Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09243 i I M7eaFor fro f I G/ date 1 num --1 �� Ztime nM qPM mes �� tJ�U)n �C . - �r ,( C4-i Cry `�_C best call back time_ date i I I VATro�y CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS RECORD s�2 CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND -WA Development Services Department 9 �- 250 Madison Street, Suite 3, Port Townsend, WA 98368 POST THIS CARD IN A SAFE,CONSPICUOUS LOCATION.PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE UNTIL ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS ARE MADE AND SIGNED OFF BY THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY AND THE BUILDING IS APPROVED FOR OCCUPANCY.STAMPED APPROVED PLANS MUST BE AVAILABLE ON THE JOBSITE. PARCEL NO. 957616001 PERMIT NO. BLD09-243 ISSUED DATE 03/09/2010 EXPIRATION DATE 09/05/2010 ADDRESS 10*LBENEDICT STREET CONSTRUCTION TYPE V-B OCCUPANT LOAD + -• OWNER PORT OF PORT TOWNSEND PROJECT DESCRIPTION NEW U.S.C.G. BUILDING CONTRACTOR CONCEPT INTEGRATORS, INC. LENDER INSPECTION INSP )ATE COMMENT INSPECTION INSP )ATE COMMENT TESC FINAL PLANNING ROUGH GRADING SPECIAL FOOTING .s ! ( �2 (-l�Ul7L)t� !�.�v Af2TA L =t2oM T' SLAB iC '5/vve � jT-'Q,— 16utL*1\ A1(P CONCRETE FRAMING y STRUCTURALSTEEL GWB Mo'� �0 1 1D r� �A�(c� �C INSULATION 3a Otl `s MISCELLANEOUS © D�^ II SPECIAL ��L)(MV� Sv�l- � J!'ulo ROOF NAILING SHEAR WALL FINAL BUILDING !D SEE � � Fgo A COZ Its[ �[�c 64TEd--> S/2-11 v FINAL PUBLIC WORKS a 1 10116 IDJ C�-wltJ r K 913ahC-) TO REQUEST AN INSPECTION CALL(360) 385-2294. INSPECTION REQUESTS MUST BE RECEIVED PRIOR TO 3:00 PM FOR NEXT DAY INSPECTION. Thomas L.Aumock Consulting Fire Code Inspector East Jefferson Fire& Rescue 2303 Hendricks Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 Home Office(360)385-3938 Email: taumock@cablespeed.com Cell: (360)643-0272 PLAN REVIEW MEMORANDUM TO: Scottie Foster, Adm. Asst.,City of Port Townsend Development Services Department DT: 31 December 2009 / FR: Thomas L. Aumock,Consulting Fire Code hispectit7//..---- RE: BLD09-243: USCG,Benedict St. CC: None I am in receipt of the set of plans for the above-referenced proposal from your office, have reviewed the proposal with the International Fire Code [I.F.C.],2006 Edition and Washington State Amendments. The following constitutes this plan examiner's findings and determinations based upon the plans of record submitted. Findings &Determinations: 1. The proposal was reviewed as a 2,000 square foot Group B [government] occupancy with Type 5-B construction classification. 2. Addressing for the proposal shall be consistent with City of Port Townsend Municipal Code standard for size, and be in a position as to be plainly visible and legible from Washington Street fronting the property. Said numbers shall contrast with their background [I.F.C. Section 5051. 3. Key box access to or within the subject structure for emergency services delivery is not required and is an owner option. The proponent may contact the administrative office of East Jefferson Fire & Rescue to obtain the proper key-box application form should this option be exercised. 4. Access to building openings is designed consistent with the I.F.C. Section 504. 5. An automatic fire suppression system (sprinklers) is not required for this Group B occupancy from I.F.C. Section 903. 6. An automatic fire detection alarm system is not required for this occupancy under IFC Section 907. 7. Fire extinguisher sizing and placement shall meet or exceed IFC Section 906 and NFPA Standard 10, which normally requires a 2-A:10-B:C minimum-rated fire extinguisher at the exits. 8. The dryer exhaust vent shall not penetrate the 1-hour area separation wall, and shall meet the requirements of Section 504 and subsections, from the International Mechanical Code, 2006 Edition. Any other applicable or relevant sections of said Codes not covered herein shall nonetheless apply to this proposal. 1.0 hours time was logged in the review, and report for this proposal. It is the recommendation of this consulting fire code inspector that the proposal be approved subject to the aforesaid requirements of the International Fire Code. CADocuments and Settings\Tom\My Documents\My Documents\My Documents\Business\City ContractTlan Review&Correspondence\BLD 2009\BLD09-243- USCG Benedict St..doc 12/31/09 City of Port Townsend pOR7 jO�ym Development Services Department " o 9A - BUILDING ADDRESS APPLICATION Name of Property Owner: �o'KT p ��C-:[-- Ibl .>v, Mailing Address: 7.f�). -6 tS-� ) 13 D Telephone: Property is located in: Vid Addition:giasx lqnS z Block(s): D Lot(s): ` g 71-. t(O Faces/Access is from: GT-Di t l Parcel Number 9 5"� �� Op Directions to the Property (draw vicinity map on back) If this is a new ADU, has a building permit been applied for? Yes "No Date: Notes: Yt,15 ►t'lE t\LEW L'okl Ch ADDRESS NUMBER AS GNED: _ Z- Date of Approval: •v/ 02 e �. For Department Use Only: Application Fee Received ($3.00): Date: Cam: ❑ Finance ❑ Fire Dept ❑ Post Office 0 Sheriff ❑ Police ❑ GIS ❑Public Works ❑ DSD database ❑ Assessor's Office PADSD\FonnsTudding Forms\Application-Address Number.doc;2/5/09 v V `v Cl 1 . O (� 2 4 Q,.. 3 4 957602702 s g t sy � + �p�s� 6 6 1 1g a ���� t N yw. s 957602601 o 95760260 RXPON 191T 1A � >60 K z1?0 to 1 3 9 -CA 62 V. g )06 o' ao 6p st ��� 05�616 P U 30 IINN Michael Hoskins From: John McDonagh Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 4:37 PM To: Michael Hoskins Subject: RE: BLD09-243 �� r t, Two things; I inspected the heat pump screening and it was fine AS LONG AS THEY PAINTED THE EXTERIOR PART OF THE SCREEN TO MATCH THE BUILDING. Second, I informed Shawn when I did the heat pump screen inspection that they were required to do some landscaping (in planters) in front of the gate. The CG opposed that condition but the Port(who were at the hearing supported it) said they would maintain it. So, if next week you could confer with Judy about appropriate landscaping in front of the cyclone fence I'd appreciate it (I'm out next week). I'm not talking too much—a couple of wooden planter boxes big enough to have some low growing native shrubbery. Thanks (Go Boise!!) John McDonagh, Senior Planner Development Services Dept. City of Port Townsend Pt. Townsend,WA 98368 360-344-3070 office 360-344-4619 fax From: Michael Hoskins Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 3:52 PM To: John McDonagh Subject: BLD09-243 Hey John, Have completed your onsite inspections at the Coast Guard Bldg. There is a push to get that final done early next week. Thanks, (Go Seahawks) Michael j610 1 gLDO�-z`'l� NTI ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, INC. \ � 717 SOUTH PEABODY STREET,PORT ANGELES,WA 98362 Engineers❑Land Surveyors❑Geologists Construction Inspection❑Materials Testing NTI (360)452-8491 1-800-654-5545 FAX 452-8498 E-Mail:infoanti4u.com iviviv.nti4u.com August 24, 2010 Jefferson County Community Development C/o Fred Slota 250 Madison St. Port Townsend, WA 98368 RE: Framing Inspection & Anchor Bolt Spacing for new Cutter Support Building located at the Coast Guard Station, Port of Port Townsend, Port Townsend, WA 98368 Dear Fred: Per my conversation with you and Sean from Concept Integrators I understand that the nail spacing on the interior shearwall at the back of the boat bay is 3" o.c. and that there is only one stud supporting the edges of these shear panels and nails. As we discussed there is no apparent splitting, cracking, or breaking out of the 2x timber member used to'support the edges of the plywood,therefore we feel that this will be acceptable given the length of the shearwall and the anticipated loading. In addition,when the foundation was set for this building I had a conversation with Sean regarding the anchor bolt spacing. Given the size of the building and the anticipated loading it was determined that the anchor bolts would be acceptable spaced at 48" o.c. instead of the 12" o.c. called out in the plan set. If you have any questions regarding this matter please contact us. Sincerely, �R\NER. � NTI ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, INC. � o z PF 44468 Catherine Bailey, P.E., MEng. r— 0, cis 1 Project Engineer �j i i__ J u s owai_ EN AUG 2 5 2010 J CIT' OF POT1 0lyNS,INN i G:\Gen\Catherine\2009 Jobs\CONC0901-Coast Guard\Anchor Bolt Spacing.doc Al 53 F SLOPE 228't � - f : OHW 2.25' Z MAItilHAZMAT a czi PA EVATION Q Ci Q 3 W �cyf po O Q C ' T ®''I" '� I • C2' V PROPOSED FLAG POLE t' '. . � a W fV C2 Q OHw61CAP PROPOSED BUILDING ¢1NG.MAE QNLY; o Wti vt -------------- ------------ 77, AA -� TOP (�.1.? C9 �- `� r K /`��` � jC � ` `, "�✓ OF SLOPE l�l w G�4O K0�2r1_1 N� � L 11S .t c9C —vLO tm la c9 (9�� {X9c— C 50�uS ,�i1 —_ 1` VEGETATION LINES- tt(Crl 4'-'�P BOAT HAVEN MARINA/PT. _ l TOWNSEND BAY l FiV✓ d�� (2) V )/41- (zz C-A-4 t -""i- uz� Ak� _q eo ee- /Vo I OPI-4 'Y 16-XIA 4 6 n OCQ S T R DATE: NTI Engineering & Surveying DESIGNED BY: Northwestern Territories, Inc. PROJECT V(sd& pl- t.GWVSC Engineers a Land Surveyors-Geologists a Materials Testing FOR: NTI 717 SOUTH PEABODY-PORT ANGELES, WASHINGTON 98362■(360)452-8491 SHT OF www.ntl4u.com lnfo@ntl4u.com �0 COPY J {� ��; ,_- , � -j L.A.4 J f ed D— [kjtp -4 a Z-0--L) S T R DATE: NTI Engineering & Surveying DESIGNED BY: s Northwestern Territories, Inc. PROJECT Engineers- Land Surveyors-Geologists-Materials Testing V�ffl 81 FOR: 717 SOUTH PEABODY-PORT ANGELES,WASHINGTON 98362■(360)452.8491 T1 N SHT OF www.ntl4u.com lnfo@nt[4u.com =I C-D �^IQA'11--"tk- AL If -7 1.2r)K 4- 5 7(� S T R DATE: NTI Engineering & Surveying DESIGNED BY., Northwestern Territories, Inc. PROJECT Engineers m Land Surveyors-Geologists-Materials testing FOR: 717 SOUTH PEABODY-PORT ANGELES, WASHINGTON 98362•(360)452-8491 NTI SHT OF f s www.nfl4u.com info@nti4u.com 's-!Iy��� Uj 4- A/':)71—C DATE: S T R NTI Engineering & Surveying DESIGNED BY: Northwestern Territories, Inc. PROJECT Engineers- Land Surveyors-Geologists-Materials Testing FOR: T1 717 SOUTH PEABODY a PORT ANGELES,WASHINGTON 98362-(360)452.8491 SHT OF www.nt!4u.com Info@ntl4u.com -A "S � Lri 2 1, IJ 6 S T R DATE: NTI Engineering & Surveying DESIGNED BY: Northwestern Territories, Inc. PROJECT. Engineers- Land Surveyors-Geologists-Materials Testing O FOR: m PORTANGELES,WASHINGTON 98362 P(360)452.8491 SHT OF NTI 717 SOUTH PEABODY www.ntl4u.com info@nt!4u.com Per� VY14 Yo C4P 100C'P'C 02-11 0, -7 /Z S T R DATE: NTI Engineering & Surveying DESIGNED BY. Northwestern Territories, Inc. PROJECT Engineers■ Land Surveyors■Geologists■Materials Testing FOR: 717 SOUTH PEABODY■PORT ANGELES,WASHINGTON 96362■(360)452.8491 SHT J� OF NT1 www.nt14u.com lnfo@nti4u.com 4-- C r LAJ CUM LA/yA 00-le'Lldd,,-2 u'), C ti -701 2 7 S T R DATE: NTI Engineering & Surveying DESIGNED BY. (J% Northwestern Territories, Inc. PROJECT 1�27 Engineers- Land Surveyors-Geologists-Materials Testing 0 FOR: PORT ANGELES, WASHINGTON 98362 m(360)452-8491 SHT OF NTI 717 SOUTH PEABODY-www.ng4u.com info@nt!4u.com Cn 4 T- Z7 2. L 13 T-1 .� ,� /yam, � .� 12, 13 S T R DATE: NTI Engineering & Surveying DESIGNED BY. Northwestern Territories, Inc. PROJECT Engineers- Land Surveyors-Geologists-Materials Testing FOR: NTI 717 SOUTH PEABODY a PORT ANGELES,WASHINGTON 98362 m(360)452-8491 SHT D OF 16' wwmnfi4uxom lnfo@nti4u.com Li /V C -2 A V A 4 i� V cktf /-4 8 TO— j �f-- 0Ae0- 49 )< Vcziu /< S T R DATE: NTI Engineering & Surveying DESIGNED BY: Northwestern Territories, Inc. PROJECT Engineers- Land Surveyors-Geologists-Materials Testing 0 . FOR: -PORT ANGELES,WASHINGTON 98362-(360)452.8491 iE SHT OF NTI 717 SOUTH PEABODYwww.nti4u.com lnto@ntl4u.com s Cat.Cj-t-.1 / ,t` j S a t_-_ 1 ) i7 7 y t yrzs QIVc F ���1?�i��_��a� �r�.�Z�<i�� T r�.:�l.''✓) f7��f,F 1�� f fA.v}c�� aof� ri g/✓ s✓L t S r 0 7.0 Y S T R DATE: NTI Engineering & Surveying DESIGNED BY: Northwestern Territories, Inc. PROJECT: Engineers■ land Surveyors•Geologists•Materials Testing 81 FOR: NTI 717 SOUTH PEABODY■ PORT ANGELES, WASHINGTON 98362■(360)452.8491 SHT: Z OF J ,S www.nti4u.com into@ntl4u.com r l` 1 .t.� ,s- t VE 1 J z sr Cx r , l ! 1 PO c,n v-6 yr'�' 1.r I C— C A_ v s r R DATE: NTI Engineering & Surveying DESIGNED BY: Northwestern Territories, Inc. PROJECT Engineers- Land Surveyors■Geologists•Materials Testing a E 3 FOR: NT' 717 SOUTH PEABODY■PORT ANGELES,WASHINGTON 98362■(360)452.8491 SHT OF www.nti4u.com info@ntt4u.com 'FT 67� (:j a Door- -7 3 '3 3 75-S T -2— --7DATE: NTI Engineering & Surveying DESIGNED BY. Northwestern Territories, Inc. PROJECT: Engineers- Land Surveyors-Geologists-Materials Testing Ou FOR: PORT ANGELES,WASHINGTON 98362 m(360)452-8491 W NTH 717 SOUTH PEABODY m SHT OF www.nti4u.com info@nti4u.com 184 C) 7�4 (0 -3 -C-tt— e� C- '5 CA-) K-1 V IC 0 0 E-Lg, 0 al A 7V "F" S T R DATE: NTI Engineering & Surveying DESIGNED BY. Northwestern Territories, Inc. PROJECT Engineers- Land Surveyors-Geologists-Materials Testing FOR: 717 SOUTH PEABODY-PORT ANGELES,WASHINGTON 98362-(360)452-8491 NTI SHT OF www.nti4u.com info@nt14u.com COVERED PORCHES 552 957602501 957616701 1y! . • ��f x L `A \ 957816781 t, .160 C20 GARBAGE 957616701 \ '� =RECYCLING 51$Dr 6RAVE1'ON BOTH 957 e `� =SIDES`OF PAVING a' / PAYING` l - Y PINVIYgL s?576 201 OFFICE \ 957 6101 -'' 4 t � E06E OF 6RAVQ. .,1326E OF 6RAV i� CJ�vGi G� AQ �������p 5 /W JL_;.AB W..ANCHOR , \ 957ststo RAIL R�DAD T1m ALONG WALKWAY.TO FLOAT 95 6t6201 EDGE OF 6R. AVM 95161610, DEMO EXI5T1N6 _, 501XI8':GARA6E. FENCE z . '' .�. iLo RAIL ROAD t nFs EXISTING;BU INO %761. 1 ALONG EDGE 01 80'X20'"WITH GRAVEL ' 5'3'POR,C.H ON 0)SIDES 7616001 95' t a RAMP TO FLOAT ` STORAGE .. :: CONTAINER NORTH EXISTING SITE PLAN 50RLE: N.T.5. A r 1 'Z� 4b5'-I' t DOK6F0 TS COLLECTED INTO EXISTING TIOMINE THAT DAY1.161HIT5 AT SWALE o EXI5TIN6 SWALE. IN RELAGATFD —————————'-I � COAST GUARD BUILDING \ EXISTING a --------— / —J �p�A �6RAVEL EXI5TIN6 ol ss; BERM / EXI5TIN6 EXISTING BERM SWAL E ol EXISTING SHOP 4p00 50.FT. EXISTING SEPTIC LID 15TIN6 KATER b EX METER ELEEY VAULT EXI5TIN6 GRAVEL ROAD NORTH -200'SHORELINE SETBACK NEN LOGATION SITE , PLAN _ . 50A+LE: I" = 40' r-- Boat Haven Marina Redevelopment INITIAL GEO TECHNICAL REPORT pe - vVww�»�f a PREPARED FOR POR T OF POR T TO IYINSEND PREPARED BY M 168 1 M 7-]- 0 May 2007 CITY Or PCR(10,VMSEND HD I i PND No.074010. ,1 Boat Haven Marina Redevelopment INITIAL GEOTECHNICAL REPORT MAY 2UU7 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ASFE American Society of Foundation Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials BH Borehole BPF Blows per Foot CLE Contingency Level Earthquake IBC International Building Code ID Inner Diameter NEHRP National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program OD Outside Diameter OLE Operating Level Earthquake Sh 340-lb Hammer Oversized Split-Spoon Sm 300-lb Hammer Oversized Split-Spoon Ss 140-lb Hammer Standard Split-Spoon SPT Standard Penetration Test TH Test Hole TP Test Pit USCS Unified Soil Classification System USGS United States Geological Survey Page -2- Boat Haven Marina Redevelopment INITIAL GEOTECHNICAL REPORT MAY 20a7 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Purpose This geotechnical report is prepared for the Boat Haven Marina Redevelopment project. The planned expansion will take place in phases and this initial geotechnical report will focus on the planning phase. This phase includes: • Background research and summaries of previous geotechnical investigations in the vicinity of the project; • A field drilling investigation consisting of three boreholes in the vicinity of the Benedict Spit, New Day Fishery, and the existing Boat Haven Marina; • Laboratory testing on representative samples to determine general soil index properties. • Preparation of a geotechnical report summarizing background information, geotechnical data, results of the field geotechnical investigation and results of the laboratory testing. This report has been prepared for use by PND staff in support of the internal design effort that is being conducted for the proposed infrastructure. It should also be noted that this report is not intended to document or determine the extent of any hazardous materials contamination at the project site since this is beyond the scope of this report. 1.2 Proposed Work PND Engineers Incorporated (PND) recommended drilling a minimum of three boreholes for the project after reviewing other geotechnical information in the vicinity. Boreholes TH- 1, TH-2, and TH-3 consist of three onshore holes excavated to depths ranging approximately 61.5 to 101.5 feet in depth. Port of Port Townsend authorized this work and Fieldwork was scheduled for March 7 and 8, 2007. The locations of these boreholes in relationship to the overall Boat Haven Marina are shown on the site map in Appendix A. 1.3 Summary of Previous Geotechnical Data Preparation of this geotechnical report includes a review of information we were able to obtain on previous projects close to the proposed Boat Haven Marina Redevelopment project. A synopsis of this background information is included in this report. A site map is presented in Appendix A that shows the locations of the three boreholes completed as part of this investigation. This map also contains the locations of previous borehole and test pits completed by other consultants. Appendix E contains copies of background borehole logs, test pits, and related geotechnical information. PND is also maintaining a copy of the complete reports that may be made available to potential contractors upon request. - Page -3- r l Boat Haven Marina Redevelopment INITIAL GEOTEC INICAI. REPORT MAY zou7 Both the synopsis of information contained in this report and the complete reports on file at PND may be used to interpret site conditions in support of construction, however, the Engineer and Owner make no warranty either expressed or implied regarding the accuracy of geotechnical background information presented in this report or related to the original data. A synopsis of the information gathered as part of this investigation is provided below with our comments: Geotechnical Engineering Services Proposed Enhanced Haulout Facility Port Townsend, Washin�ton,prepared for the Port of Port Townsend, August 1996, Prepared by Landau Associates,Inc. In 1994, Landau Associates conducted a geotechnical investigation consisting of 14 boreholes and 15 test pits for the Port of Port Townsend. The boreholes were excavated from 4 to 60 feet in depth, while the test pits were excavated 4 to 9.5 feet in depth. The investigation was performed for the design of a larger haulout facility at the Boat Haven Marina and investigated subsurface soil and groundwater conditions. A wide variety of soil types were encountered during the investigation and were concluded to be original Holocene marine deposits overlain with varying depths of dredged fill. The native fill generally consisted of loose to medium dense, fine to medium marine sand containing trace amounts of silt, shell fragments,gravel, and wood fragments. The imported fill generally consisted of medium dense to dense sand or sand and gravel containing varying amounts of silt, wood fragments, organic material, roots, and cobbles. Some debris was also encountered at several test pits, consisting mainly of wire, wood, glass, brick, metal, and concrete. Groundwater was encountered in all test pits and ranged from +6 to 8 feet MI.1,W datum, in depth and was based on topographic characteristics and proximity to the waterfront. While excavating 1.-13, "black stained soil' with a "strong hydrocarbon type odor" was encountered from 8.5 to 9 feet in depth. In December 1994, Landau Associates also excavated a potentially contaminated fuel storage tank on the Benedict Spit south of borehole [.-13 and these results are presented in the geotechnical report. Soil was excavated to determine the distribution of petroleum contamination and representative samples were tested for benzene, toluene, ehtylbenzene, and zytenes. A loose to medium dense gray sand fill material was encountered in the excavation, with a petroleum sheen observed in one sample. The field investigations suggested that petroleum hydrocarbons had spread out along the water table and was later confirmed in laboratory analysis. The Landau report includes borehole and test pit logs, representative soil laboratory tests, site maps, geotechnical recommendations, and logs of past geotechnical investigations. a Geotechnical Design Report, K.C. Nomura Building, Port Townsend. WA for Port Of Port Townsend.-uly 1994, Myers Biodynamics, Inc. Four test pits for the Nomura Building foundation were excavated in April 1994, each to 9 feet in depth. All four sites encountered loose gray sand, sometimes with silt and seashell Page -4- � I � I o Boat Haven Marina Redevelopment INITIAL GEOTECHNICAL REPORT MAY 2ou7 fragments. TP-3 had loose to medium dense gray sand from 0.5 to 3 feet in depth. These test pit logs are included at the back of the Landau 1994 report, but no other part of the initial report is present. • Geotechnical Design Report Port of Port Townsend Moderate Risk Waste Facility for Port of Port Townsend, May 1994 Myers Biodynamics Inc Four test holes were investigated, ranging 8.5 to 10 feet in depth. Medium dense to dense fill consisting of gravelly sand, silt, and crushed rock was found in the top 1 to 1.5 feet of each hole. Beneath the Fill, medium dense grading to loose gray brown sand was encountered. TP-1 encountered debris consisting of brick and tarpaper at 3 to 3.5 feet in depth and TP 1, 3, and 4 encountered a peat layer at approximately 5 to 5.5 feet in depth. Loose to medium dense sand, at times with shell fragments, was encountered at all sites for the remainder of the holes. Borehole logs are found as part of the Landau report, but no narrative was available. • Port Townsend Washin(,*ton Small Boat Basin Plan, as-built drawings D-1-12-21 sheets 1-3, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1964 Twenty boreholes were investigated by the Army Corps of Engineers around the Boat Haven area for construction of the current rubble mound breakwater. An additional 5 boreholes were excavated in 1954 using porter-sampling methods and are included in this drawing set. 1964 test holes were excavated 15 to 30 feet in depth offshore and onshore using auger and wash boring methods. Gray poorly graded sand, sometimes with silt and seashells at depth, was found at all test sites. Blew counts ranged from 5 blows per foot near the surface to 68 blows per foot at depth. Borehole logs and site plan drawings for the breakwater sections are available. Borehole locations in close proximity to this project are landau L-12, 13, and 14;TP-10, 11, 12, 13, and 14; 62-PA-20. Figure A-01 in Appendix A shows test pit and borehole from past investigations in relation to boreholes drilled as part of this investigation. 2.0 REGIONAL SETTING AND SITE CONDITIONS 2.1 Existing Facilities Boat Haven Marina is located in Port Townsend, WA on the northeast corner of the Olympic Peninsula in Jefferson County. The Port of Port Townsend owns the property and the Boat Haven Marina is used for recreational and commercial boats. The existing facilities include a Coast Guard station, New Day Fishery, and moorage for 362 recreational and 64 commercial vessels. The Benedict Spit (also known as the Coast Guard Spit) separates the commercial and recreational moorage basins. The expansion plans are beyond the scope of this report and another phase of this report will be issued once concepts are determined. _ . Page -5- Boat Haven Marina Redevelopment INITIAL GEOTECFINICAL REPORT MAY 2007 2.2 Geology and Topography Boat Haven Marina is located in the northwestern corner of Puget Sound, a glacially produced fjord created during the geologically recent Holocene epoch. Because glaciers have carved the area, Puget Sound is an uncommonly deep inland body of water and the surrounding topography includes many large glacial deposits and striations in the bedrock. Typical Puget Sound profiles of dense glacial till overlying permeable glacial outwash of gravels above an impermeable bed of silty clay are typical. 2.3 Climate Port Townsend is located in a temperate climate influenced by marine air from Puget Sound. The record high temperature is 96' in August 1960 and the lowest recorded temperature is 5° in January 1950. The area has an average high temperature of 57' and low temperature of 46", with August being the warmest month and January being the coolest. Annual precipitation occurs most in the winter months. December averages the highest rainfall with 2.6 inches. The summer months historically have the least precipitation, with August averaging the lowest with 0.9 inches. Monthly precipitation averages 1.6 inches and average annual rainfall totals 19.4 inches. 2.4 Regional Seismicity Washington State has an estimated 2°/, of the annual United States earthquakes, with the Puget Sound region being the most tectonically active area, containing several active fault lines (Figure 1). The Seattle fault cuts across Puget Sound, crossing north of Vashon Island and dipping under the city of Seattle. To the south, the existence of a second fault, the Tacoma Fault has buckled the intervening strata in the Seattle Uplift. Locally, the Port Townsend area has several known faults north of the city. The 2001 Nisqually Earthquake was most recent large earthquake event measuring 6.4 on the Richter scale and was centered south of the Seattle area. While no deaths or injuries ()ccurred in the Port Townsend area, moderate property damage was reported, but Boat Haven Marina was unaffected. Figure 2 depicts the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) map identifies the peak ground acceleration having a 10 percent probability of exceedence in 50 years for the region as having a 0.29g (29 percent of the acceleration due to gravity). This event is equivalent to a 475-year return period, and is often used as the standard For similar developments. Figure 3 depicts the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) map identifies the peak ground acceleration having a 2 percent probability of exceedence in 50 years for the region as having a .55g (55 percent of the acceleration due to gravity). This event is equivalent to a 2,475-year return period. Page -6- Boat Haver Marina Redevelopment INITIAL CEOTECHNICAL REPORT MAY 2007 1"R c ' 119` 12�i 1tY t, A NO,f1FHINEAICA RtTk�li CI?LUM .h < Project Site: Port Townsend,WA / •f ��' !�' .PLATE 1 f..• '�- :� OR_GON PACIFIC PLATE _ CIWF" •• e26 NEVADA A- ��; i: .cm. �' •� cc+�o4 0° PLATE CQ} ►, `� r. MondaAnD + ! 1 i 0 200 F{rlam=t="s Figure 1: Western US showing the multitude of past earthquakes,including the location of the 2001 Nisqually earthquake.Creen dots represent small earthquakes(Richter scale 0-3),yellow dots are moderate(3-6), red and orange dots are large(greater than 6). On previous projects, PND Engineers Inc. has recommended using the publication "Seismic Guidelines for Ports". This publication recommends a multi-level design approach to design as described below: Level 1 Level 1 establishes an Operating Level Earthquake (OLE) for ground motions that have a 50 percent probability of exceedence in 50 years. This corresponds to an average return period of 72 years. For this seismic event, the structure is designed so that operations are not interrupted and damage that does occur is repairable in a short timeframe. Typically, damage could be repaired in less than G months. Level 2 The Level 2 design is for a Contingency Level Earthquake (CLE) where shaking is more severe. The CLE ground motions would have a 10 percent probability of being exceeded in a 50-year timeframe. This corresponds with an average return period of 475 years. For this Page -7- Boat Haven Marina Redevelopment INITIAL CEOTECHNICAL REPORT MAY 2007 seismic event, the structure would undergo damage that is controlled, economically repairable, and is not a threat to life safety. Recommended Peak Ground Accelerations (OLE and CLE) After review of the USGS, NEHRP and other background data, PND recommends the following peak ground accelerations are considered for use for port facilities at the Boat Haven Marina: • Level 1 OLE corresponding with a peak ground acceleration of 0.13g; • Level 2 CLE would correspond with a peak ground acceleration of 0.21g. It should be noted that recent studies by the Southern California Earthquake Center have shown the localized shaking experienced in an earthquake can vary significantly based on important geologic factors. The softness of the rock or soil near the surface and the thickness of sediments above hard bedrock can result in variation in seismic response. Studies have shown that "hotspots" may occur and result in higher shaking. Orientation of faults, irregularities of the rupturing fault surface, scattering of waves, wave reflection, distance to epicenter, and a myriad of other factors may result in localized anomalous shaking unique to each earthquake. Based on the type of infrastructure proposed at this site we have recommended peak ground accelerations commensurate with the risk from both seismic events and other factors that are discussed in sections below. The recommendations contained above should be used for site design. Specific requirements for building seismic criteria are contained in the IBC (IBC, 2006). These requirements are as follows: • Ss site class B value is 1.267g for a 0.2-second period • S1 site class B value is 0.46lg for a 1.0-second period. Page -8- I ' Boat Haven Marina Redevelopment INITIAL GEOTECUIN'ICAL REPORT MAY 2007 =C A NA D A � Q AS'HING70N r"` 14irs o :W � P"abillty j i3 L t.illnp wn `` 0.55 �( 0.5 o. ;•- , 0. 45 y Project Site, Port 0 Townsend,WA i 0 0.3 o 0 2 1� Pat 0.2 ?WAngs ❑ ®�°� 0.1 s.q - "l +nr�tt o�Qo 0 1 0.CIEC } =d; 0 0 1 n ellevue . doo�qUah l/ Hoods Renton Z ShOoR r Figure 2: A seismic map of Port Townsend and the surrounding area showing the peak acceleration with 10% probability of exceedence in 50 years. UvOr Ws 7 o N E P"ability 15, I"1 y y 0 s �AourR v.Y�,9 0. 05 Project Site, Port 0 4 Townsend, WA 0 3 Part Mya ❑ s4sp sey L 0.2 0.1 0.0. Hooda ~` Renton v f y is amnix Itop Figure 3:A seismic map of Port Townsend and the surrounding area showing the peak acceleration with 2%probability of exceedence in 50 years. Page -9- I91 � � � Boat Haven Marina Redevelopment INITIAL GE01'ECHNICAL. REPORT MAY 2007 2.5 Seismic Sea Waves (tsunamis) Tsunamis are of most threat when the coastline is unprotected from the open ocean, such as the Washington coastline. Past tsunamis originating in the Pacific Ocean and that have greatly damaged the coastline exist in the geologic record. Tsunamis are principally caused by undersea earthquakes along subduction zones where the heavier oceanic plate moves underneath the lighter continental plate, such as along the margin of the West Coast/Pacific Ocean boundary. This subduction results in stress build-up, which is relieved during earthquakes. The subduction of the Juan de Fuca Plate under the North American Plate occurs in relatively close proximity to Port Townsend along the Washington coastline. The Juan de Fuca Plate is moving north at a rate of approximately 2.5 inches per year. Stress relief results in the relative vertical displacement of these colliding plates that can generate tsunamis. Undersea earthquakes of magnitude 6.5 or greater on the Richter scale with focal depths of less than 30 miles principally cause tsunamis. When tsunamis approach 'a coastal region, the shallow water depths result in rapid increases in wave heights. Over 500 tsunamis have been reported within recorded history. The majority have occurred in the Pacific Ocean. One of the most recent tsunamis to affect the United States was caused by the Great Alaska Earthquake of 1964. The moment magnitude 9.2 earthquake generated a tsunami that killed 107 people in Alaska, 4 in Oregon, and "11 in Crescent City, California. The tsunami caused over $100 million dollars in damage on the west coast of North America. Puget Sound is relatively safe from tsunamis due to the distance away from the Pacific coastline and protection provided by the multitude of islands within Puget Sound. Other risks, due to localized slides during an earthquake are more likely to result in sea waves that Could impact the site. The likelihood of these types of events is small in comparison to the design life of the facility and therefore these will not be considered in the design of the facility. 3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION 3.1 Drilling and Sampling Procedures Drilling was conducted by personnel from Holt Drilling, a division of Boart Longyear mobilized from Milton, Washington and consisted of a three-person drill crew. The investigation was overseen and logged by Allison Cougan, a PND Staff Engineer, while our Senior Geotechnical Engineer Mike Hartley provided overall management and oversight ID during the fieldwork and preparation of this report. Borehole locations were determined using a Bushnell Yardage Pro Rangefinder to measure the distances between the borehole and fixed permanent structures such as corners of piers and buildings. This method provides a horizontal accuracy of plus or minus 3 feet. Page -10- Boat Haven Marina Redevelopment INITIAL GEOTEC INICAL REPORT MAY 2uu7 Soil drilling was accomplished using hollow-stem mud rotary methods. Sampling was performed with standard and oversized split spoon testing at 5-foot intervals to a 50-foot depth and every 10 feet thereafter. Bedrock was not encountered at any of the drill sites. 3.1.1 Drilling Equipment Holt Drilling, a division of Boart Longryear, provided drilling services for the March 2007 field geotechnical investigation. Drilling was conducted using a Mobile B-59 truck-mounted drill rig and equipped with hollow-stem auger equipment. The drill rig was equipped with 6-inch O.D. hollow-stem rotary pipes, two sizes of split spoon sampling equipment, and Shelby tubes. jt Prior to drilling, approximately 8 feet of soil depth was removed from each hole by vacuum in order to make sure that drilling would not disturb any buried utilities. This vacuum truck was part of Holt Drilling's drilling services for this investigation. 3.1.2 Soil Sampling Mud Rotary Mud rotary methods were used to collect tit �_. �� r'r •-, � � samples at each of the boreholes. The mud r� rotary sampling methods consisted of drilling into the upper soil layer and withdrawing the rotary barrel for the collection of loosened soil F materials. Samples were taken, identified and returned to a soils laboratory for testing. Soil types were visually classified in the field using ASTM visual classification procedures and noted on the field log. Each auger sample was preserved in double zip lock plastic bags for laboratory testing of representative samples. The location and type of samples taken is designated in the test hole logs in Appendix B. Split Spoon (Ss) Sam lin 7 The drill rig was equipped ui ed in a � ��,��=1 � • � p p � p �� � q PP manner to allow two split spoon sampling procedures: y �l. 1 Split spoon sampling consisting of a 1.4-inch I.D, 2.0-inch O.D. split spoon sampler and driven by a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches for each blow, designated "Ss" on the borehole logs. The Ss sampler is best suited for silts, sands and fine gravels with particle sizes smaller than the 1.4-inch I.D. of the sampler. This - - - - -- -- Page -11- Boat Haven Marina Redevelopment INFFIAL CEOTECUINICAL REPORT MAY znu7 smaller sized sampling configuration was mobilized to allow sampling of finer grained or cohesive soils. In this investigation, samples were obtained using the Ss method. 2) Large split spoon sampling consisting of a 2.4-inch 1.D./3.0-inch O.D. sampler. In this procedure a split spoon sampler is driven by either a 300-pound (Sm) or 340-pound (Sh) hammer falling 30 inches for each blow. The larger diameter split spoon sampling equipment allows more material to be collected and facilitates the samphng of coarser soils. The Sh method was used in this investigation. Split spoon samplers are typically driven a minimum of 18 inches with blow counts being recorded for each 6-inch increment. The sum of the number of blow counts required to drive the sampler from 6 inches to 18 inches is presented as the "penetration resistance" (e.g. 30 blows per foot) and are presented in Appendix B. At sampling locations where it is not possible to drive the sampler 18 inches the penetration resistance is presented as the number of blows for the driving interval (e.g. 85 blows/4-inches). The blow cozjnts have not been corrected and only the raw field values are shown on the borehole logs in Appendix B. Blow counts were obtained using a cathead and rope typically with two wraps of the cathead Corrections for drill rod lend h, tune of hammer, efi-ciency and other variables are not shown on the logs. These factors will be considered in the design but the Contractor should be aware that vahues shown on the logs are uncorrected. Vane Shear and Pocket Penetrometer Tes6n�� of Samples: The soil samples gathered from the split spoon sampler were used to visually classify soils in preparing boring logs in the field. Samples were not tested in the held using hand-held devices to measure bearing strength (pocket penetrometer) and shear strength (vane shear device) because cohesive soil types were not encountered. Blow counts were logged and recorded on the field lugs. 3.1.3 Soil Classification Methods Test hole logs are presented in Appendix B, Figures B-03 through B-05. Identification and classification of soils was accomplished in accordance with ASTM Visual Classification Procedures. A legend of symbols used is shown on Figures B-01 and B-02. 3.1.4 Laboratory Testing Selected soil samples were submitted to HWA Geosciences in Lynnwood, Washington to perform soil index testing consisting of sieve analysis, moisture and organic contents on representative samples. Testing is performed in accordance with ASTM procedures and the results of the laboratory testing are presented in Appendix C. Page -12- Boat Haven Marina Redevelopment INITIAL GEO`I'ECIINICAL REPORT MAY zoos 4.0 INVESTIGATION RESULTS 4.1 Test Hole Results Three test holes were drilled (TH-1 through TH-3) during PND's March 2007 investigation to depths ranging from 61.5 to 101.5 feet. The locations of each test hole completed during this investigation are shown on Figure A-01 in Appendix A. A synopsis of the borehole results is described below. Test hole TH-1 was drilled onshore in relatively undisturbed terrain that was covered by approximately 1 foot of asphalt cover. Approximately 8 feet of top soils were vacuumed out by air knife before drilling operations began. In general, soils to 10 feet contained fill consisting of sand with silt and gravel. Gray sand grading loose to very dense was found in the remainder of the test pit. Layers of shell fragments were also encountered. Uncorrected standard split spoon blow counts ranged from 9 blows per foot at the surface to 58 blows per foot at depth. Test hole TH-2 contained approximately 3 inches of gravel cover and approximately the top 8 feet was vacuumed prior to drilling. This top soil consisted of gravel with silt and sand. Sand with gravel was briefly encountered before a thick layer of medium dense sand was encountered from 11 to 36 feet. Medium dense sand with silt was encountered 36 to 44 feet and contained seashell fragments. Medium dense to very dense gray sand with gravel or with silt and gravel that then graded to medium sand was generally found in the remainder of the test hole. Uncorrected standard split spoon blow counts ranged from 14 blows per foot near the surface to 100 blows per foot. Test hole TH-3 had approximately 8 feet of soil depth vacuumed out prior to drilling. This top layer consisted of sand with silt and gravel and gravelly silt with sand. Loose brown to yellowish brown sand grading to brownish-gray sand was encountered to 18 feet. Below this layer, medium dense to very dense gray sand was encountered, grading to higher silt content with depth. At 68 feet, silty sand with gravel was encountered, and gravel content continued to increase with depth. Layers of shell fragments were also encountered and an organic odor was noticed from 30 to 68 feet. Uncorrected standard split spoon blow counts ranged from 1 blow per foot near the surface to 156 blows per foot at depth. This hole was located next to the New Day Fishery and slope stability was an issue while drilling. From the edge of the spit to approximately 2 feet inward, the ground is unstable and appears to be actively eroding away. This instability was a safety hazard and should be noted for future construction purposes. 19 to 23 samples were collected from each borehole. Final test hole logs for test holes BH-1 through BH-3 were drafted and are included in Appendix B, Figures B-03 to B-05. Figures B-01 and B-02 indicate general symbols and a legend of abbreviations contained on the logs. Page -13- Boat Haven Marina 1 cdcvelopmenl INITIAL GEOTECUINICAL Rffowr NIAN' zoo? 5.0 ENGINEERING DISCUSSION The purpose of this report is to present background information in support of design of the facility. As such, this report does not contain design recommendations. The principal factors that may govern design of structure foundations and site grading are as follows: 1. The local groundwater table was shallow within 15 feet of the surface. This level is tidally influenced and was recorded during a high tide. 2. A wet, loose to dense poorly-sorted sand was encountered for many samples of boreholes TH-1. These factors will result in easy driving conditions. Much of TH-2 contained wet and medium to very dense sand, which graded to higher gravel content with depth. This site would have similarly easy driving conditions. TH-3 contained mostly dense to very dense cohesionless silty sand grading to gravelly sand and low to high blow counts of 1-156 blows per foot at depth. These conditions will also lead to suitable foundation support for structures and pile supports; however, caution will lead to be used in design for the near surface loose soil conditions. PND will consider these factors in design of the facility. Additional design recommendations will be provided after concepts are developed. Page -14- Boat Haven Marina Redevelopment INITIAL GEOTECI-INICAL REPORT NIAY 2007 6.0 CLOSURE This report was prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional principles and practices in the field of geotechnical engineering at the time this report was prepared. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon information provided to us describing the proposed site grading and construction and based on the field geotechnical investigation and laboratory testing conducted and used in preparation of this report. The nature and extent of subsurface variations across the site may not become evident until construction. If during construction, fill type, debris, soil, rock, bedrock, surface water, or groundwater conditions appear to be different from those described herein; PND's geotechnical engineer should be advised at once so re-evaluation of the conditions observed in this report can be considered in conjunction with the design documents and field variations noted. PND F,ngineers Incorporated (PND) is not responsible for safety programs, methods or procedures of operation, or the construction of the design recommendations provided in this report. Where recommendations are general or not called out, the recommendations shall conform to standards Of the industry. This geotechnical report is for use on this project only and is not intended for reuse without written approval from PND. This geotechnical report is not to be used in a manner that would constitute a detriment directly or indirectly to PND. Section 1.3 of this report provides a synopsis of additional geotechnical data researched and Obtained in the preparation of this geotechnical report. The information is provided for informational purposes only and PND makes no warranty either expressed or implied as to the suitability or accuracy of this information. Author's notes have been included in this section as they relate to our interpretation of potential inaccuracies in the data. This information and the original documents summarized in this report may contain additional inaccuracies. The reader should make their own interpretation of the data to determine the suitability and accuracy of this information. PND is a member of the American Society of Foundation Engineers (ASFE). Included in Appendix F is a copy of the ASFE publication "important Information about your Geotechnical Engineering Report". The report is included in this report to help the Owner, Contractor, and others who read this document understand the limitations described above and the additional limitations contained in this publication and made a part of this report. Page -15-- Boat Flaven Manna Redevelopment INITIAL. GEOTECFINICAI_ REPORT NIAN 2007 7.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY Aggour, M.S. and Radding, W.R. 2001. Research Report SP0071348: Standard Penetration Test Correction. BEST Center, University of Maryland. BowlesjF1. 1988. Foundation Analysis and Design. McGraw-Hill, Inc. International Building Code Manual, 2006. Landau Associates, Inc., August 1996. Geotechnical Engineering Services Proposed Enhanced HauloUt Facility Port Townsend, Washington, prepared for the Port of Port Townsend. Myers Biodynamics, Inc.,f my 1994. Geotechnical Design Report, K.C. Nomura Building, Port Townsend, WA for Port of Port Townsend. Myers Biodynamics, Inc., May 1994. Geotechnical Design Report, Port of Port Townsend Moderate Risk Waste Facility for Port of Port Townsend. Robert L. Wesson, Arthur D. Frankel, Charles S. Mueller, and Stephen C. Harmsen, 1997, Seismic-hazard maps for State of Washington, Peak Acceleration (`%og) with 10`%, Probability of Esceedance in 50 Years, U.S. Geological Survey Open-Idle Report 99-36. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1964. Port Townsend Washington Small Boat Basin Plan, as- built drawings D-1-12-21, sheets 1-3. USGS. Earthquake Hazards Maps 2002-Washington State. U.S. Geological Survey, Fittl c�int.cr.us `�`'�� e�i rnrn/htnil/nc�1���>n,l�-�)(�.htn�l, Nlarch 25, 2007. Page -16- APPENDIX A Location Map I i i i <ir / P7 1 xT� \ P-3 \ TPA p 2 - .R _ !r r - - TF TP- _ - L-5 -— -- - P. z I Zc� —TP-5 — — sKooK�nl — Flc a _ � 'L�TTTU r`' CHINOOKI .Jj � •..•`.� T'�I m ,�— = ice' R"F :./ ?® _ -- L ®:�—J `= 6 •L 10 7 m ii 3 . - L-2 �a \ -122 TH-2 62-W B-14 I 200 ® 62-WB-13 ® 62-WB-15 62-WB-1 T -11 L1 C L-13 TP-13 62-WB-6 I 62.W13-8MFIM I_-14 62-PA-20 PLAN 0 50 100 200 300 FT. JEERS, 1964 PND ENGINEERS, INC. IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR SAFETY REVISIONS PROJECT: ®�� _ APPENDIX B Borehole Logs I I ' I SOIL DESCRIPTION SAMPLES GRAPH COMMENTS - ID E BLOW COUNT 0 v Soil Name,Color,Moisture Penetration '-tt 40 60 80 Casing Depth,Drilling Rate, F- o Content,Relative Density, �, o a�i Blows per 0 POCKET PEN(W) Fluid Loss,Drill Pressure, S a ° Soil Structure,Mineralogy, a, 0 6/Inch i i 3 4 Tests,Instrumentation, Q3 Other Information Z o 04 (per foot) ♦ VANE SHEAR(ts0 ♦ Additional Information U w 0.2 0.4 0 6 0.8 0 ASPHALT I Date:3/7/2007 black SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL (SP-SM) 0-8'soil vacuumed out by vac 5 brown,medium sand,60%% sand, i truck on 3/7/2007 15%silt, 10%gravel<I inch,few cobbles<4 inches Easy drilling 10 I Sh 67 4(42j5 2 Ss 34 (9) 15 3 Ss 100 3-4-4 (H) 4 Sh 100 5-6-12 i i 20 9-12-15 5 Sh 100 (27) 6 Ss 67 8-10-12 (22) 25 7 Ss 67 `)-13-14 (27) 8 Sh 100 9-13-17 (30) 30 13-16-IS 9 Sh 100 (34) 10 Ss 67 10-16-23 i (39) SAND(SP) 35 gray,moist,loose to dense,medium 13-16-I8 ` ! sand,layers of seashell fragments I I Ss 100 (34) -I encountered I_ Sh 100 0 3-21 � I , (34) 40 13 Sh 100 7(30)' 14 Ss 67 9-13-15 (28) 45 15 Ss 67 9-10-13 (23) 16 Sh 100 7-9-8 (17) i 50 7-9-11 17 Sh 100 ' 20 18 Ss 100 6 12-16 (28) j r 0 55 r m � I a 60 18 29 29 W 19 Ss 100 (58) Terminated at: 615 ft, Z 3/7/2007 z w z Z 65 a F Logged By: AC Data Enuy: AC BOAT HAVEN MARINA REDEVELOPMENT 61-11-1 , r; ,� 1 -� Checked: MH Port Townsend, Washington w J rf �, j , L)Z ti I t: Project No.: 074010 Ir BOREHOLE TH-1 FIGURE B-03 0 Datc: May 2007 m SOIL DESCRIPTION SAMPLES GRAPH COMMENTS a> 0 BLOW COUNT Soil Name,Color,Moisture Penetration -tf ao �f so ro Casing Depth,Drilling Rate, c Content,Relative Density, ; o 0 Blows per • POCKET PEN(tsf) • Fluid Loss,Drill Pressure, v a� Soil Stntctmre,Mineralogy, E u m 0 6/Inch 1 2 3 4 Tests,Instrumentation, e Other Information o u (per foot) VANE SHEAR(tst) A Additional Infonnation 0,i z t-- � w 0.2 0.4 0.6 os 0 GRAVEL(GP) I Date:3/7/2007 black GRAVEL WITH SILT AND SAND (GP) j j i I 0-8'vacuumed out by vac brown,no odor,60%gravel< 1/2 ! 1 truck on 3/7/2007 inch,20%coarse sand,20`Yo silt I i 10 b..- . ; 7-8-10 �.. SAND WITH GRAVEL(SP) I Sh 100 gray,moist,medium dense,fine to 2 Ss 67 (18) coarse,subrounded gravel,coarse 3-7-9 sand,20%gravel< I/2 inch,some 3 Ss 67 (I 6) j 4-5-9 seashell fragments 4 Sh 100 ! i (14) 20 8-8-9 SAND(SP) 5 Sh 67 (17) 1 gray,wet,medium dense,medium 6 Ss 67 6 9-10 sand,5'%,cobble<3 inches,some (19) 7 Ss 100 seashell fragments g Sh 100 5-9-13 (22) 10-13-15 30 9 Sh 100 (28) 10 Ss 67 8-12-15 (27) I I Ss 100 9-12-14 12 Sh 67 (26) 40 SAND WITH SILT(SP-SM) 6-9-11 gray,wet,medium dense,medium 13 Sh 67 (20) sand,Some seashell fragments 14 Ss 100 6-1 1-18 (79) 15 Ss 13-16-14 16 Sh 00 (30) j 7-9-10 50 SAND(SP) 17 Sh 67 6(110 14 Ilk, 1 ! gray,wet,medium dense,medium 18 Ss 56 (24) sand,Some seashell fragments 6-7 10 (17) i ! Driller notes change to much 8-10-14 denser soil 60 19 Ss 100 (24) 9 I I-13 SAND WITH GRAVEL(SP) a: t we,meum dense to dense, (24) t j ! j gty' t di fine to coarse,subrounded gravel, 101829 medium sand,20% gravel,< 1/4 143/R inches o 70 .` 20 Ss 100 (R)SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL 72/R (SP-SM) (R) Driller notes softer soil gray,wet,very dense, fine to ' ; i , � Driller notes return to much coarse,subrounded gravel,medium denser soil conditions sand,201%,gravel< 1/4 inches,20"/, -" silt 80 21 Ss 67 29-40-49 lH8) r i I l p 90 SAND(SP) 22 Ss 67 30-42-55 gray,wet,very dense,medium sand (97) ! N p � 1 I � I w 100 23 Ss 67 29-48 60 z (100+) Terminated at: 101.5 ft, z l j 3/8/2007 w z z a aj Logged By: AC Data Envy: AC BOAT HAVEN MARINA REDEVELOPMENT c w Checked: MH Port Townsend, Washington J Lu '� , �. ' No.: 074010 BOREHOLE TH-2 TFIGURE B-04 m Date: May 2007 SOIL DESCRIPTION SAMPLES GRAPH COMMENTS c� E BLOW COUNT Soil Name,Color,Moisture a Penetration c 40 xt> Casing Depth,Drilling Rate, F- Content,Relative Density, �, o Blows per Eoc,<ET PEN(at) Fluid Loss,Drill Pressure, n Soil Structure,Mineralogy, ¢ o^ 6/inch ( ? 3 4 Tests,Instrumentation, a, 3 U Other Information z F- o 6 o (per foot) ♦ VANE SHEAR(tsf) ♦ Additional Information w 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL j '; I Date:3/8/2007 (SP) brown, fine to coarse,subrounded gravel, fine sand,roots and some 0-8'soil vacuumed out by vac shells I truck on 3/7/2007 10 GRAVELLY SILT WITH SAND 3 5-4 I (ML) I Sh 100 1 ! I brown,fine to coarse,subrounded 2 Ss 67 I(0 1 gravel,fine sand,30%gravel< 1/2 (I) inch,50%/ silt,20%coarse sand; 3 Ss 100 some grass roots 4 Sh 100 13 4 20 SAND WITH SILT(SP-SM) 7(6)7 brown and yellowish brown,moist, 5 Sh 100 loose,fine sand,some roots 6 Ss 67 (13) j SAND(SP) (13) light brownish gray,moist,loose, 7 Ss 100 (13) medium sand 8 Sh 100 4-7-8 30 . SAND(SP) 8(8'II gray,wet,medium dense,medium 9 Sh 100 sand,some shell frt�ments I 0 Ss 67 (I�) i SAND WITH SILT(SP-SM) 8-12-13 I r t wet,medium dense,line, I I Ss 67 (�5) I gray, ravel,medium sand 12 Sh 100 (1�9 40 SILTY SAND(SM) gray,wet,medium,dense, line, 13 Sh 100 3-5-0 subrounded gavel,medium sand 14 Ss 67 SAND(SP) 1(2)1 I gray,wet,loose,mcdiunt sand, 16 Sh 67 0 3-3-4 I organic odor,some shell fragments (7) 50 17 Sh 100 2(6)3 18 Ss 67 0-1-0 0-0-1 60 3-3-3 19 Ss 67 SILTY SAND(SM) (6) y 2-3-4 gray,wet,loose to medium dense, (7) fine sand,organic odor,shell fragments 0I-2 ! (3) 1 i Driller reports gravcl and 70 � 20 Ss 53 6-8-12 I 1 denser soil encotnticred (20) 50/R SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (R) I (SM) 80 gray,wet,very dense, fine, 79/R subrounded gravel,fine sand,50"/0 21 Ss 50 (R) fine sand,30%silt,20%gravel< I I inch Driller reports less gravel 90 =" ' 72 Ss 100 156/R content - (R) ! Driller reports increased GRAVELLY SAND(SP) t I i 1 gravel content gray,wet,very dense, fine, o �'.� subangular gravcl,fine sand,60`%, 1 o `/ fine sand,40%,gravel< 1/2 inch N '0r;. :q 100 GRAVELLY SAND WITH SILT 23 Ss 100 150/R (R) ted at: 100.5 ft, (SPG) 3/8/2007 gray,wet,very dense, fine, w subrounded to subangular gravel, z fine sand,50%fine sand,30"/0 1 z gravel< 1/2 inch,20%silt w 110 z z a Logged By: AC Data Entry: AC BOAT HAVEN MARINA REDEVELOPMENT a � I �- I Port Townsend, Washington w Checked: MH J E N G (�l L> Rs' I N(: No.: 074010 BOREHOLE TH-3 TFIGUR-E B-OS o Date: May 2007 m APPENDIX C Laboratory Results ",A' iblarch .16, 2007 HWA Project No. 2007-000-2 1-TO 16 PND Engineers Inc. 811 First Avenue, Suite 570 Seattle, Washington 98104 Attention: Ms. Allison Coogan Subject: SOIL, LABORATORY TESTING REPORT Powr TOWNSEND PROJECT#074010 PORT COwNSLND, WASHINGT'ON Dear Ms. Coogan: In accordance with your request, H VA GeoSCiOnces Inc. (FIWA) performed laboratory testing for the above referenced project. 11erein WC present the results of our laboratory analyses, ~which are summarized on the attached reports. The laboratory testing program was perfornied in general accordance with your instructions and appropriate AS` N/1 Standards as outlined below. SAMPLE kFORMATION: The subject samples were delivered to otu• laboratory o❑ March 9, 2007 by PND Engineers Inc. personnel. The samples were delivered in settled Ziploc bags designated with respective borehole number, sample number and depth at which they were sampled. P.uMCt,E SIZE ANALYSES OF SOILS: Selected samples were tested to determine the p<utic(c diStl'IbUtiOn of material in general accordance with ASTV1 D422. The results arc suannaHzed on the attached Grain Size Distribution reports, Figures I and 2, which also provide i.nforniation regarding (he classification of Te sample and the moisture content at [lie time of testing. 11IOIST'U'tu� CONTENT,ASH, AND ORGANIC MATTER: Sample TH-3 S-9 was tested in general accordance with method ASTVI D 297/1, using moisture content meCluxl 'A' (oven dried at 105( C) and ash content method 'CO' (burned at 4'10°C). The test results are sun unri cd below. The resuRs are percent by %vcight of dry soil. March 16, 2007 Project#2007-000-TO16 Moisture Content, Ash, and Organic Matter Sample 1110isture Content Ash Content Organic illatter TlI-3, S-9 25.3 99.6 0.4 ; -Dark gray silty SAND --a CLOSURE,: Experience has shown that test values on soil and other natural materials vary with each representative sarnple. As such, HWA has no knowledge as to the extent and quantity of Material the tested samples may represent. No reproduction of this report should be Made except in its entirety. --0 • O --- We appreciate the opportunity to provide laboratory testing services or) this project. SlIould you leave any questions or comments, or if we may be offurther service, please call. Sincerely, (-I WA GEOSCIENCES INC. George Minassian, Ph.D. Steven E. Greene, L.G., L.E.G. Gcotechnical Engineer Vice President LM3 RI-TORT 2 H"a`A reoSciences Inc. GRAVEL SAND Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine SILT CLAY 3l4" U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 3" 1-1/2" 5/8" 3/8'. #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 100 I 1 I I I I 90f-- I I f ! I I f I I I I I I ! I 80 __-- I LtJ 70 — I I I I I 1 I I 60LO LLI - � ! f l I f I I 1 I Z JOI ---- �"' I I I I I ! I ! I II 40 — v I I I f I I I I I I I 30 20 I — ! ' 10 I—i I oL 1 50 10 5 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.01 0.005 0.001 0.0005 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL-ASTM 02487 Group Symbol and Name % MC LL PL pl Gravel Sand Fines 0 0 % 0 TH-1 S-1 I 10.0-11.5 (SP)Gray,poorly graded SAND 27 0.0 95.6 4.4 ® TH-2 S-1 5.0-6.5 (SP)Gray, poorly graded SAND 20 14.7 81.9 3.5 A I TH-2 S-12 31.5-33.0 (SP-SM)Gray,poorly graded SAND with silt 18 3.0 88.1 8.9 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS " ® Port Townsend Project # 074010 OF SOILS HWUAGEOSCIENCES INC, Port Townsend, Washington METHOD ASTM D422 PROJECT NO.: 2007000-21-TO 16 FIGURE: 1 GRAVEL SAND Coarse SILT CLAY Fine Coarse Medium Fine 3/4" U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 3" 1-1/2" 5/8" 318" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 9200 I 100 I I I I i l I I I I 90 1 I I I I I I I ! I I 80 --- I-- —I I U 70 - u.! I I I I I I I I I I m 60 I I ! I I I I I I I Z 50 I I I I � I I I TI z I I I I ! { ! I I I l— 40 - W I I I I I ( I I I I I 30 I I — LL! I I I ! I I I I I I 0- 20 I — �TF I I I 1 I I I 1 I i I I I I I I I I I 10 I I I I I I I ( I 0 50 10 5 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.01 0,005 0.001 0.0005 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS SYMBO SAMPLE DEPTH(ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL-ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name %MC LL PL PI Gravel Sand Fines % 0 % 0 TH-3 S-1 10.0-11,5 (SP-SM)Grayish brown,poorly graded SAND with silt 25 0.0 94.2 5.8 PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS ® Port Townsend Project## 074010 OF SOILS HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. Port Townsend, Washington METHOD ASTM D422 PROJECT NO.: 2007000-21-TO 16 FIGURE: 2 APPENDIX D — ---- --------------- -- ------- - — - Site Photographs I I I I Boat Haven Alarina Redevelopment Geotechnical Report PND 074010.01 Port Townsend, WA MUfl IMEREF Photograph No. 1 Era t , Description: Location of TH-2, as viewed e w i bye from the south. u f:• •,�f 't'`' , •t .S •r1'y ,�, r,",*T° fir• Photograph No. 2 `I k6 t..•t y Am—, Description: a ' Location of Tl I I, is viewed h 5•".f.y'Y ( 1. Tx���.2;,{. 33. _ Y4r y .• Flom the east. TON- • 14 J Photograph No. 3 —V. Description: r , QA }���l3h>a (G{ r - L.ocation of TFi-3, viewed From +z.`t'' '.f �,' c N��«'' 4? V ' 1 `p"'Ry.'.�� the north. i'� �� •ir-' � '�� r+� 1� 4! I.V.A, .; H6 e�1�F,'(��`l i+�--3 r Y s�:��a3.. ti•- f� 4�T�,t'�i a;t ® I � I © PageD-01 Boat Haven Marina Redevelopment Ceotec•hnic•al Report PND 074010.01 Port Townsend, WA Photograph No. 4 Description: Topsoil vacuumed fro rn TI-I-2 Photograph No. 5 Description: Drilling opcmtiuns at TH-2 1 p. ,P L t� '- L `.taw� ♦ .yti� y"'CCy ti ] IS.L � ii 4 ,• F F' Photograph No. 6 Description: Site conditions at TH-2, adjacent t(-) marina office. r a� x.t - + ® Page D-02 Boat Haven Marina Redevelopment Geotechnical Report PND 074010.01 Port Townsend(, WA Photograph No. 7 a ' Description: •. = i .�e, Site conditions of TFI-I, in parkin;lot beside Sea J's Cafc .Y>r. Yrn;t:"� y. t v ls..m ie�ecBLYdy2�Gr,&3F1 •-.-,� �, ro. ;"'�. � Photograph No. 8 =£F A t, Lam(' _ r �.�Q"1 r'�t '•�' � -Sg y�fi��� s�.{, v✓y�Ys I F�1 yfa� Descri t tOn: Site conditions at TH-3 Jay. 'tiwj.1 �"R�F,iF.yY U''aCt iE Photograph No. 9 dam_ ' Description: TF1-3 site conditions (behind t � New Day fishery). �W��i'�. �..�A•� � ® Page D-03 Bunt Haven Alarina Redevelopment Ceotechnical Report PND 074010.01 Port Townsend, WA Photograph No. 10 Description: New Day Fishery spit. The bank was eroding. r y . t J Y;. IN ti.,yYy 4 Photograph No. 11 Description: Site a->nditiluns outside the New Day Fishery spit. q _ ® n Poge D-04 APPENDIX E Past Test Pit, Borehole and Pile Driving; Logs and Laboratory Test Rcsults I j Landau Associates, Inc., August 1996 Tcst Pit L.ol(-,s and Laboratory Rcsults I I I I I i I i ivurriui u auwiaing ,. (Skookum) San Juan Ave. cP cam • T 3 Port : r s TP 2 TP-4, 9 _ . New Paved Parking TP-1 TP 15 y TP-+4 TP-� East Boat Yard .. TP 7, jP-2 . . Marine Trade Building _ TP 14 Limits ' M WR F L 10 � Pavement ent lCe Location .. r Syr �9 >c 8 d ott Trail o ,,.. _. a�; ; � '` .>3�• :: New Boat Ramp ; x'." / And Access Float : ....... :; L-7: L 8 .. . . . . ....... TP-2 Recreational Basin TP 6 X 'a $2-W(815 Existing Ben, r StreetIt " f "•' New lout Work TP-1 ;4 Pier n H� e and Dolphins Split West Boat Yard W W r � • 62 i1V�-14 . TP-S TP-4 W W bit-W8-13 -.- Existing Float To New Washdown Be Upgraded Pad and ® Existing R, W 4 Treatment 62-W B-1 -WB kw t 62 -8 B reo a e Facility New Linear Floot TP-3` . ;. Access Pier KEY Future Restroom L-1 V ® 62-WB-6 Boring Identifi - TP-1 Marine Trade Building New Heavy—Duty Test Pit Ident Linear Moorage Float Proposed Stru W W Proposed New Proposed Por4 W L W 0 250 500 Previous U.S. 62-WB-1 500 400 m n _T 300 U CL cu U , m 200 a / 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 Pile Tip Penetration (ft) -�- 18-inch Concrete —a-- 20-inch Concrete -k- 24-inch Concrete -3 18-inch Closed End - G8 20-inch Closed End 24-inch Closed End t U 00 0 LL 5 0 'm c ro t c w a a c 3 cNote: For jetted concrete and closed-end piles,and driven a open-end piles,reduce above capacities by 10 percent. 0 Driven Pile Allowable Compressive Capacities Figure 3 200 150 CL U l0 m 100 U m_x Q a. - - / i 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 Pile Tip Penetration (ft) -1111- 18-inch Concrete -0- 20-inch Concrete -A-- 24-inch Concrete -El- 18-inch Closed End $ 20-inch Closed End 24-inch Closed End a t _T LL - 5 0 m x 8 CU N L C Lll R mC m C Note: For jetted concrete and closed-end piles,and driven a open-end piles,reduce above capacities by 35 percent. 0 Driven Pile Allowable Uplift Capacities Figure 4 100 80 N d �, 60 U M 0. N U �a 40 m Er a. 20 - E� 0 o- e- 5 10 15 20 25 30 Pile Tip Penetration (ft) —51— Compressive —9— Compressive - Jetted C —0— Uplift —8— Uplift - Jetted - U _00 0 Y. LL 5 0 ro 2 U L C W mC N ;C 0 a xqo d m Timber Piles -Allowable Axial Capacities Figure 5 Soil Classification System uses MAJOR GRAPHIC LETTER TYPICAL (2)(3) DIVISIONS SYMBOL SYMBOL(1) DESCRIPTIONS Ooo O Oo Well-graded gravel; grovel/sand mixture(s); CLEAN o �.o: GW little or no fines GRAVEL AND GRAVEL N^ p000�o�0 GP Poorly graded gravel; grovel/sand mixture(s); GRAVELLY SOIL (Little or no fines) (More than 50% little or no fines •�N d of coarse fraction GRAVEL WITH FINES GM Silty gravel; grovel/sand/silt mixture(s) a d retained on (Appreciable b N E ,� o a o No.4 sieve) amount of fines) pb O� GC Clayey gravel; gravel/sand/clay mixture(s) zoo M Ln Z $W Well-graded sand; gravelly sand; little or no fines SAND AND CLEAN SAND r t SANDY SOIL (Little or no fines) SP Poorly graded sand; gravelly sand; little or no fines 0 0 0 (More than 50% 0 of coarse fraction SAND WITH FINES sM Silty sand; sand/silt mixture(s) passed through (Appreciable amount No.4 sieve) of fines) SC Clayey sand; sand/clay mixture(s) y ML Inorganic silt and very fine sand; rock flour; silly or o clayey fine sand or clayey silt with slight plasticity > CL Inorganic cloy of low to medium plasticity, gravelly a > SILT AND CLAY clay, sandy clay, silty cloy, lean clay o E u, (Liquid Limit less than 50) o •o o QL Organic silt; organic, silty clay of low plasticity W N z MH Inorganic silt; micaceous or diatomoceous fine sand t = or silly soil w - SILT AND CLAY CH Inorganic clay of high plasticity, fat clay 0 0 N (Liquid limit greater than 50) OH Organic clay of medium to high plasticity, Organic silt HIGHLY ORGANIC SOIL PT Peat; humus; swamp soil with high organic content OTHER AC Pavement; Asphalt or Concrete Notes: 1. USCS letter symbols correspond to the symbols used by the Unified Soil Classification System and ASTM Classification methods. Duol letter symbols (e.g., SM-SP) for a sand or gravel indicate a soil with an estimated 5-15% fines. Multiple letter symbols (e.g.,ML/CL) indicate borderline or multiple soil classifications. 2. Soil classifications ore based on the general approach presented in the Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils /Visual-Manual Procedural, as outlined in ASTM 02488. Where laboratory index testing has been conducted, soil classifications are based on the Standard Test Method for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes, as outlined in ASTM D2487. 3. Soil description terminology is based on visual estimates (in the absence of laboratory test data) of the percentages of each soil type and is defined as follows: Primary Constituent: >50% - "GRAVEL," "SAND," "SILT," "CLAY,' etc. S50% - "very gravelly," "very sandy," "very silty," etc. Secondary Constituents: >30% and - >15% and <_30% - "gravelly," "sandy," "silty," etc. Additional Constituents: >5% and 05% - "with gravel,' "with sand," "with silt," etc. <5% - "trace gravel," "trace sand," "trace silt," etc., or not noted. Key SAMPLE NUMBER & INTERVAL _ SAMPLER TYPE Code Description a 3.25-inch O.D.. 2.42-inch I.D. Split Spoon Sampler Recovery Depth Interval b 2.00-inch O.D., 1.50-inch I.D. Split Spoon Sampler a Sample c Shelby Tube Identification —�1 ��—Sample Depth Interval d Grab Sample } Number a 3.00-inch I.D. Core Barrel Sampler Portion of Sample Retained 1 300-lb Hammer, 30-inch Drop for Archive or Analysis 2 140-lb Hammer, 30-inch Drop 2 3 Pushed 4 350-lb. Hammer, 30-inch Drop TEST DATA OTHER Code Description 7 Approximate Water Elevation At Time of Drilling (ATD) 0 [GS] Grain Size ATD or On Date Noted Soil Classification System and Key Figure A-1 L-1 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE mo E n _ E _o Drilling Method: 4" I.D. Hollow Stem Auger :3o (n E LL Z m U 1 w U t n m n N o L Ground Elevation (ft): -12.9 u E5 £ 3 U d m m o to C3 to-o 6 m Z) - 0 SM Gray, silly, fine to medium SAND with shell fragments (loose to medium dense. I h2 24 77 n SP saturated) SM Gray, fine to medium SAND with SILT and occasional shell fragments (medium dense to very dense, saturated) -- s 6h. �3 — iu _ I _ I °° zu _ I �J U 0.2 to 2.0 It heave at sample depths e _ below 20 ft o u LL - a 6 b2 50 Sampler full - See note 3 2 3 $ 30 ` IConiiM,ed NP.xI 11 a9cl o a 0 Notes; 1. Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. Refer to the text for an explanation of subsurface conditions. o 2. Refer to "Soil Classification System and Key" figure for explanation of graphics and symbols. 0 3. Blow count may not be representative. n --F Figure A-2 Boring L-1 {1 of 21 L-1 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE a� n E n Drilling Method: 4" I.D. Hollow Stem Auger Z > LL = Vt u! U s CL n a o c to Ground Elevation (ft): -12.9 n ES E 3 A U o in.e (n 0 m e (? S — sn SP i -SM i 3 S full f l amper u - See note 7 � b2 76— 24 3 S _ n" SM -SP Gray, fine SAND with silt (very dense, saturated) 35 SP Gray, fine to medium SAND with a trace of shelf fragments and occasional zones with o. 50 trace of silt (very dense, saturated) "0 I I 50 9 n7 { SP Green-gray, fine to medium SAND with occasional shell fragments (very dense, saturated) (sampler full at 43 fl - "> See note 31 b) Sampler did not penetrate undisturbed soil 'O 50 a a _ c 0 - o- 5C 193 3" Grades with trace of gravel. Sampler — 55 full - See note 3 11 - SP Gray, fine to medium SAND with occasional i gravel (very dense, saturated) 0 0 F w I so — 60 12 _®J b2 4.. a` Boring Completed 12/09/94 Total Depth 60.2 ft. 0 a 0 0 a Notes: 1. Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. Refer to the r text for an explanation of subsurface conditions. 0 2. Refer to "Soil Classification System and Key" figure for explanation of graphics and symbols. 3. Blow count may not be representative. Boring L-1 Figure A-2 (2 of 2) L-2 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE E _ E .uo Drilling Method: 4" I.D. Hollow Stem Auger E z> r° = (n w u .0 n y n N .o .L Ground Elevation (ft): 12.0 m roc m o 0 U) 0 Q GP Dark gray, sandy GRAVEL (loose to medium SIP dense, moist) 13/4-inch minus crushed rock -SM surfacing) gl Gray-brown, fine to medium SAND with �JI b� 15 10 d SP trace of sill and gravel and isolated wood pieces (medium dense. moist) (fill) S Gray, fine to medium SAND with trace of gravel Imedium dense, moist) (fill) WOOD WOOD (saturated) ? 1-2 .i2 SP SM Gray, tine SAND with silt and trace of gravel (medium dense to dense, saturated) l _+ i '��' 1 Grades with occasional shell fragments and isolated small wood pieces I A: � J m - 2U a n 0 5 J b2 69 710 Grades to very dense with less gravel <; I 1 3 - 2ti LL - S b 02 71 0 5 f 1 heave w n u - $— 30 a IContimw j Next rage) c } 0 a 0 Notes: I Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. Refer to the text for an explanation of subsurface conditions. $ 2. Refer to "Soil Classification Systern and Key" figure for explanation of graphics and symbols. 0 r� Figure A-3 Boring L -2 (1 of 2) L-2 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE m ° a n _ E n Drilling Method: 4" I.D. Hollow Stem Auger _ 3 m (n E Z j LL In N A)t nm o y 5 L Ground Elevation (fl): 12.0 m �c ro o 10 U) V)b to m (7 7 — 30 SF -SM 7 b2 0 20.2 10" 35 I 50 8 b7 - I I - I 40 _ I 9 b2 5 208 " I l I 45 � I 50 t0 b2 - 5" I o w_ m 50 ik cc 3 c 50 _ I I b2 — 19 3 _ S" Grades with occasional thin layers of Shell fragments u .. 12 2 40 b w 3 poring Completed 12/15/94 i �— 60 Total Depth _ 58.3 ff �y 5 P s 0 M aL a 0 X a Notes: 1. Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. Refer to the text for an explanation of subsurface conditions. $ 2. Refer to "Soil Classification System and Key" figure for explanation of graphics and syrnbols. a A Figure A-3 Boring L-2 (2 of 2) L-3 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE a E n _ E D Drilling Method: 4" I D Hollow Stem Auger a� a O 7 lL u U L n y n N o L Ground Elevation IIt): 8.8 n E— E o 0 m m m o W p fn oo to m SP Dark gray, gravelly, fine to medium SAND (medium dense, moist l0 1 It - saturated ATD below I It) Ifill) SW Gray, fine to coarse SAND with gravel b2 7. 13 1 (medium dense, saturated) I 2 h7 'tl Grades loose with shell fragments k SP Gray, line SAND with shell fragments and trace of 10 silt (medium dense, saturated) �1 C2 2n 2'r 5 n o2 Grades dense a - � - JU a b a b2 R6 20 5 Grades very dense with abundant shell u _ J fragments 2S x Y _ 6 bJ 86to„ w o_ ._ 30 Boring Completed 12/15/94 g Total Depth 28.8 ft. 0 0 a 0 a Notes: 1. Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. Refer to the text for an explanation of subsurface conditions. 0 2. Refer to "Soil Classification System and Key" figure for explanation of graphics and symbols. 0 e7 Figure -4 Boring L-3 L-4 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE E a > n° Drilling Method: 4" I.D. Hollow Stem Auger cn E Z > U. rn Q1;3 N U s n v n in o r Ground Elevation Of): 12.3 n Ec E 3 U d .o M ° rn p rn of W Fn C7 SM Gray-brown, silty, line to medium SAND with trace of gravel (medium dense, moist) Ifill) b2 29 139 - IGSI 5 v_ SP Gray, fine to medium SAND with gravel, shell fragments, and trace of silt ®� (medium dense, saturated) SP Black, fine SAND with silt, organic u) 3 1 -SM material, and trace of shell fragments (loose, saturated) SP Gray, fine to medium SAND with a trace of gravel and shell fragments (dense, saturated) 4 h2 43 6 _t 15 93 �I b2 �0 3 Grades very dense m 1 tl" a I iO 1 J h ¢` 0 6 I b? 6A 17 3 Grades fine with trace of silt 0 — 25 0 7 I b2 73 Grades line to medium with abundant shell a - fragments and trace of silt c_ S - 30 a Boring Completed 12/15/94 Total Depth = 29.0 N. N 3 O a 0 a Notes: 1. Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. Refer to the 4 text for an explanation of subsurface conditions. 0 2. Refer to "Soil Classification System and Key" figure for explanation of graphics and symbols. v 0 Boring L-4 Figure A-5 L-5 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE 0 E T E nc Drilling Method: 4" I.D. Hollow Slem Auger Z io r o ul a I — u Ground Elevation (ft): 12.7 Q N a N O Q = N a ES E o m (n p fn otl (n GP �(�m ray-brown, sandy GRAVEL (dense, moist) Sp ixture of 1-1/2 inch minus crushed rock urfacing and pit run) SP Gray-brown, fine SAND with trace of I 'I b2 7 94 gravel (loose, moist) (fill) SP Black-brown, fine SAND with woad debris (loose, moist) (fill) 5 Gray. fine SAND with trace of shell Sp fragments and occasional small pieces of pumice-like material (loose, moist) (fill) Gray, fine to medium SAND with shell 2 �I b2 bt 15 r fragments and gravel (medium dense to dense. saturated) 10 SP Gray, fine SAND with trace of silt and gravel (shell fragments not observed) (dense, saturated) w m_ ;10 a' 1 90 0 5 °i c 202 Grades very dense u a — 25 u` 6 b2 80 w o_ g— -to Boring Completed 12/16/94 a Total Depth 29.0 ft. i o o 0 a 0 a Notes: 1. Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. Refer to the g text for an explanation of subsurface conditions. 0 2- Refer to "Soil Classification System and Key" figure for explanation of graphics and symbols. o M Boring L-5 Figure A-6 L-6 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE n n _ E n Drilling Method: 4" I.D. Hollow Stem Auger E o �' rn E Z j LL in t Q°� Q N o L (n Ground Elevation (tt): 12.6 aai m M O O rGn O (n as U) m a C7 0 I d 7 8 op GP Gray-brown, sandy GRAVEL (3/4-inch minus p O GP crushed rock surfacing) 2 b2 14 0 SPLtown-gray. wn, sandy GRAVEL with trace of sill - dense to dense, moist) (pit run 3 1 b2 Q 9 0 SPler possibly driving against a vel - blow count may not be tative) S ay, fine SAND with isolated V �I b2 Z^ h organic material (loose, moist) (fill) n"1 Gray, fine SAND with trace of gravel (medium dense, moist to saturated below 5.01 (possible fill) I Boring Completed 12/16/94 Total Depth = 6.5 it. — t5 a n . 0 u 0 0 l7- 25 - ii- w _ n 0 0 30 0 a` v `i 0 0 a a Notes: 1. Siraligraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. Refer to the 9 text for an explanation of subsurface conditions. 0 2. Refer to "Soil Classification System and Key" figure for explanation of graphics and symbols. 0 Figure A 7 Boring L.-6 L-7 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE a E n Drilling Method: 4" I.D. Hollow Stem Auger ar a E 2m ~ a rj 7 LL r n� n N o � Ground Elevation fill: 11.9 N m C A o p in ca m on P U D 1 AC ASPHALT (2-inch thickness) (no crushed 1 d 5 SP base course) (poor conditionl 7 I b2 23 n I SIP Gray-brown, fine SAND with gravel (medium dense, moist) (pit run fill) 3 I 02 ?S Gray. fine SAND with occasional medium J sand lenses (medium dense. moist to V y saturated below 4.7 ft) (fill) 11 to 2-inch thick layer organic material nJ-] n b2 9 !6 at top of unit) SP Gray, fine to medium SAND (loose. saturated) Boring Completed 12/16/94 Total Depth 6.5 ft. 10 ti A Q O 2 U O U _ g .. W o 30 LL` 9 i O a 0 a Notes: 1. Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. Refer to the o lext for an explanation of subsurface conditions. 0 2. Refes to "Soil Classification System and Kay" figure for explanation of graphics and symbols. V O Boring L-7 Figure A-8 L-8 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE y o E n _ E -0 Drilling Method 4" I.D. Hollow Stem Auger o Z m o > t1 U U1 t Q.a n w o c Ground Elevation lit): 12.6 n ES E 3 U a> m m o to r7 to otl to m e C� AC I I d ASPHALT (2-inch thickness! 11 to 2-inch P crushed rock base course) (poor condition) 2 b2 17 b 3 M SP Gray-brown, fine SAND with gravel (medium dense, moist) (pit run fill) 3 b7 7n - SP Brown, silty, fine SAND with a trace to some organic material (medium dense. moist) (fill)s n 0 14 !n 1 SP Brown-gray, fine SAND (medium dense, A ri) moist) (fill) Brown, silly, line SAND with thin organic layers (medium dense, moist) (fill) Gray, fine SAND (medium dense, moist) (fill) it Gray, line to medium SAND (medium dense, saturated) Boring Completed 12/16/94 Total Depth 6.5 It. A Ix 2 u - o - 0 LI = - 1S LLry ' S uO C W o O _ 0 30 a` 0 0 I 0 a 0 0 Notes: 1. Straligraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. Refer to the text for an explanation of subsurface conditions. 0 2. Refer to "Soil Classification System and Key- figure for explanation of graphics and symbols. 0 n VAJ L Boring L-8 Figure A-9 L-9 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE 0 E a E o Drilling Method: 4" I D Hollow Stem Auger d E Z m ~ 0 V) LL N U N t n n N o Ground Elevation Iftl: 12.7 n E� E o m O (/I.4 (n m ('1 AC 1 Cl A SC ASPHALT (2 inch thickness) (no crushed base course) [poor condition) GW 2 b2 5 SM Dark gray, gravelly SAND/sandy GRAVEL gp (loose to medium dense, moist) (fill) 3 h2 13 4 0 SP Dark brown, silty SAND with gravel (loose, moist) (fill) Gray, fine SAND with (race of silt (loose, moist) Ifill) Gray, line SAND with isolated wood pieces and thin lenses organic material (loose to medium dense, moist) (fill) Boring Completed 12/16/94 Total Depth 4.0 ft. I i I - I � I a I zu a 75 LL S - '9 L- $ - 30 a` g 0 a 0 a 0 Notes: 1. Stratigraphic contacts are based an field interprelations and are approximate. Refer to the text for an explanation of subsurface conditions, 0 2. Refer to "Soil Classification System and Key" figure for explanation of graphics and symbols. 0 0 Boring L-9 Figure A-10 L-10 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE 10 E a _ E n Drilling Method: 4" I.D. Hollow Stem Auger N a E Z lD ~ U a > LL a U N rX n in o _ Ground Elevation (ft): 12.9 — o _ tAC 1 d ?c ASPHALT (3-inch thickness) (fair GW condition) 2 b2 25 6 0 SP -SM Brown, sandy GRAVEL (med e, moist(ium dens l�''I (crushed base counsel 3 b2 11 19 dGray. fine medium SAND with silt and isolated rust staining (medium dense, moist) (lilt) 5 Gray, fine SAND (loose to medium dense, moist) (fill) (unit overlain by very thin layer I of brown, silty sand with wood fragments) Boring Completed 12/16/94 Total Depth 4.0 It t, 1U , m m m IL- O 2 Du LC C W � G _ $ - 30 a` 0 0 a 0 Notes I. Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. Refer to the o text for an explanation of subsurface conditions. 0 2. Refer to "Soil Classification System and Key" figure for explanation of graphics and symbols. a 0 r� Boring L-10 Figure A-11 L-11 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE a a E n Drilling Method: 4" I D Hollow Stem Auger m n E Z m ~ i > n u L u a N o L Ground Elevation (ft): 12.3 n ES E o v N d (n oa (n m Z) AG ASPHALT (3-inch thickness) (no crushed SP base course) (fair condition) SP Gray-brown, fine SAND with isolate=W00d fragments (medium dense, moist) (fi -� b2 10 189 PT Gray. fine SAND with isolated wood SP fragments (loose, moist) (fill) 5 Orange-brown PEAT (soft, moist) (fill) ATr> z Gray, line SAND with trace silt (medium dense, moist to saturated below 5 fil (possible NO 'i ^. C r SP WOOD Isaluratedl _ Dark gray, fine to medium SAND with 10 trace of silt Imedium dense, saturated) i a I ')2 .8 Grades with increasing shell fragments oil ,tu Boring Completed 12/16/94 Total Depth 19.0 ,ft. 8 a u - 0 (7 - LL - L2 C ' W O _ 30 O a n `o i 0. LL Notes: 1. Slratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate- Refer to the o text for an explanation of subsurface conditions. $ 2. Refer to "Soil Classification System and Key- figure for explanation of graphics and symbols. 0 Boring L-11 Figure A-12 L-12 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE a E a E °n Drilling Method: 4" I.D. Hollow Slem Auger m > E Y z @ ` U. ? 1 cn > u Qy Q y o L Ground Elevation (fl): 15.0 n ES E o m U) p� W as f/1 m 7:) 0 SP Brown, gravelly, fine to coarse SAND with SM silt (medium dense, moist) (fill) (thin - surface overlay of crushed rock) SP Gray. fine to medium SAND with occasional b7 6 0 rust mottling (medium dense, moist to GSi saturated below 7 Ill (fill) f n ') Grades very loose +li SP Gray• fine to medium SAND with isolated „( thin sill layers (medium dense, saturated) I I 4 i 74 5 Grades dense with a trace of shell -I fragments n tO 2 r) a i o. l e 1 Grades very dense LL O S - _ 6 b2 60 23:1 Grades fine with a trace of sill M S— 30 a' ((.onw),,ed Nee : Bagel 0 N O Y- a 0 LL Notes 1. Straligraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. Refer to the text for an explanation of subsurface conditions. 0 2. Refer to "Soil Classification System and Key" figure for explanation of graphics and symbols. 0 M Figure A-13 Boring L-12 (1 0f 2) L-12 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE y o £ a E n° Drilling Method: 4" I.D. Hollow Stem Auger ° a� rA E Z i lL j (n a) m \ w s a U m a rn 'o z N Ground Elevation (ftl: 15.0 ani m m O 1O N 0 (n ed U) C C7 7 s° SP 7 b2 55 - 35 SP Gray, fine SAND with silt, occasional -SM shell fragments, and occasional filled I worm burrows (dense, saturated) h2 49 i nil 0 h2 )0 A.- m Cf Boring Completed 12/19/94 Total Depth 49.0 It. h rc a t7- LL - L UO O p� 60 a` a 0 Notes: 1. Slratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. Refer to the text for an explanation of subsurface conditions. 2. Refer to "Soil Classification System and Key" figure for explanation of graphics and symbols. Y O Figure A-13 Boring L 12 (2 of 21 L-13 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE 0 E C o 0 Drilling Method: 4" 1 D Hollow Stem Auger Z LL (n u Ground Elevation (ft): 15.1 n N Q 1n O L (n E cc N n (n m S N U1 e O oC . SP Brown, gravelly, fine to coarse SAND with _ SM silt Imedium dense, moist) Ifill) [thin surface overlay of crushed rock) b2 20 3 t> SP Gray, fine to medium SAND (medium dense, moist to saturated below 8 11) tfill) J ifs Black-stained soil between 8.5 and 9 ft. Strong hydrocarbon type odor 1 > b2 4 77:1 i '' SP Gray, fine to medium SAND with occasional shell fragments (dense, saturated) D - 20 a 3 n- a: o b2 38 2:3'; Grades fine with a trace of silt 0 25 LL - O uO - C (l b2 52 W _ O_ N a 00 O a (Conlinucd Next Page) i 0 a 0 a Notes: 1. Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. Refer to the text for an explanation of subsurface conditions. S 2. Refer to "Soil Classification System and ICey- figure for explanation of graphics and symbols. 0 0 Figure A-14 V6Baring L-13 (1 of 2) L-13 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE a E n E n Drilling Method: 4" I D Hollow Stem Auger Z is ~ 0 fn N U_ cn t n t n to o t Ground Elevation MY 15.1 a ES E a m 0 p� U)oD U) Fa a C� - 30 SID SID Gray, very fine SAND with silt, occasional -SM shell fragments, and occasional filled b2 20 21)2 worm burrows (medium dense, saturated) 1S I 8 b2 0 I i ^o Boring Completed 12/19/94 Total Depth - 390 fl. I I m 'a o " S W D 60 a` 0 3 0 0 a Notes: I. Stratipraphic contacts are based on field interprelations and are approximate. Defer to the o text for an explanation of subsurface conditions. 0 2. Refer to "Soil Classification System and Key" figure for explanation of graphics and symbois. 0 M - Figure A-14 Boring L-13 (2 of 2) L-14 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE 0 n E .00 Drilling Method: 4" I.D. Hollow Stem Auger N T Z to ~ U J U) LL w U n"' n N o r N Ground Elevation MY 15.9 m m� m O O r7 (n ed (n m T' 6 S 0 P Crushed GRAVEL surfacing _ M Brown, gravelly, fine to coarse SAND with SP silt (medium dense, moist) hill) b2 12 2 9 Gray, fine to medium SAND isolated lenses coarse sand and sill Imedium dense, moist to saturated below 7 it) (fill) - n 1 10 I SP Gray fine to medium SAND (dense. saturated) -- i Q a a 1 t;2 `)/ r'2 it Grades fine with trace wood fibers `o- u - - 2s IL ' S - ( 02 42 Grades with occasional shell fragments w g - 30 aICorlinued Next Nagel 0 i 0 a 0 a Notes: 1. Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. Refer to the text for an explanation of Subsurface conditions. 0 2. Refer to "Soil Classification System and Key" figure for explanation of graphics and symbols. 0 7 0 M -- Figure A-15 Boring L-14 (1 0f 2) L-14 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE s n E n Drilling Method: 4" I.D. Hollow Stem Auger E F a CD a 2 m o fn > > LL g Ground Elevation 00: 15.9 s Q v n a o -C cn a ES E o m p� to m N m 30 SP i h2 39 238 Grades very fine with a trace of silt 3 SP Gray, very fine SAND with silt (dense. -SM saturated) H � 02 35 40 2h 5 Grades medium dense with indistinct layering of fine and coarse material 4S ML Gray, sandy SILT with occasional shell fragments and indistinct layering (stiff, saturated) iO a SP Gray-brown, very fine SAND with silt. SM occasional shell fragments, and indistinct - layering Imedium dense, saturated) o I! h? 2O t9 - ss Boring Completed 12/19/94 Total Depth _ 54.0 It 0 o - w 0 g e0 a` 3 0 a a a Notes: 1. Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate Defer to the 9 text for an explanation of subsurface conditions. 0 2. Refer to "Soil Classification System and Key" figure for explanation of graphics and symbols. 0 0 n Figure A-15 FBoring L-14 (2 of 2) TP-1 Approximate Elevation 12 Ft Unified Soil Classification Sample Moisture Depth System No./Depth Content (ft) Symbol Description (ft) (%) Other Tests 0.0-1.0 SM Brown, silty, fine to medium SAND with 1/0.0-1.0 26.1 gravel, roots, and debris (medium dense, moist) (fill) 1.0-2.8 SM Gray, gravelly, fine to coarse SAND with silt 2/1.0-2.8 8.8 grain size and debris (medium dense, moist) (fill) 2.8-4.8 SP-SM Light gray, line to medium SAND with silt, 3/2.8-4.8 7.4 gravel, and wire debris (dense, moist) (fill) 4.8.6.4 OL Dark brown to black, organic SILT with sand 4/4.8-6.4 71.1 and gravel (medium stiff, moist to wet) (old mudline) 6.4--9.5 GW Gray, medium to coarse GRAVEL with sand, 5/6.4-9.5 shells, and trace of silt (medium dense, saturated) Test pit completed to 9.5 It on 12/21/94. Moderate groundwater seepage encountered at about 6.0 ft. 10 a 5 C O n w CC L w R U w LL J O _ N C w E m u c m L c w m m O n 0 a` c w N C 3 0 0 IL 0 C 0 a U Note: Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. Refer to the text for an explanation of subsurface o conditions. Refer to Soil Classification System figure for additional information on symbols and terminology. M Log of Test Pits Figure A-16 TP-2 Approximate Elevation 12.4 Ft Unified Soil Classification Sample Moisture Depth System No./Depth Content (ft) Symbol Description (ft) (%) Other Tests 0.0-0.4 SP-SM Brown, gravelly, fine to medium SAND with 1/0.0-0.4 silt and roots (medium dense, moist) (fill) 0.4-1.5 SP-SM Light brown, fine to medium SAND with 2/0.4-1.5 7.1 grain size gravel, silt, and some roots (medium dense, moist) (fill) 1.5-3.7 SIP Light gray with rust mottling, fine SAND 3/1.5-3.7 16.7 (medium dense, moist) (fill) 3.7 5.5 SP-SM Gray, fine SAND with silt and isolated roots 4/3.7-5.5 29.6 (medium dense, saturated) (fill) 5.5-8.0 OL Dark brown to black, organic SILT with sand, 5/5.5-8.0 76.9 gravel, shells, and abundant roots and fibers (medium stiff, saturated) (old mudline) 8.0-9.0 SP/GP Gray, gravelly, fine to medium SAND/sandy, 6/8.5 fine to medium GRAVEL with roots (medium dense, saturated) Test pit completed to 9.0 ft on 12/20/94. Moderate groundwater seepage encountered at about 3.7 ft. LLJ � 3 C O O c. L N N U U N LL O C N E m ° c m L D fD O O O m C 3 O C O a 0 a Note: Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. Refer to the text for an explanation of subsurface { o conditions. Refer to Soil Classification System figure for additional information on symbols and terminology. Log of Test Nits �Figure TP-3 Approximate Elevation 10.0 Ft Unified Soil Classification Sample Moisture Depth System No./Depth Content (ft) Symbol Description (ft) N Other Tests 0.0-1.0 SW Brown, fine to medium SAND with gravel, 1/0.0-1.0 roots, and trace of silt (medium dense, moist) (fill) 1.0-5.0 SP Gray, fine to medium SAND with gravel 2/1.0-3.2 14.3 grain size (medium dense, moist to saturated below 3/3.2-5.0 about 2.5 ft) (fill) Test pit completed to 5.0 It on 12/21/94. Rapid groundwater seepage encountered at about 2.5 It. TP-4 Approximate Elevation 10.6 Ft Unified Soil Classification Sample Moisture Depth System No./Depth Content (ft) Symbol Description (it) N Other Tests 0. 0.0-1.2 SM Dark brown, silty, fine to medium SAND with 110.0-1.2 17.9 0 gravel, roots, and occasional cobbles (medium dense, moist) (fill) 1.2-3.2 SP Gray, fine to medium SAND with gravel 2/1.2-3.2 18.5 grain size c� (medium dense, moist to saturated below about 2.5 ft) (fill) U N s 3.2-4.9 GP Gray, sandy GRAVEL(medium dense, 3/3.2 4.9 18.5 a saturated) -- S E Test pit completed to 4.9 It on 12/21/94. Rapid groundwater seepage encountered at about 2.5 It. N W D N 0 a a a` c d N C 3 O O EL 0 c 0 a 0 o Note: Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. Refer to the text for an explanation of subsurface o conditions. Refer to Soil Classification System figure for additional information on symbols and terminology. 0 m Log of Test Pits Figure A-18 TP-5 Approximate Elevation 13.6 Ft Unified Soil Classification Sample Moisture Depth System No_/Depth Content (ft) Symbol Description (it) N Other Tests 0.0-1.7 SW/GW Light brown, gravelly, fine to coarse SAND/ 1/0.0-1.7 4.6 sandy, fine to medium GRAVEL with trace of silt and occasional cobbles (medium dense to dense, moist) (fill) 1.7-5.2 SP Gray, fine to medium SAND with trace of 2/1.7-5.2 22.5 gravel and shells, and with roots and some organic material from about 1.7 to 2.5 It (medium dense, moist to saturated below about 3.0 ft) (fill) Test pit completed to 5.2 It on 12/21/94. Rapid groundwater seepage encountered at about 3.0 ft. TP-6 Approximate Elevation 10.9 Ft Unified Soil Classification Sample Moisture ii Depth System No./Depth Content c (ft) Symbol Description (ft) M Other Tests 0 o. 0.0 0.4 GM Brown, silty GRAVEL (dense, moist) v (crushed rock fill) c� 0.4-0.8 SW/GW Light gray and brown, gravelly, fine to 1/0.4-0.8 7.6 medium SAND/sandy, fine to medium GRAVEL with trace of silt (dense, moist) (fill) 0.8-3.8 SP-SM Brown, fine to medium SAND with silt, trace 2/0.8-3.8 8.3 EU of gravel, and occasional shells (medium dense, moist) (fill) L C 3.8-5.8 SP/GP Dark gray-brown, gravelly SAND/sandy, fine 3/3.8-5.8 g to medium GRAVEL (medium dense, saturated) Nest pit completed to 5.8 ft on 12/21/94. to Slow to moderate groundwater seepage encountered at about 3.8 ft. r 0 a 0 C O a 0 Note: Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. Refer to the text for an explanation of subsurface conditions. Refer to Soil Classiiicaiion System figure for additional information on symbols and terminology. Log of Test Pits Figure A-19 TP-7 Approximate Elevation 11.5 Ft Unified Soil Classification Sample Moisture Depth System No./Depth Content (ft) Symbol Description (ft) N Other Tests 0.0-0.4 SM/GM Dark brown, silty, gravelly SAND/sandy, fine 1/0.0-0.4 16.0 to medium GRAVEL with occasional roots (dense, moist) (ballast fill) 0.4-1.0 SM Brown, silty, fine to medium SAND with 2/0.4-1.0 9.8 gravel, roots, and occasional cobbles (dense, moist) (fill) 1.0-3.8 SP Light brown-gray, fine to medium SAND with 3/1.0-3.8 7.5 grain size trace of gravel, and pockets of shells (medium dense, moist to saturated below 3.2 ft) (fill) 3.8-5.6 SP Gray, fine to medium SAND (medium dense, 4/3.8-5.8 saturated) (fill) 5.6-6.5 PT Dark brown, fibrous PEAT with silt (medium 5/5.8-6.5 236.4 stiff, saturated) Test pit completed to 6.5 ft on 12/21/94. Slight to moderate groundwater seepage encountered at about 32 ft. a 3 c 0 n 2 c m 0 N U N LL O J N C N E m c N L W D N O a O a` c m O I� O a 0 t 0 a 0 S Note: Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. Refer to the text for an explanation of subsurface o conditions. Refer to Soil Classification System figure for additional information on symbols and terminology. WNLog of Test Pits Figure A-20 TP-8 Approximate Elevation 12.6 Ft Unified Soil Classification Sample Moisture Depth System No./Depth Content (ft) Symbol Description (ft) M Other Tests 0.0-0.2 SM/GM Brown, silty, gravelly SAND/sandy GRAVEL (dense, moist) (fill) 0.2-3.0 SP Brown, fine to medium SAND with trace of 1/0.2-3.0 7.3 silt, and occasional gravel and wood debris (medium dense, moist) (fill) 3.0-7.0 SP Gray, medium to coarse SAND with 2/3.0-7.0 19.3 occasional gravel and cobbles, wood, and shell fragments (medium dense, moist to saturated below about 5.5 ft) (possible fill) Test pit completed to 7.0 It on 12/20/94. Moderate groundwater seepage encountered at about 5.5 ft. TP-9 Approximate Elevation 11.7 Ft Unified Soil Classification Sample Moisture Depth System No./Depth Content c (ft) Symbol Description (ft) (%) Other Tests 0 0.0-1.2 SM/GM Brown, silty, gravelly SAND/sandy GRAVEL 1/0.0-1.2 with glass and wood debris (dense, moist) (mixed fill) 1.2-2.5 SP Brown-gray, fine SAND with isolated fibrous 2/1.2 2.5 3.7 0 wood debris (medium dense, moist) (fill) 2.5-4.3 SP Dark brown-gray, fine to medium SAND with 3/2.5-4.3 15.3 gravel (medium dense, moist to saturated below about 3.5 ft) (fill) 4.3 5.0 SP/GP Brown, gravelly, fine to medium 4/4.3-5.0 SAND/sandy, fine to medium GRAVEL with a root fibers (medium dense to dense, m saturated) (fill) N to Test pit completed to 5.0 ft on 12-/20/94. Moderate groundwater seepage encountered at about 3.5 it. a 0 C O a 0 o Note: Siratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. Refer to the text for an explanation of subsurface o conditions. Refer to Soil Classification System figure for additional information on symbols and terminology. M �m_Log of Test Pits =FFigure TP-10 Approximate Elevation 15.4 Ft Unified Soil Classification Sample Moisture Depth System No./Depth Content (ft) Symbol Description (ft) N Other Tests 0.0-1.3 SM Brown, gravelly, silty, fine to coarse SAND 1/0.0-1.3 6.3 with concrete, wood debris, and occasional organic material (medium dense, moist) (fill) 1.3-2.3 SP Gray, fine SAND with occasional gravel, 2/1.3-4.0 6.3 cobbles, and concrete debris (medium dense, moist) (fill) 2.3-7.8 SP Gray, fine SAND with occasional gravel and 3/4.0-7.8 8.8 cobbles (medium dense, moist) (fill) (water line at 4.0 It) Test pit completed to 7.8 It on 12/20/94. No groundwater seepage encountered. TP-11 Approximate Elevation 14.8 Ft Unified Soil a Classification Sample Moisture Depth System No./Depth Content m (ft) Symbol Description (ft) M) Olfier Tests 0.0-1.3 SM Brown, gravelly, silty, fine to medium SAND 1/0.0-1.3 6.0 with pockets of organic material (medium dense, moist) (fill) U LL s 1.3-3.0 SP Brown, fine to medium SAND with trace of 2/1.3-7.0 7.1 0 gravel and occasional cobbles (medium m dense, moist) (fill) E 3.0-7.0 SP Gray, fine SAND (medium dense, moist) (fill) LU Test pit completed to 7.0 It on 12/20/94. 8 No groundwater seepage encountered. e 0 C O a 0 C a 0 Note: Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. Refer to the text for an explanation of subsurface conditions. Refer to Soil Classifirafion System figure for additional information on symbols and terminology. Log of Test Pits Figure A-22 TP-12 Approximate Elevation 14.7 Ft Unified Soil Classification Sample Moisture Depth System No./Depth Content (ft) Symbol Description (ft) M Other Tests 0.0-2.0 SM Brown, silty, fine to coarse SAND with gravel 1/0.0-2.0 5.7 and occasional cobbles, bricks, and organic material (medium dense, moist) (fill) 2.0-7.5 SP Gray, fine SAND with occasional gravel and 2/2.0-7.5 6.8 cobbles (medium dense, moist) (fill) Test pit completed to 7.5 ft on 12/20/94. No groundwater seepage encountered. TP-13 Approximate Elevation 15.2 Ft Unified Soil Classification Sample Moisture Depth System No./Depth Content (ft) Symbol Description (ft) M Other Tests 0.0-0.8 SM Brown, gravelly, silty, fine to coarse SAND 1/0.0-0.8 a (medium dense, moist) (fill) 0.8-1.5 SP Yellow-brown, fine SAND (medium dense, 2/0.8-1.5 4.9 moist) (fill) g 1.5-2.7 SM/GM Dark brown, silty, gravelly, fine to medium 3/1.5-2.7 5.5 a SAND/sandy, fine to medium GRAVEL with roots, organic debris, and pockets of silt 0 (medium dense, moist) (fill) 2.7-3.7 SM Light gray-brown, silty, fine to medium SAND 4/2.7-3.7 E with occasional cobbles and isolated decayed timber(medium dense, moist) (fill) N L Test pit completed to 3.7 ft on 12/20/94. No groundwater seepage encountered. a 0 a` a c m c 3 0 F- c 0 a 'o C 0 a 0 g Note: Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. Refer to the text for an explanation of subsurface conditions. Refer to Soil Classification System figure for additional information on symbols and terminology. Log of Test Pits Figure A-23 TP-14 Approximate Elevation '13.4 Ft Unified Soil Classification Sample Moisture Depth System No./Depth Content (ft) Symbol Description (ft) N Other Tests 0.0-0.3 GM Gray-brown, silty, fine to medium GRAVEL (crushed rock fill) 0.3-2.0 SM/GM Brown, silty, gravelly, fine to medium 1/0.3-2.0 6.6 SAND/sandy, fine to medium GRAVEL with occasional cobbles and organic material (medium dense, moist) (mixed fill) 2.0-3.9 SP Light gray-brown, fine to medium SAND with 2/2.0-5.1 6.1 brick and wood debris layer between 3.5 and 3.9 ft (medium dense, moist) (fill) 3.9-5.1 SP Light gray-brown, fine to medium SAND (medium dense, moist) (fill) Test pit completed to 5.1 ft on 12/20/94. No groundwater seepage encountered. TP-15 Approximate Elevation 1 1.7 Ft a 3 Unified Soil a Classification Sample Moisture Depth System No./Depth Content c� (ft) Symbol Description (ft) N Other Tests 0.0-2.7 SM/SP Brown-gray, fine to medium SAND with 1/1.0-2.7 14.3 varying amounts of silt, gravel, and debris ro consisting of brick, metal, concrete, and wood; organic layer between 2.5 and 2.7 It N (medium dense, moist) (fill) w 2.7 5.6 SP Light gray with rust mottling, medium to 2/2.7-5.6 7.5 coarse SAND with shell fragments and S pockets of organic material (medium dense, CL moist to saturated below about 3.8 ft) (fill) (organic layer between about 4.0 and 4.1 ft) 3 ti Test pit completed to 5.6 ft on 12/20/94. a Moderate groundwater seepage encountered at about 3.8 to 4.0 ft. 0 C O a 0 Note: Slratigrapliic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. Refer to the text for an explanation of subsurface conditions. Refer to Soil Classification System figure for additional information on symbols and terminology. 0 M Log of 'Kest Pits Figure A-24 304001.10 Port of Port Town send/Proposed Enhanced Houlout FacilitX/Geojech. Report (A) 8/96 00 ................ ...... ............... il.......... . ....... ................... ... ... ..... ... . ..... . ..... ..... .. .. ......... ............. 9 c, .... ...... ................... i....i........ L............... ...... ... ... .. . ..... ..... .... ........... ................. .. ......1_I! .. .. . L. �. Lt_. . l.(. L.. ... l :� L ......[-, .............. . . .. ................... ....... [1.l. .... ...... .............. .... .... .. ........................... C ------------------------- .............. .... .....! LLI .I_L. ., . i_ L.. I;..L L f._..[.._..L .... .. .. ....I.. .... .... .... .... ..... ..... ... .. ................. .............. ........... . .......... ........................... .. . ... .......... ................ ....... .............. .... ..... 60 [ [ IL. _ fl � ll[_ ll �:� L [ ... .............. ............ ................... 5 C ..... .................... .. .... ..... ..... .... .... ll 40 ....... ... ... .... ... I... I J. .. ....... ..... ...... ...... .... .... ..... .... .... ..... .... ..... ...... ............. . ...................................... ':. . ..... .. ..... ...... . . .... ..... ..... ..... .. .... ..... .... ..... .. ... ... .... ..... ..... ... . ... ... ........... ................ .............. 20 ......... ................... : _ : [. ► I III . .....1........... L q]. ............................. ............ .... .. ..... ..L � k � � [ L _ ... . ..... I � ` � �. � ' " I__ ' .[Ill .1':I � : '. . L . J _l _[ � _ : L A i!( �I� _ _ 0 1 00 0.C1 0.00� Co3rse . . . .. ............. . .... .... . ... .. . ....... .......X. ........I now .............. I............. ..... ...... 4: Groin Size Distribution Figure B-1 304001.10-Port of Port Townsend P roposed Enhanced Houlout Facifliy/Geotech. Report (A) 8/96 I O'� .. C ......................... .................... ...... ...I ............ ................ ... ....... .. ............. .......................................... . .................................... ... ..... ..... ... .... .... ..... ... ..... . ... ... ... ... ... . ..... ..... .... ..... ........... .............. ...... ............ .... . . .. ... .... .... . .. ... ... .... ... .. .... ..... ..... ... ........... ........... .............. ........ .. ......9 .......... ...... ... .................... ............. .. . ... ................ .. .. ... ........... ....... .. ..... .. ... .... .......... �'r.. I ..........I......... ...... ............ ... .... ....................... ....... ........... ry TO .................... 1. . .... .... ..... ..... .... .... .... ..... ..... .... .... . .. .... ..... ..... ... ..... . .i I I [ I I , I I I I I ........................ .. . ..... ...................... .... .................. ....... ........ �I .......... II ...... ...... ........................... ....... 60 ............. ....... .............. ... ... ... ...V.. .....i.......i� .............. ....... .. .... ..... ..... ... ..... .. .... ........ .. .. .. ... .... ....... ..:::I...)...... .. ...�....I:..::�:......l.l.:a..1... . ........................... ...... ....... ........ .............. .. ........ + .. .... . ..... ..... .. .... .. U .. .............. .......... ....... ........ ........... .............. ................................ 30 ....... ..... ........................ ...11� ... I - I. I-i .................. .......... ..... ..... .... ..... ... ..... ... .... . ..... l [ ........ ................. - ..... .... 0 ....... ............ .......... ......... ....... .......... ... ... .... .. .. .............. ................. .. .... ......... ........ :: : f ........ .......!�... . ......... .................... ........... [ I ( c L . .... .... ...[ :[ ... .... .......... ...... . ... ... .... ..... .... I ... ..... L..-. A_ L .. ..... ... ........ _ l l i [_ !_ � [ _ lJ 1. _ l l _1.. 0 0 0 0 0 Oc" I/ Boulders _-00o:es e Jyc �carse7 c r s e ............................... ................ Y..-MYr 6 ; ....,.:...:. . ... ... ... ... ................... . .......................... . ....... ..... A Tn- 2 2 Q V 9 ::nors= SAND with si!-, N- w_ �r - smit A,-.& TP- Z" cve' C= 2 t 2 Groin Size Distribution Figure B-2 304001.10 Port of Port Townsend/Prcposed Enhanced Houlout Facilit Y/Geo tech. Report (A) 8/96 7 �P .. ......................... ................... .......................—. ...... ................ ............ ....... .................. .......................... ............. .... ..... .. T' .. .... .... ... ..... ..... ..... ... .... ..... .. ll II . ............... ....... ....... 90 ...... 11 ......J-.....1:. Ili . ..... .... ... .... .. .. .. .... .... ..... ... .... ..: { �............ .............. A .........i.......1:. 1.. .. i � ......... ....... .............. ........ ........ ....... ......... 80 .... .... ...... � << I I L� I I � I J- III ........... 0 ............ fl J Llli . .L........ .......... .Li l_L.. ..................................... . ... ................... .............. ..... ..... .... ..... ... ... ..... ..... . . ll ... . .............. .......... . . ........ ............ ................ ................................... . ... ............................................... ........ ' i . . ; � ....I. I. ,,..( ' , i � �. I i ' i L.I. 4 ,. .............. CD ............. ...... ..................... .......... ....... . . ... .... ..... ..... ... ..... .... ..... ..... ............... 40 .. . . . ...... ........................... L l ....................... ................ ....... i . l f I (. _ I I .. ..... ..... ... .... .... ...................... ...............:. ... ....... ........... ...... ..... ......... ............ ................................................. .......................... -0 + ... .... ... ..... ..... .... .... ..... ..... ..... ... ... ... .... .... .... ..... .. 1 20 ..... ... ............ ........... ... ............... 1 E .... ... .... .. ..................... . ... .. ... .... .... .... .... ...... ..... .... ..... IiI I.... ....... ............ ............... ... ................. ..... ........ .... ................................ 10 .... ..... ........ .. ..... .... ... ... ... 11 _I Jl ................... ........ ....... ......... ............. ....... i 0 C 0 8 ou,J e r s Cobcies 0 C R......... .... ....... ........ O ............ Nip ........... . ...... . Tr—7 3 c i,,j w:jh trsce of grcvel Grain Size Distribution Figure B-3 TABLE B-1 FINES CONTENT ANALYSES Percent Unified Soil Sample Depth Passing Classification Designation (ft) No.200 Sieve Soil Description Symbol L-1/S-3 10.5 8.0 Fine to medium SAND with silt SP-SM L-2/S-5 22.5 7.9 Fine to medium SAND with silt SP-SM L 4/S-1 3.0 18.3 Silty, fine to medium SAND with trace of SM gravel L-10/S-2 1.5 7.0 Fine to medium SAND with silt SP-SM L-12/S-1 2.5 2.2 Fine to medium SAND SP L--12/S-3 12.5 4.2 Fine to medium SAND with trace of silt SP TP-1/S-2 1.0 13.6 Gravelly, fine to coarse SAND with silt SM/GM TP-2/S-2 0.4 8.5 F41e to medium SAND with gravel and silt SP-SM TP-3/S-2 1.0 0.4 Fine to medium SAND with gravel SP TP-4/S-2 L2 0.1 Fine to medium SAND with gravel SP TP-7/S-3 1.0 0.9 Fine to medium SAND with trace of gravel SP ASTM D 1140 Test Procedure 08/45/6 jA304\001\ENHANCED.8-1 LANDAU ASSOCIATES U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1964 Borcholc Ices and as-built drawings I I i ••-Y q, (r4W WSILT A tKtlt,OAAY ROOKY WADED SA" ----__ SrA fOORLT GRAKO SANG 'N_ -.. - jN VIK) WHLT,GRAr . 5 SAND w (PING) W5I0.OAA1 ± - + Nr37 AD( AANO fOOKI GR p — ..._. EN (fIMQ WtIIT,GRAr t► (rINO WSILT R rf'1kc) GAAUC,IYID AMP SAM /ROSIN"LL1,GS#Y W 90 ( —� SO U INC)�DRAVCL, _-- -- V PoOKY O"Wo 9MO . NA1S -..- May w f 1 .n aaAr !P rOORtr 3uN .- ----- - '- --- Sit (flNp NSILf i to DAtk SXCLLS, MAY (t lNq WSJLrilti, GRAr i wRl + Nrl k.w. ,R77- _ 1 4RK _ _ 1 Mr 1 !P LY =.OiD SAND S,ITT UAIO (/IIAF)tiOAdfCk SMELLS, _. -_-. •- -____.. -_ ..-_- - - (rINC)•YSIIT S w ORAY 8AI RItOKDi SX CILS.-GRAr v ago Lr u.oio cu+o s AN!) - -- -'--- -- --- L, (fill) Will.? A. MON(k SLCLLS, _ RADrM - NGAAY ---- r __--- MA'10 11 U.;Lc I NA77 AL. T -._. - - -- - - -- ----- -- It, 62-WB-14 62-WB-15 62-WB-16 62-WB-17 62-PA-19 54-PS-1 54-PS-3 54-PS-5 t1 cal.9.14 L2-►E-15 81-i-16 0-M-17 a-PA-49 SL•P&-! Sl-P&•7 Si-Ph5 is [l. k.i tl. 7.5 FL. 7,3 EL. 1.3 EL. 1P.2 (L.-e.0 LL • r-! I INC1 ✓i LLr,Oh1kN ST _-- - -- -- ---- Sr tyORLr GRADED SAND N .. .-._.. SW (rlkEl WSILT.GRAV PWO - OAADfD CANO of i► (nNq,f/aw[L, tP (flur) r/!ur A .- - •. &RDArk AAtLLS A - -_ _ GA DEL, GRIT __ fP POORLY GRADED SAND P,(DCtor WcD, - _ - AN (flkf) r/SILT,GAAI SS -- POORLY GRADED SANG SAND Sp POOKY WAO10 SArA -- W In C) W8ILT k ONCACN SMELLS, S (i,Mil rlSlllr, _ - I k.5 POORLY oAAOLD SAND GRAY GRAVEL S f)A DN[X POOAIT GRiDCD SAND -- - W (r,N0 N/ SILT S .HILL 3, GRAY (T,NC)WtILI♦ PCOKT GAAoEO tAW --- -- --- !'OK[N iXCi LS,qAT SP (rINU W/ILT A tv POORLY GRADED SAND GRAKL,G�Lr to {ROAEk tnt LL.S,GRAT _ _. __ - Y/SILT ♦ GRAVEL. - ---- LM DRAT T _ _ SCORLr GRADED tM0 �i Ns2t T rOORIT WADED LAND -- IP (SINE) Y/SILT R '— 1 N>Z 1 .- _- M=71 (fl4U/MEr(N SNELL&_SRO94 w GRAVEL, GRAr . tr weRtr ORAO(C lAAO -.. -.- (fIK)r/LILT t � I.T)L � NaSO � ksAA i IP3V - {OILS Lf"WO went -- _ SILTY SANO (rINC) Or POOALr GRADED GRAVEL L. WL(S 54•r6-1 TIrO',Y SW rI-S oRILISD F. r/IROtDI WELLS, Sr POOALr GRADED SANG OCT. IRSL . -- ---— - GAAY WLIA 6J-r0-1 rWo Xji Rt-►MIT OYl lll[D w- SILT'SAAR) $-11 wA, 1142 -- Noll{ u-N-1R TIAIILWN W-RA-(O 04ILLKD --- -"- - -----•-' T - 6]•kE-1 rA7M SORING, TTSI MOLC A N0. Sh)D IIAS, 1w - Q —4 ; M:AA NKS � ks.0 R .... i - ci•r.-u w.(c .uG(R, resr MOLE s No. 2, tmL o[scalrtlaa.AL SUED Olt'tNE L W,fIID SOIL DLASSlf1DATION SYSTW.A _ 54-Pt•1 - fgArU lAAitlA, TCfI MOLE A Ad. id ki15 STANOARO P(NCrRATIok rlsr us,kG A . Srldl SPOON L"PLIA. (NA No, or SLOrt OCR rOOT) S• C1(WTlakt AR( IA fCL'i IIO Et r0 iK KANE or KAk LOYCN 10f YA r[R, CL11t"O. KLOS TK DATUM PLAK ANC wr IRED V17N A IIINL4 (-) 61W, » A Myers Biodynamics, l.nc.,July 1994 - - `CCS[ hit logs I i i TEST PIT LOG T P- T),q bV+wdiae onA fo feet f�,oa.f on d the time d ercavNion. Subeudeae coed flora may differ at other ■ boe0iau end mey a6o dunpo owf dme. Thb by d e ein�olNwd iileipefdion of IM edud oaxlliona. J PROJECT NAME: Nomura Building s ' a g TEST PIT LOCATION:See Figure 1 SURFACE CONDITIONS: Gravel o a) DESCRIPTION COMMENTS s-1 Slightly Silty Gravelly SAND;(loose to medium dense), brown, moist(FILL) Lab test:MC=4% i - s-2 Fine to Medium SAND; loose to medium dense), light brown, moist(FILL)_ Lab test:MC=9% Severe Caving at test pit sidewalls 2 - Fine to Medium SAND;(loose), dark brown to black, moist, trace red brick Lab test:MC= 6% s 3 3 - pieces, trace gravel and cobbles(FILL) 4 - becomes light gray brown at 41/2-foot depth 5 - S-4 Fine to Medium SAND;(loose)gray brown, wet, abundant shell Lab test:MC= 22% 6 — fragments(hydraulic Fill?) groundwater level at 7 — approximately 6112-loot grades to depth e — S-5 Medium SAND;(loose), dark gray, wet, trace to little fine and coarse sand Lab test:MC =22% Bottom of test pit at 9 foot depth. Completed and backfilled 4120194 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 -15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - Myei s 600 Winslow Way East DATE 4/20/94 MURE 2 HQ®dgruim a grzo Inc. Bainbridge Islatzd WA 98110 �vAPON(M 7+ PROJECT NO 9��5��5 tMz BUS:(206)842-6073 FAX:(206)8,42-3797 ■ P � T}re bV AgdiM only to feet At��d the time d excwdian. Suhsurlue condiione may diNer d oN>e/ TEST PIT LOG e /� lomtiars and may abo d+e+ye owr art». Thb by e a sir+d�ied hromraldiw d IM ulud cwid�iau J PROJECT NAME: Nomura Building = a TEST PIT LOCATION: See Figure 1 SURFACE CONDITIONS: Trace Grass o N DESCRIPTION Slightly Silty Gravelly SAND;(medium dense), brown, COMMENTS slightly moist, trace fine roots, trace red brick fragments, trace cobbles(FILL) 1 — Fine to Medium SAND;(medium dense to loose), dark brown to black, moist Lab test:MC =5% 2— s-1 (FILL) S-2 Fine to Medium SAND;(loose), brown, moist, abundant shell fragments Lab Test:MC= 7% 3 — (hydraulic Fill?) Severe Caving at test pit sidewalls 4 - 5— grades to 6 - 7— groundwater level at Fine to Medium SAND;(loose), dark gray, wet, trace to little fine approximately 6-foot _ 13 and coarse sand depth S-3 Lab test:MC=21%, GS 9— Bottom of test pit at 9 loot depth. Completed and backfilled 4120194 10— 11 — 6/� 12 — 13 — 14 — 15 "- 16 17 — 18 — 600 Winslow WayEast DATE 4/20/9ig F{C3URE 3 ajadU 1manflcrs Inc. Bainbridge Island WA 98110 ELEVAnON(FT) T 't PROJECT NO 9,4,452-5 Vra BUS:(206)842-6073 FAX:(206)842-3797 / conmm y �T E ST PIT L o G T P-3 �.b8 4oPr�+only haf�lonlion a! rimo d w cm; o/is diM�won d tM aduanc awn�i. locations and mey aba di.ny.over Nme. This by w PROJECT NAME: Nomura Building 1 J n' TEST PIT LOCATION: See Figure 1 SURFACE CONDITIONS: Sand o N DESCRIPTION COMMENTS $1 Slightly Silty SAND;(loose), light brown, dry(FILL) Lab Test:MC=6% trace roots at 112-foot depth 1 — S-2 Slightly Silty SAND;(loose to medium dense), dark brown to black, moist Lab Test:MC=8% 2— trace organics, trace red brick pieces and glass (FILL) 3— Lab Test:MC=5%, GS S-3 SAND;(loose), dark gray, moist to very moist(FILL?) Severe Caving at test pit sidewalls 4 — groundwater level at 5 — wet at 5-loot depth approximately 5-foot depth 6 grades to Medium SAND;(loose), dark gray, wet, trace to little fine and 7— coarse sand and gravel 8— S-4 Lab Test:MC=23% Bottom of test pit at 9 foot depth. Completed and backfilled 4120194 10— 11 — 12— 13— 14— 15 — 16— 17— 18 -- 600 Winslow Way A 9 East DATE r4/20/94 FIGURE 4 Unimmjr-z ln11:. Bainbridge Island W8t10 F1IEYATiON(Fi) PROJECT NO tmm 6t 94452�5 SUS:(206)642-6073 FAX:(206)842-3797 TEST P I T L O G T P r 4 / „ +nY�o�d+npa orw tlrnw Tl+it bD irrp��iod nls�rslalion d IM dyvalacunditons w PROJECT NAME: Nomura Building n TEST PIT LOCATION: See Figure 1 SURFACE CONDITIONS: Sand/Debris o U) DESCRIPTION COMMENTS Slightly Silty SAND;(loose), brown to dark brown, moist, trace organics and Lab Test:MC= 7% 1 — line roots, trace wood debris(FILL) S-1 2 - 3 - S-2 Fine to Medium SAND;(loose), dark gray brown, moist to very moist(FILL?) Lab Test:MC=4% 4 — Severe Caving at test pit sidewails groundwater level at 5 — grades to approximately 5-loot Medium SAND;(loose), dark gray, wet, trace to little line and depth 6 — coarse sand and gravel 7 - S-3 Lab Test:MC= 16% 8 — Bottom of test pit at 9 loot depth. Completed and backfilled 412019 10- 11 - 12 - 13 `-' 14 - 15 - 16 - 17- 18 -- DATE /n FIGURE 5 600 WinSlOw�Way East /2®/949� $ ofladUnamics Qnco Bainbridge Island WA 98110 El.EdATi)H(FT) PROJECT HO 6+ 94452-5 MB BUS:(206)842-6073 FAX:(206)842-3797 TEST P i T LOG T P s TM log applies Doty to test pi location et the timed excavation. Sebeudace conditions may ditler at othar locations and may also change ova time. This log is a sinplilied intetptetation of the actual conditions. J PROJECT NAME: Port of Port Townsend MRWF = a a g TEST PIT LOCATION: See Figure 1 SURFACE CONDITIONS: Gravel o a) DESCRIPTION COMMENTS Slightly Silty, Very Gravelly SAND;(medium dense to dense), brown, slightly Lab Test:MC= 3% 1 — moist, trace cobbles(FILL) s1 geotextile layer at 1.5-loot depth 2 — SAND;(medium dense to loose), light gray brown, slightly moist, with thin Lab Test:MC= 3% S-2 zones of(stiff)dark brown silt(FILL) 3 - DEBRIS;pieces of red brick and tar paper(?) (FILL) 4 — S-3 Medium SAND;(loose), brown, moist to very moist, trace to few gravel and Lab Test.MC= 7% coarse Sand 5 - - S-4 PEAT to Organic SILT(soft), dark brown, wet Lab Test:MC= 140% 6 — groundwater at approximately 6-loot depth 7 _ s-s Medium SAND;(loose to medium dense), dark gray, wet Lab Test:MC = 23% 8 — severe caving of test pit 9 — sidewalls below 4-loot depth 10 — - --- — Bottorn of test pit at 10 foot depth. Completed and backfilled 6117194 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - A��' 600 Winslow Way East DATE 6/17r'94 FIGURE A-1 B0�lII�gjni'mU ic-so lniE Bainbridge Island WA 98110 ELEVATION(FT) PROJECT NO 10"M B BUS:(206)842-6073 FAX:(206)842-3797 61/2 94463.5 ler TEST PIT LOG T P.� / This bg oypliea only s foal n locator) the lino o/excavation. Sueaudace condiliore ac al co other ions. � Ssos.. locations and may also change over time. This log is n sinloLliod inlerpiolarion o1 the oclual condi)ions. w PROJECT NAME: Port of Port Townsend MRW F � � J TEST PIT LOCATION: See Figure 'I SURFACE CONDITIONS: Gravel 0- 2o ccn DESCRIPTION COMMENTS s-1 Gravel-sized Crushed Rock with wood fragments grading to Slightly Gravelly Lab Test:MC= 9% I — Silly SAND;(medium dense), brown, moist(FILL) I 2 -- s-2 Fine SAND;(loose to medium dense), light gray, slightly moist Lab Test:MC= 6% l3 — severe caving of test pit sidewalls below 1-foot 4 — depth 5 — becomes gray brown, wet 6 -- groundwater at approximately 6-fool depth 7 — e -- grades to Medium SAND; (loose to medium dense), dark gray, wet 9 — — -- Bottom of test pit at 9 foot depth. Completed,and back filled 6717194 10 -- 11 12 - 13 — 14 — 15 — 16 - 17 18 - f I 600 Winslow Way East DATE 6/-17/94 FIGURE ^-2 Bjndg4-Aamar-s inn- Bainbridge Island WA 98110 ELEVATION(FT) PROJECT NO !� MB BUS:(206)842-6073 FAX:(206)842-3797 6'/2 94�63-5 I TEST P 1 T LOG T P- this log equlies Dory test pi ovef t m tine of is aexcavation. Sues udece condiions may al co othet locefioru end may also change over lime. This log is a sinplilied itferpretolion of the oc uel conditions. w PROJECT NAME: Port of Port Townsend MRW F 3 J a TEST PIT LOCATION:See Figure 1 SURFACE CONDITIONS: Gravel o Cn DESCRIPTION COMMENTS Cobble-sized Crushed Rock to Silty Very Gravelly SAND;(dense), brown, s-1 slightly moist, grades slightly gravelly with depth(FILL) Lab Test:MC=5% t - 2 - S-2 Fine SAND;(medium dense), light gray brown, slightly moist Lab Test:MC= 4 3 - S-3 Medium SAND;(loose to medium dense), brown to dark brown, moist Lab Test:MC= 7% 4 -- becomes dark gray, wet with trace to few organics groundwater level approx 4.5-loot depth 5 - - - - S-4 PEAT, (soft), dark brown, wet __ __ __ Lab Test:MC = 315% 6 - S-5 Medium SAND;(loose to medium dense), dark gray to black, wet, abundant Lab Test:MC = 33% shells and shell fragments 7 — severe caving of test pit side wa lls 8 - 9 - t0 - - - --- Bottom of test pit at 10 foot depth. Completed and backfilled 6117194 1t - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 --- 1 M'sg- airs 600 Winslow Way East DATE — 6/17/94 FIGURE A-3 Bindgnaa-a-sirs gnr-. Bainbridge Island WA 98110 EI-EVATION(FT) FRGJECT NO M13 BUS (206)842-6073 FAX'(206)842-3797 6'/2 94463-5 //yy.. 1 TEST PIT LOG T P Th s lop applief only to fe,l p i location at the lime d excavation. Subaurpfe f conditions mo y ai c at iom. ���-TTTT Ipcations and mey abo dlenps over bme. This log if a.+Lrp/Jied ioterprefofion d the aclue/conditions. w PROJECT NAME: Port of Port Townsend MRWF = J aCL TEST PIT LOCATION: See Figure 1 SURFACE CONDITIONS: Gravel o an DESCRIPTION COMMENTS t Sand to Cobble-sized Crushed Rock to Silty Very Gravelly SAND;(dense), brown, slightly moist(FILL) 1 — Fine SAND;(rnedium dense), light gray, slightly moist, trace shell fragments 2 Slightly Silty Gravelly SAND;(medium dense), brown, very moist 3 — Medium SAND;(loose to medium dense), brown to dark brown, very moist to wet 4 — becomes dark gray wet, with trace organics groundwater at 5 — —PEAT(soft), dark brown, wet approximately 5-loot depth 6 — 7 — Medium SAND;(loose to medium dense), dark gray, wet, trace gravel, shells severe caving of test pit and shed fragments sidewalis a - 9 — Bottom of test pit at 8.5-foot depth. Completed and backfilled 6/17194 f 10 — 11 — i i 12 — f 13 - -4 14 '— I 15 — 16 — 17 18 — 600 Winslow Way East DATE 6/17/94 FIGURE A-4 r^ BjiudUtraaalr�90tC� 01I-ac. Bainbridge Island WA 98110 ELEVATION(FT) PROJECT NO JVIB BUS:(206)842-6073 FAX (206)842-3797 6'/2, 94463-5 ! i ! oWESTING b m 40 20 0 -20 40 N Dec. 15, 1994 Excavation 80 ?� 12-inch Sewer Line f / — 60 Access Ramp +l_! Electric 0 Conduit - f: 9 - 1 v2-inch - -- _ Sewer Line Dec. 14, 1994 J Excavation 40 aw Previous ----- — Excavation ----- o and Former Z Tank Boring Locations _ N L-13 — L0 3/4-inch Water Line -- 0 USCG -- Point Bennett Building — 20 h 5 KEY 0 Grab Soil Sample Location for Laboratory Testing N (Collected Dec. 14-15, 1994) G ® Boring Location 0 20 40 a (Drilled Dec. 19, 1994) ��— Scale in Feet Q ❑ Valve Box a o Telephone Pole Note: Elevation of ground surface a assumed to be+16 ft during 48-inch Sump December 14-15, 1994 investigation. s 0 x n Locations of Samples Submitted for Laboratory Analyses Figure 1 LANDAU ASSOCI\IFS. Iivc TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF FIELD SCREENING RESULTS Sample Location" ppm in Headspace(') 33N 15W +9 550 33N 15W +7 510 33N 20W +12 6.7 33N 20W +9 7.2 33N 20W +7 44 33N 20W +6 510 33N 22W +13 3.6 36N 23W +13 3.2 40N 1.2W +13 t7 40N 12W +10 20 40N 12W +6 580 40N 13W +"13 4.2 50N 12W +13 3.6 50N 12W +10 4.1 50N 12W +7 690 50N 20W +13 2.3 60N 24W +12 9.0 60N 24 W +8 6.3 60N 25W +12 15 60N 25W +9 7.5 60N 27W +5 180 65N 30W +9 12 73N 30W +10 5.1 (a) In feet, north and west of the northwest corner of the Coast Guard building and approximate elevation, assuming the ground surface was 16 ft. (b) Response of 10.6 ev photoionizing detector calibrated to read 0 in ambient air and 100 in 100 ppm isobutylene. 02/09/95 J:\TG4VN1-END\JACK90N.T07 LAND,\U,\SSOCIA TES.INC. TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTING Soil Sample ID FICID FICID FICID WTPH-G Gasoline Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene Xylenes Gasoline Diesel Oil (ppm) ID (ppb) (ppb) (ppb) (ppb) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (Yes/No) 33N 20W +11 20 U 25 U 50 U at at at at at at 33N 20W +9 20 U 25 U 50 U at at nt nt at nt 33N 20W +6.5 9,200 4,400 50 U 7,900 No 300 U 300 U 3,700 3,800 50N 13W +13 20 U 25 U 50 U nt at nt at at at 50N 13W +10 20 U 25 U 50 U nt nt at at nt nt 50N 13W 1-7.5 7,100 3,600 50 U nt at at nt nt nt 60N 2 5 W +12 20 U 25 U 50 U nt nt nt at nt nt 60N 25W +9 20 U 25 U 50 U nt nt nt nt at nt 60N 27W t-5 120 25 U 30 U 71 No 63 U 65 U 130 65 U L-13 (8.5-9.0) 8,4W 2,200 50 U nt nt nt nt nt nt (approx El = F7) L-13 (12.5-14.0) 120 52 50 U nt nt nt nt nt nt (approx El = F3) U = Compound not detected at the given detection limit at = Not tested. MA9M k1T0VVNS0ND11ACVMN.7B2 LANDAU ASSOCIATES.INC. APPENDIX F ASFF" "Impo,riam Infi�rmation About Your Gcotcchnical Rcpo rt i I I i G h iuok I E 9 i U U Hepopt `w•JS '":s '�J 1rt,"'�, M-r �d .y± 1 f ! I ! I ( 1 I J J l 1 I •T '� Y ;;A ' aP 'a'�ss'�:.v:(Yii''3,�' Geotechnical Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects Read the Full Report Subsurface Conditions Can Change R Geolechnicaf Engineering Report Is Based on A tlmque Set of Prolect Specific Factors A Reports Recommendations Are Not Final = Read Responsibility Provisions Closely A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject To Misinterpretation _ i R +,:-—�0.1 1.Cc;if', 'Ii— i,t r ,ir ... 0' :.,_ ,'.. ' • fr: ... ; , .. f. � :1 . r rz rr'U' t . r: I 't - Lr Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered Do Not Redraw the Engineer's logs Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance Rely on your Geotechnical Engineer, for Additional Assistance Structural Calculations nL 2 For: CITY OF PORT TOE NSEND CG Cutter Support Building DSD Port Townsend Mooring Port Townsend,WA 98368 PREPARED FOR: Concept Integrators Inc. Chuck Kellogg 26706 NE 223rd Street Battle Ground,WA 98604-5155 (360)687-8428 NTI JOB NUMBER CONCO901 —LIMITATIONS" NTI Engineering&Land Surveying has been retained in limited capacity for this project. Both Design and Calculations have been based on information provided by the client,who is solely responsible for the accuracy of said information.The Engineer assumes no responsibility or liability for any element of this project not specifically addressed in or by these calculations, totalling L5 sheets(including this cover), nor is any responsibility to be assigned to the Engineer. Any alterations to the design of this project MUST be brought to the attention of the engineer for consideration as to the impact that they will have to the engineered design. Any and all deviations from the engineered design, not approved in writing by the engineer,will make these calculations NULL and VOID. The signature on the"Original Set'of calculations will appear in Blue ink 11(30-01) -/7 o f WA sy —/IF C, NTI )� a www.nti4u.com p� 44468 �O t GIS�ER NTI ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING ST FSS/O 717 SOUTH PEABODY STREET,PORT ANGELES,WA 98362 ❑ Engineers ❑ Land Surveyors ❑Geologists ❑ Construction Inspection ❑Materials Testing (360)452-8491 FAX 452-8498 E-Mail:info@nti4u.com kkn ALE COPY ,4 S ea.LA0o 7 ]' I I LE) O O O O O O O O O 1 4 DD f f f f f I w I s I i G AT�W CACT!Id LWISEX n /LO01! AFFLUl1M 1 O=HM O 11 I� I IMTm WALL Glaff� �® I plop ®b ON OI AM J 11r APNPJW I am I� „ CMLO T 6LOGOT y WTM f1AIM 110f•am R emomm \ TmTmw DOOR DIIO� FLOOR M."AFOUM n M I ufo n \ I D e 4 \ Ir ON IR I7A I I OFPICE9 Q 2 I IMTm U" rcus D Common Li 4 — �I ® RGOR ao PLO= UNISEX _ ] I 1 &L ;f I O ® 8 O O O O O O O O O O O f O O O O O ,O O (D 7 I M M ]'-il• 4'-b' 3'-II' 4'-b' i'-�, 4'-D' II'"{• 2'-4' 41•i• 4'-T' 4•b' 4-i' 4-i' 9-I' 9-10' 4-b' 4 i' ZL VJvVp SPEC— fl ; ►�OM.Q Cx vsL~R� > 15 L)L) 006) Snow UtA �5�sf Conterminous 48 States 2003 NEHRP Seismic Design Provisions Zip Code = 98368 Spectral Response Accelerations Ss and S1 Ss and S1 = Mapped Spectral Acceleration Values Data are based on a 0.05 deg grid spacing Period Centroid Sa (sec) (g) 0.2 1.267 (Ss) 1.0 0.461 (S1) Period Maximum Sa (sec) (g) 0.2 1.414 (Ss) 1.0 0.520 (S1) Period Minimum Sa (sec) (g) 0.2 1.150 (Ss) sus (0, LAC, -709 SHWA`,:- JLS �sF heta h L z � B B Kh: 2 .01* (Ht/Zg) " (2/Alpha) = 1.03 Kht: Topographic Factor (Figure 6-4) = 1.00 Qh: .00256* (V) '2*I*Kh*Kht*Kd = 37.12 psf Cpww: Windward Wall Cp(Ref Fig 6-6) = 0.80 Roof Area = 2456.00 ft'2 Reduction Factor based on Roof Area = 0.80 MWFRS-Wall Pressures Perpendicular to Ridge Wall Cp +GCpi(psf) -GCpi(psf) --------------- ------ ---------- ---------- Leeward Walls -0.50 -22.46 -9.10 Side Walls -0.70 -28.77 -15.41 Top Elev Bot Elev Kz Kzt qz -Windward Wall- Total Shear Moment ft ft psf +GCpi -GCpi +/-GCpi Kip K-ft ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14.00 4.00 1.03 1.00 37.12 18.56 31.93 41.02 13.8 27.7 10.00 .00 1.03 1.00 37.12 18.56 31.93 41.02 48.4 339.0 Note: 1) Total = Leeward GCPi + Windward GCPi 2) Shear and Moment are sum of forces (Leeward+Windard) acting at 'Bot Elev' Roof Location Cp +GCpi(psf) -GCpi(psf) ----------------------- ------- ---------- ---------- Windward - Min Cp -0.64 -26.88 -13.51 Windward - Max Cp -0.15 -11.42 1.95 Leeward Perp to Ridge -0.52 -23.09 -9.73 Overhang Top (Windward) -0.64 -20.20 -20.20 Overhang Top (Leeward) -0.52 -16.41 -16.41 Overhang (Windward only) 0.80 25.24 25.24 MWFRS-Wall Pressures Parallel to Ridge Wall Cp +GCpi(psf) -GCpi(psf) --------------- ------ ---------- ---------- Leeward Walls -0.22 -13.76 -0.40 Side Walls -0.70 -28.77 -15.41 Top Elev Bot Elev Kz Kzt qz -Windward Wall- Total Shear Moment ft ft psf +Gcpi -GCpi +/-GCpi Kip K-ft ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14.00 4.00 1.03 1.00 37.12 18.56 31.93 32.32 3.1 6.2 10.00 .00 1.03 1.00 37.12 18.56 31.93 32.32 10.9 76.0 Note: 1) Total = Leeward GCPi + Windward GCPi 2) Shear and Moment are sum of forces (Leeward+Windard) acting at 'Bot Elev' Roof - Dist from Windward Edge Cp +GCpi(psf) -GCpi(psf) --------------------------------- ------ ---------- ---------- 0.0 ft to 6.0 ft -0.90 -35.08 -21.72 6.0 ft to 12.0 ft -0.90 -35.08 -21.72 12.0 ft to 24.0 ft -0.50 -22.46 -9.10 24.0 ft to 84.3 ft -0.30 -16.15 -2.78 MECAWind Version 2 . 0 . 2 . 7 per ASCE 7-05 Developed by MECA Enterprises, Inc. Copyright 2009 www.mecaenteL2rises.com Date 8/24/2009 Project No. Company Name Designed By Address Description City Customer Name State Proj Location File Location: C:\Program Files\MECAWind\Default.wnd Detailed Wind Load Design(Method 2) per ASCE 7-05 Basic Wind Speed(V) = 120.00 mph Structure Type = Building Structural Category = IV Exposure Category = D Natural Frequency = N/A Flexible Structure = No Importance Factor = 1.15 Kd Directional Factor = 0.85 Alpha = 11.50 Zg = 700.00 ft At = 0.09 Bt = 1.07 Am = 0.11 Bm = 0.80 Cc = 0. 15 1 = 650.00 ft Epsilon = 0.13 Zmin = 7.00 ft Slope of Roof = 3 .43 : 12 Slope of Roof (Theta) = 15.95 Deg Ht: Mean Roof Ht = 12 .00 ft Type of Roof = Gabled RHt: Ridge Ht = 14 .00 ft Eht: Eave Height = 10.00 ft OH: Roof Overhang at Eave= 2 .00 ft Roof Area = 2456.00 ft" 2 Bldg Length Along Ridge = 84 .33 ft Bldg width Across Ridge= 24 .00 ft Gust Factor Category I Rigid Structures - Simplified Method Gustl: For Rigid Structures (Nat. Freq. >l Hz) use 0.85 = 0.85 Gust Factor Category II Rigid Structures - Complete Analysis Zm: 0.6*Ht = 7.20 ft lzm: Cc* (33/Zm) '0.167 = 0. 19 Lzm: 1* (Zm/33) 'Epsilon = 537.36 ft Q: (1/ (1+0.63* ( (B+Ht) /Lzm) '0.63) ) �0.5 = 0.95 Gust2 : 0.925* ( (1+1.7*lzm*3 .4*Q) / (1+1.7*3 .4*lzm) ) = 0.90 Gust Factor Summary Not a Flexible Structure use the Lessor of Gustl or Gust2 = 0.85 Figure 6-5 Internal Pressure Coefficients for Buildings, GCpi GCPi : Internal Pressure Coefficient = +/-0. 18 Figure 6-6 External Pressure Coefficients Cp - Loads on Main Wind-Force Resisting Systems (Method 2) 5 � � /q Loa S& 5eks,�;6 �o� i ow�se�. d, WA A s L& 7-OS o, = a 13 Asp. - (�a , �-�� 0' y73 _ t�s C 7—c�S�l , � �t'o, Ala J. S C C t�S Se p. 13 II-0a s�(�C�/� y, -7 - 3 E--YJei-raS V& 'V&)o 3 98 (=)W/�) q'7 7(o C- V11 . S OF clW /J y - I9� P I� LvnUP✓141-o'\-�'J ass'%Cq .� 31 I F U se #low y�.(.�J" (.n�clok'-C� y 0.CFA 7005tr V- � ) P 0 3p1� 3) y# S T R I I DATE: 9-aid- i NTI Engineering & Surveying DESIGNED BY: r Northwestern Territories, Inc. wPROJECT: ,c7G5� ('��J�hr Engineers• Land Surveyors■Geologists•Materials Testing a E ` B t �� FOR: (\ p I� '�'( r, `i t7 S ��� 717 SOUTH PEABODY■ PORT ANGELES, WASHINGTON 98362•(360) 452.8491 SHT: OF www.nti4u.com info@nti4u.com NTI ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING J 717 SOUTH PEABODY STREET,PORT ANGELES,WA 98362 ❑ Engineers ❑ Land Surveyors ❑Geologists • ❑ Construction Inspection ❑ Materials Testing (360)452-8491 FAX 452-8498 E-Mail:infoOnfi4uxom NTI Project: CG Cutter Support Building Client: Concept Integrators Inc. By CRB Job No.: CONCO901 S./T/R: 11(30-1) Wall Description Location: Grid Line 1 Number of Stories 1 First Floor Wall Height 10.00 (ft) Second Floor Wall Height 0.00 (ft) Second Floor Thickness 0 (in) Shear Panel Length 4.00 (ft) Total Shear Wall in Wall Line 28.60 (ft) Roof Tributary Width = 14 (ft) Roof Dead Load 15.00 (psf) 0 Ib Floor Dead Load 12.00 (psf) Wall Dead Load 10.00 (psf) Roof Tributary Width 14.00 (ft) o Floor Tributary Width 0.00 (ft) o FloorTributary Width = 0 (ft) S Loads 668 (lb) i Load Type, W(wind) E (Seismic) W Wall Line Shear Load Roof (lb) Shear Wall to Floor/Roof(single story) 4776 (lb) be Designed o o v Results Wall Shear, v 167 (plf) 4 Overturning Moment, Mot 6680 ft-lb T= 1255 (lb) IF (ft) C = 1255 (lb) Resistive Moment , Mr 2480 ft-lb Tension, (lb) 1255 (lb) Single Sided - Use 7/16"Sht'g with 8d @ 6/12 Good For 364 plf Use Simpson HDU2 Good For 3075 Ib, SST11316, 2-2x Studs 0-F I�I �`— NTI ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING 717 SOUTH PEABODY STREET,PORT ANGELES,WA 98362 , ❑ Engineers ❑ Land Surveyors ❑ Geologists ❑ Construction Inspection ❑ Materials Testing (360)452-8491 FAX 452-8498 E-Mail:info(4)nti4u.com NTI Project: CG Cutter Support Building Client: Concept Integrators Inc. By: CRB Job No.: CONCO901 S- T/R: 11(30-1) Wall Description Location: Grid Line 2 Number of Stories 1 First Floor Wall Height 10.00 (ft) Second Floor Wall Height 0.00 (ft) Second Floor Thickness 0 (in) Shear Panel Length 6.50 (ft) Total Shear Wall in Wall Line 24.60 (ft) Roof Tributary Width = 26 (ft) Roof Dead Load 15.00 (psf) 0 Ib Floor Dead Load 12.00 (psf) Wall Dead Load 10.00 (psf) Roof Tributary Width 26.00 (ft) o Floor Tributary Width 0.00 (ft) o _ FloorTributary Width = 0 (ft) S Loads 1262 (lb)jF Load Type, W (wind) E (Seismic) W Wall Line Shear Load Roof (lb) Shear Wall to Floor/Roof(single story) 4776 (lb) be Designed o o Results Wall Shear, v 194 (plf) 6.5 Overturning Moment , Mot 12620 ft-lb T= 874 (lb) IF (ft) C = 874 (lb) Resistive Moment, M, 10351 ft-lb Tension, (lb) 874 (lb) Single Sided - Use 7/16" Sht'g with 8d @ 6/12 Good For 364 pif Holdown Not Required 0-C 1�I �`— NTI ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING 717 SOUTH PEABODY STREET,PORT ANGELES,WA 98362 ❑ Engineers ❑ Land Surveyors ❑ Geologists • ❑ Construction Inspection ❑ Materials Testing (360)452-8491 FAX 452-8498 E-Mail:info@nti4u.com NTI Project. CG Cutter Support Building Client: Concept Integrators Inc. By: C R B Job No.: CONCO901 S. T/R: 11(30-1) Wall Description Location: Grid Line 3 Number of Stories 1 First Floor Wall Height 10.00 (ft) Second Floor Wall Height 0.00 (ft) Second Floor Thickness 0 (in) Shear Panel Length 1.58 (ft) Total Shear Wall in Wall Line 4.25 (ft) Roof Tributary Width = 3 (ft) Roof Dead Load 15.00 (psf) 0 Ib Floor Dead Load 12.00 (psf) Wall Dead Load 10.00 (psf) Roof Tributary Width 3.00 (ft) o 0 Floor Tributary Width 0.00 (ft) o FloorTributWidth = 0 (ft) $ Loads 1713 (lb) i ;Y4 i Load Type, W (wind) E (Seismic) W Wall Line Shear Load Roof (lb) Shear Wall to Floor/Roof(single story) 4607 (lb) be Designed o o � Results Wall Shear, v 1084 (plf) 1.58 Overturning Moment , Mot 17127 ft-lb T= 10763 (lb) IF (ft) C = 10763 (lb) Resistive Moment , Mr 181 ft-lb Tension, (lb) 10763 (lb) Double Sided - Use 7/16" Sht'g with 8d @ 4/12 Good For 1064 plf Use Simpson HDU11 Good For 111751b, 1"AB, 7" Embed, 8x Stud of j`j �`— NTI ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING 717 SOUTH PEABODY STREET,PORT ANGELES,WA 98362 ❑ Engineers ❑ Land Surveyors ❑Geologists ❑ Construction Inspection ❑ Materials Testing (360)452-8491 FAX 452-8498 E-Mail:info(Dnti4u.com NT/ Project. CG Cutter Support Building Client: Concept Integrators Inc. By: CRB Job No.: CONCO901 S. T/R: 11(30-1) Wall Description Location: Grid Line 4 Number of Stories 1 First Floor Wall Height 10.00 (ft) Second Floor Wall Height 0.00 (ft) Second Floor Thickness 0 (in) Shear Panel Length 8.33 (ft) Total Shear Wall in Wall Line 16.87 (ft) Roof Tributary Width = 2 (ft) Roof Dead Load 15.00 (psf) 0 Ib Floor Dead Load 12.00 (psf) Wall Dead Load 10.00 (psf) Roof Tributary Width 2.00 (ft) o 0 Floor Tributary Width 2.00 (ft) o _ FloorTributary Width = 2 (ft) Loads 4731 (1 b)_l F Load Type, W(wind) E (Seismic) W Wall Line Shear Load Roof (lb) Shear Wall to Floor/Roof(single story) 9582 (lb) be Designed o o Results Wall Shear, v 568 (plf) 8.33 Overturning Moment , Mo, 47314 ft-lb T= 5250 (lb) IF (ft) C = 5250 (lb) Resistive Moment , M, 5343 ft-lb Tension, (lb) 5250 (lb) Single Sided - Use 7/16" Sht'g with 8d @ 3/12 Good For 686 plf Use Simpson HDU5 Good For 5645 Ib, SST1328, 2-2x Studs �`— NTI ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING 717 SOUTH PEABODY STREET,PORT ANGELES,WA 98362 , ❑ Engineers ❑ Land Surveyors ❑Geologists ❑ Construction Inspection ❑ Materials Testing (360)452-8491 FAX 452-8498 E-Mail:info@n[i4u.com NTI Project: CG Cutter Support Building Client: Concept Integrators Inc. By: CRB Job No.: CONCO901 S./T/R: 11(30-1) Wall Description Location: Grid Line 5 Number of Stories 1 First Floor Wall Height 10.00 (ft) Second Floor Wall Height 0.00 (ft) Second Floor Thickness 0 (in) Shear Panel Length 20.00 (ft) Total Shear Wall in Wall Line 20.00 (ft) Roof Tributary Width = 2 (ft) Roof Dead Load 15.00 (psf) 0 Ib Floor Dead Load 12.00 (psf) Wall Dead Load 10.00 (psf) Roof Tributary Width 2.00 (ft) o Floor Tributary Width 2.00 (ft) o FloorTributary Width = 2 (ft) S Loads 8756 (lb) IFi i Load Type, W(wind) E (Seismic) W Wall Line Shear Load Roof (lb) Shear Wall to Floor/Roof(single story) 8756 (lb) be Designed o o Results Wall Shear, v 438 (plf) dill 20 Overturning Moment , Mot 87560 ft-lb T= 3346 (lb) IF (ft) C = 3346 (lb) Resistive Moment , Mr 30800 ft-lb Tension, (lb) 3346 (lb) Single Sided -Use 7/16" Sht'g with 8d @ 4/12 Good For 532 plf Use Simpson HDU4 Good For 4565 Ib, SST11320, 2-2x Studs a I ��— NTI ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING ? !' � 717 SOUTH PEABODY STREET,PORT ANGELES,WA 98362 ❑ Engineers ❑ Land Surveyors ❑ Geologists 1 ❑ Construction Inspection ❑ Materials Testing (360)452-8491 FAX 452-8498 E-Mail:info(Dnfi4uxom NT/ Project: CG Cutter Support Building Client: Concept Integrators Inc. By. C R B Job No.. CONCO901 S./T/R: 11(30-1) Wall Description Location: Grid Line 6 Number of Stories 1 First Floor Wall Height 10.00 (ft) Second Floor Wall Height 0.00 (ft) Second Floor Thickness 0 (in) Shear Panel Length 19.50 (ft) Total Shear Wall in Wall Line 19.50 (ft) Roof Tributary Width = 2 (ft) Roof Dead Load 15.00 (psf) 0 Ib Floor Dead Load 12.00 (psf) Wall Dead Load 10.00 (psf) Roof Tributary Width 2.00 (ft) o Floor Tributary Width 2.00 (ft) o FloorTributary Width = 2 (ft) Loads 7005 (lb)_I, Load Type, W (wind) E (Seismic) W Wall Line Shear Load Roof (lb) Shear Wall to Floor/Roof(single story) 7005 (lb) be Designed CD o � Results Wall Shear, v 359 (plf) 19.5 Overturning Moment , Mot 70050 ft-lb T= 2586 (lb) (ft) C = 2586 (lb) Resistive Moment , Mr 29279 ft-lb Tension, (lb) 2586 (lb) Single Sided - Use 7/16" Sht'g with 8d @ 6/12 Good For 364 plf Use Simpson HDU2 Good For 3075 Ib, SSTB16, 2-2x Studs NTI ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING 717 SOUTH PEABODY STREET,PORT ANGELES,WA 98362 ' ❑ Engineers ❑ Land Surveyors ❑ Geologists ❑ Construction Inspection ❑ Materials Testing (360)452-8491 FAX 452-8498 E-Mail:info@nti4uxorn NTI Project: CG Cutter Support Building Client: Concept Integrators Inc. By CRB Job No.: CONCO901 S./T/R. 11(30-1) Wall Description Location: Grid Line 7 Number of Stories 1 First Floor Wall Height 10.00 (ft) Second Floor Wall Height 0.00 (ft) Second Floor Thickness 0 (in) Shear Panel Length 4.00 (ft) Total Shear Wall in Wall Line 10.67 (ft) Roof Tributary Width = 2 (ft) Roof Dead Load 15.00 (psf) 0 Ib Floor Dead Load 12.00 (psf) Wall Dead Load 10.00 (psf) Roof Tributary Width 2.00 (ft) o 0 Floor Tributary Width 2.00 (ft) o FloorTributary Width = 2 (ft) $ Loads 1209 (lb) i Load Type, W (wind) E (Seismic) W Wall Line Shear Load Roof (lb) Shear Wall to Floor/Roof(single story) 3224 (lb) be Designed CD. � Results Wall Shear, v 302 (plf) 4 Overturning Moment , Mo, 12086 ft-lb T= 2815 (lb) (ft) C = 2815 (lb) Resistive Moment , M, 1232 ft-lb Tension, (lb) 2815 (lb) Single Sided - Use 7/16"Sht'g with 8d @ 6/12 Good For 364 plf Use Simpson HDU2 Good For 3075 Ib, SSTB16, 2-2x Studs L a Garage Door Header ,Y. 3 1/8" x 9" Glulam (24F - V4 DF) TJ-Bearrv&6.30 Serial Number: User:2 9291200910:58:41 AM THIS PRODUCT MEETS OR EXCEEDS THE SET DESIGN Pagel Engine Version:6.30.14 CONTROLS FOR THE APPLICATION AND LOADS LISTED Member Slope:OM2 Roof SlopeOM2 o, o All dimensions are horizontal. Product Diagram is Conceptual. LOADS: Analysis is for a Header(Flush Beam)Member. Tributary Load Width:3' Primary Load Group-Snow(psf):25.0 Live at 115%duration, 15.0 Dead Vertical Loads: Type Class Live Dead Location Application Comment Tapered(plf) Snow(1.15) 21.7 To 53.8 0.0 To 0.0 0 To 9'7 1/2" Adds To Tapered(plf) Snow(1.15) 53.8 To 30.6 0.0 To 0.0 9'7 1/2"To 16' Adds To SUPPORTS: Input Bearing Vertical Reactions(Ibs) Detail Other Width Length Live/Dead/Uplift/Total 1 Stud wall 3.50" 1.501, 897/415/0/1311 By Others None 2 Stud wall 3.50" 1.50" 936/415/0/1350 By Others None -See iLevel®Specifier's/Builder's Guide for detail(s): By Others DESIGN CONTROLS: Maximum Design Control Result Location Shear(Ibs) -1324 -1184 5175 Passed(23%) Rt.end Span 1 under Snow loading Moment(Ft-Lbs) 5237 5237 9703 Passed(54%) MID Span 1 under Snow loading Live Load Defl(in) 0.469 0.522 Passed(U401) MID Span 1 under Snow loading Total Load Defl(in) 0.675 0.783 Passed(U279) . MID Span 1 under Snow loading -Deflection Criteria:STANDARD(LL:U360,TL:U240). -Bracing(Lu):All compression edges(top and bottom)must be braced at 16'o/c unless detailed otherwise. Proper attachment and positioning of lateral bracing is required to achieve member stability. -Design assumes adequate continuous lateral support of the compression edge. ADDITIONAL NOTES: -IMPORTANT! The analysis presented is output from software developed by iLevel®. iLevel®warrants the sizing of its products by this software will be accomplished in accordance with current code accepted design values. The specific product application, input design loads,and stated dimensions have been provided by the software user. This output has not been reviewed by an iLevel®Associate. -Not all products are readily available. Check with your supplier or iLevel®technical representative for product availability. -PRODUCT SUBSTITUTION VOIDS THIS ANALYSIS. -Allowable Stress Design methodology was used for Building Code IBC analyzing the iLevel®Distribution product listed above. -The analysis presented is appropriate for Glulam beams. PROJECT INFORMATION: OPERATOR INFORMATION: CGC Osprey Cutter Support Building Catherine Bailey Coast Guard NTI Engineering&Land Surveying Port Townsend 717 S. Peabody Port Angeles,WA 98362 Phone:(360)452-8491 Fax :(360)452-8498 catherine@nti4u.com Copyright :D 2007 by iLevelS, Federal Way, WA. TJ-Beam,k is a registered trademark of iLevelq. I of JLJ Ill 15 M PRUARE➢FRea CMMTER INPUT (LGADS L II M>ZIMS) 5MITTED BT TRUSS 6R. (9045- - MWr A) Top chord 2x4 HF 1650f-1.5E 120 nigh rind, 15,00 rt eean hgt, ASCE 1-05. CLOSEO bidg, Located Sat chord 2x4 HF 1650f-1.5E anywhere in roof, CAT I1, EXP O, wind TC OL=4.2 psf, wind BC LL Webs 2x4 HF Stud DL=6.0 psf. 'rind reactions based on MFRS pressures. Roof overhang supports 2,00 psf safrit load. In lieu of structural panels or rigid ceifi��gg use purlins: Bottom chord checked for 10,00 psf non-concurrent bottom chord CHORD SPACING([M OC) START(FT) EW(FT) live load applied per IK-06 section 301.5. BC 84 0-15 23.85 Deflection meets L/240 live and L/180 total load. Truss designed for uTba1aaced load using 0.00/1.00 windward/leeward factors. Truss supports 100# meth unit: unit centered at 12-0-0; supported by SC; unit width 3-0-0; supported by 2 trusses, ill 17. 1' III i Ij U) T I—I H 5X5= I.U 1.5X4 S• ��� - � �;•�`__=y5 X4 V' j 1 1 0-3-15 %% - - 0-3-15 8-0-0 i �3X7(Al) _ 3X5= 3X5= 3X5= T 3X7(A1) a- L< 2 2` IJ _I CL S 6-4-14 _1_ 5-7-2 -1 5-7-2 l 6-4-14 I- 8-3-4 r 7-5-8 pi" 8-3-4 12-0-0 12-0-0 1 I H24-0-0 Over 2 Supports uj R=1205 U=561 0=5.5" R-1205 U=551 *=5.5" CC RL=206/-206 C� C1 Design Crit: IRC2006/TPI-2002(STO) aL PLT TYP. Wave F1/RT=20%(0%)/10(0) 7.40'DOLT QTY:1 11A/-/1/-/-/R/- Scale =.25'/Ft. PraisraT171V 361a52-3;]5 •AIM.- I WIM[x. cw t.rrrtGtTl... on.Lt4 S WIr ,61AL t6 Aq wne. 51LieF'sm Rd,Purt„rgdesR'l, „ImiF c1..Mn312. .(.euwas..nM���.rif,m.R�•� , ,0,-.lu°�. . TC !i. 25.0 PSF REF R711_7-_5_2_86 IlJ [,rrtmvla(w,a. rlolTo. n II]T,.I ro,s[[rr.vcTICESa.IvrorQ..wlltc,rT.ruvleo. Iw.[u * TC DL 7.0 PSF -GATE 11/12/09 IWI Tp rm—0¢ L N64 ttA My LT[M}m rrAI rML P. 3 40 YJfTtr UiLp VoU fL04 BC DL 10.0 PSF 1 MI C1i15R7 T 1 r U93t6008 ICI '•Ii'dTJL/r••rFl+l�Arrpr OT mis�dTo r. 1,6Tu 4TIp"0nT/cT,}. In alt�:IG CaFale:S _ �Lr. Ic. Stu1,[u e(Mr tI,a11lI fv[,rn--nut m I$asla:ALIT TAI UI!1.a:l,n Tr r¢rsL Ill �— ALPINE nmo.rc[.ITi Tvt:u rAwrurl r. wll�L—"MILD I nncl.lstawc,�or aaTs. 9 BC ILL 0-0 PSF CAL-ENG .JMB/CWC SY91 fO.ULR tent A.{R IGMLL IT4'I)I O,f Or ID](wLTIgYi t[Sial Y1L. M AfVAI AAO iv]. 4oi]E --_ __- 1 I �rcTo.ctAT[s Ai..�of rn+e.•,sa p_wss.T,7,an•.a,r a a.•w n. �,t.s�scY. ]ruL. Iw�Lr TOT.LD. 42.0 PSF SEQH- 34408 ICI PtAtt3 TO rlr'J1 rAli Cs rfE61 Ar:. l�[SS OfFo+al]E L(uI.D A m13 MS'.. P 'TIOI 4O1 MTl, TB]t-2 i IJ 6 T9'+ RK'>�fimigeoai]Crvap,lac w vwiu,nr�[umnaLln vo4i�0 mm[rars��Rmaa+eei�c l'•.`M as�le�]iln� DUR.FAC. 1.15 FROM RL Sxrmmnlk�CA 95M M Iiel ro xv ara sv Ltta.TFI t sc. z --_ WA COA d1a31 E�ptl o.a23 fU $PAC 3 NG 24.0" _ JREF- —1 TiP7117Z05 I_i- n15 vmG PREPIIIED Fein CCWVTER 16AIT WADS m 011nMIMS) S1NITTED RY [RM WFR. (9045- - MST B) U-I Top chord 2x4 HF 1650f-1,5E � EES � ��� U Bot chord 2x4 HF 1650f-1.5E webs 2x4 HF Stud Hail Schedule:0.128"x3", 0in._nails Top Chord, 1 Row a 7.25' o.c. 1ZO mph wind, 15.00 ft aean hgt, ASCE 7-05, CLOSED bldg. Located Bot Chord: 1 Row 012.00" o.c. anywhere in roof, CA1 11. EXP D, wind TC OL=4.2 psf, wind BC webs : 1 Row s 4' o.c. DL=6,0 psf. Use equal spacing between roms and stagger nails in each ran to avoid splitting. •ind reactions based or. IIffFRS pressures. Roof overhang suqV3sts 2.00 psf soffit load. Truss spaced at 24.0" CC designed to support 2-0-0 top chord outlookers. Cladding load shalt not exceed 5.00 PSF- Top chord See DMG GBLLETIR0109 for more requireolents_ maY be- notched 1.5' deep X 3.5" AT 4B' o/c along top edge. DO NOT rn UWRCLrF. Ho knots or other lumber defects allowed within 12" of In lieu of structural panels or rigid calling use purtins: notches. Do not notch in overhang or heel panel. CHORD SPACING(IN OC) START(FE) END(FT) CI i BC 120 0.15 23.85 IU Deflection meets L/240 live and L/180 total load, Truss designed for unbalanced load using 0.00/1.00 Truss supports 100i oech unit. unit centerod at 12-0-0: supported windrard/feecard factors. _ by BC; unit width 3-0-0; supported by 2 trusses. 3X5= 3X5 3X5_ Lu - � T i LO ru - I.1J 4 r , 14 4-3-15 7 I D-3-15 I I ; 0-3-15 3X5(Al) = 3X5-a 3X5(A1) 1 in —1 LE ~ LC 2' > 2' I71 72-0-0 12-0-0 I--1 ,_, 24-0-0 Over 2 Supports LU 11=174 PLF Ik 1 O4 PLF W2-0-0 CE RL=34/-34 PLF R=173 PLF U=107 PLF W=12-0-0 LL Note: All Plates Are 1.5X4 Except As Shown. o Design Crit: IRC2006/TPI-2002(STD) PLT TYP. Wave €T/RT=2O%(0%)/10(0) 7.40.00.1 QTY:7 RA/-/1/-/-/R/-LL Scale =.25"/Ft. --i4rl mm'•a1.,SUS r OR FaTur>E rJrtr 1.—I-TION. Mau r.G. 91:M.:. ,A,a4 llc aro maCllm:._ Prazst arMRd 36�i.g33G5 '=ro zs1 tmr\waa msmT earE.T,.V.Nr10 J. PzalvEn m. rr na sz auTc r Dr1nrt . r,e TC ILL 25.0 PSF I-IJ 'SLI�eFar�Rd,Fsr Atgefa w:e. ,,,�,�STanT %IA a.a,N %Ntnl w. :zs1.1 ANo WQ[.eco Terns Quern a Jamrll u, mm a REF R7117- 5287 rrremQlsc u.m. �sTs. n snn;rw snt*r sazr�rala ro rwrw.,.c TEg recr,oas. Taus ,�a TC OL 7.0 PSF DATE 11/12/09 �i A Foo-11{IxM001u,'at n m1 S,u11 Iasi r.1VFALt an.nEn il.ICn�PaarLz.0 9-Trs w>m Snail.Hsi �1' .rmsaT rrnm uum nrrv- BC DL 10.D PSF 9 ' DRY Gwxrrii� assisooe lyl •'lmPOm TAmTr"rKfSa 1 fQ+,K 1}IS OESIO tU TE 116TK1JLIIL Gn¢TiILT11. 1n g11tD11G<»uFJen ITI LF— �J v. I.., —t.or a.LSTJ6—ra —c '..TI-1� MI5 vslns:.a.T raluse Ta hilts nE rwTss BC LL 0.a PSF CA-ENG JM8/CCWC UN .Cllllo "a9 T.IP I. d r1®II[J]IM:, la rill/.91 Wt 1 6TKLIr a 0V R&Or TL6Sf5. 0 LL 1a—ooR.ii.N NOLI Ld1lL--s106 a K6:IMT IOML R51�1 sYfc.CI arWir H[I 1Pr. ,LLPIE zMW 1=I mrre.�no Duns ae wi a zor.a.,�t..wSLw).rsn JLS r340F.a,w(.. 4N.SS}I;aL4. 9.E1. .WLT TOI I.LO. 42.0 PSF SEQH- 34419 _ Pun-To"—i f OF`W-.Ip, Umm 9"—m—1-lin Or M's K3101, 1451TIp11 PiR OrgtLS fSIM E. 1 IJ r 11�E[I I"Q rLanS id LLlf[1.Y(.l 4a11\6 PEII RR,c,tl 6 TR,.3TR Sl'.T. .S(JA Pr THIS •..•�---- — .•_ IlR'Dm'i�4conwoorouGreaf,I= earls—c-Ls rcarr+ s crlDrcsslara.r>clMrnMc rc�wslell lrr snlir ral Tx Tram mlrvE.r DUR.FAC. 1,15 FRCN RL 5asascnto•CA 95f?3 yI ri o«I lc QSioE.rMrm�+IlaTr a�c.\sc s Tins cnaun ry�r�Ilmr.Is rIE u►.9ow.Ie.un n nE —_-_.__—_____ - WA( kkALL131 c n4-�-io SPACING 24.0" JREF- 1TWP7117ZO5 i TVIS OW PREPA.t FXU LtrlgrM INFIX (LOOS i 0I11'E16106) SUBVirrM 9Y n v ss 1WR. �. (9045- - HST C) Top chord 2x4 HF 1550f-1,5E 120 mph wind, 15.00 ft mean hgt, ASCE 7-05, CLOSED bidg; Located i" Bot chord 2x4 HF 1650f-1.5E anywhere in roof. CAT 11, EXP D. wind TC DL=4.2 psf, wind BC LL IWebs 2x4 HF Stud DL=6.0 psf. Truss spaced at 24AY OC deslglved to support 2-0-0 tip chord Wind reactions based on INFRS pressures. out lookers. Cladding load shall not exceed 5.00 PSF, Top chord mayy be notched 1.5" deep X 3.5" AT 48" o/c along top edge. D0 NOT See DNG GBLLETEN0109 for more requirements. 04ERCUf. N W b o knots or other lumer defects allowed within 12" of notches. Do not notch in overhang or heel panel. In lieu or structural parcels or rigid ceili�g use purlins: CHORD SPAC(NG(IN OC) START[FT) END(FT) Bottom chord checked for 10.00 psf non-concurrent bottom Ford BC 120 0.15 21.85 live load applied per IRC-06 section 301.5. Deflection moots Ll240 live and L/IBO total load. rn Truss designed for unbalanced toad using C.00/1.00 T' windward/leemard factors. 7 CI I. li"? 7 F- 4X4= iU �.. 4 r- � 4 I.0 i 3-11-15 li f1i 0_i15 -I fi j Lj El Bj s-0-0 i� r /� .;/�; . //. �.�r. ,'�/,f. i.'i. f. f. ' �f ��•frf'.'i`. i f1i 3X5(Al) = 3X5 11 3X5 III 3X5 3X5 R 3X5(Al 3 I11 3X5 0 =_ 11-0-0 �_ 11-0-0 I H _ 22-0-0 Over Contiruous Support LIJ R=150 PLF U=92 PLF W-22-0-0 0` RL=13/-13 PLF LL Note: All Plates Are 1.5X4 Except As Shown. III Design Crit: IRC2006/TPI-2002(STD) CE PLT TYP. Rave FT/RT=20%(C%)/10(0) _ 7,40,00.1 �_ QTY:1 RA/-/1/-/-/R!- Scale =.375"/Ft. Praisca Tn Lm W452-33r.5 mtullf arssEs a>IK E-own E.rAe.lual a Iwu'. v.l� -. sT.LlrcAao uaccr;. TC LL 25.0 PSF 61IetcFamRd.PeatA3�dnLYA EF"nersa csyEnl�®oa,rrsEnI.iOYfla)_ P.a .rfTn CTwaI• M slnaE. I- REF R7117- 5288 QdM lEE ST)Q T,i11 T[a . .EEUV6 _.'3'.f wo ,I ( _ mar.IE Q AlE.alq. IC)ICG [YR>avrY rAiE,e1p150.. rl aYr.97 id WETY RgLTlffS vTGq 10 AirEprEIR rIES.IQ r]4. LIEr55 rweurr r-aaa sw..+xc wro-uLT.r�AOEu nT..ern.�p.enx lam.m-ry or®srE,u we TC DL 7.0 P$F DATE 11/12/09 BC DL 10.0 PSF DRO exusit7117 D9316011 ICI ••l rA/r••Ff}eI S. Ctpr of E Qilri TD ilc 1161w lAllar[m{fY;ri. !tr T IEL,W TIE T ,] /� ram( �(U�E OnY, IY- sr.tQr w 0JOr6'.T rv..ri Q7)1{QI�rlw M13 6.SI p1; ,wr f.l 4.E is 9rIlD TIE T V BC LL 0.0 PSF CA-ENG JMB/CIFC • IJlZ /Y.r EII1E I•�•�.. wTM TPr.m Iun:uT d). MsiLl�.WILv SIC, iaSTUL�Ic a lAatic u rNRSEl. 1�I Ira o P`A" .Tu rqr OF vl15191f3 or rns ia.lilOwEL OF310.sx, m AfaC.)uo roc. 4.PI1r .�� TOT.LD. 42.0 P5F SEON- 34423 ta.rCTT>t 9UlTk3/rt YLE of 36'1..•1 M1 lT.R'E.•>•1 ASTI a6fl3 fr^IOE.0..so P. AM.S51 ULY, Srtii. NriT �'j�� (Ij _rS TO E-OFGi i•ib1 AID WL51 aI1BrW EDOfTE➢al T T C6tbl. r .T. i[p�II�i3 I IIIIS 1J ur+ IIIIG A PUT3j raf OF Sv r T aVll a 1E.w.Ea.,6&' r-zna IL.3. A 11t as nni L DUR.FAC. 1_15 FROM RL _ l ill E'11� Qltspeec�ti Gr�'� �ars=ia vd�ns .TxM.IU Tyr uo+aslr.ss Ics En FOR-f na-v-uacsa�ITMww xEnawinswaae urfovc .. cg CXI F-R31 8 w„Lo„��tl�� ,a,�.v I sa.,. �Rmtl a73 to SPACING 24.0" JREF- 'I MP711 HO5} � t�'AOOh itI'])S U 1'HIS mlc Pa4PA M FVM GCOIFU Yn 1kVU1(LCADS i 111 ENSlmS) SUYAITYED By rRiuss"a. (9a45- - FM D) ,Top chord 2x4 HF 1650r-1.SE 120 mph rind, 15.00 ft mean hgt. ASCE 7-05, CLOSED bidg, Located 7 Bat chord 2x4 HF 1650f-1.5E anywtlere in roof, CAT It. £XP D. rind TC DL=4.2 psf, rind BC CL Webs 2x4 HF Stud DL=b.O psf, find reaction, based on WFFRS pressures. Roof overharg supports 2.00 psf soffit load. In lieu of structural panels or rigid ceiling use purlins: Bottom chord checked for 10.90 psf non-concurrent bottom chord GUM SPACING(IH OC) START(FT) END(FT) live toad applied per IRC-06 section 301.5. BC 81 0.15 23.73 Deflection meets L/240 live and L/180 total load. Truss designed for unbalarced load using 0.00/1.00 windward/leeward factors. Truss supports i00$ aiech unit; unit centered at 12-0-0; supported FA by BC; unit width 3-10-0; supported by 2 trusses. IT. 7 00 FU 7 I_I H 5x5= T 1.5X4 e �. `\� 1.5X4 0 -1 `` nj 4 r— � \� `` - — 4 4-3I-15 X. 3X5= 3x5- 3X5= I 3X7(A1) es 3X7(A1) II fli '--c-2-0-0-.J J 5-4-14 5-7-2 5-7-2 6-3-6 8-3-4 7-5-8 8-1-12 =, I_ 12-0-0 I 11-10-8 U-1 --- - - 23-10-6 Over 2 Supports H f 1 LU R=12% U=563 f=5.6" R=1055 U=412 11=4' CE RL=173/-185 LL `—I Design Crit: IRC2006/TPI-2002(S7D) PLT TYP. Wave F-F/RT=20x(0%)/10(0) 7.40.0D.10 0TY:1 4A/-/l/-/-/R/- Scale =.3125-/Ft- •nsawlw'•snvss[s R L.ii —' T— .s �\tl.— S;�+. 1�6'IM11uG —.— -PrmsatTmu 35r145'33�J5 -In —i[slaw To ssi Puiirc onoa,rna s.rcrr c.uc.ani — — .era.as n.�n i.1z,rrurc. ::. 7C tt 25.p PSF REF R7117- 5289 ES Late Fenn&d_P.'ntArlge[sR'A wlrw v�smm.su1Tt„:..un.[cn..+ a�,s]ao nca eT1m rags mx1. [. arriu. sum �yy• I'-I enusn s ...=1]a, n c]r,ar Fen s:rE �aoim.ns,o saroln. .c.n,e nn. wua q 7C DL 7.0 PSF DATE 11/12/09 ^+ ax1>♦�sc• rllc iXr. Ten o0o saai lswc va�rx.�nea.ea s.-a�-.aa.ia.s m sxrra.ooe s,eu i.ot_ •• 1sa�dT rso[la[auir. _. ' •1 BC OL 10.0 PSF MW rJ.u5R7117 09316012 ICI • la�rLr'•ruen war a asr a ,N�s�iw rn r: iactsur�u.r�o-wn�m. i1•nuiau<a:cusvu-s ,xu►_ i1e. saws.m a asnesier[rw n1r arre.mu saw.>,.s asi a:r ruin[Tv a,rcn nc rwss -. ,ALrIPkE -J ,.amtowwscT�M rw:u.•.,��ur,1c. �«or.�e. slwwre. .x��c.awallc Tar..st. 8C ILL 40.0 PSF CA-ENG JAbB/{ C '` asln n[raua acre,secic.n[_[ww,si ues 6 11a cwiasi uia spec.«u.1+tr 1uo rr-1. ur1+e _ � i o[erMn xans+[[1wa F xva-�av n.w srt1 usr[ssm o osao��.a.x.ss)fir. ]Tu�. aacr /A J TOT-!D. 42.0 PSF SEQN- 34426� HaF1 TQ FI."11 fl6 or 1R.1S5 uo, 1ari SS Or,fYI:S[CUILG q T1,]uf51 A.iV5iT1�1�rni ions 13iM1. "�alt�` I U wrs r.�rcrio..r r1.rEs ra-ean>„ ;�y war«e[rs[no[:u a rvia_rav g_.T. •use a n1,] - — l.!_I lTWllt�gC".P" Cs 'r I, Qyq�YPYG�TIE 1 in IaYt+t[61�,4>E�1rtwai iwr[euFLoi�15�rc��ns�xiae�sira r DUR-FAC. 1.15 FROM RL — WA CO.#I V31� � � � ' EkW 4-Zl-10 SPACING 24.0" JR EF- 17W 7117Z05 I IBIS ONG PREPARED n7GY CaMTE2 IMPUT MOACS a DIIE'RSIOW) S"IT M E1'MSS WR. _ (9045- - mar E) Top chord 2x4 HF 1650f-1,SE 120 Imph rind• 15.00 ft mean hgt, ASCE 7-05, CLOSED bldg, Located Bat chord 2x4 HF 1650f-1.5E anywhere in roof, CAT II. EXP D. wind TC DL-4.2 psF, rind BC LL Webs 2x4 HF Stud DL=6.0 psf. i ;Wind reactions based on MWFRS pressures. Roof overhang supports 2.00 psf soffit load. In lieu of structural parcels or rigid ceiling use purlins; Botton chord checked for 10.00 psf non-concurrent bottom chord CHORD SPACING(IH OC) START(FT) EMl0(FT) live load applied per IRC-06 section 301.5. BC 75 0.15 23.88 Deflection meets U240 live and L/180 total load. Truss designed for tnbafanced load using 0.00/1,00 windward/leeward factors. Truss supports 100t each unit; +nit centered at 12-0-0; supported by BC; unit width 3-0-0; supported by 2 trusses. irI IT. 7 00 PU 7 0 5x5= - T — 4 1.5X4 i \ 4x7(R) rr I.I-) II-) ni 4 r-- - - i 4-3-15 rIj V. 0-3-15 \ 0-4-7 I.LI - -i It-� — 3x5 3X5= I I\ 3X5[Al) _ 0-O 3X7(A1)= 3%7� iil u �2-0-0 L,—: 2-10-8-->J LL 6-4-14 5-7-2 5-9-0 6-1-8 8-3-4 A 3-0-8 =1 I_ 12-0-0 _I _ 11-10-8 1 H 23-10-8 Over 2 Supports r7 Uj 114=1058 U=499 11=5,5" R=1203 U=5O2 M=5.5" LE RL=1731-1B5 EL o Design Cris: IRC2OO6/TPI-2OO2(STD) CE ILLPLT TYP. Pave F1!/RT=2076(OX)/10(0) 7.40.00.1 QTY:i 11A/-/T/-!-/R/- _ Scale =.3125"/Ft, Hecis;coTnim 3NRtSL3?J5 'w0' •i q�I�o.cs eccl.r.mluTlo. ..al.c sllrvine. ISTwE Ire,�ewcl� TC LL 25.0 PSF r EI Late FamM.Pcakiild.W 1 q""`�"S1 �"'L""�""�'•E'G"�"" '�"'®°' ° �""�•�"i F „e REF R7117- 5290 lain.LEE 1]TRII- SIIIE. S.RU YORM JI. M• 2."1t�7 Cti l>Qb 1a.,u care ll 6 RaE{'IOI. om ffI M.S1 .EISI. .7 RWTr9r GU. .Y n►nImrelw roigrurlwcTus GWC11aR. ai.Ess A TC DL 7.0 PSF DATE 11/12/09 QT(q ISZ...4TEy lIT OiYp SIItL MlI[196..SLT iRMJED FAL:IAN..fi15 l.p.OTTO.064 ii.L1 iR2 •rraT mesa•I.le cols. ' 8C DL 10.0 PSF Mir CMSRII17 0931Wlo •'I WC1111TlII17'•s lsel W r•D"6 THIS MIm TO 1.t I-114 TI-9®IOaT . n yll101.c CUf•RalrS -_ Rauo, Ic. slpu tw a[acweleEE Go.—awrn.rwn MIS CESI•E;i.1 GRluas ro siuo vr.-iza BC LL O.O PSF CA-— ITc ALPINE I+car�rolwlrcc.IM 1rI:m RmIUT..c, I«o.:le. suwlle. +.e.u.a Er T' EI-.. ENG JMB/CWC Q SrO COriQ+E.,al.s l- Tf/ ffdl IYpISI RCS 6 Im!WII.MR pEili SK. C KVR/Rib rR. ufi1E R]MlS1d .u...rCIitn a M'tenmi I.M STTEL.IRLI ICI � a.au roux rex m near wo. uii 55 or a:sc rocilry uI Tills vslu. Posl rlu vEa mwrQ raa-r. TOT.ED. 42.0 PSF i 5EQh1- 34429 I-I) ( AIF_S4 W JIM O_TM FQ. m I17 SHiLI M K.A/(R N 01 TGIF-:R9 Y 3. R--1 Is UJALV� -- `—'-�--' --- f•I} Rw EMIM 5lfnl`.'n'il SJ rri1 rn Il�lallO-S C-WRIIIIV r4 r eullT.IIS ru RLv�I lint .c DUR.F+4C. 1 15 FROM RL --i ..3tl'3mtllt 7,L'A 45S' ulLm lc nsl vr�svI rwslmi 7 5i[.7. waCossla3lr Cxplr—+n ie SPACING 24.0" JREF- 1TWP7117Z05 I I 1 '5 4 1 7 "4 'rc % C '71 7 11 1 1 %1 1 1 1 cL "2 2 ':.r:S `4 1 7 1 1,- q F __TT� T L-uminalre-Sc-hedule S_Y­m1;o­1_ Label_ - _j�,�rn_ge--6__nt_ F_Lumens-JUTF-( Description , QtSINGLE 1860 1 0.8501 H285F-26TTT-406SC 9:2 _ _i SINGLE___ 18001 .85OrH272ICAT-26TTT-37CLW Notes; 2 F�3 _ 1 SINGLE i145D j 0.8501 BA-132 ap rox from 21amp file Reflectances 80/50/20 (Boat Bay 60/30/10) 3 1 F4 ( SINGLE 2 ELSD 1 Ceilin -eiling dropped to 8ft) 0 0 85DLWS-232A ___ ___ , 12�___ _F-6:� _] SINGLE: 1 3100 1 0.8501 AB-V1B-2T8 Oft section culations at 2.5ft AFF 8 F7 SINGLE CLE- -0.8 j�jV7�3-332-DR-UNV-EBB I-M4-WL-U F_L_PDArea Area-ea ... Total Wattsl Label --7C-al.Type Units 1W Max -.- n in!I Label._ ice _��4crkplan-e - �Ilpen (_Illuminancel_Fc 1 4 2 2 1 5 6.4 23.9 1.77 2.36 Boat Bay A 538.78 1624 'LPY, Office Illuminance --al Non-Boat Bay----: 1363 : 1344.2 0.986 Office2 rkp e I Fc 4 9.67 67.6 1 33.3 1.49 2.0 3 Tot office 3 96rkpla-ne --' Illuminance; 1 Fc 142.51 166.5 1 18.2 � 2.34 3.65 jUnisex I Workplane Illuminance FFC-7 25.12 1 44.8 15.4 1 1.63 12.91 ane 19.9 1 1.46 2..26 1 F Unisex e_x2 W-or k-p-1 Illuminance Fc 5.3 15.33 1 16.1 _14-8 1.04 Sh(3�w7(�_r W-j-r-kpla-ne Illuminance Fc jLocker Room workplane Illuminance Fc 37.59 1 47.6 20.5 1.83 2.32_ I Illumi, llu c Co r��d.r�.r 17,p lane minance 61 46.9 20.2 2.01 2. LBoat Bay_workplane _Illuminance Fc 59.79 ! 76.4 24.5 2.44 1 3.12 r , CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND r' PERMIT ACTIVITY LOG PERMIT# Rj�-+� q-2-143 DATE RECEIVED I Z ' 2-9 Z-0 09 SCOPE OF WORK: �er�lae� eiDct3- Gu-CL✓d SJPOO� DATE ACTION INITIALS ENTERED INTO CHET (� Z -c- CHECKED FOR COMPLETENESS ✓vl«J L- - y i46v IL-ZFs 0 c,v 1 Z _3 I - o q G uL> -D rk �z - l- 0 q Z �� • lc7 - o at-Ed l e �et Ca er i 1-so -� REc c 3•`f• c7 PICAA PnOe-j-,,-) f' iv - bll see roe-'s 3 - c o ry\, Q, l U o; S t S� Zonin : Setbacks OK? Lot Size: Building Size: Lot Coverage: FAR OK? Height OK? Parking OK? Critical Area? Demo? Historic Rev? Notice to Title? Lots of Record? ,t �O�pORTTO�y� BUILDING PERMIT City of Port Townsend Development Services Department �WA 250 Madison Street,Suite 3,Port Townsend,WA 98368 (360)379-5095 Project Information Permit# BLD09-243 Permit Type Commercial -New Project Name NEW U.S.C.G. BUILDING Site Address 101 BENEDICT STREET Parcel# 957616001 Project Description NEW U.S.C.G.BUILDING Names Associated with this Project License Type Name Contact Phone# Type License# Exp Date Applicant Port Of Port Townsend Owner Port Of Port Townsend Representative Bailey Catherine (360)452-8491 Contractor Concept Integrators,Inc. Chuck Kellog (360)687-8428 CITY 008609 12/31/2010 Contractor Concept Integrators,Inc. Chuck Kellog (360)687-8428 STATE CONCE11963M 07/28/2010 Fee Information Project Details Project Valuation $140,280.00 Offices—Type V-B** 2,000 SQFT PLAN REVIEW DEPOSIT 150 150.00 Units: Heat Type: PLAN REVIEW REFUND 150 -150.00 Bedrooms: Construction Type: V -B Total Fees $ .00 Bathrooms: Occupancy Type: B Conditions 10. Construction to comply with all conditons of approval set forth in the Hearing Examiner's decison. 20. Pervious asphalt to be constructed per the LID Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound. Call for inspection of subgrade for pervios asphalt prior to paving. 30. Special hlspections required for, Concrete reinforcing, Structural Fill Compaction and Shear walls with less than four inch nailing. Special Inspection reports shall be copied to the Building Department. 35. Building structure to be placed as per the approved set of construction plans. Structure shall not be placed over or on rip-rap. ***SEE ATTACHED CONDITIONS *** Ca11385-2294 by 3:00pm for next day inspection. Permits expire 180 days from issuance if work is not commenced, or if work is suspended for a period of 180 days. Work is verified by obtaining a valid inspection. The granting of this permit shall not be construed as approval to violate any provisions of the PTMC or other laws or regulations. I certify that the information provided as a part of the application for this pennit is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I further certify that I am the owner�oof the property or authorized agent of the owner. Print Name AZ441e A!� S Date Issued: 03/09/2010 Issued By: MWAY Signature Date 3 w Date Expires: 09/05/2010 r Development Services _ ,d OppORT Tod ,.-. 250 Madison Street ;$wte 3 y� = "' Port`Townsend WA'98368" CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND ' DSD Phone:'360-379 5095 `= Faz =360 344:4619 w� www.cl yo P .us Commercial Building Permit Application Project Address&Zoning District: Legal Description (or Tax#): Office Use Only Addition:lia�l;n Permi � Block: / (�� #'F� 6:7 Parcel# q 5 Lot(s): v Assoc* to�Permits: 1( �0(9/ o 7 q Project Description: / �, �rL B(ti, f l�(:e 1 Applications accepted by mail must include a check for initial plan review fee of$150 See the"Commercial Building Permit Application Checklist"for details on plan submittal requirements. Property Owner: 1 _ I Lender Information: Name: -r9C-7 D-P �Or l 1 ��'�SC2i�. Lender information must be provided for projects Address:_�775 4c,, Son �1 , P 0,Rnx II over$5,000 in valuation per RCW 19.27.095. City/SUZip: ` Orf 1 00fA-2n (/1AL43&ff Name: Phone: 0 k5-0(Osl Project Valuation: $ Email: 1 ('0Y"-- Construction Type: Contact/Representative: (� I Name: A/I! &A 1 L16L+4t2J-1nr� �� l� Occupancy Rating: Address: '71 7 1, f>>i� V10�� / 1 Building Information (square feet): City/SUZip: �or-j ILW9,6AS 1s`floor a(220 Restrooms: Phone: (3�0) 2"d floor A/ Deck(s): !✓ Email: ��ti 01 i n i1�� y Gct�-' 3rd floor�— Storage: Basement: Is it finished? Yes No Other: Contractor: _ Name: CO Newt Addition ElRemodel/Repair❑ Address: E Change of Use ❑ City/SUZip:& ff IQ 6r7)L,(AA , 14A �Ol7y Phone: (�AoL &� 7 " 15N � Total Lot Coverage(Building Footprint): Email: ke 1 qa41-5aO I ' Square feet: :-OL)O % State License#: (0Mt')..A 1 1a0 Exp: l31/.20JO Impervious Surface: City Business License#: Square feet: I hereby certify that the information provided is correct,that I am either the owner or authorized to act on behalf of the owner and that all activities associated with this permit will be in accordance with State Laws and the Port Townsend Municipal Code. Print Name: r,1 19,C{&& Signature: Date: Look Up a Contractor, Electr' ' n, Plumber or Elevator Professional I ' -Ise Detail Page ] of 2 Information in Spanish I Topic Index Contact Info Search Home Safety Claims&Insurance Workplace Rights Trades&Licensing Find a Law(RCW)or Rule(WAC) Get a form or publication'I Help Return to List > Start a New Search > n Printer friendly General/Specialty Contractor A business registered as a construction contractor with LEtl to perform construction work within the scope of its specialty. A General or Specialty construction Contractor must maintain a surety bond or assignment of account and carry general liability insurance. Business and Licensing Information Verify Workers' Comp Premium Status Check for Dept. of Revenue Account Name CONCEPT INTEGRATORS UBI No. 11, 602021120 INC Phone No. (360) 397-6692 Status ACTIVE Address 26706 NE 223RD ST License No. CONCE11963MO Suite/Apt. License Type CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR City BATTLE GROUND Effective Date 7/20/2004 State WA Expiration 7/28/2010 Date Zip 98604 Suspend Date b County CLARK Specialty 1 J GENERAL Business Type Corporation Specialty 2 i UNUSED Parent Company =i Business Owner Information I Hide All Name Role Effective Date Expiration Date NIE, JAMES M PRESIDENT 07/20/2004 NIE, GINA F VICE PRESIDENT 07/20/2004 u, Bond Information Bond Bond Effective Expiration Cancel Impaired Bond Received Bond Company Account Date Date Date Date Amount Date Name Number 1 INS CO OF 2125935 06/08/2004 Until THE WEST Cancelled $12,000.00 07/20/2004 -? Insurance Information i Company Effective Expiration Cancel Impaired Amount Received Insurance Name Policy Number Date Date Date Date Date NATIONWIDE https://fortress.wa.gov/lni/bbip/Detall.aspx 12/29/2009 Pagel of 2 4 John McDonagh From: Samantha Trone Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 9:56 AM To: 'nick@sergentmechanical.com' Cc: John McDonagh Subject: RE: LUP09-079, Coast Guard building Nicholas, Yes, I reviewed the revised information which Catherine sent and engineering modeling is not required. The information given to date is adequate for the building permit. Thanks, Samantha Trone, P.E. Development Review Engineer City of Port Townsend 250 Madison St., Suite 3 Port Townsend, WA 98368 office (360) 344-4605 fax (360) 344-4619 From: Nick Letourneau [mailto:nick@sergentmechanical.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 8:45 AM To: Samantha Trone Cc: John McDonagh Subject: RE: LUP09-079, Coast Guard building Samantha, Catherine cc'd me a copy of her response to your questions regarding the stormwater management for the new Cutter Support Building site. This is just a note to ask if Catherine's response was sufficient and to check to see if you need anything else? Thanks. NICHOLAS LETOURNEAU V.P./PROJECT MANAGER OFFICE: 805-486-4562 CELL: 805-228-2635 EMAIL: NICK@SERGENTMECHANICAL.COM URL:WWW.SERGENTMECHANICAL.COM From: John McDonagh [mailto:jmcdonagh@cityofpt.us] Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 11:37 AM To: 'Nick Letourneau' Cc: Samantha Trone Subject: LUP09-079, Coast Guard building Hi Nick, 2/5/2010 Page 2 of 2 Just a quick note to let you know that Sam Trone of our office got your phone message last week. Sam was able to get in touch with Catherine at NTI today Oust a few moments ago). They've talked over the questions Sam had & Catherine said she'd look into them right away. Hope you had a safe trip home. John McDonagh,Planner Development Services Dept. City of Port Townsend Pt. Townsend, WA 98368 360-344-3070 office 360-344-4619 fax 2/5/2010 Page 1 of 2 John McDonagh From: Samantha Trone Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 9:33 AM To: John McDonagh Subject: FW: Question about the Manual minimum requirements and WWHM modeling I will summarize and send to Catherine at NTI for the cutter station Samantha Trone, P.E. Development Review Engineer City of Port Townsend 250 Madison St., Suite 3 Port Townsend, WA 98368 office (360) 344-4605 fax (360) 344-4619 From: Labib, Foroozan (ECY) [mailto:flab461@ECY.WA.GOV] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 9:19 AM To: Samantha Trone Subject: RE: Question about the Manual minimum requirements and WWHM modeling Hello Samantha, I forwarded your question to Ed O'Brien at Ecology and below I have copied his response. From the description in your email below, I was not sure whether the 2000 sq-ft building area is associated with a new building on this site or it is the existing building. As far as determining the applicable requirements, if the building is a new building occupying the same space as the old building, it is replaced impervious surface. If it is occupying a new spot on the property, it is new impervious surface. Below is Ed's explanation of what requirements apply to this project. "This is a redevelopment project,so we use Figure 2.3. Assuming that the roof of the building is non-pollutant generating (which may not be true), and the building is in a new location on the property(this may not be true but represents an assumption that would be more likely to trigger minimum requirements,so let's just assume it is true), here are the decisions: The project triggers minimum requirements 1-10 because we have more than 5,000 sq.ft.of new impervious surface. However, when comparing the project to the thresholds in the treatment minimum requirement,we do not exceed 5,000 sq.ft. of PGIS, and we do not exceed 0.75 acres of PGPS. So, no engineered treatment system is necessary. In regard to flow control,we need to compare the project to the 10,000 sq.ft. impervious area threshold, and the 0.1 cfs increase in the 100- year flow threshold. The total impervious area(6,021 sq.ft.) is less than 10,000 sq.ft.threshold. Without running the WWHM,we know that the 0.1 cfs increase threshold is not exceeded because we are supposed to compare the 100-year runoff rate from the existing site to the 100-year runoff rate from the proposed site. For modeling purposes,the gravel lot(I'm assuming this is a compacted gravel lot for cars. If it is not, this analysis is incorrect)is considered impervious. So,the existing site is modeled as 100%impervious. So,we can't possibly have a 0.1 cfs increase in the 100-year flow rate. The conclusion is that the project need only comply with minimum requirements 1 —5." By the way, if you have not attended a training session on proper implementation of the manual, you might consider signing up for one. There is still one more scheduled and I will have the web link with more information and registration instructions later today. 2/5/2010 Page 2 of 2 From: Samantha Trone [mailto:strone@cityofpt.us] Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 3:18 PM To: Labib, Foroozan (ECY) Subject: Question Foroozan, On a redeveloped site which is currently 100% impervious (gravel and building) is being redeveloped to have a 2,000 sqft building and all of the gravel on the site is been converted to pervious asphalt. The pervious pavement totals 8,042 sqft. With the LID credits is could be modeled at as 50% grass and 50% impervious. Therefore, the impervious area on the redevelopment would be 2,000 sqft plus 4021 sqft. Would this condition require WWHM3 Modeling or just BMPs? It is technically over 5,00sgft of impervious, but the DOE manual stated that to not discourage redevelopment projects, replaced surfaces do not need to brought up to new standards. Therefore, it seems that just BMPs and following the minimum requirements for pervious asphalt is acceptable. Please advice. Thanks, Samantha Trone, P.E. Development Review Engineer City of Port Townsend 250 Madison St., Suite 3 Port Townsend, WA 98368 office (360) 344-4605 fax (360) 344-4619 2/5/2010 �� NTI ENGINEERING & SURVEYING INC. /s7-1 717 SOUTH PEABOI]Y STREET,PORT ANGELES,WA 98362 \ Engineers I-Land Surveyors❑Geologists Construction Inspection�D Materials Testing NTI (360)452-8491 1-800-654-5545 FAX 452-8498 E-Mail:info(ftti4u.com ivww.nti,lu.com February 23, 2010 Fred Slota City of Port Townsend Building Official 250 Madison St. Port Townsend, WA 98368 RE: Peak Ground Acceleration Per Page 8 of PND Engineers, Inc. Geotechnical Report Dated May 2007 Dear Fred: Per your request I have reviewed the Peak Ground Acceleration per page 8 of the above stated report. This report states that SS for site class B is 1.267g and S1 for site class B is 0.461 g. As stated in the drawings page S1 and the calculations page 2 of 14 this building, including the foundation, was designed to have an SS and S1 of 1.267g and 0.462g respectively. It is our opinion that the recommended slab on grade and reinforcing is designed well within these parameters. If you have any questions regarding this matter please contact us. Sincerely, NTI ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, INC. NE R. � F� OF WA. Catherine Bailey, P.E. Project Engineer d �Fc4468 GAGen\Catherine\2009 Jobs\CONCO901 -Coast Guard\Peak Ground Acceleration.doc FSS/ONAL �u! F E 3 z 6 20i0 CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND D:,D NTI ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, s� G, INC. 717 SOUTH PEABODY STREET,PORT ANGELES,WA 98362 FILE COPYEngineers ElLand Surveyors ElGeologistsConstruction Inspection❑Materials Testing NTI (360)452-8491 1-800-654-5545 FAX 452-8498 E-Mail:info(&nti4u.com www.nti4u.com February 2, 2010 D i Samantha Trone � - 2 2010 City of Port Townsend City Engineer FEE 0 250 Madison St. Port Townsend, WA 98368 ciTr uE ' :�T "-'END RE: Response to Hearing Examiner Staff Report for Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, File No. LUP #09-079, Coast Guard Cutter Support Replacement Building, Drainage & Erosion Control Report Dear Samantha: After review of the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington, Volume III, Appendix C, Page C-3 we have determined the following: 1. The roof is a 2000 square foot non-pollution generating surface. 2. If we model the site, per the permeable pavement section 7.1 of the above referenced Manual, it would be designed as 50% grass and 50% impervious. Since the total permeable pavement is 8042 sf., 50% is less than 5000 sf pollution generating impervious surface. In addition, the storm water is draining, after site infiltration, to a salt-water body, which does not require detention. Therefore the site's stormwater does not require treatment or detention. Please refer to the"Drainage& Erosion Control Report"prepared by NTI and signed by Kate Waddell on November 5, 2009. If you have any questions regarding this matter or would like to order the work, please contact us. Sincerely, NTI ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, INC. oFN WAS q Catherine Bailey, P.E. Project Engineer nF 44468 G:\Gen\Catherine\2009 Jobs\CONC0901 -Coast Guard\Drainage&Erosion Control Report Support.doc ST FSS I ONAL ECG\ dy��I V r NTI ENGINEERING & SURVEYING. 717 SOUTH PEABODYSTREET,PORT ANGELES,WA 98362 Engineers N Land Surveyors■Geologists Construction Inspection 0 Materials Testing TI. (360)452-8491 1.-800-654-5545 FAX 452-8498 E-Mail:into@nb4u.com www.nii4u.com DRAINAGE. & EROSION. CONTROL REPORT FOR UNITED STATES CUTTER SUPPORT BUILDING IN PORT OF PORT TOWNSEND MARINA AT THE END OF BENEDICT STREET OFF SIMS WAY IN PORT TOWNSEND, JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON LOCATED IN SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 30.NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, W.M. Prepared for Concept Integrators, Inc. �E M. WA P� d 1� p 3230 O �� /STERN SS/ONAC ENG Prepared by Kate Waddell-, P.E. NTI Engineering.& Land Surveying 717.South Peabody .. Port Angeles, WA 983.62 36or 52=8491 www.nti4u.com November 5, 2009 I` ji V 2. 3 r` l Gily Or PORT TOWNSEND DSD INTRODUCTION ' NTI Engineering and Land Surveying was hired by Concept Integrators, Inc. to design , the replace the Cutter Support Building for the United States Coast Guard, which includes a drainage and erosion control plan. As part of this analysis the historic site conditions was.reviewed as.well'as the present use: Temporary erosion control plan and permanent drainage plan has,beep prepared for the construction of a new Cutter Support Building and previously paved parking lot. DESCRIPTION OF SITE An existing man-made riprap jetty is approximately 45 feet wide.and approximately 400 feet long. There is no soil on this site and any vegetation on the site is typically weeds. The United States Coast Guard is replacing the existing Cutter Support Building with a newer, more energy.efficient building. The jetty extends into Port of Port Townsend Marina off the intersection of Benedict Street and Washington Street. An asphalt apron accesses ther site and the first approximately 200' of the jetty is asphalted and chip sealed. METHODOLOGY City of Port Townsend requires the use of the Department of Ecology (DOE) February 2005 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Based on.the, manual, the first five of the minimum requirements for new.development apply to this project. These minimum requirements are.and will be met as follows: Minimum Requirement#1 Preparation'of Stormwater Site Plan A complete site plan has been included in the appendix of this report: . Minimum Requirement#2 Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention. (S�vvPP) • The SWPP includes twelve elements. Each element will be addressed separately as follows: Element#1 Mark Clearing Limits o The site,is an approximately 45' wide x 400' long artificial jetty, the site is the last 200' of the jetty. Due to the shape of this site, the clearing limits will be defined by the top of.the slope of the jetty. The project area is approximately the last 200' of the jetty. No.trees exist on the site and . fencing is not recommended due to the lack of soil on the site. Element#2 Establish Construction Access o The construction access is the existing asphalt apron at the intersection of Benedict Street and Washington Street. All construction vehicles have to cross 200' of jetty before entering public right of way. In addition, due to the complete lack of soil on the site no sediment shall be tracked off site. Element #3 Control Flow Rates o The temporary flow rates will be the same as it was prior to construction activities. The downstream waterway shall be protected during construction by a temporary erosion control wattle that will be installed around the edge.of the project prior to commencement of construction activities. No downstream properties will be affected by this activity. �( Permanent erosion control is not applicable to this site due to the fact all. stormwater will filtrate and drain.directly into a large saltwater body in �� accordance with DOE Manual no detention is required when "draining into .,,I, a saltwater body per Section 2.5-7 page 2-33 historic evidence shows that ''`�'4 the site was not forest land (see appendix). Element 44 Install Sediment Controls o Due to the lack of soil on this site there will be no sediment to control. Element#5 Stabilize Soils o There are no soils on this site. Element#6 Protect Slopes o The temporary erosion control wattle will protect slopes. Element#7 Protect Drain Inlets o No drain inlets to protect. Element#8 Stabilize Channels and Outlets o No drainage channels or outlets exist on site. Element#9 Control Pollutants o All chemicals,. liquid products, petroleum products and non-inert wastes present on site shall be covered, contained and protected from vandalism and handled in a manner to minimize contamination of stormwater. o To minimize pollutants.generated by.heavy equipment and vehicles, all maintenance and repairs shall be conducted using spill prevention measures such as.drip pans. Element#1 O.Control De-watering o De-watering will not be required during construction on this site due'to the high infiltration rate on site. Element#11 Maintain BMPs (best management practices) o It.is the contractor's responsibility to maintain the temporary erosion and sediment control measures and to install the permanent erosion and sediment control measures set forth in this report and plan. o All temporary erosion and sediment control measures shall be removed within.30 days after final site stabilization is achieved or as needed if longer. Element#12 Manage The Project o Management of this project'can best be conducted in accordance with DOE if the guidelines set forth in this report and plan are followed to. ensure that the long term goals of environmental protection and.site stability are achieved. Minimum Requirement#3 Source Control of Pollution • As stated in Element#9, to minimize pollutants generated by heavy equipment and vehicles, all maintenance and repairs shall be conducted using spill prevention measures such as d.rip,pans. • Source control of pollutants during construction can be maintained on this job by implementing the temporary erosion and sediment control,measures set forth. Minimum Requirement #4.Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems and Outfalls • Not applicable on this site. Minimum Requirement#5 On-site Stormwater Management • All stormwater for this project will be maintained on site and will be infiltrated., The total area of pollution generating pervious surface for this entire site is less than 3/4 of an acre and the total pollution generating impervious surface is less than 5,00'0 square feet therefore, no additional water quality treatment is required for this project. The Best Management Practice for the jetty will be on site infiltration through the existing gravel and riprap that was. used in the construction of the man made jetty. The roof runoff from the proposed Cutter Support Building will be eave line drip system directly to the pervious ground. IV. CONCLUSIONS . The historic condition of this site was, part of the Puget Sound Admiralty Inlet. The existing United States Coast Guard Cutter Support Building is located on a man made jetty in the marina off of Benedict St. The jetty was constructed with riprap and covered with gravel. Due to current and future needs of the'US Coast Guard, the'existing structures will be removed and a new Cutter Support Building shall be constructed on the jetty. The roof area will be covered with coated metal roofing,,which is classified as non-pollution generating impervious surface by the Department of Ecology. The site is now covered with gravel and bordered by railroad ties to prevent vehicles rolling,off the jetty. As part of the improved redevelopment the parking surface shall. be covered with pervious asphalt, which will allow for continued infiltration. To provide.a beafder for the pervious asphalt and prevent runoff the entire parking area will be bordered by a concrete barrier curb. The total area of pollution generating pervious surface is less than 3/ of an. acre as defined in the Department.of Ecology manual. All on site stormwater from the parking area and the,building will infiltrate through the. man made jetty prior to draining into the salt-water body: Due to the minimal impact of these additional site improvements no additional BMPs are recommended for this site. V. LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Concept Integrators, Inc., their general contractor, Sergent Mechanical System, the owner of the.property, Port of Port Townsend and the owner of the future building, the United States Coast Guard for their proposed construction and redevelopment of the Cutter Support Buildings. The . recommendations in the report apply only.to the property that:was examined and they are not applicable to other locations. The investigation and recommendations contained in this report are based upon site conditions as they existed at.the time of our site inspections. During construction, if subsurface or other conditions are discovered that are significantly different from those described in the report; NTI should be advised at once so that we can review the conditions and reconsider our recommendations, where necessary. Unanticipated soil conditions are commonly encountered on construction sites, especially when the topography has been altered years ago. .Such unexpected conditions frequently require that additional expenditures be made to attain a properly constructed,project. We recommend that a,contingency be established in the project budget and schedule to cover unexpected conditions. Within the limitations of.scope, schedule and budget, our services.have been executed in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering principles and practice. This warranty is in lieu of all others, either expressed or implied. NTI ENGINEERING & SURVEYING Kate Waddell, P.E. Design Engineer G:\Gen\Catherine\2009.Jobs\CONCO901 -Coast Guard\drainage report.doc Appendix Historical Map of Port Town i, WA - 1878 Page 1 of 2 WORLD \4APS Home Contact Us Shipping/Returns Visit... ng/Returns Security About Us Green Shipping ONLENI School Orders Mail/Fax-in Order Search Catalog Gift Certificates 1-World View Basket www.worldmapsonline.com Globes High quality maps for the classroom,home or office. Call toll-free 1-877-884-2402 or order securely "The Gift of online. Knowledge" "Supposing is good, but finding out is better. -Mark Twain Wall MuralsHistorical Map of Port Townsend, WA - 1878 Bird's eye view of Port Townsend, Puget Sound, Washington Territory 1 Raised Relief A.L. Bancroft & Co., lith. Maps Classroom Maps Political Maps Physical Maps Beginner Maps US 8 World Combos � f « �� orb State Maps � IN �w :�� �� Multi-Mount Ma Sets P � v s , ram History Map Sets " t -s �N+ `ar Map Transparencies n 1�� �` rfi2 f sr Mounting Hardware Map Carpets Desk Maps �.. Spanish Maps-Globes French Maps-Globes "ate Teaching Aids Classroom Atlases Educational Globes by Grade Ocean Maps Bulletin Board �,. VOK.mow ON Maps td: .,> . - Illuminated Maps Museum Quality Giclee Map A - Presbyterian Prints F-Masonic Building. K-Post Office. P-Democratic Church. G- Odd Fellows'Hall. L- Court House. Q- Weekly Arg Zip Code Maps B-Methodist Church. H-Good Templars' M-Jail Building. R-Rothschild _.._._._.._..___...._......__. C-Episcopal Church. Hall. N-Custom House. Shipping Merc Historical Map D- Catholic Church. I-Red Men's Hall. O-Dr. Hill's Drug S-Fort Towns Reprints: E- Cosmopolitan J-Public School, Store. T- Olinpa Mou World Maps Hotel, States&Regions Reference Historical ma of Port Townsend, Washington - 1878 Atlases P 9 httD://www.worldmai)sonline.com/historicalmaps/kr-1878-porttownsend.htm 11/4/2009 I I Do the new,replaced,or new plus replaced impervious surfaces to 12,000 'square feet or more? OR Does the land disturbing activity total 7,000 square feet or more? i Yes No LinXn Requirements#1 through#5 Apply Minimum Requirement#21 )I the new and replaced impervious Construction Stormwater Pollution and the land disturbed. Prevention Next Question Does the project add 5,000 square feet or more of new impervious surfaces? OR Convert 1%acres or more of native vegetation to lawn or landscaped areas? OR Convert 2.5 acres or more of native vegetation to pasture? Yes No Next Minimum Requirements#1 through#10 Question Is this a road- apply toithe new impervious surfaces and related project? the converted pervious surfaces. Yes DNo FDoes the project add 5,000 square feet or more of new impervious surfaces? I Yes No I Do new impervious surfaces add 50%or Is the total of the new plus replaced more to the existing impervious surfaces impervious surfaces 5,000 square feet or within the project limits? more,AND does the value of the proposed improvements—including No Yes interior improvements.—exceed 50%of the assessed value(or replacement value) No additional of the existing site improvements? requirements —�:;—J T— Yes No No additional Minimum Requirements#1 through#10 requirements apply to the new and replaced impervious surfaces. Figure 2.3—Flow Chart for Determining Requirements for Redevelopment 2 10 Volume I—Minimum Technical Requirements February 2005 r N 1 2 3 4 Sergent Mechanical System Ni dw Leloaoem W5.4K4562 M PHOK CONSULTANTS Aiii NORTHWESTERN TERRITORIES, INC. SCALE IN FEET NTI 7w or SLOPE ¥ Engineers - Land Surveyors - Geologists C Construction Inspection - Moteriols Testing C 77a'A 717 SOUTH PEABODY STKEI POINT AN GELES ■A 98762 360.452.8491 FIEPNIOIE sfcumn rr" x7s' wwI 360452.8498 FAX . .. ......... _ _ _ PAO ftllmnoN , u >U . .:i N L<I 00C. V — - Z Y ;J9 R d Q a ------------------- Z: POLE ec , - r"fAE\s o t� : ...:..:.. - , ..;..... _ IMPROPOSED BUILDING - I - - - -- - - - I U.S COAST GUARD J . CIVIL ENGINEERING UNIT ,.s ------ ----------------------------- — OAKLAND fa 75, ,l.5' rcw OF s" J'wca n aoUG�GAIT — T h�PtES Go9� SECWarr re"CE N KGY/A/A?V 11 !5' 77' 77' is 7' aJ• 11.75' r 77g0 B � B rArsnAc aorx no aEww ancAr ro rwF rveuC USCG, CEU OAKLAND 2000 EMBARCADERO, SUITE 200 PAVING & PARKING PLAN OAKLAND, CA 94606-5337 ISSUE 11 06 09 100%DESIGN SET 10/19/09 70R DESIGN SET 918109 J5R DESIGN S£T Ea MARK DATE DESCRIPTION R H. r/T R A/E PROJECT N0: a os wr•xrrY s"stopr CAD FILE NAME: vAKurnr " Cl J'vorrovs ASPw r r WhCMr( - - DESIGNED BY: C BAILEY DRAWN BY: CRB KMW 6-CAY/WED SCA'ffArxC 1'i' I EDITED BY: row a cuAe Aca sPEc 9-al•(a) CHECKED BY: CRB/KMW AT APPROKH SCALE: AS SHOWN PLOT SCALE: I = 1 fr+SrwG JrrrY lYSf, WASOOT STNO PLAN F—7 FATE of ORr.Ar c'w7ERMt SHEET TITLE ® CEMENT CONCRETE REPLACE CUTTER SUPPORT BLDG BARRIER CURB GROUP PORT ANGELES ®POROUS PAVEMENT CROSS SECTION PORT TOWNSEND WA Nor ro sc.cc A CIVIL A GRADING PLAN REVIEWED BY: REVIEWED BY: REVIEWED BY: PROJECT MGR a•r , Underground Utilities DIVISION CHIEF DATE Location Services PROJECT NUMBER DRAWING NUMBER con:TOLL FREE t-eoo-42assss 376750 376750 rwa ..oa«mc os eEroRc owc,«c DISCIPLINE SHT NO SHEET OF 15 1 1 2 I 3 1 4 3 c City of Port Townsend °FpOaTT°� � ys Development Services Department c 250 Madison Street,Suite 3,Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360)379-5095 FAX(360)344-4619 �w March 8, 2010 Sergent Mechanical Systems 161.7 Pacific Ave. Suite 116 Oxnard, CA 93033 ATTN: Accounts Payable RE: USCG replacement cutter support building Boat Haven, Port of Port Townsend Jim Pivarnik of the Port of Port Townsend directed that this invoice for the building permit for the USCG replacement cutter support building be sent to you. The remaining balance due is $1910.50. Please return one copy of the invoice with the payment. Thank you. Regards, Scottie Foster Administrative Assistant ILI r� ft e.. 7, . . � .war.=v.-- -�. ._ __ - ''�'_. � �,. .�._w �,., to•- Y ,: Am .44 __. „r. ' _�..CCx. ...-...:.:--r--.....:-°D'-amp�-L�:- �-_`r"._�.s+-r...ec+.--n"..�R= __._..._... �i�,':''_-•+,_.s= A NATIONAL MAIN STREET COMMUNITY WASHINGTON'S HISTORIC VICTORIAN SEAPORT OE 90RT tOk- A City of Port Townsend Invoice Development Services Department Date: 08-MAR-10 250 Madison Street,Suite 3,Port Townsend,WA 98368 (360)379-5095 Invoice# 1356 PORT OF PORT TOWNSEND PO BOX 1180 PORT TOWNSEND WA 98368-0980 Application No BLD09-243 Project: NEW U.S.C.G.BUILDING Application Type Commercial-New Parcel# 957616001 Subdivision: HASTINGS 2ND ADDITION Block/Lot Site Address: 101 BENEDICT STREET Description Fee Amount Paid/Credit Balance Due Plan Review Fee $795.18 $0.00 $795.18 PLAN REVIEW DEPOSIT 150 $150.00 $150.00 $0.00 PLAN REVIEW REFUND 150 -$150.00 $0.00 -$150.00 State Building Code Council Fee $4.50 $0.00 $4.50 Technology Fee for Building Permit $24.47 $0.00 $24.47 Building Permit Fee $1223.35 $0.00 $1223.35 Record Retention Fee for Building Permit $10.00 $0.00 $10.00 Site Address Fee $3.00 $0.00 $3.00 Total Fee Amount: $2060.50 Total Paid/Credits: $150.00 Balance Due:I $1910.5 PLEASE RETURN THIS COPY WITH PAYMENT Page 1 OF PORT TOh 44,c Receipt Number: 10 0287" WASn` IMP RecetptDate 03(19(2010 Cashier SFOST,ER ;Pay-er/Pay74MeeName SERGENT MECHANICAL/USCG CUTTER K wH- va v Ongmal Fee F Amount Fee Permtt# Parcel Fee Descrtptton a' a mount Patd Balance „ .: BLD09-243 957616001 Plan Review Fee $795.18 $795.18 $0.00 BLD09-243 957616001 PLAN REVIEW REFUND 150 -$150.00 -$150.00 $0.00 BLD09-243 957616001 State Building Code Council Fee $4.50 $4.50 $0.00 BLD09-243 957616001 Technology Fee for Building Permit $24.47 $24.47 $0.00 BLD09-243 957616001 Building Permit Fee $1,223.35 $1,223.35 $0.00 BLD09-243 957616001 Record Retention Fee for Building Per $10.00 $10.00 $0.00 BLD09-243 957616001 Site Address Fee $3.00 $3.00 $0.00 Total: $1,910.50 �Previous P yment31Hh§" Ai01, a I Receipt# Receipt Date Fee De"cripfion AmountPatds Permtt 09-0980 12/29/2009 PLAN REVIEW DEPOSIT 150 $150.00 BLD09-243 Payment Check Payment �M�ethod` NumberW Amou t -. .�- a,_. .-- _ , CHECK 34903 $1,910.50 Total: $1,910.50 genpmtrreceipts Page 1 of 1 OF VOFT TO$ c y�� City of Port Townsend Invoice Development Services Department Date: 08-MAR-10 9� w 250 Madison Street,Suite 3, Port Townsend,WA 98368 (360)379-5095 Invoice# 1356 PORT OF PORT TOWNSEND PO BOX 1180 PORT TOWNSEND WA 98368-0980 Application No BLD09-243 Project: NEW U.S.C.G.BUILDING Application Type Commercial-New Parcel# 957616001 Subdivision: HASTINGS 2ND ADDITION Block/Lot Site Address: 101 BENEDICT STREET Description Fee Amount Paid/Credit Balance Due Plan Review Fee $795,18 $0.00 $795.18 PLAN REVIEW DEPOSIT 150 $150.00 $150.00 $0.00 PLAN REVIEW REFUND 150 -$150.00 $0.00 -$150.00 State Building Code Council Fee $4.50 $0.00 $4.50 Technology Fee for Building Permit $24.47 $0.00 $24.47 Building Permit Fee $1223.35 $0.00 $1223.35 Record Retention Fee for Building Permit $10.00 $0.00 $10.00 Site Address Fee $3.00 $0.00 $3.00 ✓3 Total Fee Amount: $2060.50 Total Paid/Credits: $150.00 Balance Due:I $1910.-- PLEASE RETURN THIS COPY WITH PAYMENT Page 1 OF QOHT roh- yNo Receipt Number: 09 0980' Utz. x Wiz. � 9h Receipt Date 12129/2009� Cashier MWAY Payer/Payee Name, USL5GROUP INC!USCG BLDG T, a �� �Ongmal Fee Amourit Femme Permtt# Parcel Fee Descrtpfion Amount P;,attl Balance IF sw; ? F, '+�,fir, a;c,� xa i`r_._. r n`` x r BLD09-243 957616001 PLAN REVIEW DEPOSIT 150 $150.00 $150.00 $0.00 Total: $150.00 x Pretrroa�s payment History ME ReceIna ipt#KReceipt,Date§ hk 4. Fee descnpUon g� a Amount'Pa d �Permtt= aE. �. Jr CHECK 25234 $150.00 Total: $150.00 genpmtrreceipts Page 1 of 1