Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWP272298 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY �� tp PROPOSED MCDONALD'S RESTAURANT ,U` 1 1996 SOUTH GRADY WAY rti RENTON, WASHINGTON E-7262 May 28, 1996 PREPARED FOR MCDONALD'S CORPORATION Dougias S. Lynne Staff Engineer Kyle R. Campbel P. y Manager of Geotechnic Earth Consultants, Inc. l' 1805 - 136th Place Northeast, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 (206) 643-3780 IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT More construction problems are caused by site subsur- technical engineers who then render an opinion about face conditions than any other factor. As troublesome as overall subsurface conditions, their likely reaction to subsurface problems can be, their frequency and extent proposed construction activity, and appropriate founda- have been lessened considerably in recent years, due in tion design. Even under optimal circumstances actual large measure to programs and publications of ASFE/ conditions may differ from those inferred to exist, The Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in because no geotechnical engineer, no matter how the Geosciences. qualified, and no subsurface exploration program, no The following suggestions and observations are offered matter how comprehensive, can reveal what is hidden by to help you reduce the geotechnical-related delays, earth, rock and time. The actual interface between mate- cost-overruns and other costly headaches that can rials may be far more gradual or abrupt than a report occur during a construction project. indicates. Actual conditions in areas not sampled may differ from predictions. Nothing can be done to prevent the unanticipated, but steps can be taken to help minimize their A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING impact. For this reason, most experienced owners retain their REPORT IS BASED ON A UNIQUE SET geotechnical consultants through the construction stage, to iden- tify variances,conduct additional tests which may be OF PROJECT SPECIFIC FACTORS needed,and to recommend solutions to problems encountered on site. A geotechnical engineering report is based on a subsur- face exploration plan designed to incorporate a unique SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS set of project-specific factors. These typically include: the general nature of the structure involved, its size and CAN CHANGE configuration; the location of the structure on the site and its orientation; physical concomitants such as Subsurface conditions may be modified by constantly- access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities, changing natural forces. Because a geotechnical engi- and the level of additional risk which the client assumed neering report is based on conditions which existed at by virtue of limitations imposed upon the exploratory the time of subsurface exploration, construction decisions program. To help avoid costly problems,consult the should not be based on a geotechnical engineering report whose geotechnical engineer to determine how any factors adequacy may have,been affected by time. Speak with the geo- which change subsequent to the date of the report may technical consultant to learn if additional tests are affect its recommendations. advisable before construction starts. Unless your consulting geotechnical engineer indicates Construction operations at or adjacent to the site and otherwise, your geotechnical engineering report should not natural events such as floods, earthquakes or ground- be used: water fluctuations may also affect subsurface conditions •When the nature of the proposed structure is and, thus, the continuing adequacy of a geotechnical changed, for example, if an office building will be report.The geotechnical engineer should be kept erected instead of a parking garage, or if a refriger- apprised of any such events, and should be consulted to ated warehouse will be built instead of an unre- determine if additional tests are necessary frigerated one; •when the size or configuration of the proposed GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ARE structure is altered; PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES •when the location or orientation of the proposed AND PERSONS structure is modified; •when there is a change of ownership, or Geotechnical engineers' reports are prepared to meet •for application to an adjacent site. the specific needs of specific individuals. A report pre- Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility for problems pared for a consulting civil engineer may not be ade- which may develop if they are not consulted after factors consid- quate for a construction contractor,or even some other ered in their report's development have changed. consulting civil engineer. Unless indicated otherwise, this report was prepared expressly for the client involved and expressly for purposes indicated by the client. Use MOST GEOTECHNICAL "FINDINGS' by any other persons for any purpose,or by the client ARE PROFESSIONAL ESTIMATES for a different purpose, may result in problems. No indi- vidual other than the client should apply this report for its Site exploration identifies actual subsurface conditions intended purpose without first conferring with the geotechnical only at those points where samples are taken,when engineer. No person should apply this report for any purpose they are taken. Data derived through sampling and sub- other than that originally contemplated without first conferring sequent laboratory testing are extrapolated by geo- with the geotechnical engineer. Earth Consultants Inc. 0,otechni�il Fngincers.GeYtloKlsis&Fm lronnicntal Scwnllsts May 28, 1996 E-7262 McDonald's Corporation 10220 Northeast Points Drive, Suite 300 Kirkland, Washington 98033-7865 Attention: Ms. Nancy L. Heck Dear Ms. Heck: We are pleased to submit our report titled "Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed McDonald's Restaurant, South Grady Way, Renton, Washington." This report presents the results of our field exploration, selective laboratory tests, and engineering analysis, as well as geotechnically related recommendations for the proposed site development. The purpose and scope of our study was outlined in our April 30, 1996 proposal. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered at the above referenced site, it is our opinion that the proposed restaurant should be supported by driven piles. If you or your consultants have any questions about the content of this report, or if we can be of further assistance, please call. Respectfully submitted, EARTH CONSULTANTS, INC. 4 - Kyle R. Campbell, P. E. Manager of Geotechnical Services DSL/KRC/krnl 1805-136th Place N.E.,Suite 201,Bellevue,Washington 98005 Bellevue(206)643-3780 Seattle(206)464-1584 FAX(206)74-608-60 Tacoma(206)272-6608 TABLE OF CONTENTS E-7262 PAGE INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 SITE CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Subsurface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Laboratory Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Site Preparation and Grading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Slab-on-Grade Floors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Seismic Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Excavations and Slopes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Site Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Utility Support and Backfill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Pavement Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 LIMITATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Additional Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 APPENDICES Appendix A Field Exploration Appendix B Laboratory Testing ILLUSTRATIONS Plate 1 Vicinity Map Plate 2 Boring Location Plan Plate 3 Typical Utility Trench Backfill Plate Al Legend Plates A2 through A9 Boring Logs Plate 131 Grain Size Analysis Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED MCDONALD'S RESTAURANT SOUTH GRADY WAY RENTON, WASHINGTON E-7262 INTRODUCTION General This report presents the results of the geotechnical engineering study for the proposed McDonald's Restaurant located in the Renton Village Shopping Center on South Grady Way in Renton, Washington. The general location of the site is shown on the Vicinity Map, Plate 1 . The purpose of this study was to explore the subsurface conditions at the site and, based on the conditions encountered, to provide geotechnical recommendations for the proposed site development. Project Description At the time our study was performed, the site, proposed structure, and exploratory locations were approximately as shown on the Boring Location Plan, Plate 2. Based on the preliminary plans provided to us, we understand that the site is to be developed with a one-level restaurant in the central portion of the parcel. The remainder of the area is to be asphalt paved parking areas and landscaping areas. Grade modifications are not anticipated to exceed one foot based on site topography and adjacent grades. Structural loading is anticipated to fall within the following ranges, including maximum dead plus live loads: • Wall footings - 2-3 kips per lineal foot • Maximum column loads - 50 kips • Slab loads - 150 pounds per square foot (psf) If the above design criteria are incorrect or change, we should be consulted to review the recommendations contained in this report. In any case, ECI should be retained to perform a general review of the final construction design. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY McDonald's Corporation E-7262 May 28, 1996 Page 2 SITE CONDITIONS Surface The site of the proposed restaurant is located west of the State Route 104 and First Street intersection in Kingston, Washington (see Plate 1 , Vicinity Map). The parcel encompasses about 0.64 acres. The site is bounded to the north by South Grady Way, to the east and south by existing asphalt paved parking lot, and to the west by an abandoned bank building. The site is currently developed as part of the abandoned bank with the drive-through banking facility located just to the west of the proposed restaurant. The majority of the site is asphalt paved parking and drive areas with associated landscaping. In the north central portion of the parcel, there are several utility vaults surrounded by a short rockery. The rockery is less than about four feet in height. Subsurface The site was explored by drilling three borings at the approximate locations shown on Plate 2. Detailed descriptions of the conditions encountered at each location explored are presented on the boring logs, Plates A2 through A9. A description of the field exploration methods is included in Appendix A. Below is a generalized description of the subsurface conditions encountered. Our subsurface exploration encountered three to four and one-half feet of medium dense to dense fill consisting of silty sand with gravel (Unified Soil Classification SM). Underlying the fill, our exploration indicates the native soils consist of loose to very loose silt and silty sand and soft peat to a depths of twenty-seven (27) to thirty-four (34) feet below grade. Peat was observed in a four and one-half foot thick layer in boring B-1 at a depth of eleven and one-half feet. In Boring B-2, a distinct layer of peat was not observed; however, peat lenses were observed in the very loose silts. Soft, silty peat was observed in B-2 at a depth of twenty- seven and one-half (27.5) feet. Medium dense well graded sand was observed in boring B-2 between depths of twenty (20) and about twenty-seven (27) feet. Beneath the loose and soft native soils, the native soils become medium dense to dense silty sand and poorly graded sand with silt. Based on the observed conditions, it appears that the site is underlain by sediments deposited primarily in overbank deposits resulting from flooding of the filled Cedar River. Overbank deposits typically consist of interbedded silt, silty sand and peat. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY McDonald's Corporation E-7262 May 28, 1996 Page 3 Groundwater Groundwater was observed in all three borings during our subsurface exploration at depths ranging from nine (9) to twelve (12) feet. It is important to note that groundwater levels are not constant; thus, one may expect fluctuations in the volume and location depending on the season, amount of rainfall, surface water runoff, and other factors. Generally, groundwater seepage is greater during the wetter winter months (typically October through May). Laboratory Testing Laboratory tests were conducted on several representative soil samples to verify or modify the field soil classification of the units encountered and to evaluate the general physical properties and engineering characteristics of the soils encountered. Visual classifications were supplemented by index tests, such as sieve analysis, and by moisture content tests on representative samples. The results of laboratory tests performed on specific samples are provided either at the appropriate sample depth on the individual boring log or on a separate data sheet contained in Appendix B. However, it is important to note that these test results may not accurately represent the overall in-situ soil conditions; our geotechnical recommendations are based on our interpretation of these test results. The soil samples for this project will be discarded after a period of fifteen (15) days following completion of this report, unless we are otherwise directed in writing. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Based on the results of our study, it is our opinion that the site can be developed generally as planned provided the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into the final design. Due to the potential for relatively high settlements if the building is supported by conventional foundations, a pile foundation should be used to support the building loads. More detailed recommendations are contained within the following sections of this report. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY McDonald's Corporation E-7262 May 28, 1996 Page 4 This report has been prepared for specific application to this project only and in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area for the exclusive use of the McDonald's Corporation and their representatives. No warranty is expressed or implied. It is recommended that this report, in its entirety, be included in the project contract documents for the information of the contractor. Site Preparation and Grading Asphalt pavement in the building area, or in areas to receive fill, should be broken into pieces less than six inches in diameter. After crushing into pieces, the asphalt may be left in place and used as structural fill. Surfaces where fill or pavements are to be placed should be proofrolled. All proofrolling should be performed under the observation of a representative of ECL Soil in any loose or soft areas, if recompacted and still excessively yielding, should be overexcavated and replaced with structural fill to a depth that will provide a stable base. The soils exposed in our borings are moisture sensitive due to their fines content. As such, in an exposed condition they may become disturbed from normal construction activity when in a wet or saturated condition. Once disturbed, and in a wet condition, they will be unsuitable for support of foundations or pavements. Therefore, during construction where these soils are exposed and will support new structures, care must be exercised not to disturb their condition. If disturbed conditions develop, the affected soils must be removed and replaced with a structural fill. The depth of removal will be dependent on the level of disturbance developed during construction. Structural fill is defined as any compacted fill placed under foundations, roadways, slabs, pavements, or any other load-bearing areas. Structural fill under foundations should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding twelve (12) inches in loose thickness and compacted to a minimum 90 percent of its maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1557-78 (Modified Proctor). The fill materials should be placed at or near the optimum moisture content. Fill under pavements and walks should also be placed in horizontal lifts and compacted to 90 percent of maximum density, except for the top twelve (12) inches which should be compacted to 95 percent of maximum density. Earth Conauhanta, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY McDonald's Corporation E-7262 May 28, 1996 Page 5 Laboratory tests indicate the majority of soil expected to be exposed in excavations has between 9 and 46 percent fines and a natural moisture content ranging from 5 to 23 percent. In our opinion, the drier soil appears suitable for use as a structural fill in its present condition. The wetter soil may require aeration in order to lower the moisture content of the soil to near optimum. Should the moisture content increase significantly above optimum and not be able to be dried back, the wet soil should either be removed from the site or used in landscaping areas. Structural fill which is to be placed in wet weather should consist of a granular material with a maximum size of three inches and no more than 5 percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve, based on the minus 3/4-inch fraction. During dry weather, most compactible non-organic soil can be used as structural fill. It is recommended that any structural fill planned for on site use be submitted for approval prior to import. Foundations In our opinion, the most suitable foundation type given the site conditions is a driven pile system. The driven piles would develop their capacity through friction between the soil and pile and from end bearing in the dense native soils at a depth of about forty feet. We suggest the use of timber piles due to their ease of handling, and availability. However, concrete or steel piling may also be considered. Driven timber piles should consist of treated Class B timber piles. The piles should be driven into the dense silt layer. The piles should conform to the specifications outlined in the Uniform Building Code Standard 25-12 for friction and end bearing piles. Timber piles should have a minimum tip diameter of eight inches and a maximum taper of one inch in ten feet. For piles driven to refusal, a maximum axial design capacity of twenty-five (25) tons may be used. An uplift capacity of four tons may be used for a single pile penetrating into the silt. No reduction in pile capacity is necessary if the piles are installed with a minimum center to center spacing of three pile diameters. The piles should be driven to refusal with a hammer having a rated energy of fifteen thousand (15,000) foot pounds. Refused is defined as twenty-five (25) blows per foot. The piles should be marked in one-foot increments, with lengths painted on every five feet to facilitate the recording of blow counts during driving. The tips and butts of all piles should be banded with two bands at each location to reduce the potential of pile damage during driving. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY McDonald's Corporation E-7262 May 28, 1996 Page 6 Total settlement of single piles is estimated to be on the order of one-half inch. Most of this settlement should occur during the construction phase of the project as the dead loads are applied. The remaining settlements would develop after construction as the live loads are applied. The horizontal loads can be resisted by the pilings, friction between the base of the pile caps and grade beams and the supporting soil, and by passive soil pressure acting on the face of the buried portion of the pile caps and grade beams. A lateral pile capacity of 1 kip may be used for driven timber piles. The foundations must be poured "neat" against the existing soil or backfilled with a compacted fill meeting the requirements of structural fill: • Passive pressure = 300 pcf equivalent fluid weight • Coefficient of friction = 0.40 Note that the above values include a factor of safety of 1 .5. Slab-on-Grade Floors Floor slabs should be structurally supported by the driven pile foundation. The slab should be provided with a minimum of four inches of free-draining sand or gravel. In areas where slab moisture is undesirable, a vapor barrier such as a 6-mil plastic membrane may be placed beneath the slab. Two inches of damp sand may be placed over the membrane for protection during construction and to aid in curing of the concrete. Seismic Design Considerations The UBC earthquake regulations contain a static force procedure and a dynamic force procedure for design base shear calculations. Based on the encountered soil conditions, it is our opinion that a site coefficient of 1 .5 should be used for the static force procedure, as outlined in Section 1628 of the 1994 UBC. For the dynamic force procedure outlined in Section 1629 of the 1994 UBC, the curve for Soft to Medium Clays and Sand (Soil Type 3) should be used on Figure 16-3, Normalized Response Spectra Shapes. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY McDonald's Corporation E-7262 May 28, 1996 Page 7 Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which soils lose all shear strength for short periods of time during an earthquake. The effects of liquefaction may be large total and/or differential settlement for structures with foundations founded in the liquefying soils. Groundshaking of sufficient duration results in the loss of grain to grain contact and rapid increase in pore water pressure, causing the soil to behave as a fluid for short periods of time. To have potential for liquefaction, a soil must be cohesionless with a grain size distribution of a specified range (generally sands and silt); it must be loose to medium-dense; it must be below the groundwater table; and it must be subject to sufficient magnitude and duration of groundshaking. It is our opinion that the liquefaction potential at the site is relatively high due to the relative grain size distribution of the soils encountered and the presence of a near surface groundwater table. However, liquefaction would have a minimal effect on the proposed building if it is supported on piles as recommended. Excavations and Slopes In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local, state and federal safety regulations. As described in the current Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations, the native soils and existing fills would classify as Type "C". Therefore, temporary cuts greater than four feet in height, should be sloped at an inclination no steeper than 1 .5H:1 V. If slopes of this inclination, or flatter, cannot be constructed, or if excavations greater than twenty (20) feet in depth are required, temporary shoring may be necessary. This shoring would help protect against slope or excavation collapse, and would provide protection to workmen in the excavation. If temporary shoring is required, we will be available to provide shoring design criteria, if requested. We do not anticipate the construction of any permanent slopes at the site due to the current development of the site. In any case, all permanent slopes should be inclined no greater than 2H:1 V. If this inclination cannot be maintained, we should be contacted to review the design and construction criteria. We also recommend that all cut slopes be examined by Earth Consultants, Inc. during excavation to verify that conditions are as anticipated. Supplementary recommendations can then be developed, if needed, to improve the stability, including flattening of slopes or installation of drainage. In any case, water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any slopes. The above information has been provided solely as a service to our client. Under no circumstances should the above information be interpreted to mean that this office is assuming responsibility for construction site safety or the contractor's activities; such responsibility is not being implied and should not be inferred. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY McDonald's Corporation E-7262 May 28, 1996 Page 8 Site Drainage Groundwater was observed in all three borings during our subsurface exploration at depths ranging from nine (9) to twelve (12) feet. Groundwater should not create any construction related problems unless the site is developed during periods of heavy precipitation or if deep utilities are planned. If groundwater is encountered in any excavations during construction, the bottom of the excavation should be sloped to one or more shallow sump pits. The collected water can then be pumped from these pits to a positive and permanent discharge, such as a nearby storm drain. Depending on the magnitude of such seepage, it may also be necessary to interconnect the sump pits by a system of connector trenches. It is recommended that the appropriate locations of subsurface drains, if needed, be established during grading operations by this office, at which time the seepage areas, if present, may be more clearly defined. The site should be graded such that surface water is directed off the site. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where structures, slabs or driveways are to be constructed. During construction, loose surfaces should be sealed at night by compacting the surface to reduce the potential for moisture infiltration into the soils. Final site grades should allow for drainage away from the structure's foundations. The ground should be sloped at a gradient of three percent for a distance of at least ten feet away from the structures in landscape areas. This gradient may be reduced to two percent in paved areas. Utility Support and Backfill Based on the soil conditions encountered, the soils expected to be exposed by utility excavations should provide adequate support for utilities. Should deep utilities be planned, some recompaction, or replacement, of the soils encountered in the bottom of the trenches may be required. Utility trench backfill is a primary concern in reducing the potential for settlement along utility alignments, particularly in pavement areas. It is important that each section of utility line be adequately supported in the bedding material. The material should be hand tamped to ensure support is provided around the pipe haunches. Fill should be carefully placed and hand tamped to about twelve (12) inches above the crown of the pipe before any heavy compaction equipment is brought into use. The remainder of the trench backfill should be placed in lifts having a loose thickness of less than twelve (12) inches. A typical trench backfill section and compaction requirements for load supporting and non-load supporting areas is presented on Plate 3. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY McDonald's Corporation E-7262 May 28, 1996 Page 9 Pavement Areas The adequacy of site pavements is related in part to the condition of the underlying subgrade. To provide a properly prepared subgrade for pavements, we recommend the subgrade be treated and prepared as described in the Site Preparation and Grading section of this report. This means at least the top twelve (12) inches of the subgrade should be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density (per ASTM 1557-78). It is possible that some localized areas of soft, wet or unstable subgrade may still exist after this process. Therefore, a greater thickness of structural fill or crushed rock may be needed to stabilize these localized areas. We recommend the following pavement section for lightly loaded areas: • Two inches of asphalt concrete (AC) over four inches of crushed rock base (CRB) material, or • Two inches of AC over three inches of asphalt treated base (ATB) material. Heavier truck-traffic areas will require thicker sections depending upon site usage, pavement life and site traffic. As a general rule, you may consider for truck-trafficked areas the following sections: • Three inches of AC over six inches of CRB, or • Three inches of AC over four inches of ATB. Asphalt concrete (AC), asphalt treated base (ATB), and crushed rock base (CRB) materials should conform to WSDOT specifications. All rock base should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the ASTM D-1557-78 laboratory test standard. LIMITATIONS Our recommendations and conclusions are based on the site materials observed, selective laboratory testing and engineering analyses, the design information provided to us by you, and our experience and engineering judgement. The conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. No warranty is expressed or implied. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY McDonald's Corporation E-7262 May 28, 1996 Page 10 The recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the borings. Soil and groundwater conditions between borings may vary from those encountered. The nature and extent of variations between our exploratory locations may not become evident until construction. If variations do appear, ECI should be requested to re-evaluate the recommendations of this report and to modify or verify them in writing prior to proceeding with the construction. Additional Services This office will be available to provide consultation services relating to review of the final design and specifications to verify that our recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in the approved construction plans and specifications. In addition, it is suggested that this office be retained to provide geotechnical services during construction to observe compliance with the design concepts and project specifications, and to facilitate design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. It should be noted that it is generally in the best interests of the owner/client to maintain the same Soils Engineer during construction in order to obtain the project objective, with optimum quality control. Earth Consultants, Inc. _I ��wlli SE U X30AI NI � - :����a,., ZO N '^ ry 5� lea 1SiZ( "35 AY 15IZ �-- e rr0ir �'/ 3S} T Ar^ Ol f '',�/w 1[ 3s LY ifft2 to G ; �lr. l 00 h -x r s. 4+ G) J�AT HID CL o vQ� �� a h b1T25�' i wl,tl _ F,O ' ) .�J. `* W 3S Ay Hllit .l N N >> ld H1911 (13 AV aNOWp �a oc' a d�ob r i a 00991 N N O 3S AV I N 3S� N AV cp ` cc rn �Q v Hl Tt,ry p I $ W IS AV 1115[[ c�L y C_ cV ¢, �dFimac' dp '�„ d�"� I 3S-Ay in 3S 1)3NIV�B oo r">w,rn 3s nv I lcn ^3S AY IUC, �m � (� -itNOSN0218 Z a W 3N AV ,' s13p3 G C 3°� a 1__� 1n 7 l3 0 C O - - .-. 00t91----- J O c o) .0 Q W as AY x Ann" 3S AY t;Hl1 f I a V U 0 U CO i 3N A3N31)pCy) 1 +, 3 is li Il I ''��wxi>« � ss a ��Nta>Mn � F-I 3S� `! C � � c 3N 006 Y ,/ O x u Xi s tiyL 7pNTs8 s s `' v'i 3S AY H160[ >e Na d m ¢ J M�µ , rA �,. 1 N 3NOf c( ) 3S fn SEti� K d Ul _ _ S y 3NOC A x cr- O CL N a 4 S AV S3No(` I I tx o, O AY N017Y3 : k�s `.r �I oo[ �� Doer n .►J _.i 00991 c l _ a A N AY N �L S AV FfJ I H 1100 Y 1NYi19 I N G I AY oos S G 8 f� opC 0 SAY v 1NYT19 S d S $ s 3S Y AV+ L � AY �d° � Hiro U AY Al �� 5� I y AV SY033 S G ti AY b �511 �'S1 s � G NIYH BENSON S Y.- s1 „ 5 M - U V N -WUI IN � ♦ + N`d S - E Y S113M M � �� S Av � G �1 s AV n31M � c AL' GSITYIl11M ♦ d �= �G� S $� r^ y ,S� , // nFfi SS •AY rP �V ,Sy7wI�E '"' / � Y ,� 1Qg AY S1131LLINS yp Ar „A r (~ � �� z AV NV901 S Ar SN3 lINS s u rau o0Z I O� > sualN S AV SInOH S - Avg '^ SINNOH i zo opsl �� �{7 > �� P1. �� IS31 Z S O n OAO� An a N ppV15 V 5 NI i�wlYl _ t N X3n v[Ts ii K I ! \ Owy � 3Yn AV 3yo N IN��(Z V ALL M V ArC A �l A31 dA c rp ul N As Al a 'Y MN AY 31dyN E T � _ o 3! zNJ � f oo► AY ON l N Ms AY aN(3 A� ti e� (n 3� SHAY a 31 VW OOL ✓) r to 006I Gott-�i --- N WAYSN3A315 _Ms- AY S €3dYrw=- -- N 4n MS AY MS A ON l § MS AV_ n�(u vi _ _ u,� 'Z 1�3N3S t 7 v o G f- * r -I I I !n a ix tr MS AV r73N Swel _ J 5U - — rn_ _ - O ~ H1Y9 - s�Y i,iie 3 d ool MS AV s ON Ya h MS n SYHOHi � � K O a S• �Proposed Sign _ ' Existing B.3 Utility Vaults -�-r-~o 1" Rock Wall B-2 � 1 B-1 LEGEND B-1 Approximate Location of ECI Boring, Proj. No. E-7262, May 1996 Proposed Building Approximate Scale —; Existing Building 0 15 30 60ft. L�J Boring Location Plan Earth Consultants Inc. Proposed McDonald's Restaurant CWOW,iv,kaW ors.Gcoio�ts a Fnvl"XW a lal Sckrnlists Renton, Washington Prol. No. 7262 Drwn. GLS Date May '96 Checked DSL Date 5/21/96 Plate 2 Non-Load Supporting Floor Slab or Areas Roadway Areas o ° Varies o°°° 0 0 0 0 85. 95 1 Foot Minimum IL Backfill 80 90 Vanes PIPE a 0 . •'00�° .40. b•op Oo, o ° °g 0 �0.. Varies Bedding .°'o.o.•.°^��'°'• �•;. � :;.° �.o.".do'oO . oo�. °°op°o'o 0.0:. OOP �o OO�Qp°�Oo OO .00o4`'oo:.�?o Q .0. LEGEND: 51 Asphalt or Concrete Pavement or Concrete Floor Slab o , ° ° • Base Material or Base Rock Backfill; Compacted On-Site Soil or Imported Select Fill Material as Described in the Site Preparation of the General Earthwork Section of the Attached Report Text. 95 Minimum Percentage of Maximum Laboratory Dry Density as Determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557-78 (Modified Proctor), Unless Otherwise Specified in the Attached Report Text. Bedding Material; Material Type Depends on Type of Pipe and °a ?•oo;p Laying Conditions. Bedding Should Conform to the Manufacturers Recommendations for the Type of Pipe Selected. TYPICAL UTILITY TRENCH FILL Earth Consultants Inc. Proposed McDonald's Restaurant I ' 1 GrrHrrtinrJ�filnrrrs,C,efl[ril�++24 Fnvtr�nrtwnnl xx+lnti Renton, Washington Proi. No. 7262 Drwn. GLS Date May '96 Checked DSL Date 5/21/96 Plate 3 APPENDIX A E-7262 FIELD EXPLORATION Our drilling exploration was performed on May 8, 1996. Subsurface conditions at the site were explored by drilling three borings to a maximum depth of fifty-four (54) feet below existing grade. The borings were drilled by Associated Drilling using a truck-mounted drill rig. Continuous-flight, hollow-stem augers were used to advance and support the boreholes during sampling. The approximate boring locations were determined by pacing from existing on-site landmarks. The locations of the borings should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. These approximate locations are shown on the Boring Location Plan, Plate 2. The field exploration was continuously monitored by an engineer from our firm, who classified the soils encountered and maintained a log of each boring, obtained representative samples, and observed pertinent site features. In each boring, Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed at selected intervals in general accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1586. The split spoon samples were driven with a one hundred forty (140) pound hammer freely falling thirty (30) inches. The number of blows required to drive the last twelve (12) inches of penetration are called the "N-value". This value helps to characterize the site soils and is used in our engineering analyses. Representative soil samples were placed in closed containers and returned to our laboratory for further examination and testing. All samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System which is presented on Plate A1, Legend. Logs of the borings are presented in the Appendix on Plates A2 through A9.The final logs represent our interpretations of the field logs and the results of the laboratory tests on field samples. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. In actuality, the transitions may be more gradual. Representative soil samples were placed in closed containers and returned to our laboratory for further examination and testing. Earth Consultants, Inc. MAJOR DIVISIONS GRAPH LETTER TYPICAL DESCRIPTION SYMBOL SYMBOL ra Gravel a C: GW Well-Graded Gravels, Gravel-Sand a a a gW Mixt And Clean Gravels ures, Little Or No Fines Gravelly (little or no fines) M M GP Poorly-Graded Gravels,Gravel- Coarse Soils ' ' ' gp Sand Mixtures, Little Or No Fines Grained Soils More Than GM Silty Gravels,Gravel-Sand- 50% Coarse Gravels With gm Silt Mixtures Fraction Fines(appreciable Retained On amount of fines) GC Clayey Gravels,Gravel-Sand- No. 4 Sieve gC Clay Mixtures Sand •o 00 'o SW Well-Graded Sands, Gravelly And Clean Sand e ' o SW Sands, Little Or No Fines 0 0 Sandy (little or no fines) ,;q; ::; :• : SP Poorly Graded Sands, Gravelly More Than Soils k `: *O <:!;: Sands, Little Or No Fines 50% Material a :.a;•:i:: Sf:;s Sp Larger Than More Than No.200 Sieve 50% Coarse Sands With SM SfTI Silty Sands, Sand- Silt Mixtures Size Fraction Fines(appreciable , Saes sing No.4 amount of fines) SC ve SC Clayey Sands, Sand-Clay Mixtures ML Inorganic Silts&Very Fine Sands,Rock Flour,Silty- ml Clayey Fine Sands;Clayey Silts w/Slight Plasticity Fine Silts Inorganic Clays Of Low To Medium Plasticity, Grained And Liquid Limit CL Soils Clays Less Than 50 cl Gravelly Clays, Sandy Clays, Silty Clays, Lean I III QL Organic Silts And Organic ( OI Silty Clays Of Low Plasticity MH Inorganic Silts, Micaceous Or Diatomaceous Fine. More Than I mh Sand Or Silty Soils 50% Material Silts Smaller Than And Liquid Limit CH Inorganic Clays Of High No.200 Sieve Clays Greater Than 50 Ch Plasticity, Fat Clays Size OH Organic Clays Of Medium To High Oh Plasticity, Organic Silts `N,/ `��� "`�� PT Peat, Humus, Swamp Soils Highly Organic Soils I \(r p{ With High Organic Contents Topsoil ' y Humus And Duff Layer FillMANI Hlyhly Variable Constituents The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the material presented in the attached logs. DUAL SYMBOLS are used to indicate borderline soil classification. C TORVANE READING,tsf I 2'O.D.SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER qu PENETROMETER READING,tsf W MOISTURE, %dry weight 24'I.D. RING OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER P SAMPLER PUSHED * SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED i WATER OBSERVATION WELL pcf DRY DENSITY,lbs.per cubic ft. LL LIQUID LIMIT, % SZ DEPTH OF ENCOUNTERED GROUNDWATER PI PLASTIC INDEX DURING EXCAVATION 2 SUBSEQUENT GROUNDWATER LEVEL W/DATE Earth Consultants Inc. LEGEND 1I \( (-A,,IYIII..1 iI nZ(II vr,.(k A,16WS 61J1\'l!(MIII%YII.11 S(.1,:1ONS Proj. No. 7262 Date May'96 Plate Al Boring Log Project Name: Sheet of Proposed McDonald's Restaurant 1 3 Job No. Logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: Boring No.: 7262 DSL 5 8 96 5 8 96 B-1 Drilling Contactor: Drilling Method: Sampling Method: Associated Drilling HSA SPT Ground Surface Elevation: Hole Completion: t 27' ❑ M, itoring Well ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned,sealed with bentonite U No _ o L ! N o Surface Conditions: % Blows a E LL a + E to E 0 0 rA Vl SM FILL Brown silty fine SAND with gravel, dense, moist 1 2 15.7 36 3 4 5 SM Dark brown silty fine SAND, loose,wet 182 7 6 7 ML Grades to gray SILT,very loose, wet 45.5 2 8 9 - SM Grades to gray silty fine SAND,very loose,water bearing 10 42.8 2 11 -peat In shoe of sampler 12 PT PEAT, soft, saturated 106.6 4 , ,"r 13 ,I , �, — ,�— 14 — — 15 16 NIL Gray sandy SILT, very loose to loose, saturated 17 48.0 4 18 -peat lenses a 19 CO N Boring Log N Earth Consultants Inc. Proposed McDonald's Restaurant toN `4owdi"°''�wemGeobo�&B'"'`°'""�'�' Renton,Washington t` m Proj.No. 7262 Dwn. GLS Date May'96 Checked DSL Date 5/28/96 Plate A2 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or Interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Boring Log Project Name: Sheet of Proposed McDonald's Restaurant 2 3 Job No. Logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: Boring No.: 7262 1 DSL 5 8 96 5 8 96 B-1 Drilling Contactor: Drilling Method: Sampling Method: Associated Drilling HSA SPT Ground Surface Elevation: Hole Completion: f 27' ❑ Monitoring Well ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned,sealed with bentonite O _ e _ No. O L — N O w Blows n' E a + E N E i%I Ft. N ] U. M D 7 OL N O N N P-SNI Gray poorly graded medium SAND with silt,very loose,water bearing e+ 3 21 ?ai 22 52.5 3 23 ML Gray SILT,very loose, saturated 24 -± 25 26 27 SM Dark gray silty fine SAND,dense,water bearing 42.8 42 28 -2" peat lens 29 PT Grades to PEAT, medium stiff, saturated 30 31 32 33 125.2 6 r, 34 3, L 0+, 0 36 37 38.1 18 38 ML Gray SILT, medium dense, saturated a 39 m N in Boring Log N Earth Consultants Inc. Proposed McDonald's Restaurant N CtOwchrAcWengkim�`'GO &em41O1memW Sdendm Renton,Washington r m Proj.No. 7262 Dwn. GLS Date May'96 Checked DSL Date 5/28/96 Plate A3 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Boring Log Project Name: Sheet of Proposed McDonald's Restaurant 3 3 Job No. Logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: Boring No.: 7262 DSL 5 8 96 5 8 96 B-1 Drilling Contactor: Drilling Method: Sampling Method: Associated Drilling HSA SPT Ground Surface Elevation: Hole Completion: t 27' ❑ Mo itoring Well ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned,sealed with bentonite o No. O L - N O W Blows a E 4 t E N E %jFt. ] U. / ? N N N 41 Gray SILT, medium dense, saturated 42 -2"of peat in top of sampler 15.0 40 43 SM Gray silty fine SAND with gravel, dense, saturated 44 45 46 47 48 17.7 6 49 5o 51 52 18.6 41 53 54 Boring terminated at 54.0 feet below existing grade. Groundwater table encountered at 9.0 feet during drilling. Boring backfilled with cuttings. Note: Elevations estimated based on interpolation of contours on Boundary and Topographic Survey at Renton Village Shopping Center by Tim Henson and Associates, Inc.,dated Feb. 1996. o CO N Boring Log N Earth Consultants Inc. Proposed McDonald's Restaurant N `'°°'°a"""' '"owom& ""'somdm n Renton,Washington -1 Proj.No. 7262 Dwn. GLS Date May'96 Checked DSL Date 5/28/96 Plate A4 m Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Boring Log Project Name: Sheet Of —Proposed McDonald's Restaurant 1 3 Job No. Logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: Boring No.: 7262 DSL 5 8 96 5 8 96 B-2 Drilling Contactor: Drilling Method: Sampling Method: Associated DrillingHSA SPT Ground Surface Elevation: Hole Completion: f 28' ❑ MonitoringWell ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned,sealed with bentonite No. ° o L 0 N o Surface Conditions: w L + Blows a E a + E N E (%� • a • IL • D ? OL N N N SM FILL Brown silty fine SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist 4.8 -sample at 0.5 feet from cuttings 1 2 18.1 16 3 SM Gray silty fine SAND, medium dense, wet 4 5 23,2 16 -trace organics at 6' 6 ML Gray SILT, medium dense,wet 7 42.9 4 8 -trace organics 9 SM Grades to gray silty fine SAND,very loose,water bearing 10 54.2 4 11 ML Grades to gray SILT with peat lenses,very loose, saturated 12 53.2 13 14 15 16 17 60.8 4 18 co 19 P m N Boring Log N Earth Consultants Inc. Proposed McDonald's Restaurant Geowd"cal enonw .Geowo9w i awbalR1["SOaYbs N Renton,Washington m Proj.No. 7262 Dwn. GLS Date May'96 Checked DSL Date 5/28/96 Plate A5 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Boring Log Project Name: Sheet of Proposed Mc Donald's Restaurant 2 3 Job No. Logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: Boring No.: 7262 DSL 5 8 96 5 8 96 B-2 Drilling Contactor. Drilling Method: Sampling Method: Associated Drilling HSA SPT Ground Surface Elevation: Hole Completion: t 28' ❑ Monitoring Well ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned,sealed with bentonite u No. O L — 0 0 W Blows a E a } E N E LL x' SP Gray poorly graded fine to coarse SAND, medium dense,water bearing a::; 21 2 ..... '. 16.8 > u 23 24 25 o : X.IX. 26 -2' of heave (washed out) PT Silty PEAT, soft, saturated 28 90.3 3 29 SM Grades to gray silty fine SAND with peat lenses, loose,water bearing 31 32 33 48.3 7 34 35 36 37 SM Gray silty fine to coarse SAND with gravel, medium dense to dense, water bearing 18.1 32 38 fD 39 c CO N In Boring Log N Earth Consultants Inc. Proposed McDonald's Restaurant W Gca�eUnical Bnon=M GOWD�i Bt7 UUVnff"S N Renton,Washington n lit m Proj.No. 7262 Dwn. GLS Date May'% Checked DSL Date 5/28/96 Plate A6 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Boring Log Project Name: sheet Of Proposed McDonald's Restaurant 3 3 Job No. Logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: Boring No.: 7262 1 DSL 5/8/96 5/8Z96 B-2 Drilling Contactor: Drilling Method: Sampling Method: Associated Drilling HSA SPT Ground Surface Bevation: Hole Completion: 28' El Monitoring Well El Piezometer 19 Abandoned,sealed with bentonite No. C w 0 _ — 0 0 Blows a. .0 0. 4-: Ft. ', 3 .0 0 P-SNI Gray poorly graded fine SAND with silt and peat lenses, medium dense,water bearing I i 41 42 25.0 25 43 44 45 46 47 48 39 -no sample recovery 4;1 49 Boring terminated at 49.0 feet below existing grade. Groundwater table encountered at 10.0 feet during drilling. Boring backfilled with cuttings. CD Q. CO N I I I Boring Log N Earth Consultants Inc. Proposed McDonald's Restaurant (D N Omechn"Bngvvm&ceobo�&Ewuumer" Renton,Washington J Date May'96 Date 5/28/---T Plate A7 ,QJ Proi.No. 7262 own. GLS I chocked DSL 96 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Boring Log Project Name: Sheet of Proposed McDonald's Restaurant 1 2 Job No. Logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: Boring No.: 7262 DSL 5 8 96 5 8 96 B-3 Drilling Contactor: Drilling Method: Sampling Method: Associated Drilling HSA SPT Ground Surface Elevation: Hole Completion: f 29' ❑ mo itoring Well ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned,sealed with bentonite U _ _ No. O L y O Surface Conditions: w Blows a E 4 t E N E (%) Ft. ° a ° D a ED N V) 0 SM FILL Brown silty fine SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist 1 2 14.4 16 3 ML Gray SILT, medium dense, moist a 5 17.5 20 6 7 51.4 3 8 -piece of wood debris 9 10 43.1 2 -becomes sandy 11 12 _ SP Graypoorly graded medium SAND with silt,very loose,water bearing P� Y 9 rY 9 O a.9 128.3 3 —' ` 13 PT PEAT, soft, saturated \ , 14 15 — 16 17 52.0 3 t8 ML Gray SILT,very loose, saturated t0 1s -peat lenses m N In Boring Log N Earth Consultants Inc. Proposed McDonald's Restaurant N `'e°'°&"`c Erwkvm Gouwgkm&Ew arm"'°'"�"'�"" Renton, Washington n J Proj.No. 7262 Dwn. GLS Date May'96 Checked DSL Date 5/28/96 Plate A8 in Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Boring Log Project Name: Sheet of Proposed McDonald's Restaurant 2 2 Job No. Logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: Boring No.: 7262 DSL 5 8 96 5 8 96 13-3 Drilling Contactor. Drilling Method: Sampling Method: Associated Drilling HSA SPT Ground Surface Elevation: Hole Completion: t 29' ❑ Mo itoring Well ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned,sealed with bentonite No. 0 L — N 0 w BIOWS a .0 (L t (1 U M LL OFt. L N N N __JJ Gray SILT,very loose, saturated 2t PT PEAT, medium stiff, saturated 22 66.4 18 23 GP Gray poorly graded GRAVEL with sand, medium dense,water .� bearing 2a Boring terminated at 24.0 feet below existing grade. Groundwater table encountered at 12.0 feet during drilling. Boring backfilled with cuttings. m kr CO N Boring Log N Earth Consultants Inc. Proposed McDonald's Restaurant n o°°'°a""mre�`OW09 W DWkUM=k°'s�'e"' Renton, Washington JProj.No. 7262 own. GLS Date May'96 Checked DSL Date 5/28/96 Plate A9 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. - - - —m 1- 1 � SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETERANALYSIS •• ■■�■■���■■:''I��f/i�Yii�O'�`.'•t>�lM�►ti�iiT�C�i�■�■■■■■��■����[■■■■■■■■�� ► OEM ME mommom MENNEN MENNEN .f,•� tt■�t�t■tt■�■t■tL�\t[•'�L_��I•f��l!!•�I■1`i1l�t■■■��■�■■��[/t■■���� fit■■�tt■tom■��■��tt�� �■�t■■Q[I■■■�■�■��■�t■I■��■■■■■�■■t�� �t��■t■�■■■�■tlt►\t����■■'t1t�i/1■�■�■��■�ttl■■■�■■■■■■/t■t�� ��■■��■■■�■fit■tt�■■�■�•\�tt■�ttl!■t■■■�■1■Ot�tl•�[■■■■■/■■t�� �■■■■■■■■■�■■■■■■�■■■■���■■����I�t�■S■ttl>•tl■fit■��■■t■■���� �■1•�■1•�■t■t1■fit■■■���■�•�■i\\tom■■!•■���■����[tMINE=� � • �■■■fit■■�■t1t■■��tt���■■■��`■t■■■■��il■ttt■�;�■����[t■■■���� ININ hmmomm�= MEMO �tttl�t�t�■��■���t■�■t■t�t■l��t�■t�r��■fit■■■■�[t■■■��t�� �■��■t■�■��■■1��■■�■�■l•■���■■�[Il�tl■■t■�t���■■■■fit■t�� � •• �t�■■tt■�■t■�■�t■tt�t■�■ttt��tt\\t■■�■t�■t➢tt\��■tlt■■��[tt■■t■t■t■�� ■■■ ■��■■■�■fit■■fit■�■tt■�t�tt■I�t�■�■��■fit■��[■■■■t■��MENNEN • ��t■A�■t■■■■�t■�t■ ■ttt�t■tttl►>•t�■■�■�tl■mt■1��[/■■■■■��� ��■■�■�■��■�■■■■���■■!•map■ ■�■tt■l!�■fit■tt■�[■t■■�■■t�� •. fit■■t■tt■■�■fit■■�■■tt���■�t1��\�■�■�tl■��t��[■t■■�■■■�� ■ ■■■�■�■■■■■■��■�■■ ■���t\�t�■t■t■�n■m■■1■■■�■■■■■�t■tt■l� • �tttlt■■t■ttl■■■t■■�t■t�■■�■t�■■■�■tl�■�■ttt■i■�■�■>•t��[■■■■fit■�� • �tttlt■■�t�■t■■■■fit■tt���■ttttl��t■1>,■tom■��■�■■t■■�[t■■■fit■tt�� • �t■1t■tt■■■1■■■t■■fit■■■fit■�■�t�■■tlt■tl■■tom■�r■�����■■■■fit■tt�� t�tt■�t�■■1■��■fit■fit■�■���t■t\\■tom■��■�tt1��[■t■■■■��� �■■■■■■��■�■■■■■�t■���■�■■■��■�`■■■■■��■■■�■■■�•■■■■fit■�� fit■■■■��■■■�■fit■■■���■��������■��■■lt�■���■t■■■■��� �t■1�tt■■�■fit■■��tt���■���t■�■�■��■fit■tt■�[■t■■��tt�� t■■■ ■■■ ■��■■■■■■�■■■■�■■■■■�■■■��■���■��■��■mot■■■■�■■■■■■��■�� • ��t■t■■�■��■fit■fit■�■t!•�tt■lt■tom■�\■��■��t��[tt■■fit■t�� no • Ott■t■��■t■■>•■■t■■■���■tl•■■tl•■■t�■���■1■�t■t��[■t■■fit■�� .• • • ■mt■I■t■ RUN on • ■ IN NIEMEN! ■mm■t■ [t■■■t m■■� I■1■m■■■�■[II■■1■■It■■t1�■ttt1�■11■■����[■■■■fit■�� •• • • nn • mm • • DESCRIPTION • D • ft m B-1 2.5 Brown silty SAND with gravel • • 8 • ■ DISTRIBUTION E-7262 4 Copies McDonald's Corporation 10220 Northeast Points Drive, Suite 300 Kirkland, Washington 98033-7865 Attention: Ms. Nancy L. Heck Earth Conauttanta, Inc.