2018 Ed MacGregor Park Retaining Wall Project · 2018 Ed MacGregor Park Retaining Wall Project....

DISTRICT OF SOOKE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

2018 Ed MacGregor Park Retaining Wall Project

Request for Proposal LGMA File Location: 1790-20 Closing location: District of Sooke 2205 Otter Point Road Sooke, BC V9Z 1J2 Closing date and time: Friday, January 26, 2018 at 2:00 pm local time

RFP 2018 Ed MacGregor Retaining Wall Project

Table of Contents 1.0 Overview of the Requirement ................................................. 3

2.0 Enquiries ................................................................................. 3

3.0 Definitions ............................................................................... 3

4.0 Mandatory RFP Criteria .......................................................... 4

5.0 Scope of Work ........................................................................ 4

5.1 Project Summary ......................................................... 4 5.2 Project Purpose ........................................................... 5 5.3 Project Scope .............................................................. 5 5.4 Desirable RFP Criteria ................................................. 7 5.5 Invoicing & Payment .................................................... 8 5.6 Fees............................................................................. 8

6.0 Terms and Conditions ............................................................. 8

6.1 Closing Date ................................................................ 8 6.2 Information Meeting ..................................................... 8 6.3 Proposal Review Committee ....................................... 9 6.4 Review and Selection .................................................. 9 6.5 Sub-Consulting ............................................................ 9 6.6 Changes to Response Wording ................................... 9 6.7 Proponent’s Expenses ................................................. 9 6.8 Acceptance of Responses ........................................... 10 6.9 Negotiation .................................................................. 11 6.10 Definition of Contract ................................................... 11 6.11 Modification of Terms .................................................. 11 6.12 Ownership of Responses............................................. 11 6.13 Confidentiality of Information ....................................... 11 6.14 Collection and Use of Personal Information ................. 11 6.15 Insurance ..................................................................... 12

Appendix 1: Concept Plan

Appendix 2: Geotechnical Report Appendix 3: Site Survey

Appendix 4: Irrigation Diagram

Appendix 5: Handrail Specificatiion

Appendix 6: Risk Management – Contract Services Policy


3

1.0 Overview of the Requirement The District of Sooke (the District) invites qualified firms to submit proposals for the labour and material costs to construct a retaining wall that incorporates a set of stairs at mid point within the Ed MacGregor Park located at 6765 West Coast Road. The District of Sooke has a Concept Plan of the park improvements, which is attached in Appendix 1. This proposal also has a Geotechnical Report attached in Appendix 2, and a Site Survey attached in Appendix 3 for further information. Based on a review of responses to this Request for Proposals (RFP), the District intends to select a Proponent who would then be invited to enter into a contract for provision of the services described in Section 5 Scope of Work.

2.0 Enquiries All enquiries related to this RFP are to be directed to: Paul Butterfield Engineering Technologist District of Sooke 2205 Otter Point Road Sooke, BC V9Z 1J2 Email: [email protected] Telephone: (250) 642-1631 Information obtained from any other source is not official and should not be relied upon. All written questions from Proponents will be received by the District of Sooke no later than 2:00pm on Friday, January 19, 2018. No questions will be answered after that date. Answers in the form of an Addendum will be posted on the Sooke web site: https://sooke.ca/municipal-hall/documents-forms/tenders-and-rfps/ It is the responsibility of the proponent to ensure they keep up to date with any addendums to this RFP by checking the site periodically.

3.0 Definitions Throughout this Request for Proposals, the following definitions will be used: a) “Contract” means a written contract executed by the District of Sooke

and the Contractor;

mailto:[email protected]

https://sooke.ca/municipal-hall/documents-forms/tenders-and-rfps/


4

b) “Contractor” means the successful Proponent to this Request for Proposals who enters into a written contract with the District of Sooke;

c) “District” means the District of Sooke; d) “must”, or “mandatory” means a requirement that must be met in order

for a Response to receive consideration; e) “Proponent” means an individual or a company that submits, or

intends to submit, a Response. f) “Response” means a submission in reply to this RFP; g) “RFP” or “Request for Proposals” means the process described in this

document; and h) “should” or “desirable” means a requirement having a significant

degree of importance to the objectives of this RFP.

4.0 Mandatory RFP Criteria Responses not clearly demonstrating that they meet the following mandatory requirements will receive no further consideration during the evaluation process:

1. A concept sketch or proposed drawing of the retaining wall with stairs, together with any irrigation layout modifications, must be included;

2. The Response must be received at the closing location before the closing date and time;

3. The Response must be in English and must not be sent by facsimile or email;

4. TWO (2) hard copies of the Response must be submitted and one electronic copy;

5. The Response must include a signed cover letter by the person with signing authority to conclude an agreement with the District.

5.0 Scope of Work Contents of the submission are left to the discretion of the Proponent but must include, as a minimum, the requirements detailed below.

5.1 Project Summary Within the Ed MacGregor Park located at 6765 West Coast Road, there is a portion of lawn near the stage that has an abrupt transition from lawn to the concrete walkway. In order to adequately upgrade this portion of the park in a manner that is safer, and provides for adequate mobility for the


5

park users, a concept plan was created. The plan is illustrated in Appendix 1. The key components of the retaining wall project are as follows:

• Maximum height of 4ft/1.2m retaining wall;

• The wall will be backfilled with soil to a height appropriate to bring the cut grass length within 2” of the top of the wall;

• The area of backfill will use sod to re-establish turf growth;

• The existing irrigation system will need to be professionally modified to meet the new turf design. The existing irrigation layout is illustrated in Appendix 4;

• Wall starts from ground level near the stage and follows the natural rise of the lawn to its maximum height until the eastern edge;

• Wall is curved;

• 2.0m wide stairs are centrally located;

• Drainage from the retaining wall and stairs will be directed to drain ports matching existing culverts under the walkway;

• Culverts will need to be confirmed for sizing and appropriate type where they are located under the concrete walkway and replaced if necessary;

5.2 Project Purpose Incorporating a retaining wall into the park allows for safer maintenance of the lawn area and safer transition of park users from the lawn area to the walkway below. The curved nature of the wall, while aesthetic, also allows for future uses of the area next to the walkway, like benches, historical information boards, or artwork.

5.3 Project Scope The Scope of Work is intended to guide in the preparation of proposals. Proposals should expand upon the information presented and the specific requirements listed below, where deemed appropriate by the consultant. The scope of work shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

1) Construct one curved retaining wall approximately 18.5ft/5.6m long;

2) Construct a set of 2.0m wide concrete stairs centrally located along the retaining wall of a length determined by building code;

3) The Contractor shall supply and install Pedestrian Railings as shown on the drawings and in accordance with SS 741- Welded


6

Fence (Appendix 5) in powder coated jet black along the top of the retaining wall and both sides of the stairs;

4) Incorporate drainage for the structures into the existing ditch on the opposite side of the concrete walkway via existing culverts at specific locations identified by the Concept Plan;

5) Re-establish a higher turf height, just under the height of the wall, with sod, and a designed and modified irrigation system completed by qualified irrigation professionals;

6) Soil for backfill is available free of charge from the Parks yard at 2070 Kaltasin Road. It is the responsibility of the proponent to describe the arrangements for loading and transporting the soil;

7) The ground cover between the wall and the concrete walkway is to be permeable. Describe what is proposed in your submission;

8) All designs must be shown with sketches or drawings to illustrate the proposed concept;

5.3.1 General: 9) The Contractor will be deemed the prime contractor per

WorkSafe BC OH&S Regulations. The Proponent should also understand the general duties of the Owner as defined in the Workers’ Compensation Act. The Proponent should have the necessary qualifications and be willing to accept the responsibilities as Prime Contractor for this Contract for site safety in its entirety;

10) The Contractor must perform all work in accordance with acceptable industry standards.

11) The Contractor is responsible for the supply of all necessary equipment, including, but not limited to: tools, materials, staffing, mobilization, de-mobilization and fuel.

12) The Contractor is responsible for all traffic control as required to satisfy the requirements of WorkSafeBC.

13) The Contractor is responsible for the location and exposure of all relevant electrical underground utility connections within the proposed work area prior to commencing the work.

14) The Contractor will remove and dispose of all excess construction material, waste material, unused fill or other debris left over from excavation or construction, and upon completion of work return the municipal ROW and surrounding area to pre-construction condition or better;

15) All work shall conform to the Master Municipal Construction Documents (MMCD) Platinum Edition Volume II, and District of


7

Sooke Bylaw No. 404, Subdivision and Development Standards Bylaw (. All references to “MMCD” in this document refer to the MMCD Platinum Edition Volume II, published in 2009;

16) Sooke Bylaws can be found here: https://sooke.ca/municipal-hall/documents-forms/bylaws/

5.3.2 Site Conditions: 1) It is strongly desired that the walkway remains open to all park

patrons during construction; 2) The work area must remain fenced off from the public; 3) Signage must be provided to warn park users of the construction

area and of the potential delays in accessing the walkway; 4) Walkway closure for brief durations are acceptable provided

personnel are located in such a way to warn park users of the walkway temporary closure and duration;

5) Any full walkway closures must be accompanied by signage at all park accesses which will show the applicable dates and times;

6) No closures shall delay a park user by more than five minutes at a time unless notified and approved by Sooke Parks;

7) The soil conditions will likely be very wet, therefore a tracked piece of equipment that can transport soil and materials without much ground disturbance is preferred. All damage to the grounds must be fixed to same or better than existing conditions prior to final award payment. Precautions to avoid damage to the grounds and irrigation required;

8) A site visit is recommended to view accessibility and the site parameters.

5.4 Desirable RFP Criteria Responses meeting the mandatory requirements will be further assessed against the following desirable criteria.

5.4.1 Sustainability It is important that the Proponent consider and discuss within the proposal why the proposed design for the retaining wall and stairs exemplifies sustainable principles.

5.4.2 Creativity Considering the high profile nature of this location and facility, options that enhance the aesthetics or functionality of the site are welcome to be

https://sooke.ca/municipal-hall/documents-forms/bylaws/


8

considered. The District of Sooke appreciates and encourages innovative measures that would enhance the quality, longevity, efficiency, sustainability, maintenance, or function of this project now and in the future. These may be related but not limited to:

a) The use of artistic elements within the retaining wall design;

b) Alternative stair designs; and c) Alternative retaining wall designs.

5.5 Invoicing & Payment The District of Sooke will pay invoices monthly based on percentage of work completed, as invoiced by the successful contractor.

5.6 Fees Please provide, at minimum, costs to deliver each of the items outlined in Section 5.3 Project Scope. All personnel fees, salaries, wages, reimbursable expenses and taxes, will be taken into account in the proposal evaluation. Fees and disbursements will be billed at rates shown in the proposal. The consultant shall not exceed the amount shown in their proposal without prior, written approval from the District of Sooke. Changes in scope requiring fees beyond the total fee as shown in the proposal must be authorized by the District of Sooke before work begins on additional work. Scope changes will be authorized with a formal Change of Scope document signed by the District of Sooke and the Consultant.

6.0 Terms and Conditions 6.1 Closing Date

Responses will be received up to and including 2:00 p.m., local time, on Friday, January 26, 2018. Responses should be submitted in one sealed envelope clearly marked and addressed as follows:

Request for Proposals: 2018 Ed MacGregor Park Retaining Wall Project

ATTN: Paul Butterfield District of Sooke 2205 Otter Point Road Sooke, BC V9Z 1J2

6.2 Information Meeting There will not be a pre-bid or information meeting for this project.


9

6.3 Proposal Review Committee Review of Responses will be by a committee formed by the District of Sooke and may include staff and contractors of the District of Sooke.

6.4 Review and Selection The proposal review committee will check Responses against the mandatory criteria. Responses not meeting all mandatory criteria will be rejected without further consideration. Responses that do meet all the mandatory criteria will be further assessed on desirable criteria and the clarity and comprehensive nature of the Response. The District of Sooke’s intent is to enter into contract negotiations with the Proponent who has the proposal deemed most favourable to the District.

6.5 Sub-Consulting Using a Sub-Consultant is acceptable provided the Sub-Consultant is clearly identified in the Proposal. This includes a joint submission by two Proponents having no formal corporate links. However, in this case, one of these Proponents must be prepared to take overall responsibility for successful performance of the Contract and this should be clearly defined in the Proposal. Sub-consulting to any firm or individual who’s current or past corporate or other interests may, in the District’s opinion; give rise to a conflict of interest in connection with this project will not be permitted. This includes, but is not limited to, any firm or individual involved in the preparation of this Request for Proposal. Where applicable, the names of approved Sub-Consultants listed in the Proposal will be included in the Contract. No additional Sub-Consultants will be added, or other changes made, to the list in the Contract without written consent of the District’s Director of Development Services.

6.6 Changes to Response Wording The Proponent will not change the wording of its Response after the closing date and time specified on the front cover of this RFP, as amended by any addenda, and no words or comments will be added to the Response unless requested by the District of Sooke for purposes of clarification.

6.7 Proponent’s Expenses Proponents are solely responsible for their own expenses in preparing a Response and for subsequent negotiations with the District of Sooke, if any. The District of Sooke will not be liable to any Proponent for any claims, whether for costs or damages incurred by the Proponent in preparing the Response, loss of anticipated profit in connection with any final Contract, or any other matter whatsoever.


10

6.8 Acceptance of Responses This RFP is not an agreement to purchase services. The District of Sooke is not bound to enter into a Contract with any Proponent. Responses will be assessed in light of the review criteria. The District reserves the right to:

i. Accept a Proposal which is not the lowest priced; ii. Reject any and all Proposals, including without limitation

the lowest priced Proposal, even if the lowest priced Proposal conforms in all aspects with the RFP;

iii. Reject any Proposal at any time prior to execution of an Agreement;

iv. Assess the ability of the Proponent to perform the contract and may reject any Proposal where, in the District’s sole estimation, the personnel and/or resources of the Proponent are insufficient;

v. Amend or revise the RFP by Addenda up to the specified closing date and time;

vi. Reduce the Scope of Services required within the RFP and negotiate the price to reflect such change after award of an Agreement; and

vii. Award an Agreement to the Proponent other than the one with the most points, if, in its sole determination, another Proposal is determined to be the Best Value to the District, taking into consideration the price and evaluation criteria of the RFP.

Under no circumstances shall the District be obligated to award an Agreement solely on the basis of proposed price. The District may accept or waive a minor and inconsequential irregularity, or where applicable to do so, the District may, as a condition of acceptance of the Proposal, request a Proponent to correct a minor or inconsequential irregularity with no change in the Proposal. The determination of what is or is not a minor or inconsequential irregularity, the determination of whether to accept, waive, or require correction of an irregularity and the final determination of the validity, will be the sole discretion of the District of Sooke.


11

6.9 Negotiation By submitting a Proposal, a Proponent accepts that a contract may be concluded upon notification by the District with the Proponent. The District reserves the right to negotiate. If the parties, after having bargained in good faith, are unable to conclude a contract, the District and the Proponent will be released without penalty or further obligations other than any surviving obligations regarding confidentiality and the District may, at its discretion, contact the Proponent of the next best rated Proposal and attempt to conclude a contract with it, and so on until a contract is concluded

6.10 Definition of Contract Notice in writing to a Proponent that its proposal has been selected as successful will neither constitute a Contract nor give the Proponent any legal or equitable rights or privileges relative to the service requirements set out in this RFP. Only if a Proponent and the District of Sooke enter into a subsequent full written Contract will a Proponent acquire any legal or equitable rights or privileges.

6.11 Modification of Terms The District of Sooke reserves the right to modify the terms of this RFP at any time in its sole discretion. This includes the right to cancel this RFP at any time without entering into a Contract.

6.12 Ownership of Responses All documents, including Responses, submitted to the District of Sooke become the property of the District of Sooke. They will be received and held in confidence by the District of Sooke, subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

6.13 Confidentiality of Information Information pertaining to the District of Sooke obtained by the Proponent as a result of participation in this RFP is confidential and must not be disclosed without written authorization from the District of Sooke.

6.14 Collection and Use of Personal Information Proponents are solely responsible for familiarizing themselves, and ensuring that they comply, with the laws applicable to the collection and dissemination of information, including resumes and other personal information concerning employees and employees of any subcontractors. If this RFP requires Proponents to provide the District of Sooke with personal information of employees who have been included as resources in response to this RFP, Proponents will ensure that they have obtained written consent from each of those employees before forwarding such personal information to the District of Sooke. Such written consents are to


12

specify that the personal information may be forwarded to the District of Sooke for the purposes of responding to this RFP and use by the District of Sooke for the purposes set out in the RFP. The District of Sooke may, at any time, request the original consents or copies of the original consents from Proponents, and upon such request being made Proponents will immediately supply such originals or copies to the District of Sooke.

6.15 Insurance Proof of insurance will be required in accordance with the District of Sooke’s Risk Management – Contract Services Policy, attached in Appendix 6. Except as may be otherwise expressly approved by the District in writing, the Proponent will, without limiting its obligations or liabilities herein and at its own expense, provide and maintain the following insurances with insurers licensed in British Columbia and in forms and amounts acceptable to the District:

i. Professional Liability Insurance (Errors and Omissions) coverage of a minimum of $500,000 per occurrence, $1,000,000 aggregate.

ii. Comprehensive Liability Insurance with not less than $5,000,000 coverage per occurrence, together with a Standard Non-Owned Automobile Liability. The District must be named as an additional insured on this policy and the policy shall contain a cross-liability clause.

iii. The successful consultant must also provide the District with a certificate issued by the insurer(s) as evidence of the coverage required on or before commencement of the project.

iv. Each policy of insurance required under this agreement shall be maintained during the continuance of this agreement and shall not be capable of cancellation unless 30 days’ notice is first given to the District.

v. The successful consultant must ensure that every sub-consultant provides and maintains insurance substantially in accordance with the requirements of this agreement. The successful consultant shall be as fully responsible to the District for acts and omissions of sub-consultants and of persons employed directly or indirectly by them as for acts and omissions of persons directly employed by the consultant.

The foregoing insurance shall be primary and not require the sharing of any loss by any insurer of the District.


13

The successful Proponent shall provide the District with evidence of all required insurance prior to the commencement of the Services. When requested by the District, the Proponent shall provide certified copies of required policies. It is also expected that the Proponent be a member in good standing with the Worker’s Compensation Board.


Appendix 1: Concept Plan

Height at ground

level

Height at 4ft/1.2m

Ed MacGregor Park Wall Project

1.5m

Height at 4ft/1.2m


Appendix 2: Geotechnical Report

EBA Eng inee r ing Cons u l t an ts L td . p . 250 .756 .2256 • f . 250 .756 .2686

1 - 4376 Boban D r i v e • Nana imo , B r i t i s h Co lumb ia V9T 6A7 • CANADA

Gemella Design Inc.

ISSUED FOR USE

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PROPOSED SOOKE SPIRIT SQUARE

ED MCGREGOR PARK SOOKE, BRITISH COLUMBIA

N13101274

August 4, 2009

N13101274 August 4, 2009 ISSUED FOR USE ii

Sooke Spirit Square Geotechnical Report.doc

PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................. 12.0 SITE DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND....................................................................................... 13.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION.................................................................................................................. 24.0 GEOTECHNICAL FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING .................................... 35.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS............................................................................................................ 3

5.1 New Washroom Facility ............................................................................................................ 35.2 New Performance Stage........................................................................................................... 45.3 New Terraced Seating Area...................................................................................................... 45.4 New Retaining Wall .................................................................................................................. 45.5 New Screenings Pad ................................................................................................................ 55.6 Groundwater Conditions ........................................................................................................... 55.7 Steep Slope Below the New Performance Stage...................................................................... 5

6.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................................... 66.1 General ..................................................................................................................................... 66.2 Slope Stability and Geotechnical Building Setbacks................................................................. 76.3 Foundations .............................................................................................................................. 7

6.3.1 Liquefaction Potential .................................................................................................. 76.3.2 Seismic Data................................................................................................................ 86.3.3 Foundation Design and Construction........................................................................... 86.3.4 Drainage ...................................................................................................................... 9

6.4 Retaining Walls......................................................................................................................... 96.5 Temporary Excavation Slopes and Backfill............................................................................. 106.6 Review of Design and Construction........................................................................................ 11

7.0 LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY ........................................................................................................... 118.0 CLOSURE......................................................................................................................................... 12REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................ 13

TABLES (INCLUDED IN REPORT TEXT)

Table 1 – National Building Code Interpolated Seismic Hazard Values

Table 2 – BC Building Code 2006, Seismic Factors

Table 3 – Soil Parameters

N13101274 August 4, 2009 ISSUED FOR USE iii


FIGURES

Figure 1 – Site Location Plan

Figure 2 – Site Topographic Plan

Figure 3 – Testpit Location Plan

Figure 4 – Cross-Sectional Plan A-A’

PHOTOGRAPHS

Photos 1 to 6

APPENDICES

Appendix A Testpit Logs

Appendix B Laboratory Results

Appendix C Geotechnical Report – General Conditions

N13101274 August 4, 2009 ISSUED FOR USE 1


1.0 INTRODUCTION EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd. (EBA) was retained by Gemella Designs Inc. (Gemella) to provide geotechnical engineering for the proposed Sooke Spirit Square Project. The purpose of the study was to determine the general subsurface conditions on site, and to provide geotechnical engineering design recommendations for the proposed development, specifically for:

• The new washroom facility;

• The new performance square (covered stage and shallow reflective pool); and

• The new terraced area facing the performance space.

The site is situated at Ed Macgregor Park in Sooke, British Columbia on the northern shoreline of Sooke Harbour as shown on Figure 1.

This study was carried out in general accordance with EBA’s proposal submitted to Gemella on May 28, 2009 (EBA proposal number PN13101274).

EBA’s proposal indicated that EBA would provide geotechnical comments regarding the proposed rain gardens that were to be located near the top of the slope that leads down to the shoreline. Updated plans received by EBA on July 21, 2009 indicate that irrigated infiltration areas and planting beds now replace the proposed rain gardens. Geotechnical comments pertaining to the infiltration areas are beyond the scope of this study.

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The proposed Sooke Spirit Square (the proposed area of development) is located at Ed Macgregor Park in Sooke on the northern shoreline of Sooke Harbour (Figure 1). The area of the park is about 0.75 ha, where the proposed area of development is located on a broad, open plateau above a steep, forested slope about 25 m high that separates the proposed area of development from the foreshore (Figure 2).

The proposed area of development slopes gradually at an average gradient of about 7% to 10% (4° to 6°) from West Coast Road (Highway 14) down to the crest of the forested slope.

The forested slope is generally concave and benched in shape across contour, and irregular to uniform along contour. The upper slopes are steep with typical slope gradients of 65%-70% (33° to 35°). The lower slopes are moderately steep at 30% to 50% (17° to 27°). A recently constructed public walkway connects the top of the forested slope to the foreshore through a series of switchbacks that winds downslope through the trees. The walkway consists of a wheelchair accessible wooden ramp (on short concrete piers and footings) with wooden hand rails and contains one concrete section. The walkway connects to a long wooden pier extending between Ed Macgregor Park and Murray Road Park to the east. If a



geotechnical report was completed as part of this walkway project, it was not made available to EBA.

Bedrock in the area consists of Paleocene to Eocene rocks of the Metchosin Igneous Complex consisting of sheeted dykes, diabase, basaltic, and intrusive rocks according to the BC Geological Survey (Massey et al, 2005). This mapping further indicates that there are no significant faults in the area or unconformities. No bedrock outcrops nor indications of near-surface bedrock were observed during the site inspection.

Mantling the bedrock are soils of the Dashwood, Shawnigan and Fairbridge soil associations (Ministry of Environment). Most of the soils in the area reportedly consist of Dashwood soils, comprising gravely sandy loam of marine origin with lesser amounts of Shawnigan (a morainal deposit consisting of gravely, sandy loam that is moderately to strongly cemented) and Fairbridge soils (a marine deposit consisting of stone-free sandy loam to clay loam soils).

Local observations suggest that Fairbridge soils mantle thick deposits of Shawnigan soils. From the site reconnaissance and testpit investigation, EBA found the Fairbridge soils to be about 2 m thick, laminated (i.e. finely layered), and consisting of clayey silt with some sand, with little to no coarse fragment content. The underlying till was found to consist of sandy silt with some gravel and some clay.

The seismic data for the site was obtained from Natural Resources Canada (2005), as tabulated below.

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION EBA understands from the District of Sooke’s Planning Department that Ed Macgregor Park will serve as the community’s civic plaza and event open space. The planned development consists of the removal of existing elements within the park, and construction of new structures. Based on the information provided, EBA understands that geotechnical services are required for components of the development as summarized below.

New Washroom Facility

• The new washroom will include a single storey concrete frame structure located on the west boundary of the site.

TABLE 1: NATIONAL BUILDING CODE INTERPOLATED SEISMIC HAZARD VALUES 2%/50 years (0.000404 per annum, or 1 in 2475 years) Probability

Sa(0.2) Sa(0.5) Sa(1.0) Sa(2.0) PGA 1.095 0.754 0.367 0.179 0.533g



New Performance Stage

• A new steel-and-concrete covered stage with a shallow reflective pool. Slope stability and determining a safe setback from the slope are issues to be investigated at this site.

New Terraced Seating Area

• Two concrete semi-circular retaining walls for seating that face the stage, and will be up to 675 mm high.

New Retaining Wall

• An arched, concrete retaining wall located on the east side of the site above the start of the walkway that connects to the foreshore. The wall is proposed to be 1 m high and will have handrails.

New Screenings Pad

• A new circular, concrete pad is proposed that will be located opposite the washroom facility on the east side of the site.

4.0 GEOTECHNICAL FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING Six testpits were completed using a Caterpillar rubber-tired backhoe supplied by Mainroad South Island Contracting at the locations shown in Figure 3 (labelled TP1 through TP6). Testpit locations were determined with a handheld GPS (Garmin GPSMap 60CSx), while elevations were approximated from topographic information. Testpits extended 0.74 m to 2.6 metres below ground surface (m-bgs), averaging about 1.2 m in depth. Testpits were backfilled and loosely compacted by bucket upon completion.

All soil samples were visually classified in the field. The individual soil strata and the interfaces between them are noted on the testpit logs in Appendix A. Soil gradation tests were performed on select samples. The test results are presented in Appendix B.

EBA found the soil and drainage conditions across the site to be fairly uniform. Site specific conditions are described below as they pertain to the proposed development.

5.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

5.1 NEW WASHROOM FACILITY The washroom is located on the west side of the site where slope gradients in the area of the proposed construction are gently sloping. The subsurface conditions at this location were characterized by TP1 that encountered the following stratigraphy:

• Topsoil was encountered at ground surface that contained organics with sand, some silt, and some gravel, and extended to depths of 0.6 m; and



• Silt was encountered below the topsoil. The silt contained some clay, trace sand and gravel. It is described as low plastic, and was hard. It extended to greater than 1.2 m bgs.

5.2 NEW PERFORMANCE STAGE The new performance stage is proposed to be located at the existing amphitheatre on the west side of the site, in an area that is relatively level to gently sloping. At its closest point, the new stage is located about 4.5 m (horizontal distance) from the crest of the steep, forested slope that extends to the foreshore. The shallow reflective pool is located about 11 m (horizontal distance) from the crest of the slope. EBA understands that the stage will not be elevated and that minor fill may be required for levelling purposes. The cut made in the slope for the walkway shows interbedded silt and sand (with trace gravel) of variable thickness mantling gravely silt till (Photo 1).

The subsurface conditions at this location were characterized by TP3 and TP4 that encountered the following stratigraphy:

• Topsoil was encountered at ground surface that contained organics with sand, some silt, and some gravel, and extended to depths of 0.3 m (TP4);

• Interbedded Silt and Sand was encountered below the topsoil. The thin layers were clayey to trace clay, with trace gravel, and stiff to very stiff, extending to 0.74 m in TP3 and to greater than 1.9 m bgs in TP4; and

• Silt Till was encountered below the interbedded silt and sand in TP3. The silt till was sandy, with some gravel to gravely, and contained trace to some clay. The till was low plastic and hard.

5.3 NEW TERRACED SEATING AREA The new terraced seating area is located directly upslope (to the north) of the new performance stage in the existing open, grassy field on gently sloping ground. The subsurface conditions at this location were characterized by TP2 that encountered the following stratigraphy:

• Topsoil was encountered at ground surface that contained organics with sand, some silt, and some gravel, and extended to depths of 0.6 m; and

• Silt was encountered below the topsoil. The silt contained some clay, trace to some sand and trace gravel. It is described as low plastic, and was very stiff to hard. It extended to greater than 1.65 m bgs.

5.4 NEW RETAINING WALL The new retaining wall is located on the east side of the site, opposite the new performance stage in the existing open, grassy field on gently sloping ground. The subsurface conditions at this location were characterized by TP5 that encountered the following stratigraphy:



• Fill was encountered to depths of 0.4 m, consisting of loose sand and gravel with trace clay;

• Topsoil (buried) was encountered at below the fill that contained organics with sand, some silt, and some gravel, and extended to depths of 0.7 m bgs;

• Silt was encountered below the buried topsoil. The silt contained some clay to clayey, some sand and trace gravel. It is described as low plastic, and was very stiff to hard. It extended to 2.5 m bgs; and

• Silt Till was encountered below the silt. The silt till contained some sand, with some gravel, and trace clay. The till was low plastic and hard.

5.5 NEW SCREENINGS PAD The new screenings pad is located on the east side of the site, opposite the new washroom facility in the existing open, grassy field on gently sloping ground. The subsurface conditions at this location were characterized by TP6 that encountered the following stratigraphy:

• Fill was encountered to depths of 0.2 m, consisting of loose sand and gravel with trace clay;

• Topsoil (buried) was encountered below the fill that contained organics with sand, some silt, and some gravel, and extended to depths of 0.3 m bgs; and

• Silt was encountered below the buried topsoil. The silt contained some clay to clayey, some sand and trace gravel. It is described as low plastic, and was very stiff to hard.

5.6 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS Seepage and groundwater were not encountered in any of the testpits. Groundwater elevations can vary with precipitation, site grading, seasons and other salient factors. Reported groundwater observations may not reflect the current water elevation. Higher water levels should be expected during periods of increased precipitation, particularly at this site as it is on a slope, and the due to the low permeability soils present on site.

5.7 STEEP SLOPE BELOW THE NEW PERFORMANCE STAGE EBA completed a reconnaissance review of the slope and stability conditions of the steep slope section between the foreshore and the new performance stage location. An approximate cross-sectional profile is shown on Figure 4. This profile was developed from the topographic information provided to EBA and from field measurements using handheld equipment, and shows:

• The near-vertical cut below the proposed performance stage (that is associated with construction of the walkway to the foreshore). This slope gradient decreases to about 65%-70% (33° to 35°) along contour towards the mid and eastern portions of the site.



Occasional mature coniferous trees were observed across this slope section showing curvature of their trunks, suggesting a moderate to high rate of soil creep (Photo 2);

• The overall concave, benched morphology (i.e. shape) of the slope. The length of the slope is about 70 m (horizontal distance) that rises about 25 m above sea level, indicating an overall slope angle of about 2.8H:1V;

• The steep mid-slope section where measured slope gradients were 70% to 80% (35° to 39°). This section is densely vegetated with trees and brush. A small, historic failure was noted where shown on Figure 2. This event measures about 7 m wide by 12 m long, and is assumed to have occurred about 20 years ago judging by the age of the vegetation. The following additional stability issues were observed where marked on Figure 2 that appear to be associated with construction of the walkway:

− Tension cracks in an approximate 3 m high fill slope (Photo 3);

− Oversteepened 5 m high fill supported by vegetation (Photo 4); and

− Erosion of walkway footings (Photo 5). A ditch was observed at the top of the slope on the eastern property boundary, but EBA did not observe any other drainage controls in place on the slope. Recent erosion rills and scour were noted.

• The location of the proposed performance stage that is setback about 5.0 m (horizontal distance) from the crest of the slope, indicating that the overall setback from the foreshore is about 3H:1V, and 2H:1V from the toe of the near-vertical walkway cut; and

• Additionally, EBA noted active erosion along the foreshore (Photo 6).

6.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 GENERAL Based on the results of the investigation, the soil conditions in this site are expected to be silt underlain by till. The silt is stiff to hard at relatively shallow depths (generally about 0.6 m). These native soils are sufficiently competent at relatively shallow depths on this site, which should be suitable for the shallow footings to support for the proposed structures.

From a geotechnical perspective, no conditions have been found which would preclude the proposed development. EBA considers this land safe for the use intended provided the recommendations in this report are followed for the design of the structures as per the British Columbia Building Code 2006 based on ground motion values having a probability of exceedance of 2% in 50 years.



6.2 SLOPE STABILITY AND GEOTECHNICAL BUILDING SETBACKS The Ministry of Environment’s (MoE) Flood Hazard Area Guidelines (2004) require that in the case of foreshore slope, a 3H:1V setback be established from the toe of the slope. For this site, this condition has been met.

Based on EBA’s observations of the slope, large-scale slope movements are not anticipated. Minor movements may occur within the upper-most and the western-most slope sections. The size of a potential event is estimated to be about 10 m wide by 20 m long, and likely up to 2 m deep. Such an event could impact the walkway, but would likely not impact the proposed performance stage, or new retaining wall. Such an event could occur as a result of surface water drainage being directed onto these slope sections.

EBA is aware that a planting and erosion control plan is in place for the upper-most slope section. However, EBA recommends a drainage study be carried out to complement the erosion control plan and develop additional drainage controls for the overall area. In regard to the proposed development, the proposed sheet flow drainage plan is appropriate. At this site, the discharge of point source or concentrated drainage is not advisable unless it can be conveyed in a controlled fashion (e.g. enclosed pipe) down the slope. Uncontrolled discharge has a high potential to cause erosion and create potential stability issues as described above.

Active erosion was noted along the shoreline. Should another 3 m or 5 m of shoreline erode over the next 50 years, EBA does not anticipate potential stability issues at the location of the proposed performance stage. Such stability issues would likely be isolated to areas immediately upslope of the foreshore. These areas will likely show signs of instability in advance of a potential failure due to the slow, progressive nature of the erosion that should allow sufficient time to implement remedial measures to mitigate the size and extent of potential future instability along the foreshore area.

Overall, the planned 5 m setback is considered appropriate. No additional setback is considered necessary.

6.3 FOUNDATIONS

6.3.1 Liquefaction Potential Any development in Southwestern BC must consider the effects of a potential seismic event. Liquefaction causes a sudden loss in soil strength due to increased pore water pressure in response to the cyclic loading caused by seismic shaking. It will generally only occur in loose zones of granular soils under saturated conditions (i.e., below the groundwater table) during a sustained, strong seismic event.

Soil conditions on the site are expected to consist of cohesive soils (silt and clay). The cohesive soils are typically very stiff to hard at relatively shallow depths (generally 0.6 m). Seepage and groundwater were not encountered in any of the testpits.



EBA considers that the cohesive soils under the subject site have a low potential for liquefaction during seismic events as they contain relatively low proportions of sand. Where granular soils were encountered, they were compact to very dense, and are considered to have a low potential to liquefy when saturated.

6.3.2 Seismic Data The peak ground acceleration of this site due to a seismic event with a 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years (which is the design earthquake in accordance with the 2005 National Building Code and British Columbia Building Code, 2006) would be 0.533g (from Natural Resources Canada).

Based on the results of the field investigation, seismic factors for the proposed development are given in Table 2. Data for these tables were obtained from the British Columbia Building Code (2006), considering the subsurface conditions encountered.

TABLE 2: BC BUILDING CODE 2006, SEISMIC FACTORS Site Classification Fa Fv

C 1.1 1.0

6.3.3 Foundation Design and Construction Shallow footings, constructed on the very stiff to hard clayey silt or the silt till, are suitable foundation systems for the proposed structures. All footings should be designed and constructed with a minimum soil cover of 0.7 m for frost protection.

No footings should be constructed on topsoil, fill, organics, or soft soils. A qualified soils technician or geotechnical engineer should be present during excavation to confirm the removal of all undesirable soils.

For footings founded on the native stiff to very stiff clayey silt, the foundation design recommendations are as follows:

• For design using the Allowable Working Stresses, we recommend the footings be designed for a conservative allowable bearing pressure of 100 kPa. The allowable bearing pressure may be increased by 1/3 for transient loads and double for earthquake loading;

• For design using Limit States, we recommend:

− An Ultimate (unfactored) Limit State bearing capacity of 300 kPa for footing design based on the approach given in the Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual (CFEM, 2006). A resistance factor of 0.5 is recommended for design; and

− A Serviceability Limit State bearing pressure of 100 kPa for design.



For some of the hard tills, these foundation design recommendations are conservative, and higher values may be possible. If required, EBA can review on a site specific basis to determine if a higher bearing value can be provided and that value would be based on additional analysis.

Some settlement of the footings will occur, but if the foundation soils are well prepared, this settlement will be minor, with total and differential settlements expected to be less than 25 mm. Surcharge loads should be limited.

Seepage was not encountered in any of testpits during our investigation. As such foundation excavations are not expected to be below the groundwater table. If seepage is encountered, it may be managed with using appropriate construction techniques and local sump pumps.

Organics are expected to comprise some of the excavated material. Reuse of the excavated organics as backfill is not recommended unless later ground settlements are not a concern.

6.3.4 Drainage If underground structures are constructed, then waterproofing of the perimeter drainage structures should meet the BC Building Code requirements. EBA recommends that the final site grading provide a positive drainage gradient away from the proposed structures. At minimum, the grading should be 3% over a 2 m distance.

6.4 RETAINING WALLS EBA understands that retaining walls are proposed for the terraced seating area and above the walkway down to the foreshore. These are low retaining walls, at 0.675 m and 1 m high, respectively. Therefore, a standard landscape design should be appropriate. Should higher walls be considered then these walls should be designed to withstand the horizontal loads due to lateral earth pressures and surcharge loads expected.

The retaining walls must be backfilled with free draining granular soils with a total silt and clay content of less than 5% within 0.5 m of the wall. The backfill shall be compacted to a minimum of 95% relative to the Standard Proctor Maximum Dry Density (SPMDD) except where later settlement must be reduced and a higher compaction of 98% of the SPMDD may be required. Should other materials be used as the backfill of the walls, EBA must be informed and updated recommendations will be provided.

Should the retaining walls require design, then the soil properties to be used in the designs are given in Table 3. These values are estimated based on soil index properties.



TABLE 3: SOIL PARAMETERS Soil type K0 Ka Unit Weight

(kN/m3) Long-term

Friction Angle (°) Undrained Shear

Strength (kPa) Sand and Gravel 0.50 0.33 20 30 0

Consideration should be taken of the design seismic loading, and construction compaction loading, in the wall designs.

The following lateral earth pressure distributions are recommended for design of walls with limited movement and free draining conditions:

• Static Conditions: The resultant force for the static lateral earth pressure may be calculated using 5.0H2 (kN/m), where H is the wall height in metres, using a triangular load distribution with the point of application of the resultant force at 0.33H above the base of the wall;

• Earthquake Conditions: The additional resultant force for the incremental dynamic lateral earth pressure may be calculated using 4.0H2 (kN/m), where H is the wall height in metres, and the pressure distribution consists of an inverted trapezoidal shape with the point of application of the resultant force at 0.6H above the base of the wall.

If the long-term effectiveness of the backfill and perimeter drainage cannot be assured, then hydrostatic pressures should be included in the wall design.

The interface friction depends on the orientation and roughness of the structure surface. An ultimate friction coefficient of 0.45 may be used at the interface between the retaining walls (composed of smooth concrete) and backfill materials.

6.5 TEMPORARY EXCAVATION SLOPES AND BACKFILL The native silt encountered during our investigation is not suitable material for trench backfill. Reuse of this material as backfill as well as excavated material containing a considerable portion of organics is not recommended unless later ground settlements are not a concern.

Seepage was not encountered in any of the testpits during our investigation. Should the excavation be below the groundwater table, seepage should be expected. If seepage is encountered in limited areas, it may be managed by using appropriate construction techniques and local sump pumps. Completing the excavation quickly and using a coarse bedding sand may be considered as a method to reduce difficulties where seepage is encountered.

All excavation slopes must be in compliance with WorkSafeBC regulations.



6.6 REVIEW OF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION EBA should review the details of the design and specifications related to geotechnical aspects of the project prior to construction.

All recommendations presented in this report are based upon the assumption that an adequate level of monitoring will be provided during construction, and that all construction activities will be carried out by suitably qualified contractors, experienced in earthworks and foundation construction. Adequate levels of monitoring are considered to be:

• Periodic assessment of excavated slopes (that also satisfy WorkSafeBC requirements);

• For shallow foundations, inspection of bearing surfaces and excavations; and

• For earthworks, part time monitoring and compaction testing.

All quality assurance monitoring should be carried out by suitably qualified persons, on behalf of the owner, independent of the contractor. One of the purposes of providing an adequate level of monitoring is to check that the provided recommendations, which are based on the findings at discrete borehole locations, are relevant to other areas of the site. EBA will provide these services upon request.

7.0 LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY This report and its contents are intended for the sole use of Gemella Designs Inc. and their agents. EBA does not accept any responsibility for the accuracy of any of the data, the analysis or the recommendations contained or referenced in the report when the report is used or relied upon by any Party other than Gemella Designs Inc. and their, or for any Project other than the proposed development at the subject site. Any such unauthorized use of this report is at the sole risk of the user. Use of this report is subject to the terms and conditions stated in EBA's General Conditions provided in Appendix C of this report.

If conditions other than those reported are noted during subsequent phases of the project, EBA should be notified and given the opportunity to review our current recommendations in light of new findings. Recommendations presented herein may not be valid if an adequate level of monitoring is not provided during construction.



8.0 CLOSURE

We trust this report is sufficient for your purposes at this time. If you have any questions or require any additional information please feel free to contact the undersigned.

Respectfully Submitted; EBA Engineering Consultants Ltd.

Shelley Higman, M.Sc, P.Eng./P.Geo. Jerry Schmidt, P.Eng. Senior Geotechnical Engineer Senior Geotechnical Engineer



REFERENCES

BC Ministry of Environment. “Soils of South Vancouver Island, BC”. Soil Survey Report Number 44, Sheet 1, 1:100,000 scale.

BC Ministry of Environment. 2004. “Flood Hazard Area Land Use Management Guidelines”.

BC Ministry of Forests and Range and Minister Responsible for Housing. 2006. “BC Building Code 2006”.

Canadian Geotechnical Society. 2006. “Canadian Foundation Engineering Manual, 4th Edition”.

Massey, N.W.D, MacIntyre, D.G., Desjardins, P.J. and Cooney, R.T. 2005. “Digital Geology Map of British Columbia: Tile TM10 Southwest BC”, B.C. Ministry of Energy and Mines, Geofile 2005-3.

Natural Resource Canada. 2005. “National Building Code 2005”.

N13101274 August 4, 2009 ISSUED FOR USE


FIGURES

Tag Number Tree Species Diametre246 cedar 0.2247 oak 0.11551 ornamental cedar 0.51552 ornamental cedar 0.51553 ornamental cedar 0.51554 oak 0.21555 deciduous 0.31556 pine 0.41557 ornamental cedar 0.31558 ornamental cedar 0.21559 ornamental cedar 0.21560 spruce 0.11561 dogwood 0.051562 sitka spruce 0.351563 spruce 0.51564 grand fir 0.251565 multi stemmed maple 1.31566 douglas fir 0.051567 cedar 0.151568 hawthorne 0.41569 alder clump 0.1‐0.31570 hawthorne 0.41571 maple 0.41572 grand fir 0.51573 grand fir 0.51574 grand fir 0.41575 douglas fir 0.41576 maple 0.21577 red maple 0.251578 spruce 0.051579 maple 0.151580 eucalyptus 0.21581 rhododendron 0.151582 cherry 0.31583 arbutus 0.41584 hawthorne 0.32261 maple cluster2356 multi stemmed maple3009 multi stemmed maple3014 maple 0.73037 maple cluster



PHOTOGRAPHS

N13101274 August 2009

N13101274_Photo_1.doc

Photo 1 Laminated silt exposed in walkway cut.

N13101274 August 2009

N13101274_Photo_2.doc

Photo 2 Mature fir tree with curved truck near the top of slope (where shown on Figure 2), indicating a localized

area with a moderate to high rate of soil creep.

N13101274 August 2009

N13101274_Photos_3to6.doc

Photo 3 Tension cracks observed in fill section associated with construction of the walkway at the location shown on

Figure 2.

Photo 4 Oversteepened fill (with an erosion rill) supported by vegetation at the location shown on Figure 2.

Photo 5 Erosion near footing at the location shown on Figure 2.

Photo 6 View upslope of forested slope from the foreshore. Note erosion at the toe of the slope due to tidal action.


APPENDIX APPENDIX A TESTPIT LOGS

SAND

Depth

(m)

SAMP

LE N

UMBE

R

COMPLETION DEPTH: 1.2mCOMPLETE: 7/22/2009Page 1 of 1

Back

fill

SA-02

Elev

ation

(m)

Client: Gemella Design Inc.Excavation Method: BackhoeContractor: Mainroad South Island Contracting Ltd.

SLOUGH

0

End of testpit at 1.20 m:- Testpit terminated in SILT;- Groundwater seepage not observed on completion;- Sloughing not observed;- Testpit backfilled on completion.

SAMP

LE T

YPE

ML

SM

19.8

SILT - some clay, trace sand, trace gravel, dry, hard,low plastic, grey.

SAND (TOPSOIL) - some silt, some gravel, traceclay, dry, loose, brown, rootlets.

SA-01

CORE

SOILDESCRIPTION

DISTURBED NO RECOVERY SPT SHELBY TUBEA-CASING

MOIS

TURE

CON

TENT

POCKET PEN. (kPa)

UNCONFINED (kPa) 80

DRILL CUTTINGS

USC

SOIL

SYMB

OL

STANDARD PENETRATION (N) 20 40

50

28.0

27.0

26.0

25.0

24.0

23.0

BENTONITE

100 200150

LOGGED BY: SLHREVIEWED BY: JASDRAWING NO: 1

PROJECT NO. - BOREHOLE NO.N13101274 - TP1

ELEVATION: 28m

GROUT

1

2

3

4

GEOTECHNICAL N13101274.GPJ EBA.GDT 09/08/04

BACKFILL TYPESAMPLE TYPE

5

Project: Sooke Spirit SquareLocation: 6765 West Coast RoadSooke BC

LIQUID

40 80 100 200

PLASTIC M.C.

60

PEA GRAVEL

300

60

40020

0



Elev

ation

(m)

SAND

Depth

(m)

Back

fill

DRILL CUTTINGS

SA-01

SLOUGH

ML


SILT - some clay, trace to some sand, trace gravel,dry, very stiff to hard, low plastic, grey.

SAND (TOPSOIL) - some silt, some gravel, traceclay, dry, loose, brown, rootlets.

SM

NO RECOVERY

GROUT

SAMP

LE N

UMBE

RSA

MPLE

TYP

E

DISTURBED SPT A-CASING SHELBY TUBE CORE

PEA GRAVEL

SOILDESCRIPTION

BENTONITE

MOIS

TURE

CON

TENT

POCKET PEN. (kPa) 100

USC

SOIL

SYMB

OL

STANDARD PENETRATION (N)

50

8020 40

200 UNCONFINED (kPa)

LIQUID

27.0

26.0

25.0

24.0

23.0

1

2

3

4



5




ELEVATION: 27.5m

60 80 100 200

PLASTIC 150

20 40 300

60

400

M.C.

DISTURBEDDe

pth (m

)

SAMP

LE N

UMBE

RSA

MPLE

TYP

E

SOILDESCRIPTION Ba

ckfill

SA-01

SLOUGH

0



Elev

ation

(m)

SAND

A-CASING

SILT (TILL) - sandy, some gravel, some clay, moist,very stiff to hard, low plastic, brown.

21.4

NO RECOVERY

End of testpit at 0.75 m:- Testpit terminated in SILT (TILL);- Groundwater seepage not observed on completion;- Sloughing not observed;- Testpit backfilled on completion.

SM

SILT AND SAND - some clay, trace gravel,interbedded sand and silt layers, moist, stiff tovery stiff, low plastic, brown with zones ofoxidation.

SAND (TOPSOIL) - some silt, some gravel, dry,loose, brown with areas of black organics,occasional concrete fill, rootlets.

SA-02

SPT SHELBY TUBE CORE

23.8

SM

ML

MOIS

TURE

CON

TENT

60 POCKET PEN. (kPa)

UNCONFINED (kPa) 100

40

USC

SOIL

SYMB

OL

STANDARD PENETRATION (N) 20

50

SAMPLE TYPE

150LIQUID


ELEVATION: 25m

25.0

24.0

23.0

22.0

21.0

20.0

1

2

3

4

80

BACKFILL TYPE

5



BENTONITE PEA GRAVEL GROUT DRILL CUTTINGS


400100 200

PLASTIC M.C.

20 40

200

60

80 300



Elev

ation

(m)

SAND

Depth

(m)

GROUT

Back

fill

SA-01

0

SLOUGH

SAMP

LE N

UMBE

R

SM

SM

13.9

End of testpit at 1.90 m:- Testpit terminated in SILT AND SAND;- Groundwater seepage not observed on completion;- Sloughing not observed;- Testpit backfilled on completion.

SILT AND SAND - some clay, trace gravel,laminated, dry, very stiff to hard, low plastic,brown with oxidized zones.

SAND (TOPSOIL) - some gravel, some silt, dry,loose, brown, rootlets.

A-CASING

DRILL CUTTINGS

SAMP

LE T

YPE

SOILDESCRIPTION

DISTURBED SPT SHELBY TUBE CORENO RECOVERY

40

MOIS

TURE

CON

TENT


PEA GRAVEL

USC

SOIL

SYMB

OL


50

8020

LIQUID

5

BENTONITE





ELEVATION: 25.5m

25.0

24.0

23.0

22.0

21.0

1

2

3

4



20 60 80 100 200

M.C. 200

40 300

60

400

PLASTIC

Elev

ation

(m)

SAMP

LE N

UMBE

RSA

MPLE

TYP

E

Back

fill

SA-01

Depth

(m)

SANDSLOUGH

0



SOILDESCRIPTION

ML

ML

ML

GM

19.2

End of testpit at 2.60 m:- Testpit terminated due to refusal in SILT(TILL);- Groundwater seepage not observed on completion;- Sloughing not observed;- Testpit backfilled on completion.

SILT (TILL) - some sand to sandy, some gravel, traceclay, dry, very stiff to hard, low plastic, brown.

SILT - some clay to clayey, trace to some sand, tracegravel, dry, very stiff to hard, low plastic, greyto brown with some oxidation.

SILT (TOPSOIL) - some sand, trace gravel, moist,dark brown, rootlets.

SAND AND GRAVEL (FILL) - trace clay, dry. loose,brown.

DISTURBED NO RECOVERY SPT A-CASING SHELBY TUBE CORE

MOIS

TURE

CON

TENT


40

USC

SOIL

SYMB

OL

STANDARD PENETRATION (N) 20 80

50

SAMPLE TYPEBENTONITE

60




GROUT

LIQUID


ELEVATION: 26.5m

26.0

25.0

24.0

23.0

22.0

1

2

3

4


BACKFILL TYPE

5

40 80 100 200

PLASTIC M.C.

PEA GRAVEL

200

300

60

400

DRILL CUTTINGS

20


Elev

ation

(m)

SAND

Depth

(m)

Back

fill

SA-01


0

SLOUGH

SAMP

LE N

UMBE

RML

SM

GM


SILT - some clay, trace to some sand, trace gravel,dry, very stiff to hard, low plastic, grey.

SAND (TOPSOIL) - silty, trace clay, trace gravel, fineto coarse sand, orange-brown.

SAND AND GRAVEL (FILL) - trace silt, dry, loose,brown.

SHELBY TUBE

SAMP

LE T

YPE

SOILDESCRIPTION

DISTURBED NO RECOVERY A-CASING

DRILL CUTTINGS

CORESPT

40

MOIS

TURE

CON

TENT


GROUT

USC

SOIL

SYMB

OL


50

8020

BENTONITE

UNCONFINED (kPa)


150

Project: Sooke Spirit SquareLocation: 6765 West Coast RoadSooke BCSAMPLE TYPE

LIQUID


ELEVATION: 28m

28.0

27.0

26.0

25.0

24.0

23.0

1

2

3

4


BACKFILL TYPE

5

60 80 100 200

PLASTIC

PEA GRAVEL

20 40 300

60

400

200M.C.


APPENDIX APPENDIX B LABORATORY RESULTS


APPENDIX APPENDIX C GEOTECHNICAL REPORT – GENERAL CONDITIONS

General Conditions - Geotechnical.doc

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT – GENERAL CONDITIONS

This report incorporates and is subject to these “General Conditions”.

1.0 USE OF REPORT AND OWNERSHIP

This geotechnical report pertains to a specific site, a specific development and a specific scope of work. It is not applicable to any other sites nor should it be relied upon for types of development other than that to which it refers. Any variation from the site or development would necessitate a supplementary geotechnical assessment.

This report and the recommendations contained in it are intended for the sole use of EBA’s Client. EBA does not accept any responsibility for the accuracy of any of the data, the analyses or the recommendations contained or referenced in the report when the report is used or relied upon by any party other than EBA’s Client unless otherwise authorized in writing by EBA. Any unauthorized use of the report is at the sole risk of the user. This report is subject to copyright and shall not be reproduced either wholly or in part without the prior, written permission of EBA. Additional copies of the report, if required, may be obtained upon request.

2.0 ALTERNATE REPORT FORMAT

Where EBA submits both electronic file and hard copy versions of reports, drawings and other project-related documents and deliverables (collectively termed EBA’s instruments of professional service), only the signed and/or sealed versions shall be considered final and legally binding. The original signed and/or sealed version archived by EBA shall be deemed to be the original for the Project.

Both electronic file and hard copy versions of EBA’s instruments of professional service shall not, under any circumstances, no matter who owns or uses them, be altered by any party except EBA. EBA’s instruments of professional service will be used only and exactly as submitted by EBA.

Electronic files submitted by EBA have been prepared and submitted using specific software and hardware systems. EBA makes no representation about the compatibility of these files with the Client’s current or future software and hardware systems.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND REGULATORY ISSUES

Unless stipulated in the report, EBA has not been retained to investigate, address or consider and has not investigated, addressed or considered any environmental or regulatory issues associated with development on the subject site.

4.0 NATURE AND EXACTNESS OF SOIL AND ROCK DESCRIPTIONS

Classification and identification of soils and rocks are based upon commonly accepted systems and methods employed in professional geotechnical practice. This report contains descriptions of the systems and methods used. Where deviations from the system or method prevail, they are specifically mentioned.

Classification and identification of geological units are judgmental in nature as to both type and condition. EBA does not warrant conditions represented herein as exact, but infers accuracy only to the extent that is common in practice.

Where subsurface conditions encountered during development are different from those described in this report, qualified geotechnical personnel should revisit the site and review recommendations in light of the actual conditions encountered.

5.0 LOGS OF TESTHOLES

The testhole logs are a compilation of conditions and classification of soils and rocks as obtained from field observations and laboratory testing of selected samples. Soil and rock zones have been interpreted. Change from one geological zone to the other, indicated on the logs as a distinct line, can be, in fact, transitional. The extent of transition is interpretive. Any circumstance which requires precise definition of soil or rock zone transition elevations may require further investigation and review.

6.0 STRATIGRAPHIC AND GEOLOGICAL INFORMATION

The stratigraphic and geological information indicated on drawings contained in this report are inferred from logs of test holes and/or soil/rock exposures. Stratigraphy is known only at the locations of the test hole or exposure. Actual geology and stratigraphy between test holes and/or exposures may vary from that shown on these drawings. Natural variations in geological conditions are inherent and are a function of the historic environment. EBA does not represent the conditions illustrated as exact but recognizes that variations will exist. Where knowledge of more precise locations of geological units is necessary, additional investigation and review may be necessary.

Geotechnical Report General Conditions

2

General Conditions - Geotechnical.doc

7.0 SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS

Surface and groundwater conditions mentioned in this report are those observed at the times recorded in the report. These conditions vary with geological detail between observation sites; annual, seasonal and special meteorologic conditions; and with development activity. Interpretation of water conditions from observations and records is judgemental and constitutes an evaluation of circumstances as influenced by geology, meteorology and development activity. Deviations from these observations may occur during the course of development activities.

8.0 PROTECTION OF EXPOSED GROUND

Excavation and construction operations expose geological materials to climatic elements (freeze/thaw, wet/dry) and/or mechanical disturbance which can cause severe deterioration. Unless otherwise specifically indicated in this report, the walls and floors of excavations must be protected from the elements, particularly moisture, desiccation, frost action and construction traffic.

9.0 SUPPORT OF ADJACENT GROUND AND STRUCTURES

Unless otherwise specifically advised, support of ground and structures adjacent to the anticipated construction and preservation of adjacent ground and structures from the adverse impact of construction activity is required.

10.0 INFLUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY

There is a direct correlation between construction activity and structural performance of adjacent buildings and other installations. The influence of all anticipated construction activities should be considered by the contractor, owner, architect and prime engineer in consultation with a geotechnical engineer when the final design and construction techniques are known.

11.0 OBSERVATIONS DURING CONSTRUCTION

Because of the nature of geological deposits, the judgmental nature of geotechnical engineering, as well as the potential of adverse circumstances arising from construction activity, observations during site preparation, excavation and construction should be carried out by a geotechnical engineer. These observations may then serve as the basis for confirmation and/or alteration of geotechnical recommendations or design guidelines presented herein.

12.0 DRAINAGE SYSTEMS

Where temporary or permanent drainage systems are installed within or around a structure, the systems which will be installed must protect the structure from loss of ground due to internal erosion and must be designed so as to assure continued performance of the drains. Specific design detail of such systems should be developed or reviewed by the geotechnical engineer. Unless otherwise specified, it is a condition of this report that effective temporary and permanent drainage systems are required and that they must be considered in relation to project purpose and function.

13.0 BEARING CAPACITY

Design bearing capacities, loads and allowable stresses quoted in this report relate to a specific soil or rock type and condition. Construction activity and environmental circumstances can materially change the condition of soil or rock. The elevation at which a soil or rock type occurs is variable. It is a requirement of this report that structural elements be founded in and/or upon geological materials of the type and in the condition assumed. Sufficient observations should be made by qualified geotechnical personnel during construction to assure that the soil and/or rock conditions assumed in this report in fact exist at the site.

14.0 SAMPLES

EBA will retain all soil and rock samples for 30 days after this report is issued. Further storage or transfer of samples can be made at the Client’s expense upon written request, otherwise samples will be discarded.

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK


Appendix 3: Site Survey

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��! ��

��

�� " ��

��

��

�� #� ��

��

�� #� ��

��

�� $�" �$��

��! �� %��

�� $�" �$��

��

�� #� ��

�� #� ��

�� #� ��

�� #� ��

��

��

��

��! ��

�� &��

�� $��

�� $& ��

��

�� $�" �$��

��

��

��! ��

��

��


Appendix 4: Irrigation Diagram


Appendix 5: Handrail Specifications

SECTION 741 FENCE CONSTRUCTION

BC MoT Nov. 1, 2011 741 (27 of 30)


Appendix 6: Risk Management – Contract Services Policy

Policy 5.4 File No. 2510-00

October 25, 2004 Amended March 25, 2013

Risk Management-Contract Services Policy 1. Any person or organization that contracts with the District of Sooke to

provide services to or on behalf of the District must provide proof to the District that the following minimum requirements have been met:

a) proof of liability insurance coverage with a minimum value of

$5,000,000; b) certificate indicating that the individual or organization has an active

WCB account that covers any and all persons who will be providing contracted services to or for the District of Sooke; and

c) proof of applicable credentials.

2. Copies of the above documentation must be received prior to the

commencement of services.

3. The document submitted for insurance coverage must indicate the type of coverage and expiry date.

4. Preference is for the District of Sooke to be named as an additional

insured in the liability insurance document. Note: An individual contracted to provide coverage for the following positions is

not covered by the District’s errors and omissions policy: Chief Administrative Officer Corporate Officer Director of Finance Municipal Engineer Municipal Planner Building Official

2018 Ed MacGregor Park Retaining Wall Project · 2018 Ed MacGregor Park Retaining Wall Project....

Documents

Transcript of 2018 Ed MacGregor Park Retaining Wall Project · 2018 Ed MacGregor Park Retaining Wall Project....