The URL can be used to link to this page

23020 EDMONDS WAY.PDFiiiiiiiiiiiiii 11094 23020 EDMONDS WAY jo, 4V �P6 ww*Aavm . .— - J� �-., - AVII. MAW ;=;_� 4 t 4�v A 7 or. 4Ln"j W ,I,- ul sl 41 Al C= C= C= C114 1�j v, 4 77 *4� j 44, 4. 1 "d4t 7 4% I 0111r. ll� ;,4 4; le, I Z, a OT, Ilk, j 41 lit 4r_ 'XA hw (9,D RIF )",41�011+ I 41, j -8 o wt .71 A-V y. 7 lf A -46 PR 'All FYI , fl' .33 R%K L E I N F E L D IE R February 19, 2008 Kleinfelder Project Number: 88601 Valhalla LLC c/o,SGA Corporation 1501 North 200th Street Shoreline, Washington 98133-3301 Attention: Mr. James -Abbott FEB 19 2008 BUILDING DEPARTMENT CITY,OF EDMONDS -BLD�7 - -2�,T-OCX02- Subject: Geotechnical "Hazard Analysis" Proposed Mixed Use Building — Adjacent Fagnan Property 23004 Edmonds Way Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. Abbott, As':required by the City q ' f Edmonds Building Division, Kleinfelder, Inc. (Kleinf6lder) is writing this letter to provide a "Hazard Analysis" statement to meet the requirements of Edmonds City Development Code (ECDC) Section 23.80.070.A.2, as applicable to the adjacent property to the Southwest of the site (Fagnan Property). We understand that a construction easement will be obtained from the adjacent property owner to allow for temporary sloping past the property line along this side of the planned Mixed Use construction project, as identified on the construction drawings. If these temporary slopes are completed according to the recommendations of our geotechnical report and our subsequent written or verbal recommendations, it is our opinion that: 1. The proposed temporary slope cuts will not increase surface water discharge or sedimentation to adjacent properties beyond predevelopment conditions; 2. The proposed temporary slope cuts will not decrease slope stability on adjacent properties; and 3. The proposed temporary slope cuts will not adversely impact other critical areas. 88601/SEA8LO37.doc Page I of 2 February 19, 2008 Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder We appreciate the opportunity to provide geotechnical engineering services on this project. Should you have any questions concerning this letter, or if we can assist you further, please contact us at 425-562-4200. Respectfully submitted, KLEINFELDER, INC. RoI713. Hy4llseth, P E. L.G. Senior Geotechnical Engineer Distribution: Valhalla, LLC c/o SGA Corporation (1) Attn: Mr. James W. Abbott A.D. Shapiro Architects, PS (3) Attn: Mr. Tony Shapiro, AIA 88601/SEA8LO37doc Page 2 of 2 February 19, 2008 Copyright 2008 10einfelder KLEINFELDER 2405 140th Avenue NE, Suite A101, Bellevue, WA 98005 (425) 562-4200 (425) 562-4201 fax M KLEIN FELDER February 19, 2008 Kleinfelder Project Number: 88601 Valhalla LLC c/o SGA Corporation 1501 North 200th Street Shoreline, Washington 98133-3301 Attention: Mr. James Abbott FEB 19 2008 BUILDING DEPARTMENT CITY OF EDMONDS Subject: Geotechnical "Hazard Analysis" Proposed Mixed Use,Building — Adjacent Fagnan Property 23004 Edmonds Way - Edmonds, Washington 2C6B -OC& 2- Dear Mr. Abbott, As required by the City of Edmonds Building Division, Kleinfelder, Inc. (Kleinfelder) is writing this letter to provide a "Haza ' rd Analysis" statement to meet the requirements of Edmonds City Development Code (ECDC) Section 23.80.070.A.2, as applicable to the adjacent property to the Southwest of the site (Fagnan Property), We understand that a construction easement will be obtained from the adjacent property owner to allow for temporary sloping past the property line along this side of the planned Mixed Use construction project, as identified on the construction drawings. If these temporary slopes are completed according to the recommendations of our geotechnical report and our subsequent written or verbal recommendations, it is our opinion that: 1. The proposed temporary slope cuts will not increase surface water discharge or sedimentation to adjacent properties beyond predevelopment conditions; 2. The proposed temporary slope cuts will not decrease slope stability on adjacent properties; and 3. The proposed temporary slope cuts will not adversely impact other critical areas. 88601/SEA8LD37.doc Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder Page I of 2 February 19, 2008 We appreciate the opportunity to provide geotechnical engineering services on this project. Should you have any questions concerning this letter, or if we can assist you further, please contact us at 425-562-4200. - 600".1 Ift" -40. Respectfully submitted, KLEINFELDER, INC. seth, P.E., L.G. Rol B. Hy#llA4 Senior Geotechnical Engineer Distribution: Valhalla, LLC c/o SGA Corporation (1) Attn: Mr. James W. Abbott A.D. Shapiro Architects, PS (3) Attn: Mr. Tony Shapiro, AIA 88601/SEA8LO37doc Page 2 of 2 February 19, 2008 Copyright 2008 Meinfelder KLEINFELDER 2405 140th Avenue NE, Suite A 10 1, Bellevue, WA 98005 (425)) 562-4200 (425) 562-4,201 fax KLE1 N FELDER 2405 140-Avenue NE Suite A 10 1 Bellevue, WA 98005 (425) 5624200 (425) 562-4201 fax January 29, 2008 Kleinfelder Project Number: 88601 Valhalla LLC c/o SGA Corporation 1501 North 200" Street Shoreline, Washington 98133-3301 Attention: Mr. James Abbott Subject: Geotechnical Review of Construction Drawings Proposed Mixed Use Building 211.308 23004 Edmonds Way Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. Abbott, As required by the City of Edmonds Building Division, Kleinfelder, Inc. (Kleinfelder) is writing this letter to summarize our review of the geotechnical aspects of the construction drawings prepared for the above -referenced project. Kleinfelder previously prepared a Geotechnical Report (dated July 10, 2006) and a Geotechnical Supplement No. I (dated November 21, 2007) for this project. We have also provided a previous plan review letter for the Townhouse portion of the same project site. We reviewed the followi ng construction documents related to our current plan review: 232 Id Mixed -Use Building Foundation Permit — Architectural Plan Set (AO.O through A7.2), dated January 9, 2008, prepared by A.D. Shapiro PS; 232 Id Mixed -Use & Town Homes — Civil Drawing Set (CO.0 through C7.2), dated October 5, 2007, prepared by W & H Pacific; 232nd Street Townhomes Mixed Use — Shoring Plan Set (SH1.1 through SH4.1), dated January 9, 2008, prepared by Pyrgos Engineering; 232 nd Street Townhomes Mixed Use — Structural Plan Set (S1.1 through S5.2), dated December 3, 2007, prepared by Pyrgos Engineering. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The 'proposed construction will consist of the construction of a 4-story mixed use building with daylighting below grade parking levels in the southeast portion of the 88601/SEA8LO20.doc Page 1 of 3 January 29, 2008 Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder - APPI U_ K i G9 -0 subject site. Temporary shoring of the below grade excavation for the building along the slope areas on the southwest side of the property and along 232nd Street SW will be provided by a combination of temporary excavation sloping and soldier pile and lagging walls (both cantilever and tieback). REVIEW COMMENTS Based on our review of the above -referenced construction documents, we offer the following comments regarding the geotechnical considerations of the pro posed project: 1. Detail 2 on Sheet C5.0 shows the schematic of an interceptor/subsurface drainage trench, with a perforated drain pipe enveloped in drain rock and filter fabric, as recommended in our report. However, we generally also recommend that the drain rock be "capped" at the ground surface with 12-inches of silty site soils, in order to prevent surface runoff water from entering the subsurface drainage system, which could lead to future clogging from excessive silt build-up. 2. Note No. 1 under the "Footing Schedule" table on Sheet S4.1 states that "all footings shall bear on firm, undisturbed native soil, or compacted structural fill." For typical bearing pressures on the order of 2,500 psf, it is normally acceptable to place footing elements on standard, compacted structural fill. However, for the higher footing loads (4,000 psf) used on this project, we typically recommend that highly angular rock fill (such as crushed rock base course or ballast), or Control Density Fill (CDF) be used in fill areas, in order to limit risk of future foundation settlements. 3. Our Geotechnical Supplement No. 1 included an assumption under the Temporary Shoring Walls section ("Applied Loads — Hydrostatic Pressures" subsection, page 7) that "...an underslab drainage system will be installed to provide a permanent dewatering system for the -structure." Given the very low groundwater levels observed in our recent borings (not observed within the maximum explored depth of 51 feet bgs), it is our opinion that this general underslab drainage recommendation is not required at this site. In summary, the geotechnical aspects of the referenced construction plans adequately conform to the design recommendations given in our Geotechnical Engineering Report and subsequent supplemental recommendations, provided that the above review comments are incorporated into the final construction documents. If the requirements of 88601/SEA8LO20.doc Page 2 of 3 January 29, 2008 Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder our geotechnical report and the plans are satisfied during construction, it is our opinion that the proposed development will not increase the potential for soil movement, and that the risk of damage to the proposed development or to the adjacent properties will be minimal. CLOSURE It should be realized that our scope of work for this letter was limited to a review of the geotechnical items shown on the documents supplied to us. Our scope did not include a check of structural calculations and other non-geotechnical items, nor does our review purport to verify the accuracy of the documents. We appreciate the opportunity to provide geotechnical engineering services on this project. Should you have any questions concerning this letter, or if we can assist you further, please contact us at 425-562-4200. Respectfully submitted, KLEINFELDER WEST, INC. Rolf B. Hyllseth, P.E., L.G. Senior Geotechnical Engineer David M. Cotton, P.E. Principal Geotechnical Engineer Distribution: Valhalla, LLC c/o SGA Corporation (1) Attn: Mr. James W. Abbott A.D. Shapiro Architects, PS (3) Attn: Mr. Tony Shapiro, AIA 886011SEA8LO20.doc Copyright 2008 Kleinfielder Page 3 of 3 January 29, 2008 KLEINFELDER 2405 140th Avenue NE, Suite Al 01, Bellevue, WA 98005 (425) 562-4200 (425) 562-4201 fax KLE1 N FELDER 2405 140- Avenue NE Suite A 10 1 Bellevue, WA 98005 (425) 5624200 (425) 562-4201 tax January 29, 2008 Kleinfelder Project Number: 88601 Valhalla LLC c/o SGA Corporation 1501 North 200th Street Shoreline, Washington 98133-3301 Attention: Mr. James Abbott Subject: Geotechnical Review of Construction Drawings Proposed Mixed Use Building 23004 Edmonds Way Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. Abbott, 3 As required by the City of Edmonds Building Division, Kleinfelder, Inc. (Kleinfelder) is writing this letter to summarize our review of the geotechnical aspects' of the construction drawings prepared for the above -referenced project. Kleinfelder previously prepared a Geotechnical Report (dated July 10, 2006) and a Geotechnical Supplement No. I (dated November 21, 2007) for this project. We have also provided a previous plan review letter for the Townhouse portion of the same project site. We reviewed the following construction documents related to our current plan review: 0 232 Id Mixed -Use Building Foundation Permit — Architectural Plan Set (AO.O through A7.2), dated January 9, 2008, prepared by A.D. Shapiro PS; 0 232 Id Mixed -Use & Town Homes — Civil Drawing Set (CO.0 through C7.2), dated October 5, 2007, prepared by W & H Pacific; 0 232nd Street Townhomes Mixed Use — Shoring Plan Set (SH1.1 through SH4.1), dated January 9, 2008, prepared by Pyrgos Engineering; 0 232nd Street Townhomes Mixed Use — Structural Plan Set (S1.1 through S5.2), dated December 3, 2007, prepared by Pyrgos Engineering. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The -proposed construction will consist of th6 construction of a 4-story mixed use building with daylighting below grade parking levels in the southeast portion of the 88601/SEA8LO20.doc Page 1 of 3 January 29, 2008 Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder - NOR _GITY J subject site. Temporary shoring of the below grade excavation for the building along the slope areas on the southwest side of the property and along 232nd Street SW will be provided by a combination of temporary excavation sloping and soldier pile and lagging walls (both cantilever and tieback). REVIEW COMMENTS Based on our review of the above -referenced construction documents, we offer the following comments regarding the geotechnical considerations of the proposed project: 1. Detail 2 on Sheet C5.0 shows the schematic of an interceptor/subsurface drainage trench, with a perforated drain pipe enveloped in drain rock and filter fabric, as recommended in our report. However, we generally also recommend that the drain rock be "capped" at the ground surface with 12-inches of silty site soils, in order to prevent surface runoff water from entering the subsurface drainage system, which could lead to future clogging from excessive silt build-up. 2. Note No. 1 under the "Footing Schedule" table on Sheet S4.1 states that "all footings shall bear on firm, undisturbed native soil, or compacted structural fill." For typical bearing pressures on the order of 2,500 psf, it is normally acceptable to place footing elements on standard, compacted structural fill. However, for the higher footing loads (4,000 pso used on this project, we typically recommend that highly angular rock fill (such as crushed rock base course or ballast), or Control Density Fill (CDF) be used in fill areas, in order to limit risk of future foundation settlements. 3. Our Geotechnical Supplement No. 1 included an assumption under the Temporary Shoring Walls section ("Applied Loads — Hydrostatic Pressures" subsection, page 7) that "...an underslab drainage system will be installed to provide a permanent dewatering system for the structure." Given the very low groundwater levels observed in our recent borings (not observed within the maximum explored depth of 51 feet bgs), it is our opinion that this general underslab drainage recommendation is not required at this site. In summary, the geotechnical aspects of the referenced construction plans adequately conform to the design recommendations given in our Geotechnical Engineering Report and subsequent supplemental recommendations, provided that the above review comments are incorporated into the final construction documents. If the requirements of 88601/SEA8LO20.doc Page 2 of 3 January 29, 2008 Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder our geotechnical report and the plans are satisfied during construction, it. is our opinion that the proposed development will not increase the potential for soil movement, and that the risk of damage to the proposed development or to the adjacent properties will I be minimal. CLOSURE It should be realized that our scope of work for this letter was limited to a review of the geotechnical items shown on the documents supplied to us. Our scope did not include a check of structural calculations and other non-geotechnical items, nor does our review purport to verify the accuracy of the documents. We appreciate the opportunity to provide geotechnical engineering services on this project. Should you have any questions concerning this letter, or if we can assist you further, please contact us at 425-562-4200. Respectfully submitted, KLEINFELDER WEST, INC. mw=- Rolf B. Hyllseth, P.E., L.G. Senior Geotechnical Engineer David M. Cotton, P.E. Principal Geotechnical Engineer Distribution: Valhalla, LLC c/o SGA Corporation (1) Attn: Mr. James W. Abbott A.D. Shapiro Architects, PS (3) Attn: Mr. Tony Shapiro, AIA 88601/SEA8L020.doc Copyright 2008 Kleinfelder Page 3 of 3 January 29, 2008 KLEINFELDER 2405 140th Avenue NE, Suite A] 01, Bellevue, WA 98005 (425) 562-4200 (425) 562-4201 fax k" KLE.1 NFELDER Prepared For: Valhalla, LLC 1501 North 200th Street Shoreline, Washington 98133 Geotechnical Supplement No. I Excavation Shore Considerations Edmonds Mixed -Use Development 232'd Street SW & Edmonds Way Edmonds, Washington 98122 Prepared By: Steven Flowers, EIT Staff Geotechnical Engineer Rolf Hyllseth, PE, LG Senior Geotechnical Engineer I EXPIRES F_� KLEINFELDER WEST, INC. 2405 140th Ave N E, Suite 10 1 Bellevue, Washington 98005 (425) 562-4200 November 21, 2007 Kleinfelder Project No: 88601 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder All Rights Reserved FEB 12 2008 BUILDING DEPARTMENT CITY OF EDMONDS This document was prepared for use only by the client only for the purposes stated, and within -a reasonable time from issuance. Non-ommerdial, educational and scientific use of this report by regulatory agencies Is regarded as a "fair use" and not a vloladon of copyright Regulatory agencies may make additional copies of this document for intemal use. Copies may also be made available to the public as required by law. The reprint must acknowledge the copyright and indicate that permission to reprint has been received. CIV CON M KLE1 N FELDER 140' Avenue NE Suite At 0 1 Bellevue, WA 98005 (425) 562-4200 (425) 562-4201 fax I November 21, 2007 Kleinfelder Project No. 88601 Valhalla, LLC c/o SGA Corporation 1501 North 200 Street Shoreline, Washington 98133 Attention: Mr. James Abbott Subject: Geotechnical Supplement No. 1: Excavation Shoring Considerations Edmonds Mixed -Use Development 232nd Street SW & Edmonds Way (SR 104) Edmonds, Washington 98122 Dear Mr. Abbott: Kleinfelder, Inc. (Kleinfelder) is pleased to present this letter summarizing our limited geotechnical engineering review for the construction excavation and shoring requirements at the subject site. Kleinfelder previously provided general geotechnical design recommendations for this project in our Geotechnical Investigation Report (Job No. 71716, dated July 7, 2006). The conclusions and recommendations of this supplementary engineering evaluation should only be used in conjunction with our original geotechnical evaluation for the project. The scope of work for this supplementary evaluation included a site reconnaissance visit and subsequent supplementary engineering analyses. Authorization to proceed was given by Mr. James Abbott of Valhalla, LLC (Valhalla) on October 10, 2007. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site is located at the southwest corner of Edmonds Way and 232nd Street SW in Edmonds, Washington, as shown in Figure 1, and consists of Parcels A through F, as shown in Figure 2. In general, the site is relatively level and accessible from Edmonds Way, sloping gradually from about elevation 200 feet at the southeast end to a low of about elevation 186 feet at the northwest end. Ho wever, the western perimeter of the project site runs along an east facing steep slope area. The western property line zig-zags across the slope face, following a north -south property alignment, with surface elevations ranging from about 196 near the toe to 216 feet near the upper end of the 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 1 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 KJeinfelder steep slopes. The previous structures at the site have been demolished, leaving a few relic retaining walls against the hill side along the northwest portion of the site. The vegetation encountered on -site consisted of grass, brush, and trees. The general layout of the project site is shown on the attached Figure 2A. We understand that a mixed use retail building with below grade parking is planned in the south end of the site, while a series of town homes are planned within the northern portion of the site. The mixed use building is to be constructed up against the west property line. The construction excavations required for this structure will require temporary cut sloping or cantilever/tieback soldier pile shoring walls, or a combination thereof. Temporary sloping or tieback shoring wall systems will require a temporary easement from the neighboring properties to be feasible. It should be noted that two adjacent structures (a small building and garage) are located very near the property lines west of the planned mixed use building in the. south end of the site. Given the close proximity of these structures, their age and susceptibility to settlement induced cracking, we recommend that a shoring wall be used to provide construction excavation support in lieu of temporary sloping, to reduce potential settlement risks. The town homes in the northern portion of the site will be setback from the property lines, with a planned level access drive area between the structures and the slopes to the west. EXPLORATORY METHODS The surface and subsurface conditions -at the project site were explored on a previous site visit for our original geotechnical evaluation, and during a recent site reconnaissance visit on October 25 and 29, 2007. The previous subsurface exploration consisted of excavating 10 test pits to a maximum depth of approximately 12-feet below the existing ground surface (bgs) at the approximate locations shown in Figure 2A. Our current supplementary study included a recent site reconnaissance visit- and additional borings advanced along the proposed temporary shoring wall location along the steep slopes on the western property boundary. Along with boring logs for these current explorations, we have also included copies of the exploration logs for the previous test pits with this letter, for convenience. The following paragraphs describe the procedures associated with the field explorations and field tests that were conducted for this supplementary investigation. Auger Boring Procedures The exploratory borings were advanced with a hollow -stem auger on October 25 and 29, 2007, using a limited access, track -mounted drill rig and portable acker drill rig 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 2 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 KJainfelder 9 operated by an independent drilling firm working under subcontract to Kleinfelder. A geotechnical engineer from our firm continuously observed the borings, logged the subsurface conditions, and collected representative soil samples. All samples were stored in sealed plastic jars and later transported to our laboratory for further visual examination and testing. After each boring was completed, the borehole was backfilled with a mixture of bentonite chips and soil cuttings. Throughout the drilling operation, soil samples were obtained at 2Y2- or 5-foot depth intervals by means of the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) per ASTUD-1586. This testing and sampling procedure consists of driving a standard 2-inch outside diameter steel split -spoon sampler 18 inches into the soil with a 140-pound hammer free -falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler through each 6-inch interval is counted, and the total number of blows struck during the final 12 inches is recorded as the Standard Penetration Resistance, or "SPT blow count.." If a total of 50 blows are struck within any 6-inch interval, the driving is stopped and the blow count is recorded as 50 blows for the actual penetration distance. The resulting Standard Penetration Resistance *values indicate the relative density of granular soils and the relabve consistency of cohesive soils. The boring logs attached to this letter describe the vertical sequence of soils and materials encountered in each boring, based primarily on our field classifications and supported by our subsequent laboratory examination and testing. Where a soil contact was observed to be gradational, our logs indicate the average contact depth. Where a soil type changed between sample intervals, we inferred the contact depth. Our logs also graphically indicate the blow count, sample type, sample number, and approximate depth of each soil sample obtained from the borings, as well as any laboratory tests performed on these soil samples. If any groundwater was encountered in a borehole, the approximate groundwater depth is depicted on the boring log. Groundwater depth estimates are typically based on the moisture content of soil samples, the wetted height on the drilling rods, and the water level measured in the borehole after the auger has been extracted. Laboratory Testing As a part of our geotechnical evaluation, we performed a series of Grain Size Analyses, and Moisture Content Determinations. The results of these laboratory tests are presented in the enclosed laboratory test reports and on the exploration logs. A general grain size analysis indicates the range of soil particle diameters included in a particular 88601/SEA71-242.doc Page 3 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder sample, while a 200 wash indicates how much fines (slit and clay sized particles) that is contained in a sample. These grain size laboratory tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM:D-422 and ASTM:C-1 17. Moisture content determinations were completed,in general accordance with ASTM:D-2216. 'The results of these laboratory tests were used to develop the soil classifications shown on the exploration logs and determine whether specific on -site soils will be suitable for re -use as structural fill. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Based on our previous site investigations, the site soils were generally disclosed in our test pit explorations to consist of medium dense sand and gravel with trace amounts of silt (Recessional Outwash), overlying dense to very dense, silty sand with varying amounts of gravel (Glacial Till) on the slope areas, and very dense sand with varying amounts of -gravel and silt (Advance Outwash) within the low-lying areas of the site. No groundwater was revealed n, --our previous explorations. Throughout the year, groundwater levels would likely fluctuate in response to changing precipitation patterns, o ff-site constructio.n activities, and changes in site utilization. The deeper borings advanced as a part of our current supplementary study generally confirmed these subsurface conditions. It should be noted that our exploration along 232nd Street also confirmed the presence of very dense Glacial Till soils in this area of the site, where temporary sloping of excavation cuts are planned. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our findings and the results of our supplemental analyses, the project is considered feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided that -the recommendations of this supplementary letter are implemented. For the planned cuts within the southwestem portion of the site (west -side of mixed use building), we anticipate that temporary sloping may be used, provided that easements can be obtained and the sections adjacent to the existing neighboring structures are supported by a soldier pile and -lagging shoring wall system, to limit the risk of undermining- the adjacent structures. We anticipate that soldier pile and lagging shoring walls -will be required to shore the vertical cuts (up to about 18 feet high) adjacent to the existing neighboring structures west of the planned mixed use building. The following text sections of this report present our specific geotechnical conclusions and recommendations concerning temporary -shoring walls, spread footings, permanent walls, and drainage systems. 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 4 of 13 November 21, 2007 CopyrIght 2007 Kleinfelder I Temporary Excavation Slope Cuts Temporary excavations should be performed in accordance with current federal, state and/or local regulations. Temporary excavations in excess of 4 feet vertical height must be sloped or supported in accordance with Part N of Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 296-155. For planning purposes, recommend the following, maximum cut slope inclinations, based on the soil layers encountered within our explorations and the corresponding OSHA Soil Type classifications: Maximum Soil Type Inclination Medium Dense to Dense Sand with Gravel (Type B Soils) 1HAV Dense. to Very Dense Glacial Till (Type A Soils) %H:1V It should be noted that appropriate inclinations will ultimately depend on the actual soil and groundwater seepage conditions exposed in the cuts at the time of construction. It is the sole responsibility of the contractor to ensure that the excavation is properly sloped or braced for worker protection. Furthermore, it should be noted that the cut slope inclination of any overlying soil layer should not be steeper than the underlying soillayer, according to OSHA guidelines. In addition to proper sloping, the excavation cuts should be draped with plastic sheeting for the duration of the excavation to minimize surface erosion and raveling. Excavations made below the water table will likely require dewatering and/or shoring. Temporary Shoring Walls Temporary shoring walls up to roughly 18-feet high will be required to support the planned perimeter cuts along the sloping ground areas along the western property. In our opinion, a conventional, cantilever or tieback soldier pile and -lagging wall would be well -suited for this purpose. A cantilever, soldier pile shoring wall typically consists of wood lagging placed between soldier piles installed in pre-augered holes backfilled with lean mix or structural concrete to a typical depth below the excavation base of about 1.5 times the wall height above grade. The practical and economical vertical height limit for a cantilevered (unsupported by soil anchors) soldier pile wall is typically on the order of 15 feet. Where the wall exceeds this practical cantilever height limit, soil tieback anchors are typically installed through the soldier piles to provide the necessary lateral sup port and limit lateral deflections 'of the wall system; such tiebacks may be installed in a single row or in a multiple row configuration. A slightly different lateral soil pressure analysis is required for each of these different wall configurations, as outlined 88601/SEA7L242.doe Page 5 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 K(leinfelder subsequently. It should be noted that special design considerations will be required to limit wall deflection* and potential ground settlement where the existing adjacent buildings are located directly on or close to the planned basement cuts. To minimize the risk of building damage,. we recommend that these portions of the shoring wall be designed for the horizontal surcharge resulting from such nearby footing loads, or that the existing footing elements on these buildings be directly underpinned by the soldier pile wall system. The following recommendations are provided for design of soldier pile and lagging shoring walls. Pile Embedment: All soldier piles should have sufficient embedment below the final excavation level to provide adequate ukick-out" resistance to horizontal loads. We recommend a minimum embedment of 10 feet below the excavation base. However, deeper embedment might be needed to develop adequate vertical capacity or passive resistance at specific locations, based on a structural analysis. Drillina Conditions: Based on our explorations, we predict that the soldierpile and grout tieback holes will encounter dense to very dense silty gravelly sand (glacial till) or dense to very dense. sand with gravel/silt (Advance Outwash). Loose to medium dense overburden soils can likely be drilled without difficulties, using a conventional auger, whereas the underlying very dense glacial till or advance outwash soils may yield slower drilling rates. Although none of our explorations encountered cobbles or boulders, it should be realized that such obstructions can exist at random locations within the native deposits. Rubble could also be present within the upper fill soils. Awlied Loads: Soldier piles should be designed to resist various applied loads, which can be classified as static pressures, surcharge pressures, seismic pressures, and hydrostatic pressures. Our recommended design pressures are presented graphically on the enclosed Cantilever and Tieback Shoring Wall Diagrams (Figure 3) and are discussed in the following paragraphs. Static Pressures: For tieback shoring walls having two or more rows of tiebacks, we generally recommend using an apparent lateral- earth pressure with a trapezoidal distribution, as shown on Figure 3. Based on the site soils, we recommend using a peak earth pressure of 25H pounds per square foot (psf), where H is equal to the height of excavation in feet, for the uniform portion of this trapezoidal distribution. This static earth pressure should, be applied over the soldier pile spacing width from the top of the pile downward to the base of 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 6 of 13 November 21,.2007 Copyright 2007 Meinfelder . I excavation. Below this level, an active earth pressure of 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), modeled as a fluid unit weight, should be applied over the diameter of the pile only, as shown on Figure 3. Cantilever. soldier pile shoring walls (without tiebacks) are designed for the triangular active earth pressure diagram both above and below the base of excavation level, in lieu of apparent lateral earth pressures, as noted on Figure 3. Surcharge Pressures: Lateral earth pressures acting on the soldier piles should be increased to account for any surcharge loadings from traffic, construction equipment, material stockpiles, or structures that are located within a horizontal distance equal to the wall height. For simplicity, a traffic surcharge can be modeled as a uniform lateral pressure of 75 psf acting over the upper 6 feet of wall, as shown on Figure 3. Seismic Pressures: Temporary shoring walls need not be designed for seismic loads, given the relatively short duration of construction excavation and the additional load capacity "built into" the static safety factor for the wall. However, if the shoring wall. is designed in combination with a permanent wall, we recommend that the lateral earth pressures be increased to account for seismic loads. These seismic pressures act over the entire back of the wall and vary with the backslope inclination, the seismic acceleration, and the wall height. For permanent walls designed for yielding conditions (allowing a wall rotation of 0.001 to 0.002 times the wall height), we recommend using a uniform horizontal seismic loading of 4H psf, based on the active state lateral earth pressure. Conversely, a non -yielding (restrained) permanent wall should be designed to withstand a uniform horizontal seismic loading of 12H psf, based on the at -rest state lateral earth pressure. The recommended seismic surcharge pressure distribution is presented graphically on Figure 3. Hydrostatic Pressures: If groundwater is allowed to saturate the soils behind the below -grade perimeter walls, hydrostatic pressures will act against the walls. At this site, however, we are assuming that the shoring walls will be provided with a geocomposite drainage mat system and that an under -slab drainage system will be installed to provide a permanent dewatering system for the structure. We therefore do not expect that hydrostatic pressures will develop. 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 7 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder Resistina Forces: Lateral resistance can be computed by using an appropriate allowable passive earth pressure acting over the embedded portion of each soldier pile, neglecting the upper 2 feet. The trapezoidal distribution of this allowable passive pressure can be modeled as shown on Figure 3. This passive pressure should be applied over a lateral distance equal to the pile spacing or twice -the pile diameter, whichever is less. For a level excavation base, we recommend using an allowable passive earth pressure of 375 pcf for the very dense advance outwash sand with gravel, modeled as a fluid unit weight, in the. static design case; in the seismic case we recommend using an allowable passive fluid pressure of 500 pcf, as shown on Figure 3. These allowable passive earth pressures incorporate a safety factor of 1.5 and 1.1 for the static and seismic case, respectively. Pile Car)acities and Deflections: Appropriate side -friction. and end -bearing capacities can be used to determine total vertical capacities of the soldier piles that may be required to resist underpinning loads or the vertical component of the tieback loads. To estimate lateral deflections of -the soldier piles, we recommend using, appropriate subgrade reaction muduli. For the embedded portion of a soldier pile bearing within the native, very dense glacial till soils or advance outwash sands, our recommended allowable design values are shown on the enclosed Figure 3 and are summarized below. The allowable values for side friction and end bearing incorporate safety factors of 1.5 and 2.0 for temporary and permanent conditions, respectively. Design Parameter Allowable Design Values Temporary -Permanent Case Case Side Friction Capacity (very dense sands) 1,500 psf 1,200 psf End Bearing Capacity (very dense sands) 20 ksf 15 ksf Our recommendations regarding lagging'design and installation are presented below. Wood Lagging Materials: Wood lagging is typically installed -in between all soldier piles to reduce the potential for soil failure, loss of ground, and hazardous working conditions. In our opinion, either conventional wooden timbers or reinforced shotcrete could be 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 8 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder utilized as lagging at the site. For permanent applications, we recommend that all wooden timber lagging be pressure -treated. Lateral Pressures on Wood Lagging: Due to soil arching effects, temporary lagging that spans. 8 feet or less need be designed for only 25 percent of the lateral earth pressure previously recommended for soldier pile design. Permanent lagging, on the other hand, should be designed for 50 percent of this same lateral earth pressure. Wood Lagaina Backfill: We recommend that any voids greater than 1-inch behind the lagging be backfilled, but the backfill material should not be allowed to prevent groundwater flow. If inadequate drainage is provided behind the lagging, hydrostatic pressure will develop on the wall. Pea gravel would provide an effective lagging backfill material to promote adequate drainage, whereas concrete, cdf, or other impermeable materials are not recommended. The void spaces should be backfilled progressively as the excavation proceeds. Tieback Conflicts and Easements: Because tiebacks typically extend about 30 to 60 feet behind the excavation face, conflicts with underground utilities, as well as with adjacent structures and foundations, often arise. The project structural engineer should carefully consider the locations of such obstructions when laying out all tiebacks. Easements might be required for any tiebacks that extend onto private properties and right.;of-way areas beyond the site property boundaries. It should also be realized that the City of Seattle does not typically allow permanent tiebacks to encroach on their roadway right- of-way limits. Tieback No -Load Zone: The anchor portion of all tiebacks must.be located a sufficient distance behind the retained excavation face to develop resistance within a stable soil mass. We recommend that the anchorage be obtained behind a "no-load zone" defined by a plane projected upward at a 60-degree angle from the base of the excavation and set back from the excavation face a horizontal distance equal to 25 percent of the face height, as shown on Figure 3. Tieback Anchor Length and Spacing: The anchor portion of.the tieback (that portion behind the no-load zone) should have a minimum length of 10 feet and should be located at least 10 feet below the ground surface, as shown on Figure 3. To avoid interactions between adjacent tiebacks, we recommend that a clear spacing of at least 5 feet be maintained along the anchor zones. 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 9 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 KJeinfelder Estimated Tieback Adhesion: If properly grouted, we tentatively estimate that allowable concrete/soil adhesion values listed in the table below (and shown on Figure 3) for the various site soil layers may be used for the anchor portion of a tieback. These allowable adhesion values incorporate a safety factor of 1.1 and 1.5 for the temporary and permanent conditions, respectively. It should be noted, however, that the actual design values,will depend on the installation method and should be confirmed by load - testing all tiebacks in the field. � Soil Type Dense to Very Dense, Silty Gravelly Sand (Glacial Till) or Sand Wth gravel (Advance Outwash) Allowable Tieback Adhesion Values Temporary Case 1,500 psf Permanent . Case 1,200 psf Tieback Load Testing: We recommend that all tiebacks be -subjected to a comprehensive testing program that will verify the integrity of individual tiebacks and provide information regarding their long-term creep characteristics. Two separate types of tests are appropriate for temporary tiebacks: 200-percent performance tests on. a limited number�of tiebacks (within each different soil unit), and 133-percent proof tests on each remaining tieback anchor. For permanent tiebacks, we also recommend that 300-percent verification tests be performed. Kleinfelder can supply details for conducting these tests, upon request. Wall Deflection and Settlement Monitoring: We recommend that the top -of -wall horizontal deflection and potential vertical settlement of the ground surface behind the wall be monitored by means of standard surveying techniques, in order to assess the performance of the shoring wall during construction. Settlement monitoring should include establishing settlement bench marks on the existing ground surface behind the wall. Top -of -wall horizontal deflections should be monitored along the wall at both ends, at the mid -point, and every 20 feet in between. These. survey points should be monitored immediately after soldier pile installation, regularly during excavation, and on 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 10 of 13 November 21, 2007 copyright 2007 KJeinfelder a weekly basis following complete excavation. We recommend that Kleinfelder be allowed to review this survey monitoring data as soon as it becomes available. Construction Monitoring: Because shoring walls require specialized installation and earthwork techniques to maintain stable conditions during and after construction, we strongly recommend that an Kleinfelder representative be retained to continuously monitor the installation of all soldier piles, wood lagging, and tiebacks. This monitoring would include observation and documentation of installation procedures, construction materials, drilling conditions, soil conditions, pile plumbness, as well as tieback load testing and confirmation of lock -off loads. LIMITATIONS This. report has been prepared to aid Valhalla LLC in the evaluation of the site and to assist the architect and engineer in the design of the facilities, in accordance with currently accepted geotechnical engineering practice. No warranty based on the contents of this report is intended, and none shall be inferred from the statements or opinions expressed herein.' Our description of the project represents our understanding of the significant aspects of the project relevant to the design and construction of earthwork, foundations and re lated issues. In the event that any changes in the basic design or location of the structures as outlined in this report are planned, we should be given the opportunity to review the changes and to modify or reaffirm in writing the conclusions and recommendations of this report. The scope of our services did not include any environmental assessment or investigation for the presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, surface water, groundwater or air, on or below or around this site. The analyses and recommendations represented in this report are based on the data obtained from the borings made at the locations indicated on the Site and Exploration Plan and from other information discussed herein. This report is based on the assumption that the subsurface conditions everywhere are not significantly different from -those disclosed by the borings. However, variations in soil conditions may exist between the boring locations; also, general groundwater levels may fluctuate from time to time. The nature and extent of the variations may not become evident until construction. If subsurface conditions different from those encountered in the explorations are observed or encountered during construction or appear to be present 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 11 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder 13 beneath or beyond excavations, we should be advised at once so that we can observe and review these conditions and reconsider our recommendations where necessary. The scope of our services does not include services related to construction safety precautions and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except -as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. This report may be used only by Valhalla LLC and their design consultants and only for the purposes stated within a reasonable time from its issuance, but in no event later than one year from the date of the report. Land or facility use, on and off -site conditions, regulations, or other factors may change, over time, and additional work may be required with the passage of time. Any party other than Valhalla LLC who wishes to use this report shall notify Kleinfelder of such intended use. Based on the intended use of the report, Kleinfelder may require that additional work be performed and that an updated report be issued. Non-compliance with any of these requirements by the client or anyone else will release Kleinfelder from any liability resulting from the use of this report by any unauthorized party and client agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless Kleinfelder from any claim or liability associated with such unauthorized use or non-compliance. Valhalla LLC is responsible to see that all parties to the project, including the designer, contractor, subcontractors, etc., are made aware of this report in its entirety. The use of information contained in this report. for bidding purposes should be done at the contractor's option and risk. Further guidelines and information on this geotechnical report can be found in the ASFE publication entitled Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report, which is included for your reference in Appendix D of this report. CLOSURE The conclusions and recommendations provided in this -supplemental letter are based, in part, on the current project conditions provided to us, our review of available geotechnical documents for the project site, our site reconnaissance, and our interpretations and assumptions regarding subsurface conditions. If variations in subsurface conditions are discovered during earthwork, we may need to modify this report. The future performance and integrity of the temporary shoring systems and building foundations will depend largely on proper initial site preparation, drainage, and 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 12 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 KJoinfaider construction procedures. Monitoring by experienced geotechnical personnel should be considered an integral part of the construction process. Kleinfelder is available to provide geotechnical inspection and testing services during the earthwork and foundation construction phases of the project. If variations in the subgrade conditions are observed at that time, we would be able to provide additional geotechnical engineering recommendations, thus minimizing delays as the project develops. We are also available to review preliminary plans and specifications before construction begins. We appreciate the opportunity to be of continued service to you. Should you have any questions concerning this letter, or if we can assist you further, please contact us at 206-654-7045. Respectfully submitted, KLEINFELDER WEST, INC. Steven Flowers, E.I.T. Staff Geot6chnical Engineer eytRolf B. yllseth, P.E., L.G. Senior Geotechnical Engineer Attachments: Figure I — Location/Topographic Map Figure 2A — Site & Exploration Plan Figure 3 — Cantilever and Tieback Sharing Wall Diagrams Previous Test Pit Logs TP-1 through TP-10 (Kleinfelder, July 7, 2006) Boring Logs B-1 through B-8 Grain Size Distribution Reports (10) Distribution: Valhalla, LLC c/o SGA Corporation Shapiro Architects (3) 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 13 of 13 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder KLEINFELDER 2405 140th Avenue NE, Suite Al 01, Bellevue, WA 98005 Attn: Mr. James W. Abbott Attn: Mr. Tony Shapiro November 21, 2007 (425) 562-4200 (425) 562-4201 fax KLEI NF ELDER Prepared -For: Valhalla, LLC 1501 North 200th Street Shoreline, Washington 98133 Prepared -By: - I 1 00 -, e. - - �0� Steven Flowers, EIT Staff Geotechnical Engineer Rolf Hyllseth, PE, LG Senior Geotechnical Engineer KLEINFELDER WEST, INC. 2405 140th Ave NE, Suite 101 Bellevue, Washington 98005 (425) 562-4200 November 21, 2007 Kleinfelder Project No: 88601 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder All Rights Reserved Geotechnical Supplement No. 1 Excavation Shore Considerations Edm9nds Mixed -Use Development 232nu Street SW & Edmonds Way Edmonds, Washington 98122 I EXPIRES 61051CP T�� - RESUB FEB J 2 2008 BUILDING DEPARTMENT CITY OF EDMONDS This document was prepared for use only by the client only for the,purposes stated, and within a reasonable time from issuance. Non-commercial, educational and scientific use of this report by regulatory agencies Is regarded as a "fair use" and not a violation of copyright Regulatory agencies may make additional copies of this document for intemal use. Copies may also be made available to the public as required by law. The reprint must acknowledge the copyright and Indicate that permission to reprint has been mr-mium 'k f K L E I N F E L D E R venue NE Suite Al 0 1 Bellevue, WA 98005 (425) 562-4200 (425) 562-4201 fax November 21, 2007 Kleinfelder Project No. 88601 Valhalla, LLC c/o SGA Corporation 1.501 North 200 Street Shoreline, Washington 98133 Attention: Mr. James Abbott Subject: Geotechnical Supplement No. 1: Excavation Shoring Considerations Edmonds Mixed -Use Development 232nd Street SW & Edmonds Way (SR 104) Edmonds, Washington 98122 Dear Mr. Abbott: Kleinfelder, Inc. (Kleinfelder) is pleased to present.this letter summarizing our limited geotechnical engineering review for the construction excavation and shoring requirements at the subject site. Kleinfelder previously provided general geotechnical design recommendations for this project in our Geotechnical Investigation Report (Job No. 71716, dated July 7, 2006). The conclusions and recommendations of this supplementary engineering evaluation should only, be used in conjunction with our original geotechnical evaluation for the project. The scope of work for this supplementary evaluation included a site reconnaissance visit and subsequent supplementary engineering analyses. Authorization to proceed was given by Mr. James Abbott of Valhalla, LLC (Valhalla) on October 10, 2007. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site is located at the southwest corner of Edmonds Way and 232nd Street SW in Edmonds, Washington, as shown in Figure 1, and consists of Parcels A through F, as shown in Figure 2. In general, the site is relatively level and accessible from Edmonds Way, sloping gradually from about elevation 200 feet at the southeast end to a low of about elevation 186 feet at the northwest end. However, the western perimeter of the project site runs along an east facing steep slope area. The western p I roperty line zig-zags across the slope face, following a north -south property alignment, with surface elevations ranging from about 196 near the toe to 216 feet near the upper end of the 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page I of 13 November 21, 2007 CopyrIght 2007 Kleinfelder 'i steep slopes. The previous structures at the site have been demolished, leaving a few relic retaining walls against the hill side along the northwest portion of the site. The vegetation encountered on -site consisted of grass, brush, and trees. The general layout of the project site is shown on the attached Figure 2A. We understand that a mixed use retail building with below grade parking is planned in the south end of the site, while a series of town homes are planned within the northern portion of the site. The mixed use building is to be constructed up against the west property line. The construction excavations required for this structure will require temporary cut sloping or cantilever/tieback soldier pile shoring walls, or a combination thereof. Temporary sloping or tieback shoring wall systems will require a temporary easement from the neighboring properties to be feasible. It should be noted that two adjacent structures (a small building and garage) are located very near the property lines west of the planned mixed. use building in the south end, of the site. Given the close proximity.of these structures, their age and susceptibility to; settlement induced cracking, we recommend that a shoring wall be used to provide construction excavation support in lieu of temporary sloping, to reduce potential settlement risks. The town homes in the northern portion of the site will be setback from the property lines, with a planned level access drive area between the structures and the slopes to the west. EXPLORATORY METHODS The surface and subsurface conditions at the project site were explored on a previous site visit for our original geotechnical evaluation, and during a recent site reconnaissance, visit on October 25 and 29, 2007. The previous subsurface exploration consisted of excavating 10 test pits to a maximum depth of approximately 12-feet below the existing ground surface (bgs) at the approximate locations shown in Figure 2A. Our current supplementary study included a recent site reconnaissance visit and additional borings advanced along the proposed temporary shoring wall location along the steep slopes on the. western property boundary. Along with boring logs for these current explorations, we have also included copies of the exploration logs for the previous test pits with this letter, for convenience. The following paragraphs describe the procedures associated with the field explorations and field tests that were conducted for this supplementary investigation. Auger Boring Procedures The exploratory borings were advanced with a hollow -stem auger on October 25 and 29, 2007, using a limited access, track -mounted drill rig and portable acker drill rig 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 2 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Meinfelder 11 operated by an independent drilling firm working under subcontract to Kleinfelder. A geotechnical engineer from our firm continuously observed the borings, logged the subsurface conditions, and collected representative soil samples. All samples were stored in sealed plastic jars and later transported to our laboratory for further visual examination and testing. After each boring was completed, the borehole was backfilled with a mixture of bentonite chips and soil cuttings. Throughout the drilling operation, soil samples were obtained at 21/2- or 5-foot depth intervals by means of the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) per ASTUD-1586. This testing and sampling procedure consists of driving a standard 2-inch outside diameter steel split-spbon sampler 18 inches into the soil with a 140-pound hammer free -falling 30 inches. The, number of blows required to deive the sampler through each 6-inch interval is counted, and the total number of blows struck during the final 12 inches is recorded as the Standard Penetration Resistance, or "SPT blow count.." If a total of 50 blows are struck within any 6-inch interval, the driving is stopped and the blow count is recorded as 50 blows for the actual penetration distance. The resulting Standard Penetration Resistance values indicate the relative density of granular soils and the relative consistency of cohesive soils. The boring logs attached to this letter describe the vertical sequence of soils and materials encountered in each boring, based primarily on our field classifications and supported by our subsequent laboratory examination and testing. Where a soil contact was observed to be gradational, our logs indicate the average contact depth. Where a soil type changed between sample intervals, we inferred the contact depth. Our logs also graphically indicate the blow count, sample type, sample nu m*ber, and approximate depth of each soil sample obtained from the borings, as well as any laboratory tests performed on these soil samples. If any groundwater was encountered in a borehole, the approximate groundwater depth is depicted on the boring log. Groundwater depth estimates are typically based on the moisture content of soil samples, the wetted height on the drilling rods, and the water level measured in the borehole after,the auger has been extracted. Laboratory Testing As a part of our geotechnical evaluation, we performed a series of Grain Size Analyses, and Moisture Content Determinations. The results of these laboratory tests ate presented in the enclosed laboratory test reports and on the exploration logs. A general grain size analysis indicates the range of soil particle diameters included in a particular 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 3 of 13 November 21, 2007 copyright 2007 Kleinfelder sample, while a 200 wash indicates how much fines (silt and clay sized particles) that is contained in a sample. These grain size laboratory tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM:D-422 and ASTM:C-1 17. Moisture content determinations were completed in general accordance with ASTM:D-2216. The results of these laboratory tests were used to develop the soil classifications shown on the exploration logs and determine whether specific on -site soils will be suitable for re -use as structural fill. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Based on our previous site investigations, the site -soils were. generally disclosed in our test pit explorations to consist of medium dense sand and gravel with trace amounts of silt (Recessional Outwash), overlying dense to very dense, -silty sand with varying amounts of gravel (Glacial Till) on the slope,areas, and very dense sand with varying amounts of gravel and silt (Advance Outwash) within the low-lying areas of the site. No groundwater was revealed n our previous 'explorations. Throughout the year, groundwater levels would likely fluctuate in response to changing precipitation patterns, off -site construction activitie s, and changes in site utilization. The deeper borings advanced as a part of our current supplementary study.generally confirmed these subsurface conditions. It should be noted that our exploration along 232nd Street also confirmed the presence of very dense Glacial Till soils in this area of the site, where temporary sloping of excavation cuts are planned. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our findings and the results of our supplemental analyses, the project is considered feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided that the recommendations of this. supplementary letter are implemented. For the planned cuts within the southwestern- portion of the site (west side of mixed use building),. we anticipate that temporary sloping � may be used, provided that easements can be obtained and the sections adjacent to the existing neighboring structures are supported by a soldier pile .and lagging shoring wall system, to limit the risk of undermining the adjacent structures. We anticipate that soldier pile and lagging shoring walls will be required to shore the vertical cuts (up to about 18 feet high) adjacent to the existing neighboring structures west of the planned mixed use building. The following text sections of this report present our specific geotechnical conclusions and recommendations concerning temporary shoring walls, spread footings, permanent walls, and drainage systems. 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 4 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 KJelnfelder I Temporary Excavation Slope Cuts Temporary excavations should be performed in accordance with current federal, state and/or local regulations. Temporary excavations in excess of 4 feet vertical height must be sloped or supported in accordance with Part N of Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 296-155. For planning purposes, recommend the following maximum cut slope inclinations, based on 'the soil layers encountered within our explorations and the corresponding OSHA Soil Type classifications: Maximum Soil Type Inclination Medium Dense to Dense Sand with Gravel (Type B Soils) 1H:1V Dense. to Very Dense Glacial Till (Type A Soils) %H:1V It should be noted that appropriate inclinations will ultimately depend on the actual soil and groundwater seepage conditions exposed in the cuts at the time of construction. it is the sole responsibility of the contractor to ensure that the excavation is properly sloped or braced for worker protection. Furthermore, it should be noted that the cut slope inclination of any overlying soil layer should not be steeper than the underlying soil.layer, according to OSHA guidelines. In addition to proper sloping, the excavation cuts should be draped with plastic sheeting for the duration of the excavation to minimize surface erosion and raveling. Excavations made below the water table will likely require dewatering and/or shoring. Temporary Shoring Walls Temporary shoring walls up to roughly 18-feet high will be- required to support the planned perimeter cuts along the sloping ground areas along the western property. In our opinion, a conventional, cantilever or tieback soldier pile and lagging wall would be well -suited for this purpose. A cantilever, soldier pile shoring wall typically consists of wood lagging placed between soldier piles installed in pre-augered holes backfilled with lean mix or structural concrete to a typical depth below the excavation base of about 1.5 times the wall height above grade. The practical and economical vertical height limit for a cantilevered (unsupported by soil anchors) soldier pile wall is typically on the order of 15 feet. Where the wall'exceeds this practical cantilever height limit, soil tieback anchors are typically installed through the soldier piles to provide the necessary lateral support and limit lateral deflections of the wall system; such tiebacks may be installed in a single row or in a multiple row configuration. A slightly different lateral soil pressure analysis is required for each of these different wall configurations, as outlined 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 5 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 KJeInfelder 'i subsequently. It should be noted that special design considerations will be required to limit wall deflection and potential ground settlement where the existing adjacent buildings are located directly on or close to the planned basement cuts. To minimize the risk of building damage, we recommend that these portions of the shoring wall be designed for the horizontal surcharge resulting from such nearby footing loads, or that the existing footing elements on these buildings be directly underpinned by the soldier pile wall system. The following recommendations are provided for design of soldier pile and lagging shoring walls. Pile Embedment: All soldier piles should have sufficient embedment below the final excavation level to provide adequate "kick -out" resistance to horizontal loads. We recommend a minimum embedment of 10 feet below the excavation base. However, deeper embedment might be needed to develop adequate vertical capacity or passive resistance at specific locations, based on a structural analysis. Drilling Conditions: Based on our explorations, we predict that the soldier pile and grout tieback holes will encounter dense to very dense silty gravelly sand (glacial till) or dense to very dense sand with gravel/silt (Advance Outwash). Loose to medium dense overburden soils can likely be drilled without difficulties, using a conventional auger, whereas the underlying very dense glacial till or advance outwash soils may yield slower drilling rates. Although none of our explorations encountered cobbles or boulders, it should be realized that such obstructions can exist at random locations within the native deposits. Rubble could also be present within the upper fill soils. Applied Loads: Soldier piles should be designed to resist various applied loads, which can be classified as static pressures, surcharge pressures, seismic pressures, and hydrostatic pressures. Our recommended design pressures are presented graphically on the enclosed Cantilever and Tieback Shoring Wag Diagrams (Figure 3) and are discussed in the following paragraphs. Static Pressures: For tieback shoring walls having two or more rows of tiebacks, we generally recommend using an apparent lateral earth pressure with a trapezoidal distribution, as shown on Figure 3. Based on the site soils, we recommend using a peak earth pressure of 25H pounds per square foot (pso, where H is equal to the height of excavation in feet, for the uniform portion of this trapezoidal distribution. This static earth pressure should be applied over the soldier pile spacing width from the top of the pile downward to the base of 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 6 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 1(leinfelder excavation. Below this level, an active earth pressure of 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), modeled as a fluid unit weight, should be applied over the diameter of the pile only, as shown on Figure 3. Cantilever soldier pile shoring 'walls (without tiebacks) are designed for the triangular active earth pressure diagram both above and below the base of excavation level, in lieu of apparent lateral earth pressures, as noted on Figure 3. Surcharge Pressures: Lateral earth pressures acting on the soldier piles should be increased to account for any surcharge loadings from traffic, construction equipment, material stockpiles, or structures that are located within a horizontal distance equal to the wall height. For simplicity, a traffic surcharge can be modeled as a uniform lateral pressure of 75 psf acting over the upper 6 feet of wall, as shown on Figure 3. Seismic Pressures: Temporary shoring walls need not be designed for seismic loads, given the relatively short duration of construction excavation and the additional load capacity "built into" the static safety factor for the wall. However, if the shoring wall. is designed in combination with a� permanent wall, we recommend that the lateral earth pressures be increased to account for seismic loads. These seismic pressures act over the entire back of the wall and vary with the backslope inclination, the seismic acceleration, and the wall height. For permanent walls designed for yielding conditions (allowing a wall rotation of 0.001 to 0.002 times the wall height), we recommend using a uniform horizontal seismic loading of 4H psf, based on the active state lateral earth pressure. Conversely, a non -yielding (restrained) permanent wall should be designed to withstand a uniform horizontal seismic loading of 12H psf, based on the at -rest state lateral earth pressure. The recommended seismic surcharge pressure distribution is presented graphically on Figure 3. Hydrostatic Pressures: If groundwater is allowed to saturate the soils behind the below -grade perimeter walls, hydrostatic pressures will act against the walls. At this site, however, we are assuming that the shoring walls will be provided with a geocomposite drainage mat system and that an under -slab drainage system will be installed to provide a permanent dewatering system for the structure. We therefore do not expect that hydrostatic pressures will d evelop. 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 7 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder Resistina Forces: Lateral resistance can be computed by using an appropriate allowable passive earth pressure acting over the embedded portion of each soldier pile, neglecting the upper 2 feet. The trapezoidal distribution of this allowable passive pressure can be modeled as shown on Figure 3. This passive pressure should be applied over a lateral distance equal to the pile spacing or twice the pile diameter, whichever is less. For a -level excavation base, we recommend using an allowable passive earth pressure of 375 pcf for the very dense advance outwash sand with gravel, modeled as a fluid unit weight, -in the static design case; in the seismic case we recommend using an allowable passive fluid pressure of 500 pcf, as shown on Figure 3. These allowable passive earth pressures, incorporate a safety factor of 1.5 and 1.1 for the static and seismic case, respectively. Pile CaDacities and Deflections: Appropriate side -friction and end -bearing capacities can be used to determine total vertical capacities of the soldier piles that may be required to resist underpinning loads or the vertical component of the tieback loads. To estimate lateral deflections of the soldier piles, we recommend using appropriate subgrade reaction muduli. For the embedded portion of a soldier pile bearing within the native, very dense. glacial till soils or advance outwash sands, our recommended allowable design values are shown on the enclosed Figure 3 and are summarized below. The allowable values for side friction and end bearing. incorporate safety factors of 1.5 and 2.0 for temporary and permanent conditions, respectively. Design Parameter Side Friction Capacity (very dense sands) End Bearing Capacity (very dense sands) Allowable Design Values Temporary Permanent Case Case 1,500 psf 20 ksf 1,200 psf 15 ksf ' Our recommendations regarding lagging'design and installation are presented below. Wood Laaging Materials: Wood lagging is typically installed in between all soldier piles to reduce the potential for soil failure, loss of ground, and hazardous working conditions. In our opinion, either conventional wooden timbers or reinforced shotcrete could be 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 8 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder utilized as lagging at the site. For permanent applications, we recommend that all wooden timber lagging be pressure -treated. Lateral Pressures on Wood Lagging: Due to soil arching effects, temporary lagging that spans 8 feet or less need be designed for only 25 percent of the lateral earth pressure previously recommended for soldier pile design. Permanent lagging, on the other hand, should be designed for 50 percent of this same lateral earth pressure. Wood Lagging Backfill: We recommend that any voids greater than 1-inch behind the lagging be backfilled, but the backfill material should not be allowed to prevent groundwater flow. If inadequate drainage is provided behind the lagging, hydrostatic pressure will develop on the wall. Pea gravel would provide an effective lagging backfill material to promote adequate drainage, whereas concrete, cdf, or other impermeable materials are not recommended. The void spaces should be backfilled progressively as the excavation proceeds. Tieback Conflicts and Easements: Because tiebacks typically extend about 30 to 60 feet behind the excavation face, conflicts with underground utilities, as well as with adjacent structures and foundations, often arise. The project structural engineer should carefully consider the locations of such obstructions when laying out all tiebacks. Easements might be required for any tiebacks that extend onto peivate properties and right-of-way areas beyond the site property boundaries. It should also be realized that the City of Seattle does not typically allow permanent tiebacks to encroach on their roadway right- of-way limits. Tieback No -Load Zone: The anchor portion of all tiebacks must be located a sufficient distance behind the retained excavation face to develop resistance within a stable soil mass. We recommend that the anchorage be obtained behind a "no-load zone" defined by a plane projected upward at a 60-degree angle from the base of the excavation and set back from the excavation face a horizontal distance equal to 25 percent of the face height, as shown on Figure 3. Tieback Anchor Len-qth and Soacing: The anchor portion of.the tieback (that portion behind the no-load zone) should have a minimum length of 10 feet and should be located at least 10 feet below the ground su ' rface, as shown on Figure 3. To avoid interactions between adjacent tiebacks, we recommend that a clear spacing of at least 5 feet be maintained along the anchor zones. 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 9 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Klelnfelder Estimated Tieback Adhesion: If properly grouted, we tentatively estimate that allowable concrete/soil adhesion values listed in the table below (and shown on Figure 3) for the various site soil layers may be used for the anchor portion of a tieback. These allowable adhesion values incorporate a safety factor of 1.1 and 1.5 for the temporary and permanent conditions, respectively. It should be noted, however, that the actual design values will depend on the installation method and should be confirmed by load - testing all tiebacks in the field. .Soil Type Dense to Very Dense, Silty Gravelly Sand (Glacial Till) or Sand with gravel (Advance Outwash) Allowable Tieback Adhesion Values Temporary Case 1,500 psf Permanent . Case 1,200 psf Tieback Load Testin-g: We recommend that all tiebacks be subjected to a comprehensive testing program that will verify the integrity of individual tiebacks and provide information regarding their long-term creep characteristics. Two separate types of tests are appropriate for temporary tiebacks: .200-percent perforrnance tests on a limited number of tiebacks (within each different soil unit), and 133-percent proof tests on each remaining tieback anchor. For permanent tiebacks, we also recommend that 300-percent verification tests be performed. Kleinfelder can supply details for conducting these tests, upon request. Wall Deflection and Settlement Monitoring: We recommend that the top-of-waill horizontal deflection and potential vertical settlement of the ground surface behind the wall be monitored by means of standard surveying techniques, in order to. assess the performance of the shoring wall during construction. Settlement monitoring should include establishing settlement bench marks on the existing ground surface behind the wall. Top -of -wall horizontal deflections should be monitored along the wall at both ends, at the mid -point, and every 20 fe et in between. These survey points should be monitored immediately after soldier pile installation, regularly during excavation, and on 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 10 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 KJeinfelder a weekly basis following complete excavation. We recommend that Kleinfelder be allowed to review this survey monitoring data as soon as it becomes available. Construction Monitoring: Because shoring walls require specialized installation and earthwork techniques to maintain stable conditions during and after construction, we strongly recommend that an Kleinfelder representative be retained to continuously monitor the installation of all soldier piles, wood lagging, and tiebacks. This monitoring would include observation and documentation of installation procedures, construction materials, drilling conditions, soil conditions, pile plumbness, as well as tieback load testing and confirmation of lock -off loads. LIMITATIONS I This report has been prepared to aid Valhalla LLC in the evaluation of the site and to assist the architect and engineer in the design of the facilities, in accordance with currently accepted geotechnical engineering practice. No warranty based on the contents of this report is intended, and none shall be inferred from the statements or opinions expressed herein. Our description of the project repres ents, our understanding of the significant aspects of the project relevant to the design and construction of earthwork, foundations and related issues. In the event that any changes in the basic design or location of the structures as outlined in this report are planned, we should be given the opportunity to review the changes and to modify or reaffirm in writing the conclusions and recommendations of this report. The scope of our services did not include any environmental assessment or investigation for the presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, surface water, groundwater or air, on or below or around this site. The analyses and recommendations represented in this report are based on the data obtained from the borings made at the locations indicated on the Site and Exploration Plan and,from other information discussed herein. This report is based on the assumption that the subsurface conditions everywhere are not significantly different from those disclosed by the borings. However, variations in.soil conditions may exist between the boring locations; also, general groundwater levels may fluctuate from time to time. The nature and extent of the variations may not become evident until construction. If subsurface conditions different from those encountered in the explorations are observed or encountered during construction or appear to be present 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 11 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder beneath or beyond excavations, we should be advised at once so that we can observe and review these conditions and reconsider our recommendations where necessary. The scope of our services does 'not include services related to construction safety precautions and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. This report may be used only by Valhalla LLC and their design consultants and only for the purposes stated within a reasonabl e time from its issuance, but in no event later than one year from the date of the report. Land or facility use, on and off -site conditions, regulations, or other factors may change over time, and additional work may be required with the passage of time. Any party other than Valhalla LLC who wishes to use this report shall notify Kleinfelder of such intended use. Based on the intended �use of the report, Kleinfelder may require that additional work be performed and that an updated report be issued. Non-compliance with any of these requirements by the client or anyone else will release Kleinfelder from any liability resulting from the use of this report by any unauthorized party and client agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless Kleinfelder from any claim or liability associated with such unauthorized use or non-compliance. Valhalla LLC is responsible to see that all parties to the project, including the designer, contractor, subcontractors, etc., are made aware of this report in its entirety. The use of information contained in this report for bidding purposes should be done at the contractor's option and risk. Further guidelines and information- on this geotechnical report can be found in the ASFE publication entitled Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report, which is,included for your reference in Appendix D of this report. CLOSURE The conclusions and recommendations provided in this supplemental letter are based, in part, on the current project conditions provided to us, our review of available geotechnical documents for the project site, our site reconnaissance, and our interpretations and - assumptions regarding subsurface conditions. If variations in subsurface conditions are discovered during earthwork, we may need to modify this report. The future performance and integrity of the temporary shoring systems and building foundations will depend largely on proper initial site preparation, drainage, and 88601/SEA7L242.doc ' Page 12 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 KJeinfelder f, construction procedures. Monitoring by experienced ge*otechnical personnel should be considered an integral part of the construction process. Kleinfelder is available to provide geotechnical inspection and testing services during the earthwork and foundation construction phases of the project. If variations in the subgrade conditions are observed at that time, we would be able to provide additional geotechnical engineering recommendations, thus minimizing delays as the project develops. We are also available to review preliminary plans and specifications before construction begins. We appreciate the opportunity to be of continued service to you. Should you have any questions concerning this letter, or if we can assist you further, 'please contact us at 208-654-7045. Respectfully submitted, KLEINFELDER WEST, INC. Steven Flowers, E.I.T. Staff Geot6chnical Engineer /0 �'Ow Rolf B. /yyllseth, 4-P.E., L.G. Senior Geotechnical Engineer Attachments: Figure 1 — Location/Topographic Map Figure 2A — Site & Exploration Plan Figure 3 — Cantilever and Tieback Sharing Wall Diagrams Previous Test Pit Logs TP-1 through TP-1 0 (Kleinfelder, July 7, 2006) Boring Logs B-1 through B-8 Grain Size Distribution Reports (10) Distribution: Valhalla, LLC c/o SGA Corporation Attn: Mr. James W. Abbott Shapiro Architects (3) Attn: Mr. Tony Shapiro 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 13 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Klainfelder KLEINFELDER 2405 140th Avenue NE, Suite A101, Bellevue, WA 98005 (425) 562-4200 (425) 562-4201 fax k'9 KLEINFELDER Prepared For: Valhalla, LLC 1501 North 200th Street Shoreline, Washington 98133 Geotechnicall -Supplement No. I Excavation Shore Considerations Edmonds Mixed -Use Development 232nd Street -SW & Edmonds Way Edmonds, Washington 98122 Prepared By:, Steven Flowers, EIT Staff, Geotechnical Engineer Rolf Hyllseth, PE, LG Senior Geotechnical Engineer EXPIRES 6/05/67f KLEINFELDER WEST, INC. 2405 140" Ave NE, Suite 101 Bellevue, Washington 98005 (425) 562-4200 November 21,'2007 Kleinfelder Project No: 88601 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder All Rights.Reserved - JAN 2 8 2008 BUILDING DEPARTMENT I CITY OF EDMONDS This document was prepared for use only by the client,, only,for the, purposes stated; and within a reasonable time from issuance. Non-commercial, educational and scientific use of this report by regulatory agencies is regarded as a ."fair use",and not a violation of copyrig ht. Regulatory agencies may make- additional copies of this document for internal use. Copies may also be made available to the public as required, by law. The. reprint. must acknowledge the copyright,and indicate that permission to reprint, has been received. KLE1 N FELDER 2405 140" Avenue NE Suite A101 Bellevue, WA 98005 (425) 5624200 (425) 562-4201 fax November 21, 2007 Kleinfelder Project No. 88601 Valhalla, LLC c/o SGA Corporation 1501 North 2001h Street Shoreline, Washington 98133 Attention: Mr. James Abbott Subject: Geotechnical Supplement No. 1: Excavation Shoring Considerations Edmonds Mixed -Use Development 232nd Street SW & Edmonds Way (SR 104) Edmonds, Washington 98122 Dear Mr. Abbott: Kleinfelder, Inc. (Kleinfelder) is pleased to present this letter summarizing our limited geotechnical engineering review for the construction excavation and shoring requirements at the subject site. Kleinfelder previously provided general geotechnical design recommendations for this project in our Geotechnical Investigation Report (Job No. 71716, dated July 7, 2006). The conclusions and recommendations of this supplementary engineering evaluation should only be used in conjunction with our original geotechnical evaluation for the project. The scope of work for this supplementary evaluation included a site reconnaissance visit and subsequent supplementary engineering analyses. Authorization to proceed was given by Mr. James Abbott of Valhalla, LLC (Valhalla) on October 10, 2007. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site is located at the southwest corner of Edmonds Way and 232 Id Street SW in Edmonds, Washington, as shown in Figure 1, and consists of Parcels A through F, as shown in Figure 2. In general, the site is relatively level and accessible from Edmonds Way, sloping gradually from about elevation 200 feet at the southeast end to a low of about elevation 186 feet at the northwest end. However, the western perimeter of the project site runs along an east facing steep slope area. The western property line zig-zags across the slope face, following a north -south property alignment, with surface elevations ranging from about 196 near the toe to 216 feet near the upper end of the 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 1 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder steep slopes. The previous structures at the site have been demolished, leaving a few relic retaining walls. against the hill side along the- northwest portion of the site. The vegetation encountered on -site consisted of grass, brush, and trees. The general layout of the project site is shown on the attached Figure 2A. We understand that a mixed use retail �building with below grade parking is planned in the south end of the site, while a series of town homes are planned within the northern portion of the site. The mixed use building is to be constructed up against the west property line. The construction excavations- required for this structure will require temporary cut sloping or cantilever/tieback soldier pile shoring walls, or a combination thereof. Temporary sloping or tieback shoring wall systems will require a temporary easement from the neighboring properties to be feasible. It should be noted that two adjacent structures (a small building and garage) are located very near the property lines west of the planned mixed use building in the south end of the site.. Given the close proximity of these structures, their age and susceptibility to settlement induced cracking, we recommend that a shoring wall be used to provide construction excavation support in -lieu of temporary sloping, to reduce potential settlement risks. The,town homes in the northern portion of the site will be setback from the property lines, with a planned level access drive area between the structures and the slopes to the west. EXPLORATORY METHODS The surface and subsurface conditions at the project site were explored on a previous site visit for our original geotechnical evaluation, and: during a recent site reconnaissance visit on October 25 and 29, 2007. The previous subsurface exploration consisted of excavating 10 test pits to a maximum depth of approximately 12-feet below the existing ground surface (bgs) at the approximate locations shown in Figure 2A. Our current supplementary study included a recent site reconnaissance visit and additional bdrings advanced along the proposed temporary shoring wall location along the steep slopes on the. western property boundary. Along with boring logs for these current explorations, we have also included copies- of the exploration logs for the previous test pits with this letter, for convenience. The following paragraphs describe the procedures associated -with the field explorations and field tests that were conducted for this supplementary investigation. Auger -Boring Procedures The exploratory borings were advanced with a hollow -stem auger on October 25 and 29, 2007, using a limited access, track -mounted drill rig -and portable acker drill rig 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 2 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder operated by an independent drilling firm working under subcontract to Kleinfelder. A geotechnical engineer from our firm continuously observed the borings, logged the subsurface conditions, and collected representative soil samples. All samples were stored in sealed plastic jars and later transported to our laboratory for further visual examination and testing. After each boring was completed, the borehole was backfilled with a mixture of bentonite chips and soil cuttings. Throughout the drilling operation, soil samples were obtained at 2Y2- or 5-foot depth intervals by means of the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) per ASTUD-1586. This testing and sampling procedure consists of driving a standard 2-inch outside diameter steel split -spoon sampler 18 inches into the soil with a 140-pound hammer free -falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler through each 6-inch interval is counted, and the total number of blows struck during the final 12 inches is recorded as the Standard Penetration Resistance, or "SPT blow count." If a total of 50 blows are struck within any 6-inch interval, the driving is stopped and the blow count is recorded as 50 blows for the actual penetration distance. The resulting Standard Penetration Resistance values indicate the relative density of granular soils and the relative consistency of cohesive soils. The boring logs attached to this letter describe the vertical sequence of soils and materials encountered in each boring, based primarily on our field classifications and supported by our subsequent laboratory examination and testing. Where a soil contact was observed to be gradational, our logs indicate the average contact depth. Where a soil type changed between sample intervals, we inferred the contact depth. Our logs also graphically indicate the blow count, sample type, sample number, and approximate depth of each soil sample obtained from the borings, as well as any laboratory tests performed on these soil samples. If any groundwater was encountered in a borehole, the approximate groundwater depth is depicted on the boring log. Groundwater depth estimates are typically based on the moisture content of soil samples, the wetted height on the drilling rods, and the water level measured in the borehole after the auger has been extracted. Laboratory Testing As a part of our geotechnical evaluation, we performed a series of Grain Size Analyses, and Moisture Content Determinations. The results of these laboratory tests are presented in the enclosed laboratory test reports and on the exploration logs. A general grain size analysis indicates the range of soil particle diameters included in a particular 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 3 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder sample, while a 200 wash indicates how much fines (silt -and clay sized particles) that is contained in a sample. These grain size -laboratory tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM:D-422 and ASTM:C-1 17. Moisture content determinations were completed in general accordance with ASTM:D�2216. The results of these laboratory tests were used to develop the soil classifications shown on the exploration logs and determine whether specific on -site soils will be suitable for re -use as structural fill. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Based on our previous site investigations, the site soils were generally disclosed in our test pit explorations to consist of medium dense sand and gravel with trace amounts of silt (Recessional Outwash), overlying dense to very dense, silty sand with varying amounts of gravel (Glacial Till).on the slope areas, and very dense sand with varying amounts of -gravel and silt (Advance Outwash) within the low-lying areas of the site. No groundwater was revealed n our previous explorations. Throughout the year, groundwater levels Would likely fluctuate in response to changing precipitation patterns, off -site construction activities, and changes in site utilization. The deeper borings advanced as a part of our current supplementary study generally confirmed these subsurface conditions. It should be noted that our exploration along 232nd Street also confirmed the presence of very dense Glacial Till soils in this area of the site, where temporary sloping of excavation cuts are planned. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our findings and the results of our supplemental analyses, the project is considered feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided that the recommendations of this supplementary letter are implemented. For the planned cuts within the southwestern portion of the site (west side of mixed use building), we anticipate that temporary sloping may be used, provided that easements can be obtained and the sections adjacent to the existing neighboring structures are supported by a soldier pile and lagging shoring wall system, to limit the risk of undermining the adjacent structures. We anticipate that soldier pile and lagging shoring walls will be required to shore the vertical cuts (up to about 18 feet high) adjacent to the existing neighboring structures west of the planned mixed use building. The following text sections of this report present our specific geotechnical conclusions and recommendations concerning temporary shoring walls, spread footings, permanent walls, and drainage systems. 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 4 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder Y Temporary Excavation Slope Cuts Temporary excavations should be performed in accordance with current federal, state and/or local regulations. Temporary excavations in excess of 4 feet vertical height must be sloped or supported in accordance with Part N of Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 296-155. For planning purposes, recommend the following maximum cut slope inclinations, based on the soil layers encountered within our explorations and the corresponding OSHA Soil Type classifications: Maximum Soil Type Inclination Medium Dense to Dense Sand with Gravel (Type B Soils) 1H:1V Dense to Very Dense Glacial Till (Type A Soils) %H:1V It should be noted that appropriate inclinations will ultimately depend on the actual soil and groundwater seepage conditions exposed in the cuts at the time of construction. It is the sole responsibility of the contractor to ensure that the excavation is properly sloped or braced for worker protection. Furthermore, it should be noted that the cut slope inclination of any overlying soil layer should not be steeper than the underlying soil layer, according to OSHA guidelines. In addition to proper sloping, the excavation cuts should be draped with plastic sheeting for the duration of the excavation to minimize surface erosion and raveling. Excavations made below the water table will likely require dewatering and/or shoring. Temporary Shoring Walls Temporary shoring walls up to roughly 18-feet high will be required to support the planned perimeter cuts along the sloping ground areas along the western property. In our opinion, a conventional, cantilever or tieback soldier pile and lagging wall would be well -suited for this purpose. A cantilever, soldier pile shoring wall typically consists of wood lagging placed between soldier piles installed in pre-augered holes backfilled with lean mix or structural concrete to a typical depth below the excavation base of about 1.5 times the wall height above grade. The practical and economical vertical height limit for a cantilevered (unsupported by soil anchors) soldier pile wall is typically on the -order of 15 feet. Where the wall exceeds this practical cantilever height limit, soil tieback anchors are typically installed through the soldier piles to provide the necessary lateral support and limit lateral deflections of the wall system; such tiebacks may be installed in a single row or in a multiple row configuration. A slightly different lateral soil pressure analysis is required for each of these different wall configurations, as outlined 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 5 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder subsequently. It should be noted that special design considerations will be required to limit wall deflection and potential ground settlement where the existing adjacent buildings are located directly on or close to the planned- basement cuts. To minimize the risk of building damage, we recommend that these portions of the shoring wall be designed for the horizontal surcharge resulting from such nearby footing loads, or that the existing footing elements on these buildings be directly underpinned by the soldier pile wall system. The following recommendations are provided for design of soldier pile and lagging shoring walls. Pile Embedment: All soldier piles should have sufficient embedment below the final excavation level to provide adequate "kick -out" resistance to horizontal loads. We recommend a minimum embedment of 10 feet below the excavation base. However, deeper embedment might be needed to develop adequate vertical capacity or passive resistance at specific locations, based on a structural analysis. Drilling Conditions: Based on our explorations, we predict that the soldier. pile and grout tieback holes will encounter dense to very dense silty -gravelly sand (glacial till) or dense to very dense sand with gravel/silt (Advance Outwash). Loose to medium dense overburden -soils can likely be drilled without difficulties, using a conventional auger, whereas the underlying very dense glacial till or advance outwash soils may yield slower drilling rates. Although none of our explorations encountered cobbles or boulders,. it should be realized that such obstructions can exist at random locations within the native deposits. Rubble, could also be present within the upper fill soils. Applied Loads: Soldier piles should be designed to resist various applied loads, which can be classified. as static pressures, surcharge press.ures, seismic pressures, and hydrostatic pressures. Our recommended design pressures are presented graphically on the enclosed Cantilever and Tieback Shoring Wall Diagrams (Figure 3) and are discussed in the following paragraphs. Static Pressures: For tieback shoring walls having two or more rows of tiebacks, we generally recommend using an apparent lateral earth pressure with a trapezoidal distribution, as shown on Figure 3. Based on.the site soils, we recommend using a peak earth pressure of 25H pounds per square foot (psf), where H is equal to the height of excavation in feet, for the uniform portion of this trapezoidal distribution. This static earth pressure should be applied over the soldier pile spacing width from� the top of the pile downward to the base of 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 6 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder a excavation. Below this level, an active earth pressure of 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), modeled as a fluid unit weight, should be applied over the diameter of the pile only, as shown on Figure 3. Cantilever soldier pile shoring walls (without tiebacks) are designed for the triangular active earth pressure diagram both above and below the base of excavation level, in lieu of apparent lateral earth pressures, as noted on Figure 3. Surcharge Pressures: Lateral earth pressures acting on the soldier piles should be increased to account for any surcharge loadings from traffic, construction equipment, material stockpiles, or structures that are located within a horizontal distance equal to the wall height. For simplicity, a traffic surcharge can be modeled as a uniform lateral pressure of 75 psf acting over the upper 6 feet of wall, as shown on Figure 3. Seismic Pressures: Temporary shoring walls need not be designed for seismic loads, given the relatively sh ort duration of construction excavation and the additional load capacity "built into" the static safety factor for the wall. However, if the shoring wall is designed in combination with a permanent wall, we recommend that the lateral earth pressures be increased to account for seismic loads. These seismic pressures act over the entire back of the wall and vary with the backslope inclination, the seismic acceleration, and the wall height. For permanent walls designed for yielding conditions (allowing a wall rotation of 0.001 to 0.002 times the wall height), we recommend using a uniform horizontal seismic loading of 4H psf, based on the active state lateral earth pressure. Conversely, a non -yielding (restrained) permanent wall should be designed to withstand a uniform horizontal seismic loading of 12H psf, based on the at -rest state lateral earth pressure. The recommended seismic surcharge pressure distribution is presented graphically on Figure 3. Hydrostatic Pressures: If groundwater is allowed to saturate the soils behind the below -grade perimeter walls, hydrostatic pressures will act against the walls. At this site, however, we are assuming that the shoring walls will be provided with a geocomposite drainage mat system and that an under -slab drainage system will be installed to provide a permanent dewatering system for the structure. We therefore do not expect that hydrostatic pressures will develop. 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 7 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder Resisting Forces: Lateral resistance can be computed by using an appropriate allowable passive earth pressure acting over the embedded portion of each soldier pile, neglecting the upper 2 feet. The trapezoidal distribution of this allowable passive pressure can be modeled as shown on Figure 3. This passive pressure should be applied over a lateral distance equal to the pile spacing or twice the pile diameter, whichever is less. For a level excavation base, we recommend using an allowable passive earth pressure of 375 pcf for the very dense advance outwash sand with gravel, modeled as a fluid unit weight, in the static design case; in the seismic case we recommend using an allowable passive fluid pressure of 500 pcf, as shown on Figure 3. These allowable passive earth pressures incorporate a safety factor of 1.5 and 1.1 for the static and seismic case, respectively. Pile Capacities and Deflections: Appropriate side -friction and end -bearing capacities can be used to determine total vertical capacities of the soldier piles that may be required to resist underpinning loads or the vertical component of the tieback loads. To estimate lateral deflections of the soldier piles, we recommend using appropriate subgrade reaction muduli. For the embedded portion of a soldier pile bearing within the native, very dense glacial till soils or advance outwash sands, our recommended allowable design,values are shown on the enclosed Figure 3 and are summarized below. The allowable values for side friction and end bearing incorporate safety factors of 1.5 and 2.0 for temporary and permanent conditions, respectively. Allowable Design Values Temporary Permanent Design Parameter Case Case Side Friction Capacity (very dense sands) 1,500 psf 1,200 psf End Bearing Capacity (very dense sands) 20 ksf 15 ksf Our recommendations regarding lagging design and installation are presented below. Wood Lagging Materials: Wood lagging is typically installed in between all soldier piles to reduce the potential for soil failure, loss of ground, and hazardous working conditions. In our opinion, either conventional wooden timbers or reinforced shotcrete could be 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 8 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder utilized as lagging at the site. For permanent applications, we recommend that all wooden timber lagging be press u re -treated. Lateral Pressures on Wood Lagging: Due to soil arching effects, temporary lagging that spans 8 feet or less need be designed for only 25 percent of the lateral earth pressure previously recommended for soldier pile design. Permanent lagging, on the other hand, should be designed for 50 percent of this same lateral earth pressure. Wood Lawing Backfill: We recommend that any voids greater than 1-inch behind the lagging be backfilled, but the backfill material. should not be allowed to prevent groundwater flow. If inadequate drainage is provided behind the lagging, hydrostatic pressure will develop on the wall. Pea gravel would provide an effective lagging backfill material to promote adequate drainage, whereas concrete, cdf, or other impermeable materials are not recommended. The void spaces should be backfilled progressively as the excavation proceeds. Tieback Conflicts and Easements: Because tiebacks typically extend about 30 to 60 feet behind the excavation face, conflicts with underground utilities, as well as with adjacent structures and foundations, often arise. The project structural engineer should carefully consider the locations of such obstructions when laying out all tiebacks. Easements might be required for any tiebacks that extend onto private properties and right-of-way areas beyond the site property boundaries. It should also be realized that the City of Seattle does not typically allow permanent tiebacks to encroach on their roadway right- of-way limits. Tieback No -Load Zone: The anchor portion of all tiebacks must be located a sufficient distance behind the retained excavation face to develop resistance within a stable soil mass. We recommend that the anchorage be obtained behind a "no-load zone" defined by a plane projected upward at a 60-degree angle from the base of the excavation and set back from the excavation face a horizontal distance equal to 25 percent of the face height, as shown on Figure 3. Tieback Anchor Length and Spacing: The anchor portion of the tieback (that portion behind the no-load zone) should have a minimum length of 10 feet and should be located at least 10 feet below the ground surface, as shown on Figure 3. To avoid interactions between adjacent tiebacks, we recommend that a clear spacing of at least 5 feet be maintained along the anchor zones. 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 9 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder I Estimated Tieback Adhesion: If properly grouted, we tentatively estimate that allowable concrete/soil adhesion values listed in the table below (and shown on Figure 3) for the various site soil layers may be used for - the anchor portion of a tieback. These allowable adhesion values incorporate a safety factor of 1.1 and 1.5 for the temporary and permanent conditions, respectively. It should be noted, however, that the actual design values will depend on the installation method and should be confirmed by load - testing -all tiebacks in the field. Soil Type Allowable Tieback Adhesion Values Temporary Permanent Case Case Dense to Very Dense, Silty Gravelly 1,500 psf 1,200 psf Sand (Glacial Till) or Sand with gravel (Advance Outwash) Tieback Load Testing: We recommend that all tiebacks be subjected to a comprehensive testing program that will verify the integrity of individual tiebacks and provide information regarding their long-term creep characteristics. Two separate types of tests -are appropriate for temporary tiebacks: 200-percent performance tests on a limited number of tiebacks (within each different soil unit), and 133-percent proof tests on each remaining tieback anchor. For permanent tiebacks, we also recommend that 300-percent verification tests be performed. Kleinfelder can supply details for conducting these tests, upon request. Wall Deflection and Settlement Monitoring: We recommend that the top -of -wall horizontal deflection and potential vertical settlement of the ground surface behind the wall be monitored by means of standard surveying techniques, in order to assess the performance of the shoring wall during construction. Settlement monitoring should include establishing settlement bench marks on the, existing ground surface behind the wall. Top -of -wall horizontal deflections should be monitored along the wall at both ends, at the mid -point, and every 20 feet in between. These survey points should be monitored immediately after soldier pile installation, regularly during excavation, and on 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 10 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder a weekly basis following complete excavation. We recommend that Kleinfelder be allowed to review this survey monitoring data as soon as it becomes available. Construction Monitoring: Because shoring walls require specialized installation and earthwork techniques to maintain stable conditions during and after construction, we strongly recommend that an Kleinfelder representative be retained to continuously monitor the installation of all soldier piles, wood lagging, and tiebacks. This monitoring would include observation and documentation of installation procedures, construction materials, drilling conditions, soil conditions, pile plumbness, as well as tieback load testing and confirmation of lock -off loads. LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared to aid Valhalla LLC in the evaluation of the site and to assist the architect and engineer in the design of the facilities, in accordance with currently accepted geotechnical engineering practice. No warranty based on the contents of this report is intended, and none shall be inferred from the statements or opinions expressed herein. Our description of the project represents our understanding of the significant aspects of the project relevant to the design and construction of earthwork, foundations and related issues. In the event that any changes in the basic design or location of the structures as outlined in this report are planned, we should be given the opportunity to review the changes and to modify or reaffirm in writing the conclusions and recommendations of this report. The scope of our services did not include any environmental assessment or investigation for the presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, surface water, groundwater or air, on or below or around this site. The analyses and recommendations represented in this report are based on the data obtained from the borings made at the locations indicated on the Site and Exploration Plan and from other information discussed herein. This report is based on the assumption that the subsurface conditions everywhere are not significantly different from those disclosed by the borings. However, variations in soil conditions may exist between the boring locations; also, general groundwater levels may fluctuate from time to time. The nature and extent of the variations may not become evident until construction. If subsurface conditions different from those encountered in the explorations are observed or encountered during construction or appear to be present 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 11 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder beneath or beyond excavations, we should be advised at once so that we can observe and review these conditions and reconsider our recommendations where necessary. The scope of our services does not include services related to construction, safety precautions and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. This report may be used only by Valhalla LLC and their design consultants and only for the purposes stated within a reasonable time from its issuance, but in no event later than one year from the date of the report. Land or facility use, on and off -site conditions, regulations, or other factors may change over time, and additional work may be required with the passage of time. Any, party other than Valhalla LLC who wishes to use this report shall notify Kleinfelder of such intended use. Based on the intended use of the report, Kleinfelder may require that- additional work be performed and that an updated report be issued. Non-compliance with any of these requirements by the client or : anyone else will release Kleinfelder from any liability resulting from the use of this report by any unauthorized party and client agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless Kleinfelder from,any claim or liability associated with such unauthorized use or non-compliance. Valhalla LLC is responsible to see that all parties to.the project, including the designer, contractor, subcontractors, etc., are made aware of this report in its entirety. The use of information contained in this report for bidding purposes should be done at the contractor's option and risk. Further guidelines and information on this geotechnical report can be found in the ASFE publication entitled Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report,. which is included for your reference in Appendix D of this report. CLOSURE The conclusions and recommendations provided in this supplemental letter are based, in part, on the current project conditions provided to us, our review of available geotechnical documents . for the project site, our site reconnaissance, and our interpretations and assumptions regarding subsurface conditions. If variations in subsurface conditions are discovered during earthwork, we may need to modify this report. The future performance and integrity of the temporary shoring systems and building foundations will depend largely on proper initial site preparation, drainage, and 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 12 of 13 November 21, 2007 copyright 2007 Kleinfelder construction procedures. Monitoring by experienced geotechnical personnel should be considered an integral part of the construction process. Kleinfelder is available to provide geotechnical inspection and testing services during the earthwork and foundation construction phases of the project. If variations in the subgrade conditions are observed at that time, we would be able to provide additional geotechnical engineering recommendations, thus minimizing delays as the project develops. We are also available to review preliminary plans and specifications before construction begins. We appreciate the opportunity to be of continued service to you. Should you have any questions concerning this letter, or if we can assist you further, please contact us at 208-654-7045. Respectfully submitted, KLEINFELDER WEST, INC. Steven Flowers, E.I.T. Staff Geoteichnical Engineer 14�aw Rolf WB.yVIlseth, 4P-.E-., L.G. Senior Geotechnical Engineer Attachments: Figure 1 - Location/Topographic Map Figure 2A - Site & Exploration Plan Figure 3 - Cantilever and Tieback Shoring Wall Diagrams Previous Test Pit Logs TP-1 through TP-1 0 (Kleinfelder, July 7, 2006) Boring Logs B-1 through B-8 Grain Size Distribution Reports (10) Distribution: Valhalla, LLC c/o SGA Corporation Shapiro Architects (3) Attn: Mr. James W. Abbott Attn: Mr. Tony Shapiro 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 13 of 13 copyright 2007 Kleinfelder KLEINFELDER 2405 140th Avenue NE, Suite Al 01, Bellevue, WA 98005 November 21, 2007 (425) 562-4200 (425) 562-4201 fax I 6 U. ILI 1Z X X X j N�t *toScale K L E I N F E L D E R Site Vicinity DRAWN BY: J.S. REVISED BY: 2405 140th Avenue NE, Suite A101 CHECKED BY: Bellevue, WA 98005-1877 FIGURE PH: (425) 562-4200 FAX: (425) 562-4201 Edmonds Mixed Use www.kiainfolder.com 23012 Edmonds Way Edmonds, Washington DRAWN: Nov. 2007 1 APPROVED BY:— PROJECT NO. 88601 FFILE NAME: 88601 -F1gu-s.dwgj @ by WeInfelder West Inc, 2007 EDMONDS WAY (S.R. 104) r-T-1 �L �ja, Tp--Jf 7,900 SF 0F.-ICE UNDER SEPARATE -P[RMj T, 4w V TP- 7 ;2 TP4 3 Tl�i -10 J, Al T 1,37 A,, 0 Legend +TP-1 Previous Test Pit Number & Approximate Location + B-4 Boring Number & Approximate Location (Current Study) DRAWN BY: J.S. Site and Exploration Plan K L E- I N LEVEL TIEBACK *INIJLr_ Lr-Vr-L SEISMIC TRAFFIC WALL TIEBACK WALL 0.2 H 2/3 H, 6.0 FT 75 PSF 25 H PSF 4 H PSF H (FT) 25H (ACTIVE) PRESSURE ACTS OVER PILE SPACING (WALL PSF FACE AREA) 12 H PS F V, 2/3 (H-HI) (AT -REST) 0.2 H D (FT) PRESSURE ACTS OVER ONE PILE 35 (H+D) PSF (BELOW CUT ONLY) ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE LL (NO TIEBACKS), USE ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE (TRIANGULAR PRESSURE DIAGRAM) BOTH BELOW ON CUT (NO APPARENT EARTH PRESSURE). 8 FEET OR LESS, LAGGING SHOULD BE DESIGNED TO WITHSTAND 25% OF ACTIVE PRESSURE TIVE PRESSURE (PERMANENT). 'APPLIED TO PERMANENT WALLS; THEY NEED NOT BE APPLIED ON TEMPORARY WALLS. USE"ACTIVE' RESSURE FOR YIELDING WALL CONDITION, AND -AT-RESr LATERAL SURCHARGE PRESSURE FOR OF CONCRETE ENCASED PILE (ASSUMING STRUCTURAL CONCRETE); IF LEAN -MIX FILL USED BELOW 1IDTH OF SOLDIER PILE. E FULLY DRAINED BY A TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT DEWATERING SYSTEM; NO HYDROSTATIC ON THE WALL. )S ON WALLS WITH BACKSLOPE, SEE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. LEVEL GROUND CONDITIONS MAY BE ITHIN A DISTANCE EQUAL TO WALL HEIGHT (H) BEHIND THE WALL FACE. MULTIPLE LEVEL TIEBACK ANCHORS PERMANENT CONCRETE WALL (SCHEMATIC, NTS) H GEOCOMPOSITE DRAIN MAT (244N WIDE VERTICAL STRIPS, CENTERED BETWEEN PILES - FOOTING/ WEEP UNDERSLAB HOLE DRAINAGE SYSTEM SOLDIER PILE WOOD LAGGING "NO LOAD ZONE" T1, H/4 - D=10'MIN. NOTES: 1. SOLDIER PILE EA TO PROVIDE RE( CAPACITY (SEE C. SOLDIER PILEVERTICAL CAPACITY PILE D. TIEBA B DIAMETER (FT) SOIL DENSE TO _4ww4ffiwaL NEGLECT 2 FT GLACIAL T11 FRICTION WITH GRAVE OU NOTES: ALLOWABLE SKIN FRICTION: 1. VERIF'V 1,500 PSF (TEMPORARY) 2 FT TESTS, 1,200 PSF (PERMANENT) ALLOWABLE END BEARING: 20ksf (TEMPORARY) 15ksf (PERMANENT) NOTES: 1. SKIN FRICTION AND END BEARING APPLIED TO CONCRETE ENCASED PILE DIAMETER (ASSUMING STRUCTURAL CONCRETE BELOW EXCAVATION LEVEL) BASE OF EXCAVATION DRAWN BY: Cantilever and Tieback K L E IN �0_ — __ Sam — on ofte! — ___ — SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART SYMBOLS TYPICAL MAJOR DIVISIONS GRAPH I LETTER DESCRIPTIONS &* *. 0 WELL -GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - CLEAN 6 b GW SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO GRAVEL GRAVELS ft- I FINES AND GRAVELLY (LITTLE OR NO FINES) 0 "� �J 0 .1 . GP POORLY -GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE SOILS 0 - OR NO FINES COARSE GRAVELS WITH 0 *11 GM SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - GRAINED MORE THAN 50% FINES 0(� 0 SILT MIXTURES SOILS OF COARSE FRACTION RETAINED ON NO. (APPRECIABLE AMOUN GC CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - 4 SIEVE OF FINES) CLAY MIXTURES ......... sw WELL -GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY CLEAN SANDS SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES SAND MORETHAN50% AND (LITTLE OR NO FINES) OF MATERIAL IS 771 s P POORLY -GRADED SANDS, LARGER THAN NO. SANDY GRAVELLY SAND, LITTLE OR NO 200 SIEVE SIZE SOILS FINES MORE THAN 50% SANDS WITH S M SILTY SANDS. SAND - SILT MIXTURES OF COARSE FINES FRACTION PASSING ON NO. 4 SIEVE (APPRECIABLE AMOUNT sc CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY OF FINES) MIXTURES INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE M L SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO SILTS C L MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY FINE LIQUID LIMIT AND CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY LESS THAN 50 CLAYS CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS - - - GRAINED SOILS - - - 0 L ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR MH DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR MORE THAN 50% SILTY SOILS OF MATERIAL IS CH INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH SMALLER THAN NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE SILTS LIQUID LIMIT AND GREATER THAN 50 PLASTICITY CLAYS OH ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS L, PT PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS NOTE: DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS KLEINFELDER CopVdght 2006 SOIL CLASSIFICATION LEGEND Project# 71716 APPENDIX A 2 0- Ez CL 3 to — 12 :' SOIL DESCRIPTION �w :;;) Z >4 Surface: Grass z OTHER TESTS* z (A A w5z SM �12 inches of TOPSOIL. SILTY SAND (SM): brown -red, moist, medium dense, fine to medium sand, some fine to coarse gravel, some rootlets and organic seams approximately I inch thick. (WEATHERED OUTWASH) — — — — — — — — — — SILTY SAND (SM): brown, moist� very dense, fine to medium sand, some fine to coarse gravel. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) SP SAND (SP): brown, moist, very dense, fine to coarse sand, trace fine to coarse gravel, trace silt. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) Grades to some fine to coarse gravel. 2 Testpit terminated at 12 feet bgs. Groundwater seepage was not observed at the time of excavation.- The testpit was backfilled with excavated material. DATE EXCAVATED:5/24/2006 APPROMMATE ELEVATIONJ87 LOGGED BY: S. Flowers REVIEWED BYBob Plum EQUIPMENT: Cat 416C backhoe +SAMPLE TYPE: V Bulk Grab.n Shelby Tube *TESTS: M=Moisture Content('16), D=Dry Density(pqj), Tv=Torvane, n I Pp=Pocket Penetrometer, G=Grain Size, , IM"S KLEINFELDER GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING PROJECT NO. 71716 . Edmonds Mixed Use Appendix 23012 Edmonds Way, Edmonds WA !* 98020 : A-2 8 LU CL FL U) LU 0 0 5— to- 12 �01 SOIL DESCRIPTION Q'i � - z Surface: Grass, gravel with sand & silt 4 Z cc OTHER TESTS* z cn CA Z inches of TOPSOIL. SM ...,,2 SILTY SAND (SM): brown, moist, loose to medium dense, fine to medium sand, trace fine to coarse gravel, seams of sand and organics, some rootlets. SILTY SAND (SM): brown, moist, very dense, fine to medium sand, trace fine to coarse gravel. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) SP SAND (SP): brown, moist, very dense, fine to coarse sand, trace fine to coarse gravel, trace silt. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) Observed rootlets to approximately 7 feet bgs. Grades to some fine to coarse gravel. Testpit terminated at 12 feet bgs. Groundwater seepage was not observed at the time of excavation. The testpit was backfilled with excavated material. DATE EXCAVATED:5/24/2006 APPRO)UMATE ELEVATION: 191 LOGGED BY: S. Flowers REVIEWED BY:13ob Plum EQUIPMENT: Cat 416C backhoe + SAMPLE TYPE: Bulk Grab Shelby Tube *TESTS: M=Moisture Content('16), D=Dry Density(pqfi, Tv=Torvane, I n Pp=Pocket Penetrometer, G=Grain Size, IMSKLEINFELDER GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING PROJECT NO. 71716 Edmonds Mixed Use 23012 Edmonds Way, Edmonds WA 98020 Appendix A-3 0 5— to- 12 - SOIL DESCRIPTION st Z Surface: Grass z OTHER TESTS* z rA C6 Z SM .\I inch of TOPSOIL. SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM): brown, moist, loose to medium dense, fine to coarse sand, fine to coarse gravel with asphalt and brick debris. (FILL) SP -- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -- SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP): red, moist, m dense, fine to coarse sand, fine to coarse gravel, some silt. P ECESSIONAL OUTWASH) Grades to brown, loose to medium dense, fine to medium sand, trace silt. SM — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -- SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM): gray, moist, dense to very dense, fine to medium sand, fine to coarse gravel. (GLACIAL TILL) SP -- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — SAND (SP): gray -brown, moist, very dense, fine to 2 j coarse sand, some fine to coarse gravel, trace sil (ADVANCE OUTWASH) Becomes SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP) Testpit terminated at 12 feet bgs. Groundwater seepage was not observed at the time of excavation. The testpit was backfilled with excavated material. DATE EXCAVATED:5/24/2006 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 196 LOGGED BY: S. Flowers REVIEWED BYBob Plum EQUIPMENT: Cat 416C backhoe + SAMPLE TYPE: Bulk Grab U Shelby Tube *TESTS: m=moisture Content('16), D=Dry Density(pqfi, Tv=Torvane, N I Pp=Pocket Penetrometer, G=Grain SLze, KLEINFELDER �-; I GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS ZZ SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING . Edmonds Mixed Use Appendix 23012 Edmonds Way, Edmonds WA A-4 98020 PROJECT NO. 71716 8 Uj cr 0 LU 06. 0 5- 10- 12 z SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface: Grass W9 JW W 4% ;D Z z OTHER TESTS* SM I to 2 inches of TOPSOIL, rootlets to 3 inches �jzs. SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM): brown, moist, loose to medium dense, fine to medium sand, some fine to coarse gravel, trace coarse sand. (RECESSIONAL OUTWASH) SP SAND (SP): brown, moist medium dense, fine to coarse sand., some fine to coarse gravel, some cobbles to 12 inches, trace silt. (RECESSIONAL OUTWASH) 2 Grades to dense. 3 SM hl SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM): gray, mo—isi, verT A--, f— to roarge. qnnd fine. to onarge. gravel tn I 4 inches. (GLACIAL TILL) Testpit terminated at 12 feet bgs. Groundwater seepage was not observed at the time of excavation. The testpit was backfilled with excavated material. DATE EXCAVATED:5/24/2006 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 198 LOGGED BY: S. Flowers REVIEWED BYBob Plum EQUIPMENT: Cat 416C backhoe +SAMPLE TYPE: Bulk Grab Shelby Tube *TESTS: m=moisture ContentClq), D=Dry Densily(joqj), Tv=Torvane, M I n PP=Pocket Penetrometer, G=Grain Size, AUKLEINFELDER Edmonds Mixed Use Appendix GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS 23012 Edmonds Way, Edmonds WA A-5 SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING 98020 PROJECT NO. 71716 TEST PIT LOG TP-4 L Q� CS 4� 0 § FL W 0.0- 5- 9.5 SOIL DESCRIPTION Z Surface: Grass z cc OTHER TESTS* z �n Cn Z ,2 inches of TOPSOIL SILTY SAND (SM): red -brown, moist; medium dense, fine to medium sand, trace fine gravel. (WEATHERED OUTWASR) — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -- SAND (SP): olive brown, moist, very dense, medium to coarse sand, some fine and coarse gravel. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) 2 3 4.5 Testpit terminated at 9.5 feet bgs. Groundwater seepage was not observed at the time of excavation. The testpit was backfilled with excavated material. DATE EXCAVATED:6/7/2006 APPROMMATE ELEVATION:186 LOGGED BY: S. Andrews REVIEWED BYBob Plum EQUIPMENT: Trackhoe + SAMPLE TYPE: Bulk Grab Shelby Tube *TESTS: M=Moisture Content('16), D=Dry Density(pqfi, Tv=Torvane, 0 1 n Pp=Pocket Penetrometer, G=Grain Size, 'in Edmonds Mixed Use . Appendix .; k KLEINFELDER 23012'Edmonds Way, Edmonds WA GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS A-6 SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING 98020 PROJECT NO. 71716 TEST PIT LOG TP-5 8 LLj a: C, 8 N FL (n W 0 5- 9 ' z CA SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface: Exposed Soil, Dirt bike track Z Z z OTHER TESTS* SM SAND (SP): brown -red, moist, medium dense, fine.to coarse sand, trace fine to coarse gravel, trace organics. (WEATHERED OUTWASH) SP --- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -- SAND (SP): olive brown, moist, very dense, fine to coarse sand, trace silt. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) 2 3 Testpit terminated at 9 feet bgs. Groundwater seepage was not observed at the time of excavation. The testpit was backfilled with excavated material. DATE EXCAVATED:6/7/2006 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 191 LOGGED BY: S. Andrews REVIEWED BYBob Plum EQUIPMENT: Trackhoe + SAMPLE TYPE: Bulk Grab Shelby Tube *TESTS: M=Moisture Content('1q), D=Dry Density(pcj), Tv=Torvane, M 1 0 PP=Pocket Penetrometer, G=Grain Size, Edmonds Mixed Use Appendix lknKLEINFELDER 23 . 012 Edmonds Way, Edmonds WA GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS A-7 SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING 98020 PROJECT NO. 71716 TEST PIT LOG TF-6 Uj a: N (L LU 8 0 5- 10- 12 ' SOIL DESCRIPTION J W ;;) Z Surface: Ve g'itation and Duff z 0 OTHER TESTS* z Z 2 to 3 inches of TOPSOIL. SM SILTY SAND (SM): gray, moist, medium dense, fine to coarse sand, some -fine to coarse gravel, rootlets to 4 feet bgs. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) SP SAND (SP): gray, moist, very dense, fine to coarse sand, some fine to coarse gravel, trace silt. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) 2 Testpit terminated at 12 feet bgs. Groundwater seepage was not observed at the time of excavation. The testpit was backfilled with excavated material. DATE EXCAVATED:5/24/200� APPROXIM ATE ELEVATION: 192 LOGGED BY: S. Flowers REVIEWED BYBob Plum EQUIPMENT: Cat 416C backhoe + SAMPLE TYPE: V Bulk Grab U Shelby Tube *TESTS: M=Moisture Content('10), D=Dry Densily(pcfi, Tv=Torvane, 6 1 Pp=Pocket Penetrometer, G=Grain Size, ,AM-SKLEINFELDER GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING -PROJECT NO. 71716 Edmonds Mixed Use Appendix 23012 Edmonds.Way, Edmonds WA 98020 A-8 TP-7 ��4 QQ 06. W In 0 5— to- 12 ' SOIL DESCRIPTION ;w Z) Z Surface: Grass z OTHER TESTS* z z z 6 inches of TOPSOIL. SILTY SAND (SM): red -brown, moist, loose, fine to SM medium sand, some fine to coarse gravel, some roots and rootlets. (FILL) SP — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -- SAND (SP): brown, moist, very dense, fine to coarse sand, some fine to coarse gravel, trace silt. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) Grades to with gravel. Testpit terminated at 12 feet bgs. Groundwater seepage was not observed at the time of excavation. The testpit was backfilled with excavated material. DATE EXCAVATED:5/24/2006 APPROMMATE ELEVATION:194 LOGGED BY: S. Flowers REVIEWED BYBob Plum EQUIPMENT: Cat 416C backhoe + SAMPLE TYPE: P1 Bulk Grab Shelby Tube *TESTS: M=Moisture Content('1q), D=Dry Density(pqfi, Tv=Torvane, Pp=Pocket Penetrometer, G=Grain Size, r.7=ol- P—;—v� 7nnz;—. SUKLEINFELDER Edmonds Mixed Use Appendix P 23012 Edmonds Way, Edmonds WA GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEE s A-9 SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING 98020 PROJECT NO. 71716 TEST PIT LOG TP-8 0 ids 8 LLI a: N IL LU 5— to- 12 0 cn SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface: English Ivy 06. cn C6 Z: z OTHER TESTS* 6 inches of TOPSOIL. SILTY SAND (SM): brown, moist, loose, fine to medium SM sand, trace fine to coarse gravel. (RECESSIONAL OUTWASH) SM 7.- ::� — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 7---- SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM): gray; moist, very dense, fine to medium sand, fine to coarse gravel. (TILL) SP -- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -- SAND (SP): brown; moist, very dense, fine to medium sand, some coarse gravel, some silt lenses. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) 2 Testpit terminated.at 12 feet bgs. Groundwater seepage %was not observed at the time of excavation. The testpit was backfilled with excavated material. DATE EXCAVATED:5/24/2006 APPRO)UMATE ELEVATION:210 LOGGED BY: S. Flowers REVIEWED BYBob Plum EQUIPMENT: Cat 416C backhoe + SAMPLE TYPE: Bulk Gr.�b Shelby Tube *TESTS: M=Moisture Content('16),- D=Dry Density(pqfi, Tv=Torvane, Pp=Pocket Penetrometer, G=Grain Size, G2=% Passinz No. 200 Sieve, A =A tterberg Limits Edmonds Mixed Use Appendix KLEINFELDER .23012 Edmonds Way, Edmonds WA GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONWNTAL ENGINEERS A-10 ILS AND MATE '98020 RIALS TESTING PROJECT NO. 71716 TEST PIT LOG TP-9 0 5- 8 - SOIL DESCRIPTION W cc .4 MW Wz E- It Surface: Grass -< z OTHER TESTS* z �n �nz Ling TLOPSOIL. tLe� oL _ - - -F - — — — — — — -- S SILTY SAND �S�iF�ro�n %N TitiFrJd mottling, moist, loose, fine to medium sand, trace organics, some rootlets, (FILL) SP — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - SAND (SP): gray, moist, medium dense, fine to coarse sand, some fine to coarse gravel, trace silt. (RECESSIONAL OUTWASH) SM - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -- SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM): gray, moist, very dense, fine to medium sand, fine to coarse gravel. (TILL) Testpit terminated at 8 feet bgs. Groundwater seepage was not observed at the time of excavation. The testpit was backfilled with excavated material. DATE EXCAVATED:5/24/2006 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION:214 LOGGED BY: S. Flowers REVIEWED BY:Bob Plum EQUIPMENT: Cat 416C backhoe +SAMPLE TYPE: Bulk Grab U Shelby Tube *TESTS: m=moisture Content('16), D=Dry Density(pqfi, Tv=Torvane, 0 1 Pp=Pocket Penetrometer, G=Grain Size, IMEKLEINFELDER GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING Edmonds Mixed Use Appendix 23012 Edmonds Way, Edmonds WA A-11 98020 PROJECT NO. 71716 TESTING PROGRAM U.S.C.S. LABORATORY FIELD WELL/PIEZO T SOIL DESCRIPTION CONSTRUCTION X X > Zw CL 09 W E-Z E_ W)z z z W1 Surface: forest duff, sod and topsoil (1-3 inches) z SP dense, grey -brown, dry, SAND WITH GRAVEL, fine to medium sand, fine gravel, trace silt. (RECESSIONAL OUTWASH) SM — - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - very dense, grey -brown, dry, SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, fine sand, fine gravel. (GLACIAL TILL) 6.8 35 150 sw -grades to very dense, grey 110 28 32 35 NA SI-2 ----------- rown; dry, SILTY SAN] �deWs�, �rjy b WITH GRAVEL, fine to medium sand, fin gravel. (GLACIAL TELL) 15- 7.1 17 24 SI-3 26 30 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SP very dense, grey -brown, dry, SAND WITH GRAVEL, medium sand, some silt. (ADVANCE OUTWASM D > 20 DATE DRILLED: 10-25-07 SURFACE ELEVATION (feet):213.0 ft DRILLING METHOD:HSA (Track Rig) LOGGED BY: FDR TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 50.3 DRILLER: Boretech REVIEWED BY: Rolf Hyllseth DIAMETER OF BORING (in)S.5 in CASING SIZE: n/a Edmonds.mixed use 2 Appendix K 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way XKLEINFELDER Edmonds,'Washington' A-2a GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING BORING LOG .1 PAGE 1 of 3 1 TESTING PROGRAM LABORATORY I FIELD iF WELL/PIEZO gz CONSTRUCTION 4E. 0z O's w)z 20 2 10 SI-4 24 28 15] 24 SI-5 30 38 1301 1 1 150/5"J;�j SJ-6 _1351 1 25 V SI-7 38 . :.; I U U.S.C.S. SOIL DESCRIPTION *SAMPLER Cal. IS3"OD) SPT qp"'ID) H Core Shelby Grab No Recovery TYPE Split poon Split Samp Tube **HAMMER WEIGHT 300lbs (30" Drop) 140 lbs (30" Drc p) Edmonds mixed use Appendix K 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way :I r k4KLEINFELDER Edmonds, Washington A-2b GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS BORING LOG SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING PROJECT NUMBER: 88601 B-1 PAGE 2 of 3 TESTING PROGRAM U.S.C.S. LABORATORY I FIELD * z WELL/PIEZO E '20 W09 W 0 SOIL DESCRIPTION > W� CONSTRUCTION ZW W ;�z : = t c6m t z z NZ z 4 20 SI-8 -moist, medium to coarse grained, one inch 37 lens of wet, coarse sand. 50/51' 45- 44 SI-9 -grades to medium grained sand. 50/611 501 5 0.31 50/3"bd -rock fragments and coarse grained, moist, Vand. -Boring completed to 50.3 feet below ground surface. -Groundwater was not encountered during drilling. -Boring backfilled with bentonite chips. SAMPLER Cal.--(31101)) TYPE Split SPT 211.01)) Core Shelby Grab No Splitq poon Samp le Tube Recovery "HAMMER WEIGHT 300lbs (30" Drop) 140 lbs (30" Drc p) Edmonds.mixed use Appendix. 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way k4.KLEINFELDER Edmonds, Washington A-2c GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS BORING LOG SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING PROJECT NUMBER: 88601 —B-1 PAGE 3 of 3 06. TESTING PROGRAM U.S.C.S. LABORATORY I FIELD* WELL/PIEZO > : 2 0. A'T CONSTRUCTION ZW V� W Z z a eq Cnz z lip 110 112 SOIL DESCRIPTION rest duff, sod and meGium. aense, ugni orown, Gry, biL i i SAND WITH GRAVEL, fine to medium sand, fine gravel. (WEATHERED GLACIAL TILL) ---- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 16 S24 very dense, light grey -brown, dry, SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, fine sand, fine 34 gravel. 36 (GLACIAL TILL) 6.3 24 31 S2-2 grades to fine to medium sand 50 -Boring terminated at 12 feet below groun surface due to auger refusal. -Groundwater was not encountered during drilling. -Boring backfilled with bentonite chips. L j D DATE DRILLED: 10-29-07 SURFACE ELEVATION (feet):212.0 ft DRILLING METHOD:HSA (Portable Acker Rig) r LOGGED BY: FDR TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 12.0 DRILLER: Boretech REVIEWED BY: Rolf Hyllseth DIAMETER OF BORING (in):5.5 in CASING SIZE: n/a Edmonds mixed use D Appendix 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way k4KLEINFELDER Edmonds, Washington n A - 3 GEOTECHMCAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING BORING LOG PROJECT NUMBER: 88601 B-2 PAGE I of 1 4 z z TESTING PROGRAM U.S.C.S. LABORATORY I FIELD F0 ___1 WELL/PIEZO r-r P� > rA . I- : S "'M 04 wig .4w W CONSTRUCTION *j =,:, N.. 5 Zw t Z z 06. Z 0z Z 0 I& 110 �j 15] S3-3 35 42 U r 5 DATE DRILLED: 10-25-07 r :71 LOGGED BY: FDR REVIEWED BY: Rolf Hyllseth SOIL DESCRIPTION bare ground SP medium dense, grey -brown, moist, SA-NL) WITH GRAVEL, trace silt, medium sand, trace organics (rootlets). (RECESSIONAL OUTWASH) -medium to coarse grained sand, moist. -grades dense, wet, fine to medium grained sand, some silt. -grades to very dense, moist, fine to coarse sand, trace silt -grades to dry to moist SURFACE ELEVATION (feet):192.0 ft DRILLING METHOD:HSA (Track Rig) TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 26.4 DRILLER: Boretech DIAMETER OF BORING (in)S.5 in CASING SIZE: n/a D Edmonds mixed use Appendix 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way k4KLEINFELDER Edmondsl' Washington n A-4a E GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS ?) . SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING BORMG LOG fl PROJECT NUMBER: 88601 1 -B-3 PAGE I of 2 raw raw z Z z TESTING PROGRAM U.S.C.S. LABORATORY FIEL5 a > WELL/PIEZO -0 T, SOIL DESCRIPTION CONSTRUCTION > S W Pz 'nz z >. z z 2 S34 -grades to moist 50/31 25- 31 S3-5 -grades to occasional I inch (P) seams of 46 ine to medium grained wet sand with silt. . . . . . 50/5 6.41 -Boring completed to 26.4 feet below ground surface. -Groundwater was not encountered during drilling. -Boring backfilled with bentonite chips. *SAMPLER Cal. (3"OD) SPT (2" OD) Core Shelby Grab No TYPE Split Spoon Split Spoon Sample Tube Recovery "HAMMER WEIGHT 300lbs (30" Drop) 140lbs (30" Drc p) Edmonds mixed use Appendix 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way k4KLEINFELDER Edmonds, Washington A-4b GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS BORING LOG SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING PROJECT NUMBER: 88601 B-3 PAGE 2 of 2 TESTING PROGRAM U.S.C.S. LABORATORY I FIELD WELL/PIE ZO SOIL DESCRIPTION IT, a CONSTRUCTION > zw .1W 7 04 72 z <= = W : zz Surface: grass, sod and topsoil (1-3 inche z z 96 WITH GRAVEL, fine to medium grained, ics, rootlets, 15" boulder trace organ encountered in upper foot. (FILL) 3 S4-1 grades to light -brown, fine grained 2 2 _de�Fsj, l_igh_t-_br_own_,dry_,S_AND_ —WITH— P-SN SELT, fine to medium sand, some gravel. (GLACIALTILL) '0] 11 S4-2 16 25 -7.7 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — SP very ense, grey -brown, dry to moist, SAND WITH GRAVEL, fine to coarse. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) 15 S4-3 33 34 AJ D > 20 DATE DRILLED: 10-25-07 SURFACE ELEVATION (feet):200 ft DRILLING METHOD:HSA (Track Rig) LOGGED BY: FDR TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 51.3 DRILLER: Boretech REVIEWED BY: Rolf Hyllseth DIAMETER OF BORING (in)S.5 in CASING SIZE: n/a Edmonds mixed use 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way Appendix Edmonds, Washington ."k KLEINFELDER A-5a z GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS 5 BORING LOG ;0 SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING .91 PROJECT NUMBER: 88601 1 . B-4 PAGE I of 3 rA z z At TESTING PROGRAM U.S.C.S. LABORATORY FIEL5 WELL/PIEZO U> a to CONSTRUCTION Zw z un Z �0 21 C, z cc n 1 IP41 130 1911 SOIL DESCRIPTION 25 26 36 S4-5 grades to moist, some silt, medium -grainei 50/411 35 S4-6 -grey to grey -brown, medium to 50/5 X coarse -grained, no silt 50/411 Z S4-7 *SAMPLER Cal. (3"OD) SPT q2" OD) Core Shelby Grab No TYPE Split Spoon Split poon Sample Tube Recovery "HAMMER WEIGHT 300 lbs 140 lbs fin" n___1 111alf "---I Edmonds mixed use Appendix 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way k4KLEINFELDER Edmonds, Washington A-5b GEOTECIINICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING BORING LOG PROJECT NUMER: 88601 B-4 PAGE 2 of 3 z LABORATORY I FIELD,* V WELL/PIEZO W it > 2 :4 WC4 N CONSTRUCTION 2 Zw 06. z U 6 0 Cj z r = rA Z z U 41 S4-1 34 38 145 150 AJ r . §1 32 N S4-9 48 24 27 M S4-10 4 U.S.C.S. Z SOIL DESCRIPTION -medium-gmined, trace silt -medium to coarse -grained, no silt -moist, fine to medium -grained, trace silt. -Boring completed to 51.3 feet below ground surface. -Groundwater was not encountered during drilling. -Boring backfilled with bentonite chips. SAMPLER Cal. (3"OD) SPT q2" OD) Core Shelby Grab No TYPE Split Spoon Split poon Samp Tube Recovery 300lbs **RAMMER WEIGHT (30" Drop) 140 lbs (30" Drc p) Edmonds mixed -use Appendix .'k4KLEINFELDER 232nd Ave and EdmondsWay Edmonds, Washington ..A-5c GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS BOPJNG LOG SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING PROJECT NUMBER: 88601 B-4 PAGE 3 of 3 TESTING PROGRAM ' 0 F, WELL/PIEZO CONSTRUCTION 2 Z a z 06we4 z &nz U.S.C.S. 0 SOIL DESCRIPTION z grass, z z 8.7 11 I R11 115 DATE DRILLED: 10-29-07 LOGGED BY: FDR REVIEWED BY: Rolf Hyllseth 27 KA S54 20 N S5-2 35 38 39 N A S5-3 -DU1111r, W111PIUMU LU LJ.0 MUL L)rIUW ground surface. -Groundwater was not encountered during drilling. -Boring backfilled with bentonite chips. SURFACE ELEVATION (feet):189 ft DRILLING METHOD:HSA (Track Rig) TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 15.8 DRILLER: Boretech DIAMETER OF BORING (in)S.5 in CASING SIZE: n/a Edmonds mixed use Appendix 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way k4KLEINFELDER Edmonds, Washington A - 6 GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING BORING LOG PROJECT NUMBER: 88601 B-5 PAGE I of I TESTING PROGRAM U.S.C.S. LABORATORY I FIELD WELL/PIEZO > rA SOIL DESCPdPTION CONSTRUCTION -4 > Zw �n "t 5 rn z 40 rn Z Surface: grass, sod and topsoil (1-3 inches) 20 Ce e 6 5 z 06. S medium dense, brown, dry, SAND WITH GRAVEL, fine to coarse sand. (FELL) SP --- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - dense, grey to grey -brown, dry, SAND WITH GRAVEL, medium sand, fine gravel. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) 9.4 10 6 S6-1 13 21 10- 22 S6-2 -grades to very dense, fine to medium sand. 28 27 15— 28 S6-3 35 50 16.5 -Boring completed to 16.5 feet below ground surface. U -Groundwater was not encountered during r drilling. -Boring backfilled with bentonite chips. L 3 0 r U L -1 DATE DRILLED: 10-25-07 SURFACE ELEVATION (feet):188 It DRILLING METHOD: HSA (Track Rig) LOGGED BY: FDR TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 16.5 DRILLER: Boretech REVIEWED BY: Rolf Hyllseth DIAMETER OF BORING (in)S.5 in CASING SIZE: n/a on Edmonds mixed use Appendix 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way 04KLEINFELDER Edmonds, Washington �'k A - 7 HNI AL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING BORMG LOG PAGE I of I PROJECT NUMBER: 88601 B-6 I I TESTING PROGRAM WELL/PIEZO > CONSTRUCTION 2 zw wo ;�z �"w t 7"7 99 cz z 0 U.S.C.S. SOIL DESCRIPTION a. 6 96 2 r cn Z Z rn Surface: grass, sod and topsoil (1-3 inches) 5 3.5 6 13. S74 32 28 '0] 8.0 18 13 S7-2 18 16 15] 0 S7-3 29 26 20 ' I I DATE DRILLED: 10-25-07 LOGGED BY: FDR REVIEWED BY: Rolf Hyllseth SM medium dense, brown, dry, SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, fine to medium sand, fir gravel. (FILL) -------------------- SP very dense, grey to grey -brown, dry, SAN] WITH GRAVEL, fine to coarse sand, fine (ADVANCE OUTWAS14) -grades to dense, moist, trace silt -gra es to moist with occasional wet lense d very dense, 2 inch lens of fine to medium grained sand. SURFACE ELEVATION (feet):186 It DRILLING METHOD: HSA (Track Rig) TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 51.5 DRILLER: Boretech DIAMETER OF BORING (in)S.5 in CASING SIZE: n/a Edmonds mixed use Appendix 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way k4KLEINFELDER Edmonds, Washington A-8a GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING BOFJNG LOG PROJECT NUMBER: 88601 B-7 PAGE I of 3 TESTING PROGRAM U.S.C.S. LABORATORY I FIELD WELL/PIEZO > :0 X 0 CONSTRUCTION > zw z �nz A.A z W) z SOIL DESCRIPTION 10 S74 -grades to medium dense. 9 6 25- 24 S7-5 -grades to very dense, dry. 30 37 30- .25 S7-6 -as above, thin 1/4 inch lenses fine to medium grained, light brown SAND. 35 35- 28 S7-7 39 47 > 40 *SAMPLER Cal. (3"OD) SPT q2" OD) Core Shelby No Grab TYPE Split Spoon Split poon. Sample Tube Recovery "HAMMER WEIGHT 300lbs 140lbs (30" Drop) (30" Drop) Edmonds�mixed use Appendix 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way KLEINFELDER Edmonds- Washington - �-k A-8b GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING BORING -LOG PROJECT NUMBER: 88601 B-7 PAGE 2 of 3 1 z -It z TESTING PROGRAM U.S.C.S. LABORATORY FIEL5 ,211 WELL/PIEZO W. to wag SOIL DESCRIPTION CONSTRUCTION UW > Zw W .z 5 "� = U —6 0- 1�4: 8 <5 z in P -<= z a < = �n cnz — Z 20 V S7-8 -grades to wet, lenses of fine SAND WITH ... .' -:-*-- SILT. 22 38 z z 145 150 S1.5 34 K A S7-9 11 X S7-10 14 7 -grades to medium to coarse grained SAND, dry grades to medium dense, moist to wet, medium grained sand with gravel. -Boring completed to 51.5 feet below ground surface. -Groundwater was not encountered during drilling. -Boring backfilled with bentonite chips. SAMPLER Cal. (3"OD) SPT q2" OD) H Core Shelby Grab No TYPE split Spoon Split poon Sample Tube Recovery ***HAMMER WEIGHT 300lbs 140lbs 5 Edmonds mixed use 2 Appendix K 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way KIKLEINFELDER Edmonds, Washington A-8c z GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS 5 n SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING BORING LOG '31 PROJECT NUMBER: 88601 B-7 PAGE 3 of 3 N TESTING PROGRAM LABORATORY I FIELD U.S.C.S. F0 �F __1 -2 z - — -,,'E IX W 0 WELL/PIEZO �z = W : E W 0 SOIL DESCRIPTION CONSTRUCTION W wo . - - (i > Zw r" : *' q Q W �; E o4w W E" Iz-, Cnz z 0 M.A Surface: grass, sod and z 0 5- 3.2 20 S84 25 35 5.8 12 21 S8-2 24 1,01 1 28 15- 21 S8-1 21 34 36.5 -Boring completed to 16.5 feet below ground surface. -Groundwater was not encountered during drilling. -Boring backfilled with bentonite chips. DATE DRILLED: 10-29-07 SURFACE ELEVATION (feet):185 ft DRILLING METHOD: HSA (Track Rig) LOGGED BY: FDR TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 16.5 DRILLER: Boretech REVIEWED BY: Rolf Hyllseth DIAMETER OF BORING (in):8.5 in CASING SIZE: n/a Edmonds mixed use Appendix 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way "k4KLEINFELDER Edmonds, Washington A - 9 GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING BORING LOG PROJECT NUMBER: 88601 B-8 PAGE I of I 100 90 Cr W 0 Z LL F- Z 50 W C-) cr LU 40 30 20 10 n Particle Size Distribution Report d 500 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE mm % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT I % CLAY 0.0 19.0 46.0 35.0 1 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC.* PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) 1.5 in. 100.0 I in. 92.0 3/4 in. 89.0 1/2 in. 86.0 3/8 in. 84.0 #4 81.0 #8 78.0 #10 78.0 #16 75.0 #30 71.0 #40 67.0 #50 61.0 #100 46.0 #200 35.0 (no specification provided) Sample No.: S I -I Location: -Soil Descrig)tion Silty sand with gravel Laboratory No.: 7720 Moisture Content: 6.8% Atterbera Limits PL= LL= PI= Coefficients D85= 11-1 D60= 0.286 D50= 0. 182 D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc= Classification USCS= SM AASHTO= Remarks Tested By: D. Erickson Checked By: J. Schwartz Entered By: B. Kochanski Source of Sample: B-1 Date: 11/19/07 Elev./Depth: 5' Client: Valhalla LLC KLEINFELDER, INC. Project: Edmonds Mixed Use Building Project No: 88601/1 Figure 100 90 80 70 cr LLJ 60 Z U- Z 50 LU Q cr LLJ 40 CL 30 20 10 Particle Size Distribution Report d I I H I I 1i 1 1! 100 : r 0 GRAIN SIZE - mm COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT % CLAY 0.0 7.0 76.0 17.0 J SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC.* PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) 3/4 in. 100.0 1/2 in. 100.0 3/8 in. 97.0 #4 93.0 #8 87.0 #10 86.0 #16 81.0 #30 71.0 #40 61.0 #50 45.0 #100 23.0 #200 17.0 Sou��n Silty sand Laboratory No.: 7720 Moisture Content: 7A % Atterbera Limits PL= LL= P1= Coefficients D85= 1.75 D60= 0.415 D50= 0.334 D30= 0.201 D1 5= D1 O= Cu= Cc= Classification USCS= SM AASHTO= Remarks Tested By: D. Erickson Checked By: J. Schwartz Entered By: B. Kochanski (no specification provided) Sample No.:, SI-3 Source of Sample: B-1 Date: 11/19/07 Location: Elev./Depth: 15' Client: Valhalla LLC ,KLEINFELDER, INC. Project: EdmondsMixed Use Building _EE2Lect No: 88601/1 Figure 100 90 80 cc Lu 60 Z U- Z LLJ 0 It LLJ 40 EL 30 20 10 In Particle Size Distribution Report d d d d e 0 L 1, 1 500 100 10 1 0.1 0.0 0.001 GRAIN SIZE mm % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT % CLAY 0.0 12.0 64.0 24.0 1 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC.* PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) I in. 100.0 3/4 in. 97.0 1/2 in. 91.0 3/8 in. 90.0 #4 88.0 #8 85.0 #10 85.0 #16 82.0 #30 75.0 #40 66.0 #50 52.0 #100 32.0 #200 24.0 (no specification provided) Sample No.: S2-2 Location: Soil Description Silty sand Laboratory No.:7720 Moisture Content: 6.3% Atterberg Limits PL= LL= P1= Coefficients D85= 2.00 D60= 0.364 D50= 0.285 D30= 0. 133 D1 5= DI O= Cu= CC= Classification USCS= SM AASHTO= Remarks Tested By: D. Erickson Checked By: J. Schwartz Entered By: B. Kochanski Source of Sample: B-2 Date: 11/19/07 Elev./Depth: 10' Client: Valhalla LLC KLEINFELDER, INC. Project: Edmonds Mixed Use Building Project No: 88601/1 Figure OTUM "111011111 111011111111 111r,1 % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT I %CL 0.0 14.0 1 72.0 14.0 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC.* PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) 1.5 in. 100.0 I in. 94.0 3/4 in. 94.0 1/2 in. 92.0 3/8 in. 90.0 #4 86.0 #8 81.0 #10 80.0 #16 75.0 #30 66.0 #40 57.0 #50 43.0 #100 20.0 #200 14.0 Soil Descrig)tion Silty sand Laboratory No.: 7720 Moisture Content: 11.5% Atterberg Limits PL= LL= Pl= Coefficients D85= 4.11 D60= 0.467 D50= 0354 D30= 0.215 D1 5= 0.0979 D1 O= Cu= Cc= Classification USCS= SM AASHTO= Remarks Tested By: B. Kochanski Checked By: J. Schwartz Entered By: B. Kochanski (no specification provided) Sample No.: S3-1 Source of Sample: B-3 Location: Date: 11/19/07 Elev./Depth: 5' Client: Valhalla LLC KLEINFELDER, INC. Project: Edmonds Mixed Use Building ILEr �ect No: 88601/1 Figure Particle Size Distribution Report 100 90 0 LLI 60-- Z LL Z LLI LLI 40 IL 30 20 10-- 0 500 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE - mm % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT % CLAY 0.0 17.0 72.0 11.0 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC.* PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) 3/4 in. 100.0 1/2 in. 96.0 3/8 in. 94.0 #4 83.0 #8 75.0 #10 73.0 #16 66.0 #30 54.0 #40 46.0 #50 36.0 #100 17.0 #200 11.0 Soil Description Poorly graded sand with silt and gravel Laboratory No.: 7720 Moisture Content: 8.7% Atterber-q Limits PL= LL= P1= Coefficients D85= 5.37 D60= 0.817 D50= 0.500 D30= 0.247 D15= 0.132 D1 O= Cu= CC= Classification USCS= SP-SM AASHTO= Remarks Tested By: D. Erickson Checked By: J. Schwartz Entered By: B. Kochanski (no specification provided) Sample No.: S5-1 Source of Sample: B-5 Location: Date: 11/19/07 Elev./Depth: 5' Client: Valhalla LLC KLEINFELD.ER, INC. Project: Edmonds Mixed Use Building Project No: 88601/1 Figure Particle Size Distribution Report % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT I %C 0.0 20.0 70.0 1 10.0 _n SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC! PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) I in. 100.0 3/4 in. 91.0 1/2 in. 88.0 3/8 in. 86.0 #4 80.0 #8 73.0 #10 72.0 #1'6 65.0 #30 54.0 #40 44.0 #50 30.0 #100 15.0 #200 10.0 Sol I. Description Well -graded sand with silt and gravel Laboratory No.: 7720 Moisture Content: 9.4% Atterberg Limits PL= LL= P1= Coefficients D85= 8.42 D60= 0.835 D50= 0.511 D30= 0.300 D15= 0 Cu= 11.13 Cc= I . �4150 D1 O= 0.0750 Classification USCS= SW-SM AASHTO= Remarks Tested By: J. Schwartz Checked By: J. Mason, PE Entered By: B. Kochanski (no specification provide Sample No.: S6-1 Source of Sample: . B-6 Location: Date: 11/19/07 Elev./Depth: 5' Client: Valhalla LLC KLEINFELDER, INC. Project: Edmonds Mixed Use Building JLPr Figure gect No: 88601/1 Particle Size Distribution Report 100 90 I IIN !, 80 --- : 70--- P. .1 1 1 1 h I LU 0 Z LL F- Z 0 LU 0 LU 40 CL 30 20 10 0 500 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE mm % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT I %CL 0.0 26.0 68.0 6.0 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC! PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) I in. 100.0 3/4 in. 97.0 1/2 in. 90.0 3/8 in. 84.0 #4 74.0 #8 66.0 #10 65.0 #16 59.0 #30 46.0 #40 34.0 #50 22.0 #100 10.0 #200 6.0 Soil Description Poorly graded sand with silt and gravel Laboratory No.: 7720 Moisture Content: 3.5% Atterberg Limits PL= LL= P1= Coefficients D85= 10-0 D60= 1.27 D50= 0.698 D30= 0.381 D15= 0.222 D10= 0.150 CU= 8.46 Cc= 0.76 Classification USCS= SP-SM AASHTO= Remarks Tested By: D. Erickson Checked By: J. Schwartz Entered By: B. Kochanski (no specification provided) Sample No.: S7-1 Source of Sample: B-7 Location: Client: Valhalla LLC KLEINFELDER, INC. Project: Edmonds Mixed Use Building Date: 11/19/07 Elev./Depth: 5' : 88601/1 Particle Size Distribution Report d d 100 90 80 0 CC, LU 60 Z LL Z 0 LLJ LLJ 40 30 20 10 0 E� 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE mm % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT I % CLAY 0.0 17.0 65.0 18.0 1 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC! PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) I in. 100.0 3/4 in. 98.0 1/2 in. 93.0 3/8 in. 89.0 #4 83.0 #8 78.0 #10 77.0 #16 73.0 #30 63.0 #40 53.0 #50 40.0 #100 23.0 #200 18.0 Soil Description Silty sand with gravel Laboratory No.: 7720 Moisture Content: 8.0% Afterbera Limits PL= LL= Pl= Coefficients D85= 6.27 D60= 0.532 D50= 0.391 D30= 0.215 D15= D10= cu= CC= Classification USCS= SM AASHTO= Remarks Tested By: D. Erickson Checked By: J. Schwartz Entered By: B. Kochanski (no specification provided) Sample No.: S7-2 Source of Sample: B-7 Location: Date: 11/19/07 Elev./Depth: 10' Client: Valhalla LLC KLEINFELDER, INC. Project: Edmonds Mixed Use Building Project No: 88601/1 Figure Particle Size Distribution Report 100 90 80-- P 70--- rr LU 60--- Z LL Z 50--- LU 0 (r LU 40--- CL 30-- 20 10 0 ------ 500 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE - mm % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT I % CLAY 0.0 22.0 1 67.0 11.0 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC! PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) 1.5 in. 100.0 I in. 88.0 3/4 in. 88.0 1/2 in. 84.0 3/8 in. 81.0 #4 78.0 #8 73.0 #10 71.0 #16 66.0 #30 53.0 #40 42.0 #50 30.0 #100 16.0 #200 11.0 Soil Description Poorly graded sand with silt and gravel Laboratory No.: 7720 Moisture Content: 3.2% Afterberg Limits PL= LL= Pl= Coefficients D85= t4.0 D60= 0.804 D50= 0.542 D30= 0.300 D15= 0.137 D10= cu= Cc= Classification USCS= SP-SM AASHTO= Remarks Tested By: D. Erickson Checked By: J. Schwartz Entered By: B. Kochanski (no specification provided) Sample No.: S8-1 Source of Sample: B-8 Location: Date: 11/19/07 Elev./Depth: 5' Client: Valhalla LLC KLEINFELDER, INC. Project: Edmonds Mixed Use Building Project No: 88601/1 Figure a Particle Size Distribution Report GRAIN SIZE - mm % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT % CLA 0.0 18.0 70.0 12.0 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER . SPEC! �PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) 3/4 in. 100.0 1/2 in. 98.0 3/8 in. 92.0 #4 82.0 #8 75.0 #10 74.0 #16 70.0 #30 58.0 #40 46.0 #50 32.0 #100 17.0 #200 12.0 Soil Descriotion Poorly graded sand with silt and gravel Laboratory No.: 7720 Moisture Content: 5.8% Atterber-q Limits PL= LL= Pl= Coefficients D85= 6.07 D60= 0.646 D50= 0.471 D30= 0.283 D15= 0.122 D1 O= Cu= Cc= Classification USCS= SP-SM AASHTO= Remarks Tested By: D. Erickson Checked By: J. Schwartz L Entered By: B. Kochanski (no specification provided) Sample No.: S8-2 Source of Sample: B-8 Location: Client: Valhalla LLC KLEINFELDER, INC. Project: Edmonds Mixed Use Building Date: 11/19/07 Elev./Depth: 10' 1/1 R k'9 KLEINFELDER Prepared For:.' Valhalla, LLC 1501 North 200" Street Shoreline, Washington 98133 Prepared By: Steven Flowers, EIT Staff Geotechnical Engineer Rolf Hyllseth, PE, LG Senior Geotechnical Engineer KLEINFELDER WEST, INC. 2405 140th Ave NE, Suite 101 Bellevue, Washington 98005 (425) 562-4200 November 21,2007 Klei6felder Projett No: 88601 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder All Rights Reserved Geotechnical Supplement No. I Excavation Shore. Considerations Edmonds Mixed -Use Development 232nd Street SW & Edmonds Way Edmonds, Washin§ton 98122 1 1 EXPIRES 6/05/CTY__"'j JAN 28 2008 BUILDING DEPARTMENT C17Y OF EDMONDS This document was prepared for use only by the client only for the purposes stated, and within a reasonable time from issuance. Non-commercial, educational and scientific use of this report by regulatory agencies is regarded as a "fair use" and not a violation of copydght. Regulatory agencies may make additional copies of this document for internal use. Copies may also be made available to the public as required by law. The reprint must acknowledge the copyright and indicate that permission to reprint h s been received. I Ln KLEINFELDER 2405 140'h Avenue NE Suite A101 Bellevue, WA 98005 (425) 562-4200 (425) 562-4201 fax November 21, 2007 Kleinfelder Project No. 88601 Valhalla, LLC c/o SGA Corporation 1501 North 200th Street Shoreline, Washington 98133 Attention: Mr. James Abbott Subject: Geotechnical Supplement No. 1: Excavation Shoring Considerations Edmonds Mixed -Use Development 232 "d Street SW & Edmonds Way (SR 104) Edmonds, Washington 98122 Dear Mr. Abbott: Kleinfelder, Inc. (Kleinfelder) is pleased to present this letter summarizing our limited geotechnical engineering review for the construction excavation and shoring requirements at the subject site. Kleinfelder previously provided general geotechnical design recommendations for this project in our Geotechnical Investigation Report (Job No. 71716, dated July 7, 2006). The conclusions and recommendations of this supplementary engineering evaluation should only be used in conjunction with our original geotechnical evaluation for the project. The scope of work for this supplementary evaluation included a site reconnaissance visit and subsequent supplementary engineering analyses. Authorization to proceed was given by Mr. James Abbott of Valhalla, LLC (Valhalla) on October 10, 2007. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site is located at the southwest corner of Edmonds Way and 232nd Street SW in Edmonds, Washington, as shown in Figure 1, and consists of Parcels A through F, as shown in Figure 2. In general, the site is relatively level and accessible from Edmonds Way, sloping gradually from about elevation 200 feet at the southeast end to a low of about elevation 186 feet at the northwest end. However, the western perimeter of the project site runs along an east facing steep slope area. The western property line zig-zags across the slope face, following a north -south property alignment, with surface elevations ranging from about 196 near the toe to 216 feet near the upper end of the 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 1 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder steep slopes. The previous structures at the site have been demolished, leaving a few relic retaining walls against the hill side along the northwest portion of the site. The vegetation encountered on -site consisted of grass, brush, and trees. The general layout of the project site is shown on the attached Figure 2A. We understand that a mixed use retail building with below grade parking is planned in the south end of the site, while a series of town homes are planned within the northern portion of the site. The mixed use building is to be constructed up against the west property line. The construction excavations required for this structure will require temporary cut sloping or cantilever/tieback soldier pile shoring walls, or a combination thereof. Temporary sloping or tieback shoring wall systems will require a temporary easement from the neighboring properties to be feasible. It should be noted that two adjacent structures (a small building and garage) are located very near the property lines west of the planned mixed use building in the south end of the site. Given the close proximity of these structures, their age and susceptibility to settlement induced cracking, we recommend that a shoring wall be used to provide construction excavation support in lieu of temporary sloping, to reduce potential settlement risks. The town homes in the northern portion of the site will be setback from the property lines, with a planned level access drive area between the. structures and the slopes to the west. EXPLORATORY METHODS The surface and subsurface conditions at the project site were explored on a previous site visit for our original geotechnical evaluation, and during a recent site reconnaissance visit on October 25 and 29, 2007. The previous subsurface exploration consisted of excavating 10 test pits to a maximum depth of approximately 12-feet below the existing ground surface (bgs) at the approximate locations shown in Figure 2A. Our current supplementary study included a recent site reconnaissance visit and additional borings advanced along the proposed temporary shoring wall location along the steep slopes on the western property boundary. Along with boring logs for these current explorations, we have also included copies of the exploration logs for the previous test pits with this letter, for convenience. The following paragraphs describe the procedures associated with the field explorations and field tests that were conducted for this supplementary investigation. Auger Boring Procedures The exploratory borings were advanced with a hollow -stem auger on October 25 and 29, 2007, using a limited access, track -mounted drill rig. and portable acker drill rig 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 2 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder operated by an independent drilling firm working under subcontract to Kleinfelder. A geotechnical engineer from our firm continuously observed the borings, logged the subsurface conditions, and collected representative soil samples. All samples were stored in sealed plastic jars and later transported to our laboratory for further visual examination and testing. After each boring was completed, the borehole was backfilled with a mixture of bentonite chips and soil cuttings. Throughout the drilling operation, soil samples were obtained at 21/2- or 5-foot depth intervals by means of the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) per ASTUD-1586. This testing and sampling procedure consists of driving a standard 2-inch outside diameter steel split -spoon sampler 18 inches into the soil with a 140-pound hammer free -failing 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler through each 6-inch interval is counted, and the total number of blows struck during the final 12 inches is recorded as the Standard Penetration Resistance, or "SPT blow count." If a total of 50 blows are struck within any 6-inch interval, the driving is stopped and the blow count is' recorded as 50 blows for the actual penetration distance. The resulting Standard Penetration Resistance values indicate the relative density of granular soils and the relative consistency of cohesive soils. The boring logs attached to this letter describe the vertical sequence of soils and materials encountered in each boring, based primarily on our field classifications and supported by our subsequent laboratory examination and testing. Where a soil contact was observed to be gradational, our logs indicate the average contact depth. Where a soil type changed between sample intervals, we inferred the contact depth. Our logs also graphically indicate the blow count, sample type, sample number, and approximate depth of each soil sample obtained from the borings, as well as any laboratory tests performed on these soil samples. If any groundwater was encountered in a borehole, the approximate groundwater depth is depicted on the boring log. Groundwater depth estimates are typically based on the moisture content of soil samples, the wetted height on the drilling rods, and the water level measured in the borehole after the auger has been extracted. Laboratory Testing As a part of our geotechnical evaluation, we performed a series of Grain Size Analyses, and Moisture Content Determinations. The results of these laboratory tests are presented in the enclosed laboratory test reports and on the exploration logs. A general grain size analysis indicates the range of soil particle diameters included in a particular 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 3 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder satnple, while a 200 wash indicates how -much fines (silt and clay sized particles) that is contained in a sample. These grain size laboratory tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM:13-422 and ASTM:C-1 17. Moisture content determinations were completed in general accordance with ASTM:D-2216. The results of these laboratory tests were used to develop the soil classifications shown on the exploration logs and determine whether specific on -site soils will be suitable for re -use as structural fill. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Based on our previous site investigations, the site soils were generally disclosed in our test pit explorations to consist of medium dense sand and gravel with trace amounts of silt (Recessional Outwash), overlying dense to very d ense, silty sand with varying amounts of gravel (Glacial Till) on the slope areas, and very dense sand with varying amounts of gravel and silt (Advance Outwash) within the low-lying areas of the site. No groundwater was revealed n our previous explorations. Throughout the year, groundwater le vels would likely fluctuate in response to changing precipitation patterns, off -site construction -activities, and changes in site utilization. The deeper borings advanced as a part of our current supplementary study generally confirmed these subsurface. conditions. It should be noted that our exploration along 232 Id Street also confirmed the presence of very dense Glacial Till soils in this area of the site, where temporary sloping of excavation cuts are planned. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our findings and the results of our supplemental analyses, the project is considered feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided that the recommendations of this supplementary letter are implemented. For the planned cuts within the southwestern portion of the site (west side of mixed use building), we anticipate that temporary sloping may be used, provided that easements can be obtained and the sections adjacent to the existing neighboring structures are supported by a soldier pile and, lagging shoring wall system, to limit the risk of undermining the adjacent structures. We anticipate that soldier pile and lagging shoring walls will be required to shore the vertical cuts (up to about 18 feet high) adjacent to the existing neighboring structures west of the planned mixed use building. The following text sections of this report present our specific geotechnical conclusions and recommendations concerning temporary shoring walls, spread footings, permanent walls, and drainage systems. 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 4 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder Temporary Excavation Slope Cuts Temporary excavations should be performed in accordance with current federal, state and/or local regulations. Temporary excavations in excess of 4 feet vertical height must be sloped or supported in accordance with Part N of Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 296-155. For planning purposes, recommend the following maximum cut slope inclinations, based on the soil layers encountered within our explorations and the corresponding OSHA Soil Type classifications: Soil Type Maximum Inclination Medium Dense to Dense Sand with Gravel (Type B Soils) 1 H:1V Dense to Very Dense Glacial Till (Type A Soils) %HAV It should be noted that appropriate inclinations will ultimately depend on the actual soil and groundwater seepage conditions exposed in the cuts at the time of construction. It is the sole responsibility of the contractor to ensure that the excavation is properly sloped or braced for worker protection. Furthermore, it should be noted that the cut slope inclination of any overlying soil layer should not be steeper than the underlying soil layer, according to OSHA guidelines. In addition to proper sloping, the excavation cuts should be draped with plastic sheeting for the duration of the excavation to minimize surface erosion and raveling. Excavations made below the water table will likely require dewatering and/or shoring. Temporary Shoring Walls Temporary shoring walls up to roughly 18-feet high will be required to support the planned perimeter cuts along the sloping ground areas along the western property. In our opinion, a conventional, cantilever or tieback soldier pile and lagging wall would be well -suited for this purpose. A cantilever, soldier pile shoring wall typically consists of wood lagging placed between soldier piles installed in pre-augered holes backfilled with lean mix or structural concrete to a typical depth below the excavation base of about 1.5 times the wall height above grade. The practical and economical vertical height limit for a cantilevered (unsupported by soil anchors) soldier pile wall is typically on the order of 15 feet. Where the wall exceeds this practical cantilever height limit, soil tieback anchors are typically installed through the soldier piles to provide the necessary lateral support and limit lateral deflections of the wall system; such tiebacks may be installed in a single row or in a multiple row configuration. A slightly different lateral soil pressure analysis is required for each of these different wall configurations, as outlined 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 5 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder subsequently. It. should be noted that special design considerations will be required to limit wall Aeflection and potential ground settlement where the existing adjacent buildings are located directly on or close to the planned basement cuts. To minimize the risk of building damage, we recommend that these portions of the shoring wall be designed for the horizontal surcharge resulting from such nearby footing loads, or that the existing footing elements on these buildings be directly underpinned by the soldier pile wall system. The following recommendations are provided for design of soldier pile and lagging shoring walls. Pile Embedment: All soldier piles should have sufficient embedment below the final excavation level to provide adequate "kick -out" resistance to horizontal loads. We recommend a minimum embedment of 10 feet below the excavation base. However, deeper embedment might be needed to develop adequate vertical capacity or passive resistance at specific locations, based on a structural analysis. Drilling Conditions: Based on our explorations, we predict that the soldier pile and grout tieback holes will encounter dense to very dense silty gravelly sand (glacial till) or dense to very dense sand with gravel/silt (Advance Outwash). Loose to medium dense overburden soils can likely be drilled without difficulties, using a conventional auger, whereas the underlying very dense glacial till or advance outwash soils may yield slower drilling rates. Although none of our explorations encountered cobbles or boulders, it should be realized that such obstructions can exist at random locations within the native deposits. Rubble could also be present within the upper fill soils. Applied Loads: Soldier piles should be designed to resist various applied loads, which can be classified as static pressures, surcharge pressures, seismic pressures, and hydrostatic pressures. Our recommended design pressures are presented graphically on the enclosed Cantilever and Tieback Shoting Wall Diagrams (Figure 3) and are discussed in the following paragraphs. Static Pressures: For tieback shoring walls having two or more rows of tiebacks, we generally recommend using an apparent lateral earth pressure with a trapezoidal distribution, as shown on Figure 3. Based on. the site soils, we recommend using a peak earth pressure of 25H pounds per square foot (psf), where H is equal to the height of excavation in feet, for the uniform portion of this trapezoidal distribution. This static earth pressure should be applied over the soldier pile spacing width from the top of the pile downward to the base of 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 6 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder Y excavation. Below this level, an active earth pressure of 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), modeled as a fluid unit weight, should be applied over the diameter of the pile only, as shown on Figure 3. Cantilever soldier pile shoring walls (without tiebacks) are designed for the triangular active earth pressure diagram both above and below the base of excavation level-, in lieu of apparent lateral earth pressures, as noted on Figure 3. 0 Surcharge Pressures: Lateral earth pressures acting on the soldier piles should be increased to account for any surcharge loadings from traffic, construction equipment, material stockpiles, or structures that are located within a horizontal distance equal to the wall height. For simplicity, a traffic surcharge can be modeled as a uniform lateral pressure of 75 psf acting over the upper 6 feet of wall, as shown on Figure 3. Seismic Pressures: Temporary shoring walls need not be designed for seismic loads, given the relatively short duration of construction excavation and the additional load capacity "built into" the static safety factor for the wall. However, if the shoring wall is designed in combination with a permanent wall, we recommend that the lateral earth pressures be increased to account for seismic loads. These seismic pressures act over the entire back of the wall and vary with the backslope inclination, the seismic acceleration, and the wall height. For permanent walls designed for yielding conditions (allowing a wall rotation of 0.001 to 0.002 times the wall height), we recommend using a uniform horizontal seismic loading of 4H psf, based on the active state lateral earth pressure. Conversely, a non -yielding (restrained) permanent wall should be designed to withstand a uniform horizontal seismic loading of 12H psf, based on the at -rest state lateral earth pressure. The recommended seismic surcharge pressure distribution is presented graphically on Figure 3. Hydrostatic Pressures: If groundwater is allowed to saturate the soils behind the below -grade perimeter walls, hydrostatic pressures will act against the walls. At this site, however, we are assuming that the. shoring walls will be provided with a geocomposite drainage mat system and that an under -slab drainage system will be installed to provide a permanent dewatering system for the structure. We therefore do not expect that hydrostatic pressures will develop. 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 7 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder Resisting Forces: Lateral resistance can be computed by using an appropriate allowable passive earth pressure acting over the embedded portion of each soldier pile, neglecting the upper 2 feet. The trapezoidal distribution of this allowable passive pressure can be modeled as shown on Figure 3. This passive pressure should be applied over a lateral distance equal to the pile spacing or twice the pile diameter, whichever is less. For. a level excavation base, we recommend using an allowable passive earth pressure of 375 pcf for the very dense advance outwash sand with gravel, modeled as a fluid unit weight, in the static design case; in the seismic case we recommend using an allowable passive fluid pressure of 500 pcf, as shown on Figure 3. These allowable passive earth pressures incorporate a safety factor of 1.5 and 1.1 for the static and seismic case, respectively. Pile Capacities and Deflections: Appropriate side -friction and end -bearing �capacities can be used to determine total vertical capacities of the soldier piles that may be required to resist underpinning loads or the vertical component of the tieback loads. To estimate lateral deflections of the sol dier piles, we recommend using appropriate subgrade reaction muduli. For the embedded portion of a soldier pile bearing within the native, very dense glacial till soils or advance outwash sands, our recommended allowable design values are shown on the enclosed Figure 3 and are summarized below. The allowable values for side friction and end bearing incorporate safety factors of 1.5 and 2.0 for temporary and permanent conditions,, respectively. Allowable Design Values Temporary Permanent Design Parameter Case Case Side Friction Capacity (very dense sands) 1,500 psf 1,200 psf End Bearing Capacity (very dense sands) 20 ksf 15 ksf Our recommendations regarding lagging design and installation are presented below. Wood Lagging Materials: Wood lagging is typically installed in between all soldier piles to reduce the potential for soil failure, loss of ground, and hazardous working conditions. In. our opinion, either conventional wooden timbers or reinforced shotcrete could be 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 8 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder utilized as lagging at the site. For permanent applications, we recommend that all wooden timber lagging be pressure -treated. Lateral Pressures on Wood Lagging: Due to soil arching effects, temporary lagging that spans 8 feet or less need be designed for only 25 percent of the lateral earth pressure previously recommended for soldier pile design. Permanent lagging, on the other hand, should be designed for 50 percent of this same lateral earth pressure. Wood Lagging Backfill: We recommend that any voids greater than 1-inch behind the lagging be backfilled, but the backfill material should not be allowed to prevent groundwater flow. If inadequate drainage is provided behind the lagging, hydrostatic pressure will develop on the wall. Pea gravel would provide an effective lagging backfill material to promote adequate drainage, whereas concrete, cdf, or other impermeable materials are not recommended. The void spaces should be backfilled progressively as the excavation proceeds. Tieback Conflicts and Easements: Because tiebacks typically extend about 30 to 60 feet behind the excavation face, conflicts with underground utilities, as well as with adjacent structures and foundations, often arise. The project structural engineer should carefully consider the locations of such obstructions when laying out all tiebacks. Easements might be required for any tiebacks that extend onto private properties and right-of-way areas beyond the site property boundaries. It should also be realized that the City of Seattle does not typically allow permanent tiebacks to encroach on their roadway right- of-way limits. Tieback No -Load Zone: The anchor portion of all tiebacks must be located a sufficient distance behind the retained excavation face to develop resistance within a stable soil mass. We recommend that the anchorage be obtained behind a "no-load zone" defined by a plane projected upward at a 60-degree angle from the base of the excavation and set back from the excavation face a horizontal distance equal to 25 percent of the face height, as shown on Figure 3. Tieback Anchor Length and Spacing: The anchor portion of the tieback (that portion behind the no-load zone) should have a minimum length of 10 feet and should be located at least 10 feet below the ground surface, as shown on Figure 3. To avoid interactions between adjacent tiebacks, we recommend that a clear spacing of at least 5 feet be maintained along the anchor zones. 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 9 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder Estimated Tieback Adhesion: If properly grouted, we tentatively estimate that allowable concrete/soil adhesion values listed in the table below (and shown on Figure 3) for the various site soil layers may be used for the anchor portion of a tieback. These allowable adhesion values incorporate a safety factor of 1.1 and 1.5 for the temporary and permanent conditions, respectively. It should be noted, however, that the actual design values will depend on the installation method and should be confirmed by load - testing all tiebacks in the field. Allowable Tieback Adhesion Values Temporary Permanent Soil Type Case Case Dense to Very Dense, Silty Gravelly 1,500 psf 1,200 psf Sand (Glacial Till) or Sand with gravel (Advance Outwash) Tieback Load Testing: We recommend that , all tiebacks be subjected to a comprehensive testing program that will verify the integrity of individual tiebacks and provide information regarding their long-term creep characteristics. Two separate types of tests are appropriate for temporary tiebacks: 200-percent performance tests on a limited numberof tiebacks (within each different soil unit), and 133-percent proof tests on each remaining tieback anchor. For permanent tiebacks, we also recommend that 300-percent - verification tests be performed. Kleinfelder can supply details for conducting these tests, upon request. Wall Deflection and Settlement Monitoring: We - recommend that the top -of -wall horizontal deflection and potential vertical settlement of the ground surface behind the wall be monitored by means of standard surveying techniques, in order to assess the performance of the shoring wall during construction. Settlement monitoring should include establishing settlement bench marks on the existing ground surface behind the wall. Top -of -wall horizont al deflections should be monitored along the wall at both ends, at the mid -point, and every 20 feet in between. These survey points should be monitored immediately after soldier pile installation, regularly during excavation, and on 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 10 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder I a weekly basis following complete excavation. We recommend that Kleinfelder be allowed to review this survey monitoring data as soon as it becomes available. Construction Monitoring: Because shoring walls require specialized installation and earthwork techniques to maintain stable conditions during and after construction, we strongly recommend that an Kleinfelder representative be retained to continuously monitor the installation of all soldier piles, wood lagging, and tiebacks. This monitoring would include observation and documentation of installation procedures, construction materials, drilling conditions, soil conditions, pile plumbness, as well as tieback load testing and confirmation of lock -off loads. LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared to aid Valhalla LLC in the evaluation of the site and to assist the architect and engineer in the design of the facilities, in accordance with currently accepted geotechnical engineering practice. No warranty based on the contents of this report is intended, and none shall be inferred from the statements or opinions expressed herein. Our description of the project represents our understanding of the significant aspects of the project relevant to the design and construction of earthwork, foundations and related issues. In the event that any changes in the basic design or location of the structures as outlined in this report are planned, we should be given the opportunity to review the changes and to modify or reaffirm in writing the conclusions and recommendations of this report. The scope of our services did not include any environmental assessment or investigation for the presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, surface water, groundwater or air, on or below or around this site. The analyses and recommendations represented in this report are based on the data obtained from the borings made at the locations indicated on the Site and Exploration Plan and from other information discussed herein. This report is based on the assumption that the subsurface conditions everywhere are not significantly different from those disclosed by the borings. However, variations in soil conditions may exist between the boring locations; also, general groundwater levels may fluctuate from time to time. The nature and extent of the variations may not become evident until construction. If subsurface conditions different from those encountered in the explorations are observed or encountered during construction or appear to be present 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 11 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder I beneath or beyond excavations, we should be advised at once so that we can observe and review these conditions and reconsider our recommendations where necessary. The scope of our services does not include services related to construction safety precautions and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. This report may be used only by Valhalla LLC and their design consultants and only for the purposes stated within a reasonable time from its issuance, but in no event later than one year from the date of the report. Land or facility use, on. and off -site conditions, regulations, or other factors may change over time, and additional work may be required with the passage of time. Any party other than Valhalla LLC who wishes to use this report shall notify Kleinfelder of such intended use. Based- on the intended use of the report, Kleinfelder may require that additional work be performed and that -an updated report be issued. Non-compliance with any of these requirements by the clie nt or anyone else will release Kleinfelder from any liability resulting from the use of this report by any unauthorized party and client agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless Kleinfelder from any claim or liability associated with such unauthorized use or non-compliance. Valhalla LLC is responsible to see that all parties to the project, including the designer, contractor, subcontractors, etc., are made aware of this report in its entirety. The use of information contained in this report for bidding purposes should be done -at the contractor's option and risk. Further guidelines and information -on this geotechnical report can be found in the ASFE publication entitled Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report, which is included for your reference in Appendix D of this report. CLOSURE The conclusions and recommendations provided in this supplemental letter are based, in part, on the current project conditions provided to us, our review of available geotechnical documents for the . project site, our site reconnaissance, and our interpretations and - assumptions regarding subsurface conditions. If variations in subsurface conditions are discovered during earthwork, we may need to modify this report. The future performance and integrity, of the temporary shoring systems and building foundations will depend largely on proper initial site preparation, drainage, and 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 12 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder construction procedures. Monitoring by experienced geotechnical personnel should be considered an integral part of the construction process. Kleinfelder is available to provide geotechnical inspection and testing services during the earthwork and foundation construction phases of the project. If variations in the subgrade conditions are observed at that time, we would be able to provide additional geotechnical engineering recommendations, thus minimizing delays as the project develops. We are also available to review preliminary plans and specifications before construction begins. We appreciate the opportunity to be of continued service to you. Should you have any questions concerning this letter, or if we can assist you further, please contact us at 206-654-7045. Respectfully submitted, KLEINFELDER WEST, INC. Steven Flowers, E.I.T. Staff Geotechnical Engineer Rolf B. /yyllseth, P.E., L.G. Senior Geotechnical Engineer Attachments: Figure 1 — Location/Topographic Map Figure 2A — Site & Exploration Plan Figure 3 — Cantilever and Tieback Shoring Wall Diagrams Previous Test Pit Logs TP-1 through TP-10 (Kleinfelder, July 7, 2006) Boring Logs B-1 through B-8 Grain Size Distribution Reports (10) Distribution: Valhalla, LLC c/o SGA Corporation Attn: Mr. James W. Abbott Shapiro Architects (3) Attn: Mr. Tony Shapiro 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 13 of 13 November 21, 2007 copyright 2007 Kleinfelder KLEINFELDER 2405 140th Avenue NE, Suite Al 01, Bellevue, WA 98005 (425) 562-4200 (425) 562-4201 fax X In 0 1% LL 0 4i LL Lu w X CqY#d* 0 IW&2001 Mmuff COM W&W h woftft'M Vft mww4& bw -b—C-A-pp** 0 Cooftm 2= t* Ceowmp* Dmmeftwkw I= An ea'a Nsw�. a lftw4wa. V� A01" 5V N:t *toScale K L E I N F E L D E R 2405 140th Avenue NE, Sulte A101 Bellevue, WA 98005-1877 PH: (425) 562-4200 FAX: (425) 562-4201 www.kisinfelder.com I DRAWN: Nov. 2007 1 APPROVED BY.L-- I PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY: i.s. I Site Vicinity SED BY: Edmonds Mixed Use FIGURE 23012 Edmonds Way Edmonds, Washington 88607, FILE NAME: 88601 -Figures.dwg @ by lGeInfelder West Inc, 2007 -- - - - - - - - - EDMONDS WAY (S.R. 104) Legend *TP-i Previous Test Pit Number & Approximate Location +B-4 Boring Number & Approximate Location (Current Study) I DRAWN BY: NVD( i Site and Exploration Plan K L E -1 A LEVEL TIEBACK bimuLk Lr-Vr-L �SEISMIC TRAFFIC WALL TIEBACK WALL 2/3 H, 6.0 FT 0.2 H 75 PSF 25 H PSF 4 H PSF H (FT) PRESSURE ACTS OVER 25 H (ACTIVE) PILE SPACING . (WALL PSF - FACE AREA) 12 H PSF 2/3 (H-HI) (AT -REST) 0.2 H D (FT) PRESSURE ACTS OVER ONE PILE 35 (H+D) PSF (BELOW CUT ONLY) ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE LL (NO TIEBACKS), USE ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE (TRIANGULAR PRESSURE DIAGRAM) BOTH BELOW ON CUT (NO APPARENT EARTH PRESSURE). 8 FEET OR LESS, LAGGING SHOULD BE DESIGNED TO WITHSTAND 25% OF ACTIVE PRESSURE TIVE PRESSURE (PERMANENT). 'APPLIED TO PERMANENT WALLS; THEY NEED NOT BE APPLIED ON TEMPORARY WALLS. USE"ACTIVE" RESSURE FOR YIELDING WALL CONDITION, AND "AT -REST" LATERAL SURCHARGE PRESSURE FOR OF CONCRETE ENCASED PILE (ASSUMING STRUCTURAL CONCRETE); IF LEAN -MIX FILL USED BELOW fIDTH OF SOLDIER PILE. E FULLY DRAINED BY A TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT DEWATERING SYSTEM; NO HYDROSTATIC ON THE WALL. )S ON WALLS WITH BACKSLOPE, SEE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. LEVEL GROUND CONDITIONS MAY BE ITHIN A DISTANCE EQUAL TO WALL HEIGHT (H) BEHIND THE WALL FACE. MULTIPLE LEVEL TIEBACK ANCHORS PERMANENT CONCRETE WALL (SCHEMATIC, NTS) GEOCOMPOSITE DRAIN MAT (244N WIDE VERTICAL STRIPS, CENTERED BETWEEN PILES - FOOTING/ WEEP UNDERSLAB HOLE DRAINAGE SYSTEM D=10'MIN. L I R PILE WOOD LAGGING "NO LOAD NE" =TJ C. SOLDIER PILEVERTICAL CAPACITY BASE OF EXCAVATION H/4—j NOTES: 1. SOLDIER PILE Eh TO PROVIDE RE( CAPACITY (SEE D. TIEBA PILE B DIAMETER (FT) SOIL DENSETO NEGLECT 2 FT FRICTION GLACIAL T11 WITH GRAVE OU NOTES: ALLOWABLE SKIN FRICTION: 1. VERIFY 1,500 PSF (TEMPORARY) 2FT TESTS, 1,200 PSF (PERMANENT) ALLOWABLE END BEARING: 20ksf (TEMPORARY) 15ksf (PERMANENT) NOTES: 1. SKIN FRICTION AND END BEARING APPLIED TO CONCRETE ENCASED PILE DIAMETER (ASSUMING STRUCTURAL CONCRETE BELOW EXCAVATION LEVEL) DRAWN BY: J.s. Cantilever and Tieback Aftm- - --a_ __ am&_ so ofts - ___ - K LE I N SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART SYMBOLS TYPICAL MAJOR DIVISIONS GRAPH I LETTER DESCRIPTIONS IL- WELL -GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - CLEAN GW SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO GRAVEL GRAVELS FINES AND GRAVELLY (LITTLE OR NO FINES) 0 Gp POORLY -GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE SOILS '00,00 r*l � . f% � - OR NO FINES COARSE GRAVELS WITH GM SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - GRAINED MORE THAN 50% FINES 60 (D 00 2-,\ 0 - SILT MIXTURES SOILS OF COARSE elx.l- FRACTION K,67 RETAINED ON NO. (APPRECIABLE AMOU GC CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - 4 SIEVE OF FINES) CLAY MIXTURES sw WELL -GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY CLEAN SANDS SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES SAND MORETHAN50% AND (LITTLE OR NO FINES) OF MATERIAL IS s% P POORLY -GRADED SANDS, LARGER THAN NO. SANDY GRAVELLY SAND, LITTLE OR NO 200 SIEVE SIZE SOILS FINES MORE THAN 50% SANDS WITH SM SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT OF COARSE FINES MIXTURES FRACTION PASSING ON NO. 4 SIEVE (APPRECIABLE AMOUNT SC CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY OF FINES) MIXTURES INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE M L SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO SILTS C L MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY FINE LIQUID LIMIT AND CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY LESS THAN 50 CLAYS CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS — — — GRAINED SOILS — — — 0 L ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC — — — SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR M H DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR MORE THAN 50% SILTY SOILS OF MATERIAL IS C H INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH SMALLER THAN NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE SILTS LIQUID LIMIT AND GREATER THAN 50 PLASTICITY CLAYS 0 H ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS NOTE: DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS kKLEINFELDER 14 Copvdght 2006 SOIL CLASSIFICATION LEGEND Project # 71716 APPENDIX A ca Uj t; 0 5- 10- 12 SOIL DESCRIPTION z z (A Surface: Grass OTHER TESTS* SM ,2 inches of TOPSOIL. SILTY SAND (SM): brown -red, moist, medium dense, fine to medium sand, some fine to coarse gravel, some rootlets and organic seams approximately I inch thick. &Ei�j RE. TIY?�.Sl UL Q_QV— LD_ VI"" — — — — - SILTY SAND (SM): brown, moist, very dense, Cin tj' medium sand, some fine to coarse gravel. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) SP SAND (SP): brown, moist, very dense, fine to coarse sand, trace fine to coarse gravel, trace silt. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) Grades to some fine to coarse gravel. 2 Testpit terminated at 12 feet bgs. Groundwater seepage was not observed at the time of excavation. The testpit was backfilled with excavated material. DATE EXCAVATED:5/24/2006 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION:187 LOGGED BY: S. Flowers REVIEWED BYBob Plum EQUIPMENT: Cat 416C backhoe +SAMPLE TYPE: P Bulk Grab U Shelby Tube *TESTS: m=moisture Content('16), D=Dry Density(pqfi, Tv=Torvane, n I PP=Pocket Penetrometer, G=Grain Size, AM'SKLEINFELDER GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGIIS SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING Edmonds Mixed Use 23012 Edmonds Way, Edmonds WA 98020 Appendix A-2 PROJECT NO. 71716 8 F- LU N CL U3 Uj 16 0 5- 10- 12 SOIL DESCRIPTION w-j .0 W ;-.) z Surface: Grass, gravel with sand & silt 4 Z OTHER TESTS* z z rz Z SM '.,,2 inches of TOPSOIL. SILTY SAND (SM): brown, moist, loose to medium dense, fine to medium sand, trace fine to coarse gravel, seams of sand and organics, some rootlets. (WEAT REQ.QL Tly?�.S[-D LUL ------ _J_ . . . . . . SILTY SAND (SM): brown, moist, very dense, fine to medium sand, trace fine to coarse gravel. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) SP SAND (SP): brown, moist, very dense, fine to coarse sand, trace fine to coarse gravel, trace silt. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) Observed rootlets to approximately 7 feet bgs. Grades to some fine to coarse gravel. Testpit terminated at 12 feet bgs. Groundwater seepage was not observed at the time of excavation. The testpit was backfilled with excavated material. DATE EXCAVATED:5/24/2006 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION:191 REVIEWED BYBob Plum + SAMPLE TYPE: M Bulk I Grab H Shelby Tube IMSKLEINFELDER GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENG0 SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING PROJECT NO. 71716 LOGGED BY: S. Flowers EQUIPMENT: Cat 416C backhoe *TESTS: m=moisture Content(Ilo), D=Dry Density(pqfi, Tv=Torvane, Pp=Pocket Penetrometer, G=Grain Size, Edmonds Mixed Use 23012 Edmonds Way, Edmonds WA 98020 TEST PIT LOG TP-2 Appendix A-3 LU Uj ts 12 0 5- 10— 12 ' z CA SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface: Grass 4W U5 Z -D Z z OTHER TESTS* SM I inch of TOPSOIL. SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM): brown, moist, loose to medium dense, fine to coarse sand, fine to coarse gravel with asphalt and brick debris. (FILL) SP -- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -- SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP): red, moist, m dense, fine to coarse sand, fine to coarse gravel, some silt. (RECESSIONAL OUTWASH) Grades to brown, loose to medium dense, fine to medium sand, trace silt. S M - - 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM): gray, moist, dense to very dense, fine to medium sand, fine to coarse gravel. (GLACIAL TILL) SP - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -- SAND (SP): gray -brown, moist, very dense, fme to 2 coarse sand, some fine to coarse gravel, trace silt. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) Becomes SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP) Testpit terminated at 12 feet bgs. Groundwater seepage was not observed at the time of excavation. The testpit was backfilled with excavated material. DATE EXCAVATED:5/24/2006 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION:196 LOGGED BY: S. Flowers REVIEWED BYBob Plum EQUIPMENT: Cat 416C backhoe + SAMPLE TYPE: Bulk. Grab Shelby Tube *TESTS: m=moisture Content(Olo), D=Dry Density(pqfi, Tv=Torvane, M 1 0 Pp=Pocket Penetrometer, G=Grain Size, KLEINFELDER GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMIENTAL ENGINEERS SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING PROJECT NO. 71716 Edmonds Mixed Use 23012 Edmonds Way, Edmonds WA 98020 TEST PIT LOG'TP-3 Appendix A-4 0 5- 10- 12 z CA SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface: Grass rA W= wiz z z OTHER TESTS* SM I _to 2 inches of TOPSOIL, rootlets to 3 inches bgs. SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM): brown, moist, loose to medium dense, fine to medium sand, some fine to coarse gravel, trace coarse sand. (RECESSIONAL OUTWASH) SP SAND (SP): brown, moist, medium dense, fine to coarse sand, some fine to coarse gravel, some cobbles to 12 inches, trace silt. (RECESSIONAL OUTWASH) 2 Grades to dense. 3 SM ---- ------------------ SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM): gray, moist, very denqe, fine.- tn mar-e. snnd, fine to onar-p. gravP1 tn I 4 inches. (GLACIAL TILL) Testpit terminated at 12 feet bgs. Groundwater seepage was not observed at the time of excavation. The testpit was backfilled with excavated material. DATE EXCAVATED:5/24/2006 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 198 LOGGED BY: S. Flowers REVIEWED BYBob Plum EQUIPMENT: Cat 416C backhoe +SAMPLE TYPE: Bulk Grab Shelby Tube *TESTS: M=Moisture Contentr1q), D=Dry Density(joqj), Tv=Torvane, X I n Pp=Pocket Penetrometer, G=Grain Size, SUKLEINFELDER Edmonds Mixed Use Appendix GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONNI[ENTAL ENGINEERS 23012 Edmonds Way, Edmonds WA A-5 SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING 98020 PROJECT NO. 71716 TEST PIT LOG TP-4 Q 8 0.0- 5— SOIL DESCRIPTION 06. Z Surface: Grass z OTHER TESTS* z Z �,2 inches of TOPSOIL SILTY SAND (SM): red -brown, mois� medium dense, fine to medium sand, trace fine gravel. (WEATHERED OUTWASH) — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — SAND (SP): olive brown, moist, very dense; med um to coarse sand, some fine and coarse gravel. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) 2 3 4.5 Testpit terminated at 9.5 feet bgs. Groundwater seepage was not observed at the time of excavation. The testpit was backfilled with excavated material. DATE EXCAVATED:6/7/2006 APPROMMATEELEVATION186 LOGGED BY: S. Andrews REVIEWED BYBob Plum EQUIPMENT: Trackhoe '+SAMPLE TYPE: Bulk, Grab Shelby Tube TESTS: m=moisture Content(olo), D=Dry Density(pqj), Tv=Torvane, Pp=Pocket Penetr6meter, G . =Grain Size, G2=% Passinj? No. 200 Sieve, A =Atterbere Limits --,k4KLEINFELDER Edmonds Mixed Use Appendix 23012 Edmonds Way, Edmonds -WA GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS A - 6 . SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING 98020 PROJECT NO.71716 'TEST PIT LOG TP-'5 8 F_ >0 LU FL Cl) LU 0 5- 9 - z (A SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface: Exposed Soil, Dirt bike track (A zz Z OTHER TESTS* SM SAND (SP): brown -red, moist, medium dense, fine to coarse sand, trace fine to coarse gravel, trace organics. (WEATHERED OUTWASH) SP _`� -- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - SAND (SP): olive brown, moist, very dense, fine to coarse sand, trace silt. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) 2 3 IF Testpit terminated at 9 feet bgs. Groundwater seepage was not observed at the time of excavation. The testpit was backfilled with excavated material. DATE EXCAVATED:6/7/2006 APPRO)UMATEELEVATION:191 REVIEWED BYBob Plum + SAMPLE TYPE: P Bulk Grab Shelby Tube n 1 0 IMEKLEINFELDER GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGIT� SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING PROJECT NO. 71716 LOGGED BY: S. Andrews EQUIPMENT: Trackhoe *TESTS: M=Moisture Content(Ilo), D=Dry Density(pqq, Tv=Torvane, Pp=Pocket Penetrometer, G=Grain Size, Edmonds Mixed Use 23012 Edmonds Way, Edmonds WA 98020 Appendix A-7 F- LU C-4 (L Uj t 96 0 -M to- 12 " SOIL DESCRIPTION 96 0. Surface: Vegitation and Duff <;D z cc OTHER TESTS* z Qn - - 2 to 3 inches of TOPSOIL. ------------------------- SM SILTY SAND (SM): gray, moist, medium dense, fine to coarse sand, some fine to coarse gravel, rootlets to 4 feet bgs. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) SP SAND (SP): gray, moist, very dense, fine to coarse sand, some fine to coarse gravel, trace silt. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) 2 Testpit terminated at 12 feet bgs. Groundwater seepage was not observed at the time of excavation. The testpit was backfilled with excavated material. DATE EXCAVATED:5/24/2006 APPRO)UMATE ELEVATION: 192 LOGGED BY: S. Flowers REVIEWED BYBob Plum EQUIPMENT: Cat 416C backhoe +SAMPLE TYPE: N Bulk.. Grab n Shelby Tube *TESTS: M=Moisture Content(916), D=Dry Density(pqt), Tv=Torvane, Pp=Pocket Penetrometer, G�—Grain Size, I IMMKLEINFELDER GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING PROJECT NO. 71716 Edmonds Mixed Use Appendix 23012 Edmonds -Way, Edmonds WA -8 , 98020 A LU 0 CL �L4 eq LU 16 5- 10- 12 SOIL DESCRIPTION 0 _�w ;D Z >4 Surface: Grass z OTHER TESTS* z CA z �nz 6 inches of TOPSOIL. SILTY SAND (SM): red -brown, moist, loose, fine to SM medium sand, some fine to coarse gravel, some roots and rootlets. (FILL) SP — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -- SAND (SP): brown, moist very dense, fine to coarse sand, some firie to coarse gravel, trace silt. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) Grades to with gravel. Testpit terminated at 12 feet bgs. Groundwater seepage was not observed at the time of excavation. The testpit was backfilled with excavated material. DATE EXCAVATED:5/24/2006 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 194 LOGGED BY: S. Flowers REVIEWED BYBob Plum EQUIPMENT: Cat 416C bacichoe + SAMPLE TYPE: Bulk Grab Shelby Tube *TESTS: M=Moisture Content('16), D=Dry Density(pqfi, Tv=Torvane, M I H Pp=Pocket Penetrometer, G=Grain Size, IMEKLEINFELDER GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING PROJECT NO. 71716 Edmonds Mixed Use 23012 Edmonds Way, Edmonds WA 98020 TEST PIT LOG TP-8 Appendix A-9 CL F- U) LU 0- 5- 107 12 z �n SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface: English Ivy 4 Qn jW 0. CO �nz Z W z cc rd OTHER TESTS* 6 inches ofTOPSOIL. 11.04,* SILTY SAND (SM): brown, moist, loose, fine to medium SM sand, trace fine to coarse gravel. (RECESSIONAL OUTWASH) SM -- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM): gray, moist, very dense, fine to medium sand, fine to coarse gravel., (TILL) SP — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -- SAND (SP): brown, moist, very dense, fine to medium sand, some coarse gravel, some silt lenses. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) 2 Testpit terminated at 12 feet bgs. Groundwater seepage was not observed at the time of excavation. The testpit was backfilled with excavated material. DATE EXCAVATED:5/24/2006 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION:2 10 LOGGED BY: S. Flowers REVIEWED BYBob Plum EQUIPMENT: Cat 416C backhoe + SAMPLE TYPE: Bulk Grab Shelby Tube *TESTS: m=moisture Content('16), D=Dry Density(pcfi, Tv=Torvane, . N I n PP=Pocket Penetrometer, G=Grain Size, . A%NKLEINFELDER GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMEENTAL ENGM � SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING PROJECT NO. 71716 . Edmonds Mixed Use 23012 Edmonds Way, Edmonds WA 98020 TEST PIT LOG TP-9 Appendix A - 10 1:6. 0 5— NO SOIL DESCRIPTION W 1% Z ;;;) Surface: Grass z OTHER TESTS* z V� W� ;6z 'i I * , 3 inches of TOPSOIL. SM §10T�Y S j: brown with red i�J-t Fing, moist, loose, fine to medium sand, trace organics, some rootlets, (FILL) SP — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - SAND (SP): gray, moist medium dense, fine to coarse sand, some fine to coarse gravel, trace silt. (RECESSIONAL OUTWASH) SM SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM): gray, moist, very dense, fine to medium sand, fine to coarse gravel. (TILL) Testpit terminated at 8 feet bgs. Groundwater seepage was not observed at the time of excavation. The testpit was backfilled with excavated material. DATE EXCAVATED:5/24/2006 APPROMMATE ELEVATION:214 LOGGED BY: S. Flowers REVIEWED BYBob Plum EQUIPMENT: Cat 416C backhoe + SAMPLE TYPE: Bulk Grab Shelby Tube *TESTS: M=Moisture Content('16), D=Dry Density(pcfi, Tv=Torvane, 9 1 n PP=Pocket Penetrometer, G=Grain Size, AUKLEINFELDER Edmonds Mixed Use Appendix GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS 23012 Edmonds Way, Edmonds WA A-11 SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING 98020 PROJECT NO. 71716 TEST PIT LOG TP-10 TESTING PROGRAM U.S.C.S. LABORATORY FIELD WELL/PIEZO itl SOIL DESCRIPTION 0 CONSTRUCTION -" X 0 P� > zw 0 - CL �w Z 6 jW M ;_-) �.z a— r, 6 z 4 0 z �nz Surface: forest duff, sod and topsoil (1-3 5 z SP dense, grey -brown, dry, SAND WITH GRAVEL, fine to medium sand, fine gravel, trace silt. (RECESSIONAL OUTWASH) — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — sm very dense grey -brown, dry, SILTY SA WITH GRAVEL, fine sand, fine gravel. (GLACIAL TILL) 6.8 35 15 S1_1 -grades to very dense, grey .28 32 35 SI-2 50/3' 3115] 7.1 17 '24 SI-3 26 30 __ v —je — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ery nse, grey -brown, dry, SILTY SAN] WITH GRAVEL, fine to medium sand, fin gravel. (GLACIAL TILL) - - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -- SP very dense, grey -brown, dry, SAND WITH GRAVEL, medium sand, some silt. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) raw z z a rj E 10- zi 5 DATE DRILLED: lOr25-07 SURFACE ELEVATION (feet):213.0 It DRILLING METHOD: HSA (Track Rig) X LOGGED BY: FDR TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 50.3 'DRILLER: Boretech REVIEWED BY: Rolf Hyllseth DIAMETER OF BORING (in)S.5 in CASING SIZE: n/a Edmonds mixed use 2 Appendix 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way r k4KLEINFELDER Edmonds; Washington A-2a z GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING BORING LOG B-1 PAGE 1 of 3 PROJECT NUMBER: 88601 1 LABORATORY I FIELD*, WELL/PIEZO CONSTRUCTION 2 Z 2)— 10 SI-4 24 28 125 130 135 24 X SI-5 30 38 S1-6 25 M S1-7 38 U.S.C.S. Z SOIL DESCRIPTION *SAMPLER Cal. OD) N SPT E OD) U Core Shelby No TYPE H Split'S'p"oon Split poon Sample Tube Grab Recovery **HAM MER WEIGHT 300lbs 140lbs (30" Drop) (30" Drc p) Edmonds mixed use Appendix 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way k4KLEINFELDER Edmonds, Washington A-2b GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING BORING LOG PAGE 2 of 3 z z TESTING PROGRAM U.S.C.S. LABORATORY WELL/PIEZO t S CONSTRUCTION > zw ;;Iz z rA Z z z ow 45 37 44 N A SI-9 SOIL DESCRIPTION -moist, medium to coarse grained, one incl lens of wet, coarse sand. -grades to medium grained sand. -rock fragments and coarse grained, moist, sand. -Boring completed to 50.3 feet below ground surface. -Groundwater was not encountered during drilling. -Boring backfilled with bentonite chips. *SAMPLER Cal. (3"OD) H SPT q2" OD) K-Split n Core Shelby Grab Sample No TYPE Split - poon Tube Recovery **RAMMER WEIGHT 300lbs (30" Drop) 140 lbs (30" Drc p) Edmonds mixed use Appendix k4KLEINFELDER 232nd Ave and Edmonds'Way Edmonds, Washington A-2c GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS BORING LOG SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING fECT NUMBER: , 88601 B-1 PAGE 3 of 3 TESTING PROGRAM U.S.C.S. LABORATORY FIELD 0 0 > WELL/PIEZ W Q q It SOIL DESCRIPTION CONSTRUCTION > W� : = ZW W = W W E- E-Z a 4 cnz z 0 cz W Ln e! = 20 0 Surface: forest duff, sod and topsoil (1-3 inches) E. I z SM medium dense, light brown, dry, SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, fine to medium sand, fine gravel. (WEATHERED GLACIAL TILL) 5 - 16 S24 - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — very dense, light grey -brown, dry, SILTY 34 SAND WITH GRAVEL, fine sand, fine gravel. 36 (GLACIAL TILL) 10- 6.3 24 31 S2-2 -grades to fine to medium sand 50 12 -Boring terminated at 12 feet below grouni surface due to auger refusal. -Groundwater was not encountered during drilling. -Boring backfilled with bentonite chips. DATE DRILLED: 10-29-07 SURFACE ELEVATION (feet):212.0 ft DRILLING METHOD:HSA (Portable Acker Rig) LOGGED BY: FDR TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 12.0 DRILLER: Boretech REVIEWED BY: Rolf Hyllseth DIAMETER OF BORING (in)5.5 in CASING SIZE: n/a Edmonds mixed use D Appendix 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way KIKLEINFELDER Edmonds, Washington M A - 3 z GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS 5 n SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING BORING LOG PAGE I of I I ,& WELL/PIEZO LABORATORY I FIELD E W wag E CONSTRUCTION > zw .4w Z 3 12, P: O'B �n �nz Z. 0 kl� _110 115 11.5 DATE DRILLED: 10-25-07 LOGGED BY: FDR REVIEWED BY: Rolf Hyllseth U.S.C.S. SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface: bare ground SP medium dense, grey -brown, moist, SAND WITH GRAVEL, trace silt, medium sandi, trace organics (rootlets). (RECESSIONAL OUTWASH) -medium to coarse grained sand, moist. grades dense, wet, fine to medium grained s d silt. an some grades to very dense, moist, firie to coarse sand, trace silt -grades to dry to moist SURFACE ELEVATION (feet):192.0 ft DRILLING METHOD:HSA (Track Rig) TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 26.4 DRILLER: Boretech DIAMETER OF BORING (in)S.5 in CASING SIZE: n/a 14 16 X S34 18 23 15 N S3-2 33 38 7 S3-3 35 '42 X I.T. z z z 0 NE: 5 Edmonds mixed use 0 Appendix 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way KIKLEINFELDER Edmonds, Washington A-4a z GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING BORING LOG PAGE I of 2 PROJECT NUMBER: 88601 B-3 I TESTING PROGRAM WELL/PIEZO CONSTRUCTION 0z 125 ::0 :E IT, > Z 6 —6 8 ot Cnz CA z U.S.C.S. z SOIL DESCRIPTION L4 X S34 -grades to moist 0/31 31 S3-5 -grades to occasional I inch (I seams of 46 fine to medium grained wet sand with silt. D/5 -Boring completed to 26.4 feet below ground surface. -Groundwater was not encountered during drilling. -Boring backfilled with bentonite chips. SAMPLER TYPE Cal. (3"OD) H Split Spoon SPT 2" OD) SPIV Core Shelby Grab Sample Tube No Recovery - "HAMMER WEIGHT 300lbs (30" Drop) 140lbs (30" Drc p) Edmonds mixed use Appendix k4KLEINFELDER 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way Edmonds, Washington A-4b GEOTECtINICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS BORING LOG SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING 1 F_ PAGE 2 of 2 TESTING PROGRAM U.S.C.S. LABORATORY I FIELD WELL/PIEZO W e t: E > CONSTRUCTION ;;) X 2 Zw Pz J : q - W�z z z 0 < am CA CA Zd Z 0 I& 110 15] 51 DATE DRILLED: 10-25-07 LOGGED BY: FDR REVIEWED BY: Rolf Hyllseth SOIL DESCRIPTION grass, sod and topsoil ( WITH GRAVEL, fine to medium grained, trace organics, rootlets, 15" boulder encountered in upper foot. (FILL) 3 S4-1 -grades to light -brown, fine grained 2 2 ')P__SN - --- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — dense, light -brown, dry, SAND WITH SILT, fine to medium sand, some gravel. (GLACIAL TILL) 17 S4-2 16 25 SP — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — very dense, grey -brown, dry to moist, SAND WITH GRAVEL, fine to coarse. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) 3 S4-3 33 34 SURFACE ELEVATION (feet):200 ft DRILLING METHOD: HSA (Track Rig) TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 51.3 DRILLER: Boretech DIAMETER OF BORING (in)S.5 in CASING SIZE: n/a Edmonds mixed use Appendix 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way k4KLEINFELDER Edmonds, Washington A - 5a GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING BORING LOG IPROJE&NUMBER: -88601 B-4 I PAGE I of 3 fi" 06. TESTING PROGRAM U.S.C.S. LABORATORY I FIELD ,-W WELL/PIEZ 0 > rO - 'a . W at W9z rA q W a CONSTRUCTION 0 W�� 2 > Zw cn w W ;D �.z — z R rA Z 01 z P 2 rA Z 125 130 135 D Rip 4 SOIL DESCRIPTION 14 b4-4 25 26 31 S4-5 -grades to moist, some silt, medium-grainei 50/411 35 S4-6 -grey to grey -brown, medium to 50/51, coarse -grained, no silt 50/411 S4-7 F. *SAMPLER Cal. (3"OD) SPT 211 OD) Core Shelby Grab No TYPE Split Spoon Splitqpoon Sample Tube Recovery "HAMMER WEIGHT 300 lbs 140 lbs (30" Drop) (30" Drop) Edmonds mixed use 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way k4KLEINFELDER Edmonds, Washington GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING BORING LOG FECT NUNMER: 88601 B-4 Appendix A-5b PAGE 2 of 3 ;Tw z 06. TESTING PROGRAM U.S.C.S. T_ LABORATORY FIELD > WELIL/PIEZO SOIL DESCRIPTION ,211 CONSTRUCTION X z 'j W p.Z C6 Z cz rA z z 40 S4-8 6T. -medium-grained, trace silt 34 38 z z z 45- 32 S4-9 -medium to coarse -grained, no silt 48 24 W z z C 50 7 S4-10 -moist, fine to medium -grained, trace silt. 45 51.3- 4014 -Boring completed to 51.3 feet below ground surface. -Groundwater was not encountered during < drilling. -Boring backfilled with bentonite chips. Ll y SAMPLER Cal. (3"OD) SPT q2".OD) Core Shelby Grab No TYPE Split Spoon Split poon Sample Tube Recovery "HAMMER WEIGHT 300lbs -(30".Drop) 140lbs (30" Drc p) Edmonds mixed use Appendix 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way KLEINFELDER Edmonds Washington A-5c z GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS BORING LOG SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING N PROJECT NUMBER:`88601 B-4 PAGE 3 of 3 WELL/PIEZO > W LABORATORY I FIELD AH, W e E CONSTRUCTION 2 ZW 1w, 0z a 0 z z 0 0 110 z[15- 5.8 8.7 11 27 0 S5-1 20 V S5-2 35 38 39 K A S5-3 U.S.C.S. a SOIL DESCRIPTION Z grass, r.. on ground surface. -Groundwater was not encountered during drilling. -Boring backfilled with bentonite chips. DATE DRILLED: 10-29-07 SURFACE ELEVATION (feet):189 ft DRILLING METHOD:HSA (Track Rig) LOGGED BY: FDR TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 15.8 DRILLER: Boretech REVIEWED BY: Rolf Hyllseth DIAMETER OF BORING (in):8.5 in CASING SIZE: n/a Edmonds mixed use Appendix 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way k4KLEINFELDER Edmonds, Washington A - 6 GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING BORING LOG E_ tc PAGE I of I LABORATORY I FIELD: WELL/PIEZO CONSTRUCTION 2 4 rArn rA Oz ANN �nz 0 4 z 0 9.4 : : 10 110 115 16.5 6 V S64 13 21 22 N S6-2 28 27 28 N S6-3 35 50 U.S.C.S. SOIL DESCRIPTION grass, sod and topsoil ( -Boring completed to 16.5 feet below ground surface. -Groundwater was not encountered during drilling. -Boring backfilled with bentonite chips. DATE DRILLED: 10-25-07 SURFACE ELEVATION (feet):188 ft DRILLING METHOD: HSA (Track Rig) LOGGED BY: FDR TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 16.5 DRILLER: Boretech REVIEWED BY: Rolf Hyllseth DIAMETER OF BORING (in):8.5 in CASING SIZE: n/a Edmonds mixed use Appendix 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way 'kH KLEINFELDER Edmonds, Washington A - 7 GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING BORING LOG PAGE I of I TESTING PROGRAM U.S.C.S. LABORATORY I FIELD CA WELL/PIEZO SOIL DESCRIPTION CONSTRUCTION > 2 Zw .4 iz t Z z CP C5 zz Surface: grass, sod and topsoil (1-3 inches) z SM medium dense, brown, dry, SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, fine to medium sand, fij gravel. (FILL) SP - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - very dense, grey to grey -brown, dry, SAN WITH GRAVEL, fine to coarse sand, fine gravel. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) 3.5 6 13 S74 32 28 10- 8.0 18 13 S7-2 -grades to dense, moist, trace silt 18 16 15- 20 S7-3 -grades to moist with occasional wet lense 29 very dense, 2 inch lens of fine to medium grained sand. 26 > 2 5 DATE DRILLED: 10-25-07 SURFACE ELEVATION (feet):186 ft DRILLING METHOD: HSA (Track Rig) y - LOGGED BY: FDR TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 51.5 DRILLER: Boretech D p REVIEWED BY: Rolf Hyllseth DIAMETER OF BORING (in):8.5 in CASING SIZE: n/a Edmonds mixed use Appendix 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way KIKLEINFELDER Edmonds,'Washington A-8a GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING BORING LOG I PROJECT NUMBER: 88601 B-7 PAGE I of 3 TESTING PROGRAM U.S.C.S. LABORATORY I FIELD WELL/PIEZO > CONSTRUCTION age Zw PZ ad z 0z (01.2 Z<n Vz '70 cn 8 R 4 Z 2 125 130 I M SOIL DESCRIPTION 10 S74 -grades to medium dense. 9 6 24 S7-5 -grades to very dense, dry. 30 37 25 S7-6 -as above, thin 1/4 inch tenses fine to 39 medium grained, light brown SAND. 35 28 S7-7 39. 47 SAMPLER Cal. (3"OD) SPT q2" OD) Core Shelby Grab No TYPE Split Spoon Split poon Samp 'Tube Recovery "HAMMER WEIGHT 300lbs 140 lbs X19KLEINFELDER GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING PROJECT NUMBER: 88601 Edmonds mixed use 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way Edmonds, Washington BORING LOG B-7 Appendix A-8b PAGE 2 of 3 I u z U C6 TESTING PROGRAM LABORATORY I FIELD: FO WELL/PIEZO > CONSTRUCTION zw .4 9L. CQ cd W 5 E.Z 7 rn 0 a. 22 <;;) E. <= W3 cnz z �0 C5 Z 4 20 S74 22 38 145 150 1.5 34 N A S7-9 I I N S74 0 14 7 U.S.C.S. z SOIL DESCRIPTION -grades to wet, lenses of fine SAND WITH SILT. -grades to medium to coarse grained SAND, dry -grades to medium dense, moist to wet, medium grained sand with gravel. -Boring completed to 51.5 feet below ground surface. -Groundwater was not encountered during drilling. -Boring backfilled with bentonite chips. *SAMPLER Cal. (3"OD) r SPT q2" OD) Core Shelby Grab No TYPE Split Split poon Sample Tube Recovery "HAMMER WEIGHT 300lbs (30" Drop) 140lbs (30" Drc p) Edmonds mixed use Appendix K 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way 3 X k"KLEINFELDER § Edmonds, Washington A-8c GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS BORING LOG SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING PROJECT NUMBER: 88601 B-7 PAGE 3 of 3 TESTING PROGRAM LABORATORY I FIELD* WELL/PIEZO > UW > CONSTRUCTION 2— 2— K R '6' 0Z Z 0 5 3*1 11 1" S8_1 25 35 -j'0] 5.8 12 21 S8-2 24 28 15- 0 S8-3 21 34 16.5 - N U Ir U.S.C.S. SOIL DESCRIPTION Z Surface: grass, sod and topsoil (1-3 inches) dense, grey -brown, dry, SAND WITH GRAVEL, medium to coarse sand, fine to coarse gravel, cobbles to 4 inches in size. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) -grades to very dense. -grades to fine to medium grained. -Boring completed to 16.5 feet below ground surface. -Groundwater was not encountered during drilling. -Boring backfilled with bentonite chips. L j 5 DATE DRILLED: 10-29-07 SURFACE ELEVATION (feet):185 ft DRILLING METHOD: HSA (Track Rig) r LOGGED BY: FDR TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 16.5 DRILLER: Boretech REVIEWED BY: Rolf Hyllseth DIAMETER OF BORING (in)S.5 in CASING SIZE: n/a Edmonds mixed use Appendix 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way KLEINFELDER A- 9 Edmonds, Washington GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING BOIUNG LOG PROJECT NUMBER: 88601 B-8 PAGE 1 of I t I 100 90 80 0 cc LU 60 Z LL Z LU 0 ir LL1 40 CL 30 20 10 n Particle Size Distribution Report d 1� d T 500 100 10 1 0.1 0. 1 0.001 GRAIN SIZE mm % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT I % CLAY 0.0 19.0 46.0 35.0 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC.* PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) 1.5 in. 100.0 I in. 92.0 3/4 in. 89.0 1/2 in. 86.0 3/8 in. 84.0 #4 81.0 #8 78.0 #10 78.0 #16 75.0 #30 71.0 #40 67.0 #50 61.0 #100 46.0 #200 35.0 (no specification provided) Sample No.: SI-I Location: SoH Description Silty sand with gravel Laboratory No.: 7720 Moisture Content: 6.8% Atterberg Limits PL= LL= Pl= Coefficients D85= 11-1 D60= 0.286 D50= 0.182 D30= D15= D10= Cu= Cc= Classification USCS= SM AASHTO= Remarks Tested By: D. Erickson Checked By: J. Schwartz Entered By: B. Kochanski Source of Sample: B-1 Date: 11/19/07 Elev./Depth: 5' Client: Valhalla LLC KLEINFELDER, INC, Project: Edmonds Mixed Use Building Project No: 88601/1 Figure 100 90 80 70 cr W 60 Z Z 50 W 0 cr LU 40 a- 30 20 10 n Particle Size Distribution Report 500 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE mm % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT % CLAY 0.0 7.0 76.0 17.0 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC! PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) 3/4 !*n. 100.0 1/2!n. 100.0 3/8 in. 97.0 #4 93.0 #8 87.0 #10 86.0 #16 81.0 #30 71.0 #40 61.0 #50 45.0 #100 23.0 #200 17.0 Soil Descrii)tion Silty sand Laboratory No.: 7720 Moisture Content: 7. 1 % Atterbera Limits PL= LL= Pl= Coefficients D85= 1.75 D60= 0.415 D50= 0.334 D30= 0.201 D1 5= D10= cu= Cc= Classification USCS= SM AASHTO= Remarks Tested By: D. Erickson Checked By: J. Schwartz Entered By: B. Kochanski (no specification provided) Sample No.: SI-3 Source of Sample: B-1 Location: Date: 11/19/07 Elev./Depth: 15' Client: Valhalla LLC KLEINFELDER, INC. Project: Edmonds Mixed Use Building 11 Project No: 88601/1 Figure Particle Size Distribution Report cg 100 90 80-- 0 LLI 60 Z LL Z LLJ Cr LU 40 30 20 10 0 500 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE rnm % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT I % CLAY 0.0 12.0 64.0 24.0 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC! PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) I in. 100.0 3/4 in. 97.0 1/2 in. 91.0 3/8 in. 90.0 #4 88.0 #8 85.0 #10 85.0 #16 82.0 #30 75.0 #40 66.0 #50 52.0 #100 32.0 #200 24.0 Soil Description Silty sand Laboratory No.:7720 Moisture Content: 6.3% Afterberg Limits PL= LL= Pl= Coefficients D85= 2.00 D60= 0.364 D50= 0.285 D30= 0.133 D15= D1 O= cu= Cc= Classification USCS= SM AASHTO= Remarks Tested By: D. Erickson Checked By: J. Schwartz Entered By: B. Kochanski (no specification provided) Sample No.: S2-2 Source of Sample: B-2 Date: 11/19/07 Location: Elev./Depth: 10' Client: Valhalla LLC KLEINFELDER, INC. Project: Edmonds Mixed Use Building Project No: 88601/1 Figure % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND SILT % CLAY 0.0 14.0 72.0 .14.0 1 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC! PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) 1.5 in. 100.0 I in. 94.0 3/4 in. 94.0 1/2 in. 92.0 3/8 in. 90.0 #4 86.0 #8 81.0 #10 80.0 #16 75.0 #30 66.0 #40 57.0 #50 43.0 #100 20.0 #200 14.0 Soil Description Silty sand Laboratory No.: 7720 Moisture Content: 11.5% -Atterberci Limits PL= LL= P1= Coefficients D85= 4.11 D60= 0.467 D50= 0.354 D30= 0.215 D1 5= 0.0979 D1 O= Cu= CC= Classification USCS= SM AASHTO= I Remarks Tested By: B. Kochanski Checked By: J. Schwartz Entered By: B. Kochanski (no specification provided) Sample No.: S3-1 Source of Sample: B-3 Location: ,Date: 11/19/07 Elev./Depth: 5' Client: Valhalla LLC Project: Edmonds Mixed Use Building KLEINFELDER, INC. ILEr �ect No: 88601/1 Figure Particle Size Distribution Report d c� 1� �-.! d 100 90 80--- Lu 60 Z Z 50 LLJ L) LU 40--- IL 30 20 10 01 11, 1 11 1 11 1 1 11, 1 1 1 500 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE - mm % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT % CLAY 0.0 17.0 72.0 11.0 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC.* PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) 3/4 in. 100.0 1/2 in. 96.0 3/8 in. 94.0 #4 83.0 #8 75.0 #10 73.0 #16 66.0 #30 54.0 #40 46.0 #50 36.0 #100 17.0 #200 11.0 Soil DescriMion Poorly graded sand with silt and gravel Laboratory No.: 7720 Moisture Content: 8.7% Atterberg Limits PL= LL= P1= Coefficients D85= 5.37 D60= 0.817 D50= 0.500 D30= 0.247 D15= 0.132 D1 O= cu= Cc= Classification USCS= SP-SM AASHTO= Remarks Tested By: D. Erickson Checked By: J. Schwartz Entered By: B. Kochanski (no specification provided) Sample No.: S5-1 Source of Sample: B-5 Location: Date: 11/19/07 Elev./Depth: 5' Client: Valhalla LLC KLEINFELDER, INC. Project: Edmonds Mixed Use Building Project No: 88601/1 Figure I % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT % CL�q 0.0 20.0 70.0 10.0 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC! PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) I in. 100.0 3/4 in. 91.0 1/2 in. 88.0 3/8 in. 86.0 #4 80.0 #8 73.0 #10 72.0 #16 65.0 #30 54.0 #40 44.0 #50 30.0 #100 15.0 #200 10.0 Soil Description Well -graded sand with silt and gravel Laboratory No.: 7720 Moisture Content: 9.4% Atterberg Limits PL= LL= Pl= Coefficients D85= 8.42 D60= 0.835 D50= 0.511 D30= 0.300 D15= 0 150 D10= 0.0750 CU= 11.13 CC= 1 .4 Classification USCS= SW-SM AASHTO= Remarks Tested By: J. Schwartz Checked By: J. Mason, PE Entered By: B. Kochanski (no specification provided) Sample'No.: S64 Source of Sample: B-6 Location: 11 Client: ValhallaLLC KLEINFELDER, INC. 11 Project: Edmonds Mixed Use Building Date: 11/19/07 Elev./Depth: 5' 0 100 90 80 cc LU 0 Z U- Z 0 LU cc LU 40 CL 30 20 10 n Particle Size Distribution Report d d c! ;8; I I t I 1 1, M J Soo 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE mm % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT I % CLAY 0.0 26.0 68.0 1 6.0 1 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC! PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) I in. 100.0 3/4 in. 97.0 1/2 in. 90.0 3/8 in. 84.0 #4 74.0 #8 66.0 #10 65.0 #16 59.0 #30 46.0 #40 34.0 #50 22.0 #100 10.0 #200 6.0 Soil Description Poorly graded sand with silt and gravel Laboratory No.: 7720 Moisture Content: 3.5% Afterber-q Limits PL= LL= P1= Coeff icients D85= 10-0 D60= 1.27 D50= 0.698 D30= 0.381 D15= 0.222 D10= 0.150 ICU= 8.46 Cc= 0.76 Classification USCS= SP-SM AASHTO= Remarks Tested By: D. Erickson Checked By: J. Schwartz Entered By: B. Kochanski (no specification provided) Sample No.: S7-1 Source of Sample: B-7 Location: Date: 11/19/07 Elev./Depth: 5' Client: Valhalla LLC KLEINFELDER, INC. Project: Edmonds Mixed Use Building Project No: 88601/1 Figure 100 90 80 70 w 60 Z U_ Z 50 W 0 CC W 40 CL 30 20 10 n Particle Size Distribution Report 500 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE mm % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAISID % SILT I % CLAY 0.0 17.0 65.0 18.0 1 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC.* PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) I in. 100.0 3/4 in. 98.0 1/2 in. 93.0 3/8 in. 89.0 #4 83.0 #8 78.0 #10 77.0 #16 73.0 #30 63.0 #40 53.0 #50 40.0 #100 23.0 #200 18.0 Soil Description Silty sand with gravel Laboratory No.: 7720 Moisture Content: 8.0% Atterber-q Limits PL= LL= P1= Coefficients D85= 6.27 D60= 0.532 D50= 0.391 D30= 0.215 D1 5= D1 O= cu= Cc= Classification USCS= SM AASHTO= Remarks Tested By: D. Erickson Checked By: J. Schwartz Entered By: B. Kochanski (no specification provided) Sample No.: S7-2 Source of Sample: B-7 Location: Date: 11/19/07 Elev./Depth: 10' Client: Valhalla LLC Project: Edmonds Mixed Use Building KLEINFELDER, INC. I ILP-r-gi—ect No: 88601/1 Figure cc LIJ Z LL F- Z LLI 0 Cr LU RL 1 Particle Size Distribution Report GRAIN SIZE - mm % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT I % CLAY 0.0 22.0 1 67.0 1 11.0 1 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC.* PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) 1.5 in. 100.0 I in. 88.0 3/4 in. 88.0 1/2 in. 84.0 3/8 in. 81.0 #4 78.0 #8 73.0 #10 71.0 #16 66.0 #30 53.0 #40 42.0 #50 30.0 #100 16.0 #200 11.0 Soil Description Poorly graded sand with silt and gravel Laboratory No.: 7720 Moisture Content: 3.2% Afterbera Limits PL= LL= P1= Coefficients D85= 14.0 D60= 0.804 D50= 0.542 D30= 0.300 D15= 0.137 D1 O= Cu= Cc= Classification USCS= SP-SM AASHTO= Remarks Tested By: D. Erickson Checked By: J. Schwartz Entered By: B. Kochanski (no specification provided) Sample No.: S8-1 Source of Sample: B-8 Location: FC&iiiient: Valhalla LLC KLEINFELDER, INC. I Project: Edmonds Mixed Use Building Date: 11/19/07 Elev./Depth: 5' No: 88601/1 F! 100 90 80 70 cr L.Li 60 Z Z 50 LLI LLI 40 CL 30 20 10 n Particle Size Distribution Report 4 d d 500 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE mm % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT I % CLAY 0.0 18.0 70.0 12.0 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC.* PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) 3/4 in. 100.0 1/2 in. 98.0 3/8 in. 92.0 #4 82.0 #8 75.0 #10 74.0 #16 70.0 #30 58.0 #40 46.0 #50 32.0 #100 17.0 #200 12.0 (no specification provided) Sample No.: S8-2 Location: .Soil Description Poorly graded sand with silt and gravel Laboratory No.: 7720 Moisture Content: 5.8% Atterbera Limits PL= LL= P1= Coefficients D85= 6.07 D60= 0.646 D50= 0.471 D30= 0.283 D15= 0.122 D1 O= cu= Cc= Classification USCS= SP-SM AASHTO= Remarks Tested By: D. Erickson Checked By: J. Schwartz Entered By: B. Kochanski Source of Sample: B-8 Date: 11/19/07 Elev./Depth: 10' Client: Valhalla LLC KLEINFELDER, INC. Project: Edmonds Mixed Use Building 11 11 Project No: 88601/1 Figure E-RM WE KLEINFELDER Prepared For: Valhalla, LLC 1501 North 200th Street Shoreline, Washington 98133 Geotechnical Supplement No. I Excavation Shore Considerations Edmonds Mixed -Use Development 232 "d Street SW & Edmonds Way Edmonds, Washington 98122 Prepared By: Steven Flowers, EIT Staff Geotechnical Engineer Rolf,Hyllseth, PE, LG - Senior Geotechnical Engineer I EXPIRES 6/05/CPF "I KLEINFELDER WEST, INC. 2405 140" Ave NE, Suite 101 Bellevue, Washington 98005 (425) 562-4200 November 21, 2007 Kleinfelder Project No: 88601 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder All Rights Reserved JAN 2 8 2008 BUILDING DEPARTMENT CITY OF EDMONDS This document was prepared for use only by the client only for the purposes stated, and within a reasonable time from issuance. Non-commercial, educational and scientific use of this report by regulatory agencies is regarded as a 'fair use" and not a violation of copyright. Regulatory agencies may make additional copies of this document for internal use. Copies may also be made available to the public as required by law. The reprint must acknowledge the copyright and indicate that permission r . has been ^6 F received. k;J a %r P KLE1 N FELDER 2405 140' Avenue NE Suite A 10 1 Bellevue, WA 98005 (425) 5624200 (425) 5624201 fax November 21, 2007 Kleinfelder Project No. 88601 Valhalla, LLC c/o SGA Corporation 1501 North 2001h Street Shoreline, Washington 98133 Attention: Mr. James Abbott Subject: Geotechnical Supplement No. 1: Excavation Shoring Considerations Edmonds Mixed -Use Development 232 nd Street SW & Edmonds Way (SR 104) Edmonds, Washington 98122 Dear Mr. Abbott: Kleinfelder, Inc. (Kleinfelder) is pleased to present this letter summarizing our limited geotechnical engineering review for the construction excavation and shoring requirements at the subject site. Kleinfelder previously provided general geotechnical design recommendations for this project in our Geotechnical Investigation Report (Job No. 71716, dated July 7, 2006). The conclusions and recommendations of this supplementary engineering evaluation should only be used in conjunction with our original geotechnical evaluation for the project. The scope of work for this supplementary evaluation included a site reconnaissance visit and subsequent supplementary engineering analyses. Authorization to proceed was given by Mr. James Abbott of Valhalla, LLC (Valhalla) on October 10, 2007. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site is located at the southwest corner of Edmonds Way and 232 nd Street SW in Edmonds, Washington, as shown in Figure 1, and consists of Parcels A through F, as shown in Figure 2. In general, the site is relatively level and accessible from Edmonds Way, sloping gradually from about elevation 200 feet at the southeast end to a low of about elevation 186 feet at the northwest end. However, the western perimeter of the project site runs along an east facing steep slope area. The western property line zig-zags across the slope face, following a north -south property alignment, with surface elevations ranging fr om about 196 near the toe to 216 feet near the upper end of the 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 1 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder steep slopes. The previous structures at the site have been demolished, leaving a few relic retaining walls against the hill side. along the northwest portion of the site. The vegetation encountered on -site consisted of grass, brush, and trees. The general layout of the project site is shown on the attached Figure 2A. We understand that a mixed use retail building with below grade parking is planned in the south end of the site, while a series of town homes are planned within the northern ,portion of the site. The mixed use building is to be constructed up against the west property line. The construction excavations required for this structure will require temporary cut sloping or cantilever/tieback soldier pile shoring walls, or a combination thereof. Temporary sloping or tieback shoring wall systems will require a temporary easement from the neighboring properties to be feasible. It should be noted that two adjacent structures (a small building and garage) are located very near the property lines west of the planned mixed use building in the south end of the site. Given the close proximity of these structures, their age and susceptibility to settlement induced cracking, we recommend that a shoring wall be used to provide construction- excavation support in lieu of temporary sloping, to reduce potential settlement risks. The town homes in the northern portion of the site will be setback from the property lines, with a planned level access drive area between the structures and the slopes to the west. EXPLORATORY METHODS The surface and subsurface conditions at the project site were explored on a previous site visit for our original geotechnical evaluation, and during a recent site reconnaissance visit on October 25 and 29, 2007. The previous subsurface exploration consisted of excavating 10 test pits to a maximum depth of approximately 12-feet below the existing ground surface (bgs) at the approximate locations shown in Figure 2A. Our current supplementary study included a recent site reconnaissance visit, and additional borings advanced along the proposed temporary shoring wall location along the steep slopes on the western property boundary. Along with boring logs for these current explorations, we have also included copies of the exploration logs for the previous test pits with this letter, for convenience. The following paragraphs describe the procedures associated with the field 'explorations and field tests that were conducted for this supplementary investigation. Auger Boring Procedures The exploratory borings were advanced with a hollow -stem auger on October 25 and 29, 2007, using a limited access, track -mounted drill rig and portable acker drill rig 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 2 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder f operated by an independent drilling firm working under subcontract to Kleinfelder. A geotechnical engineer from our firm continuously observed the borings, logged the subsurface conditions, and collected representative soil samples. All samples were stored in sealed plastic jars and later transported to our laboratory for further visual examination and testing. After each boring was completed, the borehole was backfilled with a mixture of bentonite chips and soil cuttings. Throughout the drilling operation, soil samples were obtained at 2Y2- or 5-foot depth intervals by means of the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) per ASTUD-1586. This testing and sampling procedure consists of driving a standard 2-inch outside diameter steel split -spoon sampler 18 inches into the soil with a 140-pound hammer free -falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler through each 6-inch interval is counted, and.the total number of blows struck during the final 12 inches is recorded as the Standard Penetration Resistance, or "SPT blow count." If a total of 50 blows are struck within any 6-inch interval, the driving is stopped and the blow count is recorded as 50 blows for the actual penetration distance. The resulting Standard Penetration Resistance values indicate the relative density of granular soils and the relative consistency of cohesive soils. The boring logs attached to this letter describe the vertical sequence of soils and materials encountered in each boring, based primarily on our field classifications and supported by our subsequent laboratory examination and testing. Where a soil contact was observed to be gradational, our logs indicate the average contact depth. Where a soil type changed between sample intervals, we inferred the contact depth. Our logs also graphically indicate the blow count, sample type, sample number, and approximate depth of each soil sample obtained from the borings, as well as any laboratory tests performed on these soil samples. If any groundwater was encountered in a borehole, the approximate groundwater depth is depicted on the boring log. Groundwater depth estimates are typically based on the moisture content of soil samples, the wetted height on the drilling rods, and the water level measured in the borehole after the auger has been extracted. Laboratory Testing As a part of our geotechnical evaluation, we performed a series of Grain Size Analyses, and Moisture Content Determinations. The results of these laboratory tests are presented in the enclosed laboratory test reports and on the exploration logs. A general grain size analysis indicates the range of soil particle diameters included in a particular 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 3 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder sample, while a 200 wash indicates how much fines (silt and clay sized particles) that is contained in a sample. These grain size laboratory tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM:D-422 and ASTM:C-1 17. Moisture content determinations were completed in general accordance with ASTM:D-2216. The results of these laboratory tests were used to develop the soil classifications shown on the exploration logs and determine whether specific on -site soils will be suitable for re -use as structural fill. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Based on our previous site investigations, the site soils were generally disclosed in our test pit explorations to consist of medium dense sand and gravel with trace amounts of silt (Recessional Outwash), overlying dense to very dense, silty sand with varying amounts of gravel (Glacial Till) on the slope areas, and very dense sand with varying amounts of gravel and silt (Advance Outwash) within the low-lying areas of the site. No groundwater was revealed n our previous explorations. Throughout the year, groundwater levels would likely fluctuate in response to changing precipitation patterns, off -site construction activities, and changes in site utilization. The deeper borings advanced as a part of our current supplementary study generally confirmed these subsurface conditions. It should be noted that our exploration along 232nd Street also confirmed the presence of very dense Glacial Till soils in this area of the site, where temporary sloping of excavation cuts are planned. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our findings and the results of our supplemental analyses, the project is considered feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided that the recommendations of this supplementary letter are implemented. For the, planned cuts within the southwestern portion of the site (west side of mixed use building), we anticipate that temporary sloping may be used, provided that easements can be obtained and the sections adjacent to the existing neighboring structures are supported by a soldier pile and lagging shoring wall system, to limit the risk of undermining the adjacent structures. We anticipate that soldier pile and lagging shoring walls will be required to shore the vertical cuts (up to about 18 feet high) adjacent to the existing neighboring structures west of the planned mixed use building. The following text sections of this report present our specific geotechnical conclusions and - recommendations concerning temporary shoring walls, spread footings, permanent walls, and drainage systems. 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 4 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder r 6 Temporary Excavation Slope Cuts Temporary excavations should be performed in accordance with current federal, state and/or local regulations. Temporary excavations in excess of 4 feet vertical height must be sloped or supported in accordance with Part N of Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 296-155. For planning purposes, recommend the following maximum cut slope inclinations, based on the soil layers encountered within our explorations and the corresponding OSHA Soil Type classifications: Maximum Soil Type Inclination Medium Dense to Dense Sand with Gravel (Type B Soils) 1 H: 1V Dense to Very Dense Glacial Till (Type A Soils) %H:1V It should be noted that appropriate inclinations will ultimately depend on the actual soil and groundwater seepage conditions exposed in the cuts at the time of construction. It is the sole responsibility of the contractor to ensure that the excavation is properly sloped or braced for worker protection. Furthermore, it should be noted that the cut slope inclination of any overlying soil layer should not be steeper than the underlying soil layer, according to OSHA guidelines. In addition to proper sloping, the excavation cuts should be draped with plastic sheeting for the duration of the excavation to minimize surface erosion and raveling. Excavations made below the water table will likely require dewatering and/or shoring. Temporary Shoring Walls Temporary shoring walls up to roughly 18-feet high will be required to support the planned perimeter cuts along the sloping ground areas along the western property. In our opinion, a conventional, cantilever or tieback soldier pile and lagging wall would be well -suited for this purpose. A cantilever, soldier pile shoring wall typically consists of wood lagging placed between soldier piles installed in pre-augered holes backfilled with lean mix or structural concrete to a typical depth below the excavation base of about 1.5 times the wall height above grade. The practical and economical vertical height limit for a cantilevered (unsupported by soil anchors) soldier pile wall is typically on the order of 15 feet. Where the wall exceeds this practical cantilever height limit, soil tieback anchors are typically installed through the soldier piles to provide the necessary lateral support and limit lateral deflections of the wall system; such tiebacks may be installed in a single row or in a multiple row configuration. A slightly different lateral soil pressure analysis is required for each of these different wall configurations, as outlined 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 5 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder i subsequently. It should be noted that special design considerations will be required to limit wall deflection and potential ground settlement where the existing adjacent buildings are located directly on or close to the planned basement cuts. To minimize the risk of building damage, we recommend that these portions of the shoring wall be designed for the horizontal surcharge resulting from such nearby footing loads, or that the existing footing elements on these buildings be directly underpinned by the soldier pile wall system. The following recommendations are provided fordesign of soldier pile and lagging shoring walls. Pile Embedment: All soldier piles should have sufficient embedment below the final excavation level to provide adequate "kick -out" resistance to horizontal -loads. We recommend. a minimum embedment of 10 feet below the excavation base. However, deeper embedment might be needed to develop adequate vertical capacity or passive resistance at specific locations, based on a structural analysis. Drilling Conditions: Based on our explorations, we predict that the soldier pile. and grout tieback holes will encounter dense to very dense silty gravelly sand (glacial till) or dense to very dense sand with gravel/silt (Advance Outwash). Loose to medium dense overburden soils can likely be drilled without difficulties, using a conventional. auger, whereas the underlying very dense glacial till or -advance. outwash soils may. yield slower drilling rates. Although none of our explorations encountered cobbles or boulders, it should be realized that such obstructions can exist at random locations within the native deposits. Rubble could also be present within the upper fill soils. Applied Loads: Soldier piles should be designed to resist various applied loads, which can be classified as static pressures, -surcharge pressures, seismic pressures, and hydrostatic pressures. Our recommended design pressures are presented graphically on the enclosed Cantilever and Tieback Shoring Wall Diagrams (Figure 3) and are discussed in the following paragraphs. Static Pressures.- For tieback shoring walls having two or more rows of tiebacks, we generally recommend using an. apparent lateral earth pressure with a trapezoidal distribution, as shown on Figure 3. Based on th e site soils, we recommend using a peak earth pressure of 25H pounds per square foot (psf), where H is equal to the height of excavation in feet, for the uniform portion of this trapezoidal distribution. 'This static, earth pressure should be applied over the soldier pile spacing width from the top of the pile downward to the base of 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 6 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder r excavation. Below this level, an active earth pressure of 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), modeled as a fluid unit weight, should be applied over the diameter of the pile only, as shown on Figure 3. Cantilever soldier pile shoring walls (without tiebacks) are designed for the triangular active earth pressure diagram both above and below the base of excavation level, in lieu of apparent lateral earth pressures, as noted on Figure 3. Surcharge Pressures: Lateral earth pressures acting on the soldier piles should be increased to account for any surcharge loadings from traffic, construction equipment, material stockpiles, or structures that are located within a horizontal distance equal to the wall height. For simplicity, a traffic surcharge can be modeled as a uniform lateral pressure of 75 psf acting over the upper 6 feet of wall, as shown on Figure 3. Seismic Pressures: Temporary shoring walls need not be designed for seismic loads, given the relatively short duration of construction excavation and the additional load capacity "built into" the static safety factor for the wall. However, if the shoring wall is designed in combination with a permanent wall, we recommend that the lateral earth pressures be increased to account for seismic loads. These seismic pressures act over the entire back of the wall and vary with the backslope inclination, the seismic acceleration, and the wall height. For permanent walls designed for yielding conditions (allowing a wall rotation of 0.001 to 0.002 times the wall height), we recommend using a uniform horizontal seismic loading of 4H psf, based on the active state lateral earth pressure. Conversely, a non -yielding (restrained) permanent wall should be designed to withstand a uniform horizontal seismic loading of 12H psf, based on the at -rest state lateral earth pressure. The recommended seismic surcharge pressure distribution is presented graphically on Figure 3. Hydrostatic Pressures: If groundwater is allowed to saturate the soils behind the belOW7grade perimeter walls, hydrostatic pressures will act against the walls. At this site, however, we are assuming that the shoring walls will be provided with a geocomposite drainage mat system and that an under -slab drainage system will be installed to provide a permanent dewatering system for the structure. We therefore do not expect that hydrostatic pressures will develop. 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 7 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder Resisting Forces: Lateral resistance can be computed by using an appropriate allowable passive earth pressure acting over the embedded portion of each soldier pile, neglecting the upper 2 feet. The trapezoidal distribution of this allowable passive pressure can be modeled as shown on Figure 3. This passive pressure should be applied over a lateral distance equal to the pile'spacing or twice the pile diameter, whichever is less. For a level excavation base, we recommend using an allowable passive earth pressure of 375 pcf for the very dense advance outwash sand with gravel, modeled as a fluid unit weight, in the static design case; in the seismic case we recommend using an allowable passive fluid pressure of 500 pcf, as. shown on Figure 3. These allowable passive earth pressures incorporate a safety factor of 1.5 and 1.1 for the static and seismic case, respectively. Pile Capacities and Deflections: Appropriate side -friction and end -bearing capacities can be used. to determine total vertical capacities of the soldier piles that may be required to resist underpinning loads or the vertical component of the tieback loads. To estimate lateral deflections of the soldier piles, we recommend using appropriate subgrade reaction muduli. For the em bedded portion of a soldier pile bearing within the native, very dense glacial till soils or advance outwash sands, our recommended allowable design values are shown on the enclosed Figure 3 and are summarized below. The allowable values for side friction and end bearing incorporate safety factors of 1.5 and 2.0 for temporary and permanent conditions, respectively. Design Parameter Allowable Design Values Temporary Permanent Case Case Side Friction Capacity (very dense sands) 1,500 psf 1,200 psf End Bearing Capacity (very dense sands) 20 ksf 15 ksf Our recommendations regarding lagging design and installation are presented below. Wood Lagging Materials: Wood lagging is typically installed in between all soldier piles to reduce the potential for soil failure, loss of ground, and, hazardous working conditions. In our opinion, either conventional wooden timbers or reinforced. shotcrete could be 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 8 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder lu utilized as lagging at the site. For permanent applications, we recommend that all wooden timber lagging be pressure -treated. Lateral Pressures on Wood Lagging: Due to soil arching effects, temporary lagging that spans 8 feet or less need be designed for only 25 percent of the lateral earth pressure previously recommended for soldier pile design. Permanent lagging, on the other hand, should be designed for 50 percent of this same lateral earth pressure. Wood Lagging Backfill: We recommend that any voids greater than 1-inch behind the lagging be backfilled, but the backfill material should not be allowed to prevent groundwater flow. If inadequate drainage is provided behind the lagging, hydrostatic pressure will develop on the wall. Pea gravel would provide an effective lagging backfill material to promote adequate drainage, whereas concrete, cdf, or other impermeable materials are not recommended. The void spaces should be backfilled progressively as the excavation proceeds. Tieback Conflicts and Easements: Because tiebacks typically extend about 30 to 60 feet behind the excavation face, conflicts with underground utilities, as well as with adjacent structures and foundations, often arise. The project structural engineer should carefully consider the locations of such obstructions when laying out all tiebacks. Easements might be required for any tiebacks that extend onto private properties and right-of-way areas beyond the site property boundaries. It should also be realized that the City of Seattle does not typically allow permanent tiebacks to encroach on their roadway right- of-way limits. Tieback No -Load Zone: The anchor portion of all tiebacks must be located a sufficient distance behind the retained excavation face to develop resistance within a stable soil mass. We recommend that the anchorage be obtained behind a "no-load zone" defined by a plane projected upward at a 60-degree angle from the base of the excavation and set back from the excavation face a horizontal distance equal to 25 percent of the face height, as shown on Figure 3. Tieback Anchor Length and Spacing: The anchor portion of the tieback (that portion behind the no-load zone) should have a minimum length of 10 feet and should be located at least 10 feet below the ground surface, as shown on Figure 3. To avoid interactions between adjacent tiebacks, we recommend that a clear spacing of at least 5 feet be maintained along the anchor zones. 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 9 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder Estimated Tieback Adhesion: If properly grouted, we tentatively estimate that allowable concrete/soil adhesion values listed in the table below (and shown on Figure 3) for the various site soil layers may be used for the anchor portion of a tieback. These allowable adhesion values incorporate a safety factor of 1.1 and 1.5 for the temporary and permanent conditions, respectively. It should be noted, however, that the actual design values will depend on the installation method and should be confirmed by load - testing all tiebacks in the field. Soil Type Allowable Tieback Adhesion Values Temporary . Case Permanent Case Dense to Very Dense, Silty Gravelly 1,500 psf 1,200 psf Sand (Glacial Till) or Sand with gravel (Advance Outwash) Tieback Load Testing: We recommend that all tiebacks be subjected to a comprehensive testing program that will verify the integrity of individual tiebacks and provide information regarding their long-term creep characteristics. Two separate types of �tests -are appropriate for temporary tiebacks: 200-percent performance tests on a limited number of tiebacks (within each different soil unit), and 133-percent proof tests on each remaining tieback anchor. For permanent tiebacks, we also recommend that 300-percent verification tests be performed. Kleinfelder can supply details for conducting these tests, upon request. Wall.Deflection and Settlement Monitoring: We recommend that the top -of -wall horizontal deflection and potential vertical settlement of the ground surface behind the wall be monitored by means of standard surveying techniques, in order to assess the performance of- the- shoring wall during construction. . Settlement monitoring should include establishing settlement bench marks on the existing ground surface behind the wall. Top -of -wall horizontal deflections should be monitored -along the wall at both ends, at' the mid -point, and every 20 feet in between. These survey points should be monitored immediately after soldier pile installation, regularly during excavation, and on 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 10 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder 16 a weekly basis following complete excavation. We recommend that Kleinfelder be allowed to review this survey monitoring data as soon as it becomes available. Construction Monitoring: Because shoring walls require specialized installation and earthwork techniques to maintain stable conditions during and after construction, we strongly recommend that an Kleinfelder representative be retained to continuously monitor the installation of all soldier piles, wood lagging, and tiebacks. This monitoring would include observation and documentation of installation procedures, construction materials, drilling conditions, soil conditions, pile plumbness, as well as tieback load testing and confirmation of lock -off loads. LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared to aid Valhalla LLC in the evaluation of the site and to assist the architect and engineer in the design of the facilities, in accordance with currently accepted geotechnical engineering practice. No warranty based on the contents of this report is intended, and none shall be inferred from the statements or opinions expressed herein. Our description of the project represents our understanding of the significant aspects of the project relevant to the design and construction of earthwork, foundations and related issues. In the event that any changes in the basic design or location of the structures as outlined in this report are planned, we should be given the -opportunity to review the changes and to modify or reaffirm in writing the conclusions and recommendations of this report. The scope of our services did not include any environmental assessment or investigation for the presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, surface water, groundwater or air, on or below or around this site. The analyses and recommendations represented in this report are based on the data obtained from the borings made at the locations indicated on the Site and Exploration Plan and from other information discussed herein. This report is based on the assumption that the subsurface conditions everywhere are not significantly different from those disclosed by the borings. However, variations in soil conditions may exist between the boring locations; also, general groundwater levels may fluctuate from time to time. The nature and extent of the variations may not become evident until construction. If subsurface conditions different from those encountered in the explorations are observed or encountered during construction or appear to be present 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 11 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder beneath or beyond excavations, we should be advised at once so that we can observe and review these conditions and reconsider our recommendations where necessary. The scope of our services does not include services related to construction safety precautions and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques,- sequences or procedures, except as specifically described, in our report for consideration in design. This report may be used only by Valhalla LLC and their design consultants and only for the purposes stated within a reasonable time from its, issuance, but in no event later than one year from the date of the report. Land or facility use, on and off -site conditions, regulations, or other factors may change over time, and additional work may be required with the passage of time. Any party other than Valhalla LLC who wishes to use this report shall notify Kleinfelder of such intended use. Based on the intended use of the report, Kleinfelder may require that additional work be performed and that an updated report be issued. Non-compliance with any of these requirements by the client or anyone else will release Kleinfelder from any liability resulting from the use of this report by any unauthorized party and client agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless Kleinfelder from any claim or liability associated with such unauthorized use or non-compliance. Valhalla LLC is responsible to see that all parties to the project, including the designer, contractor, subcontractors, etc., are made aware of this report in its entirety. The use of information contained in this report for bidding purposes should be done at the contractor's option and risk. Further guidelines and information on this geotechnical report can be found in the ASFE publication entitled Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report, which is included for your reference in Appendix D of this report. CLOSURE The conclusions and recommendations provided, in this supplemental letter are based, in part, on the current project conditions provided to us, our review of available geotechnical documents -for - the project site, our site reconnaissance, and our interpretations and assumptions regarding . subsurface conditions. If variations in subsurface conditions are discovered during earthwork, we may need to modify this report. The future performance and integrity of the temporary shoring systems and building foundations will depend largely on, proper initial site preparation, drainage, and 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 12 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder construction procedures. Monitoring by experienced geotechnical personnel should be considered an integral part of the construction process. Kleinfelder is available to provide geotechnical inspection and testing services during the earthwork and foundation construction phases of the project. If variations in the subgrade conditions are observed at that time, we would be able to provide additional geotechnical engineering recommendations, thus minimizing delays as the project develops. We are also available to review preliminary plans and specifications before construction begins. We appreciate the opportunity to be of continued service to you. Should you have any questions concerning this letter, or if we can assist you further, please contact us at 206-654-7045. Respectfully submitted, KLEINFELDER WEST, INC. Steven Flowers, E.I.T. Staff Geotechnical Engineer /&W Rolf B. /yyllseth, 4P-.E-., . L. G. - Senior Geotechnical Engineer Attachments: Figure 1 - Location/Topographic Map Figure 2A - Site & Exploration Plan Figure 3 - Cantilever and Tieback Shoring Wall Diagrams Previous Test Pit Logs TP-1 through TP-1 0 (Kleinfelder, July 7, 2006) Boring Logs B-1 through B-8 Grain Size Distribution Reports (10) Distribution: Valhalla, LLC c/o SGA Corporation Shapiro Architects (3) Attn: Mr. James W. Abbott Attn: Mr. Tony Shapiro 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 13 of 13 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder KLEINFELDER 2405 140th Avenue NE, Suite Al 01, Bellevue, WA 98005 November 21, 2007 (425) 562-4200 (425) 562-4201 fax U) LL Lu w X 5V Not to Scale K L E I N F E L D E R Site Vicinity DRAWN BY: J.S. REVISED BY: 2405 140th Avenue NE, Suite A101 CHECKED BY: Bellevue, WA 98005-1877 PH: (425) 562-4200 FAX: (425) 562-4201 Edmonds Mixed Use FIGURE www.kleinfelder.com 23012 Edmonds Way DRAWN: Nov. 2007 Edmonds, Washington 1 APPROVED BY;-- i PROJECT NO. 88601 1 FILE NAME:88601 @ by WeInfelder West Inc, 2007 EDMONDS WAY (S.R. 104) Legend *TP-1 Previous Test Pit Number & Approximate Location * B-4 Boring Number & Approximate Location (Current Study) I DRAWN BY: J.S. Site and Exploration Plan Xw� I K L E I-N LEVEL TIEBACK WALL 0.2 H 25H PSF 0.2 H 35 (H+D) PSF (BELOW CUT ONLY) ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE bINULr_ Lr-Vr-L TIEBACK WALL 25 H PSF 1 2/3 (H-Hl) SEISMIC 4 H PSF (ACTIVE) 12 H PSF AT -REST) TRAFFIC —1 1� 6.0 FT 75 PSF H (FT) PRESSURE ACTS OVER PILE SPACING (WALL FACE AREA) D (FT) PRESSURE ACTS OVER ONE PILE LL (NO TIEBACKS), USE ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE (TRIANGULAR PRESSURE DIAGRAM) BOTH BELOW ON CUT (NO APPARENT EARTH PRESSURE). 8 FEET OR LESS, LAGGING SHOULD BE DESIGNED TO WITHSTAND 25% OF ACTIVE PRESSURE TIVE PRESSURE (PERMANENT). 'APPLIED TO PERMANENT WALLS: THEY NEED NOT BE APPLIED ON TEMPORARY WALLS. USE"ACTIVE" RESSURE FOR YIELDING WALL CONDITION, AND -AT-REsr LATERAL SURCHARGE PRESSURE FOR 1. OF CONCRETE ENCASED PILE (ASSUMING STRUCTURAL CONCRETE); IF LEAN -MIX FILL USED BELOW lIDTH OF SOLDIER PILE. E FULLY DRAINED BY A TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT DEWATERING SYSTEM; NO HYDROSTATIC ON THE WALL. )S ON WALLS WITH BACKSLOPE, SEE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. LEVEL GROUND CONDITIONS MAY BE ITHIN A DISTANCE EQUAL TO WALL HEIGHT (H) BEHIND THE WALL FACE. MULTIPLE LEVEL TIEBACK ANCHORS PERMANENT CONCRETE WALL (SCHEMATIC, NTS) H GEOCOMPOSITE DRAIN MAT (244N WIDE VERTICAL STRIPS, CENTERED BETWEEN PILES - FOOTING/ WEEP UNDERSLAB HOLE DRAINAGE SYSTEM D=10'MIN. a, 1; 1!, N _�_ SOLDIER PILE WOOD LAGGING C. SOLDIER PILEVERTICAL CAPACITY BASE OF EXCAVATION a=15-30* L _H/4— PILE B [— DIAMETER (FT) NOTES: 1. SOLDIER PILE EA TO PROVIDE RE( CAPACITY (SEE SOIL DENSE TO \, NEGLECT 2 FT FRICTION GLACIAL T11 WITH GRAVE OUTV NOTES: ALLOWABLE SKIN FRICTION: 1. VERIFY 1,500 PSF (TEMPORARY) 2 FT TESTS, 1,200 PSF (PERMANENT) ALLOWABLE END BEARING: 20kSf (TEMPORARY) 15ksf (PERMANENT) NOTES: 1. SKIN FRICTION AND END BEARING APPLIED TO CONCRETE ENCASED PILE DIAMETER (ASSUMING STRUCTURAL CONCRETE BELOW EXCAVATION LEVEL) DRAWN BY: J.s. I Cantilever and Tieback saff- an �2 K L E I N SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART SYMBOLS TYPICAL MAJOR DIVISIONS GRAPH I LETTER DESCRIPTIONS WELL -GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - CLEAN GW SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO GRAVEL GRAVELS FINES AND GRAVELLY (LITTLE OR NO FINES) 0 l_J �J 0. & POORLY -GRADED GRAVELS, GP GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE SOILS '(3 00 OR NO FINES COARSE GRAVELS WITH 0' I G. M SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - GRAINED MORE THAN 50% FINES 0() 0 SILT MIXTURES SOILS OF COARSE FRACTION RETAINED ON NO. (APPRECIABLE AMOUNT GC CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - 4 SIEVE OF FINES) CLAY MIXTURES .......... sw WELL -GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY CLEAN SANDS SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES SAND p MORE THAN 50% AND (LITTLE OR NO FINES) OF MATERIAL IS s P POORLY -GRADED SANDS. LARGER THAN No. SANDY GRAVELLY SAND, LITTLE OR NO 200 SIEVE SIZE SOILS FINES MORE THAN 50% SANDS WITH SM SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT OF COARSE FINE MIXTURES FRACTION PASSING ON NO. 4 SIEVE (APPRECIABLE AMOUNT sc CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY OF FINES) MIXTURES INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE M L SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO SILTS C L MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY FINE AND LIQUID LIMIT LESS THAN 50 CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY GRAINED CLAYS CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS SOILS 0 L ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR M H DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR MORE THAN 50% SILTY SOILS OF MATERIAL IS C H INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH SMALLER THAN NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE SILTS LIQUID LIMIT AND GREATER THAN 50 PLASTICITY CLAYS 0 H ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS L, !2_11 �61_11 1 PT PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS NOTE: DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS KLEINFELDER CopVtght 2006 SOIL CLASSIFICATION LEGEND Project # 71716 APPENDIX A LU 8 0 5- 10— 12 SOIL DESCRIPTION Z Surface: Grass z OTHER TESTS* z &t �n �nz SM .,,,2 inches of TOPSOIL. SILTY SAND (SM): brown -red, moist, medium dense, fine to medium sand, some fine to coarse gravel, some rootlets and organic seams approximately I inch thick. (WEATHERED OUTWASH) - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -- SILTY SAND (SM): brown, moist, very dense, fine to medium sand, some fine to coarse gravel. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) SP SAND (SP): brown, moist, very dense, fine to coarse sand, trace fine to coarse gravel, trace silt. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) Grades to some fine to coarse gravel. 2 Testpit terminated at 12 feet bgs. Groundwater seepage was not observed at the time of excavation. The testpit was backfilled with excavated material. DATE EXCAVATED:5/24/2006 APPROMMATE ELEVATION: 187 LOGGED BY: S. Flowers REVIEWED BYBob Plum EQUIPMENT: Cat 416C backhoe +SAMPLE TYPE: Bulk. Grab Shelby Tube *TESTS: m=moisture ContentClq), D=Dry Density(pqfi, Tv=Torvane, 0 1 n . Pp=Pocket Penetrometer, G=Grain Size, AMEKLEINFELDER GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING PROJECT NO. 71716. Edmonds Mixed Use - 23012 Edmonds Way, Edmonds WA 98020 TEST PIT LOG TP-1 Appendix A-2 8 8 CL F_ U) LU is 0- 5— to- 12 ' SOIL DESCRIPTION Z Surface: Grass, gravel with sand & silt z cc OTHER TESTS* z �n &n rnz SM ,2 inches of TOPSOIL. SILTY SAND (SM): brown, moist, loose to medium dense, fine to medium sand, trace fine to coarse gravel, seams of sand and organics, some rootlets. —(WEATHERED OUTWASH) . . . . . SILTY SAND (SM): I;rj��. In t, very dense, fine to medium sand, trace fine to coarse gravel. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) SP SAND (SP): brown, moist, very dense, fine to coarse sand, trace fine to coarse gravel, trace silt. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) Observed rootlets to approximately 7 feet bgs. V, Grades to some fine to coarse gravel. Testpit terminated at 12 feet bgs. Groundwater seepage was not observed at the time of excavation. The testpit was backfilled with excavated material. DATE EXCAVATED:5/24/2006 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 191 LOGGED BY: S. Flowers REVIEWED BYBob Plum EQUIPMENT: Cat 416C backhoe + SAMPLE TYPE: Bulk Grab Shelby Tube *TESTS: m=moistur'e Contentr1o), D=Dry Density(pqj), Tv=Torvane, M I H Pp=Pocket Penetrometer, G=Grain Size, R%RKLEINFELDER GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING PROJECT NO. 71716 Edmonds Mixed Use 23012 Edmonds Way, Edmonds WA 98020 Appendix A-3 0 5- 10- 12 11 SOIL DESCRIPTION z Surface: Grass z OTHER TESTS* z rA Q6 Z sm \1 inch of TOPSOIL. SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM): brown, moist, loose to medium dense, fine to coarse sand, fine to coarse gravel with asphalt and brick debris. (FILL) SP �[ — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - SAND WITH GRAVEL (SP): red, moist, m dense, fine to coarse sand, fine to coarse gravel, some silt. (RECESSIONAL OUTWASH) Grades to brown, loose to medium dense, fine to medium sand, trace silt. Sm — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -- SILTY SAND. WITH GRAVEL (SM): gray, moist, dense to very dense, fine to medium sand, fine to coarse gravel. (GLACIAL TILL) SP --- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -- SAND (SP): gray -brown, moist, very dense, fine to 2 coarse sand, some fine to coarse gravel, trace si (ADVANCE OUTWASH) ecomes AND WITH GRAVEL (SP) Testpit terminated at 12 feet bgs. Groundwater seepage was not observed at the time of excavation. The testpit was backfilled with excavated material. DATE EXCAVATED:5/24/2006 APPRO)UMATE ELEVATION: 196 LOGGED BY: S. Flowers REVIEWED BYBob Plum EQUIPMENT: Cat 416C backhoe SAMPLE TYPE: Bulk Grab Shelby Tube *TESTS: m=moisture Content(loo), D=Dry Density(pqfi, Tv=Torvane, . I a PP=Pocket Penetrometer, G=Grain Size, . IM, E KLEINFELDER GE&ECHNICAL AND ENVIRONNtENTAL ENGINEERS SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING Edmonds Mixed Use Appendix 23012 Edmonds Way, Edmonds. WA A-4 98020 CL LU PROJECT NO. 71716 8 W 8 F- U) Uj 8 5- 10- 12 z rn SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface: Grass C6 (4 0. Qnz Z 0 OTHER TESTS* SM I _to 2 inches of TOPSOIL, rootlets to 3 inches bgs. SAND WITH SILT (SP-SM): brown, moist, loose to medium dense, fine to medium sand, some fine to coarse gravel, trace coarse sand. (RECESSIONAL OUTWASH) SP SAND (SP): brown, moist, medium dense, fine to coarse sand, some fine to coarse gravel, some cobbles to 12 inches, trace silt. (RECESSIONAL OUTWASH) 2 Grades to dense. 3 SM ----- ---------------- SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM): gray, rhoisz V"� t A-- r—P - enarse. sand fine. to coarse. grnvp. tn I 4 ' inches. (GLACIAL TILL) Testpit terminated at 12 feet bgs. Groundwater seepage was not observed at the time of excavation. The testpit was backfilled with excavated material. DATE EXCAVATED:5/24/2006 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 198 LOGGED BY: S. Flowers REVIEWED BYBob Plum EQUIPMENT: Cat 416C bacichoe +SAMPLE TYPE: Bulk Grab Shelby Tube *TESTS: m=moisture Content('16), D=Dry Density(pcfi, Tv=Torvane, X I n Pp=Pocket Penetrometer, G=Grain Size, IMSKLEINFELDER GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING PROJECT NO. 71716 Edmonds Mixed Use 23012 Edmonds Way, Edmonds WA 98020 TEST P KI Appendix FEW 0 5- 9 - z rA SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface: Exposed Soil, Dirt bike track (A W�z Z z cc 2 OTHER TESTS* SM SAND (SP): brown -red, moist, medium dense, fine to coarse sand, trace fine to coarse gravel, trace organics. (WEATHERED OUTWASH) SP — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -- SAND (SP): olive brown, moist, very dense, fine to coarse sand, trace silt. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) 2 3 Testpit terminated at 9 feet bgs. Groundwater seepage was not observed at the time of excavation. The testpit was backfilled with excavated material. DATE EXCAVATED:6/7/2006 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 191 REVIEWED BYBob Plum +SAMPLE TYPE: M Bulk Grab Shelby Tube n 1 0 RWMKLEINFELDER GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING LOGGED BY: S. Andrews EQUIPMENT: Trackhoe *TESTS: M=Moisture Content('16), D=Dry Density(pqj), Tv=Torvane, Pp=Pocket Penetrometer, G=Grain Size, Edmonds Mixed Use 23012 Edmonds Way, Edmonds WA 98020 Appendix A-7 PROJECT NO. 71716 8 t�: Ljj LU 16 0- 5- 10- 12 ' SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface: Vegitation and Duff z 0 OTHER TESTS* W) Cnz — 2 to 3 inches of TOPSOIL. — — — — — — — — -- SM — — — — — — — — — — — — — SILTY SAND (SM): gray, moist, medium dense, fine to coarse sand, some fine to coarse gravel, rootlets to 4 feet bgs. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) SP SAND (SP): gray, moist, very dense, fine to coarse sand, some fine to coarse gravel, trace silt. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) 2 Testpit terminated at 12 feet bgs. Groundwater seepage was not observed at the time of excavation. The testpit was backfilled with excavated material. DATE EXCAVATED:5/24/2006 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION:192 LOGGED BY: S. Flowers REVIEWED BYBob Plum EQUIPMENT: Cat 416C backhoe + SAMPLE TYPE: M Bulk Grab 0 Shelby Tube *TESTS: M=Moisture Content('16), D=Dry Density(pqfi, Tv=Torvane, I Pp=Pocket Penetrometer, G =Grain Size, IMEKLEINFELDER GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONrVIENTAL ENGIIS SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING PROJECT NO. 71716 Edmonds Mixed Use 23012 Edmonds Way, Edmonds WA 98020 TEST PITLOG TP-7 Appendix A-8 0 5- 10- 12 SOIL DESCRIPTION a ;-.) Z Surface: Grass z OTHER TESTS* z C4 Z 6 inches of TOPSOIL. SILTY SAND (SM): red -brown, moist, loose, fine to SM medium sand, some fine to coarse gravel, some roots and rootlets. (FILL) SP -- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -- SAND (SP): brown, moist, very dense, fine to coarse sand, some fine to coarse gravel, trace silt. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) Grades to with gravel. Testpit terminated at 12 feet bgs. Groundwater seepage was not observed at the time of excavation. The testpit was backfilled with excavated material. DATE EXCAVATED:5/24/2006 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 194 LOGGED BY: S. Flowers REVIEWED BYBob Plum EQUIPMENT: Cat 416C backhoe + SAMPLE TYPE: Bulk Grab Shelby Tube *TESTS: M=Moisture Content('16), D=Dry Density(pqfi, Tv=Torvane, E 1 0 Pp=Pocket Penetrometer, G=Grain Size, RK 9 KLEINFELDER GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGD SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING Edmonds Mixed Use 23012 Edmonds Way, Edmonds WA 98020 Appendix A-9 PROJECT NO. 71716 TP-8 0 5- 10- 12 - z CA SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface: English Ivy 96 cn ;6z z '4 z cc OTHER TESTS* 6 inches of TOPSOIL. SILTY SAND (SM): brown, moist, loose, fine to medium SM sand, trace fine to coarse gravel. (RECESSIONAL OUTWASH) SM — --- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -- SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM): gray, moist, very dense, fine to medium sand, fine to coarse gravel. (TILL) SP — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -- SAND (SP): brown, moist, very dense, fine to medium sand, some coarse gravel, some silt lenses. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) 2 Testpit terminated at 12 feet bgs. Groundwater seepage was not observed at the time of excavation. The testpit was backfilled with excavated material. DATE EXCAVATED:5/24/2006 APPRO)aMATE ELEVATION:2 10 LOGGED BY: S. Flowers REVIEWED BYBob Plum EQUIPMENT: Cat 416C backhoe +SAMPLE TYPE: Bulk. Grab, Shelby Tube *TESTS: m=moisture Contentr1q), D=Dry Density(pcfi, Tv=Torvane, M I H PP=Pocket Penetrometer, G=Grain SL-e, IMSKLEINFELDER GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING Edmonds Mixed Use 23012 Edmonds Way, Edmonds WA 98020 Appendix A-10 PROJECT NO. 71716 0 5- 8 - SOIL DESCRIPTION W >- Surface: Grass z OTHER TESTS* z (A &0)z —LiEcte J�QPSOIL. �oL SM SILTY SAND FS�iT�ro�wFNN7i�Frjd —mo—ttl—ing—, m—o—ist—, loose, fine to medium sand, trace organics, some rootlets, (FILL) SP — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -- SAND (SP): gray, moist, medium dense, fine to coarse sand, some fine to coarse gravel, trace silt. (RECESSIONAL OUTWASH) SM L-- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -- SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (SM): gray, moist, very dense, fine to medium sand, fine to coarse gravel. (TILL) Testpit terminated at 8 feet bgs. Groundwater seepage was not observed at the time of excavation. The testpit was backfilled with excavated material. DATE EXCAVATED:5/24/2006 APPROMMATE ELEVATION:214 LOGGED BY: S. Flowers REVIEWED BYBob Plum EQUIPMENT: Cat 416C backhoe +SAMPLE TYPE: Bulk Grab Shelby Tube *TESTS: m=moisture Content('16), D=Dry Density(pqj), Tv=Torvane, N I n Pp=Pocket Penetrometer, G=Grain Size, IMSKLEINFELDER GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING Edmonds Mixed Use 23012 Edmonds Way, Edmonds WA 98020 Appendix A-11 PROJECT NO. 71716 WELL/PIEZO W LABORATORY I FIELD F 5, �r �z — — > CONSTRUCTION ;;1z 2 ZW W F-W W z W 16, ba zz Z 0 6.8 35 28 32 .35 1101 1 50/3 15] 7.1 17 2'4 26 30 20 5 DATE DRILLED: 10-25-07 LOGGED BY: FDR REVIEWED BY: Rolf Hyllseth si-1 SI-2 U.S.C.S. SOIL DESCRIPTION forest duff, sod and SP dense, grey -brown, dry, SAND WITH GRAVEL, fine to medium sand, fine g I tr ce silt. rave, a (RECESSIONAL OUTWASH) — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — SM very dense, grey -brown, dry, SILTY SAN] WITH GRAVEL, fine sand, fine gravel. (GLACIAL TILL) -grades to very dense, grey )P-SNF.' --je — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — very nse, grey -brown, dry, SILTY SAN] WITH GRAVEL, fine to medium sand, fin gravel. 'J (GLACIAL TILL) S1-3 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — SP very dense, grey -brown, dry, SAND WITT GRAVEL, medium sand, some silt. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) SURFACE ELEVATION (feet):213.0 ft DRILLING METHOD:HSA (Track Rig) TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 50.3 DRILLER: Boretech. DIAMETER OF BORING (in)S.5 in CASING SIZE: n/a k4KLEINFELDER GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING PROJECT NUMBER: 88601 Edmonds mixed -use Appendix 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way Edmonds, Washington A-2a .. BORING LOG PAGE I of 3 C6 TESTING PROGRAM U.S.C.S. LABORATORY FIELD 40 42 WELL/PIEZO SOIL DESCRIPTION F CONSTRUCTION -J Z,:, 5 > Z;4 ['A W 16U 6 j Iw j PZ z r C3 z 0 z 2 10 S14 24 28 z z 25- 24 SI-5 -grades to medium to coarse grained, no silt 0 30 -grades to moist, medium grained �T. 38 z z 30- 50/5" SI-6 —2 inches wet, coarse grained, over 3 inches moist, medium to coarse grained, trace silt. CA 35- caw 25 S1-7 -moist, medium grained, trace silt 38 50/5" > 40—L *SAMPLER Cal. (3"OD) SPT q2" OD) Core Shelby No Grab TYPE Split Spoon Split poon Samp Tube Recovery **tLAMMER WEIGHT 300 lbs 140 lbs (30" Drop) (30" Drc p) Edmonds mixed use Appendix 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way k4KLEINFELDER Edmonds, Washington A-2b GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS BORING LOG SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING PROJECT NUMBER: 88601 B-1 PAGE 2 of 3 LABORATORY ___ FIELD U.S C.S. ,21 WELL/PIEZO SOIL DESCPJPTION 0 CONSTRUCTION W:_z 1%�'7_r > 5 6 .j z 6 a. � 2 z a cz a 't W�z z 4 20 SI-8 -moist medium to coarse grained, one inch 37 lens of wet, coarse sand. 50/511 45- 44 Si-9 -grades to medium grained sand. 50/611 50 503 .50/3"M SI-10 -rock fragments and coarse grained, moist, Vand. Boring completed to 50.3 feet below ground surface. -Groundwater was not encountered during drilling. -Boring backfilled with bentonite chips. *SAMPLER TYPE Cal.(3"OD) Split SPTq2"OD) Split Core,, Shelby No Samp Grab poon Tube Recovery "HAMMER WEIGHT 300 lbs (30" Drop) 140 lbs (30" Drc p) Edmonds mixed use Appendix �k4KLEINFELDER 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way Edmonds, Washington A-2c A NVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS BORING LOG SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING PROJECT NUMBER: 88601 B-1 PAGE 3 of 3 LABORATORY I F1 WELL/PIEZO CONSTRU CTION 2 W Pz z z 0 96 4�:' 110 112 6.3 24 DATE DRILLED: 10-29-07 LOGGED BY: FDR REVIEWED BY: Rolf Hyllseth U.S.C.S. SOIL DESCRIPTION ,LD 8 2 �nz Z rn Surface: forest duff, sod and topsoil (1-3 inches) medium dense, light brown, dry, SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, fine to medium sand, fine gravel. (WEATHERED GLACIAL TILL) — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — T T — 16 S24 very dense, light grey -brown, dry, SILTY 34 SAND WITH GRAVEL, fine sand, fine gravel. 36 (GLACIAL TELL) -grades to fin 31 S2-2 e to medium sand 0/61 -Boring terminated at 12 feet below grouni surface due to auger refusal. -Groundwater was not encountered during drilling. -Boring backfilled with bentonite chips. SURFACE ELEVATION (feet):212.0 ft DRILLING METHOD: HSA (Portable Acker Rig) TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 12.0 DRILLER: Boretech DIAMETER OF BORING (in)5.5 in CASING SIZE: n/a Edmonds mixed use Appendix 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way k4KLEINFELDER Edmonds, Washington A - 3 GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING BORING LOG I PROJECT NUMBER: 88601 B-2 PAGE I of I LABORATORY I FIELD: F___1 U, - -N WELL/PIEZO > rA - - -" CONSTRUCTION Z z Z 0 5 10 15 11.5: 14 U.S.C.S. z coz 16 X S34 18 23 15 X S3-2 33 38 7 S3-3 35 '42 SOIL DESCRIPTION medium dense, grey -brown, moist, SAND WITH GRAVEL, trace silt, medium sand, trace organics (rootlets). (RECESSIONAL OUTWASH) -medium to coarse grained sand, moist. grades dense, wet, fine to medium grained sand, some silt. grades to very dense, moist, fine to coarse sand, trace silt -grades to dry to moist j DATE DRILLED: 10-25-07 SURFACE ELEVATION (feet):192.0 ft DRILLING METHOD:HSA (Track Rig) LOGGED BY: FDR TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 26.4 DRILLER: Boretech REVIEWED BY: Rolf Hyllseth DIAMETER OF BORING (in)S.5 in CASING SIZE: n/a 5 Edmonds mixed use 2 Appendix 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way k4KLEINFELDER Edmonds, Washington A-4a zj GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING BORING LOG PAGE I of 2 TESTING PROGRAM LABORATORY FIELD* 0 WELL/PIEZO > CONSTRUCTION ZW W W �5 V3 �. W z W ;nz z 20 125 31 M S3-5 46 U.S.C.S. Z SOIL DESCRIPTION -grades to moist .:1grades to occasional I inch (I") seams of fine to medium grained wet sand with silt. -Boring completed to 26.4 feet below ground surface. -Groundwater was not encountered during drilling. -Boring backfilled with bentonite chips. L *SAMPLER Cal. (3"OD) TYPE Split Spoon SPT 2" OD) Core Shelby Grab No Splitqpoon Sample Tube Recovery "HAMMER WEIGHT 300lbs (30" Drop) 140lbs (30" Drc p) Edmonds mixed use Appendix 2 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way k4KLEINFELDER Edmonds, Washington A-4b GEOTECRNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS BORING LOG SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING PROJECT NUMBER: 88601 B-3 PAGE 2 of 2 I I LABORATORY I FIELD U.S.C.S. WELL/PIE zo SOIL DESCRIPTION F :0, 0 CONSTRUCTION Z Z�- Z Cnz z 3 12, OWN 6 Surface: grass, sod and topsoil (1-3 inches) Z 0 SM loose, grey -brown, dry, SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, fine to medium grained, trace organics, rootlets, 15" boulder encountered in upper foot. (FILL) 5 — 3 S4-1 -grades to light -brown, fine grained 2 2 ;P-SN' -- 7.7 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - dense, light -brown, dry, SAND WITH J SILT, fine to medium sand, some gravel. (GLACIAL TILL) 10- 17 S4-2 16 25 SP - -- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - very dense, grey -brown, dry to moist, SAND WITH GRAVEL, fine to coarse. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) 15- 31 S4-3 33 34 20 DATE DRILLED: 10-25-07 SURFACE ELEVATION (feet):200 ft DRILLING METHOD: HSA (Track Rig) LOGGED BY: FDR TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 51.3 DRILLER: Boretech REVIEWED BY: Rolf Hyllseth DIAMETER OF BORING (in)S.5 in CASING SIZE: n/a Edmonds mixed use Appendix 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way Edmonds, Washington A-5a GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING BORING LOG PROJECT NUMBER: 88601 B-4 PAGE I of 3 �T. z z 0 cj ri z 4C WELL/PIEZO > LABORATORY I FIELD: to Z6 09 ww > CONSTRUCTION 'S z AV) �n a z z 5 14 S4-4 25 26 1151 1 1 36 0 S4-5 1301 1 35 0 S4-6 1311 1 1 150/4"�d S4-7 U.S.C.S. Z Con SOIL DESCRIPTION SAMPLER Cal. (3"OD) SPT q2" OD) 0 Core Shelby Grab No TYPE H Split Spoon Split poon Sample Tube Recovery "HAMMER WEIGHT 300lbs 140lbs (30" Drop) (30" Drc p) Edmonds mixed use Appendix 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way k4KLEINFELDER Edmonds, Washington A-5b GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING BORING LOG 1:6. PAGE 2 of 3 1 TESTING PROGRAM U.S.C.S. LABORATORY I FIELD: WELL/PIEZO SOIL DESCRIPTION CONSTRUCTION U> Zw W E. Z;;� — — 'e I- C6 MW 4,M 2 � M 9L. Z — 7 , C_ 7 W Z W z z z c 4 40 S4-8 -medium-grained, trace silt 34 38 45- 32 S4-9 -medium to coarse -grained, no silt 48 24 50- 27 S4-10 -moist, fine to medium -grained, trace silt. 45 014 4.3 -Boring completed to 51.3 feet below ground surface. -Groundwater was not encountered during drilling. -Boring backfilled with bentonite chips. 0 z W § LI *SAMPLER TYPE H Cal. (3"OD) Split Spoon SPT q2" OD) Split H Core Shelby Grab Samp Tube No Recovery poon "HAMMER WEIGHT 300lbs (30" Drop) 140lbs (30", Drc p) Edmonds mixed use Appendix 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way KLEINFELDER Edmonds, Washington A - 5c GEOTECHMCAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS BORING LOG SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING rECT NUMBER: 88601 B-4 PAGE 3 of 3 TESTING PROGRAM LABORATORY FIELD.* WELL/PIEZO CONSTRUCTION z Z P U Q <. 'nz �0 C� z Z 0 51 1 8.7 27 0 S54 110 z[15- 5.8 20 V S5-2 35 38 39 V S5-3 U.S.C.S. SOIL DESCRIPTION grass, sod and topsoil (1-3 inches) �T. z Z Z Z �j �T. z zo z Qn z Z z 0 -Boring completed to 15.8 feet below ground surface. -Groundwater was not encountered during drilling. -Boring backfilled with bentonite chips. DATE DRILLED: 10-29-07 SURFACE ELEVATION (feet): 189 ft DRILLING METHOD:HSA (Track Rig) LOGGED BY: FDR TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 15.8 DRILLER: Boretech REVIEWED BY: Rolf Hyllseth DIAMETER OF BORING (in)S.5 in CASING SIZE: n/a Edmonds mixed use Appendix 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way k4KLEINFELDER Edmonds, Washington A - 6 GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING BORING LOG PAGE I of I I TESTING PROGRAM LABORATORY I FIELD* 4'0 — IQ -K 4a WELL/PIEZO > 0 -v M W W04 .4w CONSTRUCTION 2 Zw 6 :6 Z r7 ;; (A 0 z W�z z 5 - 9.4 10 6 S64 13 21 10- 22 S6-2 28 27 15- 28 S6-3 35 50 16.5 U.S.C.S. SOIL DESCRIPTION grass, ground surface. -Groundwater was not encountered during drilling. -Boring backfilled with bentonite chips. DATE DRILLED: 10-25-07 SURFACE ELEVATION (feet):188 ft DRILLING METHOD:HSA (Track Rig) LOGGED BY: FDR TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 16.5 DRILLER: Boretech REVIEWED BY: Rolf Hyllseth DIAMETER OF BORING (in)S.5 in CASING SIZE: n/a Edmonds mixed use Appendix 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way k4KLEINFELDER Edmonds, Washington A - 7 GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS SOILS AND -MATERIALS TESTING BORING LOG PAGE I of I I TESTING PROGRAM LABORATORY FIELD WELL/PIEZO w6z U wag �w CONSTRUCTION -4 En7 : og 0 'n 6 91. cz c— 4n 4nz C, z 96 5 6 13 S7-1 32 28 8.0 18 11 S7-2 18 1,01 1 16 S7-3 29 1206 U.S.C.S. 0 SOIL DESCRIPTION grass, sod and topso meaium aense, orown, ury, Zi IL I I Z�Al WITH GRAVEL, fine to medium sand, gravel. (FULL) - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - T brown, dry, SAND sP F .. :... �eWjense, grey to grey DATE DRILLED: 10-25-07 SURFACE ELEVATION (feet):186 ft DRILLING METHOD:HSA (Track Rig) LOGGED BY: FDR TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 51.5 DRILLER: Boretech REVIEWED BY: Rolf Hyllseth DIAMETER OF BORING (in):8.5 in CASING SIZE: n/a Edmonds mixed use Appendix 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way k4KLEINFELDER Edmonds, Washington A-8a GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING BORING LOG B-7 PAGE I of 3 PROJECT NUMBER: 88601 1 1 1 C- C6 C6 TESTING PROGRAM U.S.C.S. LABORATORY I FIELD > WELL/PIEZO C-1 '0j 15 4. C4 W ___1 IF- 1� ';q �r �r CONSTRUCTION C40 — 2 — > ZW W .9 46' -4 1% W ;__1z W CA og 6 W E_ -et 4P cz �< = W C: �nz Q z I M-1 130 I K cc :3 z P, SOIL DESCRIPTION 10 S74 7grades to medium dense. 9 6 24 S7-5 -grades to very dense, dry. 30 37 25 S7-6 -as above, thin 1/4 inch lenses fine to medium grained, light brown SAND. 39 35 28 S7-7 39 47 *SAMPLER Cal. (3"OD) SPT 211 OD) Core Shelby Grab No TYPE Split - Vj Splitqpoon Sample Tube Recovery "HAMMER WEIG11T 300 lbs 140 lbs (30" Drop) (30" Drc p) VA A A X"V" am 1; uacr Appendix 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way 'k4KLEINFELDER Edmonds, Washington A-8b GEOTECRNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING BOWNG LOG FECT NUMBER: '88601 B-7 PAG E2of3 z Cr� z TESTING PROGRAM WELL/PIEZO CONSTRUCTION W PZ < C6 145 150 1.5 > Zw C4 W �nz CA Z 22 38 34 " S7-9 11 X S7-10 14 7 U.S.C.S. Z SOIL DESCRIPTION -Boring completed to 51.5 feet below ground surface. -Groundwater was not encountered during drilling. -Boring backfilled with bentonite chips. *SAMPLER Cal. (3"OD) SPT q2" OD) Core Shelby Grab No TYPE Split Spoon Split poon Sample Tube Recovery "HAMMER WEIGHT 300lbs (30" Drop) 140 lbs (30" Drc p) Edmonds mixed use Appendix 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way k4KLEINFELDER Edmonds, Washington A-8c GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS BORING LOG SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING 3 '41 PROJECT NUMBER: 88601 B-7 PAGE 3 of 3 TESTING PROGRAM WELL/PIEZO > CONSTRUCTION 2 rA U 0Z 0 k I UKY FILLD 4,9 _1 W '0' wag > jw ZW ag .<= CAZ Z c 5 3.2 11 20 S8-1 25 35 12 21 S8-2 24 1,01 1 .28 15- 20 21 34 :16.5 DATE DRILLED: 10-29-07 LOGGED BY: FDR REVIEWED BY: Rolf Hyllseth U.S.C.S. 0 SOIL DESCRIPTION Z Surface: grass, sod and topsoil (1-3 inches) aense, grey-orown, ary, bAiN v w i i ri GRAVEL, medium to coarse sand, fine to coarse gravel, cobbles to 4 inches in size. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) -grades to very dense. -grades to fine to medium grained. -Boring completed to 16.5 feet below ground surface. -Groundwater was not encountered during drilling. -Boring backfilled with bentonite chips. SURFACE ELEVATION (fect):185 It DRILLING METHOD: HSA (Track Rig) TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 16.5 DRILLER: Boretecb DIAMETER OF BORING (in)S.5 in CASING SIZE: n/a Edmonds mixed use Appendix 2 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way 3 k4KLEINFELDER Edmonds, Washington 9 A - 9 GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING BORING LOG 91PROJECT NUMBER: 88601 B-8 . PAGE I of I 100 90 80 70 Er W 60 Z Z 50 W cc W 40 30 20 10 A Particle Size Distribution Report I T I I I I I I I 7% Im III I INI 500 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE mm % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT % CLAY 0.0 19.0 46.0 35.0 J SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC! PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) 1.5 in. 100.0 I in. 92.0 3/4 in. 89.0 1/2 in. 86.0 3/8 in. 84.0 #4 81.0 #8 78.0 #10 78.0 #16 75.0 #30 71.0 #40 67.0 #50 61.0 #100 46.0 #200 35.0 Soil Description Silty sand with gravel Laboratory No.: 7720 Moisture Content: 6.8% Atterberg Limits PL= LL= P1= Coefficients D85= 11-1 D60= 0.286 D50= 0.182 D30= D15= D1 O= cu= Cc= Classification USCS= SM AASHTO= Remarks Tested By: D. Erickson Checked By: J. Schwartz Entered By: B. Kochanski (no specification provided) Sample No.: S I -I Source of Sample: B-1 Location: Date: I 1/ 19/07 Elev./Depth: 5' Client: Valhalla LLC KLEINFELDER, INC. Project: Edmonds Mixed Use Building Project No: 88601/1 Figure 100 90 80 7 Cr Lu 60 Z LL 1-- Z 50 LLI 0 cr_ LU 40 30 20 10 Particle Size Distribution Report buu 1uU lu I U.1 U.Ul U.L GRAIN SIZE - mm % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT I % CLAY 0.0 7.0 76.0 17.0 �J SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC.* PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) 3/4 in. 100.0 1/2 in. 100.0 3/8 in. 97.0 #4 93.0 #8 87.0 #10 86.0 #16 81.0 #30 71.0 #40 61.0 #50 45.0 #100 23.0 #200 17.0 I Soil Description Silty sand Laboratory No.: 7720 Moisture Content: 7. 1 % Atterbera Limits PL= LL= P1= . Coefficients D85= 1.75 D60= 0.415 D50= 0.334 D30= 0.201 D1 5= D10= Cu= Cc= Classification USCS= SM AASHTO= Remarks Tested By: D. Erickson Checked By: J. Schwartz Entered By: B. Kochanski (no specification provided) Sample No.: SI-3 Source of Sample: B-1 Date: 11/19/07 Location: Elev./Depth: 15' Client: Valhalla LLC KLEINFELDER, INC. Project: Edmonds Mixed Use Building _REo ect No: 88601/1 F!q�� L_ Particle Size Distribution Report 100 90 80 §J 1, 1 1 1 1 70--- J 60-- PP 5 40 30 20 0 500 100 10 1 0 1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE - mm % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT I % CLAY 0.0 12.0 1 64.0 24.0 J SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC.* PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) I in. 100.0 3/4 in. 97.0 1/2 in. 91.0 3/8 in. 90.0 #4 88.0 #8 85.0 #10 85.0 #16 82.0 #30 75.0 #40 66.0 #50 52.0 #100 32.0 #200 24.0 Soil Description Silty sand Laboratory No.:7720 Moisture Content: 6.3% Afterber-q Limits PL= LL= Pl= Coefficients D85= 2.00 D60= 0.364 D50= 0.285 D30= 0.133 D15= D10= Cu= Cc= Classification USCS= SM AASHTO= Remarks Tested By: D. Erickson Checked By: J. Schwartz L Entered By: B. Kochanski (no specification provided) Sample No.: S2-2 Source of Sample: B-2 Location: Date: 11/19/07 Elev./Depth: 10' Client: Valhalla LLC KLEINFELDER, INC. Project: Edmonds Mixed Use Building Project No: 88601/1 Figure Particle Size Distribution Report 1! d 8 4 8 100 90 80 70--- P1 I I LLJ Z LL Z LU 0 CC LU 40 0- 30 20 Nv 10 0[ 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE mm % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT I % CLAY 0.0 14.0 72.0 14.0 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC.* PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) 1.5 in. 100.0 I in. 94.0 3/4 in. 94.0 1/2 in, 92.0 3/8 in 90.0 i4 86.0 #8 81.0 #10 80.0 #16 75.0 #30 66.0 #40 57.0 #50 43.0 #100 20.0 #200 14.0 Soil Descrig)tion Silty sand Laboratory No.: 7720 Moisture Content: 11.5% Afterbern Limits PL= LL= Pl= Coefficients D85= 4.11 D60= 0.467 D50= 0.354 D30= 0.215 D1 5= 0.0979 D1 O= Cu= Cc= Classification USCS= SM AASHTO= Remarks Tested By: B. Kochanski Checked By: J. Schwartz Entered By: B. Kochanski (no specification provided) Sample No.: S3-1 Source of Sample: B-3 Location: Date: 11/19/07 Elev./Depth: 5' Client: Valhalla LLC Project: Edmonds Nfixed Use Building XLEINFELDER, INC. I Project No: 88601/1 Figure Particle Size Distribution Report d 1� d '7 100 9 0 0 cr_ Lu 60 Z LL Z LU cr_ LU 40--- (L I I I 30 20--- 10 0 500 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE mm % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT I %CL 0.0 17.0 72.0 11.0 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC.* PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) 3/4 in. 100.0 1/2 in. 96.0 3/8 in. 94.0 #4 83.0 #8 75.0 #10 73.0 #16 66.0 #30 54.0 #40 46.0 #50 36.0 #100 17.0 #200 11.0 Soil Description Poorly graded sand with silt and gravel Laboratory No.: 7720 Moisture Content: 8.7% Afterberg Limits PL= LL= P1= Coefficients D85= 5.37 D60= 0.817 D50= 0.500 D30= 0.247 D15= 0.132 D1 O= cu= Cc= Classification USCS= SP-SM AASHTO= Remarks Tested By: D. Erickson Checked By: J. Schwartz L Entered By: B. Kochanski (no specification provided) Sample No.; S5-1 Source of Sample: B-5 Location: Date: 11/19/07 Elev./Depth: 5' Client: Valhalla LLC KLEINFELDER, INC. Project: Edmonds Mixed Use Building Project No: 88601/1 Figure 100 90 80 cr Uj 6 Z LL I-_ Z 0 LU C) cc LLJ 40 CL 30 20 10 Particle Size Distribution Report S, 500 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE mm % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT % CLAY 0.0 20.0 70.0 10.0 d SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER . SPEC! PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) I in. 100.0 3/4 in. 91.0 1/2 in. 88.0 3/8 in. 86.0 #4 80.0 #8 73.0 #10 72.0 #16 65.0 #30 54.0 #40 44.0 #50 30.0 #100 15.0 #200 10.0 Soil Descrig)tion Well -graded sand with silt and gravel Laboratory No.: 7720 Moisture Content: 9.4% ..Atterbern Limits PL= LL= P1= Coefficients D85= 8.42 D60= 0.835 D50= 0.511 D30= 0.300 D1 5= 0. 150 D1 O= 0.0750 ICU= 11.13 CC= 1.44 Classification USCS= SW-SM AASHTO= Remarks Tested By: J. Schwartz Checked By: J. Mason, PE Entered By: B. Kochanski (no specification provided) Sample No.: S6-1 Source of Sample: B-6 Date: 11/19/07 Location: Elev./Depth: 5' Client; Valhalla LLC KLEINFELDER, INC. Project: Edmonds Mixed Use Building Project No: 88601/1 Figure 100 0 0 cr LU 0 Z U- 1-- Z 50 Li LU 40 CL 30 20 10 n Particle Size Distribution Report d 7 P 500 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE mm % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT % CLAY 0.0 26.0 -1 68.0 6.0 -J SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC! PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) I in. 100.0 3/4 in. 97.0 1/2 in. 90.0 3/8 in. 84.0 #4 74.0 #8 66.0 #10 65.0 #16 59.0 #30 46.0 #40 34.0 #50 22.0 #100 10.0 #200 6.0 Soil Description Poorly graded sand with silt and gravel Laboratory No.: 7720 Moisture Content: 3.5% Atterberg Limits PL= LL= Pl= Coefficients D85= 10-0 D60= 1.27 D50= 0.698 D30= 0.381 D15= 0.222 D10= 0.150 Cu= 8.46 Cc= 0.76 Classification USCS= SP-SM AASHTO= Remarks Tested By: D. Erickson Checked By: J. Schwartz Entered By: B. Kochanski (no specification provided) Sample No.: S7-1 Source of Sample: B-7 Location: Date: 11/19/07 Elev./Depth: 5' Client: Valhalla LLC KLEINFELDER, INC. Project: Edmonds Mixed Use Building Project No: 88601/1 Figure Particle Size Distribution Report 100 9 — 80 LIJ 60 Z LL Z 50--- UJ LU 40--- 30--- 20--- 10- 500 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE mm % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT % CLAY 0.0 17.0 65.0 18.0 J SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC.* PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) I in. 100.0 3/4 in. 98.0 1/2 in. 93.0 3/8 in. 89.0 #4 83.0 #8 78.0 #10 77.0 #16 73.0 #30 63.0 #40 53.0 #50 40.0 #100 23.0 #200 18.0 Soil Description Silty sand with gravel Laboratory No.: 7720 Moisture Content: 8.0% Afterberg Limits PL= LL= PI= Coefficients D85= 6.27 D60= 0.532 D50= 0.391 D30= 0.215 D1 5= D1 O= CU= Cc= Classification USCS= SM AASHTO= Remarks Tested By: D. Erickson Checked By: J. Schwartz Entered By: B. Kochanski (no specification provided) Sample No.: S7-2 Source of Sample: B-7 Location: Date: 11/19/07 Elev./Depth: 10' Client: Valhalla LLC KLEINFELDER, INC. Project: Edmonds Mixed Use Building Project No: 88601/1 Figure 100 90 80 0 Cr Lu 60 Z U- Z 0 W 0 cc LU 40 CL 30 20 10 n Particle Size Distribution Report T [,N 500 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE mm % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT % CLAY 0.0 22.0 67.0 11.0 1 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC! PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) 1.5 in. 100.0 I in. 88.0 3/4 in. 88.0 1/2 in. 84.0 3/8 in. 81.0 #4 78.0 #8 73.0 #10 71.0 #16 66.0 #30 53.0 #40 42.0 #50 30.0 #100 16.0 #200 11.0 Soil Description Poorly graded sand with silt and gravel Laboratory No.: 7720 Moisture Content: 3.2% Atterbera Limits PL= LL= P1= Coefficients D85= 14.0 D60= 0.804 D50= 0.542 D30= 0.300 D15= 0.137 D10= cu= Cc= Classification USCS= SP-SM AASHTO= Remarks Tested By: D. Erickson Checked By: J. Schwartz Entered By: B. Kochanski (no specification provided) Sample No.: S8-1 Source of Sample: B-8 Location: Date: 11/19/07 Elev./Depth: 5' Client: Valhalla LLC Project: Edmonds Mixed Use Building KLEINFELDER, INC. Project No: 88601/1 Figure Particle Size Distribution Report d In 100 90 80 70--- Cf-' LLJ Z LL F- Z 50--- LIJ LU 40 0- 30 20 10 0 500 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE mm % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT I % CLAY 0.0 18.0 70'0 12.0 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC.* PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) 3/4 in. 100.0 1/2 in. 98.0 3/8 in. 92.0 #4 82.0 #8 75.0 #10 74.0 #16 70.0 #30 58.0 #40 46.0 #50 32.0 #100 17.0 #200 12.0 Soil Description Poorly graded sand with silt and gravel Laboratory No.: 7720 Moisture Content: 5.8% Atterbera Limits PL= LL= P1= Coefficients D85= 6.07 D60= 0.646 D50= 0.471 D30= 0.283 D15= 0.122 D1 O= ICU= Cc= Classification USCS= SP-SM AASHTO= Remarks Tested By: D. Erickson Checked By: J. Schwartz Entered By: B. Kochanski (no specification provided) Sample No.: S8-2 Source of Sample: B-8 Location: � Date: 11/19/07 Elev./Depth: 10' Client: Valhalla LLC KLEINFELDER, INC. Project: Edmonds Mixed Use Building Project No: 88601/1 Figure ED 07-84 -8 �4(3�) Ml �,n � -7 0 J FFCt 11 RECEIVED DEC - 4 2007 BUILDING DEPT. IM KLEI N FELDER An employee owned company I kn K L E I N F E L D E R I I Prepared For: Valhall�, LLC 1501 North 2001h Street Shoreline, Washington 98133 Geotechnical Supplement No. I Excavation Shore Considerations Edmonds Mixed -Use Development 232nd Street SW & Edmonds Way Edmonds, Washington 98122 - Prepared By: Steven Flowers, EIT Staff Geotechnical Engineer Rolf Hyllseth, -PE, LG Senior Geotechnical Engineer 1 E)IRRES 610WO? "I KLEINFELDER WEST, INC. 2405 1401h Ave NE, Suite 101 Bellevue, Washington 98005 (425) 562-4200 November 21, 2007 Kleinfelder Project No: 88601 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder All Rights Reserved This document was prepared for use only by the client, only for the purposes stated, and within a reasonable time from issuance. Non-commercial, educational and scientific use of this report by regulatory agencies is regarded as a "fair use" and not a violation of copyright. Regulatory agencies may make additional copies of this document for internal use. Copies may also be made available to the public as required by law. The reprint must acknowledge the copyright and indicate that permission to reprint has been received. I kn'KLEINFELDER An employee owned company November 21, 2007 Kleinfelder Project No. 88601 Valhalla, LLC c/o SGA Corporation 1501 North 200th Street Shoreline, Washington 98133 Attention: Mr. James Abbott Subject: Geotechnical Supplement No. 1: Excavation Shoring Considerations Edmonds Mixed -Use Development 232nd Street SW & Edmonds Way (SR 104) Edmonds, Washington 98122 Dear Mr. Abbott: Kleinfelder, Inc. (Kleinfelder) is pleased to present this letter summarizing our limited geotechnical engineering review for the construction excavation and shoring requirements at the subject site. Kleinfelder previously provided general geotechnical design recommendations for this project in our Geotechnical Investigatio.n Report (Job No. 71716, dated July 7, 2006). The conclusions and recommendations of this supplementary engineering evaluation should only be used in conjunction with our original geotechnical evaluation for the project. The scope of work for this supplementary evaluation included a site reconnaissance visit and subsequent supplementary engineering analyses. Authorization to proceed was given by Mr. James Abbott of Valhalla, LLC (Valhalla) on October 10, 2007. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site is located at the southwest corner of Edmonds Way and 232" Street SW in Edmonds, Washington, as shown in Figure'l, and consists of Parcels A through F, as shown in Figure 2. In general, the site is relatively level and accessible from Edmonds Way, sloping gradually from about elevation 200 feet at the southeast end to a low of about elevation 186 feet at the northwest end. However, the western perimeter of the project site runs along an east facing steep slope area. The western property line zig-zags across the slope face, following a north -south property alignment, with surface elevations ranging from about 196 near the toe to 216 feet near the upper end of the 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 1 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder KLEINFELDER 2405 140th Avenue NE, Suite Al 01, Bellevue, WA 98005 (425) 562-4200 (425) 562-4201 fax steep slopes. The previous structures at the site have been demolished, leaving a few relic retaining walls against the hill side along th6 northwest portion of the site. The vegetation encountered on -site consisted of grass, brush, and trees., The general layout of the project site is shown on the attached Figure 2A. We understand that a mixed use retail building with below grade parking is planned in the south end of the site, while a series of town homes are planned within the northern portion of the site. The mixed use building is to be constructed up against the west property line. The construction excavations required for this structure will require temporary cut sloping or cantilever/tieback soldier pile shoring walls, or a combination thereof. Temporary sloping or tieback shoring wall systems will require a temporary easement from the neighboring properties to be feasible. It should be noted that two adjacent structures (a small building and garage) are located very near the property lines west of the planned mixed use building in the south end of the site. Given the close proximity of these structures, their age and susceptibility to settlement induced cracking, we recommend that a shoring wall be used to provide construction excavation support in lieu of temporary sloping, to reduce potential settlement risks. The town homes- in the northern portion of the site will be setback from the property linesi with a planned level access drive area between the structures and the slopes to the west. EXPLORATORY METHODS The surface and subsurface conditions at the project site were explored on a previous site visit for our original geotechnical evaluation, and during a recent site reconnaissance visit on October 25 and 29, 2007. The previous subsurface exploration consisted of excavating 10 test pits to a maximum depth of approximately 12-feet below the existing ground surface (bgs) at the approximate locations shown in Figure 2A. Our current supplementary study included a recent site reconnaissance visit and additional borings advanced along the proposed temporary s ' horing wall location along the steep slopes on the western property boundary. Along with boring logs for these current explorations, we have also included copies of the exploration logs for the p revious test pits with this letter, for convenience. The following paragraphs describe the procedures associated with the field explorations and field tests that were conducted for -this supplementary investigation. Auger Boting Procedures The exploratory borings were advanced with a hollow -stem auger on October 25 and 29, 2007, using a limited access, track -mounted drill rig and portable acker drill rig 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 2 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder KLEINFELDER 2405 140th Avenue NE, Suite A101, Bellevue, WA 98005 (425) 562-4200 (425) 562-4201 fax operated by an independent drilling firm working under subcontract to Kleinfelder. A geotechnical engineer from our firm continuously observed the borings, logged the subsurface conditions, and collected representative soil samples. All samples were stored in sealed plastic jars and later transported to our laboratory for further visual examination and testing. After each boring was completed, the borehole was backfilled with a mixture of bentonite chips and soil cuttings. Throughout the drilling operation, soil samples were obtained at 2Y.— or 5-foot depth intervals by means of the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) per ASTIVID-1586. This testing and sampling procedure consists of driving a standard 2-inch outside diameter steel split -spoon sampler 18 inches into the soil with a 140-pound hammer free -falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler through each 6-i nch interval is counted, and the total number of blows struck during the final 12 inches is recorded as the Standard Penetration Resistance, or "SPT blow count." If a total of 50 blows are struck within any 6-inch interval, the driving is stopped and the blow count is recorded as 50 blows for the actual penetration distance. The resulting Standard Penetration Resistance values indicate the relative density of granular, soils and the relative consistency of cohesive soils. The boring logs attached to this letter describe the vertical sequence. of soils and materials encountered in each boring, based primarily on our field class ifi cation s and supported by our subsequent laboratory examination and testing. Where a soil contact was observed to be gradational, our logs indicate the average contact depth. Where a soil type changed between sample intervals, we inferred the contact depth. Our logs also graphically indicate the blow count, sample type, sample number, and approximate depth of each soil sample obtained from the borings, as well as any laboratory tests performed on these soil samples. If any groundwater was encountered in a borehole, the approximate groundwater depth is depicted on the boring log. Groundwater depth estimates are typically based on the moisture content of soil samples, the wetted height on the drilling rods, and the water level measured in the borehole after the auger has been extracted. Laboratofy Testing As a part of our geotechnical evaluation, we performed a series of Grain Size Analyses, and Moisture Content Detenninations. The results of these laboratory tests are presented in the enclosed laboratory test reports and on the exploration logs. A. general grain size analysis indicates the range of soil particle diameters included in a particular 88601/SEA7L242.dDC Page � of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder KLEINFELDER 2405 140th Avenue NE, Suite A101, Bellevue, WA 98005 (425) 562-4200 (425) 562-4201 fax I sample,.while a 200 wash indicates how much fines (silt an d clay sized particles) that is contained in a sample. These grain size laboratory tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM:D-422 and ASTM:C-1 17. Moisture content determinations were completed in general accordance with ASTM:D-2216. The results of these laboratory tests were used to develop the soil classifications shown on the exploration logs and determine whether specific on -site soils will be suitable for re -use as structural fill. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Based on ourprevious site investigations, the site soils were generally disclosed in our test pit explorations to consist of medium dense sand and gravel with trace amounts of silt (Recessional Outwash), overlying dense to very dense, silty sand with varying amounts of gravel (Glacial Till) on the slope areas, and,very dense sand with varying amounts of gravel and silt (Advance Outwash) within the low-lying areas of the site. No groundwater was revealed n our previous explorations. Throughout the year, groundwater levels would likely fluctuate in response to changing precipitation'patterns, off -site construction activities, and changes in site utilization. The deeper borings advanced as a part of our' current supplementary study generally confirmed these sub surface conditions. It should be noted that.our exploration along 232 nd Street also confirmed the presence of very dense Glacial Till soils in this area of the site, where temporary sloping of excavation cuts are planned. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our findings and the results of our supplemental analyses, the project is considered feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided that the recommendations of this supplementary left er are implemented. For the planned cuts within the southwestern portion of the site (west side of mixed use building), we anticipate that tempora ry sloping may be used, provided that easements can be obtained and the sections adjacent to the existin g neighboring structures are supported by a soldier pile and lagging shoring wall system, to limit the risk of undermining the adjacent structures. We anticipate that soldier pile and lagging shoring walls will be required to shore the vertical cuts (up to about 18 feet high) adjacent to the existing neighboring, structures west of the planned mixed use building. The following text sections of this report present our specific geotechnical conclusions and recommendations concerning temporary shoring walls, spread footings, permanent walls, and drainage systems. 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 4 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder KLEINFELDER 2405 140th Avenue N( Suite A101, Bellevue, WA 98005 (425) 562-4200 (425) 562-4201 fax I I I .1 I I Temporary Excavation Slope Cuts Temporary excavations sh6 uld be performed in accordance with current federal, state and/or local regulations. Temporary excavations in excess of 4 feet vertical height must be sloped or supported in accordance with Part N of Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 296-155. For planning purposes, recommend the following maximum cut slope inclinations, based on the soil layers encountered within our explorations and the corresponding OSHA Soil Type classifications: Maximum Soil Type Inclination Medium Dense to Dense Sand with Gravel (Type B Soils) 1H:1V Dense to Very Dense Glacial Till (Type A Soils) %HAV It should be noted that appropriate inclinations will ultimately depend on the actual soil and groundwater seepage conditions exposed in the cuts at the time of construction. It is the sole responsibility of the contractor to ensure that the excavation is properly sloped or braced for worker protection. Furthermore, it should be noted that the cut slope inclination of any overlying soil layer should not be steeper than the underlying soil layer, according to OSHA guidelines. In addition to proper sloping, the excavation cuts should be draped with plastic sheeting for the duration of the excavation to minimize surface erosion and raveling. Excavations made below the water table will likely require dewatering and/or shoring. Temporary Shoring Walls Temporary shoring walls up to roughly 18-feet high will be required to support the planned perimete r cuts along the sloping ground areas along the western property. In our opinion, a conventional, cantilever or tieback soldier pile and lagging wall would be well -suited for this purpose. A cantilever, soldier pile shoring wall typically consists of wood lagging placed between soldier piles installed in pre-augered holes backfilled with lean mix or structural concrete to a typical depth below the excavation base of about 1.5 times the wall height above grade. The-p _�actical-anq-econoriiii�a-l�vertic6l-h�eight-�li mi't-for �a-cantilevered-(unsuppor.ted-by-soil-anchors)-s�oldiC-F—Dil&-w—alI j:sjty— f ��,5f6et. Wlie—r—etffe—wall exceeds this practical cantilever height limit, soil tieback anchors are typically installed through the soldier piles to provide the necessary lateral support and limit lateral deflections of the wall system; such tiebacks may be installed in a single row or in a multiple row co n*figuration. A slightly different lateral soil pressure analysis is required for each of these different wall configurations, as outlined 18601/SEA7L242.loc Page 5 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder KLEINFELDER 2405 140th Avenue NE, suite A101, Bellevue, WA 98005 (425) 562-4200 (425) 562-4201 fax sub . sequently. It should be noted that special design considerations will be required to limit wall deflection and potential ground settlement where the existing adjacent buildings are located directly on or close to the planned basement cuts. To minimize the risk of building damage, we recommend that these portions of the shoring wall be designed for the horizontal surcharge resulting from such nearby footing.loads, or that the existing tooting elements on these buildings be directly underpinned by the soldier pile wall system. The following recommendations are provided for design of soldier pile and lagging shoring walls. Pile Embedment: All soldier piles should have sufficient embedment below the final excavation level to provide adequate "kick -out" resistance to horizontal loads. We recommend a minimum embedment of 10 feet below the excavation base. However, deeper embedment might be needed to develop adequate vertical capacity or passive resistance at specific locations, based on a structural analysis. Drilling Conditions: Based on our explorations, we predict that the soldier pile and grout tieback holes will encounter dense to very dense silty gravelly sand (glacial till) or dense to very dense sand with gravel/silt (Advance Outwash). Loose to medium dense overburden soils can likely be drilled without difficulties, using a conventional auger, whereas the underlying very dense glacial till or advance outwash soils may yield slower drilling rates. Although none of our explorations encountered cobbles or boulders, it should be realized that such obstructions can exist at random locations within the native deposits. Rubble could also be present within the upper fill soils. Applied Loads: Soldier piles should be designed to resist various applied loads, which can be classified as static pressures, surcharge pressures, seismic pressures, and hydrostatic pressures. Our recommended design pressures are presented graphically on the enclosed Cantilever and Tieback Shoring Wall Diagrams (Figure 3) and are discussed in the following paragraphs. Static Pressures: For tieback shoring walls having two or more rows of tiebacks, we generally recommend using an apparent lateral earth pressure with a trapezoidal distribution, as shown on Figure 3. Based on the site soils, we recommend using a peak earth pressure of 25H pounds per square foot (psf), where H is equal to the height of excavation in feet, for the uniform portion of this trapezoidal distribution. This static earth pressure should be applied over the soldier pile spacing width from the top of the pile downward to the base of 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 6 of 13 November 21, 2007 copyright 2007 Kleinfelder KLEINFELDER 2405 140th Avenue NE, Suite A101, Bellevue, WA 98005 (425) 562-4200 (425) 562-4201 fax I I P I I I h I I I I P I I I I 11 I excavation. Below this. level, an active earth pressure of 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), modeled as a fluid unit weight, should be applied over the diameter of the pile only, as shown on Figure 3. Cantilever soldier pile shoring walls (without tiebacks) are designed for the triangular active earth 'pressure diagram both above and below the base of excavation level, in lieu of apparent lateral earth pressures, as noted on Figure 3. Surcharge Pressures: Lateral earth pressures acting on the soldier piles should be increased to account for any surcharge loadings fr om traffic, construction equipment, material stockpiles, or structures that are located within a horizontal distance'equal to the wall height. For simplicity, a traffic surcharge can be modeled as a uniform lateral pressure of 75 psf acting over the. upper 6 feet of wall, as shown on Figure 3. Seismic Pressures: Temporary shoring walls need not be designed for seismic loads, given the relatively short duration of construction excavation and the additional load ca' acity "built into" the static safety factor for the wall. However, if p the shoring wall is designed in combination with a permanent wall, we recommend that the lateral earth pressures be increased to account for seismic loads. These seismic pressures act over the entire back of the wall and vary.with the backslope inclination, the seismic acceleration, and the wall height. For permanent walls designed for yielding conditions (allowing a wall rotation of 0.001 to 0.002 times the wall height), we recommend using a uniform horizontal seismic loading of 4H psf, based on the active state lateral earth pressure. Conversely, a non -yielding (restrained) permanent wall should be designed to withstand a uniform horizontal seismic loading of 12H psf, based on the at -rest state lateral earth pressure. The recommended seismic surcharge pressure distribution is presented graphically on Figure 3. Hydrostatic Pressures: If groundwater is allowed to saturate the soils behind the below -grade perimeter walls, hydrostatic pressures will act against the walls. At this site, however, we are assuming that the shoring walls Will be provided with a g eocomposite drainage mat system and that an under -slab drainage system will be installed to provide a permanent dewatering system for the structure. We therefore do not expect that hydrostatic pressures will develop. 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 7 of 13 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder KLEINFELDER . 2405 140 th Avenue NE, Suite A101, Bellevue, WA 98005 November 21, 2007 (425) 562-4200 (425) 562-4201 fax . Resistinq Forces: Lateral resistance can be computed by using an appropriate allowable passive earth pressure acting over the embedded portion of each soldier pile, neglecting the upper, 2 feet. The trapezoidal distribution of this allowable passive pressure can be modeled as shown on Figure 3. This passive pressure should be applied over a lateral distance equal to the pile spacing or twice the pile diameter, whichever is less For a level excavation base, we recommend using an allowable passive earth pressure of 375 pcf for the very dense advance outwash sand with gravel, modeled as a fluid unit weight, in the static design case; in the seismic case we recommend using an allowable passive fluid pressure of 500 pcf, as shown on Figure 3. These allowable passive earth pressures incorporate a safety factor of 1.5 and 1.1 for the static and seismic case, respectively. Pile Capacities and Deflections- Appropriate side -friction and end -bearing capacities can be used to determine total vertical capacities of the soldier piles that may be required to resist underpinning loads or the vertical component of the tieback loads. To estimate lateral deflections of the soldier piles, we recommend . using appropriate subgrade reaction muduli. For the embedded portion of a soldier pile bearing within the native, very dense glacial till soils or advance outwash sands, our recommended allowable design values are shown on the enclosed Figure 3 and are summarized below. The allowable values for side friction and end bearing incorporate safety factors of 1.5 and 2.0 for temporary and permanent conditions, respectively. Design Parameter Allowable Design Values Temporary Permanent Case Case Side Friction Capacity (very dense sands) 1,500 psf 1,200 psf End Bearing Capacity (ve ry dense sands) 20 ksf 15 ksf Our recommendations regarding lagging design and installation are presented below. Wood Lagging Materials: Wood lagging is typically installed in between all soldier piles to reduce the potential for soil failure, loss of ground, and hazardous working conditions. In our opinion, either conventional wooden timbers or reinforced shotcrete could be 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 8 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder KLEINFELDER 2405 140th Avenue NE, Suite A101, Bellevue, WA 98005 (425) 562-4200 (425) 562-4201 fax utilized as lagging at the site. For permanent applications, we recommend that all wooden timber lagging be pressure -treated. Lateral Pressures on Wood Lag 9 .qin.q: Due to soil arching effects, temporary la' ging that spans 8 feet or less need be designed for only 25 percent of the lateral earth pressure previously recommended for soldier pile design. Perm anent lagging, on the other hand, should be designed for 50 percent of this same lateral earth pressure. Wood Laggin_q Backfill:.We recommend that any voids greater than 1-inch behind the lagging be backfilled, but the backfill material should not be allowed to prevent groundwater flow. If inadequate drainage is provided behind the lagging, hydrostatic pressure. will develop on the wall. Pea gravel would provide an effective lagging backfill material to promote adequate drainage, whereas concrete, cdf, or other impermeable materials are not recommended. The void spaces should be backfilled progressively as the excavation proceeds. Tieback Conflicts and Easements: Because tiebacks typically extend about 30 to 60 feet behind the excavation face, conflicts with underground utilities, as well as with adjacent structures and foundations, often arise. The project structural engineer should carefully consider the locations of such obstructions when laying out all tiebacks. Easements might be required for any tiebacks that extend onto private properties and right-of-way areas beyond the site property boundaries. It should also be realized that the City of Seattle does not typically allow permanent tiebacks to encroach on their roadway right- of-way limits. Tieback No -Load Zone: The anchor portion of all tiebacks must be located a sufficient distance behind the retained excavation face to develop resistance within a stable soil mass. We recommend that the anchorage be obtained behind a "no-load zone" defined by a plane projecte6 upward at a 60-degree angle from the base of the excavation and se t back from the excavation face a horizontal distance equal to 25 percent of the face height, as shown on Figure 3. Tieback Anchor Length and Spacing: The anchor portion of the tieback (that portion behind the no-load zone) should have a minimum length of 10 feet and should be located at least 10 feet below the ground surface, as shown on Figure 3. To avoid interactions between adj ace nt tiebacks, Lwe-recornibond-that-a-clea r-s aci ng-of-anoaist' 5 feet�be-mainta�ned-alono-tti(-�-a—nch-o-r--z-o-n-es—.--D 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 9 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder KLEINFELDER 2405 140th Avenue NE, Suite A] 01, Bellevue, WA 98005 (425) 562-4200 (425) 562-4201 fax I Estimated Tieback Adhesion: If properly grouted, we tentatively estimate that allowable concrete/soil adhesion values listed in the table below (and shown on Figure 3) for the various site soil layers may be used for the anchor portion of a tieback. These allowable adhesion values incorporate a safety factor of 1.1 and 1.5 for the temporary and permanent conditions, respectively. It should be noted, h owever, that the actual design values will depend on the install6tion method and should be confirmed by load - testing all tiebacks in the field. Soil Type Dense to Very Dense, Silty Gravelly Sand (Glacial Till) or Sand with gravel' (Advance Outwash) Allowable Tieback Adhesion Values Temporary Case 1,500 psf Permanent Case 1,200 psf Tieback Load Testing: We recommend that all tiebacks be subjected to a comprehensive testing program that will verify the integrity of individual tiebacks and provide information regarding their long-term creep characteristics. Two separate types of tests are appropriate for temporary tiebacks: 200-percent performance tests on. a limited number of tiebacks (within each different soil unit), and 133-percent proof tests on each remaining tieback anchor. For permanent tiebacks, we also recommend that 300-percent verification tests be performed. Kleinfelder can supply details for conducting these tests, upon request. Wall Deflection and Settlement Monitorinj. We recommend that the top -of -wall horizontal deflection and potential vertical settlement of the ground surface behind the wall be monitored by.means of standard surveying techniques, in order to assess the performance of the shoring wall during construction. Settlement monitoring should include establishing settlement bench marks on -the existing ground surface behind the wall. Top -of -Wall horizonta I deflections should be monitored along the wall at both ends, at the mid -point, and every 20 feet in between. These survey points should be monitored immediately after soldier pile installation, regularly during excavation, and on 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 10 of 13 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder KLEINFELDER 2405 140th Avenue NE, SUite Al 01, �ellevue, WA 98005 November 21, 2007 (425) 562-4200 (425.) 562-4201 fax i a, weekly basis following complete excavation. We recommend that Kleinfelder be allowed to review this survey monitoring data as soon as it becomes available. Construction Monitoring: Because shoring walls require specialized installation and earthwork techniques to maintain stable conditions during and after construction, we strongly recommend that an Kleinfelder representative be retained to continuously monitor the installation of all soldier piles, wood lagging, and tiebacks. This monitoring would include observation and documentation of installation procedures, construction materials, drilling conditions, soil conditions, pile plumbness, as well as tieback load testing and confirmation of lock -off loads. LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared to aid Valhalla- LLC in the evaluation of the site and to assist the architect and engineer in the design of the facilities, in accordance with currently accepted geotechnical engineering practice. No warranty based on the contents of this report is intended, and none shall be inferred from the statements or opinions expressed herein. Our description of the project represents our understanding of the significant aspects of the project relevant to the design and construction of earthwork, foundations and related issues. - In the event that any changes in the basic design o r location of the structures as outlined in this report are planned, we should be given the opportunity to review the changes and to modify or reaffirm in writing the conclusions and recommendations of this report. The scope of our services did not include any environmental assessment or investigation for the presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, surface water, groundwater or air, on or below�or around this site. The analyses and recommendations represented in this report are based on the data obtained from the borings made at the locations indicated on the' Site and Explora tion Plan and from other information discussed herein. This report is based on the assumption that the subsurface conditions everywhere are not significantly different from those disclosed by the borings. However, variations in soil conditions may exist between the boring locations; also, general groundwater levels may fluctuate from time to time. The nature and extent of the variations may not become evident until construction. If subsurface conditions different from those encountered in the explorations are observed or encountered during construction or appear to be present 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 11 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder KLEINFELDER 2405 140th Avenue NE, Suite A101, Bellevue, WA 98005 (425) 562-4200 (425) 562-4201 fax beneath or beyond excavations, we should be. advised at once so that we can observe and review these conditions and reconsider our recommendations where necessary. The scope of our services does not include services related to construction safety precautions and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. This report may be used only by Valhalla LLC and their design consultants and only for the purposes stated within a reasonable time from its issuance, but in no event later than one year from the date of the report. Land or facility use, on and off -site conditions, regulations, or other factors may change over time, and additional work, may be required with the passage of time. Any party other than Valhalla LLC who wishes to use this report shall notify Kleinfelder of such intended use. Based on the intended use of the report, Kleinfelder may require t hat additional work be performed and that an updated report be issued. Non-compliance with any of these requirements by the client or anyone else will release Kleinfelder from any liability resulting from the use of this report by any unauthorized party and client agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless Kleinfelder from any claim or liability associated with such unauthorized use or non-compliance. Valhalla LLC is responsible to see that all parties to the project, including the designer, contractor, subcontractors, etc., are made aware of this report in its entirety. The use of information contained in this report for bidding purposes should be done at the contractor's option and risk. Further guidelines and information on this geotechnical report can be found in the ASFE publication entitled Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report, which is included for your reference in Appendix D of this report. CLOSURE The conclusions and recommendations provided in this supplemental letter are based, in part, on the current project conditions provided to us, our review of available geotechnical documents for the project site, our site reconnaissance, and our interpretations and assumptions regarding subsurface conditions. If 'variations in subsurface conditions are discovered during earthwork, we may need to modify th is report. The future performance and integrity of the temporary shoring systems and building foundations will depend largely on proper initial site preparation, drainage, and 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 12 of 13 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder KLEINFELDER 2405 140th Avenue NE, Suite Al 01, Bellevue, WA 98005 November 21, 200� (425) 562-4200. (425) 562-4201 fax I construction procedures. Monitoring by e xperienced geotechnical personnel should be considered an integral part of the construction process. Kleinfelder is available to provide geotechnical inspection and testing services during the earthwork and foundation construction phases of the project. If variations in the subgrade conditions are observed at that time, we would be able to provide additional geotechnical engineering recommendations, thus mi nimizing delays as the project develops. We are also available to review preliminary plans and specifications before construction begins. We appreciate the opportunity to be of continued service to you. Should you have'any questions concerning this letter, or if we can assist you further, please contact us at 206-654-7045. Respectfully submitted, KLEINFELDER WEST, INC. Steven Flowers, E.I.T. Staff Geotechnical Engineer gall( Rolf B. yllseth, P.E., L.G. Senior Geotechnical Engineer Attachments: Figure 1 — Location/Topographic Map Figure 2A — Site & Exploration Plan Figure 3 — Cantilever and Tieback Shoring Wall Diagrams Previous Test Pit Logs TP-1 through TP-10 (Kleinfelder, July 7, 2006) Boring Logs B-1 through B-8 Grain Size Distribution Reports (10) Distribution: Valhalla, LLC c/o SGA Corporation Attn: Mr. James W. Abbott Shapiro Architects (3) Attn: Mr. Tony Shapiro 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 13 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder KLEINFELDER 2405 140th Avenue NE, Suite A101, Bellevue, WA �98005 (425) 562-4200 (425) 562-4201 fax X W� 0 LL a ILL LLI Ir X 0 LLJ UpydaN 0 19W2001 Wcra� Com.,::::��. �j e#ft Mwwad. hVJA� mkmsAxwvVm&ppoIM 0 CovidaM 2000 by GcovwWc Data , Inr AU rWft mser#W. 0 20M Na0gation Toduwk&*. AU eCtft tasamd, 0 Copydgft 2000 by Compinarch M�fkodrg 0aw and Symwm Ltd, 5V —V�t *toScale K L E IN F E L D E R Site Vicinity 2405 140th Avenue NE, Suite A101 Bellevue, WA 98005-1877 PH: (425) 562-4200 FAX: (425) 562-4201 Edmonds Mixed Use www.kioinfelder.com 23012 Edmonds Way Edmonds, Washington DRAWN: Nov. 20 07 1 APPROVED BY;-- PROJECT NO. 88601 1 FILE NAME:8 DRAWN BY: J.S. REVISED BY: CHECKED BY: FIGURE L @ by Kleinfelder West Inc., 2007 TESTING PROGRAM U.S.C.S. —LABORATORY I FIELD .2 WELL/PIEZO > 0 CONSTRUCTION ZW W -g W Fqz z oz 0 '4= OS Cnz In 00 Z 0 Aw SOIL DESMPTION forest duff, sod and topsoil (1-3 I SP dense PTev-brown cirv. NAM) W11ri U I 1 5 110 IFKI 6.8 35 15 28 32 GRAVEL, fine to medium sand, fine gravel, trace silt. SH) (RECESSIONAL OUTWA -------------------- SM T 77 very dense, grey -brown, dry, SELTY SAND WrFH GRAVEL, fine sand, fine gravel. (GLACIAL TELL) si-I -grades to very dense, grey 35 N/1 S1-2 7.1 17 24 X SI-3 26 30 20 DATE DRILLED: 10-25-07 LOGGED BY: FDR REVIEWED BY: Rolf Hyllseth - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E very dense, gey-brown, dry, SILTY SAND ."T. VVITTI GRAVEL, fine to medium sand, fine giravel. (GLACIAL TILL) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SP Very dense, grey -brown, dry, SAND WITH GRAVEL, medium sand, some silt. A VANCE OUTWASH) D SURFACE ELEVATION (feet): 213.0 ft DRILLING MIETHOD: HSA (Track Rig) TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 50.3 DRILLER: Boretech DIAMETER OF BORING (in): 8.5 in CASING SIZE: n/a Edmonds mixed use Appendix 232nd Ave and Edmonds way k4KLEINFELDER Edmonds, Washington A-2a GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMEN TAL ENGMERS SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING BORING LOG rECT NUMER: 8 . 8601 B-1 PAGE 1 of 3 TESTING PROGRAM U.S.C.S. LABORATORY FIELD ,5 WELLJPIEZO 15'0 C4 SOIL DESCIZZIPTION E_ 5 CONSTRUCTION 04 Zw 5E" �4.4 : - - &. A4 W PZ W&O E_ Q U rA P4 z Q F-4 A4 0 Z = 0 < Z X0 CY 6 k- Z 0 20- 10 S14 24 28 25- 24 SI-5 -grades to medium to coarse grained, no silt 30 -gra es: to m d oist, medium grained 38 30- 50/511 S1-6 —2 inches wet, coarse grained, over 3 inches moist, medium to coarse grained, trace si t. 35— 25 SI -7 -moist, medium grained, trace silt 38 50/51 > 40 D SAMEPLER TYPE Cal. 3"OD) SPT q2" OD) Core Shelby No Grab Split Split poon Sample Tube Recovery .D **HAMWR WEIGHT 300 lbs 140 (30" Drop) (30" lbs Drop) Edmonds mixed use K 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way Appendix k4KLEINFELDER Edmonds, Washington A-2b GEOTECIINICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS BOWNG LOG n SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING D PROJECT NUMMER: 88601 B-1 PAGE 2 of 3 WELUPIEZO CONSTRUCTION F� U oz go 40 U 45 GPROGRAM U.S.C.S. �TORY FIELD :F Et 0 zw Gwo Go _t rncn rn,= W 0 0 <�:) z _-C=) g4 9W �: = 0 coz co Z 0 SOIEL DESCRIPTION 20 SI-8 -moist, medium to coarse grained, one inc 37 lens of wet, coarse sand. 50/511 44"X -SI-9 -grades to medium grained sand. 50/6 150/311�� I -rock fragments and coarse grained, moist, sand. -Boring completed to 50.3 feet below ground surface. -Groundwater was not encountered during drilling. -Boring backfilled with bentonite chips. *SAMPLER Cal. (3"OD) SPT q2" OD) Core Shelby TYPE . H Split; - 0 Split poon Sample Tube Grab **HAACAER WEIGHT 300 lbs 140 lbs (30" Drop) (30" Drop) Edmonds mixed use 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way k4KLEINFELDER Edmonds, Washington GEOTECBNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING BORINGLOG FECT NUMBER: 88601' - L— B-1 No Recovery Appendix A-2c PAGE 3 of 3 TESTING PROGRAM U.S.C.S. LABORATORY I FIELD a o WELUPIEZO z SOIL DESCRIPTION CONSTRUCTION zw 94 �;)Z — �-41-4 E�w 04 .1 'n 'n rn U rA" In "E-4 — a -<= : OZ go CY o (nz Surface: forest duff, sod and topsoil (1-3 inchei) '� C; F* z 0 0 SM medium dense, light brown, dry, SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, fine to medium sand, fine gravel. (WEATBERED GLACIAL TILL) 5 - 16 S2-1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - very dense, light grey -brown, dry, SILTY - 34 SAND WrM GRAVEL, fine sand, fine gravel. 36 (GLACIAL TILL) 10- 6.3 24 31 S2-2 grades to fine to medium sand 50161 X 12 -Boring terminated at 12 feet below ground surface due to auger refusal. -Groundwater was not encountered during drilling. -Boring backfilled with bentonite chips. DATE DRILLED: 10-29-07 SURFACE ELEVATION (feet); 212.0 ft DRILLING METHOD: HSA (Portable Acker Rig) LOGGED BY: FDR TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 12.0 DRILLER: Boretech REVIEWED BY: Rolf Hyllseth DIAM[ETER OF BORING (in): 5.5 in CASING SIZE: n/a Edmonds mixed use Appendix k%IIKLEINFELDER 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way Edmonds, Washington A - 3 GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS BOkING LOG SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING PROJECT NUM33ER: 88601 B-2 PAGE I of I TESTINGPROGRAM U.S.C.S. LABORATORY FIELD WELLfPIEZO F" g Nw o CONSTRUCTION gg p Z g E_ U &0 E� 1:4 : = - oz a E� : PW = < 0— go cy -.,06 U - Z 0 0 5 110 11.5 14 F__j 6 S3-1 1 8 X 23 DATE DRILLED: 10-25-07 LOGGED BY: FDR REVIEWED BY: Rolf Hyllseth 15 S3-2 33 38 11 S3-3 35 42 SOIL DESCRIPTION bare ground medium dense, grey -brown, moist, SAND WITH GRAVEL, trace silt, medium sand, trace organics (rootlets). (RECESSIONAL OUTWASH) -medium to coarse grained sand, moist. -grades dense, wet� fine to medium grained sand, some silt. -grades to very dense, moist, fine to coarse sand, trace silt -grades to dry to moist SURFACE ELEVATION (feet): 192.0 ft DRILLING METHOD: HSA (Track Rig) TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 26.4 DRILLER: Boretech DIAMETER OF BORING (in): 8.5 in CASING SIZE: n/a Edmonds mixed use Appendix 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way k4KLEINFELDER Edmonds, Washington A-4a GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING BORING LOG PAGE 1 of 2 PROJECT NUMEBER: 88601 B-3 TESTING PROGRAM U.S.C.S. LABORATORY FIELD WELL/PIEZO -5 SOIL DESCRIPTION 0 CONSTRUCTION zw WL .1 W F_(Z z E, U 0 OZ 5 Gnz go 01 Z 6 U Z 0 20 24 S34 -grades to moist EM 26.4 50/3, A 31 S3-5 -grades to occasional I inch (I") seams of fine to medium grained wet sand with silt. 46 50/5 -Boring completed to 26.4 feet below ground surface. -Groundwater was not encountered during drilling. -Boring backfilled with bentonite chips. 11 *SAMPLER Cal. 3"OD) Spiv SPT C2" OD) 0 Split Core Shelby Grab n Sample I No TYPE Spoon Tube Recovery 300lbs "HAMINIER WEIGHT (30" Drop) 140lbs (30" Drop) Edmonds mixed use Appendix k4]KLEINFELDER 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way Edmonds, Washington A-4b GEOTECENICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS BOPdNG LOG SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING OJECT NUMBER: 88601 B-3 PAGE 2 of 2 TESTING PROGRAM LABORATORY FIELD oo WELL/PIEZO W g S. W9 CONST RUCTION Eft &w aw U c0c) t�D OZ �4 00 co) (0z X0 U z 0 0 5 UK UP DATE DRILLED: 10-25-07 LOGGED BY: FDR REVIENVED BY: Rolf Hyllseth U.S.C.S. 0 SOIL DESCRIPTION z Surface: grass, sod and topsoil (1-3 inche,; SM .' loose, grey -brown, dry, SILTY SAND NAM GRAVEL, fine to medium grained, trace organics, rootlets, 15" boulder encountered in upper foot. (FILL) 3 S4-1 -grades to light -brown, fine grained 2 2 P-SN -- - I. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — dense, light -brown, dry, SAND WITH I SILT, fine to medium sand, some gravel. (GLACIAL TILL) 17 S4-2 16 25 SP — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — very dense, grey -brown, dry to moist, SAND VVTM GRAVEL, fine to coarse. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) 31 S4-3 33 34 SURFACE ELEVATION (feet): 200 ft DRILLING METHO D: HSA (Track Rig) TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 51.3 DRILLER: Boretech DIAMETER OF BORING (in): 8.5 in CASING SIZE: n/a Edmonds mixed use Appendix 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way k4JKLEINFELDER Edmonds, Washington A-5a GEOTECHN]CAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING BORING LOG I PROJECT NUMBER: 88601 B-4 PAGE 1 of 3 0 r4 Qk 1 r1a 1 Jul %, r1MkAx1VUV1 LABORATORY FIELD WELL/PIEZO rj g wg CONSTRUCTION V)z 0 z :50 CY C; z C) 20- 14 S44 25 26 16"M S4-1 111A 35 N A S4-6 S4-7 U.S.C.S. 0 z SOIL DESCRIPTION *SAMTLER Cal. YOD) TYPE Splitqpoon SPT9,"OD) Split H Core Shelby Grab No poon Sample Tube Recovery "ILAAEVIER WEIGHT 300lbs (30" Drop) 140lbs (30" Drc p) Edmonds mixed use K11CLEINFELDER 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way Appendix Edmonds, Washington A-5b GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING BORING LOG PROJECT NUMMER: 88601 B-4 PAGE 2 of 3, I i I 0 cr W 0 D 0 z TESTING PROGRAM U.S.C.S. LABORATORY FIELD 44.1 WELLTIEZO SOIL DESCRIPTION 0 CONSTRUCTION 9 z �:� — — _" L. —WO F-4 W E� Pz .5 win E-4 U P4 0— �: = z 0 z W Z C; U z o 04 40- 40 S4-8 -medium-grained, trace silt 34 38 45- 32 S4-9 -medium to coarse -grained, no silt 48 24 27 S4-10 -moist, fine to medium -grained, trace silt. 45 51.3 -Boring completed to 51.3 feet below ground surface. -Groundwater was not encountered during drilling. -Boring backfilled with bentonite chips. SAAIPLER Cal. YOD) TYPE Split SPTq2"OD) I Core Shelby No Grab Split poon Sample Tube Recovery **HANUYIER WEIGIff 3001bs (30" Drop) 140lbs (30" Drop) Edmonds mixed use Appendix* k4KLEINFELDER 232nd Ave and. Edmonds Way Edmonds, Washington A - 5e GEOTECIINICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS BORING LOG . SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING PROJECT NUMBER: 88601 . B-4 IAGE 3 of 3 z 0 U Z 0 Z 0 U 6 Z At 0 0 z 0 tt u 0 z on 0 �� U 0 L) Z U Z 04 Go 4" 1 z %.0 14 0 no 0 9 04 TESTING PROGRAM U.S.C.S. LABORATORY FIELD WELL/PIEZO Z SOIL DESCRIPTION 0 CONSTRUCTION z Pz co ' 9z U 94 -c:) z z r PQ : z . 1) aw = i go 00 (n — 04 Surface: grass, sod and topsoil (1-3 inches) .< U 0 PA 0 SP me dium. dense, brown, moist, SAND WITH GRAVEL, fine to coarse sand, fine to coarse gravel, trace silt. (FILL) SP — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - - 5 8.7 11 27 S5_1 very dense, grey -brown, moist, SAND 501311 X AND GRAVEL, medium to coarse sand. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) 10- 20 S5-2 -grad t es o dry 35 38 5 39 S5-3 15014 5.8 -Boring completed to 15.8 feet below ground surface. -Groundwater was not encountered during drilling. -Boring backfilled with bentonite chips. DATE DRILLED: 10-29-07 SURFACE ELEVATION (feet): 189 ft DRILLING MET'HOD: HSA (Track Rig) LOGGED BY: FDR TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 15.8 DRILLER: Boretech REVIEWED BY: Rolf Hyllseth DIAMETER OF BORING (in): 8.5 in CASING SIZE: n/a Edmonds mixed use Appendix MIKLEINFELDER 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way Edmonds, Washington A - 6 GEOTECBMCAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS BOPJNG LOG SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING PROJECT NUMMER: 88601 B-5 PAGE I of 1 :2� 0 Z &0 0- Z r4 z 0 0 Z Z z L4 0 6, U 40 110, TESTING PROGRAM U.S.C.S. LABORATORY FIELD 42 WELL/PIEZO -0.0 04 z IT, 01 SOIL DESCRIPTION Z' 0 CONSTRUCTION Zw 2_2 WV) (n" cow U 94 : — 3 -Z 04 :go a o 14 Surface: grass, sod and topsoil (1-3 inches) U z 0 SP medium dense, brown, dry, SAND WITH GRAVEL, fine to coarse sand. (FILL) z .0 0 SP — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - dense, grey to grey -brown, dry, SAND U WTTH GRAVEL, medium sand, fine gravel. z 5 — (ADVANCE OUTWASH) -0 9.4 10 6 S6-1 0 13 0 21 z z 0 10- 22 S6-2 -grades to very dense, fine to medium sand. 28 0 27 >4 0 AW 15— 28 S6-3 35 �16.5' 50 -Boring completed to 16'5 feet below groun d surface. > LU -Groundwater was not encountered during drilling. -Boring backfilled with bentonite chips. D DATE DRILLED: 10-25-07 SURFACE ELEVATION (feet): 188 ft DRILLING METHOD: HSA (Track Fig) �71 LOGGED BY: FDR TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 16.5 DRILLER: Boretech REVIENVED BY: Rolf Hyllseth DIAMETER OF BORING (in): 8.5 in CASING SIZE: n/a Edmonds mixed use K k4KLEINFELDER 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way Appendix Edmonds, Washington A- 7 GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS BORING LOG SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING fl PROJECT NUMBER: 88601 B-6 PAGE I of 1 TESTING PROGRAM U.S.C.S. LABORATORY FIELD 0 WELLIPIEZO g Wg SOIL DESCRIPTION CONSTRUCTION 04 04 Z4 i �Dz g z 0 oz co Surface: grass, sod and topsoil (1-3 inches) z 0 SM medium dense, brown, dry, SELTY SAND WrIH GRAVEL, fine to medium sand, fine gravel. (FELL) SP — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - very dense, grey to grey -brown, dry, STN5 WITH GRAVEL, fine to coarse sand, fine gravel. 5 — (ADVANCE OUTWASH) 3.5 6 13 S7-1 32 28 10- 8.0 18 13 S7-2 -grades to deiise, moist, trace silt 18 16 15- 20 S7-3 -grades to moist with occasional wet lenses, 29 very dense, 2 inch lens of fine to medium grained sand. 26 CL ji > 20 DATE DRILLED: 10-25-07 SURFACE ELEVATION (feet): 186 ft DRILLING METHOD: HSA (Track Rig) 3f LOGGED BY: FDR TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 51.5 DRILLER: Boretech REVIEWED BY: Rolf Hyllseth DIAMETER OF BORING (in): 8.5 in CASING SIZE: n/a ID Edmonds mixed use Appendix KIKLEINFELDER 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way Edmonds, Washington A-8a z GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS BORING LOG SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING D PROJECT NUMEBER: 88601 'I B-7 I PAGE I of 3 0 TESTINGPROGRAM LABORATORY F`IELD U.S.C.S. — �F I--, 4! WEEL/PIEZ0 > SOIL DESCRIPTION CONSTRUCTION E E �i4 9 g W&n z [-,z -'cD U (nz 5 04 OZ F- OS - CY X0 'z (5 U z 0 aw 20- 10 S74 -grades to medium dense. 9 6 25- 24 S7-5 -grades to very dense, dry. 30 37 30-. 25 S7-6 -as above, thin 1/4 inch lenses fine to medium grained, light brown SAND. 39 35 35- 28 S7-7 39 47 P Uj [L > 40 D SAIi4PLER Cal. POD) SPT q2 OD) Core Shelby No TYPE SpUtqpoon Split poon Sample Tube Grab Recovery 300lbs 140lbs **HAAUqER WEIGHT (30" Drop) (30" Drop) D Edmonds mixed use ? Appendix K 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way KIKLEINFELDER Edmonds, Washington A-8b GEOTECUMCAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING BOWNG LOG PAGE 2 of 3 PROJECT NUMBER: 88601 B-7 1 LABORATORY FIELD -.z WELL/PIEZO WP4 W MW CONSTRUCTION E_'Z F-4 --!45 U g = < V)Z 0 0z ��p cy C; z 0 4 22 38 34 N A S7-9 11 N S7-10 14 7 U.S.C.S. W 0 Pq z SOIL DESCRIPTION -grades to wet, lenses of fine SAND WIT SELT. -grades to medium to coarse grained SAND, dry "grades to medium dense, moist to wet, medium grained sand with gravel. -Boring *completed to 51.5 feet below ground surface. -Groundwater was not encountered during drilling. -Boring backfilled with bentonite chips. *SAMTLER Cal. YOD) TYPE H Splitqpoon SPT q2" OD) Core Shelby Grab No Split poon Sample Tube Recovery **HAAUKER WEIGHT 300lbs (30" Drop) 140lbs (30" Dro 3) Edmonds mixed use k4K]LEINFELDER 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way Appendix Edmonds, Washington A - 8e GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS BORING LOG. SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING FECT NUMBER: 88601 B-7 PAGE 3 of 3 TESTING PROGRAM U.S.C.S. LABORATORY FIELD 42 WELL/PIEZO 2 [2 'i .t g r o SOIL DESCRIPTION CONSTRUCTION ZW W- E-4 F..'Z U 0 Z W ;: - = W : oz �D Ag"'! = ': 90 W q -.g 0 GOZ Z 0 Surface: grass, sod and topsoil (1-3 inches) U < F-4 : 4 �4 Z 0 . I- < 0 W U SP .::'dense, grey-br own, dry, SAND WITH GRAVEL, medium to coarse sand, fine to coarse gravel, cobbles to 4 inches in size. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) < Z &0 0� 2Z o U Z 5 3.2 20 S84 -grades to very dense. 0 25 P4 �T. 0 35 0 9� U Z < Z (n 10- 5.8 12 21 S8-2 -grades to fine to medium grained. 24 U 0 28 ZQ OZ 0.0 15- 20 S8_3 >1 21 U 0 16.5 34 -Boring completed to 16.5 feet below ground surface. Wo Zi Ir -Groundwater was not encountered during H drilling. -Boring backfilled with bentonite chips. tu U_ 0 0 DA TE DRILLED: 10-29-07 SURFACE ELEVATION (feet): 185 ft DRILLING METHOD: HSA (Track Rig) LOGGED BY: FDR TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 16.5 DRILLER: Borete'ch REVIEWED BY: Rolf Hyllseth DIAMETER OF BORING (in): 8.5 in CASING SIZE: n/a Edmonds mixed use Z 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way Appendix Ir < 0 1 0 k4]KLEINFELDER Edmonds, Washington A 9 Z < GEOTECFMCAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS BORING LOG - SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING PROJECT NUMBER: 88601 B-8 PAGE I of 1 Particle Size Distribution Report 100 90 8 70 W W 60 Z LL Z 50 LLI 0 It W 40 30 20 10 ON 500 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE - rnm % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT %C 0.0 19.0 46.0 35.0 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC.* PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) 1.5 in. 100.0 I in. 92.0 3/4 in. 89.0 1/2 in. 86.0 3/8 in. 84.0 #4 81.0 #8 78.0 #10 78.0 #16 75.0 #30 71.0 #40 67.0 #50 61.0 #100 46.0 #200 35.0 Soil Description Silty sand with gravel Laboratory No.: 7720 Moisture Content: 6.8% Atterberg Limits PL= LL= PI= Coefficients D85= 11-1 D60= 0.286 D50= 0. 182 D30= D1 5= D10= cu= cc= Classification USCS= SM AASHTO= Remarks Tested By. D. Erickson Checked By: J. Schwartz Entered By- B. Kochanski (no specification provided) Sample No.: SI-1 Source of Sample: B-1 Date: 11/19/07 Location: Elev./Depth: 5' 'Client: Valhalla LLC KLEINFELDER, INC. Project: Edrnonds I Mixed Use Building Project No* 88601/1 Figure i In % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT I % C��" 0.0 7.0 76.0 17.0 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) 3/4 in. 100.0 1/2 in. 100.0 3/8 in. 97.0 #4 93.0 #8 87.0 #10 86.0 #16 81.0 #30 71.0 #40 61.0 #50 45.0 #100 23.0 #200 17.0 Soil Description Silty sand Laboratory No.: 7720 Moisture Content: 7.1% Afterberg Limits PL= LL= Pl= Coefficients D85= 1.75 D60= 0.415 D50= 0.334 D30= 0.201 D15= Q10= cu= cc= Classification USCS= SM AASHTO= Remarks Tested By- D: Erickson Checked By- J. Schwartz Entered By: B. Kochanski (no specification provided) Sample No.: SI-3 Source of Sample: B-1 Location: F client- valhalla UC KLEINFELDER, INC. I Project: Edmonds Mixed Use Building Date: 11/19/07 Elev./Depth: 15' No: 88601/1 Ri M UT0171 % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT I % C��q ' 0.0 - 12.0 64.0 24.0 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC.* PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) I in. 100.0 3/4 in. 97.0 1/2 in. 91.0 3/8 in. 90.0 #4 88.0 #8 85.0 #10 85.0 #16 82.0 #30 75.0 #40 66.0 #50 52.0 #100 32.0 #200 24.0 Soil Description Silty sand taboratoryNo.:7720 Moisture Content: 6.3% Atterberg Limits PL= LL= Pl= Coefficients D85= 2.00 D60= 0.364 D50= 0.285 D30= 0.133 D15= D10= Cu= cc= Classification USCS= SM AASHTO= Remarks Tested By: D. Erickson Cbecked By-. J. Scbwartz Entered By- B> Kochanski . (no spetification provided) Sample No.: S2-2 Source of Sample: B-2 Location: Date: fl/19/07 Elev./Depth: 10' Client: ValhallaLLC Project: Edmonds Mixed Use Building KLEINFELDER, INC. ILEr �ect No: 88601/1 Figure Z % COBBLES % GRAVEL T- % SAND % SILT % Cpq 0.0 14.0 1 72.0 14.0 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC.* PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) 1.5 in. 100.0 I in. 94.0 3/4 in. 94.0 1/2 in. 92.0 3/8 in. 90.0 #4 96.0 #8 81.0 #10 80.0 #16. 75.0 #30 66.0 #40 57.0 #50 43.0 #100 20.0 #200 14.0 Soil Description Silty sand Laboratory No.: 7720 Moisture Content: 11.5% Atterberg Limits PL= LL= Pl= Coefficients D85= 4.11 D60= 0.467 D50= 0.354 D30= 0.215 D15= 0.0979 D10= cu= cc= Classification USCS= SM AASHTO= Remarks Tested By: B. Kochanski Checked By: J. Schwartz Entered By: B. Kochanski - (no spwification pTovided) Sample No.: S3-1 Source of Sample: B-3 Location: Date: 11/19/07 Elev./Depth: 5' Client: Valhalla LLC KLEINFELDER, INC. Project: Edmonds Mixed Use Building 1UP—mi—ect No: 88601/1 Figure % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT I % CLAY� 0.0 17.0 72.0 11.0 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC.* PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) 3/4 in. 100.0 1/2 in. 96.0 3/8 in. 94.0 #4 83.0 #8 75.0 #10 73.0 #16 66.0 #30 54.0 #40 46.0 #50 36.0 #100 17.0 #200 11.0 Soil Description Poorly graded sand with silt and gravel Laboratory No.: 7720 Moisture Content: 8.7% �Atterberg Limits PL= LL= Pl= Coefficients D85= 5.37 D60= 0.817 D50= 0.500 D30= 0.247 D15= 0.132 D1 O= Cu= C(;= Classification USCS= SP-SM AASHTO= Remarks Tested By: D. Erickson Checked BY: J. Schwartz Entered. By: B. Kocbansld (no specification provided) Sample No.: S5-1 Source of Sample: B-5 Location: Faient. Valhalla LLC KLEIN FELDER, INC. I Project: Edmonds Mixed Use Building Date: 11/19/07 Elev./Depth: 5' ect No: 88601/1 F % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT I % CLAY 0.0 20.0. 70.0 10.0 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) I in. 100.0 3/4 in. 91.0 1/2 in. 88.0 3/8 in. 86.0 #4 80.0 #8 73.0 #10 72.0 #16 65.0 #30 54.0 #40 44.0 #50 30.0 #100 15.0 #200 10.0 SoH Description -Well-graded sand with silt and gravel Laboratory No. : 7720 Moisture Content: 9.4% Atterberg Limits PL= LL= Pl= Coefficients D85= 8.42 D60= 0.835 D50= 0.511 D30= 0.300 D15= 0.150 D10= 0.0750 cu= 11.13 cc= .1.44 Classification USCS= SW-SM AASHTO= Remarks Tested By. J. Schwartz Checked By: J. Mason, PE Entered By: B. Kocbansld - (no specification provided) Sample No.: S6-1 Source of Sample: B-6 Location: Client: Valhalla LLC KLEINFELDER, INC. I Project: Edmonds Mixed Use Building Date: 11/19/07 Elev./Depth: 5' Project No: . 88601/1 mom %C S % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT % CLAY 0.0 26.0 68.0 6.0 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC.* PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) I in. 100.0 3/4 in. 97.0 1/2 in. 90.0 3/8 in. 84.0 #4 74.0 #8 66.0 #10 65.0 #16 59.0 #30 46.0 #40 34.0 #50 22.0 #100 10.0 #200 6.0 Soil Description Poorly graded sand with silt and gravel Laboratory No.: 7720 Moisture Content- 3.5% Atterberg Limits PL= LL= Pl= Coefficients D85= 10-0 D60= 1.27 D50= 0.698 D30= 0.381 D15= 0.222 D10= 0.150 Cu= 8.46 Cc= 0.76 Classification USCS= SP-SM AASHTO= Remarks Tested By: D. Erickson Checked By: J. Schwartz Entered By- B. Kochanski - (no specification provided) Sample No.: S7-1 Source of Sample: B-7 Date: 11/19/07 Location: Elev./Depth: 5' Client: ValhallaLLC Project: Edmonds Mixed Use Building KLEINFELDER, INC. 1 11 Project No: 88601/1 Figure 11H % COBBLES 0 6 GRAVEL % SAND % SI LT I % CLAY 0.0 17.0 65.0 18.0 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC.* PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) I in; 100 ' 0 3 n /4'in. 98.0 f/2 in. 93.0 3/8 in. 89.0 #4 83.0 #8 78.'0 #10 77.0 #16 73.0 #30 63.0 #40 53.0 #50 40.0 #100 23.0 #200 18.0 Soil Description Silty sand with gravel Laboratory No.: 7720 Moisture Content: 8.0% Afterberg Limits PL= LL= Pl= Coefficients D85= 6.27 D60= 0.532 D50= 0.391 D30= 0.215 D15= - D1 O= cu= cc= Classification USCS= SM AASHTO= Remarks Tested By: D. Erickson Checked By- J. Schwartz Entered By: B. Kochanski - (no specification provided) Sample No.: S7-2 Source of Sample: B-7 Date: 11/19/07 Location: Elev./Depth: '10' Client: Valhalla LLC KLEINFELDER, INC. Project: Edmonds Mixed Use Building Project No: 88601/1 Figure Particle Size Distribution Report 10 9 80 70 Of W 60 Z LL 1-- Z 50 w 0 af W 40 a- 30 20 10 500 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE - mm % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT CLAY 0.0 22.0 67.0 11.0 1 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC.* PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) 1.5 in. 100.0 I in. 88.0 3/4 in. 88.0 1/2 in. 84.0 3/8 in. 81.0 #4 78.0 #8 73.0 #10 71.0 #16 66.0 #30 53.0 #40 42.0 #50 30.0 #100 16.0 #200 11.0 Soil Description Poorly graded sand with silt and gravel Laboratory No.: 7720 Moisture Content: 3.2% Afterberg Limits PL= LL= Pl= Coefficients D85= 14.0 D60= 0.804 D50= 0.542 D30= 0.300 D15= 0.137 D10= Cu= cc= Classification LISCS= SP-SM AASHTO= Remarks Tested By: D. Erickson Checked By. J. Schwartz Entered By: B. Kocbansld (no specification provided) Sample No.: S8-1 Source of Sample: B-8 Date: 11/19/07 Location: Elev./Depth: 5' Client: Valhalla LLC KLEINFELDER, INC. Project: Edmonds Mixed Use Building Project No: 88601/1 Ficiure Particle Size Distribution Report 10C 9( 8C 7C cr_ W 6C Z u- I-- Z 50 W 0 W W 40 M 30 20 10 0 GRAIN SIZE - mm % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT I %C 0.0 18.0_ 70.0 1 12.0 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC.* PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) 3/4 in. 100.0 1/2 in. 98.0 3/8 in. 92.0 #4 82.0 #8 75.0 #10 74.0 #16 70.0 #30 58.0 #40 46.0 #50 32.0 #100 17.0 #200 12.0 Soil Description Poorly graded sand with silt and gravel Laboratory No.: 7720 Moisture Content: 5.8% Afterberg Limits PL= LL= Pl= Coefficients D85= 6.07 D60= 0.646 D50= 0.471 D30= 0.283 D15= 0.122 D1 O= Cu= cc= Classification USCS= SP-Sm AASHTO= Remarks Tested By: D. Erickson Checked By. J. Schwartz Entered By- B. Kochansid (no specification provided) Sample,No.: S8-2 Source of Sample: B-8 Location: Client: Valhalla LLC Project: Edmonds Mixed Use Building KLEIN FELDER,' INC . r Date: 11/19/07 Elev./Depth: - 10' Project No: 88601/1 Flaure I I I I I I I I I 1� I I I i I I I I I I I i I I I I F 11 I I I I E I I I I I I I I' � I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Particle Size. Distribution Report 100 T 0 80 W 0-- Z ;I t I I I LL Z 50--- W 0 Ir W 40--- CL 30 20 10 0 500 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE - mm % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT I % CLAY 1 0.0 17.0 1 72.0 11.0 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC! PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) 3/4 in. 100.0 1/2 in. 96.0 3/8 in. 94.0 #4 83.0 #8 75.0 #10 73.0 #16 66.0 #30 '54.0 #40 46.0 #50 36.0 #100 17.0 #200 11.0 Soil Description Poorly graded sand with silt and gravel Laboratory No.: 7720 Moisture Content: 8.7% Atterberg Limits PL= LL= Pl= Coefficients D85= 5.37 D60= 0.817 D50= 0.500 D30= 0.247 D15= 0.132 D10= Cu= cc= Classification USCS= SP-Sm AASHTO= Remarks Tested By: D. Erickson Checked By: J. Schwartz Entered By: B. Kochanski (no specification provided) Sample No.: S5-1 Source of Sample: B-5 Location: Client: Valhalla LLC KLEINFELDER, INC. Project: Edmonds Mixed Use Building Date: 11/19/07 Elev./Depth: 5' Prolect No: 88601/1 10C 9C 80 70 CC Lu 60 Z LL I-_ Z 50 LU 0 cl: LLJ 40 CL 30 20 Particle Size.Distribution Report c! 10- 0 500 lu I U.1 GRAIN SIZE - mm U.Ul U.UU1 % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT % CLAY 0.0 20.0 70.0 10.0 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC.* PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) I in. 100.0 3/4 in. 91.0 1/2 in. 88.0 3/8 in. 86.0 #4 80.0 #8 73.0 #10 72.0 #16 65.0 #30 54.0 #40 44.0 #50 30.0 #100 15.0 #200 10.0 Soil Description Well -graded sand with silt and gravel Laboratory No.: 7720 Moisture Content: 9.4% Afterberg Limits PL= LL= Pl= Coefficients D85= 8.42 D60= 0.835 D50= 0.511 D30= 0.300 D15= 0.150 D10= 0.0750 Cu= 11.13 Cc= 1.44 Classification USCS= Sw-SM AASHTO= Remarks Tested By: J. Schwartz Checked By: J. Mason, PE Entered By: B. Kochanski (no specification provide Sample No.: S6-1 Source of Sample: B-6 Location: Date: 11/19/07 Elev./Depth: 5' Client: -Valhalla LLC KLEINFELDER, INC. Project: Edmonds Mixed Use Building Project No: 88601/1 - Figure I I I I I 7' L I I I I I I 7 I I I I I 10C 9C 8C 70 W 60 Z LL Z 50 W 0 Ir W 40 30 20 10 0 Particle.Size Distribution Report d d E V 9? X 500 100 lu I U.1 GRAIN SIZE - mm U.U1, U.Uul, % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT I % CLAY 0.0 17.0 65.0 18.0 1 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC! PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) I in. 100.0 3/4 in. 98.0 1/2 in. 93.0 3/8 in. 89.0 #4 83.0 #8 78.0 #10 77.0 #16 73.0 #30 63.0 #40 53.0 #50 40.0 #100 23.0 #200 18.0 Soil Description Silty sand with gravel Laboratory No.: 7720 Moisture Content: 8.0% Atterberg Limits PL= LL= Pl= Coefficients D85= 6.27 D60= 0.532 D50= 0.391 D30= 0.215 D1 5= D1 O= Cu= Cc= Classification USCS= SM AASHTO= Remarks Tested By: D. Erickson Checked By: J. Schwartz Entered By: B. Kochanski (no specification provided) Sample No.: S7-2 Source of Sample: B-7 Date: 11/19/07 Location: Elev./Depth: 10' Client: Valhalla LLC Project: Edmonds Mixed Use Building KLEINFELDER, INC. _EE2ject No: 88601/1 Figure I I I I I I 77 I I I I 11 I I I I I I I I I I F� I I li I I I I I I I I I I RECEIVED og - 4 2001 BLjILDING DEPT, APPLICANT Copy I Nil KLEE N FELDER An emp/oy— u—i-1 uimpany I k'q KLEI INFIELDER I I I Prepared For: Valhalla, LLC 1501 North 2001h Street Shoreline, Washington 98133 Geotechnical Supplement No. I Excavation Shore Considerations Edmonds Mixed -Use Development 232nd Street SW & Edmonds Way Edmonds, Washington 98122 Prepared By: Steven Flowers, EIT Staff Geotechnical Engineer Rolf Hyllseth, PE, LG Senior Geotechnical Engineer I ORRES 010510f ___ "'_I KLEINFELDER WEST, INC. 2405 140th Ave NE, Suite 101 Bellevue, Washington 98005 (425) 562-4200 November 21, 2007 Kleinfelder Project No: 88601 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder All Rights Reserved This document was prepared for use only by the client, only for the purposes stated, and within a reasonable time from issuance. Non-commercial, educational and scientific use of this report by regulatory agencies is regarded as a "fair use" and not a violation of copyright. Regulatory agencies may make additional copies of this document for internal use. Copies may also be made available to the public as required by law. The reprint must acknowledge the copyright and indicate that permission to reprint has been received. I KLE IN FEID ER An employee owned company November 21, 2007 Kleinfelder Project No. 88601 Valhalla, LLC c/o SGA Corporation 1501 North 200th Street Shoreline, Washington 98133 Attention: Mr. James Abbott Subject: Geotechnical Supplement No. 1: Excavation Shoring Considerations Edmonds Mixed -Use Development 232nd Street SW & Edmonds Way (SR 104) Edmonds, Washington 98122 Dear Mr. Abbott: Kleinfelder, Inc. (Kleinfelder) is pleased *to present this letter summarizing our limited geotechnical engineering review for the construction excavation and shoring requirements at the subject site. Kleinfelder previously provided general geotechnical design recommendations for this project in our Geotechnical Investigation Report (Job No. 71716, dated July 7, 2006). The conclusions and recommendations of.this supplementary engineering evaluation should only be used in conjunction with our original geotechnical evaluation for the project. The scope of. work for this supplementary evaluation included a site reconnaissance visit and subsequent supplementary engineering analyses. Authorization to proceed was given by Mr. James Abbott of Valhalla, LLC (Valhalla) on October 10, 2007. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site is located at the southwest corner of Edmonds Way and 232 nd Street SW in Edmonds, Washington, as shown in Figure 1, and consists of Parcels A through F, as shown in Figure 2. In general, the site is relatively level and accessible from Edmonds Way, sloping gradually from about elevation 200 feet at the southeast end to a low of about elevation 186 feet at the northwest end. However, the western perimeter of the project site runs along an east facing steep slope area. The western property line zig-zags across the slope face, following a north -south property alignment, with surface elevations ranging from about 196 near the toe to 216 feet near the upper end of the 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 1 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copy(ight 2007 Kleinfelder KLEINFELDER 2405 140th Avenue NE, Suite A] 01, Bellevue, WA 98005. (425) 562-4200 (425) 562-4201 fax steep slopes. The previous structures at the site have been demolished, leaving a few relic retaining walls against the hill side along the northwest portion of the site. The vegetation encountered on -site consisted of grass, brush, and trees. The general layout of the project site is shown on the attached Figure 2A. We understand that a mixed use retail building with below grade parking is planned in the south end of the site, while a series of town homes are planned within the northern portion of the site. The mixed use building is to be constructed up against the west property line. The construction excavations required for this structure will require tempor ary cut sloping or cantilever/tieback soldier pile shoring walls, or a combination thereof. Temporary sloping or tieback shoring wall systems will require a temporary easement from the neighboring properties to be feasible. It should be noted that two adjacent structures (a small building and garage) are located very near the property lines west. of the planned mixed use building in the south end of the site. Given the close proximity of these structures, their age and susceptibility to settlement induced cracking, we recommend that a shoring wall be used to provide construction excavation support in lieu of temporary sloping, to reduce potential settlement risks. The town homes in the northern portion of the site will be setback from the property lines, with a planned level access drive area between the structures and the slopes to the west. EXPLORATORY METHODS The surface and subsurfac e conditions at the project site were explored on a previous site visit for our original geotechnical evaluation, and during a recent site reconnaissance visit on October 25 and 29, 2007. The previous subsurface exploration consisted of excavating 10 test pits to a maximum depth of approximately 12-feet below the existing ground.surface (bgs) at the approximate locations shown in Figure 2A. Our current supplementary study included a recent site reconnaissance visit and additional borings advanced along the proposed temporary shoring wall location along the steep slopes on the . western property 'boundary. Along with boring logs for these current explorations, we have also included copies of the exploration logs for the previous test pits with this letter, for convenience. The following paragraphs describe the procedures associated with the field explorations and field tests that were conducted for this supplementary investigation. Auger Boting Procedures .The exploratory borings were advanced with a hollow -stem auger on October 25 and 29, 2007,' using a limited access, track -mounted drill rig and portable acker drill rig 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 2 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder KLEINFELDER 2405 140th Avenue NE, Suite Al 01, Bellevue, WA 98005 (425) 562-4200 (425) 562-420 1 fax operated by an independent drilling firm working under subcontract to Kleinfelder. A geotechnical engineer from our firm continuously observed the borings, logged the subsurface conditions, and collected representative soil samples. All samples were stored in sealed plastic jars and later transported to our laboratory for further visual examination and testing. After each boring was completed, the borehole was backfilled with a mixture of bentonite chips and soil cuttings. 12- or 5-foot depth Throughout the drilling operation, soil samples were obtained at 2/ intervals by means of the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) per ASTM:D-1586. This testing and sampling procedure consists of driving a standard 2-inch outside diameter steel split -spoon sampler 18 inches into the soil with a 140-pound hammer free-f.alling 30 inche I s.. The number of blows required to drive the sampler through each 6-inch interval is counted, and the total number of blows struck during the final * 12 inches is recorded as. the Standard Penetration Resistance, or "SPT blow count." If a total of 50 blows are struck within any 6-inch interval, the driving is stopped and the blow count is recorded as 50 blows for the actual penetration distance. The resulting Standard Penetration Resistance values indicate the relative density of granular soils and the relative consistency of cohesive soils. The boring logs attached to this letter . describe the vertical sequence of soils and materials encountered in each boring, based primarily on our field class ificatio, ns and supported by our subsequent laboratory examination and testing. Where a soil contact was observed -to be gradational, our logs indicate the average contact depth. Where a soil type changed between sample intervals, we inferred the contact depth. Our logs also graphically indicate the blow count, sample type, sample number, and approximate depth of each soil sample obtained from the borings, as well i as any laboratory tests performed on these soil samples. If any groundwater was encountered in a borehole, the approximate groundwater depth is depicted on the boring log. Groundwater depth estimates are typically based on the moisture. content of soil samples, the wetted height on the drilling rods, and the water level measured in the borehole after the auger has been extracted. Laboratory Testing As a part of our geotechnical evaluation, we performed a series of Grain Size Analyses, and Moisture Content Detenninati6ns. The results of these laboratory tests are presented in the enclosed laboratory test reports and on the exploration logs. A general grain size analysis indicates the range of'soil particle diameters included in a particular 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 3 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copy(ight 2007 Kleinfelder e,NE, S . uite Al 01, Bellevue, WA 98005 (425) 562-4200 (425) 562-4201 fax KLEINFELDER 2405 140th Avenu I I sample, While a 200 wash indicates how much fines (silt and clay sized particles) that is contained in a sample. These grain size laboratory tests were performed in general accordance with ASTIVI:D-4�2 and ASTM:C-1 17. Moistu re content determinations wer e completed in general accordance with ASTIVI:D-2216. The results of these laboratory tests were used to develop the soil classifications shown on the exploration logs and determine whether specific on -site soils will be suitable for r&-use, as structural fill. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Based on our previous site investigations, the site soils were generally disclosed in our test pit explorations to consist of medium dense sand and gravel with trace amounts of silt (Recessional Outwash), overlying dense to very dense, silty sand with varying amounts of gravel (Glacial Till) on the slope areas, and.very dense sand with varying amounts of gravel and silt (Advance Outwash) within the low-lying areas of the site. No groundwater was revealed n our previous explorations. Throughout the year, groundwater levels would likely fluctuate in response to changing precipitation patterns, off -site construction activities, and changes in site utilization., The deeper borings advanced as a part of our current supplementary study generally confirmed these subsurface conditions. It should be noted that our exploration along 232nd Street also confirmed the presence of very dense Glacial Till soils in this area of the site, where temporary sloping of excavation cuts are planned. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our findings and the results of our supplemental analyses, the project is considered feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided that the recommendations of this supplementary letter are implemented. For the planned cuts within the southwestern portion of the site (west side of mixed use building), we anticipate that temporary sloping may be used, provided that easements can be obtained and the sections adjacent to the existing neighboring structures are supported by a soldier pile and lagging shoring wall system, to limit the risk of undermining the adjacent structures. We anticipate that soldier pile and lagging shoring walls will be required. to shore the vertical cuts (up to about 18 feet high) adjacent to the existing neighboring structures west of the planned mixed use.building. The following text sections of this report present our specific geotechnical conclusions . and recommendations concerning temporary shoring walls, spread footings, permanent walls, and drainage systems. 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page.4 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder KLEINFELDER 2405 140th Avenue N( Suite Al 01, Bellevue, WA 98005 (4.25) 562-4200 (425) 562-4201 fax I Temporary Excavation Slope Cuts Temporary excavations should be performed in accordance with current federal, state and/or local regulations. Temporary excavations in excess of 4 feet vertical height must be sloped or supported in accordance with Part N of Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 296-155. For planning purposes, recommend the following maximum cut slope inclinations, based on the soil layers encountered within our explorations and the corresponding OSHA Soil Type classifications: Maximum Soil Type Inclination Medium Dense to Dense Sand with Gravel (Type B Soils) 1H:1V Dense to Very Dense Glacial Till (Type A Soils) %H:1V It should be noted that appropriate inclinations will ultimately depend on the actual soil and groundwater seepage conditions exposed in the cuts at the time of construction. It is the sole responsibility of the contractor to ensure that the excavation is properly sloped or braced for worker protection. Furthermore, it should be noted that the cut slope incli nation of any overlying soil layer should not be steeper than the underlying soil layer, according to OSHA guidelines. In addition to proper sloping, the excavation cuts should be draped with plastic sheeting for the duration of the excavation to minimize surface erosion and raveling. Excavations made below.the water. table will likely require dewaterin g and/or shoring. Temporary Shoring Walls Te m*porary shoring walls up to roughly 18-feet high will be required to support the planned perimeter cuts along the sloping ground areas along the western property. In our opinion, a conventional, cantilever or tieback soldier pile and lagging wall would be well -suited for this purpose. A cantilever, soldier pile shoring wall typically consists of wood lagging placed between soldier piles installed in pre-augered holes backfilled with lean mix or structural concrete to a typical depth below the excavation base of about 1.5 times the wall height above grade. The practical and economical vertical height limit for a cantilevered (unsupported by soil anchors) soldier -pile wall is typically on the order of 15 feet. Where the wall exceeds this practical cantilever height limit, soil tieback anchors are typically installed through the soldier piles to provide the necessary lateral support.and limit lateral deflections of the wall system; such tiebacks may be installed in a single row or in a multiple row configuration. A slightly different lateral soil pressure. analysis is required for each of these different wall configurations, as outlined 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 5 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder KLEINFELDER 2405 140th Avenue NE, Suite A101, Bellevue, WA 98005 (425) 562-4200 (425)56 2-4201 fax I subsequently. It should be noted that special design considerations will be required to limit wall deflection and potential ground settlement where the existing adjacent buildings are located directly on or close to the planned basement cuts. To minimize the risk of building damage, we recommend that these portions of the shoring. wall be designed for the horizontal surcharge resulting from such nearby footing loads, or that the existing footing elements on these buildings be directly underpinned by the soldier pile wall system. The following recommendations are provided for design of soldier pile and lagging shoring walls. Pile Embedment: All soldier piles should have sufficient embedment below the final excavation level to provide adequate "kick -out" resistance to horizontal loads. We recommend a minimum embedment of 10 feet below the excavation base. However, deeper embedment might be needed to develop adequate vertical capacity or passive resistance at specific locations, based on a structural analysis. Drilling Conditions: Based on our explorations, we predict that the soldier pile and grout tieback holes will encounter dense to very dense silty gravelly sand (glacial till) or dense to very dense sand with gravel/silt (Advance Outwash). I Loose to medium dense overburden soils can likely be drilled without difficulties, using a conventional auger, whereas the underlying very dense glacial till or advance outwash soils may yield slower drilling rates. Although none of our explorations encountered cobbles or boulders, it should be realized that such obstructions . can exist at random locations within the native deposits. Rubble could also be present within the upper fill soils. Applied Loads: Soldier piles should be designed to resist various applied loads, which can be classified as static pressures, surcharge pressures, seismic pressures, and hydrostatic pressures. Our recommended design pressures are presented graphically on the enclosed Cantilever and Tieback Shoring Wall Diagrams (Figu re 3) and are discussed in the following paragraphs. Static Pres sures: For tieback shoring walls having two or more rows of tiebacks, we generally recommend using an apparent lateral earth pressure with a trapezoidal distribution, as shown on Figure 3. Based on the site soils, we recommend using a peak earth pressure of 25H pounds per square foot (psf)l, where H is equal tothe height of excavation in feet, for the uniform portion of this trapezoidal distribution. This static earth pressure should be applied over the soldier pile spacing width from the top of the pile downward to the base of 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 6 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder KLEINFELDER 2405 140th Avenue NE, Suite A101, Bellevue, WA 98005 (425) 562-4200 (425) 562-4201 fax I I excavation. Below this level, an active earth pressure of 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), modeled as a fluid unit weight, should be applied over the diameter of the pile only, as shown on Figure 3. Cantilever soldier pile shoring walls (without tiebacks) are designed for the triangular active earth pressure diagram both above and below the base of'excavation level, in lieu of apparent lateral earth pressures, as noted on Figure 3. Surcharge Pressures: Lateral earth pressures acting on the soldier piles should be increased to account for any surcharge loadings from traffic, construction equipment,' material stockpiles, or structures that are located within a horizontal distance equal to the wall height. For simplicity, a traffic surcharge can be modeled as a uniform lateral pressure of 75 psf acting over the upper 6 feet of wall, as shown on Figure 3. Seismic Pressures: Temporary shoring walls need not be designed for seismic loads, given the relatively short duration of construction excavation and the addition'�l load capacity "built into" the static safety factor for the wall. However, if the shoring wall is designed in combination with a permanent wall, we recommend that the lateral earth pressures be increased to account for seismic loads. These seismic pressures. act over the entire back of the wall and vary with the backslope inclination, the seismic acceleration, and the wall height. For permanent walls designed for yielding conditions (allowing a wall rotation of 0.001 to 0.002 times the wall height), we recommend using a uniform horizontal seismic loading of 4H psf, based on the active state lateral earth pressure. Conversely, a non -yielding (restrained) permanent wall should be designed to withstand a uniform horizontal ' seismic loading of 12H psf, based on the at -rest state lateral earth pressure. The recommended seismic surcharge pressure distribution is presented graphically on Figure 3. Hydmstatic Pressures: If groundwater is allowed to saturate the soils behind the below -grade perimeter walls, hydrostatic pressures will act against the walls. At this site, however, we are assuming that the shoring walls will be provided with a geocomposite drainage mat system and that an under -slab drainage system will be installed to provide a permanent dewatering system for the structure. We therefore do not expect that hydrostatic pressures will develop. 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 7 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder KLEINFELDER 2405 140th Avenue NE, Suite A101, Bellevue, WA 98005 (425) 562-4200 (425) 562-4201 fax I I I Resistinq Forces: Lateral resistance can be computed by using an appropriate allowable passive earth pressure acting over the embedded portion of each soldier pile, neglecting the upper 2 feet. The trapezoidal distribution of this allowable passive pressure can be modeled as shown on Figure 3. This passive pressure should be applied over a lateral distance equal to the pile spacing or twice the pile diameter, whichever is less. For a level excavation base, we recommend using an allowable passive earth pressure of 375 pcf for the very dense advance outwash sand with gravel, modeled as a fluid unit weight, in the static design case; in the seismic case we recommend using an allowable passive fluid pressure of 500 pcf, as shown on Figure 3. These allowable passive e arth pressures incorporate a safety factor of 1.5 and 1.1 for the static and seismic case, respectively. Pile Capacities and Deflections* Appropriate side -friction and end -bearing capacities can be used to determine total vertical capacities of the soldier piles that may be required to resist, underpinning loads or the vertical component of the tieback loads. To estimate lateral deflections of the soldier piles, we recommend using appropriate subgrade reaction muduli., For the embedded portion of a soldier pile bearing within the native, very dense g ' lacial till soils or advance outwash sands, our recommended allowable design values are shown on the enclosed Figure 3 and are summarized below. . The allowable values for side friction and end bearing incorporate safety factors of 1.5 and 2.0 for tem porary and permanent conditions, respectively. Design Parameter Side Friction Capacity (very dense sands) End Bearing Capacity (very dense sands) Allowable Design Values Temporary Permanent Case Case 1,500 psf 1,200 psf 20 ksf 15 ksf Our recommendations regarding lagging design and installation are presented below. Wood Lagging Materials: Wood lagging is typically installed in between all soldier piles to reduce the potential for soil failure, loss of ground, and hazardous working conditions. In our opinion, either conventional wooden timbers or reinforced shotcrete could be 88601/SEA7L242. doc Page 8 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder KLEINFELDER 2405 140th Avenue NE, Suite A101, Bellevue, WA 98005 (425) 562-4200 (425) 562-4201 fax utilized as lagging at the site. For permanent applications, we recommend that all wooden timber lagging be pressure -treated. Lateral Pre$sures on Wood Lagging: Due to soil arching effects, temporary lagging that s pans 8 feet or less need be designed for only 25 percent of the lateral earth pressure previously recommended for soldier pile design. Permanent lagging, on the other hand, should be designed for 50 percent of this same lateral earth pressure. Wood Lagging Backfill:.We recommend that any voids greater than 1-inch behind the lagging be backfilled, but the backfill material should not be allowed to prevent g roundwater flow. If inadequate drainage is provided'behind the lagging, hydrostatic pressure will develop on the wall. Pea gravel would provide an effective lagging backfill, material to promote adequate drainage, whereas concrete, cdf, or other impermeable materials are not recommended. The void spaces should be backfilled progressively as the excavation proceeds. Tieback Conflicts and Easements: Because tiebacks typically extend about 30 to 60 feet behind the excavation face, conflicts with underground utilities, as well as with adjacent structures and foundations, often arise. The project structural engineer should carefully consider the locations of such obstructions when, laying out all tiebacks. Easements might be required for any tiebacks that extend onto private properties and right-of-way areas beyond the site property boundaries. It should also be realized that the City of Seattle does not typically allow permanent tiebacks to encroach on their roadway right- of-way limits. Tieback No -Load Zone: The anchor portion of all tiebacks must be located a sufficient distance behind the retained excavation face to develop resistance within a stable soil mass. We recommend that the anchorage be obtained behind a "no-load zone" defined by a plane projected upward at a 60-degree angle from the base of the excavation and set back from the excavation face a horizontal distance equal to 25 percent of the face height, as shown on Figure 3. Tieback Anchor Length and Spacinq: The anchor portion of the tieback (that portion behind the no-load zone) should have a minimum length of 10 feet and should be located at least 10 feet below the ground surface, as shown on Figure 3. To avoid interactions between adjacent tiebacks, we recommend that a clear spacing of at least 5 feet be maintained along the anchor zones. 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 9 of 13 November 21, 2007 copyright 2007 Kleinfelder KLEINFELDER 2405 140th Avenue NE, Suite Al 01, BelleVUe, WA 98005 (425) 562-4200 (425) 562-4201 fax I I I I I I I I I I I 11 I I I I Estimated Tieback Adhesion: If properly grouted, we tentatively estimate that allowable concrete/soil adhesion values listed in the table below (and shown on Figure 3) for the various site soil layers may be used for the anchor portion of a tieback. These allowable adhesion values incorporate a safety factor of 1.1 and 1.5 for the temporary and perma ' nent conditions, respectively. It should be noted, however, that the actual design values will depend on the installation method and should be confirmed by load - testing all tiebacks in the field. Allowable Tieback'Adhesion Values Temporary Permanent Soil Type Case Case Dense to Very Dense, Silty Gravelly Sand (Glacial Till) or Sand with gravel (Advance Outwash) 1,500 psf 1,200 psf Tieback Load Testing: We recommend that all tiebacks be subjected to a comprehensive testing program that will verify the integrity of individual tiebacks and provide information regarding their long-term creep characteristics. Two separate types of tests are appropriate for. temporary tiebacks:. 200-percent performance tests on a limited number of tiebacks (within each different soil unit), and 133-percent proof tests on each remaining tieback anchor. For permanent tiebacks, we also recommend that 300-percent verifi cation tests be performed. Kleinfelder can supply details for conducting these tests, upon request. Wall Deflection and Settlement Monitoring: We recommend that the top -of -wall horizontal deflection and potential vertical settlement of the ground surface behind the wall be monitored by means of standard surveying techniques, in order to assess the performance of the shoring wall during construction. Settlement monitoring should include establishing settlement bench marks on the existing ground sur face behind the wall. Top -of -wall horizonta I deflections should be monitored along the wall at both ends, at the mid -point, and every 20 feet in between. These survey points should be monitored immedia tely after soldier pile installation, regularly during excavation, and on 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 10 of 13 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder KLEINFELDER 2405 140th Avenue NE, Suite A] 01, Bellevue, WA 98005 November 21, 2007 (425) 562-4200 (425) 562-4201 fax I I a weekly basis following complete excavation. We recommend that Kleinfelder be allowed to review this survey monitoring data as soon as it becomes available. Construction Monitoring: Because shoring' walls require specialized installation and earthwork techniques to maintain stable conditions during and after construction, we strongly recommend that an Kleinfelder representative be retained to continuously monitor the installation of all soldier piles, wood lagging, and tiebacks. This monitoring would include observation and documentation of installation procedures, construction materials, drilling conditions, soil conditions, pile plumbness, as well as tieback load testing and confirmation of lock -off loads. LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared to aid Valhalla LLC in the evaluation of the site and to assist the architect. and engineer in the design of the facilities, in accordance with currently accepted geotechnical engineering practice. No warranty based on the contents of this report is intended, and none shall be inferred from the statements or opinions expressed herein. Our description of the project represents our understanding of the significant aspects -of the project relevant to the design and construction of earthwork, foundations and related issues. In the event that any changes in the basic design or location of the structures as outlined in this report are planned, we should be given the opportunity to review the changes and to modify or reaffirm in writing the conclusions and recommendations of this report. The scope of our services did not include any environmental assessment or investigation for the presence or absence of wetlands or hazardousor toxic materials in the soil, surface water, groundwater or air, on or below -or around this site. The analyses and recommendations represented in this report are based on the data obtained from the borings made at the locations indicated. on the Site and Exploration Plan and from other information discussed herein. This report is based on the assumption that the subsurface conditions everywhere are not significantly different from those disclosed by.the borings. However, variations in soil conditions may exist between the boring locations; also, general groundwater levels may fluctuate from time to time. The nature and extent of the variations may not bec ome evident until construction. *If subsurface conditions different from those encountered in the explorations are.observed or encountered during construction or appear to be present 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 11 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder KLEINFELDER 2405 140th Avenue NE, Suite A101, Bellevue, WA 98005 (425) 562-4200 (425) 562-4201 fax I beneath or beyond excavations, we should be, advi sed at once so that we can observe and review these conditions and reconsider our recommendations where necessary. The scope'of our services does not include services related to construction safety precautions and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. This report may be u se d only by Valhalla LLC and their design consultants and only for the purposes stated within a reasonable time from its issuance, but in no event later than one year from the date of the report. Lanid-or facility use, on and off -site conditions, regulations, or other factors may change over time, and additional work may be required with the passage of time. Any party other than Valhalla LLC who wishes to use this report shall notify KI einfelder of such intended use. Based on the intended use of the report, Kleinfelder may require that additional work be performed and that an updated report be issued. Non-compliance with any of these requirements by the client or anyone else will release Kleinfelder from any liability resulting from the use of this report by any unauthorized party and client agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless Kleinfelder from any claim or liability associated with such unauthorized use or non-compliance. Valhalla LLC is responsible to see that all parties to the project, including the designer, contractor, subcontractors, etc., are made aware of this report in its entirety. The use of information contained in this report for bidding purposes should be *done at the contractor's option and risk. Further guidelines and information on this geotechnical report can be found in the ASFE publication entitled Important Information About Your Geotechnical Engineering Report, which is included for your reference in Appendix D of this report. CLOSURE The conclusions and recommendations provided in this supplemental letter are based, in part, on the current project conditions provided to us, our review of available geotechnical documents for the project site, our site reconnaissance, and our interpretations 'and assumptions regarding subsurface conditions. If variations in subsurface conditions are discovered during earthwork, we may need to modify this report. The future performance and integrity of the temporary shoring systems and building foundations will depend largely on proper initial site preparation, drainage, and 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 12 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder KLEINFELDER 2405 140th Avenue NE, Suite Al 01, Bellevue, WA 98005 (425) 562-4200. (425) 562-4201 fax construction procedures. Monitoring by experienced geotechnical personnel should be considered an integral part of the construction process. . Kleinfelder is available to provide geotechnical inspection and testing services during the earthwork and foundation construction phases of the project. If variations in the subgrade conditions are observed at that time, we would be able to provide additional geotechnical engineering recommendations, thus minimizing delays as the project develops. We are also available to review preliminary plans and specifications before construction begins. We appreciate the opportunity to be of continued service to you. Should you have any questions concerning this letter, or if we can assist you further, please contact us at 206-654-7045. Respectfully submitted, KLEINFELDER WEST, INC. Steven Flowers, E.-I.T. Staff Geotechnical Engineer Rolf B. yllseth, P.E., L.G. Senior Geotechnical Engineer Attachments: Figure 1 — Location/Topographic Map Figure 2A — Site & Exploration Plan Figure 3 — Cantilever and Tieback Sharing Wall Diagrams Previous Test Pit Logs TP-1 through TP-10 (Kleinfelder, July 7, 2006) Boring Logs B-1 through B-8 Grain Size Distribution Reports (10) Distribution: Valhalla, LLC c/o SGA Co rporation Attn: Mr. James W. Abbott Shapiro Architects (3) Attn: Mr. Tony Shapiro 88601/SEA7L242.doc Page 13 of 13 November 21, 2007 Copyright 2007 Kleinfelder KLEINFELDER 2405 140th Avenue NE, Suite A101, Bellevue, WA 98005 (425) 562-4200 (425) 562-4201 fa x Copy6gN 0 IM2001 MWowfl Com. aro&w its supOors. AD ftha msw�d, ft:Nww mWmAmft%gipow 0 CapvirligM 2000 by Cioowaphc Oato Todwdogy, Im An d0ft msarvW. 0 2000 NwAgation Tbdwici"in. An dghts wsa,40C * Capye4w 2000 by Cafigiumarch WamffarkofirV Dim w4 SyMms LW. 5V -,V�t *toScale DRAWN BY: J.S. K L E I N F E L D E R Site Vicinity REVISED BY: 2405 140th Avenue NE, Suite A101 Bellevue, WA: 98005-1877 CHECKED BY: PH: (425) 562-4200 FAX: (425) 562-4201 Edmonds Mixed Use FIGURE www.kielnfelder.com 23012 Edmonds Way Edmonds, Washington DRAWN: Nov. 2007' 1 APPROVED B PROJECT NO. 8860ITFILE NAME: 88601-Figures.dwg I @ by Kleintelder West Inc., 2007 r- to 0. 2 65 0 LL 6 LL Lu It X ECV-'-�f�DS 'W4- 104) . .. . ........ TF -3� �4v rx -7 k TP-75— �0'6 ' '! � *B�6 *B L - -zr TP -9 L K, B - 3 -TP-16). 7 V4-z\, Zfj -4 @ by Kleinfelder West Inc., 2007 Legend E EbTp-i Previous Test Pit Number & Approximate Location F * B-4 Boring Number & Approximate Location (Current Study) X1,6 DRAWN BY: � . J.S. Site and Exploration Plan REVISED BY: 0 60 CHECKED BY: Edmonds Mixed Use !%i �� DATE: -1 APPROVED BY: 23012 Edmonds Way Scale in Feet Nov.2007 Edmonds, Washi ' ngton PROJECT NO. 88601 1 FILE NAME: 88601-Figures.dwg < 71" FIGURE 111AW101,11902-010 a 2405 140th Avenue NE, Suite Al 01 Bellevue, WA 98005-1877 2A PH: (425) 562-4200 FAX: (425) 562-4201 www.kleinfelder.com TESTING PROGRAM U.S.C.S. LABORATORY I FIELD 41 WELIJPIEZO SOIL DESCRIPTION 0M -M CONSTRUCTION zw & J_'z z oz 0= (nz Surface: forest duff, sod and topsoil (1-3 inches) go 00 M Z 0 0 91. SP dense b wn ei— SAND V4TH lip 110 115 6.8 35 15 Sl-I 28 32 35 [\/] SI-2 me GRAVEL, fine to medium sand, f gravel, trace silt. (RECESSIONAL OUTWASH) j7 SM Vei�EWie_, y— rown,—d y,S1ffT§TN5 WITH GRAVEL, fine sand, fine gravel. (GLACIAL TTLL) -grades to very dense, grey -------------------- very dense, grey -brown, dry, SELTY SAND WrITI GRAVEL, fine to medium sand, fine gravel. (GLACIAL TILL) > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SP d grey -brown, dry, SAND WIN very ense GRAVEL, medium sand, some silt. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) D ji > 20 L I DATE DRILLED: 10-25-07 SURFACE ELEVATION (feet): 213.0 ft DRILLING METHOD: HSA (Track Rig) LOGGED BY: FDR TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 50.3 DRILLER: Boretech REVIEWED BY: Rolf kyllseth DIANIETER OF BORING (in): 8.5 in CASING SIZE: n/a Edmonds mixed use Appendix 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way Edmonds, Washington k4KLEINFELDER A-2a GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS 5 SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING BOMNG LOG PAGE I of 3 PROJECT NUMMER: 88601 B-1 TESTING PROGRAM U.S.C.S. LABORATORY FIELD WELL/PIEZO > i ri Z W 0 SOIL DESCRIPTION CONSTRUCTION F� Z r -,C;D z z 9 ow 0'� Wz 0 X0 C; z 0 ow W U 20- 10 S14 �T4 *4 24 28 C40) Z 0� zz 0 U� Z < 25- 24 SI-5 -grades to medium to coarse grained, no silt 0 30 -grades to moist, medium grained -0 38 z 0 =U z 051 30- 50/511 SI-6 —2 inches wet coarse grained, over 3 inches moist medium to coarse grained, U< 0 trace si t. < Z 0 Z Z 040 35- 25 SI-7 -moist medium grained, trace silt >1 U 38 0 50/519 XW W a. 0 > LL 4 0 SAMIPLER TYPE Cal. 3"OD) spu SPT q2" OD) Split Core Shelby No Sample Grab poon Tube Recovery co **ILAAIIqER WEIGHT 300 lbs (30" Drop) 140 lbs (30" Drop) Edmonds mixed use Q z k4KLEINFELDER 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way Appendix < 0 Edmonds, Washington A-2b z 1< GEOTECEMCAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS 13ORING LOG U) SOILS AND AIATERIALS TESTING PROJECT NUMMER: 88601 B-1 PAGE 2 of 3 LIADUKA I UK r JIM 41� WELLIPIEZO U.2 P4 W. U W94 �w CONSTRUCTION Zw G 0 04 COCO Go E-4 H U C4 Gnz 04 F. U, CIO 0 ��o -.4 ce z U z 0 40 45 44 N A si-9 U.S.C.S. W 0 9 SOIEL DESCRIPTION -mois t medium to coarse grained, one inc lens of wet, coarse sand. -grades to medium grained sand. L!:� -rock fragments and coarse grained, moist, �sand. -Boring completed to 50.3 feet below ground surfice. -Groundwater was not encountered during dri1ling. -Boring backfilled with bentonite chips. 14 D SAM(PLER cal. OD TYPE SPT q2 " OD) n Core Shelby Grab No Splitqp"oon Split poon Sample Tube Recovery 300 lbs "HAMMER WEIGHT (30" Drop) 140 lbs (30" Drop) Edmonds mixed use D 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way Appendix D k4KLEINFELDER Edmonds, Washington A-2c GEOTECTINICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS BORING LOG SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING PROJECT NUMBER: 88601 B-1 PAGE 3 of 3 LABORATORY FIELD 4! WELL/PIEZO jj ry W �4w CONSTRUCTION z �-4� & G ;-. .1 A-� W 0 P < Gow U <6 rnz 04 go z 0 0 110 112 U.S.C.S. o SOIL DESCR IPTION Z. Surface: forest duff, sod and topsoil (1-3 inches) SAND WITH GRAVEL, fine to medium sand, fine gravel. (WEATHERED GLACIAL TILL) - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 16 S2-1 Very dense, light grey -brown, dry, SILTY 34 SAND WITH GRAVEL, fine sand, fine gravel. 36 (GLACIAL TELL) 6.3 24 31 -gra S2-2 des to fine to medium sand 50/6 -Boring terrninated at 12 feet below ground surface due to auger refusal. -Groundwater was not encountered during drilling. -Boring backfilled with bentonite chips. FA DATE DRILLED: 10-29-07 SURFACE ELEVATION (feet): 212.0 ft DRILLING METHOD: HSA (Portable Acker Rig) LOGGED BY: FDR TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 12.0 DRILLER: Boretech REVIEWED BY: Rolf Hyllseth DIAMETER OF BORING (in): 5.5 in CASING SIZE: n/a Edmonds mixed use Appendix 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way k%IIKLEINFELDER Edmonds, Washington A - 3 GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING BORING LOG ROJECT NUM[BER: 88601 B-2 -.PAGE I of 1 TESTING PROGRAM U.S.C.S. LABORATORY I FIELD WELLIPIEZO g S W04 SOIL DESCRIPTION z > 0" CONSTRUCTION zw 5 M A4 &6 U .< = coz z 4= : P4 0z F q14 0 C5 0S Cn Surface: bare ground _V U z 0 0 Pk SP medium dense, grey -brown, moist, SAND WITH GRAVEL, trace Silt, medium sand, trace organics (rootlets). (RECESSIONAL OUTWASH) 5 — 11.5: 14 16 S3-1 -me dium to coarse grained sand, moist. 18 -grades dense, wet, fine to medium grained Sand, some silt. 23 10- 15 S3-2 grades to very dense, moist, fine to coarse 33 sand, trace silt 38 15- 17 S3-3 -grades to dry to moist 35 42 Li LU > 20 DATE DRILLED: 10-25-07 SURFACE ELEVATION (feet): 192.0 ft DRILLING METHOD: HSA (Track Rig) LOGGED BY: FDR TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 26.4 DRILLER: Boretech REVIEWED BY: Rolf.Hyllseth DIAMETER OF BORING (in): 8.5 in CASING SIZE: n/a D Edmonds mixed use k4KLEINFELDER 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way Appendix r Edmonds, Washington A-4a GEOTECWUCAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS BORING LOG SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING �,JPROJECTNUMBER: 88601 B-3 PAGE I of 2 TESTING PROGRAM U.S.C.S. LABORATORY I FIELD 0 WELL/PIEZO > CONSTRUCTION WWI 0. < z j. — — 4 z W E-4 &* U W 9k (nz < C)z �0 W 0q. X0 a z 6 U z 0 low., 6.4 SOIL DESCRIPTION -24 S34 -grades to moist 50/31 X 31 S3-5 -grades to occasional I inch (I") seams of fine to medium grained wet sand with silt. 46 50/5 -Boring completed to 26.4 feet below ground surface. -Groundwater was not encountered during drilling. -Boring backfilled with bentonite chips. 0 SAMPLER Cal. 3"OD) SPT (2" OD) Core Shelby Grab No TYPE Sphtqpoon Split Spoon Sample Tube Recovery 9 300lbs 140lbs **HAMWR WEIGHT (30" Drop) (30" Drop) Edmonds mixed use Appendix Z 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way 0 k4KLEINFELDER Edmonds, Washington A-4b z G90TECBMCAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS BORING LOG V) SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING PAGE 2 of 2 PROJECT NUMBER: 88601 B-3 TESTING PROGRAM U.S.C.S. LABORATORY FIELD WELL/PIEZO ow > H g W W9 .0 0 SOIL DESCRIPTION CONSTRUCTION AQ Low OZ :90 U E� W CY 0— �4 Wz Surface: grass, sod and topsoil (1-3 inches) U 0 sm loose, grey -brown, dry, SILTY SAND WrM GRAVEL, fine to medium grained, trace organics, rootlets, 15" boulder encountered in upper foot. (FILL) 5 3 S4-1 grades to ligbt-brown, fine grained 2 2 ;P-Sry 1: -:7 - . — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — dense, light -brown, dry, SAND WrIH SILT, fine to medium sand, some gravel. (GLACIAL TILL) 10- 17 S4-2 16 25 SP — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — very dense, grey -brown, dry to moist, SAND WrM GRAVEL, fine to coarse. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) 15- 31 S4-3 33 34 L? LLI > 20 -1 U DATE DRILLED: 10-25-07 SURFACE ELEVATION (feet): 200 ft DRILLING METHOD: HSA (Track Rig) LOGGED BY: FDR TOTAL DEPTH (feet). 51.3 DRILLER: Boretech REVIEWED BY: Rolf Hyllseth DIAMETER OF BORING(in): 8.5 in CASING SIZE: n/a D Edmonds mixed use ? Appendix K 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way k4KLE'INFELDER Edmonds, Washington A-5a GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING BORING LOG PAGE 1 of 3 PROJECT NUMBER: 88601 B-4 C'n m m mum m m.m m m m-� 2000 STANDARD IN/OUT 88601 1 (ROLF VERSION).CPJ 200OREV.GDT 11/21107 DEPTH (feet) H 0 0 g co r) t2l 0 WATER LEVEL MOISTURE ............................................................................................. ......................... CONTENT(%) 0 ........... I .............................................................. ............................................................................................. PLASTIC LIMIT(%) rA 1-121 wr) to .. ......................................................................... LIQUID LIMIT(%) ........... .................................... ..................................................... % PASSING ............. ............................................... No. 200 SIEVE .......................... ....... ...... . OTHERTESTS ............ I .......... 4, PID (ppm) V R BLOWS/6 inches** (uncorrected) SAMPLER* SAMPLE NUMBER CD NAME SYMBOL CD 0 w co NE4 l< CD t7' m CD 0 w C) CL CD W CD 0 0 Cr CD mo CD CD THIS SUMMARY APPLIES -ONLY AT THIS LOCATION AND AT THE TIME OF LOGGING. CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER BY: APPROV: AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATION WITH TIME. DATA PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION. TESTINGPROGRAM U.S.C.S. LABORATORY FIELD WELIRIEZO g W94 SOIL DESCIMPTION W 0 CONSTRUCTION > ZW o4w W z W OZ In oz z 0 4 40 S4-8 -medium-grained, trace silt 34 38 45- 32 S4-9 -medium to coarse -grained no silt 48 24 50- 27 S4-10 -moist, fine to medium -grained, trace silt. 45 r014 JJX 1.31 -Boring completed to 51.3 feet below ground surface. -Groundwater was not encountered during drilling. -Boring backfilled with bentonite chips. *SAMTLER Cal. POD) TYPE SPTq2"OD) Core Shelby Grab No SpHtqpoon Split poon Sample Tube Recovery **HAAUqER WEIGHT 300 lbs (30" Drop) 140 lbs (30" Drop) Edmonds mixed use Appendix k4KLEINFELDER 232nd Ave and, Edmonds Way Edmonds, Washington A - 5e GEOTECBNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS BORING LOG SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING PROJECT NUMBER: 88601 B-4 PAGE 3 of 3 i 0 U z rA C) 0-4 E-4 Z Z 0 W U (3 Z 0 0 [-4 0-4 F� z F4 9z U z 0 !4 -� Z 0 U 0 z E-4 E-4 U Z 04 U 0 0) ODO E-4 0 >4 M �LAISURAIURY i rMilij ** 4! WELLIPEEZO CONSTRUCTION 9 4 & E�z WW .4 U j GOrn wo P C4 E-4 -t46 W PW = < = 0- Gnz 0 E_ GO 5 Akr4 (n :�o E-4 0 0 5 10 8.7 1 27 NA ss-1 20 N S5-2 35 38 39 N A S5-3 U.S.C.S. SOIL DESCRIPTION Surface: grass, sod and topsoil (1-3 inches) -Boring completed to 15.8 feet below ground surface. -Groundwater was not encountered during drilling. -Boring backfilled with bentonite chips. :5 DATE DRILLED: 10-29-07 SURFACE ELEVATION (feet): 189 ft DRILLING METHOD: HSA (Track Rig) X LOGGED BY: FDR TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 15.8 DRILLER: Boretech REVIEWED BY: Rolf Hyllseth DIAMETER OF BORING (in): 8.5 in CASING SIZE: n/a 10 Edmonds mixed use 2 Appendix 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way k4KLEINFELDER Edmonds, Washington A - 6 GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING BORING LOG PAGE I of I PROJECT NUMBER: 88601 B-5 LAISURAWKY I HELD 41� WELL/PIEZO a -5, CONSTRUCTION W F�z 'S U 0 e= Cnz oz En o 'n �4 go _et o, E� M U Z 0 0 5 110 115 16.5 9.4 10 6 S6-1 13 21 22 N S6-2 28 27 21 N S6-3 35 50 U.S.C.S. SOIL DESCRIPTION z grass, sod and topsoil (1-3 inches) -Boring completed to 16.5 feet below ground surface. -Groundwater was not encountered during drilling. -Boring backfilled with bentonite chips. 51 DATE DRILLED: 10-25-07 SURFACE ELEVATION (fe et): 188 ft DRILLING METHOD: HSA (Track Rig) LOGGED BY: FDR TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 16.5 DRILLER: Boretech REVIEWED I]Yi Rolf Hyllseth DIAMETER OF BORING (in): 8.5 in CASING SIZE: n/a Edmonds mixed use Appendix K 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way k4KLEINFELDER Edmonds, Washington A - 7 GEOTECH1'0CAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS BORING LOG SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING PAGE I of I LABORAIURY I FIELD ? WELL/PIEZO CONSTRUCTION 4 F-4 ;Z)z — — .4 cp U Wz 0 0- U .4 :i z 0 0 5 � I � 3.5 I 10� I � 8.0 115 DATE DRILLED: 10-25-07 LOGGED BY: FDR REVUWED BY: Rolf Hyllseth U.S.C.S. o SOIL DESCRIPTION z Surface: grass, sod and topsoil (1-3 inches', SM medium dense, brown, dry, SELTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, fine to medium sand, fine vel. (FILL) �(G�s_ Fe�-_b — — — — — — — 5- SP �e e e, grey to rown, dry, SAND WITH GRAVEL, fine to coarse sand, fine gravel. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) 13 S7-1 32 28 13 S7-2 grades to dense, moist, trace silt 18 16 20 S7-3 -grades to moist with occasional wet lenses, very dense, 2 inch lens of fine to medium 29 grained sand. 26 SURFACE ELEVATION (feet): 186 ft DRILLING METHOD: HSA- (Track Rig) TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 51.5 DRILLER: Boretech DIAMETER OF BORING (in): 8.5 in CASING SIZE: n/a 6 18 Edmonds mixed use Appendix 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way k4KLEIN-FELDER Edmonds, Washington A-8a GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTTNG BORING LOG PROJECT NUMEBER: 88601 B-7 PAGE I of 3 TESTING PROGRAM U.S.C.S. LABORATORY FIELD g W9 SOIL DESCRIPTION WELL/PIEZO > CONSTRUCTION > �jH W i a Z. .1 -- a. z 00, -Z Oz :50 z C5 U z 0 20- 10 S74 -grades to medium dense. 9 6 25- 24 S7-5 -grades to very dense, dry. 30 37 30- 25 S7-6 as above, thin 1/4 inch lenses fine to medium grained, light brown SAND. 39 35 35- 28 S7-7 39 47 > 4 *SAMPLER Cal. 3 OD) spPITitC211 OD) Core Shelby No TYPE Splitqp"oon spoon Sample Tube Grab Recovery 300lbs 140lbs "HAMMER WEIGIff (30" Drop) (30" Drop) Edmonds mixed use Appendix 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way k%IK-LEINFELDER- Edmonds, Washington A-8b GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING BORING LOG PROJECT NUMBER: 88601 PAGE 2 of 3 B-7 TESTINGPROGRAM U.S.C.S. LABORATORY FIELD __* :F ,201 WELUPIEZO Up 132 g W9 W 0 CONSTRUMON > ZE A '4W P �j MUD U (A) C) 04 rA 0 �: z -etc, OZ E� 0 U) 0 SOIL DESCRIPTION Lu S'/-b -grades to wet lenses of fine SAND W11 22 SILT. 38 34 S7-9 -grades to medium to coarse grained 50/6 SAND, dry 11 S7-10 �grades to medium dense, moist to wet, 14 medium grained sandArith gravel. 7 -Boringcompleted to 51.5 feet below ground surface. -Groundwater was not encountered during drilling. -Boring backfilled with bentonite chips. *SAMTLER TYPE Cal. 3 'OD) Spl,tq " H poon N SPT q2" OD) Split poon Core Shelby Sample Tube Grab No Recovery **HAAEVIER WEIGHT 300lbs (30" Drop) 140lbs (30" Drc p) Edmonds mixed use k4KLEINFELDER 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way Appendix Edmonds, Washington A - 8c GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGU '�EERS SOU,S A" MATERIALS TESTING BORING LOG FECT NUMER: 88601 B-7 PAGE 3 of 3 LABORATORY FIE '.Z :-F ___1 WELL/PIEZO — — t ?:1 L, U� Q CONSTRUCTION 0� g'5 g �Dz X :� ZW 0-4� W- 2-1 &. W F� W &0 U (Arn '0�= 1j RE j. F-4 �4z 0 0 WZ �0 CY U Z 0 5- 3.2 10- 16.5 C14 Z 0 W W 0 DATE DRILLED: 10-29-07 LOGGED BY: FDR REVIEWED BY: Rolf Hyllseth 0 11 : 12 20 N S8-1 25 35 21. N S8-2 24 28 20 N S8-3 21 U.S.C.S. - 0 SOIL DESCRIPTION grass, sod SP dense, grey -brown, dry, SAND WITH GRAVEL, medium to coarse sand, fine to coarse gravel, cobbles to 4 inches in size. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) -grades to very dense. -grades to fine to medium grained. -Boring completed to 16.5 feet below ground surface. -Groundwater was not encountered during drilling. -Boring backfilled with bentonite chips. SURFACE ELEVATION (feet): 185 ft DRILLING METHOD: HSA (Track Rig) TOTAL DEPTH (feet): 16.5 DRILLER: Boretech DIAMETER OF BORING (in): 8.5 in CASING SIZE: n/a Z k4KLEINFELDER Z < GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING PROJECT NUMMER: 88601 Edmonds mixed use Appendix 232nd Ave and Edmonds Way Edmonds, Washington A - 9 BORING LOG B-8 PAGE I of I Particle Size Distribution Report 11" I an GRAIN SIZE - mm % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT % C��q - 0.0 19.0 46.0 35.0 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC.* PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) 1.5 in. 100.0 I in. 92.0 3/4 in. 89.0 1/2 in. 86.0 3/8 in. 84.0 94 81.0 #8 78.0 #10 78.0 #16 75.0 #30 71.0 #40 67.0 #50 61.0 ft 100, 46.0 #200 35.0 Soil Description Silty sand with gravel Laboratory No.: 7720 Moisture Content: 6.8% Afterberg Limits PL= LL= Pl= Coefficients D85= 11-1 D60= 0.286 D60= 0. 182 D30= D15= D10= Cu= cc= Classification USCS= SM AASHTO= Remarks Tested By. D. Erickson Checked By: J. Schwartz Entered By- B. Kochanski - (no specification provided) Sample No.: SI-1 Source of Sample: B-1 Date: 11/19/07 Location: Elev./Depth: 5' Client: Valhalla LLC Project: Edmonds Mixed Use Builoing KLEINFELDER, INC. Project No- 88601/1 Figure % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT I %CL �q 0.0 7.0 76.0 17.0. SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC! —PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) 3/4in. 100.0 1/2in. 100.0 3/8in. 97.0 #4 93.0 #8 87.0 #10 86.0 #16 81.0 #30 71.0 #40 61.0 #50 45.0 #100 23.0 #200 17.0 Soil Descriptio!l Silty sand Laboratory No.: 7720 Moisture Content: 7. 1 % Atterberg Limits PL= LL= PI= Coefficients D85= 1.75 D60= 0.415 D50= 0.334 D30= 0.201 D1 5= D10= CU= cc= Classification USCS= SM AASHTO= Remarks Tested By: D. Erickson Checked By- J. Schwartz Entered By- B. Kochanski - (no sp cifica6on provide Sample No.: S1-3 Source of Sample: B-1 Location: Date: 11/19/07 Elev./Depth: 15'. Client: Valhalla LLC KLEINFELDER., INC. Project: Edmonds Mixed Use Building Project No: 88601/1 Fiqure M % COBBLE� % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT % CLAY 0.0 12.0 64.0 24.0 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC.* PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) I in. 100.0 3/4 in. 97.0 1/2 in. 91.0 3/8 in. 90.0 #4 88.0 #8 85.0 #10 85.0 #16 82.0 #30 75.0 #40 66.0 #50 52.0 #100 32.0 #200 24.0 Soil Description Silty sand Laboratory No.:7720 Moisture Content: 6.3% Atterberg Limits PL= LL= Pl= Coefficients D85= 2.00 D60= 0.364 D50= 0.285 D30= 0.133 D15= D1 O= cu= cc= Classification USCS= SM AASHTO= Remarks Tested By: D. Erickson Checked By: J. Schwartz Entered By- B> Kochanski - (no specification provided) Sample No.: S2-2 Source of Sample: B-2 Location: [-61,ent*t Valhalla LLC [KLEINFELDE*R, INC. Project: Edmonds Mixed Use Building Date: 11/19/07 Elev./Depth: 10' No: 88601/1 10C 9C 80 70 W W 60 Z LL Z 50 W C) 0� W 40 30 20 10 n Particle Size Distribution Report d d d 500 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE - mm % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT % CLA 0.0 14.0 72.0 14.0 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC.* PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) 1.5 in. 100.0 I in. 94.0 3/4 in. 94.0 1/2 in. 92.0 3/8 in. 90.0 #4 96.0 #8 81.0 #10 80.0 #16 75.0 #30 66.0 #40 57.0 #50 43.0 #100 20.0 #200 14.0 Soil Description Silty sand Laboratory No.: 7720 Moisture Content: 11.5% Atterberg Limits PL= LL= Pl= Coefficients D85= 4.11 D60= 0.467 D50= 0.354 D30= 0.215 D15= 0.0979 D10= cu= cc= Classification USCS= SM AASHTO= Remarks Tested By: B. Kochanski Checked By- J. Schwartz Entered B y- B. Kochanski -. (no specification provided) Sample No.: S3-1 Source of Sample: B-3 Location: Date: 11/19/07 Elev./Depth: 5' Client: Valhalla LLC Project: Edmonds Mixed Use Building KLEINFELDER, INC. 11 ProjectNo: 88601/1 Figure 100 90 80 70 lr_ W 60 Z LL 1-- Z 50 W 0 W LLJ 40 30 20 10 n Particle Size. Distribution Report .9 S S 500 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE - mm % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT I % C��:] 0.0 17.0 72.0 11.0 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC. PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) 3/4 in. 100.0 1/2 in. 96.0 3/8 in. 94.0 #4 83.0 #8 75.0 #10 73.0 #16 66.0 #30 54.0 #40 46.0 #50 36.0 #100 17.0 #200 11.0 Soil Descri0on Poorly graded sand with silt and gravel Laboratory No.: 7720 Moisture Content: 8.7% Atterberg Limits .PL= LL= Pl= Coefficients D85= 5.37 D60= 0.817 D50= 0.500 D30= 0.247 D15= 0.132 D10= cu= cc= Classification USCS= SP-SM 'AASHTO= Remarks Tested By: D. Erickson Checked By: J. Schwartz Entered. By- B. Kochanski (no specificafion pro-�ided) Sample No.: S5-1 Source of Sample: B-5 Location: Date: 11/19/07. Elev./Depth- - 5' Client: Valhalla LLC Project: Edmonds Mixed Use Building KLEINFELDER, INC. 1 11 Project No: 88601/1 Figure Particle Size Distribution Report 10C 9C 8C 70 Of W 60 Z u_ I-_ Z 50 cr_ W 40 CL 30 20 10 0 GRAIN S17F - mm % C013BLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT I % CLAY 0.0 20.0. 70.0 10.0 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC.* PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) I in. 100.0 3/4 in. 91.0 1/2 in. 88.0 3/8 in. 86.0 .#4 80.0 #8 .73.0 #10 72.0 #16 65.0 #30 54.0 #40, 44.0 #50 30.0 #100 15.0 #200 10.0 Soil Description Well -graded sand with silt and gravel Laboratory No.: 7720 Moisture Content: 9.4% Atterberg Limits PL= LL= Pl= Coefficients D85= 8.42 D60= 0.835 D50= 0.511 D30= 0.300 D15= 0.150 D10= 0.0750 cu= 11.13 Cc= 1.44 Classification USCS= SW-SM AASHTO= Remarks Tested By: J. Schwartz Checked By: J. Mason, PE Entered By: B. Kochanski (no specification provided) Sample No.: S6-1 Source of Sample: B-6 Location: Client: Valhalla LLC KLEIN FE LDER,'INC. I Project: Edmonds Mixed Use Building Date: 11/19/07 Elev./Depth: 5' No: 88601/1 "11101111111 J % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT I % CLAY 0.0 26.0 68.0 6.0 - I I SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC.* PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) I in. 100.0 3/4 in. 97.0. 1/2 in. 90.0 3/8 in. 84.0 #4 74.0 48 66.0 #10 65.0 #16 59.0 #30 46.0 #40 34.0 #50 22.0 #100 10.0 #200 6.0 . Soil Description Poorly graded sand with silt and gravel Laboratory No. :7720 Moisture Content: 3.5% Afterberg Limits PL= LL= Pl= Coefficients D85= 10-0 D60= 1.27 D50= 0.698 D30= 0.381 D15= 0.222 D10= 0.150 Cu= 8.46 Cc= 0.76 Classification USCS= SP-SM AASHTO= Remarks Tested By: D. Erickson Checked By. I Schwartz Entered By: B. Kochanski (no specification provided) Sample No.: S7-1 Source of Sample: B-7 Location: Fc ilent. Valhalla LLC Project: Edmonds Mixed Use Building KLEINFELDER, INC. I Date: 11/19/07 Elev./Depth: 5' No: 88601/1 MUM MOTO % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT I % C��K:] 0.0 17.0 65.0 18.0 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC! PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) I in. 100.0 3/4 in. 98.0 1/2 in. 93.0 3/8 in. 89.0 #4 83.0 #8 78.'0 #10 77.0, #16 73.0 #30 63.0 #40 53.0 #50 40.0 #100 23.0 #200 18.0 Soil Description Silty sand with gravel Laboratory No.: 7120' Moisture Content: 8.0% Afterberg Limits PL= LL= Pl= Coefficients D85= 6.27 D60= 0.532 D50= 0.391 D30= 0.215 D15= - D10= cu= cc= Classification USCS= SM AASHTO= Remarks Tested By: D. Erickson . Cbecked By- J. Scbwartz Entered By- B. Kochanski - (no specification provided) Sample No.: S7-2 Source of Sample: B-7 Location: Fuent. Valhalla LLC Project: Edmonds Mixed Use Building KLEINFELDER, INC. Date: 11/19/07 Elev./Depth: 10' . . No: 88601/1 flIg u re Particle Size Distribution Rep ort 100 9 80 70 W 60 Z LL 1-- Z 50 W 0 cr_ W 40 IL 30 20 10 500 100 10 1 OA 0.01 0001 GRAIN SIZE - rnm % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT % CLAY 0.0 22.0 67.0 11.0 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC.* PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) 1.5 in. 100.0 1 in. 88.0 3/4 in. 88.0 1/2 in. 84.0 3/8 in. 81.0 #4 78.0 #8 73.0 #10 71.0 #16 66.0 #30 53.0 #40 42.0 #50 30.0 #100 16.0 #200 11.0 Soil Description Poorly graded sand with silt and gravel Laboratory No.: 7720 Moisture Content: 3.2% Atterberg Limits PL= LL= PI= Coefficients D85= 14.0 D60= 0.804 D50= 0.542 D30= 0.3,00 D15= 0.137 D10= cu= cc Classification USCS= SP-SM AASHTO= Remarks Tested By: D. Erickson Checked By- J. Schwartz Entered By- B. Kocbanski - (no specification provided) Sample No.: S8.-I Source of Sample: B-8 Date: 11/19/07 Location: Elev./Depth: 5' Client: Valhalla LLC KLEINFELDER, INC. Project: Edmonds Mixed Use Building _E!9ject No: 88601/1 Figure Particle Size Distribution Report M Z u- Z 50� Ili 0 % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT I % C��q 0.0 18.0 70.0 12.0 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) 3/4 in. 100.0 1/2in. 98.0 3/8 in. 92.0 #4 82.0 #8 75.0 #10 74.0 #16 70.0 #30 58.0 #40 .46.0 #50 32.0 #100 17.0 #200 12.0 Soil Description Poorly graded sand with silt and gravel Laboratory No.: 7720 Moisture Content: 5.8% Atter6erq Limits PL= LL= Pl= Coefficients D85= 6.07 D60= 0.646 D50= 0.471 D30= 0 .283 D15= 0 , '122 D10= Cu= cc= Classification USCS= SP-SM AASHTO= Remarks Tested By: D. Erickson Checked By. J. Schwartz Entered By: B. Kochanski (no specification provided) Sample.No.: S8-2 Source of Sample: B-8 Location: F client- Valhalla LLC KLEINFELDER, INC. I Project: Edmonds Mixed Use Building Date: 11/19/07 Elev./Depth: - 10, ect No: 88601/1 I i I I I I I I I I 'I I I I I I I j 11 I I I I I I I I I I 11 I r Particle Size Distribution Report 100 9 80 70--- W 0 Z LL Z 0 W 0 W 40--- CL 30 20 10 0, ;1 : L 500 100 10 0.1 0.01 0.00T GRAIN SIZE - mm % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND. % SILT %C 0.0 12.0 64.0 24.0 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC! PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) I in. 100.0 3/4 in. 97.0 1/2 in. 91.0 3/8 in. 90.0 #4 88.0 #8 85.0 #10 85.0 #16 82.0 #30 75.0 #40 66.0 #50 52.0 #100 32.0 #200 24.0 (no specification provided) Sample No.: S2-2 Location: Soil Description Silty sand Laboratory No.:7720 Moisture Content: 6.3% Atterberg Limits PL= LL= Pl= Coefficients D85= 2.00 D60= 0.364 D50= 0.285 D30= 0.133 D1 5= D1 O= Cu= Cc= Classification USCS= SM AASHTO= Remarks Tested By: D. Erickson Checked By: J. Schwartz Entered By: B. Kochanski Source of Sample: B-2 Client: Valhalla LLC KLEIN,FELDER, I NC. Project: Edmonds Mixed Use Building Date: 11/19/07 Elev./Depth: 10' Proiect No: 88601/1 Particle Size. Distribution Report d c! 100 90 80 N Ir W Z LL. Z 0 W 0 cc LJJ 40 CL 30 20 10 01 1 500 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE - mm % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT I % CLAY 0.0 14.0 72.0 14.0 1 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) 1.5 in. 100.0 I in. 94.0 3/4 in. 94.0 1/2 in. 92.0 3/8 in. 90.0 #4 86.0 #8 81.0 #10 80.0 #16 75.0 #30 66.0 #40 57.0 #50 43.0 #100 20.0 #200 14.0 Soil Description Silty sand Laboratory No.: 7720 Moisture Content: 11.5% Atterberg Limits PL= LL= PI= Coeff icients D85= 4.11 D60= 0.467 D50= 0.354 D30= 0.215 D15= 0.0979 D1 O= Cu= Cc= Classification USCS= 'SM AASHTO= Remarks Tested By: B. Kochanski Checked By: J. Schwartz Entered By: B. Kochanski (no specification provided) Sample No.: S3-1 Source of Sample: B-3 Location: Client: Valhalla LLC KLEI NFELDER, INC. Project: Edmonds Mixed Use Building Date: ' 11/19/07 Elev./Depth: 5' 88601/1 Particle Size Distribution Report d 10.0 go--- 0 Z LL Z 0 LLI 0 LJJ 40 30 20 10 0 500 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE mm % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT I % CLAE] 0.0 17.0 72.0 . 11.0 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) 3/4 in. 100.0 1/2 in. 96.0 3/8 in. 94.0 #4 83.0 #8 75.0 #10 73.0 #16 66.0 #30 54.0 #40 46.0 #50 36.0 #100 17.0 #200 11.0 Soil Description Poorly graded sand with silt and gravel Laboratory No.: 7720 Moisture Content: 8.7% Afterbern Limits PL= LL= P1= Coefficients D85= 5.37 D60= 0.817 D50= 0.500 D30= 0.247 D15= 0.132 D10= Cu= Cc= Classification USCS= SP-SM AASHTO= Remarks Tested By: D. Erickson Checked By: J. Schwartz Entered By: B. Kochanski (no specification provided) Sample No.: S5-1 Source of Sample: B-5 Location: Client: Valhalla LLC KLEINFELDER, INC. Project: Edmonds Mixed Use Building Date: 11/19/07 Elev./Depth: 5' No: 88601/1 I 100 90 80 0 Cr LU 0 Z LL I-_ Z LU 0 rr, LU 40 CL 30 20 10 Particle Size.Distribution 'Report e d d 500 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE mm % COBBLES % GRAVEL T_ % SAND % SILT % CLAY 0.0 20.0 1 - 70.0 10.0 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC! PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) I in. 100.0 3/4 in. 91.0 1/2 in. 88.0 3/8 in. 86.0 #4 80.0 #8 73.0 #10 72.0 #16 65.0 #30 54.0 #40 44.0 #50 30.0 #100 15.0 #200 10.0 Soil Description Well -graded sand with silt and gravel Laboratory No.: 7720 Moisture Content: 9.4% Afterberg Limits PL= LL= P1= Coefficients D85= 8.42 D60=. 0.835 D50= 0.511 D30= 0.300 D15= 0.150 D10= 0.0750 Cu= 11.13 Cc= 1.44 . Classification USCS= SW_SM AASHTO= Remarks Tested By: J. Schwartz Checked By: J. Mason, PE Entered By: B. Kochanski (no specification provided) Sample No.: S6-1 Source of Sample: B-6 Date: 11/19/07 Location: Elev./Depth: 5' Client: ValhallaLLC Project: Edmonds Mixed Use Building KLEINFELDER, INC. _F�r ectNo: 88601/1 Figure I I I I I I I I I I I 11 I I I I I I 10C PC 8C 7C LLI 60 Z LL Z 50 W 0 ir LLJ 40 M 3C 20 Particle.Size Distribution Report d 1! d Z.1 10� 011 500 1Uu lu I U.1 GRAIN SIZE - mm U.U1 U.UU1 % COBBL� % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT I % CLA 0.0 1 17.0 65.0 18.0 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC.* PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) I in. 100.0 3/4 in. 98.0 1/2 in. 93.0 3/8 in. 89.0 #4 83.0 #8 78.0 #10 77.0 #16 73.0 #30 63.0 #40 53.0 #50 40.0 #100 23.0 #200 18.0 Soil Description Silty sand with gravel Laboratory No.: 7720 Moisture Content: 8.0% Atterberci Limits PL=, LL= Pl= Coefficients D85= 6.27 D60= 0.532 D50= 0.391 D30= 0.215 D1 5= D10= Cu= CC= Classification USCS= SM AASHTO= Remarks Tested By: D. Erickson Checked By: J. Schwartz Entered By: B. Kochanski (no specificafion provided) Sample No.: S7-2 Source of Sample: B-7 Date: 11/19/07 Location: Elev./Depth: 10' Client: Valhalla LLC Project: Edmonds Mixed Use Building KLEINFELDER, INC. Project No: 88601/1 Figure Particle Size Distribution Report 100 90 BO 70 (r W 60 Z LL 1-- Z 50 W C) 0� W 40 30 20 10 0 500 100 lu GRAI� SIZE - mm u.' U.Ul u.uui I % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT - % 0.0 22.0 67.0 11.0 SIEVE SIZE PERCENT FINER SPEC.* PERCENT PASS? (X=NO) 1.5 in. 100.0 I in. 88.0 3/4 in. 88.0 1/2 in. 84.0 3/8 in. 81.0 #4 78.0 #8 73.0 #10 71.0 #16 66.0 #30 53.0 #40 42.0 #50 30.0 #100 16.0 #200 11.0 Soil Description Poorly graded sand with silt and gravel Laboratory No.: 7720 Moisture Content: 3.2% Atterberg Limits PL= LL= Pl= Coefficients D85= 14.0 D60= 0.804 D50= 0.542 D30= 0.300 D15= 0.137 D1 O= .cu= cc= Classification USCS= SP-SM AASHTO= Remarks Tested By: D. Erickson Checked By: J. Schwartz Entered By: B. Kochanski (no specification provided) Sample No.: S8-1 Source of Sample: B-8 Date: 11/19/07 Location: Elev./Depth: 5' Client: Valhalla LLC Project: Edmonds Mixed Use Building KLEINFELDER, INC. Project No: 88601/1 Figure I I I I I F I H k I I I I I I I -C-DMONDS WA- 'S.R. 104) a�. L+-J 4: r 7w > 4�1; 7 N. C F C E 0- - 241 WIC . SE�A;� 4 �T .P TP,6r' \T' -ii-h A�13� 1, :14�TP-7 ITP- L 77 IN ff L '4ip a to (L 0 to 00 LL 0 6 LL Lu It X by Kleinfelder West Inc., 2007 'q Legend $Tp-i Previous Test Pit Number & Approximate Location * B-4 Boring Number & Approximate Location (Current Study) DRAWN BY: REVISED BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: . Nov.2007 Site and Exploration Plan Edmonds Mixed Use APPROVED BY: 23012 Edmonds Way Edmonds, Washington PROJECT NO. 88601 1 FILE NAME: 88601-Figures.dwg - Cl) FIGURE XLEI N FELDER 2405 140th Avenue NE, Suite A101 Bellevue, WA 98005-1877 2A PH: (425) 562-4200 FAX: (425) 562-4201 www.kleinfelder.com I I I I I I I I 11 I I I I I I I H (FT) A. LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES AND SURCHARGE LOADS APPARENT EARTH PRESSURE SURCHARGE PRESSURE SOLDIER MULTIPLE SINGLE LEVEL PILE 7—\ LEVEL TIEBACK TIEBACK WALL SEISMIC TRAFFIC WALL BASE OF EXCAVATION H, (FT) TIEBACK FORCES NEGLECT PRESSURE 2FT1 D (FT) PRESSURE ACTS OVER TWO PILE 375 PCF DIAMETERS (STATIC) 500 PCF (SEISMIC) I I - 0.2 H 2/3 H, 1 6.0 FT 75 PSF A 25 H PSF 4 H PSF PRESSURE ACTS OVER 25 H (ACTIVE) PILE SPACING (WALL PSF FACE AREA) 12 H PSF 2/3 (H-1-11) (AT -REST) 0.2 H A— j— D (FT) PRESSURE ACTS OVER ONE PILE 35 (H+D) PSF (BELOW CUT ONLY) ALLOWABLE ACTIVE EARTH PASSIVE EARTH PRESSURE PRESSURE X NOTES: 1. FOR CANTILEVER SHORING WALL (NO TIEBACKS), USE ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE (TRIANGULAR PRESSURE 0 >_ DIAGRAM) BOTH BELOWAND ABOVE BASE OF EXCAVATION CUT (NO APPARENT EARTH PRESSURE). 2. FOR SOLDIER PILE SPACING OF 8 FEET OR LESS, LAGGING SHOULD BE DESIGNED TO WITHSTAND 25% OF ACTIVE PRESSURE (TEMPORARLY) OR 50% OF ACTIVE PRESSURE (PERMANENT). CD CD co 3. SEISMIC PRESSURES ARE ONLY APPLIED TO PERMANENT WALLS; THEY NEED NOT BE APPLIED ON TEMPORARY WALLS. USE 'ACTIVE" STATE LATERAL SURCHARGE PRESSURE FOR YIELDING WALL CONDITION, AND -AT-REST. LATERAL SURCHARGE PRESSURE FOR NOWYELDING WALL CONDITION. LL 4. PILE DIAMETER EQUALS WIDTH OF CONCRETE ENCASED PILE (ASSUMING STRUCTURAL CONCRETE); IF LEAN -MIX FILL USED BELOW EXCAVATION LEVEL, ASSUME WIDTH OF SOLDIER PILE. 5. 'EXCAVATION IS ASSUMED TO BE FULLY DRAINED BY A TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT DEWATERING SYSTEM; NO HYDROSTATIC PRESSURES ASSUMED TO ACT ON THE WALL. 6i LL w it X by Kleinfelder West Inc., 2007 B. SOLDIER PILE/LAGGING/TIEBACK ANCHOR WALL GEOMETRY SOLDIER PILE MULTIPLE LEVEL WULA) LAUUNU TIEBACKANCHORS LOCATE ALL ANCHORS "NO LOAD BEHIND THIS LINE ZONE PERMANENT CONCRETE 6�0 WALL (SCHEMATIC, NTS) GEOCOMPOSITE DRAIN MAT (24-IN WDE VERTICAL STRIA, CENTERED 70 BETWEEN PILES a=20-30' FdOTING/ WEEP UNDERSLAB HOLE DRAINAGE SYSTEM ANCHORZONE ADHESION (SEE ITEM "D" BELOW) �HAA D=10'MIN. NOTES: il. SOLDIER PILE EMBEDMENT (D) MUST BE ADEQUATE TO PROVIDE REQUIRED LATERAL AND VERTICAL CAPACITY (SEE ITEMS "C" AND "D" BELOW) C. SOLDIER PILEVERTICAL CAPACITY PILE DIAMETER (FT) BASE OF EXCAVATION NEGLECT 2 FT FRICTION D. TIEBACK ANCHOR PULLOUT RESISTANCE SOIL TYPE ALLOWABLE ADHESION TEMPORARY PERMANENT (PSF) (PSF) DENSE TO VERY DENSE I GLACIAL TILL OR SAND 11500 N/A WITH GRAVEL (ADVANCE OUTWASH) ALLOWABLE SKIN FRICTION: 2L 1,500 PSF (TEMPORARY) NOTES: L11 ALLOWABLE END BEARING'. VERIFY TIEBACK ADHESION WITH 200% VERIFICATION 30ksf (TEMPORARY) TESTS, AND 133% PROOF TESTS 20ksf (PERMANENT) NOTES: 1 . SKIN FRICTION AND END BEARING APPLIED TO CONCRETE ENCASED PILE DIAMETER (ASSUMING STRUCTURAL CONCRETE BELOW EXCAVATION LEVEL) DRAWN BY: I.S.], Cantilever and Tieback REVISED BY: I Sharing Wall Diagrams CHECKED BY: Edmonds Mixed Use DATE: APPROVED BY: 23012 Edmonds Way Nov.2007 Edmonds, Washington PROJECT NO. 88601 1 FILE NAME: Cantilever and Tieback FIGURE iKLEI N FIELDER 2405 140th Avenue NE, Suite A101 Bellevue, WA 98005-1877 3 PH: (425) 562-4200 FAX: (425) 562-4201 www.kleinfelder.com X 0 U_ 6i LL Lu w X C1 A. LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES AND SURCHARGE LOADS APPARENT EARTH PRESSURE SURCHARGE PRESSURE SOLDIER MULTIPLE SINGLE LEVEL PILE _\ LEVEL TIEBACK TIEBACK WALL SEISMIC TRAFFIC WALL H, (FT) TIEBACK FORCES H (FT) 25 PSF BASE OF EXCAVATION NEGLECT PRESSURE 2FT D (FT) PRESSURE ACTS OVER TWO PILE 375 PCIF DIAMETERS /� (STATIC) 5 500 P 00 PCF I/ 35 (H+D) PSF (BELOW CUT ONLY) ALLOWABLE ACTIVE EARTH PASSIVE EARTH PRESSURE PRESSURE 0.2 H 2/3 H, i A 0.2 H 25 H PSF 4 H PSF (ACTIVE) 12 H PSF 2/3 (H-H� (AT -REST) 6.0 FT 75 PSF H (�D PRESSURE ACTS OVER PILE SPACING (WALL FACE AREA) . D (FT) PRESSURE ACTS OVER ONE PILE DIAMETERS NOTES: 1 FOR CANTILEVER SHORING WALL (NO TIEBACKS), USE ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE (TRIANGULAR PRESSURE DIAGRAM) BOTH BELOWAND ABOVE BASE OF EXCAVATION CUT (NO APPARENT EARTH PRESSURE). 2. FOR SOLDIER PILE SPACING OF 8 FEET OR LESS, LAGGING SHOULD BE DESIGNED TO WITHSTAND 25% OF ACTIVE PRESSURE (TEMPORARLY) OR 50% OF ACTIVE PRESSURE (PERMANENT). 3. SEISMIC PRESSURES ARE ONLY APPLIED TO PERMANENT WALLS; THEY NEED NOT BE APPLIED ON TEMPORARY WALLS. USE 'ACTIVE' STATE LATERAL SURCHARGE PRESSURE FOR YIELDING WALL CONDITION, AND -AT-REST- LATERAL SURCHARGE PRESSURE FOR NOWYELDING WALL CONDITION. 4. PILE DIAMETER EQUALS WIDTH OF CONCRETE ENCASED PILE (ASSUMING STRUCTURAL CONCRETE); IF LEAN -MIX FILL USED BELOW EXCAVATION LEVEL, ASSUME WIDTH OF SOLDIER PILE. 5. EXCAVATION IS ASSUMED TO BE FULLY DRAINED BY A TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT DEWATERING SYSTEM; NO HYDROSTATIC PRESSURES ASSUMED TO ACT ON THE WALL. DRAWN BY: J.S. REVISED BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: APPROVED BY: by Kleinfelder West Inc., 2007 Nov.2007 B. SOLDIER PILE/LAGGI SOLDIER PILE MULTIPLE LEVEL TIEBACKANCHORS WOOD LAGGING LOCATE ALL ANCHORS "NO LOAD BEHIND THIS LINE PERMANENT CONCRETE ZONE" WALL (SCHEMATIC, NTS) 6�0 GEOCOMPOSITE DRAW MAT (24-IN WIDE VERTICAL -STRA_ CENTERED 70 BETWEEN PILES a=20-30' FdOTING/ WEEP UNDERSLAB HOLE DRAINAGE SYSTEM ANCHOR ZONE ADHESION (SEE ITEM "D" BELOW) 7H,11'14 D=10'MIN. NOTES: il. SOLDIER PILE EMBEDMENT (D) MUST BE ADEQUATE TO PROVIDE REQUIRED LATERAL AND VERTICAL CAPACITY (SEE ITEMS "C" AND "D" BELOW) C. SOLDIER PILEVERTICAL CAPACITY PILE D. TIEBACK ANCHOR PULLOUT RESISTANCE DIAMETER (FT) BASE OF EXCAVATION SOIL TYPE . ALLOWABLE ADHESION TEMPORARY PERMANENT (PSF) (PSF) DENSE TO VERY DENSE NEGLECT 2 FT GLACIAL TILL OR SAND 1,500 N/A FRICTION WITH GRAVEL (ADVANCE OUTWASH) ALLOWABLE SKIN FRICTION: 2 1,500 PSF (TEMPORARY) NOTES:. ALLOWABLE END BEARI& VERIFY TIEBACK ADHESION WITH 200% VERIFICATION 30ksf (TEMPORARY) TESTS, AND 133% PROOF TESTS 20ksf (PERMANENT) NOTES: 1 SKIN FRICTION AND END BEARING APPLIED TO CONCRETE ENCASED PILE DIAMETER (ASSUMING STRUCTURAL CONCRETE BELOW EXCAVATION LEVEL) Cantilever and Tieback Shoring Wall Diagrams Edmonds Mixed Use 23012 Edmonds Way Edmonds, Washington PROJECT NO. 88601 FILE NAME: Cantilever and Tieback I FIGURE XLEI N FELDER, 2405 140th Avenue INE, Suite A101 Bellevue, WA 98005-1877 3 PH: (425) 562-4200 FAX: (425) 562-4201 www.kleinfL-.1der.com - ,Wall Diagrams.dwg �-23' PARCEL D. CORNER LEGEND 1-4. SET 5/8 REBAR WITH PLAS71C CAP; LS 18903. 5. SET 5/8 REBAR WITH PLASTIC CAP; LS 18903. FOUND X REBAR 1.8 N. X 0.3 E.; LS 22688. 6. SET 5/8 REBAR WITH PLASTIC CAP; LS 18903. FOUND CRIMPED H IRON PIPE 1.8 N. 7. FOUND N REBAR 0.2 N. X 0.2 E.: LS 9567. 8. SET 5/8 REBAR WITH PLASTIC CAP, OFFSET 10.00 E.; LS 18903. 9. SET 5/8 REBAR NTH PLASTIC CAP, OFFSET 3.00 N. LS 18903. 10-12. SET 5/8 REBAR WITH PLASTIC CAP; LS 18903. 13. FOUND V REBAR 0.1 W.; BCE 23856. 14-15. SET 5/8 REBAR WITH PLASTIC CAP; LS 18903. LEGEND --- ML-----ML--- MEDIAN LINE --- OP_____OP --- OVERHEAD POWER --- SO ----- SO --- STORM DRAIN --- Ss ----- Ss --- SANITARY SEVER W ------- W --- WATER C. CEDAR TREE C.B. CATCH BASIN D. DECIDUOUS TREE F. FIR TREE F.H. FIRE HYDRANT G.A. GUY ANCHOR H. HEMLOCK TREE L LUMINAIRE M. MAPLE TREE M.B. MAILBOX M.H. MANHOLE P. PINE TREE P.P. POWER POLE T.S. TRAFFIC SIGN W.M. WATER METER W.V. WATER VALVE NOTE. THE UTILITIES SHOWN HEREON. UNLESS SHOWN WITH SURFACE APPURTENANCES, ARE PER PUBLIC RECORD OR BASED ON PAINT STRIPING PROVIDED BY OTHERS. PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUC71ON AND/OR EXCAVATION, THEIR EXACT LOCA71ON SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY CALLING ONE -CALL LOCATE AT 1-800-424-5555. *lr F SHED 12* F Ojr F -1,C F, 50 H' Sb . Ird - - - - - - - - - - o cl c� - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - 0 P_11r F Ole e 20 41 EDMON Mi. ML _ss- __ss OF CB RIM-191.5 INV-187.51 I ma 7 RIM-191.0 'M22'91 *0 INV= 18/9.3 8_ c 4 / r!cs.; C3 04W C ASPHALT DRIVEWAY SAN. SM. MH RIM-193.3 INV-186.4 24* C PARCEL 3W C Ze F I 7 J iv * 1� Al(f F 161 F PARCEL F oo F CONC. WALK .0 � 41 100 05. 6' CYCLONE CONC. FENCE ON PROP. LINE o 0 AREA 79,883 SQ. FT. ;r H kL 1.83 AC.± FENCE 6' CYCLONE cle X SHED LEGAL DESCRIP11ONS PARCEL A TER OF BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUAR THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 36. TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH. RANGE 3 EAST, W.M.. IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY, - WASHINGTON; THENCE NORTH 88*1847" WEST 204.34 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00*11'05n WEST 432 FEET; THENCE NORTH 3C4237o VEST 75 FEET TO POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CON71NUING NORTH 3,V42'37" WEST 135 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88*18'47" EAST 125 FEET TO THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF SECONDARY STATE HIGHWAY 1-Vh, THENCE SOUTH 34*42'37* EAST ALONG THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF SAID SECONDARY STATE HIGHWAY 105 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY TO POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT THAT PORTION AS CONDEMNED IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NO. 108154. PARCEL B ALL THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 38, TOWNSHIP 27 OHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON, NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M., IN SN DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY MARGINAL LINE OF SECONDARY STATE HIGHWAY NO. I-W WHICH IS SOUTH 34*42'37" EAST ESTERLY 179.77 FEET FROM THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF SAID SOUTHW MARGINAL LINE AND THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M. IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON; THENCE SOUTH 34!42'3r EAST ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY MARGINAL LINE FOR 105 FEET; THENCE NORTH 88*18!47* WEST FOR 125 FEET; THENCE NORTH 3C423-r WEST FOR 75 FEET; THENCE NORTH 78*59'34-m EAST FOR 109.88 FEET TO POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT THAT PORTION AS CONDEMNED IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NO. 113858. PARCEL C THAT PORTION OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH. RANGE 3 EAST, W.M., IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS! BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE NORTH 8818*47" VEST 220 FEET; THENcE NORTH 0171*05" OEST 352 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH O0*11'0V' WEST 80 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 8818'47* EAST 130.66 FEET TO WESTERLY MARGIN OF SR-104, AS CONVEYED TO STATE OF WASHINGTON BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 2198814; THENCE SOUTH 34'59'16* EAST ALONG SAID SR-104 99.34 FEET TO A POINT WHICH LIES SOUTH 88*18'47* EAST OF THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 88'18*47" WEST 186.97 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL D - - -------- - - ------- PP DS WAY (S.R. 104) 35"01'18" W 1288.75' MON. TO MON. N- - - - - ------ 4&_ ML - M. - - ------ r -ss- _ss '190- _ss- _ss- _ss- -sus- �:i ?d� ss- 0-ss---ss Ir 0 %91 cir w CB I RIM=195.2 0 INV-190.7 -ss- _ss- CB RIM=198.1 INV-193.4 ----- ----- (TYPICAL).. TS _w _w_ W_ 10 W_ 'Mk -I POLE 670.91' w -w- CB HA CB I E RIM=165-6 LT t P, FND. 2" CONC. FILLED IRON PIPE WITH CU. TACK BENCHMARK IN LEAD IN MON. CASE: 03/23/06. MON. IS 0.69' TOP OF MONUMENT SELY OF CEN7ERLINE IN CASE INTERSECTION. /ELEV. 200.00 DATUM ASSUMED L 0.69' �-ss- SAN. SM. MH RIM-200.3 INV-192.1 0 -199.1 I V APR N L IM -w- (A INV=193.9 00 N& INV-196.1-W. _ INV-194.0-S/N-SD SD 18"_o i0o H Or CB oe RIM=199.6 INV-196.2 'wir HOLLY I '1\4 n� \9 PARCEL G 200 I I 1 00 op 44 A, 27" F 40 1 1981. .0 W F i /4 - - - - - - WALL (PARTIALLY BURIED) "CONC. 2r P o I F 45 'r Ire -H - - - - - - -0 0- 28' p `264 GA If 11 0 00 1 6* D - - - - - - - - pp �_ < I 12*-IW M a. 9 . I ROCK 4W F a. 0 WALL., .1 le " - � '.� 67* F CB )c / ol RIM-204.4 e 22* C INV=201.6 le"o e., " oyHl� 00 _.o %a"* F oo 'c� o'90 F ' '- .� N �e 40201W. / 4 4b' 0.1 . ft 11 - - - - - - - NC WAj1S, _ o e �b p 00 cd 3r F- - - 'po - -7 -21,8 BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER, OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH. RANGE 3 EAST. W.M.. IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON; THENCE NORTH 88*18'4-r MST 180 FEET; THENCE NORTH 0*11*05" WEST 272 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 00*11'05* WEST 80 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88*18'4-r EAST 156.97 FEET TO THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF SECONDARY STATE HIGHWAY 1-W, THENCE SOUTH 32*4237* EAST ALONG SECONDARY STATE HIGHWAY 1-W. 40.62 FEET: THENCE SOUTH 0011'05' EAST 47.27 FEET; THENCE NORTH 88*18'47" VEST 180 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF WASHINGTON BY DEED RECORDED UNDER REC. NO. 2191419. PARCEL E THAT PORTION OF LOT 11, BLOCK 1, RIDGE ACRES, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 9 OF PLATS, PAGE 97, RECORDS OF THE AUDITOR OF THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON, AND A PORTION OF VACATED 92ND AVE WEST, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 31, TOWISISHIP 27 NORTH. RANGE 4 EAST, W.M.; THENCE NORTH 02"25'36* WEST ALONG SECTION LINE 1552.72 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING NORTHERLY ALONG SECTION LINE 71.48 FEET TO THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF EDMONDS WAY, THENCE SOUTH 36'59'36' EAST ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY 52.88 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 4436*52" WEST, 40.99 FEET. MORE OR LESS, TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT ANY PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF WASHINGTON BY DEED RECORDED UNDER REC. NO. 2163613. PARCEL F THE NORTH 121 FEET OF THE SOUTH 272 FEET OF THE EAST 80 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER -OF THE - NORTHEAST QUARTER, OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH. RANGE 3 EAST, W.M., IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. PARCEL G LOT 11 IN BLOCK 1 OF RIDGE ACRES, ACCORDING TO PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 9 OF PLATS AT PACE 97, IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF VACATED 92 AVENUE WEST ADJACENT TO THE VEST SIDE AS VACATED BY COMMISSIONERS RECORD RECORDED IN VOLUME 51 ON PAGE 6, WHICH ATTACHES BY APPLICATION OF LAW. EXCEPT THAT PORTION DEEDED TO LOUIS E. MOUNIER AND GRETRUDE EVA MOUNIER, HIS WIFE, BY QUIT CLAIM DEED RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 2235124. AND EXCEPT THAT POR71ON DEED TO THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR HIGHWAY S.R. 104 BY DEED RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 2163613. SITUATE IN THE CITY OF EDMONDS, COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH. STATE OF WASHINGTON. ILDING 6' WOOD 'n TLE N OTES 1. LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND TITLE INFORMATION IS DERIVED FROM LAND AMERICA THIRD REPORT NO. TH-20228329, DATED JUNE 29, 2006. 10. TRANSMISSION UNE EASEMENT RECORDED UNDER REC. NO. 1051841 HAS BEEN TERMINATED BY INSTRUMENT RECORDED UNDER REC. NO. 2015066. 11. REFERENCE RESTRIC71ON IMPOSED BY DEED RECORDED UNDER REC. NO. 1121497. SEE THE FULL DOCUMENT FOR ALL OF THE DETAILS. 12. REFERENCE RESTRICTION IMPOSED BY DEED RECORDED UNDER REC. NO. 1157474. SEE THE FULL DOCUMENT FOR ALL OF THE DETAILS. 13. EASEMENT FOR WATER PIPE LINE RECORDED UNDER REC. NO. 1157474 IS EITHER 5' OR 8! IN WIDTH. THE DOCUMENT IS ILLEGIBLE. AND THUS THIS WIDTH CANNOT BE DETERMINED. 14. REFERENCE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OR ROAD APPROACHES RESTRICTIONS ESTABLISHED UNDER SUPERIOR COURT CAUSES NOS. 108154 & 113858. SEE THE FULL DOCUMENTS FOR ALL OF THE DETAILS. 15. REFERENCE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OR ROAD APPROACHES RESTRICTIONS RECORDED UNDER REC. NO. 2191419. SEE THE FULL DOCUMENTS FOR ALL OF THE DETAILS. 16. REFERENCE CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OR ROAD APPROACHES RESTRICTIONS RECORDED UNDER REC. NO. 2198814. SEE THE FULL DOCUMENTS FOR ALL OF THE DETAILS. 18. WATER MAIN EASEMENT RECORDED UNDER REC. NO. 9003150206 DOES NOT AFFECT THE SURVEYED PROPERTIES. CERunFICATE TO VALLHALA PARTNERS LLC, A WASHINGTON LIMITED LIABILITY COMPMY, AND LAND AMERICA TITLE: THIS TO CERTIFY THAT THIS MAP OR PLAT AND THE SURVEY ON WHICH IT IS BASED WERE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH "MINIMUM STANDARD DETAIL REQUIREMENTS FOR ALTA/ACSM LAND TITLE SURVEYS,* JOINTLY ESTABLISHED AND ADOPTED BY ALTA AND NSPS IN 2005. PURSUANT TO THE ACCURACY STANDARDS AS ADOPTED BY ALTA AND NSPS AND IN EFFECT ON THE DATE OF THIS CERTIFICATION, UNDERSIGNED FURTHER CER71FIES THAT IN MY PROFESSIONAL OPINION, AS A LAND SURVEYOR REGISTERED IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, THE RELATIVE POS17IONAL ACCURACY OF THIS SURVEY DOES NOT EXCEED THAT WHICH IS SPECIFIED THEREIN. DATE: zoa/ SIGNED �j f 741,51 IAV 0 0 11MOTHY V HANSON STATE OF WASHINGTON PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR CERTIFICATE NO. 18903 0/4 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET op 20' 10' 20' 40' 1" 20' SAN. SM. MH RIM=213.7 INV-202.0 SE CORNER SE 1/4 NE 1 4 NE 1 4 FND. RR. SPIKE 0.05' S. X 0.21' E. �ao �e 's, v EAST 1/4 COR. SEC. 31-27-3 FND. CASED CONC. MON. WITH BRASS WIRE BRAD; 03/23/06 SHEET 1 OF 2 REVISED 07121/06. REVISED LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS, ADDED EASEMENT. ADDED ADDrnoN PARCEL. ADDED -nTLE NOTES. JUN 1 8 zbul BUILDING DEPT. N.E. CORNER SEC. 31 —27-3 /iNlIt —op — — ------- op— op op FND. CASED CONC. Pp MON. WTH. BRASS DISC; 03/23/06. 100. 4= TWO LANES NORTHBOUND '% 4p QL- -mL - - ------ --mL I vvv- TWA u LLr I FND. 2" CONC. FILLED TURN LANE IRON PIPE WITH CU. TACK 4AL— M L ------ML ------ML— —ML L — ----- 4A.— ------ML— ML IN LEAD IN MON. CASE; 03/23/06. _ss— — —ss— — —ss- —ss--e— —ss—. — —ss— — —ss— — z SAN. SWR. MH 0 _ss— — —ss— —ss —ss— — —ss— — —ss— RIM-186.7 TWO LANES SOUTHBOUND mmllo- INV=178.9 Cs ASPHALT ROADWAY RIM-186.7 A 24* 8"— — —w- 6' WOOD FENCE ON 8* CONC. WALL ss— — —ss— — —ss— - GRAPHIC mommmmommmomommm mommmom I mmommemm 20' 0' 10' 20' 40' N 35*01'18" W _ss— — —ss— — —ss— IN SHEET 2 OF 2 REVISED 07/21/06. REVISED LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS. ADDED EASEMENT. ADDED ADDITION PARCEL, ADDED TITLE NOTES. lcLmw HANS LAMMERSDORF BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY AT EDMONDS WAY AND 232ND'STREET SOUTHWEST, EDMONDS, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON IL ''IJ AbWll'�'1'1�1'11 z :JL M� ki� bi� LNWZT---TmF-ffWc@TmlT.-l= �Wi� 6T.-i-ATjfi6V* BUILDING DEPT. RECEIVED juN 1 8 2007 BUILDING DEPT, 41), � QM