The URL can be used to link to this page

326 ADMIRAL WAY.PDF10012 326 ADMIRAL WAY ADDRESS: �3,12 Lp 4--fo-) t r-'a-1 —WcLc4 TAX ACCOUNTIPARCEL BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE COVENANTS (RECORDED) FOR: CRITICAL AREAS: DETERMINATION: [-] Conditional Waiver [:] Study Required El Waiver DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S DRAINAGE PLAN DATED: PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED: EASEMENT(S) RECORDED FOR: PERMITS (OTHER): PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED: SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED: SEWER LID FEE LID #: SHORT PLAT FILE: LOT: BLOCK: SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED: SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) #: GEOTECH REPORT DA' STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR WATER METER TAP CARD DATED: OTHER: LATEMP\DST's\Forms\Street File Checklist.doc e-, �W 0 0 PLANNING DATA New Commercial I Multi -Family Projects STREET HIME e6mmercial Parkin.4 Anal Business Name Type/Use Parking Ratio Tenant Area Required Parking K�e 4- Y-2�,QJOJ� CA op I _a (C C52 vsA r- e . ..... .. 50-D a P4 Per CYz�V�-, 595;� apNce!a, pca eex -\'Ade_,�2:� :;�q COS )PO, e '4 Total Parking Required. 5-T? TotalParking-Provided: Gag Multi -Family Parking Anal # Bedroom�sDwelling Unit Parking Ratio # —___'Required Parking Studio 1-210.U- I Bedroom 2 Bedrooms 1.8/D.U. 3 +,Bedrooms 2.0/0.U. Total Total Parking Pro vided: Other - Plan Review��__ & PLANNING DATA 6 New Commercial I Multi -Family Projects I Name: Yhc� CUA,�p Site Address: Date: Plan Check #: BLD -9LCC)8 -OgGI Project Description: N e,,,o " Use(s) Proposed: YXIIAC66-- Allowed Use(� NO) CUP File Number: mbN To Allow What Uses: NIIA Legal Nonconforming Land Use Determination Issued: (YES In Reduced Site Plan Provided: (YES /a Zoning: CU.—, - _0C,,0ne_Cr;,:A w4t�c Map Page: laol Comp Plan Designation: IA-aske.,- \4zNec:9cmA A.V.Av Corner Lot: (YES 10 Flag Lot: (YES ADB File Number (date waived):#DC:C09_ I LotArea: Le6,c�r,&(-Ce,= Plans Match ADB Approved: O/NO) Shoreline Required: e) NO) a/A- 03 - G0 Critical Areas Determination #: CRA- i9TW; -CM.To Study Required G -ry C', cMed V6-161 s! zere_ 4r-e-teaed El Waiver f �ee- reveLz a/ L-,_,4�%,d 6, baAcrip!5, SEPA Determination: T*�AISZ, 1E�r,4Ae-d c\ %/-j/Cyq _90r_ J� * 6, .":':)o , Exempt CA4A- -a,� 1,0co c.6"c Y-e-CA C'pq.tt. Needed (for sites with 500 cubic yards of grading or within 200 feet of Puget Sound or Lake Ballinger. Requires: (1) Fee, (2) Environmental Checklist, and (3) APO List with notarized form). ke4 �d;,Se uirc I - Street: Side: Side: Rear: 61' ba,�,owcd-�o 6A1kVmb4 r-01 AigtualS�othjtks: Street: ht/A, S�ide. R ear: I �Yj V Lot Coverage/FAR Required: Lot Coverage/FAR Provided: NIA Lot Coverage/FAR Calculations: NIA __y Building Height Datum Point- Datum Elevation: 9MAn Maximum Height: 30 Actual Height: �nas Subdivision: NIA� Lot Aggregation Required: Nlt&l Landsd4o g: Landscaping Matches ADB Approved: '/e--, r,,�Nez, Landscaping Bid Provided 0) (Ei�)! Bond Amount (100% Bid): I ss] (goo L�� IZA-A n 'Fee- cx:) '1100 Pla Review By: RECEIVED OCT 16 2008 Gary A. Flowers, PLLC EET FILE BUILDING DEPARTMENlGeolog'CRI& Geotechnical Consulting CITY OF EDMONDS 19i32,120 Ave'nue NE 5 Shoreline, WA -1106 March 5j 2008 Pirject No. 07-056 Edmonds- Yacht Club 456 Admiral W#y Edmonds, WA 98020 Attention: Mr. Mike Jones, Building Committee Chair Subject: Subsurface Exploration and Geotwhnical EngineeTing Repolt Proposed New Yacht�Club Building 300 Block of Admiral Way Edmonds, Washington Dw Mr. Jones: This report presents the results of our geologicaUgeoteehnical evaluation of the proposed new Edmonds Yacht Club building to be located in the 300 6lock of Admiral W�y, immediately north. of the Port of Edmonds offices. The site is curre n�y developed as a parking lot. A two story, �fa�qd framed of&e building will be dev�loped on the site. 'Me purpose of our study was to characterize the subsurface soil and ground water conditions underl,ving.the subject parcel and to determine Wheffiff Gr not a liquefaction hazard exisug and to provide suitable mitigation, it necess' ary. Other geotechnical design recommendations for the developm�nt of the site would include grading rccommendations, foundation design parame . ters, other seismic hazards identification and mitigation, if required, and erosion and drainage coniidem.fions. While perforriiing the exploration borings we, were al to visually evaluate the so sampled soils fbr indications of potential petroleum hydrocarbon contamination and collect and submit samples for analytical testing if needed. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS The subject property consists of an approximate 11,000 square foot parcel. The parcel measures I 10 feet long in the north-s" direction by 100 feet vAde in the cast -west direction and is nearly flat. The pamidl is currently developed as an asphalted parking lot with landscape planters along the north and peg sides. The site is bounded by asphalted parking to the north and south, by Admirall Way to the east and by the.boardwalk and docks of the Edmonds Manna to the west. A pile supported and timber lagged retaining wall is present beneath the boardwalk along the west side of the site. bry A. 1q0Wers,-;= 195J2 12" Avenue NH' Nhordirbe� Wnshingtcm9815-�-1106 206417-7640 T__ Umon& Ya�k Club Building Grojechnival &"ices Report 36 Blod ofA dmiral Wcop� Edmonds, WasIsLagion The shorelizie.along the FAmonds wateifliMt.has 156ch modified extensively over the years. The watertront, prior to current developmen , t, was a beach with a tidally influenced marsh behind (cast) of it. In the late 1 900s and early 1900s multiple sawmills operated along the Edmonds M�au�ont. Past development has created the present shoreline by filling.some of the shoreline and marsh areas and dredging themari na area. The nearby Port of Edmon& office building has undergone settlement that has resulted in significant'damage to the concre;6 masonry %Wt structure. A geotechnical evaluation of the stiu I cture reporiedly did not pippoint- �-but speculated that it was a combination of "y one cause 10 1 ss of soil klopoft.clue to 'zina soil through the seawall at that location, pockets* of uniiuitable Ml tt�ced settlement and some potential seismic fiqtiefiaction, Based on the borings, chilled for the site, soils are similar to the soils found beneath the, potential Yacht Club site. SubsuAnce Sotand Groand Witter Conditiew in order to characterize the subsurface soil and ground water conditions on the property two ex . ploration b6ii4gs were drilled on the site on June 11, .2007. I'lle exploration borings were placed at the approximate locations shown on Figure 1, Site & Exploration Plan. The exploration, borings were completed by advancing hollow -sun augerwith a truck mounted drill rig provid.ed by Envir.owneIntil Drilling. During the drilling process, samples were generally obtained at 2.5 or 5-foot depth interviih. The borings were continuously observed and logged by a licensed geologist; 'Me exploration logs presented in the Appendix are based on the field logs, drill.ingaction, and inspection of the samples secured. Disturbed but representative satiVies were obtained by using the Standard Penetration Tes�i (SPT) procedure in Occordan.ce with ASTUP 1586, This test and sampling method consists of driving a standard 2-inch outside -diameter split -barrel sampler a distance of 18 inches into the soil with a 140-pound hammer ftee-falling a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows for each 6-inch interval is recorded and the number of blows re4uired to drive the sampler the final 12 inches is known as the -Standard Penetra6n Resistance �W) or blow count. If a total of 50 is recorded within one &inch interval, tl�e blow count is recorded as 50 blows for the corresponding number of inches of penetration. The resistance, or N-value, provides a measure of the relative density of granular soils or the relative consistency of cohesive wils; these values are plotted on the attached exploration boring logs. The upper approximate 5 feet of soils encountered in both of the exploration borings consisted of medium dense, damp to mois4 gray to gray -brown sand with scattered gravel. This soil is most likely import6d fill soils. from the construction of the seawall and parking am. From about 5 The to about 13 feet in *1313-1 and 11 feet in EB-2, loose,, saturated gray to gray -brown sand to sand with some silt and trace gravel was encountered. Although very difficult to be sure, this soil G4ry A. Flaw.em PLLC 19532 Ir Aveme NE showlim washhoon 98155-1106 206417-7640 9 0 Edmonds Yacht Club Buddorg Geolechnical Services Repan 300 Block ofAdmiral WeV, EdwonA H`wthjon may also be.fill soils from the original construction or is possibly the original beach line in this atm Beneath a depth of 12 to 14 feet, modium dense to dense or very dense, saturated, gray, gravelly sand vMh trace silt to sandy gravel was encountered. There was no Vi" or olfactory indication of petoleum contaminated soRs in any of the samples obtained during the field exploration program. It is possible that other area of contamination may exist oritbe site that was not explored for this study. AccWding to. the -Composite Geologic Map of the Sno-King Area, Central Puge4 Lo-Kland Washingid?; by Booth Cox� Traosl and Shime), 2005, (Lhy�ft), Seattle Am Geologic Mapping Project, the Uhiversity of Washington a;ld -the United States Geological Survey, the s ectsite" IS mappO4 ps Ni Artificial Fill over Ing , lyiiig - Pre-Frawr deposits. Pre-Frasler deposits consist of intbibedded. sand,, Ovel, silt, and diarniias of indeterminate age and origin. These sed ' iments have been consolidate.d.one or more times by overriding,glacial ipe sheds and am very dense and hard. The rind . of this study W in agreeent with the published geology map of the area. . ''Inp Hydrology Ile subject,site is kly covered with agp*tic concrete pavement. As sucl-� there was no evidence of standing or flowing watcr on the site at the time of our site visit nor were there any indications of post erosion on the site. Stadc. groundwater level was encountered in both exploration borings at a de'ptb of about 9 feet below exi9ting,ground surface at the time of drilling. Saturated soils were observed to extend up to 6 to 7 feet below ground surface. This ground water elevation was approximately equal in elevation to the level of the Puget Sound. The ground water level is likely influenced to some degree by tidal action. However, we do not anticipate the water level to rise signifl�cantiy above its present elevation. Seismic Hazards Genmily, them are four types of potential geologic hazards -associated with large seismic events: 1) sUrficial ground ruptuiv; 2) saismicAy induced landslides; 3) liquefaction; and 4) ground motion. The-p6tential -for each of -these to impact the site is discussed below. The nearest known fault trace is the South Whidbey Island Fault Zone which is located more than 5 miles north of the subject site. The South Whid boy Island Fault Zone and other Puget Sound am faults are Currently being studied by the United States Geological Service (USGs) and have been deie�rmi ' hod -'to be active and capable of producing large earthquakes. Much is at to be learned about These fault systems but it is generally hypothesized that their recurrence interval is several thousand years. Further study may also discover currently unknown fkult -traces nearer to Gary A. F1 ars, PLLC. 19532 12" AsTaue Nr, Shordlim Washington 99155-1106 '�06-411!4640 Mamuh Yack Club Bkdd1V GeWeehnical Senkes Report the subject site. Due to the suspected long recurrence interval and the distance to known faults traces. the Potential for surficial ground rupture is considcred to be low during the expected life of the proposed structure. /Due to the presence of densethard, glacially consolidated sediments at shallow depth, and the flatt*glvature of the site$ it is our opinion tbatAe potential risk of damage to the, proposed by seismically induced landsliding on.the site is negligible. Viquefti�tion. is the result of the - loss -of sh* XtrwWth in soils when they are su*cted to saturated conditions and scismic shaking. Typical, soils that are susceptible are those that am saprairul, poorly. graded (all -one size), Matively fine- , gmined and in a loose, condition. During a seismic everit. severe shaking may MUse liquefaction to occur and differential settlement. may result, The encountered stratigriphy below a depth of about 13 feet has a low potential for fi4ue�h dud, to hs gradation. and consolidated nature of the natural sediments that occur below water table. The loose, MdWRW =6 that were found between about 5 to 13 feet below ground surface have a mo&Wc to high potential.for liquefaction. Liquefaction can result in significant and widespread structuml damage if not properly mitigated. Based on the study -pethrined by others for the adjacent Port of Edmonds structure, the magnitude of post - liquefaction ground subsidence Of the WWerlying loose sands following a large earthquake (.3g weleratioh� magnitude 7.5 or larger) could be as much as 2 to 2.5 inches. TU settlement would be expected to be non-imiform with potential differential settlements equaling the total seWernent. We agree with the range of settlement potential derived frorn this study.'Mitigation of potential liquefaction damage is provided in the Site Gmding and Foundation Recommendations sections of this report - Based on the encountered stratigr�phy. it is our opinion that any earthquake damage to the prop,wed structures when founded on suitable foundation bearing strata in accordance with the ons - provid6d'in this repoi I t would be caused by the intensity and acceleration associated with the event. and not any of the above -discussed impacts, Design of the project should be consistent with 2006 Intei7ndonal Building Code (IBC) guidelines. In accordance with the 2006-IBC, Table W5.1.1, the parcel is classified as Site Class D. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Our exploration indicates that,.ftom a geotechnical standpoint, the subiect site is suitable for the proposed development provided the recommendations contained herein am properly followed. Foundalion bearing sediments encountered generally consist of loose to medium dense, gray to gray -brown, fine to medium sand with.trace silt and gravel. These soils are likely fill soils placed during construction of the seawall and the parking lot and odghw beach soils. The lower 6 to 8 feet of the fill and/or beach soils is loose and saturated and the fill may not be consistent under all meas of the new building. As such, some mitigation against both settlement and post - Gar* A. FlOWN's, PLLC_ 19.532 IP A-mm NF Shost1hic, WWWV= 9t155.1106 70&411-7640 0 Edmonds Yack Club flufld'mg Gooredmical.Vervices Report 300 Nod ofA&MIral LV&, Unonds� !!:ashinpon liquefiction ground sub,sideme is necessary., Any unsuitable soils that iii 6bsm-nd construction must be removed and replaced with structural fill. Site Grailing It is our understanding that design of the proposed Yacht Club building has. not be initiated. It is our further understanding thift one option being discussed for the building pad is to raise the subgrade elevation on the order of 3 f�vt, the -exisfm -,5 -fed- of meditun Tim would result in a medium dwse or'betterAll section that is in excess of 5 to 6 feet thick beneath the building fbo&gs. A medium dense or better fill section of this thickness would sigrfflcmWy reduce the potential for structurel damap to occur due to liquefaction. Prio I r to any excavation or fillMg on the site, erosion and surfitce water control should be estabti�hcd around the perimeter of the. excavation to satisfy City of Eftonds requirements.* All existing phveriient, landscaping, utilities and any other deleterious materials should be removed if they we locatedwithiri ihe pjvanu�ed. building area. Special cam must be taken'to prevent sediment laden water from discharging into the nearby Puget Soundwater body. Structural fill necessary to establish desired grades should be placed and compacted according to the ions presented in this section. Structural fill ig defined as non -organic soil, acceptable to the geotechnical engineer or engineering. goGtogist, placed in maximum 8-imb loose lifts with each lift being compacted to a dense and nonyielding condition and to a minimum density of 95 percent of the maximum density Proctor value as determined by the, ASTM D: 150 tesL method. Prior to placing any structural fill the exposed soils must first be compacted to a dense, nonyieiding- condition, and approved for structural fill placement. In the case of roadway and utility trench filling within a city right-of-way, the backfill should be placed and compacted in accordance with City of Edmonds standards. The ou-site-soils generally shoWd W suitable for re -use on the site as structural fill except under advem storm conditions. The contractor must use care during site prepamdort and excavation operations so that the underlying soils am not softened. If disturbance occurs, the softened/distur-bed soils should be removed down to comotent soil. Foundation Recommendations Due to the presence of undocumented fill soils on the site it will be necessary to either consir= a n-dnimum 4 fbot thick granular structural fill pad beneath the planned bottom of the footing Gary & Flowers, PLLC. 19532 124 Avenue NE Shoedinc, Washington 98135-1 M 20(>417-7640 E E40wonds Ydcht aub Budding Geotechnic4dServices RLpuri 300 81wk afA45,dral ffa , EdAVOnA Iff!LMLIOn elevation or to provide deeper foundation support with the use of small diameter pipe piles. Further recommendations for each method are provided below. CoftLdon 9f StnxWW FRI Pad This method of mitigation would include removal of the exisft aspbalt concrete pavement and exq"ing thepadip bui4jog toolp* plus a distance extending outside the building footprint equo to tho depth* of exmvation, to depth of 12 to 19 inches below existing gmde. The upper 12 incims, of the exposed soUs would then be com pacted to a dense and unyielding condition and approved by a'r'e-'p'rc='ta;tive of tWs office. Once approved come grained structurA fill soils would be used to raise the SU11�*!eImt.ion to the planned building subgmde eile��on. A nimuffi of 4.feet of app!oved s"chW 0 is. required beneath the footings. All structuW fill must be.placed and compacted as detailed in'the Site Grading section of this report. Convendona.spmad footings mW column pads may be used for building support when founded directly on a structuml fill pad placpd and compacted as detailed above. We recommend dw an allowable foundation soil bewing ure of 1,000 pounds per square toot (psf) be utilized -for press desi gn purposes including -both dead and live loads. An incream of one-third may be used for short-term wind or seismic loading. Ile footings must be accurately centered in the trenches. We ibxther strongly recommend that the concrete floor slab be reinforced and structunilly,tied to the footings/foundation walls to add rigidity to the structure. It is also required that all footings along the wPA side of the building be placed at an elevation such that a I H: IV line drawn from the outside edge of the footing does not intersect ihe existing seawall. in additioll, the seawall should be cairebally evaltatted in this ium to vetrify tW there am no breaches where wMer and/or soil can wash through. Any a= of failure must be repaired. Anticipawd settlement of footings thunded on an approved structural fill pad should be on the order of I inch or less with differ6ntial settlements of approxitnately one-half of the toted between comparably loaded footings. All footing arm should be observed by a representative of this firm, prior to placing any concrete, to va* that the design beariing capacity of the soils has been attained and that construction conforms to the recommendations contained in this report. lAtera) loads can be resisted by friction between the foundation and the supporting soils, and/or by passive -earth pressure acting on the buried portions of the foundations. An allowable passive evih pressure of 250 pof is recommendcd. In order for ibis p"ve earth pressure to be generated, ffic soils extending a minimum of 3 fed outward from the foundations must be compacted to a dense and unyiddifig condition. The passive values presented assume an equivalent triangular fluid pressure distribution beginning at the surface. The triangular pressure dikfibution is trujimted above I fbot. For ffiction between the foundation, slab and supporting soils we recommend a coefficient of friction of 0.30. Gary A.'Rnvers, PLLC_ I 95n 126 Ave= NE s1munc. W1WdVM 981$5.1106 2W"417-7640 6 Edmonds Yacht C" Buil&w Geotechmal Senices Report 3M Mack of Admiral Way, Edmonds. Wash�ron post -liquefaction ground subsidence. Unless the epicenter of a significant seismic event were to be located near to, the site the potential fot damage, i's considered to be low. Since the nearesi known fault zones am on the order of 6 to 10 miles distant, the likeUhood of a significant event oommng nearby is also considered to be low. Foundations bearing on loose sand typically experience settlement as loads are being applied and shortly after the load. is applied. As such, long torm. settlement typically does not occur in sand soils and settl�ment ends before final finishes am applied to the structure. M. HPIri-71,17. 71.0-MIM717 In order to eliminale the need to construct a minimum 4 feet thick stmotural fill pad beneath the building footings, and to fully eliminate the potential for either settlement due -to the loose underlying soils. or due to post -liquefaction ground subsidence, the building,can be supported on small diameter pipe piles. Tbe piles should be Schedul . e 40 galvanized steel pipe that is driven to refusal into the underlying Aetural, dense sediments with an air or 'hydraulic hammer. The tollomrig table indicates the allowable capacities based upon post experience and injustry standard§. The rifusid criteria in the, table indic;;atethe maximum amount of We penetration allowed over a specjfied'period of sustained dri The refusal criteria wil I vary if other -sized hammers will be used Winstall the piles. The-harrimer size and rehisal, criteria will be discussed with the pile installation contractor at the time of installation. Table I Small Diameter -Pipe Me Recommendations PileViiiineter Allowable Axial CaR! Mn. Haminer Wt. Refusal Criteria 34n,ch 12 kips 650 lbs I inch/ 12 sm 4-inch 20 Ld2.s 8SO Ibs 1 inch/ 16 sec Based on the boring logs for the site pile lengths should be in the range of 15 to 25 feet. Hwwever, placing pipe piles into saturated sands can create a liquefiable condition at the tip of the pile that can result in longer pile lerigibs. If a pile option is selected we recommend that at least two test piles be installed prior to bidding the project in order to determine more closely what the anticipated pile depths mky be. Each pile or group of pfles should be connected to other piles using a grade beam Resistance to lateral loads would beprovided by passive soil resistance against the grade beam or placement of bafter piles. We do not recommend using bending of the pile for lateral resistance due to the unsecured connections between Poe sections. A passive equivalent fluid pressure equal to 250 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) can be used against the grade beams when backfilled with suitably Gary A. Flow^ PLLC_ 19M212* Ava= NE Shmfinr, Wexwn" 981is-I 106 206417-7640 Edmondt Yack Ctub Buffift GeoledmicalServicei Repors 300 0160 of Adaumtft Etw* Waft= compacted and.approved structwW fill. The mctural fill must be full height against the grade beam and extend a minimum distance of 3 feet away. from the grade beam. If batter piles are used to resist lateral loads, the lateral resistance would be equal to the horizGntal'component of the axial pile load. The maximum recommended batter is I HAV. The actual total length of each pile will be determined and adjusted in the field based on required capacity and conditions encountered during installation and may be different than ostimaled ab6ve. Since co Vile takei,place below ground, the judgment and experience of ..Opletion of the Oe geotechnic ' al enginper'or his field repMentative must be used as a basis for doermining the reqq�w pene, pile. Consequently, use of "the. presented capac.ifies "tion and acceptAbilfty of ea�fi in'.the "gorequire.s: ffiat a qualifie,d.gerotechnical engineer or engineerin geologist from our .9 firm, who will interpret and,.collect the ins�afion data and.examine the critractor's operaftom ins� #11, piles. We would dete,imine the required. lengths of the piles and keep records of pertinent installation data. A &W summary report would then be di . stributed following completion of pile installation. Floor Support Recommendations A slab -on -grade floor may be used directly over recompacted existing fill sediments or a structural 0 pad, The upper 12 inches of exposed subgrade soils must be compacted to a dense and unyielding 6Dndition. Slab -on -grade concrete floors "ere moisture vapor intrudon is unwanted should be cast atopa minimum of 6 inches of washed pea gravel or clean, coam sand and gmvel to act as a capillary break. It should also be protected from dampness by placement of 10-mil plastic sheeting. The plastic sheeting must be lapped and sealed to p-everit moisture intrusion. In addition, any pipe projections through the plastic sheet must be properly wrappod and scalod. Site Drainage Due to the very sandy nature of the on -site soils, footing drains should not be requited on this site. Roof and. otherimpermeable surface runoff should be handled by a rigid, tightline drain that disi6harges into an approved storm water conveyance system. In planning, exterior grades adjacent to walls should be sloped downward away from the structure to achieve surface drainage. Erosion Protection The. soils that wifl be exposed on the site have a moderate erosion potential under a conpentrated flow regime, However, due to the flatlying nature of the site, Standard City of Edmonds crosion control measures should be sufficient for this site. Special care must be taken to keep any sediment laden water from discharging into the nearby Puget Sound. Gary A. Mwews, PLLC, 19M 12� Avam WE Shwdiw. Washblim 99155-1106 206417-7640 W Edvon& Yacht Club Bwildmg Geolechnical Savices fiepod JW Block OfAdnlral E&n ondv, SUMMARY Based on our site reconnaissance, literature research and subsudk= explorations the site appews to be suitable for the proposed development provided the recommendations provided herein are property implemented. However, since there am no design details for the structure at this time, we remmend that we be retained to review those portions of the plans and specifications that peiWn to grading, drainage, and foundations to determine dist' they are consistent with the recommendations of this report. Construction monitoring and consultation services should also be provided, at the time of construction to verify that substirface conditions are as expected. Should conditions be revealed during construction diat difters from the anticipated subsurface profile, we Vill evaluate those conditions end provide alternative recommendations where appropriate. Our, findings and rec ' ommendations provided in this report were prepared in accordance with I geo genw* accepted princip es of engineering geology and ' technical enginpaing as prauiced in the Puget Soun - d ariea -at the time this repoit was submitted. We make no other warranty, either express oi impfied.. Sincerely, 0 S Gary A. Flowers, P.O., P.E.G. h*1eermg Geologist Attachments: Figure 1: Site und Exploration Plan Appendix A: F_xplorafion Logs 'If 4�A 9 Robert M. Pfide, P.E Geotechnical Engineer Gaq A. Flowem PLL4C 19SU IP Annue NU WashbigM 991 "-1106 206417-7640 EXISTING BOARDWALK t> EB-1 wz u �< PROPOSED w EDMONDS YACHT CLUB C4 OD 0 <n LEASE AREA Z< fa ;=LU x Lu <+ vlt LL w 0 tic CL at LLI< CL z Z =w wwll'- 31: w EB-2 Lu co 110* EXISTING CUR8 WISTING LANDSCAPE AREA EXISTING SIDEWALK ADMIRAL WAY LEGBM EB-1 *Awrwmat& bmtbn at eviormL�m bodna REFERENCE- WE MAP PROVIDED BY CUENT. 30 APPWXIMATE SCALE IN FEE7 SrrE AND EXPLORATI . ON PLAN RGURE 1 GARY A. FLOWERS, PLLC EDMONDS.YACHT CLUB DATE 3M8 EDM61NDS MARINA EDMONDS, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO. 07-056 0 Edpwnds Yachi Club Building Georechnical.Vervices Repon 300'Block ofA&nlral Way, Edmond,,_ Washfngtm APPENDIX A EXPLORATION BORING LOGS Gjt6 A. Flowem, PLK. 19532 IP Avcnw Nr Sbwvlim wtooglon 99155- 1106 206411-7640 EXPLORATION BORING LOG Number EB-1 PAGE I OF 2 SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION W Lu -j Z CL =) 0 DAMES & MOORE RESISTANCE 10 20 30 40 asphalt surfacing medium dense, damp, gray, fine to medium SAND 20 with gravel; 2seam of dark brown send (511) A _4 loose, saturated, gray -brown medium SAND with 8 some slit and (race fine gravel (fill?) A ATD medium dense, saturated, gray, gravelly coarse SAND 2 22 A, 15 ........ no sample recovety 24 2' heave - washed 20 dense, saturated, gray gravelly, medium SAND 13"1 49A wit . h some. slit 18 Vh9ave - washed dense, saturated, gray, silly rn"urn SAND with e 12 38 A scattered fine gravel 26 Vhsave - washed 30 dense, saturated, gray, nwdium to coarse SAND with 45 fine gravel, tmoe slit In a few zones M A Vx dmrawm loew*m MW boom of WS wobm" f", Rubw by peowc Irm 1 it 1'9 � w*hoWVan9*wW"m@nL Theyam nd nuwnW1ymprmnWNe of vftr Owev and boskn& WevMW =oWmspwsWftfbrthe Los pmoarftd onft fog. GARY A. FLOWERSy PLLC EDMONDS YACHT CLUB . EDMONDS MARINA EDMONDS, WASHINGTON JUNE 11, 2007 PROJECT NO. 07-056 0 EXPLORATION BORING LOG Number ES-1 PAGE20F2 SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION 0 DAMES4 MOORE RESISTANCE BIWAWFoot 10 20 30 40 very dense, saturated, gray fine SAND vAth trace gravel 15 Theave - washed 40 24 BCH @ 39- 45 50 60 —65 11dorpmWom wo"otm ffov*6 MW tow—L Ttoy am rwt noobv*Wy roReawdOm of oOw *ms w4 Wedorm Vft w9i tot NoW raqwWMV W Ow use of k6wpmtodw by MM Of MMIaton pasmftd on Ift W9. GARY A. FLOWERS, PLLC EDMONDS YACHT CLUB EDMONDS MARINA EDMONDS, WASHINGTON "E 11, 2007 PROJECT NO. 07-056 Number EB-2 EXPLORATION BORING LOG SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION W Z DAMES.& MOORE RnisTANcE 10 20 30 40 asphaltsurfacing metlium dense, moist gray and brown $AND with scattered gravel, dark streaks at 2-112'to T(fill) 10 20 loose, moist, gray, medium SAND with gravel.(fill?) 4 4 4 loose, saturated, gray, gravelly, medium SAND (fill?) 7 2 3 4 medium dense, saturated, gray -brown, gravelly, 10 ATD 4 I medium to coarse SAND with silt dense. saturated, fine to medium SAND 9 is A44 26 15 very dense, saturated, gray, ooerse sandy GRAVEL 14 23 61 38 20 dense, saturatqd,,qr�y,,�i ty iq� to mecfium SAND .� _L ---- -------- — ------ 7 38 dense, sa:turatad, grAvelly, Coarse � MIT 11 & .1 . 27 25 very dense, saturated, gray, gravelly, poorly sorted SAND with silt 14 79 I'heave - washed 30 31 48 SOH 29' WMIY*, and jUdOMN*. TheY are W MwWm#y roWunkft of oftrtkw W bc�tjfo, Wa viol W memo raVamNIV tar 1ho um arkftpmUft by oftm cfhiwn*q*n prom an th14 Wg. GARY A. FLOWERS, PLLC EDMONDS YACHT CLUB EDMONDS MARINA EDMOND8. WASHINGTON JUNE 11, 2007 PROJECT NO. 07-056 's Gary A. Flowers, PLLC Geological & Geotechnical Consulting 1953212 th Avenue NE Shoreline, WA 98155-1106 January 14,2009 Project No. 07-056 Edmonds Yacht Club STREET FILE - SUB 456 Admiral Way RE Edmonds, WA 98020 FEB 2 6 2009 Attention: Mr. Ernie Collins "Kticsv�� Project Manager/Consultant Subject: Response to Geotechnical Peer Review, dated November 24, 2008 Proposed New Yacht Club Building — BLD2008-0861 300 Block of Admiral Way Edmonds, Washington This letter is written in response to the request for additional information presented in the Landau Associates Peer Review, dated November 24, 2008, of the geotechnical portion of the submittal package for the Edmonds Yacht Club Building. The first comment presented in the review document deals with the potential for organic material and debris to be present beneath the site even though no indications of these materials was observed within the exploration borings. Should pockets of these materials in fact lie beneath the site there is potential risk to the structure unless it is supported on a pile foundation. The docurn ents states "However, the owner and the design team should be made aware of the potential risk associated with the use of shallow foundations and the potential for damaging differential settlement should such organic material and debris be present below a portion of the proposed structure. Y) Substantial discussions were previously held with the owner, the owner's representative, the planned previous contractor for the project and the structural engineer to discuss the merits and risks associated with a shallow foundation system versus a pile supported foundation system. Based upon the soils encountered in the subsurface explorations completed for the project, the potential risk of using a shallow foundation system is substantially mitigated, but not eliminated, by supporting the building upon a thick layer of coarse, granular structural fill and structurally connecting the foundation and concrete slab to provide a very rigid structure. It is our belief that all parties fully understand that there is some degree of additional risk associated with the proposed method of construction and the owner is accepting of the additional risk. Gary A. Flowers, PLLC. 19532 12'h Avenue NE Shoreline, Washington 98155-1106 206417-7640 Edmonds Yacht Club Geotechnical Response Letter Port of Edmonds, Edmonds, Washington The second comment deals with the liquefaction potential for the site and a statement in the geotechnical report for the site that states "any earthquake damage to the proposed structures when founded on suitable foundation bearing strata in accordance the recommendations provided in this report would be caused by the intensity and acceleration associated with the event and not any of the above discussed impacts". The review engineer feels this statement implies that earthquake induced liquefaction would not cause damage and "recommends the geotechnical engineer review and clarify this statement " The review engineer is correct that the above statement is somewhat inconsistent with the potential for liquefaction induced settlement. It was not our intention to imply that there would be no damage to the structure should a large scale seismic event occur with an epicenter near the Port of Edmonds site. However, based on the encountered sediments and the thickness of the potentially liquefiable zone, the potential settlement is estimated to be less than 4 inches under a worst case scenario. Although the previous liquefaction modeling for the Port of Edmonds building indicated that the settlement would be inconsistent across that site, it is our opinion that the settlement would be relatively consistent under the Yacht Club site. However, even under a worst case scenario of 4 inches of differential soil settlement the proposed construction methodology will significantly mitigate the potential settlement. The third comment again deals with the different foundation design alternatives for a building sited over potentially liquefiable soils and the varying levels of performance, potential damage and risk along with varying costs for foundations. The reviewer fiii-ther states . that "If the project owner and the design team have not already discussed these issues and tradeoffs, we recommend that these alternative be reviewed and the project owner confirm that they are willing to accept the risk of damage with selected alternative. We also recommend that the project owner and the design team specifically acknowledge the potential for substantial damage in the event that soil liquefaction associated with a strong motion earthquake occurs beneath a structure that is not mitigated by appropriately designed deepfoundations or ground improvement. " We refer back to the answer for the first comment on page 1. These items have been discussed with the owner and the owner has acknowledged his understanding and acceptance of the potential risk versus the cost of a pile supported foundation. Furthermore, it is our understanding that Mr. Chevy Chase with CG Engineering will provide a document for the owner to sign acknowledging these items. We would like to point out that there are no known faults at this time in close proximity to the Port of Edmonds. The nearest known fault zone is several miles distant. As such, the risk for an C6upper level event" to occur beneath the subject site is low. Although engineering structures to withstand a worst case event (epicenter very near to the subject site) without any damage is a worthwhile goal, it is often unrealistic for small projects. Substantial mitigation to reduce potential damage and protect health and safety is often more than adequate for these projects Gary A. Flowers, PLLC. 19532 120'Avenue NE Shoreline, Washington 98155-1106 206417-7640 A� Edmonds Yacht Club Geotechnical Response Letter Port of Edmonds, Edmonds, Washington when they are located sufficiently distant from known earthquake features (faults). It should also be understood that if a large scale event occurs directly beneath a site, massive damage will occur regardless of the engineering design. The fourth comment relates to the site soil classification which was given as Site Class D in the soils report for the project. The reviewer states "Due to the presence of the liquefiable soils, it is our opinion that the site would be considered Site Class F The geotechnical engineer should review this classification. The 2006 IBC indicates that soils underlain by liquefiable soils should be considered Site Class F. However, it is our opinion that this designation is not appropriate for this site. This is due to the reduced risk of liquefaction induced settlement in the underlying soils due to the additional compaction that will be attained with the chosen construction methodology, the rigid box effect due to structurally connecting the footings and concrete slab, and the distance from any known fault traces. Although not considered essential for this project, a change of classification from D to E could be supported if necessary. A change to Site Class F is not recommended. The fifth comment relates to the structural fill pad proposed for beneath the structure, whether or not it must extend under the entire structure or only beneath the footings and whether or not the current plans (raising grade 16 inches versus the 3 feet indicated in the soils report would necessitate and change in foundation design recommendations. The reviewer states "We recommend that the geotechnical engineer review this condition and confirm whether the structuralfill pad is intended to be beneath the entire buildingfootprint orjust the footings, and whether constructing the building near existing site grades instead of raising site grades by 3 ft would change thefoundation design recommendations, " We agree that when constructing a structural fill pad for purposes of mitigating subsurface conditions, especially liquefaction, that the entire building pad is typically overexcavated and replaced with granular structural fill. However, since the upper 5 feet of soils on this site were medium dense or better (n--20) and the floor slab will contain rebar reinforcement and be structurally connected to the foundation, it was agreed that only the footings required the deeper excavation and structural fill placement for support. However, we also cautioned the owner and the contractor that typically it is more expedient and cost effective to simply remove all soil from the building footprint instead of trying to excavate and backfill trenches. The redesign of the building such that existing grade will only be raised 16 inches instead of 3 feet as referenced in the report will not have an impact on the foundation design recommendations. The sixth comment relates to liquefaction induced lateral spreading of the underlying soils during a seismic event. The reviewer states "It is not clear Jrom the Geotechnical Report that the Gary A. Flowers, PLLC. 19532 12"' Avenue NE Shoreline, Washington 98155-1106 206417-7640 Edmonds Yacht Club Geolechnical Response Letter Port of Edmonds, E dmonds, Washington geotechnical engineer has considered the potentialfor lateral spreading and we recommend the geotechnical engineer address this issue. " Lateral spreading is most likely to occur on this site if a large seismic event were to occur in close proximity to the site. As stated above this is an unlikely event. In addition, potential damage from lateral spreading is substantially reduced due to the improvements to the foundation soils (significant compaction effort) and the rigid box foundation/slab design. It is our opinion that the majority of ground movement that would be experienced at the site would be differential settlement which has been accounted for in the design. Although the structural engineer apparently did not include the slab reinforcement and structural connection of the slab to the foundation in the previous submittal, we understand this is being corrected at this time. Other miscellaneous comments relating to inspection of the seawall and the material beneath the floor slab is being addressed by the owner and the structural engineer and architect. We trust this information is sufficient at this time. Please contact our office if any ftirther questions arise. Respectfully submitted, I -1�1 I" Gary A. Flowers, P.G., P.E.G. Robert M. Pride, P. E. Principal Engineering Geologist Principal Geotechnical Engineer Gary A. Flowers, PLLC. 19532 12'h Avenue NE Shoreline, Washington 98155-1106 206-417-7640 Date. Wtq�Uoq Site Address: Contractor / Owner: Permit# / Project: SITE INSPECTION RECO Time: 9,0 / �- 4mr �! zil 11 W. - . I 'Mimi 9 UP Ml, , FAIMI&MA00 It MM A, N-D I MI"IM71A MIMEMA 211 ly Jim SITE INSPECTION RECORD Date: U1,11,1UM Time: lam Site Address: Contractor / Owner: Permit* / Project: 1 M 1"mraMMo. .q, L Message 0 0 Page 1 of I McConnell, Jeanie From: Kuhnhausen, Kris Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 1:06 PM To: McConnell, Jeanie Subject: RE: yacht club / 192nd st. Yes, I called Frank today and let him know. Kris ----- Original Message ----- From: McConnell, Jeanie Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 6:56 AM To: Kuhnhausen, Kris Subject: RE: yacht club / 192nd st. Great news - on both accounts! Does the Yacht Club contractor know yet? Thanks, Jeanie ----- Original Message ----- From: Kuhnhausen, Kris Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 11:13 AM To: McConnell, Jeanie Subject: yacht club / 192nd st. Hi Jeanie, The valves did work down on Admiral Wy. for the Yacht Club. Also, we have the parts for 192nd. Installing the services on Tuesday. Kris Kuhnhausen Water Lead 6/24/2009 '11 00-47-Ckil- -7n & Y, 4T +-L-, in, S. (,k. 4et, I t 4' 14 T OPS FORNI 3304 1 -1 re - August 27, 2007 ROMAC INDUSTRIES, INC. "600" Series Pipe Restraining System' 1-800-426-9341 Castings: Ductile iron; meeting or exceeding ASTIVI A 536, Grade 65-45-12. Clamping Bolts: High Strength Low Alloy Steel per AWWAC111 Clamping Nuts: ANSI B 18.2.2. Restraining Rods, T-Bolts and Nuts: High strength, low alloy steel per AWWA C 111. Coating: Color coded shop coat. Black on ductile iron sizes, Red on IPS (steel) size PVC. Not for use on polyethelene pipe or plain end mechanical joint fittings. 1-11 L3 e- C 1 oq cm -6T--1:;bj- -P Lp e- I It M coupling I STYLE 611 for BELL & SPIGOT JOINTS, ROMAC COUPLINGS and TRANSITIONS NOM. PIPE PIPE PIPE CLAMPING BOLTS RESTRAINING RODS APPROX. LIST PRICE SIZE DIA. QTY. SIZE CITY. SIZE WEIGHT 4 IPS size PVC 4.60 4: 5/s" x 4" 2: 3/41' x 18" 18 1/2 # $61.18 DI, C-900 4.80 IPS size PVC 6.63 Z .1 4: %" x 4" 1-w Wx- 2: 3/411 x 20" 22# 81.12 DI, C-900 6.90 If 8 IPS size PVC 8.63 -W-L DI, C-900 9.0 5 4: 3/4" x 511 2: 3/4" x 20" 40 # 131.45 IPS size PVC 10 - 75 10 DI, C-900 11.10 4: 7/811 x 511 4: 3/411 x 22" 50# 229.15 12 IPS size PVC 12.75 4: 7/6" 3/4" RI, C-900 13.20 x 5" 01'. 4: X 22" 60 # 250.70 . ........ .... Per pair of castings To Order: Specify catalog number. Example: For a 6" DI or C-900 Bell & Spigot Joint, order IStyle 611 - 6.W STYLE 612 for MECHANICAL JOINTS NOM. PIPE PIPE PIPE CLAMPING BOLTS RESTRAINING RODS APPROX. LIST PRICE SIZE DIA. QTY.- SIZE QTY* SIZE WEIGHT lbs. IPS size PVC DI, 4.50 2. 0 ftll � IN 0� 2: x 4" 2: Ve x 7" 10# $43.42 C-900 4.80 IPS size PVC DI, C-900 6.63 6.90 ..N 2: x 4n 2: 3/4" x -PI 1192 # 52.61 . . . . . . IPS size PVC 8.63 V; R 2: 3/4" x 5" 2: 3/4" x 7" 201/2 # 78.24 DI, C-900 9.05 1 11 0 IPS Size PVC DI, C79( 10.76 2 7/s" x 511 4: 3/411 x 71' 28# 146.78 1211 IPS size PVC 12.75 5M 0, PIZ, 2: 7/s" x 5" 4: 3/4" x 7" 32 # 155.96 DI, C-900 13.20 I Per pair of castings To Order: Specify catalog number. Example: For a 6" 01 or C-900 W fitting, order [Stvfe�flj 2 - 6. ET 4- � 0 1* = T-a, tt 2, TESTED WITH A 2:1 SAFETY FACTOR US Patent No. 4092036, 4779900, 4627774, 4896903 For use on valves, fittings, hydrants, and pipe joints where It Is advisable to RESTRAIN EXISTING DUCTILE IRON SYSTEMS. The Series 1100SV Is available in the 14"-30" sizes to restrain existing PVC systems. 10 S12 NOMINAL SERIES SHIPPING PIPE SIZE NUMBER WEIGHT -3 11 03SD 9.50 4 11 04SD 7.80 6 110 6SD 12.00 8 11 08SD 16.00 10 11 IOSD 29.00 12 11 12SD 33.80 14 11 14SD 65.00 16 11 16SD 72.60 18 11 18SD 77.00 20 11 20SD 91.60 24 11 24SD 144.00 30 1130SD 210.00 36 11 36SD 264.20 42 1142SO 397.00 48 11 48SD 486.00 *CALL FOR AVAILABILITY 0192-3-8 SIZE5 14"-48" NUMBER OF RATED WEDGES PRESSURE Clean and clear problem joint on existing line. 2 350 Field cut now rubber gasket and replace, If necessary. A split 2 350 EBAA-SEAL gasket can be provided with the 11008D or I 1100SV. This gasket was designed to provide the best 3 350 mechanical Joint seal possible. 4 350 Remove clamps from split gland. Assemble split gland loosely on the pipe by installing the T-bolts hand tight everywhere 4 300 except on each side of the split. 6 300 Assemble each clamp so that the angled surfaces of the clamp 8 300 mate with the angled surfaces on each side of the split. Insert the long T-bolts that are provided through the clamps and 10 300 tighten hand tight. 10 200 Tighten the T-bolts. Start by tightening the T-bolts evenly at each clamp, then tighten the remaining T-bolts. Repeat this 12 200 tightening sequence until all T-bolts have been tightened to 90 14 200 ft.-Ibs. Tighten MEGALUGS so that all of the wedges are In firm 18 200 contact with the pipe. Tighten each MEGALUG in an 22 200 alternate manner, twisting the nuts off in a clockwise direction. When reassembly Is required, assemble the MEGALLIG in the 26 :175 same manner and tighten the wedges to 90 ft.-lbs. 30 ITS For fleld test pressures exceeding the rated pressure. contact the engineering departrnent at EBAA Iran, Inc. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AVAILABLE P.O. BOX 857 *EASTLAND, TX76448 USA* WATSBOO-433-1716 * TELEFAX(817)6201-8931 e (817)829-1731 DAILY FIELD REPURT Tarracon 14940 NE 95�'Street, Suits A Tel (425) 202-0300 Redmond, WA 96052 Fax (425) 202-0307 Irerracon Consulting Engineers & Scientists t0jz0-41t:l'F'1> 14 -TO TAk c- '91141 U04 PROJECT NAME PROJECT NO. REPORT NO. Edmonds Yacht Club C8091044 091044.0024 ADDRESS PERMIT NO. DA'T E 326 Admiral Way — Edmonds, WA 2008-0861 09118/09 CLIENT WEATHER PAGE (inclu&3 Tost Rep—) E Kent Halverson Inc. 600's I of 2 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER TERRACON PROJECT MANAGER/PHONE NO. CG Engineering Scot Wise (425) 202-0296 ARCHITECT TERRACON FIELD REPRESENTATIVEIPAGE NO. TGB Architects Chuck Solway (425) 202-0300 CONTRACTOR TYPE OF INSPECTION NEWINSPECTION E Kent Halverson I ric. Soils 0 RE -INSPECTION Terracon on site, as requested, for the following: 1) To verify compaction of soils under roadway. Existing curb, gutter and asphalt was removed for access to utilities. Trench (approximately 4' to 5' deep) runs east -west from east side of building across both north and southbound lanes of,Admiral Way. The existing subgrade was removed, stockpiled and replaced. Observed approximately 8-inch lifts placed, leveled and. compacted with hoe -pack. Compaction testing was performed with Troxler nuclear densometer and results indicated that the required 95% compaction was achieved. To the bestof our knowledge, all items inspected as noted above were in general IN Yes U Preliminary observations conformance With the approved plans and specifications. [:1 No [I oeflaency Corrected -Report No. Chuck Solway 09118109 "V"wr:n RV THIS REPORT IS CONSIDERED PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING REVIEW BY OUR PROJECT MANAGER. This report is provided solely for the information of out client. This report Is not Intended to be transmitted to a third party by any means, exoept In full, without written permission of Terratoon. Inc. FIELD DENSITY REPORT Terracon 14940 NE ge Street. Suite A Tel (425) 202-0300 Redmond, WA 98052 Fax (425) 202-0307 Irerracon Cunsulting En�ineers & Scientists PROJECT NAME: Edmonds YacM Club PROJECTNO.: C809110" FIELD REPORT NO.: 091044.0024 ADDRESS: 326 Admiral Way — Edmonds, WA DATE: 09118/09 PAGE: 2 of 2 SUMMARY OF FIELD. COMPACTION RESULTS.. SOIL ASPHALT 7—EST No. SAMPLE NO. LOCATION OF TEST PROM DEPT14 E11V WET DENSITY DRY DENSITY % MOIST. % COMP COMP. SPEC. % PTS i OPT. PASS/ FAJI 1 East-West Trench Across Admiral Way (GL-9) — Southbound 10" -3' 125.7 121.7 3.2 98.7 95 -1.2 1 2 East-West Trench Across Admiral Way (GL-9) — Southbound 8" -2' 125.8 121.5 3,5 98.5 95 -0.8 P 3 East-West Trench Across Admiral VVay. (GL-9) — Southbound 8" -11 1 126.3 122.9 2.8 99.7 1 95 -1.5 P 4 East-West Trench Across Admirai Way (GL-9) — Northbound 8. 0 1 125.6 121.3 3.5 98.4 95 -0.8 P 5 East-West Trench Across Admiral Way (GL-9) Southbound 81, 0 1 124�9 120.2 3.9 97.5 95 -0.4 SOIL PROPERTIE&-. COMPACTION TEST PARAMETERS SAWLE NO. ID MATEMAL DESCRiPTION LAS VALUES TEST METHOD: E] ASTM D-2922 D-3017 El ASTM D-2950 (ASPHALTj NUCLEAR GAUGE NO: 30426 GAUGE STANDARD: IVIS 619 DS 2378 LAS METHOD: STANDARD PROCTOR (ASTM D-698) MODIFIED PROCTOR (ASTM D-1557) RICE (ASTM D-2041) MARSHALL (ASTM D-1559) Native Brown Silty, Gravelly Sand 123.3 PCF Q 4.3 %MST PCF @ % MST PCF @ % DATUM REFERENCE Bottom of Asphalt Concrete Placement 7-mis repon is prmided Solely for 010 inforMaLlon ot OW 6ent Thi3 repW is not intanded to be tr2nomilled to a ftrd Wy by ary rASSM. axcsPt in full, wthOut the witlen perrnission of AMEC Eariti & Environmento, Lnr- Chuck Solway 09118109 TERRACON FIELD REPRESENTATIVE THIS REPORT IS CONSIDERED PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING REVIEW 13Y PROJECT MANAGER. '�_'TERRACON PROJECT MANAGER 0 Message Page 1 of I McConnell, Jeanie 171A AOK"(, Frorn: McConnell, Jeanie Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 2:18 PM To: 'Frank Price' Cc: 'JD Newton'; Bullis, Ann; Engineering Inspector; Bjorback, Leif DUN Subject: Yacht Club 2'storm line - wall tie backs Rt T RE Frank, As discussed on site and as can be seen in the attached photo, the wall tie backs are interfering with continued placement of the storm line and fall about center of the storm pipe. I understand, CG Engineering is further investigating the tie backs and is engineering an alternate design. Please forward the engineer of records response to the City for review and comment prior to implementing changes in the field. Thank you, Jeanie JEANIE McCONNELL Engineering Program Manager mcconnell(d)ci.edmonds.wa.us City of Edmonds I www.cl.edmonds.wa.us Public Works Department I Engineering Division 121 5th Ave N I Edmonds, WA 98020 Tel: 425.771.0220 1 Fax: 425.771.0221 A Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail 8/5/2009