The URL can be used to link to this page

17-105489-Geotechnical (Soils) Report-04-02-2020-V13Earth Science + Technology Geotechnical Engineering Services Woodbridge Business Park 77-acre Parcel, Former Weyerhaeuser Site Federal Way, Washington for Federal Way Campus, LLC January 10, 2020 Geotechnical Engineering Services Woodbridge Business Park 77-acre Parcel, Former Weyerhaeuser Site Federal Way, Washington for Federal Way Campus, LLC January 10, 2020 1101 South Fawcett Avenue, Suite 200 Tacoma, Washington 98402 253.383.4940 January 10, 2020 | Page i File No. 22247-003-00 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT UNDERSTANDING .................................................................................................. 1 SCOPE OF SERVICES .................................................................................................................................................. 2 SITE CONDITIONS ....................................................................................................................................................... 3 Surface Conditions............................................................................................................................................... 3 Mapped Geologic Conditions .............................................................................................................................. 3 Subsurface Conditions ........................................................................................................................................ 3 Summary of Soil Conditions ......................................................................................................................... 3 Groundwater ........................................................................................................................................................ 4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................................. 4 Site Development and Earthwork ....................................................................................................................... 5 Stripping and Clearing .................................................................................................................................. 6 Subgrade Evaluation ..................................................................................................................................... 6 Excavation ..................................................................................................................................................... 6 Excavation Support ....................................................................................................................................... 7 Wet Weather Construction ........................................................................................................................... 7 Fill Materials ......................................................................................................................................................... 8 On-site Soils ................................................................................................................................................... 9 Select Granular Fill ........................................................................................................................................ 9 Pipe Bedding ................................................................................................................................................. 9 Crushed Rock ................................................................................................................................................ 9 Fill Placement and Compaction .......................................................................................................................... 9 Area Fills and Bases ...................................................................................................................................... 9 Trench Backfill ............................................................................................................................................ 10 Temporary and Permanent Slopes .................................................................................................................. 10 Groundwater and Drainage Considerations .................................................................................................... 11 Seismic Design Considerations ........................................................................................................................ 11 2015 IBC Seismic Design .......................................................................................................................... 11 Foundation Support .......................................................................................................................................... 12 Shallow Foundations.................................................................................................................................. 12 Bearing Capacity ........................................................................................................................................ 12 Footing Bearing Surface Preparation ........................................................................................................ 12 Foundation Settlement .............................................................................................................................. 13 Lateral Resistance ..................................................................................................................................... 13 Building Pad and Floor Slabs .................................................................................................................... 13 Retaining Structures ......................................................................................................................................... 13 Pavement Recommendations .......................................................................................................................... 14 Pavement Design ....................................................................................................................................... 14 Stormwater Infiltration Evaluation ................................................................................................................... 15 LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................................................................. 15 January 10, 2020 | Page ii File No. 22247-003-00 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Vicinity Map Figure 2. Site Plan, Existing Condition Figure 3. Site Plan, Proposed Condition Figure 4. Schematic Drawing Hillside Fill APPENDICES Appendix A. Woodbridge Business Park Site Plan and Cross Sections Appendix B. Field Explorations and Laboratory Testing Figure B-1 – Key to Exploration Logs Figures B-2 through B-8 – Log of Test Pits Figures B-9 through B-11 – Log of Borings Figures B-12 through B-14 – Sieve Analysis Results Appendix C. Explorations and Laboratory Results – July 2016 Appendix D. Explorations and Laboratory Results – August 2016 Appendix E. Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use January 10, 2020 | Page 1 File No. 22247-003-00 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT UNDERSTANDING This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering services for the proposed Woodbridge Business Park, to be located generally in the north part of the former Weyerhaeuser Federal Way Campus site. The approximate location of the site is shown in Figure 1, Vicinity Map and Figures 2 and 3, Site Plan. We provided preliminary geotechnical studies in July and September 2016 for previously considered warehouse developments on this site. We also completed a geotechnical report for the site on September 19, 2017 for the proposed Greenline Business Park. We understand that the project name has since been changed from Greenline to Woodbridge. We also understand that the configuration and depth of proposed ponds in the west part of the site have also changed. Our understanding of the new site configuration is based on the revised grading plans, dated December 2, 2019. The former Weyerhaeuser Federal Way Campus site is about 119 acres in size. The proposed development area covers about 77 of the 119 acres. The site is bounded by Interstate 5 and a meadow area to the west, an office building and undeveloped property to the north, Weyerhaeuser Way South to the east and South 336th Street to the south. The 77-acre area wraps around the north, west and south sides of an existing Weyerhaeuser (WTC) building. The existing conditions are shown in Figure 2. We understand the currently proposed development includes three buildings within the 77-acre area, Buildings 1, 2, and 3. The location of the proposed structures is shown in Figure 3. The proposed buildings are rectangular and range from 638,000 square feet to 147,500 square feet in plan dimension. This is unchanged from our previous report. Parking and loading dock areas are planned around the building perimeters. Four ponds are planned within the west and south portions of the site. The configuration of the two western-most ponds has changed since our previous report. Construction of the largest pond, Pond 2, will require 10 to 18 feet of cut in the north and an approximate 8-foot high fill berm in the south. The remaining pond perimeters will require up to about 10 feet cuts with the exception of the south side of Pond 4 where a fill berm of about 10 feet high is required, and Pond 1 located in the northwest where an approximate 8-foot high fill berm is required on the western side. We understand the ponds will be detention ponds. The western-most ponds may encounter perched groundwater seepage requiring installation of an erosion mat or rock lining. The north part of the site is relatively flat and slopes slightly downward to the east. The south part of the site generally slopes downward to the south/southeast. We understand that cuts and fills are planned for the site to achieve level building pads. The distribution of planned cuts and fills are shown in Appendix A, Woodbridge Business Park Site Plan and Cross Sections. Excavations of up to about 10 to 12 feet below existing grade are planned for the north part of the site, north of Building “1.” Cuts up to about 18 feet appear to be planned for Pond 2. Fills up to about 15 feet thick are planned for the south portion of the site, at the south end of proposed Building “2.” Geologic materials mapped within and around the site comprise Vashon-age glacial till. As previously stated, we completed subsurface explorations (test pits) and performed preliminary design studies for others (KG Investment) on the subject site. We understand that this information is available for this project. January 10, 2020 | Page 2 File No. 22247-003-00 SCOPE OF SERVICES The purpose of our services is to provide geotechnical engineering recommendations for the proposed Woodbridge Business Park, 77-acre development. Federal Way Campus, LLC authorized our original services on June 30, 2017. Report revision services were authorized on November 18, 2019. GeoEngineers performed the following tasks for the project: 1. Review readily available published geologic data and our in-house files for existing information on soil and groundwater conditions in the project vicinity. 2. Review the proposed Woodbridge Business Park revised grading plans provided by the design team. This includes a proposed clearing and grading plan and site cross sections. Copies of these documents are contained in Appendix A. 3. Review the previously completed subsurface explorations and compare the depth and distribution of these explorations with the currently proposed development. Develop an exploration plan to supplement the existing data. Mobilize to the site to locate the proposed explorations. Coordinate utility locates for the explorations using the One-Call utility notification center and a private utility locate subcontracted to GeoEngineers. 4. Supplement the existing subsurface data by completing six test pit excavations and three borings. The borings extended to depths of about 20 feet below ground surface (bgs). 5. Perform laboratory tests on selected soil samples obtained from the supplemental explorations to evaluate pertinent engineering characteristics. Bulk samples were obtained from the test pits directly from the backhoe bucket. Driven soil samples were collected from the borings. Tests included moisture content determinations, fines content determinations and particle size analyses. 6. Characterize site conditions based on our site observations, existing data review and the results of our supplemental subsurface exploration and testing. 7. Develop preliminary recommendations for site preparation and earthwork based on the data and our understanding of the proposed site development. We include an evaluation of the suitability of on-site soil for use as structural fill beneath the building and pavement areas. We also discuss gradation criteria for imported fill, possible adverse effects of weather on construction activities and suitability of on-site soil during wet weather conditions. 8. Provide geotechnical seismic design information in accordance with 2015 International Building Code (IBC) criteria. We also present our opinion on the potential for liquefaction and lateral spreading at the site. 9. Provide general shallow foundation design recommendations, including suitable bearing materials, allowable soil bearing pressure, subgrade preparation criteria, lateral load resistance values and estimated post-construction settlements. 10. Provide recommendations for support of on-grade floor slabs, including modulus of subgrade reaction, capillary break, vapor retarder and underslab drainage, as appropriate. 11. Provide layer thickness recommendations for asphalt concrete (AC) pavement design sections, including subgrade preparation and typical pavement sections for heavy and light traffic areas based on our experience. 12. Provide a discussion of suitability of site soils for stormwater infiltration. January 10, 2020 | Page 3 File No. 22247-003-00 SITE CONDITIONS Surface Conditions The site slopes down to the west and south from about Elevation 450 feet in the northwest to about Elevation 394 feet in the south. The north portion of the site is presently occupied by existing access roads, asphalt-paved parking areas and landscaped/forested areas. The southwest and west parts of the site are occupied by a grass-covered meadow/field area. The remainder of the site is vegetated with a moderate to thick stand of second or third growth fir, cedar and deciduous trees with a moderate to thin understory of brush. We observed a generally thinner understory of ferns and brush in part of the proposed east pond area. A network of trails including a gravel road and foot paths exists within some of the forested areas. A small, man-made pond is located within the central part of the site. Mapped Geologic Conditions General geologic conditions in the site vicinity were evaluated by reviewing “Geologic Map of the Poverty Bay 7.5 Minute Quadrangle, King and Pierce Counties, Washington, 2004” prepared for the United States Geological Survey (USGS). Native geologic materials mapped at and in the site vicinity consist of Vashon-age Glacial Till (map symbol Qvt). Vashon till was deposited by and directly beneath the advancing Vashon-age glacier as it moved south through the site area. The deposit typically consists of a dense to very dense mixture of silt, sand, gravel, cobbles and some boulders. Subsurface Conditions Subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at the site were evaluated by reviewing logs of test pit explorations completed at the site in July and August 2016, and supplementary explorations completed in July 2017. Details of the supplementary field exploration and laboratory testing programs are presented in Appendix B. Supplementary exploration logs and results of the laboratory testing program are also presented in Appendix B. Logs and laboratory testing data for test pits completed in the northern portion of the site in July 2016 are contained in Appendix C. Similarly, logs and laboratory testing data for test pits completed at the site in August 2016 are contained in Appendix D. The approximate locations of all the explorations are shown in Figures 2 and 3. Summary of Soil Conditions Varying thicknesses of forest duff and/or topsoil and sod were encountered from ground surface to depths ranging from about 1 to 18 inches in most of the explorations. All explorations encountered and were terminated in glacial deposits. Dense to very dense glacial till was typically encountered beneath a loose to dense or stiff to very stiff weathered till. Loose to dense fill was encountered above the native glacial deposits in the following test pit explorations: ■ July 2016 test pits TP-3, TP-15, TP-16, TP-20, TP-23, TP-24 and TP-30. The fill extends to depths ranging between about 2 and 7.5 feet at the test pit locations. January 10, 2020 | Page 4 File No. 22247-003-00 ■ August 2016 test pits TP-5 through TP-7, TP-10, TP-12, TP-15, TP-20, TP-24, TP-25, TP-27, TP-29 and TP-31. The fill extends to depths ranging between 1.75 and 5.5 feet at the test pit locations. Fill was not encountered in the supplemental explorations completed for this study. Fill encountered in the 2016 explorations consisted of medium dense silty sand and appeared to be reworked native till materials. Weathered till and unweathered till generally comprised a mixture of silty gravel and silty sand with varying amounts of gravel and occasional cobbles and boulders. Layers or lenses of medium stiff to hard silt with sand and gravel was present within the weathered glacial till at the location of the following explorations: ■ July 2016 test pit TP-1 ■ August 2016 test pits TP-1, TP-17, TP-20 and TP-27 ■ July 2017 test pits TP-3N, TP-4N, TP-7N This material may exist in other portions of the site not explored by our test pits and borings. Laboratory testing on samples of fill, weathered and unweathered till encountered in our explorations yielded fines contents (material passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve) ranging from 26 to 94 percent. In-place moisture contents ranged from 6 to 26 percent. Recessional outwash was encountered to the full depth explored in test pit TP-5N, located in a proposed pond area in the northeast corner of the site. This material comprised medium dense to dense silty sand and sand with silt. Fines contents of the outwash ranged from 7 to 19 percent. Percent moisture ranged from 4.5 to 8. Groundwater Groundwater was not observed in any of the test pits at the time of excavation. Groundwater was observed in the borings completed along the northern site boundary at depths ranging from 17.5 to 20 feet bgs. We interpret this to be perched groundwater within the dense to very dense glacial deposits. Based on our experience, a seasonal, perched groundwater table often forms on top of or within cleaner lenses of the dense to very dense glacial till material. We expect groundwater seepage amounts and the depths at which it occurs will vary with season and precipitation. Zones of shallow perched groundwater should be expected/anticipated during the wetter winter and early spring months. Groundwater encountered in the borings may represent seepage in the cleaner lenses of the glacial till. The regional groundwater table is anticipated to be more than 50 feet below existing site grades. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of our subsurface exploration and testing program, it is our opinion that the site is generally suited for the proposed warehouse structure development. We understand that cuts and fills will be required to create level building surfaces at the site. January 10, 2020 | Page 5 File No. 22247-003-00 A summary of the primary geotechnical considerations for the proposed buildings is provided below. The summary is presented for introductory purposes only and should be used in conjunction with the detailed recommendations presented in this report. ■ The native and fill soils contain a moderate to very high percentage of fines and are very sensitive to small changes in moisture content. These soils are susceptible to disturbance from construction traffic when the moisture content is more than a few percent above the optimum moisture content for compaction. These soils will be difficult, if not impossible, to work or compact when wet or if earthwork is performed in wet weather. Therefore, we recommend that earthwork be performed during the normally drier periods of the year. Moisture conditioning of site soils will be required in order to obtain the required compaction. ■ We anticipate that some of the native and fill soils will only be suitable for use as structural fill during extended periods of dry weather. The silt soils encountered in some of the test pits will not be suitable for use as structural fill regardless of weather conditions. We recommend imported granular soils be used for structural fill if construction occurs during periods of wet weather. ■ Up to 15 feet of cuts and fills will be required to establish site grades. We recommend graded areas be protected before the onset of rainy weather because of the highly moisture sensitive character of much of the on-site soil. ■ We recommend constructing temporary haul roads underlain by quarry spalls or coarse crushed ballast material to help protect subgrades from disturbance and degradation under construction traffic. ■ Shallow foundations may be designed using an allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf) where footings are founded on structural fill or the recompacted surficial native soils. If dense native till is exposed at foundation level, the allowable bearing pressure can be increased to 5,000 psf. Where existing fill is exposed at footing subgrade, we recommend a minimum 2-foot-thick zone of structural fill underlie the footings. All new fill placed at the site should be compacted to the structural fill standard described in this report. ■ We recommend floor slabs be underlain by a minimum 4-inch-thick capillary break consisting of coarse grained aggregate with negligible sand or silt (similar to AASHTO Grading No. 67). Site Development and Earthwork Site development work will likely include removing existing trees and vegetation, stripping of forest duff, stripping of AC drive and parking areas, stripping of topsoil and root layers, excavation in the approximate center of proposed Building 2 and the north parts of proposed Buildings 2 and 3, and placing fill in select portions of the proposed building sites to achieve level building pads. We recommend that the existing storm pond at the site, near the south edge of proposed Building 3, be drained and disconnected from stormwater delivery systems prior to earthwork. The site soils are highly moisture sensitive due to moderate to very high fines content. Grading and reuse of the on-site soils at this site will only be practical during the dry season (typically July through September). Moisture conditioning necessary to obtain proper compaction of on-site soil will likely not be practical during the cooler and wetter winter months. Accordingly, we recommend a contingency be included in the project budget and schedule for export of unsuitable wet on-site soil and import of select granular soil if earthwork will occur in the winter months. January 10, 2020 | Page 6 File No. 22247-003-00 Stripping and Clearing The existing trees, shrubs, grass, topsoil, unsuitable native soils, AC, unused utilities and unsuitable fill soils should be stripped and removed from all proposed building and pavement areas. Based on our explorations, the depth of stripping to remove unsuitable surface organic materials should generally vary between 6 and 12 inches. Greater stripping depths will be required to remove localized zones of loose or organic-rich soil and tree roots, and to remove unsuitable materials within the pond. The primary root systems for trees and shrubs should be completely removed. Required stripping depths should be evaluated based on observations during the stripping operation. Stripped organic material should be transported off site for disposal or processed and used as fill in landscaping areas. Existing fill was encountered in TP-7, TP-27 and TP-31 (4.5- to 5.5-foot depth). Unsuitable fills might be present in other parts of the site not explored by our test pits and borings. The contractor should be prepared to selectively remove debris or other unsuitable materials if encountered in existing fill at this site. AC within existing road and parking areas should be removed, or pulverized and utilized on site as approved by the geotechnical engineer. Abandoned subgrade utilities should be anticipated and removed as necessary throughout the site particularly near the existing parking lots and roads. Unsuitable materials including organic and soft soil deposits within the pond should be stripped and removed during mass grading. Stormwater piping and other delivery system features should also be removed. Subgrade Evaluation After stripping and excavation to planned subgrade is complete we recommend the exposed soil be proofrolled or probed and then compacted to a firm and unyielding condition. If dry weather conditions persist, we recommend that the subgrade be evaluated by proofrolling with a loaded dump truck or similar heavy rubber-tired construction equipment to identify soft, loose or unsuitable areas. The proofrolling should be conducted prior to placing fill. If the subgrade is prepared during or exposed to wet weather, we recommend that it be evaluated by probing with a steel probe rod. The proofrolling/probing should be observed by a qualified geotechnical engineer, who will evaluate the suitability of the subgrade and identify any areas of yielding, which are indicative of soft or loose soil. If soft or otherwise unsuitable areas revealed during proofrolling cannot be compacted to a stable and uniformly firm condition, we recommend that: (1) the subgrade soils be scarified (e.g., with a ripper or a farmer’s disc), aerated and recompacted, or (2) the unsuitable soils be excavated to firm soil and replaced with structural fill, as recommended by the geotechnical engineer. Excavation We anticipate large dozers with rippers may be required for mass grading where the subgrade comprises unweathered glacial till. Conventional earthmoving equipment in proper working order should be capable of making necessary excavations for utilities and footings. We recommend that footing and trench excavations be performed using a smooth-blade bucket to prevent excessive disturbance of the excavation base. Boulders and large cobbles are often present in glacial till and recessional outwash deposits in the area and will likely be encountered during grading and/or utility excavations. Accordingly, the contractor should January 10, 2020 | Page 7 File No. 22247-003-00 be prepared to remove boulders, if encountered. Boulders may be removed from the site or buried in landscape areas. Voids caused by boulder removal must be backfilled with structural fill. Excavation Support Shallow excavations (4 feet or less) in dense glacial deposits should stand at near vertical inclinations, provided groundwater seepage is not present in the cut face. Excavations deeper than 4 feet must be shored or laid back at a stable slope if workers are required to enter. Shoring for utility excavations must conform with the provisions of Title 296 Washington Administrative Code (WAC), Part N, “Excavation, Trenching and Shoring.” Regardless of the soil type encountered in the excavation, shoring, trench boxes or sloped sidewalls will be required under Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act (WISHA). While this report describes certain approaches to excavation and dewatering, the contract documents should specify that the contractor is responsible for selecting excavation and dewatering methods, monitoring the excavations for safety and providing shoring, as required, to protect personnel and adjacent structures. Wet Weather Construction Trafficability of the on-site soils will be severely limited during wet weather, or if the subgrade moisture content is more than a few percentage points above optimum. When wet, the on-site soils are susceptible to disturbance and generally will not provide adequate support for construction equipment. The on-site soils will be difficult, if not impossible, to adequately work or compact during periods of wet weather. Site Grading If site grading and fill placement occurs during wet weather conditions the following recommendations should be included in the development plan. Stripping and site preparation should be accomplished using track-mounted equipment and subgrade protection measures should be used. For example, a track- mounted excavator equipped with a smooth-edged bucket could be used working from the currently developed surface or a granular pad and loading into trucks supported on granular haul roads or working outward from the stripped surface. If the site subgrade is wet, it should be evaluated by probing with a steel rod, rather than by proofrolling. Soil that is disturbed during site preparation activities during wet conditions, as well as soft or loose zones identified during probing, should be removed and replaced with compacted structural fill. Granular Haul Roads and Working Blankets Wet weather construction in the silty native or fill soils will require granular haul roads and granular pads under the building structures to protect the subgrade. If the pavement areas are constructed during wet weather, they will also require a granular working blanket. The use of granular haul roads will be necessary for support of construction traffic during the rainy season (typically from October through June). Based on our experience, 18 to 24 inches of sand and gravel (which could be gravel base or fill material), crushed rock or quarry spalls with little to no fines will be necessary to provide support for construction equipment. Use of a geotextile fabric can reduce mixing of the subgrade and road support materials. It also may reduce the thickness of surfacing required. If gravel base material is used, the temporary roads could be constructed above the finished subgrades and extra material bladed onto other areas of the site when the roads are no longer necessary. January 10, 2020 | Page 8 File No. 22247-003-00 Wet-Weather Fill We recommend fill placed during wet weather be select granular fill (pit run) or crushed rock as described in the “Fill Materials” section of this report. Erosion and Sedimentation Control The site will be susceptible to erosion during wet weather conditions, particularly if large segments of exposed subgrades are exposed to rainfall. Development and implementation of an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan should reduce the project impact on erosion-prone areas. The Plan should be designed in accordance with applicable city, county and/or state standards. The Plan should incorporate basic planning principles, including: ■ scheduling grading and construction to reduce soil exposure; ■ re-vegetating or mulching denuded areas; ■ directing runoff away from exposed soils; ■ reducing the length and steepness of slopes with exposed soils; ■ decreasing runoff velocities; ■ preparing drainage ways and outlets to handle concentrated or increased runoff; ■ confining sediment to the project site; and ■ inspecting and maintaining control measures frequently. Some sloughing erosion and raveling of exposed or disturbed soil on slopes should be expected, particularly if the work is completed during the wet season. We recommend that disturbed soil be restored promptly so that surface runoff does not become channeled. Temporary erosion protection should be used and maintained in areas with exposed or disturbed soils to help reduce erosion and transport of sediment to adjacent areas and receiving waters. Permanent erosion protection should be provided by paving, structure construction or landscape planting. Until the permanent erosion protection is established and the site is stabilized, site monitoring may be required by qualified personnel who will evaluate the effectiveness of the erosion control measures and recommend repairs and/or modifications as appropriate. Provision for modifications to the erosion control system based on monitoring observations should be included in the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan. Fill Materials The workability of material used as structural fill will depend on the gradation and moisture content of the soil. As the amount of fines (material passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve) increases, soil becomes increasingly sensitive to small changes in moisture content and adequate compaction becomes more difficult, if not impossible to achieve. We recommend that select granular fill or crushed rock be used as structural fill during the rainy season. The following paragraphs summarize the material requirements for fill and backfill. January 10, 2020 | Page 9 File No. 22247-003-00 On-site Soils The native glacial till soils may be considered for use as structural fill during periods of extended dry weather, provided they can be properly moisture conditioned. Soils encountered in our explorations, particularly the silt materials, will be difficult, if not impossible, to work or adequately compact during periods of wet weather or if the in-place moisture condition of these soils is over optimum during dry weather. On-site materials used as structural fill must be free of roots, organic matter and other deleterious materials and particles larger than 3 inches in diameter. Select Granular Fill Select granular fill (pit run) must consist of imported well-graded sand, sandy gravel, or crushed rock with a maximum particle size of 3 inches and less than 5 percent passing a U.S. No. 200 sieve. Organic matter, debris, or other deleterious material must not be present. Granular fill used during periods of prolonged dry weather may have up to 12 percent passing a U.S. No. 200 sieve. Pipe Bedding Trench backfill for the bedding and pipe zone must consist of well-graded granular material with a maximum particle size of ¾ inch and less than 5 percent passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve. The material must be free of roots, debris, organic matter, and other deleterious material. Crushed Rock Crushed rock fill must consist of clean, durable, crushed angular rock that has a maximum particle size of 4 inches, is well graded between coarse and fine sizes, and has less than 5 percent fines (material finer than a U.S. No. 200 sieve). A smaller maximum particle size will be required for some applications as discussed in other sections of this report. Gravel materials should be crushed to have at least two fractured faces. Organic matter, debris, or other deleterious material must not be present. Fill Placement and Compaction Fill soils should be compacted at a moisture content near optimum. The maximum allowable moisture content varies with the soil gradation, and should be evaluated during construction. Clayey soils and other fine granular soils may be difficult or impossible to compact during persistent wet conditions. Fill and backfill material should be placed in uniform, horizontal lifts, and uniformly densified with vibratory compaction equipment. The maximum lift thickness will vary depending on the material, compaction equipment used, and possibly weather conditions, but should generally not exceed 10 inches in loose thickness if select granular fill, as described in this report, is used. Thinner lifts will be required if on-site materials are used as structural fill. Typical loose lift thicknesses for re-used glacial till material should be no thicker than 4 inches to achieve the recommended compaction. Thinner lift thicknesses may be required depending on soil and site conditions. Area Fills and Bases Fill placed to raise site grades and aggregate base materials under foundations, slabs, and pavements should be placed on a prepared subgrade that consists of firm, inorganic native soils or compacted fill. Fill must be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density (MDD) determined by ASTM International (ASTM) Test Method D 1557 (modified Proctor). Where footings are founded on existing January 10, 2020 | Page 10 File No. 22247-003-00 fill, the upper 2 feet of fill should be recompacted to the structural fill criteria (95 percent), or excavated and replaced with import structural fill. In pavement areas, the compaction criteria can be reduced to 92 percent below a depth of 2 feet from finished subgrade. During wet weather or in areas that are particularly sensitive to subgrade disturbance, we recommend placing a woven geotextile between the subgrade and the first lift of fill. The first lift, provided it is select granular fill, should be 10 inches thick and should be densified by static rolling until it supports the vibratory compaction equipment. Slope Fill Placement Based on our understanding of the proposed development, earth fills will be placed on existing sloping ground. In such cases we recommend that the material be placed and compacted using hillside grading techniques, as provided below. The constructed fill should be benched into the existing slope face. Bench excavations should be level and extend into the slope face until a vertical step of about 3 feet is constructed. The upper layer of organic soil beneath the existing slope face should be removed and wasted. The remaining soil excavated from each bench can be spread into the next lift of structural fill. A typical cross-sectional drawing of slope fill is shown on Figure 4, Schematic Drawing Hillside Fill. Trench Backfill Backfill in the bedding and pipe zone should be compacted to 90 percent of the MDD as determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557, or as recommended by the pipe manufacturer. In nonstructural areas, trench backfill above the pipe zone should be compacted to at least 85 percent of the MDD as determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557. Suitable native soils or select granular soils should be acceptable in non-structural areas. Within structural areas, trench backfill placed above the pipe zone at depths greater than 2 feet below the finished subgrade, must be compacted to at least 92 percent of the MDD as determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557 and to 95 percent MDD when placed within 2 feet of finished subgrade. Trench backfill in structural areas should consist of select granular fill or crushed rock as described in the previous sections. Temporary and Permanent Slopes We recommend that permanent cut and fill slopes be inclined no steeper than 2H:1V (horizontal to vertical). Flatter cut slopes may be necessary in areas where persistent groundwater seepage or zones of soft or loose soils are encountered. Temporary cut slopes should be inclined no steeper than about 1½H:1V. A steeper temporary cut of 1H:1V is feasible in the glacial till soils, provided seepage is not present. Surface loads should be kept at a minimum distance of at least one-half the depth of the cut away from the top of temporary slopes. Temporary cut slopes and shoring must comply with the provisions of Title 296 WAC, Part N, “Excavation, Trenching and Shoring.” The contractor performing the work must have the primary responsibility for protection of workmen and adjacent improvements, determining whether shoring is required, and for establishing the safe inclination for open-cut slopes. January 10, 2020 | Page 11 File No. 22247-003-00 Fill slopes should be carefully compacted on the slope face. Alternatively, the fill embankment can be over- built and cut back to expose properly compacted soil. To reduce the potential for erosion, newly constructed slopes should be planted or hydroseeded shortly after completion of grading. Some sloughing and raveling of the slopes should be expected until the vegetation is established. This may require localized repairs and reseeding. Temporary covering, such as heavy plastic sheeting, jute fabric, loose straw, or excelsior matting should be used to protect unvegetated slopes during periods of rainfall. Groundwater and Drainage Considerations We recommend that pavement surfaces be sloped so that surface drainage flows away from the buildings. We recommend that all roof drains be collected in tightlines and routed into the storm drain system. Perched groundwater will likely develop on top of the very dense glacial till in unpaved areas during the rainy season, which may impact construction activities. We recommend a perimeter footing drain be constructed around the building footprint to capture perched groundwater zones. This is critical on glacial till sites due to the potential for perched groundwater flow, moving laterally on the glacial till contact and within cleaner sand seams in the till. Groundwater seepage could be encountered in the proposed stormwater ponds, particularly Pond 2, in the western part of the site. We recommend an erosion mat or rock lining be considered in design to protect the slopes from erosion. The contractor should be prepared to handle groundwater seepage using temporary gravel lined ditches and sumps and pumps during construction. Seismic Design Considerations 2015 IBC Seismic Design We recommend the parameters in Table 1 for use in seismic design in accordance with 2015 IBC. TABLE 1. SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS 2015 IBC Seismic Design Parameters Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Periods (SS) 1.29g Spectral Response Acceleration at 1-Second Periods (S1) 0.49g Site Class C Design Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) 0.54g Design Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Periods (SDS) 0.86g Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 1-Second Periods (SD1) 0.43g Liquefaction Potential Liquefaction refers to a condition where vibration or shaking of the ground, usually from earthquake forces, results in development of excess pore pressures in loose, saturated soils and subsequent loss of strength in the deposit of soil so affected. In general, soils that are susceptible to liquefaction include loose to medium dense sands to silty sands that are below the water table. Based on the soil type, and relative density of the soils encountered, it is our opinion that the potential for liquefaction within the proposed development portion of the site area is low. January 10, 2020 | Page 12 File No. 22247-003-00 Lateral Spreading Potential Lateral spreading related to seismic activity typically involves lateral displacement of large, surficial blocks of non-liquefied soil when a layer of underlying soil loses strength during seismic shaking. Lateral spreading usually develops in areas where sloping ground or large grade changes (including retaining walls) are present. Based on our understanding of the subsurface conditions and current site topography, it is our opinion that the risk of lateral spreading is low. Ground Rupture Because of the anticipated infrequent seismic event recurrence, the site location with respect to the nearest known active crustal faults and the presence of thick glacial deposits overlying bedrock, it is our opinion that the risk of ground rupture at the site due to crustal faulting is low. Foundation Support Shallow Foundations We anticipate that warehouse-type buildings can be supported on continuous wall or isolated column footings established on undisturbed native soils, on structural fill placed over undisturbed native soils, or on a minimum 2-foot thickness of structural fill overlying existing fill soils. For preliminary purposes, we recommend that isolated column and continuous wall footings have minimum widths of 24 and 18 inches, respectively. The exterior footings should be established at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. The recommended minimum footing depth is greater than the anticipated frost depth. Interior footings can be founded a minimum of 12 inches below the top of the floor slab. Bearing Capacity We recommend that footings founded on recompacted surficial soils or new structural fill be proportioned using a maximum allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. If the building footings are founded on undisturbed dense to very dense glacial till a maximum allowable soil bearing pressure of 5,000 psf could be considered. However, footing embedment would likely be greater than the minimum value for frost protection. Where existing fill is exposed at footing subgrade elevation, we recommend a minimum 2-foot zone of structural fill underlie the footing. These bearing pressures apply to the total of dead and long-term live loads and may be increased by one-third when considering earthquake or wind loads. This is a net bearing pressure. The weight of the footing and overlying backfill can be ignored in calculating footing sizes. Footing Bearing Surface Preparation Footing excavations should be performed using a smooth-edged bucket to limit bearing surface disturbance. Loose or disturbed materials present at the base of footing excavations should be removed or compacted. Foundation bearing surfaces should not be exposed to standing water. If water infiltrates and pools in the excavation, it must be removed and the bearing surface reevaluated before placing structural fill or reinforcing steel. We recommend that an experienced geotechnical engineer observe all foundation excavations before placing reinforcing steel in order to confirm that adequate bearing surfaces have been achieved and that the soil conditions are as anticipated. Unsuitable foundation subgrade soils must be removed and replaced January 10, 2020 | Page 13 File No. 22247-003-00 with structural fill as recommended by the geotechnical engineer. It may be prudent to place a thin mud mat of lean concrete to protect the bearing surface if footing excavations are to remain open in wet weather. Foundation Settlement We estimate that settlements of footings designed and constructed as recommended will be less than ¾ inch, for the anticipated loading conditions. Differential settlements between comparably loaded isolated column footings or along 50 feet of continuous footing will be less than ½ inch. Settlement is expected to occur rapidly as loads are applied. Lateral Resistance The ability of the soil to resist lateral loads is a function of frictional resistance, which can develop on the base of footings and slabs and the passive resistance, which can develop on the face of below-grade elements of the structure as these elements tend to move into the soil. For footings and floor slabs founded in accordance with the recommendations presented above, the allowable frictional resistance may be computed using a coefficient of friction of 0.35 applied to vertical dead-load forces. The allowable passive resistance on the face of footings, grade beams or other embedded foundation elements may be computed using an equivalent fluid density of 300 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for undisturbed on-site soils or structural fill extending out from the face of the foundation element a distance at least equal to two and one-half times the depth of the element. The passive earth pressure and friction components may be combined provided that the passive component does not exceed two-thirds of the total. The passive earth pressure value is based on the assumptions that the adjacent grade is level and that groundwater remains below the base of the footing throughout the year. The top foot of soil should be neglected when calculating passive lateral earth pressures unless the foundation area is covered with pavement or is inside a building. The lateral resistance values include a safety factor of approximately 1.5. Building Pad and Floor Slabs A modulus of subgrade reaction of 150 pounds per cubic inch (pci) can be used for designing the building floor slab provided that the subgrade has been prepared in accordance with the “Subgrade Evaluation” section. We recommend that on-grade slabs be underlain by a minimum 4-inch-thick capillary break layer to reduce the potential for moisture migration into the slab. The capillary break material should consist of a coarse aggregate with negligible sand or silt similar to AASHTO Grading No. 67. The material should be placed as recommended in the “Fill Placement and Compaction” section. A vapor retarder should be used as necessary to control moisture penetration through the slab. This is especially important in areas where floor coverings, adhesives or tiles are planned. Retaining Structures Retaining structures for loading docks or other building walls that are free to rotate slightly around the base should be designed for active earth pressures using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 35 pcf. This value is based on the following assumptions: January 10, 2020 | Page 14 File No. 22247-003-00 1. The walls will not be restrained against rotation when the backfill is placed. 2. The backfill is level. 3. The backfill for a distance of at least 12 inches behind the wall consists of free-draining granular materials. 4. Hydrostatic pressures will be controlled by a back drain. If retaining walls are restrained against rotation during backfilling, they should be designed for an at-rest equivalent fluid unit weight of 55 pcf. Surcharge loads applied closer than one-half of the wall height should be considered as uniformly distributed horizontal pressures equal to one-third of the distributed vertical surcharge pressure. Footings for retaining walls should be designed as recommended for shallow foundations. Backfill should be placed and compacted as recommended in the “Fill Placement and Compaction” section of this report. The backfill should include drainage provisions to prevent hydrostatic pressures from developing behind walls. Measures should be taken to prevent overcompaction of the backfill behind the wall. This can be done by placing the zone of backfill located within 5 feet of the wall in lifts not exceeding 6 inches in loose thickness and compacting this zone with hand-operated equipment such as a vibrating plate compactor or jumping jack. Pavement Recommendations Pavement Design Based on our experience, we provide typical asphalt concrete (AC) and portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement sections below. These pavement sections are typical for commercial facilities in this area but may not be adequate for heavy construction traffic loads such as those imposed by concrete transit mixers, dump trucks or cranes or for unusual design traffic conditions. Additional pavement thickness may be necessary to prevent pavement damage during construction or if anticipated truck traffic for this facility is higher than typical. We can provide a specific design if detailed truck traffic loading information is provided. The recommended sections assume that final improvements surrounding the pavement will be designed and constructed such that stormwater or excess irrigation water from landscape areas does not accumulate below the pavement section or pond on pavement surfaces. Pavement subgrade must be prepared as previously described. Crushed surfacing base course and subbase must be moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95 percent of MDD (ASTM D 1577). Crushed surfacing base course must conform to applicable sections of 4-04 and 9-03.9(3) of the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Standard Specifications. Hot mix asphalt must conform to applicable sections of 5-04, 9-02 and 9-03 of the WSDOT Standard Specifications. PCC must conform to applicable sections of 5-05, 9-01 and 9-03 of the WSDOT Standard Specifications. Standard-Duty AC Pavement – Automobile Driveways and Parking Areas ■ 2 inches of hot mix asphalt, class ½ inch, PG 58-22 ■ 4 inches of crushed surfacing base course January 10, 2020 | Page 15 File No. 22247-003-00 ■ 6 inches of subbase consisting of select granular fill to provide uniform grading and pavement support, to maintain drainage, and to provide separation from fine-grained subgrade soil ■ Native subgrade or structural fill prepared in accordance with the “Site Development and Earthwork” section Heavy-Duty AC Pavement – Areas Subject to Truck Traffic ■ 3 inches of hot mix asphalt, class ½ inch, PG 58-22 ■ 6 inches of crushed surfacing base course ■ 6 inches of subbase consisting of select granular fill to provide a uniform grading surface and pavement support, to maintain drainage, and to provide separation from fine-grained subgrade soil ■ Native subgrade or structural fill prepared accordance with the “Site Development and Earthwork” section PCC Pavement – Areas Subject to Heavy Truck Traffic ■ 6 inches of PCC pavement (28-day compressive strength of 6,000 pound per square inch [psi] and a modulus of rupture of 600 psi) ■ 6 inches of crushed surfacing base course ■ Native subgrade or structural fill prepared accordance with the “Site Development and Earthwork” section Stormwater Infiltration Evaluation As previously described the site soils generally consist of weathered till over unweathered till. Grain-size distribution analyses of these soils indicate fines contents ranging between about 26 and 95 percent. The unweathered till is typically in a dense to very dense condition and has very low permeability with respect to the vertical and horizontal flow of water. Based on the soil gradation data, and our experience, it is our opinion there is very limited infiltration potential at this site. Because of these factors we recommend that stormwater detention be used for site development. Recessional outwash was encountered in one test pit TP-5N. This pit is within the proposed pond located east of Weyerhaeuser Road, east of the northeast corner of the site. Outwash was not encountered in two other test pits completed within the proposed pond area. It is possible that some measure of stormwater infiltration within this pond is achievable. However, further study will be required to evaluate the vertical and lateral extent of the outwash material, and the permeability of the outwash. LIMITATIONS We have prepared this geotechnical report for use by Federal Way Campus, LLC and their agents for the proposed development project described in this report. The project agents may distribute copies of this report to authorized agents and regulatory agencies as may be required for the project. January 10, 2020 | Page 16 File No. 22247-003-00 Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with generally accepted practices in the field of geotechnical engineering in this area at the time this report was prepared. No warranty or other conditions express or implied should be understood. Please refer to Appendix E, Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use, for additional information pertaining to use of this report. µ SITE Vicinity Map Figure 1 Proposed Woodbridge Business ParkFederal Way, Washington 2,000 2,0000 Feet Data Source: Mapbox Open Street Map, 2017 Notes:1. The locations of all features shown are approximate.2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication. Projection: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 10N P:\22\22247003\GIS\MXD\2224700300_F01_VicinityMap.mxd Date Exported: 12/30/19 by alarson [] [] [] [] [] [] [] Weyerhaeuse r W a y S S 3 3 6 t h S t Pond Pond Pond Existing WTC 5 B-1N B-2N B-3N TP-1N TP-2N TP-3N TP-7N TP-4N TP-5N TP-6N TP-11 TP-21 TP-3 TP-5 TP-4 TP-9 TP-8 TP-2TP-1 TP-6 TP-7 TP-12 TP-28 TP-26 TP-27 TP-22 TP-18 TP-23 TP-30 TP-29 TP-24 TP-19 TP-14 TP-10 TP-15 TP-20 TP-25 TP-13 TP-17 TP-16 TP-1 TP-2 TP-5 TP-6 TP-8 TP-9 TP-10 TP-11 TP-12 TP-13 TP-14 TP-15 TP-17 TP-16 TP-18 TP-21 TP-20 TP-23 TP-22 TP-26 TP-27 TP-25 TP-24 TP-29 TP-28 TP-31 TP-30 TP-19 TP-7 TP-4 TP-3 Figure 2 Proposed Woodbridge Business Park Federal Way, Washington Site Plan Existing Conditions P:\22\22247003\CAD\00\GeoTech\2224700300_F02_Site Plan Existing.dwg TAB:F02 Date Exported: 12/30/19 - 13:24 by alarsonWENSLegend Feet 0300 300 Notes: 1. The locations of all features shown are approximate. 2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication. Data Source: Base CAD files from ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC dated 7/24/17. Projection: NAD83 WA State Planes, North Zone, US Foot Test Pits by GeoEngineers, 2017 Borings by GeoEngineers, 2017B-1N TP-1N TP-1 TP-1 Test Pit Completed in July 2016 Test Pit Completed in August 2016 Weyerhaeuse r W a y S S 3 3 6 t h S t Pond Pond Pond Building 1 Existing WTC Building 2 Building 3 5 B-1N B-2N B-3N TP-1N TP-2N TP-3N TP-7N TP-4N TP-5N TP-6N TP-11 TP-21 TP-3 TP-5 TP-4 TP-9 TP-8 TP-2TP-1 TP-6 TP-7 TP-12 TP-28 TP-26 TP-27 TP-22 TP-18 TP-23 TP-30 TP-29 TP-24 TP-19 TP-14 TP-10 TP-15 TP-20 TP-25 TP-13 TP-17 TP-16 TP-1 TP-2 TP-5 TP-6 TP-8 TP-9 TP-10 TP-11 TP-12 TP-13 TP-14 TP-15 TP-17 TP-16 TP-18 TP-21 TP-20 TP-23 TP-22 TP-26 TP-27 TP-25 TP-24 TP-29 TP-28 TP-31 TP-30 TP-19 TP-7 TP-4 TP-3 Figure 3 Proposed Woodbridge Business Park Federal Way, Washington Site Plan Proposed Conditions \\geoengineers.com\WAN\Projects\22\22247003\CAD\00\GeoTech\2224700300_F03_Site Plan Proposed.dwg TAB:F03 Date Exported: 01/10/20 - 14:45 by mwoodsWENSLegend Feet 0300 300 Notes: 1. The locations of all features shown are approximate. 2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication. Data Source: Revised Grading Plans from ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC dated 02/06/2019. Projection: NAD83 WA State Planes, North Zone, US Foot Test Pits by GeoEngineers, 2017 Borings by GeoEngineers, 2017B-1N TP-1N TP-1 TP-1 Test Pit Completed in July 2016 Test Pit Completed in August 2016 Bench DrainNot to ScaleNot to ScaleBackfill: Freedraining Sand and/or Rock. Minimum 1'Enclosure of Pipe, Balance of Backfill Below CapShould be Sand or Rock.Native Soil CapGround Surface6"Ø Pipe HDPE or PVC PerforatedVariable2'Final Fill Surface Profile8' MIN.KeywayConceptual Arrangement ofBench Cuts Into Native Soil.If Seepage EncounteredDuring Benching, PlaceDrain At This Location.Drain Detail is Shown Above.Native Building SubgradePre-development Ground SurfaceFill SoilNative SoilNotes:1. The locations of all features shown are approximate.2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assistin showing features discussed in an attached document.GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and contentof electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers,Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication.Data Source:Drawing created from sketch provided by GeoEngineers' personnel.P:\22\22247003\CAD\00\GeoTech\2224700300_F04_Schematic Drawing Hillside Fill.dwg TAB:F04 Date Exported: 12/30/19 - 13:32 by alarson Figure 4Proposed Woodbridge Business ParkFederal Way, WashingtonSchematic Drawing Hillside Fill APPENDIX A Woodbridge Business Park Site Plan and Cross Sections 12"CP 12"CPRELIEF AIR VAC 12" 8"AC F.M. 8"AC F.M. 8"AC F.M. MH's MH AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAAAAA AAAAAAAAA AAA XFMRE002E002AAAAAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAµ ΡΒ≅Κ∆9 0! < 0 40 7/& 16080 ∆ΩΗΡΣΗΜΦ ςΣΒ ΑΤΗΚΧΗΜΦ ΕΕ<326−// NO.DESCRIPTION/DATE BY REVISIONS DWG. NAME DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: OF SHEETS JOB NO.\\\\esm8\\engr\\esm-jobs\\1886\\001\\016-0016\\plots\\process iii\\GR-01.dwg1/7/2020 10:22 AMPlotted:File:Plotted By: Greg FedoreEVERETTFEDERAL WAYΒ Ν Μ Ρ Τ Κ Σ Η Μ Φ ∆ Μ Φ Η Μ ∆ ∆ Θ ΡΚ Κ ΒCivil EngineeringProject ManagementLand SurveyingLandscape ArchitectureLand Planningwww.esmcivil.com(253) 838-6113(425) 297-9900Public WorksΕδχδθκ ςξ+ ς≅ 87//2223// 7σγ ≅υδ Ρ+ Ρτησδ 1/4Ε∆Χ∆Θ≅Κ ς≅Ξ Β≅ΛΟΤΡ+ ΚΚΒςΝΝΧΑΘΗΧΦ∆ ΑΤΡΗΜ∆ΡΡ Ο≅ΘϑCLEARING & GRADING PLANWASHINGTONCITY OF FEDERAL WAY1886-001-016 GR-01 LGB JJH 02/06/2019 ΦΘ,/0 03 07ΗΜΣ∆ΘΡΣ≅Σ∆ 4ς∆Ξ∆ΘΓ≅∆ΤΡ∆Θ ς≅Ξ Ρ−Χ≅ΣΤΛ9 Μ−Φ−Υ−Χ− 18 ΟΝΜΧ 0 Χ∆Σ∆ΜΣΗΝΜ \A1;30' SETBACK \A1;9' RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION \A1;78' Ρ∆∆ ΡΓ∆∆Σ ΦΘ,/1 ΕΝΘ ΒΝΜΣΗΜΤ≅ΣΗΝΜ \A1;100' FORESTED BUFFER \A1;25' FORESTED BUFFER ∆≅ΘΣΓςΝΘϑ ΠΤ≅ΜΣΗΣΗ∆Ρ9 ≅ ≅ Α Α Β Β ΑΤΗΚΧΗΜΦ 0 5/4+084 ΡΕ ΕΕ<Υ≅ΘΗ∆Ρ 331−27,337−34 Η Ι Γ Γ Φ Φ ΟΝΜΧ 1 Χ∆Σ∆ΜΣΗΝΜ N ETRAB .G A RU A 40111ANO R WFOE A SH NGTO N T E RED SG ENG NEE EFOR P TS SS TA ER N A E G H \A1;9' RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION 106' DEVELOPMENT RESERVATION 12" 12" VALVE RELIEF AIR OH 2 COND3 CONDM 8" A.C. F.M.12" R.C.P. CULVERT0204 MH W.L. 391.3 W.L. 391.3 391.3W.L.AAAAAAAAA AAA AAA AAA AAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAA AAAXFMR E002 E002 AAA AAA AAA AAA AAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA201200 AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA Ρ 225 Σ Γ Ρ Σ µ ΡΒ≅Κ∆9 0! < 0 40 7/& 16080 ∆ΩΗΡΣΗΜΦ ςΣΒ ΑΤΗΚΧΗΜΦ ΕΕ<326−// NO.DESCRIPTION/DATE BY REVISIONS DWG. NAME DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: OF SHEETS JOB NO.\\\\esm8\\engr\\esm-jobs\\1886\\001\\016-0016\\plots\\process iii\\GR-02.dwg1/7/2020 10:24 AMPlotted:File:Plotted By: Greg FedoreEVERETTFEDERAL WAYΒ Ν Μ Ρ Τ Κ Σ Η Μ Φ ∆ Μ Φ Η Μ ∆ ∆ Θ ΡΚ Κ ΒCivil EngineeringProject ManagementLand SurveyingLandscape ArchitectureLand Planningwww.esmcivil.com(253) 838-6113(425) 297-9900Public WorksΕδχδθκ ςξ+ ς≅ 87//2223// 7σγ ≅υδ Ρ+ Ρτησδ 1/4Ε∆Χ∆Θ≅Κ ς≅Ξ Β≅ΛΟΤΡ+ ΚΚΒςΝΝΧΑΘΗΧΦ∆ ΑΤΡΗΜ∆ΡΡ Ο≅ΘϑCLEARING & GRADING PLANWASHINGTONCITY OF FEDERAL WAY1886-001-016 GR-02 LGB JJH 02/06/2019 ΦΘ,/1 04 07 ς∆Ξ∆ΘΓ≅∆ΤΡ∆Θ ς≅Ξ Ρ− Χ≅ΣΤΛ9 Μ−Φ−Υ−Χ− 18 ς∆Ξ∆ΘΓ≅∆ΤΡ∆Θ ς≅Ξ Ρ−\A1;30' SETBACK Ρ∆∆ ΡΓ∆∆Σ ΦΘ,/0 ΕΝΘ ΒΝΜΣΗΜΤ≅ΣΗΝΜ Χ Χ ∆ ∆ Ε Ε ϑ Κ Λ Ο ΟΝΜΧ 3 Χ∆Σ∆ΜΣΗΝΜ ϑ Κ Λ Μ Μ Ο Ν Ι Ι Η ΑΤΗΚΧΗΜΦ 2 014+41/ ΡΕ ΕΕ<Υ≅ΘΗ∆Ρ 311−02,313−4/ ΟΝΜΧ 2 Χ∆Σ∆ΜΣΗΝΜ ΟΝΜΧ 1 Χ∆Σ∆ΜΣΗΝΜ N ETRAB .G A RU A 40111 ANO R WFOE A SH NGTO N T E RED SG ENG NEE EFOR P TS SS TA ER N A E G H \A1;9' RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION \A1;78'ΗΜΣ∆ΘΡΣ≅Σ∆ 4ΑΤΗΚΧΗΜΦ 1 13/+564 ΡΕ ΕΕ<Υ≅ΘΗ∆Ρ 31/−17,313−42 Ν ΟΝΜΧ 4 Χ∆Σ∆ΜΣΗΝΜ 100' FORESTED BUFFER NO.DESCRIPTION/DATE BY REVISIONS DWG. NAME DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: OF SHEETS JOB NO.\\\\esm8\\engr\\esm-jobs\\1886\\001\\016-0016\\plots\\process iii\\GR-03.dwg1/7/2020 10:29 AMPlotted:File:Plotted By: Greg FedoreEVERETTFEDERAL WAYΒ Ν Μ Ρ Τ Κ Σ Η Μ Φ ∆ Μ Φ Η Μ ∆ ∆ Θ ΡΚ Κ ΒCivil EngineeringProject ManagementLand SurveyingLandscape ArchitectureLand Planningwww.esmcivil.com(253) 838-6113(425) 297-9900Public WorksΕδχδθκ ςξ+ ς≅ 87//2223// 7σγ ≅υδ Ρ+ Ρτησδ 1/4Ε∆Χ∆Θ≅Κ ς≅Ξ Β≅ΛΟΤΡ+ ΚΚΒςΝΝΧΑΘΗΧΦ∆ ΑΤΡΗΜ∆ΡΡ Ο≅ΘϑCROSS SECTIONSWASHINGTONCITY OF FEDERAL WAY1886-001-016 GR-03 LGB JJH 02/06/2019 ΦΘ,/2 05 07 1"= 1"=ΡΒ≅Κ∆9 HORIZ. VERT. 80' 10' ΡΗΣ∆ ΒΘΝΡΡ Ρ∆ΒΣΗΝΜ ≅,≅ 1"= 1"=ΡΒ≅Κ∆9 HORIZ. VERT. 80' 10' ΡΗΣ∆ ΒΘΝΡΡ Ρ∆ΒΣΗΝΜ Α,Α 1"= 1"=ΡΒ≅Κ∆9 HORIZ. VERT. 80' 10' ΡΗΣ∆ ΒΘΝΡΡ Ρ∆ΒΣΗΝΜ Β,Β 1"= 1"=ΡΒ≅Κ∆9 HORIZ. VERT. 80' 10' ΡΗΣ∆ ΒΘΝΡΡ Ρ∆ΒΣΗΝΜ Χ,Χ 1"= 1"=ΡΒ≅Κ∆9 HORIZ. VERT. 80' 10' ΡΗΣ∆ ΒΘΝΡΡ Ρ∆ΒΣΗΝΜ ∆,∆ 1"= 1"=ΡΒ≅Κ∆9 HORIZ. VERT. 80' 10' ΡΗΣ∆ ΒΘΝΡΡ Ρ∆ΒΣΗΝΜ Ε,Ε 1"= 1"=ΡΒ≅Κ∆9 HORIZ. VERT. 80' 10' ΟΝΜΧ 0 ΒΘΝΡΡ Ρ∆ΒΣΗΝΜ Φ,Φ 1"= 1"=ΡΒ≅Κ∆9 HORIZ. VERT. 80' 10' ΟΝΜΧ 0 ΒΘΝΡΡ Ρ∆ΒΣΗΝΜ Γ,Γ 1"= 1"=ΡΒ≅Κ∆9 HORIZ. VERT. 80' 10' ΟΝΜΧ 1 ΒΘΝΡΡ Ρ∆ΒΣΗΝΜ Η,Η 1"= 1"=ΡΒ≅Κ∆9 HORIZ. VERT. 80' 10' ΟΝΜΧ 1 ΒΘΝΡΡ Ρ∆ΒΣΗΝΜ Ι,Ι 1%2:12% 6% 1%2:12% 2% 2% 8% 9% 2% 2% 0.5%2:12%2%2:10.5% 0.5% 2% 2% 2%2%2:12% \A1;6' BERM \A1;6' BERM \A1;6' BERM \A1;15' BERM2:12:12:12:12:14:14:14:14:14:14:1N ETRAB .G A RU A 40111 ANO R WFOE A SH NGTO N T E R ED SG ENG NEE EFOR P TS SS TA ER N A E G H DETENTION REQUIRED: 712,600 (CF) DETENTION PROVIDED: 842,000 (CF) ΟΝΜΧ 1 ΥΝΚΤΛ∆Ρ9 1"= 1"=ΡΒ≅Κ∆9 HORIZ. VERT. 80' 10' ΡΗΣ∆ ΒΘΝΡΡ Ρ∆ΒΣΗΝΜ Ε,Ε 2% 2%2%2:12% DETENTION REQUIRED: 233,000 (CF) DETENTION PROVIDED: 251,800 (CF) ΟΝΜΧ 0 ΥΝΚΤΛ∆Ρ9 0.5%2:1 39.167 9.823 17.0834.829 Firefighting VehicleOverall Length 39.167ft Overall Width 10.000ft Overall Body Height 11.831ft Min Body Ground Clearance 1.612ft Track Width 9.583ft Lock-to-lock time 4.00s Wall to Wall Turning Radius 50.033ft NO.DESCRIPTION/DATE BY REVISIONS DWG. NAME DESIGNED BY: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: OF SHEETS JOB NO.\\\\esm8\\engr\\esm-jobs\\1886\\001\\016-0016\\plots\\process iii\\GR-04.dwg1/7/2020 10:31 AMPlotted:File:Plotted By: Greg FedoreEVERETTFEDERAL WAYΒ Ν Μ Ρ Τ Κ Σ Η Μ Φ ∆ Μ Φ Η Μ ∆ ∆ Θ ΡΚ Κ ΒCivil EngineeringProject ManagementLand SurveyingLandscape ArchitectureLand Planningwww.esmcivil.com(253) 838-6113(425) 297-9900Public WorksΕδχδθκ ςξ+ ς≅ 87//2223// 7σγ ≅υδ Ρ+ Ρτησδ 1/4Ε∆Χ∆Θ≅Κ ς≅Ξ Β≅ΛΟΤΡ+ ΚΚΒςΝΝΧΑΘΗΧΦ∆ ΑΤΡΗΜ∆ΡΡ Ο≅ΘϑCROSS SECTIONSWASHINGTONCITY OF FEDERAL WAY1886-001-016 GR-04 LGB JJH 02/06/2019 ΦΘ,/3 06 07 1"= 1"=ΡΒ≅Κ∆9 HORIZ. VERT. 80' 10' ΟΝΜΧ 2 ΒΘΝΡΡ Ρ∆ΒΣΗΝΜ ϑ,ϑ 1"= 1"=ΡΒ≅Κ∆9 HORIZ. VERT. 80' 10' ΟΝΜΧ 2 ΒΘΝΡΡ Ρ∆ΒΣΗΝΜ Κ,Κ 1"= 1"=ΡΒ≅Κ∆9 HORIZ. VERT. 80' 10' ΟΝΜΧ 3 ΒΘΝΡΡ Ρ∆ΒΣΗΝΜ Λ,Λ 1"= 1"=ΡΒ≅Κ∆9 HORIZ. VERT. 80' 10' ΟΝΜΧ 3 ΒΘΝΡΡ Ρ∆ΒΣΗΝΜ Μ,Μ 1"= 1"=ΡΒ≅Κ∆9 HORIZ. VERT. 80' 10' ΟΝΜΧ 4 ΒΘΝΡΡ Ρ∆ΒΣΗΝΜ Ν,Ν 1"= 1"=ΡΒ≅Κ∆9 HORIZ. VERT. 80' 10' ΟΝΜΧ 4 ΒΘΝΡΡ Ρ∆ΒΣΗΝΜ Ο,Ο \A1;15' BERM 2:12:12:1\A1;15' BERM \A1;6' BERM2:14:12:1\A1;6' BERM 2:12:12:12:12:12:14:14:14:14:1N ETRAB .G A RU A 40111 ANO R WFOE A SH NGTO N T E R ED SG ENG NEE EFOR P TS SS TA ER N A E G H DETENTION REQUIRED: 67,100 (CF) DETENTION PROVIDED: 77,100 (CF) ΟΝΜΧ 2 ΥΝΚΤΛ∆Ρ9 DETENTION REQUIRED: 101,100 (CF) DETENTION PROVIDED: 115,200 (CF) ΟΝΜΧ 3 ΥΝΚΤΛ∆Ρ9 DETENTION REQUIRED: 212,600 (CF)* DETENTION PROVIDED: 63,400 (CF) *3.19 (AF) 138,900 (CF) STORED IN WEYERHAEUSER POND ΟΝΜΧ 4 ΥΝΚΤΛ∆Ρ9 ΣΞΟΗΒ≅Κ ΕΗΘ∆ ΣΘΤΒϑ ΛΝΥ∆Λ∆ΜΣ ΡΣΤΧΞ µ ΡΒ≅Κ∆9 0! < 0 10 1/& 4020 \A1;30' ς∆Ξ∆ΘΓ≅∆ΤΡ∆Θ ς≅Ξ Ρ2:1 APPENDIX B Field Explorations and Laboratory Testing January 10, 2020 | Page B-1 File No. 22247-003-00 APPENDIX B FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTING Field Explorations Subsurface conditions at the site were previously explored during two phases of work. Thirty test pits were excavated in the north part of the site between July 5 and July 7, 2016. Thirty-one test pits were excavated in the middle and south parts of the site between August 15 and August 17, 2016. Supplemental explorations (seven test pits and three borings) were completed on July 19 and July 24, 2017. Borings were drilled to depths of 21 feet. Test pits were excavated to depths ranging from 4 to 9 feet bgs. Test pits were excavated using a rubber-tired backhoe provided by Kelly’s Excavating of Pacific, Washington. Borings were completed using tracked drilling equipment owned and operated by Holocene Drilling of Puyallup, Washington. The site explorations were continuously monitored by a member of GeoEngineers geotechnical staff. Our representative maintained a detailed log of the soils encountered, obtained soil samples and observed groundwater conditions. Figures 2 and 3 shows the approximate locations of the explorations. Explorations were mapped using commercial-grade GPS equipment and should be considered accurate only to the extent implied by the method used. Soil samples were obtained from the borings using standard penetration tests (SPTs) performed in general conformance with ASTM International (ASTM) Test Method D 1586. The sampler was driven with a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the last 12 inches or other indicated distance, into the soils is shown adjacent to the sample symbols on the boring logs. Disturbed samples were obtained from the split barrel for subsequent classification and index testing. Bulk soil samples from the test pits were collected directly from the trackhoe bucket and placed in plastic bags. Soils encountered in the borings were classified in the field in general accordance with ASTM Standard Practice D 2488, the Standard Practice for the Classification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure), which is described in Figure B-1. Soil classifications and sampling intervals are shown on the exploration logs. Inclined lines at the material contacts shown on the logs indicate uncertainty as to the exact contact elevation, rather than the inclination of the contact itself. Figures B-2 through B-11 present the supplementary exploration logs. Logs from the earlier phases of work at the site are contained in Appendices C and D. Laboratory Testing Soil samples obtained from the explorations were brought to our laboratory and reviewed to confirm field classifications. Selected samples were tested to determine their moisture content and grain-size distribution in general accordance with applicable ASTM standards. The moisture content of selected samples was determined in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D 2216. The test results are presented in the respective exploration logs in Appendix A. Grain-size distribution (sieve analyses) was conducted in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D 422. Atterberg Limits Tests were conducted in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D 4318. The results of previous laboratory testing are presented in Appendices C and D. Laboratory testing of samples collected from the supplementary explorations are contained in Figures B-12 through B-14. Measured groundwater level in exploration, well, or piezometer Measured free product in well or piezometer Distinct contact between soil strata Approximate contact between soil strata Contact between geologic units SYMBOLS TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS GW GP SW SP SM FINE GRAINED SOILS SILTS AND CLAYS NOTE: Multiple symbols are used to indicate borderline or dual soil classifications MORE THAN 50% RETAINED ON NO. 200 SIEVE MORE THAN 50% PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE GRAVEL AND GRAVELLY SOILS SC LIQUID LIMIT LESS THAN 50 (APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF FINES) (APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF FINES) COARSE GRAINED SOILS MAJOR DIVISIONS GRAPH LETTER GM GC ML CL OL SILTS AND CLAYS SANDS WITH FINES SAND AND SANDY SOILS MH CH OH PT (LITTLE OR NO FINES) CLEAN SANDS GRAVELS WITH FINES CLEAN GRAVELS (LITTLE OR NO FINES) WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND MIXTURES CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -CLAY MIXTURES WELL-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLYSANDS POORLY-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLYSAND SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT MIXTURES CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAYMIXTURES INORGANIC SILTS, ROCK FLOUR,CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHTPLASTICITY INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TOMEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLYCLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS,LEAN CLAYS ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTYCLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS ORDIATOMACEOUS SILTY SOILS INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGHPLASTICITY ORGANIC CLAYS AND SILTS OFMEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITHHIGH ORGANIC CONTENTSHIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE FRACTION RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE FRACTION PASSING ON NO. 4 SIEVE SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -SILT MIXTURES POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS,GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES LIQUID LIMIT GREATER THAN 50 Continuous Coring Bulk or grab Direct-Push Piston Shelby tube Standard Penetration Test (SPT) 2.4-inch I.D. split barrel Contact between soil of the same geologic unit Material Description Contact Graphic Log Contact NOTE: The reader must refer to the discussion in the report text and the logs of explorations for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. Descriptions on the logs apply only at the specific exploration locations and at the time the explorations were made; they are not warranted to be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times. Groundwater Contact Blowcount is recorded for driven samplers as the number of blows required to advance sampler 12 inches (or distance noted). See exploration log for hammer weight and drop. "P" indicates sampler pushed using the weight of the drill rig. "WOH" indicates sampler pushed using the weight of the hammer. Key to Exploration Logs Figure B-1 Sampler Symbol Descriptions ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SYMBOLS NS SS MS HS No Visible Sheen Slight Sheen Moderate Sheen Heavy Sheen Sheen Classification SYMBOLS Asphalt Concrete Cement Concrete Crushed Rock/ Quarry Spalls Topsoil GRAPH LETTER AC CC SOD Sod/Forest Duff CR DESCRIPTIONS TYPICAL TS Laboratory / Field Tests %F %G AL CA CP CS DD DS HA MC MD Mohs OC PM PI PP SA TX UC VS Percent fines Percent gravel Atterberg limits Chemical analysis Laboratory compaction test Consolidation test Dry density Direct shear Hydrometer analysis Moisture content Moisture content and dry density Mohs hardness scale Organic content Permeability or hydraulic conductivity Plasticity index Pocket penetrometer Sieve analysis Triaxial compression Unconfined compression Vane shear Organic-rich brown sandy silt with gravel (loose, moist) Gray- and rust-mottled silty coarse gravel with sand (dense, moist) (weathered till) Gray silty fine to medium sand with fine gravel (dense, moist) (till) ML GM SM 1 2%F 3 10 38 Notes: See Figure B-1 for explanation of symbols. The depths on the test pit logs are based on an average of measurements across the test pit and should be considered accurate to ½ foot. Coordinates Data Source: Horizontal approximated based on Google Earth, Vertical approximated based on DEM Date:8/9/17 Path:P:\22\22247003\GINT\2224700300.GPJ DBLibrary/Library:GEOENGINEERS_DF_STD_US_JUNE_2017.GLB/GEI8_TESTPIT_1P_GEOTEC_%FSheet 1 of 1Project Number: Project Location: Project: Federal Way, Washington 22247-003-00 Log of Test Pit TP-1N Woodbridge Business Park Figure B-2Elevation (feet)438437436435434433432Depth (feet)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Testing SampleGraphic LogSAMPLE MATERIAL DESCRIPTION GroupClassificationSample NameTestingMoistureContent (%)REMARKS FinesContent (%)Date Excavated Surface Elevation (ft) Vertical Datum Coordinate System Horizontal Datum Easting (X) Northing (Y) Total Depth (ft)7/19/2017 7 439 NAVD88 1276740 115010 WA State Plane North NAD83 (feet) CRG Checked By SWH Groundwater not observed Caving not observedEquipment Mini Trackhoe Logged By Excavator Kelly's Excavating Forest duff Gray-red-mottled silty fine to medium sand with fine gravel (dense, moist) (weathered till) Gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel (dense, moist) (till) Duff SM SM 1 2 3 Notes: See Figure B-1 for explanation of symbols. The depths on the test pit logs are based on an average of measurements across the test pit and should be considered accurate to ½ foot. Coordinates Data Source: Horizontal approximated based on Google Earth, Vertical approximated based on DEM Date:8/9/17 Path:P:\22\22247003\GINT\2224700300.GPJ DBLibrary/Library:GEOENGINEERS_DF_STD_US_JUNE_2017.GLB/GEI8_TESTPIT_1P_GEOTEC_%FSheet 1 of 1Project Number: Project Location: Project: Federal Way, Washington 22247-003-00 Log of Test Pit TP-2N Woodbridge Business Park Figure B-3Elevation (feet)428427426425424423422Depth (feet)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Testing SampleGraphic LogSAMPLE MATERIAL DESCRIPTION GroupClassificationSample NameTestingMoistureContent (%)REMARKS FinesContent (%)Date Excavated Surface Elevation (ft) Vertical Datum Coordinate System Horizontal Datum Easting (X) Northing (Y) Total Depth (ft)7/19/2017 7 429 NAVD88 1276910 114720 WA State Plane North NAD83 (feet) CRG Checked By SWH Groundwater not observed Caving not observedEquipment Mini Trackhoe Logged By Excavator Kelly's Excavating Brown organic-rich silt with sand and occasional gravel (medium dense, dry) Gray- and rust-mottled fine sandy silt with occasional organic debris and fine gravel (stiff, moist) (weathered till) Gray silty fine to medium sand with fine to coarse gravel (very dense, moist) (till) ML ML SM 1 2 %F 3 %F 24 10 66 35 Notes: See Figure B-1 for explanation of symbols. The depths on the test pit logs are based on an average of measurements across the test pit and should be considered accurate to ½ foot. Coordinates Data Source: Horizontal approximated based on Google Earth, Vertical approximated based on DEM Date:8/9/17 Path:P:\22\22247003\GINT\2224700300.GPJ DBLibrary/Library:GEOENGINEERS_DF_STD_US_JUNE_2017.GLB/GEI8_TESTPIT_1P_GEOTEC_%FSheet 1 of 1Project Number: Project Location: Project: Federal Way, Washington 22247-003-00 Log of Test Pit TP-3N Woodbridge Business Park Figure B-4Elevation (feet)414413412411410409408407406Depth (feet)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Testing SampleGraphic LogSAMPLE MATERIAL DESCRIPTION GroupClassificationSample NameTestingMoistureContent (%)REMARKS FinesContent (%)Date Excavated Surface Elevation (ft) Vertical Datum Coordinate System Horizontal Datum Easting (X) Northing (Y) Total Depth (ft)7/19/2017 9 415 NAVD88 1277000 114380 WA State Plane North NAD83 (feet) CRG Checked By SWH Groundwater not observed Caving not observedEquipment Mini Trackhoe Logged By Excavator Kelly's Excavating Forest duff Brown sandy silt and organic debris (medium stiff, moist) (weathered till?) Gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel, some rust staining (mottled) (dense, moist) (till) Duff ML SM 1 2 %F 3%F 19 14 50 37 Notes: See Figure B-1 for explanation of symbols. The depths on the test pit logs are based on an average of measurements across the test pit and should be considered accurate to ½ foot. Coordinates Data Source: Horizontal approximated based on Google Earth, Vertical approximated based on DEM Date:8/9/17 Path:P:\22\22247003\GINT\2224700300.GPJ DBLibrary/Library:GEOENGINEERS_DF_STD_US_JUNE_2017.GLB/GEI8_TESTPIT_1P_GEOTEC_%FSheet 1 of 1Project Number: Project Location: Project: Federal Way, Washington 22247-003-00 Log of Test Pit TP-4N Woodbridge Business Park Figure B-5Elevation (feet)418417416415414413412411Depth (feet)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Testing SampleGraphic LogSAMPLE MATERIAL DESCRIPTION GroupClassificationSample NameTestingMoistureContent (%)REMARKS FinesContent (%)Date Excavated Surface Elevation (ft) Vertical Datum Coordinate System Horizontal Datum Easting (X) Northing (Y) Total Depth (ft)7/19/2017 8.5 419 NAVD88 1278840 116340 WA State Plane North NAD83 (feet) CRG Checked By SWH Groundwater not observed Caving not observedEquipment Mini Trackhoe Logged By Excavator Kelly's Excavating Forest duff Brown silty medium to fine sand with occasional gravel and organic debris (medium dense, moist) (outwash) Gray fine to medium sand with silt (dense, moist) (outwash) Duff SM SP-SM 1 2 %F 3%F 8 4.5 19 7 Notes: See Figure B-1 for explanation of symbols. The depths on the test pit logs are based on an average of measurements across the test pit and should be considered accurate to ½ foot. Coordinates Data Source: Horizontal approximated based on Google Earth, Vertical approximated based on DEM Date:8/9/17 Path:P:\22\22247003\GINT\2224700300.GPJ DBLibrary/Library:GEOENGINEERS_DF_STD_US_JUNE_2017.GLB/GEI8_TESTPIT_1P_GEOTEC_%FSheet 1 of 1Project Number: Project Location: Project: Federal Way, Washington 22247-003-00 Log of Test Pit TP-5N Woodbridge Business Park Figure B-6Elevation (feet)416415414413412411410409408Depth (feet)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Testing SampleGraphic LogSAMPLE MATERIAL DESCRIPTION GroupClassificationSample NameTestingMoistureContent (%)REMARKS FinesContent (%)Date Excavated Surface Elevation (ft) Vertical Datum Coordinate System Horizontal Datum Easting (X) Northing (Y) Total Depth (ft)7/19/2017 9 417 NAVD88 1278980 116470 WA State Plane North NAD83 (feet) CRG Checked By SWH Groundwater not observed Caving not observedEquipment Mini Trackhoe Logged By Excavator Kelly's Excavating Forest duff Brown silty fine to medium sand with gravel and organic debris (medium dense, moist) (weathered till) Gray/brown fine to medium sand with silt and gravel (medium dense, moist) (weathered till) Becomes till Gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel (very dense, moist) (till) Duff SM SM SM 1 2%F 3 4%F 10 7 22 30 Notes: See Figure B-1 for explanation of symbols. The depths on the test pit logs are based on an average of measurements across the test pit and should be considered accurate to ½ foot. Coordinates Data Source: Horizontal approximated based on Google Earth, Vertical approximated based on DEM Date:8/9/17 Path:P:\22\22247003\GINT\2224700300.GPJ DBLibrary/Library:GEOENGINEERS_DF_STD_US_JUNE_2017.GLB/GEI8_TESTPIT_1P_GEOTEC_%FSheet 1 of 1Project Number: Project Location: Project: Federal Way, Washington 22247-003-00 Log of Test Pit TP-6N Woodbridge Business Park Figure B-7Elevation (feet)413412411410409408407406Depth (feet)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Testing SampleGraphic LogSAMPLE MATERIAL DESCRIPTION GroupClassificationSample NameTestingMoistureContent (%)REMARKS FinesContent (%)Date Excavated Surface Elevation (ft) Vertical Datum Coordinate System Horizontal Datum Easting (X) Northing (Y) Total Depth (ft)7/19/2017 8 414 NAVD88 1279050 116570 WA State Plane North NAD83 (feet) CRG Checked By SWH Groundwater not observed Caving not observedEquipment Mini Trackhoe Logged By Excavator Kelly's Excavating Organic-rich top soil with grass roots Tan/rust-mottled fine sandy silt with fine gravel (stiff, moist) (weathered till) Gray silty fine to medium sand with fine to coarse gravel (very dense, moist) (till) TS ML SM 1 2 %F 3 20 60 Notes: See Figure B-1 for explanation of symbols. The depths on the test pit logs are based on an average of measurements across the test pit and should be considered accurate to ½ foot. Coordinates Data Source: Horizontal approximated based on Google Earth, Vertical approximated based on DEM Date:8/9/17 Path:P:\22\22247003\GINT\2224700300.GPJ DBLibrary/Library:GEOENGINEERS_DF_STD_US_JUNE_2017.GLB/GEI8_TESTPIT_1P_GEOTEC_%FSheet 1 of 1Project Number: Project Location: Project: Federal Way, Washington 22247-003-00 Log of Test Pit TP-7N Woodbridge Business Park Figure B-8Elevation (feet)403402401400399398397Depth (feet)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Testing SampleGraphic LogSAMPLE MATERIAL DESCRIPTION GroupClassificationSample NameTestingMoistureContent (%)REMARKS FinesContent (%)Date Excavated Surface Elevation (ft) Vertical Datum Coordinate System Horizontal Datum Easting (X) Northing (Y) Total Depth (ft)7/19/2017 7 404 NAVD88 1277220 114050 WA State Plane North NAD83 (feet) CRG Checked By SWH Groundwater not observed Caving not observedEquipment Mini Trackhoe Logged By Excavator Kelly's Excavating SM SM Mottled brown/gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel (very dense, moist) (till) Gray/brown silty fine to medium sand with gravel (very dense, moist to wet) (till) 1 2 3 4 5 48 50/6" 50/6" 50/5" 50/6" 18 6 1 2 Groundwater observed at 17½ feet at time of exploration Note: See Figure B-1 for explanation of symbols. Coordinates Data Source: Horizontal approximated based on Google Earth, Vertical approximated based on DEM Drilled Hammer Data System Datum Notes: Surface Elevation (ft) Vertical Datum Easting (X) Northing (Y) Diedrich D50 Track RigAutomatic 140 (lbs) / 30 (in) Drop Drilling Equipment446 NAVD88 1277390 116710 WA State Plane North NAD83 (feet) Total Depth (ft) Start End Checked By SWH CRG Driller Holocene Drilling, Inc.Drilling Method Hollow-stem Auger217/24/20177/24/2017 Groundwater Date Measured Logged By Depth to Water (ft)Elevation (ft) Yes Elevation (feet)445440435430425Depth (feet)0 5 10 15 20 FIELD DATA GroupClassificationIntervalCollected SampleWater LevelGraphic LogMATERIAL DESCRIPTION Sample NameTestingBlows/footRecovered (in)Sheet 1 of 1Project Number: Project Location: Project: Federal Way, Washington 22247-003-00 Log of Boring B-1N Woodbridge Business Park Figure B-9 Date:8/9/17 Path:P:\22\22247003\GINT\2224700300.GPJ DBLibrary/Library:GEOENGINEERS_DF_STD_US_JUNE_2017.GLB/GEI8_GEOTECH_STANDARD_%FFinesContent (%)REMARKS MoistureContent (%) SM SM Brown silty fine to medium sand with gravel (medium dense, moist) (weathered till) Brown-gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel (very dense, moist to wet) (till) Becomes gray 1 SA 2 SA 3 4 5 28 50/3" 90 50/5" 50/6" 10 18 0 12 44 35 Sampler bounced at 17½ feet Groundwater observed at 17½ feet at time of exploration 11 8 Note: See Figure B-1 for explanation of symbols. Coordinates Data Source: Horizontal approximated based on Google Earth, Vertical approximated based on DEM Drilled Hammer Data System Datum Notes: Surface Elevation (ft) Vertical Datum Easting (X) Northing (Y) Diedrich D50 Track RigAutomatic 140 (lbs) / 30 (in) Drop Drilling Equipment461 NAVD88 1277810 116700 WA State Plane North NAD83 (feet) Total Depth (ft) Start End Checked By SWH CRG Driller Holocene Drilling, Inc.Drilling Method Hollow-stem Auger217/24/20177/24/2017 Groundwater Date Measured Logged By Depth to Water (ft)Elevation (ft) Yes Elevation (feet)460455450445440Depth (feet)0 5 10 15 20 FIELD DATA GroupClassificationIntervalCollected SampleWater LevelGraphic LogMATERIAL DESCRIPTION Sample NameTestingBlows/footRecovered (in)Sheet 1 of 1Project Number: Project Location: Project: Federal Way, Washington 22247-003-00 Log of Boring B-2N Woodbridge Business Park Figure B-10 Date:8/9/17 Path:P:\22\22247003\GINT\2224700300.GPJ DBLibrary/Library:GEOENGINEERS_DF_STD_US_JUNE_2017.GLB/GEI8_GEOTECH_STANDARD_%FFinesContent (%)REMARKS MoistureContent (%) SM SM Brown silty fine to coarse sand with gravel (very loose, dry) Gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel (very dense, moist to wet) (till) 1 SA 2 SA 3 4 5 1 67 86/11" 88/11" 93/8" 3 14 15 15 32 34 Very rough drilling at 5 feet Groundwater observed at 20 feet at time of exploration 9 9 Note: See Figure B-1 for explanation of symbols. Coordinates Data Source: Horizontal approximated based on Google Earth, Vertical approximated based on DEM Drilled Hammer Data System Datum Notes: Surface Elevation (ft) Vertical Datum Easting (X) Northing (Y) Diedrich D50 Track RigAutomatic 140 (lbs) / 30 (in) Drop Drilling Equipment457 NAVD88 1278350 116680 WA State Plane North NAD83 (feet) Total Depth (ft) Start End Checked By SWH CRG Driller Holocene Drilling, Inc.Drilling Method Hollow-stem Auger21.257/24/20177/24/2017 Groundwater Date Measured Logged By Depth to Water (ft)Elevation (ft) Yes Elevation (feet)455450445440Depth (feet)0 5 10 15 20 FIELD DATA GroupClassificationIntervalCollected SampleWater LevelGraphic LogMATERIAL DESCRIPTION Sample NameTestingBlows/footRecovered (in)Sheet 1 of 1Project Number: Project Location: Project: Federal Way, Washington 22247-003-00 Log of Boring B-3N Woodbridge Business Park Figure B-11 Date:8/9/17 Path:P:\22\22247003\GINT\2224700300.GPJ DBLibrary/Library:GEOENGINEERS_DF_STD_US_JUNE_2017.GLB/GEI8_GEOTECH_STANDARD_%FFinesContent (%)REMARKS MoistureContent (%) 01020304050607080901000.0010.010.11101001000PERCENT PASSING BY WEIGHT GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERSU.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZESANDSILT OR CLAYCOBBLESGRAVELCOARSEMEDIUMFINECOARSEFINEExploration NumberDepth(feet)Soil DescriptionTP-1NTP-4NTP-4NTP-5N42.58.53.5Silty fine to coarse gravel with sand (GM)Sandy silt (ML)Silty fine to medium sand with gravel (SM)Silty fine to medium sand (SM)SymbolMoisture(%)10191483/8”3” 1.5”#4#10 #20#40#60#1003/4”Figure B-12 Sieve Analysis Results Woodbridge Business Park Federal Way, Washington 22247-003-00 Date Exported: 07/27/17Note: This report may not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval of GeoEngineers, Inc. Test results are applicable only to the specific sample on which they wereperformed, and should not be interpreted as representative of any other samples obtained at other times, depths or locations, or generated by separate operations or processes.The grain size analysis results were obtained in general accordance with ASTM D 6913.#200 01020304050607080901000.0010.010.11101001000PERCENT PASSING BY WEIGHT GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERSU.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZESANDSILT OR CLAYCOBBLESGRAVELCOARSEMEDIUMFINECOARSEFINEExploration NumberDepth(feet)Soil DescriptionTP-5NTP-6NTP-6NTP-7N6.52.57.53.5Fine to medium sand with silt (SP-SM)Silty fine to coarse sand with gravel (SM)Silty fine sand with gravel (SM)Sandy silt (ML)SymbolMoisture(%)5107203/8”3” 1.5”#4#10 #20#40#60#1003/4”Figure B-13 Sieve Analysis Results 22247-003-00 Date Exported: 07/27/17Note: This report may not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval of GeoEngineers, Inc. Test results are applicable only to the specific sample on which they wereperformed, and should not be interpreted as representative of any other samples obtained at other times, depths or locations, or generated by separate operations or processes.The grain size analysis results were obtained in general accordance with ASTM D 6913.#200Woodbridge Business Park Federal Way, Washington 01020304050607080901000.0010.010.11101001000PERCENT PASSING BY WEIGHT GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERSU.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZESANDSILT OR CLAYCOBBLESGRAVELCOARSEMEDIUMFINECOARSEFINEExploration NumberDepth(feet)Soil DescriptionB-2NB-2NB-3N2.57.57.5Silty fine to medium sand with gravel (SM)Silty fine to medium sand with gravel (SM)Silty fine sand with gravel (SM)SymbolMoisture(%)11893/8”3” 1.5”#4#10 #20#40#60#1003/4”Figure B-14 Sieve Analysis Results 22247-003-00 Date Exported: 08/01/17Note: This report may not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval of GeoEngineers, Inc. Test results are applicable only to the specific sample on which they wereperformed, and should not be interpreted as representative of any other samples obtained at other times, depths or locations, or generated by separate operations or processes.The grain size analysis results were obtained in general accordance with ASTM D 6913.#200Woodbridge Business Park Federal Way, Washington APPENDIX C Explorations and Laboratory Results – July 2016 01020304050607080901000.0010.010.11101001000PERCENT PASSING BY WEIGHT GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERSU.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZESANDSILT OR CLAYCOBBLESGRAVELCOARSEMEDIUMFINECOARSEFINEExploration NumberDepth(feet)Soil DescriptionTP-1TP-3TP-8TP-233.55.53.51Sandy silt (ML)Silty gravel with sand (GM)Silty sand with gravel (SM)Silty sand with gravel (SM)SymbolMoisture(%)17.18.010.98.83/8”3” 1.5”#4#10 #20#40#60#1003/4”Figure A-32 Sieve-Hydrometer Analysis Results Woodbridge Business Park Federal Way, Washington 9745-002-00 Date Exported: 07/14/16Note: This report may not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval of GeoEngineers, Inc. Test results are applicable only to the specific sample on which they wereperformed, and should not be interpreted as representative of any other samples obtained at other times, depths or locations, or generated by separate operations or processes.The grain size analysis results were obtained in general accordance with ASTM D 422.#200 01020304050607080901000.0010.010.11101001000PERCENT PASSING BY WEIGHT GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERSU.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZESANDSILT OR CLAYCOBBLESGRAVELCOARSEMEDIUMFINECOARSEFINEExploration NumberDepth(feet)Soil DescriptionTP-23TP-2712Silty gravel with sand (GM)Silty gravel with sand (GM)SymbolMoisture(%)8.88.23/8”3” 1.5”#4#10 #20#40#60#1003/4”Figure A-33 Sieve-Hydrometer Analysis Results 9745-002-00 Date Exported: 07/14/16Note: This report may not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval of GeoEngineers, Inc. Test results are applicable only to the specific sample on which they wereperformed, and should not be interpreted as representative of any other samples obtained at other times, depths or locations, or generated by separate operations or processes.The grain size analysis results were obtained in general accordance with ASTM D 6913.#200Woodbridge Business Park Federal Way, Washington APPENDIX D Explorations and Laboratory Results – August 2016 01020304050607080901000.0010.010.11101001000PERCENT PASSING BY WEIGHT GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERSU.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZESANDSILT OR CLAYCOBBLESGRAVELCOARSEMEDIUMFINECOARSEFINETest PitNumberDepth(feet)Soil DescriptionTP-1TP-2TP-4TP-6241.53.5Sandy silt with gravel (ML)Silty gravel with sand (GM)Silty sand with gravel (SM)Silty gravel with sand (GM)SymbolMoisture(%)128773/8”3” 1.5”#4#10 #20#40#60#1003/4”Figure A-33 Sieve and Hydrometer Analysis Results Woodbridge Business Park Federal Way, Washington 9745-003-00 Date Exported: 08/24/16Note: This report may not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval of GeoEngineers, Inc. Test results are applicable only to the specific sample on which they wereperformed, and should not be interpreted as representative of any other samples obtained at other times, depths or locations, or generated by separate operations or processes.The grain size analysis results were obtained in general accordance with ASTM D 6913.#200 01020304050607080901000.0010.010.11101001000PERCENT PASSING BY WEIGHT GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERSU.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZESANDSILT OR CLAYCOBBLESGRAVELCOARSEMEDIUMFINECOARSEFINETest PitNumberDepth(feet)Soil DescriptionTP-10TP-11TP-13TP-161.542.51.5Silty sand with gravel (SM)Silty sand with gravel (SM)Silty sand with gravel (SM)Silty gravel with sand (GM)SymbolMoisture(%)1310673/8”3” 1.5”#4#10 #20#40#60#1003/4”Figure A-34 Sieve Analysis Results 9745-003-00 Date Exported: 08/24/16Note: This report may not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval of GeoEngineers, Inc. Test results are applicable only to the specific sample on which they wereperformed, and should not be interpreted as representative of any other samples obtained at other times, depths or locations, or generated by separate operations or processes.The grain size analysis results were obtained in general accordance with ASTM D 6913.#200Woodbridge Business Park Federal Way, Washington 01020304050607080901000.0010.010.11101001000PERCENT PASSING BY WEIGHT GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERSU.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZESANDSILT OR CLAYCOBBLESGRAVELCOARSEMEDIUMFINECOARSEFINETest PitNumberDepth(feet)Soil DescriptionTP-20TP-303.53.5Sandy silt (ML)Silty sand with gravel (SM)SymbolMoisture(%)1983/8”3” 1.5”#4#10 #20#40#60#1003/4”Figure A-35 Sieve Analysis Results 9745-003-00 Date Exported: 08/24/16Note: This report may not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval of GeoEngineers, Inc. Test results are applicable only to the specific sample on which they wereperformed, and should not be interpreted as representative of any other samples obtained at other times, depths or locations, or generated by separate operations or processes.The grain size analysis results were obtained in general accordance with ASTM D 6913.#200Woodbridge Business Park Federal Way, Washington Note: This report may not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval of GeoEngineers, Inc. Test results are applicable only to the specific sample on which they were performed, and should not be interpreted as representative of any other samples obtained at other times, depths or locations, or generated by separate operations or processes. The liquid limit and plasticity index were obtained in general accordance with ASTM D 4318.Figure A-36Atterberg Limits Test Results9745-003-00 Date Exported: 08/24/16SymbolTest PitNumberDepth(feet)Moisture Content(%)Liquid Limit(%)Plasticity Index(%)Soil DescriptionTP-275.52629 4 Silt (ML)01020304050600 102030405060708090100PLASTICITY INDEX LIQUID LIMITPLASTICITY CHARTCL-MLML or OLCL or OLOH or MHCH or OHWoodbridge Business ParkFederal Way, Washington APPENDIX E Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use January 10, 2020 | Page E-1 File No. 22247-003-00 APPENDIX E REPORT LIMITATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR USE1 This appendix provides information to help you manage your risks with respect to the use of this report. Read These Provisions Closely It is important to recognize that the geoscience practices (geotechnical engineering, geology and environmental science) rely on professional judgment and opinion to a greater extent than other engineering and natural science disciplines, where more precise and/or readily observable data may exist. To help clients better understand how this difference pertains to our services, GeoEngineers includes the following explanatory “limitations” provisions in its reports. Please confer with GeoEngineers if you need to know more how these “Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use” apply to your project or site. Geotechnical Services are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons and Projects This report has been prepared for Federal Way Campus, LLC for the project specifically identified and described in the report. The information contained herein is not applicable to other sites or projects. GeoEngineers structures its services to meet the specific needs of its clients. No party other than the party to whom this report is addressed may rely on the product of our services unless we agree to such reliance in advance and in writing. Within the limitations of the agreed scope of services for the Project, and its schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with our Agreements with Federal Way Campus, LLC dated June 27, 2017 and November 19, 2019 and generally accepted geotechnical practices in this area at the time this report was prepared. We do not authorize, and will not be responsible for, the use of this report for any purposes or projects other than those identified in the report. A Geotechnical Engineering or Geologic Report is based on a Unique Set of Project-Specific Factors This report has been prepared for the proposed 77-acre development located in Federal Way, Washington. GeoEngineers considered a number of unique, project-specific factors when establishing the scope of services for this project and report. Unless GeoEngineers specifically indicates otherwise, it is important not to rely on this report if it was: ■ not prepared for you, ■ not prepared for your project, ■ not prepared for the specific site explored, or ■ completed before important project changes were made. 1 Developed based on material provided by ASFE, Professional Firms Practicing in the Geosciences; www.asfe.org. January 10, 2020 | Page E-2 File No. 22247-003-00 For example, changes that can affect the applicability of this report include those that affect: ■ the function of the proposed structure; ■ elevation, configuration, location, orientation or weight of the proposed structure; ■ composition of the design team; or ■ project ownership. If changes occur after the date of this report, GeoEngineers cannot be responsible for any consequences of such changes in relation to this report unless we have been given the opportunity to review our interpretations and recommendations. Based on that review, we can provide written modifications or confirmation, as appropriate. Environmental Concerns are Not Covered Unless environmental services were specifically included in our scope of services, this report does not provide any environmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations, including but not limited to, the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Subsurface Conditions Can Change This geotechnical or geologic report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. The findings and conclusions of this report may be affected by the passage of time, by man-made events such as construction on or adjacent to the site, new information or technology that becomes available subsequent to the report date, or by natural events such as floods, earthquakes, slope instability or groundwater fluctuations. If more than a few months have passed since issuance of our report or work product, or if any of the described events may have occurred, please contact GeoEngineers before applying this report for its intended purpose so that we may evaluate whether changed conditions affect the continued reliability or applicability of our conclusions and recommendations. Geotechnical and Geologic Findings are Professional Opinions Our interpretations of subsurface conditions are based on field observations from widely spaced sampling locations at the site. Site exploration identifies the specific subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. GeoEngineers reviewed field and laboratory data and then applied its professional judgment to render an informed opinion about subsurface conditions at other locations. Actual subsurface conditions may differ, sometimes significantly, from the opinions presented in this report. Our report, conclusions and interpretations are not a warranty of the actual subsurface conditions. Geotechnical Engineering Report Recommendations are Not Final We have developed the following recommendations based on data gathered from subsurface investigation(s). These investigations sample just a small percentage of a site to create a snapshot of the subsurface conditions elsewhere on the site. Such sampling on its own cannot provide a complete and accurate view of subsurface conditions for the entire site. Therefore, the recommendations included in this report are preliminary and should not be considered final. GeoEngineers’ recommendations can be finalized only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. GeoEngineers January 10, 2020 | Page E-3 File No. 22247-003-00 cannot assume responsibility or liability for the recommendations in this report if we do not perform construction observation. We recommend that you allow sufficient monitoring, testing and consultation during construction by GeoEngineers to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes if the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether earthwork activities are completed in accordance with our recommendations. Retaining GeoEngineers for construction observation for this project is the most effective means of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. If another party performs field observation and confirms our expectations, the other party must take full responsibility for both the observations and recommendations. Please note, however, that another party would lack our project- specific knowledge and resources. A Geotechnical Engineering or Geologic Report Could Be Subject to Misinterpretation Misinterpretation of this report by members of the design team or by contractors can result in costly problems. GeoEngineers can help reduce the risks of misinterpretation by conferring with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report, reviewing pertinent elements of the design team’s plans and specifications, participating in pre-bid and preconstruction conferences, and providing construction observation. Do Not Redraw the Exploration Logs Geotechnical engineers and geologists prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. The logs included in a geotechnical engineering or geologic report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but separating logs from the report can create a risk of misinterpretation. Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance To help reduce the risk of problems associated with unanticipated subsurface conditions, GeoEngineers recommends giving contractors the complete geotechnical engineering or geologic report, including these “Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use.” When providing the report, you should preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal that: ■ advises contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that its accuracy is limited; and ■ encourages contractors to confer with GeoEngineers and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. Contractors are Responsible for Site Safety on Their Own Construction Projects Our geotechnical recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor’s procedures, methods, schedule or management of the work site. The contractor is solely responsible for job site safety and for managing construction operations to minimize risks to on-site personnel and adjacent properties. January 10, 2020 | Page E-4 File No. 22247-003-00 Biological Pollutants GeoEngineers’ Scope of Work specifically excludes the investigation, detection, prevention or assessment of the presence of Biological Pollutants. Accordingly, this report does not include any interpretations, recommendations, findings or conclusions regarding the detecting, assessing, preventing or abating of Biological Pollutants, and no conclusions or inferences should be drawn regarding Biological Pollutants as they may relate to this project. The term “Biological Pollutants” includes, but is not limited to, molds, fungi, spores, bacteria and viruses, and/or any of their byproducts. A Client that desires these specialized services is advised to obtain them from a consultant who offers services in this specialized field.