984). Provided that the trail ' design meets the criteria presented in the referenced technical standards, and BMPs for erosion prevention and sediment containment are properly implemented during and after construction, it is our opinion that this ' exemption would apply. Section 20.15B.110 (D)(2) of the ECDC States that the proposed development or alteration may be exempted if it ' meets the following criteria: a. The proposed development will not decrease the stability on any adjacent property, and the site following ' the permitted activity will be stable within the meaning of Chapter 19.05 ECDC, as demonstrated by engineering analysis meeting the requirements of the State Building Code as adopted by this code. ' Based on our understanding of existing site conditions, the proposed project; and provided the recommendations for mitigation of potential impacts contained herein are applied, it is our opinion that the proposed development will not decrease the stability of the site or adjacent properties during or after ' site development. We are performing a concurrent geotechnical engineering study that will provide site - specific subsurface information and analysis to supplement_ and support the findings presented herein. The results of our study will be presented in a separate report upon completion. . b. The development will occur on steep slope areas that either: ' i. Are mapped as one of the following deposits on the "Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and part of the Edmonds West Quadrangles" by James P. Minard, dated 1983: till, advance outwash, and/or Olympia gravel; or ' ii. Are comprised as fill which was placed under engineered conditions on stable geologic deposits listed in subsection (D)(2)(b)(i) of this section; provided that the fill meets the following conditions: all fill ' was placed under a legal grading permit; the grading and fill were designed by a licensed professional engineer; native soils beneath the fill were prepared in accordance with the engineering design; and compaction testing confums that uniform compaction to the specified percentage is present ' throughout the entire fill. Till and advance outwash deposits are shown on portions of the steep slope referenced geologic map; ' however, much of the on -site steep slope area is mapped as glacially consolidated transitional bed silts and clays, and sediments of the Whidbey Formation. However, considering our observations of surface and subsurface conditions on and adjacent the steep slopes, and review of existing deep subsurface ' information obtained by others near the top of the slope, it is our opinion that the soils underlying the steep slope are generally competent and are currently relatively stable with regard to deep seated stability. These conditions will be verified and further addressed upon completion of our concurrent geotechnical study. Project No. T-4893 Page No. 5 11 L 1 1 Mr. Ross Woods December 13, 2002 C. All excavations on steep slopes shall not extend below a 35-degree plane extended down from the property lines, unless the excavation is retained by structural shoring. The shoring must be designed by a registered professional engineer. The Preliminary Grading Plan does not indicate proposed excavations within SSHAs or associated buffers or building setbacks that would require temporary shoring. Should field conditions arise where shoring may be required, it would be addressed at that time through additional geotechnical study and engineering analysis. d. All retaining structures on steep slopes shall be engineered structures conforming to the State Building Code as adopted by this code; rockeries are not permitted greater than four feet. All structural components associated with the proposed development will be designed and constructed by a professional engineer in conformance with all applicable building codes and regulations. Rockeries are not proposed for development occurring within or adjacent SSHAs and associated buffers or building setbacks. e. Steep slope areas cannot be altered if one or more of the following conditions are present on or adjacent to the portion of the subject property classified as a steep slope: impermeable soils interbedded with granular soils; springs or groundwater seepage; significant visible evidence of groundwater seepage; previous landsliding or instability; or existing landslide deposits. Considering our observations of surface and subsurface conditions on and adjacent the steep slopes, and review of existing deep subsurface information obtained by others near the top of the slope, it does not appear that relatively impermeable soils underlying the steep slope are frequently interbedded with granular soils. In general, the hard/very dense transitional bed silts and clays are reported as massive. ' As previously discussed, we observed wet surficial soils in one isolated area near the top of the steep slope west of the proposed development. The wet conditions at this location appear to be from surface runoff from areas above the top of the steep slope, and possibly from seasonal perched groundwater ' emerging near the top of the slope. We did not observe indications of significant ongoing seepage or surface flows at this location. ' We also observed indications of shallow erosion and localized sloughing at isolated locations on the steep slope. These conditions are limited to the forest duff and relatively loose surficial soils mantling the underlying competent soils, and are commonly associated with natural weathering occurrences on steep ' slopes. We did not observe indications of deep-seated instability or landslide deposits associated with previous significant instability on the steep slopes. We did observe a small amount of accumulated sediment near the toe of the steep slope that appeared to be associated with the surficial erosion described ' above. f. Steep slope areas (greater than 40 percent) cannot be altered if the thickness of organics, debris, ' weathered soils, colluvial soils, or soils exhibiting loose conditions (as measured by the Standard Penetration Test [ASTM D-15861 method of sampling) on or adjacent to the portion . of the subject ' property classified as a steep slope exceeds three feet. Project No. T-4893 Page No. 6 ' Mr. Ross Woods December 13, 2002 Based on our observations of conditions on the steep slopes, it does not appear that a significant overburden thickness exists on the steep slope. In our opinion, it is likely that the overburden thickness on the steep slope is generally less than three feet. ' g. For commercial development. A buffer of 15 feet shall be retained in an undisturbed condition, measured from the property lines adjacent to residential properties. ' The proposed development is not a commercial development. Based on our observations of surface and subsurface conditions on and adjacent the SSHAs, our review of site ' subsurface information obtained by others, and our understanding of the proposed development, it is our opinion that existing site conditions and applicable project components generally meet the provisions for exemption detailed in Section 20.1513.110(1))(2)(a — g). Specifically, this exemption would apply to encroachment into ' SSHAs by proposed Buildings 5 and 6, and yard grading associated with Buildings 2 and 6; and encroachment into the buffer, within about 5 feet of the SSHA, by Building 7 and its associated yard grading. We expect that subsurface information and analytical results provided in our forthcoming supplemental geotechnical report will support our current findings and this request for exemption. ' Buffer Reduction The proposed location of Building 2 will encroach into the 15-foot building setback, to within one to two feet of ' the SSHA buffer. As previously discussed Section 20.15B. 1 10(A) of the ECDC requires establishing a 50-foot buffer and a 15-foot ' building setback adjacent to geologically hazardous areas, which includes SSHAs. Provisions in the Code allow the buffer width to be reduced to 10 feet by the Director upon review of a critical areas study prepared by a licensed geotechnical engineer or geologist. The study must clearly demonstrate that the proposed buffer alteration will have no adverse impact upon the site, the public, or any private party. Based on our observations of surface and subsurface conditions on an adjacent the SSHA in the vicinity of ' Building 2, it appears that the slope at this location is relatively stable. Approximately 40 feet of the space between the SSHA and the area where Building 2 encroaches into the building setback was formerly occupied by ' a large, above -ground fuel storage tank. Removal of the tank has significantly reduced loading near the top of the slope, and therefore has a positive effect on stability. Considering that Building 2 is situated 50 feet or more from the SSHA, it is our.opinion that the building will not adversely impact the stability of the SS1 A or adjacent slopes. We expect that subsurface information and analytical results provided in our forthcoming supplemental geotechnical report will support our current findings with respect to slope stability. Grading incidental to construction of the building will increase the potential for erosion and sedimentation. In our ' opinion, potential erosion and sedimentation impacts to the SSHA due to the site grading will be eliminated or significantly reduced by applying BMPs for erosion prevention and sedimentation containment, and improvements to site drainage. Project No. T-4893 Page No. 7 1 1 Mr. Ross Woods December 13, 2002 Accordingly, it is our opinion that a reduction in the buffer from 50 feet to 10 feet will have no significant impact on the SSHA or adjacent slopes. In summary, it is our opinion, provided the recommendations for hazard mitigation, and geotechnical design and construction presented herein and in our forthcoming geotechnical study are followed, that the proposed development will not result in significant adverse impacts to the SSHAs at the site. It is also our opinion that the presence of the SSHAs will not adversely affect the stability of the buildings located within the SSHA, buffers and building setback areas. We understand that a Critical Areas Checklist was previously filed for the entire UNOCAL site (upper and lower yards), and the City of Edmonds issued a Critical Areas Determination dated September 6, 1994. This determination required a Critical Areas Study to delineate the boundaries of wetland areas (located in the lower yard) and steep slope areas. At that time, steep slope areas were defined as all areas inclined at 30 percent or more, and having a vertical elevation gain of 20 feet or more within the 30 percent slopes. A map showing these steep slope areas was generated by Triad Associates and submitted to the City. The City accepted Triad's snap as fulfilling the mapping requirement of the Critical Areas Study. Based on this previous work, we understand that the City of Edmonds will not require filing of an additional ' Critical Areas Checklist for additional geologically hazard areas. The City will require additional mapping, Critical Areas Study, and geotechnical analysis addressing geologically hazardous areas for the proposed development. ' We trust the information presented is sufficient for your current needs. If you have any questions or require additional information, please call. Sincerely yours, !Z-f3-6Z Associates Mr. Richard E. Gifford Mr. S. Jin Lee, Weber+Thompson Project No. T4893 ' Page No. 8 TERRA .ASSOCIATES, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences January 20, 2003 Project No. T-4893 Mr. Ross Woods Point Edwards, LLC 2801 Alaskan Way, Suite 107 Seattle, Washington 98121 Subject: Geologically Hazardous Areas Review Point Edwards Condominiums (UNOCAL Site) Pine Street and Unoco Road Edmonds, Washington References: 1. Preliminary Geotechnical Report, UNOCAL Site, Project No. T-4893, prepared by Terra Associates, Inc., dated November 21, 2001 2. Steep Slope Hazard Review, Point Edwards Condominiums (UNOCAL Site), Project No. T-4893, prepared by Terra Associates, Inc., dated December 13, 2002 Dear Mr. Woods: As requested, we have conducted a review of geologically hazardous areas for the Point Edwards Condominiums site. The location of the site is shown on the attached Figure 1. Our scope of work included a visual site reconnaissance, the drilling 'of five test borings to depths ranging from about 31.5 feet to 61.5 feet below the existing ground surface, and review of the referenced reports. Our study specifically addresses erosion hazards, landslide hazards, and seismic hazards. We previously addressed steep slope hazards at the site. Our current study includes analysis of slope stability along five profiles on the steep slopes located downgradient from the proposed development. The results of these analyses are used to address potential steep slope hazards and landslide hazards. SITE CONDITIONS The site is located on the upper portion of a predominantly north -facing hillside. The Preliminary Grading Plan indicates elevations in the planned development area range from about Elev. 170 in the south-central portion to about Elev. 70 in the northeastern portion. The western and northern margins of the planned development area are near the top of a steep natural slope. The topographic information provided to us indicates the slope is approximately 70 to 90 feet high, with inclinations ranging between about 50 and 80 percent. The areas beyond the toe of the slope to the north-northwest are relatively flat. Burlington Northern railroad tracks run along the toe of the slope to the west. 12525 Willows Road, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034 Phnne (4)51 R?1-7777 • Fax (4?5) R?1-4-114 • tPrraaa)tarra-accnr-iatPc cnm ' Mr. Ross Woods January 20, 2003 We did not observe indications of deep-seated instability; however, portions of the slope have been subjected to ' shallow erosion and localized sloughing. These conditions are generally limited to the forest duff and relatively loose surficial soils mantling the underlying competent soils, and are commonly associated with natural weathering occurrences on steep slopes. All of the erosional features we observed on the steep slope appear to be a result of surface water runoff and shallow interflow from areas above the slope crest. ' We observed an area approximately 100 to 125 feet southwest of Boring B-1 where the top of the steep slope has sloughed, exposing dense to very dense silty sand with gravel in a 7- to 8-foot high, near -vertical face, just below the crest of the steep slope. Based on our observations, it appears that the sloughing at this location also occurred ' as a result of concentrated surface water runoff and shallow interflow from areas above the slope crest. We observed a very light trickle of water flowing into this feature from the relatively flat upland above the slope. Slope vegetation consists predominantly of young to mature deciduous trees and brush. ' GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS The Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and Part of the Edmonds West Quadrangles, Washington by James P. ' Minard, 1983, shows the soils at higher site elevations mapped as Vashon till, Vashon advance outwash, and Transitional beds. Soils at lower site elevations are mapped as medium- to coarse -grained sand of the Whidbey Formation. Transitional bed sediments are described by this publication as massive to bedded clay, silt, and fine to very fine sand. Our recent test borings and the test pits performed as part of our referenced preliminary geotechnical study are ' generally consistent with the descriptions of transitional bed deposits. The soils we observed on and immediately above the steep slope areas generally consist of silty sand, sandy silts, and laminated to massive, very dense silt ' and/or hard clay. Native soils observed in the five test borings drilled near the top. of the steep slopes generally consist of dense to very dense fine-grained silty sand to sand with silt, and very stiff clay/dense silt. The silt and clay generally appeared massive, with occasional very thin partings of very fine sand. ' The native soils are generally moist below a depth of about five feet. We observed wet soils to a depth of about ten feet in Boring B-3. We did not observe indications of significant groundwater seepage on the slope; however, ' we observed wet surficial soils in one isolated area near the top of the steep slope, west of the proposed development. The wet conditions at this location appear to be from surface runoff from areas above the top of the steep slope, and possibly from seasonal perched groundwater emerging near the top of the slope. We also observed a very light flow of water along the axis of several of the erosional channels running down the ' steep slope. The water we observed in the erosional features flows on top of dense to very dense native soils exposed on the ground surface or beneath approximately 4 to 12 inches of duff and topsoil. The source of the water in the erosional features appears to be surface runoff from areas above the crest of the steep slope. Detailed descriptions of the subsurface conditions encountered in the test pits and test borings are presented on the attached test pit logs and boring logs. The approximate locations of the test pits and borings are shown on the ' attached Figure 2. Project No. T-4893 ' Page No. 2 ' Mr. Ross Woods January 20, 2003 GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS ' Section 20.15B.060 (A)(3) of the City of Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) defines geologically hazardous areas as those areas subject to potential erosion, landslide, and/or potential seismic instabilities, ' including the following: Erosion Hazard Areas Section 20.15B.060 (A)(3)(a) of the ECDC defines erosion hazard areas (EHAs) as those areas containing soils ' that may experience severe to very severe erosion hazard. These soils include, but are not limited to, the following when they occur on slopes of 15 percent or greater: ' 1. Alderwood soils (15 to 25 percent slopes) 2. Alderwood-Everett Series (25 to 70 percent slopes) ' 3. Everett Series (15 to 25 percent slopes) The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) has mapped the site soils as Alderwood-Urban land complex, 2 to 8 percent ' slopes, and Kitsap silt loam, 8 to 25 percent slopes, in the upper southern portion of the site, and Alderwood- Everett gravelly sandy loam, 25 to 70 percent slopes, in the area of the former tank farm and the steep slope below the tank farm area. The soils we observed in the test pits generally conform with the SCS mapping; however, ' some .of the very dense silt and hard clay we observed in the former tank areas would better correlate with Kitsap silt loam, 25 to 50 percent slopes, due to existing man-made slope gradients. The erosion hazards for soils classified as Alderwood-Urban land complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes, and Kitsap silt loam, 8 to 25 percent slopes, are classified as slight and moderate, respectively, and do not fall under the ' classification of an erosion hazard area. Alderwood-Everett gravelly sandy loam, 25 to 70 percent slopes, is classified as having a moderate to high erosion hazard. The erosion hazard for soils classified as Kitsap silt loam, 25 to 50 percent slopes, is considered high. ' Based on the criteria presented above, the portions of the site that are sloped at inclinations greater than 15 percent and are underlain by Alderwood-Everett gravelly sandy loam would be considered an EHA. Areas underlain by Kitsap silt loam that are inclined at a gradient steeper than 25 percent would also be considered EHAs. Based on observations, the vast majority of the site located downgradient from Pine Street would be considered an EHA. EHAs, based on the SCS mapping, are shown on the attached Figure 3. ' We did not observe indications of significant active erosion in the planned development area; however, the soils � P P > will be susceptible to erosion when exposed during construction. In our opinion, Best Management Practices ' (BMPs) used during construction will provide adequate mitigation of the erosion hazard at the site. If the erosion control measures are properly implemented and maintained, along with temporary and permanent drainage ' improvements, it is our opinion that the planned development will not adversely impact the erosion potential for the site or adjacent properties. All erosion and sediment control BMPs should conform to City of Edmonds requirements. Project No. T-4893 ' Page No. 3 1 1 11 Mr. Ross Woods January 20, 2003 Landslide Hazard Areas Section 20.15B.060 (A)(3)(b) of the ECDC defines landslide hazard areas (LHAs) as those areas of the city of Edmonds which, by reason of excessively steep slopes, unsatisfactory foundation support, stability, or topography, have a risk of earth subsidence and landslide hazard in excess of normal allowances. The ECDC specifies field criteria for identifying LHAs. We used these criteria, listed below, in our evaluation of LHAs at the subject site. 1. Any area with slopes of 15 percent or greater, and impermeable soils (typically silt and clay) frequently interbedded with granular soils (predominantly sand and gravel) and springs or groundwater seepage. 2. Any area that includes areas with significant visible evidence of groundwater seepage, and which also includes existing landslide deposits, regardless of slopes. 3. Any area that has shown movement during the Holocene epoch (from 10,000 years ago to present) or is underlain by mass wastage debris of that epoch, as determined by a qualified geologist or geotechnical engineer. 4. Any area potentially unstable as a result of rapid stream incision or stream bank erosion. 5. Any area located on an alluvial fan presently subject to, or potentially subject to, inundation by debris flow or deposition of stream -transported sediments. During our site visit, we did not observe on -site indications of deep-seated instability, springs, or significant groundwater seepage on the steep slopes. As discussed, we observed relatively shallow erosional features and localized shallow sloughing at isolated locations on the steep slope located below the proposed development. Because shallow ground movements are associated with these erosional features, and considering that near - surface interflow likely contributed to the soil loss, these areas would be considered LHAs pursuant to Items 1 and 3. All of the LHAs we identified at the site exist on the steep slope hazard area (SSHA) (slope inclinations greater than 40 percent) located west of Buildings 5, 6, and 7. Stability Analysis We performed our stability analyses using the computer program WINSTABL. The soil parameters used are shown on the attached analysis plots and output text. These parameters are based on field and laboratory data, and our past experience with similar soils. Analyses of the slope were performed along five section lines identified on the attached Figure 2 as Section A -A' through Section E-E'. Our analyses of these sections considered both static and pseudostatic (seismic) conditions for the existing slopes, and for proposed grading with associated building loads at grade. This analysis is conservative, considering the buildings located near the top of the steep slope will be partially or completely supported by deep foundations. A horizontal, acceleration of 0.20g was used in the pseudostatic analysis to simulate slope performance under earthquake loading. Project No. T-4893 Page No. 4 .1 11 Mr. Ross Woods January 20, 2003 The lowest safety factors for each condition are presented in the following table: Section Analyzed Minimum Safety Factors Static Pseudostatic Section A -A' existing 1.72 1.18 Section A -A' proposed 1.79 1.21 Section B-B' existing 2.09 1.42 Section B-B' proposed 1.56 1.16 Section C-C' existing 2.32 1.53 Section C-C' proposed 1.67 1.26 Section D-D' existing 1.88 1.24 Section D-D' proposed 2.03 1.33 Section E-E' existing 1.72 1.15 Section E-E' proposed 1.60 1.26 The results of the stability analyses indicate that existing and proposed slopes are stable with respect to deep- seated failure under static conditions. The existing and proposed slopes are indicated to be stable to marginally stable under severe seismic loading conditions. Potential impacts to the LHAs due to construction of the buildings and proposed yard grading include increasing ' the potential for erosion on and/or adjacent to the slope by exposing soils during grading and allowing surface runoff to flow onto the steep slope, and impacts to slope stability from building surcharges. ' In our opinion, potential erosion and sedimentation impacts to the LHAs due to the planned building locations and yard grading will be eliminated or significantly reduced by applying BMPs for erosion prevention sedimentation ' containment. As discussed above, analysis indicates the existing and proposed slope conditions are stable with regard to deep- seated failure. In our opinion, supporting building loads with a deep foundation system will further reduce potential impacts to the stability of the steep slopes due to building surcharges, and mitigate the landslide hazard. A deep foundation system will also eliminate the potential of adverse impacts to the stability of the buildings in ' the event of shallow soil loss adjacent to the buildings. Additionally, drainage systems associated with the finished buildings will improve the current stability of the steep slope. 1 Seismic Hazard Areas ' Section 20.1513.060 (A)(3)(d) of the ECDC defines seismic hazard areas as those areas subject to severe risk of earthquake damage as a result of seismically induced landslides, earth adjustments, settlement, or soil ' liquefaction. Based on the soil and groundwater conditions we observed in our on -site explorations, and the results of our ' stability analysis, it is our opinion that the risk for severe damage resulting from seismically induced landslides, earth adjustments, and settlement is low. It is also our opinion that the risk for liquefaction to occur in potential building areas at this site is negligible. Therefore, in our opinion, seismic hazard areas do not exist on the subject ' site. Project No. T-4893 ' Page No. 5 Mr. Ross Woods January 20, 2003 DISCUSSION ' Section 20.15B.110 (B) of the ECDC (Development Standards — Erosion Hazard Areas) states that alterations within identified EHAs will not be authorized without an approved erosion control plan pursuant to Chapter 18.30 ' ECDC. A licensed engineer will prepare a site -specific erosion control plan conforming to the requirements of Chapter 18.30 ECDC. ' Section 20.15B.110 (C) of the ECDC (Development Standards — Landslide Hazard Areas) states that LHAs located on slopes greater than 40 percent shall be regulated pursuant to Section 20.1513.110 (D) of the ECDC (Development Standards — Steep Slope Hazard Areas). As discussed, the LHAs we identified at the site exist on ' the SSHA (slope inclinations greater than 40 percent) located west of Buildings 5, 6, and 7. We previously addressed SSHAs in the referenced report. In the SSHA report, we opined that existing site conditions and applicable project components generally meet the provisions for a SSHA exemption detailed in Section 20.15B.110(D)(2)(a — g). Specifically, this exemption would apply to encroachment into SSHAs by proposed Buildings 5 and 6, yard grading associated with Buildings 2 and 6, and encroachment into the buffer within about ' 5 feet of the SSHA by Building 7 and its associated yard grading. We also opined that a reduction in the buffer from 50 feet to 10 feet will have no significant impact on the SSHA or adjacent slopes. In our opinion, the subsurface information and analytical results presented herein support the findings presented in our SSHA report, and the request for a SSHA exemption and buffer reduction. We trust the information presented is sufficient for your current needs. If you have any questions or require additional information, please call. Sincerely yours, TERRA ASSOCIATES, r raol0� P *c Exinity Map loration Location Plan Ili Erosion Lazard Area/Soils Map T71`gu­re_T—_UnMed Soils Classification System Figures 5 through 9 — Boring Logs Figures 10 through 18 — Test Pit Logs WINSTABL Output Data cc: Mr. Greg Krabbe, Triad Associates ' Mr. Richard E. Gifford Mr. S. Jin Lee, Weber+Thompson Project No. T-4893 ' Page No. 6 I ] 1 1 I �¢ WIT ess« i1 Sf $Y o j ,1.�� PK 1a77x Aaldl ,e 'i � 188TH Snr Sw­_ R 1 ST Sw '< 190T11 ST ri O KE. Pl CHERR ST lc/ &fie 13 r9600 gp` `� MD / aGrgRCy F o1`L` FORM a 196T IST Z9 SW ii n 61 U ^ MELODY LN g a . lEY Y BR10KlzERE 6� • H E98iH N / i' / �� DRD RO1 i +m' BAUOIMRE s z SPE ST s uxcerrxrEa S VIELKGR --- ---- PARK r, IErxCRI vista ; B00 �u iu. TER'LN vE i8 4u A vinA Jra WY 1 200TM n q 5T sw.� 8700 g BRACKETTS � � . EpU. YI AEau awm umz � SIERRA` roln Z02zA � � BE2� �` sAn n C<' GLEN Si r n[� �n fi � '< ST ri Yr mre wv m+m men v s' LEY $.ST �$rKf1. +x nv �� BF Ar � eEPOAIS 1A, n q a{ SPRACAIFm $ � � � ¢ =WILL FK.�. ELL iFSTD 20tifM ii .: �+Fi • 8`` �p•xrsr 3N s s $T n,m ip zu IE YL AI SY = q < m N DAY -TON �� a ABD MAPLE � ` $inEa �'^ � HAP.INA, � s � . � � = 209Tx PL 9i` 4r Sw2 on � i r 23 n � < T. . fi _ 2 LM ... / WON z :rr, m io W 1 ' -.. �` Sy C CCYC 4`"� f� a• n M Qy «212Tx .e _ -CEDAR. ST 1pCE OIL m wur Va _ LID vz s n Opn,o'PO t, Es �, L rm Si . ri � _ - ,IOCO 'MARSH ,P� - ?;x � � °� v s PRICE Gr < xBAacK a $ o . • ST etWEEA . € 8 Y "' 3 ''xziE ; nlrx s 211Tx PE ri .SITE xalaA-� < 501. ... - WRfi 1 LISIN n' ^'h' ab` IL-2 I15TM ST nix n 9 EOM7N EME VR s6 �xT�� i1sv nsTx n sw $ Sw - n zlsrx — n EDxA OS - 217TH STm SM ,n G n� m } KAH'f7 a m F- - 4 : - SST Pr BEACH zoLxr mw>ms i -d �� $ .., R1Rprn1= _ '< x $ :f221 LR r .. n4 = E1R "' tT _ 211rx SY b >• - � a' n } E1R n E R^ = ° naM' ,� 218TH � ^ 26 8 �' 880 g V � 5 � 8� 19TM e 1 N B a' - 30 =`� nezx 9 \ z BELLA COOU RDD E n n E sr - $ al l�O m �$T vz �' _M BIRCH \ . ` t coGi ry a x s ai � PL < uzxV1 sv nq I! Y a$ REFERENCE: Thomas Guide, King/Pierce/Snohomish Counties, 1999, Page 454 NOT TO. SCALE Terra VICINITY MAP POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS .•• ••• Associates, Inc. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences Pro No. T-4893 1• Date JAN 2003 Figure 1 g NOTE: THIS SITE PLAN IS SCHEMATIC. ALL LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. IT IS INTENDED FOR REFERENCE ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. REFERENCE: SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY TRIAD ASSOCIATES LEdEND: T*P-1 APPROXIMATE LOCATION' OF TEST PIT APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF BORING STEEP SLOPE HAZARD AREA - - ------------------ STEEP SLOPE HAZARD ARE 0 150 300 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET. \\ '- STEEP SLOPE HAZARD AREA ...---- -.-- .d'`...... .. VA NOTE: THIS SITE PLAN IS SCHEMATIC. ALL LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. IT IS INTENDED FOR REFERENCE ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. REFERENCE: SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY TRIAD ASSOCIATES LEGEND: 1) Aiderwood-Everett gravelly sandy loams, 25 to 70% slopes 2) Aide rwood-Urba nia nd complex, 2 to 8% slopes 3) Kitsap Silt loam, 8 to 25% slopes 0 Erosion Hazard Area - �,,I STEEP SLOPE HAZARD AREA 0 I 0 150 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET 300 1 H 1 H MAJOR DIVISIONS LETTER SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTION Clean GW Well -graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures, little or no GRAVELS Gravels fines. GP Poorly -graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures, little or J� (less than O N More than 5% fines) no fines. GM Silty gravels, gravel -sand -silt mixtures, non -plastic o) 50% of coarse. fraction is .Q) > larger than No. Gravels tines: GC Clayey gravels, gravel -sand -clay mixtures, plastic fines. — z E 4 sieve with fines 0 0 � Clean SW Well -graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines. o SANDS Sands SP Poorly -graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no WC Z (less than = c More than 5/° fines) fines. 0 50% of coarse o " fraction is SM Silty sands, sand -silt mixtures, non -plastic fines. U g smaller than Sands SC Clayey sands, sand -clay, mixtures, plastic fines. No. 4 sieve with fines ML Inorganic silts, rock flour, clayey silts with slight �_ o SILTS AND CLAYS plasticity. CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, (lean clay). O Ca co Cav � E o Liquid limit is less than 50% OL Organic silts and organic clays of low plasticity. 0 o Z Q c= > `.0 MH Inorganic silts,. elastic. O 0 a� SILTS AND CLAYS z co U) CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays. 0 Liquid limit is greater than 50% LL Off-{ Organic clays of high plasticity. HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat. DEFINITION OF TERMS AND SYMBOLS cn w Standard Penetration Density Resistance in Blows/Foot 2° OUTSIDE DIAMETER SPLIT I SPOON SAMPLER 0 Very loose 0-4 2.4" INSIDE DIAMETER RING SAMPLER U) Loose 4-10 OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER w Medium dense 10-30 = Dense 30-50 1 WATER LEVEL (DATE) Very dense >50 Tr TORVANE READINGS, tsf Pp PENETROMETER READING, tsf Standard Penetration Consistency Resistance in Blows/Foot DD DRY DENSITY, pounds per cubic foot w > Very soft 0-2 LL LIQUID LIMIT, percent w Soft 2-4 = Medium stiff 4-8 PI PLASTIC INDEX o U Stiff 8-16 Very stiff 16-32 N STANDARD PENETRATION, blows per foot Hard >32 Terra UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Associates Inc. POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Proj. No. T-4893 Date JAN 2003 Figure 4 Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences 1 1 7 1 Ll Boring No. B-1 Logged by: JCS Date: 12/13/02 Approximate Elev. 110 Soil Description Consistency/ Relative Depth Q E (N) Blows/ Moisture Content Density (ft.) cn ft. (%) Grayish -brown silty SAND, fine grained, with occasional fine gravel. (SM) Medium Dense = 29 12 Occasional rusty brown stained partings. Dense 10 = 43 14 Light brown SILT with sand, fine grained, moist, slightly mottled. (ML) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dense = 42 21 Mottled light brown silty SAND to sandy SILT, fine grained, moist to wet. (SM/ML) Dense 20 = 38 23 Light gray silty SAND to sandy SILT, fine grained, moist, ---with--occasional-fine ravel SM/ML ---------------- Very Dense = 60 18 Grayish -brown SAND with silt, fine to medium grained, moist, with occasional fine gravel. (SP-SM) Very Dense 30 = 82 8 Grayish -brown SAND with silt to silty SAND, fine grained, moist. (SP-SM/SM) Very Dense = 58 15 (Grayish -brown hard, moist SILT between 35.5 and 36.0 feet) Light gray silty SAND to SAND with silt, fine grained, Very 40 Z 75 10 moist. (SM/SP-SM) Dense Trace of gravel. Very Dense Z 80 8 Very Dense 50 = 58 6 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Brownish-gray SAND with silt to silty SAND, fine grained moist. (SP-SM/SM) With a trace of fine black organic inclusions. ------------------------ Very Dense = 82 10 No fine organic inclusions. Very Dense 86 8 Boring terminated at 60 feet. No significant groundwater encountered. Terra BORING LOG Associates, Inc. POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences Prof. No. T-4893 Date JAN 2003 Figure 5 11 I Boring No. B-2 Logged by: JCS Date: 12/13/02 Approximate Elev. 90 Soil Description Consistency/ Relative Depth Q E (N) Blows/ Moisture Content Density (ft.) in ft. N FILL: gray sandy silt, fine grained, moist, with occasional fine gravel. Loose 5 g 24 FILL: brown organic silty sand to sandy silt and bluish- gray silty sand, fine grained, moist to wet. Loose 10 4 12 With organics. Loose 15 6 10 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Very - Loose 20 = 3 27 Bluish -gray to light brown SAND with silt to silty SAND, fine grained, moist. (SP-SM/SP) Medium Dense 25 20 13 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mottled gray sandy SILT, fine grained, moist. (ML) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------ Medium Dense ------------------------ 30 23 20 Gray SAND to SAND with silt, fine grained, moist. (SP/SP-SM) Medium Dense 35 = 27 10 Dense 40 = 36 8 Boring terminated at 41.5 feet. No significant groundwater encountered. Terra BORING LOG Associates, Inc. POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences Proj. No. T-4893 Date JAN 2003 Figure 6 Boring No. B-3 Logged by: DPL Date: 12/16/02 Approximate Elev. 76 Consistency/ Q (N) Moisture Soil Description Relative Depth E Blows/ Content Density (ft.) cCz ft. (%) Possible FILL: gray sand to silty sand, fine grained, wet, with occasional fine gravel. Possible FILL: grayish -brown silty sand, fine grained, wet, Medium rJ = 11 19 slight mottling. ____________ ------------------------------------------------------------ ------- Dense -------- _ Gray silty SAND, fine grained, moist. (SM) Dense 10 = 31 22 Gray silty SAND to sandy SILT, fine grained, moist. Dense 15 36 20 (SM/ML) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------ Grayish -brown SAND with silt, fine grained, dry to moist. Very 20 68 4 (SP-SM) Dense Very 25 53 5 Dense Grayish -brown SAND, fine grained, dry to moist. (SP) Very 30 51 5 Dense 1 Boring terminated at 31.5 feet. Minor groundwater perched at 7 feet. Terra BORING LOG Associates Inc. POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS EDMONS, WASHINGTON Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences Proj. No. T-4893 Date JAN 2003 Figure 7 11 1 1 I� u 11 Boring No. B-4 Logged by: DPL Date: 12/16/02 Approximate Elev. 90 Soil Description Consistency/ Relative Depth Q E (N) Blows/ Moisture Content Density (ft.) Un ft. (%) FILL (Old test pit): bluish -gray silty sand, fine grained, Loose wet, with a trace of wood particles. Appears disturbed. Z 7 27 FILL (Old test pit): mottled brown silty sand, fine grained, moist. Medium Dense 10 = 17 21 31 FILL (Old test pit): brown silt and clay, moist, with a trace __of brown organic -material_ Very stiff ----------- ' = Bluish -gray SILT to CLAY, low to medium plasticity. Very 17 28 (MUCL) Stiff Gray SILT to CLAY, moist, low to medium plasticity. (MUCL) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Very Stiff ------------------------ 20 30 23 LL= 35.5 PI = 11.5 Grayish -brown sandy SILT to clayey SILT, fine grained, moist. (ML) With thin partings of iron -stained, fine- grained Very stiff = 35 23 sand. Grayish -brown clayey SILT to silty CLAY, moist. (MUCL) With thin discontinuous lenses of gray to mottled gray __fine _grained sand._ ____________ -------------------------------- Very stiff ------------------------ 30 30 24 Gray silty SAND, fine grained, moist. (SM) Dense = 37 15 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Gray sandy SILT to clayey SILT, fine grained, moist, low plasticity. (ML to MUCL) ------------------------ Hard 40 Z 34 17 Gray clayey SILT, moist, low plasticity. (MUCL) Trace Jine:grained- sand--------------------------- ------------- Hard ------------------------ = 37 20 Gray sandy SILT to silty SAND, fine grained, moist, Dense 50 = 32 19 (MUSM) Z 47 18 60 = 42 15 Boring terminated at 61.5 feet. No significant groundwater encountered. Terra Associates Inc. BORING LOG POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences rproj. No. T-4893 Date JAN 2003 Figure 8 11 H 1 1 H 1 Boring No. B-5 Logged by: DPL Date: 12/16/02 Approximate Elev. 105 Soil Description Consistency/ Relative Depth a E (N) Blows/ Moisture Content Density (ft.) cn ft. N Brown to grayish -brown silty SAND, fine grained, wet, with faint mottling. (SM) Medium Dense = 11 19 Gray SILT, medium to high plasticity, moist. (MH) Stiff 10 = 13 35 Gray CLAY and SILT, low plasticity, moist. (CUML) Very Stiff = 25 26 40 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Gray silty SAND, fine grained, moist to wet. (SM) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------ Dense ------------------------ 20 = 31 26 Gray CLAY, low plasticity, moist. (CL) Very = 22 27 Stiff 42 Gray CLAY, low plasticity, moist. (CL) Very 30 = 22 25 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Stiff ------------------------ Gray sandy SILT to silty SAND, fine grained, moist. Dense = 46 25 (MUSM) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dense ------------------------ 40 = 43 15 Gray sandy SILT to clayey SILT, non -plastic, moist. (ML to MUCL) - - - ------------------------------------------------------------- Dense ------------------------ = 31 20 Gray sandy SILT to silty SAND, fine grained, dry to moist Dense 50 = 46 18 Moist to wet. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Medium Dense ------------------------ = 28 20 Brown silty SAND, fine grained, moist. (SM) Very Dense 60 Z 64 13 Boring terminated at 60.5 feet. No significant groundwater encountered. Terra Associates Inc. BORING LOG POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences Proj. No. T-4893 Date JAN 2003 Figure 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Test Pit No. TP-1 Logged by: JCS Approximate Elev. 104 Date: 10/18/01 Depth Moisture (ft.) Soil Description C o it) nt FILL: crushed rock surfacing over brown to gray silty sand to sandy silt, fine grained, firm moist. SM/ML Rusty brown silty SAND fine grained, medium dense, moist, with occasional fine gravel and fine roots. (SUM) Gray to mottled gray silty SAND, fine grained, medium dense to dense, 5 moist, with occasional fine gravel. (SM) Becomes light brown at approximately 6 feet. 10 -1 Gray CLAY, hard, moist, massive. (CL) 15 1 Test pit terminated at 14 feet. No groundwater seepage. 20 Test Pit No. TP=2 Logged by: JCS Approximate Elev. 124 Date: 10/18/01 Depth Moisture (ft.) Soil Description Content 0 FILL: crushed rock surfacing over brown siltv sand to sandy silt fine grained firm 26 Pp = 4.5+ tons/fe LL = 35.8 PI=15 moist. 4-inch thick or anic layer at base. SM/ML Old topsoil horizon Brown silty SAND, fine grained, medium dense, moist. SM Mottled grayish -brown silty SAND, fine grained, medium dense, moist. 5 (SM) Grayish -brown silty SAND, fine grained, medium dense to dense, moist. (SM) 10 -1 Gray CLAY, hard, moist, laminated with light gray silt partings. (CL) 15 1 Test pit terminated at 14 feet. No groundwater seepage. 20 ME Pp = 4.5+ tons/ft' 37 TEST PIT LOGS Terra POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS Associates, Inc. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. T-4893 Date JAN 2003 Figure 10 Test Pit No. TP-3 Logged by: JCS Date: 10/18/01 Depth (ft.) O FILL: brown silty sand, fine gr, _gravel and organic material. ( Dark brown organic st ty SAND, (Old topsoil horizon) Soil Description tined, firm, moist, with oc 3M) (Hydrocarbon odor) the graine , soft, moist to Approximate Elev. 121 Moisture Content N 5 1 Tan to light gray silty CLAY to clayey SILT, hard, moist. (CUML) (Hydrocarbon odor) fine 10 Gray CLAY, hard, moist, laminated with partings of light gray silt and gray fine sand. (CL) Test pit terminated at 13 feet. 15 Light groundwater seepage from point source at 4.5 feet. 20 Test Pit No. TP-4 Logged by: JCS Approximate Elev. 92 Date: 10/18/01 Depth Moisture (ft.) Soil Description Content O : liaht brown silty sand, the gratneI firm, ry to moist. 2-inc thick organic layer at base. (Old topsoil horizon) Light brown to tan silty SAND, fine grained, medium dense to dense, dry. (SM) 5 Mottled grayish -brown silty SAND, fine grained, medium dense to dense, moist. SM Light grayish -brown to light brown CLAY and SILT, hard, moist, laminated with partings of dark gray fine sand. (CUML) 10 Gray CLAY, hard, moist. (CL) 15 Pp = 4.5+ tons/te Test pit terminated at 13 feet. 15 Trace groundwater seepage at 6 feet. 20 29 LL = 42.7 29 PI = 19.7 Pp = 4.5+ tons/fe Pp = TEST PIT LOGS Terra POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS Pio Associates, Inc. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. T-4893 Date JAN 2003 Figure 11 Test Pit No. TP-5 Logged by: JCS Approximate Elev. 110 Date: 10/18/01 Depth Moisture Soil Description Content ft. ( ion 0 6 inches DUFF and TOPSOIL. -17 Light brown SAND with silt to silty SAND, fine grained, medium dense, moist. (SP-SM/SM) 1 23 5 1 Mottled grayish -brown SAND to SAND with silt, fine grained, medium dense to dense, moist. (SP/SP-SM) Becomes wet at approximately 9 feet. 26 10 34 LL = 44.5 Grayish -brown to gray CLAY, hard, moist, generally massive, with PI = 21.3 occasional thin laminations of gray silt. (CL) Pp = 4.5+ tons/ft= 15 20 Test pit terminated at 16 feet. Light groundwater seepage between 9 and 10 feet. Test Pit No. TP-6 Logged by: JCS Approximate Elev. 150 Date: 10/18/01 Depth Moisture Content nt (ft.) Soil Description Co(n 0 FILL: brown to grayish -brown SILT, CLAY, and fine grained SAND, firm moist to wet, with some fine gravel and occasional organic material. 5 32 FILL: gray to brownish gray silt, clay, and fine grained sand, firm, moist to wet, with moderate organic material (including wood debris) and some gravel. 12-inch thick organic layer at base. (Old topsoil horizon) 10 Gray silty SAND to sandy SILT, fine grained, dense, moist, 11 with occasional fine to coarse gravel. (SM/ML) (Glacial till -like) 15 Test pit terminated at 16 feet. No groundwater seepage. 20 TEST PIT LOGS 9ATerra POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS Associates, Inc. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. T-4893 I Date JAN 2003 1 Figure 12 Logged by: JCS Date: 10/18/01 Depth 0) 5 10 15 20 Test Pit No. TP-7 Soil Description Approximate Elev. 121 Moisture Content M FILL: dark brown organic silty sand, fine grained, firm, moist. Mottled gray to brown SAND with silt to silty SAND, fine grained, medium dense to dense, moist. (SP-SM/SM) (Hydrocarbon odor) 20 Tan to light grayish -brown silty CLAY to CLAY, hard, moist, occasional 24 mottling. (CL) Pp - 4.5+ tons/fe 31 Test pit terminated at 15 feet. No groundwater seepage. Logged by: JCS Date: 10/18/01 Depth (ft.) 0 ire, 15 NEI Test Pit No. TP-8 Soil Description Approximate Elev. 121 Moisture Content (%1 FILL: light brown to gray silty sand, firm, moist to wet, with organics. FILL: dark brown organic silty sand, loose, wet, with significant wood debris timbers and branches). 2.5-foot diameter boulder. Gray SILT to SILT with sand, fine grained, dense, moist to wet. (ML) 25 Light grayish -brown to tan sandy SILT, fine grained, very dense, moist, with occasional fine gravel. (ML) (Glacial till -like) 16 Test pit terminated at 15 feet. Light groundwater seepage at 6 feet. TEST PIT LOGS Terra POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS Associates, Inc. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. T-4893 Date JAN 2003 Figure 13 Logged by: JCS Date: 10/18/01 Depth (ft.) 0 5 10 15 Test Pit No. TP-11 Soil Description Approximate Elev. 78 Moisture Content M) Mottled grayish -brown SAND to SAND with silt, fine grained, medium dense, moist to wet. (SP/SP-SM) 25 15 Light brown silty SAND to sandy SILT, fine grained, medium dense to dense, moist. (SM/ML) Increasing silt with depth. 15 22 Test pit terminated at 15 feet. No groundwater seepage. Logged by: JCS Date: 10/18/01 Depth (ft.) 0 5 10 15 20 Test Pit No. TP-12 Soil Description Approximate Elev. 76 Moisture Content 6 inches crushed rock surfacing. Mottled grayish -brown SAND, fine to medium grained, medium dense, moist, with occasional fine gravel. (SP) (H drocarbon odor Gray SAND with silt to SAND, fine grained, medium dense to dense, 1� moist to wet, with occasional fine to coarse gravel. (SP-SM/SP) 15 Mottled grayish -brown silty SAND with gravel to sandy SILT with gravel, fine sand, fine gravel, dense to very dense, moist. (SM/ML) (Glacial till -like between 8 and 10 feet) Increasing gravel with depth. 20 Test pit terminated at 15 feet. Trace groundwater seepage at 8 feet. Terra Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Consultants TEST PIT LOGS POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Proj. No. T-4893 I Date JAN 2003 1 Figure 15 Test Pit No. TP-13 Logged by: JCS Date: 10/18/01 Depth Approximate Elev. 86 Moisture Content (ft.) Soil Description N 12 inches crushed rock surfacing. Mottled grayish -brown silty SAND to sandy SILT, very dense, moist. (SM/ML) 25 H drocarbon odor 31 0 Bluish -gray CLAY, hard, moist, with partings of gray fine sand and light gray silt. (CL) Pp=4.5+ tons/fe 10 15 1 Test pit terminated at 14 feet. Trace groundwater seepage at 2.5 feet. 20 Logged by: JCS Date: 10/18/01 Depth (ft.) 0 61 10 15 20 Test Pit No. TP-14 Soil Description Approximate Elev. 76 Moisture Content FILL: bluish -gray silty sand with gravel to sandy silt with gravel, fine sand, fine gravel, medium dense to dense, moist. (SM/ML) 10 Light brown sandy SILT, fine grained, dense, moist, with occasional fine gravel and thin layers of fine grained silty sand. (ML) 19 15 Test pit terminated at 15 feet. No groundwater seepage. TEST PIT LOGS Terra POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS Associates, Inc. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. T-4893 Date JAN 2003 Figure 16 Logged by: JCS Date: 10/18/01 Depth (ft.) 0 5 10 15 ut Test Pit No. TP-15 Soil Description Approximate Elev. 86 Moisture Content FILL: gray silty sand to sandy silt, fine grained, medium dense, moist, with occasional fine ravel. SS Dark brown organic sandy SILT, fine grained, firm, moist, with occasional roots. (OL) Old topsoil horizon Mottled grayish -brown silty SAND with gravel to SAND with silt and gravel, fine sand, fine to coarse gravel, medium dense to dense, moist. 10 (SM/SP-SM) Becomes brownish -gray and moist to wet at approximately 8 feet. 1 Brownish -gray silty SAND with gravel to sandy SILT with gravel, fine sand, fine gravel, dense, moist. (SM/ML) ( Glacial till -like) 18 Test pit terminated at 15 feet. Trace groundwater seepage at 11 feet. Test Pit No. TP-16 Logged by: JCS Approximate Elev. 68 Date: 10/18/01 Depth Moisture (ft•) Soil Description Content 0 FILL: gray to brown silty sand with gravel, fine grained, firm to loose, moist to wet. (SM) 5 FILL: grayish -brown silty sand with gravel, fine grained, firm, moist to wet, with significant organic soils and wood debris. 23 10 16 Bluish -gray silt SAND with gravel to sandy SILT with gravel, fine sand, fine gravel, dense, moist. SM/ML Glacial till -like Light brown SAND fine rained medium dense to dense moist. SP 15 15 Test pit terminated at 13 feet. No groundwater seepage. 20 TEST PIT LOGS Terra POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS E.09 Associates, Inc. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. T-4893 Date JAN 2003 Figure 17 Test Pit No. TP-17 Logged by: JCS Approximate Elev. 82 Date: 10/18/01 Depth Moisture (ft.) Soil Description Content(%) 0 Rusty brown silty SAND with gravel, fine sand, fine to coarse gravel, medum dense. moist. SM Mottled grayish -brown silty SAND with gravel, fine sand, fine to coarse gravel, medium dense to dense moist. SM 13 Grayish -brown silty SAND with gravel to sandy SILT with gravel, fine sand, 5— fine to coarse gravel, dense to very dense, moist. (SM/ML) (Glacial till -like) Sand content increases with depth. 10 15 20 Test pit terminated at 9.5 feet. No groundwater seepage. Terra Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Consultants TEST PIT LOGS POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS EDMONDS, WASHINGTON TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences April 25, 2003 Project No. T-4893 Mr. Ross Woods Point Edwards, LLC 2801 Alaskan Way, Suite 107 Seattle, Washington 98121 Subject: Steep Slope Exemptions — Clearing and Trail Construction Point Edwards Condominiums (UNOCAL Site) Pine Street and Unoco Road Edmonds, Washington References: 1. Preliminary Geotechnical Report, UNOCAL Site, Project No. T-4893, prepared by Terra Associates, Inc., dated November 21, 2001 2. Steep Slope Hazard Review, Point Edwards Condominiums (UNOCAL Site), Project No. T4893, prepared by Terra Associates, Inc., dated December 13, 2002 3. Geologically Hazardous Areas Review, Point Edwards Condominiums (UNOCAL Site), Project No. T4893, prepared by Terra Associates, Inc., dated January 20, 2003 Dear Mr. Woods: As requested, we reviewed our referenced geotechnical reports prepared for the subject project. The purpose of our review is to address geotechnical issues associated with proposed alterations of steep slope hazard areas (SSHAs) at the site as shown on a Site — Concept Plan by Weber+Thompson Architects, dated April 24, 2003, and to provide documentation sufficient to support SSHA exemptions of these activities. Proposed alterations to the SSHAs include the following: • Construction of a footpath/trail across the SSHA located downgradient of Building 2 • Tree removal, slope revegetation, and trimming and limbing of trees on the steep slope located west of Buildings 5, 6, and 7 TRAIL CONSTRUCTION A Preliminary Grading Plan by Triad Associates, stamped on December 9, 2002, indicates a footpath/trail will encroach into the SSHA located downgradient from Building 2. Potential impacts to the SSHA that are associated with the trail include increasing the erosion potential due to clearing and grading along the trail corridor, and surface water runoff from the trail. 12525 Willows Road, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034 Phone (425) 921 _7777 9 Fax (4? 5) 871 -4'1'14 • tPrr;i(@tPrra-accnriatPc.rnm 1 1 1 1 Mr. Ross Woods April 25, 2003 As described in our referenced reports, the potential of erosion and sedimentation will be eliminated or significantly reduced by applying Best Management Practices (BMPs) for erosion prevention and sedimentation containment, and through proper design and construction of the trail so that surface runoff is collected and conveyed in a controlled manner to an approved discharge point. Section 20.15B.110 (D)(1) of the City of Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) indicates that the construction of trails is an exempt activity on SSHAs. Section 20.15B.110 (D)(1)(b) states that trail construction shall be designed to the best available technical standard approved by the city (U.S. Forest Service, Trails Management Handbook, FSH 2309.18, dated 1987, and Standard Specifications for Construction of Trails, EM- 7720-102, dated 1984). Provided that the trail design meets the criteria presented in the referenced technical standards, and BMPs for erosion prevention and sediment containment are properly implemented during and after construction, it is our opinion that this exemption would apply. TREE REMOVAL AND SLOPE REVEGTATION The proposed project will include removing trees from the SSHA located west of Buildings 5, 6, and 7, and revegetating the slope. with new restoration plants, and trimming and limbing of trees on the lower flanks of the slope. Details of this work are presented in a report prepared by City Foresters, Inc. (CFI), dated November 8, 2002. The CFI report indicates that most of the existing trees located above Elev. 60 on the slope are diseased, and may threaten slope stability in the future. Analysis presented in the referenced geotechnical reports indicates the existing and proposed slope conditions are stable with regard to deep-seated failure. However, the loss of mature, large trees on the steep slope due to disease can result in exposure of surficial soils on the slope face, which can propagate slope erosion and adversely impact the stability of the near -surface soils on the slope. CFI provides specific recommendations for removal of trees, revegetation, and concurrent installation of permanent erosion and sedimentation measures. We concur with CFI's recommendations for revegetating the slope, and for installing permanent measures for erosion prevention and sedimentation control. However, we recommend that all permanent erosion protection measures be in place by October 1. Section 20.15B. I IO(D)(1)(d) of the ECDC allows for exemption of clearing, and trimming and limbing of vegetation on steep slopes if a clearing plan is provided for review and approval by the City; and provided that the soils within the steep slope area are not disturbed to subject the area to the risk of erosion. In our opinion, slope restoration measures including revegetation and installation of permanent erosion control measures, along with implementation of a program providing long-term maintenance of the restoration measures, as recommended in the CFI report, will enhance the current stability of the steep slope with regard to shallow ground movement and will reduce the potential of erosion and sedimentation. Therefore, in our opinion, the recommendations for slope restoration presented in the CFI report and the findings of our geotechnical review provide a basis for exemption under the provisions of ECDC Section 20.15B.I IO(D)(1)(d). Project No. T-4893 Page No. 2 Mr. Ross Woods April 25, 2003 We trust the information presented is sufficient for your current needs. If you have any questions or require additional information, please call. Sincerelyrs,�. TER CAI INC. J Sa &, t Env Geo 1 267 eo 6,�q Principa �bbe,'Triad Associates Mr. Richard E. Gifford Mr. S. Jin Lee, Weber+Thompson Project No. T-4893 Page No. 3 I 1_ TERRA_ ASSOCIATES, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences April 25, 2003 Project No. T4893 Mr. Ross Woods Point Edwards, LLC 2801 Alaskan Way, Suite 107 Seattle, Washington 98121 Subject: Request for Buffer Reduction — Steep Slope Hazard Areas Point Edwards Condominiums (UNOCAL Site) Pine Street and Unoco Road Edmonds, Washington References: 1. Preliminary Geotechnical Report, UNOCAL'Site, Project No. T-4893, prepared by Terra Associates, Inc., dated November 21, 2001 2. Steep Slope Hazard Review, Point Edwards Condominiums (UNOCAL Site), Project No. T4893, prepared by Terra Associates, Inc., dated December 13, 2002 3. Geologically Hazardous Areas Review, Point Edwards Condominiums (UNOCAL Site), Project No. T-4893, prepared by Terra Associates, Inc., dated January 20, 2003 Dear Mr. Woods: As requested, we reviewed our referenced geotechnical reports prepared for the subject project. Geologically hazardous areas (GHAs), including erosion hazard areas (EHAs), steep slope hazard areas (SSHAs), and landslide hazard areas (LHAs), as defined by the City of Edmonds, exist on the steep slope located west of proposed Buildings 5, 6, and 7. A SSHA is also located downgradient of proposed Building 2. Section 20.15B. I 10(A) of the City of Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) requires maintaining a 50-foot buffer adjacent to GHAs. Provisions in the Code allow the buffer width to be reduced to 10 feet, subject to administrative review and approval of a critical areas study. The purpose of our study is to provide documentation sufficient to support a reduction in GHA buffers from 50 feet to 10 feet. The Code states that the critical areas study must clearly demonstrate that the proposed buffer alteration will have no adverse impact (including but not limited to a decrease in site stability as defined in Section 19.05 ECDC) upon the site, the public, or any private party. ECDC Section 19.05.020 defines "stable" as meaning that the risk of damage to the proposed development, or to adjacent properties, from soil instability shall be minimal subject to the conditions set forth in the reports developed under the requirements of ECDC 19.05.030; and the proposed development will not increase the potential for soil movement. 12525 Willows Road, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034 Phone (42.S) 821-7777 • Fax 142.5) 821-43.34 9 terraRtPrra-as,;nciatPs.cnm 11 Mr. Ross Woods April 25, 2003 We previously addressed GHAs at the site and identified potential impacts to the GHAs due to the planned development and potential impacts to the development due to the presence of the GHAs. Based on the results of our studies, which included detailed analyses of slope stability under static and pseudostatic conditions for current and proposed conditions, we opined that, provided the recommendations for hazard mitigation, and geotechnical design and construction presented in the referenced geotechnical reports are followed, that the proposed development will not result in significant adverse impacts to the SSHAs at the site. It was also our opinion that the presence of the SSHAs will not adversely affect the stability of the buildings. Our previous studies addressed these issues for a site development plan that included encroachments into the SSHA by portions of Buildings 5 and 6, and encroachment into the 50-foot SSHA buffer by Building 7. Building 2 will not encroach into the 50-foot buffer; but is situated within the 15-foot building setback from edge of the buffer. The current site development plan shows Buildings 5, 6, and 7 relocated to positions outside a 257foot setback from the SSHA that is comprised of a 10-foot GHA buffer and a 15-foot building setback. The location of Building 2 has not been changed from the original proposal. 1 DISCUSSION F L 11 The results of our previous studies indicate that the slopes located west of Buildings 5, 6, and 7, and north of Building 2 are stable. In addition, most of Building 7, approximately one-half of Building 6, and a portion of Building 5 are situated on areas formerly occupied by a large, above -ground fuel storage tanks. Approximately 40 feet of the space between the SSHA and the area where Building 2 encroaches into the building setback was formerly occupied by a large, above -ground fuel storage tank. Removal of the tanks has significantly reduced loading near the top of the slopes, and therefore has a positive effect on stability. In addition, Buildings 2, 5, 6, and 7 will be supported on deep foundations, which will further reduce potential impacts to the stability of the steep slopes due to building surcharges, and mitigate SSHAs and LHAs. A deep foundation system will also eliminate the potential of adverse impacts to the stability of the buildings in the event of shallow soil loss adjacent to the buildings. Additionally, drainage systems associated with the finished buildings will improve the current stability of the steep slope. Grading incidental to construction of the building will increase the potential for erosion and sedimentation. In our opinion, potential erosion and sedimentation impacts to the SSHA due to the site grading will be eliminated or significantly reduced by applying BMPs for erosion prevention and sedimentation containment, and improvements to site drainage. As discussed, the results of our studies indicate that existing and proposed slopes at the site are stable with respect to deep-seated failure. In our opinion, the risk of damage to the proposed development or to adjacent properties from soil instability will be minimal, and the proposed development will not increase the potential for soil movement. Accordingly, it is our opinion that the requirements of ECDC Section 20.15B. I 10(A) are met, and reducing the GHA buffer from 50 feet to 10 feet will not result in adverse impacts to the site, the public, or any private party. Project No. T-4893 Page No. 2 Mr. Ross Woods April 25, 2003 We trust the information presented is sufficient for your current needs. If you have any questions or require additional information, please call. Sincerely yours, TERRA ASSOCIATES, INC. cc: Mr. Greg Krabbe, Triad Associates Mr. Richard E. Gifford Mr. S. Jin Lee, Weber+Thompson Project No. T-4893 Page No. 3 L .1 1 1 TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences July 30, 2003 Project No. T-4893 Mr. Ross Woods Point Edwards, LLC 2801 Alaskan Way, Suite 107 Seattle, Washington 98121 Subject: Supplementary Subsurface Exploration Point Edwards Condominiums Pine Street and Unoco Road Edmonds, Washington References: 1. Geologically Hazardous Areas Review, Point Edwards Condominiums (UNOCAL Site), prepared by Terra Associates, Inc., dated January 20, 2003 2. Preliminary Geotechnical Report, UNOCAL Site, Project No. T-4893, prepared by Terra Associates, Inc., dated November 21, 2001 Dear Mr. Woods: As requested, we have completed supplementary subsurface exploration at the subject site. The purpose of our study is to evaluate the need for temporary shoring during construction of the proposed buildings, and to provide recommendations for temporary shoring design and construction where needed. We previously performed geotechnical studies for the project and presented our findings in the referenced reports; however, since that time, building locations and site grading have been refined. Triad Associates provided us with a current topographic site plan dated July 21, 2003 that shows existing topography and proposed site grading. Our current study focused on areas where significant site excavations will be required adjacent the downgradient (northern) side of Pine Street, in the areas of Buildings 3, 4, and 8, and the area of Building 5, located north of Building 8 and the private loop road. Pine Street is currently one of two roadways that access the community of Woodway, south of the site. This report summarizes the results of our recent subsurface exploration and discusses supplementary shoring recommendations for the project. 12525 Willows Road, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034 PhnnP (42.5) 921-7777 • Fax (4?S) • tarra(atarra-accnriatac rnm ' Mr. Ross Woods July 30, 2003 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project will consist of the construction of ten condominium buildings. The proposed structures will be three to four stories with daylight basements and one to two levels of underground parking.. We ' expect that perimeter load -bearing walls and isolated spread footing loads will be as indicated in .the referenced report. The excavation depths required for construction of the lower parking levels will ' approach a maximum of about 27 feet below existing grades along Pine Street. The recommendations contained in the following sections of this report are based on our understanding ' of the above design features. If actual features vary or changes are.made, we should review them in order to modify our recommendations, as required. We should review final design drawings and specifications to verify that our recommendations have been properly interpreted and incorporated into project design. ISUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ' We previously investigated subsurface conditions at the site by excavating 17 test pits (Test. Pits TP-1 through TP-17) and drilling 5 test borings (Borings B-1 through B-5). Our current exploration included drilling three additional test borings (Borings B-101 through B-103) on June 18, 2003. ' The recent borings were drilled on the north side of Pine Street, where significant excavations will be required for construction of the lower parking levels of Buildings 3, 4, and 8. These test borings were ' advanced to a maximum depth of approximately 51.5 feet below the ground surface. The approximate locations of the recent test borings, and nearby test pits/test borings from our previous studies, are shown on Figures 1 and 2. The boring logs and test pit logs are shown on Figures 4 through 9. We 1 performed grain size analyses on three representative soil samples obtained from the test borings. The test results are presented on Figures 10 and 11. ' The soils encountered in Borings B-101, B-102, and B-103 consist of 1 to 13 feet of very loose to medium dense uncontrolled fill overlying medium dense, native silty sand with varying amounts of gravel to depths between approximately 7 and 13 feet below the ground surface. The fill and silty sand soils are underlain by very stiff to hard, lean clay with thin partings of light gray silt and/or very fine- grained silty sand seams to the maximum exploration depths of the borings. These soil conditions are ' generally consistent with the soils we observed in nearby test pits. The Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and Part of the Edmonds West Quadrangles, Washington by ' James P. Minard, 1983, shows the soils at higher site elevations mapped as Vashon till, Vashon advance outwash, and Transitional beds. Transitional bed sediments are described by this publication as massive ' to bedded clay, silt, and fine to very fine sand. The clay and silt soils observed at depth in the test pits and encountered in the test borings are generally consistent with the descriptions of transitional bed deposits. Project No. T-4893 Page No. 2 Mr. Ross Woods July 30, 2003 We encountered perched groundwater in all three of the recent borings near the interface of the surficial fill/silty sand soils and the underlying very stiff to hard clay, and in thin sand layers within the very stiff to hard clay. We also observed indications of localized light seepage from the face of the existing slope between proposed Buildings 4 and 8. The perched groundwater encountered in Borings B-101 and B-102 occurs at elevations at least 15 feet below the lower elevations of Buildings 3 and 4 (Elev. 10 1. 17 and Elev. 100.66, respectively). Boring B-103 (drilled in the area of Building 8) encountered two levels of perched groundwater. The upper perched groundwater level is approximately 8.5 feet below the ground surface (approximately Elev. 120.5), and the lower level is approximately 22 feet below the ground surface (approximately Elev. 107). The proposed elevation of the lower level for Building 8 is Elev. 111.67. Fluctuations in groundwater seepage levels should be expected on a seasonal and annual basis. Typically, groundwater seepage reaches maximum levels during and following the wet winter months, and diminishes or is completely absent during the dry summer months. We did not observe groundwater seepage in Test Pits TP-1 and TP-2 (located in the areas of Borings B-101 and B-102, respectively), which were excavated to a depth of about 14 feet in mid -October 2001. DISCUSSION ' Based on our review of existing topography, pro osed grades, and the planned building elevations, it appears that temporary shoring will be required to complete the southwestern portion of the excavation for Building 4. Soils encountered in Boring B-102, in the southwestern portion of Building 4, consist of approximately 13 feet of very loose to medium dense fill and medium dense native silty sand overlying very stiff to hard clay. As discussed in our referenced geotechnical report, the loose to medium dense fill and native silty sand soils should be laid back at a minimum slope inclination of 1.5:1 (Horizontal:Vertical). Temporary slopes in the very stiff to hard clay can be completed with a gradient ' of 0.75:1. Based on the depths that we encountered these soils in Boring B-102, excavations completed to these temporary inclinations at the southwestern corner of Building 4 would encroach about 40 feet into the Pine Street right-of-way and about 16 feet into the existing paved roadway. Excavation to the proposed lower floor elevation in the southwestern portion of Building 3 will expose P P P g P ' primarily medium dense silty sand with .varying amounts of gravel. Temporary excavations in these soils that are graded to an inclination of 1.5:1 will extend about 27 feet into the Pine Street right-of-way at the southwestern corner of the building, but would not encroach into the existing roadway. ' The soils in the area of Building 8 consist of existing fill, native silty sand, and very stiff clay/dense silt. Based on the information provided to us, it appears that temporary excavations for Building 8 that are sloped to an inclination of 1.5:1 will not encroach into the Pine Street right-of-way. We expect that the lower portion of the excavation for Building 8 will exposed very stiff clay/dense silt, and may be graded to a temporary inclination of 0.75:1. Project No. T-4893 Page No. 3 Mr. Ross Woods July 30, 2003 Subsurface information obtained from our previous geotechnical studies indicates that the soils near the ' western side of Building 5 consist of existing fill and native, medium dense silty sand to approximately Elev. 86. The soils below this elevation are very stiff to hard clay/dense silt. Based on the information ' provided to us, it appears that the major portion of the excavation for Building 5 will expose granular silty sand soils. Temporary excavations sloped to an inclination of 1.5:1 will encroach very near the centerline of the proposed loop road located immediately south of the building, and would extend about ' five feet over the centerline near the southwestern corner of the building. We understand that there will be some flexibility with excavating into the loop road during site development; however, if encroachments into the proposed roadway of this magnitude cannot be tolerated, temporary shoring will ' be needed. The excavation for Building 8 is likely to encounter minor groundwater seepage at various levels below ' 8.5 feet. Considering the fine-grained nature of the on -site soils, we do not believe the amount of seepage will be excessive. In addition, if adequately protected from erosion, we do not expect that seepage will adversely affect the stability of the temporary slope. However, the contractor should be prepared to provide dewatering measures for the excavation. In our opinion, conventional sump pumping procedures should be capable of maintaining a relatively dry condition for the excavation. Temporary shoring will be required where site constraints do not allow sloping of temporary excavations to the inclinations discussed above. Temporary shoring systems include a tied -back or cantilever soldier pile wall and soil nailing with top -down wall construction. Considering the presence of as much as 13 feet of loose, uncontrolled fill near the southwestern corner of Building 4, and the proximity to a public right-of-way, it is our opinion that temporary shoring should consist of a tied -back ' or cantilever soldier pile wall. Descriptions of the shoring method and detailed design parameters are presented below. ' The following sections provide detailed recommendations regarding these issues and other geotechnical design considerations. These recommendations should be incorporated into the final design drawings ' and construction specifications. Shoring As discussed, temporary shoring will be required where there is insufficient room to complete an open excavation to the inclinations discussed in the preceding section. Overconsolidated clay/silt will be encountered below the fill and granular native soils. During the excavation, soil expansion resulting from release of locked -in stresses combined with horizontal planes lacking cohesion may cause ' horizontal slippage at a newly opened excavation. Based on our experience, the newly opened vertical face should not be left open more than 48 hours. Timber lagging should be installed within 48 hours to ' prevent horizontal slippage. Detailed recommendations for conventional soldier pile walls with timber lagging are provided below. Project No. T-4893 Page No. 4 11 Mr. Ross Woods July 30, 2003 Soldier Pile Shoring Tied -back or cantilever soldier walls should be designed to resist lateral loads imposed by soils, as well as the vertical load component. Vertical loads may be carried by the soldier piles as end bearing and as pile shaft friction below the base of the excavation. Pile shaft friction should not be used above the base of the excavation. The following information is applicable to soldier pile walls: Bearing materials: Minimum depth of embedment below excavation base Allowable end bearing capacities for soldier piles: Skin friction below excavation base: hard lean clay 10 feet 20 kips per square foot (ksf) 1.0 ksf ' We recommend soldier piles have a maximum center -to -center spacing of eight feet. To account for arching effects, lateral loads on the lagging can be reduced by 50 percent. Design parameters for the recommended temporary shoring are presented on Figures 12 and 13. Tieback Anchors ' Tieback anchors should be installed in the soil behind the excavation to a sufficient distance to allow mobilizing the desired lateral load resistance. The soils in the anchor zone are expected to consist of very stiff to hard lean clay. We recommend the use of the following design adhesion values for properly installing non -pressure grouted anchors. Allowable Adhesion: 1.0 ksf, along the bonded length ' The bonded length is the portion of the anchor that extends beyond the no-load zone, as shown on Figure 14. Within the no-load zone, anchors should be sleeved and left ungrouted to prevent load pickup in this region. All anchors should be tested to verify design capacities. As a minimum, all anchors should be stressed to 130 percent of their design capacity and then locked off at the design load. At least 10 percent of the ' anchors, with a minimum of 2 anchors, should be prooftested and stressed to 200 percent of the design pullout capacity. The geotechnical engineer should select the locations of these test anchors. ' Groundwater seepage may be encountered during the installation of the anchors. The presence of water could result in some caving of the anchor holes. Drilling with continuous flight augers or the use of casing would reduce the potential for ground loss. The contractor should particularly note the presence of existing facilities adjacent to the subject site, ' including buried utilities, as they may affect the location or extent of the anchor holes. Project No. T-4893 I Page No. 5 1 1 1 F1 ij U Mr. Ross Woods July 30, 2003 Monitoring Program A monitoring program must be implemented to verify the performance of the shoring system. Utilities within a distance of 1.0 H (where H is the depth of excavation) from the shoring wall should be protected from damage due to the lateral and vertical movement occurring around the excavation area. Monitoring of the shoring system should include measurements of horizontal and vertical movements at the top of soldier piles. All reference points on the existing ground surface should be installed and read prior to commencing the excavation. Monitoring of the shoring system should be performed twice a week as the excavation proceeds, and then every other week upon completion of the excavation. A registered land surveyor should be retained to perform the monitoring. Monitoring should continue until the basement walls are adequately braced at the ground surface level. The monitoring data should be reviewed weekly by the project's structural and geotechnical engineers. All recommendations presented in our earlier report should also be incorporated into project design and construction. We trust the information presented is sufficient for your current needs. If you have any questions or require additional information, please call. Sincerely yours, TA/JCS/AB:aYU Enc : -rigures I an — xp oration Location Plans Figure 3 — Unified Soil Classification System -Figures 4 through 9 — Boring and Test Pit Logs Figures 10 and 11 — Grain Size Analyses Figure 12 — Earth Pressure Diagram Figure 13 — Earth Pressure Diagram Figure 14 — Load/No Load Zone Diagram Figure 15 - Earth Pressure Diagram -Basement Walls cc: Ms. Beth Jensen, DCI Engineers 11 Project No. T-4893 Page No. 6 It \ \ \ \ ` \ \• \\ �' / / / I APPROXIMATE PERIMETER BLDG 1 \ \� \ \ \ \ BLDG. 4 / I / OF LOWER LEVEL _�' / -LOWER LEVEL ELEV. 4.67 \ \ \ \ TP-2 \ \ \LOWER LEVEL ELEV. 100.66 0-1 UA APPROXIMATE PERIMETER 1 OF LOWER LEVEL 1 11 I r l 1 \ `\ 1 ``�� "✓;.:..':'.':' .`.:.'C.. \,` \ ` !. \ ` _ - - - - _ _ ' \ 1 I I lilt BLDG 3 `LOWER LEVEL ELEV. 101.17 -101 _ \ BLDG 10E . - ' LOWE LEVEL ELEV, 134.84 COP \ -_ NOTE: LEGEND: THIS SITE PLAN IS SCHEMATIC. ALL LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. IT IS INTENDED FOR B_1 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF BORING REFERENCE ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. NTP-1 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TEST PIT REFERENCE: 0 50 100 SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY TRIAD ASSOCIATES, DATED 7-21-03 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET 1�111111t",11,1,111111 ,Zm,//�,�/l/I/l.Iilf_1 �/�r! ✓ , /.' ; 7� \ \ i /%ii/ it / ' / ' / l i ' / / i \ \ Q I— Z Cl) lit W j `" —� co � Z fro. {wJJCD W j/'//�it� \�l%�l ///%i l' rJ QIxU i I Jr / W' / I \ l,, , , // .�• A O G tT 7 f �'�goo / t j // /'/ �,�1/1�l r �% ^��� \ a LlJ Li aD 40 x Lu OL \ , / J / / / 1 It \� �\ u� \\ 40 0. uj L c > Lij c f' J U LU UJ G/ / 00 Lu III IIIIIII lCL /' r / W I /�1/IIIII 1 QO Q H !�/ Illl/ll f I l r / / / / W J \ / / ' /�//i m d \ \ K I /O j Z Zit F d J / i , , / �/ , / - //// , w I 140 / /'//// / Q Q ILL tw __ r �/ / / / // / / I I I I I I "1 \ I / I I" I-�/ I I l \: _ Il l/ a. a.CL I l /r `: ' /f / LI W ~ r/,Il I CO I/LUUJ >I I` I 3. / >,\\ I it J II Cc I I W \`\\1 I I I I I I 111 w J! I / I J1\I I, I I OM , 1` f \; It I 11 111 W W, I I „ I, 1 I t 1 I '�� 1 1 1 1 111 1 I \ I I / O>,, I I J > \ , / J W, LLI I I W 1 1I I lW / / J ; \ `� I �� i, j , i ; ' I I I , �::: \ \ I / �' / Z LL Ir 0 X. ¢ O w CO w ¢ O Z w N Q 1- F- Uzw� ¢ o�mw v ~ Z a &0 UJI o I j I 1 I 1 1 v ' ' ' I \ / , / \, t ` \ \`.� is ..:�• \.� ►' � O Z � InQ<w w W-j In g C) w OU W a zUi U •I�l i // /' 'ti ' / / / , j I 1 --' ! \ ` \ 1` wOzO Z Q tow z W J U. OF-0WO W to 1 n MAJOR DIVISIONS LETTER TYPICAL DESCRIPTION SYMBOL Clean GW Well -graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures, little or no GRAVELS Gravels fines. J_ Q, (less than GP Poorly -graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures, little or O c2 N More than 5% fines) no fines. � 50% of coarse fraction is G M Silty gravels, gravel -sand -silt mixtures, non -plastic W L a) > larger than No. Gravels with fines fines. Z M .T 4 sieve GC Clayey gravels, gravel -sand -clay mixtures, plastic fines. 0 0 N Clean SW Well -graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines. o SANDS Sands SP Poorly -graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no �Z (less than w More than 5% fines) fines. a0 s 50% of coarse o " fraction is SM Silty sands, sand -silt mixtures, non -plastic fines. U � smaller than Sands SC Clayey sands, sand -clay mixtures, plastic fines. No. 4 sieve with fines ML Inorganic silts, rock flour, clayey silts with slight o SILTS AND CLAYS plasticity. CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, (lean clay). O ' C) W E o Liquid limit is less than 50% QL Organic silts and organic clays 'of low plasticity. 0 o Z Z_ �cCo� Q W M H Inorganic silts, elastic. a� Cn SILTS AND CLAYS W E CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays. Z 0 cn Liquid limit is greater than 50% LL OH Organic clays of high plasticity. HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat. DEFINITION OF TERMS AND SYMBOLS cn Standard Penetration Density Resistance in Blows/Foot T 2" OUTSIDE DIAMETER SPLIT I W 0 Very loose 0-4 SPOON SAMPLER 2.4" INSIDE DIAMETER RING SAMPLER U) Loose 4-10 OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER Medium dense 10-30 = Dense 30-50 1 WATER LEVEL, (DATE) Very dense >50 Tr TORVANE READINGS, tsf Pp PENETROMETER READING, tsf Standard Penetration w Consistency Resistance in Blows/Foot DD DRY DENSITY, pounds per cubic foot Very soft 0-2 LL LIQUID LIMIT, percent w Soft 2-4 = 0 Medium stiff 4-8 PI PLASTIC INDEX U stiff Sti8-16 Very stiff 16-32 N STANDARD PENETRATION, blows per foot Hard >32 Terra UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Associates Inc. POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences Proj. No. T-4893 Date JULY 2003 Figure 3 1 11 H Boring No. B-101 Logged by: TA Date: 6/18/03 Approximate Elev. 105 Soil Description Consistency/ Relative Depth a E (N) Blows/ Moisture Content Density (ft.) i ft. N FILL: dark brown silty sand with gravel, moist. (SM) Dense 30 10 Brown silty SAND, trace gravel, with oxidized stained, moist. (SM) Brown mottled gray between 2.5 to 4.0 feet. Medium Dense 5 I 17 11 12 15 Gray, lean CLAY, trace subrounded gravel, moist. (CL) 7 20 10 Medium 22 27 Stiff to Occasional light gray silt seams below 15 feet. Hard 15 20 = I 35 44 26 25 I Gray silty SAND, wet. (SM) Dense Gray, lean CLAY with light gray SILT seams. Hard 25 32 29 Boring terminated at 26.5 feet. Groundwater seepage encountered at 21 feet. Terra BORING LOG Associates Inc. POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences Proj. No. T-4893 Date JULY 2003 Figure 4 1 H H Boring No. B-102 Logged by: TA Date: 6/18/03 Approximate Elev. 125 Soil Description Consistency/ Relative Depth n E (N) Blows/ Moisture Content Density (ft.) n ft. (%) 15 19 FILL: brown silty sand, trace gravel/clayey silt, moist. (SM/ML) Medium Dense to Very Loose 10 = = 13 9 3 2 24 5 7 11 10 23 = Gray, lean CLAY, occasional light gray silt and sandy silt seams (1 to 2 mm), moist. (CL) 20 = 22 31 0.5 inches light gray sandy silt seam at 26 feet. Very Stiff 29 36 0.5 inches sand seam at 30.5 feet. 30 = 33 26 29 27 40 = 38 25 Gray SAND with silt, free water. (SM) Dense Gray, lean CLAY, moist. (CL) ' = 37 27 50 = 32 25 Boring terminated at 51.5 feet. Groundwater encountered at 40 feet. Terra BORING LOG Associates, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Proj. No. T-4893 Date JULY 2003 Figure 5 i 1 1 1 Boring No. B-103 Logged by: TA Date: 6/18/03 Approximate Elev. 129 Consistency/ Q (N) Moisture Soil Description Relative Depth E Blows/ Content Notes Density (ft) ft. (/o) CRUSHED GRAVEL Dense T = 36 11 2 17 FILL: dark gray clayey SILT/silty SAND, Medium trace gravel, moist. (MUSM) Dense 5 15 28 Brown silty SAND to SAND with silt, free Medium 1 water. (SM) Dense 10 = 16 22 24 36 Gray lean CLAY, moist. (CL) Brown lean CLAY with oxidized stained 15 = 31 28 between 15.0 to 15.5 feet. Very Stiff Wet soils encountered at 21.5 feet. 20 = 30 24 ::::::::: Hard Occasional light gray silt and silty sand seams 25 28 32 . •. •. • • .... • : encountered below 25 feet. 4 inches sand seam at 31 feet. 30 35 23 ::::::;':: 35 T _L 41 29 Boring terminated at 36.5 feet. Groundwater seepage encountered at 8.5 feet. Water level at 22.15 feet on June 1.9, 2003. Terra BORING LOG Associates, Inc. POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences Proj. No. T-4893 Date JULY 2003 Figure 6 1 Boring No. B-4 Logged by: DPL Date: 12/16/02 Approximate Elev. 90 Soil Description Consistency/ Relative Depth a E (N) Blows/ Moisture Content Density (ft.) iof ft. N FILL (Old test pit): bluish -gray silty sand, fine grained, Loose wet, with a trace of wood particles. Appears disturbed. Z 7 27 FILL (Old test pit): mottled brown silty sand, fine grained, moist. Medium Dense 10 = 17 21 31 FILL (Old test pit): brown silt and clay, moist, with a trace of brown organic material ------------------------------------- Very ----------Stiff -------- = Bluish -gray SILT to CLAY, low to medium plasticity. Very 17 28 (MUCL) Stiff Gray SILT to CLAY, moist, low to medium plasticity. (MUCL) Very Stiff 20 30 23 LL = 35.5 PI = 11.5 Grayish -brown sandy SILT to clayey SILT, fine grained, moist. (ML) With thin partings of iron -stained, fine-grained Very Stiff = 35 23 sand. Grayish -brown clayey SILT to silty CLAY, moist. (MUCL) With thin discontinuous lenses of gray to mottled gray fine _rained sand _---------------------------------------------- Very Stiff ------------------------ 30 Z 30 24 Gray'silty SAND, fine grained, moist. (SM) Dense = 37 15 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Gray sandy SILT to clayey SILT, fine grained, moist, low plasticity. (ML to MUCL) ------------------------ Hard 40 Z 34 17 Gray clayey SILT, moist, low plasticity. (MUCL) _ Trace fine-grained sand__________________________________ ------ Hard ------------------------ = 37 20 Gray sandy SILT to silty SAND, fine grained, moist, Dense 50 = 32 19 (MUSM) 47 18 60 = 42 15 Boring terminated at 61.5 feet. No significant groundwater encountered. Terra BORING LOG Associates, Inc. POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and -Environmental Earth Sciences Proj. No. T-4893 Date JULY 2003 Figure 7 Test Pit No. TP-1 Logged by: JCS Date: 10/18/01 Depth F-1 ILL: crusnea surfacing over brown to gray silty sand to sandy siltTine gramea , firm, moist. (SMrocK /ML) , Rusty brown silty SAND fine grained, medium dense, moist, with occasional fine gravel and fine roots. (StM) Gray to mottled gray silty SAND, fine grained, medium dense to dense, moist, with occasional fine gravel. (SM) Becomes light brown at approximately 6 feet. Soil Description Approximate Elev. 104 Moisture Content 10 1 Gray CLAY, hard, moist, massive. (CL) 26 Pp = 4.5+ tons/fe LL = 35.8 PI=15 15 1 Test pit terminated at 14 feet. No groundwater seepage. 20 Test Pit No. TP-2 Logged by: JCS Approximate Elev. 124 Date: 10/18/01 Depth Moisture (ft.) Soil Description Content 0 FILL: crushed rock surfacing over brown silty sand to sandy silt, fine grained, firm, moist. 4-inch thick organic layer at base. SM/ML Old topsoil horizon Brown silty SAND, fine grained, medium dense, moist. SM Mottled grayish -brown silty SAND, fine grained, medium dense, moist. 5 (SM) Grayish -brown silty SAND, fine grained, medium dense to dense, moist. (SM) 10 -1 Gray CLAY, hard, moist, laminated with light gray silt partings. (CL) 15 1 Test pit terminated at 14 feet. No groundwater seepage. 20 dc Pp = 4.5+ tons/fe 37 TEST PIT LOGS Terra POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS Associates, Inc. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. T-4893 I Date JULY 2003 Figure 8 Test Pit No. TP-4 Logged by: JCS Date: 10/18/01 Depth (ft. ) 0 FILL: lig t brown silty sand, ine grained, irm, dry to moist. (M) 2-inch thick organic layer at base. (Old topsoil horizon Light brown to tan silty SAND, fine grained, medium dense to dense, dry. (SM) 5 Mottled grayish -brown silty SAND, fine grained, medium dense to dense, 29 moist. SM LL = 42.7 Light grayish -brown to light brown CLAY and SILT, hard, moist, laminated 29 P1= 19.7 with partings of dark gray fine sand. (CL/ML) Pp = 4.5+ tons/ft' 10 Gray CLAY, hard, moist. (CL) Pp = 4.5+ 29 tons/ft' Test pit terminated at 13 feet. 15 Trace groundwater seepage at 6 feet. 20 Soil Description Terra Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Consultants Approximate Elev. 92 Moisture Content TEST PIT LOGS POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Proj. No. T-4893 I Date JULY 2003 1 Figure 9 CANTILEVER SOLDIER PILE WALL OR SINGLE ROW TIEBACK WALL IFr\\`i\\\i\\�i\�i\\�i\�`i " H 40* pcf + 75 psf Traffic Surcharge Where Applicable Passive Earth II II Pressure = 400 pcf taken over 2 pile II II diameters Note: Value includes Safety Factor of i 1.5. � D 40(H)* psf taken over pile diameter NOT TO SCALE * INCREASE PRESSURE BY 20 PERCENT WHERE WALL IS SURCHARGED BY BACKSLOPE OF 2:1 (HORIZONTAL:VERTICAL) OR FLATTER. Terra EARTH PRESSURE DIAGRAM. POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS .', .•• ••• Associates, Inc. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Pro No. T-4893 Date JULY 2003 Figure 12 Environmental Earth Sciences 1• 9 SOLDIER PILE WALL WITH TWO OR MORE TIEBACKS 0�.2 (H) 15' 75 psf UNIFORM PRESSURE TRAFFIC H SURCHARGE WHERE APPLICABLE 23 (H)* psf APPLIED OVER PILE SPACING 12' %\ 400 pcf/ft PASSIVE EARTH i PRESSURE APPLIED OVER 2(D) II li 23 (H)* psf APPLIED OVER PILE DIAMETER i NOTE: I Ij VALUE INCLUDES SAFETY FACTOR OF 1.5 I II NOT TO SCALE * INCREASE PRESSURE BY 26 (H) WHERE WALL IS SURCHARGED BY BACKSLOPE OF 2:1 (HORIZONTAL:VERTICAL) OR FLATTER. Terra EARTH PRESSURE DIAGRAM POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS .Y •• ••• Associates, Inc. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON •• •• Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Pro No. T-4893 Date JULY 2003 Figure 13 Environmental Earth Sciences 1 9 TIEDBACK SOLDIER PILE/LAGGING SHORING WALL TIEBACKS GROUTED IN THIS ZONE ALLOWABLE TIEBACK ADHESION CAPACITY IN ANCHOR ZONE=1000 psf NOTE: TIEBACK CAPACITIES ARE BASE ON INSTALLATION USING TREMIE GROUT METHOD NOT TO SCALE Terra _ Associates, Inc. • Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences LOAD/NO LOAD ZONE DIAGRAM POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Proj. No. T-4893 I Date JULY 2003 1 Figure 14 11 EARTH PRESSURE DIAGRAM FOR BASEMENT WALLS 1C HARGE E CABLE _ sf NOT TO SCALE *INCREASE PRESSURE TO 26 (H) WHERE WALL IS SURCHARGED BY BACKSLOPE OF 2:1 (HORIZONTALNERTICAL) OR FLATTER. Terra EARTH PRESSURE DIAGRAM -BASEMENT WALLS '• ' POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS Associates, Inc. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Pro No.T-4893 Date JULY 2003 Figure 15 Environmental Earth Sciences 1• 9 TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences August 14, 2003 Project No. T-4893 Mr. Ross Woods Point Edwards, LLC 2801 Alaskan Way, Suite 107 Seattle, Washington 98121 Subject: Addendum to Geotechnical Report — Erosion Prevention and Sedimentation Control Point Edwards Condominiums Pine Street and Unoco Road Edmonds, Washington References: 1. Geologically Hazardous Areas Review, Point Edwards Condominiums (UNOCAL Site), Project No. T-4893, prepared by Terra Associates, Inc., dated January 20, 2003 2. Steep Slope Hazard Review, Point Edwards Condominiums (UNOCAL Site), Project No. T-4893, prepared by Terra Associates, Inc., dated December 13, 2002 3. Preliminary Geotechnical Report, UNOCAL Site, Project No. T-4893, prepared by Terra Associates, Inc., dated November 21, 2001 Dear Mr. Woods: As requested, we are providing supplemental recommendations for temporary and permanent erosion control at the subject site. We previously discussed site conditions, addressed erosion hazards, and recommended mitigation in the referenced reports. The recommendations presented herein are in addition to recommendations presented in the referenced geotechnical reports. Unless amended herein, all previous recommendations still apply. ANTICIPATED GRADING REQUIREMENTS Existing topography and proposed grading information shown on a Grading and Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan prepared by Triad Associates, dated July 28, 2003, indicates site development will require extensive grading. Temporary construction cuts of about 27 feet will be required along the downgradient side of Pine Street. Proposed permanent cut and fill slopes are shown with an inclination of 2:1 (Horizontal :Vertical). 12525 Willows Road, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034 PhnnP (d7S) R71_7777 • Fax (d)S) R?1-4'11d • tPrra(@tPrri-accnriatPc rnm Mr. Ross Woods August 14, 2003 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS As discussed in the referenced reports, the vast majority of the site located downgradient from Pine Street meets the criteria for an erosion hazard area (EHA). We did not observe indications of significant active erosion in the planned development area; however, the soils will be susceptible to erosion when exposed during construction. In our opinion, Best Management Practices (BMPs) used during construction for erosion prevention and sedimentation control will provide adequate mitigation of the erosion hazard at the site. As a minimum, we recommend implementing the following erosion and sediment control BMPs prior to, during, and immediately following clearing and grading activities at the site. Application of BMPs should conform to the standards and specifications presented in Volume H, Sections 4.1 and 4.2 of the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SMMWW) dated August 2001. Prevention • Limit disturbance to areas where construction is imminent. • Determine staging areas for temporary stockpiles of excavated soils. • Provide temporary cover for cut slopes and soil stockpiles during periods of inactivity. Temporary cover may consist of durable plastic sheeting that is securely anchored to the ground surface or straw mulch. • Establish permanent cover over exposed areas that will not be disturbed for a period of 30 days or more by seeding, in conjunction with a mulch cover or appropriate hydroseeding. Containment • Install silt fence along the downslope margin of areas that will be disturbed. The silt fence should be in place before clearing and grading is initiated. • Construct shallow drainage swales to intercept surface water flow and route the flow away from the construction area to a stabilized discharge point. Surface water must not discharge at the top or onto the face of the steep slope. • Provide pipe slope drains to convey surface water down slopes. • Provide on -site sediment retention for collected runoff. Terra Associates, Inc. should observe the installation of all erosion and sedimentation measures at the site and make periodic visits to observe site conditions to verify the performance of the measures. The contractor should perform daily review and maintenance of all erosion and sedimentation control measures at the site throughout construction. t Project No. T-4893 Page No. 2 Mr. Ross Woods August 14, 2003 ' Monitoring to observe the adequacy and function of temporary erosion and sedimentation control (TESC) measures should be performed once a month during the dry season (May through September), and weekly from October through April. Additional monitoring should be performed within 24 hours of precipitation events having a rainfall total of 0.5 inches or more. If the erosion control measures are properly implemented and maintained, along with the planned temporary and ' permanent drainage improvements, it is our opinion that the planned development will not adversely impact the erosion potential for the site or adjacent properties. However, additional or alternative measures may be required in the winter. The need for additional or alternative TESC measures will be evaluated during our periodic site ' visits and/or at the request of the contractor. We trust the information presented is sufficient for your current needs. If you have any questions or require additional information, please call. Sincerely yours, TERRA ASSOCIATES, INC. ' John C. Project �IJN/p3 Anil Ataii P. Geotec tsrQ o �� JCS/AB:ae cc: e Associates Ms. Cara Godwin, Weber+Thompson Project No. T-4893 ' Page No. 3 DATE RECEIVED Q [PERMIT CJ EXPIRESUSE CITY OF EDMONDS ZONE NuBERS _ CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION SOB B RE/APTN ADDRESS OWNER NAME/NAME OF BUSINESS PLAT NAME/SUBDIVISION NO. LOT NO. LID NO. O v M MAILING ADD/ S LID FEE S O noc RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP TIEPUBLIC RW Pa Approved RW Pormit Required Permlt Rsgd CITY ZIP TELEPHONE EXISTING PROPOSED Street Use Inspection Required Sidewalk Required d REQUIRED DEDICATION FT Whing required 0 NAME METER SIZE LINE SIZE N0. OF FIXTURES PRV REQUIRED t7 7 7 '4- D YES 0 NO 13 11 1I•i C ADDRESS REMARKS = _ U% �I n�-► OWNER/CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROL/DRAINAGE 43 aS - o u vim. o r, r W CITY ZIP TELEPHONE qj3i1pq a4 ( 34 - s 0n NAME l f CBLk o ou t -00. LLB f � ENGINEERING REVIEWED BY DATE s ADDRESS a ui A\ astco h � # t o/ t FIR ED BYq�:SHO�RE R DATE W CITY ZIP ELEPHONE 10,3 Q rL VARY NCE OR,CU OR ADBN •' " INSPECTION RE QJO BOND STED POSTED STATE LICENSE NUMBER EXpI ION DATE CKED,B L ,.7 t '-.';SIGN DYES $ SEPA REVIEW AREA .•>' HEIGHT PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL. a ` 13 p Z � — C C) EXEMPT COMPLETE .,EXEMPT . , ,ALLOWED ..PROPOSED ALLOWED PROPOSED — 4 EXP YEW ❑ RESIDENTIAL ❑ PLUMBING / MECH . LOT COVERAGE ALLOWED REQUIRED. SETBACKS (Ft)- 'REAR -'PROPOSED SETBACKS (FL) .PROPOSED FRONT'. SIDE FRONT L/R SIDE REAR t7 e• ❑ ADDITION 4 - �0 COMMERCIAL � , COMPLIANCE OR • ❑ CHANGE OF USE _ _ ❑ REMODEL ` ` MULTIFAMILY ❑ SIGN PARKING REO'D I PROVIDED LOT AREA <-: PLANNING REVIEWED.DATE d ❑ REPAIR ❑ FENCE 7lQN CYDS 1j.iJ�(6d.I ( X. FT) '•, REMARKS ❑ DEMOLISH ❑ TANK ❑ OTHER L fh4AGARAGE hG L7 RETAINING WALL FIRE SPRINKLER ❑ ❑ ❑ FIRE ALARM C CARPORT ROCKERY �4. FAY :'•�WAwiGJ: (TYPE OF USE, BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN"` Q CHECKED BY TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION CODE OCCUPANT �`�'1 , 1.GROUP NUMBER NUM ER OF CRITICAL G m OF DWE LING 7NUMBER AREAS SPECIAL INSPECTION AREA OCCUPANT O STORIES UNITS REQUIRED YES LOAD DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE ', .. REMARKS _ PROGRESS'INSPECTIONS PER UBC *06/0INAL INSPECTION REQ'D 9 ✓0//✓ G 5�0 !�/b`� :.; VALUATION G 01 Qt4wzlk ReiZGr �4• S Description-,: FEE Description FEE Plan Check r= `' y State Surcharge HEAT OURCE G NG % 1 )LOT -$LOPE % +d , i Building=Permit'"" ' City Surcharge A. PLAN CH �jl� VESTED DATE :Plumbing: r� Mechanical THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO t BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC Grading DOMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE SEPARATE PERMISSION. s Engr. Review PERMIT APPLICATION: 180 DAYS d PERMIT LIMIT- 1 YEAR - PROVIDED WORK IS STARTED�HIN 160 DAYS Engr. Inspection SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION 'APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS Fire Review Plan Chk. Deposit IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND Fire Inspection Receipt # 2 ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY 9 FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO MODIFY, WAIVE AN E OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF Y CITY ORDINANCE Landscape Insp. Total Amt Due -�► = NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CfTY S ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.• Recording Fee Receipt IIII THIS THAT THE HERESY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE G GIVEN ISCOR ECT; AND THAT 1 AM THE OW ER, ORPTHE DU Y AUTHORIZED AGENTINFORMATION APPLICATION APPROVAL THE OWNER. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC- CALL This application Is not a permit until signed by the TION: AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED Building Official or his/her Deputy: and Fees are paid, and IN VIOLAT OF THE B CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO FOR INSPECTION receipt is acknowledged In space provided. WORKM 'S O EN SURANCE AND RCW 18.27. • ' iiGNA R ER DATE SIGNED (425) O C SIO E DATE �. �d _J 771-0220 RELEASED BY DATE ATfL1ATI64 IT IS UNLAWFUL TOLvJ OC ING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL EXT 1333 % A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTIFI- CATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC SECTION 109 ORGINAL-FILE YYELLOW- I PECT R PINK - OWNER • GOLD - ASSESSOR 04/02 PRESS HARD -YOU ARE MAKING 5 COPIES GREEN -ACCOUNTING CII 0 0 SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 27N., RANGE 3E., W.M. I � EX. 'SIDEWALK �~� `.. I '0 �'I I i ENDSEAS77NG ,WALK0.84 160.2 _ �L .,4 J / ----- ILANDSCAPe- 161.2.0 .76. 1 i 1 � 162.28 \�\ 1 NEW SIDEWALK \ — �{ Ir 4 LANDINGS EXIS77NG MAX / { i �• ' r J ASEMENT o 161:61: ���i • .i cC ��\ \ { { EX7FND SIDEWALK / .� �� . ' ♦ \ \ \ \ EASEMENT �� of 162.11. I' \ ♦ \\� NEW SIDEWALK / / r ��� I 16234 ! .4 it 4 LANDING 1 + 16 _163/ '163- 162.94 / 2 / — � LANDSCAPE EX..CURB AND _- ��` \ •7 GUTIFR (TYP) CLOSE XlS77NG, _� •'• ".'•, 164.92 \ URB, CUT •FOR its 0 ♦ \ 165. o° �.-- CURB RAMP. INSTf9'(,Q 165.3 j fl'D �• ' , v _ / / \ CONSTRUCT VERTICAL . ei 146'tr�iL. \ 164.95\\ CURB CONAGUOUS � -X �' ♦. K17H SIDEWALK' / / i 'C�1�. L'2.$ �•fi �.:: �: t\ Alh♦ ' S E SEC77ON B '1�4.86 / EXIS77NG GAS VALVE. IN BOX. 7 /- -- _ _ _ \ ♦ _ � •.1 CLOSE EXlS77NG'f _ ' .--' / i / ! -165.. (ADJUST RIM TO ' . DRIVEWAa'- URB CUT / i / / FINISH GRADE) l / .- \ {I I LIGHT L STA 1 134.5 POLE BA POLE BASE' RAMAR WSDO.T SPL.01TD LAVF 7 ( ALi��D CEN7ER. J STA 1+55.5, \ —_ - � ' ,•' _ j /. j' FL -STA 1+61 FL' STA 1+4/* f { , V .'f•:{ice— _ — 1 CROS-S WALK ' \ CLOSE EXISTJNG . • I :V ! O� STA71+55.5 /r C{/RB CUT FOR - O p p R ,� INSTALLS PAVEMENT MARKING CURB RAMP L t AND DETECTABLE WARNING PA77tRN' � s DIREC7F6 BY _ __ — w \ CITY INSPFqTOR _ = �� �\ \--------- — --- - ----= -� I \`� ♦ \� t---------- ---- ���.-- — — --r t X t \ _ ---- ADD 5 CURB CUT AND \ /J \\ f' ` �♦ 1 { { { t 5' W1DE SIDEWALK RAMP SIMILAR TO W5DO7j J .� \\ \ A \ { { t S7D PLAN F-40.12-01 r ' PER APPROVED PLANS O ww w------------------------------------------------ ,t 'fi����� Uot��S C�otice�t�l,ti r' ,J ♦ , ------------------------ \� , SODA?' tD 1r IL. NOT -----=------------------------------------------------t_ �' .T = /. ' — — — — — — — — J — — — d . /. . J .�� J . .//. . / \ ---=-\V%A .. . . . . . . . . . . . �. .t \ 6" 5' LANDING ' 165.0 LEVEL 165.0 _ _ ' a 4' RAMP _ , _ SIDEWALK SEC T/ON A NOT TO SCALE WALK 8' PROPOSED CONC. SIDEWALK EX. CURB AND GUTTER 164.92 —a 5.5 ,LEVEL 9 Z a a r �/ T HEIGHT VARIES (MATCH CURB ELEVA77ON PLUS 2"). TAPER AND FLUSH -OUT NEW CURB WHERE SIDEWALK GRADE EQUALS EX. CURB ELEVATION. SEC TION B NOT TO SCALE —w--ONP=—�==— SCALE: 1" = 10' 0 5 10 20 SIDEWALK AND CURB RAMP REVISIONS SHOWN ON THIS SHEET SUPERCEDE PREVIOUS DESIGN SHOWN ON SHEET 14 OF THE POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS APPROVED CIVIL PLAN SET. APPROVED AS NOTED BY ENGINEERI G Date: .0 * UW* '(-SOSIM a a i SEA' . 1 '010 :3UILDINC DEPAE1TIA'ENd'Y CITY of !-7 iprnNrs 02010 TRIAD ASSOCIATES 12112 115th Ave. NE Kirkland, WA 98034-6923 425.821.8448 425.821.3481fax 800.488.0756 toll free www.triadassoc.com M� N V cc Zt Q Z ccca V � f- t- � !% mm a 0 0 J RICHARD A. TOMK/NS� P.E. PROJECT MANAGER PROJECT SURVEYOR RICHARD A. TOMKINS; P.E. PROJECT ENGINEER PROJECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FIRST SUBMITTAL DATE: 5115107 SCALE: 1110M.: 1 "= f0' VERT.: 5 n 0 O 5 00 00 STAMP NOT VALID UNLESS SIGNED AND DATED K O O O O JOB NO. 0 — O27 - SHEET N0. OF 3 O p O f] 3/8" EXPANSION JOINT (TYP.) - 4 u - SEE STD. PLAN F-30.10 LANDING CURB AND GUTTER SEE CONTRACT PLANS J - 4' - 0" MIN. (TYP.) CURB RAMP - FACE OF CURB NOTES A ANS SEE CONTRACT PANS 1. Provide a separate curb ramp for each marked or unmarked crosswalk. MIN. - 4' - 0' MIN. PEDESTRIAN CURB Curb ramp location shall be placed within the width of the associated PEDESTRIAN CURB 3/a" EXPANSION JOINT (TYP.) I ` SEE NOTE 4 Crosswalk, or as shown in the Contract Plans. ^ SEE NOTE 4 - SEE STANDARD PLAN F-30.10 LANDING / / 2. Where "GRADE BREAK" is called out, the entire length of the grade N break between the two adjacent surface planes shall be flush. B SIDEWALK y SIDEWALK o,J_ I "� 3. Do ncesPn frce ontofthre, cutionmpoor on ay part of thove e curb ramor other p or 3" R. CURB &GUTTER 4. See Contract Plans for the curb design specified. See Standard Plan ..... ....................'. F-10.12 for Curb, Curb and Gutter, and Pedestrian Curb Details. CURB RAMP CURB RAMP DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE ...._ DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE SEE CONTRACT PLANS - SEE STANDARD PLAN F-45.10 5. See Standard Plan F-30.10 for Cement Concrete Sidewalk Details. a' - o" MIN.....See Contract Plans for width and placement of sidewalk. SEE STANDARD PLAN F-05.10 _..___.._.._......._.__. _ DEPRESSED CURB & GUTTER FACE OF CURB DEPRESSED CURB & GUTTER CROSSWALK CROSSWALK 6. The Bid Item "Cement Concrete Curb Ramp Type _" does not include _.._..........__........ _.._. _.... the adacent Curb, Curb and Gutter, Pedestrian Curb or Sidewalks. - ...... ...... --............... - — ---- - 7. The curb ramp maximum running slope shall not require the ramp length PLAN VIEW DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE GRADE PLAN VIEW to exceed 15 feet to avoid chasing the slope Indefinitely when connecting TYPE PARALLEL A ^ SEE STANDARD PLAN F45.10 BREAK TYPE PARALLEL B to steep grades. When applying the 15 foot max. length, the running slope SEE CONTRACT PLANS COUNTER SLOPE of the curb ramp shall be as flat as leasable. 5.0 % MAX. -4'-a'MIN GRADE 8. Curb ramp, landing, & flares shall receive broom finish. See Standard BREAK Specifications 8-14. VARIES a `v > 2 0% MAX TOP OF LEGEND C �— ROADWAY SLOPE IN EITHER DIRECTION CEMENT CONCRETE LANDING DEPRESSED PEDESTRIAN CURB CURB & GUTTER - SEE STANDARD PLAN F-10.12 SECTION O - SEE NOTE 6 8,4 15' - 0" MAX. - SEE CONTRACT PLANS 15'. 0" MAX. ^ SEE NOTE 7 -4'-W MIN SEE NOTE 7 SIDEWALK GrRADE BREAK GRADE BREAK C v 8.3% MAX. 8.3% MAX. GRADE BREAK — 2.0% MAX_ - CURB RAMP LANDING CURB RAMP 318" EXPANSION JOINT (TYP.) - SEE STANDARD PLAN F-30.10 SECTION O "CEMENT CONCRET PARALLEL A" PAY ISOMETRIC VIEW TYPE PARALLEL A PAY LIMIT 15'- 0" MAX. - SEE CONTRACT PL SEE NOTE -N-0'MIN SIDEWALK GRADE BREAK Ar8.3% MAX. `vl?a- 2.O%MAX. I - CURB RAMP LANDING 3/8- EXPANSION JOINT (TYP.) - SEE STANDARD PLAN F-30.10 SECTION O "CEMENT CONCRETE CURB RAMP TYPE PARALLEL B" PAY LIMIT - SEE NOTE 6 T PEDESTRIAN CURB - SEE STANDARD PLAN F-10.12 ISOMETRIC VIEW TYPE PARALLEL B PAY LIMIT S170110 PARALLEL CURB RAMP STANDARD PLAN F-40.12-01 SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEET APPRjij/ED OR UBLICATION ,+ STEM GESGN ENGINEER onre,. Washington Slole Depadmenl of T—portallon