The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutExhibit 07_ Caswell-Brown Village Development Geotech ReportGEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION PROPOSED CASWELL-BROWN VILLAGE 142 MILL ROAD PORT TOWNSEND,WASHINGTON PROJECT NO.102-23010 JULY 10,2023 Prepared for: OLYMPIC COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAMS 2500 W SIMS WAY,STE.201 PORT TOWNSEND,WASHINGTON 98368 Prepared by: KRAZAN &ASSOCIATES,INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING DIVISION 1230 FINN HILL RD.NW,SUITE A POULSBO,WASHINGTON 98370 (360)598-2126DRAFT & A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION Offices Serving the Western United States 1230 Finn Hill Road NW, Ste. A, Poulsbo, Washington 98370 •Phone (360) 598-2126 • Fax (360)598-2127 July 10, 2023 KA Project No. 102-23010 Olympic Community Action Programs 2500 W Sims Way, Ste. 201 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Attn:Ms. Cherish Cronmiller Email:ccronmiller@olycap.org Tel: (360)385-2571 Ext. 6308 Reference:Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Proposed Caswell-Brown Village 142 Mill Road Port Townsend, WA Dear Ms.Cronmiller, In accordance with your request, we have completed a Geotechnical Engineering Investigation for the referenced site. The results of our investigation are presented in the attached report. If you have any questions,or if we can be of further assistance,please do not hesitate to contact our office. Respectfully submitted, KRAZAN &ASSOCIATES, INC. Vijay Chaudhary, P.E. Project Engineer VC:AG DRAFT & A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION Offices Serving the Western United States 1230 Finn Hill Road NW, Ste. A, Poulsbo, Washington 98370 •Phone (360) 598-2126 • Fax (360)598-2127 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................................................1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE ..........................................................................................................................................1 SITE DESCRIPTION AND SURFACE CONDITIONS.......................................................................................2 PROPOSED DEVLOPEMENT ...............................................................................................................................3 GEOLOGIC SETTING............................................................................................................................................3 FIELD INVESTIGATION.......................................................................................................................................3 SOIL PROFILE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.........................................................................................3 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ..........................................................................................................................................4 Erosion Concern/Hazard .........................................................................................................................................4 Seismic Hazard........................................................................................................................................................4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................5 General....................................................................................................................................................................5 Site Preparation .......................................................................................................................................................6 Temporary Excavations...........................................................................................................................................7 Structural Fill...........................................................................................................................................................8 Shallow Foundations...............................................................................................................................................9 Floor Slabs and Exterior Flatwork ........................................................................................................................10 Lateral Earth Pressures and Retaining Walls.........................................................................................................10 Erosion and Sediment Control...............................................................................................................................12 Groundwater Influence on Structures and Construction........................................................................................12 Drainage and Landscape .......................................................................................................................................13 Stormwater Infiltration Rate..................................................................................................................................13 Pavement Design...................................................................................................................................................14 Testing and Inspection...........................................................................................................................................14 LIMITATIONS .......................................................................................................................................................15 VICINITY MAP ...................................................................................................................................Figure 1 SITE PLAN ...........................................................................................................................................Figure 2 FIELD INVESTIGATION –LABORATORY TESTING.........................................................Appendix A EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS............................................................................................Appendix B PAVEMENT SPECIFICATIONS ................................................................................................Appendix CDRAFT & A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION Offices Serving the Western United States 1230 Finn Hill Road NW, Ste. A, Poulsbo, Washington 98370 (360) 598-2126 • Fax (360) 626-3544 July 10, 2023 KA Project No.102-23010 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION PROPOSED CASWELL-BROWN VILLAGE 142 MILL ROAD PORT TOWNSEND,WASHINGTON INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering investigation and infiltration testing for the Proposed Caswell-Brown Village located at 142 Mill Road in Port Townsend,Washington, as shown on the Vicinity Map in Figure 1.Discussions regarding site conditions are presented in this report, together with conclusions and recommendations pertaining to foundations, seismic design considerations,feasibility of stormwater infiltration,structural fill, retaining walls,slab-on-grade floors,temporary excavations, and site drainage and erosion control. In preparation of this report, we have reviewed the following project related documents: Architectural plan sheets, prepared by SMR Architects, dated December 28, 2018. A site plan showing the approximate test pit locations is presented following the text of this report in Figure 2.A description of the field investigation, summary test pit logs, and the test pit log legend are presented in Appendix A along with the laboratory testing results.Appendix B contains a guide to earthwork specifications.The recommendations in the main text of the report have precedence over the more general specifications in the appendices. PURPOSE AND SCOPE This investigation was conducted to evaluate the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at the subject property,and evaluate infiltration feasibility for stormwater management.Data acquired from the field investigation and laboratory testing was used to develop geotechnical engineering recommendations for use in site development,including the design and construction of an approximate 12,850 square-foot, one story building with associated gravel parking and stormwater retention pond. Our scope of services was performed in general accordance with our proposal for this project, dated March 28, 2023 (Proposal Number G23021WAP) and included the following: An exploration of the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions by excavating five (5)test pits to depths of 9.0 to 10.0 feet below existing ground surface (bgs), using a subcontracted excavator and operator;DRAFT KA Project No.102-23010 Proposed Caswell-Brown Village July 10, 2023 Page No.2 Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving the Western United States Provide a site plan showing the test pit locations; Provide comprehensive test pit logs including soil stratification and classification, and groundwater levels where applicable; Provide recommendations for foundation design including foundation type, allowable foundation bearing pressure, anticipated settlements (both total and differential), coefficient of horizontal friction, and frost penetration depth; Provide recommendations for retaining wall design including lateral earth pressures (active and passive); Provide recommendations for seismic design considerations, including site coefficient and ground acceleration based on the 2018 International Building Code (IBC); Provide soil parameters for the design of slab-on-grade floors including recommendations for placement of capillary break material and vapor barrier below the slabs; Discuss construction and excavation considerations, topsoil/unsuitable soil stripping depth, identification of potentially problematic soils or groundwater conditions, and depth of over- excavation if required; Provide opinions and recommendations regarding stormwater infiltration feasibility in accordance with Volume V, Chapter 5 of the 2019 Department of Ecology (DOE) Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW); Provide recommendations for structural fill materials, placement, and compaction; Provide recommendations for temporary excavations; Provide recommendations for site drainage and erosion control; Provide recommendations for pavement design. Environmental services, such as chemical analysis of soil and groundwater for possible environmental contaminants, were not included in our scope of services for this project. SITE DESCRIPTION AND SURFACE CONDITIONS The site is located at the south corner of the intersection of State Route 20 and Mill Road.The proposed development area consists of about 1-acre in the central portion of the assessor parcel (001162001).The site can be accessed from Mill Road via gravel driveway.The site is currently developed with a level gravel parking lot. The perimeter of the parking lot is heavily vegetated, with grading cuts visible on the north boundary.Along the south side of the gravel parking lot, a gentle slope transitions down to a second gravel parking lot at a lower elevation.There are commercial buildings to the north and west, and undeveloped, forested land to the south and east of the parcel. We did not observe signs of significant erosion or surface water accumulation during in the proposed development area during our site visit.DRAFT KA Project No.102-23010 Proposed Caswell-Brown Village July 10, 2023 Page No.3 Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving the Western United States PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Based on our review of the architectural plan sheets,it is our understanding that the proposed site development will include design and construction of a shelter and housing facility.The development will also include design and construction of associated utilities,paved driveway and parking areas,stormwater dispersion areas, and a stormwater retention basin.The proposed building footprint will cover about 10,850 square feet. GEOLOGIC SETTING The Geologic Map of Port Townsend South and part of the Port Townsend North 7.5-minute Quadrangles, Jefferson County,Washington,prepared by H.W. Schasse (June 2005)indicates that the site vicinity is underlain by Vashon Stade Advance Outwash (Qga).Advance outwash typically includes deposits of sand and gravel with cobbles, boulders and minor clay and silt. Deposits are often well-sorted. Advanced outwash is deposited by meltwater at the toe of an advancing glacier. The deposits are commonly overridden by glacial till deposited at the base of a continental glacier. FIELD INVESTIGATION A total of Five (5)exploratory test pits (TP-1 through 4, and IP-1)were completed to evaluate the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at the proposed development areas of the site.The test pits were completed on June 7, 2023 with excavation services provided by our subcontracted excavator and operator.The test pits were excavated to depths ranging from approximately 9.0 to 10.0 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs). Small-Scale Pilot Infiltration Test (PIT):We performed one (1) Small-Scale Pilot Infiltration Test (PIT) in accordance with DOE 2019 SWMMWW, Volume V, Chapter 5. The PIT was performed at roughly 5.0 feet bgs in the test pit IP-1. The area exposed for the PIT was at least 12 square feet. The testing included a pre-soak period, followed by determination of a steady-state infiltration rate and then a falling head infiltration rate testing. After the PIT was completed, the test pit was over-excavated to at least 5 feet below the test elevation to document whether any restrictive layers or groundwater were present.Moderate water seepage from the PIT was encountered at approximately 8.5 feet bgs. A geologist from Krazan and Associates was present during the explorations, examined the soils, the geologic conditions encountered, obtained samples of the different soil types, and maintained logs of the explorations.Representative samples of the subsurface soils encountered in the test pits were collected and sealed in plastic bags. These samples were transported to our laboratory for further examination and testing. The soils encountered in the test pit were continuously examined and visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). SOIL PROFILE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS This section of the report is intended to provide a general description of the subsurface conditions. Detailed descriptions of the soils exposed in the test pits are presented in the test pit logs in Appendix A. Organic Topsoil:Test pit TP-4 exposed about 1.1-foot of organic topsoil. Undocumented Fill:Test Pits IP-1,TP-1, TP-2,and TP-3 exposed surficial gravel and moist,dark brown to light gray,silty sand with gravel extending to approximately 0.5 to 4.5 feet bgs, which was interpretedDRAFT KA Project No.102-23010 Proposed Caswell-Brown Village July 10, 2023 Page No.4 Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving the Western United States as fill.Documentation related to placement and compaction of the fill was not available at the time this report was prepared. Therefore, these materials were considered undocumented fill.Wood debris was also noted within the undocumented fill. Native Glacial Soils:Underlying the organic topsoil and undocumented fill,our test pits generally exposed moist,brown to gray,medium dense to very dense sand,silty sand, sand with silt and hard silt with gravel extending to the maximum depths explored of 9.0 to 10.0 feet bgs. We interpreted this stratum to be native glacial soils. Groundwater Observations:Groundwater seepage was not encountered in any of the test pits at the time of our exploration.Signs of seasonal groundwater such as mottling was not noted in our test pits. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS Erosion Concern/Hazard The Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) map for Jefferson County Area, Washington, classifies the site area as Clallam gravelly sandy loam (0 to 15 percent slopes).The NRCS classifies Hoypus gravelly loam as hydrologic soil group D. Hydrologic soil group D soils have high erosion potential when disturbed. It has been our experience that soil erosion due to wind can be minimized by limiting the amount of stripped soil areas exposed during construction activities, frequently wetting the surface soils during construction, and with proper landscaping of the site following completion of construction. Typically, erosion of exposed soils will be most noticeable during periods of rainfall. The potential for erosion may be mitigated by the use of temporary erosion control measures, such as silt fences, hay bales, straw wattles, mulching, control ditches or diversion trenching, and contour furrowing. The walls of excavations should be covered with plastic sheeting, or other erosion control surfacing during periods of rainfall. Erosion control measures should be in place before the onset of wet weather.To minimize erosion concerns, the Erosion and Sediment Control section of this report should be followed. Seismic Hazard The 2018 International Building Code (IBC), Section 1613.2.2, refers to Chapter 20 of ASCE 7-16 for seismic Site Class Definitions. It is our opinion that the overall soil profile corresponds to Site Class D as defined by Table 20.3-1 “Site Class Definitions,” according to the ASCE 7-16 Standard. Site Class D applies to a “stiff soil” profile. The seismic site class is based on a soil profile extending to a depth of 100 feet. The soil explorations on this site extended to a maximum depth of approximately 10.0 feet and this seismic site class designation is based on the assumption that similar dense to very dense/hard conditions continue below the depth explored. We referred to the Applied Technology Council (ATC) website and 2018 IBC to obtain values for SS,SMS, SDS,S1,SM1,SD1,Fa, and Fv. The ATC website utilizes the most updated published data on seismic conditions from the United States Geological Survey.The seismic design parameters for this site are based on a Risk Category II for the proposed structure and are presented in the following table:DRAFT KA Project No.102-23010 Proposed Caswell-Brown Village July 10, 2023 Page No.5 Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving the Western United States Seismic Design Parameters (Reference: 2016 IBC Section 1613.2.2, ASCE 7-16, and ATC) Seismic Item Value Site Coefficient Fa 1.200 Ss 1.327 SMS 1.593 SDS 1.062 Site Coefficient Fv 1.815 S1 0.485 SM1 0.880 SD1 0.587 TS 0.553 Additional seismic considerations include liquefaction potential and amplification of ground motions by soft soil deposits. The liquefaction potential is highest for loose sand with a high groundwater table. The native soils primarily consisting of medium dense to very dense sand, silty sand, sand with silt and hard silt with gravel interpreted to underlie the site are considered to have a low potential for liquefaction and amplification of ground motion.However, liquefaction may occur in the undocumented fill soils. The Liquefaction Susceptibility Map of Jefferson County, Washington, by Stephen Palmer, et al. (WADNR, September 2004) has mapped the site area to have very low to low liquefaction susceptibility. Based on our explorations and review of the above-mentioned map, it is our opinion that the site has low liquefaction hazard, and the proposed development should not increase the hazard provided that our recommendations are followed for both design and construction. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General It is our opinion from a geotechnical standpoint that the site is compatible with the proposed development, provided that our recommendations are incorporated into project plans and are implemented during construction. It is recommended that a geotechnical engineer from Krazan review the geotechnical aspects of the project plans. Soil Conditions:Our soil explorations generally exposed undocumented fill extending to about 0.5 to 4.5 feet bgs overlying the competent native glacial soils.The undocumented fill is not suitable to support the foundation loads.There may be thicker layers of loose/soft soils or undocumented fill in unexplored areas of the site. With the exception of the sand,soils encountered at this site are considered moisture-sensitive and will be easily disturbed and difficult to compact when wet. We recommend that construction take place during extended periods of dry weather in the summer months, if possible.If construction is to take place duringDRAFT KA Project No.102-23010 Proposed Caswell-Brown Village July 10, 2023 Page No.6 Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving the Western United States wet weather, additional expenses and delays should be expected due to the wet conditions. Additional expenses could include the need for placing a blanket of rock spalls to protect exposed subgrades and construction traffic areas.The on-site granular soils may be suitable for use as structural fill material, provided the moisture content is near optimum and the soil could be suitably compacted to specifications. This will depend on the moisture content of the soils at the time of construction.Krazan and Associates should be retained to determine if the on-site soils can be used as structural fill material at the time of construction. Foundations:Based on our explorations, conventional spread footings supported on medium dense or firmer native soil, or on structural fill extending to medium dense or firmer native soil,should provide adequate support for the proposed structure.Detailed geotechnical engineering recommendations for foundation design are presented in this report. Stormwater Drainage:Proper site grading and drainage should help maintain current stability conditions. A comprehensive drainage plan will be an important part of a successful development project at this site. We understand that the stormwater will be managed on-site.We have performed a PIT near the proposed stormwater retention basin.The results of the PIT and the design infiltration rate are further discussed in the Stormwater Infiltration section of this report. Site Preparation In general site clearing should include removal of any vegetation and associated root systems; wood; abandoned utilities; structures including foundations, rubble; and rubbish.After stripping of organic topsoil is completed, the building pad and pavement areas should be proof-rolled with a loaded tandem-axle dump truck and be visually inspected to identify any loose/soft areas. Building subgrade preparation:TP-1 and TP-2 were excavated in the proposed building area and exposed undocumented fill to about 1.5 to 2 feet bgs. We recommend that the undocumented fill be removed from the building footprint to expose the underlying competent native glacial soils.Grading plans, foundation elevations,and building finish floor elevations were not available at the time this report was prepared.Structural fill maybe utilized to raise the grades as needed. Exterior Floor Slab/Flatwork and Pavement subgrade preparation:If undocumented fill and/or loose/soft soils are encountered at the planned subgrade elevations in the floor slab and pavement areas, the undocumented fill and loose/soft soils should be removed to at least 1-foot below the planned subgrade elevation. We recommend that a high-strength woven geotextile separation fabric then be placed over the entire over excavated grade, such as Miraffi 600X or equivalent. After the fabric is placed, the area should be filled to the planned subgrade elevation with suitable soils as recommended in the Structural Fill section of this report. In the exterior flatwork (sidewalk) areas, any loose/soft soil should be removed to at least 6- inches below the planned subgrade.Geotextile will not be needed for sidewalk areas.Deeper excavation may be required, if yielding soil conditions are exposed during over-excavation. During wet weather conditions, which typically occur from October through May, subgrade stability problems and grading difficulties may develop due to excess moisture, disturbance of moisture sensitive soils and/or the presence of perched groundwater. Earthwork construction during extended periods of wet weather could create the need to remove wet disturbed soils if they cannot be suitably compacted due to elevated moisture contents.Some of the on-site soils encountered in our test pits are considered to beDRAFT KA Project No.102-23010 Proposed Caswell-Brown Village July 10, 2023 Page No.7 Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving the Western United States moisture sensitive, and can be easily disturbed when wet. If over-excavation is necessary, it should be confirmed through continuous monitoring and testing by a qualified geotechnical engineer or geologist. Soils that have become unstable may require drying to near their optimal moisture content before compaction is feasible. Selective drying may be accomplished by scarifying or windrowing surficial material during extended periods of dry, warm weather (typically during the summer months). If the soils cannot be dried back to a workable moisture condition, remedial measures may be required. Preparation of the site for wet weather conditions may consist of the placement of a layer of aggregate base for the protection of exposed soils during construction. It should be understood that even if Best Management Practices (BMP’s) for soil protection are implemented for the wet season, there is a significant chance that additional soil mitigation work will be needed. Any buried structures encountered during construction should be completely removed and backfilled with structural fill. Excavations, depressions, or soft and pliant areas extending below the planned subgrade elevations should be excavated to expose medium dense or firmer soil, and be backfilled with structural fill. In general, any septic tanks, underground storage tanks, debris pits, cesspools, or similar structures and deleterious materials should be completely removed. Any concrete footings encountered in the planned foundation area should be removed to depth of at least 3 feet below proposed footing elevations or as recommended by the geotechnical engineer. The resulting excavations should be backfilled with structural fill. All fill slopes should be constructed with structural fill. Any permanent slopes should be no steeper than 2 to 1 (horizontal to vertical). Fill materials should not be placed in any section of the slope until the subgrade for that section has been suitably prepared and evaluated by a representative of the geotechnical engineer. Any brush, roots, sod or other perishable or unsuitable material should not be placed in the fill slope. A representative of our firm should be available on request during all grading operations to observe, test and evaluate earthwork construction. This testing and observation are integral parts of our service, as acceptance of earthwork construction is dependent upon compaction and stability of the material. The geotechnical engineer may reject any material that does not meet compaction and stability requirements. Further recommendations, contained in this report, are predicated upon the assumption that earthwork construction will conform to the recommendations set forth in this section and in the Structural Fill section of this report. Temporary Excavations The on-site soils have variable cohesion strengths, therefore the safe angles to which these materials may be cut for temporary excavations is limited, as the soils may be prone to caving and slope failures in temporary excavations deeper than 4 feet.Caving was not encountered in our test pits.Temporary excavations in the existing materials should be sloped no steeper than 1H:1V (horizontal to vertical) where room permits.Flatter inclinations may be necessary where undocumented fill, caving conditions,or groundwater seepage are encountered. All temporary cuts should be in accordance with Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Part N, Excavation, Trenching, and Shoring. The temporary slope cuts should be visually inspected daily by a qualified person during construction work activities and the results of the inspections should be included inDRAFT KA Project No.102-23010 Proposed Caswell-Brown Village July 10, 2023 Page No.8 Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving the Western United States daily reports. The contractor is responsible for maintaining the stability of the temporary cut slopes and minimizing slope erosion during construction. The temporary cut slopes should be covered with plastic sheeting to help minimize erosion during wet weather and the slopes should be closely monitored until the permanent retaining systems are complete. Materials should not be stored and equipment operated within 10 feet of the top of any temporary cut slope. A Krazan & Associates geologist or geotechnical engineer should observe, at least periodically, the temporary cut slopes during the excavation work. The reason for this is that all soil conditions may not be fully delineated by the limited sampling of the site from the geotechnical explorations. In the case of temporary slope cuts, the existing soil conditions may not be fully revealed until the excavation work exposes the soil. Typically, as excavation work progresses the maximum inclination of the temporary slope will need to be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer so that supplemental recommendations can be made. Soil and groundwater conditions can be highly variable. Scheduling for soil work will need to be adjustable, to deal with unanticipated conditions, so that the project can proceed smoothly and required deadlines can be met. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, Krazan & Associates should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be made. Structural Fill Fill placed beneath foundations or other settlement-sensitive structures should be placed as structural fill. Structural fill, by definition, is placed in accordance with prescribed methods and standards, and is monitored by an experienced geotechnical professional. Field monitoring procedures would include the performance of a representative number of in-place density tests to document the attainment of the desired degree of relative compaction. The area to receive the fill should be suitably prepared as described in the Site Preparation subsection of this report prior to beginning fill placement.A representative of the geotechnical engineer should evaluate the subgrade prior to structural fill placement. BMP’s should be followed when considering the suitability of the existing materials for use as structural fill.The on-site soils including undocumented fill may be suitable for reuse as structural fill, provided the soil is free of organic material and debris, and it is within ± 2 percent of the optimum moisture content. Laboratory testing of some of the on-site soils indicated percentage of silt and clay (passing no. 200 sieve) to be greater than 5. It should be noted that the on-site soils with silt and clay content greater than 5 percent will be difficult to compact during the wet weather. Cobbles and boulders were noted in our explorations. Cobbles and boulders should be removed from the soil prior to use as structural fill.If the on-site soils are stockpiled for later use as structural fill, the stockpiles should be covered to protect the soil from wet weather conditions. We recommend that a representative of Krazan & Associates be on site during the excavation work to determine which soils are suitable for placement as structural fill. Imported,all-weather granular structural fill material should consist of well-graded gravel or a sand and gravel mixture with a maximum grain size of 3 inches and less than 5 percent fines (material passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 Sieve). Structural fill also can consist of crushed rock, rock spalls and controlled density fill (CDF). All structural fill material should be submitted for approval to the geotechnical engineer at least 48 hours prior to delivery to the site. Structural fill soils should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness prior to compaction, moisture-conditioned as necessary, (moisture content of soil shall not vary by more than ±2DRAFT KA Project No.102-23010 Proposed Caswell-Brown Village July 10, 2023 Page No.9 Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving the Western United States percent of optimum moisture) and the material should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density based on ASTM D1557 Test Method. In-place density tests should be performed on all structural fill to document proper moisture content and adequate compaction. Additional lifts should not be placed if the previous lift did not meet the compaction requirements or if soil conditions are not considered stable. Shallow Foundations General:The proposed structure may be supported on a conventional spread foundation on a subgrade prepared as per the Site Preparation section of this report. Soil Bearing:Footings may be designed using an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf)for dead plus live loads. This value may be increased by 1/3 for short duration loads such as wind or seismic loading.For frost protection and bearing capacity considerations, exterior footings should have a minimum embedment depth of 18 inches below pad subgrade (soil grade) or adjacent exterior grade, whichever is lower. Footing widths should be based on the anticipated loads and allowable soil bearing pressure. Footings should have a minimum width of at least 12 inches regardless of load. Water should not be allowed to accumulate in footing trenches. All loose or disturbed soils should be removed from the foundation excavations prior to placing concrete. Structural Fill in Footing Areas:Structural fill placed for foundation support should follow these recommendations. If structural fill consisting of granular soils or rock spalls are used, then the foundation excavations would need to be widened on both sides of the footing a distance equal to one-half of the depth of the over-excavation below the bottom of the footing. Structural fill consisting of granular soils should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density based on ASTM Test Method D1557. To reduce the volume of extra excavation needed for the footing trenches and to simplify structural fill placement, it may be practical to place CDF to fill the deeper footing trenches to the planned footing subgrade elevations. If CDF is used, the trench may be excavated only slightly wider (6 inches wider on each side) than the footing. Potential Foundation Settlement:For foundations constructed as recommended, the total settlement is not expected to exceed 1-inch. Differential settlement should be less than ½-inch. Most settlement is expected to occur during construction, as the loads are applied. However,additional post-construction settlement may occur if the foundation soils are flooded or saturated.It should be noted that the risk of liquefaction is considered low, given the composition and density of the native glacial soils. Design Parameters –Lateral Resistance:Resistance to lateral displacement can be computed using an allowable friction factor of 0.40 acting between the bases of foundations and the supporting competent native subgrade soil. Lateral resistance for footings can also be developed using an allowable equivalent fluid passive pressure of 300 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) acting against the appropriate vertical footing faces (neglecting the upper 12 inches). The allowable friction factor and allowable equivalent fluid passive pressure values include a factor of safety of 1.5. The frictional and passive resistance of the soil may be combined without reduction in determining the total lateral resistance. Foundation Drainage:Seasonal rainfall, water run-off, and the normal practice of watering trees and landscaping areas around the proposed structures should not be permitted to flood and/or saturate foundation subgrade soils. To prevent the buildup of water within the footing areas, continuous footingDRAFT KA Project No.102-23010 Proposed Caswell-Brown Village July 10, 2023 Page No.10 Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving the Western United States drains (with cleanouts) should be provided at the base of the footings. The footing drains should consist of a minimum 4-inch diameter rigid perforated PVC pipe, sloped to drain, with perforations placed near the bottom and enveloped in all directions by washed rock and wrapped with filter fabric to limit the migration of silt and clay into the drain. Floor Slabs and Exterior Flatwork The floor slab and exterior flatwork subgrade should be prepared in accordance with the recommendations presented in the Site Preparation section of this report, and may be designed using a modulus of subgrade reaction value of k = 150 pounds per cubic inch (pci). In areas where it is desired to reduce floor dampness, such as areas covered with moisture sensitive floor coverings, we recommend that concrete slab-on-grade floors be underlain by a water vapor retarder system. The water vapor retarder should consist of a vapor retarder sheeting underlain by a minimum of 4-inches of compacted clean (less than 5 percent passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 Sieve), open-graded coarse rock of ¾-inch maximum size. The vapor retarder sheeting should be protected from puncture damage. In addition, ventilation of the structure may be prudent to reduce the accumulation of interior moisture. The exterior floors should be placed separately in order to act independently of the walls and foundation system. Lateral Earth Pressures and Retaining Walls We have developed criteria for the design of retaining or below grade walls. Our design parameters are based on retention of the native soils or structural fill. The wall design criteria are based on the total unit weight of backfill of 134 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) and friction angle of 36 degrees. The parameters are also based on level, well-drained wall backfill conditions. Walls may be designed as “restrained” retaining walls based on “at-rest” earth pressures, plus any surcharge on top of the walls as described below, if the walls are braced to restrain movement and/or movement is not acceptable. Unrestrained walls may be designed based on “active” earth pressure, if the walls are not part of the buildings and some movement of the retaining walls is acceptable.Acceptable lateral movement equal to at least 0.2 percent of the wall height would warrant the use of “active” earth pressure values for design. The following table, titled Wall Design Criteria, presents the recommended soil related design parameters for retaining walls with well- drained level backfill.DRAFT KA Project No.102-23010 Proposed Caswell-Brown Village July 10, 2023 Page No.11 Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving the Western United States Wall Design Criteria “At-rest” Conditions (Lateral Earth Pressure)58 pcf (Equivalent Fluid Density) (Triangular Distribution) “Active” Conditions (Lateral Earth Pressure)37 pcf (Equivalent Fluid Density) (Triangular Distribution) Seismic Increase for “Active” Conditions (Lateral Earth Pressure) 11 psf x H (Uniform Distribution) Where H is the height of the wall in feet Passive Earth Pressure on Low Side of Wall (includes factor of safety of 1.5)Neglect upper 1-foot, then 300 pcf (Equivalent Fluid Density) Soil-Footing Coefficient of Sliding Friction (includes factor of safety of 1.5)0.40 If vehicular loads are expected to act behind the wall within a horizontal distance of less than or equal to one-half of the wall height, then a live load surcharge should be applied for the design. In this case, we recommend the addition of vehicle surcharges of 70 psf and 100 psf to the active and at-rest earth pressures, respectively. The stated lateral earth pressures do not include the effects of hydrostatic pressure generated by water accumulation behind the retaining walls or loads imposed by construction equipment, foundations or roadways adjacent to the wall (surcharge loads). To minimize the lateral earth pressure and reduce the buildup of water pressure against the walls, continuous footing drains (with cleanouts) should be provided at the bases of the walls. The footing drains should consist of a minimum 4-inch diameter rigid PVC perforated pipe, sloped to drain, with perforations placed near the bottom. The drainpipe should be enveloped by 6 inches of washed gravel in all directions wrapped in filter fabric to prevent the migration of silt and clay into the drain. The wall fills adjacent to and extending a lateral distance of at least 2 feet behind the walls should consist of free-draining granular material. All free-draining backfill should contain less than 3 percent fines (passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 Sieve) based upon the fraction passing the U.S. Standard No. 4 Sieve with at least 30 percent of the material being retained on the U.S. Standard No. 4 Sieve.Alternatively,a drainage composite may be used. It should be realized that the primary purpose of the free-draining material is the reduction of hydrostatic pressure. Some potential for the moisture to contact the back face of the wall may exist, even with treatment, which may require that more extensive waterproofing be specified for walls, which require interior moisture sensitive finishes. We recommend that the wall fill be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density based on ASTM D1557 Test Method. In-place density tests should be performed to verify adequate compaction. Soil compactors place transient surcharges on the backfill. Consequently, only light hand operatedDRAFT KA Project No.102-23010 Proposed Caswell-Brown Village July 10, 2023 Page No.12 Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving the Western United States equipment is recommended for fill compaction within 3 feet of walls so that excessive stress is not imposed on the walls. Erosion and Sediment Control Erosion and sediment control (ESC) is used to minimize the transportation of sediment to wetlands, streams, lakes, drainage systems, and adjacent properties. Erosion and sediment control measures should be implemented and these measures should be in general accordance with local regulations. As a minimum, the following basic recommendations should be incorporated into the design of the erosion and sediment control features of the site: 1)Phase the soil, foundation, utility and other work, requiring excavation or the disturbance of the site soils, to take place during the dry season (generally May through September). However, provided precautions are taken using Best Management Practices (BMP’s), grading activities can be undertaken during the wet season (generally October through April), but it should also be known that this may increase the overall cost of the project. 2)All site work should be completed and stabilized as quickly as possible. 3)Additional perimeter erosion and sediment control features may be required to reduce the possibility of sediment entering the surface water. This may include additional silt fences, silt fences with a higher Apparent Opening Size (AOS), construction of a berm, or other filtration systems. 4)Any runoff generated by dewatering discharge should be treated through construction of a sediment trap if there is sufficient space. If space is limited, other filtration methods will need to be incorporated. Groundwater Influence on Structures and Earthwork Construction Groundwater seepage was not encountered during our explorations, but it should be recognized that groundwater elevations may fluctuate with time. The groundwater level will be dependent upon seasonal precipitation, irrigation, land use, and climatic conditions, as well as other factors. Therefore, groundwater levels may be different during the construction phase of the project. The evaluation of such factors is beyond the scope of this report. If groundwater is encountered during construction, we should observe the conditions to determine if dewatering will be needed. Design of temporary dewatering systems to remove groundwater should be the responsibility of the contractor.If earthwork is performed during or soon after periods of precipitation, the subgrade soils may become saturated. These soils may “pump,” and the materials may not respond to densification techniques. Typical remedial measures include:disking and aerating the soil during dry weather; mixing the soil with drier materials; removing and replacing the soil with an approved fill material. A qualified geotechnical engineering firm should be consulted prior to implementing remedial measures to observe the unstable subgrade conditions and provide appropriate recommendations.DRAFT KA Project No.102-23010 Proposed Caswell-Brown Village July 10, 2023 Page No.13 Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving the Western United States Drainage and Landscape Special attention to the drainage and irrigation adjacent to the buildings is recommended. Grading should establish drainage away from the structures and this drainage pattern should be maintained. Water should not be allowed to collect adjacent to the structures. Excessive irrigation within landscaped areas adjacent to the structure should be avoided. The ground surface should slope away from building pads and pavement areas, toward appropriate drop inlets or other surface drainage devices. It is recommended that adjacent exterior grades be sloped a minimum of 2 percent for a minimum distance of 5 feet away from structures. Roof drains should be tight lined away from foundations. Roof drains should not be connected to the footing drains. Pavement areas should be inclined at a minimum of one percent and drainage gradients should be maintained to carry all surface water to collection facilities, and suitable outlets. These grades should be maintained for the life of the project. Stormwater Infiltration Rate The design infiltration rate was developed using the Small-Scale PIT method in accordance with Volume V, Chapter 5 of the DOE 2019 SWMMWW. This method provides a field test to estimate the initial saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) for the subsurface soils encountered below the proposed infiltration facility.Correction factors are then applied to this measured value to account for site variability and number of locations tested, test method, and degree of influent control. The correction factors utilized are listed below: Site variability and number of locations tested (CFv) = 0.45 Uncertainty of test method (CFt) = 0.5 Degree of influent control to prevent siltation and bio-buildup (CFm) = 0.9 Based on the Small-Scale PIT result, it is our opinion that soils exposed in IP-1 between 4.5 to 8.5 feet bgs maybe designed using a long-term infiltration rate of 1.2 inches per hour.During over-excavation of the IP-1, moderate groundwater seepage from the PIT was observed at about 8.5 feet bgs indicating slower infiltration rates than the upper sand with silt layer. Therefore, we recommend that the depth of the system should not be designed deeper than 5.5 feet bgs in order to meet the 3-foot minimum separation from the underlying silty soils.In our opinion, the design infiltration rate should be appropriate provided that the planned pretreatment measures for control of total suspended solids are adequately maintained. The on- site stormwater infiltration system should be designed by a Washington State Licensed Civil Engineer. Variations in soil conditions and the corresponding infiltration rates are possible at different locations and depths. Accordingly, we recommend that the subsurface soils be evaluated during construction by a representative of the geotechnical engineer. Signs of seasonal high groundwater (mottling)was not observed in our explorations.We estimate the groundwater to be deeper than the maximum explored depths of 10 feet bgs. However, groundwater monitoring well installation was not included for this project.Therefore, groundwater monitoring wells, may be required by the Authority having Jurisdiction (AHJ) upon their review.DRAFT KA Project No.102-23010 Proposed Caswell-Brown Village July 10, 2023 Page No.14 Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving the Western United States Pavement Design The pavement subgrade should be prepared in accordance with the recommendations presented in the Site Preparation section of this report. It should be noted that subgrade soils that have relatively high silt contents may be highly sensitive to moisture conditions. The subgrade strength and performance characteristics of a silty subgrade material may be dramatically reduced if it becomes wet. Therefore, we recommend that the pavement subgrade not be exposed for long periods, especially during wet weather. Traffic loads were not provided, however, based on our knowledge of the proposed project, we expect the traffic to range from light duty (passenger automobiles) to heavy duty (firetrucks). The following tables show the minimum recommended pavement sections for both light duty and heavy-duty traffic loads. ASPHALTIC CONCRETE (FLEXIBLE) PAVEMENT LIGHT DUTY Asphaltic Concrete Aggregate Base* 3.0 in.6.0 in. ASPHALTIC CONCRETE (FLEXIBLE) PAVEMENT HEAVY DUTY Asphaltic Concrete Aggregate Base* 4.0 in.6.0 in. PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE (RIGID) PAVEMENT Min. PCC Depth Aggregate Base* 6.0 in.6.0 in. * 95% compaction based on ASTM Test Method D1557 The pavement specification in Appendix C provides additional recommendations. The asphaltic concrete depth in the flexible pavement tables should be a surface course type asphalt, such as Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) ½ inch HMA. The rigid pavement design is based on a Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) mix that has a 28-day compressive strength of 4,000 pounds per square inch (psi) with a fiber mesh. The design is also based on a concrete flexural strength or modulus of rupture of 575 psi. Testing and Inspection A representative of Krazan & Associates, Inc. should be present at the site during the earthwork activities to confirm that actual subsurface conditions are consistent with the exploratory fieldwork. This activity is an integral part of our services as acceptance of earthwork construction is dependent upon compaction testing and stability of the material. This representative can also verify that the intent of these recommendations is incorporated into the project design and construction. Krazan & Associates, Inc. will not be responsible for grades or staking, since this is the responsibility of the Prime Contractor.DRAFT KA Project No.102-23010 Proposed Caswell-Brown Village July 10, 2023 Page No.15 Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving the Western United States Furthermore, Krazan & Associates is not responsible for the contractor’s procedures, methods, scheduling or management of the work site. LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Olympic Community Action Programs,and their assigns.Geotechnical engineering is one of the newest divisions of Civil Engineering. This branch of Civil Engineering is constantly improving as new technologies and understanding of earth sciences improves. Although your site was analyzed using the most appropriate current techniques and methods, undoubtedly there will be substantial future improvements in this branch of engineering. In addition to improvements in the field of geotechnical engineering, physical changes in the site either due to excavation or fill placement, new agency regulations or possible changes in the proposed structure after the time of completion of the soils report may require the soils report to be professionally reviewed. In light of this, the owner should be aware that there is a practical limit to the usefulness of this report without critical review. Although the time limit for this review is strictly arbitrary, it is suggested that two years be considered a reasonable time for the usefulness of this report. Foundation and earthwork construction are characterized by the presence of a calculated risk that soil and groundwater conditions have been fully revealed by the original foundation investigation. This risk is derived from the practical necessity of basing interpretations and design conclusions on limited sampling of the earth. Our report, design conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. Actual subsurface conditions may differ, sometimes significantly, from those indicated in this report. The recommendations made in this report are based on the assumption that soil conditions do not vary significantly from those disclosed during our field investigation. The findings and conclusions of this report can be affected by the passage of time, such as seasonal weather conditions, manmade influences, such as construction on or adjacent to the site, natural events such as earthquakes, slope instability, flooding, or groundwater fluctuations. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, the geotechnical engineer should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be made. The conclusions of this report are based on the information provided regarding the proposed construction. If the proposed construction is relocated or redesigned, the conclusions in this report may not be valid. The geotechnical engineer should be notified of any changes so that the recommendations can be reviewed and reevaluated. Misinterpretations of this report by other design team members can result in project delays and cost overruns. These risks can be reduced by having Krazan & Associates, Inc. involved with the design team meetings and discussions after submitting the report. Krazan & Associates, Inc. should also be retained for reviewing pertinent elements of the design team’s plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret this report. To reduce this, risk Krazan & Associates. Inc. should participate in pre-bid and preconstruction meetings, and provide construction observations during the site work. This report is a geotechnical engineering investigation with the purpose of evaluating the soil conditions in terms of foundation design. The scope of our services did not include any environmental site assessment for the presence or absence of hazardous and/or toxic materials in the soil, groundwater or atmosphere, or the presence of wetlands. Any statements or absence of statements, in this report or on any soils logDRAFT KA Project No.102-23010 Proposed Caswell-Brown Village July 10, 2023 Page No.16 Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving the Western United States regarding odors, unusual or suspicious items, or conditions observed are strictly for descriptive purposes and are not intended to convey engineering judgment regarding potential hazardous and/or toxic assessments. The geotechnical information presented herein is based upon professional interpretation utilizing standard engineering practices and a degree of conservatism deemed proper for this project. It is not warranted that such information and interpretation cannot be superseded by future geotechnical developments. We emphasize that this report is valid for this project as outlined above, and should not be used for any other site. Our report is prepared for the exclusive use of our client. No other party may rely on the product of our services unless we agree in advance to such reliance in writing. If you have any questions, or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office at (360)598-2126. Respectfully submitted, KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Vijay Chaudhary, P.E.Andrew Glenn Project Engineer Staff Geologist VC:AG DRAFT Vicinity Map Reference: USGS topographic map titled “Port Townsend South Quadrangle, Washington -Jefferson County, 7.5 Minute Series”, dated 2020. Caswell-Brown Village Date:July-2023 Project Number:102-23010 Drawn by: EA Figure: 1 Not to scale Subject Site DRAFT Reference: Cover Sheet G001, Prepared by SMR Architects, dated October 12, 2022. Site Plan Caswell-Brown Village Date: June-2023 Project Number: 102-23010 Drawn by: AG Figure: 2 Not to scale TP-1 Number and Approximate Location of Test Pit TP-4 IP-1 TP-1 TP-2 TP-3 DRAFT Appendix A Page A.1 Krazan &Associates, Inc. Offices Serving the Western United States APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION –LABORATORY TESTING Field Investigation The field investigation consisted of a surface reconnaissance and a subsurface exploration program.Five (5)exploratory test pits (TP-1 through 4, and IP-1)were excavated and sampled for subsurface exploration at this site.One (1) Small-Scale PIT was performed in the IP-1 at about 5 feet bgs.The test pits were excavated and completed on June 7,2023 by Walker Excavation, Inc. The test pits were excavated to depths of approximately 9.0 feet to 10.0 feet bgs. The approximate exploratory test pit locations are shown on the Site Plan (Figure 2). The depths shown on the attached test pit logs are from the existing ground surface at the time of our exploration. The soils encountered were logged in the field during the exploration and are described in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS).Selected samples were returned to a Krazan laboratory for further evaluation and testing. The logs of the soil exploration are presented in this appendix. Laboratory Testing The laboratory testing program was developed primarily to determine the index properties of the soils. Test results were used for soil classification and as criteria for determining the engineering suitability of the surface and subsurface materials encountered.Our laboratory tests indicated that the percentage of gravel ranged from 0 to 4,sand ranged from 35 to 95, and silt and clay (passing no. 200 sieve) ranged from 3 to 65. Natural moisture contents ranged from 9.0 to 27.2 percent.Additionally, a Cation Exchange Capacity test was performed on a selected sample from IP-1.The laboratory test results are included in this appendix.DRAFT Project Number: 102-23010 & A S S O C I A T E S, I N C. Date: June 2023 Drawn By: AG References: USCS Soil Classification Proposed Caswell-Brown Village Relative Density with Respect to SPT N-Value Coarse-Grained Soils Density Very Loose Very Soft Soft Medium Stiff Stiff Very Stiff Hard 0 - 4 0 - 1 2 - 4 5 - 8 9 - 15 16 - 30 > 30 5 -10 11 - 30 31 - 50 > 50 Loose Medium Dense Dense Very Dense DensityN-Value (Blows/Ft)N-Value (Blows/Ft) Fine-Grained Soils USCS Soil Classification Major Division Coarse- Grained Soils < 50% passes #200 sieve Gravel and Gravelly Soils < 50% coarse fraction passes #4 sieve Gravel (with little or no fines) GW Well-Graded Gravel Poorly Graded Gravel Silty Gravel Clayey Gravel Well-Graded Sand Poorly Graded Sand Silty Sand Clayey Sand Silt Lean Clay Organic Silt and Clay (Low Plasticity) Inorganic Silt Inorganic Clay Organic Clay and Silt (Med. to High Plasticity) Peat GP GM GC SW SP SM SC ML CL OL MH CH OH PT Sand (with little or no fines) Gravel (with > 12% fines) Sand (with > 12% fines) Sand and Sandy Soils > 50% coarse fraction passes #4 sieve Silt and Clay Liquid Limit < 50 Silt and Clay Liquid Limit > 50 Highly Organic Soils Fine- Grained Soils > 50% passes #200 sieve Group Description DRAFT LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PIT PROJECT: PROJECT NO.:PAGE: 1 of 1 DATE: SURFACE ELEV.:CONTRACTOR: SAMPLE METHOD:LOCATION: Water Observations: Notes:Logged By:DEPTH (ft)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 USC SYMBOLWATER LEVELMATERIAL DESCRIPTION SAMPLE No.SAMPLE TYPEMoisture Content and Atterberg Limits 10 20304050607080 KRAZAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Water Level Initial: # Final: $ TP1 Caswell Brown Village 102-23010 6/7/23 ~121 ft.Walker Excavation, Inc. Grab Port Townsend Surficial gravel (undocumented fill) Brown to dark brown, silty sand with gravel (undocumented fill) (moist, dense) -Becomes dark brown. -Organic debris was observed. Light brown, sand (SP) (moist, medium dense) -Roots noted to 6.5 ft. Light brown, sand with silt and gravel (SP-SM) (moist, dense) End of Exploratory Test Pit S2 S1 S3 S4 S5 S6 Groundwater seepage was not encountered. Caving was not encountered.AGDRAFT LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PIT PROJECT: PROJECT NO.:PAGE: 1 of 1 DATE: SURFACE ELEV.:CONTRACTOR: SAMPLE METHOD:LOCATION: Water Observations: Notes:Logged By:DEPTH (ft)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 USC SYMBOLWATER LEVELMATERIAL DESCRIPTION SAMPLE No.SAMPLE TYPEMoisture Content and Atterberg Limits 10 20304050607080 KRAZAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Water Level Initial: # Final: $ TP2 Caswell Brown Village 102-23010 6/7/23 ~121 ft.Walker Excavation, Inc. Grab Port Townsend Surficial gravel (undocumented fill) Brown to dark brown, silty sand with gravel (undocumented fill) -Becomes dark brown. Brown, sand (undocumented fill) -Wood debris was encountered. Brown, sand (SP) (moist, medium dense) Gray, silty sand (SM) (moist, dense) Gray, sandy silt with gravel and cobbles (ML) (moist, hard) -Boulders were encountered. End of Exploratory Test Pit S1 S2 S3 S4 Groundwater seepage was not encountered. Caving was not encountered.AGDRAFT LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PIT PROJECT: PROJECT NO.:PAGE: 1 of 1 DATE: SURFACE ELEV.:CONTRACTOR: SAMPLE METHOD:LOCATION: Water Observations: Notes:Logged By:DEPTH (ft)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 USC SYMBOLWATER LEVELMATERIAL DESCRIPTION SAMPLE No.SAMPLE TYPEMoisture Content and Atterberg Limits 10 20304050607080 KRAZAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Water Level Initial: # Final: $ TP3 Caswell Brown Village 102-23010 6/7/23 ~121 ft.Walker Excavation, Inc. Grab Port Townsend Surficial gravel (undocumented fill) Dark brown, silty sand with gravel (undocumented fill) (moist, dense) Brown, sand (SP) (moist, medium dense) Gray, silty sand (SM) (moist, dense) Gray, sandy silt with gravel and cobbles (ML) (moist, hard) -Refusal at 9.0 ft. End of Exploratory Test Pit S1 S2 S3 Groundwater seepage was not encountered. Caving was not encountered.AGDRAFT LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PIT PROJECT: PROJECT NO.:PAGE: 1 of 1 DATE: SURFACE ELEV.:CONTRACTOR: SAMPLE METHOD:LOCATION: Water Observations: Notes:Logged By:DEPTH (ft)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 USC SYMBOLWATER LEVELMATERIAL DESCRIPTION SAMPLE No.SAMPLE TYPEMoisture Content and Atterberg Limits 10 20304050607080 KRAZAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Water Level Initial: # Final: $ TP4 Caswell Brown Village 102-23010 6/7/23 ~117 ft.Walker Excavation, Inc. Grab Port Townsend Organic topsoil Brown, silty sand with gravel (SM) (moist, medium dense) Brown to brown and gray, sand (SP) (moist, medium dense) -Roots were encountered up to 6.0 ft. -Becomes brown and gray. Gray, silty sand (SM) (moist, medium dense to dense) -Becomes dense. End of Exploratory Test Pit S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 Groundwater seepage was not encountered. Caving was not encountered.AGDRAFT LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PIT PROJECT: PROJECT NO.:PAGE: 1 of 1 DATE: SURFACE ELEV.:CONTRACTOR: SAMPLE METHOD:LOCATION: Water Observations: Notes:Logged By:DEPTH (ft)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 USC SYMBOLWATER LEVELMATERIAL DESCRIPTION SAMPLE No.SAMPLE TYPEMoisture Content and Atterberg Limits 10 20304050607080 KRAZAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Water Level Initial: # Final: $ IP-1 Caswell Brown Village 102-23010 6/7/23 ~115 ft.Walker Excavation, Inc. Grab Port Townsend Light brownish gray, silty sand with gravel (undocumented fill) Dark brown, sandy silt (undocumented fill) Brown, sand with silt (undocumented fill) -Wood debris was encountered. Brown, sand with silt (SP-SM) (moist, medium dense) Gray, silty sand (SM) (moist, dense) End of Exploratory Test Pit S1 S2 S3 S4 Moderate PIT-related seepage was encountered at 8.5 ft. Small-scale PIT was performed at 5.0 ft. Caving was not encountered.AGDRAFT Particle Size Distribution Report PERCENT FINER0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PERCENT COARSER100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 0.0010.010.1110100 % +3"Coarse % Gravel Fine Coarse Medium % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0 0 0 1 8 76 156 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200Test Results (ASTM D6913 & ASTM D 1140) Opening Percent Spec.*Pass? Size Finer (Percent)(X=Fail) Material Description Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318) Classification Coefficients Date Received:Date Tested: Tested By: Checked By: Title: Source of Sample: TP-2 Depth: 5.5' Date Sampled: Sample Number: 961 Client: Project: Project No:Figure Gray Silty Sand .5 .375 #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 100 100 100 99 98 91 70 27 15 NP NV NP SM A-2-4(0) 0.4100 0.3369 0.2209 0.1978 0.1564 0.0757 Sample Location: TP2 - S3 Moisture Content: 9.0% 6/18/23 6/19/23 QW Aaron Clyde Laboratory Manager 6/7/23 Olympic Community Action Program Caswell-Brown Village 10223010 PL=LL=PI= USCS (D 2487)=AASHTO (M 145)= D90=D85=D60= D50=D30=D15= D10=Cu=Cc= Remarks *(no specification provided)DRAFT Particle Size Distribution Report PERCENT FINER0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PERCENT COARSER100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 0.0010.010.1110100 % +3"Coarse % Gravel Fine Coarse Medium % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0 0 0 3 5 27 656 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200Test Results (ASTM D6913 & ASTM D1140) Opening Percent Spec.*Pass? Size Finer (Percent)(X=Fail) Material Description Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318) Classification Coefficients Date Received:Date Tested: Tested By: Checked By: Title: Source of Sample: TP-3 Depth: 8.5' Date Sampled: Sample Number: 962 Client: Project: Project No:Figure Gray Sandy Silt .25 #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 100 100 97 94 92 89 79 65 NP NV ML A-4(0) 0.2615 0.1941 Sample Location: TP3 - S3 Moisture Content: 27.2% 6/18/23 6/19/23 QW Aaron Clyde Laboratory Manager 6/7/23 Olympic Community Action Program Caswell-Brown Village 10223010 PL=LL=PI= USCS (D 2487)=AASHTO (M 145)= D90=D85=D60= D50=D30=D15= D10=Cu=Cc= Remarks *(no specification provided)DRAFT Particle Size Distribution Report PERCENT FINER0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PERCENT COARSER100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 0.0010.010.1110100 % +3"Coarse % Gravel Fine Coarse Medium % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0 0 4 2 27 64 36 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200Test Results (ASTM D6913 & ASTM D 1140) Opening Percent Spec.*Pass? Size Finer (Percent)(X=Fail) Material Description Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318) Classification Coefficients Date Received:Date Tested: Tested By: Checked By: Title: Source of Sample: TP-4 Depth: 6.5 ft. Date Sampled:Sample Number: 960 Client: Project: Project No:Figure Brown Poorly Graded Sand .75 .5 .375 #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 100 98 97 96 94 91 67 30 8 2.7 NP NV SP A-3 0.7765 0.6309 0.3810 0.3321 0.2510 0.1878 0.1625 2.35 1.02 Sample Location: TP4 - S3 Moisture Content: 12.2% 6/18/23 6/19/23 QW Aaron Clyde Laboratory Manager 6/7/23 Olympic Community Action Program Caswell-Brown Village 10223010 PL=LL=PI= USCS (D 2487)=AASHTO (M 145)= D90=D85=D60= D50=D30=D15= D10=Cu=Cc= Remarks *(no specification provided)DRAFT Particle Size Distribution Report PERCENT FINER0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PERCENT COARSER100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 GRAIN SIZE - mm. 0.0010.010.1110100 % +3"Coarse % Gravel Fine Coarse Medium % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0 0 0 1 12 82 56 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200Test Results (ASTM D 6913 & ASTM D 1140) Opening Percent Spec.*Pass? Size Finer (Percent)(X=Fail) Material Description Atterberg Limits (ASTM D 4318) Classification Coefficients Date Received:Date Tested: Tested By: Checked By: Title: Source of Sample: IP-1 Depth: 5.0' Date Sampled: Sample Number: 963 Client: Project: Project No:Figure Brown Poorly Graded Sand w/ Silt .375 #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 100 100 99 99 87 48 13 5.1 NP NV SP-SM A-3 0.4511 0.4072 0.2888 0.2564 0.1992 0.1561 0.1142 2.53 1.20 Sample Location: IP1 - S2 Moisture Content:9.8 6/19/23 6/19/23 QW Aaron Clyde Laboratory Manger 6/7/23 Olympic Community Action Program Caswell-Brown Village 10223010 PL=LL=PI= USCS (D 2487)=AASHTO (M 145)= D90=D85=D60= D50=D30=D15= D10=Cu=Cc= Remarks *(no specification provided)DRAFT 2545 W Falls Avenue Kennewick, WA 99336 509.783.7450 www.nwag.com lab@nwag.com Sample ID Cation Exchange Capacity IP-1 , S-1 3.1 meq/100g Method EPA 9081 Krazan & Associates 1230 Finn Hill Rd NW STE A Poulsbo, WA 98370 Report: 64200-1-1 Date: June 22, 2023 Project Name: Caswell Brown Village PO Number: DRAFT Appendix B Page B.1 Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving the Western United States APPENDIX B EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS GENERAL When the text of the report conflicts with the general specifications in this appendix, the recommendations in the report have precedence. SCOPE OF WORK:These specifications and applicable plans pertain to and include all earthwork associated with the site rough grading, including but not limited to the furnishing of all labor, tools, and equipment necessary for site clearing and grubbing, stripping, preparation of foundation materials for receiving fill, excavation, processing, placement and compaction of fill and backfill materials to the lines and grades shown on the project grading plans, and disposal of excess materials. PERFORMANCE:The Contractor shall be responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthwork in accordance with the project plans and specifications. This work shall be inspected and tested by a representative of Krazan and Associates, Inc., hereinafter known as the Geotechnical Engineer and/or Testing Agency. Attainment of design grades when achieved shall be certified to by the project Civil Engineer. Both the Geotechnical Engineer and Civil Engineer are the Owner’s representatives. If the contractor should fail to meet the technical or design requirements embodied in this document and on the applicable plans, he shall make the necessary readjustments until all work is deemed satisfactory as determined by both the Geotechnical Engineer and Civil Engineer. No deviation from these specifications shall be made except upon written approval of the Geotechnical Engineer, Civil Engineer or project Architect. No earthwork shall be performed without the physical presence or approval of the Geotechnical Engineer. The Contractor shall notify the Geotechnical Engineer at least 2 working days prior to the commencement of any aspect of the site earthwork. The Contractor agrees that he shall assume sole and complete responsibility for job site conditions during the course of construction of this project, including safety of all persons and property; that this requirement shall apply continuously and not be limited to normal working hours; and that the Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the Owner and the Engineers harmless from any and all liability, real or alleged, in connection with the performance of work on this project, except for liability arising from the sole negligence of the Owner of the Engineers. TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS:All compacted materials shall be densified to a density not less than 95 percent of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Test Method D1557 as specified in the technical portion of the Geotechnical Engineering Report.The results of these tests and compliance with these specifications shall be the basis upon which satisfactory completion of work will be judged the Geotechnical Engineer. SOIL AND FOUNDATION CONDITIONS:The Contractor is presumed to have visited the site and to have familiarized himself with existing site conditions and the contents of the data presented in the soil report. The Contractor shall make his own interpretation of the data contained in said report, and the Contractor shall not be relieved of liability under the contractor for any loss sustained as a result of any variance between conditions indicated by or deduced from said report and the actual conditions encountered during the progress of the work.DRAFT Appendix B Page B.2 Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving the Western United States DUST CONTROL:The work includes dust control as required for the alleviation or prevention of any dust nuisance on or about the site or the borrow area, or off-site if caused by the Contractor’s operation either during the performance of the earthwork or resulting from the conditions in which the Contractor leaves the site. The Contractor shall assume all liability, including Court costs of codefendants, for all claims related to dust or windblown materials attributable to his work. SITE PREPARATION: Site preparation shall consist of site clearing and grabbing and preparations of foundation materials for receiving fill. CLEARING AND GRUBBING:The Contractor shall accept the site in this present condition and shall demolish and/or remove from the area of designated project earthwork all structures, both surface and subsurface, trees, brush, roots, debris, organic matter, and all other matter determined by the Geotechnical Engineer to be deleterious. Such materials shall become the property of the Contractor and shall be removed from the site. Tree root systems in proposed building areas should be removed to a minimum depth of 3 feet and to such an extent which would permit removal of all roots larger than 1 inch. Tree root removed in parking areas may be limited to the upper 1½ feet of the ground surface. Backfill or tree root excavation should not be permitted until all exposed surfaces have been inspected and the Geotechnical Engineer is present for the proper control of backfill placement and compaction. Burning in areas, which are to receive fill materials, shall not be permitted. SUBGRADE PREPARATION:Subgrade should be prepared as described in our site preparation section of this report. EXCAVATION:All excavation shall be accomplished to the tolerance normally defined by the Civil Engineer as shown on the project grading plans. All over excavation below the grades specified shall be backfilled at the Contractor’s expense and shall be compacted in accordance with the applicable technical requirements. FILL AND BACKFILL MATERIAL:No material shall be moved or compacted without the presence of the Geotechnical Engineer. Material from the required site excavation may be utilized for construction site fills provided prior approval is given by the Geotechnical Engineer. All materials utilized for constructing site fills shall be free from vegetable or other deleterious matter as determined by the Geotechnical Engineer. PLACEMENT, SPREADING AND COMPACTION:The placement and spreading of approved fill materials and the processing and compaction of approved fill and native materials shall be the responsibility of the Contractor. However, compaction of fill materials by flooding, ponding, or jetting shall not be permitted unless specifically approved by local code, as well as the Geotechnical Engineer. Both cut and fill shall be surface compacted to the satisfaction of the Geotechnical Engineer prior to final acceptance. SEASONAL LIMITS:No fill material shall be placed, spread, or rolled while it is frozen or thawing or during unfavorable wet weather conditions. When the work is interrupted by heavy rains, fill operations shall not be resumed until the Geotechnical Engineer indicates that the moisture content and density of previously placed fill are as specified.DRAFT Appendix C Page C.1 Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving the Western United States APPENDIX C PAVEMENT SPECIFICATIONS 1. DEFINITIONS –The term “pavement” shall include asphalt concrete surfacing, untreated aggregate base, and aggregate subbase. The term “subgrade” is that portion of the area on which surfacing, base, or subbase is to be placed. 2. SCOPE OF WORK –This portion of the work shall include all labor, materials, tools and equipment necessary for and reasonable incidental to the completion of the pavement shown on the plans and as herein specified, except work specifically noted as “Work Not Included.” 3. PREPARATION OF THE SUBGRADE –The Contractor shall prepare the surface of the various subgrades receiving subsequent pavement courses to the lines, grades, and dimensions given on the plans and as per the pavement design section of this report. The upper 12 inches of the soil subgrade beneath the pavement section shall be compacted to a minimum compaction of 95% of maximum dry density as determined by test method ASTM D1557.The finished subgrades shall be tested and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to the placement of additional pavement of additional pavement courses. 4. AGGREGATE BASE –The aggregate base shall be spread and compacted on the prepared subgrade in conformity with the lines, grades, and dimensions shown on the plans. The aggregate base should conform to WSDOT Standard Specification for Crushed Surfacing Base Course or Top Course (Item 9- 03.9(3)). The base material shall be compacted to a minimum compaction of 95% as determined by ASTM D1557. Each layer of subbase shall be tested and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to the placement of successive layers. 5. ASPHALTIC CONCRETE SURFACING –Asphaltic concrete surfacing shall consist of a mixture of mineral aggregate and paving grade asphalt, mixed at central mixing plant and spread and compacted on a prepared base in conformity with the lines, grades, and dimensions shown on the plans. The drying, proportioning, and mixing of the materials shall conform to WSDOT Specifications. The prime coat, spreading and compacting equipment, and spreading and compacting the mixture shall conform to WSDOT Specifications, with the exception that no surface course shall be placed when the atmospheric temperature is below 50 degrees F. The surfacing shall be rolled with combination steel- wheel and pneumatic rollers, as described in WSDOT Specifications. The surface course shall be placed with an approved self-propelled mechanical spreading and finishing machine. 6. TACK COAT –The tack (mixing type asphaltic emulsion) shall conform to and be applied in accordance with the requirements of WSDOT Specifications.DRAFT