The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRS_Preliminary_Drainage_Technical_Information_Report_(TIR)_230127_v1 PRELIMINARY TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT Urgent Care Clinic 901 South Grady Way (Outlot) Renton, Washington 98057 City of Renton File No. XXXXX Prepared for: The Velmeir Companies Michigan Office/Corporate Headquarters 5757 West Maple Road Suite 800 West Bloomfield, Michigan 48322 January 27, 2023 Our Job No. 21816 A L E X W HITE PRO F ESSION A L E N G INEERR EGIS T E R E DSTATE O F W A SHIN GTON21036777 01/27/2023 Preliminary Technical Information Report Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. Urgent Care Clinic Renton, Washington Our Job No. 21816 21816.005-TIR TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW Figure 1.1 – Site Location Figure 1.2 – Assessor Map Figure 1.3 – FEMA Map Figure 1.4 – Soils Map Figure 1.5 – Sensitive Area Map Figure 1.6 – Technical Information Report (TIR) Worksheet 2.0 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY 2.1 Analysis of the Core Requirements 2.2 Analysis of the Special Requirements 3.0 OFF-SITE ANALYSIS 4.0 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN A. Existing Site Hydrology Figure 4.1 – Existing Parcel Ground Cover B. Developed Site Hydrology Figure 4.2 – Proposed Parcel Ground Cover C. Performance Standards D. Flow Control System Figure 4.3 – Basin “D” Map Figure 4.4 – WWHM Calculation E. Water Quality System 5.0 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 6.0 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES Figure 6.1 – Former Fuel Facility Drainage Report prepared by PacLand, dated April 18, 2003 Figure 6.2 – Geotechnical Report prepared by GeoEngineers, dated January 26, 2023 Figure 6.3 – Wetland Report prepared by The Water Shed Company, dated January 3, 2023 7.0 OTHER PERMITS 8.0 CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION (CSWPP) ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 9.0 BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT 10.0 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL Tab 1.0 21816.005-TIR 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW The project proposes to construct an Urgent Care Clinic on a portion of the following parcels 1723059183, 2023059007 and 9154600010. The site currently shares an address with the Home Depot located Northeast of the site, 910 South Grady Way and as on an approximate lot size of 1.89 acres. Please see Figure 1.1, Site Location, for a graphical depiction of the site location and Figure 1.2 for the Assessor’s Map. The site’s improvements will include a clinic with associated pavement and landscaping. In the existing condition, stormwater sheet flows across the site to the east, entering existing catch basins, before being conveyed to an existing bioswale. The bioswale discharges the runoff to a catch basin located within the drive aisle, south of the site, before entering the right-of-way conveyance. In the proposed condition stormwater will sheet flow across the site entering proposed catch basins. The runoff will then be conveyed to a water quality facility prior to discharging to the existing catch basin within the drive aisle. This project will propose the replacement of greater than 5,000 square feet of impervious surfaces and the replacement of greater than 5,000 square feet of pollution generating impervious surfaces. Therefore, this project is subjected to a Full Drainage Review per the 2022 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual (2022 RSWDM) and must demonstrate compliance with the requirements set forth in said manual. The project must address Core Requirements Nos. 1 through 9, and Special Requirements Nos. 1 through 5 of the 2022 RSWDM. Figure 1.1 Site Location Horizontal: Scale: Vertical: For: Title: V I C I N I T Y M A P Job Number N.T.S.N/A 21816 D AT E: 01/24/23 Urgent Care Renton, Washington P:\21000s\21816\exhibit\graphics\21816 vmap.cdr RE FER ENC E: MapQuest (2023) SITE Figure 1.2 Assessor Map Horizontal: Scale: Vertical: For: Title: A S S E S S O R M A P Job Number N.T.S.N/A 21816 D AT E: 01/24/23 Urgent Care Renton, Washington P:\21000s\21816\exhibit\graphics\21816 amap.cdr SITE RE FER ENC E: King County Department of Assessments (Sept. 2021) Figure 1.3 FEMA Map Horizontal: Scale: Vertical: For: Title: F E M A M A P Job Number N.T.S.N/A 21816 D AT E: 01/24/23 Urgent Care Renton, Washington P:\21000s\21816\exhibit\graphics\21816 fema.cdr REFER EN CE: Federal Emergency Management Agency (Portion of Map 53033C0977G, Aug. 2020) Areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain. ZONE X OTHER AREAS L E G E N D SITE Figure 1.4 Soils Map Horizontal: Scale: Vertical: For: Title: S O I L S U RV E Y M A P Job Number N.T.S.N/A 21816 D AT E: 01/24/23 Urgent Care Renton, Washington P:\21000s\21816\exhibit\graphics\21816 soil.cdr H SG - RE FER ENCE: US DA, Natural Resources Conservation Service LEG END: SITE Ur = Urban land Figure 1.5 Sensitive Areas Map Horizontal: Scale: Vertical: For: Title: S E N S I T I V E A R E A S M A P Job Number N.T.S.N/A 21816 D AT E: 01/24/23 Urgent Care Renton, Washington P:\21000s\21816\exhibit\graphics\21816 sens.cdr SITE RE FER ENC E: King County iM AP (2023) Figure 1.6 TIR Worksheet CITY OF RENTON SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL 2022 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 6/22/2022 8-A-1 REFERENCE 8-A TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET Part 1 PROJECT OWNER AND PROJECT ENGINEER Part 2 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION Project Owner _____________________________ Phone ___________________________________ Address __________________________________ _________________________________________ Project Engineer ___________________________ Company _________________________________ Phone ___________________________________ Project Name __________________________ CED Permit # ________________________ Location Township ________________ Range __________________ Section _________________ Site Address __________________________ _____________________________________ Part 3 TYPE OF PERMIT APPLICATION Part 4 OTHER REVIEWS AND PERMITS  Land Use (e.g., Subdivision / Short Subd.)  Building (e.g., M/F / Commercial / SFR)  Grading  Right-of-Way Use  Other _______________________  DFW HPA  COE 404  DOE Dam Safety  FEMA Floodplain  COE Wetlands  Other ________  Shoreline Management  Structural Rockery/Vault/_____  ESA Section 7 Part 5 PLAN AND REPORT INFORMATION Technical Information Report Site Improvement Plan (Engr. Plans) Type of Drainage Review (check one): Date (include revision dates): Date of Final:  Full  Targeted  Simplified  Large Project  Directed __________________ __________________ __________________ Plan Type (check one): Date (include revision dates): Date of Final:  Full  Modified  Simplified __________________ __________________ __________________ Velmeir Acquisition Services 5757 West Maple Rd., Suite 800 West Bloomfield, MI 48322 Alex White, P.E. Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. (425) 251-6222 (206) 678-2696 Urgent Care Clinic TBD 23 N 5 E 20 901 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Conditional Use Permit TBD TBD REFERENCE 8: PLAN REVIEW FORMS AND WORKSHEET TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET 6/22/2022 2022 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 8-A-2 Part 6 SWDM ADJUSTMENT APPROVALS Type (circle one): Standard / Blanket Description: (include conditions in TIR Section 2) ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ Approved Adjustment No. ______________________ Date of Approval: _______________________ Part 7 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Monitoring Required: Yes / No Start Date: _______________________ Completion Date: _______________________ Describe: _________________________________ _________________________________________ _________________________________________ Re: SWDM Adjustment No. ________________ Part 8 SITE COMMUNITY AND DRAINAGE BASIN Community Plan: ____________________________________________________________________ Special District Overlays: ______________________________________________________________ Drainage Basin: _____________________________________________________________________ Stormwater Requirements: _____________________________________________________________ Part 9 ONSITE AND ADJACENT SENSITIVE AREAS  River/Stream ________________________  Lake ______________________________  Wetlands ____________________________  Closed Depression ____________________  Floodplain ___________________________  Other _______________________________ _______________________________  Steep Slope __________________________  Erosion Hazard _______________________  Landslide Hazard ______________________  Coal Mine Hazard ______________________  Seismic Hazard _______________________  Habitat Protection ______________________  _____________________________________ Not Applicable Black River Peak Rate Flow Control Standard Category III Rolling Hills Creek REFERENCE 8-A: TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET 2022 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 6/22/2022 Ref 8-A-3 Part 10 SOILS Soil Type ______________________ ______________________ ______________________ ______________________ Slopes ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ Erosion Potential _________________________ _________________________ _________________________ _________________________  High Groundwater Table (within 5 feet)  Other ________________________________  Sole Source Aquifer  Seeps/Springs  Additional Sheets Attached Part 11 DRAINAGE DESIGN LIMITATIONS REFERENCE  Core 2 – Offsite Analysis_________________  Sensitive/Critical Areas__________________  SEPA________________________________  LID Infeasibility________________________  Other________________________________  _____________________________________ LIMITATION / SITE CONSTRAINT _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________  Additional Sheets Attached Part 12 TIR SUMMARY SHEET (provide one TIR Summary Sheet per Threshold Discharge Area) Threshold Discharge Area: (name or description) Core Requirements (all 9 apply): Discharge at Natural Location Number of Natural Discharge Locations: Offsite Analysis Level: 1 / 2 / 3 dated:__________________ Flow Control (include facility summary sheet) Standard: _______________________________ or Exemption Number: ____________ Conveyance System Spill containment located at: _____________________________ Erosion and Sediment Control / Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention CSWPP/CESCL/ESC Site Supervisor: _____________________ Contact Phone: _________________________ After Hours Phone: _________________________ Maintenance and Operation Responsibility (circle one): Private / Public If Private, Maintenance Log Required: Yes / No Financial Guarantees and Liability Provided: Yes / No Urban Land 2%-10% Basin "D" (1.13 Ac) Core Requirement Nos. 1 through 9 1 TBD TBD TBD TBD Peak Rate Flow Control Standard REFERENCE 8: PLAN REVIEW FORMS AND WORKSHEET TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET 6/22/2022 2022 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 8-A-4 Part 12 TIR SUMMARY SHEET (provide one TIR Summary Sheet per Threshold Discharge Area) Water Quality (include facility summary sheet) Type (circle one): Basic / Sens. Lake / Enhanced Basic / Bog or Exemption No. _______________________ On-site BMPs Describe: Special Requirements (as applicable): Area Specific Drainage Requirements Type: SDO / MDP / BP / Shared Fac. / None Name: ________________________ Floodplain/Floodway Delineation Type (circle one): Major / Minor / Exemption / None 100-year Base Flood Elevation (or range): _______________ Datum: Flood Protection Facilities Describe: Source Control (commercial / industrial land use) Describe land use: Describe any structural controls: Oil Control High-Use Site: Yes / No Treatment BMP: _________________________________ Maintenance Agreement: Yes / No with whom? _____________________________________ Other Drainage Structures Describe: Commercial Hydraulically Isolated TE REFERENCE 8-A: TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET 2022 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 6/22/2022 Ref 8-A-5 Part 13 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION  Clearing Limits  Cover Measures  Perimeter Protection  Traffic Area Stabilization  Sediment Retention  Surface Water Collection  Dewatering Control  Dust Control  Flow Control  Control Pollutants  Protect Existing and Proposed BMPs/Facilities  Maintain Protective BMPs / Manage Project MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS AFTER CONSTRUCTION  Stabilize exposed surfaces  Remove and restore Temporary ESC Facilities  Clean and remove all silt and debris, ensure operation of Permanent BMPs/Facilities, restore operation of BMPs/Facilities as necessary  Flag limits of sensitive areas and open space preservation areas  Other _______________________ Part 14 STORMWATER FACILITY DESCRIPTIONS (Note: Include Facility Summary and Sketch) Flow Control Description Water Quality Description On-site BMPs Description  Detention  Infiltration  Regional Facility  Shared Facility  Other _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________  Vegetated Flowpath  Wetpool  Filtration  Oil Control  Spill Control  Other _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________  Full Dispersion  Full Infiltration  Limited Infiltration  Rain Gardens  Bioretention  Permeable Pavement  Basic Dispersion  Soil Amendment  Perforated Pipe Connection  Other _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ _____________ MWS Unit REFERENCE 8: PLAN REVIEW FORMS AND WORKSHEET TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET 6/22/2022 2022 City of Renton Surface Water Design Manual 8-A-6 Part 15 EASEMENTS/TRACTS Part 16 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS  Drainage Easement  Covenant  Native Growth Protection Covenant  Tract  Other ____________________________  Cast in Place Vault  Retaining Wall  Rockery > 4′ High  Structural on Steep Slope  Other _______________________________ Part 17 SIGNATURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER I, or a civil engineer under my supervision, have visited the site. Actual site conditions as observed were incorporated into this worksheet and the attached Technical Information Report. To the best of my knowledge the information provided here is accurate. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Signed/Date January 27, 2023 Tab 2.0 21816.005-TIR 2.0 CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY 2.1 Analysis of the Core Requirements Core Requirement No. 1: Discharge at the Natural Location. Response: On-site runoff will be treated and discharged to the existing discharge location; the catch basin located within the drive aisle just south of the site. Core Requirement No. 2: Off-Site Analysis. Response: The existing and proposed off-site drainage conditions are discussed in the Off-Site Analysis Section of this report, Section 3.0. Core Requirement No. 3: Flow Control. Response: The project is subjected to the Peak Rate Flow Control Standard per the manual. The standard requires the project to match the 2-, 10-, and 100-year peak-rate runoff of the existing site conditions. The existing condition was modeled to match the runoff characteristics of Basin “D” of the Former Fuel Facility Drainage Report, Figure 6.1. WWHM2012 calculations are provided demonstrating compliance with this requirement. Core Requirement No. 4: Conveyance System. Response: The proposed conveyance system is anticipated to be of adequat e capacity for the proposed re-development. Refer to Section 5 of this report. Core Requirement No. 5: Erosion and Sediment Control. Response: Erosion and sediment controls will be provided to prevent the transport of sediment downstream and off-site. A SWPPP will be provided in Section 8.0 of this Stormwater Site Plan during Final Engineering Review. Core Requirement No. 6: Maintenance and Operations. Response: The drainage facility for this project will be a private facility, owned and maintained by the Owner. An Operation and Maintenance Manual will be provided in Section 10.0 of this Stormwater Site Plan during Final Engineering Review. Core Requirement No. 7: Financial Guarantees and Liability. Response: Financial guarantees will be provided upon permit approval. Core Requirement No. 8: Water Quality. Response: This project is classified as a commercial development and proposes more than 5,000 square feet of pollution generating impervious surfaces; therefore, this project triggers Enhanced Water Treatment; refer to Section 4, Part E for the full discussion. Core Requirement No. 9: Flow Control BMPs. Response: This project proposes greater than 2,000 square feet of new and replaced impervious surface and must evaluate the feasibility of flow control BMPs for the proposed targeted surfaces. This project is located on an individual lot that is larger than 21816.005-TIR 22,000 square feet and must satisfy large Lot BMP Requirements. Please see Section 4.0, Part F for the Flow Control BMPs discussion. 2.2 Analysis of the Special Requirements Special Requirement No. 1: Other Adopted Area-Specific Requirements. Response: This site is not located in an adopted area; therefore, this requirement does not apply. Special Requirement No. 2: Flood Hazard Area Delineation. Response: This site does not lie within any FEMA delineated Flood Hazard areas; therefore, this requirement does not apply. Special Requirement No. 3: Flood Protection Facilities. Response: This site does not rely on flood protection facilities. Special Requirement No. 4: Source Control. Response: All necessary applicable Source Control BMPs indicated in the 2022 RSWDM will be implemented, such as, but not limited to a hydraulically isolated trash enclosure draining to the sanitary sewer. Special Requirement No. 5: Oil Control. Response: This proposed redevelopment is not classified as a high-use site; therefore, it is not required to comply with oil control requirements. Tab 3.0 21816.005-TIR 3.0 OFF-SITE ANALYSIS As mentioned before, this site is currently situated on a portion of Parcel Nos. 1723059183, 2023059007 and 9154600010, and encompasses an area of approximately 1.89 acres. The site is located within the Black River basin, with a wetland near the southern property boundary, refer to Figure 6.3 of this report for the Wetland Study. Due to the location of the site and the surrounding development, this site hardly experiences any upstream runoff entering the site. Once runoff leaves the site and enters the right-of-way a 60-inch pipe conveys the water west then south about 500 feet until it reaches the intersection of Talbot Road South and South Renton Village Place. At this point, the water flows west (800 feet) until it reaches a culvert that conveys the water and discharges the runoff to the Rolling Hill Creak approximately 2,000 feet away from the site. At the time of this report there appears to be no drainage complaints, erosion control issues, or flooding problems along the flow path. Additionally, the site will comply with the requirements set forth in the 2022 RSWDM; therefore, it is not anticipated that the proposed re-development will cause negative impacts to the surrounding developments. A full in-depth Level 1 Off-site Analysis Report will be conducted for the site and will be submitted during the Final Engineering Review. Tab 4.0 21816.005-TIR 4.0 FLOW CONTROL AND WATER QUALITY FACILITY ANALYSIS AND DESIGN A. Existing Site Hydrology At the time of the survey dated December 1, 2022, the site is currently developed and consists of asphalt and concrete pavement, storm and sewer infrastructure, and associated landscaping. The site currently shares an address with the Home Depot, located northwest of the site and is portioned on a future parcel that is roughly 1.89 acres in size. The existing topography of the site exhibits slopes ranging from 2 to 10 percent with the highest elevations located at the northern portion of the site. Currently, it appears that run-off flows east across the site. The water is then collected within existing catch basins and conveyed to an existing bio-swale to provide the required treatment before leaving the site and entering the existing stormwater infrastructure within Talbot Road South. However, before the survey, a fuel facility existed on this lot and was part of a larger commercial development. The full scope of this previous development can be seen in the Form Fuel Facility Drainage Report, Figure 6.1. As seen in the Drainage Report dated April 18, 2003, the proposed redevelopment is located within Basin “D” of the overall commercial development. Figure 4.1 Existing Parcel Ground Cover Preliminary Not For Construction A L E X W HITE PRO F ESSIONA L E N G INEERREGIST E R E DSTATE O F W ASHI NGTON21036777 PRELIMINARY SCALE: 1"=20' 21816.005-TIR B. Developed Site Hydrology The proposed project consists of re-developing the existing lot and constructing a clinic. Along with the clinic, associated pavement for vehicle circulation and pedestrian access, are proposed, as well as landscaping. The drive aisle along the north, east and south portion of the development will remain, along with the existing parking east of the site. Along with the on-site improvements, drainage facilities will be constructed to capture runoff from the existing and proposed surfaces and convey the runoff to a drainage facility for water quality treatment per the 2022 RSWDM. The site will maintain the same general topographic grading characteristics. Refer to Figure 4.2 – Proposed Parcel Coverage. Figure 4.2 Proposed Parcel Ground Cover Preliminary Not For Construction A L E X W HITE PRO F ESSIONA L E N G INEERREGIST E R E DSTATE O F W ASHI NGTON21036777 PRELIMINARY SCALE: 1"=20' 21816.005-TIR C. Performance Standards This project proposes more than 5,000 square feet of new and replaced impervious surface and pollution generating impervious surfaces; therefore, this project is subjected to the Peak Rate Flow Control Standard and enhanced water quality treatment as specified in 2022 RSWDM. A Western Washington Hydrology Model (WWHM) has been provided demonstrating compliance with this flow control standard, see Section D of this report. D. Flow Control System Per the 2022 RSWDM and the Flow Control Application layer in the City of Renton GIS Map this site is located within the Peak Rate Flow Control Standard. The standard requires the project to match the 2-, 10-, and 100-year peak-rate runoff of the existing site conditions. As discussed previously, this development is located within Basin “D” of the larger commercial development; the existing site condition of this basin can be found in Figure 6.1 or in Figure 4.3 – Basin “D” Land Coverage. Since the surrounding stormwater infrastructure was designed to account for our lot as a fuel facility, refer to Figure 6.1, and there appears to be no signs of drainage problems around the development; the existing site conditions have been modeled to match those of the Former Fuel Facility. Due to the right-of-way dedication and slight changes in the overall redevelopment compared to the Former Fuel Facility, the boundary of Basin “D” has changed slightly, refer to Figure 4.3; however, the total amount of surface area associated with Basin “D” has approximately remained the same, with a decrease of impervious surfaces. Additionally, there are no proposed modifications to the surrounding basins, Basin “A” and the drive aisle; see Figure 6.1 for the basin delineations. Pair this with no signs of drainage problems in or around the site, this redevelopment is not anticipated to negatively affect the surrounding properties. Refer to Figure 4.5 for Flow Control Calculations. Figure 4.3 Basin “D” Map Preliminary Not For Construction A L E X W HITE PRO F ESSIONA L E N G INEERREGIST E R E DSTATE O F W ASHI NGTON21036777 PRELIMINARY SCALE: 1"=20' Figure 4.4 WWHM Calculation WWHM2012 PROJECT REPORT 21816-Flow Control 1/25/2023 5:31:07 PM Page 2 General Model Information Project Name:21816-Flow Control Site Name:Multi-Care Urgent Care Clinic Site Address:901 South Grady Way City:Renton, WA Report Date:1/25/2023 Gage:Seatac Data Start:1948/10/01 Data End:2009/09/30 Timestep:15 Minute Precip Scale:1.000 Version Date:2019/09/13 Version:4.2.17 POC Thresholds Low Flow Threshold for POC1:50 Percent of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC1:50 Year 21816-Flow Control 1/25/2023 5:31:07 PM Page 3 Landuse Basin Data Predeveloped Land Use Basin 1 Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre C, Lawn, Flat 0.32 Pervious Total 0.32 Impervious Land Use acre ROADS FLAT 0.82 Impervious Total 0.82 Basin Total 1.14 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater 21816-Flow Control 1/25/2023 5:31:08 PM Page 4 Mitigated Land Use Basin 1 Bypass:No GroundWater:No Pervious Land Use acre C, Lawn, Flat 0.32 Pervious Total 0.32 Impervious Land Use acre ROADS FLAT 0.81 Impervious Total 0.81 Basin Total 1.13 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater 21816-Flow Control 1/25/2023 5:31:08 PM Page 5 Routing Elements Predeveloped Routing 21816-Flow Control 1/25/2023 5:31:08 PM Page 6 Mitigated Routing 21816-Flow Control 1/25/2023 5:31:08 PM Page 7 Analysis Results POC 1 + Predeveloped x Mitigated Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:0.32 Total Impervious Area:0.82 Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area:0.32 Total Impervious Area:0.81 Flow Frequency Method:Log Pearson Type III 17B Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.333106 5 year 0.42847 10 year 0.494177 25 year 0.580348 50 year 0.646941 100 year 0.715668 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.329297 5 year 0.423682 10 year 0.488727 25 year 0.574045 50 year 0.639987 100 year 0.70805 Annual Peaks Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Year Predeveloped Mitigated 1949 0.451 0.446 1950 0.445 0.440 1951 0.281 0.278 1952 0.229 0.226 1953 0.247 0.244 1954 0.271 0.268 1955 0.303 0.299 1956 0.299 0.296 1957 0.352 0.348 1958 0.271 0.268 21816-Flow Control 1/25/2023 5:31:40 PM Page 8 1959 0.265 0.262 1960 0.291 0.288 1961 0.297 0.294 1962 0.246 0.243 1963 0.288 0.285 1964 0.270 0.267 1965 0.366 0.362 1966 0.233 0.230 1967 0.405 0.401 1968 0.462 0.457 1969 0.333 0.329 1970 0.311 0.308 1971 0.371 0.367 1972 0.410 0.405 1973 0.217 0.215 1974 0.345 0.342 1975 0.365 0.361 1976 0.267 0.264 1977 0.266 0.263 1978 0.331 0.327 1979 0.451 0.446 1980 0.463 0.459 1981 0.345 0.341 1982 0.501 0.495 1983 0.386 0.382 1984 0.252 0.249 1985 0.346 0.342 1986 0.291 0.288 1987 0.446 0.441 1988 0.265 0.261 1989 0.331 0.327 1990 0.677 0.671 1991 0.520 0.515 1992 0.249 0.246 1993 0.210 0.207 1994 0.221 0.218 1995 0.304 0.301 1996 0.347 0.343 1997 0.330 0.327 1998 0.314 0.310 1999 0.684 0.677 2000 0.332 0.329 2001 0.346 0.342 2002 0.444 0.439 2003 0.345 0.342 2004 0.636 0.629 2005 0.292 0.288 2006 0.262 0.259 2007 0.604 0.598 2008 0.511 0.505 2009 0.405 0.400 Ranked Annual Peaks Ranked Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated 1 0.6845 0.6769 2 0.6774 0.6706 3 0.6356 0.6285 21816-Flow Control 1/25/2023 5:31:40 PM Page 9 4 0.6040 0.5980 5 0.5202 0.5148 6 0.5107 0.5054 7 0.5006 0.4950 8 0.4635 0.4586 9 0.4620 0.4567 10 0.4513 0.4464 11 0.4511 0.4456 12 0.4462 0.4408 13 0.4450 0.4396 14 0.4442 0.4394 15 0.4098 0.4054 16 0.4055 0.4008 17 0.4050 0.4000 18 0.3865 0.3819 19 0.3714 0.3672 20 0.3662 0.3622 21 0.3654 0.3609 22 0.3523 0.3484 23 0.3469 0.3431 24 0.3459 0.3419 25 0.3457 0.3416 26 0.3454 0.3415 27 0.3453 0.3415 28 0.3451 0.3412 29 0.3328 0.3292 30 0.3324 0.3286 31 0.3308 0.3268 32 0.3307 0.3268 33 0.3304 0.3268 34 0.3139 0.3102 35 0.3112 0.3076 36 0.3041 0.3005 37 0.3029 0.2994 38 0.2994 0.2959 39 0.2972 0.2939 40 0.2917 0.2885 41 0.2911 0.2878 42 0.2909 0.2876 43 0.2878 0.2846 44 0.2810 0.2779 45 0.2715 0.2684 46 0.2710 0.2678 47 0.2696 0.2665 48 0.2672 0.2642 49 0.2665 0.2632 50 0.2650 0.2618 51 0.2645 0.2613 52 0.2620 0.2592 53 0.2516 0.2487 54 0.2492 0.2464 55 0.2470 0.2440 56 0.2463 0.2434 57 0.2330 0.2303 58 0.2285 0.2258 59 0.2207 0.2180 60 0.2173 0.2146 61 0.2098 0.2073 21816-Flow Control 1/25/2023 5:31:40 PM Page 10 21816-Flow Control 1/25/2023 5:31:40 PM Page 11 Duration Flows The Facility PASSED Flow(cfs)Predev Mit Percentage Pass/Fail 0.1666 1715 1653 96 Pass 0.1714 1552 1494 96 Pass 0.1763 1390 1326 95 Pass 0.1811 1249 1187 95 Pass 0.1860 1135 1087 95 Pass 0.1908 1036 987 95 Pass 0.1957 950 914 96 Pass 0.2005 873 819 93 Pass 0.2054 778 744 95 Pass 0.2102 712 685 96 Pass 0.2151 659 635 96 Pass 0.2199 613 590 96 Pass 0.2248 566 545 96 Pass 0.2296 526 505 96 Pass 0.2345 489 465 95 Pass 0.2393 447 422 94 Pass 0.2442 405 393 97 Pass 0.2490 379 365 96 Pass 0.2539 361 354 98 Pass 0.2587 339 331 97 Pass 0.2636 316 297 93 Pass 0.2685 289 277 95 Pass 0.2733 269 254 94 Pass 0.2782 249 238 95 Pass 0.2830 234 224 95 Pass 0.2879 219 209 95 Pass 0.2927 198 194 97 Pass 0.2976 193 186 96 Pass 0.3024 183 168 91 Pass 0.3073 167 158 94 Pass 0.3121 155 148 95 Pass 0.3170 146 139 95 Pass 0.3218 136 132 97 Pass 0.3267 130 124 95 Pass 0.3315 120 115 95 Pass 0.3364 112 106 94 Pass 0.3412 105 103 98 Pass 0.3461 96 95 98 Pass 0.3509 94 89 94 Pass 0.3558 88 83 94 Pass 0.3606 83 81 97 Pass 0.3655 81 77 95 Pass 0.3704 77 76 98 Pass 0.3752 76 75 98 Pass 0.3801 75 67 89 Pass 0.3849 67 66 98 Pass 0.3898 66 62 93 Pass 0.3946 62 58 93 Pass 0.3995 57 55 96 Pass 0.4043 55 52 94 Pass 0.4092 52 49 94 Pass 0.4140 48 46 95 Pass 0.4189 46 44 95 Pass 21816-Flow Control 1/25/2023 5:31:40 PM Page 12 0.4237 44 41 93 Pass 0.4286 41 40 97 Pass 0.4334 40 37 92 Pass 0.4383 37 35 94 Pass 0.4431 35 28 80 Pass 0.4480 31 26 83 Pass 0.4528 26 26 100 Pass 0.4577 26 24 92 Pass 0.4625 24 22 91 Pass 0.4674 22 20 90 Pass 0.4723 20 19 95 Pass 0.4771 19 17 89 Pass 0.4820 18 17 94 Pass 0.4868 17 15 88 Pass 0.4917 16 14 87 Pass 0.4965 14 13 92 Pass 0.5014 13 12 92 Pass 0.5062 12 11 91 Pass 0.5111 11 9 81 Pass 0.5159 9 8 88 Pass 0.5208 9 8 88 Pass 0.5256 8 8 100 Pass 0.5305 8 8 100 Pass 0.5353 8 8 100 Pass 0.5402 8 8 100 Pass 0.5450 8 8 100 Pass 0.5499 8 8 100 Pass 0.5547 8 8 100 Pass 0.5596 8 7 87 Pass 0.5645 7 7 100 Pass 0.5693 7 7 100 Pass 0.5742 7 7 100 Pass 0.5790 7 7 100 Pass 0.5839 7 7 100 Pass 0.5887 7 7 100 Pass 0.5936 7 6 85 Pass 0.5984 7 6 85 Pass 0.6033 6 4 66 Pass 0.6081 4 4 100 Pass 0.6130 4 4 100 Pass 0.6178 4 4 100 Pass 0.6227 4 3 75 Pass 0.6275 3 3 100 Pass 0.6324 3 2 66 Pass 0.6372 2 2 100 Pass 0.6421 2 2 100 Pass 0.6469 2 2 100 Pass 21816-Flow Control 1/25/2023 5:31:40 PM Page 13 Water Quality Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC #1 On-line facility volume:0 acre-feet On-line facility target flow:0 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min:0 cfs. Off-line facility target flow:0 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min:0 cfs. 21816-Flow Control 1/25/2023 5:31:40 PM Page 14 LID Report 21816-Flow Control 1/25/2023 5:32:18 PM Page 15 Model Default Modifications Total of 0 changes have been made. PERLND Changes No PERLND changes have been made. IMPLND Changes No IMPLND changes have been made. 21816-Flow Control 1/25/2023 5:32:18 PM Page 16 Appendix Predeveloped Schematic 21816-Flow Control 1/25/2023 5:32:20 PM Page 17 Mitigated Schematic 21816-Flow Control 1/25/2023 5:32:22 PM Page 18 Predeveloped UCI File RUN GLOBAL WWHM4 model simulation START 1948 10 01 END 2009 09 30 RUN INTERP OUTPUT LEVEL 3 0 RESUME 0 RUN 1 UNIT SYSTEM 1 END GLOBAL FILES <File> <Un#> <-----------File Name------------------------------>*** <-ID-> *** WDM 26 21816-Flow Control.wdm MESSU 25 Pre21816-Flow Control.MES 27 Pre21816-Flow Control.L61 28 Pre21816-Flow Control.L62 30 POC21816-Flow Control1.dat END FILES OPN SEQUENCE INGRP INDELT 00:15 PERLND 16 IMPLND 1 COPY 501 DISPLY 1 END INGRP END OPN SEQUENCE DISPLY DISPLY-INFO1 # - #<----------Title----------->***TRAN PIVL DIG1 FIL1 PYR DIG2 FIL2 YRND 1 Basin 1 MAX 1 2 30 9 END DISPLY-INFO1 END DISPLY COPY TIMESERIES # - # NPT NMN *** 1 1 1 501 1 1 END TIMESERIES END COPY GENER OPCODE # # OPCD *** END OPCODE PARM # # K *** END PARM END GENER PERLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name------->NBLKS Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 16 C, Lawn, Flat 1 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO *** Section PWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC *** 16 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <PLS > ***************** Print-flags ***************************** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC ********* 16 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO 21816-Flow Control 1/25/2023 5:32:22 PM Page 19 PWAT-PARM1 <PLS > PWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP UZFG VCS VUZ VNN VIFW VIRC VLE INFC HWT *** 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END PWAT-PARM1 PWAT-PARM2 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # ***FOREST LZSN INFILT LSUR SLSUR KVARY AGWRC 16 0 4.5 0.03 400 0.05 0.5 0.996 END PWAT-PARM2 PWAT-PARM3 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN INFEXP INFILD DEEPFR BASETP AGWETP 16 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 END PWAT-PARM3 PWAT-PARM4 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 4 *** # - # CEPSC UZSN NSUR INTFW IRC LZETP *** 16 0.1 0.25 0.25 6 0.5 0.25 END PWAT-PARM4 PWAT-STATE1 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation ran from 1990 to end of 1992 (pat 1-11-95) RUN 21 *** # - # *** CEPS SURS UZS IFWS LZS AGWS GWVS 16 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0 END PWAT-STATE1 END PERLND IMPLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name-------> Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 1 ROADS/FLAT 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO *** Section IWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL *** 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <ILS > ******** Print-flags ******** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL ********* 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO IWAT-PARM1 <PLS > IWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP VRS VNN RTLI *** 1 0 0 0 0 0 END IWAT-PARM1 IWAT-PARM2 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # *** LSUR SLSUR NSUR RETSC 1 400 0.01 0.1 0.1 END IWAT-PARM2 IWAT-PARM3 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN 1 0 0 21816-Flow Control 1/25/2023 5:32:22 PM Page 20 END IWAT-PARM3 IWAT-STATE1 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation # - # *** RETS SURS 1 0 0 END IWAT-STATE1 END IMPLND SCHEMATIC <-Source-> <--Area--> <-Target-> MBLK *** <Name> # <-factor-> <Name> # Tbl# *** Basin 1*** PERLND 16 0.32 COPY 501 12 PERLND 16 0.32 COPY 501 13 IMPLND 1 0.82 COPY 501 15 ******Routing****** END SCHEMATIC NETWORK <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 DISPLY 1 INPUT TIMSER 1 <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** END NETWORK RCHRES GEN-INFO RCHRES Name Nexits Unit Systems Printer *** # - #<------------------><---> User T-series Engl Metr LKFG *** in out *** END GEN-INFO *** Section RCHRES*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # HYFG ADFG CNFG HTFG SDFG GQFG OXFG NUFG PKFG PHFG *** END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <PLS > ***************** Print-flags ******************* PIVL PYR # - # HYDR ADCA CONS HEAT SED GQL OXRX NUTR PLNK PHCB PIVL PYR ********* END PRINT-INFO HYDR-PARM1 RCHRES Flags for each HYDR Section *** # - # VC A1 A2 A3 ODFVFG for each *** ODGTFG for each FUNCT for each FG FG FG FG possible exit *** possible exit possible exit * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** END HYDR-PARM1 HYDR-PARM2 # - # FTABNO LEN DELTH STCOR KS DB50 *** <------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------> *** END HYDR-PARM2 HYDR-INIT RCHRES Initial conditions for each HYDR section *** # - # *** VOL Initial value of COLIND Initial value of OUTDGT *** ac-ft for each possible exit for each possible exit <------><--------> <---><---><---><---><---> *** <---><---><---><---><---> END HYDR-INIT END RCHRES SPEC-ACTIONS 21816-Flow Control 1/25/2023 5:32:22 PM Page 21 END SPEC-ACTIONS FTABLES END FTABLES EXT SOURCES <-Volume-> <Member> SsysSgap<--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # tem strg<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.76 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.76 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP END EXT SOURCES EXT TARGETS <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Volume-> <Member> Tsys Tgap Amd *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # <Name> tem strg strg*** COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 WDM 501 FLOW ENGL REPL END EXT TARGETS MASS-LINK <Volume> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult--> <Target> <-Grp> <-Member->*** <Name> <Name> # #<-factor-> <Name> <Name> # #*** MASS-LINK 12 PERLND PWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 12 MASS-LINK 13 PERLND PWATER IFWO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 13 MASS-LINK 15 IMPLND IWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 15 END MASS-LINK END RUN 21816-Flow Control 1/25/2023 5:32:22 PM Page 22 Mitigated UCI File RUN GLOBAL WWHM4 model simulation START 1948 10 01 END 2009 09 30 RUN INTERP OUTPUT LEVEL 3 0 RESUME 0 RUN 1 UNIT SYSTEM 1 END GLOBAL FILES <File> <Un#> <-----------File Name------------------------------>*** <-ID-> *** WDM 26 21816-Flow Control.wdm MESSU 25 Mit21816-Flow Control.MES 27 Mit21816-Flow Control.L61 28 Mit21816-Flow Control.L62 30 POC21816-Flow Control1.dat END FILES OPN SEQUENCE INGRP INDELT 00:15 PERLND 16 IMPLND 1 COPY 501 DISPLY 1 END INGRP END OPN SEQUENCE DISPLY DISPLY-INFO1 # - #<----------Title----------->***TRAN PIVL DIG1 FIL1 PYR DIG2 FIL2 YRND 1 Basin 1 MAX 1 2 30 9 END DISPLY-INFO1 END DISPLY COPY TIMESERIES # - # NPT NMN *** 1 1 1 501 1 1 END TIMESERIES END COPY GENER OPCODE # # OPCD *** END OPCODE PARM # # K *** END PARM END GENER PERLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name------->NBLKS Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 16 C, Lawn, Flat 1 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO *** Section PWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC *** 16 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <PLS > ***************** Print-flags ***************************** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC ********* 16 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO 21816-Flow Control 1/25/2023 5:32:23 PM Page 23 PWAT-PARM1 <PLS > PWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP UZFG VCS VUZ VNN VIFW VIRC VLE INFC HWT *** 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END PWAT-PARM1 PWAT-PARM2 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # ***FOREST LZSN INFILT LSUR SLSUR KVARY AGWRC 16 0 4.5 0.03 400 0.05 0.5 0.996 END PWAT-PARM2 PWAT-PARM3 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN INFEXP INFILD DEEPFR BASETP AGWETP 16 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 END PWAT-PARM3 PWAT-PARM4 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 4 *** # - # CEPSC UZSN NSUR INTFW IRC LZETP *** 16 0.1 0.25 0.25 6 0.5 0.25 END PWAT-PARM4 PWAT-STATE1 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation ran from 1990 to end of 1992 (pat 1-11-95) RUN 21 *** # - # *** CEPS SURS UZS IFWS LZS AGWS GWVS 16 0 0 0 0 2.5 1 0 END PWAT-STATE1 END PERLND IMPLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><-------Name-------> Unit-systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 1 ROADS/FLAT 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO *** Section IWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL *** 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <ILS > ******** Print-flags ******** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL ********* 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT-INFO IWAT-PARM1 <PLS > IWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP VRS VNN RTLI *** 1 0 0 0 0 0 END IWAT-PARM1 IWAT-PARM2 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # *** LSUR SLSUR NSUR RETSC 1 400 0.01 0.1 0.1 END IWAT-PARM2 IWAT-PARM3 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN 1 0 0 21816-Flow Control 1/25/2023 5:32:23 PM Page 24 END IWAT-PARM3 IWAT-STATE1 <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation # - # *** RETS SURS 1 0 0 END IWAT-STATE1 END IMPLND SCHEMATIC <-Source-> <--Area--> <-Target-> MBLK *** <Name> # <-factor-> <Name> # Tbl# *** Basin 1*** PERLND 16 0.32 COPY 501 12 PERLND 16 0.32 COPY 501 13 IMPLND 1 0.81 COPY 501 15 ******Routing****** END SCHEMATIC NETWORK <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 DISPLY 1 INPUT TIMSER 1 <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** END NETWORK RCHRES GEN-INFO RCHRES Name Nexits Unit Systems Printer *** # - #<------------------><---> User T-series Engl Metr LKFG *** in out *** END GEN-INFO *** Section RCHRES*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # HYFG ADFG CNFG HTFG SDFG GQFG OXFG NUFG PKFG PHFG *** END ACTIVITY PRINT-INFO <PLS > ***************** Print-flags ******************* PIVL PYR # - # HYDR ADCA CONS HEAT SED GQL OXRX NUTR PLNK PHCB PIVL PYR ********* END PRINT-INFO HYDR-PARM1 RCHRES Flags for each HYDR Section *** # - # VC A1 A2 A3 ODFVFG for each *** ODGTFG for each FUNCT for each FG FG FG FG possible exit *** possible exit possible exit * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** END HYDR-PARM1 HYDR-PARM2 # - # FTABNO LEN DELTH STCOR KS DB50 *** <------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------><--------> *** END HYDR-PARM2 HYDR-INIT RCHRES Initial conditions for each HYDR section *** # - # *** VOL Initial value of COLIND Initial value of OUTDGT *** ac-ft for each possible exit for each possible exit <------><--------> <---><---><---><---><---> *** <---><---><---><---><---> END HYDR-INIT END RCHRES SPEC-ACTIONS 21816-Flow Control 1/25/2023 5:32:23 PM Page 25 END SPEC-ACTIONS FTABLES END FTABLES EXT SOURCES <-Volume-> <Member> SsysSgap<--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # tem strg<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.76 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.76 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP END EXT SOURCES EXT TARGETS <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Volume-> <Member> Tsys Tgap Amd *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # <Name> tem strg strg*** COPY 1 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 WDM 701 FLOW ENGL REPL COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 WDM 801 FLOW ENGL REPL END EXT TARGETS MASS-LINK <Volume> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult--> <Target> <-Grp> <-Member->*** <Name> <Name> # #<-factor-> <Name> <Name> # #*** MASS-LINK 12 PERLND PWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 12 MASS-LINK 13 PERLND PWATER IFWO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 13 MASS-LINK 15 IMPLND IWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS-LINK 15 END MASS-LINK END RUN 21816-Flow Control 1/25/2023 5:32:23 PM Page 26 Predeveloped HSPF Message File 21816-Flow Control 1/25/2023 5:32:23 PM Page 27 Mitigated HSPF Message File 21816-Flow Control 1/25/2023 5:32:23 PM Page 28 Disclaimer Legal Notice This program and accompanying documentation is provided 'as-is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by the user. Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. disclaims all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. has been advised of the possibility of such damages. Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 6200 Capitol Blvd. Ste F Olympia, WA. 98501 Toll Free 1(866)943-0304 Local (360)943-0304 www.clearcreeksolutions.com 21816.005-TIR E. Water Quality System This project proposes more than 5,000 square feet of new and replaced pollution generating impervious surfaces and therefore must provide water quality treatment. Additionally, this redevelopment is classified as a commercial site resulting in the Enhanced Water Quality Menu being used in leu of the Basic Water Quality Menu. Per the Enhanced Water Quality Menu within Section 6.1.2 of the 2022 RSWDM a propriety facility (Option 5) will be used to provide the required water treatment. Table 6.1.2.B in the 2022 RSWDM lists the current approved facilities; therefore, this project will propose a Modular Wetland Linear Unit to meet the treatment requirements. Since this project is proposing to remove the existing bioswale that already provides runoff treatment for Basin “D”, the proposed water quality facility will be sized to account for all of Basin “D”. The calculations for the Modular Wetland Unit will be provided upon final engineering review. Oil control is not applicable to this site as this site is not anticipated to be a high-use site nor will this site be used for petroleum storage. F. Flow Control BMPs This project proposes more than 2,000 square feet of new and replaced impervious surfaces and is on a lot greater than 22,000 square feet; therefore, this project must demonstrate compliance with "Individual Lot BMP Requirements," per Section 1.2.9.2 of the 2022 RSWDM. See below for a discussion of the feasibility of each Stormwater Management BMP. 1. Full dispersion per Appendix C, Section C.2.1 of the 2022 RSWDM is not feasible for this project as the site cannot provide the required vegetated flow path. 2. Full infiltration of roof runoff is not feasible for the site, as infiltration is not recommended per the Geotechnical Report prepared by GeoEngineers, refer to Figure 6.2 of this report. Additionally, there is existing fill on the site to a depth a 11.5 feet, refer to the Geotechnical Report for full discussion. 3. Full infiltration per Section C.2.2 or per Section 5.2; Limited Infiltration per Appendix C, Section C.2.3; Bioretention per Appendix C, Section C.2.6; and Permeable Pavement per Appendix C, Section C.2.7 are not feasible for the site, as infiltration is not recommended per the Geotechnical Report prepared by GeoEngineers. Refer to Figure 6.2 of this report. Additionally, there is existing fill on the site to a depth of 11.5 feet; refer to the Geotechnical Report for full discussion. 4. Basic Dispersion per Appendix C, Section C.2.4 is not feasible for this project as the required vegetated flow path cannot be provided due to site constraints and proposed hardscape. 5. Flow control BMPs must be applied to 50% of target impervious surfaces reduced by 1.5% for each 1% of impervious surface coverage above 45% (e.g., impervious coverage of 55% results in a requirement of on-site BMPs applied to 35% of target impervious surfaces). Target Impervious Surface = 33,114 square feet Site/Lot area = 48,845 square feet 21816.005-TIR 10 percent of Site/Lot Area = 4,885 square feet 20 percent of Target Surface = 6,623 square feet This project must provide flow control BMPs for at least 4,885 square feet. However, the Reduced Impervious Surface Credit per Appendix C, Section C.2.9, the Native Growth Retention Credit per Appendix C, Section C.2.10, and Tree Retention Credit per Appendix C, Section C.2.14 are infeasible due to the site’s layout and existing conditions. 6. The site’s soil moisture holding capacity of new pervious surface will be protected in accordance with the soil amendment BMP details in Appendix C, Section C.2.13 of the 2022 RSWDM. 7. Perforated pipe connections are not feasible for the site as infiltration is not recommended per the Geotechnical Report prepared by GeoEngineers. Refer to Figure 6.2 of this report. Additionally, there is existing fill on the site to a depth of 11.5 feet; refer to the Geotechnical Report for full discussion. 8. Permeable pavement is not feasible per Appendix C, Section C.2.7 of the 2022 RSWDM as infiltration is not recommended per the Geotechnical Report prepared by GeoEngineers. Refer to Figure 6.2 of this report. Additionally, there is existing fill on the site to a depth of 11.5 feet; refer to the Geotechnical Report for full discussion. Tab 5.0 21816.005-TIR 5.0 CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN The proposed conveyance system is anticipated to be of adequate capacity for the proposed re- development. Detailed conveyance calculations may be provided upon request of the City. Tab 6.0 21816.005-TIR 6.0 SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES The following special reports and studies are included: Figure – 6.1 Former Fuel Facility Drainage Report prepared by PacLand, dated April 18, 2003 Figure – 6.2 Geotechnical Reported prepared by GeoEngineers, dated January 26, 2023 Figure – 6.3 Wetland Report prepared by The Water Shed Company, dated January 3, 2023 Figure 6.1 Former Fuel Facility Drainage Report Sam's Club #4835-00 901 South Grad y Wa y Renton, Washington 98055 Storm Drainage Analysis Prepared By: October 24, 2002 Revised: April 18, 2003 1144 EASTLAKE AVENUE E r 206.522.9510 suire 601 F 206.522.8344 SEATTLE, WA 981OI WWW,PACLAND.CDM Contact: joe Geiveft, Pf mg3-stm.doc) s3o2O Sam's Club #4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA i ' Section Page ExecutiveSummary................................................................................•...............................2 Stormwater Drainage Report .................................................................................................2 1. Project Location ..........................................................................................................3 2. Project Overview ........................................................................................................4 a. Existing Condition b. Discharge at Natural (Existing) Location c. Soils Conditions d. Wells, Septic Tanks and Fuel Tanks e. Proposed Development 3. Conditions and Requirements Summary.......................................................................6 4. Off-Site Analysis..........................................................................................................7 a. Downstream Analysis b. Upstream Analysis 5. Drainage Analysis .......................................................................................................9 a. Hydrologic Modeling Method b. Sub-Basin Description c. Peak Runoff Control d. Water Quality e. Conveyance f. 100-Year Flood/Overflow Condition g. Existing Concrete Paved Ditch (Aqueduct) Replacement 6. Erosion Control .........................................................................................................13 7. Maintenance .............................................................................................................15 8. Covenants, Dedications, and Easements ....................................................................19 Technical Information Report (TIR) Worksheet....................................................................21 Appendix A Figures................................................................................................24 i1 Figure A1 — ALTA/ACSM Land Title Survey of the Property Figure A2 — Site Plan Figure A3 — Grading and Drainage Plan Figure A4 — King County GIS Map Figure A5 — SCS/USDA Soils Map Figure A6 — Basin Map Figure A7 — Offsite Basin Map Appendix B Existing Site Hydrology Output DatalCalculations..............................30 Appendix C Developed Site Hydrology Output Data\Calculations.........................31 Developed Basin "A" — Biofiltration swale Design Developed Basin "B" — Biofiltration swale Design Developed Basin "C" — Biofiltration swale Design Developed Basin "D" — Biofiltration swale Design Developed Basin "Roof" — Detention Pipe Existing Concrete Paved Ditch (Aqueduct) Replacement Calculations Appendix D Erosion Control Calculations ..............................................................44 Appendix E Developed Conveyance (Backwater) Calculations...............................48 APPendix F Geotechnical Report.........................................................................110 PACLAND Project 1999010.008 Page 1 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA I • I I s- i , I t- y m.'? N / 7i __Qty 1'. i , ; e— iVr i i mi "1 , a Gay' --...` 7, t cc I : i; r, i ; C!J ! —; f i 4",:-a i9`,yx`i ,., i i i ' i! 4 `'—' t . a l ; ' f LfJ ' ; r a I f t r j i 2 uf- Gx i r, YQ i r i, iCeR1 I Tti r-- - r`, i L—i r __ i, Proposed Retail Site i r Y r s f° 1 r Rerrton13;5', jr{ • .'' v- t''__ s - - "y,`4 n _ ._ att ` j y4 j` i 1 . 3 ! : : ; t' t--, - 1L--F'3`.{—.7--.- W i y f,U t f f '.i SS i f_ t S4 . FtisStik5trfr`, 1 i 3 R s II pl S ti tt`' F i C9 t 1 S ' 1 . . '``. 1 3 < 1 t 5 1 t'Xi: i i i:iii 'y, i Ci1 , i ' F' , ti`,t', I I 5tjy , 5 31 S i i3 !I ` 1,,; 4O2000PofcrosoftCo .andior.its su liers.WI n hts.reserued' Location: 901 South Grady Way (Southeast corner of South Grady Way and Talbot Road South), Renton, WA 98055 Section/Township/Range: NW '/a Sec. 19, T.23N, R.5E of W.M. Parcel/Tax Lot: 172305-9183, 202305-9007, 915460-0010, 202305-9008 Size: 16.0 acres City, Counfy, State: City of Renton, King County, Washington Governing Agency: City of Renton Design Criferia: Modified 1990 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KC-SWDM) PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 3 Sam's Ciub#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Existing Conditions The topographic survey indicates that the existing site presently has the demolished foundation remains of two former PSE buildings, while the rest of the site is paved with asphalt, gravel and concrete pavement with limited vegetative areas of grass/weeds. The existing site has a slight 0.7 to 1.2% grade falling to the north and to the south of the site. Storm runoff sheets across the property into scattered onsite catch basins where it is then conveyed offsite into either the Grady Way or SR-515 (Talbot Road) public storm systems. A small 1 acre patch of vegetated slope located on the east side of the site drains into a concrete ditch that bypasses the site with off-site runoff from Renton Hill. In accordance with the 1990 KC-SWDM, the condition of the site as it is will be used to calculate the existing runoff condition. As listed in the attached geotechnical report and on the SCS/USDA Soils Map, the soils on this site have been classified as SCS "D", this results in a hydrologic curve number of 92 for the grass/weed areas as; these areas are represented in the table below. Table 2 Existing Conditions Area Condition CN 9.83 AC Paved 98 2.42 AC Gravel 91 3 J4 AC G rass/Weeds 92 Discharge at Natural(Existin Location Stormwater presently leaves the site through a storm drains located on the northwest side of the site into the Grady Way South public storm system and though a storm drain at the south corner of the site that outfalls into a 48" culvert under SR-515 (Talbot road). These same two discharge points will be used in the site redevelopment to conveyance storm runoff from the site. Please see the downstream analysis for more information. Soi/s Conditions Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. performed a detailed geotechnical study of the site to determine the properties of the on-site surface and subsurface soils. This geotechnical report titled "Subsurface Exploration and geotechnical Services Engineering Evaluation, Proposed Retail development", dated December 6, 2002, project number J-1470 indicates that surficial soils consist of topsoil of an average depth of varying depths present over limited portions of the entire site, with the rest of the site being paved. These surface soils are underlain by coal tailings fill with depths ranging of 4.5 to 12.5 feet situated on a soft organic alluvium. The site surface soils are classified by The United States Departments of Agriculture Soil Survey for King County, Washington, to be to be the urban complex (Ur) See attached Figures A5). In regards to hydrology, this soil complex is described by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to be relatively impervious and hence has a SCS Soil Hydrologic Group class of "D". PACLAN D Project# 1999010.008 Page 4 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Wells, Septic Tanks and fuel Tanks Based upon field reconnaissance and the environmental review, it appears that no fuel tanks, wells or septic tanks are presently located on the property. Though it has been noted in environmental reviews that a number of underground tanks did exist on the site, but were removed during site remedial activities that occurred between 1987 and 1990, and as a part of those actions, a number of monitoring wells presently exist on the site but will be decommissioned in the near future. If at a later date any more tanks are discovered on the property, they will be removed in accordance with all regulatory requirements, local, state and federal. Proposed Development Project proposes to redevelop this site with a ± 135,000 square foot Sam's Club retail store and a gas station with its associated paving, utilities, storm drainage and landscaping improvements. This development will result in a decrease in impervious surfaces on the site and will provide limited stormwater detention and additional stormwater treatment for the runoff. The table below shows the break down of the proposed surface areas. Table 3 Proposed Conditions Area Condition CN 8.83 Paved 98 4.07 Irrigated Landscaping 92 3.10 Rooftop 98 In the developed condition, storm runoff will sheet over the proposed asphalt paving to strategically placed catch basins. The runoff from asphalt paving will then be conveyed though storm drains to a oil/water separator and/or biofiltration swales for treatment before disposal of site. The site is further divided into five basins: Basin "Roof" is the roof area of the proposed retail building. Runoff from here will receive detention in a 48" pipe before being separately conveyed, without treatment, to a discharge point on the west side of the site. Basin "A" is the area on the south side of the site, except for the gas station. This area will be conveyed though biofiltration swale "A" to the discharge point at the southern corner of the site. Basin "B" occupies areas to the front (west side) of the building. This basin area will be conveyed though biofiltration swale "B" to discharge into the Grady Way South public storm sewer. Basin "C" is the part of the site that occupies areas to the north and east of the building. This basin area will be conveyed though biofiltration swale "C" to discharge into the Grady Way South public storm sewer. Basin "D" is the rest of the site that occupies the area of the gas station. This basin area will be conveyed though a coalescing plate oil/water separator to remove any oils before out falling into biofiltration swale "D" for additional treatment. Final disposal will be to the discharge point at the southern corner of the site. PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 5 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA These basins are highlighted in figure A6 and the runoff calculations are also found in the drainage analysis section in the appendix. As required by the City of Renton, storm drainage design for this project complies with the King County Surface Water Design Manual (KC-SWDM). For this proposed retail project, a full drainage review is required as the project is expected to cost more than $500,000 and to replace more than 5,000 SF of on-site impervious area. Hence all five core requirements and all five special requirements listed in KC-SWDM will be met. These requirements are addressed below. Core Requirement No.l: Discharge of the Natural Location: The drainage produced from the proposed project site must occur at the natura! /ocation. Response: The property drains to the public drainage system located in Talbot Road and South Grady Way. The South Grady Way system connects to the Talbot Road South system and then drains to the south west to converge with the runoff from the south of the site. In essence, the site's natural point of discharge is the culvert crossing beneath Talbot Road South at the southwest properry corner, which will be maintained during this project. Core Requirement No.2: Off-site Analysis: All proposed projects must identify the upstream tributary drainage area and perform a downstream analysis, the level of analysis required depending on the problem identified or predicted. Response: As stated in the off-site analysis, there is no significant off-site source of tributary runoff from the adjoining properties. Runoff from Renton Hill will continue to bypass the site in a storm drain/paved concrete ditch system along the south east side of the site. Based on our site and upstream/downstream analysis, no evidence of runoff problems flooding, erosion, conveyance) was encountered. There have been reported occurrences of downstream flooding. However, as the site occupies a very small percentage of the tributary drainage basin the runoff impact from the site is insignificant. This project will maintain the site's current runoff characteristics hence; a more involved analysis of the downstream is not necessary. Core Requirement No.3: Proposed project must provide runoff control to limit the developed condition peak rate of runoff to the existing peak rate for a specific design storm event based on the proposed project site's existing runoff condition, and install biofiltration measure. Response: The King County Surface Water Design Manual allows an increase of 0.40 cfs beyond current conditions before requiring a controlled release (retention/detention). The proposed peak runoff is less than the existing peak runoff when detention is incorporated into the Basin "Roof" runoff. The project does propose to provide stormwater treatment of runoff from paved surfaces. Core Requirement No.4: Conveyance System: All new conveyance systems for a proposed project must be analyzed, designed, and constructed for existing tributary off-site runoff and developed on- site runoff from the proposed project. PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 6 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Response: All new pipe systems will be designed to convey the 25-year storm peak flow. An analysis will be performed to provide for an overflow route of the 100-year runoff event to prevent on-site flooding or erosion, please see the Drainage Analysis — Conveyance calculations for further information. Core Requiremenf No.S: Erosion / Sedimentation Control Plan: AI! engineerrng plans for the proposed project that propose to construct new, or modify exisring drainage facilities, must include a plan to provide alI measures for the control of erosion and sedimentation during construction and to permanentJy stabilize soils exposed during construction. Response: Erosion and sediment control requirements as out lined in the KC-SWDM will be an integral part of the project documents. These measures will include methods to reduce erosion of onsite site soils and to prevent sediments from inadvertently leaving the project site. Special requirement#1: Other Adopted Area-Specific Requirement Response: At this time, this site does not fall under any other known Adopted Area-Specific Requirements. Special requirement#2: Floodplain/Floodway Delineation Response: This project does not contain nor is it adjacent to any stream, lakes or closed depressions; and is not situated within the 100-year floodplain, hence a floodplain / floodway delineation is not required. Special requirement#3: Flood Protection Facilities Response: This project is not located near a Class 1 or 2 stream and does not propose to modify or construct a flood protection facility. Special requirement#4: Source Controls Response: Water quality source control will be utilized during the operation of the completed project in accordance with the King County Stormwater Pollution Control Manual. Special requirement#5: Oil Control Response: This site does not fall under the requirements for oil control as the number vehicles/day are expected is below the limit of 13,500 vehicles/day for this site, and the site will not involve the maintenance storage and use of the site by a fleet of 25 or more diesel vehicles, heavy trucks, buses, etc. Therefore, special treatment of stormwater runoff will not be necessary or required for the retail store. However, as a gas station will be part of the development, a coalescing plate oil/water separator will be incorporated into the stormwater system servicing the gas station to prevent accidentally spilt oil from leaving the site. In accordance with the KC-SWDM and to verify the suitability of the onsite site improvements, a levet one analysis was performed. This involves studying the watershed PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 7 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA conveyance path about %a mile along the upstream and downstream of the site to check for conditions, such as flooding or excessive erosion, that might indicate that additional drainage requirements standards are required. Downstream Analysis USGS Maps and the King County GIS System shows that runoff from the project site eventually outfalls into the Black River, approximately 2.75 miles downstream, which occupies a small part of the Duwamish - Green River watershed. i Under existing and proposed conditions, a large portion of the site drains to a five-foot diameter culvert that crosses beneath SR-515 (Talbot Road) adjacent to the south property corner. The remainder of the site drains to the storm drain in Grady Way which converges with the outlet end of the afore mentioned five-foot culvert on the west side of Talbot Road. From this point the total flow then continues south underneath Talbot Road for about 470 feet before it turns west next to One Renton Place and flows under South Renton Village Place between the Thriftway and Two Renton Place for about 1,000 feet. The storm system then turns south at the east corner of Two Renton Place and daylights in a ditch after another 300 feet. This 9 feet wide by 4 feet deep rectangular earth/rip rap ditch is part of the Rolling Hills Creek drainage course. It flows west for about 700 feet along the north embankment of I- 405 and is sheltered by a dense covering of tree, shrubs and blackberries. This down stream study found that it has a clean cross section with no signs of blockages or erosion. At the I-405 /SR-167 interchange the ditch disappears underground into a 42" concrete culvert. To the left of the 42" culvert there is a much larger 8-foot corrugated plate arch culvert, which is situated to take extreme rainfall events that exceed the 42" culvert. According to the City of Renton Storm Drainage Maps, both of these culverts eventually daylight in the southeast corner of the I-405 /SR-167 interchange where a system of open ditches and closed pipes convey the stormwater runoff to the Springbrook Creek/Black River/Duwamish River. There are reported occurrences of downstream flooding problems in the South Renton Village Place during extreme runoff conditions. This is believed to be due to the smaller 42" pipe at the end of the downstream study, but it is expected that the 8-foot diameter corrugated plated culvert will be able to handle the future extreme events and reduce flooding. In regards to the overall drainage basin tributary to the problem area, the site occupies only about 1.8% of the heavily developed tributary basin. Therefore, the site is a very small contributor of runoff to the downstream, and therefore has a nominal influence on the downstream conditions. Further impact analysis of the downstream system is not necessary. Upstream Analysis The project site is essentially isolated from off-site runoff. Runoff from the north is intercepted with the South Grady Way drainage facilities, while drainage from the west is P,ACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 8 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA intercepted by the Talbot Road South drainage facilities. The site does receive some runoff from Benson Road South and the vegetated slope to the east, though most of this is picked up by the existing concrete paved ditch along the east side of the site. The topography on- site drain from the north to the south, therefore, there is no drainage contributing from the south of the property. As shown on the attached site plans there is a large existing paved concrete ditch that runs down the southeast property line of the site. This channel picks up the flow from two concrete pipes that flow from Renton Hill. The first is an 18-inch concrete pipe, which is believed to carry ground water due to the strong sulfur smell. The second pipe is a 48-inch concrete pipe, which carries runoff under I-405 and Benson Road South from approximately 406 acres of residential developments on Renton Hill to the southeast side of I-405. The flows from both of these pipes converge at the entrance to the concrete ditch and travels southwest along the property (ine bypassing the site. The exsiting 4-foot wide, 3- foot deep rectangular concrete paved ditch has a clean cross section with only the occasion small deposits of pebbles along the bottom. The channel ends at the south corner of the site where it empties into a 5- foot diameter culvert that passes under Talbot Road South and continues to flow to the west. Hydrologic Modeling Mefhod Hydrologic analysis of the project area was performed using the computer-modeling program "StormSHED release 6.1.6.4", which uses the Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph SBUH} methodology. The program effectively models pre-developed and developed runoff conditions using hydrographs for each basin. Given a specified design storm precipitation value) and its associated distribution, the computer model calculates runoff hydrographs in terms of peak rates and total volume based on the approximated characteristics of the basin (i.e. area, curve number (CN), time of concentration (Tc), etc.). The StormSHED software program has been designed to enable the user to apply the Level Pool Routing Method to route the hydrographs generated from the basin analysis through a proposed conveyance system andlor detention facility. The modeled peak flows and volumes were used in the analysis of the proposed drainage system. For this project the following model parameters were inputted into the StormSHED program to size the proposed stormwater facilities: Rain Fall Distribution: 24-hour, Type 1A distribution Hydrograph Interval: 10 minutes Peak Factor: 484 Tp Factor: 4 PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 9 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Table 4 Precipitation Values Storm Event Rainfall Amount (inches) 2-yr, 24hr 2.0 10-yr, 24-hr 2.9 25-yr, 24-hr 3.4 100-yr, 24-hr 3.9 Sub-Basin Description For purposes of analysis, the existing property has been divided into four drainage basins: Basin "Roof" is the roof area of the building (approximately 3.1 acres), runoff from here will be separately conveyed without treatment to a discharge point on the west side of the site into the Grady Way South public storm sewer. Basin "A" is 3.33 acres of paving and landscaping on the south side of the site that will be conveyed though biofiltration swale "A" to the discharge point at the southern corner of the site into the SR-51 S (Talbot Way South) public storm sewer. Basin "B" is about 3.92 acres of paving and landscaping that occupies areas to the front (west side) of the building. This basin area will be conveyed though biofiltration swale "B" along the west property line to discharge into the Grady Way South public storm sewer. Basin "C" is about 3.51 acres of paving and landscaping that occupies areas to the north and east of the building. This basin area will be conveyed though biofiltration swale "C" in the north corner to discharge into the Grady Way South public storm sewer. Basin "D" is the area that occupies the proposed Gas station, about is 1.14 acres of paving and landscaping. This basin area will be conveyed though a oil/water separator and a biofiltration swale "D" to the discharge point at the southern corner of the site into the SR-515 (Talbot Way South) public storm sewer. Refer to figure # A6 in the appendix for an illustration of the site. Peak Runoff Control As the proposed site will have a peak runoff rate that is less then the 0.40 cfs increase allowed in the 1990 KC-SWDM, storm water detention would not be required. However, at the request of the hearing examiner, runoff from the roof will be detained in a 48" storage pipe to reduce its peak flow. Complete analysis is included in the Appendix. A basic summary of inputs/outputs is as follows: Table 5 Existing Conditions Paving Gravel Landscaping 2-year 24- 10-year 24- 100-year Basin (acres)- (acres)- (acres)- Composite Total Area TC (min) hour Event hour Event 24-hour CN=98 CN=91 CN=92 CN acres) CFS) CFS) Event(CFS) 1 4.05 2.42 0.07 95.3 6.54 6.47 2.46 3.84 5.46 2 5.78 0.0 2.68 96.1 8.46 4.77 3.24 5.01 6.97 rt; "_ a w __._ _ _ - _ J _ Soils Type D per soils PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 10 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Table 6 Proposed Conditions Paving Landscaping Roof Total 2-Year 10-year 100-year Basin (acres) - (acres)- (acres)- Composite Area TC 24-hour 24-hour 24-hour CN=98 CN=92 CN=98 CN ( acres) min) Event Event Event CFS) (CFS) (CFS) A 2.50 0.84 0.00 96.5 4.47 9.71 1.29 1.97 2.73 B 3.50 0.42 0.00 97.4 3.92 8.59 1.61 2.42 3.32 C 2.01 1.50 0.00 95.4 3.51 11.16 1.19 1.87 2.62 D 0.82 0.31 0.00 96.5 1.13 6.08 0.45 0.69 0.95 Roof 0.00 0.00 3.10 98.0 3.10 5.78 1.37' 2.03' 2.76' 0.55 1.242 1.45Z a w _ - _ _ __, .._. Soils Type D per soils Pre-detained Roof Peak (not included in runoff total) Post-detained Roof Peak (included in runoff total) Water Qualify The 2-year 24-hour event runoff from paved surfaced will be treated in a biofiltration swale utilizing 1990 KC-SWDM design criteria. Calculations for sizing the biofiltration swale are included in the Appendix. Both biofiltration swales will be seeded with a wetland seed mix, as the actual swale will have 0.5% slope. After treatment, the runoff will leave the site by out-falling into the public storm sewer system along either Grady Way or Talbot Road. Summaries of the biofiltration facilities are included in the table below. Table 7 Summary of Biofiltration Swale Components Basin 2"yr, 24hr Bottom Swale Length Swale Length Surface Detention event (cfs) Width (ft) Required (ft) Provided (ft) Area (s Time(min) A" 1.29 5 155 190 1,710 10.2 B" 1.61 4 210 220 880 11.5 C" 1.19 6 130 145 1,450 7.8 D" 0.45 4 100 110 880 7.6 Due a gas station being part of the project, a coalescing plate oil/water separator (CPS) will be incorporated into the Basin "D" stormwater system to capture accidental spills outside the canopy. This BMP will be sized to handle the 2-year flow with the following properties. Treatment flow rate = 0.45 cfs = 202 gpm Effluent quality = 10 ppm = 10 mg/I 100% collected size = 60 microns A coalescing plate oil/water separator, equivalent to the 612-1-CPS designed by the Utility Vault Company (Oldcastle Precast Inc.), Auburn WA, will be used. This design meets the requirements of the DOE and has the capacity to treat 219 gpm. A bypass will be incorporated in the CPS to divert runoff from storms greater than the 2-year event to prevent flushing of captured oils. PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 1 1 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Conveyance For conveyance design, a backwater analysis utilizing Manning's equation was employed with a Manning's "n" value of 0.012. Manning's equation - Q= 1.49n xAxRv3xS'2 With: Q = Flow (CFS) n = Manning's Roughness Coefficient (0.012) A = Flow Area (SF) R = Hydraulic Radius = Area/Wetted Perimeter (LF) S = Slope of the pipe (ft/ft) All storm pipes were designed and checked for capacity during the 100-year event. The storm water quantities used were calculated from StormShed software using the SBUH methodology. A summary of the calculations are presented in the appendix 100-Year Flood/Overflow Condition The stormwater system for this project has been designed to address all storm events in accordance with design criteria described previously. In the event of a storm larger than the 100-yr 24-hr the system may overflow into the public right-of-way. Based on our review, we anticipate the overflow of the stormwater drainage system would allow surface water to discharge directly to the public storm system along Grady Way South and SR-515 Talbot Road). Please see the attached exhibit A6 to illustrate. Existing Concrete Paved Ditch (Aqueduct) Rep/acement As part of this project, it has been proposed that the existing concrete aqueduct that flows along the southeast side of the site be relocated/replaced due to portion of the existing system that overflow at low intensity storms. In our conservations with the City of Renton, it has been requested that this new conveyance system be based upon the upstream conditions instead of matching the existing conveyance capacity of the concrete aqueduct immediately downstream. Therefore, the offsite basin that drains into this aqueduct was analyzed to determine the peak events flows in order to adequately size the new conveyance system. The new system has been design to handle both the 25-year event with a 0.5 foot freeboard and safely convey the full 100-year event. Further details of these calcutations have been provided in the appendix. During a unlikely high intensity rainfall event that exceed the provided 0.5 foot freeboard, the Aqueduct replacement will overflow into to the proposed parking lot and will drain via a combination of surface route/storm drains/swales to the discharge points of the site as shown on exhibit A6. PACLAND Project 1999010.008 Page 12 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA All erosion and sediment control measures shall be governed by the requirements of King County and the City of Renton. A temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan has been prepared to assist the contractor in complying with these requirements. See the attached TESC plan. 1. Construction Sequence And Procedure The proposed development includes an erosion/sedimentation control plan designed to prevent sediment-laden run-off from leaving the site during construction. The erosion potential of the site is influenced by four major factors: soil characteristics, vegetative cover, topography, and climate. Erosion/sedimentation control is achieved by a combination of structural measures, cover measures, and construction practices that are tailored to fit the specific site. Prior to the start of any grading activity upon the site, all erosion control measures, including installation of a stabilized constriction entrance, shall be installed in accordance with the construction documents. The best construction practice will be employed to properly clear and grade the site and to schedule construction activities. The planned construction sequence for the construction of the site is as follows: 1. Flag and stake clearing limits. 2. Arrange and attend a preconstruction meeting with the City of Renton. 3. Install perimeter erosion control features (silt fence, construction entrance etc.) 4. Field locate all utilities. 5. Clear/demo and grub site. 6. Grade the site in accordance with the approved grading plan. 7. Install sanitary sewers, storm, water, and other site utilities in accordance with the approved drainage/utilities plans; provide CB inlet protection at the new inlet locations. 8. Stabilize the site in accordance with the approved paving and landscaping plans. 9. Install wetland seed mix sod on bottom of biofiltration swales or seed with a wetland seed mix to a healthy stand of grass prior to bringing the storm drain system "on-line". 10.Thoroughly clean new storm system upon completion of paving to prevent sediment from leaving the site. 11. Remove temporary erosion control facility upon final stabilization of entire project site, as approved by governing jurisdiction and project engineer. PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 13 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA 2. Trapping Sediment Structural control measures will be used to reduce erosion and retain sediment on the construction site. The control measures will be seleded to fit specific site and seasonal conditions. The following structural items will be used to control erosion and sedimentation processes: Stabilized construction entrance Temporary gravel construction entrance Filter fabric fences Cover measures Temporary swale and sediment ponds (see calculations on the appendix) Weekly inspection of the erosion control measures will be required during construction. Any sediment buildup shall be removed and disposed off site. Vehicle tracking of mud off-site shall be avoided. Installation of a gravel construction entrance will be installed at a location to enter the site. The entrances are a minimum requirement and may be supplemented if tracking of mud onto public streets becomes excessive. In the event that mud is tracked off site, it shall be swept up and disposed off site on a daily basis. Depending on the amount of tracked mud, a vehicle road sweeper may be required. Because vegetative cover is the most important form of erosion control, construction practices must adhere to stringent cover requirements. More specifically, the contractor will not be allowed to leave soils open for more than 7 days and, in some cases, immediate seeding will be required. During the period of November lst through April 30', all disturbed soil areas will be stabilized within seven days. Areas next to paved areas may be armored with crushed rock subbase in place of other stabilizing measures. PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 14 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Maintain Stormwater Facilities I The owner or operator of the project shall be responsible for maintaining the stormwater facilities in accordance with local requirements. Proper maintenance is important for adequate fundioning of the stormwater facilities. The following maintenance program is recommended for this project: NO. 5 - CATCH BASINS Maintenance Defect Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is performed General Trash 8 Debris Trash or debris of more than 1/2 cubic foot which is No Trash or debris located Includes Sediment) located immediately in front of the catch basin immediately in front of catch opening or is blodcing capaaty of the basin by basin opening. more than 10% Trash or debris (in the basin)that exceeds 1/3 the No trash or debris in the catch depth from the bottom of basin to invert the lowest basin. pipe into or out of the basin. Trash or debris in any inlet or ouUet pipe blodcing Inlet and ouUet pipes free of more than 1/3 of its height. trash or debris. Dead animals or vegetation that could generate No dead animals or vegetation odors that could cause complaints or dangerous present within the catch basin. gases(e.g.,methane). DeposiLs of garbage exceeding 1 cubic foot in No condition present which volume would attract or support the breeding of insects or rodenfs. SVucture Damage to Comer of frame extends more than 3/4 inch past Frame is even with curb. Frame and/or Top Slab curb face into the street(If applicable). Top slab has holes larger than 2 square inches or Top slab is free of holes and cradcs wider than 1/4 inch (intent is to make sure cradcs. all material is running into basin}. Frame not sitting flush on top slab, i.e., separation Frame is sitting flush on top of more than 3/4 inch of the frame from the top slab. slab. Cracks in Basin Wallsl Cracks wider than 1/2 inch and longer than 3 feet, Basin replaced or repaired to Bottom any evidence of soil particles entering qtch basin design standards. through cracks,or maintenance person judges that structure is unsound. Cracks wider than 1/2 inch and longer than 1 foot No cracks more than 1/4 inch at the joint of any inleU outlet pipe or any evidence wide at the joint of inlet/outlet of soil partides entering catch basin through pipe. cradcs. SedimenU Basin has settled more than 1 inch or has rotated Basin replaced or repaired to Misalignment more than 2 inches out of alignment. design standards. PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 15 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA NO. 5 - CATCH BASINS (Continuec Maintenance Defect Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is perfortned Fire Hazard Presence of chemicals such as natural gas, oil and No flammable chemicals gasoline.present. Vegetation Vegetation growing across and blocking more than No vegetation blocking opening 10°of the basin opening. to basin. Vegehation growing in inlet/outlet pipe joints that is No vegetation or root growth more than six inches tall and less than six inches present apart. Pollution Nonflammable chemicals of more than 112 cubic foot No pollution present other than per three feet of basin length. surface film. Catch Basin Cover Cover Not in Place Cover is missing or only partially in place. Any open Catch basin cover is dosed catch basin requires maintenance. Locking Mechanism Mechanism qnnot be opened by on maintenance Mechanism opens with proper Not Working person with proper tools. Bolts into frame have less tools. than 1/2 inch of thread. Cover Difficult to One maintenance person cannot remove lid after Cover qn be removed by one Remove applying 80 Ibs. of lift; intent is keep cover from maintenance person. sealing off access to maintenance. Ladder Ladder Rungs Ladder is unsafe due to missing rungs,misalignment, Ladder meets design standards Unsafe rust,cracks,or sharp edges. and allows maintenance person safe access. Metal Grates Grate with opening wider than 7/8 inch. Grate opening meets design If Applicable) standards. Trash and Debris Trash and debris that is blodcing more than 20% of Grate free of Vash and debris. grate surface. Damaged or Grate missing or broken member(s)of the grate. Grate is in place and meets Missing. design standards. NO. 6 DEBRIS BARRIERS (e.g., Trash Racks) Maintenance Defect Condition When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Components Maintenance is Performed. General Trash and Debris Trash or debris that is plugging more than 20% of Barrier dear to receive capacity the openings in the barrier. flow. Metal Damaged/ Missing Bars are bent out of shape more than 3 inches. Bars in place with no bends more Bars. than 3/4 inch. Bars are missing or entire barrier missing. Bars in place according to design. Bars are loose and rust is causing 50%deterioration Repair or replace barrier to to any part of bamer. design standards. PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 16 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA NO. 7 - ENERGY DISSIPATERS Maintenance Defect Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Components Maintenance is Performed. Extemal: Rock Pad Missing or Moved Only one layer of rock exists above native soil in Replace rocks to design Rock area five square feet or larger, or any exposure of standards. native soil. Dispersion Trench Pipe Plugged with Accumulated sediment that exceeds 20% of tfie Pipe Geaned/ flushed so that it Sediment design depth. matches design. Not Discharging Visual evidence of water discharging at Trench must be redesigned or Water Property concentrated points along trench (normal condition rebuilt to standards. is a"sheet flovJ'of water along Vench). Intent is to prevent erosion damage. Perforations Over 1/2 of perforations in pipe are plugged with Clean or replace perforated pipe. Plugged. debris and sediment. Water Flows Out Maintenance person observes water flowing out Facility must be rebuilt or Top of "Distributo° during any storm less than the design storm or its redesigned to standards. Catch Basin. causing or appears likely to puse damage. Receiving Area Water in receiving area is causing or has potential No danger of landslides. Over-Saturated of causing landslide problems. Intemal: Manhole/Chamber Wom or Damaged Structure dissipating flow deteriorates to 1/2 or Replace structure to design Post.8affles,Side of original size or any concentrated wom spot standards. Chamber exceeding one square foot which would make structure unsound. Other DefecLs See"Catch Basins"Standard No.5 See "Catch Basins" Standard No. 5 NO. 10 - CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS (Pipes & Ditches) Maintenance Defect Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is Performed Pipes Sediment&Debris Accumulated sediment that exceeds 20% of the Pipe cleaned of all sediment and diameter of the pipe. debris. Vegetation Vegetation that reduces free movement of water All vegetation removed so water through pipes. flows freely through pipes. Damaged Protective coadng is damaged; rust is causing Pipe repaired or replaced. I more than 50%deterioration to any part of pipe. Any dent that decreases the cross section area of Pipe repaired or replaced. pipe by more than 20%. Open Ditches Trash&Debris Trash and debris exceeds 1 cubic foot per 1,000 Trash and debris Geared from square feet of ditch and slopes. ditches. Sediment Accumulated sediment that exceeds 20 % of the Ditch Geaned/ flushed of all design depth.sediment and debris so that it matches design. Vegetation Vegetation that reduces free movement of water Water flows freely through through ditches. ditches. Erosion Damage to See"Ponds"Standard No. 1 See"Ponds"Standard No. 1 Slopes Rock Lining Out of Place Maintenance person can see native soil beneath Replace rodcs to design or Missing (If the rock lining. standards. Applicable). Catch Basins See"Catch Basins:Standard No.5 See "Catch Basins" Standard No.5 Debris Barriers See"Debris Barriers"Standard No.6 See "Debris Barriers" Standard e.g.,Trash Rack) No.6 PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 1 7 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA NO. 11 - GROUNDS (Landscaping) Maintenance Defect Conditions When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is Performed General Weeds Weeds growing in more than 20%of the landscaped Weeds present in less than 5% Nonpoisonous) area(trees and shrubs only). of the landscaped area. Safety Hazard Any presence of poison ivy or other pasonous No poisonous vegetation vegetation. present in landscaped area. Trash or litter Paper, cans, bottles, totaling more than 1 cubic foot Area dear of litter. within a landscaped area (trees and shrubs only)of 1,000 square feet. Trees and Shrubs Damaged Limbs or parts of trees or shrubs that are split or Trees and shrubs with less than broken which affect more than 25% of the total 5% of total foliage with split or foliage of the Vee or shrub. broken limbs. Trees or shrubs that have been blown down or Tree or shrub in place free of knodced over. injury. Trees or shrubs which are not adequately supported Tree or shrub in place and or are leaning over,causing exposure of the roots. adequately supported; remove any dead or diseased trees. NO. 13- WATER QUALITY FACILITIES A.) Biofiltration Swale Maintenance Defect Condition When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is Performed Biofiltration swale Sediment Accumulation Sediment depth exceeds 2-inches No sediment deposits on grass on Grass Layer layer of the bio-swale,which would impede filtration of runoff. Vegetation When the grass becomes excessively tall Vegetation is mowed or nuisance greater than 10-inches);when nuisance weeds vegetation is eradicated, such that and other vegetation starts to take over. flow not impeded. Grass should be mowed to a height beriveen 4 inches and 9 inches. Inlet Outlet Pipe InIeU outlet pipe clogged with sediment and/or No Gogging or blockage in the inlet debris. and outlet piping. Trash and Debris Trash and debris accumulated in the biaswale. Trash and debris removed from Accumulation bioswale. ErosioN Scouring Where the bio-swale has eroded or scoured the Bioswale should be re-graded and bottom due to flow channelization, or higher re-seeded to specification, to flows. eliminated channeled flow. Overseeded when bare spots are evident. PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 18 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA NO. 14 - OIL CONTROL FACILITIES A.) Oil!Water Separators Maintenance Defect Condition When Maintenance is Needed Results Expected When Component Maintenance is Performed. API Type OWS Monitoring Inspection of discharge water for obvious signs Effluent discharge from vault of poor water quality. should be Gear with out thick visible sheen. Sediment Accumulation Sediment depth in bottom of vault exceeds 6- No sediment deposits on vault inches in depth. bottom which would impede flow through the vault and separation efficiency. Trash and Debris Trash and debris accumulation in vault, or pipe Trash and debris removed from Accumulation inleU outlet,floatables and non-floatables. vault,and inleU outlet piping. Oil Accumula6on Oil accumulations that exceed 1-inch, at the Extract oil from vault by surface of the water vactoring. Disposal in accordance with state and local rules and regulations. Damaged Pipes Inlet or outlet piping damaged or broken and in Pipe repaired or replaced. need of repair. Access Cover Damaged/ Cover pnnot be opened, one person cannot Cover repaired to proper Not Working open the cover,corrosion/deformation of cover. woricing specifications or replaced. Vault Structure Damage- Cracks wider than 1/2-inch and any evidence of Vault replaced or repaired to Includes Cradcs in Walls soil particles entering the structure through the design speaficaGons. Bottom, Damage to c.adcs, or maintenance/ inspection personnel Frame and/or Top Slab determines that the vault is not structurally sound. Baffles Baffles corroding, cracking, warping and/ or Repair or replace baffles to showing signs of failure as determined by specifiptions. maintenance/inspection person. Access Ladder Damaged Ladder is corroded or deteriorated, not Ladder replaced or repaired and functioning properly, missing rungs, cracks, and meets specifications,and is safe misaligned. to use as determined by inspection personnel. Cracks wider than 1/2-inch at the joint of any No cracks more than 1/4-inch inleU outlet pipe or any evidence of soil particles wide at the joint of the inleU entering the vault through the walls.outlet pipe. I I This information shall be provided at the next submittal as coordinated with the City of Renton. PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 19 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Appendix Technical Information Report (TIR) Worksheet....................................................................21 AppendixA Figures................................................................................................24 Figure A1 —ALTA/ACSM Land Title Survey of the Property Figure A2 — Site Plan Figure A3 —Grading and Drainage Plan Figure A4 — King County GIS Map Figure A5 —SCS/USDA Soils Map Figure A6 — Basin Map Appendix B Existing Site Hydrology Output DatalCalculations..............................30 Appendix C Developed Site Hydrology Output DatalCalculations.........................31 Developed Basin "A" — Biofiltration swale Design Developed Basin "B" — Biofiltration swale Design Developed Basin "C" — Biofiltration swale Design Developed Basin "D" — Biofiltration swale Design Developed Basin °Roof" — Detention Pipe Existing Concrete Paved Ditch (Aqueduct) Replacement Calculations Appendix D Erosion Control Calculations ..............................................................44 Temporary Sediment Pond "A" Temporary Sediment Pond "B" Temporary Sediment Pond "C" Appendix E Developed Conveyance (Backwater) Calculations...............................48 South Basin North Basin Appendix F Geotechnical Report.........................................................................110 PACL,AND Project 1999010.008 Page 20 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA King County Department of Development and Environmental Services TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT TIR WORKSHEET Part 1 PROJECT OWNER AND Part 2 PROJECT LOCATION AND PROJECT ENGINEER DESCRIPTION Project Owner Project Name Sam's Real Estate Investment Trust Sam's Club #4835-00, Renton, WA Address Location c/o PACLAND, 1144 Eastlake Blvd E, Township 23N Suite 601, Seattle, WA 98109 Range 5E Phone (425) 487-6550 Section SW'/-17, NE'/4-19, NW'/4-20 Project Engineer Joe Geivett Company PACLAND AddresslPhone 206 522-9510 Part 3 TYPE OF PERMIT Ii Part 4 OTHER REVIEWS AND PERMITS APPLICATION Subdivison DFW HPA J Shoreline Management Short Subdivision COE 404 Rockery Grading DOE Dam Safety Structural Vaults Commercial FEMA Floodplain Other Retaining Wall Other COE Wetlands Part 5 SITE COMMUNITY AND DRAINAGE BASIN Community City of Renton Drainage Basin Black River Basin Part 6 SITE CHARACTERISTICS River Floodplain Stream Wetlands Critical Stream Reach Seeps/Springs C Depressions/Swales High Groundwater Table C Lake Groundwater Recharge L Steep Slopes Up to 40% (limited area) Other Poor qualitv soils. PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 21 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Part 7 SOILS Soil Type Slopes Erosion Potential Erosive Velocities Urban 0.8 to 40% Hiqh Unknown Additional Sheets Attached Part 8 DEVELOPMENT LIMITATIONS REFERENCE LIMITATION/SITE CONSTRAINT L Ch. 4 — Downstream Analysis None due to not exceeding existinq peak Detention of roof runoff will be provided at the request of the hearing examiner. J Additional Sheets Attached Part 9 ESC REQUIREMENTS 1 IINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION AFTER CONSTRUCTION Sedimentation Facilities Stabilize Exposed Surface l Stabilized Construction Entrance Remove and Restore Temporary ESC C Perimeter Runoff Control Facilities Clearing and Grading Clean and Remove All Silt and Debris Restrictions Ensure Operation of Permanent Facilities L Cover Practices Flag Limits of SAO and open space L] Construction Sequence preservation areas Other Other PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 22 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Part 10 SURFACE WATER SYSTEM f Grass Lined Tank C Infiltration Method of Analysis Channel Vault Depression Santa Barbara L Pipe System Energy Flow Dispersal Compensation/Mitigati Open Channel Dissipater aiver on of Eliminated Site Dry Pond Wetland Storage Regional Pipe detentionWetPondStreamDetention Brief Description of System Operation Piqe convevance to bioswale for treatment before disposal to public storm sewer. Roof runoff to be detained in 48" storaqe pipes. Facility Related Site Limitations Reference Facility Limitation Part 11 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS Part 12 EASEMENTS/TRACTS C Cast in Place Vault Drainage Easement Retaining Wall Access Easement Rockery > 4' High Native Growth Protection Easement Structural on Steep Slope Tract Other Other Utilitv Easements Part 13 SIGNATURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER I or a civil engineer under my supervision have visited the site. Actual site conditions as observed were incorporated into this worksheet and the attachments. To the best of my knowledge the information provided here is accurate. Si ned/Date PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 23 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Figure A1 - ALTA/ACSM Land Title Survey of the Property PACLAND Project 1999010.008 Page 24 LEGAL DESCRIPTION LEGEND SEE SIEEf 3 OF 4.m fic 5 ro vx u FASEAIENTS AND RES RICTIONS FlDELJ7Y NATIONAL N0. 0170991 FASEAIENTS /WD RESTRICTIONS (CONTJ p- y h u rown icrtn 1-S. NOT MPLICABLE TO BE SHOWN ON ALTA SURVEY. 1B. THIS PROPERTY IS SUBIECT TO THE 7ERA15 AND COND(TIONS OF A RESfRICTNE o pp FR pl[ GCOVENANfilSRECOROEDUNOERRECORDINGN0. Y00001Y300148J, RECORDS OF LW NE 6. DELEfED. NING COUNTY, W ISHINCTON. (NOTED HERE) NS) I@ IEIDIIOIE 1fW4i EIINID 1B. THIS PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO RESTRICTIONS, CONDITIONS, DEDICATIONS, GVoI wN 7. iH15 PROPERTY IS SU&IECT TO RESERVATIONS AND/OR EXCEPTIONS CONTAINED NOTES, EASEMENTS AND PRONSIONS CONTNNED IN CITY OF RENTON LOT L1NE O SNNY YVIIIOIF r_----W_-- IN INSTRUMENT AS RECORDED UNOER flE)CORDING N0. 539503, RECORDS OF ADJUSTMENT N0. LUA-OG-153-LU AS RECOROEU UNDER RECORDINC NO. p S,y Gp/5pp yy tl1F _—_— THIS EXC PTON ISHNOT SUBJECTETOHBEEPLOTTE ON ALTA SURVEY. THE Z0010213900004, RECOROS OF KING COUNT',WASHINCTON. (NOTED HERE) ypyq pyy p rt - —-'('.=_ CONCREfE AQUEDUCT PRESUMABt.Y FULFlLLS THIS FUNCTION, 20. TMIS PROPERTY IS SU&IECT TO THE TERMS AN CONDITIONS OF AN INCRESS, MwI— ppiq p EGRESS, PARNING AND UTIUTIES E/SENEN7 AS RECORDE UNDER RECORDING r(a)- pp p p p p W L f E tl-10. DELEfED.N0. 2001021J001I15, RECOROS OF KING COUN7Y,WASHINGiON. (NOTED MERE) x—.—x p{p 11G ww ni G !oR xOIE Q1 THIS PROPERTY IS SU&IECT TO THE TERNS AN CONDffIONS OF A SANITARY THIS PROPERfY IS SUBJECT TO CONDEAINATION OF ACLE55 ANO RICHT TO q q SEWER FASEMENT tiS RECORDED 11NDER RECORDINC N0. SY37431,RECOROS WKE NECESSARY SLOPES fOR CUTS OR FlLLS UPON SU&IECT PROPERTY ti5 a yp OF KING COUNtt, WASHINGTON. (SHOWN) CONDEMNED IN KING CWNN SUPERIOR GWRT CAUSE N0. 701083. (SHOWN yq q ANO NOIED NERE) iHIS PROPERTY IS SU&IECT TO THE TERIAS ANO CONDITIONS OF A PACIFIC S NORTHWEST BELL TELEPHONE FASEMENT AS RECORDED UNOER RECORDING THE GUSE WAS BROUGHi 6Y THE ST TE OF WASHINGION fOP ACW SITION N0. 7203170487, RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. (SHOWN) Of PROPERTY RIGNTS IN CONJUNCTION WIfH iHE OEVEIOPMENT OF SR-515 a n AS IT NOW ExISTS. AMONG OTIIER TNINGS,IT NENTIONED: EASEMENTPAS RECORD DEUNDER RECORDNG N0. 7 052 0181 R COROSROFE A THE ACOUISITION OF PROPERTY RIGH15 FOR THE HIOHWAY SHALL NOT SCALE 1 = 4O NING CAUNN,WASHINCTON. (SHOWN) AFFECT iHE OWNERSHIP RICH75 TO ELECTRICAL FACILITIES W17HIN THE SR-513 RIGM-OF-WAV. 14. TMIS PROPERN IS SUBJECT TO COVENANTS,CONDITIONS AND HESTRICT10N5 Uf1LIlY PURVEYORS CONTAINED IN LOT L1NE MdUSTMENT AS RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. B. PUCEf SHALL HAVE ALL RFASONABLE RICHTS OF ACCE55 TO AND FROM 9812109011, RECOHDS OF KING COUNiI',WASHINGTON. (NOTED HERE) SR-515 AND TliAT THE STATE WOULD PROVIDE CURB CUTS AT STA710N5 pM T I a AENTON 12Bi90 AND 430+20. X 5 1065 SOI7M GR/Q/WAY THIS PROPERTY IS SU&IECT TO THE TEfWS AND CONDRIONS OF AN EASEHEM pENfpN,wA YlWS TO PUGEf SOUND ENERGY,INC.AS RECAHDED UNDER RECORDINC N0. C.THE SLOPE FASEMENT ARFA(WHICH WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECORDED 7y)w-7a6i 8812171851, RECOROS OF KING COUN7Y, WASHINGTON. (SHOWN) INSTRUMENT PROVIDED TO BARGHAUSEN CONSULTING ENCINtERS, INC.) WAS FOR SLOPE PURPOSES ONLY AND WOULll RtVERf BACN TO PUCET WMEN TME PO''FN: PUCFf SOUND ENERGY A. TRANSMISSIUN L1NE EASEMENT AKEA(SiEEL TOWER L1NE): AN FASEMlNI NECESSITV FOR SLOPES CEASES TO E7(IST. (THE LOCATION OF A 10-F00T Im 1561N AK.NE SLOPE FJSEMENi ALONG SR-515 GRAPHIGI_LY DEPICTEO UPON TME SURVEY F11LN1L'MA 9l005 ARU ONE HUNDRED (100) FEET IN WIDTH HAVING FIFfY(SO) FEET OF SUCH y p yy FOUNO ON TME SR-313 RIGHT-OF-WAY PLAN AND IS PRESUNABLV 32-T WIOTH ON EACH SIDE OF A CENlERLINE DESCRIBEA AS FOLLOWS: THE SLOPE EASEMENT MENTIONED IN THE CAUSE.) GIS; PUGET SOUND ENER4l THE CENTERUNE IS AN E%ISTINC ELECTRIC TRANSMI$$ION LINE AS PRESENTLY 105 156IH AVENE CONS7RUCTED WITHIN THE ABOVE DESCRIBEO PROPERtt. D.A SEfTLEMENT AGREEMENT RECARDINC TAJf UENS.ecLLFn1E,r 9eoos I(!W)1z1-1J21 B. TRANSMISSION L1NE EASEAIEN7 N2EA(TMREE(7) SEPARATE SINCIE WOOD 22. THIS PROPER7Y IS SUBJECT TO 7HE RIGHT TO MAKE NECESSARY SLOPES FOR POLE UNES). EACH SUCH EASEMENT MEA FIFIY(50) FEET IN WIOTH HAVINC CUTS AND FILLS UPON SU&IECT VROPER7Y tiS CRANTED IN DEED AS RECORDED E FP O E' `Nu7a 5 TWENTY-FIVE (25) FEET OF SUCH WIDTN ON EACM SIDE OF THREE SEPARATE UNDER RECORDINC N0. 4827715, RECORDS OF KINC COUNf1'. WASHINGTON. (NOTED HERE) 7H 2ppq CENiERL1NE5 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: 2}. 7MIS PROPERfY IS SU&IECT TO ENCROACHAIENTS AS SHOWN. E A TME CENTERLINES ME THE EXISTING SINCLE WOOD POLE ELECTRIC TIUNSMISSION fiffiL ia aiBlE nsaM LINES ti5 PRESEN7LV CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE BWE OESCRIBED PROPERtt. 1• NOT APPLICABLE TO BE SHOWN ON ALTA SURVEI'. ozo ueuqN w r qomn I va eox iwe C. A TRANSMISSION FASEMENT AREA FOR EACN OF 7HftEE(3) SEPARA7E H-FRAAIE w.l•wA BEW2 WOOD POLE LINES SOUTH OF FENCED AREA ANO CROSSING WERAND, EACH SUCH 25)8/3-51W R7 EASEMENT MEA BFJNC 50(lY(80) FEEi IN N'IU7H HAVING THIRTY(30) FEET HIGMMAY: WsooT OF SUCH WIDTN ON EACH SIDE Of iHREE SEPARATE CEHTERLINES DESCRIBED D6TRICT 1 AS FOLLOWS: 15700 MnON AVE NORTH SUTRl WA 901]] TME CENTERlINES ARE THE E%ISTING 'H-FRAAIE'WOOD POLE ELECTRONIC Y' i y1 TRANSMISSION LINES AS PRESENTLY CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE ABOVE pOMI Of CON furni j' DESCRIBED PROPERTY. D. A DISTRIBUTION UNE EASEMENT AREA FOR FOl1R (4)SEPARATE SINCLE WOOD 8 N Y47 I6'W POLE LINES, TWO (2)ALONG TALBOT ROAD,7W0 (4) RUNNINC EAST AND WEST, p68LB1' 8/ T F EACH Sl1CH EASE4ENT MFA BEINC 7EN (10) FEET IN WIDTH HAVING FIVE(5) FEEf OF SUCH WID7H ON EACH SIDE OF FOUR(4) SEPARITE CENTERLINES f. aa DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: y IHE CENTERLINES ME THE EXISi1NG SINGLE WOOD PO E ELECTRIC DISTMBUTION POwEp C9.HN • y/ LINES AS PRESENTLY CONSTRUCTEO WITHIN THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERiY. PULE Goi OF. 4 e NN " ' 4E. FIBER OPTIC L1NE EASEAIEM MEA: AN FASEMENT AREA TEN (10)FEET IN bEGDi WIDTH HAVING FIVE (S) FEET OF SUCH WI07H ON EACH SIDE OF A CENTERLINE h .. x ` EC DESCRIBED AS FOlLOWS: THE CEMERLINE IS iHE E%ISTING OVERMFID FIBER OFTrIC L1NE AS PRESENTLY LONSTRUCTED WITHIN hIE ABOVE DESCfiIBED PROPERTY.f SOY M P. ROAD FRONUGE EASE4ENT: A STRIP OP IAND FIFTEEN (15)FEEi IN WIDTH, A,/ T THE NOHTHERLY BOUNWRY OF WNICH ADJOINS THE SOUTHERLY AIMGIN OF SOUTH GRADY WAY,A STRIP OF lANO fIREEN (15) FEET IN WI 7M, THE WESiERLY P' ;' I BOUNLURY Of WHICM ADJOINS TRE GSTERLY MMGIN OF TALBOT ROAD,A STRIP OF UND FIFlEF11 (IS) FEET IN N70IH, IME WESTERLY BOUNOAR!OF WMIC11 I y/ 15 -y— R.- AQ10M5 TME EASTERLY MARGIN OF BENSON ROAO;MID A$TRIP OF UNU FIFfEEN p,O .'.. i. , 15) FEET IN WIDTH,TME EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF WHICN ADJOINS THE WESTERLY URi ,.- ' E45ENE I 'F —_ IAARGIN OF BENSON ROAD,THE E7(TERIOR BOUNDMIES OF SAID STRIPS BEINC I \ y .j /, / y"A REC. N EI HER ENGTHENED OR SHORTENED ACCORDINCLY TO INTERSECT WfTH THE Y•, I A 3 UOUNDMIES OF THE GHANTOfl'S PROPERTV. ji,4 // p y N, I i T 16. THIS PROPERTV IS SUBJECT TO THE iERMS AND CONOITIONS OF A RESTRICTIVE T ' fW 10 ? ' COVENANT AS RECORDED UN ER RECOROING N0. 20000125001281, RECORDS OF uo rto c . NINC CWNTY, WASHINCTON.(NOTED HERE) yd' /, wcu(ynu) F 17. THIS PROPERIY IS SU&IEC7 TO iHE TERA15 AND CONDfT10N5 OF A RES RICTNE t 2 r _ =.r.:!'•tdl, ,' COVENANi AS RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. Y0000125001Y82,RECORDS Of i o . ..e,.KING COUNTY, WASXINCTON. (NOIED HERE) i i . 3 _fi. IIIONffO(Po i i 4, j 0 r . o, g j i nNRs. f r - CB-W // O ; ' y::' • IZIIiT_ 1' IJ y:: s/ tl' i '../ / ICX r r/% 7 •" MfL1 107)I^ y I / /fl y' S t FWIO—\ i V c" I Y t Y I d,. PARCEI,- _—_ BU l0T y sia+?. // wi <, / (((f"'} n • ` uoHs r g. Ho c _ J-BO%-- y i 'WU(q115 , s\ `EQ f+' , I ?7;bY C/0 d9.4QY , l VnRE" \. '/.: 9812171951 5 r7 tiy-- -" .... ,JW ER R 16 00' .Y r u" : f.v" ` 9 , i o r w/ u,v ai L Qi¢P'". V r«,No •ic s / "" uodrrarnNc i' v ti al+• eA iqrirt u(euwia)a Z r' ,y r lt j> I 6• sa" e< ' Y " l \`( '° I x D 1 a s"' N, E, J b . Sl Fq'` M K:, i± N ' Q .,.. . c N a P: i'OUND s «r t``, , I y „ IUiTiC t o a4...._ i N , MONI70RING F „/. Y Y - X R' \ ;. ` . WELI W.IW14)a:. J§ . e"nR t FISEMENT'D2Q r a'' I" J u -` T 9eiztN7 ivsi . F x ;, c`- : f Y / J166 h GTCH i' f 922 d '} I . + E%IS7MIC I • z• u1 MN 5' WATERIiNE EASFMEM °' ' ., .:po r ti4 0' . n TO CITY OF RENTON Y i B :' ER RfC NO 40529Q4d4 ° g ' rnurwrr i l. .,pu+e X w 1,a #" ( fRf w i[n V 1 i Fn I vK c vw f ;1 I r .., ; k f `, p` ry.. '. x'' °,r i p NG 9 6-` • 4 I .12 I ' i._' -. u,TM T CUY / M I. a" . iS., o M - ,i .ucur ' --r" L.1,. e L. _'$. oi r. L '. ` / i n\\. suu+n vDSrs*` i w w r- i5510N wy 2)5 : ..1 LEMwiw iI " +, \ . i RC-2..._- 1 PME // U-' EET 7• N4r W1C 311E .' C ` fWNO ' -0¢ . fi I ... iW 1` n Ni0RIN0' r. y k tl t ! Z•E / P X ,,. .. I » 1-..` c P___ 1`p, -< MATCHLINE o` ASN/`S lt O REC. N0. / r--- L W As ar oT'--=- --- .... y wwN 7 .a..98121 71 95 7/151 .. /1 q 82 8`a ;y sipNA/S1CF 5Q 6 OJ/Y7/03 SRF NWC RWC ADDED BUS STOP!TEl WWL7S LAMO 5 0.7/It/03 9F ISC RMC fJMNGED MQt t11E. Ol/09/01 A6 IdC I C OMNGm 9EFT 5. wnrs 05 1H 03 J 17/07/02 96 IEIG I IC UIORMEY COIYENIS. ii/u/o2 ss awc nawcr caw s t uvahn imc a[aar. i ii is : ea m c aw aroacr ns. Mo. Dob B Cka. ppr.WNWn Job NumWr x. /!H q S 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH DNIOMA PACLAND T BSZ P KENT WA 96032 o o.n Ma4o,Z azsj zs-szzz 9709 3RD AVENUE NE, SUfTE 203 ALTA / ACSM LAND TRLE SURVEY sn..i n 425) 251-8782 FAX d ' Z a., „,,, SEATTLE, WA 98115 RENTON, WA3HINGTON sL Q. 5' CML ENCINEERING, IAND PIANNING, 1 0 4 ( r NC ENGWE SURVEYINC, FlMRONMEMAL SffMCE$ pa 10/Y9/02 206) 522-9510 I f POWER POLE- P TCH W/LUMMI4RE WNc OHOP W/iRANSFOHYEfl W/UG OkOP LEGEND n .O/UI V111LT V d--. SIIEET/l0i llCll C.., IVNpKi[ WAIER VILYE$ N_\ 4 Op[ppE 1 G/f 71L w, N r , FlRE HYDMNi 9 1E181b1E MMIOII K,ypEtP r H si{EET GA I M9x W '_ IN1ER Ill sioH uart : o winm aim W»ac _— u rcc u c I.. N WA1CR SWfN(I StYFR 17FNIOUI G T W-_.•. A gy w t'*'F E ftOCNERf I Sy. ' 1` VALVES Gt5 WI.YC N1R UMOFJ UD j a')- PO''F]I WWGD g .„: c n --- ) A ' ww uu Fna 1 y i m IWFA YwuE o eaE xni T wtn nu rpoa A n soi kocK unce Mni lCI POWEN I .'1' J VAIIIT 3i 1 i POWER POIE I/ 1 L1MI15 Oi WL7ILEVEL W/LUMnWNE g j / -i'' /J) r,vtKuro I o SCALE 1 = 40 n W/IIG OROP I KR VI I I I WATER MEfEF . Q . + 4 ./' • / - I I 1 g ` I I j" iW + I i 9CN ..: .. -1 4 I I I y f I/ Y/ / J I Ctl}AN\ . / J Z e- ,r- l4 i a p., 1 I 1 aII siRCEr n,: 6 51 S•' . IIGM .. w I a j T, N a „y,Tl` F RENTON i ---- ' I I --' j iiPoWEAN '. R\P A R T) I i I Po itll K \\`_ J-\-- J r- 6 qb' / r'';j I uwrs or wxn Z I , l 6 I CONCAEIE PARKING m r s r: c wH i rcN r.. uHK I\ fl v" i r • a,./ l IWTf 7 • .. FENCE TCM OX4 URNN GTCH1 "y'. PI 4 N I P H ISIH ILWHOIE SINI P 9.P / 9J90. I •r}-, - 2 - eo .. 4 % 4 bp'9 1. g i - o, G v ti6 y y IS UG rt b a,0.t 1 u R n xocK kv K PO N IJB w i 6TwY 0 r Jw w e-etoo s cr urcJ`Q E--c-es o• j( 4 " P A R C E L 3 REfI1NM0 WALL 9. •W `', .... —„ W rr Gr_ PORTION JE I A ke 9.o€aoueid""" tisw B076' j ,y 1F 10NE 34VAULT L PARCEL 4A1 II INCLUDED)EG W/.iER 1 x V T8 t 0 OECIDU0U9 . ypHp 7'i 1.E R , $ " ' iv auu o t i, i_ xaE-"{o iw`,e):.euNNN i rt•-.-,- .\ 6. . " i r .. ` S . tN il 9B417 951 I I I \ ORN c r r. Sf} VALVE „ "\ or r' ,: ' T Mau ir oRiNt concr cre eoX a;%'` ce . uart y ' ucNr weu(o wn) ,i` to / } II u r+nwaee w I ssNM c{„"' r- i t;:. , ' / / I I q HAIN Lk{Ic----^ I a. w. f+'`' NCE aR C j / I II // II 2 cuAR ` {, x` 1 '' / Q` / II I I I 'y:n. r. f. 0 sr 'C. }sun i ,,,, i i r eoy'''(+. i ;Y' ce-w ti t E' .' ` - a 70• Su u% II N cu wu ua$ E PFO 'M h N0T I WNO I R ' i! t n. , r\PS t2 O, 1 q'` I /1 l_ IlU,i,... . 7l1 ,, G1E. . .yY+ + 1M I I I II uWIfER IM20) • S I-+ k' BE tN I I I I h':r • sa, 4' .: _ . HOIE I r. 4., . Y . r. \ ' ido C8^NN •- w, r. LNCE f. N R r R I PoUNO YT. .`' V,. • f .l SfORM ' r,Q-A i a' p'L P .i.k" r «, II II III III YOWTONINC d NS ;'' 11 Iw[II (uwe)f. r; PU'NGR r c 6 ' . ..t p+H ti" y. 4n N voxin "1/ t CB- , . .' a "`u . ' ' '", f 'r ..3 SS w i• i , s_ - 1 1 `r PAfIV I-/I / , / fl P I' ppwENe5 . - n'` ,r'.'- ., / : 8 / li iSfNRs , !."• I G 5 q TA4l aLE OT 6: J// // i --:ll / y • B POWER. f w i- / ucr' . 7Y M V T t C9-n It.: e.' k 'i r r oo•w w r E rl`s r - i v. y 5 / / r r r -, . e ' 4 qF t Y[jEx4•UI ,, e: Irr NQ •. 'i p•• I i i 5',. C 6ff .F ii• • I y J I IIj . I i` 1" a T n o 1 lpl w ',- •.' Y .. A 1, PoWEfl . orn JY , I 5'17 \ i C .,, / I I T WLi w k. Y o t IA ` u"° s "„;4'" s, . a i J :' r ' I'tEz R' :t.. , 1ET ,"` S o ,\ a 1i^wu' Y !/ f II' s F I yAIN. 3) ([(dk y{ 1 IQ 1 , PUCE 1 . , B. .ERl1NE OF Hc,srwur s`°'` le.,,(:,^ .tr' crw .uqK noreHurxr I r ., f '•f,. N.e o il c. : I'\\ \: T:. 0 /. // i/, c x oF I 4 N:I I ,* 0, 4R.`wEl u 1) ' n I I\\\ A /// I f i j / r' a.y.. t r' \` r''t ` ID\ ,•"'i .' / 7ti y r Y' E r t' t;m'.ifi; d"': „ r f' ,'p' r rr NN t 4 Un r'l'.i. 1 e„ ,'u ,;.' F . 9 0' jN a / '' ICIO'00' i ti r z' k-toa.a'ip; p, ..ia -+' sru s gf x . j%^ _ _:- i /i L Ml.6J' F , 5ea * cOUM N ' r { 4 G l I f'• •, .`. .••'Ok IA n i ut'!.t f J J I r l l l a.P' e„y R' 6 a, ' t 3 A PP r ;; lyf' 4 .• a WAR n IUj,e. x i/ i I aa d,"` i v' e r / Y°u" ,' 9.<jIa S ; J ` e in T cI,, f _ s, • I cwp i '_'i;. -r t i row i"` `: 3'3.,*' T j , , i'°- xo ' ` i+ lw`' o / "` ie' se,i°"c i a,y N/,/ X x r, ,I: ' i 1.EOY Bi' ie iu ' ie i o-i . . •. . a• z- . G kSB,67 .,y j ,.,, s. eorj r 1" .. 1 rv,' ,. . I 5 y / SSWI lllllllll llll/llI I:._...> •. y i- u:. I i y., , i „4a" 3 r izsYa"" - ` .,cn ` d''' s :'` ,, ,- o., r iiairirira,. Kr aa'3iss, ",,, r j ;, , " , w ' Av n o c i// , ';" i"crwN urac h__ _J_ S --•B35 J... i/' ry . f P(W/ER / ` \; E C n r—_Y . ' ';__ _. ..,._. i/ ' M o ASy S o R E . . j -i - t'`, _ °'' 1 /// r`< a8 2.t77a 3aa• ""_ L /' - u 0-a ls•s,. iw 5f y . i i N ,<; " . lo.., a- ,x R- i7ss.es' e `. i l',, , . L-l3090' y ,I ., n' Nr a t t Viwo 1 x i 8238 1` f a+k , Dp,yN r-/1"' / I rip/SiCP`5 i-. 'Ai:,.-- " --+'... i d N' '. , i LAND iwr- jj/-x - _ YBURIm i t'N nwars OS 18/03 w 8 03/11/01 S16 pMC RNG BUS SfOP!IEL WN175. swnurr Il/ j i o/0/03 sa arc nwo ATCHLINE o o o.. . , i i, s-e t/-s--wws-w-- J ti/02/02 96 ArC RWC ATfONW.Y COYYDIIS. 7 11/25/UI 96 IAG RNC ATiIXKY COYYFl1IS k IAM7FD TIIIF qEpppf. 1 I I 15 02 Bpl RWC qNC QR)RNEY COINp715. No. Ool By Ckd. Iypr.p q JoE NumD r G_H q S 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH D i9Md » M PACLAND r 10682 P KENT WA 98032 0,.+ F ,,,, iZ ( a2sj z5,-szzz Q 9709 3RD AVENUE NE, SUITE 203 ALTA / AC3M LAND TITLE SURVEY sn« 425) 251-8782 FAX G"`1i° •0 z SEATTLE, WA 98f15 RENTON, WASHINGTON sG y' CML ENCINEERING, IAND PUNNING, 2 4 ` r N ENG\ NE` SURVEYINC, EtMRONAIENTAL SEFMCES oab o 206) 522-9510 or— N J' 1LECEND f=_ MATCHLINE 1° "n,`_-- kr i E SEUENT OiC.2--s txarc apw va[e e'" ,w7 T r. 7EtLP wNE REC. NO '`"-"-"- ' 1}"vOAEMxvxf W-' uu1M01.E j' 1 ` 98 2171951 If " . WTEa a\ 4 s/ r ' rancR PACIFIC NW BELL ', z), ' e.. - +r 'F v vE -'U Q TELEPHONE Pi t5% nORA rolE G Qi FASEMENT REC. \ 4 oi r'' a/f OQ o IKNf iD ifltnprc rw ai . . N0. 7205170197 ,' Q0% Y - - _, E u Wtll BVN M7m uE e'P R 9r' YI7 o smNu wwqlc wttwn mi[x Il1E T vo .::.. FoIE, y, - ,,, 8 SdFN 951IH H • i..•`:surtNn sm Wwne --- _ smw oxwiurc uc z)i r+e t"_ O SW WIY$F191 OFAIrM1I G c GS IlC 0 M 0 li . G4RFAM RA GS IE1G uc) R1FPIp1E UOFAGOIID 1\ - ^-- ri o a wimwx np K-- raiu aw r O SCALE 1' = 40' 1', ze, i __.._------ --- T-- ,,,._-- aw uR rurf m w im w wiat o ea xo rn ) N I :i rua nok--- iNc'\. mp[ vK ce- wni (nuw 8 m rmi ct[R n ow r H- SECf10 1 LINElgni 0 inrmx rtu I i,ti« i I lE II " i SIG E . , .. I 829 , w u i . SURVEYOR'S NOTES LEGAL OESCRIPTION METES AND BOUNOS LEGAL OESCRIP710N OF PROPOSEO SAAI'S CLUB PURCMASE) I s I 1.THE flA515 OF BEARWGS ANO COORDINATE POSITION FOR TNIS SURVEY IS H`;, 7HE WASHINGTON SGiE PLANE COORDINA7E SYS7EM (NAD1983/1991) REVISED PARCEL 1, REVISED PARCEL 2, REVISED PARCEL 3,ANO A PORTION OF I 60.00' 4 I I NORTH ZONE. UMBERT CON ORAIM.CONIC PROJECTION,AS PUBLISHEO REVISCO PMCEL 4 OF CIIY OF REMON LOT LINE ADJUS7MEM N0. LW-BB-ISS-LU BY THE Cltt OF RENTON.S RECORDED UNDER NECOROING NO. 20010213800004, RECORDS OF KING CWMY, p. I 0e.p e q.. • I .I WASHINGTON, MORE PARTICULARLV DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: iobND . 2. THE BASIS OF VERTIGL DATUAI hON 1/115 SUHVtY IS NAVD 1BBB,AS p. x YOHtjONING \. --- PUBLISHE BY THE CITY OF RENTON. THE BENCHIMRK USEO IS CIiY OF COMAIENCINC AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SECIION 19, TOWNSHIP 2J NORTH, e'o) RENTON BENCHMARK NO. 2123,A STANDMD NATIONAL GEODETIC RANCE 5 FAST, WILWAERE MERIDIAN. FROM WHICH POINT THE NORTH OUARTER I I EMENf F^\ I SURVEY (NGS) BHASS DISC, STAMPED '0 62 1973,'SET VERTICALLY IN THE CORNER OF SAID SECTION 19 BEARS NORTH B9' 42' 18'WEST, 2861.01 fEET r 1 EC. N0. A 1., SOUiHERLY FACE OF THE BWCK WALL OF THE U.S. POST OFFICE 1WL D STANT; I 98121719515 HPNDLINC BUIIDINC,MPRO%IAIATELY 1.5 FEET EAS ERLY OF TRE THENCE SOUTH 00' 44'IB'WEST, 2.13 iEET TO THE SWTHERLY MNiCIN OF S.W. vaY[R% j jSOUTHWESTCORNEROFTHEBUILDING, IOCATED A7 7HE GRA Y WAV,7NE POINT OF BECINNINC,AND 7HE BEGINNINC OF A NON-TANGENT 4 y EASEMENT D3 NORTHFASTERLY CORNER OF HOUSER WAY ANO WILLWAS AVENUE CUR'JE TO TNE LEFf, FROA1 WHICH VOINT THE RADIUS POINT OF SAIO LURVE BFMS F REC. N0. GT[M NORTH 40' 22'48 WEST, 3857.93 FEET DISTANT; y ATEF 9812171951 B/SINSOUTM,APPRO%IIMTEIY 1A FEET ABOVE 1HE GROUND. 7HE ELEVATION wl NTHENCENORTHFASfERLYALONGTHEMCOFSiUDCURvEM10SOUTMERLYMARCINw_IS 1J.750 AIETERS (5.11 FEEf). OF S.W. GRA Y WAY, PASSINC THROUGH A CENTRAL ANCLE OF OT 14'OS',AN MC DISTANCE OF 217.8] FEET; SCN S. TMIS 'ALTA/ACSM UND 71TLE SURVEY'IS IN ACCOROANCE WrtH THENCE NORTM 46 23' OB EAST.ALONG SNO SOUTHERLY MMGIN 79.E9 FEET; A1INIMUM S7ANUARD DEfAIL REOUIREMEMS FOR ALTA/ACSM IAND THENCE SOUTH 4]' 38' S2"EAST, 100.35 FEEf; N SaEpMA7 OP T1E SUItVEYS"JOINTIY ESTABLISHED AND ADOPTED BY THE AMERICAN THENCE SOUTH B9' 59' 3'EAST, 9SJ0 fEEf TO 7HE BEGINNING OF A NON- p UNO TITIE ASSOCIATION AND AMERICAN CONGRE55 ON SUHVEYING TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFf, FROA1 WHICH POINT THE RADIUS POINT OF SAI Nn E AND MAVPING IN 18BB. GURVE BEARS NORiH BB' 23' IJ'EAST, 62.00 FEEf DISTANT: CIWN uNK WCE iNENCE SOUTHEAS7ERLY ALONG THE MC OF SVD CURVE, P/SSINC THROUGH A GVf T . . ILONC 7oP o w }-` + THIS DRAWING AIEETS THE NATIONAL AWP STANDARDS FOR A TWO-FOOT CENTRAL ANGLE OF 3' 12 13,AN MC DIST lICE OF 90.04 FEET; i 1NENGE 5011TH EJ' 16' Jt'EAST, 1M.2d FEET, 1' CONTOUR INTERVAL AND DMWWG SCALE OF 1' 40'. UNAUiHORIZEO I 7 (Iq7 WNU, + 1 d EN/ARGEAIENTS AUY E%CEED THESE STAHDMDS. TMENCE SOIf N 69' SB' 31'EAST,87.75 FEEf TO THE WESTERLY WRCIN OF AWN iWND tl 1 1 `AVENUE SOUTH (BENSON ROAD SOUTH); S. ALL TIiLE MFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS AUP HAS BEEN EXTRACTED FROM TMENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY WIRGIN THE FOLLAWINC FNE COURSES: N I FlDELItt NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COAIPANY OF WASHINGTON 1 IENCE SOUTH 01' 29'24 WEST,298.82 FEEf TO 1HE BEGINNING OF A 199.18- I I q yy,TFp +,,}, J- FOOi-RADIUS CURVE TO THE RIGHT; j -BO - c SEpuV,TOR "', 'COMMRAIENT N0. 0170991, DATEO OCTOBER 25, 7002. IN PREPMING THIS MAP, BARGMAUSEN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. HAS CONDUCTED NO HENCE QONG HE ARC OF SAID CURVE,PASSINC THROUGH A CENTRAL MIGLE OF cn-sv-'e.''" r_•4 B' 4 8' 0 0',A N A R C O I n A N C E O F 1 6 9.5 3 F E E T; r INOEPENDENT TITLE SEARCH NOR IS BARG/iAUSEN CONSULTING THENCE SOUTH 50' U 24 WEST,81.80 FEET TO THE BECINNING OF 507.46-F00T-ENGINEERS, INC. AWME OF ANY TITLE ISSUES AFFECTINC THE Sl1RVEVED 1 yyy RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT; 1_'PROPERIY OTHER THAN THOSE SHOWN ON THE AUP AND DISCIOSED BV THENCE ALONG THE MC OF SAID GURVE, PASSING THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE O I( " THE REFERENCED FIDELITY NATIONAL COAIAIRMENT. BARGHAUSEN y5' 2B'00',AN MC DISUNCE OF 225.36(EET; CONSULTINC ENGWEERS, INQ HAS RELIED WHOLLY ON FIDELI7V THENCE SOUTH 24' 48' 24'WEST, 126J0 FEEf; U z + NAiIONAL'S REPRESENTATIONS OF THE TITLE'S WNUIiION TO PREPARE THENCE NORTH 7T 30 12'WEST, 91J2 FEET; g.SiH \ - ry . , „ ITHISSl1RVEYANDTHEREFOREBARHAUStNCONSULTINGENGINEERS, I N C. THENCE SOUTH 11' 25' 33 WESi, 9.83 FEET;I I I1OUQIFIESTHEAUP'S ACCUftACY M10 COMPLE7ENE55 TO 7HAT EXTENT. THENCE SOUTH J1' 28' 1'WEST, 27.44 PEET;I ' I'1 TMENCE SOUTH St' J7'03'W6T, 412.}2 FEET; H- 8. PROVENIY AREAS: PARCEL 1 = 359,280 t SOUARE FEEf(8.2 8 t ACRES). THENCE NORiH ET 20' 45'WEST, 59.19 PEET TO iHE FASTERLY YARCIN Of SR- PARCEL 2 : p31,805 t SOUARE FEEf(5.324 t ACRES). 515 (TQBOT RQAD SOU7H); U7 - ^ 1 . v +.C . PARCEL 3- 38,510 t SOUARE FEET(O.B84 3 ACRES). THENCE ALONG SAIO FASTERLY IAMGIN THE FOLLOWING FOUR COURSES: N 7 / y.. , . PARCEL 4 = 1BB,3B0 t SOUARE FEET (l.577 t ACRES). THENCE NORTH 07 JY' 13'EASf, 1S0.7S EEf TO THE BECINNING O A 750.00- p 1 II, , POKTION WAL-1IART PURCw SING 63,077 3 SpUARE FEET F00T-RAOIUS CURVE TO THE LEFf; r U y r / /PORTION SELLER REfA1NING - 1]7,J0] f SQUARE FEET ) THENCE kONG THE MC OF SAI CURVE,P lS51NC THROUCH A CENTRN.µCLE OF q w I Y / A'A 35' JI' 26',AN ARC OISfANCE OF{65.01 FEET; tl j' C,I+-. / h1ENCE NORTH 37 52' 11'WEST, 1 7.91 FEEf TO THE BEGNNING OF A 5.00- y A I 7. THIS PROVtRIY W15 LECAL ACCESS i0 SOUTH CRADY WAY AND FOOT-RADIUS CURVE 70 THE RIGHT; U TALk10T ROAD, SHOWN HEREON AS PUBl1C RIGHTS-OF-WAY. PMYSICAL THENCE ALONG THE MC OF SAID CURVE,PASSINC THROUGH A CENTRAL MIGLE OF 9 ACCESS MAY BE LIMRED BY INPROVEAIENTS, OR IACK THEREOF,A$ BU 36' 19',AN MC DISTANCE OF 6B.39 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY AIARGIN OF S.W. p I iSHOWNONTHESURVEY. GRADY WAY AND A POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE WITH A 3837.93-F00T-RADIUS 0 j CURVE TO THE IEFF, M I I 0$LOPE M T PQR B. TAX PMCEL NUNBERS ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ARE: THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAI CURVE AND SOU7HERLY AURGIN, PASSING r HPERWR CAIKE 202305-9007-OB (PMCEL 1) TMRWGH A CEN FAL ANCLE OF 06'06'5,AN MC DISTANCE OF 411J4 FEET TO N I„Np,.J610i' / 915480-0010-00 (PARCEL 2) THE POINT OF BEGINNING. 1 172305-B1BJ-09 (PARCEL}) r . 1 " " / II ' Y023b5-9008-07 (PARCEL 4) q I I .: f I AREA OF ABOVE DESCRIPTION eo•x 9. ZONING: G(COMMEHCIAL ARTERIAI), RENiON,WA N I I,, 691.670 f SOUARE FEEf(15.B7B t ACRES) N I . .I ' R 10, CURRENT MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACKS: 10 FRONT; 0 REAR; 10' SIDES MINIAIUM Y I I /PER THE Cltt OF RENTON 20NINC AIMIUAL. PLFASE CONSULT 20NINC MANUAL a I v IIIIFORNLLPARTICULARS. q • 11. FLDOD ZONE DESIGNATION - X,AREA DEfERqINED TO BE OUTSIDE OF p p ' 500-YEAR FLOOD PWN, ACCORDING TO FLOO INSURANCE RATE A4W, I FIRA17 N0. 53033C0977 F, COAIMUNITY N0. 530088, (CIiY OF REN70N), PANEL N0. 0977, SUFfl% F, EFFECTNE MAY 18, 1995, KINC CAUN7Y,WISHINCTON, I c t / AS PREPARED BY THE FEDERAL ENERCENCY MANAGEMENT ACENCY(FEIAA'.F% /// 1 2. U T I L I T I E S O 7 H E R T t1 A N T M O S E S H O W N AI A Y E X I S T O N T H I S S I T E. O N LY J-B01( N i THOSE UTILITIES WITH EVIDENCE OF TMEIR INSTNIATION VISIBLE AT T`f. CRCIIN ^U:iACC ME ^uiIOWN F;EnEJN. UNvERGFOUND Uf1Lf1Y CB-zX •j/LOCATIONS Sf10WN ME AVPROXIMATE ONLY. UNDERGROUND CONNECTIONS AfiE SHOWN AS 4RAICHT LWES BEIWEEN SURFACE g_yy UTIUIY LOCATIONS BUT MAY CONTNN BENDS OR CURVES NOT SHUWN. SOMt UNDERGROUND LOCATIONS SHOWN HEREON 1UY H VE BFEN E y TN(EN FROM PUBLlC RECORDS. BARGHAUSEN CONSULTINC ENCINEERS, i g+ _INC. ASSUMES NO UABIIIN FOR THE ACCURACY OF PUBLIC RECOFDS. J 7J. ALL DISTANCES ARE IN FEET (U.S. SURVEY FEtT). MREI la. TWS IS A HtLD TRAVERSE SURJEY. A SOKKIA FIVE-SECONO ELECTRONIC TOTQ STATION WAS USED TO AIEASURE THE ANGWAa IIIIIII AND DISTANCE REU710NSHIPS BE'fWEEN THE COMROLLING f IIIIIIIIIIIIII jllll MONl1A1ENfAT10N AS SHOWN. CLOSURE RATIOS OF THE TRAVERSE AIET u RE I I OR EXCEEDED THOSE SPECIfIEO IN WAC 732-130-OBO. ALL INSIHUMtN15 I I l/// I I IIIIIIIII i I AND EOUIPMENT HAVE BEEN 1LUNTAINED IN ADJUSTAIENT ACCORDING I TO MANUFACTURFAS SPECIFICATIONS. 15.THIS SURVEY WA$ PREPAREO FOR TME E%CLUSIVE USE OF PACIAND j .:' I . ,/ j- . / // ///// // _ ro6.iENTERPRISES, INC., PUGET WESTERN, INC., AND FlDELRY NATIONAI.TITLE INSUfLWCE C011PANY OF WASHINGTON. RIGHTS 70 RELY ON OR USE THIS SURVEY DO NOT IXTEND TO ANY UNNAMED PARN WITNOUT IXPRE55 j I// // 1// / IIII.W RECEHfIFlCATION BY BARCHAUSEN CONSULTINC ENGINEERS, ING. I fl . I r /// 1ll•7I I AND/OA THE PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR WFIOSE SEAL MPEARS HEREON. lti.TNE PROPEFIY HEREIN SURVEYE ABUTTING J. F. BENSON ROAD IS SU&IECT o, I I TO 7HE RIGHT TO AIAICE NECESSARY SLOPES FOR CUTS AND FILLS AS CRW7ED I // / /// i I TO KING COUNTY 8Y DEED RECORDED UNDtR RECOftDINC NO. 2827775. THENE WAS NO SPECIFIC ROUTE OR LOCATION WHERE TNESE SIOPE RIGHTS WERE TO J 6 // / J` I AFFECT THE PROPERtt WITHIN THE RECORDE INSTRUMENT ANO THEREFORE j /I / " s! CONS ITUTES AN UNPLOTfABLE BLANKEf EASEAIENT. THE ONLY EVIDENCE FOUND I I I FOR THE LOCATION OF J. F. BENSON ROAO WAS THE KING COUN7Y SURVEYOR'S FlELO NOTES ROA1 19Y4 WHEN THE RW W 15 WD OUT FOR SURVEY N0. 1009-D. cpo i[ I I 7HOSE NOTES STATED IHAT BRA55 PLUGS WERE SET IN TME CONCRETE ROAD 5 ` I ISURFACE (PRESUMABLY AFTER hIE ROAD CONSTRUCTION). 7W0 OF 7HtSE PLUG$ y WERE FOUND DURINC OUR FlELD SURVEY, ONE AT STATION 20+42.12 AND ONE AT c I iSTA710N35+90.00. THE FIELD POSITIONS WERE WI7HIN 0.3 FEET OF THEIR 2 H F THEORETICAL COMPUiED POSRIONS FROA/ THE 1924 FIELD NOTES. TNESE I If-MONUMENTS WERE USEO TO ESTABLISH THE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY OF 30 FEET Op',Je.ON EACH SIDE OF 7HE CENTERLWE. IN SEPTEMBER 1857,THE RIGHT-OF-WAY CB-N PIANS FOR SR-405 WtH[APPROVEO. IN THE VICINITY OF WHERE TNE EXISTING i J / R a• f*1 PAVING FOR BENSON ROAD ENCROACHES THE A/OST ONTO TME PROPERTY HEHFJN L AS.96 SURVLYED, THE RIGHT-0E-WAY POR THE NEW INTERSiAfE WAS TO MATCH THE j I EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF ThE BENSON ROAD. IELD INSPECTION SHOWS TFiAT THE 70E OF 7ME SLOPE FOR iME FlLL FOR SR-103 IS WITHIN Y FEEf OF TME w: +^ °' - i'/ / r'" WESTERLY EDGE OF THE OLD GONCRETE SURFACE OF THE BENSON ROAD. IT AIAY r BE THAT DURING THE CONSTRUCiION OF SR-405, If WAS EfERNINED 7HAT hIE r `'/// jjj L IY.4Y I TOE OF THE FlLL WAS T00 CLOSE TD THE TRAVELE WAY OF BENSON ROAD AND I/////+ g TMAT THE ROAD WA$ REALIGNEO TO RS PRESENT POSITION FOR THAT SAFEfI' I CONCERN. APPMENTLY, NO ADDITIONAL RIGHTS WERE ACOUIRED FROM PUCEf w i I/////. . E I SOUNO POWER h LIGHT COMPANY FOR THE CONSTRUC ED RO D REALICNMENT.C-K y I ` ///// ISURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE f - i I TO SAM'S Ilk.Al ESIA1t BUSINE55 TRU57,A DEUWAFiE BUSINESS TRU57; FIDELIT(NATIONAL TfTI.E INSURANCE COMPANY;FlDELITY NATIONAL 7RLE i I I INSURANCE COAIPMII'OF WASHINGTON; WGET WESfERN, INC.,A WASHINGTON 7 1 CORPORAIION;AND PACUND:L I I I ;' I TMIS IS 10 CERTIFY TFNT THIS AAAP Oq PUT AND iHE SURVEY ON WHICM i: IT IS BtiSEO WERE IN ACCORUANCE WITH 'YINIMUM STANDARO DEfAIL IREOUIREMENISFORALTp/ACSA1 UND TRLE SURVEYS,'JOINTLY iESTABLISHEDANDADOPTDBYALTA,ACSM AND NSPS IN 19Y9,AND iINClUDESITEMS2, 3, 4, 5, 7(A),8, 10 AND 11 OF TABLE A THEREOf. IPURSUANITOTHEACCURACY5TANARDSA$ADOP7E0 BY ALTA, NSPS, AND ACSM M!D IN EFFECT ON TNE DATE OF hi15 CERTIFlCATION, I I UNDERSIGNED NRTHER CEN71HE5 TIN7 PROPER FIELD PROCEDURES, NS7RUYEMATION,AND ADEWAIE SURVEY PERSONNEL WERE OUTUN DDIN THEDEAIINIYUAIHANCLEREDISTANCEOAND B oFMIS'S REOUIREMENTS fOR SURVEY AIEASUREAIENTS WHICH CONTROL IAND d ` BOUNDARIES FOR ALTA/ACSM UND TRLE SURVEVS.' a yc N q 8 8 p iaW ri /51 L`'Sl LANO 1 0.7/i7/OJ 96 RrG R'Ic IODED BUS AOP t 7E1 NYRIi R W 0 4-FC. cawrs OS 1 B OJ S 0.S/12/03 96 RWC RMG pNNCCD SCY101 UIE rt asrt o wm sux var No.zasx oi/oo/w s r mc tn aw+r,tn sn¢r s¢F. SfRE Of WASIIINGT011 J 12/02/02 9F M1C RWC ATiOANEY COYIpIR. 2 Il/25/02 96 IdC idC ATi0Al1EY COIYIENIS t WN1ED 11RF AfPOpf. 1 11 15 2 BOI RrG RMG QIORIEY WM[NIS No. Doh 9j C1M. Iypr.Ii.rMon JOD NumMr H A S 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH °ub d- ' PACLAND682FKENTWA98032orw sRF m- a2sj zs-szzz 9709 3RD AVENUE NE, 3URE 203 ALTA / ACSM LAND TT1LE 3URVEY sn..i o 425) 251-8782 FAX y SEAlTLE, WA 98115 RENTON, WA3HINGTON sG CML ENCINEERINC, tAND PUNNING, 3 0, 4 r N ENG N P SURVEYINC, QMRONMEMAL SEfMCES Dot.Z 206) 522-9510 1 I ' _ __ euaco c `' '/j >,%%"e%/i _j irv r'/l f - MATCHLINE e --' I 1jc ,. - - --. .a ii i i i%ll i i// %//i% Ia 4 I l ' i ,-i nw,su sswn '"y - ii» teste2" - rowm s i."-----[ -- -"- ..» r 4 . 1" C' ,+. ...: --',- - .:. / / N r - ==---'=--- e ili r ii;;! ,- os,9,0.. i l i i i . J ' a=ieo.es' w''E c_izo.si' Tw a r 10' SAHRAAfiY5 61=^ _-_ _ _ l ' / , • i BSEMENT PER RE j SECi10 1 L1NE N0. 5937 34 CB- .. J3.72 , 'J8'I I s.00 rouHo J YLII i / . 1S''ryG 1 YONRORING 1 W¢L_(eVMI]A) 4;/ n J I ti'.:. 7 OF Wu1 /// ///// . .// r a s' i f 75 " o SCALE 1" = ao, o i%i // i.i /rs .i. ,%iii-,j 1 j /9f" ,j'"\ w/nn mx¢I VMl \ B-flftImL_,. j,//j/// / r , / a- -' n _ " j i i', sz z ,/// l[j/l/ l, i ' i en YSi' l 7 l l'i/ y o'i1 r J//•' LEGEND i p 1//// e-, J a- , W 1/ Q. e - , n .., f t ir m 6 h,r ,o 11/ / i( r , oqAIER 6suuraa f' ------ ' y o, 7 a qiw O s ox rwqE swuer mu u[ y/ '! M„ o E. w- K- I I 0_5•92,8' 1 f s,uE r w- roRN O EAW M{S R 1809.88' W WG MUS p I.++ ` / l/7"/ g:. ... _ -_-'- y L=IB0.89' m W MNOIL v _.. lOPE NpL IN1G IflEA P b ml r- , t 1OMIa11 pl j r x„ K 1!p/ fl// Y / i/ l ,' pa. i i / INVERT TABLES Y ,// ij/.% : /, ;;/ j,', . GTCH BASINS (CONT.) ji / /, f^' .or orr c-n wu-x.os iY aw s-xees isui i . i// K QIP E 7600l / e j /j/' ~ /'/ t7'OIP SW.1165 r C9-JJ NY-3 7.IJ e'GOFc r-.]LL.Y 15H1 j// E'AOS E-70.W 6'MS E-]a G] I I I /// /////////////// ///// % 4O !. CB-NK RW.72.70 1Y OIP NE.79.19 15J25 I II(/////// i%///; ,'' . o=os•se•so•• LL wi_,.x ,:•aw ._sza ,s,cr/ III j // d•55 o0- w I 2 R 1759.86' L-19090' cB-w Rlu-7t.x e'cWt w-2E.tt lar] II I CE-NN RIY.JSOS 12'CONC E J1.45 ISOYO59.37'llJ ff i I((/ 13'PYC N]1.15 1 / i/ GB-00 PoY J{.Yt IY PYC NW 31.YB 160BY I ((/ /i, l.// / / lY PK 5]1.Y! IIII I /////////,///// i f9-PP R1Y.J{.00 1Y LOHC NW.]I.lO I5110 IIIII'r IIIIII i ce-oo xiu..ie x'carc-sa e iss a i/ ce-nrt au.6x. iY m+c r-ea2 aa aJA / i "" E awH uH ce-ss wM-o.w r caic sw-eiii axn rcrcc xo•cau xw.ee.N ce-n wu-n.oi s•caHc-e.ee e2 e CATCH BASINS ie•cac Hr.a:.e ce-w wu-es.rcf iY or sw-uw anv s a- -ue e•rw w-m.w uxeo is•ow -x.w 1:.. CB-B RIY 54.09 fi'PVC E 31.N 117lY N:Y JY.]7.G7 !'L Y:L N lI107 Il160 i// ;0„o u 8'PVC N-31.11 CB-%X IIW.N.OB 12'qIP E-2&IB IIBW r / / //// / CB-C NM N.10 !'CANC NW tY.lS 1/IVO 8 , P C 5.7Q07 f9-YY PoY]1.26 12'tlIP E N.81 1/B/B CONC E.]0.W 17'Oli N.M.l1 IIIIII IIII SJ ' ' 12 QIP W Y676 l// I II CB-D RMI-Jt.!! /'COIIC NW.JI.Ot 111JY CB-II RIY-33.63 B D.1. 5-4B.7B 17486 ym i,i CB-E RIY-J2J{ 1!'pIP 5-7Y.YY 16048 IIIIie•a r e-n.c9 I'lll I III II IIIIIII'IIII'll ce-r RIY.31.6] ie•weic s.z9m i5w9 STORW DRAIN AIANHOLES CONC NE.7Y.S7 SpYH- qW-JJ.63 N'GYP N-JQIO 1331! e•cac w-w.m I ca-c RIY JI.SI i Y ov s-ie b muH-e nu..e e'nr N-o.00 50 0 i CB-N PoY.]1.15 I7'CAMC NW 7Y.70 1{1J0 SpyH-C RIY J7.IB I!CONC N 2!.!J 15016 1!'LpIC W TS!] j. CB-1 PoII}1.81 fUll Of YlD ISOt!s•coNc s-xau Id1.71 CB-J RIM]317 B'P4C 9 J1.57 11258 SpNH-D IUM]I.l6 M' NC 31.7! N10Y 24' N.2E.3! I 9-K RNI.71.61 !'CONC SW 7Y.31 11110 11' S J0.]! iE'CONL NE 76l6 2 LB-1 RW]S00 6'LONC N J.]S 14JI6 r 1'MS 5-]S.]S YH-E RW]I.eS 21'CONC Y.I7.1] 1110! I Z CB-Y RIY 3].Ll 1'CONC 4.3234 11117 Y{COIIC M.47.IJ m 12'GpIC N J0.1J ICB-N RIM 71.01 0'U.1. 5 d1.7Y 11410 DMH-F RIM]I./] tY CONC W Y6.J7 1 780 I 1'CONC N 31.7Y IB'COHC E YSJ] CB-0 RIY.31.Y2 !'PNC E 19.i2 tIS7i IE'CONC 5 25.7] 0'PM W p.o7 SD11N-0 RIY-J2i! IS'D.I. 5-I4.5! 1KW 15'OJ. N 2.78 I CB-P PoY J1.97 B'PVC S 79.67 tI5B0 E'VOC E-10.57 SDNH-N RW-]I.17 80'PIPE E 21.55 15110 e. I C9-0 RIY]1.tE 10'PYC 4.7D.01 1l5B5 VAULT iLOpl 71.77 i / l PVC E 2Y.01 SDYN-I PoY 3262 1!'GOIIL F 7E.77 ISOE] IB'CONC W-1fJ4 CB-R PoM J0.03 10'FVC E 7l.0 I S67 10'PVC N 7D.10 SDMN-J RW.17.77 IE'CONL W 7E.77 1110] 1!CONC E YB.77 CB-4 NI4 J201 10'PVC S.Tl.OB 1l55! CANC N-7fl]7 f/ i w vvc r-m.ie ix•caic s-sza I 10 PVC N 7D.06 SDYM-K Po11 N.SI 71'CONC E 2Y.l1 130l f9-T RIII.]1.65 10'ivC N Yi.03 1 375 7{'COHC M 2Y.71 10'iNC SY/.IY.05 13'fANC SE J0.71 G9-U RIN-J2.E0 12'CONC N-td00 11]00 SOMN-1 WM-J2.Y5 tY CONC NW-37J0 1H77 IY CONC SW-28,00 SDNN-N RMI J5.93 4'CONC 4 0.0.1 tI2BB I CB-V Po4 3100 !'PVC W.]Y./0 11{E1 Ia'CONC W]47] PYC S.32q SOYN-N NW JI.OB 3!'UIP NE J0.11 1715 ca-w nww-c.e e'cac s-ae s f9-% RIY.]1.67 17'CONC MW 27.73 117Y{ 40 17'CONC g 27.7J ca-v wu.i.N ix•conc He-se.e i4 e S/WRARY SEWER MANHOLES e•cac w-xo.ro SSMH-A aw-o.s i2'cac sc-ss.s ius e•cac e-2.se is•cac sw-N.s re-z Pou ai.o e•ca c e-xu.m iuet SS1N-B aw-a.oi i:•cac rx-:e.ei ai CB-M PoY-3].J7 12'COHC E-2Y.t7 11lY 12'CONC SW-ffiJ1 17'CONL 5.7Y.57 y H-C RY.3.J! 0 fANC NW.26.1! 11400 f9-BB PoII]1.79 17'qIP N 7fll1 I{YSI e'-e.xe S9IH-D RY-32J3 1Y'CONC N-25.IB 119JJ P: 0 age vlclnity.gif Riu-a.ee e caCONic c:oae 14°° s•canc s-ssoe C CB-00 RW]1.7] 12'CONC W.26lE 1 801 SSYH-E RY 31.SY 12'CONC N 25.{Y 1493t 12'CONC 5 2}7i E'Oi E.7A61 s 591H-i PoY.U.10 12'COMC N 72B9 15377 CB-EE PoY J7.5! !'OIP N.ri.51 1{7YB 13'CONC W.7]71 CB-Fi RW.]2Y! E'CONC N.]651 14101 y,N-G RNI 37.{0 1D' SW. 1 IY7 CONC 5 7651 E'COHC E-2a.]0 1 A 1 (. W CB-W RNI.70.75 !'COIIC S-IniS t 07S CONc S-tS30 s•cac w-xe.io 3\ 0 SN 9f r CB-NN PoM 11.0.7 B'CONC N-TB.QS 1M76 591M-M RY.].1.lY 6'LOIIL E y N CONC S.79.Q] 6'CONC W.77.p 11921 e•ca+c s.n.00 sswt-i row-as.so E'COHC NW 27.OS 1419i e•coru e xzu Op 82 Ea S 5 03/ 7 96 RMC RMIC pNNCED SEMER lNE VN.US. VICINITY MAPLANO o,i ro3 r r. ciwM[z OS 18 03 NTd 3 1P/02/02 9F R'/G N'YG ATTORNEY WYUFNfS. 2 11/25/02 $RF RNG NWG ATiORNEY[OYYCNIS t WMIED 71RF AF,PONf. 1 11 1S 1 BOI IfIC RWG ATIORIEY CpWEHfS. No. Dob Br pd. Appr.R Nsion JoE NumMr u^ jr,,, DwlqnE= 600N: 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH PACLAND682Q' KENT WA 98032 uo. s"F H„y,,,,imZ azsj zs-szzz 9709 3RD AVENUE NE 3URE 203 ALTA / AC3AA LAND TRLE 3URVEY sn..i o 425) 251-B782 FAX s 3EATTLE, WA 98115 RENTON, WASHINGTON sG y' CML ENCINEERING, IAND PUNNING, ZO6 SZZ 4 ,, 4 r N ENG NF' P SUKVEI1NC, DMRONMENTAL SERVICES oat.// Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA I Figure A2 — Site Plan PACLAND Project 1999010.008 Page 25 o _ 9GNAL p EXI511NG'RAFFIC SEE SHEET C-1.1 FOR SITE f,R;x snN a s sTo. LEGEND L-69 59' OORDINAlE WITH K JG CWNTY AIE7R0. DATA AND PLAN NOTES R=45:°°•SiD. UTY PAVENENT ' BENC ES/-SEATING AREA C-B.o I__ 2 EA. 'IIABERFORII W1LLOW,MDDEL,2783-6 'HEAVY DUTY PAVEIIENT Z J REGAL BLUE POwDER COATED, EIABmD@ IN c-ao CONCRETE AS PER A ANUFACTURER'S RECOIAENDAlION C NCRETE PAVEIIENT e I O PAVEMENT SiDEWAIX C_& 5 U `1AK-'c SEE ROAD PLANS c; " AJ S 1D'AIIN. LANDSCAPE BUffER_ PAVENENT PER C-flo 1 c . ' + 1 1 CR- SHEETS) ARCH. PLANS9tI , FOR EN7RANCE eGRAPHICSCALEQs; A' c 0. II/ DETAILS AND CONCRETE CURB k CUTiER c-e.o o O i 1 ; AC ° c ;:, i P A 'lw DE9GN IN R.O.W. 1` `(6 r,a, L"P9 nS 8 1 y BENCHES/SEA7ING AREA m rtxr TRANSMISSION PDY R C -c/ , Qlr.S>I 3 EA.nMBERFORN N1LL W,AIODEL 2783-6 i• mon a so n ti ` y' EG;PRIAIARY POWER yO, i , ,f u— ` c,^ Rl<` \ I REGAL BLUE POWOER C ATED, EAIBEDDED IN i LINE) v i CONCREiE AS PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMENDATION i I ' u n; - / P F ` c / •\ " a\ s. PROPOS D TRAFFIC SIGNAL l p l /c L; ,/ rth SEE OFf91E ROAD EXIS NG FlRE i ._o ,: kD ` r '`= IAIPROVEYENT PLANS, SHEE S j _. HYDRANT 7 i ie Z- LKr' \ ., n. ' cR-) SEE RCAD PLANS ;CR- ISITECCNiRACTORTOBUIDCURB SHEETS)FQR Q I T+} 1 AND GUTIER,STORM DRNNACE, ENTRANCE DFTAILS D(ISLNG ti. 1 1 55tON UTILITIES AND RWGH GRADE GAS AND DESIGN IV R.O.W. 9' AN. SYSL'4 R,, t— S 8t o ,1 / SEE ROAD PLANSSIDEWALKaENf CR- SHEETS)fOR STAiION AREA p rR ' o V,\. iHIS AREA(GAS STATION) EJOSTING FIBER L J FG' % V ., 3 ` -. \ i I r EN'FtANCE ETAILS TD BE KEPT FREE OF JOB P C hLEPHONE TRAILERS OR STORAGE BY VAULT — I<.' ' ' w ; iy.,Tl—^a; zs U;u (' 15 ,;i' 1 C g[1D DESIGN IN R.O.W. CONiRACTOR a ,i ^ y 2 ;tt) 1 3F GAS CONTRACTOR i0 BE ON 9TE I / P. V P r T f 6' \ \ C` SIMI/LTANE0U5LY. CONTRACTOR TO_-- i J I J f f COOR INAlE WORK AS NEE FD.' . i ._', C ". .. . c 4 R` at ` r f N y, 4bZ J[' d5 i p- I l. ` c \ i C.- Y' `W i1i ' i I,li I i ill v_ ; 6l io I,.. V z SE_ROAD PLANS FOR e rl pa , err- b .- ENTRANCE DETAll.S 0.ND ,cl ;9 S w '` A:• AD `.,/ w S DESIGN JN R.O.W. , /` R Sp. i f te i 6vr i w w i . ,-. ' ; I I f A;-LAND CAPE--- ------ - ---._ AE ' i I J, W a i', i i A l ISLaND f'rP. d' `p i t:. o :.NOT A V ' Y ` `\ AS y'MN ION l` I I I R L,' n a AH AH A N fAli D 0: PARTm ,. e, l i RAT CON tACi) i.- 2 T u ,A EN1RY ti n'-`;oI, A Q, i[n \ l / 19 f 1 1 ' ; ( VA B' ; PROPOSED o v ! . , , / v i I - ! ; -'6 v5 i z.FC ESS ID n',`r,. 9 \ i . .. 1`: i , i ; a J' CITY OF f" S i ' f / i I ' ' AJ RENTON r. Zy, 7 47 v ' .. Si5 1 , P r :`1 PRCPER7'f e7Rqnei:i ^ RC/ i 9,i ,vG o G ' i++ ' \ .a, j OO PIPE BOI.LARO C-9A i K. l`` J 1 1 . ,` o oti_dQ NUNBER OF PARKING STALLS PER ROWs F GREASE AND OIL/WATER G: , ` \ SEE SHEET C 11 FOR I /L V / v 4" r SEPARATOR, SEE ARCH. i , i-LEGEND/DESCRIP110NS, TYP. T N t r u r PLANS i C1 IS I ING TIRE RL-'35R- 1% C DENOiES COAIPACT STALL(9.5'X 16 S . 8 I i "NWNiING GROSS S.F. W OCK SHOHN: 135,373 S.F. G i 1 W ANDS i>^' \ a I AREA USE: RETAIL I NOT A —• CHAIN LINK FENCE c 9.0K; i' I 1 1' g CONSiRUCiION iYPE: V-N i K. . i i 2: CART CORR IiFi SCREEN u x PA 9.0 5 A' ,, RT g R \ { , AK . . . I . 6 H I T f _ T. AISIE IAARKER 9GN _Q3 f 1 NOT A PART i r' f '; - - - -ASSOCIATE PARKING BOUNDARYv kr+--- ------------- / i _ :. ..... . . . ASSOCIATE PARKINC STALLS TO BE v_ G i AINTED WFIIIE. SNSL/4 a-. ( G Qj COIAPACTOR I I NUNBER OF ASSOqATE PARKING STALLSN319'.. Z WITH SCREEN W I. . I PER ROW, 140 STALLS TOTAL c7 N11'25'3 '^ 1, H i, .rl u r:J I ' P ; I SNSL/4' SINGLf WHI7E SOUO L1NE/4''MDE i ! ! COMPRESSOR 521'36'23'W s. 9.83' u 1'T r ->SYSL.4., SINGLE YELLOW SOLID UNE/4''MDE EACH w BLE YELLOW SOUD LINF /4'1MDE EACH r;STORIA WATER AOUADUC +\ ' . ` ' s, ..... . c OOU 35. t i H . .'... y 4. UGFiT POLE AND Fl%TURE(iYPE BV) J j 1 . N24 6'2d• T JIB CRAN N ., ,{ r r r E 0 `€_SiRIPING , S:SHEET C 31NZa45'<4'E J^ o ; _ 9 5' ^ _ 50-' S 2 GREASE{NTERCEPTOR 2824 0. >, gi ¢f n _ 'AT H t1NE i26.'0' v ` H Np\ LIGHT PIXE AND FlXIURE(TYPE KV) II 5ag . 6; BETAINING NAL_ SEE ARqi. PLANS q54 SEE SHEET C-3.1 BENSON ROAD SOUTI— I 3 MAx. f,7 AR 5 6 ;3, c-R..W. LENGJ,9 PYtON 5GN B 4` c-- UGHT POLE AND'FlXTURE(TYPE GV) i o R-gu i - GEG.GATION 201' / o r62 v SEE SrIEET C 3. I g' 1` u RE(TYPE JVAIW) R. .. D.E.p 4zq., ` =3?g AP.N ECE SHEET FlX1U N 2Q ot r: 4 ,o+'vii i y` E :."3.r-. MATCH LiNE — — — — — — H cJ`c er' 6 J t Y 03-t4-03I s y~ ') , CNECKE FOR COMPLIANCE RECOMAIENDED G E 1'=50 , 6„ ," I ..} ., ' Y OF SAM'S CIUB#4835-00 Ilp s I: r - , P ` ro cn s-an onRos Fc naPRovn K E N TC N 901 SOUTH GRADY WAY m z b h,,s•eac 0 4'isicc6° t JaTE 3Y 2 PERWT C01WEN1S RESUBYITfA1 'PACIAND/18 3 iuD t1 . e. I 1144 Eastlake Ave.E T(206)522-9510 '0,4 n J o n^"' ntE Er B!D ADDENDUM 1 PACUND 4 7 03 j o RENTON,WA 98055 V '"" 1.O Iir.jB ildiny/Public Wo ks D±pL i I3ISuite601F (206)522-d344 nTE Bv z,..a Seatie,'NA 98109 N.axt;.n.on ', se'nn.r i mm na+oc'a"-,mm qT' BY REV SION 3" C 7E +FPR SfTE PLAN II i NOTES SITE LEGEND 1. ALL WOftN AND YAiERIALS SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL GTY/COUNTY 4. REFER"0 BOUNDARY SURVEY FOR LEGAL DESCRIPTION, DIIAENSIONS OF FIRE LnNE SHALL BE IDENTIFlED BY A FOUR INCH WIDE JNE AND CURB O 18' WIDE CONCRETE CURB ANO GUTTER TYPiCAL 5 PNNTED BPoCHT RED. THE BLOCK LETTERS SHALL STAiE'FlRE LANE- NO C-ao REGJLA710N5 AND CODES AND O.S.H.A. STANDARDS. PROPERTY IJNES, BA9S OF BEARINGS 8 9ENCHMARK INFOR IAiION. (SEE pp{tKING,' BE EIGHTEEN INCHES HIGH,PAWED NHITE,LOCATED NOT LESS 2 2• 1HE DESIGN SHOWN IS BASED UPON THE ENqNEER'S lJNDERSTANDING OF SHEET[S-1) THpN GydE FOOT FROA1 iHE CURB fACE, AT FlFfY FOOT INiERVALS.(PER TO PAINiED DIREC110NAL ARROW TYpICAL. _ iHE EJOSiINC CONDI710N5. 7HIS PLAN DOES NOT R PRESENT A DETAILED 1p. SEE SHEET C-1.2 FpR SIlE DIAIENSIONS.RENTON CODE pi 4-4.F.c.i) eFlELSURVEY. THE E%ISTING CONDI11qJS SHONN ON TFIIS PLAN SMEET ARE OD UGHT POLE BASE(TYP) C-9.t BASED UPON SUR4EY PREPARED BY BARGHAUSEN CONSULTING ENGINEEERS, ' -P N1ED S7RIPING SHALL BE DOUBLE COAIED.SEPARATE eNC., OATED 10-29-02,AND REVISED 03-27-03. THE CONTRACTOR IS COATS SHALL BE APPLIEO NO SOONER 7HAN 4 HWRS APART. Q 4'BLACK NNYI CHNN LINK FENCE _ yp CONTRACTOR TD REFER TO PROJECT SPECIFlCATIONS fOR A DI110NAL W NSLE INDICATOR SIGNS iYPICAL 4ESPONSIBIE FOR VIItIF11NG FlELD CONDlTIONS PRiOR TO BIDDING THE O c-a3 PROPOSED SITEWORK IIAPROVEIIENiS. IF CONFUCTS ARE DISCOVERED, 7HE PAVING MARKING REWIR4IENTS.)QC PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK WITN 4'1YIDE PAINIED H4iITE STRIPING PARALIEL TO DIRECTION OF TRAFFlC AT 2'-0'O.C.UNLESS NOiED OTHERWISE. SEE 3 CONTRACTOR SHALL OTIFY 1HE OWNER PRIDR TO INSULLA710N OF ANY Z pqRKING L0T S7RIPING SHALL BE YELLOW, 4'WIDTH, k DOUBLE COATED, g p pN FOR WIDTH. NO iRUCKS'SIGN. C-e.3 c-a4 PORTION OF 1HE SITEWORK WHICH WOULp BE AfFECTED. IF CONTRACTOR UNLESS OIHERYMSE NOlED. IJGHT POLE BASES TO BE PAtNiED TRAFFIC OES NQT ACCEPT ElOSTING SURVEY, INCLUDWG"OPOGRAPHY AS SHOWN yE LOW DWBLE COAT C eONTHEPLANS, 1M7HWT DCCEPiIJ l,HE SHALL HAVE tADE,AT HIS OWN PEDESTRIAN CROSSING SICN W11A-2 AND W11A-2P TYPICAL AT P_JESiRiAN 2 'iRUCK ROU1E' SIGN. C-fl3 c-a. EXPENSE, A ?OPOGRAPHIC SURVEY BY A REGISTERED IAND SURVEYOR AND 13. ALL DISNRBED AREAS ARE i0 RECEIVE FWR IN^l,iES OF TOPS(NL,SEED,CROSSWALKS AS NOiED ON PLANS. SUBNIT IT TO hIE OWNER FOR RENEW. MUICH ANO WAiER UNiIL A HEALTHY STAND OF GRASS IS ESTABLISHED. E •-pp NTE'J WFiIiE ON PAVEMENT TYPICAL _dZ J Uq(Epr 9GN. C-a C-a 3. CAU710N - NDnCE TO CON1{2ACTOR 14. ALL SLANDS MA7H CURB AND GUTTER SHALL BE LANDSCAPED. THOSE O THE CONTRACTOR IS SPECIFlCALLY CAU110NED THAT THE LOCAiION AND/OR ISLANDS ARE TD HAVE IB'CURB ANO qJTiER. ALL REAIAINING ISIANDS O RAMPED PAVEIAENT AT VESiIBULE TO BE FLUSH WITH TOP OF SIDEWALK AT p8 'TRUCN ENTRANCE SIGN. eELEVAlIONOFEXISi1NGUTil1T1ESASSHOWNQN1HESEPLANSISBASEDONARETOBESIRIPEDASSHOWN. S.OR NAx111UN. REFER TO ARCHITECNRAL PLANS. c-a} o-a4 RECORDS OF THE VARIIXIS Ui1LIT1ES,AND NHERE PCSSIBLE,AIEASlJRE11ENTS 5. EbSiING STRUCIURES'MTHIN CONSTRUC710N LIAIITS ARE TO BETAKENINiHEFIELD.THE INFOR IAl10N IS NOT TO BE RELIED ON AS BONC OG DOT PORCH.SEE ARCHITEC7URAL PLANS FOR EXACT 9ZE, LOCATION FOR AC STOP'SiF21PING, 18'STCP BAR, AND 'STOP'SIGN. 5 ABANDONm,REMOVED OR RELOCATE AS NECESSARY.ALL COST SHALL B:TIPICAL AT ALL ON 9TE'SiOP' LOCATIONS. c-a2 C-a+EXAC'OR CONPLETE iHE CCNTRACTOR MUST CALL'HE APPROPRIATE INCLUDED IN BASE BID. STOOPS, STAIRS AND/OR RAAIPS 1FiAT 4AY BE REOUIRm.RAIIP PAVEAIENT U71L17Y COIIPANY AT LElST 48 4WRS BEFORE ANY EXCAVAlION TO FLUSH WITH 1HE TOP OF STOOP. O CONCRElE SDEWALK 4 eREOUESTEXACTFlELDLOCATONOFUPL1ilE5. T SFINLL BE THE 16. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL RQOCATIONS, INCLUDING C-e.o C-ai RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONIRAC'OR TO RELOCATE ALL El(ISiING UTIUTIES BUT NOT LIN17E0 T0, ALL UilU71ES, STORAI DRAINAGE, 9GNS, 7RAFFlC O 6 PL°E BOILARD TYP. UNLESS NOiE OTHERYASE. AND EXISTING I IPROVENENTS WHICH CONFlJCT WIiH iHE PROPOSED SIGNA S k POLES, ETC.AS REWBED. ALL WORK SHALL BE IN 9 AE CURB RAMP DETAIL _gp IMPROVEAIENTS ON PiE PLANS.ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNING AUTHORITIES SPECIFICATIONS AND SHALL BE Oj AT GRADE OVERHEAD DOOR LOCATION. SEE ARCHITECNRAI PLANS FOR 4. CON7RACTOR SHALL REFER TO ARCHITECiURAL PLANS FOR EXACT APPROVED BY SUCH. ALL COST SHALL BE INCLU ED IN BASE BID. D(ACT SIZE AND LOCATION FOR COORDINATION WITH CML PUWS. AG REFER TO SITE LIGHIING PLAN SHEET C-3.4 FOR LIGHT POLE LOCAiION LOCATION AND DIYEN90NS OF VESTIBULE, SLOPm PANNG, EXIT PORCHES, AND INFORMA710N.REFER TO MEP PLANS FOR SITE UGHIING ELECTRICAL SIDEWALKS, RAYPS k TRUCK OCKS, PRECISE BUIL WG DIMENSIONS AND t7. PriON SIGNS SHALL BE CONSTRUC7ED BY OiHERS. THE CONTRACTOR OJ 4' WIDE x 130'LONC YELLOW PAINiED TRUq( ALIGN4ENT STRIPES SPACED qRCUliF2Y. IXACT BUIIDING UiIt1TY.NIRANCE LOCATIONS SHALL MSTALL CONDUIT AND ELECiRICAL qRCUIT BETWEEN iFff PYLON 10'-0'O.C.CENIERED ON DODR 5. DIMEN50NS SH01Ml RffER TD FAC OF CURB, FACE OF BUILDING OR TO 5)AND THE UCHTING PANEL O CRE1E COAIPACTOR PAD AND SCREEN WALL. REFER TO ARCHIiECTURAI OO 4 WIDE PUN7ER AT BUILDING,SEE ARCH. PLANS HE CENiERUNE OF PAVEAIENT S7RIPMG,UNLESS 6Tr1ERYMSE NDiED. 18. THE 51E'hORK CONIRACTOR SHALL CONNECT ALL t1GHTS M1THW THE PLAN fOR EXACT LOCAiICN AND $LDPE RETAIL STORE'S DEMISED AREA TO TNE SECURIlY GRCUIT AS SHOYM ON AI CURB SCUPPER C-ao5. ALL PA4ED PARKING LDT AREAS WITFiIN 7HE L111175 OF INPROVEAIENTS OL CONCRETE iRANSFORLIER PAD, WITH 4 PROIECiIVE BOLLARDS. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE STANDARD D111Y PAVE IIENT UNLESS OIHERWISE NOTED. TME ELECTRICAL PLAN. TO COORDINAiE YATH LOCAL POWER COMPANY FOR DETNLS. 7. CONTRACTOR SNALL PROVIOE A 10/PORARY?RAFFlC CONiROL PLAN FOR 19• CURB RADII A JACENT TO PARKING STALLS SHALL 6E 2'. AlL OTHER CURB AJ SEGNENTAL BLOCK WALL SEE RETAINING WALL PUNS THE pTY ENqNEER'S APPROVAL PRIOR TO ANY WORK INiHIN iHE qTY RADII SHALL BE 10', UNLESS OiFIERWISE NDTED. O ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACE TYPICAL SEE DETAIL SHEET FOR ACCESSIBLf RIGHT-OF-WAY. 20. REFER TD ARCHIlEC'URAL PLANS FOR 97E LIGHi1NG ELECiRICAI PLAN. PARKING SPACE SIZE. 9CN AND SYYBOL('VAN'-INDICAiES VAN O ASSOCIATE PARKING ACCESSIBLE SPACE) ASSOCIAiE PARKING STALLS TO BE PAINTED WHIIE 8 FIRE LANE S1PoP IG ARWND BUILDING PEPoYEiER APD ALONG FlRE 1f2UCK SWSL/4') ACCESS WAYS SHALL BE INSTALLED AS PART OF TINS CONTRACT,IN O ?qIN1ED ISIAND 1YPICAL UNLE55 NOlED OTNERWISE. SiRIPES SHALL BE i-+'.r4"''{""ti ACCORDANCE'MTH iHE LOCAL CODE AND FlRE MARSHALL REOUIREIIENTS.AMTED SYSL/4'AT 2'-0'O.C. SEE DETAII SHEET. (IF YAiHIN O ENTAL BLOCK WALL/ROCKERY-HEIGFiT<4' ASSOCIATE?ARKINC BWNDARY, THEN SiRIPES SHAIL BE PAINTED w. SNSL/4'AT 2'-0' O.C.) SITE DATA BUILDING DATA O 8' WIDE PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK. EDGE UNES PAINTE SWSL/B N7iH 6 iINSIDESTRIPINGPAINIESWSL/4'AT 2'-0 o.c.C-a2 APPROXIMAlE BUILDING AFEA = 135,373 SF P JDICULAR TO EDGE L1NES IACWISIiIONOPCARTCORRAL c-soPARCELA2.9 AC PARKING DATA PARCEL B 3 AC O JB CRANE SiRIPING, 1'x 15'. SYSL AT 2'O.C. TOTAL ACOUISI110N = 15.9 AC PARKING PROVIDED O Z'-0'LOA6ING ZONE AT ALL S2ACES ADJACENT TO CURB AND GUTfER -STANDARD STALLS 572 STALLS USE GAS STATION STALLS = 10 STALLS 1YPICAL. 4'PAIN?ED YELLOW STRIP NG 2'-0'O.C. PERPENDICULAR TQ PROPOSED RETAIL = 15.9 AC COMPACT STALLS(i6'X 9.5')= 35 STALLS PARKING SPACE. INCLUaNG GAS LOT ACCESSIBL" STALLS 15 STALLS TOTAL 15.9 AC TOTAL STALLS 642 STALLS PARKING RAT10= 4.7 /1000 SF BUILDING SEBACKS FRONT 10' SiDE 0' REAR 0' i R. 7.E.p i' r q-Q o reaq/ot xi,jI ; v 1 - z CHEC(J FCR CCMPLL4NCE RECOMMENOED a'E' r D3-14-03'y: _ , I I 9 Tn CI" 5'ANDARDS FOR APPROVAL , NONE , o„ ,,,,. A ,.} `,I TY SAM'S CLUB#4835-00 - 519` e o "' RENTON 901 SOUTHGRADYWAY Jiist.°+c rs tv I DATE 8Y cuo 1144 Eastlake Ave.E. 20fi)522-9510 ss on..s+`' SS UNAL` DATE aY 2 PERNiT C,Ou4FNT5 RESUBUITTAL PACLAND 18 O3 F1J.i i RENT N,WA 98055 i V '" ISuite601P20fi)522-8344 DPTE BY F-55 a nirgj llcir q/puClic Wor.s Dept. 1 Seattle,WA 98109 nwN?xL:no.mr r.at s r tT.ma :u eu%osr s.zx N0. I R1 1510' BY ATE APPR v: onr_ er ess I SITE PLAN NOTES i Sam's Club #4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Figure A3 - Grading and Drainage Plan PACLAND Project 1999010.008 Page 26 LEGEND SEE SHEET C-2J FOR GRADING h , - ".,4,1 ,t : EX CONiWR STORII ORNN PIPE 5g AND DRAINAGE NOTES. SEE RETAI NNG WAIi 'PROPOSED CONTCUR 34- SHEETS C-2.2 — C-2.4 FOR i s, FlNISHED FLOOR ELEVATION a, ua' w oE z a o' , s ot aFVAnau r BIOFlLTRAiION -22 2 TOP Of WALL:LEVATION iW d S 0 0.5 TYPE I CATCH BASIN c-s.o BOTTOAI OF WALL-EL AT GRADE BWSTRUCTUREANDPIPESCHEDULES ` 1- -'. ;;-nG, ' V , . a3 _ j9 TYPE II CATCH BASIN t AND DRAINAGE PROFILES. sEE ROAo PUNs FoR<F r m3 Q/y C-6.1 PAVEAIENT FLUSH IM1H 9DEWALK -; 49 y f_. y 3!3 J-"-SEGAIENT; OCK.WAIL/RDqCERY CLfANWT TO GRADE 3 EN7RANCE DETAILS tiJD ' o 03 y,q y o.T.. C-5o PoP-RAP CALL 48 HOURS a.o.w.O BEFORE YOU DIG q y j tia3 0 3, OAD PLANS STORAI DRAIN END PIPE — 3 r .,. ISra 3 (SHEE -)FOR c-e.o c-s.t 4 # 5+-.. 800-424-5555 r'' , y,' /<-_ ti s6 EN nNc . s iwo p- Y ai 8 6 DESIGN IN`it.0. . , a ``,,,` Iy, _ s y'3j,o w' _ _ - .' l !J-3' $ b 1 c .^' n' i.. G•( .6qj 4 ... 35.' ti.. IE =268 y'`-` `^ r"" !-^ ". y", ysy^"'.''.i r I::, , S5 i 435.5 Q` ,, . 4 ` P`` y',.'' 4 GRAPHIC SCALE t c 53 p< P r iy:` Q Z;j . p 1 , t 1y-- EE ROAD PLANS FOR a o a b n+rzer) G EATRdJJCE AETAIIS AND i n. w,n R.OW s r I .'SY1 t 4 j i . ys.o ' .,0, 6 ` Is^ r r, r 37. Jis .:JP' '-.. i 1,; 6 t SEE ROAD PLANS(SHEETS i , y1 l3,S CR-)FOR ENiftANCE ' L1 i y.. . -S , sP o 31 Y`" ... DETNLS AND DE9GN v ''" . y 6 `' J R.D.W. 3' 4'WIDE x 140'-,'_•--:. _,-: a> ., n tt `f '( ' b' f 'b 611E '-16 s . ..,- •. 31 fr WID 7(.L45'c-21 BIOFIL3RA Olh"' I /=.... / ,..`. J ,`v v r- ------ ----,--- R--- ------ --- 3}'' B OFltTRATION' C-t2 s.. __,o Rc B `$ S '° `b SWAtf'D'0 0.57 "i SI7E•C TRACTOR 70`CLEAR..I ti/ a c,b , 5 g` 5 f t' m SWALE'C'O.Sz TYEE.6 C S`!, ds` " ROUGH E AND7NSTALL':STORAI . ' " . , `,..j J o - -DRAINS.tlil S,.CL'R$ANO ' 1 r: 19 38.80 _ j t/ EXIS3#NG 50 y GI1TiQt IN GAS '. - , J ,9 b r J i Sl" ' 1: = 28.2 TE CONTRACTOR T0 CCa7DINATE i e \ M tq J s y, Y lp ? EXIS G.SD 4 1 TH GAS 57AT10N CONiRAC OR.-_, F Jc,es b ` FLU fX1RB ( b t Yn 5}k tY t 6 FOOTING DRNN - ov40-REMAIN: 36:2 j 7B.6 4y A 11 . E . ^ < d frf SEE FWNDATION PLAN fi v1,_ , 75 z ;.'-°}/ y„'.. y' 36 S IE = 36A ti i3 , dC aS2a.. N 1Tpi EXISTING " . . - IE = 28.5 4 , 1 y7 r 36. - tv'__ f 755 1 FLUSH CURB o DRIYEWAY . 3 RIP-RA J .15? s :, x' , o '1, pA x.'.. to=1a i `' r134'SY 17 i:e Ie, ti i141 1 y. Ei '. ,\8 J r'i$ 7, l- I•q' J RE iAININ NGLL 1.0 a' a 3b t i Q I J B 1 s 6 0 y 612 7-CP5 ql WATER 1 •. 3 ys: s , kO , tt ti SEPARATOR•BYllilEtll'' . ,• `3 . rE 29. 's i i . / x;, - , •y .. i'7g5_1MDE.x 200"` / VAUET COM PANY Of2 ' C-z2 ^q r . ' 2 c ` J 7fl R-TR , s y,BIOEILiRATION ef et •,,,' ` 9Z _' y f'"APRRO IF EDUAL SWAE€ A -0:5$: - , 91 . -ti• 1 , 3 S.F. ` za ` 9 GROSS'5.F W/DOCK SHOWN: 35 37 1 ' USE: RETAIL 4 i% 9 , q+ CONSTRUCTION iYPE: Y-N r EPLACE XISPNG ROUADU T e k 1 t, 3x,, l j N 4 11ANNER T0 Ni HA IZE _.` S5rt'' s„ i FFE= 39.0 I .. t-'` , IMPACF ON AOJAC iT WEl[JiND._ - _T YMDE z 1I4'--.-=1 F' o CONTRACTOR'Q REPAIR ANY DRAINAGE$WAtf Q?3&.. ' c 7 i \ OMARGE CRU Q'Q Wf7iAND i._ i. _ _ .a w,, q .... 4p y DURING CCIVS1R11CiIDN.. r fUR„SEk1P-PER9`(3 cp R. z ' 61 y - 44'q -"-' 64$ T C7.. r - 1fiANFORIIER 6' FOOTNG GRAlN 6'FOOTINC D AIN y& 6110 s 0 FOUY SEE'FOUN 71 J 9 E_ 37.5 A IE= 37.5 ASp'R A 9 g r-- i; 9{ r ,pcP . $, P o g p AN ON PUW 9 S¢ l`\ q.7 97 9. w^ C-0.4 3$YI flQl1A UGt.. I f , L; 2 j n L L aa I r. - A I L" CQN7BACTOR TbyINSTALL A 6' s" 5 ' s PERFORATED-IN RCE TOR DRAIN. N lg/ L jy : A o>. R TAIN G ur ' o x i s x 4 o i r: , ELEAN Ut1T, a ='",r,.?"-,` .-- r.sp"" ",` BENSON_RQAD_ SOUTH rt ca w w CO4N TQ u\ aC.: f r Pv Nv i S-2.EX.48"SD" .CONNECT 0 P`- .- -i tE 3943 EX'14 SG CflNTRACTOR TO PLACE 10 AIIN.OF QUARRY SPALLS S J'_E 39 PER SECPON 9 13.6 OF 2002 WSDOT STANDARD QN L D.E.p r r c.i E rn h F al 45B,ID u1 r dp pGHTS OUTAOF THEEEPROSED 3 RSlOFEAG I,, J ,, : I CHEC<ED FOR COMPLUWCE RECOMMENCED 1"=50' z,,,e. f Y SAM'S CLUB#4835-00 px r-- . _ CI T. OF 3-ih03 i=:il'u.,' _ J TO CI'Y STANDM2D5 FOR APPROVAL E i.: RENTON 901 SOUTH GRADY WAY A y.: 9 tie' '90 *et eo e° . pATE BY 2 PER41T CpAYENTS t7E5U8WTTAl PACUN 1 7B W KH v W aTura ' RENTON,WA 98055 v1144E25UakeAveE. T f206)522-9510 3.cv'' 1GPLLE' qTE BY 1 91D ADDENDU4 1 PACU!b 4 4 onnirqjB-a:ngjPublic Works ,^xpt i. 2.i Sui[e 601 F (206)522-B344 a. i Y v seatue,WA 98_09 h,.a;wo.« .',:o i e.^ eY NO. EV SION er DATE oP=R GRAOING AND DRAINAGE PLAN I"`. i CfTY OF RENTON iHE PROPOSED SIIE DURING iHE COURSE OF CONSiRUCTION, IT SHALL BE 1HE OBLIGAIIDN AND RESPONSIBILITY GRADWG NOTES OF TnE PERMIIEE TO AD6RESS ANY NE,1 CONDITIONS iHAT MAY BE CREAiED BY THE ACTIVIIIES ANO TO PROWDE SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE NOTES ADDITIONAL FACILITIES, OVER AND ABDVE MINIlAU4 REWIREAIENTS,AS IdAY BE NEmED, TO PRQiECT ADJACENT PROPERiIES AND WATFR QUALIiY OF iHE RECEIVING DRAINAGE SYSTEM. PiE 6E5GN SHDWN IS BASm UPON THE ENGINEER'S UNDERSTANDING OF iHE E%ISnNG CONDIilONS. hiE?LAN SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE NOTES AND SPEGFlCAPCNS ODES NDT REPRESENT A DETAIIED FlELD SURVEY. THE EXISiING CONDIilONS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN SHEET ARE 23. APPROVAL DF iH15 PLAN IS FOR EFOSION/SEDIMFNTATION CONTROL ONLY. IT OES NOT CONSTIiUTE AN APPROVAL BAS"tD UPON THE SURVEY PREPARED BY BARGHAUSEN CONSULTNG ENqNEERS, INC., DAiED t-29-02, REVISED 1.BEfORE ANY CONSiRUC710N OR DEVELOPLIENT ACi1VITY OCCURS, A PRE-CONSiRUCTION AIEEIING MUST BE HELD WI1H THE CITf OF RENTON OF SiOR I DRAINAGE DESIGN, SIZE NOR LOCATION OF PIPES,RESlF21CTDRS, CHANNELS, OR REiENiION FACWiIES.03-72-03. iHE CONiRACTOR IS RESPDNSIBLE FOR VERIFYING=1ELD CONDIilONS PRIOR TO BIDDING THE PROPOSED PL1N RE4IEWER. 517EWORK IMPROVEMEN75. IF CONFllCTS ARE DISC04ERED,7HE CANTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE OWNER PRIOR TO 24.URING THE 11ME PERIOD OF OCTOBER 1ST THROUGH APRIL 30h1,ALL PROJECT DISiRIBUTED SOIL AREAS GREATER INSTAL ATION Of ANY PORTION DF THE SIiEWORK NFIICH WOULD BE AFFECTED. IF CONTRACTOR DOES NOT ACCEPT Z.ALL CCNSiRUCT10N SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE W1iH THE 1996 STAN ARu SPECIFICAiIONS FOR ROAD, BRIOGE AND Ml1NICIPAL 1HAN 5,000 SQUARE FEET, iHAT ARE T BE LEFT UN-WORKED FOR MORE THAN 12 HOURS,SHALL BE COVERED BYIXISIINGSUR4EY, INCLUDING TOPOGRAPHY AS SH WN ON THE PLANS, HITHWT EXCEPTION,HE SHALL HA4E MAQE, CONSTRUCTIDN PREPARED BY WSDOT AND THE AUERICAN PUBLIC VNRKS ASSOCIATION (APWA), AS AIAENDED BY THE CIiY OF RENTON PUBLIC MULCH, SQDOING OR PLASTC COVERING. AT NIS OHN EXPENSE, A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY BY A REGIS1ERm LAND SURVEYOR AND SUBIAIT IT TO h1E OWNER KS DEPARiMENT. FOR REVIEW. 25. IN ANY AREA WFiICH HAS BEEN STRIPPED OF VEGETATION AND WHERE NO FURTHER WORK IS AN71qPATED rOR A 2. iHE SPOT ELEVATIDNS INDlCATED ON iHIS PLAN REPRESENT THE DESIG TOP OF PAVENENT, UNLESS QTHER4NSE 3.hiE SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE SYSTEM SHALL BE CONSIRUCTED ACCORDING TO ?NE APPROVED PLANS, WHICH ARE ON FlLE IN THE PUBLIC PERIOD 30 DAYS OR MORE, ALL DISNRBED AREAS MUST BE IMMEDIAiELY STABIIJZE W1TH MULCHING, GRASS PLANIING NOiED. WORKS DEPARIMENT. ANY DEVIAiICN =ROM iHE APPROVEQ PLANS WILL RE.UIRE WRITTEN APPROVAL FR M iHE CITY OF RENTON PUBIIC OR 01HER APPROVED EROSIDN CINJTROL TREATMENT APPLICABLE TO 1HE T1ME OF IEAR. GRA55 SEECING ALONE 1MLL BE WORKS DEPARIAIENT, SURFACE WATER UTILITY SECTION. ACCEPTABLE ONIY DURING hfE IAONIHS OF APRIL THROUGH SEPTEMBER, INCLUSI E. SEEDING MAY PROC, HONEVER, 3, CAUTION- NOTICE TO CDNiRACTOR WFiENcVER IT IS IN hIE IN7ERE5T OF HE PERMITEE, BUT MUST BE AUGA1ENiED WITH MIJLCHING, NETTING OR OTHER i}iE CONTRAC OR IS SPECIFlCALLY CAUiIONED AT THE LOCATION AND/OR ELEVAiION OF IXISTING UTI:TIES AS 4. A COPY OF THESE APPROVED?LANS IAUST BE ON iHE JOB SITE WFiENE1 E CONSiRUCTION IS IN PROGRESS 1REAlAENT APPROVED BY TF!E CI1Y OF RENTON, OUiSIDE THE SPEqFIED TIME PERIOD. I SHOWN ON THESE°LANS 15 9ASE ON RECORDS OF'HE VARIWS UTILITY COAIPANIES AND, WHERE POSSIBLE, I 1EASURE1pENTS TAKEN IN 1HE RELD.hiE!NFORMAiION IS VOT B RELIE ON AS 90NG EXACT OR COMPLEiE. hIE 5.DA1UM SHALL BE NAVO 88 UNLESS OiHERWISE APPROVED BY THE GTY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS 6EPARTAIENT. REFERENCE BENCHIAARK 26.FOR ALL EROSION/SEDIAIENTAiION CONTROL PONDS WHERE THE DEAD STORAGE DEPTFI EXCEEDS 6 INCHES,A FENCE CONTRACTOR MUST CALL TrE APPROPRIATE UTILITY 0lA?ANY AT LEAST 48 HOURS BEFORE ANY=%CAVA110N TO AND ELEVAiIONS ARE NOIED ON 7HE PLANS. IS RE UIRED WITH A NIhIUUM HEIGFIT OF THREE (3)FEET, 3:1 SIDE SLOPESIREOUESTEXACTFIE11LOCAlIOYOFUTILITIES. !T SHALL B THE RESPONS181UTY OF THE CONTRACTGR TO I RELOCA'E ALL EXISPNG UT1Li11E5 W}fICH CONFLICT W1TFi THE PROPOSED INPROVEIAENTS SNOWN ON THESE PLANS. fi.ALL SEDIMENTATION/ERDSION FACILI11E5 AIUST BE IN OPERATION PRIOR TO CLEARING AND 9UILDING CONSTRUCiION, AND 'FIEY MUST BE Y7. A iEMPCRARY GRAVEL CONSiI211CTIGN ENIF2ANCE, 'S FEET H7DE X 100 FEET LONG X 12 INC4ES iHICK (MIN.) OF 4 TO- d. CONTRACTOR IS RESFONSIBLE FOR JEMOIJTION OF EXISTNG STBUCTURES INCLUOING RE110VAL OF ANY E%ISTING SATSFACTORILY MAINTAINED UNiIL CONSiRUCTION IS COMPLEiED AND THE POTENTIAL FOR ON-SIlE EROSION HAS PASSED. 8 INCH QJARRY SPALLS SHALL BE LOCAlED AT ALL PCINTS OF VEHICULAR INGRESS AND EGRESS TO THE ONSTRUCTION UTILI11E5 SERNNG 'HE STRUCTURE. UTILITIES ARE TO 3E REIAOVED TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. 7, qu RETENTION/DETENTION FACILITIES IAUST BE INSTALLED AND IN OPERAiION PRIOR TO OR W CONJUNC IDN 1NTN AL!CONSTRl1CTI0N SITE FER CDNSTRUC110N ENTRANC"c DE7 11L. 5. ALL UNSURFACED AREAS DISTliRBE BY GRADING OPERA ON SFiALL RECEIVE 4 INCHES OF TOPSOIL CONTRAC70R ACi1V 1Y UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROYED BY 1HE PUBUC WORKS EPARTMENT,suRFncE wa R unurr sEcnoN. BUILDING PAD PREPARATION NOTE SHALL APPLY STABIL:ZAiION FABRIC TO ALL SLOPES 3H:'.V OR STEEPER. C6NiF2AC70R SHALL STABILIZE UNPAVED DISIURBED AREAS AS SHOHN ON THE LANDSCAPE PLANS IN ACCORDANCE VII1H IOCAL SPEGFlCAiIONS. 8. GRASS SEED MAY BE APPLIED BY HYDROSEE ING. iHE GRASS SEED MIXNRE, OTHER hIAN C TY OF RENTON APPROV C STAN ARD MIXES, FOliNDATION SUBSURFACE PREPNtATION (04/04/03) 6. ALL CUT AND FILL SLOFES SHALL BE CONS7RUCiED PER 1HE UBC CDDE AND APPLICABLE LOCAL REGULAiION. pu SHALL BE SUEMITiED BY A LAN^uSCAPE ARCHIlECT AND APPROVED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARiA1ENT, SURFACE WATER UTILIiY SECTION. py'S CLUB 4835 CUT AND FlLL SLOPES SHALL BE 3:1 t FLATTER UNLESS OiHER'MSE NOiED. RENT04,WA 9. ALL PIPE AND APPIJRTENANCES SHALL BE LAID ON A PROPERLY PREPAR D FOl1NDA710N IN ACCORDANCE WIiH SECP.ON 7-02.3(1) OF THE 7. CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSURE POSIIIVE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM BUILDINGS FOR ALL NATURAL AND PAVED AREAS AND CURRENT STAiE OF WASHINGTDN STANDARO SPECIFlCA ON FOR ROAD AND 9RIDGE CONSTRUCTION. iH1S SHALL NCLU6E NECESSARY LE4flJNG UNLESS SPECIFlCALLY IYDICAlED 01HERWISE IN THE)RA'MNGS AND/OR SPECIFlCAilONS, iHE LIMITS OF THIS SUBSURFACE SHALL GRADE ALL AREAS TO PRECLUDE PONMNG Of WATER. QF 1HE iRENCH BOTTOM OR hIE TOP OF'HE`OUNDATION MATERIAL, AS Wc1L AS PLACEA E T AND COUPACiION OF REQUiRm BEDDING PREPARATION ARE CONSIDERED TO BE 'HAT PORTION OF THE SITE IREC7LY BENEATH AND 10 FEET BEYOND iHE MAIERIAL,TO UNIFORIA 6RADE SO':HAT iHE ENTIRE LENGTH OF 7HE PIPE MSLL BE SUPPORTED ON A UNIFOR ILY DENSE, L'N11ELDING BASE. B. ALL POLLUTANTS OhIER THAN SE INENT ON-SITE DURING CONSiFiUC ION SHALL BE HANDLED AND 91SPOSE OF IN pLL PIPE BEDDING SHALL BE APWA CLASS'C",YATH THE EXCEPTION Of PVC rIPE. ALL iRENCH BACKFlII SHALL BE C MPACIED TO MINIMUN ILDING AND APPURiENANCES. APPURTENANCES ARE THOSE IlElAS ATTACHED TO THE B111L01NG PROPER (REFER TO A IAANNER 1HAT DOES NOT CAUSE CONIANINATIQN OF STORMWATER. THE CONTRACTOR SHAIL ADHERE TO ALL DRAW`NG SHEET SPl), TYPICALLY INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIUIiE T0,iHE BUILDING SIDEWALK$ GARDEN CENIER, PORCHES, TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS OUTllNm IN iHE ENERAI N.P.D.E.S PERAIIT fOR STORAIWATER QISCHARGE ASSOCIAIED 95x FOR PAVEUENT AND STRUC1URAl FlLL AND 90%OTHERVASE PER ASTM D-1557-70. PEA GRAVEL BE DING SHALL BE 6 INCHES OVER Rq 1P5, STOOPS,iRUCK WELLS/DOCI(S, CONCRETE APRONS, COMPACTOR PAD, ETC. THE SUBBASE AND VAPOR WITH CONSTRUCiION ACiIVI11E5. AND UNDQt PVC PIPE. BARRIER, WHERE REQUIRED,DOES NOT_XTEND BE ON iHE UAlliS OF?HE AC7UAL BUItDING AND THE APPURiENANCES. PROPERDES AND WATERWAYS DOWNSTREA 1 OF THE SITE SHALL BE PROTEC?ED fRQU EROSION DUE TO INCREASES 10. GAIVANIZE STEEL PIPE AND ALUMINIZED STEEL PIPE FOR ALL DRAINAGE FACIIJTIES SHALL HAVE ASPHALT iREATMENT 1 OR BETTER E SURFlCIAI COAL TAILINGS ANO EXISiING FlLL SQILS SHALL 6E COVERED WITH GRANUL4R S1F2UCiURAL FILL TO IN iHE VQLUME, Vf10CITY AN PEAK FLOW RATE OF STORMWAiER RUNOFF FR0 1 PRDJECT SITE. INSIDE AND OUTSI E. ACHIEVE SUBGRADE ELEVATION BENEAiFi 1HE FLOOR SLAB AND PROVIDE ADEQUATE SUPPORT FOR ALL FWNDATION 10. CONSTRUCiION SHAti CONPLY W1iH ALL APPIJCABLE GOVERNING CODES AND BE CONSiitUCTED TO SAAIE. 11. STRUCIURES SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED'MTHIN 10 FEET OF iHE SPRfNG LINE OF ANY STORM RAINAGE PIPE, OR 15 FEET FROM hiE TOP CONSTRUCiICN EOUIPMENT. 7HE U?PER ONE F00T OF EXPOSED FlLL SOILS SHALL BE PROOF ROLLED AND COMPACiEDOFANYqiANNELBANK. TD A FIRIA AND UNYIELDING CONDITION?RIOR;T RLACWG THE GRANULAR SiRUCTURAL FlLL. A PASSIVE IAEiHa'r'E GASCONiRACTORTOREMOVEUNSUITABLESOILSLOCATEDWITHINTHEBIIILDINGSSPLAYLJNEOFTHEFOOTINGSAS 10 ENTiNG SYSTEIA SHALL BE INSTALLED i4 12 INCHES:DF WASFIED ROCK FlLL PRIOR TO INSTALLAiION OF 1HE METHANELISTEDINTHEB1111.DING PA6 PREPARADON NOTE BELOW.12. ALL CATCH BASIN GRAiES SHALL 8E DEP4ESSED Q.10 FEET BELDW?AVEUENT LEVEL GAS VAPOR BARRIER. A 2-INCH THICK AYE3 OF.,FROTECTIVE MATERIAL SHALL BE INSTALLED OVER THE AIEiHANE GAS 12. FOR BOUN ARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION RffER TO PROJECT SURVEY. 73.OPEN CUT ROAO CROSSINGS PiROUGH EXISTiNG PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY 1NlL NOT 3E ALLOWED UNLE55 SPEqFICALLY APPROVED BY qT( BARRIER iHAT S CAPABLE OF SUPPORIING REINfORGNG SiEEL SUPPORTS. 13. FOR LAYIXIT INFORNAiION REFER TO THE SITE PLAN AND HORIZONTAL CONTROL PLAN. OF RENTON?IANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATOR. ESiABLISH iHE FlNAL SIIBGRADE ELEVATION AT 22 INCHES BELOW iHE=1NISHED CONCRETE ELEVATION WHEN USING AN STORM DRAINAGE NOTES 14. ROCK FOR EROSION PROiECT'ON OF ROADSIDE DITqiES, WHERE REQUIRED, SHALL BE OF SOUN OUARRY ROqC PLACED TO A DEPhi OF B-Nqi SLAB TO ALLOW FOR THE SLAB 1HICKNESS, A 2-INCH UEiHANE BARRIER?ROTECTIVE LAYER, A1INIMUM 10-MIL ONE 1 FOOT AND IAUST AIEET'HE FOLLOWING SPECIFlCA7lONS: METHANE GAS VAPOR BARRIER,AND 12 INCHES OF 7/8-INCH MINUS WASNED ROqC. SIX-INCH DIAMETER PERFORAIED 1. IXISiING DRAINAGE STRt1CiURES TO 9E INSPECiED AN REP.4IRE AS NEEDEO, AN EXISTING PIPES TO BE CLEANED O AIETHANE 4ENTING PIPES SHALL BE=]AEEDDED IN THE WASHE ROCK PJ2 TF!E PROJ CT PLANS. 1HE 2-INCH IAEIHANE 4- B INCH ROCK /40- 70X PASSiNG; BARRIER PROlECiIVE LAYER SHALL BE CCNiROLLED DENSITY FlLL`JR A?PROVED IAIPORTED GRANULAR AIAlE IALS. THEOUTTORElAOVEALLSILTANDQEBRIS. 2- 4 INCH ROCK /30- 40X PASSING; AND CON7RACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR C8T.41NING AC URATE IAEASUREMENTS=0R ALL q1T AND FILL DEP7HS REQUIRED. 2 IF ANY RISDNG STRUCTURES TO RE IAIN ARE DAAIAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION IT SHALL BE THE CONIRACTDRS LE55 THAN 2 INCH ROCK/10- 20X PASSING. RESPONSIBWTY TO 3EPAIR AND/OR REPLACE THE EXIS7ING S1RUCiURE AS NECESSARY TO RETURN IT TO EXISTING EXISTING FOUNDAT10N5,SLABS,PAVEMENTS, UTILITIES,AND BELOW-GRADE STRUCTURES SHALL BE REMO ID FRCI OR CONDI110NS OR BETTER.15. ALL BUILDING OCWN SPOUTS AND FOOTING DRAINS SHAt1 BE CONNECTED TO 1HE STORIA DRAINAGE SYSiEM, UNLESS APPROVED BY THE PROPERLY ABANqONEQ,JII-BLACE WiT1iIN;iHE,BUlWlN6 AREA. EXISTING PILING SHALL BE CUT OFF 3 FEET BELOW THE 3. STORM DRNNAGE PIPE ITH LESS THAN 2'-0'COVER SHALL BE CLA55 IV REINFORCED CQNCREiE PIPE, DR CITY PLAN REVIEHER OR Sl1RFACE WATER UTILIIY SECTION. AN ACCURAiE1 DIIIENSIONm,CERiIFlED AS-BUILT DRAWING OF THIS DRAINAGE BOTTOIA OF TF PRDPOSED GRAD EEANS%SUBGRADE AND TH R LOCAiIONS SURVEYED FOR FUiURE-REfERENEE D4IRING APPROYfD EQUAL i0 SUSTAIN H-20 LOADING. SYSTEM W1LL 3E SUBAIITTE TO THE qT'!UPON COAIPLE110N. WS7ALLAiION,OF.THE'NENI-PILE FO YJC'RiICNS. =XISTING UNDERGROUND UTWIIES LOCAlED NIIHIN iHE BUIIDING AREA'Ql SHALL BE GROUTED IN PLACE. WFIERE?'LE INSTALLATIQN CONFLICTS W1i!i ABANDCNED UTILITIES, LfAiI ED$EC'IfNS'Of 4• ALL ONSIiE STORN DRAINAGE PIPE SHALL BE SMOOiH WALLED INiERIOR,MANUfACTURER'S VERIFICATION OF 16. ISSUANCE OF IiE Bl11LDING OR CQNSTRUCTION PERMITS 8Y THE CITY OF RE!JTON DOES NOT RELIEVE THE OWNER Of iFiE CONiINUING T-IE'UilUilES_SHAtL BE REIAOVED OR 1HE PILE MAY BE RELOCATED UPON JIRECTIQN OF THE STRUCTURAL ENqNEER. AIANNINGS ROUGHNESS COEFFICIENT N=0.012 OR_ESS.AS APPROVE BY 1HE CITY OF RENTON AND PRG CT LEGAL OBLIGATION AND/OR UABILITY CONNECiED'MTH ST6RM SURFACE WATER DISPOSITION. FURTHER, THE CITY OF RENTON DOES N07 REAIOUE SURFACE VEGETAiION, TOPSOIL ROOT SYSTEAIS, ANO UNSUITABLE ORGANIC NATERIpL FROY 1HE BUILDING AREA. SPEqFlCAlI0N5. ACCEPT ANY OBLIGATION FOR hlE PROPER FUNCTONING AND IAAiNTENANCE OF TNE SYSTEAI PR0I DED DURING CONSIRUC7ICN. STRIPPED SOILS SHOULD NOT BE REUSE AS STRUCNRAL FlLL UNLESS APPROVE BY THE OWNER'S GE TECHNICAL 5. PRECAST STRUCNRES MAY BE USE AT CONTRACTOR'S OPTION. NGINEER. PROOF ROLL E%POSEC SUBCRADE REMOVE AND REPLACE UNSUITABLE AREAS'MTH SUITABLE NATERIAL 6. ALL CATCH 3ASINS AND AREA DRAINS ARE?0 EE SITUATED SUCH hIAT THE OUTSICE mGE OF A1E RAME IS TME CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FCR PROVIDING ADEQUATE SAFEGUARD, SAFETY DEVICES, PROlECiiVE EQUI?MENT,FLAGCERS, FILL SFIALL BE FREE OF ORGANIC AND OTHER OEtETERI0U5 AIATERIALS AND SHALL IIE_T iHE FOLLONANG REOUIREIAENTS: AND ANY 01HER NEEDE6 ACTIONS?0 FR0IECT THE UFE, HEALTH,AND SAF iY OF THE PL'6LIC, AND.TO PROTECT PROPERiY IN CONNECTION AT TOE OF CURB OR FLDYNNE OF IX1T1ER (VMERE APPlICABLE). WI1H ;HE PERFORAIANCE OF W'ORK COVERED BY 1HE CONTRACT. ANY WCRK WIiHIN THE TRAVELED RIGHT OF WAY iHAT A1AY INiERRUPT LOCATION WITH RESPECT TO FlNAL GRADE P.I. LL CATCH BASIN INLET PROiECTION /EROSiON CONTROL TO 9E USED FOR ALL NEW INLETS. lORMAL TRAFFlC FLOW SHALL RE UIRE A iRAFFlC ONTROL PLAN APPR04E BY hIE PU8L1C WORKS DEPARTMENT, iRANSPORTAl10N SYSTEMS BU:L ING AREA, BELOW UPPER 4 FEET 20 AIAX. SO lAAX. g, ALL STORM?IPE ENTE.RING STRUCNRES SHALL BE GRWiED TO ASSIJRE C INECTION AT SiRUC1URE IS D NSION. ALL SECTIONS OF iHE 4lSDOT STANDARD SPECIFlCAiIONS 1-07-23 TRAFFlC CONTROL SHALL APPLY. BUIL ING AREA, UPPER 4 FEEf 12 11A%. 40 MAX WATERIIGHT. 18. SPECIAL DRNNAGE MEASURES N1LL BE REOUIRED IF THE PRO,FCT LaCA N .S WIT-IIN THE AQUIFER PROTECiION AREA(APA). STRUCTURAL FlLL SHALL BE PLACED IN LOOSE LIFTS NOT EXCEE ING 8 INCHES IN THICKNESS AND COMPACTED TO AT g. ALL STORM SEWER AIANHOLES IN PAVED AREAS SHALL 3E%LUSN YATH AVEMENT, AND SHALL HAVE TRAFFlC LEAST 95 PERCENT OF'HE!AODIFIED P OCTOR MAXIA1U11 DRY DENSITY(AS tI D-1557)AT A IOISNRE CONiENT WITHIN BEARING RING AND VERS. MANHOLES'N lJNPAVED AREAS SHALL BE 6' ABOVE FlNISH GRADE. LIDS SHALL BE 19• BEFORE ANY CQNS7RUCTION OR DEVELOPMENT ACi1VIiY OCWRS, A PRE-CONSiRUCTION MEEiING k1UST BE HELD'MTH iHE CITY OF 2 PERCENT BQOW TO 2 PERCENT ABOVE iHE OPTIMUTA. LABELED'STORAI SEWER". RENTON,PUBLIC WORKS DESIGN ENGiNEER. 10. ALL STORU STRUCTURES SHALL HAVE A SMOOTH UNIFORM POURED NORTAR INVERT FROM INVERT M -0 INVERT 1HE FWNDATION SYSTEAI SHALL BE IL S BELO'1 COLUAINS, WALLS, AND FLOORS AS DESCR18ED IN iHE SOILS REPORT OUT, tINLE55 CTHERWISE IOWN IN THE CATCH BASIN DETAIL 20. ALl L'MITS OF CLEARING AND AREAS OF UEGETATION PRESERYATION AS?RESCRIBED ON 1HE PLAN(S}SHALL BE CLEARLY FLAGCED IN THE BY ZIPPER ZENAN ASSOCIATES, INC. DATED DECEkIBER 6, 2002, OR SUITABLE ALTERNATI4E5 APPROVED 8Y THE ORNER. FlEL AND OBSERVE DURING CONSIF2UCTION. 11. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONNECT ROOf DRAIN LEADERS TO FROPCSED STDRI DRAINS AS SHOWN.THIS FCUNQATION SUBSURFACE P4EPARATION DOES NOT CONSTINTE A COMPLETE SIiE WORK SPECIFlCATION. IN ASE OF 21. ALL REQUIRm SE IIJENTATION/EROSION ON1i20L FACILITIES MUST BE CQNSTRUCTED AND IN OPERA110N PRIOR TO LAND CLEARING AND/OR CONFLICT, INFORMATION CCVERED;N THIS PREPARATION N01E SHALL TAKE?RECED NCE OVER THE PRO ECT CONS1ItUCT10N TO=NSURE iFIAT SEDIMENT LADEN WATER OES NOT?JTER THE NATURAL DRAINAGE SYSTEM. ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT 5?ECIf'CATIONS. REFEB -0 THE SPECI,9CAilONS FOR SPECIFlC INFORAIAiION NOT COVERE IN THIS PREPARAiION. CALL 48 HOURS rACIU71E5 SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A SATiSFACTORY CON ITION CNi1L SUCH T1ME THAT CLEARING AND/OR CONSif2UCTI0N IS COIAPLEiE AND ADDITIONAL RECOMIAENOATIONS fAY ALSO BE=OUND IN THE GEOTECNNICAL REPORT PREPARED BY ZIPPER ZEMAN I BE ORE OU DIG OTENTIAL FOR ON-SITE EROSION HAS PASSED. 'HE INPLElAENTAiION,AIAINTENANCE,REPIACEMENT AND A DI110NS TO ASSOCIATES, INC.,DATED DECEMBER 6, 2002. THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT',S FOR INFORMAiION ONLY AND IS NOT A 1- 00-424-5S JrJ ROSION/SEDIIAENTAiION C6NiR0!SYSTEAIS SHALL BE iHE RESPONSIBILIiY 0 THE PERL11iEE. CONSTRUCTION SPEqFICA710N. Z2. hIE EROSION AND SEDIAIENTATION CaN7ROL SYSTEMS EPICTED ON h115 JRAWING.ARE WiENDED TO BE MINIAIUM REOUIREMENTS TO MEET ANTICIPAiED SITE CONDIiIONS. AS CONSTRUCTION PROGRESSES ANO UNEXPECTED OR SEASDNAL CON ITIONS DICTATE, THE PERMITEE 9iALL ANTICIPAiE 7HAT 410RE EROSlQN AND SEDIAIENTAiION CDN7ROL FACILITIES WIC B 'JECESSARY TO ENSURE COYPLETE SILTATION CDNTROL ON f srs g N ft. D.Ep I Qt i a.ttp,G a M1y,j y s I I CaECKED FOR COMPLIANCE R=COMMENOED a v u 3-14-73 I ro cirr sTnNOA s Fca naa ovn vTs , asp T QF SAM'S CLUB#4835-00 r a soc a T 901 SOUTH GRADY WAY f F 1 REN GN I isTSR°+ opeB IS".ER y DATE BY 2 P,RMT COUMENT$RESU94MTTAL PACLFNO a 1B J ,;NH/DMD J onrE er aio a eEN u a RENTON,WA 98055 j31144EdStlekeAVe.E. T 206`22 9510 S(ONAL ep`' PAC:..UJO 4 4 3 T A ;= lcnring/Bui'd:g/Pubiic Works Cspt 1 1 rro 2.1Suite601F (206)522-8344 Da7E BY SeaMe,wa 5e os wV,w.Prcu'n.mn n r t m rxrc u cusr a mo3 DA'E ev uo. j rzEvisioN Y are APPR I GRADING AND DflAINAGE N TES `'' II i4u f u •.i ';!.>'M i""": . . R 1 .... , 7/ * 1 E I h,.! 9 L . "M 7. 3. A i,n : A{ " r, r. tlk.' lr ','! i+^I; ^ c, .I r l llF i wj/, ta, " k-: x a+l$t!# dl!iEp i ;#M' H t.l I ,i 36. E it iit _ :-_ b,. M! Ai':' 'i€ P :. " y . Sf C'.t} s.m E a .. . I.. s n,1, N r 4 P`.},., L: a ,AqSM, M Wi i M, r, I r P'"" 'i f.. k i, ' Y":a: t€1.' rt rr 6f#`i?' " 0 4 rry 1'. v a, t T-d i YM .4h. I I,' v,., ` 4 w. j h T.i.P,e . ,„ r s° a:. RAY t-0- g` L P Y, r.: u F ., e..,;,.,," • 'iMJ i 11' l'4 ,,,,_;€:l f M C' n, awlr r o. ,A, ,;,G" ,r X3 i f'. Y„'." i"'3§e # p w";lq" ' y,.' r' 11.k;. K • t w ii:QiM y s"w^F`.; 1 1'ww'lf.'..x KW,/ lAiw '/lY/ ! 1.`..x rl. ''. T .v Y- y• ¢ Y;.(' }' .• y , f s''"' s' r Ma .`YP.Fi ,".tr f1 'r E i'y •• ,,.R pm.._ ., ,t `' V,"y' 11 1 1 F- . . Y . 4 5 ! 'i t l, ---= r ' t' !''K_ i ,j'{,_i :i ' f '_ X 1 f ti y f t', i%' .-. \i.'!. v n.3.c - 1 T s1",lrt '. ' rt . r c fc ti t ' YTs'. t ; s. . - t d .... s+ ... .f_. 3. x 7R _ l.", w " + R ,M • . _ 'r' - d-' -=,_,`; i 's_ , 1y : rr.:_: x=,h i t . a. r -:> ,' H_ t h - —ti' .. A"," i e ,'.J f ,( a:) y + ..` + C . .. -` 1' } ' 4 _ ','• r \ - c.. s ~ a.; i`',, e1 , t s;_ t. , i t<''`.; 3 f"f. t 1 f r`'' ti f= i; v t ty_ ``;i•`o je+.:'!/ E f +' - 1 M:F:- }. s .: y i,>i v; t} s iA. i.r r i„ si7ii'., 1 1 11: r II Sam s Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Figure A6 - Basin Map PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 29 I 46 e; 0 i i i q 4 1 d9,, 4M 1 3 O. m L h 49 a/ I.j1 V 3 Q_y v s, , Q' l. 7I n n c t. IE 26.B '- 53 4 M P` S 5 5 s J vy-' P o o o 2L 2 iE _ 16 1 4^ 22' TYPE tl CB OVER' r \ ElOSi1NG SD g IE._= 28.2 i ERIS'IMG SD 12 3 15 I TO REUAIN , t o ew 7 B s E= 29 4 . e J BASIN ROOFn o 9 II ' JD s4j 5 O n A II (i v5 0 ASI A z 1 IE 29. a a-T Fp GRGSS S.F. V/D,K SHOYM: 135,373 S.F. Y I i In USE: ETAIL BX,y I JI CONSTRUCTIDN TYPE: V-N 1UIlJ39.y o L fit 61 10 1 4 10 9 1 x 0 n R i La I I Shc 1 i Cl5 ,' Y' ,,» I BENSON_ROAD SOUTH _ I\ P` ENv. R. e p MP N I y Q o i,p,G oT v yyi I . o.` yc a, e ac+w.s c. r. 1-031 -. rHEC=D =0R COMFU NCE :ECOMMeNDEO @ Y „F SAM S CLUB4F4H3 J-OO J ,;`;,,_,;;., _ , o cin STANDARDS =0R APPRCVAL RG/RP r, 901 SOUTH GRADY WAY e. ,o R_ T r: i b Ph'15T60., T, br o CIST4a.6 AT_ KH a=astiaKe=v=.E. T r2ee1 522-5510 ox.s+'` sro.s onr c o.r u = rq; g/ RENTON,WA 98055 1' VJ R e,ie P i wo.5 o p. F G.—A6 cice GC: F i 2Cfi1 52 B3V4 DATE a SeatTe,'NA 981C9 vn+P,:dwrc.mn N-T' i A`'=. r oT_ _ VD. RE'J.SIOv BY .,ATE AFPR I^!^ p BASIN MAP Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Figure A7 — Offsite Basin Map PACL,ND Project# 1999010.008 Page 30 T rt t/Il" .tG i %//.G• i I, 1=y r` '.'.. Z+i 1,iEt'E lia iL1 F ,i i%i K r`-r'TLV/r' :jlj' 'i: t --- iii`n' --- --- - f__ , _/ .-/..,,F'F,,, f: a''bs''. ` h'' il s r'i:,i#'j l','f l{'"-1_i YI'T i la p,,-i' _ 1'1 r rn,::ti ' V i r ., r q s;.=:aa .-a jl we ii - I.-=R;lr1, _.'4 f/,_` ~ , h'r Q"1 tjf f i ' y ` dti -iii l ti• Afi •. 'i I If%>:^.N s; ; a . . irl aa j y inlr-iteas-r. J I' lri, ' ,_I.`{. r: I`_' I. MQ:< .. .s - . , ,ILi'.. S• 1,•_J'J. ...1t%Gv!yI { 1 p h i_:f^Y a __ j'!3 .,, .,_ -•' : q r r^ , , r y ' lF`'r L+.%i""' p/1,`'1\'f i - L 1 1 ` '. h..-_"'_s;.-.= :`% i• ti'. j r. J \ 47, •.._. • jl n a :i.'._'f1+ r A,. i w',',s a:',I Q1 ` Sy I i ' a:. I- i l 'i1l iil 1 1 o. rM ry y ,. E1i , . ri?.R;:.- I s.a U.- d-'ti. ,cti.l r'9 i J". e,.:: - /3,. - r!A` ,l iT J . ,;= l- r 1'i.'.IIi n - d! w_ j . ___ - 1`7L! I J '\f ;:" ri V r : ' I iV _` tl i- v IF--" ';- ..1=. I': r" . II` a 1a j,, i\.l l•-ai` ,a,..r'Li .ti . a j1• / r l l. A Mr,SS „ .. I n fi r k..J S I 7 Iy' M=, _ n4 Ii i\ vW`1J , ° !:i .i iv.--_°'!'-= ' 1 'f p I I r 1 z 1 I;-`, ,:,h'1,'C4"-..' y j,il., A l.-i; i ,.: ., g::j.---' G c5 r a,i r' :..`F ''+'= t K .A7 . i 3r-._ 1 fL a } „ M ' h'1~'1 a..5s rZ•..I 7P' l t . aail ' N'i a. f iil 1.,••_ IL/. ` t - A 1 N I 4 NA/a_ :+!'. o. i t w, s ,; r '-an -- (.O_,.'-''•p e i.- j(,H-"` ! _ _—'-===- Y:-= - -}= - I'w. .OY 1 a;! . '\`l s°`'"/,1.A ' rif;_ • 1 E__,.I ill r.f 7jA i•=-i i.. i N' ,J .ff i` 1'J '+_ !-•.•1; r'li t7 p a,*';C l v f. 6 r aa.r -`.'." s~i» y,; j I 1 i'1I,,•1 A;:; I i : I..",% L„r i.: yw_._r/S; :I i` J/1N 1} jy i i\I;;'5.; r.i?i.%4i? r`'= r H ,7 4;aAG. rg/ w 1„y, ai,:.s_s awas c+\v!.,wl. ..d -b r ; .i t J`C` 7 h Y` l l:. - 11= d' R ,_f t'sy , 'a „1 ir'-= j( 3 ._l C/.C ,o w . _y A n ar- iii.- M I H r c i dS y iC / r t..C'M' `//i i C, .r+ il,-L I'i7 1`. t, ° av, 1i'%:;• 9/. -:=-ea: '?e 1 a'i'e•'•`'v ' ' fi, "1 i{.LY -y '- = n r,._/ V4/..- ..,sy. e t , l I IIJt i: _!1i? t i:s''• r " ` 7C i.`" u — i s^'~ ••',,- y •' ia p s` r_t i , 7 r r . N• i ; e"? 6 s I t ji fl r v..i r a i t, 1 b., '".'v'', a w, LL.11 l• t + fuli:... s ,..'ri a` . cr 7 .• ar i1 1 rn. s ';.e, I= r 1 i r , r. N - i3 „I f i- 3 i! S If la7 . '_'oy' ,ti a br 1!.p 1''.' r- 1 ul 9 !,_ III1rc..`v:;j :` n- 7. .'';'~vh.:y d R7,';lii La i'1= il u.,.,,- r 1ft_?.,.:l, sN j,l+j '.`'+j r y` =_,.. _= Ir v 7 ,'i L o, r V7•l j' 7'?;" _"w'' AA 1 i 7 r 1+ .- i "/- N::'t r . ' L 7 n 4 L j , r=._ /• a 'L 1 1 Qi:'' F r ai`: 1 wJ ' d ( ii'T'- <iirl:iC I+II/Li _ . _ If` i%'" " V 1 L.'.`:'7.+,!,r'c,-`'"\\/..`j/.'y T -=1 1/ n i IIO.*"'...l'-i' r ? ii%; r "-- = r r t1i. - -! rD 'F, 1 7 1:;• -I IT i- rfQ', J '`.. i. % i e: .-.-- - n.:e_ ,_ r t r j y , a r, ti S°w n r.. ' .. /S qj r i -' I r yYL=''ir n w p;µ\ ;a i Y ': i i t RRe:=. , i! 7 i'l'-1.. '" ` L A Ja`.. \ ! I a i i ' ,. - 1/i 7+gir-.-0 r",z, L It.'-`."/i ti- /f e t - A J r a° N:,Lh'--''•=-y,..1 zr,,• 'f i7 .-• .y 1";:- •..•.e7:.:w.r ,a _ I;::I I 'i%-_ P'k: ilij Rr. ,r I st"y 4 X gi`'e i`i% _ i- . J r[ I i w %5=i-%>•k y 'rRy'Iq '4A f.S 11=:'Li l.7"C f "/' _. I`l{-riLeb.: 1'.`/A a i` h Oi` L ..7 y , 3,``• % iy1' : 1ti ii•C:n1A'`'t E j,r•"l;r ' 1=, s":.,r s'i-i-b _!i"i'y31.:fi.''_ _ ; .\ti I! i"/' 7 VI1sa -!c IJ y. / 1, i f .. . — t c-+,,I•s 11 ,f-1 i i • u.=l- ' • 3 q 'i1 .• a =i, A''''.F]. 'Ii D O_ ss =z si i, 0 r - 1NiI i. L1+'..!": 1l, '`; ors qt , $. ,ri+ - _ i:•11. sa-. G _ _JR, 1 i:_i ^, b 8 s',Cs:_-'/ r• Iil 1 V•'LL; s L y L..=;,i. -u Z-' _- -` - a a sr1'-:ej-"i" /'+;~,7L/ _ ,.-. ~'r ; i7 7up..7, li7,,'-Li' rf- : 1 ! i f i':n s'. `,.—V i •`. 7+C .'., J `s' i. L a . -i i L r .v.`: .:± n4n til+s...GJfI f t,5 P/ 111 j '"' r,i Y - 1D:' it- f w.9-ii"re'.e e 1- ;a„c. I'.'';r-_".__ 1 S,. i•f I i s- t : u... I I• =Gy .Ti •i:.,NIR.'E:!`'. i -z, F. ra. 'Lr w.l t ii 1"l`'.1'I Y 1 f. i l 7 l- ,.r id...,..;'g a '' ---^.e r i•; ' r e i - _1 .s-..w,l Cla'. r:' r (] ?5'h` l u• S i7 I i?s\ja i: ylI c I l"(' i J 1 J - i ! R, , 1 ."`. T. -,.._ . s' I ' 1 i u i A° . Ij II j r^ r 7 -.1 ' ti,, `€!ii•', tr+; s: 4 a p'li' r. u: ; ,`:,T` 1 µ i oj I F a' s!':?;/'t i 1 1 a.a. . , - :t= v'; i 1 .:.,.N _/ f 3, ,, r_,_ip .. r'_1 i ;f - r . '::i i -'s:- ; ru r Z Nr•l- f/ ---- '+1,Y'y M'' c'- L iw,.`i.`1.4:,, z _ l I I-:f- C.1 . Y p i,'.'e Tl'..LII'iE 1. a-- i; ._ i s !.._a ri i te E ji e p} r i'I I i I ryJ , . / ii;:i l y s.. s.-'` a'..ei e _:'.; y 1 ry ,/" r v s = c'^.r+ s;, =; , `': y' s=:+".s -••••i M1 i: 1 u i i I. 'd , { s _ r viI f,•,"'Y_ --:"a, q l 7_': _.' 9 c.,,. 1 1: l'_ v L i'•] •' p 1. a-.•.'i=v ia:is$ t; a`="f;. •:_ ,. ';'` i 1t -=_=_ ,: i _/L.Ir!ar,k.f _8 3 a jfi` =-- .`c,i /t;,-.t P%' i,l r.'1i i".-"-,-_- '_- --- -r i i a :. s K a, I 1e,' k, rn a ..r1 i ffi r; s Ir i E IK-• j t J a, 1{.. 'J ',, I- f f n:.!ea i T! t i' a i J 1' R ` I .. . ;.'., 1 I dS!Li 'IF`j 7 i i L/f L 1l "u-= st;z'-±:.. J -- .i - :`-''=i3 i l i'-i,. riS-s ' i jjj -- w1 i L1 :,9"_ - Fi .e•,-•-;;1_a T 3 ,'.% ' 13° G 4 y i 2 ill. I_ . _ *.,,,,,,-. r 7 r- .\ —_" av'N r r J -r•r. 1.s"" . l r :' e..I i ka/'r I•r1/ i/ III f r;_ f s _ y, ' 3,1' z; •\` ' y1 r_J i 3z:;.,/,.:ry r, ....: e, r y t ' j _ o-_------'^-.__..:.;;`.?3:::i`^ `%i:.•i'7 Yd'/-- "f`s III C 111ygI j i .(_ i.Y l r ._ ,.^ i". . E.i t:;' _ .` i t• '11I.•u-' _ _ ,- 7' C 1 1 y; 4 . I +i/-`{ r,\ I. .i '"' P.1 i'` ` ars - . ii, i. I II ( r_ '.\ • 'd y q, m=i * C -.9.+- 1sawAAi aaP.--^f r- ' . r i• 'c . a`T c __ , cs'. -,.,_ = M lR=•' i a ,yEli..:r _``-,s.,•_ ,rt--. s- il --: -Y - 4T'' ':;;. i .f•,, / 1 f` \r.r,'`_ _ f r ,. .Y}.., q _ -__i sir;;r- '-.,: i. Ty_, --_a d ,-- 1 y TRrI __ _ Ir-r ".''..`.ia.`...,. l- - _ r . •,,:s a y.-" y'"I .Y'' `-}. !•/L9 .f/Se '3N.:_ - cy t6rl a :i.C R,., j+-`-- _ ._.. r. 7- . J-,_r... z. -,f""s`7r.:, _6 ir-T. lYl a`` s%C`• ,7 1, '• ' ',''l d Rr '.-'zs"`I._,_>'d- - r-.. s;T S'^".- _'=. ", i'*(6p:r{i'' 'i, -_. ,l.•....`.4i ri, .' `~ .w -!0'-'+4• o:: r +.a.:¢' dl g-` ,;;,." .z -i. r'''.: /// `I,/' s eaT,' :s•A ! 3', 3 - __, i t, ,, r a 04.0 -;`.'!', r _( 1'`. .y tr— ___ i:-• i. +',`t,',,1'.•,i:i. _ia p a t= L=:,; - . a:=- .. sES. x y% q, e -_:_-_,1'" -- y;'i.r v y:' '°'•''' 'e"' '" 5 1:, J i F°{fw. - 1' .s y°. •. f f,.r:riil ' s arr. - r:.11\ r a ..,_ s id µ s " " y .- 1P6' °'1 1*.' f'}'.i " T.'.. -,iZ e 1' 1„ i a.4 k 'i` _ _ s i 1 11.'y t i tl Jy;; +4 0'/ J A p, 1 r: - :1 q G F! 1 1 \ i, r 9.. l Z •f';' /3{ L:a Y i" . r --..~__-, x f ITd'. - _ , : r 4 l j' ;!,,M." Y! 1yPy ?:%9 r,,c, ..`.- , d S S e avr e,r ` % ? Tib. . rw1, vy a: Y h ep -.3 ' pf_`r s E fi i j L. LIr • 1" rv.•!aY- i e _ r - i ra 41 :r'ri w .;' rti,.aa7,Li4 - :?J,`nn A= a e-,,Y;g •t _...,. I! t .l l s• ]='i .`-,':;!'"' ' 7 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA i i • i 1 , BasinlD Peak Q Peak T Peak Vol Area Method Raintype Event cfs) hrs) ac-ft)ac Loss Exist Basin"1" 2.85 8.00 0.9638 6.54 SBUH/SCS TYPEIA 2 yr Exist Basin"1" 4.24 8.00 1.4509 6.54 SBUH/SCS TYPEIA 10 yr Exist Basin"1" 5.76 8.00 1.9938 6.54 SBUH/SCS TYPEIA 100 yr Exist Basin"2" 3.24 8.00 1.1380 8.53 SBUH/SCS TYPEIA 2 yr Exist Basin"2' S.01 8.00 1.7590 8.53 SBUH/SCS TYPEIA 10 yr Exist Basin"2" 6.97 8.00 2.4577 8.53 SBUH/SCS TYPEIA 100 yr Drainage Area: Exist Basin "1" Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs:0.20 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min Area CN TC Pervious 0.0700 ac 92.00 0.29 hrs Impervious 6.4700 ac 98.00 0.11 hrs Total 6.5400 ac Supporting Data: Pervious CN Data: Vegetation 92.00 0.0700 ac Impervious CN Data: Impervious Paving 98.00 6.4700 ac Pervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Shallow Flow over pavement 200.00 ft 1.10% 27.0000 1.18 min Channel Flow through storm sewer 520.00 ft 0.40% 42.0000 3.26 min Sheet over landscaping 40.00 ft 2.00% 0.4000 13.05 min Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet Flow over paving 200.00 ft 1.10% 0.0110 3.39 min Channel Flow through storm drain 520.00 ft 0.40% 42.0000 3.26 min Drainage Area: Exist Basin "2" Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs:0.20 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min Area C N TC Pervious 2.7500 ac 92.00 0.17 hrs Impervious 5.7800 ac 98.00 0.14 hrs Total 8.5300 ac Supporting Data: Pervious CN Data: Vegetation 92.00 2.7500 ac Impervious CN Data: Impervious Paving 98.00 5.7800 ac Pervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet Flow over grass 10.00 ft 3.00% 0.1300 1.49 min Sheet Flow over pavement 387.00 ft 0.50% 0.0110 7.88 min Channel Flow through storm sewer 120.00 ft 0.40°/a 42.0000 0.75 min Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet Flow over paving 387.00 ft 0.50% 0.0110 7.88 min Channel Flow through storm drain 115.00 ft 0.40% 42.0000 0.72 min PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 31 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA I • • 1 , BasinlD Peak Q Peak T Peak Vol Area Method Raintype Event cfs) hrs) ac-ft) ac oss Basin"A" 1.29 8.00 0.4554 3.33 SBUH/SCS TYPEIA 2 yr Basin'A" 1.97 8.00 0.6993 3.33 SBUH/SCS TYPEIA 10yr Basin"A" 2.35 8.00 0.8360 3.33 SBUH/SCS TYPEIA 25 yr Basin"A' 2.73 8.00 0.9731 3.33 SBUH/SCS TYPEIA 100 yr Basin"B" 1.61 8.00 0.5608 3.92 SBUH/SCS TYPE1A 2 yr Basin"B" 2.42 8.00 0.8507 3.92 SBUH/SCS TYPEIA 10 yr Basin"B" 2.87 8.00 1.0126 3.92 SBUH/SCS TYPEIA 25 yr Basin"B" 3.32 8.00 1.1747 3.92 SBUH/SCS TYPEIA 100 yr Basin'C" 1.19 8.00 0.4518 3.51 SBUH/SCS TYPEIA 2 yr Basin'C' 1.87 8.00 0.7053 3.51 SBUH/SCS TYPEIA 10 yr Basin"C" 2.25 8.00 0.8481 3.51 SBUH/SCS TYPEIA 25 yr Basin"C" 2.62 8.Q0 0.9915 3.51 SBUH/SCS TYPEIA 100 yr Basin"D" 0.45 8.00 0.1543 1.14 SBUH/SCS TYPEIA 2 yr Basin"D" 0.69 8.00 0.2375 1.14 SBUH/SCS TYPEIA 10 yr Basin"D" 0.82 8.00 0.2842 1.14 SBUH/SCS TYPEIA 25 yr Basin"D" 0.95 8.00 0.3311 1.14 SBUH/SCS TYPEIA 100 yr Basin"RooP 1.37 8.00 0.4595 3.11 SBUH/SCS TYPEIA 2 yr Basin'Root" 2.03 8.00 0.6912 3.11 SBUH/SCS TYPEIA 10yr Basin"Roof 2.40 8.00 0.8202 3.11 SBUH/SCS TYPEIA 25 yr Basin"Root" 2.76 8.00 0.9493 3.11 SBUH/SCS TYPEIA 100 yr Drainage Area: Basin "A" I Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs:0.20 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min Area CN TC Pervious 0.8323 ac 92.00 0.17 hrs Impervious 2.5000 ac 98.00 0.16 hrs Total 3.3323 ac Supporting Data: Pervious CN Data: Irrigated Landscaping 92.00 0.8323 ac Impervious CN Data: Impervious Paving 98.00 2.5000 ac Pervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet Flow over grass 15.00 ft 3.00°/a 0.2400 3.28 min Shallow Flow over pavement 190.00 ft 1.00% 27.0000 1.17 min Channel Flow through stormdrain 370.00 ft 0.50% 42.0000 2.08 min Channel Flow through bioswale 200.00 ft 0.50% 17.0000 2.77 min Channel Flow through stormdrain 140.00 ft 0.50% 42.0000 0.79 min Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet Flow over paving 240.00 ft 1.00% 0.0110 3.98 min Channel Flow through storm drain 370.00 ft 0.5o% 42.0000 2.08 min Channel Flow through bioswale 200.00 ft 0.50% 17.0000 2.77 min Channel Flow through storm drain 140.00 ft 0.50% 42.0000 0.79 min Drainage Area: Basin "B" Nyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs:0.20 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min P.CLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 32 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Area CN TC Pervious 0.4200 ac 92.00 0.21 hrs Impervious 3.5000 ac 98.00 0.14 hrs Total 3.9200 ac Supporting Data: Pervious CN Data: Irrigated Landscaping 92.00 0.4200 ac Impervious CN Data: Impervious Paving 98.00 3.5000 ac Pervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff:Travel Time Sheet Flow over grass 14.00 ft 2.00% 0.2400 3.74 min Sheet Flow over pavement 240.00 ft 1.60% 0.0110 3.38 min Channel Flow through storm sewer 321.00 ft 0.50% 42.0000 1.80 min Channel Flow through bioswale 220.00 ft 0.50% 17.0000 3.05 min Channel Flow through storm sewer 64.00 ft 0.50% 42.0000 0.36 min Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff:Travel Time Sheet Flow over paving 240.00 ft 1.60% 0.0110 3.38 min Channel Flow through storm drain 321.00 ft 0.50% 42.0000 1.80 min Channel Flow through bioswale 220.00 ft 0.50% 17.0000 3.05 min Channel Flow through storm drain 64.00 ft 0.50% 42.0000 0.36 min Drainage Area: Basin "C" Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs:0.20 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min Area CN TC Pervious 1.5000 ac 92.00 0.29 hrs Impervious 2.0100 ac 98.00 0.19 hrs Total 3.5100 ac Supporting Data: Pervious CN Data: Irrigated Landscaping 92.00 1.5000 ac Impervious CN Data: Impervious Paving 98.00 2.0100 ac Pervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff:Travel Time Sheet Flow over grass 40.00 ft 2.00% 0.2400 8.67 min Channel Flow through storm sewer 890.00 ft 0.50% 42.0000 4.99 min Channel Flow through bioswale 145.00 ft 0.50% 17.0000 2.01 min Channel Flow through storm sewer 295.00 ft 0.50% 42.0000 1.66 min Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet Flow over paving 130.00 ft 1.00% 0.0110 2.49 min Channel Flow through storm drain 890.00 ft 0.50% 42.0000 4.99 min Channel Flow through bioswale 145.00 ft 0.50% 17.0000 2.01 min Channel Flow through storm drain 295.00 ft 0.50°/a 42.0000 1.66 min PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 33 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Drainage Area: Basin "D" Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs:0.20 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min Area CN TC Pervious 0.3177 ac 92.00 0.18 hrs Impervious 0.8221 ac 98.00 0.10 hrs Total 1.1398 ac Supporting Data: Pervious CN Data: Irrigated Landscaping 92.00 0.3177 ac Impervious CN Data: Impervious Paving 98.00 0.8221 ac Pervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff:Travel Time Sheet Flow over grass 35.00 ft 3.00% 0.2400 6.63 min Shallow Flow over pavement 90.00 ft 1.00% 27.0000 0.56 min Channel Flow through stormdrain 210.00 ft 0.50% 42.0000 1.18 min Channel Flow through bioswale 140.00 ft 0.50% 17.0000 1.94 min Channel Flow through stormdrain 110.00 ft 0.50% 42.0000 0.62 min Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet Flow over paving 150.00 ft 2.00% 0.0110 2.12 min Channel Flow through storm drain 210.00 ft 0.50% 42.0000 1.18 min Channel Flow through bioswale 140.00 ft 0.50% 17.0000 1.94 min Channel Flow through storm drain 150.00 ft 0.50% 42.0000 0.84 min Drainage Area: Basin "Roof' Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs:0.20 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min Area CN TC Pervious 0.0000 ac 86.00 0.00 hrs Impervious 3.1080 ac 98.00 0.10 hrs Total 3.1080 ac Supporting Data: Impervious CN Data: Roof 98.00 3.1080 ac Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet Flow over roof 360.00 ft 2.00% 0.0110 4.27 min Channel Flow through storm drain 240.00 ft 0.40% 42.0000 1.51 min PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 34 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton,WA Developed Basin A" — Biofiltration swale Design (KC-SWDM) Project name: Renton Proposed Sam's Club#4835-00 Date:09/03/02 Project number: 19990I0.008 Designer: RDP SwaleDesignation: DevelopedBasin "A" Q1o0-yr,24-hr: 2J3 cfs If high flows flow through Q25-yr,24hr: O CfS If high flows bypass Qwq(2-yr,24-hr): 1.29 cfs Water quality design flow Will high flow flow through?(Yes or no) enter"y"or"n" Manning's roughness coeff(naq):0.35 KC-SWDM Design flow depth(y): 0.66 ft 0.66'for a wetland seed mis KC SWDM Longitudinal slope along flow(s): 0.02 1%-6%<1.5%underdrains are req'd KC SWDM 6.3.1.2 Side slope(: 3.0 H:1V 3H:1V max,>3:1 reinforced grass,>1:1 rockery(max 2') Swale bottom width(b): d3 ft Ok b = (Qti+q*n„g)/(1.49*(y^1.67)*(s^O..i)) Cross sectional area(Awq): 4.1 sf A wy =b*y+Zy^2 Design flow velocity(vWq): Q fps <1.Ofps maz; Ok v,q =Q wq/A wq Min.Hydraulic residence time: 540 s KC SWDM 63.1.1 step 4 Min.swale length(L): 68 ft >100';Ok L =40*v Swale layout adjustment-Calc top area and ro ide e ui lent area.KC SWDM 6.3.1.1 step 5 Top width above sides(bslo): 4A ft b slope =2*Z*y Top azea(Acop): wu,, „sf fl top = ro f tb slope L i Revised bottom width(bf): 5 ft Enter new width Revised swale length(Lc):155 fr >100';Ok New Q2-yr flow depth(y): 0.60 fr i y=((Qwq*nwq)/1.49*(s^D.S)*b)^3/5 Cross sectional azea(Awq): l sf A wq =b*y+Zy^2 Design flow velocity(vwq): Y fps <1.Ofps maz; Ok v,.n =Q wq/A wq Conveyance capacity for flows>Qwq Manning's roughness coeff(nc): 0.35 KC SWDM Design Flow(Q25-yr or Q100-yr): 2.73 cfs Q100-yr Depth of 25-yr or 100-yr flows(yc): 0.94 ft yc = (Q*nc/(1.49*(s^0.5)*b))^(3/S) Cross sectional area(Ac):7.38 sf A =b*y+Z*y^2 Hydraulic radius(Rc): 0.67 R c =A c/(b+2'y c*((Z^2)+1)^0.S) Flow capacity(Qc): cfs >Qdesign; Ok Q c = (1.49/n c)*A c*(R c^0.67)*(s^0.S) High flow velocity(VloO): f:.w..: _. fps <5 fps; design Ok V1oo =Qroo/A PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 35 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Developed Basin "B" — Biofiltration swale Design (KGSWDM) Project name: Renton Proposed Sam's Club#d835-00 Date:09/03/02 Project number: 1999010.008 Designer: RDP Swale Designation: Developed Basin "B" Qtoo-yr,z4-tv: 331 cfs If high flows flow through Q25-yr,2a-t,r: 0 cfs If high flows bypass Qwy(2-yr,24hr): 1.61 cfs Water quality design flow Will high flow flow through?(Yes or no) enter"y" or"n" Manning's roughness coeff(n):0.35 KGSWDM Design flow depth(y): 0.66 ft 0.66'for a wetland seed mix KC SWDM Longitudinal slope along flow(s): 0.02 1%-6%<1.5%underdrains are req'd KC SWDv16.3.1.2 Side slope(Z): 3.0 H:1 V 3H:1 V max,>3:1 reinforced grass,>1:1 rockery(max 2') Swale bottom width(b): 5.4 ft Ok b =(Q wq*n„q)/(1.49*(y^l.67)*(s^0.S)) Cross sectional area(Awq): 8 sf A wy =b*y+Zy^2 Design flow velocity(vwq):fps <1.Ofps maz; Ok v..q =Q wq/A wq Min.Hydraulic residence time: 540 s KC SWDM 63.1.1 step 4 Min. swale length(L): d ft >100;Ok L =540'v„ Swale layout adjustment-Calc top area and rovide e uivilent area.KC SWDM 6.3.1.1 step 5 Top width above sides(bstope): s 4:0 ft b slope =2*Z*y Top area(Acop): sf A top =(b f+b s ope)L r' Revised bottom width(bf): 4 ft Enter new width Revised swale length(Lf):210 ft >100';Ok New Q2-yr flow depth(y): 0.79 ft y=((Qwq*nwc/1.49*(s^0.5)'b)^3/S Cross sectional area(Awq):5.0 sf A wq =b#y+Zy^2 Design flow velocity(vwq): fps <1.Ofps maz; Ok v,y =Q wq/A wq Conveyance capacity for flows>Qwy Manning's roughness coeff(nc): 0.35 KC SWDM 6.3.1.1 or 4.4.1.2 Design Flow(Q25-yr or Q100-yr): 3.31 cfs Q100-yr Depth of 25-yr or 100-yr flows(yc): 1.2 T fr yc =(Q*nc/(1.49*(s^0.5)*b))^(3/5) Cross secrional azea(Ac):9.24 sf Ac =b*yc+Z*yc^2 Hydraulic radius(R): Q_7 R =A/(b+2*y*((Z^2)+1)^0.5) Flow capacity(Qc): cfs >Qdesign; Ok Qc = (1.49/ncJ*Ac'(Rc^0.67)*(s^0.) High flow velocity(Vtoo):1 fps <5 fps; design Ok Ytoo = Q too/A PACLAND Project 1999010.008 Page 36 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Developed Basin "C" — Biofiltration swale Design (KGSWDM) I Project name: Renton Proposed Sam's Club#4835-00 Date:09/03/02 Project number: 1999010.008 Designer: RDP Swale Designation: Developed Basin "C" Qtoo-yr,24-hr: 2.62 cfs If high flows flow through Q25-yr,24-hr. 0 cfs If high flows bypass Qwq(2-yr,24-hr): 1.19 cfs Water quality design flow Will high flow flow through?(Yes or no) enter"y"or"n" Manning'sroughnesscoeff(nwq):0.35 KGSWDM Design flow depth(y): 0.66 ft 0.66'for a wetland seed mix KC SWDti1 Longitudinal slope along flow(s): 0.02 1%-6%<1.5%underdrains aze req'd KC SWDM 6.3.1.2 Side slope(Z): 3.0 H:1V 3H:1V max,>3:1 reinforced grass,>1:1 rockery(max 2') Swale bottom width(b): 0 ft Ok b= (Q wq*n„g)/(1.49*(y"1.67)*(s^0.S)) Cross sectional area(Awq):3.9 sf A wq =b*y+Zy^2 Design flow velociry(vwq): l1-30:fps <1.Ofps mas; Ok v,q =Qwq/A wq Min.Hydraulic residence time: 540 s KC SWDM 63.1.1 step 4 Min. swale length(L): I64 ft >100';Ok L =540*v„g Swale layout adjustment-Calc top area and ro-ide e ui ilent area.KC SWDM 6.3.1.1 step 5 Top width above sides(bstope): 4A ft b s[ope =2*Z*y Top area(Acop): sf A top = (b f+b slope)L; Revised bottom width(bf): 6 ft Eoter new width Revised swale length(Lf): 13d ft >100';Ok New Q2-yr flow depth(y): 0.51 ft y = ((Qwq*nw/1.49*(s^0.5)*b)^3/S Cross sectional area(Awq): 3 9 sf A wy =b*y+Zy^2 Design flow velocity(vwy): 03I fps <1.Ofps maz; Ok v,.y =Q wq/A wq Conveyance capacity for flows>Qwq Manning's roughness coeff(nc): 0.;5 KC SWDM 6.3.1.1 or 4.4.1.2 Design Flow(Q25-yr or Q 100-yr): 2.62 cfs Q 100-yr Depth of 25-yr or 100-yr flows(yc): 0.82 ft yc = (Q*nc/(1.49*(s^0.5)*b))^(3/5) Cross sectional azea(Ac): Si 9 sf A =b*y+z*y^2 Hydraulic radius(Rc): 0.62 Rc =Ac/+Z*Y*2)+1)^0.5) Flow capacity(Qc): s.,4,cfs >Qdesign; Ok Q c = (1.49/n c)*f1 c*(R c^0.67)*(s^0.S) High flow velocity(V1oo):fps <5 fps; design Ok Vloo = Q1o0/Ac PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 37 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton,WA Developed Basin "D" — Biofiltration swale Design (KC-SWDM) Project name: Renton Proposed Sam's Club#4835-00 Date:09/03/02 Project number: I999010.008 Designer: RDP Swa[e Designation: Developed Basin "D" Q100.yr,24hr: 0.95 cfs If high flows flow through Qz5-yr,24-hr: 0 cfs If high flows bypass Qwq(2-yr,za-hr): 0.45 cfs Water quality design flow Will high flow flow through?(Yes or no) enter"y"or"n" Manning's roughness coeff(nwy):0.35 KGSWDM Design flow depth(y): 0.66 ft 0.66'for a wetland seed mix KC SWDM Longitudinal slope along flow(s): 0.02 1%-6%<1.5%underdrains are req'd KC SWDM 6.3.1.2 Side slope(Z): 3.0 H:1V 3H:1V max,>3:1 reinforced grass,>1:1 rockery(max 2') Swale bottom width(b): ft <2';Swale layout adjustment req'd b =(Q wq*n„)/(1.49*(y"1.67)*(s^0.S)) Cross sectional area(Awq): 2.3 sf A wy =b*y+Zy^2 Design flow velocity(vaq): ei1:Z0 fps <1.Ofps maz;Ok v,y =Qwq l wq Min.Hydraulic residence time: 540 s KC SWDM 63.1.1 step 4 i 1in.swale length(L): b6 ft >100';Ok L =540*v Swale lavout adjustment-Calc top area and ro de e uivilent area.KC SWDM 63.1.1 step 5 Top width above sides(bslope): 4.0 ft b slope =2*Z*y Top azea(Acop): sf A top =(b f+b slape)L i Revised bottom width(bf): 4 ft Enter new width Revised swale length(Li j: 100 ft Calc length<100'rounded up to 100' New Q2-yr flow depth(y): 0.37 ft Y—(('4*nwq)/1.49"(s^0.1*h^3i Cross sectional area(Awq):1.9 sf A wq =b*y+Zy^2 Design flow velocity(vwq):4,24 fps <1.Ofps maz; Ok v Hq =Q wq/A wq Conveyance capacity for flows>Qwq Manning's roughness coeff(nc): 0.35 KC SWDM 6.3.1.1 or 4.4.1.2 Design Flow(Q25-yr or Q100-yr): Q.95 cfs Q100-yr Depth of 25-yr or 100-yr flows(yc): 0.57 ft yc =(Q*n c/(1.49*(s^0.5*b))^(3i5j Cross sectional area(Ac): 3.27 sf Ac =b*yc+Z*yc^2 Hydraulic radius(Rc): 0:43 R c =A c/(b+2*y c#((Z^2)+1)^0.5% Flow capaciry(Qc): 1.12 cfs >Qdesign; Ok Qc = (1.49/nc)*Ac*(Rc^0.67)*(s^O.i High flow velociry(V1oo): w.,:,Q fps <5 fps; design Ok Vtoo = Q oo/A PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 38 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Basin "Roof" - Detention Pipe Design Running S:1WashingtonlRenton\grimeslGRADY WY-SR 515 (RNG3)14ReportslStorm102-10-24 PermitlStormShed\Basin-roof.pgm on Tuesday, January 07, 2003 Project Precips 2 yr]2.00 in 10 yr] 2.90 in 25 yr] 3.40 in 50 yr] 3.40 in 100 yr] 3.90 in Event Summary BasinlD Peak Q Peak T Peak Vol Area Method Raintype Event cfs) hrs) ac-ft)ac Loss Basin'RooP'1.3693 8.00 0.4595 3.11 SBUH/SCS TYPEIA 2 yr Basin"RooP' 2.3987 8.00 0.8202 3.11 SBUH/SCS TYPEIA 25 yr Basin"RooP' 2.7633 8.00 0.9493 3.11 SBUH/SCS TYPEIA 100 yr Basin Definition Drainage Area: Basin "Roof' Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs:020 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min Area CN TC Pervious 0.0000 ac 86.00 0.00 hrs Impervious 3.1080 ac 98.00 0.10 hrs Total 3.1080 ac Supporting Data: Impervious CN Data: Roof 98.00 3.1080 ac Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet Flow over roof 360.00 ft 2.00% 0.0110 4.27 min Channel Flow through storm drain 240.00 ft 0.40% 42.0000 1.51 min Sforaqe Structure Definition I Node ID: Roof Detention -48" Pipe Desc: Roof Detention in 48"Pipes Start EI: 27.8000 ft Max EI: 34.0500 ft Contrib Basin: Contrib Hyd: Length Diam Slope UpNode DnNode Num 450.0000 ft 4.0000 ft 0.50 % 1 Outlet Structure Definition Control Structure ID: Roof Detention Riser - Multiple Orifice Structure Descrip: Multiple Orifice for the roof detention pipe Start EI Max EI Increment 27.8000 ft 37.0000 ft 0.10 Orif Coeff: 0.62 Bottom EI: 25.80 ft Lowest Diam: 3.5000 in out to 2nd: 2.7500 ft Diam: 4.0000 in PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 39 Sam's Club #4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA RLPooI Node De nition Node ID: Roof Detention -48" RLP Desc: RLP node for Roof Detention Pipes Start EI: 29.0000 ft Max EI: 33.5000 ft Contrib Basin: Contrib Hyd: Storage Id: Roof Detention -48" Pipe Discharge Id: Roof Detention Riser Routin_q lnformation 2 yr Match Q:0.5930 cfs Peak Out Q:0.5508 cfs-Peak Stg:30.55 ft-Active Vol:2283.75 cf-Pipe length:450.00 ft 25 yr Match Q: 1.2927 cfs Peak Out Q:1.2443 cfs-Peak Stg:32.16 ft-Active Vol:0.10 acft-Pipe length:450.00 ft 100 yr Match Q: 1.5473 cfs Peak Out Q:1.4518 cfs-Peak Stg:33.07 ft-Active Vol:0.12 acft-Pipe length:450.00 k Outflow HvdroQraph lnformation HydID Peak Q Peak T Peak Vol Cont Area cfs) hrs) ac-ft) ac) Basin"RooP-2yr out 0.55 8.67 0.4594 3.1080 Basin"Roof-25yr out 1.24 8.33 0.8201 3.1080 Basin"Roof-100yr out 1.45 8.33 0.9496 3.1080 PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 40 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Existing Concrete Paved Ditch (Aqueduct) Replacement Calculations Runoff Peak Analysis With the help of the City of Renton Utility Systems Division - Surface Water section, the basin draining into the existing aqueduct from the existing 48" concrete culvert was delineated as shown in attached Figure A7. This 406.3 acre basin covers two types of residential zoning whose surface properties where determined as follows: R-8 (8 dwelling units/acre): The area was assumed to be 60°/o impervious surfaces. This was because large tracts of the area are still undeveloped) RM-1 (Residentia! Family lnfi!): The actual amount of impervious surface was measured. As this area is fully developed) Using this data and the model parameters listed in the Hydrologic Modeling Method discussed above, the 25-year and 100-year peak flow was calculated making the following assumptions for the surface properties. Curve Number for Impervious Surfaces: CN = 98 Curve Number for Pervious Surfaces: CN = 90 (SCS="C" type soils) As listed in the following calculations, the 100-year, 24-hour event peak was determined to be 163.07 CFS for the existing 48" concrete culvert. In addition, an 18" concrete storm drain that is believed to carry groundwater also discharges into the existing concrete aqueduct. As groundwater flows are notoriously difficult to estimate, a conservative approach was used adding the full flow capacity of this 18" pipe to the 100-year, 24-hour surface water flow. Slope of 18" pipe = 16.65°/0 Capacity of 18" pipe = 46.52 CFS Total offsite flow (100-year event) = 163.07 CFS + 46.52 CFS = 209.59 CFS Conveyance As the existing aqueduct is undersized in a couple of areas, the new aqueduct has been sized with a 4' width x 4' depth cross section at a 1.05% bottom slope. These geometric properties give the new aqueduct the ability to convey the 209.59 CFS of the 100-year event with --0.5 foot of freeboard, utilizing Manning's roughness coefficient of n=0.012. PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 41 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Calculation Summary Basin Upstream Event Summary: BasinlD Peak Q Peak T Peak Vol Area Method Raintype Event cfs} hrs) ac-ft)ac oss Basin Upstream 138.17 8.50 93.6079 406.28 SBUH/SCS TYPEIA 25 yr Basin Upstream 163.07 8.17 110.1683 406.28 SBUH/SCS TYPE1A 100 yr Drainage Area: Basin Upstream Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs:0.20 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min Area CN TC Pervious 0.0000 ac 92.00 0.00 hrs Impervious 406.2800 ac 94.26 1.28 hrs Total 406.2800 ac Supporting Data: Impervious CN Data: RM-I Zoning (impervious)SCS ="C" 98.00 31.1800 ac RM-I Zoning (pervious)SCS ="C" 90.00 66.3300 ac R-8 Zoning (8 units/acre)40% per 90.00 123.5100 ac R-8 Zoning (8 units/acre)60% imper 98.00 185.2600 ac Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff:Travel Time Sheet Flow over grass 300.00 ft 1.20% 0.1500 36.61 min Shallow Flow over grass 257.00 ft 1.20% 11.0000 3.55 min Shallow Flow over grass 147.00 ft 3.31% 11.0000 1.22 min Shallow Flow over grass 328.00 ft 0.61% 11.0000 6.36 min Shallow Flow over grass 1115.00 ft 4.57% 11.0000 7.90 min Shallow Flow over grass 255.00 ft 10.55°/a 11.0000 1.19 min Channel Vegitative stream 2341.00 ft 3.93% 10.0000 19.68 min PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 42 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton,WA Convayance Calculafion Summary i Solve For Depth of Flow r Critical Depth Check F t Flowrate cfs 209.5900 i Slope ftlft 0.0105 Select Manning's n 0.0120 Select 4_._- , Flow Depth ft 3.5129 i i ------- Height ft 4.0000 Velocity fps 14.9157 Area ft2 16.0000 Bottom Width ft 4.0000 Perimeter ft 12.000 Wet Area ft2 14.0517 Wet Perim ft 11.0258 i Hyd.Fiadius ft 1.274A Top Width ft 4.0000 Percent Full 0 87.8228 Crit cal................. Output Plot Rating K Cancel Help PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 43 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA I i The Temporary Sediment Ponds "A", °B" and "C" where sized to handle a 2-yr, 24-hour event using the KC-SWDM requirements. Each pond was located to treat runoff from the following areas as summarized in the table below. Temporary Sediment Pond Summary Temporary Drainage Basins I 2-yr Combined Water Top of Bottom Orifice Sediment Events 2-yr event Surface bank Dim. Dim.Size Pond Dim. A" A-1.29 cfs, D-0.45 cfs 1.74 cfs 90' x 30' 102' x 42' 69' x 9' 1.75" Bn g-1.61 cfs 1.61 cfs 100' x 33' 112' x 45' 79' x 12' 2.00" C" C-1.19 cfs, Roof-1.37 cfs 2.56 cfs 126' x 42' 138' x 54' 105' x 21' 2.50" The required surface area of the pond is indicated in the table above by the Water Surface Dimensions. This area is located 3.5 feet above the bottom of the pond and is the minimum required surface area to treat the runoff. The Top of Bank Dimension is the required surface area at the top of the pond bank located 2 feet above the water surface elevation with a 3:1 bank slope. Calculations for these areas are shown below. PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 44 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Temporary Silt Pond "A" Design (KC-SWDM) Project name: Renton Proposed Sam's Club#4835-00 Date: January 8, 2003 Project number: 1999010.008 Designer: RDP Pond Title: Temporary Silt Pond"A" SEDIMENTATION POND CALCULATIONS References: King County Washington Surface Water Design Manual, 1998, Appendix D, Sec Pond Requirements: -Design Flow Peak discharge from a pre-developed 2-yr, 24hr storm (p.D-28) Max.slope 3:1 (p.D-28) Length-tawidth ratio a 3:1 to 6:1 (p.D-28) Pond to be divided into two equal cells by a permeable divider(p.D-29) Min. pond depth = 3.5ft(top of riser to bottom of pond), plus 1ft freeboard Assumptions: Settling velocity of 0.00096 ft/s Sediment Pond Sizing: Qwq(2-yr, 24-hr): 1.290 cfs Pre-dev storm design flow (10-yr optional) Pond Surface Area = 5 sf SA= 2 x Qwq/0.00096 Settling Depth = 2.00 ft Min.s 2ft(2-4feet range) Sediment Storage Depth = 1.5 ft 1.5ft Recommended Depth Length-to-width ratio =3 :1 Between 3:1 to 6:1 Top Dimensions Length= 90 ft Width= 30 ft Bottom Dimensions Length= 6g ft Using Max. slope 3:1 Width=9 tt Using Max.slope 3:1 Pond bottom wid[h is greater then 10 feet,proceed to Top Area Adjusted Top Dimensions Length= tt Width= ft Adjusted Bottom Dimensions Length= l ft Using Max. slope 3:1 Width= A ft Using Max.slope 3:1 Top Area = 2688 sf Bottom Area=300 sf Sediment Storage Volume= 1185 cf Total Volume= 5228 cf Sizing of Discharge Mechanisms Dewatering Time 24 hrs 24 Hours (typ.) Area of dewatering office= sf Ao=Asx(2xh)"0.5/(0.6x3600xTx'0.5) Diameter of dewatering office = 1.83 in. Round number to closest 0.25" D s 24x(Ao13.14)"0.5 Diameter of the perforated tubing =3.83 in. Round number up to closest 0.50" Dp=D+2 PACLAN D Project# 1999010.008 Page 45 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Temporary Silt Pond "B" Design (KC-SWDM) Project name: Renfon Proposed Sam's Gub#4835-00 Date: January 8, 2003 Project number: 1999010.Oa8 Designer: RDP Pond Title: Temporary Silt Pond"B" SEDIMENTATION POND CALCULATIONS References: King County Washington Surface Water Design Manual, 1998, Appendix D, Sec Pond Requirements: -Design Flow — Peak discharge from a pre-developed 2-yr, 24hr storm (p.D-28) Max. slope 3:1 (p.D-28) Length-to-width ratio — 3:1 to 6:1 (p.D-28) Pond to be divided into two equal cells by a permeable divider(p.D-29) Min. pond depth 3.Sft(top of riser to bottom of pond), plus 1ft freeboard Assumptions: Settling velocity of 0.00096 ft/s Sediment Pond Sizing: Qwq(2-yr, 24-hr): 1.61 cfs Pre-dev storm design flow (10-yr optional) Pond Surface Area — sf SA— 2 x Qwq/0.00096 Settling Depth = 2.00 ft Min.—2ft(2-4feet range) Sediment Storage Depth = 1.5 ft 1.Sft Recommended Depth Length-to-width ratio 3 :1 Between 3:1 to 6:1 Top Dimensions Length— 100 rt Width= 33 rt Bottom Dimensions Length= 79 ft Using Max. slope 3:1 Width= 12 tt Using Max. slope 3:1 Pond bot[om width is grea[er then 10 fee[, proceed to Top Area Adjusted Top Dimensions Length= ft Width= ft Adjusted Bottom Dimensions Length= rt Using Max. slope 3:1 Width=rt Using Max. slope 3:1 Top Area = 3354 sf Bottom Area=986 sf Sediment Storage Volume= 2135 cf Total Volume= 7596 cf Sizing of Discharge Mechanisms Dewatering Time 24 hrs 24 Hours (typ.) Area of dewatering office= sf Ao Asx(2xh)"0.5/(0.6x3600xTx'0.5) Diameter of dewatering office = in. Round number to closest 0.25" D=24x(Ao/3.l 4)"0.5 Diameter of the perforated tubing = 4:i in. Round number up to closest 0.50" Dp=D+2 PACLAN D Project# 1999010.008 Page 46 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Temporary Silt Pond "C" Design (KC-SWDM) Project name: Renton Proposed Sam`s Gub#4835-00 Date: january 8, 2003 Project number: 1999010.008 Designer: RDP Pond Title: Temporary Silt Pond "C" SEDIMENTATION POND CALCULATIONS References: King County Washington Surface Water Design Manual, 1998,Appendix D, Sec Pond Requirements: -Design Flow = Peak discharge from a pre-developed 2-yr, 24hr storm (p.D-28) Max. slope 3:1 (p.D-28) Length-to-width ratio = 3:1 to 6:1 (p.D-28) Pond to be divided into two equal cells by a permeable divider(p.D-29) vtin. pond depth = 3.5ft(top of riser to bottom of pond), plus 1 ft freeboard Assumptions: Settling velocity of 0.00096 ft/s Sediment Pond Sizing: Qwq{2-yr, 24hr): 2.56 cfs Pre-dev storm design flow (10-yr optional) Pond Surface Area = sf SA= 2 x Qwq/0.00096 Settling Depth = 2.00 ft Min.=2ft(2-4feet range) Sediment Storage Depth = 1.5 ft 1.5ft Recommended Depth Length-to-width ratio = 3 :1 Between 3:1 to 6:1 Top Dimensions Length= 126 tt Width= 42 tt Bottom Dimensions Length= 105 rt Using Max. slope 3:1 Width= 21 ft Using Max. slope 3:1 Pond bottom width is greater then 10 feet, proceed to Top Area Adjusted Top Dimensions Length= tt Width a ft Adjusted Bottom Dimensions Length= ft Using Max. slope 3:1 Width=ft Using Max. slope 3:1 Top Area = 5333 sf Bottom Area= 2233 sf Sediment Storage Volume= 4106 cf Total Volume= 13240 cf Sizing of Discharge Mechanisms Dewatering Time 24 hrs 24 Hours (typ.) Area of dewatering office= sf Ao a Asx(2xh)"0.5/{0.6x3600xTx'0.5) Diameter of dewatering office =2.58 in. Round number to closest 0.25" D 24x(Ao/3.14)"0.5 Diameter of the perforated tubing = - ,;._4,5$ in. Round number up to closest 0.50" Dp=D+2 PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 47 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA i • i The "South" Basin Layout Report: South Side Project Precips 2 yrj 2.00 in 10 yr] 3.40 in 25 yr] 3.40 in 100 yr] 3.90 in 6 mo] 1.27 in ROUTEHYD []THRU [South Side] USING TYPE1A AND [100 yr] NOTZERO RELATIVE Reach Area Flow Full Q % Full nDepth Size nVel fVel CBasin/ Hyd ac cfs cfs ratio ft ftls ftls ---_______ SD#16 0.2326 0.1884 2.7366 0.07 0.1777 12"Diam 1.9963 3.4843 CB-B#16 SD#15 0.3653 0.3099 2.7366 0.11 0.2272 12"Diam 2.3105 3.4843 CB-B#15 SD#18 0.3534 0.3264 2.7366 0.12 0.2332 12"Diam 2.3451 3.4843 CB-B#18 SD#17 0.5129 0.4786 2.7366 0.17 0.2830 12"Diam 2.6189 3.4843 CB-B#17 SD#14 0.9531 0.8598 2.7366 0.31 0.3850 12"Diam 3.0844 3.4843 CB-B#14 SD#13 1.1320 1.0279 2.7366 0.38 0.4247 12"Diam 3.2359 3.4843 CB-B#11 Bio"D" 1.1320 1.0279 - 1.00 0.2209 Ditch 0.9979 - SD#12 1.5410 1.3664 2.7366 0.50 0.4996 12"Diam 3.4831 3.4843 CB-B#12 SD#11 1.7199 1.5346 2.7366 0.56 0.5355 12"Diam 3.5839 3.4843 CB-B#11 Curb-E Ditch 0.7700 0.6859 - 1.00 0.1105 Ditch 1.1639 - Curb Out-E Curb-W Ditch 1.0500 0.9465 - 1.00 0.1337 Ditch 1.3105 - Curb Out-W SD#06 0.3500 0.3327 7.0304 0.05 0.1481 12"Diam 4.5885 8.9513 CB-B#O6 SD#08 0.2970 0.2741 2.7366 0.10 0.2137 12"Diam 2.2289 3.4843 CB-B#08 SD#09 0.7210 0.6037 2.7366 0.22 0.3192 12"Diam 2.7966 3.4843 CB-B#09 SD#07 1.0880 0.9266 2.7366 0.34 0.4011 12"Diam 3.1473 3.4843 CB-B#07 SD#03 1.5804 1.3948 3.3516 0.42 0.4498 12"Diam 4.0718 4.2674 CB-B#03 Bio'A" 2.6304 2.3413 - 1.00 0.2854 Ditch 1.1967 - SD#58 3.1504 2.6735 2.7366 0.98 0.7996 12"Diam 3.9712 3.4843 CB-B#58 Ex.SD#A 4.8703 4.2081 1.2238 3.44 -1.0000 12"Diam 3.4385 1.5582 Rch App Bend Junct HW Max EU Loss Head Loss Loss Elev Rim EI From Node To Node ft R ft ft R ft Ex.CB-N-A 30.6000 CB-N#62 Ex.CB-N-A 31.6469 0.1799 0.1150 0.0670 31.6489 34.0000 CB-N#11 CB-N#62 31.8290 0.0470 0.0145 31.7965 32.7000 CB-N#12 CB-N#11 31.9331 0.0000 0.0000 31.9331 33.0000 CB-N#59 CB-N#12 30.0638 0.1626 0.0048 29.9061 34.0000 CB-N#13 CB-N#59 30.1016 0.1477 0.0019 29.9558 36.5000 CB-N#14 CB-N#13 30.2420 0.1065 0.0434 0.0434 30.2223 36.1000 CB-N#15 CB-N#14 30.3091 0.0619 0.0179 30.2651 35.5000 CB-N#16 CB-N#15 30.8706 - 30.8706 35.7000 CB-N#17 CB-N#14 30.3906 0.0854 0.0350 30.3402 36.0000 CB-N#18 CB-N#17 30.8178 - 30.8178 36.0000 CB-N#58 CB-N#62 31.9665 0.0001 0.0001 31.9664 32.0000 CB-N#02 CB-N#58 30.2350 0.2574 0.0068 0.1087 30.0931 33.0000 Curb-W CB-N#02 1.1257 0.0001 0.0001 1.1257 35.5000 Curb-E Curb-W 0.2645 0.2645 35.5000 ICB-N#03 CB-N#02 31.5230 0.1538 0.0012 0.0393 31.4098 33.8000 CB-N#O6 CB-N#03 31.5070 -- 31.5070 33.8000 CB-N#07 CB-N#03 31.7660 0.1214 0.0006 0.0376 31.6827 34.4000 CB-N#08 CB-N#07 31.7990 - 31.7990 34.3000 CB-N#09 CB-N#07 32.3438 -- 32.3438 34.4000 PACLAND Project 1999010.008 Page 48 CB-N#15 CB-N#16 fl Ji r.r1,'- e lJ . C B-N#12 C B-N ty 3 CB-N#59 Bin - - l S 1 CB- 1 CB-N#17 CB-N#18 D l 7 ts2 Curb-1N Curh-E Ex. CB-N- r tr-EQi h _ ; 58 I Curb-'r+hl Ditch B-N#58 B{ a2 CB-N#03 CB-N##U7 CB-N#09 B_i o SD O6 SD 0$ C -N#06 C -M#08 3U.265 ft 30.8 1 ft r-- s 31 .933 ft 29.956 ft 30.2 29.906 ft 1..3_rfs, _ _ 1 1 . fs 0. cfs 30 818 ft 31.7 ft 3U.340 ft 1 .5 cfs 49 ft 1.126 ft U.264 ft 30.60p ft Il.6 f _ . - cfs 0.95 cfs 966 ft 31.4 0 ft 31.683 ft 32.34A ft 30.0 3 ft 2.3Qcfs 0.3 cf 0.2 cfs 31 507 ft 3 799 ft F F 4 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Reach Records Reach ID: Bio "A" Section Properties: Shape: Ditch Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By Conc-Steel Form 0.0350 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss 200.0000 ft 0.50 % Width Bank Hgt ss1 ss2 6.0000 ft 2.0000 ft 3.00h:1 v 3.00h:1 v Up Node Dn Node Up Invert Dn Invert CB-N#02 CB-N#58 29.3000 ft 28.3000 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft In/Exfil Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 in/hr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary: Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth 2.6304 ac 2.3413 cf 2.3413 cf 1.1967 ft/s 0.2854 ft Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TW 0.000000 ft 0.000000 ft 0.000000 ft 31.9664 ft Reach ID: Bio "D" Section Properties: Shape: Ditch Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By Conc-Steel Form 0.0350 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss 140.0000 ft 0.50 % Width Bank Hgt ss1 ss2 4.0000 ft 2.0000 ft 3.00h:1 v 3.00h:1 v Up Node Dn Node Up Invert Dn Invert CB-N#59 CB-N#12 29.4500 ft 28.7500 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft In/E I Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 in/hr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary: Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth 1.1320 ac 1.0279 cf 1.0279 cf 0.9979 ft/s 0.2209 ft Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TVV 0.000000 ft O.Qa0000 ft 0.000000 ft 31.9331 ft Reach ID: Curb-E Ditch Section Properties: Shape: Ditch Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By Conc-Steel Form 0.0350 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss 22.0000 ft 1.54 % Width Bank Hgt ss1 ss2 5.0000 ft 1.0000 ft 3.00h:1 v 3.00h:1 v PACLAND Project ,# 1999010.008 Page 49 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Up Node Dn Node Up Invert Dn Invert Curb-E Curb-W 0.0000 ft 0.0000 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft In/Exfil Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 in/hr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary: Trib Area Flow Capaciry Velocity Normal Depth 0.7700 ac 0.6859 cf 0.6859 cf 1.1639 ft/s 0.1105 ft Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TW 0.000000 ft 0.000000 ft 0.000000 ft 1.1257 ft Reach ID: Curb-W Ditch Section Properties: Shape: Ditch Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By Conc-Steel Form 0.0350 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss 160.0000 ft 1.54 % Width Bank Hgt ss1 ss2 5.0000 ft 1.0000 ft 3.00h:1 v 3.00h:1 v Up Node Dn Node Up Invert Dn Invert i Curb-W CB-N#02 0.0000 ft 0.0000 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft In/Exfil Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 in/hr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary: Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth 1.0500 ac 0.9465 cf 0.9465 cf 1.3105 ft/s 0.1337 ft Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TVN 0.000000 ft 0.000000 ft 0.000000 ft 30.0931 ft Reach ID: Ex. SD#A Section Properties: Shape: Circular Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By 12" Diam Conc-Steel Form 0.0120 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss 32.0000 ft 0.10 % Square Edge w/Headwall Diam 1.0000 ft Up Node Dn Node Up Invert Dn Invert CB-N#62 Ex. CB-N-A 28.2000 ft 28.1680 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft In/Exfil Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 in/hr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary: Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth 4.8703 ac 4.2081 cf 1.2238 cf 3.4385 ft/s -1.0000 ft Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TUV PACLAN D Project# 1999010.008 Page 50 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA 0.222881 ft 0.445762 ft 0.378233 ft 30.6000 ft comment:Hydrograph not shifted, 5.33 min forwarded.Submerged or overtop bank condition. Reach ID: SD#03 Section Properties: Shape: Circular Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By 12" Diam Conc-Steel Form 0.0120 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss 205.0000 ft 0.75 % Square Edge w/Headwall Diam 1.0000 ft Up Node Dn Node Up Invert Dn Invert CB-N#03 CB-N#02 30.8000 ft 29.2625 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft In/Exfil Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 in/hr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary: Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth 1.5804 ac 1.3948 cf 3.3516 cf 4.0718 ft/s 0.4498 ft Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TW 0.128721 ft 0.257442 ft 0.266203 ft 30.0931 ft Reach ID: SD#06 Section Properties: Shape: Circular Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By 12" Diam Conc-Steel Form 0.0120 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss 12.0000 ft 3.30 % Square Edge w/Headwall Diam 1.0000 ft Up Node Dn Node Up Invert Dn Invert CB-N#06 CB-N#03 31.2000 ft 30.8040 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft In/Exfil Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 in/hr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary: Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth 0.3500 ac 0.3327 cf 7.0304 cf 4.5885 ft/s 0.1481 ft Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TV11 0.163468 ft 0.326937 ft 0.000886 ft 31.4098 ft Reach ID: SD#07 Section Properties: Shape: Circular Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By 12" Diam Conc-Steel Form 0.0120 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss 74.0000 ft 0.50 % Square Edge w/Headwall Diam PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 51 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA 1.0000 ft Up Node Dn Node Up Invert Dn Invert CB-N#07 CB-N#03 31.2000 ft 30.8300 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft InlExfil Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 in/hr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary: Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth 1.0880 ac 0.9266 cf 2.7366 cf 3.1473 ft/s 0.4011 ft Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TW 0.076904 ft 0.153809 ft 0.042408 ft 31.4098 ft Reach ID: SD#08 Section Properties: Shape: Circular Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By 12" Diam Conc-Steel Form 0.0120 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss 12.0000 ft 0.50 % Square Edge w/Headwall Diam 1.0000 ft Up Node Dn Node Up Invert Dn Invert CB-N#08 CB-N#07 31.3000 ft 31.2400 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft In/Exfil Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 in/hr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary: Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth 0.2970 ac 0.2741 cf 2.7366 cf 2.2289 ff/s 0.2137 ft Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TW 0.038573 ft 0.077146 ft 0.000602 ft 31.6827 ft Reach ID: SD#09 Section Properties: Shape: Circular Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By 12" Diam Conc-Steel Form 0.0120 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss 140.0000 ft 0.50 °/a Square Edge w/Headwall Diam 1.0000 ft Up Node Dn Node Up Invert Dn Invert CB-N#09 CB-N#07 31.9000 ft 31.2000 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft In/Exfil Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 in/hr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary: Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth 0.7210 ac 0.6037 cf 2.7366 cf 2.7966 ft/s 0.3192 ft P,ACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 52 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TVN 0.060721 ft 0.121442 ft 0.034059 ft 31.6827 ft Reach ID: SD#11 Section Properties: Shape: Circular Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By 12" Diam Conc-Steel Form 0.0120 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss 58.0000 ft 0.50 % Square Edge w/Headwall Diam 1.0000 ft Up Node Dn Nade Up Invert Dn Invert CB-N#11 CB-N#62 28.4000 ft 28.1100 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft In/Exfil Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 in/hr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary: Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth 1.7199 ac 1.5346 cf 2.7366 cf 3.5839 ft/s 0.5355 ft Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TW 0.029640 ft 0.059280 ft 0.091169 ft 31.6489 ft Reach ID: SD#12 Section Properties: Shape: Circular Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By 12" Diam Conc-Steel Form 0.0120 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss 53.0000 ft 0.50 % Square Edge w/Headwall Diam 1.0000 ft Up Node Dn Node Up Invert Dn Invert CB-N#12 CB-N#11 28.8000 ft 28.5350 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft In/Exfil Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 in/hr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary: Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth 1.5410 ac 1.3664 cf 2.7366 cf 3.4831 ff/s 0.4996 ft Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TUV 0.023501 ft 0.047002 ft 0.066054 ft 31.7965 ft Reach ID: SD#13 Section Properties: Shape: Circular Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By 12" Diam Conc-Steel Form 0.0120 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss 15.0000 ft 0.50 % Square Edge w/Headwall Diam PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 53 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA 1.0000 ft Up Node Dn Node Up Invert Dn Invert CB-N#13 CB-N#59 29.5000 ft 29.4250 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft I In/E I Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 in/hr YES YES YES NO I Conduit Summary: Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth 1.1320 ac 1.0279 cf 2.7366 cf 3.2359 ft/s 0.4247 ft Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TW 0.081298 ft 0.162595 ft 0.010580 ft 29.9061 ft Reach ID: SD#14 Section Properties: Shape: Circular Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By 12" Diam Conc-Steel Form 0.0120 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss 35.0000 ft 0.50 % Square Edge w/Headwall Diam 1.0000 ft Up Node Dn Node Up Invert Dn Invert CB-N#14 CB-N#13 29.7000 ft 29.5250 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft In/Exfil Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 in/hr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary: Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth 0.9531 ac 0.8598 cf 2.7366 cf 3.0844 ft/s 0.3850 ft Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TW I, 0.073863 ft 0.147726 ft 0.017271 ft 29.9558 ft I Reach ID: SD#15 Section Properties: Shape: Circular Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By 12" Diam Conc-Steel Form 0.0120 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss 58.0000 ft 0.50 % Square Edge w/Headwall Diam 1.0000 ft Up Node Dn Node Up Invert Dn Invert CB-N#15 CB-N#14 30.0000 ft 29.7100 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft In/Exfil Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 in/hr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary: Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth 0.3653 ac 0.3099 cf 2.7366 cf 2.3105 ft/s 0.2272 ft PACLAND Project 1999010.008 Page 54 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TW 0.041446 ft 0.082893 ft 0.003719 ft 30.2223 ft Reach ID: SD#16 Section Properties: Shape: Circular Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By 12" Diam Cast-Iron, New 0.0120 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss 125.0000 ft 0.50 % Square Edge w/Headwall Diam 1.00Oa ft Up Node Dn Node Up Invert Dn Invert CB-N#16 CB-N#15 30.6000 ft 29.9750 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft In/Exfil Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 in/hr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary: Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth 0.2326 ac 0.1884 cf 2.7366 cf 1.9963 ft/s 0.1777 ft Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TVII i 0.030940 ft 0.061881 ft 0.002963 ft 30.2651 ft Reach ID: SD#17 I` Section Properties: Shape: Circular Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By 12" Diam Conc-Steel Form 0.0120 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss 61.0000 ft 0.50 % Square Edge w/Headwall Diam 1.0000 ft Up Node Dn Node Up Invert Dn Invert CB-N#17 CB-N#14 30.0000 ft 29.6950 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft In/Exfil Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 in/hr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary: Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth 0.5129 ac 0.4786 cf 2.7366 cf 2.6189 ft/s 0.2830 ft Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TW 0.053252 ft 0.106503 ft 0.009325 ft 30.2223 ft Reach ID: SD#18 Section Properties: Shape: Circular Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By 12" Diam Conc-Steel Form 0.0120 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss 98.0000 ft 0.50 % Square Edge w/Headwall Diam PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 55 r Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA 1.0000 ft Up Node Dn Node Up Invert Dn Invert CB-N#18 CB-N#17 30.5000 ft 30.0100 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft InlExfil Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 in/hr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary: Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth 0.3534 ac 0.3264 cf 2.7366 cf 2.3451 ft/s 0.2332 ft Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TVV 0.042697 ft 0.085393 ft 0.006968 ft 30.3402 ft Reach ID: SD#58 Section Properties: Shape: Circular Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By 12" Diam Conc-Steel Form 0.0120 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss 10.0000 ft 0.50 % Square Edge w/Headwall Diam 1.0000 ft Up Node Dn Node Up Invert Dn Invert CB-N#58 CB-N#62 28.3000 ft 28.2500 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft In/Exfil Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 in/hr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary: Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth 3.1504 ac 2.6735 cf 2.7366 cf 3.9712 ft/s 0.7996 ft Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TVU 0.089964 ft 0.179927 ft 0.047709 ft 31.6489 ft PACLAN D Project# 1999010.008 Page 56 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Node Records Node ID: CB-N#02 Desc: Type II Catch Basin Start EI: 29.4000 ft Max EI: 33.0000 ft Contrib Basin: Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 30.0931 ft Struct Type: CB-TYPE 2-48 Classification Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 2.0000 ft Bot Area: 12.5664 sf Condition:No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.2574 ft Bend Loss: 0.0068 ft Junction Loss: 0.1087 ft Node ID: CB-N#03 Desc: Type II -Catch Basin Start EI: 30.4000 ft Max EI: 33.8000 ft Contrib Basin: CB-B#03 Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 31.4098 ft Struct Type: CB-TYPE 2-48 Classification Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 2.0000 ft Bot Area: 12.5664 sf Condition:No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.1538 ft Bend Loss: 0.0012 ft Junction Loss: 0.0393 ft Node ID: CB-N#06 Desc: Type I -Catch Basin Start EI: 30.5000 ft Max EI: 33.8000 ft Contrib Basin: CB-B#06 Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 31.5070 ft Struct Type: CB-TYPE 1 Classification Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 1.4160 ft Bot Area:3.9700 sf Condition:No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.0000 ft Node ID: CB-N#07 Desc: Type I -Catch Basin Start EI: 3.8000 ft Max EI: 34.4000 ft Contrib Basin: CB-B#O7 Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 31.6827 ft Struct Type: CB-TYPE 1 Classification Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 1.4160 ft Bot Area:3.9700 sf Condition:No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.1214 ft Bend Loss: 0.0006 ft Junction Loss: 0.0376 ft Node ID: CB-N#08 Desc: Type I -Catch Basin Start EI: 30.9000 ft Max EI: 34.3000 ft Contrib Basin: CB-B#08 Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 31.7990 ft PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 57 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Struct Type: CB-TYPE 1 Classification Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 1.4160 ft Bot Area:3.9700 sf Condition:No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.0000 ft Node ID: CB-N#09 Desc: Type I -Catch Basin Start EI: 31.1000 ft Max EI: 34.4000 ft Contrib Basin: CB-B#09 Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 32.3438 ft Struct Type: CB-TYPE 1 Classification Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 1.4160 ft Bot Area:3.9700 sf Condition:No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.0000 ft Node ID: CB-N#11 Desc: Type II -Catch Basin Start EI: 28.5000 ft Max EI: 32.7000 ft Contrib Basin: CB-B#11 Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 31.7965 ft Struct Type: CB-TYPE 2-48 Classification Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 2.0000 ft Bot Area: 12.5664 sf Condition:No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.0470 ft Node ID: CB-N#12 Desc: Headwall/End of pipe Start EI: 28.8000 ft Max EI: 33.00Oo ft Contrib Basin: CB-B#12 Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 31.9331 ft Struct Type: CB-TYPE 1 Classification Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 1.4160 ft Bot Area:3.9700 sf Condition:No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.0000 ft Node ID: CB-N#13 Desc: Type II -Catch Basin Start EI: 29.6000 ft Max EI: 36.5000 ft Contrib Basin: CB-B#11 Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 29.9558 ft Struct Type: CB-TYPE 2-48 Classification Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 2.0000 ft Bot Area: 12.5664 sf Condition:No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.1477 ft Node ID: CB-N#14 Desc: Type II - Catch Basin Start EI: 29.8000 ft Max EI: 36.1000 ft Contrib Basin: CB-B#14 Contrib Hyd: PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 58 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA I Hgl Elev: 30.2223 ft II Struct Type: CB-TYPE 2-48 Classification Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 2.0000 ft Bot Area: 12.5664 sf Condition:No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.1065 ft Bend Loss: 0.0434 ft Junction Loss: 0.0434 ft Node ID: CB-N#15 Desc: Type I -Catch Basin Start EI: 30.1000 ft Max EI: 35.5000 ft Contrib Basin: CB-B#15 Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 30.2651 ft Struct Type: CB-TYPE 1 Classification Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 1.4160 ft Bot Area:3.9700 sf Condition: No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.0619 ft Node ID: CB-N#16 Desc: Type I -Catch Basin Start EI: 30.7000 ft Max EI: 35.7000 ft Contrib Basin: CB-B#16 Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 30.8706 ft Struct Type: CB-TYPE 1 Classification Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 1.4160 ft Bot Area:3.9700 sf Condition:No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.0000 ft Node ID: CB-N#17 Desc: Type I -Catch Basin Start EI: 30.1000 ft Max EI: 36.0000 ft Contrib Basin: CB-B#17 Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 30.3402 ft Struct Type: CB-TYPE 1 Classification Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 1.4160 ft Bot Area: 3.9700 sf Condition:No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.0854 ft Node ID: CB-N#18 Desc: Type I -Catch Basin Start EI: 30.6000 ft Max EI: 36.0000 ft Contrib Basin: CB-B#18 Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 30.8178 ft Struct Type: CB-TYPE 1 Classification Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 1.4160 ft Bot Area:3.9700 sf Condition:No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.0000 ft Node ID: CB-N#58 Desc: Headwall/ End of Pipe PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 59 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Start EI: 28.3000 ft Max EI: 32.0000 ft I Contrib Basin: CB-B#58 Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 31.9664 ft Struct Type: CB-TYPE 2-48 Classification Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 2.0000 ft Bot Area: 12.5664 sf Condition:No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.0001 ft Node ID: CB-N#59 Desc: Headwall/End of Pipe Start EI: 29.4500 ft Max EI: 34.0000 ft Contrib Basin: Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 29.9061 ft Struct Type: CB-TYPE 2-48 Classification Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 2.0000 ft Bot Area: 12.5664 sf Condition:No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.1626 ft Node ID: CB-N#62 Desc: Type II -Catch Basin Start EI: 28.800o ft Max EI: 34.0000 ft Contrib Basin: Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 31.6489 ft Struct Type: CB-TYPE 2-48 Classification Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 2.0000 ft Bot Area: 12.5664 sf Condition:No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.1799 ft Bend Loss: 0.1150 ft Junction Loss: 0.0670 ft Node ID: Curb-E Desc: Curb Scupper Start EI: 35.0000 ft Max EI: 35.5000 ft Contrib Basin: Curb Out-E Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 0.2645 ft Struct Type: Dummy Classification Storm Dummy Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 0.0000 ft Bot Area:0.0000 sf Condition:No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.0000 ft Node ID: Curb-W Desc: Curb Scupper Start EI: 35.0000 ft Max EI: 35.5000 ft Contrib Basin: Curb Out-W Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 1.1257 ft Struct Type: Dummy Classification Storm Dummy Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 0.0000 ft Bot Area:0.0000 sf Condition:No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.0001 ft PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 60 Sam's Club #4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Node ID: Ex. CB-N-A Desc: Existing Headwall/End of Pipe Start EI: 28.1600 ft Max Ei: 32.1600 ft Contrib Basin: Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 30.6000 ftI Struct Type: CB-TYPE 1 Classification Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 1.4160 ft Bot Area:3.9700 sf Condition:No particular shape. Status: Existing Structure Approach Credit: 0.0000 ft PACLAND Project k 1999010.008 Page 61 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Contributing Drainage Areas Drainage Area: CB-B#03 Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs:0.20 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min Area CN TC Pervious 0.0000 ac 90.00 0.00 hrs Impervious 0.1424 ac 98.00 0.03 hrs Total 0.1424 ac Supporting Data: Impervious CN Data: Asphalt 98.00 0.1424 ac Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff:Travel Time Sheet Over Asphalt 93.00 ft 1.51% 0.0110 1.62 min Drainage Area: CB-B#06 Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs:0.20 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min Area CN TC Pervious 0.0000 ac 90.00 0.00 hrs Impervious 0.3500 ac 98.00 0.04 hrs Total 0.3500 ac Supporting Data: Impervious CN Data: Asphalt 98.00 0.3500 ac Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff:Travel Time Sheet Over Asphalt 75.00 ft 1.30% 0.0110 1.45 min Shallow Over Asphalt 184.00 ft 1.10% 27.0000 1.08 min Drainage Area: CB-B#07 Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs:0.20 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min Area CN TC Pervious 0.0000 ac 90.00 0.00 hrs Impervious 0.0700 ac 98.00 0.02 hrs j Total 0.0700 ac I Supporting Data: IIImperviousCNData: Asphalt 98.00 0.0700 ac Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff:Travel Time I Sheet Over Asphalt 56.00 ft 1.10% 0.0110 1.22 min Drainage Area: CB-B#08 I!, Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number I Peak Factor. 484.00 SCS Abs:0.20 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min Area CN TC i Pervious 0.0000 ac 90.00 0.00 hrs Impervious 0.2970 ac 98.00 0.06 hrs I PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 62 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Total 0.2970 ac Supporting Data: Impervious CN Data: Asphalt 98.00 0.2970 ac Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet Over Asphalt 230.00 ft 1.13% 0.0110 3.75 min Drainage Area: CB-B#09 Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs:0.20 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min Area CN TC Pervious 0.1787 ac 90.00 0.15 hrs Impervious 0.5423 ac 98.00 0.09 hrs Total 0.7210 ac Supporting Data: Pervious CN Data: Landscaping SCS=D 90.00 0.1787 ac Impervious CN Data: Asphalt 98.00 0.5423 ac Pervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet Over Landscaping 34.00 ft 2.00% 0.2400 7.62 min Sheet Over Asphalt 74.00 ft 1.00% 0.0110 1.59 min Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet Over Asphalt 321.00 ft 1.00% 0.0110 5.14 min Shallow Over Asphalt 10.00 ft 1.00% 27.0000 0.06 min Drainage Area: CB-B#11 Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs:0.20 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min Area CN TC i Pervious 0.0000 ac 90.00 0.00 hrs Impervious 0.1789 ac 98.00 0.05 hrs Total 0.1789 ac Supporting Data: Impervious CN Data: Asphalt 98.00 0.1789 ac Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet Over Asphalt 248.00 ft 2.18% 0.0110 3.Ofi min Drainage Area: CB-B#12 Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs:0.20 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min Area CN TC Pervious 0.1290 ac 90.00 0.08 hrs Impervious 0.2800 ac 98.00 0.08 hrs Total 0.4090 ac Supporting Data: Pervious CN Data: PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 63 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Landscaping SCS=D 90.00 0.1290 ac Impervious CN Data: Asphalt 98.00 02800 ac Pervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet Across Landscaping 42.00 ft 3.00% 0.1300 4.70 min Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet Over Asphalt 330.00 ft 1.20% 0.0110 4.89 min Drainage Area: CB-B#14 Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs:0.20 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min Area CN TC Pervious 0.0000 ac 90.00 0.00 hrs Impervious 0.0749 ac 98.00 0.02 hrs Total 0.0749 ac Suppo ting Data: Impervious CN Data: Asphalt 98.00 0.0749 ac Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet Over Asphalt 45.00 ft 1.00% 0.0110 1.07 min Drainage Area: CB-B#15 Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs:0.20 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min Area CN TC Pervious 0.0260 ac 90.00 0.04 hrs Impervious 0.1067 ac 98.00 0.03 hrs Total 0.1327 ac Supporting Data: I Pervious CN Data: Landscaping SCS=D 90.00 0.0260 ac Impervious CN Data: Asphalt 98.00 0.1067 ac Pervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: C eff: Travel Time Sheet Across Landscaping 10.00 ft 2.00% 0.1300 1.75 min Shallow Gutter Flow 70.00 ft 1.00% 27.0000 0.43 min Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff:Travel Time Sheet Over Asphalt 85.00 ft 1.00% 0.0110 1.78 min Draina e Area: CB-B#169 Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs:0.20 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min Area CN TC Pervious 0.1000 ac 90.00 0.14 hrs Impervious 0.1326 ac 98.00 0.03 hrs Total 0.2326 ac Supporting Data: PACLAN D Project# 1999010.008 Page 64 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Pervious CN Data: Landscaping SCS=D 90.00 0.1000 ac Impervious CN Data: Asphalt 98.00 0.1326 ac Pervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet Across Landscaping 65.00 ft 2.00% 0.1300 7.83 min Shallow Gutter Flow 50.00 ft 1.00% 27.0000 0.31 min Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet Over Asphalt 95.00 ft 1.00°/a 0.0110 1.94 min Drainage Area: CB-B#17 Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs:0.20 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min Area CN TC Pervious O.OQ00 ac 90.00 0.00 hrs Impervious 0.1595 ac 98.00 0.02 hrs Total 0.1595 ac Supporting Data: Impervious CN Data: Asphalt 98.00 0.1595 ac Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet Over Asphalt 80.00 ft 2.50% 0.0110 1.17 min Drainage Area: CB-B#18 Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs:0.20 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min Area CN TC Pervious 0.0400 ac 90.00 0.11 hrs Impervious 0.3134 ac 98.00 0.03 hrs Total 0.3534 ac Supporting Data: Pervious CN Data: Landscaping SCS=D 90.00 0.0400 ac Impervious CN Data: Asphalt 98.00 0.3134 ac Pervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet Across Landscaping 35.00 ft 2.00°/a 0.1300 4.77 min Sheet Across Pavement 80.00 ft 1.00°/a 0.0110 1.69 min Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet Over Asphalt 80.00 ft 1.00% 0.0110 1.69 min Drainage Area: CB-B#58 Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs:0.20 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min Area CN TC Pervious 0.5200 ac 90.00 0.12 hrs Impervious 0.0000 ac 98.00 0.00 hrs PAC LA N D Proj ect# 1999010.008 Page 65 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton,WA Total 0.5200 ac Supporting Data: Pervious CN Data: Landscaping SCS=D 90.00 0.5200 ac Pervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff:Travel Time Sheet Across Landscaping 56.00 ft 2.00% 0.1300 6.95 min Drainage Area: Curb Out-E Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs:0.20 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min Area CN TC Pervious 0.0000 ac 90.00 0.00 hrs Impervious 0.7700 ac 98.00 0.09 hrs Total 0.7700 ac Supporting Data: Impervious CN Data: Asphalt 98.00 0.7700 ac Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet Over Asphalt 346.00 ft 1.13% 0.0110 5.20 min Drainage Area: Curb Out-W Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs:0.20 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min Area CN TC Pervious 0.0000 ac 90.00 0.00 hrs Impenrious 0.2800 ac 98.00 0.04 hrs Total 0.2800 ac Supporting Data:I Impervious CN Data: Asphalt 98.00 0.2800 ac Impervious TC Data: I Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff:Travel Time I Sheet Over Asphalt 150.00 ft 1.60% 0.0110 2.32 min PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 66 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Layout Hydrographs Hydrograph ID: Ex. CB-N-A - 100 yr Area: 4.8703 ac Hyd Int: 10.00 min Base Flow: Pending tt translation: 5.33 min Peak Flow: 4.2081 cfs Peak Time: 7.83 hrs Hyd Vol: 1.4181 acft Time Flow Time Flow Time Flow hr cfs hr cfs hr cfs 0.67 0.0125 8.83 1.4664 16.67 0.5642 0.83 0.0496 9.00 1.4814 16.83 0.5642 1.00 0.0914 9.17 1.2619 17.00 0.5643 1.17 0.1392 9.33 1.0973 17.17 0.5428 1.33 0.1834 9.50 1.1185 17.33 0.5258 1.50 0.2117 9.67 1.0433 17.50 0.5279 1.67 0.2484 9.83 0.9985 17.67 0.5267 1.83 0.2786 10.00 1.0030 17.83 0.5273 2.00 0.2972 10.17 0.9373 18.00 0.5271 2.17 0.3276 10.33 0.8879 18.17 0.5057 2.33 0.3530 10.50 0.8944 18.33 0.4885 2.50 0.3679 10.67 0.8486 18.50 0.4907 2.67 0.3843 10.83 0.8166 18.67 0.4895 2.83 0.3982 11.00 0.8204 18.83 0.4901 3.00 0.4110 11.17 0.7973 19.00 0.4899 3.17 0.4224 11.33 0.7815 19.17 0.4684 3.33 0.4327 11.50 0.7836 19.33 0.4512 3.50 0.4421 11.67 0.7614 19.50 0.4534 3.67 0.4677 11.83 0.7451 19.67 0.4522 3.83 0.4890 12.00 0.7473 19.83 0.4527 4.00 0.4949 12.17 0.7250 20.00 0.4525 4.17 0.5389 12.33 0.7087 20.17 0.4527 4.33 0.5732 12.50 0.7108 20.33 0.4527 4.50 0.5768 12.67 0.6885 20.50 0.4528 4.67 0.6228 12.83 0.6721 20.67 0.4528 4.83 0.6574 13.00 0.6742 20.83 0.4528 5.00 0.6608 13.17 0.6732 21.00 0.4529 5.17 0.7073 13.33 0.6739 21.17 0.4529 5.33 0.7425 13.50 0.6739 21.33 0.4530 5.50 0.7454 13.67 0.6527 21.50 0.4530 5.67 0.7925 13.83 0.6357 21.67 0.4531 5.83 0.8279 14.00 0.6380 21.83 0.4531 6.00 0.8303 14.17 0.6369 22.00 0.4532 6.17 0.9172 14.33 0.6376 22.17 0.4316 6.33 0.9839 14.50 0.6375 22.33 0.4144 6.50 0.9823 14.67 0.6162 22.50 0.4165 6.67 1.1133 14.83 0.5992 22.67 0.4152 6.83 1.2122 15.00 0.6014 22.83 0.4158 7.00 1.2076 15.17 0.6003 23.00 0.4155 7.17 1.3636 15.33 0.6009 23.17 0.4157 7.33 1.4801 15.50 0.6008 23.33 0.4157 7.50 1.4745 15.67 0.5795 23.50 0.4158 7.67 3.0003 15.83 0.5624 23.67 0.4158 7.83 4.2081 16.00 0.5646 23.83 0.4158 8.00 4.0898 16.17 0.5635 24.00 0.4158 8.17 2.9419 16.33 0.5641 24.17 0.1775 8.33 1.9232 16.50 0.5639 24.33 0.0094 8.50 2.0757 16.67 0.5642 24.50 0.0018 8.67 1.6788 16.83 0.5642 24.67 0.0004 PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 67 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA The "North" Basin Layout Report: North Side Project Precips 2 yr]2.00 in 5 yr]2.90 in 10 yr] 3.40 in 25 yr] 3.40 in 100 yr] 3.90 in 6 mo] 1.27 in ROUTEHYD []THRU [North Side] USING TYPE1A AND [100 yr] NOTZERO RELATIVE Reach Area Flow Full Q %Full nDepth Size nVel fVel CBasin/ Hyd ac cfs cfs ratio ft ftls ftls ------------ SD#65 0.0983 0.0940 3.8701 0.02 0.1074 12"Diam 2.0703 4.9276 CB-B#65 SD#TW 0.1450 0.1388 1.3126 0.11 0.1464 8"Diam 2.4446 3.7604 CB-B#TW SD#39 0.1565 0.1418 2.7366 0.05 0.1547 12'Diam 1.8354 3.4843 CB-B#39 SD#38 0.2768 0.2518 2.7366 0.09 0.2050 12"Diam 2.1747 3.4843 CB-B#38 SD#37 0.8412 0.6657 2.7366 0.24 0.3359 12"Diam 2.8742 3.4843 CB-B#37 SD#36 1.2382 0.9fi17 2.7366 0.35 0.4093 12"Diam 3.1793 3.4843 CB-B#36 SD#35 1.5602 1.2087 2.7366 0.44 0.4653 12"Diam 3.3762 3.4843 CB-B#35 SD#34 1.8894 1.4593 2.7366 0.53 0.5195 12"Diam 3.5403 3.4843 CB-B#34 SD#33 2.2298 1.7700 2.7366 0.65 0.5854 12"Diam 3.7052 3.4843 CB-B#33 SD#32 2.5304 2.0301 3.8701 0.52 0.5144 12"Diam 4.9868 4.9276 CB-B#32 SD#31 0.0481 0.0460 2.7366 O.o2 0.0902 12"Diam 1.3097 3.4843 CB-B#31 SD#30 0.0951 0.0853 2.7366 0.43 0.1211 12"Diam 1.5759 3.4843 CB-B#30 SD#29 2.6255 2.1154 3.8701 0.55 0.5273 12"Diam 5.0370 4.9276 SD#28 2.7682 2.2519 3.8701 0.58 0.5478 12"Diam 5.1132 4.9276 CB-B#28 Bio"C" 2.7682 2.2519 - 1.00 0.2790 Ditch 1.1807 - SD#26 3.3862 2.7345 4.9617 0.55 0.6624 15'Diam 4.1414 4.0432 CB-B#26 SD#57 3.1000 2.8453 2.7366 1.04 -1.00Q0 12"Diam 1.0397 3.4843 CB-B#57 SD#25 3.1000 2.8453 3.8701 0.74 0.6373 12"Diam 5.3862 4.9276 SD#24 3.1000 2.8453 156.03 0.02 0.3751 48"Diam 4.7817 12.4167 SD#61 3.1000 2.8453 3.8701 0.74 0.6373 12"Diam 5.3862 4.9276 SD#60 3.1000 2.&453 3.8701 0.74 0.6373 12"Diam 5.3862 4.9276 SD#23 3.1000 2.8453 156.03 0.02 0.3751 48"Diam 4.7817 12.4167 SD#22 3.1000 2.8453 156.03 0.o2 0.3751 48"Diam 4.7817 12.4167 SD#21 3.1000 2.8453 7.0169 0.41 0.5540 15"Diam 5.4188 5.7179 SD#20 6.4862 5.5798 4.9617 1.12 -1.0000 15"Diam 1.1246 4.0432 SD#63 0.2329 0.2116 3.8701 0.05 0.1588 12"Diam 2.6368 4.9276 CB-B#63 SD#56 0.2499 0.2356 3.8701 0.06 0.1674 12'Diam 2.7220 4.9276 CB-B#56 SD#55 0.5466 0.5142 3.8701 0.13 0.2462 12"Diam 3.4220 4.9276 CB-B#55 SD#54 0.7323 0.6865 2.7366 0.25 0.3414 12"Diam 2.8991 3.4843 CB-B#54 SD#53 0.8295 0.7775 2.7366 0.28 0.3647 12"Diam 3.0007 3.4843 CB-B#53 SD#64 0.3234 0.2982 3.8701 0.08 0.1878 12"Diam 2.9183 4.9276 CB-B#&4 SD#52 1.2369 1.1554 3.8701 0.30 0.3746 12"Diam 4.3017 4.9276 C&B#52 SD#51 1.6792 1.5605 3.8701 0.40 0.4418 12"Diam 4.6628 4.9276 CB-B#51 SD#50 1.8272 1.6958 3.8701 0.44 0.4632 12"Diam 4.7650 4.9276 CB-B#50 SD#49 0.2287 0.2093 5.1923 0.04 0.1371 12"Diam 3.2295 6.6110 CB-B#43 SD#!48 0.4208 0.3545 3.8701 0.09 0.2045 12"Diam 3.0713 4.9276 CB-B#48 SD#47 0.4208 0.3545 4.0590 0.09 0.1997 12"Diam 3.1765 5.1681 SD#46 0.8113 0.7003 2.7366 0.26 0.3450 12"Diam 2.9151 3.4843 CB-B#46 SD#45 0.8806 0.7545 2.7366 0.28 0.3589 12'Diam 2.9760 3.4843 CB-B#45 SD#44 1.3127 1.1381 8.3026 0.14 0.3126 15"Diam 4.7413 6.7655 CB-B#44 SD#43 3.3686 3.0433 7.0169 0.43 0.5756 15"Diam 5.5146 5.7179 CB-B#43 SD#42 3.3686 3.0433 7.0169 0.43 0.5756 15'Diam 5.5146 5.7179 Bio"B" 3.3686 3.0433 - 1.0 0.4093 Ditch 1.4223 -- SD#40 3.5096 3.1440 4.9617 0.63 0.7222 15"Diam 4.2796 4.0432 CB-B#40 SD#19 9.9958 8.7238 4.9617 1.76 -1.0000 15"Diam 1.7582 4.0432 PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 68 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Rch App Bend Junct HW Max EI/ Loss Head Loss Loss Elev Rim EI From Node To Node ft R ft ft R ft Ex.CB-N-B 28.0750 CB-N#19 Ex.CB-N-B 29.4838 0.3210 0.0094 0.1178 29.2901 33.8000 CB-N#20 CB-N#19 30.8399 0.0835 0.0831 0.0449 30.8845 34.0000 CB-N#26 CB-N#20 31.1914 0.0001 0.0002 31.1915 33.5000 CB-N#27 CB-N#26 30.0858 0.4060 0.0015 29.6813 33.0000 CB-N#28 CB-N#27 30.6950 0.3940 0.0050 0.0145 30.3205 36.2000 CB-N#fi5 CB-N#28 30.4206 - 30.4206 35.1000 CB-N#29 CB-N#28 30.9516 0.3862 0.4357 0.0134 31.0146 37.8000 CB-N#32 CB-N#29 31.7246 0.0789 0.0969 31.7426 37.000 CB-N#33 CB-N#32 32.0428 -- 32.0428 37.2500 CB-N#TW CB-N#33 34.4290 - 34.4290 36.0000 CB-N#34 CB-N#33 33.0114 0.1770 0.0037 32.8381 38.0000 CB-N#35 CB-N#34 33.4308 0.1570 0.0028 33.2766 38.0000 CB-N i36 CB-N#35 33.7784 0.1283 0.0032 33.6534 38.0000 CB-N#37 CB-N#36 34.1687 0.0734 0.0011 34.0963 38.0000 CB-N i38 CB-N#37 34.6769 - 34.6769 38.0000 CB-N#39 CB-N#38 35.0332 -- 35.0332 37.8000 CB-N#30 CB-N#29 31.0727 0.0266 0.0004 31.0465 37.4000 CB-N#31 CB-N#30 31.1302 -- 31.1302 34.0000 CB-N#21 CB-N#20 31.0475 0.3550 0.3424 31.0348 35.6000 CB-N#E22 CB-N#21 31.5679 0.3550 0.0018 31.2147 38.7000 CB-N#t23 CB-N#22 32.0327 0.4505 0.0016 31.5838 37.7000 CB-N#60 CB-N#23 33.1870 0.2038 0.0008 32.9839 37.7000 CB-N#61 CB-N#60 33.3707 0.3550 0.0016 33.0172 37.7000 CB-N#24 CB-N#61 33.4327 0.4505 0.0020 32.9842 38.5000 CB-N#25 CB-N#24 34.7870 0.2038 0.0012 34.5844 38.4000 CB-N#57 CB-N#25 36.1113 - 36.1113 38.4000 CB-N#40 CB-N#19 29.6176 0.0004 0.0000 29.6172 33.0000 CB-N#41 CB-N#40 29.3766 0.4722 0.6369 29.5413 33.0000 CB-N#d2 CB-N#41 30.2778 0.0955 0.0007 30.1830 32.5000 CB-N#43 CB-N#42 30.3450 0.0724 0.0005 0.0303 30.3034 32.0000 CB-N#50 CB-N#d3 30.5349 0.0613 0.0007 30.4743 33.9000 CB-N#51 CB-N#50 30.7753 0.2873 0.0065 0.0406 30.5351 34.3000 CB-N#63 CB-N#51 30.7501 - 30.7501 34.0000 CB-N#52 CB-N#51 31.4426 0.1398 0.0010 0.0377 31.3415 35.3000 CB-N#53 CB-N#52 31.6116 0.1305 0.0006 31.4816 36.2000 CB-N#54 CB-N#53 31.7768 0.1818 0.1820 31.7770 34.3000 CB-N#55 CB-N#54 32.2037 0.1150 0.1159 32.2046 36.0000 i CB-N#56 CB-N#55 32.5648 - 32.5648 36.5000 CB-N#64 CB-N#52 31.6003 - 31.6003 34.1000 CB-N#-0d CB-N#43 30.3351 0.0143 0.0095 0.0029 30.3332 31.4000 CB-N#49 CB-N#44 30.4447 - 30.4447 33.2000 CB-N#45 CB-N#44 30.3604 0.0123 0.0001 30.3481 32.3000 CB-N#46 CB-N#45 30.3833 0.1567 0.0021 30.2287 31.4000 CB-N#47 CB-N#46 31.6291 0.1465 0.0009 31.4836 33.1000 CB-N#48 CB-N#47 32.2296 - 32.2296 32.8000 PACLAND Project a`- 1999010.008 Page 69 CB-N t49 CB-N#44 CB-N#45 CB-N#46 CB-N#-07 CB-N#t48 Y. n i i., Q CB-N#41 CB-N t42 CB- 43 CB-N#50 CB-N#51 CB-N#52 CB-N#53 CB-N#54 3 S 4 55 iQl g N#63 N#64 B-N#55 CB-N#56 C N#40 CB-Ntt21 CB-N#22 CB-N#23 CB-N#60 CB-N#61 CB-N#24 CB-N 25 CB-N#57 SD 40 SD 21 Ex. CB-N-B 19 C #20 S 6 C -N#26 CB-N#27 CB-N#28 CB-N t29 CB-N#30 CB-N#31 S 5 S 2 C -N#65 C -N#t32 CB-N#t33 CB-N#34 g-N#35 B-#3 CB-N#37 CB-N#38 CB-N#39 S C N#TW 30.445 ft 30.333 ft 30.348 ft 30.229 ft 31.484 ft 32.230 ft y.1 cfs 29.541 ft 30.y 83 ft 30. ft 30.474 ft 30.535 ft 31.341 ft 31.482 ft 31.777 ft I 0. cfs 0.' s U. cfs 3.0 cfs 3 .750 ft 3 .600 ft 2.205 ft 32.565 ft f..29.17 ft 31.035 R I 3 1.2 1 5 ft 3 1.5 8 A ft 3 2.9 8 4 ft 33.017 ft 32.984 ft 34.58-0 ft 36.11 I ft r 3.1 cfs 2.8 cfs 28.075ft 2 90ft 3 4ft 2. cfs 31 191 ft 29.681 ft 30.321 ft 31.015 ft 31.046 ft 31.130 ft 2.fs ' s 0. s 2. fs 3 421 ft 31 743 h 32.043 ft 32.838 ft 33,z77 fit 33.653 ft 34.096 ft 34.677 ft 35.033 ft 0. fs 34 429 ft Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Reach Records II Reach ID: Bio "B" Section Properties: Shape: Ditch Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By Conc-Steel Form 0.0350 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss 220.0000 ft 0.50 % Width Bank Hgt ss1 ss2 4.0000 ft 2.0000 ft 3.00h:1 v 3.00h:1 v Up Node Dn Node Up Invert Dn Invert CB-N#41 CB-N#40 28.3000 ft 27.2000 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft In/Exfil Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 in/hr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary: Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth 3.3686 ac 3.0433 cf 3.0433 cf 1.4223 ft/s 0.4093 ft Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TVV 0.000000 ft 0.000000 ft 0.000000 ft 29.6172 ft Reach ID: Bio "C" Section Properties: Shape: Ditch Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By Conc-Steel Form 0.0350 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss 145.0000 ft 0.50 % Width Bank Hgt ss1 ss2 6.0000 ft 2.0000 ft 3.00h:1 v 3.00h:1 v Up Node Dn Node Up Invert Dn Invert CB-N#27 CB-N#26 29.4000 ft 28.6750 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft In/Exfil Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 in/hr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary: Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth 2.7682 ac 2.2519 cf 2.2519 cf 1.1807 ft/s 0.2790 ft Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TW 0.000000 ft 0.000000 ft 0.000000 ft 31.1915 ft Reach ID: SD#19 Section Properties: Shape: Circular Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By 15" Diam Conc-Steel Form 0.0120 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss 15.0000 ft 0.50 % Square Edge w/Headwall Diam 1.2500 ft PACLAND Project 1999010.008 Page 70 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton,WA Up Node Dn Node Up Invert Dn Invert CB-N#19 Ex. CB-N-B 26.9000 ft 26.8250 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft In/Exfil Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 in/hr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary: Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth 9.9958 ac 8.7238 cf 4.9617 cf 1.7582 ftls -1.0000 ft Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TV1/ 0.392353 ft 0.784707 ft 0.231789 ft 28.0750 ft comment:Hydrograph shifted 10.00 min,0.00 min forwarded.Submerged or overtop bank cond Reach ID: SD#20 Section Properties: Shape: Circular Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By 15" Diam Conc-Steel Form 0.0120 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss 169.0000 ft 0.50 °/a Square Edge w/Headwall Diam 1.2500 ft Up Node Dn Node Up Invert Dn Invert CB-N#20 CB-N#19 27.7000 ft 26.8550 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft In/Exfil Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 in/hr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary: Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth 6.4862 ac 5.5798 cf 4.9617 cf 1.1246 ft/s -1.0000 ft Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TW 0.160509 ft 0.321018 ft 1.068342 ft 29.2901 ft comment:Hydrograph not shifted, 9.86 min forwarded.Submerged or overtop bank condition. Reach ID: SD#21 Section Properties: Shape: Circular Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By 15" Diam Conc-Steel Form 0.0120 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss 23.0000 ft 1.00 % Square Edge w/Headwall Diam 1.2500 ft Up Node Dn Node Up Invert Dn Invert CB-N#21 CB-N#20 28.1000 ft 27.8700 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft In/Exfil Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 in/hr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary: Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 71 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA 3.1000 ac 2.8453 cf 7.0169 cf 5.4188 ftls 0.5540 ft Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TW 0.041736 ft 0.083471 ft 0.037806 ft 30.8845 ft Reach ID: SD#22 Section Properties: Shape: Circular Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By 48" Diam Conc-Steel Form 0.0120 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss 145.0000 ft 1.00 % Square Edge w/Headwall Diam 4.0000 ft Up Node Dn Node Up Invert Dn Invert CB-N#22 CB-N#21 29.6000 ft 28.1500 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft In/Exfil Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 in/hr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary: Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth 3.1000 ac 2.8453 cf 156.0324 cf 4.7817 ft/s 0.3751 ft Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TW 0.177522 ft 0.355044 ft 0.000482 ft 31.0348 ft Reach ID: SD#23 Section Properties: Shape: Circular Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By 48" Diam Conc-Steel Form 0.0120 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss 186.0000 ft 1.00 % Square Edge w/Headwall Diam 4.0000 ft Up Node Dn Node Up Invert Dn Invert CB-N#23 CB-N#22 31.4000 ft 29.5400 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft In/E l Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 in/hr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary: Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth 3.1000 ac 2.8453 cf 156.0324 cf 4.7817 ft/s 0.3751 ft Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TW 0.177522 ft 0.355a44 ft 0.000618 ft 31.2147 ft Reach ID: SD#24 Section Properties: Shape: Circular Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By 48" Diam Conc-Steel Form 0.0120 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss 72.0000 ft 1.00 °/a Square Edge w/Headwall PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 72 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Diam 4.0000 ft Up Node Dn Node Up Invert Dn Invert CB-N#24 CB-N#61 32.8000 ft 32.0800 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft In/Exfil Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Atlow Smaller 0.0000 in/hr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary: Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth 3.1000 ac 2.8453 cf 156.0324 cf 4.7817 ft/s 0.3751 ft Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TV1l 0.177522 ft 0.355044 ft 0.000239 ft 33.0172 ft Reach ID: SD#25 Section Properties: Shape: Circular Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By 12" Diam Conc-Steel Form 0.0120 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss 79.0000 ft 1.00 % Square Edge w/Headwall Diam 1.0000 ft Up Node Dn Node Up Invert Dn Invert CB-N#25 CB-N#24 33.6000 ft 32.8100 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft In/Exfil Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 inlhr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary: Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth 3.1000 ac 2.8453 cf 3.8701 cf 5.3862 ft/s 0.6373 ft Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TVN 0.225240 ft 0.450479 ft 0.426886 ft 33.5332 ft Reach ID: SD#26 Section Properties: Shape: Circular Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By 15" Diam Conc-Steel Form 0.0120 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss 126.0000 ft 0.50 % Square Edge w/Headwall Diam 1.2500 ft Up Node Dn Node Up Invert Dn Invert CB-N#26 CB-N#20 28.5000 ft 27.8700 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft In/E I Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 in/hr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary: Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 73 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA 3.3862 ac 2.7345 cf 4.9617 cf 4.1414 ft/s 0.6624 ft Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TV11 0.038551 ft 0.077101 ft 0.191304 ft 30.8845 ft Reach ID: SD#28 Section Properties: Shape: Circular Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By 12" Diam Conc-Steel Form 0.0120 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss 43.0000 ft 1.00 % Square Edge w/Headwall Diam 1.0000 ft Up Node Dn Node Up Invert Dn Invert CB-N#28 CB-N#27 29.7000 ft 29.2700 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft In/E l Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 in/hr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary: Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth 2.7682 ac 2.2519 cf 3.8701 cf 5.1132 ft/s 0.5478 ft Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TW 0.202988 ft 0.405976 ft 0.145554 ft 29.9118 ft Reach ID: SD#29 Section Properties: Shape: Circular Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By 12" Diam Conc-Steel Form 0.0120 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss 29.0000 ft 1.00 % Square Edge w/Headwall Diam 1.0000 ft Up Node Dn Node Up Invert Dn Invert CB-N#29 CB-N#28 30.0000 ft 29.7100 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft In/Exfil Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 in/hr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary: Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth 2.6255 ac 2.1154 cf 3.8701 cf 5.0370 ft/s 0.5273 ft Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TW 0.196984 ft 0.393967 ft 0.086620 ft 30.3313 ft Reach ID: SD#30 Section Properties: Shape: Circular Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By 12" Diam Conc-Steel Form 0.0120 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss 116.0000 ft 0.50 % Square Edge w/Headwall PACLAND Project ,# 1999010.008 Page 74 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Diam 1.0000 ft Up Node Dn Node Up Invert Dn Invert CB-N#30 CB-N#29 30.6000 ft 30.0200 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft InlExfil Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 in/hr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary: Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth 0.0951 ac 0.0853 cf 2.7366 cf 1.5759 ft/s 0.1211 ft Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TW 0.019281 ft 0.038561 ft 0.000563 ft 31.0146 ft Reach ID: SD#31 Section Properties: Shape: Circular Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By 12" Diam Conc-Steel Form 0.0120 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss 83.0000 ft 0.50 % Square Edge w/Headwall I Diam 1.0000 ft Up Node Dn Node Up Invert Dn Invert CB-N#31 CB-N#30 31.0000 ft 30.5850 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5 00 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft In/Exfil Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 in/hr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary: Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth 0.0481 ac 0.0460 cf 2.7366 cf 1.3097 ft/s 0.0902 ft Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TW 0.013318 ft 0.026636 ft 0.000117 ft 31.0465 ft Reach ID: SD#32 Section Properties: Shape: Circular Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By 12" Diam Conc-Steel F rm 0.0120 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss 76.0000 ft 1.00 % Square Edge w/Headwall Diam 1.0000 ft Up Node Dn Node Up Invert Dn Invert CB-N#32 CB-N#29 30.8000 ft 30.0400 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft In/Exfil Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 in/hr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary: Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 75 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA 2.5304 ac 2.0301 cf 3.8701 cf 4.9868 ft/s 0.5144 ft Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TV1l 0.193076 ft 0.386152 ft 0.209076 ft 31.0146 ft Reach ID: SD#33 Section Properties: Shape: Circular Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By 12" Diam Conc-Steel Form 0.0120 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss 87.0000 ft 0.50 % Square Edge w/Headwall Diam 1.0000 ft Up Node Dn Node Up Invert Dn Invert CB-N#33 CB-N#32 30.4000 ft 29.9650 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft In/E I Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 in/hr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary: Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth 2.2298 ac 1.7700 cf 2.7366 cf 3.7052 ft/s 0.5854 ft Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TW 0.039431 ft 0.078861 ft 0.181924 ft 31.7426 ft Reach ID: SD#34 Section Properties: Shape: Circular Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By 12" Diam Conc-Steel Form 0.0120 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss 109.0000 ft 0.50 % Square Edge w/Headwall Diam 1.0000 ft Up Node Dn Node Up Invert Dn Invert CB-N#34 CB-N#33 32.2000 ft 31.6550 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft InlExfil Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 in/hr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary: Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth 1.8894 ac 1.4593 cf 2.7366 cf 3.5403 ft/s 0.5195 ft Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TW 0.097312 ft 0.194623 ft 0.154936 ft 32.1745 ft Reach ID: SD#35 Section Properties: Shape: Circular Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By 12" Diam Conc-Steel Form 0.0120 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss 101.0000 ft 0.50 °/a Square Edge w/Headwall P,ACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 76 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Diam 1.0000 ft Up Node Dn Node Up Invert Dn Invert CB-N#35 CB-N#34 32.7000 ft 32.1950 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft In/Exfil Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 in/hr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary: Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth 1.5602 ac 1.2087 cf 2.7366 cf 3.3762 ft/s 0.4653 ft Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TVII 0.088499 ft 0.176998 ft 0.098487 ft 32.8381 ft Reach ID: SD#36 Section Properties: Shape: Circular Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By 12" Diam Conc-Steel Form 0.0120 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss 100.0000 ft 0.50 % Square Edge w/Headwall Diam 1.0000 ft Up Node Dn Node Up Invert Dn Invert CB-N#36 CB-N#35 33.2000 ft 32.7000 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft In/Exfil Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 in/hr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary: Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth 1.2382 ac 0.9617 cf 2.7366 cf 3.1793 ft/s 0.4093 ft Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TW 0.078477 ft 0.156954 ft 0.061738 ft 33.2766 ft Reach ID: SD#37 Section Properties: Shape: Circular Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By 12" Diam Conc-Steel Form 0.0120 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss 100.0000 ft 0.50 % Square Edge w/Headwall Diam 1.0000 ft Up Node Dn Node Up Invert Dn Invert CB-N#37 CB-N#36 33.7000 ft 33.2000 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft In/E l Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 in/hr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary: Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 77 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA 0.8412 ac 0.6657 cf 2.7366 cf 2.8742 ft/s 0.3359 ft Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TVII 0.064137 ft 0.128275 ft 0.029584 ft 33.6534 ft Reach ID: SD#38 Section Properties: Shape: Circular Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By 12" Diam Conc-Steel Form 0.0120 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss 135.0000 ft 0.50 % Square Edge w/Headwall Diam 1.0000 ft Up Node Dn Node Up Invert Dn Invert CB-N#38 CB-N#37 34.4000 ft 33.7250 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft In/E I Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 in/hr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary: Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth 0.2768 ac 0.2518 cf 2.7366 cf 2.1747 ft/s 0.2050 ft Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TV11 0.036718 ft 0.073436 ft 0.005715 ft 34.0963 ft Reach ID: SD#39 Section Properties: Shape: Circular Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By 12" Diam Conc-Steel Form 0.0120 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss 85.0000 ft 0.50 % Square Edge w/Headwall Diam 1.0000 ft Up Node Dn Node Up Invert Dn Invert CB-N#39 CB-N#38 34.8000 ft 33.1750 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft In/Exfil Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 in/hr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary: Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth 0.1565 ac 0.1418 cf 2.7366 cf 1.8354 ft/s 0.1547 ft Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TVV 0.026155 ft 0.052310 ft 0.001141 ft 34.6769 ft Reach ID: SD#40 Section Properties: Shape: Circular Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By 15" Diam Conc-Steel Form 0.0120 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss 87.0000 ft 0.50 % Square Edge w/Headwall PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 78 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Diam 1.2500 ft Up Node Dn Node Up invert Dn Invert CB-N#40 CB-N#19 27.3000 ft 26.8650 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft In/Exfil Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 in/hr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary: Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth 3.5096 ac 3.1440 cf 4.9617 cf 4.2796 ft/s 0.7222 ft Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TVV 0.050961 ft 0.101922 ft 0.174614 ft 292901 ft Reach ID: SD#42 Section Properties: Shape: Circular Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By 15" Diam Conc-Steel Form 0.0120 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss 15.0000 ft 1.00 °/a Square Edge w/Headwall Diam 1.2500 ft Up Node Dn Node Up Invert Dn Invert CB-N#42 CB-N#41 28.5000 ft 28.3500 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft In/E l Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 in/hr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary: Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth 3.3686 ac 3.0433 cf 7.0169 cf 5.5146 ft/s 0.5756 ft Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TW 0.236109 ft 0.472218 ft 0.028207 ft 29.5413 ft Reach ID: SD#43 Section Properties: Shape: Circular Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By 15" Diam Conc-Steel Form 0.0120 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss 10.0000 ft 1.00 % Square Edge w/Headwall Diam 1.2500 ft Up Node Dn Node Up Invert Dn Invert CB-N#43 CB-N#42 28.6000 ft 28.5000 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft In/Exfil Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 in/hr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary: Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth PACLAND Project 1999010.008 Page 79 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA 3.3686 ac 3.0433 cf 7.0169 cf 5.5146 ft/s 0.5756 ft Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TUN 0.047747 ft 0.095495 ft 0.018805 ft 30.1830 ft Reach ID: SD#44 Section Properties: Shape: Circular Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By 15" Diam Conc-Steel Form 0.0120 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss 44.0000 ft 1.40 % Square Edge w/Headwall Diam 1.2500 ft Up Node Dn Node Up Invert Dn Invert CB-N#44 CB-N#43 29.2000 ft 28.5840 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop I 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft In/Exfil Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 in/hr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary: Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth 1.3127 ac 1.1381 cf 8.3026 cf 4.7413 ft/s 0.3126 ft Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TW 0.006678 ft 0.013356 ft 0.011572 ft 30.3034 ft Reach ID: SD#45 Section Properties: Shape: Circular Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By 12" Diam Conc-Steel Form 0.0120 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss 15.0000 ft 0.50 % Square Edge w/Headwall Diam 1.0000 ft Up Node Dn Node Up Invert Dn Invert CB-N#45 CB-N#44 29.3000 ft 29.2250 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft In/Exfil Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 in/hr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary: Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth 0.8806 ac 0.7545 cf 2.7366 cf 2.9760 ft/s 0.3589 ft Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TW O.d07166 ft 0.014331 ft 0.005700 ft 30.3332 ft Reach ID: SD#46 Section Properties: Shape: Circular Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By 12" Diam Conc-Steel Form 0.0120 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss 51.0000 ft 0.50 °/a Square Edge w/Headwall PACL,AND Project# 1999010.008 Page 80 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Diam 1.0000 ft Up Node Dn Node Up Invert Dn Invert CB-N#46 CB-N#45 29.6000 ft 29.3450 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft In/E I Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 inlhr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary: Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth 0.8113 ac 0.7003 cf 2.7366 cf 2.9151 ft/s 0.3450 ft Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TW 0.006174 ft 0.012347 ft 0.016697 ft 30.3481 ft Reach ID: SD#47 Section Properties: Shape: Circular Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By 12" Diam Conc-Steel Form 0.0120 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss 157.0000 ft 1.10 % Square Edge w/Headwall Diam 1.0000 ft Up Node Dn Node Up Invert Dn Invert CB-N#47 CB-N#46 31.3000 ft 29.5730 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft In/E l Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 inlhr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary: Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth 0.4208 ac 0.3545 cf 4.0590 cf 3.1765 ft/s 0.1997 ft Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TW 0.078339 ft 0.156fi78 ft 0.013167 ft 30.2287 ft Reach ID: SD#48 Section Properties: Shape: Circular Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By 12" Diam Conc-Steel Form 0.0120 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss 59.0000 ft 1.00 °/a Square Edge w/Headwall Diam 1.0000 ft Up Node Dn Node Up Invert Dn Invert CB-N#48 CB-N#47 31.9000 ft 31.3100 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft In/E I Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 in/hr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary: Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 81 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA 0.4208 ac 0.3545 cf 3.8701 cf 3.0713 ft/s 0.2045 ft Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TVI! 0.073235 ft 0.146469 ft 0.004948 ft 31.5556 ft Reach ID: SD#49 Section Properties: Shape: Circular Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By 12" Diam Conc-Steel Form 0.0120 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance L ss 56.0000 ft 1.80 % Square Edge w/Headwall Diam 1.0000 ft Up Node Dn Node Up Invert Dn Invert CB-N#43 CB-N#42 30.2000 ft 29.1920 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft In/Exfil Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 in/hr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary: Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth I . 0.2287 ac 0.2093 cf 5.1923 cf 3.2295 ft/s 0.1371 ft Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TW 0.000552 ft 0.001103 ft 0.001638 ft 30.3332 ft Reach ID: SD#50 Section Properties: Shape: Circular Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By 12" Diam Conc-Steel Form 0.0120 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss 64.0000 ft 1.00 % Square Edge w/Headwall Diam 1.0000 ft Up Node Dn Node Up Invert Dn Invert CB-N#50 CB-N#43 29.2000 ft 28.5600 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft In/E l Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 in/hr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary: Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth 1.8272 ac 1.6958 cf 3.8701 cf 4.7650 ft/s 0.4632 ft Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TW 0.036197 ft 0.072394 ft 0.122854 ft 30.3034 ft Reach ID: SD#51 Section Properties: Shape: Circular Routing Meth d: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By 12" Diam Conc-Steel Form 0.0120 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss 75.0000 ft 1.00 % Square Edge w/Headwall PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 82 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Diam 1.0000 ft Up Node Dn Node Up Invert Dn Invert CB-N#51 CB-N#50 30.0000 ft 29.2500 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Ve Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft InlE l Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 inlhr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary: Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth 1.6792 ac 1.5fi05 cf 3.8701 cf 4.6628 ft/s 0.4418 ft Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TVN 0.030649 ft 0.061299 ft 0.121905 ft 30.4743 ft Reach ID: SD#52 Section Properties: Shape: Circular Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By 12" Diam Conc-Steel Form 0.0120 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss 72.0000 ft 1.00 % Square Edge w/Headwall Diam 1.0000 ft Up Node Dn Node Up Invert Dn Invert CB-N#52 CB-N#51 30.8000 ft 30.0800 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft In/Exfil Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 in/hr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary: Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth 12369 ac 1.1554 cf 3.8701 cf 4.3017 ft/s 0.3746 ft Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TV11 0.143670 ft 0.287340 ft 0.064161 ft 30.5351 ft Reach ID: SD#53 Section Properties: Shape: Circular Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By 12" Diam Conc-Steel Form 0.0120 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss 75.0000 ft 0.50 % Square Edge w/Headwall Diam 1.0000 ft Up Node Dn Node Up Invert Dn Invert CB-N#53 CB-N#52 31.1000 ft 30.7250 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft In/E I Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 in/hr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary: Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 83 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Rnalysis Renton,WA 0.8295 ac 0.7775 cf 2.7366 cf 3.0007 ft/s 0.3647 ft Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TVV 0.069910 ft 0.139819 ft 0.030265 ft 31.3415 ft Reach ID: SD#54 Section Properties: Shape: Circular Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By 12" Diam Conc-Steel Form 0.0120 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss 52.0000 ft 0.50 % Square Edge w/Headwall Diam 1.0000 ft Up Node Dn Node Up Invert Dn Invert CB-N#54 CB-N#53 31.3000 ft 31.0400 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft In/Exfil Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 in/hr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary: Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth 0.7323 ac 0.6865 cf 2.7366 cf 2.8991 ft/s 0.3414 ft Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TW 0.065255 ft 0.130510 ft 0.016358 ft 31.4816 ft Reach ID: SD#55 Section Properties: Shape: Circular Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By 12" Diam Conc-Steel Form 0.0120 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss 44.0000 ft 1.00 °/a Square Edge w/Headwall Diam 1.0000 ft Up Node Dn Node Up Invert Dn Invert CB-N#55 CB-N#54 31.8000 ft 31.3600 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft In/Exfil Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 in/hr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary: Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth 0.5466 ac 0.5142 cf 3.8701 cf 3.4220 ft/s 0.2462 ft Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TV1/ 0.090917 ft 0.181834 ft 0.007767 ft 31.7770 ft I Reach ID: SD#56 Section Properties: Shape: Circular Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By 12" Diam Cono-Steel Form 0.0120 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss 59.0000 ft 1.00 % Square Edge w/Headwall PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 84 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Diam 1.0000 ft Up Node Dn Node Up Invert Dn Invert CB-N#56 CB-N#55 32.3000 ft 31.7100 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Ve Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft In/E l Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 in/hr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary: Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth 0.2499 ac 0.2356 cf 3.8701 cf 2.7220 ft/s 0.1674 ft Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TW 0.057524 ft 0.115048 ft 0.002186 ft 32.2046 ft Reach ID: SD#57 Section Properties: I Shape: Circular Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By 12" Diam Conc-Steel Form 0.0120 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss 320.0000 ft 0.50 % Square Edge w/Headwall I Diam 1.0000 ft Up Node Dn Node Up Invert Dn Invert CB-N#57 CB-N#25 35.2000 ft 33.6000 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft I In/E I Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 in/hr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary: Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth 3.1000 ac 2.8453 cf 2.7366 cf 1.0397 ft/s -1.0000 ft Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TW 0.008393 ft 0.016786 ft 1.729158 ft 34.6000 ft comment:Hydrograph not shifted, 5.13 min forwarded.Submerged or overtop bank condition. Reach ID: SD#60 Section Properties: Shape: Circular Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By 12" Diam Conc-Steel Form 0.0120 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss 53.0000 ft 1.00 % Square Edge w/Headwall Diam 1.0000 ft Up Node Dn Node Up Invert Dn Invert CB-N#60 CB-N#23 32.0000 ft 31.4700 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft In/Exfil Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 in/hr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary: PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 85 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth 3.1000 ac 2.8453 cf 3.8701 cf 5.3862 ft/s 0.6373 ft Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TW 0.225240 ft 0.450479 ft 0.286392 ft 32.1932 ft Reach ID: SD#61 Section Properties: Shape: Circular Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By 12" Diam Conc-Steel Form 0.0120 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss 15.0000 ft 1.00 °/a Square Edge w/Headwalf Diam 1.0000 ft Up Node Dn Node Up Invert Dn Invert CB-N#61 CB-N#60 32.1000 ft 31.9500 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft In/Exfil Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 in/hr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary: Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth 3.1000 ac 2.8453 cf 3.8701 cf 5.3862 ft/s 0.6373 ft Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TVN 0.101894 ft 0.203788 ft 0.081054 ft 32.9839 ft Reach ID: SD#63 Section Properties: Shape: Circular Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By 12" Diam Conc-Steel Form 0.0120 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss 54.0000 ft 1.00 % Square Edge w/Headwall Diam 1.0000 ft Up Node Dn Node Up Invert Dn Invert CB-N#63 CB-N#51 30.5000 ft 29.9600 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft In/Exfil Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 in/hr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary:I Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth 0.2329 ac 0.2116 cf 3.8701 cf 2.6368 ft/s 0.1588 ft Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TV1l 0.053981 ft 0.107963 ft 0.001614 ft 30.5351 ft Reach ID: SD#64 Section Properties: Shape: Circular Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By 12" Diam Conc-Steel Form 0.0120 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 86 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton,WA 54.0000 ft 1.00 % Square Edge w/Headwall Diam 1.0000 ft Up Node Dn Node Up Invert Dn Invert CB-N#64 CB-N#52 31.3000 ft 30.7600 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft In/E I Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 in/hr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary: Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth 0.3234 ac 0.2982 cf 3.8701 cf 2.9183 ft/s 0.1878 ft Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TVN 0.066122 ft 0.132245 ft 0.003205 ft 31.3415 ft Reach ID: SD#65 Section Properties: Shape: Circular Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By 12" Diam Conc-Steel Form 0.0120 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss 34.0000 ft 1.00 °/a Square Edge w/Headwall Diam 1.0000 ft Up Node Dn Node Up Invert Dn Invert CB-N#65 CB-N#28 30.1000 ft 29.7600 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft In/Exfil Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 in/hr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary: Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth 0.0983 ac 0.0940 cf 3.8701 cf 2.0703 ftls 0.1074 ft Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TVN 0.033279 ft 0.066558 ft 0.000201 ft 30.3205 ft Reach ID: SD#TW Section Properties: Shape: Circular Routing Method: Travel Time Translation Size Material Mannings n Hyd params By 8" Diam Conc-Steel Form 0.0120 Mannings Formula Length Slope Entrance Loss 60.0000 ft 1.00 % Square Edge w/Headwall Diam 0.6667 ft Up Node Dn Node Up Invert Dn Invert CB-N#TW CB-N#33 34.2000 ft 33.6000 ft Conduit Constraints: Min Vel Max Vel Min Cov Min Slope Max Slope Min drop 2.0000 ft 15.0000 ft 3.0000 ft 0.5000 ft 2.0000 ft 0.0000 ft In/E l Hold Up Hold Dn Match Inv Allow Smaller 0.0000 in/hr YES YES YES NO Conduit Summary: PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 87 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Trib Area Flow Capacity Velocity Normal Depth 0.1450 ac 0.1388 cf 1.3126 cf 2.4446 ft/s 0.1464 ft Ent Loss Exit Loss Frict Loss Start TW 0.046399 ft 0.092798 ft 0.006711 ft 33.7706 ft Node Records Node ID: CB-N#19 Desc: Type II -Catch Basin Start EI: 26.9000 ft Max EI: 33.8000 ft Contrib Basin: Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 29.2901 ft Struct Type: CB-TYPE 2-48 Classification Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 2.0000 ft Bot Area: 12.5664 sf Condition:No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.3210 ft Bend Loss: 0.0094 ft Junction Loss: 0.1178 ft Node ID: CB-N#20 Desc: Type II - Catch Basin Start EI: 27.9000 ft Max EI: 34.0000 ft Contrib Basin: Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 30.8845 ft Struct Type: CB-TYPE 2-48 Classification Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 2.0000 ft Bot Area: 12.5664 sf Condition:No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.0835 ft Bend Loss: 0.0831 ft Junction Loss: 0.0449 ft Node ID: CB-N#21 Desc: Type II -96"Catch Basin w/FCS Start EI: 28.1000 ft Max EI: 35.6000 ft Contrib Basin: Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 31.0348 ft Struct Type: CB-TYPE 2-96 Classification Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 2.0000 ft Bot Area:50.2650 sf Condition:No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.3550 ft Node ID: CB-N#22 Desc: Type II -96"Catch Basin Sta t EI: 29.6000 ft Max EI: 38.7000 ft Contrib Basin: Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 31.2147 ft Struct Type: CB-TYPE 2-96 Classification Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 2.0000 ft Bot Area:50.2650 sf Condition:No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.3550 ft Node ID: CB-N#23 PACLAND Project#, 1999010.008 Page 88 Sam's Club#4835-00 5torm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Desc: Type I I -96"Catch Basin Start EI: 31.4000 ft Max EI: 37.7000 ft Contrib Basin: Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 31.5838 ft Struct Type: CB-TYPE 2-96 Classification Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 2.0000 ft Bot Area:50.2650 sf Condition:No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.4505 ft Node ID: CB-N#24 Desc: Type II -96"Catch Basin Start EI: 32.8000 ft Max EI: 38.5000 ft Contrib Basin: Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 32.9842 ft Struct Type: CB-TYPE 2-96 Classification Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 2.0000 ft Bot Area:50.2650 sf Condition:No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.4505 ft Node ID: CB-N#25 Desc: Type I -Catch Basin Start EI: 33.6000 ft Max EI: 38.4000 ft Contrib Basin: Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 34.5844 ft Struct Type: CB-TYPE 1 Classification Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 1.4160 ft Bot Area:3.9700 sf Condition:No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.2038 ft Node ID: CB-N#26 Desc: Headwall/ End of pipe I Start EI: 28.5000 ft Max EI: 33.5000 ft Contrib Basim CB-B#26 Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 31.1915 ft Struct Type: CB-TYPE 1 Classification Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 1.4160 ft Bot Area:3.9700 sf Condition:No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.0001 ft Node ID: CB-N#27 Desc: Headwall/ End of pipe Start EI: 29.3000 ft Max EI: 33.0000 ft Contrib Basin: Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 29.6813 ft Struct Type: CB-TYPE 1 Classification Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 1.4160 ft Bot Area:3.9700 sf Condition:No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.4060 ft PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 89 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Node ID: CB-N#28 Desc: Type I -Catch Basin Start EI: 29.7000 ft Max EI: 36.2000 ft Contrib Basin: CB-B#28 Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 30.3205 ft Struct Type: CB-TYPE 1 Class cation Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall:square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 1.4160 ft Bot Area:3.9700 sf Condition:No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.3940 ft Bend Loss: 0.0050 ft Junction Loss: 0.0145 ft Node ID: CB-N#29 Desc: Type I -Catch Basin Start EI: 30.0000 ft Max EI: 37.8000 ft Contrib Basin: Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 31.0146 ft Struct Type: CB-TYPE 1 Classification Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 1.4160 ft Bot Area:3.9700 sf Condition:No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.3862 ft Bend Loss: 0.4357 ft Junction Loss: 0.0134 ft Node ID: CB-N#30 Desc: Type II -Catch Basin Start EI: 30.6000 ft Max EI: 37.4000 ft Contrib Basin: CB-B#30 Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 31.0465 ft Struct Type: CB-TYPE 2-48 Classification Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 2.0000 ft Bot Area: 12.5664 sf Condition:No pa ticular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.0266 ft Node ID: CB-N#31 Desc: Type I -Catch Basin Start EI: 31.0000 ft Max EI: 34.0000 ft Contrib Basin: CB-B#31 Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 31.1302 ft Struct Type: CB-TYPE 1 Classification Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 1.4160 ft Bot Area:3.9700 sf Condition:No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.0000 ft Node ID: CB-N#32 Desc: Type I - Catch Basin Start EI: 30.8000 ft Max EI: 37.0000 ft Contrib Basin: CB-B#32 Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 31.7426 ft Struct Type: CB-TYPE 1 Classification Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 1.4160 ft Bot Area: 3.9700 sf PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 90 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Condition:No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.0789 ft Node ID: CB-N#33 Desc: Type II-Catch Basin Start EI: 31.6000 ft Max EI: 37.2500 ft Contrib Basin: CB-B#33 Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 32.0428 ft Struct Type: CB-TYPE 2-48 Classification Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 2.0000 ft Bot Area: 12.5664 sf Condition:No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.0000 ft Node ID: CB-N#34 Desc: Type II -Catch Basin Start EI: 32.2000 ft Max EI: 38.0000 ft Contrib Basin: CB-B#34 Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 32.8381 ft Struct Type: CB-TYPE 2-48 Classification Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 2.0000 ft Bot Area: 12.5664 sf Condition:No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.1770 ft Node ID: CB-N#35 Desc: Type II -Catch Basin Start EI: 32.7000 ft Max EI: 38.0000 ft Contrib Basin: CB-B#35 Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 33.2766 ft Struct Type: CB-TYPE 2-48 Classification Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 2.0000 ft Bot Area: 12.56fi4 sf Condition:No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.1570 ft Node ID: CB-N#36 Desc: Type I - Catch Basin Start EI: 33.2000 ft Max EI: 38.0000 ft Contrib Basin: CB-B#36 Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 33.6534 ft Struct Type: CB-TYPE 1 Classification Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 1.4160 ft Bot Area:3.9700 sf Condition:No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.1283 ft Node ID: CB-N#37 Desc: Type I -Catch Basin Start EI: 33.7000 ft Max EI: 38.0000 ft Contrib Basin: CB-B#37 Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 34.0963 ft Struct Type: CB-TYPE 1 Classification Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: square edge;.ke=0.5 PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 91 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Catch Depth: 1.4160 ft Bot Area:3.9700 sf Condition: No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.0734 ft Node ID: CB-N#38 Desc: Type I -Catch Basin Start EI: 34.4000 ft Max EI: 38.0000 ft Contrib Basin: CB-B#38 Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 34.6769 ft Struct Type: CB-TYPE 1 Classification Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall:square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 1.4160 ft Bot Area:3.9700 sf Condition:No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.0000 ft Node ID: CB-N#39 Desc: Type I -Catch Basin Start EI: 34.8000 ft Max EI: 37.8000 ft Contrib Basin: CB-B#39 Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 35.0332 ft Struct Type: CB-TYPE 1 Classification Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 1.4160 ft Bot Area:3.9700 sf Condition:No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.0000 ft Node ID: CB-N#40 Desc: Headwall/ End of pipe Start EI: 27.2000 ft Max EI: 33.0000 ft Contrib Basin: CB-B#40 Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 29.6172 ft Struct Type: CB-TYPE 1 Classification Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 1.4160 ft Bot Area:3.9700 sf Condition:No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.0004 ft Node ID: CB-N#41 Desc: Headwall/ End of pipe Start EI: 28.3000 ft Max EI: 33.0000 ft Contrib Basin: Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 29.5413 ft Struct Type: CB-TYPE 1 Classification Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 1.4160 ft Bot Area:3.9700 sf Condition:No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.4722 ft Node ID: CB-N#42 Desc: Type II -Catch Basin Start EI: 28.4000 ft Max EI: 32.5000 ft Contrib Basin: Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 30.1830 ft Struct Type: CB-TYPE 2-48 Classification Catch Basin PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 92 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 2.0000 ft Bot Area: 12.5664 sf Condition:No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.0955 ft Node ID: CB-N#43 Desc: Type II - Catch Basin Start EI: 28.5000 ft Max EI: 32.0000 ft Contrib Basin: CB-B#43 Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 30.3034 ft Struct Type: CB-TYPE 2-48 Class cation Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 2.0000 ft Bot Area: 12.5664 sf Condition:No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.0724 ft Bend Loss: 0.0005 ft Junction Loss: 0.0303 ft Node ID: CB-N#44 Desc: Type I -Catch Basin Start EI: 28.7500 ft Max EI: 31.4000 ft Contrib Basin: CB-B#44 Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 30.3332 ft Struct Type: CB-TYPE 1 Classification Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 1.4160 ft Bot Area:3.9700 sf Condition:No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.0143 ft Bend Loss: 0.0095 ft Junction Loss: 0.0029 ft Node ID: CB-N#45 Desc: Type I -Catch Basin Start EI: 31.3000 ft Max EI: 32.3000 ft Contrib Basin: CB-B#45 Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 30.3481 ft Struct Type: CB-TYPE 1 Classification Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 1.4160 ft Bot Area:3.9700 sf Condition:No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.0123 ft Node ID: CB-N#46 Desc: Type I - Catch Basin Start EI: 29.1000 ft Max EI: 31.4000 ft Contrib Basin: CB-B#46 Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 3.2287 ft Struct Type: CB-TYPE 1 Classification Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 1.4160 ft Bot Area:3.9700 sf Condition:No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.1567 ft Node ID: CB-N#47 Desc: Type I -Catch Basin Start EI: 29.7000 ft Max EI: 33.1000 ft PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 93 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Contrib Basin: Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 31.4836 ft Struct Type: CB-TYPE 1 Classification Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 1.4160 ft Bot Area:3.9700 sf Condition:No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.1465 ft Node ID: CB-N#48 Desc: Type I -Catch Basin Start EI: 30.0000 ft Max EI: 32.8000 ft Contrib Basin: CB-B#48 Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 32.2296 ft Struct Type: CB-TYPE 1 Classification Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 1.41 fi0 ft Bot Area:3.9700 sf Condition:No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.0000 ft Node ID: CB-N#49 Desc: Type I -Catch Basin Start EI: 29.5000 ft Max EI: 332000 ft Contrib Basin: CB-B#49 Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 30.4447 ft Struct Type: CB-TYPE 1 Classification Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 1.4160 ft Bot Area:3.9700 sf Condition:No pa ticular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.0000 ft Node ID: CB-N#50 Desc: Type II -Catch Basin Start EI: 29.20 0 ft Max EI: 33.9000 ft Contrib Basin: CB-B#50 Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 30.4743 ft Struct Type: CB-TYPE 2-48 Classification Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall:square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 2.0000 ft Bot Area: 12.5664 sf Condition:No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.0613 ft Node ID: CB-N#51 Desc: Type I - Catch Basin Start EI: 30.0000 ft Max EI: 34.3000 ft Contrib Basin: CB-B#51 Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 30.5351 ft Struct Type: CB-TYPE 1 Classification Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 1.4160 ft Bot Area:3.9700 sf Condition:No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.2873 ft Bend Loss: 0.0065 ft Junction Loss: 0.0406 ft Node ID: CB-N#52 PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 94 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Desc: Type II-Catch Basin Start EI: 30.8000 ft Max EI: 35.3000 ft Contrib Basin: CB-B#52 Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 31.3415 ft Struct Type: CB-TYPE 2-48 Classification Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 2.0000 ft Bot Area: 12.5664 sf Condition:No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.1398 ft Bend Loss: 0.0010 ft Junction Loss: 0.0377 ft Node ID: CB-N#53 Desc: Type II- Catch Basin Start EI: 31.1000 ft Max EI: 36.2000 ft Contrib Basin: CB-B#53 Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 31.481 fi ft Struct Type: CB-TYPE 2-48 Classification Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwail: square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 2.0000 ft Bot Area: 12.5664 sf Condition:No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.1305 ft Node ID: CB-N#54 Desc: Type II - Catch Basin Start EI: 31.3000 ft Max EI: 34.3000 ft Contrib Basin: CB-B#54 Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 31.7770 ft Struct Type: CB-TYPE 2-48 Classification Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 2.0000 ft Bot Area: 12.5664 sf Condition:No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.1818 ft Node ID: CB-N#55 Desc: Type II - Catch Basin Start EI: 31.8000 ft Max EI: 36.0000 ft Contrib Basin: CB-B#55 Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 32.2046 ft Struct Type: CB-TYPE 2-48 Classification Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 2.0000 ft Bot Area: 12.5664 sf Condition:No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.1150 ft Node ID: CB-N#56 Desc: Type I Catch Basin Start EI: 32.3000 ft Max EI: 36.5000 ft Contrib Basin: CB-B#56 Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 32.5648 ft Struct Type: CB-TYPE 1 Classification Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 1.4160 ft Bot Area:3.9700 sf Condition:No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.0000 ft PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 9 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Node ID: CB-N#57 Desc: 8"Cleanout Start EI: 35.2000 ft Max EI: 38.4000 ft Contrib Basin: CB-B#57 Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 36.1113 ft Struct Type: CAST METAL INLET Classification Storm Cleanout Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall:square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 0.0000 ft Bot Area: 1.0000 sf Condition:No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.0000 ft Node ID: CB-N#60 Desc: Type II -96"Catch Basin Start EI: 32.0000 ft Max EI: 37.7000 ft Contrib Basin: Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 32.9839 ft Struct Type: CB-TYPE 2-96 Ctassfication Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 2.0000 ft Bot Area: 50.2650 sf Condition:No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.2038 ft Node ID: CB-N#61 Desc: Type II -96"Catch Basin Start EI: 32.1000 ft Max EI: 37.7000 ft Contrib Basin: Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 33.0172 ft Struct Type: CB-TYPE 2-96 Classification Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 2.0000 ft Bot Area: 50.2650 sf Condition: No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.3550 ft Node ID: CB-N#63 Desc: Type I -Catch Basin Start EI: 30.5000 ft Max EI: 34.0000 ft Contrib Basin: CB-B#63 Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 30.7501 ft Struct Type: CB-TYPE 1 Classification Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 1.4160 ft Bot Area: 3.9700 sf Condition: No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.0000 ft Node ID: CB-N#64 Desc: Type I -Catch Basin Start EI: 31.3000 ft Max EI: 34.1000 ft Contrib Basin: CB-B#64 Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 31.6003 ft Struct Type: CB-TYPE 1 Classification Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 1.4160 ft Bot Area: 3.9700 sf Condition: No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 96 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton,WA Approach Credit: 0.0000 ft Node ID: CB-N#65 Desc: Type I -Catch Basin Start EI: 30.1000 ft Max EI: 35.1000 ft Contrib Basin: CB-B#65 Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 30.4206 ft Struct Type: CB-TYPE 1 Classification Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 1.4160 ft Bot Area:3.9700 sf Condition:No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.0000 ft Node ID: CB-N#TW Desc: Truck Well Drain Start EI: 34.2100 ft Max EI: 36.0000 ft Contrib Basin: CB-B#TVN Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 34.4290 ft Struct Type: CB-TYPE 1 Classification Catch Basin Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch C epth: 1.4160 ft Bot Area:3.9700 sf Condition:No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.0000 ft Node ID: Ex. CB-N-B Desc: Existing Type II -Catch Basin Start EI: 26.8000 ft Max EI: 34.0000 ft Contrib Basin: Curb Out-E Contrib Hyd: Hgl Elev: 28.0750 ft ilStructType: CB-TYPE 2-48 Class cation Manhole Ke Descrip: CONC: Headwall: square edge;.ke=0.5 Catch Depth: 2.0000 ft Bot Area: 12.5664 sf Condition:No particular shape. Status: Proposed Structure Approach Credit: 0.0000 ft PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 97 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Contributing Drainage Areas Drainage Area: CB-B#26 Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs:0.20 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min Area CN TC Pervious 0.3380 ac 90.00 0.08 hrs Impervious 0.2800 ac 98.00 0.08 hrs Total 0.6180 ac Supporting Data: Pervious CN Data: Landscaping SCS=D 90.00 0.3380 ac Impervious CN Data: Asphalt 98.00 0.2800 ac Pervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet Across Landscaping 42.00 ft 3.00% 0.1300 4.70 min Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet Over Asphalt 330.00 ft 1.20% 0.0110 4.89 min Drainage Area: CB-B#28 Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs:0.20 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min Area CN TC Pervious 0.0000 ac 90.00 0.00 hrs Impervious 0.0444 ac 98.00 0.03 hrs Total 0.0444 ac Supporting Data: Impervious CN Data: Asphalt 98.00 0.0444 ac Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet Over Asphalt 120.00 ft 2.31°/a 0.0110 1.67 min Drainage Area: CB-B#30 Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs:0.20 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min Area CN TC Pervious 0.0200 ac 90.00 0.08 hrs Impervious 0.0270 ac 98.00 0.01 hrs Total 0.0470 ac Supporting Data: Pervious CN Data: Landscaping SCS=D 90.00 0.0200 ac I Impervious CN Data: Asphalt 98.00 0.0270 ac Pervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet Across Landscaping 35.00 ft 3.00% 0.1300 4.06 min Sheet Across Paving 35.00 ft 1.00% 0.0110 0.87 min Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 98 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Sheet Over Asphalt 35.00 ft 1.00% 0.0110 0.87 min Drainage Area: CB-B#31 Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs:0.20 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min Area CN TC Pervious 0.0000 ac 90.00 0.00 hrs Impervious 0.0481 ac 98.00 0.02 hrs Total 0.0481 ac Supporting Data: Impervious CN Data: Asphalt 98.00 0.0481 ac Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff:Travel Time Sheet Over Asphalt 121.00 ft 4.13% 0.0110 1.34 min Drainage Area: CB-B#32 Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs:0.20 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min Area CN TC Pervious 0.0579 ac 90.00 0.17 hrs Impervious 0.2427 ac 98.00 0.05 hrs Total 0.3006 ac Supporting Data: Pervious CN Data: Landscaping SCS=D 90.00 0.0579 ac Impervious CN Data: Asphalt 98.00 0.2427 ac Pervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff:Travel Time Sheet Landscaping 65.00 ft 3.85% 0.2400 9.84 min Shallow Gutter Flow 106.00 ft 2.00% 27.0000 0.46 min Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff:Travel Time Sheet Over Asphalt 160.00 ft 1.10% 0.0110 2.84 min Shallow Gutter Flow 102.00 ft 2.00% 27.0000 0.45 min Drainage Area: CB-B#33 Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs:0.20 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min Area CN TC Pervious 0.0420 ac 90.00 0.13 hrs Impervious 0.1534 ac 98.00 0.04 hrs Total 0.1954 ac Supporting Data: Pervious CN Data: Landscaping SCS=D 90.00 0.0420 ac Impervious CN Data: Asphalt 98.00 0.1534 ac Pervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet Across Landscaping 67.00 ft 2.84% 0.1300 6.97 min PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 99 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Shallow Gutter Flow 119.00 ft 1.00% 27.0000 0.73 min Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff:Travel Time Sheet Over Asphalt 100.00 ft 1.25°/a 0.0110 1.85 min Shallow Gutter Flow 119.00 ft 1.00% 27.0000 0.73 min Drainage Area: CB-B#34 Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs:0.20 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min Area CN TC Pervious 0.2702 ac 90.00 0.06 hrs Impervious 0.0590 ac 98.00 0.02 hrs Total 0.3292 ac Supporting Data: Pervious CN Data: Landscaping SCS=D 90.00 0.2702 ac Impervious CN Data: Asphalt 98.00 0.0590 ac Pervious TC Data: Flow rype: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff:Travel Time Sheet Across Landscaping 80.00 ft 33.30% 0.1300 3.00 min Shallow Gutter Flow 51.00 ft 1.00% 27.0000 0.31 min Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff:Travel Time Sheet Over Asphalt 40.00 ft 1.00% 0.0110 0.97 min Drainage Area: CB-B#35 Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs:0.20 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min Area CN TC Pervious 0.2280 ac 90.00 0.08 hrs Impervious 0.0940 ac 98.00 0.02 hrs Total 0.3220 ac Supporting Data: Pervious CN Data: Landscaping SCS=D 90.00 0.2280 ac Impervious CN Data: Asphalt 98.00 0.0940 ac Pervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff:Travel Time Sheet Across Landscaping 125.00 ft 33.30% 0.1300 4.29 min Shallow Gutter Flow 51.00 ft 1.00% 27.0000 0.31 min Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff:Travel Time Sheet Over Asphalt 40.00 ft 1.00% 0.0110 0.97 min Drainage Area: CB-B#36 Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs:0.20 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min Area CN TC Pervious 0.3030 ac 90.00 0.08 hrs Impervious 0.0940 ac 98.00 0.02 hrs PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 100 Sam's Club ,#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Total 0.3970 ac Supporting Data: Pervious CN Data: Landscaping SCS=D 90.00 0.3030 ac Impervious CN Data: Asphalt 98.00 0.0940 ac Pervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet Across Landscaping 140.00 ft 33.30% 0.1300 4.70 min Shallow Gutter Flow 50.00 ft 1.00% 27.0000 0.31 min Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet Over Asphalt 40.00 ft 1.00% 0.0110 0.97 min Drainage Area: CB-B#37 Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs:0.20 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min Area CN TC Pervious 0.4570 ac 90.00 0.08 hrs Impervious 0.1074 ac 98.00 0.02 hrs Total 0.5644 ac Supporting Data: Pervious CN Data: Landscaping SCS=D 90.00 0.4570 ac Impervious CN Data: Asphalt 98.00 0.1074 ac Pervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet Across Landscaping 140.00 ft 33.30% 0.1300 4.70 min Shallow Gutter Flow 60.00 ft 1.00% 27.0000 0.37 min Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet Over Asphalt 60.00 ft 1.00% 0.0110 1.34 min Drainage Area: CB-B#38 Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs:0.20 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min Area CN TC Pervious 0.0216 ac 90.00 0.06 hrs Impervious 0.0987 ac 98.00 0.03 hrs Total 0.1203 ac Supporting Data: Pervious CN Data: Landscaping SCS=D 90.00 0.0216 ac Impervious CN Data: Asphalt 98.00 0.0987 ac Pervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet Across Landscaping 15.00 ft 1.00% 0.1300 3.20 min Shallow Gutter Flow 70.00 ft 1.00°/a 27.0000 0.43 min Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet Over Asphalt 80.00 ft 1.00% 0.0110 1.69 min PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 101 Sam's Club#4 - Storm Draina e Anal sis Renton Wq I i35 g y Drainage Area: CB-B#39 I Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs:0.20 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min Area CN TC Pervious 0.0174 ac 90.00 0.16 hrs Impervious 0.1391 ac 98.00 0.05 hrs Total 0.1565 ac Supporting Data: Pervious CN Data: Landscaping SCS=D 90.00 0.0174 ac Impervious CN Data: Asphalt 98.00 0.1391 ac Pervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff:Travel Time Sheet Across Landscaping 53.00 ft 1.00% 0.1300 8.78 min Shallow Gutter Flow 90.00 ft 1.00% 27.0000 0.56 min Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet Over Asphalt 104.00 ft 0.60% 0.0110 2.56 min Shallow Gutter Flow 42.00 ft 1.19% 27.0000 0.24 min Drainage Area: CB-B#40 Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs:0.20 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min Area CN TC Pervious 0.1410 ac 90.00 0.06 hrs Impervious 0.0000 ac 98.00 0.00 hrs Total 0.1410 ac Supporting Data: Pervious CN Data: Landscaping SCS=D 90.00 0.1410 ac Pervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet Across Landscaping 30.00 ft 3.00% 0.1300 3.59 min Drainage Area: CB-B#43 Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs:020 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min Area CN TC Pervious 0.0000 ac 90.00 0.00 hrs Impervious 0.2287 ac 98.00 0.07 hrs Total 0.2287 ac Supporting Data: Impervious CN Data: Asphalt 98.00 0.2287 ac Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff:Travel Time Sheet Over Asphalt 275.00 ft 1.66% 0.0110 3.71 min Shallow Gutter 52.00 ft 1.02% 27.0000 0.32 min PACL,ND Project# 1999010.008 Page 102 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Drainage Area: CB-B#44 Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs:0.20 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min Area CN TC Pervious 0.0206 ac 90.00 0.08 hrs Impervious 0.1828 ac 98.00 0.08 hrs Total 0.2034 ac Supporting Data: Pervious CN Data: Landscaping SCS=D 90.00 0.0206 ac Impervious CN Data: Asphalt 98.00 0.1828 ac Pervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff:Travel Time Sheet Across Landscaping 55.00 ft 4.80% 0.1300 4.83 min Shallow Gutter Flow 13.00 ft 1.54% 27.0000 0.06 min Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet Over Asphalt 393.00 ft 1.54% 0.0110 5.09 min Drainage Area: CB-B#45 Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs:0.20 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min Area CN TC Pervious 0.0341 ac 90.00 0.07 hrs Impervious 0.0352 ac 98.00 0.02 hrs Total 0.0693 ac Supporting Data: Pervious CN Data: Landscaping SCS=D 90.00 0.0341 ac Impervious CN Data: Asphalt 98.00 0.0352 ac Pervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet Across Landscaping 42.00 ft 4.80% 0.130Q 3.89 min Shallow Gutter Flow 53.00 ft 1.05% 27.0600 0.32 min Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet Over Asphalt 31.00 ft 1.30% 0.0110 0.71 min Shallow Gutter Flow 53.00 ft 1.05% 27.0000 0.32 min Drainage Area: CB-B#46 Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs:0.20 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min Area CN TC Pervious 0.0103 ac 90.00 0.05 hrs Impervious 0.3802 ac 98.00 0.09 hrs Total 0.3905 ac Supporting Data: Pervious CN Data: Landscaping SCS=D 90.00 0.0103 ac Impervious CN Data: PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 103 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Asphalt 98.00 0.3802 ac Pervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Siope: Coeff:Travei Time Sheet Across Landscaping 15.00 ft 3.00% 0.1300 2.06 min Shallow Gutter Flow 130.00 ft 1.00% 27.0000 0.80 min Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff:Travel Time Sheet Over Asphalt 288.00 ft 1.25% 0.0110 4.31 min Shallow Gutter Flow 158.00 ft 1.14% 27.0000 0.91 min Drainage Area: CB-B#48 Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs:0.20 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min Area CN TC Pervious 0.1040 ac 90.00 0.12 hrs Impervious 0.3168 ac 98.00 0.07 hrs Total 0.4208 ac Supporting Data: Perviaus CN Data: Landscaping SCS=D 90.00 0.1040 ac Impervious CN Data: Asphalt 98.00 0.3168 ac Pervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet Over Landscaping 45.00 ft 2.00% 0.1500 6.54 min Shallow Gutter Flow 86.00 ft 1.10% 27.0000 0.51 min Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff:Travel Time Sheet Over Asphalt 240.00 ft 1.10% 0.0110 3.92 min Shallow Gutter Flow 86.00 ft 1.10% 27.0000 0.51 min Drainage Area: CB-B#49 Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs:0.20 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min Area CN TC Pervious 0.0000 ac 90.00 0.00 hrs Impervious 0.1803 ac 98.00 0.05 hrs Total 0.1803 ac Supporting Data: Impervious CN Data: Asphalt 98.00 0.1803 ac Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet Over Asphalt 216.00 ft 1.76% 0.0110 2.99 min Drainage Area: CB-B#50 Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs:0.20 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min Area CN TC Pervious 0.0000 ac 90.00 0.00 hrs Impervious 0.1480 ac 98.00 0.07 hrs Total 0.1480 ac PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 104 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Supporting Data: Impervious CN Data: Asphalt 98.00 0.1480 ac Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff:Travel Time Sheet Over Asphalt 300.00 ft 1.58% 0.0110 4.06 min Drainage Area: CB-B#51 Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs:0.20 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min Area CN TC Pervious 0.0000 ac 90.00 0.00 hrs Impervious 0.2094 ac 98.00 0.06 hrs Total 0.2094 ac Supporting Data: Impervious CN Data: Asphalt 98.00 0.2094 ac Irnpervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet Over Asphalt 254.00 ft 1.52% 0.0110 3.61 min Shallow Gutter Flow 14.00 ft 0.70% 27.0000 0.10 min Drainage Area: CB-B#52 Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs:0.20 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min Area CN TC Pervious 0.0000 ac 90.00 0.00 hrs Impervious 0.0840 ac 98.00 0.04 hrs Total 0.0840 ac Supporting Data: Impervious CN Data: Asphalt 98.Od 0.0840 ac Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff:Travel Time Sheet Over Asphalt 165.00 ft 1.52% 0.0110 2.55 min Shallow Gutter Flow 13.00 ft 1.54% 27.0000 0.06 min Drainage Area: CB-B#53 Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs:0.20 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min Area CN TC Pervious 0.0000 ac 90.00 0.00 hrs Impervious 0.0972 ac 98.00 0.05 hrs Total 0.0972 ac Supporting Data: Impervious CN Data: Asphalt 98.00 0.0972 ac Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff:Travel Time Sheet Over Asphalt 199.00 ft 1.31% 0.0110 3.15 min Shallow Gutter Flow 16.00 ft 2.50% 27.0000 0.06 min P,ACLAND Project#, 1999010.008 Page 105 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Drainage Area: CB-B#54 Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs:0.20 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min Area CN TC Pervious 0.0000 ac 90.00 0.00 hrs Impervious 0.1857 ac 98.00 0.06 hrs Total 0.1857 ac Supporting Data: Impervious CN Data: Asphalt 98.00 0.1857 ac Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff:Travel Time Sheet Over Asphalt 220.00 ft 1.31% 0.0110 3.41 min Shallow Gutter Flow 35.00 ft 2.00% 27.0000 0.15 min Drainage Area: CB-B#55 Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs:0.20 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min Area CN TC Pervious 0.0000 ac 90.00 0.00 hrs Im ervious 0.2967 ac 98.00 0.05 hrsP Total 0.2967 ac Supporting Data: Impervious CN Data: i Asphalt 98.00 0.2967 ac Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff:Travel Time Sheet Over Asphalt 200.00 ft 1.60% 0.0110 2.92 min Shallow Gutter Flow 40.00 ft 2.00% 27.0000 0.17 min Drainage Area: CB-B#56 Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs:0.20 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min Area CN TC Pervious 0.0000 ac 90.00 0.00 hrs Impervious 0.2499 ac 98.00 0.05 hrs I Total 0.2499 ac Supporting Data: Impervious CN Data: Asphalt 98.00 0.2499 ac Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff:Travel Time Sheet Over Asphalt 144.00 ft 1.18% 0.0110 2.53 min Shallow Gutter Flow 74.00 ft 1.35% 27.0000 0.39 min Drainage Area: CB-B#57 Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs:0.20 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min Area CN TC Pervious 0.0000 ac 90.00 0.00 hrs Impervious 3.1000 ac 98.00 0.07 hrs PACLAND Project 1999010.008 Page 106 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton,WA Total 3.1000 ac Supporting Data: Impervious CN Data: Roof 98.00 3.1000 ac Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff:Travel Time Sheet Over roof 325.00 ft 2.00% 0.0110 3.93 min Drainage Area: CB-B#63 Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs:0.20 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min Area CN TC Pervious 0.0000 ac 90.00 0.00 hrs Impervious 0.2329 ac 98.00 0.07 hrs Total 0.2329 ac Supporting Data: Impervious CN Data: Asphalt 98.00 0.2329 ac Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet Over Asphalt 308.00 ft 1.56°/a 0.0110 4.16 min Shallow Gutter Flow 19.00 ft 1.11% 27.0000 0.11 min Drainage Area: CB-B#64 Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs:0.20 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min Area CN TC Pervious 0.0000 ac 90.00 O.dO hrs Impervious 0.3234 ac 98.00 0.06 hrs Total 0.3234 ac Supporting Data: Impervious CN Data: Asphalt 98.00 0.3234 ac Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff:Travel Time Sheet Over Asphalt 257.00 ft 1.62% 0.0110 3.55 min Shallow Gutter Flow 39.00 ft 1.11% 27.0000 0.23 min Drainage Area: CB-B#65 Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs:0.20 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min Area CN TC Pervious 0.0000 ac 90.00 0.00 hrs Impervious 0.0983 ac 98.00 0.04 hrs Total 0.0983 ac Supporting Data: Impervious CN Data: Asphalt 98.00 0.0983 ac Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet Over Asphalt 105.00 ft 1.55% 0.0110 1.76 min Shallow Gutter Flow 71.00 ft 1.55% 27.0000 0.35 min PACLAND Project ,# 1999010.008 Page 107 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Drainage Area: CB-B#TW Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs:0.20 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min Area CN TC Pervious 0.0000 ac 90.00 0.00 hrs Impervious 0.1450 ac 98.00 0.02 hrs Total 0.1450 ac Supporting Data: Impervious CN Data: Asphalt 98.00 0.1450 ac Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet Over Asphalt 112.00 ft 3.00% 0.0110 1.43 min Drainage Area: Curb Out-E Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Peak Factor: 484.00 SCS Abs:0.20 Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Intv: 10.00 min Area CN TC Pervious 0.0000 ac 90.00 0.00 hrs Impervious 0.7700 ac 98.00 0.09 hrs Total 0.7700 ac Supporting Data: Impervious CN Data: Asphalt 98.00 0.7700 ac Impervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet Over Asphalt 346.00 ft 1.13% 0.0110 5.20 min PACLAND Project# 1999010.008 Page 108 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Layout Hydrographs Hydrograph ID: Ex. CB-N-B - 100 yr Area: 9.9958 ac Hyd Int: 10.00 min Base Flow: Pending tt translation: 10.00 min Peak Flow: 8.7238 cfs Peak Time: 7.83 hrs Hyd Vol: 2.9088 acft Time Flow Time Flow Time Flow hr cfs hr cfs hr cfs 0.67 0.0246 8.83 2.9772 16.67 1.1576 0.83 0.0994 9.00 3.0322 16.83 1.1578 1.00 0.1856 9.17 2.5936 17.00 1.1580 1.17 0.2830 9.33 2.2365 17.17 1.1140 1.33 0.3738 9.50 2.2871 17.33 1.0774 1.50 0.4328 9.67 2.1441 17.50 1.0824 1.67 0.5064 9.83 2.433 17.67 1.0812 I 1.83 0.5694 10.00 2.0561 17.83 1.0819 2.00 0.6077 10.17 1.9244 15.00 1.0818 2.17 0.6686 10.33 1.8174 18.17 1.0378 2.33 0.7222 10.50 1.8328 18.33 1.0011 2.50 0.7536 10.67 1.7423 18.50 1.0061 2.67 0.7876 10.83 1.6723 18.67 1.0048 2.83 0.8166 11.00 1.6819 18.83 1.0055 3.00 0.8428 11.17 1.6367 19.00 1.0053 3.17 0.86n1 11.33 1.6019 19.17 0.9613 3.33 0.8874 11.50 1.6071 19.33 0.9245 3.50 0.9065 11.67 1.5628 19.50 0.9295 3.67 0.9582 11.83 1.5275 19.67 0.9282 3.83 1.0031 12.00 1.5327 19.83 0.9289 4.00 1.0156 12.17 1.4881 20.00 0.9287 4.17 1.1032 12.33 1.4527 20.17 0.9289 4.33 1.1768 12.50 1.4578 20.33 0.9289 4.50 1.1845 12.67 1.4131 20.50 0.9291 4.67 1.2753 12.83 1.3775 20.67 0.9292 4.83 1.3500 13.00 1.3826 20.83 0.9293 5.00 1.3569 13.17 1.3817 21.00 0.9294 5.17 1.4492 13.33 1.3826 21.17 0.9295 5.33 1.5250 13.50 1.3828 21.33 0.9296 5.50 1.5306 13.67 1.3394 21.50 0.9297 5.67 1.6240 13.83 1.3031 21.67 0.9298 5.83 1.7005 14.00 1.3083 21.83 0.9299 6.00 1.7050 14.17 1.3072 22.00 0.9300 6.17 1.8790 14.33 1.3081 22.17 0.8857 6.33 2.0227 14.50 1.3082 22.33 0.8489 6.50 2.0186 14.67 1.2646 22.50 0.8538 6.67 2.2803 14.83 1.2281 22.67 0.8524 6.83 2.4939 15.00 1.2333 22.83 0.8530 7.00 2.4827 15.17 1.2321 23.00 0.8528 7.17 2.7937 15.33 1.2330 23.17 0.8531 7.33 3.0458 15.50 1.2329 23.33 0.8531 7.50 3.0315 15.67 1.1892 23.50 0.8532 7.67 6.1305 15.83 1.1527 23.67 0.8532 7.83 8.7238 16.00 1.1578 23.83 0.8533 8.00 8.4612 16.17 1.1566 24.00 0.8534 8.17 6.0352 16.33 1.1574 24.17 0.3649 8.33 3.8870 16.50 1.1573 24.33 0.0032 8.50 4.2028 16.67 1.1576 24.50 0.0005 8.67 3.4702 16.83 1.1578 24.67 0.0001 PACL,AND Project# 1999010.008 Page 109 Sam's Club#4835-00 Storm Drainage Analysis Renton, WA Geotechnical Report Zipper Zeman Associates Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Proposed Retail Development S. Grady Way and Talbot Road Renton, Washington Project # J-1470 December 6, 2002 PACLAND Project?k 1999010.008 Page 110 W W W Zipaer Zeman Associates, Inc. Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants J-1470 December 6, 2002 PacLand 1144 Eastlake Avenue E., Suite 601 Seattle, Washington 98109 F; Attention: Mr. Joe Geivett,P.E. Subject: Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Proposed Retail Development S. Grady Way and Talbot Road Renton, Washington r- Dear Mr. Geivett: This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering evaluation for the above-referenced project. The authorized scope of services for this project consisted of our field exploration programs for the slope stability analysis and site evaluation, Y field and laboratory testing, geotechnical engineering analyses, and preparation of this report. Our services were completed in accordance the scopes presented in our Proposal for Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Services, Slope Stability Analysis, and Proposed Retail Development (P-1673) dated September 3, 2002 and September 13, 2002, respectively. Written authorization to proceed with this project was provided by PacLand on September 19, 2002. The purpose of this evaluation was to establish general subsurface condirions at the site from which conclusions and recommendations for foundation design, pavement design, and general earthwork construction for the project could be formulated. In the event that there are any changes in the nature, design, elevation, or location of the proposed structure, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report should be reviewed by Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. ZZA) and modified, as necessary, to reflect those changes. This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice for the exclusive use of Pacific Land Design and their agents for specific application to this project. XECUTIVE SUMMARY The following is a brief summary outline of the geotechnical conclusions and recommendations for this project. The summary should be read in complete context with the accompanying report for proper interpretation. Review of Existing Literature We reviewed two geotechnical reports completed for the project site that were provided to us by the property owner. In October 1999, a report was prepared by GeoEngineers titled Geotechnical Engineering Services, Proposed Home Depot Development. Another report by 18905 33`Avenue W.,Suite 117 Lynnwood,Washington 98036 425) 771-3304 Proposed Retail Development J-1470 S. Grady Way and Talbot Road December 6,2002 Renton,Washington Page 2 Terra Associates, Inc. was prepared in September 2000 and was titled Geotechnical Report, Southpoint Corporate Center. Subsurface Conditions The subsurface evaluation consisted of completing 43 hollow-stem auger and mud rotary borings, and 3 electric cone probes across the project site, as shown on Figure 1, the Site and Exploration Plan. Of the 43 borings, 6 were completed in a separate phase in order to evaluate the stability of a.proposed alteration to protected slopes along the east side of the site. The slopes were man-made as a result of placing coal mine tailings on the site. A large portion of the site is currently covered with asphalt pavement and structural concrete floors. Elsewhere, the surface is covered with gravel. Surficial site soils typically consist of 4'/z to more than 11%Z feet of very loose to loose, moist, wet, and saturated, brown to black; coal, cinders, sandstone, and shale fill. Limited topsoil of variable thiclaiess should be expected in areas that are not currently developed. In general, the fill materials are underlain by alluvial soils consisting of very soft to soft peat, clay, silty clay, clayey silt and silt, as well as very loose to loose sandy silt and sand with varying proportions of silt and gravel. Sandstone bedrock was encountered at depths ranging from as shallow as 19 feet to greater than 110 feet. These generalizations should be used in conjunction with the attached exploration logs. Groundwater depths varied across the site from 3 to 12 feet at the time of completing the explorations. The elevations of the groundwater levels vary between 23 and 34 feet with the highest groundwater elevation occuning near a small pond that is between the outflow from two discharge pipes at the base of the slope along the east side of the site and the north end of the aqueduct. Groundwater levels,including quantity and duration of flow, should be expected to fluctuate throughout the year due to on- and off-site factors. Site Preparation Topsoil, if encountered in undeveloped azeas, should be completely stripped and removed from the building pad and parking lot areas. Stripping should also include the removal of existing asphalt pavement, asphalt and concrete rubble, and vegetation that consists primarily of limited brush and trees. The proposed 3H:1 V permanent slope that will be created after removing the lobe of coal mine tailings on the east side of the site appears feasible, based upon our slope stability analyses. However, in order to maintain adequate slope stability safety factors, we recommend that a series of groundwater collection pipes be installed above the sandstone bedrock contact in order to limit the build-up of perched groundwater in the remaining loose fill materials that will comprise the finished slope. Zioner Zeman Associates.Inc. 18905 33rd Avenue W.,Suite 117 Lynnwood,Washington 98036 425)771-3304 Proposed Retail Development J-1470 S.Grady Way aad Talbot Road December 6,2002 Renton,Washington Page 3 I, All asphalt and concrete should be removed prior to placing fill in low areas. Existing asphalt and gravel surfacing should be left in place wherever possible to protect the site from construction traffic and provide laydown areas. Pile foundations beneath the existing structural slabs on site should be cut off a minimum of 3 feet below slab and pavement subgrade elevations. Other concrete foundation elements, slabs, and walls should be removed and disposed or crushed for reuse as structural fill. Exposed soils will likely consist of moist to wet coal tailings. As such they should be considered susceptible to disturbance from construction traffic. Existing fill soils (the entire site) should be covered with a minimum of 12 inches of pit-run sand and gravel, crushed recycled concrete, or other approved granular material to protect the sensitive subgrade. Existing underground utilities should be removed or grouted in place. Excavations created in order to remove the utilities should be backfilled with compacted structural fill. Deeper underground structures, such as manholes, should also be backfilled with structural fill, lean- mix concrete, or controlled density fill. Depending on the groundwater levels at the time of construction, dewatering may be necessary to lower groundwater levels if utility excavations or other underground siructures extend below the shallow groundwater table. Peat should be expected in some of the deeper utility excavations and should be overexcavated and replaced when encountered. Structural Fill All fill used to raise grades should be compacted to a minimum 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density. It is our opinion that all of the existing coal tailings fill on site should be considered unsuitable for reuse as structural fill. Random areas of silty sand will likely be encountered and would likely be suitable for reuse as structural fill, although it is not possible to quantify the amount of this material. Granular material immediately below existing pavements and slabs should also be considered suitable for reuse. The parking lots and building pad should be covered with a minimum of one foot of pit-run snad and gravel or equivalent. Common fill used for general grading below the upper foot should have less than 15 percent fines passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve. During periods when wet weather construction is necessary, we recommend that import fill materials consist of pit-run sand and gravel or crushed recycled concrete with less than 5 percent fines. Zip er Zeman Associates.Inc. 18905 33rd Avenue W.,Suite 117 Lynnwood,Washington 98036 425)771-3304 Proposed Retail Development J-1470 S. Grady Way and Talbot Road December 6,2002 Renton,Washington Page 4 Utilities Existing on-site, underground utilities should be removed, relocated or properly abandoned in place in order to prevent possible future settlement problems. All existing underground utiliries should be decommissioned, abandoned, or backfilled in accordance with all applicable State and local regularions. We anticipate that most utility subgrades will consist of very loose to loose coal tailings fill or possibly soft silt, loose silty sand, or peaty soils. Soils deemed unsuitable for utility suppo t should be overexcavated a minimum of 12 inches in order to develop a firm, uniform base. Where peat is encountered, we recommend that the entire thickness of the material be removed and replaced. Existing on-site soils are considered unsuitable for utility trench backfiil. The two existing mine runoff drain pipes that enter the east side of the site will be tightlined across a portion of the site. We recommend that the company or agency who owns or is responsible for their maintenance be determined in order to coordinate a long-term maintenance and inspection program. We further recommend that the peak flow in the drain pipes be determined in order to size the proposed tightline pipe. This should likely be done in the late winter or spring when groundwater would be anticipated to be at its highest. Building Foundations Based upon the soil conditions encountered, we recommend that augercast pile foundations be used to support the proposed building. We recommend using 18-inch diameter piles with allowable axial compressive capacities of 75 tons, provided the piles penetrate a minimum of 2 feet into the sandstone bedrock or extend to a maximum of 85 feet below the pile caps. Building Floor Slab Based upon a finish floor elevation of 37 feet, grading across most of the building pad will vary from a fill of up to about 3 feet to a cut of up to about 4 feet. However where the lobe of coal mine tailings is present along the east side of the site, cuts of up to about 20 feet will be necessary. Due to the presence of the very loose to loose coal fill and the potential for liquefaction of the underlying native soils, we recommend that the floor slab be pile supported. Subgrade compaction may be difficult to achieve because of the existing very loose coal fill. Instead, it may become necessary to proofroll the subgrade with a loaded.dump truck or other suitable heavy equipment to reveal areas of soft or pumping soils. Overexcavated materials should be replaced with non-organic compacted structural fill. The same process should be completed in cut areas of the building pad once the cuts have been completed. A woven geotextile (as necessary) and a minimum of 12 inches of pit-run sand and gravel fill should be placed above floor subgrade soils and be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of Zioner Zeman Associates.Inc. 18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite 117 Lynnwood,Washington 98036 425) 771-3304 Proposed Retail Development J-1470 S. Grady Way and Talbot Road December 6,2002 Renton,Washington Page 5 the modified Proctor maximum dry densiry. We recommend that a durable methane/water vapor barrier be placed between the 12 inches of granular structural fill and the capillary break. A minimum 6-inch thick capillary break layer consisting of free-draining aggregate should be placed over the methane gas barrier. We recommend that the building be underlain with a passive methane gas venting system that is installed in the 12 inches of granular soil below the methane gas barrier and be routed to the outside of the building. Confined spaces and underground structures should also be vented. Light Pole Foundations Due to the loose fill conditions on site, we recommend that the parking lot light poles and large signs be supported on augercast piles. It may be possible to consider other pole support options, such as overexcavating the poor soils around the pole foundation and replacing if with compacted structural fill or placing the light pole in a larger diameter steel pipe to effectively increase the diarneter of the foundation. Drainage A perimeter footing system is recommended for the proposed structure due to the depth to groundwater at the time of our explorations relative to the proposed finish floor elevation. Retaining Walls Cast-in-place concrete walls should be supported on augercast piles. Backfilled subsurface walls should be designed using equivalent fluid pressures of 35 and 55 pcf for active and at-rest loading conditions, respectively. Surcharge pressures from backslopes,traffic, and floor loads should be added to the earth pressures. Walls should be backfilled with a minimum of 18 inches of free-draining granular structural fill that communicates with a footing drain or weepholes at the base of the wall. Subsurface Walls Relatively shallow groundwater levels should be expected across the eastern portion of the site. The highest groundwater elevation at the time of drilling was approximately 34 feet and occurred along the toe of the slope along the east side of the site. Waterproofing systems should prevent moisture migrarion through the walls, floors, and construction joints as necessary to satisfy the owners requirements. Subsurface walls and floor slabs should be designed to resist hydrostatic lateral and uplift forces, additive to the lateral earth pressure. Along the east side of the site, structures that extend below elevation 34 feet should be designed for hydrostatic forces. i er Zeman Associates.Inc. 18905 33rd Avenue W.,Suite 117 Lynnwood,Washington 98036 425) 7'1-3304 Proposed Retail Development J-1470 S.Grady Way and Talbot Road December 6,2Q02 Renton,Washington Page 6 East Slope Retaining Wall A cut of approximately 18 feet will be necessary in the slope along the east side of the site in order to provide access around the southeast comer of the proposed building. Permanent shoring using soldier piles set in drilled holes that extend into the native sandstone and retained by tieback anchors is recommended for the proposed wall. Soldier pile drilling within the water-bearing sand deposits will likely require stabilizing the holes because the saturated sands are very loose to loose. A program to maintain stabilized soldier pile holes should be the responsibility of the contractor. The contractor should also be required to have the capability to case holes when required. Historical records indicate that there were mineshaft adits in the area of the proj ect site. Review of the historical documents leads us to suspect that one of the mine openings may be along the alignment of the existing 48-inch drainpipe that daylights on the project site. We did not encounter conditions that would indicate the presence of the shafts. However, if a zone of fill and/or a mine adit exists in the anchor zone of the proposed wall, it may not be possible to install some of the tiebacks as recommended. Permanent tiebacks will also be necessary to support the proposed cut. We anticipate that a single row of tiebacks will be sufficient. However, we would also anticipate that the tiebacks could extend beyond the limits of the site and into the Benson Road right-of-way. The feasibility of constructing permanent tiebacks in the right-of-way should be determined. Tieback anchors should be performance and proof tested. We recommend that all of the tiebacks be performance tested to 150 percent of the design load and that that a minimum of 2 anchors be proof tested to 300 percent of the design load. n,^a Recommendations for Further Stud We recommend that additional subsurface explorations be completed in support of the retaining wall design. If a mineshaft is present in the tieback zone, further definition of the conditions prior to bidding would reduce the possibility of change orders and delays during construction. Evaluations could consist of surficial geophysical evaluations using resistivity or magnetics and/or downhole geophysical methods in predrilled holes. We also recommend that the 48-inch pipe be logged with a camera to determine its alignment and where it ternunates. Pavement Based upon compacting the exposed subgrade to a minimum of 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density, standard pavement sections should consist of 3 inches of Class B asphalt over 4 inches of crushed gravel base course over a minimum of 12 inches of pit-run subbase. Heavy duty pavement sections should consist of 4 inches of Class B asphalt over 4 inches of crushed gravel base course over 12 inches of pit-run subbase. Depending on the actual level of compaction, it may be necessary to use a geotextile fabric and additional subbase. This would have to be determined at the time of construcrion. Asphalt-treated base ATB) may be substituted for crushed gravel base course (CGBC) at a ratio of 0.75"ATB:1"CGBC. ju er Zeman Associates.Inc. 18905 33rd Avenue W.,Suite 117 Lynnwood,Washington 98036 425)771-3304 Proposed Retail Development J-1470 S.Grady Way and Talbot Road December 6,2002 Renton,Washington Page 7 Infiltration Due to the composition of the fill materials on site and the anticipated high groundwater levels across the site, we recommend that infiltration rates be considered negligible. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The approximate 16 acre project site is located east of the intersection of South Grady Way and Talbot Road (State Route 515), in the N.W. '/o of Section 20, Township 23 North, Range 5 East in Renton, Washington. The property is bordered to the north by the Renton City Hall Building, to the west and south by Talbot Road, to the north and west by South Grady Way, and to the east by Benson Road and undeveloped land. The site is currently vacant, and with the exception of an area along Benson Road, the project site is covered with asphalt pavement, gravel- covered areas, and the remains of two structural slabs that supported former buildings that have been demolished. Slopes and a large lobe of coal mine waste fill on the eastern margin of the site are prunarily covered with blackberry brush and maple trees. The slopes appear to be on the order of 20 to 30 feet in height and vary in steepness from about 1'/zH:l V to 2H:1 V, or flatter. Based on topographic information provided to us, it appears that the flatter portion of the site varies in elevation between approximately 30 and 39 feet. It appears that Benson Road is approximately 30 feet above the project site. A concrete aqueduct is situated along the toe of the eastern slope and conducts water that appears to originate from the former Renton Coal Mine. There are many above- and below-ground utilities at the site, some of which are still live. High voltage electrical transmission lines also extend across the site. As a result of past environmental site assessments on the project site, there are numerous resource protecrion wells across the site. We estimate that there could be between 30 and 40 wells across the site. We understand that the proposed development will consist of an approximate 135,000 square foot building with associated parking and landscaping. At the time of preparing this report,the finish floor elevation is anticipated to be 37.0 feet. We anticipate that the exterior walls will be constructed of concrete masonry block or steel frame and metal stud, and that steel tube columns will provide interior roof support. Typical bay spacing between columns and walls is approximately 50 by 47 feet and exterior columns are typically spaced 47 feet apart. For purposes of preparing this report, the following structural loads are anticipated: Interior column gravity load 65 kips Estimated maximum gravity load due to severe live loading ' 150 kips Exterior column gravity load 50 kips Maximum Column uplift forces from wind 30 kips Uniform load on continuous footings 1.5-2.0 kips/lineal foot Maximum uniform floor slab live load 250 psf Maximum floor slab concentrated load 16.0 kips Z,per Zeman Associates.Inc. 18905 33rd Avenue W.,Suite 117 Lynnwood,Washington 98036 425) '?1-3304 Proposed Retail Development J-1470 S. Grady Way and Talbot Road December 6,2002 Renton,Washington Page 8 Zipper Zeman Associates should be notified of any deviation from the project description presented herein to detemune its potential effect on the conclusions and recommendations presented herein. SUBSURFACE CONDTTIONS The subsurface exploration program completed by ZZA at the project site included 43 hollow-stem auger and mud-rotary borings, the approximate locations of which are presented on Figure 1, the Site and Exploration Plan, enclosed with this report. Of the 43 borings, 6 were completed in a separate phase in order to evaluate the stability of a proposed alteration to a lobe of coal mine waste fill along the east side of the site. We also reviewed the logs of subsurface explorations completed by GeoEngineers and Terra Associates for previous proposed projects on the subject site. Copies of the boring logs completed for this evaluation are enclosed in Appendix A. The borings electric cone probes completed in the building pad and parking areas for this study extended to depths ranging from 11%2 to 110'/z feet below the existing ground surface. Below the surface, soils typically consisted of 4'/z to more than 11'/z feet of very loose to loose, moist, wet, and saturated, brown to black, coal, cinders and shale fill. In general, the coal ranged in size from silt to gravel sized. In many borings loose silty sand fill that appeared to originate from the local sandstone formation was also encountered. Underlying the coal mine wastes, interbedded alluvial soils consisting of very loose to loose silty sand and very soft to soft sandy I silt, peat, organic silt, and clayey silt extended to depths of 15 to 49 feet below grade. The alluvium graded to medium dense sand with varying proportions of silt and gravel and medium stiff to stiff sandy silt, silt, organic silt, clayey silt and silty clay that extended to depths of approximately 18%z to 107 feet below grade. Very dense, weathered sandstone bedrock was I encountered below these materials and extended to the bottom of the borings. The sandstone is part of the Renton Formation that is also the source of the coal fill encountered on the site. The sandstone appears to dip relatively steeply to the west. Borings B-lA through B-6A were completed on the lobe of coal mine waste fill along the II east side of the site. Subsurface conditions consisted of 20 to 36 feet of very loose to loose, damp to wet, brown and btack, coal and cinder fill with random layers of silty sand that originated from the sandstone bedrock. Because of the steeply dipping sandstone bedrock in the area, borings B- lA, B-2A, and B-3A, that were completed along the western margin of the fill, encountered 7 to 19 feet of very loose to loose sandy alluvial soils beneath the fill. Sandstone bedrock was encountered in borings B-lA and B-2A at depths of 29 and 47 feet below existing grades, respectively. In borings B-4A, B-SA, and B-6A, an approximate 3-foot thick layer of very loose, wet to saturated, silty sand was encountered between the tailings and the dense sandstone. The very loose layer was interpreted to be residual soil derived from the weathering of the sandstone. Dense to very dense sandstone was encountered at depths of 23 to 33 feet below existing grades. Four borings (B-4, B-9, B-36, and B-37) were completed in the area of the proposed retaining wall that is situated near the southeast corner of the proposed building. Boring B-4 encountered approximately 7 feet of loose silty sand fill over 8 feet of loose native soils I consisting of sand with varying proportions of silt, gravel and organics. At 15 feet, a 3-foot thick Zip er Zeman Associates,Inc. 18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite 117 Lynnwood,Washington 98036 425)7?1-3304 Proposed Retail Development J-1474 S.Grady Way and Talbot Road December 6,2002 Renton,Washington Page 9 layer of inedium dense, silty sand with some gravel, interpreted as highly weathered sandstone was encountered. At a depth of approximately 18%z feet, very dense sandstone was encountered. In borings B-36 and B-37, approximately 41/ z to 6% feet of very loose to loose silty sand and coal tailings fill was encountered. In B-36, interbedded, very loose silty sand, sandy silt, and peaty organic layers were encountered between 6'/Z and 13 feet. Between 13 and 19 feet, medium stiff sandy silt with interbedded silty sand and organics extended to a depth of approximately 19 feet. At his depth, very dense sandstone was encountered. In B-37, very loose to loose alluvial sand with varying proportions of silt gravel and peat was generally encountered. However, a 4-foot thick peat layer was encountered between 8'/ and 28 feet below grade. Dense grading to very dense sandstone was encountered at a depth of 28 feet and continued to the bottom of the boring. Boring B-9 was completed above the site along the edge of Benson Road. Approximately 10 feet of loose to medium dense, silty sand fill was encountered below the surface. A possible relic, silty sand topsoil layer was encountered between 10 and 10'/2 feet. Between 10'/Z and 20 feet, medium dense silty sand was encountered. This material graded to a dense condition and- extended to a depth of about 25 feet. At that depth, the material graded to very dense weathered sandstone. The enclosed boring logs should be referred to for more specific information. Figure 1, the Site and Exploration plan includes information regarding the thiclrness of fill and depth to bedrock at each of the boring locations. Groundwater Conditions Groundwater was encountered at the time of drilling in 39 of the 43 the borings. Excluding the topographically higher borings, groundwater levels varied in depth across the site from 3 to 12 feet at the time of completing the explora.tions. The elevations of the groundwater levels varied between 23 and 34 feet with the highest groundwater elevation occurring nearest a small pond that is between the outflow from two discharge pipes at the base of the slope along the east side of the site and the north end of the aqueduct. Based on information presented by GeoEngineers, it appears that the observed groundwater levels at the time of drilling coincide with their observations. Wet soils were encountered in borings B-4A, B-SA, and B-6A above the sandstone. Perched groundwater should be expected to develop above the sandstone in areas above the regional groundwater table. Variations in groundwater conditions should be expected due to seasonal variations, on and off-site land usage, irrigation, and other factors. Seismic Criteria According to the Seismic Zone Map of the United States contained in the 1997 Uniform Building Code, the project site lies within Seismic Zone 3. The Seismic Zone Factor (Z) for Seismic Zone 3 is 0.30 that corresponds Seismic Coefficients Ca and C„ of 0.36 and 0.84, respectively. Based on soil conditions encountered at the site, the subsurface site conditions are interpreted to correspond to a seismic soil profile type SE as defined by Table 16-J of the 1997 Uniform Building Code. Soil profile type SE applies to an average soil profile within the top 100 feet consisting predominantly of soft soil characterized by Standard Penetration Test blowcounts Zinoer Zeman Associates.Inc. 18905 33rd Avenue VV.,Suite I 17 Lynnwood,Washington 98036 425) 771-3304 Proposed Retail Development J-1470 S.Grady Way and Talbot Road December 6,2002 Renton,Washington Page 10 less than 15, a shear wave velocity of less than 600 feet per second, and an undrained shear strength less than 1,000 psf. Some of the near-surface soils are considered to be prone to liquefaction during a design earthquake with a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years. Results of pH and Resisrivi , Testing Results of the pH and resistivity testing are presented in the following table. Borin and Sam le Number De th eet H Resistivitv ohm-cm IB-2,S-1 5-6'/Z 6.9 4,600 B-5 S-2 5-6'/: 6.7 9,400 B-8, S-5b 15'/Z 5.6 3,300 B-26.S-2 5-6'h 5.6 4,500 The electrical resistivity of each sample listed above was measured in the laboratory with distilled water added to create a standardized condition of saturation. Resistivities are at about their lowest value when the soil is saturated. Electrical resistivities of soils are a measure of their resistance to the flow of corrosion currents. Corrosion currents tend to be lower in high resistivity soils. The electrical resistivity of the soil varies primarily with its chemical and moisture contents. Typically, the lower the resistivity of native soils, the more likely that galvanic currents may develop and increase the possibility of corrosion. Based on laboratory test results, resistivity values for the near surface native soils varied between 3,300 and 9,40Q ohm-cm. Soils with resistivity values between 2,000 and 10,000 ohm-cm are generally associated with soils classified i„P,as "mildly to moderately corrosive". The pH of the soils is slightly acidic but is not considered significant in evaluating corrosivity. Therefore, it is our opinion that Type UII cement is suitable for this project. With respect to the need for protection of buried metal utilities, we recommend that PacLand consult with the manufacturers of specific products in order to determine the need for protection. Climate Data According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, Climatic Atlas of the United States, 1993, the project site lies within the Puget Sound Lowlands Region of Washington. Mean monthly rainfall varies from a low of 0.96 inches in July to a high of 5.56 inches in December. Between November and March, there are about 20 days per month where 0.01 inches or more of rainfall occurs. Normal daily minimum temperatures are above freezing throughout the year. Mean annual total snowfall is about 12 inches. Weather data from the Western Region Clirnate Center (WRCC) for Kent, Washington the nearest weather station) varied slightly from the Climatic Atlas and likely represents a more accurate representation of the local weather. The greatest mean monthly snowfall occurs in inoer Zernan Associates.Inc. 18905 33rd Avenue W.,Suite 117 Lynnwood,Washington 98036 425)771-3304 Proposed Retail Development J-1470 S.Grady Way and Talbot Road December 6, 2002 Renton,Washington Page 11 January and averages 7.3 inches. Average monthly rainfall and snowfall amounts can be greatly exceeded as can be seen in the enclosed weather data. The mean total precipitation for each month at the Kent weather station is: January: 5.73 in. July: 0.85 in. February: 4.32 in. August: 1.15 in. March: 3.88 in. September: 1.78 in. April: 2.70 in. October:3.49 in. May 1.86 in. November: 5.88 in. June: 1.56 in. December: 6.00 in. The WRCC Monthly Total Snowfall, Monthly Total Precipitation, and Monthly Normals data are also presented in Appendix D. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The geologic conditions at the site are considered to be relatively poor from a geotechnical engineering standpoint. The soil conditions generally consist of very loose to loose fill soils composed primarily of coal and cinders over very soft to soft peat, silt, clay, clayey silt, and sandy silt, as well as very loose to loose, wet to saturated silty sand and sand. The fill soils are considered unsuitable for shallow foundation support and the native peat, silt and clay exhibit relatively low strength and high compressibility characteristics that makes them susceptible to consolidation when loaded. Consolidation under normally loaded foundation elements would produce excessive total and differential settlements of the structure. Additionally, the cleaner, very loose to loose sands are susceptible to liquefactian during a design earthquake. Liquefaction susceptible sands were encountered in the borings within the building pad and the resulting settlement associated with the occurrence of liquefaction could result in relatively large F,'-- differential settlements across the building pad. Preloading would not mitigate the liquefaction i potenrial at the site. Environmentally Critical Areas - Stee Slo e. Landslide. and Erosion Considerations The slopes around the base of the fill lobe are relatively steep and are considered sensitive andlor protected slopes as presented in the Municipal Code of Renton. As such, slopes categorized as sensitive or protected are also considered to be geologic hazards by the City of Renton. In order to modify the ridge, it was necessary to evaluate the soils and complete a slope stability analysis of the proposed modifications to the slope. Steep slope areas are classified as protected or sensitive. A protected slope is defined as a hillside, or portion thereof, with an average slope of 40 percent or greater with a minimum vertical rise of 15 feet. A sensitive slope is a hillside, or portion thereof, of 25 percent to less than 40 percent or and average slope of 40 percent or greater with a vertical rise of less than 15 feet abutting an average slope of 25 percent to 40 percent. It is our opinion that all of the affected area would be classified as protected or sensitive. i inuer Zeman Associates.Inc. 18905 33rd Avenue W.,Suite 117 Lynnwood,Washington 98036 425)'71-3304 Proposed Retail Development J-1470 S.Grady Way and Talbot Road December 6,2002 Renton,Washington Page 12 Moderate landslide hazard areas are defined as those areas with slopes between 15 and 40 percent where the surficial soils are underlain by permeable geologic units. High landslide hazard areas are defined as those areas with slopes greater than 40 percent and areas with slopes between 15 and 40 percent where the surficial soils are underlain by low permeability geologic units. It appears that slopes are greater than 15 percent and aze underlain by both permeable and impermeable soils. Therefore, it appears that the existing slope would fall within both categories depending on the subsurface conditions. The lobe of fill would also be defined as a high seismic hazard area due the hillsides being comprised of loose fill over alluvium and post-glacial silts and peats. It also meets the definition of a high erosion hazard area because the slopes are greater than 15 percent. Slo e Stabilitv Analy,sis A slope stability analysis was performed for the site using the XSTABL5.2 computer program. The stability analysis was based on a generalized subsurface soil and groundwater profile through the existing and was developed using the site-specific subsurface data. Two direct shear test were completed on representative samples obtained in borings B-3A at a depth of 16 to 16'/z feet and B-SA at a depth of 21'/z to 22 feet. This provided us with strength parameters that were used in the slope stability analyses, A topographic and subsurface profile was developed along line A-A' as shown on Figure 1, the Site and Exploration Plan. Based on the relative density, grain size distribution. depositional history, and the site specific subsurface and laboratory data, it is our opinion that the friction angle and cohesion values are reasonable estimates of the site soil strength parameters. i '- SOIL PARAMETERS FOR SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES Soil Layer Friction Angle ()Cohesion (ps Moist Unit Weight c Coal Tailin s 37 0 70 Loose Sand Above Sandstone 33 0 120 Loose Alluvium 32 0 120 Sandstone 15 3,000 140 Our analysis evaluated both static and dynamic (seismic) conditions for the exisring slope inclinations with and without an inferred perched groundwater table. The USGS Seismic Hazard Mapping Project earthquake hazard map for the area indicated a peak horizontal bedrock acceleration of 0.32g for an earthquake with a 10 percent exceedance in 50 years. Our analysis used a dynamic (seismic) horizontal ground acceleration of 0.16g (1/2 the peak acceleration) conditions for the permanent cut slope inclination of 3H:1 V, which is more indicative of the average ground acceleration during a seismic event of design magnitude. Figure 2, Generalized Subsurface Profile A-A', presents the subsurface soil and groundwater profile used for our analysis. Ziooer Zeman Associates.Inc. 18905 33rd Avenue W.,Suite 117 Lynnwood,Washington 98036 425)77]-3304 Proposed Retail Development J-]470 S.Grady Way and Talbot Road December 6,2002 Renton,Washington Page 13 The following table presents the results of the static and dynamic stability analysis conducted for this project. TABLE 1 RESULTS OF SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS I Minimum Minimum Slo e Confi tion Static Safe Factor Seismic Safe Factor 3H:1 V Permanent Slo e 2.1* 1.3* Reduced factors of safety are possible if high groundwater or low shear strength materials are present in the slope. Based on our analysis, a permanent cut slope inclination of 3H:1 V appears to be suitable for static and seismic conditions. The results of the pseudostatic stability analysis (lowest safety factor) are presented on Figure 3. The occurrence of perched groundwater above the sandstone and within the tailings would reduce the factor of safety and could potentially cause failure. In order to reduce the risk of groundwater and surface infiltration destabilizing the slope, a subsurface drainage should be installed to maintain groundwater levels as deep as possible. A series of perforated interceptor drains on about a 25-foot lateral spacing in a herringbone pattem and connected to a collector pipe will likely be necessary. The laterals would be connected to a collector pipe installed essentially down the middle of the proposed slope. We recommend that the laterals be installed on the sandstone and that the lowest set of interceptor pipes be installed to an invert elevation of 34 feet. We recommend that our firm review the design of the drains and that ZZA monitor their installation. The final depths and locations will likely require field adjustments based on the conditions encountered during construction. Erosion Mitigation The soils comprising the proposed cut slope are susceptible to erosion by flowing water. We recommend the following erosion control Best Management Practices be implemented dunng construction: Establish well-defined clearing limits to reduce the amount of vegetation disturbed during construction; Place silt control fence downslope of disturbed areas; Cover excavated slopes with plastic sheeting during rainfall events; Cover disturbed and graded areas with straw, excelsior blankets, or other appropriate erosion control materials, combined with seeding or other planting, to promote revegetation. Excelsior blankets such as Curlex, jute matting such as Geojute, or other rolled erosion control products, installed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations, are recommended for sloping portions of the site disturbed during construction. Such areas ZiR er Zeman Associates.Inc. 18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite 117 Lynnwood,Washington 98036 425)771-3304 Proposed Retail Development J-1470 S.Grady Way and Talbot Road December 6,2002 Renton,Washington Page 14 include spots were the existing landscaping waste located at or slightly over the slope break is removed. Perched groundwater could daylight on the proposed 3H:1 V slope that generally is not evident on the existing slopes. If groundwater seepage daylights on the slope, it might cause shallow slumping. These areas, if it occurs, should be covered with a minimum of 10 inches of riprap. We recommend that riprap conform to the specificarions for Quarry Spalls as presented in section 9-13.6 of the 2002 WSDOT Standard Specifications. Foundations Settlement Discussion There are three modes of potential settlement relative to the soil conditions encountered at the site. The existing fill soils are comprised primarily of very loose to loose coal fragments in the size range of silt, sand, and gravel. The composition and relative density of this material makes it unsuitable for support of shallow foundations. The very soft to soft peat, silt, clay, and clayey silt are expected to consolidate under the weight of static foundation loads and fill soil surcharges. Additional, long-term settlements are probable due to secondary compression of these materials. Finally, seismically-induced liquefaction in the very loose to loose saturated sandy soils below the water table is also a significant risk. We have estimated that seismically- induced settlements on the order of 4 to 7 inches could occur within the zones of sand that were encountered across the building pad. Because of the subsurface conditions encountered, we recommend that the building be supported on pile foundations or soils that are deeply mixed with cement. In our opinion, either option used to support structurai loads for the new building would substantially reduce the risk of excessive post-construction settlement and transmit foundation loads through liquefaction susceptible soils. We recommend that the floor also be supported on piling or columns of cernent- mixed soil that extends to the bedrock. uefaction Anal,is As part of this study, we performed a site-specific liquefaction analysis using the methods developed by Seed and Idriss for the soil condirions encountered in our boring. Liquefaction can be described as a sudden loss of shear strength due to the sudden increase in porewater pressure caused by shear waves associated with earthquakes. Based. on our liquefaction analysis, we estimate that there is a risk that liquefaction would occur at various depths between approximately 10 to 40 feet below the existing ground surface during a design level earthquake event, as discussed below. Laboratory testing was completed as a part of this liquefaction analysis, the results of which are attached or indicated on the boring logs, as appropriate. Based on the Uniform Building Code (UBC) guidelines, seismic analysis should be based on an event having a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years or return period of approximately 475 years. According to available historical data, this return period within the Seattle-Portland area would be associated with an earthquake of approximate Richter magnitude 7.5. According to the United States Geological Survey, the peak ground surface accelerati n oer Zeman Associates.Inc. 18905 33rd Avenue W.,Suite 117 Lynnwood,Washington 98036 425)771-3304 r-, Proposed Retail Development 7-1470 S.Grady Way and Talbot Road December 6,2002 IRenton,Washington Page 15 produced by an earthquake of this magnitude will be about 0.3g at the subject site, which corresponds with the locally accepted acceleration values for fill or alluvial soils. Using these seismic parameters, we computed safety factors against liquefaction for the various soil layers below the water table using an analysis method developed by Seed and Idriss. i- Our analyses revealed a high probability of liquefaction (safety factors ranging from <1 to 1.3) within the zones of sand that were encountered at various depths below the water table down to r depths of 40 feet and more. The report titled Liquefaction Susceptibility for the Des Moines and Renton 7.-minute Quadrangles, Washington, (Geologic Map GM-41), prepared by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, delineates the site as being underlain by Category I soil deposits. Category I soil is defined having a high susceptibility to liquefaction. The report presents quotes from the Mayor and City Engineer of Renton after the 1965, Richter magnitude 6.5, Seattle-Tacoma earthquake. Reportedly, the entire lengths of Burnett Street and 7` Avenue required filling and paving to repair settling. In some places, the settlement was reported to be as much as 2 feet. Burnett Street and 7' Avenue are located just north and west of Grady Way, respectively, and within a few hundred feet of the project site. Liquefaction could produce surface disturbance in the form of lateral spreading, subsidence, fissuring, or heaving of the ground surface, which could result in cracldng, settling or tilting of the building. Volumetric strain on the order of 1/z to 3 percent could be possible in the liquefiable layers which conelates the potential settlements of about 4 to 7 inches of settlement, depending on the thickness of liquefiable soils. Due to the potential for liquefaction, as well as the relatively high settlement potential for shallow foundations, a pile foundation system that transmits foundation loads to the competent bedrock or dense soils encountered at a depth of approximately 19 to approximately 85 feet is recommended. Site Pre a ation Critical geotechnical considerations on the site include the moisture-sensitive soils encountered, high groundwater conditions along the east side of the site, the poor quality coal tailings fill across the site, and the deeper compressible and potentially liquefiable soils. The design recommendations presented in this report are therefore based on the observed conditions and on the assumption that earthwork for site grading, utilities, foundations, floor slabs, loading dock walls, and pavements will be monitored by a qualified geotechnical engineer. Any existing buried utilities, underground storage tanks or septic tanks on the site should be removed, relocated, or abandoned, as necessary, in accordance with all local, state and federal regulations. Localized excavations made for removal of utilities should be backfilled with structural fill as outlined in the following section of this report. The excavated soils should be considered unsuitable for reuse as structural fill. Stripping, excavation, grading, and subgrade preparation should be performed in a ma er and sequence that will provide positive drainage at all times and provide proper control of erosion. Accumulated water must be removed from subgrades and work areas immediately and Zin er Zeman Associates.Inc. 18905 33rd Avenue W.,Suite 117 Lynnwood,Washington 98036 42)'71-3304 Proposed Retail Development J-1470 S. Grady Way and Talbot Road December 6,2002 Renton,Washington Page 16 prior to performing further work in the area. If ponded surface water collects it should be pumped or drained to provide a suitable discharge location. The site should be graded to prevent water from ponding in construction areas and/or flowing into excavations. Exposed grades should be crowned, sloped, and smooth-drain rolled at the end of each day to facilitate drainage if inclement weather is forecasted. Equipment access may be limited if drainage efforts are not accomplished in a timely sequence. Project delays and increased costs could be incurred due to the muddy conditions if a working drainage system is not utilized. Site preparation will require the removal of limited surface vegetation and organic-rich topsoil across the site. Based on the conditions encountered in the explorations, we recommend that all organics, root mats, and topsoil be stripped to an average depth of 6 inches in those areas where topsoil is present. Additional removal of vegetation and/or organic-rich soils, such as in areas of heavy vegetation, should be determined by a qualified geotechnical engineer at the time of grading based on the subgrade material's organic content and stability. In general, relatively wet condirions prevail in the project area between November and May. During this period, the existing surficial fill soils could remain relatively wet and unstable. A relatively high groundwater table along the east side of the site and the probability of cutting this area down to approximately elevation 35 or 36 feet will expose very loose fill soils that are currently wet to saturated. The surficial soils aze sensitive because of the elevated moisture contents and will become unstable if they are not protected from construction traffic. In wet conditions, additional soils will need to be removed and replaced with a coarse crushed or naturally occurring sand and gravel or crushed recycled concrete mat. Other stabilization methods such as lime or cement treatment are not recornmended due to the high organic content of the coal tailings fill. Where overexcavation is necessary, it should be confirmed through monitoring and testing by a qualified inspection firm. We recommend that site preparation and initial construction activities should be planned to reduce disturbance to the existing ground surface. The severity of construction problems will I be dependent, in part, on the precaurions that aze taken by the contractor to protect the moisture and disturbance-sensitive site soils. Construction traffic should be restricted to dedicated driveway and laydown areas to prevent excessive disturbance of the parking area and driveway subgrades. If site stripping and grading acrivities are performed during extended dry weather periods, a lesser degree of subgrade stabilization may be necessary. However, it should be noted that intermittent wet weather periods during the summer months could delay earthwork if soil moisture conditions become elevated above the optimum moisture content. The use of a working surface of pit-run sand and gravel, crushed rock, or quarry spalls may be required to protect the exisring soils particularly in areas supporting concentrated equipment traffic. Prior to placing structural fill in the building pad, the subgrade should compacted to a firm and unyielding condition, moisture conditions permitting. Alternatively, the building pad should be covered with a woven geotextile equivalent to Mirafi 600X and a minimum of 12 inches of select granular structural fill. The building pad may then be raised to the planned finished grade with compacted structural fill. Subgrade preparation and selection, placement, and compaction of structural fill should be performed under engineering controlled conditions in accordance with the project specifications. We recommend that the building pad be surfaced with a minimum of 18 Zi ner Zeman Associates.Inc. 18905 33rd Avenue V4'.,Suite 117 Lynnwood,Washington 98036 425) 771-3304 Proposed Retail Development J-1470 S.Grady Way and Talbot Road December 6,2002 Renton,Washington Page 17 inches of "select" granular fill, or free-draining crushed ballast or base course, as defined by Sections 9-03.9(1) and 9-03.9(3), respectively, of the 2002 WSDOT Standard Specifications Manual. Material considered to be "select" should meet the 2002 WSDOT Standard Specifications Section, 9-03.14(1), Gravel Borrow, or be approved by the owner's geotechnical engineer. Haul roads should be constructed by placing a woven geotextile such as Mirafi 600X or Amoco 2006 over the existing coal tailings with a minimum of 12 inches of select granular fill placed over the fabric. 'The fabric should only be placed in areas between the rows of augercast piles and not where the piles will be drilled. If earthwork takes place during freezing conditions, all exposed subgrades should be allowed to thaw and then be recompacted prior to placing subsequent lifts of structural fill or foundation components. Altematively, the frozen material could be stripped from the subgrade to reveal unfrozen soil prior to placing subsequent lifts of fill or foundation components. The frozen soil should not be reused as structural fill until allowed to thaw and adjusted to the proper moisture content, which may not be possible during winter months. Structural Fill All structural fill should be placed in accordance with the recommendations presented herein. Prior to the placement of structural fill, all surfaces to receive fill should be prepared as previously recommended in Site Preparation section of this report. Structural fill includes any fill material placed under footings, pavements, or other permanent structures or facilities. The existing surficial fill soils should be considered unsuitable for reuse as structural fill. Limited zones of silty sand may be encountered in the large lobe of coal tailings fill on the east side of the site and should be considered suitable for reuse as structural fill. However, it appears that the majority of the lobe consists of coal. It appears that material used as structural fill will need to be imported. On-site soils considered suitable for reuse appear to be limited to the base course material beneath the existin asphalt pavement and limited pockets of silty sand that is layered in the coal tailings fill. Materials typically used for import structural fill include clean, well-graded sand and gravel ("pit run"), clean sand, various mixtures of sand, silt and gravel, and crushed rock. Recycled concrete, if locally available, is also useful for structural fill provided the material is thoroughly crushed to a well-graded, 2-inch minus product. Structural fill materials should be free of deleterious, organic, or frozen matter and should contain no chemicals that may result in the material being classified as "contaminated". Import structural fill for raising site grades can consist of a combination of"common" and select granular" material. "Common" structural fill consists of lesser quality, more moisture- sensitive soil, such as the soils encountered at the project site, that is free of organics and deleterious materials, is compactable to a firm and unyielding condition, and meets the minimum specified compaction levels. We recommend that common structural fill meet the requirements of the 2002 WSDOT Standard Specifications Section, 9-03.14(3), Common Borrow. 7i er Zeman Associates.Inc. 18905 33rd Avenue W.,Suite 117 Lynnwood,Washington 98036 425)771-3304 Proposed Retail Development J-1470 S. Grady Way and Talbot Road December 6,2002 Renton,Washington Page 18 SelecY' granular fill consists of free-draining naturally occumng, crushed aggregate, or quarry spalls. Select fill is generally used when less moisture sensitive material is needed for structural fill applications. "Select" structural fill should meet the requirements of the 2002 WSDOT Standard Specifications Sections, 9-03.12(2), Gravel Backfill for Walls or 9-03.14(1), for Gravel Borrow. Structural fill should be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness. Individual lifts should be compacted such that a minimum density of at least 95 percent of the modified Proctor (ASTM:D-1557) maximum dry density is achieved. Higher compaction levels should be achieved where called for in the project specifications of the local development standards. Subgrade soils below pavement areas and all base course materials should also be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the Modified Proctor maxirnum dry density. The top 12 inches of compacted structural fill should have a maximum 2-inch particle diameter and alI underlying fill a maximum 6-inch diameter unless specifically recommended by the geotechnicar engineer and approved by the own r. We recommend that a qualified geotechnical engineer from ZZA be present during the placement of structural fill to observe the work and perform a representative number of in-place density tests. In this way, the adequacy of earthwork may be evaluated as grading progresses. The suitability of soils used for structural fill depends primarily on the gradation and moisture content of the soil when it is placed. As the fines content (that portion passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve) of a soil increases, it becomes increasingly sensitive to small changes in moisture content and adequate compacrion becomes more difficult or impossible to achieve. We therefore recommend that grading activities be scheduled for the driest time of year in consideration of the moisture-sensitive nature of the site soils. Adjusting the moisture content of the site soils during the wetter and colder months between November and March would be much more difficult to accomplish. If inclement weather or soil moisture content prevent the use of imported common borrow material as structural fill, we recommend that use of"select" granular fill be considered. It should be noted that the placement of structural fill is in many cases weather-dependent and delays due to inclement weather are common even when using "select" granular fill. Reusing wet or excessively over-optimum on-site or import soils for structural fill would necessitate treahnent of the soils to reduce the moisture content to a level adequate for compaction. In the summer, air drying is commonly incorporated. When air drying is not feasible, kiln dust admixtures are typically used to increase the workability of the wet soils to a level where the soils can be compacted. The admixtures are extremely alkaline and can increase the pH of the soil mixture. Before such admixtures are considered, we recommend that their use be submitted to the appropriate overseeing agency since some jurisdictions are putting restrictions on their use, in particular kiln dust. If moisture conditioning of the soils is required to increase the moisture content of dry-of-optimum soils, we recornmend that the soils be uniformly blended with the added moisture. Based upon the nature of the existing fill soils, it is our opinion that the subgrade soils exhibit a low potential for swelling. However because the surficial fill soils consist primarily of coal, we anticipate that the material left in place could generate methane over time. Zioner Zeman Associates.Inc. 18905 33rd Avenue`'., Suite 117 Lynnwood,Washington 98036 42)771-3304 Proposed Retail Development J-1470 I _ S.Grady Way and Talbot Road December 6,2002 Renton,Washington Page 19 Excess soils may require stockpiling for extended periods of time before they can be used. It is recommended that all stockpiled soils intended for reuse as structural fill be protected with anchored polyethylene sheet plastic strong enough to withstand local wind conditions. Utili Trenching and Backfilling Exisring on-site, underground utilities should be removed, relocated or properly abandoned in place in order to prevent possible future settlement problems. All existing underground utilities should be decommissioned, abandoned, or backfilled in accordance with all applicable State and local regulations. Alternatively, abandoned utilities may be grouted in place. If the trench backfill materials above the existing utilities consist of coal tailings fill, we recommend that it be considered unsuitable for reuse as structural fill anywhere on site. If any exisring utilities are to be preserved, grading operations must be carefully performed so as to not i disturb or damage the e sting utility. We anticipate that most utility subgrades will consist of very loose to loose coal tailings fill or possibly soft silt, loose silty sand, or peaty soils. Soils deemed unsuitable for utiliry support I should be overexcavated a minimum of 12 inches in order to develop a firm, uniform base. Where peat is encountered, we recommend that the entire thiclrness of the material be removed and replaced. The replacement fill will be difficult to compact due to groundwater seepage and/or the underlying so$, native soils. Where possible, the structural fill used to replace overexcavated I soils should be compacted as specified and as recommended in this report. Where water is encountered in the excavations, it should be removed prior to fill placement. Alternatively, clean less than 1 percent fines) quarry spalls could be used for backfill below the water level. We recommend that utility trenching, installation, and backfiiling conform to all applicable federal, state, and local regulations such as OSHA for open excavations. In boring B-37, approximately 4 feet of peat was encountered at a depth of about 8'/z feet below eacisting grade or about elevation 33%Z feet. This is in the area of an alignment for a 4-foot diameter pipe that will convey mine runoff along the toe of a permanent retaining wall. We understand that the pipe may be covered with as little as one foot of soil. Given the proposed cut of about 5 to 6 feet in the area of boring B-37, it appears that the pipe invert will be situated in the middle of the peat. It is our opinion that the peat is not suitable for support of the pipe and should therefore be overexcavated and replaced with compacted structural fill. It appears that dewatering will be necessary to accomplish this since groundwater was encountered approximately 8 feet below grade at the time of drilling. We recommend that similar measures be taken for all deep utilities and structures, such as manholes and vaults, when peat or otherwise unsuitable materials are encountered. We recommend that trench excavation and preparation for all utilities be completed in general accordance with WSDOT Standard Specification 7-08. Existing on-site soils are considered unsuitable for utility trench backfill. Instead, imported soils that can be compacted to the minimum recommended levels should be used taking into consideration the surrounding soil and groundwater conditions at the time of construction. Pipe bedding and cover should be placed according to utility manufacturer's recommendations and local ordinances. Generally, it is recommended that a minimum of 4 inches of bedding material be placed in the trench bottom. All bedding should conform to the specifications Ziuner Zeman Associates.Inc. 18905 33rd Avenue W.,Suite 117 Lynnwood,Washington 98036 4?5)i71-3304 Proposed Retail Development J-1470 S. Grady Way and Talbot Road December 6,2002 Renton,Washington Page 20 gresented in Section 9-03.12(3) of the WSDOT Standard Specifications Manual or be approved by the owners' geotechnical representative based upon specific conditions encountered at the site. All excavations should be wide enough to allow for compaction around the haunches of pipes and underground tanks. Otherwise, materials such as controlled density fill or pea bravel could be used to eliminate the compactive effort required. Backfilling for the remainder of the trenches could be completed utilizing common fill or select granular fill, depending on soil moisture and weather conditions, as well as groundwater levels. Compaction of backfill material should be accomplished with soils within t2 percent of their optimum moisture content in order to achieve the minimum specified compaction levels set forth in this report and project specifications. However, initial lift thiclaiess could be increased to levels recommended by the manufacturer to protect utilities from damage by compacting equipment. For planning purposes, we recommend that all native soils be considered unsuitable for reuse as structural fill. Filtered sump pumps placed in the bottoms of excavatians or other conventional dewatering techniques are anticipated to be suitable for dewatering excavations that terminate above the water table, if seepage is encountered. Pumped dewatering well systems would likely be required to facilitate excavations below the water table. a ' Pre-bid test pits could assist in evaluating the most economical means of site excavation. Relatively flat slopes, benching, or temporary bracing may be needed. Conventional trench box shoring is also an option for the project, Tempo and Permanent Slo es Temporary slope stability is a function of many factors, including the following: The presence and abundance of groundwater; The type and density of the various soil strata; The depth of cut; Surcharge loadings adjacent to the excavation; The length of tirne the excavation remains open. It is exceedingly difficult under the variable circumstances to pre-establish a safe and maintenance-free" temporary cut slope angle. Therefore, it should be the responsibility of the contractor to maintain safe temporary slope configurations since the contractor is continuously at the job site, able to observe the nature and condition of the cut slopes, and able to monitor the subsurface materials and groundwater conditions encountered. It may be necessary to drape temporary slopes throughout the site with plastic sheeting or other means to protect the slopes from the elements and minimize sloughing and erosion. Unsupported vertical slopes or cuts deeper than 4 feet are not recommended if worker access is necessary. The cuts should be adequately sloped, shored, or supported to prevent injury to personnel frorn local sloughing and spalling. The excavation should conform to applicable federal, state, and local regulations. Zip„per Zeman Associates.Inc. 1890 33rd Avenue W,,Suite 117 Lynnwood,l'ashington 98036 42)771-3304 Proposed Retail Development J-l470 S.Grady Way and Talbot Road December 6,2002 Renton,Washington Page 21 We recommend that all permanent slopes constructed in the coal tailings be designed at a 3H:1V (Horizontal:Vertical) inclination or flatter. Temporary siopes should be excavated at an inclination no steeper than 2H:1 V. Where wet or saturated coal tailings are exposed, temporary and permanent slope angles flatter than those may be necessary. Permanent structural fill placed on existing slopes steeper than SH:1 V Horizontal:Vertical) should be keyed and benched into natural soils of the underlying slope. We recommend that the base downslope key be cut into undisturbed native soil. The key slot should be at least & feet wide and 3 feet deep. The hillside benches cut into the native soil should be at least 4 feet in width. The face of the embankment should be compacted to the same 95 percent relative compaction as the body of the fill. This may be accomplished by overbuilding the embankment and cutting back to the compacted core. Alternatively, the surface of the slope may be compacted as it is built, or upon completion of the embankment fill placement. Shorin Desigr Criteria Development of the site will require the construction of a permanent retaining wall near the southeast corner of the proposed building. The exposed maximum height of the wall will be approximately 18 feet. However, we understand that a 4-foot diameter pipe will be installed along the base of the wall to convey mine runoff that currently is routed to the site and then through an aqueduct to the south end of the site. Below the pipe, the native soils will consist of very loose sand and silty sand, as well as soft peat, and silt. Sandstone bedrock was encountered about 19 to 24 feet below the existing ground surface in the area of the wall. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered at the site we recommend that the retaining wall consist of soldier pile shoring with permanent riebacks. A permit to allow the permanent tiebacks in the Benson Road right-of-way will likely be necessary for a tieback-supported system. If permanent tiebacks aze not permitted, it will be necessary to consider designing a cantilevered soldier pile wall or a temporarily tied-back wall that is integrated with a pile-supported concrete retaining I wall. The lateral movement of soil and shoring surrounding the excavation will cause varying degrees of settlement of streets and sidewalks adjacent to the excavation. The settlement- sensitivity and importance of any adjacent structures and improvements need to be considered when selecting appropriate shoring system and design criteria. The excavation will be near Benson Road that contains utilities that may be settlement-sensitive. ii The shoring design criteria presented in this report should be used by the structural engineer and contractar to design an appropriate system. The shoring system design should be reviewed by Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. for conformance with the design criteria presented in this report. It is generally not the purpose of this report to provide specific criteria for construction methods, materials, or procedures. It should be the responsibility of the shoring subcontractor to verify actual soil and groundwater conditions at the site and determine the construction methods and procedures needed for installation of an appropriate shoring system. ZiRper Zeman Associates.Inc. 18905 33rd Avenue W.,Suite 117 Lynnwood,Washington 98036 425) 771-3304 Proposed Retail Development J-1470 S.Grady Way and Talbot Road December 6,2002 Renton,Washington Page 22 I ateral Earth Pressures and Movement The design of shoring is conventionally accomplished using empirical relationships and apparent earth pressure distributions. These earth pressure distributions or envelopes do not represent the precise distribution of earth pressures but rather constitute hypothetical pressures from which tieback loads can be calculated which would not likely be exceeded in the excavation. Additionally, pressures must be selected adjacent to existing settlement-sensitive utilities that will tend to limit deflections, both vertical and horizontal. Design of temporary shoring could be based on either "active" or "at-rest" lateral earth pressures, depending on the degree of deformation of the shoring that can be tolerated. Shoring which is free to deform on the order of 0.001 to 0.002 dmes the height of the shoring is considered to be capable of mobilizing active earth pressures. This lateral deformation is likely to be accomplished by vertical settlement of up to roughly 0.005 times the height of the shoring; which may extend back from the side of the cut a distance equal to roughly the height of the cut. Lesser degrees of settlement may also occur within a setback extending twice as far back. A greater amount of lateral deformation could lead to greater vertical settlements behind the wall. If no structural elements aze located within this zone, or if any structural elements within the zone are considered to be insensitive to this degree of settlement, then it would be appropriate to design utilizing active earth pressures. An assumed "at-rest" earth pressure condition theoredcally assumes no movement of the soil behind the shoring; however, some settlement should realistically be anticipated due to construction practices and/or the fact that it is not possible to construct a perfectly stiff shoring system. All deep excavations do invite a certain amount of risk. Since the selection of shoring techniques and criteria affect the level of risk, we recommend that the final selection of shoring 1 design criteria be made by the owner in conjunction with the structural engineer and other design team members. The project shoring walls could be designed using active pressures, provided lateral movement and vertical settlement to the degree described above is considered tolerable. The anticipated lateral and vertical movements of 1-inch or less with active earth pressures are typically tolerable for streets and buried utilities. For the case of a cantilevered shoring system, or shoring with only one level of internal or external bracing, the applied lateral pressure would be represented by a triangular pressure distribution termed an equivalent fluid density. Figure 4 of this report illustrates the recommended pressure distribution. We recommend an active pressure equivalent fluid density of 36 pounds per cubic foot (pc for these conditions. Additional lateral pressure should be added to this value to model surcharges such as street or construction loads, or existing foundation and floor loads. For design of shoring for assumed "at-rest" earth pressure conditions, with cantilever piles or one level of bracing, we recommend using an equivalent fluid density of 50 pcf As noted on Figure 4, a backslope surcharge is recommended for shoring. The backslope surcharge load is added to the height of the excavation as an equivalent soil height of H/4,where H is the height of the wall in feet. We also recommend applying a uniform seismic pressure of 16H to the shoring wall. It appears that Benson Road is more than 25 feet away from the wall and Zinner Zeman Associates.Inc. 18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite 117 Lynnwood,Washington 98036 425)771-3304 Proposed Retail Development J-1470 S.Grady Way and Talbot Road December 6,2002 Renton,Washington Page 23 should not impose a traffic surcharge. Other surcharge pressures acting on the shoring can be determined by the methods shown on Figure 5, and should be added to the lateral earth pressures as discussed above. Soldier Piles Soldier piles for shoring are typically set in pre-augered holes and backfilled with lean or structural concrete. Vertical loads on such piles could be resisted by a combination of friction and end bearing below the base of the excavation. We recommend neglecting the side friction throughout the loose and soft native soils and using a value of 2,000 psf in the sandstone. An allowable end-bearing value of 30 ksf (kips per square foot) can be used for soldier piles embedded at least 5 feet into the sandstone. The above values include a factor of safety of 1.5. Embedment depth of soldier piles below final excavation level must be designed to provide adequate lateral or "kick out" resistance to horizontal loads below the lowest strut or tieback level. For design, the lateral resistance may be computed on the basis of the passive pressure presented on Figure 4, acting over twice the diameter of the concreted soldier pile section or the pile spacing, whichever is less. We recommend that the passive resistance within the upper loose and soft soils be neglected and that an allowable passive resistance of 1,200 psf be used for that portion of the pile embedded in the sandstone. If excessive ground loss is allowed to occur during pile installarion, increased settlement of the areas retained by the shoring would be more likely to occur. Soldier pile drilling is anticipated to extend through water-bearing coal tailings and native sand layers. Casing is recommended for these drilling conditions, in order to prevent caving. The contractor should be responsible for installation of casing, or using alternate means at their discretion, to prevent caving and loss of ground during pile drilling. We recommend lagging, or some other form of protection, be installed in all areas. Due to soil arching effects, lagging may be designed for 50 percent of the lateral earth pressure used for shoring design. Prompt and careful installation of lagging will reduce potential loss of ground. The requirements for lagging should be made the responsibility of the shoring subcontractor to prevent soil failure, sloughing and loss of ground and to provide safe working conditions. We recommend all void space between the lagging and soil be backfilled. The backfill should be free-draining in order to prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. A permeable sand slurry or pea gravel should be considered for lagging backfill. If the lagging is exposed for the life of the wall, we recommend that it consist of concrete. If the wall is faced with a protective layer of concrete, the lagging should be adequately treated to resist rot. Lateral Su ort and Tiebacks Lateral support for the shored wall should be provided by tieback anchors. We anticipate that the anchors will be drilled into competent sandstone bedrock. However, historical records indicate that there were mineshaft adits in the area of the project site. Review of the historical documents leads us to suspect that one of the mine openings may be along the alignment of the existing 48-inch drainpipe that daylights on the project site. We did not encounter conditions that Ziooer Zeman Associates.Inc. 18905 33rd Avenue W.,Suite 117 Lynnwood,Washington 98036 425)771-3304 Proposed Retail Development J-1470 S.Grady Way and Talbot Road December 6,2002 Renton,Washington Page 24 would indicate the presence of the shafts. However, if a zone of fill and/or a mineshaft exists in the anchor zone of the proposed wall, it may not be possible to install some of the riebacks as recommended. We recommend that additional subsurface explorations be completed in support of the retaining wall design. If a mineshaft is present in the tieback zone, further definition of the conditions prior to bidding would reduce the possibility of change orders and delays during construction. Evaluations could consist of surficial geophysical evaluations using resistivity or magnetics and/or downhole geophysical methods in predrilled holes. We also recommend that the 48-inch pipe be logged with a camera to determine its alignment and where it terminates. The anchor portion of the tieback must be fully located a sufficient distance behind the retained excavation face to develop resistance within the stable soil mass. We recommend the anchorage be attained behind an assumed failure plane that is formed by a 60° angle from the base of the excavation and set back from the retained excavation face for a horizontal distance of one- fourth the height of the soldier pile above the bottom of the excavation. The zone in front of the above-described plane is called the "no-load zone". The unbonded portion of the tieback anchor should extend entirely through the no-load zone, and should be a minimum of 15 feet in length. The anchor portion of the tieback should be a minimum length of 12 feet. All tieback holes within the no-load zone should be immediately backfilled. The sole purpose of the backfill is to prevent possible collapse of the holes, loss of ground and surface subsidence. We recommend that the backfill consist of sand or a non-cohesive mixture. Sand/cement grout could be utilized oniy if some acceptable form of bond-breaker (such as plastic sheathing) is applied to the tie-rods within the no-load zone. Anchor holes should be drilled in a manner that will minimize loss of ground and not disturb previously installed anchors. Caving will likely occur in the coal tailings above the sandstone and will likely require the use of casing. Caving could also occur if wet or saturated zones are encountered. Drilling with and grouting through a continuous-flight auger or a casing would reduce the potential for loss of ground. Using the design values presented herein is dependent on a well-constructed anchor. We recommend that concrete be placed in the drilled tieback anchor hole by tremie methods such as pumping through a hose placed in the bottom of the hole or pumping through the center of a continuous-flight auger. In this way, the grout is forced up through the anchor zone under pressure, with the resulting anchor more likely to be continuous. The grout should not be placed into the anchor zone by simple gravity methods such as flowing down a chute. We recommend that Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. monitor all tieback installation. With a low-pressure grouted tieback shoring system, we estimate an allowable concrete- sandstone adhesion of 3,000 pounds per square foot (ps fl is recommended. We recommend that all anchors be located at least 10 feet below ground surface. For high-pressure grouted or secondary grouted anchors, the adhesion is highly dependent on grouting procedures. For planning purposes, a four-inch diameter pressure-grouted tieback can be assumed to have the same capacity per lineal foot as a 12-inch diameter low-pressure grouted (augered) tieback, or roughly 9 kips per lineal foot. Ziouer Zeman Associates.Inc. I 18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite 117 Lynnwood,Washington 98036 425)771-3304 Proposed Retail Development J-1470 S.Grady Way and Talbot Road December 6, 2002 Renton,Washington Page 25 Tieback Testing and Lockoff All permanent tieback anchors should be perFormance tested to at least 150 percent of design capacity prior to lockoff. Performance testing should include increasing the load on the tieback to the test load in five increments. Each increment is to be held long enough to obtain a stable measurement of rieback deflection, and the 150 percent load is to be held until five minutes elapse with less than 0.01 inch of creep movement. The anchors should then be locked off at 80 percent of design load. Tieback adhesion capacities presented in this report are estimates based on soil conditions encountered in the borings. The final adhesion capacity for each anchor installation method and soil type should be determined by field tests. We recommend that at least two, 300-percent tieback proof tests be completed prior to instatling production tiebacks for each soil type and installation method. Proof tests should consist of applying the load in eight increments to the test load, with each increment held until 5 minutes elapses with less than 0.01 inch of creep. The 300- percent load should be held unti130 minutes elapse with less than 0.01 inch of creep. Acceptance criteria for tieback tests should include all of the following: 1. Hold maximum test load for required duration with less than 0.01-inch of creep; 2. Linear or near-linear plot of unit anchor stress and movement, with creep movement less than 0.08 inches per log cycle of time; 3. Total movement during performance test loading, from 50 to 150 percent of design load, exceeds 80 percent of theoretical elastic elongation of unbonded tendon length; 4. Total movement during test loading, does not exceed theoretical elastic elongation of unbonded tendon length plus 50 percent of bond length; 5. Performance of the anchor head/pile connection acceptable to the structural engineer. Failure of an anchor to meet the required test acceptance criteria should be brought to the attention of the structural engineer. In most cases, where total anchor movement is within tolerable ranges, a reduced capacity will be assigned to the subject tieback. If total anchor movement is in excess of 6 inches, we recommend that the anchor be abandoned and replaced. Shorin,g.Vlonitoring Any time an excavation is made below the level of existing buildings, utilities or other structures, there is risk of damage even if a well-designed shoring system has been planned. We recommend, therefore, that a systematic program of observarions be conducted on adjacent facilities and structures. We believe that such a program is necessary for two reasons. First, if excessive movement is detected sufficiently early, it may be possible to undertake remedial measures that could prevent serious damage to existing facilities or structures. Second, in the unlikely event that problems do arise, the responsibility for damage may be established more equitably if the cause and extent of the damage are better defined. Monitoring can consist of conventional survey monitoring of horizontal and vertical movements. Zinoer Zeman Associates.Inc. 18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite 117 Lynnwood,Washington 98036 425) ??1-3304 Proposed Retail Development J-1470 S.Grady Way and Talbot Road December 6,2002 Renton,Washington Page 26 The monitoring program should include measurernents of the horizontal and vertical movements of the retained improvements and the shoring system itself. At least two reference lines should be established adjacent to the excavation at horizontal distances back from the excavation space of about 1/3H and H, where H is the final excavation height. Monitonng of the shoring system should include measurements of vertical and horizontal movements at the top of each soldier pile. If local wet areas are noted within the excavarion, additional monitoring points should be established at the direction of the soils engineer. Reference points for horizvntal movement should also be selectively placed at various tieback levels as the excavation progresses. The measuring system used for shoring monitoring should have an accuracy of at least 0.01-foot. All reference points on the existing structures should be installed and readings taken prior to commencing the excavation. All reference points should be read prior to and during critical stages of construction. The frequency of readings will depend on the results of previous readings and the rate of construction. As a minimum, readings should be taken about once a week throughout construction until the excavation is completed. A registered surveyor should complete all readings and the data should be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer. Buildin,g Foundations We recommend that the proposed building be supported on pile foundations due to the risk of settlements that exceed the maximums presented in the Geotechnical Investigation and Report Requirements. We recommend that foundation support be provided by augercast piles, although other pile options such as timber or pipe piles could be considered. If steel piles are considered, the effects of corrosion will need to be taken into account. We can provide recommendations for alternarive pile options,if requested. As noted in the Subsurface Conditions section of this report, the thickness of coal tailings fill, compressible soils, and potentially liquefiable soils, and the depth to sandstone bedrock varies across the site. In general, the depth to sandstone bedrock varies from about 19 to more than 110 feet below existing grades. We anticipate that the auger will be able to slightly penetrate the bedrock as it appears to be moderately to highly weathered at the contact. It is our opinion that piles can achieve the recommended allowable capacities with a maximum length of 85 feet. We understand that the former buildings on site were timber pile supported. Of the two pile supported buildings, the proposed building envelopes one entire building and a portion of another. Therefore, we recommend that the layout of the piles take into consideration the location of the existing piles. We also recommend that the location of the piles be surveyed in order to modify the layout of the new piles before construction begins. An augercast pile is formed by drilling to an appropriate pre-determined depth with a continuous-flight, hollow-stem auger. Cement grout is then pumped down the stem of the auger under high pressure as the auger is withdrawn. The final result is a cast-in-place pile. Reinforcing can be lowered into the unset concrete column to provide lateral and/or tension capabilities. 7,' er Zeman Associates.Inc. 18905 33rd Avenue W.,Suite 117 Lynnwood,Washington 98036 425)771-3304 Proposed Retail Development J-14'0 S.Grady Way and Talbot Road December 6,2002 Renton,Washington Page 2; Pressure grouting methods typically result in a grout column diameter in excess of the nominal diameter of the drilled hole. The soft and loose soils on the site could provide difficult to augercast pile construction due to grout loss into the loose/soft soil strata. We anticipate grout volumes within the soil column could average about 150 to 180 percent of the theoretical volume of drilled holes. The contractor should be required to stagger the pile grouting and drilling operations, such that all completed piles within 10 feet of the pile being drilled have set for at ieast 24 hours. Greater spacings may become necessary due to the length of the piles and should be determined at the time of construcrion. Augercast piles would gain their vertical compressive capacity mainly from end-bearing on bedrock or end-bearing and skin friction in soils below the liquefiable zone where bedrock is I not encountered. Vertical uplift pile capacity will develop as a result of side fricrion between the pile and the adjacent soil in addition to the weight of the pile. Due to the variable depth of the bedrock, augercast piles will likely vary in length from about 20 to 85 feet. Recommended augercast pile capacities are presented in Table 1 below. The vertical compressive pile capacities presented assume that adjacent piles are located at least three pile diameters apart and that the piles supported on the sandstone bedrock are embedded a minimum of 2 feet into the rock. Lateral pile capacities are also presented in Table 1 for 18-inch diameter piles. The allowable lateral capacities are based on fixed- and free-head conditions and limiting the deflection to '/2 inch. Because augercast piles are drilled, obstacles such as rocks, utilities, foundations and other man-placed debris in the subsurface can cause difficult installation conditions. It is possible that obstacles encountered during drilling the piles would require relocation of piles at the time of construction if impenetrable obstacles are encountered at planned pile locations. It may be necessary to periodically remove the pile auger from the holes during drilling in order to verify depths of the various soil types, and penetration into the bearing soil layer. We understand that the proposed building will be designed for the typical structural loads as presented to ZZA in the Geotechnical Investigation Specif cations and Report Reguirements. Based upon these values, as well as the conditions that could develop during a liquefaction event, we have developed allowable compressive and uplift capacities for 18-inch diameter augercast piles. The recommended pile lengths and associated allowable capacities are presented in Table 1 below. The allowable capaciries may be increased by one-third to resist short-term transient forces. If the piles are spaced closer than three pile diameters, the allowable capacities should be reduced. The reduction factor will be based on the actual center to center pile spacing and the configuration of the group. Zinoer Zeman Associates.Inc. 18905 33rd Avenue W.,Suite 117 Lynnwood,Washington 98036 425)771-3304 Proposed Retail Development J-1470 I _ S.Grady Way and Talbot Road December 6,2002 Renton,Washington Page 28 r TABLE 1 ALLOWABLE CAPACITIES OF AUGERCAST PILES Pile Diameter Estimated Pile Allowable Allowable Allowable Lateral Inches)Length (feet)Compressive Uplift Capacity Capacity, fixed Capacity(tons) tons)* head/free head tons 18 in bedrock 20 - 30 75 2 6.0/3.0 18 in bedrock 30—40 75 4 6.0/3.0 18 in bedrock 44—50 75 6 6.0/3.0 18 in bedrock 50—60 75 10 6.0/3.0 18 in bedrock 60- 70 75 15 6.4/3.0 18 in bedrock 70 - 80 75 22 6.0/3.0 18 in soil 85 75 36 6.0/3.0 Does not include the weight of the pile Based on an assumed modulus of horizontal subgrade reaction of 3 pci in the loose and soft near-surface soils, the stiffness factor (T) for a fixed- and free-head, 18-inch diameter auger- cast pile was calculated to be 88 inches (7.3 feet). The recommended allowable lateral capacities are based on 1'uniting deflection to 0.5 inch. We recommend that the reinforcing cages extend a minimum of 30 feet into each pile, or the full pile length if it is shorter than 30 feet. In addition to the reinforcing cages,we recommend that a full-length center bar be installed in each pile in order to develop the allowable uplift capacity. Some downdrag forces on the piles should be expected to develop over time as the peat and organic-rich soils consolidate over time. We estimate that forces of up to about tons could develop on longest piles that penetrate through the greatest thicknesses of compressible soils. However, given the 2.5 safety factor applied to the ultimate pile capacities, it does not appear that the downdrag forces will adversely affect the performance of the piles. Provided the piles are designed in accordance with our recommendations and they are constructed in accordance with industry standards, we estimate that total settlements will be less than one inch. Differential settlements are estimated to be less than 1/2 inch in 40 feet. The integrity of augercast piles is controlled in the field and can be affected by many variables. Unlike steel or timber piles with structural characteristics that can be predetermined during design, the construction of augercast piles must be continuously observed in order to determine that the piles have been constructed in a manner that will achieve the required design characteristics. Therefore, we recommend that ZZA provide construction observation services during the installation of the augercast pile foundations. This will allow us evaluate all of the variables that go into constructing an augercast pile and determine the adequacy of the piles as they are constructed. uer Zeman Associates.Inc. 18905 33rd Avenue W.,Suite 117 Lynnwood,Washington 48036 4Z5) 771-304 Proposed Retail Development J-1470 S.Grady Way and Talbot Road December 6,2002 Renton,Washington Page 29 Methane Gas Mitigation The presence of peat, organic-rich soils and coal tailings at the site can result in the generarion of inethane gas as the organics decay. Methane gas will follow the path of least resistance and has been shown to migrate laterally to find escape paths. It accumulates in pockets both inside and outside of buildings. Methane can present an explosive hazard if it concentrates in confined or enclosed spaces within a building, in underground vaults, conduits, and other collection points. We recommend that a methane barrier system that prevents the passage of methane gas into the building be provided under the floor slab and that a collecrion and venting system be installed below the gas barrier. We recommend that the vapor barrier be installed after the pile foundations have been constructed but before the capillary break is placed. The venting system should consist of 4-inch diameter perforated pipes fully enveloped in granular soils that is routed to the outside of the building. Further study of the development of inethane at the site could be completed to determine how significant the development of inethane is at the site. We would recommend that a minimum of four gas collection wells be installed at the site in order to collect samples of the vapor generated. The concentrarion of inethane would then be determined in the samples and specific recommendations could be formulated based on the test results. tructural Floors We recommend that all floor slabs be supported on augercast piles due to the thickness of very loose coal tailings and the risk of liquefaction induced settlements. We recommend that the slab be supported on a minimum of 12 inches of nonexpansive, granular structural fill compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D-1557). This will provide the support for the augercast pile construction equipment. We recommend that 6 inches of free-draining granular material be placed over the building pad to serve as a capillary break. Aggregates similar to those specified in WSDOT 2002 Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction, listed under specifications 9-03.12(4), 9-03.15 or 9-03.16 can be used for capillary break material provided they are modified to meet the fines content recommendarion. Alternatively, we recommend that the capillary break consist of free-draining aggregate that conforms with ASTM D2321, Table 1, Classes of Embedment and Bacicfill Material, Class IA, IB, or II (GW or GP). The fines content of the capillary break material should be limited to 3 percent or less, by weight, when measured on that portion passing the U.S. No. 4 sieve. A water vapor barrier is not considered to be necessary if a methane gas barrier is constructed. After the capillary break is placed, it will be required to support the reinforcing steel for the structural floor and its supports (dobies). We understand that it is very important to maintain the proper clearance between the structural fill subgrade and the rebar. Therefore, we recommend that the contractor submit detailed information in a timely manner about the material they intend to use in order to determine its adequacy for the intended use. 7,',uer Zeman Associates.Inc. 18905 33rd Avenue W.,Suite 117 Lynnwood,Washington 98036 42) 771-3304 Proposed Retail Development J-1470 S.Grady Way and Talbot Road December 6,2002 Renton,Washington Page 30 We recommend that all outdoor slabs and sidewalks supported on a minimum of 12 inches of nonexpansive, granular structural fill compacted to a mi imum of 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density(ASTM D-1557). We have estimated a vertical modulus of subgrade reaction of approximately 150 pounds per cubic inch for a 12-inch thick layer of granular soil compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density. Conventional Retaining Walls The lateral soil pressure acting on backfilled walls will primarily depend on the degree of compaction and the amount of lateral movement pernutted at the top of the wall during backfilling operations. If the wall is free to yield at the top an amount equal to at least 0.1 percent of the height of the wall, the soil pressure will be less than if the wall structurally restrained from- lateral movement at the top. We recommend that an equivalent active fluid pressure of 35 pcf be used for yielding walls and an at-rest equivalent fluid pressure of 55 pcf be used for non-yielding backfilled walls. These equivalent fluid pressures assume the bacicfill is compacted to approximately 90 percent of its modified Proctor maximum dry density. We recommend that we be allowed to review the design values and modify them, if necessary, if they are to be applied to F,;,:walls greater than 12 feet in height. For those portions of foundations embedded more than 18 inches below finish surrounding grade, we recommend using an allowable passive earth pressure of 125 and 250 pcf in the existing loose fill and in structural fill that extends laterally beyond the limits of the footing a distance of twice the embedment depth, respectively. We recommend using an allowable base friction coefficient of 0.30. The above equivalent fluid pressures are based on the assumption of a uniform horizontal backfill and no buildup of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. Surcharge pressures due to sloping ground, adjacent footings, vehicles, construction equipment, etc. must be added to these values. For loading docks, surcharge loading on the floor slab above the dock will result in a horizontal, uniformly distributed surcharge on the wall equal to 40 percent of the distributed vertical loading. We can provide surcharge criteria for other loading conditions behind the loading dock wall, if requested. We recommend a minunum width of 18 inches of clean, granular, free-draining material should extend from footing drains at the base of the wall to the ground surface, to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic forces. Altematively, weepholes on 4-foot centers could be constructed at the bases of the wall to provide a drainage path. It should be realized that the primary purpose of the free draining material is reduction in hydrostatic pressures. Some potential for moisture to contact the back face in the wall may exist even with this treatment, which may require more extensive water proofing be specified for walls which require interior moisture sensitive finishes. Care should be taken where utilities penetrate through backfilled walls. Minor settlement of the wall backfill soils can impart significant soil loading on utilities, and some form of flexible connection may be appropriate at bac lled wall penetrations. Zioner Zeman Associates.Inc. 18905 33rd Avenue W.,Suite 117 Lynnwood,Washington 98036 42)771-3304 Proposed Retail Development J-1470 S.Grady Way and Talbot Road December 6,2002 Renton,Washington Page 31 Drainage Considerations A perimeter foundation drainage system is recommended for this site due to the proposed finish floor elevation and the depth to groundwater at the time of our explorations. All retaining walls should be designed to include drainage systems that drain by gravity to a storm sewer or other suitable discharge location. Water from downspouts and surface water should be independently collected and routed to a suitable discharge location. Final exterior grades should promote free and positive drainage from the building areas at all times. Water must not be allowed to pond or to collect adjacent to foundations or within the immediate building area. We recommend that a gradient of at least two percent for a minimum distance of 10 feet from the building perimeter be provided, except in paved locations. In paved locations, a minimum gradient of one percent should be provided unless provisions are included for collection and disposal of surface water adjacent to the. structure. For design purposes, we recommend using a high groundwater elevation of 34 feet along the east side of the site. Permanent structures that extend below this elevation should be designed to resist hydrostatic pressures and should be appropriately waterproofed. The two existing mine runoff drainpipes that enter the east side of the site will be tightlined across a portion of the site. We recommend that the company or agency that owns or is responsible for their maintenance be determined in order to coordinate a long-term maintenance and inspection program. We further recommend that the peak flow in the drainpipes be determined in order to size the proposed tightline pipe. This should likely be done in the late r winter or spring when groundwater would be anticipated to be at its highest. Pavement Design Parameters rT The subgrade soils are anticipated to generally consist of very loose to loose coal tailings. As such, a CBR sample was not collected because it is our opinion that a minimum of one foot of structural fill will be necessary over the coal. Therefore, we have assumed that the fill will have a minimum California Bearing Ratio (CBR) of 50 percent. This would be similar to using a pit-run sand and gravel soil. All soil within the upper one foot of the base course must have pavement support characteristics at least equivalent to this and must be placed under engineering controlled conditions. A confirmatory CBR test should be completed on the proposed import road bed material. snhalt Concrete Pavement It must be recognized that pavement design is a compromise between high initial cost and little maintenance on one side and low initial cost coupled with the need for periodic repairs. As a result, the owner will need to take part in the development of an appropriate pavement section. Critical features which govem the durability of the surface include the level of compaction of the subgrade, the stability of the subgrade, the presence or absence of moisture, free water and Zi oer Zeman Associates.Inc. 18905 33rd Avenue W., Suite 117 Lynnwood,Washington 98036 42) ;71-3304 Proposed Retail Development J-1470 S.Grady Way and Talbot Road December 6,2002 Renton,Washington Page 32 organics, the fines content of the subgrade soils, the traffic volume, and the frequency of use by heavy vehicles. Our recommendations are based upon a 20-year design life. The pavement design recommendations assume that the subgrade and any structural fill will be prepared in accordance with the recommendations presented in this report. The top 12 inches beneath the pavement surface should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction, using AASHTO T-180 (ASTM: D1557) as a standard. However, the majority of the surficial soils consist of coal fill that may be difficult to compact and can break down over time. The pavement design recommendations assume that the subgrade and any structural fill will be prepared in accordance with the recommendations presented in this report. All fill, as well as the upper 12 inches beneath the pavement surface should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction, using AASHTO T-180 (ASTM:D1557). Specifications for manufacturing and placement of pavements and crushed top course should conform to specifications presented in Divisions 5 and 4, respectively, of the 2002 Washington State Department of Transportation, Standard Specifications for Roads, Bridges, and Municipal Construction. We recommend that the subbase course material conform to Sections 9-03.9(1), Ballast, 9-03.10, Aggregate for Gravel Base, 9-03.14(1), Gravel Borrow, 9-01.14(2), Select Bonow, or 9-03.11 Recycled Portland Cement Concrete Rubble, with the maximum aggregate size of 3 inches. The crushed aggregate base course material conform to Section 9-03.9(3), Crushed Surfacing Top Course. In lieu of crushed gravel base/top course, asphalt-treated base ATB) can be substituted. The ATB would provide a more durable wearing surface if the pavement subgrade areas will be exposed to construction traffic prior to final paving with Class B asphalt. Production and placement of asphalt should be completed in accordance with Section 5-04 of the WSDOT Standard Specifications. We recommend using a Class B mix as described in Section 9-03.8(6), Proportions of Materials, of the WSDOT Standard Specifications. ATB should conform to the specifications of Section 4-06, Asphalt Treated Base of the WSDOT Standard Specifications. i Recommended Pavement Sections for 20-Year Lifes an ATB Substitute for Traffic Asphalt Crushed TopBase Pit-Run Subbase Crushed Aggregate Thiclrness in. Course in.Inches Inches * Hea 4 4 12 3 Standard 3 4 12 3 ATB: Asphalt Treated Base may be substituted for crushed TopBase Course beneath Class B asphalt. Pavement design recommendations assume that the subgrade can be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density and that construcrion monitoring will be performed. If the subgrade can only be compacted to 90 percent of the modified Proctor or 95 percent of the standard Proctor, we recommend that an additional 5 inches of subbase be added to the pavement section. Continual flexible pavement maintenance along with major rehabilitarion after about 8 to 10 years should be expected to obtain a 20-year service life. Zioner Zeman Associates.Inc. 18905 33rd Avenue W.,Suite 117 Lynnwood,Washington 98036 425) 7?1-3304 Proposed Retail Development J-1470 S.Grady Way and Talbot Road December 6,2002 Renton,Washington Page 33 If possible, construction traffic should be limited to unpaved and untreated roadways, or specially constructed haul roads. If this is not possible, the pavement design should include an allowance for construction traffic. Stabilizing the subgrade with a fabric such as Mirafi 600X or similar may be necessary during wet weather construction or wet subgrade conditions. Proper geotextile fabrics will maintain segregation of the subgrade soil and base course materials. If the subgrade soils are allowed to migrate upwards into the base course,the result would be decreased pavement supporc. The use of stabilizarion fabric will not reduce the necessary base rock thickness, as fabric does not provide structural strength at such shallow depths. If the subgrade is disturbed when wet, overexcavation may be required and backfill with import fill. Concrete Pavement Concrete pavement design recornmendations are based on the soil parameters used for the asphalt pavement design, and an assumed modulus of rupture of S50 psi and a minimum compressive strength of 4,000 psi for the concrete. For standard and heavy-duty concrete pavement sections, minimum concrete pavement sections are presented below. Recommended Base and Subbase Thiclrness Traffic Concrete Crushed Base Pit-Run Subbase (in) Surfacin in Course in Hea 6 4 12 Standard 5 4 12 The materials and construction procedures should be in accordance with WSDOT Standard Specifications for concrete pavement construction. Stormwater Detention It appears that underground stormwater detention vaults may be constructed on site. If liquefaction related settlements can not be tolerated, we recommend that the vaults be supported on augercast piles. Even if the vaults are supported on piles, we recommend that the grading be completed prior to excavating for the vaults in order to preconsolidate the native soils around the limits of the vault. We recommend that the area of the vaults be preloaded with a 3-foot surcharge (using a soil with a unit weight of 125 pc fl to reduce the effects of differential settlements around the perimeter of the vault that would likely be manifested in the asphalc surfacing over time. This surcharge should extend at least 5 feet beyond the limits of the vault and be left in place a minimum of 4 weeks. We esrimate that the resulting consolidation could be on the order of 1 inch or more. Based on previous projects with similar conditions,we understand that settlement of this magnitude may not be acceptable with respect to the possibility of damage to the pipe connections at the vault. We recommend that a minimum of two settlement plates be installed on the existing subgrade at each vault location and that the elevations of the plates be determined prior to the Zinner Zeman Associates.Inc. 18905 33rd Avenue W.,Suite 117 Lynnwood,Washington 98036 425) 771-3304 Proposed Retail Development J-1470 S.Grady Way and Talbot Road December 6,2002 Renton,Washington Page 34 placement of any structural filUsurcharge soils. Readings made by a qualified surveyor should be completed twice a week until the finish subgrade elevation has been achieved. From then on, the readings should be taken once a week until it is determined that the vault excavation can begin. The survey information should be provided to ZZA in a timely manner for review. Because of the loose/soft, wet subgrade conditi ns below the surface, (even after preloading) we recommend that vault subgrades be overexcavated a minimum of 18 inches in order to replace the loose/soft soils with relatively uncompressible granular soils. These materials would also provide a working surface. If the vaults are not pile supported and peat is encountered in the bottom of the excavation, we recommend that all of the peat be removed and replaced with compacted structural fill. Prior to placing the granular fill, we recommend that a geotextile such as Amoco 1199, Layfield 104F, or similar(with an AOS of 70 or less) be placed over the exposed subgrade except in those areas where the augercast piles will be installed. The fill should be placed in maximum 6-inch thick lifts and be statically rolled and compacted. Vibratory compactors should be used with extreme caution as these could soften and disturb the underlying native soils. Pumped sumps or well points may also be necessary around the perimeter of the vaults depending on groundwater levels at the time of construction. If groundwater is present, we recommend that the water level be maintained a minimum of 18 inches below the top of the gravel pad during construction. We recommend that the structural fill placed over the geotextile consist of select aggregate as described in the Structural Fill section of this report. At the time of drilling, the groundwater elevations varied between 23 and 34 feet. Where applicable, we recommend designing the vault for buoyant forces for that portion that extends below the interpreted seasonal high groundwater levels. If underground vaults are used and their locations are determined, we recommend that ZZA be contacted in order to determine if buoyant forces should be incorporated into their design. CLOSURE The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based, in part, on the explorations accomplished for this study. The number, location, and depth of the explorations were completed within the constraints of budget and site access so as to yield the information to formulate the recommendations. Project plans were in the preliminary stage at the time of this report preparation. We therefore recommend that ZZA be provided the opportunity to review the project plans and specifications when they become available in order to confirm that the recommendations and design considerations presented in this report have been properly interpreted and implemented into the project design package. The integrity of earthwork, structural fill, and foundation and pavement performance depend greatly on proper site preparation and construction procedures. We recommend that a qualified geotechnical engineering firm be retained to provide geotechnical engineering services during the earthwork-related construction phases of the project. If variations in the subsurface conditions are observed at that time, a qualified engineer would be able to provide additional geotechnical engineering recommendations to the contractor and design team in a timely manner as the project construction progresses. ner Zeman Associates.Inc. 1890 33rd Avenue W., Suite 117 Lynnwood,Washington 98036 425) 771-3304 Proposed Retail Development J-1470 S.Grady Way and Talbot Road December 6,2002 Renton,Washington Page 35 We appreciate the opporninity to have been of service on this project and would be pleased to discuss the contents of this report or other aspects of this project with you at your convenience. If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to call. Respectfully submitted, Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. o° S s j 1Y Thomas A. Jones,P.E. z Associate 29074 W Q S ON V EXPIRES 4/27/ 0 3 1 Enclosures: Figure 1 —Site and Exploration Plan Figure 2—Generalized Subsurface Profile A-A' Figure 3 —Pseudostatic Seismic Stability Analysis Figure 4—Recommended Design Criteria for Shoring, Cantilever or Single Row of Tiebacks Figure 5—Surcharge Pressure Acting on Adjacent Shoring or Subsurface Wall r Appendix A—Field Procedures and Exploration Logs Appendix B—Laboratory Testing and Classification Appendix C—Geotechnical Investigation Fact Sheet, Foundation Design Criteria, Foundation Subsurface Preparation Notes and AASHTO Pavement Design Appendix D—Climatic Data Distribution: PacLand—7 copies inoer Zeman Associates.Inc. 18905 33rd Avenue W.,Suite 117 Lynnwood,Washington 98036 425)771-3304 e 2o A i/ ' Avy 1 y / 8-19' 18 `_ 'bs6 J s- B-21 a0Iz}19 tA I 21 4 24 i J.2 IE 34/8 ~ i ' ` 0 1 Zo TB-'I 02 i 23 `, e j ',I G6-17 Z, r , '\. y APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET v 1e GB 1 v , 1\=a' s-- ' 1---- . 17 15 ' yo y:1' J.l 103 .y 23 ' -zc ' 2 0' v L7 1S7211S2i 37 i 1- y.+ i t 37 5) P,, i o a S GB-1B s r B- ;!% i, j-B-11_ _ b 80 -° n I ° 6'1MDE X 15• ``• n o 3 &OS NALE 0 O.SX. t ` \ 'o G' v 3fi \2 N p J/ f * j . 11 ?i` `\ 6 •,j ' ,,.---`\ 31t.fiQ x ( T G' 28 1 l\ 10 9 I.e`, I E17TR7 B 3 ti i 74 y y IE 28.2 \; 8 fi r,O _ i ;„ ' 9, } g 2 28 " Y C7 P-3 r „ Y y'i 5 `,. ir B-29 S 1 ' t I• V< V" 1' 6 ' , 1 '•' . s zae 9¢ - ;\ GB-O e : P-2 , s I I a VB 1 n 1 B-31 B PRO.F SSED `'AiL z ZCb i 4 1.,__y n ' n 9 i n o B _oss i. a 5+a a+ n Q •._'_"...__;'. e oanc zzrn 3s.3n sv. P-1 c ` GB=4p coHs cna a -N GB-6 z • Z k o P sx 8=35 i: r 4:. _.- G&5 \ n.au ' ao 1 __ r, T- c-'—`r a . ' _a e, 7 \ 1 C a ^ \ r,70.00' 4 l ` CON • _o a, f- i} AOUE UF \ 8. C, r... Vx -^__ L-- 8-, . 38-13 gti , i— -----' ' s' , 3 r 5rp- 1 ` _"'__ I x I 71 4 waz..a.w tanrc+c - W g! s 3 46 r.1 ;5'.µ . r . i 52 BENSON ROA 5 Q SOU TH y i B- 2 N.v _ aw- 3so &9 •\ j% S v E y-1 sxw r, w` 1 3 p A ii /' N p` 3`' M P\ ' o .,,,` \: 1 1 n..' p y,,,. LEGEND: - v:. i.. B-1 APPROXIMATE BORING l LOCATION AND NUMBER T--', •----- ------ P-1 APPROXIMATE DUTCH CONE PROBE LOCATION AND NUMBER Zi per Zeman Associates,Inc.Projed No:,l-1470 Proposed Retaii Project GB-11TB-1 APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION AND NUMBER OF EXPLORATION GeotE:chnical and Environmental Consufting Renton, Washincton Drawn by: J. Duncan COMPLETED BY GEOENGINEERS ( }AND TERRA ASSOCIATES ( ). FIGURE 1 -SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN A A'1 3905 33rd Avenue West, Suite 117 Date: Oc'. 2002 GENERALIZED GEOLOGIC Lynnwood,Washington s8036 CROSS SECTION Tele: (425)771-3304 Fax: (4251771-3549 Scale:As Noted Basemap DWG File Provided by PACLAND,dated 9/13/ r A B-z A gp OFFSET 6'NORTH) B-1A (SLOPE EVALUATION) 80 OFFSET 4'SOUTH) EXISTING GROUND I I SURFACE 60 B-3 (SITE EVALUATION) 64 6 OFFSET 20'SOUTH) ATD 18 IPRE'QS O Very loose to medium dense i FlNIS COALtailings.(FILL) Very dense SANDSTONE p ,/ / HG QE. 3 I 40 4Q 3 PROPOSED FINISH GRAC E g50/4 50/4" ATD _ 3/ 1// ATD 2/ 50/1" 4 c 5 Irrterbedded very loose to loose,3 c 2 Loose,sii' SAND silty SAND,sandy SI!T,and SILT with 2 o ry 4 variable gravel,wooc,and organic debris coMent.(ALLWIUM) 3 W 8 W Very dense SANDSTONE 3 5 50/1 5 0 22 0 a 20 20 40 44 LEGfND: NOTES: B-1 EXPLORATION NUMBER,APPROXIMATE LOCATION,AND THE STRATA ARE BASED UPON INTERPOLATION OFFSET 4'SOUTH OFFSET FROM PROFiLE A-A BETWEEN EXPLORATIONS AND MAY NOT REPRESENl' ACTUAL SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS. SIMPLIFIED NAMES ARE SHOWN FOR SOIL DEPOSITS,BASED ON GENERALIZATIONS OF SOIL DESCRIPTIONS. SEE EXPLORATION IOGS AND REPORT TEXT FOR MORE 7 STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE DETAILED SOIL AND GROUNDWATER DESCRIPTIONS. s MEASURED GROUNDWATER LEVEL AT TIME OF DRILLING OR DATE NOTED Zihper Zeman Associates,Inc. Project No:J-1470 h enton Retail Slope Stability Anaiysis o Geotc chnical and Environmental Consulting Drawn by:J. Duncan Renton, Washington 1 905 33rd Avenue West, Suite 117 FIGURE 2-GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE Note: HORIZONTAL 1"=20' Date: Oct.2002 PROFILE A-A' VERTICAL 1'=2D' Lynnwood, Washington 98036 See Figure 1 for location of profile. Tele: (425)771-3304 Fax: (425)771-3549 Scale:As Noted L q iJ . .__::;i r Pseudostatic Seismic Stability Analysis J1470A1 10-29—•+ 9:36 Renton Retail 200 1 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 1 .312 SOIL STRENGTH VALUES 1 60 Soil Type 1: Loose to medium dense coal tailings(Fill),Q=37°,C=0 psf. Soil Type 2: Interbedded very loose to loose, silty sand, sandy silt, and silt 20 widi variable gravel, wood, and organic debris content (Alluvium), 0=32°,C=0.0 psf. N Soil Type 3: Loose silty sand X Residual Soil),0=33°,C=0 psf. a 80 Critical Failure Surface Soi! Type 4: Very dense sandstone, FOS= 1.312 0=15°,C=3000 psf. 3 40 4 1 w 1 2 0 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 X—AXIS (feet Z PER ZEMAN ASSOCIATES,INC. Project No. J-1470 Renton Retail Date: September 2002 Renton,Wasl ington GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL Scale: Noted CONSULTING Pseudostatic Seismic Stability Analysis FiQure 3 i _ . i Hs=EQUIVALENT SOIL NOTES: SURCHARGE FOR BACKSLOPE B HS 1.SOIL SURCHARGE"Hs"APPLIES TO 2H:1V BACKSLOPE SURCHARGE. EXCAVATION BASEi-- ADDITIONAL SURCHARGE REQUIRED AS NOTED ON FIGURE 4,AND/OR FOR 2' ASSUME NO RESISTANCE GROUND SURFACE SLOPE ABOVE TOP OF PILE.GROUND\ APPROXIMATE 2H:1V) SURFACE 2.ACTIVE,AT-REST,AND SURCHARGE fs PRESSURE ASSUMED TO ACT OVER fs) qa) PILE SPACING ABOVE EXCAVATION ALLOWABLE ALLOWABLE BASE AND OVER PILE DIAMETER f FRICTION END BEARING BELOW EXCAVATION BASE. NATIVE SOIL 0 ksf 0 ksf NO LOAD ZONE. \ SANDSTONE 2.5ksf 30 ksf LOCATE ALL 3.PASSIVE PRESSURE ASSUMED TO RECOMMENDED MINIMUM EMBEDMENT ANCHORS BEHIND ACT OVER TWICE THE GROUTED THIS LINE SOLDIER PILE DIAMETER OR THE PILE DEPTH 5 FEET INTO SANDSTONE SPACING,WHICHEVER IS SMALLER. B. VERTICAL CAPACITY OFHPASSIVEPRESSURESINCLUDE FACTOR OF SAFETY OF ABOUT 1.5. SOLDIER PILE TIEBACK ANCHOR NEGLECT LOOSE/SOFT NATIVE SOILS. TYP.) 36(H+D) 36 Hs 16 H 4.SEISMIC PRESSURE=16 H,Hs=H/4 5.D=DEPTH OF EMBEDMENT INTO SANDSTONE. FRICTION 6.ALL DIMENSIONS IN FEET. SOIL TYPE A( DHESIONj NATIVE SOIL 0 ksf SANDSTONE 3.0 ksf(augered) 60' 9.0 klf(pressure grouted) y_ EXCAVATION BASE VERIFY WITH LOAD TEST 300%OF DESIGN STRESS H/4 LEVEL,SEE TEXT. PROPOSED PROOF TEST TO 150°/a OF DESIGN ANCHOR LOAD, 4-FT DIA.PIPE SEE TEXT. SANDSTONE p C. TENTATIVE ANCHOR PULLOUT I I RESISTANCE r PASSIVE PRESSURE ACTIVE PRESSURE 36(H+D)+36(Hs)+16 H 100 D(psf)in loose/soft native soil AT-REST PRESSURE 50(H+D)+50(Hs)+16 H 1200 D(psf)in sandstone A. LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE -NO LOAD ZONE NOTE:Ziuper Zeman Associates,Inc. Project No.J-1470 PROPOSED RETAIL DEVELOPMENT FIELD VERIFY BACKSLOPE ANGLE Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting Renton,Washington BETWEEN WALL AND BENSON Date:Nov.2002 ROAD BEFORE DESIGN. 8905 33rd Avenue West,Suite 117 F(gure 4: Recommended Design Criteria forLynnwood,Washington 98036 Drawn by:J.D. Shoring Cantilever or Single Row of TiebacksTele: (425)771-3304 Fax:(425)771-3549 x=mD POINT LOAD q I FOR m > 0.4) 1 1.77q m2 2 6h - p 2 m2+ 2 3 FOR m < 0.4) 6 0.28q z 6h h D2 (0.16+n2)3 BASE OF EXCAVATION q 6,h =ah cos2 (1.1$) j\/\\/\/ 6 h n/ //. \ 6h PLAN VIEW OF WALL q, Ib per ft2 STRIP LOADING PARALLEL 3/2 a' TO EXCAVATION p ah = 2( 3-sin 3 cos 2a) 6h BASE OF EXCAVATION j///\/\//,/` q, Ib per ft2 UNIFORM LOAD DISTRIBUTION 6h = 0.4q q = VERTICAL PRESSURE in psf BASE OF EXCAVATION i\/j//\\//i. Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc. Project No.,1-1470 PROPOSED RETAIL DEVELOPMENT Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting Renton,Washington Date:Nov.2002 18905 33rd Avenue West,suite i Figure 5: Surcharge Pressure Acting onLynnwood,Washington 98036 Drawn by:J.D. Tele:(425)771-3304 Fax:(425)771-3549 Adjacent Shoring or Subsurface Wall APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION PROCEDURES AND LOGS r- z r FIELD EXPLORATION PROCEDURES AND LOGS J-1470 Our field exploration program for this project included 43 borings and 3 cone penetrometer probes advanced between September 19, 2002 and October 10, 2002. The approximate exploration locations are shown on Figure 1, the Site and Exploration Plan. Exploration locations were determined by measuring distances from existing site features with a tape relative to an undated Draft Grading and Drainage Plan prepared by PacLand. As such, the exploration locations should be considered accurate to the degree implied by the measurement method. The following sections describe our procedures associated with the explorarion. Descriptive logs of the explorations are enclosed in this appendix. Soil Boring Procedures Our exploratory borings were advanced using track- and truck-mounted drill rigs operated by an independent drilling firm working under subcontract to our firm. The borings were completed utilizing hollow-stem auger and mud rotary drilling methods. An experienced geotechnical engineer from our firm continuously observed the borings logged the subsurface conditions encountered, and obtained representative soil samples. All samples were stored in moisture-tight containers and transported to our laboratory for further visual classification andF,` testing. After each boring was completed, the borehole was bacicfilled with soil cuttings and bentonite clay. r Throughout the drilling operation, soil samples were obtained at 2.5- to 5-foot depth intervals by means of the Standard Penetration Test(ASTM: D-1586). This testing and sampling procedure consists of driving a standard 2-inch outside diameter steel split spoon sampler 18 inches into the soil with a 140-pound hammer free falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler through each 6-inch interval is recorded, and the total number of blows struck during the final 12 inches is recorded as the Standard Penetration Resistance, or s blow count" (N value). If a total of 50 blows is struck within any 6-inch interval, the driving is stopped and the blow count is recorded as 50 blows for the actual penetration distance. The resulting Standard Penetration Resistance values indicate the relative density of granular soils and the relative consistency of cohesive soils. Undisturbed samples were obtained by pushing a 3-inch outside diameter, seamless steel I Shelby tube into the soil using the hydraulic system on the drill rig in accordance with ASTM:D- 1587. Since the thin wall tube is pushed rather than driven, the sample obtained is considered to r be relatively undisturbed. The samples were classified in the field by examining the ends of the tube prior to sealing with plastic caps. The samples were then transported to our laboratory where they were extruded for further classification and laboratory testing. The enclosed boring logs describe the vertical sequence of soils and materials encountered in each boring, based primarily upon our field classifications and supported by our subsequent laboratory examination and testing. Where a soil conta.ct was observed to be gradational, our logs indicate the average contact depth. Where a soil type changed between sample intervals, we inferred the contact depth. Our logs also graphically indicate the blow T" count, sample type, sample number, and approximate depth of each soil sample obtained from the boring, as well as any laboratory tests performed on these soil samples. If any groundwater was encountered in a borehole, the approximate groundwater depth, and date of observation, is FIELD EXPLORATION PROCEDURES AlV'D LOGS J-1470 Our field explorarion program for this project included 43 borings advanced between October September 19, 2002 and October 10, 2002. The approxunate exploration locations are shown on Figure 1, the Site and Exploration Plan. Exploration locations were deternuned by measuring distances from exisring site features with a tape relative to an undated Draft Grading and Drainage Plan prepared by PacLand. As such, the exploration locations should be considered accurate to the degree implied by the measurement method. The following sections describe our procedures associated with the exploration. Descriptive logs of the explorations are enclosed in this appendix. Soil Boring Procedures Our exploratory borings were advanced using track- and truck-mounted drill rigs operated by an independent drilling firm working under subcontract to our firm. The borings were completed utilizing hollow-stem auger and mud rotary drilling methods. An experienced geotechnical engineer from our firm continuously observed the borings logged the subsurface conditions encountered, and obtained representative soil samples. All samples were stored in moisture-tight containers and transported to our laboratory for further visual classification and testing. After each boring was completed, the borehole was backfilled with soil cuttings and bentonite clay. Throughout the drilling operation, soil samples were obtained at 2.5- to 5-foot depth intervals by means of the Standard Penetration Test(ASTM: D-1586). This testing and sampling procedure consists of driving a standard 2-inch outside diameter steel split spoon sampler 18 inches into the soil with a 140-pound hammer free falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler through each 6-inch interval is recorded, and the total number of blows struck during the final 12 inches is recorded as the Standard Penetration Resistance, or blow count" (N value). If a total of 50 blows is struck within any 6-inch interval, the driving is stopped and the blow count is recorded as 50 blows for the actual penetration distance. The resulting Standard Penetration Resistance values indicate the relative density of granular soils and the relative consistency of cohesive soils. Undisturbed samples were obtained by pushing a 3-inch outside diameter, seamless steel Shelby tube into the soil using the hydraulic system on the drill rig in accordance with ASTM:D- 1 87. Since the thin wall tube is pushed rather than driven, the sample obtained is considered to be relatively undisturbed. The samples were classified in the field by examining the ends of the tube prior to sealing with plastic caps. The samples were then transported to our laboratory where they were extruded for further classification and laboratory testing. The enclosed boring logs describe the vertical sequence of soils and materials encountered in each boring, based primarily upon our field classifications and supported by our subsequent laboratory examination and testing. Where a soil contact was observed to be gradational, our logs indicate the average contact depth. Where a soil type changed between sample intervals, we inferred the contact depth. Our logs also graphically indicate the blow count, sample type, sample nurnber, and approximate depth of each soil sample obtained from the boring, as well as any laboratory tests performed on these soil samples. If any groundwater was encountered in a borehole, the appro cimate groundwater depth, and date of observation, is I depicted on the log. Groundwater depth estimates are typically based on the moisture content of soil samples, the wetted portion of the drilling rods, the water level measured in the borehole after the auger has been extracted. The boring logs presented in this appendix are based upon the drilling action, observation of the samples secured, laboratory test results, and field logs. The various types of soils are indicated as well as the depth where the soils or characteristics of the soils changed. It should be noted that these changes may have been gradual, and if the changes occurred between samples intervals, they were inferred. Electric Cone Penetrometer Probes A local exploration company under subcontract to our firm performed three electric cone penetrorneter probes for this project on Septernber 26, 2002. The descriptive soil interpretations presented on the cone penetrometer probe logs have been developed by using this classification chart as a guideline. It consists of a steel cone that is hydraulically pushed into the ground at up to 40,000 pounds of pressure. Sensors on the tip of the cone collect data. Standard cone penetrometers collect information to classify soil type by using sensors that measure cone-tip pressure and friction. The detailed interpretive logs of the static cone penetrometer probes accomplished for this study are presented subsequently. r- SLOPE STABILITY EVALUATION BORING LOGS PROJECT:Renton Retail Siope Stability JOB NO. J-1470 A BORING B-1A PAGE 1 OF 3 Locatlon: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 56.5 feet Soil Description m m Penetration Resistance r ac a :; c m R ~ f0 Standard Blows per fooi Other j y C v v Z C9 3 Z 0 10 20 30 40 Loose,moist,brovm,silty,g2velty SAND(Fill) i' ' i '_T_' T " i_ _ s, 1- - ; - - ; - - ; -- ; -- ; -- ; - - ; -- ; -- 5 Loose to medium dense,moist,dark brown to black, 5 silty SAND with some grdvel.trace organics interbedded with COAL fragments(Fill) i ;' ; ' - ; - "' 'iS-2 18 10 Loose,moist,dark brown-black,siity SAND with trace 3_3 7 gravel and organics interbedded with COAL fragments ___ Fill) F • 5:.:' r ' ' r' " r ' ''"r''t ''t' a '' ''a' 'i'" '' '' 15 Very loose,moist,dark brown-black and reddish-pink, S-4 3 MC silty SAND with trace gravel interbedded with COAL __ and SANDSTONE fragments(Fiil) ii r -7-- ,-- ;- . ;-- ;- i 20 Very loose,moist,black,COAL fragments with some S-5 3 siltySAND{Fill) r- --------- --- ------ I •-- 25 YN Expianation a o Zo so ao 50 I Monitoring Well Key 2-inch O.D.split spoon sample p Clean Sand Moisture Content 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings plastic Limit Naturel Llquid Limlt No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATo or date of ineasurement B Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,lnc.BORING OG Figure A-1 Geotechnical&Environmental Consultants Date Driiled:9/19/02 Logged By:CRT PROJECT: Renton Retail Slope Stability JOB NO. J-1470 A BORING B-1A PAGE 2 OF 3 Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 56.5 feet Soll Description m o Penetration Resistance w L aa a 0 c m 0 Standard Blows per foot Other y o cA v 2 C9 Z H 0 10 20 30 40 Very loose,moisl,black,COAL fragments with some silty SAND and SANDSTONE fragments(Fili} S 3 MC s - - - - -' -- --- i r ------ -- --- - - 1 , , . . . , A - - r- -c -- r - r - - r - -t - - - ? - - - - 30 r-:Very loose to loose,saturated,brown-gray,SAND with S-7 4 GSA some silt ana gravel and trace organics and wood -- -- fragments r 35 s-a s zoa L_ _ _ L _ _ 1 _ _1_ 1_ f_ _ _ _ T __ __t T _ _ _ _ 1 __ 40 ss 1 -- . --;--;--1-- ; •;a 200Gradestoveryloose,saturated,brown-gray,silty SANDwithsomegravelandtraceorganics 45 Medium stiff to stiff,wet,brown-gray,sandy SILT with 0 8 some clay and organics interbedded with silty SAND with some gravel 1- Dense to very dense,moist,tan-brown,silty,weathered SANDSTONE r " . ' ' ' r '' r ' '' r '' '_ 50 Explanation o o zo so ao so Monitoring Well Key I2-inch O.D.split spoon sample Clean Sand Moisture Content 3-inch I.D Sheiby tube sample Cuttings piastic Limft Nacurei Uquid Limit No Reoovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of ineasurement B Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical&Environmental Consultants Date Drilied:9l19102 Logged By:CRT PROJECT:Renton Retail Slope Stability JOB NO. J-1470 A BORING B-1A PAGE 3 OF 3 Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 56.5 feet Soil Description Penetratlon Resistance ymm L a a aa g; 3 oy N Z Standard Blows per foot Other Z 0 10 20 30 40 Very dense,moist,tan-brown,siity SANDSTONE S 50/3„ 1 ''1 _ r_ _ _ _ ' 1 T__ _ ___ ___ 1__ _ __ 55 Very dense,moist,light gray,silty SANDSTONE Boring completed at 55.5 feet on 9119l02 5-12 50/1' Groundwater seepage observed at 29 feet at time of driaing 60 L --L- -1--1- - f__T- _i'i''1_ _ , __ 65 70 1 -- i--1- - f___ _ . __i_ .T" 1__ '_ 75 Explanation o 0 2o aa ao so I Monitoring Well Key 2-inch O.D.split spoon sample Clean Sand Moisture Content 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings Piasac um+c Nawral LiQuld Limit No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling a,ro or date of ineasurement B Screened Casing Zipper 2eman Associates,Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical 8 Environmental Consultants Date Drilled: 9/19/02 Logged By: CRT PROJECT:Renton Retail Slope Stability JOB NO. J-1470 A BORING B-2A PAGE 1 OF 2 Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 56 feet Soil Description m ,a Penetration Resistance t aa a 3 «; 0 3 oN y Z 3 Standard Blows per foot Other Z 0 10 20 30 40 Loose,damp,brown,silry SAND with some gravel,coal and sandstone fragments(Fill) 5 Loose,moist,dark brown-black,slity SAND with some 5 gravel with interbedded C AL and pink-orange SANDSTONE fragments(Fill) pink-orange SANDSTONE ftagments(Fill) 10 Loose,moist,dark brown-black,silty SAND with S-2 9 MC interbedded COAL and SANDSTONE fragments(Fq) 1-- -- 15 M S-3 11 20 Loose,moist,han-brown,silty weathered SANDSTONE q r • 5 MC and COAL fragments with some wood fragments(Fill) M i --1--'- - '-- Very loose,moist to wet,brown-gray,silry SAND with some gravel,interbedded with sandy SILT with some _______ r -- . -----,-- , -- organics 25 Explanation o 0 2o so ao so I Monitoring Weil Key 2-inch O.D.spiitspoon sample 0 Clean Sand Moistu e COntent 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings p u L1mit NaWral Llquid Umit No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of ineasurement Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical&Environmental Consultants Date Drilled:9119/02 Logged By:CRT PROJECT: Renton Retail Slope Stability JOB NO. J-1470 A BORING B-2A PAGE 2 OF 2 Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 56 feet r- Soil Description a Penetration Resistance y t aa a , 0 c d 3 Standard Blows perfoot Other j + O v V 2 C9 Z H 0 10 20 30 40 Very loose,wet,brown-gray,silty SAND with some 5 A . ; 2 MC gravel,intebedded with sandy SILT with some organics 30 ---------------------------------------------- Very dense,moist,tan-brown,silty weathered S-6 50/5 MCSANDSTONE r-- 35 Very dense,moist to wet,light gray,silty SANDSTONE __ S_ 50/3" MC i--i-- !--;- - - - - u i i i . T_ T T_ _ . _T__ 1 _ _ 1 __ _ _ ' • 1 1__ , __ i . . i I S-8 r - ; - ; -; - '-- ; - -- --. 50l3" Bwingcompleteda140.4feeton9/19/02 Groundwater seepage observed 25 feet at time of driAing 45 L-- L - -1-- 1-- - - - - i' T'1__T_' ' ' 5p Explanation o 0 2o so ao so Monitoring Well Key I2-inch O.D.split spoon sample Clean Sand Moisture Content 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings Plastic Limit Nan, Llquid Limit No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of ineasurement B Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical&Environmental Consultants Date Drilled:9/19/02 Logged By:CRT PROJECT: Renton Retail Siope Stability JOB NO. J-1470 A BORING B-3A PAGE 1 OF 2 Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 69 feet Soil Description Penetration Resistance y r mm m °' ` c r aa °.a w a E a E o Standard Blows per foot Other j G N ~ v1 Z f9 3 0 10 20 30 40 Z ~ I f ' ' _' f..T" . __T_ '1_ _' L _ _ _ ' ' '1 '_ 5 Very loose,mast,dark brown-black,sifty SANO with g_1 2 some gravel.COAL,SANDSTONE,SILTSTONE fragments and trace organics{Fill) Loose,moist,dark brown-black,COAL tailings with S-2 9 some silty SAND with sandstone and sittstone fragments(Fill) 1--'--'-- '- - i i r ' -r- - - -r-' r '-r'-r-'i'' --' 5 Loose,moist,black,COAL tailings(Filq S-3 6 20 Very loose,moist,tan-orange-white,highly weathered, S-4 3 MC silty SANDSTONE(Fiil) L _ _ 1 _ Very loose.moist,black,COAL taiGngs(Fill) Y r ' - r ' ' r'' r ' -r'' t' ' r'-1 ' ' ' ' 25 Explanation o o zo so ao so Monitoring Well Key I2-inch O.D. split spoon sample Clean Sand Moistu e Content 2.5-inch I.D ring sample Cuttings plasdc Limit Naturel L(quld Limit No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of ineasurement B Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical 8 Environmental Consultants Date Drilled•9/19/02 Logged By: CRT PROJECT:Renton Retail Slope Stability JOB NO. J-1470 A BORING B-3A PAGE 2 OF Z Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 69 feet Soil Description Penetration Resistance L a a a :; c Q y Z Standard Blows perfoot Other j 0 10 20 30 40 Z Very loose,moist,black.COAL TAILINGS(Fill)S-5 3 R 30 6 s F,+c F`, 35 S- Mc Loose,moist,brown-g2y,silty SAND with some gravel andtraceorganics iy t ' ' T' T'_i _ T__ __ ' l _ l L _l__ 1 1 l_ 1 __ " 40 Medium dense,wet,brown-gray,sitty SAND with some gravel to gravelly Silty SAND S_8 ATD 19 200 Bonngcompletedat41.5feeton9l19l02 Groundwater seepage observed at 40 feet at fime of dritling 45 L - -1- - -'-- 1-- ' -- f _ _ _ T _ _ T_ _ i 1_ __ ' 50 Explanation o io 2o so ao so Monitoring Well Key I2-inch O.D.split spoon sampie Clean Sand Moisture Content 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings plastic Limlt Nawrai Uqufd Limit No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of ineasurement B Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnicai 8 Environmental Consultants Date Drilled:9/19102 Logged By: CRT PROJECT: Renton Retail Slope Stability JOB NO. J-1470 A BORING B-4A PAGE 1 OF 2 Location: Renton,WA Approx(mate Elevation: 68.5 feet Soil Description m m ,a Penetration Resistance r a a a ;; 0 c o y N Z Standard Blows per foot Other j 0 10 20 30 40 Coaltailings over i - ------ 1 - ' - I.r T __T T 1 1 '_ ' i Loose,damp,brown and black,mix of wal and cinders F-^Fill) S-1 g 5 Very loose,damp,brown and olack,mix of coal and S-2 3 cinders(Fill) F 7 Loose,damp,brrnnm and black,miu of coal and cinders S-3 6 Fiil) 10 Loose,damp,brown and bladc,mix of coal and cinders ' Y_ S-4 f ; ' 1 ; ; ; 10 Fill) r-3 • i - i-- i -- ' -- i- ' - s. Loose,damp,brown and bladc,mix of coai and cinders __—_ r -- ;--;-- ; --T--, -- Fill) S-5 9 15 T_' 'S '_7' '_ '' Very loose,damp,brown and black,mix of coal and ^ S-6 L L L : , j 6 MC cinders(Fill) 20 S-7 i --- 5 MC L--1- 1-- '- -' -- i_ i__T__ T __T_ _l __ 25 Explanation o 0 2o so ao so Monitoring Well Key 2-inch O.D. split spoon sample Molsture Content Clean Sand 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings plastle Llmit Naw ai Uquid LGnR No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of ineasurement B Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BORlNG LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical 8 Environmental Consuttants Date Drilled: 10/10/02 Logged By:TAJ PROJECT:Renton Retail Siope Stability JOB NO. J-1470 A BORING B-4A PAGE 2 OF 2 Location: Renton,WA Approxlmate Elevation: 68.5 feet Soii Description Penetration Resistance y am c d 0 c m 3 Standard Blows per foot Other j p fA V1 2 C7 Z F- 0 10 20 30 40 Very loose,moist,brown and black,mix of coal and g_g 3 MC cinders(Filp r '' r ' ' '' r ' 'r ''*' ' r'"t" ' + '' 30 s_s 2 nnc Very bose,wet,brown,sitty,fine to medium SAND ______ MC=55S4 Wood debris S-10 38 MC r• Very dense,moist,orange-tan,silty SAND(Weathered Sandstone) 35 S-» so13 Boring completed at 36 feet on 10110/02 No groundwater observed at time of driliing M_ r-- r - - --r - -,--r --.-- -, -- 40 45 L._ L . _ l _ _1 . . 1 _ _ 1 _ ' 50 Explanation o o Zo so ao so I Monitoring Well Key 2-inch O.D.split spoon sample Clean Sand Moisture Content 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings Plastic Limit NaWral Llquld Limit No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling aro or date of ineasurement r Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical 8 Environmental Consultants Date Drilled: 10110102 Logged By:TAJ PROJECT:Renton Retail Siope Stability JOB NO. J-1470 A BORING B-5A PAGE 1 OF 2 Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 61.5 feet Soil Description PenetraUon Resistance a ad c m` 0 c m a Standard Blows perfoot Other j m p fA tn 2 C Z H 0 10 20 30 40 Coal tailings 1-----'--1- - ' -- i i i i r ' r "' r ''*''r''t•'7 ' ' ' Loose,damp,brown,silry SANO with trace gravel(Fill) F— s-z 1 ; : ; ; ; ; ; ,o 5 Very bose,damp,brown and black,COAL TAILINGS Fill) S'3 3 10 1- ! --1- -'-- - - ' -- Loose,damp,brown and black,COAL TAILINGS(Fill) """ '"'"' 5-4 10 15 i 'i' _''T'' _'_.'' Loose to medium dense, moist,brown and black, COALTAILINGS(FII) S-5 11 Z thin wood in tip of sampler S-6 1- -- - ; -- s Loose,wet,brown,siiry SAND L _ _L '_ i__ L__L__1_ _2'_ 1 ._ i i i i i S-7 33 Very dense,wet,motUed orange-tan,silty SAND T- - *- - -- • -- 25 ( Weathered Sandstone) Explanatlon o o 2o ao ao so I Monitoring Well Key 2-inch O.D.split spoon sample Clean Sand Moisture Content 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings plaatle Umit Naturel Llquid Llmit No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling aro or date of ineasurement Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical&Environmental Consultants Date Drilled: 10/10l02 Logged By: TAJ PROJECT:Renton Retail Slope Stability JOB NO. J-1470 A BORING B-SA PAGE 2 OF Z Location: Renton, WA Approximate Elevation: 61.5 feet Soil Descriptlon L Penetratio Resistance y L aa °. «' fl.Standard Blows perfoot Other j y p fn fn Z t7 Z H 0 10 20 30 40 ery ense,wet,mo orange-tan,silry Weathered Sandstone) S'8 50 4 1- - -- ' - - Bonng completed at 26 feet on 10110/02 NogroundwaterobservedattimeofdriDing 30 35 1 --i- - - --- - - - T'T_ ' T' 1 ' ' 40 45 50 Explanation o 0 2o so aa so I Monitoring Well Key 2-inch O.D.split spoon sample Clean Sand Molsture Content 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings plastic Umit Natural Liquld LImR No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of ineasurement B Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BORlNG LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical&Environmental Consultants Date Driiled: 10/10/02 Logged By:TAJ PROJECT:Renton Retail Slope Stability JOB NO. J-1470 A BOR{NG B-6A PAGE 1 OF 2 Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 57 feet Soil Description Penetration Resistance y r m , m °' _ ` 0 r a a °.a :' m 3 0 Standard Blows per foot Other j m G fA VJ Z U' Z i— 0 10 20 30 40 Biackberty briars over r -- --: - -,- -. - , -- 5 Medium dense,damp,dark br wn,COAL and COAL S" L ` , ` ` + , , 7 CINDERS(Fill) 10 Medium dense,damp to moist,brown,red-brown a d S-2 19 black,COAL,si1tySANDandCINDERS(Fill) i --1- -- -- 1--'- - ' -- i __T ' __ __ __ L __ _ L _ _ 1 __ __ __ 1_ _ __ 15 Loose,damp,black,COAL TAILINGS(Fitl) S-3 10 20 Very loose,wet,brown,silty SAND with trace to some S-4 2 MC gravel i - - i - - - - - ; - - ; -- 1 - -; i - - GSA L' ' L _ _1__ 1'_1_ ' Very dense,moist,orange-brown and gray-tan,silty SAND(WeatheredSandstone) r- - ;--'- - '--'-- ' -- 25 Explanation o 0 2o so ao 50 Monitoring Well Key I2-inch O.D. split spoon sample Clean Sand Moisture Content 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings Plasdc Limit Natural iq a umit No Recovery Bento ite Grout Groundwater ievei at time of drilling T or date of ineasurement Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical 8 Environmental Consultants Date Drilled: 10/10102 Logged By:TAJ PROJECT:Renton Retaii Slope Stabiliry JOB NO. J-1470 A BORING B-6A PAGE 2 OF 2 Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 57 feet Soii Description Penetration Resistance g0' ` c r Qa - 10 Standard Blows per foot Other C VJ fn Z (9 Z F— 0 10 20 30 40 Very ense,moist,orange-brown a gray-tan, silry SAND{Weahtered Sandstone) 5' Boring completed at 25.5 feet on 10110102 No groundwater observed at time of driUing r^-' gp 35 i -- 1 - - 1 -- 1 - - f_ __ __ T_ _ _ T__ __ L _ L 1 ' 1 1 __ 1_ __ 40 45 1 - -- i --- -- f '_ f' ' T ''T" , 'T' ' _ 50 Explanation o o zo so ao so Monitoring Well Key I2-inch O.D.split spoon sample Clean Sand Moisture Content 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings plastic Lfmlt Nawrai Uquid Limit No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of driiling ATD or date of ineasurement B Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BORtNG LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical 8 Environmental Consultants Date Drilled: 10/10102 Logged By:TAJ i SITE EVALUATION BORING LOGS II r I 5 i r. F i PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-1 PAGE 1 OF 2 Location: Renton, WA Approximate Elevation: 36 feet Soil Description m Penetration Resistance H r a Q a.°'c ;; c N y Z Standard Blows per foot Other j Z 0 70 20 30 40 50 Surface gress over tan-brown,silry,gravelly SAND Fill) i ' - ' -- f__ __ __ __ '._ _.T-T t Loose to medium dense,moist,brown,silty,gravelly 1' ' , ; ; ' SAND with Vace organics(Fill) 1 -- ; -- S1 17 MC 5 ---------------------------------------------- Loose,moist,gray-black,silty SAND with some gravel — S_2 4 MC and some organics(Fiil) r Very loose,moist,gray-black,silry,gravelly SAND to graveity,sandy SILT with some organics(Fill) S-3 i . : ; : : :3 MC 10 S ATD .; - ; - ; -- ;- i -1- -;-•; -- - -- 3 200 Soft,wet,gray-black,silty SAND with some organics i , _ , , _ . a.:.i M'"»" r'"r" 'r '" r''t''r''r''* _'i '_ . t '' t'' '' ' '_ 1 '' '' __- 15 Y 9 Y tY S-5 r - -; - - ;- -;-- ;---- -- i-- 2 GSAVeloose,wet,brown ra -black,sil SAND with trace gravel interbedded sandy SILT and organic SILT __ __ _ j y— - r,"T 20 Very dense,mois orangish-tan-brown,weathered silty "" SANDSTONE S-6 5016" f_ _! _ _ _ T T T T __ 25 Explanation o io zo so ao so I Monitoring Well Key 2-inch O.D.split spoon sample Clean Sand MOisture Content 3•inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings Plastie Limlt Nan,rai Uquid Limlt No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of dniling ATD or date of ineasurement Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical 8 Environmental Consultants Date Drilled:9123/02 Logged By:CRT PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-1 PAGE 2 OF Z Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 36 feet Soil Description m L Penetration Resistance d m a ° a = d F o 0 Standard Blows per foot Other o N N Z (') Z H 0 10 20 30 40 50 e dense,moist,h ht ra ,sil AND N S-T f W5" Bonng completed at 25.5 feet on 9/23l02. Groundwater encountered at approximately 10 feet at tlme of drillf g. r '' "'r '" r'"r''r'_T''7''i '' a' 'i'" '' '' 30 35 1- - i-- -- ht. r"* " , ' * " " " 40 45 t -_f_ T '_'T' 1'_ '_ 5p Explanation o o zo so ao so Monitoring Weil Key I2-inch O.D.split spoon sample Clean Sand Moisture Content 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings PlasUc Limit Nacurai Uquid Limit No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of ineasurement B Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BORtNG LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical&Environmental Consultants Date Drilled:9/23/02 Logged By: CRT PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-2 PAGE 1 OF 3 Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 34 feet Soil Description m m ,o Penetration Resistance y L a a a c m 1° Standard Blows per foot Other c cA 47 Z U' Z ~ 0 10 20 30 40 50 2 inches asphalt and 2 inches crushed rock over brown,silty,gravelly SAND(Fill) r '' '' r'_ " ' '' '_ Loose,moist,brown-gray,silly SANO with some gravel, sandstone fragments and trace organics(Fill) S-1 7 5 Very loose.wet,gray,silty SANO with interbedded g_2 A .`--, --' -- -- ,- '_ '-, -- ' 2 GSA sandySlLT r --; --r-- ; - r--s -- - ; -- Loose,wet,brown-gray,silty SAND to sandy SILT with some wood S-3 10 Loose,saturated,gray,gravelly SAND with some silt, _^ f -* ; - _ ; _ _trace wood and organics 9 L- -1--1--'--1--1-- ' - - i i i i i i i i r' ' r' 'r'"r'"r"" r"'r""i ' ' '' ' a'''"_a'' '' _' 15 Soft,wet,brown-grey,sandy 51LT with interbedded silry S-5 M% 3 MC SANDandorganicSlLT 20 Very soft,moist to wet,dark brown,PEAT,ORGANIC g SILT with interbedded silty SAND 2 MC 1 - i i Soft,wet,brown-gray,silly SAND interbedded with _ w------ t - - - -- -- r -- - --- - - --- - - - sandy SILT and WOOD 25 Explanation o o Zo so ao so I Monitoring Weil Key 2-inch O.D.split spoon sample p Clean Sand Moisture Content 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings p asUe L.imit Naa,ai Liquid Limit No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of driiting AT° or date of ineasurement Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BOR{NG LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnicai&Environmental Consultants Date Drilled:9/23102 Logged By: CRT PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-2 PAGE 2 OF 3 Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 34 feet Soil Description Penetration Resistance y m ° ` c y a a a a ;; o Q Standard Blows per foot Other j + G v v Z C7 Z H 0 10 20 30 40 50 Soft,wet,brown-gray,silty SAND interbedded with 5 sandy SILT and wood r- - . - -,- -.-- * -- 3p Loose.wet,gray,silty SAND with some grevel S-S 4 GSA interbedded with sandy SILT 35 S-9 6 L --!--i--1 --i--i- - r» r_ _ _ _ _f " _f _- t T'-T' 1 __ ' r i r L l L t t 1 1 40 Loose,wet,brown ray,silty SAND with some gravel 0 7 and Vace organics 5 Stiff,wet,gray,sandy SILT with some gravel with 10 interbedded silty SAND Medium dense,moist,tan-brown,weathered silty L - 1-- i- -- SANDSTONE T__ T _ _T__ __ _ _ 50 Exptanation o o Zo so ao so I Monitoring Well Key 2-inch O.D. split spoon sarnple Moisture Content Clean Sand 3-inch l.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings Plastle Limit Naturel Liquid Limit No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of ineasurement B Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical&Environmental Consultants Date Drilled:9/23102 Logged By: CRT PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-2 PAGE 3 OF 3 Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 34 feet Soil Description m L , Penetration Resistance y r a a a 3 0 m W 1° Standard Blows per foot Other j y C f fn Z V' 3 Z H 0 10 20 30 40 50 Medium dense,moist,tan-brown,silty,highly 12 zs weathered SANDSTONE 55 Very dense,moist.ight gray,siliy SANDSTONE S-13 L L ; ; , , 50/3' Boringcompletedat56.3feeton9/23/02. Groundwater encountered at approximately 5.5 feet at r- time of drilling. 60 1 --1--' --1- t'' '_T''T"' T'_l __ L _ L , ' _ , _ __ ' __ __ 65 70 i - -1--'-- 75 Explanation o o zo so ao so Monitoring Well Key 2-inch O.D.split spoon sample Clean Sand Molsture COntent 3-inch l.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings PiasUe umu Naturei Liquld Limtt No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of ineasurement Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical&Environmental Consuttants Date Drilled: 9/23l02 Logged By: CRT PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-3 PAGE 1 OF 3 Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 38 feet Soil Description Penetration Resistance a L aa a w 0 c m t0 Standard Blows per foot Other j o t N2 C Z ~ 0 10 20 30 40 50 inches asphalt over inches oose to medium dense, moist.brown.silN.aravellv SAND fFilll L-- = - - ' -- i . T'T __ T' ' 1'_ Very loose,moist,biack,COAL TAILINGS(Fill) S i - - ` - -- - ; -- ; - - ; -- ; -- ; -- 3 5 s-2 1-- ;-- ; -- 3 S_3 ATD . ; - - ; -- ; - - ; - - ' --; - '-- i -- i -- 2 10 Very loose,wet,9raY,silty SAND interbedded with g 2 200 organicSllTandPEAT i -1- 1- ' - ' - f _ _ __ ' T' '_T _t__ ' _ L l L_1 , _ ' __ . 15 Very loose,wet,brown-gray,silty SAND with trace S-5 i i ; ; ; ; ; i 3 gravet interbedded with ORGANIC SILT to sandy SILT 2 Loose,wet,brown-gray.silty SAND with some gravel S-6 1 -- '------ 1- '-- -- 10 interbedded with organic silt,peat,charcoal,sandy si(t and some organics 25 Explanation o o zo ao ao so I Monitoring Well Key 2-inch O.D.split spoon sampie 0 Clean Sand Moisture Content 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings Plastic L(mit Naeurai Liquid Limit No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of ineasurement B Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,lnc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical&Environmental Consultants Date Drilied:9/23l02 Logged By:CRT PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-3 PAGE 2 OF 3 Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 38 feet Soil Description m Penetration Resistance H r aa aa ; c m a 16 Standard Bbws per foot Other j .y G N V Z ( Z 0 10 20 30 40 50 Soft,wet,brown,sandy SILT interbedded with organic 3 silry,peat,silry sand and trace gravel 30 Loose,wet,brown-gray,silry SAND with some gravel S-8 S 35 Loose,wet,brown ray,silty SAND with some gravel S-9 S interbedded with sandy SILT and trace organics 1- 3 1 - i i r"'r "' r'_r"T"t' _ " . t'' '' '_ ' ' 40 Medium dense,saturated,gray,SAND with some S-10 22 graveiandsilt r 45 Loose,wet,gray,silry SAND with some gravel to 5-71 S graveliy.trace organics i - - , - - ; - -;- -1 --; - ;--;- - r '' "' r ''r "'r ''r'''"T'_7'' . 5p Explanation o o zo so ao so Monitoring Well Key I2-inch O.D.split spoon sample Clean Sand MOisture Content 3-inch I.D Sheiby tube sample Cuttings Plastie Limit Natural Liquid LimR I No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of ineasurement B Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical&Environmental Consultants Date Drilled:9J23/02 Logged By:CRT PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-3 PAGE 3 OF 3 Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 38 feet Soil Description Penetration Resistance y c d 6 Standard Blows per foot Other y G tn v Z C 3 Z 0 10 20 30 40 50 Medium dense,wet,gray,silty SAND with some grevel g_Z and trace organics T_ _T _ _T__ T''1' ' r i i i 5$ Very dense,moist,orango-tan,weathered silty SANDSTONE S-13 50/5" r 60 Very dense,moisk light gray,silty SANDSTONE S-14 i-- ;- ; - ; --. 50/1' Boringcompletedat60.5feeton9l23/02 Groundwater seepage observed at 8.5 feet at time of driliing 1 -- T _T__ T_ T'_l __ . 1 l_ ' __ 65 7 L_ _ _ __ ' 1 ' 1_ ' . f T __ i_ _ T__T_ T_ i ' _ II 75 Explanation o io 2o so ao so Monitoring Well Key I2-inch O.D.split spoon sample 0 Clean Sand MOtstu e COntent 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings plasde Limft NaWral Uquid limit No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling AT°or date of ineasurement B Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-9 Geotechnical 8.Environmental Consultants Date Drilled: 9/23/02 Logged By: CRT PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-4 PAGE 1 OF 2 Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 39.5 feet Soil Description Penetration Resistance y r m , d °' ` y aa c' Q Z 3 Standard Blows per foot Other j 2 0 10 20 30 40 50 3 inches asphalt over 1.5 inches gravel over 2 inches asphalt over loose to medium dense,damp,brown, L - - -- - - - - -- - silty,gravelly SAND(Fill) r''r " " r' "T ' ' r ''r""r''1' '' Loose,moist,dark brown,siity SAND with some gravel and organics(Fiil) S-1 4 MC 5 S-2 r •, - - - - ` - ; , -- -; -- 5 MC Loose,mast.tan-brown,silty,9revelly SAND with Vace organics 5 3 5 10 Loose,wet,tan-brown,SAND with some silt and gravel S-4 A 9 GSA i i ; f T 'T__T T'1 1 '' 1 _ L _ L ' . .1 l_ __ 15 Medium dense,moist,tan-brown,silty SAND with S-5 19 some gravel(Hghly Weathered SANDSTONE} 20 Very dense,moist,whitish-tan-brown,siity SANOSTONE S-6 50/6' i-- '-- '- - Very dense,moist,light gray,silty SANDSTONE 25 Explanation o o Zo so ao eo I Monitoring Well Key 2-inch O.D.split spoon sample 0 Clean Sand Moistu e Content 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings plasUc Limit Natural Liquid Limlt No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of ineasurement B Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical&Environmental Consultants Date Drilled:9/24J02 Logged By: CRT PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-4 PAGE 2 OF 2 Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 39.5 feet Soil Description Penetration Resistance y y a Q aa 3 ;r c m R 10 Standard Blows per foot Other j y o v m Z t9 3 Z Im 0 10 20 30 40 Very dense,moisC light gray,silty SANDSTONE 7 50I2„ f f i'T" 'T _' T' ' ' ' . i 3p S-8 Bonng completed at 30.2 feet on 9/24/02. 50/2' Groundwater encountered at approximatelyl0 feet at timeofdriliing. 35 L _ i - i--1-- -- T''T'_T_ 'T''1''1' L_l ' ' 1 ' 1 1_! __ 40 45 i - 1- - 1- - i _ _ f __ __T T T__ T_ _1 __ 50 Explanation o 0 2o ao no so Monitoring Well Key I2-inch O.D.split spoon sample p Ciean Sand Moisture Content 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings plastic Limit riacurai Liquid Limit No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of driliing ATo or date of ineasurement Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical&Environmental Consultants Date Drilled:9124/02 Logged By: CRT PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-5 PAGE 1 OF 3 Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 34.5 feet r - Soil Description m a Penetration Resistance c, c, c d 3 c o t6 Standard Blows per foot Other j C fn Z V' Z H 0 70 20 30 40 50 5 inches asphalt over concrete ruhble over medium dense,moist,brown,sandy GRAVEL(Fill) 5-- '- - 1- - _ . r- ; -- -- -- -- - -,--,- - , -- Soft,moist,bladc,COAL TAILINGS with some silty SAND and sandy SILT(Filp S 4 5 N S-z r - r- ; - - , - - --; - ; -- 3 S-3 ATD i , , , , , ;3 Very loose,wet,gray,silty SAND with some wood and organics 10 Loose,saturated,gray,gravelly SAND with some silt S-4 4 GSA andwooda dpeat 1--'- -1- - ' -- i_ _T__1__1 _ _ _ l' L ' __ ' _' , __ ' _ __ 15 s-s s 20 Loose,saturated,gray,silty SAND with interbedded - sandy SILT with some wood S-6 4 200 i i , r - -- r -- r - - - - - -- t - - - -- 25 Explanation o io zo so ao so Monitoring Well Key I2-inch O.D.split spoon sample 0 Clean Sand Moisture Content 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings Plastic Limlt Naturel uqutd u,u No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling AT° or date of ineasurement Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical&Environmental Consultants Date Drilled:9126102 Logged By: CRT PROJECT:Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-5 PAGE 2 OF 3 Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 34.5 feet Soil Description Penetration Reslstance t aQ aa « c m R F,', 0 14 Standard Blows per foot Other j C W tnZ C7 Z F- 0 10 20 30 40 Loose,wet,grey,silty SAND with some gravel and g_ 7 MC interbedded sandy SILT with some organics f _ _ _T T _ 30 Very loose to loose,wet,brown-gray,silry SAND with S-8 4 interbedded sandy SILT with some organics r - - = - - = -- =- -= --=-- =-- ' -- r^ 35 Loose,wet,gray,silty SAND with some gravel and S-9 i ; ; 5 organics f_ _ f _ _ T__ _ _ . __T __ : _ L L ' _ , 1 ' ' 40 Loose,saturated,greenish-gray,silty SAND with some S-10 7 gravel 45 Stifr,moist,orange-brown-gray,sandy SILT with some day(Highly Weathered SANDSTONE)5-11 35 Very dense,moisl,light gray,silty SANDSTONE l- ---'-- ,. . _ _ f ' f__T__i_ _ i' _ ' _' 1 '_ 50 Explanation o o zo so ao so Monitoring Well Key I2-inch O.D.split spoon sample 0 Clean Sand Moisture Content 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings plasde Limk Natural Llquld Umit No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of ineasurement B Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical&Environmental Consultants Date Drilled: 9/26102 Logged By:CRT PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-5 PAGE 3 OF 3 Location: Renton,WA App oximate Elevation: 34.5 feet Soil DescripUon m ,Q Penetration Resistance r aa a :; 0 _ o F y Z Standard Bbws per foot Other Z 0 10 20 30 40 Very dense,moist,light gray,silry SANDSTONE S_12 oord• L _' ' " __ __ " _! _ ' Boring completed at 50.4 feet on 9/26/02. i Groundwater encountered at approximatety 8 feet at time of drilling. r.-.. 55 60 w_ L. . L __L_ . 1 _ .1_ ' _1__ 1_.1__ i' 'f'f' 1 - i-'i-'T' ' 1''t ' ' l ' ' _ ' ' , ' '1 ' ' J _ 65 70 i- 1 - i _.T _ _ _ _ l__1 _. 75 Explanation o o so so ao so Monitoring Well Key I2-inch O.D.split spoon sample Clean Sand Mo'tsture Content 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings piastfc Umit Natu ai Uquld Umft No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater levei at time of drilling ATD or date of ineasurement B Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical 8 Environmental Consuitants Date Drilled: 9l26l02 Logged By: CRT PROJECT:Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORlNG B-6 PAGE 1 OF 3 Location: Renton, WA Approximate Elevation: 35.5 feet Soil Description m m Penetration Resistance y s a m a `m 0 c o 0 Standard Bbws per toot Other j y o tn v Z C9 Z 0 10 20 30 40 50 3"Asphalt over 6"base r - -*--, ----,- -- Loose,moist,orange-gray,siliy fine to medium SANO with some gravel and occasional cinders(Fill) S-1 4 GSA r Loose,moist,orange-gray,sitty SAND with occasional S'2 j , • 5 MC cinders(FA) r- -,--c--,-- , - r- , --,-- Medium dense,gray,saturated,gravelly fine to coarse ATD -- - --- - - ; - -,- -;--, _; -,_ ; -, - SAND with some silt g.3 17 GSA 10 Very soft,wet,dark gray-brown,SILT with some fine S-4 2 ATT sandandfinewoodyderbis 15 i--i- -T ------- , i-- Soft,wet,dark gray-brown,SILT with some fine sand S-5 1 : . ; ; ; i ; 4 MC and fine sand interbeds and fine woody debris 20 Very loose,wet,dark gray-brown,silty,fine SAND S-6 1 200 25 Explanation o o zo so ao so so Monitoring Weil Key I2-inch O.D.split spoon sample 0 Clean Sand Moisture COntent 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings plastic Llmit Natural Liquld Llmit No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling A or date of ineasurement E Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical&Environmental Consultants Date Drilled:9/24/02 Logged By: EJL PROJECT:Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-6 PAGE 2 OF 3 Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 35.5 feet Soil Description m m L ,a Penetretion Resistance y r aQ a 3 « 0 3 c 10 Standard Blows per foot Other j O fn U Z (7 Z H 0 10 20 30 40 Very loose,saturated,gray,silty,fine SAND with fine S_ 3 woody debris and interbeded siit T T_ T__-__- I i i . i i i : T'_' 30 Stiff,wet,brown-gray,SILT with fine sand interbeds Y S-8 L ` ` ' ; ; ,9 MC and some woody debris 35 Medium dense,wet,green-gray,silty fine SAND with 9 5 200 fine sand interbeds r ' ' r'_ r''r__T"_7''r 40 Very dense,saturated,gray,gravelly SAND 5-10 51 45 Dense,saturated,gray,gravelly,fine to coarse SAND 5-11 46 1- - r ' _ ' ' '' ' ' ''T ' '1_ ' T''1_' 50 Explanation o o zo so ao so I Monitoring Well Key 2-inch O.D.split spoon sample Clean Sand Moistut'e Content 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings plastie Limit Naturel uqu a um c No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATO or date of ineasurement B Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical&Environmental Consultants Date Drilled:9124102 Logged By: EJL PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-6 PAGE 3 OF 3 Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 35.5 feet Soil Description Penetration Resistance m m , a i s ama aa 3 ;; 0 Q N y Z Standard Blows per foot Other j d Z 0 10 20 30 4D 50 Dense,saturated,gray,gravelly,fine to coarse SAND S_2 32 r i ' '' r '' . _ r ' ' ' ' r ' ' ' t ' '_'' '' i i i i 55 Very stiff,moist,light green-grey,CLAY with interbeds of fine sand S-13 32 Dense,moist,light brown grading to gray,fine to mediumSANDwithtracetosomesilt 60 s a sa Very dense,satureted,orange,grevelly,silty SAND i -- --,--;--; -- i- -' -1__1__! _ _ ' t __i__ T __1 _ _ __' L _ _' __ , ' _ _1 _ _ 1_ _ 65 Very dense,damp,lignt gray,SANDSTONE S-15 50/t' t 70 Very dense,damp,light gray,SANDSTONE g_g 50/2" Bori gcompletedat70.2feeton9/24102 Groundwater seepage observed at 7.5 feet at tlme of drilling t i , r - - r- 'r - - 'r'- ''T' ' r'- -- 75 Explanation o 0 20 3o ao so Monitoring Well Key I 2-inch O.D.split spoon sample Clean Sand MoiSture Content 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings Plastic Limit Naturei Liquid Limk No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of ineasurement Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical&Environmental Consultants Date D illed: 9/24/02 Logged By: EJL PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-7 PAGE 1 OF 4 Location: Renton, WA Approximate Elevation: 34.5 feet Soil Description Penetretion Resistance w L a a a w c o y Z Standard Blows per foot Other j 2 "' 0 10 20 30 40 50 3 inches asphalt over 6 inches gravel base Very loose,moist,black,COAL TAILINGS S-1 3 5 S-2 3 MC Very loase,wet to saturated,grey,silty,fine SAND _— Very loose,wet to saturated,gray,fine to medium SAND with some silt and trace gravel S-3 2 GSA 10 Loose,saturated,gray,fine to coarse SAND with Irace S-4 6 silt 1 -- r - - r --r-- - -- 1 -- i i t '' '' _' ' _' '' '' 15 ac=s3 Very loose,saiurated,gray-brown,silry Hne SAND with ___ S-5 i 2 200W woodl/4inchesintip i -- M1. i 2 i i Loose to medium dense,saturated,gray,gravelly S-6 11 GSA SANDwithsomesilt 1 - ' - i i i : f__ i _ _ ! _ _T _ T__T '__ ] _ '. Stiff,wet,brown,organic SILT 25 Explanation o o 2o so ao so i Monitoring Wel!Key I2-inch O.D.spiit spoon sample Clean Sand Moistu e Content 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings Plastic Limit Natural Uqutd Lim(t No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of ineasurement B Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnica(8 Environmental Consultants Date Drilled:9/24/02 Logged By:EJL PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-7 PAGE 2 OF q Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 34.5 feet Soil DescripUon m m , ` Penetration Resistance am aa m a c a W R o ° Standard Biows per foot Other j o f/) fn Z C Z F— 0 10 20 30 40 Medium dense,wet,gray,SAND with some silt S_ 19 r - *--t--r- - - ---- 30 Medium dense,wet,brown-gray,silry SAND with silt S-8 L L ` , • • , 3 interbeds 35 Soft,wet,dark gray-brown,SILT with sand interbeds S-9 i i ; ; 3 MC andthinorganiclayers T f _T_T T _ . i i i 1 l _ _L l l l . L 1 1__J _ . 40 Medium dense,saturated,gray,gravetty fine to coarse S-o 7 SANDwithVacesilt 45 Medium dense to dense,sawrated,9rey,greveliy,fine S-11 34 to caarse SAND to fine to coarse sandy GRAVEL L - -'--'- - '- -'- - i _ _ _ '' T _ _ _ _T _ _ T __ 5p Explanation o o zo so ao 50 I Monitoring Weil Key 2-inch O.D.split spoon sample Clean Sand MOisture COntent 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings Pi,.uc umn Naturel Liquid Limit No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at Gme of drilling AT or date of ineasurement B Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical 8 Environmental Consultants Date Drilled:9/24l02 Logged By: EJL PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-7 PAGE 3 OF q Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 34.5 feet Soil Description m Penetration Resistance y r aa a ;; 0 3 Standard Blows perfooi Other j o cA N 2 7 Z F- 0 10 20 30 40 Medium dense,saturated,gray with orange and brown, 3.12 Z6 siltygravellySAND 55 Dense,saturated,gray,sandy GRAVEL S-13 39 60 Stiff,we green-gray,clayey SILT with occasional S-14 9 interbedsoffineSAND L L 1 -- i i i r ''*T ' ' 65 r . , , Loose,saturated,gray,fine to medium SAND with trace silt and gravel M S-15 1 , , , , 7 Medium stiff,wet,gray,fine sandy SILT and 51LT with traceGaY r-- -- r--r--r---- - ;-- 70 Medium dense,saturated,gray,fine SAND with Uace 5-16 16 silt i , -' - -'- -' . _ ' -- f __ t " 'T'T 'T T ___ __ 75 Explanation o o zo ao ao so Monitoring Well Key I2-inch O.D.split spoon sample Ciean Sand Moisture Content 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings plastfe Umit Natural uyu d umic No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of ineasurement Screened Casing Zipper Zema Associates,Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical Environme tal Consultants Date Drilled: 9124l02 Logged By: EJL PROJECT:Renton Retaii JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-7 PAGE 4 OF 4 Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 34.5 feet Soil Description L Penetration Resistance t Q Q O..0 3 w; - C a.1° Standard Blows per foot Other y C tn v Z C Z 0 10 20 30 40 Medium dense,saWrated,gray,fi e SAND with trace g_ zs siit 80 Medium dense,wet,gray with some orange,gravelly SAND with some silt S-78 26 Dense to very dense,light gray,SANDSTONE in tip ___ 85 Very dense.Iight gray SANDSTONE 19 50l3' 1--'- i i . i r . i f_ _ . ___ __ __ T_ _ T__ 7 __ L_l , _ __ _ _ ' _ ' __ __ Very dense,light gray SANDSTONE 90 t__,__ Boring completed at 90 feet on 9/24/02 5-20 50/2' Groundwater seepage observed at 9.5 feet at time of ____________ drilling i--•--;- -; -- 1-- - - - 95 i i i'_L"'1" ' '1" ' f _'(' i 'T 'i'T _ _' t ' ' 1 '_ O Explanation o 0 2o 3o ao so Monitoring Welf Key I2-inch O.D.split spoon sampfe p Clean Sand Moisture Content 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings PlasUe Llmft Nacurai Liquld Limit No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of ineasurement B Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnicai&Environmental Consultants Date Drilled: 912M02 Logged By: EJL PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-8 PAGE 1 OF 5 Location: Renton, WA Approximate Elevation: 36 feet Soil Description 6 Penetration Resistance w t a a a 3 « 3 c m Standard Blows per foot Other y C N z (7 Z F 0 10 2U 30 40 50 3 inches asphalt pavement over 5 inches base Loose,moist,black,COAL taili gs(Fill} S-1 18 5 Loose,damp,orange-brown,silty fine to medium SAND g_2 4 GSA with Vace gravel and some anders,and coal Wifings Fill) orange-light gray,SANDSfiONE fragments(Fill) S-3 4 MC Loose,wet,gray.fine to medium SAND with trace L 10 9ravelr.- ATD - - Loose,saturated,gray,silty fine to coarse SAND with f ' T f T ;9 GSA some gravel r L _ 1_ 1_ i _ l_' L '' ' ' ' '' ' '' , '' '' ' __ 15 Very loose,saturated,gray,fine to coarse SAND S-5 5 Soft to medium dense,wet,brown,sandy SILT with wood debris 1l2 inches thick 20 7o9c Soft,wet,brown,SILT with some fine sand and g 3 MC abundant wood derbis(PEAT) i --;-- , -- ; --i--;--; - '--i -- 25 Explanation o 0 2o so ao so I Monitoring Well Key 2-inch O.D. split spoon sample Clean Sand Moisture Content 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sampie Cuttings Plastic Limit Natural Llquid Limft No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater levei at time of drilling Aro or date of ineasurement B Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical& E vironmental Consultants Date Drilled:9I24IO2 Logged By: EJL PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-8 PAGE 2 OF g ocation: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 36 feet Soil Description L Penetration Resistance y r mm m °' ` c r aa a 3 :: m F 3 3 Standard Blows per foot Other j p v tn Z CU Z h- 0 10 20 30 40 Medium stiff,wet,brown,PEAT S_ i MC=93% . 6 MC gp Dense,saturated,gray,fine to coarse,sandy GRAVEL g y ' ; ' 47 200r; to gravelly SAND with trace silt 35 Dense,saturated,gray,fine to coarse sandy GRAVEL N S-9 i _ _ : - ; -; __'_ I L --`--1- - 1-- - f__ __ !_ _ _'T__T_'T__ . _ , _ ' t_'l l ' 1 ' ' _ _ __ _ ' __ _ _ 40 Medium dense,saturated,gray,flne to medium SAND S-10 18 45 Medium dense,saturated,grey,sitty,ftne to medium Ggq SAND with trace gravel 50 Explanation o o Zo so ao so I Monitoring Well Key 2-inch O.D. split spoon sample Clean Sand MotStUre COntent 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings plastic Umit Natural Uquld Limit No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of ineasurement B Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical&Environmental Consultants Date Driiled:9/24/02 Logged By: EJL PROJECT: Renton Retail J08 NO. J-1470 BORING B-8 PAGE 3 OF $ Location: Renton, WA Approximate Elevation: 36 feet Soil Description Penetration Resistance y s a Q a _ - Q d a 7 C m 3 a 14 Standard Blows per foot Other C m v Z (7 Z fd 0 10 20 30 40 50 Medium dense,saturated,grey,gravelly,fine to coarse S_Z 22 SANO L -- -- - r__ ' ' _ __ ' _ _i 'T i_t_ ' __ L ' _ _ _ i . i 55 Dense,saturated,gray,gravelly,fine to medium SAND N_- S-13 i __ ; - _ ; - _ I . _- ; - ' __ 33 i i 60 i ' i Medium dense,saturated,gray,gravelly SAND with M_ S-14 i ; i ; ; ; i 78 somesilttosNrySAND L ' -- - i' _ f ___i__ i__ l _' L L 1_1 ' 1_ _ ' __ 65 q ium dense,saturated,green-gray,silty,fine ta medium SAND with some gravei S-15 33 Medium dense,saturated,brown,silty,fine SAND with thin seams of black,anders,coal pieces at 66 feet _____ M_ ir's 70 Soft,wet,9reen-gray,sflty CLAY S-16 Mc=S% . 4 ATT T_l _ _ __ II 75 I, Explanation o o zo so ao so Monitoring Well Key I2-inch O.D.split spoon sample Clean Sand Moisture Content 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings Plastie Umk Natural Liquid Limit No Recavery Bentoniie Grout Groundwater level at time of driiling AT°or date of ineasurement Screened Casing Zipper Zema Associates,Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical&Environmental Consultants Date Drilled: 9124/02 Logged By: EJL PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NQ. J-1470 BORING B-8 PAGE 4 OF 5 Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 36 feet Soil Description Penetration Resistance r a a a.c ar, Oy Z 3 Standard Blows per foot Other 0 10 20 30 40 Z Medium dense,wet,green-gray,clayey SILT S-17 16 Medium dense,safurated,gray,silty,fine SAND r__! __ T__ T_____ __T__ __ l_ _ ''_ __ __ __ __ 80 Loose,saturated,gray,siity fine to medium SAND with ' 5-18 9 GSA tracegravel r - -r --r-- r - - - , - ;- - - r_ 85 Dense,saturated,brown,fine to medium SAND S-19 45 r- ---- ------ - - 90 Medium dense to dense,saturated,brown,fine to S-20 i ' ; 30 mediumSAND f-`z 95 Dense to very dense,wet,gray,fine to medium SAND g_21 gg with 4 inches yellow-brown,SANDSTONE fragments L' 'L''L' ' '1' I '1_ '_ '_ r '' r'_1_'*'' ''T ' ' 1 0 Explanation o 0 2o so ao 50 Monitoring Well Key 2-inch O.D.split spoon sample Clean Sand MOiStu e Content 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings Piascie umic Natural Liquld Limit No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of ineasurement B Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical 8 Environmental Consultants Date Drilted: 9/24/02 Logged By: EJL PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-8 PAGE 5 OF g Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 36 feet Soil Description m Penetration Resistance r a a a 3 :; c m F 3 a '0 Standard Blows per foot Other j O tq m Z C at 0 10 20 30 40 Z ~ 105 Dense,moist,9ray,silty SAND 5-22 r- - - ---'- 4T Very dense,moist,gray,silty SAND 5-23 50/5' Bonng completed at 110.5 feet on 9/24l02. Groundwater seepage observed at 9.5 feet at time of driliing. r------, - - F, 115 r"r" " " '_ " ' ""' " 20 t ' '_ ' '' ' _ 2 Explanation o in 2o so ao so Monitoring Weli Key 2-inch O.D.split spoon sample Clean Sand Moisture Content 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings plastic Limit Natural Liquid Limit No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of ineasurement Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical&Environmental Consultants Date Drilled: 9l24102 Logged By: EJL PROJECT:Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-9 PAGE 1 OF 2 Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevatfon: 71 fest Soil Description L Penetration Resistance H C. d G.0 C d - 0 3 C 1° Standard Bbwsperfoot Other y o v cA Z C7 Z 0 10 20 30 40 Gravelly,silty SAND shoulder i wire wrapped wood-siave pipe -------------------- r - -. - - r--, - ---- - - Medium dense,moist,orange-brown,siity SAND with __ S-1 1 i ` i , 12 trace grevel(Fiil) P Y Loose to medium dense,orange-brown to black,silry SAND with Vace gravel(Filp S'Z black coal from 8 1/2 to 9 feet S-3 r , ' ' 6 MC loose,brown,silty SAND(TOPSOIL) Loose,damp,orange-brown to brown,silty SAND with trecegravel 1 -- --; - -;-- ; -- - Medium dense,damp,light brown,graveily SAND with _ g.4 J , T ; ' 16 GSA somesiit 15 Medium dense,damp,light to buff,silty SAND with S-5 17 MC tracegrevel 20 Dense.damp,sVongly mottled orange and tan.silty SAND S-6 34 MC Dense,damp,strongiy mottled orange and tan,fine, sandySlLTtosiltyfi eSAND w_____ L , _ , T __ T_ _ _ _ l __ 25 Explanation o o 2o so ao so Monitoring Well Key I2-inch O.D.split spoon sample Clean Sand Moistu e Content 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cutti gs p ast c imit NaWral Liquid Limft No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of driiling ATD or date of ineasurement Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical 8 Environmental Consultants Date Drilled: 10/10/02 Logged By:TAJ PROJECT:Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-9 PAGE 2 OF y Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 71 feet Soil Description m Penetration Resistance r aa a ;; 0 c m R o ` Standard Blows per foot Other j .m G n Z C Z – 0 10 20 30 40 Very dense,moist,mottled orange and tan,silty SANO g_7 5D13" MC Very Weathered Sandstone) L _ ___ _ _ 1_ __ _ T_ _T__T _ __ _ _ _ 1__ ' _ _ ' 30 Very dense,moist,orange-brown-tan,silty SAND S-8 50/2' MC Weathered Sandstone) rT Very dense,moist,mottled orange and tan,sil2y SAND 35 (Weathered Sandstone) S_9 50C2' Boringcompletedat35.5feeton10/10/02 No groundwaterobserved at time of drilling 1 - - - i M' T ' ' 'T'' T ''t''' '' L_ 1 _ 1 1 '_ ' I aa 45 r __ ' % _ T __T__ T __ . __ 1 _ _ 50 Explanation o o zo so ao so Monitoring Well Key I2-inch O.D.split spoon sample 0 Clean Sand MOisture Content 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample CUttIf19S Plastie Ltmit Natural Uquid Limit No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of ineasurement B Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical 8 Environmental Consultants Date Drilled: 1011U/02 Logged By TAJ PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-10 PAGE 1 OF q Location: Renton, WA Approximate Elevation: 36 feet Soil Description m ,a Penetration Resistance y r aa a 0 c m 0 14 Standard Blows per foot Other j o N Z U' Z Im 0 10 20 30 40 50 3 inches asphalt over 5 inches base r—, r- . - -r - -*--;-- --t-- - - Very loose,damp,black,COAL TAIUNGS(Fili) S-1 3 MC 5 Loose,damp to moist,black,COAL TAILINGS mixed 5-2 5 MC withbrowncinders(FII) r - - ; ; , ; --r--: --;-- c -- Very loose,wet,black,COAL TAILINGS mixed with cinders(Fill)S-3 3 MC io ---------------------------------------------- -- --A - - ; -;- - ;- - : - -;- -; - -; -;-- i - _ Soft,saturated,green-gray,clayey 51LT with interbeds 4 2DOW silty,fineSANDseams L i i r - - r' r 'r' ' --r- -r-' --i -- 15 Loose,saturated,gray,silty SAND in tip S-5 Medium dense,wet,gray,fine to medium SAND with some sitt and trace gravel with interbeds of brown, organic SILT with wood derbis(PEAT) S-6 6 GSA 20 Mc=i ex Medium dense,wet,brown,orga ic SILT with abundant 5-7 5 MC wooddebris(PEA i__ . __ T__ ___ T__ i _ 25 Explanation o o zo so ao so Monitoring Well Key I2-inch O.D.split spoon sample Clean Sand Moistul'e Content 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings Plastic Limit Naturdl u d Lim1t No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilfing ATD or date of ineasurement B Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical& Environmental Consultants Date Drilled: 9126l02 Logged By: EJL PROJECT: Renton Retaii JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-10 PAGE 2 OF 4 Location: Renton, WA Approximate Elevation: 36 feet Soil Description m Penetration Resistance y ad aa d 3 m F,`, 3 Q 6 Standard Biows perfoot Other o m fnZ C7 Z H 0 10 20 30 40 Stif`.wet,brown,fibrous PEAT g MC=se% 9 MC 1 ''1_ _' _ ' "_ 1_ _ i _ __ f_ _ T_T T_ i _ _ i ' ' i ' 'i_ 'T __T ' ' ' ' 30 Medium dense,saturated,gray-brown,fine interbeds of S-9 13 200W silty,fine SANO and fine,sandy SILT with occasional --- -- wood debris s' 35 Stiff wet,brown fbrous PEAT -------------------- fine to medium SAND with some silt------------=--- -- S-10 r . - '--'- -T - . --,_ =% 7 MC Stiff,we,brown,fibrous PEAT Green-gray,Gayey SILT F T_'T _ __ '_ . __ L 1 _ __1_ '__1_' ' 40 Medium dense,saturaled,gray,gravelly,fine to coarse S-11 24 SANDwithVacesiR 45 Dense,saturated,grey,grevelly,fine to coarse SAND 5-12 52 withtracesiit a Explanation o o so so ao so Monitoring Well Key I2-inch O.D.split spoon sample 0 Clean Sand Moisture Content 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample CUttI(19S PlasUc Limit Naturol Lfquld Umit No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling AT or date of ineasurement B Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnicai&Environmental Consultants Date Drilled:9/26/02 Logged By EJL PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-10 PAGE 3 OF 4 Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 36 feet Soil Description L Penetration Resistance y Y a a a.° :: m 0 Standard Bbws per foot Other j w o V c Z C 3 Z 0 10 20 30 40 Medium dense,saturated.gray,gravelly,fi e to coarse g_ig 15 SAND P._ j r--r- - - -*- ------- -- -- i . . . F,_ 55 Medium dense,saturated,gray,gravelly,fine to coarse __ ___ SAND S-14 24 Medium dense,saturated,green-gray,slity CL4Y with some sand r- 60 Medium dense,saturated,gray,fine to medium SAND S-15 13 M_ i--1--' - - r f_ __ _ _: ' ' _l __ 1 _ ' _ _ ' __ __ 65 Medium dense,saturated,gray,fine to medium SAND S-16 19 withsmall(1f8")clumpsofyeilowSAND 7 Stiff,wet,green-gray,silty CLAY with fine sandy SILT 9 interbeds 1!4 inches thick Y_ i _ _ ; __1_ ; _ ; __ , __ , , __ L _ ' _L '_ 1_ _! _ 1_ _ i_ _T__ T_.___1__ 1 __ ' 75 Explanation o o Zo so ao so I Monitoring Well Key 2-inch O.D.split spoon sample Clean Sand Moisture Content 3-inch I.D Sheiby tube sample Cuttings Ptastic Limit Natural Liquid Limit No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of ineasurement Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical&Environmental Consultants Date Drilled: 9/26IO2 Logged By: EJL PROJECT:Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-10 PAGE 4 OF 4 Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 36 feet Soil Description m m Penetration Resistance y L a a a.n « 3 0 3 Standard Blows perfoot Other o N N 2 t Z F— 0 70 20 30 40 Very dense,moist,orange-brown,silty AN with some gravel S'18 52 W» T _T __ _7__ __ Very dense,damp to moist,light gray,SANDSTONE 80 Boring completed at 80 feet on 9/30/U2 S-19 50/1" Groundwater seepage observed 9.5 feer at time of __M__ drilling r - - ; - ; --; - ;- -i -- 85 i--i- ---- 1- - r "'r' 'r' 'r''r'' r'':"'1'' 9 95 r - 1 -- 7" _ _ __ OQ Explanation o o zo so ao so I Monitoring Well Key 2 nch O.D.split spoon sample Clean Sand Molsture Content 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cutti gs plastk Limit Natural Liquid Limit No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATo or date of ineasurement B Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BORING LOG Figu e A-1 Geotechnfcal&Environmental Consultants Date Drilled: 9I26102 Logged By: EJL PROJECT: Renton Retaii JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-11 PAGE 1 OF 4 Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 38 feet Soil Description L ,o Penetration Resistance y t a a a.a :; 3 c o y Z Standard Blows per foot Other j Z 0 10 20 30 40 50 2'Asphalt,2"Base L- - -- ' - T i i i i _T _'T__ ' 'T__t _'t __ Loose,moist,black Coai Tailings with orange cinders g_ 4 MC 5 s-2 1-- -- --- , __ a n ac So,moist btack(dayey texture)Coal Tailings Sott,wet,bfack Coal Tailings 1' ' ' W S 3 ATD - - - - - - - - 1 - -------._ ' MC=59%- 4 MC ery soft,wet,black,fine-grain Coal Tailings S-4 M' 2 MC i - -1- ---- Medium dense,saturated,gray,gravelly SAND with 5 12 GSA 15 acesilt r '' r ' "t '"T' , i'_a"'' ' '' '_ 2 Loose,satureted,gray,fine SAND with some silt t C=5 96 7 AnS-6 Medium dense,saturated,green-gray,Gayey SILT ____ with occasional wood debris 25 Explanation o o zo so ao 50 Manitoring Weli Key I2-inch O.D. split spoon sample Clean Sand Moisture Content 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings Plasde Limit Na ura d Limk No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of ineasurement B Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical&Environmental Consultants Date Drilled:9/25/02 Logged By: EJL PROJECT:Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING 8-11 PAGE 2 OF q Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 38 feet Soil Description m ,a Penetration Resistance a m a m c m 0 Standard Blows perfoot Other G M Z C9 Z F 0 10 20 30 40 Medium dense,saturated,gray,silry fine SAND with g_7 12 200 sionaly fine wood debris r: r-- r- --- -'r--1'- T -- 30 Medium dense,saturated,gray,silty fine SAND with — i -- ' - ; _ ' _- I - - ocqtional wood debris r_^ 35 Medium dense,saturated,gray,silty fine SAND S-9 13 2DOW L - -1- -i-- '--1 -- i i i i r. r ' ' r"'r"' r' r ''r_'r'_r'' 40 SGff,wet,brown,organic SILT(Peat)with 10 MF 3 15 MC interbedded of fine to medium Sand with silt lenses ___ r.- 45 SGff,saturated,gray,fine sandy SILT 31 Dense,saturated,gray,fine,coarse sandy GRAVEL r_ ;__; _ _ f__ __ T 1_ _ l _ _ 50 Explanation o o Zo so ao so Monitoring Well Key I 2-inch O.D.split spoon sample 0 Clean Sand Moisture Content 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings Plastfe Limit Nawrel Liquid Limit No Recovery Bentanite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of ineasurement B Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical&Environmental Consultants Date Drilled:9/24/02 Logged By: EJL PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-470 BORING B-11 PAGE 3 OF 4 Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 38 feet Soil Description Penetration Resistance a °' a :; Standard Blows per foot Other j p M v Z C9 Z H 0 10 2D 30 5-12 Medium dense,saturated,gray fine-coarse sandy _____ __r L _ _ _ __ _ _____ _ _ ____ __ _ t GRAVEL to gravelly fine to coarse sand with trace i _ _ _ f_i __T__i i__ __ 55 Medium dense,satureted,ary,fine to coarse SAND S-13 L ` + 25 with trace silt and some gravel i- - r-- i 60 MCt 0396 s-ia o rnC Stiff,moist,dark brown,organic SILT and PEAT and ^__ r__ __r_ _,_ _ 7 __ . 1'thick fine sandy silt i terbedded L _ ' _ _ _ 1 __ 1 __ ' _ 1 _ 1__l __ Medium dense,saturated,green-grey,silty fine to 6 medium SAND with pieces of clayey silt S-15 19 Medium dense,wet gray,fine to medium SAND with Vacegravel r - - c--r --r- ; - ; - ; -;--;-- 70 Stiif,wet,greenyray and blue-gray,highly plastic CLAY with thin flne sand Interbeds 5-16 9 ATT 75 Explanation o o zo so ao Monitoring Well Key I2-inch O.D.split spoon sample 0 Clean Sand MoiStu e COntent 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings Plasde LimR Nawrai Liquid Limk No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATo or date of ineasurement 8 Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical&Enviro mental Consultants Date Drilled: 9l24/02 Logged By: EJL PROJECT: Renton Retaii JOB NO. J-1470 BORING 8-11 PAGE 4 OF 4 Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 38 feet Soil Description Penetretion Resistance u, r a a aa w? 0 _ m o `0 Standard Bbws perfoot Other C tI q Z C7 Z 0 10 20 30 Medium dense,saturated,brown,fine SAND wilh S_ 9 trace silt r-.R Medium dense,saturated,gray,fine SAND with trace r-- - r- -r--,--r - -r- - 5-18 34 Dense,saturated,brown,fine SAND 85 Brownsand S_t9 29 Medium dense ta dense,saturated,gray,fine SAND ____y_— with green-gray clayey silt interbeds g.::a 9 i i Dense,wet,gray,with light gray and black organic f--^- r --- r - --- -'- -'- -' -- fragments,blue-gray sand seams.silty sand with _ S-20 i--- - _- -; -- 34 some gravel 95 Dense,wet,gray,silty SAND with some gravel and S_2 r r , ' r r ' , 32 light gray sandstone fragments Becomes rough drilling(sandstone) Boringcompletedat100feeton9/25/02. 100 Groundwater observed at 8 feet at time of drilling. 5"22 5010 Explanation o io Zo 30 Monitoring Well Key 2-inch O.D.split spoon sample 0 Clean Sand Moisture Content 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings plasUc Umlt Natural Liquid Limlt No Recovery Bentanite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of ineasurement 8 Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geatechnical 8 Environmental Consuitants Date Driiled: Logged By: EJL PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-12 PAGE 1 OF Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 35.5 feet Soil Description Penetration Resistance H 3 Caaa a; Q N Z Standard Blows per foot OMer ? 0 10 20 30 40 50 Z 3"asphalt over loose,moist,brown,silty,gravelly SAND(Fill) f_ _ _ ___ _ _T__ 1 _ _ Very toose,moist,brown-black,COAL TAILINGS with silty SAND(Fili) S-' 3 MC 5 loose,moist,browo-Wack,COAL TAILINGS with siity S-2 6 MC SAND(Fill) r - -; - -r-- , ----- --- -- loose,moist,whitish-brown,silty SANO to sandy 51LT with some sandstone and coai (Fill) 5-3 8 MC 10 Loose,wet to saturated,whitish-brown,weathered 4 ATD SANDSTONE,SILTSTONE hagments(Fill) 8 Boring completed at 11.5 feet on 9/26/02 Groundwater seepage observed at 11.5 ieet at time of drilling f_ T_ _T _T_T _ T__i__ L __ ' __ ' _ 1_ ' __ 15 20 r - -r_ r- - 1-- -- 1 1- - , -- - i r i i _ _T _ _ " _ ___ T_ _ ' '_7_ ' 25 Explanation o 0 2o so ao so Monitoring Weil Key I2-inch O.D.split spoon sample Clean Sand Moistut'e Content 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings Plastic Limit Natural Lfquid Llmit No Recavery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling aro or date of ineasurement 8 Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical&Environmental Consultants Date Drilled:9126/02 Logged By:CRT PRQJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-13 PAGE 1 OF 1 Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 35 feet Soil Description L Penetration Resistance m m o .. d a> r aa a :; 0 y m o Standard Biows per foot Other j m G fn n Z C7 Z F— 0 10 20 3D 40 50 Surface grass over loose to medium dense,damp, brown,silty,gravelly SANO(Fill) f_ '_ _' i__-__ i __T__T __1 _ _ Loose,moist,dark brown-black,COAL TAILINGS with some silty SAND,SANDSTONE fragments(Fill) S-1 8 MC 5 Very soft,moist,blue-gray,sandy siity CLAY with S_2 p q some organics M___ _ Very soft,wet,olue ray,saRdy SILT interbedded with __ ___ some silry SAND and some organics S_3 ATD . ; ; ; ; ; , , ; ; 10 s-a Boring completed at 11.5 feet on 9/26/02 Groundwater seepage observed at 8A feet at time of drilling r_ ' i "r' , ' 7 ' 15 r,; 20 i , r- - - -r - - -r-- -- t-- --- ' -- 25 Explanation o o zo ao ao so Monitoring Well Key I2-inch O.D.split spoon sample Ciean Sand Moisture Content 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings Pfastie Limit Natural Uquid Limit No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of ineasurement B Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical 8 Environmentai Consultants Date Drilled:9I26/02 Logged By: CRT PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-14 PAGE 1 OF Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 34 feet Soil Description L Penetration Resistance 1 °' ` c L a a a 3 .°.: Standard • Blows perfoot Other j w o v) fA Z ( Z F 0 10 20 30 40 50 Surface grass over loose to medium dense,damp, brown,silty,gravelly SAND(Fill) 1 -- ' - - 1- - - F' r- r-- r - -• - - -r--t-- t--' - t- , , Loose,moist,brown,silty SAND with some organics g_ 8 MC mixed with COAL TAIUNGS(FIIj 5 s-z a Mc Very loose to bose,moist to wet,blue-gray,silty SAND interbedded with sandy SILT with some organics ATD Very soft,wet.blue-gray,sandy SILT interbedded with —-- S-3 siliy SAND and some organics 10 3 Boring completed at 11.5 feet on 9l26l02 1 _ __ __. , Groundwater seepage observed at 7.5 teet at time of drilling 15 I 20 i , -1- - -- r' - r ' - r - r -- . -'r ' r-- i -- 25 Explanation o 0 2o so ao so I Monitoring Weil Key 2-inch O.D.split spoon sample Clean Sand Moisture Content 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings plastic Limit Natural Uquid Llmit No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling Ar°or date of ineasurement r Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical 8 Environmental Consultants Date Drilled•9/26102 Logged By:CRT PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-15 PAGE 1 OF Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 32 feet Soil Description L Penetration Resistance y w d d t aa a 3 «; m 10 Standard Blows per foot Other j w o tn tA Z 7 z F— 0 10 20 30 40 50 Surface grass over loose to medium dense,damp, brown,silty,gravelly SAND(Fill) f__ _ _ T _i__T_T _ l __ Loose to medium dense,moist,brown,silty,gravelly SAND with some organics{Filt) g_ 12 MC Loose,moist,btack,COAL TAILINGS mixed with silty 5 SAND,some gravel and organics(Fill) S_Z 2 GSA Very loose,wet,blue-gray,silty SAND with some gravel ___ _ interbedded with sandy SILT and some organics ATD S_3 I - I - - - - -- ' _-;---- ; -_. __ Z 1 - , -- -- ---- - 1 ---- - Very soft,wet,brown-gray,sandy SILT with some organics with interbedded organic SILT Boring completed at 11.5 feet on 9126/02 Groundwater seepage observed at 6 feet at time of d ling r --r- -r- - i - r-- 15 20 i _ i i ' 1''i'_ I' r _' r' _ r ' ' 'r''t' ' 1'' , ' 1.5 Explanation o io zo so ao 50 I Monitoring Well Key 2-inch O.D.split spoon sample 0 Clean Sand Moisture Content 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings plastic Limit Naturel Liquid Limit No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of ineasurement Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical 8 Environmental Consultants Date Drilled:9/26J02 Logged By: CRT PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-16 PAGE 1 OF Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 36 feet Soil Description PenetratEon Resistance C. d G 01 - 0 3 C m a o Standard Blows per foot Other j d p m n 2 U' Z 0 10 20 30 40 50 3*inches of ASPHALT above 7.5±inches of medium dense,damp,brown,sandy GRAVEL 1 - • '- - = - - '--= - - Crushed Rodc Base Course) r - - , --- - - Medium dense,moist,brown and gray,silty sandy GRAVEL(Fill) 5_1 i - - ; - - ; - ; - ; -- 21 MC GSA r - r-- , -;--,-- , --;-- 5 S-2 r - -1- - - - - -- t-- , - GA Medium dense,mast to wet(below 10 feet)brown and gray,silty,gravelly SAND(Fill) 3 15 MC Q i --i-- ; -- - , -- 12 ATD - - • --- - - -• - • • -- - -- -- Bori g completed at 11.5 feet on 9l25/02. Groundwater encountered at approximately 10.5 feet at timeofdriiling. i- - 15 T__ T_ i _T '_ T "' ' l' L '_, __ __ L__1__ _' l '_ __ 2 25 Explanation o lo zo so ao so I Monitoring Well Key 2-inch O.D.spiit spoon sample p Clean Sand MOistu e Content 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings plastic Limit Naturel Liquid Limit No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling AT°or date of ineasurement B Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical&Environmental Consultants Date Drilled:9l25/02 Logged By:DCW I PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-17 PAGE 1 OF Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 35 feet Soil Description Penetration Resistance m d a m a d 0 c a 0 10 Standard Blows per foot Other j n c V7 tA Z C9 Z F- 0 10 20 30 40 50 3 inches pver 3 incnes asphalt,crushed rock over medium dense,moist,brown,silty,gravelly SAND(Fill} w r -- , -- Loose,moist,black,COAL TAILINGS with reddish ash anders with some silty sand(Fili) S-1 g 5 j — S-2 r --;- i -- r- - -- - - ±-- 1t y r-_ Loose to medium dense,black,COAL TAILINGS with ------- reddish ash anders with some silty sand(Filq S-3 14 10 s-a i o r_.. • L - - t -- a" i ' ' -' Looseto medium dense,wet to saturated,whitish-browrn ATD I gray,SHALE fragments mixed with COAL TAILINGS --- ---- Fill) S-5 10 5 Boring completed at 14 feet on 9l26/02 Grounwater seepage observed at 14 feet at time of ----------- driilin9 F: r- -r-- 1 - --------- --- 2 r - r- - r - - -- * -- r- - r -- t --, -- 25 Expianation o io zo so ao so Monitoring Well Key I2-inch O.D.split spoon sample Clean Sand Moisture Content 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings plastic umit Natu d Limit No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of driliing ATD or date of ineasurement B Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical 8 Environmentai Consultants Date Drilled:9/26IO2 Logged By:CRT PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-18 PAGE 1 OF Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 35 feet Soil Description m L ,o Penetratlon Resistance y r a m a = m m a t0 Standard Blows per foot ther H C n V1 Z C7 Z . d. 0 10 20 30 40 4±inches ASPHALT and 2±inches medium dense, damp,brown,sandy GRAVEL above iaose,damp, -------- s__. __ : ____ . reddish-brown and black,silty SAND with some gravel(coal and sedimentary rodc fragments,FII)r-- r -- r--r- a'' '' , ''i ' S-1 8 200 5 t S-2 r- -r- - r- - -r- i - ; , _ 6 MC y S-3 6 MC 10 Loose,staturated,pale gray,silty SAND with gravel- size friable sedimentary rock fragments(Fill) ATD 5S-4 Boringcompletedat11.5feeton9l25l02. Groundwater encountered at approximately 10 feet at time of driiling. r__ L' _C''i__L' 1 ' 1 ' ' ' 15 i T T-T i L L '_ ' __1'_' 1_' 2 25 Explanation o o zo ao ao 50 Monitoring Well Key I2-inch O.D.split spoon sample Clean Sand oisture Content 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings piastie Limit Naturel Llquid Limit No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater tevel at time of driliing AT°or date of ineasurement 8 Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnicai&Environmental Consultants Date Drilled:9/25/02 Logged By: DCW PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-19 PAGE 1 OF 1 Location: Renton,WA Approxlmate Elevation: 34.5 feet Soil Description m Penetration Resistance y s a a a «; c m F,`, fQ Standard Blows per foot Other j H p U Z ( Z H 0 10 20 30 40 50 1.5±inches ASPHALT above 3±inches medium dense,damp,brown,gravellySAND r - - ; - - ; . -- -- , ; -- loose,moist.bladc.pi k,9raY,silry SAND with trace — -- gravel(coal and shale fragments-fill) 1 • 1 S 7 MC 5 s-z s nnc Stiff,moist,bladc,fine and fibrous ORGANICS i __; 1 _i _ _ r Loose to very loose,moist to saturated(below 8.5 S-3 8 MCfeei),black,pink and gray,silty SAND(coal and shale ATD fragments-fill) 1p s-a 3 Bwing completed at 1.5 feet on 9l25/02. Groundwater encountered at approwmately 8.5 feet at dme of drilling. i t 15 r-- -- - , - - 20 25 Explanation o io Zo so ao so Monitoring Well Key I2-inch O.D.split spoon sample 0 Clean Sand Moisture Content 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings Plastic Limit Natural Uquid Limit No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drifling ATO or date of ineasurement 8 Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical&Environmental Co sultants Date Drilled:9/25102 Logged By: DCW PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-20 PAGE 1 OF Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 35 feet Soil Description Penetration Resistance y C - 0 3 Caa d m 3 f6 Standard Blows perfoot Other y p fn V! Z C7 Z Fm- 0 10 20 30 40 50 1.5±inches ASPHALT above 1.5 inches medium dense,damp,brown,sandy GRAVEL above loose ----- grading to very loose,moist grading to saturated bebw 7 feet),black,silty SAND(coal fragments-fill) ____—__ r___ __ _ ' ' ' ' ' 'r'''_ r''i'' r '' _' S"1 1 -- - - - -- 4 GSA 5 s-z i -- : -- J, - _ a sa ATD - - ; - - - -- - ; • - -- ;- - -- ; - - -- g-3 MC=58%- 2 MC 10 s-a 3 oring completed at 11.5 feet on 9/25/02. roundwater encountered at approximately 7 feet at meofdrilling. 1-- 15 r" r" '_r" r"r'" " 7 _' . 20 2 Explanation o o zo so ao 50 Monitoring Welt Key I2-inch O.D.split spoon sample p Clean Sand Moisture Content 3-inch I.D Sheiby tube sample Cuttings Plastle Limit Naturel Uquid Limit No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater levei at time of driUing Aro or date of ineasurement B Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnlcal&Environmental Consultants Date Drilled:9/25/02 Logged By: DCW PROJECT:Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-21 PAGE 1 OF Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 34.5 feet Soil Description Penetration Resistance 0 ` 0 r c n. :% Q y N Z Standard Bbws per foot Other d Z o o zo sa ao 1.5±inches ASPHALT above 3.5±inches medium dense,damp,brown,sandy GRAVEL above medium dense,damp to moist,black,gray,and beige,SAND ^ reworked coal and shale rock fragments-fill) r' ' r ' 'r '' ' 'r '' ' '1"_'' S ' 1 -- , -- ,- -' -- - - . 11 MC 5 s2 z nnc Very loose,wet to saturated,black SAND with T-- --'- - -" " horizontal bedding(coal fragments-fill) S_3 ATD ~ - -:-- - - --•-- • - • • -- --• 3 MC 10 s 3 Boringcompletedat11.5feeton9/25/02 Groundwater encountered at approximately 8 feet at time ot drilling i --1--i- i i 15 r------------ -- i - ,-- ----i--T--_----- -- 21l 25 Explanation o io zo so ao so I Monitoring Well Key 2-inch O.D.split spoon sample Clean Sand Moisture Content 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings Plastic Limit Natural Liquid Limit No Recavery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of driliing ATD or date of ineasurement 8 Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical 8 Environmental Consultants Date Drilled: 9125IO2 Logged By:DCW PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-22 PAGE 1 OF Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 35.5 feet Soil Description a Penetration Resistance y am ca d m R a 0 Standard Blows per foot Other j H C W f Z C7 Z 0 10 20 30 40 2±inches ASPHALT above 2.5±inches medium dense,damp,brown,sandy GRAVEL above loose, 1 _ 1_ __ t^^ damp to moist,black,siity SAND(coal fragments-fillj r- - --,-- • -- , -- F"" S-1 6 MC 5 r— S-2 r : --; - r --!• !- - - - ± -- 5 MC y Grades to wet at 8 feet M S_3 ATD .; - - : - -' -- ; _ --- i - ; -- . -- , 3 MC 10 S-4 3 Boring completed at 11.5 feet on 9/25/02. w___ 1-- 1-- = - Groundwater encountered at 8 feet at time of driiling. f _ _ _ T _ _ i T 1 1 _ __ 15 20 1-- f_ __ _ _ _ _ i _ _ i__T__ T ' _ l__ t __ 25 Explanation o 0 2o ao ao so I Monitoring Well Key 2-inch O.D.split spoon sample Clean Sand Moisture COntent 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings plastfc Limk Naturel Liquid Limit No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of ineasurement Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical 8 Environmental Consultants Date Drilled:9l25/02 Logged By:DCW PROJECT:Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-23 PAGE 1 OF Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 34.5 feet Soil Description Penetration Resistance y am a m c 0 Standard Blows per foot Other o v v Z C7 Z F- 0 10 20 30 40 1.5±inches ASPHALT above 3 inches medium dense,damp,brown,gravelty SAND above loose, L _ _ _ _' _ 1 '_ _ " moist,black,pinic,and red,silty SAND with trace GRAVEL(coal a d shale fragments) f T T T __ __ S_ 1- - ,- - - ; ;-- ; -- ; - - ; -- ; - - ,o nnc 5 SZ s nnc Very loose,wet,black,pink,red,silty SAND(coal and __ _ qTp _ _ _ shale fragments) S-3 MC 3 3 MC r- Q Very soft,wet,gray,SILT and fine sandy SILT i , ; ; ; ' ; ; ;2 Boringcompletedat11.5feetonS/25/02. Groundwater encountered at approximately 7.5 feet at time of drilling. r ' _r" r ' _ * ' 15 i- -;-- -- ; - -;--'-- - - --- -- r --;- -; - - ; -- r--r-- : - -,--,-- A. Z i , , , , , , 25 Explanation o o Zo so ao so Monitoring Well Key I 2-inch O.D.split spoon sample Moisture Content 0 Clean Sand 3-inch I.D Shelby.tube sample Cuttings Plastie Limit Naturel Liquid Limit No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of ineasurement B Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical8 Environmental Consultants Date Drilled:9125l02 Logged By:DCW PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-24 PAGE 1 OF Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 34 feet Soii Description L Penetration Resistance a x y Q- °'a a m Standard Biows per foot Other j H o Nl v Z C9 Z I°i 0 70 20 30 40 4±inches ASPHALT above 4.5±inches medium dense,damp,brown,graveliy SAND above very loose, --_—____ moist,grading to wet,Wack and reddish orange,silty SAND(coal and sedimentary rocfc fragments-fill) w r ' ' r ' 'r' _ ____' , ___'' 7 '_ S i--; - - , _ 3 MC 5 S-2 3 MC r - - ; -- ,- - ----1 --;-- -- aTo ---- - --- - - •--•- • -•- --- -- 3_3 2 MC Very soft,wet,gray,SILT and sandy SILT r 10 S Boringcompletedat11.5feeton9/25/02. 1- ---- Groundwater encountered at approximately 6.5 feet at time of drilfing. r _ 'r' ' r''T'''_ ' 5 i , . . r.-, Z f_ f _ _ ! __ _ _T__T __T_ _ T_____ I ' ' ' I Explanation o o Zo so ao. so I Monitoring Well Key 2-inch O.D.split spoon sample 0 Clean Sand Moisture Content 3-inch I.D Shetby tube sample Cuttings Plastic Limit Natural Liquid Limk No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of ineasurement Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical&Environmental Consultants Date Drilled:9J25IO2 Logged By: DCW PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING 8-25 PAGE 1 OF 3 Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 33 feet Soii Description Penetration Resistance t aa a 3 ; c Q F z Standard Blows perfoot Other Z 0 10 20 30 40 inc es asp a over in es oose,mois, ar brown,silry,graveliy SAND(Fiq) r- f _' f_ _ _ _ _ i __ i_ _ _ , _ Loose,mast,black,COALTAILINGS(Fill) S-1 6 5 Very loose,moist,black,COAL TAILINGS(Fill)5-z 3 i- - - ; - . - -;-- --; , -- -- ATD g_g 5 Soft,wet,dark brown,ORGANIC SILT with sorne sand 1 O interbedded with gray,SAND with some s lt and gravel G S-4 7 GSA Loose,saturated,gray SAND with some gravel and _ Vacesilt i . i r ' ' r' 'r ' ' r''r'' r''t' 'i 15 Loose,wet,gray,silty SAND with some organics,Vace S-5 M'' 8 2U0 gravel interbedded with sandy SILT i - ;- - ; ' "; '" ; ''; "';' '; '-'- - 20 Grades to medium dense S-6 11 GSA i . , --' - - r-- , -- - - ,--, -- r - 25 Explanation o o zo so ao so Monitoring Well Key f ` I 2-inch O.D.spiit spoon sample Clean Sand Moistu e Content 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample CUttiflg5 Plastic Limit Natural Liquid Limit No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling AT°or date of ineasurement 8 Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,tnc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical 8 Environmental Consultants Date Drilled:9/24l02 Logged By CRT PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-25 PAGE 2 OF 3 Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 33 feet Soil Description m Penetration Resistance r aa aa :; 0 c Q N N Z SWndard Blows per foot Other > m 0 10 20 30 40 Z Medium dense to dense,wet,gray,gravelly SAND to S_ sandy GRAVEL with some silt,Vace organics c_- f __ i _T __T__T_ __ __ T` r i 30 s-s 2a z 35 s-s 20 1- - - L - - -1 - -i-- 1- --- j i . i i i . i i i i i r ' ' r _' r ' ' r " _r_ ' t' 'r'' '''r 40 Loose to medium dense,wet,gray,silty SAND with 5-10 11 some gravel with interbedded PEAT(3') k r - - --r -- r --r- - --- ---- -- 6 i , i i . i 45 Medium dense to dense,wet,gray,gravelly SAND with S-11 37 I somesiltandtraceorganics 1 '' L" 1''' '' Medium dense,wet,gray,silty SAND with some gravel and peaty organics(1^,i -- f '- f ' ' I- 'T'T''T' 'T''?' ' 50 Explanation o io zo so ao so Monito ing Well Key I2-inch O.D.split spoon sample 0 Clean Sand MOiSture Content 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings plastic Limit Natural uquw um c No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of ineasurement B Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical8 Environmental Consultants Date Drilled:9124/02 Logged By:CRT PROJECT:Renton Retaii JOB NO. J-1470 BORING 8-25 PAGE 3 OF 3 Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 33 feet Soil Description Penetration Resistance y c ` 0 caaa °: Q N Z Standard Blaws per foot Other 0 10 20 30 40 Z Medium dense,wet,gray,silty SAND with some grevel 12 zo and peaty organics(t") t 1- -1 -- i i i i . I f _T _ i __ 1 _ T _ T T t t__ _ i__a__1__ __ . I nmm i i i i 55 Medium dense,wet,gray,silty,fine SAND S-13 17 g;z 60 Loose,wet,gray,silty SAND interbedded with sandy _— S-14 9 SILT i--1- -'-- i i i i T_ _ i __1__ L_' 1 _ _ __ L_l__ 1__ __ _' 65 Medium dense,saturated,gray,silty SAND interbedded __^ 5-15 20 withsandySlLT Very dense,damp,light gray,silty SANDSTONE 70 oar Boring completed at 70 feet on 9l24/02 S-16 Groundwater seepage observed at 6.5 feet at time of driliing 1 ' - ' t ' '- -, -- f_t _ _ _ _ __T_ T_ _ T ' __ 75 Explanation o 0 2o ao ao so Monitoring Wetl Key I F : I 2-inch O.D.split spoon sample Moisture Content Clean Sand 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sampie Cuttings Plastie Limit Natural Uquid L(mit No Recovery Bent nite Grout Groundwater levei at time of drilling f.... ATD or date of ineasurement 8 Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc.BOR NG LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical& Environmental Consultants Date Drilied: 9/2M02 Lagged By: CRT PROJECT:Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-26 PAGE 1 OF Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 32 feet Soil Description Penetration Resistance i = ` fl' a a- w m 0 16 Standard Bbws per foot Other j y G tn V Z C7 Z H 0 10 20 30 40 50 urface grave over medium dense,moist,brown,silry, sandy GRAVEL(RII) T _ ' ' t_T_ _ T__ i_ ' Loose,moist,black,silty SAND,COAL TAILINGS, some organic wood dabris(Fill) S 11 5 Very loose,moist,block,silty SAND with COAL S-2 3 TAILINGS wootl debris and organics(F11) Very soft,wet,black,organic SILT with some wood — - MC=1az% iragments 3 ATD . - I - - --' -- ' -- ' - - , -- - -- 1 ATT Very soft,wet to saturated,greenish ray,sandy SILT S-4 1 MC with some day interbedded with silty SAND t-- - , w i _- _ _ t T _T_ T_ i __ i r i i i L L 1 1 1 1 1 15 Ve soft,wet,bro ra ,sil SAND interbedded with M tt676 Y 9 Y tY S-5 2 200W siItySANDa dPEAT(4") 20 Medium dense,wet,gray,sitry SAND with some brow organics and Vace gravel S-6 16 Boring completed at 21.5 feet on 9/26/02 Groundwater seepage observed at B feet at time of driiling 1 - -; -- --- ; - , -'-- T _ __ T__7 _ __ 25 Explanation o o 2o so ao so I Monitoring Well Key 2-inch O.D.split spoon sample Moisture Content Clean Sand 3-inch!.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings Plastic Limit Naturel Liquid Limft No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of ineasurement B Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnicai&Environmental Consultants Date Drilled: 9126102 Logged By: CRT PROJECT:Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-27 PAGE 1 OF Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 31 feet Soil Description Penetration Resistance H m °' m = ctaaa :: Q.3 0 1° Standard Blows per foot Other y o f 2 C7 Z 1 0 10 20 30 40 Medium dense gradi g to very loose,moist grading to wet(below 4.5 feet),brown,gray,and black,grevelly, s'silty SAND(Fill) k r - - r - - r - - *- - - -' -t-- a'' ' "'a'"1'' S-1 16 MC r - - ; - - r - - r - -r -- i --,-- ; ,-- 5 ATD - -` -- ` -- ` - - `--` - - '--'- - ' -- '-- S-z r- - r - - r•- ; - , - 3 MC Soft to very soft,wet,gray,SILT with interbeds of saturated,greenish-gray,fine to medium SAND, irtegular horizons of fibrous wganics up to 0.25 inches hick S_3 3 10 s-a Boringcompletedat11.5feeton9/25/02. 1-- '- -1-- - i_ Groundwater encountered at approximately 4.5 feet at timeofdriilin9 15 20 i ; - T_ _ i_ _ _ ' __l'_ GJ Expianation o 0 20 3 ao so Monitoring Well Key I2-inch O.D.split spoon sample Clean Sand Moisture Content 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings plastie Umit Natural uquia um c No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of driiling ATD or date of ineasurement E Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BORlNG LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical& Environmental Consuftants Date Drilled:9/25l02 Logged By:DCW PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-28 PAGE 1 OF Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 32.5 feet Soil Description m 6 Penetration Resistance y L aa a y 0 3 c a Standard Blows per foot Other j y C t/ t/ Z C7 3 Z H 0 10 20 30 40 Loose to medium dense,damp,brown,gravelly SAND Fillj r'' ' ' r'" r''T"'r'_i'_t"' Medium stiff to soft,moist to wet,dark brown,sandy SILT with some fine organics(FI1) S-t 1 5 MC 5 S'2 1 -- ;- !- -; -r -- 1 -- - ' _ 3 MC qTp Very soft.wet.9raY.SILT with some wood fiber g g 1 MC horizons 10 2 Boringcompletedat11.5feeton9l25/02. i --1 - - = - - Groundwater encountered at approximately 7.5 feet at v time of drilling. r '' r' ' r ' " r ''T ''T' " . t ' 15 20 L - '- - '- i -- i f T ' T_'T_T_ 1 1 __ 25 Explanation o o Zo so ao so Monitoring Well Key I2-inch O.D.split spoon sample Clean Sand MolstU e Content 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings Plastic Limit Natural Llqutd Llmlt No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATo or date of ineasurement B Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical 8 Environmental Consultants Date Drilled:9/25102 Logged By: DCW PROJECT:Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-29 PAGE 1 OF Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 33 feet Soil Description Penetration Resistance yma orG1 0 3 =Q m O. = 41 m a i° Standard Btows per foot Other y o V7 fn Z (7 3 Z H 0 10 20 30 40 3.5±inches ASPHALT above 4±of inedium dense, damp,brown,gravelly SAND above very loose,moist, _____________ i _ _ _ _ __ _: __ black,silty SAND(coal fragments)with scattered horizons of brown,gravelly SAND(FiA) r -- ------- - - - - s-' 3 MC 5 s-z L - -; - ` -. -;- -.- _ , _ _ Mc A - - - -- - - - - -- - • - ; - -• -- -- Very loose,saturated,gray,fine SAND with some sitty zones and scattered fibrous organics r-- --; -'; '' , ' -- - -; - S'3 1 MC 10 Bonngcompletedat11.5feeton9/25/02. Groundwater e countered at approximately 7.0 feet at time of drilling. r- - r--r - -r-- r' -T-'1 ' 5 i i 2 i , , , - -- r --*--r - -r-- r -1- -t -- 25 Explanation o o zo so ao 50 Monitoring Well Key I2-inch O.D.split spoon sample Clean Sand Moisture Content 3-inch t.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings Plasdc Llmit Natural Liquid Um(t No Recovery Bentonite . Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of ineasurement B Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical 8 Environmental Consultants Date Drilled:9/25102 Logged By: DCW PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-30 PAGE 1 OF Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 34 feet Soil Description D Penetration Resistance y r m d - m a r a a °' °; Qy y Z Siandard Blows perfoot Other Z 0 10 20 30 40 Medium dense,damp,brown,gravelly SAND(Fill) i r-- r''r- -r- -r -- 't'-T'- -' Very loose,mast grading to saturated,black,red,and beige,silty SAND and sandy SILT(coal fragments-filq S-1 M 5856 3 MC 5 S-2 A. ; -- ;- - - - ;- - i -- ; -- - - ,MF-59x 2 MC r-- ; -- --r -;- ;- ;-- g'3 MC=58% 1 MC Very stiff,wet,gray,SILT with trace fine SAND and fibrous organics S-4 0 Boringcompletedat11.5feeton9/25/02. 1--, -- , Groundwater encountered at approximately 5.5 feet at time of drilling. r'-r--r--r"r- , -T-- r--1- 1 - 1 -- a '' -' '- '- -- 15 20 1 - -L -- i- -1- - r __ f __ ' T _ _T__T''T'_ _ ' 2g Explanation o o Zo so ao so I Monitoring Well Key 2-inch O.D.split spoon sample Clean Sand Moisture Content 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings Plastie Lfmft Naturel Uquld Limit No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling aro or date of ineasurement B Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical 8 Environmental Consultants Date Drilled:9/25IO2 Logged By:DCW PROJECT:Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-31 PAGE 1 OF 1 Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 32 feet Soii Description Penetration Reslstance c y a a °. :' o N Z Standard Bbws per foot Other j FZ 0 10 20 30 40 Medium dense grading to very loose,damp to moist, brown and dark gray,silty SAND with trace gravel(Fill) —_-----_ r - -- - -, -- - -r- -,--.--, - - r- S i -- 3 MC 5 ---------------------------------------------- Verysoft.wet,darkbrownandgray,SlLTwithsome -- --- fine sand and organic material interbeds S-2 i ; ; ; i ; ; 1 0 MC r-- ATD Loose to very loose,saturated,grey,fine SANO with some fine and fibrous organics S-3 5 MC 10 4 Boring completed at 11.5 feet on 8/25/02. L _ _L__1__1. _ l __ Groundwater encountered at approximately 7.5 feet at time of drilling. w- - r ''r'' r "'r ' 'r' 'r' , _' T' '' ' 15 20 1- -1 --i- -1 - - T ' 'T_ _ T _ _T_' 1 25 Explanation o o zo so ao so Monitoring Well Key I2-inch O.D.split spoon sample Clean Sand Moisture Content 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings plastic limit Nawr Uquid Ltmit No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of ineasurement B Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnlcal&Environmental Consultants Date Drtlled:9/25l02 Logged By:DCW PROJECT:Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-32 PAGE 1 OF Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 33 feet Soil Description Penetration Resistance x mm d °' ` Y a °. Q y y Z Standard Blaws perfoot Other FZ 0 10 20 30 40 Medium dense,damp,brown,silty,gravelly SAND(FII) T _ _'._i' _T__T. 'i'_ " Medium stiff,moist to wet,black and brown,silty SAND _ _ coal fragments-fill) S , t- - - - - - - -: 5 200 1 - -; - - ; - - r- -r - - , -,--,-- 5 ATD Very loose,wet,black,SAND with some fine roots and g_2 MC=5i9 Z MC wood fibers(coal fragments-fill) r - -r--r - - r ; - ; - - ; --;- ; - Very loose,saturated,gray-brown,fine SAND S'3 4 MC 10 s-a 3 Boring completed at 11.5 feet on 9/25l02. L_' L_ '1' 1' "1 '_ f'''Groundwater encountered at approximately 4.5 feet at Gme of drilling. w- r"" r'" r "r "r'_r_' '1"7 ' 2 L , f ' ' T ' _T_ _ _T'-T__l __ 25 Explanation o io zo ao ao so Monitoring Well Key I2-inch O.D.split spoon sample Clean Sand MoiStu e Content 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings Plastie LimR Na uroi Liquid Limit No Recavery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling aro or date of ineasurement B Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,inc.BORING LOG Figure A-'1 Geotechnical&Environmental Consultants Date Drilled:9125/02 Logged By:CRT PROJECT:Renton Retaii JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-33 PAGE 1 OF Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 33 feet Soil DescripUon Penetration Resistance y m ` caa °-O « a o 0 Standard Blows per foot Other w p fA fn Z ('1 3 Z F 0 10 20 30 40 Medium dense to bose,damp,brown,sandy GRAVEL Fill) f'_ f_ _ _ T T T T t____ r i l_1 1 1 __ __ Very soft,wet,dark brown,SILT with abundant fine S-1 r,C i,x 2 MC and fibrous organics,and thin interbeds of sand size __ _ 5 coal fragments(FlII) S-2 r-- ; r-- ; -- ; - -, - -,• 2 MC A - - - - ;- - - - - ;- -;-- ;--•- - • --; -- loose,satureted,gray,gravelly SAND S3 7 MC 10 s-a k ; ; ; ; ; ; : 4 Medium sUff wet.brown orqanic SILT Boringcompletedat11.5feeton9/25/02 L__,__ :____,_ ., __ Groundwater encountered at approximately 7.0 feet at timeofdrilling. 15 2 1 --1 -- i''T' '1''T'' i''l __ 25 Explanation o o zo so ao so Monitoring Well Key I2-inch O.D.split spoon sample Clean Sand Moisture Content 3-inch I.D Sheiby tube sample Cuttings plasUe Umit Naw.ai d Limit No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of driiling AT or date of ineasurement B Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical&Environmental Consultants Date D illed:9/25102 Logged By: DCW PROJECT:Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-34 PAGE 1 OF Location: Renton, WA Approximate Elevation: 33 feet Soil Description m m Penetration Resistance a a d a m 0 a o 6 Standard Blows per foot Other j w O V1 NZ C9 Z H 0 10 20 30 40 4±innches ASPHALT above 2±inches of inedium dense,damp,brown,gravelly SAND above very loose,moist to wet,bladc and brown,silty SANO(coal fraGments-flll) r _ __ T_ T__ l _ i ! i d S. ATD ` - - ; --; - - ; -- ' - - ; -- - -;-.; 3 MC 5 r- - i - ; -- - r--r-- ?- -r- i -- S-2 i - r--`-- r- -•- ,--;-- 2 MC Verysoft,wet,gray,SlLTwithsaturetedfinesand interbeds S-3 r -- r - • --'- .- --- • --- - • - - MC 10 s-a o Boring compieted at 11.5 feet on 9/25/02. L _ ___ _,___ _, __,_ _. Groundwater encountered at approximately 3.5 feet at timeofdriliing.r--r- - . -- .--,-- 15 20 f _ 'i' _T ' T _ _ T__ __ 25 Explanation o o zo 3o ao so I Monitoring Well Key 2-inch O.D.split spoon sample Moistu e Content Clean Sand 3-inch f.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings Plastic Umit Natural Liquid Llmit No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling AT° or date of ineasurement Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical 8 Environmental Consultants Date Drilled:9/25J02 Logged By:DCW PROJECT:Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-35 PAGE 1 OF Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 34 feet Soil Description m ,o Penetration Resistance y r mcmaa d m 0 t° Standard Blows per foot Other j w o tJ) tA Z U' Z F- 0 70 20 30 40 3+ASPHALT above 7.5±inches medium dense, damp,brown,g2veily SAND(Fill)above very loase, ___ M_ moist,black SAND(coal fragments-fiil) T'_T T "T__T__ t_' S_ i - --1- - - ; -- , '- 3 MC 5 MS-2 A , , , 2 Very soft,wet,gray,SILT and sandy SILT with some ___________ fine and fibrous organics S-3 0 MC c 10 s-a Boringcompletedat11.5feeton9/25/02.1__L_ _: ____.__ __ Groundwater encountered at approximately 5 feet at timeofdritlin9•r-- -- --,--, -- 15 20 L ___ 1_ ' _ i _T__1__ 25 Explanation o 0 2o so ao 5o Monitoring Well Key I2-inch O.D.split spoon sample 0 Clean Sand MoiStu e Content 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings plastle Umit Natural LJquid Limit No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling nro or date of ineasurement B Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical&Environmental Consultants Date Drilied:9125102 Logged By: DCW PROJECT:Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING 8-36 PAGE 1 OF 2 Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 34 feet Soii Description m ,D Penetration Resistance y am a d a R o Standard Blows per foot Other j O t v Z (7 Z 0 10 20 30 40 3 inches asphalt over loose to medium dense,mast. brown,silty,gravelly SAND(Fill) r - --- -- - - ----- -- Very loose,moist,black,COAL TAILINGS(FII) y t"r S-1 3 5 Very loose,moist,brown-gray-black,silty SAND with some gravel interbedded with COAL TAILINGS(Fill) _ ___ S'2 i ; ' ; 2 Very loose,moist to wet,gray,silty SAND with some - -- gravel interbedded with biack sandy SILT and peaty _-_ N S-3 organicsl2") 3 10 A y 4 L i _ _ ' " i i . 7 _i_ _ _ _ __ __ 1 ' __1 __ _ ' '___ 1 _ 1 __ ' _ _ 15 Medium stiff,moist to wet,brown-gray,sandy SILT with g_5 7 some interbedded silty SAND with some organics 20 Very dense,moist,tan-brown,silty weathered SANDSTONE S-6 50/6' 1 - ' f - r - L --1--1- ' 1 _ Very dense,moist,light gray,silty SANDSTONE 25 Explanation o o Zo ao ao so I Monitoring Well Key 2-inch O.D.split spoon sample 0 Clean Sand MoiSture Content 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings Plastic Umk Natunl Liquid Limit No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of driliing ATD or date of ineasurement B Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical&Environmental Consultants Date Drilled:9124/02 Logged By: CRT PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-36 PAGE 2 OF 2 Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 34 feet Soil Description Penetration Resistance y 3 c y aa a.° « a 3 Standard Blows per foot Other a o N NZ C9 Z F- 0 10 20 30 40 Very dense,rnoist,light gray,siity SANDSTONE S_ SOl4" f _ t _ _• T__ 1_ _ __ 30 s-s sora• Boring completed at 30.4 feet on 9l24/02 Graundwater seepage observed at 9.5 feet at time of drilling r" 35 I f _f ! T , 1__1 40 45 t - - - - -- ._ _ , ._, . - -- 50 Explanation o 0 2o so ao so Monitoring Well Key I2-inch O.D.split spoon sample 0 Clean Sand Moisture COntent 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings plastic Llmit rwmni uqu a umn No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling Aro or date of ineasurement B Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical&Environmental Consuttants Date Drilled:9/24/02 Logged By: CRT PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-37 PAGE 1 OF Z Locatlon: Renton, WA Approximate Elevation: 42 feet Soii Description m L Penetration Resistance y r aa a,a 3 « c a o t0 Standard Blows per foot Other j y o v tn Z C9 Z F 0 10 20 30 40 SD Surface grass over r- T T__T____ l__ Loose to medium dense,moist,brown-black,silty P.., SAND with some gravel,coal tailings and organics(Fill) S_ t Very loose,moist,brown-black,silty SAND with Vace S-2 L ` ' ; :3 gravel,interbedded with sandy SILT and PEAT r 3 AT .i , , : ;3 VerysoTtwet.brown,PEAT r 10 g L- 1----1 -- -- i i i r Very loose,wet,gray,silty SANO interbedded with r -- i - -r - -T--i- -; -- ; -- organic SILT and PEAT S-5 2 I 15 ---------------------------------------------- Loose,saturated,brown-gray,gravelly SAND with S-6 10 somesilt 20 Very loose,saturated,brown,silty SAND with some S 7 p grevel and trace organics r - - - - , - - - - - -- , -- 25 Explanation o o zo so ao 50 Monitoring Well Key I2-inch O.D.split spoon sample Clean Sand Moisture Content 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings plasde Limit NaWral Llquid Limit No Recovery Bentonite Groundwater level at time of drilling e Grout AT°or date of ineasurement B Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical 8.Environmental Consultants Date Drilled•9l24/02 Logged By: CRT PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING &37 PAGE 2 OF 2 Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 42 feet Soil Description Penetration Resistance i °' ` r a a - « m a 10 Standard Blows perfoot Other j C n v Z L7 Z H 0 10 20 30 40 Loose,wet,brown-greenish-gray,si ty SAND with S s some gravel and Vace organics t-- - -- r 30 Dense,moist,tan-brown,silry weathered SANDSTONE ""- ' S 9 i --r -- r - - i - r-- , -- t- - ;- - Very dense,moist,light gray,silty SANDSTONE 35 Boring completed at 35.2 feet on 9l24l02 S"10 SO/2" Groundwater seepage observed at 8 feet at time of — r -- '-- ` - -` - -T --.- - '--'- - ' -- drilling 1 f t_T''f''T'T' • _' 1_ _ __ __ 40 45 i i f__ _ _ _ _T _'T''T_ _i _ _ __ JO 1 . . . I ; Explanation o o zo so ao so Monitoring Well Key I2-inch O.D.split spoon sample Ciean Sand Moistu e Content 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings Ptasde Limit Nawrai Liquid Limlt No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilting ATD or date of ineasurement B Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical 8 Environmental Consultants Date Drilled:9124102 Logged By: CRT APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES AND RESULTS J-1470 LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES All drilling samples were collected using split-spoon and Shelby tube sampling techniques as described in ASTM D-1586 and D-1587, respectively. Samples collected from test pit excavations were obtained from discrete soil layers in order to have a representative number of disturbed, but representative samples. A series of laboratory tests were performed on representative samples during the course of this study to evaluate the index and geotechnical engineering properties of the subsurface soils. Descriptions of the types of tests performed are given below. Visual Classification Samples recovered from the exploration locations were visually classified in the field during the exploration program. Representative portions of the samples were carefully packaged in moisture tight containers and transported to our laboratory where the field classifications were verified or modified as required. Visual classification was generally done in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification system. Visual soil classification includes evaluation of color, relative moisture content, soil type based upon grain size, and accessory soil types included in the sample. Soil classifications are presented on the exploration logs in Appendix A.h„i. Vloisture Content Determinations Moisture content determinations were performed on representative samples obtained from the exploration in order to aid in identification and correlation of soil types. The determinations were made in general accordance with the test procedures described in ASTM: D-2216. The results are shown on the exploration logs in Appendix A. Grain Size Analysis A grain size analysis indicates the range in diameter of soil particles included in a particular sample. Grain size analyses were performed on representative samples in general accordance with ASTM: D-422. The results of the grain size determinations for the samples were used in classification of the soils, and are presented in this appendix. Atterberg Limits The liquid limit, plastic limit, and plastic index of representative cohesive soil samples were determined using standard Atterberg limits testing procedures in general accordance with ASTM:D-4318-84. The Atterberg limits are presented in this appendix. Consolidation Test A one-dimensional consolidation test was performed in general accordance with ASTM:D-2435 on a selected sample of the site soils to provide data for developing settlement estimates. The undisturbed soil sample was carefully trimmed and fit into a rigid ring. Porous stones were placed on both the top and bottom of the sample to allow drainage. After seating loads were applied, the sample was inundated and the swell was measured. Vertical loads were then applied to the sample incrementally in such a way that the sample was allowed to consolidate under each load increment over time. The rebound of the sample during unloading was also measured. Direct Shear Test Two direct shear tests were completed in support of the stability analyses completed for this project. The tests were completed in general accordance with ASTM D-3080. Samples were subjected to four stress increments {500 to 2,000 psfl and the shear stress was determined at each point. The apparent cohesion and friction angle of the soil for peak and/or residual conditions could then be inferred from a best-fit line through the four points. Organic Content Test F The organic content of three near-surface samples were determined by AASHTO T-267, . Organic Content by Loss on Ignition. pH and Resistivity Tests Soil chemical analytical tests were completed on three representative soil samples by r-, ' AMTEST Laboratories in Redmond, Washington. The results of the pH and resistivity tests were used to assess the corrosion potential to concrete and unprotected steel. PLASTICITY CHART ASTM D 4318 so 50 i i I 40 30 ow as c inor anic san y i soi s;e s ic si s; c io ani ts Ga anc sil cla s Medium i i r' 20 a i cla silts 10 7 4 an s 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Liquid Limit% USCS Received Liquid Plastic Plasticity S mbol Borin Sam le Descri tion M.C. % Limit Limit Index Comments B-8 S-16 MH 57 fi0 33 27 B-11 S-6 MH 57 59 37 22 B-6 S-4 MH 55 78 47 30 B-11 S-16 CH 44 66 29 37 Remarks: PROJECT NO: J-1470 PROJECT NAME: 7.i ner Z.eman Associates,,jn DATE OF TESTING: 1017/02 Rentan Retail Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting PLASTICITY CHART ASTM D 4318 so i 50 40 x ow as c morgamc san y an soi s;e s ic si s; L 30 o anic silt cla s an sil cla s Medium u 20 a cla si{ts 10 7 i 4 an s j 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Liquid Limit% USCS Received Liquid Plastic Plasticity S mbol Borin Sam le Descri tion M.C. (°/a Limit Limit Index Comments B-26 S-3 CL 132 42 34 8 B-13 S-2 ML 39 46 26 20 Remarks: PROJECT NO: J-1470 PROJECT NAME: 7j er Zeman Associate jn DATE OF TESTING: 10/9/02 Renton Retail Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting CONSOLIDATION TEST BASED ON ASTM D 2435 AND ASTM D 4546 Ii, Job Name: Renton Retail Exploration No.: B-37 Job No: J-1470 Sample No.: S-4 Date: 10/1/OZ Depth (ft): 10-10.5 Tested By: EUME Description: Peat Moisture Content (°!o): Before: 60.3 After: 107.4 Wet Unit Weight(pcfl: 73.6 Atterberg Limits: LL= PL= P1= U.S.C. I Stress{tsf} 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 100.00 i 10 20.0 Settlement Rebound 18.0 Cv 0 i 16.0 i 14.0 i 10 12.0 e c'c N -20 10.0 ! aa, Q v a.o so s.o I I I i 4.Q 40 2.0 50 0.0 i i ii Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary ASTM D1140,4z2 SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S.STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER r e• 3 +irr ra• a e- a io zo ao so oo zoo 10 , i i : , I ; I I i i , j I 9 j I I I I i Ii i I I I i 8 I r I i w i I I 1 I 7 i m I ! i I I z 6 ii ' i l i 5 ' Z a V i I i . a4 I +; ilii i I II ; 3 i i Z II ii ; I I, ! ! i 1 I i i i i ': 1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fne Silt Gay BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED Comments: Expioration Sample Depth (feet) Moisture(%) Fines(°/a)Description B-1 S-7 30-31.5 20 7.4 gravelly SAND with some silt PROJECT NO: J-1470A PROJECT NAME: 7j.per Zeman Associates,Inc. DATE OF oitio2 Renton Retail Siope Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting TESTING:StBbllity GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary ASTM D 1140,422 SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S.STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER 3g 1Y g 3' 172' 3I4• 3/8' 4 10 20 40 50 100 200 1 I i i I i I I I i 9 ! I i I . i O I i j I I O W I I 7 i Ii , iII i i W 6 j Z i i LL i, , I W 5 j i i t I j j I W 4 a 3o I I i i i Ii 2 i i i I I 1 I I I I I i i 1000.000 10U.000 10.000 1.000 0.1 QO 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE SiZE IN MILLIMETERS Coarse Fne Coatse Medium Fne Silt Clay BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED Comments: Exploration Sampie Depth (feet} Moisture(°/a) Fines(%)Description B-6 S-4 20-21.5 20 30.0 silry SAND with some gravel PROJECT NO: J-1470A PROJECT NAME: p er Zeman Associates. IIIC. DATE OF 10l14/02 Renton Retail Slope Geotechnicat and Environmental Consulting -STING:StBbillty GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary ASTM D 1140,422 SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S.STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER ir e 3• ,ur a• 3re a io zo ao sa o0 200 10 9 I 8 I fi i i C9 w 3 I I m W 6 Z ti Z 5 j W a' ' I i I d 4 f 3 I ' i i I I 2 ; i i1 I I 1 I I I i I 1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100' 0.010 I 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine 5itt Clay BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED Comments: Exploration Sample Depth (feet) Moisture(%) Fines(%)Description B-1 S-5 15-16.5 39 28.9 silty SAND with trace gravel PROJECT NO: J-1470 PROJECT NAME: 7,iuner Zeman Associates Inc. DATE OF ois o2 Renton Retail Geotechnical and Environmentat Consulting TESTING: GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary ASTM D 1140,422 SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S.STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER se tr e - ,vr a• e- a 0 2o ao so oo zoo 10 , i I I i I I 9 i iI z $ j i i' ' i w 7 m J I I i W 6 tl LL i I ' I - W5 I I i I II a4 I I I 3 i i z I i 1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED Comments: Exploration Sample Depth (feet) Moisture (%) Fines(%)Description B-2 S-2 5-6.5 29 32.3 silry SAND PROJECT NO: J-1470 PROJECT NAME: 7,i per Zeman Associates T_nc• DATE OF oisro2 Renton Retail Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting TESTING: GRAIN SIZE ANALYSfS Test Results Summary ASTM D 1140,422 SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S.STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER 3e•r - 3• trr ya• a to 2o aa so o0 200 10 I i i i9 i I i is I i i m i i' ws z 5 i Z w c. 4 ' 1 I a i i 3 i i j I 2 i I i i i i I I I i II . i I j 1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.01 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Sitt Clay BOULDERS C086LES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED Comments: Exploration Sample Depth (feet) Moisture(%) Fines(%)Description B-2 S-8 30-31.5 25 25.3 silty SAND with some gravel PROJECT NO: J-1470 PROJECT NAME: 7.i ner Zeman Associates, Inc. DATEOF o s o2 Renton Retail Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting TESTING: GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary ASTM D 1140,a SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S.STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER sc i r s• s- +n• ra• a i o zo ao so oo zoo 10 I I I i i I 9 I i 8 I I W i I m I ws LL I t i - Z $ W U 4 a I ' 3 I 2 i I i i I 1 i i jl 1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Rne Sitt Clay BOULDERS COBBLES GR.4VEL SAND FINE GRAINED Comments: Exploration Sample Depth (feet) Moisture(%) Fines(%)Description B-4 S-4 10-11.5 20 7.2 SAND with some silt and some gravel PROJECT NO: J-1470 PROJECT NAME: 7.l.per Zeman Associates i_nc. DATE OF oisio2 Renton Retaii Geotechnical and Envirotunental Consulting TESTING: GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary ASTM D 1140,a22 SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S.STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER as•r 3- r2• ya• +e- a o zo aa so ao soo 10 I I I i 9 ; 8 I i w i m i W 6 i Z LL i Z5 I I U I I W 4 i a 3 I j 2 i I i 1 , i I I I , I ; I : 1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Coarse Flne Coarse Medium Fne Sift Clay BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED Comments: Exploration Sample Depth (feet) Moisture(%) Fines(%)Description B-5 S-4 10-11.5 27 8.4 gravelly SAND with some silt PROJECT NO: J-1470 PROJECT NAME: 7ioner Zeman Associates in DATE OF as/o2 Renton Retail Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting TESTING: GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary ASTM D 1140,422 SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S.STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER 35 12' B• 3• 1 1!2' 3/q• 318' 4 10 20 40 50 100 200 10 I I I I I I ' I 1 i I I ! 9 I I i I I 1 i il •' I I i I a j i I i W iij , ' i I I i I I I m I I I ! I f I Z 6 i I t . j i Z 5 i i r-T U I I 1 I i i 4 i i i a ii ji ' ; i i i 30 I i I i I I I Ii i I I1 2 I IIii i j; I I 1 i I I ! I i i ` , 1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Coarse Flne Coarse Medium Fne Silt Clay BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED Comments: Exploration Sample Depth (feet) Moisture(°/a} Fines(%)Description B-6 S-1 2.5 16 20.8 silty SAND with some gravel PROJECT NO: J-1470 PROJECT NAME: Zinner Zeman Associates,TI1C. DATE OF TESTING: 10/4l02 Renton Retail Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Resuits Summary ASTM D 1140,422 SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S.STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER r e^ a irr a• +a a io 2o ao so ioo zoo 10 i I I i I 9 I I , j j i ji I I i I i , i il ! I I Ifl ! I w t I m 7 ' ' I f j 6 I I I I f W Z I i L,, i W 5 I I I U 4 i i I I a i I I3 i I i ill j i i I 2 i i I I ; I i IjiiIII j I II I i i I i 1i ' I i . I I I i , I i I i I I I 1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Ciay BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED Comments: Exploration Sample Depth (feet) Moisture(%) Fines(%)Description B-6 S-3 7.5 18 5.4 gravelly SAND with some silt PROJECT NO: J-1470 PROJECT NAME: 7.i per Zeman Associatec,jll DATE OF TESTING: 10/4/02 Renton Retail Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting GRAIN SlZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary r SIZE OF OPENfNG IN INCHES U.S.STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER 3g'1T 6- 3• 11/2' 3/4" 3J8' 4 10 20 40 50 100 200 i jl i I i I i 9 i I H I I , 2 8 l ;C9 I 7 I W6 z 5 I z W W 4 I I I a i F-, ' i i A.;=;: 3 i i i i ; I 2 I ' i ' ; i 1 I I I 1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Coarse Fi e Coarse Medium Fne Siit Clay BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED Comments: I Exploration Sample Depth (feet) Moisture(%) Fines(%)Description B-7 S-3 7.5' 35 9.7 SAND wiih some siit and Uace gravel PROJECT NO: J-1470 PRaJECT NAME: 7,j per Zeman Associates,1_ DATE OF 10J6/02 Renton Retail Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting TESTING: GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S.STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER ae r e irr 4• 3ra• a io zo ao so ao zoo 10 ' ) i I 9 I i 8 I i i I I I ' 7 m II 6 i i i r- Z I I Z 5 W W 4 t i a 3 i i 2 I i ' I 1 I I I I I ' 1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 '0.100 0.010 0.401 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fne Silt Clay BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED Comments: Exploration Sample Depth (feet) Moisture (%) Fines (%)Description B-7 S-6 20' 25 11.2 9 velly SAND with some silt PROJECT NO: J-1470 PROJECT NAME: 7.inner Zeman Associates,Inc• DATE OF io s o2 Renton Retail Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting TESTING: GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S.STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER 3s- ir s- a irz ra• e• a io 2o ao so ioo zoo 10 i 1 I i I i I 9 I F— 8 I I I 2 W I Ii 7 i m 6W Z ti.. iH Z5 W I W 4 i I G. i i 3 i I 2 I k I I i I I j; 1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fne Silt Clay BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINEO Comments: Exploration Sample Depth (feet) Moisture(%) Fines(%)Description B-8 S-2 5' 14 18.1 silty SAND with trace gravel PROJECT N0: J-1470 PROJECT NAME: 7.i Der Zeman Associates,In DATE OF ois o2 Renton Retaii Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting TESTING: GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary SIZE OF aPENING IN INCHES U.S.STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER 3s- ir - 3• i irr a• sre- a o zo ao so ioo 200 10 i i i i I i i i ` j i `j i 9 i I I i 1 i i , i i f 1 I j I 8 I 4 i w I I i m i wfi z i F,— W 5 i I fk I W 4 a j ' 3 ' I ii I ii I I I2 i i I i E ii I i i i li I i 1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine 5ilt Clay BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED Comments: Exploration Sample Depth (feet} Moisture(%) Fines(%)Description B-8 S-4 10' 20 22.2 silry SAND with some gravel PROJECT NO: J-1470 PROJECT NAME: 7,i per Zeman Associates, In DATE OF asro2 Renton Retail Geotechnical and Env'uonmental Consulting TESTING: GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S.STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER r - 3- ,rr ya• re• a o zo aa so ao zoo 10 I ,II I 9 8 I i I t9 j W 7 m I s I i w z i LL j Z 5 I W i V W 4 i I a i I 3 i 2 j I ii I 1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Sitt Clay BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED Comments: Exploration Sample Depth (feet) Moisture(%) Fines(%)Description B-8 S-11 45' 22 33.1 silry SAND with trace gravel PROJECT NO: J-1470 PROJECT NAME: 7.inner Zeman Associates, Tnc. DATE OF o s o2 Renton Retail Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting TESTING: GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S.STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER 3- ir s• s• ve ya• re' a 0 2o ao so ioo zao o I I II I s I i i F-. i w I I7i m 1 r-- z 6 i ; Us E I W 4 a s I I 2 i 1 i I I 1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.1 QO 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fne Sift Clay BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED Comments: Exploration Sample Depth (feet) Moisture(%) Fines(%j Description B-8 S-18 80' 19 10.4 SAND with some silt and trace gravel PROJECT NO: J-1470 PROJECT NAME: 71Dne1' ZeII18ri ASSOC1SteS,TIIC. DATE OF 10l6/02 Renton Retaii Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting TESTiNG: GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary ASTM D 1140,422 SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S.STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER 36'12' 6' 3' 11/2' y4' 3!8' 4 10 20 40 50 100 200 i I i , ' j , i9 I i Ii F-- 8 I I i I I I i ;I i il ' ; i . E I j m I I i i i W 6 j i i Z , ; Z5 i I W I ! I i a 4 j j 3 ! li ' I ; i i i i ; i I2 I I ± ! ' I i 1 I ' i i i . . I i I I i i II I iaoo.000 oo.000 o.000 000 o.oo o.o o o.00 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED Comments: Exploration Sample Depth (feet) Moisture(°/a) Fines(%)Description B-9 S-4 12.5-14 2 5.3 gravelly SAND with some silt PROJECT NO: J-1470A PROJECT NAME: Zip.per Zeman Associates,Inc. DATE OF 10/14/02 Renton Retail Slope Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting TESTING:StBbllity GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S.STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER 3c r s- i n- ya• sre a io 2o aa eo o0 200 10 I I 9 w ' i 7 i m I W6 ' ( z H 5 Z W I C p, 4 i I I 30 i 1 2 I i i , I I I i I j ; i 1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Coarse Flne Coarse Medium Fne Silt C1ay BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED Comments: Exploration Sample Depth (feet) M isture(%) Fines(%)Description B-10 S-6 17' 31 9.1 SAND with some silt and trace gravei PROJECT NO: J-1470 PROJECT NAME: 7.inner Zeman Associates, nc. DATE OF o sro2 Renton Retail Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting TESTING: GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Resutts Summary r- SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S.STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER 36'72' 3 1 1f2" 3I4' 3!B' 4 10 20 40 50 100 200 10 I j ; I i I ' i i i I' 9 I 1 I i i I j 2 8 C9 w m I I i 1 ws z I i I H Z5 I I W 4 i a i I t;4 g I 2 I I I i i i I i I , I1 i i ; , i Iii i 3 i I i i 1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED Comments: Exploration Sample Depth (feet) Moisture(%) Fines(%)Description B-11 S-5 15' 12 4.6 gravelly SAND with trace silt PROJECT NO: J-1470 PROJECT NAME: 7jDD 1'Z8ri18II AcSOC18tBS l nc• DATE OF 10l6/02 Renton Retail Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting TESTING: GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary ASTM D 1140,422 r- SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S.STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYOROMETER r e r i rr <• srs a 0 2o ao sa oo Zoo 10 i r I I I 2 8 I' W j i 7 i i M I i W I I H. I i i W Z u. Z 5 W 4 f ; I a i . 30 i ` I I I : 2 I , 1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Coarse Fne Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED Comments: Exploration Sample Depth (feet) Moisture(°/a) Fines(%)Description 15 S-2 5-6.5 36 20.8 siity SAND with some gravel 7,inner Zeman Associatec_,1_nc• PROJECT NO: J-1470 PROJECT NAME: DATE OF o sro2 Renton Retail Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting TESTING: GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Resufts Summary ASTM D 1140,az2 SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S.STANDARD SIEVE S1ZE HYDROMETER 3g•12' S 3" 1 12' y4' 3/8' 4 10 20 40 50 100 200 I I Iii r-.- i I ' i Ii 9 C i f i H i i i i W 8 ! I i I , il m I i 6W Z i i 5 W i I i4 d i I I i;' i s ; I I i ' 2 i i _ i i i i I I ' 1 I i + I I IIi ; . . 1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fne Silt Clay BOULDERS C08BLE5 GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED Comments: Exploration Sample Depth (feet) Moisture(%) Fines (%)Description B-16 S-1,S-2 2.5-5.0 11 14.4 siiry sandy GRAVEL composite r- PROJECT N0: J-1470 PROJECT NAME: 7ipper Zeman Associates, In DATE OF or3 o2 Renton Retail Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting TESTING: GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary ASTM D 1140,a22 SIZE OF OPENlNG IN INCHES U.S.STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER 3e tr e^ 3• rz• a• s a 0 2o aa so iao zoa 10 nr-I i s I h I t $ j W i7 m 6 I W IZ i i Z 5 U 4 I a I , 3 I i t 2 i 1 I i ! ii I I 1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Coarse Fne Coarse Medium Fne Silt Clay BOULDERS COSBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED Comments: r:' Exploration Sample Depth (feet) Moisture(%) Fines(%}Description B-25 S-4 10-11.5 14 2.5 SAND with some gravel and trace silt PROJECT NO: J-1470 PROJECT NAME: 71nner Zeman Associates, Tn DATE OF 10/9/02 Renton Retail Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting TESTING: GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Test Results Summary ASTM D 1140,a22 SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S.STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER 3G 1 Y 6' 3' 1 1 Ml' 3/4' 318" 4 t 0 20 40 50 100 200 10 Iil , I I9 I I , I 2 $ C9 i I 7 m i I. 6 I W Z j LL Z W U q W 1 I 3 I j I 2 I i i 1 I I t r-{ I I q 1000.000 100.000 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Coarse Fne Coarse Medium Fine Sift Gay BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED Comments: Exploration Sample Depth (feet) Moisture(%) Fines (%)Description B-25 S-6 20-21.5 29 18.4 silty SAND with trace grevei PROJECT NO: J-1470 PROJECT NAME: 7.iDner Zeman Associates, Inc. DATE OF as o2 Renton Retail Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting TESTING: SAMPLE DEPTN(ft) CLASSIFICATION J1470 63 S-3 I 16.0-16.5 COAL TAILiNGS TEST CONDITIONS: r 2.00 i , I I ' 1.90 I ii 1.80 I i 1.70 I i l' 1.60 I i J, I I 1.50 i I I 1. I I I I 1.30 I I r Y 1.20 I i I I I 1.10 I i w I 1.00 I I I I iH I Q 0.90 w I 2 0.80 I I 0.70 i i , ! i 0.60 I j i i 'I I , i 0.50 i 0.40 i I 0.30 I 0.20 ' 0.10 I i I I 0.00 I I i ' ' I I ! I 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.5Q 1.75 2.00 NORMAL STRESS (ks FRICTION ANGLE(degrees)37 APPARENT COHESION(psf} 340 AVERAGE DRY DENSITY(pc 49.9 AVERAGE WATER CONTENT(%) 18.9 Zipper Z man and Associates, Inc. DIRECT SHEAR Miscellaneous Testing Services TEST RESULT PROJECT NO.: ZOOZ-O 2 FIGURE: HWACIRS 200'<C92.GPJ 9I2oiC2 SAMPLE DEPTH(ft) I CLASSIFICATION J1470A 85 6 8 7 21.5-23.5 I (SM)silty SAND,occasional organic inclusion i TEST CONDITIONS:; RESIDUAL 2.00 I ' ( I i I I , t I j 1.90 i i I I i 1.80 1.70 l i I i.so 1.50 1.40 i 1.30 i i Y 1.20 I i 1.10 i I I 1.00 ICA R; Q 0.90 w i I i I ili 0.80 i I I I 0.70 i i I I 0.60 I j f i 0.50 I I i 0.40 0.30 I I I i I I + 0.20 I I 0.10 i I i 0.00 ' I i I I I I 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 NORMAL STRESS (ksf) FRICTION ANGLE(degrees)35 APPARENT COHESION(psf} 120 AVERAGE DRY DENSITY(pcfl 91.0 AVERAGE WATER CONTENT(%) I 30.4 Zipper Zeman and Associates, Inc. DIRECT SHEAR Miscellaneous Testing Services TEST RESULT PROJECT NO.: ZOOZ-O92 FIGURE: 2 HWADIRS 2Q02092.GPJ 10/25/02 Organic Content Test Results ASTM D-2974 f Test Location Moisture Content % Or anic Content % I,-- B-2 20-21.5 ft. 97 12 B-26 7.5-9 ft. 57 19 SOIL CHEMICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS SAMPLE LOCATION DEPTH T H RESISTNITY ohm-cm B-2, S-2 5-6'/z 6.9 4,600 B-5, S-2 5-6'/z 6.7 9,400 I B-8, S-Sb 15%z 5.6 3,300 B-26, S-2 5-6%z 5.6 4,500 n APPENDIX C GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FACT SHEET, FOUNDATION DESIGN CRITERIA,FOUNDATION SUBSURFACE PREPARATION NOTES,AND AASHTO PAVEMENT DESIGN T•: i r-.i I i I T SA I n', S C EOTECHI ICAI,INVESTICATION FACT SHEET Include this form in the Geotechnical Report as an Appendix. PROJECT LOCATION:_S. Grady Wa and Talbot Road. Renton. Washington Engineer: Thomas A. Jones Phone#: 425-771-3304 E-mail: tom jones e. zi erzeman.com Geotechnical Engineering Co.: Zipper Zeman Associates. Inc. Report Date: December 6. 2002 Ground Water Elevarion: 23 to 34 feet Fill Soils Characterisrics: Date Groundwater Measured: October.2002 Maximum Liquid Limit: 40 in upper 4 feet Maxirnum Plasticity Index: 12 in u ner 4 feet F-' Specified Compaction: 95%ASTM:D-1557 Moisture Content Range:-2 to+2% nular 1%to+3%fine-grained TopsoiUStripping Depth: 6 inches min..limited areas,,,see textl Undercut(If Req'd): 18 inches below structural slab Compaction: 95%ASTM:D-1557 or 98%ASTM D-698 Modified Proctor Results: Not completed on existing coal tailings fill,see report i Recommended Compaction Control Tests: 1 Test for Each 5.000 Sq.Ft ac Lift(bldg. area) 1 Test for Each 10.000 Sq.FL Lift(parking area) Structural Fill Maximum Lift Thiclmess 8 in.(Measured loose) Subgrade Design CBR value = N/A for coal tailings fill. assumed 50°/a at 95% relative com acrion of ASTM D- 1557A for subbase material.see text COMPONENT ASPHALT CONCRETE Standard Heavy Standard Heavy Stabilized Subgrade If Applicable) Subbase Material 12 12 12 Pit-run Sand and Gravel) Crushed Gravel Base Course 4 4 4 4 Leveling Binder Course Surface Course 4 NOTE: Asphalt and concrete sections are based on minimum subgrade compacrion levels of 95% of the modified Proctor maximutn dry density. All compacted subbase should have a minimum CBR value of 50. This information should not be used separately from the geotechnical report. OUNDATION DESIGN CRITERI.4 Include this form in the Geotechnical Report as an Appendix. PROJECT LOCATION: S. Gradv Wa and Talbot Road. Renton. Washington Engineer: Thomas A. Jones Phone#: 425-771-3304 E-mail: tom.jones zip.perzeman.com Geotechnical Engineering Co.:Zi er Zeman Associates. Inc. Report Date: December 6. 2002 Foundation type: Augercast iles u to 85 feet long and grade beams(see report1 Allowable bearing pressure: 75-tons er ile. su orted on bedrock. or dense soils Factor of Safety: 2.5 Minimum footing dimensions: Individual: 24 inches Continuous: 24 inches Minimum footing embedment: Exterior. 24 inches Interior: 12 inches I Frost depth: 1 S inches I Maximum foundation settlements: Total: <1 inc I, Differential: <0.5 inch in 40 ft. Slab: Potential vertical rise: <1/<inch below slabs i Capillary break(describe): 6 inches free-draining sand and gravel. see floor slab section of report Vapor barrier: Recommended for methane gas and soil moisture Subgrade reaction modulus: 1 O si/in at 95%com action ASTM D-1557 Method obtained: CBR correlation Perimeter Drains (describe): Building: 4 inch dia.perforated PVC or corru ated l astic Retaining Walls:4 inch dia. erforated PVC or corrugated plastic. or wee holes Cement Type: I Retaining Wall: Active: 5 c , At-rest pressure: 55 cf,Passive: variable. se report Allowable Coefficient of Base Friction: 0.30 COMMENTS: NOTE: This information shall not be used separately from the geotechnical report. AASHTO 1993 METHOD FOR DESIGN OF ASPFLAI,T PAVEMENT STRUCTURES FOR: PROPOSED RETAIL DEVELOPMENT, RENTON, WASHINGTON DESIGN LIFE: 20 YEARS DESIGN CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO: 50%(imported pit-run sand and gravel) INPUT VALUES FOR STRUCTURAL NUMBER(SN) REFERENCE Estimated ESAL (20 yrs)=43,800(Std.), 335,800 (heavy duty) Specified F' Reliability(R)= 85% Specified Standard Normal Deviation(Zr)= 1.037 I-62 f Overall Standard Deviation(So)=0.45 Specified Resilient Modulus (M= 12,000 psi I-14 Effective Resilient Modulus (MR, seasonally adjusted)=4,600 psi II-15 Initial Serviceability(Po)=4.2 Specified Terminal Serviceability(P)=2.0 Specified Design Serviceability Loss (PSI)=2.2 II-10 Structural Number(SN): Hvy=3.4, Std=2.5 II-35 r Input values for thickness calculations Asphalt layer coefficient(a)=0.37 II-18 Base course layer coefficient(a2)=0.14 II-19 i Base course drainage coefficient(m2)= 1.35 II-25 Subbase layer coefficient(a3)=0.13 II-21 Subbase layer coefficient(m3) = 1.30 II-25 Recommended Pavement Section Thicknesses (inches) I i I' Asphalt Concrete Crushed Base Course Pit-Run Subbase Imported Roadbed Standard 3 4 0 12 Heavy 4 4 0 12 Imported roadbed must have a minimum CBR value of 50 when compacted to a minimum of 95 of the modified Proctor maximum dry density. Add 5 inches subbase if subgrade compaction is 90 percent of modified Proctor maximum dry density.Verify CBR of import sample. AASHTO 1993 METHOD FOR DESIGN OF CONCRETE PAVEMENT STRUCTURES FOR: PROPOSED RETAIL DEVELOPMENT, RENTON,WASHINGTON T! DESIGN LIFE: 20 YEARS DESIGN CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO: 50%(imported pit-run sand and gravel) INPUT VALUES FOR STRUCTURAL NUMBER(SN) REFERENCE r-^. Estimated ESAL(20 yrs)=43,800 (Std.), 335,800 (heavy duty) Specified Reliability(R)=85%Specified Standazd Normal Deviation(Z) = 1.037 I-62 Overall Standard Deviarion(So)=035 Specified Resilient Modulus(MR)= 15,000 psi I-14 rT Effective Resilient Modulus(MR,seasonally adjusted) =4,000 psi II-15 Effective Modulus of Subgrade Reaction=300 pci II-39 Initial Serviceability (Po)=4.2 Specified n_i Terminal Serviceability(Pt)=2.0 Specified Design Serviceability Loss (PSI)=2.2 II-10 Input values for thickness calculations: Mean Concrete Modulus of Rupture=550 psi Recommended Base course layer coefficient(aZ)=0.14 II-19 Base course drainage coefficient(m2)= 135 II-25 Base Modulus (ESB)=30,000 psi II-19 Subbase la er coefficient a =0.13 II-21Y3) Subbase layer coefficient(m3)= 1.30 II-25 Subbase Modulus (ESB}=20,000 psi II-21 Recommended Concrete Pavement Section Thicknesses(inches) Concrete Crushed Base Course Pit-Run Subbase Imported Roadbed Standard 5 4 0 12 Heavy 6 4 0 12 Imported roadbed must have a minimum CBR value of 50 when compacted to a minimum of 95 of the modified Proctor maximum dry density. Add 5 inches subbase if subgrade compaction is 9 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density. Verify CBR of import sample. FOUNDATION SUBSURFACE PREPARATION NOTES UNLESS SPECIFICALLY INDICATED OTF RWISE IN THE DRAWINGS AND/OR SPECIFICATIONS, THE LIMITS OF THIS SUBSURFACE PREPARATION ARE CONSIDERED TO BE THAT PORTION OF THE SITE DIRECTLY BENEATH AND 10 FEET BEYOND TF BUILDING AND APPURTENANCES. APPURTENANCES ARE THOSE ITEMS ATTACHED TO THE BUILDING PROPER (REFER TO DRAWING SHEET SP]), TYPICALLY INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, TI- BUILDING SIDEWALKS, GARDEN CENTER, PORCHES,RAMPS, STOOPS,TRUCK WELLS/DOCKS,CONCRETE APRONS, COMPACTOR PAD,ETC. THE SUBBASE AND VAPOR BARR R,WHERE REQUIRED,DOES NOT EXTEND BEYOND THE LIMITS OF THE ACTUAL BUII.,DING AND TF APPURTENANCES. THE SURFICIAL COAL TAILINGS AND FII,L SOII.S SHALL BE COVERED WITH A 1 NIMUM OF 12 INCHES OF GRANULAR STRUCTURAL FILL BENEATH THE FLOOR SLAB. THE UPPER ONE FOOT OF EXPOSED FILL SOILS SHALL BE PROOFROLLED AND COMPACTED TO A NIINIMUM OF 95 PERCENT OF THE MODIFIED PROCTOR MA}CIlvIUM DRY DENSITY PRIOR TO PLACING GRANULAR STRUCTURAL FILL. A PASSIVE METHANE GAS VENTING SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED IN THE GRANUALR FILL PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF Tf- METHANE GAS VAPOR BARRIER. SIX INCHES OF CAPILLARY BREAK SHALL BE INSTALLED OVER THE METHANE GAS BARRiER. ESTABLISH TI FINAL SUBGRADE ELEVATION AT 22 INCHES BELOW FII iISHED FLOOR ELEVATION WI N USING A 4 INCH SLAB OR AT 23.5 INCHES BELOW TI FINISHED CONCRETE ELEVATION WHEN USING A 5.5 INCH SLAB TO ALLOW FOR THE SLAB THICKNESS, A 6 INCH CAPILLARY BREAK, METHANE GAS VAPOR BARRIER, AND 12 INCHES OF GRANULAR SUBBASE. THE CAPILLARY BREAK SHALL BE FREE-DRAIMNG AGGREGATE THAT CONFORMS VJITH WSDOT STANDARD SPECIFICATION 9-03.12(4), GRAVEL BACKFILL FOR DRAINS OR ASTM D2321, TABLE 1, CLASSES OF EMBEDMENT AND BACKFILL MATERIAL, CLASS IA, IB, OR II (GW OR GP). THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAIl TING ACCURATE MEASUREMENTS FOR ALL CUT Ai TD FILL DEPTHS REQUIRED. EXISTING FOUNDATIONS, SLABS, PAVEMENTS, AND BELOW-GRADE STRUCTURES SHALL BE REMOVED FROM TI BUII.DING AREA. REMOVE SURFACE VEGETATIONS, TOPSOIL,ROOT SYSTEMS, ORGAI IIC MATERIAL, EXISTTNG FILL,AND SOFT OR OTHERWISE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL FROM TI BUILDING AREA. STRIPPED SOILS SHOULD NOT BE REUSED AS COMPACTED STRUCTURAL FILL. PROOFROLL EXPOSED SUBGRADE. REMOVE AND REPLACE UNSUITABLE AREAS WITH SUITABLE MATERIAL. FILL SHALL BE FREE OF ORGANIC AND OTHER DELETERIOUS MATERIALS A?iD SHALL MEET THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS: LOCATION WITH RESPECT TO FINAL GRADE P.I. L.L. BUILDTNG AREA,BELOW UPPER 4 FEET 20 MAX. 50 MAX. BUILDING AREA,UPPER 4 FEET 12 MAX. 40 MAX. STRUCTURAL FILL SHALL BE PLACED IN LOOSE LIFTS NOT EXCEEDING 8 INCHES IN THICKNESS AND COMPACTED TO AT LEAST 95 PERCENT OF THE MODIFIED PROCTOR MA IMUM DRY DENSITY ASTM: D-1557) AT A MOISTURE CONTENT WITHIN 2 PERCENT BELOW TO 2 PERCENT ABOVE THE OPTIMiJM. THE FOUNDATION SYSTEM SHALL BE AUGERCAST PILES BELOW COLUIVINS, WALLS, A iD FLOORS AS DESCRIBED IN THE SOILS REPORT BY ZIPPER ZEMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. DATED DECEMBER 6, 2002. THIS FOUNDATION SUBSURFACE PREPARATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A COMPLETE SITE WORK SPECIFICATION. IN CASE OF CONFLICT, INFORMATION COVERED IN THIS PREPARATION SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER THE PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS. REFER TO THE SPECIFICATIONS FOR SPECIFIC INFORMATION NOT COVERED IN THIS PREPARATION. ADDITIONE L, RECOMI NDATIONS MAY ALSO BE FOUND IN THE GEOTEC INICAL REPORT PREPARED BY ZIPPER ZEMAN ASSOCIATES, INC., DATED OCTOBER 31, 2002. THE GEOTECHMCAL REPORT IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND IS NOT A CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATION. i r-- APPENDIX D CLIMATE DATA r, F es•::r f: : The following climate data was obtained from the internet web page of the Western Regional Climate Center I v i, WAJrillV r1VN Yenod f Kecord Monthly Climate Summary Page 1 of 1 KENT, WASHINGTON (454169) Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary Period of Record : 11/1/1948 to 12/31/2001 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Average Max. 45.9 50.7 54.6 60.7 67.4 72.5 78.0 77.5 72.0 61.3 51.5 46.0 61.5 Ternperature(F) Average Min. 33.5 35.0 36.5 39.8 44.6 49.7 52.4 52.2 48.3 42.6 37.0 33.9 42.1 Temperature (F) Average Total 5.73 4.32 3.88 2.70 1.86 1.56 0.85 1.15 1.78 3.49 5.88 6.00 39.20 Precipitation(in.) Average Total 1.6 0.5 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Q.0 0.0 0.0 03 0.9 4.0 SnowFall (in.) Average Snow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Depth (in.) Percent of possible observations for period of record. Max. Temp.: 91.5% Min. Temp.: 91.5%Precipitation: 91.9% Snowfall: 90.4% Snow Depth: 88.9% Check Station Metadata or Metadata graphics for more detail about data completeness. Western Regional Climate Center, tivrcc.dri.edu http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/c1iRECtM.pl?wakent 10/29/02 i K N'1', WAS IITVC;'1'UN Yenocl of 1Zecord Ueneral Climate Summary - Precipitation Page 1 of 2 KENT, WASHINGTON Period of Record General Climate Summary - Precipitation Station:(454169) KENT From Year=1948 To Yeai=2000 Precipitation Total Snowfall Mean High Year Low Year 1 Day Max.Mean High Year 0.01 in. 0.10 in. 0.50 in. 1.00 in. dd/yyyy in. in. - in. - in. or Days # Days #Days # Days in. in. - yyyymtndd January 5.73 11.75 53 0.83 85 2.30 19/1967 20 13 1.6 18.2 69 February 4.32 8.85 61 0.37 93 2.95 08/1996 16 11 1 0.5 6.5 49 March 3.88 7.90 97 0.44 65 2.25 OS/1972 17 11 0.7 10.0 89 April 2.70 6.82 91 0.25 56 2.19 04/1991 14 0.0 0.0 49 May 1.86 4.39 84 0.38 67 1.79 31/1997 11 0.0 0.0 49 June 1.56 3.93 84 0.10 51 2.24 12/2000 9 l 0.0 0.0 49 July 0.85 3.53 83 0.00 58 1.15 Ol/1954 5 2 0 0.0 0.0 51 August 1.15 5.13 68 0.00 67 1.73 18/1975 6 3 0 0.0 0.0 49 September 1.78 5.75 78 0.00 75 1.97 23/1978 9 5 1 0.0 0.0 51 October 3.49 821 75 0.31 87 2.16 09/1955 14 8 2 0.0 0.0 51 November 5.88 10.33 99 0.88 52 2.56 20/1959 19 13 1 0.3 6.0 60 December 6.00 10.79 79 1.86 78 6.00 27/1949 21 13 l 0.9 13.2 68 Annual 39.20 54.54 96 21.69 52 6.00 19491227 161 96 23 5 4.0 18.2 69 Winter 16.06 23.62 99 6.59 77 6.00 19491227 57 36 10 3.0 31.4 69 http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/c1iGCStP.pl?wakent 10/29/02 N , wt»ril v r uN rertod ot Kecord Cieneral Llimate 5ummary - Precipitati n Page 2 of 2 Spring 8.44 15.87 97 4.89 92 2.25 19720305 42 24 0_7 10.0 89 Summer 3.56 9.28 68 I.04 87 2.24 20000612 20 10 0.0 0.0 51 Fall 11.15 17.31 55 2.13 52 2.56 19591120 42 26 7 0.3 6.0 60 Table updated on Jun 4, 2001 For monthly and annual means, thresholds, and sums: Months with 5 or more inissing days are not considered Years with 1 or more missing months are not considered Seasons are climatological not calendar seasons Winter= Dec., Jan., and Feb. Spring=Mar., Apr., and May Summer=Jun., Jul., and Aug. rall = Sep., Oct., and Nov. Western Regional Climate Center, w-cc a.,d i.edir i I http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cIiGCStP.pl'?wakent 10/29/02 KENT, WASHINGTON Period of Record General Climate Summary - Temperature Station:(454169) KENT From Year--1948 To Year=2000 Monthly Averages Daily xtremes Monthly Extremes Max. Temp. Min. Temp. IIighest Lowest Max. Min. Mean High Date Low Date Mean Year Mean Year 90 F 32 F 32 F 0 F dd/yyyy ddlyyyy F F F F or F or F F Days # Days # Days # Days yyyymmdd yyyymmdd January 45.9 33.5 39.8 64 20/1981 -10 18/1950 4_5.7 53 29.5 49 0.0 0.8 12.6 0.0 February 50.7 35.0 42.9 71 29/1968 a-5 O1/1950 . 47.7 91 34.7 89 0.0 0.2 9.6 0.0 March 54.6 36.5 45.6 74 29/1964 10 04/1955 49.7 92 40.4 55 0.0 0.0 7.9 0.0 April 60.7 39.8 50.3 86 30/1976 25 20/1961 54.3 92 46.3 55 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 May 67.4 44.6 56.1 92 20/1963 27 Ol/1954 61.3 58 51.9 62 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 June 72.5 49.7 61.1 100 09/1955 33 19/1956 65.6 69 57.5 71 U.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 July 78.0 52.4 65.2 99 12/1951 38 03/1962 69.7 58 62.0 86 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 August 77.5 52.2 64.8 99 09/1981 34 29/1980 69.5 97 60.8 73 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 September 72.0 48.3 60.1 96 07/19$1 28 27/1972 64.4 95 56.5 59 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 October 61.3 42.6 51.9 86 O1/1975 24 28/1971 55.5 93 49.1 72 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 November 51.5 37.0 44.2 74 02/1970 23/1985 49.3 95 34.7 85 0.0 0.3 8.2 0.0 December 46.0 33.9 39.9 69 27/1980 23/1983 44.4 58 34.7 85 0.0 0.8 12.8 0.0 Annual 61.5 42.1 51.8 100 19550609 -10 19500118 54.3 98 49.3 55 4.3 2.1 57.3 0.1 Winter 47.5 34.1 40.9 71 19680229 -10 19500118 44.6 92 36.4 69 0.0 1.8 35.0 0.0 http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/c1iGCSt1'.pl'?wakent 10/29/02 xLN t', wn HIiv iUN t eriod ot tecord t.i eneral (:li iale uiilinaiy - Temperature Page 2 of 2 Spring 60.9 40.3 50.6 92 19630520 10 19550304 54.9 92 46.7 55 0.1 0.0 11.6 0.0 Summer 76.0 51.4 63.7 100 19550609 33 19560619 67.1 58 60.9 54 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 Fall 61.6 42.6 52.1 96 19810907 a-1 19851123 55.5 95 48.8 61 0.3 0.3 10.8 0.0 Table updated on Jun 4, 2001 For monthly and annual means, thresholds, and sums: Months with 5 or more missing days are not considered Years with 1 or more missing months are not considered Seasons are climatological not calendar seasons Winter= Dec., Jan., and Feb. Spring= Mar., Apr., and May Summer=Jun., Jul., and Aug. Fa11 = Sep., Oct., and Nov. Western Regional Climate Center, i-,rcc ci,clri,edu http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/c1iGCStT.pl`?wakent 10/29/02 u y r cra C cmperarure, iS N l, WAJH1N i'1 UN Page 1 of 2 KENT, WASHINGTOl T Monthly Average Temperature (Degrees Fahrenheit) 454169) File last updated on Oct 24, 2002 Note *** Provisional Data *** After Year/Month 200207 a= 1 day missing, b=2 days missing, c =3 days, ..etc.., z= 26 or more days missing, A=Accumulations present Long-term means based on columns; thus, the monthly row may not sum(or average)to the long-term annual value. MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE NUMBER OF MISSING DAYS : 5 Individual Months not used for annual or monthly statistics if more than 5 days are missing. Individual Years not used for annual statistics if any month in that year has more than 5 days missing. JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ANI 1948 -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z 44.28 36.35 40.32 1949 29.47 a 35.08 i 45.98 50.20 57.00 58.98 -----z 62.98 -----z -----z -----z 36.44 n 50.77 1950 25.73 i 39.04 -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z 47.3 8 g 39.04 1951 38.82 41.86 42.08 52.63 c 57.39 63.83 67.34 64.56 61.24 c 51.47 44.05 a 37.40 51.89 1952 36.98 41.83 44.27 51.02 56.82 59.50 66.42 66.61 60.83 a 54.38b40.10 41.13 51.66 1953 45.66 b 42.48 46.10 49.82 55.82 a 58.87 65.21 65.00 60.09 b 51.68 45.90 41.71 52.36 1954 36.45 43.75 42.98 48.65 55.95 58.65 62.23 61.79 59.62 50.69 49.08 40.81 50.89 1955 40.15 39.54 40.35 46.33 53.29 60.68 62.18 62.90 58.85 51.21 38.81 a 37.89 49.35 1956 38.82 35.72 42.02 50.87 58.70 a 58.70 66.77 64.94 59.13 50.50 41.74 a 40.58 50.71 1957 32.15 a 40.00 45.72 a 52.45 60.24 62.62 63.60 a 63.05 62.43 50.15 41.23 41.29 c 51.24 1958 41.63 47.14 44.85 d 50.95 61.28 a 65.37 69.66 66.15 59.28 52.77 42.95 44.35 d 53.87 1959 40.83 b41.02 a 44.81 50.45 a 53.77 61A2 b4.82 61.74 56.45 50.61 42.05 a 39.05 50.55 1960 38.06 41.00a43.88b49.70 52.92 59.38 65.52 62.68 57.24a51.95 43.10 38.00 50.29 1961 42.85 44.20 45.88 b 47.75 54.93 a 63.57 a 66.48 67.16 57.10 a 49.24 40.03 a 39.40 51.55 1962 37.42 a 42.15 a 42.7 a 50.93 a 51.94 59.30 63.85 62.96 d 60.02 b 52.27 45.62 a 41.70 a 50.89 1963 34.17 a 46.80 43.92 a 48.62 55.38 f 59.65 62.61 62.95 a 62.75 52.78 f 44.40 41.03 50.69 1964 41.48 41.41 45.15 47.55 a 53.65 60.18 64.15 63.26 58.08 52.31 41.37 36.44 50.42 1965 40.45 42.75 44.87 51.02 53.28 b 60.97 66.68 65.85 57.42 55.19 47.90 39.16 52.13 1966 40.32 42.80 45.50 50.13 55.15 59.90 63.53 64.50 61.32 51.31 45.07 a 44.21 51.98 1967 42.34 42.93 42.48 46.53 55.89 64.38 65.61 69.15 63.52 54.02 45.73 40.35 52.74 http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/c1iMONtavt.pl?wakent 10/29/02 Montnly Average l emperature, KFNT, WASHINGTON Page 2 of 2 1968 39.85 45.98 47.97 48.95 56.52 60.43 67.03 a 63.29 59.33 50.84 44.95 35.90 51.75 1969 32.40 40.89 45.79 49.53 58.23 a 65.63 64.26 61.83 a 59.78 a 50.50 44.83 42.31 51.33 1970 40.16 44.88 45.27 a 47.52 55.12 a 63.22 65.10 63.68 56.84 a 50.03 44.73 38.37 51.24 1971 39.90 41.52 42.12 a 49.18 55.88 c 57.55 65.77 67.14 c 58.03 50.87 45.25 37.71 50.91 1972 36.71 41.62 47.37 46.98 58.06 60.27 64.b3 64.26 56.48 49.08 44.83 37.47 50.65 1973 38.73 43.71 46.26 49.47 56.37 60.62 a 63.98 60.77 59.37 51.15 41.95 43.26 51.30 1974 38.08 43.57 45.80 a 50.10 53.50 60.80 62.81 64.98 62.17 z -----z 42.90 52.47 1975 39.95 41.88 43.84 46.48 55.43 a 59.75 65.52 d 62.34 60.38 52.08 44.75 42.48 51.24 1976 42.55 41.53 43.12 a 49.57 56.22 b 54.94 v 63.75 a 62.63 a 61.26 a 51.62 a 45.21 b 42.24 50.88 1977 3b.63 45.61 44.18 51.80 53.45 61.27 63.13 68.34c 57.02 -----z42.82 -----z 52.42 1978 43.63 45.54 47.85 -----z 54.90 a 63.55 b 65.76 64.94 58.42 52.97 -----z 36.23 53.38 1979 3 5.36 b 41.57 -----z 50.17 c 56.15 h 60.60 66.08 65.03 a -----z -----z 43.27 44.10 50.77 1980 33.36 f 44.00 -----z 52.97 a -----z -----z 63.63 62.52 b 60.50 k -----z 45.80 43.85 52.13 1981 42.76 43.66 48.56 50.07 c 54.20 a 58.22 c 63.09 c 66.92 a 59.90 -----z 44.27 -----z 53.17 1982 40.02 42.38 44.77 47.93 55.35 63.63 62.32 64.45 60.98 a 52.10 41.33 39.44 51.23 1983 43.76 46.39 48.03 49.83 -----z 60.50 64.26 65.45 58.37 50.31 47.33 35.27 51.77 1984 42.94 44.81 49.03 49.23 54.55 60.13 65.45 64.42 60.26 a 49.18 44.35 36.47 51.73 1985 36.39 39.00 42.95 50.20 55.68 60.97 67.34 64.13 56.82 -----z34.70 34.73 49.35 1986 44.18 43.29 49.60 49.07 55.69 62.80 62.05 67.21 j 58.50 53.60 44.98 40.21 51.27 1987 39.53 45.18 47.87 53.33 56.77 62.13 63.45 a 64.98 61.20 53.10 47.47 37.79 52.73 1988 39.50 43.55 45.23 50.88 -----z 59.48 65.11 64.23 60.02 -----z 45.57 40.56 51.41 1989 40.84 34.70 43.63 53.03 55.92 62.77 -----z -----z -----z 51.91 c 46.08 41.17k48.61 1990 42.85 -----z 47.74 -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z 64.18 51.74 -----z 34.92 48.29 1991 39.53 47.70 44.27 50.07 55.08 59.80 67.55 67.63 62.00 52.73 47.40 42.95 53.06 1992 43.92 47.02 49.71 54.30 64.61 -----z -----z 67.35 60.28 54.00 45.22 38.62a 52.10 1993 37.48 4Q.93 48.24 50.93 -----z 61.65 62.45 66.16 61.78 55.53 41.13 40.08 a 51.49 1994 44.39 40.25 48.34 53.20 59.08 60.98 68.60 67.Q8 64.38 52.26 41.83 41.05 53.45 1995 -----z 45.54 47.56 52.05 60.11 62.98 68.34 64.00 64.43 52.82 49.30 41.65 55.34 1996 40.74 43.78 47.97 53.38 54.66 61.31 a 68.87 67.42 58.65 52.35 43.98 39.71 52.74 1997 41.29 42.98 46.40 51.50 60.53 61.82 66.68 69.50 63.25 52.48 48.77 41.21 53.87 1998 43.21 46.46 48.00 51.65 57.13 62.65 69.39 68.03 63.45 53.26 47.02 40.87 54.26 1999 42.93 b 43.46 a 45.84 b 50.60 d 53.62 c 60.43 b 64.67 a 66.50 d 61.98 d 51.65 d 48.38 a 42.24 b 52.69 2000 40.85 a 44.33 45.87 a 52.75 56.05 62.48 65.85 64.42 a 61.32 52.89 d42.58 41.05 c 52.54 2001 42.62 a 41.02 b 46.55 a 49.26 c 57.32 59.95 64.50 66.13 e 60.50 b 51.43 c 47.14 a 41.83 a 52.35 2002 41.79 42.91 43.18 50.30 55.29 63.18 66.68 -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z51.90 Period of Record Statistics MEAN 39.87 42.85 45.54 50.23 56.07 61.17 b5.20 64.87 60.14 51.91 44.30 39.97 51.81 S.D. 3.35 2.65 2.22 1.91 2.22 1.87 1.99 2.08 2.20 1.49 2.84 2.60 1.13 SKEW -0.92 -0.63 -0.08 -0.08 0.60 0.45 0.36 0.27 0.15 0.30 -0.72 -0.30 0.29 MAX 45.66 47.70 49.71 54.30 61.28 65.63 69.66 69.50 64.43 55.53 49.30 44.35 54.26 MIN 29.47 34.70 40.35 46.33 51.94 57.55 62.05 60.77 56.45 49.08 34.70 34.73 49.35 NO 51 52 51 51 46 49 49 49 48 43 49 49 34 YRS http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cIiMONta t.pl?wakent 10/29/02 l L,,y r vcra c v uumum i em erature, ttr,i i, wP.tilNti 1 UN Page 1 of 3 KENT, WASHINGTON Monthly Average Minimum Temperature (Degrees z--- Fahrenheit) 454169) File last updated on Oct 24, 2002 Note *** Provisional Data *** After Year/Month 200207 a = 1 day missing, b =2 days missing, c = 3 days, ..etc.., z= 26 or more days missing, A=Accumulations present Long-term means based on columns; thus, the monthly row may not sum(or average) to the long-term annual value. MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE NUMBER OF MISSING DAYS : 5 Individual Months not used for annual or monthly statistics if more than 5 days are missing. Individual Years not used for annual statistics if any month in that year has more than 5 days missing. 5 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN NL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ANN 1948 -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z 35.80 29.65 32.72 1949 20.5 29.75 36.61 39.77 43.87 44.03 -----z 50.42 ----z -----z -----z 27.41 n 37.86 1950 15.77 i 31.39 -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z ----z -----z -----z 42.50 g 31.39 1951 33.26 35.11 34.52 38.44 c 44.45 49.37 52.74 50.13 48.63 43.42 36.62 a32.16 41.57 1952 31.10 35.34 36.52 38.33 44.13 47.97 51.97 53.45 47.00 44.03 b 31.60 34.71 41.35 1953 40.90 a 35.89 38.32 39.97 44.27 a 49.23 51.71 51.90 47.20 41.58 37.93 35.42 42.86 1954 30.55 37.04 32.13 39.10 43.81 47.87 49.10 50.84 50.17 41.84 43.40 34.52 41.70 1955 35.52 33.32 33.10 36.9Q 43.32 49.97 52.10 50.03 48.40 44.42 32.31 a31.74 40.93 1956 31.90 29.34 33.77 38.07 45.00 a 48.43 53.19 51.81 48.07 42.77 35.55 a 35.29 41.10 1957 25.90 a 32.86 38.27 a 42.40 48.74 51.43 51.27 a 50.13 48.23 40.97 33.23 36.18 c 41.63 1958 36.61 41.36 35.11 d39.47 47.53 a 53.53 54.42 50.52 47.17 42.03 35.03 37.57 c 43.36 1959 34.35 33.96 a 36.65 40.45 a 41.90 50.17 50.26 47.97 46.40 41.10 32.55 a 32.55 40.69 1960 31.48 32.75 a 34.17 a 39.07 42.84 46.67 49.68 52.03 45.62 a 43.03 34.97 30.68 40.25 1961 34.61 37.93 37.28b38.37 43.33a50.14a52.10 51.77 44.03a39.13 30.17a33.03 40.99 1962 29.17 a 33.19 a 32.73 a 40.48 a 42.61 46.17 50.10 51.17 b 47.10 a 42.81 37.62 a 35.30 a 40.70 1963 27.33 a 37.21 34.07 a 39.10 41.92 e 49.13 51.39 50.13 a 49.93 42.00 e 36.87 35.13 41.19 1964 35.58 32.28 36.97 37.43 40.97 49.73 52.23 51.74 46.73 41.16 35.67 30.71 40.93 1965 35.19 35.89 31.61 39.73 41.28 b 47.47 52.00 53.26 44.70 44.00 40.43 32.55 41.51 1966 34.39 34.39 35.19 38.50 40.94 48.30 51.13 49.84 49.07 41.29 37.72a38.68 41.62 inc c c n c n c cn n cc cn o ci ci on o i n o rn ^a n^r ni nn http:,'iwww.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-binicliMONtmnt.pl?wakent 10/29/02 v,..a y c v a ag 1Y11111111LL111 i cilt Gl a u!C, 1LGlV 1, W EiJt111V lT 1 V N Yage 2 ot 3 17U/ JV.LV .J'-F.YV »..J7 JJ.UV 't.J.VJ .)V.OJ .J1..7G .71.0`F YO.1.) YY.O! J/.7/ Y.71 'fi1.7Y 1968 33.87 34.66 39.48 38.57 45.00 49.27 52.87 a 51.55 49.37 41.19 37.57 30.06 41.95 1969 27.23 32.43 34.45 39.80 44.60 a 54.07 50.10 48.67 a 48.77 39.32 37.73 35.42 41.05 1970 33.87 34.57 34.53 a 37.83 42.48 48.93 50.42 49.13 44.76 a 39.42 36.67 32.61 40.44 1971 34.00 34.86 34.30 a 37.60 44.11 c 47.97 52.06 53.14 c 45.70 42.00 39.03 32.52 41.44 1972 30.61 34.28 39.45 37.77 44.74 49.47 50.90 49.81 44.23 37.68 37.10 32.19 40.69 1973 31.16 34.18 38.10 37.47 43.29 49.93 a 49.77 47.65 46.13 42.26 35.37 37.97 41.11 r 1974 31.29 37.36 37.SOa41.87 44.03 47.73 50.32 50.45 45.63 z -----z36.61 42.28 1975 34.10 34.50 35.19 36.23 43.00 a 48.53 52.00 d 51.84 45.43 44.45 37.60 36.81 41.64 1976 36.52 34.97 34.53 a 38.23 44.17 a 44.96 d 51.00 53.03 a 49.83 40.57 a 36.86 a34.81 41.62 1977 29.81 36.07 35.97 39.30 43.19 49.50 50.39 54.1Ob45.77 -----z35.23 -----z41.93 1978 37.87 38.54 38.03 -----z 43.57 a 50.21 b 52.84 53.55 50.03 41.39 -----z29.87 43.59 1979 28.07b 35.18 -----z 39.57b43.86 c 47.43 52.39 52.53 a -----z -----z 35.37 37.74 41.35 1980 25.68 f 36.31 -----z 41.48 a -----z -----z 50.81 49.52 b 47.17 -----z 38.07 37.55 42.99 1981 34.42 34.07 37.13 39.48 c 42.70 a 48.52 c 50.31 b 50.81 45.50 -----z 33.80 -----z 41:67 1982 34.06 35.07 34.97 35.43 42.77 49.97 49.45 50.87 48.28 a 42.03 32.20 32.16 40.61 1983 36.61 38.00 38.19 36.43 -----z 50.17 53.55 53.29 46.33 39.13 40.80 28.90 41.95 1984 36.61 36.76 39.87 38.57 43.39 49.43 51.45 49.84 47.90a38.97 37.97 30.06 41.73 1985 29.32 30.39 32.39 40.00 42.42 48.43 50.26 49.45 45.13 -----z27.03 28.48 38.48 1986 36.65 34.79 39.84 38.90 44.13 49.80 50.81 52.48j 48.30 43.84 39.90 33.48 41.86F- 1987 32.71 36.93 39.06 41.63 45.68 48.93 5230 a 51.23 48.40 40.16 40.20 31.55 42.40 1988 32.94 35.52 35.90 41.00 -----z 48.27 51.35 51.00 47.53 -----z 40.10 34.52 41.81 1989 35.68 25.68 35.32 41.23 45.10 51.37 -----z -----z -----z43.21c39.90 34.85k39.69 1990 3 7.97 -----z 3 8.5 5 -----z ----=z -----z -----z -----z 5 3.93 43.26 -----z 29.29 40.60 1991 33.39 40.04 36.71 41.63 47.77 51.40 56.39 57.52 50.67 43.06 42.00 37.45 44.84 1992 37.55 38.76 39.45 44.73 48.55 -----z -----z 55.77 50.20 46.23 39.17 33.13 a 43.35 1993 30.84 31.04 39.48 43.67 -----z 53.33 54.52 56.10 49.57 47.26 33.03 33.87 42.97 1994 39.26 33.93 39.29 44.87 49.39 51.03 57.00 56.39 53.83 44.13 36.17 35.06 45.03 1995 -----z 38.86 37.52 43.10 49.68 53.23 58.45 54.65 53.97 44.48 43.23 35.35 46.59 1996 35.58 35.03 39.19 44.73 46.58 51.34a57.52 56.42 50.60 45.48 3830 34.65 44.62 1997 35.65 35.64 39.61 42.73 50.87 53.80 57.06 59.00 53.43 46.29 40.37 34.00 45.71 1998 37.58 39.54 40.23 41.83 49.71 53.17 59.23 57.39 52.77 45.29 41.03 35.71 46.12 1999 37.86b37.44a37.86b38.73d44.36c52.21b54.57a57.22d49.38d42.63d42.00a37.62b44.32 2000 34.73 a 36.24 38.07 a 43.53 47.97 52.73 56.35 4.70 a 52.23 45.48 d35.00 34.61 c 4430 2001 36.13a32.15b38.00a40.67c46.58 51.30 54.58 56.15e51.14b44.25c41.38a35.73a44.01 2002 37.26 35.29 36.29 42.07 46.32 53.13 56.55 -----z -----z -----z -----z -----z43.84 Period of Record Statistics MEAN 33.64 34.95 36.57 39.84 44.68 49.80 52.54 52.28 48.34 42.59 37.05 33.89 42.16 S.D. 3.78 2.84 2.35 2.33 2.44 2.24 2.54 2.73 2.63 2.20 3.42 2.66 1.62 SKEW -0.97 -0.53 -0.29 0.37 0.83 -0.07 1.01 0.64 0.50 -0.09 -0.46 -0.25 1.05 MAX 40.90 41.36 40.23 44.87 50.87 54.07 59.23 59.00 53.97 47.26 43.40 38.68 46.12 MIN 20.55 25.68 31.61 35.43 40.94 44.03 49.10 47.65 44.03 37.68 27.03 28.48 40.25 NO 51 53 1 51 48 50 49 49 49 44 49 49 36 YRS http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cIiMONtmnt.pl?wakent 10/29/02 1v1V111L1' 1 1G1 1 111Q11V11 1LC,i 1, vv t Ji711V V 1 V1V Yage 1 of 2 KENT, WASHINGTON Monthly Total Precipitation (inches) 454169) File last updated on Oct 24, 2002 Note *** Provisional Data *** After Year/Month 200207 a= 1 day missing,b=2 days missing, c =3 days, ..etc.., z=26 or more days missing,A = Accumulations present r Long-term means based on columns; thus, the monthly row may not sum (or average) to the long-term annual value. MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE NUMBER OF MISSING DAYS : 5 F ' Individual Months not used for annual or monthly statistics if more than 5 days are missing. Individual Years not used for annual statistics if any month in that year has more than 5 days missing. JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JiJL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Ai 1N 1948 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 6.85 6.32 13.17 1949 0.91 7.51 3.51 2.25 0.49 1.23 0.00 z 0.42 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 30.70 n 16.32 1950 0.00 z 0.00 x 0.00 z 2.33 1.90 0.00 z 0.00 z a.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 6.75 f 4.23 1951 7.39 7.31 3.68 0.62 1.23 0.10 0.64 1.00 2.38 6.09 4.90 3.75 39.09 r 1952 4.08 2.66 2.86 1.95 1.03 0.75 0.54 0.56 0.17 1.08 0.88 5.13 21.69 1953 11.75 3.42 3.04 2.70 3.26 2.33 0.67 1.86 1.18 4.97 7.02 6.31 48.51 1954 7.93 3.98 2.45 2.81 2.04 1.97 1.92 1.29 a 1.85 1.54 7.16 5.75 40.69 1955 3.22 4.04 3.02 4.18 1.64 1.20 1.96 0.35 1.31 7.52 8.48 a 10.42 47.34 1956 8.65 1.81 5.76 0.25 0.70 1.94 0.52 0.91 2.26 6.95 2.07 5.79 37.61 I957 3.19 5.49 6.25 2.61 1.72 1.11 1.21 1.17 0.86 3.53 3.2I 6.36 36.71 1958 7.52 6.18 2.34 3.64 0.72 0.72 0.00 0.35 1.29 3.82 8.13 7.87 42.58 1959 8.25 2.95 4.06 3.47 I.50 2.13 0.66 0.42 3.57 2.69 7.03 6.59 4332 1960 5.65 4.00 3.99 3.18 3.43 0.87 0.00 1.78 1.38 4.43 8.37 2.70 39.78 1961 7.90 8.85 4.55 a 2.68 3.43 0.56 0.56 0.55 0.67 3.20 3.81 6.20 42.96 1962 2.40 2.48 3.13 2.10 2.20 0.83 0.54 1.42 2.13 3.67 8.96 5.48 35.34 1963 2.27 5.30 2.47 3.14 0.82 e 1.91 1.22 0.95 1.17 3.38 8.86 4.86 36.35 1964 9.92 1.48 3.70 1.10 0.97 3.04 1.10 1.49 2.11 1.20 8.51 6.01 40.63 1965 5.80 3.85 0.44 3.68 1.56 0.48 0.47 2.59 0.4 2.93 4.58 6.69 33.61 1966 5.00 2.07 4.31 1.80 1.47 1.25 1.34 0.47 1.82 2.58 5.56 7.59 35.26 1967 9.48 2.93 3.90 2.34 0.38 1.83 0.05 0.00 0.99 6.91 2.62 3.98 35.41 http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/c1iMONtpre.pl?wakent 10/29/02 iviviiu iy ric i t.a iuli, nr,lv t, vvt+r111v1r1 Vlv rage L ot l 1968 6.91 5.51 5.09 1.43 1.57 3.49 0.66 5.13 2.12 4.18 5.99 8.39 50.47 1969 6.43 3.71 2.12 4.45 3.00 1.23 0.47 0.21 5.70 1.47 2.76 6.95 38.50 1970 8.49 2.47 3.63 3.58 1.48 0.67 0.55 0.57 2.84 2.84 5.82 9.92 42.86 1971 5.78 4.05 7.54 2.65 1.59 3.13 0.48 0.60 4.27 3.75 5.84 6.78 46.46 1972 6.65 8.80 6.39 5.17 0.67 1.85 1.59 1.45 4.36 0.90 3.91 8.70 50.44 1973 4.59 1.81 2.38 1.35 1.69 3.30 0.08 0.18 2.12 3.33 8.33 8.71 37.87 1974 8.12 4.90 5.98 3.09 2.44 1.31 1.47 0.02 0.17 0.00 z 0.00 z 6.63 34.13 1975 6.83 5.86 3.35 2.80 1.57 1.02 0.71 4.36 0.00 8.21 5.45 7.35 47.51 1976 5.81 4.82 2.95 2.28 1.68 0.65 1.16 3.22 1.21 2.18 0.99 2.68 29.63 1977 2.51 1.40 4.08 0.67 3.73 OJS 0.42 3.98 2.59 0.00 z 5.69 0.00 z 25.82 1978 5.67 3.59 2.79 O.OQ z 1.96 1.27 1.52 1.30 5.75 0.85 0.00 z 1.86 2b.56 T 1979 2.55 6.17 0.00 z 1.49 133 0.36 1.02 1.24 0.00 z 0.00 z 2.56 10.79 27.51 1980 4.68 5.03 0.00 z 3.64 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.69 0.88 1.77 0.00 z 9.92 7.98 34.59 1981 2.83 5.15 2.87 2.07 2.60 2.78 1.23 0.37 3.53 0.00 z 5.23 a 0.00 z 28.66 r 1982 4.98a 7.25 3.95 2.00 0.69 1.11 0.72 0.59 1.84 4.18 5.20 6.25 38.76 1983 7.07 4.76 4.40 1.51 0.00 z 2.45 3.53 2.33 2.24 1.17 8.76 a 5.56 b 43.78 1984 4.21 a 4.51 4.40 a 3.06 4.39 a 3.93 0.00 0.12 1.13 3.12 8.64 5.57 43.08 1985 0.83 2.66 a 3.35 a 1.32 a 1.24 2.33 0.05 0.86 2.11 0.00 z 4.60 2.34 21.69 1986 7.54b.4.34 2.69 1.79 1.97 0.69 0.87 0.05 1.80 4.01 8.19 3.33 a 37.27 Y;;; 1987 5.42 a 3.13 5.53 a 3.10 2.68 a 0.16 0.52 a 0.36 1.27 0.31 2.76 6.96 32.20 1988 4.24 1.13 5.10 3.98 0.00 z 1.64 0.59 0.36 1.88 a 0.00 z 9.04 a 3.53 31.49 1989 3.29 3.16 5.21 b 2.79 2.63 1.40 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 3.08 c 5.51 5.04 i 27.07 1990 8.35 a 0.00 z 3.05 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.10 6.90 0.00 z 3.20 a 21.60 1991 4.49 533 a 5.67 6.82 1.63 1.37 0.29 1.97 0.01 1.76 5.38 3.02 c 37.74 fi,.1992 7.04 c 2.98 b 1.09 3.40 a 0.40 0.00 z 0.00 z 1.26 1.00 2.75 5.77 b 4.07 29.76 1993 4.20 037 4.67 4.84 b 0.00 z 1.89 e 1.50 a 0.28 0.00 1.88 1.34 a 5.16 b 26.13 1994 3.07 a 636 3.71 3.30 1.29 1.39 0.32 0.32 1.28 3.59 5.35 7.71 37.69 1995 0.00 z 4.49 3.89 1.69 0.75 1.68 a 1.30 2.22 1.36 4.23 b 8.98 6.50 37.09t : 1996 7.69 a 8.67 2.17 a 6.12 2.74 0.52 0.91 1.31 2.08 a 5.77 b 6.16 a 10.40 a 54.54 1997 6.35 a 2.12 a 7.90 4.12 a 3.85 2.32 1.57 1.09 3.05 5.56 f 3.61 a 3.12b 39.10 1998 7.57 2.76 3.56 a 0.90 2.45 c 1.34 b 0.50 0.29 O.b2 3.12 a 10.24 a 9.43 42.78 1999 7.38b 6.81a 4.64b 1.45c 2.Olb 1.78a 1.10 1.56 0.12 2.38b10.33a 4.95 44.51 2000 3.71 a 5.71 2.42 a 1.50 2.85 2.94 0.50 0.39 1.22 4.1 S 2.85 2.49 30.73 2001 2.74 1.59 3.00 a 3.72 b 1.36 3.92 1.22 1.85 0.79 3.27 b 11.23 6.39 a 41.08 2002 5.92 4.31 3.31 3.48 1,25 2.00 0.84 a 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.04 z 21.11 Period of Record Statistics MEAN 5.68 4.27 3.85 2.74 1.84 1.62 0.85 1.17 1.76 3.49 5.99 6.Q1 40.03 S.D. 2.39 2.04 1.48 1.35 0.97 0.96 0.64 1.12 1.34 1.90 2.66 2.28 6.51 SKEW 0.04 0.41 0.55 0.68 0.67 0.68 1.59 1.72 1.18 0.67 -0.07 0.15 -0.22 MAX 11.75 8.85 7.90 6.82 4.39 3.93 3.53 5.13 5.75 8.21 11.23 10.79 54.54 MIN 0.83 037 0.44 0.25 0.38 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.88 1.86 21.69 NO 52 52 51 52 49 50 49 50 49 43 49 49 36 YRS T -` http://www.wrcc.dri.edulcgi-bini cIiMONtpre.pl?wakent 10/29/02 lu u y 1 u ai nuwraii, n i i, W HJtillVlr 1 UN Page 1 of 4 KENT, WASHINGTON Monthly Total Snowfall (Inches) 454169) File last updated on Oct 24, 2002 Note *** Provisional Data *** After Year/Month 200207 a= 1 day missing, b= 2 days missing, c =3 days, ..etc.., z= 26 or more days missing,A= Accumulations present Long-term means based on columns; thus,the monthly row may not sum (or average) to the long-term annual value. MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE Iv LJMBER OF MISSING DAYS : 5 Individual Months not used for annual or monthly statistics if more than 5 days are missing. Individual Years not used for annual statistics if any month in that year has more than 5 days missing. JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN ANN 1947- 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 48 1948- 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 0.00 2.30 6.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.80 49 1949- 0.00 z 0.00 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 2.00 n 22.10 i 0.00 0.00 z 0.00 0.00 0.00 z 0.00 SO 1950- 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 z 0.00 f 1.10 0.00 7.60 b 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.70 51 1951- O.QO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.50 5.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.10 52 1952- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 53 1953- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.30 0.00 O.00b 0.00 0.00 0.00 1130 54 1954- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 5 1955- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.50 a 7.00 0.30 6.10 d 7.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.90 56 1956- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.50 5.80 3.00 e 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1030 57 1957- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 58 1958- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 c 0.00 0.00 a 0.00 w 0.00 a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 59 1959- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 a 3.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 60 http:;'i w w.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cIiMONtsnf.pl?wakent 10/29/02 ZO/6Z/OT uaxen Id us I IOY Iii/uiq-i/npa•up•.nn•nnnnn:d c 00'0 00'0 z00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 £ g Z86T 00'Z 00"0 OQ'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'Z z00'0 00'0 z00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 Zg I86i 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 E00'0 00'0 z00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 ig 086 T 00'0 z 00'0 z 00'0 00'0 z 00'0 00'0 z00'0 00'0 00'0 z 00'0 z 00'0 00'0 00'0 g 6L6I 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 z00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 z00'0 00'0 04'0 00'0 00'0 6L 8L6I 00'£ 00'0 00'0 z00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 z00'0 00'£ z00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 g LL6I 09'0 00'4 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 09'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 40'0 00'0 00'0 LL 9L6I OZ'0 00'0 00'0 04'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 OZ'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 9L SL6i 08'0 00'4 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 08'0 Q00'0 z00'0 z00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 SL bL6i 08'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 OS'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 04'0 L6i 00'9 00'0 00'0 00'0 QO'0 00'0 00'Z 00't 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 £ L ZL6I 00'Oi 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'Ot S00'b 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 ZL iL6T 0£'b 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 OI't OZ'£ 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 iL OL6I 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 4L 696t Oti'i£ 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 OZ'8I OZ'£t 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 69 896 i OS'I 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 z 00'0 OS'I 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'Q 00'0 89 L96T OL'£ 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'£ OL'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 L9 996i 00'£ 00'0 00'0 00'0 z00'0 Oa'0 z00'4 00'£ 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 99 S96I 09' 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 z00'0 09'£ 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 S9 t 96 i 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 9 96I OS'Z 00'0 a 00'0 00'0 00'0 OS'i 00'I 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 £ 9 Z96T Oi'8 00'0 QO'0 00'0 09'0 OS'9 00'0 00'i 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 Z9 i96i 00'9 00'0 00'0 00'0 a00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'9 00'0 00'0 04'0 00'0 t9 096i ti3 Z a Ed I In.L I TTNC M `T t `rreinnouc Tr.i T TiT1TT(1TAT ZO/6Z/0 i luaxEn,jd•us NOY1ItI/utq-t$npa•up.inn•nnn n;i:d q 4£ OS 6t ZS OS OS L 9 S b 6t OS 8 S ON 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00"0 00'Q 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 1 IIY i 0'i£ 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'OI OS'9 OZ'8I OZ'£i 00'9 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 XdY t 8'Z 00'0 00'0 00'0 £Z' ZZ'£ OZ'£ T6'£ 66'£ 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 1c1 IS Oti'L 00'0 00'0 00'0 Ii'Z 8S'I 6b'£ i'Z £Z'T 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 'Q'S 8' 00'0 00'0 00'0 99'0 I S'0 SS'I 98'0 i'0 00'4 00'0 00'0 00'0 1 I'3Y I s c si E s pio ag o pouad 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00"0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 ZO TOOZ 04'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 0'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 t0 OOOZ 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 pp'p 00 666I 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 66 866I 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 S6 L66i 0£'Z 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 0£'Z 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 L6 966T 00'Z 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'Z 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 96 S66i 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 z00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 S6 t66i 00'T 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'I 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 _ 66I 00'0 00'0 z00'0 00'0 00'0 E00'0 00'0 z00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 z00'0 £ 6 Z66t 00'0 z00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 Z6 I66t 0£'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 QO£'0 z00'0 00'0 00'0 z00'0 z00'0 i6 066 t 00'0 z00'0 z00'0 z00'0 00'0 z00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 04'0 z00'0 z00'0 z00'0 06 686i 00'Oi 00'0 00'0 00"0 00'Oi z00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 z00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 68 886t 00'0 00'0 z00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00"0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 gg L86I 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'Q 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 g 986 t 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 z 00'0 z 00'0 z 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 98 S86t 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 z 00'0 z 00'0 z00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 sg t 86 i oo o oo-o oo-o oo-o ao o oo o oo o oo o oo o oo o oo o oo o oo o g 86t b3 £ a d Tfl.TrinrTuc ann `T I T'T `TTP.IMniIC' TV.1C1T iCTTflTT(1TAT Figure 6.2 Geotechnical Report Geotechnical Engineering Services 901 South Grady Way Renton, Washington for Velmeir Acquisition Services, L.L.C. January 26, 2023 Geotechnical Engineering Services 901 South Grady Way Renton, Washington for Velmeir Acquisition Services, L.L.C. January 26, 2023 17425 NE Union Hill Road, Suite 250 Redmond, Washington 98052 425.861.6000 Geotechnical Engineering Services 901 South Grady Way Renton, Washington File No. 22042-005-00 January 26, 2023 Prepared for: Velmeir Acquisition Services, L.L.C. 5757 West Maple Road, Suite 800 West Bloomfield, Michigan 48322 Attention: Stephen J. Bock Prepared by: GeoEngineers, Inc. 17425 NE Union Hill Road, Suite 250 Redmond, Washington 98052 425.861.6000 Michael A. Gray, PE Senior Geotechnical Engineer Lyle J. Stone, PE Associate Geotechnical Engineer MAG:LJS:nld Disclaimer: Any electronic form, facsimile or hard copy of the original document (email, text, table, and/or figure), if provided, and any attachments are only a copy of the original document. The original document is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. January 26, 2023 | Page i File No. 22042-005-00 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................................ 1 3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS .................................................................................................................... 1 4.0 SITE CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................................................... 1 4.1. Surface Conditions ...................................................................................................................................... 1 4.2. Subsurface Soil Conditions ........................................................................................................................ 2 4.3. Groundwater Conditions ............................................................................................................................. 2 5.0 ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS ........................................................................................................ 2 5.1. Seismic Hazard Area ................................................................................................................................... 3 5.2. Wellhead Protection Area ........................................................................................................................... 3 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................. 3 6.1. Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 6.2. Earthquake Engineering ............................................................................................................................. 4 6.2.1. Liquefaction ................................................................................................................................... 4 6.2.2. Lateral Spreading .......................................................................................................................... 4 6.2.3. 2018 IBC Seismic Design Information ......................................................................................... 4 6.3. Temporary Dewatering ................................................................................................................................ 5 6.4. Excavation Support ..................................................................................................................................... 5 6.4.1. Excavation Considerations ............................................................................................................ 6 6.4.2. Temporary Cut Slopes ................................................................................................................... 6 6.5. Foundation Support .................................................................................................................................... 7 6.6. Deep Foundations ....................................................................................................................................... 7 6.6.1. Augercast Piles .............................................................................................................................. 7 6.6.1. Pin Piles .......................................................................................................................................... 9 6.7. Shallow Foundations ................................................................................................................................. 10 6.8. Ground Improvement ................................................................................................................................ 10 6.8.2. Foundation Support with Ground Improvement ........................................................................ 12 6.8.3. Foundation Support Without Ground Improvement .................................................................. 13 6.8.4. Construction Considerations ...................................................................................................... 13 6.9. Slab-on-Grade Floors ................................................................................................................................ 14 6.9.1. Subgrade Preparation ................................................................................................................. 14 6.9.2. Design Parameters ...................................................................................................................... 14 6.9.3. Below-Slab Drainage ................................................................................................................... 14 6.10. Below-Grade Walls .......................................................................................................................... 14 6.10.1. Other Cast-in-Place Walls ............................................................................................................ 15 6.10.2. Drainage ....................................................................................................................................... 15 6.11. Earthwork ........................................................................................................................................ 15 6.11.1. Subgrade Preparation ................................................................................................................. 15 6.11.2. Structural Fill................................................................................................................................ 15 6.12. Infiltration Feasibility ...................................................................................................................... 17 6.13. Recommended Additional Geotechnical Services ........................................................................ 18 January 26, 2023 | Page ii File No. 22042-005-00 7.0 LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................................................... 18 8.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................. 18 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Vicinity Map Figure 2. Site Plan APPENDICES Appendix A. Cone Penetration Tests Report Appendix B. Boring Logs from Previous Studies Appendix C. Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use January 26, 2023 | Page 1 File No. 22042-005-00 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the results of GeoEngineers’ geotechnical engineering services for the 901 South Grady Way project in Seattle, Washington. The project site is located to the southeast of the intersection of South Grady Way and Talbot Road South in the location of the decommissioned fueling station for the previously occupied Sam’s Club. The large retail building to the east is currently occupied by Home Depot. The site is shown relative to surrounding physical features on the Vicinity Map (Figure 1) and the Site Plan (Figure 2). The NAVD88 datum was used to reference elevations in this report. The purpose of this report is to provide preliminary geotechnical engineering conclusions and recommendations for the design and construction of the planned development. GeoEngineers’ geotechnical engineering services have been completed in general accordance with our signed proposal executed October 17, 2022. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project includes the redevelopment of the site with a single-story medical facility constructed at grade. The building is located well inside the property line so excavations for foundations are anticipated to be completed using temporary cut slopes. Foundation support is anticipated to consist of either deep foundations or shallow foundations and will be dependent on the required performance of the building during a seismic event. 3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS The subsurface conditions at the site were evaluated by completing two cone penetration tests (CPTs). The CPT explorations, GEI-1 and GEI-2, were each advanced to depths of approximately 58 and 59.2 feet, respectively, below existing site grades. The locations of the explorations are shown on Figure 2. A description of the field exploration program and logs/plots of the CPT’s are presented in Appendix A, Cone Penetration Tests Report. The subsurface conditions at the site were also evaluated by reviewing the logs of selected explorations from previous site evaluations in the project vicinity. The approximate locations of the previous explorations are shown on Figure 2. The logs of explorations from previous projects referenced for this study are presented in Appendix B, Boring Logs from Previous Studies. 4.0 SITE CONDITIONS 4.1. Surface Conditions The planned building will be located on a new King County parcel that is comprised of portions of Nos. 915460-0010 and 202305-9007 that is located southeast of the intersection between Talbot Road South and South Grady Way. The new parcel will be approximately 1.94 acres. Existing site conditions consist of at-grade landscaping and was the location of the fueling station for the previously occupied Sam’s Club. The fueling station, including the underground storage tanks, has since been decommissioned as January 26, 2023 | Page 2 File No. 22042-005-00 documented by Terracon in their 2019 report. Existing site grades are relatively flat with the majority of existing site grades shown to vary from approximate Elevations 35 to 37 feet (NAVD88). The site survey we received shows underground gas, water, and storm drain at, or in close proximity, to the project site. We anticipate that other utilities are also located at or adjacent to the project site. 4.2. Subsurface Soil Conditions GeoEngineers’ understanding of subsurface conditions is based on completion of two CPTs and a review of previous explorations (standard penetration tests; SPT’s) completed at the project site for a previous evaluation. The soils encountered at the site were interpreted as relatively shallow fill overlying alluvium and underlain by sandstone. The approximate locations of the CPTs completed for this study, as well as the previous explorations (SPT’s), are shown on Figure 2. ■ Fill was encountered below the pavement, where encountered, or ground surface and extended to depths of up to approximately 11½ feet below site grades. The material generally consists of very loose to loose coal, wood, sandstone, and shale fill. ■ Alluvium was encountered below the fill and extended to the depths of the boring or the sandstone, where encountered. The material consisted of very loose to medium dense sand with variable silt and gravel content as well as very soft to soft silt with variable sand and gravel content. Some borings encountered organic silt or peat in limited thicknesses at depths greater than 10 feet. ■ Sandstone was indicated in one exploration below the alluvium at a depth of approximately 68 feet below existing site grades. The material had measured blow counts greater than 100 blows per inch. The boring was reported to advance two feet into the unit. 4.3. Groundwater Conditions The CPTs completed at the site encountered groundwater near approximate Elevations 22 and 24 feet (depth of between 12 and 14 feet below existing site grades). The previous explorations completed at the site encountered groundwater at the time of drilling between approximate Elevations 24 and 28.5 feet (depths of between 4.5 and 8 feet below previous site grades). Groundwater measurements were also taken in the Terracon Environmental report for two monitoring wells that encountered groundwater between depths of 7.3 and 7.7 feet below existing site grades. Groundwater levels are expected to vary with season and in response to precipitation. Based on the planned structure, we do not anticipate that structure excavations will extend deep enough to encounter the groundwater table. 5.0 ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS GeoEngineers has reviewed the critical area (ECA) maps available online through the City of Renton (COR) geographic information system (GIS) website. Based on our review of the COR GIS maps, the site is located within a mapped Seismic Hazard Area and Wellhead Protection Area. January 26, 2023 | Page 3 File No. 22042-005-00 5.1. Seismic Hazard Area The entire site is mapped within a seismic hazard area. As noted above, GeoEngineers has completed explorations at the site, and reviewed previous explorations, to evaluate the risk of liquefaction. The results of the liquefaction analysis/assessment are discussed in more detail below. 5.2. Wellhead Protection Area A wellhead protection area is present across the entire project site. We understand that imported fill materials are required to be from a verifiable source in order to ensure it is clear of contaminants. The City’s grading and excavation regulations require imported fill material in excess of 100 cubic yards have a source statement certified by a qualified professional, or confirmed that the fill material was obtained from a Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) approved source which would be verified during construction. We do not anticipate this volume of fill being used on the project. 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1. Summary A summary of the geotechnical considerations is provided below. The summary is presented for introductory purposes only and should be used in conjunction with the complete recommendations presented in this report. ■ The site is designated Site Class F per the 2018 International Building Code (IBC) due to the presence of potentially liquefiable soils. Recommended seismic design parameters are provided in a subsequent section. ■ We estimate that total liquefaction induced settlement could be up to 20 inches during a design level earthquake based on the subsurface conditions encountered in explorations completed/reviewed for this study. Differential settlements between similarly supported columns is estimated to be between 5 and 10 inches. ■ Temporary cut slopes are anticipated for use where foundations/structures extend below site grades. ■ Deep foundations are appropriate support options and may consist of augercast pile or small diameter pipe piles (i.e. pin piles). The deep foundations would be constructed at grade and would reduce the risk of settlement for the structure during a seismic event. The deep foundations would be required to extend to bearing soils that are located between approximately 60 and 70 feet below site grades. ■ Shallow foundations bearing on ground improvement are considered appropriate for the site. For shallow foundations bearing directly on improved ground, an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,500 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used. We anticipate that ground improvement would need to extend 30 to 45 feet below ground surface to adequately mitigate damaging differential settlement in the design seismic case. ■ Conventional slabs-on-grade are considered appropriate for this site and should be underlain by a 6-inch-thick layer of clean crushed rock (for example, City of Seattle Mineral Aggregate Type 22). The underslab drainage system is anticipated to consist of a perimeter foundation drain. If settlement of the slabs-on-grade during a seismic event is not desired, then they can be supported on deep foundations or ground improvement. January 26, 2023 | Page 4 File No. 22042-005-00 Our specific geotechnical recommendations are presented in the following sections of this report. 6.2. Earthquake Engineering 6.2.1. Liquefaction Liquefaction refers to the condition by which vibration or shaking of the ground, usually from earthquake forces, results in the development of excess pore pressures in saturated soils with subsequent loss of strength in the deposit of soil. In general, soils that are susceptible to liquefaction include very loose to medium dense clean to silty sands and some silts that are below the water table. The evaluation of liquefaction potential is a complex procedure and is dependent on numerous site parameters, including soil grain size, soil density, site geometry, static stress, and the design ground acceleration. Typically, the liquefaction potential of a site is evaluated by comparing the cyclic stress ratio (CSR), which is the ratio of the cyclic shear stress induced by an earthquake to the initial effective overburden stress, to the cyclic resistance ratio (CRR), which is the soils resistance to liquefaction. We evaluated the liquefaction of the CPT’s using the CLIQ program and incorporated research by Cetin et al. (2009) which accounts for the depth of the liquefiable layers when estimating settlement. These methods predict the potential for up about 7 to 9 inches of free-field liquefaction induced settlement across the site for the design earthquake event. We evaluated the liquefaction of the SPT (boring B-25 from the ZZA 2002 report) based on triggering potential (Youd et al. 2001; Idriss and Boulanger 2014) and liquefaction-induced settlement (Tokimatsu and Seed 1987; Ishihara and Yoshimine 1992; Idriss and Boulanger 2014). These methods predict between approximately 11 and 20 inches of free-field liquefaction induced settlement across the site for the design earthquake event. Differential settlements at the site could be on the order of 5 and 10 inches across the site. It should be noted that the analysis we completed assumed a 2,475 return period for the structure. 6.2.2. Lateral Spreading Lateral spreading involves lateral displacement of large, surficial blocks of soil as the underlying soil layer liquefies. Lateral spreading can occur on near-level ground as blocks of surface soils are displaced relative to adjacent blocks. Lateral spreading also occurs as blocks of surface soils are displaced toward a nearby slope or free-face by movement of the underlying liquefied soil. Due to the depth of the potentially liquefiable soils and the topography in the immediate site vicinity, it is our opinion that the risk of lateral spreading occurring at the site is low. 6.2.3. 2018 IBC Seismic Design Information Based on the results of our liquefaction analyses, the site is classified as Site Class F per ASCE 7-16 Section 20.3.1. If the fundamental period of vibration of the planned structure is greater than 0.5 seconds, a site response analysis is required to determine the design acceleration parameters for the site, and GeoEngineers should be contacted to provide revised recommendations. If the fundamental period of vibration of the planned structure is less than or equal to 0.5 seconds, the exception presented in ASCE 7-16 Section 20.3 is applicable, whereby a Site Class is permitted to be determined in accordance January 26, 2023 | Page 5 File No. 22042-005-00 with Section 20.3 for the purpose of developing seismic design acceleration parameters only. All other criteria associated with Site Class F sites still apply. Based on the geotechnical explorations completed on site, we recommended Site Class D for developing seismic design parameters for structures with fundamental periods of vibration less than or equal to 0.5 seconds. Table 1 provides the preliminary seismic design parameters per ASCE 7-16 Supplement 3 Section 11.4.8. Further, per ASCE 7-16 Supplement 3 Section 11.4.8, a ground motion hazard analysis (GMHA) is required to determine the seismic design acceleration parameters for structures on Site Class D sites with S1 greater than or equal to 0.2 unless the following exception is used, which has been incorporated in the values provided in Table 1. 1. The value of the parameter SM1 determined by Eq. (11.4-2) is increased by 50 percent for all applications of SM1. The resulting value of the parameter SD1 determined by Eq. (11.4-4) shall be used for all applications of SD1. TABLE 1. 2018 IBC SEISMIC PARAMETERS 2018 IBC Parameter1 Recommended Value Site Class F Short-period Spectral Response Acceleration, SS (g) 1.432 1-Second Period Spectral Response Acceleration, S1 (g) 0.488 Short-period Site Coefficient, FA 1.00 Long-period Site Coefficient, FV 1.81 Short-period MCER spectral response acceleration adjusted for site class, SMS (g) 1.432 Long-period MCER spectral response acceleration adjusted for site class, SM1 (g) 1.326 Short-period design spectral response acceleration adjusted for site class, SDS (g) 0.955 Long-period design spectral response acceleration adjusted for site class, SD1 (g) 0.884 Notes: 1 Parameters developed for Site Class D as permitted by ASCE 716 Section 20.3.1 based on latitude 47.4746465 and longitude -122.2057309 using the Applied Technology Council (ATC) Hazards online tool (https://hazards.atcouncil.org/). 6.3. Temporary Dewatering The groundwater table in the site vicinity is anticipated to be located between approximately 5 and 10 feet below existing site grades. The regional groundwater or surface water from rain events that are likely to be encountered in excavations extending deeper than 5 feet are anticipated to be manageable by means of sumps and pumps. The flow rate will vary based on location, precipitation, season, and other factors. For excavations deeper than 10 feet below existing grades, active temporary dewatering, such as vacuum wellpoints may be required. GeoEngineers should be notified if excavations greater than 10 feet are anticipated. 6.4. Excavation Support The planned foundations are located offset from site boundaries or existing improvements and are anticipated to be completed using temporary cut slopes. Excavation considerations and temporary cut slopes are provided below. January 26, 2023 | Page 6 File No. 22042-005-00 6.4.1. Excavation Considerations The site soils may be excavated with conventional excavation equipment, such as trackhoes or dozers. The fill on site may contain foundation elements and/or utilities from previous site development, debris, rubble and/or cobbles and boulders. We recommend that procedures be identified in the project specifications for measurement and payment of work associated with obstructions. 6.4.2. Temporary Cut Slopes The stability of open-cut slopes is a function of soil type, groundwater seepage, slope inclination, slope height and nearby surface loads. The use of inadequately designed open cuts could impact the stability of adjacent work areas, could affect existing utilities and could endanger personnel. The contractor performing the work has the primary responsibility for protection of workers and adjacent improvements. In our opinion, the contractor will be in the best position to observe subsurface conditions continuously throughout the construction process and to respond to variable soil and groundwater conditions. Therefore, the contractor should have the primary responsibility for deciding whether to use open-cut slopes for much of the excavations rather than some form of temporary excavation support, and for establishing the safe inclination of the cut slope. Acceptable slope inclinations for utilities and ancillary excavations should be determined during construction. Because of the diversity of construction techniques and available shoring systems, the design of temporary cut slopes is most appropriately left to the contractor proposing to complete the installation. Temporary cut slopes and shoring must comply with the provisions of Chapter 296-155 Washington Administrative Code (WAC), Part N, “Excavation, Trenching and Shoring.” Temporary unsupported cut slopes more than 4 feet high may be inclined at 1.5H:1V (horizontal to vertical) maximum steepness within the fill soils. For open cuts at the site, we recommend that: ■ No traffic, construction equipment, stockpiles or building supplies be allowed at the top of the cut slopes within a distance of at least 5 feet from the top of the cut; ■ The cut slopes should be planned such that they do not encroach on a 1H:1V influence line projected down from the edges of nearby or planned foundation elements. ■ Exposed soil along the slope be protected from surface erosion by using waterproof tarps or plastic sheeting; ■ Construction activities be scheduled so that the length of time the temporary cut is left open is reduced to the extent practicable; ■ Erosion control measures be implemented as appropriate such that runoff from the site is reduced to the extent practicable; ■ Surface water be diverted away from the slope; and ■ The general condition of the slopes be observed periodically by the geotechnical engineer to confirm adequate stability. Water that enters the excavation must be collected and routed away from prepared subgrade areas. We expect that this may be accomplished by installing a system of drainage ditches and sumps along the toe of the cut slopes. Some sloughing and raveling of the cut slopes should be expected. Temporary covering, January 26, 2023 | Page 7 File No. 22042-005-00 such as heavy plastic sheeting with appropriate ballast, should be used to protect these slopes during periods of wet weather. Surface water runoff from above cut slopes should be prevented from flowing over the slope face by using berms, drainage ditches, swales or other appropriate methods. 6.5. Foundation Support The building foundations can be supported on either deep or shallow foundations. The determination of the foundation support option (deep or shallow) will be dependent upon the desired performance of the building during a seismic event. The followings sections provide recommendations for deep and shallow foundation support. 6.6. Deep Foundations Deep foundations are an appropriate foundation support method. The fill and alluvium soils are potentially liquefiable and deep foundations can be constructed to the sandstone, which represents a competent bearing layer. We have provided deep foundation recommendations in the following sections. 6.6.1. Augercast Piles Augercast piles are constructed using a continuous-flight, hollow-stem auger attached to a set of leads supported by a crane or installed with a fixed-mast drill rig. The first step in the pile casting process consists of drilling the auger into the ground to the specified tip elevation of the pile. Grout is then pumped through the hollow stem during steady withdrawal of the auger, replacing the soils on the flights of the auger. The final step is to install a steel reinforcing cage and typically a center bar into the column of fresh grout. One benefit of using augercast piles is that the auger provides support for the soils during the pile installation process, thus eliminating the need for temporary casing or drilling fluid. Installation of augercast piles also produces minimal ground vibrations. 6.6.1.1. Construction Considerations Given the distinct contrast in stiffness between the alluvium and the underlying sandstone and the need to develop pile capacity from the sandstone (bearing soils), it is important that the piles achieve a consistent embedment into the sandstone. In order to confirm that the piles are consistently embedded into the sandstone, we recommend that the contractor use drilling equipment capable of measuring and displaying drill pressure and crowd speed during augercast pile installation. These measurements can be used as an indication of the transition from alluvium to sandstone, which can be used to estimate pile embedment in sandstone. Production piles located in close proximity to one of the previous geotechnical borings completed at the project site and should be installed at the beginning of pile construction to calibrate the drill pressure and crowd speed requirements for the alluvium and the sandstone. This process will provide the required information to determine whether the piles have been installed to an appropriate length and will eliminate the need for static pile load testing. As is standard practice, the pile grout must be pumped under pressure through the hollow stem as the auger is withdrawn. Maintenance of adequate grout pressure at the auger tip is critical to reduce the potential for encroachment of adjacent native soils into the grout column. The rate of withdrawal of the auger must remain constant throughout the installation of the piles in order to reduce the potential for necking of the piles. Failure to maintain a constant rate of withdrawal of the auger should result in immediate rejection of that pile. Reinforcing steel for bending and uplift should be placed in the fresh grout January 26, 2023 | Page 8 File No. 22042-005-00 column as soon as possible after withdrawal of the auger. Centering devices should be used to provide concrete cover around the reinforcing steel. The contractor should adhere to a waiting period of at least 12 hours between the installation of piles spaced closer than 8 feet, center-to-center. This waiting period is necessary to avoid disturbing the curing concrete in previously cast piles. Grout pumps must be fitted with a volume-measuring device and pressure gauge so that the volume of grout placed in each pile and the pressure head maintained during pumping can be observed. A minimum grout line pressure of 100 pounds per square inch (psi) should be maintained. The rate of auger withdrawal should be controlled during grouting such that the volume of grout pumped is equal to at least 120 percent of the theoretical pile volume. A minimum head of 5 feet of grout should be maintained above the auger tip during withdrawal of the auger to maintain a full column of grout and to prevent hole collapse. A qualified geotechnical engineer should observe the drilling operations, monitor grout injection procedures, record the volume of grout placed in each pile relative to the calculated volume of the hole, and evaluate the adequacy of individual pile installations. 6.6.1.2. Axial Capacity Axial pile load capacity at this site is developed from a combination of end bearing and side resistance in the bearing soils with some additional capacity attributed to side frictional resistance in soils located above bearing soils. Uplift pile capacity will also be developed primarily from side frictional resistance in the sandstone soils. Table 2 below includes a summary of estimated allowable static and seismic capacities for an 18-inch-diameter augercast pile. TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED CAPACITIES Pile Diameter (Inches) Embedment Depth into Bearing Soils Layer1 (feet) Static Conditions Seismic Conditions2 Compression (kips) Uplift (kips) Compression (kips) Uplift (kips) 18 10 370 260 310 25 Notes: 1 Full design embedment might not be achieved if massive or unfractured sandstone is encountered. 2 Seismic conditions consider the effects of liquefaction including soil strength loss and downdrag. If piles are spaced at least three pile diameters on center, as recommended, no reduction of axial capacity for group action is needed. The structural characteristics of pile materials and structural connections may impose limitations on pile capacities and should be evaluated by the structural engineer. Full length steel reinforcing will be needed for shafts subjected to uplift loads. 6.6.1.3. Lateral Capacity Lateral loads can be resisted by passive soil pressure on the vertical piles and by the passive soil pressures on the pile cap. Because of the potential separation between the pile-supported foundation components and the underlying soil from settlement, base friction along the bottom of the pile cap should not be included in calculations for lateral capacity. January 26, 2023 | Page 9 File No. 22042-005-00 Piles spaced closer than eight pile diameters apart will experience group effects that will result in a lower lateral load capacity for trailing rows of piles with respect to leading rows of piles for an equivalent deflection. We recommend that the lateral load capacity for trailing piles in a pile group spaced three pile diameters apart be reduced by a factor of 0.3. Reductions of the lateral load capacity for trailing piles at spacings greater than three pile diameters but less than eight pile diameters apart can be linearly interpolated. If lateral capacities (deflection, shear and moment versus depth) are necessary they can be prepared during the design phase. We recommend that the passive soil pressure acting on the pile cap be estimated using an equivalent fluid density of 250 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) where the soil adjacent to the foundation consists of adequately compacted structural fill. This passive resistance value includes a factor of safety of 1.5 and assumes a 4-foot-deep pile cap and a minimum lateral deflection of 1 inch to fully develop the passive resistance. Deflections that are less than 1 inch will not fully mobilize the passive resistance in the soil. 6.6.1.4. Pile Settlement We estimate that the post-construction settlement of pile foundations, designed and installed as recommended, will be on the order of ½ inch or less. Maximum differential settlement should be less than about one-half the post-construction settlement. Most of this settlement will occur rapidly as loads are applied. 6.6.1. Pin Piles Small-diameter pipe piles, also known as pin piles, may be suitable for support of the foundation loads. We recommend an allowable design load for 6- and 8-inch-diameter pipe piles driven to refusal criteria as summarized in Table 3 below. Piles should be driven no closer together than 2 feet on center. We estimate pile settlements on the order of ½ inch, occurring rapidly following load application. We recommend that the 6- and 8-inch-diameter piles be installed using an excavator-mounted pneumatic jackhammer with a hammer weight of at least 3,000 pounds. These preliminary capacities will be confirmed during design based on specific hammer weights, pile diameters, and refusal criteria. TABLE 3. PIN PILE DESIGN CRITERIA Pile Diameter1 Seconds per inch Allowable Axial Compression2 (kips) 6-inch 6 30 8-inch 10 45 Notes: 1 Installed with a 3,000-pound hydraulic hammer. 2 Includes a factor or safety of 2. Pile tip depths are typically estimated to extend to a depth of approximately 20 to 30 feet based on achieving refusal criteria through friction resistance. However, we would recommend that the piles extend to the bearing layer, located between approximately 60 and 70 feet below existing site grades. It is recommended that the pile lengths be confirmed/estimated by a specialty contractor who has experience with installing pin piles in similar soils and that driving the pin piles to bearing soils can be achieved at the project site. Steel pipe piles have a risk of corrosion and are typically galvanized as a corrosion protection January 26, 2023 | Page 10 File No. 22042-005-00 measure. Refusal criteria and pile capacities will need to be confirmed by completing a load test for each pile type used. This is discussed in more detail below. We recommend that for each proposed pile type and selected hammer, a load test pile be driven to assess the ability to meet the driving criteria recommended above. The test piles should be loaded to at least 200 percent of the allowable design load. The pile load tests should be observed by a geotechnical engineer from our firm. Pin pile load tests are typically accomplished by jacking against a large piece of construction equipment. The equipment is centered over the top of the pile and a hydraulic jack equipped with a hand-operated hydraulic pump and a pressure gauge is placed between the excavator and pile. The load is applied in increments and downward deflection measurements are recorded at each load. The load vs. deflection is plotted to determine the pile capacity and factor of safety. Lateral resistance and deflections of pile foundations are governed primarily by the soil stiffness, fixity of the top of the pile, the amount of allowable deflection, and the strength of the pile itself. We can estimate lateral capacity of the pipe piles, as well as uplift capacity should the team choose this foundation support method. Allowable pile capacities are provided for Allowable Stress Design (ASD), and the allowable capacities are for combined dead plus long-term live loads. The allowable capacities are based on the strength of the supporting soils for the depths below the existing ground surface and include a factor of safety of 2. The capacities apply to single piles. If piles are spaced at least three pile diameters on center, as recommended, no reduction of the axial capacity for group action is needed. 6.6.1.1. Vibration Considerations The upper soils at the site are relatively loose and do not transmit vibrations compared to denser/harder soils. Therefore, we anticipate negligible vibrations will be transmitted to nearby buildings and do not believe that vibration monitoring is necessary at this time. This recommendation should be revisited once the final layout of the building is completed, and or pin pile layout is known. 6.7. Shallow Foundations Shallow foundations may be suitable for the project site provided the foundations are supported on ground improvement (stone columns) or provided the foundations/structure are designed to tolerate the anticipated total/differential settlement during a seismic event. 6.8. Ground Improvement 6.8.1.1. Ground Improvement Types Based on our understanding of soil conditions at the site, the proposed improvements, and our experience with ground improvement in the project vicinity, we anticipate that stone columns or aggregate piers will likely be the most cost-effective ground improvement method for this site. Stone columns are a vibro-displacement based ground improvement method that involves driving a vibratory probe into the ground to densify the surrounding soil and reduce the potential for soil liquefaction. As the probe is removed, stone (crushed rock) is placed and compacted in the void left by the probe. Typically, a 2- to 4-foot-diameter column of stone remains. Stone columns are most effective in loose sands with few fines that will readily densify under vibratory energy. Stone columns are less effective in January 26, 2023 | Page 11 File No. 22042-005-00 fine-grained or cohesive soils where there is no densification effect, and the improvement comes only from replacing the softer soils with the stronger crushed rock. Aggregate piers are similar to stone columns in that a column of crushed rock is installed into the soft soil to densify the soil and provide soil reinforcement. The difference between aggregate piers and stone columns is the means and methods of installing the rock and the equipment used. An aggregate pier uses a vertical action ram to install and compact the crushed rock. A stone column uses horizontal vibration and fluid jetting to construct the crushed rock column. Other ground improvement methods, such as jet grout or deep soil mixing, are also feasible. These cementitious methods are generally more expensive and are not typically used in the soil types present at the site unless there are structures or other infrastructure very close to the site with significant limits to allowable vibration or other disturbance. 6.8.1.2. Ground Improvement Design Criteria The primary intent of the ground improvement design should be to mitigate the liquefaction hazard and reduced settlement below the proposed structure. The ground improvement should cover the entire building footprint and extend at least 5 feet beyond the footprint of the structure and should be included below any critical infrastructure located outside of the main structure. We recommend the design of the ground improvement, including the actual layout, length and minimum diameter of each column or pier, be provided by the contractor performing the work and be based on the final foundation plan. At a minimum, the ground improvement should extend about 30 to 45 feet below existing site grades. We recommend that the ground improvement be designed to achieve the following minimum performance criteria. This criteria must be reviewed by the structural engineer who will confirm that the criteria is acceptable. ■ Allowable soil bearing resistance of 3,500 psf with an allowable increase of one-third for transient loading conditions. ■ Total long-term static settlement of 1 inch and differential static settlement of 0.5 inch over a distance of 40 feet. ■ Differential liquefaction-induced settlement of 2 inches over a distance of 40 feet. Based on the soil conditions observed in our explorations and the preliminary performance criteria provided above, we recommend using a minimum ground improvement area replacement ratio of 12 percent for budgeting purposes. This replacement ratio can be adjusted during design after the performance criteria has been confirmed or in the field after the performance of the installation equipment and response of the soil has been observed and tested. The contractor performing the work should provide adequate verification that the specified performance criteria has been achieved after ground improvement installation. This could include modulus tests on the installed ground improvement to verify the specified bearing resistance was achieved and post-treatment cone penetrometer tests (CPTs) to verify that the specified liquefaction mitigation was achieved. Please note that pre-treatment CPT’s have already been completed for this study. January 26, 2023 | Page 12 File No. 22042-005-00 6.8.2. Foundation Support with Ground Improvement 6.8.2.1. Bearing Surface Preparation and Minimum Foundation Dimensions Once ground improvement is installed, footing excavations should expose the top of the column or pier elements and confirm their location relative to the foundation. Foundation-bearing surfaces should be thoroughly compacted to a dense, non-yielding condition. Loose or highly disturbed materials present at the base of footing excavations between ground improvement elements should be removed or compacted. The ground improvement designer may specify that a layer of compacted structural fill be placed between the top of the ground improvement elements and the bottom of foundations. Foundation bearing surfaces should not be exposed to standing water. Should water infiltrate and pool in the excavation, it should be removed before placing structural fill or reinforcing steel. We recommend a minimum width of 1.5 feet for continuous wall footings and 2 feet for isolated column footings. All exterior footing elements should be embedded at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent external grade. Interior footings can be founded a minimum of 12 inches below the top of the floor slab. 6.8.2.2. Allowable Soil Bearing Resistance Provided ground improvement meeting the performance criteria described above is installed, foundations for the proposed structures within the ground improvement area may be designed assuming an allowable soil bearing resistance of 3,500 psf. The provided bearing pressures apply to the total of dead and long- term live loads and may be increased by one-third when considering total loads, including earthquake or wind loads. These are net bearing pressures. The weight of the footing and overlying backfill can be ignored in calculating footing sizes. The ground improvement designer must confirm that the allowable bearing pressure stated above is achievable with their proposed design. 6.8.2.3. Foundation Settlement We estimate that static settlement of footings underlain by ground improvement designed and constructed as recommended will be less than 1 inch, with differential settlements of less than ½ inch between comparably loaded isolated column footings or along 40 feet of continuous footing. Static settlement estimates are in addition to the estimated post ground improvement liquefaction settlement provided in Section 6.2 of this Report. 6.8.2.4. Lateral Resistance The ability of the soil to resist lateral loads is a function of frictional resistance, which can develop on the base of footings and slabs and passive resistance, which can develop on the face of below-grade elements of the structure as these elements tend to move into the soil. The allowable frictional resistance on the base of the footing may be computed using a coefficient of friction of 0.40 applied to the vertical dead-load forces. The allowable passive resistance on the face of the footing or other embedded foundation elements may be computed using an equivalent fluid density of 250 pcf for undisturbed site soils or structural fill extending out from the face of the foundation element a distance at least equal to two and one-half times the depth of the element. These values include a factor of safety of about 1.5. The passive earth pressure and friction components may be combined, provided that the passive component does not exceed two-thirds of the total. The passive earth pressure value is based on the assumptions that the adjacent grade is level, and that groundwater remains below the base of the footing January 26, 2023 | Page 13 File No. 22042-005-00 throughout the year. The top foot of soil should be neglected when calculating passive lateral earth pressure unless the area adjacent to the foundation is covered with pavement or a slab-on-grade. 6.8.3. Foundation Support Without Ground Improvement Improvements that can tolerate large differential settlement during a seismic event without risking life safety or resiliency objectives of the primary structure can be supported on shallow foundations without ground improvement. We recommend that foundations without ground improvement be underlain by an 18-inch-thick layer of structural fill as specified in the “Earthwork” section below. The structural fill should be compacted as described in the “Fill Placement and Compaction Criteria” section below. Foundation bearing surfaces should be thoroughly compacted to a dense, non-yielding condition. Loose or highly disturbed materials present at the base of foundation excavations should be removed or compacted. Foundation bearing surfaces should not be exposed to standing water. Should water infiltrate and pool in the excavation, it should be removed before placing structural fill or reinforcing steel. We recommend that foundations not underlain by ground improvement be proportioned using an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 psf. This is a net bearing pressure; the weight of the footing and overlying backfill can be ignored in calculating footing sizes. We estimate that settlement of footings due to static loads will be less than 1 inch. Differential settlements between comparably loaded isolated column footings or along 50 feet of continuous footing is expected to be less than ½ inch under static loads. We have based our estimates on isolated column loads of 10 kips and strip footing loads of 4 kips per linear foot. If loads exceed these values, we should be contacted for revised estimates. Settlement is expected to occur rapidly as loads are applied. Increased settlement should be expected if subgrades are disturbed. These settlement values are in addition to the estimated liquefaction induced total and differential settlement values presented in Section 6.2 above. Footings not underlain by ground improvement can be designed using the same lateral resistance parameters presented above. 6.8.4. Construction Considerations We recommend that the condition of all subgrade areas be observed by GeoEngineers to evaluate whether the work is completed in accordance with our recommendations and whether the subsurface conditions are as anticipated. If soft areas are present at the footing subgrade elevation, the soft areas should be removed and replaced with approved structural fill at the direction of GeoEngineers. We recommend that the contractor consider leaving the subgrade for the foundations as much as 6 to 12 inches high, depending on soil and weather conditions, until excavation to final subgrade is required for foundation reinforcement. Leaving subgrade high will help reduce damage to the subgrade resulting from construction traffic for other activities. The foundation recommendations provided in this report are intended for design and construction of building foundations. These recommendations may not be appropriate for temporary construction elements such as tower cranes, mobile cranes, manlifts, or other equipment. A qualified geotechnical engineer should be consulted to provide foundation support recommendations for tower cranes, mobile cranes, manlifts or other temporary construction equipment, as necessary. January 26, 2023 | Page 14 File No. 22042-005-00 6.9. Slab-on-Grade Floors Slabs-on-grade with below-slab drainage are appropriate for the site. The following sections provide design recommendations for subgrade preparation, slab-on-grade design parameters, and below-slab drainage. 6.9.1. Subgrade Preparation The exposed subgrade should be evaluated after site grading is complete. Probing should be used to evaluate the subgrade. The exposed soil should be firm and unyielding, and without significant groundwater. Disturbed areas should be recompacted if possible or removed and replaced with compacted structural fill. The site should be rough graded to approximately 1 foot above slab subgrade elevation prior to foundation construction in order to protect the slab subgrade soils from deterioration from wet weather or construction traffic. After the foundations and below-slab drainage system have been constructed, the remaining soils can be removed to final subgrade elevation followed by immediate placement of the capillary break material. 6.9.2. Design Parameters Conventional slabs may be supported on-grade, provided the subgrade soils are prepared as recommended in the “Subgrade Preparation” section above. We recommend that the slab be founded on structural fill placed over the undisturbed site soils. For slabs designed as a beam on an elastic foundation, a modulus of subgrade reaction of 200 pounds per cubic inch (pci) may be used for subgrade soils prepared as recommended. We recommend that the slab-on-grade floors be underlain by a 6-inch-thick capillary break consisting of material meeting the requirements of Mineral Aggregate Type 22 (¾-inch crushed gravel), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.14. Provided that loose soil is removed and the subgrade is prepared as recommended, we estimate that slabs-on-grade will not settle appreciably. 6.9.3. Below-Slab Drainage Specification of a vapor barrier requires consideration of the performance expectations of the occupied space, the type of flooring planned and other factors, and is typically completed by other members of the project team. Structural elements (such as vaults, elevator pits, stairwells, sumps, etc.) that extend greater than 4 feet below site grades should be evaluated for the installation of foundation drainage or designed for hydrostatic pressures. GeoEngineers should be contacted to review these conditions. 6.10. Below-Grade Walls We anticipate that small cast-in-place walls may be required for vaults, elevators, stairwells, sumps, etc. If so, the following may be used for design of those structures. January 26, 2023 | Page 15 File No. 22042-005-00 6.10.1. Other Cast-in-Place Walls Conventional cast-in-place walls may be necessary for retaining structures located on-site. The lateral soil pressures acting on conventional cast-in-place subsurface walls will depend on the nature, density and configuration of the soil behind the wall and the amount of lateral wall movement that can occur as backfill is placed. For walls that are free to yield at the top at least 0.1 percent of the height of the wall, soil pressures will be less than if movement is limited by such factors as wall stiffness or bracing. Assuming that the walls are backfilled and drainage is provided as outlined in the following paragraphs, we recommend that yielding walls supporting horizontal backfill be designed using an equivalent fluid density of 35 pcf (triangular distribution), while non-yielding walls supporting horizontal backfill be designed using an equivalent fluid density of 55 pcf (triangular distribution). For seismic loading conditions, a rectangular earth pressure equal to 8H psf (where H is the height of the wall in feet) should be added to the active/at-rest pressures. Other surcharge loading should be applied as appropriate. Lateral resistance for conventional cast-in-place walls can be provided by frictional resistance along the base of the wall and passive resistance in front of the wall in accordance with the “Lateral Resistance” discussion earlier in this report. The above soil pressures assume that wall drains will be installed to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressure behind the walls, as discussed in the paragraphs below. 6.10.2. Drainage Positive drainage should be provided behind cast-in-place retaining walls/structures by placing a minimum 2-foot-wide zone of Mineral Aggregate Type 17 (bank run gravel), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.14. A perforated drainpipe should be placed near the base of the retaining wall to provide drainage. The drainpipe should be surrounded by a minimum of 6 inches of Mineral Aggregate Type 22 (¾-inch crushed gravel), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.14, or an alternative approved by GeoEngineers. The Type 22 material should be wrapped with a geotextile filter fabric meeting the requirements of construction geotextile for underground drainage, WSDOT Standard Specification 9-33. The wall drainpipe should be connected to a header pipe and routed to a sump or gravity drain. Appropriate cleanouts for drainpipe maintenance should be installed. A larger-diameter pipe will allow for easier maintenance of drainage systems. As noted above, the flow rate for the planned excavation in the below-slab drainage and below-grade wall drainage systems is anticipated to be less than 5 gallons per minute (gpm). 6.11. Earthwork 6.11.1. Subgrade Preparation The exposed subgrade in structure and hardscape areas should be evaluated after site excavation is complete. Disturbed areas should be recompacted if the subgrade soil consists of granular material. If the disturbed subgrade soils consist of fine-grained soils, it will likely be necessary to remove and replace the disturbed soil with structural fill unless the soil can be adequately moisture-conditioned and recompacted. 6.11.2. Structural Fill 6.11.2.1. Materials Fill placed to for the following conditions will need to be specified as structural fill as described below: January 26, 2023 | Page 16 File No. 22042-005-00 ■ If structural fill is necessary beneath building foundations or slabs, the fill should meet the requirements of Mineral Aggregate Type 2 or Type 17 (1¼-inch minus crushed rock or bank run gravel), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.10(1)A or 9-03.12, respectively. ■ Structural fill placed behind retaining walls should meet the requirements of Mineral Aggregate Type 17 (bank run gravel), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.10. ■ Structural fill placed within utility trenches and below pavement and sidewalk areas should consist of controlled density fill (CDF), or fill meeting the requirements of Mineral Aggregate Type 17 (bank run gravel), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.10. ■ Structural fill placed around perimeter footing drains, underslab drains, and cast-in-place wall drains should meet the requirements of Mineral Aggregate Type 22 (¾-inch crushed gravel), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.9 or 9-03.10(3). ■ Structural fill placed as capillary break material should meet the requirements of Type 22 (¾-inch crushed gravel), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.9 or 9-03.10(3). ■ Structural fill placed as crushed surfacing base course below pavements and sidewalks should meet the requirements of Mineral Aggregate Type 2 (1¼-inch minus crushed rock), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.10(1)A. 6.11.2.2. On-site Soils The on-site soils (sand) are moisture-sensitive and generally have natural moisture contents higher than the anticipated optimum moisture content for compaction. As a result, the on-site soils will likely require moisture conditioning in order to meet the required compaction criteria during dry weather conditions and will not be suitable for reuse during wet weather. Furthermore, most of the fill soils required for the project have specific gradation requirements, and the on-site soils do not meet these gradation requirements. Because of this we recommend that the earthwork contractor plan to import backfill material for the project. If the contractor wants to use on-site soils for structural fill, GeoEngineers can evaluate the on-site soils for suitability as structural fill, as required, during construction. It may be feasible to reuse on-site soils with the addition of cement treatment. If cement treatment is considered, GeoEngineers can work with the contractor to determine the soil/cement ratio and placement procedures. 6.11.2.3. Fill Placement and Compaction Criteria Structural fill should be mechanically compacted to a firm, non-yielding condition. Structural fill should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 12 inches in thickness when using heavy compaction equipment and 6 inches in loose thickness when using hand operated compaction equipment. The actual thickness will be dependent on the structural fill material used and the type and size of compaction equipment. Each lift should be conditioned to the proper moisture content and compacted to the specified density before placing subsequent lifts. Compaction of all structural fill at the site should be in accordance with the ASTM D1557 (modified proctor) test method. Structural fill should be compacted to the following criteria: ■ Structural fill placed in building areas (supporting slab-on-grade floors) and in pavement and sidewalk areas (including utility trench backfill) should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density (MDD) estimated in general accordance with ASTM D 1557. January 26, 2023 | Page 17 File No. 22042-005-00 ■ Structural fill placed against subgrade walls should be compacted to between 90 and 92 percent. Care should be taken when compacting fill against subsurface walls to avoid over-compaction and, hence overstressing the walls. We recommend that GeoEngineers be present during probing of the exposed subgrade soils for foundations and pavement areas, and during placement of structural fill. We will evaluate the adequacy of the subgrade soils and identify areas needing further work, perform in-place moisture-density tests in the fill to verify compliance with the compaction specifications, and advise on any modifications to the procedures that may be appropriate for the prevailing conditions. 6.11.2.4. Weather Considerations Disturbance of near surface soils should be expected if earthwork is completed during periods of wet weather. During dry weather, the soils will: (1) be less susceptible to disturbance; (2) provide better support for construction equipment; and (3) be more likely to meet the required compaction criteria. The wet weather season generally begins in October and continues through May in western Washington; however, periods of wet weather may occur during any month of the year. For earthwork activities during wet weather, we recommend that the following steps be taken: ■ The ground surface in and around the work area should be sloped so that surface water is directed away from the work area. ■ The ground surface should be graded such that areas of ponded water do not develop. ■ The contractor should take measures to prevent surface water from collecting in excavations and trenches. ■ Measures should be implemented to remove surface water from the work area. ■ Slopes with exposed soils should be covered with plastic sheeting or similar means. ■ The site soils should not be left uncompacted and exposed to moisture. Sealing the surficial soils by rolling with a smooth-drum roller prior to periods of precipitation will reduce the extent to which these soils become wet or unstable. ■ Construction traffic should be restricted to specific areas of the site, preferably areas that are surfaced with materials not susceptible to wet weather disturbance. ■ Construction activities should be scheduled so that the length of time that soils are left exposed to moisture is reduced to the extent practicable. 6.12. Infiltration Feasibility A summary of groundwater measurements are provided in the groundwater conditions section above. Based on discussions with the project civil engineer we understand that planned infiltration facilities would likely extend a minimum of 8 feet below existing site grades. Based on these conditions the facilities would likely extend into the groundwater or minimum separation requirements between the bottom of the infiltration facility and the groundwater elevation would not be achieved. Therefore, we do not recommend infiltration be completed at the site. January 26, 2023 | Page 18 File No. 22042-005-00 6.13. Recommended Additional Geotechnical Services The recommendations provided in this report are provided for preliminary planning and budgeting purposes. We will need to revise our recommendations as the project advances and as the design develops. GeoEngineers should be retained to review the project plans and specifications when complete to confirm that our design recommendations have been implemented as intended. During construction, GeoEngineers should evaluate foundation subgrades, evaluate structural backfill, and provide a summary letter of our construction observation services. The purposes of GeoEngineers’ construction phase services are to confirm that the subsurface conditions are consistent with those observed in the explorations and other reasons described in Appendix C, Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use. 7.0 LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for the exclusive use of Velmeir Acquisition Services, L.L.C. and their authorized agents for the 901 South Grady Way project in Renton, Washington. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with generally accepted practices in the field of geotechnical engineering in this area at the time this report was prepared. No warranty or other conditions, express or implied, should be understood. Please refer to Appendix C for additional information pertaining to use of this report. 8.0 REFERENCES ASCE (2016). “SEI/ASCE 7-16, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures,” American Society of Civil Engineers. Cetin K.O., Bilge H.T., Wu J., Kammerer A. and Seed R.B., [2009]. “Probabilistic Models for Cyclic Straining of Saturated Clean Sands.” J. Geotech. and Geoenv. Engrg., 135[3], 371-386. City of Seattle, 2020. “Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction.” International Code Council, 2018. “International Building Code.” Idriss, I.M. and Boulanger, R.W., 2014. “CPT and SPT Based Liquefaction Triggering Procedures.” Ishihara, K., and Yoshimine, M., 1992. “Evaluation of Settlements in Sand Deposits Following Liquefaction During Earthquakes,” Soils and Foundations, 32(1), pp. 173-188. Terracon Consultants, 2019, “Underground Storage Tank Permanent Removal from Service Report.” Tokimatsu, K., and Seed, H.B., “Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due to Earthquake Shaking,” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 113(GT8), 1987, pp. 861-878. January 26, 2023 | Page 19 File No. 22042-005-00 Youd, et al., “Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, October 2001, pp. 817-833. Zipper Zeman Associates, 2002, “Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation, Proposed Retail Development, S. Grady Way and Talbot Road, Renton, Washington.” FIGURES ˙WK$YH65HQWRQ 0 XQLFLSDO $LUSRUW 6: /DQJVWRQ5G 6:˝WK 6W 6KDWWXFN$YH66KDWWXFN$YH66:ˆWK 6W3 RZHOO$YH6:6: UG3O 6 WK 6W 6 WK 6W 6 QG 6W 6 :WK 6 W 6 ˘WK 6W 6 : 6 X Q V H W %OYG 5DLQLHU$YH62DNHVGDOH$YH6:6:ˇWK 6W5H Q W RQ$ YH6 9DOOH\)Z\%RHLQJ /RQJDFUHV ,QGXVWULDO3DUN 7DOERW5G66:ˆWK 6W 2DNHVGDOH$YH6:˝ 1(WK 6W 1(˘WK 3O 1 WK 6W*DUGHQ$YH10DLQ$YH61 UG 6W 6(ˇWK 6W5HQWRQ$YH6:HOOV$YH66 WK 6W 7DOERW5G66 ˘WK 6W 6 ˙ WK 6W %H D F RQ :D\6%HQVRQ5G61 V W 6 W 6 QG 6W 1 (UG 6 W 7DOERW5G66 UG 6W ˇWK$YH6(3XJHW'U6(%HQVRQ'U65LYHUYLHZ 3DUN 5HQWRQ&HGDU5LYHU 1DWXUDO=RQH &HGDU5LYHU 3DUN 5HQWRQ 5 HQWRQ 6(ˇ˙WK 6W 6(ˇWK 6W WK$YH6(%HQVR Q 5 G 6 ˇWK$YH6(%HQVRQ'U66,7( 9LFLQLW\0DS )LJXUH ˝6RXWK*UDG\:D\ 5HQWRQ:DVKLQJWRQ $OSLQH /DNHV :LOGHUQHVV .HQW 7DFRP D 6HDWWOH 2O\P SLD )HHW 3˛??˘?*,6?˘B3URMHFW?˘B3URMHFWDSU[?˘B)B9LFLQLW\0DS'DWH([SRUWHG˛E\PDXJXVW6RXUFHV˛ ⁄(65, &RRUGLQDWH6\VWHP˛1$'˝˙870=RQH1 'LVFODLPHU˛7KLVILJXUHZDVFUHDWHGIRUDVSHFLILFSXUSRVHDQGSURMHFW$Q\XVHRIWKLVILJXUH IRUDQ\RWKHUSURMHFWRUSXUSRVHVKDOOEHDWWKHXVHUVVROHULVNDQGZLWKRXWOLDELOLW\WR*HR(QJLQHHUV 7KHORFDWLRQVRIIHDWXUHVVKRZQPD\EHDSSUR[LPDWH*HR(QJLQHHUVPDNHVQRZDUUDQW\RU UHSUHVHQWDWLRQDVWRWKHDFFXUDF\FRPSOHWHQHVVRUVXLWDELOLW\RIWKHILJXUHRUGDWDFRQWDLQHG WKHUHLQ7KHILOHFRQWDLQLQJWKLVILJXUHLVDFRS\RIDPDVWHUGRFXPHQWWKHRULJLQDORIZKLFKLV UHWDLQHGE\*HR(QJLQHHUVDQGLVWKHRIILFLDOGRFXPHQWRIUHFRUG Urgent Care B-26 B-28 B-31 B-27 B-25 B-23 B-24 B-29 B-32 GEI-01 GEI-02 Figure 2 901 South Grady Way Renton, Washington Site Plan P:\22\22042005\CAD\00\Geotech Report\2204200500_F02_Site Plan.dwg F02 Date Exported:11/29/2022 5:54 PM - by Majed FadhlW E N S Notes: 1.The locations of all features shown are approximate. 2.This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication. Data Source: Apex Engineering. dated 09/02/2022. & Barghausen Consulting Engineers. dated 07/28/2022. Projection: WA State Plane, North Zone, NAD83, US Foot Feet 0 Legend 60 60 Proposed Site Boundary B-23 Boring by Zipper Zeman Associates, 2002 GEI-01 Cone Penetration Test by GeoEngineers, 2022 (Current Study) APPENDICES APPENDIX A Cone Penetration Tests Report January 26, 2023 | Page A-1 File No. 22042-005-00 APPENDIX A CONE PENETRATION TESTS REPORT Subsurface soil and groundwater conditions were evaluated by completing two cone penetration tests (CPTs; GEI-1 and GEI-2). The CPTs were completed by ConeTec, Inc. on November 2, 2022. The locations of the CPTs were measured using handheld GPS equipment. The approximate CPT locations are shown on the Figure 2. CPT’s are a subsurface exploration technique in which a small-diameter steel tip with adjacent sleeve is continuously advanced with hydraulically operated equipment. Measurements of tip and sleeve resistance allow interpretation of the soil profile and the consistency of the strata penetrated. The tip resistance, friction ratio and pore water pressure are recorded on the CPT logs. The logs of the CPT probes are included in the attached report in Appendix A. The CPT soundings were backfilled in general accordance with procedures outlined by the Washington State Department of Ecology. PRESENTATION OF SITE INVESTIGATION RESULTS 901 South Grady Way Renton Prepared for: GeoEngineers, Inc ConeTec Job No: 22-59-25016 -- Project Start Date: 02-NOV-2022 Project End Date: 02-NOV-2022 Report Date: 09-NOV-2022 Prepared by: ConeTec Inc. 1237 S Director St Seattle, WA 98108 - Tel: (253) 397-4861 ConeTecWA@conetec.com www.conetec.com www.conetecdataservices.com 901 South Grady Way Renton Introduction The enclosed report presents the results of the site investigation program conducted by ConeTec Inc. for GeoEngineers, Inc. at 901 S Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. The program consisted of cone penetration tests. Project Information Project Client GeoEngineers, Inc. Project 901 South Grady Way Renton ConeTec project number 22-59-25016 An aerial overview from Google Earth including the CPTu test locations is presented below. Rig Description Deployment System Test Type C23-25Ton Truck Rig Integrated Push Cylinders CPTu 901 South Grady Way Renton Coordinates Test Type Collection Method EPSG Number CPTu Consumer grade GPS 4326 Cone Penetrometers Used for this Project Cone Description Cone Number Cross Sectional Area (cm2) Sleeve Area (cm2) Tip Capacity (bar) Sleeve Capacity (bar) Pore Pressure Capacity (bar) EC870: T1500F15U35 870 15.0 225 1500 15 35 Cone 870 was used for all CPTu soundings Cone Penetration Test (CPTu) Depth reference Depths are referenced to the existing ground surface at the time of each test. Tip and sleeve data offset 0.1 meter This has been accounted for in the CPT data files. Additional plots • Advanced plots with Ic, Su, phi and N(60)/N1(60) • Soil Behaviour Type (SBT) scatter plots Calculated Geotechnical Parameter Tables Additional information The Normalized Soil Behaviour Type Chart based on Qtn (SBT Qtn) (Robertson, 2009) was used to classify the soil for this project. A detailed set of calculated CPTu parameters have been generated and are provided in Excel format files in the release folder. The CPTu parameter calculations are based on values of corrected tip resistance (qt) sleeve friction (fs) and pore pressure (u2). Effective stresses are calculated based on unit weights that have been assigned to the individual soil behaviour type zones and the assumed equilibrium pore pressure profile. 901 South Grady Way Renton Limitations This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of GeoEngineers, Inc. (Client) for the project titled “901 South Grady Way Renton”. The report’s contents may not be relied upon by any other party without the express written permission of ConeTec Inc. (ConeTec). ConeTec has provided site investigation services, prepared the factual data reporting and provided geotechnical parameter calculations consistent with current best practices. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. The information presented in the report document and the accompanying data set pertain to the specific project, site conditions and objectives described to ConeTec by the Client. In order to properly understand the factual data, assumptions and calculations, reference must be made to the documents provided and their accompanying data sets, in their entirety. CONE PENETRATION TEST - eSeries Cone penetration tests (CPTu) are conducted using an integrated electronic piezocone penetrometer and data acquisition system manufactured by Adara Systems Ltd., a subsidiary of ConeTec. ConeTec’s piezocone penetrometers are compression type designs in which the tip and friction sleeve load cells are independent and have separate load capacities. The piezocones use strain gauged load cells for tip and sleeve friction and a strain gauged diaphragm type transducer for recording pore pressure. The piezocones also have a platinum resistive temperature device (RTD) for monitoring the temperature of the sensors, an accelerometer type dual axis inclinometer and two geophone sensors for recording seismic signals. All signals are amplified and measured with minimum sixteen-bit resolution down hole within the cone body, and the signals are sent to the surface using a high bandwidth, error corrected digital interface through a shielded cable. ConeTec penetrometers are manufactured with various tip, friction and pore pressure capacities in both 10 cm2 and 15 cm2 tip base area configurations in order to maximize signal resolution for various soil conditions. The specific piezocone used for each test is described in the CPT summary table presented in the first appendix. The 15 cm2 penetrometers do not require friction reducers as they have a diameter larger than the deployment rods. The 10 cm2 piezocones use a friction reducer consisting of a rod adapter extension behind the main cone body with an enlarged cross sectional area (typically 44 millimeters diameter over a length of 32 millimeters with tapered leading and trailing edges) located at a distance of 585 millimeters above the cone tip. The penetrometers are designed with equal end area friction sleeves, a net end area ratio of 0.8 and cone tips with a 60 degree apex angle. All ConeTec piezocones can record pore pressure at various locations. Unless otherwise noted, the pore pressure filter is located directly behind the cone tip in the “u2” position (ASTM Type 2). The filter is six millimeters thick, made of porous plastic (polyethylene) having an average pore size of 125 microns (90 - 160 microns). The function of the filter is to allow rapid movements of extremely small volumes of water needed to activate the pressure transducer while preventing soil ingress or blockage. The piezocone penetrometers are manufactured with dimensions, tolerances and sensor characteristics that are in general accordance with the current ASTM D5778 standard. ConeTec’s calibration criteria also meets or exceeds those of the current ASTM D5778 standard. An illustration of the piezocone penetrometer is presented in Figure CPTu. CONE PENETRATION TEST - eSeries Figure CPTu. Piezocone Penetrometer (15 cm2) The ConeTec data acquisition systems consist of a Windows based computer and a signal interface box and power supply. The signal interface combines depth increment signals, seismic trigger signals and the downhole digital data. This combined data is then sent to the Windows based computer for collection and presentation. The data is recorded at fixed depth increments using a depth wheel attached to the push cylinders or by using a spring loaded rubber depth wheel that is held against the cone rods. The typical recording interval is 2.5 centimeters; custom recording intervals are possible. The system displays the CPTu data in real time and records the following parameters to a storage media during penetration: • Depth • Uncorrected tip resistance (qc) • Sleeve friction (fs) • Dynamic pore pressure (u) • Additional sensors such as resistivity, passive gamma, ultra violet induced fluorescence, if applicable CONE PENETRATION TEST - eSeries All testing is performed in accordance to ConeTec’s CPTu operating procedures which are in general accordance with the current ASTM D5778 standard. Prior to the start of a CPTu sounding a suitable cone is selected, the cone and data acquisition system are powered on, the pore pressure system is saturated with silicone oil and the baseline readings are recorded with the cone hanging freely in a vertical position. The CPTu is conducted at a steady rate of two centimeters per second, within acceptable tolerances. Typically one meter length rods with an outer diameter of 1.5 inches (38.1 millimeters) are added to advance the cone to the sounding termination depth. After cone retraction final baselines are recorded. Additional information pertaining to ConeTec’s cone penetration testing procedures: • Each filter is saturated in silicone oil under vacuum pressure prior to use • Baseline readings are compared to previous readings • Soundings are terminated at the client’s target depth or at a depth where an obstruction is encountered, excessive rod flex occurs, excessive inclination occurs, equipment damage is likely to take place, or a dangerous working environment arises • Differences between initial and final baselines are calculated to ensure zero load offsets have not occurred and to ensure compliance with ASTM standards The interpretation of piezocone data for this report is based on the corrected tip resistance (qt), sleeve friction (fs) and pore water pressure (u). The interpretation of soil type is based on the correlations developed by Robertson et al. (1986) and Robertson (1990, 2009). It should be noted that it is not always possible to accurately identify a soil behavior type based on these parameters. In these situations, experience, judgment and an assessment of other parameters may be used to infer soil behavior type. The recorded tip resistance (qc) is the total force acting on the piezocone tip divided by its base area. The tip resistance is corrected for pore pressure effects and termed corrected tip resistance (qt) according to the following expression presented in Robertson et al. (1986): qt = qc + (1-a) • u2 where: qt is the corrected tip resistance qc is the recorded tip resistance u2 is the recorded dynamic pore pressure behind the tip (u2 position) a is the Net Area Ratio for the piezocone (0.8 for ConeTec probes) The sleeve friction (fs) is the frictional force on the sleeve divided by its surface area. As all ConeTec piezocones have equal end area friction sleeves, pore pressure corrections to the sleeve data are not required. The dynamic pore pressure (u) is a measure of the pore pressures generated during cone penetration. To record equilibrium pore pressure, the penetration must be stopped to allow the dynamic pore pressures to stabilize. The rate at which this occurs is predominantly a function of the permeability of the soil and the diameter of the cone. CONE PENETRATION TEST - eSeries The friction ratio (Rf) is a calculated parameter. It is defined as the ratio of sleeve friction to the tip resistance expressed as a percentage. Generally, saturated cohesive soils have low tip resistance, high friction ratios and generate large excess pore water pressures. Cohesionless soils have higher tip resistances, lower friction ratios and do not generate significant excess pore water pressure. A summary of the CPTu soundings along with test details and individual plots are provided in the appendices. A set of files with calculated geotechnical parameters were generated for each sounding based on published correlations and are provided in Excel format in the data release folder. Information regarding the methods used is also included in the data release folder. For additional information on CPTu interpretations and calculated geotechnical parameters, refer to Robertson et al. (1986), Lunne et al. (1997), Robertson (2009), Mayne (2013, 2014) and Mayne and Peuchen (2012). PORE PRESSURE DISSIPATION TEST The cone penetration test is halted at specific depths to carry out pore pressure dissipation (PPD) tests, shown in Figure PPD-1. For each dissipation test the cone and rods are decoupled from the rig and the data acquisition system measures and records the variation of the pore pressure (u) with time (t). Figure PPD-1. Pore pressure dissipation test setup Pore pressure dissipation data can be interpreted to provide estimates of ground water conditions, permeability, consolidation characteristics and soil behavior. The typical shapes of dissipation curves shown in Figure PPD-2 are very useful in assessing soil type, drainage, in situ pore pressure and soil properties. A flat curve that stabilizes quickly is typical of a freely draining sand. Undrained soils such as clays will typically show positive excess pore pressure and have long dissipation times. Dilative soils will often exhibit dynamic pore pressures below equilibrium that then rise over time. Overconsolidated fine-grained soils will often exhibit an initial dilatory response where there is an initial rise in pore pressure before reaching a peak and dissipating. Figure PPD-2. Pore pressure dissipation curve examples PORE PRESSURE DISSIPATION TEST In order to interpret the equilibrium pore pressure (ueq) and the apparent phreatic surface, the pore pressure should be monitored until such time as there is no variation in pore pressure with time as shown for each curve in Figure PPD-2. In fine grained deposits the point at which 100% of the excess pore pressure has dissipated is known as t100. In some cases this can take an excessive amount of time and it may be impractical to take the dissipation to t100. A theoretical analysis of pore pressure dissipations by Teh and Houlsby (1991) showed that a single curve relating degree of dissipation versus theoretical time factor (T*) may be used to calculate the coefficient of consolidation (ch) at various degrees of dissipation resulting in the expression for ch shown below. ch = T*∙a2 ∙√Ir t Where: T* is the dimensionless time factor (Table Time Factor) a is the radius of the cone Ir is the rigidity index t is the time at the degree of consolidation Table Time Factor. T* versus degree of dissipation (Teh and Houlsby (1991)) Degree of Dissipation (%) 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 T* (u2) 0.038 0.078 0.142 0.245 0.439 0.804 1.60 The coefficient of consolidation is typically analyzed using the time (t50) corresponding to a degree of dissipation of 50% (u50). In order to determine t50, dissipation tests must be taken to a pressure less than u50. The u50 value is half way between the initial maximum pore pressure and the equilibrium pore pressure value, known as u100. To estimate u50, both the initial maximum pore pressure and u100 must be known or estimated. Other degrees of dissipations may be considered, particularly for extremely long dissipations. At any specific degree of dissipation the equilibrium pore pressure (u at t100) must be estimated at the depth of interest. The equilibrium value may be determined from one or more sources such as measuring the value directly (u100), estimating it from other dissipations in the same profile, estimating the phreatic surface and assuming hydrostatic conditions, from nearby soundings, from client provided information, from site observations and/or past experience, or from other site instrumentation. For calculations of ch (Teh and Houlsby (1991)), t50 values are estimated from the corresponding pore pressure dissipation curve and a rigidity index (Ir) is assumed. For curves having an initial dilatory response in which an initial rise in pore pressure occurs before reaching a peak, the relative time from the peak value is used in determining t50. In cases where the time to peak is excessive, t50 values are not calculated. Due to possible inherent uncertainties in estimating Ir, the equilibrium pore pressure and the effect of an initial dilatory response on calculating t50, other methods should be applied to confirm the results for ch. PORE PRESSURE DISSIPATION TEST Additional published methods for estimating the coefficient of consolidation from a piezocone test are described in Burns and Mayne (1998, 2002), Jones and Van Zyl (1981), Robertson et al. (1992) and Sully et al. (1999). A summary of the pore pressure dissipation tests and dissipation plots are presented in the relevant appendix. REFERENCES ASTM D5778-12, 2012, "Standard Test Method for Performing Electronic Friction Cone and Piezocone Penetration Testing of Soils", ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. DOI: 10.1520/D5778-12. Burns, S.E. and Mayne, P.W., 1998, “Monotonic and dilatory pore pressure decay during piezocone tests”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal 26 (4): 1063-1073. DOI: 1063-1073/T98-062. Burns, S.E. and Mayne, P.W., 2002, “Analytical cavity expansion-critical state model cone dissipation in fine-grained soils”, Soils & Foundations, Vol. 42(2): 131-137. Jones, G.A. and Van Zyl, D.J.A., 1981, “The piezometer probe: a useful investigation tool”, Proceedings, 10th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol. 3, Stockholm: 489-495. Lunne, T., Robertson, P.K. and Powell, J. J. M., 1997, “Cone Penetration Testing in Geotechnical Practice”, Blackie Academic and Professional. Mayne, P.W., 2013, “Evaluating yield stress of soils from laboratory consolidation and in-situ cone penetration tests”, Sound Geotechnical Research to Practice (Holtz Volume) GSP 230, ASCE, Reston/VA: 406-420. DOI: 10.1061/9780784412770.027. Mayne, P.W. and Peuchen, J., 2012, “Unit weight trends with cone resistance in soft to firm clays”, Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization 4, Vol. 1 (Proc. ISC-4, Pernambuco), CRC Press, London: 903-910. Mayne, P.W., 2014, “Interpretation of geotechnical parameters from seismic piezocone tests”, CPT’14 Keynote Address, Las Vegas, NV, May 2014. Robertson, P.K., Campanella, R.G., Gillespie, D. and Greig, J., 1986, “Use of Piezometer Cone Data”, Proceedings of InSitu 86, ASCE Specialty Conference, Blacksburg, Virginia. Robertson, P.K., 1990, “Soil Classification Using the Cone Penetration Test”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Volume 27: 151-158. DOI: 10.1139/T90-014. Robertson, P.K., Sully, J.P., Woeller, D.J., Lunne, T., Powell, J.J.M. and Gillespie, D.G., 1992, “Estimating coefficient of consolidation from piezocone tests”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 29(4): 539-550. DOI: 10.1139/T92-061. Robertson, P.K., 2009, “Interpretation of cone penetration tests – a unified approach”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Volume 46: 1337-1355. DOI: 10.1139/T09-065. Sully, J.P., Robertson, P.K., Campanella, R.G. and Woeller, D.J., 1999, “An approach to evaluation of field CPTU dissipation data in overconsolidated fine-grained soils”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 36(2): 369- 381. DOI: 10.1139/T98-105. Teh, C.I., and Houlsby, G.T., 1991, “An analytical study of the cone penetration test in clay”, Geotechnique, 41(1): 17-34. DOI: 10.1680/geot.1991.41.1.17. APPENDICES The appendices listed below are included in the report: • Cone Penetration Test Summary and Standard Cone Penetration Test Plots • Advanced Cone Penetration Test Plots with Ic, Su(Nkt), Phi and N(60)Ic/N1(60)Ic • Soil Behavior Type (SBT) Scatter Plots • Pore Pressure Dissipation Summary and Pore Pressure Dissipation Plots Cone Penetration Test Summary and Standard Cone Penetration Test Plots Job No:22-59-25016 Client:GeoEngineers, Inc. Project:901 South Grady Way Renton Start Date:02-Nov-2022 End Date:02-Nov-2022 CONE PENETRATION TEST SUMMARY Sounding ID File Name Date Cone Assumed 1 Phreatic Surface (ft) Final Depth (ft) Latitude2 (deg) Longitude2 (deg) GEI-01 22-59-25016_CP01 02-Nov-2022 EC870: T1500F15U35 14.0 58.0 47.47182 -122.20735 GEI-02 22-59-25016_CP02 02-Nov-2022 EC870: T1500F15U35 12.7 59.2 47.47144 -122.20719 Totals 2 soundings 117.2 1. Phreatic surface based on pore pressure dissipation test unless otherwise noted. Hydrostatic profile applied to interpretation tables 2. Coordinates were collected using a handheld GPS - WGS 84 Lat/Long Sheet 1 of 1 0 100 200 300 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 qt (tsf)Depth (feet)0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 fs (tsf) 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 Rf (%) 0 50 100 1500 u (ft) 0 3 6 9 SBT Qtn GeoEngineers Job No: 22-59-25016 Date: 2022-11-02 14:56 Site: 901 South Grady Way Renton Sounding: GEI-01 Cone: 870:T1500F15U35 Max Depth: 17.675 m / 57.99 ft Depth Inc: 0.025 m / 0.082 ft Avg Int: Every Point File: 22-59-25016_CP01.COR Unit Wt: SBTQtn (PKR2009) SBT: Robertson, 2009 and 2010 Coords: Lat: 47.47182 Long: -122.20735 Undefined Sand Mixtures Sand Mixtures Silt Mixtures Clays Clays Clays Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Clays Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Clays Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Sands Sand Mixtures Clays Silt Mixtures Sands Sand Mixtures Sands Sand Mixtures Sands Sand Mixtures Silt Mixtures Sand Mixtures Silt Mixtures Clays Organic Soils Silt Mixtures Sand Mixtures Silt Mixtures Sands Sand Mixtures Sand Mixtures Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Sands Undefined 10.0 Ueq(ft) Refusal Refusal Refusal Refusal Equilibrium Pore Pressure (Ueq)Assumed Ueq Dissipation, Ueq achieved Dissipation, Ueq not achieved Hydrostatic Line The reported coordinates were acquired from hand-held GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes. Prepunch Prepunch Prepunch Prepunch 0 100 200 300 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 qt (tsf)Depth (feet)0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 fs (tsf) 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 Rf (%) 0 50 100 1500 u (ft) 0 3 6 9 SBT Qtn GeoEngineers Job No: 22-59-25016 Date: 2022-11-02 13:45 Site: 901 South Grady Way Renton Sounding: GEI-02 Cone: 870:T1500F15U35 Max Depth: 18.050 m / 59.22 ft Depth Inc: 0.025 m / 0.082 ft Avg Int: Every Point File: 22-59-25016_CP02.COR Unit Wt: SBTQtn (PKR2009) SBT: Robertson, 2009 and 2010 Coords: Lat: 47.47143 Long: -122.20718 Undefined Sand Mixtures Undefined Sands Sand Mixtures Clays Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Clays Clays Sand Mixtures Silt Mixtures Sands Sand Mixtures Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Sands Clays Sand Mixtures Silt Mixtures Clays Sand Mixtures Sands Sand Mixtures Silt Mixtures Clays Sand Mixtures Sand Mixtures Sand Mixtures Clays Clays Clays Silt Mixtures Sand Mixtures Sands Sand Mixtures Sands Sand Mixtures Sand Mixtures Sands Sand Mixtures Sands Sand Mixtures 11.1 Ueq(ft) Refusal Refusal Refusal Refusal Equilibrium Pore Pressure (Ueq)Assumed Ueq Dissipation, Ueq achieved Dissipation, Ueq not achieved Hydrostatic Line The reported coordinates were acquired from hand-held GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes. Prepunch Prepunch Prepunch Prepunch Prepunch Prepunch Prepunch Prepunch Advanced Cone Penetration Test Plots with Ic, Su, Phi and N(60)/N1(60) 0 100 200 300 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 qt (tsf)Depth (feet)0 50 100 1500 u (ft) 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Ic (PKR 2009) 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Su (Nkt) (tsf) 20 30 40 50 60 Phi (deg) 0 10 20 30 40 50 N60 (Ic RW1998) (bpf) GeoEngineers Job No: 22-59-25016 Date: 2022-11-02 14:56 Site: 901 South Grady Way Renton Sounding: GEI-01 Cone: 870:T1500F15U35 Max Depth: 17.675 m / 57.99 ft Depth Inc: 0.025 m / 0.082 ft Avg Int: Every Point File: 22-59-25016_CP01.COR Unit Wt: SBTQtn (PKR2009) Su Nkt: 15.0 SBT: Robertson, 2009 and 2010 Coords: Lat: 47.47182 Long: -122.20735 10.0 Ueq(ft) Refusal Refusal Refusal Refusal Refusal Refusal Equilibrium Pore Pressure (Ueq)Assumed Ueq Dissipation, Ueq achieved Dissipation, Ueq not achieved Hydrostatic Line N1(60) (bpf) The reported coordinates were acquired from hand-held GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes. Prepunch Prepunch Prepunch Prepunch Prepunch Prepunch 0 100 200 300 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 qt (tsf)Depth (feet)0 50 100 1500 u (ft) 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Ic (PKR 2009) 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Su (Nkt) (tsf) 20 30 40 50 60 Phi (deg) 0 10 20 30 40 50 N60 (Ic RW1998) (bpf) GeoEngineers Job No: 22-59-25016 Date: 2022-11-02 13:45 Site: 901 South Grady Way Renton Sounding: GEI-02 Cone: 870:T1500F15U35 Max Depth: 18.050 m / 59.22 ft Depth Inc: 0.025 m / 0.082 ft Avg Int: Every Point File: 22-59-25016_CP02.COR Unit Wt: SBTQtn (PKR2009) Su Nkt: 15.0 SBT: Robertson, 2009 and 2010 Coords: Lat: 47.47143 Long: -122.20718 11.1 Ueq(ft) Refusal Refusal Refusal Refusal Refusal Refusal Equilibrium Pore Pressure (Ueq)Assumed Ueq Dissipation, Ueq achieved Dissipation, Ueq not achieved Hydrostatic Line N1(60) (bpf) The reported coordinates were acquired from hand-held GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes. Prepunch Prepunch Prepunch Prepunch Prepunch Prepunch Prepunch Prepunch Prepunch Prepunch Prepunch Prepunch Soil Behavior Type (SBT) Scatter Plots GeoEngineers Job No: 22-59-25016 Date: 2022-11-02 14:56 Site: 901 South Grady Way Renton Sounding: GEI-01 Cone: 870:T1500F15U35 Legend Sensitive, Fine Grained Organic Soils Clays Silt Mixtures Sand Mixtures Sands Gravelly Sand to Sand Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Very Stiff Fine Grained Depth Ranges >0.0 to 7.5 ft >7.5 to 15.0 ft >15.0 to 22.5 ft >22.5 to 30.0 ft >30.0 to 37.5 ft >37.5 to 45.0 ft >45.0 to 52.5 ft >52.5 to 60.0 ft >60.0 to 67.5 ft >67.5 to 75.0 ft >75.0 ft 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Qtn,cs = 70 Ic = 2.6 0.10 1.0 10.0 1.0 10.0 100 1000 Fr (%)QtnQtn Chart (PKR 2009) Legend Sensitive Fines Organic Soil Clay Silty Clay Clayey Silt Silt Sandy Silt Silty Sand/Sand Sand Gravelly Sand Stiff Fine Grained Cemented Sand 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 1.0 10.0 100 1000 Rf(%)qt (bar)Standard SBT Chart (UBC 1986) Legend CCS (Cont. sensitive clay like) CC (Cont. clay like) TC (Cont. transitional) SC (Cont. sand like) CD (Dil. clay like) TD (Dil. transitional) SD (Dil. sand like) CCS CC TC SC CD TD SD 0.10 1.0 10.0 1.0 10.0 100 1000 Fr (%)QtnModified SBTn (PKR 2016) GeoEngineers Job No: 22-59-25016 Date: 2022-11-02 13:45 Site: 901 South Grady Way Renton Sounding: GEI-02 Cone: 870:T1500F15U35 Legend Sensitive, Fine Grained Organic Soils Clays Silt Mixtures Sand Mixtures Sands Gravelly Sand to Sand Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Very Stiff Fine Grained Depth Ranges >0.0 to 7.5 ft >7.5 to 15.0 ft >15.0 to 22.5 ft >22.5 to 30.0 ft >30.0 to 37.5 ft >37.5 to 45.0 ft >45.0 to 52.5 ft >52.5 to 60.0 ft >60.0 to 67.5 ft >67.5 to 75.0 ft >75.0 ft 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Qtn,cs = 70 Ic = 2.6 0.10 1.0 10.0 1.0 10.0 100 1000 Fr (%)QtnQtn Chart (PKR 2009) Legend Sensitive Fines Organic Soil Clay Silty Clay Clayey Silt Silt Sandy Silt Silty Sand/Sand Sand Gravelly Sand Stiff Fine Grained Cemented Sand 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 1.0 10.0 100 1000 Rf(%)qt (bar)Standard SBT Chart (UBC 1986) Legend CCS (Cont. sensitive clay like) CC (Cont. clay like) TC (Cont. transitional) SC (Cont. sand like) CD (Dil. clay like) TD (Dil. transitional) SD (Dil. sand like) CCS CC TC SC CD TD SD 0.10 1.0 10.0 1.0 10.0 100 1000 Fr (%)QtnModified SBTn (PKR 2016) Pore Pressure Dissipation Summary and Pore Pressure Dissipation Plots Job No:22-59-25016 Client:GeoEngineers, Inc. Project:901 South Grady Way Renton Start Date:02-Nov-2022 End Date:02-Nov-2022 CPTu PORE PRESSURE DISSIPATION SUMMARY Sounding ID File Name Cone Area (cm2) Duration (s) Test Depth (ft) Estimated Equilibrium Pore Pressure Ueq (ft) Calculated Phreatic Surface (ft) GEI-01 22-59-25016_CP01 15.0 330.0 24.0 10.0 14.0 GEI-02 22-59-25016_CP02 15.0 350.0 23.8 11.1 12.7 Total Duration 11.3 min Sheet 1 of 1 0 100 200 300 400 0.0 10.0 20.0 0.0 -10.0 -20.0 Time (s)Pore Pressure (ft)GeoEngineers Job No:22-59-25016 Date:11/02/2022 14:56 Site:901 South Grady Way Renton Sounding:GEI-01 Cone:870:T1500F15U35 Area=15 cm² Trace Summary: Filename:22-59-25016_CP01.ppd2 Depth:7.325 m / 24.032 ft Duration:330.0 s u Min:-13.6 ft u Max:10.1 ft u Final:10.1 ft WT: 4.267 m / 13.999 ft Ueq:10.0 ft 0 100 200 300 400 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 Time (s)Pore Pressure (ft)GeoEngineers Job No:22-59-25016 Date:11/02/2022 13:45 Site:901 South Grady Way Renton Sounding:GEI-02 Cone:870:T1500F15U35 Area=15 cm² Trace Summary: Filename:22-59-25016_CP02.ppd2 Depth:7.250 m / 23.786 ft Duration:350.0 s u Min:1.4 ft u Max:13.2 ft u Final:11.1 ft WT: 3.869 m / 12.693 ft Ueq:11.1 ft APPENDIX B Boring Logs from Previous Studies January 26, 2023 | Page B-1 File No. 22042-005-00 APPENDIX B BORING LOGS FROM PREVIOUS STUDIES Included in this section are logs from previous studies completed in the immediate vicinity of the project site. ■ The logs of nine borings (B-23 through B-29, B-31, and B-32) completed by Zipper Zeman Associates in 2002 for the Renton Retail project. r FIELD EXPLORATION PROCEDURES AND LOGS J-1470 Our field exploration program for this project included 43 borings and 3 cone penetrometer probes advanced between September 19, 2002 and October 10, 2002. The approximate exploration locations are shown on Figure 1, the Site and Exploration Plan. Exploration locations were determined by measuring distances from existing site features with a tape relative to an undated Draft Grading and Drainage Plan prepared by PacLand. As such, the exploration locations should be considered accurate to the degree implied by the measurement method. The following sections describe our procedures associated with the explorarion. Descriptive logs of the explorations are enclosed in this appendix. Soil Boring Procedures Our exploratory borings were advanced using track- and truck-mounted drill rigs operated by an independent drilling firm working under subcontract to our firm. The borings were completed utilizing hollow-stem auger and mud rotary drilling methods. An experienced geotechnical engineer from our firm continuously observed the borings logged the subsurface conditions encountered, and obtained representative soil samples. All samples were stored in moisture-tight containers and transported to our laboratory for further visual classification andF,` testing. After each boring was completed, the borehole was bacicfilled with soil cuttings and bentonite clay. r Throughout the drilling operation, soil samples were obtained at 2.5- to 5-foot depth intervals by means of the Standard Penetration Test(ASTM: D-1586). This testing and sampling procedure consists of driving a standard 2-inch outside diameter steel split spoon sampler 18 inches into the soil with a 140-pound hammer free falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler through each 6-inch interval is recorded, and the total number of blows struck during the final 12 inches is recorded as the Standard Penetration Resistance, or s blow count" (N value). If a total of 50 blows is struck within any 6-inch interval, the driving is stopped and the blow count is recorded as 50 blows for the actual penetration distance. The resulting Standard Penetration Resistance values indicate the relative density of granular soils and the relative consistency of cohesive soils. Undisturbed samples were obtained by pushing a 3-inch outside diameter, seamless steel I Shelby tube into the soil using the hydraulic system on the drill rig in accordance with ASTM:D- 1587. Since the thin wall tube is pushed rather than driven, the sample obtained is considered to r be relatively undisturbed. The samples were classified in the field by examining the ends of the tube prior to sealing with plastic caps. The samples were then transported to our laboratory where they were extruded for further classification and laboratory testing. The enclosed boring logs describe the vertical sequence of soils and materials encountered in each boring, based primarily upon our field classifications and supported by our subsequent laboratory examination and testing. Where a soil conta.ct was observed to be gradational, our logs indicate the average contact depth. Where a soil type changed between sample intervals, we inferred the contact depth. Our logs also graphically indicate the blow T" count, sample type, sample number, and approximate depth of each soil sample obtained from the boring, as well as any laboratory tests performed on these soil samples. If any groundwater was encountered in a borehole, the approximate groundwater depth, and date of observation, is FIELD EXPLORATION PROCEDURES AlV'D LOGS J-1470 Our field explorarion program for this project included 43 borings advanced between October September 19, 2002 and October 10, 2002. The approxunate exploration locations are shown on Figure 1, the Site and Exploration Plan. Exploration locations were deternuned by measuring distances from exisring site features with a tape relative to an undated Draft Grading and Drainage Plan prepared by PacLand. As such, the exploration locations should be considered accurate to the degree implied by the measurement method. The following sections describe our procedures associated with the exploration. Descriptive logs of the explorations are enclosed in this appendix. Soil Boring Procedures Our exploratory borings were advanced using track- and truck-mounted drill rigs operated by an independent drilling firm working under subcontract to our firm. The borings were completed utilizing hollow-stem auger and mud rotary drilling methods. An experienced geotechnical engineer from our firm continuously observed the borings logged the subsurface conditions encountered, and obtained representative soil samples. All samples were stored in moisture-tight containers and transported to our laboratory for further visual classification and testing. After each boring was completed, the borehole was backfilled with soil cuttings and bentonite clay. Throughout the drilling operation, soil samples were obtained at 2.5- to 5-foot depth intervals by means of the Standard Penetration Test(ASTM: D-1586). This testing and sampling procedure consists of driving a standard 2-inch outside diameter steel split spoon sampler 18 inches into the soil with a 140-pound hammer free falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler through each 6-inch interval is recorded, and the total number of blows struck during the final 12 inches is recorded as the Standard Penetration Resistance, or blow count" (N value). If a total of 50 blows is struck within any 6-inch interval, the driving is stopped and the blow count is recorded as 50 blows for the actual penetration distance. The resulting Standard Penetration Resistance values indicate the relative density of granular soils and the relative consistency of cohesive soils. Undisturbed samples were obtained by pushing a 3-inch outside diameter, seamless steel Shelby tube into the soil using the hydraulic system on the drill rig in accordance with ASTM:D- 1 87. Since the thin wall tube is pushed rather than driven, the sample obtained is considered to be relatively undisturbed. The samples were classified in the field by examining the ends of the tube prior to sealing with plastic caps. The samples were then transported to our laboratory where they were extruded for further classification and laboratory testing. The enclosed boring logs describe the vertical sequence of soils and materials encountered in each boring, based primarily upon our field classifications and supported by our subsequent laboratory examination and testing. Where a soil contact was observed to be gradational, our logs indicate the average contact depth. Where a soil type changed between sample intervals, we inferred the contact depth. Our logs also graphically indicate the blow count, sample type, sample nurnber, and approximate depth of each soil sample obtained from the boring, as well as any laboratory tests performed on these soil samples. If any groundwater was encountered in a borehole, the appro cimate groundwater depth, and date of observation, is I depicted on the log. Groundwater depth estimates are typically based on the moisture content of soil samples, the wetted portion of the drilling rods, the water level measured in the borehole after the auger has been extracted. The boring logs presented in this appendix are based upon the drilling action, observation of the samples secured, laboratory test results, and field logs. The various types of soils are indicated as well as the depth where the soils or characteristics of the soils changed. It should be noted that these changes may have been gradual, and if the changes occurred between samples intervals, they were inferred. Electric Cone Penetrometer Probes A local exploration company under subcontract to our firm performed three electric cone penetrorneter probes for this project on Septernber 26, 2002. The descriptive soil interpretations presented on the cone penetrometer probe logs have been developed by using this classification chart as a guideline. It consists of a steel cone that is hydraulically pushed into the ground at up to 40,000 pounds of pressure. Sensors on the tip of the cone collect data. Standard cone penetrometers collect information to classify soil type by using sensors that measure cone-tip pressure and friction. The detailed interpretive logs of the static cone penetrometer probes accomplished for this study are presented subsequently. PROJECT:Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-23 PAGE 1 OF Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 34.5 feet Soil Description Penetration Resistance y am a m c 0 Standard Blows per foot Other o v v Z C7 Z F- 0 10 20 30 40 1.5±inches ASPHALT above 3 inches medium dense,damp,brown,gravelty SAND above loose, L _ _ _ _' _ 1 '_ _ " moist,black,pinic,and red,silty SAND with trace GRAVEL(coal a d shale fragments) f T T T __ __ S_ 1- - ,- - - ; ;-- ; -- ; - - ; -- ; - - ,o nnc 5 SZ s nnc Very loose,wet,black,pink,red,silty SAND(coal and __ _ qTp _ _ _ shale fragments) S-3 MC 3 3 MC r- Q Very soft,wet,gray,SILT and fine sandy SILT i , ; ; ; ' ; ; ;2 Boringcompletedat11.5feetonS/25/02. Groundwater encountered at approximately 7.5 feet at time of drilling. r ' _r" r ' _ * ' 15 i- -;-- -- ; - -;--'-- - - --- -- r --;- -; - - ; -- r--r-- : - -,--,-- A. Z i , , , , , , 25 Explanation o o Zo so ao so Monitoring Well Key I 2-inch O.D.split spoon sample Moisture Content 0 Clean Sand 3-inch I.D Shelby.tube sample Cuttings Plastie Limit Naturel Liquid Limit No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of ineasurement B Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical8 Environmental Consultants Date Drilled:9125l02 Logged By:DCW PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-24 PAGE 1 OF Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 34 feet Soii Description L Penetration Resistance a x y Q- °'a a m Standard Biows per foot Other j H o Nl v Z C9 Z I°i 0 70 20 30 40 4±inches ASPHALT above 4.5±inches medium dense,damp,brown,graveliy SAND above very loose, --_—____ moist,grading to wet,Wack and reddish orange,silty SAND(coal and sedimentary rocfc fragments-fill) w r ' ' r ' 'r' _ ____' , ___'' 7 '_ S i--; - - , _ 3 MC 5 S-2 3 MC r - - ; -- ,- - ----1 --;-- -- aTo ---- - --- - - •--•- • -•- --- -- 3_3 2 MC Very soft,wet,gray,SILT and sandy SILT r 10 S Boringcompletedat11.5feeton9/25/02. 1- ---- Groundwater encountered at approximately 6.5 feet at time of drilfing. r _ 'r' ' r''T'''_ ' 5 i , . . r.-, Z f_ f _ _ ! __ _ _T__T __T_ _ T_____ I ' ' ' I Explanation o o Zo so ao. so I Monitoring Well Key 2-inch O.D.split spoon sample 0 Clean Sand Moisture Content 3-inch I.D Shetby tube sample Cuttings Plastic Limit Natural Liquid Limk No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of ineasurement Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical&Environmental Consultants Date Drilled:9J25IO2 Logged By: DCW PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING 8-25 PAGE 1 OF 3 Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 33 feet Soii Description Penetration Resistance t aa a 3 ; c Q F z Standard Blows perfoot Other Z 0 10 20 30 40 inc es asp a over in es oose,mois, ar brown,silry,graveliy SAND(Fiq) r- f _' f_ _ _ _ _ i __ i_ _ _ , _ Loose,mast,black,COALTAILINGS(Fill) S-1 6 5 Very loose,moist,black,COAL TAILINGS(Fill)5-z 3 i- - - ; - . - -;-- --; , -- -- ATD g_g 5 Soft,wet,dark brown,ORGANIC SILT with sorne sand 1 O interbedded with gray,SAND with some s lt and gravel G S-4 7 GSA Loose,saturated,gray SAND with some gravel and _ Vacesilt i . i r ' ' r' 'r ' ' r''r'' r''t' 'i 15 Loose,wet,gray,silty SAND with some organics,Vace S-5 M'' 8 2U0 gravel interbedded with sandy SILT i - ;- - ; ' "; '" ; ''; "';' '; '-'- - 20 Grades to medium dense S-6 11 GSA i . , --' - - r-- , -- - - ,--, -- r - 25 Explanation o o zo so ao so Monitoring Well Key f ` I 2-inch O.D.spiit spoon sample Clean Sand Moistu e Content 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample CUttiflg5 Plastic Limit Natural Liquid Limit No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling AT°or date of ineasurement 8 Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,tnc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical 8 Environmental Consultants Date Drilled:9/24l02 Logged By CRT PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-25 PAGE 2 OF 3 Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 33 feet Soil Description m Penetration Resistance r aa aa :; 0 c Q N N Z SWndard Blows per foot Other > m 0 10 20 30 40 Z Medium dense to dense,wet,gray,gravelly SAND to S_ sandy GRAVEL with some silt,Vace organics c_- f __ i _T __T__T_ __ __ T` r i 30 s-s 2a z 35 s-s 20 1- - - L - - -1 - -i-- 1- --- j i . i i i . i i i i i r ' ' r _' r ' ' r " _r_ ' t' 'r'' '''r 40 Loose to medium dense,wet,gray,silty SAND with 5-10 11 some gravel with interbedded PEAT(3') k r - - --r -- r --r- - --- ---- -- 6 i , i i . i 45 Medium dense to dense,wet,gray,gravelly SAND with S-11 37 I somesiltandtraceorganics 1 '' L" 1''' '' Medium dense,wet,gray,silty SAND with some gravel and peaty organics(1^,i -- f '- f ' ' I- 'T'T''T' 'T''?' ' 50 Explanation o io zo so ao so Monito ing Well Key I2-inch O.D.split spoon sample 0 Clean Sand MOiSture Content 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings plastic Limit Natural uquw um c No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of ineasurement B Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical8 Environmental Consultants Date Drilled:9124/02 Logged By:CRT PROJECT:Renton Retaii JOB NO. J-1470 BORING 8-25 PAGE 3 OF 3 Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 33 feet Soil Description Penetration Resistance y c ` 0 caaa °: Q N Z Standard Blaws per foot Other 0 10 20 30 40 Z Medium dense,wet,gray,silty SAND with some grevel 12 zo and peaty organics(t") t 1- -1 -- i i i i . I f _T _ i __ 1 _ T _ T T t t__ _ i__a__1__ __ . I nmm i i i i 55 Medium dense,wet,gray,silty,fine SAND S-13 17 g;z 60 Loose,wet,gray,silty SAND interbedded with sandy _— S-14 9 SILT i--1- -'-- i i i i T_ _ i __1__ L_' 1 _ _ __ L_l__ 1__ __ _' 65 Medium dense,saturated,gray,silty SAND interbedded __^ 5-15 20 withsandySlLT Very dense,damp,light gray,silty SANDSTONE 70 oar Boring completed at 70 feet on 9l24/02 S-16 Groundwater seepage observed at 6.5 feet at time of driliing 1 ' - ' t ' '- -, -- f_t _ _ _ _ __T_ T_ _ T ' __ 75 Explanation o 0 2o ao ao so Monitoring Wetl Key I F : I 2-inch O.D.split spoon sample Moisture Content Clean Sand 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sampie Cuttings Plastie Limit Natural Uquid L(mit No Recovery Bent nite Grout Groundwater levei at time of drilling f.... ATD or date of ineasurement 8 Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc.BOR NG LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical& Environmental Consultants Date Drilied: 9/2M02 Lagged By: CRT PROJECT:Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-26 PAGE 1 OF Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 32 feet Soil Description Penetration Resistance i = ` fl' a a- w m 0 16 Standard Bbws per foot Other j y G tn V Z C7 Z H 0 10 20 30 40 50 urface grave over medium dense,moist,brown,silry, sandy GRAVEL(RII) T _ ' ' t_T_ _ T__ i_ ' Loose,moist,black,silty SAND,COAL TAILINGS, some organic wood dabris(Fill) S 11 5 Very loose,moist,block,silty SAND with COAL S-2 3 TAILINGS wootl debris and organics(F11) Very soft,wet,black,organic SILT with some wood — - MC=1az% iragments 3 ATD . - I - - --' -- ' -- ' - - , -- - -- 1 ATT Very soft,wet to saturated,greenish ray,sandy SILT S-4 1 MC with some day interbedded with silty SAND t-- - , w i _- _ _ t T _T_ T_ i __ i r i i i L L 1 1 1 1 1 15 Ve soft,wet,bro ra ,sil SAND interbedded with M tt676 Y 9 Y tY S-5 2 200W siItySANDa dPEAT(4") 20 Medium dense,wet,gray,sitry SAND with some brow organics and Vace gravel S-6 16 Boring completed at 21.5 feet on 9/26/02 Groundwater seepage observed at B feet at time of driiling 1 - -; -- --- ; - , -'-- T _ __ T__7 _ __ 25 Explanation o o 2o so ao so I Monitoring Well Key 2-inch O.D.split spoon sample Moisture Content Clean Sand 3-inch!.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings Plastic Limit Naturel Liquid Limft No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of ineasurement B Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnicai&Environmental Consultants Date Drilled: 9126102 Logged By: CRT PROJECT:Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-27 PAGE 1 OF Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 31 feet Soil Description Penetration Resistance H m °' m = ctaaa :: Q.3 0 1° Standard Blows per foot Other y o f 2 C7 Z 1 0 10 20 30 40 Medium dense gradi g to very loose,moist grading to wet(below 4.5 feet),brown,gray,and black,grevelly, s'silty SAND(Fill) k r - - r - - r - - *- - - -' -t-- a'' ' "'a'"1'' S-1 16 MC r - - ; - - r - - r - -r -- i --,-- ; ,-- 5 ATD - -` -- ` -- ` - - `--` - - '--'- - ' -- '-- S-z r- - r - - r•- ; - , - 3 MC Soft to very soft,wet,gray,SILT with interbeds of saturated,greenish-gray,fine to medium SAND, irtegular horizons of fibrous wganics up to 0.25 inches hick S_3 3 10 s-a Boringcompletedat11.5feeton9/25/02. 1-- '- -1-- - i_ Groundwater encountered at approximately 4.5 feet at timeofdriilin9 15 20 i ; - T_ _ i_ _ _ ' __l'_ GJ Expianation o 0 20 3 ao so Monitoring Well Key I2-inch O.D.split spoon sample Clean Sand Moisture Content 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings plastie Umit Natural uquia um c No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of driiling ATD or date of ineasurement E Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BORlNG LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical& Environmental Consuftants Date Drilled:9/25l02 Logged By:DCW PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-28 PAGE 1 OF Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 32.5 feet Soil Description m 6 Penetration Resistance y L aa a y 0 3 c a Standard Blows per foot Other j y C t/ t/ Z C7 3 Z H 0 10 20 30 40 Loose to medium dense,damp,brown,gravelly SAND Fillj r'' ' ' r'" r''T"'r'_i'_t"' Medium stiff to soft,moist to wet,dark brown,sandy SILT with some fine organics(FI1) S-t 1 5 MC 5 S'2 1 -- ;- !- -; -r -- 1 -- - ' _ 3 MC qTp Very soft.wet.9raY.SILT with some wood fiber g g 1 MC horizons 10 2 Boringcompletedat11.5feeton9l25/02. i --1 - - = - - Groundwater encountered at approximately 7.5 feet at v time of drilling. r '' r' ' r ' " r ''T ''T' " . t ' 15 20 L - '- - '- i -- i f T ' T_'T_T_ 1 1 __ 25 Explanation o o Zo so ao so Monitoring Well Key I2-inch O.D.split spoon sample Clean Sand MolstU e Content 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings Plastic Limit Natural Llqutd Llmlt No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATo or date of ineasurement B Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical 8 Environmental Consultants Date Drilled:9/25102 Logged By: DCW PROJECT:Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-29 PAGE 1 OF Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 33 feet Soil Description Penetration Resistance yma orG1 0 3 =Q m O. = 41 m a i° Standard Btows per foot Other y o V7 fn Z (7 3 Z H 0 10 20 30 40 3.5±inches ASPHALT above 4±of inedium dense, damp,brown,gravelly SAND above very loose,moist, _____________ i _ _ _ _ __ _: __ black,silty SAND(coal fragments)with scattered horizons of brown,gravelly SAND(FiA) r -- ------- - - - - s-' 3 MC 5 s-z L - -; - ` -. -;- -.- _ , _ _ Mc A - - - -- - - - - -- - • - ; - -• -- -- Very loose,saturated,gray,fine SAND with some sitty zones and scattered fibrous organics r-- --; -'; '' , ' -- - -; - S'3 1 MC 10 Bonngcompletedat11.5feeton9/25/02. Groundwater e countered at approximately 7.0 feet at time of drilling. r- - r--r - -r-- r' -T-'1 ' 5 i i 2 i , , , - -- r --*--r - -r-- r -1- -t -- 25 Explanation o o zo so ao 50 Monitoring Well Key I2-inch O.D.split spoon sample Clean Sand Moisture Content 3-inch t.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings Plasdc Llmit Natural Liquid Um(t No Recovery Bentonite . Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of ineasurement B Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical 8 Environmental Consultants Date Drilled:9/25102 Logged By: DCW PROJECT: Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-30 PAGE 1 OF Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 34 feet Soil Description D Penetration Resistance y r m d - m a r a a °' °; Qy y Z Siandard Blows perfoot Other Z 0 10 20 30 40 Medium dense,damp,brown,gravelly SAND(Fill) i r-- r''r- -r- -r -- 't'-T'- -' Very loose,mast grading to saturated,black,red,and beige,silty SAND and sandy SILT(coal fragments-filq S-1 M 5856 3 MC 5 S-2 A. ; -- ;- - - - ;- - i -- ; -- - - ,MF-59x 2 MC r-- ; -- --r -;- ;- ;-- g'3 MC=58% 1 MC Very stiff,wet,gray,SILT with trace fine SAND and fibrous organics S-4 0 Boringcompletedat11.5feeton9/25/02. 1--, -- , Groundwater encountered at approximately 5.5 feet at time of drilling. r'-r--r--r"r- , -T-- r--1- 1 - 1 -- a '' -' '- '- -- 15 20 1 - -L -- i- -1- - r __ f __ ' T _ _T__T''T'_ _ ' 2g Explanation o o Zo so ao so I Monitoring Well Key 2-inch O.D.split spoon sample Clean Sand Moisture Content 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings Plastie Lfmft Naturel Uquld Limit No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling aro or date of ineasurement B Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnical 8 Environmental Consultants Date Drilled:9/25IO2 Logged By:DCW PROJECT:Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-31 PAGE 1 OF 1 Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 32 feet Soii Description Penetration Reslstance c y a a °. :' o N Z Standard Bbws per foot Other j FZ 0 10 20 30 40 Medium dense grading to very loose,damp to moist, brown and dark gray,silty SAND with trace gravel(Fill) —_-----_ r - -- - -, -- - -r- -,--.--, - - r- S i -- 3 MC 5 ---------------------------------------------- Verysoft.wet,darkbrownandgray,SlLTwithsome -- --- fine sand and organic material interbeds S-2 i ; ; ; i ; ; 1 0 MC r-- ATD Loose to very loose,saturated,grey,fine SANO with some fine and fibrous organics S-3 5 MC 10 4 Boring completed at 11.5 feet on 8/25/02. L _ _L__1__1. _ l __ Groundwater encountered at approximately 7.5 feet at time of drilling. w- - r ''r'' r "'r ' 'r' 'r' , _' T' '' ' 15 20 1- -1 --i- -1 - - T ' 'T_ _ T _ _T_' 1 25 Explanation o o zo so ao so Monitoring Well Key I2-inch O.D.split spoon sample Clean Sand Moisture Content 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings plastic limit Nawr Uquid Ltmit No Recovery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD or date of ineasurement B Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,Inc.BORING LOG Figure A-1 Geotechnlcal&Environmental Consultants Date Drtlled:9/25l02 Logged By:DCW PROJECT:Renton Retail JOB NO. J-1470 BORING B-32 PAGE 1 OF Location: Renton,WA Approximate Elevation: 33 feet Soil Description Penetration Resistance x mm d °' ` Y a °. Q y y Z Standard Blaws perfoot Other FZ 0 10 20 30 40 Medium dense,damp,brown,silty,gravelly SAND(FII) T _ _'._i' _T__T. 'i'_ " Medium stiff,moist to wet,black and brown,silty SAND _ _ coal fragments-fill) S , t- - - - - - - -: 5 200 1 - -; - - ; - - r- -r - - , -,--,-- 5 ATD Very loose,wet,black,SAND with some fine roots and g_2 MC=5i9 Z MC wood fibers(coal fragments-fill) r - -r--r - - r ; - ; - - ; --;- ; - Very loose,saturated,gray-brown,fine SAND S'3 4 MC 10 s-a 3 Boring completed at 11.5 feet on 9/25l02. L_' L_ '1' 1' "1 '_ f'''Groundwater encountered at approximately 4.5 feet at Gme of drilling. w- r"" r'" r "r "r'_r_' '1"7 ' 2 L , f ' ' T ' _T_ _ _T'-T__l __ 25 Explanation o io zo ao ao so Monitoring Well Key I2-inch O.D.split spoon sample Clean Sand MoiStu e Content 3-inch I.D Shelby tube sample Cuttings Plastie LimR Na uroi Liquid Limit No Recavery Bentonite Grout Groundwater level at time of drilling aro or date of ineasurement B Screened Casing Zipper Zeman Associates,inc.BORING LOG Figure A-'1 Geotechnical&Environmental Consultants Date Drilled:9125/02 Logged By:CRT APPENDIX C Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use January 26, 2023 | Page C-1 File No. 22042-005-00 APPENDIX C REPORT LIMITATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR USE 1 This appendix provides information to help you manage your risks with respect to the use of this report. Geotechnical Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons and Projects This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Velmeir Acquisition Services, L.L.C. This report is not intended for use by others, and the information contained herein is not applicable to other sites. GeoEngineers structures our services to meet the specific needs of our clients. For example, a geotechnical or geologic study conducted for a civil engineer or architect may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer or architect that are involved in the same project. Because each geotechnical or geologic study is unique, each geotechnical engineering or geologic report is unique, prepared solely for the specific client and project site. Our report is prepared for the exclusive use of our Client. No other party may rely on the product of our services unless we agree in advance to such reliance in writing. This is to provide our firm with reasonable protection against open-ended liability claims by third parties with whom there would otherwise be no contractual limits to their actions. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with our Agreement with the Client and generally accepted geotechnical practices in this area at the time this report was prepared. This report should not be applied for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. A Geotechnical Engineering or Geologic Report Is Based on a Unique Set of Project-specific Factors This report has been prepared for the 901 South Grady Way project in Renton, Washington. GeoEngineers considered a number of unique, project-specific factors when establishing the scope of services for this project and report. Unless GeoEngineers specifically indicates otherwise, do not rely on this report if it was: ■ Not prepared for you, ■ Not prepared for your project, ■ Not prepared for the specific site explored, or ■ Completed before important project changes were made. For example, changes that can affect the applicability of this report include those that affect: ■ The function of the proposed structure; ■ Elevation, configuration, location, orientation or weight of the proposed structure; ■ Composition of the design team; or ■ Project ownership. 1 Developed based on material provided by ASFE, Professional Firms Practicing in the Geosciences; www.asfe.org. January 26, 2023 | Page C-2 File No. 22042-005-00 If important changes are made after the date of this report, GeoEngineers should be given the opportunity to review our interpretations and recommendations and provide written modifications or confirmation, as appropriate. Subsurface Conditions Can Change This geotechnical or geologic report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. The findings and conclusions of this report may be affected by the passage of time, by manmade events such as construction on or adjacent to the site, or by natural events such as floods, earthquakes, slope instability or groundwater fluctuations. Always contact GeoEngineers before applying a report to determine if it remains applicable. Most Geotechnical and Geologic Findings Are Professional Opinions Our interpretations of subsurface conditions are based on field observations from widely spaced sampling locations at the site. Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. GeoEngineers reviewed field and laboratory data and then applied our professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ, sometimes significantly, from those indicated in this report. Our report, conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. Geotechnical Engineering Report Recommendations Are Not Final Do not over-rely on the preliminary construction recommendations included in this report. These recommendations are not final, because they were developed principally from GeoEngineers’ professional judgment and opinion. GeoEngineers’ recommendations can be finalized only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. GeoEngineers cannot assume responsibility or liability for this report's recommendations if we do not perform construction observation. Sufficient monitoring, testing and consultation by GeoEngineers should be provided during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether or not earthwork activities are completed in accordance with our recommendations. Retaining GeoEngineers for construction observation for this project is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. A Geotechnical Engineering or Geologic Report Could Be Subject to Misinterpretation Misinterpretation of this report by other design team members can result in costly problems. You could lower that risk by having GeoEngineers confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain GeoEngineers to review pertinent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering or geologic report. Reduce that risk by having GeoEngineers participate in pre-bid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observation. January 26, 2023 | Page C-3 File No. 22042-005-00 Do Not Redraw the Exploration Logs Geotechnical engineers and geologists prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering or geologic report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give contractors the complete geotechnical engineering or geologic report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with GeoEngineers and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A pre-bid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contractors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might an owner be in a position to give contractors the best information available, while requiring them to at least share the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Further, a contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in your project budget and schedule. Contractors Are Responsible for Site Safety on Their Own Construction Projects Our geotechnical recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor’s procedures, methods, schedule or management of the work site. The contractor is solely responsible for job site safety and for managing construction operations to minimize risks to on-site personnel and to adjacent properties. Read These Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals and contractors may not recognize that the geoscience practices (geotechnical engineering or geology) are far less exact than other engineering and natural science disciplines. This lack of understanding can create unrealistic expectations that could lead to disappointments, claims and disputes. GeoEngineers includes these explanatory “limitations” provisions in our reports to help reduce such risks. Please confer with GeoEngineers if you are unclear how these “Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use” apply to your project or site. Geotechnical, Geologic and Environmental Reports Should Not Be Interchanged The equipment, techniques and personnel used to perform an environmental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical or geologic study and vice versa. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering or geologic report does not usually relate any environmental findings, conclusions or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Similarly, environmental reports are not used to address geotechnical or geologic concerns regarding a specific project. January 26, 2023 | Page C-4 File No. 22042-005-00 Biological Pollutants GeoEngineers’ Scope of Work specifically excludes the investigation, detection, prevention or assessment of the presence of Biological Pollutants. Accordingly, this report does not include any interpretations, recommendations, findings, or conclusions regarding the detecting, assessing, preventing or abating of Biological Pollutants and no conclusions or inferences should be drawn regarding Biological Pollutants, as they may relate to this project. The term “Biological Pollutants” includes, but is not limited to, molds, fungi, spores, bacteria, and viruses, and/or any of their byproducts. If Client desires these specialized services, they should be obtained from a consultant who offers services in this specialized field. Figure 6.3 Wetland Report 750 Sixth Street South | Kirkland, WA 98033 P 425.822.5242 | f 425.827.8136 | watershedco.com January 03, 2022 Ashley Nulick Lars Andersen & Associates, Inc. Via email: ANulick@larsandersen.com Phone: (559)978-0845 Re: 901 South Grady Way - Wetland and Stream Delineation Report The Watershed Company Reference Number: 211115 Dear Ashley, On December 06, 2021, Sage Presster and Peter Heltzel, visited the property located at 901 South Grady Way (parcels #2023059007, 9154600010, and 1723059183) in the City of Renton to delineate and flag the encumbering boundaries of on-site jurisdictional wetlands and streams. This letter summarizes the findings of the study and details applicable federal, state, and local regulations. The following documents are enclosed: • Delineation Sketch • Wetland Determination Data Forms • Wetland Rating Form and Figures Findings Summary One depressional wetland (Wetland A) is located in the southern portion of the subject property and along Rolling Hills Creek. Wetland A is a Category III wetland with a habitat score five points, requiring a standard buffer of 100 feet in accordance with Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4-3-050G.2. Rolling Hills Creek is located along the fence immediately east of the parking lot. It is a Type-F stream, which requires a standard buffer of 115 feet in accordance with RMC 4-3-050G.2. Additionally, a 15-foot wide structure setback is required beyond the wetland and stream buffers per RMC 4-3-050G.2. A summary of the delineated critical areas and their associated buffers is found below in Table 1. RECEIVED 01/31/2022 JDing PLANNING DIVISION Wetland and Stream Delineation Report Lars Andersen & Associates, Inc. January 03, 2022 Page 2 Table 1. Summary of on-site critical area buffer and building setbacks per RMC 4-3-050G.2. Feature Name Category/Type Habitat Score Standard Buffer Building Setback Wetland A III 5 100 feet 15 feet Rolling Hills Creek Type-F n/a 115 feet 15 feet Study Area The study area for this project is defined as the property located at 901 South Grady Way (parcels #2023059007, 9154600010, and 1723059183) in the City of Renton. Figure 1. Vicinity map of the study area (source: Google Maps). Project location Wetland and Stream Delineation Report Lars Andersen & Associates, Inc. January 03, 2022 Page 3 Methods Public‐domain information on the subject properties was reviewed for this delineation study. Resources and review findings are presented in Table 2 of the “Findings” section of this letter. The study area was evaluated for wetlands using methodology from the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Version 2.0 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2010). Presence or absence of wetlands was determined on the basis of an examination of vegetation, soils, and hydrology. Wetlands were classified using the Department of Ecology’s 2014 rating system (Hruby 2014). All observations were made from within the subject property/study area; adjoining private properties were not entered. The subject property and nearby public property was evaluated for streams based on the presence or absence of an ordinary high water mark (OHWM) as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 220‐660‐030, the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 90.58.030, and guidance documents including Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark for Shoreline Management Act Compliance in Washington State (Anderson 2016) and A Guide to Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) Delineation for Non-Perennial Streams in the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region of the United States (Mersel 2016). Assessment of fish use of streams and waterbodies was based on WAC 222-16-031, Interim Water Typing System. Specifically, morphological and topographic characteristics such as dimensions, gradient, and natural migration barriers were assessed per WAC criteria. Characterization of climatic conditions for precipitation in the Wetland Determination Data Forms were determined using the WETS table methodology (USDA, NRCS 2015). The “Seattle Tacoma Intl AP” station from 1991‐2020 was used as a source for precipitation data (http://agacis.rcc‐acis.org/). The WETS table methodology uses climate data from the three months prior to the site visit month to determine if normal conditions are present in the study area region. Findings The study area is within the Black River drainage basin of the Cedar-Sammamish River watershed (WRIA 8); Sections 19 and 20 of Township 23 North, Range 05 East of the Public Land Survey System. The study area is approximately 15.35 acres in size per the King County Assessor as is currently developed with a warehouse store and parking lot previously occupied Wetland and Stream Delineation Report Lars Andersen & Associates, Inc. January 03, 2022 Page 4 by a Sam’s Club retail store (Figure 2). Several stormwater features (Figure 3) with herbaceous wetland vegetation dominated by soft rush (Juncus effusus), small-flowered bulrush (Scirpus microcarpus), and creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens) are located near the southwest entrance to the study area. The stormwater features appear to capture runoff from the parking lots and is piped south out of the study area into Wetland A and Stream A per City of Renton Maps (Figure 4). Areas east of the pavement are densely vegetated with Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) with a tall retaining wall supporting an off-ramp for I-405 (Figure 5). Stream A is located at the base of the slope in a 4-foot wide concrete channel, flowing southwest toward Wetland A and Talbot Rd S. A chain-link fence separates the stream and wetland from the parking lot. The surrounding land use is categorized by high intensity commercial and urban. Public-domain information on the subject properties was reviewed for this study and include the following, as summarized in Table 2. Table 2. Summary of online mapping and inventory resources. Resource Summary USDA NRCS: Web Soil Survey Urban land mapped throughout the study area. USFWS: NWI Wetland Mapper Freshwater emergent wetland (PEM1C) is mapped immediately south of the study area. Riverine habitat (R4SBC) is mapped immediately southeast of the study area. Riverine habitat (R5UBH) is mapped immediately east of the study area. WDFW: PHS on the Web Freshwater emergent wetland (PEM1C) is mapped immediately south of the study area. WDFW: SalmonScape An intermittent and ephemeral stream is mapped immediately east of the study area. Both stream segments do not have documented SalmonScape species present. DNR Mapping Tool A Type F stream is mapped immediately east of the study area. A Type N stream is mapped east of the Sam’s Club warehouse. King County iMap No wetlands or streams mapped in the study area. Coal mine hazard mapped in the eastern portion of the study area. City of Renton Maps Rolling Hills Creek, a Type-Np stream, is mapped immediately east of the parking lot of the study area. Puget wetland (Ref #: W-31) mapped immediately south of the study area. WETS Climatic Condition Wetter than normal. Wetland and Stream Delineation Report Lars Andersen & Associates, Inc. January 03, 2022 Page 5 Figure 2. Warehouse and large parking lot throughout majority of study area. Figure 3. Stormwater feature located in southwestern portion of study area. Wetland and Stream Delineation Report Lars Andersen & Associates, Inc. January 03, 2022 Page 6 Figure 4. COR Map illustrating stormwater features and the concrete stream channel. Figure 5. Dense Himalayan blackberry at the base of I-405. Wetland and Stream Delineation Report Lars Andersen & Associates, Inc. January 03, 2022 Page 7 W etland A One wetland (Wetland A) was delineated in the study area and is summarized below in Table 3. Table 3. Wetland A assessment summary. WETLAND A – Assessment Summary Location: Located along the southern boundary of the study area. WRIA / Sub-basin: Cedar-Sammamish River Watershed (WRIA 8) / Black River drainage basin 2014 Western WA Ecology Rating: Category III Standard Buffer Width: 100 ft standard buffer and 15 ft setback Wetland Size: Approx. 1.1 acres Cowardin Classification(s): Palustrine Emergent, Palustrine Forested HGM Classification(s): Depression, Riverine Wetland Data Sheet(s): DP-1 Upland Data Sheet (s): DP-2 Flag Color: Pink- and black-striped Flag Numbers: A-1 to A-17 Vegetation Tree stratum: Populus balsamifera, Salix lucida, Alnus rubra Shrub stratum: Salix sitchensis, Cornus sericea, Rubus armeniacus Herb stratum: Phalaris arundinacea, Typha latifolia, Athyrium filix-femina, Ranunculus repens Soils Soil survey: Urban land Field data: Depleted Matrix (F3), Sandy Redox (S5) Hydrology Source: Stream A, High Water Table Field data: Saturation (A3), Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3), Geomorphic Position (D2), FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Wetland Functions Improving Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Site Potential H M L H M L H M L Landscape Potential H M L H M L H M L Value H M L H M L H M L TOTAL Score Based on Ratings 7 7 5 19 Wetland and Stream Delineation Report Lars Andersen & Associates, Inc. January 03, 2022 Page 8 Rolling Hills Creek Rolling Hills Creek is a stream in the Green River Basin (HUC 171100130305). Rolling Hills Creek flows into the study area via a 4-foot round concrete pipe underneath I-405 (Figure 6), originating to the southeast of the study area. The delineated stream segment is 4 feet wide with a relatively flat gradient of approximately 2%. The channel flows in a 4-foot wide concrete flume with a flat bottom and vertical sides (Figure 4 and 7). Downstream of the I-405 culvert, the flume has accumulated streambed sediments comprised of cobble, gravel, and unconsolidated silt (Figure 8). Several segments of the stream contain overhanging vegetation of red alder, Pacific willow, Sitka willow, Himalayan blackberry, and red-osier dogwood. Rolling Hills Creek flows along the encumbering boundary of Wetland A and flows off-site via a “60-inch corrugated metal pipe” per City of Renton Maps (Figure 4). Figure 6. Rolling Hills Creek flows into study area via a 4 foot round concrete pipe. Wetland and Stream Delineation Report Lars Andersen & Associates, Inc. January 03, 2022 Page 9 Figure 7. Rolling Hills Creek in the concrete flume. Figure 8. Natural streambed composition atop the flume bottom, downstream near Wetland A. Wetland and Stream Delineation Report Lars Andersen & Associates, Inc. January 03, 2022 Page 10 Non -wetlands Areas outside of observed wetlands do not meet criteria for wetland hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, or wetland hydrology. Non-wetland areas include the warehouse, parking lot, and vegetated slopes in the northeastern portion of the study area. Non-wetland areas dominant vegetation include black cottonwood, Douglas-fir, big-leaf maple, Pacific wax myrtle, snowberry, Himalayan blackberry, tall Oregon grape, scotch broom, yarrow, bull thistle, common catsear, and ornamental shrubs. Local Regulation s Wetlands Wetlands in the City of Renton are regulated under Chapter 4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations of the RMC. Wetlands in Renton are classified using the 2014 Update to the Western Washington Wetland Rating System (Publication #14-06-029) (Rating System). According to the RMC, wetlands are rated as one of four categories based on the Rating System, and wetland buffers are determined based upon a combination of the wetland category and habitat score. Wetland A is a Category III wetland with a habitat score of five points and therefore requires a standard buffer of 100 feet per RMC 4-3-050G.2. Per RMC 4-3-050G.2.6, “areas that are functionally and effectively disconnected from the wetland by a permanent road or other substantially developed surface or sufficient width and with use characteristics such that buffer functions are not provided shall not be counted toward the minimum buffer unless these areas can feasibly be removed, relocated or restored to provide better functions.” The buffer of Wetland A consist of a substantially developed surface, the large parking lot, which buffer functions are not provided. Therefore, the minimum 100 foot standard buffer of Wetland A does not apply, and it would extend to the edge of the existing parking lot. Streams Streams in the City of Renton are regulated under Chapter 4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations of RMC. Stream buffer widths are determined based on stream class (Type F, Np, and Ns). Although City of Renton maps Rollings Hills Creek as a Type Np stream, we conclude this mapping designation is an error, as described below, and the correct classification is Type F. According to WAC 222-16-031, potential fish use of streams in Western Washington is inferred based on physical characteristics where the bankfull channel width is two feet or greater and slopes are less than or equal to 16% for basins less than or equal to 50 acres in size, or less than or equal to than 20% for basins greater than 50 acres. Per RMC 4-3-050G.7.a.ii, Type F Streams Wetland and Stream Delineation Report Lars Andersen & Associates, Inc. January 03, 2022 Page 11 are “Waters that are known to be used by fish or meet the physical criteria to be potentially used by fish and that have perennial (year-round) or seasonal flows.” Where these physical characteristics lead to a presumption of fish use, absence of actual fish use can sometimes be established by carrying out a recognized State of Washington protocol (Washington State Forest Practices Board Manual, Section 13 Guidelines for Determining Fish Use for the Purpose of Typing Water under WAC 222-16-030, and the Washington Department of Natural Resource Forest Practices Board Emergency Rules, adopted 11/14/96, updated 07/01/01, 02/2002, et. Seq.). This “Section 13 protocol” typically consists of conducting an electrofishing survey according to establish methodologies along with review and concurrence of study methods and timing by WDFW and the Tribes. However, according to the protocol, “determinations of fish absence using this protocol generally can be applied only to streams where human-made fish blockages, such as impassable culverts, do not exist below the proposed survey reach.” And, “Above human-made fish blockages, physical criteria are used to determine the presumption of fish use unless otherwise approved by the DNR in consultation with the WDFW, Washington Department of Ecology (DOE), and affected tribes.” In short, within the project area, the Section 13 protocol would not be applicable due to the culvert located downstream at Talbot Road South. By default, stream typing must therefore be based on the physical criteria of stream gradient, stream width, and basin size, as described above. The rationale, generally, is that artificial barriers may eventually be corrected and so potential functional habitat should be protected under the same regulations as though it were occupied in anticipation of access being restored. Type F streams, or potentially fish-bearing waters, require a standard buffer of 115 feet per RMC 4-3-050G.2. Although the wetland buffer extends to the parking lot per RMC 4-3-050G.2.6, there are not similar exemptions for stream buffers in the City of Renton. Building Setbacks The City of Renton requires a 15-foot building setback from the edges of all wetland buffers. Building setbacks may contain landscaping, uncovered decks, building overhangs (if no more than 18 inches into the setback), and impervious ground surfaces (such as driveways and patios) provided that such improvements may be subject to water quality regulations and maximum impervious surface limitations. Wetland and Stream Delineation Report Lars Andersen & Associates, Inc. January 03, 2022 Page 12 Stat e and Federal Regulations Federal Agencies Most wetlands and streams are regulated by the Corps under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Any proposed filling, crossing, or other direct impacts to Waters of the U.S., including wetlands (except isolated wetlands), would require notification and permits from the Corps. Wetlands A is not isolated due to the hydrological connection to Rolling Hills Creek. Unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional wetlands are typically required to be compensated through implementation of an approved mitigation plan. If activities requiring a Corps permits are proposed, a Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application (JARPA) could be submitted to obtain authorization. Federally permitted actions that could affect endangered species may also require a biological assessment study and consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service. Compliance with the Endangered Species Act must be demonstrated for activities within jurisdictional wetlands and the 100‐year floodplain. Application for Corps permits may also require an individual 401 Water Quality Certification and Coastal Zone Management Consistency determination from Ecology and a cultural resource study in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) Similar to the Corps, Ecology, under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, is charged with reviewing, conditioning, and approving or denying certain federally permitted actions that result in discharges to state waters. However, Ecology review under the Clean Water Act would only become necessary if a Section 404 permit from the Corps was issued. However, Ecology also regulates wetlands, including isolated wetlands, under the Washington Pollution Prevention and Control Act, but only if direct wetland impacts are proposed. Therefore, if filling activities are avoided, authorization from Ecology would not be needed. If filling is proposed, a JARPA may also be submitted to Ecology in order to obtain a Section 401 Water Quality Certification and Coastal Zone Management Consistency Determination. Ecology permits are either issued concurrently with the Corps permit or within 90 days following the Corps permit. In general, neither the Corps nor Ecology regulates wetland and stream buffers, unless direct impacts are proposed. When direct impacts are proposed, mitigated wetlands and streams may be required to employ buffers based on Corps and Ecology joint regulatory guidance. Wetland and Stream Delineation Report Lars Andersen & Associates, Inc. January 03, 2022 Page 13 Washington De partment of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Chapter 77.55 of the RCW (the Hydraulic Code) gives WDFW the authority to review, condition, and approve or deny “any construction activity that will use, divert, obstruct, or change the bed or flow of state waters.” This provision includes any in‐water work, the crossing or bridging of any state waters (including repair, replacement or lengthening of culverts) and can sometimes include stormwater discharge to state waters. If a project meets regulatory requirements, WDFW will issue a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA). Through issuance of an HPA, WDFW can also restrict activities to a particular timeframe. Work is typically restricted to late summer and early fall. However, WDFW has in the past allowed crossings that don’t involve in‐stream work to occur at any time during the year. Disclaimer The information contained in this letter is based on the application of technical guidelines currently accepted as the best available science and in conjunction with the manuals and criteria referenced above. All discussions, conclusions and recommendations reflect the best professional judgment of the author(s) and are based upon information available at the time the study was conducted. All work was completed within the constraints of budget, scope, and timing. The findings of this report are subject to verification and agreement by the appropriate local, state and federal regulatory authorities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Please call if you have any questions or if we can provide you with any additional information. Sincerely, Sage Presster Ecologist Enclosures Wetland and Stream Delineation Report Lars Andersen & Associates, Inc. January 03, 2022 Page 14 References Anderson, P.S. et al. 2016. Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark for Shoreline Management Act Compliance in Washington State. (Publication #16-06-029). Olympia, WA: Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, Washington Department of Ecology. Department of Ecology (Ecology). 2018. July 2018 Modifications for Habitat Score Ranges. Modified from Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates, Western Washington Version. (Publication #16-06-001). Accessed 8/16/18: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/parts/1606001part1.pdf. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. “Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,” Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Hruby, T. 2014. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington: 2014 Update. (Publication #14-06-029). Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Ecology. Lichvar, R.W. and S. M. McColley. 2008. A Guide to Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) Delineation for Non-Perennial Streams in the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region of the United States. ERDC/CRREL TR-14-13. Hanover, NH: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0). ed. J. S. Wakely, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-3. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2015. National Engineering Handbook, Part 650 Engineering Field Handbook, Chapter 19 Hydrology Tools for Wetland Identification and Analysis. ed. R. A. Weber. 210-VI-NEH, Amend. 75. Washington, DC. Page 1 of 1 Wetland and Stream Delineation Sketch – 901 South Grady Way Site Address: 901 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057 Prepared for: Ashley Nulick; Lars Andersen & Associates, Inc. Parcel Number: 2023059007, 9154600010, and 1723059183 TWC Ref. No.: 211115 Site Visit Date: December 06, 2021 Note: Field sketch only. Features depicted are approximate and not to scale. Wetland boundaries are marked with pink- and black-striped flags. Stream boundaries are marked with blue- and white-striped flags. Data points are marked with yellow- and black-striped flags. All observations were made from within the study area; adjoining private properties were not entered. DP-2 LEGEND Wetland Boundary Delineated Wetland Boundary Non-Delineated Wetland Boundary Delineated Stream OHWM Non-Delineated Stream OHWM Study Area Data Point (DP) Culvert DP-1 Wetland A Flags A-1 to A-17 Stream A Flags WMA-1R to WMA-44R US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 DP - 1 Project/Site: 901 South Grady Way City/County: City of Renton Sampling date: 12-06-2021 Applicant/Owner: Lars Andersen & Associates, Inc. State: WA Sampling Point: DP-1 Investigator(s): S. Presster, P. Heltzel Section, Township, Range: S20, T23N, R5E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Terrace/Streambank Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): <2% Subregion (LRR): A Lat: - Long: - Datum: - Soil Map Unit Name: Urban Land NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? ☐ Yes ☒ No (If no, explain in remarks.) Are Vegetation ☐, Soil ☐, or Hydrology ☐ significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present on the site? ☒ Yes ☐ No Are Vegetation ☐, Soil ☐, or Hydrology ☐ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes ☒ No ☐ Hydric Soils Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Remarks: Wetter than normal per WETS methodology. Wetland A in-pit. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5-m diameter) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A) 1. 2. Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: 3 (B) 3. 4. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B) 0 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3-m diameter) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Rubus armeniacus 40 Y FAC Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL species x 1 = 3. FACW species x 2 = 4. FAC species x 3 = 5. FACU species x 4 = 40 = Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1-m diameter) Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. Typha latifolia 40 Y OBL Prevalence Index = B/A = 2. Phalaris arundinacea 60 Y FACW 3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. ☐ 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. ☒ 2 – Dominance Test is > 50% 6. ☐ 3 – Prevalence Index is ≤ 3.01 7. ☐ 4 – Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. 9. ☐ 5 – Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 10. ☐ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 11. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 100 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3-m diameter) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ 1. 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: 0 Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-1 HYDROLOGY Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-4 10YR 2/2 100 - - - - Silt loam - 4-11 10YR 4/2 80 7.5YR 4/6 20 C M, PL Sandy loam - 11-14 10YR 2/2 95 7.5YR 4/4 5 C M, PL Silt loam - 14-16 10YR 4/3 80 7.5YR 4/6 20 C M, PL Sandy loam - 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Loc: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: ☐ Histosol (A1) ☒ Sandy Redox (S5) ☐ 2cm Muck (A10) ☐ Histic Epipedon (A2) ☐ Stripped Matrix (S6) ☐ Red Parent Material (TF2) ☐ Black Histic (A3) ☐ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ☐ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ☐ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ☐ Other (Explain in Remarks) ☐ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ☒ Depleted Matrix (F3) ☐ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ☐ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. ☐ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ☐ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ☐ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ☐ Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric soil present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ☐ Surface water (A1) ☐ Water-Stained Leaves (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) (B9) ☐ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) ☐ High Water Table (A2) ☒ Saturation (A3) ☐ Salt Crust (B11) ☐ Drainage Patterns (B10) ☐ Water Marks (B1) ☐ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ☐ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) ☐ Sediment Deposits (B2) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ☐ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ☐ Drift Deposits (B3) ☒ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ☒ Geomorphic Position (D2) ☐ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ☐ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ☐ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ☐ Iron Deposits (B5) ☐ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ☒ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ☐ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ☐ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ☐ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ☐ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ☐ Other (explain in remarks) ☐ Frost-Heave Hummocks ☐ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Surface Water Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): - Water Table Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): - Saturation Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Depth (in): 10” (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 DP - 2 Project/Site: 901 South Grady Way City/County: City of Renton Sampling date: 12-06-2021 Applicant/Owner: Lars Andersen & Associates, Inc. State: WA Sampling Point: DP-2 Investigator(s): S. Presster, P. Heltzel Section, Township, Range: S20, T23N, R5E Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc): Terrace Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): <5% Subregion (LRR): A Lat: - Long: - Datum: - Soil Map Unit Name: Urban Land NWI classification: None Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? ☐ Yes ☒ No (If no, explain in remarks.) Are Vegetation ☐, Soil ☐, or Hydrology ☐ significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present on the site? ☒ Yes ☐ No Are Vegetation ☐, Soil ☐, or Hydrology ☐ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes ☐ No ☒ Hydric Soils Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Remarks: Wetter than normal per WETS methodology. Wetland A out-pit. VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Tree Stratum (Plot size: 5-m diameter) Absolute % Cover Dominant Species? Indicator Status Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 4 (A) 1. 2. Total Number of Dominant Species Across all Strata: 4 (B) 3. 4. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% (A/B) 0 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 3-m diameter) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Rubus armeniacus 40 Y FAC Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 2. OBL species x 1 = 3. FACW species x 2 = 4. FAC species x 3 = 5. FACU species x 4 = 40 = Total Cover UPL species x 5 = Herb Stratum (Plot size: 1-m diameter) Column Totals: (A) (B) 1. Phalaris arundinacea 20 Y FACW Prevalence Index = B/A = 2. Ranunculus repens 40 Y FAC 3. Poa sp. 40 Y FAC* Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. ☐ 1 – Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. ☒ 2 – Dominance Test is > 50% 6. ☐ 3 – Prevalence Index is ≤ 3.01 7. ☐ 4 – Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. 9. ☐ 5 – Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 10. ☐ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 11. 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. 100 = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 3-m diameter) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ☒ No ☐ 1. 2. 0 = Total Cover % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: 0 Remarks: *Presumed FAC. WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: DP-2 HYDROLOGY Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-6 10YR 2/2 100 - - - - Silt loam - 6-8 10YR 4/3 85 7.5YR 4/6 15 C M. PL Sandy loam - 8-16 10YR 2/1 60 7.5YR 4/6 5 C M. PL Sandy loam Mixed matrix 8-16 10YR 3/2 30 7.5YR 4/6 5 C M\, PL Sandy loam Mixed matrix 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains . 2Loc: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: ☐ Histosol (A1) ☐ Sandy Redox (S5) ☐ 2cm Muck (A10) ☐ Histic Epipedon (A2) ☐ Stripped Matrix (S6) ☐ Red Parent Material (TF2) ☐ Black Histic (A3) ☐ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) ☐ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) ☐ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) ☐ Other (Explain in Remarks) ☐ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) ☐ Depleted Matrix (F3) ☐ Thick Dark Surface (A12) ☒ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. ☐ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) ☐ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ☐ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ☐ Redox Depressions (F8) Restrictive Layer (if present): Hydric soil present? Yes ☒ No ☐ Type: Depth (inches): Remarks: Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) ☐ Surface water (A1) ☐ Water-Stained Leaves (except MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) (B9) ☐ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, 4A & 4B) ☐ High Water Table (A2) ☐ Saturation (A3) ☐ Salt Crust (B11) ☐ Drainage Patterns (B10) ☐ Water Marks (B1) ☐ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ☐ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) ☐ Sediment Deposits (B2) ☐ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ☐ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) ☐ Drift Deposits (B3) ☐ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ☐ Geomorphic Position (D2) ☐ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) ☐ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ☐ Shallow Aquitard (D3) ☐ Iron Deposits (B5) ☐ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) ☐ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) ☐ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) ☐ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) ☐ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) ☐ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) ☐ Other (explain in remarks) ☐ Frost-Heave Hummocks ☐ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Field Observations: Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Surface Water Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): - Water Table Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): - Saturation Present? Yes ☐ No ☒ Depth (in): - (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 1 Wetland name or number: Wetland A RATING SUMMARY – Western Washington Name of wetland (or ID #): Wetland A Date of site visit: December 6, 2021 Rated by: S. Presster, P. Heltzel Trained by Ecology? ☒Y ☐N Date of training: March 2021 HGM Class used for rating: Depressional Wetland has multiple HGM classes? ☒Y ☐N NOTE: Form is not complete without the figures requested (figures can be combined). Source of base aerial photo/map: Google Earth, DOE Water Quality Atlas OVERALL WETLAND CATEGORY III (based on functions ☒ or special characteristics ☐) 1. Category of wetland based on FUNCTIONS ☐ Category I – Total score = 23 - 27 ☐ Category II – Total score = 20 - 22 ☒ Category III – Total score = 16 - 19 ☐ Category IV – Total score = 9 - 15 FUNCTION Improving Water Quality Hydrologic Habitat Circle the appropriate ratings Site Potential H M L H M L H M L Landscape Potential H M L H M L H M L Value H M L H M L H M L TOTAL Score Based on Ratings 7 7 5 19 2. Category based on SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS of wetland CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORY Estuarine I II Wetland of High Conservation Value I Bog I Mature Forest I Old Growth Forest I Coastal Lagoon I II Interdunal I II III IV None of the above ☒ Score for each function based on three ratings (order of ratings is not important) 9 = H,H,H 8 = H,H,M 7 = H,H,L 7 = H,M,M 6 = H,M,L 6 = M,M,M 5 = H,L,L 5 = M,M,L 4 = M,L,L 3 = L,L,L Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 2 Wetland name or number: Wetland A Maps and figures required to answer questions correctly for Western Washington Depressional Wetlands Map of: To answer questions: Figure # Cowardin plant classes D 1.3, H 1.1, H 1.4 1 Hydroperiods D 1.4, H 1.2 2 Location of outlet (can be added to map of hydroperiods) D 1.1, D 4.1 2 Boundary of area within 150 ft of the wetland (can be added to another figure) D 2.2, D 5.2 2 Map of the contributing basin D 4.3, D 5.3 3 1 km Polygon: Area that extends 1 km from entire wetland edge - including polygons for accessible habitat and undisturbed habitat H 2.1, H 2.2, H 2.3 4 Screen capture of map of 303(d) listed waters in basin (from Ecology website) D 3.1, D 3.2 5 Screen capture of list of TMDLs for WRIA in which unit is found (from web) D 3.3 6 Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 3 Wetland name or number: Wetland A HGM Classification of Wetlands in Western Washington 1. Are the water levels in the entire unit usually controlled by tides except during floods? ☒NO – go to 2 ☐YES – the wetland class is Tidal Fringe – go to 1.1 1.1 Is the salinity of the water during periods of annual low flow below 0.5 ppt (parts per thousand)? NO – Saltwater Tidal Fringe (Estuarine) YES – Freshwater Tidal Fringe If your wetland can be classified as a Freshwater Tidal Fringe use the forms for Riverine wetlands. If it is Saltwater Tidal Fringe it is an Estuarine wetland and is not scored. This method cannot be used to score functions for estuarine wetlands. 2. The entire wetland unit is flat and precipitation is the only source (>90%) of water to it. Groundwater and surface water runoff are NOT sources of water to the unit. ☒NO – go to 3 ☐YES – The wetland class is Flats If your wetland can be classified as a Flats wetland, use the form for Depressional wetlands. 3. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ☐The vegetated part of the wetland is on the shores of a body of permanent open water (without any plants on the surface at any time of the year) at least 20 ac (8 ha) in size; ☐At least 30% of the open water area is deeper than 6.6 ft (2 m). ☒NO – go to 4 ☐YES – The wetland class is Lake Fringe (Lacustrine Fringe) 4. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ☐The wetland is on a slope (slope can be very gradual), ☐The water flows through the wetland in one direction (unidirectional) and usually comes from seeps. It may flow subsurface, as sheetflow, or in a swale without distinct banks, ☐The water leaves the wetland without being impounded. ☒NO – go to 5 ☐YES – The wetland class is Slope NOTE: Surface water does not pond in these type of wetlands except occasionally in very small and shallow depressions or behind hummocks (depressions are usually <3 ft diameter and less than 1 ft deep). 5. Does the entire wetland unit meet all of the following criteria? ☐The unit is in a valley, or stream channel, where it gets inundated by overbank flooding from that stream or river, ☐The overbank flooding occurs at least once every 2 years. For questions 1-7, the criteria described must apply to the entire unit being rated. If the hydrologic criteria listed in each question do not apply to the entire unit being rated, you probably have a unit with multiple HGM classes. In this case, identify which hydrologic criteria in questions 1-7 apply, and go to Question 8. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 4 Wetland name or number: Wetland A ☒NO – go to 6 ☐YES – The wetland class is Riverine NOTE: The Riverine unit can contain depressions that are filled with water when the river is not flooding 6. Is the entire wetland unit in a topographic depression in which water ponds, or is saturated to the surface, at some time during the year? This means that any outlet, if present, is higher than the interior of the wetland. ☐NO – go to 7 ☒YES – The wetland class is Depressional 7. Is the entire wetland unit located in a very flat area with no obvious depression and no overbank flooding? The unit does not pond surface water more than a few inches. The unit seems to be maintained by high groundwater in the area. The wetland may be ditched, but has no obvious natural outlet. ☐NO – go to 8 ☐YES – The wetland class is Depressional 8. Your wetland unit seems to be difficult to classify and probably contains several different HGM classes. For example, seeps at the base of a slope may grade into a riverine floodplain, or a small stream within a Depressional wetland has a zone of flooding along its sides. GO BACK AND IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE HYDROLOGIC REGIMES DESCRIBED IN QUESTIONS 1-7 APPLY TO DIFFERENT AREAS IN THE UNIT (make a rough sketch to help you decide). Use the following table to identify the appropriate class to use for the rating system if you have several HGM classes present within the wetland unit being scored. NOTE: Use this table only if the class that is recommended in the second column represents 10% or more of the total area of the wetland unit being rated. If the area of the HGM class listed in column 2 is less than 10% of the unit; classify the wetland using the class that represents more than 90% of the total area. HGM classes within the wetland unit being rated HGM class to use in rating Slope + Riverine Riverine Slope + Depressional Depressional Slope + Lake Fringe Lake Fringe Depressional + Riverine along stream within boundary of depression Depressional Depressional + Lake Fringe Depressional Riverine + Lake Fringe Riverine Salt Water Tidal Fringe and any other class of freshwater wetland Treat as ESTUARINE If you are still unable to determine which of the above criteria apply to your wetland, or if you have more than 2 HGM classes within a wetland boundary, classify the wetland as Depressional for the rating. Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 5 Wetland name or number: Wetland A DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Water Quality Functions - Indicators that the site functions to improve water quality D 1.0. Does the site have the potential to improve water quality? D 1.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: ☐ Wetland is a depression or flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key) with no surface water leaving it (no outlet). points = 3 ☒ Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet. points = 2 ☐ Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing. points = 1 ☐ Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. points = 1 2 D 1.2. The soil 2 in below the surface (or duff layer) is true clay or true organic (use NRCS definitions).☐Yes = 4 ☒No = 0 0 D 1.3. Characteristics and distribution of persistent plants (Emergent, Scrub-shrub, and/or Forested Cowardin classes): ☒ Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 95% of area points = 5 ☐ Wetland has persistent, ungrazed, plants > 1/2 of area points = 3 ☐ Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants > 1/10 of area points = 1 ☐ Wetland has persistent, ungrazed plants < 1/10 of area points = 0 5 D 1.4. Characteristics of seasonal ponding or inundation: This is the area that is ponded for at least 2 months. See description in manual. ☐ Area seasonally ponded is > ½ total area of wetland points = 4 ☐ Area seasonally ponded is > ¼ total area of wetland points = 2 ☒ Area seasonally ponded is < ¼ total area of wetland points = 0 0 Total for D 1 Add the points in the boxes above 7 Rating of Site Potential If score is: ☐12-16 = H ☒6-11 = M ☐0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page D 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the water quality function of the site? D 2.1. Does the wetland unit receive stormwater discharges? ☒Yes = 1 ☐No = 0 1 D 2.2. Is > 10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate pollutants? ☒Yes = 1 ☐No = 0 1 D 2.3. Are there septic systems within 250 ft of the wetland? ☐Yes = 1 ☒No = 0 0 D 2.4. Are there other sources of pollutants coming into the wetland that are not listed in questions D 2.1-D 2.3? Source: Click here to enter text. ☐Yes = 1 ☒No = 0 0 Total for D 2 Add the points in the boxes above 2 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: ☐3 or 4 = H ☒1 or 2 = M ☐0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 3.0. Is the water quality improvement provided by the site valuable to society? D 3.1. Does the wetland discharge directly (i.e., within 1 mi) to a stream, river, lake, or marine water that is on the 303(d) list? ☒Yes = 1 ☐No = 0 1 D 3.2. Is the wetland in a basin or sub-basin where an aquatic resource is on the 303(d) list? ☒Yes = 1 ☐No = 0 1 D 3.3. Has the site been identified in a watershed or local plan as important for maintaining water quality (answer YES if there is a TMDL for the basin in which the unit is found)? ☒Yes = 2 ☐No = 0 2 Total for D 3 Add the points in the boxes above 4 Rating of Value If score is: ☒2-4 = H ☐1 = M ☐0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 6 Wetland name or number: Wetland A DEPRESSIONAL AND FLATS WETLANDS Hydrologic Functions - Indicators that the site functions to reduce flooding and stream degradation D 4.0. Does the site have the potential to reduce flooding and erosion? D 4.1. Characteristics of surface water outflows from the wetland: ☐ Wetland is a depression or flat depression with no surface water leaving it (no outlet). points = 4 ☒ Wetland has an intermittently flowing stream or ditch, OR highly constricted permanently flowing outlet. points = 2 ☐ Wetland is a flat depression (QUESTION 7 on key), whose outlet is a permanently flowing ditch. points = 1 ☐ Wetland has an unconstricted, or slightly constricted, surface outlet that is permanently flowing. points = 0 2 D 4.2. Depth of storage during wet periods: Estimate the height of ponding above the bottom of the outlet. For wetlands with no outlet, measure from the surface of permanent water or if dry, the deepest part. ☐ Marks of ponding are 3 ft or more above the surface or bottom of outlet. points = 7 ☐ Marks of ponding between 2 ft to < 3 ft from surface or bottom of outlet. points = 5 ☒ Marks are at least 0.5 ft to < 2 ft from surface or bottom of outlet. points = 3 ☐ The wetland is a “headwater” wetland. points = 3 ☐ Wetland is flat but has small depressions on the surface that trap water. points = 1 ☐ Marks of ponding less than 0.5 ft (6 in). points = 0 3 D 4.3. Contribution of the wetland to storage in the watershed: Estimate the ratio of the area of upstream basin contributing surface water to the wetland to the area of the wetland unit itself. ☐ The area of the basin is less than 10 times the area of the unit. points = 5 ☐ The area of the basin is 10 to 100 times the area of the unit. points = 3 ☒ The area of the basin is more than 100 times the area of the unit. points = 0 ☐ Entire wetland is in the Flats class. points = 5 0 Total for D 4 Add the points in the boxes above 5 Rating of Site Potential If score is: ☐12-16 = H ☐6-11 = M ☒0-5 = L Record the rating on the first page D 5.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support hydrologic functions of the site? D 5.1. Does the wetland receive stormwater discharges? ☒Yes = 1 ☐No = 0 1 D 5.2. Is >10% of the area within 150 ft of the wetland in land uses that generate excess runoff? ☒Yes = 1 ☐No = 0 1 D 5.3. Is more than 25% of the contributing basin of the wetland covered with intensive human land uses (residential at >1 residence/ac, urban, commercial, agriculture, etc.)? ☒Yes = 1 ☐No = 0 1 Total for D 5 Add the points in the boxes above 3 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: ☒3 = H ☐1 or 2 = M ☐0 = L Record the rating on the first page D 6.0. Are the hydrologic functions provided by the site valuable to society? D 6.1. The unit is in a landscape that has flooding problems. Choose the description that best matches conditions around the wetland unit being rated. Do not add points. Choose the highest score if more than one condition is met. The wetland captures surface water that would otherwise flow down-gradient into areas where flooding has damaged human or natural resources (e.g., houses or salmon redds): • ☒ Flooding occurs in a sub-basin that is immediately down-gradient of unit. points = 2 • ☐ Surface flooding problems are in a sub-basin farther down-gradient. points = 1 ☐ Flooding from groundwater is an issue in the sub-basin. points = 1 ☐ The existing or potential outflow from the wetland is so constrained by human or natural conditions that the water stored by the wetland cannot reach areas that flood. Explain why: points = 0 ☐There are no problems with flooding downstream of the wetland. points = 0 2 D 6.2. Has the site been identified as important for flood storage or flood conveyance in a regional flood control plan? ☐Yes = 2 ☒No = 0 0 Total for D 6 Add the points in the boxes above 2 Rating of Value If score is: ☒2-4 = H ☐1 = M ☐0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland name or number: Wetland A Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 7 These questions apply to wetlands of all HGM classes. HABITAT FUNCTIONS - Indicators that site functions to provide important habitat H 1.0. Does the site have the potential to provide habitat? H 1.1. Structure of plant community: Indicators are Cowardin classes and strata within the Forested class. Check the Cowardin plant classes in the wetland. Up to 10 patches may be combined for each class to meet the threshold of ¼ ac or more than 10% of the unit if it is smaller than 2.5 ac. Add the number of structures checked. ☐ Aquatic bed 4 structures or more: points = 4 ☒ Emergent 3 structures: points = 2 ☐ Scrub-shrub (areas where shrubs have > 30% cover) 2 structures: points = 1 ☒ Forested (areas where trees have > 30% cover) 1 structure: points = 0 If the unit has a Forested class, check if: ☒ The Forested class has 3 out of 5 strata (canopy, sub-canopy, shrubs, herbaceous, moss/ground-cover) that each cover 20% within the Forested polygon 2 H 1.2. Hydroperiods Check the types of water regimes (hydroperiods) present within the wetland. The water regime has to cover more than 10% of the wetland or ¼ ac to count (see text for descriptions of hydroperiods). ☐ Permanently flooded or inundated 4 or more types present: points = 3 ☒ Seasonally flooded or inundated 3 types present: points = 2 ☐ Occasionally flooded or inundated 2 types present: points = 1 ☒ Saturated only 1 type present: points = 0 ☒ Permanently flowing stream or river in, or adjacent to, the wetland ☐ Seasonally flowing stream in, or adjacent to, the wetland ☐ Lake Fringe wetland 2 points ☐ Freshwater tidal wetland 2 points 2 H 1.3. Richness of plant species Count the number of plant species in the wetland that cover at least 10 ft2. Different patches of the same species can be combined to meet the size threshold and you do not have to name the species. Do not include Eurasian milfoil, reed canarygrass, purple loosestrife, Canadian thistle If you counted: ☒ > 19 species points = 2 ☐ 5 - 19 species points = 1 ☐ < 5 species points = 0 2 H 1.4. Interspersion of habitats Decide from the diagrams below whether interspersion among Cowardin plants classes (described in H 1.1), or the classes and unvegetated areas (can include open water or mudflats) is high, moderate, low, or none. If you have four or more plant classes or three classes and open water, the rating is always high. ☐ None = 0 points ☐ Low = 1 point ☒ Moderate = 2 points All three diagrams in this row are ☐ HIGH = 3points 2 Wetland name or number: Wetland A Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 8 H 1.5. Special habitat features: Check the habitat features that are present in the wetland. The number of checks is the number of points. ☒ Large, downed, woody debris within the wetland (> 4 in diameter and 6 ft long). ☒ Standing snags (dbh > 4 in) within the wetland. ☐ Undercut banks are present for at least 6.6 ft (2 m) AND/OR overhanging plants extends at least 3.3 ft (1 m) over a stream (or ditch) in, or contiguous with the wetland, for at least 33 ft (10 m). ☐ Stable steep banks of fine material that might be used by beaver or muskrat for denning (> 30 degree slope) OR signs of recent beaver activity are present (cut shrubs or trees that have not yet weathered where wood is exposed). ☐ At least ¼ ac of thin-stemmed persistent plants or woody branches are present in areas that are permanently or seasonally inundated (structures for egg-laying by amphibians). ☐ Invasive plants cover less than 25% of the wetland area in every stratum of plants (see H 1.1 for list of strata). 2 Total for H 1 Add the points in the boxes above 10 Rating of Site Potential If score is: ☐15-18 = H ☒7-14 = M ☐0-6 = L Record the rating on the first page H 2.0. Does the landscape have the potential to support the habitat functions of the site? H 2.1. Accessible habitat (include only habitat that directly abuts wetland unit). Calculate: % undisturbed habitat + [(%moderate and low intensity land uses)/2] = 0% + [0.4%/2) = 0.2% If total accessible habitat is: ☐ > 1/3 (33.3%) of 1 km Polygon points = 3 ☐ 20-33% of 1 km Polygon points = 2 ☐ 10-19% of 1 km Polygon points = 1 ☒ < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 0 H 2.2. Undisturbed habitat in 1 km Polygon around the wetland. Calculate: % undisturbed habitat + [(%moderate and low intensity land uses)/2 = 2.2% + 13.0%/2) = 8.7% ☐ Undisturbed habitat > 50% of Polygon points = 3 ☐ Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and in 1-3 patches points = 2 ☐ Undisturbed habitat 10-50% and > 3 patches points = 1 ☒ Undisturbed habitat < 10% of 1 km Polygon points = 0 0 H 2.3. Land use intensity in 1 km Polygon: If ☐ > 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity land use points = (- 2) ☒ ≤ 50% of 1 km Polygon is high intensity points = 0 -2 Total for H 2 Add the points in the boxes above -2 Rating of Landscape Potential If score is: ☐4-6 = H ☐1-3 = M ☒< 1 = L Record the rating on the first page H 3.0. Is the habitat provided by the site valuable to society? H 3.1. Does the site provide habitat for species valued in laws, regulations, or policies? Choose only the highest score that applies to the wetland being rated. Site meets ANY of the following criteria: points = 2 ☐ It has 3 or more priority habitats within 100 m (see next page) ☐ It provides habitat for Threatened or Endangered species (any plant or animal on the state or federal lists) ☐ It is mapped as a location for an individual WDFW priority species ☐ It is a Wetland of High Conservation Value as determined by the Department of Natural Resources ☐ It has been categorized as an important habitat site in a local or regional comprehensive plan, in a Shoreline Master Plan, or in a watershed plan ☒ Site has 1 or 2 priority habitats (listed on next page) within 100 m points = 1 ☐ Site does not meet any of the criteria above points = 0 1 Rating of Value If score is: ☐2 = H ☐ 1 = M ☐0 = L Record the rating on the first page Wetland name or number: Wetland A Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 9 WDFW Priority Habitats Priority habitats listed by WDFW (see complete descriptions of WDFW priority habitats, and the counties in which they can be found, in: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia, Washington. 177 pp. http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf or access the list from here: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/) Count how many of the following priority habitats are within 330 ft (100 m) of the wetland unit: NOTE: This question is independent of the land use between the wetland unit and the priority habitat. ☐ Aspen Stands: Pure or mixed stands of aspen greater than 1 ac (0.4 ha). ☐ Biodiversity Areas and Corridors: Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species of native fish and wildlife (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report). ☐ Herbaceous Balds: Variable size patches of grass and forbs on shallow soils over bedrock. ☐ Old-growth/Mature forests: Old-growth west of Cascade crest – Stands of at least 2 tree species, forming a multi- layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha ) > 32 in (81 cm) dbh or > 200 years of age. Mature forests – Stands with average diameters exceeding 21 in (53 cm) dbh; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old-growth; 80-200 years old west of the Cascade crest. ☐ Oregon White Oak: Woodland stands of pure oak or oak/conifer associations where canopy coverage of the oak component is important (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 158 – see web link above). ☒ Riparian: The area adjacent to aquatic systems with flowing water that contains elements of both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems which mutually influence each other. ☐ Westside Prairies: Herbaceous, non-forested plant communities that can either take the form of a dry prairie or a wet prairie (full descriptions in WDFW PHS report p. 161 – see web link above). ☒ Instream: The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources. ☐ Nearshore: Relatively undisturbed nearshore habitats. These include Coastal Nearshore, Open Coast Nearshore, and Puget Sound Nearshore. (full descriptions of habitats and the definition of relatively undisturbed are in WDFW report – see web link on previous page). ☐ Caves: A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages under the earth in soils, rock, ice, or other geological formations and is large enough to contain a human. ☐ Cliffs: Greater than 25 ft (7.6 m) high and occurring below 5000 ft elevation. ☐ Talus: Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.5 - 6.5 ft (0.15 - 2.0 m), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs. ☐ Snags and Logs: Trees are considered snags if they are dead or dying and exhibit sufficient decay characteristics to enable cavity excavation/use by wildlife. Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 20 in (51 cm) in western Washington and are > 6.5 ft (2 m) in height. Priority logs are > 12 in (30 cm) in diameter at the largest end, and > 20 ft (6 m) long. Note: All vegetated wetlands are by definition a priority habitat but are not included in this list because they are addressed elsewhere. Wetland name or number: Wetland A Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 10 CATEGORIZATION BASED ON SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS Wetland Type Check off any criteria that apply to the wetland. Circle the category when the appropriate criteria are met. Category SC 1.0. Estuarine wetlands Does the wetland meet the following criteria for Estuarine wetlands? ☐ The dominant water regime is tidal, ☐ Vegetated, and ☐ With a salinity greater than 0.5 ppt ☐Yes –Go to SC 1.1 ☒No= Not an estuarine wetland SC 1.1. Is the wetland within a National Wildlife Refuge, National Park, National Estuary Reserve, Natural Area Preserve, State Park or Educational, Environmental, or Scientific Reserve designated under WAC 332-30-151? ☐Yes = Category I ☒No - Go to SC 1.2 Cat. I SC 1.2. Is the wetland unit at least 1 ac in size and meets at least two of the following three conditions? ☐ The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing, and has less than 10% cover of non-native plant species. (If non-native species are Spartina, see page 25) ☐ At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. ☐ The wetland has at least two of the following features: tidal channels, depressions with open water, or contiguous freshwater wetlands. ☐Yes = Category I ☒No= Category II Cat. I Cat. II SC 2.0. Wetlands of High Conservation Value (WHCV) SC 2.1. Has the WA Department of Natural Resources updated their website to include the list of Wetlands of High Conservation Value? ☒Yes – Go to SC 2.2 ☐No – Go to SC 2.3 SC 2.2. Is the wetland listed on the WDNR database as a Wetland of High Conservation Value? http://www.dnr.wa.gov/NHPwetlandviewer ☐Yes = Category I ☒No = Not a WHCV SC 2.3. Is the wetland in a Section/Township/Range that contains a Natural Heritage wetland? http://file.dnr.wa.gov/publications/amp_nh_wetlands_trs.pdf ☐Yes – Contact WNHP/WDNR and go to SC 2.4 ☒No = Not a WHCV SC 2.4. Has WDNR identified the wetland within the S/T/R as a Wetland of High Conservation Value and listed it on their website? ☐Yes = Category I ☒No = Not a WHCV Cat. I SC 3.0. Bogs Does the wetland (or any part of the unit) meet both the criteria for soils and vegetation in bogs? Use the key below. If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. SC 3.1. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soil horizons, either peats or mucks, that compose 16 in or more of the first 32 in of the soil profile? ☐Yes – Go to SC 3.3 ☒No – Go to SC 3.2 SC 3.2. Does an area within the wetland unit have organic soils, either peats or mucks, that are less than 16 in deep over bedrock, or an impermeable hardpan such as clay or volcanic ash, or that are floating on top of a lake or pond? ☐Yes – Go to SC 3.3 ☒No = Is not a bog SC 3.3. Does an area with peats or mucks have more than 70% cover of mosses at ground level, AND at least a 30% cover of plant species listed in Table 4? ☐Yes = Is a Category I bog ☒No – Go to SC 3.4 NOTE: If you are uncertain about the extent of mosses in the understory, you may substitute that criterion by measuring the pH of the water that seeps into a hole dug at least 16 in deep. If the pH is less than 5.0 and the plant species in Table 4 are present, the wetland is a bog. SC 3.4. Is an area with peats or mucks forested (> 30% cover) with Sitka spruce, subalpine fir, western red cedar, western hemlock, lodgepole pine, quaking aspen, Engelmann spruce, or western white pine, AND any of the species (or combination of species) listed in Table 4 provide more than 30% of the cover under the canopy? ☐Yes = Is a Category I bog ☒No = Is not a bog Cat. I Wetland name or number: Wetland A Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 11 SC 4.0. Forested Wetlands Does the wetland have at least 1 contiguous acre of forest that meets one of these criteria for the WA Department of Fish and Wildlife’s forests as priority habitats? If you answer YES you will still need to rate the wetland based on its functions. ☐ Old-growth forests (west of Cascade crest): Stands of at least two tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings; with at least 8 trees/ac (20 trees/ha) that are at least 200 years of age OR have a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 32 in (81 cm) or more. ☐ Mature forests (west of the Cascade Crest): Stands where the largest trees are 80- 200 years old OR the species that make up the canopy have an average diameter (dbh) exceeding 21 in (53 cm). ☐Yes = Category I ☒No = Not a forested wetland for this section Cat. I SC 5.0. Wetlands in Coastal Lagoons Does the wetland meet all of the following criteria of a wetland in a coastal lagoon? ☐ The wetland lies in a depression adjacent to marine waters that is wholly or partially separated from marine waters by sandbanks, gravel banks, shingle, or, less frequently, rocks ☐ The lagoon in which the wetland is located contains ponded water that is saline or brackish (> 0.5 ppt) during most of the year in at least a portion of the lagoon (needs to be measured near the bottom) ☐Yes – Go to SC 5.1 ☒No = Not a wetland in a coastal lagoon SC 5.1. Does the wetland meet all of the following three conditions? ☐ The wetland is relatively undisturbed (has no diking, ditching, filling, cultivation, grazing), and has less than 20% cover of aggressive, opportunistic plant species (see list of species on p. 100). ☐ At least ¾ of the landward edge of the wetland has a 100 ft buffer of shrub, forest, or un-grazed or un- mowed grassland. ☐ The wetland is larger than 1/10 ac (4350 ft2) ☐Yes = Category I ☐No = Category II Cat. I Cat. II SC 6.0. Interdunal Wetlands Is the wetland west of the 1889 line (also called the Western Boundary of Upland Ownership or WBUO)? If you answer yes you will still need to rate the wetland based on its habitat functions. In practical terms that means the following geographic areas: ☐ Long Beach Peninsula: Lands west of SR 103 ☐ Grayland-Westport: Lands west of SR 105 ☐ Ocean Shores-Copalis: Lands west of SR 115 and SR 109 ☐Yes – Go to SC 6.1 ☒No = not an interdunal wetland for rating SC 6.1. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger and scores an 8 or 9 for the habitat functions on the form (rates H,H,H or H,H,M for the three aspects of function)? ☐Yes = Category I ☐No – Go to SC 6.2 SC 6.2. Is the wetland 1 ac or larger, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is 1 ac or larger? ☐Yes = Category II ☐No – Go to SC 6.3 SC 6.3. Is the unit between 0.1 and 1 ac, or is it in a mosaic of wetlands that is between 0.1 and 1 ac? ☐Yes = Category III ☐No = Category IV Cat I Cat. II Cat. III Cat. IV Category of wetland based on Special Characteristics If you answered No for all types, enter “Not Applicable” on Summary Form NA Wetland Rating System for Western WA: 2014 Update Rating Form – Effective January 1, 2015 12 Wetland name or number: Click here to enter text. This page left blank intentionally 2014 Ecology Wetland Rating Form Figures 901 S OUTH G RADY W AY Wetland A (Depressional) ............................................................................................................................. 1 Figure 1. Cowardin plant classes – D1.3, H1.1, H1.4 ................................................................................ 1 Figure 2. Hydroperiods, outlet(s), and 150-ft area – D1.1, D1.4, H1.2, D2.2, D5.2 .................................. 2 Figure 3. Map of the contributing basin – D4.3, D5.3 .............................................................................. 3 Figure 4. Undisturbed habitat and moderate-low intensity land uses within 1 km from wetland edge including polygon for accessible habitat – H2.1, H2.2, H2.3 .................................................. 4 Figure 5. Screen-capture of 303(d) listed waters in basin – D3.1, D3.2 ................................................... 5 Figure 6. Screen-capture of TMDL map for sub-basin in which unit is found – D3.3 ............................... 6 Page left blank intentionally to allow for duplex printing. Features depicted are not to scale. Sketches are based on available data and best professional judgment. Wetland Figures - 3 Figure 3. Map of the contributing basin – D4.3, D5.3 Contributing basin Wetland A Features depicted are not to scale. Sketches are based on available data and best professional judgment. Wetland Figures - 1 WETLAND A (DEPRESSIONAL) Figure 1. Cowardin plant classes – D1.3, H1.1, H1.4 Features depicted are not to scale. Sketches are based on available data and best professional judgment. Wetland Figures - 2 Figure 2. Hydroperiods, outlet(s), and 150-ft area – D1.1, D1.4, H1.2, D2.2, D5.2 Outlet Features depicted are not to scale. Sketches are based on available data and best professional judgment. Wetland Figures - 4 Figure 4. Undisturbed habitat and moderate-low intensity land uses within 1 km from wetland edge including polygon for accessible habitat – H2.1, H2.2, H2.3 Features depicted are not to scale. Sketches are based on available data and best professional judgment. Wetland Figures - 5 Figure 5. Screen-capture of 303(d) listed waters in basin – D3.1, D3.2 Wetland A Features depicted are not to scale. Sketches are based on available data and best professional judgment. Wetland Figures - 6 Figure 6. Screen-capture of TMDL map for sub-basin in which unit is found – D3.3 Wetland unit located in the Black River drainage basin (HUC = 171100130305) Tab 7.0 21816.005-TIR 7.0 OTHER PERMITS • Fire Marshal / Fire Hydrant Locations Approval • King County Metro Transit Approval • Construction Stormwater General Permit (Department of Ecology) • Building Permit Tab 8.0 21816.005-TIR 8.0 CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (CSWPP) ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Erosion and sediment controls will be provided to prevent the transport of sediment downstream and off-site. A SWPPP will be provided upon Final Engineering Review. Tab 9.0 21816.005-TIR 9.0 BOND QUANTITIES, FACILITY SUMMARIES, AND DECLARATION OF COVENANT • A Bond Quantity Estimate will be provided upon Final Engineering Review • A Facility Summary has been provided upon Final Engineering Review • A Declaration of Covenant will be provided upon Final Engineering Review Tab 10.0 21816.005-TIR 10.0 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL The drainage facility for this project will be a private facility, owned and maintained by the Owner. An Operation and Maintenance Manual will be provided upon Final Engineering Review.