Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWP272752 ti BAYLIS BRAND I& R CITY OFAENTON ARCHITECTS RECEIVED August 3, 1998 AUG 0 1 1998 BUILDING DIVISION City of Renton Building Department— Development Services Division 200 Mill Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Attention: Craig Burnell Plan Check Engineer RE: Safeway — Renton CBD (Building Store # 1563) JOB NO.: 96-1032 Subject: Responses to Revisions Needed for Building Permit Application Plan Check No. B98035 at 200 South 3rd Street Dear Mr. Burnell: The following are responses to your review comments regarding Safeway # 1563. Please refer to enclosed drawings as required. Changes responding to your comments are referenced as Revision I (City Comments 07/22/98). Changes responding to comments by City Design Review are referenced as Revision 2 (City Design Changes). Structural Comments I) See enclosed Structural Drawings. Energy Comments I) See enclosed NREC form. 2) See the following details: 17/A 1 .2; 18/A 1 .2; 18/A2.2; 24/A2.2; and 12/A2.3. 3) See Electrical Drawings. 4) Acknowledged, Planning Comments I) See enclosed Civil Drawings. Fire Prevention Comments I) See Schematic Transition Plan. 2) See "Findings" from Minutes of Design Review Meeting. ASSOCIATE, Kent Pearse,AI A Planning • Architecture • Interiors `Iltch�-k- A'' 10801Main Street • Believue, 4%ashin ton 98004 °ha°- `h'�"`,, Ai g' Susan Cnn ond-,SD'. FAX (425) 45 3-801 i Robeo B Rr+,d v (425) 454-0566 Peckham. VA City of Renton/C. Burnell August 3, 1998 Page 2 Public Works Plan Review I) See enclosed Civil Drawings. Electrical Comments l) Acknowledged. Building Code Review I) See "project data" section on TO. I . 2) Ibid. 3) North wall is not intended to be an area separation wall. 4) See; 9/A2. 1 ; 15/A2. 1 ; 6/A2.2; 18/A2.2; 24/A2.2; 12/A2.3; 7/A 1 .4; 9/A 1 .4; 13/A 1 .4; 15/A 1 .4; 22/A 1 .4; 34/A 1 .4. 5) One-hour roof assembly previously improperly referenced. See A2. 1 for description of assembly. We are now allowed unprotected openings per 1994 UBC 710.4. 6) See 40/A 1 .2. 7) Form enclosed. 8) Masonry special inspection is continuous. 9) See A I . I and 2/A 1 .2. 10) See enclosed cabinet elevations from Safeway prototype drawings (cabinetry not in contract). 1 1) See enclosed Insulation Specification (07200), Please feel free to call with any questions or concerns. Sincerely, BAYLIS BRAND WAGNER ARCHITECTS, INC. Bryan Sanders Project Manager BS;amp ,�" �"r{4�T67c,�� '4 ,'����~ ! rq �y, * °' } ��}«�,p• •- � � � ! ,lr .t' i.�. l,..I'�t.: 1�. ".P ►r;.'f+f` 1'r'�44::�•'�' N�� �' Syr{ ,v, s.' � *,s,r -c. i�c * �r � r�+� ,� •`^ •W. #' ♦ !, ,,Ya1 ,�d' a !�..•.. X r�'k Y� .*.v'fF„t t:� 1-'v, b ,�'✓-�,. ,..l�.p��{t. _ hyt .<+a 4ie eR,r 'f �,r, r.,. - r +e�R *�'fr het �Y�'�� s*Y -i, �. r�,^ rM� .yt�`w �p: �� �� �- _ ,r�S�. ,p►���5' �fi ��°•- ri{r;; A r � cp�,f. +,�s,�s , . � '� .�; l `'c�fa: �'�e r,. ��v,, >,'�� a , �. a y,, « Y r4 �'tI:-•-Y.•�j�.•.'��. ,l , �!{FQ'�l^I,� j� '.`„� � �� .Y: "!Y'{�.. � �c .2t•."l a!" .y" .��ti?: x•tyW�}►,l.,;+ �,to." ;�� '�'*'..,, r« H:- ,� + �p .,}.�, ��;vi .3C .. �� •r.•d°^, K -�'r .�� *S• y .,F�•'��j}��#��+, �! 'sr�e :�!} ►i: �••�•;.I..� ' "; �x4`i"t'"��1�y�/*, h.♦��/'��J s �yy�t. l' ,• � s, - k��'����'.y a 'rt56 c't�k1�}� i�t "+y } +, "�lr/_ �a.,��11':'i.'�►�'«� • , G.�...t,'E r...CNM.iY6•.. .-`Y �•lil '�.` � ± { J^:K_'R4 .�X4Si'Y. ' '� J'.l Y .. , r .. �... ,. ,, S t,. .,, ,. „ :q. �. ,1.. y� ,�x'"�+.t. ,t�t�. ••.�, �n,r�*+y�,�t •.7 _ .y�Pn f �"I' , .� ti Y r- i���f.�.��+Ltb�yc°✓f`ir .:_`.r`'t t f,X6��*F,. �,1,'S".� ��� *`�':.PS` �� "r��.�9!'� �'�!1'���v�'C�.��+'3�, 2��..k�X „'�.�.�'� ... ;'J'Ff+7• �a1�t�l�' .ai.�.^S.l� ' .l L.ti'•��.��k r,iao 4'• rJF� '�� S,�a:W ,cji+.J•1 Z 2.7CA �,a;. '+c Ki t5-.< �y;� Y"} b: ...t `2 p•�� •,�,fa`,�. ,�.. ,rA`, s`•;r>,�a+ � � �l _,'t:®°°`���.X �` .,fit, .X 4,�,.:a � ���`:;� �epf � `'c^..'ar �??' ��.ty� �,; •--�' ,'iy`a �y1,�; +y�� .. K,. ,.� - 3�-�'��r +9�`� �'<,.: x�,,,• �. ,'.A° ' ,., .:�li,Ti,Y:' y.;yry'r' - ,,''+.,.�'ilttrr ,+\ •§:�°\ �.r A. j '1:^;"S h 4� *.,g ., .' j�` Y" -, .1 ... t. ,a ,.F:i, 'YF., 'A. ry„ .;fit" •'K.y,: _.ti.,- �4 R!4 C `''.4.#^.r c, ��;taY. ;�' F' eX��d a.s.� :? fPJ•�,�.tz, d'ti�� i�. .'.f'r�T k• ,w4',,, 4'1`t.'°��!f.'7''+ 't''�,� r,�1-.t '�.�i ,f'y� y F.�vq�.-,�,t.• �„ " ', .. w�,•, .• f; , .^�,ya ,•!" „�f�,,�' ::s'Gt k,��y^"`1 ,� ��'� ,�.,a c i' t> <�� , x ��+�9.� �' �, �: }�a,a ,�•� �":fti's+`t, '�.. �: _ i, °.'*rt�'pq�' ::r �� x r,.Y.; •,� '' _+ =�.r :t'>q%� •j �..�' .Ye .•! '�' ;�b''P y� + -- ^ ,�• ,� "c� Ys �'��3y• "awt',8 � `�s�.' :�.',. '� ca�'��� �y A, s 7rt�yrrr.��°�# ��.` >tw ;\ :.�- .t '� +fit •.,�t� s +` � ;�+,. CD �y�.� �}�{r�•��''� '� � < ti�A"� � 0 � s- z1 ti `r1� 1`s� .Jt 3� �,� � i ,. 5f � � � �� .• �2`� ��. ">t `t'�Ilads ��'� ht �t. ' � � � 16�: Sr: 4 r .. ""` s�grr ".� .�• r..w k �i� ��,: 'F {. �' b-� , ,( ip r}3 W +*g�.A. }}' Q CDREU yF"'r...J,� N Z_ {-r<x!".:"}' ,� a4'I�, ,Y` "• uyi (f� ycj " f .t {t Y *+,: LL +r `> 4jz ' alpj�s. s , •, . iM '?1'f�V �.};Tfpa«y z U N CV) A f z O '34` ►�I 't; c f W ul V/ / ^ N R L �,+,Y'raL,�r ,"411- 4� `� i $ Y st'�` � �' 44 `t ryf• 'r �' }i�°S' c'f pR� r �. J N Z J Y i S a r• ,¢ 3� ;+ ! i.� c �iO1 � h ' ,1♦*rLy dM���`�, 'I a O P ~^+►g ti = V CL W 0 ZWd Z +?'# S� ,,((,, •�.r ^ '#r<*M. - ::gyp v •ty,' t. .,,7• c 47 +,1. , '? !` V �, a Q ?: y Ally"f* cc W �?t;. -.�' a "�`'-p�#rv�,i`;: '�� d�.. - '}k.. _7�� t 4 „� ���.,?'�. �r�•Gr �:.. yr4i-}F{`'i SF.. W ``+ 4 ,t ^S'J*t�' ,_J.. q«pi'C.,{�2 t " ' - R 1 ga1� •ryF-•h' Y L i =.A y1 ,�I 4 �} G ffi"Mi ,Cif .t rp N l-'.,'`�✓• t�`��5 i'{�S + i�: .fry 'i�Y +t7wR� c� a'1\ t :i 7� '�° �'S,•t �`.r o�� y� d,, •' Oc11 blidll t . * � r} ° f -+�I'.: .p ' Mf- iJ • .fr r, 5 'pd'!" ty +<t:' . s"N "k �Y ` 'tff•`Srld�'�^9�' a�. Axr •. �•,:�✓... y 4,A ,'` "i' y'4. � ?- Ci-:h?! °�'° `.^�'I •x F'#✓, m�-< � r- � tir' �. �° p' ,!`�'dyr.;, 4,.6 jr;r\ y�, '''„PaT i•M.+!�i: ''i�e�i ,q� �r+t5r ,=rr p� '�,��w'�% �.�.. y �... Y�i�. .:;�5t�'.rr;��� •`. •"�1�1 � cx.� ,2.\ #I°f'` e'i.�'„q;�!+ t'v`s '1% Y ! jN s' ,,Z,,f:r+ .,9,'Y '�i"c" f¢ � i7 - ry,?� ._yy. . d �` vr.: '� 5,r•'_�S -��,:,xt„*�"�'�' •�,- ..Y"�..4 � �����. :�`' ` � ��: f+�� „r•.�•3.F�,'G,;.�.fe�a�st�,. ,�pa�„k '�,'�a '�, ��,... ,`q t, `rr.�+' .,. ,�°�X�"+�• e1:ga�.a ,.��, s r :'�t-' �'• '"' ��% y.8 y x `0°�{ ,r !{ipr �",$ .r �`+.* „�'.• �.« `,.'.' .:.el.�Y,h,,��f�"'7.-� �t4�� j.: �y a�,�4< �:+�h, �` ;�#+�.G 'i,(�(." .'t'*.,jr��}� �� �., . .. � x�.bv< 4Xaz1, ..i• .."£ar��,a. .i.,"�.A`h�a.1 .. .lXl.��i. :=rs���:.'*.� ..., ..« is �'S•e 'rG"t! i a. .Mt�tt� a ... 17'. ti{�1"v�.`.�i9 �4, !,'. , .,,, .:..Me!+',p-x, �•,...r ,,,-. ��: 'at'#@. ,�RY� R •z:«; taari,r.,,: ° f "(w;.: "T'`:i 'k", t , -sa��'�<:.'Y✓Y!61D�,� :.i.#G�r"a+'"y.*tr+�«t�•tic'_'�.'�it�'r.'z�.,,aic'",at'iSfn�f�`t"�.+.•#d 1 �s' �. �,'ee +;:+'tr*, 'f: "< ;,u a y� ''' •'fi"' +'s' !"�. ? t:7"' „' .Iy. ►" ,� ,'�• •.^,p+"ta..,,,a'�r ,4g <ir •Gx ..,� r, S ! '. .{a, �,. � .��^" �'��� �`�`•y .{�/ .n,,.y ♦•:. �,�' ,t9i' � w�'�.\1` �"e';,�.. 'va7�;�• ,.�� ,:t p _ t�• ?'r-., e •I, {'' 'S�'t '.± �'yTl�.``"'c-�t. .+,3�.` i� g.. .? ,� *'.;�'..�._��°�•.. `f'a4 4,{� 'e�W.,,F" iJ j�.' 'aCp r '�/Jty����MIX•. 14 tip � �8 ♦ '1 ���V�� �` T�II. =7. '' 'f, ,c i�.•'!=7s, •3+�,,,,�a,s' �t• �.. 01 ; 0�",':i � ?'yyF,y ' ,ter•• v: �.:, #'^" YS-r ,yyy - •i,+tf t. ': {i° G "'*' Ste.-•Y. ��a _E:tr" .?'4.�'"�s:�' t1 .�3�', f-r,at \ ► f��ii ,�y ± �y � r-q. �.�.y . > r }•s'� �'� ;,y�.. ,.�<,�•, '� .•'!kt"" �5..- ✓<'K �.4 --�yr .a" Y''r` >�F s'�`` e`' �u:#'•:w�'vka •7..i '�%,#.'. 1n'rC,...,.. ;•},r s 'S., , j 2s., M„ +lsi ...l^-• t ,,,. r� t '�"�•e W'vP )A ,m :9';w�� X t ..q'•T� +t. X^ Sk � s' .� �c= �,.�' e„� ,i'i:', ' 4r,;` �.'.t {`- t.+s. � "` i r.. x. «' t{ ,A <t !; r!} 4 ..,x•.Y fir. * . *Pl r. . —AV W.i" T,tI. ' ^ ;f ... Gw �(. � '7' 'fk .�:d�. • .:�'♦.�" «-- � , t w��. ����'6. .� w., �tr Y.'� sg ``$"cy�''�i �,��, q `*,. Xf 4 3'c �«. e ���•,k� � .t.>t' +irk .�,e3 t�""�+i„}#t�- "t9 �`•.�.�; e, Y' +2*�' ''�` P t \ � H � . GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED SAFEWAY RAINIER AVENUE SOUTH AND SOUTH SECOND STREET RENTON, WASHINGTON ' E-7323 July 2, 1996 PREPARED FOR SAFEWAY STORES, INC. Raymond A. las Staff Engineer 691 Robert S. Levinso Principal 3'9� 03/07/`l Earth Consultants, Inc. 1805 - 136th Place Northeast, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 (206) 643-3780 IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT More construction problems are caused by site subsur- technical engineers who then render an opinion about face conditions than any other factor. As troublesome as overall subsurface conditions, their likely reaction to subsurface problems can be, their frequency and extent proposed construction activity, and appropriate founda- have been lessened considerably in recent years,due in tion design. Even under optimal circumstances actual large measure to programs and publications of ASFE/ conditions may differ from those inferred to exist, The Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in because no geotechnical engineer, no matter how the Geosciences. qualified,and no subsurface exploration program, no The following suggestions and observations are offered matter how comprehensive, can reveal what is hidden by to helpearth, rock and time. The actual interface between mate- you reduce the geotechnical-related delays, vials may be far more gradual or abrupt than a report cost-overruns and other costly headaches that can indicates. Actual conditions in areas not sampled may ' occur during a construction project. differ from predictions. Nothing can be done to prevent the unanticipated, but steps can be taken to help minimize their A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING impact. For this reason, most experienced owners retain their REPORT IS BASED ON A UNIQUE SET geotechnical consultants through the construction stage, to iden- tify variances,conduct additional tests which may be OF PROJECT-SPECIFIC FACTORS needed, and to recommend solutions to problems encountered on site. A geotechnical engineering report is based on a subsur- face exploration plan designed to incorporate a unique SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS set of project-specific factors. These typically include: the general nature of the structure involved, its size and CAN CHANGE configuration; the location of the structure on the site and its orientation; physical concomitants such as Subsurface conditions may be modified by constantly- access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities, changing natural forces. Because a geotechnical engi- and the level of additional risk which the client assumed neering report is based on conditions which existed at by virtue of limitations imposed upon the exploratory the time of subsurface exploration, construction decisions program. To help avoid costly problems, consult the should not be based on a geotechnical engineering report whose geotechnical engineer to determine how any factors adequacy may have.been affected by time. Speak with the geo- which change subsequent to the date of the report may technical consultant to learn if additional tests are affect its recommendations. advisable before construction starts. Unless your consulting geotechnical engineer indicates Construction operations at or adjacent to the site and otherwise, your geotechnical engineering report should not natural events such as floods, earthquakes or ground- be used: water fluctuations may also affect subsurface conditions •When the nature of the proposed structure is and, thus, the continuing adequacy of a geotechnical changed, for example, if an office building will be report. The geotechnical engineer should be kept erected instead of a parking garage, or if a refriger- apprised of any such events,and should be consulted to ated warehouse will be built instead of an unre- determine if additional tests are necessary frigerated one; •when the size or configuration of the proposed GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ARE structure is altered; PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES •when the location or orientation of the proposed AND PERSONS structure is modified; •when there is a change of ownership, or Geotechnical engineers' reports are prepared to meet •for application to an adjacent site. the specific needs of specific individuals. A report pre- Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility for problems pared for a consulting civil engineer may not be ade- which may develop if they are not consulted after factors consid- quate for a construction contractor,or even some other ered in their report's development have changed. consulting civil engineer. Unless indicated otherwise, this report was prepared expressly for the client involved and expressly for purposes indicated by the client. Use MOST GEOTECHNICAL "FINDINGS" by any other persons for any purpose, or by the client ARE PROFESSIONAL ESTIMATES for a different purpose, may result in problems. No indi- vidual other than the client should apply this report for its Site exploration identifies actual subsurface conditions intended purpose without first conferring with the geotechnical only at those points where samples are taken, when engineer. No person should apply this report for any purpose they are taken. Data derived through sampling and sub- other than that originally contemplated without first conferring sequent laboratory testing are extrapolated by geo- with the geotechnical engineer. A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING der the mistaken impression that simply disclaiming re- REPORT IS SUBJECT TO sponsibility for the accuracy of subsurface information always insulates them from attendant liability. Providing MISINTERPRETATION the best available information to contractors helps pre- Costly problems can occur when other design profes- vent costly construction problems and the adversarial sionals develop their plans based on misinterpretations attitudes which aggravate them to disproportionate of a geotechnical engineering report. To help avoid scale. these problems, the geotechnical engineer should be READ RESPONSIBILITY retained to work with other appropriate design profes- sionals to explain relevant geotechnical findings and to CLAUSES CLOSELY review the adequacy of their plans and specifications relative to geotechnical issues. Because geotechnical engineering is based extensively on judgment and opinion, it is far less exact than other ' design disciplines.This situation has resulted in wholly unwarranted claims being lodged against geotechnical BORING LOGS SHOULD NOT BE consultants.To help prevent this problem,geotechnical engineers have developed model clauses for use in writ- , SEPARATED FROM THE ten transmittals. These are not exculpatory clauses ENGINEERING REPORT designed to foist geotechnical engineers' liabilities onto someone else. Rather,they are definitive clauses which ' Final boring logs are developed by geotechnical engi- identify where geotechnical engineers' responsibilities neers based upon their interpretation of field logs begin and end. Their use helps all parties involved rec- (assembled by site personnel)and laboratory evaluation ognize their individual responsibilities and take appro- of field samples. Only final boring logs customarily are priate action. Some of these definitive clauses are likely ' included in geotechnical engineering reports. These logs to appear in your geotechnical engineering report,and should not under any circumstances be redrawn for inclusion in you are encouraged to read them closely. Your geo- architectural or other design drawings, because drafters technical engineer will be pleased to give full and frank may commit errors or omissions in the transfer process. answers to your questions. Although photographic reproduction eliminates this problem, it does nothing to minimize the possibility of OTHER STEPS YOU CAN TAKE TO contractors misinterpreting the logs during bid prepara- tion. When this occurs, delays, disputes and unantici- REDUCE RISK pated costs are the all-too-frequent result. Your consulting geotechnical engineer will be pleased to To minimize the likelihood of boring log misinterpreta- discuss other techniques which can be employed to mit- tion, give contractors ready access to the complete geotechnical igate risk. In addition,ASFE has developed a variety of engineering report prepared or authorized for their use. materials which may be beneficial. Contact ASFE for a Those who do not provide such access may proceed un- complimentary copy of its publications directory. Published by THE ASSOCIATION AMF OF ENGINEERING FIRMS PRACTICING IN THE GEOSCIENCES 8811 Colesville Road/Suite G 106/Silver Spring, Maryland 20910/(301) 565-2733 0788/3M Earth Consultants Inc. 1 w M �� GrY ttr-c'hnu ill Ijigintrrs,City logists t0 I'm trtinnlf-wal Sc it- st. July 2, 1996 E-7323 Safeway Stores, Inc. 1000 - 124th Avenue Northeast, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98015 Attention: Mr. Mitch Johnson Dear Mr. Johnson: We are pleased to submit our report titled "Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed Safeway, Rainier Avenue South and South Second Street, Renton, Washington." This report presents the results of our field exploration, selective laboratory tests, and engineering analyses. The purpose and scope of our study was outlined in our May 24, 1996 proposal. In our opinion, the development of the site as planned is feasible from a geotechnical ' standpoint. Subsurface conditions encountered during our exploration indicates the presence of varying depths of loose to medium dense silty sand and sandy silt fill. The fill depths encountered generally ranged between approximately three to ten feet. Subsurface conditions likely to impact the project construction are primarily related to the relatively loose nature of the existing fill. In our opinion, the proposed development can be supported on conventional spread and continuous footings bearing on at least two feet of structural fill, provided the recommendations in this report are incorporated into the final design. We appreciate this opportunity to have been of service to you. If you have any questions, or if we can be of further assistance, please call. Respectfully submitted, ZH 0 ULTANTS, INC. S. Levinson, P.E. Principal ' RAC/RSL/krrd 1805-136th Place N.E.,Suite 201,Bellevue,Washington 98005 IBellevue(206)643-3780 Seattle(206)464-1584 FAX(206)74-608-60 Tacoma(206)272-6608 TABLE OF CONTENTS E-7323 PAGE INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 SITECONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 ' Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Subsurface 2 Fill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Native . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Groundwater 3 Laboratory Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 ' Site Preparation and General Earthwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Foundations 5 Dock-High Retaining Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Slab-on-Grade Floors . . . . . . . : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 6 Seismic Design Considerations 6 Excavations and Slopes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Site Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Utility Support and Backfill 8 Pavement Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 ' LIMITATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Additional Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 ' APPENDICES ' Appendix A Field Exploration Appendix B Laboratory Test Results ILLUSTRATIONS Plate 1 Vicinity Map Plate 2 Boring Location Plan Plate 3 Typical Footing Subdrain Detail Plate 4 Utility Trench Backfill Plate Al Legend Plates A2 through A13 Boring Logs Plates 131 and B2 Grain Size Analyses Earth Conauttants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED SAFEWAY RAINIER AVENUE SOUTH AND SOUTH SECOND STREET RENTON, WASHINGTON E-7323 INTRODUCTION General This report presents the results of the geotechnical engineering study completed by Earth Consultants, Inc. (ECI) for the proposed Safeway, Rainier Avenue South and South Second ' Street, Renton, Washington. The general location of the site is shown on the Vicinity Map, Plate 1 . The purpose of this study was to explore the subsurface conditions at the site, and based on the conditions encountered,develop geotechnical recommendations for the proposed site development. At the time our study was performed, the building location, and our exploratory locations were approximately as shown on the Boring Location Plan, Plate 2. Project Description We understand it is planned to develop a new Safeway Store roughly in the same location as the existing store, and expand the site development with a drug store and additional retail space. The proposed developments will be situated along the east half of the property. The remainder of the site will consist of asphalt pavement areas and landscaping. We understand the gross area of the proposed Safeway will be approximately 55,400 square feet. The combined gross area of the proposed drug store and retail space will be approximately 23,000 square feet. We understand no significant raising or lowering of site grades will be necessary in the building areas. In the vicinity of the proposed pavement areas, some filling and leveling may be required. At the time this report was written, specific structural design information was not available. However, based on our experience with similar projects, we would anticipate the following structural loads: • Wall Loads - 3 to 4 kips per lineal foot • Column Loads - 75 to 125 kips • Slab Loads - 250 pounds per square foot If any of the above design criteria are incorrect or change, we should be consulted to review the recommendations contained in this report. In any case, ECI should be retained to perform a general review of the final design, Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED SAFEWAY RAINIER AVENUE SOUTH AND SOUTH SECOND STREET ' RENTON, WASHINGTON E-7323 INTRODUCTION General ' This report presents the results of the geotechnical engineering study completed by Earth Consultants, Inc. (ECI) for the proposed Safeway, Rainier Avenue South and South Second Street, Renton, Washington. The general location of the site is shown on the Vicinity Map, Plate 1 . The purpose of this study was to explore the subsurface conditions at the site, and based on the conditions encountered,develop geotechnical recommendations for the proposed site development. At the time our study was performed, the building location, and our exploratory locations were approximately as shown on the Boring Location Plan, Plate 2. Project Description We understand it is planned to develop a new Safeway Store roughly in the same location as ' the existing store, and expand the site development with a drug store and additional retail space. The proposed developments will be situated along the east half of the property. The remainder of the site will consist of asphalt pavement areas and landscaping. We understand the gross area of the proposed Safeway will be approximately 55,400 square feet. The combined gross area of the proposed drug store and retail space will be approximately 23,000 square feet. We understand no significant raising or lowering of site grades will be necessary in the building areas. In the vicinity of the proposed pavement areas, some filling and leveling may be required. At the time this report was written, specific structural design information was not available. However, based on our experience with similar projects, we would anticipate the following structural loads: • Wall Loads - 3 to 4 kips per lineal foot • Column Loads - 75 to 125 kips • Slab Loads - 250 pounds per square foot If any of the above design criteria are incorrect or change, we should be consulted to review ' the recommendations contained in this report. In any case, ECI should be retained to perform a general review of the final design. i Earth Consuhants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Safeway Stores, Inc. E-7323 July 2, 1996 Page 2 SITE CONDITIONS Surface The subject site is located to the east of Rainier Avenue South, between South Second Street and South Third Street (see Plate 1 , Vicinity Map). The east portions of the site are currently ioccupied by an existing Safeway and parking area, and a small one story building. Along the south and west sides of the existing Safeway, the site is undeveloped. There are several fast food and commercial developments to the west of the development site along Rainier Avenue South and South Third Street. The undeveloped areas to the south and west of the existing Safeway are generally flat. tThere are some lower depressed areas west of the existing Safeway, in the proposed pavement areas. It appears these areas received little or no fill during placement of the surrounding fills. The vegetation in the undeveloped areas generally consists of deciduous ttrees, small shrubs, and grasses. Subsurface The proposed building sites and pavement areas were explored by drilling seven borings at the approximate locations shown on Plate 2. Please refer to the Boring Logs, Plates A2 through Al for a more detailed description of the conditions encountered at the locations explored. A description of the field exploration methods is included in Appendix A. The following is a generalized description of the subsurface conditions encountered. Fill Varying depths of silty sand and sandy silt fill were encountered immediately below the surface at our boring locations. Fill depths encountered at our boring locations ranged between approximately three to ten feet. The fill encountered was generally classified as loose to medium dense silty sand and sandy silt (Unified Classifications SM and ML). At the time of our exploration, these soil units were generally wet and above their optimum moisture content. During dry weather, portions of the silty sand fill may be suitable for support of foundations, slab-on-grade floors and pavements, provided the fill can be prepared in accordance with the recommendations discussed in the "Site Preparation and General IEarthwork" section of this report. Native Underlying the fill, varying deposits of silty sand, poorly graded sand, and poor) graded Y 9 Y 9 P 9 Y gravel, were generally encountered to the depths explored. Some very loose to loose deposits of sandy silt were also encountered at boring locations B-2 and B-5. The poorly graded sand and poorly graded gravel (Unified Classifications SP and GP) were generally loose to dense. Earth Consuttants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Safeway Stores, Inc. age 3 P July 2, 1996 Page 3 Groundwater The groundwater water table was encountered at a depth of approximately ten (10) to twelve (12) feet below the existing surface at the time of our exploration. The groundwater level, however, is not static; therefore, one may expect fluctuations in the level depending on the season, amount of rainfall, surface water runoff, and other factors. Generally, the water level is higher and seepage rate is greater in the wetter winter months (typically October through May). Laboratory Testinq Laboratory tests were conducted on several representative soil samples to verify or modify the field soil classification and to evaluate the general physical properties and engineering characteristics of the soil encountered. Moisture content tests were performed on all samples. The results of laboratory tests performed on specific samples are provided in Appendix B, or ' at the appropriate sample depth on the boring logs. It is important to note that these test results may not accurately represent the overall in-situ soil conditions. Our geotechnical ' recommendations are based on our interpretation of these test results and their use in guiding our engineering judgement. ECI cannot be responsible for the interpretation of these data by others. rIn accordance with our Standard Fee Schedule and General Conditions, the soil samples for this project will be discarded after a period of fifteen days following completion of this report unless we are otherwise directed in writing. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Based on the results of our study, it is our opinion that the proposed development can be constructed generally as planned provided the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into the final design. The critical geotechnical aspects of the planned ' development are primarily associated with foundation support and reducing post construction settlements. The proposed structures may be supported by conventional spread and continuous footings bearing on at least two feet of structural fill (structural fill requirements ' are defined in the "Site Preparation and Genera/Earthwork" section of this report). Slab-on- grade foundations may be supported on at least one foot of structural fill. ' This report has been prepared for specific application to this project only and in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area for the exclusive use of Safeway Stores, Inc. and their representatives. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. This report, in its entirety, should be included in the project contract documents for the information of the contractor. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Safeway Stores, Inc. Page 4 July 2, 1996 Page 4 ' Site Preparation and General Earthwork The building and pavement areas should be stripped and cleared of all structures, pavement sections, organic matter, and any other deleterious material. In areas where site grades are raised at least one foot, the existing pavement may be broken into maximum six (6) inch size pieces and left in place. Site fills may then be placed directly over the broken asphalt. Stripped materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill. Existing utility pipes to be abandoned should be plugged or removed so that they do not provide a conduit for water and cause soil saturation and stability problems. To reduce the potential for differential settlement, existing concrete or ductile iron utility pipes should be removed or relocated in areas where the pipe will be less than two feet from the bottom of the building footings. Once stripping operations are complete, the ground surface where foundations, structural fill, ' or pavements are to be placed should be proofrolled. All proofrolling should be performed under the observation of a representative of ECI. Any areas that are found to be yielding or unstable should be repaired either by re-compacting the area, or overexcavating and replacing ' with structural fill. An ECI representative should observe any overexcavations to evaluate the competence of the overexcavated surface. The use of a woven geotextile placed on the overexcavated surface may be useful in bridging over unstable areas. During dry weather, any non-organic compactible soil can be used as structural fill. Fill for use during wet weather should consist of a fairly well graded granular material having a maximum size of three inches and no more than five percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve based on the minus 3/4-inch fraction. The existing fill at the time of our exploration was generally wet and above its optimum moisture content. During dry weather conditions, some of the existing fill may be suitable for use as structural fill, provided it can be compacted to the requirements of structural fill. Due to the moisture sensitive nature of the existing fill and native soil, the soil may degrade if exposed to excessive moisture. Compaction and grading will be difficult if the soil moisture increases significantly above its optimum condition. Structural fill is defined as any compacted fill placed under buildings, roadways, slabs, pavements, or any other load-bearing areas. Structural fill under floor slabs and footings should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding twelve (12) inches in loose thickness and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of its laboratory maximum dry density. The maximum ' dry density should be determined in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1557-78 (Modified Proctor). The fill materials should be placed at or near the optimum moisture content. Fill under pavements and walks should also be placed in horizontal lifts and compacted to 90 percent of maximum density except for the top twelve (12) inches which should be compacted to 95 percent of maximum density. Earth Consuttants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Safeway Stores, Inc. E-7323 July 2, 1996 Page 5 Foundations Assuming compliance with the recommendations outlined in the "Site Preparation and Genera/ Earthwork" section of this report, it is our opinion the proposed building can be supported on a conventional spread and continuous footing foundation bearing on at least two feet of structural fill. The two feet of structural fill should extend a horizontal distance of at least one foot from the edges of the footing. If greater depths of structural fill are required, the fill should extend a horizontal distance of at least one half the thickness of the structural fill from the edges of the footing. If the existing fills are found to be suitable, they may be used for structural fill. Exterior foundations elements should be placed a minimum depth of eighteen (18) inches below final exterior grade. Interior spread foundations can be placed at a minimum depth of twelve (12) inches below the top of slab, except in unheated areas, where interior foundation elements should be founded at a minimum depth of eighteen (18) inches. With foundation support obtained as described, for design, an allowable soil bearing capacity of two thousand five hundred (2,500) psf can be used. Continuous and individual spread footings should have minimum widths of eighteen (18) and twenty-four (24) inches, respectively. Loading of this magnitude would be provided with theoretical factor-of-safety in excess of three against actual shear failure. With structural loading as expected, total settlement in the range of one inch is anticipated with differential movement of about three quarters of one inch. Most of the anticipated settlements should occur during construction as dead loads are applied. For short-term dynamic loading conditions, a one-third increase in the above allowable bearing capacities can be used. The horizontal loads can be resisted by friction between the base of the foundation and the supporting soil and by passive soil pressure acting on the face of the buried portion of the ' foundation. For the latter, the foundation must be poured "neat" against the competent existing fill soils or backfilled with structural fill. For frictional capacity, a coefficient of 0.40 can be used. For passive earth pressure, the available resistance can be computed using an equivalent fluid pressure of three hundred (300) pcf. These lateral resistance values are allowable values, a factor-of-safety of 1 .5 has been included. As movement of the foundation element is required to mobilize full passive resistance, the passive resistance should be ' neglected if such movement is not acceptable. All footing excavations should be observed by a representative of ECI, prior to placing forms or rebar, to verify that conditions are as anticipated in this report. i 1 1 Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Safeway Stores, Inc. Page 6 July 2, 1996 Page Dock-High Retaining Walls In the loading dock areas, the dock-high retaining walls should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures imposed by an equivalent fluid with a unit weight of thirty-five (35) pcf if they are allowed to rotate 0.002 times the height of the wall. If walls are prevented from rotating, we recommend that they be designed to resist lateral loads of fifty (50) pcf. These values are based on horizontal backfill and that surcharges due to hydrostatic pressures, traffic, structural loads or other surcharge loads will not act on the wall. If such surcharges are to apply, they should be added to the above design lateral pressure. Slab-on-Grade Floors Slab-on-grade floors may be supported on at least one foot of structural fill. Any disturbed subgrade soil must either be recompacted or replaced with structural fill. Slab-on-grade floors should be designed by the structural engineer based on the anticipated loading and the subgrade support characteristics. For slabs supported on at least one foot of structural fill, a modulus of vertical subgrade reaction of three hundred (300) pounds per cubic inch (pcl) may be used for design. The slab should be provided with a minimum of four inches of free-draining sand or gravel. In areas where slab moisture is undesirable, a vapor barrier such as a 6-mil plastic membrane may be placed beneath the slab. Two inches of damp sand may be placed over the membrane for protection during construction and to aid in curing of the concrete. ' Seismic Design Considerations ' The Puget Lowland is classified as a Seismic Zone 3 by the Uniform Building Code (UBC). The largest earthquakes in the Puget Lowland are widespread and have been subcrustal events, ranging in depth from thirty (30) to fifty-five (55) miles. Such deep events have exhibited no surface faulting. Structures are subject to damage from earthquakes due to direct and indirect action. Direct action is represented by shaking. Indirect action is represented by foundation soil failures and is typified by ground failure or liquefaction. The UBC Earthquake regulations contain a static force procedure and a dynamic force procedure for design base shear calculations. Based on the encountered soil conditions, it is ' our opinion that a site coefficient of S2 = 1 .2 should be used for the static force procedure as outlined in Section 1628 of the 1994 UBC. For the dynamic force procedure outlined in section 1929 of the 1994 UBC, the curve for deep cohesionless or stiff clay soils (Soil Type 2) should be used for Figure 16-3, Normalized Response Spectra Shapes. Earth Consuttants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Safeway Stores, Inc. E-7323 July 2, 1996 Page 7 ' Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which soils lose all shear strength for short periods of time during an earthquake. Groundshaking of sufficient duration results in the loss of grain to grain contact and rapid increase in pore water pressure, causing the soil to behave as a fluid. To ihave a potential for liquefaction, a soil must be cohesionless with a grain size distribution of a specified range (generally sands and silt); it must be loose to medium dense; it must be below the groundwater table; and it must be subject to sufficient magnitude and duration of groundshaking. The effects of liquefaction may be large total and/or differential settlement for structures founded in the liquefying soils. It is our opinion the potential for widespread liquefaction over the site during a seismic event is low. Isolated areas may be subject to liquefaction, however, the effect on the planned building is anticipated to be minimal provided the recommendations contained in this report tare followed. We estimate liquefaction induced settlement would be in the range of the post construction settlements discussed earlier. Excavations and Slopes The following information is provided solely as a service to our client. Under no circumstances should this information be interpreted to mean that ECI is assuming responsibility for construction site safety or the contractor's activities; such responsibility is not being implied and should not be inferred. In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local, state and Federal safety regulations. Based on the information obtained from our field exploration and laboratory testing, the site soils expected to be encountered would be classified as Type C by OSHA, and as such, temporary cuts greater than four feet in height should be sloped at ' an inclination no steeper than 1 .5H:1 V. If slopes of these inclinations, or flatter, cannot be constructed,temporary shoring may be necessary. This shoring will help protect against slope or excavation collapse, and will provide protection to workmen in the excavation. If temporary shoring is required, we will be available to provide shoring design criteria, if requested. All permanent cut and fill slopes should be inclined no steeper than 2H:1 V. All cut slopes should be observed by ECI during excavation to verify that conditions are as anticipated. Supplementary recommendations can then be developed, if needed, to improve stability, including flattening of slopes or installation of surface or subsurface drains. In any case, water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any slopes. All permanently-exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve stability of the surficial layer of soil. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Safeway Stores, Inc. Page 8 July 2, 1996 Page 8 Site Drainage The site must be graded such that surface water is directed off the site. Water must not be allowed to stand in any area where buildings, slabs or pavements are to be constructed. During construction, loose surfaces should be sealed at night by compacting the surface to reduce the potential for moisture infiltration into the soils. Final site grades must allow for ' drainage away from the building foundations. The ground should be sloped at a gradient of three percent for a distance of at least ten feet away from the buildings, except in paved areas, which can be sloped at a gradient of one percent. Perimeter footing drains should be installed to help reduce the potential for water infiltration during periods of high groundwater seepage. The footing drain should be installed at or just below the invert of the footing, with a gradient sufficient to initiate flow. A typical detail is provided on Plate 3. Under no circumstances should roof downspout drain lines be connected ' to the footing drain system. All roof downspouts must be separately tightlined to discharge. Cleanouts should be installed at strategic locations to allow for periodic maintenance of the footing drain and downspout tightline systems. Utility Support and Backfill ' Based on the soil conditions encountered at the time of our exploration, the existing fill and native soil should provide adequate support for utilities. If remedial measures are necessary to provide adequate utility support, the unsuitable soil can be overexcavated and replaced with a suitable ballast and pipe bedding material such as pea gravel. Utility trench backfill is a primary concern in reducing the potential for settlement along utility alignments, particularly in pavement areas. It is important that each section of utility line be adequately supported in the bedding material. The material should be hand tamped to ensure support is provided around the pipe haunches. Fill should be carefully placed and hand tamped to about twelve (12) inches above the crown of the pipe before any heavy compaction equipment is brought into use. The remainder of the trench backfill should be placed in lifts having a loose thickness of less than twelve (12) inches. A typical trench backfill section and compaction requirements for load supporting and non-load supporting areas is presented on Plate 4. Pavement Areas The adequacy of site pavements is related in part to the condition of the underlying subgrade. ' To provide a properly prepared subgrade for pavements, the subgrade should be treated and prepared as described in the "Site Preparation and General Earthwork" section of this report. Existing fill surfaces and native cut surfaces should be in a firm and unyielding condition when proofrolled. Fill placed to achieve subgrade elevations should meet the requirements of structural fill. In localized areas of soft, wet or unstable subgrade, a greater thickness of structural fill or crushed rock may be needed to stabilize these localized areas. ' Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Safeway Stores, Inc. Page 9 July 2, 1996 Page 9 ' The following pavement section for lightly-loaded areas can be used: • Two inches of asphalt concrete (AC) over four inches of crushed rock base (CRB) material, or • Two inches of AC over three inches of asphalt treated base (ATB) material. Heavier truck-traffic areas will require thicker sections depending upon site usage, pavement life and site traffic. As a general rule, the following sections can be considered for truck- trafficked areas: • Three inches of AC over six inches of CRB, or ' • Three inches of AC over four inches of ATB. These pavement thicknesses may be modified based on anticipated traffic loads and frequency. Asphalt concrete (AC), asphalt treated base (ATB), and crushed rock base (CRB) materials should conform to WSDOT specifications. All rock base should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the ASTM D-1557-78 laboratory test standard. LIMITATIONS ' Our recommendations and conclusions are based on the site materials observed, selective laboratory testing and engineering analyses, the design information provided to us by the you, and our experience and engineering judgement. The conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in ' this area. No warranty is expressed or implied. The recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the borings. Soil and groundwater conditions between borings may vary from those encountered. The nature and extent of variations between our exploratory locations may not become evident until construction. If variations do appear, ECI should be requested to reevaluate the recommendations of this report and to modify or verify them in writing prior to proceeding with the construction. ' Earth Consuttants, Inc. 1 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Safeway Stores, Inc. July 2, 1996 Paagege0 1 ' Additional Services As the engineer of record, ECI should be retained to perform a general review of the final design and specifications to verify that the earthwork and foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in the design and in the construction specifications. ECI should also be retained to provide geotechnical services during construction. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations and to allow ' design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. We do not accept responsibility for the performance of the foundation or earthwork unless we are retained to review the construction drawings and specifications, and to provide construction observation and testing services. 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Earth Consuhants. Inc. rr rr rr r r rr rr r r� rr rr rr rr r rr rr rr r� rr �Kl H � if,.u C 7 I•---------- — � — --� KS ' -V4 ,n so IH AV S ^r , BOIN Y S 0 POMELL kV 7000 - 6p �� Ill �a --- --- f N arND a� THOHAS V SW AY o ra w R M14DND AV SW , 000 p MR AV S 84TH CID R5E -- - _- --- - - ( S NEG AV SW SENEG a �� ti - I J � NI c W § L ND V �e - R w Ar z 19W S �p 700 J} STFYEIti AV ►T le E AY 3 b uw Ar �t L IIO AV t N t7j ��o g OE" AVRl O � n�w `� • r f �- w S eAAremE 'f11 ` !r_ •!!r a���d n ;'� ��iN �, U N . ,per e p 5 .p ■ i SHA K AY .r•-i N `� a S * C)o CA yyAl 1500 �, �A ►K1RR1S 3' mr-� r NawNs AV s y a� stilt ER5 AY s LDG4N AV '4 gyp" Iq AV5 i MIIU S J, E V - 1 4 -ILLS �A AV - s N AV N n : NOSN36 MAIN S S ` + WI LIAMS Y : s S LLS n ••M LL AY ,f AT N if CEDAR NAY 5 r PELLV AT N a g gb s Knk AV 5 H `' GRANT AV S 0 3w 8 8 ANY N O GRANT ` Dort HIGH AV S N s _Al N C) 1 CDW c ti0O AY M JONES AV 5 I F p n o I JoxE - 2. to C i` s7wol a is am ebb M£ cn G ,� p� r - A v �r' � �u n ui <-t r r.�: •' ,.v �� r �,,,- �t It" NE co • 5 (11 rl ¢�j1` 4 a 4 � r B=.I m , �► r1�t Y Z 9RONSON s K 1D •, �' ; R't '' m b t� �l1 K "A't uA�b puINE a sE. O . S x' AV ErFN AV St AV S. 2nd STREET :- B-1 W ; r • I B I-� -2 i Zi ----- WU U ' Q SAFEWAY U W --- J 13 '- B-4 B-3 DRUGS B-5 ' SH S. 3rd STREET 1 ' LEGEND B-1 + Approximate Location of ECI Boring, Proj. No. E-7323, June 1996 Approximate Scale a0 75 150 300tt. Proposed Building _ Existing Building Boring Location Plan Earth Consultants Inc. Proposed Safeway Store cf"cchf"Fff &En.,�rU-"ws Renton, Washington Proj. No. 7323 Drwn. GLS Date June '96 Checked RAC Date 6/21/96 1 Plate 2 ° a O .e Slope To Drain o "* o Y y YY ,.y •:e O 6 inch min. y 4 ,� •. ° °o° V. 18 inch min. 4 inch min. '•�••�°'••.::• '• ;;'�•:•. ...::.• .: .e o o. ° • - Diameter .'• _ ; •.••;• •o o- °• °° ° Perforated Pipe--- ; ;,•;;:. :o'::;' Wrapped in Drainage :° - ° °° •..- •:0.• p• o 0 Fabric :_ - ° -•. o ° o 2 inch min. 2 inch min- / 4 inch max. 12 inch ' min. SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE ' NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING LEGEND Surface seal; native soil or other low permeability material. ' Fine aggregate for Portland Cement Concrete; Section 9-03.1(2) of the WSDOT Specifications. ODrain pipe; perforated or slotted rigid PVC pipe laid with perforations or slots facing down;tight jointed;with a positive gradient. Do not use flexible corrugated plastic pipe. Do not tie building downspout drains into footing lines. Wrap with Mirafi 140 Filter Fabric or equivalent. TYPICAL FOOTING SUBDRAIN DETAIL ' ( Earth Consultants Inc. Proposed Safeway Store Renton, Washington Proj. No. 7323 TDrwn. GLS Date June '96 Checked RAC Date 6/21/96 Plate 3 Non-Load Supporting Floor Slab or Areas Roadway Areas ' _ o ° �� a Varies o° 950 ° 0 . o 0 0 0 85 95 51 Foot Minimum ' Backfill 80 90 Varies ' o PIPE 0 o O.e:. o'. o•.Q a••Oa• Bedding e�;o• ...Q'° %° �•• d. Varies •o.00�a•:• 0.•00.0 0:..�000.;.• o O O, oe0o 0� 8.•e0 �. o• QoeQo 0'0 O. 0.0 ,�0.•;Qo.o°Qd •Q�•'oO°.Qed:••pa .o.o.oeo LEGEND: ' Asphalt or Concrete Pavement or Concrete Floor Slab o°o ,°e ' I e o ° °°, -1 Base Material or Base Rock Backfill; Compacted On-Site Soil or Imported Select Fill ' Material as Described in the Site Preparation of the General Earthwork Section of the Attached Report Text. ' 95 Minimum Percentage of Maximum Laboratory Dry Density as Determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557-78 (Modified Proctor), Unless Otherwise Specified in the Attached Report Text. Bedding Material; Material Type Depends on Type of Pipe and °ab oa p Laying Conditions. Bedding Should Conform to the Manufacturers Recommendations for the Type of Pipe Selected. TYPICAL UTILITY TRENCH FILL j Earth Consultants Inc. Proposed Safeway Store ' GrrVt•tIv"Fsgkr _.(irt�s k Renton, Washington Proj. No. 7323 Drwn. GLS Date June '96 Checked RAC Date 6/21/96 Plate 4 ' � � � W o - x ' APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION E-7323 iOur field exploration was performed on June 12, 1996. Subsurface conditions at the site were explored by drilling seven borings to a maximum depth of twenty five feet below the existing grade. The borings were drilled by Associated Drilling, subcontracted to ECI, using a truck-mounted drill rig. The approximate boring locations were determined by pacing from existing landmarks. The boring locations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. The approximate locations of our borings are shown on the Boring Location Plan, Plate 2. The field exploration was continuously monitored by an engineer from our firm who classified the soils encountered, maintained logs of the borings, obtained representative samples, measured groundwater levels, and observed pertinent site features. All samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System which is presented on Plate A1 , Legend. The Boring Logs are presented on Plates A2 through A13. The final logs represent our interpretations of the field logs and the results of the laboratory examination and tests of field samples. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. In actuality, the transitions may be more gradual. Earth Consultants, Inc. F7 MAJOR DIVISIONS GRAPH LETTER TYPICAL DESCRIPTION SYMBOL SYMBOL Well-Graded Gravels, Gravel-Sand Gravel d ' C • d • GW gyy Mixtures, Little Or No Fines ' And Clean Gravels Gravelly (little or no fines) r ` GP Poorly-Graded Gravels,Gravel- Coarse Sods ' ' • gp Sand Mixtures, Little Or No Fines Grained Sods More Than GM Silty Gravels,Gravel-Sand- 50% Coarse Gravels With gm Silt Mixtures Fraction Fines(appreciable Retained On amount of fines) Clayey Gravels, Gravel-Sand- No. 4 Sieve GC gC Clay Mixtures Sand •o 000 ,o SW WeII-Graded Sands, Gravelly And Clean Sand v c o p c SW Sands, Little Or No Fines Sandy (little or no fines) �# �- SP Poorly-Graded Sands, Gravelly More Than 50% Material Soils �.5�}os4f6~ Sp Sands, Little Or No Fines Larger Than More Than No.200 Sieve SM Silty Sands Sand Silt Mixtures Size 50% Coarse Sands With SRl Fraction Fines(appreciable SievPassie No.4 amount of fines) SC SC Clayey Sands, Sand Clay Mixtures Inorganic Silts&Very Fine Sands,Rock Flour,Silty- Rll Clayey Fine Sands:Clayey Silts w/Slight Plasticity Fine Silts Inorganic Clays Of Low To Medium Plasticity, Liquid Limit CL Grained And Less Than 50 CI Gravelly Clays, Sandy Clays, Silty Clays, Lean M/M"' Soils Clays I I I I I I OL Organic Silts And Organic I I I I I OI Silty Clays Of Low Plasticity MH Inorganic Silts, Micaceous Or Diatomaceous Fire More Than mh Sand Or Silty Soils 501i, Material Silts Liquid Limit Smaller Than And C,H Inorgarwc Clays Of High No.200 Sieve Clays Greater Than 50 Ch Plasticity, Fat Clays Size OH Organic Clays Of Medium To High Oh Plasticity, Organic Silts Peat, Humus, Swamp Soils Highly Organic Soils r \(� pt With High Organic Contents Topsoil 'y y y Humus And Duff Layer Fill Highly Variable Constituents The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the material presented in the attached logs. DUAL SYMBOLS are used to Indicats bordediro soil classification. C TORVANE READING,tsf I 2' O.D. SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER qu PENETROMETER READING,tsf W MOISTURE, %dry weight 24' I.D. RING OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER P SAMPLER PUSHED * SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED i WATER OBSERVATION WELL pcf DRY DENSITY, lbs.per cubic ft. LL LIQUID LIMIT, % Q DEPTH OF ENCOUNTERED GROUNDWATER PI PLASTIC INDEX DURING EXCAVATION T SUBSEQUENT GROUNDWATER LEVEL W/DATE ' Earth Consultants Inc. LEGEND l (4nri:luiMW l�,yu.rn.Cw.,kh{lxs+L l�rvuun��u.J 5ixauo(a ' Proj. No. 7323 Date June'96 Plate Al ' Boring Log Project Name: Sheet of Proposed Safeway Store 1 2 Job No. Logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: Boring No.: 7323 RAC 6 12 96 6 12 96 B-1 r Drilling Contactor. Drilling Method: Sampling Method: Associated Drilling HSA SPT Ground Surface Elevation: Hole Completion: r — — ElMonitorin Well ElPiezometer ® Abandoned,sealed with bentonite No U o c • N o Surface Conditions: W Blows S E a LL+' E N E (%) Ft' OL N C N = N ML (Approximate 2"Aspahlt&4-6" Gravel Base) FILL Brown sandy SILT, loose, moist to wet 1 2 �� 6 3 4 5 22.3 7 6 -becomes increasingly silty r 7 P-S Gray poorly graded fine to medium SAND with silt and gravel, 5-9 10v a medium dense, moist 9 r e *:> 10 - -increasing gravel content, groundwater encountered at 10' 8.4 14 -small sample recovery Va '... 12 SP Grades to poorly graded medium to coarse SAND with gravel, v?'o medium dense,water bearing r #': .< 13 9.4 11 14 p ,r 15 -becomes loose 11.7 16 ' p e 17 <o 18 v Boring Log Earth Consultants Inc. Proposed Safeway Store N GOaOchfYgl GfK i OTAIORifa71i1 SUafOrb Renton,Washington r m Proj.No. 7323 Own. GLS Date June'96 Checked RAC Date 6/25/96 Plate A2 r Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgment They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Boring Log Project Name: Sheet of Proposed Saf way Store 2 2 ,yob No. Logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: Boring No.: 7323 RAC 6 12 96 6 12 96 B-1 ' Drilling Contactor: Drilling Method: Sampling Method: Associated Drilling HSA SPT Ground Surface Elevation: Hole Completion: ❑ Mo itoring Well ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned,sealed with bentonite ' u _ _ _ W No. o r a N o BLOWS a E a t E (AE 7171 GP Grades to poorly graded sandy GRAVEL, dense, water bearing 9.1 40 • •. • 21 • • Boring terminated at 21.5 feet below existing grade. Groundwater table encountered at 10.0 feet during drilling. Boring backfiiled with cuttings, bentonite and asphalt patch. i 1 1 1 1 LO Boring Log Earth Consultants Inc. Proposed Safeway Store N Ceowchryad Eralv=M Geobogk M k envuanua od SOQUW Renton,Washington m Proj.No. 7323 Dwn. GLS Date June 96 Checked RAC Date 6/25/% Plate A3 ' Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgment They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or Interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Boring Log Project Name: I Sheet of Proposed Safewa Store 1 2 ,fob No. Logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: Boring No.: 7323 RAC 6/12/96 6 12 96 B-2 Drilling Contactor: Drilling Method: Sampling Method: Associated Drilling HSA SPT Ground Surface Elevation: Hole Completion: ❑ Mo itoring Well ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned,sealed with bentonite n o t a N o Surface Conditions: W Blows a E a t E N E M FL L ] e 7 a) N N N SM ((Duff to approximately 4-6') �1LL•Brown silty fine to medium SAND, loose, moist 1 r 2 -T -becomes medium dense, some 2'to 3' gravel 12.s Zo 3 4 5 14.9 8 -becomes loose, some glass fragments 6 7 47.1 2 8 ML Gray sandy SILT,very loose,wet, some mottling s ' 10 -increased fine sand content 45.7 3 11 12 _ -groundwater table encountered at approximately 12' SP Gray poorly graded fine to medium SAND with gravel, dense,water ' 12.0 46 13 bearing, sampler obstructed by rock a � o eaa 14 ' • a • 15 -increased gravel and coarse sand content 12.3 6 °• �a e{ a 17 18 0 (D '�'• 19 V` p \ a Boring Log Earth Consultants Inc. Proposed Safeway Store ccowc"'m'a%orwmcm°'° &envuanazr"scksom Renton, Washington ' n CDProj.No. 7323 Dwn. GLS Date June'96 Checked RAC Date 6/25/96 PIaU A4 ' Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering testa,T analysis and judgmenthey are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or Interpretation by others of information presented on this log. ' Boring Log Project Name: Sheet of Proposed Safeway Store 2 2 Job No. Logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: Boring No.: 7323 RAC 6 12 96 6 12 96 B-2 Drilling Contactor: Drilling Method: Sampling Method: Associated Drillina HSA SPT Ground Surface Elevation: Hole Completion: ❑ Mo itoring Well ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned.sealed with bentonite — — — W No t o } a N o Blows a E a +' E N E %) PL �' N 00 LL N = N ML Gray sandy SILT, loose, wet 41.6 4 21 r 22 1 23 -drilling indicates gravel encountered at 23' 24 SP Gray poorly graded fine to coarse SAND with gravel,very dense, ::: water bearing 11.8 50 6• e P-e 26 Boring terminated at 26.5 feet below existing grade. Groundwater table encountered at 12.0 feet during drilling. Boring backfilled with cuttings and bentonite. i LO Boring Log Earth Consultants Inc. Proposed Safeway Store N G40WCtX*W Enonwm ceabga i @w1rcnu=vd soemlta n Renton,Washington m Proj.No. 7323 Dwn. GLS Date June'96 Checked RAC Date 6/25/96 Plate A5 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Boring Log Project Name: Sheet of Pro osed Sa away Store 1 2 ,lob No. Logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: Boring No.: 7323 RAC 6 12 96 6 12 96 B-3 Drilling Contactor: Drilling Method: Sampling Method: Associated Drilling HSA SPT Ground Surface Devation: Hole Completion: ❑ Mo itoring Well ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned,sealed with bentonite No ° c L ! N o Surface Conditions: W Blows L0. +. : a U n N IL O N N N SM (Approximately 2"Asphalt over 4-6'Gravel Base) FILL-Brown to black silty fine to medium SAND, loose, moist t ' 2 13.8 13 3 -becomes medium dense, moist to wet 4 5 P-S Gray pony graded fine to medium SAND with gravel, dense, moist 5.3 32 0 6_JS c 7 <' -becomes very dense 3.9 75 a ? 8 ' GP Grades to poorly graded GRAVEL with sand, dense,water bearing 10 - -groundwater table encountered at approximately 10' 6.7 45 w 12 SP Grades to Poorly graded fine to coarse SAND with gravel, dense, + water bearing 15.9 46 a:!y 14 p�s 15 7.9 39 16 • Y a, 17 18 o p�O Boring Log M Earth Consultants Inc. Proposed Safeway Store N Ge�Ensh M GOOWOM i EmiMrs M W SC MdM f, Renton,Washington m Pro].No. 7323 Dwn. GLS Date June'96 Checked RAC Date 6/25/96 Plate A6 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or Interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Boring Log Project Name: sheet of Proposed Safewa Store 2 2 Job No. Logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: Boring No.: 7323 RAC 6 12 96 6 12 96 B-3 Drilling Contactor. Drilling Method: Sampling Method: Associated Drilling HSA SPT Ground Surface Bevation: Hole Completion: — ❑ MonitoringWell ❑ Piezometer Abandoned,sealed with bentonite U _ e No. t O - N 0 W Blows a E a + E N E 06j Ft. 0 a .e " r 7 L N N N 18.4 31 ° Q -increasing sand content Boring terminated at 21.5 feet below existing grade. Groundwater table encountered at 10.0 feet during drilling. Boring backfilled with cuttings, bentonite and asphalt patch. a in t0 Boring Log Earth Consultants Inc. Proposed Safeway Store n Renton,Washington m Proj.No. 7323 Dwn. GLS Date June'96 Checked RAC Date 6/25/96 Plate A7 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgment They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or Interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Boring Log Project Name: Sheet of Proposed Safeway Store 1 2 .Job No. Logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: Boring No.: 7323 RAC 6 12 96 6 12 96 BA Drilling Contactor: Drilling Method: Sampling Method: Associated Drilling HSA SPT Ground Surface Elevation: Hole Completion: ❑ Monitoring Well ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned,sealed with bentonite No. o t • N o Surface Conditions: W Blows a E a + E N E %) LL R. SM ((Gravel and Duff to approximately 2-4`) FILL Brown silty fine to medium SAND with gravel, loose, moist 1 ' 2 1 10.8 11 3 -becomes medium dense, some 2'gravel a 5 8.1 8 noose, small sample recovery 6 7 5.6 5 13 9 to SP-SNI Gray poorly graded fine to medium SAND with silt and gravel, 5.7 14 medium dense, moist e< 11 ' -becomes dense,water bearing 12 = -groundwater table encountered at approximately 12' 92 37 13 :< 14 ' 15 -increasing sand content 11.0 47 17 ° 18 1D 19 In e; Boring Log Earth Consultants Inc. Proposed Safeway Store NCeowchricW Bn9kve''Gook)O'"iErmuenmerswsc""'"" Renton,Washington n m Proj.No. 7323 I Dwn. GLS Date June '96 Checked RAC Date 6/25/96 Plats A8 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Boring Log Project Name: Sheet of Proposed Saf way Store 2 2 Job No. Logged by. Start Date: Completion Date: Boring No.: 7323 RAC 6 12 96 6 12 96 B-4 ' Drilling Contactor. Drilling Method: Sampling Method: Associated Drilling HSA SPT Ground Surface Elevation: Hole Completion: ❑ Monitoring Well ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned,sealed with bentonite U e — NO, t O � N 0 Blows W M a U J3 7.7 s1 -becomes very dense,water bearing or' 21 Boring terminated at 21.5 feet below existing grade. Groundwater table encountered at 12.0 feet during drilling. Boring backfilled with cuttings and bentonite. m a m m Boring Log Earth Consultants Inc. Proposed Safeway Store N ocooccrE w E'nonem i mwummtr"StlCrYYlt Renton,Washington n m Proj.No. 7323 Dwn. GLS Date June '96 Checked RAC Date 6/25/96 Plate A9 ' Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgment They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or Interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Boring Log Project Name: Sheet of Proposed Safeway Store 1 2 Job No. Logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: Boring No.: 7323 RAC 6 12 96 6 12 96 B-rJ Drilling Contactor. Drilling Method: Sampling Method: Associated Drilling HSA SPT Ground Surface Oevation: Hole Completion: ❑ Monitoring Well ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned,sealed with bentonite No. U o r N o Surface Conditions: W r D a U a O N N N SM (Gravel and Duff to approximately 2-4' 1=1LL Brown silty fine to medium SANDwith gravel, loose, moist i 2 29.8 g 3_t ML Gray sandy SILT, loose,wet, some mottling 4 5 SM Grades to silty fine to medium SAND, loose,wet, trace gravel 25.0 4 s SP Grades to poorly graded fine to medium SAND with gravel, loose, o;+: moist, small sample recovery 8 5.1 6 97 GP Grades to poor) graded GRAVEL with sand, medium dense,water �i 10 bearing, groundwater table encountered at approximately 9.5' 11.0 13 •'• 11 • 12 • 10.5 14 •1• 13 -increasing coarse sand content 11�+ 14 • • 15 SP Grades to poorly graded medium to coarse SAND with gravel, ic medium dense,water bearing 18 o:;:; 16 17 .:s::::: R tD in Boring Log Earth Consultants Inc. Proposed Safeway Store N' Ceomchrocw Enoneem C.robos i PnvuuYwr W sawgim^ Renton,Washington n m Proj.No. 7323 Dwn. GLS Date June'96 Checked RAC Date 6/25/96 Plate Al Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. a cannot accept responsibility for the use or Interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Boring Log Project Name: Sheet of Proposed Safeway Store 2 2 Job No. Logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: Boring No.: 7323 RAC 6 12 96 6 12 96 B-5 ' Drilling Contactor. Drilling Method: Sampling Method: Associated Drilling HSA SPT Ground Surface Elevation: Hole Completion: ❑ Mo itoring Well ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned,sealed with bentonite U _ — _ W No. O t a N Blows a O E 4 t E N E Ft. o r a r u. r a i N � N N 12.0 n 0:>0 21 Boring terminated at 21.5 feet below existing grade. Groundwater table encountered at 9.5 feet during drilling. Boring backfilled with cuttings and bentonite. i 1 1 1 1 1 i P N Boring Log Earth Consultants Inc. Proposed Safeway Store N Geowchnkctl mate m,Geobgkfb i BwUarfncr W Scknom Renton,Washington m Proj.No. 7323 Dwn. GLS Date June'96 Checked RAC Date 6/25/96 Plate Al 1 i Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or Interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Boring Log Project Name: Sheet of ' Proposed Safeway Store 1 1 Job No. Logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: Boring No.: 7323 RAC 6 12 96 6 12 96 B-6 Drilling Contactor. Drilling Method: Sampling Method: Associated Drilling HSA SPT Ground Surface Elevation: Hole Completion: ❑ Mo itoring Well ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned,sealed with bentonite — — — No. o L � N o Surface Conditions: W Blowsa E a } E N E I%) F, L N N N SM (Sod to approximately 2') FILL Brown silty fine to medium SAND with gravel, loose, moist ' 2 ' 16.S 12 3 -becomes medium dense a 5 15.2 1/12- -becomes very loose,wet 6 1 9.8 3 8 -becomes loose s 10 3 11 Boring terminated at 11.5 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during drilling. Boring backfilled with cuttings and bentonfte. 0• N ID Boring Log Earth Consultants Inc. Proposed Safeway Store N Gooleclr&d Engix m Ceob�Ms i envaowzri l Scm2idm Renton,Washington m Proj.No. 7323 Dwn. GLS Date June '96 Checked RAC Date 6/25/96 Plate Al2 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgment They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or Interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Boring Log Project Name: shoat of Proposed Safeway Store t 1 Job No. Logged by. Start Date: Completion Date: Boring No.: 7323 J RAC 6 12 96 6 12 96 B-7 Drilling Contactor. Drilling Method: Sampling Method: Associated Drilling HSA SPT Ground Surface Elevation: Hole Completion: ❑ Monitoring Well ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned,sealed with bentonite No. n o t y o Surface Conditions: W Blows a a t a u J3 M Ft' L N co N N itl SM (Sod to approximately 2") FILL Brown to black silty fine to medium SAND with gravel, loose, 1 moist 2 10.8 11 3 -becomes medium dense a I s 15.7 s ML Brown sandy SILT, medium dense, moist,trace gravel 11 _t SP-Shl Gray poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel, medium dense, moist 5.3 13 8 v R• 10 -increased silt content a ' Boring terminated at 11.5 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during drilling. Boring backfilled with cuttings and bentonite. CD P N 1 Boring Log Earth Consultants Inc. Proposed Safeway Store n enonemc4ciOoM°`envU=zr&rmW scswAm" Renton,Washington ' J m Proj.No. 7323 Dwn. GLS Date June'96 Checked RAC Date 6/25/96 Plate Al Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgment They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. •cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. C. a. Lij APPENDIX B LABORATORY TEST RESULTS E-7323 ' Earth Consultants, Inc. SIEVE ANALYSIS ' • • • , . • MOM WEEN �����■it'd■�ii�� ■�MMOMEM �■�■■m����■■■■�M�� Em IN M. WIN low OMEN IMMIMMMNI • �����■��■%���°a■�����■�■tom%■MM IMIMMIMIMMONIM ONE ME MEMN����•//■■���� 1 WINES OMEN NONE WINNE mom 101111111100 IN OMEN WINE =mM1MM�■ M1■M1M MI�■ MWF��■�■=mmmm ■■MI���■■■■■���� MEN 0 • 1 ���■■I�■■ICI■1■■1■��II■■■1■i■��■ ■�11■■I■■1�■�Yi::.Z.Z=C7OWN 1M1■1011M ■■■mm � 11 • • • • ' ��©� • En En z DESCRIPTION mm • • • • • (D Brown sandy SILT 22.2 • Brown silty SAND ' SIEVE • • ' • F-3 MEN EAM �i�i�iJai■�L! •..:t��r!J�i�ii■�■�■■i����■■■■i��� �► ==iii■ii■i��iiC��a��iii■i■�G■iii�/■■■■ii�i' • ��IIGii■it'=,AMEIN �■�GrMM�i■i■i'"m■iii ■■MWIMMEM Me WIM1001 MEMO ON! ■■■iiii, �ii�i■ii►i�ii�■�iii��i■�■i'G■ii��/■■■■ii�� �iii,i■ii■i►��i�■�i��i�■i■�G■ii��/■■■■i��i' �i'�ii■ii■i\\�i�■���iil■i■��■�ii�/■■■■iii� ��i��■ice■ t�ii ■�iiii•.7�■� ■ii��■■■■■iMi,� ��i��■ii■ila�i�■�i�ii�i■��■ii��NEEE■■■■■iiOMMUMMEM , • • :• ��iii■ii■Gil�i�■i,i��i1\�■��■ii��/■■■■��i� MENEM rMENEM MINNIEi,ii�■ice■i��. ■���i�■1i■��■�i��■■■■■ii�� ��iii■ii■i��ti ii,■�iiii■■�■��■i�i�/■■■■���� �����■ii■ii�i its■�i�ii■i�■� ■i�i�/■■■■imm� ��iii■ii■�i�i��■�iiii■i\■� ■�i��/■■mom i�■�li �iiii■�i■�ii�if�e�i�ii■i'■��■�ii�/■■■■ii�� � �iii�■ii■�i���■\�iiii�■i►\��■iii�■■■■■ii�MENEM! , • • ��i� ■ii■ii�i�■��i MEN ii■i\\MMENEGMENEM ■iii�■■■■■ii�i' i'■�iii■ii■ii�i�i■■■ii►�/■i■�■■►�i�■�ii/�i/■■■■ii�i,■ iiii■■■i�■I�i■ ■■i,��i■�■i���i■i■L�i�■��i�i/■■■■�i�� .• �iiii■ice■ii�i�■��i�•i■�■���■iii�/■■■■i�i� INN MEN IMMENIMME&I ��i��■ii■ii���■��ii�■i■i>��■iii�/■■■■iii,� ���i�■ice■�i���■�i��\�■�■ice�■i���/■■■■i��� �iiii■ii■i��i■i,■■�■■�/i�.�i■��G■mmomm ■■■OM ■i,//i�i�■ii■ii�i■i,■■i�i�ii..ni■ii,.z■■iMMIMME /■■■■i■■��i ��i�i■ii■i��i�■�i�ii��■ii G■iii�/■■■■ii�� ����i■i�■i��i�■fiiiii■►7■��■iii�/■■■■i��� ., i,i��i■ii■ii�i ■�001iii■�■�G■�ii�/■■■■i��MENEM �iii�■ii■ii�i�■���ii■i■\�■■�ii�/■■■■ii�� , i,�i�i■ii■i��i�■i,�i'i�■i■i►�G■iMMIMMM ■■i�i,� lid i'i,i�i■ii■i�� ■�i��i■i■�G■i�i������ �� ��i■■I/■■lil■1■�I■iill■■■I■1■ii■ ■/11■■1■■1�■i■■�/■11■■iii�/■■ ii ■■iw�� �. • DESCRIPTION rt In mm • • Brown DISTRIBUTION E-7323 ' 4 Copies Safeway Store, Inc. 1000 - 124th Avenue Northeast, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98015 Attention: Mr. Mitch Johnson ' Earth Consultants, Inc. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1