The URL can be used to link to this page

55 PINE ST.PDFiiiiiiiiiiiiii 12812 55 PINE ST ADDRESS: TAX ACCOUNTIPARCEL NUMB BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRU, COVENANTS (RECORDED) FOR: CRITICAL AREAS: DETERMINATION: E] Conditional Waiver [j Study Required [—] Waiver DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S: DRAINAGE PLAN DATED: aw-- PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED: EASEMENT(S) RECORDED FOR: PERMITS PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED: SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED: SEWER LID FEE $: LID #: SHORT PLAT FILE: LOT: BLOCK: SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED: SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) #: SOILS REPORT DATED: STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT #: WATER METER TAP CARD DATED: LATEMP\DSrs\Fonns\Street File Checklist.doc TURA ASSOCIATES, In JUN 2 8 MI PET T(UL Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, GeologyC-1) 2006 and Environmental Ear(h Sciences BY June 8, 2006 Project No. T4893 Mr. Ross Woods Point Edwards, LLC 2901 Alaskan Way, Suite 107 Seattle, Washington 98121 Subject: Grading Review Buildings 6 and 7 Point Edwards Condominiums Edmonds, Washington References: 1. Preliminary Gcotechnical Report, UNOCAL Site, Project No. T4893, prepared by Terra Associates, Inc., dated November 21, 2001 2. Steep Slope Hazard Review, Point Edwards Condominiums (UNOCAL Site), Project No. T4893, prepared by'ren-a Associates, Inc., dated December 13, 2002 3. Geologically Hazardous Areas Review, Point Edwards Condominiums (UNOCAL Site), ProjectNo. T4893, prepared by Terra Associates, Inc., dated January 20, 2003 Dear Mr. Woods: As requested, %vi�,r�ev i ewed a plan sheet by Triad Associates titled Building 617 and Anienity Building Fine Grading and Excavation Cross Seclions dated June 1, 2006. 'Me plans indicate that excavations to accommodate a portion of the daylight lower building levels in the northern portion of Building 7 and the southern portion of Building 6 will extend from the western side of the buildings to the existing steep slope at approximately Elev. I 10.0. This grading will lower the elevation of the top of the slope by about four feet. The western side of both buildings will be setback approximately 30 to 35 feet from the modified top -of -slope. Based on our review, it is our opinion that the proposed grading at this location will not adversely impact stability of the steep slope provided that the recommendations for erosion prevention and site drainage presented in the referenced documents are followed. The planned grading will enhance the existing stability of the slope due to unloading resulting from the soil removal and will result in improved surface drainage at the top of the slope by directing surface runoff away from the slope crest to the yard drainage system. 12525 Willows Road, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034 Phone (425) 821-7777 * Fax (42-5) 821-4334 Imam STRI:tT FILE Mr. Ross Woods June 8,2006 Afteriialive Keyway Drainage The plan indicates a fill emban1cment having a maximum thickness of about six feet will be constructed in the yard area west of the southern, portion of Building 7. Much of the embankment rill will be constructed over existing grades of about 20 percent. As discussed in Section 5.2 and shown on Figure 3 (General Slope Fill Detail) of our referenced preliminary geotechnical report, embankment fills placed on slopes exceeding a grade of 20 percent must be keyed and benched into competent native soils, and should be constructed with a toe drain in the excavation for the keyway cut at the toe of the fill slope. The keyway drain shown on Figure 3 of our referenced preliminary report consists of a six-inch diameter perforated PVC pipe that is enveloped in washed drainage aggregate. Typically, the keyway drain is connected to a fightline pipe that daylights at an approved point of controlled discharge, such as the site storm sewer system. However, due to site elevations, a keyway drain constructed as shown on this figure cannot be connected to the site storm drainage system. Considering this, and because we do not expect that the keyway drain will collect or discharge significant volumes of water, it is our opinion that adequate keyway drainage can be provided by constructing several ballast - rock drainage windows in the toe of the fill embankment in lieu of using a continuous drain pipe. The rock drainage windows will provide adequate hydrostatic relief should any sub -fill seepage find its way to the toe of the fill embankment. A detail showing this alternative drainage option is attached as Figure 1. The need for additional or alternate sub -fill drainage should be based on field conditions observed at (he time of construction. Lightweight rill The plans show the southeastern portion of the betow-grade parking garage for Building 7 will underlie up to about ten feet of landscape fill. We understand that lightweight polystyrene foam will be used for much of the fill over the parking garage ceiling slab. The planned grading indicates two rockeries with maximum heights of about seven to eight feet will be constructed against and supported by the polystyrene foam in the northern portion of the fill area. In our opinion, rockeries built in accordance with Associated Rockery Contractors (ARC) Standard Rockery Construction Guidelines may be constructed on and against the polystyrene foam material. We recommend placing at least six inches of a crushed rock leveling course between the base rocks of the rockery and the polystyrene foam subgrade. Conceptual information provided by Mr. Jeff Brink of DO Engineers indicates the product to be used for the lightweight fill is Type IX Insulfbam R-TECH. However, our review of material properties for the Insulfbam products and analysis indicate that Type I Insulfbarn R-TECH is an acceptable alternative for the proposed application. Project No. T-4893 Page No. 2 Mr. Ross Woods June 9, 2006 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 ASSOCIATE, S, INC. 'EM.-e )etail Project No. TA893 Page No. 3 A ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE (PREPARED PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT) STRUCTURAL FILL (SEE NOTE 1) GEOTEXTILE SEPARATION LAYER (MIRAFI 500X OR EQUAL) BALLAST ROCK DRAINAGE WINDOW (SEE NOTE 2) —y- 1.5' rr!�' C' Q0 0m, 00 q'000XV '0 c�'00 0 C>oe/ , -0 �:eto--,jn' -- o6n - o 0 �'Qy�o C� 0Q), 2' (M I \N.)\\ KEYWAY EXCAVATION 6' (MIN.) STRUCTURAL FILL (SEE NOTE 1) NOT TO SCALE NOTES: STRUCTURAL FILL SHALL BE COMPACTED TO A MINIMUM OF 95% OF ASTM D 698 MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY VALUE. 2) 2-INCH BALLAST ROCK DRAINAGE WINDOW; 1.6 THICK, 6 WIDE, CONSTRUCTED 39 (MAX.) ON CENTER ALONG TOE OF EMBANKMENT FILL. SPACING OF GRAVEL WINDOWS MAY BE ADJUSTED BASED ON CONDITIONS OBSERVED DURING CONSTRUCTION. Terra Associates, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences ALTERNATIVE KEYWAY DRAIN DETAIL POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS BUILDINGS 6 & 7 EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Proj. No. T4893 I Date JUNE 2006 1 Figure 1 DCI-ENGINEERS D'AMATO CONVERSANO INC. 1. Mark DAmato - Guy A. Conversano Elizabeth A. fensen Roger L. fleeringa - Mark D. Aden Harr), fones It Troy E. Bean - Tom C Xia, A.D. Richard L. Hemmen - Grant C Buckingham Point Edwards Site Retaining Walls Edmonds, Washington Structural Calculations For Permit Prepared For: Weber + Thompson P.L.L.C. September 14, 2006 DC1 Job 4 06-11-009 RIE'SU13 SEP 19 2006 8U11)ING DEPARTIWEMT MY OF EDA40t4OS 10900 NE 4TH STREET, SUITE 1200 - BELLEVUE, WA 98004 - PHONE (42�TRFETAfk�7.8986 BELLEVUE SPOKANE EVERETT PORTLAND SAN DIEGO Point Edwards Site Retaining Walls September 14, 2006 DO Job # 06-11-009 0 Amenity #2 Retaining Walls 0 =,---DC1-ENGINEERS. D 'AMATO CO NVERSANO -1 NC. PROJECT NO: 06-11-031 SHEET NO: PROJECT: Point Edwards Amenity #2 DATE: 8/24/06 SUBJECT: 8'-0 Retaining Wall @ Pool Area BY: BSB Seismic Pressure = 170.0 p0 Design Lateral Pressure = 35 pef Surcharge Pressure 75.0 psi SOIL SURCHARGE 00assive Lateral Pressure 300 pci ase Friction 0.40 pnit We-ghl of S�l 120 pCf Tnbulary ter,gth of Wall 10 Concrete Strength 4000 Column DL 0.00 k Column LL 0 00 k 105 Wt of Sod above Heel 6. I OL Wt at Wall Wt. of Foof..g 4k y N-j r e. 4 0 rki 750.0 pIt IZ Iff 6.9 367.5 pff 75JO pit 170 pit &W Wall ok footing loe ok Footing Heel d = 9.0" d = MAY" d = 2D.010 V� = 2.08 k Vv = 3.36 k V,, = TOM k OVc = 10.25 k +V� = 22-77 k OVc = 22.77 k M� = 8,85 fl-k M, = 1.68 fl-k M,, = 30.67 H-k FS Sliding ok FS Overturning ok Sliding Resistance 5.6 k Z19 RM = 50.7 ff-k 3.75 Sliding Force 26k OTM = 13.5 tf-k Soillteoring ok X = - 2L7 Lt-k = 2.91' 9.9 k e = 1.09' < b/6 = 1.33' If e < b/6. Then If e > b/6, Then... SoflBearing = P M 2.24 kit Soil Bearing 2 0.5.P L Stress Left A S Stress 3 b e Soil Bearing = P 10 2 9.9 k I jg 2.26 ksf - = = OM& Stress Right A S 3 4.0, IJW P = D -L = 9.9 k A = &0 st vridth 8.73' M = Pe = I 0S fi-k S = 10.7 ftA3 0 Load Factors D 1.2 L : .0 E .0 H 0.07 WAU Wall Concrete (fc) = 4 ksi Wall Reinfofc4ng (ty) = 60 k� Cover = 2,n Bar Size = Bar Area = 0.31 Bar Spacing = 2 �. AS provided = 031 A2/ft. Bar Diameter = 0.625 d = 969 a12 = 023 As Requfred = 0 208 inA2/f! OK As Minimum = "TOE Wall Concrete (fc) 4 K. Wall Reinforcing (fy) 60 ksi Cover 3 in. Bar Size Bar Area 031 Bar Spacing 181 As Provided = 0.21 inA2/fl. Bar Diameter = 0.625 d = 20.69 a/2 = 0.15 As Required = 0.0 18 inA21111 CK As Minimum = HEEI Wall Concrete (fc) = 4 ksi Wall Reinforcing (fy) = 60 ksi Cover = 3 in. Bar Size = 6 Bar Area = 0.44 Bar Spacing = I-n- As Provided = 0.44 inA2/ff. Bar Diameter = 0.75 d = 20.63 a/2 = 0-32 As Required = 0.336 inA2/fl OK As Minimum = =�i--DCLENGINEERS ;!=;- D'AMATO CONVERSANO INC. 1PROJECT: Point Edwards Amenity #2 SUBJECT: 8'-0 Retaining Wall @ Pool Area Seisrnic, Pressure = 170.0 psf Design Lateral Pressure = 35 pcf = 75 0 sf PROJECT NO: 06-11-031 SHEET 1,10i DATE: 8/24106 BY: BSB �urc rge ressure ive Lateral Pressure = 300 pcf SOIL ase Friction = 0.40 nit Weight of Sail z 120 pcf riloutary Length of Wall Concrete Strength 4000 psi Column OL 0 00 It Column 1.1. 0.00 k W:. of Sosl above Heel 6 11 AkODL !�;�.Wrnn W.0fWall 4, Wt of Footing 24k #24 'r SURCHARGE d 10.5, 75DD plf 1.0, 1.9 6.9 367-5 plf 75.Oplf 170 pit 8.W Wall ok Footing Toe ok Footing Heel d ?.0" d = 20.0" d = 20.0" V,, = 3.47 k Vv = 4A2 k Vu = 7.67 k 4vc = 10.25 k 4vc = 22.77 k 4Vc = 22.77 k mu = 11.87 fl-k M,, = 221 ft-k Mu = 23JDO ff-k FS Sliding ok FS Overturning ok Sliding Re-kistance 4-5 k RM 38.0 ff-k Sliding Force 4.9 k 0.91 OTM .2 ft-k Sail Bearing ok k X 2.23 Oe = 1.77 > b/6 = 1-33 'I e < b/6, Then... It e > b/6, Then... Soil Bearing P M 2.87 list Soil Bearing - 2 Stress Left A S Stress 3 b e [ =P Sail Bearing P M -0.40 list - 2 9.9, k 2.95 W Stress Right A S 4 3 .0 1.77 P = D+L = 9.9 k A = 8.0 sf v,idth 6.70r M = Pe = 17.4 ft-k s = 10.7 JtA3 0 7 Load Factors D 0.9 L 0.0 E 1�0 H 1.6 1 WAL.I, Wall Concrete (fc) = 41ks; Wall Reinforcing (ty) = 60 ksi Cover = Bar Size = Bar Area = 0.31 Bar Spacing z - 1. As Provided = 0.31 snA2/ft. Bar Diameter = 0625 d = 9.69 a12 = 0.23 As Required = 0.279 042/ft 0� As Minimum = TOT Wall Conciete (fc) = 4 k� Wall Reinforcing (fy) = 60 ku Cover = 3 in. Bar Size = - Bar Area = 031 Bar Spacing = I As Provided = 0.21 inA2/fj. Bar Diameter = 0.625 d = 2D.69 a12 = 0.15 As Required = 0.024 inA2/ff 0 K As Minimum = I-IEEL Wall Concrete (fc) = 4 ksi Wall Reinforcing (ty) = 60 ksi cover = 3 in. Bar Size = A Bar Area = 0." Bar Spacing = 12 in. As Provided = 0." inA2/ff. Bar Diameter = 0.75 d = 20.63 ar2 = 0.32 As Required = 0-252 inA2/fj OK As Minimum = �M=DCI-ENGINEEKS � D'AMATO CONVERSANO I NC- IPROJECT: Point Edwards Amenity #2 SUBJECT: 8'-0 Retaining Wall @ Pool Area Seisrnic Pressure = 170.0 psi Design Lateral Pressure = 35 pcf ha Pr = 75 0 nsf PROJECT NO: 06-11-031 SHEET NO: DATE 8124106 BY: BSO urc rge essure, SOIL SURCHARGE eassive, Lateral Pressure = 300 pc: = 040 ase Friction 120 pc U61 Weight of Soil Tributary Length of Wall 10 Concrete Sfreriglh 4DOO psi 0.00 k Column DL -;t 0.00 It Column U. �w Wt. of Soil aboye Heel 611� AC fr,oMm Ca�kymn'.,, Wt. of Wall k k Wt. of Footing 2. J1, Zr- rj f --,150,0PI EO 750D pit 1.01 Iff 6Z 367.5 pit 75.0 pit 170 pit &W won ok Footing Toe ok Footing Heel d 9.0- d = 20.0" d = 20.0" Vu = 2.28 k Vu = 3.34 k V,, = 5.11 k #Vc = 10.25 k 4Vc = 22.77 k +V,, = 22.77 k m. = 7.88 ff-k Mu = 1.67 fl-k M,, = 15.34 ft-k FS Sidling ok FS Overturning ok Sfiding Resistance 3.3 k - 1.03 RM = 25.3 ff-k 1.90 Slicling Force 3.2 k OTM = 133 tf-k - SoilBearing ok k X 2.n D7 < b/6 133 4*, . <=b"6. Then... If e > b/6, Then Soil Bearing 2 P So' Bearing = 2.22 list =1 I Stress Left A S --- Stress 3 _5.b e Soil Beating . -L - -t = = 0.24 ksf 2 9,k I., Siren Right A S 3 P = D-L = 9.9k A = 8-0sf yvidlh 8.75, M = Pe = 10.6 ff-k s = 10.7 ftA3 L;2323d--FacR-tom-r-s-j l D 0.6 L 0-,.. 6 0." H 1.0 u WALL Wall Concrete (fc) = 4 ksi Wall Reinforcing (fy) = 60 kii Cover = 2.n. Bar Size Bar Area 031 Bar Spac4ng ; 2 ,. As Provided = 0.31 snA2/fi. Bar Diameter = 0625 d = 969 a12 = 0.23 As Required = 0. 1 a5 snA2/ff 0< As Minimum = Wall Concrete (rc) 4 " Wall Reinforcing (fy) 60 ksi Cover 3 in. Bar Size Bar Area 0-31 Bar Spacing ls;ri. As Provided = 0.21 inA2/ft. Bar Diameter = 0.625 d = 20.69 a/2 = 0.15 As Required = 0.018 inA2/fl OK As Minimum = I -[EEL Wall Concrete (fc) = 4 U Wall Reinforcing (fy) = 60 ksi Cover = 3 in. Bar Size = Bar Area = 0.44 Bar Spacing = 12 in. As Provided = 0.44 inA2/tt. Bar Diameter = 0.75 d = 20.63 a12 = 0.32 As Required = 0-16BinA2/ft OK As Minimum = =---DC1-ENG1NEERS Ma D'AMATO CONVERSANO INC. PROJECT: Point Edwards Amenity #2 SUBJECT: 8'-0 Retaining Wall @ Pool Area Seismic Pressuie = 170.0 pet Design Lateral Pressuire = 35 pet = 75.0 pst PROJECT NO: 06-11-031 SHEET NO: DATE: 9124/06 BY: BSB Surc arge ressure �jse Friction = 0.40 4"assi�e Lateral pressure = 300 pet SOIL U"nst We,ght of Sol = 120 pet 3 Tributary Length of Wall = 1.0' Concrete Strength = 4000 psi Column DL = 0 00 k Column LL 0.00 k Wt. of Soil above Heel 6.1 1, Wt. of Wall 1.4 k rx Wt. of Footing 2.4 k 4, rZ. �,- SURCHARGE 10.5, 40 r Za 750.0 pit 1.0, 1.9 6Z 367.5pil 75D pit 170 pit 8.W Wall ok Footing Toe ok Footing Heel d 9.01, d = 2D.0- d - 20ff V, = 2.50 k Vu = 3-54 k V,,' = 8.52 k 4Vc = 10.25 k +V, = 22.77 k +Vc = 22-77 k Mv = 8.84 ft-k Mv = 1.77 ft-k Mu = 25-56 ff-k FS Sliding ok FS Overturning ok Sliding Resistance = - 4,8 k 1.40 RM 42.2 ft-k 2-111 Sliding Force = 3.5 k - DIM 14.8 ff-k SoilBearing ok 21.1 �1-k X =- = 2-79 ,." k 1.2Z < b/6 IW *I, . <=b/6, Then... If e > b/6. Then... Soil Bearing = 2.36 ksf sea Becnng 2 P L Stress Left A S Stress, 3 -5-b e =/I SoilBearing P M = 0.11 kst 2 99 k a 2-37 ksf Stress Right A S 3 4 a _ 1.27] p = D-L = 9.9 k A = 8.0 Sf �idlh 834' M = Pe = 12D fil-k S = 10.7 ftA3 0 WAI,L Wall Concrete (fc) = 4 ksi Wall Reinforcing (ty) = 60 kSi Cover = Bar Size = Bar Afea - 0-31 Bar Spacing = As Provided = 0.31 nA2/11. Bar Diameter = 0.625 d = 9.69 a/2 = 0.23 As Required = As Minimum = TOE Wall Concrete ft) = 4 X9 Wall Reinforcing (fy) = 60 U Cover = 3 in. Bar Size = Bar Area = 0-31 Bar Spacing = 1 E::... As Provided = 0-21 inA2/h. Bar Diameter = 0.625 d = 20.69 a/2 = 0.15 As Required = 0.0 19 inA2/ft OK As Minimum = HEEL Wall Concrete ( Wall Reinforcing (ty) = 60 ksi Cover = 3 in. Bar Size = 4 Bar Area = 0.44 Bar Spacing = � 2 iri. As Provided = 0-44 inA2/ff. Bar Diameter = 0.75 d = 20.63 a/2 = 032 As Required = 0-290 inA21ff OK As Minimum = �-�DCI-ENGINEERS �-%= D'AMATO CONVERSANO INC. IPROJECT: Point Edwards Amenity #2 SUBJECT: 1 V-0 Retaining Wall @ Pool Area Seismic Pressure = 170.0 PSI Design Lateral Pressure = 35 Fict Surcha-e Pressuire = 75.0 pst PROJECT NOi 06-11-031 SHEET NO: DATE: 8124106 BY: BSB as. Friction 40a,,im,e Lateral Pressure = 300 Pct z 040 J,' SOIL ,n,f Weight of Sail = 120 pcf Tributary Length of Wall Concrete Strength - 1.0 4000 p, Column Of. 0 00 k Column U. O.DO k .et W1. of Sod above Heel = 9.2 k AC W1. of Wall = 2.4 k r, Wt. of Footing = 4.5 k 7V SURCHARGE 14.2S v A 975.0 plf 117 , 1.33' 6.67' 498B pit 75.0 pit 170 p 11.00, Wall ok Feeling Toe ok Footing Heel d = 110" d = 29.0" d = 29.0" Vu = 2.82 k Vu = 8.69 k Vu = 16.49 k +VC = 14.75 k f,V,, = 33jD2 k #Vc = 33.01 k M,, = 16.2D ft-k M� = 13,03 ft-k M, = 55.00 fl-k FS Sliding . ok FS Overturning ok Sliding Resistance 93k RM 125.1 ft-k Sliding Force 2.66 3.5 k OTM ---- i- = 5.03 4.9 ft-k Soil Bearing ok 79.4 ff-k x 4.17Z k O-W < b/iS 1,83 If . <=b/6. Them.. Soil Bearing = _L , = = 1.93 ksf Stress Left A S Sell Bearing =_L . M = = 1.00 ksf Stress Right A S P = D + L = 16.1 k A = 1110$f M = Pe = 9.3 ff-k S = 20.2 ftA3 0 It e > b/6. Then... Soil Bearing 2 P L Stress 3 0.5.b e 2 _ 6.1 k 10- 2.19 kst 5.5, 0.r 3 _,B �idth 14.76 Load Factors D 1.2 L 1 -0 E 1.0 H 0.07 WALL Wall Concrete (fc) 4 ksi Wall Reinforcing (ty) 60 k�i Cover 2 in Bar Scze Bar Area 044 Bar Spacing z . 2 r As provided z 0.44 in�2/11. Bar Diameter = 0.75 d = 13.59 a61`2 z 0-32 As Reqtred = 0.271 W21h 0< As Minimiarn = ICE Wall Concrete (rc) 4 U Wall Reinforcing (Ify) 60 ksi C47VW 3 in. Bar Size Bair Area 0.31 Bar S As provided = 0.21 inA21fi. Bar Diameter = 0.625 d = 29.69 ar2 = 0.15 A� Requtired = OD98 ilnAVII OK As Minimum = HEEL Wall Concrete (fc) = 4 ksi Wall Reinforcing (fy) = 60 ksi Cover = 3 in. Bar Size = -- Bar Area = 0.44 Bar SpacuV = 12 As provided = 0.44 iriA2,11. Bar Dometer = 0.75 d = 29.63 a12 = 0.32 As Required = 0.417 jnA2/tf CK As Minimum = D*AMATO CONVERSANO INC 1PROJECT: Point Edwards Amenity #2 SUBJECT: 11'-0 Retaining Wall @ Pool Area Seismic Pressure = 170.0 psi Design Lateral Pressure = 35 pcf Surcharge Pressure = 75 0 psi Passive Lateral Pressure 300 PCf A., PROJECT NO: 06-11-031 SHEET NO: DATE: 8/24/06 BY: BSB SOIL SURCHARGE VWa -I,on 040 U U.= i, hi of Sail A 120 pcf ev, -i:�j Tributary Length of Wall 10' Concrete Strength 4WO psi Column DL 0.00 k Column U. 0.00 k V. 14.25 Wt. of 561 above Heel 9.2 k Ac �om c6fumA Wt. of Wall 2.4 k Wt. of Footg 4.5 k '10 E-Q 975D 0 3.0, 1.33' 6.67 498.8 plf 75.0 plf 170 r I 1.W Wall ok Footing Toe ok Footing Heel d 13.0" d = 29.0" d = 29.0" V,, = 5.66 k Vv = 13.01 k V,, = 12-37 k #Vc = 14.75 k 4Vc = 33.02 k +V,, = 33.01 k M. = 25." Il-k M, = 19-52ft-k Mv = 41.�5ff-k FS Slicling ok FS Overturning ok Sliding Resistance 7A k 0.91 RM = 93.9 fl-k = 712 Sliding Force & I k OTM = 443 ff-k Soil Bearing ok X =- 60.0 ff-k = 3,77 16.1 k Oe = 1.79 < b/6 = IS3 . < b/6, Then... Sail Bearing P M 2.89 U Stress Left A S Soil Bearing P M OJD4 U Stress Right A S P = D-L = 16.1 k A = 11.0 Sf M = Pe = 25-7 tl-k S = 20.2 ffA3 0 It a � b16, Then... Sol Bearing = 2r�_P L Stress 3 0_5.b e 2 6 1 k I'Cr 2B9 ksf 3 5.5 1 761 width 11.16' Load Factors D O�9 L 0.0 E I -' H 1.6 %%'A-LL Wall Concrete (fc) = 4 ks; Wall Reinforcing (ty) = 60 ks. Cover = Bar Size = Bar Area = 0.44 Bar Spacing = :: - As Provided = 0 44 inA2/H. Bar Diameter = 075 d 13+59 a/2 032 As Required 0 426 inA2/h 01 As Minimum TOE Wall Concrete (fc) 4 ksi Wall Reinforcing (fy) 60 k� Cover 3 in. Bar Size Bar Area 0.31 Bar Spacing 1 J� �fj. As Provided = 0-21 inA2/ft, Bar Diameter = 0.625 d = 29.69 a/2 = 0.15 As Required = 0. 147 inA2/ft OK As Minimum = FEEEL Wall Concrete (fc) = 4 ksi Wall Reinforcing (fy) = 60 ksi Cover = 3 in. Bar Size = 6 Bar Area = 0.44 Bar Spacing = 12 ir. As Provided = 0." inA2/ff. Bar Diameter = 0.75 d = 29.63 a12 = 0.32 As Required = 0313 inA2/fI �L, As Minimum = D'AMATO CONVERSANO INC. PROJECT NO 06-11-031 SHEET NO: 7LE2d �F2acEf� PROJECT: Point Edwards Amenity #2 DATE: 8/24106 06 D 0,S SUBJECT: 11 '-0 Retaining Wall @ Pool Area BY: BSB L -, M�� Seisrnic Pressure a 170.0 psf H 1.0 Design Lateral Pressure = 35 pcf Surcharge Pressure = 75.0 psi SOIL SURCHARGE Possi�e 010,01P,essute = 300 pcf ase Friction = 040 WALL U nit We.ght of Soil 120 P�f Tirbutory Length of wall 1.0 Wall Concrete (fc) = Wall Reinforcing (ty) = 4 ksi 60 i� Concrete Strength 4000 psi Cover = 2,n Column DL 0 00 k Bar Size Column U. 0.00 k Bar Area = 044 Bar Spacing = 2. WI of Soil above tie -el 9.2 k Ac liorn. 0, urm�j � 'I, , , I 1 -1. - . R, IN As Provided = 0 44.-�2/1`1. Klk ;a T, 7 Wt of Wall 2 4 k 4, . .�. 41 Bar Diameter z 075 4 rt Wt of Fooling -51, d= 13-59 '4; ar-) = 032 As Required = 0281 m42/tf SK 150.001.4 As Minimum x 7 10 Wall Concrete (fc) 4 Wall Reinforcing (fy) 60 ksi 975.0 pit 3.0' 1.33' 6.67 498.8 pff 75D pit 170 pit in. Cover = 3 I I.W Bar Size = Wall ok Fooling Toe ok Footing Heel Bar Area = 0.31 d 13.0'- d = 29.0" d = 29.(r Bar Spacing = ! � sr... V,, = 3.68 k V,, = 9.60 k V,, = 8.25 k As Provided = 021 inA2/fi. #V� = 14.75 k OVi, = 33.02 k +Vc = 33.01 k Bar Diameter = 0.625 d= 29.69 Mv = 16.74 fi-k M,, = 14.40 ft-k Mv = 27S) ft-k a/2 = 0.15 As Required = 0.10BinA2/ff CK FS Sliding ok FS Overturning ok As Minimum = Sliding Resistance 5.4 k RM = 62-6 fl-k . HEE 2.16 Sliding Force 5.2 k OTM = 29D ft-k Wall Concrete (fc) = 4 U Wall Reinforcing (fy) = 60 ksi SoilBearing ok Cover = 3 in. Bar Size = 4 7L3 fi-k Bar Area = 0.44 X = - = 4.67' 16.ik Bar Spacing = 11 i-�. As Provided = 0.44 in^21fl. = OW < b/6 = ).83' Bar Diameter = 0.75 #e d = 29.63 if e < b/6. Then... If e > b/6, Then... a/2 = 0-32 Sail Bearing P M SalBecring 2 P As Required = 0.2D9 inA2/fj CK . 2.13 ksf Stress Leh A S - Stress 3 b e I As Minimum = Sail Bearing P M 2 6.1 k I IT = - _ - = = 0.80 ksf L_ 2_30 U Stress Right A S 3 5_5 OW P = D-L = 16.1 k A = IWO width 14,W M = Pe z 13-4 ff-k S = 20.2 fjA3 0 4�-C= L)UI-hN (-,,IN LLK15 PROJECT NO: 06-11-031- FSHEETNO: 0=- D*AMATO CONVERSANO INC. PROJECT: Point Edwards Amenity #2 DATE: 8f24/06 SUBJECT: 1 V-0 Retaining Wall @ Pool Area BY: BSB Seisr'nic Pressure = 170.0 pill Design Lateral Pressure = 35 pcf Surcharge Pressure = 75.0 pill SOIL SURCHARGE assive La ressure = 300 pcf lop P C,,e F,,Cf,,:al = 0.40 U u hit Weight of Sod - 120 pcl TribularY Length of Wall Concrete Strength 4000 psi Colurrvi, DL 0.00 k Column I.I. �W" 0.00 k illi:. iA Z 14.25 Wi of Soil above Heel 9-2 k Ac dt�d D e- wt of Wall 2 4: V.1 7v Wt. of Foofing 4,5 i X-r, -7 EQ 975.0 plf 3.0' 1.33' 6.67 498.8 plf 75.0 pit 170 plf I I.W Wall ok Footing Toe ok Footing Heel d 1"*' d = 29.0" d = 29.0" V,, = 3.99 k Vu = 10.20 k Vu = 13.74 k +Vc = 14.75 k +Vc = 33.02 k +Vc = 33.01 k M,, = 18.49 fl-k M,, = 15.30 ft-k Mu = 45.83 ff-k FS Sliding ok FS Overturning ok Sliding Resistance 8.0 k RM = 1043fl-k 1.42 - 3.29 Sliding Force 5.6 k OTM = 31.7 fi-k Soil Bearing ok 72.6 tt-k X 16.) k #e 11-W < b/6 = IW 0 e<b &Then... If e b/6, Then... Scil Bearing P . M 2-27 ksf Soil Bearing 2[__O_ P L Stress Left A S Stress 3 .5 to e 2 1& 239 ksf Sail Bearing P M 0.67 ksf Stress Wight -S 5_5 I.W A 3 P = D-L = 16.1 k A = ]I-0sf vidth 13.50r M = Pe = 16.1 ft-k s = 20.2 hA3 WAU, Wall Concrete (fc) = 4 ksi Wall Reinforcing (ty) = 60 ksi Cover = 'n Bar Size = Bar Area = 044 Bar Spacing = j* -, As Provided = 0 44 rn�2/111 Bar Diameter = 075 d = 13-59 a/2 = 0.32 As Required = 0.310.nA2/ft As Minimum = Wall Concrete (fc) = 4 kit Wall Reinforcing (ty) = 60 ksi Cover = 3 in. Bar Size = Bar Area = 0-31 Bar Spacing = , E;.n. As Provided = 0.21 in�2/ff. Bar Diameter = 0.625 d = 29.69 a/2 = 0.15 As Required = 0.115 inA2/ft OK As Minimum = FIEEL Wall Concrete (fc) = 4 ksi Wall Reinforcing (fy) = 60 ksi Cover = 3 in. Bar Size = Bar Area = 0." Bar Spacing = As Provided = 0.44 inA2jtt. Bar Diameter = 0.75 d = 29.63 a/2 = 032 As Required = 03Q inA2/ff OK As Minimum = 7 Load :Foctors D 1.0 L 0.8 E 0.5 H I -C' 0 Point Edwards Site Retaining Walls September 14, 2006 DCI Job # 06-11-009 Building 6 & 7 Retaining Walls DCI-EN GIN EEW!) D'AMATO CONVERSANO INC. 1PROJECT: PROJECT NAME SUBJECT: Retaining Wall Design seismic Pressure = 170.0 psf Design Lateral Pressure = 35 pcf = 75 0 st PROJECT NO: SHEET NO: DATE: Non -Seismic BY: Surcharge Pressure i' SOIL SURCHARGE **.--.a Lateral Pressure = 30*0 PC I as. Cron = 040 Unit Weight of Soil = 120 pcf Trioutory Length of wall 1.0, -V Concrete Strength 4000 psi 0 00 k fr" Column DL Column LL 0 00 k 3, 4 AC cled Wt of Soil croove Heel 84k Wt of Wall I . 61, 34k W? of Footing V` 1111 f EQ 9M.0 plf 1.0* Lo' 7.0' 437.5 pit 75.0 pit 170 p 9.00' Wall ok Footing Toe ok Footing Heel d 9.0" d = 26.0" d = 26.0- VU = 4.5D k VU = 5-53 k Vv = 10.60 k OVc = 10.25 k 0VC = 29.60 k VC = 29.60 k Mu = 17.83 fl-k M,, = 2.76 ft-k Mu = 37.09 ft-k FS Sliding ok FS Overturning ok Sliding Resistance 6.1 k 0.94 RM = 57.4 fl-k IZ2 Sliding Force 6.5 k OTM = 31.5 ft-k Soil Bearing ok X = 32.2 fl-k = 2.4 1' 13.4 k e = 2.09' b/6 1.50' If e < b/6, Then... It e > b/6, Then... Soil Bearing Soil Bearing 2 P = -L - = = 3.55 Ut Stress Left A S Stress 3 5-b :e Soil Bearing 2 103 't I 1 3.69 lal -0.58 f 't Stress Right A S 3 2011 P = D-L = 13.4k A = 9.0 5f vAdth 7.24* M = Pe = 27.13 fl-k s = 13.5 fIA3 Load Factors D 0.90 L 0.00 E 1.00 H 1.60 WALL Wall Concrete (fc) = 4 ksi Wall Reinforcing (ty) = 60 ksi Cover = Bar Size = Bar Area = 044 Bar Spacing = As Provided = 0 44,nA2/tt. Bar Diameter = 075 d = 963 a12 = 0 + 32 As Required = 0 426 inA2/tf 01( As Minimum = TOE Wall Concrete (fc) = 4 ks! Wag Reinforcing (ty) = 60 kSi Cover = 3 in. Bar Size = Bar Area = 0.31 Bar Spacing = lc�. As provided = 0-211 . A /N. Bar Diameter = 0.625 d = 26.69 af2 = 0.15 As Required = 0.023 inA2/fi OX As Minimum = HEEL Wall Concrete (fc) = 4 kSi Wan Reinforcing (ty) = 60 ksi Cover = 3 in. Bar Size = Bar Area = 0.44 Bar Spacing = i 2 :,-.. As Provided = 0." inA2/fL Bar Diameter = 0.75 d = 26.63 a/2 = 0.32 As Required = 0.313 inA2/ff OK As Minimum = DCI-EN GIN EERS 9= - D'AMATC, CONVERSANO INC. I PROJECT NO: SHEET NO: Load Factors PROJECT: PROJECT NAME DATE: D 13) SUBJECT: Retaining Wall Design Non -Seismic BY: L 1.00 E 1.00 Seismic Pressure = 170.0 psf -H 0.00 Design Lateral Pressure = 35 pcf Surcharge Pressure = 75.0 pst SOIL SURCHARGE Passive Lateral Pressure z 3W pcf Base Friction = 040 **Unit WALL Weight of Sod = 120 pcf Wall Concrete (fc) 4 ksi Tributary Length of Wall = 10' Wall Reinforcing (ty) 60 ks, Concrete Stiengin = 4000 ps, Cover= 1.9 - Column DL = 0 00 k Bar Size = Column LL = OODk Bar Area = 044 841, Wt of W clocive Heel JA eli Dior C61umn 12 5' r Bar SpacAng = As Provided = 0.44 inA2/ff." wi. ot War 161, Bar Diameter = 0.75 Wt. of Footing 34k d= 9.63 a/2 = 032 As Re 0.293 in A2/ff -quired = I So Z�4 As Minimum IOE EO Wall Concrete (rc) = 4 ks, Wall Reinforcing (fy) = 60 ksi 900.0 Pit 1.0* 1.0* 7.0' 437-5 pit 75.0 pit 170 pit Cover = 3 in. 9.00' Bar Size = wall ok Footing Toe ok Footing Heel Bar Area = 0.31 d 9.0- d = 26.0- d = 26.0" Bar Spacing = I V,, = 2.45 k VU = 3.94 k V,, = 14.13 k As Provided = 0.21 jnA2/ft. #VC = 1025k OVC = 29.60 k +Vc = 29.60 k Bar Diameter = 0.625 d= 26.69 Mu = 12.25 11-k M,, = 1.97 ff-k Mu = 49.46 ft-k a/2 = 0.15 As Required = 0.0 17 !nA2/ft OK FS Sfidin-a ok FS Overturning ok As Minimum = Sliding Resistance 7.7 k RM = 76.S ft-k FIEEL 2.52 Sbaling Force 3.1 k 4.00 OTM = 19.1 fi-k Wall Concrete (fc) = 4 ksi Wall Re inforcing (ty) = 60 ksi Soil Beaning ok Cover = 3 in. Bar Size = 0 44.6 fl-k 3.34' Bar Area = 0.44 ,3 4 k Bar Spacing = 12;n.. As Provided = 0.44 inA2/ft. e 1.16' < b/6 = I-W Bar Diameter = 0.75 d= 26.63 I" e < b/6. Then... It e > b/6, Then... a/2 = 0.32 Sol Bearing P M Soil Bearing 2 P As Required = 0.418 inA2/11 oil . = = 2.63 kst Stress Left A 5 Stress 3 _5_b:]�:j r�03: As Minimum = Saii5earing P - 2L = = 0,34 ksf k I _0. 2 2.66 ksf Stress Rign! A S 3 4 l." P = DIL = 13.4 k A = 9-0sf %vidth 10.07 14, = Re = 15-5 fl-k 5 = 13.5 ftA3 0 .4 D 'AMATO CONV E RSAN 0 1 NC. F ��JECT NO: SHEET NO: Load Factors PROJECT: PROJECT NAME DATE: D 0.60 SUBJECT: Retaining Wall Design Non -Seismic BY: L 0.00 E 0.70 Seismic Pressure = 170.0 psl 1.00 Design Lateral Pressure = 35 pcf Surcharge Pressure = 75.0 psf SOIL SURCHARGE ive Lateral Pressure = 300 pcf t, 60-a's: friction = 040 ; ": - WALL Unit Weight of Sal 120 pcf 4 ksi Wall Concrete (17c) = Tributary Length of Wall 10' Wall Reinforcing (fy) = 60 ks, Conciele Strength 4000 psi Cover= 2.n. Co�u-n DL 0 00 k Bar Size = Co umn LL 0.00 k Bar Area = 044 77 Bar Spacing r IZS' Wt of Soil obo�e Heel 84k A oid D am ColdrIn"n 0 in�2/11. As Provided = Wt. at Wall 1 6 K Bar Diameter = 0.75 Wt. of Fooling 3 4 k dz 9.63 0-32 a/2 = 0.282,nA2/ft k As Required = P (0_1 150 C As Minimum TOE 4 ksi 7- Wall Concrete ffc) = EQ 900.0 pit 1.0, 1.0* 7Z 437.5 pit 75.0 plf 170 pit Wall Reinforcing (fy) = 60 U Cover = 3 in. 9.00' Bar Size = Wall ok Fooling Toe ok Footing Heel Bar Area = 031 d 9.0" d = 26.0- d = 26.0- Bar Spacing = V,, = 2,94 k V,, = 4.12 k VU = 7.07 k As Provided = 0.21 inA2/ft. �Vc = 10.25 k �Vc = 29.60 k +VC = 29.60 k Bar Diameter = 0.625 d= 26.69 Mu = 11.78 tf-k M,, = 2.06 tt-k M� = 24.73 fl-k a/2 = 0.15 As Required = 0.017 jnA2/" OK FS Sliding ok FS Overturning ok As Minimum = Sliding Resistance 4.5 k RM = 38.3 ff-k HEET 1.85 Sliding Force 4.2 k OTM = 20.7 fl-k Wall Concrete (fc) = 4 ksi Wafl Reinforcing (fy) = 60 ksi Soil Bearing ok Cover = 3 in. Bar Size = 6 43.1 fl-k 3.23' Bar Area = 0.44 13.4 k Bar Spacing = , 2 �n. 0- As Provided = 0." inA2/h. e = 1.27' < b/6 = 1.50' Bar Diameter = 0.75 d= 26.63 It e < b/6, Then... It e b/6. Then... a/2 = 032 Soil Bearing = P . M 2.74 ksf Soil Bec--wg 2 0__P L As Required = 0.2D9 inA2/ff 0 K A - -Ss .5.b e Stress Left S Stra 3 As Minimum = 34k /7 Soil Bearing P M 2 .0. = - . - = = 0.22 ksf _ = 2.76 ksf Stress Right A S 3 4.5. 1_2TJ - P = D-L = 13.4 k A = 9.0 Sf wIct'. 9.68' M = Pe = 17.0 ff-k S = 13.5fM3 DCI -ENGINEERS D'AMATO CONVERSAN PROJECT NO SHEET NO: 0 1 NC- Load Factors PROJECT: PROJECT NAME DATE: I D 1.00 SUBJECT: Retaining Wall Design Non -Seismic BY: L 0.75 1 E 0-yi Seismic Pressure = 170.0 psf H 1.00 Design Lateral Pressure = 35 pcf S h e Pressure = 75.0 psf SOIL SURCHARGE urc a 4p.sswegL...) Pressure 300 pcf B B ase Fncl,on 040 WAU Unit Weight 01 Sol 120 Pct Wall Concrete (fc) z 4 kSl Wag Reinforcing (ty) = TrOulory Length at wall 0* 60 Ksi Concrete Strength 4000 psi Cover = 2n. Bar Size = 6 ColumnDL 0 00 k Bw Area 0." Column LL 0 00 k �-10 0, Bar Spacing 125 WI of Soil obo�e Heel 8 4 AC d6d F)l from Col As Provided Wt at Wall l6k Bar Diameter 0.75 .4-, �V WI. of Footing 34k d= 9.63 ar2 = 032 4, As Reqtwed = 0313 inA21ft on� 0. C As Minimum = TOE 4 k3l EQ Wall Concrete (fc) = 900.0 plf iff 1.0* 7.Or 437.5 plf 75.0 pit 170 pff Wag Rewdorcng (ty) = 60 ksi cover = 3iih. 9.00' Bar Size = Wall ok Footing Toe ok Footing Heel Bar Area = 0.31 d 9.0" of = 26.0" d = 26.0" Bar Spacing = !�:;. V,, = 3.21 k V,, = 4.35 k V,, = 11.78 k As provided = 0.21 inA2/fl. OVc = 10.25 k VC = 29.60 k VC = 29.60 k Bar Dorneter = 0.625 d= 26.69 M, = 13.11 ft-k Mu = 2.17 ft-k Mu = 41.21 ft-k ar2 = 0.15 As Required = 0.0l8inA2/fl OK FS Sliding ok FS Overturning ok As Minimurn = Sliding Resistance 6�;l RM = 63.8 ft-k UEEEL = ; 2.80 1.46 4 kSi Sliding Force k OTM = 22.8 fl-k Wall Concrete (fc) = Wall ReWorcing (fy) = 60 U Soil Beating ok Cover = 3 bL Bar Size = 4 1.0 fl-k Bar Area = 0.44 X 3.07' .4 k Bar Spacing = 0 AS provided = 0.44 inA2/ff. e = 1.43* < b/6 = 1.50' Bar Diameter = 0.75 d= 26.63 If e < b/6. Then... If e > b/6, Then... ar2 = 0-32 Soil Bearing = P M 2.90 ksf Sail Bearing 2 As Required = O_UB inA2/ft Stress Left A S - Stress 3 0 .5. b As Minimtxn = Soil Bearing = P _!�_ 0.07 li:st 2 __13 4 '. / ".'I = 2.90 ksf Stress Right A S 3 4.5 _ 1 43 p = D-L = 13.4 k A = 9.0 Sf ,iridth 9.21' M = Pe = 19.1 fi-k S = 13,5 ft�3 0 DCI -ENGINEERS D'AMATO CONVERSANO INC. PROJECT NO: SHEET NO: Load Factors PROJECT: PROJECT NAME DATE: D 0-WI L 0.00 SUBJECT: Retaining Wall Design Non -Seismic BY: E I.r.lo Seismic Pressure = 170.0 pst _H Design Lateral Pressure = 35 pcI Surcharge Pressure = 75 0 psf fr SOIL SURCHARGE Possi�e Lateral Pressure = 300 pcf WALL _4L Unit Weight of Soil Wall Concrete (fc) 4 ks, B s a e Friction = 040 = 120 pcf Tributary Length of Wall = 1.0, F, Wall Reinforcing (ty) 60 ksi Q 'A' Concrete Strengtn = 4000 psi Cover= '2,n Column OL 0 00 k ;--.f Bar Size = Column LL 0 00 k Bar Area = 0-31 Bar Sparing 3 0' W1 of Soil aao�e Heel = l4k A 0,31 inA2/11. As Provided = wt� of Wall = o4k Bar Diameter = 0.625 Wt of Footing = 7.68 d= 0.?3 �qf a/2 = As Required = 0. 189 jnA 2/ft OK an Pff 44 As Minimum TOE -.4 'R 4 K9 EQ Wall Concrete (fc) = on lolf 1.0* 043' 4.0' 157-5 pit 75.0 pit 170 plf Wall Reinforcing (ty) = 60 ksi 450 Cover= 3 in. SAX Bar Size = Wall -ok Footing Toe ok Footing Heel Bar Area = 0.31 d = 7.0" d = 14.0- d - 14.0" Bar Spacing = 1 A :ri. Vi, = 0.76k V, = 3.90 k Vu = 2.48 k As Provided = 0.21 inA2/ff. VC = 7.96 k = 15.94 k 4VC = 15.94 k Bar Diameter = 0.625 d= 14.69 M� = 6.35 fl-k M,, = 1.95 ft-k M,, = 4.95 tt-k a/2 = 0.15 As Required = 0.030 inA2/ft O-K FS Sliding ok FS Overturning ok As Minimurn = Sliding Resistance 1 �2? RM = 9.0 ft-k 1.22 U[EEL Sliding Force 0.9 k OTM = 7.4 fl-k Wall Concrete (fc) = 4 ksi Wall Reinforcing (ty) = 60 ksi Soil Bearing ok Cover = 3 in. Bar Size = 5 2.6 ft-k Bar Area = 031 X 3.2 k 037 Bar Spacing = ; _2 !"'. 0 As Provided = 0.21 inA2/11. e 2.19 b/6 0.97 Bar Diameter = 0.625 d= 14.69 if e < b/6, Then... If e > b/6, Then... a/2 = 0.15 Soil Bearing = P 1.73 k5f Soil Bearing 2 =P/ L As Required = 0.076 inA2/fI 0K Stress Left A S Stress 3 b e As Minimum = Sri] Bearing = .0.63 ks, 2 3.2 k 1.0, 2.60 ksf Stress Right A 3 2.9, 2.10.1 P = D�I_ = 3-2 k A = 5_8 Sf vAdIh 2.45* M = Pe = 6.7 ft-k S = 17ftA3 0 i5iRtUlCI-ENGINEERS _. D'AMATO CONVERSANO INC. PROJECT NO: SHEET NO: Load Factors PROJECT: PROJECT NAME DATE: D 1.20 SUBJECT: Retaining Wall Design Non -Seismic BY: L 1.00 E 1.00 Seismic Pressure = 170.0 psi H 0.00 Design Lateral Pressure = 35 pcf Surcharge Pressure = 75 0 psf SOIL SURCHARGE Lolc(ol Pressure 300 pcf ea,ss,ve a e Friction 040 WALL Unit Weight of Sol 120 pcf wall Concrete (rc) 4 ksi Tributary Length of Wall 1.0* 4, Wall Reinforcing (ty) 60 ksi Concrete Strength 4000 psi Cover = 2,n Column DL = 0 OD k Bar Size = Column LL = 0.00 k Bar Area = 0.31 eAm 3:0 1C. Bar Spac4ng = Wt of Soil o0ove Heel = 1 41� AC Cled Oil it n 3 (Y -7- As Provided 0 31 in 2/ft. wl of Wall = 041, Bar Diameter 0625 Wt. of Footing 13k d= 768 a 2 0.23 As Required = 0 186.n�2/ff OK As Minimum = TOE 7 Wall Concrete (fc) 4 kSi Wag Reinforcing (fy) 60�ksi 0.0 pit Iff 0.83' 4.(Y 157.5 pit 75D pit 170 pit 450 Cover = 3 in. S.83* Bar Size = Wall ok Footing Toe ok Footing Heel Bar Area = 0.31 d = 7.0- d = 14.0" d = 14Ar Bar Spacing = lz:,. Vv = 0.74 k vu = 2.74 k Vu = 3-30 k As Provided = 0.21 inA2/11. +Vc = 7.96 k VC = 15.94 k +Vc = 15.94 k Bar Diameter = 0.625 d = 14.69 M,, = 6.25 H-k MU = 1.37 fl-k M,, = 6.61 fl-k a/2 = 0.15 As Required = 0.021 inA2/fI Ok FS Sliding ok FS Overturning ok As Minimum = Sliding Resistance 1.5 k RM = 12.0 ft-k HEEL Sliding Force 0.7 k 2.08' OTM 1.91 = 6.2 ft-k Wall Concrete (fc) = 4 U Wall Reinforcing (fy) = 60 Icsi Soil Bearing ok Cover = 3 in. Bar Size = 3.7 ft-k Bar Area = 0.31 3.2 k 0 Bar Spacing = 1A M. As Provided = 0.21 inA2/11. e 1.75' > b/6 0.97' Bar Diameter = 0.625 d = 14.69 If e < b/6. Then... If e > b/6, Then... a/2 = 0.15 Sail Bearing P M Soil Bearing 2 P As Required = 0-101 inA2/f1 OK Stress Leh A 1.53 ksf Stress 3 - - e 0- 5� As Minimum = Soililearing P - M -0A4 ksf 2 3' : _a iz2 ksf Stress Right A S 3 2-1 F, = DL = 3.2 k A = 5S St width 3.50' M = Pe = 5.6 fl-k S = 5.7 flA3 �M DCI -ENGINEERS D'AMATO CONVERSANO INC. PROJECT: PROJECT NAME SUBJECT: Retaining Wall Design Seismic Pressure = 170.0 psf Design Lateral Pressure = 35 pcf = 75 0 -sl PROJECT NO: SHEET NO: Load Factors DATE: D 0.60 L 0.00 Non -Seismic BY: E 0.70 H 1-00 urc orge ressure .:eLateral Pressure = 300 pcf ,.0n Fee. = 040 1w SOIL SURCHARGE Unit Weight of SDI 120 pcl Tributary Length of Wall 0* Concrete Strength '11300 psi t . Column DL 0 00 k V.;, r". Column LL 0.00 k ...... ..�F,_3 0' Wt of SDI at:>ove Heel l4k Ac am. vrTin*-,,,14�4,v, 3 0* Wt of Wall 0.4 k Wt. of Footing 1-3 k 41, EQ 0.0 pit 1.0* 0.83' 4.0' 157.5 pit 75.0 pit 170 plf 450 5.83' Wall ok Footing Toe ok Footing Heel d = 7.0- d = I,k0- d = 14.0" V� = 0.51 k V, = 2.02 k V,, = 1.65 k +Vc = 7,96 k +Vc = 15.94 k 0c = 15.94 k M,, = 4.29 ft-k Mu = 1.01 ff-k Mir = 3.30 li-k FS Sliding ok FS Overturning ok Sliding Resistance OS k RM = 6.0 ff-k 1.21 - Sliding Force 0.6 k 1.29 OTIVI = 4.9 ft-k Soil Bearing ok 5.0 ft-k 1.58' 3.2 k e 1.34' > b/6 0.97' If e < b/6, Then if e > b/6, Then... Soil Bearing P Soil Bearing 2 P L = = 1.30 ksf Stress Left A S Stress 7_ 3 0.5 b e P M Soil Bearing - . - = = -0.20 ksf 2 3.2k I a �4, 1.35 ksf Stress Right A S 3 2_7 1 P = 0-1. = 3.2k A = 5.8 sf idth 4.74' M = Pe = 4.3 ft-k S = 5.7 fIA3 I* WALL Wall Concrete (fc) = 4 kSi Wall Reinforcing (ty) = 60 ksi Cover = 2". Bar Size = Bar Area = 031 Bar Spacing = ; �- ". As Provided = 0-31 inA2/ft. Bar Diameter = 0.625 d = 768 a/2 = 0.23 As Required = 0 128 InA2/ft 0< As Minimum = TOE Wall Concrete (fc) = 4 V-9 Wall Reinforcing (ty) = 60 Irsi Cover = 3 in. Bar Size = Bar Area = 0-31 Bar Spacing = I � i.. As Provided = 0.21 inA2/tt. Bar Diameter = 0.625 d = 14.69 a/2 = 0.15 As Required = 0-015 inA2/fI 3K As Minimum = FEEEL Wall Concrete (fc) = 4 kSi Wall Reinforcing (fy) = 60 ksi Cover = 3 in. Bar Size = Bar Area = 0.31 Bar Spacing = As Provided = 0.21 in42/ft. Bar Diameter = 0.625 d = 14.69 a/2 = 0.15 As Required = 0.050 inA2/ft OK As Minimum = DCI -ENGINEERS D'AMATO CONVERSANO INC. PROJECT: PROJECT NAME SUBJECT: Retaining Wall Design Seismic Pressure = 170.0 psf Design Lateral Pressure = 35 pcf = 75 0 -sf PROJECT NO: SHEET NO: Load Factors DATE: D 1.00 L 0.75 Non -Seismic BY: E 0.53 H 1.00 urc arge essure assive Lateral Pressure ase Friction 300 pcf 040 SOIL SURCHARGE Unit We,ghl of Soil 120 pcf Tributary Length of Wall 1.0* Concrete Strength 4000 psi Column DL 0 00 k Column LL 0 00 k 3 0- Wt. of Soil above Heel I 4k AC 3.0* Wt of wall 04k Wt. of Fooling 'P EQ 0.0 pit Iff oaX 4Z 157.5 pit 75.0 pit 170 p 450 &aX Wall ok Fooling Toe ok Footing Heel d 7.0- d = 14.0" d = 14.0" V,, = 0.59 k V,, = 2.33 k Vu = 2.75 k #Vc = 7.96 k +Vc = 1&94k +V, = 15.94 k Mu = 4.97 ff-k = 1- 17 Il-k Mir = 5.50 ft-k FS Sliding ok FS Overturning ok Sliding Resistance l3k RM = 10.0111-k I.?G Sliding Force 0.7 k OTM 1.78 = 5.6 ft-k SollElearing ok 4.4 ft-k 1.37' 3.2 k e 1.55' > b/6 = 0.97' If e < b/6, Then... IT e > b/6, Then... Soil Bearing = P M = = 1.42 ksf Soil8earing 2 P Stress Left A 5 Stress 3 0 5-b e r2 Soil Bearing = P M = = -0.32 ksf 2 3 '.0"1 1-5-1 kf Stress Right A S 3 2 . 1 55 p = D-L = 3.2 k A = 5.8 sf width 4.11' M = Pe = 4.9 ft-k S = 5.7 IIA3 0 WALL Wall Concrete (fc) = 4 kSi Wall Reinforcing (ty) = 60 kSi Cover = Bar Size = Bar Area = 0.31 Bar Spacing = As Provided = 031 nA2/ft Bar Diameter = 0625 d = 7.68 a12 = 0.23 As Required = 0. 148 inA2/tt As Minimum = TOE Wan Concrete (fc) = 4 KS, Wall Retriforcing (fy) = 60 ksi Cover = 3 in. Bar Size = Bar Area = 0.31 Bar Spacing = I � ;.-. As Provided = 0.21 inA2/fl. Bar Diameter = 0.625 d = 14.69 a12 = 0.15 As Required = 0.0 18 inA2/ft OK As Minimum = REEL Wall Concrete (fc) = 4 U Wall Reinforcing (fy) = 60 U Cover = 3 in. Bar Size = L Bar Area = 0.31 Bar Spacing = 1 S V �. As Provided = 0.21 inA2/ft. Bar Diameter = 0.625 d = 14.69 a12 = 0.15 As Required = 0.084 inA2/ft 0?1' As Minimum = DC I -ENG IN EERS D'AMATO CONVERSANO INC. Project Subject X Project No. Sheet No. Date B�: Loads: BLC 1, soil �Results for LC 1. wall 'Aug 21, 2006 at 10:24 AM untitled.r3d CTkft L . . .... Loads: BLC 2, surcharge Results for LC 1, wall Aug 21, 2006 at 10:24 AM untitled.r3d Results for LC 1, wall Member y Shear Forces (k) Aug 21, 2006 at 10:24 AM untitled.r3d Results for LC 1, wall blember z Bending Moments (k-ft) Aug 21, 2006 at 10:24 AM untitled.r3d 0 00 WE DCI -ENGINEERS D'AMATO CONVERSANO INC. Project Number Sheet Number 06-11-031 Project: Pt. Ed. Building 6/7 Date: 8/21/2006 Sub)ect: Retairuing Wall Design By: Dtiveway Slab fc 4 ksi fy 60 ksi h 10 in w 12 in cover 2 in d (in.) 7.6875 in assume a = 0. 1 *d 0.1*d 0.76875 in. 1 st Iteration 0.213 in A 2 a 0.313 in. 2nd Iteration As 0.207 in A 2 a 0.304 in. 3rd Iteration As req'd in A 2/ft. a = 0.304 in. As provd'd 0.207 in A 2/tt. Bar # 5 diam. Bar 0.625 in area Bar 0.31 in A 2 Mu 7 k-ft 84 k-in Mi 7.78 k-ft 93.33 k-in Vu 1.1 k phi 0.75 phi*Vc 8.75 k OK Steel & Spacing 5 at 18 in. ft ODCLENGINEERS _. D'AMAI'O CONVERSANO INC. F�T NO: SHEET NO: PROJECT: PROJECT NAME DATE: SUBJECT: Retaining Wall Design Non -Seismic BY: Soil Load (x*H) 26H S harge Load = 75.0 psf SOIL SURCHARGE Ourcive Lateral Pressure = 300 pcI Base Friction = 0.35 Unit Weight of Soil = 120 pcf Tributary Length of Wall = 1.0, Concrete Strength 4000 psi Column DL 0.0 k Column LL = 0.0 k f-10.0" Wt. of Soil above Heel = 30k Ac u rom Col' nin W1. of Wall = 1.3 k Wt. of footing = 1.3 k io, - A.57- 450D pit-,-.:. 900.0 plf 2.5' 0.83' 2.5' 78.0 pli 75.0 pit 5.83' Wall Footing Toe Footing Heel d 7.5" d = 14.0" d = 14.0 Vu = 2.45 k Vu = 7.47 k V� = 6.90 k +Vc = 8.54 k iloVc = 15.94 k Vc = 15.94 k Mu = 12.24 ft-k Mu = 9.34 ff-k Mu = 8.62 ft-k FS Slicling Sliding Resistance 2.2 k Sliding Force 1.25 1 8 k Bearing ok 11.3 tf-k X = 2.00' 5.6 k e = 0.9 1, < b16 0.97' ff e < b/6. Then... SoilBearing = Stress Left A S 1.87 ksf Soil Bearing P M = Stress Right A S 0.06 ksl P = D+L = 5.6 k A = 5.8 sf M = Pe = 5.1 ft-k s = 5.7 fjA3 ri FS Overturning RM = 13.3 ft-k = 1.32 OTM = 10.1 ft-k It e > b/6. Then... Soil Bearing 2 P P Stress 3 0 0 5 b e b e 5-b e 2 6 I . 0' 6 k 6 k k 0 1 -.0 1.87 ksf 3 2.1" 111111�j width 6.01' WA_LL Wall Concrete (fc) = 4 K51 Wall Reinforcing (fy) = 60 ksi Cover = 3 in. Bar Size = Bar Area = 031 Bar Spacing = ; , in As Provided = 0-31 -12/ft- Bar Diameter = 0.625 d = 665 a/2 = 0.23 As Required = 0 424 rnA2/fj As Minimum = IOE Wall Concrete (fc) = 40 Wall Reinforcing (fy) = 60 ksi Cover = 3 in. Bar Size = Bar Area = 0.31 Bar Spacing = 1A in As Provided = 0.21 inA2/ft. Bar Diameter = 0.625 d = 14.69 a/2 = 0.15 As Required = 0. 143 inAZrtt 170K As Minimum = HEEL Wall Concrete (fc) = 4 U Wall Reinforcing (fy) = 6OU Cover = 3 in. Bar Size = Bar Area = 031 Bar Spacing = 1 As Provided = 0.21 inA2/ft. Bar Diameter = 0.625 d = 14.69 a/2 = 0.15 As Required = 0.132 inA21tt I C. As Minimum = �ft DCI -ENGINEERS D'AMATO CONVERSANC) INC. PROJECT NO: SHEET NO: I - PROJECT: PROJECT NAME DATE: SUBJECT: Retaining Wall Design Non -Seismic BY: Soil Load (x*H) = 26H Surcharge Load = 75.0 pst SOIL SURCHARGE assive Lateral Pressure 300 pCf Wase Friction 0.35 1.,... . .4 - . " - . I.. I WALL Unit Weight of Soil 120 pcf Wall Concrete (f c) 4 ksi Tributary Length at Wall = 1.0, 60 ksi Wall Reinforcing (fy) = Concrete Strength = 4000 psi .4. Cover = 3 in. Column DL = 0.9 k Bar Size = 5 Column LL 0.0 k Bar Area = 0.31 Bar Spacing = 12; Its Wt. of Soil above Heel = 05k A As Provided = 031 inA2/ft. * 0.2 k Bar Diameter = 0.625 Wt. of Wall * l3k Wt. of Footing d= 6.65 a/2 0.23 As Required 0 inA 0.0 PI I As Minimum 001 2/ft TOE ZZ n 4 ksi Wall Concrete (f c) = 0.0 pit 2.5* 0.83' 2S 78.0 plf 75.0 plf Wall Reinforcing (fy) = 60 ksj Cover = 3 in. 5.83* Bar Size = 5 Wall Footing Toe Footing Heel Bar Area = 0.31 d 7.5" d = 14.0- d = 14.01. Bar Spacing = 18:n. Vu = 0.37 k vu = -0.65 k VU = 2.82 k As Provided = 0.21 inA2/ft. OVc = 8.54 k 4VC = 15-94 k OVC = 15.94 k Bar Diameter = 0.625 d= 14-69 MU = 0.28 ft-k Mu = -0.81 M, = 3.52 ft-k a/2 = 0.15 As Required = -0.0 12 inA2/ft FS Sliding FS Overturning As Minimum = Sliding Resistance 0.6 k 1.32 RM 5.5 ft-k F[UL Sliding Force 0.5 k OTM 0.7 ft-k Wall Concrete (fc) = 4 ksi Wall Reinforcing (fy) = 60 ksi woil Bearing ok Cover = 3 in. Bar Size = 5 8.5 ft-k Bar Area = 031 x = -2 4.20' .0 k Bar Spacing = 18:n. As Provided = 0.2) inA2/ft. e = - 1.29' < b/6 = 0.97' Bar Diameter = 0.625 d= 14.69 If e < b/6. Then... 11 e > b/6, Then... a/2 = 0.15 Soil Bearing P M Soil Bearing 2 P L As Required = ().054 inA2/ft Stress Leff A S -0. 16 ksf Stress 3 0_5.b e As Minimum = SoilBeadng P M 2 2.9kT 1.0 1.15 ksf _ = 0.460 Stress Right A S 3 2.9 _ _1.29.1 P = D+L = 2.9 k A = 5.8 sf vvidth 12.6 V M = Pe = -3.7 ft-k S = 5.7 tfA3 —'/ -g PERMITEXPIRES CITY OF EDMONDS r CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION OWNER NAME/NAME OF BUSINESS 4blItIr �Spjvltxl) D's 16 MAILING ADDRESS a/ CITY ZIP;?. TELEPHONE 11\_�54tliel - /* NAME I/ ADDRESS 1.�C/4``/-t'F _]�# NAME CBL# J�WZ_ ADDRESS Im aiL M-/y W/& )�Wf7l CITY ZIP ELEPHONE STATE LICENSE NUMBER EXPIRATtON)DATE� CHECKED BY PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL NO NEW 0 RESIDENTIAL PLUMBING / MECH ADDITION COMMERCIAL MIXED USE COMPLIANCE OR CHANGE OF USE REMODEL MULTIFAMILY SIGN REPAIR GRADING CYDS FENCE ( X FT.) DEMOLISH TANK OTHER GARAGE CARPORT RETAINING WALL ROCKERY F!RE SPRINKLER F RE ALARM (TYPE OF USE. -BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN: Iry NUMBER NUMBEROF OF DWELLING STORIES UNITS DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE z7 I/ I Ze /_ A 7 A-,-, — — 1 -7 —7 9 PERMIT NUMBER JOB jSUI EJAPT# ADDRESS / 05 �; �".je'01V, /'� � � r� PLAT NAME]SUBDIVISION NO, LOT NO. LID NO. I LID FEE $ PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIA:L STREET MAP TESCP Approved 81 Rw Permit Required EXISTING PROPOSED Street use Permit Required 13 Inspection Required _M� Sidewalk Required U REQUIRED DEDICATION FT Unde(groun wiring required METER SIZE LINE IZE NO. OF FIXTURES PFIV REQUIRED YESU NOD REMARKS OWNER/CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROUDRAINAGE ENGINEERING REVIEWED BY -.17 ' 7 1 1 1 nATr 19 RECYCLE PUBLIC LL /11ARIANCE Oil CU SHORELINEORADB# INSPECTION EPA REO'D COMPL T EXEMPT ES 13 No CA# ZONE SIGN AREA HEIGHT [3 WAIVER ALLOWED PROPOSED ALLOWE ,Q� PROPOSED OSTUDY ft 1 1 _7 13511.1 LOT COVERAGE REQUIRED SETBACKS (FT) PROPOSED SETBACKS (FT) I ALLOWED PROPOSED FRONT SIDE REAR FRONT L/RSIDE REAR Ot /!�;t z PARKING ", I LOTAREA Pl_�;qN�NG REVIEWED BY DATE/ RF(Yr) . Ppr)vin 1 10. TYPE OF CONSTR UCTION �ODE .";zov 'A SPECIAL INSPECTIC, N ANT R REO X U EQUIRED YES �'CONSULT REMARKS BY: 1 STF BY: wescripilion E 2�74E LOT SLOPE% VESTED DATE I Plan Check . . Building Permit PLAN CHECK NO: Plumbing THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC Mechanical DOMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE Grading SEPARATE PERMISSION. PERMIT APPLICATION: SEE ECDC 19.00.005(A)(6) PERMIT LIMIT: SEE ECDC 19.00.005(A)(6) Engr. , Review SEE �4CK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION Engr. Inspection 'APPLICANT, ON BEH . ALF OF Hls�' SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST, AGREES TO IND" 11 FlyhEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF ITS 01 A LOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND Fire Review ,,?ASHINGTON, ot HAT ATIM� C"A M PO'R DAMAGES OF WHAT t)EMTORE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE FY, WAIVE OR IILY %,fkk4lJIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE 1_=WWYWAYTHE S * _E�FORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.- CITYI� Fire Inspection LandscapeInsp. \ \ k-,A- I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE #MAD THIS APPLICATION; THAT THE INFORMATION GIVEN IS CORRECT; AND THAT I AM THE OWNER, QRl THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF THE OW�BW ,(GREE TO COMPLY&TIN A%4STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC- 4 1 NG THE WORK AUTHON A 00 14 �S �BY NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED IN-VId A 10 OF THE LABOR PODE 0 A E OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO AT WORKMEN'S COMAJ!9 fj�kPA,,XCE AND RCW 18:27. CALL FOR INSPECTION (425) 771 -0220 F T 111.1 SIGNATUMPEW NT):.' DATE SIGNED OCCUPANT GROUP ...- FEE Description FEE State Surcharge City Surcharge Base Fee v2A.11 1.1 �'_ I J—_ Recording Fee Plan Chk. Deposit 01 Receipt # fotal Amt. Due Receipt # APPLICATION APPROVAL This application is not a permit until signed by the Building Official or his/her Deputy: and Fees are paid, and receipt is acknowledged in space provided. I, I Zlr,�RE DATE -A ATTENTION F LIZ& IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTI- FICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC109 / IBC110 / IRC110. 6/05 PRESS HARD - YOU ARE MAKING 4 COPIES ORIGINAL - FILE YELLOW - INSPECT( PINK -OWNER GOLD - ASSESSOR fu -roo. Ci) V11 At LU C4 I - 4: Ilk. C4 P. LIP I 13 I U I L In uj QP do LI --- L a T 71 lol lies v ca I . . 'I til ------- IN ' ;v"A pd, Pit Zv 7.1s.. 14' -INN VA 77j, IDA* �P: 'Itt 'e� '*g , t ov� 'R4 7P— _R EN % VIA-. �Slv k is q DEC 22 2005 TERRA ASSOCIATES .. Inc. BUILDIN C17y OGFDEEDPMAORNTMENT Consultants in Geotechnical'Engineering, Geology DS and Environmental Earth Sciences June 25, 2004 Project No. T-4893 Mr. -koss Woods Point Edwards, LLC 2801 Alaskan Way, . Suite 107 Seattle� Washington 98121 Subject: - Building Drainage Point Edwards Condominiums Pine Stieet.and Unoco Road Edmonds,.Washington . Referenc . e: Preliminary Geotechnical Report, UNOCAL Site. Project No. T-4893, prepared by Terra Associates, Inc., dated November 21, 2001 Dear Mr. Woods: g6o' . hnical report, drainage of below -grade building walls can be accomplished As discus6cd in -our refe=ced tec by attaching prefabricated wall drainage panels to the backfilled'side of the wall. Water intercepted,by the drainage. panels is routed to a footing drain at the base of the wall that conveys the water to the storm system. As w6 have discussed with you, the footing drain may be ornitted from the daylight side'of the buildings, provided the elevation of the basement slab is not below outside finished grade and the final exterior grades promote positive . drainage avVayfrom the building areas.. estions or require We trust the information presented is.sufficient for -your current needs. If you have any qu additional "information, please call. Sincerely yours, TERRA ASSOCIATES, INC. John CAO& kv C/-_�510q cc: Longitude 122, LLC STREET FILE 12525 Willows Road, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034 Phone (425) 821-7777 a Fax (425) 821-4334 0 'A DC D'A M. . v I. --ENGINEERS A , TO CONVERSANO INC. I. Mark DArnato - Guy A. Conversano Elizabeth A. lensen Rc�ger L. I leer&uiga - Alark D. Aden I -lam, Jones 11 Troy E. Bean - Tom C. Xia, Ph.D. Richard L. I lennnen - Grant C. Buckingham Point Edwards Building 8 Edmonds, WA Structural Calculations For �4 '�.�..".""Concrete and Foundation Permit Response Comments Prepared For: 2n P.L.L.C. Weber+Th*R on 1-1 Ak, CA a, December 19, 2005 DO Job # 5-11-263 RESUB DEC 2 2 2005 BUILDING DEPARTMENT CITY OF EDmONDS S K_j TREET FILE 10900 NE 4'rii STREET, SUITE 1200 - BF'I,I,EVLIE, WA 98004 * PHONE (425) 827.2238 o FAX (425) 827.8986 B I: 1, 1, 1: v k.] E SPOKANE E v F R FTT P 0 RT LA N 1) SAN Dwco Ro-= Point Edwards Building 8 December 19, 2005 DCl Job # 5-11-263 Structural Calculations Index FOOTING and WALL CALCULATIONS Section A Footing Depth Diagram A-1 Revised Wall Foundation Calculations A-2 to A-9 WIND CALCULATIONS Section B Wind Calculations B-1 to B-2 Wind Speed -Up Effects Diagrams B-3 to B-4 ETABS MODEL Section C Etabs Model Diagrams C-1 to C-5 LATERAL STABILITY Section D Sliding Stability Calculations D-1 to D-2 4" 9 Point Edwards Building 8 December 19, 2005 DO Job # 5-11-263 FOO'TING SECTION A 0 p T.O. FARAI�57 EL- 157.00, MAIN ROOF W. PLATE p 151.19, LEVEL L5 T.O. Gypl EB- 14200' BEVELEE) 5117INS, Tylp. LEVEL L2 SYPCRETE EL. 151.00, LEVEL LI T.O. P.T. SLAB EL. 12011561 LEVEL PI EL: 511LIh6l VINYL VaNpol" TYP SY5TEM, TYP 42' NISH AT-.F. ALUM 4 &LA55 6UAFl TYP ALUM 4 CLASS WARDRAIL. TYP al ryp. T VINYL VOID i eevELM Slic-INS j SYSTID-1. rtr I =N— II [NEI ............... ..................... .......... * ....... 11- . .......... H. ..... m ........ ...... ........ ..... ......... PARAPET MAIN ROOF T.O. PLATE m- 151.151 LEVEL L5 TO. &YPl m 142.00' LEVEL L2 TD. Q.YPl EL- 151.00, I I MIN. c4jQ-, ::: I tjnj::[L 11 Ilu 11 9 11 11 111 TO OPERASLE RETA NIN&- Jill [I it LJLJ Pil I&==LL--Jj kqImpo" -VIALL LEVEL LI EL. 120,66' OFIENING5 (TYF4.- T.O. J-.T. SLAZ LINE OF BEYOND I FARKIN015ARAOE LEVEL PI SLAB EL. illy,05, OF SX-I-REHE- L f0 I HI SOIL 100. PARTIAL EA5T ELEVATION 51-ALEOW - 1'-0* AT 52^ ANSL2 � --- Ll AT 5.2' ANSLE F-T6 PET, STIR-\) I Cbtq-ririL4ES DCw rltF- fv-og�-- . IN 'lilt��- SHIl TYP. T.O. PARAPET EL. 157.00, MAIN ROOF T.O. PLATE El- 151.151 ......... 42' f4l ALLIM �P 6UAIL.A LEVEL Ls ,i, T.O. &YprRETr 1-fW F4 142.00' ...... T' VINYL 5Y5TE:M'TYP ........... .. ..... ............ .................. ....... ............ pill - ---- - . ..... [um .......... ........... TYP. &- qg'-O" LEVEL L2 Ail T.O. rlypcgrm I �1- 11 I-F EL ISID01 IF CONIZIRETE CONCRE=M I TERRACE bY.Y. ��rl ppzo - In LEVEL LI T,O. P.T. SLAB TY TYP. FiWFF�E --�' - 12* MIN. Cj-R. TO -- -;w FARK]No6A�AOE Fl-t- P EPZ VC-7- LEVEL PI ope'llNer. cryp) I I TO. SLA5 — — — — — — EL. 111.66' PARTIIAL. 1,A,l ELEVATION AT 5.2' ANI �-1 130 DCUENGINEERS �MATO CONVERSANO INC. PROJECT: Point Edwards Building #8 A SUBJECT: South Retaining Wall - Short Version Design Lateral Pressure Surcharge Pressure = 35 pcf = 75.0 psf Passive Lateral Pressure = 300 pcf Base Friction = 0.40 Unit Weight of Soil = 120 pcf Tributary Length of Wall 1.0, Concrete Strength = 4000 psi Column DL = 0.0 k Column LL 0.0 k PROJECT NO: 05-11-263 SHEET NO: A. z DATE.- 12-20-2005 Non -Seismic BY'. JDB C-C SOIL SURCHARGE 7.0' Wt. of Soil above Heel 2.2 k AdIded-13C from Co umn Wt. of Wall 0.9 k Wt. of Footing 3.6 k 0.'33' 99.0 plf 0i 3 .01 999.0 plf 4.5' 0.83' 2.67' 350.0 plf 8.00, ok Footing Toe ok d = 32.0" V u 0.65 k VU 7.96 k 7.92 k �Vc 36.43 k M' 3.40 ft-k U. Mu 17.90 ft-k FS Sliding -ok Sliding Resistance 3.3 k 1.31 Sliding Force 2.5 k SoilBearing ok 24.4 ft-k X 6.8 k 3.59' e = 0.41' < b/6 = 1.33' If e < b/6, Then... Soil Bearing P M _ Stress Left + A S = = 1. 11 ksf Soil Bearing P M _ Stress Right - A S = = 0.59 ksf P = D+L = 6.8 k A = 8.0 sf M = Pe = 2.8 ft-k S = 10.7 ftA3 75.0 plf Footing Heel d = 32.0" Vu = 9.35 k OVC = 36.43 k Mu = 12.48 ft-k FS Overturning ok RM 20.4 ft-k OTM 9.6 ft-k If e > b/6, Then... 15.0' 2.12 Soil Bearing 2 P L Stress 3 0.5*b e 2 - 6.8 k 1.01 = 1.26 ksf 3 4.0' 0.41' width 10.78' :1 D -ENGINEERS C I D 'AMATO CONVERSAN 0 1 NC. PROJECT NO: 05-11-263 SHEET NO: PROJECT- Point Edwards Building #8 DATE: 12-20-2005 )UBJECT: South Retaining Wall - Short Version Seismic BY: JDB Design Lateral Pressure = 35 pcf Surcharge Pressure = 138.0 psf SOIL SURCHARGE Passive Lateral Pressure = 300 pcf Base Friction = 0.40 Unit Weight of Soil 120 pcf Tributary Length of Wall = 1.0, Concrete Strength = 4000 psi "";R Column DL 0.0 k Column LL 0.0 k V� 15.0' Wt. of Soil above Heel = 2.2 k A Wt. of Wall = 0.9 k �Ml- k - Wt. of Footing 3.6 k �z F uk 999.0 pIf 4.5' 0.83' 2.67' 350.0 plf 138.0 plf 8.00' Wall ok Footing Toe -ok Footing Heel - d 7.0" d = 32.0" d = 32.0" VU = 1.09 k VU = 10.08 k Vu = 9.35 k ovc = 7.92 k Oc = 36.43 k OVC = 36.43 k MU = 5.87 ft-k MU = 22.69 ft-k Mu = 12.48 ft-k FS Sliding ok FS Overturning ok Sliding Resistance 3.3 k RM 20.4 ft-k 1.60 Sliding Force 3.1 k OTM 12.7 ft-k SoilBearing ok 21.2 ft-k X = = 3.13' e = 0.87' < b/6 = 1.33' If e < b/6, Then... Aw Soil Bearing _ P + M = = 1 .40 ksf Stress Leff A S Soil Bearing _ P - M = = 0.29 ksf Stress Right A S P = D + L = 6.8 k A = 8.0 sf M = Pe = 5.9 ft-k S = 10.7 ftA3 If e > b/6, Then.. Soil Bearing 2 P L Stress 3 0.5*b e 2� 6.8 k 1. 1.44 ksf 3 � 4.0' 0.q87 width 9.39' &-a j=m`la. DCI -ENGINEERS D'AMATO CONVERSANO INC. PROJECT NO: 05-11-263 SHEET NO: PROJECT: Point Edwards Building #8 DATEi 12-20-2005 I )UBJECT: South Retaining Wall - Tall Version Non -Seismic BY� JDB Design Lateral Pressure = 35 pcf REFC-xEttce C-7 Surcharge Pressure = 75.0 psf SOIL SURCHARGE Passive Lateral Pressure = 300 pcf Base Friction = 0.40 4 Unit Weight of Soil 120 pcf Tributary Length of Wall = 1.0, Concrete Strength = 4000 psi "M Column DL 0.0 k Column LL 0.0 k 15.01 Wt. of Soil above Heel = 6.4 k Ad Wt. of Wall = 1.5 k Wt. of Footing 7.2 k N, M, 4 1350.0 plf 6.5' 0.83, 4,67' 12.00' Wall ok Footing Toe d = 7.5" d = 44.0" -ok VU = 1.06 k VU = 15.61 k ovc = 8.54 k 0c = 50.10 k MU = 9.17 ft-k Mu = 50.72 ft-k FS Sliding ok Sliding Resistance 6.6 k 1.24 Sliding Force 5.3 k Soil Bearing ok 85.1 ft-k X 5.62' 15.1 k e = 0.38' < b/6 = 2.00' If e < b/6, Then... Soil Bearing P M _ �Mw Stress Left + A = = S 1.50 ksf Soil Bearing P M _ Stress Right - A = = S 1.02 ksf P = D+L = 15.1 k A = 12.0 sf M = Pe = 5.7 ft-k S = 24.0 ftA3 542.5 plf 75.0 plf Footing Heel d = 44.0" VU = 21.83 k �Vc = 50.09 k Mu = 50.98 ft-k FS Overturning ok RM OTM If e > b/6, Then 69.5 ft-k 30.7 ft-k 2.26 Soil Bearing 2 P L Stress 3 0.5*b e 2 15.1 k 1.0' 1 .80 ksf 3 6.0' 0.38' width 16.86' FS Sliding ok Sliding Resistance 6.6 k Sliding Force 6.8 k SoilBearing ok 73.3 ft-k X = 4.84' 15.1 k e = 1.16' < b/6 = 2.00' If e < b/6, Then... Soil Bearing _ P + m = = 1.99 ksf low Stress Left A S 00.53ksf Soil Bearing _ P m ksf - = = Stress Right A S p = D+L = 15.1 k A = 12.0 sf M = Pe = 17.5 ft-k S = 24.0 ftA3 FS Overturning ok RM 69.5 ft-k 0.98 OTM 42.5 ft-k 1.64 1�(A% C) ri GKOE Is IN PLAC-4 AHi3 L-lAt-L. IS 7-IEV TD 0-12-uclva-E If e > b/6, Then Soil Bearing 2 P L Stress 3 0.5*b e 2 - 15.1 k 1.0' ksf 3 6.0' 1.16' width 14.53' Ma j70w@'M'_ DCI -ENGINEERS D'AMATO CONVERSANO INC. PROJECT NO: 05-11-263 SHEET NO: PROJECT: Point Edwards Building #8 DATE: 12-20-2005 ,UBJECT: Lvl 1 to Lvl 2 East West Wall Non -Seismic BY: JDB Design Lateral Pressure = 35 pcf C-C6 Surcharge Pressure = 75.0 psf Passive Lateral Pressure = 300 pcf SOIL SURCHARGE Base Friction = 0.40 Unit Weight of Soil = 120 pcf k_, T(ibutary Length of Wall = 1.0, Concrete Strength = 4000 psi Column DL = 0.0 k 5j Column LL = 0.0 k 47 Wt. of Soil above Heel = 3.1 k Ad Wt. of Wall = 1.3 k Wt. of Footing = 3.6 k 999.0 Plf 4.5' 0.83' 2.67' 443.5 plf 75.0 plf 8.00, Wall ok Footing Toe -ok Footing Heel d = 7.5" d = 32.0" d = 32.0" VU = 0.89 k VU = 12.88 k Vu = 10.72 k OVc = 8.54 k Vc = 36.43 k Vc = 36.43 k Mu = 6.48 ff-k Mu = 28.99 ft-k Mu = 14.31 ft-k FS Sliding . ok FS Overturning ok Sliding Resistance 3.6 k RM 24.8 ft-k Sliding Force - 0.95 3.8 k 1.38 OTM 17.9 ft-k Soil Bearing ok 01�- - LVALL- IS KbT 13Acr-FILL03 fjAI'TIL_ DiAPAkA(_,H 0 14 PLACr_ 23.4 ft-k X 2.94' L) 'S LA% -o tl- (1006 1 s I N 11 LAC�E 8.0 k e = 1.06' < b/6 = 1.33' If e < b/6, Then... Soil Bearing P M _ Stress Left + A S = 1.79 ksf 00.20ksf Soil Bearing P M _ Stress Right - A - S = = ksf P = D+ L = 8.0 k A = 8.0 sf M = Pe = 8.5 ft-k S = 10.7 ftA3 If e > b/6, Then Soil Bearing 2 P L Stress 3 0.5*b e 2 8.0 k 1.0' 1 .81 ksf 3 4.0' 1.06' width 8.8 1' j7E'=0-M'_ DCI -ENGINEERS D'AMATO CONVERSAN 0 INC. PROJECT NO: 05-11-263 SHEET NO: A-7 PROJECT: Point Edwards Building #8 DATE� 12-20-2005 -)UBJECT: Wall Below P1 at Corner Non -Seismic BY: JDB Design Lateral Pressure = 35 pcf RE F C- Surcharge Pressure = 75.0 psf Passive Lateral Pressure = 300 pcf SOIL SURCHARGE Base Friction 0.40 Unit Weight of Soil = 120 pcf Tributary Length of Wall = 1.0, Concrete Strength = 4000 psi Column DL = 0.0 k Column LL 0.0 k 15.0' Wt. of Soil above Heel 4.7 k Ad Wt. of Wall 1.2 k Wt. of Footing 3.2 k g" 1050.0 plf 2.08' 0.83' 4.09' Aw� Ltv-,, 7.00' Wall ok Footing Toe d = 7.0" d = 32.0" -ok VU = 0.88 k VU = 9.11 k ovc = 7.92 k OVC = 36.43 k Mu = 6.26 ft-k M, = 9.47 ft-k FS Sliding ok Sliding Resistance 4.0 k Sliding Force 3.7 k SoilBearing ok 20.0 ft-k X = = 2.2 1' e = 1.29' > b/6 = 1. 17' If e < b/6, Then... Soil Bearing P M _ Stress Leff + = = A S 2.73 ksf Soil Bearing P M _ Stress Right - = = A S -0. 14 ksf P = D+ L = 9.1 k A = 7.0 sf M = Pe = 11. 7 ft-k S = 8.2 ftA3 437.5 plf 75.0 plf Footing Heel d = 32.0" Vu = 12.50 k Vc = 36.43 k Mu = 25.56 ft-k FS Overturning ok RM 22.3 ft-k OTM 17.3 ft-k 1.29 If e > b/6, Then Soil Bearing 2 P L Stress 3 0.5*b e 2 9.1 k 1.0, 3� 3.5' 1.29' width 6.62' e = 1.12' > b/6 = 0.67' If e < b/6, Then... If e > b/6, Then... Soil Bearing P m Soil Bearing 2 P L Stress Left = = —A + S 2.41 ksf Stress 3 0.5*b e Soil Bearing P m 2 3.6 k 1.0- Stress Right - = = A S -0.61 ksf - 3 2.0' (2 71 DO 1.12'_ - 2.71 kst P = D+ L = 3.6 k A = 4.0 sf width 2.65' M = Pe = 4.0 ft-k S = 2.7 ftA3 e = 1.42' > b/6 = 1. 17' If e < b/6, Then... If e > b/6, Then... SoilBearing P m Soil Bearing 2 P L ow� Stress Left —A + S 2.38 ksf Stress 3 0.5*b e Soil Bearing P m 2 7.5 k 1.0' Stress Right - A S -0.23 ksf - 3 3.5' 1.42' P = D+L = 7.5 k A = 7.0 sf width 6.25' M = Pe = 10.7 ft-k S = 8.2 ftA3 C ,A 0 Point Edwards Building 8 December 19, 2005 DC1 Job # 5-11-263 WIND LCULATIONS SECTION B -.9 ODCI-ENGINEERS D'AMATO CONVERSANO INC. Project Subject I-JINO &AL-c,� L-il N 1�3 C-A L,(-(ILxn o m ON Project No. os-11- 2/,3 Sheet No. �- I Date By jl) L) tC CA-,'F- 6 0 �-J 131 HE-76W-z 5q V4E L T'D P D C, aAf 14 ku crl-- lf!7C-r k,t 1, (-7 VJE 2-0 C� N ERV. H VT- F-7- 7- 0. 2-C 0.0 -Ls 2.0 PS F .,-�N-rFeNAt- PRE3)0,�,!� C, cp; S�! ( J0 0, L A44 - 9 0E D&'rl6.rJ 6,41AX ekc-3�5u4c� 0 (6,q s o,5o 9,:5 N 7D-rAL- -<ue,FA-c�E- Ak-i�'Ar * ? p ( 8 (5 q 2- s sn'JA -1 -7 v VVVIN� .�04 LIP << LIJ k)L31- 60utvv F� Alvlf DJke(-(--)01J mg-iADCI-ENGINEERS D'AMATO CONVERSANO INC. Project pl- eD J?LOG Subject C-L-A'MQlr4(: 0006t'4 vsE Ac-lv,,�L- K-2, 1,1� CA- LIJPA(-C-S L4 26 1 f, s F qoDr- r3 76 q E �. e , 0 (,b C) ps P, q �'— � , 0 1 Z) k %-� L( es r- Project No. ,5 -15 -1 (- 2 62 L Sheet No. Date 12- - IS By_10 D; 'ALL bw 1 41, ^0, Pf INLK —,AS, UCN 7 ID "I'll 5C'LIND sC Imj_5 --c P"A ToF 13 B,^ 6' PVC IE W56 (IN -SO nit \, *' , :: .1 - S 'v Fr roF 10' DIP IE f. 'P (OUT -SS) rNT 50LINL, sc. W6375 CON UC T1 E4SEUE S 7 ro 10- DIP IE 17.07 (IN-5) ;2: cup IE9tosj (PLI)Gorrm) 2. DIP fE 8.3o (OUT-"� SCALE: 1"= 30' F ic 53 ON -NW) ED PROPOSED WA TER 6" 1E 12 15 Nul-NE) EASEMENT El; S�1,7 — — — — — - --- ---------- ;Za5i;� Top 1.,.5, 7: Co'Z "' zli ("4-E) GARAGE FLOORS ZF755-6 7� COW Ir :�05 i'OVT-Nw) 211—l"11-5 * — '3�? -A , — DRAIN TO SE 11-P If loj (w) D. 'o, D" Ir 13 :5 (E) cp 'r 290 w) CV: MISER -2 So ALL STORM DRAIN AND D,- 'r ;.,:, 15) Is- CUP AF :8.99 ON-sw) 5 'Ivi-N) Is" CU- IE 27.98 (OUT-NL) TARy SEVAD? LINES AND SERVICES 0 DIP IE 25 PRIVAIE PROPERTY SIRALL BE rx c8 VA 7E' AND SHALL BE MAINTAINED _Top 4,5�9j L,-. PV- ir 33 2r, 'Iw By THE HOMEOWER'S ASSMA77ON is- cup IE 3, ,1 -sE) OR THE UKE, 71 iOU is' CUP IE T-NE) -------- __5 F" un E� -2*,f NOTE_- THE STA77C H)VRAULIC WATER STAND- Y 2 E.6.STAND GRADE ELEVATION IS 325 FEET. &6 u rpL BuILDING win uwmG UNITS BEL 1.11� - - - - - - - - - - - - - - izs 777`7_7�7,��_---:: EXEVA 77ON OFF 137 FUErE7 MAY W AN DEVICE ------------ A PRESSURE REDUCING DEWCE DOMES77C WATER SERWCE LWE ----- -- ------- AVOID WA TER PRESSURE 0 VER 80 P-T < THIS MIOULD INCLUDE BUILDINGS I a, --------- IDE AND THE AMENIT'Y BULDINa - ------------------ - --------- ----------- NOTE- THERE' SHALL BE A PUBLIC Z, WATER EASEMENT THAT FOLLOWS THE CENTERLINE OF THE LOOP ROAD AND SPANS TO THE FLOKINE ON EITHER SID61SHMrAlr ON SEKIER AND o< 'o� P ------------- TERS ?HAT FALL WA WTHIN THE EXTENWON OF THE ROAD FLOPUNES SHALL BE INCLUDED WITHIN THIS EASEMENT. WATER APPUR THA T VffMD OU TSIDE TWS AREA SHALL BE ENCOMPASSED WTtffN A 5' PUBLIC --- ---- 14 - - - s , WA TER EASE14ENT PER WA TER -SERVICE DETAIL SHErr 22. F� NOTE.- LOCATE WATER M IS DIRECTLY BEHIND THE SIDEWALK R ING Nv, DEPENDING ON THE SITE' CONDITIaV. CWCU METERS SHAu Nor BE PLACED IN ---- ------------------- -- --- DRIVING SURFACES OR IN SIDEWALKS. ---------------- 'SPRM ER FIRE SERVICE LINE NOM 4 A ---- ---- ZR7A4a 4914 CONTRACTOR To VERIFY SERWCE LINE SIZE AND LOCATION OF BUILDING E 1256137.�M CONNECTION WTH SPRINKLER DESIGNER 7 PRIOR It) INSTALLING 7EES IN ----------------- I IN SYSTEW. DESIGN N WA TERMA BLDG NO. 5 PPROVED BY LIC FN 0 _7F__ 1 SANI LPNRI A T, 7 BY 7,1 0, 7,1 WA _Y AN 0 ,RJIR ON THE To 80 P. S _a . THE 7 AND "HER 7' A D T F , ROAD V AN E S, A PUBLIC SER,JCL E' �12 SHALL BE a THE arY PRIOR TO INSTALLATIaN. LI/PI 84.17 ------------------- SUBMITTED AND A L I/oPI 8217 PRC 14 5i OJ. N 297414. e X LT 12 4 -z 9+94.84. 149' --- --- _'7Q_TE' DOMES ,:4 LI/PI 86.17 1 'rFL,;j7v ------- METER AND 2' DOMESTIC WAZZ I w/ cavc atoamo CONTRACTOR VERIFY w� 2-V-4' FZRE S-MAYGER SERVICE 92F AND LOCA770M OF v.,_ I i", 52XVICE Iwr BUILDING oryDNCV6. WIN I -,FW WrIDRAW ASSY j' CONNECTION M17H PLUMBER RFa9A PER ary DM PER CITY DOG E7 1 1-4- W aE3VD (UJ) PRIOR To CONNEC77NG TV WATERMAIN E 24' 4' FIRE smmiaER 3o, 8, pvc ID AND E7.41 (�YP) IEF (m"v SERVICE LUC 0 a66% SYSTEAL DEVON CHANGES SHALL BE EV, �,2�, 6' GATE VAL vE (FLOW) 9+74.96. 2aOD* LT 6,_"i 26.65' t T w/ Rc;- SUBMITTED AND APPROVED By 7w ary _iigmi 1— /7- - cwc- ewaawc -- 5: - --p.Lv.-(e%LDc_p, .. GOVCREr &OCXV PW arY D*G E7.1 0 ANGE iL 1?2.9 V14' D I "C - )-21.76 ' '0180O.-Ifi :�7 _R11A1 DDCVA S_aOjOO 8+6297, ON \& - 1-4' RGV (FL.WJ) BLDG NO. 8 L1/PI 111.67 ,8+29, 1.� L ROAD 1 �00 DRIVEWA Y W4 r "G - OIL= 21 4� 11r 11�40.17 L;)WROA 11 8.29' L r 8_1E GCm 12- 7ZT (RL.—FL), (EMSM E7 10 AAO E7. It SERVICE LWE 9+212A 14.50'RT A L V. (BLDC 0) 1.00 DRIVEWAY ==iT 6' (NEV "GE a- 10145 - ---- ----------- W/ cola, PRIOR TO IN. SWO OV NOTE' IRRIGA77ON MEZERSeSWV 112, S, 8'1E 7084 CONTRACTOR TO OBTAIN ME7ER AND HYDRANT A _j SER LINE 92E AND LOC,4n0JVS I -FIRC Ssy. -Z FROM THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR PER CITY DOC E7.1 1-12',6* ME (FL01) TO CONNEC77NG TO WATERMAIN SYSTEM. 1- 12' ROY (FLWJ) BLDG NO. 2 I - 12' ADAPTER (FL-UJ) 1-6* GATE vALw (n-vi) LI/PI 74.67 I/ rLA. E g Ram *qmp SHEET 23'_ NOME KEY NA N07 W SCALE APPROVED: CITY OF dOKDS DATE CITY ENGINEER 02005 TRIAD ASSOCIATE CL cc rx Lu rX Z %Nil ___ ; �klm _11 OLISTA V It 0SIERSAG" M PROJM MANAGER ROD HANWV, PLS PKDJ= SuHvmR MARK � REENIVES; PC PROJEM KNGRM THOMAS RMUST[W ��LQW�LARAW FHW SUM9M DATE 7 SCAUL 8=2-- I-JO' A. R w I STAMP NOT V UNUM SIGNRD AJ JOB NO. 01. ISm NO. V DC'l -ENGINEERS D'AMATO CONVERSANO INC. Project Subject Project No. Sheet No. Date By gac-�a qt,&� -2,o,345 K8 6.OG 09 0.10 0.2 ,>I, 15 0 1 . 1 -�0(3 Z%-5 I I 1 1 17 22-5 1�,5 30 Mil 9-4 Ll Lp 110 lb� loz I-) � 9H C�O -56 — Z L4 39 34 Point Edwards Building 8 December 19, 2005 DC1 Job # 5-11-263 TA S MOD L SECTION C 0 LVL Ll Lvi- P1 5r- /Sm I C_ BAsE �,Nvk 6 a (ETA ABS v8.5.6 - File: bIdg8 - Lower Seismic Base - 12-15-05 - December 15,2005 15:39 ) View Point Loads (SOIL) - Kip -in Units DCI Engineers C-1 DCI Engineers A ETAB S I— VL L LIIL- P j 9,ASt'_I_ 0(1 I 6-FA RS 3-0 r-�,��OCL VIOW ETABS v8.5.6 File: bIdg8 - Lower Seismic Base - 12-15-05 December 15,2005 15:13 3-D View - Kip -in Units DCI Engineers ETABS 9 FF__ 1. 0 TABS v8.5.6 - File: bldg8 - Lower Seismic Base - 12-15-05 December 15,2005 15:12 -D View - Kip -in Units hy?" a0lit- k:Nft_nvIv_ I-%"%- L vL- i ) LUt- P ) -- Se�lslLflc -13ASC- E-f-A&S 3-D �W)CL II1IeL^) DC1 Engineers ETABS ov�, v e ` W v BS v8.5.6 - File: bldg8 - Lower Seismic Base - 12-15-05 - December 15,2005 15:40 View Point Loads (SOIL) - Kip -in Units 1E T-A B 5 C-4 L-V (_ L LX u f I C- L3 1615-� DCI Engineers 0 0 ETABS v8.5.6 - File: bIdg8 - Lower Seismic Base - 12-15-05 - December 15,zuub I b:�5,j Plan View - LVL Ll - Elevation 248.04 Point Loads (SOIL) - Kip -in Units -at 19 Point Edwards Building 8 December 19, 2005 DC1 Job 5-11-263 LAT RAL S,TA ILITY SECTION D 0 .0 ODCI-ENGINEERS Project No. Sheet No. .00m - I I - Z3 D'AMIATO CONVERSANO INC. 1�s Project Date Subject -�L� lh i L- Sf"U.IL-rr� C,H cqc_ By 01,67KAL4- 51-tLuc7\�A-411- 9TA-9)Liry' f = 779 I�C- ( fEn, Se�-S-L- cAL-,z P& F -1 ) VUJ LDI r,4(i OLr goor / _,r 'p-s r 0000 w AL-.S 15 P-W- pi 000 F-r-oOAJ 2-0 p 3 SO& P T- SLA13 .5,06, - -5v ( IV 0 00 -1 -2 qD0 + do 7 1) � 13 2 L( r- ROOF - /s ( 19 '7 --0 ) I I � ( 19 -7DO) 1-3 - -2,0 (11 600) IS (1-2 600) L 2- 20 (19 00C.�) 15- (19000) Ll V11- 6 �00c>� 10' WILI-S 12.!� 3 � 2 �- 2--) D 10' 9" /0 6 1-2 /50 6 0 4 P\LC-3 7s 232-) q' 7 U C �4 L !r 6,�,o FT'b 60,j(-- S-liz-kll (75D C-F� 00`4 C- e 60 C F -Z I 14'a + B 6 0 C,;- + 2 qLt(R Cr- -r- 2-Li 96 c-F glq c Z. 16o Cr ) /10 Z-Oql CU LV AA M � 500 ?U=7 ( I �s) '? ?— ') 4 Ic 5zffs.AA(L 0 L, 70 -7 Ll 7 �5 n 0, (-T9 + -7,9 + 6 1 S S t 7-!,�C -3 -7 7 (PCX 4fAL4s 0 � 0 Win DCI -ENGINEERS M D'AMATO CONVERSANO INC. Project Subject PT '5bOL l_A-MSW_AL_ Project No. zZ5 -it- 2( S Sheet No. Date J Z - /S, -of By j-O)l el�r H r 7-)P NUNIA02 =: _h_ Q�_40E7 Tb 5Q/�a 9 oT N L,,,^A Ex— � r,/F'r Zl,)I(, OU 7,12 �, c -n v iE- F iz E�s un c ?_W 0') + 1-2,e (Z,2') t ?,72 (/-52.) + /, 0_(22) PA&5JVL- K C_S� Q ILE '�4'(A�5) + 34(2,q) t 60 ( OS) vr FRiunoA t- 2-1 q 0 14. t sl)-7 �, 0.6 D 4- o .-? C k H 0,60(0,Lfe.) qLf�?_ - 0,_1 (-?-7�) - -2�1,40 4 59-7 Fr- K or, &>U1LD)r-4C- i�Jli_L "UT- SL.�OE' TERRA ASSOCIATES, Ince Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences January 20, 2003 Project No� T-4893 Mr. Ross Woods Point Edwards, LL. C 2801 Alaskan Way. 2utte 107 Z Seattle, Washington 98121 Subject: Geolojically Hazardous Areas Review Point FBwards Condominiums (UNOCAL Site) Pine Street and Unoco Road Edmonds, Washington References: 1. Treliminary Geotechnical Report, UNOCAL Site, Project No. T-4893, prepared by Terra Associates, Inc., dated November 21, 2001 I 2. Steep Slope Hazard Review, Poin,t.Edwards Condominiums (UNOCAL Site), Project No. �!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 Condonfiniums 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 gr6und,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 includeslanalysis of slope stability along five profiles on the steep slopes located down1gradient. from. the proposed develbpment. The results of these analyses are used to address potential steep slope hazards and landslide, hazards. APPLICANT COPY, SITI?, CONDITIONS The site is located on the upper portion of a predominantly north7facing hillside. The Preliminary Grading Plan indicates elevationsk in the planned development area range from about Elev. 170 in the south-central portion to, about Elev. 70 inithe northeastern portion.. The western and northern margins of the planned develo ment area IN . . . . � p 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 r . un along,the toe of the slope to the, west. RECEWED 12525 Willows Road, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034, Phone (425) 821-7777 Fax (425) 821-4334 0 T 2 BUILDING DEPT. Mr. Ross Woods January 20, 2003 We did not observe indications of deep-seated instability; however, portions of the slope have been subjected to shallow erosion and localized sloughing. These conditions are generally limited to. the forest duff and relatively loose surficial soils mantling the underlying competent soils, and are commonly associated. with natural weathering occurrences on steep slopes All of the erosional features we observed on the steep slope appear to be a result of surface water -runoff and shallow interflow from areas above the slope crest. We observed an area appToximately 100 to 125 feet southwest of Boring B- I 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 ligNt 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, Wtishington by James P. Minard, 1983, sh6ws the soils at higher site elevations mapped as 'Vashon till, Vashon advance outwas ' h, and Transitional beds. , Soils at lower site elevations are mapped as medium- to coarse -grained sand of the Whidbey Formation. Transit , ional bed sediments are described by this publication as massive to. bedded clay, silt, and fine to ve fine sand. ry Our recent test 6brings 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 Islope areas generally consist of silty sand, sandy silts, and laminated to massive, very. dense silt and/or hard clay ; Native soils observed in the five test borings drilled near the top. of the steep slopes generally consist of densAo very dense fine-grained silty sand to sand with.silt and very stiff clay/dense silt. The silt and �A clay generally appeared massive, with occasional very thin partings of very fine sand. I 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 Bo; B-S. We did not observe indications of significant groundwater seepage on the slope; however, g 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 too of the steep slope, add.possibly from seasonal. perched groundwater emerging near the top of the slope. .we also observed'a very light flow of water along the axis of several of the erosional channels running down the steep slope. The water.we observed in the erosional features flows on top of dense to very dense native soils exposed on the gpund surface or beneath approximately 4 to 12, inches of duff and topsoil. The source of .the water in the erosiprial 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 borhigs are presented on the attached test pit logs and boring logs. The approximate locations. of the test pits and borings are shown on the attached Figure 2. Project No. T-4893 Page No. 2 Mr. Ross Woods January 20, 2003 GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS Section 20.15B.060 (A)(3) of the City of Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) defines geologically hazardous areas as those areas subject to potential erosion, landslide, and/or potential seismic instabilities, including the following: Erosion Hazard Areas Section 20.15B.060 (A)(3)(a) of the ECDC defines erosion hazard areas (EHAs) as those areas containing soils that may experience severe to very severe erosion hazard. These soils include, but are not limited to, the following when they,occur on slopes of 15 percent or greater: 1. Alderwood. soils (15 to 25 percent slopes) 2.. Alderwood-Everett Series (25 to 70 percent slopes) 3. Everett Serie) 15 to 25 percent slopes) The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) has mapped the site soils as Alderwood-Urbdn 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 w ith 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 ofan erosion hazard area. Aiderwood-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 percerivs lopes, is considered high. Based on the cn'*teria 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 EHA's. 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. ln,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. T4893 Page No. 3 J Mr. Ross Woods January 20, 2003 Landslide Hazard Areas Section 20.15B.060 (A)(3)(b) of the ECDC define's landslide hazard areas (LHAs) as those areasW 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 tha't includes areas with significant visible evidence of groundwater seepage,. and which also includes existing landslide deposits, regardless of slopes. 3. Any Area thathas shown movement during the Holocene epoch (from 10,000. years ago to present) or is underlain by mass wastage debris of that epoch, as determined by a qualified geologist or geotechnical engineer. 4. Any area potentially unstable as a result of rapid stream incision or stream bank erosion. 5. Any area 16cated on an alluvial fan presently subject to, or-potentiaUy 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 Pbserved relatively shallow erosional features and localized shallo17 'slou - ghing 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 I and 3. All of the LHAs we identified at the site ekist 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 paradieters 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 coinpletely supported by deep foundations. A horizontal acceleration of 0.20g was used in the pseudlostatic analysis to.simulate slope performance under earthquake loadin .9 Project No. T-4893 PageNo. 4 PrJ Mr. Ross Woods January 20, 2003 The lowest safety factors for ea6h condition are presented in the following table: Section Analyzed Minimum Safety Factors Static Pseudostatic Section A -A' existing 1.72 1.18 Section A -A' proposed 1.79 1.21 Section B-11'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-V*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 sevete 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 eliminiited or significantly reduced by applying BMPs for erosion prevention sedimentation containment. A.sdiscussed ab&e, analysis indicates the existing and proposed slope conditions are stable with regard to deep- seated failure. . In our opinion, supporting building toads 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 at ' so 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 fi_nished buildings will improve the current stability of the steep s . I I ope. Seismic Hazard Areas Section 20.15B.060 (A)(3)(d) of the ECDC defines seisnuc hazard areas as those areas subject to severe risk of earthquake damage' as a result of seismically induced landslides, earth adjustments, settlement, or soil liquefaction. Based. on the soil and groundwater conditions.we observed in our on -site explorations, and the results of our stability analysis, it is our opinion that the risk for severe damage resulting from seismically induced landstides, earth adjustments, and settlement is low. It is also our . opinion that the risk for Ii . faction to occur in potential que building areas at this site is negligible. Therefore, in our opinion, seismic. hazard areas do not exist on'the subject site. Project No., T-4893 Page No. 5 Mr. Ross Woods January 20, 2003 DISCUSSION Section 20.15B. 110 (B) of the ECDC (Development Standards — Erosion.Hazard Areas) states that alterations within identified EHAs will not be authorized without an approved erosion control plan pursuant to Chapter 18.30 ECDC. A licensed engineer will prepare a site -specific erosion control *plan conforming to the requirements of Chapter 18.30 ECDC. Section 20.15B. 110 (C) of the ECDC (Development Standards. — Landslide Hazard Areas) states that LHAs located on slopes greater than 40 percent shall be regulated pursuant to Section 20.15B. 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 SSRA report, we opined that existing site conditions and applicable project components generally meet the provisions for a. SSRA exemption detailed in Section 20.15B. I 10(1))(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 C. /'0' 1 Encl: M�:Winity Map E X210 ration Location Plan Erosion Nazard Area/Soils Map Vigure 4 — Pqils Classification System Figures 5 through 9 — Boring Logs Figures 10 through 18 =Test Pit Logs WINSTABL Output Data cc: Mr. Greg Krabbe, Triad Associates Mr. Richard E. Gifford Mr. S. Jin Lee, Weber+Tho mpson Project No. T-4893 Page No. 6 FHF24' is,' KITT PK 187TH rL Sw 18 IT Sw ism ST S� A MTN 5 yd ej WE. PL ST �w ST Sw OiEml ST "w 13 I FUtM e KL w a 196 ft"T p MELOOY LN wy _'v jf�t W"NERE KI cm . DR C 9; EMNO-5 J &%MXK . 1� kSPEiS ST ST K 8 -ATEXWAFrR _ PARK ST Sw A 9 LANDIAG fif4a I A GUN Mg N: 8 IT HILL PK ELL- J51 ST .'e e %-I AAIN I Iff Is ST_ IL MRIM 23. WON OIL Sw sp;= - SITE ZISIH ST V4 RMARDS FAKIM A pr BENN ?17TH zz Sw _q 218TH ST 30,- ST co Sw a 66D V; zz X REFERENCE: Thomas Guide, King/Pierce/Snohomish Counties, 1999, Page 454 NOT TO SCALE Terra VICINITY MAP POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS Associates Inc. EDM . ONDS, WASHINGTON Consultants in Geotechnical Nineenng Geollog ntay and Environme Earth Sciences Proj. No. T -4893 Date JAN 2003 Figure 1 I A ---------- 9TEEP SLOPE b HAZARD �ANEA -------------- ------------ ------------ B ---------- ------------ �-- -- - -------- TP-5 7z BLDG 6 ----------------- 7/ Al. BLDG 7 . . . . . . . . �K K-K- TP 8!t r lir owns u ::7 NIUE: THIS SITE PLAN IS SCHEMATIC. ALL LOCATIONS AND L EdEN , D: DIMENSI.ONS ARE APPROXIMATE. IT IS INTENDED FOR REFERENCE ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR NTllp-l;APPR'OXtMATE LOCATION OF TEST PIT 'Terra DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. tj APPROXIMATE LOCATION OFI BORING, Atsoc REFERENCE: STEEP SLOPE HAZARD AREA go"ConWitants In G SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY TRIAD ASSOCIATES G60 Environme '\\x -------------- ---- - -------- STEEP SLOPE HAZARD AREA —14 W* TPA 5 t:$LWUU TP-1 b tt7 4j' 2 6�0iio"j X Q 300 APPROXIMATEscALE IN FEET LL) LLJ tip _j CL LLJ' in V W I � . NN- LLJ LAj LL _j V) A41, LLJ 4 YT V) �K q A. V, 11 I%* %; q, N .......... E GO Cj CL70 7a E * 8 U-) > C� 4) -a co < �> UJ :DO 0_0 o o c 0 Lum 2 w 5:� W_ C,4 _j cc 00 Z X U_ <,,o 0) — U_ z W� 0 0 2uj P: LLJ CO ui co w co 0 0 < Z CL X U) LLI' M :D CL 0 Z 0 w 00. =a: 0 (13 (n CL . w Lu zwz.z 0.. 5; 0 :5<..o 0 LU (L) , LU x a- Z c.) cc POZO a- z v3w z V5 z cr- (D Lu IX W 5 a. Ju(/)_UjLU._ U. W ww w 0 W I .z . Ix co i,L MAJOR DIVISIONS LETTER SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTION Clean GW Well -graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures, little or no GRAVELS Gravels fines. G.P Poorly -graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures, little or U) a) (less than 0 More than 5% fines) no fines. GM Silty gravels, gravel -sand -silt mixtures, non -plastic 50% of coarse a) > fraction is larger than No. Gravels fines. GC Clayey gravels, gravel -sand -clay mixtures, plastic fines. W — 1) z ca L E f 4 sieve with fines < CD — -� C:) 0 N Clean SW Well -graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines. u') 6 SANDS Sands SP Poody-graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no W CZ U) (a (less than Cc -r- � C: More than 5% fines) fines. co < a).r_ 5 0% of coarse — 0 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) §ILTS AND CLAYS plasticity. CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, (lean clay). _j 0 CM U) E 6 Liquid limit is less than 50% 0 o Z N W 0 L Organic silts and organic clays of low plasticity. 0 C: Z Lo ca a) < MH Inorganic silts, elastic. Cl) SILTS AND CLAYS as CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays. W E Z 0 (n 2 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 SPOON SAMPLER z 0 Very loose 0-4 2.4" INSIDE DIAMETER RING SAMPLER U) Loose 4-10 OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER W Medium dense 10-30 X Dense 30-50 Y WATER LEVEL (DATE) 0 Very dense >50 Tr TORVANE READINGS, tsf Pp PENETROMETER READING� tsf Standard Penetration Consistenc Resistance in Blows/Foot DD DRY DENSITY, pounds per cubic foot W > U) Very soft 0-2 LL LIQUID LIMIT, percent W Soft 2-4 X Medium stiff 4-8 PI PLASTIC INDEX 0 stiff 8-16 Very stiff 16-32 N STANDARD PENETRATION, blows per foot Hard >32 Terra UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Associates, Inc. POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Proj. No. T-4893 I Dat e JAN 2003 F Figure 4 Geology and Enviionmental Earth Sciences Boring No. B-1 Logged by: JCS Date: 12/13/02 Approximate Elev. 110 Soil Description Consistency/ Relative Density Depth CL E W U) (N) Blows/ ft. Moisture Content N Grayish -brown silty SAND, fine grained, with occasional fine gravel. (SM) Medium Dense 29 12 Occasional rusty brown stained partings. -------------------------------------------------------- ----------------- ------------------------- Dense —10 43 14' Light brown SILT with sand, fine grained, moist, slightly mottled. (ML) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------ Dense 42 21 Mottled light brown silty SAND to sandy SILT, fine grained, moist to wet. (SM/MQ Dense —20 - :�E 38 23 Light gray silty SAND to sandy SILT, fine.grained, moist, with occasional fine qravel. (SM/M�) ---------------- --------- Very Dense --------------- 60 18 Grayish-brown SAND with silt, fine to medium grained, moist, with'occasional fine gravel. (SP-SM) Very Dense —30 82 8 Grayish -brown SAND with silt to silty SAND, fine grained, moist. (&-SM/SM) Very Dense :E 58 15 (Grayish, -.brown hard, moist SILT between 35.5 and 36.0 - feet) Light gray silty SAND to SAND with silt, fine grained, Very —40 :E 75 10 moist. (SM/SP-SM) Dense - Trace of gravel. Very Dense :E 80 8 Very Dense 50' 58 6 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brownish-gray SAND with silt to silty SAND, fine grained moist. (SP-SWSM) With a trace of fine black organic inclusions. ------------ 7 ----------- Very Dense 82 10 No fine organic inclusions. Very Dense F 86 8 Boring terminated at 60 feet. No significant groundwater encountered. Terra Associates, Inc. BORING LOG POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Environmental'Eadh Sciences Proj. No. T-4893TDate JAN. 2003 Figure 5 Boring No. B-2 Logged by: JCS Date: 12/13/02 Approximate Elev. 90 Consistency/ -a (N) Moisture Soil Description Relative Depth E Blows/ Content Density (ft..) U12 ft. N FILL- gray sandy silt, fine grained, moist, with occasional Loose 5 8 24 fine gravel. FILL: brown organic silty sand to sandy silt and bluish- Loose —10 4 12 gray silty sand, fine grained, moist to wet. With organics. Loose —15 6 10 Very —20 3 27 Loose Bluish -gray to light brown SAND with silt to silty SAND, Medium —25 20 13 fine grained, moist. (SP-SM/SP) Dense -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mottled gray sandy SILT, fine grained, moist. (ML) Medium - —30 23 20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dense - - Gray SAND to SAND with silt, fine grained, moist. Medium —35 27 (SP/SP-SM) Dense Dense —40 36 8 Boring terminated at 41.5 feet. No significant groundwater encountered. Terra BORING. LOG ASSO ci.ates, inc.. POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS ' EDMONDS, WASHINGTON consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Environmental Ear.ffi Sciences Proj. No. T-4893TDate JAN 2003 Figure 6 Boring No. B-3 Logged by: DPL Date: 12/16/02 Approximate Elev. 76 Soil Description Consistency/ Relative Depth off (N) Blows/ Moisture Content Density ft. N Possible FILL: gray sand to silty sand, fine grained, wet, wiih occasional fine gravel. Possible FILL: grayish -brown silty sand, fine grained, wet, ---- slight -mottling -------------------------------------------------------------- Medium Dense ---------- 5 11 19 Gray silty SAND, fine grained, moist. (SM) Dense —10 31 22 Gray silty SAND to sandy SILT, fine grained, moist. Dense —15 36 20 (SM/ML) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Grayish-brown SAND with silt, fine grained, dry to moist. (SP-SM) Very Dense —20. 68 4 Very Dense —25 53 5 Grayish- brown SAND, fine grained, dry to moist. (SP) Very Dense 30 T_ 51 I 5 Boring terminated at 31.5 feet. Minor groundwater perched at 7 feet. Terra BORING LOG. Assoc i4tes jnc. POINT EDWARDS- CONDOMINIUMS EDMONS, WASHINGTON Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Environment I al Earth Sciences Fproi- No. T-4893—IDate JAN, 2003 1 Figure 7 -I Boring No. B-4 Logged by: DPL Date: 12/16/02 Approximate Elev. 90 Soil Description Consistency/ Relative Density Depth (ft.) CL E (z co (N) Blows/ ft. Moisture Content 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 T 17 21 31 FILL (Old test pit): brown silt and clay, moist, with a trace anic material. wn R�q� Very stiff 7 Bluish -gray SILT to CLAY, low to medium plasticity. Very 17 28 (MUCL) stiff Gray SILT to CLAY, moist, low to mediu . rn 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 ____�iq"�ained -sand Very stiff —30 30 24 Gray s illy SAND, fine grained, moist. (SM) Dense 37 15 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gray sandy SILT to clayey SILT, fine grained, moist, low plasticity. (IVIL to MUCL) Hard —40 34 17 Gray clayey SILT, moist, low plasticity. (MUCL) ---- lulgOing-g-rained- sand ------------------------------------------------------------------- Hard 37 20 Gray sandy SILT to silty SAND, fine grained,. moist, (MUSM) Dense .-50 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 - FDate JAN 2003 - Figure 8 Boring No. B-5 Logoed by: DPL Date: 12/16/02 Approximate Elev. 105 Soil Description Consistency/ Relative Depth W -a E (N) Blows/ Moisture Content Density (ft.) C1011 ft. N Brown to grayish -brown silty SAND, fine grained, wet, with faintrnottling. (SM) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- Medium Dense :E 19 Gray SILT, medium to high plasticity, moist. (MH) stiff —10 13 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gray CLAY and SILT, low plasticity, moist. (CUML) Very stiff :E 25 .26 - 40 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gray silty SAND, fine grained, moist to wet. (SM) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dense -------- —20 - 31 26 Gray CLAY, low plasticity, moist. (CL) Very :E 22 27 stiff 42 Gray CLAY, low plasticity, moist. (CL) Very —30 22 25 stiff Gray sandy SILT to silty SAND, fine grained, moist. (MUSM), Dense :E 46 .25 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dense ------------------------ —40 - 43 15 Gray sandy SILT to clayey SILT, non -plastic, moist. (M L to MUCL) ------------------ 7 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dense 31 20 Gray sandy SILT to silty SAND, fine g*rained, dry to moist. Dense —50 46 18 Moist to wet. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Medium Dense -------- - 28 20' Brown silty SAND, fine grained, moist. (SM)' Very Dense 60 :E 64 13 Boring terminated at 60.5 feet. No significant groundwater encountered. Terra BORING LOG Associates, Inc. POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS' EDMONDS, WASHINGTON.. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences Proj. No. T-4893 Date JAN 2003, Figure 9 Logged by: JCS Date: 10/18/01 Depth 0 FILL: crus 61 10 15 20 �-ogged by: JCS -Date: 10/18/01 Depth 0— FILL: crus moist. 4-i Brown si 5 10 15 Test Pit No. TP-1 Approximate Elev. 104 Moisture Soil Description Content hed rock surfacing over brown to gray silty sand to sandy silt, fine grained, firm, moist. ( WML) Rusty brown silty SAND fine grained, medium dense, moist, with occasional fine Gray to mottled gray silty SAND, fine grained, medium dense, to dense, moist, with occasional fine gravel. (SM) Becomes light brown at approximately 6 feet. Gray CLAY, hard, moist, massive. (CL) 26 Pp 4.5+ tons/W LL 35�8 P, 15. Test pit terminated at 14 feet. No groundwater seepage. Test Pit No. TP'2 Approximate Elev. 124 Moisture Content Soil Description (%) hed rock surfacinp over brown silty sand to sandy silt, fine grained, firm, nch thick organic ayer at base. (SM/ML) (Old topsoil horizon) Ity 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) Gray CLAY, hard, -moist, laminated with light gray silt partings�. (CL) p 4.5t tons/fe 37 Test pit terminated at 14 feet. No groundwater seepage. 20 TEST PIT LOGS. -CONDOMINIUMS Terra POINT EDWARDS A EDMONDS, WASHINGTON ssociates, Inc. Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No.7-4893 Date JAN. 9003 Figure 10 Logged by: JCS Date: 10/18/01 Depth (ft.) 0— ;:11 1 a h, 5 10 15 20 Test Pit No. TP-3 Approximate Elev. 121 Moistu re Soil Description Content own 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) ,�(Old topsoil horizon) 15 Tan to light gray silty CLAY to clayey SILT, hard, moist. (CUML) (Hydrocarbon odor) Gray CLAY, hard, moist, laminated with partings of light gray silt and gray fine sand. (CL) Pp 4.5+ 32 tons/fe Test pit terminated at 13 feet. Light groundwater seepage from point source at 4.5 feet. Logged by: JCS Date: 10/18/01 Depth (ft.) 0 5 10 15 K41 Test Pit No. TP-4 Soil Description Approximate Elev. 92 Moisture Content FILL: light brown silty sand, fine grained, firm, dry to moist. (SM) 2-inch thick 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 moist. (SM) LL = 42.7 Light grayish -brown to light brown CLAY and SILT, hard, moist, laminated '29 P1 = 19.7 with partings of dark gray fine sand. (CUML) Pp =4.5+ tonsite Gray CLAY, hard, moist. (CL) Pp 4 ' 5+ �29 1 tons/fe.— Test pit terminated at 13 feet. Trace groundwater seepage at 6 feet. Terra Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Consultants TEST PIT LOGS. -POINT E.DWARDS.CONDOMIN.IUMS EDMONDS, - WASHINGTON Proj. No. T-4803 Date, JAN 2003 Figure, 11: Logged by: JCS Date: 10/18/01 Depth (ft.) 0- 61 IN 15 Test Pit No. TP-5 Approximate Elev. 11. 0 Moisture Soil Description Content 6 inches DUFF and -TOPSOIL. Light brown SAND with silt to silty SAND, fine grained, medium dense, moist. (SP-SM/SM) 2� Mottled grayish -brown SAND to SAND with silt, fine grained', medium dense to dense, moist. (SPjSP-SM) Becomes wet at approximately 9 feet. 26 34 LL = 44.5 - Grayish -brown to gray CLAY, hard, moist, generally massive, with Rl = 21.3 - occasional thin laminations of gray silt. (CL) Pp = 4.5+ 'tons/fe - Test pit terminated at 16 feet. - Light groundwater seepage between 9 and 10 feet. 20— Logged by: JCS ,.p4te: 10/18/01 Depth R) 0— FILL: br 10 15 20 Test Pit No. TP-6 Approximate Elev. 150 Moisture Soil Description Content own to grayish -brown SILT, CLAY, and fine grained SAND, firm moist to wet, with'some fine gravel and occasional. organic material. 32 FILL: gray to brownish gray silt, clay, and fine grained sand, firm, moist to - wet, with rnoderate organic material (including wood debris) and some - gravel. 12-inch thick organic layer. at base. (Oldtopsoiffibrizon) bray sifty 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. TEST PIT LOGS EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS Terra. POINT EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Consultants Proj., No. T-4893 Date JAN 2003 Figure 12 Logged by: JCS Date: 10/18/01 Depth (ft.) 0- 5 10 15 20 Test Pit No. TP-7 Approximate Elev. 121 Moisture Soil Description Content M FILL: dark brown organic silty sand, fine grained, firm, moist. Mottled gray to brown SAND with silt to silty SAND, fine grained, medium dense to dense, moist. (SP-SM/SM) (Hydrocarbon odor) 20 Tan to light grayish -brown silty CLAY to CLAY, hard, moist, occasional 24 mottling. (CL) Pp - 4.5+ tons/ft' 31 Test pit terminated at 15 feet. No groundwater seepage. Logged by: JCS D�a-tia: 10/ 18/01 Depth (k) 0 - FILL: lig ic 15 20 Test Pit No. TP-8 Approximate Elev. 121 Moisture Content Soil Description ht brown to gray silty sand, firm, Moist to Wet, with organics. FILL: dark brown organic silty sand, loose, wet, with significant wood debris (timbe and branches). 2.5-foot diameter boulder. —7 bray SILT to SILT with sand, fine grained, dense, moist to wet. (ML) 25 - 7- Light grayish -brown to tan sandy SILT, fine grained', very'dense, moist, - with occasional fine gravel. (ML) (Glacial,till-like) 16 - Test -pit terminated at 15 feet. - Light groundwater seepage at 6 feet. TEST PIT LOGS Terra POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS EDMONDSj, WASHINGTON Associates, 1O.C. Geotechnical Consultants .1 Date JAN 2003=Figuire 13 Proi. No. T-4893 Test Pit No. TP-9 Logged by: JCS Date: 10/18/01 Depth (ft) 0- 5 101 20 Soil Description Approximate Elev. 150 Moisture Content M - FILL: crushed rock surfacing over grayish -brown sandy silt and clay, firm, - moist. 6-inch thick organic layer at base. (Old topsoil horizon) Mottled grayish -brown sandy SILT to sandy CLAY, stiff, moist. (MUCL) Pp 4.5+ 30 tons/te 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+ I sand. (ML/CL) ine' 22 tons/W Test pit terminated at 15 feet. No groundwater seepage. Lodged by: JCS R -Da'te': 10/18/01 Depth (ft.) 0 5 10 15 20 Test No. TP-1 0 Approximate Elev. 157 Moisture Content Soil Description (%) 6 inches DUFF and TOPSOIL. Brown sandy SILT, fine grained', medium dense, rnoist. (ML) Grayish -brown SILT and.CLAY, hard, moist. (MUCL) Pp 4.5+ tons/ft' 34 Pray SXT�and CLAY, hard, moist. (MUCL) - Test'pit terminated at 15. feet. - No groundwater.seepage. TEST PIT LOGS Terra POINT EDWAPIDS CONDOMINIUMS EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Consultants -4893 a Proi. No. T D 200 4 Test Pit No. TP-1 1 Lo' ' Y: JCS D atTl Ol 18/01 "Depth (ft.) 0 110 0 ed by: JCS tb- 10/18/0 1 e th U 5 1 C .20 Soil Description Approximate Elev. 78 Moisture Content 7 - -Mottled grayish -.brown SAND to SAND with silt, fine grained, medium dense, moist to wet. (SP/SP-SM) 25 15. Ught brown silty SAND to sandy SILT, fine grained, medium dense to dense, moist. (SM/ML) Increasing silt with depth. 15 22 - Test pit terminated at 15 feet. - No groundwater seepage. Test Pit No. TP-1 2 Approximate Elev. 76 Moisture Content Soil Description (%) - 6.inches crushed rock surfacing. Mottled 1. ra ish-brown*SAND, fine t6 medium grained, medium dense, moist, with g y - I occasion 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 gray*!s,h-brown silty SAN[� with gravel to . sandy SILT with gravel, fine.sand, find gravel, dense to very,dense, moist. (SWML) (Glacial tillmlike 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 Term POINT. EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS Associates' Inc. EDMONDS,. WASHINGTON Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. T-4893 Date JAN 2010 15' Logged by: JCS bate: 10/18/01 Depth . (ft.) 0 — V), in�h. 5 10 15 2�O -Logged by: JCS -.'Date: 10/18/01 413lepth 01 5 1 C 20 Test Pit No. TP-1 3 Approximate Elov. 86 Moisture Content Soil Description . (%) s crushed rock surfacing. Mottled grayish -brown sifty SAND to sandy_ SILT, very dense, moist. (SM/ML) (Hydrocarbon odor) 25 31 7 Bluish -gray CLAY, hard, moist, with partings of gray fine sand and light gray silt. (CL) Pp 4.5+ tons/ft' Test pit terminated at 14 feet. Trace groundwater seepage at 2.5 feet. Test. Pit No. TP-14 Approximate Elev. 76 Moisture Content Soil Description (%) FILL: bluish -gray silty sand with gravel to sandy silt with gravel, fine sand, fine gravel, medium dense to dense, moist. (SM/ML) 10 Light b to wn sandy SILT, fine grained, dense, moist, with occasional fine gravel and thin layers of fine grained silty sand. (ML) 19 15 - Test pit terminated At 15-feet. - No groundwater seepage. TEST PIT LOGS, -------- - ------ Terra. POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS -Associates, Inc. EDIVIONDS, WASHINGTON qeotechnical Consultants — Proj. No. T-4893 Date JAN 20031 Figure 16 10 % Test Pit No. TP-1.5 Logged. by: JCS Date: 10/18/01 Depth (ft.) - - 0— FILL:' sis �p .10 Soil Description Approximate Elev. 86 Moisture Content M) W and t sandy silt, gray, 0 fine grained, medium.dense, moist, with occasional (1 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, Ifine sand, fine to coarse gravel, medium dense to dense, moist. 10 (SM/SP-SM) Becomes brownish -gray and moist to wet at approximately 8.fee.t. Brownish -gray silty SAND with gravel to sandy SILT with gravel, fine sand, fine gravel, dense, moist. (SWIVIL) (Glacial till -like) 18. Test pit terminated at 15 feet. Trace groundwater seepage at 11 feet. -L6jged by: JCS lb�te: 10/18/01 U 5 10 15 0 Test Pit No. TP-1 6, Approximate Elev. 68 Moisture Content Soil Description I I(%) FILL: gray, to brown silty sand with gravel, fine grained, firm to loose, moist to wet. (SM) FILL: grayish -brown silty sand with gravel, fine grained, firm, moist to wet, with significant organic soils and wood debris. 23 16 Bluis3ay silty SAND with grqvel to sandy SILT with gravel, fine sand, fine gravel, dense most. (SM/ML) (Glacial till -like) Light brown SAND, fine grained, medium dense.to dense, moist. (SP) 15 1 Test pit terminated at 13 feet. No groundwater seepage. Tbrra Assobiatos, Inc. Geotechnical Consultants TEST PIT. LOGS POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, Proj.. No. T�-4893 Date JAN 2003 Figure 17 J Test Pit No. TP-1 7 Logged by: JCS Approximate Elev. 82 Date-.10/18/01 Moisture Depth. Content Soil Description N 0- =brown silty SA No with gravel, fine sand, fine to coarse gravel, m dense. * moist. (SIVI) M a ' sh-brown silty SAND with gravel, tine sand, fine to coarse gravel, rh=grenyse 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. (SWIVIL) I (Glacial till -like) Sand content increases with depth. 10-i Test pit terminated at 9.5 feet. No groundwater seepage. 15' TEST. PIT LOGS Terra, POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Ass*ociates, Inc.. Geotechnical Consultants PrQj. No� T-4893. Date JAN 2003 Figure 1.8. V ir 1-1... � . ' --- - - -vp;fi- , --- - --i -- - uz� n PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL REPORT UNOCAL Site �4 �', Pine Street and Chinook Road Edmonds, Washington Project.No. T-4893 - , Nv""� Terra Associates, Inc. Prepared for: Triad Point Edwards Seattle, Washington November 21, 2001 cff�ffp�ILE RECEIVED OCT 2 Nib �f -4- A ?W --'L _3 �661, Jffbt LA "REET FILE -77; TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences November 21, 2001 Project�No. T-4893 Mr. Ross Woods Triad Point Edwards 2801 Alaskan Way, Suite 107 Seattle, Washington 98121 Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Report UNOCAL Site Pine Street and Chinook Road Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. Woods: As requested, we have conducted a preliminary geotechnical engineering study for. the subject project. The attached report presents our findings and recommendations for the geotechnical aspects -of project design and construction. Our field exploration indicates that the site is generally underlain by medium dense to very dense native sand,. silty sand, sandy silt, and laminated to massive, very dense silt and/or hard clay. Fill has been placed at locations across the site in thicknesses ranging from about I to 12 feet., The consistency of the' fill soil is variable, but generally appears to have been derived from the on -site soils. Much of the fill we observed contained organic material and/or debris. We observed light seepage of perched groundwater in several test pits at depths ranging from about 2.5 to 11.0 feet below the ground surface. In our opinion, the subsurface conditions at the site are suitable for the proposed development of the property. In general, conventional spread footings may be used for supporting the buildings bearing oi i undisturbed native soil or compacted structural fill. The slopes on the site are generally stable, and the stability is not expected to be affected by the proposed development. The uncontrolled fill encountered on the site w,ill not be Suitable for directly supporting structural loads or pavements. Concep tual plans f6r development indicate sign ificant ciits in the uphill part of the site, adjacent to Pine Str eet. These excavations will most likely need to be provided with temporary support during construction. 12525 Willows Road, Suite. 101, Kirklan ' d, Washington 98034 Phone (425) 821-7777 * Fax (425) 821-4334- Mr. Ross Woods November 21, 2001 Once project plans have been finalized, we will conduct additional detailed analyses to evaluate impacts on slope stability and prepare final recommendations for the geotechnical aspects of site development. We trust the information presented is sufficient for your current needs. If you have any questions or require additional information, please call. Sincerely yours, TERRA ASSOCIATES, INC. 110 1/0) Project No. T-4893 Page No. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Pa,ge No. 1.0 Project Description ........................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Scope of Work ................................................................................................................ 1 3.0 Site Conditions ............................................................................................................... 2 3.1 Surface ............................................................................................................... 2 3.2 Soils .......................................................... ...... 3 3.3 Groundwater ........................................................................................................ 3 4.0 Geologic Hazards ............................................................................................................. 4 4.1 Erosion ................................................................................................................ 4 4.2 Steep Slope ................................................................................... ** ..... * ...... 4 4.3 Landslide ........................................................................................................... 5 4.4 Seisn-dc ................................................................................................................. 5 5.0 Discussion and Preliminary Recommendations ............................................... ; ............. 5 5.1 General ..................................................... 7 ........................................................ 5 5.2 Site Preparation and Grading ............................................................................ 6 5.3 Excavations .................. : ..................................................................................... 7 5.4 Foundations ........................................................................................................ 8 5.5 Basement and Retaining Walls ........................................................................... 9 5.6 Slab -on -Grade Floors ........................................................... .......................... 10 5.7 Drainage .......................................................................................................... 10 5.8 Utilities ............................................................................................................. I I 5.9 Pavements ........................................................................................................... 11 6.0 Additional Services ....................................................................................................... 11 7.0 Limitations ..................................................................................................................... 12 Figures Vicinity Map .......................................... ................. Figure I * ... *** .......... Exploration Location Plan .................................................................................................. Figure 2 General Slope Fill Detail ........................................................................................................ Figure 3 Appendil 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 residential development. Detailed building and site development plans are currently not available. However, a preliminary site plan by GGLO indicates the development will consist of 15 multi -unit buildings. We understand that the buildings will be three to four stories, with daylight basements and attached garages. We expect that the buildings will be wood -framed, with lower floors constructed at grade. We expect structural loads will be about five to seven kips per linear foot for continuous bearing walls. Column loads may be on the order of 200 kips. Our review of an unreferenced preliminary grading plan, dated February 20, 200 indicates that the planned site development will require extensive grading with cuts and fills up to about 20 and 30 feet, respectively. In addition, it appears that ternporary construction cuts up to about 20 feet will be required along the downgradient side of Pine Street. Proposed permanent cut and fill slopes are shown with an inclination of 2:1 (Horizontal: Vertical). The recommendations contained in the following sections of this report are preliminary and are based on the conceptual.information described above. We should review design drawings as they become available in order to supplement or amend our recommendations, as required. 2.0 SCOPE OF WORK On October 18 and 19, 2001, we excavated 17 test pits to depths ranging from 9.5 to 16.0 feet below existing surface grades. In addition, we reviewed existing subsurface information from previous environmental studies at the site to augment the. information obtained in our subsurfice investigation. Using this subsurface 'information, we performed analyses to develop prelimina ry geotechnical recommendations for project design and construction. Specifically, this report addresses the following: Soil and groundwater conditions Geologic hazards and site stability Site preparation and.grading Excavations Foundations November 21, 2001 Project No. T-4893 0 Basement and retaining walls 0 Slab -on -grade floors 0 Drainage Utilities 9 Pavements 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS 3.1 � Surface The project site is the approximately 15-acre upper yard area of the UNOCAL Edmonds Bulk Fuel Terminal located approximately between Unoco Road and Pine Street in Edmonds, Washington. The upper yard area was formerly used as a tank farm having 23 aboveground storage tanks (ASTs). All of the tanks and associated aboveground piping had been removed prior to our field investigation. The approximate location of the site is shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. The site is situated on the upper portion of a predominantly north -facing hillside. An undated site plan by Triad Associates indicates elevations in the planned development area range from about Elev. 170 in the south-central portion to about Elev. 70 in the northeastern portion. Surface grades at the site have been significantly altered for siting fuel tanks. In general,*the fuel tanks were constructed on large excavations cut into the hillside. The cut slopes are typically 15 to 20 feet in height with inclinations of about 60 to 70 percent. The downgradient sides of several tank areas are enclosed by a containment,berm. constructed of fill. The heights of the berms are about 6 to 12 feet above the bottom of the tank excavation. We observed a tar -like coating covering the surface of the berins and most of the interior slopes of -the. tank areas. The western and northern margins of the planned development area are near the top of a steep natural slope. The topographic information provided to us indicates the. slope is approximately 70 to 90. feet high, with inclination's ranging between about 50 and 80 percent. The areas beyond the toe of the slope to the north-northwest are relatively flat UNOCAL yard and. parking areas. Burlington Northern railroad tracks run along the toe of the slope to the west. Portions of the slope have been subjected to shallow erosion and localized sloughing; however, we did not observe indications of deep-seated instability. Slope vegetation consists predominantly of young to mature deciduous trees'and brush. The portion of the site located south of Pine Street is undeveloped forest except at the western end, which is occupied by two small buildings located within a fenced enclosure. This portion of the site slopes down to the north and northeast at grades of about 20 to 25 percent. Vegetation consists of predominantly of,mature coniferous and deciduous trees and brush undergrowth. Page No. 2 November 21, 2001 Project No. T4893 3.2 Soils The native soils encountered in the test pits consist of medium dense to very dense native sand, silty sand, sandy silt, and laminated to massive, very dense silt and/or hard clay. The soils we observed in the test pits are generally consistent with those described in the environinental studies performed at the site by others. We encountered the very dense silt/hard clay underlying the medium dense to dense sand, silty sand, and sandy silt in eight of the test pits at depths ranging from about 2.5 to 10.0 feet below the ground surface. Test Pits TP- 11, TP- 12, and TP-14 through TP-17 all terminated in medium dense to very dense sand, silty sand, or sandy silt. These test pits are all located at lower elevations in the northeastern to eastern portion.of the site. The very dense silty sand and sandy silt occasionally contained fine gravel and appeared glacial till -like. We observed fill overlying the native soils in I I of the 17 test pits. The fill soils consist primarily of loose to firm silty sand, sandy silt, silt, and clay, with varying amounts of organic material and debris. The thickness of the fill is generally less than about three feet; however, we observed fills of 12 and I I feet in Test Pits TP-6 and TP-16, respectively. Test Pit TP-6 was located on a berm between two large tank excavations. Test Pit TP-16 was located on the nor-theast4acing slope, below the two large tank areas in the eastern portion of the site. In general, we observed the original topsoil horizon beneath the fill soils. The'Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and Part of the Edmonds West Quadrangles, Washington by James P. Minard, 1983, shows the soils at higher site elevations mapped as Vashon till, Vashon advance outwash, and Transitional beds. Soils at 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 pits are presented on the Test Pit Logs in Appendix A. The approximate test pit locations are shown on Figure 2. 3.3 Groundwater We encountered light groundwater seepage in 7 of the 17 test pits at depths ranging between about 2.5 and 11.0 feet. The seepage was generally perched on the very dense silt/hard clay, or on the dense to very dense glacial till -like silty sand/sandy silt. The groundwater conditions described above are typical for sites underlain by relatively impermeable materials, such as glacial till and glacially consolidated silts and clays. Surface water will infiltrate through the upper sandy or weathered soils and become perched on the underl ing, relatively impermeable material. When combined Yi with a positive gradient, the groundwater will flow laterally along this contact, emerging at lower. elevations as seeps and springs. Perched groundwater levels and flow rates will fluctuate seasonally and typically reach their highest levels during and shortly following the wet winter months (October through May). We did not observe indications of significant groundwater seepage on the site slopes. 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 8 percent slopes and Kitsap silt loam, 8 to 2.5 percent slopes in the upper southern portion of the site, and Alderwood- Everett gravelly sandy loams, 25 to 70 percent slopes in.the area of the former tank farm 'and the steep slope below the tank farm area. The soils we observed in the test pit generally conform with the SCS mapping; however, the very dense silt and hard clay observed in the former tank areas would better correlate with Ki tsap silt loam, 25 to 50 percent slopes. The erosion hazards for soils classified as Alderwbod- 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 gravelly sandy loams, 25 to 70 percent slopes is classified as having a moderate to high erosion hazard. The erosion hazard for soils classified as Kitsop 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 fol lowing when they occur on slopes of 15 percent or greater: i. Alderwood soils (15 to 25 percent slopes) ii. Alderwood-Everett Series (25 to 70 percent slopes) iii. Everett Series (15 to 25 percent slopes) Based on the SCS mapping, much of the site would be considered an erosion hazard area. We did not oibserve indications of significant active erosion in the planned development area; however, the soils will be susceptible to erosion when exposed during construction. Best Management Practices (BMPs) must be used during construction to rmitigate 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 elevatiort change of at least 20 feet. Based on this definition and the topographic information provided to us, the.steep slope located below the development area and the cut slopes on the uphill side of several of the tank areas are considered steep slope hazard areas. The steep slopes located within the former tank farm area will be graded to inclinations of 2:1 or flatter. -It does not appear that -site grading will directly impact the steep slope located below the western and northern portions of the development area. We will evaluate potential impacts regarding the steep slope hazard areas once final site grading *information is developed. Page No. 4 November 21, 2001 Project No. T-4803 4.3 Landslide The City of Edmonds defines landslide hazard areas as. follows: 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. Any area that includes areas with significant visible evidence of groundwater seepage, which also includes existing landslide deposits, regardless of slopes. Any area that has shown movement during the Holocene epoch (from 10,000 years ago to,present), or is underlain by mass wastage debris of that epoch, as determined by a qualified geologist or geotechnical engineer. 4. Any area potentially unstable as a result of rapid stream incision or stream bank erosion. 5. Any area located on an alluvial fan, presently subject to or potentially subject to, inundation by debris flow or deposition of stream -transported sediments. Based on our observations of site soil. conditions and the above definition, many of the site slopes would be .considered landslide hazard areas. We expect that the steep slopes located below, the western and northern portions of the development area would also be considered a landslide hazard area due to soil conditions. Based on our field observations, it does not appear that the site slopes have been subjected to deep-seated instability. An evaluation of potential impacts of development and any necessary mitigation will be made after the site development plans have been finalized. These evaluations will include additional subsurface exploration by deep test borings in areas of deep excavations and near the top of the slope. 4.4 Seismic The Puget Sound area falls within Seismic Zone 3, as classified by the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBQ). Based on the soil conditions encountered in our test pits and described in the environmental report by others, a soil profile type of Sc, from Table 16-J of the 1997 LTBC, should be used in design. Liquefaction is a phenomenon where there is a reduction or complete loss of soil strength due to an increase in water pressure induce ' d by vibrations. Liquefaction mainly affects geologically recent deposits of fine-grained sands that are below the groundwater table. Based on the soil and groundwater conditions we encountered, it is our opinion that the risk for liquefaction to occur in potential building areas at this site is negligible. 5.0 DISCUSSION AND PRELIMINARY RECOMMEENDATIONS 5.1 General Based on our *Study, it is bur opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed development. Buildings can be supported on conventional spread footings bearing on competent native soils below the'surficial topsoil layer and/or uncontrolled fill, or on structural fill placed and compacted on the competent native soils. Floor slabs and pavements can be similarly supported. Page No. 5 a November 21, 2001 Project No. T4893 The.uncontrolled fill encountered should not be considered suitable for directly supporting foundations or slab - on -grade floors. The existing fill we observed in the northeastern portion of the site is at least I I feet thick in locations, contains a significant amount of organic material, and does not appear to have been placed in a controlled manner on a properly prepared- subgrade. To reduce the potential of unacceptable differential settlements of the structures and to avoid impacting the stability of the fill slope in this portion of the site, we recommend transferring building loads to competent native soils beneath the fill using deep foundations. In our opinion, a foundation system consisting of augercast piles or drilled piers will provide an economical and suitable building support system. Removing the uncontrolled fill and replacing it with an engineered structural fill pad is an alternative to using a. deep foundation system. Because of uncertainties in the consistency of the fill, there are risks that cannot be quantified associated with constructing pavements over the existing fill. Therefore, the existing fill soils should also be removed from pavement areas and replaced with structural fill. - Much of the ex isting*fill soils observed at the site will not be suitable for reuse as structural fill because of excessive organic material, and debris. The native silty sands, silts, and clays are moisture sensitive and will be difficult to compact as structural fill when too wet. The ability to use the soils from site excavation as structural fill will depend on the soils' moisture content and the prevailing weather conditions at the time of construction. If grading activities will take place during the winter season, the owner should be prepared to import free - draining granular material for use as structural fill and backfill. The following recommendations should be incorporated into the project design drawings and construction specifications. These recommendations are preliminary and may be altered or augmented upon review of the final plans. 5.2 Site PreDatation and Grading To prepare the site for construction, all vegetation, organic surface soils, and other unsuitable materials including the existing fills should be stripped and removed from the portions of the site to be developed. Once clearing and grubbing operations are complete, cuts and fills -can be made to establish design grades. Prior to placing fill, we recommend proofrolling all exposed surfaces to detennine if any isolated soft and yielding areas are present. Cut areas that will provide direct support for new construction- should also be proofrolled-. if excessively yielding areas are observed and cannot be stabilized in place by compaction, they should be cut to a firm bearing surface and filled to grade with structural fill. If the depth of excavation to remove unstable soils is excessive, you can consider using a geotextile fabric, such as Mirafi 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 pl aced over the geotextile fabric should establish a stable bearing surface. A representative of Terra Associates, Inc., should observe all proofrolling. operations at the time of construction to verify stable subgrades. Excavations up to about 20 feet below the existing ground surface are proposed along the northern side of Pine Street in the southern portion of the site. Based on our observations, and considering, the time of year our investigation was performed, it does not appear that significant drainage efforts will be required to complete the excavation as proposed. However, this should be verified by. field observations at the time of construction. Page No. 6 a 4 November 21, 2001 Project No. T-4893 Most of the granular site soils contain a moderate percentage of fines (silt and clay particles), which will make them sensitive to moisture. The use of silt and clay soils as structural fill may be possible during dry weather. However, it will be extremely difficult to control their moisture content and to place and compact them satisfactorily. Some of the site soils are wet and will require drying to reduce their moisture content and facilitate compaction. Drying can be accomplished by aeration during dry weather conditions or by the use of an additive such as cement IdIn dust or Portland cement. If fill activities must take place during wet weather or on a wet subgrade, the owner should be prepared to use wet weather structural fill. For -this purpose, we recommend using a granular soil that meets the following grading requirements: U.S. Sieve Size Percent Passing 3 inches 100 No. 4 75 maximum No. 200 -5 maximum* *Based on the 3/4-inch fraction. Prior to use, Terra Associates, Inc. should examine and test all on -site or imported materials proposed for use as structural fill. Structural fill should be placed in uniform loose layers . not exceeding 12 inches, and then compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the soil's maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM Test Designation D-698 (Standard Proctor). The moisture content of the soil at the time of compaction- should be within two percent of its optimum, as determined by this same standard. In -non-structural areas or for backfill in utility trenches below a, depth of 4 feet, the degree of compaction could be reduced to 90 percent. Embankment fills placed on slopes exceeding a grade of 20 percent must be keyed and benched into competent native soils. A general slope fill detail is shown.on Figure 3. Subsurface drains may also be required. The need for subsurfice drains should be evaluated in the field at the time of constiuction. The proposed fill areas should be stripped of topsoil, duff, existing fill soils, and soils containing organic material prior to creating horizontal benches for the placement of the fill. All pen-nanent cut and fill slopes should be graded with a finished inclination no greater than 2: 1. Upon completion of grading, the slope face should be appropriately vegetated or provided with other physical means to guard against erosion. Final grades at the top of the slope must promote surface drainage away from the slope crest. 5.3 Excavations All excavations at the site associated with confined spaces, such as utility trenches and lower building levels, must be completed in accordance with local, State, or Federal requirements. Based on curr ent Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations, the upper medium dense to dense granular soils would be classified as Group C soils. The very dense silt and hard clay soils fall into the Group A category. Page No. 7 November 21, 2001 Project No. T-4893 Accordingly, for temporary excavations more than 4 feet and less than 20 feet deep, side slopes in Group C soils should be laid back at a minimurn 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, tempo rary shoring may need to be used to support the excavations. The above information is provided solely for the benefit of the owner and other design consultants and should not be construed to imply that Terra Associates, Inc. assumes responsibility for Job site safety. Job site safety is the sole responsibility of the project contractor. Based on the grading information provided to us, it appears that portions of the temporary excavation along the northern side of Pine Street will require shoring. We recommend using a cantilevered, soldier pile and timber lagging shoring system. We will provide design parameters for temporary shoring once more details are known regarding final site grading. 5.4 Foundations Spread Footings The b ' uildings may be supported on conventional spread.footing foundations bearing on competent native soils or on structural fill placed above competent native soils, as recommended in the Site Preparation. and Grading section of this report. Perimeter foundations should be placed at least 1.5 feet below final exterior grades for frost protection. Interior foundations can be constructed at any convenient depth. On a preliminary basis, foundations can be dimensioned for a net allowable bearing capacity of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf) where supported by the medium dense to dense native soils and compact I ed structural fill. Foundations supported by.the very dense silt and hard clay soils can be dimensioned for a net allowable bearing capacity of 5,000 psf. For short-term loads, such as wind and seismic, a one-third increase in this allowable capacity can be used. With structural loading as anticipated and these bearing stresses applied, estimated total settlements.are about one inch, with one-half to three -fourth inches differential in nature. These settlements should be immediate in nature, occurring during and shortly following application -of building loads. For designing foundations to resist lateral loads, a base friction coefficient of 0.4 can be used. Passive earth pressures acting on the side of the footing and buried portion of the foundation stem, wall can- also be considered. We recommend calculating this lateral resistance using an equivalent fluid weight of 300 pounds per cubic foot (Pcf). We recommend not including the upper 12 inches of soil in this computation because it can be affected by weather or disturbed by future grading activity. This value assumes'the foundation will be constructed neat against competent native soil or backfilled with st ructural fill, as described in the Site Preparation and Grading section of this report. The recommended friction and passive values include a safety factor of 1.5. Page No. 8 0 November 21, 2001 Project No. T-4893 Drilled Piles Where footing elevations cannot be readily lowered to the competent native soil, we recommend supporting. building, wall, and floor loads on augercast piles or drilled pier foundations that penetrate a minimum of five feet intothe native bearing stratum. Allowable axial and lateral pile capacities for varying pile diameters are as follows: Pile Diameter (inches) Allowable Axial Load (to as) Allowable Lateral Load (tong 16 30 4 18 35 5 The above allowable axial capacities include a safety factor of 2.0. Full single -pile capacities can be used, provided pile spacing is at least three pile diameters. For closer spacing, there will be a slight reduction in the allowable single -pile capacity due to group effects. The amount of this reduction will depend on the number of piles in the grouping and their spacing. We anticipate that settlements under the p ile foundations will be less than one-fourth inch. For augercast piles, the pressure used to inject the grout and construct the pile column will compress the soils immediately adjacent to the pile. As a result, the amount of grout needed to form the pile ma y be greater than the theoretical grout volume. Also, piles should be constructed at a minimum spacing of five -diameters. Once the grout has achieved its initial set, installation between these locations can be completed. The auger should be extracted slowly and uniformly below a sufficient and consistent head of grout. If the auger is extracted too quickly, the pile may neck down and soil may collapse into the pile, reducing its structural integrity. At a point along the injection line, the piling contractor should use a pressure gauge to monitor the grout pressure during construction. The amount of grout used in forming the pile should also be monitored. 5.5 Basement and Retaining Walls The magnitude of earth pressures developing on basement or retaining walls will depend on the quality and compaction of the wall backfill. We recommend placing and compacting wall backfill as structural fill. Below� improved areas, such as pavements or floor slabs,. the backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of its maximum dry unit weight, as determined by American Society -of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Test Designation D-698 (Standard Proctor). In unimproved areas, the. relative compaction can be reduced to 90 percent. To prevent hydrostatic pressure development, wall drainage must be installed. Drainage behind basement walls can be provided by attaching prefabricated wall drainage panels, such as Miradrain G100W, to the outer side of the wall, or by backfillmig the wall with a clean granular material, such as, pea gravel. A foundation drain consisting of a four -inch diameter perforated PVC pipe should be installed at the base of the wall for collection and removal of the intercepted groundwater. The foundation drain should be surrounded by at least six inches of pea gravel extending two feet above the pipe. All drains must be routed to an approved point of controlled discharge. Cleanouts should be installed at appropriate an d easily accessible locations along the drain alignments. These cleanouts should be serviced at least once each year. Page No. 9 November 21, 2001 Project No. T-4893 With wall backfill placed.and compacted as recommended and.drainage properly installed, we recommend designing unrestrained walls for an active earth pressure equiva lent to a fluid weighing 35,pcf For restrained walls, an additional uniform lateral pressure of 100 psf should be, added. These values assume a horizontal backfill condition and that no other surcharge loading, such as traffic, sloping embankments, or adjacent buildings, will act on the wall. If such conditions will exist, then the imposed loading shoul d be included in the wall design. Friction at the base of foundations and passive earth pressure will provide resistance to these lateral loads. Values for these parameters are provided in theYoundations section of this report. 5.6 Slab -on -Grade Floors Slab -on -grade floors may be supported on subgrades prepared as recommended in the Site Preparation and. Grading section of this report. Immediately below the floor slab, we recommend placing a four -inch thick capillary break layer of clean free -draining sand or gravel having less than three'percent passing the No. 200 sieve. This material will reduce the potential for upward capillary movement of water through the underlying soil. and subsequent wetting of the floor slab. Where moisture by vapor transmission is undesirable, a durable plastic membrane should be placed over the capillary break material. The membrane should be covered with two inches of clean moist sand to guard against damage during construction and to aid in curing the concrete. 5.7 Drainage 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 included for collection and disposal of surface Wateradjacent to the structure'. SU'rface water must not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the crest of the site slopes and embankments. Surface water,should be directed away from the slope crests to a point of collection and controlled discharge. If site grades do not allow for directing surface water away from the slopes, then water should b e collected and tightlined to the bottom of the slope in a controlled manner. Subsu�face We recommend installing a continuous drain along the outside lower edge of th I e perimeter. building foundations.. The foundation- drains and roof downspouts should be tightlined separately to an approved point of controlled discharge. Subsurface drains must be laid with a gradient sufficient to promote positive flow to the discharge point. All drains should be provided with c.leanouts at easily accessible locations. These cleanouts should be serviced at least once each year. Page No. 10 SS-132p- B�2. SB-217 -"P ll W-203 'T T1�74 B-213 V -,SB- 0.' lmvy.20-al� "I , r 2 221 -232 SB- -202 P oSB SB —B-21 -1 SB-216 TP-14 TP16 -3 B-228 231--1 -210 611AI -W-� 5 mw-io 1, B-2 16 P-13 TP -7 -SB-229:, -223 SB 222 .''S6-2 6 -2 0 -208 B S 23 B-23 TP-17. SB- P-8 SB-2 Tp- SB-20 TP-10 SB c:I J 40 TP- NOTE: LEGEND TP-1 APPROXIMATE TEST PIT LOCATION (TERRA) TH IS SITE PLAN IS FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY AND IT SH ' OULD NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION OR DESIGN EMCON EXPLORATORY BORING PURPOSES. REFERENCE: 0 200' 400 SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY TRIAD AS80CIATES -- - 1�. APPROXIMATE SCALE.IN FEET November 21, 2001 Project No. T4893 5.8 Utilities Utility pipes should be bedded and backfilled in accordance with American Public Works Association (APWA) or City of Edmonds specifications. Trench backfill should be placed and compacted as structural fill as described in the Site Preparation and Grading section of this report. If the granular soils excavated on -site are free of excessive deleterious material or debris, and are not excessively moist, they should be suitable for use as backfill material. The very d ense silt and hard clay will not be suitable for use as backfi,11. If the silt and/or clay soils are exposed in utility trench excavations, or construction takes place during periods of wet weather, it may be necessary to import structural fill for backfilling purposes. 5.9 Pavements Pavements should be constructed on subgrades prepared as described in the Site Preparation and Grading section of this report. Regardless of the relative compaction achieved, the subgrade must be firm and relatively unyielding before paving. Proofrolling the subgrade with heavy construction equipment should be *completed to verify this.condition. The appropriate thicknesses of the various components of the pavement depend on the subgrade soils and the traffic conditions to which the pavement will be subjected. We expect traffic to mainly consist of light passenger vehicles with only occasional heavy service vehicles. Based on this information and a properly prepared and stable subgrade, we recommend the following pavement sections: 0 Two inches of asphalt concrete (AC) over six inches of crushed rock base (CRB) Two inches of AC over four inches of asphalt -treated base (ATB) All paving materials should conform to the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) specifications for Class B asphalt concrete, ATB, and CRB. Long-term pavement performance will depend on surface drainage. A poorly drained �pavement section will be subject to premature failure as a result of surface water infiltrating into the subgrade soils and reducing their supporting capability. To improve performance, we recommend surface drainage gradients of at least two percent. Some longitudinal and transverse cracking of the pavement surface should be expected over. time. Regular maintenance should be planned to seal cracks when they occur. 6.0 ADDITIONA-L SERVICES Terra Associates, Inc. should review the final design and specifications in order to verify that,earthwork and foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and incorporated into project design and construction. We should also provide geotechnical services during construction in order to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications, and recommendations. This will also allow for design changes if subsurface conditions differ fTom those anticipated prior to the start of construction. Page No. I I November 21, 2001 Project No. T-4893' 7.0 MUTATIONS We prepared this report in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. This report is the copyrighted property of Terra Associates, Inc. and is intended for specific application to the UNOCAL Site project. This report is for the exclusive use of Triad Point Edwards and their authorized representatives. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. The analyses and preliminary recommendations presented in this report are based upon data obtained &orn the on -site test pits. Variations in soil conditions can occur, the nature and extent of which may not b ecome evident until construction. If variations appear evident, Terra Associates, Inc. should 'be requested to reevaluate the recommendations in this report prior to proceeding with construction. Page No. 12 WSW ilr-17 mffr i I PL Y S. ST SO PK. s rH PL j8Z ST Sw ez 4p 18M ST Sw unTH Sw R F4 AKE- ST Sw $I Sw CHEW ST I yze, OR I -Xf196T ma LN PU .13 HIND 21MOMIX OR EWLM 00 p BROOMCK ALSO YNOERVA rER flb� ---- ST I PARK V[ rA�: BN wi— VISTA 200TH ST Sw 63tj BRACKETTS WI—ST 1 q+ LA GIN 24 I-ST A, HILL FK ST" S �7 ST. DAYTON 2im FL WLE m ZDM p- 23 :3; WON. 7w, '0 15 lz zlzm OIL HOKLL AM IL ST Sw ell SITE OR. Elm ST Nzi - 7 IL Z. Zli" ,j 'A 1L . i 21 LFOWARDS MKIM W— -M PT BEAM p"M " . "I'll, �* I 7T H T SW PC,-- MK AH ST Sw UV51 - I 30 9 COOIJ , 9, .. F LLA ST E ST 2� TNH ST zi -1 sw An T Sw 4 ZZIST PL rw 00 FIN R T X SOURCE: Thomas Guide, Pierce, King and Snohomish County, 1999. Page 454. NOT TO SCALE VICINITY MAP UNOCAL SITE EDMONDS, WASHINGTON IfflTerra AWS-7sociates, Inc. Geotechnical Consultants 1 Proj. No. T-4893 I Date NOV 200ITFigure 1 STRUCTURAL FILL REVERSE SLOPE TO DRAIN 2 TOE OF NEW SLOPE 2' 6- �— 6- ---4 7— 1--6- -4 KEYWAY AND DRAIN (SEE NOTE 1) I I 6' "--TYPICAL SLOPE BENCH (MAY A REQUIRE SUBDRAIN IF SEEPAGE CONDITIONS ARE INDICATED) \—TOE BENCH CUT AND DRAIN (SEE NOTE 1) NOT TO SCALE NOTES: 1) DRAINS SHALL CONSIST OF 6- DIAMETER PERFORATED PVC PIPE ENVELOPED IN I cu. ft. OF WASHED 3/4* MINUS DRAINAGE GRAVEL 2) TOPSOIL REMOVAL.THICKNESS BETWEEN KEYWAY AND BENCHES. ,(IF NECESSARY) VERTICAL ELEVATION DIFFERENCE BE TWEEN TOP OF LOWER BENCH BACKCUT AND UPPtR BENCH ELEVATION. 9MTerra Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Consultants GENERAL SLOPE FILL DETAIL UNOCAL SITE EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Proj.No. T-4893 I Date NOV 2001. 1 Figure 3 APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING UNOCAL Site Edmonds, Washington On October 18 and 19, 2001, we performed our field exploration using a track -mounted excavator. We explored subsurface soil conditions at the site by excavating 17 test pits to a maximum depth of about 16 feet below existing surface grades. The test pit locations are shown on Figure 2. The test pit locations were approximately determined by pacing from existing surface features. The Test Pit Logs are presented on Figures A-2 through A- 10. An engineering geologist from our office maintained a log of each test pit as it was excavated, classified the soil conditions encountered, and obtained representative samples. All soil samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification. System. A 'Copy of this classification is presented as Figure A- 1. Representative soil samples obtained from the test pits were placed in sealed plastic bags and taken to our laboratory for further examination and testing. The moisture content of each sample was measured and is reported on the Test Pit Logs. The Atterberg limits of four samples were, determined and are reported on the Test Pit Logs. Grain size analyses were performed on I I of the samples, the results of whicL are shown on Figures A- I I through A- 16. Project No. T-4893 0 , MAJOR- DIVISIONS LETTER SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTION Clean GW Well -graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures, little or no GRAVELS Gravels fines. GP Poody-graded gravelsi gravel -sand mixtures, little or j 0) L_ (less than a 0 N More than 5% fines) no fines. GM Silty gravels, grave I -sand -silt mixtures, non -plastic @ 50% of coarse fraction is C) LU .0 = 4) 4) > larger than 'No. Gravels . . with. fines fines. Z_ co -o E (n 4 sieve GC Clayey gravels, gravel -sand -clay mixtures, plastic fines. < cc 0 C\l LO SANDS Clean Sands SW Well -graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines. W 6 a Z ca -_ (less than SP Poody-graded sands or gravelly sands, liftle or no I r- 4- More than 5% fines) fines. < ca a) 50% of coarse 0 L_ 0 fraction is Sands SM Silty sands, sand -silt mixtures, non -plastic fines. 0 smaller. than SIC Clayey sands, sand -clay mixtures, plastic fines. No. 4 sieve with fines U) ML Inorganic silts, rock flout, clayey sifts with slight J SILTS AND CLAYS plasticity. CL inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity,* (lean clay). 0)0 0 co Cj E 0 (D Liquid limit is less than 50% OL Organic silts and organic clays of low plasticity. 0 0 Z.N W 0- z 0 C Lo ca MH Inorganic silts, elastic. > a) SILTS AND CLAYS CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays. ca 0 E Z CO Liquid limit is greater than 50% [z 'OH Organic clays of high plasticity. HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat. DEFINITION OF TERMS AND SYMBOLS Standard Penetration Density Resisia�c_e -in- 916,ws/Po-ot 2*- OUTSIDE DIAMETER SPLIT W _j SPOON SAMPLER z 0 Very loose 0-4 2.4* INSIDE DIAMETER RING SAMPLER (n Loose 4-10- OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER W Medium dense 10-30 0 Dense 30-50 3! WATER LEVEL (DATE) Very dense >50 Tr TORVANE READINGS, tsf Pp PENETROMETER READING, tsf Standard Penetration W Consistenc Resistance in Blows/Foot DD DRY DENSITY, pounds per cubic foot > Fn Ve soft 0-2 ry LL LIQUID LIMIT, percent W Soft 2-4 M 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 UNOCAL SITE Associates, Inc. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. T-48,93 Date NOV 2001 j Figure A-1 Logged by: JCS Date: 10/18/01 Depth (ft.) 0 . FILL: crus 5 10 15 20 Test Pit NO. TP-1 Soil Description Approximate Elev. 104 Moisture Content hed rock surfacing over brown to gray silty sand to sandy silt, fine grained, firm, moist (SMIML) 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) Becomes light brown. at approximately 6 feet. 26 Pp 4.5+ Gray CLAY, hard, moist, massive. (CL) tons/fe LL 35.8 PI 15 Test pit terminated at 14 feet. No groundwater seepage. Logged by: JCS Date: 10/18/01' Depth (ft.) 0 `_ FILL: crust 5 10 15 20 Test Pit No. TP-2 Approximate Elev. 124 Moisture Soil Description Content - ed rock surfacing over brown silty sand to sandy silt, fine grained, firm, moist. 4-inch thick organic layer at base. (SM/ML) (Old topsoil horizon) Brown silty SAND, fine grained, medium dense, moist. (SM) - Mottled grayish -brown silty SAND, fine grained, medium dense, moist. (SM) 20 Grayish-brdwn silty SAND, fine grained, medium dense to dense, moist. (SM) Gray CLAY, hard, moist, I amin,ated with light gray silt partings. (CL) Pp 4.5+ tons/fe 37 Test pit terminated at 14 feet. No groundwater seepage. TEST PIT LOGS Terra UNOCAL SITE Associates,inc. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. T-4893 I Date NOV 2001 1 Figure A-2 Test Pit No. TP-3 Log I byjCS Approximate Elbv. 121 Date�e loll 01 Depth Moisture Soil Description Content N 0— FILL: brown silty sand, fine grained, firm, moist, with occasional fine gravel and organic material. (SM) (Hydrocarbon odor) Dark brown silty SAND, fine grainea, son, moist to wet. (OL) \.(Old topsoil 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 I fine sand. (CL) Pp = 4.5+ 32 1 tonsfit' � Test pit terminated at 13 feet. 15 Light groundwater seepage from point source at 4.5 feet. 20 Test Pit No... TP-4 Logged by: JCS Approximate Elev. 92 Date: 10/18/01 Depth Moisture Soil Description Content N 0— FILL: !ight brown silty sa-nTfine rainedfiffn,dry I tomoist. (SM) 2-inchthick 016 topsg -,,organic layer at base. 0 1 hori on) - Light brown to tan silty SAND, fine grained, medium dense to dense, dry. (SM) 51 Mottled grayish -brown silty SAND, fine-grained, medium dense to.dense, , 29 1QRA% - 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) Pip = 4.5+ tons/te 1.0— . Gray CLAY, hard, moist. (CL) PP = 29 ton - Test pit terminated at 13 feet. 15 ---! Trace groundwater seepage at 6 feet. 20 TEST PIT LOGS erra UNOCAL SITE Associates, Inc. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Geotechnicai Consultants Proj. No. T-4893 Date NOV 20 A-3 Logged by: JCS Date:1 0/18/01 Depth (ft.) 0- 5 10 15 20 Test Pit No. TP-5 Soil Description Approximate Elev. 110 Moisture Content 6 inches DUFF and TOPSOIL. Light brown SAND with sift to silty SAND, fine grained, medium dense, moist. (SP-SM/SM) 23 Mottled grayish -brown SAND to SAND with silt, fine grained, medium dense to dense, moist. (SP/SP-SM) Becomes wet at approximately 9 feet. 26 34 LL - 44.5 Grayish -brown to gray CLAY, hard, moist, generally massive, with P1 = 21.3 occasional thin laminations of gray silt. (CL) Pp = 4.5+ tons1W - Test pit terminated at 16 feet. - Light groundwater seepage between 9 and 10 feet. Logged by: JCS Date: 10/18/01 Depth (ft.) 0— r 1 C 15 20 Test Pit No. TP-6 Approximate Elev. 150 Moisture Content Soil Description 1%) - FILL: brown to grayish -brown SILT, CLAY, and fine grained SAND, firm - moist to wet, with some fine gravel and occasional organic material. 32 . FILL: gray to brownish gray silt, clay, and fine grained sand, firm, moist to - wet, with moderate organic material (including wood debris) and sorn I e . gravel. 1.2-inch thick organic layer at base. (Old top soil horizon) - - 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. Terra TEST PIT LOGS UNOCAL SITE EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Consultants Date NOV 2001 1 Figure A-4 Proj. No. T-4893 .1 Logged by: JCS Date: 10/18/01 Depth (ft.) 0- 10 15 20 Test Pit No. TP-7 Soil Description Approximate Elev. 121 Moisture Content FILL: dark brown organic silty sand, fine grained, firm, moist. Mottled gray to brown SAND with silt to silty SAND, fine grained, medium dense to dense, moist. (SP-SWSM) (Hydrocarbon odor) 20 Tan to light grayish -brown silty CLAY to CLAY, hard, moist, occasional 24 mottling. (CL) Pp - 4.5+ tonstfe 31 - Test pit terminated at 15 feet. - No groundwater seepage. Logged by: JCS Date: 10/18/01 Depth (ft.) 0- 1 C 15 20 Test Pit No. TP-8 Soil Description Approximate Elev. 121 Moisture Content (OM FILL: light brown to gray silty sand, firm, moist to wet, with organics. FILL: dark brown organic silty sand, loose, wet, with significant wood debris (timbers and branches). 2.5-foot diameter boulder. Gray SILT to SILT with sand, fine grained, dense, moist to wet. (ML) 25 - Lig ht 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. erra Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Consultants TEST PIT LOGS UNOCAL SITE EDMONDS, WASHINGTON I I Proj. No. T-4893 I Date NOV 20011 Figure A-5, I Logged by: JCS Date: 10/18/01 Depth . (ft.) 0— A 10 15 20 Test Pit No. TP-9 Soil Description Approximate Elev. 150- Moisture Content I(%) - FILL: crushed rock surfacing over grayish -brown sandy silt and clay, firm, - moist. 6-inch thick organic layer at base. (Old topsoil horizon) Mottled grayish -brown sandy SILT to sandy CLAY, stiff, moist. (MUCL) Pp = 4.5+ 30 tomw 37 Grayish -brown CLAY, hard, moist, massive. (CH) LL = 58.8 PI = 30.1 Gray SILT and CLAY, hard, moist, with occasional laminations of gray Pp = 4.5+ fine sand. (MUCL) 22 1 tons/ft' Test pit terminated at 15 feet. No groundwater seepage. Logged by: JCS Date: 10/18/01 Depth (ft.) 0- 5 10 15 20 Test Pit No. TP-1 0 Soil Description Approximate Elev. 157 Moisture Content 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 feet. No groundwater seepage. Terra Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Consultants TEST PIT LOGS UNOCAL SITE EDMONDS, WASHINGTON I I Proj. No. T-4893 I Date NOV 20011 Figure A-6 I Logged by: JCS Date: 10/18/01 Depth (ft.) 0— R 10 15 K11 Test Pit No. TP-11 Soil Description Approximate Elev. 78 Moisture Content M Mottled grayish -brown SAND to SAND with silt, fine grained, medium dense, moist to wet. (SP/SP-SM) 25 15 Light brown silty SAND to sandy SILT, fine grained, medium dense to dense, moist. (SM/MQ Increasing silt with depth. 15 22 - Test pit terminated at 15 feet. - I No groundwater seepage. Logged by: JCS Date: 10/18/01 Depth (ft.) 0 1C 15 20 Test Pit No. TP-1 2 Soil Description Approximate Elev. 76 Moisture Content ( % I nc es crushed rock surfacing. Mottl4ad grayish -brown SAND fine to mediuTprained, medium dense, moist, with occasional fine gravel. (SP) �Hydrocarbon 0) 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 very dense, moist. (SM/MQ (Glacial fill -like between 8 and 10 feet) Increasing gravel with depth. I 20 Test pit terminated at 15 feet. Trace groundwater seepage at 8 feet. - - - - - - . . . . . . . . . . . rra Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Consultants TEST PIT LOGS UNOCAL SITE EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Proj. No. T-4893 I Date NOV 20011 Figure A-7 Logged by: JCS Date: 10/18/01 Depth (ft.) , 0 — 113.n^k. 5 10 15 20 Test Pit No. TP-1 3 Soil Description Approximate Elev. 86 Moisture Content s crushed rock surfacing. Mottled gra ish-brown silty SAND to sandy SILT, very dense, moist. (SM/ML) (Hyd ocarbon odor) 25 31 Bluish -gray CLAY, hard, moist, with partings of gray fine sand and light gray silt. (CL) Pp 4.5+ tons/fe Test pit terminated at 14 feet. Trace groundwater seepage at 2.5 feet. Logged by: JCS Date: 10/18/01 Depth (ft.) 0— E 1 C 15 �zl Test Pit No. TP-1 4 Soil Description Approximate Elev. 76 Moisture Content (%I - - FILL: bluish -gray silty sand with gravel to sandy silt with gravel, fine sand, fine gravel, medium dense to dense, moist. (SM/ML) 10 . Light brown sandy SILT, fine grained, dense, moist, with occasional - fine gravel and thin layers of fine grained silty sand. (ML) 19 15 - Test pit terminated at 15 feet. - 'No groundwater seepage. TEST PIT LOGS Terra UNOCAL SITE Associates, Inc. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. T-4893 Date NOV 2 A-8 Log �ejd by: JCS Date 0118/01 Depth 0 FILL: gra 5 10 15 20 Test Pit No. TP-1 5 Soil Description Approximate Elev. 86 Moisture Content - I[%) I to y sil sandy silt, fine grained, medium dense, moist, with occasional (�IrMnd fine ravel. L) org Dark brown anic sandy SILT, fine grained, firm, moist, with occasional roots. (OL) (Old topsoil hor n) zo 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. (SWIVIL) (Glacial till -like) 18 - Test pit terminated at 15 feet. - Trace groundwater seepage at I I feet. Test Pit No. TP-1 6 Logged by: JCS Approximate Elev. 68 Date: 10/18/01 Depth moisture (ft.) Soil Description Content FILL gray to brown silty sand with gravel, fine grained, firm to loose, moist to wet. (SM) I I 5— FILL: grayi ' sh-brown silty sand with gravel, fine grained, firm, moist to wet, with significant organic soils and wood debris. 23 10-1 16 1-5 �Test pit terminated at 13 feet. No groundwater seepage. 20 Terra TEST PIT LOGS UNOCAL SITE EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. T-4893 I Date NOV 2001 1 Figure A-9 Test Pit No.- TP-17, Logged by: JCS Approxi I mate Elev. 82 Date: 10/18/01 Depth Moisture Soil Description Content N 0- =brown silty SAND with gravel, fine sand, fine to coarse gravel, m dense. moist. (SM) - Mottled aysh-brown =13 with gravel, tine sand, fine to66iise gravel, medium gdr ense to dens (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. (SWIVIL) (Glacial till -like) Sand content increases with depth. 10 15 20- Test pit terminated at 9.5 feet. No groundwater seepage. rra Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Consultants TEST PIT LOGS UNOCAL SITE EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Proj. No. T-4893 I Date NOV 20011 Figure A-10 I .101,-K g6n 9BO34 12525 Willow's Road' e irklandjWz�hin (425) 821-77 Fax.(425) -821 Mr. Ross Woods December 20, 2005 Comment No. 8, Paize 2: *Provide a letterfrom the geotechnical engineer of record that he has reviewed the building plans for Building 8 andfinds them consistent with the recommendations in his report and supplemental letters. We reviewed structural drawings for Building 8 to verify that the plans conform to our geotechnical recommendations. We were provided the following plans for our review: 9 Structural Sheets SI.,.1 through S7.1, prepared by DCI Engineers, dated November 18, 2005 The plans indicate foundation support for Building 8 will be provided by conventional spread footings. Design soil values outlined in the Soils and Foundations section of the Structural General Notes on Sheet SLI indicate that structural design used allowable foundation pressures of 5,000 pounds per square foot (psf) for native soil and 3,000 psf for structural fill. However, based on our conversation with DC1 Engineers, we understand that all foundations for Building 8 were dimensioned for a net allowable bearing capacity of 5,000 psf In our referenced preliminary geotechnical report, we recommended dimensioning foundations for a net allowable bearing capacity of 5,000 psf where supported by very dense silt and hard clay soils. Our site explorations in the area of Building 8 (Boring B- 103) indicate that that much of the foundation excavation for the lower building levels (PI and LI) will expose dense silv'hard clay. However, foundation excavations for floor level L2 (Elev. 131) on the southern side of the building will likely expose medium dense native silty sand above Elev. 120. Foundations bearing on these native soils should be dimensioned for an allowable bearing capacity of 3,000 psf In addition, Cross Sections B-B, C-C, and D-D on Sheet 4D of the civil plans prepared by Triad Associates, Inc., dated July 28, 2003 (revised October 14, 2005) indicate that the lower floor level of the building will be supported by structural fill approximately 7 to 12 feet above existing grade at the perimeter of the building. If foundations in this area are not lowered to bear on the native dense silt/hard clay, they should be dimensioned for an allowable bearing capacity of 3,000 psf. Based on our review with the above discussion taken into consideration, it is our opinion that the plans are in general conformance with our geotechnical recommendations. Foundation Issues Including Lateral Loid Considerations, Comment No. 1. Page 2: I don't recall seeing anyjustification in the other soils reports by the engineer'sfor the Y4 to I slopes and a 4-high (sic) temporary vertical cuts as shown in Section Views A -A and B-B on Sheet 4D of the Triad Associates plans. As discussed in Section 5.3 of our referenced preliminary geotechnical report, the denselhard transitional bed silt and clay, such as that observed below approximately Elev. 120 in the area of Building 8, can be sloped at temporary inclinations of 0.75:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) or flatter. The lower four feet of the excavation can be made vertical where the densdba�d transitional bed soils are exposed. This temporary slope geometry is supported by the results of computer stability analysis, which yielded adequate factors of safety. Project No. T-4893 Page No. 2 Mr. Ross Woods December 20, 2005 Foundation Issues Including Lateral Load Considerations, Comment No. 2, age 2: The Lock and Load wall shown on Sheet 4 of the Triad Associates Plans needs to be providedfor review. The engineer has to use the criteria in ICC Evaluation Report # 5893. The Lock+Loae wall design is in general conformance with the criteria presented in ICC Evaluation Report # 5893. Ile design calculations and results of global stability analyses are attached. We trust the information presented is sufficient for your current needs. If you have any questions or require additional -information, please call. Sincerely yours, TERRA ASSOCIATES, INC. John C. Project 12--2-0— V6-- Theodore Principal Encl: SheAl Retaining Walls -"—IID Calculations TV a, ME, �BM_'r cc: Mr. Jeff Brink DCI Engineers Project No. T-4893 Page No. 3 IN I ril I . � " "� ;u =;,:,A - --.�--M 2 Ir R= l-..T TYPICAL WALL SECTION .� V.r GENERAL NOTES ILI' I F 90'CORNER-ELEVATION 90*CORNERASSEMBL REINFORCING SCHEDULE M. - w mw c� INIU 00 -PM 31 31 IM 3. Mm I.D 11. o-m in RADIUS CORNER DETAIL PLAN 0 z 10 z z E z e, o: (6 a 89 z � 0 0 + Lu 2 L x �- 0 ) K uj 0 0 (L a LOCK+LOAD RETAINING WALL DESIGN CALCULATIONS POINT EDWARDS CONDONM41UMS PROJECT NO. T4893 PREPARED BY TERRA ASSOCIATES, INC. DECEM13ER 2003 A,— Rp� I 4"' L 9 �VO // 01701 4Q FAWA - 5A -cle,-O Lock + Lop�ot 1Zv4,,'r,;rLj Wall I zOO TERRA .-,ASSOCIATES' Geotechnical Consultants PROJECT Fo,?4-r a_0WAf-_D _S F BY SrY, SHEET LOCATION CHECKED T cL1EN L-LC DATE 17_.2-03: 12525 Willows Rd., Ste. 101 Kirkland, WA 98034 (425) 821-7777 JOBNO_ cm- 340 o,283 C>-Z83 130P.; 346 Fc.%, "cic��or\ Sol 15 1 -sop,+ 34' 29MLI LA1.0(p Walt �rlc.-6fN W ct-6, *mlole— 'celow �mse- cr� 4* WCk Lk. Fvlly Ckf-aif%ea Uxwti-kons- to Y-T -T-,A+. - F)(TE1ZMhL �6rA-SILI-r-/ CALC(.)LA7M0W5-- Wei&A R -&e Lnit qocl-14, "ol4t hc--4;�,e- = -7 1 �3 ci "4,+_ L,4-mi svr-6"r- I Li R�5!5&"O- Fkc-rop- QF!SA-'FVi-rY (Tan .3'6 (lq50 'k4 ) > 1.5 V/ Over+vrn;r!� FS. +04SO 1641)� 10L.-I-4)(4) > Beaf-; p �y U4; -otkc C.=,pcLc� 4-y. PROJECr BY SHEEr TERRA CHECKED LOCATION ASSOCIATES CLIENT DATE Geotechnical Consultants 12525 willows Rd., Ste. 101 Kirkland, WA 98034 (425) 821-7777 JOB NO. L + P— c = 8 - 4-5� ===> L- . ZG7 --� = 4 2. (- rl 4, L- 4t* Ul+iM-�- 9mriv,5 CAPOL641/ Q.,+ = 0- /q. + 1 '6 e>'14 -f y 1) tib 2a ------------- + + 030P,4)(7-57-�'t)(79,,jq) cg",.= sLi5l 1141W + (7-f-0 '44,471 "0/01 12,89 PROJEC-F BY SHEEr 7*7- .,—.'TERRA LOCATION CHECKED ASSOCIATES CLIENT DATE Geotechnical Consultants 12525 Willows Rd., Ste. 101 Kirkland, WA 98034 (425) 821-7777 L JOB NO. CN 7 6EEC,6p-)Z� —IaNS1014 : Ge,c%f-Ick 6eotr1A Geotmii Tensioe, -4crvi W-Hl- 9"-55,dre- ('6/;,) Gec.54'10\ -ren-4160\ V—% Kinimorej ,o IV\ F. :5. F. Sr 6-G(o ez, a 11 cl r"I. 01 A -c� Ict 'cl 3, z45 '31(P.Z 12 L( 32t.,3 1z--z I Z - -2- vjejoke 6.91 '579?-9 569,7 (a A IM4.1 8.8 10-01 -ren-5"Of� e-5-21 sqzli Lqz2.2 q 6 5�72,-6 (o -q Li's 397-9 3.7 6cl.8'(p S-7 --T 13--18 -392-9 3 Z. 1 8 9z, 41 q, PROJECT BY SHEET Z`777' TERRA CHECKED 7:7-77� j��77701 LOCATION CLIENT DATE ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants 12525 Willows Rd., Ste. 101 Kirkland, WA 98034 (425) 821 -7777 JOB NO. U LL OU -r 0 T= Pkm M A1,1 f.� Z�-O&z I b F76f-ce P'ests-�� in Coer-or- --0qA Geotr-,4 j.-A -3 r73(,.B 8'e Z.&Z 07).S- 103'3,0) S,25 521.2 /6,33.7 -3,1 6.540 637.1 q26. rl -:3.0 `766*3,0 "711H8.b 91 7.87 7qct.? 3.0 cl, 19 656.0 zo3 Z.9 10.!5c) c1553 0-786-7 2.01 //.a/ /OWIZ 300.3 2.1 (0 q. 1(0*380.q 13,12 31- (p .33Yq,"7 lq,q3 /zm(o 361W 3.0 152ZSr 9ZO317Y IL1.5 0:75 /30Z 38470,? -3.0 17,0(o / 3 75,Z 1158.,q -3.0 17'75,r7 z8qq3.ci 1(.. 1 lg,-3,7 IqAIZ6 q,123. q j q, 70 0 -6 -4�66,q s.1 2OZe-7 3 5 7q3. S PROJECT BY ERRA 5 LOCATION CHECKED L""" ASSOCIATES 5 CLIENT TSHEET DATE Geotechnical Consultants 2525 Willows Rd., Ste. 101 Kirkland, WA 98034 (425) 821-7777 F JOB NdO JO WINSTABL OUTPUT DATA 41 33, 25. 16. Global Static U. JU 25.13 33.50 41.88 50.25 58.63 67.00 Safety Factors 2.40 2.55 2.56 2.97 3.77 3.80 3.88 3.97 4.00 4.03 ** PCSTABL6 ** by Purdue University modified by Peter J. Bosscher University of Wisconsin -Madison --Slope Stability Analysis -- Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencer's Method of Slices PROBLEM DESCRIPTION Global Static BOUNDARY COORDINATES 7 Top Boundaries 11 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 3.00 5.00 11.00 8.00 4 2 11.00 8.00 15.50 10.00 4 3 15.50 10.00 17.50 11.00 3 4 17.50 11.00 34.00 19.00 2 5 34.00 19.00 44.00 19.00 2 6 44.00 19.00 45.00 27.00 1 7 45.00 27.00 67.00 27.00 2 8 44.00 19.00 51.00 19 * 00 2 9 51.00 19.00 67.00 27.00 2 10 17.50 11.00 67.00 11.00 3 11 15.50 10.00 67.00 10.00 4 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 4 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 125.0 125.0 0.0 34.0 0.00 0.0 0 2 126.0 120.0 100.0 34.0 0.00 0.0 0 3 120.0 125.0 100.0 34.0 0.00 0.0 1 4 110.0 110.0 2000.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0 I PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE(S) HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED Unit Weight of Water = 62-40 Piezometric Surface No. 1 Specified by 2 Coordinate Points Point X-Water Y-Water No. (ft) (ft) 1 17.50 11.00 2 67.00 11.00 Searching Routine Will Be Limited To An Area Defined By 2 Boundaries of Which The First 0 Boundaries Will Deflect Surfaces Upward Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 44.00 19.00 51.00 19.00 2 51.00 19.00 52.00 27.00 A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 100 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 10 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 10 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 11-00 ft. and X = 20.00 ft. Each Surface Terminates Between X = 55.00 ft. and X = 67.00 ft. Unless Further Limitations Were imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = 2.00 ft. 3.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First. * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The modified Janbu Method * * Failure Surface Specified By 19 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 17.00 10.75 2 19.99 10.51 3 22.99 10.41 4 25.99 10.46 5 28.98 10.65 6 31.96 10.99 7 34.92 11.47 8 37.86 12.10 9 40.76 12.86 10 43.62 13.76 11 46.43 14.81 12 49.19 15.98 13 51.89 17.29 14 54.53 18.73 15 57.09 20.29 16 59.57 21.97 17 61.97 23.78 18 64.28 25.69 19 65.70 27.00 2.405 41 33. 25. 16. 91 Global Pseudostatic u 0.00 '110. to ;eo. 13 33-50 41-88 50.25 58.63 67.00 Safety Factors 1.20 1.26 1.27 1.50 2.01 2.04 2.14 2.17 2.17 2.18 ** PCSTABL6 lt* by Purdue University modified by Peter J. BoSscher University of Wisconsin -Madison --Slope Stability Analysis -- simplified Janbu, simplified Bishop or Spencer's Method of Slices PROBLEM DESCRIPTION Global Pseudostatic BOUNDARY COORDINATES 7 Top Boundaries 11 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type NO. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 3.00 5.00 11.00 8.00 4 2 11.00 8.00 .15.50 10.00 4 3 15.50 10.00 17.50 11.00 3 4 17.50 11.00 34.00 19.00 2 5 34.00 19.00 44.00 19.00 2 6 44.00 19.00 45.00 27.00 1 7 45.00 27.00 67.00 27.00 2 8 44.00 19.00 51.00 19.00 2 9 51.00 19.00 67.00 27.00 2 10 17.50 11.00 67.00 11.00 3 11 15.50 10.00 67.00 10.00 4 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 4 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface go. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 125.0 125.0 0.0 34.0 0.00 0.0 0 2 120.0 120.0 100.0 34.0 0.00 0.0 0 3 120.0 125.0 100.0 34.0 0.00 0.0 1 4 110.0 110.0 2000.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0 I pIEZOMETRIc SURFACE(S) HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED Unit Weight of Water = 62-40 Piezometric surface No. I Specified by 2 Coordinate Points Point X-Water Y-Water No. (ft) (ft) 1 17.50 11.00 2 67.00 11.00 A Horizontal Earthquake Loading Coefficient OfO.300 Has Been Assigned A Vertical Earthquake Loading Coefficient OfO.000 Has Been Assigned cavitation Pressure = 0.0 psf Searching Routine Will Be Limited To An Area Defined By 2 Boundaries Of Which The First 0 Boundaries Will Deflect Surfaces Upward Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 44.00 19.00 51.00 19.00 2 51.00 19.00 52.00 27.00 A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular surfaces, Has Been Specified. 100 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. .4 1 1 . io Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 10 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 11-00 ft. and X = 20.00 ft. Each Surface Terminates Between X = 55.00 ft. and X = 67.00 ft. Unless Further Limitations were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = 2.00 ft. 3.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Following Axe Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First. - - Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Janbu Method * * Failure Surface Specified By 19 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 17.00 10.75 2 19.99 10.51 3 22.99 10.41 4 25.99 10.46 5 28.98 10.65 6 31.96 10.99 7 34.92 11.47 8 37.86 12.10 9 40.76 12.86 10 43.62 13.76 11 46.43 14.81 12 49.19 15.98 13 51.89 17.29 14 54.53 18.73 15 57.09 20.29 16 59.57 21.97 17 61.97 23.78 18 64.28 25.69 19 65.70 27.00 1.198 TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences July 30, 2003 Project No. T-4893 Mr. Ross Woods Point Edwards, LLC 2801 Alaskan Way, Suite 107 Seattle, Washington 98121 Subject: Supplementary Subsurface Exploration Point Edwards Condominiums Pine Street and.Unoco Road Edmonds, Washington References: 1. Geologically Hazardous Areas Review, Point Edwards Condominiums (UNOCAL Site), prepared by Terra Associates, Inc., dated January 20, 2003 1 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. Triiad 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 oqeof 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 shon recommendfM48VNED project. OCT 2 C "005 ST"`6!,-"T6-.T FILE S"' BUILDING DEPT. 12525 Willows Road, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034, Phone,(425) 821-7777 e 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 condorminiurn buildings. The proposed structures will be three to four stories with daylight basements and one to two levels of undergrou nd parking. We expect that perimeter load -bearing walls and isolated spread. footing loads. will be as indicated, in the referenced report. The excavation depths required for construction of the lower parking levels will approach a maximum of about 27 feet below existing grades along Pine Street. The recommendations contained *in the following sections of this report are based on our understanding of the above design features. If actual, features vary or changes are made, we should review them in order to modify our recommendations, as required. We should review final design drawings and specifications to verify that our recommendations have been properly interpreted and.incorporatdd 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 (Bonings B-1 through B-5). Our current exploration included drilling three additional test bonings (Borings B-101 through B-103) on June 18, 2003. The recent bonings were drilled on the north side of Pine Street, where significant expavations will be required for construction of the lower parking levels of Buildings 3, 4, and 8. These. test borings were advanced to a maximum depth of approximately 51.5 feet below the ground surface. The a:pproximate 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 togs 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 Borings B-101, B-102, and B-103 consist of I to 13 feet a6f 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 play with thin partings of light gray silt and/or very fine- grained silty sand seams to the maximum. exploration depths of the borings. These soil conditions are generally consistent with the soils we observed in nearby test pits. The Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and Part of the Edmonds . West Quadrangles, Washington by James P. Minard, 1983, shows the soils at higher site elevations mapped as Vashon till, Vashon advance outwash, and Transitional beds. Transitional bed sediments are described by this publication as massive to bedded- clay, silt, and fine to very fine sand. The clay and silt soils observed at depth in the test pits and encountered in the test bonings 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 seep age 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 Bdildmigs 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 2.00 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'niedium. dense. fill and native silty sand soils should be laid back at a , minimum slope inclination of 1-5:1 (Horizontal:Vertical). Ternporary slopes in the very stiff to,hard clay can be completed with a gradient of 0.7S: 1. Based on the depths that we encountered these.soils in Boring B-102, excavations completed to these temporary, inclinations at the southwestem comer of, Building 4 would encroach about 40 feet into the Pine Street night -of -way and about 16 feet into the existing paved roadway. Excavation to the proposed lower floor elevation in the southwestern portion of Building 3 will expose primarily medium dense silty'sand with varying amounts of gravel. Temporary excavations in these soils that are graded to an inclination of LS- I will extend about 27 feet into the Pine Street right-of-way at the southwestern 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- night -of -way. - We expe ct 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 d.� �. Mr. Ross Woods July 30, 2003. I 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/de*nse silt. Based on the iiftformation 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 ftom erosion, we do not expect that seepage will adversely affect the stability, of the temporary slope. However, the contractor should be prepared to provide clewatering measures for. the excavation. In our .. opinion, conventional sump pumping procedures should be capable of maintaining a relatively dry.conclition 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 -clown. wall construction. Considering the presence of as much as 13 feet of loose, uncontrolled fill near the 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 desigri 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. Shorin2 As discussed, temporary- shoring will be required where there is insufficient room to complete an open excavation to the inclinations discussed in the preceding section. Overconsoliclated clay/silt will be encountered befow-the fill and granular native soils. During the excavation, soil e'xp ansion 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 e xperience, the newly opened vertical face should not be left open more than.48 hours. Tirnber lagging should be installed within 48 hours to prevent horizontal slippage. Detailed re . commendations for conventional soldier pile walls with timber lagging are provided below. Project No. T4893 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 fr iction below the base of the excavation. Pile shaft friction should not be used above the base of the.excavation. The following infon-nation is applicable to soldier pile walls: Bearing materials: -.1 hard lean clay Minimum depth of embe* dment below excavation base: 10 feet Allowable end bearing capacities for soldief piles: 20 kips per square foot (ksf) Skin friction below excavation base: 1.0 ksf We recommend soldier piles have a maxiinum.center-to-center spacing of eight feet. To account for arching effects, lateral loads on the lagging. can be reduced by 50 percent. Design parameters for the ,recommended temporary shoring are presented on Figures 12 and 13. Tieback Anchors Tieback anchors should be installed in the soil behind the excavation to a sufficient d - istance 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 de . sip 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 ' I 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 gebtechnical 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 perfonnance of the shoring system. Utilities within a distance of 1.6 H (where H is the depth of excavation) from the shoring wall should be protected from damage due to the lateral and vertical movement occ urring 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 6raced at the ground surface level. Themonitoring data should be reviewed weekly by the project's structural and geotechriical engineers., All recommendations presented in out earlier report should also be incorporated *into project design'and construction. We trust the information presented is sufficient for your current needs. If you have any questions or require additional information, please call. Sincerely yours, TA/JCS/AB -aVWVVVv �E_;T;FIES IM/ . . . ...... n c). . gures I ana 2_ — Exploration Location Plans Figure 3 -- Unified Soil Classification System Figures 4 through 9 — Boning and Test'Pit Logs Figures 10 and I I — Grain Size Analyses Figure 12 —Earth Press ure 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 -1 "b .EV. �4075= - f.7 BLDG I APPROXIMATE PERIMETER OF LOWER LEVEL LOWER LEVEL ELEV/��.67 BLDG. 4 x\1 LOWER LEVEL ELEV. 100.66 TP 2 . . . . . . . . . . 0\ APPROXIMATE PERIMETER OF LOWER LEVE z7- \'�-BLDG3\ LOWER LEVEL ELEV. 101.17 -101 BLDG, 10E, LOWE LEVEL ELEV. 134.84 .......... ":� J64AJLX]�� N�- M, 1111 77- NOTE: THIS SITE PLAN IS SCHEMATI ' C. 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, DATED 7-21-03 LEGEND: S B-1 APPROXIMATE LOCAT ION OF BORING IS TP-1 APPROXIMATE'LOCATION OF TEST PIT 0 50 100 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET ___ 0_2 Z - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 777 TP-1 B-C ----------- j APPROXIMATE PERIMETER ------------- OF* LOWER LEVEL- BLDG. 5 -7z. ---------- LOWER LEVEL ELEV. 82.17 ---------- Z_ Z \pl�\Dq 2\ 0( LOWER LEVEL ELEV. 74.66 T APPROXIMATE PERIMETER A OF LOWER LEVEL BLDG.8 -LOWER LEVEL ELEV. 111.61f 4 APPROXIMATE PERIMETER \BLDG.4/ OF LOWER LEVEL J; TP LOWER LEVEL ELEV. 100.66 2 ga- a v& aw > IN 'APPROXIMATF; NOTE: LEGEND: THIS SITE PLAN IS SCHEMATIC, ALL LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE IT IS INTENDED FOR REFERENCE. ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR B-1 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TEST BORING EXPLORATION. LOCATION PLAN DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTIONPURPOSES. IN TP-1 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TEST PIT Terra POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS REFERENCE:' 0 50 100 Associates Inc. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON. G;;;;;g Consultants in Geotechnical Ingineering SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY TRIAD ASSOCIATES, DAED 7-21-03 Geology and Proi. No. -=4893Date JULY 2003' Figure 2 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET Environmentil Earth Sciences 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 0) (less than .0 " (D n N More than 5% fines) no fines. — GM Silty gravels, gravel -sand -silt mixtures, non -plastic U) Z-5 50% of coarse fraction is 0 W a) > �.a) larger than No Gravels with fines fines. z Fn E 4. sieve GC Clayey gravels, gravel -sand-clay mixtures, plastic fines. < C) -0 C:) 0 C14 Clean SW Well -graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines: LC) 6 SANDS Sands SP Poorly -graded sands or gravelly sands, litde or no W r-Z 60 cu (less than -C C: More than 5% fines fines. < 5 0% of coarse 0 0 fraction is SM Silty sands, sand -silt mixtures, non -plastic fines. 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 C:) SILTS AND CLAYS plasticity. CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasficity, (l,ean clay). C 0 �N M W E Liquid limit is less than 50% 0 W Z Z N OL Organic silts and organic clays �of low plasticity. U-) < CU MH Inorganic silts, elastic. (n SILTS AND CLAYS 1 W CU '. f=- CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays. Z 0 (n Liquid limit is greater than 50% ILL OH Organic clays of high plasticity. HIGHLY ORGANIC SO] LS PT Peat. DEFINITION OF TERMS AND SYMBOLS Standard Penetration Density Resistance in Blows/Foot 2" OUTSIDE DIAMETER SPLIT W SPOON SAMPLER _j z 0 Very loose 0-4 2.4" INSIDE DIAMETER RING SAMPLER Loose 4-10 OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER W Medium dense 10-30 M, 0 Dense 30-50 WATER LEVEL (DATE) Very dense >50 Tr TORVANE READINGS, tsf Pp PENETROMETER READING, tsf Standard Penetration W Consistenc Resistance in Blows/Foot DID DRY DENSITY, pounds per cubic,foot* > co Very soft 0-2 LL LIQUID LIMIT, percent W Soft 2-4 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 P roj. No. T-4893 Date JULY 2003 Figure 3 Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences Boring No'. B-101 4 Logged by: TA Date: 6/18/03 Approximate Elev. 105 Soil Description Consistenby/ Relative Depth CL E (N) Blows/ 'Moisture Content Density U) 0 ft. - N FILL: dark brown silty sand with gravel, moist. (SM) Dense 30 10 Brown silty SAND, trace gravel, with oAdized 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 ?0 —10 Medium - 22 27 stiff to Occasional ligh . t 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, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS EDMONDS; WASHINGTON Proj. No. T-4893, Date JULY 2003 Figur Boring No. B-102 Logged by: TA Date: 6/18/03 Approximate'E.lev. 125 Soil Description Consistency/ Relative Depth -a E (N) Blows/ Moisture Content Density (ft.) ft. N 15 19 FILL: brown silty sand, trace gravel/clayey silt, moist. (SM/ML) Medium Dense to Very Loose —10 13 9 3 2 24 5 7 11 10 23' Gray, lean CLAY, occasional light gray silt and sandy silt seams (1 to 2 mm), moist. (CL) 20 22 31 0.5 inches light gray sandy silt seam at 26 feet. Very stiff 29 36 0.5 inches sand seam at 30.5 feet. 30 33 26 29 27 38 25 Gray SAND with silt, free water. (SM) Dense --40 Gray, lean CLAY, moist. (CL) 37. 27 50 32 25 Boring terminated at 51.5 feet. Groundwater encountered at 40 feet. Terra BORING LOG Associates, Inc Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS EbMONDS, WASHINGTON Proj. No. T-4893 Date JULY 20031 �igure 5 Boring :No. B-103 Logged by: TA Date: 6/18/03 Approximate Elev. 129 Soil Description, Consistency/ Relative Density Depth -a E U) 10 (N) Blows/ ft. Moisture Content N Notes CRUSHED GRAVEL Dense 36 11 15 2 17 28 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 T 10 1.6 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 V... 30 24 ............. ........ ....... Hard Occasional light gray silt and silty sand seams encountered below 25 feet. 25 28 32 ............. ............. ... ............. I ...... : ............ ........ .... — . 4 inches sand seam at 31 feet. 30 35 23 ......... . ......... ......... .............. ....... ....... . . 35 ......... T 41- 29 ............ ......................... . ....... Boring terminated at 36.5 feet. Groundwater seepage encountered at 8.5 feet. Water level at 22.15 feet on June 19, �003. Terra BORING LOG Associates. Inc. 9 POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences Proj. No. T-4893. Date JULY 20031 Figure 6 Boring No. B-4 Logged by: DPL Date: 12/16/02 Approximate Elev. 90 Soil Description Consistency/ Relative Depth CL E (N) Blows/ Moisture Content Density (ft.) UM) ft. M FILL (Old test pit): b.luish-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. Medium Dense 1.0 T 17 21 31 FILL (Old test pit): brown silt and clay, moist, with a trace of brown organic material. -------------------------------------------------------------- Very Stiff _T :T Bluish-gray SILT to CLAY, low to medium plastici ty. (MUCL) Very stiff 17 28 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 sand. Very stiff 35 23 Grayish -brown clayey SILT to silty CLAY, moist. (MUC L) With thin discontinuous lenses of gray to mottled gray ined sand. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Very stiff —30 30 24 Gray silty SAND, fine grained, moist. (SM) Dense 37 15 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------- Gray sandy SILT to clayey SILT, fine grained, moist, low plasticity. (ML to MUCL) Hard —40 34 17 Gray clayey SILT, moist, low plasticity. (MUCL) ---- Trace fine-gc@i0_Qd_ sand Hard 37 20 Gray sandy SILT to silty SAND, fine grained, moist, (MUSM). Dense —50 32 19 47 18 60 42 15 Boring terminated at 61.5 feet. No significant groundwater encountered. Terra BORING LOG Associates, lnc.�. POINT. EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Consultant in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences Proj. No. T-4893 Date JULY 2003 1 Figure 7 Test Pit -No. TP-1 Logged by: JCS Approximate Elev. 104 Date: 10/18/01 Dep . th Moisture (ft.) Soil Description Content 0- N FILL: crushed rock surfacing over brown to gray silty,sand to sandy silt, fine grained, firm, moist. (SIVI/IVIL) Rusty brown silty SAND fine grained, medium dense, moist, With occasional fine \gravel and fine roots. (W) 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. 10 Gray CLAY, hard, moist, massive. (CL) 26 1 PP = 4.5+ tons/ft' LL 35.8 P, 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 Content Soil Description 0 FILL: crushed rock surfacin over brown silty sand to sandy silt, fine grained, firm, moist. 4-inch.thick organic Ver 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. I (SM) 10 1 Gray CLAY, ha rd, moist, laminated with light gra y silt partings. (CL) 15 Test pit terminated at 14 feet. No groundwater seepage. 20 Terra Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Consultants Pp = 4.5+ tons/ft' 37 TEST PIT.LOGS POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Proj. No. f-4893 Date JULY 2003 1 Figure 8 Test Pit No. TP-4 Logged by: JCS Approximate Elev. 92 Date: 10/18/01 Moisture Depth Content . (ft.) Soil Description N 0 '1 FILL: liqht brown silty sand, fine grained, firm, dry to moist. (SM) 2-inch thick I Light brown to tan sitty 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+ tonsife .10- - Gray CLAY, hard, moist. (CL) PP = 4.51 29 tons/fe 151 Test'pit terminated at 13 feet. Trace groundwater seepage at 6 feet. TEST PIT LOGS Terra POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS Associates, Inc. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. T-4893 I Date JULY 2003 1 Figure 9_ \1 CANTILEVER SOLDIER PILE WALL OR SINGLE ROW TIEBACK WALL H Pass I ve Earth Pressure = 400 pcf taken over 2 pile diameters Note: Value ncludes 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 PERCENT WHERE WALL IS SURCHARGED BY BACKSLOPE� OF 2:1. (HORIZONTAL:VERTICAL) OR FLATTER. Terra' EAR - TH 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 WITHTWO OR MORE TIEBACKS 400 pcf/ft PASSIVE EARTH PRESSURE APPLIED OVER 2(D) NOTE: VALUE INCLUDES SAFETY FACTOR OF 1.5 0. 2' (H) 15' —,.,,,-75 psf UNIFORM PRESSURE TRAFFIC H SURCHARGE WHERE APPLICABLE 23 (H)* psf APPLIED OVER PILE SPACING 23 (H)* psf APPLIED OVER PILE DIAMETER d, D �-- NOT TO SCALE * INCREASE PRESSURE BY 26 (H) WHERE WALL IS SURCHARGED BY BACKSLOPE OF. 2:1 (HOR IZO NTAL:VERTI CAL) OR FLATTER. Terra EARTH PRESSURE DIAGRAM POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS Associates, Inc. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences Proi. No. T-41893 Date JULY 2003 Figure 13 IF it TIEDBACK SOLDIER PILE/LAGGING SHORINGWALL NO LOAD ZONE 15-(TYPICAL) ANCHOR ZONE TIEBACKS NOT GROUTED IN THIS ZONE H/3 --] ^,,' 60- TIEBACKS GROUTED IN THIS ZONE ALLOWABLE TIEBACK ADHESION CAPACITY IN ANCHOR ZONE=1000 psf NOTE: TIEBACK CAPACITIES ARE BASE ON INSTALLATION USING TREMIE GROUT METHOD NOT TO SCALE Terra LOAD/NO LOAD ZONE DIAGRAM POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS Associates, Inc. EDMONDS,. WASHINGTON Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Date JULY 2003 Figure 14 Environmental Earth Sciences Proj. No. T-4893F I . N H EARTH PRESSURE DIAGRAM FOR BASEMENT WALLS -IC . HARGE E CABLE Sf NOT TO SCALE *INCREASE PRESSURE TO 26 (H) WHERE WALL IS SURCHARGED BY BACKSLOPE OF 2:1 (HORIZONTALMERTICAL) OR FLATTER. Terra. EARTH PRESSURE DIAGRAM -BASEMENT WALLS POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS Associates, Inc. EDMONDS, -WASHINGTON Consultants in Geotechnical * Engineering Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences Proj. No.T-4893 I Date JULY �003. Rpre 15 TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology . and Environmental Earth Sciences July 30,'2003 Project No. T-4803 Mr. Ross Wdods Point EdwarUs, LLC 1 2801 Alaskan Way, Suite 107 Seattle, WagLngton 98121 Subject- Supplementary Subsurface Exploration Point Edwards Condominiums P�ne Street and Unoco Road Edmonds, Washington References: 1. Geologically Hazardous Areas Review, Point Edwards Condominiums (LNOCAL Site), prepared by Terra Associates, Inc., dated January 20, 2003 2. Preliminary Geotechhical Report, UNOCAL Site, Project No. T-4893, prepared by Terra Associates, Inc., dated November 21, 2601 D Mr. V ear Woods: As requested, we have completed supplementary subsurface exploration at the subject site. The purpose of our study is to evaluate the needf5r temporary shoring during construction of theproposed buildings, and to Provide recommendations for temporary shoning design and construction where needed. We previouslyA performed geotechrucal studies for the project and presented our findings in the referenced ho reo . orts; ? wever, since that time, building locations and site grading hav e been refined. Triad Associates provided us with a current topographic site plan dated July 21, 2003 that shows existing. topography and proposed site grading. Our cu7ffent study focused on areas where' significant site. excavations will be required adjacent the downgfadient (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 curren . fly one . of two road�waykqtiiat -access the community of Woodway, south of the site. This report summarizes the results of our, recent subsurface exploration and discusses supplementary, shoring recommend.4R EeEi VED project. 0 C T 2 C STREET FILE BUILDING bEPT. 12 ' 525 Willows Road, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034, Phone,(425) 821-7777 - 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 four stories with daylight, basements and one to two . levels' of underg . round parking. We expect fhat pen -meter load -bearing walls and isolated spread footing loads will be as indicated. in the for construction of the lower parking levels. will referenced report. The excavation depths required appro dch a: maximum of about 27 feet below existing grades along Pine Street. The recommendations contained in'the. follow mig sections of this report are based on ourunderstanding of' the allove design features. If actual features vary or changes are made, we should review them in iL order to M, odify our -recommendations, as required. We should review final -design drawings and specifications to verify that.our recommendations have been properly interpreted and, incorporated into ign. project des' I CONDITIONS iously investigated subsurface conditions at the site by excavating 17 test pits (Test Pits TP-1 We previ AP through �P-.l 7) and drilling 5 test borings (Bonings B- I through B-5): - Our current exploration'included drilling three additional test borings (Borings B401 through B-103) on June 18, 2003. W The'rece*nt 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 advancea. to a maximum depth of approximately 5 1.5 feet below the ground- surface. The approximate r locations of the recent test borings, and, nearby -test pits/test borings from our previous studi.es, are shown onVFigures I and 2. The boring logs and test pit togs are shown on Figures 4 through 1 9. We performed grain size . analyses on three representative soil samples obtained from t.he test borings. The test results are presented on Figitres 10 and 11. The soils encountered in Borings B-101, B-102, and B-103 consist of I to .13 feet -of very loose. to mediiii-Odense uncontrolled fill overlying medium dense, native silty sandwith varying amounts of gravel t epths betwe n 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 searris to the: maximum exploration depths of the borings. These soil conditions are a generall Jy consi�tdnt with the soils we observed in nearby test pits. 'The Gjologhq Map of the Edmonds East and Partof the Edmonds West Quadran&s, Washington. by James P. Minard,'1983, shows the soils at higher site elevations mapped as Vashon till, Vashon.advance outwast and Transition . al . beds. Transitional -bed sediments are described by this ive publication,as mass' to bedded clay, silt, and fine to very fine sand. The clay and silt soils observed at depth in, the test pits and encountered in the test bonngs are generally consistent with 'the descriptions of transitional bed deposits. Project No. T-4893 Page No. 2 A Mr. Ross Woods July 36, 2003 We encountered per ched groundwater in all three of the recent bonings 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 lo . wer elevations of Buildings 3 and 4 (Elev. 101.47 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 surnmer 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 southwestem portion of the excavation for Building 4. Soils encountered in Boring B- 102, M* the southwestern portion of Building 4, consist of approximately 13 feet of very loose to medium dense fill and niedium dense native silty sand overlying very stiff to hard clay. As discussed in our. referenced geotechnical report, the loose t6medium dense. fill and native silty sand soils should be laid back at a minimum slope inclination of 1.5:1 (Horizontal: Vertical). Temporary slopes in the very stiff to hard clay can be completed with a gradient of 0.75: 1. Based on the depths that we encounteredthese soils in Boring B-102, excavations:completed to these temporary inclinations at the southwestern comer of Building 4 would encroach about 4,0 feet into the Pine Street night -of -way and about 16. feet into the existing paved roadway. Excavation to the proposed lower floor elevation in the southwestern portion of Building.3 will expose primarily medium dense silty'sand with varying amounts of gravel. Temporary excavations in the . se soils that are graded to an inclination of 1.5:1 will extend about 27 feet into the Pine Street right-of-way at the southwestern comer of the building, -but would not encroach into the existing roadway. The soils in the are -a of Building 8 consist of existing fill" native silty sand, and very stiff 6 lay/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-O'f-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. P.roj* ect 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. approxiniately Elev. 86. The soil's below this elevation are very stiff to hard clay/de'nse. 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 inu-nediately 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 d6velopmeint; 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 'cohtractor.sh�ould be prepared to provide dewatening measures for the excavation. In our opinion, conventional sump pumping procedures should be capable of maintaining a relatively dry.conditi6n f6r 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 p resence of as much as 13 feet of loose, uncontrolled fill near the southwestern comer of Building 4, and the proximity to a public right-of-way, it is ouropinion that temporary shoring should consist of a tied -back or cantilever soldier pile wall. Descriptions of the shoring method and detailed design 'parameters are presented below. The following sections provide detailed recommendations regarding these is.sues.�and other geotechnical. design considerations. These recommendations should be incorporated intothe final design drawings and construction specifications. Skoring As discussed, temporary shoring will be required where there is insufficient room.tb 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 r . esulting from release. of locked -in stresses combined with horizontal planes 'lac'king cohesion may cause horizontal slippage at a newly opened excavation.. Based on our experience, the newly opened vertical face should not be left open more than 48 hours. Timber. lagging should be installed within 48 hours . to prevent horizontal slippage. Detailed re I cornmendations for conventional soldier pile, walls with timber. lagging are provided below. Project No..T-4893- Page -No. 4 I Mr. Ross Woods July 30, 2003 Soldier Pile Shoring Tied -back or cantilever soldier walls should be designed toresist lateral loads imposed by. soils, as, well as the vertical load component. Vertical loads may be carried b the, soldier piles as end bearing and as Y. 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 isapplicable 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 kif We recommend soldier piles have a maximum center -to -center spacing of eight f�et. To account for arching,tffects, lateral loads on the lagging, can be reduced by.5.0 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 ex * cted to consist of pe very stiff to hard lean clay. We recommend the use of the following- design adhesion values for proper�y 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 ungrguted 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'p.ercent of their design capacity and then locked. off at the. d0tgn load. . At least 10 pe.rcent:6f 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 ii-i some caving of the anchor holes.. Drilling with continuous flight a gets. of- the use of u casing w"ould reduce the potential, for ground- loss. The contractor,*should particularf y note the,presence of existing fiLcilities adjacent to the subject site, including buried utilities, as they may affect the location orextent of the anchor holes. Project No. T4893 Tage 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.ihe 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 mo nitoring. 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 structuraliand geotechnical engineers., All recommendations presented in out earlier report should also be incorporated 'into pr ject design and 01 construction. We trust the information presented is sufficient for your,current nee . ds, If you have any questions or require additional information, please call. Sincerely yours, TERRA ASSOCIATES, INC. John Proje -7/0-0/Q3 TA/JCS/AB`a1Z.. t.�j Encr i ures I ana Z p_ oration Location Plans Figure 3 Unified Soil Classification -Systeni Figures 4 through 9 — Boring and Test'Pit Logs Figures 10 and I I —.Grain Size. Analyses Figure 12 — Earth'Pfess u-re Diagram. Figure 13 — Earth.Pressure Diagram Figure 14 — L9ad/No Load Zone Diagram Figure 15 — Earth Pressure Diagram7Basement Walls cc: Ms. Beth Jensen, DO Engineers "'S a. .EV. 111 .6f 2i; �1_ BLDG I APPROXIMATE PERIMETER OF LOWER LEVEL LOWER LEVEL EL ��4.67 BLDG.,4 LOWER LEVEL ELEV. 100.66 TP.; 02 NN 94 ...... APPROXIMATE PERIMETER OF LOWER LEVEL t5LUU J 7-- -'-LOWER LEVEL ELEV. 10 .1 011 TP-1 BLDG OE. LOWE LEVEL ELEV. f ............. � T_ NOTE: THIS SITE PLAN IS SCHEMATIC. ALL LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. IT IS INTENDED FOR REFERENCE ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. REFERENCE: - SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY TRIAD ASSOCIATES, DATED 7-21-03 LEGEND: B-1 APPROXIMATE LOCAT ION OF BOR ING dy TP-1 'APPROXIMATE'LOCATION OF TEST PIT 0 50 100 m W=9 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET N� TP-1 B-k ----------- ---APPROXIMATE PERIMETER -OP LOWER LEVEL BLDG. 5 ----------- LOWER LEVEL ELEV. 82.1 2\ LOWER LEVEL ELEV. 74.66 0 L__j V, APPROXIMATE PERI E R z OF LOWER LEVEL. z- 0, BLDG.8 0" \\'LOWER LEVEL ELEV. 111.67" V \7 B-1 3 A PPROXIMATE PE IM,ETER ------- OF LOWER LEVEL BLDG., 4 LOWER LEVEL ELEV. 100.66 V\\ > . . . . . . APPRC)XIMATF; NOTE: LEGEND: THIS SITE PLAN IS SCHEMATIC. ALL LOCAT16NS AND DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. IT IS INTENDED FOR 19 B-1 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TEST BORING EXF REFERENCE. ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR X Terra DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTIONPURPOSES. 19 TP-1 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TEST.PIT POIN 0 50 100 Associates Inc. REFERENCE: Consultants in Geotechnical Inginee...q, Geology and Fm Proj. Y No. T SITE PLAN PROvibED B TRIAD ASSOCIATE S,.DAE D 7-21-03 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET nmenfal Earth Sciences Enviro MAJO R DIVISIONS LETTER. SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTION Clean GW Well -graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures,. little or no GRAVELS Gra.vels fines. GP. Poorly- . graded gravels gravel -sand mixtures, little or -J 2)d) (less than. 0 M N More than 5% fines). - no fines. 'GM Silty gravels, gravel-sand;.silt mixtures, non -plastic Fn .50% of coarse C), a) a) > fraction is larger than No Gravels fines. �GC Clayey gravels, gravel -sand-clay mixtures, plastic fines. W z E f 4 sieve with fines' < C) �00, q ON 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 W r- Z (less than.. More than 5% fines). fines. 50% of �coarse 0 0 fraction is SM -Silty sands,. sand -silt mixtures, non -plastic fines. 0 s I maller-, than Sands SC Clayey sands, sand -clay mixtures, plastic fines. No. 4 sieve with fines ML Inorganic silts, rock flour, clayey silts with slight C:) SILTS AND CLAYS plasticity. CL Inorganic clays of low to medium, plasticity, (lean clay).. 0 cu 0 N E 6 a), Liquid limit is less than 50% W 110,Z.r-4' OL Organic -silts. and organic clays.'o f low plasticity. Z U.S. M 0) . r- > a a) MH Inorganic silts, elastic. 0 SILTS AND CLAYS cu E CH' Inorga,nic clays of high plasticit)4 fat. clays. z 0 ch Liquid limit is greater than 50% LL -OH Organic clays of high plasticity. HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat. DEFINITION. OF TERMS; AND �SYMBOLS U) Standard Penetration Density Resistance in Blows/Fbot 2" OUTSIDE DIAMETER'SPLIT W SAMPLER _j z 0 Very. -loose 0-4 ..SPOON 214" INSIDE DIAMETER RING SAMPLER U)" Loose 4-10 0 R,SHELBY TUB E SAMPLER w -Medium dense .10-3.0 :E' 0 Dense 30-50 T :WATER LEVEL (DATE) .0 Veiy dense -TO Tr RVANE READINGS, tsf Pp PENETROMETER READING, tsf Standard Penetration Consistenc Resistance in -Blows/root DD 'DRY DENSITY, pounds per cubic, foot > U) yery soft 0-2 LL LIQUID. LIMI T, percent W Soft 24 Medium stiff 4-8, PI PLASTIC INDEX 0 0 stiff very stiff 1'6:-32 N STANDARD PENETRATION, blows per foot Hard :,!32 Terra UNIFIED, SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Assodates, Inc POINTEDWARDS'CONDOMINIUMS' EDMONDS, Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Pr9j.. No. T-4893 D te, JULY 2003 a Figur e 3 Geology and Environmental Earffi Sciences Roring No,.,,B-1 01 Logged'b': TA-. Y Date- 6/18/0,3-, Approximate Elev. 105 Sbil-'DesCription - Consistency/ Relative Depth CL E (N) Blows/ Moisture Content Density' FILL: dark brown silty -san'd-w*ith gravel, moist. (SM) Dense .30. 10 Brown silty -SAND, trace gravel,with oyidized stained, moist. (SM) Brown mottled gray between 2.5 to 4.0 feet. Medium Dense 5 17 12 Gray, lean CLAY, trace subrounded gravel, moist. (CL) 7 .20 Medium 22 27 stiff - td Occasional light gra y sil t seams.below 15 feet. Hard —15 20 V 35 44 .26 25 Gray silty SAND, wet (SM) Dense Gray, lean -CLAY With lighigray SILT's.eaims'. Hard. —25 32 29 Boring terminated at 26.5 feet.. Groundwater seepage encountered, at.21 feet. Z Ter'r;'a' BO.RING'LOG. Associa0ps',inc... Uns.ultants-in Geotechnical Enbineering Ge6logy and Environr�ental Earth Sciences POINT -EDWARDS -CONDOMINIUMS EDMONDS., WASHINGTOW Pr 9j. No. T-4893T Date JULY 26 3 0 Figure 4 Boring No. B-102 Logged by: TA Date: 6/18/03 Approximate, Elev. 125 Soil Description Consistency/ Relativ6. Depth E:. (N) Blows/ Moisture Content Density ft. N 15 19 FILL: brown silty sand, trace grivel/clayey silt, moist.' (SM/ML) Medium Dense to Ve ry Loose —10 13 9 3 -2 24 5 7 11 .10 23 Gray, lean -CLAY, occasional light. gray silt and sandy silt.seams (Vto 2 mm), moist,.'(CL) —20 22 31 L 0.5 inches light gray sandy silt seam a*t.26 feet. Very stiff 29 36, 0.5 inches sand seam at 30.5 feet. —30, 33 26 29 27 —40 T 38 25 Gray SAND with *silt, free water. (SM) Dense Grayjean moist. (PL) 37 27 —50 32 25 Boring terminated.at 51.5 feet. Groundwater encountered at 40 feet. TerrA BORING LOG. Assodates.,Ift. Consulta.nts in Gdotechnical Engineering Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences . . . 1i -� POINTEDWARDS, CONDOMINIUMS .EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Proj. No—T-4893 I I Date JULY 2003 Figure Bori.ng 'No. 13-103 .Logged by* TA. D,ate:, 6[ 1 18/03 Approkimate Elev.. 129 Soil Description,. Consistency/ Relative Density Depth -a E U) (N) Blows/ IMbi'sture Content Notes -CRUSHED GRAVEL Dense 36 11 15 2 17 28 FILL:.dark gray clayey SILT/silty SAND, .trace gravel, moist. (MUSM) Medium Dense Brown silty SAND to SAND with silt, free I water. (SM) Medium Dense F —10 1.6 22 24 36 Gray lean CLAY, moist. (CL) Brown lean CLAY with oxidized stained between 15.0 to'l 5.5 ieet.* Very, 15, 31 28 lie ..... ........ .......... ........ ::::: .......... ........... .............. Wet soils encountered at 21 �5 feet. stiff to —20 30 24 ........ ........... : ..... : ...... ...... ...... ..... : .............. ....... ! ....... ........ . ? ....... ........ Hard' Occasional light gray silt and silty sand seams encountered below 25 feet. 25-1 28 32 ........ .............. .............. ............. v .............. 1 4 inches sand seam at 31 feet. 30 35 .23 ....... ............... ......... .............. ....... ...... ............ ....... ......... 35 ............ 41... 29 ......... ................ ........... .......... Boring terminated at 36.5 feet. Groundwater seep'age-enc . ountered at 8.5 feet. Water. level at 22.15 feet on June 19, 2003. Ter ra, BORING LOG ' Astociate's, Inc. P . OINTEDWARDS'CONDOMINIU M8 EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Consultzints in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Enyji��Tnental Earth Sciences FProj No. T-4893, Fbate JULY 2003 Figure 6 Boring No'. B-4 Logged by: DPL Date: 12/16/02. Approximate Elev. 90 Consistency/ (N) Moisture Soil -Description Relative Depth E Blows/ Content ft. Density (ft,.) U) 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 grainedi moist. Medium Dense 17 -31 FILL (Old test pit): brown'silt and clay, moist, with a trace Very. f brown organic material. Stiff 21 ------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- bluish-gray SILT to CLAY, low to medium plasticity. Very 17 28 (MUCL) stiff Gray Sl LT to CLAY, moist, low to medium plasticity. Very 30 23 (MUCL) stiff LL � 35.5 P1 = 11.5 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- r ---------- 'Grayish-brown sandy SILT. to clayey SILT, fine grained, Very 35 23 moist. (ML) \/Vith thin partings of irpil-stained, fine-grained stiff sand. .,Grayish -brown clayey SILT to silty CLAY, moist. (MUCL) Very 30 30 24- With-thin discontinuous lenses of gray to mottled gray stiff iq�t-_q!ained sand. ------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------- Gray silty SAND, fine drained; moist. (SM) Dense 37 15 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gray sandy SILT to clayey SILT, fine grained, moist, low Hard —40 34 17 plasticity. (ML to MUCL) .Gray clayey SILT, moist, low plasticity. (MUCL) Hard 37 20 Trace fine-gLcai ed sand. ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- Gray sandy SILT to silty SAND, fine.grained, moist,' Den r se 50 32 .19 (MUSM), 47 18 —60 4 15 2 + Boring terminated at 61.5 feet. No,significant groundwater encountered. Terra BORING,LOG_ 7 POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS Associates,, l.nc.,. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON- Consultants in debtechnical Engineei-ing Geology and Environmental Eaft Sciences P roj. N o. T-4893 -:7 I Date JULY 20031. Figure lest Pit No. TP-1 Logged by: JCS A�pproxirnate Bev. 1'04 Date' 10/18/01 Depth Moisture Soil Description Content 0— NO) FILL: crushed rock surfacing over brown to gray silty sand tosandy silt, fine grained, firm, moist. (SWML)- 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 light brown at appro) dmately 6 feet. 10 Gray CLAY, hard, moist, massive. (CL) 26 1 Pp = 4.5+ tons/ft' LL 35.8 P1 15 15 Test pit terminated at.1 4 feet. No groundwater seepage. 20 ..Test Pit No. TP=2 Logged by: JCS Approximate-Elev. 124 Date: 10/18/01 Moisture Depth Content Soil Description 0 FILL: crushed rock surf0ng over brown silty sand to sandy silt, fine grained, firm, moist. 4-inch thick organic layer at base. (SM/ML) (Old topsoiVhdrizon) 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) 10— Gray CLAY, hard, moist, laminatedwith light gray silt. partingsi (CL) PP 4.5+ tonsIft, 37 15— Test. pit terminated at 14 feet, No groundwater seepage. 20 TEST PIT LOGS Terra POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS Associates, Inc. EDMONDS, WASHINOTOW. Geotechnical Consultants Proi. No. T4893TDate JULY 20*03 Figure 8' Test Pit No. TP-4 Logged by: JCS Approximate Elev. 92 Date: 10/18/01 Depth Moisture Content Soil Description N 0 FILL: ligh n silty sand, fine grlined, firm, dry to moist. (SIVI) 2-inch thick 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. (SIVI) LL = 42.7 Light grayish -brown to light brown. CLAY and SILT, hard, moist, laminated 29 P1 = 19.7 with partings of dark gray'fine sand. (CUIVIL) PP = 4.5+ tons/fe 10— y CLAY,. hard, moist. ((jL) PP = 4.5+ - Gra 29 1 tons/fe - Test'pit terminated at 13 feet. Trace groundwater seepage at 6 feet. TEST PIT. LOGS Terr'a.. POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS Associates-, -Inc. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No.'T-4893. Date JULY: 2003 Figure 91 dR CANTILEVER SOLDIER PILE WALL OR SINGLE ROW TIEBACK WALL H 40* pcf + 75 psf Traff ic S.urcharg'e Where Appkable, :Pass Ive Earth 40(H)* psf taken over pile diameter Pressure = 400 pcf taken � over 2 pile' diameters Note: Value includes Safety Factor of 1.5. D NOT TO SCALE INCREASE PRESSURE BY 20. PERCENT WHERE- WALL IS SURCHARGED BY BACKSLOPE OF 2: 1 (HO.RIZONTAL:VERTICAL) OR FLATTER. Terr'a' E�%RTH, -PRESSURE" DIAGRAM -POINTEDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS Associates,. Inc. EDMONDS., w.AsHI.NG,TON . . 9M.Consultzin.ts in Geotechnical Engineering Pr0j;; No. T-48 3 Date JULY 2003 'Figurd EnvironrnentalZarh Sciences Geologyand 9 SOLDIER PILE WALL WITHTWO OR MORETIEBACKS .0.2 (H) 75 psf UNIFORM PRESSURE TRAFFIC X/ H SURCHARGE WHERE APPLICABLE 2.3 (H)* psf APPLIED OVER PILE SPACING 400 pcf/ft PASSIVE. -EARTH .23 (H)* psf APPLIED OVER PILE: DIAMETER PRESSURE APPLIED OVER 2(D) NOTE: VALUE INCLUDES SAFETY FACTOR OF 1.5 D. NOT TO SCALE INCREASE PRESSURE BY 26 (H) WHERE WALL IS SURCHARGED BY BACKSLOPE OF 2:1 (HO RI ZONTAL:VERTI CAL) OR FLATTER. Terra EARTH PRESSURE'DIAGRAV POINT'EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS. Associates, Ini.c. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Consultants in Geotechnical Engi,npering'� G6ology and Figure 13, Environmental Earth Sciences Pr.0j.N T-4,89qlDate_�ULY2003 H TIEDBACK SOLDIER PILIE/LAGGING SHOR-IN.G WALL NO LOAD ZONE 15-(TYPICAL) ANCHOR ZONE TIEBACKS NOT GROUTED IN THIS 'ZONE TIEBACKS GROUTED IN THIS ZONE 60' ALLOWABLE TIEBACK ADHESION CAPACITY IN ANCHOR ZONE=1000 psf NOTE: TIEBACK CAPACITIES ARE BASE ON INSTALLATION USING TREMIE GROUT METHOD NOT TO SCALE Terra LOA[)/NO LOAD, ZONE DIAGRAM POINT EDWARDS. CONDOMINIUMS 'As,qociates, I'nc.- LDIVION�'DS,V ASHINGTON Consultants in Geotechnical.Engineehn'g Geology and Proj.:Nlo. T4893. Date JULY 20 3 -.figure 14 Environmental Earth Scienges- o7 H EARTH PRESSURE DIAGRAM, FOR BASEMENT WALLS _IC . HARCE E CABLE 5f NOT TO'SCALE' *INCREASE PRESSURE TO '26 (H) WHERE. WALL IS SURCHARGED BY BACKSLOPE O�'2:1 (HO RI ZONTAL:VER'TI CAL) OR -FLATTER.- Term' TEARTH PRESSURE.DiAGRAM-13ASEMENT WALL*S' PO.INT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS. -s n' c. :'EDMOND8, WASH I NGTON Ast.qqi4te iZ:onsuitants inGeotechnical. Engineering Geology and Environmental Earth Science� Proj. No.T-4893 .'Date.JuLy. �003 figur6.115 Z 1�'Z Mr. Ross Woods Point Edwards, LLC 2801 Alaskan Way, Suite 107 Seattle, Washington 98,121 TERRA ASSOCIATES, tnc� Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology and - Environrnental Earth Sciences January 20, 2003 Project No. T-4893 Subject: Geologically Hazardous Areas Review Point Edwards Condominiums (UNOCAL Site) Piirfe Street and Unoco Road Edmonds, Washington References: 1. Preliminary Geotechnical Report, UNOCAL Site, Project No. T-4893, prepared by Terra Associates, Inc., dated November 21, 2001 2. Steep Slope Hazard Review, Point Edwards Condominiums (UNOCAL Site), Project,No. . T-4893, prepared by Terra Associates, Inc., dated December 13, 2002 Dear Mr. Woods: As* requested, we have conducted a review of geologically hazardous areas for the Point Edwards Condominiums site. The location of the site is shown on the attached Figure 1. Our scope of work included a. visual site reconnaissance', the -drilling of five test borings to depths ranging from about 31.5 feet to 61.5 feet below the existing ground surface, and -review of the referenced reports. Our study specifically addresses erosion hazards, landslide. hazards, and seismic hazards. - We previously addressed steep slope hazards at the site. Our current study includes analysis of slope stability along five profiles on the steep slopes located downgradient, from the proposed development. The.result s of these analyses are used to address potential steep slope hazards and landslide hazards. SITE CONDITIONS f"REET FILE 01 The site is located on the upper portion of a predominantly nortli-facing hillside. The Preliminary.Gr*ading 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'planne'd deVe lop"ment area are near the top of a steep natural slope. The topographic information provided to us indicates the slope is. p approximately 70 to 90 feet high, with inclinations ranging between about 50 and 80 percent. The areas beyon . d 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. RECE11VED 0 CT- 2 -005. 12525 Willows Road, Suite 1,01, Kirkland, Washington 98034 Phone (425) 821-7777 a Fak (425) 821-4334 BUILDING DEPT. Mr. Ross Woods January 20, 2003 We did not observe indications of deep-seated instability; however, portions of the slope have been subjected to shallow erosion and localized sloughing. These conditions are generally limited to. the forest duff and relatively loose surficial soils mantling the underlying competent soils, and are commonly associated. with natural weathering occurrences on steep slopes. All of the erosional features we observed on the.steep slope appear to be a result of surface water runoff and shallow interflow from areas above the slope crest. We observed an area approximately 100 to 125 feet southwest of Boring B-1 where the top of the steep slope has sloughed, exposing dense to very dense silty sand with gravel in a 7- to 8-foot high, near -vertical face, just below the crest of the steep slope. Based on our observations, it appears that the sloughing, at thi's location also occurred as a result of concentrated surface w ater runoff and shallow interflow from areas. above the slope prest. 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, Wtishington 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 cl ay, 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 6n'and immediately above t ' he steep slope areas generally consist of silty sand, sandy silts, and lanuinated to massive, very dense silt and/or hard clay. Native soils observed in the five test borings drilled near the too. of the steep slope s generally consist of dense to very dense fine-grained silty sand to sand with silt, and very stiff clay/dense silt. The silt and clay generally appeared massive, with occasional very thin partings of very. fine sand., The native soils are generally moist below a depth of about five feet. We observed wet soils to a depth of about ten feet in Boring B-S. We did not observe indications of significant. grgundwa"ter 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 fron�i surface runoff from areas abo ve the too 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 downth ee steep slope. The water we observed in the erosional features flows on top of densd.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 thesubsurface conditions encountered in the test pitsand testborings are presented on the attached test pit logs and boring logs. The approximate locations of the test pits and borings are shown on the attached Figure 2. Project No. T-4893 Page No. 2 Mr. Ross Woods January 20, 2003 GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS Section 20.15B.060 (A)(3) of the City of Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) defines geologically hazardous areas as those areas subject to potential erosion, landslide, and/or 'potential seismic instabilities, including the following: Erosion Hazard Areas Section 20.15B.060 (A)(3)(a) of the ECDC defines erosion hazard areas (EHAs) as those areas containing soils that may experience severe to very severe erosion hazard. These soils include, but are not limited to, the following when they occur on slopes of 15 percent or greater: 1. Alderwood soils (15 to 25 percent slopes) 2. Alderwood-Everett Series (25 to 70 percent slopes) 3. Everett Series (15 to 25 percent slopes) The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) has mapped the site soils as Alderwood-UrbAn land complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes, and Kitsap silt loam, 8 to 25 percent slopes, in the upper southern. portion,of the site, and Alderwood- Everett gravelly sandy loam, 25 to 70percent slopes, in the area of the former tank farmaind 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 E14A.'. 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. .1f the erosion control measur es -are properly implemented and maintained, .!long with temporary and permanent.Araitinage improvements,. it is our opinion that the planned development will not adversely impac't the erosion potential for p the site or adjacent proper I ties. All erosion and -sediment control BMPs should conform to City of Edmonds requirements. Project No. T4893 'Page No*. 3 Mr. Ross Woods January 20, 2003 Landslide Hazard Areas Section 20.15B.060 (A)(3)(b) of the ECDC defines landslide hazard areas (LHAs) as those areas'of the city of Edmonds which, by reason of excessively steep 'slopes, unsatisfactory foundation support, stability, or topography, have a risk of earth subsidence and landslide -hazard in excess of normal allowpices. The ECDC specifies field criteria for identifying LHAs. We used these criteria, listed belowl� 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.landstide deposits, regardless of slopes. 3. Any area that has shown movement during the Holocene epoch (from 10,000 yearsago I to present) or is underlain by mass wastage debris of that epoch, as determined by a qualified geologist or geotechnical engineer. 4. Any area potentially unstable as a result of rapid stream incision or stream bank erosion. 5. Any area located on an alluvial fan presently subject to, or potentially subject to, inundation by debris flow or deposition of stream -transported sediments. During our site visit, we did not observe on -site indications of deep-seated instability, springs, or.significant groundwater seepage on the steep slopes. As,discussed, we observed relatively shallow erosional features and localized shallow sloughing at isolated locations -on the steep slope. located below the proposed development. Because shallow ground movements are associated with these erosional features, and considering that near- s urface interflow likely contributed to the soil loss, these areas would be considered LHAs'pursuant to Items I and 3. All of the LHAs we identified at the site ekist on the steep- sl ope 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 existin& slopes, and for proposed grading with associated building loads at grade. This analysis is con.servative, considering the buildings located near the to of p 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. P�cject No. T-48193 PageNo. 4 Mr. Ross Woods January 20, 2003 The lowest safety factors for each condition are presented in the following table: Secti6n Analyzed Minimum Safety Factors Static Pseudostatic Section A -A' existing L72 1.18 Section A -A' proposed 1.79 1.21 Section B-11'exiAing 2.09 1.42 Section 13-13' 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 4.60 .1.26 The results of the stability:analyses indicate that existing and proposed slopes are stable with respect to deep- seated failure under static conditions. The existing and proposed slopes are indicated to be stable to marginally stable under severe seismic loading conditions. Potential impacts to the LHAs due to construction of the buildings and proposed yard grading include increasing the potential for erosion on and/or adjacent to the slope by exposing. soils during grading and allowing surface runoff to flow onto the steep slope, and impacts to slope stability from building surcharges. In our opinion, potential erosion and sedimentation impacts to the LHAs due to the planned building locations and yard grading will be eliminated or significantly reduced by applying BMPs for erosion prevention sedimentation containment. As discussed above, analysis indicates the existing and proposed slope conditions are stable with regard to deep- seated failure. In our opinion, supporting building'loads with a deep foundation system will further reduce potential impacts to the stability of the steep slopes due to building surchar . ges, 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 20.1513.060 (A)(3)(d) of the ECDC defines. seismic hazard areas as those areas subject,to severe risk of earthquake damage' as a result of seismical.ty induced -landslides,- earth adjustments, settlement, or soil liquefaction. Based on -the soi * I and groundwater conditions, -we observed in our on-�site explorations, and the results -of our stability analysis' it is our opinion that the risk for severe damage resulting from seismically induced landslides, earth adjustments, and -se . ttlement is low. It is also our'*opinion that the risk for liqu. . efaction 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. T4893 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 controlplan conforming to the requirements of Chapter 18.30 ECDC. Section W.1513.110 (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 per I cent) located -west of Buildings 5, 61 and 7. We previously addressed SSHAs in the referenced report. In the S.SHA report, we opined that existing site conditions'and applicable. project components generally meet the provisions for a. SSHA exernp tion detailed in Section 20.15B. I 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 SSHk by Building 7 and its as I soc - iated 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 exernp.tion.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 100 10-3 FM&AW1%r-T_W' inity Map "*"V- EX lotation Location Plan on azard Area/Soils Map ig'_� ligg" Erosi * X e ni ie 'Soils Classification System Figures 5. through 9 - Boring Lo . gs Figures 10 through'18 - Test Pit Logs WINSTABL Output Data cc: Mr; Greg Krabbe, Triad Associates Mr. Richard E * Gifford Mr. S. Jin Lee, We I ber+Thp.mpson Project No. T4893 Page No. 6 -r, 1 6 SIR- 1dfrT PL PK 18rFH PL Sw ST Sw I 8BTU ST SbiII" I 189TH ; S SW w IV 190TH ST Sw CH 'ST 14, 011 IS, cc 1 S,T Sw MELODY LA NGET p 0 6 IT I 'w", III L V ERE IT 06AND ZZ WY e M. . a a: EDIM'S p ks E T ST _1h PARK VISTA LN 40 a WY 2" ST Sw I AG < 20la- - GLEN 4 ST TV TV SPRAGUE 15- §11r --ro—Wim RJR E ilf"', PIT 11 ELL 2� IT A, I [AIN ST _T j 14 FQA;TM WLE MRIA4 F3 PL 4*1 &s� 7t; V.00 jwL0-_ �c OIL y 'i ARK itz " % FS Sw sr 1,1 je: � : swnmw[ if SITE W., AE ZI T" M ST S, E Z ZISTH ft ELWFOS MWINA PT BEACH 217TH MWAH Ff If ff A fI F R 218TH 26 4j f2Z 5 30; BELLA CDOLA E ST TH -v ST .81 Zl OID 96 A, , 1. & M 1. ST IT UI Rijn 41 .1� s. REFERENCE: Thomas Guide, King/Pierce/Snohomish Counties, 19,99, Page 454 NOT TO SCALE Terra' Associates Inc.. VICINITY MAP POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS EDM ONDS, WASHINGTON Consultants in Geotechnical Lgineering -Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences roi. P No. T-4893 Date JAN 2003 Figure 1 NOM: 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 EG, END: ..&,Ti"�p-l;AP�R,OXtMATELOCAT'ION' 6FTE'&PIT APPROXIMATE LOCATIoN O� BbRING. �fEEPSLOPE,HAZA RD,A:REA ------------ --- - ------ .STEEP.SLOPE HAZARD AREV TP-11 4 p 15 IG 1 - ft.TP 16 P-17 i llll"1'117:�'. W, X 1.50 30,0. po APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET N� LU Lj CL IS LJ ..cn m., LLI CL CL Lu LLJ N V) m Al X, N., 8 LLI w LL Z w 9 W 0 (L a. 0 E CO C-4 E > to 1! -0 C', 4) tm c 0 E w .0 0 0= do lco .0 m 0 0. z (D -0 all X 00 Z X LL. 0 tL W ZOO OZW W UJ CO D W, w 0 U) W LU S .J �- (n -1 0 0 0 (0 J-z a. w ir U) p a- 0 z HXXO w OP cr 0 C-) CL Z co cn CL < 0 w 0 Zl%Z z > <00 0 W. (-) 0 a: a- z 0 m WOZO Z CL z != V5 uj z (1) z M (!) Lu ce 5 tL O.uj W — LL CO ww W U. 'w w a z w MAJOR DIVISIONS LETTER SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTION Clean GW Well -graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures, little or no GRAVELS Gravels fines. Gp Poorly -graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures, little or _j 0) (less than N More than 5% fines) no fines. GM Silty gravels, gravel -sand -silt mixtures, non -plastic V5 ca 50% of coarse. fraction is L3 .*= a) (D > W a) larger than No. Gravels with fines fines. z as E 4 sieve GC Clayey gravels, gravel -sand -clay mixtures, plastic fines. < C) I 8_0 jr - 0 0 b C\1 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 W q z ca (less than -r- C: More than 9% fines) fines. a) �c 50% of coarse 0 L_ 4- 0 fraction is SM Silty sands, sand -silt mixtures, non -plastic fines. C) 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) .50 SILTS AND CLAYS plasticity. CL Inorganic clays of ow to medium plasticity, (lean clay). _j a) 0 0 � C\1 cz U) E 0' Liquid limit is less than 50% 0 Cn OL Organic silts and organic clays of low plasticity. 0 C: -a) z LO co < C (D MH Inorganic silts, elastic. cc co C,3 = U) SILTS AND CLAYS W (D Ca " E CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays. Z .0 Liquid limit is greater than 50% LL OH Organic clays of high plasticity. HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS--[ PT Peat. DEFINITION OF TERMS AND SYMBOLS U) Standard Penetration Density Resistance in Blows/Foot 2" OUTSIDE DIAMETER,SPLIT W SPOON SAMPLER z 0 Very loose 0-4 2.4" INSIDE DIAMETER RING SAMPLER U) Loose 4-10 OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER W Medium dense 10-30 a: 0 Dense 30-50 WATER LEVEL (DATE) Very dense >56 Tr TORVANE READINGS, tsf Pp PENETROMETER READING� tsf Standard Penetration Consistenc Resistance in 1316ws/Foot DID DRY DENSITY, pounds per cubic foot W > W Very soft 0-2 LL LIQUID LIMIT, percent W Soft 2-4 X Medium stiff 4-8 PI PLASTIC INDEX 0 stiff 8-16 Very stiff 16-32 N STANDARD PENETRATION, blows per foot Hard >32 Terra UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Associates, Inc. POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Proj. No. T-4893 FDate 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 Density Depth (ft.) cL E U10) (N) Blows/ Moisture Content N Grayish -brown silty SAND, fine grained, with occasional fine gravel. (SM) Medium Dense 29 12 Occasional rusty brown stained partings. -------------------------------------------------- : ---------------------------------- Dense 7 -------------- —10 43. 14' Light brown SILT with sand, fine grained, moist, slightly mottled. (ML) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dense -------------------------- 42 21 Mottled light brown silty SAND to sandy SILT, fine grained, moist to wet.. (SM/MQ Dense —20 38 23 Light gray silty. SAND to sandy SILT, fine grained, moist, ---.-with occasional fine qravel._(SM/M�) ----------------------------------- Very Dense --------- 60 18 Grayish-brown SAND with silt, fine to medium grained, moist, with occasional fine gravel. (SP-SM) Very Dense —30 82 8 Grayish -brown SAND with silt to silty SAND, fine grained, moist. (SP-SM/SM) . Very Dense 58 15 (Grayish -brown hard, moist SILT between 35.5 and 36.0 - feet) Light gray silty SAND to SAND with silt, fine grained, Very —40 75 10 moist. (SM/SP-SM) Dense Trace of gravel. Very Dense 80 8 Very Dense 50' 58 6 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Brownish-gray SAND with silt to silty SAND, fine grained moist. (SP-SWSM) With a trace of -fine black organic inclusions. ------------------------ Very Dense -82 10 No fine organic inclusions. Very Dense 86 1 8 Boring terminated At 60 feet. No significant groundwater encountered. Terra BORING LOG Associates, Inc. POINTEDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS EDMONDS, WASHI NGTON Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Environmbntal Earth Sciences Proj. No. T-4893 I Date JAN. 2003* Ti Boring No. B-2 Logged by: JCS Date: 12/13/02 Approximate Elev. 90 Soil Description Consistency/ Relative Depth E (N) Blows/ Moisture Content Density (ft.) ft. N F ILL gray sandy silt, fine grained, moist, with occasional fine gravel. Loose 5 8 24 FILL: brown organic silty sand to sandy sil t and bluish- gray silty sand,,fine grained, moist to wet. Loose —10 4 12 With organics. Loose —15 6 10 Very Loose —20 3 27 Bluish -gray to light brown SAND with silt to silty SAND, fine grained, moist. (SP-SM/SP) Medium Dense —25 20 13 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mottled gray sandy SILT, fine grained, moist. (ML) --------------------------------------- 7 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 8 Boring terminated at 41.5 feet. No significant groundwater encountered. Terra BORING LOG Associates, Inc. POINTEDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS EDIVIONDS WASHINGTON Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences Proj. No. T-48931 Date JAN 2003 Figure.6 Boring No. B-3 Logged by: DPL Date: 12/16/02 Approximate Elev. 76 Soil Description Consistency/ Relative Depth 'E:'- (N) B o ws Moisture Content. Density (ft.) U) ft N Possible FILL: gray sand to si Ity sand, fine grained, wet, with occasional fine gravel. Possible FILL: grayish -brown silty sandi fine grained, wet, slight mottling. - ---------------------- 7 -------------------------------------------------------- Medium Dense 5 T 11 1 9 Gray silty SAND, fine grained, moist. (SM) Dense —10 31 22 Gray silty SAND.to sandy SILT, fine grained, moist. Dense —15 36 20 (SM/ML) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- Grayish-brown SAND with silt, fine grained, dry to moist. (SP_SM) Very Dense —20 - 68 4 Very Dense —25 53 5. Grayish -brown SAND, fine grained, dry to moist. (SP) I Very Dense —30 - IT 51 5 Boring terminated at 31.5 feet. Minor groundwater perched at 7 feet. Terra BORING LOG Associates,.Inc. POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS EDMONS, WASHINGTON Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Environment . al Earth Sciences P roj. No. T-4.893 Date JAN. 2003 Figure 7 I-) Boring No. B-4 Logged by: DPL Date: 12/16/02 Approximate Elev. 90 Soil Description Consistency/ Relative Density Depth (ft.) E Ca (N) Blows/ Moisture Content 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_b_rown orqanic-material ------------------------------------------------- Very stiff ---------- Bluish -gray SILT to CLAY, low to medium plasticity. Very 17 28 (MUCL) stiff 'Gray SILT to CLAY, moist, low to medium plasticity. (MUCL) Very Stiff —20 - 30 23 LL 35.5 P1 .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 Sl . LT to silty CLAY, moist. (MUCL) With thin discontinuous lenses of gray to mottled gray ---- !in�t_q!ainecl sand ------------------------------------------------ ------------------------- Very stiff —30 30 24 Gray silty SAND, fine grained, moist. (SM) Dense :E 37 15 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gray sandy SILT to clayey SILT, . fine grained, moist, low plasticity. (ML to MUCL) -------------------------- Hard —40 :E 34 17 Gray clayey SILT, moist, low plasticity. (MUCL) j(-jg_qfi[jg:gjC4ined sand. ------------------------------------------------ Hard ------------------------- 37 20 Gray sandy SILT to silty SAND, fine grained,.moist, Dense —50 32 .19 (MUSM) 47 18 —60 42 15 Boring terminated at 61.5 feet. No significant groundwater encountered. Terra BORING LOG Associates, Inc. POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and Environmental Earth Sciences Proj. No. T-4893TDate JAN,2003 Figure 8 N Boring No. B-5 Logged by: bPL Date: 12/16/02 Approximate Elev. 105 Soil Description Consistency/ Relative Density Depth (ft.) 0 -a E U10) � (N) Blows/ ft. Moisture Content N Brown to gfayish-brown silty SAND, fine grained, wet, with faint mottling. (SM) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Medium Dense :E 19 Gray SILT, medium to high plasticity, moist. (MH) stiff —10 _T 13 35' --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gray CLAY and SILT, low plasticity, moist. (CUML) Very stiff 25 .26 40 Gray silty SAND, fine grained, moist to wet. (SM) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dense -------------------------- —20 31 26 Gray CLAY, low plasticity, moist. (CL) Very 22 27 stiff 42 Gray CLAY, low plasticity, moist. (CL) Very —30 22 .25 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ stiff -------------------------- Gray sandy SILT to silty SAND, fine grained, moist. Dense 46 25 (MUSM) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dense ------------------------ —40 - 43 15 Gray sandy SILT to clayey SILT, non -plastic, moist. (MIL to MUCL) ------------------ 7 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dense 31 20 Gray sandy SILT to silty SAND, fine grained, dry to moist Dense —50 46 18 Moist to wet. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Medium -Dense --------- 28 20' Brown silty SAND, fine grained, moist. (SM) Very Dense 60 64 13 Boring terminated at 60.5 feet. No significant groundwater encountered. Terra Ass'ociates, Inc. BORING LOG POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS' EDMONDS, WASHINGTON., Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering Geology and 'Environmental Earth Sciences Proj. No. T-4893 I Date JAN 2003 Figure* 5 Logged by: JCS Date: 10/18/01 Depth 0 FILL: crus 5 10 15 20 Test Pit No. TP-1 Approximate Elev. 104- Moisture Soil Description Content hed rock surfacing over brown to gray silty sand to sandy silt, fine grained, firm, moist. (SWML) 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) Becomes light brown at approximately 6 feet. Gray CLAY, hard, moist, massive. (CL) 26 Pp 4.5+ tonsife LL 35 , 8 PI 15 Test pit terminated At 14 feet. No groundwater seepage. Logged by: JCS Date: 10/18/01 Depth - 0 FILL: crus 5 10 15 Test Pit No. TP*2 Approximate Elev. 124 Moisture Soil Description Content hed rock surfa ing over brown silty sand to sandy silt, fine grained, I irm, - moist. 4-inch thick orqanic 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) Grayish -brown silty SAND, fine grained, medium dense to dense, moist. (SM) Gray CLAY, hard,,moist, laminated with light gray silt partings�. (CL) Pp 4.5t tonsift' 37 Test pit terminated at 14 feet. No groundwater seepage. 20 TEST PIT LO GS Terra POINT EDWARDS:CONDOMINIUMS EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. T-4893 Date JAN. 900 1 Figure r. I Logged by: JCS Date: 10/18/01 Depth (ft.) 0 FILL: br 61 10 15 20 Test Pit No. TP-3 Approximate Elev. 121 Moisture Content Soil Description own silty sand, fine grained, firm, moist, with occasional fine gravel and organic material. (SM) (Hydrocarbon odor) Dark brown organic silty SAND, fine gra—ined, soft, moist to wet. (OL) (Old topsoil horizon) .15 Tan to light gray sifty CLAY to clayey SILT, hard, moist. (CUML) (Hydrocarbon odor) Gray CLAY, hard, moist, laminated with partings of light gray silt a4gray - fine sand. (CL) Pp=4.5+ 32 tons/te - Test pit terminated at 13 feet. Light groundwater seepage from point source at 4.5 feet. Logged by: JCS Date:. 10/18/01 Depth (ft.) 0 — FILL: liaht 5 10 15 20 Test Pit. No. TP-4 Approximate Elev. 92 Moisture Content Soil Description brown silty sand e ained to moist. (SM) 2-inch thick gi� tirm, dry - 016fin Soil horij organic layer at base. on) top - 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 moist. (SM) LL = 42.�. Light drayish-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/te Gray CLAY, hard, moist. (CL) Pp 4 5+ :2" tons/te Test pit terminated at 13 feet. Trace groundwater seepAge at 6 feet. TEST PIT LOGS Terra -POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS EDMONDS,- WASHINGTON Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Consultants Proj.No.T-4803 I Date, JAN 2003 1 Figure. 11. Logged by: JCS Date: 10/18/01 Depth (ft.) 0- 10 15 20 Test Pit No. TP-5 Approximate Elev. 110 Moisture' Soil Description Conte'nt MY 6 inches DUFF and TOPSOIL. Light brown SAND with silt to silty SAND, fine grained, medium dense, moist. (SO-SM/SM) 23 Mottled grayish -brown SAND to SAND with silt, fine grained; medium dense to dense, moist. (SP/SP-SM) Becomes wet at approximately 9 feet. 26 34 LL = 44.5 Grayish -brown to gray CLAY, hard, moist, generally massive, with P.1 = 21.3 occasional thin laminations of gray silt.' (CL) Pp = 4.5+ 'tons/fe - Test pit terminated at 16 feet. - Light groundwater seepage between 9 and 10 feet. Logged by: JCS Date: 10/18/01 Depth (ft.) 0- 5 10 15 Test Pit No. TP-6' Approximate Elev. 1*50 Moisture Soil Desc . ripti on Content - FILL: brown to grayish -brown SILT, CLAY, and fine grained SAND, firm - moist to wet, with some fine gravel and occasional. organic material. 32 - FILL: gray to brownish gray silt, clay, and fine grained sand, firm, moist to - wet, with'moderate organic material (including wood debris) and some - gravel. 12-inch thick organic layer at base. -(Old top soil horizon) - - bray 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 E Associates, Inc. DMO . NDS, W . A.SHINPTO.N Geo*tedh.n1caJ consultants Proj,.No.T-4893 DateJAN.2003 Figurel Logged by: JCS Date: 10/18/01 Depth (ft.) 0- 5 10 15 20 Test Pit No. TP-7 Approximate Elev. 121 Moisture Soil Descripti.oh Content FILL: dark brown organic silty sand, fine'grained, firm, moist. - Mottled gray to brown SAND with silt to silty SAND, fine grained; medium - dense to dense, moist.. (SP-SM/SM) (Hydrocarbon odo,r) 20 Tan to light grayish -brown silty CLAY to CLAY, hard, moist, occasional 24 mottling. (CL) Pp - 4.5+ tons/fe 31 - Test pit terminated at 15 feet. - No groundwater seepage. Logged by: JCS Date: 10/18/.01 Depth (ft.) .0 ___: 1411 10 15 Test Pit No. TP-8. Approximate Elev. 121 Moisture Soil Description Content FILL: light brown to gray silty sand, firm, moist to wet,.with organics. FILL: dark brown -organic silty, sand, loose, wet, with significant wood debris (timbers and branches). 2.5-foot diameter boulder.. Gray SILT to SILT with sand, fine grained, dense, moist to wet. (ML) 25 —7 - Light grayish -brown to tan sandy SILT, fine grained,, very dense, moist, - with occasional fine gravel. (ML) (Glacial,tilklike) 16 - Test pit terminated at 15 feet - Light groundwater seepage at 6 feet. 20 TEST PIT LOGS Terra. POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS Associates, In' c.* E,DlVI.0NDSj:.WASH_INGTON1. Geotechnical Consultants 4893 D Proj. No. T ate JAN 2008 Figure 13 k Logged by: JCS. Date: 10/18/01 Depth ft) 0- 5 10 15 20 Test 'Pit, No-.- TP-9 Approxi , riiate Ele'v. 1-50 Moisture Content Soil Description (%) - FILL: crushed rock surfacing over grayish -brown, sandy silt and clay, firm, - moist. 6-inch thick organic layer at base. (Old topsoil horizon) Mottle d grayish -brown. sandy SILT to sandy CLAY, stiff, moist. (MUCL) Pp 4.5+ 30 tons/fe 37 Grayish -brown CLAY, hard, moist, massive. (CH) LL = 58.8 P1 = 30.1 Gray SILT and CLAY, hard, moist,with occas.ional laminations of gray Pp = 4.5+. fine'sand. (MUCL) 1 22 tons/ft' - Test pit terminated at 15 feet. - No groundwater seepage. Logged by: JCS Date: 10/18/01 Depth (ft.) 0- 5 10 15 20 Test Pit No. TP40 Approximate Elev. 157 Moisture Soil Description Content 6 inches DUFF and TOPSOIL. Brown sandy SILT, fine grained, medium dense, moist. (ML) Grayish-broWn SILT and CLAY, hard, moist. (MUCL) Pp 4.5+ tons/ft' I . 34 Gray SILT.And.CLAY, hard, moist. (MUCL) Test'pit terminated at 15, feet. No groundwater TEST.PIT LOGS err T a -POINT EDWARDS CONDOMINIUMS Associates,,Inc EDMONDS, WASHINGTON C Geotechnical onsultants; Proi. No. T-4893 Date JAN 2003 Figure 14