51 PINE ST.PDFiiiiiiiiiiiiii
12811
51 PINE ST
ADDRESS: f:zoe
TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL NUMBER:_
B UILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE):_ ",;�o
COVENANTS (RECORDED) FOR:
CRITICAL AREAS: DETERMINATION:n Conditional Waiver E] Study Required F] Waiver
DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S:
DRAINAGE PLAN DATED:
PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED:
EASEMENT(S) RECORDED
PERMITS (OTHER):
PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DA'
SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED:
SEWER LID FEE $:
SHORTPLAT
SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED:
SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) #:-
GEOTECH REPORT DATED:
STR-EET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT #:
FO
WATER METER TAP CARD DATED:
LID #:
LOT: BLOCK:
LATEMP\DS'Ps\Fomis\,Street File Checklistdoc
TERRA, ASSOCIATESf �Jnco
Consultants in Geotechnical Engineeriing, Geology
.'and
Environmental E�irth Science , s
November 21, 2001
Project No. T-480.
Mr. Ross Woods
Triad Point Edwards
2801 Alaskan'Way, Suite 107
Seattle, Washington 98121
Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Report
UNOCAL Site
Pine Street and Chinook Road
Edmonds Washington
Dear Mr. Woods:
As requested, we,have. conducted a preliminary geotechnical engineering study for the subject project. The
attached report presents, our findings and recommendations for the geotechnical aspects of project design and
construction.
Our indicates that the site is generially underlain. by medium dense to very densehative sand,,
silty sand, sandy silt,'and laminatedto massive, very dense silt and/or hard clay. Fill lids been placed at locations
across the site in thicknesses ranging from.'about 1 to-12 feet. The co-fisistene of the 'fill soil is variable, but
I - I ' , . � y
generally -appears -to have been derived from the'on-site soils. Much of the fill -we. observed contained organic
material and/ordebris. We observed, light seepage of perched groundwater in several test pits at depths ranging
from about 2.5 to 11.0 feet below the ground surface.'
Iri our opinion, the subsurface conditions at the site are suitable for the proposed development of the property. Jn
general, conventional spread footings may be used for -supporting the buildings bea m*g'6n undisturbed native soil
or compacted structural fill. The slopes on'the sitelare. generally stable,- and the stability is-. not expected'to b6,,
7
affected by,th& proposed development. The uncontrolled fill. encountered on , the, site will not be suitable for
directly,supporting structural loads or pavements. Con'ceptualplans- for'development'indicate'.sign'ificant. cuts in
the uphill,�art of the site, adjacent to Pine Street. These'excavations Willmost likely need, to be provided:w'ith
temporary,support during+ construction.
1'2525 Willows, Road-, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034
Phone'(425) 82.1 -7777 Fax (42 5) -821 -43 34
Mr. Ross Woods
November 21, 2001
Once project plans have been finalized, we will conduct additional detailed analyses to evaluate impacts on slope
stability and prepare final, recommendations for the geotechnical aspects of site,developmerit.
We trust the information presented.is sufficient for your current needs. If you have any.questions orrequire'
additional information, please call.
Sincerely yours,
TERRA ASSOCIATES, INC.
John C. S
Project
I I/JI/0
Anil ta P.0 A
Princi 17006'
49
GMT 3
ics� a
Project No. T4893
Page No'. 11
TABLE OF CONTENTS,
Pag� No.
1.0 Project Description ..... * ................................... ............................................ ................... I.,— I
2.0 'Scope of Work ...... ; ................................................................................. * ......................... 1
3.0 Site Conditions ............................................................ ........... 2
11 Surface ...................................................... ? ................................................
3.2, Soils ................................................................................................................ ...... 3
3 3 Groundwater ...................................................................................................... .3
4.0 zards ..........................................................
Geologic Ha .................. .............................. 4.
4.1 Erosion .......................... I ........................................................................................ 4
4.2 Steep -Slope..,.� ........................................................................................................... 4
.4.3 Landslide .......... : ............ ............................................................ 4 ......................... 5
4.4 'Seismic ... : ............................................ I ....... * ............................... ................. 5..
5.0 Discussion and Preliminary Recommendations ........................................................... 5
51.1 General ............................................................ : .................................... ................ 5'.
5.2 Site Preparation and Grading ............................................................................. 6
5.3 Excavations ........................................................................................................ 7
5.4 Foundations .............................
........................................................................... 8
5.5 Basement and Ret�iniiig Walls ............................................................................
5.6 Slab-�on-Grade Floors ......... .......... ................................................................. 10
5.7 Drainage ................................................................................................ : .......... 10
-11 5.8 Utilities ....... 6 ..............................................................................................
5.9 Pavements ................................................................................. ......................
6.0 Additional Services ............................................. 4 .......................................................... 11
7.0 Limitiations ......... .......................................................................................................... 12
Figures
VicinityMap ......... ...................................................... ..................................... Figure 1
Exploration Location Plan ...................... 7 .......................................................................... . Figure 2
General Slope Fill Detail ............................ ............................................................... ........ . Figure 3
Appendix
Field Exploration and Laboratory.Testing.; ...................................................................... Appendix A
Preliminary Geotechnical Report -
UNOCAL Site -
Pine Street and Chinook Road,
Edmonds, Washington
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
We understand the project.will consist of a residefitial development. Detailed building and site development
plans are currently not available. However, a prelin-iinary.,site plan by GGLO indicates the developm6nt will
consist of 15 multi -unit buildings. We'und&rstand'that the -buildings, will be three to fou r stories, with daylight
basements and attached garages. We expect that the buildings will be wood -framed, with lower floors
constructed'at grade. We expect structural loads'will.be about five to,severi Icips per,linear,f6o't for continuous,
beuing,walls. Column.loads maybe onth.e order,of 200.jcips.--,
Our review of an unreferehced pKeliminary grading Ian, dated February 20,.200 1, - indicate
p s that the planned site�
development will require extensive. grading with cuts and- fills up.'to'�'about 20 and 30 feet, respectively. In
addition, it appears that temporary construction cuts up to about 20 feet will be required'along the downgradient
side of Pine Street. Proposed permanent cut and fill slopes are.s'hown with an -inclination of 2:1
(Horiz'o'ntal:Vertical).
The recorfimendations contained in the following sections of this,repo'rt, are preliminary and are based'on'the
conceptual'information described above. We should review design drawings as they become available -in order. to
supplement or amend our recommendations, as required.
2.0 SCOPE OF WORK'
On October 18 and'19, 2001, we excavated-17 test.pits to depths ranging froni 9.5 to 16.0 feet below existing.
surface grades. In addition, we reviewed existing subsurface information from. previous -environmental studies at
the'site to augment.the information obtained in our subsurface investigation. -Using this subsurface information,
9
we, performed analyses to develop preliminary geotechnical'�reconimendations for proje I ct' design and
wing:
construction. Specifically, this report addresses the follo
Soil and groundwater conditions
Geologic hazards and site stability
.'Site preparation and grading
Excavations
Foundations
November 21, 2001
'Project No. T-4893
Basement and retaining walls
Slab -on -grade floors
Drainage
Utilities
Pavements
3. 0' SITE CONDITIONS
3.1 Surface
The project site is the *approximately 15-acre upper yard area of the UNOCAL Edmonds,Bulk Fuel Terminal
located approximately between Unoco Road and Pine Street in Edmonds, Washington. The upper yard'area was
formerly used as.a tank farm having 23 aboveground storage tanks (ASTs). All of the tanks and associated
aboveground piping had been removed prior to our field investigation. The approximate location of the site is
shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1.
The site is situated on the upper. portion of a predominantly nbrth-facing hillside. An undated'site plan by Triad
Associates indicates elevations in the planned development area range from about Elev. 170 in the south-central
portion to about Elev. 70 in the*northeastem portion. Surface grades at the site have*been signi - ficantly altered for
siting fuel tanks. In general, the fuel tanks were constructed on large excavations cut'into the hillside. The cut
slopes are typically 15 to 20 feet in height with inclinations'of about 60 to 70 percent. The downgradient sides of
several tank areas are enclosed by a containment berm constructed of fill.. The heights of the berms are about 6 to
12 feet above the bottom of the tank excavation. We' observed a tar -like coating covering'th6' surface of the
berms and most of the interior slopes of the tank areas.
s
The western and northern margins of the planneddevelopment area are 'near the top of a steep natural slope. The
topographic information provided to us indicates the slope is approximately 70 to 90 feet high, with inclinations
ranging between. about 50 and 80 percent: The areas beyond the toe of the slope to the north-northwest are
relatively flat UNOCAL yard and parking areas. Burlington Northern railroad tracks run along the toe of the
slope to the west. Portions of the'slope have.been subjected to shallow erosion and localized sloughing; however,
we did not observe indications..of deep-seated instability. Slope vegetation consists predoi-ninan'ily of young to
mature deciduous trees and brush.
The' portion. of the site located south of. P m*e Street is undeveloped forest except at the western'end, whiclids
occupied by two small buildings located within a fenced enclosure. This portion of the.site slopes down to the
north and northeast at grades. of about 20 'to 25 percent. Vegetation consists of predominantly of mature
coniferous, and deciduous trees and brush undergrowth,
Page No. 2
November 21, 20011
Project No. T-4893
3.2 Soils.
The native soils encountered in the test pits consist of medium dense to' very dense na t iVe sand, silty sand,-san4y
silt, and, laminated to massive, very. dense silt and/o'r hard clay. The soils we observed in the test pits are
generally consistent with those described in the environmental studies performed at the site by others. We
y
encountered the very dense silt/hard clay underlying the medium dense to dense sand, silty sand, and sandy siltin
eight,of the test.pits at*depths ranging from about 2.5 to 10.0 feet below1he ground surface. Test Pits TP-H, TP-
12, and TP-14 throu"h.TP-17 all*te'rminated in rnediurn dense to very dense sand, silty sand, or sandy silt. These
.9
test pits are all. located at lower elevations in the northeastern to, eastern portion of the site.. The very dense silty
sa I nd and sandy silt occasionally contained fine gravel and appeared glacial till -like.
We observed'fill overlying the native soils in 11, of the' 17 test pits. T he fill soils consist primarily of, loose to
fimi silty sand, sandy silt, silt, and clay, with,varying amounts of organic material and debris. The thickness of.,
the fill is,generally less than about three feet; however, we observed fills of 12 and 11 feet ffi Test Pits TP-6 and
TP-16, respectively. Test Pit TP-6 was located on a berm between two large'tank. excavations., Test Pit TP-16
was located on the northeast -facing slcipd,'- below. the two large tank are -as in the I east I ern portion of the site. ln
gener
al, webbserved the original topsoil horizon beneath the fill, soils.
The Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and Part bf-the Edmonds W�st QuadrOgles, Washington by James P.'
Miniard, 1983, shows the soils at higher site elevations mapped as Ya§hoh till, Va§hon, advance outwash, and
Transitional beds. Soils at-lowe r site elevations'are mapped as -medium- to coarse -grained sand of.the,Whidbey
Formation. Transitional bed sediments are described by this' publication as massive to, bedded clay, silt, and fine
to very fine sand. The soils encountered in the test pits are generally -consistent, With the- descriptions'. of
transitional bed deposits.
Detailed descriptions of the subsurface conditions encountered in'the test ogs
pits are presented on the Test Pit L
in Appendix A. The approximatetest pit locations are shown on Figure
3.3 Groundwater
We encountered light groundwater seepage in.7 of-the-17 test pits at.depths ranging between about 2.5. and 11.0
feet. The seepage was generally perched 'on the very. dense siltihard clay, or on the denseto, very'den'se. glacial
till -like silty sand/sandy silt.
The groundwater conditions described above are typical for sites underlain by relatively impermeable' materials,
such as 'glacial till and glacially consolidated silts and clays. Surface water will'infiltrate through the'upper sandy
or weathered soils and become perched on the underlying, relatively impermeable material. When combined
with a positive gradient, the groundwater will flow laterally along this contact, emerging at lower elevations as
seeps'and springs. 'Perched groundwater levels and flow rates will:fluctuate.�seasonally.aiid-typic�lly.reach*their
highest levels during and shortly following the wet winter months (October through May). We' did hot observe
indications of significant groundwater, seepage onthe site slopes.
Page No. 3
November 21, 2001
Project No. T-4893
4.0
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
4.1 Erosion
The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) has mapped the site soils as'Alderwood- Urban land complex, .2 to 8percent'
slopes and Kitsap silt loam, 8 to 25 percent slopes in the upper southern portion of the site, and Alderwood-
Everett gravelly sandy loams, 25 to 70 percent slopes in the area of the former tank farm and the' steep slope
below the tank farm area., The soils we observed ifi the test pit generally conform with the SCS mapping;
however, the very dense silt and hard clay observed in the former tank areas would better correlate with Kitsap
silt loam, 25- to 50 percent slopes. The erosion hazards forsoil s classified as Alderwood-Urban land complex, 2
to 8 percent slopes and Kitsap silt loam, 8 to 25 percent slopes- are classified as slight and moderate, respectively.
Alderwood-Everett gravellp sandy loams,'25 to 70 percent slopes is classified as having a moderate to high
erosion hazard. The erosion hazard for soils classified as Kitsap silt loam, 25 to 50 percent slopes is considered
high.
The City of Edmonds defines erosion hazard areas as those areas containing soils that may experience severe to
very severe erosion hazard. These soils include, but are not limited to, the following when they occur on slopes
of 15 percent or greater:
i. Alderwood. soils (15 to 25 percent slopes).
ii. Alderwood-Everett Series (25 to 70 percent slopes)
iii. Everett Series (15to.25 percent slopes)
Based on the SCS'mapping, much of the site would be considered an erosion hazard area. We did not observe
indications of significant active erosion in the planned development area; however, the soils will b * e susceptible to
erosion when exposed during construction. Best Management Practices, (BMPs) must be used during
construction to mitigate the erosion hazard. . If the'erosion control measures are'properly implemented and
maintained, it is our opinion that the planned development will not adversely impact the erosion potential for the
site or adjacent properties. All erosion and sediment control BMPs should conform to City of'Edmonds
requirements.
4.2 Steep Slope
The City of Edmonds defines steep slope hazard areas as any ground that rises at an inclination of 40 percent or
..more within a vertical elevation change of at least 20. feet. Based o n this definition and the topographic
information provided to us,.the steep slope located below the development, area and the cut slopes on the uphill
sideof several of the tank areas are considere'd steep slope hazard areas.
The steep slopes located within the former tank farm area will be graded to inclinations of 2:1 or flatter. -It does
not appear that site grading will directly impact the steep slope located below, the western and northern portions
of the development are a*. We will evaluate potential impacts regarding.the steep slope hazard areas once final
site grading information is developed.
Page No. 4
NQvember2l-,2001,
-4893
Project No., T
4.3 Landslide
The City of Edmonds defines landslide hazard areas, as follows:-
L, Any areawith slopes* of 15 percent or greater and imijernidable s6ils (typically silt'and clay), frequently
interbedded witligranular soits'(pr6dominantly sand and gravel) and springs or groundwater.
2.. Any. are . a that includes areas with significant, visib . le ,evidence of 'groundwater., seepag e, which'also
ificlud6s,existing. landslide deposits, iegardless.oif slopes.
3. Any area that has shown movement during the Holocent'epoch (from 10,000.y6ars ago to, present), or is'
underlain by mass, wastage debris 6 f that epoch, as determined by.a qualified geologist. or geotechnical
engineer.
4.- ',?sny area potentially. unstable as'a result of rapid stream incision or stream bank erosion.
51�. Any area. 16cated-.-on an alluvial fan, presently subject to or,poteniiall subject to, inundation by debris
y
flow or deposition of stream -transported sediments.
Based on our observations of site soil* conditions'and the, above, definitio n*,' 'many of the site slo
pes would be
considered landslide hazard areas. , We expect that, the steep 'slopes located below, the western and northern
portions of the development Area would also be. considered a, laridslide'hazard area due to soil, conditions*., Based
on our.field observations, it does not appear that the.site slopes hav e been,subjected to deep-seated instability.
An evaluation of Potential-. impacts of development and any 'necessary,, mitigation will',be made- after the site
development plans h ' ave - been finalized. These'evaluations will, include additional subsurface exploraition-by deep
_tesi-bo'n*ngs in are'as,of de'epexcavationsand near the top of the slope.
4.4 Seismic
The P��get Sound area falls within. Seismic Zone 3,-as'.classified,by,the 1997. Uniform Building Code (UBC,).
Based 'on the soil condition's encountered in our test pits land -described ifi-the environmental report by others, a
soil pr9file type'of Sc, from; TableA64 of the 199TUBC -'should be used indesign.
Liquefaction is a phenomenon wherethere is a',reductionor complete loss of soil.strength due to an in,
water pressure induced 'by vibrations. tiqu�facfion'maihly affects geologically, recent deposits6f fine-grain6d
sands that are below the'groundwater table., Based on,the soil and groundwater donditions'we encountered, it.is
our opinion that the risk for liquefaction to occur in potential building. areas at this site'is negligible.
5.0 DISCUSSION AND PRELEMNARY RECOMMENDATIONS
5A General
Based.on our study, it is our-opinio'n thatthe site',is suitable for the proposed development:. Buildings can-te
supported'on conventional spread footings bearing'on competent native soils.below. the surficial topsoil- layer
and/or uncontrolled fill, or -on structural fill -placed and. compacted. onihe'competent native,so'ils.� Floor slabs and
pavements can b e similarly'supported
Page No..5
November 21, 200 1'
Project No. T-4893.
U
I
I
I
The uncontrolled fill 'encountered should not be considered -suitable for directly supporting foundations or. slab -
on -grade, floors. The existing fill we observed in the northeastern portion of 'the is at least 11: feet' thick in
locations,, contains a significant, amount of'organic material, and does not'appear to have been placed 'in a
controlled manner, on a properly prepared subgrade. To reduce, the 'potential' of unacceptable. differential
settlements of the structures and to avoid impacting the stability of the fill s.lope in this portion of the 'Site, we
recommend transferring building loads to comp&tent.native soils beneath the fill using deep foundations. Jn our
opinion, a foundation system c,onsisting.o.f augercast piles or drilled piers Will provide.an economical and suitable
.building support system.. Removing t�e uncontrolled fill and replacing it with an engineered structural fill pad is
an-altemative to using a deep foundation system.' Because of. uncertain' ties in the consistency of the fill, there are
risks that cannot.be quantified associated with constructing pavements, over.the existing.fill. Therefore, the
existing fill soils should also be removed from pavement areas and replaced with structural fill.
Much of the existing fill soils, ob . served at'the- site will not be suitable for-re'use-as structural fill because of -
excessive organic material and debris. The native silty sands, silts, and clays,are moisture sensitive 'and will be
difficult to compact as structural fill when too wet.- The. ability,to use thesoils from site excavation as structural
fill will depend on' the Soils' m oisture content and the prevailing weather conditions at the time. of construction.
if grading activities, will take place during the winter season, the owner, should be 'prepared, to import free -
draining granula± material for useas structural fill and backfill.
The following recommendations should be incorporated into the project design -drawings �tnd' construction
01
specifications. These recommendations are preliminary and, may be, altered or augmented upon. review of the
fin,al plans.
5.2 Site Preparation and,Gfadin
To prepare the site for construction,'all vegetation, organic surface soils, and other unsuitable materials including
the existing fills should be stripped and removed from the portions of the site to be developed.
Once clearing and grubbing operations are complete, cuts and- fills . . can be made to establish design grades. 'Prior
to placing fill, we recommend prb6froll.ing all exposed surfaces to determine if any isolated- s6ft and yielding
areas * are present. .. Cutareas that will - provide direct support for new construction should also be proofrolled. If
excessively yielding areas are observed and, cannot be stabilized in place b - compaction, 'they. should be cut t6a
y
firm bearing'surface and filled to grade with. structural fill. If -the depth o f excavati
on to remove.unstable soils is
excessive, you can consider using- a geotextile fabric, 'Such as MiTafi- 50OX or equivalent, in conjunction with
structural fill to limit the depth of removal. In general,'.a minimum of 18. inches, of a clean granular structural fill.
,.placed over the geotextile fabric should establish a stable, bearing surface., A representative of Terra Associates,
Inc., should observe all proofrolling operations at the time of construction to, verify stable subgrades.,
Excavations up to about 20 feet below*t le existing ground surface are propose d along,the northern side of Pine
Street in the southern portion of the site.' Based on our observations, and 'considering the . time of year our'
I be required to complete the
investigation was performed,' it does not appear that significant drainage efforts wil
excavation as proposed. Howev er, this should be verified by,field observations at the time of -construction:
Page No. 6
November 21, 200 1*
Project No. T-4893,
Most of the granular site soils contain a moderate percentage- of fir,ies (silt and clay particles), which, will make
them sensitive to moisture. . The use of silt and clay. soils a's structural'fill may be possible during- dry Weather.
'However, it will, be'extremely difficult to. control their moisture content �and to'placd and compact- them
satisfactorily. Some of the.site-soils are wet and will require drying to reduce their moisture,ontefit and,fac'ilitate
compaction. Drying can be accomplished by aeration during,.dry weather conditions ori by the use of an additive
such as cement kiln dust or Portland cement.
if fill activities'.'must take place during wet Weather or- on a wet subgrad6, the owner should be prepariedto use
wet weather structural fill. For this purpose, we. recommend using a. granular soil that meets the following
grading requirements:
U.S. Sieve -Size
P6rcent Passing'
3 inches
100''
No. 4
75 maximum
No. 200.
5 maximum*
*Based on the'3/4-inch fta6tion.
Prior to use,- Terra Associates, Inc. should examine -and test all on-s'ite or iinpoi-ted materials',proposed for.use as
structural fill.
Structural fill should be, plac'ed,in uniform loose layers not exceeding 12 inches,, and then compacted to a
minimum of 95 percent of the soil's rna'ximum dr
y -density,, as. determined by ASTM Test Designation D 6918
(Standard Proctor). Themoisture content of the soil at the time of compaction should be within two percent of its
optimum, as determined by this same standard., In non-structural areas or for backfill in utility trenches below a.
depth of 4 feet, the degree of compaction could be reduced to 90 percent..
E, mbanl'anent fills. placed on slopes exceeding a grade of 20- percent. must be key'ed-'and benched into competent
native soils. A general slope fill, detail is shown on Figure 3. 'Subsurfac6 drais may also be required.. The need'for
subsurface drains should be evaluated in the field at the time of construction. The proposed fill'areas should -be
stripped of topsoil, duff, existing fill, soils, and soils containing organic material prior. tocreating horizontal benches
for the placement of the fill. All permanent cut and fill slopes. should be graded .with a finished. inclination no
greater, than 2: 1. Up on completion of grading, the sl ope fac e s . hould I be I appropriately . veg eiated or provided With
other physical means to guard against erosion. Final grades at the top of the slope must pr6mote'surface drainage
away from the slope crest.
5.3 .'Excavations
All excavations at the site associated with'confined spaces, such as utility trenches and'lower building levels,
must be' completed' in accordance with, local, State, or Federal requirements.: Based on current, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations, the. upper medium dense, to dense granular soils would be
classified as- Group C soils. The.very dense silt and, hard play soils fall intd the Group -category.
Page No. 7
November 21, 2601
Project No. T-4893
Accordingly, for temporary excavations more than 4 feet. and less than 20 fet deep, side slopes -in.Group C soils
should, be laid back at a minimum slope inclination of.1.5:1. Temporary slopes in the Group A soils can be
completed with a gradient of 0.75: 1. -If there is insufficient room to complete the excavations in this manner, or if
excavations greater -than 20 feet 'deep are planned, temporary shoring may need, to be. used to 'support the
excavations. The above information is provided solely for the benefit of the'owner and other design consultants
and'should not be construed to imply that Terra Associates, Inc. assumes responsibility for job site safety.. Job
site safety� is the sole responsibility of the project contractor.
Based on the grading information provided to us, it appears that portions ofthe temporary,,excavation along -the
northern side of Pine Street will require shoring. We recommend using a cantilevered soldier pile and timber
lagging shoring system. We Will provide desi for temporary shoring once more details -are known
gn parameters
regarding fnal site grading.',
54 Foundations
Spread Footings
The buildings may be support ed on conventional spreadfooting foundations bearing on competen t native soils or
on structural fill placed above competent'native soils, as recon imended in the Site Preparation and, Grading
section of this report. Perimeter foundations should be placed at least 13 feet below final, exterior gradeg for
frost protection. Interior foundations can be constructed at any'c'onvenient depth.
On a prelim inary basis, foundations can be dimensioned for a'n6t allowable bearing capacity of 3,000 pounds per.
square foot (psf), where supported by the medium dense to dense native soils, and compacted structural fill.
Foundations supported by the very dense 'silt and hard clay soils can be dimensioned for a net allowable bearing
capacit� of 5,000 psf. For short-term, loads, such as, wind- and seismic a one-third increase, in this allowable
capacity pan be* used.
With structural loading'as* anticipated -and these b earing stresses applied, estimated total settlements are about one,
inch,with one-half to three -fourth inches diff6rential in nature. These settlements should be immediate in nature,
occurring during and, shortly following application, of building loads.
For designing foundations to resist lateral loads, a base friction coefficient'of 0.4 can be,U'sed. Passive. earth
pressures acting on the side of the footing and bunie'd portion of the f6undation stem wall can also be considered.
We recommend calculating this lateral resistance using an equivalent, fluid weight of 3 00 pounds per. cubic foot
(pcf). We recommend not including the upper 121nches of Soil inthis.computation because it. can be, affected by
weather or disturbed by future.gradifig'activity. 'This value assumes the,foundation will be constructed neat
against competent native soil or backfilled with structural fill, as described in the. Site Preparation and Grading
section of this report. The re.conun'ended friction and: passive value's include a safety, factor of 1.,5..
Page No. 8.
N vember 21, 2001.
o
Project No. T-4893
Drilled Piles
Where foptink elevations cannot, be readily lowered to the competent native sbil,:we.recomm6nd'siipp'6rting
building, wall, and floor loads'on augercast pile's or drilled pier foundations that penetrate a minimum of five -feet
into the native bearing stratum.. Allowable axial and lateral pile c�apaciti6s for'varying pile,.diameters are as
foll6ws:
Pile Dianietei
(incli
AllowaWe Axial Load%
(tons)
Allowable Lateral Load
(tons)'
30
4
18
35
5
The above 'allowable axial 'capacities 'include a'safety factor,of 2.0.1 Full single, -pile capacities can be.used,
provided pile spacing. is at least three pile - diameters. For, closer spacing, there will be a, slight reduction' in the
'allowable single -pile capacity due to group effects. The amount of this -reduction will -depend, -on the'/ number of.
piles in the grouping and their spacing. 'We- antici that settlements un er the pile foundations will be less
pate
than on'e-fourth inch..
For augercast piles,- the pressure used to inject the grout, and construct the pile column will coiTi'press the soils
immediately adjacent to the . pile. As a result, the amount' of grout needed to form the, pile may be greater than the'
theoretical grout volume'. Als6� piles should- be constructed at'a minimum sp . acing of five diariieters.� 'Once the
grout has achieved its initial set, installation betwedn'theselo,cations ca-n'be completed.
The auger should be extracted slowl y out. Ifthe auger
y and unif6iml below. a sufficient and consistent head'of gr
is e tracted to' quickly, the pile may'neck down dn& soil, may collapse into- the p�le, reducing its. structural'
iritegrity. , At a point along the,inj&tion - line,'the piling should use'a. pressure. gauge to monitor the
X.
grout pressure during construction.. The amount of grout�used in formin'' the pile,should'also"be monitored.
9�
5.5' Basement.and Retainin Walls,'
The magnitude of earth pressures developing on basement or. retaining i�Valls will depend on the'quality and -
'11. We recommend placing ac
Compactiop* of thd.wall,backfi and compacting wall b i kfin a's'structural fill. Below,'
improved areas, such as pavements or floor. slabs', the ba6kfill should be compacted to'a minimum- of 95.percent
Of its maximum drytinit weight, as d6t6rrm''ned' by American Society of Testing and Matehals (ASTM Test'
Designation' D-698 (Standard P�roctor). In uni' oved areas, the r6lat v c6on, can be reduced to'90
MPr i e compa.
percent.
To prevent hydrostatic pr� . essure development, wall drainage must be installed. Drainagd,behind basement walls,.
can be provided by -attaching prefabricatedwall drainage panels, su'c' h.'as Mradrain - G100W, to - the. outer 'Side of
the wall-, or, by backfilling the wall with a clean granular -material, such as pea, gravel., - A foundation drain
consisting -of a four -inch diameter perforated PVC. pipe, should be installed at the base of the wall,fbi collection
a d remo' I of the�- *intercept d gt ai
n va e oundwater., The foundation dr' n should be "surroun'ded'by, at4east -six inches of
pea gravel extending two feet above the pipe All drains must' to an appro-�ed 'point of contr Iled
be routed. 0
discharge, Cleanouts should be. installed.. at. appropriate and easily�,;Iccessible' locations "along.,the drain
alignments. These cleanouts shouid'be serviced at.lea.st'once'' each year.,
Page.No.,.9'
November 21, �2001
Project No. T-4893
With wall bdckfill �placed and compacted as recommended and -drainage properly installed; we reconunend
designing unrestrained walls for an active earth pressure equivalent to a fluid weighing 35 pcf. For iestrained
walls, an additional uniforrn lateral pressure of 100 psf should be added. These values assume a horizontal
backfill condition and that no other surcharge loading, such, as traffic, sloping embankments, or adjacent
buildings, will act on the wall. If such conditions will exist, then the imposed loading shouldbe includ ed in the
wall design.
Friction at the base of foundations -and passive earth pres sure, will provide resistance to these lateral loadg.
Values for these parameters are provided in the Foundations section of this report.
5.6 Slab -on -Grade Floors
Slab-on-gra'de floors may be supported on subgrades prepared. as. recommended in, the Site Preparation_ and.
Grading section of this report. Immediately below the floor slab, 'we recommend placing a f�ur-inch thick
capillary break layer Of clean free -draining sand or gravel having less than three per -cent passing the No. 200
sieve. This material will reduce the potential for upward capillary movement of water through the underlying
soil and subsequent wetting of the floor slab., Where moisture by vapor transmission is undesirable, a durable
plastic ' membrane should be placed over the capillary break material. The I membrane should be covered with two
inches of clean moist sand to guard against damage during construction and to aid in curing the concrete.
5.7 Drainag
Surface
Final exterior grades should promote free -and positive drainage away from the building areas. We recommend
providing'a gradient of at least three,percent for a minimum distance of ten feet from the building perimeter,'
except in paved locations. In paved locations, a minimum gradient'of one percent should be provided unless
provisions are ilncluded-for collection and disposal of surface water adjacent to the structure.
Surface water must not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the crest of the site slopes and embankments.
Surface water should be diiected away from the slope crests to a point of collection and controlled discharge�. If
site grades do not allow for directing surface water away, from the slopes, then . water should be, collected and
tightlined to the bottom of the slope in a controlled manner.
Subsurface
We recommend installing a continuous drain along the outside lower edge of the perimeter building foundations.
The foundation drains and roof downspouts -should be' tightlined separately to an approved point of controlled
discharge. Subsurface drainsmust be laid with a gradient sufficient to I promote positive flow to the discharge .
point. All drains should be provided with cleanouts at easily accessible locations. These cleanouts should be
serviced at least once each year.
Page No. 10
November 21,2001,
Project No. T-4893
A I � M
5.8 ' . Ufflities
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Utility pip(�� should be�bedded and backfilled in accordance with American Public Works Association (APWA)
or Cit- e uld be placed and compacted as structural fill as described
y of Edmonds sp cifications. Trench backfill sho
in.the Site Preparation and Grading section of this report. If the granular soils excavated on -site are free of
excessive deleterious material or debris, and are not excessively moisti they should be suitable for use as;backfill
mateiial., The very dense silt and hard clay will not be suitable for. use as bac'kfill. If the silt and/or clay soils are
exposed in utility trench excavations, or, construction takes place during periods of wet weather, it may be
necessary to import, structural fill for backfilling purposes.
5.9 Pav�ments
Pavements should be constructed on subgrades prepared as described in the Site Preparation and Grading section
of this report. Regardless of the relative comp . action achieved, the subgra�6 must be firm and relatively
unyielding before paving. Proofrolling the subgrade'with heavy construction equipment should be completed to
verify this condition.
The. appropriate thicknesses of the various components of* the pavem6nt depend on the subgfade soils and the
traffic conditions to which the pavement will be subjected. We expect traffic to mainly consist of light passenger
vehicles with only occasional heavy service vehicles. Based on this information and a properly prepared and
stable subgrade, we recommend- the following pavement siections:
Two inches of asphalt concrete (AC) over six i I n.ches of crushed rock base (CRB)
Two inches of AC over four inches of asphalt -treated base (ATB)
All paving materials should conform to the Washington State Department of Transportation. (WSDOT)
specifications for Class B asphalt concrete, ATB, and CRB.
Long-term pavement'Perf6rmance'will depend on surface drainage. A poorly drained pavement section will be
subject to premature failure as a result of surface water infiltrating into the subgrade soils and reducing'their
supporting capability. To improve performance, We recommend surface drainage gradients of at least two
percent. Some-- longitudinal and transverse cracking of the pavement surface should be expected over time.
Regular maintenance should be planned to, seal cracks when they occur.
6.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES
Terra - Associates, Inc. should, review the final -design and specifications in order to verify - that earthwoik and
foundation recommendations have been, properly interpreted and incorporated into project design and
construction. We should also provide geoiechnical services durin' construction in order to observe compliance
9
with the design concepts, specifications, and recommendations.' This will also allow for design changes if
s surface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction.
Page No. 11
November 21, 2 001
Project No. T-4893
7.0 LMtATIONS,
We prepar6d this report in.accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices.. This report is
the' copyrighted propertyof Terra Associates, Inc. and is intended for specifit.application to the'LTNOCAL Site
p r -is for the exclusive use of Triad Point Edwards and their- authorized representatives'.. No
oject. This report
other warranty, expressed or implied, is made.
The analyses and preliminary recommendations presented in this report are based.upon,,data obtained from the
on -site test pits. Variations in soil conditions can occur, ihe nature and exte.nt.of which -may not become evident
until construction. If variations appear evident, Terra Associates, Inc.' should be rdque%ed to reevaluate the
recommendations in this report prior to proceeding With construction.
Pag eNo..,, 12
PC
pt
ST Sw
18 g w
ell
ST Sw
Sw
W. PL
w
Sw
:CHERR 'ST
196T
S W
Mi�601Y 1�
PU E7
wy
0
k), BROOKNERE NIRDL
-EMOND'S All.
DR
'7�
kS
UNDERVA TER
PEkS ST
um
PARK,
LL_5R F7
TER.LM
W'
VISTA a wy.t
ZOR
i� SW
S . T
ST
I
WDIAG
�WH
.1124i
ST
kGUE
I
_HIU
7w
ELL F-1 ST
I N "�377
-, ST
PL Sw
f -1-' 1 DAYTON
't . OFN
PL
MAPLE
144RINA
MWMM P L
�P
UNION
w
%of
1&�Al
OIL
y
WY11.
212TIt
1-5 1 �Cuw
nw� ,
SITE.
7 �;T
SPAIXEAfv,
7
I
7�..
ST
EDWARZ KARIM
PT RE40 'OS Re
Sw
a
1!.
FIR 'r IN .1
MTH
ST Pi
Sw
26
8ELLA . COOLA
30��
"N7
606D4
ST
Sw
0,
BIRM
.!IR
PL
PC
22UT PL
M-1
AMI
IRK
SOURCE:
Thomas Guide, Pierce, King and Snohomish County, 1999., Page 454.,'
NOT TO SCALE
VICINITY, MAP.
f Te'rra.'
UNOCAL SITE
&&& Associates, Inc.
EDMONDS.,* WASHINGTON
Proj. No. T-4893
Date NOV 2001,'
Figure 1
Geotechnical Consultants
L. '
I 7WV - 2
'SB-132o -71--'-�'i--��;
B 2
CP -4-
SB-217,
.10
-203
TPA SE�2 9
M �SB-�220:
2
-0
-12
4P
eSB-214--�_
-202 S&-23�
SB-216 14
p
-5 B-211
IgT P TP-'
-31
13-
P-1 5
':z
B-210 QB-231
o'
B 2
3
P-1
P71
SB-223. -vj r
X
�S13-229:,*:-
S6-206
B-222 2 8 a
-23
S 2
-17
7 TP
TP-10
SB-2. S13-2 C:I
SR-2
P-8
�tp
B -20
SB-22;f —y
TP-
NOTE: LEGEND
THIS SITE PLAN IS FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY AND 19 TP-1 APPROXIMATE TES I T PIT LOCATION (TERRA)
IT SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION OR DESIGN EMCON EXPLORATORY BORING
PURPOSES. EXPLORATION LOCATION PLAN
Terra
UNOCAL SITE
REFERENCE:, 0 200 .400 EDMONDS-, WASHINGTON I
Associates, Inc.
SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY -TRIAD ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET Pr0j. No. T-4893 Date NOV 2001 Figure 2
2 B
TOE OF,
NEW SLOPE 2' 6' 4
A
B
tST!NG
2'
LOPETOE TYPICAL SLOPE BENCH (MAY
A
REQUIRE SUBDRAIN IF SEEPAGE
CONDITIONS ARE INDICATED)
6'
A, TOE BENCH CUTAND'
6' 4 DRAIN (SEE NOTE 1)
KEYWAY AND DRAIN
(SEE NOTE 1)
NOT TO SCALE.
NOTES:
1) DRAINS SHALL CONSIST OF 6" DIAMETER PERFORATED PVC PIPEENVELOPED
IN 1 cu. ft. OF WASHED 3/4* MINUS DRAINAGE GRAVtL
2). & TOPSOIL REMOVAL THICKNESS BETWEEN XEYWAY AND BENCHES.
(IF NECESSARY)
VERTICAL ELEVATION DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TOP OF LOWER BENCH
BACKCUT AND UPPER BENCH ELEVATION.,
GENERAL SLOPE. FILL DETAIL
Terra . UNOCAL SITE
Associates., Inc. EDMONDS WASHINGTON
@PG�otechnical Consultants
Proj.No. T-4893 Date NOV igure 3.
2ooTiF
APPENDIX A
FIELD. EXPLORATIONAND LABORATORY TESTING
UNOCAL Site.
Ednionds, Washington
On October: 18 and 19, 200 1, we performed our field exploration using a track -mounted, excavator. We explored
subsurface soil conditions at the -'site by, excavating 17 test pits to a maximum depth , of about 16 feet. below
existing surface grades. The test pit. locations are shown on Figure 2. The test pit locations were approximately
determined by pacing fro 'in existing surface features. The Test Pit Logs are presented on Figures A-2 through A-
10.
An engineering geologist from 6ur office'n ain'tained a log of each test pit a's it was exca�ated, classified the soil
-conditi , ons encountered, and obtained representative. samples. All soil 'samples were visually classified - in
accordance: With the.Unified Soil Classification System.' A copy of this *classification is presented as Figure A-L
�.Representative soil. samples obtained froR the test pits. were placed, in sealed plastic bags and. taken to our
laboratory-. for further 'examination and testing. The 'moisture content of each sample wag measured and is
reported on the Test Pit Logs: T,he Atterberg limits of four s4inples were determined and are reported on the Test
Pit Logs. Grain size analyses.were performed on 11 of the samples,'- the results of whichare sh I own on Figures A-
I I through A- 16.
project No. T4893
-MAJOR DIVISIONS.,
LETTER
SYMBOL
TYPICAL DESCRIPTION
Clean
GW
Well -graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures, little or no
GRAVELS
Gravels
fines.'
GP
Poorl�-graded grave.isi gravel -sand mixtures, little or
(less than
N
More than
5% fines)
no fines.
GM
Silty gravels, gravel -sand -silt mixtures, n.on-plastic
U) 76-*0
.50% of coarse
fraction is
(D
>
Lj .6., 0)
larger than No
Gravels
with fines.
fines.
co
Z_ E
4 sieve
GC
Clayey gravels, gravel -sand -clay mixtures, plastic fines.
<
cc 0-00
(!3 C) 04
Clean
SW
Well -graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines.
LO
-
0
SANDS
Sands
SP
Poorly -graded sands or.gravelly sands, little or no
fines.
LLI q Z
U) co
More than
(less than-
5% fines)
< co
.2 =
50% of coarse
'mixtures,
C) 0
fraction is
Sands
SM
Silty sands, sand -'silt non -plastic fines.
smaller than
SC
Clayey sands, sand -clay mixtures, plastic fines.
No. 4 sieve
with fines
ML
Inorganic silts, rock flour, clayey silts with slight,
SILTS AND
CLAYS
plasticity.
CL
Ino rganic clays of low to, medium plasticity, (lean clay).
— 00
0 — CM
CIS
E 0*
Liquid limit is less
than 50%.
_.. Z.N
W
OL
Organic silts and organic clays of low plasticity.
z
-C (D
(a
MH
Inorganic silts, elastic.
SILTS AND
CLAYS
2 co
E
CH
Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays.
z 0 V)
Liquid, limit is greater than 500/6'
OH
�'Org4nic clay's of high plasticity.
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
PT
Peat.
DEFINITION OF TERMS AND SYMBOLS'
U)
U)
St a*ndard Penetration
Density Resistance in, Blows/Foot
2" OUTSIDE DIAMETER SPLIT
W
SPOON SAMPLER
_j
z
0
Very loose
0-4
2.4"'INSIDE DIAMETER RIN0 SAMPLER
F5
Loose
4-1 O�
OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER
W
Medium dense
10-30
0
Dense
30-50
3E WATER LEVEL (DATE)
Very dense
>50
Tr' TORVANE READINGS, tsf
Pp PENETROMETER READINa1sf
Standard Penetration
W
Consistency Resistance in. blows/Foot
DD DRY DENSIT�; pounds per cubic foot
>
Very soft
�0-2
LL LIQUID LIMIT,'perce int.,
W
Soft
2-4
1:
0
Medium stiff
4-8
PI PLASTIC INDEX
0.
stiff
Very stiff
8-16
16-32
N STANDARD PENETRATION,. blows per -foot,
Hard
>32
Terra
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
UNOCAL SITE
Associates',.
Inc.
'EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Geotechnical Consultants
�roj- No. T-4893
Date NOV 2001
T
Fig
Test Pit No. TP-1
Lo' �e1gJCS Approximate Elev. 104
Date 11 01
Moisture
Depth, Content
Soil Description N
0— FILL: crushed rock surf acing ove r brown to gray silty sand to sandy silt, fine grained,
firm, moist. (SWIVIL)
Rusty brown silty SAND medium dense, moist, with occasional fine
(, fine grained
\gravel and fine roo s. M)
Gray.to mottled gray silty SAND, fine grained, medium dense to, dense,
5 moist, with occasional fine gravel. (SIVI)
Becomes light brown at approximately 6 feet.
26
101— Gray CLAY, hard, moist, massive. (CL) Pp = 4.5+
tonsfie
ILL 35.8
P1 15
15— Test pit terminated at 14 feet.
No groundwater seepage.
20
Test Pit No.- TP-2
Logged by: JCS Approximate Elev. 124
Date: 10/18/01
Moisture
Depth Content
(ft.) - I - Soil. Description. N
0— FILL: crushed rock surfacing over brown siltysand to sandlysilt, fine grained, firm,
moist. 4-Inch thick organic layer at base. (SM/ML) (Old topsoil horizon)
Brown silty SAND, fine grained, medium dense, moist. (SM)
Mottled grayish -brown silty SAND, fine grained, medium dense, moist. .20
(SM)
5
Grayish -brown silty SAND, fine grained, medium,dense to dense, moist.
(SM)
.10— Gray CLAY, hard, moist, laminated with Ii g ht gray silt, partings. Pp 4.5+
tons1W
37
.15— Test pit terminated at 14 feet.
No groundwater seepage.
20
TEST PIT LOGS''
Terra UNOCAL SITE
Associates, Inc. EDMONDS,. WASHINGTON
Geotechnical Consultants
'Proi. No..T-4893 0 1 1 Figure A-72
I Date NOV 2 0
Test Pit..No. TP-3.
Logged by: JCS Approximate Elev. 121
Date: , 10/18/01
Moisture
Depth Content
Soil Description
0 FILL: brown silty sand, fine grained, firm, moist with occasional fine,
gravel and.organic material. (SM) (Hydrocarbon, odor)
Dark brown organic silty SAND, fine grained, soft, moist to wet. (OL)
7 (Old topsoil horizon)
15
5— Tan'to light gray silty CLAY to clayey SILT, hard, moist. (CUML)
(Hydrocarbon odor).
10
Gray CLAY, hard, moist, laminated with partings of light gray silt and gray
fine sand. (CL) Pp 4.5+
32 tons/fe
Test pit te - rminated at 13 feet.
15— Light groundwater seepage from point source at 4.5f6et.
20
Test Pit No. TO-4-
Logged by: JCS m -92
Approxi 'ate Elev..
Date: 10/18/01
ture
Depth Mois
Content
Soil Description
M
FILL: light brown silty sand, tine gra = irm dry to moist. (SM) thick
organic layer at base. (Old topsoil n)
Light. brown.to tan silty SAND, fine grained, medium dense to dense, dry-.
(SM)
Mottled grayish -brown silty SAND, fine grained, medium dense to dense, 29
.5 moist. (SM)
LL = 42.7
Light grayish -brown to light brown CLAY,and SILT, hard, moist, laminated 29 PI - 19.7
with partings of dark gray fine sand. (CUML) PP = �.S+
tonstie
10—
Gray CLAY,.hard, moist. (CL) -4.6+
29 I'PtponW
Test pit terminated at.1 3 feet.
15— Trace groundwater seepage at 6 feet.
20.
TEST PIT, LOGS
Terra UNOCAL -'SITE
Associates,'In' EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
cle
TD. Figure A-3
Geotechnical Consultants
Proj. No. T-4893 ate NOV 2001
Test Pit No. TP* 5
Log �e.1dobyjCE5 Approximate. Elev. 110
Date 11 0
Moisture
Depth Content
SoiI.Description
N
0
6 inches DUFF and TOPSOIL.
Light brown SAND with silt'to silty SAND, fine grained, medium dense,
moist., (SP-SWSM) 23
.5— mo'ttled grayish -brown SAND to SAND with silt, fine_,graihed, medium
- denso to dense, moist. (SP/SP-SM)
Becomes wet at approximately feet. 26
10,— .34
LL - 44.5
P1 = 21.3
q Grayish -brown to gray CLAY, hard, moist,-gdnerally massive, with
occasional thin of gray silt. (CL) Pp 4.5+
tons/fe -
15—
Test pit terminated at 16 feet.
Light groundwater seepage between 9 and 10 feet.
20
-Test Pit No. TP=*6
Logged by: JCS Approximate, Elew 150,
1.0/18/01
Date.
Depth Moisture
Content
Sol! Description,
_N
0-
- FILL: brown to grayish -brown SILT; CLAY, and fine.grained SAND,.firm
- moist.to wet, with some fine gravel And occasional organic material.
32'
5
FILL: gray to brownish gray silt,'clay, and,fine grained sand, firm; moist to, -
wet, with moderate organic material (including wood debris) And some
g�avel. 12-inch thick organic layer at base. (Old topsoil horinn)
10—
Gray silty. SAND to sandy SILT, fine grained,'deinse,'moist,
-with occasional fine to coarse gravel. (SWML) (Glacial till -like)
Test pit terminated at 16 feet;
N6 groundwater seepage.
20
JEST PIT LOGS
Terra UNOCAL SITE
Assoeiates, Int. EDMONDS, VASH I NG.TON
Geotechnical Consultants,. -48 1 93 Figure A-4
Proj.' No. T. Date -NOV 200i
TP-7
Test Pit, Nom
Log �ejdoby: JCS' Approximate Elev. 12.1
Date 118/01
Depth Moisture
Content
Soil Description' (6/0)
10
15
20
Logged by: JCS
Date: 10/18/01
Depth
(ft.)
0-
5
10
15
FILL: dark brown organic silty sand, fine grained, firm, moist.
Mottled gray to brown SAND with silt to siity.SAND, fine grained, medium
dense to dense, moist., (SP-SM/SM) (Hydrocarbon odor)
20
Tan. to light grayish�-brown silty PLAY to CLAY, hard,'moist,,occasional
24
mottling. (CL)
Pp - 4.5+
tons/te
31,
Test pit terminated at 15 feet..,
No groundwater seepage.
Test Pit No. TP-8.
Approximate Elev. 121
Moisture
Soil Description Content
FILL: light brown to graysilty.dand, firm, moist to wet, with organics.
FILL+: dark brown organic silty sandjoose, wet, with significant wood
debris (timbers and branches). 2.5-foot diameter boulde'r.,
Gray SILT to SILT with sand, fine grained, dense, moist to wet. (ML)
2�
Light grayish -brown to tan sandy SILT, fine grained, very dense, moist,
with occasional fine gravel. (ML) (Glacial till -like)'
16
-
Test pit terminated at 15 feet.
-
Light groundwater seepage at 6 feet.
20
TEST PIT LOGS
Terra UNOCAL SITE
EDMONDS,, WASHINGTON
Associates, -Inc..
Geotechnical Consultants
Proj. No. T-4893 Date NOV 2001 Figure A-5
Test Pit 0., TP-9
Logged by: JCS Apptoximate Elev. 150
Date: 10/18/01
Moisture
Depth Content'
Soil Description
N
-
FILL: crushed rock surfacing over grayish -brown sandy'pilt and clay, firm,
-
moist. 6-inch thick organic layer at base. (Old topsoil horizon)
Mottled grayish -brown dandy SILT to sandy CLAY, stiff, moist. (MUCL),
Pp 4.5+
30
tonrife
37
-'Grayish-brown CLAY, hard, moist, massive. (CH)
LL = 58.8
P1 = 30.1
Pp = 4.5+
Gray SILT and CLAY, hard, moist, with occasional laminations of gray
fine sand. (MUCL),'
1 22
1 tons/fe
Test pit terminated at 15 feet.
No -groundwater seepage.
-Test. Pit No. TP-1 0
Logged by: JQS. Approximate Bev'. 157
Date:, 10/18/Oi
Depth Moisture
Content
Soil.-DeScription N. . .
6 inches DUFF and TOPSOIL.
Brown sandy SILT, iine grained, mediurn dense, moist. (ML),
40
Grayish -brown SILT and CLAY, hard, moist. (MUCL)
Pp 4.54.
tonstW
Gray SILT and.CL.AY, hard, moist. (MUCL)
-
Test pit terminated at 15 feet..
-
No groundwater seepage.
'TEST PIT LOGS'
Terra UNOCAL SITE
Associates, Inc., EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Geotechnicall Consultants _T
Proj. No. T-4893 Date NOV 2�01 Figure A-6
Logged, by: JCS
Date: 10/18/01
Depth
ft.)
0—
.5
10
15
Test Pit -No. TP-1 1
Approximate Elev. 78
Moisture
Soil Description' Content
-
-
Mottled grayish -brown SAND to SAND with silt, fine grained, medium
dense, moist to wet. (SP/SP-SM)
25
15
-
Light brown silty SAND to sandy SILT, fine grained, medium'dense to
.
dense,moist. (SWIML) Increasing silt with depth.
15
22
-
Test pit terminated at 15 feet.
-
No groundwater seepage.
20
Logged by: JCS
Date: 10/18/01
Depth,
(ft.)
0-
5
1C
15
Test Pit No.-TP-12
Approximate Elev. .76
Moisture
Content
Soil Description.- . (%)
nc es crus e rock'surfacing.
-
-
Mottled grayish -brown SAND, fine to mediu�grained, medium dense, moist, with
occasional fine gravel. (SP) (Hydrocarbon 03
Gray SAND with silt to SAND, fine grained, medium dense to dense,
moist to wet, with occasional fine to coarse gravel. (SP-SWSP-)
17
15
Mottled grayish -brown silty SAND with gravel to sandy SILT with gravel,
fine sand, fine gravel, dense to,very dense, moist. (SM/ML) . ,
(Glacial till -like between 8 and 10 feet) Increasing gravel with depth.
20
Test pit terminated at 15 feet.
Trace groundwater seepage at 8 feet.
I a
TEST PIT LOGS
,Terra UNOCAL SITE
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Associates, Inc.
Geotechnicai Consultants
Proj. No. T-48193 FD;te NOV 2001 1 Figure A-7
Test Pit Non TP-1 3
Logged by:;JCS Approximate Bev. 86
Date:1.0/18/01.
Moisture
Depth, Content
Soil Description..
MY
0- 12 inches crushed rock surfacing.
Mottled grayish -brown silty S.AND to sandy SILT, very dense, moist. (SM/ML) 25
ydrocarbon odor)
31
Bluish -gray CLAY, hard, moist, with partings of gray -fine sand and light
grayzilt. (CL). PP 4.5+'
tons/fe
10-
15 Test pit terminated at 14 feet.
Trace groundwater seepage at 2.5 feet.
20
Test, Pit,.No. TP-1 4
Logged by: JCS Approximate Elev..16
Date: 10/18/01
Moisture
Depth Cont I ent
-Soil Description,
0—
FILL: bluish -gray silty sand with gravel to sandy silt with gravel, fine sand,
fine gravel, medium dense to dense, moist. (SM/ML)
10
5—
Light brown sandy SILT, fine grained, d ' ensei"moist, with occasional
fine gravel and thin layers of -fine grained silty sand. (ML)
19
10-
15
15—
Test pit terminated at 15-feet.
No grdundwater seepage.+
2.0
TEST, PIT LOGS'
Terra ...UNOCAL SITE
EDMONDS,, WASHINGTON,
Associates-, Inc.
Geotechnical Consultants 'Proj. No. T-4893 te NOV 2001 Figure A-8
Da
Test Pit No. TP-1 5
Logged by: JCS Approximate Elev. 86
Date: 10/18/01
Moisture
Depth Content
Soil Description.
N
0
5
10
" . 15
20
FILL: gray sil sand to sandy silt, fin grained, medium dense, moist, with occasional
finegravel. ( W L).
Dark brown organic sandy SILT,'fine grained, firm, moist, with occasional roots. (OL)
(0 d topsoil horizon)
Mottled grayish -brown silty SAND with gravel to, SAND with silt and gravel,
fine sand, fine to coarse gravel, medium dense to dense, moist.
10,
(SWSP-SM)
Becomes brownish -gray and moist to wet at approximately 8 feet.
V
Brownish -gray silty SAND with gravel to sandy SILT with'gravel,:fine sand,
fine graveli dense, moist.. (SM/ML) ( Glacial till -like)
18
-
Test pit terminated at 1 5 feet.
-
Trace groundwater seepage at 11 feet.
. N
Test Pit.. No.' TP-1 6
Logged by;.JCS Approximate Elev. 68
Date: 10/18/01
Moisture,
Depth -Content
Soil Description
0-
- FILL: gray to brown silty sand with gravel, fine'grainedj firm to loose,
- 'moist to wet-. (SM) -
FILL: grayish -brown silty sand with gravel, fine grain ed*, firm, moist to wet,
'with significant organic soils and wood debris.
23
110— 16
--"Bluish-graysil SANDwith ravel to sandy SILT with gravel, fine sand, fine gravel,
dense, moist. 7S-M/ML) (Macialtill-like)
Light brown SAND. fine arained. medium dense to dense, moist. (SP) 15
15— Test pit terminated at 13 feet.
No groundwater seepage.
20
TEST PIT LOGS
Terra UNOCAL SITE
Associates Jnc. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Gootechnical Consultants __F�i7gure A-9
Proi. No. T-4893 I Date NOV 2001
Test Pit No. TP-1 7-
Lo' �elolyjcs. Approximate Elev. 82
.Date,, 11 01
Moisture
Depth Conten't
'Soil Description
0 Ru%brown silty SAND with gravel, fine sand, fine to coarse gravel,
Marl m dense. moist'. (sm)
—moffied grayisn-brown silty SAND with gravel, fi`F6_s_a_n_d,1ine to coarse gra-v-eF,—
medium dense to dense, moist., (SM) 13
Grayish -brown silty SAND with gravel to sandy SILT with gravel, fine sand,
5— fine - t6coarse gravel, dense to very dense, moist. (SWIVIL)
(Glacial till -like) Sand content increases with depth.-
10
Test pit terminated at 9.5 feet.'
No groundwater seepage.
15-
20
TEST PIT LOGS
Terra UNOCAL SITE
Asso'ciates,,Inc., EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Geotechnical'Consultants
Proj,.. No.7-4.89& I Date NOV 21,001.1 Figu e A-1 0,
A_
nc.
TERRA ASSOCIATESf
Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology
and
Environmental Earth Sciences
F _-P
u;_; 1�;.��
'AUG -14 21006
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
ciTY OF EDMOND$
July 36,.2003
Project No.T-4893
Mr. Ross Woods
Point Edwards, LLC
2801 Alaskan Way, Suite 107
Seattle, Washington 98121
S ubj ect: Supplementary Subsurface Exploration
Point Edwards Condominiums
Pine. Street and Unoco Road
Edmonds, Washington
References: I Geologically Hazardous Areas.Review, Point Edwards Condominiums (UNOCAL
Site), -prepared by Terra Associates, hic., dated J�nuary'.20, 2003'
2. Preliminary Geotechnical Report, UNOCAL I Site, Project No. T-4893, prepared. by
Terra Associates, hic., dated November 21, 2001
Dear,Mi., Woods:
As requested, we have completed supplementary subsurface.exploration at the subject site.. The purpose.
of our. study is to ev I aluate the need for temporary shoring during construction of the propose&buildings,
and to provide recommendations for temporary shoring design and construction- where needed. '-We
previously perfonned geotechnical studies for the project and presented our findings in the referenced,
reli . joft z s, however I , since that time, building locations And , site . grading have'been refined.. Triad
Associates provided. us witha: current topographic, site plan dated July 21, 2003 that shows existing
to ography and proposed site grading.
Our current study focused on areas where significant, site excav6:ti6ns will le required, adjacent the
downgradieni (northern) side of Pine Street, in',the areas 6fl,Buildings 3, 4, and � 8 � and the area of
Building 5, located north of Building 8 and the private loop. road. Pine Street is currently one of two
mmun-Ity. of Woodway,:south Of the, site. This report summarizes �the results
roadways that access the co
ornmendationsfor the
of our: recent substwface exploration and discusses supplementary shoring rec
project.
FN
Y.11
IFILE "MME
W Asi rug&. I
n
12525 Willows -Road,,Suite 101, Kirkland, Washibgto . 98034
Phone (42�) 821-77-77 Fax (425) 821-4,334
-Mr. Ross Woods7
July 30, 2003
We encountered perched groundwater in all three of.the recent bon'ng§ near the interface of the surficial
fill/silty sand soils and the underlying viery 'stiff to hard clay, and in thin sand layers within * the very stiff
to hard clay. We also observed indications of localized ligh t seepage from the face of the existing slope
between proposed Buildings 4 and 8.
The perched groundwater encountered in Borings B- 10 1 and B- 102 occurs. at elevations at least 15 feet
below the lower elevations of Buildings 3,and 4 (Elev. 10 1. 17 and Elev.. 100.66, respectively). Boring
B 1 :103 (drilled in the area of Building 8), encountered't,�vo levels of perched- groundwater. The upper
perched groundwater level is approximately 8.5 feet below the ground'.surface (iipproxitnately Elev.
120.5), and the lower level is approximately 22 feet below the ground surface (approximately Elev.
107). The proposed elevation of the lower level for Building 8 is Elev. 111.67.'
Fluctuations in groundwater seepage. levels should be expected. on a seasonal and annual basis.
Typically, groundwater. seepage reaches maximum levels during and following the wet winter months,
and diminishes or is completely absent during the dry summer months. We did not observe
groundwater seepage in Test Pits TP-1 and TP-2 (located in the areas of Borings B-101 and B-102,
respectively), which were excavated t6 a d,epth of about 14. feet in mid -October, 200 1.
DISCUSSION
Based on our review of existing -topography, proposed grades, and the planned building -elevations, it
appears that temporary, shoring will be required I to complete the southwestem portion- of the excavation
for Building 4. Soils encountered in Boring B-102, in the southwestem portion of Building 4, consist of
approximately 13 feet of very loose to medium dense fill and medium dense native -silty sand overlying
very stiff to hard clay. As discussed in our referenced geotechnical report, the loose to medium dense
fill and native, silty sand soils'. Aould' be laid back at. a minimum- I slope inclination of 1.5:1
(Hofizontal:Verti.cal). Temporary. slopes in the very stiff to hard clay can be.completed with a gradient
of 0.75: 1. Based on the -depths that we encountered. these soils in Boring B-102, excavations doMpleted
to these temporary inclinations at the southwestem.. comer of -Building 4 would encroach about 40 feet
into the Pine Street right-of-way and about 16 feet into ihIe.existing paved roadway.
Excavatiorf to the' proposed lower floor elevation 'in the sotithwestem portion of Building 3 wilLexpose
primarily medium dense silty sand with varying amounts of gravel. Temporary excavations'in these,
soils that are graded to I an inclination of 1.5 1will extend about 27. feet into the'Pin& Street right-of-way
at the southwestem. comer of the building, but would not en6rdach ii�to -the existing roadway.
The soils in the area of Building-8 consist of existing.fill,native silty sand, and very, stiff clay/dense silt. -
Based on the information provided to -us, it appears that temporar.y.excavatibris for Building 8 -that are
sloped to an inclination of 1.5:1 will not encroach into the Pine _Streetlright�of�way. We expect that the,
lower portion of the excavation for Building 8 will e�xposed vei-j stiff clay/dense silt, and may be graded
to a� temporary inclination of 9.75.: L
Project -No. T-4893
Page NoA
Mr. Ross Woodg'
July 30, 2003
Subsurface information obtained from our previous geotechnical studies indicates that the soils near the
p
western si . de of Building 5'consist of existing fill andhative, medium dense silty sand to approximately
Elev. 86. The soils- below this elevation are very stiff to hard clay/dense silt. Based on the information
provided. to us, it appears. that the- major, portion of the.excavation for Building 5 will expose granular
silty sand soils. Temporary excavations sloped to an inclination of 1.5:1 will encroach very near the
cePterline of the proposed loop road . located immediately south of the building, and would extend about
five feet over the centerline near the southwestern' comer of the building. We understand that there. will
be some flexibility With' excavating into' the 'loop *road during site development-, however,* if
encroachments into the proposed roadway -of this magnitude cannot be tolerated, temporary shoring will
be needed.
The excavation for Building 8 is likely to.encounter- minor groundwater' seepage at various levels below
8.5 feet. Considering the fine-grained. nature of the on -site soils, we'do not believe the amount of
seepage will be excessive. In.addition, if adequately pro . tected from erosion, we do not expect that
seepage will adversely affect the stability (if the temporary slope. However, the contractor should be
prepared to provide, dewatering measures for. the excavation. In our opinion, conventional sump
-pumping procedures should be capable of maintaining 6 relatively dry condition for the excavation.
Ten�porary shoring will be required where site .constraints do not allow sloping of temporary
excavations to the inclinations discussed above. Temporary 'shoring systems include. a tied -back or
cantilever soldier.pile wall and soil nailing wi ' th top -down wall construction. Considering the presence
of as much a's 13 feet of loose,'uncontrolled fill nearthe southwestern comer of Building 4, and the
proximity to a'public right-of-way, it is our opinion that temporary shoring should consist of a tied -back
or cantilever soldier pile wall. Descriptions of the shoring method and detailed design parameters are
presented below.
The follo, -wing sections provide detailed recommendations regarding these issues and other geotechnical
design. -co fisideratidns. These recommendations should be incorporated into the final design drawings
and construction-s'pecifications.
.Shoring
As discussed, te or shoring will bere'quired where there is insufficient roomto complete an open
Mp ary
excavation to the inclinations discussed. in. the. preceding section. Overconsolidated clay/silt Will be
encountered below the'fil.1 znd granular native soils. During the excavation, soil expansion resulting
froin'relea.se of Iocked-in stresses combined with horizontal planeslacking cohesion, may cause
hotizontal slippage,at a- newly opened excavation; - Based on our.expenence,.the -newly opened. vertical
'face should not be left open more. -than 48 hours. Timber lagging -should -be installed within. 48 hours to
pfevent.hbriwntal slippage-.. Detailed recomniendations for conventional -soldier pile walls with timber
lagging are ov'ded below.
PT
.-Pr eci No. T-4893
Oi
age No. 4
Mr. Ross Wood.9-
July 30, 2003
Soldier Pile Shoring
Tied -back or cantilever soldier walls should. be designed. to resist lateral loads imposed by soils, as well.
as the vertical load component. Vertical loads may- be carried by the soldier piles as end bearing and as
pile shaft friction below the base* of the excavation. P116 shaft friction' should not be used above the base
of the excavation., The following information is appli cable to soldier pile walls:
Bearing materials: hard lean clay
Minimum depth of embedment below excavation base: 10 -feet
Allowable. end bearing capacities for. soldier piles: 20 kips per square foot (ksf)
Skin friction below' excavation base:, 1.0 ksf
We recommend soldier piles have a maximum centef-to-center spacing of eight feet. To account for
arching effects, lateral loads. on the lagging can be. reduced by 50 percent. Design parameters'for the
recommended temporary shoring are presented onFigures. 12 and 13.
Tieback Anchors
Tieback anchors should* be installed in the soil behind the excavation to a sufficient distance to allow
mobilizinL- the. desired- lateral load resistance. The soils in the anchor zone are expected to consist of
very stiff to -hard lean. clay. We recommend the use of the following design adhesion values for
properly installing non -pressure grouted anchors.
Allowable Adhesion:, LOksf, along the bonded length
The -bonded length is the portion of the anchor that extends beyond- the no-load zone,' as shown- on
P
Figure- 14. Within the no-load zone, anchors,. should be sleeved - and left u'ngrouted, to prevent load
pickup in this region.
All anchors should be test6d to verify design ca' a
p cities.. As'a minimunij all anchors should bi,, -stressed
to 130 percent of their design capacity and.thenIocked off at the design load. At least 10 percentof the
anchors, with a minimum- of 2 anchors, should be prooftested and stressed to 200, percent of -the design
pullout capacity.* The geoiechnicaLengineer shl6uld select thel.ocations of these test anchors.
Groundwater seepage may' -be �ericountered, during the,installation*of the anchors, The'presence of water
could result in so - me caving.of the anchor . holes.- Drilling, with continuous flight augers or. the use of
...casing Would reduce thepotential for ground loss..
The contractor should par ticularly..riote. the pres ence of existing facilities adjacent to the subject site,
including buried utilities, as they -may. affect the location or extent of the anchor holes.,
Project No T-4893
Page.No. 5
I
Mr-R-oss Woodg-
July 30, 2003
Monitoring Program
A monitoring'program. must be implemented to verify the performance of the shoring system.'Utilities
within a distance of. 1.0 H. (where H is the depth of excavation), from the shoring wall' should be
protected ftoni damage du e* to the lateral and vertical, movernent occurring around the excavation 'area.
Monitoring of the shoring system should include measurements of horizontal and vertical movements at
the t . op of soldier piles. -All reference points on the existing ground surface should be installed -and read
prior to commencing the excavation.
Monitoring of the shoring system should be performed twice a week as the excavation proceeds,. And
then �every other week upon completion of the excavation. A registered land surveyor should be
retained to perform the monitoring. Monitoring should continue until the basement walls are adequately
braced at the ground surface -level. The-,moniltoring data should be reviewed weekly by the project's
structural and geotechnical engineers.
All recommendations presented in our earlier report should. also be incorporated into project design and
construction.
We trust the inf6rmati6n presented is- sufficient for your current needs. If you have any questions or
require additional information, please call.
Sincerely yours,
TERRA ASSOCIATES, INC.
John
Ahil -PE-17005,
Ge tec
,T.A*/JCS/AB:a
1219/0 _j
Enc ---ri r oration Location,irian.s
Unif
Figure 3 i6d Soil Classification System
Figures 4 through 9 — Boring and Test Pit Logs
Figures 10 and 11.7- Grain Size Analyses
Figure 12 — Eafth -pressure Diagram,
0
.EV. 111.61
J) 7—_
BLDG 1
APPROXIMATE PERIMETER
77
OF LOWER LEVEL LOWER LEVEL ELEV./Z4.67
...... ........
BLDG. 4
LOWER LEVEL ELEV. 100.66
TP-
V\
c
94
0A,\
till
APPROXIMATE PERIMETER
OF LOWER LEVEL
BLDG 3
-,'-LOWER LEVEL ELEV. 101.17
TP-1
-101
BLDG 10m.
\'L6wg LEVEL ELEV. 134.84\
cp
W
-L 2�_
:7. 77
(*4
NOTE:
THIS SITE PLAN IS SCHEMATIC. ALL LOCATIONS AND
DIMENSIONS ARE AOPROXIMATE.,IT IS INTENDED FOR
REFERENCE ONLY AND'SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR
DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES.
REFERENCE:.
SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY TRIAD ASSOCIATES, DATED 7-21-03
LEGEND:
134 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF.BORING.'
fflTP-1 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TEST PIT
0 50 lob
PE ;0111111111111��
APPROXIMATE, SCALE IN FEET
z
M MR
m MM...
-0 ;a ;o '-- 17
F, m z MLA j
Z, W-1 u —u
;v Oz
-a 0 rn
;G
0
zm z t
< CO r- M
0 > %It
c Z-u I
0 om
0 XX > -N,
z
>
0
> m 711. k
(1) -O'z � F- k k
U) -0 0-4 r-
0. C41) --4 -
rj)
rn W. 0
0
!11 m-z 0 1
>
I C #
M
ch M
nm U)
§! 0
M 0 >
;D'Tl Z
ro-
I
r
r
r
m
r
Im cn
Co 1 11,
v
k M I F"
m if
V\
1 -41
A
>
"U "a
t
;o X
L
t
M, 0 0
0 0
z
>
q
M 0 0 r
0
z z 177-r7,
0 0. S X/
ZS -n "n IIII
oo, rn rd
Cl) CO
irri .0
U/
22 Q jw
;D "n 'a)
rn—
Z'
P4
r tj I I I k k,
M r1i
r m
N�'
/* \V
0> M-W All
M
m
r—
M
0
;X
Mw 0
/0
;19
0 m
X
mz,
F—
/m
0M.O. r r 14
OM
V6
Ax
z >
r
0 >
9 cn;o 0
a z r-mT m
C/) r-� m V
/rm
C) U
cn 0 0, Vibf.
j 11f
89Z
7! ZZ-0
IV
F. z
it
MAJOR DIVISIONS
LETTER
TYPICAL DESCRIPTION
SYMBOL
Clean
GW
Well -graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures, little or no
GRAVELS
Gravels
fines.
GP
Poorly -graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures, little or
U)
_j a
(less than
0
-T N
More than
5% fines)
no fines.
GM
Silty gravels, gravel -sand -silt mixtures, non -plastic
U)
50% of coarse
a)
a) >
fraction is
larger than No.
Gravels
fines.
GC
clayey gravels, gravel -sand -clay mixtures, plastic fines.
W a)
z CU
E
4 sieve
with fines
(D
C)
Clean
SW
Well -graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines.
LO
SANDS
Sands
SP
Poorly -graded sands or. gravelly sands, little or no
W C Z
U) CU
(less than
ix
I= C
More than
5% fines)
fines.
<
CU
a)
50% of coarse
0
L_ �
0
fraction is
SM
Silty sands, sand -silt mixtures, non -plastic fines.
0
smaller than
Sands
SC
Clayey sands, sand -clay mixtures, plastic'fines.
No. 4 sieve
with fines
ML
Inorganic silts, rock flour, clayey silts with slight
U)
_j
LD C)
L_
SILTS AND CLAYS
plasticity.
CL
Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, (lean clay).
a) C)
CU N
U)
E 6
Liquid limit is less than 50%
0
W
�z
N
OL
Organic silts and organic clays of low plasticity.
C:) r-
Z
LO M
<
.0 >
C �' a)
MH
Inorganic silts, elastic.
0
CU
= �) (n
—
SILTS AND CLAYS
=
2 co
CH
Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays.
W
E
z
0 Cn
2
Liquid limit is greater than 50%
LL
OH
Organic clays of high plasticity.
HIG HLY ORGANIC SOILS
PT
Peat.
DEFINITION OF TERMS AND SYMBOLS
Standard, Penetration
Density Resistance in Blows/Foot
2" OUTSIDE DIAMETER SPLIT
SPOON SAMPLER
W
z
0
Very loose 0-4
2.4" INSIDE DIAMETER RING SAMPLER
U)
Loose 4-10
-OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER
W
1:
Medium dense 10-30
Dense 30-50
WATER LEVEL.(DATE)
0
Very dense >50
Tr TORVANE READINGS, tsf
PP PENETROMETER READING, tsf
Standard Penetration
Consistenc Resistance in Blows/Fo ot
DD DRY DENSI pounds per cubic foot
ITY,
W
CD
Very soft 0-2
LL. LIQUID LIMIT, percent
W
Soft 2-4
T
Medium stiff 4-8
P1 PLASTIC INDEX
0
stiff 8-16
Very stiff 16-32
N STANDARD PENETRATION, blows per foot
Hard >32
UNIFIED $OIL. CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
EioTerra
Associates,. Inc.
POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS
. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering
Proj., No. T-4893
Date"JULY 2003
Figure 3
Geology and
Envkonm6ntal Earth Sciences
Boring No. B-101
Logged by: TA
Date: 6/18/03 Approximate- Elev. 105
Soil Description
Consistency/
Relative
Depth
-a
E
(N
Blows/
Moisture
Content
Density
M
ft.
N
FILL: dark brown silty sand with gravel, moist. (SM)
Dense
T
30
10
Brown silty SAND, trace gravel, with oxidized stained,
moist. (SM)
Brown mottled gray between 2.5 to 4.0 feet.
Medium
Dense
5
17
11
12
15
Gray, lean -CLAY, trace subrounded gravel, moist. (CL)
7
20
_10.
Medium
-
22
27
stiff
to
Occasional light gray silt seams below 15 feet.
Hard
—15
—20
-
35
44
26
25
Gray silty SAND, wet. (SM)
Dense
Gray, lean CLAY -with light gray SILT seams.
Hard
25
32
.29
.Boring terminated at 26.5 feet.
Groundwater'seepage encountered at 21 feet.
Terra,
BORING. -LOG
Assodates, l.nc..,
POINT EDWARDS' CON DOMIN I LIMS
EDMONDS, WASHINGTOW
Cons6itants In Geotechnical Engineering
Oeology-and
EnVironmental'.Earth sciences
Prof. No., T-4893
Date JULY 20,03
Figure 4.
�2
Boring No. B-102
Loggpd by:.TA
Date: 6/ . 18/03 Approximate Elev. 125
Soil Description
Consistency/
Relative
Density
Depth
E
U)
(N)_
Blows/
ft.
Moistu re
Content -
N
15
19
FILL: brown silty sand, trace gravel/clayey silt, moist.
(SM/ML)
Medium
Dense
to
Very
Loose
10
13
9
3
24
5
7
11
1.0.
23
_T
Gray, lean CLAY, occasional light gray silt and sandy
silt seams (11 to 2 mm), moist. (CL)
20
22
31
0.5 inches light gray sandy silt seam at 26 feet.
Very
stiff
29
36
0.5 inches sand seam at 30.5 feet.
30
33
26
29
27
—407
38
25
Gray SAND with silt, free water. (SM)
Dense
Gray, lean.CLAY, moist. (CL)
T
37'
27
50-
32
25
Boring terminated at 51.5 feet.
Groundwater encountered at 40 feet.
Terra
BORING:LOG
Associates, Inc.
Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering
Geology and
Environmental Earth Sciences
POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Pr6j. No. T-490
I Date -JULY 20031'
'Figure 5.
156
Boring No. B-103
Logged by- TA
Date: 6/18/03
Approximate Elev. 1.29
Soil Description
Consistency/
Relative
Density
D ' epth
(ft.)
E
(N)
Blows/
ft.
Moisture
Content
Notes
CRUSHED GRAVEL
Dense
5
36
15
2
17
28
FILL: dark gray clayey SILT/sifty SAND,
trace gravel, moist. (MUSM)
Medium
Dense
Brown silty SAND to SAND with silt,
free water. (SM)
Medium
Dense
-
-
_710
16
22
24
36
'Gray lean CLAY, moist. (CL)
Brown lean CLAY with oxidized stained
between 15.0 to .15.5 feet.
Very
—15
-
31
28
.............
............
......
Wet soils encountered at 21.5 feet.
stiff
to
-
—20
T
30
24
......
.....
..............
Hard
Occasional light gray silt and silty sand seams
encountered below 25 feet.
25
28
32
.............
..........
.............
......
......
......
.
.
.
4 inches sand seam at 31 feet.
35
23
.............
.............
—35
4.1
29
............
......
........
Boring terminated at 36.5 feet.
Groundwater seepage encountered at 8.5 feet.
Water level at 22.15 feet on June 19, 2003*..
Terra
BORING'LOG
Associates,. I n1c
PGINT,EDWARDS -CONDOMINIUMS
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering
Geology and
Environmental Earth Sciences
Proj. No --------------
J-489
Date JULY 2003
Figu
Boring No. B-4
Logged by: DPL
Date: 12/16/02 Approximate Elev. 90
Soil. Description
Consistency/
Relative
Depth
E
(N)
Blows/
Moisture
Content
Density
10
U)
ft.
FILL (Old test pit): bluish -gray silty sand, fine grained,
Loose
wet, with a trace of wood particles. Appears disturbed.
:E
7
27
FILL (Old test pit): mottled brown silty sand, fine grained, moist.
Medium
Dense
10
-
17
21
31
FILL (Old test pit): brown silt and clay, moist, with a trace
----of brown organic -material --------------------------------------------------
Very
Stiff -----------
Bluish -gray SILT to CLAY, low to medium plasticity.
Very
V
28
(MUCL)
stiff
Gray SILT to CLAY, moist, low to medium plasticity.
(MUCL)
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------
Very
Stiff
-------------------------
—20
30
23
LL = 35.5
PI = 11.5
Grayish-brown sandy SILT to clayey SILT, fine grained,
moist. (ML) With thin partings of iron -stained, fine-grained
Very
stiff
35
23
sand.
Grayish -brown clayey SILT to silty CLAY, moist. (MUCL)
With thin discontinuous lenses of gray to mottled gray
.___finf�-_q!ained -sand -------------------------- I -------------------------------------------------
Very
stiff
—30
30
24
Gray silty SAND, fine grained, moist. (SM)
Dense
37
15
---------------------------------------------------- ---------------------
Gray sandy SILT to clayey SILT, fine grained, moist, low
plasticity. (ML to MUCL)
--------------------------
Hard
—40
_F
34
17
Gray cl - ayey SILT, moist, low plasticity. (ML/CL).
sand
Hard
37
20
Gray sandy SILT to silty SAND, fine grained', moist,
Dense
50
32
19,
(MUSM)
47
18
—60
:L
42
15
Boring terminated at 61.5 feet.
No significant groundwater encountered.
Terra
BORING LOG
POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering
Geology and
Environmental Earth sciences
Prqj. No. T-4893
FQate. J U LY� 20031
Figure. 7
Test P.it No. TP-1
Logged by: JCS Approximate Elev. 104
Date: 10/18/01
Moisture
Depth
Content
Soil Description
M4 (%)
0
5t
10
15
.20
Test Pit No. TP-2
Logged by: JCS Approximate Elew 124
Date: 10/18/01
Moisture
Depth Content:
Soil Description
(%)
FILL: crushed rock surfacing over brown to gray silty sand to sandy silt, fine grained,
firm, moist.,( M/ML)
Rusty brown silty SAND fine grained; medium dense, moist, with occasional fine
\gravel and fine roots. (9M)
Gray to moftled gray silty SAND, fine grained, medium dense to dense,
moist, with occasional fine gravel. (SM)
Becomes light brown at approximately feet.
Gray CLAY, hard, moist, massive. (CL)
26
PP 4.5+
tons/fe:
ILL 35.8
PI 15
—
Test pit terminated at 14 feeL
7
No groundwater seepage.
FILL: crushed rock surfacing over brown silty sand to sandy silt, fine grained, firm,
moist. 4-inch thick organic layer at base. (SM/ML) (Old psoil horizon).
Brown silty SAND, fine grained, medium dense, moist. (SM)
Mottled grayish -brown, silty SAND, fine grained, medium dense, moist.
20
(SM)
Grayish -brown silty SAND, fine grained, medium dense to dense, moist
(SM)
iS�ray CLAY, hard, moist, laminated with light graysilt partings. �(CQ
PP 4.5+
tonslft'
37
Test pit terminated at 14 feet.
No"grouridwater seepage.
TEST PIT LOGS+
-Terr-a POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS
EDMONDS, _WASHINGTON'.
Agsociate's, Inc. -
Geotechnical Consultants
Pfoj. No.'T-480 - Date JULY 20031 Figurd 8
Logged by: JCS
Date: 10/18/01
Dep th
0— FILL: light brown silty sand -inch thick
016 fine grained, firm, dry to moist. (SIVI) 2
organic layer at base. ( topsoil horizon)
Light brown to tan silty SAND, fine grained, medium dense to dense, dry.
($M)
Mottled grayish -brown silty SAND, fine grained, medium dense to dense, 29
5— moist. (SM)
ILL = 42.7
Light grayish -brown to light brown CLAY and SILT, hard, moist, laminated 29 PI = 19.7
with partings of dark gray fine sand. (CUML) PP = 4.5+
tons/ft'
10—
'Gray CLAY, hard, moist. (CL) 29. PP = 4.5+
tons/fe
Test pit terminated at 13 feet.
15— Trace groundwater seepage at 6 feet.
7
20—
Test Pit No. TP-4
Approximate Elev. 92
Moisture
Soil Description Content
TEST- PIT LOGS
Terra POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Associates, Inc.
Geotechnical Consultants
PrQj. NO. T-4893 Date;J.ULY2003*. Figure 9
CANTILEVER SOLDIER PILE WALL OR
SINGLE- ROW TIEBACK WALL
H
>`-D �\-' I I , I I
r
Pass I ve Earth
Pressure = 400 pcf
taken over 2 pile
diameters
Note:
Value includes
Safety Factor of
1.5.
D
40* pcf 75 psf
Traffic Surcharge
Where Applicable
40(H)* psf taken over pile diameter
NOT TO SCALE
INCREASE PRESSURE BY 20 PERCE-UT--WHER�..WALL IS
SURCHARGED BY BACKSLQPE OF' 2:1 (HORIZONTALMERTICAL)
OR' FLATTER.
Terra ..EARTH PRESSURE DIAGRAM
POIrNTEDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS
Associates, Inc.. E.DMONDS, WASHINGTON
Consult6rits in" Geotechniic�l Endiqe�ering
Geology.and P.roj..�Jo: T-4893 Dat6 I JULY.200.3 Figur . el 2
Environmental Earth Sciences:
SOLDIER PILE WALL WITH TWO
OR MORE TIEBACKS
0. 2 (H)
15' 75 psf UNIFORM
PRESSURE TRAFFIC
SURCHARGE WHERE
H,
APPLICABLE
23 (H)* psf APPLIED OVER, PILE SPACING
'2'
400 pcf/ft.PASSIVE EARTH,
PRESSURE. APPLIED OVER 2(D) 23 (H)* psf APPLIED OVER PILE DIAMETER
NOTE:
VALUE INCLUDES SAFETY
FACTOR OF 1.5
11 AII-
D
NOT TO SCALE
INCREASE PRESSURE BY 26 (H) WHERE WALL IS
-SURCHARGED �BY BACKSLOPE OF 2:,l (HORlzbNTAL:.VERTICAL)
OR FLATTER.
Terra, EARTH PRESSURE DIA.GRAM,
POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS
Asso'ciat6s,- Inc. EDIVIONDS,WASHINGTON
Consultants in. Geotechnical. Engineering
and, Proj. . No. T-489 3 D6te JULY 2003 rel
EnVironmental Earth Sdiences
H
TIEDBACK SOLDIER PILE/LAGGING SHORING WALL
, - , - -, , I
NO LOAD ZONE
5- (TYPICAL)
ANCHOR
ZONE
TIEBACKS NOT GROUTED rz
IN THIS ZONE
TIEBACKS GROUTED
IN THIS ZONE
H/3 60
ALLOWABLE, TIEBACK
ADHESION CAPACITY IN
ANCHOR ZONE=1000 psf
NOTE:
Al it TIEBACK CAPACITIES ARE BASE. ON INSTALLATION
USING TREMIE GROUT METHOD
NOT TO SCALE
I RA
LOAD/NO LOAD ZONEb'AG
Terra.
POINT EDWARDS CONDOM IN I.QMS.
As�sociates, Inc. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
ConWtants in Geotechnical Engineering
GeV' and -4893.
Envir6 , -Earth Se'lences". r0i
n entaf P '.No. T Date JULY.20.03. Figpre 14
16
EARTH PRESSURE DIAGRAM FOR BASEMENT WALLS.
EXTERIOR GRADE
/1,7
............. ......... .....
0.2(H)
TRAFFIC
15' SURCHARGE
ACTIVE WHERE
H PRESSURE APPLICABLE
23(H)* psf + 75 psf
. 4
NOT TO SCALE
*INCREASE PRESSURE TO 26 (H) WHERE WALL.IS SURCHARGED.
BY BACKSLOPE OF 2:1 (H ORIZONTAL:VERTI CAL) OR FLATTER.
Tetra EARTH PRESSURE DIAGRAM -BASEMENT WALLS
POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS
Ats okiates, In'.c. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
'Consuit4nts in 66ote�hnical Engineering
Geolo
6mengy -4 9
ta� and
Enviro Earth Sciences Proj.. No'.T 8 3 Date J U LY 2003 :,F gure 15
TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc.
Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology
and
Environmental Earth Sciences
July 30, 2003
Project No. T-4893
Mr. Ross Woods
RESUB
Point Edwards, LLC
2801 Alaskan Way, Suite 107
SEP - 6 7005
Seattle, Washington 98121
SUILDING DEPARTMEN1
Subject: Supplementary Subsurface Exploration
cyTy OF EDMONDS
Point Edwards Condominiums
Pine Street and Unoco Road
Edmonds, Washington
References: 1. Geologically Hazardous Areas Review, Point Edwards Condominiums (UNOCAL
Site), prepared by Terra Associates, Inc., dated January 20, 2003
2. Preliminary Geotechnical Report, UNOCAL Site, Project No. T-4893, prepared by
Terra Associates, Inc., dated November 21, 2001
Dear Mr. Woods:
As requested, we have completed supplementary subsurface exploration at the subject site. The purpose
of our study is to evaluate the need for temporary shoring during construction of the proposed buildings,
and to provide recommendations for temporary shoring design and construction where needed. We
previously performed geotechnical studies for the project and presented our findings in the referenced
reports; however, since that time, building locations and site grading have been refined. Tria'd
Associates provided us with a current topographic site plan dated July 21, 2003 that shows existing
topography and proposed site grading.
.Our current study focused on areas where significant site excavations will be required adjacent the.
downgradient (northern) side of Pine Street, in the areas of Buildings 3, 4, and 8, and the area of
Building 5, located north of Building 8 and the private loop road. Pine Street is currently one of two
roadways that access the community of Woodway, south of the site. This report summarizes the results
of our recent subsurface exploration and discusses supplementary shoring recommendations for the
project.
BEET FILE
12525 Willows Road, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034
Phone (425) 821-7777 a Fax (425) 821-4334 * terra@terra-associates.com
Mr. Ross Woods
July 30, 2003
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project will consist of the construction of ten condominium buildings. The proposed structures will
be three to four stories with daylight basements and one to two levels of underground parking. We
expect that perimeter load-beaning walls and isolated spread footing loads will be as indicated in the
referenced report. The excavation depths required for construction of the lower parking levels will
approach a maximum of about 27 feet below existing grades along Pine Street.
The recommendations contained in the following sections of this report are based on our understanding
of the above design features. If actual features vary or changes are made, we should review them in
order to modify our recommendations, as required. We should review final design drawings and
specifications to verify that our recommendations have been properly interpreted and incorporated into
project design.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
We previously investigated subsurface conditions at the site by excavating 17 test pits (Test Pits TP-1
through TP- 17) and drilling 5 test borings (Borings B- I through B-5). Our current exploration -included
drilling three additional test borings (Bonings B-101 through B-103) on June 18, 2003.
The recent borings were drilled on the north side of Pine Street, where significant excavations will be
required for construction of the lower'parking levels of Buildings 3, 4, and 8. These test bonings were
advanced to a maximum depth of approximately 51.5 feet below the ground surface. The approximate
locations of the recent test borings, and nearby test pits/test borings from our previous studies, are
shown on Figures I and 2. The boring logs and test pit logs are shown on Figures 4 through 9. We
performed grain size analyses on. three representative soil samples obtained from the test borings. The
test results are presented on Figures 10 and 11.
The soils encountered in Bonings B-101, B-102, and B-103 consist of 1 to 13 feet of very loose to
medium dense uncontrolled fill overlying medium dense, native silty sand with varying amounts of
gravel to depths between approximately 7 and 13 feet below the ground surface. The fill and silty sand
soils are underlain by very stiff to hard, lean clay with thin partings of light gray silt and/or very fine-
grained silty sand seams to the maximum exploration depths of the borings. These soil conditions are
generally consistent with the soils we observed in nearby test pits.
The Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and Part of the Edmonds West Quadrangles, Washington by
James P. Minard, 1983, shows the soils at higher site elevations mapped as Vashon till, Vashon advance
outwash, and Transitional beds. Transitional bed sediments are described by this publication as massive
to bedded clay, silt, and fine to very fine sand. T he clay and silt soils observed at depth 'in the test pits
and encountered in the test borings are generally consistent with the descriptions of transitional bed
deposits.
Project No. T-4893
Page No. 2
Mr. Ross Woods
July 30, 2003
We encountered perched groundwater in all three of the recent borings near the interface of the surficial
fill/silty sand soils and the underlying very stiff to hard clay, and in thin sand layers within the very stiff
to hard clay. We also observed indications of localized light seepage from the face of the existing slope
between proposed Buildings 4 and 8.
The perched groundwater encountered in Borings B-101 and B-102 occurs at elevations at least 15 feet
below the lower elevations of Buildings 3 and 4 (Elev. 10 1. 17 and Elev. 100.66, respectively). Boring
B-103 (drilled in the area of Building 8) encountered,two levels of perched groundwater. The upper
perched groundwater level is approximately 8.5 feet below the ground surface (approximately Elev.
120.5), and the lower level is approximately 22 feet below the ground surface (approximately Elev.
107). The proposed elevation of the lower level for Building 8 is Elev. 111.67.
Fluctuations in groundwater seepage levels should be expected on a seasonal and annual basis.
Typically, groundwater seepage reaches maximum levels during and following the wet winter months,
and diminishes or is completely absent during the dry summer months. We did not observe
groundwater seepage in Test Pits TP-1 and TP-2 (located in the areas of Borings B-101 and B-102,
respectively), which were excavated to a depth of about 14 feet in mid -October 200 1.
DISCUSSION
Based on our review of existing topography, proposed grades, and the planned building elevations, it
appears that temporary shoring will be required to complete the southwestern portion of the excavation
for Building 4. Soils encountered in Boring B-102, in the southwestern portion of Building 4, consist of
approximately 13 feet of very loose to medium dense fill and medium dense native. silty sand overlying
very stiff to hard clay. As discussed in our referenced geotechnical report, the loose to medium dense
fill and native silty sand soils should be laid back at a minimum slope inclination of 1.5: 1
(Horizontal:Vertical). Temporary slopes in the very stiff to har d clay can be completed with a gradient
of 0.75: 1. Based on the depths that we encountered these soils -in Boring B-102, excavations completed
to these temporary inclinations at the southwestern comer of Building 4 would encroach about 40 feet
into the Pine Street right-of-way and about 16 feet into the existing paved roadway.
Excavation to the proposed lower floor elevation in the southwestem portion of Building 3 will expose
primarily medium dense silty sand with varying amounts of gravel. Temporary excavations in these
soils that are graded to an inclination of 1.5:1 will extend about 27 feet into the Pine Street right-of-way
at the southwestem comer of the building, but would not encroach into the existing roadway.
The soils in the area of Building 8 consist of existing fill, native silty sand, and very stiff clay/dense silt.
Based on the information provided to us, it appears that temporary excavations for Building 8 that are
sloped to an inclination of 1.5:1 will not encroach into the Pine Street right-of-way. We expect that the
lower portion of the excavation for Building 8 will exposed very stiff clay/dense silt, and may be graded
to a temporary inclination of 0.75: 1.
Project No. T-4893
Page No. 3
Mr. Ross Woods
July 30, 2003
Subsurface information obtained from our previous geotechnical studies indicates that the soils near the
western side of Building 5 consist of existing fill and native, medium dense silty sand to approximately
Elev. 86. The soils below this elevation are very stiff to hard clay/dense silt. Based on the information
provided to us, it appears that the major portion of the excavation for Building 5 will expose granular
silty sand soils. Temporary excavations sloped to an inclination of 1.5:1 will encroach very near the
centerline of the proposed loop road located immediately south of the building, and would extend about
five feet over the centerline near the southwestem. comer of the building. We understand that there will
be some flexibility with excavating into the loop road during site development; however, if
encroachments into the proposed roadway of this magnitude cannot be tolerated, temporary shoring will
be needed.
The excavation for Building 8 is likely to encounter minor groundwater seepage at various levels below
8.5 feet. Considering the fine-grained nature of the on -site soils, we do not believe the amount of
seepage will be excessive. In addition, if adequately protected from erosion, we do not expect that
seepage will adversely affect the stability of the temporary slope. However, the contractor should be
prepared to provide dewatering measures for the excavation. In our opinion, conventional sump
pumping procedures should be capable of maintaining a relatively dry condition for the excavation.
Temporary shoring will be required where site constraints do not allow sloping of temporary
excavations to the inclinations discussed above. Temporary shoring systems include a tied -back or
cantilever soldier pile wall and soil nailing with top -down wall construction. Considering the presence
of as much as 13 feet of loose, uncontrolled fill near the southwestem comer of Building 4, and the
proximity to a public right-of-way, it is our opinion that temporary shoning should consist of a tied-ba * ck
or cantilever soldier pile wall. Descriptions of the shoring method and detailed design parameters are
presented below.
The following sections provide detailed recommendations regarding these issues and other geotechnical
design considerations. These recommendations should be incorporated into the final design drawings
and construction specifications.
Shoring
As discussed, terTiporary shoring will be required where there is insufficient room to complete an open
excavation to the inclinations discussed *in the preceding section. Overconsolidated clay/silt will be
encountered below the fill and granular native soils. During the excavation, soil expansion resulting
from release of locked -in stresses combined with horizontal planes lacking cohesion may cause
horizontal slippage at a newly opened excavation. - Based on our experience, the newly opened vertical
face should not be left open more than 48 hours. Timber tagging should be installed within 48 hours to
prevent horizontal slippage. Detailed recommendations for conventional soldier pile walls with timber
lagging are provided below.
Project No. T-4893
Page No. 4
Mr. Ross Woods
July 30, 2003
Soldier Pile Shoring
Tied -back or cantilever soldier walls should be designed to resist lateral loads imposed by soils, as well
as the vertical load component. Vertical loads may be carried by the soldier piles as end bearing and as
pile shaft friction below the base of the excavation. Pile shaft friction should not be used above the base
of the excavation. The following information is applicable to soldier pile walls:
Bearing materials:
Minimum depth of embedment below excavation base:
Allowable end bearing.capacities f6r soldier piles
Skin friction below excavation base:
hard lean clay
10 feet
20 kips per square foot (kso
1.0 ksf
We recommend soldier piles have a maximum center -to -center spacing of eight feet. To account for
arching effects, lateral loads on the tagging can be reduced by 50 percent. Design parameters for the
recommended temporary shoring are presented on Figures 12 and 13.
Tieback Anchors
Tieback anchors should be installed 'in the soil behind the excavation to a sufficient distance to allow
mobilizing the desired lateral load resistance. The soils in the anchor zone are expected to consist of
very stiff to hard lean clay. We recommend the use of the following design adhesion values for
properly installing non -pressure grouted anchors.
Allowable Adhesion: 1.0 ksf, along the bonded length
The bonded length is the portion of the anchor that extends beyond the no-load zone, as shown on
Figure 14. Within the no-load zone, anchors should be sleeved and left ungrouted to prevent load
pickup 'in this region.
All anchors should be tested to verify design capacities. As a minimum, all anchors should be stressed
to 130 percent of their design capacity and then locked off at the design load. At least 10 percent of the
anchors, with a minimum of 2 anchors, should be prooftested and stressed to 200 percent of the design
pullout capacity. The geotechnical engineer should select the locations of these test anchors.
Groundwater seepage may be encountered during the installation of the anchors. The presence of water
could result in some caving of the anchor holes. Drilling with continuous flight augers or the use of
casing would reduce the potential for ground loss.
The contractor should particularly note the presence of existing facilities adjacent to the subject site,
including buried utilities, as they may affect the location or extent of the anchor holes.
Project No. T-4893
Page No. 5
Mr. Ross Woods
July 30, 2003
Monitoring Program
A monitoring program must be implemented to verify the performance of the shoring system. Utilities
within a distance of 1.0 H (where H is the depth of excavation) from the shoring wall should be
protected from damage due to the lateral and vertical movement occurring around the excavation area.
Monitoring of the shoring system should include measurements of horizontal and vertical movements at
the top of soldier piles. All reference points on the existing ground surface should be installed and read
prior to commencing the excavation.
Monitoring of the shoring system should be performed twice a week as the excavation proceeds, and
then every other week upon completion.of the excavation. A registered land surveyor should be
retained to perform the monitoring. Monitoring should continue until the basement walls are adequately
braced at the ground surface level. The monitoring data should be reviewed weekly by the project's
structural and geotechnical engineers.
All recommendations presented in our earlier report should also be incorporated into project design and
construction.
We trust the information presented is sufficient for your current needs. If you have any questions or
require additional information, please call.
Sincerely yours,
I ana 2 - Exploration Location Plans
Figure 3 — Unified Soil Classification System
Figures 4 through 9 — Boring and Test Pit Logs
Figures 10 and I I — Grain Size Analyses
Figure 12 — Earth Pressure Diagram
Figure 13 — Earth Pressure Diagram
Figure 14 — Load/No Load Zone Diagram
Figure 15 — Earth Pressure Diagram -Basement Walls
cc: Ms. Beth Jensen, DO Engineers
Project No. T-4893
Page No. 6
.EV. 111.61
BLDG 1
APPROXIMATE PERIMET ER
OF LOWER LEVEL -LOWER LEVEL ELEV/:!�.67
F7.
BLDG. 4
..........
LOWER LEVEL ELEV. 100.66
V
Nl�
N N,
kill' I01
....... k APPROXIMATE PERIMETER
OF LOWER LEVEL
N. bLUU J
L
LOWER LEVEL ELEV. 101.17
-101 TP 1
Y,
BLDG 10E
-LOWE LEVEL ELEV. 134.84
-vs-
Al
A
-7
7-
w:
NOTE: : LEGEND:
THIS SITE PLAN IS SCHEMATIC. ALL LOCATIONS AND
DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. IT IS INTENDED FOR B-1 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF BORING
REFERENCE ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR
DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. MTP-1 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TEST PIT. Terra
0 50 .100
Associates Inc.
REFERENCE: Consultants in Geotechnical Ingineering
SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY TRIAD ASSOCIATES, DATED 7-21-03 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET Geology and
Environmental Earth Sciences
EXPLORATION LOCATION PLAN
POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Proj. No. T-48931 Date JULY1200
4_� �__
z
Of-
777�
;07 - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - ---
�_J_ Am
TP-1 B-4 - ----------- 'AOPROXIMATE PERIM TER
j------ ------
OF LOWER LEVEL
BLDG. 5 -------
----------
'------LOWER LEVEL _ELEV. 82.17
7
- - - - - - - - - - - -
\PLW 2\
LOWER LEVEL ELEV.'74.66
APPROXIMATE PERIMETER
OF LOWER LEVEL.
Z
N 0,
7-7-
BLDG. 8
/*
-LOWER LEVEL ELEV. 1
11.6f.
Z:�
N,
—B-10
APPROXIMATE PERIMETER
OF LOWER LEVEL-'
BLDG�4
....... LOWER LEVEL ELEV. 100.66
TP�2
BA 02
0
NOTE: LEGEND-
-THIS SITE PLAN IS SCHEMATIC. ALL LOCATIONS AND
DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. IT IS INTENDED FOR
19 B-1 APPROXIMATE LocA-nON OF TEST BORING
EXPLORATIONLOCATION PLAN
REFERENCE ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE USED.FOR Terra
DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION, PURPOSES. 19 TP-1 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TEST PIT POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS
Associates Inc. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
REFERENCE: 0 �0 100 Consuftants'.In Geotechnical Ingineering
Geology and -48o 0 Figure 2
SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY T RIAD ASSOCIATES, DAED 7-21-03 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET.. Environmental Earth Sciences .Proj. No. T Date JULY 2 03 F
MAJOR DIVISIONS
LETTER
SYMBOL
TYPICAL DESCRIPTION
Clean
GW
Well -graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures, little or no
GRAVELS
Gravels
fines.
GP
Poorly -graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures, little or
W (U
0)
"
(less than
a)
0 n N
More than
5% fines)
no fines.
GM
Silty gravels, g ravel- sand -silt mixtures, non -plastic
C/) M U3
50% of coarse
fraction is
C) C 0
W a) >
larger than No.
Gravels
with fines
fines.
M.T
z E Cn
4 sieve
GC
Clayey gravels, gravel -sand -clay mixtures, plastic fines.
q
C:)
0 C:) 04
Clean
SW
Well -graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines.
LO
6
SANDS
Sands
SP
Poorly -graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no
III CZ
CD M
(less than
More than
5% fines)
fines.
<
50% of coarse
0 0
fraction is
SM
Silty sands, sand -silt mixtures, non -plastic fines.
0 2
smaller than
Sands
SIC
Clayey sands, sand -clay mixtures, plastic fines.
No. 4 sieve
with fines
—
ML
Inorganic silts, rock flour, clayey silts with slight
U) .2 C:)
SILTS AND CLAYS
plasticity.
_j
Q) C
10 M N
U)
CL
Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, (lean clay).
E 6 a)
Liquid limit is less than 50%
OL
Organic silts and organic clays 'of low plasticity.
0 Z N
W 0 C=
Z to
M (D
MH
Inorganic silts, elastic.
-r— >
< C 4-0
ai In
P
SILTS AND CLAYS
W E
CH
Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays.
Z 0 Cn
5;
Liquid limit is greater than 50%
ILL
OH
Organic clays of high plasticity.
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
PT
Peat.
DEFINITION OF TERMS AND SYMBOLS
U)
U)
Standard Penetration
Density Resistance in Blows/Foot
2" OUTSIDE DIAMETER SPLIT
W
_j
SPOON SAMPLER
z
0
Very loose 0-4
2.4" INSIDE DIAMETER RING SAMPLER
Fn
Loose 4-10
OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER
W
Medium dense 10-30
M
0
Dense 30-50
WATER LEVEL (DATE)
0
Very dense >50
Tr TORVANE READINGS, tsf
Pp PENETR OMETER READING, tsf
Standard Penetration
W
Consisten Resistance in Blows/Foot
DID DRY DENSITY, pounds per cubic foot
>
U)
Very soft 0-2
LL LIQUID LIMIT, percent
W
Soft 2-4
X
0
Medium stiff 4-8
PI PLASTIC INDEX
stiff 8-16
Very stiff 16-32
N STANDARD PENETRATION, blows per foot
Hard >32
Terra
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
Associates, Inc.
POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering
Geology and
Environmental Earth Sciences
Proj. No. T-4893
I Date JULY 2003
1 Figure 3
Boring No. B-101
Logged by: TA
Date: 6/18/03 Approximate Elev. 105
Soil Description
Consistency/
Relative
Depth
E
(N).
Blows/
Moisture
Content
Density
(ft.)
ft.
N
FILL: dark brown silty sand with gravel, moist. (SM)
Dense
T
30
10
Brown silty SAND, trace gravel, with oxidized stained,
moist. (SM)
Brown mottled gray between 2. 5 to 4.0 feet.
Medium
Dens . e
-
5
I
17
11
12
15
Gray, lean CLAY, trace subrounded gravel, moist. (CL)
7
20
—10
Medium
-
22
27
stiff
to
Occasional light gray silt seams below 15 feet.
Hard
—15
20
35
44
26
26
Gray silty SAND, wet. (SM)
Dense
Gray, lean CLAY with light gray SILT seams.
Hard
—25
32
29
Boring terminated at 26.5 feet.
Groundwater seepage encountered at 21 feet.
Terra
BORING LOG
Associates, Inc 4
Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering
Geology and
Environmental Earth Sciences
POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS
. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Proj. No. T-4893
I Date JULY 20031
Figure 4
Boring No. B-102
Logged by: TA
Date: 6/18/03 Approximate Elev. 125
Soil Description
Consistency/
Relative
Density
Depth
(ft.)
E
10
U)
(N)
Blows/
ft.
Moisture
Content
N
FILL: brown silty sand, trace gravel/clayey silt, moist.
(SM/ML)
Medium
Dense
to
Very
Loose
—10
20
30
—40
50
15
13
9
3
2
24
22
29
33
29
38
37
32
19
5
7
11
10
23
31
36
26
27
25
27
25
Gray, lean CLAY, occasional light gray silt and sandy
silt seams (1 to 2 mm), moist. (CL)
0.5 inches light gray sandy silt seam at 26 feet.
0.5 inches sand seam at 30.5 feet.
Very
stiff
Gray SAND with silt, free water. (SM)
Dense
Gray, lean CLAY, moist. (CL)
Boring terminated at 51.5 feet.
Groundwater encountered at 40 feet.
Terra
Associates, Inc
Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering
Geology and
Environmental Earffi Sciences
BORING LOG
POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Proj. No. T-4893
I Date JULY 20
5
Boring No. B-103
Logged by: TA
Date: 6/18/03
Approximate Elev. 129
Soil Description
Consistency/
Relative
Density
Depth
CL
E
(N)
Blows/
ft.
Moisture
Content
N
Notes
CRUSHED GRAVEL
Dense
T
10
—15
-
— 20
T.........
—25
30
35
36
11
15
16
22
31
30
28
35
41
2
17
28
24
36
28
24
32
23
29
...
..........
.
FILL: dark gray clayey SILT/silty SAND,
trace gravel, moist. (MUSM)
Medium
Dense
Brown silty SAND to SAND With silt,
free water. (SM)
Medium
Dense
Gray lean CLAY, moist. (CL)
Brown lean.CLAY with oxidized stained
between 15.0 to 15.5 feet.
Wet soils encountered at 21.5 feet.
Occasional light gray silt and silty sand seams
encountered below 25 feet.
4 inches sand seam at 31 feet.
Very
stiff
to
Hard
.............
..... :::::.
.......
........
..............
. .
Boring terminated at 36.5 feet.
Groundwater seepage encountered at 8.5 feet.
Water level at 22.15 feet on June 19, 2003.
Terra
Associates, Inc.
Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering
Geology and
Environmental Earth Sciences
BORING LOG
POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Proj. No. T-4893 I
Date JULY 20'031
Figure 6
Boring No. B-4
Logged by: DPL
Date: 12/16/02 Approximate Elev. 90
Soil Description
Consistency/
Relative
Depth
E
(N)
Blows/
Moisture
Content
Density
ft.
N
FILL (Old test pit): bluish -gray silty sand, fine grained,
Loose
wet, with a trace of wood particles. Appears disturbed.
7
27
FILL (Old test pit): mottled brown silty sand, fine grained, moist
Medium
Dense
10
17
21
31
FILL (Old test pit): brown silt and clay, moist, with a trace
of brown organic material. --------------------------------------------------------------
Very
Stiff
Bluish-gray SILT to CLAY, low to medium plasticity.
(ML/CL)
Very
stiff
17
28
Gray SILT to CLAY, moist, low to medium plasticity.
(MLJCL)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very
stiff
—20
30
23
LL = 35.5
P1 = 11.5
Grayish -brown sandy SILT to clayey SILT, fine grained,
moist. (ML) With thin partings of iron -stained, fine-grained
sand.
Very
stiff
35
23
Grayish -brown clayey SILT to silty CLAY, moist. MUCL)
With thin discontinuous lenses of gray to mottU gray
i�ftqrained sand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very
stiff
—30
30
24
Gray silty SAND, fine grained, moist. (SM)
Dense
_F
37
15
------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------
Gray sandy SILT to clayey SILT, fine grained, moist, low
plasticity. (MIL to MUCL)
------------
Hard
—40
T
34
17
Gray clayey SILT, moist, low plasficity. (MUCL)
sand.
Hard
37
20
Gray sandy SILT to silty SAND, fine grained, moist,
(MUSM)
D ense
—50
-
T
32
19
47
18
—60
42
15
Boring terminated at 61.5 feet.
No significant groundwater encountered.
Terra
BORING LOG
Associates, Inc.
POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Consultants in,Geotechnical Engineering
Geology and
Environmental Earth Sciences
Proj. No. T-4893
I Date JULY . 2003F
Figure 7
Test Pit No. TP-1
Logged by: JCS Approximate Elev. 104
Date: 10/18/01
Depth Moisture
Content
(ft.) Soil Description
0— FILL: crushed rock surfacing over brown to gray silty sand to sandy silt, fine grain(
firm, moist (SIVINQ
Rusty brown silty SAND fine grained, medium dense, moist, with occasional finE
\gravel and fine roots. (�M)
Gray to mottled gray silty SAND, fine grained, medium dense to dense,
moist, with occasional fine gravel. (SM)
5 Becomes ligh t brown at appro)(imately 6 feet.
10 1 Gray CLAY, hard, moist, massive. (CL) 26 PP = 4.5+
tons/fe
LL = 35.8
1 1 PI = 15
15 1 Test pit terminated at 14 feet.
No groundwater seepage.
20
Test Pit No. TP-2
Logged by: JCS Approximate Elev. 124
Date: 10/18/01
Depth Moisture
(ft.) Soil Description Content
0— FILL: crushed rock surfacing over brown silty sand to sandy silt, fine grained, firm,
moist. 4-inch thick o anic layer at base. (SMIML) (Old topsoil horizon)
- Brown silty SAND, fine grained, medium dense, moist. (SM)
Mottled grayish -brown silty SAND, fine grained, medium dense, moist. 20
5 (SM)
Grayish -brown silty SAND, fine grained, medium dense to dense, moist.
(SM)
10 1 Gray CLAY, hard, moist, laminated with light gray silt partings. (CL) Pp = 4.5+
1 1 tons/ft'
151 Test pit terminated at 14 feet.
No groundwater seepage.
20
KIFA
TEST PIT LOGS
Terra POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS
Associates, Inc. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. T-4893 I Date JULY 2003 1 Figure 8
Test Pit No. TP-4
Logged by: JCS
Date: 10/18/01
Depth
(ft.)
0— FILL: light brown silty sand, fine grained, firm, dry to moist (SM) 27--in—ch-TRUck
organic layer at base. (Old topsoil horizon)
Light brown to tan silty SAND, fine grained, medium dense to dense, dry.
(SM)
Mottled grayish -brown silty SAND, fine grained, medium dense to dense, 29
5— moist. (SM)
- LL = 42.7
- Light grayish -brown to light brown CLAY and SILT, hard, moist, laminated 29 PI = 19.7
- with partings of dark gray fine sand. (CUML) PP = 4.5+
10— tonsife
- Gray CLAY, hard, moist. (CL) PP = 4.5+
29 tons/fe
- Test pit terminated at 13 feet.
15— Trace groundwater seepage at 6 feet.
20
Soil Description
Approximate Elev. 92
Moisture
Content
N
TEST PIT LOGS
Terra POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS
Associates, Inc. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Geotechnical Consultants
Proj. No. T-4893 I Date JU.LY re 9
CANTILEVER SOLDIER PILE WALL OR
SINGLE ROW TIEBACK WALL
Pass I ve Earth
Pressure = 400 pcf
taken over 2 pile
diameters
Note:
Value ncludes
Safety Factor of
1.5.
. . . . . . . . - - - - -
K'I\\ I I \\\I\\ 1\
M X"'
H 40* pcf +
75 psf
Traffic Surcharge
Where Applicable
7711
rMA
A
40(H)* psf taken over pile diameter
NOT TO SCALE
INCREASE PR ESSURE BY 20 PERCENT WHERE WALL IS
SURCHARGED BY BACKSLOPE OF 2:1 (HORIZONTAL:VERTICAQ
OR FLATTER.
Terra EARTH PRESSURE DIAGRAM
POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS
Associates, Inc. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering
Geology and
Environmental Earth Sciences Proj. No. T-4893 I Date JULY 2003 Figure 12
SOLDIER PILE WALL WITH TWO
OR MORE TIEBACKS
7
0. 2 (H)
15' 75 psf UNIFORM
PRESSURE TRAFFIC
H SURCHARGE WHERE
APPLICABLE
23 (H)* psf APPLIED OVER PILE SPACING
loo
2'
400 pcf/ft PASSIVE EARTH T/
PRESSURE APPLIED OVER 2(D) 23 (H)* psf APPLIED OVER PILE DIAMETER
NOTE:
VALUE INCLUDES SAFETY
FACTOR OF 1.5 1
D
NOT TO SCALE
INCREASE PRESSURE BY 26 (H) WHERE WALL IS
SURCHARGED BY BACKSLOPE �OF 2:1 (HORIZONTAL:VERTICAL)
OR FLATTER.
Terra EARTH PRESSURE DIAGRAM
POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS
A Associates, Inc.. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
consultants in Geotechnical Engineering
Enviro Geology and Proj. No. T-4893 Date JULY 2003 Figure 13
nmental Earth Sciences
No
TIEDBACK SOLDIER PILE/LAGGING SHORING WALL
TIEBACKS GROUTED
IN THIS ZONE
ALLOWABLE TIEBACK
ADHESION CAPACITY IN
ANCHOR ZONE=1000 psf
NOTE:
TIEBACK CAPACITIES ARE BASE ON INSTALLATION
USING TREMIE GROUT METHOD
NOT TO SCALE
goTerra
Associates, Inc.
Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering
Geology and
Environmental Earth Sciences
LOAD/NO LOAD ZONE DIAGRAM
POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Proj. No. T-4893 I Date JULY 2003 Figure 14
.TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc.
Consultants in Geotechnical Enginee
and
Environmental Earth Scien es JUL 2
JUL 2.-7 2005
June 24, 2005
Project No. T-4893
Mr. Ross Woods
RECEIVED
Point Edwards, LL@
2801 Alaskan Waf,Suite 107
J U N 2 4 2005
Seattle, Washid on 98121
Subject: )Geologically Hazardous Areas Review - Proposed Building 5 Expansion BUILDING DEPT.
Point Edwards Condominiums
Edmonds, Washington -
References: 1 Preliminary Geotechnical. Report, UNOCAL Site,,Project No. T-480, prepared by
Terra Associates, Inc., dated November 21, 2001
2. Steep Slope Hazard Review, Point Edwards Condominiums (UNOCAL Site),
Project No. T-4893, prepared by Terra Associates, Inc., dated December 13, 2002
3. Geologically Hazardous AreasReview,. Point Edwards Condominiums (UNOCAL Site),
Project 'No. T-4893, prepared by Terra Associates, Inc., dated January 20, 2003
Dear Mr. Woods:
As requested, we conducted a review of geologically: hazardous areas pertaining to the proposed expansion of
Building 5 dthe, Point Edwards Condominiums project. Our scope of work inclu . ded a vi . sual site reconnaissance
and review of the referenced documents. Our study specifically addresses potential impacts to the erosion hazard
areas (EHAs) and landslide hazard areas (LHAs) located on the steep slope west-northwest of the planned
expansion. tThe expanded Building 5 footprint and delineated -hazard area are shown on Figure, 1.
PROJECT DESCRIIPTION
Buildingf 5 is located near the top of a steep natural slope'. in the northern portion of. the Point Edwards
develd6ment area.' . Topographic information shown on a Grading and Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation
Control*Plan by Triad Associates, dated July 28, 2003 (revised June 23, 2005) indicates the slope located west-
northwest of the planned building'ar"ea is approximately 70 -to RO. feet -high, With inclinations ranging between
about 50 and 80 percent. As shown on' the referenced topographic plan, the vast majo—firy-of Ille westem—sl—opelis
iaentifi—ed-as a geologLcally- hazardous area with respect to erosion and landslide hazards. The pl—an—show _s1li_e—T07-
foot buffer and 15-fo6t building setback from the top of the slope. that was recommended in our previous studies.
_------------- - - -- — ------------
The plan indicates that the western side of Building 5 will be expanded to the southwestt generally paralleling the
top of the steep slope. The remaining portio'hs of the Building �- footprint are generally similar to* ear1i_er_3es1`gns_
The building will consist of two floors, constructed over a basement level that daylights to the north and
northwest. Planned lower * floor elevations Will be Elev. 7, and Elev..86.17, stepping up from east
to west. Excavation.to accommodate the daylight lower level of the expanded portion of the building will extend
from the northem edge of the building to the, face of th6 slope, resulting in a relatively flat I yard at approximately
Elev. 86.
2525 Willows Road,' Suite 101, Kirkland, Wash ington'98034
Phone (42.5)'A21-7777 to Fax (425) 821-4334
Mr. Ross Woods
June 24, 2005
Surface . water runoff from yard areas between the proposed building expansion and the steep slope will be
as
collected in four Yard draiihs and roui.ed in a closed system to the stormwater detention pond located at the b e of
the slop e, northea.st?offf Building 5. . No stormwater runoff will flow over the crest of the slope. The planned
ad and Strom Drainage plans prepared by Triad
stormwater drainage system is shown on the revised Ro
Associates.
PREVIOUS STUDIES
Terra Associates; Inc. (Terra) previously conducted critical areas studies for the Point Edwards Condominiums
A
project. The iesu,ln of these studies are documented in the referenced Steep Slope Hazard Review report'and
AP dous Areas Review report. These studies were based on our visual observations and -
Geologically Hazar
subsurface investigations performed at the site since 2001, and included computer analysis of slope stabi.ity'a ong
f Building 5.
five section liges, including the steep slope area adjacent the northwestern comer o
The refeiencId reports were prepared in general conformance with the r,equirements of Section 23.40.090 of the
Edmonds Mimicipal Code (EMC) (Critical Areas, Report — Requirements) and EMC Section 23.80.050 (Special
Study and R8eport 'Requirements — Geologically Hazardous Areas.) The methodology used for the studies
documented * t
the referenced reports andour current study is consistent with local professional practices, meeting
the requirem; 6nt for use of best available. science per Section 23..40,090(C) of the EMC.
areas containing LHAs and EHAs are
The conclusion' of our previous studies regarding potential impacts to slope
summarized below-.'
• The,steep slope areas in the"westem portion of the site are- stable with respect to deep-seated failure under
static conditions and severe seismic loading conditions
• Thetproposed development will not decrease the stability. of the site or adjacent properties- duri ng or after
site development.
Po , tential ero I sion and sedimentatio . n impacts to the LHAs and EHAs due to the planned building locations
will be'eliminated or significantly reduced,by applying Best Management Practices (BMPs) for erosion
preventionsedimentation containment.
P�otential impacts to -the stability of the steep slope'due to building surcharges, and potential impacts to the
Buildings due to loss of shallow soil support, will be, mitigated by establishing appropriate setbacks. from
the slope, and if necessary, supporting building loads with a, deep foundation system consisting of piles or
1 'donvent . ibnal*foundations- extended to appropriate depths.
Pote . ntial erosion and . sedimentation impacts to the L . HAs and. EHAs due to proposed yard grading will be
eliminated',or significantly, reduced by applying BM . Ps . for erosion prevention and sedimentation
containment.
• Proposed -grading will remove a significant volume of material from the top of the slope, resulting in a net
reduction of soil load imposed on the slope and; therefore, improving slope stability.
• Drainage systems associated'.with the finished buildings Will-, improve the current sta I bility of. the steep
slope.
• Improveddrainage of surface water from proposed yard areas will positively affect slope stability.
• A reduction in the steep slope buffer� from 5 0 f6et to 10 feet will have no significant impact on the LHAs,
EHAs, or adjacent slopes..
Project No. T-4893
. Page, No. 2
W. Ross Woods
June 24, 2005
Conditions on the slo e I
p ocated northwest of the Building 5 expansion have not changed since our previous
studies, with the exception of the installation of extensive BMPs for erosion prevention and sedimentation. control
associated with the,�lope rev'egetation activities that occurred in early 2004. Based on our observations of
existing the. existing site conditions and our review of the proposed building location and associated grading, it. Is
our opinion that the -conclusions of our previous studies,w'ould also apply to the planned expansion of Buil . ding 5.
POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
As discussed, yard griding associated . with the planned expansion of Building 5 will encroach into the LHA and
00
EHA on the adjacent slope, and the associated slope buffer. This alteration will result in a modified top-of-40
percent slope that is about eight feet farther from the edge of the building, and about four feet lower.in, elevation
than the existin g' too'0-40 percent slope demarcation.
Potential impabts to the critical areas on the slope due to the planned location of the building expansion and yard
grading include increasing the potential for erosion and sedimentation by exposing soils above the top of the slope
during construction, and allowing uncontrolled surface water flow onto the slope. Potential impacts to slope
stability indude building surcharges at the top of the slope and uncontrolled surface water flow onto the slope
face.
In our opinion, the potential for erosion during construction will. be eliminated or significantly reduced with
proper application and maintenance of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for erosion prevention, sedimentation.
containment, and surface water control,- as recomm* ended in our referenced reports. Potential impacts to slope
stabil ity due to building surcharges, and potential impacts to the building due to its proximity to the slope will.be
mitigated by the recommended buff6r and building setback determined using best available science. Potential
impacts to slope stability due to uncontrolled stormwater runoff will be mitigated during construction With proper
application and maintenance of BMPs for surface water control Post construction mitigation will be provided by
establishing yard grades to direct surface water flow away from the slope and into four permanent yard drains that
are connected to the storm sewer system. Standard maintenance of the storm sewer system will further reduce
potential impacts associated with post -construction drainage of surface water.
Because the proposed grading for the building expansion will result in a net reduction of soil load imposed on the
slope, there will be enhancement to the current stability of the slope. Improved drainage at the top of the slope
associated with the permanent building and yard drains will- also have a positive affect on slope stability.
DISCUSSION
Section 23.40.000 of the, EMC (Environmentally: Critical Areas General Provisions) states that "the purpose of
this, title. is'designate and classify ecologically sensitive and hazardous areas and to protect these areas and their
functions and values; while also allowing reasonable use of private property." In our opinion, the'LHA and EHA
on the slope have ' a beneficial function and. value solely related to erosion control and protection from hazards.
Section 23.40.050 of the EMC (Pro*te'ction-of Critical Areas) requires that any action taken result in equivalent or
greater functions and'values of the critical areas, as ddtermm'ed by the best available science, Based on our study,
and provided the recommendations. for mitigation presented in our referenced reports and herein ate followed, it is
our opinion that the current development proposal will have no adverse impact to the critical areas located on the
slope, and will not result in a net I o*ss of critical area function and value. Furthermore, it is our opinion that the
planned development, along with -the recommended mitigation, will enhance the critical'area function and value.
with modest improvements -to the stability of the slope due to load reduction and implementation of permanent
drainage measures, and superior erosion prevention measures.
Project No., T-4893
Page No. 3
Mi. Ros� Woods
June 24, 2005
Because impacts to the LRA, EHA, and slope buffer cannot be completely avoided, revisions were made to the
building design.and associated yard.grading to minimize impacts to the LHA, EHA, and buffer, in accordance
with Section 23.40.120(2) of the EMC (Mitigation Sequencing.) The previous design considered constructing the
building with its lower floor constructed at Elev. 82.17. Associated yard gradmig maintained a grade of
approximately Elev. 82.0 from the edge of the building to the face o . f the slope. The revised proposal includes
raising lower level floor elevations in the central portion of the building and the western building expansion by 2
and 4 feet, respectively. This permitted final grades between the buildmig expansion and the slope to be raised by
.4 feet, and*results in a0structure that better conforms to,existing site grades. These design revisions significantly
reduce the required/
excavation'volumes, and minunize impacts to the LHA, EHA, and slope buffer on the,
adjacent slope. The total redu.ctio . n of excavation volumes -resulting from ' the redesign of the building is estimated
to be approximately 4,150 cubic yards (cy). This total volume includes 200 cy in the 40 percent slope area, 300
cy in the slope buffer, 650,cy in the building setback area, and 3,000 cy within, the building area.
Additional mitigation sequencing required by EMC Sections 23.40.120(4), (5), and.(7) are complied with by
implementing permanent site drainage"and BMPs for erosion prevention in the hazard area. Periodic monitoring
and annual maintenance of these measures will further reduce long-term hazard potential.
According to Section 23.90.060 of the EMC (Development Standards — General Requirements) alterations of
geologically hazardous areas or associated buffers may only occur for activities that:
Will not increase the threat of the geologic hazard to adjacent properties beyond predevelopment
conditions:
Provided the recommendations for mitigation of potential impacts � contained. herein and in the referenced
reports are applied, it is,'our opinion that the proposed alterations to the LHA, EHA, and buffer will not
increase the threat of the potential hazards. Proper application of BMPs. for erosion prevention and
sedimentation control, along, with the significant improvements in surface and subsurface drainage
ad m nate or significantly reduce'the potential for erosion in thedevelopment
j acent to the slope,. will eli � i
area. The alteration to the geologic hazard areas and buffer will remove a -moderate volume of soil from
the top of the, steep slope. This reductio n of load, and improvements in site drainage and. ero s*ion
prevention will result in'a net *increase in the stability of the slope.
2. Will not adversely impact other ditical.areas.
There are no other critical. areas near the steep slope.
1 Are designed so that the. hazard to the project is eliminated or mitigated to a level equal.to or less than
predevelopment conditions.'
The design of Building 5 has applied the use of appropriate setbacks, deepened. foundations, stepped.
excavations, and surface and subsurface drainage based on best available science. 'In our:.opmio . n, these
-design comiderations satisfactorily mitigate potential hazards associated with the steep slope.
4. Are certified as safe as designed,and under anticipated conditions by a qualifie.d"engineer or geologist,
licensed in the State of Washington.
Based on the results of our studies, and provided the recommendations � for hazard mitigation and
geotechnical design and constructio'n-presented in our referenced reports are,followed, it is our opinion
that the alterations to the geologic hazard areas land buffer associated with the proposed expansion of
Building 5 will not'result in significant adverse impacts to the LHA and EHA on the . adjacent slope.. It is
also our opinion. that the presence of the LHA and'EHA will not adversely affect the'stibility of the
building as planned.,
Project No. T-4.893
Page No.4
Mr. '.RovWoods
June 24, 2065
As discussed herein and in -the referenced repo . rts, it is our opinion that the requirements of Section 23.80.070 of
. the EMC (Development Standards — Specific Hazards) have been met through detailed analyses, building design
considerations, geotechnical recommendations for design and construction, and recommendations for mitigation
of potential . hazards associated with the planned proposal. '.Specifically, Section 2 . 3.80.07.0(A)(2) of the. EMC
(Al terations) states that alterations of an * erosion or landslide hazard area and/or - buffer may only occur for
activities for which a hazards analysis is submitted'and certifies that:
The developmeEnt will not increase surface water discharge or sedimentation to adjacent properties beyond
predevelop mient conditions.
In our opinion, the proposed project will ' not. increase uncontrolled surface water discharge or
sedimentation beyond predeveippmeni conditions., ' The, proposed grading west of the building
signifi, . cantly improves the ability to collect and route surface runoff into the storm drain systern.'. Proper
application of recommended mitigation for erosion prevention and sedimentation control will eliminate or
significantly reduce the potential for off -site sediment transport.
2. The development will not decrease slope stability on adjacent properties.
The results of our studies indicate that- the stability of the slope will be improved as a result of load
reduction due to grading, improved drainage, and proper application of recommended mitigation for
erosion prevention and sedimentation control.
3. Such alterations will not adversely impact other critical areas.
There are no other critical areas near the steep, slope.
SUMMARY
Based on our study, and provided the recommendations for mitigation presented in our referenced reports and
herein are followed, it is our opinion that the current development proposal wil.l.have no adverse impact to the
critical areas located on the slope, and will not, result in a net loss of critical area fun6tion*and value. Furthermore,
it is our opinion that the planned development, along,with the recommended mitigation, I will enhance the critical
area -function and value with modest improvements to the stability of the slope due to load reduction, and
-implementation of permanent drainage measuresi and superior eros . ion prevention measures.
In our -opinion, the development proposal and proposed mitigation, complie's with the telev ant requirements of
EMC Section 23.40.160 (Review Criteria) as discussed below.
Impacts to the LHA and EHA are minimized through mitigation sequencing consistent with the
requi I rements of EMC. Sectio- n 23.40.120, including minimi . zing impacts by -,project redesign; minimizing
or eliminating hazards through engineering or other methods (permanent drainage measures and BMPs
for permanent erosion prevention and sedimentation control);_ further reducing impacts or hazards with
annual maintenance and monitoring.
The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat.to,public health, safety, or welfare. -1he slope adjacent
the proposed building expm'sion is currently stable. The.planned development will not. increase the
hazard, but will improve the stability of I the slope through reduction of'soil load at the.top of thestope,
improved drainage, and implementation of permanent BN[Ps for erosion prevention and sedimentation
control.
Project No. T-4893
Page No. 5
Mr. Rns Woods
iune 24, 2005
• By limiting the alteration of the critical areas, and enhancing slope stability and erosion protection, the
devel I opmeni proposal allows reasonable u se of the - property and protects human health *and the
environment in conformance.with the general purposes of critical areas ordinance and public interest.
• Mitigation of potential, impacts to the critical areas are based. on best available science and will enhance
the existing function and value of the critical areas with modest improvements to the stability of the slope
due to soil loadreduction and, implementation of permanent drainage measures, and superior erosion
-prevention measures.
• The development pr . oposal protects and enhances the benefkial functions and values of the EHA and
LHA (erosion control and protection. from hazards.)
We trust the information presented is sufficient for your current needs. If you have, any questions or require
additional inf6rmation, please call.
�OVWO'15�as �h ash,,
.4 e-_<a0_
Sincerely yours,
TERRA ASSOCIATES, INC.
John C."Sadler, L.E.G., L.H.G.
ProjectManager
Encl. Figure 1 — Site Plan
Preliminary Geotechnical Report
Steep Slope Hazard Review
Geologically Ha zardous Areas Review
cc: Mr. Richard E. Gifford
li
I JOHN C. SADLER I
Project No. T74893.
Page No. 6
LL,
0 k.
it I Co
ca
0
j
c"i
cy 00
I I f
_J CV) C\1
CID _1
n:� #
N.
N.
f
;11 If
qjl
to to ro V�
�6 t6
cr.
V
IN N
V`
A
L) It , V
o" V%
A,
17
"4r,
Ij_d.j .1 h
A
it
uu I I
Ir
10
A.
"M
r
it
Q),
C)
L
LLJ
U)
LLJ
N.
1 f
IN
ji.
ri-r CD
4
Wr,
LO
A-9
IN IN,
N, IN , X. I, v. ,
T IN IN I IN
I N, I It I IN
I \\\ \ v
IN` I, IN
N.
LL_ if Y,
N, I
IN. IN I
N,
NN, I I, OQ c) I IN
I v I I - _j I
\ I I — A\
N, IN o\v v I N
\ IN I I IN I \'\' I I, .
111IX NN\ \ I I \\ I I I " 'IN NN IN \N
IN I I I I I I I IN
I I V\ IN N,
IN,
IN I
N, N\
I
A I \ I , , 1, , \ I
% I I,k N.
IN I N, X
v
A
IN
IN 1, IN
IN'\
IN IN \ N. It it it V
IN IN I 'IN IN IN
IN I IN
N,
I IN IN
N, IN
IN IN.
1. Nl\, IN X\\ IN IN
\A
N,
I
V V
)IN
IN
IN I �N\ \ N�
o N, IN \ I - III I
'v I Y x,
IN V I , v
\\\\� \ NW A
IN, IN I \X \,Vf .4 y
LLJ N. \ \�N\ INA/k,
QL Y , 1 A4F
1\ 4
IN VA x X j\ , q
Lj_j \ ca '14A AIA /V
IN v\\ (f) Q,
IN\
v I IN I\ I Z XVA X
v
IN X I
N\ Co IN i'A
LL_
C) L's,
, / ,, ,, J
Q- ,
N, I CL I P1
__j
t
tit I A
\""\"I I A N,
IN IN I
IN
A
IN,
IN
IN,
IN I LL_ I N.
I N�\\ \ \ �_
N\ "I NN, N.
NN. \ I \ \
N, NIN\
Q_ �\
N,\\ N�\\ N.
IN \N,
N,
Lai V I I IN.
I INI IN IN, I I I
� x I
I .\ \
\V\\\ I
VX I Lj_j I IN I I
I \
V\ I I IN. I\
I
I N, N. IN N.
ANN
C
A N.
N.
__A
N.
KIN,
IN, N. I
N,
\ IN. , I I \i\
N. I
N,
IN Lu.,\.x
c
N,
\\\
\N� IN
IN W. r1\
W,
tu
U_
z
LLI
I-
x
0
0
Ir
00
Z LL. (r
< 0 0
,a L
z -i Cc.
0 ZWW co
LLI
<
(.) z tu 4:6
0 a)
UJ
(n
0
_j 10 0
— z CL
co
w
WOW
<
I- _j =)
5 a.
C)
o z
R m 0
0 co p
TWOO
ILYCL Z
CL
a
co
ca W %
w
z W-Z z
<0 0
:5 C)
U,),.
..
LU
>
0
Ir
af Z' w
C.)
CL
ui oz o
E U;.ui z
Z
Lu
z
:5
to zir a
UJ Ul Z5,
w
UJ
a.
WLL.uj
Ir a
ui
z . . .
w
14
TERRA ASSOCIATES nc.
A A A
46 A
Consultants. in Geote c.hnical'Engineering, Geology
and
Environmental Earth Sciences
September 1, 2005
Project No. T-4893
Mr. Ross. Woods
Point Edwar&, LLC
2801 Maskan W Suite 107
V; RFEmiB
Seattle, Washingion 98121
SEP -6 2005
Subject Seismic Wall Pressure and Pile Nint-of�Fixity — Building.5
Poirit.Edwards Condominiums 31UILOING DEPARTMENT
Pine Street and Unoco Road.:. ciTY OF EEMMONDS
Edmonds, Washington
References: -I. Supplementary Subsurface Exploration, Point Edwards Condominiums,
Project No T4893, prepared by Terra Associates,.Inc.,,dated July 30, 2003
2. Prehmirwy. Geotechnical Report, UNOCAL Sfte, Project'No. T-4893,
prepared by Terra Associiates,! Inc.,, dated November 21, 2001
Dear -Mr. Woods:
As a Nlow7up to otir conversation with DO Engineers, we are provid�ng. a -horiz.onw'scismic earth pressure
value for use. in the subject project'swall design.. DCI Engineers also requires dpoint-of-fixitydeterminaii.on for
us . e in design of piles I&atedat the northern perimeter of Building adjacent tothe northern slope. The results of
our analyges follow:,
Seismic Earth Pressure: Our -analysis of a. design seismic earth pressure value was. -completed'using methods
-outlin6d'in "Design -of Earth Retaining . Structures For . Dynantic' Loads," by H. Bolton Seed and Robert- V.
Whitman (1970). Based on our.analysis, a unifohn horizontally -applied seismic -earth pressure -value of 17H psf
can be used in wall design, where H is the in feet The. seismic earth pressure value was calculated
based on a 2:1 (11brizontal:Veitical) 'fill back slope adjacent to the back of the wall. -and' a design horizontal
seismic acceleration value of 0. 1 69g (provided by DCI Engineers).
Pile, Point-of-Fix1ity: The structural plans indicate 18-inch diameter augercast piles planned for construction at
.the northern perimeter of Building 5 will have a minimum length Of 15 feet below the grade beam. Based on
observed soil conditions during -construction, and the results of our p . revious explorations, we anticipate piles will
extend primarily into the site's hard clay. For these soils and pile dimensions, and as a free -head condition
SUMM9
at the tpp of the pile, analysis yields a point -of -fixity (depth to zero pile shear) located at a depth of 5 feet below
the top of the pile.
8-TREETALE
12525 Willows Road, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034
"IL - - IAft"% n�4 -Y�-Y-r . r_ IA'Nrl OnI A-)-�A
Mr. Ross Woods
September 1, 2005
We trust the information presented is sufficient for your current needs. If you have any questions or require
additional information, please call.
Sincerely yours,
TERRA ASSOCIATES, INC.
'C:;;m "C a
0 . Sadler, L.E.
Project Manager
Kevin P. Roberts, P.E.
Senior Engineer
cc: Mr. Jeff Brink, P.E., DCI Engineers
Project No. T4893
Page No. 2
h
Mr. Ross Woods
Point Edwards, LLC
2801 Alaskan Way, Suite 107
Seattle, Washington 98121
TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc.
Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology
and
Environmental Earth Sciences
January 20, 2003
Project No. T-4893
JUL 2 RECEIVED
B'i 1 rl 9 i
Subject: Geologically Hazardous Areas Review
Point Edwards Condominiums (UNOCAL Site)
Pine Street and Unoco Road
Edmonds, Washington
T, 711'r;1
_'9�ILDING DEPT.
JUL 2 7 2005
'V. Cie
B Y.-
References: 1. Preliminary Geotechnical Report, UNOCAL Site, Project No. T-4893, prepared by
Terra Associates, Inc., dated November 21, 2001
2. Steep Slope Hazard Review, Point Edwards Condominiums (UNOCAL Site), Project No.
T-4893, prepared by Terra Associates, Inc., dated December 13, 2002
Dear Mr. Woods:
As requested, we have conducted a review of geologically hazardous areas for the Point Edwards Condominiums
site. The location of the site is shown on the attached Figure 1. Our scope of work included a visual site
reconnaissance, the drilling of five test borings to depths ranging from about 31.5 feet to 61.5 feet below the
existing ground surface, and review of the referenced reports. Our study specifically addresses erosion hazards,
landslide hazards, and seismic hazards. We previously addressed steep slope hazards at the site. Our current
study includes analysis of slope stability along five profiles on the steep slopes located downgradient from the
proposed development. The results of these analyses are used to address potential steep slope hazards and
landslide hazards.
SITE CONDITIONS
The site is located on the upper portion of a predominantly north -facing hillside. The Preliminary Grading Plan
indicates elevations in the planned development area range from about Elev. 170 in the south-central portion to
about Elev. 70 in the northeastern portion. The western and northern margins of the planned development area
are near the top of a steep natural slope. The topographic information provided to us indicates the slope is
approximately 70 to 90 feet high, with inclinations ranging between about 50 and 80 percent. The areas beyond
the toe of the slope to the north-northwest are relatively flat. Burlington Northern railroad tracks run along the toe
of the slope to the west. __ —IN I
W
12525 Willows Road, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034
Phone (425) 821-7777 9 Fax (425) 821-4334
Mr. Ross Woods
January 20, 2003
hi
We did not observe indications of deep-seated instability; however, portions of the slope have been subjected to
shallow erosion and localized sloughing. These conditions are generally limited to the forest duff and relatively
loose surficial. soils mantling the underlying competent soils, and are commonly associated with natural
weathering occurrences on steep slopes. All of the erosional features we observed on the steep slope appear to be
a result of surface water runoff and shallow interflow from areas above the slope crest.
We observed an area approximately 100 to 125 feet southwest of Boring B-1 where the top of the steep slope has
sloughed, exposing dense to very dense silty sand with gravel in a 7- to 8-foot high, near -vertical face, just below
the crest of the steep slope. Based on our observations, it appears that the sloughing at this location also occurred
as a result of concentrated surface water runoff and shallow interflow from areas above the slope crest. We
observed a very light trickle of water flowing into this feature from the relatively flat upland above the slope.
Slope vegetation consists predominantly of young to mature deciduous trees and brush.
GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
The Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and Part of the Edmonds West Quadrangles, Washington by James P.
Minard, 1983, shows the soils at higher site elevations mapped as Vashon till, Vashon advance outwash, and
Transitional beds. Soils at lower site elevations are mapped as medium- to coarse -grained sand of the Whidbey
Formation. Transitional bed sediments are described by this publication as massive to bedded clay, silt, and fine
to very fine sand.
Our recent test borings and the test pits performed as part of our referenced preliminary geotechnical study are
generally consistent with the descriptions of transitional bed deposits. The soils we observed on and immediately
above the steep slope areas generally consist of silty sand, sandy silts, and laminated to massive, very dense silt
and/or hard clay. Native soils observed in the five test borings drilled near the top. of the steep slopes generally
-grained silty sand to sand with silt, and very stiff clay/dense silt. The silt and
consist of dense to very dense fine
clay generally appeared massive, with occasional very thin partings of very fine sand.
The native soils are generally moist below a depth of about five feet. We observed wet soils to a depth of about
ten feet in Boring B-3. We did not observe indications of significant groundwater seepage on the slope; however,
we observed wet surficial soils in one isolated area near the top of the steep slope, west of the proposed
development. The wet conditions at this location appear to be from surface runoff from areas above the top of the
steep slope, and possibly from seasonal perched groundwater emerging near the top of the slope.
We also observed a very light flow of water along the axis of several of the erosional channels running down the
Am steep slope. The water we observed in the erosional features flows on top of dense to very dense native soils
exposed on the ground surface or beneath approximately 4 to 12 inches of duff and topsoil. The source of the
water in the erosional features appears to be surface runoff from areas above the crest of the steep slope.
Detailed descriptions of the subsurface conditions encountered in the test pits and test borings are presented on the
attached test pit logs and boring logs. The approximate locations of the test pits and borings are shown on the
attached Figure 2.
Project No. T-4893
Page No. 2
L;�
Kz;i
Mr. Ross Woods
January 20, 2003
GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS
Section 20.15B.060 (A)(3) of the City of Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) defines geologically
hazardous areas as those areas subject to potential erosion, landslide, and/or potential seismic instabilities,
including the following:
0" Erosion Hazard Areas
Section 20.15B.060 (A)(3)(a) of the ECDC defines erosion hazard areas (EHAs) as those areas containing soils
qw that may experience severe to very severe erosion hazard. These soils include, but are not limited to, the
following when they occur on slopes of 15 percent or greater:
1. Alderwood soils (15 to 25 percent slopes)
2. Alderwood-Everett Series (25 to 70 percent slopes)
3. Everett Series (15 to 25 percent slopes)
The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) has mapped the site soils as Alderwood-Urban land complex, 2 to 8 percent
slopes, and Kitsap silt loam, 8 to 25 percent slopes, in the upper southern portion of the site, and Alderwood-
Everett gravelly sandy loam, 25 to 70 percent slopes, in the area of the former tank farm and the steep slope below
the tank farm area. The soils we observed in the test pits generally conform with the SCS mapping; however,
some of the very dense silt and hard clay we observed in the former tank areas would better correlate with Kitsap
silt loam, 25 to 50 percent slopes, due to existing man-made slope gradients.
The erosion hazards for soils classified as Alderwood-Urban land complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes, and Kitsap silt
loam, 8 to 25 percent slopes, are classified as slight and moderate, respectively, and do not fall under the
classification of an erosion hazard area. Alderwood-Everett gravelly sandy loam, 25 to 70 percent slopes, is
classified as having a moderate to high erosion hazard. The erosion hazard for soils classified as Kitsap silt loam,
25 to 50 percent slopes, is considered high.
Based on the criteria presented above, the portions of the site that are sloped at inclinations greater than 15 percent
and are underlain by Alderwood-Everett gravelly sandy loam would be considered an EHA. Areas underlain by
Kitsap silt loam that are inclined at a gradient steeper than 25 percent would also be considered EHAs. Based on
observations, the vast majority of the site located downgradient from Pine Street would be considered an EHA.
EHAs, based on the SCS mapping, are shown on the attached Figure 3.
We did not observe indications of significant active erosion in the planned development area; however, the soils
will be susceptible to erosion when exposed during construction. In our opinion, Best Management Practices
(BMPs) used during construction will provide adequate mitigation of the erosion hazard at the site. If the erosion
control measures are properly implemented and maintained, along with temporary and permanent drainage
improvements, it is our opinion that the planned development will not adversely impact the erosion potential for
the site or adjacent properties. All erosion and sediment control BMPs should conform to City of Edmonds
requirements.
Project No. T-4893
Page No. 3
L;;
Mr. Ross Woods
January 20, 2003
I" —
Landslide Hazard Areas
Section 20.15B.060 (A)(3)(b) of the ECDC defines landslide hazard areas (LHAs) as those areas of the city of
Edmonds which, by reason of excessively steep slopes, unsatisfactory foundation support, stability, or
topography, have a risk of earth subsidence and landslide hazard in excess of normal allowances. The ECDC
specifies field criteria for identifying LHAs. We used these criteria, listed below, in our evaluation of LHAs at
the subject site.
1. Any area with slopes of 15 percent or greater, and impermeable soils (typically silt and clay) frequently
interbedded with granular soils (predominantly sand and gravel) and springs or groundwater seepage.
2. Any area that includes areas with significant visible evidence of groundwater seepage, and which also
includes existing landslide deposits, regardless of slopes.
3. Any area that has shown movement during the Holocene epoch (from 10,000 years ago to present) or is
underlain by mass wastage debris of that epoch, as determined by a qualified geologist or geotechnical.
engineer.
4. Any area potentially unstable as a result of rapid stream incision or stream bank erosion.
40 5. Any area located on an alluvial fan presently subject to, or potentially subject to, inundation by debris
flow or deposition of stream -transported sediments.
During our site visit, we did not observe on -site indications of deep-seated instability, springs, or significant
groundwater seepage on the steep slopes. As discussed, we observed relatively shallow erosional features and
localized shallow sloughing at isolated locations on the steep slope located below the proposed development.
Because shallow ground movements are associated with these erosional features, and considering that near -
surface interflow likely contributed to the soil loss, these areas would be considered LHAs pursuant to Items 1
and 3. All of the LHAs we identified at the site exist on the steep slope hazard area (SSHA) (slope inclinations
greater than 40 percent) located west of Buildings 5, 6, and 7.
Stability Analysis
We performed our stability analyses using the computer program WINSTABL. The soil parameters used are
shown on the attached analysis plots and output text. These parameters are based on field and laboratory data,
and our past experience with similar soils. Analyses of the slope were performed along five section lines
identified on the attached Figure 2 as Section A -A' through Section E-E'. Our analyses of these sections
considered both static and pseudostatic (seismic) conditions for the existing slopes, and for proposed grading with
associated building loads at grade. This analysis is conservative, considering the buildings located near the top of
the steep slope will be partially or completely supported by deep foundations. A horizontal acceleration of 0.20g
was used in the pseudostatic analysis to simulate slope performance under earthquake loading.
Project No. T-4893
Page No. 4
W
Mr. Ross Woods
January 20, 2003
The lowest safety factors for each condition are presented in the following table:
Section Analyzed
Minimum Safety FEtors
Static
Pseudostatic
Section A -A' existing
1.72
1.18
Section A -A' proposed
1.79
1.21
Section B-13' existing
2.09
1.42
Section B-B' proposed
1.56
1.16
Section C-C' existing
2.32
1.53
Section C-C' proposed
1.67
1.26
Section D-D' existing
1.88
1.24
Section D-D' proposed
2.03
1.33
Section E-E' existing
1.72
1.15
Section E-E' proposed
1.60
1.26
The results of the stability analyses indicate that existing and proposed slopes are stable with respect to deep-
seated failure under static conditions. The existing and proposed slopes are indicated to be stable to marginally
stable under severe seismic loading conditions.
Potential impacts to the LHAs due to construction of the buildings and proposed yard grading include increasing
the potential for erosion on and/or adjacent to the slope by exposing soils during grading and allowing surface
runoff to flow onto the steep slope, and impacts to slope stability from building surcharges.
In our opinion, potential erosion and sedimentation impacts to the LHAs due to the planned building locations and
yard grading will be eliminated or significantly reduced by applying BMPs for erosion prevention sedimentation
contairurient.
As discussed above, analysis indicates the existing and proposed slope conditions are stable with regard to deep-
seated failure. In our opinion, supporting building loads with a deep foundation system will further reduce
potential impacts to the stability of the steep slopes due to building surcharges, and mitigate the landslide hazard.
A deep foundation system will also eliminate the potential of adverse impacts to the stability of the buildings in
the event of shallow soil loss adjacent to the buildings. Additionally, drainage systems associated with the
finished buildings will improve the current stability of the steep slope.
Seismic Hazard Areas
Section 20.15B.060 (A)(3)(d) of the ECDC defines seismic hazard areas as those areas subject to severe risk of
earthquake damage as a result of seismically induced landslides, earth adjustments, settlement, or soil
liquefaction.
Based on the soil and groundwater conditions we observed in our on -site explorations, and the results of our
7" stability analysis, it is our opinion that the risk for severe damage resulting from seismically induced landslides,
earth adjustments, and settlement is low. It is also our opinion that the risk for liquefaction to occur in potential
building areas at this site is negligible. Therefore, in our opinion, seismic hazard areas do not exist on the subject
site.
Project No. T-4893
"0 Page No. 5
Mr. Ross Woods
January 20, 2003
DISCUSSION
Section 20.15B.110 (B) of the ECDC (Development Standards — Erosion Hazard Areas) states that alterations
within identified EHAs will not be authorized without an approved erosion control plan pursuant to Chapter 18.30
ECDC. A licensed engineer will prepare a site -specific erosion control plan conforming to the requirements of
Chapter 18.30 ECDC.
Section 20.15B.110 (C) of the ECDC (Development Standards — Landslide Hazard Areas) states that LHAs
located on slopes greater than 40 percent shall be regulated pursuant to Section 20.15B.110 (D) of the ECDC
(Development Standards — Steep Slope Hazard Areas). As discussed, the LHAs we identified at the site exist on
the SSHA (slope inclinations greater than 40 percent) located west of Buildings 5, 6, and 7. We previously
addressed SSHAs in the referenced report. In the SSHA report, we opined that existing site conditions and
applicable project components generally meet the provisions for a SSHA exemption detailed in Section
20.15B. 1 10(D)(2)(a — g). Specifically, this exemption would apply to encroachment into SSHAs by proposed
Buildings 5 and 6, yard grading associated with Buildings 2 and 6, and encroachment into the buffer within about
5 feet of the SSHA by Building 7 and its associated yard grading. We also opined that a reduction in the buffer
from 50 feet to 10 feet will have no significant impact on the SSHA or adjacent slopes.
In our opinion, the subsurface information and analytical results presented herein support the findings presented
in our SSHA report, and the request for a SSHA exemption and buffer reduction.
We trust the information presented is sufficient for your current needs. If you have any questions or require
additional information, please call.
Sincerely yours,
TERRA ASSOCIATES,
I IJ010.)
"11��inity Map
P?L4Vq'-- Exploration Location Plan
ift—gV4_� ErosiaonlMazard Area/Soils Map
ig 4 — Unifie Soils Classification System
Figures 5 through 9 — Boring Logs
Figures 10 through IS — Test Pit Logs
WINSTABL Output Data
cc: Mr. Greg Krabbe, Triad Associates
Mr. Richard E. Gifford
Mr. S. Jin Lee, Weber+Thompson
Project No. T-4893
Page No. 6
61
41P
61
Lj
6;
0
I
HUTT pl-IM4111. I 'C. 19�"
PK WTI n Sw 187TH ST SIM I
PLSH IT 1W
t6ITI
ST sw—
I 89T)f S Yd ;11 Fk
AKE.
w T PL ST Sw 19M ST Sw;:
CHEPR ST 0-1
96M
C� 13
00roF4
Ad —Ilk ST SW
PLTV PU D
MELODY LN WY
J4 HI LEY Eiit" - WY
2
- 9M
BF100KNERE W L
EOMONO'S
UNDERWER wE S S
PARK It
BRACKETTS
404K VISTA 8(po
LN
WY
T,
at wy
1 ERRA MISY I
51 SW6 SM
LANDING
0
-
8
GLEN
XY 24
Z:
PRAWE
ELL ail ST-
2Q6TH
Sw
tA N ST
PL
PL
TEH PL
I
-ra S
MRIA14
P3
14APLE
sw
UNION
IZ14001
w
A
5
m4w
OIL
CEDAF
ARK
212TH
ST si
;U'
SITE
MAW
I
MCE
t
Z14TH PL
MLOCK
I
re ST
-I LAWL
TWIL IN 21 2n]
PH L
'15TH ST
Sw
I
IN-
ST.
I
;4"' 21ST-H
EDWARD5 MR1194 216
PT BEACH POLVE YL MAKAH
34 21M %.SW
F1 F R ST 21M. Sw
K 26
IM 30-
--LIA C-- 04
2 -4'T
Af
T UIST PL
DOGhWo PL
If
REFERENCE: Thomas Guide, King/Pierce/Snohomish Counties, 1999, Page 454 NOT TO SCALE
Terra
VICINITY MAP
POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS
Associates, Inc.
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Consultants In Geotechnical Engineering
Geology and
Environmental Earth Sciences
Proj. No. T-4893
I Date JAN 2003
Figure 1
- ----------
. .............
N,
STEEP SLOPE ...........
ri A z_-
AM A
D ANE
N...........
D
-SLOPE
TP
STEEP
B 4 HAZAkD AREA.,
TP.-'- 12`
. ....... .... ... _:/�000500* -
------_------------- ------
..........
.......... .
5
... ..... ---
..... ..... ... .........
'21
le LDG 2
Br3
B .5
- --- - --------- __ Z�_,
P-1 4 �',`:E,
. . . . ...........
.6
T
-5
p :, . _. -
'�-%013 R
/BLDG 6
.2
TR
BLDG:,
T
�71 3�
6� ------------------ .--- ?" . TP'l 6
BLD 4
........ . 7777RZ��
TP 4
TIM
--------- Ali I
LUG l'OV'' mam
S,
BLI
-----------
17
TP
TPA
I W
TP
J
_z_ Tz
150 300
pm
NOTE:
THIS SITE PLAN IS SCHEMATIC.* ALL LOCATIONS -AND L tdEN'D: AP . PROXIMATE SCAL . E IN FEET
P4 APPR,0XIMATE LOCATION OF TEST PIT
DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. It IS INTENDED FOR EXPLORATION -LOCATION PLAN
REFERENCE ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR'.
DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. 'n =7 �7 TO rra'
-OF BORING POINT ED RDS CONDOMINIUMS
Bml! A0PROXIMATE10CATION WA.
'Ats6eiates Iric. EDIVIONDS,� WASHINGTON
REFERENCE: StEEP "SLOPE HAZARD AREA Contultants In Peotechnical Ingineering
Figui6
Proj. No. T-4893 I!Xite JAN'2003 2
SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY TRIAD ASSOCIATES Geolog and
Earth Sciences
Environrhentaly
N OTE:
THIS SITE PLAN IS SCHEMATIC. ALL LOCATIONS AND
DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. IT IS INTENDED FOR
REFERENCE ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR'
DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES.
REFERENCE:
.SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY TRIAD ASSOCIATES
............ ------------------
............. .............
LEGEND:
1) Alderwood-Evereft gravelly sandy loams, 25 to 70% slopes
2) Aide rwood-Urba nland complex, 2 to.8% slopes
3) Kitsap Silt loam, 8 to 25% slopes
= Erosion Hazard Area
............... .. ...........
STEEP SLOPE
HAZARD AREA
0 150
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET,
EROSION HAZARD AREA/SOILS MAP
Terra POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS
Associates Inc EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Constiltants In Geotechnical Ingineekn;
Geology and - Proj. No. T-4893 Date JAN 2003 -.Figure 3
Environmental Earth Sciences
MAJOR -DIVISIONS
LETTER
SYMBOL
TYPICAL DESCRIPTION
Clean
GW
Well -graded gravels, gravel-s6n d mixtures, little. or no
GRAVELS
Gravels
fines. I
Poorly -graded gravels, gravel-sandL mixtures, little or
(n a)
_j 0)
(less than
- W
N
More than
5%'fines)
no. fines.
GW
Silty gravels, -gravel-sand-silt mixtures, non -plastic
—'FD
ca
50% of coarse,
a)
>
fraction is
larger than NO.
Gravels
fines.
GC
a y gravels, grave I -sand-clay mixturesi plastic fines.
Cl'ye'
LLJ � (D
Z1 E
sieve
: with fines
<
0 C\j
Clean
SW
Well. -graded sands,, gravelly sands, litt.le-or no fines.'
LO -
..0
SANDS'.
Sand S
Sp
Poorly -graded. sands or- gravelly sands, little or no
W Cz
U) Cc;
(less than
C
More than
5% fines)'
fines.
(D
50% of coarse
0 %_
0
fraction is
SM�
Silty sands, sand -silt- mixtures, non -plastic fines.
0-
_SM aller than
Sands
SC'
Clayey. sands, sand -clay mixtures, plastic fines.
No. 4 sieve
with fines
ML
Inorganic silts, rock flour, clayey silts with.,slight.
SILTS AND CLAYS
plasticity.
CL
inorganic clays -of low to, medium plasticity, (lean clay).
a) 0
0 — C\I,
ca
U) E 0
Liquid limit is'less than 50%
0 o Z.N
LLI 0- CO
OL
Organic silts and organic clays of low plasticity.
C:) C:
z 10
cz (D -
C (D
MH
inorganic silts, elastic.
ca
-C a)
0 �
SILTS AND CLAYS
=`
. Q) Cz
W " E
CH'
Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays.
Z 0 cn
Liquid limit is greater than 50%
OH
organic clays'of high - plasticity.
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
-PT
-Peat.
DEFINITION OF*TERMS AND SYMBOLS
U)
U)
uj
Standard Penetration
DensitV Resistance in Blows/Foot
2"'OUT . SIDE DIAMETER SPLIT
SPOON SAMPLER
_j
z
0
Very loose 0.4
2;4" INSIDE DIAMETER RING SAMPLER
Loose 4-10
OR SHELBY TUBE'SAMPLER
Medium dense 10-30
Dense 30-50
WATER LEVEL (DATE)
0
Very dense >50
Tr TORV . ANE READINGS, tsf
Pp PENETROMETER READING, tsf
Standard Penetration
'Consistenc Resistance in Blows/Foot
DD DRY DENSITY, pounds per cubic foot
W
>
UX
Very soft 0-2
LL LIQUID LIMIT, percent
W
Soft 2-4
0
Med . ium stiff 4-8
PI PLASTIC INDEX
0,
stiff 8-16
Very stiff 16-32
N STANDARD PENETRATION, blows per foot
Hard .>32
.,UNIFIED -SOIL CLASSIFICATION* SYSTEM
E§OTerra,
Associat6s,Jnc.
POINT EDWARDS CON DOM.1 N I UMS
,
I EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering
Proj.'No. T-4893
Date JAN 2003
Figure .4'
Geology and
Environmental Earth Sciences
Boring No. B-1
Logged.by: -JCS
Date: 12/13/02 Approximate Elev, 110
Soil Description
consistency/
Relative
Depth
CLI
E
Blowsf
Moisture
Content
De sity
Grayiih-brown silty SAND', fine grained, with occasional
fine gravel. (SM)
Medium'
Dense 1
7
-.29
2.
Occasional rusty brown stained partings.
------------------------------- 7 ----------------------- ------- --------------------------------
Dense
1 0
T-
.43
1 4
Light brown SILT,with sand, fine grained,, moist, slightly
mottled. (ML)
---------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dense
'42,
21
Mottled light brown silty SAND to sandy. $IL fine
grained, moist to wet. (SM/MQ
Dense
20,
38
23
Light gray silty SAND to sandy SILT, fine grained, moist,
with occasional fine qraveljqM�M�) ......
---------------------------- --------------------------------------------
Very
Dense-
6 0
18
Grayish-brown SAND with silt, fine to medium grained,'
moist, with occasional fine gravel.. (SP'_SM)
very
Dense
30
T
'8'
2.
8
Grayish -brown SAND with silt to sifty,SAND, fine grained,
moist. (SO-SWSM)
Very
Dense
58
15
(G rayish-brown hard, moist SILT between 35.5 and 36.0
feet)
Light gray silty SAND. to SAND with silt, fine grained,
Very
—40 1
75
-10
moist. (SM/SP-SM)
Dense
Trace. of gravel.
Very
Dense
.80
8
Very
Pense
50
58
6
------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------
Brownish-gray SAND with silt to silty,SAND, fine grained
moist. (SP-SM/SM) With a trace of fine black.organic
inclusions.
-------
Very
Dense
:-E
82
10
No fine organic inclusions.
Very Dense
86
8
Boring terminated at 60 feet.
No significant groundwater encountered.
Te r ra'
BORING LOG
- FE�.. As'sociates-, Inc.,
POI.NT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS
EDMON DS, WAS HINGTON
Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering
Geology and
Environmental Earth.Sclences
Prbj. No. -T-4893
Date:JAN 2003
Fl 5
Boring No. B-2
Logged by: JCS
Date: 12/13/02. Approximate Elev. 90
Soil Description,
Consistency/,
Relative
Depth
cL
E
(N)
'Blows/
Moisture
Content
Density
(ft.)
U)
ft.
N
FILL: gray sandy silt, fine grained, moist, with occasional
fine gravel.
Loose
5
8
24
FILL: brown organic silty sand to sandy silt and bluish-
gray silty sand, fine grained, moist to wet.
Loose,
._10
4
12
With organics.
Loose
15
6
'10
Very
Loose
720
3
27
Bluish -gray to light brown SAND with silt to silty SAND,
fine grained, moist. (SP-SM/SP)
---------------------------------- ------- ---------------------------------------
Medium
Dense
----------
—25
- -
20
13
Mottled gray sandy SILT, fine'grained, moist. (ML)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medium
Dense,
—30
-
23
20
Gray SAND to SAND with silt, fine grained, moist.
(SP/SP-SM)
Medium
Dense
_35
-
27
-10
Dense
40
:E
36
Boring terminated at 41.5 feet..
No significant grou'ridwa ter encountered.
erra
Associates 91 n c.
BORING LOG
POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS'
EDMONDS,' WASHINGTON
Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering
Geology and
Environm6nW Earth Scie _ nces
Proj. No. T-48,93 j
Date, JAN 2003
Figure 6
Boring
No. .13-3
Logged by: DPL
,Date: 12/16/02
Approximate. Elev. 76
Soil Description
Consistency/
Relative
Depth,
E
(N)
Blows/
Moisture
Content
Density
(ft
(0/0)
Possible FILL: gray sand to silty sand, fine grained, wet,
with occasional fine gravel.
Possible FILL:. grayish -brown silty sand, fine grained, wet,
---- slight -mottling. ---------------------------------- I ---
Medium
------- ----------
5
11
.19
Pray silty SAND, fine grained, moist. (SM)
Dens e
10
'. 3.1
22
.Gray silty SAND.to sandy SILT, fine grained, moist.
Dense
—15
36
.20
(SM/ML)
----------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
Grayish-brown SAND with silt, fine grained, dry to moist.
(SP-SM),
Very
Dense
20
68
4.
Ve ry
Dense
.1-25
-
53
5
Grayish -brown SAND, fine grained, dry to moist. I (SP)
very
Dense,
—.30
51
5
Boring terminated at 31.5 feet.
Minor groundwater perched at 7 feet.
Terra
BORING LOG'
-Associates', Inc.
POINT EDWARDS.CONDO.MlNiUM'S
EDMONS, WASHINGTON
Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering
Geology and
Environmental Eartt� Sciences
Proj.- No. T-4893
FDate JAN 2003,
Figurd 7
Boring No. B-4
Logged by:, DPL
,Date: 12/16/02 Approximate Elev. 90
$oil Description
Consistency/
Relative
Depth
E
(N),
Blows/
Moisture
Content
Density
(ft.)
Cz
FILL (Old test pit): -bluish -gray silty sand, fine grained,
wet, with a trace of wood particles. Appears disturbed.
Loose
7
27
FILL (old test pit): mottled brown silty sand, fine grained, moist.
..Mediurn
Dense
10.
17
21
31
FILL (Old test pit): brown silt and clay, moist, with a trace.
of brown orqanic material.
----------------- ------------------------------- 7 -----------------------------------------------
Very
stiff
Bluish-gray SILT to CLAY, low td medium plasticity.
Very
17
28
.(MUCL)
stiff
Gray SILT to CLAY, Moist, low to medium plasticity.
(MUCL)
------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
very,
stiff
20
.30
23
LL = 35.5
PI = 1.1.5
Grayis ' h-brown sandy SILT to clayey SILT, fine grained,
moist. (ML) With thin partings of iron -stained, fine- grained
Very
stiff
35
23.
sand.
Grayish -brown clayey SILT to silty CLAY, moist. (MUCL)
With thin discontinuous lenses of gray to mottled gray
_jinnrained sand. ------------------------------------------------
Very
stiff
I I .
-----------------------
-30
- . .
3 0
24
. . . .
Gray silty SAND, fine grained, moist. (SM)
Dense
37
15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gray sandy SILT to clayey SILT, fine grained, moist, low
plasticity.. (MLto.MUCL)
--------
Hard
—40
3.4
11 7
Gray clayey SILT, moist, low plasticity. (MUCL)
--------------------------- ------------- ------
Hard
I -------------------
37
20
Gray sandy SILT to silty SAND, fine grained, moist,,
(MUSM)
Dense
50.
312
19
4�
18
—60
42
15
Boring terminated at 61'.5 feet.
No significant groundwater encountered.
Terta
BORING LOG.
Associates, -Inc.
POINT EDWARDS- CONDOMINIUMS
EDMONDS,, WASH I NGTON
consult6nts in Geo'technical Engineering
Geology �nd
Environmental Ea6 Sciences
Proj. No.
Date JAN 2003
Figur
Boring No. B*5
togged,by: DPL.
Date: 12/16/02 Approxirhate Elev. 105
Soil Description
Consistency/.
Relative
Density
Depth
E't
M
U)
(N)
Blow's/
Moisture
Content
Brown to-g�ayish-brown silty SAND, fine grainedi wet,-
with faint.mottling. (SM)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medium
Dense
----------------------
1
19
Gr ay'S.ILT, medium to high plasticity, moist. (MH)
-------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------
stiff
---------
_1 0�
13
35
7
Gray CLAY'and SIJ, low plasticity, moist. (CUML)
7 7-
very
stiff
25
26
40
------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------
-Gray silty SAND, fine grained, moist.to wet. (SM)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
Dense
I ------------- --------
—20
-
31
26,
Gray CLAY, low plasticity, moist.. (CL)
Very
22
27
stiff
42
Gray CLAY, low plasticity, moist. (CL)'
very
—30
.22,
25
2 --------------------------------------------- I ----------------------------
stiff
--------------------------
Gray sandy SILT to silty SAND, fine grained, moist.,
Dense
46
25
(Musmy
-------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------
Dense
—40
43
115-
Gray sandy SILT to, clayey SILT, non -plastic, moist.
(MLtoMUCL),
-------- 77 ------------- --------------------- -----------------------------------------------------
Dense
31
20
Gray sandy SILT to silty SAND, fine grained, dry to moist
Dense
—50
46
18
Moist to wet.
-------- ---------------------------------------------------------------
Medium
Dense
------------------------
-
28
20
Brown silty SAND, finegrained,.moist. (SM)
Very
Dense
60
64
13'
Boring ter miinated at 60.5 f * eet.
No significant groundwater encountered.
Terra
Associait6s,- Inc.,
BORING LOG
POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Consultants in Ge6technical Engineering
Geology and
Environmental Earth Sciences'
Proj. No. T-4893.
Date JAN.2003
Figu
Test Pit No'.'. TP-1-
Logged by: JCS Approximate Elev. 104
Date: 10/ 18/01
Moisture
Depth Content
Soil Description
(ft.) N
0— FILL: crushed rock surfacing over brown to gray silty sand to sandy silt, fine grained,
firm, moist. ( WIVIL)
Rusty brown silty SAND fine grained, medium dense, moist, with occasional fine
gravel and fine roots. (�M)
Gray to mottled gray silty SAND, fine grained, medium dense to dense,
moist, with occasional fine gravel. (SM)
5— Becornes lig ht b rown at approximately 6 feet.
26
10— Gray CLAY, hard, moist, massive. (CL) PP 4.5+
tonstfe
LL= 35.8
PI 15
15,1 Test pit terminated at 14 feet.
No groundwat,erseepagp..
20
Test -Pit No. TP'2*
Logged by: JCS Approximate Elev. 124
Date: 10/18/01
Moistuee
Depth Conte nt-
Soil Description N
0— FILL: crushed rock surfacin ove r brown silty sand to sandy silt, fine grained, firm,
moist. 4-inch thick organic Payer at base. (SM/ML) � (Old topsoil horizon)
- Brown silty SAND, fine grained, medium dense, moist. (SM)
- Mottled' rayish-brown silty SAND, fine grained, medium dense, moist. '2 6,
9
(SM)
5-
- Grayish -brown silty SAND, fine grained,. r-hedium dense to dense, moist.
- (SM)
10— Gray CLAY,'hard, moist, laminated with light gray silt partings. (CL) Pp 4.5�
tons/ft'
37
15- test pit terminated at 14 feet.
- No groundwater seepage.
20
� I
TEST PIT LOGS
Terra POINT EDWARDS. CONDOMINIUMS
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Associates, Inc
Geotechnical Consultants
Proj. No. T-4893 I' Date JAN 2003] Figure i n
Test Pit No. TP-3
Logged by: JCS ApproximateElev.1 21
Date: 10/18/01
De'th' Moisture
p Content
(ft.) Soil.Description N
0—
FILL: brown silty sand, fine grained, firm, moist, with occasional fine
gravel and organic material. (SM) (Hydrocarbon odor)
ilty SA
Dark brown an ND, fine grained, soft, moist to wet. (OL)
org izo 'c)s
(Old topsoil hor n
�15
5— Tan to light gray silty CLAY to clayey SILT, hard, moist. (CUML)
(Hydrocarbon odor)
10—
. Gray CLAY, hard, moist, laminated -with partings of light gray silt and gray
- fine sand. (CL) Pp,= 4.5+
32 tonsife
- Test pit terminated at 13 feet.
15— Light, groundwater seepage from Ooin.t source at 4.5 feet.
20
Test Pit No. TP-4
Logged by: JCS, Approximate Elev. 92.
Date:. 10/18/01
Depth Moisture
Content
Soil Description N
0— FILL: light brown silty sand e gra irm, dry to moist. (SIVI) 2-inch thick
olafin
organic layer at base. topsoil =n)
Light brown to t - an silty SAND, fine grained,, medium dense to dense, dry.
(SM)
5 Mottled grayish -brown silty SAND,'fine g rained, medium dense'to dense, 29
moist. (SM)
LL = 42.7
Light grayish -brown to light brown * CLAY and SIJ, hard, moist, lami.nated' 29 PI = 19.7
with partings of dark.gray fine sand. (CUML), Pp = 4.5+
tonsife
10—
Gray CLAY, hard,, moist. (CL) Pp = 4.5+
29 tons/fe
- Test pit terminated at 13 feet.
15— Tracegroundwat6r.seepage at 6 feet.
,20
TEST PIT LOGS
Terra POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS
EDMONDS; WASHINGTON
Associates, Inc.
Geotechnical Consultants
Proj. No. T-14893- I Date JAN 2003 Figure 11
Test Pit No. TP-Z,
Logged by: JCS Approximate Elev. 110
Date:10/18/01
Depth Moisture
(�ontent
Soil Description
0— 6 inches.DUFF and TOPSOIL
Lighi brown SAND with silt to silty SAND, fine grained, medium dense,
moist. (SP-SM/SM)
23
5—
Mottled grayish-browri SAND to'SAND with silt', fin'e,grained, medium
dense to dense, moist. (SP/SP-SM)
Becomes wet.at approximately 9 feet.,
26
10
34
LL = 44.5
-
G�ayish-brown to gray CLAY, hard,moist, generally massive, With.'
PI = 21.3
-
occasional thin laminationslof gray silt. (CL.)
Pp =A 5+
tonis��
15
Test pit terminated at 16 feet.
Light groundwater seepage between 9 and. 10. feet.
20—
Test, Pit, No.'-TP-6
Logged by: JCS Approximate Elev., 150
Date: 10/18/01
Moisture
Depth
Content
Soil Description N
0—
FILL: brown to grayish -brown SILT, CLAY, and fine grained SAND, firm'
moist to wet, with some fine gravel and occasional organic.material.
32
5—
. FILL: gray to brownish gray silt, clay, and fine grained sand, firm, moist to
- wet, with moderate organic material (including wood. debris) and some
gravel. 12-inch thick organic layer at base. (Old topsoil horizon)
10—
Gray silty SAND to sandy SILT, fine grained, dense,. moist,
with occasional fine to coarse gravel. (SM/ML) (Glacial till -like),
- Test pit terminated at 16 feet.
- No groundwater seepage.
20
TEST -PIT LOGS
Terra, POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS
EDMONDS, wAsHINGTON
Associates, Inc-..
Geotechnical Consultants
Proj. No. T-48937 Date JAN'2003+ Figure 12
jest Pit No.-70-7
Logged by: JCS Approximate Elev. 121
Date:1 0/18/01
Moisture
Depth
Content
(ft.) Soil Description
N
FILL: dark brown organic silty sand, fine grained,' firm, moist.
Mottled gray to brown SAND with silt to silty SAND, fine grained, medium
dense to dense, moist. (SP-SWSM) (Hydrocarbon odor),'
20
Tan to light grayisMrown, silty CLAY to CLAYha�d, moist, occasional
24.
mottling. '(CL)
Pp - 4.5+
tons/fe
31
Test pit terminated at 15 feet.
No groundwater seepage.
Test Plt No, TP-8*
Logged by' JCS A'proximate Elev. 121
p
Date: 10/18/01'
Moisture
Depth
Content
Soil,Description . %)
0.-
FILL: light brown to gray silty sand, firm, moist tolwet,'with organics.
FILL: dark brown organic silty sand, loose, wet, with significant wood
debris (timbers and branches). 2.5-foot diameter boulder.
Gray. SILT to SILT with sand, fine grained, dense, moist to wet. (ML)
.25
Light grayi�h-brown to tan sandy SILT, fine grained, very dense, moist,
��ith occasional.firie gravel. (ML) (Glacial till -like)
16
'Test pit terminated at 15 feet.
Light groUndwater seepage at 6 feet.
20
7 TEST'PIT LOGS
POINT.EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Associates, lnc.�
Geotechnical Consultants 3. Date JAN 2003'
Proj. No.7-489 Figure 13
Logged by -JCS
Date: 10/18/01
Depth
(ft.)
.0
5
10
15
20
Test Pit No. TP-9
Approximale Elev. 150
Moisture
Content
Soil Description (%)
-
FILL: crushed rock surfacing over I grayish -brown sandy silt and clay, firm,
-
moist. 6-inch thick organic layer at base. (Old topsoil horizon)
Mottled grayish -brown sandy SILT to sandy CLAY, stiff, moist: (MUCL)
Pp 4.5+
30
tonsfie
37-
Grayish-brown CLAY, hard, moist, massive. (CH)
LL = 58.8
P1 = 30.1
Gray SILT and CLAY, hard, moist, with occasional laminations of gray.
Pp = 4.5+
fine sand. (MUCL)
1 22
1 tons/fe
Test.pit terminated at 15 feet.
No groundwater seepage.
Logged by: JCS
,Date: 10/18/01
Depth
0-
5
1C
Test Pit No. TP-10
Approximate Elev. 157*
Moisture
Content
Soil Description (%)
6 inches DUFF and TOPSOIL.
Brown sandy SILT, fine grained, medium dense, moist. (ML)
40
Grayish -brown SILT and CLAY, hard,, moist. (MUCL)
Pp 4.5+
tonsife
34
Gray SILT and CLAY, hard, moist. (MUCL)
Test pit terminated at 15 fleet.
No groundwater seepage.
20—
TEST PIT LOGS.
Ter' ra -,POINT, EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS
Associates, Inc. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Geotechnical Consultants
Proj. No. T-4893 Date JAN 2003 1 Figure 14
7
Test Pit No. TP-1 1
Logged by: JCS Approximate Elev. 78
Date, 10/18/01
'Moisture,
Depth' Soil Description Content
0— N
5
10
15
20
7
Mottled grayish -brown SAND to SAND with silt, fine gr ained, medium,
dense, moist to wet. (SP/SP-SM).
25
15
-
Light brown silty SAND to sandy SILT, fine grained, medium dense to
-
dense, moist. (SM/ML) Increasing silt with ddpth.-
22
Test pit terminated at 15 feet.
No groundwater seepage.
Logged by: JCS
Date: 10/ 18/01
Depth
(ft.)
U
5
10
2C
Test, Pit -No. TP-1 2
Approximate Eley. 76
Moisture
.Soil Description Cdnfent
6 inches crushed rock surfacing.
Mottled gra ish-brown SAND, fine to medium'grained, medium dense, moist, with
�
na,
occaqin ne gravel. (SP) (Hydrocarbon odor)
Gray SAND with silt to SAND'fine grained, medium dense to dense,
17
moist to wet., with occasional fine to coarse gravel. (,SP-SWSP)
15
Mottled grayish -brown silty SAND with gravel to sandy'SILT with gravel,
fine sand, fine gravel, dense to verydense, moist. (SM/ML)
(Glacial till -like. between 8 and 10 feet) Increasing gravel with depth..'
20
Test pit terminated at 15 feet.'
Trace groundwater seepage at 8 feet'.
TEST PIT LOGS',
Terra POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS
EDMONDS, WASH I NGTON
Associates, inc.,
Geotechnical Consultants
Proj.No.T-4893 I DateJAN2QO3 Figure,15,
Test Pit No. TP-13
Logged by.* JCS Approximate Elev. 86
Date: 10/18/01
Moisture
Depth So . il Descri ption Content
N
07 12 inches crushed rock surfacing..
Mottled grgoish-brown silty SAND to sandy SILT, very dense, moist. (SM/ML) 25.
(Hyd ocar n odor)
31
5—
Bluish-dray CLAY, hard, moist,'with partings of gray fine sand and light
gray silt. (CL) Pp'= 4.5+
tonsife
10-
15— Test pit terminated at 14 feet.
Trace groundwater seepage at 2.5 feet..
20
TPI
Test Pit N o.: -14
Logged by: JCS Approximate Elev. 76
Date: 10/18/01
Moisture
Depth Content
(ft.) Soil Description
N
15
FILL: bluish -gray silty sand with gravel to sandy silt with gravel, fine sand,
line gravel, rhediurn dense to dense, moist. (SM/ML)
10
Light brown sandy SILT, fine grained, dense, moist,'with occasional
fine gravel and thin layers of fine grained silty sand., (ML)
19
15
Test pit terminated at 15 feet.
No groundwater seepage.
20
TEST PIT LOGS
Terra POINT EDWARDS- CONDOMINIUMS
EDMONDS' WASHINGTON
Associates,
Geotechnical Consultants
Proj.. No. T4893 bate JAN 2003 Figure 16
Logged by: JCS
Date! 10/18/01
Depth
(ft
0
5
10
15
Test Pit -No. `TP-1 5.
ate
Approximc Elev. 86
Moisture
Content
Soil Description
FILL: graysi(I sand to sandy silt, line grained, medium dense, moist with occasional
fine g WIVIL)
rave
Dark brown organic sandy SILT, fine grained, firm, moist, with occasional roots. (OL)
(Old topsoil horizon)
Mottled grayish -brown silty SAND with gravel to SAND with silt and gravel,
fine sand, fine to coarse gravel, medium *dense to dense, moist.
10
(sm/sp-sm)
Becomes brownish -gray and moist to wet at approximately 8 feet.
V
-
Brownish -gray -silty SAND with gravel to sandy.SILT with gravel,� fine sand,
-
fine, gravel, dense, moist. (.SWML) Plaicial till -like)
18
Test pit terminated at 1 ' 5 fbet.-
Trace groundwater seepage at 11 feet.
20—
Test Pit No. TP-1 6
Logged by: JCS Approximate Elev. 68
Date: 10/18/01
Depth Moisture..
Content
Soil Description
0-
- FILL: gray to brown silty sand with gravel, fine grained" firm to loose,
- moist to wet. (SM)
5—
FILL: grayish -brown silty sand with gravel, fine grained, firm, moist to wet,
with significant organic soils and wood debris.
23,
10— 16
Bluis;h-gray sil SAND with qravel to sandy SILT with gravel, fine sand, fine gravel,,
dens WIVI/ML) (Gracialtill-like)
Light brown SAND, fine grained, medium dense to dense, rhoist.'.(SP) 15
Test pit terminated at 13 feet.
15
No groundwater seepage.
20. 7
TEST PIT, LOGS'
Terra POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS
L EDMONDS,WASHINGTON
Associates,.Inc.,
Geotechnical Consultants Date JAN 2003 Figure
-4893
Proj. No. T.
Test Pit -No. TP-1 7.
Logged by, JCS Approximate Elev. 82
Date: .10/18/01
Moisture
Depth Content
Soil Description N
0— R brown silty SAND with gravel, fine sand, fine to coarse gravel,
usty
- medium dense. moist. (SM)
tySAND with gravel, fi—ne sand, fine
Mottled grayish -brown sil to coarse gravel,
medium dense to dense, moist. (SM) 13
Grayish -brown silty SAND'with gravel to sandy SILT with gravel, fine sand,
5 fine to coarse gravel, dense to very dense, moist. (SWIVIQ
(Glacial till -like) Sand content increases with depth.,
10
- Test pit terminated at 9.5 feet.
. No groundwater seepage.
15-
20
TEST PIT LOGS
Terra POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON'
Associates, Inc.
Geotechnical Consultants
Proj. No. T-4893 � Date JAN 2003 Fig'ure
N1,
TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc...
a. A ALL 4 A 'C nsultint'inGeo techni . c al Engineering, . Geolog . y
&A
0 a s
and
Environmental Earth Sciences:
Septqmber-6,2005
Prcject No. T4893
Mr. Ross. Woods
Point Edwards, LLC
2801 Alaskin Way, Suite 107 SEP 6 2005
Seattle, Washington 98121 2UILOING DEPARTMENT
r,,.Ty OF EDMONDS
Subject Response to'Pla*n -Review Comments -
Building 5 Foundation
Point Edwards Condominiums
Edmonds, Washington
References: L. Letter, C ity of Edmonds Building Division Plan Review Comments, Point Edwards
Building 5 Foundation Only, Plan Check #05-335, dated August 23, 2005
.2.. Preliminary Geotechnical Report; UNOCAL Site, Project No. T4893, prepared by
Terra Associates, Inc., dated November 21, 2001
.3.: Geologically Hazardous Areas Review, Point Edwards.Condominiums (UNOCAL Site),
Project No. T4893, prepared by Terra Associates, Inc., dated January 20, 2003
4.- Supplementary Subsurface Exploration, Point Edwards Condominiums, Project No. T-4893,
prepared by Terra Associates, Inc.; dated July 30, 2003
5. Geologically FIA 7A 'doll Areas Review,- Proposed Building 5 Expansion, Point Edwards
Condominiums, Project No.-T-4893, prepared by Terra Associates, Inc., dated.June 24, 2005
6. Let.terSeisinic Wall Pressure and Pile' Point -of -Fixity —Building 5, Point Edwards
Condominiums,.Project No. T-4893, prepared by Terra Associates, Inc., dated
September 1, 2005
Dear W. Woods:
As requested by Mr. Jeff Brink of DCI Engineers, we reviewed City of Echnonds; comments regarding the City's
review of foundation plans- for Building 5 at the. Point Edwards condominium project. Specifically, we have. been
asked to respond to comments No. 9 and No. 10 on Page 2, and comment No. 4 on Page 3 of the referenced letter.
12525 Willows Road, Suite. 101, Kirkland, Washington
Phone (425) 821-7777 * Fax (425) 821-4334
Mr. Ross Woods
September 6, 2005
Comment No. 9, Page 2:
Provide a letterfrom the geotechnical engineer of record that he has reviewed the building plansfor Building 5
andfinds them consistent with the recommendations in his report and supplemental letters.
We reviewed structural drawings for Building 5 to verify that the plans conform to our geotechnical
recommendations. We were provided the following plans for our review:
* Structural Sheets SLI through S6.3, prepared by DO Engineers, dated August 10, 2005
The plans indicate foundation support for Building 5 will be provided by conventional spread footings except for
the northern side of the building, which will be supported by a deep foundation system consisting of augercast
piles and grade beams.
Based on our review of the drawings provided to us, it is our opinion that the plans we reviewed are in general
conformance with our geotechnical recommendations. However, we noted the following discrepancies or
omissions during our review:
Sheet SLI: Design soil values given in the Soils and Foundations section of the Structural General Notes
indicates that structural design used an allowable foundation pressure of 5,000 pounds per square foot (psf). The
note titled Slabs -on -Grade and Foundations states the following: "All foundations shall bear on structural
compacted fill or competent native soil per the geotechnical report." Based on our review, it does not appear that
foundations for Building 5 will be constructed on structural fill; however, as discussed in our referenced
preliminary geotechnical report, foundations supported by structural fill should be dimensioned for a net
allowable bearing capacity of 3,000 psf.
Comment No. 10, Pa2e 2:
Yhe Engineering Division has informed me that the site for Building 5 was used as a water collection area.
Please have the geotechnical engineer verify that this does not affect the recommendations in his soils reports and
supplemental letters.
The temporary excavation for Building 5 has been exposed to weather for about one year. Water from direct
precipitation and surface runoff from adjacent areas collected in the excavation due to the relatively impermeable
nature of the transitional bed silt and clay soils exposed throughout the bottom and sides of the excavation. Due
to the relatively impermeable nature of the dense to very dense native soils, the water that collected in the
excavation only affected the exposed soils superficially. Considering this, it is our opinion that the presence of
the water in the existing temporary excavation has not adversely affected the native soils underlying the upper few
inches of the excavation bottom, and our previous geotechnical recommendations still apply.
Comment No. 4, Paee 3:
I am not sure if the following information is specified in the other report stated by the engineer, but they are
needed in a report in order to complete the reviewfor the engineer's assumptions:
a. The active andpassive pressures associates with the retaining wall design.
Project No. T4893
Page No. 2
Mr. Ross Woods
September 6, 2005
Earth pressures used for structural design are given in Section 5.4 and 5.5 of the referenced preliminary
geotechnical report, dated November 21, 2001, and on Figure 15 (Earth Pressure Diagram -Basement Walls) in the
referenced geotechnical report, dated July 30, 2003.
b. A determinationfor the active lateral pressures on the retaining walls due to earthquake motion.
We recommended using a uniform, horizontally -applied seismic earth pressure value of 17H psf, where H is the
height of the wall in feet. This value is documented in our referenced letter, dated September 1, 2005.
C. 7he 'flerural length" of the piles has to be established so that the pile is able to resist the lateral
movement and relay it to the earth.
For the existing site soils, an 18-inch diameter augercast pile having a minimum pile length of 15 feet, and
assuming a free -head condition at the top of the pile, analysis yields a point -of -fixity (depth to zero pile shear)
located at a depth of 5 feet below the top of the pile. This is documented in our referenced letter, dated September
1,2005.
d. The engineer did include an excerpt from the November 21, 2001 report, but this should be updated to
ensure it is still consistent with the actual site conditions especially for length since the flexural length
will control design.
Recommendations for pile design presented in the referenced geotechnical report, dated November 21, 2001,
remain valid for existing conditions.
e. Yhe augercast pile lengths are not specified on the plans and are subject tofteld "tests " according to the
note under "SIZE" on Sheet 1. 1. 7he soils engineer is supposed to determine this length, but theflexural
length will surely control over the vertical load capacity determined by such tests.
The recommended minimum pile length is 15 feet, with a minimum 5 feet of pile penetration into the native
bearing stratum.
f If the augercast piles exceed 45 feet in length, then the design and installation has to be directly
supervised by a registered engineer knowledgeable in thefield ofsoil mechanics andpilefoundations, the
proofofwhich should be given to you before hand.
The recommended minimum pile length is 15 feet. We do not expect that actual pile lengths will significantly
exceed this length, and certainly will not exceed 45 feet in length.
9- Yhe Certified Geologist need to indicate how deep the footings have to (be) below grade on the down -
slope side to the west of the piles so at (sic) not to cause sloughing or other localized.failures of the
adjacent slopes there.
Planned grading between the expanded southwestern portion of Building 5 and the top of the slope will create a
flat yard area at Elev. 86, and will result in a modified top -of -slope that is located at least 25 feet from the
building. Considering this setback distance, the conventional spread footing foundations located west of the piles
can be constructed on competent native soils at the minimum depths recommended in the referenced geotechnical
report, dated November 21, 2005.
Project No. T4893
Page No. 3
Mr. Ross Woods
September 6, 2005
We trust the information presented is sufficient for your current needs. If you have any questions or require
additional information, please call.
- Sincerely yours,
TERRA ASSOCIATES, INC.
JUS/1W*
om
cc: Mr. Jeff Brink, DCI Engineers
Project No. T-4893
Page No. 4
1C. S
T 4 93
8
-1801 Al"Imn*WA�,'Suite'-10.-
-SUILOING DEPARTMEN't
c §,j�uth
iili��` 5-
..S* int- .,renv a a !Df. U1
.0raly
t..dwar4 Qi4d;��
s,
Zo.r�okd Was gton
te Pojort
11felini'm''Ai-y Gcoii�phnical Repoit., UO �4843;prep�md �y
T eim'' Aislocivitca Tnc.,0Ait4-Nov 'i 2.1' '200-V'-*-`1.'
Stdip Sl6pe'Hatz*4-:R6,�iM Mut Edwaids Condoid p (UNOCALSit�),;.
murn.
proj 61pt
'i,prep Aiso9atea,'Ibc
TA993'. ked-W,"rei-W. dit , ip'dJ)'4r_*bcT -13,200-2
(UNOCAI�Si*Y;
dawdIgnuml
TM
'T�4893, ' T�" o;ciiiiSI-,b6.:;,.� . �
-A�ji kovi6W hbpo id,B"di:bg'5-,EV hOon .Point Edwards".
Ait6d 2
tf9rivimm; .,.qj�c - T-4 9 pr"e4�yy erraAssociitisI�c.,'j, -`A�ii 24; 0
Dear W.* Woods:
ttic 5m
jeu�.zu s1bpeAnclination& f& soil �'cdn6tiW- on. cm.;
As. ieqii6j!rd,w.e x d 14
k0proprh ..0
4miixh projept, ur,cm tion'Is..,
OmU i*b dus -c6uditicins
owprevOuA exp OAS, in..the ari Qf B-Aildift9, OuilUentbiRe
...based ea* 5'
-, Aing braky : out in the-v . icivaty .9 cNis 9 -'OF
IS-: to .20- oot,`Iii$h't*p an tirr t��
avds
'-shou'm". ca� a Nan �11* iLd * Asis'6cdates, xkteo, 4�ms�,2-211
titled B av*�6g:tross.� Y.Tri 005.,,,
X'I si& -of-
9oiIC'cxp6idd'it die cxi4fih -'apj�
g mporwy CM
t..JiWdiixj�S-ai� dojiii@k� A, `t*L=,tioimIbed:db -6�iwcomi�"�Of -deh:9LA6*v.crydcmc �01 iaikd 6d �c '
1hpkta6 BuiWing:*S.; - e
76h
epogi%� me
Abat-W been ft�iQ wiih -AdIni au'st., (C=J.`� 1�0-:6�igtifig Ternodrtry cu s 6pe. �zs !�xrAmed a e'At this-
�f ti� el. t6tla�`iindcFp're.
huitiori-.fc�: ovee dric yr#_ W�. ob ih fib
sezvW.s6,v&aiaivAs,.qn e bin OPC
shall6w &6slo"h Or". gfilirficiai-* iIdVgyhfiI0:.hOwcvpr_,�th� itoat�d fiviln'li�06nti6116,drlinoff V anfico v4tcr
.:-,arpasup dTic`nt-"rn-t6'�ut_
'id t
tt,
ih' 'itiop4'b�d c ay can !�.s op.
AiJigdliss�d iJ:L die idctciniedypro. atyrgeotec C11 niloi 6: ft%m sfl't ;ij�4'.O
Mil's h-�ateid mith '.CKb- will 6xinbit. aq.1mcghfined c str6io'._a ' Aillc*ust 5,00.6-ji66&;per'. sq=e,, Q'Ot'.."
Vessiv
( h. e fill
08 9 meoing ih&l altciia iqqtiir�d or i Type .4 9p4nioii lh�t the..'CK D'46 iQ qttixct�tdl,
�so;be tb.'8'IkIsXjM�ft:* inclinati6� Of �035"T.-
t646beid:. ,Uloorary 9.000 geom*try is
d �y thvrcmits,'O� f cvmpu� fat stab�ilit' "' �1' hii . c yi . elded ht f iilk i:iii.
y. kn ysl� , vv i Ii so -excess'O'.4.
h i n gt6lh
Su 1 Alan'd,W4s -980
.12k5 0 J(e, O:f.',. Ki
fill6v�J'Road;
4�1 2 )i 1:4 34.:::�-' 'REE -'FILE'
PhQqe.(025-) 777,71.� 'Fax, (4 5 62 ... 3