Loading...
20050956.pdfDATE RECEIVED I CITY OF EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION Ow"ER NAME/NAME OF B E C__.7n MIA x MAILIAG ADDRESS C ";Z`90% CITY ZIP TELEPHONE w UCK q),Sq I f 7 PERMIT EXPIRES hl'11011?71� PERMIT NUMB ER JOB ADDRESS UITEIAP L PLAT NAME/SUBDIVISION NO, 7 LOT NO,4T LID NO, LID FEE S PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP TESCPApproved RW Permit Re it 0 13 EXISTING PROPOSED street Use Peltu'lioRequired Inspection Required 13 13 �7 REQUIRED DEDICATION FT Sidewalk Required Underground E3 13 13 Wiring required METER SIZE LINE �IZE NO, OF FIXTURES PRV REQUIRED YES13 NOO 9 U, Lu REMARKS OWNER/CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROL/DRAINAGE In z ZIP TELEPHONE rl�/ e*-)fv j 6 /ye 7-- vf'!) 41" — .`)(� - )Ntt: f Da 5�71&6:e V/CG: 1771- A. F, 4, 140y�� IEVIEWE BY �4 -".- ADDRESS L"ii Z�.3 (3 9 17 BY DATE W C TY ZIP TELEPHONE 0: L 9 "3) ""i-I GUJ) -471 i­w7 STATE LICENSE NUMBER EXPIRATION DATE CHECKEDBY VARIANCE OR CU SHORELINE OR ADBO INSPECTION SEPA If REO'D COMPLETED E XEMPT f;lk t � I A A Vylvvk.� OYES VrNO1 I x PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL NO. CA#_ SIGN AREA HEIGHT 0 �.O,-%N ._0co WAIVER 13 ALLOWED PROPOSED ALLOWED PROPOSED Lj 02S STUDY 152- NEW RESIDENTIAL PLUMBING MECH LOT COVERAGE REQUIRED SETBACKS (FT.) PROPOSED SETBACKS (FT.) ALLOWED PROPOSED �7 FR I'll. �!:!E 11f W/ E, zo ADDITION COMMERCIAL COMPLIANCE OR :562-2-91 151 t;/ Fit 07�0 2 MIXED USE CHANGE OF USE I Io, z PARKING LOTAREA PLANNING REVIEWED BY DATE REMODEL MULTIFAMILY SIGN REQ'D OVIDED PRI REPAIR GRADING FENCE r::04clp CYDS ( — x FT.) REMARKS tL ty- DEMOLISH TANK OTHER it 6 �j a m2M ba f GARAGE RETAINING WALL 13 a) 9 a 1N�r ?A rtdL-. FIRE SPRINKLER Pill ROCKERY FIREALARM (TYPE OF.4SE 8 NESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPI IN: TYPE OF TION Co OCCUPANT GROUP NUMBER NUMBER OF VT OF DWELLING SPECIAL INSPE(ITION CONSULTANT OCCUPANT UNITS LOAD REQUIRED i YES STORIES DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE R EMARKS z GEOTMORT BY: motZ Coe,, L-A'5 -4 IQ ILI IiA )-4Q6 ST E�IG. _141"if By-nJM64 ere \A VALUATION- 1PQj0*4-1- 60, 1 Description FEE Description FEE Plan Check State Surcharge HEAT SOURCE LOTSLOPE% I VESTED DATE I Building Permit Re& City Surcharge ( f k S I PLAN CHECK NO: Plumbing Z7 Base Fee _Z) _f] Mechanical THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT. COVERS WORK TO BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBIC Grading DONMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS,. DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE SEPARATE PERMISSION, E_ - - Engr. Review z PERMIT APPLICATION: SEE ECDC 19.00.005(A)(5) LI PERMIT LIMIT. SEE ECDC 19,00.005(A)(6) Engr. Inspe ction SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION n *APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS Fire Review Plan Chk. Deposit 4`7 02 7 420= Aj IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF J re EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND Fire Inspection Receipt # ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY L, FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE Landscapelnsp. Total Amt. Due 0 NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITY'S ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION. - i Recording Fee 1 Receipt # :x I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION; THAT THE INFORMATION APPLICATION APPROVAL GIVEN IS CORRECT; AND THAT I AM THE OWNER, OR THE DULY AUTH0131ZED AGENT OF THE OWNER. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC- CALL This application is not a permit until signed by the TION: AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED Building Official or hisihor Deputy: and Fees are paid, and IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO FOR INSPECTION I receipt is acknowledged in space provided. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND RCW 18:27. OFFICIALS SIGN RE DATE ((14WJ®REN�). DATE SIGNED (425) Cif)(A /0// ml(owl < 771-0220 RE IM0 DATV ED Ei T ATTENTION EXT. 1333 IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTI- ORIGINAL - FILE - YELLOW - INSPLOZ FICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC109 If IBC110 / IRC110. PINK -OWNER GOLD - ASSESSOR 10104 . PRESS HARD - YOU ARE MAKING 4 COPIES FM z 0 11 0 M --I -n 3: C M M 0 0 ­40 0 C M M Z C _z > 0 -n n M M 0 C-1) 0 r- 0 M C cl) 9 C/) Q 0 Z z z 0 M E 2(OTH FL^C� 15N LOT OVF Z� De5c,-RIFTION: -A: 4,13 E3 EPOU^RE FEE E- T �ITE ARE -LOPMENT c M ZO 41N(�-:,: PLANNE UNIT DEVE -X15TIN67 RADE HF-lr--,HT CALOULATION (E3^eF-D FROM E 0 oc z A= 405 c > E3=, 5cf4' E: --j 4 D 0 AVERA67E EX15TI N& ORAOE= 400 mm AC-,TUAL F-3UILI:;IINr---7 HEIOHT= 424.C:)O' MAXIMUM F-3UILF-,>I.Nr-.7 HEI&H.T 425.00.' om e)UR\/E --rOR TO PRO\/11:;)E F-3ENOHMARK 1,105T FOR HEIOHT VERIFIOATION) APROPRIATE zo IMPE /Ig:�U5 AREA!5.� R M;)ENCE N1 1(1-76 50UARE FEET E5 X FORr--,HE5 > z 4 -75 5OUARE FEET 226 SOUAR-E FEET z NAL<NAY5 50 e)OUAF;:;E FEET RESL - 0 m TOTAL 2, -72-1 E)OUARE FEET. OCT BUIL)YIN G DEPAf ClIr oF EDW L j2T— LOT 00\/EF-AC;,E 15 E3A5E P UFON 3596OF ENTIRE PLANNEI:;> UNIT 0EVELOPME NT) Icj-7&.50UARE* FEET OF- PF-OP05EO LOT OOVERAr -1<5 OVER E30 ORCHE5, I:;)EC, P.. (INCLU0�ES 5TRUCTURE, 0OVERED IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUTYOUR GEOTECHNiCAL ENGINEERING REPORT aused by site subsur- More construction problems are c, 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 propose(] 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 frorn those inferred to exist, The Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in because no geotechnical engineer. no matter how t Ile Geosciences. qualified. and no subsurface exploration program. no The following suggestions and observations are offered matter how comprehensive. can reveal what is hidden by earth, rock and time. The actual interface between mate - to help you reduce the geotech n ical -related delays, rials may be far more gradual or abrupt than a report Z 0 cost -overruns and other costly headaches that can indicates. Actual conditions in areas not sampled may A occur during a construction project. differ from predictions. Nothing can be done to prevent the 0 M unanticipated, but steps can be taken to help minimize their A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING impact. For this reason. most experienced owners retain their geotechnical consultants through the construction stage. to iden- REPORT IS BASED ON A UNIOUE SET tify variances, conduct additional tests which may be C0 7: OM OF PROJECT -SPECIFIC FACTORS needed. and to recommend solutions to problems co M A geotechnical engineering report is based on a subsur- encountered on site. 0 0 w face exploration plan designed to incorporate a unique set of project -specific factors., These typically include: SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS C: .;I M I MM tile general nature of the structure involved. its size and CAN CHANGE MZ 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- neering report is based on conditions which existed at r and the level of additional risk which the client assumed by virtu I e of limitations imposed upon the exploratory the time of subsurface exploration. construction decisions ca 0 _n program. To help avoid costly problems, consult tile should not be based on a geotechnical engineering report whose adequacy may have been affected by time. Speak with the geo- n geo ' technical engineer to determine how any factors which change subsequent to tile date of the report may technical consultant to learn if additional tests are X MM affect its recommendations. advisable before construction starts. C/) 0. r- Unless your consulting geotechnical engineer indicates Construction operations at or adjacent to the site and natural events such as floods. earthquakesor ground- 0M C Cn M Cn otherwise, your geotechnical engineerit . ig report should not be used: water I fluctu ations may also affect subsurface condition . s Q 0 Z r- When the nature of the proposed structure is. and. thus. the continuing adequacy of a geotechnical report. The geotechnical engineer should be kept T, I . changed. for example. if an office building will be erected instead of a parking garage. or if a refriger- apprised of any such events. and should be consulted to X ated warehouse will be built instead of an unre- determine if additional tests are necessary. > f rigera ted one: when the size or configuration of the proposed GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ARE Z structure is altered. PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES When tile location or orientation of tile proposed AND PERSONS Z 0 structure i s modified; —1 - when there is a change.of ownership. or Geotechnical engineers7 reports are prepared to meet 0 - for application to an adjacent site. the specific needs of specific individuals. A report pre- rn Geolechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility for problems pared for a consulting civil engineer may not be ade- for a construction contractor, or even some other which may develop if they are not consulted after factors consid- ered in their report's development have changed. quate 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 identif ies actual subsui face conditions intended purpose without first conferring with the geolechnical only at those points where samples are taken. when they are taken. Data derived through sampling an.d sub- engineer. No person shoul d apply this report for any purpose other than that originally contemplated without first conferring sequent laboratory testing are extrapolated by geo- with the geotr(hni(al engineer. Phoenix. Development May 14, 2002, E-10075 f" We appreciate the opportunity to provide our services during the design phase of the e 'project. If you hav questions about the -content of this geotechnical engineering study, or if we can be of further assistance, please call. Z'. Sincerely, M EA CONSULTANTS, INC. Ch M C se 0 C :XM ond A. Cogla E M Z jo Project Manager z MCrIme M M '00), 0 M, C CA V) 0, Z V) z M Earth Consultants. Inc. �TABLE OF CONTENTS E-10075 ILLUSTRATIONS Plate 1 Vicinity Map Z, 0 Plate 2 Test Pit Locationflan. =j Plate 3 Typical Footing Subdrain D.etail 0, Plate 4 Typical Utility Trench Fill APPENDICES CO -4 m; m 0 Appendix A Field Exploration Oc Plate Al Legend Plates A2 through Al 2 Test Pit Logs :Xm m Z: jo Appendix B Laboratory Test Results Z Plate B1 Grain Size Analyses 0 m m 0 M C 0) M 0; Z Z X Z Earth Consultants. Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PEPPERWOOD RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 85.26 MAIN STREET EDMONDS,. WASHINGTON E -10075 Z 0 INTRom icTjo 0 Ri Genina 0 This report presents geotechnical recommendations for the proposed Pepperwood M Residential Development to be located at 8526 Main Street, Edmonds, Washington. The M 0 general location of the site is shown on the Vicinity Map, Plate 1. The approximate 0 C' locations of the test pits and the approximate limits of the property are illustrated on the M'. Test Pit , Location Plan, Plate 2. Our scope of services included a subsurface exploration M Z to characterize soil conditions at the site, and preparation of this report with geotechnical C: 2 > recommendations for the proposed site development. Rojed nnscriptoon 0 M. M We understand development of the site w ill consist of a 22-lot subdivision. and M construction of a storm water detention vault. New access roadways will be constructed 0 throughout the property, and will connect to Main Street on the upper east half of the 0 M C: CD property and Pioneer Way along the lower west portion of the property. At the time this M 0 geotechnical engineering study. was prepared, a f ina,l grading plan had not been Z r completed. However, we anticipate that cuts and fills will be necessary to establish the X building lot and roadway grades. Construction of. a storm water detention vault is proposed for the lower west portion of the site, along the new access roadway that will Z connect to Pioneer Way. Cuts for the detention vault will probably be in the range:of twelve (.12) to sixteen (16) feet. Cuts along the. toe of the existing steep slopes will likely C& be necessary to establish roadway grades for the new access roadway that will connect Z 0 to Pioneer Way. M The use of rockeries may be necessary to transition grades in landscaping areas and to provide permanent erosion control along cuts. Reinforced rockeries may also be utilized along the back of the building lots located at the top of the slope areas. Preliminary design information indicates that the alignment of the reinforced fill rockery may be located on the existing slopes. Earth Consultants. Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEPJNG STUDY Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075 May 14, 2002 Page 2 An existing rockery along Main Street will be maintained and incorporated into the final, development. The existing rockery is up to approximately ten (10) feet to twelve (12) feet in height and was likely constructed during widening and improvements to Main Street. An assessment of the existing rockery is provided in the Rockeries section of this z 0 report. 0 M The use of relatively lightly loaded wood frame construction is anticipated for the proposed single family residences. We estimate wall loads will be in the range of one to n CO two kips per lineal foot, and column loads in the range of ten (110) to twenty (20) kips., M C If the above design criteria are incorrect or change, ECI should be notified and allowed to M 0 80 review the recommendations contained in this report. In any case, ECI should be retained C -4 to perform a general review of the final design. M M z 10-1 SITE CONDITIONS C > 0) Surface 0 -n The approximate pro erty limits and site topography are illustrated on the Test Pit p Location Plan (Plate 2)., The majority of the site is undeveloped and heavily vegetated, M M 055 with the exception oif several rental homes located along Main Street. The topography is 0 r. 0 M partitioned into two halves, with a slope area approximately bisecting the site in a.north- C CD ic CD south direction. The slopes descend to the west at grades of approximately 30 percent M 0 Z to 40 percent. The overall height ofthe slope ranges from approximately forty (40) to fifty (50) feet. Based on the site survey prepared by Group Four Inc., the steep slope areas within the planned development are limited to the north end of the. property X adjacent to Building Lot 9. z The upper east half of the property is relatively flat, with gently sloping areas that ca descend to the east. An existing rockery and steep driveway area are located at the z 0 northeast corner of the site.. As previously discussed, the existing rockery will be 0 incorporated into the new development, and the driveway areas will likely be filled to M create a level building lot area. The maximum height of the existing rockery. is approximately ten (110) to twelve (112) feet. The lower west portion of the development area is located at the toe of the existing slope that approximately bisects the property in a north -south direction. The immediate toe area of the site is relatively flat, and is located along an existing utility easement corridor that connects to Main Street on the north'and. Pioneer Way on the south. On the extreme west side of the property, west of the utility easement, there is an area of ascending steep slopes. Development is not planned, in this area. EaFth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Phoenix Development, Inc. E-1 0075 May 14, 2002 Page 3 Steep Slope Evaluation At the time our field exploration was performed (March 2002), the steep slope areas of the site were observed for signs of instability or severe erosion. Based on our Z observations, the steep slope areas appear stable. There were no indications of 'Shallow or deep seated slide activity. The slope areas are generally heavily vegetated with mature Douglas Fir, and there were no indications of severe erosion due to surface water runoff. M Based on our observations, it appears the slopes are stable. CA Subsurface M C M 0 0 Eleven test pits were excavated throughout the site. The test pits were excavated to 0 0 C depths of approximately five to eight feet, where very dense glacial till soil conditions 3: M were encountered. Please refer to the test pit logs, Plates A2 through All 2, for a M Z description of the conditions encountered at the test pit locations. C > r The soils encountered at the test pit locations consisted of medium dense to very dense 0 -n silty sand with gravel (Unified Soil Classification SM). Sand deposits were occasionally -n observed throughout the glacial till deposit. The depth of the topsoil layer varied, and X 9 typically ranged between two inches to twelve (12) inches. The geologic map of the area IT! ITI CO identifies the silty sand with gravel deposit as glacial till. The upper three to four feet of 0 0 M, the soil deposit generally consisted of weathered glacial till. The weathered till was in a C Cn 9 CD, medium dense condition, and was characterized by brownto dark brown coloring. Dense M 0 Z r tovery dense unweathered glacial till was encountered below the weathered glacial till layer. The unweathered glacial till was generally characterized by a gray to dark gray X coloring. X, Z id of loose silty sand Fill was observed at test pit locations TP-4. and TP-5. The fill consistc soils, and extended to depths of four to five feet. Yard waste piles were also observed CO along the top of the steep slope area in the vicinity of Test Pits TP-4 and TP-5. Z 0 At the time the test pitexploration was performed (March 2002), the upper deposit of 0 M weathered glacial till was generally in a wet condition. Laboratory testing indicates moisture contents of approximately 13 to 16 percent, or greater for the weathered glacial till. The lower deposit of unweathered glacial till was in a moist to wet condition, and had moisture contents generally in the range of approximately 8 percent to 10 percent Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFING STUDY Phoenix Development, Inc. E710075 May 14, 2002 Page 4 Groundwater Groundwater seepage was not observed, at the time of our. exploration (March 2002). z The presence of Ii ht to moderate groundwater seepage, however, should be expected in 9 0 deep excavations. Based on* the conditions observed at the time of our field exploration, 0 we do not anticipate groundwater seepage will adversely impact the earthwork. M _n Groundwater seepage levels and the rate of seepage are not static; fluctuations in the 0).-f level and rates can be expected depending on the season, amount of rainfall, surface M water runoff, and other factors. Generally, the level and rate of seepage is highe r in' .�C M 0 the wetter winter months (typically October through May). 0 0 C M Laboratory Testin M z 10-4 Z r -1 The results of laboratory tests performed on specific samples are provided in Appendix B, or at the appropriate sample depth on the test pit logs. It is important to, note that these Co test results may not accurately . represent the overall in -situ soil conditions. Our 0 -n ijeotechnical recommendations are based on our interpretation of these test results., ECI cannot be responsible for the interpretation of these, data by others. MM 0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS OT M Co CD t M 0 z G eral en Based on the subsurface conditions observed at the test pit locations, development of the X: site is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. - The proposed single family residences can > z be.supported on conventional spread and continuous footings bearing on the medium dense to dense glacial till soils observed, at the test pit locations. The building Cn foundations can also be supported on structural fill soils that are used to modify the z 0 existing site grades. The medium dense to dense glacial till soil suitable for support of foundations. was generally observed at a depth of approximately two feet below the M native grounds.urface elevation. Earth Consultante, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Phoenix Development, Inc. E-1 0075 May 14, 2002 Page 5 Due to the dense condition of the glacial till.soils and the stable condition of the steep r of ten (10) fe slope area, a minimum steep slope buffe et from the top and toe of, the steep slope areas can be considered for the proposed single7family residences. As Z previously discussed, the site survey prepared by Group Four, Inc. indicates that the 0 steep slope areas within the planned development area are limited to the north end of the 0 site, adjacent to Building Lot 9.. In our opinion, reinforced fill rockeries can be M successfully cons tructed on the*existing steep slope, provided an engineered rockery designis completed. Steep slope buffer and foundation recommendations are provided in CD X the Steep Slope Buffer and Foundations sections of this report. Preliminary rockery M C 0 M design recommendations are provided in the Rockeries section of this report. 0 __10 0 C In our opinion, the majority of the existing rockery located along Main Street can be X M utilized and incorporated into the new development. Several of the existing rocks along M Z --i the upper row of the rockery, however, will need to be replaced due to severe > weathering. ECI will work with the contractor to identify the rocks that need to be replaced. With regard to the existing driveway areas that will likely be filled and brought -n up to the level of the rockery, the. use of a geogrid reinforced fill will be .0 -n -necessary where the fill heights exceed approximately four feet. . An engineered rockery M design will also be needed for the proposed fill areas along the alignment of.the, existing M 0 5. Main Street rockery. 0 - 0 r M C= CD M Cn. In our opinion,, construction of the proposed storm water detention vault is feasible from a M 0 Z geotechnical standpoint. Medium dense to dense glacial till soil will likely be encountered in the excavation for the storm water detention vault. Based on the conditions observed ;V at the test pit locations, groundvvater seepage may be encountered in the excavation for X the storm water detention vault. However, in our opinion, groundv%eter seepage will > Z likely not adversely impact the stability of the detention vault excavation. X Recommendations for, temporary excavations are provided in the Excavations and Slopes section of this report. Z 0 Cuts will be performed for the proposed access -roadway that will connect'to Pioneer 0 M Way. These cuts may encroach into the toe of the existing steep slope areas on the west side of the property. Due, to. the dense glacial till soil conditions observed at the site, it is our opinion the roadway cuts will not compromise the stability of the. slopes. We anticipate the roadway cuts will not exceed six feet along the toe of the steep slopes. In our opinion, construction of a rockery along the planned roadway cuts can be considered. Eafth Consultants. Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFUNG STUDY Phoenix Development, Inc. E-1 0075 May 14, 2002 Page 6 'This geotechnical engineering study has been prepared for the exclusive use of Phoenix - Development, Inc. and their representatives.. This study was 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 z conditions in this area. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. . We 0 recomme rigineering nd4hat this geotechnical e study, in its entirety, be included in the M project contract documents for the information of the contractor. Site Prgparation and General Earthwork a M C The proposed development areas of the. site should be stripped and cleared of existing M 0 0 0 surface vegetation, topsoil, existing structures,* and other deleterious materials. Existing utility pipes that will be abandoned should be plugged or removed. Based on the X M M z conditions observed at the test pit locations, the thickness of the topsoil layer ranges between approximately two (2) inches to twelve (12) inches. The thickness of the C z > topsoil layer will vary throughoutthe site. ...The ground surface where structural fill, or -foundations are to be placed should be 0 -n -n observed by a representative of ECI. An ECI representative should also observe the X m rn excavation for the proposed storm water detention vault and roadway cuts. Existing fill soil and organic debris that is encountered in the building and vault foundation 0 r Om excavations should be.overexcavated. Due to the relatively high fines content of the C Cn C Cn native, soils, moisture sensitivity.of the soils will be moderate to high. Building and Q 0 Z pavement subgrade areas that are exposed to extended periods of precipitation will likely become unstable. If the subgrade soil, in the proposed foundation and pavement areas becomes saturated and unstable, overexcavation of the unstable soil and replacement > with structural fill may be necessary. Z In our opinion, the majority of the native soils can be considered for use as structural. fill, z provided the soil is placed during dry weather conditions, and. provided the moisture 0 'content of the soil is at or near the optimum moisture content at the. time of placement. At the time of the subsurface exploration (March, 2002) the upper deposit of weathered M glacial till was generally in a wet condition. Laboratory testing indicates moisture contents of 13 percent or greater for the weathered glacial till. The. lower deposit of unweathered glacial till was generally in a moist to wet condition, and had moisture' contents of approximately 10 percent. ECI. will work with the contractor to assess the suitability of the on -site soils for use as structural fill. Earth Consultanw, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075 May 14, 2002 Page 7 Imported soil intended for use as structural fill should 'consist of a fairly well graded granular soil with a moisture content that is at or near the optimum moisture content, and having a maximum aggregate size of four inches. During wet weather cbriditions, imported fill should consist of a fairly well graded granular. material having a maximum Z size of four inches and no more than 5 percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve based on the minus 3/4-inch fraction. 0� Ri Structural fill is defined as compacted fill placed under foundations, roadways, slabs, pavements, orother load -bearing areas. Structural fill under slabs and footings should be 0 M C placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding twelve. (12) inches in loose thickness and M a compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of its laboratory. maximum dry d ensity. The --I 0 00 i maximum dry density should be determined in accordance with ASTIVI Test Designation C D-1 557-91 (Modified Proctor). The fill materials should be placed at or near the optimum =M. M Z moisture content. Fill under pavements and walks should also be placed in horizontal lift s C: Z and compacted to 90 percent of the maximum dry density except for the top twelve (12) > r -A inches, which should be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density. If a Cn structural fill berm is necessary to construct the storm water detention,pond, the fill 0 -n should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density. n M M Steep Slope Buffer 0 r 0 M C W In our opinion, due to the dense condition ofthe glacial till soils observed at the site, and -M CD the stable condition of the existing slope areas, -a minimum ten (10) foot buffer from the Q 0 Z top and toe of the steep. slope areas can be considered for the proposed sing le -family residences. The City of Edmonds Development Standards for Geologically Hazardous P X Areas are found under Title 20 (Chapter 20.15B). The D velopment Standards allow the e required buffer distance to be reduced from fifty (50) feet to, ten (10) feet, provided a Z geotechnical report can demonstrate that no adverse impacts to the.slope o r surrounding X developments. will result. In our. opinion, reducing'the buffer distance to ten (10) feet will Z not adversely impact the stability of the steep slope areas. The observed stability of the -1 existing slope and the presence of dense glacial till.soils is the primary basis for this M recommendation. Earth ConstAtants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFJNG STUDY Phoenix Development, Inc. E-1 0075 May 14, 2002 Page 8 hour opinion, grading and the placement of fill on the slope will not adversely impact the stability of the slope. We understand fill placement along the backside of the upper buflding lots adjacent to the slope areas may be necessary to establish relatively level backyard areas. Reinforced fill rockeries can be Used to transition the grade between the fill and the slope. In our opinion, due to the dense glacial till soil conditions, fill and z 0 rockery placement on the slope will not adversely impact the stability of the slope. As previously discussed, an engineered reinforced rockery design should be completed for 0 M the proposed fill and rockery areas. n 'Foundations Ca 0 M M In our opinion, the proposed single family residences can be supported. on conventional 00 spread and continuous footings bearing on the medium dense to dense glacial till soil C observed at the test pit locations. Where necessary, the proposed building foundalions M Mz can also be supported on structural fill that is used to modify the existing site grades. C Foundations should not be supporled on the existing fill soils. The medium.dense to. dense glacial till soils suitable for support of foundations was generally observed at a CD depth of approximately two feet below the native ground surface elevation. O.M _n For foundations bearing on the medium dense to dense glacial till soil or structural fill, an M M allowable soil bearing capacity of two thousand five hundred (2,500) pounds per square 0. 0) foot (psf) can be. used. This allowable soil bearing capacity has a facto r-of-safety in 0 M C 0) excess of 3.0 against shear failure, provided the foundations are placed on competent 9 CO M native soils or structural fill. A one-third increase in the above allowable soil bearing 0 Z capacity can be assumed for short-term wind and seismic loading conditions. Continuous and individual spread footings should have minimum widths of eighteen (18) and twenty- four (24) inches, respectively. > z If loose or unstable, soil conditions are encountered at the footing subgrade elevation,. the soil should be overexcavated, and re laced with structural fill. The width of the p z overexcavation should extend a minimum of six inches beyond each edge of the 0 foundation. 0 M Exterior foundations elements should be placed at 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. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075 May 14, 2002 Page 9 Provided the foundations are placed in accordance with the recommendations. contained -of approximately one in h and differential in this report we estimate total settlement c settlement of approxirriately one half inch. Most of the anticipated settlements should z occur during construction as dead loads are applied. 0 Lateral loads can be, resisted by friction between the base of the, foundation and the .0 supportrig soil, and by passive soil pressure acting on the face of the buried portion of the foundation. Resistance to lateral loads.frorn passive earth pressures can be calculated using an equivalent fluid with a unit weight of three hundred fifty (350) pounds per cubic 0 M foot (pcf). To achieve adequate passive resistancel the foundations must be backfilled rn -40 with structural fill. As an alternative, the foundations can be poured neat against the. 0, 0 C undisturbed native soil. For frictional capacity, a coefficient of 0.40 can be used for MM foundations bearing on.competent native soils or structural fill.. These lateral resistance Mz values are allowable values; a facto r-o f-sa fety of 1.5 has been included. C > Footing excavations should be observed by a representative, of ECI prior.to placing the 05 formwork and repar. ECI should also observe areas where overexcavat.ion is, required to, 0 -n n remove loose or unstable soils. M M Permanent Retaining and Foundati:)n Walls 00) 0 r 0 M C 0) Retaining and foundation walls should be designed to resist lateral earth pr essures from C CO M 0 r ed and free to the retained soils, and any surcharge loading. Walls that are unrest ain z r move at the top can be designed using an equivalent fluid with a unit weight of thirty-five X (35) pcf. The earth pressure imparted on restrained walls should be calculated using an equivalent fluid with a unit weight of fifty (50) pcf. The above equivalent fluid values z assume surcharges due to traffic, adjacent foundations, construction loads, or any other loadings will not apply. If surcharges are to apply, they should be added to the above 65 design lateral pressures. z 0 For traffic surcharge loading, a uniform pressure of seventy (70)- psf should be applied in M. a rectangular distribution along the height of the retaining wall. . if sloping ba,ckfill conditions are present behind the walls,.ECI should review the slope configurations and provide modified equivalent fluid values, as necessary. Earth ConstAtants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075 May 14F 2002 Page 10 e Retaining and foundation walls should be provided with a four inch diameter p rforated drainpipe and backfilled with a free -draining. granular soil with less than 5 percent fines (percent passing the No. 200 sieve based on the minus 34inch fraction). The zone o f free -draining granular soil should extend along the entire height of the wall, and a distance I Z s behind the wall. A surface seal consistin of a less of at least eighteen (18) inche 9 0 permeable silty sand soil can be placed along the upper one foot of thewall backfill, if 0 M 9 Id consist desired. The remainder of the backfill behind the zone of free drainin soil shou of a suitable granular structural fill. CA 0 Seismic Design Considerations C M M 0 0 -40 The Puget Sound regionis classified as Zone 3 by the Uniform Building Code (UBC). The 0 C largest earthquakes in the Puget Sound region have been subcrustal (intraplate) e vents, X M M ranging in depth from fifty (50) to seventy (70) kilometers. Such deep events have Z' 10--i exhibited no surface faulting. Weaver and Shedlock (1989) researched the probable or 9Z -4 rt quakes in the known source areas for the crustal, intraplate, and subduction zone ea h � 2; Cn Washington and Oregon area. Crustal and intraplate e arthquakes.are the only events in 0 7n 0 tal earthquakes Washington and Oregon in which there is a historical rec: rd. Shallow crus, _n occur within the North American Plate, and typically do not exceed fo Gal depths of XC MM approximately 20 kilometers. Intraplate earthquakes occur in the-subducting.J uan de 055 Fuca plate, and typically occur below depths of 40 kilometers. The recent February. 28, 0 r_ 0 M 2001 earthquake that was focused just northof Olympia, Washington was an intraolate C CD R CD earthquake, and had a magnitude Of ML 6.8. The subduction zone earthquake, in which Q 0 Z there is no historical record in the Washington and Oregon ar ea, would have its source along the interface between the North American.. Plate and the subducting Juan de Fuca Plate. Magnitude 8+ earthquakes are thought to be possible along this interface, and X > would occur at depths of approximately 50 to 60 kilometers (Weaver and Shedlock, Z 1989). The UBC Earthquake regulations have established a series of soil profile types that are Z 0 used . as a basis for seismic design of structures. Based on the encountered soil 0 conditions, it is our opinion that soil type Sc f rom Table 1 6-J of the .1997 UBC should be M used for design. Uquefaction is a phenomenon in which soils lose all shear strength for.short periods of time during an earthquake. The effects of liquefaction may be large total and/or different ial settlement for structures with foundations founded in the liquefying soils. Groundshaking of sufficient duration. resu Its in the loss of grain -to -grain contact and rapid increase in pore water pressure, causing the soil to behave as a fluid for short p eriods of time. Earth Constlitants, 111C. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFING STUDY Phoenix Development, Inc. E -10075 May 14, 2002 Page 11 To have 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 groundv�eter table; and it must be subject to sufficient magnitude and duration of groundshaking. Z Based on the soil and groundwater conditions observed at the site, it is our opinion that M the site has. a low susceptibility to liquefaction. The dense condition. of the native soils is the primary basis for this conclusion. Slab -on -Grade Floors C: M M 0 Slab -on -grade floors can be supported on competent native soils or structural fill. Loose 0 0 or unstable subgrade soils should be stabilized prior to construction of the slab. The use X M. M Z of a geotextile and crushed rock can be considered for stabilizing the subgrade soils, if 10-4 necessary A four -inch capillary break consisting of a free draining poorly graded sand or C: Z > gravel with less than 5 percent fines (percent passing the No. 200 sieve, based on the CA minus 3/4-inch fraction) should be placed below the slab. In areas where slab moisture is 0 -n undesirable, a vapor barrier such as a 6-mil plastic membrane can be placed bendath the free draining sand or gravel. The subgrade soils in slab -on -grade areas of.the site should M M be observed by a representative of ECI prior to placing the capi Ilary break material. 0 V5 .0 0 M C 0) Site Drainage C CO Q 0 Z During construction, surface water runoff must. not be allowed to, stand in construction areas. Interceptor trenches should be established, as necessary, along the perimeter of X the building site before it enters the construction area. During construction,, loose surfaces should be compacted to reduce the potential for moisture infiltration into the Z soils. Finish grades around the buildings must be sloped such that surface water is X directed away from the buildings. Cn Z 0 Perimeter footing drains should be installed around the perimeter foundations to intercept groundv%eter seepage. A typical perimeter footing drain detail is illustrated on Plate 3. M Under no circumstances should roof downspout drain lines be connected to the footing or foundation wall drain systems. All roof downspouts must be separately tightlined to the site storm water system. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEMNG STUDY Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075 May 14, 2002 Page 1,2 Excavations and Slope 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 0 is, not being implied and should not be inferred. M� In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local, state, _n and 'Federal safety regulations. Based on the information obtained from our field exploration, the upper deposit of weathered glacial till that -extends to a depth of M approximately four feet below existing site grades would be, classified as Type C soils by rn 0 -40 OSHA. The existing fill observed at the site would also be classified as Typ e C soil. 00 C Temporary cuts in Type C soils should be sloped at an inclination no steeper than -I.0 �: i X M 1.5H-1 V (Horizontal: Vertical), respectively. The unweathered glacial till observed below a rn Z depth of approximately four feet would be classified as Type A and Type B soils by C: 2 OSHA. Temporary slopes constructed in Type A and Type B soils should be inclined no steeper than 0.75H: 1 V and 1.H: 1 V, respectively. ECI should observe the excavations to assess soil and groundvater conditions, and to verify the OSHA soil type.. 0 n -n X Permanent cut and fill slopes should be. inclined no steeper than 2H:1V. Cut slopes M M 0 CA should be observed by ECI during excavation to verify.that conditions are as anticipated. 0 ementary recommendations can then be developed, if needed, to improve stability, Supple 0 M C Cn including flattening of slopes or installation of surface or subsurface drains. In any case' C Cn Mo water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled -over the top of slopes. r Permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve stability of the surficiallayer of soil. Z Utifily Trench Backfill Z 0 Based on the soil conditions encountered at the time of our exploration, the native soils should provide adequate support for utilities. If remedial measures are necessary to M provide adequate support for utilities, the unsuitable soils can be ovorexcavated and replaced with a rock ballast and pipe bedding material such as pea gravel. The presence of groundv%eter seepage should be expected in the deeper utility trench excavations and the proposed detention vault excavation. Earth Conoultants, inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERNG STUDY Phoenix Development, Inc. E-1 0075 Pa e 13 Mayl 4, 2002 9 In our opinion, the native soils can be considered for use as backfill for the utility trenches. At the time of the subsurface exploration (February, 2002) the upper deposit of weathered glacial till was generally in a wet condition, with moisture contents in excess of 16 percent. The lower deposit of unvveathered glacial till was generally in a z 0 moist to wet condition, and had moisture contents of approximately, 10 percent. ECI will 0 work with the contractor to assess the,suitability of the on -site soils for use * as utility M trench backfill. As previously mentioned, the soil should be placed during dry i weather rn conditions, and the moisture content of the soil should be at or near its optimum moisture content at the time of placement. X M C M 0 Utility trench backfill is a primary concern in reducing the potential for settlement in 0 C: pavement areas. It is important that the utilities be adequately suppo rt6d in the bedding X M material. The material should be hand tamped to ensure support is provided around the M Z haunches of these structures. Fill should be carefully placed and tamped to about twelve 10-1 (12) inches above the crown of the pipe before heavy compaction equipment is brought into use. The remainder of the backfill should be placed in lifts having a loose thickness 0) of less than twelve (12) inches. A typical trench backfill section and compaction 0 n -requirements for load supporting and non -load supporting areas is presented on Plate 4., X MITI 0 Cn Rockeries 0 0 M C: Co We understand the existing rockery located along Main Street at the northeast portion of 9 Cn. M the site will be incorporated into the new development. The rockery is approximately 0 Z r 180 feet in length, and ranges between four (4) feet to twelve 0 2) feet in height. We M estimate the rockery has been in place for appro)dmately twenty-five years. Two existing driveways that ramp u p through the alignment of the rockery face will be filled as part of > the proposed. development to establish a level building lot area. Construction of new z reinforced fill rockeries is currently being considered for purposes of retaining the new fill. 65 As discussed previously, an engineered rockery design will need to be completed for the z reinforced fill rockeries proposed for the site. 0 -4 0 M* Based on our observations, the majority of the existing rockery has experienced minor to e moderate weathering. The minor to moderate weathering was primarily obs rved along the lower rows of the rockery. In our opinion, these rocks are still structurally sound and will not have to be replaced. Several of the upper rocks have experienced severe, weathering, and should be replaced. These rocks are located primarily along the higher portions of the rockery. ECI will work with the contractor in identifying rocks that should be replaced. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFUNG STUDY Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075 May 14,.2002 Page'14 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 Z be in a firm and unyielding condition, when subjected to proolrolling with a loaded dump truck.. Structural fill in pavement areas should be prepared as described in the Site m Preparation and General Earthwork section of this report. This means the pavement subgrade'should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density. It is =5 possible that some localized areas of soft, wet or unstable subgrade may exist after the pavement subgrade is prepared. Overexcavation and a greater thickness of structural fill C mo or crushed rock may be needed to stabilize these localized areas. A biaxial geogrid such --I 0 0 0 as Tensar BX-1 200 can be considered for use below the crushed rock where bridging of C unstable subgrade is necessary. M m Z. 10--i Assuming a properly prepared subgrade, the following pavement section for lightly -loaded r areas can be used: 9 Two inches of asphalt concrete (AC) over four inches of crushed rock base (CRB) 0 -n -n material, or m m Two inches of AC over, three inches of'asphalt treated base (ATB) material., 0 0 M C CJ) C Cn, Heavier truck -traffic areas will require thicker pavement sections depending upon site M 0' Z m esign usage, pavement life, and site traffic. If necessary, ECI can provide pave ent d recommendations for truck traffic areas. ;U Asphalt concrete (AC), asphalt treated base (ATB), and crushed rock base (CRB) rnaterials Z should conform to WSDOT specifications. All rock bases should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density. Cn Z 0 LIMITATIONS 0 m Our recommendations* and conclusions are based on the site materials observed, selective. laboratory testing and engineering analyses, the design information provided to us, 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. Earth ConstAtants, Inc. C toc-ON c 0 m C3 a) CD M CO 2) C) < 2L 5 o Cl) , % :;, CD CO CD I CD ;r 0 3 cO w 0 0 CD 1w o CD 0 0 R 3 w =r :2 E- 0 CD CD m C) 0 CD cr Z3 o CD -B 0 m 0— 0 CD 0 m O(D > m 0 0 C-) -9 " co -T = M R CD 0 co 0 w (D CD CD 0 = CD CD < w — .6 0 CD CD > Fr ;w 0 3 M CD X CD CO C/) C/) 0 cc, 0 M,= 0 .0 2L -0 o 10 10 > 0 — () m =09 CD cr .0 ol 00 .9 :1 D) CD ul.0 n m- C/) 0 CD 0) 0 a -t 0 CL FT -4 0 (D CD > CD 0 (0- (D = CL -n 0 0 m ",z — Z ot � -i m ?� o U) 0 0 � r1l 0 CL 0 =r CD =r CD CD CD 0 m 0 CD (D -n cr En 0 CD CD 0 CD -04f � CA C'— m rN) m 0 03 0 z 0 0 CD "n z 0 > CD C: -n W > C7 4 CD 0 APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION E -10075 Our field exploration was performed on March 28, 2002. Subsurface conditions at the site were explored by observing a total of eleven test pit excavations. The test pits were Z� 0 excavated by. a subcontractor of Phoenix Development, Inc. The approximate test pit 0 locations were determined from existing landmarks presented on available plans. The M locations of the test pits should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the n­ method used. These approximate test pit locations are shown on the Test Pit Location. V5 -4 Plan, Plate 2. 0M C M 0 0 The field exploration was continuously monitored by a geologist from our office, who 80 C classified the soils encountered and maintained a log of each test pit, obtained representative samples, measured groundmter levels, and observed pertinent site M Z. features. C All samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification CA System that is presented on Plate All, Legend.. Logs of the test pits are presented in 0*-n _n Appendix A, Plates A2 through Al 2. The final logs represent our interpretations -of the -4 field logs and the . results of the laboratory tests of field samples. The stratification lines MM on the I . ogs represent the approximate, boundaries between soil types. In actuality, �he 0 55r transitions may be more gradual. 0 M C MO, Z > z Z 0 M Eaeth ConstAlants, Inc.. GRAPH LETTER . MAJOR DIVISIONS TYPICAL DES CRIPTION SYMBOL SYMBOL C­D� GW Well -Graded Gravels, Gravel -Sand Gravel P* AOAOA gw Mixtures. Little Or No Fines And Clean Gravels Gravelly (little or no fines) 4%& 4%k 4 poorly -Graded Gravels. Gravel - Coarse Soils r, ; ;1 ; gp Sand Mixtures. Little Or No Fines Grained Soils More Than GM Silty Gravels. Gravel- Sand- 50% Coarse Gravels Willi WIN g M Silt Mixtures �raction Fines I appreciable Retained On amount of lines) �gc Clayey Gravels. Gravel -Sand - No. 4 Sieve Clay Mixtures SW Well -Graded Sands, Grairbily Sand And Clean Sand SW Sands, Little Or No Fines Than Sandy (little or no fines) SP Poorly -Graded Sands. Gravelly More Soils SP Sands. Little Or No Fines so% Material Larger Than No. 200 Sieve More Than 60% Coarse SM Sm Silly Sands. Sand - S.ilt Mixtures Size Fraction Sands With Fines (appreciable Passing No. 4. amount of fines) Clayey Sands, Sand - Clay Mixtures Sieve ML inorganic Silts a Very Fine Sands, Rock Flo6r.Silty- MI Clayey Fine Sands-, Clayey Silts wl Slight P lasticity Fine Sills Liquid L - im I C Inorganic Clays Of Low To Medium Plasticity. . Grained Arid a i Less Thin so Gravelly CI aYs. Sandy CIays.'SiltY Clays:. Lean Soils Clays OL Organic Silts And Organic 01 Silty Clays Of Low Plasticity Inorganic Sills. Micaceous Or Dialomaceous Fire More Than Mh Sand Or Silly - Soils 50% Material Smaller Tfian Silts Liquid Limit inorganic Clays Of High No. 200 Sieve And Clays Greater Than 50 Plasticity. rat Clays. Size Organic Clays of Medium To*Kigh Plasticity, Organic Silts %4 1.1 1 - Peal, Humus. Swamp Soils Highly, Organic Soilh I[�PT P With High Organic Contents Topsoil Humus And Duff Layer Fill Hluhly 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 Indicate borderline soll c1mailication. TORVANE READING. tsf 2- O.D. SPLIT SPOON SAM PLER qu PENETROMETER READING, Isif W MCIISTURE, % dry weight 24% I.D. RING OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER P SAMPLER PUSHED SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED WATER OBSERVATION WELL PcI DRY DENSITY, Ibs. per cubic ft. LL LIQUID LIMIT, % SZ. DEPTH OF ENCOUNTERED GROUNDWATER PI PLASTIC INDEX DURING EXCAVATION V SUBSEQUENT GROUNDWATER LEVELW/ DATE LEGEND. Earth Consultants Inc. Proj. No. IOC175 Date Apr.2002 1PIate Al z 0 m --I -n m c m 0 40 .0 C M M z C.2 Cl) 0 -n m M 0 0 0 M C cl) r. Cl) M 0 Z Cl) z 0 --i 0 m